Opinion ID: 4536379
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Wurfel

Text: Bradley Wurfel was the MDEQ Director of Communications and was instrumental in the coverup. In the summer of 2015, as concerns and criticism reached their peak, he repeatedly lied to the public and assured them that Flint River water was safe. R. 620-3 (Fourth Am. Compl. at 88–90, ¶¶ 265–70) (Page ID #17891–93); see also Guertin, 912 F.3d at 928. He told parents that “anyone who is concerned about lead in the drinking water can relax.” R. 620-3 (Fourth Am. Compl. at 88, ¶ 265) (Page ID #17891). He cited distorted water quality tests as evidence that 8 Defendant Cook notified us that the district court dismissed him from a separate Flint Water Crisis case, Brown v. Snyder (In re Flint Water Cases), No. 18-cv-10726, 2020 WL 1503256, at  (E.D. Mich. Mar. 27, 2020). He contends that his dismissal from Brown similarly warrants his dismissal here. We disagree. The district court in Brown dismissed Cook because his wrongful conduct occurred after the plaintiff’s injury in that case. Id. at , 12. The plaintiff in Brown had died of Legionnaires’ disease before Cook allegedly misled the EPA. Id. There is no similar timing issue in this case. Nos. 19-1425/1472/1477/1533 Waid et al. v. Snyder et al. Page 31 “residents of Flint do not need to worry about lead in their water supply.” Id. at 89–90, ¶ 270 (Page ID #17892–93). He even attacked independent whistleblower reports by Professor Edwards and Dr. Hanna-Attisha that stated that the City of Flint was in the midst of a major public health emergency. He accused Professor Edwards of “quickly prov[ing] the theory [he] set out to prove” and decried the “near-hysteria” resulting from Dr. Hanna-Attisha’s report. Id. at 92, ¶ 275 (Page ID #17895); id. at 94, ¶¶ 283–84 (Page ID #17897); see also Guertin, 912 F.3d at 928. Wurfel asks us to consider the context and totality of the statements he made, but points to nothing that directly negates Plaintiffs’ allegations. See Appellant Br. (19-1477) at 50–52. We will not view the allegations in the light most favorable to the defendant—and that is essentially what Wurfel asks us to do. See Guertin, 912 F.3d at 916. We also reject his attempt to reargue his position in Guertin that “mere” public statements cannot violate a person’s right to bodily integrity. See Reply Br. (19-1477) at 11–13. The Guertin court concluded that public statements like those alleged here did amount to a constitutional violation. 912 F.3d at 929. That decision controls. Wurfel’s alleged role in covering up the crisis plausibly demonstrates deliberate indifference.