Opinion ID: 4567449
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Nurse Mundine

Text: Griffith argues that Mundine was deliberately indifferent because she failed to take earlier action to elevate Griffith’s status to a doctor or an APRN. He argues that her deliberate indifference is demonstrated because she failed to affirmatively look for him when he failed to come and receive his medicine on Saturday morning. Further, he contends that she did not act quickly enough in response to his first seizure, and that she acted improperly by calling RN Sherrow for treatment advice rather than calling Dr. Waldridge or an APRN. 10 In reaching the contrary conclusion, the dissent fails to recognize that “[w]e address the subjective component individually for each defendant.” Rinehart, 894 F.3d at 738 (citing Garretson, 407 F.3d at 797). The dissent would hold Trivette to have acted with deliberate indifference simply “for the reasons applicable to Sherrow,” Dissent at 14, even though both nurses testified that it was Sherrow, not Trivette, that performed the urine test. The dissent fails to explain why Trivette demonstrated deliberate indifference by declining to override the judgment of Sherrow (Trivette’s superior) and call an APRN directly to report the results of a test that she did not herself perform. Trivette’s attempt to provide immediate treatment to Griffith by prescribing an antibiotic to treat a perceived infection further weighs against a finding of deliberate indifference. By focusing only on the fact that this treatment was incorrect, the dissent fails to accord the appropriate deference to the “medical judgment of prison medical officials,” Rouster, 749 F.3d at 448 (quoting Jones, 625 F.3d at 944), and ignores our frequent admonition against constitutionalizing claims for medical negligence, see Burgess, 735 F.3d at 478. Nos. 19-5378/5438/5439/5440 Griffith v. Franklin County, Ky., et al. Page 29 Griffith’s arguments are without merit. As an initial matter, Griffith relies exclusively on Blackmore v. Kalamazoo County, 390 F.3d 890 (6th Cir. 2004) for the proposition that Mundine violated the Constitution by delaying Griffith’s treatment. However, that case only involved whether a plaintiff could demonstrate a sufficiently serious medical need to satisfy the objective component by introducing evidence of a delay in treatment of an obvious medical need even without medical proof of harm caused by the delay. See Blackmore, 390 F.3d at 899–900. As discussed, the objective component is not at issue here, so the case is wholly inapposite. Moreover, we find no evidence that Mundine disregarded any risk to Griffith’s safety. Mundine responded to Griffith’s first seizure and immediately conducted an examination of his condition. She had him escorted to booking where she continued to examine him, tested him for drugs, and listened to Griffith’s complaint that he had been vomiting. She responded to this complaint by prescribing an anti-nausea drug and providing him Gatorade. After Griffith stabilized and requested to go back to his cell, Mundine permitted him to go to his cell— provided that he move to a lower bunk—while she continued reviewing his file. Mundine testified that she was still reviewing his file at the time of Griffith’s second seizure, at which time she immediately sent Griffith to the emergency room. Griffith contends that Mundine did not follow SHP protocol with regard to seizures. That, he maintains, amounts to deliberate indifference. But, because “the failure to follow internal policies, without more, [does not] constitute deliberate indifference,” Winkler, 893 F.3d at 891, Griffith’s arguments fail.11 Griffith points to no additional steps that Mundine should have taken and, because he suffered a second seizure before she had the opportunity to finish reviewing his file, it is hard to imagine what else she could have done. There is certainly nothing to suggest that she “acted intentionally to impose the alleged condition, or recklessly failed to act with reasonable care to mitigate the risk that the condition posed to the pretrial detainee even though the defendant11 The dissent acknowledges that the failure to follow internal procedures cannot alone establish deliberate indifference, but points to little else in reaching its conclusion. See Dissent at 15–16. The undisputed facts demonstrate that Mundine responded immediately to Griffith’s seizure, provided appropriate care, contacted Sherrow to get further guidance, and had not even completed review of Griffith’s file at the time he suffered his second seizure. Nos. 19-5378/5438/5439/5440 Griffith v. Franklin County, Ky., et al. Page 30 official knew, or should have known, that the condition posed an excessive risk to health or safety.” Bruno, 727 F. App’x at 720 (emphasis in original) (quoting Darnell 849 F.3d at 35). We therefore affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of Nurse Mundine.