Opinion ID: 4567449
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: SHP Collectively

Text: Griffith also argues that SHP collectively can be held liable on a theory of Monell liability. He argues that this court has already held that SHP’s training procedures were inadequate in Shadrick v. Hopkins County, 805 F.3d 724 (6th Cir. 2015). Griffith’s argument is unconvincing because he has made no effort to develop any facts about the training that the SHP nurses in this case received. Indeed, Griffith’s expert disclaimed any opinion on the adequacy of SHP’s training. In Shadrick, the plaintiff was sentenced to a short term of imprisonment and informed medical staff that he had a severe staph infection. The medical staff failed to provide meaningful treatment, put him in a segregation cell but failed to rigorously monitor him, and he died within four days. Id. at 732–33. The court held that SHP had failed to train its nurses because “[t]here [was] no indication in the record . . . that S[H]P designed and implemented any type of ongoing training program for its LPN nurses.” Id. at 740. The plaintiff had provided expert testimony who “opined that SHP failed to provide adequate training and supervision to the LPN nurses.” Id. at 741. This court has explained that “[e]specially in the context of a failure to train claim, expert testimony may prove the sole available avenue to plaintiffs to call into question the adequacy of . . . training procedures.” Russo v. City of Cincinnati, 953 F.2d 1036, 1047 (6th Cir. 1992) (quoted in Shadrick, 805 F.3d at 741). Griffith points to no expert testimony or any other evidence to support his failure-to-train claim against SHP.12 We therefore affirm the grant of summary judgment in favor of SHP.