Opinion ID: 2982638
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: State Law Claims against Nurse Allison

Text: In addition to his constitutional claim, plaintiff also alleges that Allison was negligent and grossly negligent in her conduct toward Sours. Allison asserts qualified official immunity as a defense to these claims. “Official qualified immunity” protects Kentucky public employees sued in their individual capacity from damages liability for “good faith judgment calls made in a legally uncertain environment.” Yanero v. Davis, 65 S.W.3d 510, 522 (Ky. 2001). It applies to negligent performance of 1) discretionary acts or functions, 2) made in good faith, 3) that are within the scope of the employee’s authority. Id. In this case, Allison is ineligible for qualified immunity not only because her actions amounted to “ministerial” duties but also because her actions could be construed as the product of bad faith. Qualified official immunity is defeated if the negligent actions alleged by any defendant amounted to “ministerial” duties rather than discretionary duties. “An act is ministerial if the duty is absolute, certain, and imperative, involving mere execution of a specific act based on fixed and designated facts.” Autry v. W. Ky. Univ., 219 S.W.3d 713, 717 (Ky. 2007). A discretionary act, in contrast, involves the exercise of “personal deliberation, decisions, and judgment.” Id. However, “[a]n act is not necessarily ‘discretionary’ just because the officer performing it has some discretion with respect to the means or method to be employed.” Yanero, 65 S.W.3d at 522. In Kentucky, “[t]he administration of medical care is a ministerial function” and “compliance with the applicable standard of care does not involve a discretionary governmental function.” Gould v. O’Bannon, 770 S.W.2d 220, 222 (Ky. 1989). Viewed in a light most favorable to Sours, the record reflects that Allison did not satisfy the applicable standard of care when she failed to procure insulin or administer insulin to Sours, who had been 14 Case No. 13-6370, Sours v. Big Sandy Reg’l Jail Auth. diagnosed as a diabetic by Dr. Belhasen, had increasingly high blood sugar levels and evidenced symptoms of ketoacidosis. Allison’s defense also fails on the “good faith” prong of the analysis. The Kentucky Supreme Court has recognized that good faith is not present, and qualified immunity is defeated, if the official “‘knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took . . . would violate the constitutional rights of the plaintiff.’” Yanero, 65 S.W.3d at 523 (quoting Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 815 (1982)). “‘[B]ad faith’ can be predicated on a violation of a constitutional, statutory, or other clearly established right which a person in the public employee’s position presumptively would have known was afforded to a person in the plaintiff’s position, i.e., objective unreasonableness.” Id.; see also Autry v. W. Ky. Univ., 219 S.W.3d 713, 717 (Ky. 2007) (“[T]here is no immunity if [the discretionary function] violates constitutional, statutory, or other clearly established rights.”). In a case like this one, where there is no question the right at issue was clearly established, “bad faith” occurred under Kentucky law if a jury could find that Defendants violated the constitutional right. We have already determined that a jury could find that Allison violated Sours’s constitutional rights, therefore, a jury could find that she acted in bad faith and is similarly not entitled to qualified official immunity under state law.