CA family can sue an CHP employee who missed a stroke of the victim of a crash- calm

Six years ago, a federal judge decided that an employee of a highway patrol in California was protected from a civil case brought by the mansion of a man involved in an incident with a car on a highway in Costa Mesa on the way.

The Highway patrol officer Samantha Diaz-Durazo did not call an ambulance. Instead, she watched the man 45 minutes after he arrived at the scene, after which he arrested him on suspicion of being drugs – he actually suffered a stroke. He would not reach the hospital within hours later.

On Wednesday, a three-member panel of the 9th Court of Appeal of the United States reversed the dismissal of the lower court below And he said that Stephen D’Arunstein’s estate can really judge Diaz-Durazo and the California Highway Patrol.

The original judge in the case decided that Diaz-Durazo’s actions were Protected by the legal concept of qualified immunitywhich protects the employees of the legal responsibility, except when they violate one’s constitutional rights or have acted illegally.

The Court of Appeal did not agree. He found that if the employee had indeed made an unreasonable mistake, “Durazo’s failure to call on quick medical care is a violation of the clearly established law, refusing it to qualified immunity.

“The sensible jury can find that officer Durazo has violated D’Paunstein’s constitutional rights, not calling on him the quick medical care, given the serious nature of his collision and his obvious symptoms of a disaster,” writes Judge Daniel Bres, who wrote the opinion of the 9th round. “We also believe that jurors may find that Durazo’s apparent conviction that D’Aranstein does not need medical attention is based on an unjustified mistake of the facts or the decision.”

Judge Kenneth Lee disagreed with the decision, he said that, although tragically, “there was no clearly established law that requires the employee to distinguish the symptoms and then call for emergency medical care when there are no obvious signs of major physical trauma.”

According to the case -law of the fourth amendment, the police are obliged to provide “reasonable medical care after arrest”, according to the decision of the Court of Appeal.

Although there was no alcohol in his blood and there was no evidence of drug use in the car, Diaz-Durazo led D’Aranstein to the Orange County Prison, where a nurse took his blood pressure, but refused to admit it, saying he needed emergency assistance.

Two hours have passed. Then Diaz-Durazo took D’Aranstein to a local hospital, where he was admitted three and a half hours after Diaz-Durazo found him in place of the crash.

D’Braunstein claims that the delay has caused brain damage-now he is in a long-term housing establishment and is unable to take care of himself. If he had been able to get intravenous treatment shortly after the stroke, he claims that the damage would be mitigated.

Policeman Diaz-Durazo, who was protected by the highway patrol and state lawyers, claims that the symptoms of stroke began on the night before the crash and treatment would not help until she had encountered him.

Bress in the new decision writes: “The cause of the crash did not change the need for an emergency medical assessment. Therefore, we believe that the jurors may find that officer Durazo did not provide D’Arownstein with objectively reasonable medical care when she did not try to arrange any treatment for hours after D’Aranstein was involved in a serious vehicle incident and shows signs of disaster. “

The case was sent back to the Federal District Court.