[00:00:00] Speaker 02:
So I have a profound hearing loss in my left ear, and there's a little bit of volume that comes through, but what does is distorted in a marble room like this.

[00:00:07] Speaker 02:
It's very hard, so please bear with me.

[00:00:09] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:00:10] Speaker 02:
I simply want to address the district court's decision.

[00:00:16] Speaker 02:
It was an oral decision from the bench, which made it a little confusing and difficult to understand exactly what the grounds were on the cross motions for summary judgment.

[00:00:25] Speaker 02:
But let me address what I understood and what has been briefed as the primary arguments.

[00:00:31] Speaker 02:
The first issue was that the district court ruled that the evidence about Mr. Howey and what happened to him at the jail upon his release was not admissible.

[00:00:40] Speaker 02:
His basis for doing that was the settlement agreement that Mr. Howey entered into with a prior defendant, and this is in a prior case.

[00:00:49] Speaker 02:
There is no confidential provision in that settlement agreement.

[00:00:53] Speaker 02:
There is no prohibition whatsoever on Mr. Howey speaking about what happened to him or even the terms of his agreement.

[00:01:00] Speaker 02:
So there's nothing in the original settlement agreement from Mr. Howey that prevented him from speaking or testifying in any subsequent proceeding.

[00:01:09] Speaker 02:
His evidence is extremely germane to that of Mr. Peterson and established a clear pattern of policy failures under Mannell.

[00:01:24] Speaker 01:
So... Don't you find the facts of Howey somewhat different from your case?

[00:01:28] Speaker 01:
Excuse me.

[00:01:29] Speaker 01:
Don't you find the facts of Howie somewhat different from your case?

[00:01:37] Speaker 02:
They are even more egregious.

[00:01:39] Speaker 02:
Both are egregious.

[00:01:40] Speaker 02:
Howie's case was remarkably egregious and callous.

[00:01:45] Speaker 01:
But then why is it relevant under Monell to warn the municipal authorities?

[00:01:54] Speaker 02:
Well, it's relevant for

[00:01:56] Speaker 02:
Two reasons.

[00:01:57] Speaker 02:
Number one, it establishes that there's been a policy failure.

[00:02:01] Speaker 01:
There's been a policy omissions and... What was the policy failure in Howey and what was the policy failure in your case?

[00:02:09] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:02:10] Speaker 02:
I understand your question now.

[00:02:11] Speaker 02:
They're both the same policy failure.

[00:02:13] Speaker 02:
The policy failures are... Get my glasses.

[00:02:18] Speaker 02:
Getting old.

[00:02:21] Speaker 02:
The policy failures were... There was no written policy

[00:02:27] Speaker 02:
for checking on inmates at the time of their release for their medical condition.

[00:02:31] Speaker 02:
In other words, there's nothing that the Nevada County Sheriff's Office did.

[00:02:34] Speaker 02:
Didn't they have a checklist?

[00:02:36] Speaker 02:
They had a document.

[00:02:38] Speaker 02:
It was actually appeared on a computer screen like a 3x5 card and had a little box that said medical.

[00:02:43] Speaker 02:
And this is where the case becomes very odd.

[00:02:46] Speaker 02:
The jail officer who I took the deposition of testified that when they saw that screen, they would call the head of the WellPath medical in-house medical provider and ask them if the inmate was fit for medical release.

[00:03:04] Speaker 02:
And they asked the officer, what was your understanding?

[00:03:06] Speaker 02:
Was that mental health relief, physical fitness or was it physical fitness?

[00:03:10] Speaker 02:
What was it?

[00:03:11] Speaker 02:
And he said it was physical fitness.

[00:03:14] Speaker 02:
Then took the deposition of the HSA the head of the well path Staff there at the hospital saying when you got a phone call from the jail officer and booking about the inmate release What were they asking about when they asked you about whether or not the inmate was?

[00:03:27] Speaker 02:
Medically fit for release and they said it had nothing to do with physical Health of the inmate it only had to do with whether or not the inmate was on a 5150 hold To opposite ends the spectrum in addition I took the depositions of

[00:03:43] Speaker 02:
Multiple nurses that work for well path.

[00:03:45] Speaker 02:
This is where the case gets even more interesting and more egregious All of the well path nurses.

[00:03:51] Speaker 02:
I took the deposition of basically said if the jail Booking officer called up the set of inmates being released That was it it didn't matter what physical condition inmate was in they were getting released period But I mean I guess I don't understand legally What to do with the implication of your argument?

[00:04:12] Speaker 04:
I mean here

[00:04:13] Speaker 04:
The inmate was released because the district attorney decided not to press charges.

[00:04:18] Speaker 04:
So there's no reason to hold this person in custody.

[00:04:22] Speaker 04:
And so the implication of your argument is nonetheless, we're going to keep the person in jail if they've got a medical situation happening?

[00:04:29] Speaker 02:
No, not at all.

[00:04:31] Speaker 02:
If you read through their brief, we make it very clear what the policy failures were.

[00:04:35] Speaker 02:
Nevada County needs to follow certain very simple, minimal procedures to make sure that the inmate upon release is physically fit to walk out the door.

[00:04:44] Speaker 02:
And in the case of Mr. Howey, he was crippled and with a fractured knee.

[00:04:47] Speaker 02:
They rolled him out in a wheelchair and made him crawl out onto the curb.

[00:04:52] Speaker 02:
Mr. Peterson was limping badly.

[00:04:54] Speaker 02:
He had severe bacterial infection, cellulitis.

[00:04:57] Speaker 02:
He was in terrible pain, fever, redness.

[00:05:01] Speaker 02:
He couldn't really walk.

[00:05:03] Speaker 02:
And they did nothing to check his physical health.

[00:05:05] Speaker 02:
They just let him out the back door.

[00:05:07] Speaker 02:
He had bacteremia at the time he was released.

[00:05:10] Speaker 02:
He stumbled about a mile to a gas station and collapsed.

[00:05:14] Speaker 02:
Was taken to nevada county memorial hospital where he was immediately diagnosed with?

[00:05:19] Speaker 03:
Bacteremia and sepsis His physically walking from the back of the jail that gas station put his life in serious let me let me ask you this if If your case were to go to trial yes on this monel on the monel theory yes what?

[00:05:36] Speaker 03:
Be your theory that you would advance to the district court

[00:05:42] Speaker 02:
Well, we advance the theories that there's a manel violation by omission, a failure to have appropriate policies, practices, and procedures.

[00:05:50] Speaker 03:
And what policies and procedures should the county have had?

[00:05:54] Speaker 02:
I list them in my brief.

[00:05:56] Speaker 02:
Let me list them to you here.

[00:05:57] Speaker 02:
Number one, there was an inappropriate policy for checking on the medical fitness of an inmate at the time of release.

[00:06:04] Speaker 02:
that little three-by-five card that appeared on the screen just said box medical clearly was inadequate because that that that was an affirmative policy

[00:06:14] Speaker 02:
of sorts, but it was inadequate.

[00:06:16] Speaker 02:
There was an omission because it doesn't ask whether or not the inmate may need a wheelchair or crutches.

[00:06:23] Speaker 02:
They have an ambulatory problems.

[00:06:26] Speaker 02:
Do they have discharge instructions?

[00:06:27] Speaker 02:
Has the WellPath Medical given them discharge instructions where they're to go immediately to a hospital or they're to be transported home and have bed rest?

[00:06:35] Speaker 02:
There's no discharge instructions given and they don't check on that.

[00:06:39] Speaker 02:
They don't check and see whether or not the inmate

[00:06:43] Speaker 02:
Having their medical care transferred to another qualified medical provider It is a it is a it is a malpractice for a medical provider to not Transfer medical care to another medical provider when there's a serious medical condition Well path had the obligation to transfer that care and the Vatican sheriff has the obligation to make sure that whatever paperwork or transfers are

[00:07:07] Speaker 04:
are required by medical aren't those arguments that you would make against well path and well path isn't in this case because they filed for bankruptcy.

[00:07:14] Speaker 02:
It's against well path and it's against the sheriff's office.

[00:07:17] Speaker 02:
The sheriff's office needs to see what is the status as an inmate when they're brought to the booking counter to be released and they don't do anything.

[00:07:25] Speaker 03:
Does your claim also, are you, I gather you're then not asserting a failure to train claim?

[00:07:34] Speaker 02:
I think there is a failure to train claim because... I'm sorry?

[00:07:37] Speaker 02:
There is a failure to train in the sense that there is no coordination between well path policies and what the Nevada County Sheriff had.

[00:07:45] Speaker 02:
In other words, they don't have any training sessions where the two of them sit down together as teams and say, okay, when inmates release, here's what we're going to do and not do and here's how to handle someone who has a serious infection or has an ambulatory problem.

[00:07:59] Speaker 02:
There's no coordination, there's no training.

[00:08:01] Speaker 02:
And clearly, there was no training or supervision because the jail booking officer says, I just have to call up and see if he's physically fit.

[00:08:09] Speaker 02:
If they say, yes, out the door the inmate goes, WellPath says, no, that checkbox has nothing to do with physical fitness.

[00:08:15] Speaker 02:
That's for a 5150 hold.

[00:08:17] Speaker 02:
And then the nurses for WellPath kept saying, it didn't matter what the situation was, they got released out the door, period, whenever they got the call to release an inmate.

[00:08:26] Speaker 02:
With regard to an inmate with a medical condition who doesn't want to be transferred to another medical provider or doesn't want any ambulatory care, you can just sign a waiver.

[00:08:37] Speaker 02:
Sheriff's County, Sheriff and the WPATH provider are off the hook.

[00:08:40] Speaker 02:
But you need to ask someone who's been ill and known to be ill and having a serious medical problem before they leave the jail, do they have your discharge instructions?

[00:08:50] Speaker 02:
Do you have transport home?

[00:08:52] Speaker 02:
Do you need transport to medical facility?

[00:08:54] Speaker 02:
These are simple, basic things.

[00:08:55] Speaker 02:
It takes about one minute, two minutes, to go through the paperwork and ask the questions.

[00:09:02] Speaker 02:
Instead, Mr. Peterson, who is in the medical rocket, and it's noted, limping badly, has walked a couple hundred feet from his cell to booking.

[00:09:14] Speaker 02:
Can't miss a limping.

[00:09:15] Speaker 02:
He's walked through the booking office, which I've been in many times.

[00:09:17] Speaker 02:
You can't miss someone coming from the cells to booking if they're limping badly.

[00:09:22] Speaker 02:
He gets his clothing and things back.

[00:09:23] Speaker 02:
He's got to go into a room and change.

[00:09:25] Speaker 02:
He has to come back.

[00:09:26] Speaker 02:
You cannot miss his physical condition.

[00:09:30] Speaker 03:
Judge Forrest asked you about the other case.

[00:09:33] Speaker 03:
What was it called?

[00:09:37] Speaker 03:
Howie.

[00:09:38] Speaker 00:
Howie.

[00:09:38] Speaker 03:
The Howie case.

[00:09:40] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:09:40] Speaker 03:
Do you need a

[00:09:42] Speaker 03:
To prove your claim that there is a failure of policy, do you need the Howie evidence to prove that claim, or do you only need it for failure to train, to show a pattern?

[00:09:58] Speaker 02:
Again, I think the case is important because it establishes the jury the fact that there were no policies in the beginning of 2018 when the Howie incident occurred.

[00:10:09] Speaker 02:
And they made no changes.

[00:10:10] Speaker 02:
They took no corrective action.

[00:10:12] Speaker 02:
And by September 2018, when the Peterson incident occurred, nothing had happened, nothing, no difference.

[00:10:19] Speaker 02:
Yes, it is possible under the single instance rule, which I cited in my brief, to simply have a single instance as the basis for a Mannell claim.

[00:10:27] Speaker 02:
But I think this case argues strongly that the Howie evidence comes in because it shows the pattern of practice.

[00:10:34] Speaker 02:
It shows the mindset.

[00:10:36] Speaker 02:
The mindset of these people was it didn't matter what physical condition these inmates were in.

[00:10:42] Speaker 02:
release moment, release time came on that day, out they went.

[00:10:46] Speaker 04:
I understand the logic of your argument and even these are very difficult stories to hear about what happened with these inmates, both in Howie and in this case.

[00:10:59] Speaker 04:
The problem is the legal standard that you have to work with is deliberate indifference.

[00:11:03] Speaker 04:
So much of what you've been describing might very well rise to medical malpractice.

[00:11:09] Speaker 04:
But deliberate indifference is something more than that.

[00:11:12] Speaker 04:
So in the Howie case, where the allegations were that jail staff basically beat the guy up and broke his leg and then dumped him on the curb, that seems like more than medical malpractice.

[00:11:22] Speaker 04:
That seems like something intentional.

[00:11:25] Speaker 04:
Whereas here, the guy gets released because no charges are filed against him.

[00:11:30] Speaker 04:
And he goes to the desk to be processed out of the jail.

[00:11:34] Speaker 04:
And he doesn't say, my leg is really hurting, and I can't walk, and please help me.

[00:11:39] Speaker 04:
He doesn't say anything at all.

[00:11:41] Speaker 04:
He takes his discharge, and he walks out the jail.

[00:11:44] Speaker 04:
And so in that context, maybe they could have followed up and asked more questions.

[00:11:48] Speaker 04:
But why isn't that medical malpractice, if anything, and not deliberate indifference?

[00:11:53] Speaker 02:
Well, it's deliberate indifference because let's take a look at the Russell case.

[00:12:01] Speaker 02:
The district court did not like the Russell decision.

[00:12:05] Speaker 02:
I don't know why, because it incorporated the Gordon decision, which is what the district court was very fond of.

[00:12:10] Speaker 02:
They had the same holdings.

[00:12:12] Speaker 02:
The Russell decision is later decision by this court.

[00:12:16] Speaker 02:
And the Russell court has a couple of very important quotes.

[00:12:23] Speaker 02:
A plaintiff does not have to prove a complete failure to provide medical assistance to demonstrate the care of the unconstitutional.

[00:12:31] Speaker 02:
A plaintiff needs to prove deliberate difference by showing that there was a failure to provide medical treatment with the speed and medical competence required by the particular medical condition.

[00:12:45] Speaker 02:
Here the situation is Mr. Peterson cannot get medical care.

[00:12:50] Speaker 02:
As soon as the jail officers say you're released, WellPath terminates its services.

[00:12:57] Speaker 02:
And the jailer has an obligation to make sure that if continuing medical care, which is urgently needed from Mr. Peterson, is required, then it gets transferred.

[00:13:09] Speaker 01:
What knowledge did the jailer have that Peterson needed medical care when Peterson wanted to exit the jail?

[00:13:17] Speaker 01:
What knowledge did he have?

[00:13:19] Speaker 02:
Pardon me.

[00:13:20] Speaker 02:
Can you repeat?

[00:13:21] Speaker 01:
I couldn't hear what knowledge did the jailer have when he allowed Peterson to walk out the door that Peterson needed medical care?

[00:13:29] Speaker 02:
It was very clear that he was limping the officer said that's not what the jailer said I know but my client said just the opposite we have a factual determination for a jury This is the most classic factual question for Germany I've ever seen we have this party saying no they had to see me.

[00:13:46] Speaker 02:
I was limping like this and

[00:13:48] Speaker 02:
and have to walk hundreds of feet, it's all on video, as the booking officer watches.

[00:13:52] Speaker 02:
And he walks around to and from the desk, and he tries to get out the big heavy door.

[00:13:57] Speaker 02:
And the jailer says, nah, I didn't see anything.

[00:14:01] Speaker 02:
That's his question for a jury.

[00:14:03] Speaker 03:
Let me ask you.

[00:14:04] Speaker 03:
So a minute ago, you said that the district court seemed to like Gordon.

[00:14:09] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:14:10] Speaker 03:
Is that correct?

[00:14:11] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:14:13] Speaker 03:
How much does Gordon play in this case?

[00:14:16] Speaker 02:
I think it's important, more for the medical well path side, but you do have to show deliberate difference when you have a Monell claim by omission.

[00:14:27] Speaker 02:
So we do have a deliberate difference to meet here.

[00:14:30] Speaker 03:
Didn't Gordon deal with an individual?

[00:14:32] Speaker 02:
Yes, it was not a Monell claim.

[00:14:36] Speaker 02:
It wasn't a Monell claim.

[00:14:37] Speaker 02:
I don't believe it was a Monell case.

[00:14:39] Speaker 02:
That's my memory.

[00:14:40] Speaker 03:
Right, it wasn't.

[00:14:41] Speaker 02:
And Russell, however, was a more recent decision that incorporated Gordon, spoke about it, went through its holding, adopted it, and then expounded upon what is the standard for deliberate difference.

[00:14:55] Speaker 02:
Russell really helps clarify what is or is not a pure medical practice, malpractice issue, versus what's deliberate indifference.

[00:15:03] Speaker 02:
Here, the jail knows that

[00:15:09] Speaker 02:
inmates become seriously ill at times.

[00:15:12] Speaker 02:
It knows it has hundreds of inmates every year.

[00:15:15] Speaker 02:
Some of them get very sick.

[00:15:16] Speaker 02:
It needs to have policies and practices to make sure that when an inmate is being released and they know they've been

[00:15:23] Speaker 02:
The jail knows Mr. Peterson was seriously ill because they keep walking him to and from the medical office for two days.

[00:15:30] Speaker 02:
They escort him each time from his cell to medical and back.

[00:15:32] Speaker 02:
They know he's lumpy and they don't even pay him.

[00:15:34] Speaker 04:
Counsel, you've gone over time.

[00:15:35] Speaker 04:
I think we understand your argument.

[00:15:36] Speaker 04:
I'll give you a brief amount of time for rebuttal.

[00:15:38] Speaker 02:
I'm done, Your Honor.

[00:15:39] Speaker 02:
Any further questions?

[00:15:40] Speaker 02:
I appreciate your time today.

[00:15:41] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:15:42] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:15:56] Speaker 00:
Good morning your honors and may it please the court.

[00:15:59] Speaker 00:
My name is matt gross and I represent the appellee the county of nevada

[00:16:03] Speaker 00:
The essence of Appellant's case boils down to correctional officers at the Wayne Brown Correctional Facility, the Nevada County Jail, should have noticed that because Mr. Peterson was limping, there was an underlying serious bacterial infection and that his medical condition required necessitating additional questions at his release and providing additional care, including transportation to a local hospital or holding him over longer.

[00:16:31] Speaker 00:
The excerpts of records show that appellant's claim fails for seven important facts.

[00:16:35] Speaker 03:
Now, Mr. Peterson's out of the case, right?

[00:16:40] Speaker 00:
Mr. Peterson?

[00:16:41] Speaker 00:
Yeah.

[00:16:43] Speaker 00:
Well, he's the appellant?

[00:16:44] Speaker 03:
No, but let me ask you.

[00:16:45] Speaker 03:
The only claim here that I understand is a Monell claim.

[00:16:50] Speaker 00:
Correct.

[00:16:51] Speaker 00:
A Monell and a conspiracy claim.

[00:16:54] Speaker 03:
Right.

[00:16:54] Speaker 03:
But really, we're only talking about a Monell claim.

[00:16:56] Speaker 00:
Yeah.

[00:16:57] Speaker 03:
Is that correct?

[00:16:58] Speaker 03:
Yes.

[00:17:00] Speaker 03:
How, let me ask you this, how does Gordon and the way in which you evaluate an individual claim of medical indifference relate to this claim, the Manel claim?

[00:17:14] Speaker 00:
One of the elements to show a Monell claim is that there has to be an underlying constitutional violation.

[00:17:20] Speaker 00:
And I think this is where Gordon comes into play a little bit, is showing that we need to show an underlying, was there a deliberate indifference to medical care by the county or by any of its unnamed correctional officers here.

[00:17:33] Speaker 00:
And there's no evidence to show there was that underlying deliberate indifference to medical care.

[00:17:37] Speaker 00:
At best, it's maybe a negligence or medical malpractice claim against WellPath.

[00:17:42] Speaker 00:
It's certainly not a,

[00:17:43] Speaker 00:
Deliberate indifference of medical care or showing a monel claim for the county Mr.. Peterson as the court noted doesn't request any help as he's being Discharged and released from the jail.

[00:17:55] Speaker 00:
He doesn't request any medical assistance.

[00:17:58] Speaker 00:
He doesn't request transportation to another

[00:18:01] Speaker 00:
Hospital or jail facility or additional medical care in essence he doesn't request ambulatory devices such as crutches or a Wheelchair to assist with the release It's also noted correctional officers don't have access to mr. Peterson's medical records under HIPAA they have to rely on the medical staff and so that's where the county has a process of as my

[00:18:28] Speaker 00:
Council noted there's a hard card that the county does when it's releasing an inmate and one of those boxes Beyond let's make sure we return property to the inmate.

[00:18:36] Speaker 00:
Let's make sure that They have all of their belongings is a medical check to make sure that they're medically cleared to be released from the facility because Correctional side doesn't have access to those records and so that involves calling someone from medical to see all right is this person medically clear and

[00:18:54] Speaker 00:
But it's also noted in the record, correctional officers have the ability to, if they notice something in front of them that's apparent, an inmate has a serious injury, they're bleeding, they have something that a nurse or other medical provider couldn't see on the phone, they can then say, all right, can we have more evaluation?

[00:19:11] Speaker 00:
None of that happened in this case.

[00:19:14] Speaker 03:
So I just want to understand how you evaluate his, or how you look at plaintiff's theory, the case, which is that,

[00:19:24] Speaker 03:
So what we have in front of us only is a manel, well, put aside that conspiracy claim.

[00:19:31] Speaker 03:
But we have a manel claim that the county had a policy, maybe practice of not providing or of not determining whether or not somebody was capable of being released from the jail because of medical conditions.

[00:19:50] Speaker 03:
that policy was the cause or resulted in the constitutional violation.

[00:19:59] Speaker 03:
Is that the way you understand plaintiff's theory?

[00:20:02] Speaker 00:
Yes, and so one of those things in looking at the Monell claim of is there a custom practice or policy as we look at are there other cases that are showing this is either a written policy that's happening of proverbially patient dumping out of the jail or is this the unspoken custom that is occurring in the jail?

[00:20:20] Speaker 00:
And the only evidence, as the court noted, is the Howey case, which is substantially different than our case here.

[00:20:27] Speaker 00:
Mr. Howey alleged that he was assaulted by correctional officers, that he requested medical attention, that was denied.

[00:20:34] Speaker 00:
In fact, that he was so significantly injured, he was wheeled out of the jail in a wheelchair, dumped onto the curb, and then had to crawl into a cab, where he then, the cab driver noticed, your medical condition is serious.

[00:20:49] Speaker 00:
let's call the fire department.

[00:20:51] Speaker 00:
That is substantially different than Mr. Peterson here who was able to walk on his own a mile to a nearby gas station, was able to exit the jail on his own, who never made those requests for medical help.

[00:21:06] Speaker 00:
But also importantly, Mr. Peterson was seen nine times in the brief 48 hours he was in the jail.

[00:21:13] Speaker 00:
In the cases that I'm sure the court is aware when we're looking at deliberate indifference, we're looking at cases where

[00:21:18] Speaker 00:
Inmate needs medical assistance, and they're ignored by the jailers.

[00:21:23] Speaker 00:
They're ignored by the medical staff here.

[00:21:24] Speaker 00:
Mr. Peterson is seen by registered nurses by physicians assistants by nurse practitioners Over nine times.

[00:21:34] Speaker 00:
They are working up.

[00:21:35] Speaker 00:
Mr. Peterson's complaints of I have pain in my leg Mr. Peterson testified that there was redness in his leg that was being tracked by well path and

[00:21:44] Speaker 00:
X-rays were ordered there was an ordered place for an MD a doctor to evaluate Mr.. Peterson, but that unfortunately didn't happen because the 48 hours had already arrived and so here well path is consistently treating and continuing to further Mr.. Peterson's medical care and

[00:22:06] Speaker 01:
The officer sees him limp according to the plaintiff, according to the video, and doesn't ask him, are you all right?

[00:22:13] Speaker 01:
Do you need a cane?

[00:22:14] Speaker 01:
Do you need some help?

[00:22:18] Speaker 00:
I don't think that's... Mr. Peterson states that it would have been obvious to anyone that his limp, that he was limping and that that was a serious medical condition.

[00:22:28] Speaker 00:
And the other correctional officers stated, we just don't recall if he was limping or not.

[00:22:33] Speaker 04:
But it's all... So on that state of facts,

[00:22:35] Speaker 04:
Why couldn't a jury believe the plaintiff's version of that that it was obvious that I was in distress?

[00:22:42] Speaker 00:
Because also mr. Peterson was noted as coming in limping into the jail and so there the limping is not a serious enough condition or should have been something attributed to a

[00:22:56] Speaker 00:
condition or something that occurred inside the jail because Mr. Peterson was already limping as he entered.

[00:23:02] Speaker 01:
Regardless whether it occurred inside the jail, that's irrelevant.

[00:23:05] Speaker 01:
The question was his medical condition so clear that he needs some intervention by the police.

[00:23:13] Speaker 00:
Yeah and and so looking at it

[00:23:17] Speaker 00:
To have the Monell claim, we need to have the underlying constitutional violation.

[00:23:22] Speaker 00:
And if we use Gordon as part of our reference here, one of the first elements that the district court noted was, under Gordon, the county needs to make an intentional decision with respect to the condition under which Mr. Peterson is confined, including decisions with respect to his medical treatment.

[00:23:38] Speaker 00:
And here, there's no intentional decisions, because at best, maybe the county is

[00:23:45] Speaker 00:
Subjectively aware that mr.. Peterson has a limp, but doesn't know if that's How he walks if that's there's a bacterial infection or just this is how mr. Peterson is and walks and isn't a serious medical need and so there isn't that intentional decision And so that's that's one of the core facts that the district court relied on and looking at Gordon to show we're not

[00:24:12] Speaker 00:
There's nothing that would have put the correctional officers on notice that we're aware that Mr. Peterson needs assistance, that this limping is somehow underlying it.

[00:24:22] Speaker 00:
You need to be taken to the emergency room for treatment.

[00:24:25] Speaker 00:
Unlike Howie, where Mr. Howie alleged he couldn't even physically walk.

[00:24:32] Speaker 04:
So let's switch gears just slightly and just for purposes of this question, assume that we think there's a question of fact on whether a constitutional violation occurred.

[00:24:41] Speaker 04:
What do we do with the argument that your friend across the aisle made in terms of there's a disconnect between the medical staff and the prisoner staff about what medical check even means when you're releasing somebody?

[00:24:59] Speaker 04:
Are we checking about physical condition?

[00:25:00] Speaker 04:
Are we checking about mental condition?

[00:25:02] Speaker 04:
Are you a threat to yourself or others or something?

[00:25:05] Speaker 04:
Because I assume the point of even asking the question or having that check box on the form

[00:25:10] Speaker 04:
Maybe you can tell me.

[00:25:12] Speaker 04:
My assumption would be that the purpose of that would be to just sort of make sure that this guy is good to put on the street, both for physical and mental health reasons.

[00:25:20] Speaker 04:
But if there is a disconnect between the two people checking in on that point, then that purpose is not being served.

[00:25:28] Speaker 00:
And I think this is where my council has a slight misunderstanding that there isn't a disconnect here and so what well past staff the nurses were testifying to is We couldn't prevent the 48-hour like we couldn't stop mr. Peterson from being released because we were running into penal code 825 849 he needs to be released and so what they're talking about is we couldn't prevent the

[00:25:53] Speaker 00:
physical release from his jail, but WellPath still has the ability to say, if Mr. Peterson needs additional care from checking his medical chart, we can send him to the local hospital for further care.

[00:26:04] Speaker 00:
We can send him to another facility so that he's not under a state hold, but he's still receiving that medical care.

[00:26:11] Speaker 00:
And so that's where the WellPath, the medical staff, they're looking in the chart, and that's part of the determination.

[00:26:17] Speaker 04:
Yeah, but we're, in this case, we're trying to figure out whether the jail, whether the county is liable.

[00:26:23] Speaker 04:
And whether they have a policy that basically thwarts the purpose of this process of checking the well-being of a person before putting them out on the street.

[00:26:33] Speaker 04:
And most of the comments that you're making are about whether WellPath is doing a good job or not.

[00:26:37] Speaker 04:
And so I'm trying to think on the county side, like what do we have to say that the county knows that this is not working right and is doing and set it up this way anyways?

[00:26:47] Speaker 00:
I think the county knows that this is working right because we see a lack of other

[00:26:52] Speaker 00:
Policy practice or custom cases cited in here beyond Howie is being the only other one of evidence of this patient dumping that's occurring at Wayne Brown Correctional Facility and so the county has also set up a the system of

[00:27:06] Speaker 00:
The booking officer contacts the officer in charge or sergeant in the jail facility to confirm does this Does this inmate match on the list of someone who we can release?

[00:27:16] Speaker 00:
Then afterwards decide all right We need to make contact with the medical provider to also confirm that this person is safe to be released And so that's where they have these systems in place if the county didn't have a system like that Then maybe that might be evidence of showing all right there is

[00:27:34] Speaker 00:
a potential constitutional issue that's happening here.

[00:27:37] Speaker 00:
The county is purposely avoiding contacting its medical contractor to make sure inmates are safe to be put back onto the street.

[00:27:46] Speaker 00:
But that's not the case here because the county has that policy in place, has it also formally in a hard card sheet as this is done for every single inmate.

[00:27:57] Speaker 00:
And then those are reflected both in several of the county's policies but numerous of well-passed policies as the contractor.

[00:28:04] Speaker 00:
Has the more specific I Just want to briefly Address that because Because mr. Peterson entered the jail with a limp failed to inform any of its jail officers of his medical condition and

[00:28:28] Speaker 00:
The jail officers were told that Mr. Peterson was cleared for release.

[00:28:31] Speaker 00:
These are not the actions of negligence or alternatively negligently being unaware of Mr. Peterson's medical condition, and certainly there's no evidence that they acted with reckless disregard.

[00:28:43] Speaker 00:
One of the elements is finding that there is a underlying Monell claim.

[00:28:47] Speaker 00:
And if the court doesn't have any other questions.

[00:28:49] Speaker 03:
Let me ask you this.

[00:28:55] Speaker 03:
Is it always the case that in a Minnell claim, such as the one we have here, that the plaintiff must prevail against the individual officers in order to establish a Minnell claim, to go forward with a Minnell claim?

[00:29:13] Speaker 03:
In other words, if they can't prevail against the individual officers, they can't prevail on the Minnell claim.

[00:29:19] Speaker 00:
No, because Monell is asserted is the way for a 1983 claim to be asserted against the entity.

[00:29:27] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:29:27] Speaker 00:
But it still requires in any Monell analysis, if we're looking at failure to train, ratification, custom policy or practice, we have to look at what is the underlying constitutional violation here.

[00:29:41] Speaker 00:
And the way this complaint in this case has been framed is,

[00:29:44] Speaker 00:
as being a deliberate indifference of medical care.

[00:29:47] Speaker 00:
That's where the briefing, the deposition and stuff have occurred here.

[00:29:52] Speaker 00:
I think as I have articulated in the briefs, there's substantial evidence to also show that there was a custom of having this release process for the jail of confirming that Mr. Peterson could be medically cleared for release.

[00:30:09] Speaker 00:
The county has its policies.

[00:30:11] Speaker 00:
Its medical provider certainly has even more detailed policies Okay, hope that answers the court's question, okay, thank you.

[00:30:21] Speaker 04:
Thank you counsel.

[00:30:21] Speaker 04:
Thank you Mr.. Dwyer did you want a minute for rebuttal I?

[00:30:33] Speaker 02:
Think this case is a classic case that belongs in front of the jury there are real questions of fact I

[00:30:39] Speaker 02:
My client will testify that when he went into booking to get released, the officer told him, he asked if he could make a phone call and the officer said, make it snappy.

[00:30:50] Speaker 02:
He will testify that the officer was Kurt and short with him, and clearly the message was, get your rear out the door, Mr. Peterson.

[00:31:00] Speaker 02:
And that's what he'll testify about.

[00:31:03] Speaker 02:
And then with regard to the policies, it's important to note, I think on page 54 of my brief, there's a footnote about what policies Nevada County actually has in place.

[00:31:14] Speaker 02:
It mistakenly, and I corrected the record, there were no policies and practices in place at 2018 when this occurred.

[00:31:21] Speaker 02:
They made a subsequent change in their policy directives which are beneficial, still not enough, but they did make improvements, but that was after these events.

[00:31:29] Speaker 02:
I refer you to, I think it's a footnote on page 54.

[00:31:32] Speaker 02:
Thank you.

[00:31:32] Speaker 04:
Thank you, Council.

[00:31:35] Speaker 04:
All right, the matter of Peterson versus Nevada County is submitted, and we thank Council for their argument today.