01-1272 Egebergh v. Nicholson

Listen to this article

“[A] reasonable jury could infer that Nicholson and Burdi were deliberately indifferent to Fitzgibbons’s welfare. They knew he was an insulin-dependent diabetic. They knew (Nicholson certainly, Burdi probably) that diabetics can be seriously harmed by being deprived of insulin. They did not intend Fitzgibbons’s death; nor, we may assume, did they know that missing one shot of insulin could kill him. But a jury could infer that they knew that depriving him of his morning shot would endanger his health and that they deprived him of it for no better reason that to get him out of the police station. In short, a jury could infer that the defendants knowingly exposed Fitzgibbons to a substantial danger to his health for no good reason; that is a good definition of deliberate indifference.

“A trial may of course cast the facts in a different light. But construed as they must be for purposes of this appeal, they defeat the motion for qualified immunity.”

Affirmed.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Plunkett, J., Posner, J.