Cops can’t skip woman’s suit over ecstasy overdose from pills stuck in body

“The pills were confiscated and inventoried, but no one sought medical care for Gatz,” Shah wrote. “Hours later, she was taken to the Cook County Courthouse for arraignment, where she went into cardiac arrest. Gatz was suffering from the effects of a drug overdose and still had an ecstasy pill inside of her.”

After a Cook County Circuit Court judge dismissed the family’s initial lawsuit, the Gatz family amended the complaint to add federal claims against police officers. The city removed the complaint to federal court, after which the family again amended the filing to name more individual defendants, all of whom moved to dismiss.

According to court records, Gatz was at a police station when she told officers she needed medical attention for a urinary tract infection. Community First Hospital treated her and released her back to police custody. Within two hours, two police agency staffers “discovered that at least 27 ecstasy pills were in Gatz’s vagina” and notified 14 colleagues, all of whom are defendants in the case and none of whom sought treatment or evaluation.

“Instead, they completed arrest reports and other documents necessary to prosecute Gatz for possessing ecstasy,” Shah wrote, noting they later transferred Gatz to the Cook County Sheriff’s Office to be taken to court. The family said none of the police workers told the county staff about the pills, and Gatz entered cardiac arrest in county lockup after her bond hearing. Emergency room staff later diagnosed overdose effects and said a pill remained internalized.

The complaint alleges failure to provide medical care, to intervene and to protect, against all named defendants, and one of supervisory liability against Robert O’Donnell. Shah explained the failure to intervene and supervisory liability claims “are vehicles by which defendants can be held accountable” for the Fourteenth Amendment due process claims underlying the remainder of the lawsuit.

“Reading the complaint in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, a reasonable officer, upon discovering direct internal exposure to such a large amount of drugs, would have understood the high risk of overdose,” Shah wrote. “The consequences of inaction would be obvious, and defendants took no action. That is sufficient to state a claim.”

The defendants argued the Gatzes improperly brought a “group pleading” against 16 people, and while Shah acknowledged “the complaint is light on details,” he said “there is no confusion” about the accusations.

“Ecstasy was found in Gatz’s vagina, all defendants knew about it, none of them did anything to protect her from the danger posed by those pills and that violated her rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Shah wrote. “Discovery may reveal that not all defendants had personal knowledge or involvement, but I must treat the allegations in the complaint as true.”

In order for the family to win at trial, Shah continued, it will have to show each named defendant was on duty and had the ability to provide medical care or protect Gatz from unreasonable risk. He explained “failure to intervene is somewhat of an awkward fit for the underlying claims here,” because the intervention would be in another defendant’s alleged failure to provide medical care, but “plaintiffs are permitted to plead alternate theories of liability, and discovery may yield a set of facts that distinguishes between the two.”

Regarding the state claims, the city itself sought to invoke Illinois Tort Immunity Act protections, but Shah said immunity generally isn’t appropriate for dismissal motions as plaintiffs aren’t required to plead around affirmative defenses.

Immunity for failure to make an examination isn’t applicable, Shah said, because the family said it isn’t seeking liability on those grounds. Likewise, immunity regarding provision and supervision of a jail facility isn’t relevant as the allegations are about medical attention. Though the law does provide “immunity for failure to furnish or obtain medical care” Shah continued, that also isn’t suitable for dismissal because the family specifically alleged “willful and wanton conduct” on the defendants’ part, raising a factual question not suited for dismissal motions.

Finally, the city sought “immunity from liability for injuries resulting from acts or omissions in determining policy or exercising discretion,” Shah said. He then explained discretionary immunity doesn’t apply when a complaint alleges a failure to perform pre-existing duties and said the family’s federal allegations more than cover the requirements of any state-law negligence claims.

Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Julian Johnson, of Chicago, and Basileios Foutris, of the Foutris Law Office, of Chicago.