CASESOFNOTE
026
JONES, SKELTON & HOCHULI
CASES OF NOTE
June 6, 2016
Donn Alexander
DONN ALEXANDER OBTAINS DEFENSE VERDICT IN
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE
Esquivel v. City of Yuma
May 3, 2016
Michele Molinario, Jon Barnes, and Amelia Esber
MICHELE MOLINARIO, JON BARNES, AND AMELIA ESBER
PREVAIL ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Esquivel v
. City of Yuma
This medical malpractice and wrongful death case involved
the death of a 16 month-old child. The child, who had
previously been healthy, was admitted to the Pediatric
Intensive Care Unit at a local Phoenix hospital after
developing croup and respiratory distress. Plaintiffs alleged
that Mr. Alexander’s client, a pediatric critical care specialist,
fell below the standard of care by failing to timely and
properly intubate the child. The child ultimately coded and
could not be resuscitated. The trial lasted five weeks. In
closing Plaintiffs’ counsel asked the jury to award the child’s
parents $15 - $20 million in damages. The jury returned a
defense verdict.
Michele Molinario, Jon Barnes, and Amelia Esber prevailed
by summary judgment in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights action
against the City of Yuma and one of its law enforcement
officers. This case involved the use of a taser in dart-mode to
seize Plaintiff Gavino Esquivel, who was actively fleeing the
scene of a dispute at a local restaurant that reportedly turned
physical. Mr. Esquivel also brought claims of false arrest,
malicious prosecution, and assault. The U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona found that there was no liability on the
part of the City of Yuma or its officer.
The central issue to the Motion for Summary Judgment
concerned whether the officer used excessive force in his
apprehension of the Plaintiff, and whether the officer was
entitled to qualified immunity for his use of force irrespective of
whether said force was excessive. Judge Neil V. Wake declined
to determine whether the use of force was reasonable under the
circumstances, but instead ruled in favor of the defense based
on qualified immunity. Judge Wake agreed with the defendants
that at the time of this incident in March of 2014, there was no
clearly established law that would have put the officer on notice
that the use of a taser and similar devices on a fleeing suspect
would constitute excessive force. In the words of Judge Wake,
“the law was not clearly established in 2012 – and it is not now
– that a single tasing of a fleeing suspect, who reportedly was
involved in a physical disturbance and may have displayed a
gun, after ordering him to stop, violates the Fourth Amendment.”