Civil Rights – Officer sued after delaying child’s emergency room medical treatment

Where a police officer allegedly refused to let a child’s father enter a hospital emergency room for at least 150 seconds, so that the child could obtain treatment for a medical emergency, because the father violated traffic laws, the civil rights’ suit survived the officer’s motion to dismiss.

Background

M.M., a minor, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Timothy R. Derosha, alleging a violation of her substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. This action arises from events surrounding a traffic stop that took place in a hospital parking lot while M.M.’s father was driving her to the emergency room during a medical emergency. Pending before the court is Derosha’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and on grounds of qualified immunity.

Due Process

To state a substantive due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, a plaintiff must allege that the defendant’s behavior was “so egregious, so outrageous, that it may fairly be said to shock the contemporary conscience. Under the circumstances of this case, the court finds that the deliberate-indifference standard of culpability is the appropriate standard.

M.M. has sufficiently alleged that Derosha was deliberately indifferent to her serious medical needs. First, M.M. alleges that she was experiencing a medical emergency because she was having significant difficulty breathing, which was later confirmed to be a severe case of pneumonia. The severity of her illness ultimately resulted in her being transported to a Richmond hospital via ambulance, where she remained for several days.

Second, M.M. has sufficiently alleged that Derosha, either knowingly or recklessly, failed to act to appropriately address the risk that her medical condition posed. She alleges that “Derosha was repeatedly informed that M.M. was in the midst of a medical emergency that deprived her of oxygen.” He was told not only by Morris, but also by dispatch of M.M.’s medical emergency. Despite this, Derosha delayed her access for approximately 150 seconds, before finally allowing her to proceed inside.

Third, it is a reasonable inference that Derosha realized his continued detention of M.M. posed a high risk of harm because approximately one minute later, when no medical personnel came to the parking lot, he permitted Mrs. Morris to take M.M. inside the emergency room to receive medical treatment. Lastly, M.M. alleges that, as a result of Derosha’s deliberate indifference to her medical needs that day, she “suffered serious emotional injuries, physical injury, pain and suffering, [and] mental anguish.”

Qualified immunity

Derosha argues that, at the time of the incident, there was no clearly established right protecting a passenger from a brief delay in receiving medical care while an officer conducted a felony traffic stop of the vehicle in which she was riding. The court disagrees.

The court acknowledges that it has not found any controlling precedent from the Supreme Court of the United States, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of Virginia that involved identical facts. There is, however, at least one district court case addressing a similar scenario.

While the court acknowledges a single case decided in 1985 from another jurisdiction does not constitute “a consensus of cases of persuasive authority” sufficient to clearly establish a constitutional right for purposes of the second prong of the qualified immunity analysis, it nonetheless provides helpful guidance. Since the Baldi decision in 1985, the qualified immunity jurisprudence in the context of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs has become more fully developed.

And although there may not be cases directly on point in the context of a passenger experiencing a medical emergency detained in a traffic stop, the jurisprudence regarding pretrial detainees’ due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment provides “general applications of core constitutional principles” that logically extend to a passenger in a vehicle detained during a traffic stop.

The court accordingly finds that, at the time of the incident, it was clearly established that an officer who detains a passenger experiencing a medical emergency during a traffic stop and prevents her from obtaining necessary medical care may be held liable for violating the passenger’s due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by acting with deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs. A reasonable officer in Derosha’s position would have understood that such conduct was unlawful.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss/for qualified immunity denied.

M.M. v. Derosha, Case No. 7:25-cv-00004, March 30, 2026. WDVA at Roanoke (Dillon). VLW 026-3-155. 29 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-3-155
Virginia Lawyers Weekly