Editor’s Note: Law Week Colorado edits court opinion summaries for style and, when necessary, length.
B.A.Y. was an infantryman in the United States Army. On Aug. 1, 2009, he was injured by two improvised explosive devices in Afghanistan, suffering a fractured skull and injuries to his shoulder and back. The Department of Veterans Affairs assessed him with a service-connected disability rating of 100%, and he was honorably discharged from the Army in January 2012.
B.A.Y. unsuccessfully applied for Social Security benefits in 2011, with an administrative law judge finding him not disabled in a 2013 decision. From February 2016 to February 2017, he worked as an armored car driver. His employment there ended when he misplaced his firearm.
B.A.Y. reapplied for Social Security benefits in June 2019, alleging an onset date of Feb. 5, 2017. After the agency denied the application initially and upon reconsideration, he had a hearing before an ALJ. Applying the agency’s five-step process for considering disability claims, the ALJ denied benefits. The Appeals Council granted review and remanded, directing the ALJ to adequately evaluate the opinion of consultative examiner Margaret MacDonald, M.D.
On remand, the ALJ held a second hearing. She then issued the decision underlying this appeal, again considering the application under the five-step process. At step one, the ALJ found B.A.Y. hadn’t engaged in substantial gainful activity from his onset date through his date last insured.
At step two, the ALJ found he suffers from the severe impairments of degenerative disc disease of the cervical and lumbar spine, osteoarthritis of the right knee and obesity. But at step three, she concluded he didn’t have an impairment or combination of impairments that met or medically equaled the listed impairments in the Code of Federal Regulations.
Next, the ALJ assessed B.A.Y. with the residual functional capacity to perform a range of light work with certain restrictions. The ALJ found at step four that he couldn’t perform his past relevant work. At step five, she found there were other jobs in the national economy he could perform. The ALJ found B.A.Y. not disabled.
The Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ’s decision the agency’s final decision. The district court affirmed. B.A.Y. appealed.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals found the ALJ applied the correct legal standards and the RFC was supported by substantial evidence.
The 10th Circuit affirmed.
In the years since his November 2015 attack on a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs, Colorado, Robert Dear has repeatedly been found incompetent to stand trial. But on the government’s motion, the district court ordered Dear involuntarily medicated in an attempt to restore his competency.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the district court made sufficiently detailed factual findings and that those findings — which placed greater weight on the government’s experts because of their extensive experience restoring competency and their personal experience observing and interacting with Dear — were not clearly erroneous.
The 10th Circuit affirmed.
On Nov. 16, 2019, deputy Elke Wells arrested Jackson Maes and brought him to Saguache County Jail. Maes was intoxicated at the time of his arrest. Jail officials placed him in an individual cell at SCJ.
After stating within earshot of three officials that he was “trying to kill [him]self right now” and repeatedly striking his head against the wall, Maes hanged himself with the privacy curtain in his cell, according to the opinion. Jail officials found him dead the following morning.
Maes’ mother, Sarah Lieberenz, sued jail officials, along with other individuals and entities, as a personal representative on behalf of Maes’ estate. She brought four claims alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against captain Kenneth Wilson, deputy Wells and dispatcher Shelby Shields.
Wilson, Wells and Shields all moved for summary judgment, invoking the doctrine of qualified immunity. The district court denied summary judgment as to Wilson, but granted it as to Wells and Shields.
Wilson timely appealed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity with respect to both the individual and supervisory liability claims against him. Lieberenz timely filed a cross-appeal, challenging the district court’s grant of qualified immunity to Wells and Shields.
The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s denial of qualified immunity to Wilson and dismissed Lieberenz’s cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction.