A federal magistrate judge has concluded medical personnel violated a detainee’s constitutional rights if, as alleged, they waited 36 hours to transport him to the emergency room despite his rapidly-deteriorating condition that ultimately required amputation of his limbs.

U.S. Magistrate Judge N. Reid Neureiter recommended against dismissing Christopher Tanner’s civil rights lawsuit, stemming from Tanner’s ordeal at the Denver Reception and Diagnostic Center. DRDC, which is part of the Colorado Department of Corrections, serves as an intake facility but also houses a small number of inmates. Beginning on March 14, 2020, when Tanner woke up with a headache and a cough, and through the following days, Tanner alleged medical staff were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs.

Neureiter agreed the allegations illustrated a serious deficiency in medical care.

“For example, if an inmate were stabbed in the throat and had blood gushing from his jugular vein, merely providing a band-aid and telling the inmate to lie down and wait for the bleeding to stop would nevertheless constitute deliberate indifference,” Neureiter explained in a Feb. 4 report. “The allegations of Mr. Tanner’s Complaint are effectively the same as the gushing vein scenario.”

The defendants, among whom are the chief medical officer for the Department of Corrections, had sought to dismiss the lawsuit on the basis of qualified immunity. Qualified immunity shields government employees from civil liability unless they violate a person’s clearly-established legal rights. The defendants argued Tanner had not stated a claim pursuant to the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits the imposition cruel and unusual punishment.

They pointed to the fact that Tanner’s symptoms in March 2020 correlated to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, about which very little was known.

“Like prison officials elsewhere, CDOC officials kept watch for the telltale symptoms of COVID, such as fever, cough, respiratory problems, headache, and nausea or vomiting. According to the Complaint’s allegations, these are the symptoms Plaintiff Tanner experienced and exhibited,” wrote Kathryn A. Starnella, attorney for the defendants. “The Complaint’s allegations demonstrate that the CDOC medical staff provided care and monitored Plaintiff’s symptoms with great caution.”

According to Tanner’s narrative, he was 45 years old at the time he entered DRDC in January 2020, where he was serving a relatively short sentence and receiving drug treatment. On March 14, he woke up with flu-like symptoms, including body aches and a bad cough. At 3 a.m. the following morning, March 15, he woke up, began vomiting and lost consciousness.

Tanner’s cellmate, Michael Sferrazza, allegedly tried multiple times to summon medical attention. It was approximately three hours later that a nurse practitioner ordered diagnostic tests be conducted “STAT,” meaning immediately. Reportedly, there was a delay of more than two hours in collecting lab samples, and Tanner remained in his cell.

When a licensed practical nurse arrived, Tanner reportedly told her he “feels like he’s going to die.” The nurse allegedly accused Tanner of taking illegal drugs. She nonetheless found Tanner had low oxygen saturation levels and a temperature reportedly in excess of 105 degrees.

“All reasonably trained health care workers are aware that a fever of 105.8 is extremely high in an adult man and, especially in combination with vomiting, severe headache, and other abnormal vital signs, likely indicates a significant bacterial infection that requires higher level evaluation and treatment than can’t be provided in the prison,” Tanner’s attorneys wrote.

Hours later, Chief Medical Officer Randolph Maul allegedly ordered Tanner and Sferrazza to receive COVID-19 tests. Sferrazza continued to worry about Tanner and repeatedly called for emergency help into the night.

Even after receiving another evaluation on March 16, when Tanner was still in reportedly poor condition, medical staff did not transfer him to a hospital. It was only around 2:42 p.m., nearly 36 hours after Sferrazza had summoned emergency help, that Tanner was able to go to UCHealth for treatment. At that point, his blood oxygen levels were around 80%. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention notes that saturation levels of 95% to 100% are normal for healthy people.

Days later, Tanner’s hands and feet had turned black following septic shock and respiratory failure. He required amputations and plastic surgery.

Tanner’s lawsuit mentioned his continued pain, possibility of future amputation and an inability to return to his field of work. He is seeking monetary damages as a result of the prison defendants’ alleged knowledge of – and disregard for – his serious medical needs.

The defendants argued in their motion to dismiss that they did, in fact, provide care to Tanner, and they transferred him to the emergency department once his “declining condition became apparent.”

Neureiter countered that prison personnel cannot get around liability merely by providing some level of care if it was obvious that a substantially greater intervention was necessary.

“Mr. Tanner essentially paints a picture of a group of prison employees and medical officials who, while able to provide some level of treatment and care at the DRDC, also served as gatekeepers for the higher level of emergency room hospital care that Mr. Tanner required but was denied,” the magistrate judge wrote.

Erica Grossman, an attorney for Tanner, said that she was pleased with Neureiter’s findings, “as these immunity arguments are raised way too often by defendants in jails and prison cases to try to keep valid cases like Mr. Tanner’s out of court and away from juries to avoid responsibility and the public eye.”

She added that Tanner continues to work on his rehabilitation. The CDOC declined to provide a statement.

The parties have 14 days to file an objection to Neureiter’s recommendation. U.S. District Court Judge Christine M. Arguello, who is overseeing the case, will decide whether to adopt or reject his findings.

The case is Tanner v. Campbell et al.

Editor’s note: This article has been updated with comments from Tanner’s attorney.