Quantcast

Appeals panel says city not liable for Chicago paramedic accused of private sexual assault

COOK COUNTY RECORD

Sunday, November 24, 2024

Appeals panel says city not liable for Chicago paramedic accused of private sexual assault

Federal Court
Chicagocityhall1000x667

Chicago City Hall | Jonathan Bilyk

CHICAGO — A federal appeals panel upheld a ruling holding a woman can’t sue the city of Chicago because the alleged perpetrator of an “abhorrent” sexual assault, an off-duty paramedic, wasn’t acting in an official capacity or under color of state law when he assaulted her.

U.S. District Judge Virginia Kendall had dismissed a complaint from a woman, who said she fell and hit her head in the bathroom of paramedic Tim Panatera in March 2018. Rather than treat her injuries, the woman alleged, Panatera assaulted her.

The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion on the woman's appeal Feb. 3. Seventh Circuit Judge Michael Scudder wrote the panel’s opinion; Circuit Judges Ilana Rovner and Kenneth Ripple concurred.


Nicholas Esposito | Esposito & Staubus

“Panatera found (the woman) disoriented and badly bleeding on the bathroom floor,” Scudder wrote. “But rather than calling 911, driving (the woman) to the hospital himself, or drawing upon his training as a paramedic to treat her, Panatera allegedly did no more than rinse the blood from (the woman's) head and wrap it in a towel. From there, (the woman) contends, Panatera moved her to his bed and sexually assaulted her as she drifted in and out of consciousness. When (the woman) regained consciousness the next afternoon, Panatera drove her home and then reported to work.”

Judge Kendall dismissed (the woman's) lawsuit, rejecting her allegations the 14th Amendment’s due process clause obligated Panatera provide medical care, saying states and municipalities aren’t obligated to give medical care to anyone needing medical help, and a plaintiff must establish they were in the city’s care or custody at the time of the injury. Kendall also stressed the dispute was between private citizens, regardless of whether on party was a city employee.

“To be sure, the district court acknowledged that some steps Panatera took may have amounted to medical care, such as wrapping (the woman’s) head in a towel,” Scudder wrote. “But the district court determined that the necessary state action inquiry could not proceed at that level of generality.”

The panel said a determination a city worker is acting “under color of state law” requires allegations they abused their government job or committed misconduct only made possible through their position. The judges further explained the well-settled principle that having a public job does not mean someone always acts under state law and that even being on-duty or off-duty at the time of an incident doesn't always answer the question alone.

Although the woman alleged Panatera did pick her up from the floor and wrap her head, actions that could be linked to his paramedic training, “the events in question all occurred in the privacy of Panatera’s home and, more importantly, in the context of (their) personal relationship.”

The panel said it’s clear Panatera’s routine job duties involve treating head trauma, and that he might have been better positioned to deal with the woman's injury than someone with no medical training. But that doesn’t mean his decision to not take her for emergency care is linked to his official job duties, even through he was “on call” as a paramedic the night in question.

“His professional background leaves more room for criticism of the adequacy of Panatera’s response and the wisdom of his decision making, and perhaps leaves him exposed to liability for negligence under state law,” Scudder wrote. “Panatera was not dispatched to the scene to tend to (the woman's) injuries in his role as a city paramedic. Nor did he invoke his authority to interfere with someone else’s attempt to treat her wounds. Common decency, not his employment status, demanded Panatera take some steps to stop (the woman's) bleeding. And it was Panatera’s alleged self-serving opportunism, not an exercise of state authority, that prevented (the woman) from leaving his home and seeking further care.”

The plaintiff has been represented in the action by attorney Nicholas F. Esposito, of the firm of Esposito & Staubus, of Burr Ridge. 

The city has been represented by attorneys Celia Meza and Stephen G. Collins, of the city's Department of Law.

More News