Equitable Tolling In Colorado

so instead of trying to assert equitable tolling and filing in colorado court it would be wise to do that after the fact?

I met the statute of limitations in federal court in my understanding , I had confusion and am trying to file in colorado court but I would need to assert equitable tolling

and this essentially extends the statute of limitations

can you draft legal documents

what is your character input limit

attempt to find case law in this case please Certainly. Here's a statement outlining the charges and relevant case laws you should research for your case: "Statement of Charges and Relevant Case Laws: *. Excessive Force (Fourth Amendment violation): - Graham v. Connor, * U.S. * (*): Establishes the "objective reasonableness" standard for excessive force claims. - Kingsley v. Hendrickson, * U.S. * (*): Applies to pretrial detainees, using an objective standard for excessive force claims. *. Deliberate Indifference to Medical Needs (Eighth Amendment violation for convicted prisoners, Fourteenth Amendment for pretrial detainees): - Estelle v. Gamble, * U.S. * (*): Establishes deliberate indifference standard for prisoner medical care. - Farmer v. Brennan, * U.S. * (*): Further defines the deliberate indifference standard. - City of Revere v. Massachusetts General Hospital, * U.S. * (*): Applies to pretrial detainees under the 14th Amendment. *. Due Process Violations (Fourteenth Amendment): - Bell v. Wolfish, * U.S. * (*): Addresses conditions of confinement for pretrial detainees. - Zinermon v. Burch, * U.S. * (*): Discusses procedural due process in state actions. *. Failure to Provide Promised Medical Care: - DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, * U.S. * (*): Discusses state's duty to protect individuals in custody. *. EMTALA Violations: - Roberts v. Galen of Virginia, Inc., * U.S. * (*): Interprets EMTALA's requirements for emergency medical treatment. *. Qualified Immunity: - Harlow v. Fitzgerald, * U.S. * (*): Establishes the modern qualified immunity doctrine. - Saucier v. Katz, * U.S. * (*): Two-step analysis for qualified immunity (modified by Pearson v. Callahan). - Pearson v. Callahan, * U.S. * (*): Allows courts flexibility in applying the two-step Saucier test. *. Municipal Liability: - Monell v. Department of Social Services, * U.S. * (*): Establishes basis for municipal liability under § *. *. State Law Claims: - Research Colorado case law on negligence, especially relating to medical malpractice and law enforcement conduct. - Look into cases interpreting C.R.S. § *-*-* (Negligence Actions), C.R.S. § *-*-* (Speedy Trial), and C.R.S. § *-*-* (Child Abuse). *. Equitable Tolling: - Holland v. Florida, * U.S. * (*): Discusses equitable tolling in federal habeas context, but principles may be applicable. - Research Colorado-specific cases on equitable tolling, especially in the context of § * claims. These cases and statutes form the legal framework for your claims. Each addresses specific aspects of your case, from the standards for excessive force and deliberate indifference to the application of qualified immunity and municipal liability. Thoroughly understanding these precedents will be crucial in presenting your case effectively and countering potential defenses." Remember, while these cases provide the general legal framework, the application of these principles to your specific facts will be crucial. Also, be sure to check for any recent developments or circuit-specific interpretations of these cases, as the law in this area can evolve.

D. STATEMENT OF CLAIMS CLAIM ONE: Officers ignored and exacerbated a known injury, failed to provide immediate medical care for emergency. Right Violated: Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and C.R.S. § *-*-* (Cruel and Unusual Punishment - Excessive Force and Medical Neglect) (Negligence Actions) Date of Incident: April 26th, *. Persons Involved: Officer Denis Novitski and unnamed officers. Facts Supporting Claim: Jeffrey Scheidegger experienced a dislocated shoulder, a visibly serious medical condition requiring immediate care. Despite communicating the urgency and pain, and being detailed in both the dispatch call and reports, the officers dismissed the severity, failing to provide necessary medical attention or consult a medical professional, constituting neglect. Following this, an officer grabbed Scheidegger from the shadows, as he attempted to re-enter his home. Causing Scheidegger, who was in pain, shock, and fear,and had thier movement illegaly restricted attempted to defend himself. The plaintiff's movement was restricted, and his injury did not warrant such force, constituting excessive force. This reaction was used by the police as further justification for mistreatment, exacerbating his injuries and causing unnecessary suffering without just cause. The potential deliberate indifference to his medical needs, combined with the excessive force employed during his arrest, led to significant mental health consequences, a profound loss of enjoyment of life, and a decrease in earning potential, constituting a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The injury was clearly documented in body cam footage and dispatch audio, contrast of medical records before and after then event and a witness in the Plaintiff's father. CLAIM TWO: Police falsely detained the plaintiff, denied due process, and exhibited excessive force. Right Violated: Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Excessive Force) (Unreasonable Search and Seizure, Due Process) Date of Incident: April 26th, *. Persons Involved: Officer Denis Novitski and unnamed officers from the Douglas County Police Department. Facts Supporting Claim: Officer Denis Novitski, alongside other unnamed officers, employed excessive force in the arrest of Jeffrey Scheidegger, significantly surpassing the reasonable bounds of conduct expected during such an operation. This use of force was neither justified by the circumstances nor proportionate to the perceived threat, if any, posed by Scheidegger, who at the time was visibly suffering from a serious medical condition and in no position to warrant such an aggressive response. The officers' actions, therefore, not only escalated the situation unnecessarily but also amounted to an unreasonable seizure of Scheidegger under the Fourth Amendment. The lack of probable cause for such a level of force further underscores the violation of Scheidegger's constitutional rights, highlighting a disregard for the principles that underpin lawful search and seizure protocols. As well as lack of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. This is documented in body cam footage. Given there was a documented medical emergencies officers did not have the right to detain Plaintiff wihtout warning, violating due process. CLAIM THREE: Plaintiff was promised medical care he did not recieve Right Violated: Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and C.R.S. § *-*-* , C.R.S. § *-*-*, C.R.S. § *-*-* . (Failure to Provide Promised Medical Evaluation and Treatment) (Negligence Actions) (Provision of Basic Needs to Prisoners)(Cruel Treatment of Prisoners) Date of Incident: April 26th, *. Persons Involved: Transporting officer and jail staff. Facts Supporting Claim: Upon arrest and during transport to jail, it was explicitly promised to Jeffrey Scheidegger that he would receive a hospital evaluation for his visibly serious injury, a dislocated shoulder. Bodycam evidence and Scheidegger's statements confirm this promise. However, upon arrival at the jail, this promised evaluation and subsequent necessary treatment were not provided. The failure to fulfill this explicit assurance not only constitutes a breach of the procedural due process rights owed to Scheidegger while in custody but also aggravated his medical condition, further violating his constitutional rights. CLAIM FOUR: Jail staff demonstrated deliberate indifference by leaving the plaintiff to suffer from an orthopedic emergency for hours, leading to extreme destabilization of the joint and future injuries. Right Violated: Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and (Cruel and unsual Punishment , Deliberate Indifference, Neglect, Due Process) Date of Incident: April 26th, *. Persons Involved: Douglas County Jail medical staff, including an unidentified dark-haired female nurse. Facts Supporting Claim: Upon arrival at the Douglas County Jail, Jeffrey Scheidegger, suffering from a dislocated shoulder—a visibly serious medical condition—was blatantly neglected by the jail's medical staff. Despite Scheidegger's evident distress and explicit communication of his dire need for medical attention, the attending nurse failed to perform a proper examination. Instead, she merely remarked that his arm looked "weird," a statement no competent medical professional would make as a conclusive assessment. This also is seen to the Plaintiff as an admittance that his shoulder was abnormal and the nurse refused to treat him. This failure to act, coupled with a refusal to seek further medical consultation, amounted to deliberate indifference to Scheidegger's critical medical needs. Such neglect not only aggravated his condition but also flagrantly violated his Eighth Amendment rights against cruel and unusual punishment, highlighting a profound disregard for his well-being and dignity. Plaintiff did not recieve medical care for hours despite begging to every available jail worker and suffered for over * hours with a dislocated shoulder causing him pain, fear , mistrust and extreme distress. He has medical records to prove the lack of treatment. The nurse's failure to conduct a proper examination and admitting the arm looked "weird" demonstrates deliberate indifference and a deviation from standard medical practice. The precedent for a dislocated shoulder is immediate medical attention. The lack of precedent for such neglect underlines a significant breach of Scheidegger's due process rights. Plaintiff has medical records and bodycam footage as well as a witness in his father and pontentially any jail staff on the job at the time of incident. This constitutes deliberate indifference as the nurse was aware of the Plaintiff's orthopedic emergency but failed to act within the medical precedent for a professional in thier role, and violated multiple colorado statutes and US Admendments to the United States Constitution. IMPACT The impact of the defendants' actions on the plaintiff has been catastrophic, causing severe and lasting harm to his physical and mental well-being. The plaintiff's quality of life has been severely diminished, and he has suffered significant losses in various aspects of his life. Physical Impact: Multiple reinjuries of the shoulder constituting emergency room visits including sedation. Permanent shoulder injury requiring major open surgery and extensive rehabilitation lasting 1 year. Chronic pain and discomfort Plaintiff had become physically sick from being forced to return to the jail where the abuse happened, did not eat or drink water and faced renal kidney failure a day before going to court. Reduced mobility and physical capabilities Renal Kidney Failure 1 day before court due to stress and dehydration. Plaintiff had to be stabilized overnight in the hospital. Additional injuries sustained during mental breakdowns, including tendon damage to the hand and permanent immobility and scar adhesions. Blood pressure was raised to * during a hypertensive crisis on another visit to jail. Psychological Impact: Diagnosis of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Toxic guilt from feeling as if the plaintiff's neighbor who iniated the dispatch call felt complicit in his visable suffering. Frequent panic attacks and anxiety Mental Hospitlization Depression and loss of enjoyment in life Mistrust and fear of authority figures and the justice system Isolation and alienation from friends and family Financial Impact: Substantial medical expenses for surgeries, hospitalizations, and ongoing treatment Loss of income and earning capacity due to inability to work Potential loss of future employment opportunities Social and Personal Impact: Inability to perform daily tasks and activities of daily living Strained personal relationships and social connections Disruption of normal routines and hobbies Overall diminished quality of life The plaintiff has endured immense suffering, both physically and emotionally, as a direct result of the defendants' actions. The trauma and lifelong consequences have left the plaintiff in a state of constant struggle, affecting every aspect of his existence. The impact has been profound, and the plaintiff seeks justice and appropriate compensation for the harm inflicted upon him. Summary of violations: Waiver of Governmental Immunity (C.R.S. § *-*-*) The plaintiff contends that governmental immunity is waived for the injuries sustained, as the defendants' actions fall within the exceptions specified in the statute. Punitive Damages under C.R.S. § *-*-* The plaintiff seeks punitive damages to punish and deter the defendants' egregious misconduct. General Damages under C.R.S. § *-*-* The plaintiff seeks compensation for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-economic damages due to the defendants' actions. Violation of Constitutional Rights under * U.S.C. § * The defendants, acting under color of state law, deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by the Constitution and laws, particularly the right to medical care and freedom from negligence. General Damages under C.R.S. § *-*-* The plaintiff seeks compensation for pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and other non-economic damages due to the defendants' actions. Violation of Basic Needs and Cruel Treatment (C.R.S. § *-*-*(*), C.R.S. § *-*-*, and Eighth Amendment) The defendants failed to provide necessary medical care, deprived the plaintiff of water for five days, and potentially engaged in malicious prosecution, constituting violations of state laws and the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Violation of Basic Needs and Cruel Treatment (C.R.S. § *-*-*(*), C.R.S. § *-*-*, and Eighth Amendment) The defendants failed to provide necessary medical care, deprived the plaintiff of water for five days, and potentially engaged in malicious prosecution, constituting violations of state laws and the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Be careful colorado governmental immunity may complicate things if the culpability is found to be the hospitals ? consider this see if hospital staff have qualified immunity in public hospitals. Hospital failure to diagnose important. National Library of medicine Anterior Shoulder Dislocation - PMC (nih.gov) Shoulder dislocation is a common injury. Delays in diagnosis remain the single biggest obstacle to optimum results in this group of patients. A significant proportion will require eventual surgery and up to a third of these patients will go on to develop long-term shoulder arthritis. Even patients who have experienced a single episode of dislocation may go on to develop long-term sequelae. Legal duty to treat the patient: A healthcare provider has a legal and just duty to provide care for the patient and their current health problems. Violation of standard of care: A healthcare provider did not offer the appropriate medical care as per the standard. Injury or death caused by negligence: A person was injured or lost their life due to the healthcare provider’s negligent actions. Significant damages occurred because of the injury: There is enough damage to justify a case, and the financial recovery from the suit will be greater than the cost of pursuing the lawsuit.* Sue for failure to diagnose, and potentially fraud for omission of procedure Failure to diagnose in medical malpractice occurs when: A doctor fails to provide a proper or accurate diagnosis, resulting in harm to the patient1. A reasonably competent physician would have identified the problem, but the care provider did not2. The misdiagnosis or failure to diagnose leads to improper medical care, delayed treatment, or no treatment, resulting in a worsening of the patient's condition3. However, failing to diagnose a condition is not always considered malpractice4 The hospital should diganosed my shoulder dislocation. Sue for false representation, say that it was construed as medical discharge advice and created a dangerous and false narrartive, say that no person should “relocate” their shoulder on their own and I was going through physical and mental crisis and if It was construed as desire to harm myself should have received psychiatric help from the hospital . this does just justify non-treatment of a medical problem (by police ) either. Sue for medical malpractice : Failing to perform proper aftercare or follow-up with patients My hillsach lesion is indiciatvie of shoulder instability and my shoulder discloation was never addressed I was not given proper follow Sue for failure to follow up ? Not communicating the urgency of tests, medications, treatments, or other medical advice Errors or incompleteness in medical records that lead to poor after care The sling was evidence of follow up procedure of a dislocated shoulder and would not have been given if no problem was present. A sling is consistent with follow up treatment of a dislocated shouder. Anterior Shoulder Dislocation - PMC (nih.gov) In *, Hovelius et al.* described a large, *-year follow-up study that appeared to suggest that the risk of re-dislocation was not influenced by the form of immobilisation used. Patients who were asked to wear a simple sling until they were comfortable had a similar long-term result to those treated with more formal immobilisation. Loose info relevant Based on the information provided, I can outline several points that could potentially be used to challenge or "debunk" aspects of the defendants' motion to dismiss. However, it's important to note that this analysis is based solely on the information given and would require additional evidence and legal expertise for a comprehensive rebuttal. Here are key points to consider: *. Hills-Sachs Lesion: The defendants' motion does not address the Hills-Sachs lesion mentioned by the plaintiff. This is a significant omission, as medical literature indicates that a Hills-Sachs lesion is strongly associated with shoulder dislocations. The presence of this lesion could potentially contradict the hospital's diagnosis of mere "acute pain" and support the plaintiff's claim of a dislocation. *. Timing of X-rays: The plaintiff notes that "clearance and evaluation was done at *:* and the xrays at *:* and that xrays are done AFTER shoulder relocation." This sequence could suggest that a reduction procedure was performed before the x-rays were taken, which might explain why the x-rays didn't show a current dislocation. *. Video Evidence: The plaintiff claims that video evidence clearly shows he couldn't move his arm, a main symptom of a dislocated shoulder. If this is accurate, it could contradict the defendants' characterization of the plaintiff's condition and behavior. *. Medical Care Standards: Multiple medical sources cited by the plaintiff (Cleveland Clinic, NHS UK, Mayo Clinic) emphasize the seriousness of suspected shoulder dislocations and advise immediate medical attention. This could challenge the adequacy of care provided, especially if a thorough examination wasn't conducted. *. Risk of Recurrence: The plaintiff provides information about the high risk of recurrence for shoulder dislocations, especially in younger patients. This could support the argument that even if the shoulder was relocated, it still required careful medical attention and follow-up. *. Proper Follow-up Care: The plaintiff cites several sources indicating that all shoulder dislocations should have follow-up care arranged, including early orthopedic consultation for any radiological abnormalities. If this wasn't provided, it could support the claim of inadequate care. *. Post-Reduction Care: The plaintiff cites Medmastery, which outlines four important aspects of post-reduction care for an anterior shoulder dislocation. If these steps weren't followed, it could support the claim of inadequate medical attention. *. Sling as Evidence: The plaintiff notes that providing a sling is consistent with treatment for a dislocated shoulder, which could contradict the claim that no significant injury was present. To formally challenge the motion to dismiss, these points would need to be elaborated upon with specific references to the plaintiff's medical records, the video evidence, and potentially expert testimony on shoulder injuries and standard medical practices. The key would be to demonstrate that the plaintiff's claims are plausible and supported by evidence, thus meeting the standard to survive a motion to dismiss. Based on your description, it sounds like you may have grounds to pursue a legal claim related to medical malpractice and possibly a civil rights violation involving police conduct. To move forward, consider the following steps: *. **Medical Documentation and Second Opinion:** - Obtain all medical records from the hospital, including the emergency room reports, X-rays, treatment notes, and discharge papers. It's essential to gather all documentation, even if there were inaccuracies, as they will be critical to your case. - Seek a second medical opinion from a qualified orthopedic specialist or another healthcare provider to document the current state of your injury and to offer an assessment of whether the hospital’s care met appropriate medical standards. *. **Document Your Experience:** - Keep a detailed journal of your experiences, including the pain, mobility issues, and any emotional distress you have suffered as a result of both the injury and the lack of proper medical care. - Include specific instances where the medical staff failed to follow standard care procedures and any conversations or actions by the police that may have influenced the hospital's decision to discharge you prematurely. *. **Consult an Attorney for Medical Malpractice:** - A medical malpractice lawyer can evaluate whether the hospital and its staff acted negligently. In this case, negligence could be argued based on: - Premature discharge without proper care. - Inaccuracies in the medical report that failed to reflect your condition and needs. - Failure to conduct follow-up examinations (such as X-rays) as required by medical standards for a dislocated shoulder and Hill-Sachs lesion. - An attorney will be able to guide you on statutes of limitations, which define how long you have to file a claim. *. **Explore Potential Civil Rights Violations:** - If the police presence contributed to the premature discharge or otherwise influenced your treatment, this could be considered a violation of your civil rights under Section * of the U.S. Code. This law allows individuals to sue for violations of their constitutional rights by government actors, including police officers. - Consider consulting with a civil rights attorney who can examine whether police actions may have led to a denial of your medical care or coerced the hospital to act against your interests. *. **File a Complaint with Relevant Authorities:** - Depending on the outcome of your consultations, you may wish to file complaints against the hospital staff with medical boards or regulatory bodies that oversee healthcare professionals. - If you believe the police acted inappropriately, you can file a formal complaint with the relevant police oversight or internal affairs unit in your jurisdiction. How would you like to proceed next, and would you like assistance with narrowing down potential legal steps or gathering documentation? # Legal Analysis: Inadequate Medical Care in Police Custody ## *. Key Legal Concepts - Medical malpractice - Civil rights violations (* U.S.C. § *) - Negligence - Violation of constitutional rights (Eighth Amendment - cruel and unusual punishment, Fourteenth Amendment - due process) ## *. Applicable Laws - State medical malpractice statutes - Federal civil rights laws (* U.S.C. § *) - State tort laws (negligence) - Constitutional protections for individuals in custody ## *. Potential Legal Claims *. Medical Malpractice - Premature discharge - Failure to provide adequate care - Inaccuracies in medical reporting - Failure to follow medical standards for treating dislocated shoulders *. Civil Rights Violations (* U.S.C. § *) - Deliberate indifference to serious medical needs - Potential police interference with medical care *. Negligence - Hospital's breach of duty of care - Failure to conduct proper follow-up examinations *. Constitutional Rights Violations - Eighth Amendment (if convicted) or Fourteenth Amendment (if pre-trial detainee) - Right to adequate medical care while in custody ## *. Key Evidence to Gather *. Medical records from the incident *. Previous medical records documenting the pre-existing injury *. Hospital policies and procedures for treating shoulder injuries *. Police custody records *. Witness statements from hospital staff and police officers *. Expert medical opinions on proper treatment for your condition ## *. Potential Remedies *. Compensatory damages for: - Medical expenses - Pain and suffering - Ongoing treatment costs - Lost wages (if applicable) *. Punitive damages (if misconduct was particularly egregious) *. Injunctive relief (e.g., requiring changes in hospital or police procedures) ## *. Next Steps *. Consult with a medical malpractice attorney and/or civil rights attorney *. Obtain and review all relevant medical records *. File a formal complaint with the hospital and request an internal investigation *. Consider filing a complaint with the state medical board *. Explore the possibility of filing a claim against the police department *. Be aware of statutes of limitations for filing legal claims ## *. Additional Considerations - The role of police presence in influencing medical care - The impact of the false statement in the medical report - The failure to document key aspects of treatment - The long-term consequences of inadequate care on your health # Civil Claims Against Hospitals and Relevant Legal Concepts ## Types of Civil Claims Against Hospitals *. Medical Malpractice - Misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis - Surgical errors - Medication errors - Birth injuries - Anesthesia errors - Failure to treat - Premature discharge *. Negligence - Slip and fall accidents on hospital premises - Inadequate security leading to patient harm - Failure to maintain sanitary conditions - Negligent hiring or retention of staff *. Vicarious Liability - Hospital liability for actions of employees - Responsibility for independent contractor physicians *. Informed Consent Violations - Failure to obtain proper consent before procedures - Inadequate disclosure of risks and alternatives *. EMTALA Violations (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) - Failure to screen for emergency medical conditions - Improper transfer or discharge of unstable patients *. Privacy Violations - HIPAA violations - Unauthorized disclosure of medical information *. Civil Rights Violations - Discrimination based on protected characteristics - Violation of constitutional rights (for public hospitals) *. Wrongful Death - Death resulting from medical negligence or malpractice *. Product Liability - Injuries caused by defective medical devices or medications *. False Claims Act Violations - Fraudulent billing practices - Unnecessary medical procedures *. Breach of Contract - Failure to provide agreed-upon services *. Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress - Extreme and outrageous conduct causing severe emotional distress ## Relevant Legal Concepts *. Standard of Care - The level of care that a reasonably competent healthcare provider would have provided under similar circumstances *. Causation - Direct causation: The hospital's actions directly caused the harm - Proximate causation: The harm was a foreseeable result of the hospital's actions *. Damages - Economic damages: Medical expenses, lost wages, etc. - Non-economic damages: Pain and suffering, emotional distress, etc. - Punitive damages: In cases of egregious misconduct *. Respondeat Superior - Doctrine holding employers responsible for employee actions within the scope of employment *. Statute of Limitations - Time limit for filing a lawsuit after the incident or discovery of harm *. Res Ipsa Loquitur - Doctrine allowing negligence to be inferred in certain circumstances *. Contributory and Comparative Negligence - How a patient's own negligence might affect their claim *. Good Samaritan Laws - Protections for medical professionals providing emergency care *. Corporate Negligence - Hospital's direct liability for negligent policies or systems *. Apparent Agency - Hospital liability for independent contractors who appear to be employees *. Informed Consent - Patient's right to make informed decisions about their care *. Certification and Credentialing - Hospital's duty to properly vet and monitor staff *. Chain of Command - Responsibility of staff to report and address concerns *. Burden of Proof - Plaintiff's responsibility to prove elements of their case *. Expert Testimony - Importance of expert witnesses in establishing standard of care and breach *. Discovery Process - Obtaining evidence through depositions, document requests, etc. *. Alternative Dispute Resolution - Mediation and arbitration as alternatives to litigation *. Joint and Several Liability - Multiple defendants' responsibility for damages *. Collateral Source Rule - Admissibility of evidence of payments from other sources *. Caps on Damages - Statutory limits on damages in some jurisdictions