Wilkerson v. HVA, et al, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 22477 (6th Cir. October 31, 2013)
This case arose out of a protest against an invited speaker held at the University of Michigan. Several protestors, including the Plaintiff, attended a lecture and continuously heckled the speaker. When they were removed by U of M public safety officers, several protestors resisted the officers and attempted to bite one of them. The U of M officers called for assistance from the Ann Arbor Police and EMS. When EMS arrived at the scene, Plaintiff, who was a physician, interfered with the paramedic’s treatment of one of the protestors, falsely claiming that the paramedics were harming the patient by using ammonia inhalants. The paramedics became concerned for their safety when Plaintiff physician became aggressive and loud and asked the police officers to remove plaintiff physician from the scene so that they could continue to attend to the patient without interference. A police officer removed Plaintiff from the scene to allow the paramedics to attend to their patient without interference.
Misdemeanor charges were later brought against the on-scene physician for interfering with EMS. Defendant was acquitted of all charges and brought suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging that EMS and police had conspired to deprive her of free speech in violation of the protections provided by the First Amendment. Plaintiff also claimed that the EMS provider, including their Medical Control Authority Medical Director, had conspired to maliciously prosecute her. The U.S. District Court granted summary judgment dismissing claims against all defendants and Plaintiff appealed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Blanco Wilczynski successfully defended the ambulance agency, the Paramedics and the Medical Control Authority medical director through the appeal. First, although the 6th Circuit disagreed with the lower court’s finding that the on-scene physician was not engaged in “constitutionally protected free speech” when she protested medical measures & techniques used by EMS, the 6th Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiff’s 1st Amd. Free speech claims against the EMS provider because it found that the EMS provider was not “State Actor”
Second, the 6th Circuit Court found that Plaintiff’s Claim for malicious prosecution failed because there was probable cause to arrest and charge the on-scene physician before any information about the ammonia inhaler was shared by the medical director.
