Background
After Charles L. Hinkel, III experienced heart-attack symptoms, Henry County EMS dispatched EMT Kristian Brock and Paramedic Christopher Stone. The responders initially drove past Hinkel’s poorly lit home while using the Active 911 navigation application, and their defibrillator failed after Hinkel went into cardiac arrest. They obtained another defibrillator while traveling to the hospital, but resuscitation efforts were unsuccessful and Hinkel died.
Hinkel’s son sued Brock and Stone, among others. The Henry Circuit Court dismissed the official-capacity claims but later denied summary judgment on parts of Brock and Stone’s qualified-official-immunity defense, concluding that their navigation and equipment-check duties were ministerial. Brock and Stone proceeded to trial rather than immediately appealing. After the jury deadlocked and the court declared a mistrial, they filed an interlocutory appeal from the summary-judgment order. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court.
The Court’s Holding
The Kentucky Supreme Court held that Brock and Stone forfeited their entitlement to interlocutory review of the pretrial immunity ruling by choosing to proceed to trial. Although their notice of appeal was filed within 30 days of the summary-judgment order, timeliness alone did not preserve immediate review. By going to trial, they incurred the burden that an immunity-based interlocutory appeal is designed to prevent, and the trial record superseded the pretrial summary-judgment record.
The Court further concluded that it lacked appellate jurisdiction under the collateral-order doctrine. Brock and Stone had sought directed verdicts on immunity during trial but did not appeal those rulings or obtain a renewed post-trial immunity ruling based on the trial record. The Court therefore vacated the Court of Appeals’ opinion—not the circuit court’s immunity ruling—and remanded to the Henry Circuit Court. Brock and Stone may renew their immunity motion there and appeal if that motion is denied. The Court did not decide whether qualified official immunity applied or whether the responders’ conduct caused Hinkel’s death.
Justice Nickell dissented, joined by Justices Bisig and Keller. The dissent argued that appellate jurisdiction existed, that proceeding to trial did not waive immediate review, and that the mistrial left a continuing interest in avoiding a second trial. It would have reached the merits of the immunity issues.
Key Takeaways
- A public official who proceeds to trial after a pretrial denial of qualified official immunity forfeits interlocutory review of that pretrial ruling.
- After a mistrial, an immunity claim may be renewed in the trial court on the developed trial record, with an interlocutory appeal available from a new denial.
- The Supreme Court vacated only the Court of Appeals’ opinion and expressed no view on the ultimate immunity or causation questions.
Why It Matters
The decision clarifies that filing within the appellate deadline does not by itself preserve interlocutory review of a qualified-immunity denial when the defendant has already elected to proceed to trial. Kentucky officials seeking to avoid trial must pursue immediate review before trial rather than rely on the original summary-judgment record afterward.
The ruling also provides a path following a mistrial: defendants may ask the trial court to reconsider immunity using the trial record and may appeal a renewed denial. The dissent highlights an unresolved disagreement over whether requiring that additional step unnecessarily limits the protection against undergoing a second trial.