RHONDA HEHRER, personal representative of the Estate of Joseph Hehrer v. COUNTY OF CLINTON, MICHIGAN; LAWRENCE JERUE, Clinton County Sheriff; THOMAS WIRTH, Jail Administrator; SARAH FAGGION, JAMES BURDICK, CHAD BASHORE, and RICHARD STOUT, Sergeants; COREY BECKER, Officer; ADVANCED CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE, INC.; DARYL TYRONE PARKER, M.D.; WENDY LYNN FREED, LPN; DAWN THELEN, LPN - Articles

All Content

RHONDA HEHRER, personal representative of the Estate of Joseph Hehrer v. COUNTY OF CLINTON, MICHIGAN; LAWRENCE JERUE, Clinton County Sheriff; THOMAS WIRTH, Jail Administrator; SARAH FAGGION, JAMES BURDICK, CHAD BASHORE, and RICHARD STOUT, Sergeants; COREY BECKER, Officer; ADVANCED CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE, INC.; DARYL TYRONE PARKER, M.D.; WENDY LYNN FREED, LPN; DAWN THELEN, LPN

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Dec 12, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ON BRIEF: Mark Granzotto, Beth A. Wittman, GRANZOTTO & WITTMAN, P.C., Berkley, Michigan, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: Douglas J. Curlew, CUMMINGS, MCCLOREY, DAVIS & ACHO, P.L.C., Livonia, Michigan, for Appellees County of Clinton, Lawrence Jerue, Thomas Wirth, Sarah Faggion, James Burdick, Chad Bashore, Richard Stout, and Corey Becker.

Attorneys 3: Devlin K. Scarber, CHAPMAN LAW GROUP, Troy, Michigan, for Appellees Advanced Correctional Healthcare, Inc., Daryl Parker, Wendy Freed, and Dawn Thelen.

Judge(s): SUTTON, Chief Judge; MURPHY and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids

MURPHY, Circuit Judge. This case’s tragic facts took place during Joseph Hehrer’s detention at a county jail. After Hehrer showed signs of illness (including vomiting), medical staff repeatedly evaluated him. Yet they failed to uncover that he suffered from a previously undiagnosed condition: diabetes. Four days after Hehrer’s first request for medical care, his health worsened. Paramedics rushed him to a hospital, and he died days later. Hehrer’s estate brought federal claims against the county and its officials and state-law claims against the medical provider and its personnel. As relevant now, the estate asserted that several corrections officers acted with deliberate indifference to Hehrer’s medical needs and that the county failed to adequately train them. But we agree with the district court that the officers reasonably deferred to the medical professionals. The court thus correctly granted summary judgment to the county and its officials and reasonably refused to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims. We affirm.

Attachments: