The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a published opinion Thursday establishing that witness testimony claiming lack of memory about specific events cannot satisfy a plaintiff's burden to present sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find those events occurred. The ruling came in *Michael Victor v. Kimberly Reynolds*, a case involving an inmate who suffered an epileptic seizure after allegedly not receiving his anti-seizure medication during jail detention.
The case centers on Michael Victor, who experienced an epileptic seizure following an overnight stay in a county jail. According to court documents, Victor did not receive his prescribed anti-seizure medication while detained, leading to the medical emergency. Victor subsequently filed suit against Kimberly Reynolds and Advanced Correctional Healthcare, Inc., the company responsible for providing medical care at the facility.
The lawsuit originated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City in 2020, with District Judge Thomas L. Ludington presiding. The case was designated as No. 1:20-cv-13218 at the trial court level before reaching the Sixth Circuit on appeal as No. 25-1317.
Writing for the three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Murphy addressed the central legal question: whether witnesses who testify that they "do not remember" specific events occurring can provide sufficient evidence for a jury to determine those events actually took place. The court answered definitively in the negative, establishing an important precedent for evidence standards in federal litigation.
The decision appears to focus on the fundamental requirements for meeting a plaintiff's burden of proof in presenting evidence to a jury. Under federal civil procedure, plaintiffs must present sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could find in their favor on the facts alleged. The Sixth Circuit determined that testimony consisting solely of witnesses' lack of recollection fails to meet this threshold.
This evidentiary ruling has significant implications for cases where key witnesses claim memory gaps about crucial events. The court's analysis suggests that mere absence of contrary testimony is insufficient when witnesses cannot affirmatively recall relevant facts. Instead, plaintiffs must present positive evidence supporting their claims rather than relying on witnesses' inability to remember contradictory facts.
The case involved representation by James B. Rasor and Amanda G. Washburn of Rasor Law Firm PLLC in Royal Oak, Michigan, representing Victor on appeal. The defendants were represented by Christina A. Ginter and Katharine Gostek of Kitch Attorneys & Counselors PC in Detroit.
The three-judge panel included Circuit Judges Gilman, Griffin, and Murphy, with Judge Murphy authoring the opinion. The decision was recommended for publication under Sixth Circuit Internal Operating Procedure 32.1(b), indicating the court views the ruling as establishing precedent worthy of broader application.
Advanced Correctional Healthcare, Inc., the corporate defendant in the case, operates as a correctional healthcare provider serving various detention facilities. Such companies typically contract with jails and prisons to provide medical services to inmates, including medication management and emergency care.
The ruling comes amid ongoing scrutiny of medical care in correctional facilities nationwide. Inmates have constitutional rights to adequate medical care under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, established in *Estelle v. Gamble* (1976). However, plaintiffs in such cases must prove deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, which requires substantial evidence of both the severity of the condition and officials' knowledge and disregard of the risk.
The evidentiary standard established in this case could affect future litigation involving correctional healthcare, particularly cases where staff members claim they cannot remember specific incidents or protocols. The ruling suggests courts will require more than gaps in memory to establish liability against healthcare providers and correctional staff.
For correctional facilities and healthcare companies, the decision provides guidance on defending against claims where witnesses have incomplete recollections. However, it also underscores the importance of maintaining detailed medical records and documentation of care provided to inmates.
The case highlights the intersection of evidence law and constitutional rights in the correctional setting. While the Sixth Circuit's ruling addresses procedural evidence standards, it occurs within the broader context of ensuring adequate medical care for detained individuals who cannot seek treatment elsewhere.
Legal practitioners in the Sixth Circuit jurisdiction, which includes Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee, will need to consider this precedent when evaluating the sufficiency of evidence in cases involving witness testimony about recalled events. The decision reinforces that speculation based on memory gaps cannot substitute for affirmative evidence supporting factual claims.