with the unconstitutional denial of Davis' access to adequate medical care. For that injury the jury returned a verdict in Davis' favor for $ 1 in compensatory damages and an aggregate of $ 1,500 in punitive damages, and this Court entered judgment on that verdict. Now the individual defendants have filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict under Fed. R. Civ. P. ("Rule") 50(b). Little discussion is required to explain why that motion must be denied.
Just as defendants' counsel did during the course of argument on his motions for directed verdict and as he continued to assert during the jury instruction conference, he once again urges this Court to disregard the express language employed by our Court of Appeals in Matzker v. Herr, 748 F.2d 1142, 1147 n. 3 (7th Cir. 1984). In the text to which that footnote relates, Matzker stated the operative rule of law in this way (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 545, 60 L. Ed. 2d 447, 99 S. Ct. 1861 (1979)):
Accordingly, a pretrial detainee's due process right to be free from punishment is violated when a jailer fails to promptly and reasonably procure competent medical aid for a pretrial detainee who suffers a serious illness or injury while confined.