Factual Disputes and the Limits of Interlocutory Qualified Immunity Appeals under the Collateral Order Doctrine

Introduction

This commentary examines the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Kelsey Smith v. Michael Whitsel, decided April 17, 2025. The case arises from the tragic death by dehydration of Dalynn Kee while detained at the Macon County Jail in Decatur, Illinois. Kee’s estate sued Correctional Officer Michael Whitsel under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging he violated her Fourteenth Amendment right to adequate medical care during opioid withdrawal. When the district court denied Whitsel’s summary‐judgment motion—particularly his qualified immunity defense—he pursued an interlocutory appeal. The Seventh Circuit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding that genuine disputes of material fact prevented resolution of qualified immunity as a matter of law and thus fell outside the collateral order doctrine.

Summary of the Judgment

The court’s per curiam opinion established these key points:

The denial of qualified immunity is immediately appealable only when the threshold immunity question can be decided purely as a matter of law under the collateral order doctrine.
Where, as here, material facts are in dispute—such as what Whitsel observed on video, the scope of his duties versus medical staff, and whether medical judgment was exercised—jurisdiction for an interlocutory appeal is lacking.
The appeal was therefore dismissed for want of appellate jurisdiction, and the case will proceed in district court on the merits.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court relied heavily on its own and Supreme Court precedents to delineate the boundary of interlocutory qualified immunity appeals:

Johnson v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 (1995): Denial of summary judgment based on disputed facts is not immediately appealable.
Gant v. Hartman, 924 F.3d 445 (7th Cir. 2019): Qualified immunity appeals must be purely legal inquiries; factual disputes defeat jurisdiction.
Stewardson v. Biggs, 43 F.4th 732 (7th Cir. 2022) and Smith v. Finkley, 10 F.4th 725 (7th Cir. 2021): Mixed questions of law and fact are not subject to collateral‐order review.
Davis v. Allen, 112 F.4th 487 (7th Cir. 2024): A challenge to the sufficiency of evidence in qualified immunity is barred from interlocutory appeal.
Other Eighth Amendment and medical‐deference decisions (e.g., King v. Kramer, 680 F.3d 1013 (7th Cir. 2013); McGee v. Parsano, 55 F.4th 563 (7th Cir. 2022)) were discussed to contrast where factual clarity permitted immunity rulings.

Legal Reasoning

The Seventh Circuit’s analysis turned on two pillars:

Collateral Order Doctrine Limits
Only decisions “effectively final” on immunity, purely legal in nature, are reviewable before trial. If liability turns on conflicting witness accounts, credibility determinations, or evolving inferences, an interlocutory appeal is improper.
Qualified Immunity as a Mixed Question
Whitsel claimed entitlement by deferring to medical staff under the “medical‐deference” rule. But whether that rule applies depends on disputed facts—who had primary observation duty, what Whitsel actually saw, and whether medical professionals exercised judgment in Kee’s care.

Because the district court found genuine issues of material fact on each critical point, the panel lacked authority to resolve the immunity question at this stage.

Impact

This decision clarifies and reinforces the boundary between what a court may decide before trial and what must await a full factual record:

It curtails interlocutory appeals in § 1983 suits where qualified immunity depends on contested evidence.
Lower courts will apply a stricter filter: immunity appeals must hinge on undisputed record material, failing which defendants must proceed to trial.
The ruling balances the need to protect officials from harassment with the principle that factual development can be essential to determine liability.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Qualified Immunity: Shields government officials from suit unless they violate a clearly established right that a reasonable official would have known.
Collateral Order Doctrine: Allows immediate appeals of certain non‐final decisions—such as denials of absolute immunity or jurisdictional rulings—if they conclusively determine important rights and would be unreviewable later.
Mixed Questions of Law and Fact: Situations where both legal standards and factual determinations overlap. Courts must resolve facts before applying law; such questions are generally not immediately appealable.
Medical‐Deference Rule: Nonmedical correctional officers may rely on professional medical judgment—unless they have reason to believe care is inadequate. Whether that reliance is reasonable depends on what the officer knew or should have known.

Conclusion

Kelsey Smith v. Michael Whitsel underscores that qualified immunity appeals are not a vehicle to litigate factual disputes prematurely. The Seventh Circuit reaffirmed that when liability hinges on contested evidence—about observations, duties, or medical judgment—a defendant must await a final judgment before appealing. This decision will guide courts to police the scope of interlocutory review, ensuring that immunity protects officials from baseless claims while preserving plaintiffs’ rights to develop their cases where factual questions remain open.