Predisposed: Race, Disability, and Death Investigations

Abstract

Disability, preexisting conditions, or underlying conditions might seem like uncontroversial factors to cite when determining an individual’s cause of death. However, many death investigators have also cited these conditions in deaths caused by state violence or neglect. For example, a 2021 study found that medical examiners cited sickle cell trait, a gene mutation, as a cause or significant factor in the deaths of forty-seven Black people who died in police custody in the past twenty-five years. Sickle cell trait is a relatively common and benign trait disproportionately found in Black people in the United States. It is also distinct from the potentially fatal sickle cell anemia or disease.

Death investigators’ use of disability—including perceived disability—as an explanation for Black death at the hands of the state illustrates the relationship between racism and ableism and facilitates the maintenance of both. It perpetuates the myth of genetic difference and “inferiority” based on race. It also suggests that disability is a justifiable defense to homicide. This suggestion enables the development of state created “disabilities,” such as excited delirium—a pseudo condition supposedly based on physical traits and behaviors unique to Black people—as exculpatory mechanisms to justify social control. Finally, it potentially establishes the slippery slope that Black disabled people—including those who might not identify as disabled—cannot legally be “killed” by external forces.

Yet responses to the death investigation study, like other critiques of police killings of Black people, largely focused on the impact of the discovery for racial justice in the form of police accountability. For example, journalists and scholars decried the pattern of citing sickle cell trait as a troublesome ploy that has enabled police to evade prosecution or liability. In addition to police violence, however, death investigators’ attribution of the deaths of the disproportionately Black victims of natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina to heart disease ascribes a narrative of disability as internal “flaw” to otherwise external deaths.

Much of the scholarship concerning death investigation reform focuses on the purported greater reliability of medical examiner systems compared to coroner systems, developing standard qualification requirements for death investigators, or establishing death investigators’ independence from the political pressures they face. This Article, however, expounds on the racial justice consequences of death investigation by analyzing death investigators’ use of disability as a justification for the deaths of Black people who die due to state violence or neglect. Using examples of Black people who died from police violence and natural disasters whose causes of death were characterized as resulting from preexisting conditions, this Article employs news reports, autopsy reports, and litigation filings over five decades—from the 1980s to the 2020s—to review the history of the death investigation system and procedures. It explores the extent to which disability can be and has been attributed to a person’s cause of death as well as the racial justice implications of those attributions.

I call for a broadening of the death investigation reform process to include parameters concerning the use of disability to ensure it is not used as pretext for racial discrimination. Such reforms might include formal collaboration between medical and legal professionals to develop policy recommendations to assess and address the social impact of acknowledged differences between medical and legal determinations of causation.

About the Author

Associate Professor of Law, Director, Civil Rights and Disability Justice Clinic, New York Law School; J.D., University of Pennsylvania Law School; B.A., Howard University. I would like to thank all the coordinators of and participants in the 2023 Health Law Scholars Workshop at Saint Louis University’s Center for Health Law Studies, especially Ruqaiijah Yearby, Sandy Johnson, Elizabeth Pendo, Taleed El-Sabawi, Elizabeth Chiarello, Jill Wieber Lens, and Fred Rottnek for their detailed feedback. I also received helpful commentary from the 2023 Association of American Law Schools Section on Law Professors with Disabilities and Allies Junior Faculty Works- In-Progress Session, especially Laura Rothstein, Mark Rothstein, Pamela Foohey, and Doron Dorfman, the 2024 Annual Meeting of the American Association for the History of Medicine, and from my colleagues in the New York Law School Faculty Workshop, especially Justin Murray. Additionally, I am grateful for the New York Law School Mendik Library staff , especially Grace Lee, Michael McCarthy, and Camille Broussard for helping me to obtain original source material for this Article. Thank you to Deans Anthony Crowell and Bill LaPiana for their continuous support of this project, including through summer research grant funding. I would also like to thank Caitlin McGuire, Ian Head, Eileen Clancy, Karen Tani, Jasmine Harris, Alexis Hoag-Fordjour, Jamelia Morgan, Deborah Jeon, Sonia Kumar, and Sarah Lorr for assistance ranging from edits to public records requests to efforts to connect me to people and things as I researched, to reading early drafts, and listening to me vent. I sincerely appreciate Celine Agard, Thomas Barranca, Taylor Foster, Blanca Gates, Megan Johannesen, Alexandra Ogunsanya, and Arya Parasnis for their diligent research assistance over the course of more than two years working on this Article. I would especially like to thank Sanjana Ganesh, L.L.M., University of Southern California Gould School of Law, for her excellent archival work at the Los Angeles Superior Court Archives and Records Center. Last, but especially not least, thank you to the editors of the UCLA Law Review for their enthusiasm for and careful editing of this piece.

By LRIRE