During a five-minute medical examination in a
detention facility, Dr. Fredesvindo Rodriguez-Garcia
mistakenly concluded that Fior Pichardo de Veloz, a
female pretrial detainee in menopause, was a male in
the midst of a gender transition. He based his
conclusion on a note in Pichardo's file indicating that
she was taking hormone replacement therapy, which
he knew to be prescribed to both transgender
individuals and women in menopause.

The court of appeals denied qualified immunity to
Dr. Rodriguez-Garcia, without identifying precedent
that clearly established a constitutional right and
without addressing Pichardo's decision not to raise an
argument that Dr. Rodriguez-Garcia's conduct violated
clearly established law until her reply brief on appeal.

The questions presented are:

1. Did the court of appeals err in denying qualified
immunity in the absence of precedent clearly
establishing the violative nature of Dr. RodriguezGarcia's particular conduct?

2. Did the court of appeals err in refusing to find
that Pichardo forfeited the argument that Dr.
Rodriguez-Garcia is not entitled to qualified immunity?

Whether the court of appeals erred in denying qualified immunity to Dr. Rodriguez-Garcia without identifying precedent clearly establishing the violative nature of his conduct, and in refusing to find that Pichardo forfeited the argument that Dr. Rodriguez-Garcia is not entitled to qualified immunity