BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judge. On the morning of November 21, 2018, the day before Thanksgiving, Bill Heeter told his wife Karen he was about to commit suicide. Mr. Heeter’s brother called the police to stop him. At about 10:05 a.m., officers began to arrive at the family’s Columbus, Ohio home. They spotted Mr. Heeter through his kitchen window—he was sitting at a table smoking a cigarette, with one hand on his pistol. He told the officers he’d put his gun away if they left. At approximately 10:15 a.m., a group of officers entered the house with their weapons drawn. At 10:17 a.m., Officer Kenneth Bowers fired five rounds from his M16 service rifle into Mr. Heeter’s chest. At 10:57 a.m., Mr. Heeter was pronounced dead at the hospital. Police bodycam footage captured almost everything that happened. It shows that a police sergeant called the paramedics. It also shows that Officer Bowers did not administer first aid or otherwise try to help Mr. Heeter while waiting for the paramedics to arrive, even though Mr. Heeter was audibly and visibly alive, hemorrhaging blood, and struggling to breathe.

The Heeters’ three children and their mother (as the representative of Mr. Heeter’s estate) sued Officer Bowers and the Columbus Police Department (a subdivision of the City of Columbus) for civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for violations of state tort law. Officer Bowers and the City asserted that qualified immunity and Ohio statutes meant they could not be sued. Based on careful review of the video, the district court granted the defendants immunity from some claims but denied others.

The two constitutional claims against Officer Bowers that survived qualified immunity in the district court are the central focus of this appeal. First, the Heeters claim that Officer Bowers used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment when he shot and killed Mr. Heeter. Second, the Heeters claim that Officer Bowers violated Mr. Heeter’s Fourteenth Amendment right to adequate medical care while in police custody because he stood idle after the paramedics were called, rather than provide the emergency first aid Mr. Heeter obviously needed.

We conclude, contrary to the Heeters’ motion to dismiss this appeal, that we have jurisdiction to review both claims. On the merits, we affirm the district court’s denial of state-law immunity and qualified immunity as to Officer Bowers in his individual capacity, so the Heeters’ constitutional and state-law claims against him may proceed to trial. But, just as the district court held that the City was entitled to summary judgment on the federal claims, the City was also entitled to summary judgment on the state-law claims because of an Ohio municipal immunity statute. We reverse solely on the issue of municipal immunity for the City, and otherwise affirm.

MATHIS, Circuit Judge. Karen Frohn cared for her husband, Greg Frohn, during their entire marriage.¹ In January 2018, Karen applied for and received a life insurance policy on her husband’s life from Globe Life and Accident Insurance Company. Greg died about nine months after that, and Karen submitted a claim for death benefits that Globe later denied. Karen then sued Globe individually and on behalf of a putative class of beneficiaries challenging the denial of her claim.

As Karen’s case progressed, the parties made several motions relevant here. First, Karen moved for a protective order to prevent Globe from seeking Greg’s medical records and medical history during discovery. The district court denied that motion in part. After that, Globe moved for summary judgment, arguing that it was entitled to rescind the life insurance policy because Karen was not truthful in her application for insurance. The district court granted Globe’s motion, barring Karen from recovery on her claims against Globe. Karen also asked the court to redact certain portions of that order, but the district court published it without any redactions. Karen challenges these three decisions on appeal. For the reasons below, we affirm.

ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Plumber’s Local 290 Pension Trust Fund (Plumber’s Local), on behalf of the individual plaintiffs and all others similarly situated in this case, appeals the district court’s dismissal of its complaint for failure to state a claim. We AFFIRM.