Opinion
# 2011-031-508 Claim No. 113614
09-30-2011
BROWN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
Claimant who alleges that Defendant failed to effectively treat him for recurring headaches failed to demonstrate a cause of action for either medical malpractice or medical neglect. Claim dismissed. Case information
UID: 2011-031-508 Claimant(s): JOSH BROWN Claimant short name: BROWN Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 113614 Motion number(s): Cross-motion number(s): Judge: RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK Claimant's attorney: JOSH BROWN, PRO SE HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General Defendant's attorney: BY: BONNIE GAIL LEVY, ESQ. Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: September 30, 2011 City: Rochester Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
Claimant, Josh Brown, filed amended Claim No. 113614 on June 22, 2007, alleging he was the victim of negligence and medical malpractice at Auburn Correctional Facility (Auburn). Specifically, Mr. Brown alleges that between November 24, 2006 and March 5, 2007, he suffered from recurring and very painful headaches. Mr. Brown testified that, despite his repeated visits to the Auburn infirmary during this approximately three month period, he never received treatment that effectively alleviated his symptoms. He conceded on cross-examination that he was seen frequently during this period by medical professionals at Auburn, and that they prescribed pain medication for him. In fact, upon his continued complaints, a new type of pain medication was tried in early January of 2007. This too, however, failed to alleviate Claimant's headaches.
Claimant did not call an expert witness but testified that he believes that Defendant's failure to provide him with appropriate medication to cure his headaches constitutes negligence and or malpractice.
Clearly, the State has a duty to provide reasonable and adequate medical care to its inmates (Auger v State of New York, 263 AD2d 929). The State may be cast in liability for injuries that result because its physicians fail to use ordinary and reasonable care or to exercise their best judgment in applying the knowledge and skill ordinarily possessed by practitioners in the field (Hale v State of New York, 53 AD2d 1025). However, only expert medical proof can establish the necessary legal causation required to impose liability and demonstrate that there was a deviation from good and accepted standards of medical care (see Rossi v Arnot Ogden Med. Ctr., 268 AD2d 916; Spicer v Community Family Planning Council Health Ctr., 272 AD2d 317; Lyons v McCauley, 252 AD2d 516). Claimant has failed to provide such expert testimony, and nothing contained in his medical records (Exhibit F) or the related grievances filed by Claimant (Exhibits B-E) demonstrates the required deviation from accepted medical standards.
Claimant has also alleged simple negligence relating to Defendant's failure to properly treat the symptoms of his headaches. However, this theory is limited to "those cases where the alleged negligent act may be readily determined by the trier of the facts based on common knowledge" (Coursen v New York Hosp.-Cornell Med. Ctr., 114 AD2d 254, 256). Such cases have involved scalding a patient with a hot water bottle (Phillips v Buffalo Gen. Hosp., 239 NY 188), leaving an electric light bulb under the sheets (Dillon v Rockaway Beach Hosp., 284 NY 176), leaving a postoperative patient unattended in a bathroom (Coursen v New York Hosp.-Cornell Med. Ctr., 114 AD2d 254), and other similar circumstances.
Here, as the issues involved relate to the proper treatment of Claimant's medical condition, a cause of action for neglect or negligence cannot stand. Whether a claim is couched in terms of negligence or medical malpractice, if the issues involve conditions beyond the common knowledge of a fact-finder, expert medical proof will be required to sustain a recovery (Duffen v State of New York, 245 AD2d 653).
For me to conclude that Defendant was negligent for not finding the correct medication for Claimant's headaches earlier, I would necessarily require expert input on the subject. Claimant's failure to present any expert medical proof tending to show that the State deviated from accepted medical standards in diagnosing and treating his condition is fatal to his claim.
Consequently, Claimant has failed to establish a prima facie case of either negligence or medical malpractice. Accordingly, the claim is dismissed. All other motions on which I previously reserved decision are hereby denied.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
September 30, 2011
Rochester, New York
RENÉE FORGENSI MINARIK
Judge of the Court of Claims