Opinion
CV154007512S
08-28-2018
Randal LICARI (Inmate #345797) v. WARDEN
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OPINION
Kwak, J.
The petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus on September 10, 2015. The pro se petition was not amended. The petitioner alleges that he is not receiving adequate medical care while in the custody of the respondent warden. More specifically, the petitioner alleges that while in the custody of the Department of Correction (DOC), he had surgery to repair a hernia, but that he has experienced ever increasing pain subsequent to the surgery. The respondent’s return denies the petitioner’s allegations and asserts that the petitioner has been provided adequate and sufficient medical care by DOC.
The parties appeared before this court on May 22, 2018, for a trial on the merits. The petitioner presented testimony in support of his claims. The respondent called one witness, Dr. Monica Farinella, MD. Both parties entered documents into evidence.
For the reasons articulated more fully below, judgment shall enter denying the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARD
"The Constitution does not mandate comfortable prisons, but neither does it permit inhumane ones, and it is now settled that the treatment a prisoner receives in prison and the conditions under which he is confined are subject to scrutiny under the Eighth Amendment. In its prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments, the Eighth Amendment places restraints on prison officials, who may not, for example, use excessive physical force against prisoners. The Amendment also imposes duties on these officials, who must provide humane conditions of confinement; prison officials must ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, and must take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates." (Internal citations and quotation marks omitted.) Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 832, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994).
"The [e]ighth [a]mendment prohibits the infliction of cruel and unusual punishments. U.S. Const. amend VIII. This includes punishments that involve the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 173 , 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976)." Faraday v. Commissioner of Correction, 288 Conn. 326, 338, 952 A.2d 764 (2008). "The eighth amendment, which applies to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution; see, e.g., Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 344-45, 101 S.Ct. 2392, 69 L.Ed.2d 59 (1981); ‘prohibits detention in a manner that constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.’ Hunnicutt v. Commissioner of Correction, 67 Conn.App. 65, 66, 787 A.2d 22 (2001). ‘Cruel and unusual punishment refers to punishment that involves the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain or is grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime.’ Santiago v. Commissioner of Correction, [ 39 Conn.App. 674, 683, 667 A.2d 304 (1995) ]. Under the eighth amendment, ‘prison officials must ensure that inmates receive adequate food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, and must take reasonable measures to guarantee the safety of the inmates ...’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Farmer v. Brennan, [supra, 511 U.S. 832]." Fuller v. Commissioner of Correction, 75 Conn.App. 133, 136, 815 A.2d 208, cert. denied, 263 Conn.App. 65, 66, 787 A.2d 1217 (2003).
To prevail on a habeas claim challenging the conditions of confinement, a petitioner must demonstrate by objective evidence that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference concerning his serious medical needs. Hunnicutt v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 67 Conn.App. 69-70; Faraday v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 288 Conn. 338-40. Additionally, "... subjective deliberate indifference means that a prison official cannot be found liable under the [e]ighth [a]mendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health safety ..." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fuller v. Commissioner, supra, 75 Conn.App. 137.
FACTUAL FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
On April 15, 2015, the petitioner received a double hernia operation at the University of Connecticut Health Center (UCONN Health). Since then, the petitioner has reported pain that has persisted in the hernia repair site and which has increased over time. The petitioner has requested medical attention some fifty-six times. Treatments to address the pain- steroid injections, Lidocaine patches, various pain medications- have not worked. One possible cause of the pain is entrapment of the ilioinguinal nerve, a common complication of hernia repair surgery. See Petitioner’s Exhibit 3, p. 7. A medical procedure referred to as a bilateral ilioinguinal nerve block was performed to address the pain experienced by the petitioner.
Dr. Farinella, the interim Medical Director, Correctional Managed Health Care, UCONN Health, testified that the correctional facility where the petitioner is confined, Willard-Cybulski Correctional Institution, is able to provide the medical needs of inmates. Dr. Farinella has not personally examined the petitioner, but has reviewed the petitioner’s medical records, including those pertaining to his hernia surgery and post-surgery treatment.
The petitioner’s hernias were surgically repaired and there are no issues regarding the repair itself. The petitioner presented back after the surgery for complaints of pain. The pain was addressed and the petitioner had a follow up appointment with the surgeon, as well an appointment with an urologist because of pain that the petitioner was reporting in his testes. These complaints of ongoing and/or heightened pain were treated both with medications (e.g., Lidocaine and Prednisone) and the nerve block procedure. A concern was that there had been nerve entrapment; however, because the nerve block procedure did not work, it is highly unlikely that there is nerve entrapment. The petitioner’s continuing pain is not life threatening and efforts have been made to find a solution to alleviate or eliminate the pain.
According to Dr. Farinella, the petitioner wants the mesh that was surgically implanted to repair his hernias removed. The petitioner apparently has become aware of the fact that there have been recalls of such surgical meshes. However, Dr. Farinella testified that the mesh implanted in the petitioner has not been recalled and that there is no medically indicated reason to remove the petitioner’s mesh. To the contrary: it is medically contraindicated to remove the mesh because the risks of mesh removal outweigh any benefits. There also is no guarantee that removal of the mesh would relieve the pain.
Dr. Farinella noted that the petitioner has received all appropriate medical treatment. Due to the opioid crisis, treatment is shifting away from administering opioids for pain management. The petitioner’s pain, despite all medically appropriate treatment, has not been successfully addressed. The petitioner’s treatment plan in the future does not include nerve blocking; instead, it will involve the administering of non-opioid medications and cognitive behavior therapy.
A review of the testimony and exhibits leads the court to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to show "deliberate indifference" to his medical needs. See Faraday v. Commissioner of Correction, supra ; Hunnicutt v. Commissioner of Correction, supra ; Santiago v. Commissioner of Correction, supra . The respondent has provided adequate medical care and has not been deliberately indifferent because of awareness and disregard of a risk to the petitioner’s health. Fuller v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 75 Conn.App. 137. Consequently, and based upon the foregoing, the court concludes that the petitioner has failed in his burden of proof.
CONCLUSION
Judgment shall enter for the respondent and the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.
It is so ordered.