Opinion
# 2020-040-022 Claim No. 126075
05-04-2020
JASON EARL CAMPO v. THE STATE NEW YORK
Jason Earl Campo, Pro Se LETITIA JAMES Attorney General of the State of New York By: Douglas R. Kemp, Esq., AAG
Synopsis
Following Trial, Court finds pro se Claimant failed to establish his Claim by a preponderance of the credible evidence.
Case information
| UID: | 2020-040-022 |
| Claimant(s): | JASON EARL CAMPO |
| Claimant short name: | CAMPO |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 126075 |
| Motion number(s): | |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY |
| Claimant's attorney: | Jason Earl Campo, Pro Se |
|---|---|
| Defendant's attorney: | LETITIA JAMES Attorney General of the State of New York By: Douglas R. Kemp, Esq., AAG |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | May 4, 2020 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Pro se Claimant, Jason Earl Campo, failed to establish, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that Defendant was liable in connection with his Claim. A trial of the Claim was held on March 11, 2020, at the Court of Claims in Albany, New York. At trial, the Court had marked as Court Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively, Claimant's filed Claim and the State's filed Answer. Claimant submitted into evidence two documents (Exs. 2 and 3). The Court also reserved its decision on the State's objections to the introduction into evidence of Claimant's Exhibit 1. Upon due consideration, the Court now overrules the objections to Exhibit 1 (a copy of a three-page medical report dated March 20, 2013), and it is admitted into evidence and was considered by the Court. Defendant submitted into evidence one exhibit, a copy of Claimant's Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (hereinafter, "DOCCS") medical record (Ex. A). Claimant was the only person to testify at trial.
Claimant testified that he had surgery on his right shoulder on April 23, 2013, prior to being incarcerated (see Ex. 1, p. 2). Claimant stated that he was incarcerated at the Ulster County Jail on June 5, 2013 and was transferred to State custody at Downstate Correctional Facility on June 17, 2013. Exhibit 2 is a copy of his DOCCS Health Screening for Reception/Classification form. Page 2 of the document contains a notation that Claimant had a sling and reported limited range of motion in his right shoulder. Exhibit 2 (p. 5, handwritten p. 8) records that Claimant reported he has had ulnar nerve damage from his right shoulder to his hand since December 31, 2012, and that he had arthroscopic surgery on his right shoulder.
Claimant testified that, on August 17, 2013, while incarcerated at Franklin Correctional Facility (hereinafter, "Franklin"), he re-injured his right shoulder working at his job at Franklin while lifting equipment out of the recreational yard storage shack that is kept there for the inmates (see Court Ex. 1, ¶¶ 3, 4). Claimant stated that, despite his prior shoulder surgery and his complaints of shoulder pain, he was given the job in the recreation yard that required him to lift heavy equipment which resulted in him re-injuring his right shoulder. According to Claimant, this was a violation of his doctor's post-surgical orders. Exhibit 2, handwritten page 19, shows that Claimant received a Franklin Medical Excuse dated August 22, 2013 stating he was not to lift anything over 20 pounds (see also Ex. A, p. 20). Claimant stated that he had made many complaints to the medical staff that his shoulder was hurting from working in the recreation yard prior to his injury. Claimant stated that he had an MRI of his right shoulder in December 2013 and it showed new damage. He was seen by an orthopaedic surgeon in February 2014 and had surgery on his right shoulder on February 25, 2014 (see Ex. 3).
Claimant testified on cross examination that, when he was transferred to DOCCS' custody, he was seen by several nurses and a medical evaluation was performed. He believes that the nurses should have put a limitation on his use of his right shoulder. He was transferred to Franklin on July 8, 2013 and he was evaluated again by nursing staff, but no limitations were imposed limiting the use of his right shoulder. Claimant stated that he disagrees with the nurses' medical determination. Claimant was referred to Exhibit A (his DOCCS medical record) and the Ambulatory Health Record (hereinafter, "AHR") entry for July 11, 2013. Claimant agreed that the note indicates that Claimant complained about right shoulder pain, however, the entry does not indicate Claimant complained about his work assignment (Ex. A, p. 17). Claimant also agreed that the AHR record for July 22, 2013 reports that he requested to see a doctor for right shoulder pain and the entry does not indicate he was complaining about his work assignment (id., p. 18).
Claimant agreed that he stated he was injured on August 17, 2013. He further agreed that the first AHR entry after the date he was injured is August 22, 2013, five days later. He further agreed that the note states he was complaining of pain in his right shoulder and there is no indication that he injured his shoulder while working in the yard (id., p. 19). The only notation in the AHR where it is noted that Claimant requested program restrictions is dated August 30, 2013 (id.).
When the State engages in a proprietary function, such as providing medical care, it is held to the same duty of care as private actors engaging in similar functions (Schrempf v State of New York, 66 NY2d 289, 294 [1985]; see Sebastian v State of New York, 93 NY2d 790, 793 [1999]). Thus, it is "fundamental law that the State has a duty to provide reasonable and adequate medical care to the inmates of its prisons" (Rivers v State of New York, 159 AD2d 788, 789 [3d Dept 1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 701 [1990]). In order to maintain an action for injuries sustained while under the care and control of a medical practitioner and/or medical facility, "a party may proceed upon a theory of simple negligence or upon the more particularized theory of medical malpractice" (Hale v State of New York, 53 AD2d 1025 [4th Dept 1976], lv denied 40 NY2d 804 [1976]). "The distinction between ordinary negligence and malpractice turns on whether the acts or omissions complained of involve a matter of medical science or art requiring special skills not ordinarily possessed by [laypersons] or whether the conduct complained of can instead be assessed on the basis of the common everyday experience of the trier of the facts" (Miller v Albany Med. Ctr. Hosp., 95 AD2d 977, 978 [3d Dept 1983]; see Twitchell v MacKay, 78 AD2d 125, 127 [4th Dept 1980]).
In a medical malpractice claim, where such issues are not within the usual experience and knowledge possessed by laypersons, expert medical testimony is required in order for a claimant to meet the burden of proving that a defendant's alleged negligence constitutes a deviation or departure from accepted practice, and evidence must be provided that such deviation was the proximate cause of the injury asserted (Myers v State of New York, 46 AD3d 1030 [3d Dept 2007]; Wood v State of New York, 45 AD3d 1198 [3d Dept 2007]; Tatta v State of New York, 19 AD3d 817, 818 [3d Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 712 [2005]).
The Court has considered all the evidence, including a review of the exhibits and listening to Claimant testify, and observing his demeanor as he did so. Claimant provided earnest and straightforward testimony concerning the deficiencies he perceives in the treatment he received for his shoulder. Mr. Campo's sincerity notwithstanding, the Court finds the acts or omissions of which Claimant complains cannot be assessed by the trier of fact on the basis of its common, everyday experience. Thus, in the absence of any testimony from a medical expert that medical staff should have placed medical restrictions on his work prior to his August 2013 injury the Court determines and concludes that Claimant has failed to establish, by a preponderance of the credible evidence, that Claimant's work assignments should have been restricted or limited by DOCCS medical personnel prior to his August 17, 2013 injury.
The medical records do not show any medical determination, prior to Claimant's August 2013 injury, that his DOCCS work assignments should be restricted or limited. The medical records do establish, however, that Claimant availed himself of the medical staff by requesting sick call on a number of occasions, that the medical staff treated him for his complaints, and that he was provided several medical excuse slips after his injury that imposed work restrictions on his activities. Claimant provided no evidence to support his assertion that Defendant should have known that he needed physical therapy or that his work activities should have been restricted or limited.
Based upon all the foregoing, the Court concludes that Claimant failed to establish his Claim by a preponderance of the credible evidence and the Claim is dismissed.
All motions and cross-motions are denied as moot. All objections upon which the Court reserved determination during trial, which have not been addressed herein, are now overruled.
The Chief Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
May 4, 2020
Albany, New York
CHRISTOPHER J. McCARTHY
Judge of the Court of Claims