From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cruz v. State

New York State Court of Claims
Jan 20, 2015
# 2015-049-100 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Jan. 20, 2015)

Opinion

# 2015-049-100 Claim No. 119634

01-20-2015

EULESE CRUZ v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Eulese Cruz, Pro Se Eric T. Schneiderman, New York State Attorney General By: Douglas H. Squire, Assistant Attorney General


Synopsis

Following a trial, the Court dismissed inmate's claim that alleges he was negligently administered medication by the medical staff at Attica Correction Facility.

Case information


UID:

2015-049-100

Claimant(s):

EULESE CRUZ

Claimant short name:

CRUZ

Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):

THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):

119634

Motion number(s):

Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:

DAVID A. WEINSTEIN

Claimant's attorney:

Eulese Cruz, Pro Se

Defendant's attorney:

Eric T. Schneiderman, New York State Attorney General By: Douglas H. Squire, Assistant Attorney General

Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:

January 20, 2015

City:

Albany

Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

This decision follows a trial on the claim of Eulese Cruz, an inmate proceeding pro se, which was conducted via videoconference from Elmira Correctional Facility on November 14, 2014. By claim filed March 23, 2011, Cruz seeks monetary damages for injuries allegedly caused by the medical staff at Attica Correctional Facility ("Attica") in negligently administering him ibuprofen over his objections, and despite the staff having knowledge that he was allergic to the medication.

Certain records and testimony refer to Cruz receiving Motrin, a drug which contains ibuprofen. This Decision uses these terms interchangeably.

At trial, Cruz testified as follows: In April 2010, after sustaining injuries as the result of an assault at Attica, he was initially given Tylenol No. 3 to treat the pain he was experiencing. At some point, he was taken off the Tylenol, but his pain resurfaced. He went to sick call and requested pain medication. He advised registered nurse Vance Hawley that he was allergic to aspirin and ibuprofen, and urged the nurse to check his health record to verify this. Nevertheless, Hawley gave him ibuprofen.

Cruz testified that at the time he took the drug, he was unaware that he had been administered ibuprofen. He averred that the nurse removed the medication from its package and placed it in a cup for him to take. Soon after, when he was in his cell, his face became swollen and he had problems breathing. Cruz asked a correction officer to call for the nurse. According to Cruz, he learned that he was given ibuprofen only after the nurse came to his cell and gave him Benadryl to counteract the allergic reaction.

For five days, Cruz suffered a number of symptoms, including swelling, shaking, and the inability to breathe. After the allergic event, he suffered other consequences for two or three weeks more. At some point Cruz' tonsils had to be removed, and he speculated if that was another result of taking the ibuprofen.

Claimant stated that he became aware of his allergies when he was a youngster, and always let Department of Corrections and Community Supervision personnel know about this. He referred to a number of pages from his inmate health record that he submitted as exhibits: claimant's exhibit 1 lists under the allergies section ASA and ibuprofen, and exhibit 2 lists aspirin and NSAID as allergies identified on January 19, 2009 at Downstate Correctional Facility.

ASA is acetylsalicylic acid, or aspirin.

NSAID refers to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs.

Cruz' testimony is somewhat at odds with the account he gave in an inmate grievance filed with the Superintendent of Attica on April 30, 2010 (Def.'s Ex. C). The grievance stated that the nurse prescribed ibuprofen, but Cruz

"told this nurse that [he] could not take this medication because I have an allergic reaction to it and that this is in my medical chart. The nurse at this time disregarded my reluctance/objection to take this medication and told me to take it. I was in so much pain and in lite [sic] of the fact that I would not be given any other relief I reluctantly took this medication."

The grievance was denied (id.). On appeal, the Central Office Review Committee upheld the determination of the Superintendent, finding that "there is no documentation in the grievant's medical record that confirms that he is allergic to [Motrin]" and that the "RN . . . advises that the grievant would not have been given Motrin had he mentioned that he was allergic to it" (id.).

The grievance was granted to the extent that Cruz was permitted to request copies and challenge the accuracy of his health record.

On cross-examination, Cruz acknowledged that while his claim alleges that he could not use his hands after the incident, he was in fact able to use them, to write a portion of his grievance, but only to a limited degree. He noted that while his hands were in pain, they were not broken.

Cruz testified that because of his limited ability to write in English, other inmates helped him to write his grievance and the appeal.
--------

For its part, the State presented the testimony of Hawley, who worked as a nurse at Attica at the time of the incident at issue, and recalled treating claimant. He testified that as a result of an altercation, Cruz was taken to an outside hospital. He subsequently was moved to the Attica infirmary, where he stayed until he was placed in the Special Housing Unit ("SHU").

Hawley saw claimant in SHU, and remembers him complaining of rib pain. Referring to claimant's Ambulatory Health Record (Def's Ex. A), Hawley stated that according to the records, on April 21 and 26 Cruz was given Motrin upon request. Hawley explained that his practice was to ask an inmate what over-the-counter medication has worked in the past to relieve pain, and he would provide the inmate that medication. He averred that if he were aware that an inmate was allergic to a medication, he would never dispense that medication.

In this case, the record indicates that claimant requested Motrin on two separate occasions. On both dates, Hawley gave Cruz two packets of Motrin, one at the time of the visit (around breakfast time), one for later (around dinner time), so that the inmate would take the medication with food to mitigate any gastric distress.

An April 28 entry states that the inmate had requested and was given ibuprofen on two days, but "now states he is allergic." Hawley said that the record does not indicate, as it would have, that he observed any specific allergic symptoms such as swelling or a rash, but as a precaution he gave claimant Benadryl in case Cruz was experiencing any unobservable symptoms, such as itching. According to Hawley, there is no indication in the May 5, 2010 entry that Cruz had experienced an allergic reaction. With regard to an April 6 entry that indicates "states allergies ASA/ibuprofen," Hawley said that the note was written by another nurse, and he only would have seen it if the health record was with him in SHU. He opined that it was "very likely" that he did not have that record, because it would have been kept in the main hospital area and SHU is a "good bit away from there."

On cross-examination, Hawley stated that when he was asked for medication by an inmate, he did not have to first check the inmate's file before dispensing it. He added that if the inmate's health record is available, he would check the record. He noted, however, that it is often the case that in SHU the record is not available to the nurse, because there is typically a lag between the time an inmate arrives in SHU and when the health record appears.

At the close of proof, defendant moved to dismiss the claim on the ground that claimant failed to show that defendant proximately caused any injuries he sustained. I reserved decision thereon, and now grant defendant's motion.

Discussion

The State owes a duty to inmates in its institutions to provide them with medical care and treatment (see Kagan v State of New York, 221 AD2d 7 [2d Dept 1996]; Rivers v State of New York, 159 AD2d 788 [3d Dept 1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 701 [1990]). Such care must be reasonable and adequate, as an inmate must rely upon prison authorities to diagnose and treat his medical needs (see Kagan, 221 AD2d at 11). Claimant, however, bears the burden of establishing that the care and treatment he received at a State facility constituted a deviation from the applicable standard of care (see Hale v State of New York, 53 AD2d 1025 [4th Dept 1976], lv denied 40 NY2d 804 [1976]), and that such deviation was the proximate cause of his injuries (see Hytko v Hennessey, 62 AD3d 1081, 1084 [3d Dept 2009]).

I find that claimant has not met that burden in this case for two reasons.

First, claimant's own testimony is contradictory as to a key point of his claim. At trial, Cruz testified that he was unaware that he was taking ibuprofen. In his claim and grievance, however, he said that he was told that he was being given ibuprofen, and took it over his "objections" or "reluctantly," at the insistence of the nurse. If the trial testimony is true, then it is unclear why Cruz did not give this account in his earlier statements, made closer to the time of the incident. As to the account given in his grievance and claim, it strains credulity that Cruz informed Hawley that he was allergic to ibuprofen, and that the nurse simply disregarded the warning and gave him the medication anyway. There is no apparent reason why, under those circumstances, the nurse would not simply dispense an alternative. And to the extent that Cruz voluntarily ingested the medication to which he knew he was allergic, he can hardly now lay blame at the feet of the State.

In any case, these contradictions, on a basic element of his claim, severely undermine its credibility. In light of the consistent testimony given by Hawley, I find that claimant has not met his burden to prove defendant's negligence.

In addition, and even if I were to credit Cruz' factual account, I could not grant him relief, since he cannot prevail on his claim without expert testimony. Whether this claim can be characterized as one sounding in medical malpractice or one for negligence, "[u]nder either theory, '[w]here medical issues are not within the ordinary experience and knowledge of lay persons, expert medical opinion is . . . required' to establish that defendant's alleged negligence or deviation from an accepted standard of care caused or contributed to claimant's injuries" (Wood v State of New York, 45 AD3d 1198, 1198 [3d Dept 2007], quoting Wells v State of New York, 228 AD2d 581, 582 [2d Dept 1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 814 [1996]).

Here, claimant's contentions are not supported by expert medical testimony. At the very least, such testimony is necessary to establish the causal connection between his ingestion of ibuprofen and the various physical symptoms he claims to have suffered as a result (see Johnson v State of New York, UID No. 2008-044-567 [Ct Cl, Schaewe, J., Aug. 1, 2008] [denying claimant's motion for summary judgment; "[e]ven if the Court accepts claimant's allegations that eating the 'diet loaf' made him sick, and that defendant had notice of his potato allergy as true, claimant has failed to provide medical evidence necessary to establish a causal relationship between ingesting the "diet loaf" and his resulting illness"]; Latine v State of New York, UID No. 2006-031-512 [Ct Cl, Minarik, J., May 22, 2006] [causes of action for medical malpractice and medical negligence based on alleged illness due to correctional facility's service of food to which claimant was allergic; court cannot find that "preparation of the food caused Claimant's medical problems [without] expert testimony"]; see also Duffen v State of New York, 245 AD2d 653, 653-654 [3d Dept 1997] [claimant could not establish connection between delay in providing medication and dizziness absent expert testimony]). To the extent that claimant relies on his medical record to establish that defendant's actions proximately caused the injuries he alleges, this also fails. There is nothing in the record that indicates that claimant had an allergic reaction. Rather, it indicates that Benadryl was provided to Cruz as a precaution.

In view of the foregoing, defendant's application to dismiss the claim no. 119634 is granted.

All objections or motions that have not yet been ruled upon are denied.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

January 20, 2015

Albany, New York

DAVID A. WEINSTEIN

Judge of the Court of Claims


Summaries of

Cruz v. State

New York State Court of Claims
Jan 20, 2015
# 2015-049-100 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Jan. 20, 2015)
Case details for

Cruz v. State

Case Details

Full title:EULESE CRUZ v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Court:New York State Court of Claims

Date published: Jan 20, 2015

Citations

# 2015-049-100 (N.Y. Ct. Cl. Jan. 20, 2015)