From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McKinnon v. Thelma

Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford
Nov 5, 2010
2010 Ct. Sup. 21588 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2010)

Opinion

No. CV 08-5016588

November 5, 2010


MEMORANDUM OF DECISION DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT


The plaintiff, James MacKinnon, a self-represented party, sues the defendant, a nurse at the MacDougall-Walker Correctional Institution, where he was incarcerated, in her individual capacity, claiming a violation of due process under the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution and invasion of privacy pursuant to 43 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff also indicates on the first page of his complaint that he is "a disabled prisoner under Americans with Disabilities Act of (ADA) Complaint to Add (ADA) claim." (Citations omitted.) The gravamen of the plaintiff's complaint is that the defendant disclosed private medical information in the course of dispensing medication to him on November 10, 2007, to non-medical staff, when she "blurted out" within the hearing of a correction officer who came upon a heated discussion between the plaintiff and the defendant that, "I don't know why he [McKinnon] is so upset . . . it is just aspirin!" By way of relief, the plaintiff claims "physical damage including personal humiliation and mental anguish and emotional distress" and seeks compensatory and punitive damages of $150,000. The plaintiff also alleges that he has exhausted his administrative remedies.

The defendant moves for summary judgment on the grounds that the plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action. Summary judgment "shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, affidavits and any other proof submitted show that there is no genuine issue of as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Practice Book § 17-49.

The grounds asserted in the motion for summary judgment are several: (1) Although the right to maintain the confidentiality of previously undisclosed medical information has been extended to prisoners, it may be waived by commencement of a lawsuit and, in this case, information relating to the plaintiff's medical condition has been previously disclosed by the plaintiff himself in connection with other lawsuits he has initiated. (2) Medical information may be disclosed if reasonably related to a "legitimate penological interest" such as prison security which outweighs a prisoner's privacy rights. (3) The statement in question does not contain confidential medical information. (4) Although a valid ADA claim may be stated against a state official in his or her official capacity, a lawsuit pursuant to the ADA may not be maintained against a state employee such as the defendant in her individual capacity. (5) The claimed violation does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. (6) The defendant is entitled to qualified immunity in that the act in question, that is, the defendant's statement to a correction officer saying that she was attempting to dispense aspirin to the plaintiff involved a discretionary act which did not violate an established statutory or constitutional right which a reasonable person would have known. (7) Finally, the defendant is entitled to statutory immunity pursuant to General Statutes § 4-165 in that she is being sued in her individual capacity for conduct occurring in connection with the discharge of her duties as a nurse and within the scope of her employment and there is no allegation or evidence that the conduct in question is either wanton, reckless or malicious.

In support of the motion for summary judgment, among other documents relating to the subject matter of this lawsuit, the defendant attaches an affidavit of Correction Officer Steven Lussier, in whose presence the disclosure was made, an affidavit of Thelma Issri, the nurse who made the disclosure, a listing of seventeen lawsuits brought by the plaintiff in state court, and four decisions of state and federal judges disposing of other cases brought by the plaintiff at least two of which assert violations of the plaintiff's right to confidential medical information. Attached to his complaint and as referenced in his memorandum in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff submits an Inmate Request Form as evidence of the claimed violation of his right to confidential medical information. (See Complaint, Exhibit D.)

Because there is nothing in the plaintiff's complaint that indicates that the actions of the defendant were wanton, reckless or malicious, and since she is sued only in her individual capacity for money damages, the defendant is entitled to statutory immunity from suit afforded her pursuant to General Statutes § 4-165. Therefore, claims relating to the defendant's disclosure of confidential medical information pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are barred as a matter of law. See CT Page 21590 Woodruff v. Hemingway, 51 Conn.Sup. 461, 2 A.3d 1045 (2009) [ 47 Conn. L. Rptr. 631], aff'd per curiam, 297 Conn. 317, 2 A.3d 857 (2010). For a similar reason, that is, because she is only sued in her individual capacity, the plaintiff has also failed to state a valid ADA claim against the defendant. See Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261, 287-89 (2d Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 936 (2004) (a valid ADA claim may be stated against a state official in his official capacity); see also Damron v. N.D. Comm'r of Corr., 299 F.Sup.2d 970, 976 (D.N.D. 2004, aff'd mem., 127 Fed.Appx. 909) (8th Cir. 2005) (prison officials may not be sued in their individual capacity under ADA).

Because these reasons are dispositive of the motion for summary judgment, the court does not address the other issues raised by the defendant in her memorandum, but notes that a full discussion of many of the remaining issues is contained in a well-reasoned decision rendered in connection with a ruling on a motion for summary judgment in a case raising similar claims by the same plaintiff by The Honorable Joan G. Margolis, U.S. Magistrate Judge, which is attached as Exhibit C to the Defendant's Memorandum in Support of Summary Judgment. See McKinnon v. Fred, United States District Court, Case No. 306 CV 147 (JGM) (D.Conn., August 16, 2007).

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted.


Summaries of

McKinnon v. Thelma

Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford
Nov 5, 2010
2010 Ct. Sup. 21588 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2010)
Case details for

McKinnon v. Thelma

Case Details

Full title:JAMES McKINNON v. NURSE THELMA

Court:Connecticut Superior Court Judicial District of Hartford at Hartford

Date published: Nov 5, 2010

Citations

2010 Ct. Sup. 21588 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2010)