Opinion
# 2016-041-505 Claim No. 118219
05-24-2016
EON SHEPHERD v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
EON SHEPHERD Pro Se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General By: Joan Matalavage, Esq. Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Inmate medical malpractice claim is dismissed after trial where claimant fails to offer expert medical proof to establish claimant's medical conditions, the standard of care to which claimant is entitled by reason of those conditions, that defendant's care of claimant fell short of its obligatory standard of care in addressing those conditions and that such failure proximately caused claimant's injuries and damages.
Case information
| UID: | 2016-041-505 |
| Claimant(s): | EON SHEPHERD |
| Claimant short name: | SHEPHERD |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 118219 |
| Motion number(s): | |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | FRANK P. MILANO |
| Claimant's attorney: | EON SHEPHERD Pro Se |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN New York State Attorney General By: Joan Matalavage, Esq. Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | May 24, 2016 |
| City: | Albany |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Eon Shepherd (claimant), an inmate at all relevant times at Clinton Correctional Facility (CCF), filed a claim on April 2, 2010, and trial of the claim was conducted on March 17, 2016. The claim alleges that the defendant was negligent in failing to house claimant in a "flat facility" despite being aware that claimant's medical conditions required "flat facility" housing and further alleges that defendant negligently failed "to provide claimant with meaningful and adequate medical treatment" for his back and urological conditions.
Claimant, in his claim, references ambulatory problems, "excruciating lower back pain" and instances of falls "due to his knee giving out," and alleges that defendant, despite being aware of his medical conditions, housed claimant at a facility that required him to walk long distances and to climb and descend stairs.
Claimant further alleges that defendant failed to appropriately treat or medicate him for "chronic excruciating lower back pain," and that defendant failed to appropriately treat or medicate him for urological distress or urological difficulties (i.e. constant urination).
Trial of the claim was conducted via video teleconference, with the Court at a remote location. Claimant marked and made application to have thirteen exhibits admitted, Exhibits 1-13. Defendant marked and made application to have one exhibit admitted, Exhibit A. The Court, at trial, reserved upon those applications and indicated to the parties it would, subsequent to trial, review the marked exhibits and entertain party objections, if any, before ruling upon exhibit admissibility. Attached hereto, and made part of this Decision, are the post trial directions of the Court and the post trial submissions of the parties.
Subsequent to trial, defendant objected to claimant's marked Exhibits 1-13, arguing that, for some exhibits, an inadequate foundation had been laid, that other exhibits were self-serving letters of claimant which were improper bolstering and that some exhibits contained medical conclusions of claimant which he was unqualified to draw. Claimant made no objection to defendant's Exhibit A, certified medical records of claimant maintained by defendant.
Claimant was his only trial witness. Defendant produced two witnesses, one of whom was Dr. Vonda Johnson, facility health services director at CCF, the facility at which claimant was housed during relevant periods of his incarceration. Dr. Johnson credibly testified that defendant's care of claimant for his chronic back pain and for his urological condition was appropriate and met acceptable medical standards of the care due claimant.
The allegations set forth in the claim entirely relate to claimed deficiencies in defendant's care and treatment of claimant due to claimant's medical conditions. One aspect of the claim primarily focused on claimant's back condition and knee condition, claimant's resultant ambulatory issues and on defendant's treatment of his back condition. The other aspect focused on claimant's urological condition and defendant's treatment of him for that condition.
To sustain a cause of action for medical malpractice, a claimant must prove, generally through expert medical opinion testimony, two essential elements: (1) a deviation or departure from accepted practice, and (2) that such departure was a proximate cause of plaintiff's injury (Carter v Tana, 68 AD3d 1577, 1579 [3d Dept 2009]).
Conclusory allegations of medical malpractice, unsupported by competent evidence establishing its essential elements, are insufficient to state a prima facie case. Through a medical expert, it must be shown that defendant deviated from the standard for good and acceptable care in the locality where the treatment occurred and that the deviation was the proximate cause of the injury (Torns v Samaritan Hosp., 305 AD2d 965, 966 [3d Dept 2003]; Yamin v Baghel, 284 AD2d 778, 779 [3d Dept 2001]; Bracci v Hopper, 274 AD2d 865, 867 [3d Dept 2000]).
"Where medical issues are not within the ordinary experience and knowledge of lay persons, expert medical opinion is a required element of a prima facie case" (Wells v State of New York, 228 AD2d 581, 582 [2d Dept 1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 814 [1996]; see Tatta v State of New York, 19 AD3d 817 [3d Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 712 [2005]; Trottie v State of New York, 39 AD3d 1094 [3d Dept 2007]).
The fact that claimant proceeded pro se does not excuse the need for expert medical opinion to demonstrate a deviation from the applicable standard of care (Duffen v State of New York, 245 AD2d 653, 653-654 [3d Dept 1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 810 [1998]).
The entire claim, regardless of how claimant chooses to describe or characterize it, alleges defendant negligently cared for and treated claimant by reason of his medical conditions. It is a medical malpractice claim. It requires expert medical proof to establish claimant's medical conditions, establish the standard of care to which claimant is entitled by reason of those conditions, and expert medical opinion to establish that defendant's care of claimant fell short of its obligatory standard of care in addressing those conditions. Claimant's proof at trial established none of those. Claimant produced no expert medical proof.
Accordingly, the claimant has failed to prove his claim by a preponderance of the credible evidence. The claim is, in all respects, dismissed.
All motions not previously decided are hereby denied.
Let judgment be entered accordingly.
May 24, 2016
Albany, New York
FRANK P. MILANO
Judge of the Court of Claims