Opinion
# 2016-038-107 Claim No. 116635
04-18-2016
DEANDRE WILLIAMS v. STATE OF NEW YORK
DEANDRE WILLIAMS, Pro se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York By: Glenn King, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Case information
| UID: | 2016-038-107 |
| Claimant(s): | DEANDRE WILLIAMS |
| Claimant short name: | WILLIAMS |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 116635 |
| Motion number(s): | |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | W. BROOKS DeBOW |
| Claimant's attorney: | DEANDRE WILLIAMS, Pro se |
| Defendant's attorney: | ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York By: Glenn King, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | April 18, 2016 |
| City: | Saratoga Springs |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant, an individual incarcerated in a state correctional facility, filed this claim in which he alleges that he sustained injuries due to the negligence and medical malpractice of medical staff at Upstate Correctional Facility (CF) on various occasions from 2006 through 2008. The claim also alleges that claimant fell down stairs at Upstate CF on August 13, 2008 due to the negligence of defendant's employees. The trial of this claim was conducted by videoconference on June 4, 2015, with claimant appearing at Five Points CF in Romulus, New York, defendant appearing at Upstate CF in Malone, New York and the Court sitting in Saratoga Springs, New York. Claimant offered his own testimony; defendant offered no witnesses. Four documents offered by claimant were received into evidence. Defendant offered no exhibits. After listening to the claimant's testimony and observing his demeanor as he testified, and upon consideration of that evidence, all of the other evidence received at trial, and the applicable law, the Court concludes that defendant is not liable to claimant.
Claimant's Exhibits 1 and 4 were received into evidence at trial. Claimant's Exhibits 2, 3 and 5, which were in claimant's possession at Five Points CF were conditionally received subject to any legal objections by defendant following defense counsel's receipt of those exhibits. Defendant's objections to Exhibits 2 and 5 on the grounds of hearsay, inadequate foundation, and relevancy objections are overruled. Exhibit 5 is received into evidence and Exhibit 2 (a request and report of consultation that postdated the incidents in the claim) is received only as to the issue of damages. Defendant's objection to Exhibit 3 on the ground that the exhibit is irrelevant as it relates to events that postdate the allegations in the claim by more than 6 years is sustained.
FACTS
Claimant's testimony was very brief. He testified that while incarcerated at Upstate CF, he had numerous medical problems including a twisted vertebrae, herniated discs and spinal stenosis, that doctors at Upstate CF did not do what they were "supposed to do" in their treatment of his medical conditions, and that he was on medication and in a lot of pain because of a delay in proper treatment. Claimant testified that Upstate CF medical staff refused to allow him to use a wheelchair and crutches notwithstanding that he wore braces on both of his legs. Claimant testified that he underwent MRIs after a fall and that every six months thereafter medical staff found something else wrong with his spine. Claimant testified generally about having fallen down stairs. At the conclusion of his testimony, claimant stated that he "stands upon" the allegations in the claim and the evidence that was submitted along with the claim, which was received in evidence.
All quotations are to the Court's trial notes or the digital audio recording of the trial, unless otherwise indicated.
The claim alleges that claimant was transferred to Upstate CF in June 2002 with certain disabilities resulting from gunshot wounds that "required extensive therapy and continuous medical treatment and pain management medications" (Claimant's Exhibit 1, at ¶ 8). The claim alleges that claimant was treated for his disabilities at Upstate CF and was subsequently diagnosed with nerve damage in his legs and left arm, a dropped foot in his right leg, leg atrophy, herniated discs and degenerative disc disease and spinal stenosis and radiculopathy, and that he was prescribed Ultram and Flexeril. The claim alleges that claimant walked with a cane and had leg braces on both legs.
The claim asserts that the medical care and treatment claimant received at Upstate CF was inadequate, and that Dr. Weissman and Nurse Practitioner (NP) Parmer continuously hampered claimant's ability to receive medical care in the following respects. First, it is alleged that following a fall in his cell in June 2006 due to leg numbness, claimant was sent to an "outside" neurologist in July 2006 (id., ¶ 25), received an MRI on his cervical spine in September 2006, and he did not receive the results from his MRI until September 2007, a full year after the results were received by Upstate CF medical staff. The claim alleges that following the fall in June 2006, claimant complained about numbness in his arms and legs and eye and ear pain, and that NP Parmer, Dr. Weissman and Upstate CF medical staff did not take "any effective measures" to treat his complaints (see id., ¶ 31). Second, the claim alleges that claimant repeatedly requested that the dosage of his pain medication (Ultram) be increased, but that Dr. Weissman and NP Parmer refused to increase his dosage or prescribe a more effective pain medication until January 2008, and that he was thereby made to suffer from excruciating pain. Third, the claim alleges that claimant's appointment with an outside neurologist in September 2008 was erroneously canceled on the grounds that he refused an EMG, and that he was eventually seen by the neurologist in February 2009. The claim also alleges that NP Parmer withheld treatment and did not increase his Ultram dosage in retaliation for claimant having previously filed complaints against him.
The claim appears to erroneously state that claimant was seen by the neurologist in February 2008 rather than 2009 (id., ¶ 61).
The claim further alleges that claimant had great difficulty walking up and down stairs, and that NP Parmer ignored a neurologist's January 2007 recommendation that claimant be issued an elevator permit and not use the stairs. The claim alleges that on August 13, 2008, claimant twice asked the escort correction officers (COs) whether he had an elevator permit, and that they refused to check whether he had a permit, and forced him to climb and descend stairs in shackles with his cane and that he had extreme difficulty in doing so. The claim alleges that claimant became light headed and dizzy as he descended a stairway, and that his right leg gave out near the bottom of the stairs and he fell down the remaining steps. The claim alleges that the escort COs did not assist claimant in ascending or descending the stairs and that they made no attempt to prevent his fall. The claim further alleges that an elevator permit was ordered by Dr. Weissman in November 2008.
Medical records that were received into evidence appear to show that claimant was identified as having disc degeneration and herniation, spinal stenosis and radiculopathy from September 2006 through June 2008 (see id., Claim Exhibit 1; Claimant's Exhibit 4). A determination denying a grievance regarding the cancellation of the neurology appointment noted that claimant "received appropriate exams, referrals and medication as deemed necessary by medical staff. Treatment is issued based on need not want" (id., Claim Exhibit 2 [9/25/08 Superintendent Grievance Determination]). Three neurology consultant reports from 2003, 2006 and 2007 each contain the statement that "Consultation is a recommendation. Final determination will be made by the inmate's NYSDOCS physician" (see id., Claim Exhibit 1 [NYS DOCS Request & Report of Consultation, Consultant Reports dated 7/24/06, 1/25/07]; Claim Exhibit 2 [NYS DOCS Request & Report of Consultation, Consultant Report dated 6/11/03]). On November 16, 2006, NP Parmer responded to claimant's sick call request by stating that "outside specialty providers make 'recommendation[s'] not 'orders' " (Claimant's Exhibit 5). Attached to the claim was another determination denying a grievance, in which it is noted that claimant was seen by medical staff on June 6, 2005 and that claimant was "medically capable of using stairs" (Claimant's Exhibit 1, Claim Exhibit 2 [6/14/05 Superintendent Grievance Determination]). At the bottom of the neurology consultant report dated January 25, 2007 is the notation "Need elevator to use from one floor to the other" (id., Claim Exhibit 1 [NYS DOCS Request & Report of Consultation, Consultant Report dated 1/25/07] [emphasis in original]). A notation on that same report indicates that it was reviewed by facility medical staff on January 30, 2007 (see id.).
DISCUSSION
The claim asserts three bases for liability: (1) that defendant's agents were negligent and committed medical malpractice when they failed to treat claimant's medical conditions; (2) that defendant's agents retaliated against claimant by denying him medical care; and (3) that he fell down stairs due to defendant's negligence. Defendant moved to dismiss the negligence claims at the conclusion of claimant's proof for lack of a prima facie case. After declining to put on a case, defendant moved again for dismissal of the negligence and medical malpractice claims on the grounds that the preponderance of the credible evidence did not establish defendant's liability because claimant did not offer expert testimony in support of his claims. Claimant opposed both motions, arguing that the claim and exhibits show that defendant was negligent because its agents failed to treat him, that defendant's agents failed to follow through on the orders of the outside specialists, and that he was the subject of retaliation at Upstate CF. The Court reserved decision on the motions. Neither claimant nor defendant made any particularized argument with regard to the allegations of negligence regarding claimant's August 13, 2008 fall.
Turning first to claimant's allegations of medical negligence and medical malpractice, "[i]t 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]; see also Kagan v State of New York, 221 AD2d 7, 11 [2d Dept 1996] ["It is settled that an inmate, who must rely on prison authorities to treat [the inmate's] medical needs, has a fundamental right to reasonable . . . and adequate . . . medical care"] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). The State's "duty to provide medical care and treatment to its prisoners . . . has been defined in terms of both negligence and medical malpractice" (Kagan, 221 AD2d at 16). However, and regardless of "[w]hether the claim is grounded in negligence or medical malpractice, '[w]here 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' " (Tatta v State of New York, 19 AD3d 817, 818 [3d Dept 2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 712 [2005], quoting Wells v State of New York, 228 AD2d 581, 582 [2d Dept 1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 814 [1996]).
Whether Upstate CF medical staff was negligent or committed medical malpractice with regard to its treatment of the constellation of claimant's medical conditions are not matters that are within the knowledge of a lay person, and thus, testimony by an expert to edify the factfinder on medical issues relevant to the decisions and actions of the medical professionals was necessary to establish defendant's medical malpractice or medical negligence. Claimant offered no proof, let alone expert proof, that his medical treatment was deficient, or that his treatment departed from accepted standards of medical care or that any breach of the standard of care was a proximate cause of his injury (see Bracci v Hopper, 274 AD2d 865, 867 [3d Dept 2000]). Claimant's contention that his medical records provide the necessary proof is unavailing because the medical records contain facts unknown to a lay factfinder and the records alone do not demonstrate the standard of care or whether that standard of care was breached. Although claimant contends that defendant's agents failed to follow through on the recommendations of outside providers, that argument is unsupported by testimony, expert or otherwise, that defendant's agents were required to do so. Given that the documentary evidence submitted by claimant suggests that defendant's physicians had final say as to the implementation of any recommendations, expert medical testimony to explain claimant's contrary assertion is necessary. Thus, claimant's failure to offer expert testimony that would explain how defendant breached a duty of care with regard to his medical care is fatal to his claims of medical malpractice or medical negligence.
Claimant's assertion that defendant's medical employees retaliated against him because he filed complaints fails to state a cause of action because there is no cognizable cause of action for retaliation (see Brown v State of New York, UID No. 2013-038-111 [Ct Cl, DeBow, J., Nov. 26, 2013]; Brown v State of New York, UID No. 2011-031-509 [Ct Cl, Minarik, J., Sep. 30, 2011]; Campolito v State of New York, UID No. 2000-015-507 [Ct Cl, Collins, J., Apr. 27, 2000]). To the extent that the claim asserts that the alleged denial of medical care violated claimant's right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment (see NY Const, art I, § 5), and assuming that such a cause of action is viable, such an allegation "can be proven only if an inmate can demonstrate that prison officials have acted with 'deliberate indifference to [claimant's] serious medical needs' " (Matter of Wooley v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 15 NY3d 275, 282 [2010], quoting Estelle v Gamble, 429 US 97, 103 [1976]). Whether there was deliberate indifference to an inmate's medical needs requires proof that " 'the prisoner was actually deprived of adequate medical care' " (Matter of Wooley, 15 NY3d at 282, quoting Salahuddin v Goord, 467 F3d 263, 279-280 [2d Cir 2006]). The evidence received at trial demonstrates that claimant received extensive care to treat his many medical conditions, and although he may take issue with the quality of that care, the evidence does not demonstrate that he suffered a level of deprivation that would constitute indifference to his medical needs.
This Court finds no appellate authority recognizing a State constitutional tort sounding in cruel and unusual punishment (compare Brown v State of New York, 89 NY2d 172 [1996] [constitutional tort may be stated under constitutional search and seizure provision]). Several decisions of the Court of Claims have discussed the potential viability of such a cause of action, although none has expressly concluded that it is maintainable (see e.g. Zulu v State of New York, 2001 N.Y. Slip Op. 40047[U] [Ct Cl 2001]; Ramos v State of New York, UID No. 2000-016-106 [Ct Cl, Marin, J., Dec. 18, 2000]; De La Rosa v State of New York, 173 Misc 2d 1007 [Ct Cl 1997]). --------
The preponderance of the credible evidence does not establish that defendant's agents were negligent with respect to claimant's August 13, 2008 fall on the stairs, and thus it cannot be held liable for any injuries he sustained in that fall. First, no evidence was adduced that claimant had an elevator permit on August 13, 2008, and it appears that an elevator permit was not issued until after claimant's fall. Second, although an outside provider may have recommended in January 2007 that claimant use the elevator in lieu of stairs, no evidence was adduced to establish that any such recommendation created a duty, and there was no evidence that defendant's agents were required to have issued claimant an elevator permit prior to August 13, 2008. Thus, claimant has not demonstrated that the COs breached any duty by requiring him to use stairs. Finally, claimant adduced no evidence that any law, rule, regulation or policy required the COs to assist claimant as he descended the stairs (see Rowe v State of New York, UID No. 2015-016-017 [Ct Cl, Marin, J., Apr. 13, 2015]). While the allegations in the claim that the COs failed to grab him as he fell may implicate a general duty to safeguard claimant, there is no evidence that the COs were in a position to do so, or, even if they were, that their intervention would have prevented his injuries. To conclude that defendant is liable merely because he had difficulty and fell while descending the stairs would improperly render defendant an insurer. In sum, claimant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the credible evidence that defendant's agents were negligent with regard to his August 13, 2008 fall.
CONCLUSION
Defendant's motion to dismiss those parts of the claim that allege medical malpractice or medical negligence is GRANTED. The remaining allegations in the claim were not proven by a preponderance of the credible evidence, and accordingly, claim number 116635 is DISMISSED. Any motions not previously ruled upon are hereby DENIED.
The Chief Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
April 18, 2016
Saratoga Springs, New York
W. BROOKS DeBOW
Judge of the Court of Claims