Opinion
# 2011-010-027 Claim No. 118900 Motion No. M-79894
08-18-2011
SHATEEK AMIN BILAL v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
Claimant's unopposed motion for summary judgment on liability granted. Claimant attempted suicide on prescription pills issued on self-carry basis rather than one at a time. Case information
UID: 2011-010-027 Claimant(s): SHATEEK AMIN BILAL Claimant short name: BILAL Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 118900 Motion number(s): M-79894 Cross-motion number(s): Judge: Terry Jane Ruderman SHATEEK AMIN BILAL Claimant's attorney: Pro Se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Defendant's attorney: Attorney General for the State of New York By: Elyse Angelico, Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: August 18, 2011 City: White Plains Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
The following papers numbered 1-2 were read and considered by the Court on claimant's motion for summary judgment on liability:
Notice of Motion, Claimant's Supporting Affidavit and Exhibits.............................1
Defendant's Affirmation, Taking No Position on Claimant's Motion, and Exhibits..2
Claim No. 118900 arises out of a set of facts and circumstances which are not disputed by defendant.Claimant, a mental health patient incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility (Sing Sing), was ordered to receive his prescribed medications on a one-to-one basis due to his mental health level as classified by the New York State Office of Mental Health. Accordingly, in May 2010, Sing Sing Physician's Assistant (PA) Williams prescribed 90 pills of Percogesic (a pain medication) to be administered to claimant one pill at a time. Claimant, however, was provided with his medication on a "self-carry" basis which gave him possession of the full prescription of 90 pills (Amended Claim, ¶2; Claimant's Motion, Ex. 3). On June 13, 2010, claimant ingested the bulk of the remaining prescribed pills in an attempt to commit suicide by overdose. Claimant was admitted to Mt. Vernon Hospital and suffered severe stomach pain, vomiting, fatigue, disorientation and constant ringing in his ears.
As defendant notes, Claim Nos. 118900 and 118677 allege the same facts. Accordingly, the Court, sua sponte, dismisses Claim No. 118677.
Claimant seeks summary judgment finding the State responsible for his suicide attempt. Claimant argues that the State should be held liable on the theories of medical malpractice and simple ministerial neglect for dispensing his medication contrary to the orders that the medication be administered one pill at a time and contrary to the direction of PA Williams who prescribed the medication in that manner. In support of his motion, claimant submits his Ambulatory Health Record with PA Williams' order for the prescription on May 10, 2010 and Sing Sing's direction that it be administered as self-carry, contrary to the PA's order (Claimant's Motion, Ex. 3). Claimant also submits his medical records showing a history of mental illness and two suicide attempts by overdosing with pills prior to the June 13, 2010 attempted suicide (id.; Claimant's Motion, Ex. 2). Additionally, claimant includes the Mt. Vernon Hospital report of June 14, 2010 (id.; Claimant's Motion, Ex. 12).
Defendant does not oppose claimant's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
It is well established that the State owes a duty to provide for the health and care of its inmates (see Levin v State of New York, 32 AD3d 501; Mullally v State of New York, 289 AD2d 308). If a claim can be read to allege simple negligence or medical negligence, then the alleged negligent omissions or acts by the State's employees can be readily determined by a fact finder using common knowledge without the necessity of expert testimony (see Friedmann v New York Hosp.-Cornell Med. Ctr., 65 AD3d 850). Similarly, the State may be found liable for ministerial neglect if its employees fail to comply with its institution's own administrative procedures and protocols for dispensing medical care to its inmates (see Kagan v State of New York, 221 AD2d 7). The State may be held liable only if the State's negligence was a substantial factor in causing the alleged harm (see Lowe v State of New York, 35 AD3d 1281).
Here, the Court finds that there was no need for expert medical testimony to establish that defendant was negligent in failing to follow orders that claimant, a mental patient with a history of suicide attempts by overdose with pills, be given his medication one pill at a time as opposed to providing him with the full prescription of pills on a self-carry basis (see Wright v State of New York, 31 AD2d 421 [no need for expert medical testimony to establish State's negligence where hospital allowed mentally ill, suicidal patient to remain alone in a room with an open, unscreened window after patient had threatened to jump and then did]). The undisputed facts established that, contrary to documented orders, on May 11, 2010, claimant was given possession of 90 pain pills and on June 13, 2010, he attempted suicide by ingesting the bulk of the remaining prescribed pills.
It is fundamental that "[t]he risk reasonably to be perceived defines the duty to be obeyed" (Palsgraf v Long Is. R.R. Co., 248 NY 339, 344; see also PJI 2:12). Thus, due to defendant's negligence, the foreseeable risk to be guarded against, that claimant may attempt suicide by overdosing with pills, was the very harm which occurred. Indeed, defendant's negligence placed 90 pills in the hands of an inmate struggling with a history of suicide attempts by overdosing with pills (see Acerbo v State of New York, 32 Misc 3d 1230[A] ["(State hospital's) violation of its own policy and procedure was tantamount to placing the knives in claimant's hands, the hands of a patient struggling with a history of suicide attempts with the use of knives, and giving claimant license to inflict potentially fatal injuries"]; Lichtenstein v Montefiore Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 56 AD2d 281, 285 [proximate cause for patient's suicide could be found if hospital was negligent and patient suffered very harm foreseen and to be guarded against]). Thus the Court finds that defendant's negligence was a substantial contributing cause in enabling claimant to attempt suicide and, if there was arguably any attenuation in the link between defendant's negligence and the resulting harm, it was only the absence of a glass of water to accompany the complement of pills given to claimant. Accordingly, defendant must bear 100 percent of the liability for claimant's suicide attempt (see Lawrence v State of New York, 44 Misc 2d 756 [State was found negligent in placing suicidal patient in a room without protective gates or bars on window and without adequate supervision; this negligence was a proximate cause of patient's eventual death due to injuries suffered from his jump out of the window]). It was not argued by the State, nor was there any evidence to establish, that claimant should bear any portion of fault (see Lawrence v State of New York, 44 Misc 2d 756, supra at 760 [psychiatric patient who jumped from window in suicide attempt was not proved to be contributorily negligent]).
The matter will be set down for a trial on the issue of damages as soon as practicable.
LET INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
August 18, 2011
White Plains, New York
Terry Jane Ruderman
Judge of the Court of Claims