Opinion
# 2013-048-112 Claim No. 121848 Motion No. M-83647
09-17-2013
CHARLES NELSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
The Court granted Claimant's motion for permission to serve and file an amended claim.
Case information
UID: 2013-048-112 Claimant(s): CHARLES NELSON Claimant short name: NELSON Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 121848 Motion number(s): M-83647 Cross-motion number(s): Judge: GLEN T. BRUENING Claimant's attorney: CHARLES NELSON, Pro Se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York Defendant's attorney: By: Jessica Hall, Esq. Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: September 17, 2013 City: Albany Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
Claimant, Charles Nelson, commenced this action to recover damages for injuries, sustained at different times between April 2011 and February 2012, while an inmate at Ulster Correctional Facility and then Wallkill Correctional Facility, under the supervision of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS). Specifically, Claimant asserts three causes of action alleging, among other things, medical malpractice and/or negligence when 1) on April 12, 2011, he was involved in a motor vehicle accident, causing him to sustain certain personal injuries; 2) he was denied timely and appropriate medical treatment for the injuries he sustained as a result of the motor vehicle accident; and 3) when, on February 26, 2012, he was caused to suffer from certain injuries when he dropped a dumbbell on his face. Claimant now moves for leave to amend the Claim to add another cause of action and to eliminate the specific amount of money damages sought so as to comply with CPLR 3017 (c). Defendant opposes Claimant's motion.
Claimant asserts that Defendant failed to inform him that he suffered from mild right carpel tunnel syndrome.
CPLR 3025 (b) provides that "[a] party may amend his or her pleading, or supplement it by setting forth additional or subsequent transactions or occurrences, at any time by leave of court or by stipulation of all parties" (see also 22 NYCRR 206.7). Leave to amend a pleading under CPLR 3025 (b) is freely granted in the exercise of the trial court's discretion, "unless the proposed amendments plainly lack merit or would cause the nonmoving party to suffer prejudice or unfair surprise" (Bastian v State of New York, 8 AD3d 764, 765 [3d Dept 2004]). In this regard, "[m]ere lateness is not a barrier to the amendment" (Webber v Scarano-Osika, 94 AD3d 1304, 1305 [3d Dept 2012] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).
In support of his motion, Claimant submits a Proposed Amended Claim, which adds a fourth cause of action to the Claim. Specifically, in addition to the causes of action alleged in the original Claim filed October 10, 2012, the Proposed Amended Claim alleges that, on or before April 12, 2013, DOCCS negligently and without Claimant's consent, disclosed certain medical information to the "Department of Disability" (Proposed Amended Claim, ¶¶ 18 and 19). Claimant asserts that discovery has not yet begun in this action and Defendant will not suffer from any prejudice if the motion is granted.
The Court refers to Claimant's Proposed Amended Complaint as a Proposed Amended Claim.
In opposition to Claimant's motion, Defendant argues that the motion should be denied, as the proposed amendment would involve different proof and impermissibly expand the scope of the original Claim. Defendant asserts that the proposed new cause of action would appear to involve a separate correctional facility, lacks the appearance of merit, and fails to comply with the substantive pleading requirements of Court of Claims Act § 11 (b). Defendant also argues that, by his motion, Claimant is attempting to circumvent the filing requirements of the Court of Claims Act and that, pursuant to the Court of Claims Act 10 (3) and (3-b), Claimant had until July 11, 2013 - 90 days from the date Claimant discovered that his records were disclosed - to either file and serve a Claim upon the attorney general or serve upon the attorney general a Notice of Intention to File a Claim (see Affirmation of Jessica Hall, ¶ 7).
The proposed amendment to the Claim asserts a recognized cause of action based on the negligent disclosure of privileged information (see e.g. Doe v Community Health Plan -- Kaiser Corp., 268 AD2d 183, 187 [3d Dept 2000]; Harley v Druzba, 169 AD2d 1001, 1002 [3d Dept 1991]). Those allegations specify that, on April 12, 2013, while reviewing his own medical records with "Ms. Gale Freed, Medical Clerk," Claimant noticed a medical authorization relating to another inmate - Charles Neilsen - in his file and that, pursuant to this authorization, Claimant's medical records were erroneously released (see Proposed Amended Claim, ¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21). The Proposed Amended Claim refers to DOCCS records, which support his contention that his medical records were released by mistake. Based upon the allegations the Court finds that the proposed amendment is not plainly lacking in merit and satisfies Court of Claims Act § 11 (b) so as to "enable the State . . . to investigate the claim [ ] promptly and to ascertain its liability under the circumstances" (Lepkowski v State of New York, 1 NY3d 201, 207 [2003] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Furthermore, Claimant's motion with its Proposed Amended Claim was filed within 90 days of the accrual date urged by Defendant (compare Tighe v Ginsberg, 146 AD2d 268, 272 [4th Dept 1989]) and well within the three-year statute of limitations for a cause of action sounding in the negligent disclosure of privileged information (see Harley v Druzba, 169 AD2d at 1002). Finally, no prejudice is argued by Defendant, and the record before the Court indicates that, with the exception of the exchange of Medicare information, discovery has yet to take place (see e.g. Adirondack Combustion Tech., Inc. v Unicontrol, Inc., 17 AD3d 825, 826 [3d Dept 2005]). While the proposed amendment asserts a cause of action unrelated to those already asserted in the Claim, judicial economy favors granting the motion in this case. Accordingly, it is hereby
The Proposed Amended Claim alleges that Claimant was transferred to Wallkill on December 22, 2011 (see Proposed Amended Claim, ¶ 10).
ORDERED that Claimant's Motion No. M-83647 is granted; and it is further
ORDERED that Claimant shall serve the Proposed Amended Claim that is attached to Claimant's moving papers by regular mail upon the Attorney General, and file an identical copy of such Amended Claim along with proof of service upon the Attorney General, within thirty (30) days of the filing of this Decision and Order.
September 17, 2013
Albany, New York
GLEN T. BRUENING
Judge of the Court of Claims
The following papers were read and considered by the Court:
Claim, filed October 10, 2012;
Answer, filed November 15, 2012, with attached Medicare Demand;
Medicare Demand, as filled out by Claimant, filed November 28, 2012, with Claimant's correspondence, dated November 23, 2012;
Notice of Motion to Amend Complaint, filed July 3, 2013;
Affidavit in Support of Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint, sworn to on June 24, 2013, with Attached Proposed Amended Complaint;
Affirmation of Jessica Hall, Esq., dated July 19, 2013.