Opinion
# 2014-009-106 Claim No. 107936
12-09-2014
PAULINO RODRIGUEZ v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
PAULINO RODRIGUEZ, PRO SE HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General BY: Thomas M. Trace, Esq., Senior Attorney Of Counsel.
Synopsis
Following trial, the Court dismissed this claim seeking damages based upon an inmate assault and failing to provide claimant with proper medical care.
Case information
| UID: | 2014-009-106 |
| Claimant(s): | PAULINO RODRIGUEZ |
| Claimant short name: | RODRIGUEZ |
| Footnote (claimant name) : | |
| Defendant(s): | THE STATE OF NEW YORK |
| Footnote (defendant name) : | |
| Third-party claimant(s): | |
| Third-party defendant(s): | |
| Claim number(s): | 107936 |
| Motion number(s): | |
| Cross-motion number(s): | |
| Judge: | NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR. |
| Claimant's attorney: | PAULINO RODRIGUEZ, PRO SE |
| Defendant's attorney: | HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General BY: Thomas M. Trace, Esq., Senior Attorney Of Counsel. |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | December 9, 2014 |
| City: | Syracuse |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
In this claim, claimant, an inmate proceeding pro se, seeks to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by him when he was assaulted by another inmate on June 17, 2002 at the Central New York Psychiatric Center (CNYPC). Claimant further alleges that the defendant failed to provide him with proper medical care for his injuries.
Specifically, claimant seeks $50,000.00 in damages for improper medical treatment, $50,000.00 for unlawful punishment and endangerment of life and health, $50,000.00 for past pain and suffering, $50,000.00 for future pain and suffering, and $50,000.00 for punitive damages, for a total amount of $250,000.00, all stemming from this inmate-on-inmate assault.
The trial of this claim was held on August 6, 2014 by means of video conferencing technology. At the trial, claimant was the only witness to testify on his behalf, and Raymond Murray, a Security Hospital Treatment Assistant at CNYPC at the time, testified for the defendant.
Claimant testified that he had been transferred to CNYPC on June 6, 2002, suffering from "severe depression." Claimant testified that while at CNYPC, he was seen by two different specialists, who diagnosed him as a "threat to himself and others." He testified that while at CNYPC he received medication for his depression and agitation.
Unless otherwise indicated, all references and quotations are taken from the Court's trial notes.
Claimant further testified that on June 17, 2002, after receiving medication, he had an altercation with another inmate in the dayroom at CNYPC. He testified that both he and the other inmate were then removed from the dayroom, and that he was administered additional medication following this incident.
Claimant testified that he was then returned to the dayroom and, while asleep on a couch, he was attacked by the same inmate with whom he had the prior altercation. He testified that he attempted to defend himself in this second altercation, but still suffered injuries as a result.
Raymond Murray, at the time of the incident a Security Hospital Treatment Assistant at CNYPC, was the only witness to testify on behalf of the State. There was no indication in his testimony that Mr. Murray witnessed either incident, or even that he was present in the dayroom at the time. Rather, Mr. Murray testified from a portion of claimant's "Central New York Psychiatric Center Inpatient Record," a certified copy having been received into evidence at trial (Exhibit A). Mr. Murray testified that as shown in the records, claimant had not expressed any fear of being attacked prior to the incident, and there was no indication in the records of any threat of potential attack against claimant. Mr. Murray further testified that the "progress notes" (Exhibit A, page 73) establish that in the afternoon of June 17, 2002, claimant attacked and assaulted another patient (Patient No. 346924) in the dayroom at 14:40 hours (2:40 p.m.). The "progress notes" indicate that both claimant and the other patient were separated by staff and taken away, and that both were taken for counseling. The notes further indicate that claimant suffered a small laceration to his left thumb, and that the wound was cleaned and bandaged.
Based on his review of the records and progress notes, Mr. Murray concluded that claimant had suffered minor injuries (the cut to his left thumb, a small cut to the right side of his cheek, and a nosebleed) but that these injuries were promptly treated, and that claimant was calmer and "was compliant with medication." Based on his review, Mr. Murray concluded that there was one fight involving claimant on June 17, 2002, initiated by claimant, and not two separate incidents as testified to by claimant.
FINDINGS
In addition to its consideration of the testimony presented at trial, the Court has also carefully reviewed the exhibits received into evidence at trial, with particular emphasis on the excerpt from claimant's inpatient records at CNYPC (Exhibit A).
As previously indicated, the "progress notes" (page 73) make reference to an incident occurring at 14:40 hours (2:40 p.m.) in which claimant assaulted another patient (Patient No. 346924) in the dayroom. Notes made at 15:00 hours (3:00 p.m.) indicate that claimant assaulted this patient "for no apparent reason striking him in the face knocking front bottom tooth out" and that "no injury noted to Mr. Rodriguez and none noted." Subsequent notes on that page indicate that claimant did suffer a laceration to his left thumb, which was cleaned and bandaged.
However, the Court finds that these same records also establish that a second incident occurred at 15:45 hours (3:45 p.m.) in which claimant was assaulted by Patient No. 346924, and that claimant repeatedly was striking back at his assailant, and would not stop even when staff intervened (Exhibit A, page 75). This second incident is confirmed on the subsequent page (page 76) titled "Behavior Management Restrictive Intervention Monitoring Form," in which a registered nurse indicates that Patient No. 346924 initiated this assault at 15:45 hours, and that claimant struck back at his assailant and would not stop fighting when staff intervened. This document further notes that claimant sustained epistaxis (a bloody nose) with moderate bleeding, as well as a small laceration to his right medial cheek, which was cleaned, medicated and bandaged. Following this second incident, claimant was administered medication consisting of Haldol, Ativan, and Benadryl.
Therefore, contrary to defendant's interpretation, the Court finds that claimant (who was a credible witness) was correct in testifying that two separate assaults occurred involving claimant and one other patient. The Court further finds that claimant was the perpetrator in the first assault, which occurred in the dayroom at 2:40 p.m. The Court finds that in the second incident, which occurred at 3:45 p.m., Patient No. 346924 was the assailant, and that claimant fought back after being assaulted. Claimant apparently seeks damages for the injuries suffered by him in this second incident, contending that the State did not adequately protect him from a foreseeable risk of assault.
ANALYSIS
I. Failure to Protect
Although claimant has couched his claim as one of "unlawful punishment and endangerment of life and health," the Court interprets these allegations to mean that claimant contends that the State failed to provide him with reasonable protection even though it knew, or should have known, that he was at risk of being assaulted in this second incident. In other words, claimant contends that the State should have reasonably expected that Patient No. 346924 would attempt to retaliate following the first incident, in which it has been established that claimant was the assailant.
It is well settled that the State is required to use reasonable care to protect inmates of its correctional facilities from the foreseeable risk of harm (Flaherty v State of New York, 296 NY 342 [1947]; Dizak v State of New York, 124 AD2d 329 [3d Dept 1986]; Sebastiano v State of New York, 112 AD2d 562 [3d Dept 1985]). Foreseeable risk of harm includes the risk of attack by other prisoners (Littlejohn v State of New York, 218 AD2d 833 [3d Dept 1995]). The duty to protect inmates from the risk of attack by other prisoners, however, does not render the State an insurer of inmate safety (Sanchez v State of New York, 99 NY2d 247 [2002]). The scope of the defendant's duty of care is to exercise reasonable care to prevent attacks which are reasonably foreseeable (Sanchez v State of New York, supra). The test for liability has evolved from the strict requirement of specific knowledge to encompass not only what the State knew, but also "what the State reasonably should have known - - for example, from its knowledge of risks to a class of inmates based on the institution's expertise or prior experience, or from its own policies and practices designed to address such risks" (Sanchez v State of New York, supra at 254 [emphasis in original]). Accordingly, "[t]he mere occurrence of an inmate assault, without credible evidence that the assault was reasonably foreseeable, cannot establish the negligence of the State" (Sanchez v State of New York, supra at 256).
Applying these principles to the facts of this case, the Court hereby finds that claimant has failed to meet his burden of proving that the defendant failed to provide reasonable protection to him. Although claimant contends that the State should have expected retaliation from Patient No. 346924, there is no indication in the testimony or exhibits to suggest that the defendant had notice that claimant was in danger of being attacked. The Court notes that following the first incident (in which claimant was the assailant), claimant did not request protective custody, or raise any objection to being returned to the general population in the dayroom. Furthermore, from all indications in the testimony and records, the first incident was a relatively minor skirmish, and claimant failed to present any evidence to suggest that the State erred, or violated any of its rules and regulations, in returning both claimant and the other inmate to the general population in the dayroom after they had been separated and counseled.
Furthermore, claimant has failed to present any credible evidence to suggest that the State was aware, or should have been aware, that Patient No. 346924 would retaliate, or that he was prone to perpetrating an assault.
Finally, it also appears to the Court that facility staff immediately intervened, but that it was claimant who continued to fight and refused to stop even after staff attempted to break up the fight.
Based upon the foregoing, to the extent that claimant alleges that defendant failed to provide him with adequate protection, the claim is dismissed.
II. Failure to provide medical care
It is well settled that the State owes a duty to those inmates in its institutions to provide them with medical care and treatment (Gordon v City of New York, 120 AD2d 562 [2d Dept 1986], affd 70 NY2d 839 [1987]). This care must be reasonable and adequate, as an inmate must rely upon the prison authorities to treat and diagnose his medical needs (Rivers v State of New York, 159 AD2d 788 [3d Dept 1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 701 [1990]).
In a claim based upon allegations of medical malpractice, a claimant has the burden of proof and must establish (1) a deviation or departure from accepted practice, and (2) evidence that the deviation was the proximate cause of the injury involved (Pike v Honsinger, 155 NY 201 [1998]). In this case, therefore, claimant bears the burden of establishing, by competent medical testimony, the standard of care (Spensieri v Lasky, 94 NY2d 231 [1999]) and that the care and treatment afforded him constituted a deviation from the applicable standard of care (Hale v State of New York, 53 AD2d 1025 [4th Dept 1976], lv denied 40 NY2d 804 [1976]).
At trial, claimant did not present any testimony to support his claim that the State provided him with improper medical treatment following this incident. Furthermore, there was no testimony from a treating physician or any other expert medical witness to establish acceptable standards of care, that these accepted standards of care were not met in this case, or that any deviation from accepted standards proximately caused claimant's injuries.
Rather, the records received into evidence establish that in both incidents, claimant suffered minor injuries (i.e., a small laceration to his left thumb in the first incident, a nose bleed with moderate bleeding and a small laceration to his right cheek in the second incident), and that these injuries were treated with no lingering effects.
In essence, claimant has failed to offer any testimony or other evidence as to why the medical care he received was not adequate. Therefore, to the extent that claimant alleges that defendant failed to provide him with proper medical treatment, it is dismissed.
III. Past and Future Damages
Based on the above determinations, that aspect of claimant's claim seeking damages for pain and suffering of $50,000.00 and future pain and suffering of $50,000.00 are necessarily dismissed.
IV. Punitive damages
The Court notes that claimant also seeks $50,000.00 in damages for punitive damages. However, this Court has no jurisdiction to award such damages (Sharapata v Town of Islip, 56 NY2d 332 [1982]).
CONCLUSION
Accordingly, based upon its consideration of the testimony presented at trial, as well as its review of the documentary evidence received as exhibits, the Court finds that claimant has failed to prove his claim by a preponderance of the credible evidence. This claim is therefore DISMISSED.
Any motions not heretofore ruled upon are hereby denied. The Clerk of the Court of Claims is therefore directed to enter judgment in accordance with this decision.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
December 9, 2014
Syracuse, New York
NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims