Opinion
# 2012-009-105 Claim No. 113976
08-08-2012
RUSSELL J. WEBSTER v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis
This pro se claim for medical malpractice was dismissed following trial based primarily upon the lack of expert medical testimony to support the claim. Case information
UID: 2012-009-105 Claimant(s): RUSSELL J. WEBSTER Claimant short name: WEBSTER Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 113976 Motion number(s): Cross-motion number(s): Judge: NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR. Claimant's attorney: RUSSELL J. WEBSTER, Pro Se HON. ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General Defendant's attorney: BY: Raymond A. Kyles, Esq., Assistant Attorney General, Of Counsel. Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: August 8, 2012 City: Syracuse Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
In this claim, claimant alleges that the State failed to provide him with timely and adequate medical care for an injury suffered by him at Cayuga Correctional Facility (Cayuga), where he was then incarcerated . The trial of this claim was unified as to both liability and damages, and was held on June 5, 2012.
At this trial, claimant was the only witness to testify. His testimony was consistent with the detailed allegations set forth in his claim. In addition to his testimony, a certified copy of his medical records (Exhibit A) and a copy of an Unusual Incident Report (Exhibit B) were also received into evidence.
Claimant testified, consistent with his claim, that he fell on January 30, 2005 in the mess hall at Cayuga and injured his knee. He testified that due to pain, he went to the infirmary the following day, and was given a doctor's appointment for the following week.
As set forth in his claim, he was examined by a facility doctor on February 10, 2005, who prescribed an anti-inflammatory drug to reduce the swelling, and also provided him with a one-week excuse from work. Claimant testified that he then waited more than one month before he saw another doctor, when he was examined by Dr. Patrick Buttarazzi, who advised him that he had arthritis in his knee, and ordered x-rays to be taken.
As set forth in his claim, x-rays were taken on April 6, 2005, and an MRI was performed on June 6, 2005.
As set forth in his claim, claimant states that he did not see a facility doctor again until August 31, 2005, when he was again examined by Dr. Buttarazzi. Claimant testified that Dr. Buttarazzi advised him at that time that he had a lot of arthritis in his knee, but that Dr. Buttarazzi did not even recall that claimant had fallen back in January. He testified that Dr. Buttarazzi, however, referred him to an orthopedic surgeon, whom he saw in October 2005. Claimant testified that this orthopedic surgeon told claimant that he had broken a bone in his knee when he fell (on January 30, 2005).
Claimant further testified that he then underwent bone graft surgery in June 2006, in which bones were taken from his leg and used for his knee, and that a plate and screws were inserted.
Claimant testified that at the time of his release from custody in 2008, he was only able to lift 25 pounds while standing, and that this limitation has only slightly increased to 40 pounds, while standing.
Claimant testified that in addition to his restrictions on lifting, he also has a difficult time walking, and as a result is unable to obtain employment. He testified that he has difficulties with sleeping all of the time, and that he takes medication (Tylenol and Advil) on a daily basis, in both the morning and evening.
Under cross-examination, claimant acknowledged that both the x-rays and the MRI, which were taken subsequent to his fall on January 30, 2005, showed arthritis in his knee.
Claimant also acknowledged, under cross-examination, that he was taken to an MRI specialist in June or July 2005, as well as the orthopedic specialist in September or October 2005. He also acknowledged that the surgery was performed in June 2006 by Dr. Smallman at SUNY Upstate Medical University.
DISCUSSION
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, affd 70 NY2d 839). 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, lv denied 76 NY2d 701).
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). In this case, therefore, claimant bears the burden of establishing, by competent medical testimony, the standard of care (Spensieri v Lasky, 94 NY2d 231) and that the care and treatment afforded him by the medical staff at Cayuga Correctional Facility constituted a deviation from the applicable standard of care (Hale v State of New York, 53 AD2d 1025, lv denied 40 NY2d 804).
In this case, claimant presented his own testimony, buttressed by his medical records, in support of his claim. However, there was no testimony from a treating physician or any other expert medical witness to establish the acceptable standards of care, that the accepted standards of care were not met in this case, or that any deviation from the accepted standards proximately caused claimant's injuries.
Additionally, although claimant contends that the medical care which was provided to him was inadequate, the medical records, as well as claimant's own testimony, establish that at some point following his fall, x-rays of his knee were in fact taken, an MRI was performed, he was eventually examined by an orthopedic specialist, and corrective surgery was ultimately performed. Although claimant contends that these tests, procedures, and treatments were delayed, there was no competent medical proof to establish that either the time frames for these procedures were unreasonable, and whether any such delay in treatment (if there was such a delay) was a proximate cause of the injuries suffered by him.
Therefore, even though this Court found claimant to be a most credible witness, who was forthright and honest in his testimony, in the absence of expert medical testimony this Court must find that claimant has failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, his claim of medical malpractice. This claim must be, and hereby is, dismissed in its entirety.
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.
August 8, 2012
Syracuse, New York
NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims