Opinion
# 2016-038-108 Claim No. 118586
04-22-2016
DEANDRE WILLIAMS v. STATE OF NEW YORK
DEANDRE WILLIAMS, Pro se ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, Attorney General of the State of New York By: Glenn C. King, Assistant Attorney General
Synopsis
Case information
| UID: | 2016-038-108 |
| 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): | 118586 |
| 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 C. King, Assistant Attorney General |
| Third-party defendant's attorney: | |
| Signature date: | April 22, 2016 |
| City: | Saratoga Springs |
| Comments: | |
| Official citation: | |
| Appellate results: | |
| See also (multicaptioned case) |
Decision
Claimant, an individual incarcerated at a state correctional facility, filed this claim in which he alleges that he sustained injuries due to the negligence and medical malpractice of medical and dental staff at Upstate Correctional Facility (CF) in its treatment of his gum and sinus infections from 2001 through 2009. 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 presented his own testimony and that of Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) dentist Dr. Jerry Miller, and offered three documents into evidence. Defendant offered no witnesses or exhibits. After listening to the testimony of the witnesses and observing their demeanor as they 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 2 and 3, which were exhibits in the possession of claimant at Five Points CF, were conditionally received subject to any legal objections by defendant following defense counsel's receipt of those exhibits. Having received no objection from defendant, those exhibits are now received into evidence.
FACTS
Claimant's testimony on direct examination was cursory. He testified that an infection that was in his gums spread to his sinuses while he was at Upstate CF, that doctors at Upstate CF did nothing to treat his medical complaints, and that the claim and the exhibits, which were received in evidence, clearly show that defendant was negligent with regard to his dental and health care. On cross-examination, claimant testified that he had been seen on numerous occasions by dentist Dr. Jerry Miller, that he had been given CAT scans, and that he received a partial dental plate that was not properly fitted and could not be properly fitted until ten teeth were extracted due to his gum disease. Claimant testified that he was not satisfied with the quality of the care that he received and that his problems had not been fixed.
The claim, which was received into evidence as Claimant's Exhibit 1, alleges that while confined at Upstate CF in 2001, claimant was stricken with swelling and pain in the gums of his lower jaw caused by gum infections, and that the infections eventually spread to his sinuses. The claim asserts that from 2001 through March 2009, his condition progressively worsened and that Upstate CF doctors and dentists, including Dr. Miller, refused and failed to timely diagnose and treat claimant's serious dental and sinus conditions. The claim further alleges that a CT scan that was done on March 12, 2009 was erroneously taken of his sinuses instead of his gum and jaw.
The report for the March 12, 2009 CT scan on claimant's sinuses was received into evidence as Claimant's Exhibit 2.
The claim also alleges that claimant nearly suffered a heart attack while being treated at the Upstate CF dental office in 2004 because he was not pre-medicated in relation to a heart murmur prior to a dental procedure, and that claimant's request for pain medication to treat the pain caused by the infections were denied.
Dr. Miller testified that he saw claimant at Upstate CF on several occasions and that claimant had periodontal disease, i.e. gum disease, which arises when bacteria in the mouth is not dealt with through proper home care such as brushing, rinsing and flossing. Dr. Miller testified that most people have some form of periodontal disease, and that the disease can become a serious problem if it is not addressed through proper home care and can lead to bone degradation, tooth loss and potentially life-threatening conditions.
As for his treatment of claimant, Dr. Miller testified that he had spoken to claimant several times about his periodontal disease and that claimant responded that he wanted specialty treatment for periodontal disease. Although he could not recall whether claimant had been referred out to a specialist, Dr. Miller testified that if claimant had a problem, he "probably would have followed up on it." Dr. Miller testified that he told claimant that the best that he could do for him was to maintain what teeth he had and give him a partial dental plate and work from there. Dr. Miller further testified that while claimant's problems would be addressed through proper home care, if claimant had a serious problem it would typically be addressed by Upstate CF dentists, because if not addressed, it could become a life-threatening condition. Dr. Miller testified that it was not documented that claimant's periodontal disease was the cause of his sinus infection. Finally, Dr. Miller testified that the only dental reason for the extraction of claimant's ten teeth would be due to advanced periodontal disease, and not simply so that claimant's partial dental plate would fit better, and that continuity of care would dictate that claimant be fitted with a new partial dental plate only after the extraction of his teeth.
All quotations are to the Court's trial notes or the digital audio recording of the trial, unless otherwise indicated.
DISCUSSION
The claim asserts that defendant's agents committed medical and dental malpractice, ordinary negligence with regard to his medical and dental care, and ministerial negligence with regard to claimant's medical and dental care (see Claimant's Exhibit 1, at ¶ 4). 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 medical malpractice claim on the ground that the preponderance of the credible evidence did not establish defendant's liability because claimant did not offer expert testimony that there was a departure from good and accepted medical practices, or that any such departure was the proximate cause of his injuries. Claimant opposed both motions, arguing that Dr. Miller's testimony established that his partial dental plate was not replaced, that no treatment was rendered to him and that he was not properly treated.
Although the claim asserts that it is for "medical malpractice" (id.) it makes allegations sounding in both medical malpractice and dental malpractice, and the Court will construe it as such. --------
"It 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). A claim sounds in medical malpractice, rather than negligence, when "the negligence alleged . . . relates . . . to the professional skill and judgment rendered by doctors [in medically treating a patient], rather than information within the common knowledge of a layperson" (Maki v Bassett Healthcare, 85 AD3d 1366, 1367 [3d Dept 2011], appeal dismissed 17 NY3d 855 [2011], lv dismissed and denied 18 NY3d 870 [2012]). "Widespread consensus exists, however, that a narrow category of factually simple medical malpractice cases requires no expert to enable the [factfinder] reasonably to conclude that the accident would not happen without negligence. Not surprisingly, the oft-cited example is where a surgeon leaves a sponge or foreign object inside the [claimant's] body" (Kambat v St. Francis Hosp., 89 NY2d 489, 496 [1997]; see also Rivers v State of New York, 142 Misc 2d 563, 567 [Ct Cl 1989], revd on other grounds, 159 AD2d 788 [3d Dept 1990], lv denied 76 NY2d 701 [1990] [expert affidavit unnecessary where medical malpractice related to operation on wrong body part]). Further, where a claim alleges that non-discretionary medical standards - or protocols - have been breached, a claim will sound in medical negligence, or ministerial neglect (see Kagan, at 10). 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]).
In order to prevail on his medical and dental malpractice claims, claimant must prove that defendant deviated from the accepted standards of medical or dental care and that the departures were the proximate cause of his injuries (see Bracci v Hopper, 274 AD2d 865, 867 [3d Dept 2000] [medical malpractice]; Bennett v State of New York, 31 AD3d 1069, 1070 [3d Dept 2006] [dental malpractice]). Whether Upstate CF medical and dental staff committed medical or dental malpractice or were otherwise negligent with regard to their treatment of claimant's gum disease and sinus infections are matters not 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 required. Dr. Miller's testimony during claimant's case did not include any expert testimony as to the applicable standards of medical or dental care and whether the breach of any such standard of care was a proximate cause of claimant's injuries. Thus, claimant has failed to make out a prima facie case of dental or medical malpractice (see Perricone-Bernovich v Gentle Dental, 60 AD3d 744, 745 [2d Dept 2009]; Myers v State of New York, 46 AD3d 1030, 1031 [3d Dept 2007]; Trottie v State of New York, 39 AD3d 1094, 1095 [3d Dept 2007]). Even assuming that the allegations of this claim fit within the "narrow category" of medical malpractice cases that constitute ordinary negligence, there was no persuasive evidence that claimant was not treated, that his treatment was deficient, or that his injuries would not have occurred in the absence of defendant's negligence. Finally, no testimony was adduced that would demonstrate that defendant breached any mandatory medical or dental protocols. Accordingly, because the preponderance of the evidence does not demonstrate that defendant's agents breached any standard of medical or dental care or any other duty owed to claimant, defendant will not be found liable to claimant.
CONCLUSION
Defendant's motions to dismiss the claim are GRANTED. Accordingly, claim number 118586 is DISMISSED. Any motions not previously ruled upon are hereby DENIED.
The Chief Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly.
April 22, 2016
Saratoga Springs, New York
W. BROOKS DeBOW
Judge of the Court of Claims