SUPERIOR COURT GA 19
`
`DOCKET NO.CV 21-5000911-S
`
`_
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`PRINCE JONES
`
`V.
`
`. S41
`WRN IS
`
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT
`OF TOLLAND
`
`COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
`
`i
`
`:
`
`NOVEMBER I5, 2022
`
`MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
`
`The petitioner, Prince Jones, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpusalleging that
`
`his eighth amendmentrights are being violated by the Department of Correction’s (DOC)
`
`continued failure to treat his medical needs properly. Specifically, he alleges that he is not being
`
`properly diagnosed and he seeks an MRI or a CAT scan, appropriate pain medication and
`
`transfer to a facility where he can engagein physical therapy. Having considered the evidence
`and the arguments of the parties, the court determines that the claims are not proven. Thus,
`
`the petition is denied.
`
`Jonesfiled an amendedpetition for a weit of habeas corpus on September |, 2022. The
`respondent’s return,filed on October 19, 2022, denies Jones’s claims and asserts that he has
`
`received adequate medical! care while incarcerated. The matter was tried to this court on
`
`November 9, 2022. Jones submitted copies of his medical records into evidence; the
`
`respondentalso submitted copies of relevant medical records into evidence. Jones testified on
`
`his own behalf. The respondentpresented thetestimony of Dr. Cary Freston.
`
`l.
`
`FACTS
`
`Prior to 2019, Jones had no issues with pain in his back and leg. He was thentransferred
`to MacDougall Cl and he started having problems due to the mattress he was sleeping on. At
`
`MacDougall Cl, he started feeling numbnessand pain in his leg. He realized he couldn’t get out
`
`
`
`DOCKET NO.CV 21-5000911-S
`
`_
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`
`PRINCE JONES
`
`V.
`
`. S41
`WRN IS
`
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT
`OF TOLLAND
`
`COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
`
`i
`
`:
`
`NOVEMBER I5, 2022
`
`MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
`
`The petitioner, Prince Jones, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpusalleging that
`
`his eighth amendmentrights are being violated by the Department of Correction’s (DOC)
`
`continued failure to treat his medical needs properly. Specifically, he alleges that he is not being
`
`properly diagnosed and he seeks an MRI or a CAT scan, appropriate pain medication and
`
`transfer to a facility where he can engagein physical therapy. Having considered the evidence
`and the arguments of the parties, the court determines that the claims are not proven. Thus,
`
`the petition is denied.
`
`Jonesfiled an amendedpetition for a weit of habeas corpus on September |, 2022. The
`respondent’s return,filed on October 19, 2022, denies Jones’s claims and asserts that he has
`
`received adequate medical! care while incarcerated. The matter was tried to this court on
`
`November 9, 2022. Jones submitted copies of his medical records into evidence; the
`
`respondentalso submitted copies of relevant medical records into evidence. Jones testified on
`
`his own behalf. The respondentpresented thetestimony of Dr. Cary Freston.
`
`l.
`
`FACTS
`
`Prior to 2019, Jones had no issues with pain in his back and leg. He was thentransferred
`to MacDougall Cl and he started having problems due to the mattress he was sleeping on. At
`
`MacDougall Cl, he started feeling numbnessand pain in his leg. He realized he couldn’t get out
`
`
`
`of bed; the pain was so excruciating that he cauldn’t movefor thirty minutes. In 2019, he
`ns
`couldn’t get out of his bed and had to be helped byhis cellmate. Staff had to get a wheelchair to
`
`assist him. He went to medical in 2019, when a doctorinformed him that he had sciatic nerve
`damage.Sciatica is a commoncondition in America, with about forty percent of adults
`
`experiencing.It is radiating pain from the back or buttocks to the legs. A diagnosis ofsciatica is
`
`.
`
`based on clinical findings.
`
`He was sent to UCONN medical center for physical therapy. The recommendation
`from UCONNwasto receive physical therapy, a mattress more suitable for his weight and
`condition, a pillow, medication and to participate in a wellness program. Jones has only been
`
`prescribed a muscle relaxer, Motrin and Bengay.
`Since 2019, Jones has received x-rays three times. The x-ray was recommendedtoseeif
`there was a suggestion ofa disc disease that was connected to his pain, such as arthritis orif
`the disc space was narrowed.Theresults were unremarkable, but Jones continued to complain
`
`aboutsignificant pain. In September 2020, he was offered a steroid injection in the spine.
`
`According to him, he was not alerted to this ahead of time, was not provided any information
`abouttheside-effects, had significant concerns about whether it was necessary and what impact
`;
`.
`
`it would have on him and thus, decided to decline the steroid shot at that time. He signed the
`
`form that indicated he was being transported to UConn for radiology intervention and an ESI
`but testified that he does not know what ESI is and assumed it was for an MRI. ESI stands for
`
`epidural steroid injection. The ES] was recommended to attempt to decrease pain by injecting a
`_ Steroid into the areaofinflammation. Jones has also refused Mobic, a specialty type NSAID anti-
`
`inflammatory medication that would have been a “great treatment”for Jones’ pain. He is
`
`currently not taking any medication and took Motrin two monthsago.
`
`
`
`
`
`An October 2020 sick call encounter notes that he was able to perform daily activities |
`
`and did not have any uncontrolled bowel movements that-indicates he did not have any severe
`
`nerve damage that impacted those functions. This examination assesses his complaint as
`
`-“lumbagoof the right sciatica.” The examination also concluded that there was no medical
`
`indication of an MRI at that time. For an MRIto beclinically indicated, there would need to be
`
`-red flag symptomslike motordeficits, bowel and bladder problems, reproducible locations of
`pain. Here, given the normal examinations and no other indications, an MRI is not warranted or
`appropriate. The examiner during the October 2020sick call also noted that Jones did not want
`to take NSAIDS or muscle relaxants. Ibuprofen was also discontinued because he was
`
`apprehensive of medication management. A note for the physical therapist prepared in advance
`
`of a September 22, 2021, appointment indicates that due to his hypertension, NSAID
`
`medications are not being prescribed.
`
`Jones also underwent x-rays in May 2021 which revealed sclerosis on the right side next
`to the sciatic nerve. This is outside of the spine. Thus,this is peripheral sciatica, not central
`sciatica, i.e., it does notinvolve the spine. This is the source of Jones’ pain and negates the need
`
`for the MRIsince it does not involve the spine. As a result of this x-ray finding, Jones
`underwent follow-up lab tests to determineif certain rheumatologic diseases like Rheumatoid
`arthritis and spondylopathy were present. These diseases were ruled out and thus, theclinical
`diagnosis correlated to inflammation and sciatica. Anti-inflammatories and a steroidal injection
`in the SI joint are the ways to treat his peripheral sciatica.
`
`Finally, another sick call encounter in Apri 2022 revealed lower back pain, but with no
`
`paresthesias, which are sensory abnormalitieslike loss of sensation or discomfort, and no
`
`
`
`
`
`radiculopathy which is related to the radicular nerve route coming downthe spine and going
`down an extremity. This also confirmed no needfor an MRI.
`
`Il. DISCUSSION
`Prison officials will be found to have violated the eighth amendmentto the United States
`constitution if, by virtue of their deliberate indifference to an inmate's serious medical needs,
`they refuse to provide care or treatment to that inmate. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 US. 97, 97S.
`Ct. 285, 50 L. Ed. 2d 251] (1976); Faraday v. Commissioner of Correction, 288 Conn. 326, 328,
`952 A.2d 764 (2008). Thus, in orderto succeed onhis claim, Jones must prove deliberate
`indifferenceto his serious medical needs. Estellev. Gamble, supra, 429 U.S. 104.
`
`A. Deliberate Indifference
`
`The standard ofdeliberate indifference*has both subjective and objective components. |
`First, the deprivation alleged must be, objectively, “sufficiently serious.” Farmer v. Brennan, 5! |
`U.S. 825, 834, 114.S. Ct. 1970, 128 L.. Ed. 2d 811 (1994); Wilson v. Seiter, 501 U.S. 294, 298,
`IIIS. Cte. 2321, 115 L. Ed. 2d 271 (1991); Hathaway v. Coughlin, 37 F.3d 63, 66 (2d Cir.1994),
`
`cert. denied sub nom. Foote y. Hathaway, 513 U.S. 1154, 115 S. Ct. 1108, 130 L. Ed. 2d 1074
`(1995); Faraday v. Commissioner of Correctio , supra, 288 Conn. 338. With respect to the
`
`objective componentofthe deliberate indifference standard, the term “sufficiently serious” has
`been described as “a condition of urgency, one that may produce death, degeneration, or
`
`extremepain.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Hathaway v. Coughlin, 99 F.3d 550, 553 (2d
`
` Cir. 1996); Archer vy. Dutcher, 733 F.2d 14, 16-17 (2d Cir.1984) (“extreme pain”); Todaro v.-
`Ward, 565 F.2d 48, 52 (2d Cir.1977) (“physicai torture and lingering death”). The typesof
`
`conditions which have been held to meetthe constitutional standard of serious medical need
`
`
`include a brain tumor, Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 109 S. Ct. 1827, 104 L. Ed. 2d 338
`
`
`
`
`
`.
`
`(1989); brokenpins in a hip, Hathaway v. Coughlin, 841 F.2d 48 (2d Cir.1988); premature
`return to prison after surgery, Kelsey v. Ewing, 652 F.2d 4 (8th Cir. 1981); diabetes requiring
`
`special diet, Johnson v. Harris, 479 F. Supp. 333 (S.D.N.Y.1979); a bleeding ulcer, Masseyv.
`
`Hutto, 545 F.2d 45 (8th Cir.1976); and loss of an ear, Williams v. Vincent, 508 F.2d 541 (2d
`Cir, 1974)(claim stated against a doctor who threw awaya prisoner's ear and stitched up the
`
`stump).
`Second, the governmentofficial must act with a sufficiently culpable state of mind.
`Wilson v. Seiter, supra, 501 U.S. 297; Faraday v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 288 Conn.
`338.In a case suchasthis, a “sufficiently culpable state of mind”is “one of deliberate
`|
`
`indifference to inmate health or safety.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)
`Farmerv. Brennan, supra, 51! U.S. 834. “An official acts with the requisite deliberate
`indifference whenthatofficial knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health or
`
`safety; the official must both be awareoffacts from which the inference could be drawnthat a
`
`substantial risk of serious harm exists, and he must also draw the inference.” Faradayv.
`
`\
`
`- Commissioner of Correction, supra, 338; see also Farmer v. Brennan, supra, 837. Thus, “an
`official's failure to alleviate a significant riskthat he should have perceived but did not [does not
`violate the eighth amendment].” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Faraday v. Commissioner
`of Correction, supra, 338, quoting Farmerv. Brennan, supra, 838..
`Accordingly, to establish a claim of deliberate indifference in violation of the eighth
`amendment,» Jones must prove that DOC’sactions constituted ““moree
`than ordinary lack of due
`care for the prisoner's interests orSafety.” Faradayv. Commissioner of Correction» SUPTa, 288
`Conn. 338-39, quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475. U.S. 312, 319, 106 S. Ct. 1078, 89 L. Ed. 2d 251
`(1986)..“Deliberate indifferenceis a stringent standard offault requiring proof of a state of mind
`
`
`
`that is the equivalent of criminal recklessness.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks
`omitted.) Faradayv. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 339. Mere professional negligence is
`insufficient to meet Jones’s: burden. Id., 339-40. Consequently, “a complaint that a physician has
`been negligent in diagnosing or treating a medical condition does not state a valid claim of
`
`medical mistreatment underthe [e]Jighth [a]Jmendment. Medical malpractice does not become a
`' constitutional violation merely because the victim is a prisoner.” Estelle v. Gamble, supra, 429
`
`U.S. 106. However, medical malpractice can rise to the level of deliberate indifference when the
`
`malpractice involves “culpable recklessness, i.e., an act ora failure to act by the prison doctor
`
`that evinces a conscious disregard of a substantial risk of serious harm.” (Internal quotation
`marks omitted.) Chancev. Armstrong, 143 F.3d 698, 703 (2d Cir.1998); Faraday V.
`
`Commissioner of Correction, supra, 288 Conn. 340. The fact that a doctor may render
`substandard care or that an incarceratedindividual disagrees with the level or mannerofcare
`
`rendered “does not amount to a constitutionalviolation [and] falls short of cruel and unusual
`punishment.” Faraday v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 344.
`
`B. The Present Claim
`
`Jones claims that he should receive an MRI or CAT scan to determine the sourceofhis
`
`sciatica andtreat it. The evidence establishes that the sourceof his pain has been determined:
`sclerosis on the right side next to thesciatic nerve, As noted above, this establishes that the
`
`pain is notin the spine, which eliminates the need for an MRI. Jones suffers from peripheral
`sciatica, not central sciatica. DOC also scheduled follow-up lab tests which eliminated the
`
`possibility of rheumatological diseases. Thus,tlie clinical diagnosis correlates to inflammation
`andsciatica. This can be treated with anti-inflammatories and a steroidal injection in the SI joint,
`
`but Jones has refused both treatments. The courtis sensitive to the pain that Jonesis
`
`
`
`
`
`experiencing and recognizes the impactthatit has on his daily existence. However, the
`
`evidence establishes that DOC has been responsive to Jones’ medical complaints and is treating
`him appropriately. There is no deliberate indifference to his medical needs such that Jones can
`
`establish a violation of the eighth amendment.
`
`Il. CONCLUSION
`
`The court has no doubtthat Jones experiences the symptoms he describes and these
`
`symptomscausesignificant discomfort. However, the evidence establishes that the treatment
`
`he has received does notfall below what constitutional provisions guarantee. The court,
`
`therefore, must deny the petition.
`
` Bliatt,J.
`
`. Copies Sort—h ’.
`Pr nee ane $ wipeliat janes ~Y4 Mor)
`Mrevnes Eduord Powley
`-by Tov
`udge Bho}
`“|
`by. KernStackpole Rrst tech. Chee
`[ti S(209a+
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
