Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Habib v. Correctional Managed Health Care

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

July 11, 2019

JOSHUA K. HABIB, Plaintiff,
v.
CORRECTIONAL MANAGED HEALTH CARE, et al., Defendants.

          INITIAL REVIEW ORDER

          Michael P. Shea, United States District Judge.

         Plaintiff Joshua K. Habib incarcerated at the Osborn Correctional Institution in Somers, Connecticut, filed this case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff names nine defendants, former Commissioner Scott Semple, Dr. Syed Naqvi, Drs. John Doe #1-#4, Robert Daddona, Correctional Managed Health Care and the Department of Correction. He contends that the defendants unreasonably denied and delayed medical care in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. The plaintiff seeks an award of damages from the defendants in their individual capacities.

         The Court must review prisoner civil complaints and dismiss any portion of the complaint that is frivolous or malicious, that fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This requirement applies to all prisoner filings regardless whether the prisoner pays the filing fee. Nicholson v. Lenczewski, 356 F.Supp.2d 157, 159 (D. Conn. 2005) (citing Carr v. Dvorin, 171 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 1999) (per curiam)). Here, the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis.

         Although detailed allegations are not required, the complaint must include sufficient facts to afford the defendants fair notice of the claims and the grounds upon which they are based and to demonstrate a plausible right to relief. Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). Conclusory allegations are not sufficient. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). The plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “A claim has facial plausibility when a plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

         “Although courts must interpret a pro se complaint liberally, the complaint will be dismissed unless it includes sufficient factual allegations to meet the standard of facial plausibility.” See Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 72 (2d Cir. 2009) (citations omitted).

         I. Allegations

         On July 30, 2017, defendant Daddona asked the plaintiff to be a volunteer painter. ECF No. 1. ¶ 17. He told the plaintiff the job would afford him an opportunity to get out of his cell for the day. Id., ¶ 18. The plaintiff said that he had no official training for painting but agreed to work so he could spend the day out of his cell. Id., ¶ 19. Defendant Daddona directed the plaintiff and three other inmates to gather paint supplies and a wheeled ladder from the supply closet and brought them to an office on the third floor of the New Haven Correctional Center. Id., ¶¶ 20-21. Defendant Daddona ordered the plaintiff to use the ladder to paint hard-to-reach areas. Id., ¶ 22.

         Defendant Daddona twice left the inmates alone, locked in the office. They were unsupervised for about an hour each time. Id., ¶ 25. Defendant Daddona's actions in recruiting the inmates for the painting job, providing no training, and leaving them unsupervised violated Department of Correction Administrative Directives. Id., ¶¶ 23-34, 26.

         At 1:00 p.m., during the second time the inmates were left alone, the plaintiff fell backwards off the ladder. He landed on his right arm/wrist breaking it. Id., ¶ 27. The plaintiff was unable to seek immediate medical attention because he was locked in the office without a correctional officer present. Id., ¶ 28. The other inmates began banging on the door to attract an officer. About twenty minutes later, Correctional Officer Wilkes unlocked the door, acknowledged the plaintiff's injury, and escorted him to a control bubble to call in the incident. Id., ¶ 29.

         Correctional Officer Whaller, who was working in the control bubble, expressed frustration that the inmates were left unsupervised. Id., ¶ 30. Correctional Officer Wilkes then escorted the plaintiff to the medical unit where the staff arranged for his transfer to the UConn Health Center. Id., ¶¶ 31-32.

         While he was waiting for the transport vehicle, two lieutenants questioned the plaintiff about how he was injured. Defendant Daddona arrived in the medical unit and forced the plaintiff to exclude the fact that he was injured while using the wheeled step-ladder. In addition, defendant Daddona answered the lieutenants' questions for the plaintiff. As a result the incident report contains a different version of the incident. Id., ¶ 33. The plaintiff was in severe pain and did not care which version of the incident was included in the incident report. Id., ¶ 34.

         Officers Wilkes and Hines escorted the plaintiff to UConn at about 2:00 p.m. Id., ¶ 35. The plaintiff's arm/wrist was x-rayed and diagnosed as fractured. An orthopedic specialist re-set the bones and a cast was applied from wrist to shoulder. Id., ¶ 36. Officers Wilkes and Hines returned the plaintiff to the correctional facility at about 11:00 p.m., the same day. Id., ¶ 37.

         On August 7, 2017, the plaintiff submitted a request form to Lieutenant Mendillo asking him to preserve the surveillance footage from the date of the incident. Although the office did not include a camera, surveillance footage from the surrounding corridors would show that defendant Daddona left the inmates unsupervised. The plaintiff did not receive a response to his request. Id., ¶ 38.

         On August 11, 2017, the plaintiff returned to UConn for a consultation on his fracture. Id., ¶ 39. The orthopedic specialist advised the plaintiff to keep his arm elevated and to be gentle with it because the bones could easily be displaced. The specialist ordered that x-rays be taken at the correctional facility and requested a follow-up examination in 1-2 weeks. Id., ¶ 40.

         On August 14, 2017, APRN Koslawy submitted a request to the Utilization Review Committee (“URC”) seeking an orthopedic follow-up. The doctors on the committee, defendants John Does #1-#4, denied the request. Id., ¶ 41. On September 7, 2017, APRN Koslawy submitted a second request for a follow-up orthopedic visit. This request was approved. Id., ¶ 42.

         On September 11, 2017, the plaintiff was transferred to Walker Correctional Institution (“WCI”). Id., ¶ 43. On September 29, 2017, he was brought to UConn for the orthopedic follow-up visit. The plaintiff's arm was x-rayed and the cast removed. Id., ¶ 44. The specialist told the plaintiff that he did not need formal physical therapy. Instead, he gave the plaintiff range of motion exercises to perform five times per day. Id., ¶ 45.

         The plaintiff submitted several medical requests complaining that the range of motion in his right wrist was not returning to normal despite performing the prescribed exercises. On October 27, 2017, the plaintiff saw an APRN in the WCI medical unit. The APRN advised the plaintiff to continue doing the exercises and said that, if his range of motion did not improve in a month, further treatment would be requested. Id., ¶ 46.

         On November 2, 2017, the plaintiff was transferred to MacDougall Correctional Institution (“MCI”). Id., ¶ 47. During November and December 2017, the plaintiff submitted several requests to the MCI medical unit complaining that the range of motion in his right wrist was not improving and that he was experiencing shooting pain when he turned his wrist. He also explained how the limited range of motion affected his daily activities. Id., ¶ 48.

         Defendant Dr. Naqvi saw the plaintiff on December 31, 2017. The plaintiff explained that his range of motion had not improved even though he had been consistently performing the exercises. Id., ¶ 49. The plaintiff stated that he was unable to perform simple tasks such as brushing his teeth, tying his shoes, and opening a door with his right hand. The plaintiff is right-handed and was forced to try to write with his left hand. Id., ΒΆ 50. The plaintiff told Dr. Naqvi that he has extreme difficulty climbing to the top bunk because he cannot put any weight on his right wrist and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.