Bell v. Jendell

Citations: 980 F. Supp. 2d 555; 2013 WL 5863561; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 156507Docket: Case No. 12-CV-6666 (KMK)

Court: District Court, S.D. New York; October 31, 2013; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Plaintiff Amar Bell, proceeding pro se, filed a lawsuit against Drs. Alexis Gendell and Paul Adler for injuries sustained from medical treatment during his incarceration at Westchester County Jail from March 23 to April 2, 2012. Bell had a pre-existing condition of acid reflux, for which he was prescribed Protonix, but his prescription ran out on March 23. He began experiencing severe symptoms and submitted multiple sick call requests, leading to a consultation with Dr. Adler on March 28, during which Adler purportedly agreed to renew the prescription but was distracted by his cell phone. Bell did not receive the medication until April 2, after suffering additional symptoms. He seeks $9 million in damages, alleging inadequate medical care, a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and medical negligence under state tort law.

The court reviewed the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), emphasizing that complaints must provide sufficient factual grounds to support a plausible claim for relief rather than mere labels or conclusions. The court referenced established legal standards requiring that factual allegations must raise a right to relief above a speculative level and that claims must be plausible on their face. If claims do not meet this threshold, they must be dismissed.

A complaint must present well-pleaded facts that allow a court to infer misconduct; otherwise, it fails to demonstrate entitlement to relief. In assessing a Motion to Dismiss, the court accepts all factual allegations as true and draws reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. The court is limited to facts within the complaint, attached documents, or those subject to judicial notice. Pro se litigants receive liberal construction of their pleadings, particularly when civil rights are at stake, but they must still comply with procedural and substantive laws.

In analyzing federal claims, the court addresses the claim against Dr. Gendell first, noting that personal involvement is necessary to establish liability under Section 1983. The plaintiff concedes that claims against Dr. Gendell should be dismissed, leading the court to grant the motion to dismiss in this regard.

Next, the claim against Dr. Adler involves allegations of inadequate medical care. The plaintiff does not clarify whether he was a convicted prisoner or a pre-trial detainee, which affects the constitutional analysis. Convicted prisoners' claims fall under the Eighth Amendment, while pre-trial detainees' claims are assessed under the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Regardless of the plaintiff's status, claims of deliberate indifference to serious medical conditions are evaluated under the same standard, as established by case law.

Prison officials are required to provide adequate medical care, but not every failure constitutes a constitutional violation. To establish a constitutional claim for inadequate medical care, a plaintiff must show the defendant's "deliberate indifference" to serious medical needs, meeting both objective and subjective prongs. The objective prong assesses whether the deprivation was sufficiently serious, while the subjective prong examines the defendant's culpable state of mind. In cases involving delays in treatment, the focus is on the nature of the delay rather than solely the seriousness of the underlying condition. Short interruptions in care may not meet the serious medical need standard unless they involve prolonged delays or result in significant pain or worsening of a serious condition. The plaintiff in this case claims to have experienced five days of acid reflux symptoms, including vomiting, which could be deemed serious based on case law. The court is inclined to assume that these allegations fulfill the objective prong's requirement of serious harm during the treatment delay.

Plaintiff's Complaint presents three facts regarding Dr. Adler's alleged negligence: he was on his cell phone during the examination, the prescription refill was delayed by five days, and Dr. Adler claimed he thought he had submitted the order. These facts suggest Dr. Adler's actions contributed to the Plaintiff suffering from acid-reflux symptoms due to the delayed prescription. However, they do not convincingly demonstrate that Dr. Adler acted with a culpable state of mind equivalent to subjective recklessness necessary for a claim under § 1983. To establish such a claim, Plaintiff must show that Dr. Adler was aware of the substantial risk of serious harm resulting from his actions or inactions, which mere negligence or medical malpractice does not satisfy. Plaintiff's assertion that Dr. Adler's carelessness caused the delay is insufficient, as it indicates no more than negligence since Dr. Adler allegedly intended to submit the refill request. Furthermore, the Complaint does not indicate that Dr. Adler knowingly caused the delay or that he denied the Plaintiff’s requests for medication, which distinguishes this case from others where deliberate indifference was found.

In Sprinkle v. Barksdale, the court addressed the plaintiff's claim of deliberate indifference regarding a delay in medication refill. The plaintiff needed to prove that the defendants knowingly delayed the refill to establish such a claim. The court found that the plaintiff did not sufficiently allege that Dr. Adler failed to act after being informed of the delay, as the plaintiff eventually received the refill. The plaintiff described Dr. Adler’s actions as 'negligent,' indicating a lack of intent or recklessness. The court compared this situation to other cases where mere delays in medical care were deemed insufficient to prove deliberate indifference. Notably, the court referenced cases where claims were dismissed due to a lack of evidence showing that officials intentionally delayed treatment or were aware of serious risks to the plaintiff's health. The plaintiff's cited cases did not alter the outcome, with some even supporting the defendants' position. Overall, the court determined that the claims primarily reflected negligence rather than the deliberate indifference required for the case to proceed.

The Supreme Court case Farmer v. Brennan establishes the standard for deliberate indifference, requiring a prison official to be aware of and disregard a substantial risk to inmate health or safety. The current case applies this standard, noting that Farmer does not pertain to inadequate medical care since that allegation was not made in Farmer. Additional cited cases, Gutierrez v. Peters and Crayton v. Quarterman, both involved claims of inadequate medical care that were dismissed due to the plaintiffs failing to meet the subjective prong of the deliberate indifference standard. Consequently, the Court grants the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the plaintiff's Section 1983 claims without prejudice.

Regarding the state law claim of medical negligence, the Court interprets it under state tort law. As this claim does not involve a federal question or diversity jurisdiction, it can only be entertained under supplemental jurisdiction. If federal claims are dismissed, the Court may choose not to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state claims. The dismissal of the medical negligence claim is also without prejudice, allowing the plaintiff to amend his Complaint.

The Court concludes by granting the Motion to Dismiss for all claims against both Defendants without prejudice and instructs the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending Motion. The plaintiff has thirty days to submit an amended complaint. The plaintiff initially misidentified Dr. Gendell as 'Alexis Jendell' but has corrected this in subsequent filings. The complaint is considered properly filed against both Dr. Gendell and Dr. Adler, as the plaintiff asserts claims against both in his opposition.

Plaintiff alleges he experienced panic attacks and a burning sensation in his throat and nose. Although mentioned in the Complaint, the Court does not consider the grievance for evaluating Defendants' Motion, but notes that Plaintiff received his prescription refill on the same day he filed the grievance (April 2), shortly after his first sick-call request on March 25 and his meeting with Dr. Adler on March 28. Plaintiff submitted several sick-call requests post-meeting, which he claims were ignored until he received the refill. However, he has not asserted that Dr. Adler was involved in the alleged lack of response to these requests. For individual liability under Section 1983, a plaintiff must demonstrate a defendant's personal involvement in the constitutional violation, which was a basis for dismissing the claim against Dr. Gendell. Plaintiff has indicated a potential for adding allegations to support his claims and will be allowed thirty days to file an amended complaint, as pro se complaints are to be read liberally. The Court emphasizes that conclusory allegations of deliberate indifference are insufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, referencing established case law that requires specific factual allegations rather than mere assertions.