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.

Verley v. Wright

September 27, 2007

HAROLD VERLEY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
DR. LESTER N. WRIGHT, CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER AND ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, ET. AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: P. Kevin Castel, U.S.D.J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff Harold Verley, proceeding pro se, brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dr. Lester N. Wright, Dr. Carl J. Koenigsmann and Dr. Steven Weinstein, each of whom is employed by the New York State Department of Corrections ("DOCS") as a physician (collectively, the "State Defendants"). Also named as defendants are Corrections Physician Services, Inc., ("CPS") and Prison Health Services, Inc., ("PHS") (collectively, the "Corporate Defendants"). Verley suffers from hepatitis C and contends that defendants have violated his rights under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments by withholding treatment with deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Plaintiff seeks injunctive, declaratory and monetary relief.

The State and Corporate Defendants now move for summary judgment in their favor. I conclude that plaintiff has failed to administratively exhaust his remedies as to all claims against the State Defendants, with the exception of his claim against defendant Wright for denial of interferon/ribavirin treatment and his claim against defendant Koenigsmann for denial of the referral to a nutritionist and hepatologist. As to defendant Wright, plaintiff has raised a triable issue of fact on the deliberate indifference claim against him; however, I conclude that the claim is barred by the doctrine of qualified immunity. As to defendant Koenigsmann, plaintiff has failed to come forward with evidence which would permit a reasonable factfinder to conclude that he acted with deliberate indifference to plaintiff's medical needs. Plaintiff's claims for money damages against the State Defendants in their official capacities are also barred by sovereign immunity. Plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are deemed moot because of his transfer from the Green Haven Correctional Facility ("Green Haven") to a different facility and because he has received the treatment he initially sought.

The Corporate Defendants do not assert that the exhaustion requirement applies to them. However, plaintiff has failed to come forward with evidence which would permit a reasonable factfinder to find in his favor as against the Corporate Defendants.

For the reasons more fully explained below, summary judgment is granted dismissing plaintiff's claims.

BACKGROUND

A. Procedural Background

Defendants, with the exception of Wright and Koenigsmann, moved pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), (2), and (6), Fed. R. Civ. P., to partially dismiss the Complaint. (Docket # 13, 20, 28) The motions were referred to Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman.

In a Report and Recommendation dated January 22, 2004 (the "R&R"), Magistrate Judge Freeman recommended that the Court dismiss all claims against defendants Glenn S. Goord, Charles E. Greiner, Donald Stevens, Dr. Thomas Rush, Dr. Michael Antonelle, Vincent Marrone, Dr. Rosensweig and Phillip Marron, but deny the motion to dismiss claims against defendants CPS and PHS; the Magistrate Judge also recommended denial of Verley's motion to amend certain portions of the Complaint. (Docket # 90) Despite twice seeking extensions of his time to object to the R&R, no objections were received from plaintiff. The Corporate Defendants timely filed objections. On June 2, 2004, I issued an Order which adopted in its entirety the R&R of Magistrate Judge Freeman. (Docket # 94)

In their submissions on the present motion, the Corporate Defendants have annexed a "Second Amended Complaint" ("SAC"). (Corp. Defs. Rule 56.1 Stmt. Exh. A) Plaintiff sought and received permission to file a SAC, (Docket # 107) but the SAC does not appear to have been filed with the Clerk. On the motions, all parties direct their arguments to the SAC and I will therefore consider it the operative pleading and deem it to have been filed.

A. Background

Since 1990, plaintiff has been incarcerated within DOCS. In late 1996, physicians at Green Haven, where plaintiff was then located, noted elevated enzyme levels in plaintiff's blood. (Johnson Dec. Exh. E) Following testing in 1997, plaintiff was told that he was likely infected with the hepatitis C virus ("HCV"). (Verley Dec. ¶ 34) HCV is a chronic, viral liver disease. (Verley Brief in Opp. Exh. R; Johnson Dec. Exh. I-1) No broadly effective treatment for HCV exists, although the most successful treatments are a regimen of interferon, ribavirin or some combination thereof. (Verley Brief in Opp. Exh. N; Johnson Dec. Exh I-1)

Plaintiff contends that his "medical provider," a physician assigned to provide medical services to inmates, told him that he should "consider" undergoing a liver biopsy, the most accurate method of testing for HCV, in order to confirm the diagnosis. Plaintiff claims that he was denied a biopsy for over a year, despite having obtained several referrals for one from his medical provider at Green Haven. (Verley Exh. I at 12-17) Verley underwent a liver biopsy on October 6, 1998, which resulted in a finding of "Chronic Hepatitis, Consistent with Hepatitis C, Grade 2, Stage 2." (Verley Exh. I at 20) On or about December 26, 1998, Dr. Thomas Rush, an Infectious Disease Control Specialist at Green Haven, ordered that plaintiff begin combination interferon/ribavirin ("IR") therapy immediately.*fn1 (Verley Dep. 41-42; Defs. 56.1 ¶ 15)

On February 12, 1999, plaintiff was denied participation in an IR therapy program by defendant Wright, the Associate Commissioner and Chief Medical Officer of DOCS, on the basis that plaintiff did not satisfy the preconditions set forth in the 1998 preliminary protocol (the "1998 Protocol") which governed treatment of HCV within DOCS. (Johnson Dec. Exh. I-4, Q; Johnson Dec. Exh. A, Wright Dec. ¶ 8) The 1998 Protocol was the precursor to the Clinical Practice Guideline on Hepatitis C (the "Guideline") which went into effect on March 31, 1999. (Johnson Dec. Exh. I-5) The 1998 Protocol and the Guideline provide that treatment must not be given to anyone with "evidence of active substance (alcohol or drug) use during the past two years." (Johnson Exh. I-4 ¶ 2; Exh. I-5 at 3)

Plaintiff was found guilty of two disciplinary violations relating to two separate instances of drug use which occurred in November of 1998. (Johnson Dec. Exhs. K, J) The first incident occurred on November 13, 1998 when a search of plaintiff's cell resulted in the confiscation of five small bags of a substance later determined to be marijuana. (Johnson Dec. Exh. K) Plaintiff was charged with, and pled guilty to, drug possession in violation of prison regulations. (Id.) Prior to this incident, plaintiff had been twice tested for drugs and tested negative both times. (Johnson Dec. J "Hearing Transcript" at 17) As a result of this disciplinary violation, plaintiff was placed on a list of inmates subject to random drug testing which he underwent on November 24, 1998. (Johnson Dec. Exh. J) The test resulted in a finding that Verley's urine was "positive for contraband," namely cannabinoid. (Id.) A second test confirmed the first result. (Id.) In response to the test results, plaintiff was charged with, and pled guilty to, use of a controlled substance in violation of prison regulations. The fact that plaintiff had not been free from drug use for two years as the 1998 Protocol required caused Wright to deny him IR therapy. (Johnson Dec. Exh. Q)

Plaintiff filed a grievance challenging the denial of IR therapy, pursuing the claim through the DOCS grievance procedure and culminating in an Article 78 proceeding in New York Supreme Court. (Verley Aff. Exh. L) In a Decision and Order dated May 1, 2000, Justice Judith A. Hillery concluded "that Dr. Wright demonstrated a deliberate indifference to petitioner's serious medical needs" by denying him IR therapy. (Id. at 5) She ordered that plaintiff be immediately enrolled in IR therapy.

Thereafter, plaintiff was admitted to IR therapy but did not respond favorably to the treatment. In August 2001, Rush recommended that plaintiff be given a new type of Interferon treatment called Pegelated Interferon ("PegIntron"), upon its approval by the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). (Verley Dep. 57) Plaintiff alleges that PegIntron therapy was approved by the FDA but, despite his repeated requests, he was denied access to it by Wright. (SAC ¶ 24; Verley Dep. 58) Plaintiff contends that the initial denial of IR therapy, delay in his receipt of medical treatment and the denial of PegIntron, combined to result in his suffering additional ills, including loss of hearing. (Verley Dep. 49; 51-52) In addition to claiming that Wright acted with deliberate indifference toward plaintiff's specific medical condition, he alleges that Wright improperly failed to develop a tracking system or other procedure to monitor inmates with chronic illnesses (the "Monitoring Claim"). (SAC ¶ 25; Verley Dep. 61-63)

Plaintiff also contends that in May 2001, Koenigsmann, Facility Health Services Director at Green Haven, improperly denied him access to the services of a hepatologist, dermatologist and nutritionist on the basis that he had already seen a gastroenterologist ("GI"). (Verley Dep. 72, 74-75; Verley Dec. 61-62) He claims that Koenigsmann denied him a follow-up appointment with the GI, despite a referral for the appointment from his medical provider. (Verley Dep. 75; Johnson Dec. Exh. E "Def" 234) Plaintiff contends that the real reason for the denial of medical treatment by Koenigsmann was a desire to have plaintiff transferred to another facility.

In October 2001, plaintiff complained to Dr. Steven Weinstein, an outside medical consultant at Green Haven, about back pain he believed was attributable to an old gun shot wound and "HCV related neuropathy." (SAC ¶ 35) Following testing, Weinstein determined that Verley had no apparent nerve damage. Plaintiff asserts that Weinstein reached this conclusion by ignoring prior tests which showed nerve damage. (Pl. "Statement of Disputed Factual Material Issues of Fact" ¶ 4) Plaintiff contends that Weinstein's report "was based on personal opinion, not sound medical information." (Id.) When plaintiff questioned the diagnosis, Weinstein allegedly became verbally abusive toward plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 25; Verley Dep. 76) Plaintiff alleges that Weinstein deliberately disregarded any indication that plaintiff may have experienced pain or nerve damage "out of spite" and personal dislike of plaintiff. (SAC ¶ 36)

Defendant CPS is a corporate entity which in February 1998 contracted with DOCS to provide off-site review of referrals of DOCS inmates to medical specialists.*fn2 (CPS 56.1 Stmt. ¶¶ 20-21) According to the terms of the contract, CPS was to "provide or arrange for the provision of all medically necessary specialty physician services . . . and to manage the delivery of hospital service to the [inmate] Population . . . ." (CPS 56.1 Stmt. ¶ 23, Exh. I §1) As part of its services, CPS engaged in a process of preadmission certification to determine "whether the inpatient care proposed by a physician is appropriate and required" and conducted reviews of patient care. (CPS 56.1 Exh. I § 3.G) If CPS declined to permit a patient to be seen by a specialist, despite a referral from the patient's physician, DOCS could require a review by a committee of two DOCS representatives and two CPS representatives, all of whom are physicians or health professionals. (Id.) CPS did not provide direct care to DOCS inmates. (CPS Stmt. ¶ 34) Verley appears to contend that CPS was, at least partially, responsible for denying him both the IR therapy and the PegIntron treatments 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.