Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Castillo v. Rodas

United States District Court, S.D. New York

March 25, 2014



ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge.

Plaintiff Pedro Castillo, an inmate at the Green Haven Correctional Facility ("Green Haven"), brings claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendants Byron Rodas and Carl Koenigsmann were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs, in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and that Rodas retaliated against him for filing a grievance, in violation of the First Amendment. Before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Dkt. No. 75. For the following reasons, Defendants' motion is granted.


The Court will first describe the record evidence relevant to Plaintiff's claims, and then briefly summarize this action's procedural history.

A. Factual Background

The following facts and disputes of fact are based on the Court's review of the record, undertaken with particular attention to the evidence cited in the parties' Local Rule 56.1 statements.[1] See Monahan v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Corr., 214 F.3d 275, 292 (2d Cir. 2000); Agence Fr. Presse v. Morel, 934 F.Supp.2d 547, 551 (S.D.N.Y.), superseded on other grounds on reconsideration, 934 F.Supp.2d 584 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The facts are undisputed unless otherwise noted. Because the Court discusses certain facts in more detail later in this opinion, a general overview suffices here.

Plaintiff is an inmate at Green Haven, in Stormville, New York. Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 1. Under the terms of the consent decree governing the provision of inmate medical care at Green Haven, each inmate is assigned a primary care provider, who can be a physician assistant, a nurse practitioner, or a primary care physician. Id. ¶ 15. The "primary interface" between inmates and the medical staff is "sick call, " at which an inmate, after seeking permission from a corrections officer, can make an appointment with a nurse, who can then refer them to their primary care provider for further treatment or distribute certain over-the-counter medications. Id. ¶ 16. If an inmate's primary care provider is unavailable, the inmate will be seen by another primary care provider. Id. An inmate can also make an "emergency sick call" to receive treatment immediately. Id. ¶ 18.

For an inmate to receive specialty care, the primary care provider must initiate a "request for consultation." Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 25. Such requests describe the patient's condition and indicate a level of urgency indicating how soon a consultation with a specialist is needed. Id. ¶ 26. They are reviewed by a Regional Medical Director ("RMD") responsible for the medical care at several correctional facilities. Id. ¶¶ 7-8, 28. After the RMD approves a request for consultation, the request goes to a "quality review company" to determine whether the request meets the applicable standard of care. Id. ¶ 31. If the company preliminarily declines the request, it goes back to the RMD for a final decision, but if the company approves the request, it bypasses the RMD and goes to a centralized state coordination system for the scheduling of specialty care. Id. ¶¶ 32-34.

After a consultation request is approved, the inmate sees a specialist, who sends a report with any recommendations to the inmate's primary care provider for review. Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 35. The primary care provider then fills out a new request for consultation based on the specialist's report, and then submits it according to the same process. Id. ¶ 36.

At all relevant times, Rodas was a physician's assistant on Green Haven's medical staff and was Plaintiff's primary care provider.[2] Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶¶ 2-4. Rodas is not a licensed physician. Bendheim Dep., Youngwood Decl. Ex. C, at 154-55. Koenigsmann was the RMD for Green Haven and responsible for reviewing its consultation requests. Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 7.

In August 2005, Plaintiff began experiencing hemorrhoid symptoms. Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 49. Hemorrhoids occur in four stages: Stage I is the least severe and Stage IV is the most severe. Id. ¶ 42. Stage IV hemorrhoids generally require surgery-a "hemorrhoidectomy"-relatively quickly, but patients with milder symptoms ordinarily "will have relief with conservative or minimally invasive treatment." Id. in 45, 43. Stage III hemorrhoids do not always require surgery, and depending on the circumstances, they can also be treated with "topical creams and suppositories." Id. ¶ ¶ 46. Additionally, "hemorrhoid symptoms are notoriously waxing and waning, ' and there can be months when symptoms do not present themselves." Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 41 (quoting Freed Dep., Dawkins Decl. Ex. K, at 64).

On August 29, 2006, Plaintiff was seen by Rodas at sick call for complaints of blood in his stool and lower back pain; Rodas prescribed Tucks wipes and ordered a "stool occult blood test, " which came back negative for blood. Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶¶ 50-51; Pl. Decl., Youngwood Decl. Ex. D, ¶ 8. From that appointment through May 1, 2007, Plaintiff did not complain about hemorrhoids to the medical staff. Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 52, Pl. Decl., Youngwood Decl. Ex. D, ¶ 9. Plaintiff was seen numerous times by the medical staff between May 1, 2007 and February 25, 2008 for various ailments, and at several of these appointments he was given hemorrhoid cream. Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶¶ 53-72.

On April 25, 2008, Plaintiff "bled while defecating and felt tremendous pain.'" Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 73. On April 28, he saw a nurse during sick call; he complained of "hemorrhoids and bleeding from the rectum during bowel movements, " and the nurse gave him a pass to go to the clinic that afternoon. Id. ¶ 74. There, he saw Dr. John Bendheim, who diagnosed hemorrhoids, prescribed "a basin with Epsom salts for soaks and Preparation H and Dibucaine ointment, " and noted in Plaintiffs records that Plaintiff "may benefit from" a general surgery consultation. Id. ¶ 75. Rodas saw Plaintiff on May 1, 2008 and submitted a consultation request for Plaintiff to see a surgeon for follow-up. Id. ¶ 78. He wrote in his request that Plaintiff was experiencing "rectal bleeding with pain in the rectum on and off for four years, " and that conservative treatments were "no longer effective." Id.

On May 22, 2008, Plaintiff was seen by a general surgeon, Dr. Aaron Roth, who conducted a physical examination and referred Plaintiff for "evaluation under anesthesia." Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 80. (That meant surgery. Id. ) Roth also recommended that Plaintiff undergo a colonoscopy. Id. On May 23, 2008, Rodas submitted a request for consultation for further evaluation based on Roth's recommendation. That request stated that "conventional treatment was no longer effective" and reported that Roth's examination had found a "stage III internal hemorrhoid." Id. ¶ 81. From May 22 to August 5, Plaintiff states that he complained of "severe" pain to Rodas and nurses on the medical staff. Id. ¶ 80.

On May 23, 2008, Koenigsmann denied Rodas's request for consultation and determined that Plaintiff should be referred for a colonoscopy to rule out more serious causes of his left lower quadrant pain and rectal bleeding. Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 82; Koenigsmann Dep., Youngwood Decl. Ex. B, at 158-59. From a medical standpoint, a colonoscopy is not part of a course of treatment for hemorrhoids, nor is it an effective means of diagnosing hemorrhoids. Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶¶ 82-83; Freed Dep., Youngwood Decl. Ex. F, at 95-97.

On June 16, 2008, Rodas referred Plaintiff for a colonoscopy. Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 86. The colonoscopy was performed on August 5, 2008, by Dr. Robert Antonelle. Id. ¶ 89. Antonelle wrote a report following the procedure, which described "internal hemorrhoids [and] minimal rectal prolapse" that was "easily reducible" and noted internal bleeding. Id. 1190 (alteration in original). Antonelle prescribed "Anusol hydrocortisone cream and follow-up as needed, " and recommended a follow-up colonoscopy in ten years. Id. ¶¶ 90-91. Antonelle's report did not say anything about whether Plaintiff's hemorrhoids required surgery.

In a declaration submitted by Plaintiff, Antonelle indicates that he did not intend for his report to suggest that hemorrhoid surgery was not necessary; in fact, it was his understanding that the treatments he prescribed would be supplemental to the surgery that he anticipated would be taking place. Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶¶ 91-94; Antonelle Decl., Youngwood Decl. Ex. H. However, "Rodas did not believe surgery was necessary because it was not prescribed in Dr. Antonelle's plan."[3] Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 93; accord Rodas Dep., Youngwood Decl. Ex. A, at 229-31. As a result, he did not request a hemorrhoidectomy on Plaintiffs behalf, and Plaintiff continued to receive conservative treatments from the medical staff. Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶¶ 96, 101-103.

On February 17, 2009, Plaintiff saw a general surgeon, Dr. Bhopale, for complaints of rectal bleeding; the rectal exam was "normal, " and Plaintiff was given two containers of laxatives. Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 104. The nature of Bhopale's examination is disputed: Plaintiff claims that Bhopale asked him to lower his underwear but did not examine his rectum, and he asserts on information and belief that "Dr. Bhopale... regularly diagnos[e]s his patients or inmates referred to him with normal findings, even when an inmate has a condition worthy of medical attention." Id. ; Castillo Decl., Youngwood Decl. Ex. D, ¶¶ 41-42.

On February 27, 2009, Plaintiff saw Rodas and requested surgery for his hemorrhoids. Rodas denied the request and told Plaintiff that his rectal examination had been normal. Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 105. According to Plaintiff, Rodas also told him that "the director of the clinic" had denied his surgery, that he would have to file a grievance if he wanted surgery, and that Rodas was "not going to do anything else." Id. ; Castillo Decl., Youngwood Decl. Ex. D, ¶¶ 44.

Plaintiff filed a grievance requesting surgery on March 6, 2009, and on March 17, 2009, Dr. Frederick Bernstein, who reviewed the grievance, responded to it by stating that Plaintiff would be sent to a general surgeon to determine whether he was an "appropriate candidate for surgical treatment." Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶¶ 108, 110. Rodas then requested a surgical consultation, which Koenigsmann approved. Id. ¶ 111. Rodas placed Plaintiff in the infirmary on March 27, 2009. Id. ¶ 118. Roth saw Plaintiff and made arrangements for a hemorrhoidectomy, Rodas scheduled the procedure, and Koenigsmann approved it. Id. ¶¶ 142, 144. According to Plaintiff, during his consultation with Roth, "Roth became upset because his recommendation was ignored." Pl. Decl., Youngwood Decl. Ex. D, ¶ 67. Plaintiff finally received a hemorrhoidectomy on July 2, 2009, more than a year after Roth initially recommended the procedure. Pl. 56.1 Resp. ¶ 147.

B. Procedural History

Plaintiff filed a pro se complaint on December 3, 2009, naming Rodas and Bernstein as Defendants, and the case was assigned to Judge Jones. Following an initial discovery period, Rodas and Bernstein moved for summary judgment. In his brief opposing that motion, Plaintiff conceded that he had named Bernstein as a defendant on the mistaken belief that Bernstein, and not Koenigsmann, was responsible for denying his surgery after Rodas requested it in May 2008. Dkt. No. 31, at 12-13. On September 19, 2011, Judge Jones denied the contested portion of ...

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.