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.

Candelario v. Quality Choice Correctional Healthcare

United States District Court, S.D. New York

July 18, 2017

JOVAN CANDELARIO, Plaintiff,
v.
QUALITY CHOICE CORRECTIONAL HEALTHCARE; A. CUPERTINO, RN; J. REYNOLDS, RN; and DITTMEIER, RN, Defendants.

          Jovan Candelario Lords Valley, PA Pro Se Plaintiff

          Kenneth W. Rudolph, Esq. McMillan Constabile Foster & Perone LLP Larchmont, NY Counsel for Defendant Quality Choice Healthcare, Inc. [1]

          Michael H. Sussman, Esq. Heather M. Abissi, Esq. Sussman & Associates Goshen, NY Counsel for Defendant A. Cupertino, RN

          OPINION & ORDER

          KENNETH M. KARAS, District Judge

         Pro se Plaintiff Jovan Candelario (“Plaintiff”) brings this Action against Quality Choice Correctional Healthcare (“Quality Choice”), A. Cupertino, RN (“Nurse Cupertino”), J. Reynolds, RN (“Nurse Reynolds”), and Dittmeier, RN (“Nurse Dittmeier” and collectively, “Defendants”).

         Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his rights under the Eighth Amendment by failing to follow policies and procedures, failing to provide adequate medical treatment, and neglecting Plaintiff's medical needs. (See generally Compl. (Dkt. No. 1).) Before the Court are Defendants Quality Choice's and Nurse Cupertino's Motions To Dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(c), respectively (the “Motions”). (See Dkt. Nos. 35, 38.) For the reasons to follow, the Motions are granted.

         I. Background

         A. Factual Background

         The following facts are taken from the Complaint and the documents appended thereto, and are assumed true for the purpose of resolving the Motions.

         On February 10, 2016, Plaintiff was incarcerated at Orange County Jail when he began suffering from abdominal pain. (See Compl. 3.) Plaintiff sought medical attention for his pain, and Nurses Cupertino and Dittmeier gave him “Phenergan 25mg and Maalox 30mL, ” and offered Plaintiff a “[c]ompazine [s]uppository, ” which he refused. (Id.) Plaintiff alleges that Nurses Cupertino and Dittmeier assumed he was suffering from “gas or maybe a virus, ” (id.), but Plaintiff “knew it wasn't either one” due to “the pain that [he] was going thr[ough], ” (id.). Plaintiff's symptoms included being “on the floor throwing up, ” and the inability to move, sleep, eat, or use the bathroom. (Id.) When Plaintiff asked to see a doctor, Defendants told Plaintiff there was no doctor on the property and put him on bed rest. (See id.)

         On February 13, 2016, Plaintiff was still suffering from severe pain and could barely move. (See id.) Plaintiff asked correctional officer Mackey to “send [him] to medical, ” and when Plaintiff arrived, he was given “chews for gas.” (Id.) Plaintiff again asked for a doctor, but was told there was no doctor available and was sent back to his housing unit. (See id.) On February 16, 2016, Sergeant Mararino came to Plaintiff's cell during dinner and asked Plaintiff “why . . . [he was] walking like [he had] been shot or something.” (Id.) Plaintiff explained he had been in pain for six days and “ha[d]n't had any help, ” and Sergeant Mararino “sent [him] to medical.” (Id.) Plaintiff was subsequently sent to a hospital. (See id.) While at the hospital, Plaintiff underwent surgery to have an abscess removed near his gall bladder. (See id.)

         As a result of his alleged pain and suffering, Plaintiff seeks one million dollars in compensatory damages and “medical reimbursement.” (Id. at 5.)

         B. Procedural Background

         Plaintiff filed his Complaint on March 21, 2016. (See Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis was granted on May 3, 2016. (See Dkt. No. 6.) On October 13, 2016 Quality Choice and Nurse Cupertino (the “Moving Defendants”) filed their Motions To Dismiss and accompanying papers. (See Dkt. Nos. 35-42.) Plaintiff ...


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.