217572 v. Warden, State Prison (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

On January 17, 2006, the pro se petitioner initially filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which was dismissed by the Court on March 2, 2006.   Petitioner subsequently filed a Motion to Reopen the Judgment, which was granted on March 13, 2006.   After pretrial, on January 27, 2009, petitioner withdrew his petition based on respondent's agreement to provide him with an outside footwear pass and pain medication.   After a second pretrial, the Court set the matter down for trial based on petitioner's claim that respondent had not followed through with the agreement.   Petitioner thereafter filed, on September 27, 2009, his final amended petition in which he claims that his constitutional right to protection against cruel and unusual punishment has been violated due to the Department of Correction's failure to provide him with adequate medical care.   Specifically, the petitioner claims that the respondent had denied him necessary medical treatment for serious medical conditions he suffers in both knees, as well as arthritis in his wrist, elbow, neck and knees.   The respondent's return denies the claims and asserts that the respondent has provided and continues to provide the petitioner with quality medical care.

The matter came to trial on January 4, 2010 at which time the Court heard testimony from the petitioner and Department of Correction employee, Dr. Edward Blanchette.   Petitioner proffered two memoranda referencing outside footwear and a copy of a pass allowing him to purchase sneakers.   Respondent entered pertinent portions of petitioner's medical records.   The Court has reviewed all of the testimony and documentary evidence and makes the following findings of fact.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The petitioner is confined to the custody of the Commissioner of Correction pursuant to a mittimus issued on April 7, 1995, by the Hartford Superior Court, sentencing petitioner to a total effective sentence of sixty years.

2. At the habeas trial, the petitioner testified that he has had pain in his knees for a number of years.   He further stated that he has small pieces of bone floating in around the joints of both knees which cause severe pain.   He claims that he has repeatedly asked to be evaluated by an orthopedist so that he can get a recommendation for an operation to remove the bone chips.   He also complained that he has not been given the treatment he should be receiving for pain medication.   In addition to the knee pain, petitioner complained about arthritis pain in his neck, elbow and wrist for which he has received no treatment.

3. Despite his complaints, petitioner also indicated that the sneakers he has purchased from outside ¹ the correctional facility have alleviated some of the discomfort in his feet and joints.   However, he emphasized that the Utilization Review Committee of the University of Connecticut Health Center, Correctional Managed Health Care, had repeatedly denied his request for an outside shoe pass,² despite the fact that Dr. Mazzocca, the orthopedic consultant, had recommended soft sole shoes to lessen the knee pain.³

4. Edward Blanchette, M.D., the medical director for the Department of Correction, also testified at the habeas trial.   Dr. Blanchette has been a physician since 1975, is licensed to practice medicine in the state of Connecticut, and is board certified in the fields of internal medicine and infectious diseases.   Dr. Blanchette testified that he was familiar with the petitioner and his medical conditions and that he had reviewed the medical records.

5. Dr. Blanchette first indicated that he had reviewed petitioner's medical file, discussed the case with Dr. Pillai and with the orthopedic consultant, Dr. Mazzocca, and reviewed the x-rays in the file.   From that review, he stated that petitioner had moderate degenerative arthritis in his left knee and mildly degenerative arthritis in the right.   He further commented on the outside shoe pass, stating that the decision to issue petitioner an outside shoe pass was an internal decision made by the Department of Correction facility in which petitioner now is housed.   From a medical standpoint, petitioner's condition could be treated by issuing him footwear-ready gel inserts with a soft sole, which are available in the commissary.⁴

6. Dr. Blanchette also indicated that the petitioner, although he has a chronic arthritic condition, does ambulate about the prison and has, in fact, served as a referee for basketball games.   He has been prescribed Tylenol for the arthritic pain both in the past and currently.

7. Dr. Blanchette further testified that the condition regarding his left knee seems also to have improved.   In November 2005 petitioner was diagnosed, after an MRI, with a Baker's cyst.⁵  Dr. Blanchette explained that when one has arthritis a small piece of bone can detach itself and even be moveable in the fluid connected with the joint space.   Recent x-rays ⁶ and examinations now show that this area is only mildly tender or not at all tender.

8. Dr. Blanchette further stated that petitioner has been prescribed braces, exercises designed for his condition and given Tylenol for pain management, in addition to orthopedic consultations, when necessary, and the x-rays and MRIs previously mentioned.   His current medical treatment is appropriate and it is the same level as he would receive in the community.

9. The Court will discuss additional facts as needed.

DISCUSSION

The eighth amendment,⁷ which is binding on the states under “the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution ․ prohibits detention in a manner that constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.”  (Citation omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)   Fuller v. Commissioner of Correction, 75 Conn.App. 133, 136, 815 A.2d 208, cert. denied, 263 Conn.App. 65, 66, 787 A.2d 1217 (2003);  see also Hunnicutt v. Commissioner of Correction, 67 Conn.App. 65, 66, 787 A.2d 22 (2001).   To prevail on a habeas claim challenging the conditions of confinement, a petitioner must demonstrate by objective evidence that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference concerning his serious medical needs.  Hunnicutt v. Commissioner of Correction, supra, 67 Conn.App. 69-70;  Faraday v. Commissioner of Correction, 288 Conn. 326, 338-40, 952 A.2d 764 (2008).   Additionally, “․ subjective deliberate indifference means that a prison official cannot be found liable under the [e]ighth [a]mendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the official knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health safety ․” (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Fuller v. Commissioner, supra, 75 Conn.App. 137.

It is clear from the testimony of the petitioner, and confirmed by Dr. Blanchette, that petitioner suffers from some chronic medical conditions.   None are life threatening, nor even unbearably painful.   It is also clear from Dr. Blanchette's testimony, and confirmed by the medical records,⁸ that the Department of Correction has addressed all issues raised by the petitioner and has attempted to evaluate, treat and/or monitor the petitioner's various complaints.   In fact, Dr. Blanchette unilaterally ordered that petitioner should be assigned a bottom bunk permanently because of his medical condition.⁹

The Court finds that the petitioner has failed to prove that the responded has acted with “deliberate indifference” to his medical needs.   The entire record before the Court established that the respondent performed appropriate evaluations and treatment in response to petitioner's complaints and continues to treat petitioner appropriately on an ongoing basis.

Accordingly, the Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied.

T. Santos, J.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Petitioner's Exh. 1..  FN1. Petitioner's Exh. 1.

FN2. Respondent's Exh. A, pp. 63, 65, 78, 80 and 88..  FN2. Respondent's Exh. A, pp. 63, 65, 78, 80 and 88.

FN3. Respondent's Exh. A, p. 88..  FN3. Respondent's Exh. A, p. 88.

FN4. Respondent's Exh. A, p. 63..  FN4. Respondent's Exh. A, p. 63.

FN5. Respondent's Exh. A, p. 31..  FN5. Respondent's Exh. A, p. 31.

FN6. Respondent's Exh. A, p. 48..  FN6. Respondent's Exh. A, p. 48.

FN7. “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”   U.S. Const., amend.   VIII..  FN7. “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”   U.S. Const., amend.   VIII.

FN8. Respondent's Exh. A., pp. 1, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 28, 29, 31, 47, 48, 49, 63, and 76..  FN8. Respondent's Exh. A., pp. 1, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14, 28, 29, 31, 47, 48, 49, 63, and 76.

FN9. Respondent's Exh. A., pp. 6 and 28..  FN9. Respondent's Exh. A., pp. 6 and 28.

Santos, Thelma A., J.