Tyrone Carolina v. Warden (2014)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

So, the following will be the decision of the Court.

In this action the petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus based upon a claim that he is being denied adequate medical treatment.

For the purposes of this hearing, the facts as determined by the Court are as follows.

The petitioner was diagnosed with a weak heart in 2008, prior to his incarceration.

During his current incarceration, as early as March 16th, 2011, the respondent has made numerous arrangements to address his heart condition.

In July of 2011, the petitioner received an x-ray which showed no significant signs of concern.

Also in July of 2011, the respondent transported the petitioner to UConn Medical Center, Jack Dempsey Hospital emergency room, where he received an MRI and an echocardiograph.   After this visit, the petitioner was prescribed several medications to address his heart condition.   Specifically, he was described aspirin Coreg, Lasix and Prinivil, all of which helped to address his heart condition.

In May of 2012, the respondent transported the petitioner to have a consultation with the cardiologist, who ordered an echocardiogram, which is an ultrasound of the heart.   That exam revealed that the petitioner's ejection fraction was between forty and fifty percent.   An ejection fraction in this range may be treated with medication alone, specifically the medication the petitioner was prescribed.

In October of 2012, the petitioner had another consultation with a cardiologist.

In March of 2013, the respondent again transported the petitioner to UConn Medical Center for an emergency visit.   Testing did not reveal any significant issues with respect to his heart condition.

On several occasions between January 15th 2013 to March 5th of 2013, the petitioner has refused to take or make himself available to take his prescribed medication.

For the last two years, from 2011 to 2013, the petitioner has had multiple MRIs and EKGs and other testing, both in prison and at UConn Medical Center.

To establish his claim, the petitioner must show that the prison officials were deliberately indifferent to his medical needs and refused to provide care or treatment.   Deliberate indifference is a conscious disregard of a substantive risk of serious harm;  that standard has not been satisfied in this case.   The record in the instant action shows this case.   The record in the instant action shows that the respondent did not ignore the petitioner's complaints of a heart condition.   The evidence shows that the respondent addressed the petitioner's complaints on various occasions.

Therefore, the petitioner has not met his burden of proof to show that the respondent was deliberately indifferent to his medical needs concerning said injuries.

The petitioner believes that this case revolves around his New York doctor's determination that he has thirty percent ejection fraction and that that percentage could never increase.   Even if years ago, thirty percent was the petitioner's ejection fraction;  Connecticut doctors have done subsequent and more recent testing that shows an ejection fraction of forty-five percent.   At forty-five percent, the petitioner can adequately be treated with medication alone and the respondent has prescribed sufficient medication to address his condition.

Based on the forgoing, the petition for habeas corpus is denied.

You will get a copy of that decision, Mr. Carolina.

Raheem Mullin, Judge

Mullins, Raheem, J.