CHARLES KNOX v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (2001)

OPINION

This cause is before the Court on Claimant, Charles Knox's, verified Complaint against the Respondent, State of Illinois, seeking damages for personal injuries suffered while incarcerated at Joliet Correctional Center (hereinafter Joliet). He requests $6,000; $5,000 for physical pain and $1,000 for emotional distress. Jurisdiction for this claim, sounding in tort, is found in Section 8(d) of the Court of Claims Act. 705 ILCS 505/8(d) (1998). A hearing was conducted and Claimant testified in relation to his allegations of being deprived of his Special Medical Diet.

The Facts

Claimant suffers from a kidney ailment and receives a Special Medical Diet (hereinafter SMD). The SMD is referred to as a renal diet. There are twelve other inmates at Joliet receiving the renal diet. Claimant receives dialysis treatment three times a week. He alleged that he was deprived of his SMD on certain occasions during November and December, 1999.

Claimant testified to the dates upon which the SMD (or any other meal) was not served to him during two periods when Joliet was on lockdown and meals were supposed to be brought to inmates in their cells. He also testified that he would return to his cell after dialysis treatment and the SMD would be brought to him. Claimant's testimony was not clear at time and he added dates as the hearing progressed,.

Initially, Claimant testified that Joliet was on lockdown status on November 29, 30 and 31 (sic), and December 29 and 30, 1999. He testified that he was not provided any food during the five days of lockdown. He was in protective custody (PC). Some of the other inmates on a SMD did not receive their meals, but the inmates in general population received their regular meals.

On November 29, 1999, Claimant asked a Correctional Officer (CO) about the SMD's and was told that he would check on it. He stated that he received the morning meal on the 29th, but did not receive the lunch or evening meal. On the 30th, he received the evening meal, but not the breakfast or lunch meals. He inquired about those meals and was told they would check to see why his SMD was not sent to the cell house. Claimant testified that on November 31st, he received lunch, but he did not accept it because it had been turned over and was in disarray. He received breakfast and the evening meal on the 31st.

Claimant stated that he did not receive any meals on December 29th. He inquired about his meal but the CO never returned. He received only the evening meal on December 30th.

On cross-examination, the Assistant Attorney General (AAG) inquired why Claimant alleged in his Complaint that the two lockdowns lasted ten days each and he did not receive any meals during those time periods. Claimant stated that the December lockdown started on December 19th and lasted ten days. He then said the November lockdown lasted four days, November 20-23, then went back on lockdown for December 29-31. Upon being informed that November does not have 31 days, he withdrew the 31st.

Referring to the PC sign off sheets provided by Respondent to him, Claimant stated that he was not provided any meals on November 20th; received breakfast and lunch on the 21st, breakfast on the 22nd, and no meals on the 23rd. Still referring to the sheets, he stated that he received the evening meal on December 19th, but not breakfast or lunch; received lunch and dinner on the 20th but did not receive breakfast and lunch on the 21st; received all meals on the 22nd and did not receive the evening meal on the 23rd or the 24th. On December 26th and 27th, he received lunch and dinner but only received breakfast on the 28th.

Respondent provided documents demonstrating that Joliet was only on lockdown for three days, December 29-31. In relation to the meal sign-off sheets, the AAG did not know the procedures for their use. Claimant said they had to be signed for every meal, whether received at the dining hall or the cell. Claimant's signature does not appear on any of the November and December sign-off sheets for breakfast. Claimant said this was because he takes his dialysis treatment at 6:00 p.m. and cannot have breakfast.

For the three dates of December 29-31 wherein Respondent agrees that a lockdown occurred, the AAG indicated that Respondent did not have the meal sign-off sheets for those days. The sign-off sheets produced to Claimant include duplicate dates and are missing other dates. The only dates provided were: November 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 12 and December 12, 13, 14 (two), 17, 20, 24 and 27, 1999.

Claimant stated that he suffered from stomach cramps from not getting his meals. He indicated that he experienced pain and suffering from sitting in the cell without food and only drinking water.

The Law

In order to sustain a negligence claim against Respondent, Claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent had a duty toward Claimant, that the duty was breached, and that the breach was the proximate cause of Claimant's injuries. He must also prove damages. Dye v. State of Illinois, (1996), 48 Ill.Ct.Cl. 452.

Inmates are owed a duty of ordinary and reasonable care for their health and safety. Mettes v. State of Illinois, (1999), 51 Ill.Ct.Cl. 115. This Court has held that the State owes a duty to provide inmates with reasonable medical care. Bynum v. State of Illinois, (1992), 44 Ill.Ct.Cl. 1.

The Court in Dye found that Respondent breached its duty by failing to provide claimant with diabetic meals for a ten-day period when Centralia Correctional Center was on lockdown. 48 Ill.Ct.Cl. 452, 455. Apparently during the lockdown in Dye, regular meals were served and the Claimant also purchased food items from the commissary. The Dye claimant contended that he was entitled to $30,000 in damages for injuries to his eyes, kidneys, liver and cardiovascular system for the failure to receive thirty diabetic diet meals. Although the Court found Respondent to be negligent, it denied the claim because the Claimant failed to prove damages, citing Harris v. State of Illinois, (1989), 41 Ill.Ct.Cl. 184. The Court stated that the Claimant failed to present medical evidence sufficient to prove that he suffered the personal injuries he claimed. Id. at 456.

In Lamkey v. State of Illinois, (1997), 50 Ill.Ct.Cl. 315, the Court granted Respondent's Motion to Dismiss based on res judicata. The Claimant sued Illinois Department of Corrections officials in United States District Court for being deprived of his special medically-prescribed diet and summary judgment was entered against him. The District Court found that the Claimant had failed to show evidence of a health injury flowing from being deprived of his special medical diet. This court found that the collateral estoppel wing of the res judicata doctrine necessitated dismissal of the State tort claims. Id. at 316.

The initial question for the Court to address is whether a prima facie case of negligence is established by Claimant. Claimant's testimony was confusing because he testified to five dates of lockdown at Joliet in November and December, 1999, one of which, November 31st, does not exist. During cross-examination, Claimant broadened the time period in December adding another ten days in December and four days in November. This is also inconsistent with the allegations in Claimant's Complaint wherein he alleged ten days of lockdown in November and ten days in December. His allegations are that he did not even receive the meals prepared for the general population.

Respondent's evidence consists solely of certain documents demonstrating that Joliet was on lockdown for only three days during the two-month period. Respondent produced some meal sign-off sheets for Claimant and Claimant offered them into evidence. The production of the documents shows that Respondent keeps inadequate and erroneous records. Respondent cannot demonstrate that Claimant received all six of his meals during December 29th and 30th. Claimant testified that he received one meal on the 30th and none on the 29th. Based on all the testimony and exhibits, the Court finds that Claimant was deprived of five meals, all SMD's, during the lockdown in December. This finding is based on Claimant's testimony, Respondent's admission of lockdown status, and Respondent's inability to rebut Claimant's testimony with documents that apparently Respondent's procedures require such documents to be prepared.

Claimant's testimony, delivered in a convoluted fashion, is predicated on one premise, that being that, Joliet was on lockdown on the days that he was deprived of his SMD's. He did not testify in a direct and positive manner. The Court finds that Claimant has not established that he was deprived of SMD's on any other day. Interestingly, the sign-off sheets for dates other than the dates referenced in Claimant's testimony, show that he did not sign for certain meals, presumably indicating he did not receive these meals. Claimant had possession of these sign-off sheets and declined to testify to the dates where his signature is absent.

The evidence in this case is incomplete and contradictory. For only the five meals on December 29-30, is there sufficient evidence to conclude that Respondent deprived Claimant of certain SMD's? This is a breach of its duty to provide ordinary and reasonable care for the health of Claimant. Respondent is negligent for not providing Claimant meals on those days.

The issue of damages is more difficult. Claimant requested a total of $6,000. He does not allege that his health or kidney ailment were adversely or permanently impaired by the absence of the SMD. He only testified to stomach cramps because of lack of food. This case can be distinguished from the earlier cases because the allegations in the case at bar are not styled as a medical negligence claim. The Claimant in the above-cited cases all alleged that they suffered personal injuries because they were deprived of special and medical diets, even though they received and ate other food. In the instant case, Claimant was deprived of all food and his complaints are interpreted to be akin to aches commonly referred to as hunger pains. To establish any injury in addition to the hunger pains, Claimant would need to present medical evidence usually demonstrated by expert testimony. There is no medical evidence in the case and the Court cannot conclude that Claimant suffered any long-term ill effects.

The Court also finds that Claimant has not established the value of the five meals for which he was deprived. However, the Court views this claim as not one of being deprived of some type of property where a value can be established on the missing item, but one where some degree of pain and discomfort was experienced by Claimant. Claimant is in a position where he must rely on Respondent to receive his nourishment and the deprivation of it without explanation is a wrong which should be addressed by this Court. We find Claimant's pain and suffering to be worth $125.00.

For the foregoing reasons, Claimant is hereby awarded the sum of One Hundred Twenty-Five Dollars ($125.00) in full satisfaction of his claim.

FREDERICK, J.