Little v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr.

1

2022-Ohio-3084

TRAYVON LITTLE Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION Defendant

No. 2020-00552JD

Court of Claims of Ohio

July 29, 2022

Sent to S.C. Reporter 9/2/22

DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE

ROBERT VAN SCHOYCK MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

{¶1} Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody and control of defendant and was housed at Lebanon Correctional Institution (LeCI) at all times relevant. He brought this action alleging that defendant was negligent in assigning him to an upper range cell despite him being medically designated as needing to be on a bottom range due to his multiple sclerosis, and that, as a result, he fell and was injured while descending the stairs on June 11, 2020. The case proceeded to trial before the magistrate. For the reasons stated below, judgment is recommended in favor of plaintiff.

Summary of Testimony

{¶2} Plaintiff testified that he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 2019 and that prison medical staff consequently ordered that he be restricted to bottom range and bottom bunk housing assignments. He testified that on May 29, 2020, upon release from a temporary assignment to "the hole" he was moved to a cell on a third-floor range. He stated that he told the corrections officer who escorted him there that he had a bottom range medical restriction, but the officer informed him that if he did not go to his assigned cell, he would be considered to be refusing to lock. Plaintiff testified that refusing to lock is an infraction that can result in punishment, such as returning to the hole. Plaintiff complied and went to his new cell, he stated.

{¶3} Plaintiff testified that on June 11, 2020, after the 11:30 a.m. inmate count cleared, he left his cell and went down the stairs but missed a step, causing him to fall and twist his left ankle. According to plaintiff, a corrections officer called for prison medical staff to come help him off the stairs and take him to the infirmary. Plaintiff recalled that the medical staff determined he "hyper inverted" his ankle, which they covered in medical wrap. He also recalled that he was given crutches that day. He explained that after later receiving a cane and being moved to a bottom range cell, he did not seek any further medical attention. He testified that as a result of his injury he cannot walk without a cane or stand for more than five minutes at a time. He further testified that, due to his condition, he believes he will be unable to work a job when he is released from prison.

{¶4} During cross-examination, plaintiff testified that he did not file a grievance regarding being assigned to an upper range cell prior to the accident because he thought that prison staff would retaliate against him and put him back in the hole. Plaintiff admitted on cross-examination that after the accident he has occasionally showered on the second range despite having been reassigned to a bottom range cell. However, he explained that he only does so when the showers on the bottom range are full, for if he does not go to the second range he would not get a shower that day. He also occasionally goes upstairs to use the telephone, he acknowledged.

{¶5} Plaintiff called as a witness Jemonte McNeal, who was his cellmate at the time of the accident. McNeal testified that on June 11, 2020, after the inmates in the unit were released to go to the chow hall for lunch, he was going downstairs when he heard a commotion and saw plaintiff had fallen on the stairs, although he did not actually see the fall. McNeal also testified that plaintiff did not walk with a cane prior to the fall. Like plaintiff, he portrayed "the hole" as a place to be avoided.

{¶6} Defendant called LeCI Institutional Inspector Jody Sparks as a witness. Sparks had been the Institutional Inspector at LeCI for a little over a year at the time of trial, though he has worked for defendant since 1997. He testified that he has access to all inmate records at LeCI and that when he checked for any records related to plaintiff's alleged fall, he found a medical record from an examination in which medical staff noted that plaintiff tripped and fell down four stairs. (Defendant's Exhibit A.)

{¶7} Sparks testified that, according to this medical record plaintiff came to be seen in the infirmary by submitting a Health Service Request form that enabled him to visit during nurse sick call hours, meaning that he was not transported or sent to the infirmary at the request of a corrections officer like he described. Sparks further testified that, in his experience, if plaintiff had indeed fallen down the stairs and there had been a big commotion, a corrections officer would have arranged for plaintiff to be transported to the infirmary by wheelchair right away as opposed to plaintiff having to submit a Health Service Request form. Sparks averred that there was no evidence in the institution's records that plaintiff was transported to the infirmary in a wheelchair. Sparks also identified Defendant's Exhibit B, consisting of communications plaintiff had with prison staff subsequent to the alleged fall at issue in this case. In sum, Sparks could not corroborate the allegation that plaintiff fell on June 11, 2020.

{¶8} When asked how an inmate with a bottom range restriction may seek redress when assigned to an upper range, Sparks testified that the inmate could notify the corrections officer escorting him to the new cell, and if that fails to correct the problem the inmate can notify the unit manager or other staff who have the authority to change the cell assignment. During his investigation, Sparks stated, he reviewed video footage of plaintiff using the stairs in order to use the phone and showers despite him now having a bottom range cell assignment.

{¶9} During cross-examination, Sparks testified that if medical staff responded to a call and picked plaintiff up off the stairs, it should have been documented, but that plaintiff had no control over such documentation or the lack thereof. Sparks also clarified that if an inmate has a medical restriction for a bottom range cell assignment, it does not mean the inmate is not allowed to use the upstairs showers or phone, and he acknowledged that inmates with bottom range restrictions do not have priority for the showers on their range.

{¶10} Defendant also called LeCI Healthcare Administrator Dana Ullery as a witness. Ullery, who oversees the medical department at LeCI, stated that she reviewed plaintiff's medical file and verified that he had bottom range and bottom bunk restrictions. She testified that if medical staff had been called to plaintiff's unit on the day in question there should have been a record of it and plaintiff would not have needed to fill out a Health Service Request form to receive medical attention. Ullery described the contents of the medical record documenting plaintiff's visit to the infirmary on June 11, 2020, including the noted symptoms and observations, but Ullery stated that none of the symptoms exhibited by plaintiff were outside of his control; in other words, he could have been faking his symptoms. Ullery testified that although the medical record stated plaintiff would be scheduled for a follow-up appointment in four days, she found no record of that appointment taking place.

{¶11} Defendant next called Jennifer Chain, R.N. as a witness. Chain is the nurse at LeCI who saw plaintiff during his visit to the infirmary on the day in question. Chain testified that she did not specifically remember the visit or specifically remember plaintiff's injury, but she recognized the medical record admitted as Defendant's Exhibit A as one she created and she described its contents. Chain could not recall how plaintiff came to be seen by her but she stated that the medical record indicated he came there for a nurse sick call appointment rather than being transported there on an emergent basis.

{¶12} Reviewing the medical record, Chain stated that she always fills out a form like this when she sees a patient. According to Chain, in the subjective part of the form she notes what the inmate says happened, and in this instance that included plaintiff reporting he fell down four stairs and injured his ankle, and that he was experiencing throbbing pain in the ankle which he rated as an 8 on a scale of 1 to 10. Chain explained that she also notes vital signs and objective assessments, including in this instance that plaintiff could wiggle his toes and that there was no major discoloration or swelling, but he did flinch and was guarded in a passive range of motion assessment. Chain explained that swelling or bruising could indicate a broken or sprained ankle, and an inability to wiggle toes or feel sensation could indicate nerve damage, but there were no documented physical symptoms with plaintiff's ankle other than him flinching when she tried to move his foot. She stated on cross-examination, though, that an ankle can be twisted even if it is not swollen or red. As Chain documented, she applied an elastic bandage to the ankle for compression, gave plaintiff a pair of crutches with instructions for use, recommended isometric exercises for him, told him to rest the ankle, told him the signs and symptoms to watch for that might need further medical attention, and wrote that he would be scheduled for a follow-up appointment in four days. Chain's notes also confirmed that plaintiff indeed had a medical restriction that should have limited him to a bottom range cell assignment.

{¶13} On cross-examination, Chain testified that if an inmate requests a nurse sick call visit, the inmate's handwritten Health Service Request form would be scanned into his chart. She also testified that nurse sick call visits usually do not occur on the same day that the...