Ramos v. Corzine

JOSE RAMOS, Plaintiff,

v.JON CORZINE et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 08-2585 (AET)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Dated: October 28, 2011

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

THOMPSON, U.S.D.J.

This matter has come before the Court upon Defendants Thomas Farrell, George Hayman, Robert Paterson, Lydell Sherrer and Ralph Woodward's motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment. See docket entry no. 105. The Court has decided this motion after taking into consideration the submissions of both parties, without oral argument, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted.

I. Background

On May 27, 2008, Plaintiff Jose Ramos ("Ramos"), proceeding pro se along with three other inmates, submitted a Section 1983 putative class action Complaint [docket entry no. 1] on behalf of state prisoners "with serious, debilitating orthopedic and prosthetic conditions"; the Complaint alleged that these prisoners had been deprived of their right to adequate medicalcare in violation of the Eighth Amendment and the New Jersey Constitution, that Defendants' actions violated state law of medical malpractice, negligence, and that they negligently inflicted emotional distress of the putative class.¹ The Court denied class certification because Plaintiffs failed to meet the typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. See docket entry no. 2. However, Ramos's application to prosecute this matter in forma pauperis was granted, and his claims were proceeded on an individual basis. See id.

With regard to Ramos, the Complaint alleged that he had pre-incarceration injuries to his feet and legs which resulted in a condition that required rehabilitation through a regimen of exercises and physical therapy. See docket entry no. 1, at 27-28. The Complaint also asserted that, during Ramos' incarceration, he was denied a certain type of footwear, namely, "orthopedic sneakers"; in addition, the Complaint asserted that a certain Defendants' policy was at the heart of that denial, since Ramos hypothesized that Defendants' must have adopted the policy of fiscal austerity which caused, inter alia, denial of"orthopedic sneakers" to Ramos.²

A year and a half into this litigation, and after Defendants' answers was filed, Defendants Bell, Corzine, Farrell, Hayman, Hinman, Paterson, Ricci, Ronoghan, Sherrer, Woodward and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey ("UMDNJ") moved for dismissal of the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or, in alternative, for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. In their motion ("UMDNJ Motion"), these Defendants asserted, inter alia, that they were not deliberately indifferent to Ramos' medical needs and, in any event, Ramos' claims against them were improperly based on the theory of respondeat superior.

On March 22, 2010, the Court granted the UMDNJ Motion in part and denied in part. See docket entry no. 80. First, the Court explained that, pursuant to the holdings of Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 236 (3d Cir. 2004), and Durmer v. O'Carroll, 991 F.2d 64, 69 (3d Cir. 1993), Defendants Bell, Corzine, Farrell, Hayman, Hinman, Paterson, Ricci, Ronoghan, and Sherrer, not being physicians or medical personnel, could not beconsidered deliberately indifferent to Ramos' medical needs unless Ramos was entirely denied medical care, and these Defendants failed to place him in medical care upon becoming personally aware of his need for such care. Since it was undisputed that, at all points relevant to this litigation, Ramos was under the care of medical personnel, and there was no evidence or allegations that Bell, Corzine, Farrell, Hayman, Hinman, Paterson, Ricci, Ronoghan, or Sherrer knew or had any reason to believe that prison medical staff was not treating Ramos, the Court concluded that these Defendants were entitled to summary judgment as to Ramos' Eighth Amendment allegations that he was denied medical care.³

Then, turning to Ramos' assertions that Defendants must have implemented a certain policy of fiscal austerity, which prevented Ramos from obtaining "orthopedic sneakers," the Court stated:

Ramos also contends that Defendants Hayman, Sherrer, Paterson, Farrell, and Woodward implemented a fiscal austerity plan wherein speciality referrals made by CMS doctors are screened and disapproved for non-medical reasons related to cost. In addition, Ramos alleges that these Defendants negotiated a contract with CMS which improperly extended the delivery date for specialty care referrals and required a minimum number of prisoners to accumulate on the roster for a specialty care clinic before a clinic or consultation would be scheduled.

Although a prosthetics consult was ordered for Ramos on May 1, 2006, one had not yet been conducted by August 1, 2006, at which time Ramos renewed his request for orthopedic sneakers. Ramos was seen on September 5, 2006 for a prosthetics consult and received orthopedic boots on November 14, 2006 . . . .

Defendants' brief does not discuss the existence or absence of a fiscal austerity plan, the terms of the contract with CMS, Defendants' role in the creation or administration of such policies, or the implications of such policies for Ramos's medical care. Thus, at this point, taking all inferences in favor of the non-moving party, the Court finds that there is a material question of fact as to the existence of a screening policy or contract which defers or disapproves speciality referrals, these defendants' awareness of potential medical risks when they decided to implement the alleged policies, and the effect of these alleged policies in delaying Ramos's medical treatment for non-medical reasons. Deliberate indifference can be found where "necessary medical treatment [i]s . . . delayed for non-medical reasons." Durmer, 991 F.2d at 69 (quoting Monmouth County Correctional Institutional Inmates v. Lanzaro, 834 F.2d 326, 346 (3d Cir. 1987)).

Although Plaintiff has provided no specific evidence indicating that Defendants Hayman, Sherrer, Paterson, Farrell, and Woodward were directly involved in the creation of a fiscal austerity plan or formation of the contract with CMS, given the roles these defendants held at the DOC the Court cannot, as a matter of law, determine that these individuals played no part in the creation or administration of a policy under which unconstitutional practices may have occurred. See Houston v. Trella, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68484, at *10 (D.N.J. Sept. 22, 2006).

. . .

Ramos's Complaint and Opposition [to the motion] suggest that these orthopedic boots [received in response for his request for orthopedic footwear] were inadequate because inmates were not allowed to wear boots in the gym facilities and he needed to exercise his leg and ankle in order to avoid "atrophy and loss of function." However, the need for orthopedic sneakers versus orthopedic boots and/or an ankle brace appears to be a "mere disagreement over acceptabletreatment" - which does not amount to a constitutional violation. [See] White v. Napoleon, 897 F.2d 103, 110 (3d Cir. 1990).

Ramos v. Corzine, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26480, at *15-18 (D.N.J. Mar. 22, 2010) (footnotes and citations to docket omitted).

Therefore, the Court: (1) directed the Clerk to terminate those Defendants who were not DOC officials as defendants in this matter; and (2) dismissed all charges against the DOC Defendants except for those Eighth Amendment claims that were based on the alleged fiscal austerity policy and those state law claims that asserted negligent infliction of emotional distress (allegedly suffered by Ramos as a result of his inability to obtain "orthopedic sneakers").

Shortly after the Court granted in part and denied in part the aforesaid UMDNJ Motion, Defendants Correctional Medical Services, Inc. ("CMS"), Dr. Anicette, Dr. Ahsan, Dr. Nwachukwu, Dr. Meeker, Dr. Martin, Donique Ivery and Jason Pugh (collectively, "CMS Defendants") analogously moved for dismissal of the Complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) or, in alternative, for summary judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, challenging Ramos' outstanding state law claims against them. See docket entry no. 83. The Court issued an opinion and order granting that motion [docket entry no. 85], explaining as follows:

To succeed on his negligence claim, Ramos must prove that the CMS Defendants were negligent and that thenegligence caused his injury. [See] Vitrano by Vitrano v. Schiffman, 305 N.J. Super. 572, 580, 702 A.2d 1347 ([N.J. Super. Ct.] App. Div. 1997). In addition, in order to establish a prima facie case of negligence in a medical malpractice action, Ramos must show: (1) the applicable standard of care, (2) a deviation from that standard of care, and (3) that the deviation proximately caused the injury. [See] Gardner v. Pawliw, 150 N.J. 359, 375, 696 A.2d 599 (1997). In New Jersey, this requires a plaintiff to submit an affidavit of merit from an appropriate expert, unless the claims of negligence are those that a jury could evaluate using common knowledge or the doctrine of res ispa loquitor. [See id.] Finally, a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress requires proof that a defendant's negligence conduct caused a plaintiff severe emotional distress. [See] Decker v. Princeton Packet, Inc., 116 N.J. 418, 429 (1989). [Here], Ramos has failed to establish that a material question of fact exists on which a reasonable jury could find for him on any of these three claims against the CMS Defendants.

. . . Ramos's medical records [indicates that] Dr. Anicette, Dr. Meeker, Pugh and Ivery did not participate in or have knowledge of any actions which may have violated Ramos's rights . . . . Thus, Ramos has failed to state a viable claim for negligence, negligent medical malpractice, or negligent infliction of emotional distress against [these Defendants].

[Moreover], Ramos's claims against CMS are based solely on the fact that CMS

...