Goodnow v. Palm
| Decision Date | 23 May 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 2.-99-CV-132.,2.-99-CV-132. |
| Citation | 264 F.Supp.2d 125 |
| Parties | Peter GOODNOW, Plaintiff, v. Kenneth PALM, Emsa Correctional Care, Inc. Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Vermont |
Richard T. Cassidy, Esq., Hoff Curtis, Burlington, VT, for Plaintiff.
J. Davis Buckley, Theriault & Joslin, Montpelier, VT, for Defendant.
In his pro se Complaint, Plaintiff Peter Goodnow alleges that Defendants Kenneth Palm and EMSA Correctional Care, Inc. (collectively "EMSA") have deprived him of his constitutional rights.1 On September 12, 2002, Palm and EMSA moved for summary judgment as to all of Goodnow's claims for compensatory and punitive damages. For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES EMSA's motion for summary judgment.
The following facts are viewed, as they must be when considering a motion for summary judgment, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Peter Goodnow. Goodnow was convicted of an offense in Vermont state court and sentenced to a term of imprisonment. He was initially incarcerated in Vermont but was later transferred to a facility in Virginia, in accordance with a contract between the two states. While incarcerated in Virginia, Goodnow felt a tooth break inside his mouth at the gum line. Shortly thereafter, he was returned to Vermont, to the Northwest Correctional Facility near St. Albans. On December 9, 1998, he was transferred in-state to a correctional facility near Newport, Vermont.
EMSA has a contract with the state of Vermont to provide all medical and dental care for prisoners in the state correctional system. Under the terms of this contract, all new inmates are required to receive medical screening within twenty-four hours. Goodnow received his screening on December 9, 1998, during which he complained of dental pain.
Six days later, on December 15, Goodnow was examined by Kenneth Palm, a dentist employed by EMSA, who confirmed that a large amalgam had been dislodged from Goodnow's tooth Number 30 and that other teeth had cavities and would require restorations. When Goodnow requested a crown for tooth Number 30, Palm explained that restorations would be more appropriate pursuant to EMSA and Vermont Department of Correction (DOC) policy. Palm did not treat Good-now, but developed a treatment plan that began with restoration of tooth Number 30. The plan did not specify timing, but Palm told Goodnow that he would have to wait awhile for treatment, possibly more than a year to have the restorations completed.
After waiting approximately six weeks, on February 2, 1999, Goodnow filed an Inmate Medical Request Form or "sick slip" in which he stated, "I need to see the dentists, my teeth hurt." Defs.' Mot., Ex. 6. EMSA contends that at the time of Goodnow's request, there was a backlog of dental appointments and that "emergencies, infections and residents complaining of severe pain [were] a priority." Defs.' Mot., Ex. 8. Goodnow did, however, see a nurse the day after the request, on February 3,1999. Nurse Paulette Simard examined Goodnow and reported that he had "[n]o facial edema; no foul odor; no drainage ...." and that he was "calm, laughing, comfortable." She did, however, refer Goodnow to Palm for evaluation and treatment. No such evaluation or treatment ever occurred.
On May 22, 1999, Goodnow filed a Vermont Department of Corrections Grievance in which he stated, Defs.' Mot., Ex. 7. In the grievance, Goodnow indicated that he had also complained to the Prison Superintendent Lanman, but that she had told him that "she ha[d] no control over medical." The same EMSA nurse who had seen Goodnow on February 3 was assigned to investigate the grievance. The nurse reported generally about back-logs and priorities and noted that Goodnow had not filed any "sick slips" since February 2, 1999.2 The grievance was faxed to Palm and was either dismissed or for other reasons never acted upon.
Goodnow was next seen on July 26, 1999 by Dr. John Holbach, to whom Goodnow complained of bleeding problems in his mouth. Holbach confirmed Palm's original diagnosis that tooth Number 30 needed to be restored and developed a new treatment plan accordingly. Three days later, on July 29, 1999, Goodnow was again transferred to Greensville Correctional Center ("GCC") in Virginia pursuant to a contract between the states.
The GCC dental staff noted that as of March 31, 2000, Goodnow was only in need of routine cleaning. GCC's dentist declined to work on tooth Number 30, deciding to leave it "as is." He did, however, complete corrective work on tooth Number 20.3
Goodnow filed suit against EMSA and Palm alleging that they have deprived him of his constitutional rights. Specifically, he alleges that EMSA Compl. ¶ (3). His Complaint further states that:
Once back at the Newport facility around December 30, 1998 plaintiff saw dentist, Kenneth Palm. Palm advised plaintiff needed cap on the broken tooth, and cavities filled. [Palm] then advised that he would not do the dental work needed. He states that they don't do caps, and they are to (sic) busy to do the cavities. Plaintiffs (sic) mother called Superintendent Kathleen Lanman around 10-15 times, and was told the dental work would be done. On 4-22-99 Kathleen Lanman advised plaintiff in the yard, she has "No control over medical staff, they are controlled by EMSA."
Id. Goodnow has asked for proper dental care, i.e., that his tooth Number 30 be repaired and his cavities filled, and for $100,000 in damages and other appropriate relief.
In an April 14, 2003 Affidavit, Goodnow stated
My tooth is very sensitive to temperatures. It hurts to chew on the right side of my mouth. I cannot eat anything cold, like ice cream, because that causes severe pain. When I brush my teeth in the morning, the cold water causes severe pain. I can't simply turn on the hot water and let it run until it gets warm because there usually isn't any hot water available. Even when I breathe, the cold air causes severe pain in my tooth.
On April 4, 2003, Goodnow was examined by Vermont Dentist John Summerville, D.M.D. who signed an affidavit which reads, in pertinent part,
[Goodnow's] tooth No. 30, on the lower right side of his jaw, has a good bit of the crown fractured away. Mr. Goodnow described to me various pains that he experiences, particularly in connection with cold. Temperature sensitivity, especially cold, is a symptom consistent with a fractured tooth where the dentin is exposed. Restorative work is appropriate where there is active dental disease or where tooth structure is missing.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56©, summary judgment is appropriate if the "pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits ... show there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Summary judgment is precluded if a disputed fact exists that might affect the outcome of the suit under controlling substantive law. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, and in considering the motion, the court must resolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Gallo v. Prudential Residential Services, Ltd. Partnership, 22 F.3d 1219, 1223 (2d Cir. 1994).
EMSA has made a number of arguments for summary judgment. First, it argues that Goodnow cannot, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, through the doctrine of respondeat superior, obtain money damages because he has not demonstrated any "personal responsibility" on the part of EMSA as an employer. Second, EMSA contends that even if the Court concludes that he can make such a claim, Goodnow has not pled sufficient facts to meet either the subjective or objective prong required in this Circuit and under the Constitution to prove cruel and unusual punishment. Third, EMSA argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because it relied in good faith upon the constitutional validity of a contract and policies approved by the state of Vermont.
Relying upon Johnson v. Glick, EMSA argues that because Goodnow seeks "monetary damages ... under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,4 the general doctrine of respondeat superior does not suffice and a showing of some personal responsibility of the defendant is required." Johnson v. Glick, 481 F.2d 1028, 1034 (2d Cir.1973). In Johnson, the court dismissed a § 1983 claim against a prison warden on the basis that he was not personally involved in or responsible for the incident in question. The inmate in that case, however, only alleged an isolated incident in which a guard beat and detained him and then denied medical treatment to him in violation of his constitutional rights. See id. The Second Circuit found that such an incident was unforeseeable by higher authority because there was no evidence of an organizational or institutional awareness of the violation. See id. On that basis, the court dismissed the claim against the warden.5 See id; but see Martinez v. Mancusi, 443 F.2d 921, 924 (2d Cir.1970) ().
Goodnow, on the other hand, has alleged that his treatment/non-treatment involved several different EMSA employees and has otherwise demonstrated the possibility of a broader awareness of his problem. In doing so, he has established genuine issues of material fact to clear this summary judgment hurdle,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Montalvo v. Lamy
... ... Alexander's Dep't Store, Inc., 924 F.2d 406, 408 (2d Cir.1990) (quotation omitted); see also Goodnow v. Palm, 264 F.Supp.2d 125, 130 (D.Vt.2003) (prison medical contractor was potentially liable for alleged constitutional torts of its employees ... ...
-
Kretchmar v. Com.
... ... Goodnow v. Palm, 264 F.Supp.2d 125 (D.Vt. 2003). Factors considered include: "[t]he existence of an injury that a reasonable doctor or patient would find ... ...
-
Williams v. Bartee
... ... a dental emergency or infection existed amounted to deliberate indifference because of the escalating pain caused by a decaying tooth); Goodnow v. Palm, 264 F. Supp. 2d 125, 133 (D. Vt. 2003) (concluding that a broken tooth that caused difficulty eating and sensitivity to cold was a serious ... ...
-
Goodnow v. Palm.
...District Court DENTAL CARE PRIVATE PROVIDER FAILURE TO PROVIDE CARE Goodnow v. Palm, 264 F.Supp.2d 125 (D.Vt. 2003). A prisoner brought a civil rights suit against a private medical contractor and its prison dentist, alleging violation of his Eighth Amendment rights by failing to treat his ......