Owens v. DEPT. OF JUSTICE, USA

• Decision Date: 23 February 1981
• Docket Number: No. S 80-391.,S 80-391.
• Citation: 527 F. Supp. 373
• Parties: Lester Loviad OWENS, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana

527 F. Supp. 373

Lester Loviad OWENS, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants.

No. S 80-391.

United States District Court, N. D. Indiana, South Bend Division.

February 23, 1981.

Lester Loviad Owens, pro se.

David Ready, U. S. Atty., South Bend, Ind. by Donald P. Moroz, Asst. U. S. Atty., South Bend, Ind., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

SHARP, District Judge.

Summary judgment is a procedural devise for disposing of actions in which there is no genuine issue of any material fact even though such issue might have been raised by formal pleadings. Mintz v. Mathers Fund, Inc., 463 F.2d 495 (7th Cir. 1972). It is applicable if the pleadings and proof in form of depositions, affidavits and admissions on file disclose that no real cause of action exists. Peoples Outfitting Co., Inc. v. General Electric Credit Corp., Inc., 549 F.2d 42 (7th Cir. 1977), Kirk v. Home Indemnity Co., 431 F.2d 554 (7th Cir. 1970).

Plaintiff Owens claims he has suffered a physical disability as the result of an accident which occurred while he was working in the kitchen of the Federal Correctional Institute, Milan, Michigan. Such allegations are controlled exclusively by 18 U.S.C. § 4126, the Federal Prison Industries Inmate Accident Compensation System. Sturgeon v. Federal Prison Industries, 608 F.2d 1153 (8th Cir. 1979). The Inmate Accident Compensation System set forth in the above noted section has been found to be the exclusive means of recovery for work related injuries allegedly sustained by an inmate of a federal penitentiary.

Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a civil action for deprivation of constitutional rights. All rights required to fully implement the constitutional due process mandate and to enhance fairness and factual reliability of claims procedure are incorporated and fulfilled in both 5 U.S.C. §§ 701, 706; and 18 U.S.C. § 4126. Saladino v. Federal Prison Industries, 404 F.Supp. 1054 (D.C.Conn.1975). This holding reiterates that 18 U.S.C. § 4126 represents plaintiff's exclusive remedy.

Plaintiff's complaint prays for monetary damages as if it were an original cause of action. His remedy under 18 U.S.C. § 4126, 28 C.F.R. § 301, et seq. is however, merely judicial review of the administrative proceeding only. Thompson v. United States Federal Prison Industries, 492 F.2d 1082 (5th Cir. 1974).

The standard for review of the Commissioner's decision in this case under Administrative Procedures Act is whether or not it was arbitrary or capricious. 5 U.S.C. § 706. The decision is conclusive unless shown to be thus defective. Thompson, supra, at 1084.

In determining whether the decision was arbitrary or capricious, the reviewing court must determine whether the facts upon which it was based were not supported by the record. A factual certainty is not necessary. National Citizens Committee for Broadcasting v. F. C. C., 555 F.2d 938, 956 (D.C.Cir.1970). If the decision has a rational and substantial basis in evidence, it may not be nullified even though the reviewing court would have reached a different conclusion. National Labor Relations Board v. Minnesota Mining Manufacturing Co., 179 F.2d 323, 326 (8th Cir. 1950).

Plaintiff's complaint does not allege that the Commissioner's decision was arbitrary or capricious, although it is obvious that he disagrees with the decision. The complaint does not specify in what respect the decision or its basis is not supported by the evidence. The claim originally submitted to the agency makes only general and conclusory allegations.

The medical records portion of the record shows that prior to the accident of January 14, 1975 at the Federal Correctional Institution of Milan, Michigan, plaintiff was a chronic complainer to medical services concerning subjective physical ailments. It is worthwhile noting that several weeks prior to the accident of January 14, 1975, plaintiff complained of scars on his face on December 23, 1974. It should also be noted that after the occurrence of plaintiff's work related injury, his "Chronological Record of Medical Care" goes on for some 51 pages.

Plaintiff Owens has been diagnosed as a psychotic individual, having organic brain damage, as well as being delusional. In February 1977, after being diagnosed as schizophrenic, chronic undifferentiated, plaintiff was transferred to the Institution at Oxford, Wisconsin. After a month in that institution, he was transferred to Springfield, Missouri due to what the medical chronology describes as his bizarre behavior. While at Springfield, he continued to have a multitude of subjective complaints concerning his entire body. None of his complaints concerning his back, elbows, legs, headaches, eyesight, etc. were substantiated by objective medical findings.

While at Springfield, plaintiff was given a complete evaluation by Dr. Arthur E. Miller whose examination of March 28, 1977 revealed a healthy, well-nourished negro male near his age of 21, height of 5'11", weight of 170 pounds. His diagnosis revealed probably psychogenic back pain, but none of an orthopedic nature. Dr. Miller's recommendation was psychiatric care.

On June 6, 1977, Dr. L. Richard Webb conducted further medical examination of plaintiff. Dr. Webb speculated there might be an early phase of rheumatoid arthritis and suggested aspirin as the universally accepted first step in treatment. Plaintiff declined any such medication....