Opinion
# 2012-049-113 Claim No. 114316
10-16-2012
CHRISTOPHER SIMPSON v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Synopsis Case information
UID: 2012-049-113 Claimant(s): CHRISTOPHER SIMPSON Claimant short name: SIMPSON Footnote (claimant name) : Defendant(s): THE STATE OF NEW YORK Footnote (defendant name) : Third-party claimant(s): Third-party defendant(s): Claim number(s): 114316 Motion number(s): Cross-motion number(s): Judge: David A. Weinstein Claimant's attorney: Christopher Simpson, Pro Se Eric T. Schneiderman, NYS Attorney General Defendant's attorney: By: Aaron Marcus, Assistant Attorney General Third-party defendant's attorney: Signature date: October 16, 2012 City: Albany Comments: Official citation: Appellate results: See also (multicaptioned case) Decision
This decision follows the trial of the claim of pro se inmate Christopher Simpson, which was conducted via videoconference from Elmira Correctional Facility on August 3, 2012. The claim, which was filed on October 4, 2007, alleges that on July 23, 2007, while Simpson was being moved from a cell on the "flats" of Southport Correctional Facility to a cell on the second floor, he fell while ascending a staircase and injured himself.
At trial, Simpson testified that during the move, he was in full restraints and had three property bags in tow. He informed the escorting correction officers that it would be a problem for him to carry the three bags up the steps, but according to Simpson, the officers told him that he was required to carry his own bags. Simpson then took two of the bags and began to climb the stairs. At some point, he fell backwards with the bags in his hands and hit his back against the stairs. The next day, he felt pain, and was seen by a nurse at sick call, where he showed her his bruised back. Claimant introduced into evidence an Inmate Injury Report concerning the incident (Cl. Ex. 1).
On cross-examination, Simpson explained that he did not carry the bags one at a time, because he felt that this option was not available to him. Specifically, he stated that the correction officers were ordering him to carry the bags up the stairs, and he did not want to cause any trouble. He therefore maintained that he "had no choice" under the circumstances. Simpson acknowledged that he had not been threatened with disciplinary action if he did otherwise, but he nevertheless felt threatened by the tone of the officer who had ordered him to "stop whining" and carry his bags up the stairs.
Simpson stated that he did not undergo surgery for his back, but received some form of therapy and pain medication as a result of the fall.He acknowledged that prior to the fall he had been taking the same pain medication for various injuries, including ones to his back. On cross-examination, Simpson was asked about an Ambulatory Health Record Progress Note, dated August 3, 2007, that states that his left fifth finger was injured when he was doing pull-up exercises (Def. Ex. B). Claimant said that the medical staff "lied" about this incident, and that it was a "made up story." He also characterized as "a lie" an Ambulatory Health Record Progress Note, dated November 23, 2007, that states that Simpson was doing sit-ups on the floor of his cell (Def. Ex. C).
Claimant stated that he had in his cell medical records relevant to his claim in addition to those introduced by defendant, but he did not have them with him at the time of trial. The Court left the record open until September 6, 2012, so that claimant could submit any relevant documents, and defendant could voice any objection within seven days of such submission. The Court subsequently received correspondence from claimant in which he indicated that he would not be submitting any additional material.
The Court admitted defendant's exhibit C, Simpson's medical record, into evidence subject to proper certification. Upon review of the exhibit, I have confirmed that the record is accompanied by CPLR 4518(c) certification, and thus is admissible as a business record. The certification also covers defendant's exhibits A and B, which are likewise admissible.
For its part, defendant called Southport Correction Officers Richard Cecce and Nicholas Kapnolas as witnesses. Cecce did not recall the incident at issue, but stated that it was possible that he escorted Simpson at the time of his move. He testified to the general procedure and policy that is involved when an inmate is moved between cells at Southport, as follows: During a move, an inmate is shackled in handcuffs and waist chains. The inmate is responsible for moving his own property, unless there is a medical issue preventing an inmate from carrying his bags. The property is put in draft bags and there is no restriction on how many bags an inmate can use or how many trips an inmate may take to move his property.
Cecce stated that an inmate does not have to carry more than one bag at a time, and that he has never ordered an inmate to do so. He explained that, as a matter of security, correction officers are not permitted to assist an inmate with his bags, as the officers must have their hands free and ready to respond to any situation that may arise.
Kapnolas was the fire and safety officer at Southport at the time of the incident. He testified that he was familiar with Simpson and recalled having received an inmate injury report involving the incident at issue. Kapnolas stated that he did not investigate the incident because there was no indication that the fall had been caused by a hazard, such as a wet floor. This testimony is supported by Kapnolas' contemporaneous memorandum, which states that no investigation was conducted because the "[i]nmate does not claim that he slipped on stairs" (Def. Ex. D [emphasis in the original]).
Discussion
Claimant alleges that defendant was negligent in "ordering [him] to go up stairs with heavy bags, chain and cuffs . . . " (Claim ¶ 2). While security concerns clearly warrant the use of restraints in a correctional facility setting, defendant nonetheless owes "a duty to use reasonable care to protect its inmates from foreseeable risks of harm" (Reid v State of New York, 61 AD3d 1063, 1064 [3d Dept 2009], quoting Melendez v State of New York, 283 AD2d 729, 729 [3d Dept 2001], appeal dismissed 97 NY2d 649 [internal quotations and citations omitted]). The State is not, however, an insurer of the safety of its inmates, and negligence cannot be inferred solely from the occurrence of an accident (see Killeen v State of New York, 66 NY2d 850 [1985]; Condon v State of New York, 193 AD2d 874 [3d Dept 1993]).
As set forth above, Officer Cecce credibly testified that claimant could have made multiple trips, carrying one bag at a time, and that he could have used any number of bags to facilitate his move. Claimant has offered no evidence that the practice in question poses an unnecessary risk of harm, or that defendant was in violation of any of its regulations with respect to inmate movement. In this regard, I note that "deference to the judgment of correctional facility authorities must be the rule, and a court cannot properly substitute its judgment for that of such authorities" (Young v State of New York, UID No. 2008-031-516 [Ct Cl, Minarik, J., Nov. 20, 2008]), quoting Tucker v State of New York, Claim No. 85578 [Ct Cl, Bell, J., Aug. 28, 1996]).
While claimant contends that he had no choice but to carry two bags at once, his own testimony does not support such a conclusion. He neither asserts that he was ordered to lift both bags, nor that he was threatened with any consequence for transporting his bags one at a time.Indeed, in the claim itself, he says nothing about any directives from the correction officers, but rather alleges only that he sought their assistance, and they "disregarded" his request (Claim ¶¶ 4-5).
Simpson did not testify that he carried all his bags in one trip, but rather that he transported two out of the three. Since he made multiple trips in any case, Simpson's contention that he had "no choice" essentially boils down to the claim that he was able to make two trips to carry his bag - but felt deterred from the officers' comments from making three. There is nothing in the record to explain how he could reasonably have arrived at such a conclusion.
As claimant has failed to show any negligence on defendant's part, his claim no. 114316 must be dismissed.
All motions on which the Court may have reserved decision or which were not previously determined are denied.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
October 16, 2012
Albany, New York
David A. Weinstein
Judge of the Court of Claims