New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

RAZOZ v. STATE OF NEW YORK, #2001-018-064, Claim No. 100813, Motion No. M-62419


Synopsis


Motion for Summary Judgment dismissing claim granted. Defendant set forth prima facie case that Claimant was not denied medical treatment as alleged.

Case Information

UID:
2001-018-064
Claimant(s):
JAMIR RAZOZ
Claimant short name:
RAZOZ
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
100813
Motion number(s):
M-62419
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
DIANE L. FITZPATRICK
Claimant's attorney:
JAMIR RAZOZPro Se
Defendant's attorney:
ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General of the State of New York
By: JOEL L. MARMELSTEIN, ESQUIRE Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
February 16, 2001
City:
Syracuse
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

Defendant brings this motion for summary judgment. The Court has considered the


following documents in determining this motion:


Notice of Motion...............................................................................................1


Affirmation of Joel L. Marmelstein, Esquire

Assistant Attorney General in support with all

exhibits attached thereto........................................................................2


Affidavit of Bazaz Bansi, M.D., in support......................................................3


Affidavit of Service of motion papers on Jamir Razoz.....................................4


Claimant has not responded to the motion.

The claim seeks damages for the failure to treat Claimant's diabetes, when on June 18, 1999, Claimant asserts Bazaz Bansi, M.D., allegedly refused to give him an insulin injection, although his blood sugar level was 244 at that time.

Defendant asserts, by this motion, that there are no issues of fact. Claimant was provided with prompt medical attention but in fact refused to heed the medical advice given. Attached to Defendant's motion papers is the affidavit of Claimant's treating physician, Doctor Bazaz Bansi. Doctor Bansi describes, in detail, the medical attention Claimant received from June 18, 1999 through June 21, 1999, the date on which Claimant apparently suffered a diabetic reaction. On the morning of June 18, 1999, Claimant first appeared at his usual time for administration of the drug, Lenti, and a "finger stick" to check his blood sugar level which was within normal limits at that time. (Affidavit of Doctor Bansi, page 5, ¶14) Doctor Bansi saw Claimant for a "medical callout" at 1:25 p.m. that afternoon. (Affidavit of Doctor Bansi, page 5, ¶14) A finger stick was performed determining that Claimant's blood sugar level was elevated to 244. No insulin was administered at that time because Claimant was due to be re-checked and given his second dose of Lenti during his regular daily appointment at 4:00 p.m. Doctor Bansi attempted to discuss with Claimant the importance of regular meals, and a change in his medication schedule, but Claimant became argumentative. At 4:00 p.m. another finger stick indicated Claimant's blood sugar was 275, and at that time he was administered six units of insulin and his regular dose of Lenti. Doctor Bansi indicates that Claimant exhibited no unusual symptoms that day. It was not until June 21, 1999, when Claimant appeared for his 4:00 p.m. appointment that he was described as "vague and spacey," complaining of blurred vision and had a blood sugar level of 54. Even after the administration of glucose, Claimant's blood sugar level continued to drop. Additional glucose was administered with a can of Ensure at which point Claimant's condition began to improve.

Doctor Bansi indicates that there was no failure to treat Claimant on June 18, 1999, and the reaction that occurred on June 21, 1999 cannot be causally connected to June 18, 1999.

As has often been said, summary judgment is a drastic remedy which only should be granted where there are clearly no substantial issues of fact. (Moskowitz v Garlock, 23 AD2d 943) Here, Defendant has set forth a prima facie case that Claimant was not denied medical treatment for his high blood sugar on June 18, 1999. Claimant has failed to rebut the proof submitted. (See, Simms v North Shore University Hosp., 192 AD2d 700) Accordingly, the Court must grant the defendant's summary judgment motion.

Defendant's motion is GRANTED and the claim is DISMISSED.

February 16, 2001
Syracuse, New York

HON. DIANE L. FITZPATRICK
Judge of the Court of Claims