Claimant, an inmate appearing pro se, moves for an order to compel the
defendant State of New York (hereinafter "State") to comply with various
discovery demands. The State opposes said motion.
The Court has considered the following papers in connection with this
This Claim alleges that Claimant was injured when his right forearm was cut by
a sharp edge on the feed-up slot in his cell during his incarceration at
Southport Correctional Facility (hereinafter "Facility") on October 3, 2001.
The Claim also alleges "[n]eglectful handling of medical records by STAFF
employed by N.Y.S." (Claim, ¶ 15).
First, Claimant requests that the State be compelled to take photographs of his
scar for which he offers to cover expenses. (Claimant's Affidavit, ¶ 4).
Claimant cites no authority compelling the State to comply with such a request.
The Court denies Claimant's motion relative to this demand.
The remaining demands in Claimant's motion all relate to the allegation in this
charges the State with negligence based upon improper handling of medical
records. More specifically, Claimant states in these supporting papers that
"[e]ach of [his medical] encounters should have been lodged by law." (Affidavit
of David Jones, ¶ 5). It is well-settled that under the inherent powers
doctrine a Court is permitted to direct a sua sponte dismissal when facts are
uncovered establishing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Matter of Fry
v Village of Tarrytown
, 89 NY2d 714, 718). Quite simply there is no cause
of action for negligent handling of medical records. Assuming, arguendo, the
existence of an internal Department of Correctional Services directive requiring
such record keeping, "[r]egulations, unlike statutes, cannot impliedly create a
cause of action [citations omitted]. Consequently, no liability may be imposed
even for a clear violation of the directive as no showing has been made that a
common law or statutory duty has been breached." (Vega v State of New
, Ct Cl, July 29, 2002, McNamara, J., Claim No. None, Motion No. M-65075
[UID No. 2002-011-566]).
assuming these allegations to be true, Claimant has failed to allege that he
suffered any damages as a result.
As such, to the extent that the remaining demands in Claimant's motion all
relate to discovery regarding the State's alleged failure to record all his
medical encounters, Claimant's motion is denied since said documents are not
material and necessary on the remaining cause of action alleging negligence in
connection with the sharp edge in his cell. (CPLR 3101).
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, it is ORDERED that Claimant's
motion, Motion No. M-66081, is DENIED and the Court, sua sponte, dismisses the
portion of this Claim alleging a cause of action for negligent handling of
medical records in accordance with the foregoing.