New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

REGAN v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2006-009-036, Claim No. 111864, Motion No. M-71378


Synopsis


Defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim for failure to state a cause of action was denied.

Case Information

UID:
2006-009-036
Claimant(s):
ALBERT REGAN
1 1.
Although claimant did not state a defendant in the caption of his filed claim, he did name the sole defendant in the caption of his “Affidavit in Support of Application Pursuant to CPLR 1101(f)” and a “Notice of Intention of File a Claim”, both of which were submitted to the Court with his claim. Therefore, the Court, sua sponte, has amended the caption, reflecting the State of New York as the proper defendant.
Claimant short name:
REGAN
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :
Although claimant did not state a defendant in the caption of his filed claim, he did name the sole defendant in the caption of his “Affidavit in Support of Application Pursuant to CPLR 1101(f)” and a “Notice of Intention of File a Claim”, both of which were submitted to the Court with his claim. Therefore, the Court, sua sponte, has amended the caption, reflecting the State of New York as the proper defendant.
Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
111864
Motion number(s):
M-71378
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Claimant’s attorney:
ALBERT REGAN, Pro Se
Defendant’s attorney:
HON. ELIOT SPITZER
Attorney General
BY: Thomas M. Trace, Esq.,
Senior AttorneyOf Counsel.
Third-party defendant’s attorney:

Signature date:
June 5, 2006
City:
Syracuse
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

Defendant has brought this pre-answer motion to dismiss the claim pursuant to CPLR Rule 3211(a)(7) for failure to state a cause of action.

The following papers were considered by the Court in connection with this motion:
Notice of Motion, Affirmation in Support, with Exhibit 1,2


“Answer to Motion to Dismiss Claim”, Affirmation 3,4

In his claim (see Exhibit A to Items 1, 2), claimant seeks damages for personal injuries suffered by him, based upon allegations of negligence and medical indifference on the part of the medical staff at Mid-State Correctional Facility. Claimant alleges that he was prescribed medication for headaches following an unspecified incident which occurred at the Special Housing Unit at the facility on January 11, 2005. Claimant further alleges that the prescribed medication has made his headaches worse and that he has continued to complain about his headaches, and the failure of the prescribed medication to treat them, to medical staff at the facility.

Defendant contends in its motion to dismiss that “it is impossible to determine the act or omission of the Defendant’s employees or agents which forms its basis.” (See Item 2, p 1-2).

In this particular matter, for purposes of this motion, claimant has established that he was prescribed medication for treatment of headaches suffered by him. He has further alleged that the prescribed medication has not been effective, and that it has worsened his condition. Finally, he has alleged that despite requests made by him, medical staff at the facility have failed to take any further action regarding his complaints.

Keeping in mind that the pleadings of pro se litigants should be liberally construed, and that they are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” (Hughes v Rowe, 449 US 5, 9), in this Court’s opinion these allegations are sufficient, at this stage of the proceedings, to set forth a cause of action sounding in medical malpractice and/or medical indifference.

Therefore, it is

ORDERED, that Motion No. M-71378 is hereby DENIED.


June 5, 2006
Syracuse, New York

HON. NICHOLAS V. MIDEY JR.
Judge of the Court of Claims