NAZZARO, J.
THE COURT: All right. We are back on the record. Can you hear me, Mr. Roque?
MR. ROQUE: (inaudible response).
THE COURT: All right. Very good. You can hear me, sir?
MR. ROQUE: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: All right. Very good. We are here in the matter of Mr. Roque versus the Commissioner of Corrections. And firstly, I just want to thank Mr. Roque and Attorney Lynch for a clear presentation of the evidence. I also appreciate your patience given the faxing of the numerous documents which Mr. Roque sought to offer into evidence.
In this case, the petitioner has brought a writ of habeas corpus and in so doing, asks the Court to issue extraordinary relief as a result of claims he makes in his petition. And, essentially, Mr. Roque as a self-represented individual filed a petition some years ago, apparently in March of `07, and in doing so, made certain allegations which were admitted in part and denied in part by the respondent Warden. In this case, the parties have agreed that any claim regarding headaches is moot and, indeed, the petitioner testified that for the most part any condition regarding headaches has now resolved favorably to the petitioner. Taking that, therefore, outside of the petition and looking at the remainder of the allegations — before the Court addresses those specific allegations the Court will make some findings.
In response to the petitioner's claims, the respondent Warden appeared in this action, and on or about March 4, 2009, filed a return to the petition, essentially, denying that any error of constitutional magnitude as occurred in terms of the care and treatment afforded the petitioner as alleged in his original petition, March 27 of `07. What's more, the CT Page 306 respondent has raised a defense that the petitioner has been afforded adequate care and has not been deliberately indifferent to the petitioner's medical needs, and asks that judgment enter in favor of the Warden.
The Court makes the following findings after hearing the testimony presented today, and also a review of the exhibits in evidence. Before articulating the findings, the Court will note that it heard testimony from Doctor Edward Blanchette, the clinical director of services for prisoner detainees within the Department of Corrections, and also heard the testimony of the petitioner, Jose Roque.
In addition, the Court reviewed Petitioner's 2, which is a series of twelve various lab reports concerning the petitioner during his stay with the Department of Corrections from dates commencing 2006 through diverse dates in the year 2009. In addition, the Court has reviewed the records contained in Respondent's A, which is a series of medical reports including x-ray notes, progress reports, examination reports, and lab results, as well as other medical diagnostics concerning the petitioner, Jose Roque.
The Court finds that the petitioner is currently confined pursuant to a mittimus issued him as a result of a sentence from the judicial district in New Haven in May 2005, sentencing the petitioner to a term of imprisonment of ten years to serve for sale of narcotics in violation of Section 21a-278(b). The Court finds that Mr. Roque's current estimated release date is May 2015. The Court finds that the petitioner is currently housed in the Osborn Correctional Institution. The Court finds that since approximately 2006, the petitioner complained of various pain and discomfort among other body parts concerning pain in his right side. The Court finds further that since that period of time, 2006, the petitioner sought and received medical care from individuals charged with administering such care to individual detainees in the Department of Corrections.
The Court finds that pursuant to this charge, the petitioner was examined by physicians employed by the Department of Corrections. In those examinations, the petitioner gave a history of his complaints and symptoms. The physician receiving said complaints then conducted a clinical examination, noted both the history and findings upon examination in progress notes, and ordered appropriate diagnostics, including lab work, x-rays, magnetic resonance imaging, and other diagnostics as well as prescribing a course of medication to address the petitioner's complaints which were verified. And this the respondent did on diverse dates from 2006, through the present year, 2009. CT Page 307
The petitioner's claim is that he suffers pain in his right side, which is progressive and debilitating. The petitioner alleges that, essentially, he suffers abdominal pain and right-sided pain when he has occasion to go to the bathroom. The petitioner seeks to have this Court order the respondent to either examine the petitioner more fully or differently than that which has obtained for the petitioner, or to refer the petitioner — or order the Department of Corrections to refer the petitioner to an outside physician, so-called, for an evaluation.
In review of this claim, as with any other claim arising from a case of claimed deprivation of rights stemming from the treatment of a medical condition, this Court is guided by the principles set forth by our Supreme Court not long ago in the case of Faraday versus Commissioner of Corrections, 288 Conn. 326 (2008). In Faraday, the Court made clear that in order for a judge of the Superior Court to intervene, given sufficient proof, and order the Department of Corrections to embark on a particular road of medical treatment, it must be established that the Warden acted with deliberate indifference to the petitioner's serious medical needs, such that the respondent consciously disregarded a serious risk to the petitioner's health.
To establish a claim of deliberate indifference, a prisoner must prove that official action constituted, quote, "More than ordinary lack of due care for the prisoner's interests or safety. It requires proof of a state of mind that is equivalent of criminal recklessness constituting cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
Here, the facts in the record indicate the following. The petitioner, as already indicated, was seen on a number of dates, and looking at the most recent history, the Court accredits the testimony of Doctor Edward Blanchette, who as the medical director, testified today as a communicant of sorts, summarizing the course of treatment afforded to Mr. Roque. The Court notes for the record that Doctor Blanchette is charged under statute for overseeing the quality of clinical care for detainees within the Department of Corrections.
He has been a licensed physician since 1975, is board certified in the area of internal medicine and infectious disease. Doctor Blanchette received his medical training at the University of Vermont College of Medicine. Thereafter, Doctor Blanchette trained at the University of Connecticut Health Center, where he interned and was an infectious disease fellow. Doctor Blanchette has had occasion to serve as a physician in the emergency room at both Saint Francis and Sharon Hospital CT Page 308 for approximately five years during the 1980s. Doctor Blanchette has been qualified as an expert witness in the area that has been described and, in fact, has testified in this court on numerous occasions and was qualified as an expert as such in these proceedings.
The Court accredits the testimony of Doctor Blanchette, and in particular, review of the various notations of treatment and symptoms and history that were pointed out in the medical records and care records of the petitioner as contained in Respondent's A. What's clear is in looking at the medical information in Respondent's A, most recent moving backward, as recent as July 22nd of this year, Mr. Roque was examined by way of x-ray which did not find any abnormality in his abdomen.
On August 17 — actually more recent in time — of this year, it was noted that the petitioner has what has been described as a diagnosis of chronic pain in his abdomen. He is still on medication, including dulcolax and lactulose. In addition, he's taking anti-hypertensive medication and blood pressure medication. The petitioner is prescribed specifically two medications which assists in softening the petitioner's stools. There does not appear to be any abnormality upon physical examination of the petitioner in his abdomen. The petitioner does not have any guarding, there is nothing palpated or felt by the physician to raise a concern that the petitioner should be further evaluated medically.
At present, and as recently as yesterday, the petitioner played flag football, has engaged in summer softball, and a fairly high degree level of physical activity, including recreational prison basketball within the past year.
The Court notes that all of the petitioner's vital signs this calendar year have been normal, no blood has been detected in any stool matter, there is no weight loss noted, no change in appetite. Examination of the abdomen reveals normal sounds. Abnormal sounds might suggest some type of obstruction in the abdomen, which would lead a physician to perhaps consider other treatment or further treatment.
The Court notes that on July 21, a nurse practitioner Patel, although noting the subject complaints of abdominal pain, did not determine the existence of anything unusual. Again, from the present moving backward, the Court accredits the opinions as expressed by the medical individuals who evaluated Mr. Roque, that he has had this chronic abdominal pain, which the Court views as consistent complaints, for a period of time of approximately three years, but as Doctor Blanchette indicated, it is a functioning diagnosis. CT Page 309
And to the petitioner's credit, this Court accredits Mr. Roque's testimony and that of Doctor Blanchette that, essentially, Mr. Roque's complaints are sincere and of a regular nature. Unfortunately, from a medical standpoint there is nothing that can be described or prescribed further to benefit Mr. Roque. Doctor Blanchette likened the problem which Mr. Roque experiences, to chronic pain in other contexts. It may be terribly cold comfort for the petitioner to hear this; however, this Court cannot conclude that further diagnostics beyond what has already been given should be ordered on the part of Corrections.
The Court listened in great detail also to the review of lab work for the petitioner in the last several years, noting that the blood chemistry results were within normal range, and if anything, certain aspects of enzymes and other lab results which indicated elevated or abnormal readings, frankly, are consistent with an individual of the high level of physical activity described by Mr. Roque.
Blood work dating back from June of 2006, to June of 2008, reveals no abnormality in lipids or indication of Diabetes Mellitus. Examination of the petitioner's abdomen for either Appendicitis or Peritonitis all prove negative. Had the petitioner been experiencing some type of infection secondary to disease process in his abdominal or peritoneal cavity, in all likelihood there would be presence of fever and other problems, none of which were noted here.
There was a reference to pain on urination, which the medical staff attributed to possible urinary infection. That was successfully addressed presumably by a regiment of antibiotics, in particular Cipro. What is clear from the record, not only Respondent's A, but Petitioner's 1, which concerns other lab work from the years 2006 to present, is that the petitioner has been called in for various examination and consults, and again, the Court accredits Mr. Roque's testimony.
It's probably frustrating in that there's no particular additional treatment that can be afforded. As recent as July 22nd of `09, there was no obstructive gas bowel pattern observed in the x-ray, no densities visualized, no evidence of any obstruction, and in the opinion of Doctor Blanchette, the petitioner does not have a significant medical problem which inferentially requires further medical intervention. He suffers from constipation, for which the laxatives presumably give him some relief, but nonetheless, still has discomfort when going to the bathroom.
Again, Doctor Blanchette likened the condition to perhaps irritable CT Page 310 bowel syndrome and the like, where an individual is left to live with the condition. The testimony medically here is essentially un-rebutted. In addition, the historical evidence relayed by the petitioner is also for the most part not controverted or not in dispute. Mr. Roque is left with the unenviable position of having a working diagnosis, which again, according to the testimony of Doctor Blanchette, does not warrant further medical examination, treatment, or inferentially referral out to some other physician or consultation with another physician then that within the supervision of the clinical director.
I will just note, Mr. Roque, that your complaints of pain appear to be sincere and not intended for any kind of secondary gain. But at the same time, it does not appear that anything further would be warranted from a prudent medical standpoint. This Court does tacitly find that the respondent has met the community standard of care. There's nothing in the record to substantiate any finding that the Warden acted with deliberate indifference to your medical condition. On the contrary, it appears that the Warden is very responsive to seeing you and affording you treatment which seems reasonable and necessary. Off the record.
(At which time, court went off the record.)
THE COURT: For those reasons, Mr. Roque, the Court has no choice but to deny your petition for writ of habeas corpus. I wish you the best. Judgment shall enter in favor of the respondent. I'm requesting that the staff here prepare a copy of the judgment file. Notice of any appeal rights be given the petitioner in accordance with law. I am requesting a transcript of this on-bench ruling be prepared for my signature, it shall become part of the file and constitute a memorandum of law. And that will bring this matter to a conclusion. Off the record.
(At which time, this matter was concluded.)
CT Page 311