DeBlasio v. New York City Health and Hospital Corporation Brenda Harris, M.D.

Background

Philip E. DeBlasio, acting without a lawyer and asking to proceed without paying filing fees, sued New York City Health and Hospital Corporation (HHC) and Dr. Brenda Harris. He alleged that three inmates assaulted him on October 21, 2018, injuring his left foot while he was a pretrial detainee at the Manhattan Detention Complex. A non-party doctor ordered X-rays and prescribed 600 milligrams of Tylenol 3. DeBlasio alleged that a technician told him the X-ray showed a cracked bone, but that Dr. Harris later told him the X-ray was negative. He also alleged that he was escorted from the clinic without obtaining a second opinion and remained in severe pain.

The defendants filed an unopposed motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether the complaint contains enough factual allegations to state a legally valid claim.

Federal Civil-Rights Claims

The court read the complaint as asserting a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for inadequate medical care under the Fourteenth Amendment, along with related state-law claims.

For claims against HHC, a municipality cannot be held liable under Section 1983 merely because one of its employees allegedly acted unlawfully. The plaintiff must allege that an official policy, practice, or custom caused the constitutional violation. The court found that DeBlasio alleged no such policy or custom, did not allege that Dr. Harris was a policymaker, and did not allege that she knew of such a policy or custom. The court therefore concluded that the Section 1983 claims against HHC failed on that basis.

The court also concluded that DeBlasio did not adequately allege a constitutional violation. A claim for inadequate medical care requires a sufficiently serious deprivation and conduct showing the required level of fault. The court noted that DeBlasio was not denied medical care altogether: he received an examination, an X-ray, and medication. His allegations instead described a disagreement about the diagnosis, treatment, and need for a second medical opinion. The court explained that such disagreements, and negligence or medical malpractice by itself, do not establish a constitutional claim. It also found no allegation that Dr. Harris intentionally or recklessly failed to provide adequate care.

Qualified Immunity

The court held that qualified immunity protected Dr. Harris from any claims against her in her individual capacity. Qualified immunity generally protects government officials from liability when their conduct did not violate a clearly established constitutional right. Because DeBlasio did not allege a constitutional violation, and because it was objectively reasonable for Dr. Harris to believe that providing a good-faith medical opinion was lawful, the court found that any possible individual-capacity claims were barred.

State-Law Claims

The court found that any state-law claims were procedurally deficient because DeBlasio did not allege that he had filed a notice of claim within 90 days after the injury. Under New York law, that notice is a required step before bringing certain personal-injury claims against a municipal corporation such as HHC.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, directed the clerk to terminate the motion and close the case, and certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith. It therefore denied permission to appeal without paying court fees.