Portillo v. The City of New York

Background

Jaime Portillo, proceeding without a lawyer, sued the City of New York and six medical employees at Rikers Island: Azmat Hassan, MD; Pierre Provilon, PA; Kathleen Lehey, NP; Christine Edmondson, NP; Jerry Mims, MHC; and Anne Petraro, LMHC. Portillo alleged that he was prescribed Risperdal after experiencing depression and related symptoms while detained at Rikers Island in November 2015. He alleged that the medication caused chest pain, swelling, redness, breast enlargement, and liquid leakage from his left breast.

Portillo alleged that medical staff later recognized that his condition could be a medication side effect. The treatment records discussed by the court state that he was diagnosed with gynecomastia, that his prolactin level was mildly elevated, and that Risperdal was discontinued and replaced with Abilify on August 26, 2016. Portillo also alleged that he was later prescribed Risperdal again, but he did not identify when that occurred or which defendant was responsible.

Portillo filed his original complaint in 2017 and later filed amended complaints. The operative pleading was his second amended complaint, filed July 24, 2018. The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which asks whether a complaint states enough facts to support a legally plausible claim. After earlier granting and later reopening the motion proceedings, the court considered Portillo’s opposition.

Legal Standard

The court treated Portillo’s allegations as asserting a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs. Because Portillo was a pretrial detainee, the claim was evaluated under the Fourteenth Amendment rather than the Eighth Amendment.

To state this type of claim, Portillo had to plausibly allege both a serious medical need and that each defendant intentionally imposed the condition or recklessly failed to take reasonable care despite knowing, or having reason to know, that the condition posed an excessive health or safety risk. The court explained that more than negligence or medical malpractice was required.

For the claim against the City, Portillo also had to plausibly allege that a City policy, custom, or practice caused the constitutional violation. The court considered his allegation that the City failed to train the medical officials, but explained that a failure-to-train claim requires more than a conclusory assertion.

Court’s Analysis

The court concluded that Portillo plausibly alleged a serious medical need. The defendants did not contest that part of the claim for purposes of the motion, and the court found that allegations of chronic and severe pain associated with his symptoms were sufficient at the pleading stage.

The court nevertheless found that Portillo did not plausibly allege intentional or reckless conduct by the individual defendants. The medical records showed that his condition was identified, testing was ordered, and the Risperdal prescription was discontinued shortly afterward. The records also indicated that Portillo refused to be seen at one appointment and was to be rescheduled. His allegation that he was later prescribed Risperdal again lacked enough detail about when the prescription occurred and which defendant issued it.

The court also rejected the claim against the City. Portillo did not allege a City policy concerning Risperdal or facts connecting such a policy to his alleged injury. His failure-to-train allegations—that the City was responsible for training officials and that Hassan oversaw medical treatment employees—were too conclusory. In addition, because Portillo had not plausibly alleged an underlying constitutional violation by the individual defendants, the City’s liability claim also failed.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Portillo’s second amended complaint. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion, enter judgment for the defendants, close the case, and mail Portillo a copy of the opinion and order. The opinion did not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.