Palompelli v. Smith

Background

Frank Palompelli, who was incarcerated at Green Haven Correctional Facility and represented himself, alleged that he experienced ongoing headaches and dizziness over a period of years. He alleged that Jilian Smith, identified as a nurse practitioner, did not take his complaints seriously and gave him only over-the-counter Tylenol. He alleged that Frederick Bernstein, identified as a doctor, did not send him for testing or provide additional treatment.

Palompelli alleged that, on November 9, 2018, he complained of dizziness, nausea, and an intense headache. He later learned that he had fallen and hit his head, causing internal bleeding and a stroke. He received hospital care and alleged that he afterward suffered short-term memory loss, high blood pressure, headaches, leg weakness, numbness, and anxiety. He claimed that adequate treatment for his earlier symptoms could have prevented the injury and stroke.

Palompelli’s claim was based on the Eighth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal law that allows claims against government officials for violating constitutional rights. The court had previously dismissed the claim against the Green Haven Correctional Facility Medical Department. The motion addressed the claims against Bernstein and Carl J. Koenigsmann. Smith had not been served.

Legal standard

The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The court therefore considered whether Palompelli’s factual allegations, accepted as true, plausibly showed that he was entitled to relief. Because Palompelli was representing himself, the court gave his filings special consideration, but it could not supply factual allegations that he had not made.

For a medical-care claim under the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must plausibly allege both that the medical condition or deprivation was sufficiently serious and that the defendant actually knew of and disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. Negligence, medical malpractice, or a disagreement over medical treatment is not enough by itself.

Rulings

Koenigsmann. The court dismissed the claim against Koenigsmann because Palompelli did not allege that Koenigsmann personally participated in, or was even aware of, his medical care. The amended complaint mentioned Koenigsmann only in the caption. Palompelli’s opposition argued that Koenigsmann was responsible because he was “in charge overall,” but the court held that liability cannot rest solely on a defendant’s supervisory position.

Bernstein. The court dismissed the Eighth Amendment medical-care claim against Bernstein. On the objective part of the test, the court held that Palompelli had not alleged facts showing that his headaches and dizziness were sufficiently serious for constitutional purposes. He did not allege that the headaches were unusually debilitating or provide facts showing that they would have alerted medical providers that a stroke was about to occur.

The court also held that Palompelli failed to satisfy the subjective part of the test. He did not allege facts showing that Bernstein understood the headaches to be a warning of a serious condition and consciously disregarded that risk. The court further characterized the allegation that Bernstein should have ordered more testing as, at most, negligence or medical malpractice. The allegation that Palompelli received only Tylenol and no further testing or treatment was treated as a disagreement over the proper course of medical care, which ordinarily does not establish deliberate indifference.

Smith. Smith was not served, and the court noted that more than 90 days had passed after the complaint was filed. Rather than provide another service deadline, the court dismissed the claim against Smith because it had already determined that the medical-care allegations did not state a viable claim and that the same reasoning applied to Smith.

Leave to amend and disposition

Palompelli had already amended his complaint after receiving notice of the proposed grounds for dismissal and participating in a pre-motion conference. He did not request another amendment or identify facts that would cure the deficiencies. The court therefore declined to grant leave to amend on its own initiative.

Judge Cathy Seibel granted Bernstein and Koenigsmann’s motion to dismiss. The court dismissed the claims against Koenigsmann, Bernstein, and Smith, directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the pending motion, and closed the case. The opinion does not add a prejudice qualifier to these dismissals.