Redd v. Garell

Background

Lorenzo Redd, proceeding without a lawyer, brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dr. P. Charles Garell, Dr. John Wainwright, Dr. Justin Remer, and Westchester Medical Center. He alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs and that Westchester Medical Center retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment. The amended complaint also named Dr. Razia K. Ferdous, Sonji Henton, Dr. Carl J. Koenigsmann, and Thomas Gudewicz, but the court had previously granted those defendants’ motion to dismiss. The remaining defendants filed separate motions for summary judgment, which Redd did not oppose.

Redd had chronic back problems and underwent lumbar decompression and fusion surgery performed by Dr. Garell on July 5, 2017. After surgery, Redd reported back pain, a cracking sound, and numbness. Follow-up examinations and imaging initially showed good alignment and no hardware complications. In 2018, after Redd reported additional pain, imaging showed that one surgical screw had broken. Doctors offered another surgery, which Redd declined. Redd also alleged that defendants failed to provide proper examinations and pain treatment, used defective or expired hardware, caused or mishandled blood loss, delayed his care, and failed to provide requested imaging. His retaliation claim was based on the rescheduling of an appointment.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. Because Redd did not respond, the defendants’ supported factual statements were treated as undisputed, but the court independently reviewed the record and considered the facts in the light most favorable to Redd. The court also found that the defendants had properly warned Redd about the consequences of failing to respond.

Deliberate-indifference claims

Because Redd was a convicted prisoner, the court analyzed his medical-care claims under the Eighth Amendment. A deliberate-indifference claim requires proof that the prisoner was denied adequate medical care and that officials knew of and consciously disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm. Negligence, medical malpractice, or a disagreement over the preferred treatment is not enough by itself.

The court held that Redd had not shown that he was deprived of adequate medical care. Dr. Garell diagnosed his condition, discussed the surgery’s risks and alternatives, obtained Redd’s consent, performed the surgery, and provided multiple follow-up examinations, tests, and treatment recommendations. The court credited expert opinions that Dr. Garell’s treatment met the applicable standard of care, that the blood loss was recognized and addressed, and that the later broken screw did not itself indicate negligence. The court also found that the WMC defendants’ treatment, including physical-therapy recommendations, referral to the emergency room, and the approximately three-hour period before testing, did not depart from the applicable standard of care.

The court further held that the record did not show that any defendant knew of and consciously disregarded Redd’s serious medical needs. It therefore granted summary judgment to the defendants on the deliberate-indifference claims.

Negligence and medical-malpractice claims

The court treated Redd’s negligence allegations as medical-malpractice claims because they arose from the physician-patient relationship and medical treatment. Under New York law, a medical-malpractice plaintiff generally must show a departure from accepted medical practice and that the departure caused the injury. In this case, the court held that Redd needed expert testimony to establish those elements. Because he submitted no expert report, he did not overcome the defendants’ initial showing supporting summary judgment.

The court also addressed the evidence itself. Dr. Jack Stern and Dr. Saran Rosner provided unrebutted opinions that the treatment met the applicable standard of care, the screws did not require expiration dates, a broken screw could occur without negligence, and the blood loss did not establish a departure from accepted care. The court therefore granted summary judgment on the negligence and medical-malpractice claims as well.

First Amendment retaliation claim

Although Westchester Medical Center did not specifically address the retaliation claim in its motion, the court concluded that Redd had received adequate notice and an opportunity to present evidence and could therefore decide the claim on its own motion. The court accepted that filing the lawsuit was constitutionally protected activity. It held, however, that repeatedly rescheduling a routine appointment, without more, was not an adverse action, meaning an action that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from exercising constitutional rights. The court also found that Redd’s allegations did not adequately connect the rescheduling to his lawsuit. It therefore granted Westchester Medical Center’s summary-judgment motion on the retaliation claim.

Disposition

Judge Judith C. McCarthy granted the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, directed the Clerk to enter judgment for the defendants, and terminated the pending motions. The court certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying the filing costs.