 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Carr v. Wackenhut Corrections Corp.2/13/2002
George C. Carr was 60 years old when he was sent to prison in 1992 for bank robbery. He served time in several different facilities before he was finally transferred in 1997 to the Taft Correctional Institution (TCI) in Kern County. TCI is a federal prison operated by the Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (Wackenhut) under contract with the government. Carr was released from custody in November of 1999.
In May of 1999, before his release, Carr brought this action in propria persona seeking damages against Wackenhut for what he alleged generally was the company's "deliberate indifference" to his serious medical and dental needs. Wackenhut answered the complaint and later moved for summary judgment or summary adjudication on the basis Carr had cited no evidence, in the form of expert medical opinion, to support his various claims. Carr filed an opposition to the motion that was neither timely nor in the proper form. After reviewing Carr's opposition, as well as additional material he submitted on the day of the hearing, the court granted Wackenhut's motion. Carr has appealed. We will affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Carr's Complaint
Carr alleged in his complaint that he suffers from a wide assortment of physical ailments for which he had been unable to obtain proper treatment at TCI. But he relied on two incidents in particular as the grounds for his lawsuit.
The Dental Incident. On Friday, August 7, 1998, shortly before closing time, Carr went to the dental clinic at TCI complaining he was in pain because his upper left bridge was loose and in need of adjustment. He was examined there briefly by Lauretta Floyd, a registered dental assistant, who concluded the bridge should be removed and evaluated, but that there was no emergency. The dentist on duty, Dr. Anthony Falletti, concurred in Floyd's assessment. So Floyd made an appointment for Carr on Monday.
Carr went to the medical clinic the following day, Saturday, complaining the pain had grown worse and he had not been able to sleep the night before. A nurse confirmed Carr's cheek was red and swollen, and he was in some pain. She called Dr. Falletti, who ordered antibiotics and ibuprofen. Carr returned to the dental clinic on Monday, at which time Dr. Tuan La removed one of his teeth.
Carr cited this incident in his complaint as the basis for his first cause of action for negligence. However, what he actually went on to assert was a cause of action for cruel and unusual punishment:
"The denial of dental care and opportunity to see the dentist resulted in the `unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain ... proscribed by the Eighth Amendment['] to the United States Constitution and by the laws and Constitution of the State of California. Plaintiff's face swelled up grotesquely over the weekend, sleep was denied, and the germs or disease was perniciously allowed to enter plaintiff's body. The conscious indifference to the dental emergency exacerbated the condition resulting in the loss of teeth and part of an expensive crown." (Fn. omitted.)
Carr alleged he had been "disfigured" as a result of TCI's "deliberate indifference to his ... emergency dental needs" in that he was left with "a concavity" on the left side of his face. He alleged further that it was "only a matter of time" before he would begin to suffer from gingivitis, which in turn would probably cause him to lose his teeth, and to suffer even more "excruciating physical pain, facial disfigurement, great mental and emotional anxiety and distress, and loss of earning capacity ...."
Carr attached three documents to the complaint in support of these allegation
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|