JOSE OLIVARES, Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant, an inmate, alleged negligence in medical treatment of a broken leg at St. Mary's Hospital after transport by the Department of Corrections. The court denied the claim because the State fulfilled its duty to provide timely medical care and claimant failed to prove any deviation from the standard of care, offering only his own conclusory testimony without expert evidence.
Statutes cited: 705 ILCS 505/8(c)
Cases cited: Bynum v. State (1992), 44 Ill. Ct. Cl. 1; Davidson v. State (1983), 35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 825; Davis v. State (1987), 39 Ill. Ct. Cl. 185; Pink v. State (1991), 44 Ill. Ct. Cl. 295
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- PRISONERS AND INMATES-soccer injury-State fulfilled duty to provide inmate with reasonable and timely medical care. Although the State owes a duty to provide inmates with reasonable medical care in a timely fashion, the State did not breach that duty owed to an inmate who broke his leg while playing soccer, where prison officials transported the inmate to a hospital for treatment the same day that the accident occurred.
- SAME-negligence-proof required in claim for substandard medical care. In order to sustain a claim against the State for substandard medical care, the Claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the standard of care, that the State deviated from the standard of care, and that the deviation from the standard of care was the proximate cause of the Claimant’s injury, and these matters usually must be proven by medical evidence.
- SAME-broken leg-lack of proof-claim for inadequate medical care denied. In an inmate’s claim alleging that he received inadequate medical care after breaking his leg in a soccer game and being transported to a hospital for treatment, the claim was denied, where the inmate failed to present any expert testimony or other evidence as to the standard of care or the State’s deviation from the standard of care, and the only proof offered regarding the State’s alleged negligence was the inmate’s own conclusory testimony.
OPINION
FREDERICK, J. Claimant filed his claim in the Court of Claims on November 13, 1992. This is a claim for personal injury pursuant to section 8(c) of the Illinois Court of Claims Act. (705 ILCS 505/8(c).) Claimant alleged that he was injured as a result of negligence in the treatment of a broken leg from May 4, 1992, through August 11, 1992, at St.
Mary’s Hospital in Centralia, Illinois, where employees of the Illinois Department of Corrections transported him after a soccer accident at the Centralia Correctional Center on May 4, 1992.
Claimant contends that after he was transported to St. Mary’s Hospital for emergency medical treatment, the hospital staff failed to perform an operation on his left leg until 18 days later, when the leg became infected and swollen.
[*426] Claimant alleged in his complaint that as a result of the delay in treatment, he experienced severe pain, sleeplessness, and a loss of appetite. His complaint also states that Claimant can no longer use his leg, preventing him from returning to his occupation as a construction worker, resulting in a loss of earnings of $18,200 per year.
The only evidence produced at the trial before the Commissioner on May 25, 1994, was the testimony of Claimant that the hospital failed to treat his injury properly by delaying treatment. Claimant also stated that he now can walk but has a limp and no longer can play soccer.
Claimant contends he is entitled to damages of $100,000 from Respondent for negligence.
This Court has held that the State owes a duty to provide inmates with reasonable medical care to its prisoners. (Bynum v. State (1992), 44 Ill. Ct. Cl. 1.) The Court also has held that failure to provide timely medical attention may constitute negligence. (Davidson v. State (1983), 35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 825.) In the instant case, the Respondent has complied with both mandates. Respondent transported Claimant to St. Mary’s Hospital for treatment on the same day as his accident and therefore fulfilled its duty to procure reasonable medical treatment for Claimant in a timely fashion. There is no evidence that Respondent delayed procuring medical care for Claimant.
In order to sustain a negligence claim against Respondent for substandard medical care, Claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence the standard of care, that Respondent deviated from the standard of care, and that the deviation from the standard of care was the proximate cause of the Claimant’s injury. These matters usually must be proven by medical evidence. Claimant has failed to prove the standard of care and that Respondent deviated from the standard of care. (Davis v. State [*427] (1987), 39 Ill. Ct. Cl. 185.) As in Davis, supra, the Claimant herein has adduced no proof of the State’s alleged negligence other than the Claimant’s own conclusory testimony. No expert testimony was presented. Pink v. State (1991), 44 Ill. Ct. Cl. 295.
Although there is mention in Claimant’s complaint that his broken leg was caused by poor construction of the yard in which he was playing soccer, Claimant has not produced any evidence to establish that such a dangerous condition existed, that it was the proximate cause of his injury, or that Respondent had notice of such dangerous condition. In fact, at the hearing held in this matter, this claim was not mentioned.
Claimant has failed to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence. For the foregoing reasons, it is the order of this Court that Claimant’s claim is hereby denied.