Miguel Gonzalez v. State of Illinois

OPINION

This claim is before the Court by way of evidentiary hearing conducted on October 22, 2024 before the assigned Commissioner utilizing videoconferencing. Claimant, Miguel Gonzalez, was an inmate with the Illinois Department of Corrections (“DOC”), residing at Dixon Correctional Center (“Dixon”) at all times relevant to this claim. Claimant alleges Respondent’s agents at Dixon negligently served lunch containing a hard object to Claimant resulting in a broken tooth, and then negligently delayed Claimant’s dental treatment. Claimant filed a grievance, which was denied, and appealed the decision to the Administrative Review Board, which also denied his claim. Claimant filed his complaint, dated October 29, 2019, alleging damages of $15,000.

Factual Background

Claimant’s Testimony

At hearing, Claimant testified that on May 22, 2018, Claimant was eating lunch in the Dixon chow hall. Claimant cannot recall with certainty what he was eating, but believes it was chicken or a chicken patty. He bit down on something hard, perhaps a piece of bone. Claimant automatically swallowed, then spit out whatever he could to see if there was a bone or foreign object in his food. He found nothing. Inside his mouth, his tongue felt a big gap in a tooth, and he thought he had lost a filling. Claimant notified the officer in charge of the chow hall and asked to be seen by a dentist or doctor. Claimant was immediately sent to the healthcare unit and was examined by a dentist. Claimant had not lost a filling - the old, metal filling was still there - but the filled tooth had broken [*184] into two pieces and one piece was gone. Claimant likely had swallowed it. Claimant was in pain, and the dentist informed Claimant he would be scheduled to have it fixed. Claimant expected this to be scheduled for the next day or two but instead, Claimant suffered in this state for more than five and a half months before the dental work was done. During the time waiting, Claimant’s tooth was sensitive to both air and water. Any exposure to cold air, cold water, hot air or hot water all caused sudden pain. Eating was difficult as Claimant could chew on only one side of his mouth.

More than five and a half months after cracking his tooth into pieces, dental work was completed at Dixon. Claimant was informed the repair would last five or six years, long enough for Claimant to be released where Claimant could have a permanent repair done. Claimant informed the dentist he would be in DOC for more than ten years, but the dentist stood by using the non-permanent filling, and suggested a wait-and-see approach.

The dental work appeared to be successful, allowing Claimant to function comfortably. Only recently, Claimant has begun to have some trouble with the same tooth. It has not yet been determined whether the current issue is related to the previously cracked tooth, but Claimant believes the possibility of it being related would show the non-permanent nature of dental repair manifesting, and the need for a permanent repair.

Respondent called no witnesses.

Additional Evidence

Respondent filed a Combined Rule 55 Discovery Disclosure/Departmental Report. Claimant’s complaint and all exhibits, and all supplemental filings, are also added to the record.

[*185] Argument

Claimant argues that Respondent negligently permitted lunch to be served containing a piece of bone or other hard object, resulting in Claimant’s cracking his tooth, and then negligently delayed dental care for 165 days.

Respondent contests liability for the actual injury, arguing that a hard object being present in food at a large institution could happen in the ordinary course. Respondent also contests liability for the wait for dental care, arguing whether the length of waiting time was appropriate is a medical standard of care question - which standard must be established by expert testimony - and also that Claimant ultimately received dental care and the tooth was repaired successfully.

Legal Analysis

The State is not an insurer of inmates in its custody. However, the State has a duty to provide reasonably safe conditions in its corrections facilities. Dortch v. State of Illinois, 65 Ill. Ct. C1. 135, 136 (2012)(add’l cite omitted). Claimant testified credibly that he bit down on a hard object in food while eating lunch in Dixon’s chow hall, resulting in cracking his tooth. The first question before the Court is whether the object was present due to Respondent’s negligence. In order to prevail on a claim for negligence, Claimant must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) the existence of a duty owed to him by the Respondent; (2) a breach of duty by the Respondent; and (3) that the breach proximately caused the Claimant’s damages. Rivera v. State of Illinois, Dep’t of Transp., 63 Ill. Ct. C1. 218, 224 (2011). Claimant testified that he never saw what the object was and therefore could not retrieve it. He suspects he swallowed it, along with the piece of his tooth. Without having any evidence as to what the object was - including whether food or otherwise - any conclusion as to how the object entered the food would be speculative. The Court finds Claimant has not met his burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent breached its duty of ordinary care in this regard.

[*186] This Court has previously found that a delay in medical care may be compensable. Martin v. State of Illinois, 40 Ill. Ct. C1. 163 (1988).

Regarding the delay of Claimant’s dental care, Claimant’s dental records corroborate his testimony. The show that Claimant was examined by a dentist on 5/22/18 at 12:40 p.m. and details regarding his broken tooth were noted. Claimant was seen again on 6/13/18 for a biannual exam but did not receive dental care for his broken tooth at this time, rather it was noted that “Patient already on [illegible] list.” Not until 11/20/18 did Claimant receive substantive dental care to repair the cracked tooth. The Court finds that where Claimant established Respondent delayed dental care for nearly six months - knowing the interior of Claimant’s tooth was exposed - while Claimant suffered sudden pain from any exposure to heat or cold and was limited in eating ability, Claimant met his burden of proof of establishing Respondent’s negligence for the delay.

Claimant seeks $15,000 in damages, and also seeks an order for dental care outside Dixon to receive the dental work the Dixon dentist told him would be needed for a permanent repair. To the extent Claimant seeks outside dental care as a remedy for allegedly inadequate dental care at Dixon, he must establish that Respondent deviated from the applicable standard of care; this must be established through expert testimony unless the inadequacy of the medical care is obvious. Bock v. State of Illinois, 43 Ill. Ct. C1. 299, 304 (1991). Claimant offered no expert testimony. Rather, Claimant testified that after his tooth was repaired at Dixon, he had functional teeth, was not in pain, and had no issue until several years later. The Court finds Claimant has not met his evidentiary burden of establishing inadequate dental care at Dixon. To the extent Claimant seeks outside dental care as a personal preference to obtain merely different dental care - such as a longer-lasting filling or other tooth repair - than the dental care he receives at Dixon, Claimant does not have a unique right to outside dental care based on preference.

As to a financial award, Claimant seeks $10,000 for permanent injuries and $5,000 for pain and suffering. Having not found Respondent liable for Claimant’s initial injury the Court does not award damages for permanent injury, but does consider damages for Claimant’s pain and suffering due to delay in providing dental care. In a previous case [*187] involving delay of medical care, this court awarded a claimant with finger injuries three hundred dollars after Respondent failed to deliver prescribed pain medication for three months. Williams v. State of Illinois, 53 Ill. Ct. C1. 135, 139 (2001). More recently, in a medication-delay case decided on the basis of general negligence rather than medical malpractice, this court awarded two hundred fifty dollars for a four-month delay of providing an anti-inflammatory that claimant was not allergic to, after a slip-and-fall on ice. Bouchez v. State of Illinois, 18 CC 2817, opinion January 15, 2020. Here, Claimant was made to wait over five and a half months for dental care after the Respondent diagnosed half of Claimant’s tooth to be missing, leaving the remainder exposed. The Court awards Claimant $700 in full and final satisfaction of his Claim.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent compensate Claimant $700.