amended revised complaint

advertisement
DOCKET NO. CV 02 0821661
)
)
ELAINE WISEMAN, ADMINISTRATOR
)
OF THE ESTATE OF BRYANT
)
WISEMAN,
)
PLAINTIFF,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JOHN J. ARMSTRONG; JACK TOKARZ;
)
DR. WILLIAM JOUGHIN; DR. REGINALD )
HOFFLER; OSCAR MALDONADO; MICHAEL )
A. PACE; KEVIN COWSER; JAMES E.
)
REILLY; DONALD J. HEBERT; ROBERT
)
G. STACK; JOSE ZAYAS; KEVIN J.
)
DANDOLINI; ANGELO P. GIZZI; EDWIN )
MYERS; WILLIAM SMITH; VAUGHN
)
WILLIS; BRIAN C. BRADWAY; FRANK
)
MIRTO, in their individual and
)
official capacities; and
)
IRIS PRESCOTT; ANDRE CHOUINARD;
)
WILLIAM SCOTT; STEVEN SANELLI;
)
JIMMY GUERRERO; JEFFREY HOWES;
)
MAURELLIS POWELL; DENNIS CAMP;
)
RAYMOND BRODEUR; MOISES PADILLA;
)
ANNE MARIE STOREY; ROBERTA C.
)
LEDDY; CLO BARSOTTI; GINGER
)
BOCHICCHIO; GAIL N. FREDETTE; DR. )
MINGZER TUNG, in their individual )
capacities; and CONNECTICUT
)
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; STATE OF )
CONNECTICUT; UNIVERSITY OF
)
CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTER; GARNER )
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
)
)
DEFENDANTS.
)
SUPERIOR COURT
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
HARTFORD AT HARTFORD
NOVEMBER 11, 2003
AMENDED REVISED COMPLAINT
1.
This Complaint concerns the brutal death of a young
mentally ill man at the hands of the correctional officers and
medical workers charged with his supervision and care.
2.
On November 17, 1999, 28-year old Bryant Wiseman died
while incarcerated at the Garner Correctional Institution.
3.
Bryant was mentally ill, and at the time of his death he
had been diagnosed as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.
4.
Notwithstanding Bryant’s mental illness, however, the
Department’s doctors, nurses and other medical workers failed and
refused to provide adequate and proper medical care, supervision
and medication to him, they allowed his mental illness to go
untreated and inadequately treated, and they permitted him to
decompensate and to become paranoid and aggressive under
circumstances that they knew would lead to violent confrontations
with other inmates and correctional staff.
5.
On November 17, 1999, after several days during which his
doctors intentionally withheld required anti-psychotic medication,
Bryant’s untreated mental illness caused him to become paranoid and
disruptive, and as could and should have been expected, he was
2
subsequently violently subdued and restrained by more than eight
correctional officers and other Department staff.
6.
Beginning at approximately 12:45 p.m., in a mental health
cell at the Garner Correctional institution, the officers and staff
piled on top of Bryant, handcuffed him behind his back, put him in
leg irons, savagely beat him, asphyxiated him, caused him to vomit,
rendered him unconscious and comatose, and ultimately killed him.
7.
The guard’s violent and savage assault on Bryant Wiseman
and his brutal death at their hands unfortunately is not an
isolated incident at the Department of Correction.
Seven months
before Bryant was killed, another young mentally ill man, Timothy
Perry, was killed by guards under similar circumstances while in
custody at a facility of the Department of Correction.
8.
As with Bryant Wiseman, Timothy Perry’s schizophrenia
caused him to become paranoid and aggressive, and he was killed by
guards while being violently subdued and restrained in a mental
health cell.
9.
Following Timothy Perry’s death, however, none of the
guards and medical workers responsible for his death told the truth
about how he was killed or otherwise notified Department officials
3
of the immediate need for Department-wide training in the treatment
and supervision of mentally ill inmates and proper take-down and
restraint procedures.
10.
Moreover, following Timothy Perry’s death, neither the
Commissioner of the Department of Correction nor any other
Department official conducted an adequate investigation and review
of Timothy’s death or of Department procedures to ensure that
proper training was conducted and to avoid further injury and death
to mentally ill inmates such as Bryant Wiseman.
11.
As a result of the above failings, no adequate training
was conducted, no precautionary procedures were instituted, no
required monitoring and supervision of correctional staff was
contemplated, and, as could and should have been expected and
prevented by Department officials, Bryant Wiseman was killed in a
nightmarish reenactment of Timothy Perry’s death only a few months
earlier.
12.
This Complaint seeks redress from the persons and
entities responsible for the care and treatment of this State’s
mentally ill inmates and for Bryant Wiseman’s anguish, injuries and
death.
4
PARTIES
13.
Plaintiff ELAINE WISEMAN, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF
BRYANT WISEMAN, is Bryant Wiseman’s mother.
The Fiduciary’s
Probate Certificate appointing ELAINE WISEMAN as the Administrator
is attached hereto.
14.
Defendant JOHN J. ARMSTRONG is, and was at all relevant
times, the Commissioner of the CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION.
As such, he was responsible for the administration of
this State’s correctional system, the care and custody of persons
incarcerated by the DEPARTMENT, and the hiring, supervision,
training, discipline and control of persons working for the
DEPARTMENT.
15.
He is sued in his individual and official capacities.
Defendant JACK TOKARZ is, and was at all relevant times,
the Deputy Commissioner of the CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
in charge of the Programs and Staff Development Division.
As such,
he was responsible for the administration of this State’s
correctional system, the care and custody of persons incarcerated
by the DEPARTMENT, and the hiring, supervision, training,
discipline and control of persons working for the DEPARTMENT.
is sued in his individual and official capacities.
5
He
16.
Defendant STATE OF CONNECTICUT is a governmental entity,
and is the proper party against which suit may be brought pursuant
to Connecticut General Statutes §§ 4-141, et seq.
17.
Defendant CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, acting
through its agents, representatives and employees, was responsible
for the care, custody and treatment of Bryant Wiseman at all
relevant times mentioned herein.
18.
Defendant UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTER was at
all relevant times responsible for providing medical, mental health
and psychiatric care, services and supervision to persons in the
custody of the CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, including
Bryant Wiseman.
19.
Defendant GARNER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION is the
CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION facility where Bryant Wiseman
was incarcerated prior to and at the time of his death on November
17, 1999.
20.
Defendants MICHAEL A. PACE, KEVIN COWSER, JAMES E.
REILLY, DONALD J. HEBERT, ROBERT G. STACK, JOSE ZAYAS, KEVIN J.
DANDOLINI, ANGELO P. GIZZI, EDWIN MYERS, WILLIAM SMITH, VAUGHN
WILLIS, BRIAN C. BRADWAY, and FRANK MIRTO were correctional
6
officers, supervisors and other staff assigned on November 17, 1999
to the GARNER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION.
The defendants in this
paragraph are collectively referred to as the “WISEMAN CORRECTIONAL
EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS.”
They are sued in their individual and
official capacities.
21.
Defendants IRIS PRESCOTT, ROBERTA C. LEDDY, CLO BARSOTTI,
GINGER BOCHICCHIO, GAIL N. FREDETTE and DR. MINGZER TUNG were
medical workers assigned on November 17, 1999 to the GARNER
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION.
At relevant times, some or all of these
defendants were employed by the UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH
CENTER.
22.
They are sued in their individual capacities.
Defendants DR. WILLIAM JOUGHIN, DR. REGINALD HOFFLER and
OSCAR MALDONADO are the doctors and social worker responsible for
treating, monitoring and managing Bryant Wiseman’s mental illness
at the CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION prior to his death.
relevant times, some or all of these defendants were employed by
the UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTER.
They are sued in
their individual and official capacities.
23.
Defendants ANDRE CHOUINARD and WILLIAM SCOTT were
Lieutenants at the CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION who, on
7
At
April 12, 1999, seven months before Bryant Wiseman was killed, were
responsible for the death of Timothy Perry, another mentally ill
man in the custody of the DEPARTMENT.
Defendants STEVEN SANELLI,
JIMMY GUERRERO, JEFFREY HOWES, MAURELLIS POWELL, DENNIS CAMP,
RAYMOND BRODEUR, and MOISES PADILLA were correctional officers
responsible for the death of Timothy Perry.
Defendant ANN MARIE
STOREY was a nurse employed by the UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH
CENTER who was also responsible for the death of Timothy Perry.
The Defendants in this paragraph are collectively referred to as
the “PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS.”
They are sued in
their individual capacities.
FACTS
24.
At all times mentioned herein, each individual Defendant
was acting in the course and scope of his or her employment.
25.
At all times mentioned herein, each defendant was acting
under color of state law.
26.
Bryant Wiseman was incarcerated at the CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION for several years before he was killed on
November 17, 1999.
8
27.
Bryant was diagnosed by his doctors at the DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.
28.
It was well-known to all of Bryant’s doctors, nurses and
other medical workers, including his treating psychiatrists
defendants DR. WILLIAM JOUGHIN and DR. REGINALD HOFFLER, and his
assigned social worker defendant OSCAR MALDONADO, that Bryant
required adequate and proper anti-psychotic medication in order to
control his schizophrenia, to enable him to function properly and
to prevent his becoming paranoid, aggressive and disruptive.
29.
Notwithstanding this knowledge, DR. WILLIAM JOUGHIN, DR.
REGINALD HOFFLER, OSCAR MALDONADO and the other doctors and medical
workers responsible for Bryant’s well-being failed and refused to
prescribe and administer adequate and proper anti-psychotic
medications.
Specifically, at various times during Bryant’s
incarceration at the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION up until the time of
his death, these defendants: (a) prescribed and administered
inadequate amounts of anti-psychotic medication (including Prolixin
Decanoate and Prolixin HC1); (b) prescribed and administered no
anti-psychotic medications; and (c) failed and refused to medicate
Bryant against his will, even though, due to Bryant’s mental
9
illness, he was incapable of caring for his own medical and
medication needs.
30.
The types of medications prescribed for Bryant, the
dosage levels for those medications, and the time periods during
which those medications were prescribed were all inadequate to
properly treat Bryant’s illness and to control his paranoia and
aggression.
31.
As a result of these defendants’ failure and refusal to
prescribe and administer adequate and proper anti-psychotic
medications during the period of Bryant’s incarceration at the
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION and up until the time of his death, his
mental illness went substantially untreated, and he suffered
frequent episodes of decompensation and resulting paranoia, fear,
and aggression
32.
Also as a result of substandard medical care, monitoring
and supervision, Bryant frequently became non-compliant even with
those anti-psychotic medications that were prescribed for him, and,
as a result of this non-compliance, he suffered paranoia and other
psychotic symptoms, and consequently engaged in assaultive,
impulsive and aggressive behavior toward other inmates and staff.
10
33.
Bryant’s need for anti-psychotic medications, his
potential for non-compliance, and the resulting risk of aggression,
were all well known to his doctors and other medical workers.
34.
A November 14, 1996 clinical record entry by defendant
DR. JOUGHIN, for example, states that “The large issue is
[Bryant’s] inclination to be off medication, and problems around
non-compliance → decompensation, paranoia and violence towards
others.”
35.
Similarly, a November 26, 1996 clinical entry by DR.
JOUGHIN states that “the patient’s need for medication is clear –
in terms of his paranoia and related hostility when off
medications....”
36.
A clinical record entry by defendant social worker
MALDONADO on November 26, 1996 similarly states ”This inmate has a
history of poor compliance with medications.
In the past he has
decompensated rapidly whenever he stops taking his medications.
has the potential to become assaultive.
He
Therefore his medication
intake needs to be monitored regularly.”
37.
During the period of his incarceration at the DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTION, Bryant suffered repeated episodes of becoming
11
noncompliant with his psychotropic medications, of decompensating
and becoming paranoid and violent as a result, of engaging in
aggressive behavior, of being restrained by correctional staff, and
of having his medications subsequently monitored or even
administered against his will.
38.
These repeated episodes of noncompliance, aggression,
restraint, and subsequent medication were well-known to Bryant’s
treating psychiatrists and to the other doctors, nurses and medical
staff who had responsibility for treating and managing Bryant’s
mental illness, including defendants JOUGHIN, HOFFLER, MALDONADO
and PRESCOTT.
39.
For example, in November 1996, after having refused his
medications for several days, Bryant became paranoid and he
assaulted another inmate.
Correctional officers restrained him,
and his treating psychiatrist, DR. JOUGHIN, subsequently ordered
that Bryant be given anti-psychotic medication against his will if
he continued to refuse voluntary medication.
A Supervisory Review
of the incident determined that “Wiseman had not been taking his
medications regularly, and this could have triggered his violent
outbursts.”
12
40.
For another example, in January 1998, Bryant was found
fighting in his cell and was restrained by correctional staff.
For
days prior to the incident, he had been non-compliant with his
psychotropic medication.
On January 21, 1998, medical staff at the
DEPARTMENT ordered that Bryant be forcibly medicated due to his
“history of assaultive behavior when not on medication.”
41.
For another example, in October 1999, just weeks before
his death, Bryant again refused to take his anti-psychotic
medications and he became gravely disabled and acutely agitated as
a result.
Bryant’s treating psychiatrist at the time, DR. REGINALD
HOFFLER, confined Bryant to his cell and noted that Bryant has a
history of “extreme agitation” and that he is a “danger to self or
others when in psychotic state.”
42.
Notwithstanding Bryant’s profound and well-documented
need for anti-psychotic medication, his well-documented potential
for rapid decompensation, paranoia and aggression in the absence of
such medication, and the fact that any such aggressive behavior
would lead inevitably to Bryant being forcibly subdued and
restrained by one or more correctional officers and other custodial
staff, incredibly, on November 1, 1999, just days before Bryant’s
13
death, defendant DR. HOFFLER ordered that Bryant’s anti-psychotic
medication be “discontinue[d] if [patient] remains noncompliant.”
43.
Following DR. HOFFLER’s astounding order, Bryant, as he
had on numerous prior occasions, became non-compliant with his
anti-psychotic medication, and he refused to take the required
dosages numerous times between November 1 and November 15.
Pursuant to DR. HOFFLER’s order, Bryant’s anti-psychotic medication
was then discontinued on November 15, 1999.
44.
There was no valid medical reason for discontinuing
Bryant’s anti-psychotic medication; DR. HOFFLER’s order was a grave
and unforgivable breach of the standard of care.
45.
As a result of the discontinuance of his medication, and
as a result of the failure of his doctors, nurses and other medical
workers to properly monitor and evaluate his condition, Bryant
rapidly decompensated and became aggressive.
His propensity for
rapid decompensation and immediate aggression was well-documented
in the clinical record, and it should have been anticipated and
prevented by Bryant’s doctors and nurses.
46.
On November 16, 1999, DR. HOFFLER examined Bryant and
wrote in the clinical record that Bryant had been exhibiting
14
“bizarre behavior” for the past two days and was “possibly
decompensating.”
47.
HOFFLER ordered the nurse to “refer inmate to
psychiatrist tomorrow a.m.,” but, incredibly, HOFFLER and the other
medical workers responsible for Bryant’s care failed and refused to
schedule an immediate psychiatric consultation for Bryant, and they
failed to do anything to ensure that Bryant was promptly given
anti-psychotic medication, either voluntarily or involuntarily.
48.
In the morning of November 17, 1999, Bryant continued to
show signs of psychosis and paranoia, and at approximately 9:40
a.m., Correctional Officer James Santopietro told the DEPARTMENT’s
mental health staff that Bryant was “acting bizarre.”
However,
notwithstanding all of the evidence to the contrary, including the
specific written medical evaluations described above, mental health
staff responded that Bryant “was fine.”
49.
As could and should have been expected, several hours
later on November 17, 1999, two days after DR. HOFFLER inexplicably
and unforgivably discontinued Bryant’s anti-psychotic medication,
Bryant followed the same pattern of rapid decompensation, paranoia
and aggression that he had followed numerous times in the past, he
15
got into an altercation with a fellow inmate, and he was forcibly
restrained and subdued by correctional staff.
50.
This time, however, due to a profound lack of training
in how to properly manage mentally ill inmates, and due to the
officers’ violent, unrestrained and excessive use of force against
Bryant, something went terribly wrong.
51.
At approximately 12:45 p.m., in Cell 520 on the Inpatient
Medical (IPM) Unit of the GARNER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, more
than eight correctional officers and other custodial staff (the
WISEMAN CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS): forced Bryant into a
face-down “hog tie” position with his feet up on the bed, his torso
down on the floor, and his hands shackled behind his back; placed
his legs in leg irons; brutally and repeatedly beat him on the
backs of his legs, his stomach, his shins and other parts of his
body; attacked and used extreme and excessive force against him;
utterly compromised his respiratory system and asphyxiated him;
caused him to vomit and to bleed from his mouth; rendered him
unconscious and comatose; and ultimately killed him.
16
52.
Specifically, in the course of subduing and restraining
Bryant, the defendants perpetrated the following acts, among other
things:
a. defendant Correctional Officer MICHAEL A. PACE forcibly
pressed Bryant’s head and shoulders against the cell
floor;
b. defendant Lt. KEVIN D. COWSER held Bryant’s upper torso
and left arm, applied handcuffs to Bryant’s wrists, and
forcibly pinned Bryant’s upper torso to the floor by
pressing his knee on Bryant’s shoulder;
c. defendant Correctional Officer JAMES E. REILLY held
Bryant’s right arm and wrist while Lt. COWSER applied
hand cuffs, and he held Bryant’s upper body to the cell
floor by pressing on Bryant’s arms and by pressing his
knee on Bryant’s back;
d. defendant correctional counselor DONALD J. HEBERT, who
was acting CTO for the IPM Unit, savagely and
repeatedly beat Bryant with hammer-type strikes to his
body while the other defendants held Bryant down;
17
e. defendant Lt. ROBERT G. STACK held Bryant’s right leg
and applied leg irons to both legs;
f. defendant Correctional Officer JOSE ZAYAS grabbed
Bryant’s legs by the ankles, held his left foot, and,
after the leg irons were applied, continued to hold on
to the leg iron chain;
g. defendant Correctional Officer KEVIN J. DANDOLINI
grabbed Bryant’s right leg and ankle, and beat Bryant’s
left leg with a closed fist; and
h. defendant Correctional Officer ANGELO P. GIZZI knelt on
the back of Bryant’s legs and held Bryant’s ankles.
53.
Defendants Captain EDWIN MYERS, Correctional Officer
WILLIAM SMITH, Correctional Officer VAUGHN WILLIS, Correctional
Treatment Officer BRIAN C. BRADWAY and Correctional Training
Officer FRANK MIRTO also participated in, witnessed, and failed and
refused to stop the assault on Bryant.
54.
After savagely beating Bryant, and after placing him in
hand cuffs and leg irons, the defendants continued for several
minutes to hold him in the face-down hog tie position, with his
feet up on the bed and his face pressed against the floor and with
18
the weight of several correctional officers on him, while they
waited for cutting shears to cut Bryant’s clothes from his body so
that they could perform a strip search.
55.
At this point, Bryant began to vomit, and the defendants
realized that he was unconscious and comatose and had stopped
breathing.
56.
Following the officer’s attack, after Bryant had been
rendered unconscious and comatose, and after he had vomited and
stopped breathing, the officers finally called medical staff for
assistance.
57.
Defendants Correctional Hospital Nurse Supervisor ROBERTA
C. LEDDY, Correctional Hospital Nurse IRIS R. PRESCOTT, Nurse CLO
BARSOTTI, Correctional Hospital Nurse GINGER BOCHICCHIO, Nurse GAIL
N. FREDETTE, and Dr. MINGZER TUNG responded to the call; however,
these defendants rendered profoundly substandard medical care to
Bryant.
58.
These defendants failed to obtain and to use adequate and
properly functioning medical equipment, they failed to properly
check Bryant’s vital signs, and they failed to provide proper,
19
standard and required CPR and other emergency medical treatment and
care.
59.
At this time, Bryant had a weak radial pulse and was
unresponsive to stimuli, vomitus had clogged his airway, his pupils
were dilated, and he had no pulse and no respiration.
60.
At approximately 1:16 p.m., Bryant was transported by
ambulance to the emergency department at Danbury Hospital, where he
was pronounced dead at 2:01 p.m.
61.
Defendant WILLIAM SMITH recorded on videotape some of the
events, acts and omissions alleged in the preceding paragraphs.
That portion of the videotape that has been produced to plaintiff’s
counsel by the CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION is Exhibit A to
this Complaint, and the events, acts, omissions and admissions
recorded on that tape are incorporated into this Complaint as if
fully alleged herein.
62.
Following Bryant’s death, officials of the DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION, including defendants ARMSTRONG and TOKARZ, determined
that all of the defendants’ conduct was perfectly proper and fully
consistent with the DEPARTMENT’s policies and procedures concerning
the restraint of mentally ill and aggressive inmates.
20
63.
Not one of the defendants was ever punished or
disciplined for his or her responsibility for Bryant’s injuries and
death.
64.
Seven months before Bryant’s death, on April 12, 1999,
Timothy Perry, another young mentally ill man, was similarly
brutally killed while in the custody of the CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTION.
65.
Like Bryant Wiseman, Mr. Perry had a history of mental
illness and psychiatric disorders, including schizophrenia.
66.
Like Bryant Wiseman and many other seriously mentally ill
persons, Mr. Perry’s illness caused him to engage in impulsive and
aggressive behavior.
67.
On April 12, 1999 at the Hartford Correctional Center,
Timothy succumbed to his mental illness, and became severely
agitated and anxious.
68.
At approximately 7:45 p.m., while defendants Nurse STOREY
and Correctional Officer POWELL stood by and watched, defendant
Correctional Officer HOWES pushed Timothy backwards, and defendant
Correctional Officers SANELLI, GUERRERO and CAMP descended upon
Timothy and restrained him with the use of force.
21
69.
At approximately 8:00 p.m., defendant POWELL initiated a
“code orange,” seeking assistance from other correctional officers.
Defendant Correctional Officer BRODEUR responded to the “code
orange,” and he handcuffed Timothy behind his back.
70.
Defendants Correctional Officer PADILLA and Lieutenant
CHOUINARD also responded to the “code orange” and, along with and
assisted by other PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS, began
restraining, subduing and using excessive force against Timothy,
even after Timothy was face down on the floor and was handcuffed
behind his back.
71.
The CORRECTIONAL OFFICER DEFENDANTS carried Timothy face
down to South Block Cell 10, put him face down on the mattress,
shackled him with leg irons, continued to use excessive force
against him, and, like Bryant Wiseman, asphyxiated him.
72.
The take-down and restraint procedures utilized, and the
use of force perpetrated, by the PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE
DEFENDANTS were essentially identical to the take-down and
restraint procedures and the use of force utilized and perpetrated
by the WISEMAN CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS seven months later.
22
73.
At or about the time that the PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE
DEFENDANTS carried Timothy to Cell 10 and/or held Timothy in Cell
10, defendant Nurse STOREY spoke to a DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
staff psychiatrist who ordered that Timothy be tied down by his
hands and feet.
74.
The defendants carried Timothy face down and handcuffed
from Cell 10 to Cell 24, a 4-point restraint cell.
75.
The Defendants’ use of excessive force against Timothy
rendered Timothy unconscious, comatose, dying or dead at or near
the time that he was in Cell 10 and at and after the time that the
Defendants moved him to Cell 24.
76.
In Cell 24, the Defendants put Timothy face down on the
bed, and removed his handcuffs, leg irons and clothes.
77.
Defendant Lieutenant CHOUINARD was the scene supervisor
for the “code orange” and was responsible for supervising the other
PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS throughout the entire
incident.
78.
Defendant Lieutenant WILLIAM SCOTT assisted in
restraining Timothy and in the use of excessive force against him.
23
Defendant SCOTT also observed the other Defendants’ excessive force
against Timothy, and he did nothing to stop it.
79.
In Cell 24, despite the fact that Timothy did not move or
resist in any way, and despite the fact that he was obviously
unconscious, comatose, dying or dead, the PERRY CORRECTIONAL
EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS continued to restrain him, and to use excessive
force against him.
80.
The PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS then turned
Timothy onto his back, they cut and tore off the rest of his
clothing, and they tied him down by his wrists and ankles.
81.
At approximately 8:30 p.m., the PERRY CORRECTIONAL
EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS left Timothy strapped down and alone in the 4point restraint cell.
82.
Defendant POWELL recorded on videotape some of the
events, acts and omissions alleged in the preceding paragraphs.
That portion of the videotape that was previously produced by the
CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION is Exhibit B to this
Complaint, and the events, acts, omissions and admissions recorded
on that tape are incorporated into this Complaint as if fully
alleged herein.
24
83.
At approximately 10:30 p.m. on April 12, about two hours
after the PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS left Timothy
strapped down and alone in the 4-point restraint cell, another
member of the HARTFORD CORRECTIONAL CENTER medical staff, Nurse
Yvonne Smith, noticed through the cell window that Timothy’s feet
were discolored and that he was in the exact same position that he
had been in two hours earlier.
84.
Nurse Smith had Timothy’s cell door opened, and she
discovered that Timothy had no pulse, that he was cold, stiff and
not breathing, and that he had been dead for some time.
85.
Timothy’s body was transported by ambulance to Hartford
Hospital, where he was officially pronounced dead.
86.
Following the death of Timothy Perry, not one of the
PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS was appropriately punished
or disciplined.
Four months later, defendant STOREY was actually
offered a promotion.
87.
Following Timothy Perry’s death, his estate sued
defendant Commissioner ARMSTRONG, THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, THE
PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS and others responsible for
25
his death.
The defendants agreed to settle that lawsuit by paying
to Mr. Perry’s estate $2.9 million.
88.
Notwithstanding the settlement of the case, and
notwithstanding all of the evidence showing that the PERRY
CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS were responsible for killing
Timothy Perry, nearly all of those defendants continue to be
employed by the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION and continue to hold
positions of substantial authority in the DEPARTMENT.
89.
Following Timothy Perry’s death, throughout the course of
(a) an internal investigation conducted by the DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION, (b) an investigation conducted by the Connecticut State
Police, and (c) the subsequent lawsuit brought by Mr. Perry’s
estate, not one of the PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS told
the truth about how Mr. Perry was killed; rather, they hid the
truth and deliberately lied in order to avoid blame and punishment
for his death.
90.
Following Timothy Perry’s death, not one of the PERRY
CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS told the truth or notified
DEPARTMENT officials about their profound lack of skill,
experience, training and supervision in the handling of mentally
26
ill and aggressive inmates and in the use of force against, and the
restraint of, such inmates.
91.
Following Timothy Perry’s death, not one of the PERRY
CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS told the truth or notified
DEPARTMENT officials about the urgent need for Department-wide
training for all custodial staff in the proper handling of mentally
ill and aggressive inmates and in the use of force against such
inmates.
92.
At no point following Mr. Perry’s death did defendant
Commissioner ARMSTRONG, defendant Deputy Commissioner TOKARZ, or
any other DEPARTMENT official institute meaningful, adequate and
effective Department-wide training for custodial staff in the
proper handling of mentally ill and aggressive inmates and in the
use of force against such inmates, even though, following Mr.
Perry’s death, it was known to them, and should have been known to
them, that such training was urgently required.
93.
The above failures of the PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE
DEFENDANTS, and of defendants ARMSTRONG and TOKARZ, directly and
proximately caused the death of Bryant Wiseman.
27
94.
The individually named defendants in this Complaint each
acted with reckless or callous indifference to Bryant Wiseman’s
dignity as a human being and to his constitutional and statutory
rights.
95.
As a direct and proximate result of the acts and
omissions of the defendants, Bryant Wiseman suffered extreme
distress, anguish, pain and death.
FIRST COUNT
(Deliberate Indifference -- Failure to Provide Constitutionally
Adequate Medical Care -- against defendants DR. WILLIAM JOUGHIN,
DR. REGINALD HOFFLER, OSCAR MALDONADO, IRIS PRESCOTT, ROBERTA C.
LEDDY, CLO BARSOTTI, GINGER BOCHICCHIO, GAIL N. FREDETTE, DR.
MINGZER TUNG, and the WISEMAN CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS in
their individual capacities, pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983)
1.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and
every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 95.
2.
By failing to provide Bryant Wiseman with
constitutionally adequate medical care, and by failing to summon
such care, the defendants knowingly disregarded an excessive risk
to Bryant’s health and safety and knowingly subjected him to pain,
physical and mental injury, and death, thereby violating Bryant’s
28
rights under the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
SECOND COUNT
(Deliberate Indifference -- Failure to Provide Constitutionally
Adequate Medical Care -- Supervisory Liability, against defendants
ARMSTRONG and TOKARZ in their individual capacities, pursuant to 42
U.S.C. § 1983)
1.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each
and every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 95.
2.
The defendants were personally involved in and
responsible for the deliberate indifference to Bryant Wiseman’s
serious medical needs in that:
a. They created a policy and custom, and they allowed the
continuance of a policy and custom, under which
inmates would be deprived of adequate medical care;
and
b. They were deliberately indifferent in supervising and
training subordinates who committed the wrongful acts
described herein.
3.
The acts and omissions of the defendants proximately
caused Bryant Wiseman’s suffering, injuries and death.
29
4.
By failing to provide Bryant Wiseman with
constitutionally adequate medical care, the defendants knowingly
disregarded an excessive risk to Bryant’s health and safety and
knowingly subjected him to pain, physical and mental injury, and
death, thereby violating Bryant’s rights under the Fourth, Eighth
and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitutions.
THIRD COUNT
(Deliberate Indifference to Safety -- Failure to Protect --against
the WISEMAN CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS in their individual
capacities, pursuant to 42. U.S.C. § 1983)
1.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each
and every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 95.
2.
Each of the WISEMAN CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS knew
that the other WISEMAN CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS, and each
of them, were using excessive force against Bryant and/or were
failing to summon or provide obvious and urgently needed medical
attention for him.
3.
Each defendant could have taken action to stop the use of
excessive force, to summon or provide medical care, and to prevent
injury and death to Bryant, but refused and failed to do so.
30
4.
Each defendant failed to protect Bryant from the use of
excessive force and the deliberate failure to provide medical care
in violation of the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution.
FOURTH COUNT
(Deliberate Indifference to Safety -- Failure to Protect -against the PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS in their
individual capacities, pursuant to 42. U.S.C. § 1983)
1.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and
every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 95.
2.
At no point after Timothy Perry’s death on April 12,
1999, and up until Bryant Wiseman’s death seven months later, did
any of the PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS tell the full
truth about how Timothy Perry was killed.
3.
In fact, in multiple sworn statements made by the PERRY
CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS following Mr. Perry’s death, the
defendants lied to investigators about their acts, omissions and
responsibility, about their failure to properly restrain Mr. Perry,
about their failure to summon urgently needed medical care for him
and about other relevant facts.
31
4.
By their intentional failure and refusal to honestly
report the facts concerning their responsibility for Mr. Perry’s
death, the PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS hid information
from DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS officials and profoundly hindered
and interfered with those officials’ ability to prevent similar
injuries and deaths in the future, including the death of Bryant
Wiseman.
5.
For example, the PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS
intentionally failed and refused to put DEPARTMENT officials on
notice of serious deficiencies in the DEPARTMENTS’ training of
correctional officers to deal with mentally ill inmates and to
safely restrain inmates.
6.
Each of the PERRY CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS knew:
(a) that other correctional officers and medical workers in the
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION had been improperly and inadequately
trained to safely and properly restrain inmates, especially
mentally ill inmates; (b) that other mentally ill inmates, such as
Bryant Wiseman, were in the custody of the DEPARTMENT; (c) that
correctional employees are frequently called upon to deal with and
restrain mentally ill inmates in situations that require safe and
32
proper techniques and that pose a risk of harm to the inmates; and
(d) that the lack of training would inevitably lead to the injury
and death of other inmates and mentally ill inmates such as Bryant
Wiseman.
7.
The defendants’ failure and refusal to tell the truth
about their responsibility for Mr. Perry’s death, and to otherwise
put DEPARTMENT officials on notice of the urgent need to provide
proper and adequate training to correctional employees concerning
how to safely restrain inmates and how to otherwise safely and
properly deal with mentally ill inmates, proximately caused Bryant
Wiseman’s injuries and death and violated his Fourth, Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments rights under the United States Constitution.
FIFTH COUNT
(Deliberate Indifference to Safety -- Failure to Protect -Supervisory Liability, against defendants ARMSTRONG and TOKARZ in
their individual capacities, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983)
1.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each
and every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 95.
2.
Following Timothy Perry’s death, and at other times
before Bryant Wiseman was killed, defendants ARMSTRONG and TOKARZ
33
were on actual and constructive notice that inmates, especially
mentally ill inmates such as Bryant Wiseman, were at a profound
risk of harm and death at the hands of correctional employees who
were inadequately and improperly trained to manage, supervise and
restrain such inmates.
3.
Defendants ARMSTRONG and TOKARZ were personally involved
in and responsible for the failure to protect Bryant Wiseman in
that:
a. They created a policy and custom, and they allowed the
continuance of a policy and custom, under which
correctional officers and other persons employed at
the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION are allowed, permitted
and/or encouraged to look the other way and to remain
silent when excessive force is used against inmates in
the correctional system;
b. They created a policy and custom, and they allowed the
continuance of a policy and custom, under which
correctional officers and other persons employed at
the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION are allowed, permitted
and/or encouraged to look the other way and to remain
34
silent when it becomes clear that employees have been
inadequately or improperly trained to deal with
mentally ill and other inmates and when the lack of
training increases the risk of harm to inmates in the
correctional system; and
c. They were deliberately indifferent in supervising and
training subordinates who committed the wrongful acts
described herein.
4.
The acts and omissions of the defendants proximately
caused Bryant Wiseman’s suffering, injuries and death.
5.
The defendants failed to protect Bryant in violation of
the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
Constitution.
SIXTH COUNT
(Deliberate Indifference to Safety -- Failure to Train -Supervisory Liability, against defendants ARMSTRONG and TOKARZ in
their individual capacities, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
1.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and
every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 95.
35
2.
Following the death of Timothy Perry, and at other times
before Bryant Wiseman’s death, defendants ARMSTRONG and TOKARZ had
actual and constructive knowledge of the facts that (a) DEPARTMENT
employees were improperly and inadequately trained to deal with
mentally ill inmates, (b) DEPARTMENT employees were improperly and
inadequately trained to safely and properly restrain mentally ill
and other inmates, and (c) that the failure to train had resulted
in death and injury to one or more inmates in the correctional
system, including Timothy Perry.
3.
Following the death of Timothy Perry, and at other times
before the Bryant Wiseman’s death, defendants ARMSTRONG and TOKARZ
knew to a moral certainty that DEPARTMENT employees would confront
and continue to confront situations that called for the restraint
of mentally ill and other inmates and that posed a risk of harm to
the inmates if the employees failed to properly and safely conduct
the restraint.
4.
Following the death of Timothy Perry, and notwithstanding
this knowledge, defendants ARMSTRONG and TOKARZ made no meaningful
changes to the DEPARTMENT’s training protocols concerning how to
properly deal with mentally ill inmates or how to effectuate a
36
proper and safe inmate restraint, and they ordered no meaningful
additional or different training for the DEPARTMENT’s correctional
officers, including the WISEMAN CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS,
concerning these matters.
5.
The defendants failed to require meaningful additional or
different training in these matters even though, following Timothy
Perry’s death and at other times before Bryant Wiseman was killed,
the need for such training was so obvious that the inadequacy was
very likely to result in injury and death to other mentally ill
inmates, including Bryant Wiseman.
6.
The defendants were personally involved in and
responsible for the failure to train in that:
a.
They created a policy and custom, and they allowed
the continuance of a policy and custom, under which
correctional officers and other persons employed at the
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION are inadequately and improperly
trained to deal with mentally ill and other inmates and
to safely restrain inmates; and
37
b.
They were deliberately indifferent in supervising
and training subordinates who committed the wrongful acts
described herein.
7.
The acts and omissions of the defendants proximately
caused Bryant Wiseman’s suffering, injuries and death.
8.
The defendants’ failure to protect Bryant Wiseman and
their failure to properly and adequately train correctional
employees, or to ensure such training, violated Bryant’s rights
under the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution.
SEVENTH COUNT
(Excessive Force, against the WISEMAN CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE
DEFENDANTS in their individual capacities, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1983)
1.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each
and every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 95.
2.
The force used by the defendants against Bryant Wiseman
on November 17, 1999 was unreasonable and excessive in violation of
Bryant’s rights under the Fourth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments
to the United States Constitution.
38
EIGHTH COUNT
(Excessive Force, Supervisory Liability, against defendants
ARMSTRONG and TOKARZ in their individual capacities, pursuant to
42. U.S.C. § 1983)
1.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each
and every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 95.
2.
The defendants were personally involved in and
responsible for the excessive force used against Bryant Wiseman in
that:
a. They created a policy and custom, and they allowed the
continuance of a policy and custom, under which
correctional officers and other employees of the
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION are allowed, permitted and/or
encouraged to use excessive force against inmates; and
b. They were deliberately indifferent in supervising and
training subordinates who participated in the use of
excessive force against Bryant Wiseman.
3.
The acts and omissions of the defendants proximately
caused Bryant Wiseman’s suffering, injuries and death.
4.
By their acts and failures to act, the defendants
subjected Bryant Wiseman to pain, physical and mental injury, and
39
death in violation of his rights under the Fourth, Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
NINTH COUNT
(Violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-542 -- failure to provide
humane and dignified treatment -- against THE CONNECTICUT
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, THE UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH
CENTER, THE GARNER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, defendants
ARMSTRONG and TOKARZ, defendants JOUGHIN, HOFFLER, and
MALDONADO, and the WISEMAN CORRECTIONAL EMPLOYEE DEFENDANTS,
in their individual and official capacities)
1.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and
every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 95.
2.
At all times mentioned herein, Bryant Wiseman was a
“Patient” within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-540(b).
3.
The facilities of the CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION, including the GARNER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, and the
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTER, are “Facilities” within
the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-540(a).
4.
During the period that Bryant Wiseman was incarcerated at
the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, the defendants failed to provide
humane and dignified treatment to him, in violation of Conn. Gen.
Stat. § 17a-542.
40
5.
As a direct and proximate consequence of the Defendants’
acts and omissions, Bryant Wiseman’s mental illness was improperly
and inadequately treated, he was deprived of the ability to live a
productive life, he suffered extreme fear, agitation, pain and
anguish, and he was killed.
6.
This Count is brought pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-
550.
TENTH COUNT
(Violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-542 -- failure to provide a
specialized treatment plan -- against THE CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION, THE UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTER, THE GARNER
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, defendants ARMSTRONG and TOKARZ, and
defendants JOUGHIN, HOFFLER, and MALDONADO, in their individual and
official capacities)
1.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each
and every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 95.
2.
At all times mentioned herein, Bryant Wiseman was a
“Patient” within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-540(b).
3.
The facilities of the CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION, including the GARNER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, and the
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTER, are “Facilities” within
the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-540(a).
41
4.
During the period that Bryant Wiseman was incarcerated at
the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, the defendants failed to treat and
monitor him in accordance with a specialized treatment plan suited
to his disorders and to his psychiatric circumstances, including
treatment for his schizophrenia and his related impulsive and
aggressive behavior, in violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-542.
5.
As a direct and proximate consequence of the defendants’
acts and omissions, Bryant Wiseman’s mental illness was improperly
and inadequately treated, he was deprived of the ability to live a
productive life, he suffered extreme fear, agitation, pain and
anguish, and he was killed.
6.
This Count is brought pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-
550.
ELEVENTH COUNT
(Violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-545 -- failure to conduct
psychiatric examinations –- THE CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION, THE UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTER, THE GARNER
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, defendants ARMSTRONG and TOKARZ, and
defendants JOUGHIN, HOFFLER, and MALDONADO, in their individual and
official capacities)
1.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each
and every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 95.
42
2.
At all times mentioned herein, Bryant Wiseman was a
“Patient” within the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-540(b).
3.
The facilities of the CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION, including the GARNER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, and the
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTER, are “Facilities” within
the meaning of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-540(a).
4.
During the period that Bryant Wiseman was incarcerated at
the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, the Defendants failed to conduct, or
to ensure Bryant’s receipt of, proper psychiatric examinations, in
violation of Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-545.
5.
As a direct and proximate consequence of the Defendants’
acts and omissions, Bryant Wiseman’s mental illness was
inadequately and improperly treated, he was deprived of the ability
to live a productive life, he suffered extreme fear, agitation,
pain and anguish, and he was killed.
6.
This Count is brought pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 17a-
550.
43
TWELFTH COUNT
(Negligence/Medical Malpractice against the STATE OF
CONNECTICUT)
1.
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each
and every allegation in Paragraphs 1 through 95.
2.
During the time that Bryant Wiseman was incarcerated at
the CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, and until his death on
November 17, 1999, the STATE OF CONNECTICUT and its employees,
servants and agents, undertook his care, treatment, monitoring and
supervision.
3.
While under the care of the STATE’s employees, servants
and agents, Bryant Wiseman suffered severe, serious, painful and
permanent injuries and death.
4.
The injuries and death suffered by Bryant Wiseman were
caused by the failure of the STATE OF CONNECTICUT, and its
employees, servants and agents, to exercise reasonable care under
all of the circumstances then and there present, in that they:
a.
failed to adequately and properly care for, treat,
monitor and supervise Bryant Wiseman;
44
b.
failed to prescribe proper types and adequate
amounts of psychotropic and other medications to Bryant Wiseman;
c.
failed to anticipate, plan for, and prevent Bryant’s
mental decompensation;
d.
failed to properly check vital signs and failed to
provide proper, standard and required CPR and other emergency
medical care on November 17, 1999;
e.
failed to ensure that the emergency medical
equipment available for use at the GARNER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION
on November 17, 1999 was adequate and in proper working order;
f.
failed to provide physicians, nurses, counselors and
other medical and mental health workers with the required skill,
training and experience to care for Bryant Wiseman;
g.
failed to provide adequate and proper monitoring,
supervision and training of the physicians, nurses, counselors and
other medical and mental health workers who had responsibility for
Bryant Wiseman at the DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; and
h.
failed to have available physicians, nurses,
counselors and other medical and mental health workers who are
competent and knowledgeable in the care and treatment of mentally
45
ill persons and in the care and treatment of persons suffering
emergency medical complications such as those suffered by Bryant
Wiseman on November 17, 1999.
5.
As a result of the carelessness and negligence of the
defendant, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, and its employees, servants and
agents, Bryant Wiseman suffered the following severe, serious,
painful and permanent injuries:
a.
His mental illness, including schizophrenia, went
untreated and improperly treated, and was allowed to become more
severe and debilitating;
b.
He was repeatedly subjected to extreme emotional and
psychological distress;
c.
He was repeatedly allowed to mentally decompensate
and to suffer all of the complications associated with his
decompensation, including uncontrollable paranoia, fear, stress,
and anxiety;
d.
He was repeatedly allowed to become assaultive, and
to engage in behavior that could and did lead to his physical
injury at the hands of other inmates and DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
staff; and
46
e.
6.
He died.
As a result of all of these injuries and his death,
Bryant Wiseman has been permanently deprived of his ability to
carry on and enjoy life’s activities and his earning power has been
permanently erased.
7.
On August 29, 2002, the Connecticut Claims Commissioner
granted plaintiff ELAINE WISEMAN and the ESTATE OF BRYANT WISEMAN
permission to sue the State of Connecticut for medical malpractice.
A copy of the Commissioner’s August 29, 2002 Finding and Order, and
a copy of the claimants’ Certificate of Good Faith, submitted
pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-190a, are attached hereto.
47
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff ELAINE WISEMAN, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
ESTATE OF BRYANT WISEMAN, prays for relief as follows:
1.
For compensatory damages according to proof;
2.
For punitive damages;
3.
For costs and reasonable attorneys fees; and
4.
For such further relief as the Court deems just and
proper.
Dated: November 11, 2003
THE PLAINTIFF
By___________________________
Antonio Ponvert III, Esq.
Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, P.C.
350 Fairfield Avenue, 5th Floor
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Tele: (203) 336-4421
Juris No. 32250
48
DOCKET NO. CV 02 0821661
)
)
ELAINE WISEMAN, ADMINISTRATOR
)
OF THE ESTATE OF BRYANT
)
WISEMAN,
)
PLAINTIFF,
)
)
vs.
)
)
JOHN J. ARMSTRONG; JACK TOKARZ;
)
DR. WILLIAM JOUGHIN; DR. REGINALD )
HOFFLER; OSCAR MALDONADO; MICHAEL )
A. PACE; KEVIN COWSER; JAMES E.
)
REILLY; DONALD J. HEBERT; ROBERT
)
G. STACK; JOSE ZAYAS; KEVIN J.
)
DANDOLINI; ANGELO P. GIZZI; EDWIN )
MYERS; WILLIAM SMITH; VAUGHN
)
WILLIS; BRIAN C. BRADWAY; FRANK
)
MIRTO, in their individual and
)
official capacities; and
)
IRIS PRESCOTT; ANDRE CHOUINARD;
)
WILLIAM SCOTT; STEVEN SANELLI;
)
JIMMY GUERRERO; JEFFREY HOWES;
)
MAURELLIS POWELL; DENNIS CAMP;
)
RAYMOND BRODEUR; MOISES PADILLA;
)
ANNE MARIE STOREY; ROBERTA C.
)
LEDDY; CLO BARSOTTI; GINGER
)
BOCHICCHIO; GAIL N. FREDETTE; DR. )
MINGZER TUNG, in their individual )
capacities; and CONNECTICUT
)
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; STATE OF )
CONNECTICUT; UNIVERSITY OF
)
CONNECTICUT HEALTH CENTER; GARNER )
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
)
)
DEFENDANTS.
)
49
SUPERIOR COURT
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
HARTFORD AT HARTFORD
NOVEMBER 11, 2003
AD DAMNUM
This matter is within the jurisdiction of the Court.
The
Plaintiff demands money damages in excess of FIFTEEN THOUSAND and
00/100 DOLLARS ($15,000.00) excluding attorneys fees, interest and
costs.
THE PLAINTIFF
By___________________________
Antonio Ponvert III, Esq.
Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder, P.C.
350 Fairfield Avenue, 5th Floor
Bridgeport, CT 06604
Tele: (203) 336-4421
Juris No. 32250
50
CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing has been
mailed, postage prepaid, on this
day of November 2003, to all
counsel of record:
Ann Lynch
Terrence O’Neill
Assistant Attorney General
110 Sherman Street
Hartford, CT 06105
_____________________________
Antonio Ponvert III
51
Download