Moore v. State

40 Ill. Ct. Cl. 254, 1988 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 54
CourtCourt of Claims of Illinois
DecidedMay 6, 1988
DocketNo. 87-CC-1256
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 40 Ill. Ct. Cl. 254 (Moore v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Claims of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Moore v. State, 40 Ill. Ct. Cl. 254, 1988 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 54 (Ill. Super. Ct. 1988).

Opinion

Raucci, J.

This is a medical malpractice claim brought by Claimant, a resident of Stateville Correctional Center. The complaint alleges that Claimant suffered permanent injuries, as well as temporary pain and suffering, from delay in receiving medical treatment. While it appears on the face of the record that Claimant did not suffer any permanent injuries from the medical attention, or lack of medical attention, that he received, it appears by the preponderance of the evidence that Respondent failed in its duty to provide Claimant with medical care in a reasonable amount of time following an injury. As a result he endured eight days of unnecessary pain and suffering.

On the afternoon of Sunday, November 2, 1986, Claimant was playing football in the yard. He caught the ball and was running. He got tackled and three players fell on his left leg. When he tried to get up he couldn’t walk. His left foot had been twisted behind him and the ankle broken in two places. Two of the players carried Claimant to the cellhouse. From there he was carried on a stretcher to the emergency room. His ankle was swollen and discolored.

The doctor told him he had just twisted his ankle, gave him a cane and some aspirins and made him walk back to the cellhouse:

“A. Then they brought a stretcher from the hospital, and carried me to the emergency room, and the doctor started doing that, and it was swollen and different colors and stuff. And, I told him what happened, and he told me it ain’t nothing but twisted, and I told him I thought I heard a snap, and he gave me a cane and some aspirins and made me walk back to the cellhouse.”

The doctor told him that there was no X-ray technician on hand.

Claimant’s foot continued to swell and give pain, so that on Monday, November 3,1986, at about 9:30 in the morning, Claimant was again taken to the institution hospital. The doctor gave him pain killers, and told him there was nothing he could do because there was no X-ray technician available.

“A. They didn’t do nothing, but look at it, pull it up and look at it, you know, and say there ain’t nothing he can do until he can determine whether it’s broken or not; until we can take the x-rays.”

This time Claimant could not walk. So he was given crutches to get back to his cell. There he went to bed and his food was brought to him on trays.

Tuesday, November 4, 1986, he could not walk so he was taken on a wheeled cart to the emergency room.

He was again given pain killers and told that because it was election day there was no X-ray technician available. He was returned to his cell on the wheeled cart. His leg was swollen from his toes to the middle of his shin. You couldn’t see his ankle and his toes were swollen to twice their normal size.

The pain killer which he took every two or three hours did not relieve the pain.

Wednesday morning, November 5, 1986, he was taken to the emergency room in a wheel chair. X rays were taken which showed that his ankle was broken in two places. Thus, although the injury occurred on Sunday, there was no X-ray technician on duty until Wednesday. Considering the fact that Stateville maintains a hospital on the grounds, and considering the size of the inmate population, it does not seem reasonable that for three days there should be no X-ray technician available and no way for an injured inmate to get an X ray.

As a result of the X rays, Claimant was scheduled to go to an outside hospital in Joliet on Thursday, November 6, 1986, to have a cast put on the leg.

At about 7 o’clock in the morning on Thursday, November 6,1986, two officers came to Claimant’s cell to get him to go to the hospital. With assistance from the two officers to see that he wouldn’t fall, he walked to the gate on crutches. At the gate (which is immediately outside the room where Court of Claims hearings take place) he was told to sit down while he was handcuffed and chained to the crutches. Because of the manner in which he was chained to the crutches he found he could not maneuver himself through the gate. The crutches extended sidewards in such a fashion that he could not balance himself.

“A. As I was going out this gate here, they had handcuffed me to the crutches, and I was trying to walk. I’m telling them I can’t walk with handcuffs here like this, because the crutches are too far out. And so, the Captain and Price right here, told me if I can’t walk on my own I can’t go. I’m trying to explain to him that my leg is broken in two places, I cannot walk handcuffed to this. So, he said, if you can’t walk, send him back to the cellhouse. So, they sent me back to the cellhouse. I told the captain it was the best I could do. I explained to him my leg was broken in two places, it’s been broken since Sunday. I say, 1 can’t walk no faster, it’s hard for me to hold these crutches and trying to walk while I am handcuffed.’ ”

A counselor by the name of Melody Dunlap suggested that Claimant be put in a wheel chair to get him through the gate.

“A. She told Captain Price, ‘Why don’t you get the man a wheelchair,’ and that’s when he got mad, and told them to take me back to the cellhouse.

Q. So, a counselor, Melody Dunlap, suggested to Captain Price that he get you a wheelchair?

A. Yes.

Q. And he refused, and sent you back to the cell?

Q. So then what happened?

A. Go back to the cellhouse, and I tell the Captain in the Cellhouse, and the supervisor what happened, and they said, I don’t believe that I said the man stopped me from going on my medical writ, because I wasn’t walking fast enough. So, they went up there, and talked to the captain, and talked to one of them staff workers in the hospital, and they told him that orthopedic was coming out here at 1:00 to put the cast on your leg. So, I come back up here at 1:00.

Q. With the crutches again?
A. No, I am in a wheelchair.”

In other words, because of the arbitrary and capricious refusal of the officer at the gate to let Claimant go through the gate chained to a wheelchair, even though Claimant had a medical writ, he was returned to his cell and the institution paid the orthopedic surgeon to come from his office in Joliet to examine Claimant at Stateville.

Since the emergency room is located inside the gate no new problem arose. Dr. Duffey got to the emergency room at about 1:45 p.m.

“Q. All right, What happened?

A. Then he looked at my leg, and was looking at the x-rays, and he asked me, why didn’t I come this morning, and I told him what happened. He told me, well, there ain’t no problem. So, he said I am going to reschedule me, so they are going to reschedule me in the morning now. He rescheduled me for next Tuesday.

Q. This was Thursday afternoon?
Q. And you were rescheduled for next —
A. Tuesday.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Williams v. State
53 Ill. Ct. Cl. 135 (Court of Claims of Illinois, 2001)
Williams-El v. State
52 Ill. Ct. Cl. 11 (Court of Claims of Illinois, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
40 Ill. Ct. Cl. 254, 1988 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moore-v-state-ilclaimsct-1988.