Rivera v. Goord

10 Misc. 3d 302
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 23, 2005
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 10 Misc. 3d 302 (Rivera v. Goord) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rivera v. Goord, 10 Misc. 3d 302 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 2005).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

George B. Ceresia, Jr., J.

The petitioner, an inmate at Auburn Correctional Facility, has commenced the instant CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a determination of the respondent in which a grievance, submitted under the inmate grievance program, was denied. The grievance was predicated upon a claim that respondent has improperly refused to provide medical treatment for a disease which petitioner had contracted, hepatitis C. The stated reason for the denial of medical treatment was petitioner’s acknowledged [303]*303refusal to participate in the residential substance abuse treatment (RSAT) program.

Petitioner argues that he should receive treatment for his hepatitis C illness without having to participate in the RSAT program first. He indicates that Lester N. Wright, Deputy Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services and its Chief Medical Officer, issued an order that petitioner not be treated for hepatitis C until he had enrolled in the RSAT program. Petitioner asserts that Deputy Commissioner Wright’s order to deny treatment has caused him pain due to a stomach and kidney infection. He maintains that the denial of medical treatment is in violation of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) standards. He maintains that federal guidelines for the treatment of hepatitis C, according to NIH rules, regulations and policies, do not require imposition of what he terms “sanctions” for his refusal to participate in RSAT. Petitioner contends that respondent’s determination, as it applies to petitioner, is arbitrary and capricious, and has resulted in a deliberate denial of medical attention for a serious medical condition, all in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Respondents, in opposition to the petition, have submitted the affidavit of Deputy Commissioner Wright. In his affidavit the Deputy Commissioner indicates that the Department of Correctional Services has adopted what is termed a hepatitis C Primary Care Practice Guideline. The Guideline, according to Deputy Commissioner Wright, has been updated several times in order to reflect recent developments in the treatment of hepatitis C. Included in the Guideline is a requirement that inmates undergoing hepatitis C treatment be enrolled in and complete an alcohol and substance abuse treatment program (in this instance, the RSAT program). Deputy Commissioner Wright indicates that nearly all patients with hepatitis C contracted the disease through substance abuse. He indicates that continued use of either alcohol or liver toxic substances will greatly accelerate liver damage, and may cause new infection even for those individuals for whom the treatment was successful. It is for this reason that alcohol and substance abuse treatment is critical to hepatitis C drug therapy treatment. Deputy Commissioner Wright annexes a copy of a Consensus Statement of the NIH, [304]*304as well as a copy of a publication of the Centers For Disease Control (CDC), both of which discuss hepatitis C.

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

Related

RIVERA, RAUL v. STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012
Rivera v. State
91 A.D.3d 1331 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
10 Misc. 3d 302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rivera-v-goord-nysupct-2005.