Free Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

A H, .....
gmgiiigiqfi \%5it%;’4e-ceo sued 02/`b1”}§’clEi`7"‘ N“_;§'§·.% 1 ¤g, {§’%‘
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT __
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
JOSE RNERA : CIVII. NO. 3:03CV645 (CFD)
I HZBCTOR RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. : JANUARY 29, 2007
` - AFFIDAVIT OF RICARDO RHI; MJ). _
I, Ricsrelo Ruiz, MJ)., having been duly sworn, do hereby depose and say that:
1. I em over the age of IS and mdersmnd the obligations of an oath.
2. I sm s physician licensed to practice medicine in the state of Connecticut since
1997. I received my MD. from Boston University School of Mediciiie and sm board ¤e1·ti§ed in
intemsl medicine. l I -
3. Since January 2002, I have been the medical doctor at the Cheshire Correctional
Institution end in January 2003 I provided tresunent to Jose Rivera as reflected iu his medical
records. As such, I sm fstuiiier with the fsets stated herein. ·
4. I first learned that Mr. Rivera sustained some injury to his right ankle when I saw
_ I him on January 24, 2003. He told me he jumped off his bunk and experienced pain 011 I/4403. I
observed him ambuieljng with some discomfoxt. He came to medics] unit walking cm his own,
then had am x-ray and was brought to me in e wheelchair. Therezzfzer. I was informed that the x-
ray shoived Mr. Rivera had sustained a oomminutecl, displaced spiral ;5·act1u·e of his right fibuls.

gii§g5i§$iu_ii§§;iai“U:§;%§iiérit?’Iirqi.HPc Falco 02/617§60?““N”§%qgp· ¤r§i0§“3”
In response, I contacted appropriate personnel and arranged for his transfer to the University of
Connecticut John Dempsey Hcspitm
5. At John Dempsey Hospital, he was placed in a removable splintfcaat. The
purpose of the splint was to keep the plaintiffs ankle in Ell§'.I.'I1'l$1ll and was not intended to allow
him to walk without the aid of crutches.
6. 1 next saw the plaintiff on January 30, 2003. During my examination of him, the
plaintiff complained that the splint was too loose and it rubbed and irritated his skin. There was
no sigi of akin irritation- Altliough there was no objective sigs of irritation, I advised the .
plaintiff to put a sock under the splint to reduce the potential for irritation.
7. plainti:Et"e medical records thither reveal that, on February 4, 2003, the
‘ plaintiffretumed the castlaplint to the medical unit, refusing to use the splint.
8. Thereafter, on February I0, 2003, I saw the plaimiffatttl explained to him that the
purpose of the cam was to lieep his anlcle in alignment, not for weight bearing. Despite my
advice, the plaintiff still refused the cast. I observed no swelling or eeehymosis (i.¤., bruising) at
that time.
9. I did not scc the plaintiff again after February 10, 2003.
10. The appropriate care for a comminuteti 1`iaeture of the fibula, such as was
sustained by the plaintiff in this case, is to splint the fracture and provide crutches to avoid
weight beming until there is radiogaphic evidence of improvement. That is exactly what was
provided to the plaintiff in this ease.

?.ti€§.9,4%9.‘E.'€ t.%.= °%. Et? 2°?.%*1%§22% i.%Lti%%t¥. Wilt! ». t ~ -¤ -» Q °J’ti4 "
JS`;]. gui j@]at•se@:jl§qq~@v-0*0045-CFD Document !I2L—6 Filed O2/01750047; N;Pgg5a93 ct.? 4
11. Warden Hector Rodriguez, at all relevant times, had no reepuusibility for ____
providing medical este zo inmates, and in paxiicttler., played no role in mestmg the meture Mx,
Rivera sustained to his Shula that is the subject of this lawsuit.
12. As the fecilitfs medical doctor, I see patients who affirmatively seek medical
attention, ur who are referred to me by subordinate staff I had no knowledge c>fM1·. Riverafs
m-me injuxy until he came to see me on January 24, 2003.
I, Ricardo Ruiz, MJ)., do hereby swear that the contents ofthe foregoing 3fHd8Nit are
time and accurate to the best ofmy knowledge and betieii
Ricardo Ruiz, MD. f
Subscribed and sworn to before me cn This day of Ianuary, 2007.
" - , - E g
_;-_== O *` · ·· . *rm¤se*~- : egesapmm/@m;.—_;g {
Notary Publi` Bfbfj-.__ ’· __.;g·}'f,f
. ’»-.f·’.e`“f T- `"
‘ My Commission Expires? Q6 fp A