Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:01-cv-02330-JCH

Document 34-2

Filed 05/10/2004

Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT WILFRED L. HART VS. EDWARD BLANCHETTE, M.D. AND OMPRAKASH PILLAI, M.D. : : : : : : CASE NO. 3:01CV2330(JCH)

MAY 7, 2004

THE DEFENDANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL LOCAL RULE 56(A)(1) STATEMENT The defendants submit this supplemental Local Rule 56(a)(1) statement in support of their motion for summary judgment. 1. In January 1999, Mr. Hart's medical records indicate that it was suspected that he had

a mass in his abdomen. Tests were performed which were negative. (Aff. of Pillai, dated May 7, 2004, Ex. A). 2. Non-emergency requests for surgical consultations and surgery must be approved by

the Utilization Review Committee ("URC"). Surgery is almost always performed on Department of Correction ("DOC") inmates at the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington. (Aff. of Cheryl Malcolm, ¶ 6.) 3. During the period of August through November 2000, the members of the URC were

Dr. Edward Pesanti, Rosemary Grella RN/URNC, Denise Sullivan RN/URNC and Cheryl Malcolm RN/Operational Administrator. (Id., ¶ 7.) 4. Dr. Edward Blanchette is employed by the DOC. He was not a member of the URC

and did not supervise it during the period of August through November 2000. (Id., ¶ 8.)

1

Case 3:01-cv-02330-JCH

Document 34-2

Filed 05/10/2004

Page 2 of 5

5.

Because inmates have to be transferred to the University of Connecticut Health

Center for surgery, there are security and transportation concerns that are not present for patients who are not incarcerated. For this reason, non-emergency surgery may not be performed on inmates as quickly as on non-incarcerated patients. (Id., ¶ 9.) 6. When the URC approves surgery, that approval is sent to the surgeon. The surgeon

schedules the surgery himself, within any parameters set by the URC. (Id., ¶ 10.) 7. When the URC issues a determination/recommendation, the document has a portion

on the bottom which states "URC Decision To Be Reviewed by Facility-Based MD Before Filing." This is to ensure that a doctor at the inmate's facility reviews the document to know what has been ordered or recommended by the URC. It does not mean that the decision requires the approval of a facility physician to go into effect. (Id., ¶ 12.) 8. On August 11, 2000, Dr. John Gittzus felt a mass in Mr. Hart's abdomen. (Aff. of

Pillai, dated May 5, 2004, ¶ 6.) 9. 7.) 10. 11. 12. On August 22, 2000, the URC approved the request for the CT scan. (Id., ¶ 8.) On September 7, 2000, a CT scan was performed on Mr. Hart's abdomen. (Id., ¶ 9.) The Diagnostic Radiological Report, which indicates the results of this test, was typed On August 11, 2000, Dr. Gittzus requested a CT scan on Mr. Hart's abdomen. (Id, ¶

by Dr. Mark Kane on September 12. This Report indicates that it was faxed to Osborn on September 13, 2000. This Report states that Mr. Hart "most likely" had a "neoplastic process originating from the mesentery process." A "neoplastic process" is cancer. (Id., ¶ 10.)

2

Case 3:01-cv-02330-JCH

Document 34-2

Filed 05/10/2004

Page 3 of 5

13.

On September 15, 2000, Dr. Pillai requested a surgical consult for Mr. Hart based on

the Radiological Report. (Id., ¶ 11.) 14. ¶ 12.). 15. On September 27, 2000, Dr. David Giles performed a surgical consultation. He On September 15, 2000, the URC approved a surgical consultation for Mr. Hart. (Id.,

concluded that Mr. Hart should have an exploratory laparotomy to determine if he had colon cancer. (Id., ¶ 13.) 16. On October 4, 2000, the URC approved surgery. (Id., ¶ 14.) The URC directed that

the surgery take place on or after October 12, 2000. (Aff. of Cheryl Malcolm, ¶ 19.) 17. On November 21, 2000, Dr. Giles performed surgery on Mr. Hart. Dr. Giles found

that Mr. Hart had a carcinoid cancer of the bowel, with a single mestasis to the liver surface. (Aff. of Pillai., ¶ 15.) 18. From the time that Dr. Gittzus detected a mass in Mr. Hart in August 2000 until the

surgery indicated that Mr. Hart had colon cancer on November 21, 2000, it was necessary to rule out other causes of Mr. Hart's symptoms. (Id., ¶ 16.) 19. For this reason, on September 15, 2000, Dr. Pillai submitted a URC request to have a

GI consult and a barium enema. (Id., ¶ 17.) 20. Because Dr. Pillai is not a surgeon, he was not consulted by the URC or Dr. Giles

concerning the scheduling for the surgery. (Id., ¶ 18; Aff of Malcom, ¶ 19.) 21. A review of the records indicates that the URC and Dr. Giles decided to perform the

surgery on a non-emergency basis. (Aff. of Pillai, ¶ 19.)

3

Case 3:01-cv-02330-JCH

Document 34-2

Filed 05/10/2004

Page 4 of 5

22.

Dr. Pillai had no role in the decision to perform the surgery on a non-emergency

basis. (Aff. of Pillai, ¶ ; Aff. of Malcom, ¶ 19.) 23. Surgery to remove a cancerous mass such as that which was suspected in Mr. Hart's

case would normally be done on a non-emergency basis. (Aff. of Pillai, ¶ 19.) 24. 25. Dr. Pillai treated Mr. Hart's symptoms as necessary prior to the surgery. (Id., ¶ 19.) For example, during the period from August through November 2000, Dr Pillai

prescribed various medications including Tagamet, Reglan, Bentyl and Tylenol to control Mr. Hart's gastrointestinal symptoms. (Id., ¶ 20.) DEFENDANTS, Edward Blanchette, MD and Omprakash Pillai, MD RICHARD BLUMENTHAL ATTORNEY GENERAL

BY:__/s/________________________________________ Neil Parille Assistant Attorney General Fed. Bar No. 15278 110 Sherman Street Hartford, CT 06105 Telephone No.: (860) 808-5450 Fax No. (860) 808-5591 E-mail: [email protected]

4

Case 3:01-cv-02330-JCH

Document 34-2

Filed 05/10/2004

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent by first-class mail, postage prepaid, this 7th May of May, 2004, to: John R. Williams, Esq. Williams & Pattis, LLC 51 Elm Street, Suite 409 New Haven, CT 06510

_/s/__________________________________________ Neil Parille Assistant Attorney General

5