George v. Connections Community Support Programs, Inc. ( 2017 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
MONIR A. GEORGE, §
§
Plaintiff Below- § No. 118, 2017
Appellant, §
§
v. § Court Below—Superior Court
§ of the State of Delaware
CONNECTIONS COMMUNITY §
SUPPORT PROGRAMS, INC. and § C.A. No. N15M-11-248 (N)
DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF §
CORRECTION,1 §
§
Defendants Below- §
Appellees. §
Submitted: May 3, 2017
Decided: July 12, 2017
Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA and VAUGHN, Justices.
ORDER
This 12th day of July 2017, upon consideration of the appellant’s
opening brief, the motions to affirm, and the record on appeal, it appears to
the Court that:
(1) The plaintiff-appellant, Monir A. George, filed this appeal from
the Superior Court’s dismissal of his complaint seeking a writ of mandamus
and compensatory and punitive damages. Connections Community Support
1
The Superior Court complaint also named Correct Care Solutions LLC as a defendant.
That party was never served with the complaint, was dismissed below, and is not a party
to this appeal.
Programs, Inc. (“CCSP”) and the State of Delaware Department of Correction
(“DOC”), have filed motions to affirm the judgment below on the ground that
it is manifest on the face of George’s opening brief that his appeal is without
merit. We agree and affirm.
(2) George was convicted in 2009 of multiple felonies, including
first degree murder, and was sentenced to life imprisonment plus an additional
term of years.2 He currently is in DOC custody at the Vaughn Correctional
Center. CCSP is a non-profit organization contracted by the DOC to provide
medical and mental health care to inmates. In November 2015, George filed
a complaint in the Superior Court, alleging that CCSP and the DOC have been
deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The complaint alleged
that George suffers from high blood pressure, gout, chronic low back pain,
arthritis, a deformed wrist and chronic wrist pain due to an improperly treated
fracture, diverticulosis, and internal hemorrhoids and that the defendants’
medical treatment of his ailments has been inadequate. The complaint further
alleged that nearly all of George’s medical grievances complaining about his
inadequate medical care have been denied.
(3) George’s complaint sought a writ of mandamus compelling the
defendants: (i) to offer him specific medical care; (ii) to change the
2
See George v. State, 2010 WL 4009202 (Del. Oct. 13, 2010).
2
membership of the DOC’s Quality Assurance Committee; and (iii) to comply
with an agreement that George alleges the State of Delaware reached with the
United States Department of Justice in 2006 regarding prison healthcare.
George’s complaint also sought an award of $250,000 in compensatory
damages for pain and suffering caused by the negligent medical treatment
George received for his fractured wrist and an award of $500,000 in punitive
damages.
(4) The Superior Court granted both CCSP’s and the DOC’s motions
to dismiss, holding, among other reasons,3 that a writ of mandamus would not
issue because, as to the DOC, George could not establish a clear legal right to
the performance of a non-discretionary duty and, as to CCSP, a writ of
mandamus would not issue to a private entity. To the extent George sought
damages for alleged medical malpractice, the Superior Court dismissed his
complaint because he failed to file an affidavit of merit from an expert. The
Superior Court also denied George’s motion to amend his complaint to add
individuals employed by the State or CCSP. George appeals.
(5) After considering the parties’ respective positions on appeal, we
conclude that the judgment below dismissing George’s complaint seeking a
3
Although the Superior Court offered additional alternative bases for granting the motions
to dismiss, we find it unnecessary to address those alternative grounds here.
3
writ of mandamus and damages for medical malpractice should be affirmed
on the basis of and for the reasons assigned by the Superior Court in its well-
reasoned Order dated February 17, 2017. Although the government has an
obligation to provide medical care to inmates,4 the mere disagreement over
the proper course of treatment, or even allegations of medical malpractice are
not, alone, sufficient to state a constitutional violation.5 George’s complaint
did not assert that the defendants were denying him medical treatment.
George’s complaint asserted that the defendants were denying him the
medical treatment that he wanted. George filed grievances challenging these
medical decisions. Most, but not all, of those decisions were upheld.
(6) As this Court has recently noted, “prison authorities have ‘wide
discretion’ in the medical treatment afforded to prisoners.”6 Mandamus will
not issue to compel the performance of a discretionary act.7 Moreover, the
Superior Court may only issue a writ of mandamus to compel the performance
of a duty by an administrative agency or public official.8 A writ cannot issue
to a non-governmental agency such as CCSP.9 Under the circumstances, we
4
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976).
5
Spruill v. Gillis, 372 F.3d 218, 235 (3d Cir. 2010).
6
Brooks v. Lynch, 2016 WL 5957674, *2 (Del. Oct. 13, 2016) (citing Deputy v. Conlan,
2007 WL 3071424, *2 (Del. Oct. 22, 2007)).
7
In re Bordley, 545 A.2d 619, 620 (Del. 1988).
8
Clough v. State, 686 A.2d 158, 159 (Del. 1996); 10 Del. C. § 564.
9
Saunders v. Murphy, 2016 WL 936941, *2 (Del. Mar. 10, 2016).
4
find no error or abuse in the Superior Court’s dismissal of George’s request
for mandamus relief. Moreover, to the extent George’s complaint requested
compensatory and punitive damages for medical malpractice, we find no error
in the Superior Court’s dismissal of his complaint for failure to attach an
affidavit of merit as required by 18 Del. C. § 6853(a).10
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the
Superior Court is AFFIRMED.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Karen L. Valihura
Justice
10
See Walls v. Cooper, 1991 WL 247806, *4 (Del. Nov. 8, 1991).
5