DOCKET NO.
`RICHARD TINTO
`ve
`
`:
`
`:
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
`HARTFORD, at
`
`HARTFORD
`
`:
`STATE OF CONNECTICUT, DEP'T OF
`DECEMBER 15, 2023
`CORRECTION
`VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR “INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`I. Introduction
`
`1. This is an action seeking injunctive relief, commenced by the
`Plaintiff, Richard Tinto, against the State of Connecticut, Department of
`
`Correction, for medical care and treatment.
`
`II. Jurisdiction
`
`2. The Plaintiff invokes this Honorable Court's jurisdiction
`
`pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 52-1.
`III. Venue
`
`3. This Court is the appropriate venue pursuant to General
`
`Statutes § 51-345 (a) (3).
`
`IV. Parties
`
`4. The Plaintiff, Richard Tinto, is currently incarcerated and
`
`confined to the State of Connecticut, Department of Correction. He is»
`being housed at the MacDougall Correctional Institution,
`located at 1153
`
`Fast Street South, Suffield, CT 06080.
`5. The Defendants, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, is
`a state agency and maintains an office for conducting its activities at 24
`
`Wolcott Hill Road, Wethersfield, CT 06109.
`
`V. Factual Statement
`
`A. Background
`the Plaintiff was rushed, by way of ambulance , from
`6. On July 14, 2029,
`the MacDougall Correctional Institution ("'MCI'"')
`to the emergency department of
`
`-1-
`
`
`RICHARD TINTO
`ve
`
`:
`
`:
`
`SUPERIOR COURT
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF
`HARTFORD, at
`
`HARTFORD
`
`:
`STATE OF CONNECTICUT, DEP'T OF
`DECEMBER 15, 2023
`CORRECTION
`VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR “INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`
`I. Introduction
`
`1. This is an action seeking injunctive relief, commenced by the
`Plaintiff, Richard Tinto, against the State of Connecticut, Department of
`
`Correction, for medical care and treatment.
`
`II. Jurisdiction
`
`2. The Plaintiff invokes this Honorable Court's jurisdiction
`
`pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 52-1.
`III. Venue
`
`3. This Court is the appropriate venue pursuant to General
`
`Statutes § 51-345 (a) (3).
`
`IV. Parties
`
`4. The Plaintiff, Richard Tinto, is currently incarcerated and
`
`confined to the State of Connecticut, Department of Correction. He is»
`being housed at the MacDougall Correctional Institution,
`located at 1153
`
`Fast Street South, Suffield, CT 06080.
`5. The Defendants, State of Connecticut, Department of Correction, is
`a state agency and maintains an office for conducting its activities at 24
`
`Wolcott Hill Road, Wethersfield, CT 06109.
`
`V. Factual Statement
`
`A. Background
`the Plaintiff was rushed, by way of ambulance , from
`6. On July 14, 2029,
`the MacDougall Correctional Institution ("'MCI'"')
`to the emergency department of
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`the University of Connecticut, John Dempsey Hospital ("UCONN").
`
`7. The Plaintiff remained in the Intensive Care Unit ("ICU") at UCONN for
`
`approximately 8 (eight) days, where he was treated for what was described to
`him as a "venus bleed’.
`
`8, The Plaintiff was informed by the attending nurse that in order to
`
`be discharged from UCONN he would have to have a significant bowel movement,
`
`in that he had not moved his bowels since he arrived at UCONN and his
`
`stomach was extremely distended. The Plaintiff was given some laxatives along
`
`with 2 (two) bottles of citrate of magnesia and placed on a portable dry
`
`toilet with a plastic receptacle where, after severe difficulty, he managed
`to squeeze out what amounted to less than half of an 802 (eight ounce)
`
`styrofoam cup. Although the Plaintiff did not have a bowel movement in 8
`
`(eight) days,
`
`the Plaintiff was advised that amount would suffice.
`
`9, The Plaintiff was transferred back to MCI, where he was housed in the
`
`infirmary unit from July 22, 2020 until August 7, 2020,
`
`to recover from his
`
`venus bleed (subarachnoid hemorrhage).
`
`10. While housed in the infirmary unit at MCI, symptoms related to the
`
`Plaintiff's distended stomach persisted and the Plaintiff remained severly
`
`constipated.
`
`11. The Plaintiff's constipation became so severe that the attending
`nurse ("Nurse Mya"), began providing the Plaintiff with a combination of
`"lactulose" and "maloxx" twice a day in an attempt to try and loosen the
`
`Plaintiff's bowels. After several attempts with no changes to the Plaintiff's
`
`condition the Plaintiff was provided with 2 (two) bottles of "colon cleanse"
`I
`,
`ys
`‘
`It was determined what the Plaintiff suffered was a subarachnoid hemorrhage.
`A subarachnoid hemorrhage is bleeding in the area between the brain and the
`membrane thatcovers the brain. Thebleeding puts more pressure on thebrain...
`and stops blood from reaching some areas of the brain. It is very serious. It
`may cause brain damage, stroke, or death if not treated.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`(normally given to patients prior to undergoing a colonoscopy), on
`consecutive days. The "colon cleanse" provided the Plaintiff with some relief,
`
`in that he was able to move his bowels.
`
`12. The Plaintiff was subsequently discharged from the infirmary unit
`
`back to the general population at MCI.
`
`13. Prior to his hospitalization (Mf 6-8, above),
`
`the Plaintiff did not
`
`suffer from any abdominal pain, bloating, constipation, nor did he have any
`
`gastrointestinal or colon related problems wnatsoever.
`
`14. Prior to his hospitalization ("fl 6-8, above),
`
`the Plaintiff did not
`
`take any laxatives or medications to aide in his howel movements whatsoever.
`
`He was able to achieve normal tubular bowel movements, normally under 5 (five)
`
`minutes, without the use of any laxatives or medications.
`
`15. Subsequent
`
`to his hospitalization ("fi 6-8, above),
`
`the Plaintiff, on
`
`a daily basis, is now taking what has been described by a Gastroenterologist
`
`as "a robust bowel regimen" (including large amounts of stool softeners and
`
`laxatives),
`
`to little or no avail.
`
`16. On November 24, 2020,
`
`the Plaintiff provided an unidentified "male
`
`nurse'' with 3 (three) ''stool samples".
`
`17. Utilizing the Connecticut Department of Correction (‘'CTDOC’’) CN9601
`
`Inmate Request Form ("Request"), dated "Dec 1+20"',
`
`the Plaintiff advised his
`
`primary care physician, Doctor Syed Naqvi ("Dr. Naqvi") that the stool samples
`
`were sent out on November 24th [2020] and that the Plaintiff was still waiting
`
`for the results. The Plaintiff further advised Dr. Naqvi that the Plaintiff
`
`has been taking multiple types and amounts of laxatives and stool softeners
`
`yet his condition is getting worse.
`18.ThePlaintiff subsequently received a responsewhichstated, [The
`
`test result...are negative”, dated '11/26" containing an obscured signature.
`
`<3-
`
`
`
`19. Sometime in January of 2021,
`
`the Plaintiff was referred to a Gastro-
`
`enterologist ("GI") for a consultation to address the Plaintiff's severe
`
`constipation and occassional bleeding. The GI recommended a colonscopy to be
`
`completed with an extended prep (2 days of Golytely) and, if colonscopy was
`
`unrevealing,
`
`the Plaintiff would need an anorectal manometry for further
`
`evaluation of the pelvic floor.
`
`20. A consultation form reflects that the Plaintiff had a scheduled
`
`appointment date of "2/17/2021" at "9:30:00 AM’. However, for some unknown
`
`reason the appointment never occurred.
`
`21. The Plaintiff submitted a Request, dated June 20, 2021, apprising
`
`Dr. Naqvi that the Plaintiff was not called to the medical unit to see him for
`
`their scheduled appointment that day. Also that a years time has lapsed and
`
`the Plaintiff has to take more and larger amounts of laxatives and yet he
`
`still continues to suffer from bloating, cramping and pain.
`
`22.
`
`In addition to the Request submitted to Dr. Naqvi
`
`(fl 21, above),
`
`the Plaintiff forwarded a Request, also dated June 20, 2021,
`
`to the CIDO's
`
`Chief of Medical Operations, Doctor Byron Kennedy ("'Dr. Kennedy’’). The
`
`Plaintiff explained that he is suffering from a serious intestinal condition
`
`and his symptoms include bloating, cramps, pain,
`
`low-energy, and trouble
`
`sleeping. The Plaintiff further explained that he has been waiting for a
`
`colonscopy since January [2021], but was just informed that he would need a
`
`"GI series" first, but no date has been scheduled. The Plaintiff asked Dr.
`
`Kennedy to please intervene and help get his appointment scheduled. As of the
`
`date of this filing,
`
`the Plaintiff has not received a response from Dr.
`
`Kennedy.
`
`23. The Plaintiff had ascheduled appointmentwithDr» Naqvi forJuly 24_
`2021. However,
`the Plaintiff was not called for said appointment. The
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Plaintiff forwarded a Request to Dr. Naqvi, dated the same day, expressing
`
`concern regarding the missed appointment.
`
`24. The Plaintiff received a response to his July 25, 2021 Request (9 23,
`
`above), which stated his appointment was rescheduled for November 4, 2021.
`
`25. The Plaintiff forwarded an additional Request, dated August 2, 2021,
`
`expressing his concerns about
`
`the rescheduling of his appointment especially
`
`with such a long lapse in time.
`
`26. On August 12, 2021,
`
`the Plaintiff was called to the medical unit for
`
`a consultation with Dr. Naqvi, at which time the Plaintiff was informed that
`
`the status of his colonscopy, as referred by the GI specialist, was changed
`
`from “approved” to "scheduling".
`
`27. On October 3, 2021,
`
`the Plaintiff had a follow-up appointment with
`
`Dr. Naqvi. The Plaintiff was informed that a "GI'' appointment was scheduled
`
`for sometime in November of 2021.
`
`B. GI Specialist and Initial Failed Attempt_to Undergo Colonscopy
`
`28. On November 3, 2021,
`
`the Plaintiff had a "Telemedicine” consultation
`
`with Marianna Mavilia, MD, Gastroenterology ("Dr. Mavilia'’). The "Consultation
`Form" provided by Dr. Naqvi listed the Plaintiff's "Diagnosis" as "CI Bleed"
`
`and the "Summary for the Consultation" stated: ‘Patient with severe
`
`constipation and occasional bleeding needs to be evaluated for colonscopy."
`
`29. Dr. Mavilia's ''Progress Notes" relating to the November 3, 2021
`
`"Telemedicine" consultation (7 28, above), noted:
`
`'"{ Plaintiff] reports
`
`significant straining to have a BM. He reports sitting on toilet for long
`
`periods of time. When he does pass stool it is ribbon or spaghetti like. He
`
`has abdominal cramping associated with bowel movement but no abd pain other
`
`_wise.... He reports20-251b weight lossover last1.5 years. He feels that he
`
`was feeling better on low residue diet but recently has been on regular diet.
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`He is taking a robust bowel regimen....'’ Dr. Mavilia stated in her Assessment
`
`/Plan" that she was "concerned about a mass lesion or stricture given change
`
`in stool caliber. If colonoscopy does not show an mass lesion then I would
`
`suspect chronic idiopathic constipation vs dyssynergic defecation. She
`
`recommended, inter alia, colonoscopy with extended bowel prep (2 days of
`
`Golytely) and low residue diet. She directed to stop metamucil and if colono-
`
`scopy unrevealing, will need anorectal manometry for further evaluation of
`
`pelvic floor.
`
`30. The Plaintiff forwarded a Request to Dr. Naqvi, dated November 8, 2021
`
`detailing the recommendations made by Dr. Mavilia during the November 3, 2021
`
`"Telemedicine" consultation ("1 28 and 29, above).
`
`31. The Plaintiff received a response to his Request dated November 8,
`
`2021 (1 30, above), which s&ted "seen MD Nov 28th" and was signed by "Boilard"”
`
`and dated "11-30-21".
`
`32. On November 30, 2021,
`
`the Plaintiff received a "'Covid-19"' test for a
`
`trip to UCONN for a colonoscopy.
`
`33. On December 1, 2021,
`
`the Plaintiff was placed on a "clear liquid diet"
`
`and provided "colon cleanse" in preparation for a colonoscopy.
`
`34. On December 2, 2021,
`
`the Plaintiff's "clear liquid diet" continued
`
`and he was provided an additional "colon cleanse’ in preparation for his
`
`colonoscopy.
`
`35. On December 3, 2021,
`
`the Plaintiff was transported from MCI to UCONN
`
`to obtain his colonoscopy. However,
`
`the Plaintiff was denied the procedure,
`
`due to the fact the results of his Covid-19 test was not received in time.
`
`The Plaintiff forwarded a Request
`
`to Kristen O'Shay, dated the same day,
`
`__informing her thatafter 2and a halfdays on a clear liquid dietand a double
`
`cleanse,
`
`the Plaintiff could not get his colonoscopy. He asked that the
`
`~6-
`
`
`
`procedure be rescheduled as soon as possible.
`
`36. The Plaintiff received a correspondence, dated December 9, 2021,
`
`from
`
`Kevin McDonald, RCOO, who advised the Plaintiff that they "reviewed the
`
`circumstances surrounding the [colonoscopy] appointment [the Plaintiff] had
`
`scheduled [on] 12/3[/21]' and that UCONN was asked to reschedule the Plaintiff
`
`"as soon as possible so [the Plaintiff] can have [it] done."
`
`37. The Plaintiff received an additional correspondence from McDonald
`
`who stated, inter alia,
`
`that "[the Plaintiff's] colonoscopy will take place
`
`within the next 2 months" and that "[t]his [was] the earliest it could be
`
`rescheduled, dated December 17, 2021.
`
`C. Colonoscopy; Results therefrom; and Attempts to obtain the
`necessary follow-up treatment.
`
`38. On February 14, 2022,
`
`the Plaintiff was called to the medical unit
`
`where an unidentified medical staff member: administered a Covid-19 test. This
`
`test was administered as part of the Covid-19 protocol in place regarding
`
`inmate transfers to receive "outside medical services",
`
`39. On February 15, 2022,
`
`the Plaintiff was called to the medical unit
`
`where he received the first of two "colon cleanse” formulas in preparation
`
`for a colonoscopy.
`
`40. On February 16, 2022,
`
`the Plaintiff was called to the medical unit
`
`wnere he received the second of two "colon cleanse" formulas in preparation
`
`for a colonoscopy.
`
`41. On February 17, 2022,
`
`the Plaintiff was transported from MCI to UCONN
`
`where a colonoscopy was administered. The treating physician advised the
`
`Plaintiff that the colonoscopy revealed no polops, or twisted colon. However,
`
`a very hard condensed stool in the ascending colon was obstructing the ability
`
`~to go further.-A"GI Clinic" was récomménded to determine“arésolution, ©=
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Another colonoscopy was to be administered in 1 (one) year and if still no
`
`changes surgery may be required. The Plaintiff was further advised to contact
`
`his primary care physician (Dr. Naqvi) to schedule a GI Clinic. The Plaintiff
`was provided a discharge summary which read,
`in part,
`that the Plaintiff was
`to: "resume previous diet"; "repeat colonoscopy in 1 (one) year for screening
`purposes with extended prep"; "return to referring physician" (Dr. Mavilia);
`
`and “continue present medications''. A comprehensive "Medication List" was
`
`attached to the "After Visit Summary''.
`
`42. The Plaintiff forwarded a Request, dated February 17, 2022,
`
`to Dr.
`
`Naqvi,
`
`informing Dr. Naqvi that the Doctor who performed the colonoscopy
`
`advised the Plaintiff to consult with Dr. Naqvi regarding a "GI Clinic".
`
`(1 41, above).
`
`43, The Plaintiff received a response to his February 17, 2022 Request
`
`(1 42, above), which stated "you are being referred to provider sick call"
`
`dated February 19, 2022.
`
`44, On March 6, 2022,
`
`the Plaintiff had a consult with Dr. Naqvi at which
`
`Dr. Naqvi
`
`informed the Plaintiff that Dr. Naqvi would put in a referrel for
`
`the Plaintiff to obtain a GI Clinic.
`
`45. The Plaintiff forwarded a Request, dated April 8, 2022,
`
`to Dr. Naqvi
`
`apprising Dr. Naqvi that the Plaintiff was informed by "Christine Cupe-Baker"
`
`that there was no GI Clinic recommended post-colonoscopy.
`
`46. The Plaintiff forwarded an additional Request to Dr. Naqvi, dated
`
`April 15, 2022, again apprising Dr. Naqvi that the Plaintiff was informed by
`
`Cupe-Baker that there was no GI Clinic recommended post-colonoscopy.
`
`Additionaly,
`
`the Plaintiff informed Dr. Naqvi that the Plaintiff was never
`
`called to the medical unit for their scheduled April 11, 2022 appointment .
`
`47, The Plaintiff forwarded a Request, dated April 17, 2022 to Cupe-Baker
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`expressing his concerns regarding "the lack of the GI Clinic and that it had
`
`the Plaintiff "worried".
`
`48. Subsequently, on April 17, 2022,
`
`the Plaintiff had a consultation
`
`with Dr. Naqvi, at which Dr. Naqvi, again,
`
`informed the Plaintiff that Dr.
`
`Naqvi would put in a referral for the Plaintiff to obtain a GI Clinic (cf.
`
`fl
`
`44, above).
`
`49, The Plaintiff received a response to his April 17, 2022 Request (1 47,
`
`above),
`from Cupe-Baker, dated April 19, 2022. Cupe-Baker's response did not
`specifically refer to the Plaintiff's concerns regarding "the lack of the GI
`
`Clinic". However, Cupe-Raker stated she "knle]w [the Plaintiff] saw Dr. Naqvi
`
`on 4/17, after this request so [she] underst[oo]d [Dr. Naqvi] addressed [the
`
`Plaintiff's] concerns".
`
`50. In response to his April 15, 2022 Request (1 46, above),
`
`the Plaintiff
`
`was informed that he had "a provider follow up order to meet with Dr. Naqvi on
`
`5/15/22".
`
`51. In that the Plaintiff was not called to his scheduled appointment
`
`with Dr. Naqvi on May 15, 2022,
`
`the Plaintiff forwarded Dr. Naqvi a Request.
`
`The Plaintiff informed Dr. Naqvi that he was not called to the medical unit
`
`for their scheduled appointment and that he has been suffering for 2 (two)
`years with a colon condition, "the only change [was] needing more meds to go.
`
`The Plaintiff also informed Dr. Naqvi that the Plaintiff had "two more short
`
`duration extreme headaches recently that ha[d] [the Plaintiff] concerned.”
`52, The Plaintiff received a response to his May 15, 2022 Request
`(fl 51
`
`above), which stated the Plaintiff was scheduled to be seen by Dr. Naqvi,
`
`signed by "'C. Boilard" and dated "5/16/22". There was no mention of the
`
`Plaintiff'scanceled appointment scheduled the previous day.
`
`53. The Plaintiff forwarded an additional Request
`
`to Cupe-Baker, dated
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`June 19, 2022, inquiring into, inter alia,
`
`the status of his appointment for
`
`the GI Clinic.
`
`54. The Plaintiff received a response to his June 19, 2022 Request
`
`to
`
`Cupe-Baker (| 53, above), which stated, inter alia,
`
`the Plaintiff had a
`
`request in for a Gastroenterology appointment, but no specifics as to when or
`
`how long until the Plaintiff would receive the actual GI Clinic. The response
`
`was signed by "Christine Cupe-Baker'' and was dated ''6/23/22".
`
`55. The Plaintiff forwarded a Request to Dr. Naqvi, dated July 22, 2022,
`
`inquiring into the rescheduling of prior canceled appointments. The Plaintiff
`
`informed Dr. Naqvi that the Plaintiff's colon condition was getting worse.
`
`56. The Plaintiff received a response to his July 22, 2022 Request
`
`to
`
`Dr. Naqvi (1 55, above), which stated ‘Provider notified" containing an
`
`indiscernable signature, dated 7/24/22.
`
`57. On September 5, 2022,
`
`the Plaintiff forwarded a correspondence to
`
`Dr. Weight. The Plaintiff stated to Dr. Wright that it has been well over
`
`two years that they have been "trying to remedy" the situation. The Plaintiff
`
`advised Dr. Wright of his worsening condition, related symptoms and the fact
`
`that nothing is being done to treat the Plaintiff.
`
`58. The Plaintiff forwarded an additional Request
`
`to Cupe-Baker, dated
`
`September 27, 2022,
`
`inquiring as to whether the appointment for the GI Clinic
`
`had been scheduled.
`
`59. The Plaintiff received a response to his September 27, 2022 Request
`
`to Cupe-Baker (1 58, above), advising the Plaintiff that he had an upcoming
`
`appointment scheduled for a GI Clinic.
`
`60. On October 12, 2022, nearly 8 (eight) months after his colonoscopy,
`
`_ thePlaintiff had a consultation with RoctorEnilyWeng, a Gastroenterologist
`("Dr. Weng"). Dr. Weng noted that the Plaintiff "reports significant rectal
`
`~10-
`
`
`
`pressure and difficulty with defecation despite being on multiple laxatives
`
`and achieving mostly loose/watery stool". "From his description,
`
`the
`
`suspicion is that he-may have pelvic floor dysfunction leading to difficulty
`
`in stool evacuation’. Dr. Weng's plan was to ''Check KUB for fecal loading
`
`evaluation"; "Give 4 L golytely then start metamucil 1tsp once daily, after
`
`1 month,
`
`increase to 1 tsp twice daily. Increase daily water intake"’;
`
`"Continue lactulose, miralax, docusate senna at current dose"; and ''Schedule
`
`high resolution anorectal manometry'' (emphasis supplied). Dr. Weng also
`
`requested a ''Follow up after anorectal manometry.'' As of the date of this
`
`filing the Plaintiff has not undergone an anorectal manometry.
`
`61. The Plaintiff forwarded a correspondence, dated December 15, 2022,
`
`to
`
`Dr. Wright. The Plaintiff advised Dr. Wright that his medical procedures had
`
`yet to be scheduled and that, amongst other things, his "colon condition has
`
`reduced his quality of life to next
`
`to nothing”.
`
`62.
`
`In a Request, dated December 27, 2022,
`
`the Plaintiff asked Cupe-Baker
`
`for an update on his colon procedure.
`
`63. The Plaintiff received a response to his December 27, 2022 Request
`
`to
`
`Cupe-Baker (fl 62, above), which stated the Plaintiff had "2 Gastroenterology
`
`requests pending scheduling by UCONN - one for rectal manometry and one for
`
`colonscopy [sic]''. The response was dated '1-4-23" and signed "Boilard".
`
`64. The Plaintiff forwarded a Request to Dr. Naqvi, dated February 28,
`
`2023 inquiring into the status of the Plaintiff's appointments for his colon
`
`procedures.
`
`65. The Plaintiff received a response to his February 28, 2023 Request
`
`to Dr. Naqvi (1 64, above), which stated the Plaintiff had requests in place
`
`___forgastroenterologywaiting tobe scheduled,signedby Boilardanddated
`
`3/3/23.
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`66. The Plaintiff forwarded another Request
`
`to Dr. Naqvi, dated March
`
`6, 2023, detailing the delay in the Plaintiff's treatment and that after 2
`
`(two) and a half years the Plaintiff's condition is worse. The Plaintiff
`
`expressed that he was "hopeful at some point [his] health problems will be
`
`rectified.”
`
`67. The Plaintiff received a response to March 6, 2023 Request
`
`to Dr.
`
`Naqvi (1 66, ahove), which stated "Dr. Naqvi returns the middle of March" and
`
`the Plaintiff had been scheduled to see Dr. Naqvi at that time, signed Roilard
`
`and dated 3/7/23.
`
`68. The Plaintiff forwarded a correspondence to Dr. Wright, dated March
`
`27, 2023. The Plaintiff informed Dr. Wright that the Plaintiff has yet to
`
`undergo his necessary colon procedures.
`
`69. The Plaintiff forwarded a Request to Dr. Naqvi, dated April 14, 2023,
`
`informing Dr. Naqvi that the Plaintiff's condition has become more embarrass-
`
`ing in that it was now the ''S5th time [the Plaintiff] had an accident in bed."
`
`70. The Plaintiff received a response to his April 14, 2023 Request to
`
`Dr. Naqvi (1 69, above), which stated "referred to sick call", acted on by
`"E. Anderson RN' and dated 4/16/2023.
`
`71. The Plaintiff forwarded another Request
`
`to Dr. Naqvi, dated May 11,
`
`2023. The Plaintiff expressed his "frustration" "with the lack of progress
`
`or any real sense of urgency to move forward in regards to [his] colon issue."
`
`72, Tne Plaintiff received a response to his May 11, 2023 Request to
`
`Dr. Naqvi (1 71, above), which stated "Appt made'', acted on by "Caroline
`
`Nurse" and dated 5/12/23.
`
`73. The Plaintiff forwarded a Request
`
`to “Christine” [Cupe-Baker], dated
`
`June 15, 2023, asking for confirmation of scheduled and pendingappointments_
`and/or procedures.
`
`~12-
`
`
`
`74, Tne Plaintiff received a response to his June 15, 2023 Request
`
`to
`
`Cupe-Baker (1 73, above), which stated his colonoscopy was scheduled and
`
`"Gastro" was pending scheduling, signed by Cupe-Baker and dated 6/19/23.
`
`75. On September 7, 2023,
`
`the Plaintiff signed a consent form for trans-
`
`portation from MCI
`
`to UCONN to undergo his colonoscopy.
`
`76. At a follow-up appointment with Dr. Naqvi, on September 10, 2023,
`
`the
`
`Plaintiff inquired into the actual scheduled date of his colonoscopy. Dr.
`
`Naqvi advised the Plaintiff that the date has yet
`
`to be scneduled.
`
`77. On September20, 2023,
`
`the Plaintiff was called to the medical unit to
`
`"prep" for his colonoscopy. The Plaintiff was informed that the procedure was
`
`scheduled for September 22, 2023. The Plaintiff was asked by the attending
`
`nurse if the Plaintiff had eaten and the Plaintiff responded in the affirm=
`
`ative. The Plaintiff was then informed that, due to the medical staff's
`
`failure to inform the kitchen to place the Plaintiff on a clear liquid diet,
`
`the Plaintiff's colonoscopy would now have to be rescheduled. The Plaintiff
`
`was advised to write to Jennifer Cruz, RCOO ("Cruz") to reschedule the
`
`procedure, as Cruz replaced Cupe-Baker as the Health Services Administrator
`
`at MCT.
`
`78. Tne Plaintiff forwarded a Request to Cruz, dated September 21, 2023,
`
`asking that the Plaintiff's colonoscopy be rescheduled with extreme urgency.
`
`79. On September 25, 2023,
`
`the Plaintiff forwarded a Request and a
`
`correspondence to both Dr. Naqvi and Dr. Wright, respectively. The Plaintiff
`sought their assistance in rescheduling the Plaintiff's colonoscopy.
`
`the Plaintiff nas not undergone his
`80. As of the date of this filing,
`|
`follow-up colonoscopy.
`81.Asofthedate of this filing,thePlaintiffhasnot undergonean__
`
`anorectal manometry at all.
`
`
`
`VI. Exhaustion Of Administrative Remedies
`
`82. Paragraphs (6) through (81) of this verified complaint for injunctive
`
`relief are incorporated hereto by reference.
`
`83. The Plaintiff exhausted all available administrative remedies prior
`
`to commencing this action.
`
`84. Tne Plaintiff submitted a Health Services Administrative Remedy -
`
`Level 1, dated July 25, 2022, outling the Plaintiff's ongoing medical issues
`
`and seeking corrective measures...to rectify this problem." C'grievance"’),
`
`85. The Plaintiff's grievance was "'Rejected'' on July 30, 2022, because the
`
`Plaintiff did not check a box and did not attach a Request attempting an
`
`informal resolution.
`
`86. The Plaintiff re-submitted a new grievance form, dated August 3, 2022,
`
`containing a restatement of the issues as stated in his previously submitted
`
`grievance (| 84, above).
`
`87. The Plaintiff's grievance, submitted August 3, 2022, was 'Denied"
`
`with instructions to "follow up with sick call procedures" and that the
`
`Plaintiff “saw the Doctor on 8/4/22."
`
`88. On July 1, 2023,
`
`the Plaintiff submitted an additional grievance
`
`relating to the Defendants’ failure to provide the necessary procedures.
`
`89, Since the Plaintiff did not receive any response to his July 1, 2023
`
`grievance (1 88, above),
`
`the Plaintiff submitted an Appeal of Health Services
`
`Administrative Remedy Form - Level 2 in accordance with Administrative
`
`Directive 8.9.
`
`90. The Plaintiff received a response to his July 1, 2023 grievance,
`
`(1 88
`
`above), which apprised the Plaintiff that his grievance was "not subject to
`
`furtherappeal,dated September1,2023. _
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`VII. Claims For Relief
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIFF
`Deliberate Indifference to Medical Needs
`
`91. At
`
`the Plaintiff's initial consultation with the GI Specialist, Dr.
`
`Mavilia, she stated she was concerned about a mass lesion or stricture given
`
`change in the Plaintiff's stool caliber. She recommended a colonoscopy with
`
`an extended prep and if the colonoscopy was unrevealing the Plaintiff would
`
`need an anorectal manometry for further evaluation.
`
`92. After undergoing and enduring the extended prep,
`
`the Plaintiff was
`
`transported to the hospital to undergo his initial colonoscopy. However, due
`
`the Plaintiff was unable to receive
`to the Defendants’ acts and omissions,
`the procedure and it had to be rescheduled.
`
`93. Several months later the Plaintiff's colonoscopy was rescheduled and
`
`after undergoing and enduring another extended prep, on February 17, 2022,
`
`the Plaintiff was administered a colonoscopy. Although the colonoscopy
`
`revealed no polops or twisted colon,
`
`there was a very hard condensed stool in
`
`the ascending colon which was obstructing the ability to fo further. A "GI
`
`Clinic" was recommended to determine a resolution and a follow-up colonoscopy
`
`was to be administered in one year.
`
`94, Even though the initial colonoscopy was unrevealing,
`
`the Plaintiff
`
`did not, and still has not undergone an anorectal manometry as directed.
`
`95. The Plaintiff's follow-up colonoscopy, which should have been schedule
`
`scheduled for sometime around February of 2023, was not even scheduled until
`
`September 22, 2023; it was subsequently canceled and has to be rescheduled
`
`again, due to the Defendants’ acts and omissions; and the Plaintiff still
`
`has not received the follow-up colonoscopy.
`
`
`
`VIII. Request For Relief
`
`WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court grant
`
`the following relief:
`
`A, Issue an injunction, pursuant to General Statutes §§ 52-471 et. seq.,
`
`requiring the Defendants' State of Connecticut, Department of Correction,
`
`provide the Plaintiff with an anorectal manometry and colonoscopy as ordered
`
`by the GI Specialist,
`
`immediately. The Plaintiff contends there is good cause
`
`and a bond need not be required and further requests this Honorable Court
`
`issue the injunction without bond accordingly.
`
`T hereby declare, certify and verify, under the penalty of perjury,
`
`that
`
`the information contained herein is true and accurate to the best of my
`
`knowledge.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` Richard Tinto
`Plaintiff
`Pro se
`Inmate No. 270893
`MacDougall C.I.
`1153 East Street South
`Suffield, CT 06080
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`VERIFICATION BY THE PLAINTIFF
`
`I, Richard Tinto, Do Hereby Swear, Affirm and Verify:
`
`1. Phat
`
`To va tre Plaintiff qaeceins
`
`2.
`
`frat To ai ove tne age of sigiteen and uadecstaad tae
`oylieatiors of an oaty;
`
`shove
`3. Prat Toaave fully cead an? undeestand tas Complaint
`ane baat
`tae dasecintions, accounts, allegations, and
`claius taeceina ace
`true and accucate to b12 dest of my
`koowledzea
`and belief;
`
`T unierstan’ tas senalties for oaejucy aud tae
`4. baat
`2
`3 foc any Lie fob? snvee data.
`cons equene
`;
`
`
`| YOmber
`» 2023, AT
`
`|
`“NOTARY PUBLIC*
`
`SWORN AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS 1, OF
`
`SUFFIELD, CONNECTICUT.
`
`My €ommission Expires
`
`0 | Z
`
`*END OF DOCUMENT:*
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
