Jail suicide triggers lawsuit. Incident led to disciplinary measures.

By: Bennett Loudon December 3, 2019

The mother of a woman who committed suicide while being held in the Monroe County Jail has filed a lawsuit against the county.

On Sept. 4, 2018, Sitarah Daniels hanged herself with a blanket tied to the bars of her cell. She died the next day at Strong Memorial Hospital. After an internal investigation some jail workers were disciplined.

The lawsuit filed Monday in state Supreme Court accuses the defendants of negligence and disregard for Daniels’ constitutional rights. The complaint does not include a specific amount of damages sought. In addition to Monroe County, the defendants in the suit include:

• Monroe County Sheriff’s Office;
• Sheriff Todd K. Baxter;
• Jail Superintendent Ronald Harling;
• Primecare Medical of New York Inc., which provides medical and mental health services to inmates at the jail;
• Kara Haydanek Capellupo, a registered nurse who worked at the jail; and
• Unnamed deputies and healthcare providers

The plaintiff, Juanita James, is Daniels’ mother, the administrator of Daniels’ estate. James is represented by attorney Michael A. Bottar.

On Aug. 8, 2018, Daniels was taken into custody at the jail and placed under suicide watch. She had a history of several mental health disorders, psychiatric hospitalizations and suicide attempts, including a prior attempted suicide with a bed sheet in the jail in October 2015. Suicide watch includes a deputy stationed directly outside the cell “with the ability to immediately intervene should an inmate need medical attention,” according to the 22-page complaint.

On Aug. 13, 2018, Daniels was taken off suicide watch. Between 2:26 p.m. and 2:40 p.m., on Sept. 4, 2018, a deputy did not properly complete a tour of cells and other areas, even though he recorded that he had in a log book. Because the tour was incomplete, “this produced an alarm in Central Control room that was acknowledged by someone,” according to the complaint. But people working in Central Control did not contact anyone to report the incomplete tour.

During the time the tour should have been conducted, Daniels was recorded on a surveillance camera tying a blanket to the bars of her cell. The camera also recorded her hanging herself at 2:33 p.m., according to the complaint. A deputy also failed to complete a tour between 2:40 p.m. and 2:50 p.m., but he logged it as complete. This triggered another alarm in Central Control, which was acknowledged by someone, but nobody was notified of the incomplete tour for a second time, according to the suit. It wasn’t until 2:57 p.m. that two deputies walked past a surveillance camera monitor and saw Daniels hanging in her cell. The blanket was cut down at 2:58 p.m., 25 minutes after Daniels hanged herself, according to the suit.

Daniels was taken to Strong Memorial Hospital, where she was pronounced dead about 7:20 p.m. on Sept. 5.

During an internal investigation two deputies involved in the incident refused to be interviewed.

In December 2018, Baxter released a statement saying he imposed “serious disciplinary measures” on some workers. An investigation by the New York State Commission of Correction is ongoing.

Monroe County officials declined to comment on the lawsuit.

BLoudon@BridgeTowerMedia.com / (585) 232-2035

There, defendant Garguilo apparently took a text from defendant Fend and, while distracted, hit a motorcycle ridden by plaintiff Daniel Gallatin, who was pinned under the vehicle, dragged 100 feet, and killed. In addition to suing Garguilo, the Estate sued the texter, averring that defendant Fend sent a text message to Gargiulo who he knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known, was operating a vehicle. The decision was the result of a motion from a preliminary objection, or demurrer, akin to a pre-answer motion to dismiss in New York.

The Court, in arriving at its decision, cited a 2013 case, Kubert v. Best, where the New Jersey Appellate Court held that under certain limited circumstances a texter can be held liable: “the sender of a text message can potentially be liable if an accident is caused by texting, but only if the sender knew or had special reason to know that the recipient would view the text while driving and thus be distracted.” Also, the Pennsylvania Court interestingly cited Section 876 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which provides that a third party can be held liable if he or she encourages another in violating a duty. “In reflecting upon [both] Section 876 of the Restatement and Kubert,” the complaint withstood the legal hurdle.

Separate apart from the legal analysis, the attorneys at Bottar Law, PLLC want to remind you that distracted driving kills. According to the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration:

• People who text while driving are 23 times more likely to die in a crash.
• Five seconds is the average time your eyes are off the road while texting. When traveling at 55mph, that’s enough time to cover the length of a football field blindfolded
• In 2014, 3,179 people were killed and 431,000 were injured due to distracted drivers.
• Ten percent of teen drivers involved in fatal crashes were reported as being distracted at the time of the crash.

This case and the NHTSA’s statistics illustrate the dangers of distracted driving. If you or someone you know was injured in an accident, you should contact Bottar Law, PLLC. The aid of an experienced lawyer can be invaluable in getting you compensated for your injuries.

New York has a “No-Fault” law which pays for lost wages and medical bills following a car accident. However, in order to receive the benefits, an injured person must do everything the No-Fault insurer says. One of the requirements will be to attend an independent medical examination, also known as an IME. At the IME, a doctor selected by the insurance company will see the injured person, usually for 15-20 minutes, and then generate a report. In almost all circumstances, the IME report will provide that there is nothing wrong with the person. No-Fault benefits then terminate (i.e., instant financial savings). A similar process exists under New York’s workers compensation law. If a worker is injured on-the-job, they are entitled to lost wages and medical care provided they follow the directions of the Workers Compensation insurance carrier. One of the requirements will be to attend an IME. As is the case with No-Fault, often the IME report will provide that there is nothing wrong with the person. Workers Compensation benefits then terminate.

Until recently, you could not file a New York medical malpractice lawsuit against the IME doctor for incorrect advice, e.g., that the injured person is not hurt, has no disability and/or is fit to return to work, because of the absence of a “doctor-patient” relationship. This is no longer the case.

Following the First Department’s decision in Baldato v. Rosenberg, an IME doctor can be sued for medical malpractice if: (1) s/he gives incorrect advice, (2) it was foreseeable that the person would rely upon the advice, and (3) reliance on the advice causes harm. By way of example, if an IME doctor opines that an injury to a person’s lumbar spine has healed and the person has no physical limitations that prevent return to work, the person will return to work (because the IME report will lead to a termination of benefits). If the person suffers a debilitating injury lifting a heavy object (that they should not have been lifting), the IME doctor may be liable for medical malpractice.

To avoid medical malpractice liability, an IME doctor will have to talk out of both sides of his/her mouth. Reports will now have to say that the person can go back to work, but also that the person should not rely upon the contents of the report. Translation: the IME doctor’s opinion is not worth the price of the paper it’s written on.

Nota bene: IME doctors…we will be watching.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned Marcus J. (Marc) Mathews v. Big Bear American Made Choppers, Inc. (Case No.: 5:04-cv-1206), is a forty year old resident of Solvay, New York. He is represented by Anthony S. Bottar and Michael A. Bottar, of the Syracuse, New York law firm of Bottar Law, PLLC.

According to the complaint, on June 13, 2004, the plaintiff was riding his three month old Venom ProStreet motorcycle in Alton, New Hampshire when the front fender assembly failed causing the nearly 10 pound fender to come into contact with and lock the front tire of the motorcycle. The plaintiff then lost control of the motorcycle, crashed into another motorcycle, and was thrown into a ravine where he sustained severe arm and leg injuries. After more than two years of surgeries, the plaintiff’s right leg was amputated above the knee.

According to court records, the Alton Police Department, with assistance from New Hampshire State Troopers, conducted an investigation after the accident which revealed that two of the four ¼”-20 screws intended to hold the motorcycle’s front fender to the bike had fallen out prior to the accident. Eye witness accounts, a tire imprint on the underside of the front fender, and a distinct skid signature left on the roadway led the police to conclude that a defect in the motorcycle caused the accident.

After three years of discovery, the plaintiff’s attorneys claim that Big Bear American Made Choppers had actual or constructive notice, more than one year prior to the plaintiff’s accident, that the method it selected to attach the Venom’s front fender to its lower legs was inadequate.

The trial lawyers at Bottar Law, PLLC, have decades of experience investigating, prosecuting and trying to verdict all types of accident and product liability cases, including injuries due to unsafe consumer goods, including cars and motorcycles. If you or a loved one have been injured because a product failed or did not function as intended, you and/or your family may be entitled to compensation for lifelong health care, medical expenses, medical bills, loss of income, and pain and suffering.

To discuss your case or concerns with an experienced Central New York defective product attorney, contact Bottar Law, PLLC now at (315) 933-4448, or by e-mail at info@bottarlaw.com.

According to a New York Times review of workers’ compensation case files, medical records, and patient interviews, “independent medical examinations” and the reports that follow are are frequently conducted or prepared in a fashion that benefits insurers by minimizing injuries or by attributing injuries to some other cause or event. Unlike a visit to a treating physician, an IME physician may meet with an injured worker for less than ten minutes. During that ten minute period, the IME doctor may take an abbreviated history, skim medical records, perform a very limited physical examination and send the patient on his or her way without an ounce of compassion. After that examination, the majority of IME reports conclude that the patient is not injured or, if injured, is not disabled.

Many refer to Syracuse-area IME doctors as “Dr. No” or “Dr. Says-No,” because no matter how badly injured, certain doctors will consistently find no injury or no disability. The New York Times interviewed Dr. Alan Zimmerman, an orthopedic surgeon practicing in Queens, New York. According to Dr. Zimmerman, “[b]asically, if you haven’t murdered anyone and you have a medical license, you get certified.” Dr. Zimmerman added that its “clearly a nice was to semi-retire.” Dr. Zimmerman, 75, conducts orthopedic IMEs.

IME examinations are very profitable for doctors (some earning nearly $1,000,000 per year performing examinations and testifying in court), and were poorly regulated until 2001. In 2000, a Long Island doctor conducted five IMEs in a Long Island bar. Some examiners, of course, do furnish honest examinations.

A small study conducted a few years ago at the Central New York Occupational Health Clinical Center in Syracuse, New York, revealed that the clinic’s treating physicians and local independent medical examiners almost always disagreed on whether an injured worker was disabled.

The trial lawyers at Bottar Law, PLLC, have decades of experience investigating, prosecuting and trying to verdict all types accident and injury cases, including those arising out of construction site accidents, industrial accidents, jobsite and workplace accidents, falls, scaffolding and structural failures, and car, SUCV, bus and tractor trailer accident. If you or a loved one have been injured, or have lost a loved one due to a work injury or serious accident, you and/or your family may be entitled to compensation for lifelong health care, medical expenses, medical bills, loss of income, and pain and suffering.

To discuss your case or concerns with an experienced Central New York catastrophic injury attorney contact Bottar Law, PLLC now at (315) 933-4448, or by e-mail at info@bottarlaw.com.

On June 4, 2004, the plaintiffs, Stephen D. Salisbury, Jr. and Christine K. Dannible, were on a motorcycle driven by Mr. Salisbury. While stopped at a red traffic light, an automobile operated by defendant, Jonelle Christian and owned by defendant, Central National Bank (leased to defendant, Anthony Christian) rear-ended the motorcycle. The violent collision threw the plaintiffs from the motorcycle, causing Mr. Salisbury to suffer a compound tibia fracture requiring surgical correction, and causing Ms. Dannible to suffer a “mild” traumatic brain injury.

At trial, the defendants did not dispute that the collision caused Mr. Salisbury’s broken tibia, but contended that there was no radiological or diagnostic evidence that Ms. Dannible suffered a brain injury.

Mr. Salisbury called his treating orthopedic surgeon. Ms. Dannible called her treating neurosurgeon, psychologist and concussion management program director, internist, nurse practitioner and physical therapist who unanimously opined that she suffered a mild traumatic brain injury in the collision, and is and will continue to suffer from the effects of post-concussive syndrome. Defendants called a neurologist and neuropsychologist who, on cross-examination, conceded that Ms. Dannible suffered a mild brain injury in the collision.

The case went to the jury after eight days of trial. After deliberating for three hours, the jury awarded Mr. Salisbury $12,061.24 for past medical expenses and $150,000.00 for past pain and suffering. The jury awarded Ms. Dannible $34,098.36 for past medical expenses, $122,246.00 for past loss of earnings, and $300,000.00 for past pain and suffering, as well as $1,000.000.00 for future medical and rehabilitation expenses (including medication), $800,000.00 for future loss of earnings, and $1,000,000.00 for future pain and suffering. Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory interest, increasing the total verdict to more thabn $4,000,000.00.

The trial lawyers at Bottar Law, PLLC, have decades of experience investigating, prosecuting and trying to verdict all types of brain injury cases, including traumatic brain injuries (mild, moderate and severe), brain damage, concussions, post-concussion symdrome and related adjustment disorders. If your or a loved one have been diagnosed with a brain injury, you and/or your family may be entitled to compensation for lifelong health care, special education, rehabilitation, medical expenses, medical bills, loss of income, and pain and suffering.

To discuss your case or concerns with an experienced Central New York brain injury attorney, contact Bottar Law, PLLC now at (315) 933-4448, or by e-mail at info@bottarlaw.com.