Angela Holland v. State of Illinois

ORDER

JANN, J.

This matter comes before this court on the complaint of ANGELA Holland, Claimant, and against THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent, alleging personal injury as a result of staff misconduct and seeking compensation in the amount of $100,000.00.

Claimant had a documented history of equilibrium issues which was diagnosed in February, 2001. On July 29, 2002 at approximately 10:30 or 11:00 p.m., while incarcerated at Lincoln Correctional Center, the equilibrium symptoms were triggered by the smell of some cleaning chemicals that were being used by another inmate nearby.

Claimant advised the on-duty corrections office (C/O) that she was feeling sick and experiencing symptoms related to her equilibrium disorder. The C/O contacted the medical staff at the institution who advised that there was nothing in Claimant’s medical file related to the equilibrium disorder. The C/O advised Claimant to lie down and put a towel on her face and see the nurse in the morning.

Claimant became agitated and insisted that the medical condition was reflected in her medical file. Claimant demanded to see a superior officer. A Sergeant later came. Claimant continued to insist that they recheck her medical file. Claimant admitted that she became extremely agitated and angry and verbally abusive to the sergeant. Claimant later was ticketed for the incident, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 1 month demotion to C grade.

Claimant was creating a commotion in the dormitory and Lt. Matteson responded. Lt. Matteson ordered Claimant to stand up. She said she couldn’t because [*231] the room was spinning. Two of Claimant’s dorm mates helped her to stand up, but the officer ordered them to let her go. Claimant testified that she fell to the floor. C/O Swiffer and Lt. Matteson picked her up. Claimant continued to demand they check her medical file. Lt. Matteson dragged Claimant out of the dorm room and into the hallway.

The nurse arrived and advised that medical records did indicate a history of vertigo but it was not immediately evident because it was not detailed on the medical problem list in Claimant’s chart. Claimant was admitted to the infirmary and medications were administered. Internal affairs performed an investigation of the incident and photographed Claimant and her shirt. Claimant testified that her shirt was dirty and her shoulder bruised, but neither was evident from the photos. The medical exam following the incident notes Claimant suffered no marks or bruises.

Claimant testified that she did not suffer severe physical injuries, but stated that she has suffered permanent mental and emotional injury as a result of the incident. Claimant was subsequently transferred to another facility.

The issue is whether the actions of Corrections Officer Lt. Matteson constituted misconduct which resulted in injury to Claimant.

Neither Claimant nor Respondent presented any rules or regulations of IDOC which dictate proper procedure in a factual situation like this one. Therefore, the court must apply a “reasonable man” standard.

Claimant did have a documented history of vertigo in her medical record, but it was not immediately evident because it had not been indicated in the problem list, which apparently details on going medical concerns. The corrections staff on duty on the evening of the incident relied on the information and recommendations they received from the medical unit in assessing and dealing with the subject incident. Further, Claimant admitted that she was extremely agitated and verbally abusive to the corrections officers. She acknowledged and accepted the ticket and grade demotion she received as a result of her behavior. Claimant’s testimony at the hearing was extremely emotional even two years after the incident. Claimant alternated between sobbing and angry outbursts.

Given the circumstances of the incident, this court concludes that the actions of Lt. Matteson were reasonable. The medical condition Claimant complained of was not immediately evident. Claimant’s behavior was extreme for the situation. She reacted in a highly emotional manner that was inappropriate and disruptive. The responding officers had to take control of the situation and remove Claimant from the dormitory in order to further assess her condition. The evidence indicated that Claimant was not cooperative and hysterical, therefore requiring her physical removal from the dorm. Upon removal a further assessment of her condition was made and proper treatment administered. Further, there was no credible evidence of physical or emotional damages to Claimant.

Based on the foregoing, this claim is hereby denied.