Williams v. United States
1990 WL 141641, 747 F. Supp. 967, 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12488 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New York law, the government is liable for medical malpractice when its employees fail to provide medical care that meets the accepted standards of the community, and this breach is the proximate cause of the patient's injury. Such a breach occurs when medical staff fails to timely diagnose and properly treat a serious infection in a high-risk patient, such as a diabetic, leading to amputation.
Facts:
- David Williams, an inmate at the Otisville Federal Correctional Institution, was a known diabetic.
- In February 1985, Williams was issued ill-fitting institutional boots.
- In June 1985, prison medical staff diagnosed and treated Williams for a fungal infection (tinea) on his feet.
- Beginning on September 6, 1985, Williams repeatedly complained of worsening pain specifically in his right foot, but medical staff misdiagnosed his condition as diabetic neuritis and at one point suspected he was feigning illness.
- On September 17, 1985, Williams's foot began draining pus, an overt sign of infection. Staff took a culture and prescribed an oral antibiotic, but did not order bed rest or expedite the culture results.
- On September 23, 1985, culture results revealed an E. Coli infection resistant to the prescribed antibiotic. Williams was transferred to Horton Memorial Hospital for intravenous antibiotics.
- The Otisville medical staff failed to send Williams's medical records or any summary of his condition to Horton Hospital.
- The surgeon at Horton, unaware of the specific E. Coli diagnosis, mistakenly believed the primary problem was circulatory, did not administer the correct intravenous antibiotics, and Williams developed gangrene, necessitating a below-the-knee amputation of his right leg on September 30, 1985.
Procedural Posture:
- David Williams filed an administrative tort claim with the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which was denied on November 2, 1987.
- Williams then filed a medical malpractice action against the United States in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
- The case proceeded to a six-day bench trial before Judge Newman.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the failure of prison medical staff to timely and correctly diagnose and treat a foot infection in a diabetic inmate, culminating in the failure to transfer his medical records to an outside hospital, constitute medical malpractice making the United States liable for the resulting amputation under the Federal Tort Claims Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Newman, Senior Judge
Yes. The failure of the Otisville medical staff to meet the accepted standard of care for a diabetic patient with a foot infection constituted malpractice and was the sole proximate cause of the gangrene that necessitated the amputation of Williams's leg. The medical staff breached its duty by repeatedly failing to properly examine Williams to rule out infection, misdiagnosing his condition as neuritis, failing to provide proper treatment like bed rest once the infection was obvious, and failing to expedite a critical lab report. The most egregious failure was the 'cavalier and shoddy' transfer of Williams to an outside hospital without any of his medical records, which caused the treating surgeon to 'fly blind' and misdiagnose the underlying cause of the rapidly advancing gangrene. This failure to transmit crucial medical information broke the chain of effective treatment and directly led to the catastrophic outcome. The court found that the infection itself, not Williams's underlying diabetes or smoking habit, was the primary cause of the tissue death leading to amputation.
Analysis:
This case provides a detailed application of medical malpractice standards under the Federal Tort Claims Act, emphasizing the heightened duty of care owed to high-risk patients like diabetics within the prison system. The court's decision establishes that negligence can be a chain of events, including failures in diagnosis, treatment, and basic administrative procedure. The ruling's sharp criticism of the failure to transfer medical records highlights that a breakdown in the continuity of care can itself be a proximate cause of injury, making the original tortfeasor liable even for the subsequent missteps of another provider who lacked critical information. This sets a precedent that administrative competence is a non-delegable component of the standard of medical care.
Unlock the full brief for Williams v. United States