Moulton v. Carroll County Department of Corrections et al

Filing 14

ORDER Defendant to schedule an appointment for the plaintiff to be seen by a dentist within 30 days of this order So Ordered by Magistrate Judge Landya B. McCafferty.(mxm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Richard Moulton
v.

Civil No. 11-cv-391-PB

Carroll County Department of
Corrections, et al.
O R D E R
Richard Moulton filed a complaint that included a request
for injunctive relief (doc. no. 1), alleging that he is being
denied adequate dental care for his serious dental needs.

The

matter was referred to this magistrate judge for consideration
and a recommendation (doc. no. 5).

A hearing was held on the

motion on September 9, 2011.
At the hearing, the plaintiff testified that he had
recently seen a dentist in Strafford County who had prescribed
antibiotics for him as a necessary precursor for any dental
work.

It is not clear whether a follow-up appointment has been

scheduled for Moulton, or what the dentist’s intention was
regarding dental work to be performed on Moulton.
Carroll County Department of Corrections Superintendent
Jason Johnson testified at the hearing that prior to making a
determination as to what dental care he would authorize the
County to provide for an inmate, he would consult with the

treating dentist.

The court finds that, generally speaking,

consultation with the treating dentist prior to making a
decision regarding treatment authorization is appropriate.

It

does not appear, however, that this has occurred in this case.
Further, there is scant medical evidence in the record upon
which this court can rely in evaluating the treatment decisions
of the defendants.1

Such evidence would assist the court in

rendering an appropriate recommendation for the disposition of
Mr. Moulton’s request for injunctive relief.
Accordingly, the court now directs as follows:
1.

Defendants are instructed that, within two business

days of the date of this order, they must schedule an
appointment for Mr. Moulton to be seen by a dentist within
thirty days of the date of this order.

The purpose of this

appointment is for the dentist to examine Mr. Moulton and make
an assessment as to the condition of his teeth and a
recommendation as to treatment.

If the dentist Mr. Moulton has

recently seen in Strafford County is able both to make a

While the medical evidence is scant, it is not
nonexistent. Moulton’s medical records, provided by the
defendants and accepted in evidence at the hearing, contain an
entry regarding Moulton’s April 27, 2011, dental appointment
that includes the following: "The dentist explained that to save
his teeth & to keep him out of pain he would need root canals,
post & beam (core) & crowns." This note is consistent with
Moulton's hearsay testimony regarding what the dentist told him.
1

2

treatment recommendation and to render an opinion regarding
extraction based on his most recent, prior examination of Mr.
Moulton, without any further examination of Mr. Moulton, a
follow-up appointment need not be scheduled at this time to
satisfy this order.
2.

After Mr. Moulton is seen by a dentist, defendants are

directed to obtain from the dentist a written report indicating:
(a) the condition of Mr. Moulton’s teeth; (b) what dental work
the dentist recommends be performed in order to treat Mr.
Moulton; and (c) whether, based on the dentist’s professional
opinion, extraction of any of Mr. Moulton’s afflicted teeth is a
reasonable treatment option for Mr. Moulton, and the reasons for
the dentist’s opinion regarding extraction.
3.

The dentist’s report is to be served upon Mr. Moulton

and filed under seal, within fourteen days of the date of Mr.
Moulton’s dental appointment, or within fourteen days of the
date of this order if the Strafford County dentist who recently
examined Mr. Moulton renders the report, without re-examining
Mr. Moulton.2
4.

Within five days of the date of this order, Mr.

Moulton must, if he has not already done so, provide defendants

2

The Clerk’s office is directed to seal the report provided
by the dentist when the report is filed.
3

with a signed authorization for the release of his dental
records, to enable defendants to comply with this order.
5.

Defendants are directed to file simultaneously with

the dentist’s report, a statement as to what, if any, dental
treatment they intend to provide to Mr. Moulton.

If defendants,

after receiving the dentist’s report, do not intend to provide
Mr. Moulton with dental treatment, or decline to adopt the
recommendations of the dentist, they should provide this court
with a statement explaining why they do not intend to provide
that treatment.
SO ORDERED.

__________________________________
Landya B. McCafferty
United States Magistrate Judge
Date: September 12, 2011
cc:

Richard Moulton, pro se
Stephen A. Murray, Esq.

4