Ayuso v. Commissioner of Correction, 216 Conn.App. 234

Petitioner Jose Ayuso filed an amended habeas petition alleging Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to his medical needs for chronic back pain and a lump on his inner thigh.
He sought MRI imaging and back surgery, claiming the Commissioner of Correction provided inadequate care.
The habeas trial court heard testimony from the respondent’s medical expert and Ayuso’s treating physician.
The court expressly credited the respondent’s expert, who testified to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Ayuso received adequate treatment and that MRI or surgery were not medically indicated.
The habeas court denied the petition and later denied Ayuso certification to appeal; Ayuso appealed that denial to the appellate court.
The appellate court dismissed the appeal, declining to second‑guess the habeas court’s credibility determinations.

Issue	Ayuso's Argument	Commissioner’s Argument	Held
Whether prison medical care amounted to Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference	Treatment was inadequate; needed MRI and back surgery	Medical care was appropriate; experts found no indication for MRI/surgery	Habeas court credited respondent’s expert and found treatment medically appropriate; claim failed
Whether denial of certification to appeal was an abuse of discretion	Certification should be granted to review credibility and medical findings	Denial proper because petitioner didn’t meet Simms standard showing abuse of discretion	Appellate court held petitioner failed to show abuse of discretion and upheld denial of certification

Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608 (1994) (standard for demonstrating abuse of discretion in denial of certification to appeal in habeas cases)
Noze v. Commissioner of Correction, 177 Conn. App. 874 (2017) (appellate courts must defer to habeas court credibility determinations)
Jolley v. Commissioner of Correction, 98 Conn. App. 597 (2006) (habeas judge is sole arbiter of witness credibility and weight of testimony)