HARRISBURG – Hampden Township and two of its police officers have denied allegations that they used unreasonable force in responding to a postal worker’s medical emergency, instead arguing that the amount of force used was appropriate to subdue a person under the influence of drugs and acting violently.
Anton Guirguis first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 11 versus Hampden Township, Officer Johannes Notz and Officer Bradley Corliss. All parties are of Hampden Township.
“On Oct. 27, 2021, Rachael David awoke to find her husband, Guirguis, in their bed convulsing and foaming at his mouth. David woke her adult son and directed him to call 911 to request immediate help. David then started CPR on her husband until assistance arrived. Before this time, Guirguis had not experienced or been diagnosed with a seizure condition. At approximately 4:30 a.m. on Oct. 27, 2021, defendant officers were dispatched to the residence for a reported individual suffering from cardiac arrest. Defendant officers arrived prior to emergency medical services. Upon arrival at the scene, defendant officers were met by David, who directed them upstairs to her distressed husband,” the suit said.
“Defendant officers did not ask anyone whether Guirguis had any known medical conditions. David attempted to explain to defendant officers what was occurring with her husband, but defendant officers ignored her and removed her from the bedroom because she was ‘disruptive.’ Guirguis was in the corner of the bedroom against the bed and the wall. He was convulsing and he had urinated on himself. He also displayed signs of agonal breathing. Guirguis was in a semi-conscious state and unresponsive to defendant officers. Defendant officers, jumping to the conclusion that Guirguis was experiencing an opioid overdose, immediately made the decision to drag Guirguis towards the end of the bed to put Guirguis in the ‘recovery position.’ Guirguis continued to convulse. Defendant officers restrained Guirguis by laying on top of him and pinning him to the ground, restricting his movements.”
The suit added that throughout the entire interaction, Guirguis did not speak, his eyes kept opening and closing and he was unarmed throughout the entire encounter.
“Officer Notz administered a dose of naloxone to Guirguis. After the naloxone showed no effect, defendant officers continued to restrain Guirguis on the ground, while Officer Notz administered a second dose of naloxone to Guirguis. Emergency medical services arrived on the scene after naloxone was administered. Rather than step away and turn Guirguis over to emergency medical services to provide proper care, defendant officers requested additional officers to the scene to assist with restraining Guirguis. Guirguis remained unresponsive to defendant officers’ commands and attempts to place him in handcuffs. Officer Notz took his hand with a closed fist and viciously struck Guirguis multiple times on the side of the head,” the suit stated.
“Despite being removed from the area, David came into the room multiple times trying to talk to Guirguis and defendant officers. David objected vigorously to defendant officers’ treatment of her husband. David informed defendant officers of Guirguis’ recent surgeries and provided one officer with a box of the medications Guirguis was taking, in an attempt to disabuse defendant officers of their belief that Guirguis was on heroin. Once the additional police officers arrived on scene, defendant officers were able to place handcuffs onto Guirguis. Emergency medical services personnel were permitted to treat Guirguis after he was placed in handcuffs. The medical personnel injected Guirguis with five separate doses of a sedative within an approximate 20-minute time frame. A paramedic stated to David that he thought Guirguis was experiencing the effects of a seizure. The entire interaction with defendant officers and Guirguis lasted approximately 25 to 30 minutes. Guirguis was transported to Holy Spirit Hospital in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, where he was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit. Guirguis was diagnosed with having had a nocturnal seizure with convulsions, a broken shoulder, and multiple contusions and lacerations. He was not released from the hospital for eight days. Upon release, Guirguis was provided seizure medications.”
Despite the fact that Guirguis was diagnosed with a nocturnal seizure, Officer Notz filed a criminal complaint on or about Nov. 4, 2021, charging Guirguis with aggravated assault against a public official in the performance of his duty.
“On May 8, 2023, the eve of trial on the criminal charges, the District Attorney for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, filed a petition with the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, requesting that a Nolle Prosequi (or abandonment) be filed on all charges. The Court granted the Nolle Prosequi the following day, May 9, 2023. Guirguis was compelled to expend tens of thousands of dollars preparing a legal defense, prior to the charges being dropped on the eve of trial. At all times relevant, defendant Township had a policy on the Use of Force. The Use of Force Policy in effect at that time of the incident, as well as today, does not provide any guidance to officers on the use of force or the use of de-escalation tactics in situations where a citizen is suffering distress due to a medical emergency,” the suit said.
“The defendant Township’s police department does not have a policy involving responding to medical emergencies or implementing 35 P.S. Section 10012 and provides no training to officers on recognizing the signs of seizure. At all times relevant, it was reasonably foreseeable that defendant officers would encounter citizens displaying signs of a medical emergency, such as a seizure. At all times relevant, Guirguis was an employee of the United States Postal Service. Due to his injuries, Guirguis was on medical leave without pay for 18 months. Guirguis remains on light duty and ineligible for most overtime hours.”
UPDATE
On Nov. 20, the defendants answered the complaint and countered that Guirguis both appeared to be acting as though he were under the influence of drugs and violently threatening the officers.
“On the contrary, Officer Notz arrived first, spoke with plaintiff’s wife and was directed upstairs. The wife advised that plaintiff had been taking some kind of drugs, believed to be steroids, from an Egyptian physician. Plaintiff was exhibiting signs and symptoms of an opioid overdose. Plaintiff physically resisted the efforts of the officers to place plaintiff in the recovery position and provide first aid. Plaintiff, a large and muscular man, continued to physically resist being helped by the officers, despite the officers’ attempts multiple times to tell plaintiff to stop resisting because the officers were there to help him. Plaintiff, although not speaking, was screaming and yelling and was combative with the officers who were attempting to help him including striking, punching and kicking at the officers, biting the officers and attempting to strike the officers’ groin area,” the answer stated.
“It is admitted that after the first dose of naloxone was ineffective, and plaintiff continued to resist the officers’ attempts to help him, a second dose was administered. On the contrary, due to plaintiff’s continued struggle and aggressive actions towards the officers, the officers continued attempts to restrain him. Additional officers were requested. Due to plaintiff’s aggressive behavior towards the officers who were trying to help him and plaintiff’s attempts to bite the officers, physical actions were taken to stop his threatening behavior. Plaintiff’s wife attempted to calm plaintiff down and informed him that the officers were there to help him. Plaintiff disregarded these attempts and continued aggressive and threatening actions towards the officers.”
The defendants also provided a litany of affirmative defenses on their own behalf.
“Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The allegations of plaintiff’s complaint are barred or limited by immunity under the applicable provisions of the Pennsylvania Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. At no time were the actions of defendants Notz and Corliss reckless or to such a degree that the plaintiff would be entitled to punitive damages. Hampden Township cannot be held liable for punitive damages. Defendants Notz and Corliss are entitled to qualified immunity,” per those same defenses, in part.
“Defendants Notz and Corliss at all times pertinent to this cause of action, acted in good faith. Defendants Notz and Corliss are entitled to absolute and/or official immunity. Defendants aver that there exists no affirmative causal link between any actions on the part of the defendants and any alleged injuries suffered by the plaintiff. It is alleged that probable cause existed to effectuate the arrest of the plaintiff. Some or all of the injuries and/or damages about which the plaintiff complains were caused by the plaintiff himself or were caused by third-parties over whom defendants had no control.”
For multiple counts of violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages against all defendants, punitive damages against Officer Notz and Officer Corliss, attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988(b), pre- and post-judgment interest at the lawful rate and other relief that the Court deems just and proper, under either law or equity, plus a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Scott P. Stedjan of Killian & Gephart, in Harrisburg.
The defendants are represented by Frank J. Lavery Jr. and Karl R. Hildabrand of Lavery Law, also in Harrisburg.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 1:23-cv-01684
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com