PHILADELPHIA – A Chester County woman who alleged that she was subjected to excessive force when arrested three-and-a-half years ago at a local hospital by various entities within the Pottstown Police Department, settled her case three weeks before trial.
Christine Caporaletti of Spring City first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on July 23, 2021 versus Chief Michael Markovich, Police Officers Peter Yambrick, Matthew Maciejewski, John Does 1-99, Dylan Heckart, Jane Doe, the Borough of Pottstown, Pottstown Hospital and Dothan Security, Inc. of Pottstown, plus Tower Health of West Reading.
“At all relevant times, Michael Graeff lived with plaintiff, Caporaletti, in her residence, and plaintiff considered him to be ‘like a son.’ On Thursday, July 25, 2019, Graeff was overwhelmed by a mental health crisis. Concerned for his safety, at approximately 1:22 p.m., plaintiff placed a phone call to 9-1-1 so that Graeff could receive a mental health evaluation,” the suit said.
“Sergeant Edward Ciacik of the Limerick Police Department was the first to respond and arrive at plaintiff’s home. Next, the paramedics arrived to take Graeff to Pottstown Hospital for an initial examination to determine if he should be admitted for involuntarily mental health treatment, as per Pennsylvania law and local laws/policies. Plaintiff and her daughter followed the ambulance to Pottstown Hospital.”
After going to the hospital and inquiring as to Graeff’s whereabouts, defendant Heckart [a hospital security guard] approached plaintiff and claimed, without any basis in fact, that Graeff did not want to see her and demanded that she leave the hospital. Caporaletti said she later found that this remark was false.
When the Pottstown Police defendants arrived to the hospital, the plaintiff said they arrested her in front of her daughter and roughly put her into handcuffs, just three months after she underwent arm surgery.
“Defendants Yambrick, Maciejewski and/or Doe, ignored plaintiff’s cries for help to relieve the pain in her right arm. After transporting the plaintiff to the Pottstown Police Department, an unknown police officer informed defendants Yambrick, Maciejewski and Doe, that they improperly handcuffed plaintiff. Plaintiff was charged with a singular summary count of Disorderly Conduct,” per the suit.
“As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts and failures to act of defendants Markovich, Yambrick, Maciejewski, and/or Does 1-99, plaintiff suffered from the following non- exhaustive list of harms:
• Violation of her clearly established and well-settled constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution to be free from the use of unreasonable or excessive force;
• Full thickness tear of the rotator cuff involving the posterior fibers of the supraspinatus and anterior fibers of the infraspinatus;
• Moderate tendinopathy;
• Tendinopathy in the intra-articular portion of the biceps tendon;
• Bicipital tendinitis;
• Complete tear of right rotator cuff; and
• S/P arthroscopy of right shoulder.”
Pottstown Hospital and Tower Health moved to dismiss the case on Sept. 24, 2021, countering that the plaintiff hadn’t adequately pled her case, but that dismissal motion was rendered moot by the filing of an amended complaint on Oct. 15, 2021.
On Oct. 29, 2021, Pottstown Hospital and Tower Health filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
“While plaintiff’s amended complaint now alleges, for the first time, a mother-son relationship between her and Mr. Graeff, plaintiff continues to fail to plead a legally cognizable claim of negligence as she is unable to establish a causal connection between the alleged acts of Jane Doe and/or Mr. Heckart and her purported injuries,” the dismissal motion said.
“More specifically, the alleged use of excessive force by the officers of the Pottstown Police Department constitutes an intervening act breaking the causal chain of events between moving defendants’ alleged negligence and plaintiff’s injuries. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims against moving defendants fail as a matter of law. Alternatively, if any of plaintiff’s claims as to moving defendants are deemed legally sufficient, then plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages should be dismissed for failure to plead grounds upon which this requested relief may be granted.”
According to the moving defendants, Caporaletti “failed to establish a causal connection between these allegedly negligent acts and her purported injury.”
However, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Joel H. Slomsky denied the Pottstown Hospital and Tower Health defendants’ dismissal motion in a judicial order on May 17, 2022.
In a June 8, 2022 answer to the amended complaint, Pottstown Hospital and Tower Health denied the substance of the plaintiff’s claims, presented 15 affirmative defenses and asserted cross-claims against their co-defendants, Heckart and Dothan Security Inc.
“Plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state claims upon which relief may be granted. No conduct on the part of answering defendants was a substantial factor or factual cause of the alleged injuries or damages of plaintiff. Plaintiff’s claims are barred in whole or reduced in part by the application of the doctrines of assumption of the risk, comparative negligence and/or contributory negligence. Any injuries or damages claimed by plaintiff were caused by persons or entities other than the answering defendants and over whom answering defendants had no control or right of control,” according to the affirmative defenses, in part.
“Plaintiff’s injuries, if any, were the result of causes beyond the control of answering defendants and/or were unavoidable. Plaintiff’s injuries, if any, may be the result of a superseding and/or intervening cause. Plaintiff’s injuries, if any, were caused by plaintiff’s own conduct and/or negligence or reckless conduct and not by any alleged act(s) or omission(s) of answering defendants. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred and/or limited by the failure to mitigate damages. Plaintiff’s claims may be barred and/or limited by any collateral source of compensation and/or benefit.”
The defendants directed liability to their co-defendants through cross-claims.
“If plaintiff did sustain the injuries and/or damages as alleged in plaintiff’s amended complaint, all of which are specifically denied, then said injuries and/or damages were not the result of any acts and/or omissions on the part of Tower Health or Pottstown Hospital, or their servants, agents and/or employees, but rather, cross-claim defendants, Dylan Heckart and Dothan Security Inc. d/b/a DSI Security Services are solely liable, individually or jointly, for any injuries and/or damages which may have been suffered or sustained by plaintiff and which are subsequently established at the time of trial,” per the cross-claims.
“If as a result of the matter alleged in plaintiff’s amended complaint, Tower Health and/or Pottstown Hospital may be liable for all or part of the injuries and/or damages plaintiff may have suffered and which are subsequently established at the time of trial, then cross-claim defendants, Dylan Heckart and Dothan Security Inc. d/b/a DSI Security Services, are solely liable or, alternatively, primarily liable for such injuries and/or damages, are liable to Tower Health and Pottstown Hospital by way of contribution and/or indemnification for all such injuries and/or damages as Tower Health and Pottstown Hospital may suffer and Tower Health and Pottstown Hospital therefore assert in this action its right to such indemnification and/or contribution pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1031.1 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(g).”
In a June 20, 2022 response, Heckart and Dothan Security Inc. denied the liability for common law and contractual cross-claims leveled against them.
“The averments contained in this paragraph state conclusions of law to which no answer is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. It is specifically denied that Mr. Heckart and DSI Security are contractually obligated to defend, indemnify and hold harmless cross-claim plaintiffs. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied Heckart and/or DSI Security are liable to cross-claim plaintiffs for indemnification and/or contribution in the event any liability is determined on the part of cross-claim plaintiffs,” the defendants said in their response.
UPDATE
With trial in this matter scheduled to begin on Feb. 19, plaintiff counsel filed a stipulation that defendants Markovich, Yambrick and Maciejewski were voluntarily dismissed as parties to the case, with prejudice.
Subsequently, plaintiff counsel reported to the Court on Jan. 29 that the matter had been amicably settled. Terms of the settlement were not outlined. The very same day, Slomsky ordered the case closed.
“The Court having been notified by the parties that the above-captioned case has been settled, it is ordered as follows: 1) This case is dismissed pursuant to Eastern District of Pennsylvania Local Civil Rule 41.1(b); 2) Any outstanding motions are denied as moot and 3) The Clerk of Court shall close this case for statistical purposes,” Slomsky said.
The plaintiff was represented by Alan E. Denenberg and Thomas Bruno II of Abramson & Denenberg, in Philadelphia.
The defendants were represented by Sheryl Lynn Brown of Siana Law in Chester Springs, Chilton G. Goebel III and Stephen J. Fleury Jr. of Saxton & Stump in Malvern, Anthony Cognetti of Post & Schell in Fort Washington, plus Philip D. Priore of McCormick & Priore, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:21-cv-03293
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com