PHILADELPHIA – Bucks County Technical High School has flatly denied claims from a former EMS student, who alleged she suffered a broken left pinky finger, after being compelled to participate in a mandatory impact weapons drill featuring batons and punch paddles.
Jenna-Jo Biondino of Morrisville first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 25 versus Bucks County Technical School Authority (operating as “Bucks County Technical High School”) of Fairless Hills and one of its teachers, Kimberly Caron, also of Morrisville.
“On May 23, 2022, plaintiff Biondino, a then-17-year-old student was enrolled in the Emergency Medical Services program at Bucks County Technical High School. At all times relevant hereto the defendants, Bucks County Technical School Authority operating as Bucks County Technical High School and Caron, had a policy, practice, tradition and/or custom of having the students enrolled in the Emergency Medical Services program engage in impact weapons training with batons and punch paddles. At all times relevant hereto, the Pennsylvania State Police has classified ‘batons’ as a ‘weapon’ albeit a ‘less-lethal weapon.’ At all times relevant hereto, defendants provided students in general and plaintiff in particular with batons and punch paddles to engage in ‘sparring’ with one another,” the suit said.
“At all times relevant hereto, defendants instructed students in general and plaintiff in particular to hold the baton with both hands while another student was instructed to strike the baton holding student with punch paddles. At all times relevant hereto, defendants provided no hand or finger protection for those students engaged in weapons training. At all times relevant hereto, there was no rational reason to have students enrolled in the Emergency Medical Services program to be trained in the use of impact weapons. At all times relevant hereto, the defendants’ policy makers knew of the policy, acquiesced to it, and disregarded the foreseen problems, of compelling minor students to ‘spar’ with one another using impact weapons and punch paddles.”
The suit added the policy, practice, tradition and/or custom of defendants in having minor children ‘spar’ with one another using impact weapons and punch paddles was “known to create a foreseeable danger of which the defendants were aware” – and the defendants “affirmatively implemented a dangerous weapons training exercise, which encouraged, facilitated or authorized students to engage in ‘sparring’ with one another, using baton weapons and punch paddles.”
“On May 23, 2022, pursuant to this policy, practice and/or custom of defendants, plaintiff Biondino was instructed, compelled and directed to ‘spar’ with a fellow student using impact weapons and punch paddles. On May 23, 2022, while instructed, compelled and directed to ‘spar’ with a fellow student using the baton weapon and punch paddles, plaintiff Biondino’s left hand was struck, causing serious injuries thereto,” the suit stated.
“As a result of the actions of the defendants, and/or the failure of the defendants to perform the duties they were legally obligated to perform, plaintiff Biondino has suffered severe and permanent injuries, including, but not limited to, a displaced fracture of her left small finger, requiring open-reduction and internal fixation, with accompanying nerve damage and permanent limitations. As a result of the actions and/or inactions of the defendants, plaintiff Biondino has in the past and may in the future be required to obtain medical treatment for her injuries. As a further result of the actions and/or inactions of the defendants, plaintiff Biondino has been unable to engage in her usual and customary activities.”
UPDATE
On April 24, the defendants motioned to dismiss the complaint for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted.
“Having failed to identify a single constitutional right in plaintiff’s complaint which she believes has been violated, plaintiff cannot recover under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. The only potential constitutional violation of rights identified by the plaintiff is a nebulous claim of a ‘right to bodily integrity’ under the due process laws of the 14th Amendment. However, plaintiff has not identified how her substantive or procedural due process rights were somehow violated thru plaintiff’s voluntary participation in a proficiency exam for a certification that she was seeking while enrolled in the Emergency Services Technology technical program offered by Bucks County Technical High School,” the dismissal motion stated, in part.
“Plaintiff has claimed that the constitutional right that was infringed was a ‘right to bodily integrity.’ The Third Circuit Court has found a right to bodily integrity to be a ‘generalized right, not a particularized one’, and thus the right at issue must be framed in a specific context. Therefore, for plaintiff to even prevail on motion to dismiss, she must convince this Honorable Court, that she had a constitutional right to be free from injuring herself while engaged in a skills portion of a certification exam to become certified in Personal Protection Baton Tactics (PPBT) that was an optional certification that had no bearing on her scholastic record at Bucks County Technical High School. The facts as pled by plaintiff do not amount to a violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights.”
The motion added that “in order for the plaintiff to succeed on a state-created danger theory, they must show that the harm ultimately caused was the foreseeable and fairly direct result of the state’s actions.”
“To demonstrate foreseeability, plaintiff must show that defendants’ awareness of the potential harm rises to the level of actual knowledge or amounts to an awareness of the risk that is sufficiently concrete to put the actors on notice of the harm. For causation she must show that defendants’ actions precipitated or were the catalyst for the ultimate harm. Actions do not meet the fairly direct prong when they are separated from the ultimate harm by a lengthy period of time and intervening forces and actions,” the motion continued.
“In order for a risk to be foreseeable, plaintiff must show an awareness on the part of a state actor of the foreseeable risk. In the instant matter, plaintiffs have not pled, have not (and cannot) aver to this Honorable Court that either defendants could have foreseen plaintiff suffering a pinky injury while attempting to achieve a certification in baton use training while engaged in defending herself with the baton from a foam pad. In addition, plaintiff cannot base their claim of foreseeability on the nature of the activity that was required for the voluntary certification that plaintiff sought. They must base their claim on the risk that the School District and/or defendant Caron herself present.”
The motion likewise argued that the plaintiff “has not pled any set of facts that would rise to a level of deliberate indifference or conscience shocking behavior on the part of defendants”, “has not pled any set of facts that would demonstrate that defendants used their authority to create an opportunity that otherwise would not have existed for the third party’s action to occur” and “does not have a viable Monell claim against Bucks County Technical High School.”
“Plaintiff does not identify any training measures that could have prevented the injury and there is no evidence that a single constitutional violation, such as the one alleged here amounts to deliberate indifference where the need for municipal action can be said to be so obvious that failure to do so could properly be characterized as deliberate indifference to constitutional rights even without a pattern of constitutional violations,” the motion said, in part.
“In the instant matter, plaintiffs do not and cannot allege anything that the High School could have done differently in allowing plaintiff to participate in a Department of Education sanctioned self-defense baton training program that rises to a level of deliberate indifference so as to allow for this matter to fit within a narrow range of circumstances for a viable single incident liability Section 1983 failure to train claim.”
For two counts of violating 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 through state-created danger and violation of policy, practice or custom, the plaintiff is seeking damages in excess of $75,000, plus attorney’s fees, costs, as well as all other relief the Court deems just and appropriate.
The plaintiff is represented by Jonathan J. Russell of Drake Hileman & Davis, in Doylestown.
The defendants are represented by John F. Kennedy of Grace & Kennedy, in Philadelphia.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:24-cv-01252
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com