SCRANTON – A federal judge has removed two counts from a wrongful death suit which charged Exeter’s police chief with failing to adequately render medical help and timely perform a welfare check on 24-year-old Nicholas P. Hromek, leading to his death.
On Sept. 17, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge Julia K. Munley ruled in favor of the Borough of Exeter in dismissing counts alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act – while denying a separate dismissal motion from Exeter Police Chief Joseph Schlagel – in wrongful death litigation filed by Leonard Hromek, Kimberly Hromek and Michaella Pack, Administrators of the Estate of Nicholas P. Hromek.
“This is a civil rights action involving the suicide of Nicholas P. Hromek. On the night of Aug. 27, 2021, the decedent, Hromek attended a birthday party with his girlfriend, Brianna Scutt. Scutt and Hromek left the party separately and returned to their respective homes. Hromek lived alone in a single-family residence that he rented in Exeter, Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. After returning home to his residence at approximately 2:30 a.m., Hromek made a video call to Scutt. During most of the call, the telephone’s camera faced the ceiling. At one point, however, Hromek angled the camera in front of himself, and Scutt saw that he had a black rope around his neck. Scutt asked Hromek what was happening, and he did not answer. Instead, he discontinued the video call. Scutt unsuccessfully attempted to reach Hromek via the telephone again,” Munley said.
“Scutt feared for Hromek’s life and called 911. She lived approximately 20 miles from Hromek’s residence and believed that the police could travel to his house faster than she could. Scutt informed 911 that Hromek was suicidal and had a rope around his neck. She also stated that Hromek had told her in January 2021 that he had a suicide plan. She told the 911 operator that Hromek lived alone and had no weapons. After speaking with the 911 operator, Scutt believed that police were being dispatched to check on Hromek’s welfare and waited to hear from them instead of trying to reach the property herself. The Police Chief of Exeter, defendant Schlagel, was dispatched to respond to the 911 call. The Greater Pittston Regional Ambulance – Medic 29 was also directed to go to the property, but Schlagel called them off and ordered them not to respond. Medic 29’s general policy is to break into houses that they are sent to on welfare checks if there is no response to a request for entry.”
Chief Schlagel oversaw the response to the residence, and West Wyoming Borough Police Department Patrolman Joshua Seguine assisted him. The two officers knocked on Hromek’s front and back doors and received no response. Both doors were locked, and police reports indicate that all the windows were also locked. But one window with an unsecured air conditioner, was unlocked.
“After receiving no response at the doors, Schlagel telephoned Scutt and told her that it appeared no one was home. Scutt informed him that Hromek was indeed at the house. Schlagel said that he could not enter the house without a key. Scutt stated that she was the only person with a key but due to her distance from the house, it would take at least 30 minutes for her to travel there. Again, Scutt explained that Hromek had a rope around his neck and urged Schlagel to break into the property. Schlagel declined and instead waited 30 minutes for Scutt to arrive with the key before entering the property to check on Hromek. While they waited for 30 minutes Schlagel and Seguine did nothing to assist Hromek. Seguine wanted to break into the house. Schlagel instructed him not to do so,” Munley stated.
“When the key arrived, the police entered the house and found Hromek’s body sitting on a staircase with a rope around his neck that was tied to the banister at the top of the stairs. The body was still warm but had no pulse. Scutt and her friend, who are both nurses, asked to be allowed to provide medical assistance to Hromek, but Schlagel denied them access to the house. Eventually, Medic 29 arrived on the scene, but it was too late to help Hromek. The coroner pronounced him dead at 4:20 a.m. and listed his cause of death as ‘asphyxiation due to hanging.’ Due to Schlagel’s actions following the 911 call, it took approximately 50 minutes before any emergency responders were permitted to enter the house.”
Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed suit against the defendants in March 2023, alleging state-created danger, wrongful death and survival versus defendant Schlagel, plus a Monell violation, Americans with Disabilities Act violation and Rehabilitation Act violation versus the Borough of Exeter.
The defendants then motioned to dismiss these claims for failure to state them upon which relief could be granted, the following month.
However, Munley only authorized the removal of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act violation counts.
Plaintiffs alleged that the Borough of Exeter was aware that Nicholas Hromek was disabled within the meaning of the ADA and did not make reasonable accommodations to secure his safety, but Munley agreed with the defense that the plaintiffs failed to allege the elements of an ADA claim.
“[In order] to state a proper ADA claim, the denial of benefits or the discrimination must be because of the disability at issue. Here, the complaint alleges defendant Schlagel’s actions were based not upon discrimination due to Hromek’s mental disability but upon a fear of civil liability if the police broke into the residence instead of waiting for the key. Thus, plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled disability discrimination. In summary, plaintiffs cannot recover under the ADA for a failure to provide medical care, and the complaint itself alleges that the reason for the actions at issue were not disability discrimination but fear of civil liability. Therefore, the plaintiffs’ ADA claim, Count Three will be dismissed,” Munley said.
Munley further concurred that the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient evidence to support their claim for a violation under the Rehabilitation Act.
“The Rehabilitation Act and the ADA have the same standard for liability and are to be interpreted consistently. Thus, for the reasons set forth above with regard to the ADA, plaintiffs’ Rehabilitation Act claim will be dismissed. For the foregoing reasons, defendant Schlagel’s motion to dismiss will be denied. Defendant Exeter’s motion to dismiss will be granted in part with regard to the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act (Counts Three and Four), but will be denied in all other respects,” Munley stated.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 3:23-cv-00549
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com