Mother of Two Arrested for Disorderly Conduct at Hospital
On Dec. 3, 2015, plaintiff Danielle Smith was arrested by the city of Pittsburgh Police Department at UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, a hospital of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.
June 25, 2020 at 02:10 PM
5 minute read
Smith v. Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh (UPMC)
Defense Verdict
Date of Verdict: March 6.
Court and Case No.: C.P. Allegheny County, No. GD-17-009657.
Judge: Patrick M. Connelly.
Type of Action: Intentional tort.
Injuries: Emotional distress.
Plaintiffs Counsel: Graham F. Baird, Law Offices of Eric A. Shore.
Defense Counsel: Jason J. Zivkovic, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, Pittsburgh.
Defense Expert: Clifford W. Jobe Jr., Law Enforcement,Greensburg.
Comment:
On Dec. 3, 2015, plaintiff Danielle Smith was arrested by the city of Pittsburgh Police Department at UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, a hospital of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. She was charged with disorderly conduct, aggravated assault, making terroristic threats and obstructing the administration of law. She later pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct. Smith claimed emotional distress.
Smith sued UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, physician Isabela Angelelli, Pittsburgh's police department, the city of Pittsburgh and police officers Molly Connolly, Rich Phillips,
Heather-Dawn Cooper and Joseph McDermott. Smith alleged claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, false arrest, assault, battery and malicious prosecution. UPMC Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh was the only remaining defendant, as the other defendants were dismissed prior to trial.
On Dec. 3, 2015, Smith presented to the children's hospital with her 15-year-old son and 3-year-old daughter. The latter was experiencing headaches. Angelelli examined the child. Smith claimed that instead of discharging her, Angelelli ordered her to be interrogated by the Pennsylvania Office of Children and Youth Services, despite the fact that her daughter exhibited no signs of abuse or neglect. According to Smith, by the time that Angelelli advised her to wait for the social worker, she had already been at the hospital for a lengthy period of time and wished to leave. Per Angelelli's request, Smith waited for another half-hour. After a half-hour, Smith advised that she would be leaving with her children. Smith contended that Instead of allowing her to leave, Angelelli physically obstructed her exit to the elevator by standing in her way in the entrance to the examination room. Smith claimed that she became upset and explained to Angelelli that she and her children were leaving and that Angelelli had no right to restrain her movements. At that point, Angelelli moved aside, and Smith proceeded to leave on the elevator to the lobby. Upon arriving in the lobby, Smith was stopped by six to 10 police officers, including McDermott, Connolly and Phillips. According to Smith, the officers immediately crowded toward her and advised her that she was prohibited from leaving the hospital. One of the officers then grabbed Smith's daughter and began moving her away while the officers surrounded Smith. Smith claimed that she never resisted arrest and that she should not have been approached or attacked by the officers. According to Smith, she was manhandled to the ground and struck repeatedly by the officers while her hands were handcuffed behind her back.
The defense maintained that the hospital was not negligent. Angelelli testified that she became concerned that Smith's daughter had been abused. After examining the child, Angelelli contacted the girl's father, who told Angelelli that she had been with him the prior night and that she never hit her head, cried or had anything unusual happen. According to Angelelli, this account conflicted with what Smith had told the physician; that the child had hit her head on the wooden part of a couch while she was with her father. Angelelli determined that the child was healthy with no acute distress. Angelelli decided to request a consultation with a social worker because of the inconsistent histories provided by the parents, along with concern for the child. According to Angelelli, when she presented this information to Smith, Smith became outraged and threatened her.
The defense maintained that when a hospital administrator attempted to talk to Smith about the importance of talking to a social worker, Smith began shouting and swearing. Smith was warned several times to calm down and stop swearing, but her behavior continued, at which point the officers had probable cause to arrest her for disorderly conduct. The defense contended that as the officers attempted to detain Smith for disorderly conduct, she and her son resisted and a scuffle ensued.
The defense maintained that the hospital's conduct was reasonable and appropriate at all times.
Cooper was dismissed via nonsuit at the close of Smith's case.
Smith sought damages for past and future pain and suffering.
The defense maintained that Smith was not entitled to any damages.
The jury rendered a defense verdict. It found no wrongdoing on the part of the defendants.
This report is based on information that was provided by defense counsel. Plaintiffs counsel did not respond to the reporter's phone calls.
—This report first appeared in VerdictSearch, an ALM publication
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPa. Federal District Courts Reach Full Complement Following Latest Confirmation
The Defense Bar Is Feeling the Strain: Busy Med Mal Trial Schedules Might Be Phila.'s 'New Normal'
7 minute readFederal Judge Allows Elderly Woman's Consumer Protection Suit to Proceed Against Citizens Bank
5 minute readJudge Leaves Statute of Limitations Question in Injury Crash Suit for a Jury
4 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250