Sondey v. Wolowiec et al

Filing 89

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 56 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Avern Cohn. (MVer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

DARREN SONDEY, as personal
representative of the estate of
THOMAS F. SONDEY, deceased,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 14-13808

CHAD WOLOWIEC,
TODD BENCZKOWSKI,
MICHAEL HUDDAS,
DARRYL BAGIANO, and
THADDEAUS LAMBIRIS,

HON. AVERN COHN

Defendants.
___________________________________/
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 56)
I.

INTRODUCTION
A.

The Case

This is a civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Darren Sondey, on behalf of
the estate of father Thomas Sondey (Sondey), seeks damages for Sondey’s death while
in police custody in Warren, MI. Plaintiff names as defendants 5 police officers in the
Warren Police Department (WPD): Chad Wolowiec (Wolowiec), Todd Benczkowski
(Benczkowski), Michael Huddas (Huddas), Darryl Bagiano (Bagiano), and Thaddeaus
Lambiris (Lambiris). These officers were variously involved in the arrest and detention
of Sondey in the Warren City Jail from 4:50pm on Monday, September 24, 2012 until
3:34am on Tuesday, September 25, 2012, when he was hospitalized and subsequently
pronounced dead. During this time period, the plaintiff claims each police officer was

deliberately indifferent to Sondey’s serious medical needs. The defendants say in
response there is insufficient evidence from which to infer the officers consciously
disregarded a substantial risk of serious harm to Sondey.
B.

Pending Summary Judgment Motion
1.

Defendants have moved for summary judgment, (Doc. 56). In support, they cite
the deposition testimony of Wolowiec, Benczkowski and Bagiano, and of non-party
police officers working in the jail. Defendants also cite video records from the police car
at Sondey’s initial arrest and then inside the jail. They cite a variety of records such as
police reports, booking documents and time logs. Lastly, the defendants cite the report
of the medical examiner who performed an autopsy. Both the plaintiff and defendants
cite reports from various medical experts as to the cause of Sondey’s death.
Plaintiff has moved for sanctions on the grounds that the defendants have
spoliated video records, (Doc. 67). Plaintiff points to time gaps in video footage at
critical places and times, saying this indicates editing by the defendants. Defendants
say the gaps are the result of camera sensors not detecting motion and that the motion
is frivolous. Defendants have filed a cross motion for sanctions on the ground that
plaintiff’s motion is frivolous, (Doc. 83).
2.
On August 3, 2016, the Court held a hearing on the summary judgment motion
and sanctions motions. The Court deferred consideration of the sanctions motions until
the end of the case, and heard argument on the summary judgment motion. The Court
asked the defendants to provide a complete record, and an accompanying log, of the
2

video and audio of Sondey’s initial arrest and then while he was in custody. The
defendants have provided a copy of these records with a corresponding time log.
3.
There are genuine issues of material fact as to whether Wolowiec and
Benczkowki were deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of Sondey, which
can only be resolved by trial. However, summary judgment is appropriate as to the
remaining defendants for whom there is insufficient evidence of deliberate indifference.
Thus, defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED
IN PART.
II.

BACKGROUND

The facts concerning Sondey’s arrest, detention, and death are summarized
below, each officer’s actions being considered separately.
A.

Arrest and Trip to Jail

Wolowiec and Benczkowki responded to a 911 call at 4:43pm on a Monday. The
call was generated by a passerby seeing Sondey “slumped” over the steering wheel of
a truck parked in the aisle of a parking lot with the motor “running.” The officers arrived
at the scene at 4:50. The Warren Fire Department (WFD), responding to the 911 call,
was already there. The officers approached the truck. Benczkowki questioned Sondey,
whose head leaned on the steering wheel. Wolowiec and Benczkowki both noticed an
“odor of intoxicants.” They said Sondey’s speech was slurred and his eyes bloodshot.
Benczkowki asked Sondey if he had “any medical problems.” He mumbled “no.”
At the same time, the WFD was checking Sondey’s blood sugar and performing
a “squeeze test” to see if he was diabetic. This procedure took 2 minutes.
3

The WFD responder had prescription medications taken from inside the truck.
He told the officers: “these pills are from 2010. Vicodin, so. There’s only 2 left. But
still—3 years old.” The WFD run report says no emergency medical services or other
aid was administered to Sondey. The WFD left and played no further role.
Benczkowki ordered Sondey out of the truck. Sondey refused. Wolowiec and
Benczkowki then hoisted him out of the truck. Sondey fell immediately to the ground.
Then, Wolowiec and Benczkowki handcuffed him and searched him by rolling his body
over on the ground. Together, the two of them lifted Sondey by both his arms and
carried him to their police car.
While Sondey was in the police car, Wolowiec searched the truck. In the
passenger seat of the truck, Wolowiec found a bag with an empty orange juice bottle
and an open “pint” of vodka that was ¼ full. In addition, Wolowiec found 2 prescription
pill bottles, one in a passenger side door for a narcotic “Hydrocodone,” with 2 pills left,
and one in a center cup holder, with 7 pills left. A halved pill was on the driver’s door
handle. Both bottles indicated the prescriptions were filled more than 2 years earlier.1
While in the police car, Sondey repeatedly cried out the name of his wife, Sophie.
Sondey was unable to sit upright and fell to the floor. He continuously asked the
officers why he was arrested. Wolowiec responded by telling him it was for operating
under the influence of a controlled substance. Wolowiec asked Sondey “what kind of
medical problems you got, partner?” Sondey did not answer. Sondey asked to be

1

The pill bottle in the cup holder was labeled for an antibiotic, Amoxicillin.
However, as Wolowiec later determined, the inscriptions on the pills reflected the bottle
had 6 pills of Tramadol, a pain reliever, and 1 pill of Hydrocodone.
4

released from the police car. Wolowiec told Sondey of the pills that were found and
asked him if he had used them with alcohol. He got no answer.
During the drive to the jail, Sondey requested a breathalyzer test, water, and to
speak to his wife. Wolowiec told him his requests could be handled at the jail. On the
way there, Sondey snored briefly between talking to the officers. When the police car
arrived at the jail at 5:21, a third officer from another police car with a detainee said “our
guy’s about passed out.” Someone then laughed although it is unclear from the video
who. Wolowiec responded “our guy can’t hardly walk.”
B.

Booking and Transfer to Jail Cell

Wolowiec and Benczkowki carried Sondey out of the police car into the jail by
holding up his arms. In the jail, Sondey fell face-first in the hallway, with the full weight
of his body hitting the floor. Wolowiec and Benczkowki slid Sondey along the floor by
his torso into an elevator. When the elevator got to the booking area, Huddas helped
Wolowiec and Benczkowki carry Sondey out of the elevator by his hands and feet.
While in the booking area tagging evidence, Wolowiec looked up the pills found
in Sondey’s truck on http://www.drugs.com and identified them as Tramadol and
Hydrocodone. The halved pill found on the driver’s door handle was Hydrocodone.
According to drugs.com, Tramadol and Hydrocodone can have lethal side effects
when taken with alcohol. Wolowiec had training in narcotics and alcohol use. He
testified in his deposition that he was aware that the interaction of alcohol and narcotics
could cause death. Benczkowki likewise testified in deposition that he was aware that
the interaction of alcohol and prescription pain medications, when taken in improper
quantities, could result in death.
5

Wolowiec said in his case report that Sondey was “highly intoxicated, could not
walk on his own, kept falling even with officers trying to hold him up.” The booking slip,
registered by Benczkowki, said Sondey had a “Medical Problem” and “Requires
Medication.” It also noted Sondey was intoxicated and had “a hard time walking.”
Bagiano was the “book officer”2 at the time Sondey entered the jail. Bagiano was
given the booking slip. In his deposition, Bagiano did not recall whether he saw Sondey
enter the jail, spoke to Wolowiec or Benczkowki during booking, or knew about the
prescription pills found with Sondey.
Sondey’s blood alcohol content was tested at the jail by Huddas and another
officer. Wolowiec and Benczkowki were informed the level was .149, according to a
preliminary breath test. It increased to .16 in roughly 30 minutes based on a
breathalyzer test administered by Huddas (the legal limit is .08).3
At 6:20, Huddas escorted Sondey to a holding area with other detainees.
Sondey walked without assistance. Huddas spoke with Sondey for nearly a minute
before closing the door to the holding area. Sondey requested a chemical blood test
administered in Lansing, MI based on information read to him from the alcohol tests.
At roughly 6:50, Wolowiec and Benczkowki visited Sondey in the holding area.
They denied his request for a chemical blood test. At no time did Sondey ever receive
medical attention.
C.

In the Jail Cell

2

According to Bagiano, the book officer works in the jail control room and
handles paperwork, monitors jail video, answers the phone, logs activities of other
officers in the jail, and operates the elevators.
3

Wolowiec and Bagiano testified the WPD’s policy requires hospitalization for a
blood alcohol content of .35 or higher.
6

The jail log indicates Huddas did “cell checks” of Sondey at 7:14, 8:06, 8:59,
10:03, and 10:56. At 10:58, the jail video shows Huddas transferring Sondey in a
wheelchair to a fingerprinting room. In the video Sondey looked despondent, as if his
condition had worsened. No reason is given for the wheelchair, and nothing is seen of
Sondey talking to Huddas.
At 11:11, Huddas handed Sondey a blanket in the fingerprinting room and
wheeled him back to the holding area. At 11:29, Huddas did another cell check of
Sondey. Nothing further is seen of Huddas.
At midnight, Bagiano transitioned to detention officer. Lambiris took over as book
officer. Bagiano performed the final cell checks of Sondey—at 12:58am and 2:00am.
Bagiano did not “assess” Sondey, but noticed he was “sleeping sitting up” on a bench.
D.

Medical Event

At 3:05, Lester Jennings-Bush, a detainee, was escorted into the holding area.
Although Sondey was initially asleep, Jennings-Bush said in an interview that within “a
few minutes” he observed Sondey having a seizure (3:08-09).
Jennings-Bush said he alerted officers by pounding on the holding area window.
Jennings-Bush said 3 or 4 officers watched Sondey seize through the window for over a
minute, and he heard someone saying “you have to let it play out” and “there is nothing
[we] can do.” The video of relevant locations in the jail skips over this time period.
Lambiris was in the control room. He sent a dispatch call to 911 at 3:10
regarding Sondey, saying “need medical here for inmate having a seizure.”
Bagiano entered the holding area at 3:12 and assisted other officers with efforts
at resuscitating Sondey until the fire department arrived at 3:19. Bagiano described
7

Sondey as “shaking” and seizing during the episode, noting he then turned a blueish
color, which is confirmed by video. Sondey was transported to the hospital at 3:34,
arrived at 3:45, and was pronounced dead at 4:09. A toxicology report revealed the
presence of alcohol, hydrocodone, and opiates.
E.

Autopsy

An autopsy by Dr. Daniel Spitz on the morning of Sondey’s death revealed that
one of his coronary arteries was 70% narrowed. The autopsy concluded Sondey died
from “natural” causes, namely “Arteriosclerotic and Hypertensive Heart Disease.”
According to a report from a medical expert for the plaintiff, “[t]he compromising effects
of these chronic conditions that are quite common in men [Sondey’s] age . . . became
lethal when [Sondey] had a seizure caused by the interaction between increasing blood
alcohol levels interacting with narcotic pain medicines.” Another expert says a 70%
narrowing of the coronary artery, combined with physical attributes of Sondey’s
cardiovascular system at death, is inconsistent with an acute coronary event. A report
from the defendants’ expert opines that Sondey’s death “was the result of sudden
cardiac death precipitated by longstanding untreated obstructive sleep apnea.”
III.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment will be granted if the moving party demonstrates that there is
“no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). There is no genuine issue of material fact when
“the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the
non-moving party.” Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,
587 (1986). The Court must decide “whether the evidence presents a sufficient
8

disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party
must prevail as a matter of law.” In re Dollar Corp., 25 F.3d 1320, 1323 (6th Cir. 1994)
(quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986)). In doing so, the
Court “must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.”
Emp’rs Ins. of Wausau v. Petrol. Specialties, Inc., 69 F.3d 98, 101 (6th Cir. 1995).
IV.

DISCUSSION

A.

Relevant Law

“Deliberate indifference” by police officers to a prisoner’s “serious medical needs”
violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Estelle
v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 104 (1976). An analogous constitutional protection exists for
detainees in a jail facility under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
Watkins v. City of Battle Creek, 273 F.3d 682, 685-86 (6th Cir. 2001). This extends to
the failure to provide needed medical care in some circumstances. Flanory v. Bonn,
604 F.3d 249, 253 (6th Cir. 2010). To establish a constitutional violation for deliberate
indifference, both an objective and subjective component must be met. Id.
Objectively, a detainee must have a medical need “sufficiently serious” that
denial of medical care poses “a substantial risk of serious harm” to the detainee.
Quigley v. Tuong Vinh Thai, 707 F.3d 675, 681 (6th Cir. 2013). That is, a condition “so
obvious that even a lay person would easily recognize the need for medical treatment.”
Burgess v. Fischer, 735 F.3d 462, 476 (6th Cir. 2013).
Subjectively, a police officer must (1) be aware of facts from which to infer a
“substantial risk” of harm without medical care, (2) actually draw the inference of such a
risk to the detainee, and (3) act in disregard of this posed risk. Quigley, 707 F.3d
9

at 681. This needs “a degree of culpability greater than mere negligence, but less than
‘acts or omissions for the very purpose of causing harm or with knowledge that harm will
result.’” Miller v. Calhoun Cty., 408 F.3d 803, 813 (6th Cir. 2005). “[A] factfinder may
conclude that a prison official knew of a substantial risk from the very fact that the risk
was obvious.” Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 842 (1994).
B.
1.

Analysis

Wolowiec and Benczkowki

There is a triable issue of fact regarding whether Sondey, at the time of his
interactions with Wolowiec and Benczkowki, had a serious medical need. Sondey was
found slumped over the steering wheel of his truck with an empty pint of liquor and
significant narcotics and pain medications nearby, including a halved pill outside the
bottle. Sondey was incoherent, unable to stand or walk, and carried into the jail by
3 police officers. The pills found all around Sondey, if ingested with alcohol, were
capable of causing death. The circumstances of his arrest suggested he likely ingested
a number of the pills, though an exact quantity was unknown. Sondey’s blood alcohol
content was on the rise, increasing in a short period. It is a reasonable conclusion this
was enough to alert a lay person of Sondey’s need for medical attention.
There is also enough in the facts known to reasonably conclude Wolowiec and
Benczkowki perceived a substantial risk of serious harm. Sondey was arrested for
operating under the influence of a controlled substance. Wolowiec asked Sondey if he
had ingested the pills with alcohol. He received no answer. Once in the police car,
Sondey behaved strangely and called out repeatedly for his wife. At the jail, Wolowiec
researched the pills found with Sondey on a drug website. The website indicates that
10

the pills were potentially deadly if combined with alcohol. Wolowiec and Benczkowki
were aware of the dangers of combining narcotics, pain medications, and alcohol.
Benczkowki marked Sondey as having a “Medical Problem” on his jail booking slip.
Wolowiec’s case report noted Sondey was “highly intoxicated, could not walk on his
own, [and] kept falling even with officers trying to hold him up.”
There is a triable issue regarding whether Wolowiec and Benczkowki
disregarded the risk posed to Sondey by the combination of pills and alcohol. The WFD
run report reflects that Sondey received no aid or emergency medical services. The jail
to which Sondey was taken had no medical personnel, nor was a medical professional
ever consulted. Moreover, Wolowiec and Benczkowki denied Sondey’s request for a
chemical blood test once in the holding area. There is a genuine issue of material fact
as to whether Wolowiec and Benczkowki acted in disregard of Sondey’s serious
medical needs given the gravity of what they saw and no evident effort to seek medical
attention on his behalf.
2.

Huddas

Little is known about Huddas’s subjective knowledge and perceptions because
he was not deposed. Huddas helped carry Sondey out of the elevator into the booking
area and observed him for 25 minutes during his breathalyzer test, which produced a
reading of .16. Amid hourly cell checks, and nearly 6 hours after Sondey’s initial arrest,
Huddas wheeled Sondey out of the holding area in a wheelchair to be fingerprinted.
Construing the evidence in a light favorable to the plaintiff, there is nothing to
indicate Huddas knew about the pills found with Sondey. Moreover, Huddas did not see
anything firsthand that would have been inconsistent with alcohol intoxication. As there
11

is nothing showing that Huddas had reason to perceive or disregard a serious medical
need of Sondey, summary judgment is appropriate as to Huddas.
3.

Bagiano

Although Bagiano was the book officer at the time Sondey entered the jail, the
extent of his knowledge of Sondey’s circumstances is unknown. Bagiano did not recall
if he spoke with Wolowiec and Benczkowki or knew about the pills found with Sondey.
Bagiano knew from the booking slip that Sondey was intoxicated and had a “Medical
Problem.” He did the final cell checks before Sondey’s death.
Jennings-Bush did not specifically name Bagiano as an officer he alerted of
Sondey’s seizure when it first began. Because of this, and because Bagiano does not
recall key facts such as whether he talked to Wolowiec and Benczkowki about the pills,
there is not enough evidence for a reasonable juror to conclude Bagiano disregarded a
serious medical need of Sondey. Summary judgment is appropriate as to Bagiano.
4.

Lambiris

Lambiris was not deposed, and it is unclear what communications, if any, he had
with Bagiano and others about the facts of Sondey’s case or his medical status.
Lambiris called 911 at 3:10am to report Sondey’s seizure. There is no evidence that

12

Lambiris knew about or disregarded a serious medical need of Sondey then or
beforehand. Thus, summary judgment is appropriate as to Lambiris.

s/Avern Cohn
AVERN COHN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: August 31, 2016
Detroit, Michigan

13