ShareThis Page
Questions remain in Swissvale death settlement |

Questions remain in Swissvale death settlement

Brian Bowling
| Thursday, June 14, 2012 1:55 p.m

The $100,000 settlement of a federal lawsuit leaves unanswered the question of what caused a Swissvale man’s death during a late-night confrontation with police in August 2008.

Andre DeMon “Dre” Thomas, 37, died in custody, but the county’s chief medical examiner and his noted predecessor disagreed on whether police were responsible. His death prompted creation of a county task force investigating the use of Tasers.

Donna Jo Thomas of Monroeville sued Swissvale and three of the police officers who Tasered and handcuffed Thomas, claiming that he died of injuries he suffered in the struggle. The borough claimed Thomas died as result of complications from using cocaine.

The officers were responding to 911 calls from residents who said a shirtless Thomas was yelling and running in the street, knocking on doors and asking people to call the police because unseen men were chasing him with guns, according to court documents.

Lawyers for both sides on Thursday filed a joint motion to dismiss the lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Nora Barry Fischer approved the motion. The federal court documents don’t provide any details of the settlement.

Jon Pushinsky and Howard Messer, Thomas’ attorneys, declined comment. Philip Sbrolla, one of the attorneys representing Swissvale’s insurer, also declined comment.

Robert McTiernan, Swissvale’s solicitor, confirmed the insurance company settled the lawsuit in March. He said the borough doesn’t admit any liability.

“Our officers did nothing inappropriate in this case,” he said.

County records show that Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Lawrence O’Toole on May 14 approved a distribution on May 14 that pays Donna Jo Thomas’ attorneys about $53,200, Thomas about $6,000 for her son’s funeral costs, and sets aside $40,800 in a trust for Andre Thomas’s 6-year-old daughter.

Donna Jo Thomas and the borough agreed that Officer Debra Lynn Indovina-Akerly shocked an agitated Andre Thomas three times with a Taser while Officers Justin Lee Keenan and Gary Dickson were trying to handcuff him. Thomas claims that Keenan or Dickson then stood on her son’s back, but the borough claims that Keenan only placed one knee on his back to stop him from struggling.

Thomas was pronounced dead at UPMC Braddock at 12:46 a.m. on Aug. 5. The encounter started shortly before midnight.

Dr. Karl Williams, Allegheny County’s chief medical examiner, ruled a month later that Thomas had died of “agitated delirium” brought on by acute cocaine intoxication. Donna Jo Thomas hired forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht, Williams’ predecessor, who performed another autopsy and ruled that Thomas died of “positional asphyxia” caused by being handcuffed face down and having an officer stand on his back, according to court documents.

Both sides had pending motions asking U.S. District Judge Nora Barry Fischer to throw out the other side’s expert analysis as junk science. Williams and Wecht couldn’t be reached for comment.

As a result of Thomas’ death, District Attorney Stephen A. Zappala Jr. formed a 10-member task force that studied the use of Tasers by law enforcement. Its report, a year later, made several recommendations but concluded the devices reduce the risk of injury or death in instances where police have to use force.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.