Lawyers Debate Battery Complaint

There may be some merit to the assault complaint filed Saturday by a wheelchair-bound woman against two Extension School deans, said legal experts reached yesterday. The experts cautioned, however, that the questions raised by the incident fall in a legal gray area.

Maryan Amaral filed a complaint with the Cambridge Police Department (CPD), alleging that Michael Shinagel, Extension School dean, and Christopher S. Queen, Extension School dean of students, assaulted her in an incident last week.

Shinagel, Queen and Amaral all acknowledge that Queen moved Amaral's wheelchair in an incident at 51 Brattle St. last week. But only Amaral has said she views the incident as an assault.

Attorneys reached by yesterday said the conflict raises interesting questions about the definition of assault, the basis for criminal charges and the rights of disabled people.

According to Frank T. Pasquarello, a CPD spokesperson, Cambridge laws define assault as "putting someone in apprehension of immediate battery." Battery occurs when actual physical contact is made, Pasquarello said. The charges normally are filed together, he said.

Several attorneys and government agencies who deal with disability issues said yesterday that there is some merit to Amaral's claims, but added that the notion of moving a wheelchair does not always constitute criminal assault.

"Figure that her wheelchair is her legs. Would someone pick a person up and move them?" asked Lorraine Greiff, director of the Massachusetts Office on Disability. "You can't just take away someone's liberties by picking them up and treating them like they were a pencil that fell to the floor. Does that rise to the level of assault? I don't know, but I would say that it's as serious as pushing," she said.

After The Crimson described the circumstances that led to the complaint, officials at the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) said they believed the claim had some merit.

"I think that's an assault and battery," said Paul Merry, MCAD's general counsel. "If she had been a non-disabled person, he would have been able to grab her by the shoulders and push her out of the way of the elevator door. That would clearly have been battery."

Merry added that although the claimant did notnecessarily have the right to block the elevatordoor with her wheelchair, the dean's actions werequestionable.

"What force or what means do you use to addressthat situation?" he asked. "Maybe a dean wouldhave grabbed an able-bodied student, but I thinkthat would have been assault and battery also."

In order for the incident to be consideredassault, Merry said the claimant would need toprove the deans intended to cause her bodily harm.

"If the dean did not intend to cause bodilyharm, then there may be a problem in proving heintended to cause harm to her," Merry said.

However, several attorneys interviewedyesterday said contact with her chair alone may beenough to substantiate an assault charge.

"In this case, they didn't touch her person.That's not necessarily the end-all. If theyphysically moved her without her consent, thatsure could constitute a battery," said Paul F.Wood, a Boston lawyer who specializes indiscrimination cases.

Other attorneys, however, said they doubted theincident constituted criminal assault.

"In a super, super-technical sense I think itwould be an assault, but I don't think it rises tothe level of criminal assault," said William J.Hernon, a criminal attorney in Salem.

"A lot would depend on the circumstances of howthe movement took place. Simply moving [thewheelchair] from point A to point B wouldn'tnecessarily constitute assault," he said.

Many of the attorneys contacted said thespecifics of the incident--including an incidentalmeeting, a conversation, a blocked elevator door,a moved wheelchair, a meeting and subsequentapologies--were unique.

Greiff said she had not heard of many assaultcases where the physical contact involved only theclaimant's wheelchair.

"I haven't heard of too many instances wheresomeone took it upon themselves to move somebodyjust because they thought they could get away withit," she said.

"You may move an errant child but you don'thear too often about adults being moved likethat," Greiff said

Merry added that although the claimant did notnecessarily have the right to block the elevatordoor with her wheelchair, the dean's actions werequestionable.

"What force or what means do you use to addressthat situation?" he asked. "Maybe a dean wouldhave grabbed an able-bodied student, but I thinkthat would have been assault and battery also."

In order for the incident to be consideredassault, Merry said the claimant would need toprove the deans intended to cause her bodily harm.

"If the dean did not intend to cause bodilyharm, then there may be a problem in proving heintended to cause harm to her," Merry said.

However, several attorneys interviewedyesterday said contact with her chair alone may beenough to substantiate an assault charge.

"In this case, they didn't touch her person.That's not necessarily the end-all. If theyphysically moved her without her consent, thatsure could constitute a battery," said Paul F.Wood, a Boston lawyer who specializes indiscrimination cases.

Other attorneys, however, said they doubted theincident constituted criminal assault.

"In a super, super-technical sense I think itwould be an assault, but I don't think it rises tothe level of criminal assault," said William J.Hernon, a criminal attorney in Salem.

"A lot would depend on the circumstances of howthe movement took place. Simply moving [thewheelchair] from point A to point B wouldn'tnecessarily constitute assault," he said.

Many of the attorneys contacted said thespecifics of the incident--including an incidentalmeeting, a conversation, a blocked elevator door,a moved wheelchair, a meeting and subsequentapologies--were unique.

Greiff said she had not heard of many assaultcases where the physical contact involved only theclaimant's wheelchair.

"I haven't heard of too many instances wheresomeone took it upon themselves to move somebodyjust because they thought they could get away withit," she said.

"You may move an errant child but you don'thear too often about adults being moved likethat," Greiff said