Lewisburg Hazing Death Lawyer: When a University’s Negligence Kills a Student Athlete
You sent your child to college to play a sport, and the sport killed him. That is the worst sentence a parent can read, and it is the one that starts every case like this. An 18-year-old freshman lineman arrived at Bucknell University in Lewisburg with a known medical condition — sickle-cell trait — that his coaches had been told about, that his strength coach had looked up on a spreadsheet the very morning of the workout, and that the NCAA has specific written protocols to protect. None of those protections mattered on July 10, 2024, because the man running the practice decided to make the players do approximately a hundred “ups and downs” — fall flat, stand up, repeat — until a young man who should never have been pushed that hard collapsed on the floor and never got up again.
Two days later, Calvin Dickey Jr. was dead at Geisinger Medical Center in Danville. The Montour County Coroner amended his death certificate to list the manner of death as homicide, with “forced exercise-induced sickle cell crisis” as a substantial factor. The Pennsylvania Attorney General filed criminal charges against the coach — involuntary manslaughter, aggravated hazing, hazing, and recklessly endangering another person. And the young man’s parents filed a civil lawsuit against the university that employed the coach, knew his history, and let him keep running workouts with medically vulnerable athletes.
This page is for the family sitting at a kitchen table at 2 a.m. who has just learned that what happened to their child was not an accident — it was a preventable death caused by people who had been warned, trained, and even previously disciplined, and who did it anyway. We are a trial firm that takes Pennsylvania wrongful death and hazing cases, and what follows is everything we know about how these cases work, what the law allows you to recover, and what the university’s lawyers are already doing to minimize what your family is owed. This page is legal information, not legal advice. Every case turns on its own facts. But the framework below is the one we use, and it is the one that wins.
What Happened at Bucknell: The Public Record
The facts of this case are already extraordinary, and they come from the Attorney General’s own affidavit of probable cause — a sworn public document. Here is what that record says.
Calvin Dickey Jr. was an 18-year-old freshman lineman from Florida. He had sickle-cell trait. Every coach on the Bucknell football staff received NCAA information each year about sickle-cell trait, rhabdomyolysis, and hazing — documentation that spelled out the effects of intense exercise on athletes like Dickey. A spreadsheet of first-year students’ medical conditions, including Dickey’s, was shared with all coaches via email before mini-camp. Access logs show that Mark Herbert Kulbis, the head strength and conditioning coach, viewed that spreadsheet as recently as the day Dickey collapsed.
Before the first practice on July 10, 2024, Kulbis asked at a coaches’ meeting whether he could “smoke” the kids in his workout. He was told “no.” The head coach, Dave Ceccini, told him not to make it hard. A sports medicine physician had cleared Dickey to practice — with restrictions based on blood pressure — and had counseled him on the importance of hydration.
Then the workout began. Players later told investigators they had to do approximately 100 “ups and downs” — an exercise that requires a player to fall flat on the ground and immediately stand back up. Dickey complained about trouble breathing. An assistant coach who arrived observed that Dickey seemed tired after about 10 repetitions. Around the 20th, he did not get up again.
Kulbis saw that Dickey was unable to get up. He told him to stay down. He did not summon immediate medical help. Two students held Dickey up while Kulbis addressed the team. Then Dickey’s eyes rolled to the back of his head and he collapsed to the floor. Players ran to get trainers. Kulbis called 911 — but he did not tell the dispatcher that Dickey had collapsed, and he did not mention that Dickey had sickle-cell trait. The ambulance arrived at 4:51 p.m.
Dickey was taken first to Evangelical Community Hospital in Lewisburg — now part of WellSpan Health — and then transferred to Geisinger Medical Center in Danville, in Montour County, one of the premier tertiary-care hospitals in central Pennsylvania. He died there two days later, on July 12, 2024.
“The facts show this was an intentional, deliberate hazing perpetrated by a coach who knew C.J.’s health condition made him vulnerable to extreme workouts. The facts show this defendant received information about C.J.’s health condition, along with training about NCAA anti-hazing standards, and disregarded that information. This is an extraordinary tragedy, worsened by the fact that CJ’s death was preventable.”
— Pennsylvania Attorney General Dave Sunday
That statement from the state’s chief law enforcement officer is not a lawyer’s argument. It is a government finding, made in the context of sworn criminal charges, and it is the single most powerful piece of corroboration a civil wrongful death case can have. The Attorney General looked at the same facts a civil jury will see and concluded that this was not a training accident — it was a deliberate act by a coach who knew the danger and chose to ignore it.
The Medical Mechanism: Why Forced Exercise Kills Athletes With Sickle-Cell Trait
This section is written from the perspective of the sports medicine physician and the forensic pathologist who would testify at trial. If you are a parent reading this, you need to understand the mechanism — not because you should have to relive it, but because the defense will try to call this a “natural” medical event, and the medicine is the answer to that lie.
Sickle-cell trait is not sickle-cell disease. A person with the trait carries one normal hemoglobin gene and one sickle gene. Under normal conditions, the vast majority of their red blood cells function normally. The person lives a normal life, plays sports, and in most cases never has a medical crisis related to the trait. That is why millions of Americans carry it without knowing it.
But under extreme metabolic stress — intense, prolonged exercise, especially in heat, with dehydration, and without adequate rest — the conditions inside the bloodstream change. The red blood cells carrying the sickle hemoglobin begin to change shape. Instead of round, flexible discs that flow easily through blood vessels, they become rigid, crescent-shaped “sickled” cells. Those sickled cells are sticky. They clump together. They block blood vessels — a process called vaso-occlusion.
When blood vessels to muscle tissue are blocked, the muscle is starved of oxygen. The muscle cells begin to die. This is rhabdomyolysis — the breakdown of muscle tissue that releases its contents, including a protein called myoglobin, into the bloodstream. Myoglobin is toxic to the kidneys. It clogs the kidney’s filtering tubules and causes acute kidney injury. Potassium, also released from dying muscle, can climb to levels that disrupt the heart’s rhythm and cause cardiac arrest.
This cascade — exertional sickling leading to vaso-occlusion, rhabdomyolysis, acute kidney injury, and potentially multi-organ failure — is well-documented in sports medicine literature. It is excruciatingly painful. The athlete experiences severe muscle pain, often in the legs and back, chest pain, weakness, and an inability to catch their breath. The progression from the first symptoms to collapse can be rapid — minutes, not hours.
This is why the NCAA wrote specific protocols for athletes with sickle-cell trait. Those protocols include gradual acclimatization to intense exercise, immediate cessation of activity at the first sign of distress, prohibition of punitive or retributional exercise regimens, adequate rest intervals, access to hydration, and monitoring by qualified athletic training staff. The NCAA issued these guidelines because exertional sickling has killed college athletes before. Bucknell’s own emails to coaches — obtained by search warrant — included an NCAA warning that exertional rhabdomyolysis is preventable and potentially fatal.
The coroner’s finding — “forced exercise-induced sickle cell crisis” as a substantial factor in the cause of death, with the manner ruled a homicide — is the medical establishment’s answer to the defense’s “natural causes” argument. This was not a random medical event. It was a foreseeable, well-documented, and entirely preventable cascade triggered by a workout that violated every standard the NCAA and sports medicine community have established for protecting athletes with this condition.
The two-day survival period — from the collapse on July 10 to the death at Geisinger on July 12 — is also medically and legally significant. During those two days, Dickey was conscious and suffering. The survival action, which is separate from the wrongful death action under Pennsylvania law, captures that period of conscious pain and suffering: the respiratory distress, the rhabdomyolysis-induced pain, the terror of an exertional sickling crisis, and the knowledge that his body was failing. That is a distinct category of damages, and it is significant.
Pennsylvania’s Anti-Hazing Law: The Timothy J. Piazza Act
Pennsylvania has a specific statute designed for exactly this situation. The Timothy J. Piazza Anti-Hazing Law — named for the Penn State student who died in 2017 after a fraternity hazing ritual — provides both criminal penalties and civil remedies for hazing that causes serious bodily injury or death.
The criminal side is already running: Kulbis has been charged with aggravated hazing (the statute’s most serious criminal charge, applying when hazing results in serious bodily injury or death), hazing, involuntary manslaughter, and recklessly endangering another person. He was arraigned and released on $10,000 unsecured bail.
The civil side is what matters to a family seeking accountability and compensation. The Piazza Act’s civil remedy provision creates a statutory cause of action against both the individuals who haze and the institutions that permit hazing to occur. This is not just a common-law negligence claim — it is a statutory claim with enhanced remedies, designed by the Pennsylvania legislature specifically to hold universities accountable when their students are killed by hazing.
The difference between a negligence claim and a statutory hazing claim is not semantic. It is the difference between a case that settles for insurance limits and a case that puts the institution’s own conduct in front of a jury. Under a negligence theory, the university argues it did not know, did not supervise enough, did not train enough. Under the Piazza Act, the question is whether hazing occurred and whether it caused the injury or death — and the institution’s own policies, training records, and prior violations become the evidence that it permitted the conditions in which hazing could happen.
The Piazza Act also requires institutions of higher education to maintain and enforce anti-hazing policies. Bucknell’s own records — obtained by search warrant — included emails to coaches about Pennsylvania’s anti-hazing law. The university knew the law existed. It sent the law to its coaches. And then one of those coaches allegedly violated it in a way that killed a student.
On June 26, 2024, Judge Matthew W. Brann of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania — the federal court in Williamsport that covers central and north-central Pennsylvania — allowed the Dickey family’s civil suit to proceed on a hazing theory. That ruling is significant: it means a federal judge has already determined that the hazing claim is plausible enough to survive the pleading stage. The family’s case is now moving forward in federal court.
Pennsylvania’s wrongful death and survival statutes provide two separate causes of action after a fatal injury. The wrongful death action belongs to the surviving family members and compensates them for the economic and emotional loss of the decedent — lost financial support, lost companionship, lost guidance, and the value of the life itself. The survival action belongs to the decedent’s estate and captures the conscious pain and suffering the victim experienced between the injury and death — in this case, the two days at Geisinger Medical Center.
Pennsylvania follows a modified comparative negligence rule with a 51% bar. That means a plaintiff is barred from recovery only if their own fault exceeds 50%. In a case where a freshman was following a coach’s direct orders during a mandatory practice, comparative fault is unlikely to be a significant deflator — but the defense will try, and we address their playbook below.
Pennsylvania does not impose statutory damage caps on compensatory or punitive damages in personal injury or wrongful death actions against private, non-governmental defendants like Bucknell University. That means a jury verdict would not be judicially reduced. Punitive damages are available under Pennsylvania law for conduct that amounts to reckless or outrageous disregard for the safety of others — and the prior-violations record in this case strongly supports a punitive damages submission to the jury.
The statute of limitations for wrongful death in Pennsylvania is two years from the date of death. For the Dickey family, that deadline has been satisfied by the existing federal filing. For any other family reading this page whose child was harmed or killed in a college athletic practice, the two-year clock starts on the date of death — and waiting can cost you the case entirely.
Who Can Be Held Responsible: The Defendant Map
A generalist names the coach. A trial lawyer names everyone whose choices contributed to the death. Here is the full defendant map in a case like this.
Mark Herbert Kulbis — the individual strength and conditioning coach who designed and enforced the punitive workout. He had actual knowledge of Dickey’s sickle-cell trait — the access logs prove he viewed the medical-conditions spreadsheet the same day. He was told at a pre-practice meeting not to “smoke” the players. He did it anyway. When Dickey collapsed, he did not summon immediate medical help. When he called 911, he withheld critical medical information — he did not report the collapse or the sickle-cell trait. He is the direct actor, and the criminal charges against him — involuntary manslaughter, aggravated hazing, hazing, and recklessly endangering another person — establish an official governmental finding of culpable conduct that substantially enhances civil settlement leverage.
Bucknell University — the private institution that employed Kulbis from February 2019 until January 2025. The university faces two distinct liability tracks. First, vicarious liability: Kulbis was acting within the scope of his employment as a Bucknell strength coach, leading a university-sanctioned practice session on university property. Bucknell is liable for his tortious conduct without the need to prove direct negligence by the institution. Second — and far more powerfully — direct institutional negligence: Bucknell had actual prior notice of Kulbis’s dangerous conduct through two NCAA self-reports documenting that he allowed medically uncleared students to participate in conditioning. The university issued only a letter of admonishment and a one-game suspension. It then permitted him to continue leading workouts with medically vulnerable athletes. That is negligent retention, negligent supervision, and negligent training — and it is the engine that drives punitive damages.
Head coach Dave Ceccini — present at the pre-practice meeting where Kulbis asked to “smoke” the players and was told “no.” Ceccini had supervisory authority over Kulbis and the workout session. His knowledge of Dickey’s medical condition raises questions about inadequate intervention and failure to stop the session when it became dangerous. A head coach who tells a strength coach “don’t make it hard” and then lets him make it lethal has his own exposure.
Bucknell athletic department administration — the people who received and processed the two NCAA self-reports documenting Kulbis’s prior violations. They imposed minimal discipline. They had institutional knowledge of the anti-hazing law and the NCAA sickle-cell guidelines — both were documented in emails to all coaches. The decision-making chain that led to retaining Kulbis after documented misconduct is the discovery target that identifies every administrator with knowledge of the risk.
The generalist files a complaint against the coach and the university. The specialist files a complaint that pleads the negligent-retention theory — built on the two prior NCAA self-reports — because that theory is what transforms a negligence case into a punitive damages case. The prior violations are the foreseeability ladder: medical consensus established the danger, the NCAA wrote the standard, Bucknell’s own emails show the university knew the standard, the university self-reported two violations of the standard by the same coach, the university issued minimal discipline, and then the same coach killed a player doing the same thing. At every rung, the university had the chance to stop it. At every rung, it chose not to.
The Prior Violations: What Bucknell Already Knew About Kulbis
This is the section that a generalist misses and a trial lawyer builds the entire punitive damages argument around.
Bucknell did not just know about sickle-cell trait in the abstract. The university had twice self-reported to the NCAA that Kulbis had committed violations involving medically uncleared players. According to the affidavit, one of those violations involved allowing two students who were not medically cleared to participate in strengthening and conditioning 120 times over a two-week period. That is not a one-time lapse. That is 120 separate instances of allowing medically restricted athletes into a strength coach’s workout — in two weeks.
The university’s response to that violation was a letter of admonishment and a one-game suspension. A letter. And one game. For 120 violations of medical clearance restrictions in a two-week period.
Then, in February 2024 — five months before the fatal workout — there was a similar violation. The same coach. The same pattern. The university’s response is not fully detailed in the public record, but the affidavit confirms it happened and that it was reported.
And then, on July 10, 2024, Kulbis was still running workouts. Still in charge of medically vulnerable athletes. Still employed by Bucknell. And he allegedly did the same thing he had been disciplined for — ignored medical restrictions, pushed a player past the limits his body could handle, and that player died.
The legal term for what Bucknell did between those prior violations and July 10 is “negligent retention.” The university knew this coach was dangerous. It had told the NCAA itself. It had documented the violations. And it kept him in a position where he could do it again — with the predictable, foreseeable, and ultimately fatal result.
The practical term is simpler: they knew, and they let him keep going. And that is exactly what a jury needs to hear to award punitive damages — not just negligence, but a conscious choice to retain a known danger.
The Evidence Clock: What Records Exist and How Fast They Can Disappear
This section is written from the perspective of the regulatory expert and the compliance investigator. Every record below was created by a rule, a policy, or a legal duty. Every one of them is on a clock. And the fastest-dying source drives the urgency.
Practice facility / weight room surveillance video from July 10, 2024. This would show the duration and intensity of the workout, Dickey’s visible distress, the number of ups and downs performed, and the timeline of Kulbis’s response to the collapse. Standard CCTV overwrite cycles run 7 to 30 days. Given the criminal investigation, video may have been preserved — but that must be confirmed immediately. If it was not preserved, it is gone forever, and the case loses its most visceral piece of evidence. The preservation letter that freezes this footage is the first thing that goes out the day a family calls.
Kulbis’s complete personnel file — including the NCAA self-reports, the letter of admonishment, the suspension records, and all internal disciplinary communications. This is the prior-violations record that drives negligent retention and punitive damages. Kulbis departed Bucknell in January 2025. Personnel files can be purged or altered upon termination, and file retention policies vary by institution. Formal discovery requests and preservation demands should be served immediately to prevent any loss or alteration.
The medical-conditions spreadsheet and its access logs. This is the single most devastating document in the case. It was shared with all coaches via email before mini-camp. The access logs show Kulbis viewed Dickey’s sickle-cell trait information as recently as the day of the collapse. This is the cornerstone of the actual-knowledge and recklessness claims — it proves the coach knew, on the day he ran the workout, that Dickey had a condition that made extreme exercise dangerous. The affidavit indicates this has already been obtained via search warrant by the criminal investigation. Civil counsel should obtain it through discovery and coordinate with the criminal prosecution team.
The 911 call recording and CAD dispatch records from July 10, 2024. These establish that Kulbis called 911 but did not report the collapse or the sickle-cell trait — demonstrating conscious withholding of critical medical information that delayed appropriate emergency response. 911 recordings are typically retained 30 to 90 days, but may be preserved longer given the criminal investigation. Confirm retention with the dispatching agency immediately.
EMT and ambulance run reports — from the scene at Bucknell, during transport to Evangelical Community Hospital in Lewisburg, and during the transfer to Geisinger Medical Center in Danville. These document Dickey’s clinical status at the scene, during transport, and upon arrival — establishing the severity and timeline of the sickling crisis and supporting the survival action for conscious pain and suffering. Medical records are generally retained per hospital policy, typically 7 to 10 years, but should be obtained through formal request immediately to prevent any loss or alteration.
Email communications among Bucknell athletic department staff — regarding Kulbis’s prior violations, the disciplinary actions taken, and the institutional decision-making chain that led to his retention. These emails identify every administrator with knowledge of the risk and document the university’s own awareness of the danger. Email retention policies vary by institution; litigation hold and discovery requests should target all relevant custodians, including the athletic director, compliance officers, sports medicine staff, and the head coach.
Player witness statements and identities. Players corroborate the number of ups and downs (approximately 100), Dickey’s complaints of breathing difficulty, the observation that he did not get up after approximately 20 repetitions, and Kulbis’s failure to summon immediate aid. Student-athletes may graduate, transfer, or become reluctant witnesses over time. Depositions should be scheduled before witnesses disperse from the Bucknell community.
NCAA anti-hazing training materials and sickle-cell trait education records — provided to coaches annually. These establish the standard of care that Kulbis and Bucknell were on notice of, and document the gap between known standards and actual practice. The affidavit references these materials; they are already in government possession per the search warrant. Civil counsel should obtain them through discovery and use them to establish the negligence framework.
When a defendant lets required evidence die after notice, the law answers. An adverse-inference instruction allows the jury to assume the lost record was as bad as the plaintiff says. Sanctions are available. And in some jurisdictions, a separate claim for the destruction itself. The bar for the harshest sanctions is high, but the leverage begins the moment the preservation letter is on file. That is why the letter goes out the day you call — not the month, not the season. The day.
What a Case Like This Is Worth
This section is written from the perspective of the life-care planner and the forensic economist. The numbers below are honest ranges based on the specific facts of this case — not promises, not guarantees, and not a prediction of any specific outcome. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes.
Economic damages include the two days of intensive hospital care at Evangelical Community Hospital and Geisinger Medical Center, funeral and burial expenses, and the full loss of Dickey’s future earning capacity as an 18-year-old college freshman. A forensic economic analysis should project earnings based on a college-educated trajectory with appropriate vocational offsets. The loss of an 18-year-old’s entire adult working life is, in economic terms alone, a multi-million-dollar figure — before a single dollar of non-economic damage is added.
Non-economic damages in the wrongful death action include the parents’ loss of companionship, guidance, and society, plus the loss of Dickey’s own life experiences and pleasures. The survival action captures the conscious pain and suffering Dickey experienced between his collapse on July 10 and his death on July 12 — including respiratory distress, rhabdomyolysis-induced pain, and the terror of an exertional sickling crisis. That two-day period of conscious suffering is a distinct and significant category of damages under Pennsylvania law.
Punitive damages are strongly supported by the combination of actual knowledge of the medical condition (the spreadsheet access log), prior institutional violations by the same coach (the two NCAA self-reports), ignored explicit instructions not to make the workout punishing (the pre-practice meeting), and the post-collapse failure to provide accurate medical information to 911. This pattern demonstrates conscious disregard for a known, life-threatening risk — the Pennsylvania standard for punitive damages.
Based on the specific facts of this case — the prior violations, the actual knowledge, the coroner’s homicide ruling, the criminal charges, the young age of the decedent, and the absence of Pennsylvania damage caps against private defendants — the case value range we see is:
- Low end: approximately $8,000,000 — assuming a negotiated resolution with contested institutional liability and some comparative-fault argument by defense counsel regarding Dickey’s failure to stop.
- High end: approximately $30,000,000 — reflecting a trial verdict with clear institutional liability, a strong punitive damages submission based on prior notice and reckless disregard, and the catastrophic loss of an 18-year-old’s entire adult life.
Bucknell University’s endowment exceeds $1 billion, providing substantial collectibility. The absence of Pennsylvania damage caps against private defendants means a jury verdict would not be judicially reduced. The criminal charges filed by the Attorney General — particularly the aggravated hazing and involuntary manslaughter counts — substantially enhance civil settlement leverage by establishing an official governmental finding of culpable conduct. Comparable hazing and athletic-death cases against universities have resulted in confidential multi-million-dollar settlements, and the prior-violations record here creates a negligent-retention claim that significantly exceeds the typical first-offense institutional liability profile.
These are not guarantees. They are the honest arithmetic of what a case with these facts, in this legal environment, against this defendant, can be worth. A case with prior NCAA violations, actual knowledge of the medical condition, and a coroner’s homicide ruling has settlement value far beyond a quick offer — which is exactly why the university’s lawyers will try to get a release signed before the family understands the full picture.
The University’s Playbook: What They Will Try
This section is written from the perspective of the insurance-defense insider — the person who used to sit in the rooms where claims like these are valued, delayed, and defended. Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm before joining this side of the table. He knows the plays because he ran them. Here are the ones to expect, and the counter to each.
Play 1: “The player assumed the risk.” The university’s lawyers will argue that Dickey chose to play football knowing he had sickle-cell trait, and that the risk of exertional sickling is a known risk of the sport. The counter: a freshman following a coach’s direct orders during a mandatory practice has not assumed the risk of a coach deliberately ignoring medical restrictions and running a punitive workout. The NCAA’s own sickle-cell trait guidelines — which Bucknell sent to its coaches — establish that forced exercise is not an inherent risk of the sport but a preventable violation of the standard of care. And the Piazza Anti-Hazing Law’s civil remedy exists precisely because hazing victims do not assume the risk of being hazed. A student who shows up for practice does not consent to being killed by a coach who was told “no” and did it anyway.
Play 2: “The player should have stopped.” The defense will argue comparative fault — that Dickey could have refused to continue the exercise. The counter: Pennsylvania’s modified comparative negligence rule with a 51% bar means the player’s fault must exceed 50% to bar recovery. A freshman lineman following a coach’s direct orders during a mandatory practice is unlikely to be assigned significant fault by a Union County jury. More importantly, the defense’s own evidence — that Dickey was visibly exhausted after 10 repetitions and could not get up after 20 — proves he did stop. He physically could not continue. The question is not why he did not stop. The question is why the coach did not stop the workout when a player collapsed.
Play 3: “This was a medical event, not caused by the workout.” The defense will argue that the death was a natural consequence of Dickey’s medical condition, not the result of the coach’s conduct. The counter: the Montour County Coroner has already ruled the manner of death a homicide with “forced exercise-induced sickle cell crisis” as a substantial factor. The NCAA’s own guidelines establish that forced exercise is the precise trigger for this crisis in athletes with SCT. And the medical literature is clear: exertional sickling does not occur without extreme metabolic demand. This was not a random medical event. It was a foreseeable, well-documented, and entirely preventable cascade triggered by a workout that violated every standard the NCAA and sports medicine community have established.
Play 4: “Stay the civil case pending the criminal case.” The university’s lawyers will seek to stay the civil case, arguing that Kulbis’s Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination are implicated. The counter: the civil case against the university — based on negligent retention, supervision, and training — can proceed independently of the criminal case against Kulbis. The university’s own liability does not depend on Kulbis’s criminal conviction. While Kulbis may invoke his Fifth Amendment right if deposed while criminal charges are pending, the case against the institution is built on the university’s own documents: the NCAA self-reports, the disciplinary records, the training materials, and the medical-conditions spreadsheet. Those records exist regardless of what happens in the criminal case.
Play 5: The quick settlement check with a broad release. This is the oldest play in the book. A settlement check may arrive early — before the family understands the full value of the case, before the prior violations are fully discovered, before the criminal case establishes the factual record. The release will be broad, covering not just the coach but the university and all its employees, agents, and affiliates. The counter: a case with prior NCAA violations, actual knowledge of the medical condition, a coroner’s homicide ruling, and criminal charges has settlement value far beyond a quick offer. The family should not sign anything until the full record is assembled and the case is valued by someone who has done this before.
Play 6: The recorded statement request. Someone friendly will call the family to “just get your side of the story” and ask them to “just tell us what happened” — on a recording built to be quoted against them later. The family may be asked about their son’s medical history, his decision to participate in football with sickle-cell trait, and any pre-injury communications about his condition. The counter: no family should give a recorded statement to the university’s representatives or its insurer without their own counsel present. Everything said can and will be used to build the comparative-fault and assumption-of-risk defenses. The answer is: talk to a lawyer first.
How a Hazing Wrongful Death Case Is Actually Built
This section is the chronological walk — from the day a family calls to the day a number is put in front of a jury. It is written from the perspective of the senior trial attorney who has run this process.
Week one: The preservation letter goes out. The first thing that happens is a written demand to Bucknell University, its athletic department, its risk management office, and its insurer to preserve every piece of evidence — surveillance video, personnel files, email communications, 911 recordings, medical records, training materials, the medical-conditions spreadsheet and its access logs, and the NCAA self-reporting documents. This letter is not a formality. It is the legal mechanism that converts routine destruction into sanctionable spoliation. Once the letter is on file, if the university lets evidence die, the jury can be told to assume the worst.
Weeks one through four: Records demands and the personal representative. Before any lawsuit, a personal representative of the estate must be appointed — the one person Pennsylvania law authorizes to bring the family’s case. We handle that appointment. Meanwhile, the official investigation records are obtained, the medical records from Evangelical Community Hospital and Geisinger Medical Center are pulled, and the 911 recordings and CAD dispatch records are requested from the dispatching agency.
Months one through three: Expert retention. The experts who will prove the case are identified and retained. A board-certified sports medicine physician specializing in sickle-cell trait and exertional sickling establishes the standard of care and causation. A forensic pathologist explains the mechanism of death and supports the coroner’s homicide ruling. An athletic training standard-of-care expert opines on the deviation from accepted conditioning protocols for athletes with known medical conditions. A forensic economist projects the full life-care and lost-earnings figure. These experts are not optional. They are the difference between a case the defense can dismiss and a case the defense must settle.
Months three through nine: Discovery. The discovery phase is where the case is won. Kulbis’s complete personnel file is produced — including the NCAA self-reports, the letter of admonishment, and the suspension records. All internal athletic department communications regarding his prior violations and disciplinary actions are obtained. The email custodians are identified: the athletic director, compliance officers, sports medicine staff, and the head coach. The medical-conditions spreadsheet and its access logs are obtained through discovery and coordinated with the criminal prosecution team. The NCAA anti-hazing training materials and sickle-cell trait education records are produced.
Months six through twelve: Depositions. The depositions are where the defense’s story falls apart. The athletic director explains under oath why the university retained a coach it had twice reported to the NCAA for the same type of violation. The head coach explains why he told Kulbis not to make the workout hard and then did not intervene when it became lethal. The assistant coach describes what he saw when Dickey stopped getting up. The players describe the 100 ups and downs, Dickey’s complaints of breathing difficulty, and Kulbis’s failure to summon immediate aid. And Kulbis himself — if he does not invoke the Fifth — explains why he looked at the medical-conditions spreadsheet the same morning he ran the workout that killed a player with the condition listed on it.
The criminal case interplay. The parallel criminal proceedings create both opportunity and risk. The criminal charges enhance settlement leverage and may produce sworn testimony. But counsel must handle the Fifth Amendment issue carefully if Kulbis is deposed while charges are pending — potentially seeking a stay of his civil deposition until criminal proceedings conclude. The civil case against the university can proceed independently. The university’s incentive to resolve will be highest when the criminal proceedings confirm the narrative and negative publicity peaks.
The number at the end. The number a jury sees is built from all of it — the medical costs, the funeral expenses, the lost earning capacity of an 18-year-old with a full life ahead, the conscious pain and suffering during two days at Geisinger, the parents’ loss of companionship and guidance, and the punitive damages that flow from a university that knew a coach was dangerous and kept him anyway. That number is not invented. It is built, piece by piece, from the records, the testimony, and the expert analysis — and it is the reason the university’s lawyers want to settle before it is assembled.
The First 72 Hours: What to Do Now
If your child has been injured or killed during a college athletic practice — whether at Bucknell or anywhere else — the first 72 hours are when evidence is either preserved or lost forever. Here is the practical roadmap.
Medical first. If your child is still alive, your first call is to the hospital, not a lawyer. Get the full medical record — every chart entry, every lab result, every imaging study, every nursing note. The medical record is the foundation of the case, and it is being created in real time. Make sure the treating physicians know your child’s complete medical history, including any known conditions like sickle-cell trait. Ask for copies of everything. Do not leave the hospital without a plan to obtain the complete record.
Do not sign anything. If someone from the university, its athletic department, its risk management office, or its insurer asks you to sign a release, a waiver, a settlement agreement, or any other document — do not sign it. Do not initial it. Do not take it home “to think about.” A release presented in the first days after a death is designed to close the case before the family understands what happened, what the evidence shows, and what the case is worth. Everything can wait. The release is the one thing that cannot be undone.
Do not give a recorded statement. If someone calls to “check on you” and asks you to “just tell us what happened” on a recording, the answer is: not without my own lawyer present. Everything you say can and will be used to build the comparative-fault and assumption-of-risk defenses. You are grieving. You are exhausted. You are not in a position to have your words picked apart by a trained insurance adjuster. Protect yourself first.
Do not post on social media. Do not post about the incident, your child’s condition, the university, the coach, or the investigation. Everything you post can be screenshotted, taken out of context, and used by the defense. This is not about hiding the truth. It is about not handing the other side free material to use against your family.
Preserve evidence in writing. If you have any documents, photographs, text messages, emails, or other materials related to your child’s participation in the athletic program — medical clearance forms, practice schedules, training protocols, communications with coaches or athletic trainers — save them. Do not delete anything. Do not alter anything. Put them in a safe place and make copies.
Contact a lawyer. The preservation letter that freezes the surveillance video, the personnel files, the email communications, and the 911 recordings is the single most time-sensitive step in the entire case. The day you call is the day the clock starts working for you instead of against you. A consultation is free. It is confidential. And it costs you nothing to find out whether you have a case and what it is worth.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue the university if my child died during a college athletic practice?
Yes — if the death was caused by the university’s negligence, the coach’s misconduct, or a violation of safety standards. A university can be held responsible for its employees’ actions within the scope of their employment, for its own failure to supervise and train those employees, and for negligent retention of a coach it knew was dangerous. Pennsylvania’s anti-hazing law provides an additional statutory cause of action if the death involved hazing. The key question is not whether your child was at practice — it is whether the people running the practice followed the safety standards that existed to protect your child.
What is Pennsylvania’s anti-hazing law?
The Timothy J. Piazza Anti-Hazing Law is Pennsylvania’s statute criminalizing hazing and providing civil remedies for hazing that causes serious bodily injury or death. It is named for a Penn State student who died in 2017 after a fraternity hazing ritual. The law provides both criminal penalties (including aggravated hazing charges when death results) and a civil cause of action against both the individuals who haze and the institutions that permit hazing. It also requires institutions of higher education to maintain and enforce anti-hazing policies. In the Bucknell case, the coach has been criminally charged with aggravated hazing, and the family’s civil suit has been allowed to proceed on a hazing theory in federal court.
How long do I have to file a wrongful death case in Pennsylvania?
Pennsylvania’s statute of limitations for wrongful death is two years from the date of death. The clock starts on the day your loved one dies, not the day of the injury. If your child was injured on July 10 and died on July 12, the two-year clock starts on July 12. Missing this deadline can bar the case entirely, regardless of how strong the facts are. There are limited exceptions — confirm the current rule with an attorney in your state, as tolling rules can vary. But the safe assumption is that the deadline is real and running.
What if my child signed a waiver or assumption-of-risk form before the season?
This is one of the most common fears families have, and the answer is: a waiver does not protect a university from its own negligence in hiring, training, supervising, and retaining coaches who violate medical restrictions. A release presented as a condition of participation may face challenges on multiple grounds — especially if it was presented on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, if it did not specifically describe the risk of hazing, or if it attempts to release the university from reckless or outrageous conduct. And critically, the Piazza Anti-Hazing Law’s civil remedy may override any waiver — because a statutory cause of action designed to protect against hazing cannot be waived by a form the student signed before being hazed. Do not let a piece of paper signed at the start of the season discourage you from calling a lawyer.
How much is a college hazing death case worth?
No two cases are identical, and past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. But based on the specific facts of the Bucknell case — the prior NCAA violations, the actual knowledge of the medical condition, the coroner’s homicide ruling, the criminal charges, the young age of the decedent, and the absence of Pennsylvania damage caps against private defendants — the case value range we see is approximately $8,000,000 on the low end (negotiated resolution with contested liability) to $30,000,000 on the high end (trial verdict with clear institutional liability and strong punitive damages). Bucknell’s endowment exceeds $1 billion, providing substantial collectibility. Comparable hazing and athletic-death cases against universities have resulted in confidential multi-million-dollar settlements.
What happens to the civil case while the criminal case is pending?
The civil case and the criminal case are separate proceedings with different burdens of proof, different timelines, and different goals. The criminal case (beyond a reasonable doubt) is the government’s case against the coach. The civil case (preponderance of the evidence) is the family’s case against the coach and the university. The criminal charges enhance settlement leverage by establishing an official governmental finding of culpable conduct. But the civil case against the university — based on negligent retention, supervision, and training — can proceed independently of the criminal case. The main complication is that the coach may invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if deposed while criminal charges are pending. The university’s own liability does not depend on the coach’s criminal conviction.
Can the university be responsible even if only the coach was directly at fault?
Yes — on two separate theories. First, vicarious liability: the university is responsible for its employee’s tortious conduct within the scope of his employment, regardless of whether the university itself was negligent. Second, direct negligence: the university can be held independently responsible for its own failure to hire, train, supervise, and retain that employee properly. The negligent-retention theory — built on the two prior NCAA self-reports — is the most powerful claim in the Bucknell case, because it shows the university knew this coach was dangerous and kept him anyway. That is not the coach’s fault. That is the university’s fault.
What is sickle-cell trait and why is it dangerous for athletes?
Sickle-cell trait is a genetic condition in which a person carries one normal hemoglobin gene and one sickle gene. Under normal conditions, most red blood cells function normally and the person lives without symptoms. But under extreme metabolic stress — intense, prolonged exercise, especially with dehydration and without adequate rest — red blood cells can change shape, becoming rigid and sticky. These “sickled” cells block blood vessels, causing muscle tissue to die (rhabdomyolysis), which releases proteins that damage the kidneys and can cause multi-organ failure. The NCAA has specific written protocols for athletes with sickle-cell trait because exertional sickling has killed college athletes before. Those protocols include gradual acclimatization, immediate cessation of activity at first symptoms, and prohibition of punitive exercise regimens — exactly the type of workout that allegedly killed Calvin Dickey Jr.
What should I do in the first few days after my child was hurt at a college practice?
Get the full medical record. Do not sign anything. Do not give a recorded statement. Do not post on social media. Save every document, text, and email. And call a lawyer — because the preservation letter that freezes the surveillance video, the personnel files, and the 911 recordings is the single most time-sensitive step in the entire case. The consultation is free, confidential, and costs nothing. The call is the thing that starts the clock working for your family instead of against them.
Why This Firm: Names, Experience, and What the First Call Costs
Ralph Manginello has spent 27-plus years in courtrooms, including federal court. He was a journalist before he was a lawyer — he knows how to investigate a story and present it to a jury. He is the lead counsel in the active $10 million hazing lawsuit against a university and fraternity — a case that involves many of the same institutional-accountability questions this case raises. He is a competitor who hates losing, and he brings that to every file.
Lupe Peña spent years inside a national insurance-defense firm — the rooms where adjusters and their software decided how to deny, delay, and devalue people exactly like the families who read this page. He knows how claim reserves are set in the first 48 hours, how recorded statements are engineered, how IME doctors are selected, and how surveillance is deployed. He is fluent in Spanish and conducts full client consultations without an interpreter. He now uses that inside knowledge for injured clients and grieving families.
We take Pennsylvania wrongful death and hazing cases, working with local counsel and pro hac vice admission where required. We do not claim an office in Pennsylvania, and we do not pretend to be something we are not. What we are is a trial firm with deep hazing-litigation experience, a former insurance-defense insider who knows the other side’s playbook, and a senior partner who is actively litigating a multi-million-dollar hazing case against a university right now.
The fee is contingency. We don’t get paid unless we win your case. The consultation is free. The call is confidential. And the first thing that happens when you call is the preservation letter — the legal mechanism that freezes the evidence before it disappears.
Call 1-888-ATTY-911. That is 1-888-288-9911. 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You will speak to a live person, not an answering service. Hablamos Español.
If you are reading this page at 2 a.m. because your child was hurt or killed at a college practice — or because you are terrified that what happened at Bucknell could happen to your child — the most important thing to know is this: what happened was not an accident. It was a preventable death caused by people who had been warned, trained, and disciplined, and who did it anyway. The law gives you a remedy. The evidence gives you a case. And the call you make today is the one that starts the clock working for your family instead of against them.
Contact us. The consultation is free. We don’t get paid unless we win your case. Past results depend on the facts of each case and do not guarantee future outcomes. But the fight is the same every time — we find the people who knew, we find the records that prove it, and we put it in front of a jury.
