HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-02658
IN THE couln OF COMMON I'LEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, I'ENNSYLV ANIA
LA WRENCE DUGANNE.
I'laintiff
CIVIL ACTION - LA W
NO: 1996-2658
vs.
WEIS MARKETS. INC.
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE
Yon have been sued in com1. If yon wish to delend against the claims set lorth in
the following pages. you must take action wilhin twenty (20) days aller this Complaint
and Notice are served. by entering a written appearance personally or by attomey and
filing in writing with the court your defense or objections to the claims set forth against
you. You are warned that if you fail to do so. the case may proceed without you and
Judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money
claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the I'laiutiflts).
You may lose money or property or other rights impol1ant to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LA WYER AT ONCE. IF YOU
DO NOT IIA VE A LA WYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE. GO TO OR TELEPHONE
TIlE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WIIEI{E YOU CAN GET LEGAL
IIELI'.
Court Administrator
Fourth Floor
Cumberland County Courthouse
Cnrlisle, I'A 17013
(717)697,0371
(717 )24().6200
5. At all times relevant hereto, Delcndant \\'IIS in exclusive custody, possession,
and control of the store locllted in ClIrlisle, Pennsylvania. hereinafter described
as the "premises," and it was the duty of Defendant to keep and mllintllinthose
premises at a reasonably safe condition for those persons lawfully thereon.
6, On the moming of May 15, 1994, PlaintilT, I.lIwrence Duganne, was lawfnlly
present on the premises IInd was IlIwlillly IInd carefully proceeding on foot
npon said premises.
7. Notwithstanding its dnty, the detcndant did, at the aforementioned time IInd
date, and lor some time prior thereto, carelessly, recklessly, IInd negligently
allow and pennit to remllin on said premises a dangerous and defcctive
condition, specifically: a pothole of substantial size and depth located
immediately off of its front sidewalk, on the northwest side of the parking lot
area of the premises, next to the hllndicapped parking space adjllcent to the
front of the store.
H. It is believed that the defendant. carelessly, recklessly, and negligently II110wed
this condition to develop and relllain there for sometime prior to Mr.
Duganne's encountering the condition and did not place any waming signs or
barriers in, around, or near the condition.
9. As the Plaintiff was exiting the store to the car parked in the handicllpped
space referred to above, and while cllrting grocery bags in each of his hllnds
npon Ihe premises, he "ncnlllllered the hnle IInd Icllln the ground,
10. As a result of the fall. I'llIintil1' sul1clcll SC\ CIC IIIllI scrious htiurics IIl1d
damages as are set forth hclow.
II. At the time of the incldenllllllllilr SOIllC tllllc plior Ihcrclo. Ihc dclcndant did
or should hllve had hOlh ~nowlcdl!e IIIllI nolkc of lhe IIlilrcsllid dllngerous
condition. IInd did lilloII' 1111I1 pcrmllthc dllllllCIOIIS wllllition to he IInd remain
on the premises wllhout plllclnl! tiny type of wllrnlng signs or barriers
proximate to the dangelllus IIrell,
12. 11le premises were lit 1111 II illeR relevllnt herelo undcr lhe exclusive possession.
custody IInd conll'lll of lhe I>clcndllnt. IlllulIl!h ils servllllls. agents. and
employees. who WCIC thcn IInd Ihere cnl!lIgcd in 1111I1 upon lhe performance of
Iheir duties, wllhin Ihc h~ope of Ihelr lIuthurit), IInd In the course of the
business of delcndllnl.
13. TIle htiuries and danlllges which lire herelnafler scl fllrth were caused solely by
and were the directlllul proximate reRull oflhe negligence of the Defendant in
any or all of the lilllowlnllleslleclR:
a) in iiI II hIll hI keep Ihe premises in II sllle condition for persons
IlIwllllly using lhe Sllllle:
h) In pCIIUllllnl! Ihe dllllgerons ~ondition to be IInd remain on the
plcmlscs when the delcllllllnl knew or in the exercise of
ICIINllllllhlc Cllle should hllve known of Ihe danger involved;
c) In tililinl! to wllm the plllinlilf of the dllngerous condition
clclllcd hy Ihe IIhove.descrihcd hIl7.lIrd;
d) in failing to remove, cover, blockade, or otherwise rcmove the
dangerous condition of which the defendant knew or in the
exercise of rcasonable care should have known;
e) in pemlitting persons, and Plaintiff in particular. to traverse the
premises when the defcndant knew or in the excrcise of
rcasonable carc should have known that it was dangerous to do
so and involved an unreasonable risk of harm to persons so
doing;
f) in failing to notify or warn Plllintiffofthe dangerous conditions
so that the hazard involved could have been avoided;
g) in maintaining the premises in such a manner as to constitute a
danger to the persons lawfully thereon;
h) in failing to provide persons lawfnlly using the premises with a
safe area to traversc said premises;
i) in foiling to inspect the premises to discover the dangerous
condition or in inspecting so carelessly os to nDt hove
discovered such a condition;
j) in maintaining the premises in on improper manner or in
employing personnel who were not sufficiently qualified to
maintain the premises in 0 proper manner;
~) In inspcclinH thc prcmiscs in un impropcr nlllllncr or in
cmploying pcrsonncl who wcrc nut snllicicntly '1unliticd 10
inspcct thc prcmiscs in a propcr mlUmcr:
\) in lolling 10 hirc. cmploy. or rctuin pcrsonncl snllicicntly
qualificd 10 supcrvisc thc muinlcnnncc ofthc prcmiscs:
m) Inloiling to rcpair thc dnngcrous condition: and
n) in nllowing a dangcrous condition 10 rcmuin on Ihc prcmiscs
proximute 10 both u hundicappcd purklng spuce, und the front
porch or sidcwulk of thc storc. thcreby posing un incrcascd
dunger to storc putrons. cspcciully thosc utilizing thc storc's
hundlcuppcd purking spuccs.
12. Solely us the resuit of thc negligence of thc dcfcndunt us ulorcsuid. I'luintitT
sustained the following injuries. all of which ure or muy be of a penllanent
nature:
a) injuries to thc bones. musclcs. tissucs und Iigamcnts of his
right Icg und knec. ultimutcly dlugnoscd us: ostcochondrnl
defcct of thc right mcdiul Icmurnl condylc: and hypcrtrophic
synovium of mcdial compnrtmcnt of thc right kncc; und
b) contusions und permuncnt scurring of his rightlcg und kncc.
13. As a result of the injuries as aforesaid. PlnintiO'has sustained the following
damages:
c) PlaintilT has suITered and will continue to suITer great pain. suITering.
inconvenience. cmbarrassment. mental anguish. and loss of the
enjoyment of life;
d) Said PlaintilT has expended and will be required to expend large sums
of money for medical and surgical attention. hospitalization. medical
supplies, physical therapy. medicnl testing, surgical nppliances,
medicines, and attendant services:
e) Said Plaintiff's general health, strength, nnd vitnlity have been
Impaired:
o SBid PlaintilT has been and will be deprived of earnings as a result of
absences from work cased by the Injuries and treatment thereof
necessitated by Defendant's negligence.
g) Said Plaintiff's eaming capacity has been reduced and pennanently
Impaired.
WHEREFORE, PlalntllTbrlngs this action against Defendant, Weis Markets, Inc.,
. .
\,
., J
,
1,-
,
I:
I,
f. J
I. I-
I
I
l
'-.
) I h 1:: - '6'h "t - 0 I ~
IN THB COURT OF COMMON PLBAS, CUMBBRLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA
LAWRBNCB DUGANNE, NO. 1996-2658
Plaintiff .
.
I CIVIL ACTION - LAW
-vs- I
I
WBIS MARKBTS, INC., I
Defendant I JURY TRIAL DBMANDED
PRAECIPE FOR r.NTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THB PROTHONOTARY, Lawrence B. Welkerl
Please enter the appearance of Gloriana Noreika, Esquire, and
the Law Firm of Stetler & Gribbin as attorneys for the Defendant,
Weis Markets, Inc.
STETLER , G
Datedl
8"-/3 ---qb
BYI
G
a1..J.. J:. c._
quire
1.0. No. 55793
Market Street
PO B 588
York, PA 17405-2588
Telephone No. (717) 854-9506
Attorney for Defendants
Weis Markets, Inc.
~
i'i: I.!J
'.
. ,.
~1I' . co"; .-)-.,.,
). -~~)
~;j .... ' "
. ~.~
u.. ,.~ :~~~
~t
Lb.. II~ II)
.~(;
[L" r." 1(lJ
r: :;,;, . IlL.
~ -.
l\; 'I) ~5
u' u
IN THB COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBBRLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
-vs-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NO. 1996-2658
LAWRENCB DUGANNE,
Plaintiff
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
WBIS MARKETS, INC.,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DBMANDED
ANSWER
1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of this averment and proof thereof is demanded at trial.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
5. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no answer is
required.
6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant i8
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief a8 to
the truth of this averment and proof thereof is demanded at trial.
To the extent that an answer is required, it is denied that the
Plaintiff was proceeding carefully upon the said premises.
7. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no answer is
required. To the extent that an answer is required, the condition
of the premises was known to or obvious to the Plaintiff who parked
next to it, exited his car, entered the store, passed by, through,
or over the aforementioned pothole on his way into the store.
1
8. Denied ae a conclusion of law to which no answer is
required. To the extent that an answer is required, it is admittsd
that there were no warning signs in or around the property.
Powever, the condition of the property was open and obvious to all
individuals who came into close contact with it.
9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of this averment and proof thereof is demanded at trial.
10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of this averment and proof thereof is demanded at trial.
11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of this averment and proof thereof is demanded at trial.
To the extent lhat an answer is required, the condition of the
property was obvious to all who came in contact with it, which
included the Defendant who had to past by, through, or over it on
his way into the store.
12. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no answer is
required.
13. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no answer is
required. To the extent that an answer is required, it iSI
a-no Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant
is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of this averment and proof thereof is demanded at
trial.
2
14. {Incorrectly designated as No. 12 in Plaintiff's
Complaint).
a-b. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no answer is
required. To the extent that an answer is required, it is denied.
After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the trut~ of this
averment and proof thereof is demanded at trial.
15. {Incorrectly designated as No. 13 in Plaintiff's
Complaint).
a-b. (Not included in Plaintiff's Complaint, therefore,
no answer is required).
c-g. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant
is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of this averment and proof thereof is demanded at
trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable
Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff as to
all iseues of liability and damages.
NEW MATTER
1. The alleged injuries and damages to Plaintiff were
contributed to by him and any award must be reduced accordingly.
2. Plaintiff was aware and understood the hazard in which he
was engaged but knowingly and voluntarily consented to assume the
risk.
3
3. Some or all of the damages claimed by the Plaintiff are
unrelated to the alleged fall and are due to pre-existing or
subsequently occurring medical condition.
4. Some or all of the medical treatment allegedly obtained
by the Plaintiff was not necessary or appropriate treatment for the
injuries, if any, which were allegedly sustained in the fall.
5. The accident was caused by the negligence of Plaintiff in
that he failed to proceed forward with due care while holding the
bags of groceries.
6. The Plaintiff failed to look where he was going.
7. The Plaintiff failed to remember the area from where he
came after parking at the handicap parking spot.
B. The Plaintiff proceeded from a handicap parking space
when ho was personally not considered a handicapped individual
under the laws and statutes of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable
Court to enter judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff as to
all issues of liability and damages.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated I
, 'I
'(( .- Y,- 'II.;
STETLER_~ 1 G(R~~_~~~ )
, ..- o.
f,___
,', 'r"l J
BYI C/ .'I,/I,t,\... L,t(lkt:L..
Gl~ria a Noreika, E quire
Attorn 1.0. No. 5 793
138 Bas Market Street
PO Box' 588
York, PA 17405-258B
Telephone No. (717) 854-9506
Attorney for Defendants
Weis Markets, Inc.
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, GLORIANA NORElKA, Esquire, hereby certify that I served a
true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER AND NEW HATTER by
fir8t-class mail, postage prepaid on the following I
Jennifer Deitchman, Esquire
McGraw, Hait & Deitchman
Four Liberty Avenue
Carlisle, PA 17013
DATE I
'X-2(f.r.iC
STETLER & G~JBBIN" _
/,(/ )-'k
/ .J ,~
BYI C. ,U ,/l'\\(\... t-~{t .(.',-
GLORI A NOREIKA, Es u re
138 Ea t Market Street
PO Box, 508
York, PA 17405-2588
(717) 854-9506
Attorney for Defendants
~ III ~
.' c: 0'
t :~ :"', .,--:
UJ~) r~~
'. "
l.)i ,,' J "
l'!: i ,..'. I
'r: ~- , -
{.::.' " ,
6" , " - ,
.1. .
~l,' [ . . ~ j
I~; ...:. ,-
II- . '. :-i
Ll I. . U
:,.
~;~
'..,,"
r,
J
~
\ \
.;) 'J
'" ~
~\ri
..
e
n
.,
.~
,.
""
~<\t
a
'"
.,.
[
~
~
\'
----------....---.-.-.------------
'A.sIV 1._---------------------------
------61 -------------------------- ~
lldlO''t''lId
-----------.---------------------------
'IA
-------.-.--------------
-.----61 'tDJ.J. ---------------- .o!t:
.." '.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland
Lawrence Duganne
Courl 01 Comlnoll Plea.!
VI.
No, 9.li::265Jl.Ci.'li1.Te.tm___.______n.n IL__
Weis Markets, Inc.
1000 South 2nd Street
Sunbury, Penna. 17BOl
III _Ci.'lU.Action-:_J..a\'l____nn___u_uu_____
To .~<<:j.f1. J-:l"rk.~teJ.J,ocJ. n nn .__., _._._ ______
You are heleb)' notified Ihal
,..._~~cflJDuQiUlDe_..___.____.____,..__.___,____.______,____________________________________
the Plainli(( 'liB commenced an aClion in ___G4,Y,tl,_l"gW.n_...___________n_______________________
agaillll you which )'OU art' requirt'd to del<'nd or a dclault Judgment may be entert'd agal",t you,
(SEAL)
._.,..!c~~Il~e_~~_~eJJter___________..______..
Prothonotary
nate .~_H___nu_______._____n 19_96..
II)' _:_ _)~,-,=_,G.~ _J.1h!i~~__.______......
Deputy
J
.
~~
-iJ !~ ~
al.... .a ~l
i .bo .... 0
- UUlCIJ g ~ .... ~!:;
c:: .... 2l'"fij 01
~'8"" I J U~~~ ~ f
2l N . oMl
fl ~:5~ I ~I
I j"~~ . .
~ ~ . ,
j I I
~ ~8j ~ ~~~ E:
~0!3 t-JX~ !::.
....Ul
SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY
CASE NO: 1996-02658 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
DUGANNE LAWRENCE
VS.
WEIS MARKETS INC
R. Thomas Kline . Sheriff, who being duly sworn according
to law, says, that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within
nsmed defendant, to wit: WEIS MARKETS INC
but was unable to locste
deputized the sheriff of
to serve the within WRIT OF
Them
in his bailiwick. He therefore
NORTHUMBERLAND
SUMMONS
County, Pennsylvania.
On Julv 3rd.
the attached return from
1996
. this office was in
NORTHUMBERLAND
County,
receipt of
Pennsylvania.
Sheriff's Ccsts:
Docketing
Out of County
Surcharge
Northumberland Co
So answers:
18.00
9.0\!'
2.00
23.94
6~2.94 MCGRAW HAIT & DEITCHMAN
07/03/1996
, '( ,_~_c-_ .,..
,f ...-'~~"'~-: ;.-1'... ~~.. .........-',~t'
H.' Ihomae Kline, 5her111
i /-:-
~/
Sworn an~ subscribed Ito before me
thie 1/ day of \.. ';''1
19 q( A.D.
GtL<-plli-J~.~1
r,AS'1' DAY FOR SERVIC~I .JUN~ 13. 1996
In The Court ci C.::mmO~\ Fls::s or C:Jr.::--:~tt'i::nd C,:,:w:-;':y,
Panr:sylvr::::~i:::
.
Lawrence Duqanne
'is.
Weis Markets: Inc.
:-Ie. 96-2658
Civil
.~
----r .--
~OW,
May 15
:9.2.L 1. S:~~"F OF C~G::::=..!.)_'fI) CO't.~":Y, ?~ co
h=-.=y cLru= t!:.:: Sa=..= of
Nort tlUIllberl and
C~u::y ::3 =::::-..It:: =:s 'tV::;
lo.. .. . ':lo . '. .
~ =u:::.:.cn ,:...,'3' :.:1.::.: U ':....:: ~ ::a. :""..lK. at
......, .
:::: ?!:1!::5.
r~~~
Sise........:! ct C=er..1Cc C~u:tT, ?~
.
Affida.vit or Sem~
:iow, ~9 . -- o'clcc:.:: "L 1=-.~
:.::: wi t!:i:1
'.lpoa
n
. =.:u:'::_! to
::r
I. ci . ::rit-..I
c:::py ==
t.
:md _'!lI':. bawa :0 :.:: :=:::::1 :aL::::=i.
Sa i1.:SWc:,
Slu::i5 0/
~u.a.rr, :2.
Swcr: :1:C r.:bc-.:l:d b::'cr=
=::!:!s_6yc{
l~_
CCSTI
So'vlC::
~au..-\.GE.
.....::IDA.y..
s
-'----
s
r_ o--a
.
S, On or nhout Septemher 17. 19911. Defense counsel wrote 101'Ininlitrs counsel
c1niming IlllItthe numher of Inlerrognllll'ies was in excess oflhe locnl rule, (copy of
[)efense counsel's leller IIllnched heretons Exhibit "n").
11, Dnlll' nhout September 23. 1996. I'llIinlilrs counsel volunlnrily wilhdrew
Inlerl'llgnlories numher S. 11. II nllll I H innn ellin110 he IIccommodnting, (copy of leller
wilhdl'llwing cel1nin enumel'lllcd Interl'llgntlll'ies nllnched herelons Exhihit "e").
7. I !lIVing received no reply lolhe Inlerl'llgnlories nor lolhe Requesll!)r
I'l'l1duelion. h)' November I H. 199(,. I'lninlitr senln rcmiuder leller. (COP)' of leller
nllnehed hereto liS Exhihil "[)"),
H. On or nhoul December 2-l, 1996, I'lninlilrs counsel senl yel another rcminder
coneeming lhe responses 10 discovery requesls IInd indicnled lhlll if they were not
received by Jnnunry 10, 1997, nmotion 10 compel would he liIed. (See copy of Icllcr
nllnched herelo liS Exhibil "E").
9. On December 30, 1996, hy tclephonc enll with I'lninlifl's counscl's Inw
pnrtner, Frcd II. Hnit, Defense counsel indicnlcd Ihnl lhc discovery responses would he
forthcoming by Jnnunry 14, 1997. Delense counsel conlirmed this reqnesllor eXlension
in writing. (See copy of Icller nllnched herelolls Exhihit "1'''),
10, On Fridny, Jnnunry 17, 1996. I'lninlill's counsel telephoned [)efendnnt's
nllomey nnd wns informed hy her secrelnry thlll she WIIS unll\\'lIre of IIny Answers hnving
heen sent outnnd WIlS ndvised Ihnt Defendnnl's IIllorlley would not he hack inlhe otliee
Ihnl Fridny nllerlloon,
II. On Mondny. Jmllllll)' :!O. 11)1)7. 1'llIinlill's counscllilxcd II tiJulllcllcr
rcqucsting productioll or un cXphllllllion or why unswcrs IIIllI documcnts hllvc not bccn
rcceivcd. As orthc tiliug orlhis motiou. ucilhcr IIrcspousc lolllc Junuury 20111 tilx: nor
Answcrs 10 lutcrroglltorics. uor u Rcply to thc Rcqucst till' I'roductiou hllvc hccnrccciwd
by I'llIilllill's counscl. (A copy orthc Junuur)' 2(). 11)1)7 lilxcd currcspollllcucc is IIl1l1chcd
hcrclous Exhibit "0").
WHEREFORE.l'llIintitl'rcspccttilll)' rcqncsls Ihis Ilonol'llblc Coul'l to cUlupcl
Dcfcndllul to rcspoud 10 thc oUlstlludiug discovcr)' wilhiulivc (5) duys orthc dlllc onls
Ordcr.
Rcspcetlhlly submillcd.
MeGRA W. IIAIT & DElTCIIMAN
Dille: 1/21197
B)':_
J Ircr c. Dcilcllmnn
I'u, I.D. /I 72779
4 Libcrty A vcuuc
Cnrlisle.IIA 17013
(717) 249-4500
.,': ',., ',\'.~,','.'., '.
"~~'(":~{t\~~'I~JI,~ p,'"
DEFINITIONS
For purposes of the following Interrogatories, lhe following definitions apply:
I) "You" and "your" means and refers to lhe Defendant.
2) "Incident in queslion" refers to the fall alleged in the complaint in this action
and eireumstances surrounding the fall.
3) "Pholograph" means and includes any lllolion picture, still picture,
transparency, videotape, drawing, sketch, negalive, or other recording of any
nonverbal comnnmication in langible fonn.
INTERROGATORY NO. I
With respecl to the individual(s) answering or assisting in answering these
Interrogalorles, please slale the full and correcl name, address, job title and position
wiUlinthe organiznlional slruclure of the Defendanl enllty of the individunl(s) answering
these Inlerrogatories.
INTErrOGATORY NO.2
Has Defendant been sued under its correcl name? If nol, please slate the correct
name.
INTERROOA TOR Y NO.3
With respect 10 lhe defendallt corporollon, please state:
(a) lhe slllle ill which it incorporaled, the date on which it incorporalcd, your
principal placc of busincss, thc namcs and addrcsscs of all officcrs, and whcn thc
corpomlion was Iiccnscd to do busincss in lhc COlllmonwcalth ofl'cnnsylvanin.
INTERROGATORY NO.4
Please stale the name and address of ww potenlial party to this lawsuit, not already
named as a party hereto.
INTERROGATORY NO. II
Please describe what training procedures, if nny, are followed in the course of
training of defendant's employees with regard to customer's slipping and/or falling. TIlls
includes any and all written malerial, slides, photographs, films, videotapes, elc. which
defendnnl utilizes in training its employees.
INTERROGATORYNO.IJ
Please describe all invesligations of the incident made the basis of this lawsuit
(cther than those privileged by law) including who conducled lhe investlgalion, when the
investigation was conducled, and lhe results, findings or conclusions of said
invesligation.
INTERROGATORY NO. 16
What efforts were made by the defendanl 10 correct the condition or defect (which
plaintiff contends caused the occurrence in question before the incident in question?
.
INTERROGATORY NO. 17
Please describe in deloil any previous and subsequent incident of which defendant
is aware which occurred ill substanliol tbe some or similar manner os plolnlifrs fall in tbe
some or nearby locolion.
INTERROGATORY NO. 20
Please state eaeh and every basis for your contention that Plointifrs alleged damages ore
unrelated to the incident in question and that some or 011 of the medical treatment
obtained by Plaintiff was not necessary or appropriate treolment for the injuries sustained
in the fall.
. .............~,,-~... .------
"l)'.'.~
.. ..,.6
PEFINITIONS
For purposes of lhe following Requests for I'roducllon, the following delinlllons
apply:
I) "Vou"and "your" means and refers 10 lhe Defendant.
2) "Incidenl In qucslion" mcans lhc fall suffcrcd by Plaintiff liS allcged in the
complainl, along with surrowlding circumstanccs.
3) "Pholograph" means and includes any motion piclure, slill piclure,
transparcncy, videotape, drawing, skclch, ncgative, or o\hcr recording of any
nonverbal commWllcallon In tangible fonn.
4) "Custodian" mcans the person or entity with carc, cUSlody and conlrol of the
item or documcnt which the subjecl of Inquiry. A requcsl 10 Idcntlfy the
custodian of any item or document is a request to provide lhe name, address
and telephone number of said cuslodlan.
ITEMS REOUESTED
I. Any Documents, reports or o\her written records pertaining to any invesligation
pertaining to lhe Incidcnt made the basis of this lawsuit thaI is not privileged al law.
If any such documents, reports, etc. are nol produced, please stale what privilege is
Invoked and the reasons therefor.
2. Copies of any and all slatements previously made by I'lain\lff concerning lhe subject
matter ofUlls lawsuit,lneludlng any wrilten slalement signed or oUlerwise'adopted or
approved by Ule plaintiff and any slenographlc, mechanical, electrical or oUler type of
recording or any transcription thereof by plalnllff hereto and contemporaneously
recorded.
3. Any documents, photographs, or olher physical evidence which may be used or
offered at trial, Including, but not limited 10 lhe original or ncgalive of the photograph
which was originally produced to plalnlllT's counscl which purports 10 convey the
scene of the incident on June 8, 1995.
_..._,__ .........,... ...-~_o
CERTIFICATE OF SEIWICE
I, JENNIFER C. DElTCHMAN. hereby certify thaI, I served a copy of llle
foregoing Request for Prodclionthis J;t~ day of ~~ upon
the followinll individual(s) or entily(ies) by U.S. First Clnss Mnil.
Glorinnn Noreikn. Esquire
STETLER & GRlnBIN
138 Ensl Mnrkel Slreet, P.O. Box 2588
York, PA 17405
~j/,j
,.0 ~"'-~n
I
McuRAW, HAlT & DEI1'CHMAN
ATTOIlNEYS AT LAW
FREOIt,ltAII'
JENNIFER C, OEITCltMAN
TRUOY It, McGRAW, OF COUNSEL
CltAftlTY F, APA, LEGAL AIIIITANT
CORRUPONO TO:
4LiiiiiirVAVlNUE
CARLlILE. PA 11013
PHONE: t7l11248--1IDG
FAX' 11111 248,2411
~~t!,~_!lF-"!'-AC.I!g;,
EMPlOYMENT OIlCRIMINATlON
WORkERS' COMPfNIATION
PfRIONAL INJURY
10CIAL SECURITY OIlAIILlTY
September 23, 1996
CltAMIERllURG TRUll ILOG,
14 N, MAIN ITREtY, IUln 301
CttAMIERIIURG, PA 11201
PHONE, 11111213-1344
FAX, 11111248,2411
Gloriono Norieko, Esquire
STETLER & GRIBI3IN
138 Eosl Morket Street
1'.0, Box 2588
York,PA 17405
VIA FAX ONLY (845.4931)
RE: DUGANNE vs, WElS MARKETS
Deor Ms. Norieko:
Although moth wos never my slrong subject, I do not nnderslond how our 22
Interrogotories could be viewed as cxceeding lhe number allowed by local rule. In an
clTort to bc accommodaling, howcver, I will ogree 10 withdraw Inlcrrogolorie5 numbered
5,6, 1I,IInd 18. Itrusl this should be sotisfoctory.
If it is not, plellse provide the answers ond ony objections bosed upon your claim
tho\ lhe number cxceeds locol rule so lhol lhe moiler clln be decided in discovery court if
necessary .
Sincerdy,
If/ :fP/~ (! P~)e%
Jennifer C. Dcitclunon
cc: LU\\TCIlCC DugGonc
EXIIInlT "e"
-Oo"d a. QovelnOll. f'.nn.v1v.nl. TfI.ll.wyell Anod.Uon
Baird 01 OilfCIOlI, Cen"el renfllv1v.nl. T,III L.wvell Auociltion
-.. '
McultAW, HAlT & DEI1'CHl\.JAN
ATI'ORNEYS AT LAW
FRED U. "Alf'
JtNNlf[R C. DEITCUMAN
TRUDY It. McGRAW. OF C;OUNSEt
AREAS OF PRACTICE:
i;-MPlOYMENTOiicniMINA liON
WORKERS' COMPENSATION
PfRSONAllNJURY
SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY
CIIARITY F, APA, LlOAL A&&ISTANT
CORRUPON!U!!;
. UtERTY AVENUE
CARLIILE. PA 17013
PIIONE: 171712.UI00
FAX' 17,712.8,2.,1
December 24, 1996
CUAMBERSBuna TRUST BLDG.
'" N. MAIN STREET. SUITE 307
CttAMBEnS8URO. PA 11201
PIlONE: 17171213,73<<
FAX, 111712.0,2."
Glorinnn Nllreikn, Esqurie
STETLER & GRIBBIN
138 E. Mnrkel Slreet
P.O. Box 2588
York. PA 17405.2588
RE: DUGANNE vs. WElS MARKETS
Dear Ms. Noreikn:
On September 12''', I sent you a set of Interrognlories. You had an objection and I
voluntnrily withdrew numbers 5, 6. 11 & 18 by correspondence dnted September 231d.
ll1en, on November 181h 1 reminded you lhnt we were nwniting answers to those
Interrogntories. I hnve heard no reply. nor request for eXlension. Bnrring a full and
complele reply to the Inlerrognlories (with the exception of 5. 6, II & 18), I will be
forced to file n MOlion to Compel on Jnnuary 101h.
Sincerely, ,
/f/ ftL:~ ~ A!/;/k~p
Jennifer C. Deitclullnn ~
cc: LOWTCIICC Dugannc
~lmlT "r~"
'Oolld 01 00'011"'011, rallllaylv.nl. ',j.ll.wvat. Anoelllloll
Bolld 01 Oillelml, CIIIllIII Pellfl'vlv.nl' lrl.ll.wVClfl Auoculliofl
McGRAW, HAlT & DEITCH MAN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
fRED tI. HAlT'
JENNifER C. DEITCHMAN
TRUDY H. McGRAW. OF COUNSEL
AREAS OF PRACTICE:
EMPLOYM[NT--liisCRiMINA liON
WORkERS' COMPENSATION
PERSONAL INJURY
SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY
CHARITY F, APA. LEGAL ASSISTANT
CORRESPONO TO,
4liiiRTVAVlNUE
CARLISLE. PA 17013
PHON!: 17171248.4&00
fAX: 17171249,2411
January 20, 1997
CHAMSERSSURG TRUST SLOG
14 N. MAIN STRlET. lUlU 301
CHAMBERSBURQ, PA 11201
PHONE: 17171263-7344
FAX: 17171249,2411
Gloriana Norieka, Esquire
STETLER & GRIBBIN
138 East Market Slreet
P.O. BOl( 2588
York, PA 17405-2588
VIA FAX ONLY (717) 845-4931
RE: DUGANNE vs. WElS MARKETS
Dear Ms, Norieka:
1 understand that you requested an el(lenslon of time until January 14, 1997 to
provide Answers to Interrogalories on lhis case and 1 received your leller In follow.up to
your phone conversation wilh my partner. Since you did not hear otherwise from our
office, it should have been presumed that we assented to your request. It is now aboul a
week past your requested extension deadline and yet lhere arc no answers nor an
explanation for the lack or coopem\ion. I spoke to your secrelary on Friday, January l7'h
and she was unaware of any Answers having been sent and advised that you would
probably not be back in the office Friday afternoon.
I have no choice but to file a motion to compel. I undersland that a requesl for
consent to such motion is ridiculous, however, consider lhis as notice of lhe same and an
opportunity to advise whether the Answers have already been senl to avoid needless
filings. I will be in trial all day today, but feel free to leave a message with Charity Apa,
our legal assistanl, or on voice mail If documenlationls in the mail.
Sincerely, /c'? ' /
/1' " ~1'p"a.4'
If/ fi-//lt: '/ (?ZJt#/ ' . ~
Jennifer C. Deitchman {?A..
CC: LOI,yence Dugnnne
'Baird of GO'liltfllOIl. Penn''f'lw.nl. Tn.lllwVIII. "..oci,lion
Oolfd 01 Diltcloll. CIIIl".1 Penn'vlvlnll TIIIlllwvefl Atloel.lion
EXIIIIllT "c"
>-
~:-:
!:~
lV', ;
t....
Ii;'
I,
'-,J
C'
lji
L~
.~
~-v
t<)
~
...
~
II'
L,
"
I':,.
i
4
s:-
''-'
I r~' I
fo. J L" I..)
8) Do )'OU admit that Plaintiff encounlered Ihe 11llle piclured in Exhihil "13" and rellun Defendant's
property'!
Duted Ihis IS'" dil)' Uf~I)',,~l)98 //
/' I" ~
'/ ' "f .
, / ,. -' -'/ -~'...' :
II), , ,~_,_ '_':
-~~----_..__.._--_.
Jllnnilcr C, Deilchmull "-
POI, II) '17277'1
~IcGRA \Y. IIAIT &
DEITCIIMAN
4 Lihcrl) A \'cnllc
l'urlislc,PA 170 13
Phullc: (717)~49.451111
Fax: 171712-19.45011
D ,.'
11",',/.;,*,1, '.
~
"IV e i s
N\ ark e t s.
1 nc.
.
I. Complet thi9 fo~ upon notice of public accident. fo,warn to inourance dept./peroonnel.
2. In case of fatality, telephone office immediateLJ.
J. Do not make any pro~oeo regarding inourance cover~e. ~laUl that the ~tter will be
reported and the cuotomer might expect contact...i! you t~~ it i9 neee09arj.
.
t~.;;-t..:-iH:~-iHH:ooh.':-4H:....r1HHHHt-C-r'):-r.'i:"*,,,~""'rlrl;-t;J'.-IH;-\f-)-o.""f.:l-;;i"~H;*,"",,~"'~~rf.+.-4I.J,;~,",H-rl.<..fHKJ;-lrll-i.~~..-t1-4.if-f.-i.:~-C~
.Jj'{l~ ~ c.:.>.\-.\.o (l /"",- ~ "" .";,5
I. Store floe and ad"dr":le ,,;\ Co \"u~ -;-;~I:F:"" " .: . t".1 '" Telephone - " ~
CUotomer name L..,~.r."...(I; \),)""",,0;:. Agu 2(" Sux Iv'\.
Addrea:s r;:: ~c \.. '^J\"I.j ,r_~"'''''j:'I.''I.S~...I.(.. \.:...., '1~r:1 1'eluJ::hone IV':"";f.
~iI'TICE (11' PUBUC ACCIDEtrr
1000 SOUTH '3ccoun STRCC"'"
SUt4nuHY. PE:,.,tttlYl.V...,.UA 176C:.
(
,
Occupation ,,=.-~.l"f ~1-o'~'~()_r~~L_-
,
E.:1Floj"cr
::/,<,/"J :u:l t.. :r - Cr..",
"'.. ~/LI _., Location o:.~ accident U,,"O>J,O or oj 'U'>
, I p;1!
fHMr-;.."*"H;-U n" Jill A ioI-'~ ~~-r,':';"","";'~"H~~"'1Ni,;-f.-.HrlI.I.r"~~..j,""~~'Hl--:1'-lrr...,~.-4~"kC~...,,.~Hoi"',-(,~...rlif....-'.-'t~HrR-'l~,.,l+~..+,kiHHt..11-A It Jl R "" J:.. It 111:.t J: 04;
C'C
Date an~ tiee of acciuent
II. BODIU IlIJURY.. . Dfl:lcription 01' incidunt I''''i\'''',,'\
~~a-:..\ c~ "'~l:: ~f.1..:.t:.. \ ,'" t:\- ~ '.-. =>,", J I -. ~~ ~
S\~~h~~~
...'-0..
~,.,.
'\ ."
C\J~;" ~V\
fo.,."t: '_\".~n'''J
~
I~....I:':" ',',
c.....-:.:J.
, .
witneaaea (friends of L~~ur~c, other cU5tc~cr5, c=plcreeai
(include nn:::e, n.;e ,," ac::re~s!
,\ ~ (r"
a c'\.o~
.,...... ..- .,
(-_,!:;J ',_,., ~",' ~/.L/'k---
-I'""" II II ~ ,_..~;,
fJ" ,(; ,'. .----/
.
InjUI"J (e'lidence of bleod, !~ncture. etc.:
I W"l '::)~~ll
'--
ro.-,'
/
//
a of otore _ accident location - ~nen wa:s it last S~'CFt'1 Co=" 'i'-'L"rr - ~\v"^t\ -~~,,\\ '''~.
I
Action taken to prevent oimila: accidents
lJ:::::ediate attention I'l!ndered? .v..'\.v C
Method of re:::oval fr= st.::re Vo'.\\< -I) C 'J'
Di:scu:lsion with injured '-""'. '-' ~t, - ''''''''''-!>
o-N;;;',
57 ....nc::?
Hedical !acillt7-~
....,T C=O, AM,j A~o"" iT,
of i.,jured
-;tt~o; ttt ce.t\" ~ VJC\J \t1
,
Attitude
'~'f)\
Gi,J(
1\1 "^
A CC~\.4 e";:'
, \
ia 11 II .. )l II ~ . 5l . )t .. .. H J:."iHMH~:~~:-r.~""",,~;'*i~-t:.~~~"I..,.Ht~Ht"r.'i',..,~-r.~~rtr..;~..~.."'1rC~rl1-'':-:H;***'IH:'''''r'I1'' n .. It Jl :1 J Jl Jl · iii .: .... I
III. VEHICLE DAHAG~ DUE TO SHOPPllG CARTS - Des~~pticn of incident (i.,clude car make, coler,
location of damage, etc.)
Approx. CO:lt list old dnlllo3ge
(Courteously L~d1cate to customer that old dBmage 15 apparent)
iHl Ii: Ii.... 1114-1H.~riH;~;"""'Vit-':.;." ,"~';-f,..(..f-tMoH:-,,;"'.at.,-I.:~""-4H:+It-4H: II . U II It II '4 II " II !I t:l . " No " ~ t; . II r.
IV. PROPERTY DAHAGE _ Ccocription of incident (du:lcribe ite:l damaged, color,
EXHIBIT
~ fa' l'dn\S-
, "~' sial
Approx. coat Guotomer attitude Repair or re
1:-(:~1-ioI c. 'II" 111111 ~......,,-t";-4rlH.........:<~:.,,~."~"':~:""r"';..;.t..;....-;.J,.;~~~;"""<-'i--'t-'t-C..c"I-i.~~....~,..K..,......:,-C;~H:..~.~
v. FURTHER cc:~~rr::' "\~\i.. (:"':'.. '::....'Mt ~)..ll.-. '-~) JoNi) "'T,.~'-.. \)i,.""tvl1~-:".l
~rr)A'- - -:r ()iC\ ~\I2T_2-~~".i \ 1\1": \J.,lo~ '""l,lrlU;~)I. ~\ITv,lI~~ _...,',,-:'11_ .A.rie....j1..
c~ ,I<< E: r/~""'T 0 I=-
4 Ii" Di''' i-o,
ON BACt.{-
In your opinion, is eontae~
L~v~~ ". T~Qvl\''i .M'J..~.l.
.'
u"'~
\
Sfl;:'M~
I:' not, wny1 II<<, ~
"'''.\) f.4 "rt.,,,....(
~:t eOlllpan;; warrantt!d7
_ ...,-::,..\..;\) "1.. \~~"':;'"
**"'.H:'"1HHH1.....-u-iO..i-it-tK-(.....u....~M+'i to .....,.......t.......t~. ~..H...--4,.~ 1. .'l-;M;..,t-1~...t-1<;-(..;I.~ ~i"'. "~'c"." t...;...-.-,: li~~..........;~:-"';......--t;-!;~i1'1H:.-iHt-fHHHHHt"'.......I*i:~
... '" ,"',,/ ') . '.
#.'.-I...p :;d.;2
EXHIBIT
II f. lr7Jo
EXHIBIT
ill"l!~ III :.lltt:'
I I~~I ; ~ 11 J \
-.- ..:J' :,.
, .,~ .;: \-
"
':: ,
" ,
C:'
l.'''' '.
\..' ", -
, , .'
e/I .
,(l "
C' - I,
"
i." ~ .... 1.,1
. Ii'.\.-
:;;. c.
". Ie OJ
<.) .... (.)
"
STETLER & GRIBBIN
LEO E GRI8BIN
JO~tPH W MOYER
JOliN J ~YlV^NU~
WALTER ^ lILlEY. III
DAVID ^ MILl~
TIIOMA$ F MtlHtl<
GLORIANA NOREIK^ MAENNUt
RICHARO 0 UOlllNGWORlH
RICHARD J McCRACKEN-
,nlVEN R TR[G[^
AHOl<Ntn AT lAW
UK IAH MARUI ~1fllH
NEVIN HllLER
IIUI8.IUUIII
I' 0 &OX ?',tll1
YORK. Pr.NN~YLVM~I^ 1140'i
Illfl'llONE
1/1/) 854.U500
June 19, 199B
'^'
11111 845.4U:II
'AUO AOMITTfU IH MAkYLANU
Lawrence Welker, Prothonotary
Cumberland County Court 1I0use
Hanover and High street
Carlisle, PA 17013
REI Duganne v. We!s Markets, Inc.
Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County, PA
No. 1996-2658
Our File No. 8769
Dear Mr. Welker:
Enclosed please findl
1. Three subpoenas to be issued;
2. Self-addressed, stamped envelope for the return of the
subpoenas;
3. Check in the amount of $6.00;
4. Letter of Jennifer Deitchman, Esquire, June 8, 1998.
We are enclosing the June 8, 1998 letter from Plaintiff's
attorney, Jennifer Deitchman, waiving the objection period on the
subpoenas to Drs. Cutright and Edwards and waiving notice of a
subpoena for Dr. Horn.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Sincerely,
GM/vb
~T~J'~Il...& ~IBBIN / .
/ V Y) l. )~
L-.l/ u1IL~\i'(/ W\ '-' (Lt.1VtU--'\
(.. G'i'P.riana Norep,ka Maenn
\ I
Enclosures
CCI Jennifer C. Deitchman, Esquire (w/enclosure)
Bart Shaffer (w/enc10sure)
PRAECIPE ','OR I,ISTING CASE FOR 'fRIAL
(Must be typewrit ten and suunit tl!d in duplicate)
'ro THE PIUI1I01'U1'ARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Pll!ase list the following caS<!l
(Check one)
x
for JUIlY trial at the nl!xt tem of civil court.
[or trial without a jury.
-----------------------------------------
CAPTION OF CASE
(ent ire capt ion I1lJst 00 stated in full)
(chcck one)
Lawrence Duganne
(x
Civil Action - I~w
Appeal from Arbitration
(other)
(Plaint iff)
vs.
Weis Markets, Inc.
Thl! trial list will be called on
lIugust 18, 1998
and
Trials COITIOOnCl! on September 14, 199B
(Defl!ndant)
Pretrials will be held on August 26, 199B
(Briefs arc due 5 days before pretrials.)
vs.
('!'hl! party listing this case for trial shall
provide forthwith a copy of the praecipe to
all counsel, pursuant to local Rule 214.1.)
No. 2658 Civil Law
1996
Indicate the attorney who will try case for t1l<! party who fill!S this praecipe.
Jennifer C. Deitchman, McGraw, Ilait & Deitchman, 4 Liberty Avenue, Carlisle, PA 17013
Indicate trial counsel [or othl!r partil!s if known. Gloriana Noreika, Esq.
stetler & Gribbin, 138 East ~~rket street, York, I'll 17405
This case is ready for trial.
~igned.
Deitchman
Print Naill:),
Dull" ---2dl(llL----
Allollley lunPlaintiff
~ N ~
c:;
~-
),-- 8 ::)-<
9- I~;;"
~M x: '.;;:a-'
i~;' .~ -:\>
(-,,~
,... .- n
'~l.:'''
u. N ~5Cb
I" ..J
,. ==: (on..
~ :.i:
t5 co a
Cf\
31
LAWRENCE DUGANNE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLBAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW
WEIS MARKETS, INC.,
Defendant 96-2658 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
At a pretrial conference held Wednesday, August
26, 1998, before Edward E. Guido, J., present for the Plaintiff
was Jennifer C. Deitchman, Esquire, and Fred Hait, Esquire, and
present for the Defendant was Gloria Maenner, Esquire.
This is a straight forward slip and fall case.
The parties estimate it will take one day to try. Plaintiff's
expert is unavailable on Friday of the trial week. There are no
other scheduling conflicts.
The parties are directed to file any motions in
limine with accompanying authority by Tuesday, September 8,
199B. Any responses thereto shall be filed by Friday, September
11, 1998. If any party desires to file a trial brief, it shall
be submitted by Friday, September 11, 1998. All proposed points
for charge shall be due at the commencement of trial.
Plaintiff has demanded $50,000 to settle this
matter. The Defendant feels the sum is totally unreasonable and
is not prepared to make a response thereto. Likelihood of
settlement is very slim.
By the Court,
SEP 1 0 199~~w;
IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
LA W1lliNCE DUGANNE,
PlainlitT
: NO. 1996-2658
v.
: CIVIL ACTION. LA W
WEIS MARKETS, INC.,
Defendant
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORDER
And now this
day of September, 1998, it is hereby ordered lhat any
reference in Dr. Lonergan's video deposition relaling to a purported statemenl of
Plaintirrs fiance regarding causation of the fall or compensation for injuries conlained in
Plainlirrs physician's medical records is 10 be slrickell before the videotape is shown to
the jury.
By lhe Court:
*" ~\
-,
\f\Q\ L\~-\-
J.
~ll<JKAW.IIAIT &: IlI'ITCIIMAN
4 1.Ibcr1)' ^\'cnuc
l'.rli~e.I'^ 170 I J
(7171249-1IIXI
(A1IOrnC)J for I'laintiJ1)
IN TIlE COUltT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMDERLANU COUNTY,I'ENNSYLVANIA
lAWRENCE OUGANNE.
)'laintilT
: NO, 1996-2658
v,
: CIVil ACTION. lAW
WElS MARKETS, INC..
Oerendanl
JUIlY TRIAL DEMANDED
I'LAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE
IlEGAlUlING INAUMISSIIIILlTY OF IIEAlt'iAY
T1{ANSMITT AL OF NON.TESTlFYING PIIYSICIANS' RECOImS
OFFEIlEU AT TIUAL TlllmUGII UEFENSE EXl'EltT I'IIYSICIAN
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
I. 111is case arises oUI ora roll in a parking lot of We is Markets on May 15.1994, At issue is both
liability I1fld Plaintilrs damages,
2, Defcndl1l1l's expert, Robert p, Lonergan. M,O, testified at his Irial deposllion on Friday,
Seplember 4, 1998 10, 11I11Ong olher things, u rererence to u nole In the Grc'Cnville llospllul Clinic
records concerning WI alleged slatcrnC'llt by I'lainliO'asking whelhcTthe doclor could slale thatlhe
Injuries which were being treall'll were caused by Ihe falllx.'Cuuse thai was the only way thai his
bills would be puid,
]. I'laintllrs counsel objeclc'lI on the rc'Cord to this line or questioning.
4, 111e deposllion tmnscripl has nol yet been prepllrc'lI. hnwever. the deadline ror filing molions in
limine Is September 8. 1998 per Judge Guido's l're-Irilll Order or AuguSI 26, 1998. I'lalntilrs
counsel will gladly submltlhe portion oflhe trl1l1scTlptllt issue to Ihe Court upon rc'Celpt of II.
5. A cureful reuding of Ihe Grl'Cnville Clinic note. howe,'er. reveals that this stalemenl was
appllrC'lltly nol made b)' Ihe I'lainlln: bul mth.T b)' his Iiance, (A copy or the Clinic's Irealmenl
nole is utlllchc'lI hCTClo us Exhibll "A"), As such. Dr, LoncTglln's trnnsrnitllllur it In his deposlllon
would conslllute hearsay upon hcarsll)',
6, Derense counsel eounllTed hllhe objeeliun thlltthe slutemc'll is WI esception tolhe hearsay rule
on allc'l1ll1llve bases: becuuse II \IllS Ihe slntcllll'll of thc plululllr \\hlch mill' pertuin 10 his
motlvallon: It was lilr the purpose or oblalulngmL'lllcul trClltm.,lI; nnd wus belngusL't1 by Ihe
"xpert tolimll the bus Is ti.r his opinions,
Dr. l.ollLTgall conllnuL'll to teslily a i 10 the IrcutmL'Ilt rL'Curd und Ihe stulemenl conlainL'll IhLTeln,
7.
ISSUE
Is the hearsay tnmsmlllalof a stutemL'lIullegL'llly mude by Plahllitl.s liunce. conlalnL'll In a nm-
leslilylng pbysiclWl's medical rL'Cord. Inadmlsslb",ut triul'/
(suggested answer: yesl
AHGlJMENT
111e g."eml rule In I'ennsylvunlu Is that medical experts ure pLTmllled to testify to opinions that
bave been busL'll. In part. on reports thaI ure not In evidence hut thut arc ol'the Iype cuslomarily reliL'll upon
by experts In Ihat lield, f'rlnmvcm v. Celolex CorP.. 415 Pa, Super, CI. 41. 608 A,2d 515 (1992); SIlL'elv v.
Beard. 696 A,2d 214 (I'a, Super, CI, 1997), 11115 hearsay exception was adoptL'll by the Pennsylvania
Supreme Court in Conllllonweahh v. 11111lIlas. 444 I'a, 436. 282 A,2d 693 (1971) WId Ihe rule essentially
mirrors the Federal Hule of Evidence, H,703.
However, also like F,R,E,703.lhe rule in Pennsylvania Is not wilhout IImils, 111all5, the expert,ln
testifying to Ihe hearsay reports of olhLT experts, must ael as an expert WId nol as a "mere conduit or
transmiller of Ihe content of an eXlmJudlclal source," SL'C Allen v, KanlWl. 439 l'n. Super. Cl, 263, 653
A,2d 1249 (1995). appL'U1 grWlIL'll. 541 I'a, 640. 663 A,2d 692 (1995): Cooner v, lIums. 376 Pa, Super. Ct.
276,545 A,2d 935 (1988); Unlled SlatL'S v, TonmsiWl. 784 F.2d 782. 786 (7~ Clr. 1986), As Ihe Prhnavera
court explalnL'll, "WI 'expert' should nol be pennilled simply to repeat WlolhLT'S opinion or data without
bringing to bear mlt her m\1l expLTUse and JudgmL'IlI." l'rlmaveru, 608 A,2d at 521 (cltalions omlned),
In the inslWlI case. Or, l.onergan's deposition rellects a quole thlln l'lalntltl.s liance 10 Ihe effect
that '1he only way they will be compensulL'll is for me to stole llmtlhe right knL'C pain Is due to the injury
from MayoI' 1994," 'l1u:re Is no dispule us to whethLT the reports of the GrL'Cnvllle Orthopedic Clinic are
Ihe type reasonably relied upon by experls in Dr. l.onLTgan's t1eld, 1I0llever typicul the l'L'Cords may be,
Ihe slaleml"t ofl'lalulill's nonce IIho is not culled 10 tesllfy ut Iriulls of no help In educallng the Jury as 10
Ihe busls for Dr, l.onLTgun's oplnlms,
2
+
GREENVILLE HOSPITAL SYSTEM
GR[[HVIL~[, 5, C, 29605
M[DICA~ RECORD
ROOM NO.
ttObl'ITAL NO.
LAWIlENCE
10/26/94
Mr. nugnnne is II 38 yellr old white mille who is followed in clinic with
chief complaint of right knee pain with an occasional numbness of the
right clllf and thigh, Patient was lust seen un 10/12/94 by myself at
which time un Mill was obtuined to rule internal llerllngement of the
right knee. The putient presents toda)' usking when arc we going 10
perform the surgery to rei ieve his right knee pllin. The pat ient has
been in extreme pain anll stutes that he cannot hend his right knee at
all. The patient wus appllrently called in a prescription fur Lortab 5
which states hus not helped with his pain. Please refer tn nnte of
10/12/94 for full ,Ietails.
EXAMINATION: Examinat ion is essentially unChangel1 from exam of
10/12/94. The patient sti I I has extreme right knee pain with range of
motion. The pain is diffuse although there uppears tu he increased
pain on the medial joint line. There is no instahility nf effusion
appreciated. The patient still reports decrease in sensation on the
right calf hut apparently the chunge in sensation on the right thigh
has I mp roved.
X-RAYS: A review os the plltient's MRI scan reveals a 1 x 2 x 3 Col.
area of ahnormulity In the medial femoral condyle. It is felt thut
this may represent II purtlal Iy healed area of osteochondritis desecans
or osteonecrosis. There is also a small popliteal cyst appreciated,
ASSESSMENT AND PLAN:
I. The putient and his fiance state that the pain in his right
knee beganarter he stepped in a hole in 5/94 In
Pennsylvania." The fiance states that the only way \hut they
wi II be compensated is for me to state that the right knee
pain Is due to the Injury from May of 1994. I have discussed
the Mill findings with the patient and he understands that the
chllnges seen on the scan may be acute or chronic and that I
hllve no way to be sure that this is a result of his fout
stepping to a hole in MllY, although. this is II possibility.
The plan at this time is to ohtain a hone scan of the right
knee to determine if the changes appreciated on Mill lire acute
or chronic. The putlent is anxious to have surgery performed
hut he understands thut no surgery wi II be planned unt i I the
proper diagnosis is made. The patient has requested II work
excuse 115 well as prescription for pain pills. The patient
is given II work excuse for decrellsed activity on the right
leg IInd II prescription for narvocet I to 2 po q 4 to 6 hours
IInd 25 ure dispensed. Patient understllnds that these
Narcot ics wi II not he used on a long-term hasis hecause of
their l\,lrlictive 1I.ltllre,
EXHIBIT
10/26/94
I
^
"PI 0' REPORT
ORTHOPEOIC cLINIC
SIGN[D
JOliN J.. SANIlEHS. M .Il. / j rUb
.'
~"
SEP 1 0 1998 j,P"
IN TilE cOVIn OJ! COMMON I'LEAS OJ!
CUMIIIIIU.ANU COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
LA WRENCE DlJOANNE,
I'luintitr
: NO, 1996-2658
v.
CIVIl. ACTION. I.A W
\Vms MARKETS, INC"
Dctcndunt
: JlIRY TIHAI. DEMANDED
OIU>Elt
And now lhis _'____ day of Scptcmhcr, 1998. il is hcrchy ordcrcd !lml un)'
rclcrcncc in Dr. Loncrgun's vidco c.lcposition rcluting 10 u purport cd stutcmcnl of
I'luintill's f1uncc rcgurding cuusulionofthc lilllor compcnsnlion Ibr injurics conluincd in
I'luinlill's physiciun's mcdicul rccords is to hc strickcn hcfbrc Ihc vidcotnpc is shown 10
thc jury.
By Ihc Court:
1.
,...
nllllivnllon; iI wus fllr Ihe pllrpose of ohloining m.'llleol Ir""lm."I; wId WIlS heing u",1 h)' Ihe
expert III fllrmlhe husls fllr his opinions,
Dr, Loncrgwl conlinu.'lllo 1."liI)' us 10 Ihe Ircullllcnl r.'Cord und Ihe slul.,nelll conluhlL'lllhcreln,
7,
ISSIJE
Is Ihe hellfsn)' trunsmlllnl of n slnlenll'llolleg.,lIy IIIl1de h)' I'llIinlill's Iillnce, cllnlnin.-' inol1lll'
leslif)'ing ph)'lilciun's ml'llicol r.'Conl, inlldmissihle ollrinl'l
ISIlBgesll,lonswer: )'es)
t\lllillMliliI
'111c g."el1ll rule in l'enns)'lvonill is Ihlll medlclll eSl'erts ote p.,millcd 10 leslili' to opinlllns dUll
hove heen IlllSL'll. in pllrt. on reports Ihnlllre IIllI in evldeoce hili dllllllre Ill' the 1)1'e cU'lllmoril)' reli.,lup"n
h)' e.perts in Ihllllield, rrlnluvcl1l v, Cel~!J;_U}lm. .115 I'll, Sllper, Cl, "1.11118 A,2d 515 (1'1112); :ili!'l-1D',
lleurd, Ill/II A,2d 214 (l'u, Sup...., 0, 11J'J7), 111is hcnrSllY exceptllln wus IIdllpll'll h)' Ihe l'enns)'lvunlu
Supreme Coort in Conllnonweollh ", -l1l1l11IY~, 4.... Po, "31,. 282 A,2d Il'lJ (I1J71)lUld Ihe rule essenlinlly
mirrors the F.'llernlllule of Es'idence. IUU3,
lIowev..... ulso like F.ltE,703. the rule in 1'.,ms)'lvunln is nlll wllhllllllimlls, '11lat is. Ihe expert. in
1."lify!ng to Ihe hcnrsny teports nf Illh.... e.p....ls. mllst acl us IUI expert und nlll as a '~n....e cnndllllllr
Ironsmiller Ilflhe Cllnl.'ll of on eXlruJudlciul snoree," :i~ All." v, Konlml, "J'II'u, Supcr, Cl. 26J. 653
A,2d 12..1J (IIJ'l5).aPJlC"1 grunll'll. 541 1'0,640.663 ^,2d 1l1J2 (I1J1J5); rlK1J1er v, IInl1ls. 376 I'll, SUJll-..., 0,
276.545 A,2d IJJ5 (11J88); lJnill'll Slules v, Tomosll!!!, 78.. F,2d 782. 7811 (7~ Cir, 11J8(,), As Ihe l'ril11lll'cra
court explain.'ll. "1U1 .exp....I. slllluld nnt be JlCrmilll'll sil11pl)' III rl'flelll onolh,....s opinion nr dolll wllhllul
hringing In hear un II h,,,, 0\\11 exp.....lse ond JUdgI111"I," l'rimuverll, (,08 A,2d 01521 (clllllioos omitted),
In Ihe inslunl cllse. Dr, LnnerglU"s deposllillo relll'Cts 0 qoole 1i11l0 I'I0iolll1's Iiooce lolhe elle..1
1111I1 '~he ",1)' Wll)' Ihe)' will he compenSllI.'t1 is lilr me 10 slole Ihol Ihe riBht kn.'C palo is due 10 Ihe 10JIlry
Irom Ma)' of IIJIJ..,.. '111L...e is no dispule liS III \lhelh....lhe rel",rts oflhe lir,ocnville Orthllpedie Clinic ure
Ihe I)pe rensonnhly relied upon h)' esperls in Ilr. I.on....~'ol.s tiel", I Itme,et 1)11kllllhe tL'Cnrds mo)' he,
Ihe sI01.,nl'l11 ofl'llllIlllll's Iionee who is nOll'olle" Illlesllli" ollriol is or no hell' in ,'llucolinB Ihe Jury os 10
Ihe hllsls li,r Dr. Lon....~lIu's opinh.",
~
-
"
-I-
GREENYILLE HOSPITAL SYSTEM
GR[[NVILLt, 5, c, 29605
MtOICAL RtCOHO
,.....
_ DUGANNE, LAWRENCE
10/26/94
roo" NO,
1--
ttO!>l'''AL NO.
Mr. DUgllllll" is II .1H y,,"r 011\ white I1Il1le who is rollowIld ill dillic with
chier COl1ll'lIIillt or right kllee I'lIill with IIn llI:cllsionlll IIUllIhnes:, or the
right clllr 1111,1 thil!h, I'IItiellt WIIS IlIst see II '"1 10/12/'14 hy l1Iyselr lit
which tillll! 1111 Mill WII!; ohtllille,1 to rule illtelnlll ,iL'IIInl!c'l1Ient or the
right kllel!. The I'IIt ient I'n!Sellts todllY 'I'killll wh,'n IIle we goillg to
perforl1l the surgelY to relieve his right knee pllin. The plltiellt hilS
beell ill extn'l1Ie I'lIin and sllltes Ihllt he Cllllllot belld his righl knee lit
1111. Th" pllt i,'nl WIIS "1'l'lrently ':lllIe,1 ill II I'rl!script iOIl for I.orlllb 5
which Stllt"s hll!' not helped with his pllin, please n'fel to note of
10/12/941'01' rull ,Ietllils,
EXAMINATION: EXIII1Iilllll lOll is es"'lIt illlly unchllllged 1'1'0111 eX1I11I or
10/12/94. The pllliellt sllll hilS exll'l'l1Ie righl knee I'lIill wilh rllnge or
mot I 011. The pll i n is ,\ if ru"e 1111 hough I he re IIPI"!arS 10 be i IIcreased
pllin oil lhe medial joillt line. There is no instahllilY or erfu:;!oll
IIpprec iat!!d, The pllt i!!nl st i II r!!IUHls decrease ill sen"at iOIl on the
right clIl I' hut IIpparently the challge III sellsllt iOIl on the righl thigh
has improved.
X-HAYS: ,\ review os lhe pill ient's Mill SCIIII re,'eals a x 2 x .1 CI1I,
area or ahllorl1llllilY in the medial rel1lorlll condyle. It is felt thllt
this may represent a pllrt ially healed area or osteoehondr i t is desecnns
or osteonec"'lSis. There is nlso II smllll I'oplitelll cyst appreciated,
ASSESSMENT AND PLAN:
.. The patient and his rillnce stllte thllt Ihe pnill ill his right
kllee begall ,arter he stepped in a hole in 5/94 in
Penllsylvnllia. The finllce states that the only way that the)'
wi II he compensated is for l1Ie to stnte thnt the right knee
paill is due to the injury rrom Mny of 1994. I hllve discussed
the Mill rllldings with the pntiellt and he understands thnt the
l'hallges seen 011 the selin ilia)' be acote or chroll i c alld that J
hllve 110 11'11)' to be sure that this is II result of his foot
steppillg to u hole in MllY, ulthough. thi~ is II posslbll it)'.
The pllln nt thi~ time is to ohtllill n bone senn of the right
kllee to determine j I' the chunges IIpprecillted on MRI arc acute
or ehrollic. The pal jent is anxious to have surgery performcd
hul he 1I1111el'slaltlls thllt no surgel'," wi II he plunned unti 1 thc
pplpel' II iagnlls i s Is 111I1I\e, The pat i elll 11IIS requested /I work
eXCllse liS well as pl'escriptiolt 1'01' pain pills, The patient
is ~i"elt II wllrk l'XL'USe for deerell!,ecl lIet ivi ty IIn the right
11'1' IIltd a presL'1' i pt illlt 1'01' Dan'nce! I tn 2 pLl 'I 4 to (, hours
1111,125 lire Ilisl".It!,ed. I'alil'ltt IIl1l1erstlllllls that these
NIII'L'ot ics wi II It"t he IIse,1 011 II loltg-term hilS i s hecnuse of
till' i 1 111111 i c! i \'e Ita III 1 c',
EXHIBIT
IO/2h/""
I
^
--f'fplor,iii.o"t -.
llllTIIlWI,:nll' "I.INII'
-J
b-IO;ilii .~
.I1)IINL_~~_^~I~:IlS. M,n./jtJ1b
,.!
.. . .
CEItTlFICATE OF SEItVICE
I, JENNIFER C. DEITCIIMAN. herehy eertity thul lhis 8lh duy of Seplelllher,
1998. I served U copy of the lilregoing Motion inUmine upon the til\lowing individuul(s)
ur enlily(ies) hy Ihcsilllile lrunsmissionullllll.S. First Cluss postuge pre.puid Illuil:
Gloriunu Muenner. Esquire
STETLER & GRIBBIN
138 ElL~1 Murket Street
P.O. Box 2588
York, PA 17405
Fux II (717) 845-4931
/ /1 )/ll" / ___
( /. I ).
/
.
MO(IIlAW.IIAII'" IlI'Ill'lIMAN
"I,lbm)' A\'enuc
('lIlitle,I'A nUll
C711114Y-ISlkl
(Allnmc)" Ii. l'l.inulll
IN TilE COUHT OF COMMON I'I.EAS OF
CUMIIEIU,AN\) COUNTY, I'ENNSVI.VANIA
I.AWIlENCE DUGANNE.
l'lalnllll'
: NO, 19911-21158
",
: CIVIL ACl'IllN -LAW
WEIS MAltKETS. INC.,
Ilcfendllnl
: JUI\y TIUAI. DEMANDED
l'I.AINTII'F'S MOTION IN I.IMINE
HEGAIUlING INA\)MISSlIIll.nV OF m:AIISA Y
THANSM1TTAI. OF NON-TESTIFVING I'IIYSICIANS' HECOIUlS
OFFEIU:II AT TlUAI, TIIIlOlJGIIIIEFENSE EXI'Eln I'IIVSICIAN
FACTUAL IIACKGIlOUND
I, 11lls case urlses oul of u lull ill II pnrklng 101 of Weis Mllrkels 1II May 15, 1994. AI Issue Is holh
Iillhllily IInd I'lainlill's dallluges,
2. Ilclcndllnl's expert, Ilobert I'. 1.0ne,-gwl, M,Il, leslilied al his Irlnl uepusilion on Friday.
Seple'luber 4, 1998 10, wuong olher Ihlngs. a reference to a nole in Ihe Gre'Cnville Ilospilal Clinic
re'Cords eonce-mlng un allegeod Slalellle'llt hy I'lainlilTasking whethe'-Ihe uoelur could slale Ihallhe
Injorie'S whldl wcre being trcaleod wcre causeod by the falllx.'Cause Ihal \\l1S the ,wIly way that his
hills would be paid,
3, I'lalntlll's counsel objecled on the rl'Coru 10 Ihls line ofqucslionlng,
4, 111e deposillnntmnscrlpl has not yet heen prepareod, however. the deadline for liIing 1II01lons In
limine Is Sepll'luber 8, 1998 per Judge Guido's l're-trlol Orue,- of Aogust 211, 1998, Plalntlll's
counsel will gladly sobmilthe portion of the tnulseTlpl 01 Issue 10 Ihe Court opon re'Ceipt of It.
5. A careful rending of Ihe Grl'Cllvllle Cllllk lillie, hm,'e,'er, rewnls thai this statement was
appore'lllly 1101 made h)' the I'lollltill: hili mlhe,- hy his Iillnee, (A COP)' of the Clinic's treatmenl
1I0le is allllehed h,Telous Exhlbil "A"), As "Ieh, Ilr, I.onl,-gon's Imnsllllllal of i1111 his depuslllon
wOllld eonstilllte hl'UJ'suy IIpon hellrsu)',
/1, Delcllse cmlllscl eounllTed 10 Ihe ohjeclion Ihlll Ihe slolellle,1I is 1111 e,,'epllolI 10 Ihe hcursuy rule
on IIl1e'llllllhe IIl"es: 1"-'CIIllse it \\'" Ihe sllllellll111 ..I' Ihe I'llIinlill' Ilhlch lIIoy pcrtoln hi his
.
llIulI,ullun: II wus IiI( Ihe purpuse Ill' IIhllllnlng mL'<licultrealmL"I: wId \\lIS hcing used hy the
experllll fllnu Ihe hasls IiI( his IIpiuillns,
I>r, l.onergwI cunllnuL'<llu leslil)' as lu Ihe lrealmeal rL'Curd and Ihe stalemenl Cl1I11uined therein,
7.
ISSlJE
Is Ihe hearsay tmnslllillul ur a stalemcrllllllegedly IlIl1de h)' I'llIh1lill"s lillllce. clllllllinL'<l in IIn"l"
testlfyillg ph)'siclulI's 1lI1'<lical recllrd. illlldlllissihle IIllrilll'!
(suggesll'<l answer: )'es)
ARGlJMENT
111e gL'leml rule in I'ennsylvllnill Is 1111I1 mediclll espens lire I'"mlllcd III leslil)' IlIlIpinillns Ihal
have been based. in pW1. on repllrls Ihulllre nlll in evidence hulthllt lire IIrlhe t)1'e cuslomaril)' relied upun
by experls ill 01at lield, l'rlmavem v. CeI"lcx C'!fI'" 415 I'll, Supcr, CI, 41, fIll8 A,2d 515 (1992): ShL'Clv..Y,
Ileard, 696 A,2d 214 (1'0, SUPL", 0, 1997), '1111s hellrsny exceplloll WIIS IIdoplL'<l hy the I'ennsylvllniu
Supreme COUrl In Cllmmllnweuhh v, 11ulInas. 444 I'a, 436. 282 A.2d 693 (1971) IUld the rule essenllall)'
mirrors Ole fL'<lcralllule IIrEvidence,It703.
Ilowever, also like F,IUi,703, the rule iul'ennsylvania Is not withllut limits, 11mt is,lhe experl, in
lestifyingto Ole hearsay reporls of olhL., expL,ts. musl acl as WI espcrl and not as a "mL'fC conduit or
IrWlSll1iller of the cllnleatllf an extmJudlcial sllurce," SL'C AIIL'1 v, KanJnu. 439 I'a, SUPL", Ct, 263, 653
A.2d 1249 (1995), appL'8lgrnnIL'<l, 541 Po, MO, /i63 A,2d 692 (1995): COlIl,er v. lIul1ls. 376 1'0, SUpL'. Ct.
276,545 A,2d 935 (1988): lJnilL'<l Slales v, Tomasilln. 784 F,2d 782, 786 17th Cir, 1986), As the l'rimavera
courl explained, "WI 'eXpL'l'\' should nlll be pennillL'<l simpl)' III repeal w1ulh,,'s upilliun or dolo wilhoul
bringing to bear lHl il her 01111 espl'l'\ise WId JUdgIllL'1I," l'rimavern. 608 A,2d 01 521 lcilaliuns omilled),
In the inslunl case. I>r, Lonergan's depllsitllln relk'Cts IIqullle Irum I'Iah1lill's fiance lu Ihe eITL'C1
Ihal '~he unly wa)' Ihe)' will be cUlllpensaled is Ihr me III slale Ihal Ihe rig,hl knl'C pllin is due In Ihe injury
IrUln May uf 1994," '111l,e is nil dlspule lis hI whelhl,lhe repllns urlhe Ijll'CllVllle (lr1hupedlc Clinic nre
the t)'Jle reasunllhl)' relied upun h)' experts in Ilr. L'''IL,glln's field, I "mewr t)'Jlicallhe recllrds ilia)' he.
Ihe slalemenl ur Plainlill's lillnce whll is JIllI called IlIlc,til)' III trill I is Ill' nil help In educllting Ihe Jury as tu
Ihe IS1sis lilr I>r, Llln"glln's upinims,
,
+
GREENVILLE HOSPITAL SYSTEM
GREENVILLE. 5, C, 29605
L^\\'IlI;NCE
~iOOM NO,
MEDICAL RECORD
-IiO~"1T AL NO.
10/26/94
Mr. DUI'llnne is II Jll yellr old white mule who is followed in .:Iinic with
cllief ~omplalnt of right knee pllill with IIn occa:;illllal numhlle,;s of the
right cull' IIl1d thigh, Patiellt WIIS last see II llll 10/12/"14 hy m)'self lit
which time 1111 Mill was ohtllined 10 rule illtel'nlll .kl'lllv<'m,,"t Ill' the
right kllee, The pllt lellt presenls todu)' IIsking whell lire we going to
perform the surgery to relieve his righl knee pnin. The palient IliIs
huun in extreme pllln IInd sllllus lhnl he cllnnol ben.1 his right knue III
ull. The pllt ienl was uppurently culle,l in II pl'l,:;cripl hlll for Lorlllh 5
which stules hilS nllt helpud with his pain. Please rl'fel' tll Ihltu of
10/12/94 for 1'1111 dutllils.
EX^MIN^TION: EXllminlll ion is ess~nt ially Ulldlilnged from eX1I1II of
10/12/94. Thu putlent slill hus uxtremu right knue pain with rllnge of
mot Ion. The pllin is ,Ii I' fuse Ullhough thure uppellrs to he innullsed
pain on lhu mellllll joint line. There is no inslllhilily of effusion
uppreciuted. The Plltiunt slill reporls Ile.:reuse in senslltion on lhe
right cull' hul IIppllrently the chunge in senslltion on thu right thigh
hus improved,
X-R^YS: 1\ reviuw os thu plltient's Mill seun ruveuls II X 2 x J elll.
aren of uhnol'mality in the lIIudinl felllorul conllyle. It is felt thllt
this mllY represent u partiully healed IIrell of osteoehondrit is desecuns
or osteonecrosis. There is ulso a small popliteul cysl IIppreciuted.
ASSESSMENT ^ND PLAN:
.. The plltlent and his finnce state that the pain in his right
knee hegnn ,after he stepped in a hole in 5/94 in
pUllnsylvaniu, The fiance states that the only way that they
wi II be compensated is for me to stute that the right knee
puin is duu to thu injury from MayoI' 1994, I huve di5cussed
the MRI findings with the patient und hu undurstnnds that the
chllnges seen on the scun mny be u.:ulu or chronic und that )
huve no wuy to be suru that this is a rusult of his foot
stepping to n hole in Muy. although. this is u possibility,
The plnn at this time Is to obtuin a bone scnn of the right
knee 10 duterminu if the changus uppreciatud on MRI arc acute
or chronic. Thu put ient is unx ious to have surgery performed
but he ullllerstunds thut no surgery wi II be plunnud unt II the
proper diagnosis is 1II11l1e. Thu patient has ruque:>ted a work
excuse us wull us prescription for puin pills, The patient
is ~ivell a work excuse for ducrellsell ucli\'ity 011 the right
".~ IIlltl a prescript illll for Oar\'llcct I to 2 I"' q " to 6 hours
alltl 25 lire dispellsed, Patiellt Ulldel'sllllllls that these
Nllrcol ies wi II lint he usud nil II Illllg-term hasis bucnuse of
tht'ir i\lltlil:t ive nalul"P.
EXHIBIT
IO/2h/"l4
I
A
OPE OF RCpOAl
ORTIIOPEDI(' CI.IN)('
..,---',
___ _ _____...-J
5i'Qt~i-o~ ----. -
___,~~I~~~~~NIlEIl:;. M,n,/jcJ.~
.
.
M.'l.IRA W, IIAll & IlEIIl'IIMAN
4 1.111<,,)' A,.noe
('urll,le,I'A 17111J
17171249-1~IMI
IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBEIU.AND COUNTY I'ENNSYI. VANIA
LA WRENCE DUGANNE
PlainlifT
: CIVIL ACTION -I.AW
: NO. 11)1)6-2658
VS,
WElS MARKETS, INC..
DefclIllanl
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
1'llAECII'F. TO mSCONTINUF.
Pluinlifl: by and through his undersigned ullomeys, hereby requesls thul the
Prothonotary mark this ense discontinued. without prejudice, nnd thnt it be stricken from
lhe September, 1998 trinllisl,
Respeclfully submitted,
McGRA W, IIAIT & DElTCHMAN
Dnte:
'TIII/?!
-' '
/ ,
(/ ....: /l
BY: - / (-..--.
Jenn er ',Dcitchmnn
Allllrney JD 1/72779
4 Liberty A venue
Cnrlisle.I'A 171113
(717) 241).45110
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Jcnnilcr C. Deitchmnn. hercby ccrtify thUlthis II"h dny ofScptcmber, 1998,1
scrved thc nlluched I'ruecipc upon thc filllllwing Individual:
Glllrinnu Nllreiku MlIcnner. Esquirc
STETLER & GRIBBIN
138 ElIsl MlIrkct Strcet
1'.0, BllX 2588
Yllrk. I'A 17405
I
c;f01/ _1
'-
I:,
,
t I ; ~
( .
( ,
,
(,
(
I.
~.
"
.
Ji
1
\\
".,.
.~J
~~
;r_'l
..;~
n:,;.1
"':-"'//1it
;"'~'"
. i.', ~-, : 'Ii .
'-',','",,,' "
~ '-C-. - ,'I _ .
3. TIle dllngerous cllndltion WIIS Ulll knllwn or ohvlous tll thc
invitec, nor did thc invitee huve reuson to diseover or
rCllllzc the dllnger;
IInd
4. 111e derendllnt does not cxercise reusonuhle clIrc to protect
the plllill\lrr lIguinsl the dllngcrous cllnditlon.
111C I'lulnlirr must llrovc 1111 rour or the uhove In mder to succccd 011 provlnglhe brcuch
or duly by lhc Derendllnt. Inlhls cuse, 1'l1llntlfT clInnol provc thut there was II hreuch or duty
by lhc Dcrcndllnl,
First, Pluintlrr c1uims IIUlI the dungerolls condition on the property WIIS the uncovcred
potholc located nellr the porch ureu or the storc, 111e I'lllintlrr c1UlrllS thutlr thc pothole wus not
locuted ncur the porch, the I'lulll\lrr would nol huve been Injured, TIlcre is no cvldence thllt the
pol hole wus covered by debris or In IIny wuy llbscured. Flirt her, it Is not unusuul or an
uncomll1on condlllon thut u parking lot urca Is nol perfectly smooth. Further, pictures taken
around the timc or the uccldentllnd exchunged during dlscovcry will show thut the pothole was
not locuted on the poreh ureu.
TIle second elemenl necessary to prove thcre WllS II brellch or duty Is to show that the
Derendllnt knew or by the exercisc or reasonllblc clIre would discover the dllngerous condition.
Again, I'lalntlrr must huve shownlhllt u pothole Is considered II dllngerous condition, A pothole
In and orr Itselr Is nolll dllngerous condition, then It does nolmllller whelher or not Defendnut
knew or by the exercise or rellsonllble cure would hllve discovered the pothole. 111e pothole Itself
must be consldercd u dllngerous condition herore lhls c1cmcnt clIn he mct,
3
TIlc DercndllnlS hllve no doculIlenlutlon, knowledge, or recollection of lIny problcms
cuused hy uuy other invilecs hy thc pol hole. TIlerc is no rcusontlUlI Derellllunts knew or could
huvc known tlllllthc pothole 10CUlcd ncur thc porch urell \VIIS in uny wuy dungerous physlcully
10 imlivlduuls.
TIllrdly, thc I'lulnllff lIIust then provc tlllll lhe dllngerous cundllion wus nul known or
obvious to thc 1'llIlntlrf/lnvltee, nor did Ihe Invllce hllvc rcusonto discover or reullze Ihe dllnger,
If thc Pluintlrrs reasoning Is to be lIecepted, tllllt II potholc neur II porch urcu of u b10re is a
dungerous condllion, thcnthut condllion, specificully thuttherc WllS II pOI hole ncur the poreh urcu
was liS cquully cvident 10 the I'llllntlrf in this cusc liS It wus 10 lhc propcrty owner, Wcis
Markets, TIlc I'lulnliff describes in deposition extensivcly the hole liS being "as big as a Sunday
paper" and "as deep as u SunullY puper", Further, he testified in deposlllons that he noticed the
hole prior to fulling into It, and thutll WIIS uotlnllny WilY obscured by dirt, debris, shude, waler,
etc.
If indecd Pluinliff WIIS wutchlng wherc hc WIIS going, lhenlhcre is no rcuson he could not
huve seen thc pOlhole whcn hc wus onthc porch IIrcu itsclr prior to stepping into it,
TIle fourth elementthc I'lulntirf must prove in ordcr to show u breuch of duty is that the
Defendant did uot exercise rellsonllble cure 10 prolect thc I'lulntlrf IIguinsl the dunger. In this
case, thc testimony will show Ihllt lhe pOlhole wus kcpl cleun und c1cllr of debris, TIle
Defendanls did nothing to hide or concelllthc condition or the purklng lot,
4
Only If I'I1Iintlrr clIn pmve thUllI dUly WllS uwed,lIl1llmeelulI rour clements or the breuch
of dilly secllon, cunl'llIintlff thClltuOl to the third clement required lu prove negligence which
is clluSluion, 1'I1IIntlrf cllnnol provc ClIllslltion, lhe rcquislte link between the brellch of duty
(only oncc it Is estubllshcd) III1lI dumllgcs, 111C clluse or I'llIintlrrs presenl knee problems wus
notthc rllct thlltlhere wus u pothole loclltcd Inlhc purking 101 nClIr thc porch ureu of thc Wcls
MlIrkcts store, 111e cuusc or I'lulntlfl's prcscnt kncc prohlcms Is dcgenerutlve urthritls which
hils been occurring sincc I'lulullrr hud mlljor knee surgcry ns un udolescent, 111c injnries Plulntlrf
reponed on the dllY or the nccident tll Ihe Cllrllsle Bosplllll Emergency Ituum, injnry to his
bUllOCks, nnd to his unkle IIrc nul compllllned or IItlhis lime. I'I1Iintlrf testified ut deposition thaI
hc hus no problcms with his anklc. TIlc medlcultesllrnony of Ihe expert mediclll witnesses shull
show tlUlt I'I1Iinllfr's bOlh legs hllvc IItrophled III1lI his knccs are snrrcrlng rrom degcnerative
anhritls, Further, I'lulnlirf willuot be ublc to show uny pcnnunent or continuing damuge to his
ankles or bUllOCks.
Only If Plllintlff hilS proven duty, breuch of duty, und causullon on thc pun of Wels
Markcts 10 him, muy he thcn sel aboul to prove the finul clement of negllgeuce which is
damages, In this case I'luintifr Is allcglngthul hc Surrers two types of dumllges, First, to his
physical damuge. Agllln, testimony will show thut 1'I1IIutlff hilS u long-tenn chronic degenerative
unhrltis problem which hilS been occurring in him since hc wus young, Further, testimony will
show at the tilllc or thc lIccident he hud no compllllllls lInd sought no lIledlcaltrcullnent for any
Injury to his knce lIrcu,
5
Regurdlng I'luillllrrs c1ulms for Insl wugcs und I'umlng cupucity, the usc or I'lulntlfrs tux
records will c\eurly shnw tlllll lhere hus becu nn lost wugcs und I'I1Iintlrf wus employed and
uctulllly eumed morc rnllowing the uccillent tlllln prior thereto,
Dumuges cunnnl he speculllllve hUl must he provcn,
Ccmcluslun
TIle I'lulnliff Is unuble to prove thut Dcfendunt owed \'Iullltlrf a dUlY, thUl Defendant
brcuchcd any duty to I'llIhulrf unll that u hreuch wus the proximute cuuse or uny or all dumagcs
surrered by the \'Iulnllrf. FUJ1her, most or \'Ialntlfrs damuges urc purely spcculutivc lIud cannot
be sup(lOJ1ed eithcr by dueumentury cvlllcncc or testimony. As a result or I'laintlfrs failurc to
meel lis burden of proor rcgurdlng negllgcncc, the Derendllnt, Wels Murkets, Inc., rcspcctfully
rcquesls this Honomble COUJ1 to dismiss thc action brought against it by the I'l1Iinliff.
Itespeclfully submitted,
Daled:
'I - 10 - 1'<{'
STETLER & GRIBBIN
. -;::))
,.( l
. I(~:[lt'~.
By:
~Ioriu I Norclku Mue ncr, Esquire
AHome I,D. No. 557 3
136 Eust urkct Streel
\'.0. 130 2588
York, I'A 17405-2588
Telcphonc No. (717) 854-9506
AHomey ror Defcnllaut
Wcls Murkets, Inc,
6