Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-00794 0" ~ - - DORIS PATTERSON, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA vs, : NO, ~ - 7tJtj CIVIL TERM RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant : CIVIL ACTION : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO DEFEND You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses 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 a 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 Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE TillS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HA VB A LAWYER OR CANNOT ,AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association Two Liberty Avenue Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 249-3166 Dated: HENRYF. CO ,ESQ COYNE & COYNE, P.C. 390 I Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227 (717) 737-0464 Pa. S. Ct. No. 06250 Attorneys for Plaintiff """ ~'. ~ ~ DORIS PATTERSON, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA vs. : NO. CIVIL TERM RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant : CIVIL ACTION : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Doris Patterson, by and through her attomeys, Coyne & Coyne, P.C., and avers the following in support ofthe within Complaint. I. Plaintiff, Doris Patterson, a widow and an adult individual residing at 2004 Highlands Circle, Camp Hill, Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011. 2. Defendant, Rite Aid, is a Corporation that conducts business within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with corporate offices located at 30 Hunter Lane, East Pennsboro Township (Camp Hill), Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 170 II. 3. On Tuesday, March 24, 1998, and at all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant owned, controlled and operated a retail store and pharmacy in the Windsor Park Shopping Center, Simpson Ferry Road, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. The said store is known as Store No. 3613. 4. At all relevant times hereto, Defendant was in the exclusive custody, possession and control of the said premises, and it was Defendant's duty to keep and maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition for those persons lawfully thereon. 5. On the said date of March 24, 1998, Plaintiff was an invitee at the aforesaid premises. 6. On the said date of March 24,1998, on or about 12:00 o'clock p.m., Plaintiff was in the process of walking in Defendant's store and tripped over a carpet that was substantially elevated above the surface of the floor and lacked tapered ends, she lost her balance, slipped and fell suffering severe and serious injuries, that are hereinafter more fully set forth. I - ~ <, 7. The negligence of the Defendant consisted, inter alia, of the following: a. Failure to insure the carpet was not substantially elevated over the surface of the floor or was at the same height of the floor and was laid flat on the floor. b. Failure to take necessary precautions to prevent falls from occurring; c. Failure to warn Plaintiff as to the existence of defective conditions of which Defendant knew or should have known existed. d. Being otherwise negligent and careless under the circumstances. e. Failure to use reasonable care in the maintenance and use of the property. f. Failure to protect invitees from foreseeable harm. g. Failure to inspect the premises and to discover dangerous conditions. h. Failure to exercise reasonable care which would discover the defective condition and realize it involves unreasonable risk of harm to invitees. 1. Should expect its invitees would not discover or realize the damage and would fail to protect themselves from the unreasonable risk of harm. j. Failure to exercise reasonable care to protect the invitees from the danger. k. Failure to use care not to injure an invitee by negligent acts. 8. By reason of the fall, Plaintiff sustained severe injuries to the left side of her body, in the nature of a fractured left hip resulting in severe discomfort and immobility of her left leg; pain in her left hip and pelvis; severe shock and trauma to her body; by reason of which she was rendered sick, sore, lame, prostrate, and disoriented, and was made to undergo great mental anguish and physical pain from which she suffered and still suffers and will continue to suffer for an indefinite time in the future. 9. In order to effect a cure of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff has been compelled to substantial amount of money for medicine and medical attention, and she will be required to expend additional sums of money for the same purpose in the future. 2 ~~. .. ~~ WHEREFORE, Plaintiff claims damages from Defendant in an amount in excess of Twenty- five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00), plus interest and docket costs. Dated:~ r....t.. Q El HENRYF.CO ,ESQUIRE COYNE & COYNE, P.C. 390 I Market Street CampHiII,PA 17011-4227 (717) 737-0464 Pa. S. Ct. No. 06250 Attorneys for Plaintiff 3 ~ " ~... " VERIFICATION The facts set forth in the foregoing are true and correct to the best of the unilPrlligned's knowledge, information and belief and are verified subject to the penalties for unsworn falsification to authorities under 18 Pa. C.S.A. ~4904. Dated: cJ ~/tJ ~tJcJ 4~{iM;~- I i ,,'- '- ~.ill~!JliIIIMI. nl""'-w.-.-,,"~'~-~" ~~\.~ ,~~~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ lv <1\ ~ '~~'Iiii:BI!.iP" ~ ~ \~ \ ~ ~Ulii~': ,~~ . ~~ ~iA IS \::J '\ '\ ~ \. , ~ o ~ "D"" n-' '--'..~ ;i"') ~~i, ~<c) 1--"" /.(1 ~~E~ .r.:."~ :3 , 7,_. <::> C'J -" r'" :::0 0~ -n ;~:..1 : t'ill 'p g~ 2~ C)rn --; 55 -< <::) V =:--;: '-:? ':J1 \0 -- " ~"- SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2000-00794 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND PATTERSON DORIS VS RITE AID CORPORATION ROBERT L. FINK , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pensyl vania , who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon RITE AID CORPORATION the DEFENDANT , at 0012:15 HOURS, on the 14th day of February, 2000 at 30 HUNTER LANE CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to SALLY DANKO (LEGAL SECT.) a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 18.00 9.30 .00 10.00 .00 37.30 sO;:;;;:'__~~t R. Thomas Kline Sworn and Subscribed to before me this ;;lot ~ day of ~...J......... ,2,&tri) A.D. q'1~QA"'OOo'./I~ Prothonotary 02/15/2000 COYNE & COYNE ~ BY:~~~ epu Sheriff '~ ~ ,.1 __~_ F:\FILES\DA T AFILE\Lmdoc,cur\30 I-pra 1 Created: 02/28/00 10:47:01 AM Revised: 02/28/00 11:14:38AM 3060.301 DORIS PATTERSON, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 2000-794-CNIL TERM RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant CIVIL ACTION JURY TRIAL OF TWELVE DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Enter the appearance of MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO on behalf of Defendant, Rite Aid Corporation, in the above matter. Defendant hereby demands a twelve juror jury trial in the above captioned action. MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO By eorge B. Faller, Jr. I.D. No. 49813 Ten East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant Dated: February 28, 2000 .~ , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Christina L. Steele, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, P A, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Henry F, Coyne, Esquire COYNE & COYNE, P.C. 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227 MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO ByO/l.i/)~~O Christina L. Steele Ten East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: February 28, 2000 .. iiloL..,""'ilIlIioi!ltililE1 ~liIu~ ~ ft:j~IlI.'~"'"'"'='~ ~'ill'!iid- . ~~, . ~ . ""'" ~ -0;_,' ' q;t.~'~ 6:; )~ .'<,<:, ~~~ ~~~ 3 .~ '-, (-, ., c: n', ,"" < :":::...1 ;"-.) c:) ".q " '( _'::Cl --;;: -H E~f;:'~ ::::'"7 :iJ -< "-_.l :.,..) co) iN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PATTERSON Vs. NO. 2000 794 RITE AID CORP CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena(s) for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 GEORGE B FALLER, ESQUIRE certifies that: 1. A Notice of Intent to Serve the Subpoena(s) with a copy of the subpoena(s) attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena(s) is sought to be served, 2. A copy of the Notice of Intent, including the proposed subpoena(s) is attached to this certificate, 3. No objection to the subpoena(s) has been received, and 4. The subpoena(s) which will be served is identical to the subpoena(s) which is attached to the Notice of Intent to Serve the Subpoena(s). Date: 11/1/00 GEORGE B FALLER, ESQUIRE MARSTON DEARDOFF WILLIAMS TEN EAST HIGH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 717-243-3341 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT INQUIRIES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO: MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS, INC. 4940 DISSTON STREET PHILADELPHIA PA 19135 (215) 335-4907 By: Jacqueline Mumper File #: M268067 "l "'~ -, - ~-- " J IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PATTERSON Vs. RITE AID CORP No. 2000 794 TO: HENRY COYNE, ESQ NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 DEFENDANT intends to serve a subpoena(s) identical to the one(s) attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection is made the subpoena may be served. Date: 10/10/00 GEORGE B FALLER, ESQUIRE MARSTON DEARDOFF WILLIAMS TEN EAST HIGH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013. ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT INQUIRIES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO: MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS, INC. 4940 DISSTON STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19135 (215) 335-4907 By: Jacqueline Mumper Enc(s): Copy of subpoena(s) Counsel return card File #: M268067 , '~ "" , ",--.".; , '.~ t ~.oF ~VANIA ;CXXlNl'Y OF ~ . -.' . ", PATTERSON VS. : Fi le' No. 2000 794 ".' RITE AID CORP MEDICAL BILLING REQUESTED SUBPOENA TO ,pRODlX::E DOC:lt'ENTS OR THI NGS FOR OISOOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 ,,' '. 99 NOVEMBER DR, CAMP HILL PA 17011 DR THOMAS MALIN, TO: (Nane of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of'this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce th~ fol,l~il'l9 ~t~IEthA'ftACHED AD.J>E~J)U1\1. . .~" 'ih:_~ ,:" at MEDl:CAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS, U:~~~1D lJuil:i'lOS !IT., UI1.A., PA You may . deliver Or mail legible copies of the docI.rnents or produce things'request~ b) this subpoena,together with the certificate of 'Cc:f'ii>1iance. to the partymakingthh request. at.theeddress listed above. You have the r'ight to seek in advance the rea'3Ol"lab Ie CC1s~?f preparing the copies or producing the things sought. 1 f you fai 1 to produce the docunents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its serv~ce, l;heparty ,serving .thi:; s~a may seek a court orde;' CCJ1l)elling you to carply withi,;.', '.' .:'. "', " THIS,SU8POEtlIA WAS ,ISSUED AT THE REQlEST a: 11-E FOlLOII'ING PERSON: KME; GEORGE B FALLER, ESQ ADDRESS : fffiRST..oN )')w,1I1m(WF WILJ"IAMS /::AKLJ.I:H".l!i', 'l"A 11013 .,' , TELEPt:DlE l" " SlJ'REI'E 00lRT to. .. ", ATTORNEY, FOR: 215-335~3212 DEFENDANT ., ;.. M268067-01 DAtE: lIJ:Jil'lf' \ ' ...""","-", : !",uu- ,'s' "1 'f ioCL".'........."-''''. . ", &a'O '~..~,; ,.",,; .. ,,~, ., . , . '.;'",',r-; ,~ ;.,;;. j,~ ','oU ,.. )" . ,.~ ,}, . ' ;'-' " \" ,....,; -~.:t'_,-.!:i ',' , ~'~ ~ ,- ';"'.' ,';., " .. '-', . (;'(. ,..i:J ~_ '..~ , . , . . "', '.1' '. (Eff. 7/97) ';: \ !,:, ;;;--~~~:+pr,~t'~..)" 'if'" ':: . t.,(" 'J . .." '" i- ~,' ;')': ...i' ADDENDUM TO SUBPOENA PATTERSON VS. No. 2000 794 RITE AID CORP CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: DR mOMAS MALIN ANY AND ALL OFFICE RECORDS, INCLUDING NOTES, CORRESPONDENCE, MEMORANDA, X-RAY REPORTS, HISTORY NOTES, INDEX CARDS~ ANY OTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO ANY EXAMINATION OR TREATMENT RENDERED TO: NAME: DORIS V PATTERSON ADDRESS: 2004 HIGHLANDS CIR CAMP HILL PA DATE OF BIRTH: 06/01/20 SSAN: 182228145 MEDICAL BILLING REQUESTED CERTIFIED PHOTOCOpmS OF THE RECORDS WILL BE ACCEPTED IN LmU OF YOUR PERSONAL APPEARANCE. County of: CUMBERLAND MLR File #: M268067-01 ~, c . "'l. ,. ,>,,-' ,;,'-' " . :~.i ~ ;_:, I,. :) ! ;" - '- ~: ' ",-': . ~OF PmNSYLVANIA COONl'Y OF CllMBEmAND PATTERSON VS. Fi Ie No. 2000 794 ,-"'-. . \'<' I: RITE AID CORP : MEDICAL BILLING REQUESTED SUBPOENA TO Pfl<XlOOE DOCl.H!NTS OR 1l-I1 NaS FOR 01 SOOVERY ~SUANT TO RULE 4009. 22 "DR JEROME KORINCHAK, 503 BRIDGE ST, NEW CUMBERLAND PA 17070 TO:" .\-. - \-<,>,",: (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to , produce ,the fo IIOWingdocunent~~ ~ftACIIED ADI>ENDUl\f .1', , ' ,"{-~ :i-::!,:;";',_: .. '.. _, ','- ;",l,'_ '"i': at >-' ',i'", " RBPRODUCTI, ONS I INC"jd,."n4U lJ.I./:iSTOR BY. I .HlLA., PA MEDICAL :LBGAL (Ae . ass) You 'may deliver or mail legible copies of the ~ts or produce things requ~stecl b) this> ,s,ubpl)el')/!., together with, the certificate of' 'ci:rr4:lliance, ,tothe-partymakin9thi~ reques't at'the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reao;onabl€ ''COst 9f preparing the eopies or producing the t.hings sought. If you fai I to produee the docunents or things required by this subpoena within t.....enty (20)1'days after its serv}.ce...the.partYservi,ng",1;hi:;. ~a may seek a court orde'- OCIllle;lhll9 you to cc:nply witli'it.'> ", :,' '.:>:,"L' \."> THIS'Sl.lBPoE~ WAS ISSUED AT THE RE~ST OF THE FOLLONING PERSON: ~: ' GEORGE B FALLER, ESQ til ~ ':' :' , ": .', ....- . ~~srn~ nF.~RDOFFWILLIAMS l:AItiI:t5LE, '!'A1V0l3 " ~:r, ..,.", '-',I, AOORESS: TE"f;~:.h" '.', ',"'., ".' .'c, , ,.. . ' S\.J>REI"E aurr, ID.. '215-335-3212 re-'- ,... _. ATT~ F(lR: '- ! ~~ H' " DEFENDANT YC'l:!.~ rn"',~ ", , '~J" ~' ,~ ,: : _ ...' c>:;, - ',' M268067-02, oA:te ~, ,-~~' i:~-r~;~..,~~:, '1~~ , ,. ,,""J -, .seal 0 ',' ,-.':i:>r c:-r ;'l~ C7,,~~.1;'i:J- " ,i', ....' ,'1: : '-I~_ l f 'r'.:'i.-! L," ',:.0\ . Cti,Y?"-; ~ffer ,")'.~r;6 j, 1 ins '>'-:-'... ~-,.J- t:: f.;.!- '::::~.~ly l' ,- f'__' ',' , ',~ , . .:~.:;)0~':r" '< ~,' -. :' ',:..~ -':-.,f,<.;- '/ ~,i ;'>":~ '.'.;..... " ,_. c ,_~ "' -:,~j,. " " : ~_; i;, 'i:'; t-!', . ~r~,: ' .."'0':',' (Eff. 1/97) rrlIS-;Sl~~(:tN.l\ W;!l~t : :~SUEi:) " .-....,. : :':'.}i~~' l .. -" _,;. '~, I, ,,'_ - ,_ , _ " ,:-I~~ ADDENDUM TO SUBPOENA PATTERSON VS. No. 2000 794 RITE AID CORP CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: DR JEROME KORINCHAK ANY AND ALL OFFICE RECORDS, INCLUDING NOTES, CORRESPONDENCE, MEMORANDA, X-RAY REPORTS, HISTORY NOTES, INDEX CARDS AND ANY OTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO ANY EXAMINATION OR TREATMENT RENDERED TO: NAME: DORIS V PATTERSON ADDRESS: 2004 HIGHLANDS CIR CAMP HILL PA DATE OF BIRTH: 06/01/20 SSAN: 182228145 MEDICAL BILLING REQUESTED CERT11<'lliD PHOTOCOPffiS OF THE RECORDS WILL BE ACCEPTED IN LffiU OF YOUR PERSONAL APPEARANCE. County of: CUMBERLAND MLR File #: M268067-02 I I . . t: ' ' , ~,' " \ ," , :' ,,:',: -,"., '.' ' ~ OF PFliINSYLVANIA a:Dll'Y OF CllMIBW\ND ,PArTEItSON ',." VI{. Fi Ie No. 2000 794 RITE AID CORP ,!' . , MED:ICAL B:ILL:ING REQUESTED SUBPOENA TO PROOOCE DOC1J<ENTS ~ TH I NGS F~ DISCOVERY PlRSUANT TO RlA.E 4009.22 " ' ,; HOLY,. SPIRIT HOSP, 503 N 21ST ST, CAMP HILL PA 17011 TO: ' ZI'l'TN: MEDICAL RECORDS DEPT (Name of Person or Entity) ;,--r.',:,.,: ; Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following docunent"slJth1"rfACIIED ADDENDUM 'v I . 1 _ ",,' at REPRODOCTIONS, ~N&r.~.U uiSSTOR ST., PEILA., PI MEDIC~LEGAL (A ess) " " . . . ' ',., , ' .. -- ,.; You may deliver or mail legible copies of the dpcunents or produce things requestEid b\ this .s~~a,tQgether ~ith the certificate of (;ai'pliance, to the party makingthi. request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reao;onab I€ cost bfpreparing the copies or producing the 1;hings sought. If you fail to produce the docunents or things required by this subpoena within t~enty (20)idays after its serv~ce' the party serving thi:;, subpQena may seek a court orde'- c;q11)el1ing you to c:arply with it. . , ' '{", . THIS'StiBPoENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLONING PERSON: ' NAl'E: GEORGE B FALLER, ESQ .,.,.... M~S'l'nN nF~6FFWILLIAMS U\KLISLE, FA 17013 215-335-3212, " . ,- ADDRESS: TEl.-F.PHPNE: '. 1 ' ' SlJ'RI* COlIIT 10.- ATTORNEY FOR,: DEFl!:NDlWT :," :' M268067-03 OATE::"'~~:;":' /(JAG f()(J , ' '" 'Seal of the oourt , -,,' ,~":.,. "_I ; '" " J -'-,v-F, , --~" :: ~r-:~" '-. '", (Eff. 7/97) :h' ,n ' ,;1i~f',~~.\ 'i'-ll :' .c, ,- , .'.' ",," -~ - -'-,0, ',__I' " -~, ' -,,- '--'-1 . . ADDENDUM TO SUBPOENA PATTERSON Vs. No. 2000 794 RITE AID CORP CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: HOLY SPIRIT HOSP SPECIFICALLY LIMITED TO THE ADMISSION SUMMARY, DISCHARGE SUMMARY AND RECORDS OF THE BILLINGS AND PAYMENTS RECEIVED. PERTAINING TO: NAME: DORIS V PATTERSON ADDRESS: 2004 HIGHLANDS CIR CAMP HILL PA DATE OF BIRTH: 06/01/20 SSAN: 182228145 MEDICAL BILLING REQUESTED CERT1J.<'lliD PHOTOCOPIES OF THE RECORDS WILL BE ACCEPTED IN LIEU OF YOUR PERSONAL APPEARANCE. ALL FEES MUST BE APPROVED PRIOR TO RECORDS BEING FORWARDED. County of: CUMBERLAND MLR File #: M268067-03 ~~IliII~~ -- ,-- ~~~~ J-.~~ '".'~'--1IIilISIl!i " llliII ~ '" ,- ~. I ~ o C lJ~ n.".,.. ;Z'" 2[-1; (/5" -<,,""'c r-::'Z ,,0 )::; >C"J ~[;;j :2 ~ l:'" .;:- , . -'--:1 '::1 II II I I . D C:J ::r:: c:) ~;~ C) ~T; ~r; ~-'< ., :~(~ ~;}l~ ~~n7 '" :'& -<:: C7 ...,,-. -;,. ~ ~: DORIS PATTERSON, Plaintiff vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 00-794 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL ORDER AND NOW, this z.. ".f' day of February, 2001, a brief argument on the within motion to compel is set for Thursday, March 1,2001, at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom Number 4, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. BY THE COURT, Henry Coyne, Esquire For the Plaintiff ~\ ('~~ O} \!- O~ ~ George Faller, Jr., Esquire For the Defendant :rlm ,~ ~~,. ~ " ~ ~.~~.,.,.~, ,,- .~ (') c- "'" ~& fjlr~-! ~i/ (6~ ~:s ~~ z,lj -"'" :co $.,(-, C~ ~ ~-~~~~~ c...> c . c - p I) ;;: D:J , 1'>-> -'7] (,:1 , ;'i{~) _~j ;r.: ..:;_~" ("'I jjW!-'l =< .:-;? -'" ~J rJl-~"'!_ ~!I':';llj'[~.JlIf 1>' DORIS PATTERSON, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v, NO. 2000-794-CNIL TERM RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant CIVIL ACTION JURY TRIAL OF TWELVE DEMANDED RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, this day of February, 2001, a rule is issued upon the Plaintiffto show cause why Holy Spirit Hospital and Dr. Jerome Korinchak, M.D. should not be directed to provide full and complete copies of Plaintiffs medical records. BY THE COURT, J. - F:\FILES\DA T AFILE\Lmdoc,cur\30 I-mot.l!mah Cieated: Pl/24fOl02:33:18PM R~vised: 01126101 03:39:24 PM 3060.301 DORIS PATTERSON, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. NO. 2000-794-CIVIL TERM RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant CIVIL ACTION JURY TRIAL OF TWELVE DEMANDED MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF MEDICAL RECORDS I. Plaintiff s Complaint alleges that she was injured as a result of tripping and falling in a Rite Aid store on August 12, 1998. 2. Plaintiff s Complaint alleges that she has sustained serious and permanent injuries. 3. Representatives of the Defendant's took a statement of an eye witness who said that there was nothing on the floor in the area where Plaintiff fell to the ground. A copy ofthat statement is hereby attached as Exhibit "A", 4. Defendant attempted to subpoena medical records from Plaintiff s family doctor and Holy Spirit Hospital but were advised that they would need an authorization signed by the Plaintiff in order to obtain those records. 5. Plaintiff returned a signed authorization to counsel for the Defendant but had altered the authorization to allow only those records related to the treatment of injuries sustained in this accident. 6. Defendants believe that they are entitled to all of the Plaintiffs medical records from the family physician and Holy Spirit Hospital given the circumstances surrounding Plaintiffs fall and the allegation regarding her injuries. 7. Defendant's counsel had written to Plaintiffs counsel to determine if Plaintiff was willing to reconsider and allow production of all the records, 8, Defense counsel was advised by Plaintiff s counsel that his client had requested him to force the Defendants to file a Motion to Compel and Plaintiff s, therefore, do not concur in this Motion. WHEREFORE, Defendant Rite Aid Corporation, Inc. requests that this court issue a rule to show cause upon the Plaintiff to indicate why Plaintiff s medical provider should not be directed to supply the Defendants with a complete set of her medical records. MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO By George Ie , Jr., Esquire I.D. Number 49813 Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3093 (717) 243-3341 Attorneys for Defendant Rite Aid Corporation Date: January 26,2001 - VERIFICATION George B. Faller, Jr., of the firm of MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO, attorneys for Rite Aid in the within action, certifies that the statements made in the foregoing Motion to Compel Production of Medical Records are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. He understands that false statements herein are rnade subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~,.- ". CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Melinda A. Hall, an authorized agent for Martson Deardorff Williams & Otto, hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Compel Production of Medical Records was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, P A, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Henry F. Coyne, Esquire 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 170 II MARTS ON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS & OTTO BY;'jrAIL~r:t~n.~l ku Melinda: A. Hall Ten East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 243-3341 Dated: January 26,2001 ~,~ .~ -"~iRiWI'-.....i ... ""''''~'1if'itrj,w~,,~j, 'k IlIIlf= - , , ~""', I i 2 <::::; " - :-t>S:' , '1]" met) '- .'-1 rr :'~ ::& Z'Y; --"j'" -", z-- ~ i'- r- ,"\) C1j )-:~ )rEJ ~~ t.J::; ~6 ~") 1 ~ ~, ~::; (j =r:."'f'; ,<:\) ~ 'J:J'j ~O F5 ~ !;:: ~ :3fr1 <: ~ ::;r,! ;:- <;0 :::0 '"" '<~-~~' . " ~ ... Doris Patterson, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. : No. 2000-794 Civil Term : Civil Action -- Law Rite Aid Corporation, Defendant PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF MEDICAL RECORDS AND NOW COMES the Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys, Coyne & Coyne, P.C., and responds to Defendant's Motion to Compel Production of Medical Records. 1. Paragraph 1 is admitted. 2. Paragraph 2 is admitted. 3. Plaintiff admits that a copy of a statement made by a witness for Defendant was attached as Exhibit "A," but after reasonable investigation Plaintifflacks sufficient information or belief to answer paragraph 3 and therefore denies the genuine issue of material fact averred in paragraph 3, 4, Paragraph 4 is admitted. 5. Paragraph 5 is admitted. 6. Paragraph 6 is denied. The averments of this paragraph purport to be conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required, 7. Paragraph 7 is admitted. 8, Paragraph 8 is admitted, WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Doris Patterson requests that this Honorable Court issue a protective order under Pa.R.C.P. 4012(a)(5) to limit the scope of Defendant's access to those , ~~^- '" ~ .. -- ~~,< medical treatment records that are relevant to the injuries that are averred in Plaintiff s Complaint as a direct result of Plaintiffs fall on March 24, 1998. Date: I.... 0 F.Jc.J,. 8" I Henry F. Co e, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227 (717) 737-0464 Pa. S, Ct. No. 06250 2 -"""", -" -~' '"", "" , . ,. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Henry F. Coyne, of Coyne & Coyne, P.C" hereby certify that a true copy of Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Motion to Compel Production of Medical Records was served this date by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage paid, to the following: MARTSON DEARDOFF WILLIAMS & OTTO George B. Faller, Jr" Esquire Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3093 Date:~O F~.(}-I , Esquire COYNE & CO ,P.C. 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227 (717) 737-0464 Pa. S. Ct. No. 06250 Attorney for Plaintiff 3 ..-- ^" , ~~ .,1 , . -;,.. COYNE & COYNE, P.c. Attorneys at Law Henry F. Coyne Lisa Marie Coyne 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, Pa. 17011-4227 Telephone: (717) 737-0464 Facsimile: (717) 737-5161 February 20, 2001 The Honorable Kevin A. Hess Judge Court of Common Pleas Cumberland County One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Re: Doris Patterson v. Rite Aid Corporation No. 2000-794-CV-Cumberland County c.c.P. Dear Judge Hess: I represent the Plaintiff. Enclosed is an original and one copy of the following documents: I. Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Motion to Compel Production of Documents. 2. Plaintiffs Brief in Support of Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Motion to Compel Production of Medical Records. . You scheduled oral argument for Thursday, March 1,2001, at 2:30 PM. Respectfully yours, COYNE & CO U HenryF. Co ~ HFC/can Enclosures cc: Doris Patterson, w/enc. George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire, w/enc. = ~ - "". ,~" '{,;,: 1\" p~ N~ Page 1 of4 < From: LEXIS (R) INEXIS (R) Print Delivery <Iexis-nexis@prod.lexis-nexis.com> To: coyne@ezonline.com <coyne@ezonline.com> Date: Friday, February 23, 2001 7:37 PM Subject: LEXIS(R)-NEXIS(R) Email Request (59:0:22121874) 102H4M Print Request: LEXSEE Time of Request: February 23,2001 12:06 pm EST Number of Lines: 112 Job Number: 59:0:22121874 Client ID/Project Name: Research Information: Lexsee 1 Pa. D. & C.3d 185 Note: PAGE 1 LEXSEE 1 Pa. D. & C.3d 185 DeLuca v. Leon no. 4498 COMMON PLEAS COURT OF PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 1 Pa. D. & C.3d 185; 1977 Pa. D. & C. LEXIS 304 March 2,1977, Decided HEADNOTES: Practice -- Examination of medical records -- Overly broad authorization. The court will not compel plaintiff in a personal injury action to file a medical authorization empowering defendant's insurance carrier to examine all medical records pertaining to treatment of plaintiff, since such an authorization is overreaching and invades the doctor-patient privilege: such an authorization should be limited to records pertaining to the present controversy. COUNSEL: [**1] George V. Famiglio, for plaintiffs. 02/2412001 .- .~ ~ '"'"' I; ".~ Page 2 of 4 , Susan J. Poll, for defendants. JUDGES: GUARINO, J. OPINIONBY: GUARINO OPINION: Petition to compel execution of medical authorization. [*186] This is an action for personal injuries arising out of an accident which occurred September 20, 1974. Defendant's petition seeks the court to compel plaintiffs to sign a medical authorization which is as follows: "MEDICAL INFORMATION AUTHORIZATION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The undersigned authorizes and directs any physician, surgeon or hospital that has attended, examined or treated me to furnish to the Pennsylvania Manufacturers' Association Insurance Company, at any time upon its request, any and all information and records, or copies of records relating to attendance, examination or treatment rendered me, with the further privilege of personal examination of such records. A photocopy of this authorization shall serve in its stead." The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure authorize liberal discovery and it is within the contemplation of the rules to compel the production of medical PAGE 2 1 Pa. D. & C.3d 185, *186; 1977 Pa. D. & C, LEXIS 304, **1 records of the plaintiffs upon which plaintiffs rely for recovery for personal injuries: Pa.R.C.P. 4009-4010; [**2] Myers v. Travelers Insurance Co., 353 Pa. 523,46 A.2d 224 (1946). Discovery by oral examination or inspection of relevant documents is entirely proper to ascertain the extent of the injuries or other damages relevant to [*187] the cause of action: Feldman v. Seligman & Latz, Inc., 9 D. & C. 2d 394 (1957); 5 Anderson Pa. Civ. Prac. @@4001.385 and 4007.4. Thus, we have no difficulty concluding that defendant has a right to medical records and bills upon which plaintiffs base their claim for damages. We are not prepared, however, to go so far as to order plaintiffs to sign such broad authorization as herein requested by defendant and to impose sanctions for failure to do so. The record indicates that plaintiff has forwarded all medical records and bills which he has in his possession and which he has obtained from the physiCian who treated plaintiffs for injuries allegedly received by them in the cause of action declared upon. There is no showing that the broad medical authorization would provide the defendants with any more information than they have already been given. The broad authorization herein being sought by the defendants is so overreaching [**3] as to invade the plaintiffs' doctor-patient privilege because it is unlimited as to the records that might be inspected. Generally, medical communications and information between patient and doctor are privileged and undisclosable by a doctor. See Act of June 7, 1907, P.L. 462, sec. 1; 28 P .S. @ 328. Under the discovery rules, disclosure and inspection is permitted only as to matters which are relevant, Pa. R.C.P. 4007, and not otherwise 02/24/200 I ---- - u IJ" ~ " I" '; "">1 Page 3 of 4 . . / privileged, Pa, R.C.P. 4011 (c). Obviously, where a party brings a personal injury action against another, information about his medical condition upon which he relies for recovery of damages is relevant and material. The information is important to plaintiff as well as defendant. The patient-doctor privilege belongs to plaintiff: Commonwealth [*188] ex reI. Romanowicz v. Romanowicz, 213 Pa. Superior Ct. 382, 248 A.2d 238 (1968); 8 Wigmore (1961 ea.) @ 2386. To the extent that he relies on his medical condition to recover damages he has impliedly waived the privilege. Privileged communication between doctor and patient does not apply to records of the examining and treating physician to the extent that the contents thereof are relevant [**4] and material: Panko v. Consolidated Mutual Insurance Co., 423 F.2d 41 (3rd Cir. 1970); Woods v. National Life & Accident Insurance Co., 347 F.2d 760 (3rd Cir. 1965). The discovery rules do not permit a party to inspect the records (herein medical records) of a non-party. Under the rules only the records of an adverse party are amenable to discovery by inspection on petition and motion to the court: Pa. R.C.P. 4007. What the petitioner requests in his present petition is that he be permitted to do that which the rules by implication forbid: inspect records of a non-party. What the rules of discovery do not in any way permit and impliedly forbid, the court will not permit. I do not believe that the court has the power to circumvent the dictates of the rules of procedure by ordering plaintiffs' doctor to submit his records to inspection or order plaintiffs to sign such an overreaching authorization as here presented to accomplish indirectly what the rules prohibit. If defendants are not satisfied with copies of records supplied by plaintiffs and are desirous of a more ample discovery of plaintiffs' medical condition, they will have to revert to oral deposition [**5] of the doctor as provided for by Pa. R.C.P. 4007, * and [*189] limit themselves to discovery of all information relevant to plaintiffs' personal injuries allegedly suffered at the hands of defendants' negligence. * "(a) Any party may take the testimony of any person, including a Party, for PAGE 3 1 Pa. D, & C.3d 185, *189; 1977 Pa. D. & C. LEXIS 304, **5 the purpose of discovery by deposition upon oral examination or written interrogatories of the identity and whereabouts of witnesses. Subject to the limitations provided by Rule 4011 , the deponent may also be examined regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the action and will substantially aid in the preparation of the pleadings or the preparation or trial of the case." The following order will resolve the apparent impasse. ORDER It is ordered and decreed that: (1) Plaintiffs supply to defendants' attorney copies of all medical statements and reports and bills of all doctors, hospitals, or other institutions who treated or examined plaintiffs [**6] for injuries alleged to have been suffered by them, and for which they seek recovery of damages, including any statement of any doctor or hospital concerning the ernotional or mental condition of plaintiffs or the permanence of the injuries suffered. (2) Defendants are not precluded frorn deposing any doctor, hospital attendant, or other persons involved in the treatrnent of the injuries suffered in the accident declared upon, and to cornpel production of the original records by 02/24/200 I -'"- .~ .-~~--~. suDpoena. (3) These matters must be attended to within the next 45 days, and if depositions are to be had, the notices of date shall be sent within the next 20 days. 102H4M .......... Print Completed .......... Time of Request: February 23,2001 12:06 pm EST Print Number: 59:0:22121874 Number of Lines: 112 Number of Pages: 3 02/24/200 I ~ -I , ;':-j Page 4 of 4 -, ...~ - ~ , . Get a Document - by Citation - 8 Pa. D, & CAth 97 .. Page 1 of2 r vi 8 Pa, D. & C4th 97, *; 1990 Pa. D. & C LEXIS 365, ** Roberts v. Nicolia no, 1361-A-1989 COMMON PLEAS COURT OF ERIE COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 8 Pa. D. & CAth 97; 1990 Pa. D. & c. LEXIS 365 July 20,1990, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: [**1] Motion to compel discovery. CORE TERMS: authorization, discovery, medical record, protective, confidential, privileged HEADNOTES: Discovery -- Production of documents -- Authorization for release of medical records -- Refusal to provide -- Irrelevancy and confidentiality alleged -- Protective order under Pa,R.C.P. 4012 must be sought A party may not refuse to provide authorizations for the release of medical records based upon an allegation that the information sought is irrelevant, will not lead to relevant matters and is personal and confidential but must seek a protective order under Pa,R.C.P. 4012. COUNSEL: John C. Evans, for plaintiff. Francis J, Klemensic, for defendant. JUDGES: JOYCE, J. OPINION BY: JOYCE OPINION: [*97] This matter is before the court on defendant's motion to compel discovery. The specific issue is whether the plaintiff should be ordered to execute authorizations to release all her medical records for inspection. The court is fully aware that an individual's medical record may contain matter which is not subject to discovery. However, a defendant has the right to discover information contained in a plaintiff's medical record which may bear on the physical injuries for which the plaintiff seeks compensation. These two divergent, yet legitimate interests have been reconciled and provided for in the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The rules allow discovery of any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter of the pending action. Rule 4003.1. The courts have the power through protective orders to control and limit discovery. Thus a party desiring the protection afforded by the rules need simply request it, Presently, the information sought is clearly not privileged. 42 Pa.C.S. 9 5929 [**2] . However, plaintiff [*98] argues that the information sought is irrelevant, will not lead to relevant matter and is personal and confidential. Obviously it is plaintiff who knows what medical records fall within the above classifications, not defendant nor the court. Therefore, it is plaintiff who should seek the protection she claims she is entitled by utilizing rule 4012. Upon presentment of good cause shown, the power of the court is adequate to furnish the requested protection. ,. ./retrieve? _ m=6dc956a45e33c2b5b62035ad9cc9fd93& _ browseType=TEXTONL Y &docnum= I :2/23/0 1 ,~ ,I ~ , , Get a Document - by Citation - 8 Pa. D. & C.4th 97 Page 2 of2 , - " ORDER And now, July 20, 1990, it is hereby ordered and decreed that defendant's motion to compel is grant<'ed. Service: LEXSEE@ Citation: 8 Pa. D. & C.4th 97 View: Full Daterrime: Friday, February 23,2001 -12:09 PM EST About LEXIS.NEXIS I Terms and Conditions CODvTioht@2001 LEXIS.NEXIS Group, All rights reserved. . ,./retrieve? _ m=6dc956a45e33c2b5b62035ad9cc9fd93& _ browseType=TEXTONL Y &docnum= 12/23/01 - ~.~ '\; Get a Document - by Citation - 37 Pa. D. & CAth 140 Page 1 of5 , vI' 37 Pa. D. & CAth 140, *; 1998 Pa. D. & c. LEXIS 45, ** r Slayton v. Biebel no. 1993-127 COMMON PLEAS COURT OF CRAWFORD COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 37 Pa. D. & CAth 140; 1998 Pa. D. & c. LEXIS 45 June 4, 1998, Decided CORE TERMS: discovery, subpoena, discoverable, patient, undiscoverable, privacy, present action, subpoenaed, proViders, issuance, withheld, disclosure, privileged, avoiding, workers' compensation, health care, non-party, custody, inspect, obtain discovery, pending action, opposing party, subject matter, overreaching, balanced, deponent, automobile accident, motion to produce, brief description, cause of action HEADNOTES: Civil practice--Discovery--Medical records Because the records sought by defendant from various non-party health care providers and custodians of workers' compensation records could contain medical matters which are of personal and private nature and which are irrelevant to plaintiff's suit, the court ordered that all such records first be sent to plaintiff's counsel for review. Objections to issuance of subpoenas granted. In a suit arising from an automobile accident, one of the defendants served subpoenas upon various non-parties who had either provided health care to plaintiff or had custody of plaintiff's workers' compensation records. Plaintiff, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4009.21(b), gave notice of his objection to the issuance of the subpoenas and requested that the records sought by defendant be sent first to plaintiff's counsel. The court granted plaintiff's objections and ordered that counsel for defendant "may serve each subpoena he wishes to serve upon medical providers so long as the records requested by each such subpoena are required to be forwarded directly to counsel for the plaintiff." In its opinion in support of its order, the court reasoned that although by bringing suit plaintiff waived his right to confidentiality as to those medical records which are relevanUo his personal injury claim, 42 Pa.C.S. 9 5929, he did not waive his right of confidentiality as to all medical records. Moreover, the court determined that for purposes of Pa.R.C,P. 4009, a party's medical records are within that party's control. Because a party who receives a motion to produce documents or records in their possession is afforded the opportunity to inspect the documents and remove impertinent matters before turning them over, a party subject to a request for records which are under the party's control but not his possession should be afforded the same opportunity to inspect, the court reasoned. However, in order to allay defendant's concerns that plaintiff's counsel might remove a pertinent part of the record, the court ordered that plaintiff's counsel provide defendant with a brief description of the records not provided and an explanation why those records were not provided. COUNSEL: [**1] IrVing M, Portnoy, for plaintiffs. William L. Walker, for defendant Biebel. Gary A. Fabian, for defendant Okuma. .. ./retrieve? _ m=4b9f786bOacf9951 a0ged0360398c833& _ browseType=TEXTONL Y &docnum= 1 JJ23/0 1 Get a Document - by Citation - 37 Pa. D. & CAth 140 Page 2 of 5 , William A. Oopierala, deputy attorney general, for additional defendant PennDOT. E. Max Weiss, for additional defendant Bearce. JUDGES: VARDARO, J. OPINIONBY:VARDARO OPINION: [*141] The present action arises from an automobile accident occurring on August 8, 1991 and in various phases of discovery since its initiation in 1993. At this point, the defendant-Biebel has served subpoenas upon various non-party health care providers and custodians of workers' compensation records in accord with Pa.R.C.P. 4009.21(a). The plaintiff has invoked his rights under Pa.R.C.P. 4009.21(b) and has given notice of his objection to the issuance of these subpoenas. The cornerstone of plaintiff's objection is that, contained in the information which is sought, are medical matters of a private and personal [*142] nature and medical matters which are irrelevant to this cause of action. Plaintiff requests that the records defendant seeks be first sent to plaintiff's counsel such that matters which are irrelevant and undiscoverable may be extracted. The defendant opposes such a procedure. [**2] DISCUSSION The limits of the scope of discovery are set forth in Pa.R.C.P 4003.1(a) which provides in material part that "a party may obtain discovery regarding any matter not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action. . . ." The scope of discovery is necessarily broad by definition and everything is presumed to be discoverable unless subject toa proscription set forth in the rules. Mountain View Condominium Owners' Ass'n v. Mountain View Associates, 9 D.&C.4th 81 (1991). A party then may "obtain discovery of any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action. . . if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence." Lindsey v. PennDOT, 23 D.&C.3d 202 (1982). The facts and circumstances of each particular cause of action will frame the proper scope of discovery. See Stenger v. Lehigh Vaifey Hospital Center, 530 Pa. 426, 609 A.2d 796 (1992). A court will only place limitations on the scope of discovery when it concludes that a matter which is sought as discoverable is privileged, irrelevant, [**3] or specifically prohibited by the rules. While a litigant's right to discovery is far-reaching, this right is not absolute. Tayior v. West Penn Hospital, 48 D.&C.3d 178 (1987). The limitations contained in Pa.R.C.P. 4011 define the bounds of the scope of discovery. Specifically, Pa.R.C.P. 4011(b) prohibits any [*143] discovery which could cause "unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden, or expense to a deponent or any person or party," and Rule 4011(e) prohibits the making of an "unreasonable investigation by the deponent or any party or witness." In the province of discovery, Pennsylvania case law recognizes an individual's interest in avoiding the disclosure of personal matters which are within a constitutionally protected sphere of privacy. In re June 1979 Aifegheny County Investigating Grand Jury, 490 Pa. 143, 415 A.2d 73 (1980). nl The United States Supreme Court in Walen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599-600, 97 S.Ct. 869, 876, 51 L. Ed. 2d 64, 73 (1976), found that an indiVidual's right to privacy necessarily embodies two types of privacy interests, "one is the individual's interest in avoiding disclosure of personal [**4] matters, and another is the interest in independence in making certain kinds of important decisions." This protection in avoiding the disclosure of personal matters, however, is also not absolute, and the competing interests of each party must, therefore, be balanced. See United States v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 638 F.2d 570 (3d Cir. 1980) (employee medical records are within ambit of materials entitled to privacy protection but this right must be balanced against society's public health concerns); Fabio v, Civil Service Commission of the City of Philadelphia, 489 Pa. 309,414 A.2d 82 (1980) (in Pennsylvania, only a compelling state interest will override one's privacy rights), . ..Iretrieve? _ m=4b9f786bOacf9951 a0ged0360398c833& _ browseType=TEXTONL Y &docnnm= 12/23/0 I ~"~ -..... ,~~..^ ~" 'A' Get a Document - by Citation - 37 Pa. D. & C.4th 140 Page 3 of 5 , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - nl "It is aCknowledged that court orders which compel, restrict or prohibit discovery constitute state action which is subject to constitutional limitations." Stenger v. Lehigh Vailey Hospital Center, 530 Pa. 426, 435 n.8, 609 A.2d 796, 801 n.8 (1992), citing Seattle Times Co, v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 104 S.Ct. 2199, 81 L. Ed. 2d 17 (1984). - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**5] [*144] There can be no question but that some part of the plaintiff's extensive medical history may be of substantial relevance to the issue at hand. In the same light, however, there can also be no question but that some parts of the plaintiff's medical history may be not only irrelevant to the present action but also of a highly private and personal nature. The defendant's counsel in argument has so admitted. Therefore, it is agreed by both parties that within the records which are subject to the subpoena are matters which are fUlly discoverable and matters which are fully undiscoverable. The plaintiff's counsel obviously seeks to keep the matters which are fully undiscoverable from the opposing counsel's review. Opposing counsel concedes that he has no use for these undiscoverable matters, but makes known his concern that fully discoverable matters maybe well be kept from him in the mistaken belief that they are undiscoverable. The question becomes whether there can be a reconciliation of both, the defendant's need for all relevant, non-privileged matters and the plaintiff's right to keep private all of her medical records which contain intimate matters of a personal [**6] nature which are not germane to the present action. We began an analysis of this matter by first noting that the plaintiff is impliedly considered to have consented to the disclosure of information which is considered confidential in "civil matters brought by such patient, for damages on account of personal injuries." 42 Pa.C.S. 9 5929. The defendant would interpret this as all0wing for the discovery of everything in the plaintiff's medical records irrespective of the fact that information which will be discovered will admittedly have no significance or relationship to the present action. We consider such an interpretation to be unacceptable and overreaching. See DeLuca v. Leon, 1 D.&C.3d 185 (1977) (request to compel production of all plaintiff's medical records refused). The purpose underlying the [*145] implied waiver poliCy is that "it is inconsistent for a patient to base a claim upon his medical condition and then use the privilege to prevent the opposing party from obtaining and presenting conflicting evidence pertaining to that condition." Moses v. McWilliams, 379 Pa. Super. 150, 181, 549 A.2d 950, 966 (1988) [**7] (Cirillo, P.l., concurring and dissenting), citing Bond v. District Court, 682 P.2d 33, 38 (Colo. 1984). To allow the defendant the discovery of every shred of the plaintiff's medical records, including that which will be unquestionably impertinent, does not further this policy. We also make note of Pa.R.C.P. 4009 which allows a court to order a party to produce records which are in the "possession, custody or control of the party upon whom the request is served." For purposes of the application of Rule 4009, an individual's medical records may be considered as within the "control of the party," Greyhound v. McAilister, 130 P,L.J. 414, 415 (1982) (since patient can direct physician to make their medical records available for review by the patient or any designated third party, the records are effectively in the control of the patient). That is, while a party's medical records may not be in his possession, they may properly be deemed to be in his control. Nothing in Rule 4009 requires that a party have both possession and control of his records in order for a court to order their production. As such, a party may be ordered to produce medical records [**8] which are in his control but not in his possession. The question becomes, for our purposes, whether the production of records which are not in a party's possession but are within his control should be afforded disparate treatment. A party which has received a motion to produce documents or records in their possession is afforded the opportunity to inspect these documents and records and remove that which is .../retrieve? _ m=4b9f786bOacf9951 a0ged0360398c833& _ browseType=TEXTONL Y &docnum= 12/23/0 1 ',,: Get a Docnment - by Citation - 37 Pa. D. & CAth 140 Page 4 of 5 . considered to be not properly [*146] the subject of the discovery motion. The party's counsel performs this discretionary function before turning over the records to the opposing party. This is an acceptable, necessary and well-established procedure. Matters which the counsel in good faith COnsiders to have absolutely no materiality to the action are properly removed. There is no convincing reason to treat records which are under the control of a party but not in his possession in a different manner. n2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - n2 As noted persuasively in Talarico v. Talarico v. Montefiore Hospital, 138 P.L.J. 213 (1990), "there is no reason to treat a request for the production of medical records in a different fashion from, for example, a request from a plaintiff directed to a hospital for the production of any records in its possession, custody, or control concerning the incident that is the subject of the lawsuit. Obviously, we would not permit the plaintiff's counsel to sort through all records of the hospital to be sure that the hospital has complied with the plaintiff's request for the production of documents." - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - [**9] The defendant suggests that to allow such like treatment is tantamount to allowing the plaintiff to try the defendant's case. We cannot agree. Such an argument would not likely be made were records in the possession of the plaintiff. That they are instead in the possession of another, but under his control, should not change the analysis. The concern of the defendant is legitimate. This concern is, however, endemic to both circumstances. In either circumstance, there is an understandable concern that certain materials may be withheld for the benefit of the withholding party. There is no reason for the concern to be greater, however, in one circumstance over the other. Should a misguided attorney endeavor upon a foolish course of withholding discoverable matters, there will be no distinctions made which will be based on whether the material withheld was first in the possession or the control of the client. [*147] The second concern of the defendant that the plaintiff may in good faith remove a part of the record which is in fact pertinent, is equally legitimate. This concern alone, however, will not allow defendant the overreaching scope of his discovery request. Pa.R.C.P. 4012(a)(2) [**10] allows that a court may make an order that, "the discovery or deposition shall only be on specified terms and condition, including a designation of the time and place." This rule affords a court with the means to provide for the defendant's concerns for the full disclosure of all discoverable matters without the need to compromise the plaintiff's protected privacy concerns. See Arnone v. Acme Markets Inc., 1 D.&CAth 281 (1987) (court ordered that responding party list and briefly describe all parts of the record which were withheld). Therefore, the plaintiff's objection to the defendant's issuance of subpoenas will be granted and any discovery of these subpoenaed documents and records may only be accomplished according to the following order. ORDER And now, June 4, 1998, consistent with the foregoing memorandum, counsel for the defendant, Richard T. Biebel, as administratrix of the estate of Ruth E. Peterson, may serve each subpoena he wishes to serve upon medical providers so long as the records requested by each such subpoena are required to be forwarded directly to counsel for the plaintiff. Counsel for the plaintiff shall promptly review all such subpoenaed [**11] records and documents and forward to counsel for defendant Biebel all records which plaintiff's counsel deems to be those relevant to this proceeding, along with a brief description of the records [*148] not provided and an explanation as to why those records were not provided. .. .Iretrieve? _ m=4b9f786bOacf9951 a0ged0360398c833& _ browseType=TEXTONL Y &docnnm= I 2/23/0 I ." ~ - -I.lii.L' Get a Document - by Citation - 37 Pa. D. & CAth 140 Page 5 of5 . Furthermore, plaintiff's counsel shall forward to counsel for Biebel an affidavit providing that the records produced and those expressly withheld compromised the whole of the subpoenaed records and documents. Thereafter, if there are any unresoived disputes regarding the discovery of the subpoenaed records and documents, counsel for defendant Biebel may file an appropriate motion with the court asking that there be an in camera inspection regarding any records that may be in dispute so that the court may determine if there is anything that is further discoverable. Service: LEXSEE@ Citation: 37 Pa. D.& C.4th 140 View: Full Date/Time: Friday, February 23,2001 .12:02 PM EST About LEXIS-NEXIS I Terms and Conditions CODvriaht@ 2001 LEXIS-NEXIS Group. All rights reserved. .. ./retrieve? _ m=4b9t786bOacf9951 a0ged0360398c833& _ browseType=TEXTONL Y &docnum= I 2/23/0 I .. - -,I~",,", ~, , ,;,' - ~, . '.,j-v Doris Patterson, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : No. 2000-794 Civil Term : Civil Action -- Law Rite Aid Corporation, Defendant PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF MEDICAL RECORDS AND NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Doris Patterson, by and through her attorneys, Coyne & Coyne, P.C., and files this Brief in Support of Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Motion to Compel Production of Medical Records. I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Plaintiffs Complaint was filed on February 10, 2000, to recover for damages sustained by the Plaintiff when she fell in the entrance to Defendant's premises on March 24,1998. On December 26, 2000, Plaintiff received and signed an Authorization to Release Privileged Information in favor of the Defendant to review her medical treatment records at Green Hill Family Practice and at Holy Spirit Hospital. The original release was prepared, however, as a general release, which would have authorized the Defendant unrestricted access to Plaintiffs entire medical history, The Plaintiff is 80 years old, By writing on the Release "only for injuries received when I fell on 24 Mar 1998," Plaintiff qualified the authorization to limit Defendant's access to her medical records. (Authorization to Release Privileged Information, Ex. "A".) On January 26,2001, Defendant moved this Court to compel the production of all medical records, An Order by this Court was granted on February 2,2001. Oral arguments on Defendant's Motion are scheduled for March I, 200 I, , ..~u~ - " - I~ ' II. ARGUMENT Defendant's Motion to Compel Production of Medical Records Should be Denied and! a Protective Order is Appropriate Because the Defendant Does Not Have an Absolnte Right to Plaintiff's Entire Medical History When the Plaintiff Does Not Claim Recovery for Injuries Aggravated by Her Accident. Although Defendant's right to discovery is broad, this right is not absolute, The limitations of discovery contained in Pa.R.C.P. 4011 define the bounds of the scope of Defendant's discovery: "No discovery. , . shall be permitted which. . ,(b) would cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to the deponent or any person or party; (c) is beyond the scope of discovery as set forth in Rules 4003.1 through 4003.6 . . .. Pa.R.C.P. 4011. Moreover, under Pa.R.C,P. 4009.21(c) "[a]ny party may objectto the subpoena by filing of record written objections." If objections are received by the party intending to serve the subpoena prior to its service, the subpoena shall not be served. Pa.R.C.P. 4009.21(d)(1). It is well accepted in Pennsylvania that to allow a defendant in a personal injury lawsuit the discovery of a plaintiff s entire medical record, including that which is impertinent, is not the intent of the liberal rules of full discovery. See Slayton v, Biebel, 37 Pa. D.& CAth 140 (Crawford 1998) (denying defendant's request to unrestricted access to all plaintiffs medical records); see also DeLuca v. Leon, 1 D. & C.3d 185 (Phila. 1977) (denying broad authorization and defendant's request to compel production of all plaintiffs medical records). Although Plaintiff consents to the disclosure of information which is considered confidential in "civil matters brought by [Plaintiff], for damages on account of personal injuries," 42 Pa.C.S. 9 5929, the Defendant interprets this rule to allow for the discovery of everything in Plaintiff s medical records although the information will have no significance or relevance to this civil action. Also, this information is available to Defendant by oral deposition of her treating 2 ,~ . - - ~ ~ (- j . physicians. See id. at 188 ("If defendants are not satisfied with copies of records supplied by plaintiffs and are desirous of a more ample discovery of plaintiffs' medical condition, they will have to revert to oral deposition of the doctor. . , and limit themselves to discovery of all information relevant to plaintiffs' personal injuries allegedly suffered at the hands of defendants' negligence"). Finally, although Pa.R.C.P. 4003,1 allows discovery of any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter ofthe pending action, this Court has the power through protective orders to control and limit discovery. PaRC.P.4012. Under Pa.R.C.P. 4012(a)(5) a protective order is appropriate to protect a Plaintiff s medical records when the information sought is irrelevant, will not lead to relevant matter, and is personal and confidential. See Roberts v. Nicolia, 8 Pa. D. & C, 4th 97 (Erie 1990) (holding that a plaintiff in a personal injury action may request a protective order to prevent disclosure of medical records that are irrelevant and personal). With the exception of the medical treatment that Plaintiff received for a fractured left hip related to her fall on March 24, 1998, her health-related treatment at Green Hill Family Practice and Holy Spirit Hospital is of a private and privileged nature. Furthermore, her records reflect treatment for previous health conditions, including cancer, that are not relevant to the injuries sustained as a direct result of her tripping over the carpet located at the entrance to Defendant's premises. Finally, Plaintiff, in her Complaint, is not claiming recovery from Defendant for aggravations related to pre-existing conditions. (Compl. ~ 8.) III. CONCLUSION Plaintiff does not object to the Defendant's subpoenas for medical records and other treatment docl.Ullents related to the injuries described in her Complaint. Although Plaintiff has 3 - ~~ 'F:) impliedly waived the doctor-patient privilege to the extent that Plaintiff relies on her medical condition to recover damages, waiver of this privilege should apply only to the records of the examining and treating physicians to the extent that the contents are relevant and material to the injuries sustained by Plaintiff, Thus, this Honorable Court should not grant to Defendant broad authorization to have access to the records of all medical personnel seen by Plaintiff throughout her lifetime when Plaintiff neither claims damages for aggravation of existing medical conditions, nor when oral depositions by attending physicians are available to the Defendant. Defendant's motion to gain possession of a complete set of all medical records is beyond the scope ofPa.R.C,P. 4003.1 and 4003.6 because the treatment received at these facilities was privileged and was unquestionably not relevant to the injuries sustained by Plaintiff, Therefore, the Plaintiff submits this Honorable Court would be justified in issuing a protective order under Pa.R.C.P. 4012(a)(S) to limit the scope of Defendant's access to those medical treatment records that are relevant to the injuries that Plaintiff avers in her Complaint as a direct result of her fall on March 24,1998, COYNE & COYNE, P.c. Date: ~ 0 ~ .JJr./J-1 e, Esquire Attorney for laintiff 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227 (717) 737-0464 Pa. S. Ct. No. 06250 4 " ",':_c < CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Henry F. Coyne, of Coyne & Coyne, P,C" hereby certify that a true copy of Plaintiffs Brief in Support of Plaintiffs Response to Defendant's Motion to Compel Production of Medical Records was served this date by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage paid, to the following: MARTSON DEARDOFF WILLIAMS & OTTO George B. Faller, Jr., Esquire Ten East High Street Carlisle, P A 17013-3093 Date: ~ (j 1=.tJr -8'1 , squrre COYNE & CO ,P.C. 3901 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-4227 (717) 737-0464 Pa. S. Ct. No, 06250 Attorney for Plaintiff 5 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PATTERSON Vs. NO. 2000 794CV RITE AID CORP CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena(s) for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 GEORGE FALLER, ESQUIRE certifies that: 1. A Notice of Intent to Serve the Subpoena(s) with a copy of the subpoena(s) attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena(s) is sought to be served, 2. A copy of the Notice of Intent, including the proposed subpoena(s) is attached to this certificate, 3. No objection to the subpoena(s) has been received, and 4. The subpoena(s) which will be served is identical to the subpoena(s) which is attached to the Notice of Intent to Serve the Subpoena(s) . Date: 03/27/02 GEORGE FALLER, ESQUIRE MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS TEN EAST HIGH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 717-243-3341 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT INQUIRIES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO: MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS, INC. 4940 DISSTON STREET PHILADELPHIA PA 19135 (215) 335-4907 File #: M284568 By: Jacqueline Ciarrocchi IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PATTERSON Vs. RITE AID CORP No. 2000 794CV TO: HENRY COYNE NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 DEFENDANT intends to serve a subpoena(s} identical to the one(s} attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection is made the subpoenamaybe-served~ -- ---------- - --- Date: 03/06/02 GEORGE FALLER, ESQUIRE MARTSON DEARDORFF WILLIAMS TEN EAST HIGH STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT INQUIRIES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO: MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS, INC. 4940 DISSTON STREET PHILADELPHIA, FA 19135 (215) 335-4907 By: Jacqueline Ciarrocchi Enc(s}: Copy of subpoena(s} Counsel return card File #: M284568 _J -, cn-M)NWJ;7U,TH OF p'f}lNSYLVANIA axJNl'Y OF aJMBERU\ND PATTERSON VS. File No. ?nnn 794CV RITE AID CORP SUBPOENA TO PROOl.K:E DOC:U1ENTS OR TH I NGS FOR D I sroVERY PURSUANT TO RUlE 4009. 22 TO: XACT MEDICARE SVCS, 1800 WATER ST BOX 890413, CAMP HILL PA 17089-0413 (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following docunent!'l or things: SEE ATTACHED ADDENDUM at I I , i I I I I I II I j I I I 'I r: " 'I I MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS~A~~s~940 DISSTON ST., PBILA., PA You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested h) this subpoena, together with the certificate of carpliance, to the party making thi, reques~ at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonablE cost of prelJc-arfng-tI'ie-caPiesclr-proaucingtlle-things-sought: . ,. uu__ If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within t~enty (20) days after its serv~ce, the party serving thh subpoena may seek a court orde,' c.nTlle 11 ing you to COTP Iy with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS NAME: ADDRESS : ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOHING PERSON: IJR()1U~~ Fll.T,T,~R, ESQ TELEPI-()NE: SUPREI"E OOJRT I D# ATTORNEY FOR: MART50N DEARDORFF WILLIAMS CARLISLE, PA 17013 215-335-3212 " AQ~'~ DEFENDANT BY TI-lE COJRT: ~ if ~'h-' Prothonotary/C er~, Civil C)'"1" -'- a /J.1, t P: ) M284568-01 DATE: 03/0f /02 Seal of the Court Division Deputy (Eff. 7/97) . c ~ Ie '~' ADDENDUM TO SUBPOENA PATTERSON Vs. No. 2000 794CV RITE AID CORP CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: XACT MEDICARE SVCS ANY AND ALL RECORDS, MEDICAL AND OR ACCIDENT CORRESPONDENCE, NOTES, RECEIPTS, BILLS, ETC., AND ANY OTHER INFORMATION PERTAINING TO: NAME: DORIS PATTERSON ADDRESS: 2004 HIGHLAND CIR CAMP HILL PA DATE OF BIRTH: 06/01/20 SSAN: 182228145 ANY AND ALL DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING THE MEDICAL LIEN. --ALL-FEES MUST BE APPROVED_PlUQR TO RECORDS BEING FORWARDED. - --- ---- - --- - - - - --- - ------------ --- - ---- RECORD CUSTODIAN - COMPLETE AND RETURN [ ] RECORDS ARE ATTACHED HERETO: I hereby certify as custodian of records that, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief all documents or things above mentioned have been produced. [ ] NO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE: I hereby certify that a thorough search has been made and that no record of the following documents have been located (CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX) : ( ) RECORDS ( ) X-RAYS PATIENT BILLING RECORDS / XRAYS have been destroyed Date Author~zed signature for XACT MEDICARE SVCS CUMBERLAND M284568-01 *** SIGN AND RETURN THIS PAGE *** ~~~~r_rl~ -~~"~-"~~,.'_'_...,,"_.~' ~" ~~ "~f'- ....- ~ ~o _ \}~1-: rnr:: ~zf- (f) :-- -<:<"-, r:=c; ~;. c~ !~C_; )>c () c L_ -) -, " t~)- f'..,) .".,,~ -,--, --1 ~_O ! ~";'i <j ~r-' "-' f'-,) c:- {i\ - - - ,-- .~ - -~ ,',' ;1,' -' DORIS PATTERSON, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. 00-794 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL ORDER AND NOW, this "1-' day of March, 200 I, for the reasons stated in Slayton v. Biebel, 37 D&C.4th, 140 (1998), it is ordered and directed that the defendant may serve subpoenas upon medical providers so long as the records requested by each such subpoena are required to be forwarded directly to counsel for the plaintiff. Counsel for the plaintiff shall promptly review all such subpoenaed records and documents and forward to counsel for defendant all records which plaintiffs counsel deems to be those relevant to this proceeding, along with a brief description of the records not provided and an explanation as to why those records were not provided. Thereafter, if there are any unresolved disputes regarding the discovery of the subpoenaed records and documents, counsel for defendant may file an appropriate motion with the court asking that there be an in camera inspection regarding any records that may be in dispute so that the court may determine if there is anything that is further discoverable. BY THE COURT, ~ ~~ _o'b,O\ 03 ~ . . -- '>, F1LEL}-()fF1GE O~ ..,,~ -'~""-I,r' iOTARY it :1'""'. '--'".,1.: e'_t JI\' . "".. 1,]-;' ._" 01 MAR-g M, 8: 16 CUM8~RLI\ND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA ~ ,-' .~, ,,:,"~ll'/," __ _I, . 1 __" ",' , '.- -,,"' -" ,~",'-"~ ',', ,~ j- ~'" , ," ~I!!M'IIWI, : ~-"""_J7'lim~ ~ ,--, , ~-,' w' 1-- . Henry Coyne, Esquire For the Plaintiff George Faller, Jr., Esquire For the Defendant :rlm "Mfi'lr'-="" " .. " ~ ,I ~, , SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2000-00794 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND PATTERSON DORIS VS RITE AID CORPORATION R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named WITNESS , to wit: WILHELM LYNETTE but was unable to locate Her in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of DAUPHIN County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within SUBPOENA On July 30th , 2002 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from DAUPHIN Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Out of County Surcharge Dep Dauphin Co 18.00 9.00 10.00 30.50 .00 67.50 07/30/2002 MDW&O S~,_,_s' /~~. c--~ "rC::; , R/ Thomas Klin Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before me this .( m-<( day of O'r"~ .:2tn:L A.D. O'fl' 0 ~ A~I<~ I Prothonotary "~ ~ ~ . - .~ .. - . @~litt of tlp~ ~4criff Mary Jane Snyder Real Estate Deputy William T. Tully Solicitor J. Daniel Basile Chief Deputy Michael W. Rinehart Assislant Chief Deputy Dauphin County Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 ph: (717) 255-2660 fax: (717) 255-2889 Jack Lotwick Sheriff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County ofDaupWn PATTERSON DORIS vs Sheriff's Return WILHELM LYNETTE No. 1796-T - -2002 OTHER COUNTY NO. 2000-794 AND NOW:July 25, 2002 SUBPOENA & LETTER WILHELM LYNETTE to HER of the original at 12:20PMserved the within upon by personally handing 1 true attested copy(ies) SUBPOENA & LETTER and making known to him/her the contents thereof at DAUPHIN COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, RM. 104 FRONT & MARKET STREET HBG, PA 17101-0000 SWorn and subscribed to before me this 25TH day of JULY, ~~~2 ~ e'-o ~aWw;'ii PROTHONOTARY So Answers, ?f~ Sheriff of Dauphin County, Pa. BY~/lAd~~~/S!:r~ffiJ Sheriff's Costs: $0.00 PD 00/00/0000 RCPT NO MEASTON --. ".- "~ -- -- -I. " . In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, PennsylvanIa Doris Patterson ,.' VS. Rite Aid Corporation SERVE: Lynette Wilhelm 'No. 00 794 civil Now, July 22, 2002' . I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, P A, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Dauphin County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. , ~~rJ<~ Sheriff of Cumberland County, P A Affidavit ofSenice Now, ,20-,at o'clock M. served the within upon at by handing to 'copy of the original a and made known to the contents thereof: , So answers, , . Sheriff of County, PA ,20_ , COSTS SERVICE . MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT $ Sworn and subscribed before , me this _ day of ,-. t- ~, . .'<< . ",'0 $ " ~"~ '8'...... , ' , l~., PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Must be typewrillen and submilled in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Please list the following case: ~ (Check one) x for JURY trial at the next term of civil court. for trial without a jury. . ----~-----~-~~--~~~~-~-~-__~_.__~~_~8. CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) (check one) DORIS PATTERSON Assumpsit (X) Trespass Trespass (Motor Vehicle) (other/ (Plaintiff) vs. RITE AID CORPORTATION The trial list will be called on .Tnn" ] 'i. 2004 and Trials commence on July 12 (Defendant) Pretrials will be held on June 23, 2004 (Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials.) vs. {The carty listing this case for trial shall provide forthwith a copy of the praeCipe to all counsel. pursuant to local Aule 214.1.> No. 794 Civil Action ~6C6 ,1~~9_9/ Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who tiles this praecipe: T;' George B. Faller, Esquire, MDW&O,Ten East High Street, ll.at;llilUgl< BAreiH'OlBarliB"",PA Indicate trial counsel for other parties If known: Henry F. Coyne, Esquire, Coyne & Coyne, 3901 Market Street, Camp Hill, PA 17011 This case IS ready for trial. S;go,", 4~----- -- ;Orin! Name: George B. Faller, :Jr. _111iAi ~ 'mlJlJ~Ja.!;;" , "' .~~~U~~- ~~.:.- '-" ""' - '.~ ;~}~ " ,~;~ .r::~ ~- ,^ :::-,,( -: ~~~ ~ ---I -< .r.- eo w "0 "" C::;:} "'" -L- :::>. - V ;:0 o -'1 :;:! FI1:r:-1 f-'; :om -GO 0' ::;:iQ -'-- " O:n ::;-:() bm .." :p.' 2? 0~ 3' _-;r: - I ,_..~' .. 5. Doris Patterson : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA V Rite Aid Corporation : NO. 00-0794 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, June 16,2004, by agreement of counsel, the above captioned case is hereby continued !'rom the July 12, 2004 trial term. Counsel is directed to relist the case when ready. By the Court, Martson, Deardorff, Williams & Otto For the Plaintiff Henry F. Coyne, Esquire For the Defendant ~~ (./11AJ'I cr, Court Administrator 1d 'll "," """ ~"- " ".~1 "J.l!lMl~~l -",,,,,11.- ~ -oEf:c! n'1n,~ ~~~, lC'"--' :E?:c-.2 ~c~ )>c Z =< ,..., <= ." -"'" c.- c:: ::;<: -.l .." :J!;: ~ -l ::r.:..,., rl1r -0\"<1 ::09 0.0 -'-:ri x,,! 120 "?'-,'-n ~~~ ~ =-< - .s:- t'0 ~J,,"_!__ _"'"" , ~""",-"" 0"'m DORIS PATTERSON, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA vs. : NO. 2000-794 CIVIL TERM RITE AID CORPORATION, Defendant : CIVIL ACTION : JURY TRIAL OF TWELVE DEMANDED To the Prothonotary: Please mark the above-captioned action settled and satisfied. COYNE & COYNE, P.C. Dated:-1 s, tv (J-.i r"{'l) q By: Henry F. Coyne, E 390 I Market Street CampHiII,PA 17011-4227 (717) 737-0464 Pa. S. Ct. No. 06250 j ,I ~n,.toJ!!l' u" .' 'iIMIll-~~ ..~ - "~ &.4 - " L 0 ......, 0 = C c:;) 'TI ~ < .:" :=l ;~;;:':~,p :;e -..l--n CJ mII -"7"1': ~ .", ,<,~,- -,. ~~~~-' -ny /J'l (.,*c> ,--I ::;:!"'1"j ~ '..- ~-' 6:D ~- J;W) ~C; :.~ -,...0 "~'m 'J> C ....f? S . 'C: 1;:;- ~ <.J ?~2 \D - '. '-'~..~,,,'"-~"= "-,,----, '." .,. ~, -- .,