The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About00-04298 . --~ ~ '" JUN 1 9 2003 ~ LORIE A. WELCH, Plaintiff #14 OLER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - ,LAW KEITH B. HELFRICK, Defendant No. 00-4298 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE A pretrial conference was held in the chambers of Judge Oler in the above-captiGned case on Wednesday, June 18, 2003. Present on behalf of Plaintiff was W. Scott Henning, Esquire. Present on behalf of Defendant was James G. Nealon, Esquire, standing in for Andrew C. Lehman, Esquire, who will be trying the case. This is a negligence action for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on December 8, 1998, in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. The accident occurred when Defendant's vehicle rear-ended Plaintiff's vehicle. Liability for causing the accident is conceded by Defendant, but legal causation and damages are disputed. This will be a jury trial in which each side will have four peremptory challenges, for a total of eight. The estimated duration of trial is one day. With respect to availability of counsel, Plaintiff's counsel, W. Scott Henning, Esquire, has indicated that he will be unavailable from Wednesday, July - , , ,-'. ~'-'; -, - . b ~ ~ 9, 2003, at 2:00 p.m., until the end of the trial term. Accordingly, he will be available for the first two days and part of the third day of the trial term. To the extent that any deposition testimony is to be shown or read to the jury and contains objections requiring rulings by the trial court, counsel are directed to furnish to the Court copies of the affected transcripts with the areas of objection being pursued highlighted and with brief memoranda in support of their respective positions on the objections, at least five days prior to commencement of the trial term. Counsel have stipulated to the admission of reports from Dr. David Long and Dr. Robert G. Sanford in lieu of testimony by those physicians, at Plaintiff's option. It is also stipulated that Defendant may introduce either report as evidence. With respect to settlement negotiations, Defendant has offered a nominal sum only to settle the claim. It appears unlikely to the Court that the case will be settled, unless the Plaintiff accepts the offer of Defendant. By the Court, dl .~ , ~ w. Scott Henning, Esquire For the Plaintiff James G. Nealon, Esquire For the Defendant Court Administrator wcy. , "~ 'fI-'~hl:,,~~,..~_~ ,,- . ,,-~- ",-".,.- .""--~",,, ,-~ .^ ~ "~-"'~~~ - ,- y' "- -~,~-'" ,~-~,~,,- o. ~" '~_~~1111-~. _J~r "'j(-"'V~"' --. he c ....... .. ,.... o rDI~; q]t-';' :tf'" OJ _ 2;-~- 5::: ,- ?it """"'""'liiiIIliIIiJlWll-'. ," ~' '. .I ~ :::::; eM) o ->1 .-:1 ~"," f,.D =,~~: I:':) r..;- Iv CASE NO.: 00 t..U"4./c-t- ) DOCKET NO.: 2 3 4 5 6 7 R 9 10 II 12 D 14 15 1(, 17 slt~~ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 n 28 29 30 - '4.;}. q 'i? LCJ ... .- ..4- )~ror # Name Monday, July 07, 2003 52 43 28 78 1 74 54 69 85 49 34 95 39 4 41 32 7 9 55 6 56 72 80 17 65 13 98 73 59 31 Wise, John E. Lippert, Pamela 5 Smith, Jesse R Gavlick, Daryle R Meas, David D Mader, James D Sullivan, Lori A Kochan, Marianne M McMeans, David W Seidel, George H J r Walker, Troy A Clark, Andrew S Rueger, Ryan Rouen, Jane! C Wiser, Paula M Krebs, John R Regan, Patricfa M Brenizer, JeftreyW Krausse; Kathleen A Girton, DavidA Samuels, Helen D Sgrignoli, Scott D Hartman, Heather Singer, Alvert C Jr Elicker, Dana E Hassinger, Michele Galer, Miriam M Davis, Robert B Smith, Heidi Ann Moyer, Eleanor S VS _ Co=~~~i~;~- 1-1-:-.; F I-/c.. k I(p;-If. 11 . DATE: '7/7/ OJ , , . .__..~~., Random No. ..._- -2057918633 ~ 1861620927 -1615879010 -1599258923 -1591784375 -1428606300 -1387031476 -1359429319 -1356204789 -1285898130 -1207784627 -934808336 -794867062 -699793706 -139599808 44946428 478779636 479927013 636311901 762711967 792871770 814951686 824666482 1275686811 1393623320 1638758466 1723182641 1741835791 1806217939 1900405703 Pagelofl LORIE A. WELCH, Plaintiff; IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. v. NO.: 00-4298 KEITH B. HELFRICK, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PROPOSED PQINTS FOR CHARGE OF THE DEFENDANT, KEITH B. HELFRICK Respectfully submitted, NEALON & GOVER, p,c. Date: '7- 7 ~cG - By: ~ ' _____ Andrew C. Lehman, Esquire ------ 1.D, #: 81937 2411 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/232-9900 You are not pennitted to determine your verdict based on guess work, speculation, conjecture or sympathy for a party, Engle v.. Spino, 425 Pa. 254, 228 A.2d 745 (1967). c.----~ C/ 2 :-,',:.;j(";-1k" , - ~-- '-.:-~,'-, "'::-'''-;--" ~- , "C' '0:--'- , . '. :'"-,i-'>,' -, ,.'-_<" " ,- ..,", [;,:L::!3<;;:.::~:::J~}: ".__~ .,.-,:>j"":"fJ~::1 I 3.00 (Civ.) ISSUES IN THE CASE The Plaintiff claims that she was injured and sustained damage as a result of the negligent conduct of the Defendant. The Plaintiff has the burden of proving her claims. The Defendant admits that he was negligent, but denies that such negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about the Plaintiffs injuries, Based upon the evidence presented at this Trial, the only issues for you to decide in accordance with the law as I shall give it to you, are: First: Was the negligent conduct a Substantial Factor in bringing about the Plaintiffs harm? _. Second: If, and only if the Defendant's negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about harm to the Plaintiff, then you are to decide the amount of compensation, if any, to be ~ -~ awarded to the Plaintiff. yG17 3 ~ :j~c ~,~;,____. :~' '" ;~\, "--<,h-'n -F{,~-. , ':~;] ,",'!';':;:{{;' -~,'" "'" "'"';1 3.25(Civ.) LEGAL CAUSE [n order for the Plaintiff to recover, the Defendant's negligent conduct must have been a substantial factor in bringing about the [Plaintiffs harm,] This is what the law recognizes -.:::::. as legal cause, A substantial factor is an actual, real factor, although the result may be unusual or unexpected, but it is not an imaginary or fanciful factor or a factor having no connection or only an insignificant cOlmection with the accident. vth 4 ~. --'" '-,-",,;,,"--".'-0,"-,,' -.','-,,",'.- .,'.1.,..,."..,.-""",.,.. ., -',>;"(.,,7".' -, , ",-'-."'. 0_, ,-~ _,',,, ~"'''''c'' -, "'C'.. '" c.._, ;~"'h""" 5.03 (Civ) NUMBER OF WITNESSES The number of witnesses offered by one side or the other does not, in itself, determine the weight of the evidence. It is a factor, but only one of many factors that you should consider. Whether the witnesses appem- to be biased or unbiased or whether they are interested or disinterested persons, are among the important factors that indicate the reliability of their testimony, The important thing is the quality of the testimony of each witness, In short, the test is not which side brings the greater number of witnesses or presents the greater quantity of evidence; but which witness or witnesses, and which evidence, you consider most worthy of belief. Even the testimony of one witness may outweigh that of many, if you have reason to believe his or her testimony in preference to theirs. Obviously, however, where the testimony of the witnesses appears to you to be of the same quality, the weight of numbers assumes particular significm1ce. ,~~/ 5 -"':('::-.", ,"',.-:, ~~-~, ~': 1;: i,1 ti " '.II :: fi , :;';'-,,.,,-; <..-.., - -- '--"-'.5 ,',--" ".-"~"'"-.;;"O"""~, ","- " ", -, ''', ::~C";,>,"-'?__ "~'3:~:I~-"'; _" \i,'&-;:i?}'; . '7;9"';:.' ,'<-"'" 5.04 (Civ) CONFLICTING TESTIMONY You may find inconsistencies in the evidence. Even actual contradictions in the testimony of wihlesses do not necessarily mean that any witness has been willfully false, Poor memory is not uncommon. Sometimes a witness forgets; sometimes he or she remembers incorrectly. It is also true that two persons witnessing an incident may see or hear it differently. If different parts of the testimony of any witness or witnesses appear to be inconsistent, you the jury should try to reconcile the conflicting statements, whether of the same or different witnesses, and you should do so if it can be done fairly and satisfactorily. If, however, you decide that there is a genuine and ilTeconcilable conflict of testimony, it is your function and duty to determine which, if any, of the contradictory statements you will believe, i' i; f' I' e c-.-/ V- 6 '" ,.;. '.,':,__LH/ C'<"-,-- -\,-",. .'-,:- .- 'i ."-. ".:J. ,-,t,?",., - ,_'. .~!li.~:ti_~~'~i{.:,~j?~;?:T; n', " ""'\'~'~;:)i ~'~-li :1 'I 5.30 (Civ) EXPERT[S] TESTIMONY -CREDIBILITY GENERALLY [You will recall that [name of witness) gave testimony of [his] [her] qualifications as an expert in the field of [specifj;}. [Similarly, [state name of the other expert(s) from the same field) testified as to [his] [her] qualifications as an expert in this same field.]] A witness who has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in a par- ticular science, profession, or occupation may give an opinion as an expert as to any matter in which he or she is skilled. In determining the weight to be given to the expert's opinion, you should consider the qualifications and reliability of the expert and the reasons and facts given for the opinion, You are not bound by an expert's opinion merely because he or she is an expert; you , may accept or reject it, as in the case of other witnesses. Give it the weight, if any, to which you deem it entitled. ~(-_/' 7 ""-,,,.\P;":~."'>'~ 5.31 (Civ) EXPERT OPINION-BASIS FOR OPINION GENERALLY In general, the opinion of an expert has value only when you accept the facts upon which it is based, This is tme whether the facts are assumed hypothetically by the expert, or they come from the expert's personal knowledge, from some other proper source, or from some combination ofthese, L-~ r, ~e. 8 C_",",_,--".,,-'. ."./--:> ,. "',,--,:.:,:"-",- ,,' .: - ."~-_:~ ,>~, ,.-, ,~;'e ~i-';):,F;-,<' co,. .-'. "I' - .' .. I ' -, -.. -""~.?:'F-H,,',:W_7-<- '-";'.-",,.,;~-,:jci'.;;: "-- '. ~.;;.__~" ?":iis~>~:~Z~~.;: -;-""0'--'-:.' " ., ., ","-'c' -.""';"i 5.40 (Civ) CAUTIONARY CHARGE: JURY NOT TO ASSUME JUDGE HAS EXPRESSED AN OPINION ON THE EVIDENCE [ have invited your attention to various factors you may consider in evaluating [[namej's testimony] [the evidence for the plaintiff and defendant]. In doing so, I have not attempted to indicate any opinion on my part concerning the weight you should give to the evidence or to any part of it and I would not want you to think that I had. In any event, it is for you and you alone to determine the credibility of each witness, :S:::--e- e..~ ' 9 "' -."".-- ~- " -:',', ,- ,< '. "_';.:"1"'_>-' C-,'!y~,:,'''~ ."."1'. "Y' , ~ ~ :-:/:'-1 .-11 . "' 5.50 (Civ) BURDEN OF PROOF In civil cases such as this one, the plaintiff has the burden of proving those contentions that entitle him or her to relief. When a pmiy has the burden of proof on a paliicnlar issue, the pmiy's contention on that issue mllst be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence. The evidence establishes a contention by a fair prepondermlce of the evidence if YOll are persuaded that it is more probably accurate and true thml not. To put it another way, think, ifYOll will, of an ordinary balance scale, with a pan on each side. Onto one side of the scale, place all of the evidence favorable to the plaintiff; onto the other, place all of the evidence favorable to the defendant. If, after considering the comparable weight of the evidence, you feel that tlle scales tip, ever so slightly or to the slightest degree, in favor of the plaintiff, your verdict must be for the plaintiff. If the scales tip in favor of the defendmlt, or are equally balmlced, your verdict must be for the defendant. [n this case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the following propositions: [in the ordinary negligence case,] that the defendant was negligent, and that the defendant's negligence was a factual cause in bringing about the accident. [In other cases, the contentions should be listed seriatim.} If, after consideling all of the evidence, you feel persuaded that these propositions are more probably tme than not tme, your verdict must be for the plaintiff. Otherwise, your verdict should be for the defendant. ~ L/ 10 - <' '~~ .c;,~", ' . . .~ LORIE A. WELCH, Plaintiff v : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 00-4298 CIVIL KEITH B. HELFRICK, Defendant : CIVIL ACTION. LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' POINTS FOR CHARGE AND NOW, come the Plaintiff, Lorie A. Welch, by and through her attorneys, Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP, and provide the following jury instructions which they move the Court to read to the jury. Respectfully submitted, Date: 7~3 -';)iJ03 & ROSENBERG, LLP BY W. Scott nn ,Es ire Attorney I.D. No. 32. 8 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 1. Under all the law and evidence presented, I direct that you return a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff, Lorie A. Welch, against the Defendant on the issue of liability. \{h 2 .~L .JIll ---...J -~~"~- ~ ~~. - . ^~i' ... -~ 2. The legal term negligence, otherwise known as carelessness, is the absence of ordinary care which a reasonably prudent person would exercise in the circumstances here presented. Negligent conduct may consist either of an act or an omission to act when there is a duty to do so. In other words, negligence is the failure to do something which a reasonably careful person would do, or the doing of something which a reasonably careful person would not do, in light of all the surrounding circumstances established by the evidence of the case. It is for you to determine how a reasonably careful person would act in those circumstances. Pa SSJI (Civ.) 93.01 .~. 0- 3 ~~ -~. ~~<. ....~" -, ^ I,~ ,,:.:.....,,- i, " ' .., 3. Ordinary care is the care a reasonably careful person would use under the circumstances presented in this case. It is the duty of every person to use ordinary care not only for his own safety and the protection of his property, but also to avoid injury to others. What constitutes ordinary care varies according to the particular circumstances and conditions existing then and there. The amount of care required by law must be in keeping with the degree of danger involved. Pa SSJI (Civ.) S 3.02 4 -~ , ~ I ... , ~ 4. This is a civil case and not a criminal case. The Plaintiff, Lorie A. Welch, need not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Their obligation with reference to the burden of proof is proof by a preponderance ofthe credible evidence and testimony. <: ~ Petro v. Secary Estate, 403 Pa. 540 (1961). ~ G-// 5 - 5. In civil cases such as this one, the plaintiff has the burden of proving those contentions which entitle him/her to relief. When a party has the burden of proof on a particular issue, his/her contentions on that issue must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence. The evidence establishes a contention by a fair preponderance of the evidence if you are persuaded that it is more probably accurate and true than not. Pa SSJI (Civ.) 9 5.50 L--/~' 6 :--"'---..*t" .. , - I 6. The number of witnesses offered by one side or the other does not, in itself, determine the weight of the evidence. It is a factor, but only one of many factors which you should consider. Whether the witnesses appear to be biased or unbiased; whether they are interested or disinterested persons, are among the important factors which go to the reliability of their testimony. The important thing is the quality of the testimony of each witness. In short, the test is not which side brings the greater number of witnesses or presents the greater quantity of evidence; but which witness or witnesses, and which evidence, you consider most worthy of belief. Even the testimony of one witness may out weigh that of many, if you have reason to believe her testimony in preference to theirs. Obviously, however, where the testimony of the witnesses appear to you to be of the same quality, the weight of numbers assumes particular significance. Pa SSJI (Civ.) S 5.03. v/ 7 ~"~i , -I "--,,. I, ..1 1iilIIl.i,I 1 7. You may find inconsistencies in the evidence. Even actual contradictions in the testimony of witnesses do not necessarily mean that any witness has been wilfully false. Poor memory is not uncommon. Sometimes a witness forgets; sometimes he remembers incorrectly. It is also true that two persons witnessing an incident may see or hear it differently. If different parts of the testimony of any witness or witnesses appear to be inconsistent, you the jury should try to reconcile the conflicting statements, whether of the same or different witnesses, and you should do so if it can be done fairly and satisfactorily. If, however, you decide that there is a genuine and irreconcilable conflict of testimony, it is yourfunction and duty to determine which, if any, ofthe contradictory statements you will believe. Pa SSJI (Civ.) S 5.04. (/// U 8 '~i; 8. A witness who has special knowledge, skill, experience, training or education in a particular science, profession or occupation may give his opinion as an expert as to any matter in which he is skilled. In determining the weight to be given to his opinion, you should consider the qualifications and reliability of the expert and the reasons given for his opinion. You are not bound by an expert's opinion merely because he is an expert; you may accept or reject it, as in the case of other witnesses Give it the weight, if any, to which you deem it entitled. Pa SSJI (Civ.) S 5.30. L,..-// ~/ 9 - , I , -~j 9. In general, the opinion of an expert has value only when you accept the facts upon which it is based. This is true whether the facts are assumed hypothetically by the expert, or they come from his personal knowledge, from some other proper source, or from some combination of these. Pa SSJI (Civ.) 9 5.31. C--/' o 10 "' ",. . . , ;l;orQj;,j 10. In resolving any conflict that may exist in the testimony of expert witnesses, you are entitled to weigh the opinion of one expert against that of another. In doing this, you should consider the relative qualifications and reliability of the expert witnesses, as well as the reasons for each opinion and the facts and other matters upon which it is based. Pa SSJI (Civ.) S 5.33. c. c.---" 11 .1 illIlli:liLV: 11. Members of the Jury, if you find that the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff, you must then find an amount of money damages which you believe will fairly and adequately compensate the Plaintiff for all the physical and emotional injuries they have sustained as a result of this accident. The amount which you award today must compensate the Plaintiff completely for damages sustained in the past, as well as damages they will sustain in the future. Pa SSJI (Civ.) 9 6.00. ~/ C/ 12 ~. . -'-~-'.=-"-~" - .. II (L ~, c ~~. 12. The paramount rule in assessing damages is that every person unjustly deprived of his rights should at least be fUlly compensated for the injuries she sustains. The primary function of compensatory damages is to shift the loss from an innocent party to one who is at fault. Spangler v. Helm's New York-Pittsburgh Motor Express, 393 Pa. 482(1959); Esmond v. Uscia, 209 Pa. Super. 200 (1966). en 13 - >~ _I, -~ 13. The word "compensation" is a keynote as it relates to the damages because "compensation" is the true purpose of the law of damages and the general principle on the law awards damages is compensation for the loss suffered. An injured person should be fully compensated for all injuries sustained. .- Incollingo v. Ewing, 444 Pa. 263, 282 A. 2d 206 (1971). C----/ C-/ 14 I I "'"c 14. In this case, ladies and gentlemen, if you find that the Plaintiff, Lorie A. Welch, sustained injuries for which she is entitled to recover, you must be advised of the different types of damages available for compensation. Before instructing you, I will explain each of the types of damages which are recoverable. Lorie A. Welch is entitled to recover for: (a) all past and future embarrassment and humiliation; ./ (b) (c) (d) all past and future loss of enjoyment of life; ........... all past and future pain and suffering; and / all past and future lost wages. /' In the event that you find in favor of Lorie A. Welch, you will add these sums ,,"( of damage together and return your verdict in a single, lump sum. Pa. SSJI (Civ.) g6.01; Kaczkowskiv. Bolubasz, 491 Pa. 561,421 A.2d 1027 (1980); Stephens v. Economy Bank of Ambridge, 413 Pa. 442, 197 A.2d 721 (1964): Lach v. Fletch, 361 Pa. 340, 64 A. 2d 821 (1949). 15 "" ..- ~ -,,-." lli~ 1,5. If you find that the Plaintiff, lorie A. Welch, has suffered injuries for which she is entitled to recover, you must then find she is also entitled to be fairly and adequately compensated for such physical pain, mental anguish, discomfort, inconvenience and distress as you believe she will endure in the future as a result of her injuries. Pa. SSJI (Civ.) S 6.01 F. &~' 16 - 16. If you find that the Plaintiff, Lorie A. Welch, has suffered injuries for which she is entitled to recover, you must then find she is entitled to be fairly and adequately compensated for such physical pain, mental anguish, discomfort, inconvenience and distress as you find she endured from the time of the collision until today. Pa. SSJI (Civ.) S 6.01 E. C/ L// 17 "0 ,~ 1 -1iIlttllli: 17. The legal concept of pain and suffering includes a wide variety of physical and emotional reactions to injuries for which the Plaintiff is entitled to be compensated. Some of these include, but are not limited to: (a) physical pain; (b) mental distress and anxiety; (c) loss of feeling of well-being; (d) embarrassment and humiliation; (e) loss of the ability to enjoy the normal and ordinary pleasures of life; (f) deprivation and inconvenience; (g) inability to perform household tasks. The concept of pain and suffering includes both the physical and mental consequences of an injury. Lorie A. Welch, is entitled to recover for the mental pain and suffering and emotional upset which accompanies her physical injuries, as well as her inability to attend to her normal day to day activities and responsibilities as she did before the motor vehicle incident. c- e..-. Thompson v. Iannuzzi, 403 Pa. 329, 169 A.2d 777 (a961). 18 ,-," ,,"' - ~~"""lit~ 18. In evaluating the amount to be awarded for pain and suffering, you should consider that the infliction of pain means taking from a person what is her own to possess and retain - namely, health and well-being. The law allows for compensation of this loss to the extent that any loss may be calculated in money damages. In arriving at any award for pain and suffering which the Plaintiff has undergone, you must also consider the extent to which her injuries have resulted in a loss or lessening of her ability to enjoy life and life's pleasures. DiChiacchio v. Rockcraft Stone Products Company, 424 Pa. 77, 85, 225 A.2d 913 (1967); Corcoran v. McNeal, 400 Pa. 14,26, 161, A. 2d 367 (1960); Carminati v. Philadelphia Transport Co., 405 Pa. 500, 176 A. 2d 440 (1962). 0G,./ 19 - ",- , . . 19. I instruct you that under the general heading of pain and suffering, Lorie A. Welch, is also entitled to recover damage for the fear, anxiety and apprehension relating to the possible future consequences of her injuries, where there is a reasonable possibility that such future consequences may occur. Reimer v. Delisio, 296 Pa. Super. 205, 442 A.2d 731 (1982), affd, 501 Pa.662, 462, A.2d 1308 (1983); Walsh v. Brody, 220 Pa. Super. 293, 286 A. 2d 666 (1971). ~LLL_._ !.::?"- ----,,/ ~ 20 --'- .,' 10 - .' , ' 20. In considering the pain and suffering that has been endured by Lorie A. Welch prior to this trial, and which she will endure in the future, I instruct you that pain and suffering are substantive losses and it is your duty to appraise the pain and suffering and fix a monetary value as just compensation. Burgan v. Pittsburgh. 373 Pa. 608, (1953); Carminati v. Philadelphia Transit Co., 405 Pa. 500 (1962). 00 21 ~=.~~"~,, r -, "-.1 , , , 21. The plaintiff, Lorie A. Welch, is entitled to be fairly and adequately compensated for such embarrassment and humiliation as you believe she has endured and will continue to endure in the future as a result of her injuries. Pa. SSJI (Civ.) g6.01 G. ." .1./ V 22 ,,~ - ~~ i. 1IiIlIllOlt.'1 , . " , 22. The plaintiff, Lorie A. Welch, is entitled to be fairly and adequately compensated for past, present and future loss of her ability to enjoy any of the pleasures of life as a result of her injuries. Pa. SSJI (Civ.) S 6.011. L/'/ U 23 c , .., L i;l . II . " , 23. Where it has been proven that Lorie A. Welch has suffered whole span of her life must be considered in awarding for pain and suffering. Philadelphia v. Philadelphia Transportation Co., 400 Pa. 315 (1960); rice v. Philadelphia Transportation Co., 394 Pa. 454 (1959). ~/ 24 - ' - . I' l' " . . IT I ( " . 24, Ladies and gentleman, if you find that Lorie A. Welch's injuries will continue beyond today, you must determine the life expectancy of Ms. Welch. According to statistics compiled by the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the average life expectancy of all persons of Lorie A. Welch's age at the time of the collision, sex and race was 44.2 years. This figure is offered to you only as a guide, and you are not bound to accept it if you believe that Lorie A. Welch will live longer or less than the average individual in his category. In reaching this decision you are to consider Lorie A. Welch's health prior to the collision, her manner of living, her personal habits and other factors that may have affected the duration of her life. Pa SSJI (Civ.) {l 6.21. ~~. 25 - - ~ ' ... I ~ ... " ' I " , , " ' 25. One who negligently inflicts injury upon another must accept any pre-existing - ~ ..-- . condition or susceptibility of her victim which increases the likelihood, extent, or s1ffiousness of injury to her. The rule applies in the case of a plaintiff whose pre- existing disease, condition, or propensity is aggravated or activated by the Defendant's negligence. Freerv. Parker, 411 Pa. 346, 192 A.2d 348 (1963); Pavorksy v. Engels, 40 Pa. 100, 188 A.2d 731 (1963). u~ 26 ,.;."~ '" ;, ~, , ! . I. ~ ( It . . ., , ill 1\ . 26. In assessing damages, the law states that the Defendant must take the Plaintiff "as he is" and as the jury you must take this into consideration, even if you find that the Plaintiff's injuries were amplified by a pre-eJdst-iAgconditinn fgrwhich the Defendant was not responsible. Hare v. H&R Industries, Inc., 2002 U.S. Dist. Lexis 7502 (2002); Hectorv. Watt, et al., 235 F.3d 154 (3rd Circuit 2002): citing Avitia v. Metropolitan Club of Chicago, 49 F.3d 1219, 1227 (7th Circuit 1995). rL-/~/ 27 . --~ ~' i " - . , ~ ~ ( t\ . .. '. , " 11 ' 27. Or stated another way. a negligent party, in this case the Defendant, is subject to liability for harm to another, although a physical condition of that person not known to the Defendant makes the injury greater than that which the Defendant, as a reasonable person, should have foreseen as a probable result of his or her conduct. If you find that the Plaintiff had a preexisting injury that was aggravated by the ./ - Defendant's negligence, you must find the Defendant responsible for the enhancement of the Plaintiffs injury. Pa. SSJI (Civ.) 96.23 c/C-/ 28 , ' ,~ ~ M~ "~ . I. .. ( i. " T j I I '- I I . 28. Finally, ladies and gentlemen, be mindful ofthe fact that this is Lorie A. Welch's only "-- day in court, and w~'Lerdamages you find from the evidence, you must under the ~m in your verdict today. For it is the law that we cannot call jurors back at any later date and request more compensation. Therefore, the award you find must include within it full and adequate compensation for all the Plaintiffs past, present and future pain and suffering she has endured and will endure as a result of the injuries sustained in this collision. Jamison v. DeNardo, Inc., 302 F.2D 27, 30 (3d Cir. 1962). v0' 29 , , " w _, .. ,. .. f : \ .. 1 ;) . " J . ~ 29. You will now retire to consider all of the evidence received in this trial in light of the various factors I have presented to you and apply the law as I have given it to the facts as found by you. Since the Defendant has acknowledged that she was negligent with respect to the cause of the collision, you are directed to find in favor of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant regarding the issue of negligence. You must then determine what damage the Plaintiff was and will be caused to suffer by reason of the Defendant's negligence and return a verdict for the plaintiff in that amount. Pa. SSJI (Civ.) S 3.50. . .cJ- \~ cJ#~ dIJI" 30 ,"' ,-' -,' ,,~- ,', ,~ "., . ,- =~__-_,_,,- _ .1'- :""',"'-' ~,:,-',L,,>-' >'.~--' --,.. '-,:--~~'t;-~~; ",L:_~~,::, .---:,' '.~ --~.';f~i LORIE A. WELCH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. NO. 00-4298 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED KEITH B. HELFRICK, Defendant PLAINTIFF'S PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUM I. SUMMARY OF FACTS This cause of action is a personal injury claim in which the Plaintiff, Lorie A. Welch, is seeking compensatory damages for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle incident that occurred on December 8,1998. On the date ofthe motor vehicle incident, the Plaintiff was operating a motor vehicle and was traveling on Gettysburg Road in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. I plaintiff's vehicle was stopped in a line of traffic at an intersection at which time the Plaintiff's vehicle was violently impacted from the rear by a vehicle being operated by Keith I ~. Helfrick. The impact caused Plaintiffs vehicle to be pushed into the vehicle stopped in front of her vehicle. Following the motor vehicle collision, the Plaintiff was transported by ambulance to the Harrisburg Hospital and underwent Emergency Room examination and initial treatment. Plaintiff expressed complaints of neck and back pain and a headache. She was diagnosed as having a cervical strain. The Plaintiff was discharged without inpatient hospitalization. '''' . ."- " ,-~" , c_, '-" ,-;,-~- .-\',".' ,,--, , ,'.,- ,,- ~ ,-',;,<- - ,-.- :":~-,Ii:::_~, - ----'";,-.~"" , _'-' ~ 'n';l , ,.'--""C'.'-41 On December 9, 1998, the Plaintiff sought follow-up care with Dr. Long, her family physician. By the next day fOllowing the collision, Plaintiff was experiencing neck pa8in, left shoulder pain and severe forearm pain. The motor vehicle collision was investigated by the Lower Allen Township Police Department. Dr. Long prescribed medications and a course of physical therapy, which took place at Seidle Memorial Hospital. Dr. Long diagnosed Plaintiff as having cervical, thoracic and lumbar strains. Plaintiff attended thirteen (13) sessions of physical therapy (12/21/1998 to 2/11/1999). The physical therapy was discontinued because it was not providing relief. During this time frame, Plaintiff had periodic office visits with Dr. Long. As a result of the trauma to Plaintiff's body (muscoloskeletal system) caused by the collision, Plaintiff suffered a substantial flare-up of her rheumatoid arthritis. Although the Plaintiff has been diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis prior to the collision, at the time of the collision her symptoms were dormant. Rheumatoid arthritis can be flared and made symptomatic by physical trauma. Shortly priortothe collision, Plaintiff underwent a routine, periodic blood test and her rheumatoid factor was 1/340. Shortly following the incident another blood test was ordered because of a significant increase in symptomalogy and the test revealed a rheumatoid factor of 1/640. Prior to the incident Plaintiff has not engaged in any treatments, but after the collision she was in severe pain, which precluded her from being able to perform many tasks. She was placed on several medications, including Plaquenil; Riduar and Celebrex. Her flare-up of symptoms did not stabilize until October of 1999 (10 months after the collision). 2 -, --___~-",y.J-_ ~-<, or'_ -,'._ '_"''',- _ -. ~~-~-}>.:-""- _-,_> "-"';'-.i._~,'__";;: ,C " ._ 0- -w-'-.~-r~:;:_:-:~::>'_~{:-~--": ;,c:<1 II. STATEMENT OF ISSUES It is anticipated that the Defendant will admit liability since we are dealing with a rear-end motor vehicle collision and absolutely no indication of any fault/negligence on the part of the operator of the vehicle that the Plaintiff was occupying, The issue will be the nature and extent of the injury sustained by Plaintiffs as a result of the motor vehicle collision that occurred on December 8, 1998. III. DAMAGES: MEDICAL BILLS/LOST WAGES/PAIN AND SUFFERING Plaintiff was working two jobs atthe time of the subject motor vehicle collision, a full time job at the Naval Depot as a Supply Technician and a part-time job as a waitress at Lemoyne Family Restaurant. As a result of the collision, Plaintiff missed work for the first few days fOllowing the collision and then a couple of hours here and there over the next five (5) months to attend doctor appointments. The injury and resulting pain and symptoms caused Plaintiff to resign her position as a waitress because she could not physically perform the lifting and walking associated with bing a server. Plaintiff seeks lost wages in the amount of $4,450.00. IV. WITNESSES 1. Lorie A. Welch 2. Keith B. Helfrick (as on cross examination) 3. David M. Long, M.D. 4. Roger G. Sanford, M.D. V. EXHIBITS Plaintiff intends to introduce the following exhibits: 1. Photographs depicted the damage to the Plaintiffs vehicle. 2. The Police Report (to the extentthat there are any issues concerning liability) 3 '., ",',. -.< ,--',", - ..,-- ..,,- - ;,',- "...,-:,,;;.~ -,;.. '-0 - '--'.':'-;;~_-/::;':I?~;~ -k ,;."'"~,--,,. , . "_..,!o,,,C-J 4. Wage Loss documentation. VI. EXPERT REPORTS 1. Copies of Dr. Sanford's and Dr. Long's Reports are attached hereto as Exhibit "A". VII. STIPULATIONS None. VIII. SCHEDULING ISSUES Plaintiff's counsel is a member of the Board of Governors of the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyer's Association. Mr. Henning is required to attend PaTLA's annual meeting of the Board of Governors that commences Wednesday, July 9 and continues through July 11, 2003. Plaintiff submits that this case is more suited for compulsory arbitration and therefore requests that the case be remanded for a compulsory arbitration hearing. IX. SETTLEMENT DISCUSSIONS The Plaintiff submitted a settlement demand on May 10, 2000 in the amount of $47,500.00. On or about May 18, 2000, the Defendant responded with a counter offer in the amount of $2,500.00. The settlement discussions stalemated at ths point. Respectfully submitted, Date t -/3 cJol7 By W. Scott Hen 1.0. #32298 1300 Linglest Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff BERG, LLP A """'""~ ~" ~.~- --~rlf-~~,' .\. --.. r" PRACTICE LIMITED TO RHEUMATOLOGY ROBERT G. SANFORD, M.D. NO'-' ALAN D. ROUMM, M.D. 650 POPLAR CHURCH ROAD CAMP Hill, PA 17011 ) _ .- _, - .~ r. BY APPOINTMENT TELEPHONE (717) 761.3505 FAX (717) 761-4293 October 27, 1999 W. Scott Henning, Esq. 319 Market Street PO Box 1177 Harrisburg, Pa 17108 Dear Attorney Henning: RE: Lorie Welch SS: 204-60-9485 I received a request for a final medial report on Lorie Welch who is a client of yours. The letter requests medical information and treatments related to MY A on December 8, 1998. I should relay to you that I saw her for problems related to an abnormal chest x-ray taken shortly after the MY A. The results of the chest x-ray showed a condition which pre-dated the MY A and appears unrelated. If you feel there are specific injuries to the MY A, I would recommend you contact the Emergency Room she was treated in or her treating physicians. I will provide you with the information that you request in your letter dated October 11, 1999. Lorie Welch was referred to my office by her family physician, David A. Long. I saw her for the first time on March 19, 1999 at which time she presented with chief complaints of joint pain at multiple sites. The patient's history as given to me is pretty much summarized in the second paragraph of my referral letter dated March 22, 1999. This letter explains that her problems first seem to start after childbirth two years previous with pains in the legs. She was involved in a MY A and following this complained of a sprained neck and back. She was subse,quently found to have nodules in her lung which were biopsied. Then in January 1999 she started having pains and numbness in the hands and associated prolonged morning stiffuess. My initial findings in her case did show a redness of the skin over the knuckles. She had swollen MrP joints of the feet and tenderness on compression of the feet. My initial impression was cavitating lung lesion consistent with break down of a rheumatoid pulmonary nodule. I also diagnosed inflammatory arthritis, consistent with rheumatoid arthritis. She also had a history of a thyroid disorder and I felt she may have a fungal infection of the skin. My treatment can be summarized as stating she was placed on a conservative treatment for rheumatoid arthritis consisting of Tylenol, NSAIDS and a trial of Plaque nil therapy. EXHIBIT :1 A - - """"._r "-'- ,,~ ~~~ -"".!!'b!c , - /--". Page 2 Lorie A. Welch .fvIy opinion as to the causal connection between the injuries and the incident is that there does not appear to be a direct connection of the MY A and her diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. The kymptoms of her rheumatoid arthritis actually pre-dated the MY A. It is possible that there may have been a minor flare of the rheumatoid arthritis in the weeks following the MY A. Physical trauma can sometimes cause a flare in a pre-existing rheumatoid arthritis. Usually, a flare up following physical trauma settles down to its previous level of activity in a period of 4-6 weeks. In regards to permanency of the patient's injuries, I do not feel there was any spine injury from her MY A. She does have rheumatoid arthritis and this illness can result in deformities and problems of a permanent nature. I am not that familiar with assigning percentage of disability by AMA guidelines but I would have to state that I feel there is no percentage disability as a direct result of injuries sustained in the MYA. Ms. Welch probably will not need any further medical treatment for her neck and back strain as a result of the MY A. She does have rheumatoid arthritis which is a chronic disabling disease and she will need further medical treatment for this condition. Also enclosed with this letter is an itemized statement of charges from 12-8-98 to 4-22-99. I am also enclosing a copy of my last progress note which you may not have in your records. I hope this letter answers your questious. If you desire any additional information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, / Robert G. Sanford, M.D. RGS:dlz Enclosures .... ~ ~........~ ~~ ~-'-' lli\il,t:" 4076 Markel Street Camp Hill. PA 17011 975-9800 975-5509 Fax ~) February 8, 2000 PINNACLEHEALTH Family Medicine Center Of Camp Hill Mr. W. Scott Henning Handler, Henning and Rosenberg Attorney's At Law 3 19 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 RE: WEbEH;-LORI A. SS#: 204-60-9485 Dear Mr. Henning: This letter is in regards to a patient of the above practice, Lori A. Welch. You had requested several pieces of information regarding Ms. Welch. In regards to your request regarding the history and complaints I will direct that to the dictations that are in the chart. She was initially seen by one of by partners, Dr. Kimberly Young, on December 9, 1998, for the motor vehicle accident. She then came to see myself on December 14, 1998, and I saw on December 23,1998, as well as December 29, 1998, and January 5, 1999, regarding her motor vehicle accident. The patient was then seen by myself several times for the rest of 1999 including February 2, 1999, February 22, 1999, Apri16, 1999, May 24, 1999, and September 27, 1999. From February 2, 1999, until September 27,1999, were really related to her inflammatory arthritis and not related to her motor vehicle accident. In regards to my findings and diagnosis again, I think those are well stated in my dictations that I am including with this letter. With regards to the summary, to date regards to the treatment for her motor vehicle accident was that she was treated with Daypro and also muscle relaxant, Norflex, as well as being sent for physical therapy. The patient continued to slowly improve and her inflammatory arthritis seemed to be more of a problem than her motor vehicle symptoms. At that point, because she was having significant inflammatory arthritis, she was then referred to Dr. Sanford who is a rheumatologist here in Camp HilL I then let him direct the care regarding her inflammatory arthritis. There is no question in my mind that the accident caused the injuries that were stated in my notes and I think there is a direct cause relationship. ~1 WELCH, LORI A 02/08/2000 Page 2 In regards to the accident aggravating her arthritis, I will defer that opinion to Dr. Sanford who is a board certified rheumatologist. As to regarding the permanency of her injuries, I would say that attenuation his time I don't think she is going to have any permanent injury. If it would be, it would be of a slight amount. In regards to assigning a percentage of disability in accordance with AMA guidelines, again, I first of all don't feel that I am expert enough that I could define a percentage of disability, Secondly, I don't think she is disabled from this accident. I hope that this information will be of help to you. If you have any further questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at the above address, ,M~ DALltdt CHART COPY ~o, "'>_'_ 0 .,00-, ," _ ._~-" ,- <." .-___.-''_ -;,.~ LORIE A. WELCH IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. NO. 00-4298 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW KEITH B. HELFRICK, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On the 16th day of June, 2003, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Pre-Trial Memorandum was served upon the fOllowing by depositing in U.S. Mail and by Fax to: Andrew C. Lehman, Esq Nealon & Gover, P.C. 2411 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 RespectfullY Submitted, Date: 6/16/03 By: W. Scott Henning, I.D. No. 32298 1300 Linglestown Roa Harrisburg, PA 171 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff _ ~,^':i .,_, ~~ '''-.--~'__",~_"_.'_'_ -'e _m_^~'-""'" _"",~'- ~"""_~ LORIE A. WELCH, Plaintiff, v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO.: 00-4298 KEITH B. HELFRICK, Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUM I. A Statement as to the Basic Facts as to Liabilitv. This cause of action arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on December 8, 1998, at approximately 3:19 p.m., in Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. At that date and time, Defendant, Keith B. Helfrick, was operating a 1995 Jeep Grand Cherokee in a westerly direction on Gettysburg Road (S.R. 2014) when he failed to appreciate and stop for a line of traffic directly in front of him in his lane of travel. As the result of Defendant's conceded negligence, the front of his Jeep came into contact with the rear of a 1989 Pontiac Grand Am operated by Plaintiff, Loris Welch. As a result of that initial impact, the front of her Grand Am came into contact with the rear of a 1992 Ford Explorer operated by Kevin P. Nelson. While the rear of the Plaintiff's vehicle sustained moderate damage, there was minimal damage to the front of Defendant's vehicle. Plaintiff had a pre-existing rheumatoid arthritic condition. Two of Plaintiff's healthcare providers, Dr. David Long (Plaintiff's family physician) and Dr. Robert Sanford (Plaintiff's Rheumatologist) have issued reports addressed to Plaintiff's counsel, which are attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B", respectively. Although Dr. Long stands by his diagnosis of cervical strain, status post motor vehicle accident, ,~~___ ~"" '"_~, .~" ~ ",n',", _'\ he has indicated that his treatment of Plaintiff from February 2, 1999, was "related to her inflammatory arthritis and not related to her motor vehicle accident." Dr. Long also has indicated that Plaintiff's injury's were not permanent and that she is not disabled from the underlying accident. Furthermore, Dr. Sanford indicated "as to the causal connection between the injuries and the incident is that there does not appear to be a direct connection of the MVA and her diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis." Dr. Sanford further indicated that it is possible that Plaintiff had a "minor flare of the rheumatoid arthritis in the weeks following the MV A" and that "a flare up following physical trauma settles down to its previous level of activity in a period of 4-6 weeks." Therefore, at most, this motor vehicle accident caused may have caused cervical strainlsprain to Plaintiff. II. Statement as to Basic Facts as to DamaQes. Not applicable to Defendant. III. Statement as to Principal Issues of Liabilitv and DamaQes. Defendant will concede that he was negligent in causing the motor vehicle accident. However, Defendant denies that his negligence was a substantial factor in bringing about Plaintiff's harm. The amount of damages, if any, to be awarded to the Plaintiff is for the jury to determine. (At trial, Defendant may concede substantial factor in causing cervical strain/sprain however, that will be dependent upon witnesses called.) 2 ..._. __~> <~. e'~, IV. Summary of the Leqal ~ssues Reqardinq Admissibility of Testimony. Exhibits. and/or other Matter. and Leqal Authorities Relied On. Defendant would request that the parties stipulate to the authenticity of all documents exchanged in the course of discovery, thereby eliminating the need to produce records custodians at the time of trial. V. The Identity of Witnesses to be Called. Defendant may call the following: A. Defendant, Keith Helfrick; B. Lorie Welch, as on cross; C, Kevin Nelson (diver of third vehicle involved in MVA); D. Patrolman Thomas Gelnett (Badge Number 1819); E. Dr. David Long, Plaintiff's family physician; F. Dr. Robert G. Sanford, Plaintiff's rheumatologist; G. Defendant does not anticipate calling any other witnesses at this time, however, it does reserve the right to call any individuals identified in Plaintiff's Pre-Trial Memorandum. H. Defendant reserves the right to call any of Plaintiff's healthcare providers and/or employers as identified through discovery. VI. List of Potential Exhibits with Brief Identification of Each. A. Photographs of Plaintiff's vehicle; B. Photographs of Defendant's vehicle; C. All medical records exchanged in the course of discovery; 3 ~ ,--- -, ~- ,~~-~ <-,<. ."=",,,~-,-,",," D, Defendant reserves the right to use as an exhibit any other document or documents exchanged during the course of discovery. VII. Current Status of Settlement Neqotiations. Allstate Insurance Company, on behalf of Defendant, has offered $2,500 to settle this matter. Plaintiff's last demand was $47,000. Respectfully submitted, NEALON & GOVER, P.C. By: ~ Andrew C. Lehman, Esquire 1.0. #: 81937 2411 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/232-9900 --.~. Date: C--(/~3 4 / . .'...,.. ". ' ". '.', -, ... :T:"'~:. t;. " . "r,;.. ."l:-,::-"'}' .' . ~ --'w_:;.'~ l,;amp,,".i'A l/Ul1 97S.9BCO 975-5509 Far 4) February 8, 2000 PINNACLEHEALTH Family Medicine Center O/ClI",P Hill Mr. W. Scott Henning Handler, Henning and Rosenberg Attorney's At Law 319 Market Street Harris burg, P A 1710 1 RE: WELCH, LORI A. 8S#: 204-60-9485 Dear Mr. Henning: This letter is in regards to a patient of the above practice, Lori A. Welch. You had requested several pieces of information regarding Ms. Welch. In regards to your request regarding the history and complaints I will direct that to the dictations that are in the chart. She was initially seen by one of by partners, Dr. Kimberly Young, on December 9, 1998, for the motor veliricle accident. She then came to see myself on "...:' "., _, '. .,0;;''''' '. . December 14, 1998, and I saw on December 23, 1998, as well as December 29, 1998, and ~- January S, 1999, regarding her motor vehicle accident. The patient was then seen by ,- ," '~~~:;;".".it: myself several times for the rest of 1999 including February 2, 1999, February 22, 1999, , .j", April 6, '(l99, May 24, 1999, and September 27, 1999. From February 2, 1999, until September 27, 1999, were really related to her inflanunatory arthritis and not related to her motor vehicle accident. In regards to my findings and diagnosis again, I think those are weU stated in my dictations that I am including with this letter. With regards to the sununary, to date regards to the treatment for her motor vehicle accident was that she was treated with Daypro and also muscle relaxant, Norflex, as well as being sent for physical therapy. The patient continued to slowly improve and her inflammatory arthritis seemed to be more of a problem than her motor vehicle symptoms. At that point, because she was having significant inflammatory arthritis, she was then referred to Dr. Sanford who is a rheumatologist here in Camp Hill. I then let him direct the care regarding her inflanunatory arthritis. There is no question in my mind that the accident caused the injuries that were stated in my notes and I think there is a direct cause relationship. "" - - .',~';~!.. "', WELCH, LORI A 02108/2000 Page 2 In regards to the accident aggravating her arthritis, I will defer that opinion to Dr. Sanford who is a board certified rheumatologist.,:~: ' ',' As to regarding the permanency of her injuries, I would say that attenuation his time I don't think she is going to have any permanent injury. If it would be, it would be of a slight amount. In regards to assigning e , percentage of disability in accordance with AMA guidelines, again, I first of all don't feel that I am expert enough that I could define a percentage of disability. Secondly. I don't think she Is disabled from this ~"";': accident. I hope that this information will be of help to you. If you have any further questions or comments, please de not hesitate to contact me at the above address. . .M~ DAUtdt . '-'~:~~-~r~~t.~-~ ;... ;""~~,;o;-...',. CHART COPY -- " PRACTICE LIMITED TO RHEUMATOLOGY ROBERT G. SANFORD, M.D. lie, ALAN D. ROUMM, M.D. 650 POPLAR CHURCH ROAD CAMP HILL. PA 17011 BY APPOINTMENT TELEPHONE (717) 761-3505 FAX (717) 761-4293 October 27, 1999 W. Scott Henning, Esq. 319 Market Street POBox 1177 Harrisburg, Pa 17108 Dear Attorney Henning: RE: Lorie Welch SS: 204-60-9485 I received a request for a final medial report on Lorie Welch who is a client of yours. The letter requests medical information and treatments related to MY A on December 8,1998. I should relay to you that I saw her for problems related to an abnormal chest x-ray taken shortly after the MY A. The results of the cheSt x-ray $Oi.Y.Iitt.i!.C:9A4i1,ion which pre-dat<;g.,1l1\:;MY.~~ll<l~P~ uitreJated. If you feel there are specific injuries to the MY A, I would recommend you contact the Emergency Room she was treated in or her treating physicians. I will provide you with the information that you request in your letter dated October 11, 1999. Lorie Welch was referred to my office by her family physician, David A. Long. I saw her for the first time on March 19, 1999 at which time she presented with chief complaints ofjomt pain at multiple sites. The patient's history as given tome. is pretty much sUll1l111lrized in the second paragraph of my referral letter dated March 22, 1999. This letter explains that her problems first seem to start after childbirth two years previous with pains in the legs. She was involved in a MY A and following this complained of a sprained neck and back. She was subsequently found to have nodules in her lung which were biopsied. Then in January 1999 she started having pains and nwnbness in the hands and associated prolonged morning stiffness. My initial findings in her case did show a redness ofthe skinover the knuckles. She had swollen MTP joints ofthe feet and tenderness on compression of the feet. My initial impression was cavitating lung lesion consistent with break down of a rheumatoid pulmonary nodule. I also diagnosed inflammatory arthritis, consistent with rheumatoid arthritis. She also had a history of a thyroid disorder and I felt she may have a fungal infection of the skin. My treatment can be summarized as stating she was placed on a conservative treatment for rheumatoid arthritis consisting ofTyleno~ NSAlDS and a trial of Plaque nil therapy. Page 2 Lorie A. Welch My opinion as to the causal connection between the injuries and the incident is that there does not appear to be a direct connection of the MY A and her diagnosis ofrhewnatoid arthritis. The symptoms of her rheumatoid arthritis actually pre-dated the MY A. It is possible that there may have been a minor flare of the rheumatoid arthritis in the weeks following the MY A. Physical trauma can sometimes cause a flare in a pre-existing rheumatoid arthritis. Usually, a flare up following physical trawna settles down to its previous level of activity in a period of 4-6 weeks. In regards to pennanency of the patient's injuries, I do not feel there was any spine injury from her MY A. She does have rheumatoid arthritis and this illness can result in deformitiesand problems of a pennanent nature. I am not that familiar with assigning percentage of disability by AMA guidelines but I would have to state that I feel tlilf~;:iS~Jl!!'i~~FiiffiY as a direct result of injuries sustained in the MYA. Ms. Welch probably will not need any further medical treatment for her neck and back strain as a result ofthe MY A. She does have rhewnatoid arthritis which is a chronic disabling disease and she will need further medical treatment for this condition. Also enclosed with this letter isan itemized statement of charges from 12-8-98 to 4-22-99.1 am also enclosing a copy of my last progress note which you may not have in your records. 1 hope this letter answers your questions. If you desire any additional information, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ;( A~,--( Robert G. Sanford, M.D. RGS:dlz Enclosures ,. .-, ,,~-" ','",. -,- .'.-~ -~"~.- -~ _ '__"",d__.~"L",,"-'i""_''''_~''_''''_~;.,. , __. "'-'-'..'.'-:'? CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ~y of June, 2003, I hereby certify that I have served the foregoing PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUM on the following by depositing a true and correct copy of same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to: W. Scott Henning, Esquire HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 ~ ------ Andrew C. Lehman, Esquire ,.. ~", ~~ -. '<'-0.. '~'", ,. ',",-",,",. -",,-- ";,, ,. ~ >"" '-';"-'-"" '-. ~J'''''\"-~ ~-':"""';';:',"", "" " ',- -.:, _:'1 LORIE A. WELCH : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA Plaintiff No. 00 - .Lf ~ qJ> C~l{/~ v. KEITH B. HELFRICK, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant, : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE '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 THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE 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 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone 717-249-3166 or 800-990-9108 '-'0-- ,-----,- -"<--~ ~--~--~-"'-." >-~. - ,,~ .~ -. .'-.,;, , ;,,_".-"~_d,._,=: ,,<~_-.-,~,~, "'--"---k~"'"\li , gml\complaints\welch LORIE A. WELCH Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 11-0. 'I:l <1 P Ct...;J. 'I ~ v. KEITH B. HELFRICK, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant, : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, LORIE A. WELCH, by and through her attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, by W. Scott Henning, Esquire and makes within the Complaint against Defendant, KEITH HELFRICK, and in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Lori A. Welch, is an adult individual currently residing at 116 Hummel Avenue, Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17043. 2. Defendant, Keith B. Helfrick, is an adult individual currently residing at 111 Nittany Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17055. 3. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Lorie A. Welch, was an owner and the operator of a 1989 Pontiac Grand Am, Pennsylvania registration MLP465 (hereinafter "Plaintiff's vehicle"). 4. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Keith Helfrick, was an owner and the operator of a 1995 Jeep Grand Cherokee Pennsylvania registration AHZ4817 (hereinafter "Defendant's vehicle"). ,,''''.,', 5. On or about December 8, 1998, at approximately 3: 19 P.M., Plaintiff's vehicle was stopped at a red light in a line of traffic headed westbound on Gettysburg Road in Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 6. On or about December 8, 1998, at approximately 3: 19 P.M., Defendant's vehicle was traveling westbound, approaching the Plaintiff's vehicle, on Gettysburg Road in Lower Allen Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 7. At approximately that same time and place, Defendant's vehicle failed to observe that Plaintiff's vehicle was stopped at the red light. Suddenly and without warning, Defendant failed to bring his vehicle to a halt striking the rear end of Plaintiff's vehicle and a violent collision resulted. 8. The aforementioned collision caused extensive propertf damage and was so severe that the Plaintiff required medical attention. 9. At the time of this collision, Plaintiff was insured under a motor vehicle policy through Allstate Insurance. Under this policy, Plaintiff elected full tort rights pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S.A. ~ l705(b). 10. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Keith Helfrick, Plaintiff, Lorie A. Welch, sustained serious and extensive injuries as set forth more specifically below. 11. The occurrence of the aforementioned collision and all of the resultant injuries to Plaintiff, Lorie A. Welch, are the direct and proximate result of negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness of the Defendant, Keith Helfrick, generally and more specifically as set forth below: 2 ,--" ~ "" ..-.~ > -. -,--, _O_'["_'~ "_'~;.j,,"d"-' "~-,,,""'k ,-". ~. -~-'''A_' "'_',. -~;~_;i".~'-" _u". \1 (a) In failing to be reasonably vigilant to observe position of Plaintiffs' vehicle on the roadway; (b) In failing to operate his vehicle in such a manner that would allow him to apply the brakes and stop before striking Plaintiffs' vehicle; (c) In failing to operate his vehicle under proper and adequate control in order that he could avoid striking Plaintiffs' vehicle; (d) In failing to operate his vehicle at a speed at which he could stop within the assured clear distance ahead, in violation of75 Pa.C.S.A. S 3310; ( e) In operating his vehicle at a speed too fast for traffic conditions then and there existing, in violation of75 Pa C.S.A. S 3361; (f) In failing to drive at a safe and appropriate speed when approaching an intersection, in violation of75 Pa.C.S.A. S 3361; (g) In failing to maintain proper and adequate observation of the traffic conditions then and there existing, so as to avoid impacting the rear of Plaintiffs vehicle; and (h) In failing to operate a motor vehicle under proper and adequate control in order that he could avoid a collision. (i) In driving his vehicle upon the highway in a manner endangering persons and property and in a manner with careless disregard to the rights and safety of others in violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 3 .,- ~. '0 V ~ "~-':~___>;-._'_~_' -,_u,'. __~, nv_'__ -. 'n, ..,-~" .--;:""'""_}~'A",-""_'_-'_,,, ,;,..,,/., .-, >,-<""~,?;;",,-,,,--,,'-;-'>;~'~', "" ~' 12. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff, Lorie A. Welch, has suffered extensive and serious personal injuries, including but not limited to a severe cervical strain which has resulted in reoccurring pain in her neck, back, arms, and shoulders with restricted range of motion and tenderness in her cervical spine, as well as muscle spasms. Additionally Plaintiff experience a substantial flare up of her long term rheumatoid arthritis caused by the trauma of the motor vehicle accident. 13. As a result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Lorie A. Welch, has suffered great physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and will continue to endure the same for an indefInite period of time in the future, to her great physical, emotional, and fInancial detriment and loss. 14. As a result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Lorie A. Welch, has suffered lost wages and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. 15. As a result of Defendant' s negligence, Plaintiff, Lorie A. Welch, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to spend money for medicine and/or medical attention, and will be required to expend money for the same purposes in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 16. As a result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff, Lorie A. Welch, has been, and probably will in the future be, hindered from attending to her daily duties, to her great detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 17. As a result of Defendant' s negligence, Plaintiff, Lorie A. Welch, has suffered a loss oflife's pleasures, and will continue to endure the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 4 ,~~' .d~..~ ~ _n.,_ . . "" C'-,', __.'.~ ',~, '",'. -. ;;C_,,< '-,i" - ,., .0- _ '.' '_:' '_~' ,:0';';1,'0",' ~_<, ~ 'L, '" \,..';,&.,:,- 18. Plaintiff, Lorie A. Welch, believes, and therefore avers, that her injuries are permanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Lorie A. Welch, seeks damages from Defendant, Keith Helfrick, in an amount in excess of Twenty-five thousand dollars and 00/100 ($25,000.00), exclusive of interests and costs. Respectfully Submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG Date:~ By: W. Sco . g,Es LD. No. 32298 319 Market Street P.O. Box 1177 Harnsburg,PA 17108-1177 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff 5 "., -.,- ~ ,..-,-. -~- .'-';.',"--' . ,-w_'. ~. ", -"'- -, -_.',,'" . ',.,;,S'"o<"/_,,,--'~ ~,;+-"-,-~h"";':-1"',:'0-" """"'::-':";'1 VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing COMPLAINT are based upon information which has been furnished to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the above-named COMPLAINTis of counsel and not my own. I have read the COMPLAINT and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the COMPLAINT is that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this verification. The undersigned also understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. lwut J~td- LORIE A. WELCH Date: \~ L~ -"~" '-'-~~i SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2000-04298 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND WELCH LORIE A VS HELFRICK KEITH B HAROLD WEARY , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pensyl vania , who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon HELFRICK KEITH B the DEFENDANT , at 0019:07 HOURS, on the 19th day of July , 2000 at 111 NITTANY DR. MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 by handing to KEITH B. HELFRICK a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff'S Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 18.00 6.20 .00 10.00 .00 34.20 S;;;;;;:~~~~! R. Thomas Kline 07/20/2000 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG Sworn and Subscribed to before By: /~A~.-dij/7= Deputy Sheriff . me this /~ day of a'rAY .2nrD A.D. ~ C2~;d;'11<~ prothonotar , ~ 'u', ',':':;'" '. ~ ". . .'" ,~' .. ." " _" _:_ji".-:.r~;"';'"'''' ,~", *_' "ri , ro" - LORIE A. WELCH, Plaintiff : IN TIfE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 00-4298 CIVIL KEITH B. HELFRICK, Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO TIfE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of the Defendant, with respect to the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, JAMES, SMITH, DURKIN & CONNELLY, LLP Dated: #-- By. {.. URKIN, ESQUIRE Attorney LD. #29563 JOHN J. MCNALLY, III, ESQUIRE Attorney LD. #52661 P.O. Box 650 Hershey, P A 17033-0650 (717) 533-3280 Attorneys for Defendant / ~, '. __4 ~., 1_ . ,,," 0 c~ ,~,. _ ~~' ,J . -1>;-.C,'-,,_.,' .,' ,. ,.:~ . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, KAREN DURKIN, ESQUIRE, do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance upon the following below-named individual(s) by depositing same in the U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid at Hershey, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania this 4- day of July, 2000. SERVED UPON: W. Scott Henning, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 urkin, Esquire JAMES, SMITH, DURKIN & CONNELLY, LLP IlII . - o'lIIiiii ~ '~.._~ -.. -, -""0: '-.TI~ ",_ "--;.~".",-,,----,-,---~, I" "',~ ~...;,;'~,~~, ',j. ^"',"",-, ,,-,'-,- ,,~- ,;r~' - ~ .,- - . '''"''~ - ,~, ., I , CJ ,"--, c::: c.:- , , :'::, '~ t"i [c.- -.- n') -, c;.') 2:; / . (r, ,- ~, i~ r-: ~~ , ( :: f; C c:~: I c.-.- '.~ ...J ~ r.- -,.;~ -< .,....1 --< ~ ~. " --~ - "-- -;' "., "-,, ~. ~ '-~ ",.- ,<", '-.-'- "-",,' =,,,,,,-~,,,,",,,,--,-"~;. . '" - -,- '-"'-,1 LORIE A. WELCH, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 00-4298 CIVIL KEITH B. HELFRICK, Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURYTRIALDEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD To: Lorie A. Welch and her attorney, W. Scott Henning, Esquire YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED to file a written response to the enclosed Answer with New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, JAMES, SMITH, DURKIN & CONNELLY, LLP Dated: ~0/~ 'Y~.0 DURKIN, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. #29563 JOHN J. MCNALLY, III, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. #52661 P.O. Box 650 Hershey, P A 17033-0650 (717) 533-3280 Attorneys for Defendants . , - .." .', ,~ -. ,'" '~'"'--~ - -'" ,4-",-.' :-J. - ., _~,_",',n"-"_~"",,,,,";,~_ _~_' '';'-",,-;;,J;;j LORlE A. WELCH, Plaintiff : IN TIIE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 00-4298 CIVil.. v. KEITH B. HELFRICK, Defendant : CIVil.. ACTION -LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND NOW, come the Defendant, Keith Helfrick, by and through his attorneys, James, Smith, Durkin & Connelly, LLP, to Answer Plaintiff s Complaint and aver New Matter as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that the defendant's vehicle shuck the rear of the Plaintiffs vehicle. As to the remainder of the allegations, the Defendant is without know ledge or information or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph seven (7) and strict proof of the same is demanded at triaL 2 ~ . -':<-0---'. -"-j.i."",,--~',-,",_, '" e."" "--'---'~,,,,'_.~~.',,,," ~"~J' '-'~-'~ --'~i 8. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that the collision caused property damage to Plaintiffs vehicle. As to the remaining averments, the Defendant is without knowledge or information or infonnation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph eight (8) and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without knowledge or infonnation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph nine (9) and strict proof of the same is demanded at trial. 10. Denied. The averments in paragraph ten (10) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is deemed necessary and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. I!. Denied. The averments in paragraph eleven (11) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is deemed necessary and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 12. Denied. The averments in paragraph twelve (12) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is deemed necessary and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 13. Denied. The averments in paragraph thirteen (13) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is deemed necessary and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 14. Denied. The averments in paragraph fourteen (14) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is deemed necessary and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 15. Denied. The averments in paragraph fifteen (15) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is deemed necessary and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 16. Denied. The averments in paragraph sixteen (16) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is deemed necessary and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 17. Denied. The averments in paragraph seventeen (17) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is deemed necessary and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 3 , , ~ -' ". ..'," ~ --,-,_".~-'-_' - .,~.-";',,L'~"- _"_'i>.'~ ',i<-r'".,.~_,""Il'.,_'_-', .;-'1.< '"" . '-'.~:i 18. Denied. The avennents in paragraph eighteen (18) are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is deemed necessary and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests judgment in his favor and against the Plainitff. NEW MATTER 19. The answers in paragraphs one (1) through eighteen (18) are incorporated herein by reference. 20. The Plaintiff s actions are barred or limited pursuant to the terms of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Responsibility Act, 75 Pa.C.S. 9 1701 et sea., the provisions of which are incorporated by reference. 21. Plaintiff s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. WHEREFORE, Defendant Keith B. Helfrick respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiff, together with costs. Respectfully submitted, Dated: 'hit,! J JAMES, SMITH, DURKIN & CONNELLY, LLP ~.0 BY:K ~~~-g'~ Attorney LD. #29563 JOHN 1. MCNALLY, III, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. #52661 P.O. Box 650 Hershey, P A 17033-0650 (717) 533-3280 Attorneys for Defendants 4 ,c' ,'""'- _ "-_ "~< -,." . ", _ ,.,~" '^C "c... c ,'-,,,',." '___~"~.,-d",",,,'_,[,{. '."~'__' -'''~,- ."__,,.~., . _.^ ~" " CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, KAREN DURKIN, ESQUIRE, do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing upon the following below-named individual(s) by depositing same in the U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid at Hershey, Dauphin County, PeIlllSylvania this h ~,2000. day of SERVED UPON: VV.ScottHenning,Esqurre Handler, Henning & Rosenberg 1300 Linglestown Road Hanisburg, PA 17110 / K en Durkin, Esquire JAMES, SMITH, DURKIN & CONNELLY, LLP 5 ~ , ~ ~,--'- [",. .''';..-,;~>,-,'1' ,-<-.- ...--,--- - ,n, .'-- "'.- -,'"--,, ]" ,.;;,----" '-,-,""" - .-,.,.,-,,~,:w LORIE A. WELCH, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 00-4298 CIVIL KEITH B. HELFRICK, Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VERIFICATION The undersigned, KEITH B. HELFRICK, hereby verifies that the facts set forth in the Answer with New Matter are true and correct to the best ofhis knowledge, infonnation and belief and further states that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. , ...,...,/ j(~ '"~,H. ~"" ,~- -'d'+ ,._~. ~ .-'j --', ,."-,, ""~",o,-_,~-'i, >-<. +"",'--.,-, ~--~;,-- -'-,i,:':;:.{;,,,,,,;~",,,,,,~-,., '"'"' o_,_<_;'~"_",i/$-;;';;,-,;J LORIE A. WELCH, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 00-4298 CIVIL v. KEITH B. HELFRICK CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Lorie A. Welch, by and through their attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, by W. Scott Henning, who answers Defendants' New Matter as follows: 19. Paragraph 19 is an incorporation paragraph to which no responsive pleading is required. 20. DENIED. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 20 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, the Plaintiff acknowledges that her cause of action is controlled by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act and her claim will be subject to the provisions of the aforesaid Act to the extent mandated by the Court and subject to Appellate review, as may be necessary. 21. DENIED. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 21 is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required, however, to the extent that the Honorable Court deems a response necessary, it is denied that the Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and proof to the ,-~---_ ,. .~ "_'.H."'''''~ M_ ~,__ ".~*,__ 'd:""~p;..~'.' -_~, '~->"~,, "-<if"'"o,.,,;. -,,',- ~-, "<'0'- '"' _ ,- , <_r-,'-':'~O ";",-,t--, -'J'~ -,C_ - - ,_0'''';,-'.;;01: contrary is demanded at the trial in this matter. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the relief against the Defendant as set forth in her Complaint. Shelby Smith for the relief set forth in their Complaint. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER. HENNING & ROSENBERG Date: 1-:16 --;),6J"7.; p ~ .- ",,-- .;.- <". f-'- .-.'C_ - ,-'<". ,.",._. -,,,;,,-~ ',^" ,'...'. ,'-'-'" VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.C.P. No. 10241c) W. SCOTT HENNING, ESQUIRE states that he is the attorney for the party filing the foregoing document; that he makes this Affidavit as an attorney and verifies that it is correct and accurate to the best of his knowledge, information and belief and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 1 8 Pa. C.S.A., Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATE: er ~d.0 -~ -,I ,_'-- co",' ~.".' :.'",_" , -~ ".'J " ,^,..-j .^' ,-<- "[.,1, .~'-' -".:", ~".'~_'o',_. 'o..___C"__', -, '.._ .-,,- - - \''';.1.;'',\ '-',')i--0~-~-':-. .". M_'_-"" ,';;'>i1 LORIE A. WELCH, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 00-4298 CIVIL v. KEITH B. HELFRICK CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On the 4 day of , 2000, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Answer to w Matter was served upon the following persons(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid as follows: Karen Durkin, Esquire JAMES, SMITH, DURKIN & CONNELLY P.O. Box 650 Hershey, PA 17033-0650 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG Date: '1~d.fo -;)(J(JO By ~-~~. ~~ ^ ~ "'If ~-~ c ',-c.,:'; ~;,~ J\:. -,,'~ ~- ^ ,,~~,",,- ~ . ""^--' '~ ,-.,,;.-,- . 0 ~, - "' -,-' , '" 0 (-::J C <.:) s.: :n vcr-; ,"1 n1p~ " Z:....: ['...) ~~2 v;) ~(.::. :;-.., )>l"---" -.-, Zc' ~ >c ~~ Z ~ 'J" =< ~ :z '.0 . "" .,~ -, '--"-"-,;".,,,. '-"__,__'"'i:",,~ :;'i'~-,' ',-.,~ -~ _ ,-1-;"-;: <-,;'~.'~'~ ",<"<'1 LORIE A. WELCH, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA : NO. 00-4298 CIVIL VI. KEITH B. HELFRICK, Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, KAREN DURKIN, ESQUIRE, do hereby certifY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing upon the following below-named individual(s) by depositing same in the U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid at Hershey, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania this / ~ ~. ,2000. day of SERVED UPON: W. Scott Henning, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, P A 1711 0 , . ,Esquire AMES, SMITH, DURKIN & CONNELLY, LLP . ~~~ .,". ~", ~--- "'"--" . il.{. ~"""'-"''Illiai~I'' '"-.' ,~- ~ ,,' -~, " -~--,-- ~,- ..;-~- ,-, ., -~^--",,-, ,~" ';:;'-"~..' ~~ ^ '-,:,;" " ~ - ~ ,~ ',- , ,. - "-~' =- (') C::' ~:) c Cj t"1 "'C Z vi';"; mr l::J -- Z::1) <::;: ZC ~~~ .1;" " j;: c:~ :::'.t Ze' '=;""'" ) r:2 Pc Z 'J) =<! \0 ",-., ~"' : I ~ 'd';. '''"-,~,,~,'>~,, ';"F;,_",;'J.":-,_";~,,j J.;~--;..;",;\;,',> "",-",,_ "'S-.- """'-;'''~i LORIE A. WELCH, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VI. : NO. 00-4298 CIVIL KEITH B. HELFRICK, Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, KAREN DURKIN, ESQUIRE, do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing upon the following below-named individual(s) by depositing same in the U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid at Hershey, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania this /fr I ~ ,2000. day of SERVED UPON: W. Scott Henning, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 / ar n urkin, Esquire JAMES, SMITH, DURKIN & CONNELLY, LLP ~ 11 ~o<-L.,",,~,_ ~ " '-, ", '''" ,., ~" "' ~"'~1iIlI ~- ,='",~ .' ,~~ - -. '" ~ - - 'i /, ,I I ! I 0 C) C C) S. - ,,"~ -au C,? m r-;-, <"-- Z ":,Ii !~,1 ~~~\ ,-' - r;~} r::el --, .. <: ......0 -)~- -, . :> e-" -,-"- (,)--:'-;0;: Zlc _,c:;,.'-.-, -0 r:: on :>c ---l ~ ':..:> 53 \0 -< " " . . C" "> " " ," , -",'l_ . "C'. "-'c ,:,~,-, '~',' . ""'-. l_.,:", " . .-_. .J:-\,: """~ LORIE A. WELCH, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 00-4298 CIVIL KEITH B. HELFRICK, Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE PREREOUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Defendant Keith B. Helfrick certifies that: (I) a notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy ofthe subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served, or that said waiting period was waived by Plaintiff's counsel; (2) a copy ofthe notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to this certificate; (3) no objection to the subpoena has been received; and (4) the subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. Respectfully submitted, JAMES, SMITH, DURKIN & CONNELLY, LLP Dated: ;'?/;;/I.?' , BYr~~. ) DURKIN, ESQUlRE Attorney J.D. #29563 JARAD W. HANDELMAN, ESQUlRE Attorney J.D. #82629 P.O. Box 650 Hershey, P A 17033-0650 (717) 533-3280 Attorneys for Defendant LORIE A. WELCH, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. : NO. 00-4298 CIVIL KEITH B. HELFRICK, Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF INTIENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Defendant Keith B. Helfrick intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days fi'om the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. Ifno objection is made the subpoena may be served. Date: /I/.;;'"h d-- { / ,.-/ /' ,"7 :i/ ~~ ~ L---'~-D~,"ESQ~ . Attomey 1.0. #29563 JARAD W. HANDELMAN, ESQUIRE Attomey 1.D. #82629 P.O. Box 650 Hershey, P A 17033-0650 (717) 533-3280 Attomeys for Defendant Helfrick ". COMMONWEALTH OF PENN~YLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LORIE A. WELCH, Plaintiff v. KEITB B. HELFRICK, Defendant File No. NO. 00-4298 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: RECORDS CUSTODIAN FOR SEIDLE HOSPITAL (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: any and all medical records, reports, progress notes, opinion letters, bills, prescriptions, x-ray films, MRI films, and other data regarding the treatment of LORIE ANN WELCH, (DOB- 6-17-1966) (55* 204-60-9485) at James, Smith, Durkin & Connelly, LLP, 134 Sipe Avenue, Hurnmelstown, PA 17036 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with tile certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court cirder compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUB'POENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: Name Karen Durkin, Esquire James, Smith, Durkin & Connelly LLP Address: P.O: Box 650, Hershey, PA 17033 Telephone: (717) 533-3280 Supreme Court 10# 29563 Attorney For: Defendant Helfrick Date: .J/)Oll . - I J.../ ;;:l,ry, 'J.._ Seal of the Court Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil D" n "-- .A~-?1 e..- ,P Cyy;OZ/J<YJ ( Deputy (Eft. 7/97) -~ ~ - .' -' . " ' , -,. .'"~" - ---",,-<-,~ ", I-~--<. _"" >0 "..' ~-'~._I_ ~- ,-. ' c, \ _I: J ' ':-':C"" "ct' ~.' _". '';'".,1 "q CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, KAREN DURKIN, ESQUIRE, do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Certificate Prerequisite to Service of A Subpoena upon the following below- named individual(s) by depositing sam~ in the U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid at Hershey, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania this 12th day of December, 2002. SERVED UPON: W. Scott Henning, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, P A 1711 0 ~~~ Durkin, Esquire JAMES, SMITH, DURKIN & CONNELLY, LLP ,,,.;.,, -~._"'" .~. ''', <'-',,'::'.". ......il,;:L ,_~ ., '.'.' ,'v,_' ~'- ~~ ',~ n< .~. " , ~. ", "C', -',-, 0 "_0",, ~, ',-."c '.." C~ r~":'; "'I'j <:'~ [:J CJ L:'_~:; "'11 nl C") Z t :7 (jJ cr', _/ r';' -~o .r :i> ::r:;: z h j; c: z ,- 'jJ ~ .... ...< .-,,_ ,.0 O~",. ..- ,-. =,"> , ""."" ,,,,.- (,"",'>.-. ~,",,'--'-",,">I~.""""-'''-''''~'-P~' - , , S~'< ,",-,., - LORIE A. WELCH, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYL VANIA v. : NO. 00-4298 CIVIL KEITH B. HELFRICK, Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURYTRIALDEMANDED PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw the appearance of the undersigned law firm on behalf of Defendant, Keith B. Helfrick, with respect to the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, JAMES, SMITH, DURKIN & CONNELLY, LLP Dated: ~/)~~:, By'~ DURKIN, ESQUIRE Attorney LD. #29563 JARAD W. HANDELMAN, ESQUIRE Attorney LD. #82629 P.O. Box 650 Hershey, P A 17033-0650 (717) 533-3280 -, .- ,~"~ ~ .~= ~-~",'~~ M~_ "'.4'" ,)""",~ LORIE A. WELCH, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VI. : NO. 00-4298 CIVIL KEITH B. HELFRICK, Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of the undersigned law firm on behalf of the Defendant, Keith B. Helfrick, with respect to the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, Dated: C2../1/tJ3 I . ~~ By: JAMES G. NEALON, III, ESQUIRE Attorney LD. #46457 301 Market Street - 9th Floor P.O. Box 865 Harrisburg, P A 171 08-0865 (717) 232-9900 Attorneys for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, JARAD W. HANDELMAN, ESQUIRE, do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Withdraw Appearance/Entry of Appearance upon the following below-named individual(s) by depositing same in the U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid at Hershey, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania this sth day of February, 2003. SERVED UPON: W. Scott Henning, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 -=s Jarad W. Handehnan, Esquire JAMES, SMITH, DURKIN & CONNELLY, LLP ~ili.- Jldii:iil~M <,.~" _w '"n~' ,N ',<,_ _~ ~_ "I' , .="" ''''''"", 1iiIiIii' . .. "- 0 C 0 C 00 -i1 :?:' ...,., -!'"'l(f~ in r\'\rt! ~~,:, -.- ;.::.'::\ I " ilJ, :;::: C' -"~'\ '-- ~~~ C", , '::'.::';~d \:2C "0 ~"r .';;-'" n Z[-') (.,) ~;S rT1 )>c~: ~ -7 c::> "1:". =:j ::t1 -< (.:> -< " ~" ~,--- '" _L' .,',-.1 ^" - "'-', -,:+,~"", :""'-~'"'''''''->;''''' <':'f PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Must be typewritteu aud submitted iu 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 ajury. (CAPTION OF CASE, entire caption must be state iu full) (check one) () Civil Action - Law () Appeal from Arbitration ( ) (other) LORJE A. WELCH, Plaintiff(s) The trial list will be called on June 10, 2003 Trials commence on July 7, 2003 Vs. KEITH B. HELFRICK, Pretrials will be held on June 18, 2003 Defendant( s) (Briefs are due 5 days pretrial.) (The party listing this case for trial shall provide forthwith a copy of the Praecipe to all counsel, pursuant to Local Rule 214.1.) No. 00-4298 Civil 20_ Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this Praecipe: Andrew C. Lehman, Esquire Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: W. Scott Henning, Esquire This case is ready for triaL NEALON & GOVER, P.e. Date: 5-;)...-00 By: ~ ------ Andrew C. Lehman, Esquire ------ to. #: 81937 Attorney for: Defendant 2411 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 232-9900 1iIllliI- L'[''' ,"" ',"'" "" ,,,,,",,,,,, ~, " - '~. -, ~ ", ,~'<.;.;." ~ ' I 0 c::; ,-' ,j C (....J -rt Z :]: ,-,- -ocr' . ','"," {"'nen -< Z::L. , '..--'-~ ~?," G"\ "- .' ~c1 L ..~" , r::c: :2:~ ~~,:,~f\ ); _c -~ .~ C) L-c, CS (srn )>c --\ ~ :...::-. -,:-,. ::0 -< ..... -< - ,~ ~ 'C' __, _ 'i"- ,'1, " '~ - I. .. LORIE A. WELCH, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION-LAW V. KEITH B. HELFRICK, DEFENDANT 00-4298 CIVIL TERM VERDICT QUESTION 1: Do you find that defendant was negligent? YES ;<. NO Defendant admits negligence so you should answer this question "Yes." QUESTION 2: Was defendant's negligence a substantial factor in bringing about plaintiff's harm? YES x NO If you answer "Yes," go to Question 3. If you answer "No," plaintiff cannot recover and you should not answer any further questions and should return to the courtroom. QUESTION 3: If you answer Question 2 "Yes," state the total amount of damages that you find plaintiff sustained as a result of defendant's causal negligence. TOTAL $ ~I (r#J- ~ , DATE: 7- 9 - 03 FOREM~gJ. a~ .~- yo CAS_E NO.: {)0 - Lf ~ q 'll (; }~!,.. t... I L." ,""o' It DOCKET NO.: o/) _ 4 Dl. q f? .Turor,~ Name , 11 ~ 2 28 4 78 5 1 (, 74 7 ;)':1: g a~ 9 85 10 49 I-I 34 12 95 ....13 :19 b.'i .. 15 41 ..1'> ~2 17 7 I~ "9 19 55 20 6 ? 1 59 22 72 23 80 14 11 25 65 26 13 27 98 2X 73 2q 59 30 31 Monday, July 07, 2003 52 .J co~~~~~~:~;:h _!J}pJaff~ VS H~/Pr,~ck /(e :-11.. A / DATE: -, /1 J'l).J - / --, -- - Random No. Wise, John E T - . U'_n.dd:5 A9- lJeL v-'+h~c--R p.tt;;Z - W5H- Gavlick, Darvle R Meas, David D Mader, James D p-lt-Lf_ wst-\- -2057918633 -1861620927 -1615879010 -1599258923 -1591784375 -1428606300 -1387031476 -1359429319 -1356204789 '1285898130 -1207784627 -934808336 -794867062 -699793706 -139599808 44946428 478779636 479927013 636311901 762711967 792871770 814951686 824666482 1275686811 .. 1393623320 1638758466 1723182641 1741835791 1806217939 1900405703 A'2> ACL b'N.111. <..U l, ~V.L ~ r... 0::. tf i~~:.!'/) ^ I M, l( 1 . '::lu-.l:J.Gl.1-uLI:: IvI "L.J. ~ McMeans, David W SeIdeI- George H Jr Walker, Troy A , Clark, Andrew S -R."'r ~&" ~.3 - W;;;;lf ~'*t"'cl C ~l - w sit Wiser, Paula M .~l~~b..,~~.l,.-IX Regan, Patricia M @);=:~_~, J...~l.L"'1 - Krausse"Kathleen A Girton, David A ~.t:J . - ..".,. ;-- -,,- ., ALl AeL q~" -" ~ U I iT Sgrignoli, Scott U Hartman, Heatner Siuger, Al vert C J r Elicker,.Dana E Hassinger, Michele Galer, Miriam M Davis, Robert B Smith, Heidi Ann Mover, Eleanor S Pagelofl '''''n"''~~,_ Ill'l"~ -., ~~\L LORIE A. WELCH, Plaintiff V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW KEITH B. HELFRICK, Defendant 00-4298 CIVIL TERM Before: Edgar B. Bayley Date: July 7 and 8, 2003 Attorneys: W. Scott Henning and Andrew C. Lehman LIST OF EXHIBITS FOR THE PLAINTIFF 1. Photo of back of Grand Am 2. Medical record dated December 9, 1998 3. Medical records dated December 14, 1998, and December 23, 1998 4. Medical records dated December 29, 1998, and January 5, 1999 5. Letter dated February 8, 2000 6. Letter dated October 27, 1999 FOR THE DEFENDANT 1. Pinnacle Health ER report 2. Physical therapy progress report sheet 3. Physical therapy progress report sheet 4. Photo of front of Jeep 5. Photo of Jeep headlight 6. NOT IDENTIFIED/NOT ADMITTED 7. Photo of front of Grand Am 8. Photo of front of Grand Am Exhibits given to Court Administrator's Office to be put in vault* -, ~1Ill ~ ~ -'"~",, '\iiilljtIi:Wlt!J!lloi.itlSl~~i"$~,*.>l\-iilH-",s0'''''",",~"~,~J,,;~6,''''''",,.c.z,~*,~u~,A:I:illI!!!i:1~~lIiiil','" ~ ~!a_~iilr!'.t!!'-~""".~' () c: '?' :"ti'-"" ~_CfJ ~lfi ~"., 655,:' -<<" ~r~~ ;fi- ~I'--"" ~("": ~".,' s:;: .- -3 """< JO IL ". ,," 1'-"<' _'~,'-~ _ ,__, ~ ,_ "'.~ '" ,-' :v (~ ~~.JiI:l. c) I::.....:J o -'il '- r'- j:":::;: - , ;' ---;'!;~' :c:::' , , Ie) ti~ (5f71 ;;;! .J:J ---- c;:, h, :::Jt: ~ ~ LORIE A. WELCH, Plaintiff, v. KEITH B. HELFRICK, Defendant. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO.: 00-4298 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the above-captioned action settled, satisfied, and discontinued, Date: g -{ t[-::dCb3 Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNIN ROSENBERG By: " -" '"ilIIL ......'iflj'-""<"-> '-~W " ~""";;". --_..-----~ .....'i , ~ ~, ~'"'" - ~ " ~ ,~, ~, ~ g 5:. -Ow ['1](.\ '-:1-\"'\ ..:.-...... ~C fti.c :<.':2- t2C' ~() ~CI :P'C -;Z. ::;!. ,~~ c w """ .- - G') ,...~ '"J' p :> "9 :::::> .;:- o -n .-1 ::r: -f1 1"0"1;:::;::; -.Oc:\ -oy Q,O ::r:~-l 00 B'(1"'\ _Ool ~