The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About97-01099 ~ t. " ~ ~ " / - , . - I . :) t i .... I . I , I .1 t'- . 'it- . ~ S) Defendant admits that he backed his vehicle from a parking space during the course of which action there wu contact between his van and plaintifr s vehicle, but denies the remaining allegations of paragraph S, u stated. 6) Defendant admits that at the time and place alleged his vehicle contacted the plaintiff's car and repeats and reaJleges his answer to paragraph S, above, and denies the remaining allegations of paragraph 6, 7) Defendant incorporates the preceding paragraphs of its answer u its response to paragraph 7. 8) The allegations set forth in paragraph 8 are conclusions of law to which no response is requires under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil PlOceOure. 10 the extent that any of said allegations are taken to be factual in nature, they are denied, subparagraphs (a) through (h), inclusive. 9) Defendant repeats and restates its answers to the proceeding paragraphs of the complaint as its answer to this paragraph. 10) After reasonable investigation, Defendant has insufficient knowledge or information upon which to fonn a belief as to the truth of the allegations of this paragraph of the complaint and therefore neither admits nor denies the same but demands strict proof thereof. II) After reasonable investigation, Defendant has insufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of this paragraph of the complaint and therefore neither admits nor denies the same but demands strict proof thereof. 12) After reasonable investigation, Defendant has insufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of this paragraph of the complaint and therefore neither admits nor denies the same but demands strict proof thereof. 13) After reuonable investigation, Defendant has insufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a bclicfu to the truth of the aIlcgationa ofthia paragraph ofthc complaint and therefore neither admits nor denies the same but demanda strict proof thereof. 14) After reasonable investigation, Defendlllt has insufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as to the truth of the aIlcgatiOIlJ of this paragraph of the complaint and tbctefore neither admits nor denies the same but demands strict proof thereof. I S) After reasonable investigation, Defendant has insufficient knowledge or information upon which to form a belief as to the truth of the a1legatiollJ of'this paragraph of the complaint IIld therefore neither admits nor denies the same but demands strict proof thereof. 16) After reasonable investigation, Defendant has insufficient knowledge or information upon which to fonn a belief as to the truth of the allegations of this paragraph of the complaint IIld therefore neither admits nor denies the same but demands strict proof thereof. 17) Defendant repeats and restates its IIlswers to paragraphs I through 16 of the complaint as its IIlswer to this paragraph. 18) After reasonable investigation, Defendant has insufficient l;nowledge or information upon which to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of this paragraph of the complaint and therefore neither admits nor denies the same but demands strict proof thereof. WHEREFORE, defendant denies the plaintiff is entitled to judgment against him in a sum in excess ofS25,OOO.OO, or to lilY sum of money whatsoever, or to interest, costs or delay damages. DEFENDANT DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY. ~w. MA TI'F.B 19. lfit ia detennined that defendant is liable under the plaintiff a' cause of action, then plaintiffs' recovery should be eliminated or reduced in accordance with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A Section 1702, in that Plaintiff may have: a. Failed to keep a proper lookout for other vehicles then and there upon the roadway; b, Failed to properly signal ; c. Stopped in a manner which was unsafe and careless; d. Was otherwise careless and negligent in the operation, control and maintenance of her motor vehicle. 20. The foregoing acts or omissions of the plaintiff, as set forth in Paragraph 19, were careless and negligent and proximately caused the alleged injuries and/or damages claimed by the plaintiff. 21. If plaintiff suffered any injuries or damages as alleged, they were caused solely and primarily by the plaintiffs' own carelessness, recklessness and negligence. 22. If the plaintiff suffered any injuries as alleged, plaintiff. by her conduct, assumed the risk of those injuries and damages due to the conduct herein before alleged. 23. Defendant asserts all defenses, limitations and exclusions under the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S.A. Section 1701 ~ and avers that plaintiff may not plead, prove, introduce into evidence or recover any benefits paid or payable under the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 24. The complaint fails to state a claim against the defendant. 25. The damages and injuries allegedly sustained by the plaintiffs were proximately caused by the acts and/or omissions of plaintiff or third persons for whose actions defendant is not legally responsible. 26. The right to file such additional defenses, affirmative defenses, crossclaims, counterclaims and/or third party claims as msy be appropriate upon completion of investigation and discovery in this mstter is reserved. 27. PlaintifTfailed to mitigate damages. 28, The right to chaIItnge any award of delay damages in this case is hereby reserved. 29, Defendant demands that appropriate hearings be conducted in this case prior to any award of delay damages. 30. Rule 238 of the PeMsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, on its face, and as applied is violative of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Section 1983 ofTitle 42 of the United States Code and Article I, Sections 1,6, II and 26 and Article V, Section IO(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution and imposes a chiDing effect on the exercise by defendant of his constitutional rights. WHEREFORE, defendant demands judgment against the plaintiffs, and for the defendant, and for such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. DEFENDANT DEMANDS TRIAL BY JURY. Respectfully submitted, HARRINGTON, KAUFFMAN &. SHILLING Tw~6~ ( ...:.:' , - " -J ; ~ I r. '"""'1 " 11 1__, .' .. (qJ I ." , , il ! 'i"l MARGARET S. MARTZ and W. ARNOLD MARTZ, Her Husband, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW ROBERT E. FOOSE, Defendant NO. 97-1099 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DE~~DED COM P L A I N T 1. Plaintiffs Margaret S. Martz and W. Arnold Martz are husband and wife adult individuals, who are citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing at 704 Charles Street, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant Robert E. Foose is an adult individual and citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, who resides at 6972 Wertzville Road, Enola, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. The facts and occurrences hereinafter related took place on or about June 6, 1995, at approximately 3:50 p.m., at the PNC Bank parking lot, Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. At that time and place, Plaintiff Margaret S. Martz stopped in the traveling lane of the parking lot, waiting for a car to back out before parking her 1993 Ford Taurus. 5. At that time and place, Defendant Robert E. Foose was preparing to pull from a parking space, located behind Plaintiff l07909/LRJ forced to incur similar expenses in the future, and claim is made therefor. 13. As a result of the aforementioned injuries, Plaintiff Margaret S. Martz has undergone and in the future will undergo great physical and mental suffering, great inconvenience in carrying out her daily activities, loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, and claim is made therefor. 14. As a result of the aforesaid injuries, Plaintiff Margaret S. Martz has been and in the future will be subject to great humiliation and embarrassment, and claim Is made therefor. 15. As a result of the aforementioned injuries, Plaintiff Margaret S. Martz has sustained loss of earning capacity, loss of opportunity, and possible future impairment of her earning power and capacity as a school teacher, and a claim is made therefor. 16. Plaintiff Margaret S. Martz continues to be plagued by persistent pain and limitation and therefore, avers that her injuries may be of a chronic or permanent nature, causing residual problems for the remainder of her lifetime, and claim is made therefor 4 ~ . a . .....~ i , _, " .. . I ; () Cl , .. C- e:, "":) r : 1 .. L <~<, I .-1 -:; . [ , :~ r . '- ~- ::i / , ".:. ,"" ::! .- MARGARET S. MARTZ and W, ARNOLD MARTZ, her husband,: Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO.97-I099 CIVIL TERM ROBERT E. FOOSE, Defendant NOTICE OF HEARING BY BOARD OF ARBITRATORS YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the Board of Arbitrators appointed by the Court has scheduled the Arbitration Hearing in the above-captioned case for Monday, December 7, 1998 at 9:30 A.M, at the Second Floor Hearing Room, Old Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire Patricia R. Brown, Esquire Diane B. Carvell, Esquire Date: ?tfv., oS, I 'i9 'l B~. Joseph D. Buckl y, Esquire Chairman, Board of Arbitrators 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, P A 17013 (717) 249-2448 cc: Patricia R, Brown, Esquire Diane B. Carvell, Esquire Michael E. Kosik, Esquire for Plaintiffs C. William Shilling, Esquire for Defendant Office of the Court Administrator 1 , ~ 1 I 1 I 1 l~ 1 n~H~"~~ In ~"':O f 1 1 g --I' VI. '.... O~[ 1 ~o og. I~, 1 --I' W ~ ~'" 1 1Il~ 1"' III ,~ E'~ I", 1 ~(IlZID !:l> en I'" 1 1 1-'t\J C"-..... ~ ID ,--I 1 ~ Ii ~~ il ~ i l~ ~:H>j rt I~ >' g I..... ~!:!"l (Il Ii 0\ 0\.. ,0 ~ . '''' j -..J U1 ::s ~ 1::1 e --11"'8 ! I~ 'd"'~~rt 1 o~ ~~w It "'~1Il III (Ill"' :6;' VlID I.... 5' ~rt:.-. 5' I~. --I' . :0 N rt ~ 'd l:t: [ l~ 1"' I~ jr HI 0 I Ii HI I I I-' 1 ltl --I 1 '" 1 I '" 1 1 1 MARGARET S, MARTZ and W, ARNOLD MARTZ, her husband,: Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLV ANlA NO.97-1099 CIVIL TERM v. ROBERT B, FOOSE, Defendant NOTICE OF BEARING BY BOARD OF ARBITRATORS YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the Board of Arbitrators appointed by the Court has scheduled the Arbitration Hearing in the abovc-captioned case for Monday, December 7, 1998 at 9:30 A.M. at the Second Floor Hearing Room, Old Cumberland , County Courthouse, Carlisle, pennsylvania. Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire Patricia R. Brown. Esquire Diane B. Carvell, Esquire Date: 7\tv-, .5, 11 f , B~' Joseph D, Buckl y, Esquire Chainnan, Board of Arbitrators 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2448 cc: patricia R. Brown. Esquire Diane B, Carvell, Esquire Michael E. Kosik, Esquire for Plaintiffs C. William Shilling, Esquire for Defendant Office of the Court Administrator y ( " fJ 9 ( J > ~ .. .-:'l /I:: ) ........ I ~ ~ ., I,' -'J () ,,, "" ~ v.., () ...'; CI) ...... , ~ :.1 ~ - ..... I\U I ~ 1 -. r- ~ "- '-......:..-t- 0 .0 0 ~ IX) .n ::1: ::l ""0 OJ :;>0 ~, ~~ ::0 - ~I.: IX) 1.-.: ?-~" :';:j. ,1:;., ..." ... ;r? C) ~. QM Zo >c t,o) Q .. ~ ~ t,o) ~ \ LAW OFFICES OF HARRINGTON, KAUFFMAN & SHILLING ATfORNEY: Tim J, Harrington, Jr. SUPREME COURT I,D. NO,: 71242 100 PINE STREET, SUITE 300 HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717) 720-0700 A TfORNEY FOR: Derendant Robert E. Foose MARGARET S. MARTZ and W. ARNOLD MARTZ, her husband, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs, vs. ROBERT E. FOOSE, DOCKET NO. 1997-1099 Civil Term Defendant. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this~1ay of July, 1997, I, Tim 1. Harrington, Jr., Esquire, attorney for Defendant, affirm that I served Admission of Liability by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Michael E. Kosik, Esquire Angino & Rovner 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Attorney for Plaintif1) I (') .0 () F -.I "" '- :-, "Tit r~ [ ..,., ',"'=-' , r.) ',:-'rl ,I; \.Q 5A ~:: '. '" ~~j~ '::.; , ::: " - ~-rn ,..;."(-: .. ..,) ~~ '. ~i ", N .... -< ~ ~ L ~ \l\, ~ 'Q ........ b.~ \J' (. '~I '.. if ' , lC ,""J ~ (} CJ ~ >- LU < ec ~ r') '- ~::) "" q .:t ..;~J I..:.; .';) >H -C') ,;t'l 0" , ...J '-' . . ".n <-:' ~ (') .':> n -' -" -. .1 .f .- :T1 I. ,- ~.,' i~l 1::J 0:;:1 ",-") " ~ :;1 " ; ~ t.j . ~ . . .[n .-- , -, :_~ ~ '~J ....1 :"<.; r " n \D 0 c: -.I 'Tl .... ,_ cd rHli" c: ":0 _8 :c ~~ 4":- _" 6jC N ~:': ":J .-\..' -u ;:1- ~p :x d~ ".. ~ .. t:" r'j ... ~; .; ~ '0 ~ 22. Denied. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be deemed proper, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff Margaret Martz was aware of or could assume the risk of her injuries. It is further denied that the doctrine of assumption of the risk is applicable to a motor vehicle accident similar to that which is set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint. 23. Denied. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be deemed proper, it is specifically denied that the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law provides any defenses, limitations, and exclusions to the cause of action and damages sought in Plaintiffs' Complaint. 24. Denied. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be deemed proper, it is specifically denied that Plaintiffs' Complaint does not set forth a cause of action against the Defendant for motor vehicle negligence. 25. Denied. This averment is a conclusory statement unsupported by any factual statements, and therefore, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be deemed 3 proper, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff Margaret Martz's injuries and damages, as set forth in the Complaint, were caused by the acts or omissions of some unidentified and unnamed third party and not the Defendant. To the contrary, it is averred that Defendant Robert E. Foose, as identified in Plaintiffs' Complaint, was the sole proximate cause of Plaintiff Margaret Martz's injuries and damages. 26. This averment is not an affirmative defense and therefore, does not require a response. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030 provides that a party may set forth as new matter any affirmative defense. Defendant's reservation of his right to assert affirmative defenses or crossclaims in the future provides the Defendant with any additional rights that he would have had under the Procedural Rules, and this paragraph is irrelevant. 27. Denied. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsi ve pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be deemed proper, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff Margaret Martz failed to mitigate her damages. To the contrary, at all times, Plaintiff Margaret Martz has cooperated with and followed the instructions of her treating physicians and has attempted to mitigate her injuries and damages. 4 28. Defendant's reservation of his right to challenge delay damages is inappropriate. 29. Defendant Robert E. Foose's request for a hearing on delay damages before an award and request for delay damages is improper and irrelevant. 30. Denied. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response may be deemed proper, it is specifically denied that Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238 is unconstitutional or violative of the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States or the Pennsylvania Constitution. By way of further answer, Defendant Robert E. Foose is required to notify the Pennsylvania Attorney General's Office when challenging the constitutionality of a statute or the Conunonwealth is not a party. ~, Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 235. To Plaintiffs' knowledge, Defendant Robert E. Foose has not provided appropriate notice to the Attorney General's Office of the alleged unconstitutionality of Rule 238, and therefore, this averment is improper. 5 . " Defendant Foose has admitted liability for the accident as indicated by the admission of liability which was filed by defense counsel attached hereto as Exhibit A. The defense, although admitting liability, questions the causation of Maggie Martz's plantar fascitis injury. Based upon a review of the defense's medical report, the Defendant is not questioning the cervical injury which she sustained. Plaintiff Maggie Martz maintains that the Defendant's position on causation is primarily because of the contention that she could not have sustained this type of injury to her feet as a result of the impact. Plaintiff Maggie Martz does not dispute that the injury to her feet did not occur as a result of the initial impact but rather maintains that the injury to the feet came as a result of her panicking when she was struck and slamming her feet on to the brake several times after impact in response to the impact and the sensation of her car being moved. II. INJURIES AND DAMAGES Plaintiff Maggie Martz did not immediately seek treatment, although her head and neck began hurting at the scene. Over the days following the accident, she continued to have problems, however, the day of the accident was the last full day of school. When her condition did not resolve over the following weekend, she sought treatment from Dr. Hamsher at Orthopedic Institute the following Monday, June 12, 1995. At that time, she was having . ~ headaches and neck pain as a result of the accident. She had limitations in rotation of her neck, and Dr. Hamsher diagnosed a cervical strain and sent her for physical therapy. Plaintiffs have prepared a medical treatment summary of Plaintiff's treatment relating to the accident which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. Copies of Plaintiff's medical records have been supplied in a separate Appendix. Plaintiff Maggie Martz received physical therapy for her cervical strain following the accident. She maintains that she was having symptoms with her feet, however, these were not so severe as to require medical treatment. It was not until after Maggie Martz delayed vacation in late July that her foot symptoms became more significant. On her first physical therapy visit following her vacation, August 1, 1995, she again spoke to the physical therapist about the problems that she had been having with her right foot and the fact that they related back to the time of the motor vehicle accident. She immediately spoke with Dr. Lippe and received a prescription for physical therapy for the right foot in which he made a diagnosis of plantar fascitis on August 2, 1995. ~, prescription from Dr. Lippe attached hereto as Exhibit C. From that point forward, Plaintiff continued to receive physical therapy and treatment initially from her orthopedic physician and then ultimately from a podiatrist, Dr. Douglas Bream, for the plantar fascitis. She eventually underwent surgery on 1/31/97 and 2/28/97 I- and has had a slow recovery from the plantar fascitis. Both Dr. Ronald Lippe, the orthopedic physician who was treating her after the accident, as well as Dr. Bream have confirmed that the plantar fascitis is related to the motor vehicle accident. ~,copies of their reports which are attached hereto as Exhibits 0 and E respectively. Plaintiff Maggie Martz maintains that contrary to the' assertions of the Defendant, her cervical strain did not resolve by the end of September of 1996. Plaintiff Maggie Martz agrees that her treatment and disability for the cervical strain ended following her September 23, 1996 visit with Dr. Lippe. However, after being released from treatment by Dr. Lippe, Maggie Martz has continued to have intermittent problems and flare-ups with her neck but has not returned to the orthopedic doctor. After being released by Dr. Lippe, Maggie Martz continued to have problems with the plantar fascitis. At that point, she began treating with Dr. Douglas Bream who is a podiatrist. She had initially been referred to Dr. Bream for orthopedic heal cups by Dr. Lippe in August of 1995. Dr. Bream as well diagnosed her continuing problems as plantar fascitis relating to the motor vehicle accident. Given the passage of time and the failure of conservative treatment for approximately one and a half years, Dr. Bream recommended surgery. Dr. Bream performed two out-patient arthroscopic procedures, both to Maggie Martz's heals, one in ~ .. January and one in February of 1997. He projected that she would slowly recover over a period of three to four months following these procedures. Maggie Martz continued to treat with Dr. Bream through 1997 but ultimately sought a second opinion of Dr. Paul Juliano, an orthopedic specialist at Hershey Medical Center for foot and ankle problems. Dr. Juliano's records are included in Plaintiff's medical records. Dr. Juliano anticipated that her' condition would slowly improve. As of Dr. Juliano's visit on March 2, 1998, he anticipated her condition would continue to improve over the next several years. Although Plaintiff Maggie Martz's heal injuries for the plantar fascitis are greatly improved compared to prior to the surgery, she has not totally recovered and continues to improve from this condition. Plaintiff Maggie Martz's medical expenses have been covered by her first-party medical coverage and private medical coverage and is not in issue. Maggie Martz is entitled to be compensated for the pain and suffering for these injuries, as well as loss of enjoyment of life and inconvenience in carrying out her daily activities. Her husband, Arnold Martz, is entitled to be compensated for his loss of consortium. III. WORK LOSS AND EARNING CAPACITY At the time of the accident, Plaintiff Maggie Martz had been employed as a special education teacher with the CUmberland Valley School District for eight years. She had been involved as a teacher since September of 1979. A copy of her resume is attached hereto as Exhibit F. Prior to the accident, Maggie Martz had inquired about the availability of summer school teaching positions with the Cumberland Valley School District, as well as the West Shore School District, however, all positions had been filled. ~, letter from Timothy Ritter Summer School Director for Cumberland Valley attached hereto as Exhibit G. It is anticipated' that Defendant will be presenting the testimony of Mr. Ritter as a witness during the course of the arbitration. Plaintiff Maggie Martz had also placed her name in a directory for the Heritage Acres and Blackburn Village Community, listing herself as being available for tutoring and day care in hopes of supplementing her income during the summer of 1995, should she not be able to find any other position. ~, relevant portions of the 1995 service booklet attached hereto as Exhibit H. Although Plaintiff Maggie Martz had been working full time as a teacher, at the time of the accident she was looking to supplement her income, since her husband who is a principal with the Northern York School District was already working long hours and could not take on any additional employment. At that time, Maggie Martz and her husband Arnold Martz were looking for additional income to assist with the college tuition needs of Mr. Martz's two older sons, one who had just completed one year of college and the other who would be starting in the fall of 1995. . ... As a result of the injuries she sustained in the accident, Plaintiff Maggie Martz was not able to work in any capacity in the summer of 1995 and was disabled by her treating physicians through at least June of 1997. Plaintiff Maggie Martz was initially disabled by Dr. Lippe for her cervical strain, and although he discussed return to work with her as of her August 30, 1995 appointment, even as of her October appointment, he was indicating' that the neck was creating difficulties which would have prevented her from returning to work. Dr. Lippe did not provide her with a return to work slip until September 23, 1996 permitting her to return to work as of October 1, 1996. ~,disability slips from Dr. Lippe's office attached hereto as Exhibit I. After beginning treatment with Dr. Douglas Bream's office and undergoing surgery in early 1997, Maggie continued to be disabled at the direction of Dr. Bream for a period of approximately three to four months following his surgery which would take her until June of 1997. See, disability slip from Dr. Bream's office attached hereto as Exhibit J. It is anticipated that the Defendants will produce a letter of resignation authored by Plaintiff Maggie Martz on August 7, 1995, in which she submitted her resignation effective August 23, 1995, to Harold pomerang, Coordinator of Pupil Services for the Cumberland Valley School District. In that letter Plaintiff Maggie Martz indicated to the school district that her reason for doing so was in order to stay home with her young son, Scott, and that her decision to resign was for personal reasons and not for any professional problems that she had with her position. At the time of her resignation, her son Scott would have been three and a half years old, having been born on February 17, 1992. Plaintiff Maggie Martz maintains that although one of the reasons for her resignation was'so that she would be able to spend' more time with her son, her decision to resign was primarily impacted by her inability to physically perform her job as a special education teacher. As indicated above, initially Dr. Lippe, and subsequently Dr. Bream, felt that she was unable to return to a teaching position where she would be required to stand and sit for long periods of time, and she was physically unable to return to her position. Whether characterized as actual lost earnings or loss of earning capacity, Plaintiff Maggie Martz was unable to return to a teaching position as a result of injuries she sustained in the accident, until at least June of 1997. At the time of the accident, Plaintiff Maggie Martz was earning approximately $40,000 and had looked into the possibility of even higher paying jobs with local intermediate units. Plaintiff Maggie Martz maintains that as a result of injuries she sustained in the accident, she suffered lost earnings or earning capacity since she was prevented from returning either to full time or substitute teaching prior to June . ~ :r: iii =I . r-4 ~. LAW OFFICES OF HARRINGTON, KAUFFMAN & SHILLING ATTORNEY: Tim J, Harrington, Jr. SUPREME COURT LD. NO.: 71242 100 PINE STREET, SUITE 300 HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717) 720-0700 ATIORNEY FOR: Defendant Robert E. Foose .' MARGARET S, MARTZ and W, ARNOLD MARTZ, her husband, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs, vs. ROBERT E. FOOSE, DOCKET NO. 1997-1099 Civil Term Defendant. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ..., ADMISSION OF LIABILITY NOW COMES the defendant, Robert E. Foose, by and through his attorneys, Harrington, Kauffinan & Shilling, and for his admission of liability in this matter, states as follows: I, Defendant admits that he was negligent in causing the accident which is the subject matter of this lawsuit, and, further, that his negligence was a substantial factor in causing the contact between his vehicle and that of the plaintiff, Margaret Martz. 2. Defendant admits that Margaret Martz was not negligent in the operation of her vehicle at the time of the accident and was not, therefore, guilty of any contributory or comparative negligence. Respectfully submitted, Harrington, Knuffinan & Shilling 10- . . i I iii i ~ III ".. ,- J91611UNOU: flv"U, C^""11ILL PA 17011 . IU rorUJl; OfURQI ROAD. C^,'IPIUu..,A. I')QII I <100 UNION DU'OSrT RD.STI. IlO,HAARJSDl!" . 'A 11111 . COCOA A ClIOCOLATHVE. HERSHEY.'A 1101 - AIOWlOJPATTtA5OH."O, """"'" OAVlDLt JOYNER. U,D.FAC S. JASOHJ_ unClN LtO lC)01164 fUCHAAO H. HALLOCK." o. 1.IOOZ2&a.$l ntOI4\S J YVCHA....'o IoIJCIlm JAl4U'U....SHER...O.FACS, llOOOIlIllE RlOWlOj 1lOAl."0' _'1>1' Wluw.oW OEwnt,"O,.FACS, lIlC01ICIE _~..~. ..0' ~ RONALDW UI'P( 110. __It .,..~ ~. , JOHNR. FIiAM<E';",,"0, Ill104000eE ClAEOORYA._. II 0, 1IOCl>>11~ JAl4U,. IIlAW. II O. __ AUXNQ:A ICAWWC. "'0, IOXlIIOl PAnENT'S NAME DATE ADDRESS IN ORDER FOR A BRAND N E PRODUCT TO BE DISPENSED, THE PRESCRIBER MUS HANDWRITE, BRAND NECESSARY OR BRAND MEDICALLY NECESSARY IN THE SPACE BELal E < C- ~r" ~~ ~IL &1 -- ~..... \ NO 0 ~ISSIeu: lUl \lVI 1:.&11\.. U"a1TlV.~ ur rEn'~I'LVMIA t ~OHE: 7e1~! REFILL: YES 0 I 19I6l1l1NDlJ;R"^1l.C.UIPIlD.J..'A 110.11 . 1'lJI'OI'LAR00UROf RDAD.CAMPIm..l.'PA 11011 <100 UNION DEPOSIT RD. STI. 1l0.IWUUSBURo. PA 17111 . COCOA" OfDCOUrEAVE. HERSHEY.'A n' OAVlO....IOYNtA,...O"PACS. _ FllCIWlOJ.PArmISON....O. """"""' FllCIWlOIlHAUOQ(,"'O. 1IDCll24&5l! JASONJ.lITTON,...O. lIDO"'" JAl4ESR.IlAl4S>tEl1....0.FACS. llOOOIlIllE TllClUASJ.'I'UClI.I....o. _,m Wluw.oW.OEIIIITH,...o..FACS. IIDamooE 1lIC>WlOJ.1lOAl....0. IIDOI'" IlDNALD w um,...o. IIllI:1Dlm! lITlVtH.. WCU'....0. IlOO3<a JOHN R. FAANl<EH't.. 110. IIOOOOll2eE 0AEG0IlYA._...0. 1IOOm' JAllESAlIlAw....O. "l102II'12& ALEXANlEAICAWWC....o. """""" PAnEl(rSNAME..21.Mf'.A_d'lMA:11) DATE ~~/7s" ADDRESS IN ORDER FOR A BRAND NAME PRODUCT TO BE DISPENSED, THE PRESCRIBER MUS HANDWRITE. BRAND NECESSARY OR BRAND MEDICALLY NECESSARY IN THE SPACE BELO\'. E Pr REFILL: YES 0 ~~,~~~ 6Ul8~ PERMlSSlllU; II.D. 1100 1916l1l1NDLER,,~.CMlPHIU.,PA 11011 . 1'lJ1'01'LAR0IUR0f ROAD. CAMPHIU., PA 11011 <100 UNION DEPOSIT RD. STI. 130, IWUUSBURG. PA 17111 . COCOA" CJlO<:oU1EAVE: IIER.lHE'o: PA IlDJ) ... r OA~"'.IOYNtR."'o..AACS. ~ FllCIWlO Il HAUOQ(,,,,o. lIOCl224&5l! JAl4ESR.IlAl4SNER....O.FAC.S. _lIE WlWAllw, OEIIIITH, "'0. FACS, IlOOZ1gelIE IlDNALD w. um,...o. IIDCl3:lIo7& JONNR.FAANl<EH't.....o. __ ::::~7' 'l1~ff 7:''l'IJJJ.lf ADDRESS IN ORDER FOR A BRAND NAME PRODUCT TO BE DISPENSED, THE PRESCRIBER MUST HANDWRITE, BRAND NECESSARY OR BRAND MEDICALLY NECESSARY IN THE SPACE BELOW, E ~~) t}~~ fJf.: lfJ1Mi1U FllCIWlO J. PATlDI!ON. 110. JASON J.lITTON, "'0. TllClUAS J. 'I'UClI.I. 110. FllCIWlO J.IO.Il.IIo. lITlVtH .. WOlJ\ 110. 0AEG0IlY A. _110. AUX.\NoEA ICAWWC. "'0, DATE 'i1J-Jq~ IIOOleIu. U1X1lIwr 1ID01Z7X< II)QIS,ffU --I -'11 1IClOOolI.1 {J~p~ DOUGLAS A. B~AM, D.P.M. Podiauic Medicine &. Surgery 4740 Dclbrook Road Mcchanicsburg, PA 170~~ (717) 761.6862 July 21, 1997 Suite 201 . Medical Arts Building 233 College Avenue Lancaster, PA 17603 (717) 393-4~03 Michael Kosik 4503 N. Front street Harrisburg, PA 17110 RE: MARGARET "MAGGIE" MARTZ DATE OF ACCIDENT: 6/6/95. Dear..Mr. Kosik: I am writing in regards to Maggie Martz who we saw on December 27, 1996, for a painful plantar fasciitis of both heels. She states that she was in a car accident in 1995, and she sustained an injury to the bottom of her feet and was diagnosed at that time with plantar fasciitis. She had anti-inflammatory medications and orthotics treated previously by her orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Lippi, prior to our first office visit. She was still in pain with both heels at the time of our first appointment. She continued to have plantar fasciitis with exquisite pain on ambulation. She was unable to walk in any shoes for long periods of time without severe pain in both heels. We took x-rays at the time of our first visit and noted that she did have some heel spurs present. The heel spurs are not the cause of the pain, but they are the result of the continued plantar fasciitis. Our diagnosis at that time was plantar fasciitis that resulted from trauma back in 1995. We talked Maggie about her treatment options at that time. She had already been through a year of anti-inflammatory medications and orthotic management without relief. We therefore, opted to surgically release the plantar fascia through an endoscopic plantar fasciotomy. We placed her on Cataflam and we re-cvaluated her on January 3, 1997. She was not having any success with the medication and the orthotics. She decided at that time she would like to have the endoscopic procedure performed. She was then taken to Holy Spirit Hospital on the 31st of January to have an endoscopic plantar fasciotomy of the left foot. The surgery went without complication. She was seen in the office on the 7th of February for suture removal. She was given m , )C , :z: II iii :j " @ '-- g ~ I ~ g . :J: . I ,,'t~c~ ( , .. '" f1 ~ w .... 0<. OO~ -[ I~~ y:~~ ~~i'" 8 Ci ~~~ opp_ ~ ~~ _.0 g- o ... ~ -en o. oen np (~ en l* , ~ E' a'~ o-w ~.:, - W N 0\ f n ~ l; if en - VI o o en if a ::l ~ ~ ,~ tl:l ~ -oJ 0\ J:: IQ 00 00 IQ o VI W. n en l* 'II ~ :-n n o t""' JT1 n :: -oJ 0\ J:: ~ -oJ -oJ - - ~ u' o ::l en - 100 (') ~ ~ en 'f,! trl (') o . t'" '.. t'" trl 9 @ ~ trl 9 @ '0 ~ ~ . &~ :<'< ,:.... -oJ- , 0\ -' "'- \C'J \1') VlIQ VI g ~ (') t'" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ttl 00 ." E:: ......" o ~ N 9' - \0 Il:I VI $? . ~ l* 0 ~ o ..... o r. l* .!" - ,;-J - '0 \Q VI t'" ~ (') o t'" t'" ttl n ~ Cl - \Q \Q VI ~,\"(..'.'- '"P4.\:.....~..,'. ~"'\-f . . \'.""" ~ t"' rn ~ ~ f;j n n ~ ~ "g:'~ ~ ; E!:t'" 0,<,<.0 Ni ~ VlWC:: J:::':'~ ~oo~ g' ~ ~ n ...., v. VI ~ o............n 8.gj e:l1;~t'" en=-: o'P'tjijj .g vi CD -...).; f l* I e. ~ I E:: NZ i'Loz~ Y'o E:::>:lop" ,t::~ oO~en :otE 'm I.f~ ~:>~ ~OQE::~ ~ ~~08 ttl IQ3[8- en ~:r .01 N I - ,-oJ IQ \0 . 0\ g- o - .VI .~ ", \L> v, *" ~ tl:l 1i:l t'" ~ n .... ~ ~ en ~ :>:l tl:l ~ ...... en ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ enc:: en ~ ~ en en 0 t'" tl:l ~ .... t'" ~ 0 -< n en ~ >0 -< ~ as N ~ > ~ en ~ E:: tl:l ~ t""' c..m @ ~ n ~ > n i~ n 0 tl:l 0 ~~ > ~ ttl ~ ~ (') c:: t'" ~ t'" ~ ~ ttl Cl 'tj .... en ttl :$. ~ tl:l :>:l ~ 0 en en .... ~. ;;j 'Tl n .... 'Tl :><: en :>:l :>:l ~ @ I E:: 0 e- -oJ -oJ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ -oJ o 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ -oJ -oJ .... 0\ \Q \Q '" \0 '" 0\ ....IQ IQ \Q \0 IQ \Q \0 0\ \0 0\ 0 -oJ ~ -oJ ~ 9' en -oJ -oJ - - - ..., 'j.I ~ 0 , I ~ , 0' ~ I , .:, I . -oJ \0 N - III -oJ ..., - 00 w \Q \Q ..., - N - VI N '<i::l ..., w 0 VI - \Q 0 w IQ ..., - ~ - VI 0 N w IQ \Q VI \0 0 ~ 0\ VI ~ 0\ ~ N w 00 0 W 0\ N 0 w 00 VI g 'tj 0\ 0\ - \Q - 0\ ~ a -oJ 0\ '" 0\ -oJ VI -oJ '" IQ - f - .... - - - ~~ 0 0 - - .... 0 0 f w VI VI 0\ 00 0\ VI N - - -. \Q en n p1 p1 p1 > 0 n ~ n ~ p1 ~ ttl f- 0 [ :g El [ [ [ (') 8 E:: n E:: - [ [ n 8 0 0 n- III 8 - ~ 0 a. 0 a. ~ ~ ~ co ::l en < 0 :>:l C'l .. t"1 00: :L_ - tIl - n n r t' t'> C-, r.., " .. r. :' f' f' :. '1 t.~ f' -. I' f' - ". ~ m VJ tIl .m en p :-0 l* l* - - l* v hUf'-l .- .",-,. +- 00 n ~ t"" ~ ..... 00 ~. ~ t"" c: oonl 0 0 c: ~ 00 .... ! 00 ~ ~ 00' n ~ 'T1 nO-< o-j n . oo~ '0 r' ~ r' h c::n'T1 'Otr1 tl:lf/l> o :>l ;' o'~' l~~ g~~ l~ n 0.,., ~ 8 -go 00 ,::E ~ ~0 . [- fa ~ l't.B.n ~B.::l ~ t"" nO<l~ ~ ~~ Illtl:lO n _.S'1 ~ 8' ta .s -'Iii 0 :-: an . ... ~ .... n .... p'... 'g is' f/l>~ "tIlil O<lo-j ~ .. ~ 'T1 "'f/l> ~~ ~ ~. ~ It ... o-j~-..l g. c::'" 0\ '< -..l n 0\ 0\ -..l ~ -..l ~i -..l 0\ 0\ ::1'9\ 0\ if \0 lJQ~\O \0 0\ 0\ \0 - 'T' O<l 'T' ... -..l f/l> . 'j'I ~ 'T' z: %: t:;; ~ ~ . '" ~ 0...... -..l o \0 \0 l:INN -..l !}~'" \0 -..l 0 ~ [~ s ~ ~ 0.......0 N 0 w 0 8.' w 0 O[~ N -..l 00 -..l n '" 0\ .n ~ [if n If.. '" f/l> .;.. -..l p.,:t ~ .;.. -..l W -..l . ~~ \0 .... ... ~ ~ 0 ... .... 0 ... ... N 0 00 '" 0 0\ \0 ... ... tr1 n 0 n n n 0 tr1 6' 8'n tr1 0 - 8 El. [ II> 0 0 El ... g ::: n n n [ n n - b: ~ .~.. $[- a. ~ IJ 0 0 ~ ~ -. ~ 0 0 l:I < 00 < - 00 00 00 Q -00 ~ n r+ - r+ r+ o r+ 00 00 ~ 00 r+ r+ r+ n ~ " ~~ 0 .... tr1 i!; I -..l ... \0 '? \0 w .,.. '" ~ ~ ~. ::I en .~ - 8 - ~.' I C\I C\I S1 8: '~ ~ cO.~ .E 'J !i , l i .t~'ll " .,.~ ! j " t")". . 3 E ~ '~' i !! . 'I . . '. .. o .. d '" 3:::, '., : .;-. , ". '. ~ '.- . ',-' " " ~ .' , ,~ :,,::,,~:, .. , . -;.~-;." ;'>'~:'-:':" :t'.~., -. J'.'- ~, ,';..- ,;,..Cr,'.; "':S\. . -.',... : .: ~- .-~. .. '~',,' ",.' '". ...... ;jY."l\'~" ~;< j ~-;~~;:~'~,;~.\\S,~ ,- -, . .~ " ,c" -.-~~ . '. . . ,. , ~ ~ Iii =i '. .' . ~ , . .' " " . .' n't, : ........ I I I I\I~ ;);) .c ~ ;) ;) C1l C1l ~'< C1l CD III III g g ~. iil C' C' . 0 0 1ii < :l < < C1l 0 C1l C1l 'tl 8 . U' et r ~ iii' Z" 6~... :J: '. '" 0 - - - >z '" .- "I:l .."t....#O..~ cnin R-CovQ\ tzl c: 'tl Q~~ii! 0 m - ~~Q6 n <- ~~ ~ o"c:(;; S:;O" Ji--< :ll@~Q~ < ll':::l 1ii O>CIl:o> i! iieL~ ~~c:~J:l ~ -<.:::J .. Fi~J:l~ ::! 0...... 0 ""0 ' or o. ~ ;;;9... 0 z ~ EU 7' ..... ::Prc:I: "l t1 g ~ '^ !lI~"'J= "I:l . C1l eJ en,,:J: ~ 0. o ~~F~ z . lXl~o,J en ~C~O 0< -~::;= R ....0 0.._ ;.; ~>- z :::; - > s:: !:l .' . Orthopcd' r ' 875 PO~~'R n~~~~,~.,7f PA CAMP Hill pI: ',':: RD. , '" I JII ..~ ERIE, ~III"" ""....,..;...... B~a'.~~ Jtfl\:' . .aeo~ I.ou.se C, . I=l~ssmoyne Cl.:Sr"oass Cl!n1er . P.O. Box 2013 . Mecnan,cs::,,'g. PA :i05:.C:"~ (7'il ig5.8200 . TO!i ;:'ee From PennsylvanIa Only 1.800.382.130.1 . Fax (717) 795.23 IS PHYSICAL CAPACITIES EVALUATION .' Date: 'D1:c.. 14 , IqQS Your Patient: Mo.r,go.re+ Mo.rti:. Date of Injury': tclL>lqS Claim Number: 010110 I Lo44lD I IMPORTANT: PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS BASED ON YOUR EVALUATION OF THE PATIENT AND OTHER TEST RESULTS. ANY ITEM YOU ARE UNABLE TO ANSWER SHOULD BE MARKED N/A (Not Answerable) 1) In an 8 hour day, patient can: sit: "7 <-- Number of Hours Stand: "" \ Number of Hours Walk: <-I Number of Hours 2 ) Patient can lift: RARELY (1-3%) Up to 10 lbs. 11 - 20 lb~. 21 - 50 lbs. 51 - 100 lDs. NO RESTRICTIONS: 3 ) Patient can use hands Right -L Yes No Left + Yes No 4 ) Patient is able to: Bend: Climb : Kneel: Reach: Stoop: OCCASIONALLY (4-33%) 0< FREQUENTLY (34-66%) for repetitive . Thl$8 Recor~s .:e not to be IN/I/ased v,uhaut act~on :written S..t..tiJ"". feG~I" ...Io:u, .tale confidenliality laws may apply. RARELY OCCASIONALLY 'X :I< ~ .')'- FREQUENTLY . . ...... Patienl'S name ATTENDING PHYSICIAN'S SUPPL.EMENTARY STATEMENT //}rr" -t 105.1 Nature of alckness or Injury. (Describe complicaUons. II any.) Describe any olher dlseasas ar Infirmity aHecllng present condlUon. . Give dales af !realments (since 'last repart). . .. . 'Is paUent sUII under your care lor this candiUon? II discharged; giva dale. How long was or will paUant be canllnuausly lolally disabled (unabla lor work)? How lang was ar will pallent be partially disabled? If slcknass, was pallent confined to the hause? (If .Vas," give dates.) ;tre'et'Address,# ;"::'I'.!&: i. .., ....,~ i" I .1. ,. ...... ... Office Home Hospital es Dale From From .s-,:--t. Dyes (LJ.No- From Degree ~~~ne J 1771/ / rt":J. Area : exChange No. /.17c,.&: Cr- e ., C"S'~ ;.'t::. . ,,, . Cil}l or Town' , /I,cc, ~ 71; /, J; ? ,19_ ,192L.thraugh :Y.-.'~..........7L ,19~ ,19_through ,19 ,19_thrau9h ,19_ Individual I ~ PracUUaners-5.S. # All Others ". C} 3 e:Jf:J t./..3/,:r '1 Emplayer 1.0. # , _ Must be lurnished under authority of law. ..... / ~'5J'- ZIP Ccde Stale or Pravlnce O~i ~" t" .: i i 'i' '.0,: '..:.~'. i : '." . .. . ....': I I I r 't I" ,. ~I",-t /l'fl'lL ... .) , {Vi if; 1/: l d \- 11::,[.'; OJ.J , /IL"I It h., /'" I J",,,- <'~ , ,. '!l..,Ni+JJ Dr THE COURT OP CCMMell PT...EP.S :jU(~fl!' GOtTilT'! J n~r!-rSY.r}!A:lI.1l. ,'j , / . .}.'7 ("I' L I <)');/. rIa. (.." > I I I I ~J j , !..c..l(2t[ t. f,-~CdC I . jk:,{t'I' (f<.,..t NOTICE OF APPEAL !"ROM ATIlABJ; OF !:OARD OP A.l1EIT:lJ1.TORS TO 'r~ ?ROTF.CNCTARY: ~'If) I ' Notice is gillen t~t "Oe,''[ 2' heW a;rpeals froe tl":e award of tl":e board of arbitrators entered 1r. this case on 'j)C'CCI?,bClY' '/-, /'F)Y A jury trial is demanded N (0l".eak:!.. CJlt if' a JU!'y t:,ial ~s demanded. Ct~I"..r1se jury trial is ~ffii'led.) I hereb:r cert1f:r that (1) tb.e compensation of' the arbi';rators c.as been paid J or (2) application ~s been ~de for permission ~o proceed 1r. forma. pauperis. (Stri~<e out t~/r~;i:~~b.~~jl:~:-=~ . /~~/. '--,j//, /'C' /--- , 1:;: / ,;/,/ .--// ..' / P, .," [--.--...- 0.- . ~ --=--L-. F ..... .___ ~-;/ or At't'O;,.. --r;;r Ao-cellent / ~...:CB1 ~o . . ,--- freT.::: Tr.e. demand for jury trial on appeal from ~omuulsory arbitration is ~cuerned by Rule i007.1 (b). - (b) No a.ffida '11 t or 1J'eri:'icat ion '!os rec;u ired. /