The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About97-01939 ~ i . >-.. ~ ... ~ ~ ') ~ . ~ q ~ (J .., V"'?,.'.;. W') A.r~~:'/ /("" ~)- . J (' 'l.. ~ ..... . . .:) ... <::; , ,\(1 t- .--' ..- Q'- - '0- ~ .-....... ~) ." ./ ""..- #28 OLER i I I I I, I, ! TRUDY WICKARD and TODD WICKARD, wife and husband, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JOHN MICHAEL HAILEY, Defendant No. 97-1939 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE A pretrial conference was held in the chambers of Judge Oler in the above-captioned case on Wednesday, August 26, 1998. Present (by telephone, with the permission of the Court) on behalf of plaintiffs was Ronald M. Graham, Esquire. Present on behalf of Defendant was John M. Popilock, Esquire, standing in for Stephen D. Geduldig, Esquire, who will be trying the case. This is a negligence action for personal injuries arising out of a motor vehicle accident on october 14, 1995, on Pennsylvania State Route 944 in Lower Frankford Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Defendant John Michael Hailey allegedly crossed the center line and struck the oncoming truck of Plaintiff Trudy Wickard, who purportedly suffered injuries as a result. Plaintiff Todd Wickard sues for loss of consortium. Pursuant to stipulations which have been filed in this case, Defendant Family Ford Mercury, Inc., has been dismissed from the case, and plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages against the remaining Defendant has been withdrawn. This will be a jury trial in which each side will have four peremptory challenges, for a total of eight. The estimated duration of this trial is as much as three days. To the extent that any videotaped depositions or other depositions are to be shown or read to the jury and ,,-' ~. contain objections which require rulings by the Court, counsel are directed to furnish transcripts of such depositions to the Court at least three days prior to the commencement of the trial term in which this case is tried, with the areas of objection being highlighted and with brief memoranda in support of their respective positions. Pursuant to a request of Plaintiffs' counsel, Defendant is directed to secure prior approval from the trial court before eliciting evidence concerning an assault which was inflicted upon Plaintiff Trudy Wickard approximately a year prior to the accident in this case. The trial judge's ruling on this evidentiary matter will depend upon the state of the evidentiary record at the point the request is made. Plaintiffs have, through their counsel, promised to promptly provide to Defendant the latest office notes and other recent materials which exist from the treating surgeon in this case. In the event that information is not promptly received by Defendant, the Court will entertain a request for a continuance of the trial if Defendant deems the same necessary. Defendant's request made at the pretrial conference for a continuance at this time is denied as premature. with respect to settlement negotiations, Plaintiffs have demanded the sum of $135,000.00, and Defendant has offered the sum of $70,000.00. RONALD GRAHAM, ESQUIRE For the Plaintiffs By Court Administrator JOHN M, POPILOCK, ESQUIRE For the Defendant wcy '. .' dismissed with prejudice from the case, and Plaintiffs' claim for punitive damages against the remaining Defendant will be withdrawn. This will be a jury trial in which each side will have four peremptory challenges for a total of eight. The estimated duration of this trial is as much as three days. .'''' To the extent that any videotape depositions or other depositions are to be shown or read to the jury and contain objections which require rulings by the Court, counsel are directed to furnish transcripts of such depositions to the Court at least three days prior to the commencement of the trial term in which this case is tried, with the areas of objection being highlighted and with brief memoranda in support of their respective positions. With respect to settlement negotiations, Plaintiffs at present are not specifying a demand figure. By separate Order of Court a request for a continuance of trial in this matter on behalf of the Plaintiffs based upon recent surgery performed upon Trudy Wickard will be granted, and counsel will be requested to re-list the case for trial during the september term of court. .,.' By the Court, J(" RONALD M. GRAHAM, ESQUIRE GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. 1136 Summerwood Drive Harrisburg, PA 17111 For the Plaintiff STEPHEN E. GEDULDIG, ESQUIRE - appearing for LISA J. MAUER, ESQUIRE THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 For the Defendants . c1' ~ "'........ 9--..,{ ''(21)1'\& Court Administrator :lkt " "" ~ n ,,':, C'") r.:; :.') .., , i' "0""; ., - '. .1.4-, '. , .- 1,-_'~ , '. (..':- ," "-!CJ L; "":cS r~ ~ ::~ ~. "n \< , -;:-0 ... C':C1 ":;:l.. , ~_.'1 (.)rn ~ . ~~ _oj :::-. :.Ii -- IX> -< 1\ I. TRUDY and TODD WICKARD, Plaintiffs v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW JOHN MICHAEL HAILEY and FAMILY FORD MERCURY, INC.,: Defendants : 97-1939 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 17th day of June, 1996, upon consideration of an oral motion for a continuance of trial in this matter made at a pre-trial conference by Ronald M. Graham, Esquire, on behalf of Plaintiffs, and Defendant's counsel, Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire, having indicated that he will not object to the continuance in light of the ,.. ; \"." dismissal of the action against Family Ford Mercury, Inc., which has been agreed upon, the Plaintiffs' motion for a continuance is granted, and counsel are directed to re-list the case for the September Term of Court if either wishes it to be tried during that term. By the Court, I ' < , RONALD M. GRAHAM, ESQUIRE GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. 1136 Summerwood Drive Harrisburg, PA 17111 For the Plaintiff " Court Administrator :!2~~;=L~~ STEPHEN E. GEDULDIG, ESQUIRE - appearing for LISA J. MAUER, ESQUIRE THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 For the Defendants :lkt 0 v., (") ~~.. ~J -II '..., "J :qi ~.I , <i.X! ,-"., " , , , r.) ,'n , ;CJ " c. . :,') ..~ ~;\ .: ~.) .. ,In ..' ~:~ I ~"J :;1 - .-1 ...:. ./ . ~ CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO , MAUER, BY: LISA J. MAUER, ESQUIRE Attorney 1.0. 65426 The Commons at Valley Forge Suite Seven, P.O. BOK 987-23 Valley Forge, Pennsylvania 19482 (610) 933-3333 P.c. Attorney for Plaintiff(s) TRUDY AHD TODD WICKARD, husband and wife, 479 Pine Grove Road Gardners, PA 17324 Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA. vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW .JOHN MICHAEL HAILEY 1('l"1 Harriet street Carlisle, PA 17013 NO. (f7 -- / 131 r2A--tKL, and F&~ILY FORD MERCURY, INC. c/o CT Corp. Systems 1633 Market Street ?hiladelphia, PA 19103 Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED "OTICE TO IlEFE:>i1l .:illY!l!Q Y"!l hll"'-: 10,:-:.1 \UClt in Cuun. IfYllu wid'! III d~lelld againlllhc claims .iel i:m:, in Lilt,; tj)l!nwillg ra~(I. lnu mUhl take Il:linn within lwenty (20) 11:.)'\ :roller Itis CU'llplaint nnFJ 11.llicC' arc served. hy cr.tcrinll' a wnllen :IJ1p:::trallrr.llt:fll\)I\.:lIl)' ur h)' aItC\11IC'Y and filing in writing with dIe court :'\lU: li~rcr'~cs llr l.hJc..liiln!i In the ~'Jail11\ set forth again51 you. You an: warned Ihal if yuu rail tn dn 50 the case may proceed without you and a judllmcnl may he cnlcl"(d Ilj:ainll you hy the court wilhoul further !ll'I:.'C fur :Ul'v mlllle)' claimed inlhc ~umpJainl or for any other claim or ..dic:f t'I:';I.~'I..d h) th~ Il'aintiff. \\\U lI'<'Iy lut.r. mOlley ur prorerty ur .'t:l.:r ri.dl\1l im;'lt'r111ll11'~ )nn. l.e han demanadn, ulled en I, corte. Si ustcd quiere defendene de ella.. demandas CXpucSlas en lal pagina. aiguientel, ullcd liene veinle (20) diu de pll1-o .1 partir dc la fechl de la demanda y la nOlifk.cillll. Haec falla ascnlu una com parend. cserila 0 en penona 0 con un abogadu y entregar a la corte en fnnna escrila IUI defenus 0 IUI objeetioocl a las demandal en conlra de IU penonl. Sea Ivisado que si usted no Ie dcliendc. la corte tomara medid.. y puede continuar I. demand. en ,"unln luya ail, previo ....110 () notilicacion. Ademas. I. corte puedc dccidir. favnr del demandanle y rcquierc que usled cumpll cnn Ind.1 I.. provisi,mcl de csla demand.. Ullcd puedc penter dinem n '1.11 pmpicdades U I1lma derenehos iml'ortAntcl pint ulled. YOl' .;HOU'_DTAKlTHIS ~,\PF.RTOYOUR LAWVERATONCE. IF VOl' [)I) NUl' HWE A I.AWYER OR CANNOT AFFORIl ONE, "" Tn (" TEI.EPHONE '1HE OFHCE SET FORTH nELOW TO mm OUT WHERE YOU ("AN GET LEGAl. HEI.P, LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOOADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO 'IlENE ABUOADO 0 Sf NO 'IlENE EL D1NERO SUFICIENTE DE PAOAR TAl. SERVICIO. VA V A EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINAA CUV A DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRIT A ABAlO PARA A VERIGUAA DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. COURT ADMINISTRATOR Fourth Floor Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 240-6200 , I i I I I CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROBATO & MAUER, P.C. BY: LISA J. MAUER, ESQUIRE Attorney 1.0. 65426 The Commons at Valley Forge Suite Seven, P.O. Box 987-23 Valley Forge, Pennsylvania 19482 (610) 933-3333 Attorney for Plaintiff(s) TRUDY WICKARD AND TODD WICKARD, Wife and Husband, 479 Pine Grove Road Gardners, PA 17324 Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA. VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 9<1- /'/J 'I ~ - /L,u''-' JOliN MICHAEL HAILEY 1017 Harriet Street Carlisle, PA 17013 and FAMILY FORD MERCURY, INC. c/o CT Corp, Systems 1635 Market street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiffs, Trudy and Todd WiCkard, being wife and husband, are adult individuals who reside at 479 Pine Grove Road, Gardners, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17324. 2. At all times material hereto, Defendant, John Michael Hailey, is an adult individual who resides at 1017 Harriet street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 3. Upon information and belief, at all times material hereto, Defendant, Family Ford Mercury, Inc., is a Delaware corporation authorized to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal place of business at 170 York Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013. 4. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Family Ford Mercury, Inc., was the owner of the vehicle operated by Defendant, John Michael Hailey. COUNT ONE - NEGLIGENCE TRUDY WICKARD V. JOHN MICHAEL HAILEY 5. Paragraphs 1 through 4 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 6. On or about October 14, 1995, at or about 8:18 p,m. Plaintiff, Trudy Wickard, driving a 1991 Ford truck, was travelling eastbound on state Route 944. 7. At said time and place, Defendant, John Michael Hailey, was operating a 1990 Ford truck, which was travelling westbound on state Route 944 when he crossed over the center line and collided with Plaintiff, Trudy Wickard's, vehicle. 8. Defendant, John Michael Hailey, acted with a gross and reckless indifference to the rights and safety of others, including Plaintiff, Trudy Wickard, and was reckless, negligent and careless in the operation of said motor vehicle for the following reasons which innlude, but are not limited to: a, failure to properly operate, mallage and control said motor vehicle; b. disregarding the rights, safety and position of other drivers on the road, including Plaintiff, Trudy Wickard; c. failure to operate said motor vehicle with due care for the rights and safety of Plaintiff, Trudy Wickard; d. failure to keep a proper lookout; e, failure to abide by the statutes of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted for the protection of drivers, such as Plaintiff, including 75 P.S. 53731, 3714 and 3309; 2 I I I 11. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, John Michael Hailey's, recklessness, negligence and carelessness plaintiff, Trudy Wickard, has been in the past, and may continue to be in the future, unable to attend to her usual habits, customs, vocations and enjoyment of life. 12. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, John Michael Hailey's, recklessness, negligence and carelessness Plaintiff, Trudy Wickard, has been in the past, and may continue to be in the future, required to undergo medical treatment and procedures. 13. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, John Michael Hailey's, recklessness, negligence and carelessness Plaintiff, Trudy Wickard, has been in the past, and may continue to be in the future, required to expend various sums of money for medicine and medical treatment and procedures as a result of her injuries, 14. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant, John Michael Hailey's, recklessness, negligence and carelessness plaintiff, Trudy Wickard, has been unable to attend to some or all of her occupations and, therefore, has in the past and may in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Trudy Wickard, hereby demands judgment in her favor and against Defendant, John Michael Hailey, in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional amount requiring arbitration referral by local rule in compensatory damages, plus punitive damages, for Defendant's outrageous misconduct and reckless indifference to Plaintiff, Trudy Wickard's, rights and safety, plus costs and interest. 4 COUNT II - NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT TRUDY WICKARD V. FAMILY FORD MERCURY. INC. 15. Paragraphs 1 through 14 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 16. Defendant, John Michael Hailey, was operating said vehicle at said time and place within the scope of the consent of Defendant, Family Ford Mercury, Inc. 17. Defendant, Family Ford Mercury, Inc., recklessly, negligently and carelessly entrusted their automobile to Defendant, John Michael Hailey, when they knew or should have known that Defendant, John Michael Hailey, was a careless and reckless motor vehicle operator so as to present an unreasonable risk of harm to others upon the highway, including Plaintiff, Trudy Wickard, 18. Defendant, Family Ford Mercury, Inc., was negligent, careless and reckless in permitting Defendant, John Michael Hailey, to operate said vehicle without placing limitations on its use, including driving under the influence of alcohol. 19. Defendant, Family Ford Mercury, Inc., was negligent, careless and recklessly indifferent to the rights and safety of others, including Plaintiff, Trudy Wickard, in failing to train and instruct Defendant, John Michael Hailey, on the safe operation of said vehicle, which was operated with the consent of Defendant, Family Ford Mercury, Inc., at the time of this accident. 20. Defendant, Family Ford Mercury, Inc., was reckless, negligent and careless in failing to devise, maintain and implement a policy governing the safe operation of its motor vehicles. 21. As a direct and proximate result of the recklessness, negligence and carelessness of Defendant, Family Ford Mercury, Inc., 5 Plaintiff, Trudy Wickard, suffered severe personal injuries and other damages as set forth herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Trudy Wickard, hereby demands judgment in her favor and against Defendant, Family Ford Mercury, Inc., in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional amount requiring arbitration referral by local rule in compensatory damages, plus puni ti ve damages, for Defendant, Family Ford Mercury, Inc.'s, reckless indifference to Plaintiff, Trudy Wickard's, rights and safety, plus costs and interest. COUNT III - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM TODD WICKARD VS. FAMILY FORD MERCURY. INC. AND JOHN MICHAEL HAILEY 22. Plaintiff, Todd Wickard, incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 21 as though set forth herein at length. 23. As a direct and proximate result of the injuries to Plaintiff, Trudy Wickard, Plaintiff, Todd Wickard, has been and may continue to be compelled to expend monies for medical treatment and medicines in an effort to cure his wife, 24. As a direct and proximate result of the injuries to Plaintiff, Trudy Wickard, Plaintiff, Todd Wickard, has been and may continue to be compelled to expend monies for hiring help to perform the duties of the household previously performed by his wife. 25, As a direct and proximate result of the injuries to Plaintiff, Trudy Wickard, Plaintiff, Todd Wickard, has been and may continue to be deprived of his wife's aid, comfort, society, companionship and affection. 26. As a direct and proximate result of the injuries to Plaintiff, Trudy Wickard, Plaintiff, Todd Wickard, has suffered and may continue to 6 1 f r suffer from his wife's loss of earnings and/or earning capacity, and may in the future suffer from her loss of earnings and/or earning capacity. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Todd Wickard, hereby demands judgment in his favor and against Defendants, Family Ford Mercury, Inc. and John Michael Hailey, in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional amount requiring arbitration referral by local rule. CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO & MAUER, P.C. Date: / ~.I By: I, L~ 'Lisa J, M Attorney' ,D. 65426 The Commons at Valley Forge suite Seven, PO Box 987 Valley Forge, PA 19482 (610) 933-3333 Attorney for Plaintiff(s) 7 VERIFICATION I, TRUDY WICKARD, hereby state that I am the Plaintiff in this Action and verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Jw~ ~m.uL TRUDY WICK RD Date: ~Qp 9-.. ~ G. Dl c:... ~ - <D .... ~ '>0 r:o-- r ..0 0:') c:4 -' " C3 ~f ~.:'W rOt, -,., --I .,' ~I or:. . J .,-r:J -. ,'j'- ., r;; -' .. ;'6 ~1 ..t::::-- r.~': .,:,- -~ j -;, ~ ~\C'.....- ....... ::.: ,:!] .~ '. )C") ~>. =:? ""- )in ('0 ,::1 ~ .. :,,) j, (,) ...; \': )~.~ ,~'". -= ' . .':';1 I.e.": ~:'E~:\ r:'''..'.''~\\J '1\ :\ " Q',::'"i\\\' La r'.. ),').':f-, ~:,- :.::. ~.,' - ~"j :;~'I:_:c"~~l,~J ~-... }~;," '-;-~" -" l',r ,,';";i_. t. ': ;< -.j, ,,-'. "~,:t; ,~..-, ;; ~,:(~L.. ~ ~ ~--,.. ::>~ ~S,'>~ ~~ I~':~J~ .~, Cf' a ~~lr;,: . ~~;~i:~,,~::',:,~:', , "" ., -~' :,;; ~..:::~: .~; ~ J 'f~'::/ "i.l itf:;;',.~~ .' ~'l ~'ci :... .,t'). :e' ~'a:l/;:,: .::~..1In- %,';.," c' g ,.:;:; ... ;"; t: . "'.~;~\; Q ~ . i~;:'-) <,',,- r",~~:,-'-"~',~" ,.,:,;'. i;':, ,;- _ ~" . c_ " " - \ -~ . " :.',::~:-j(~:~~s'i'~::;::-: ,:_ :" e:. -, .,~, ....... '," - "~"?;-','i::FF<>;" . .,';~. ,,'. '(' - .'~ ., , .~.' ,-.', '.,' "'.-"" " "~,>:'" ;<~;:., . '",-. .'- < -"'. .~:';\~~~h..; ~"'. ,:;.,) ..~;:-.'~ -'.~ '.~~\r;-,~~ ~_' .... ..' 'f.'.'" "; .. "",.,; .' ~~; ":'.' .' -";" f,- ;:,",-:r r -,~- ::' .'-.I_-:"-''',"-;'.i'f>-'-.h-~:-'U.;1~~;.~ - :~;:,~~j~l~::!: '., ; ~~>:. P. _ ".'. " _ ~ -or '" . ,~~. . .- ,.~ ;..', ::":.". ~, , :, ' . "'''~T;,:_:~ ,'_ ".' '"''I: ~' .- ',. ",:.;.',:,." ,)..~.:~~~-;.> ;,;H.!~!!l.>..,.: ~, ,. .:, ;. ~ i ~ ~',.~ .- - . . , :;'-:,-:.I;}:,;-,. P ,.:: .<.F::,;',. '.~ " " 6~:~-l-~ i;: :{;~. i '. i,....,y:.~-\,:.-.. " :\~.{~~;:::::':i'. ----,--~-- --- -,' ,....,.. ',',c,'.' '" ';i ~ , :-";". '''':.1;' 't."' ~j.\1-Tf;..i..',. ':'- ,,. ""',' -. ',-' THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER 8Y: Staphan E. Gaduldig. Esquire 10ENT~ICATlON NO,: 43530 305 Narlh rronl Strlll P,O, 801 899 ""riIbUlB. PA 171080999 I11n 237.7119 Attorneys for Oelandents TRUDY and TODD WICKARD, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 97-1939 JOHN MICHAEL HAILEY and FAMILY CIVIL ACTION - LAW FORD MERCURY, INC., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, this day of , 1997, upon consideration of Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint, said Preliminary Objections are GRANTED and the punitive damage claims from Count I and Count II of Plaintiffs' Complaint is/are hereby stricken. BY THE COURT: J. THOMAS, THOMAS 8< HAFER BY: Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire IDENTIFICATION NO, 43530 305 North Fro"t SIIII' p,O, BOI B99 Hllrilburg, PA 171080999 17171 237.7119 Attorneys for Oelendenls TRUDY and TODD WICKARD, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 97-1939 JOHN MICHAEL HAILEY and FAMILY CIVIL ACTION - LAW FORD MERCURY, INC., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT I. MOTION TO STRIKE - COUNT I 1. This is a personal injury action arising from an automobile accident which occurred on October 14, 1995, on SR 944. 2. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this matter on April 14, 1997. The Complaint alleges that Defendant Hailey crossed the center line and sideswiped Plaintiffs' vehicle. 3. Count I - Neqliqence states a negligence claim against Defendant John Michael Hailey, including an allegation that he was driving under the influence of alcohol. 4. The ad damnum clause following Count I contains a claim for punitive damages. 5. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to aver sufficient facts to support a claim for punitive damages against Defendant John Michael Hailey. 6. Defendant requests that this court enter an Order striking the punitive damage claim from Count I of the Plaintiffs' Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendants, John Michael Hailey and Family Ford Mercury, Inc., respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant Defendants' Preliminary Objections and strike the punitive damage claims from Count I of Plaintiffs' Complaint. II. MOTION TO STRIKE - COUNT II 7. Paragraphs 1-6 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. S. Count II - Neqliqent entrustment purports to state a claim of negligent entrustment against Family Ford Mercury, Inc. 9. The ad damnum clause following Count II contains a claim for punitive damages. 10. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to aver sufficient facts to support a claim for punitive damages against Defendant Family Ford Mercury, Inc. 11. Defendant requests that this court enter an Order striking the punitive damage claim from Count I of the Plaintiffs' Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendants, John Michael Hailey and Family Ford Mercury, Inc., respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, STEPHEN E. GEDULDIG, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document on the following person by placing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, on this 23rd day of May, 1997: Lisa J. Mauer, Esquire CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO & MAUER, P.C. The Commons at Valley Forge, Suite Seven P.O. Box 987-23 Valley Forge, PA 19482 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER By: Stephen E. ,1:;e. CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO , HAUER, P.C. BYI LISA J. HAUER, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. 65426 The Commons at Valley Forge suite Seven, P.O. Box 987-23 Valley Forge, Pennsylvania 19482 (610) 933-3333 Attorney for Plaintiff(s) ! TRUDY AND TODD WICKARD, husband and wife, Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA. I I l ,.. vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JOHN MICHAEL HAILEY NO. 97-1939 and FAMILY FORD MERCURY, INC. Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT I. MOTION TO STRIKE - COUNT I .. r 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this matter on April 14, 1997 and that said Complaint alleges that Defendant Hailey crossed the center line and sideswiped Plaintiffs' vehicle. It is denied that Plaintiffs' Complaint only alleges that Defendant Hailey crossed the center line and sideswiped Plaintiffs' vehicle. To the contrary, Plaintiffs' Complaint also alleges that, inter alia, Defendant recklessly operated said motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content in excess of .20; recklessly attempted to operate a motor vehicle at a time when Defendant was not physically capable of operating a motor vehicle; failed to abide by the statutes of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted for the protection of drivers, such as Plaintiff, including 75 P.S. 53731, 3714 and 3309; recklessly operated said motor vehicle at an inappropriate and/or excessive rate of speed under the circumstances; and recklessly crossed the center line of the highway. 3 , Admitted, 4. Admitted. 5. Denied. Answering Plaintiff is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. To the contrary, Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges sufficient facts to support a claim for punitive defenses against Defendant, John Michael Hailey. 6. Denied. Plaintiffs specifically deny that this Court should enter an Order striking the punitive damage claim from Count I of Plaintiffs' Complaint. To the contrary, Plaintiffs request that this Court allow Plaintiffs' punitive damage claim to proceed to trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Todd and Trudy Wickard, respectfully request that Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint be overruled and Defendants' request to strike the punitive damage claims from Count I of Plaintiffs' Complaint be denied. II. KOTION TO STRIKE - COUNT II 7. No response required. B. Admi tted. 9. Admitted. 10. Denied. Answering Plaintiff is advised by counsel and, therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material, To the contrary, Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges sufficient facts to support a claim for punitive defenses against Defendant, Family Ford Mercury, Inc. 11. Denied. Plaintiffs specifically deny that this Court should enter an Order striking the punitive damage claim from Count II [sic) of Plaintiffs' Complaint. To the contrary, Plaintiffs request that this Court allow Plaintiffs' punitive damage claim to proceed to trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Todd and Trudy Wickard, respectfully request that Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint be overruled and Defendants' request to strike the punitive damage claims from Counts I and II of Plaintiffs' Complaint be denied. CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO & MAUER, P.C. By: Date: III - q-91 au , Esquire 1.D. 65426 for Plaintiff(s) r ; ...... --, ._~ , , ] r '.) - i ... .. .., r. -'J , , " .' ! ." , . ..- -, PR~ECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY I Please list the within matter for the next Argument court. ,'..... CAPTION OF CASE: (entire caption must be stated in full) TRUDY WICKARD AND TODD WICKARD (Plaintiff) ., vs. JOHN MICHAEL HAILEY AND FAMILY FORD MERCURY (Defendant) vs. No. 1939 19.2L i I I.. b I I , i I I i I I I ! ci vB 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Motion to Compel Plaintiff Trudy Wickard to attend an IME 2. Identify counsel who will argue case: for plaintiff: Lisa J. Mauer, Esquire Address: The Commons at Valley Forge, Suite 7, P.O. Box 987-23 f d f Valltey Forge, PA 19482 or e enaan . Address: Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire 305 North Front Street, P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case. been listed for argument. (a) (b) 4. Argument Court Date: October 1, 1997 Dated: Attorney for Defendant John Michael Hafley and Family Ford Mercury, Inc. (") >D (') c:.: ._J -n .~, ~" ':1 'rl 1:T1 r, '0 ,'- -,tOn ,fJ , ,(, ~ I ~ " . ~ ", - ~ .0-1 .;( ) r ~~ . ~ rll u <. ~ ~;'1 . -< PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court. CAPTION OF CASE: (entire caption must be stated in full) TRUDY WICKARD AND TODD WICKARD (Plaintiff) VS. FAMILY FORD MERCURY AND JOHN MICHAEL HAILEY (Defendant) VS. No. 1939 Ci vil 1997 19 97 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 2. Identify counsel who will argue case: (a) for plaintiff: Lisa J. Mauer Esquire Address: P.O. Box 987-23, Valley Forge, PA 19482 for defendant: Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Address: 305 North Front Street, P.O. Box 999, harrisburg, PA 17108 (bl 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case a been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: December 10, 1997 Dated: (04(17 ~.=i At torney for Defendants I I " .. 0 ~ 0 .'" _I -,. _.. ..... r? :::1 -r;t"'i n 1 :11 rill -.0\ ,- I .,,"n .', ~ ('") ," , ' ..~O I .. .-,:, '~ ,~( ) ",'.1 - -'ir" r , :;: ~I ~,- :..:.' "" :Or' , ,,' '< -, " THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER BY, Stephen E. Geduldig, Esqulru IOENTUICATlON NO~ 43530 305 Norlh Fronl SU"I P.O. BOl 999 H.nilbur9, PA 171080999 17171 23J.7119 AlIorneys for Oefendents I ~ r i TRUDY and TODD WICKARD, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 97-1939 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. JOHN MICHAEL HAILEY and FAMILY FORD MERCURY, INC., Defendants DEFENDANTS', FAMilY FORD MERCURY, INC. AND JOHN MICHAEL HAilEY, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1. On October 14, 1995, Defendant John M. Halley ("Hailey"), a mechanic employed at Family Ford Mercury, Inc. ("Family Ford"), after asking General Manager, Kirk Wise, for permission, and then later receiving It, borrowed a used 1991 Ford pickup truck from the Family Ford lot. Hailey took the truck for a test drive because he was thinking about purchasing it. 2. Later that evening, Defendant Hailey was involved in an automobile accident with the Plaintiffs, Todd and Trudy Wickard. It is undisputed that Hailey was not in the course and scope of his employment at the time of the accident. 3. As a result of this accident, the Plaintiffs, Trudy and Todd Wickard, brought this civil suit, by filing a Complaint on April 14, 1997. .' " , 4. Plaintiffs' theory of liability against Family Ford is one of negligent t ! entrustment. 5. There Is no evidence of record that Family Ford witnessed Hailey to be po impaired or incapable of driving the truck when it entrusted the truck to him. Family Ford entrusted Defendant Hailey with the truck In a manner consistent with all customer test drives for the purpose of a possible future purchase. 6. Consequently, Plaintiffs will be unable to prove a prima facia case of negligent entrustment, and summary judgment in favor of Defendant, Family Ford Mercury, Inc., should be granted. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs have failed to show Family Ford Mercury negligently entrusted the truck to Defendant Hailey, and Defendant Family Ford Mercury respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant summary judgment on the Plaintiffs' claim of negligent entrustment against Defendant Family Ford Mercury, Inc. Respectfully submitted, By Stephen E. Geduld' , Esquire I.D. No. 43530 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17106-0999 (717) 237-7119 Dated: August 29, 1997 Attorneys for Defendants, John Michael Halley and Family Ford Mercury, Inc. .2. 1f/I ',I. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE :, I I, STEPHEN E, GEDULDlG, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that 1 have served a true I , and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION on the following person by placing same In the United States mall, postage prepaid, on the 29th day of August, 1997: Lisa J. Mauer, Esquire CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO & MAUER, P.C. The Commons at Valley Forge, Suite Seven P.O. Box 987-23 Valley Forge, PA 19482 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER By Stephen E. Geduldig I.D. No. 43530 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717) 237-7119 Attorneys for Defendants, John Michael Hailey and Family Ford Mercury, Inc. ".,'.~.... I I '" CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO & MAUER, P.C. BY: LISA J. MAUER, ESQUIRE Attorney 1.0. 65426 The Commons at Valley Forge Suite Seven, P.O. Box 987-23 Valley Forge, Pennsylvania 19482 (610) 933-3333 Attorney for Plaintiff(s) TRUDY AND TODD WICKARD, husband and wife, Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA. vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JOHN MICHAEL HAILEY NO. 97-1939 and FAMILY FORD MERCURY, INC. Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 25th day of September, 1997, a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Summary Judgment was mailed first class, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record: CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO Ii MAUER, P.C. BY: I I I I '~J (') \.0 (') ~~ -.J -" V) =l -Vt..) ,,, :~?1 { .: ~..' : '0 .... .' .....) ::~~ :. .~ i t...: ,:~. C. o.'! . -"~ ,,' '-'1~') ':'l.. -n .". ._,J :1; . 'h r. . ,-.() " . (-. cjnt .> ~: - " ~-t =-:, .'\) ~. ;JJ "" I:) -< i, ,- " PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Ple..e IIlllhe within metier for the next: Pre'Trlel Argument COUll .lL Argument Court CAPTION OF CASE: lentlre ceptlon mUlt be ateted In fulll TRUDY and TODD WICKARD, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 97-1939 CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. JOHN MICHAEL HAILEY and FAMILY FORD MERCURY, INC., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 1. Stete matter to be argued (I.e., plalntifl'a motion for new trial, defendant'a demurrer to complelnt, etc.l: Defendents' Motion for Summary Judgment. 2. Identify counsel who will ergue case: lal for plaintiff: Usa J. Mauar, Esquire CORCHIN. GRAHAM, ROSATO & MAUER, P.C. P.O. box 987-23 Volley Forgo, PA 19482 Ibl for dafendants: Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER 305 N. Front Streat P.O. Box 999 Herrlsburg, PA 17108-0999 3. I will notify all pallles In writing within two days that this case has bean listed for argument. Dated: August 29. 1997 Q \."J () _I -\1 ~~. -. .- ':'~~~ .~ ) , '. _\ ~-n r" ,',:I .J.} , '':> -' ,1'" I . , 1 .-n ", '.-~ ., . ',rl'l :.:: , --., " ::l - :.-J. .-1 -. } CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO' HAUER, P.C. BY: LISA J. HAUER, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. 65426 The Commons at Valley Forge suite Seven, P.O. Box 987-23 Valley Forge, Pennsylvania 19482 (610) 933-3333 Attorney for Plaintiff(s) TRUDY AND TODD WICKARD, husband and wife, Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA. vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JOHN MICHAEL HAILEY NO. 97-1939 and FAMILY FORD MERCURY, INC. Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO MEW HATTER OF DEFENDANTS. JOHN MICHAEL HAILEY AND FAMILY FORD MERCURY. INC. 27. No response required. 28. Denied. Answering plaintiff is advised by counsel and therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff's claims may be barred or limited by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 29. Denied. Answering plaintiff is advised by counsel and therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Strict proof thereof is demanded i at trial, if material. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim for punitive damages against John Michael Hailey. To the contrary, Plaintiffs' Complaint clearly states a claim for punitive damages against John Michael Hailey. 30. Denied. Answering plaintiff is advised by counsel and therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim for punitive damages against Family Ford Mercury, Inc. To the contrary, Plaintiffs' Complaint clearly states a claim for punitive damages against Family Ford Mercury, Inc. 31. Denied. Answering plaintiff is advised by counsel and therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of the Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a cause of action for negligent entrustment against Family Ford Mercury, Inc. To the contrary, Plaintiffs' Complaint clearly states a cause of action for negligent entrustment against Family Ford Mercury, Inc. 32. Admitted. 33. Denied. Answering plaintiff is advised by counsel and therefore, avers that the allegations contained in the I corresponding paragraph of the Defendant's New Matter are automatically deemed denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if material. It is specifically denied that Family Ford Mercury cannot be vicariously liable for any act or omission on the p.:srt of John Michael Hailey. To the contrary, Defendant, Family , ,I I I l i , Ford Mercury can be vicariously liable for any act or omission on the part of John Michael Hailey. 34. Denied. It is specifically denied that some or all of Plaintiff's injuries and damages may not be related to the subject automobile accident. To the contrary, all of plaintiff's injuries and damages are directly related to the subject automobile accident. 35. Denied. It is specifically denied that plaintiff may have failed to mitigate her damages. To the contrary, Plaintiff has made specific efforts to mitigate her damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Todd and Trudy Wickard respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor and against Defendants, John Michael Hailey and Family Ford Mercury, Inc. CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO' HAUER, P.C. By:,,, , L.- L a {I,. uer, Esqu re A totriey I.D. 65426 The Commons at Valley Forge suite Seven, P.O. Box 987-23 Valley Forge, Pennsylvania 19482 (610) 933-3333 Attorney for Plaintiff(s) ( TRUDY AND TODD WICKARD, husband and wife, Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA. ! , 'I ~I 'I CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO , MAUER, P.C. BY: LISA J. MAUER, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. 65426 The Commons at Valley Forge suite Seven, P.O. Box 987-23 Valley Forge, Pennsylvania 19482 (610) 933-3333 Attorney for Plaintiff(s) vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JOHN MICHAEL HAILEY NO. 97-1939 and FAMILY FORD MERCURY, INC. Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED , l I l F CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 17th day of November, 1997, a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Answer to Defendants' New Matter and was mailed first class, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record: Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 N. Front Street PO Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO' HAUER, P.C. . By: J I , I I, I' l , 0 ...0 C) ( _J -., ,- ., ..,; ~ ::~ ...., t~.' ~ c '~ , , ~") -"I 0' 'U ,;i ,-' -' , , ,~ j~-) .'" , "-:-, :;-~ ( . ::'.: ' ,~:') . >." , ;~.-n '" - ;<: :::, :.n I. .--,1 'J -< (II =< 8. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029(e). 9. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029(e). 10. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa, R. Civ. P. 1029(e), 11. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029(e). 12. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa, R. Civ. P. 1029(e). 13. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa, R. Civ, P. 1029(e). 14. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. p, 1029(e). WHEREFORE. Defendants. John Michael Halley and Family Ford Mercury. Inc., respectfully request that judgment be entered in their favor and against the Plaintiffs. COUNT II . NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT TRUDY WICKARD v. FAMILY FORD MERCURY. INC. 15. No response is required as this is a paragraph of incorporation. 16. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa, R. Civ. P. 1029(e). 17. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa, R. Civ. P. 1029(e). 18. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029(e). 19. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029(e). 20. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029(e). 21. Denied as legal conclusions and pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029(e). .2. 29. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim for punitive damages against John Michael Hailey. 30. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim for punitive damages against I ~ , Defendant, Family Ford Mercury. Inc. 31. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a cause of action for negligent entrustment against Defendant. Family Ford Mercury, Inc. 32. Defendant, John Michael Hailey, was not acting within the course and scope of his employment with Family Ford Mercury. Inc. at the time of this accident. 33. As a matter of law. Defendant. Family Ford Mercury, Inc.. cannot be vicariously liable for any act or omission on the part of Defendant. John Michael Hailey. 34. Some or all of Plaintiffs' injuries and damages may not be related to the subject automobile accident. 35. Plaintiff may have failed to mitigate her damages. -4- WHEREFORE. Defendants. John Michael Halley and Family Ford Mercury. Inc., respectfully request that judgment be entered In their favor and against the Plaintiffs. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER By Stephen E. Geduldlg, Esquir I.D. No. 43530 305 N, Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg. PA 17108-0999 (717) 237-7119 Attorneys for Defendants, John Michael Hailey and Family Ford Mercury. Inc. Dated: October 30. 1997 .5. 5(q .I....I-~ "'" ll:J.i Fp('1ITj..(l'~ THOt\iS 71723771~ Tn:'PHH:l7 PA3E:nl VERIFICAT'O~ I, MARKDANOWITZ. st.tethall am f>,.es f~(1n i of FAMILY FORD MERCURY, INC.. thaI I make thlll Verification on behalf or FAMILY FORD MERCURY, INC.. and that I am familiar with tho 'ileta and alleglllions set rorth In the foregoing ANSWeR AND NEW MATTER, I hIve rOlld the foregoing document and hereby IIfflrm thlll it is lrue and correct to the besl of my parlonal knOWledgll. Information and belief. Thll Vvril1ellion II mllde pursullnllo 18 PI,C,S, 54904 relating to unlworn fallineation 10 authorities. Dilled: 10 /i-r . 1997 10'd CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen E. Geduldig, of the law firm of Thomas. Thomas & Hafer. do hereby certify that on this day 1 served a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing ANSWER AND NEW MATTER on the fOllowing by depositing a true and correct copy in the United States Mail, at Harrisburg. Pennsylvania. addressed as follows: Lisa J. Mauer, Esquire CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO & MAUER, P.C. The Commons at Valley Forge, Suite Seven P.O. Box 987.23 Valley Forge, PA 19482 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER By Stephen E. Geduldig, Es uire 1.0. No. 43530 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg. PA 17108-0999 (717) 237-7119 Attorneys for Defendants. John Michael Hailey and Family Ford Mercury. Inc. Dated: October 30. 1997 .. . TRUDY AND TODD WICKARD, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA NO. 97.1939 CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. JOHN MICHAEL HAILEY and FAMILY FORD MERCURY, INC., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire. and Thomas, Thomas & Hafer. as attorneys for Defendants John Michael Hailey and Family Ford Mercury, Inc. in the above matter, reserving our right to answer or otherwise plead to Plaintiffs' Complaint. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER By e~ffi 1.0. No. 43530 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717) 237-7119 Dated: May 5. 1997 Attorneys for Defendants, John Michael Hailey and Family Ford Mercury, Inc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen E. Geduldlg, of the law firm of Thomas. Thomas & Hafer. do hereby certify that on this day I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE on the fOllowing by depositing a true and correct copy in the United States Mall. at Harrisburg. Pennsylvania. addressed as follows: Lisa J. Mauer, Esquire CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO & MAUER, P.C. The Commons at Valley Forge, Suite Seven P.O. Box 987-23 Valley Forge, PA 19482 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER By Stephen E. Gedu!dig, Esqul e 1.0. No. 43530 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg. PA 17108-0999 (717) 237-7119 Attorneys for Defendants, John Michael Halley and Family Ford Mercury, Inc. Dated: May 5. 1997 -" --.. r ) , -, C' -..J '-J -1'1 t. , .: -.'1 - , '':j '-J \) '. . ~ 'i .. , " , , , , , -/ , .. 'C,; THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER BY: Stephen E. Oeduldlg, Elqulre IdentlflcOllon No. 43530 305 North Front Streat P,O. Box 999 Harrl.burg, PA 1710B,0999 v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNA. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 97-1939 CIVIL TRUDY and TODD WICKARD, Plaintiffs JOHN MICHAEL HAILEY and FAMILY FORD MERCURY. INC., DBfendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Enter the appearance of Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire and the law firm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer as counsel for DBfendants John Michael Halley and Family Ford Mercury, Inc. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER Date: Jpk7 Stephen E. Geduldlg, Esqu' e Attorney I.D. # 43530 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717) 237-7119 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS "" , I I il. I l i i I (') . \0 ~ r::; -l :;... :1C ::;J -r'r:' ..... ;rj:D fT'r:: -c r- ~~t!.: I R~ 0\ ,. &5.~. .. ) ~t. -J " '-~ ", '-'J -. :1<; -. E..... -:.~C) '::"'ro :.u '=i .......~:- " S:1 :OJ "-> -, m -< FILED-OFFICi: 0- T"~ "',.. "'''o-,n,( j" ;','" '-' I",,:'. I/'oil 07'1'''19 r'III'L:~ ,I I~ 11' r II, . '" eLi' '.';:... " ("."U\'jy .\...- 1._'. ,,) 0..1) IJI I' ,~. \ ", ~:- " " I /,' . 'r.. .L;I'.'\ ,,'I L"....':;'\ ;,; . '?,. , IJ' loll .:l ~ 13:1; C)~( ;;., (~..J ",. >~ .. C() :':l..~ f.' -;. llJt:1 t~~...1.. ~': ::1 U ti 'w ~.. !i:', :' o >c. ot '0 ,.... l~ z .. '0 ..,. , "--" < ,_ . . _' ~ __.; ,_' . '. _ +, ,,-. _ ,; ~' . _ .'<' '.:: _ . ..' ~ ~ ~ . . c', D _' '.- _', '_ _ _ ~ ___ .. - ':C ~ ~ :"":l ..... r- C7' t ,~ ~.~ .. . ~ 1 ~!. ~,s' .:~ t. Q ~ . . . ~ nature of her injuries is in dispute. 3. Discovery commenced and depositions were taken of parties involved. 4. An independent medical examination of Plaintiff, Trudy Wickard, pursuant to Pa. RC.P. 4010, was scheduled for August 19,1997 with Bruce Goodman, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon in Harrisburg, Pa. 5. Pursuant to Pa,RC.P. 4010. Defendants have the right to have the Plaintiff submit to an independent medical examination conducted by the reputable doctor of their choice. 6. Plaintiff refuses to attend the IME without her attorney. See as Exhibit "A." Plaintiffs counsel's correspondence of July 24. 1997. 7. Plaintiff does not articulate any compelling reason why her attorney should intrude during the independent examination, other than that she has stated. through her attorney. that it is her attorney's "policy" to attend such examinations. 8. Pressure of counsel will inhibit Dr. Goodman in conducting an independent examination to which Defendants are entitled under Pa. RC.P. 4010. See as Exhibit "B." Affidavit of Bruce Goodman. M,D. WHEREFORE. Defendants. John Michael Hailey and Family Ford Mercury. Inc" respectfully request this Honorable Court compel Plaintiff. Trudy Wickard, to attend an IME with Bruce Goodman, M.D., on August 19, 1997, without the encumbrance of the .2. presence of Plaintiffs counsel during said examination. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER Stephen E. Geduidig, Esq Ire I.D. No. 43530 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108.0999 (717) 237.7119 By Attorneys for Defendants, John Michael Hailey and Family Ford Mercury. Inc. Dated: August ~1997 .3. .08/07/97 13:02 FAX 717 23~ 3935 BRl'CE GOODIW, liD '.'l)()'li!7 97 11100 FRCMI1l-iCJ'1RS THOl'Ri 'l'17e377H!5 101717 2:34 :3935 1Zi02 PAGE:1i!2 AFFIDAVIT OF BRUCE GOODMAN. M.D. I. Bru~ Gcodman, M.D., being duly Iwom acoordlng to law, hGrllby certify the following: 1. . lam an orthopedic surgeon, In private practice In Harrisburg, Pennlylvania. 2. Among my other rasponalblllti8a 118 II phYllclln, I have performed Independent medlcallllfllmlnlltlona for thlrty-.even yllllrs, 3. I am uncomfortable with an allomey preeentduring In independent medical aumlnlUon or oth.r IllXllmlnal/on of a pal/enl 4. I feel thllt counael's presence would Invalidate my flndlnOl, blOllUlle of tha potential modificalion of the elf.mln..'s responllCl to various lesling, ba&ed on the pretence of the attorney, 6, I Inltruet .ach exemln.e to Blk queatlons, If there Ir. Iny, during tha Obtaining of B hlslory, 50 Q$ to dlltllrminll my rllBlan far Bsklng Ipeclfle questions based purely upon medical factora al wall 8S the fact that they ere admonished not to perform any typll of activity that they feel might afford them discomfort. e, The alflminetlon would not ba independent If the examin"', attomay i. present, , ,. 1 ~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, STEPHEN E. GEOULDlG, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION on the following person by plscing same In the United States mail, postage prepaid, on the ~ day of August, 1997: Lisa J. Mauer, Esquire CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO & MAUER, P.C. The Commons at Valley Forge, Suite Seven P.O. Box 987-23 Valley Forge, PA 19482 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER By Stephen E. Geduldlg, E 1.0. No. 43530 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717) 237.7119 Dated: August (1997 Attorneys for Defendants, John Michael Halley and Family Ford Mercury, Inc. '" CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO' MnUER, P.C. BY: LISA J. MAUER, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. 65426 The Commons at Valley Forge suite Seven, P.O. Box 987-23 Valley Forge, Pennsylvania 19482 (610) 933-3333 Attorney for Plaintiff(s) TRUDY AND TODD WICKARD, Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS .~ CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA. vs. CLVI~ ACTION - LAW JOHN MICHAEL HAILEY and NO. 97-1939 FAMILY FORD MERCURY, INC. Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF. TRUDY WICKARD. TO SUBMIT TO AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAM WITHOUT HER COUNSEL'S INTERFERENCE 1. Admitted. 2. Denied as stated. Plaint~ff sustained injuries to, inter alia, her neck and back in the auto accident. Defendant has not demonstrated any reason to dispute'her injuries. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the defense medical examination of plaintiff was scheduled for August 19, 1997 with Dr. Bruce Goodman. It is denied that said exam was scheduled in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 4010 which requires that examination be for good cause shown. 5. Denied. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4010 requires plaintiff to submit to a defense medical examination for good cause shown. While said rule may permit defendants to select the doctor to perform the defense medical examination, the rule does not require plaintiff to submit to defense medical examination outside the jurisdiction of this CouI;t. Defendant"-'has scheduled, plaintiff examination to take place in Dauphin county , Pennsylvania but plaintiff resides in and this accident OGcurred in Cumberland county, Pennsylvania. 6. Admi tted. 7. Denied. Plaintiff's counsel's correspondence dated July 24, 1997 clearly articulates the reason why plaintiff's attorney should be present during the defense medical examination. Said letter clearly states that plaintiff, Trudy Wickard, desires her counsel's presence. said letter does not state that it is counsel's "policy" to attend such examinations. 8. Denied. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4010 requires plaintiff to submi~ to a defense medical examination only for good cause shown. While said rule may permit defendants to select the doctor to perform the defense medical examination, the rule does not require plaintiff to submit to defense medical examination outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant has scheduled plaintiff examination to take place in Dauphin county, Pennsylvania but plaintiff resides in and this accident occurred in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. WHEREFORE, plaintiff Trudy Wickard respectfully asks this Court to permit her attorney to be present at the defense medical examination. Respectfully submitted, CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO & MAUER BY: .;.- , l.".,.. r' ':S Y. C .1"'; ~n --.. -! ., \ '7:-1 Ill; .", , -- I .." , ~~~ I;;J ,- .. . L-1 l.~ -i j ".n ~:'! '.:)'" '. ., :- -"' -'J :..:1 ,~ 11' '< . . \ CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO , MAUER, P.C. BY: LISA J. MAUER, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. 65426 The Commons at Valley Forge suite Seven, P.O. Box 987-23 Valley Forge, Pennsylvania 19482 (610) 933-3333 Attorney for Plaintiff(s) TRUDY AND TODD WICKARD, Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA. vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JOHN MICHAEL HAILEY and NO. 97-1939 FAMILY FORD MERCURY, INC. Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ORDER TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF. TRUDY WICKARD. TO SUBMIT TO AN INDEPENDENT MEDICAL EXAM WITHOUT HER COUNSEL'S INTERFERENCE 1. Admitted. 2. Denied as stated. Plaintiff sustained injuries to, inter alia, her neck and back in the auto accident. Defendant has not demonstrated any reason to dispute her injuries. 3. Admi tted. 4. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the defense medical examination of plaintiff was scheduled for August 19, 1997 with Dr. Bruce Goodman. It is denied that said exam was scheduled in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 4010 which requires that examination be for good cause shown. 5. Denied. Pennsylvania Rule of civil Procedure 4010 requires plaintiff to submit to a defense medical examination for good cause shown. While said rule may permit defendants to select the doctor to perform the defense medical examination, the rule does not require plaintiff to submit to defense medical examination outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant has scheduled plaintiff examination to take place in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania but plaintiff resides in and this accident occurred in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 6. Admitted. 7. Denied. Plaintiff'o counsel's correspondence dated July 24, 1997 clearly articulates the reason why plaintiff's attorney should be present during the defense medical examination. Said letter clearly states that plaintiff, Trudy Wickard, desires her counsel's presence. Said letter does not state that it is counsel's "policy" to attend such examinations. 8. Denied. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4010 requires plaintiff to submit to a defense medical examination only for good cause shown. While said rule may permit defendants to select the doctor to perform the defense medical examination, the rule does not require plaintiff to submit to defense medical examination outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant has scheduled plaintiff examination to take place in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania but plaintiff resides in and this accident occurred in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO , MAUER, P.C. BY: LISA J. MAUER, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. 65426 The Commons at Valley Forge suite Seven, P.O. Box 987-23 Valley Forge, Pennsylvania 19482 (610) 933-3333 Attorney for Plaintiff(s) TRUDY AND TODD WICKARD, Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA. vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JOHN MICHAEL HAILEY and NO. 97-1939 FAMILY FORO MERCURY, INC. Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF COUNSEL'S PRESENCE DURING THE DEFENSE MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF I. statement of the Ouestion Involved Is plaintiff permitted to be accompanied by counsel during a defense medical examination? Suggested answer: Yes II. Arqument It is respectfully submitted that this Court permit plaintiff to be accompanied by counsel during a defense medical examination. Defendant argues that "Pa.R.C.p. 410 does not permit counsel to be present during a medical examination". Pa,R,C.p 4010 does not speak to the absence or presence of counsel during a defense medical examination. Said rule only provides that said examination be conducted for good cause shown. The trend in Pennsylvania is to , k expand the right of Plaintiff's counsel to be present during defense examinations as evidenced in Kellv v. Nemeth, et ux. 91 Sch. L.R. 13 (1995). The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania CiVll Procedural RUles committee recommendation No. 143 first published on March 21, 1997 which proposes changes to Pennsylvania Rules of civil Procedure 4010 governing physical and mental examination of persons, if adopted by the Supreme Court would read as follows. "The person to be examined shall have the right to have counselor other representative present during the examination. The examiner's oral interrogation of the person to be examined shall be limited to matters specifically relevant to the scope of the examination." This proposed rule change clearly indicates the current view of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on this issue. Pa. R.C.P. 4010 also does not require plaintiff to submit to a defense medical examination in a jurisdiction other than that where this action occurred, Plaintiff resides in Cumberland County, the County where this violent motor vehicle accident occurred. While said rule permits defense counsel to select a physician, it does not require plaintiff to travel to a county which has been selected for the convenience of the defense. Defense counsel has insisted that plaintiff be examined by Dr. Goodman, whose practice is located in Dauphin County. Plaintiff should not be subjected to the expenditure of time and incur the financial burden of traveling to a different county to be examined by the defense doctor. ~ potential modification of the examinee's response to various testing, based on the presence of the attorney". In Kelly v. Nemeth, the Court, after hearing testimony about the IME doctor's questioning of the plaintiff about how the accident occurred, "perceive[d] the potential need for counsel to be present during I i I such questioning to the same extent that counsel is necessary j.. 1 I during depositions". In Kellv the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County ordered that: Plaintiff's counsel shall be permitted to attend the examination and shall be permitted to courteously supplement answers given by the plaintiff to the physician's questions when it appears to counsel that the plaintiff has, through nervousness or confusion, answered said questions in an inaccurate or incomplete manner. Id. at 22. In Bewley v. Crouse, the only case relied upon by defense counsel in his brief, the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas noted "objections and claims of interference by the examining physician also must be related to the examination and not based on generalities". Bewlev v. Crouse, 4 D. & C. 4th 535 (1989). Dr. Goodman's affidavit does not express any specific complaints with respect to plaintiff, Trudy Wickard, or her attorney. It is simply a boilerplate affidavit based on Dr. Goodman's "thirty-seven years" of performing defense medical examinations. It is clear that no physician/patient relationship exists between the plaintiff and the defense physician. Plaintiff understands the role of this physician who has been hired not to treat her for her injuries, but to assist the defense. "5 If she is confused or nervous when she sees the examining physician, who she may regard more as an adversary than an impartial professional, she may not give the proper answers to his questions and be denied a damage award that fully compensates her for her injuries. The truth-finding function of our system of law would thus be impaired. The presence of counsel may calm plaintiff and insure that she gives the doctor a complete and accurate answer. Counsel's presence will also insure that the doctor does not ask any questions inappropriate under the circumstances. The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, has aptly noted how integral the medical examination is to discovery in a civil trial when it stated that: ,- "The presence of plaintiff's attorney at such examination may well be as important as his presence at an oral deposition". Machinskv v. Schaff, 35 D & C 3d 572 (1984) III. Conclusion In light of the abundance of Pennsylvania case law in support of plaintiff's counsel's presence at defense medical examinations, it is clear that plaintiff has presented numerous legitimate reasons for her counsel's presence at said examination. Defense counsel's motion compelling plaintiff's IME "without her counsel's interference" is constructed around a mischaracterization of plaintiff's counsel's request. It is simply the desire of plaintiff, Trudy Wickard, to have her counsel present at the physical examination conducted by the defense doctor. Plaintiff's counsel has never intended to interfere with said examination and ,6 CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO ~ MAUER, P.C. BY: LISA J. MAUER, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. 65426 The Commons at Valley Forge Suite Seven, P.O. Box 987-23 Valley Forge, Pennsylvania 19482 (610) 933-3333 Attorney for Plaintiff(s) TRUDY AND TODD WICKARD, husband and wife, Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA. vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JOHN MICHAEL HAILEY NO. 97-1939 and FAMILY FORD MERCURY, INC. Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 3rd day of September, 1997, a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant's Motion for Order to Compel to Submit to an Independent Medical Exam Without Her Counsel's Interference and plaintiff's brief in support thereof, was mailed first class, postage prepaid to the following counsel of record: Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 N. Front Street PO Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO' HAUER, P.C. By: ~~wW J. ER, ESQUIRE ..-.-.--..."..:~.........-- iI' , ; , i , I ..", ~) ~ () , - " 'I") , '1 0.'11 'J .Ir- , :;~ ,;:) ..-, .' i ~'!.J . ,~) :.} -. );q -, , ~".~ c:) .'. 5. Denied. Pennsylvania Rule of civil Procedure 4010 requires plaintiff to submit to a defense medical examination for good cause shown. While said rule may permit defendants to select the doctor to perform the defense medical examination, the rule does not require plaintiff to submit to defense medical examination' outside the jurisdiction of this couJ;'t. Defendant:-ilas schedu'led- plaintiff examination to take place in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania but plaintiff resides in and this accidentoecurred in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 6. Admitted. 7. Denied. Plaintiff's counsel's correspondence dated July 24, 1997 clearly articulates the reason why plaintiff's attorney should be present during the defense medical examination. said letter clearly states that plaintiff, Trudy Wickard, desires her counsel's presence. Said letter does not state that it is counsel's "policy" to attend such examinations. 8. Denied. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4010 requires plaintiff to submit to a defense medical examination only for good cause shown. While said rule may permit defendants to select the doctor to perform the defense medical examination, the rule does not require plaintiff to submit to defense medical examination outside the jurisdiction of this Court. Defendant has scheduled plaintiff examination to take place in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania but plaintiff resides in and this accident occurred in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. . ' CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO & MAUER. P.C. BY: LISA J. MAUER, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. 65426 The Commons at Valley Forge Suite Seven, P.o. Box 987-23 Valley Forge, Pennsylvania 19482 (610) 933-3333 Attorney for Plaintiff(s) TRUDY AND TODD WICKARD, Plaintiffs COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND -COUNTY, PA." vs. JOHN MICHAEL HAILEY and CIVIL ACTION - LAW .- NO. 97-1939 FAMILY FORD MERCURY, INC. Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF COUNSEL'S PRESENCE DURING THE DEFENSE MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF PLAINTIFF I. Statement of the Ouestion Involved Is plaintiff permitted to be accompanied by counsel during a t~ defense medical examination? Suggested answer: Yes II. Arqument It is respectfully submitted that this Court permit plaintiff to be accompanied by coUnsel during a defense medical examination. Defendant argues that "Pa.R.c.p. 410 does not permit counsel to be present during a medical examination". Pa.R.c,p 4010 does not speak to the absence or presence of counsel during a defense medical examination. Said rule only provides that said examination be conducted for good cause shown. The trend in Pennsylvania is to expand the right of Plaintiff's counsel to be present during defense examinations as evidenced in Kellv v. Nemeth, et ux. 91 Sch. L.R. 13 (1995). The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania civil Procedural Rules committee recommendation No. 143 first published on March 21, 1997 which proposes changes to Pennsylvania_Rules of civ~l Procedure 4010 governing physical and mental examination of persons, if adopted by the Supreme Court would read as follows. "The person to be examined shall have the right to have counselor other representative present during the examination. The examiner's oral interrogation of the person to be examined shall be limited to matters specifically relevant to the scope of the examination." This proposed rule change clearly indicates the current view of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on this issue. Pa. R.C.P. 4010 also does not require plaintiff to submit to a defense medical examination in a jurisdiction other than that where this action occurred. Plaintiff resides in Cumberland County, the County where this violent motor vehicle accident occurred. While said rule permits defense counsel to select a physician, it does not require plaintiff to travel to a county which has been selected for the convenience of the defense. Defense counsel has insisted that plaintiff be examined by Dr. Goodman, whose practice is located in Dauphin County. Plaintiff should not be subjected to the expenditure of time and incur the financial burden of traveling to a different county to be examined by the defense doctor. ~ . ' doctor is biased in favor of the defense. The major litigation of today has evolved into a battle between experts in which the parties are often the least important witness on the issues of liability and damage. As a consequence of this development, one of the most vexing strategic decisions for counsel is choosing the right expert to advance a claim or a defense. Lesnick at 542. To prevent plaintiff from being accompanied by her attorney during a defense medical examination would ,significantly deprive plaintiff of the effective representation of counsel and undermine the attorney/client relationship. Plaintiff is permitted to be represented by counsel at every other step in the litigation process. It is imperative that plaintiff also be represented at this step of the process which requires her to disrobe and submit to a physical examination by an adversarial doctor hired by the defense, Furthermore, plaintiff's counsel's presence at the defense medical examination is a necessary prerequisite to an effective cross-examination of the defense doctor at a later stage in the litigation process. Defendant argues that "an additional person in the examination room will disrupt the normal physician/patient relationship that is essential to such an evaluation". Defendants have provided this Court with a generic Affidavit of Dr. Goodman which purports to explain how plaintiff's counsel's presence at an examination will interfere T~ith Dr. Goodman's "unbiased clinical atmosphere" . Paragraph 4 of Dr. Goodman's affidavit states: "I feel that counsel's presence would invalidate my findings, because of the 4 . . potential modification of the examinee's response to various testing, based on the presence of the attorney". In Kellv v. Nemeth, the Court, after hearing testimony about the IME doctor's questioning of the plaintiff about how the accident occurred, "perceive[d] the potential need for counsel to be present during such questioning to the same extent, .that:'. counsel.' is necessary, during depositions". In Kellv the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County ordered that: Plaintiff's counsel shall be permitted to attend the examination and shall be permitted to courteously supplement answers given by the plaintiff to the physician's questions when it appears to counsel that the plaintiff has, through nervousness or confusion, answered said questions in an inaccurate or incomplete manner. Id. at 22. In Bewley v. Crouse, the only case relied upon by defense i il counsel in his brief, the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas f. , Il I, I. I: I I I noted "objections and claims of interference by the examinip.g physician also must be related to the examination and not based on generalities", Bewlev v. Crouse, 4 D. & C. 4th 535 (1989). D~. Goodman's affidavit does not express any specific complaints with respect to plaintiff, Trudy Wickard, or her attorney. It is simply a boilerplate affidavit based on Dr, Goodman's "thirty-seven years" of performing defense medical examinations. It is clear that no physician/patient relationship exists between the plaintiff and the " , defense physician. Plaintiff understands the role of this physician who has been hired not to treat her for her injuries, but to assist the defense. "5 , ! If she is confused or nervous when she sees the examining physician, who she may regard more as an adversary than an impartial professional, she may not give the proper answers to his questions and be denied a damage award that fully compensates her for her injuries. The truth-finding function of our system of law would thus be impaired. The presence of counsel may calm plaintiff and insure that she gives the ,doctor a complete and accurate answer. Counsel's presence will also insure that the doctor does not ask any quest~ons inappropriate under the circumstances. The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, has aptly noted how integral the medical examination is to discovery in a civil trial when it stated that: , , , "The presence of plaintiff's attorney at such examination may well be as important as, his presence at an oral deposition". Machinskv v. Schaff, 35 D & C 3d 572 (1984) III. ~onclusion In light of the abundance of Pennsylvania case law in support of plaintiff's counsel's presence at defense medica~ examinations, it is clear that plaintiff has presented numerous legitimate reasons for her counsel's presence at said examination. Defense counsel's motion compelling plaintiff's IME "without her counsel's interference" is constructed around a mischaracterization of plaintiff's counsel's request. It is simply the desire of plaintiff, Trudy Wickard, to have her counsel present at the physical examination conducted by the defense doctor. Plaintiff's counsel has never intended to interfere with said examination and ,6 TRUDY AND TODD WICKARD, Plaintiffs v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 97.1939 JOHN MICHAEL HAILEY and FAMILY FORD MERCURY, INC., Defendants CIVIL ACTION. LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE 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 certifies that: 1. A Notice of Intent to Serve a Subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the day on which the subpoena is sought to be served; 2, A copy of the 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. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER ~tlt-'~ STEPHEN E. GEDULDlG, ESQUIRE 305 NORTH FRONT STREET. 6TH FLOOR HARRISBURG, PA 1710B (717) 237.7119 ATTORN[Y FOR DEFENDANT Date: / J ~ ?- C) 7 (: '" .,A. ~MONWEALtl:l OF PENNSYLVAN18 COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND I. '" ',' TRUDY AND TODD WICKARD, Plaintiffs V. JOHN MICHAEL HAILEY and FAMILY FORD MERCURY, INC., Defendants File NO, 97,1939 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ~QENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS fQR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE ~009.22 ,~ TO: Farnham Insurance Agency, 507 North YorK Street, Mechanlcsburg, PA 17055 (Name of person or EntltYl WltI1ln twentY 1201 days after servlcs of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce ths following documents or things: Complete copies of any and all records for the last policy period of Insurance, Including, but not limited to, notices of cancellation, notices of renewal, etc, for Insured John Michael Halley, policy Number: Q042905459H, SSN: 226.66.3805, Date of Birth: 11/1/48 at Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, 305 North Front street, P.O. BOX 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (AddreSSI You may deliver or mall legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the 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 fall to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, within twentY (201 days after Its service, the partY serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with It. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Steohen E, Geduldlq, ESquire ADDRESS: 305 North Front Street. P.O. Box 999 Harrlsburq, PA 17108-0999 TELEPHONE: (717) 237.7119 SUPREME COURT 10/: 43530 ATTORNEY FOR:Defendants John Michael Hallev and Famllv Ford Mercurv. Inc. DATE: J-u'//, /~ /VY7 Seal of the court ,f<<.w'Un-u.. t. J'V~ prothonotary/Clerl<, Civil Division &, J f].j~.it,d.. rJ. )%..ttUd..- " r DeputY [ I I I" . TRUDY AND TODD WICKARD, Plaintiffs v. JOHN MICHAEL HAilEY and FAMilY FORD MERCURY, INC., Defendants File No, 97,1939 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUME~TS ~R T~_~NQS EQPJ)ISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 00 . 2 TO: Farnham Insurance Agency, 507 North York Street, Mechanlcsburg, PA 17055 IName of Person or Entltyl WltIlln twenty (20) days after service of this SUbpoena, yOU are ordered by the court to produce tile following documents or tIllngs: Complete copies of any and all records for the last policy period of Insurance, Including, but not limited to, notices of cancellatIon, notices of renewal, etc. for Insured John Michael Halley, policy Number: Q042905459H, SSN: 226.66'3805, Date of 8lrth: 11/1/48 at Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, 305 North Front Street, P,O, Box 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (Address) You may deliver or mall legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the 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 fall to produce the documents or things required by this SUbpoena, within twenty 1201 days after Its service, tile party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with It. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOllOWING PERSON: NAME: steohen E, Geduldlg, EsqUire ADDRESS: 305 North Front Street. P.O, Box 999 Harrlsbura, PA 17108-0999 TELEPHONE: (717) 237-7119 SUPREME COURT IDI: 43530 ATTORNEY FOR:Defendants John Michael Hallev and Famllv Ford Mercurv. Inc. I DATE: Seal of the Court " / / ~rothonotarv/clerk, Civil Division / " Deputy y' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i I I ~ i; I I ! I I, STEPHEN E. GEDULDIG, ESQUIRE of the law firm of THOMAS, THOMAS, & HAFER, do certify that I served the foregoing document on the following person(s), by depositing the same In the United States Mall, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania addressed as follows: Lisa J. Maurer, Esquire CORCHIN, GRAHAM, ROSATO & MAURER, P.C. The Commons at Valley Forge, Suite 7 P.O. Box 9B7.23 Valley Forge, PA 19482 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER STEPHEN E. GEDULDIG, ESQUIRE Date: 1/ ~ /'-1- 97 /' // , -' ("l ,., t:1 '" ,--I , , , ! -r; " 'n .-) I I .~ I "'1'1 '1..":0 I~' .. ::> 1 . .. ~! 2'5 )111 I :,'1 ~q :.:.J -... (:'J -< TRUDY and TODD WICKARD, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW 1 I, I, ! , v. JOHN MICHAEL HAILEY and FAMILY FORD MERCURY, INC., Defendants No. 97-1939 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 16th day of December, 1997, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion for Order To Compel Plaintiff Trudy Wickard To Submit to an Independent Medical Examination Without Her Counsel's Interference, and of Plaintiffs' response to Defendants' motion, and of the briefs submitted in this matter, and following a conference held in the chambers of the undersigned judge in which plaintiffs were represented by Lisa J. Mauer, Esquire, and Defendants were represented by stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire, Defendants' motion is granted, and Plaintiff Trudy Wickard is directed to submit to a medical examination by Dr. Bruce Goodman without benefit of the presence of her counsel at a mutually convenient time. By the Court, J LISA J. MAUER, ESQUIRE P.O. Box 987-23 Valley Forge, PA 19482 For the Plaintiffs c.~"" ~ 1:J./~3J q'l. A'\" STEPHEN E. GEDULDIG, ESQUIRE 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 For the Defendants , .... ; ) : wcy ..;. J'" ". .~ :. ,; GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. BY: RONALD M. GRAHAM, ESQUIRE Attorney J.D. 64483 The Commons at Valley Forge Suite 22, P.O. Box 987 Valley Forge. Pennsylvania 19482 (610) 933.3333 Attorney for Plaintiff(s) TRUDY WICKARD AND TODD WICKARD, Wife and Husband. 479 Pine Grove Road Gardners, P A 17324 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PA. Plaintiffs vs. CIVIL ACTION. LAW JOHN MICHAEL HAILEY 1017 Harriet Street Carlisle, PA 17013 NO.: 97.1939 and FAMILY FORD MERCURY. INC. clo CT Corp. Systems 1635 Market Street Philadelphia. PA 19103 Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance for Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter pursuant to local Rules. GRAHAM & MAUE P.C. By: f' .to".. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ! i i l I i , I , I ~ i, I i ' l I ~ 1 i I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 17th day of June, 1998. a true and correct copy of a Praeeine for Entrv of Annenranee was hand delivered to the following counsel of record: Stephen E. Geduldig, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 North Front Street 6th Fl., P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, P A I7I 08 GRAHAM & MA ER, P.C. By: / Ronal M. am, Esquire Attorney Ii r Plaintiff ----... , , ,- C\ \1) D r; C) ,., (~. . ~~! .,. ~11 , .!~ 'I:. ~i.~' : ".~ , ") C,:; -' ..'~ ~i) " r:::'. ...- :\~ :;"} '.1' , r ..fn ~": (..; .....9 1..1 ;-L. .~;..~ '.') ~1 :< ~ -. GRAHAM & MAUER, P.C. BY: RONALD M. GRAHAM, ESQUIRE Attorney 1.0. 64483 The Commons at Valley Forge Suite 22, P.O. Box 987 Valley Forge, Pennsylvania 19482 Attorney for Plaintiff(s) TRUDY AND TODD WICKARD, husband and wife, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA. Plainti ffs vs, CIVIL ACTION. LAW JOHN MICHAEL HAILEY Defendant NO. 97.1939 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED STIPULATION IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between counsel for the parties hereto that the punitive damages claim in Count I (Negligence - Trudy Wickard v. John Michael Hailey) of Plaintiffs' Complaint is hereby withdrawn resulting in the following amended ad damnum clause: WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Trudy Wickard, hereby demands judgment in her favor and against Defendant, John Michael Hailey, in an amount which exceeds the jurisdictional amount requiring arbitration referral by local rule in compensatory damages, plus costs and interest. p'IS FURTHBR STIPULATED berween counsellor Ihe partle~ h~lclu thllt Dcfcnd....l John- Michael HaPpy Admits that he was neeJig(,rll BE allgged in Plailltitl's ComplaiRl,llartiGlllarly '0 opt fort.h i.n pATAl!raphs #7 Ann ,:~ragrap~lleIUdi'lj$ stlbPa"'~l,iJPh3 (II-) (.8), and fllr'.h~ Id_ff. T"r T,,,,, n':=- ''''0'" "" w., "'''.;: ,.,...{ /4 R~. GRAHAM. Esquire STEPHEN E. GEDULDI ,Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs Attorney for Defendant () '0 0 ~ ~ c.u " I Ie.: ~ ,-< "n: " ,. :!J 9.;1;:, :i.; .11,,_ "'1:-:1 , 0_1 "v -or, ")(~ r:l;. .-:.", -< '., ......; " :~: :.~ :iJ - c:( ) " ;;' i.:Srll -' ~: -I '. ...:. => :n ~ (;l -< I' , ! I (") lD 9, c: Cl.l -- ~ :;J :..... .; \-,' "'::!J rnr-;. ~- [')r- -, -" __ ~J' "l,m -r, . "'6 (~~.': o-J ') ~..:~ "-J{ ~::; \..~ ::T! ':8 ~.';E) ,:"5p) -. , ~~ -;"-nl u - ~7; ~ ~ => 'D en ~