Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-6062Fred H. Halt, ID # 34331 Fred Halt 8, Associates, p C The Wellington 17 East High Street, Suite 101 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-4500/263_ 7~. 44 249-2411 (fax) Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SOFIA FIGUEROA, No. O:~- Plaintiff Vs. THE BEISTLE COMPANY, Defendant To the Prothonotary: PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 428 OF THE WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT, 77 P.S. 921 Pursuant to section 428 of the Workers' Compensation Act, 77 P.S. 92I, enter judgment against Defendant in the amount of $1,410.36, together with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 9/23/02, as specified by section 406. I of the Workers' Compensation Act, based upon the following: On 9/23/02, Workers' Compensation Judge James P. Deeley rendered a decision granting Plaintiff's Claim Petition for Workers' Compensation Benefits, and, interalia ordered Defendant to reimburse Plaintiff's litigation costs, as required by the Workers' Compensation Act. A certified copy of that decision is being filed concurrently with this Praecipe. Defendant did not appeal the 9/23/02 decision. Defendant has paid the principal amount of Workers' Compensation Benefits ordered in the 9/23/02 decision, but it has failed or refused to pay the litigation costs, which totaled $1,410.36. 4. Defendant is in default of the 9/23/02 order of the Workers' Compensation Judge in that it has failed to pay litigation costs as ordered. Respectfully submitted, Fred Halt & Associates, P.C. The Wellington 17 East High Street, Suite 101 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-4500/263-7344 249-2411 (fax) pajoblawfh@earthlink.net AFFIDAVIT I verify that I have personal knowledge of all facts not of record set forth in the foregoing Praecipe, and that such facts are true and correct, to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I acknowledge that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Received BWC 2002-10-01 REV 09/05/00 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLYANIA DEPARTMENT OF ~OR~ ~US~Y BU~U OF WO~, CO~SATION 717-7~3~19 JA~s DEELEY HARRISBURG JUDGES OFFICE EAST GATE CENTER 1010 NORTH SEVENTH STREET ~aJ{RISBLTRG PA 17102-1400 Circulation Date: 09/23/2002 Bureau Claim Number: 2311225 Insurer Claim Number: ,Petitions: Claim-Pet SOFIA FIGUEROA 383 EAST WASHINGTON STREET CHAMBERSBURG, PA 17201-0000 FRED H H,MT ESQ I-RED HAlT & ASSOCL%TES FIlE WELLINGTON 17 E tlIGH ST STE 101 CARLISLE, PA 17013 THE BEISTLE COMPANY I BE1STLE PL.~.A $141PPENSBURG. PA 17257-0000 JOSEPH MOYER. ESQUIRE SI'ETLER & GRIBBIN PO BOX 2588 YORK. PA 17405 CGU I I,~ CORPORATE CTR DR. PO BOX 8851 C,,%\IP HILL, PA 17011 CG U 100 CORPORATE CTR DR PO BOX 8851 CAMP HILL, PA 17011 _DECISION RENDEREr} COVER LETTER Judge: James Deeley East Gate Center 1010 North Seventh Street Harrisburg, PA 17102-1400 DECISION The attached Decision of the Judge is final unless an appeal is taken m the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board as provided by lmx: ffyou do not agree x~Sth this Decision, an appeal must be filed with the Workers' Compensation Appeal Board within 20 days from bm not including the date of this notice. Forms for an appeal may be obtained fi.om the Workers' Compen.mtion Appeal Board, Capital Associates Building 901 North Seventh Street Third Floor South Harrisburg, PA 17102 IOPEN CLOSED SUSPENDED ] ['-'] UNI~O~ TO WCJ Received BWC 2002-10-01 Employee Witnesses & Exhibits: None _Emnloyer Witnesses & Exhibits, None Emoloyee Counsel Witnesses & Exhibits Sofia Figueroa Mr. Pdvera- Translator l.J. Cho, M.D., by Deposition (03/072002) C-01 Fee Agreement _Emolover Counsel Witnesses & Exhibit_u_.. Eric Kissinger Deposition of Mr. Auman Deposition of Dr. Mittick D-0! Productivity Comparison 3/13/2002 10:00:00 Held 2/25/2002 13:30:00 Postponed 12/12/2001 13:00:00 Held 9/25/2001 11:40:00 Held by Judge on 01/22/02 SOFIA FIGLrER~ . 231 ~[2~5 Received BWC 2002-10-01 Sofia Figueroa Claim # 2311225 Claim Page I of 6 FINDINGS OF FACT I. Claimant started working ~br The Beistle Company approximately October 4, 1999. Claimant put tassels on the items by holding the tassels on the right, operating the machine lmob quickly xx4th her left hand. Claimant did the job 11 hours a day. She worked five days a week. She workcd occasional half days on Saturdays. These are novelty items. 2. Claimant began haxdng left hand problems. These problems came on a little at a time grew worse. Claimant had problems in her thumb, finger and up the left ann. She had not experienced problems like this before. 3. Claimant told her supervisor about her problem. She said she could not do her job t~ast because it would cause pain. 4. Claimant was sent by the employer to a doctor in Shippensburg. Claimant went in October. 5. Claimant was put on other work. She was checking horns to see if they were okay. This is not hard and claimant could do the work. 6. That job ended and claimant's supen~isor said that claimant would have to return to work at thc prior line. 7. Claimant did return to work at her original job. Claimant's pain returned. She told her superxdsor that she could not do the work. The supen~isor talked to the general manager. They came to claimant and said that claimant should not work there an), more. They both escorted claimant out. This occurred around December. 8. Claimant later saw Dr. Cho. Claimant was still treating ~vhen she testified. Claimant w~ sent to therapy. She undenvent an MRI and x-rays. 9. Claimant found cold weather made her wrist worse. Claimant always had pain but the cold made it worse. I0. Claimant ~vorked as a dishwasher at Capital Restaurant approximately a month. She had trouble holding the dishes. She dropped dishes several times because of pain. Claimant lost strcngth in her arms. I 1. Claimant finds that mopping hurts her hand. Heavy lifting hurts claimant. 12. Claimant had been hired as a hem tassel stitcher. When she was hired, claimant had restrictions of no prolonged standing due to a bad left knee. The job was a sitting job. There was an orientation. Claimant is right handed. 13. Claimant returned to hem tassel stitching two days before her discharge. The pain came back the day she went back to the job. She told the supervisor at tho end of the day. The next day claimant told her superx4sor she could not do it and she was fired around 10:30 a.m. 14. Claimant did not meet the productivity quotes because of her pain. She had not been told bctbre that she was short. Received BWC 2002-10-01 Sofia Figueroa Claim # 2311225 2 Claim Page 2 of 6 15. Dr. Sollenberger did a nerve conduction study. 16. Claimant had a restriction note on October 13 and she gave that to the employer and was put on light duty. 17. Claimant had treated with Dr. Cho for her knee. 18. Claimant went to physical therapy fzom February to April. It helped claimant very little. 19. In inspecting horns, they would come by in batches of ten and claimant would look for detects in the light duty job. 20. At Capital Restaurant claimant was paid $6.00 an hour and worked 20 to 25 hours a week. This makes a $132.00 average for 22 hours. 21. The average weeldy wage is $224.11 making an applicable compensation rate of $201.70. 22. Mr. Kissinger is the safety supervisor for The Beistle Company. He deals with Workers' Compensation matters. Claimant started working for The Beistle Company October 4, 1999. Mr. Kissinger had worked in every department as a supem4sor throughout the years. The company makes paper, part3, goods and novelty items. 23. Claimant was a horn tassel stitcher. This job is paid on a piecework basis. Crepe tassels are attached to the end of horns. There were three to four horn tassel stitchers when claimant was there. Claimant had the lowest production. 24. D-1 shows the pieces per hour. Claimant's productivity was about one-third of what the other workers did. Claimant's hours per day are shox~aa and usually they are about ten hours a da3; D-I. Claimant did around 350 an hour. The other employees would average around I0000 an hour. The lowest of the other stitches was 897 an hour. 25. Claimant was hired October 4, 1999 xvhich is a Monday. She was put on light duB, October 13, 1999, a Wednesdas: Claimant was oft' work for the weekend. She returned to work on October 15. Claimant was put on horn inspection. In this job claimant looks for scratches or tears. She worked until December 9, 1999. 26. As a tassel stitcher, claimant worked three partial days and four full days, D-1. 27. The doctor notes show three to four months of work before wrist pain. This is inaccurate. 28. The company has a bonus system, profit sharing. Claimant had a net bonus of Sll4.10 in November. The average was $170.00 throughout the plant. 29. Mr. Kissinger was night shift superx4sor in October to December. He did not supervise claimant. He would see claimant because the shifts overlapped. 30. The other three employees in D-1 had worked there for more than ten 3'ears, less than one year and less than two years. 31. In the job the employee sits in fi-ont of the machine. There is a right 1bet pedal. The horn is cyclc& turned and then stitched. The hands grasp, move left to right. They grasp with the let~t and turn with the right. The machine puts a metal stitch in and then a knife cuts the crepe on the last stitch. 4 Received BWC 2002-10-01 Sofia Figueroa Claim # 2311225 3 Claim Page 3 of 6 32. Mr. Steve Auman was the department supervisor. He was over Mrs. Gilbert who was over claimant. Claimant needed a sit down job when hired and they gave her the position of horn tassel stitcher. A new employee is usually trained for three to four days. At first they watch and then they do the job. Usually after those three to four days of training, the employee meets the quota. Claimant did not show any improvement. During the first 45 days they are paid at a minimum wage rate and then given time to meet quotas. If there are shortages, it is subtracted from their bonus. 33. Claimant asked for a transfer out of the department xxqthin the first week. The request was not granted. They did not have another job for claimant. He recalled no mention of any hand problems. 34. Claimant was told that her productivity was low and she requested a transfer after that. 35. Claimant was put on the light duty job after getting the doctor's restrictions. That job is done at a table. Claimant achieved about half of the expected quota on that job. 36. After claimant went back to full duty at the tassel stitcher job, she reported hand pain xvithin a t~w days. 37. Dr. Mitriek saw the claimant January 16, 2002. He had various medical records and studies. There is a history of three lef~ knee arthroseopies, hernia surgery, appendectomy and gastritis. Claimant's complaints concerned left hand and wrist pain, lack of strength and pain on rotation. Claimant said that Tylenol helped. She used a splint for strenuous activities. Claimant had been treating xvith Dr. Cho. Ibuprofen was recommended and change of work. Claimant had reported dropping dishes in her job as a dishwasher. 38. Dr. Mitrick had a history that claimant started at The Beisfle company on October 4t~ and worked the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8t~. She worked a half day the first day. Claimant worked Monday, October 11th and 12t~. She reported a repetitive motion injury on Wednesda3q October 13th. Claimant later returned to work at a modified job inspecting. After around one and half months she went back to her regular job and complained of wrist pain. The doctor understood she had medical treatment and went to inspection on December 9t~. 39. Dr. Mitrick had records that claimant saw Dr. Cho on October 7, 1999, for a knee problem. She had seen the doctor before for knee problems. There is an x-ray report of the left x~xist dated October 15~ 1999, which was negative. Claimant was seen at Shippensburg Family Practice by a physician's assistant October 15, 1999. There was a diagnosis of tenosynovifis of the lef~ wrist. Rest~ ice, heat, elevation and Vioxx were recommended. Claimant was allowed to r~tum to work October 18th. She was seen again at Family Practice on October 25, 1999. Due to the persistent tenosynovitis, a Medrol Dosepak was prescribed. This is a six-day course of steroids. Claiman~ was seen at the Family Practice on November 5, 1999. Anti-inflammatory medication was prescribed. There was a finding of tenderness on the radial side of the wrist. Claimant was released ~br full duty on November 30, 1999. 40. The records show that claimant was seen by Dr. Lebo on December 21, 1999 with the finding; of probable tendonifis. There was a nerve study January 17, 2000 by Dr. Sollenberger which was positive tbr ulnar neuropathy. Claimant was seen by Mr. Pellegrino on March 3, 2000. The diagnosis was left deQuervain's tenosynovifis. Claimant also saw Dr. Cho. There was an MRI Received BWC 2002-10-01 Sofia Figueroa Claim # 2311225 Claim Page 4 of 6 taken on July of 2000. No tendonitis was found but it was read for a positive carpal tunnel s3~adrome, a compressed median nerve. Dr. Cho later recommended outpatient physical therapy, an elastic cock-up splint, iontophoresis, Ibuprofen, time off work. Claimant did attend physical therapy. There was no progress. Discharge was adxSsed. A second MRI done on May 14, 2001 was unchanged from the July 16, 2000 MRI. It noted the flexor retinaculum was mildly thickened. No finding oftenosynovifis involving the tendons. 41. Dr. Mitrick conducted a physical examination. He conducted range of motion and checked lower back. Upper back, cervical was checked. Extrei;dties ~vere examined. Range of motion of the xwists were checked. The arms were symmetrical. There was good range of motion of the thumb and fingers. There were complaints of pain. There was no atroph3: There were no significant differences between left and right grip strength. The Tinel and Phalen's signs were negative. There was no tenderness in the first dorsal compartment which would indicate the deQucrvain tenosynovitis. There was no crepitis. The Finkelstein's test was negative. There were some inconsistencies on examination. 42. Dr. Mitrick notes various studies and the inconsistencies in the examination. In his opinion, claimant had no problem with her ~wist. As of his examination, she had no physical problem with regard to the left xwist. 43. Dr. Mitrick had an opinion that the kind of work was fast to develop a repetitive motion injury. He could not relate any of her current complaints to her work back at The Beistlc Company. He gave an opinion that her complaints were not related to work at The Beistel Company. The doctor did not feel claimant needed any restrictions. Currently, based on his examination, claimant did not need any restrictions. 44. The doctor noted that deQuervain's tenosynovitis does not affect the tendons which are involved in grip but other and he did not feel the testing he did was consistent with that problem. 45. Dr. Mitrick noted that if someone had done a job a short time and developed a problem, it would resolve after stopping work in which a short time. Had claimant developed a tendonitis, she would have recovered xxqthin approximately three xveeks. 46. Dr. Cho had treated claimant for her 'knee. She was referred January 4, 2001. She gave a history of working at The Beistle Company in a job holding the tip of a tape in the right index finger and thumb, rotating it repetitively, xxa'apping the tape with the left hand and keep:hag moving. It was a repetitive job. He understood she started in October of 1999. Two or three months later she had pain in her left xxxist. She was given splints and told to avoid repetitive jobs. Claimant improved and then was asked to go back to the original job. She got worse. She then saw Dr. Bruno. He understood she was fired. Claimant did not have medical insurance .~a~d she treated at home. She eventually went to Dr. Cho. She had complaints of pain in the left xx~st area. particularly the radial side. On examination, the doctor had positive Phalen and Ti~ael signs. Claimant's muscles were noimal. Pin pricks were normal. There were complaints of pain in the joint of the thumb. He had a diagnosis of left xxxist tendonitis and early signs of ca~[ml tunnel and possible s)movitis. The doctor had an MRI of July 16, 2000, and did a repeat MRI on Ma3' 15, 2001. There was some thickening of the flexor retinaculum. The doctor felt that the tendon was getting thicker and was able to impinge on the nerve. It was not a real carpal tumael syndrome but there was an inflammation which could cause the symptoms. He prescribed anti- Received BWC 2002-10-01 Sofia Figueroa 5 Claim # 2311225 Claim Page 5 of 6 inflammatory medication and a splint. The doctor felt that claimant responded reasonable wall. He saw her regularly from January to June and then on December 20, 2001. At that time, the doctor felt claimant was almost recovered. He advised avoiding aggressive actions that could cause flare-ups or a job requiting repetitive x~xist rotation or t~4sting. 47. Dr. Cho gave an opinion that the job duties for the fight hand, the index finger and the thtmab holding a tip of the tape and then using the left hand with repetitive wrapping caused continuously repetitive m4sting of the wrist and this caused the tendonifis to develop. The doctor felt that even working around a week could cause the problem. The key is the type of motion. 48. Dr. Cho had seen claimant on October 7, 1999 for the knee. There was no mention of other problems in the notes. On March 9, 2000 there was no mention of xvrist pain. He first tr~ted that after a referral from Dr. Robertson. 49. Dr. Cho noted that usually there is improvement ,~4thin three to six months if they have medication, splints, therapy and avoid repetitive x~xist motion. Claimant had a poor response and poor progress. It was due to this that he had the repeat MRI. 50. Dr. Cho agreed that a good part of claimant's problems were lack of exercise resulting in de- conditioning. He had a similar problem when he treated her for the knee. DISCUSSION Dr. Cho's notes had an incorrect histo13,. He was asked to assume that claimant had only worked there a few days. He continued to give the opinion that she suffered the tenosynoxdfis or tendonitis from the work. He stressed that it is the activities of the hand that cause the inflammation. This Judge thought claimant was credible that she had the injury as she described. Claimant went to immediate treatment. They put her on light duty. She went back to full duty and again had s3xnptoms. It was noted that claimant worked there a short time and worked a lot slower than the other ~nnployees. Defendant wanted to draw the inference that claimant did not like the job or that she could not adequately perform it to earn sufficient money and wanted a different j:ob. This Judge thought claimant was credible that she had pain doing the job, plus she was a new cnnployee. Claimant was consistent in reporting s3anptoms to the various providers including the provider that claimant was sent to by the defendant. Having found that claimant did suffer the injury, the question is the length of disability. I thouglat Dr. Mitfick was credible that claimant had recovered by the time he had examined her. Dr. Cho had noted that claimant, although a slow responder to treatment, did improve. Theretbre, this Judge felt it was established that claimant was recovered January 16, 2002. While the doctor doubted the injut3q this Judge thought the testimony of the claimant and the opinion of Dr. Cho were persuasive that she had it. This Judge thought Dr. Mitriek was pemuasive that she had recovered by the time of his examination. Received BWC 2002-10-01 Sofia Figueroa Claim # 2311225 Claim Page 6 of 6 CONCLUSION OF LA~V I. Claimant established that she suffered an injury in the course of her employment which resulted in disabilit3,. 2. It was reasonable to contest this matter. 3. The Fee Agreement is reasonable. 4. Detkndant affirmatively established that claimant had recovered from the work injury. ORDER Compensation is awarded from December 9, 1999 to January 16, 2002. Compensation is temfinated January 16, 2002. Defendant is responsible for medical bills related to the treatment of claimant's hand. Costs are awarded to claimant. Twenty percent (20%) shall be paid to claimant's counsel. JPD/dd ,g~snpul pus -oqe"I jo ~uam~ed~NI aq~ jo IS~S uo pax!jjs zq o9 ,(qsnpuI pus Joqs"I jo :mam~sd~(I ~q~jo ls~,s ~q:~ p~sn~ pus pusq ~(m :~ oluna.t~q ~nsq I 'zIO~H~[HA% ANIOI6II&$]I2L · sp.~o~.~ imquo~p..~noqs, aq~ Jo umpo~sn::,, isb! aq.~ ssa 'q.ms se pus 'uo!:msu~dmoD ,~a~laOA% jo n~.m8 ,uo!s!n?O ~uama3eusl%/sm!elD ,ja!q2) ,3ulua!s aq:~ ~s s~at '~u!og,n. toj aq~ p~uS!s oqm ' samIOH 'I4 I~Tueq~eN ~sq~ ~(J!Ua3 ,(q~aq I EO0~ ' :taqtua~a(I totsp q:~I ~q~ POg!~oD · ~snpuI pus -oqr-I jo luam~sdo(i aq~ jo uo!lssuadmoD ,s~a~l.tOM jo nea.~nl] aq~ u! alg uo su!emai am~s sql ss alaldmo~ pus '~!ma 'ilnJ ss ggEII[~# DM~ 'Xu~dmoD oi~s!~~ oqi jo ass~ 9q] u! s,A~IO~ s~m~F ~MpnF EOOE '~ a~qm~d~s p~ein~a!O joKdoo~aa~oopuepuson~aoqo~pa§!~ao~qa~aq ~ 3u!o~ sn"~d'mms'!Ip'n~a l, OlLI Vd 'Xmqs.~H Fred H. Hait, ID # 34331 Fred Hait & Associates, P.C. The Wellington 17 East High Street, Suite 101 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-4500/263-7444 249-2411 (fax) Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SOFIA FIGUEROA, Plaintiff No. 02-6062 Civil Term VS. THE BEISTLE COMPANY, Defendant To the Prothonotary: PRAECIPE TO SATISFY JUDGMENT Please mark the judgment in this matter has having been satisfied. Respectfully submitted, Fred Hait & Associates, P.C. The Wellington 17 East High Street, Suite 101 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-4500/263-7344 249-2411 (fax) pajoblawfh@earthlink.net IN THE COURT OF coMMON pLEAS OF cUMBERLAND coUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 02-6061 CIVIL TERM PROTECTION FRoMABUSE pETITION #03-304 UNDER pAROLE__ WILLIAM LEE CHRISTOPHERj D~~4a~ --- CHRISTOPHER, --OF wILLIAI~ Lmm - IN THE CASE __.~^,~m mF COMMON pLEAS. C%R4BERLAND COUNTX ~uu~ v FROM THE PETITION FoR REVOCATION OF pAROL~ To the Honorable Judges of Cumberland County CourtS. , S william Lee Christopher appe~r~t~°2hear%~{g%fJ~Z~ WHEREA , ~ = 2003, on two P ~ ~ ~ril 30, 2003, n~r Jr , on AugUSL u, '~=+ion occurring un nw ~_ ~f u~ ! ~' ..... t with one vlu~ ~nn~ On both counu~ Crimznal ~onu=m~ , -~ on July 29, zuu~. ~ ~^d to may the .... ~nment=in theindirect Crlmzn m undercO a permOa o ~ 6 and a second. ~2fUCr2~pt, the defendan? ~s. sfs costS of prosecuLlon, ~ ~ than 1 month nor more than cumberland County Prison of not less from July 29, 2003. The months, with credit to be given not have any objection to the Commonwealth indicated that it would defendant being paroled early, conditioned upon his entry into and successful completion of an inpatient drug and alcohol treatment program- WHEREAS, on August 13, 2003, the defendant was paroled, to inpatient Drug and Alcohol Treatment at White Deer Run, Lancaster, · , ssful completion of inpatient n~ ~n itioned upon his ~c~ ~ rther upon his being.~ ~tment program, ~ . ~ complying w=~ ~ .... 7 . k~ ~ood behavior =~= _ = 2~+~^ned further upon remaining o~ ? ~ ~4oer. an~ conuzu=~ directions of h~s paroz= successful completion of any outpatient treatment recommended by White Deer Run. The defendant'S parole is further conditioned upon his not possessing or consuming any alcohol or unlawful controlled substance. . 12 2003, the defendant rpad or had read to him wHEREAS, on AugusR '~ nrior to signing,, ne .was fully aware of condztzon of parpl ~-=^ndant'S maximum expzranmon date is January its contentS- The 29, 2004. WHEREAS, the defendant did report and request residential treatment White Deer Run in Lancaster, PA, but was denied treatment at the to a lack of medical necessity. at ........ 1 of care, due ...... +~ last use would resioen%la± z=~F Run the client'S r~pu=o~ .=~n~;O ~ ~ra4nc to White Deer , -..+e~rization for reslu= ~cc ..... ~ - ~'~ ~or insurance ~u~ - ~-~^~oive Outpatlenu not qualizy ~1~= ~^~H=nt was evaluated zor ~7~ ~d ammeared - ~ The uez=~=~ _ . ~ur~ Oiz1ce, =~ ~=at the White Deer Run, Marrlo~ ~ to begin services on appropriate for that level of care, and was 08/18/03- WILLIAM LEE CHRISTOPHER - PETITION Page 2 1. William Lee Christopher has violated the Parole Order dated August 12, 2003, as well as parole condition %1, in that on August 14, 2003, the defendant was cited with Public Drunkenness by the Carlisle Police Department. It is noted that the Adult Probation Office issued a Warrant to Commit and Retain for the defendant, and he has been incarcerated in the Cumberland County Prison since August 14, 2003. THEREFORE your petitioner prays this Honorable Court to determine whether there has been a parole violation and if so, whether the parole heretofore granted should be revoked. I verify that the facts set forth in this petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge or information and belief. This verification is made subject to the penalties of section 4904 of the Crimes Code (18 PA C.S. @4904) relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DAVID W. HALL, Plaintiff V ERNEST A. CLAWSER, III Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CLIMBERI.~ COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY : : NO. 01-6062 EQUITY TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 5th day of December, 2002, upon consideration of Defendant's motion for sanctions against the Plaintiff, it is hereby ordered and decreed that said motion is granted and that all matters regarding the questions that were asked or the character or description of the thing or land or the contents of the paper or any other designated fact shall be taken to be established for the purposes of the action in accordance with the Defendant's defense and claim pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4019, and same shall be neither supported nor opposed by the Plaintiff. Michael J. Hanft, Esquire For the Plaintiff Albert N. Peterlin, Esquire For the Defendant :bg By the Court, Ke~v~A. Hess, J. -/gt 40