Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-1215IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RONNIE L. DEATRICK and TAMMY DEATRICK, his wife, Plaintiffs, VS. PYROTEK, INC., CIVIL ACTION-LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant. COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION Filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Counsel of Record for this Party: Janice M. Savinis, Esquire PA ID No. 51943 Aaron J. DeLuca, Esquire PA ID No. 76044 GOLDBERG, PERSKY, JENNINGS & WHITE, P.C. Firm #744 1030 Fifth Avenue Third Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219-6295 (412) 471-3980 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RONNIE L. DEATRICK and No. TAMMY DEATRICK, his wife, CIVIL ACTION-LAW Plaintiffs, vs. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PYROTEK, INC., Defendant. COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAVVYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THF OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP: CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA (717) 249-3166 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RONNIE L. DEATRICK and TAMMY DEATRICK, his wife, Plaintiffs, VS. PYROTEK, INC., Defendant. NO. CIVIL ACTION-LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION COUNTI Plaintiffs, Ronnie L. Deatrick and Tammy Deatrick, are individuals residing at 581 Cherry Valley Road, Millerstown, PA 17062. Defendant, Pyrotek, Inc., (hereinafter "Defendant") is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Washington, its principal place of business in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and is qualified to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Ronnie L. Deatrick (hereinafter"Plaintiff-Husband" or"Plaintiff") was an employee of Pyrotek, Inc. in Carlisle, Pennsylvania from 1976 to 1983 as a machinist. At all times material to this Complaint, Plaintiff-Husband, while on the premises of Defendant was an invitee. At all times that Plaintiff-Husband was on the premises of Defendant as described above, he was lawfully on the premises and invited to be on the premises of Defendant by Defendant. At all times that Plaintiff-Husband was on the premises of Defendant as described above, Defendant retained control over the premises and continued to occupy the premises. At all times that Plaintiff-Husband was on the premises of Defendant, Defendant specified the use of asbestos and/or asbestos containing products which were used, or otherwise present o 10. 11. in close proximity of the Plaintiff-Husband, by employees of the Defendant who were doing work under the Defendant's direction and/or control and which caused asbestos fibers to be liberated into the air which were inhaled by the Plaintiff-Husband. Asbestos containing products were stored, used, machined, tooled, cut, drilled, ground, lathed, applied, packaged, shipped and/or torn out on the premises of Defendant at the time that Plaintiff-Husband was present on the premises, causing the Plaintiff-Husband to suffer exposure. Defendant, as owner and occupier of the premises on which Plaintiff-Husband had been invited, owed Plaintiff-Husband a duty to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition, and owed a duty to give him timely notice of latent or concealed perils which were known or should have been known by Defendants. Plaintiff-Husband's injuries resulted in whole or in part from the Defendant's negligence. Prior to Plaintiff-Husband's first day of employment with the Defendant, Defendant knew, orshould have known, that Plaintiff and his coworkers would be exposed to asbestos and knew that such exposures were dangerous, toxic and potentially deadly. Despite this knowledge, Defendant: a. failed to provide Plaintiff-Husband with a reasonably safe place to work; b. failed to furnish Plaintiff-Husband with safe and suitable tools and equipment including adequate protective masks and/or protective inhalation devices; c. failed to warn Plaintiff-Husband of the true nature and hazardous effect of asbestos containing products; d. failed to operate its premises in a reasonable safe manner; e. failed to provide adequate instructions or a method for the safe use of asbestos; f. failed to test said asbestos products to determine their ultra-hazardous nature prior to requiring employees, including Plaintiff-Husband, to work with the same; g. failed to formulate and use safe methods of handling said asbestos products, thereby exposing Plaintiff-Husband to high concentrations of asbestos dust or fibers; h. failed to provide Plaintiff-Husband with safe and proper ventilation systems on the premises; i. failed to exercise reasonable care in publishing and enforcing a safety plan and method of handling asbestos-containing products; 12. 13. failed to inquire of the manufacturers and suppliers of asbestos-containing products of the hazardous nature of these materials; required employees, including Plaintiff-Husband, to work with ultra-hazardous asbestos materials and products; allowed unsafe work practices to become the standard practices; failed to exercise adequate care for the health and safety of employees, including Plaintiff-Husband; failed to periodically inspect the premises in order to ascertain any asbestos dust or fiber concentration; and failed to limit access to areas where asbestos-containing products were used and/or stored. At all times that Plaintiff-Husband was on the premises of Defendants, as more specifically described above, Defendant knew or should have known the Plaintiff-Husband neither knew nor should have known of the following: that potentially lethal asbestos fibers from asbestos and/or asbestos containing products were being applied and handled on said premises; that potentially lethal asbestos fibers were being released into the atmosphere of said premises by persons other than Plaintiff-Husband; that Plaintiff-Husband, and persons similarly situated, were in close proximity to those persons who were handling and applying potentially lethal asbestos and/or asbestos containing products; that Plaintiff-Husband, and persons similarly situated, were being exposed to potentially lethal asbestos and/or asbestos containing products and were inhaling asbestos fibers; and e. that the inhalation of asbestos fibers was hazardous to the health of human beings and more specifically to Plaintiff-Husband and persons similarly situated. Defendant breached its duty to Plaintiff-Husband every time that the Plaintiff-Husband was at Defendant's location in the following particulars: Co failed to advise Plaintiff-Husband that asbestos fibers were being released into the atmosphere in close proximity to him while he was present on the premises owned and occupied by Defendants. failed to advise Plaintiff-Husband that the inhalation of asbestos fibers could result in serious bodily injury, cancer and/or death. failed to use ordinary care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition and thereby eliminate or reduce Plaintiff-Husband's exposure to, and inhalation of, lethal asbestos fibers released into the atmosphere on the premises. failed to test and/or adequately test the atmosphere of the premises to determine the concentration of asbestos fibers in the atmosphere of the premises. e. failed to schedule work performed on the premises such that the exposure to potentially lethal asbestos fibers would be eliminated or reduced. 14. Prior to and at said times and places, Defendant was subject to certain ordinances, statutes, and other government regulations promulgated by the United States Government, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and others which required said Defendant to provide specific safeguards and/or precautions to prevent or reduce the inhalation of asbestos dust and other toxic fumes or substances and said Defendant failed to provide the required safeguards and precautions, and said failure resulted in Plaintiff-Husband's injuries. 15. At all material times, Defendant knew, or in the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care should have known that the premises that were in their control would be used without knowledge of, or inspection for, defects or dangerous conditions and that the persons working on or using said premises, such as Plaintiff-Husband, would not be aware of the aforesaid hazardous conditions to which they were exposed on the premises. 16. At all material times, Defendant negligently failed to maintain, manage, inspect, survey or control said premises or to abate or correct, or to warn Plaintiff-Husband of the existence of the aforesaid dangerous conditions and hazards on said premises. 17. The breach by Defendant of its duties to Plaintiff-Husband was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff-Husband's development and contraction of asbestos-related disease and resulted in damages more particularly described below to the Plaintiffs. 18. During the period of time set forth hereinabove, Plaintiff-Husband, while employed as set forth above, was exposed to and did inhale asbestos dust and asbestos fibers, which proximately caused the condition of mesothelioma in Plaintiff-Husband. 19. The Plaintiff-Husband's mesothelioma was diagnosed on September 6, 2002. Plaintiffs were unaware of and could not discover the nature and cause of said mesothelioma before September 6, 2002. 20. As a further direct and proximate result of the recklessness, carelessness and negligence of the defendants as aforesaid and the injuries sustained, Plaintiff-Husband has been damaged as follows: 21. Plaintiff-Husband has incurred and may continue to incur great pain, suffering and inconvenience; Plaintiff-Husband has been and may continue to be limited and precluded from normal activities; Plaintiff-Husband has suffered and may continue to suffer great nervous and emotional distress; do Plaintiff-Husband has suffered and may continue to suffer loss of his general health, strength and vitality; Said plaintiff has been and may continue to be required to spend money for medicine, medical care, nursing, hospital and surgical attention, medical appliances and household care. Plaintiff has no apparent recourse against Pyrotek in the Worker's Compensation system because more than 300 weeks has passed since his employment at Pyrotek. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs have been damaged and claims damages of the Defendant in an amount in excess of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) Dollars, which is in excess of the arbitration jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. In the alternative, Plaintiffs ask this Court to declare and deem the 300 week period for bringing a Worker's Compensation be tolled with regard to Plaintiffs' claim against Pyrotek until he was diagnosed with mesothelioma on September 6, 2002. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED. COUNT II 22. 23. Plaintiffs incorporate the aforementioned paragraphs by reference as though fully set forth herein. As a direct and proximate result of the carelessness, negligence and recklessness of the Defendant and of the aforesaid injuries to her husband, Tammy Deatrick (hereinafter"Plaintiff. Wife" or "Plaintiff") has been damaged as follows: a. Plaintiff-Wife has been and may continue to be deprived of the services, society and companionship of her husband; b. Plaintiff-Wife has been required to and may continue to be required to spend money for medicine, medical care, nursing, hospital and surgical attention, medical appliances and household care for the treatment of her husband; Plaintiff-Wife has been and may continue to be deprived of the earnings of her husband. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Wife claims damages in an amount in excess of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) Dollars, which is in excess of the arbitration jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED. 24. 25. ~OUNTIII Plaintiffs incorporate the aforementioned paragraphs by reference as though fully set forth herein. Plaintiffs further seek exemplary and punitive damages against Defendant to punish it for its actions that were willful, wanton, gross and in total disregard of the health and safety of its employees like Plaintiff-Husband. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs claim damages of the Defendant in an amount in excess of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) Dollars, which is in excess of the arbitration jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland, Pennsylvania. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AS TO ALL COUNTS. GOLDBERG, PERSKY, JENNINGS & WHITE, P.C. VERIFICATION COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COIINTY OF The.undersigned, being a party to the instant action, states that the foregoing averments are true and correct based upon his/her personal knowledge or information and belief and that the facts contained therein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RONNIE L. DEATRICK and TAMMY DEATRICK, his wife V. PYROTEK, INC. TO THE PROTHONOTARY: matter. No. 03-1215 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Please enter our appearance on behalf of Defendant Pyrotek, Inc. in the above-captioned HECKER BROWN SHERRY AND JOHNSON BY: Kristina M. Reatler, Esqui~/ Attorney Identification NdJ. 34160, 90155 Attorneys for Defendant 1700 Two Logan Square 18th and Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 446-6209 DATED: April 3, 2003 111812-1 HECKER BROWN SHERRY AND JOHNSON LLP * 1700 TWO LOGAN SQUARE · ]8TH AND ARCH STREETS * PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2769 SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2003-01215 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND DEATRICK RONNIE L ET AL VS PYROTEK INC RICHARD SMITH , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon the PYROTEK INC DEFENDANT , at 1285 CLAREMONT ROAD CARLISLE, PA 17013 LISA CAMPBELL, at 1531:00 HOURS, on the ~4t~ day of March , 2003 by handing to OFFICE ASSISTANT a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing He_~r attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 3.45 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 31.45 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this /D ~- day of ~ ~B A.D. -'/~othonot ary So Answers: R. Thomas Kline ~/L2D~/E~03pERS K~ i~S WHITE By: ~~e '~ IN THE COURT OF COMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RONNIE L. DEATRICK and TAMMY DEATRICK, his wife, PYROTEK, INC., Plaintiffs, : V. '. Defendant. : No. 03-1215 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION PRAECIPE TO: THE PROTHONOTARY OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1332, 1441 and 1446, defendant Pyrotek, Inc. files a certified copy of the Notice of Removal filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on the 17th day of April, 2003. HECKER BROWN SHERRY AND JOHNSON t 0 Stepl~e'n~Esquire Attorney for Defendant Pyrotek, Inc. 112102-1 HECKER BROWN SHERRY AND JOHNSON LLP · 1700 TWO LOGAN SQUARE · ISTH AND ARCH STREETS · PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2769 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RONNIE L DEATRICK end TAMMY DEATRICK, his wife, Plaintiffs, vs. PYROTEK~ INC., Defendant. CIVIL ACTION-LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION TRUE COPY FROM RECORL~ In Testir~mny w~reOf, ! here unto se~ my han~ Filed on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Counsel of Record for this Party: Janice M. Savinis, Esquire PA ID No. 51943 Aaron J. DeLuca, Esquire PA ID No. 76044 GOLDBERG, PERSKY, JENNINGS & WHITE, P.C. Firm ~f744 1030 Fifth Avenue Third Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219-6295 (412) 471-3950 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RONNIE L DEATRICK and TAMMY DEA'FRICK, his wife, Plaintiffs, PYROTEK, INC., Defendant. NO. CIVIL ACTION-LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION NOTICE YOU have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other fights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO N_O_~T HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE,_GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW T,O FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP: CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA (717) 249-3166 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA RONNIE L, DEATRICK and TAMMY DEATRiCK, his wife, Plaintiffs, PYROTEK, INC., Defendant. No, CML ACTION-LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION. COUNT I Plain[;[[a, Ronnie L Deatrick end Tammy Deatrick, are individuals residing at 581 Cherry Valley Road, Millemtown, PA 17062. Defendant, Pyrotek, Inc., (hereinafter "Defendant") is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Washington, its principal place of business in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and is qualified to do business in the Commonwe ,alth of Pennsylvania. Ronnie L. Deatrick (hereinafter"Plaintiff-Husband" or'Plaintiff") was an employee of Pyrotek, Inc. in Carlisle, Pennsylvani~ from 1976 to 1963 as a machinist. At all times material to this Complaint, Plaintiff-Husband, while on the premises of Defendant was an invltee. At all times that Plaintiff-Husband was on the premises of Defendant as described above, he was lawfully on the premises and invited to be on the premises of Defendant by Defendant. At all Umes that Plaintiff-Husband was on the premises of Defendant as described above, Defendant retained control over the premises and continued to occupy the premises. At all times that Plaintiff-Husband was on the premises of Defendant, Defendant specified the use of asbestos and/or asbestos containing products which were used, or otherwise present 10. 11. in close proximity of the Plaintiff-Husband, by employees of the Defendant who were doing work under the Defendant's direction and/or control and which caused asbestos fibers to be liberated into the air which were inhaled by the Plaintiff-Husband. Asbestos containing products were stored, used, machined, tooled, cut, drilled, ground, lathed, applied, packaged, shipped and/or tom out on the premises of Defendant at the time that Plaintiff-Husband was present on the premises, causing the Plaintiff-Husband to suffer exposure. Defendant~ as owner and occupier of the premises on which Plaintiff-Husband had been invited, owed Platntiff-Husband a duty to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition, and owed a duty to give him timely notice of latent or concealed perils which were known or should have been known by Defendants. Plaintiff. Husband,s injuries resulted in whole or in part from the Defendant's negligence. Prior to Plaintiff-Husband's first day of employment with the Defendant. Defendant knew, or should have known, that Plaintiff and his coworkers would be exposed to asbestos and knew that such exposures were dangerous, toxic and potentially deadly. Despite this knowledge, Defendant: a. failed to provide Plaintiff-Husband with a reasonably safe place to work; b. failed to furnish Plaintiff-Husband with safe and suitable tools and equipment Including adequate protective masks and/or prOtective inhalation devices; c. failed to warn Plaintiff-Husband of the true nature and hazardous effect of asbestos containing products; d. failed to operate its premises in a reasonable safe manner; e. failed to provide adequate instructions or a method for the safe use of asbestos; f. failed to test said asbestos products to determine their ultra-hazardous nature prior to requiring employees, including Plaintiff-Husband, to work with the same; g. failed to formulate and use safe methods of handling said asbestos products, thereby exposing Plaintiff-Husband to high concentrations of asbestos dust or fibers; h. failed to provide Plaintiff-Husband with safe and proper ventilation systems on the premises; i. failed to exercise reasonable care in publishing and enforcing a safety plan and' method of handling asbestos-containing products; 12. 13. failed to inquire of the manufacturers and suppliers of asbestos-containing pro, ducts of the hazardous nature of these materials; required employees, including Plaintiff-Husband, to work with ultra-hazardous asbest,os materials and products; allowed unsafe work practices to become the standard practices: failed to exercise adequate care for the health and safety of employees, including Plaintiff-Husband; failed to periodical/y inspect the premises in order to ascertain any asbestos dust or fiber concentration; and failed to limit access to areas where asbestos-containing products were used and/or stored. At ali times that Plaintiff-Husband was on the premises of Defendants, as more specifically described above, Defendant knew or should have known the Plaintiff-Husband neither knew nor should have known of the following: bo that potentially lethal asbestos fibers from asbestos and/or asbestos containing products were being applied and handled on said premlses; that potentially lethal asbestos fibers were being released into the atmosphere of said premises by persons other than Plaintiff-Husband; that Plaintiff-Husband, and persons similarly situated, were in close proximity to those persons who were handling and applying potentially lethal asbestos and/or asbestos containing products; do that Plaintiff-Husband, and persons similarly situated, were being exposed to potentially lethal asbestos and/or asbestos containing products and were inhaling asbestos fibers; and that the inhalation of asbestos fibers was hazardous to the health of human beings and more specifically to Plaintiff-Husband and persons similaFly situated. Defendant breached its duty to Plaintiff-Husband every time that the Plaintiff-Husband was at Defendant's location in the following particulars: ac failed to advise Plaintiff-Husband that asbestos fibem were being released into the atmosphere in close proximity to him while he was present on the premises owned and occupied by Defendants. failed to advise Plaintiff-Husband that the inhalation of asbestos fibers could result in serious bodily injury, cancer and/or death. Co failed to use ordinary care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition and thereby eliminate or reduce Plaintiff-Husband's exposure to, and inhalation' of, lethal asbestos fibers released into the atmosphere on the premises. d. failed to test and/or adequately test the atmosphere of the premises to determine the ¶4. 15. 16. 17. 18. 20. concentration of asbestos fibers in the atmosphere of the premises. e. failed to schedule wOl~ performed on the premises such that the exposure to potentially lethal asbestos fibers would be eliminated or reduced. Prior to and at said times and places, Defendant was subject to certain ordinances, statutes, and other government regulations promulgated by the United States Govemment~ the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and others which requiredsaid Defendant to provide specific safeguards and/or precautions to prevent or reduce the inhalation of asbestos dust and other toxic fumes or substances and said Defendant failed to provide the required safeguards and precautions, and said failure resulted in Plaint/fi-Husband's injuries. At all materiel times, Defendant knew, or in the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care should have known that the premises that were in their contTol would be used without knowledge of, or inspection for, d~fects or dangerous conditions and that the persons working on or using said premises, such as Plaintiff-Husband, would not be aware of the aforesaid hazardous conditions to which they were exposed on the premises. At all material times, Defendant negligently failed to maintain, manage, inspect, survey or ~'ontrol said premises or to abate or correct, or to warn Plaintiff-Husband of the existence of the aforesaid dangerous conditions and hazards on said premises. The breach by Defendant of its duties to Plaintiff-Husband was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiff-Husband's development and contraction of asbestos-related disease and resulted in damages more particularly described below to the Plaintiffs. During the period of time set forth hereinabove, Plaintiff-Husband, while employed as set forth above, was exposed to and did inhale asbestos duSt and asbestos fibers, which proximately caused the condition of mesothelioma in Plaintiff-Husband. The Plaintiff-Husband's mesothelioma was diagnosed on September 6, 2002. Plaintiffs were unaware of and could not discover the nature and cause of said mesothelioma before September 6, 2002. As a further direct and proximate result of the recklessness, carelessness and negligence of the defendants as aforesaid and the injuries sustained, Plaintiff-Husband has been damaged as follows: 21. Plaintiff-Husband haI incurred and may continue to Incur great pain, suffering and inconvenience; bo Plaintiff-Husband has been and may continue to be limited and precluded from normal activities; Co Plaintiff-Husband has suffered and may continue to suffer great nervous and emotional distress; Plaintiff-Husband has suffered and may continue to Suffer loss of his general health, strength and vitality; Said plaintiff has been and may continue to be required to spend money for medicine, medical care, nursing, hospital and surgical attention, medical appliances and household care. Plaintiff has no apparent recourse against Pyrotek in the Worker's Compensation system because more than 300 weeks has passed since his employment at Pyrotek. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs have been damaged and claims damages of the Defendant in an amount in excess of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) Dollars, which is in excess of the arbitration jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, In the altemafive, Plaintiffs ask this Court to declare and deem the 300 week period for bringing a Worker's Compensation be tolled with regard to Plaintiffs' claim against Pyrotek until he was diagnosed with mesothelioma o~1 September 6, 2002. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED. 22. 23. COUNT I! Plaintiffs incorporate the aforementioned paragraphs by reference as though fully set forth herein, As a direct and proximate result of the carelessness, negligence and recklessness of the Defendant and of the aforesaid injuries to her husband, Tammy Deatrick (hereinafter"Plaintiff- Wife" or "Plaintiff") has been damaged as follows: a. Plalntiff-W~fe has been and may continue to be deprived of the services, society and companionship of her husband; b. Plaintiff-Wife has been required to and may continue to be required to spend money Co for medicine, medical care, nursing, hospital and surgical attention, medical appliances and household care for the treatment of her husband; Plaintiff-W'rfe has been and may continue to be deprived of the earnings of her husband. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff-Wife claims damages in an amount in excess of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) Dollars, which is in excess of the arbitration jurisdiction oft he Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED, 24. 25. COUNT III Plaintiffs incorporate the aforementioned paragraphs by reference as though fully '~set forth herein. Plaintiffs further seek exemplary and punitive damages against Defendant to punish it for its actions that were willful, wanton, gross and in total disregard of the health and safety of its employees like Plaintiff-Husband. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs claim damages of the Defendant in an amount in excess of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) Dollars, which is in excess of the arbitration jurisdiction of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland, Pennsylvania. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AS TO ALL COUNTS, GOLDBERG, PERSKY, JENNINGS & WHrTE, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff CO~ONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF The.undersigned, being a party to the in~ta~t action, sta=em that foregoing averments are nrue' and correct based upon his/her personal knowledge or information and belief and that the facts contain~d therein are subject to thc panalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relatkng to unsworn falsifications to authorities.