Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-25771 `-1-- SAMUEL MCCRAY 815 North Holly Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA is Vs. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSLYVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 2500 Lisburn Road Camp Hill, PA 17001 NON-JURY ?G CIVIL, ACTION NO.- NOTICE TO DEFEND Q' Q C7 A 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 AN ATTORNEY AND FILING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT YOU AND A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTEREDAGAINST YOU BY THE COURT WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR ANY MONEY CLAIMED OR FOR ANY OTHER CLAIM OR RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF. YOU MAY LOSE MONEY OR PROPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS IMPORTANT TO YOU. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. DAUPHIN COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE 213 NORTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717)232-7536 1. Plaintiff, SAMUEL MCCRAY is an adult individual residing at 815 North Holly Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. 2. Defendant, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, is a Municipal and/or state agency organized and/or existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the ordinances of the City and County of Dauphin and at all times material and herein having a business address of 2500 Lisburn Road, Camp Hill, PA 17001. 3. At all times material herein Defendant, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSLYVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS were acting by and through their agents, servants, workmen and/or employees and/or apparent and/or ostensible agent, servant, workman, and/or employees who were acting in the course of their employment and within the scope of their authority. 4. At all times material herein Defendant, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSLYVANIA, ENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS owned, controlled, managed and/or maintained the Camp Hill State Institution located at the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, 2500 Lisburn Road, PA 17001. 5. On or about November 4, 1999, the plaintiff, SAMUEL MCCRAY was an inmate at the Camp Hill State Institution when he sustained a lower back injury and was taken to the medical facilities within the Camp Hill State Institution. 6. At said time the plaintiff was negligently, carelessly and/or recklessly treated with moist heat compresses to his lumbar area. 7. Agents, servants, workmen and/or employees and/or apparent and/or ostensible agent, servant, workman, and/or employees of the defendant, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSLYVANIA, THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS carlessly, recklessly and/or negligently failed to apply a barrier between the plaintiff's skin and the moist heat compresses. 8. Agents, servants, workmen and/or employees and/or apparent and/or ostensible agent, servant, workman, and/or employees of the defendant, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSLYVANIA, THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS carlessly, recklessly and/or negligently maintained the moist heat compresses to the plaintiff's lumbar area throughout the night rather than as ordered. 9. As a result of defendant, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSLYVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS carlesslessness, recklessness and/or negligence by and through their agents, servants, workmen and/or employees and/or apparent and/or ostensible agent, servant, workman, and/or employees the plaintiff sustained a second degree burn to his lumbar area. COUNT I SAMUEL MCCRAY VS. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSLYVANIA PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 10. Paragraphs 1 through 9 are hereby incorporated by herein and made apart hereof. 11. The carelessness, recklessness and/or negligence of the Defendant, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSLYVANIA, PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, by and through their agents, servants, workmen and/or employees, consisted inter alia of the following: (a) failing to properly diagnose the nature of plaintiff's problem or the seriousness thereof and act according to reasonable standards; (b) by negligently, carelessly and/or recklessly failing to apply a barrier between the plaintiff's skin and the moist heat compresses; (c) by negligently, carelessly and/or recklessly applying the moist heat compresses to the plaintiff's skin at the wrong temperature; (d) failing to exercise reasonable care and diligence in the application of knowledge and skill to plaintiff's by maintaining the moist heat compresses to the plaintiff's lumbar area throughout the night; (e) failing to exercise reasonable care and diligence in the application of knowledge and skill to plaintiff's by failing to use the proper and/or adequate; temperature of the moist heat compresses used on the plaintiff, (f) failing to follow orders in the application of the heat compresses on the plaintiff's skin; (g) Failing to properly and/or adequately manage, train and/or supervise its agents, servants, workmen and/or employees (h) failing to possess the degree of professional learning, skill and ability which others similarly situated ordinarily possess. (i) failing to maintain and keep adequate records, reports and notes so as to allow proper treatment and follow-up by medical personnel, employees, agents, servants and/or workmen; 0) being otherwise negligent 12. By reason of the aforesaid negligence of the Defendant as hereinbefore alleged, the Plaintiff suffered severe and permanent injuries to his head, neck, back, arms, legs and body; he suffered severe and permanent injuries to the bones, muscles, tendons, ligaments, nerves and tissues of his head, neck, back, arms, legs and body, including but not limited to second degree burn in the lumbar area and aggravation andlor exacerbation of pre-existing medical conditions. The Plaintiff suffered internal injuries of an unknown nature, she suffered severe aches, pains, mental anxiety and anguish and a severe shock to his entire nervous system and other injuries, the full extent of which is not yet known. She has in the past and will in the future undergo severe pain and suffering as a result of which she has been in the past and will in the future be unable to attend to his usual duties and occupation, all to his great financial detriment and loss. The Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that his injuries are permanent in nature. 13. As a result of the aforesaid occurrence, the Plaintiff has been compelled, in order to effectuate a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention and may be required to expend additional sums for the same purpose in the future. 14. As a result of the aforesaid occurrence, the Plaintiff.' has been prevented from attending to his usual and daily activities and duties, and may be prevented for an indefinite period of time in the future, all to his great detriment and loss. 15. As a result of the aforesaid occurrence, the Plaintiff has suffered physical pain, mental anguish and humiliation and he may continue to suffer same for an indefinite period of time in the future. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SAMUEL MCCRAY demands damages of the Defendant herein in a sum in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00). COUNT II SAMUEL MCCRAY VS. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSLYVANIA, THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 16. Paragraphs 1 through 15 are hereby incorporated by herein and made apart hereof. 17. Defendant have a duty and responsibility to its patients and inmates to furnish appropriate and competent medical care in situations such as that presented by the plaintiff. 18. As part of its duties and responsibilities, Defendant have an obligation to establish policies and procedures and have competent medical people who will guarantee the quality of medical practice which is conducted within the institution. 19. The negligence, carelessness and/or recklessness of Defendants, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSLYVANIA and THE PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS by and through its agents, servants, workmen and/or employees and/or those who appeared to be its agents, servants, workmen and/or employees consisted inter alia of the following: (a) permitting improper, inadequate and/or negligent medical care to occur upon the aforesaid premises during the time that plaintiff, SAMUEL MCCRAY was treated; (b) failing to direct or require the attention or advice and instructions of qualified specialists as to the diagnosis, evaluation and treatment of the condition of the plaintiff, SAMUEL MCCRAY; (c) failing to have present competent medical personnel to monitor, diagnose and treat plaintiff's condition promptly, competently and/or adequately during plaintiff's treatment (d) failing to monitor all the acts of its physicians, nurses, and/or their agents, servants, and/or employees during plaintiff SAMUEL MCCRAY' S treatment; (e) being otherwise negligent. 20. As a result of the aforesaid occurrences, the Plaintiff has sustained injuries and damages as aforesaid. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff SAMUEL MCCRAY demands damages of the Defendant in a sum in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00). MILTON J. FRANK & ASSOCIATES BY: BRA-NK, ESQUIRE for the Plaintiff VERIFICATION ?_r?z/zg hereby states that he/she is the Plaintiff herein; that he/she is acquainted with the facts set forth in the foregoing pleading; that the same is true and correct to the best of his/her knowledge, information and belief and that statements therein are made subject to 18 Pa.C.S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: Z/- / el" D6te: 4/29/2003 Dauphin County Time: 11:31 AM ROA Report Page 1 of 1 Case: 2001-CV-5180-CV Current Judge: No Judge Samuel McCray vs. Commonwealth of PA Dept of Corrections Civil Date 11/2/2001 New Civil Case Filed This Date. Filing: Complaint Paid by: Milton J Frank & Assoc Receipt number: 0000109 Dated: 11/2/2001 Amount: $90.00 (Check) 11/15/2001 Served Complaint upon Defendant(s) Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania Department Of Corrections (Cumberland County). So Answers J.R , . Lotwick, Sheriff. Paid $42.00. 12/4/2001 D. Michael Fisher Attorney General by: Steven C. Gould, Esq. enters appearance on behalf of defendant. 10/3/2002 Answer and new matter of defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania , Department of Corrections to plaintiffs complaint, filed Stipulation, filed 3/13/2003 Objections of the Commonwealth defendant to plaintiffs interrogatories , filed 3/14/2003 Objections of the Commonwealth defendant to plaintiffs request for production of documents, filed 4/28/2003 Praecipe to List for Argument, filed by counsel for Plaintiff. Petition to Transfer Venue to Cumberland County, filed. Upon consideration of the attached stipulation, it is hereby ORDERED that the Prothonotary of Dauphin County is directed to transfer this case to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. All costs and fees associated with the transfer are to be paid by Plaintiff. See ORDER filed. Copies distributed 4-29-03. User: LGARCIA 716 . p3- -2577 CtL-•( -FA,- Judge No Judge No Judge No Judge No Judge No Judge No Judge No Judge No Judge No Judge No Judge Todd A. Hoover 4/29/2003 The above case is hereby Transfer to the Court of Common Pleas of No Judge Cumberland County. APR 9 293 tPt `a fs 7f pPothO W notary GdirrJ Stephen E. Farina Prothonotary OFFICE OF .YgOTHONOTARY Curtis R Long, Prothonotary April 29, 2003 Cumberland County CourtHouse Hanover & High Street Carlisle, Pa 17013 Front & Market Streets ft'is , PA(J7101 - C_ t- (7180-6520_ ?C- -n ? ra RE: Samuel McCray Vs Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Dept of Corrections Dauphin County Dkt No 5180 CV 2001 Cumberland County Dkt No. 03- aS9 czt',? e,,_, Dear Sir/ Madam: By Order of April 29, 2003 by Hon Todd A Hoover, Judge The above matter has been transferred to the Court of Common Please of Cumberland County. I am, accordingly, sending originals of all the papers herewith. I Will appreciate the return of the attached receipt address to the Attention: of Ms. Lisandra Garcia. Very truly yours, Stephen E. Farina Prothonotary County of Dauphin (%firE.a# At o$heriff Mary Jane Snyder Real Estate Deputy William T. Tully Solicitor Dauphin County Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 ph: (717) 255-2660 fax: (717) 255-2889 Jack Lotwick Sheriff Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Dauphin Sheriff's Return No. 5180-CV - - -2001 J. Daniel Basile Chief Deputy Michael W. Rinehart Assistant Chief Deputy AND NOW:November 15, 2001 at 2:40PM served the within COMPLAINT upon COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PA by personally handing DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS(CUMBERLAND CO) to KELLY WERSTLER, LEGAL ASSISTANT 1 true attested copy(ies) of the original COMPLAINT and making known to him/her the contents thereof at 55 UTLEY DRIVE CAMP HILL, PA 17001-0000 So Answers, ? )?* er? Sheriff of Dauphin County, Pa. Plaintiff: MCCRAY SAMUEL Sheriff's Costs: $42.00 PD 11/13/2001 RCPT NO 1.56588 SHEP.IFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2001-00784 T .- iw COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MCCRAY SAMUEL VS COMM OF PA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS SHANNON SUNDAY , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS the DEFENDANT , at 0014:40 HOURS, on the 15th day of November , 2001 at 55 UTLEY DRIVE CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to KELLY WERSTLER (LEGAL ASST) a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTIC".E together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 9.10 Affidavit 2.50 Surcharge .00 Sworn an;LaN ibed to before me this do NnTARY PUBLIC So Answers: - I. e - 0 t-000A vvmleoc ?e? R. Thomas Kline 11/16/2001 MILTON J. FRANK & ASSOCIATES By - Deputy Sheriff' of Bate /a- l0-6/ ..._...?... `?,- Entered By /a _ a Sheriff--- MCCRAY SAMUEL VS. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA PA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS(CUMBERLAND CO) 2500 LISBURN RD CAMP HILL, PA 17001 (01 COPY) No. 5180-CV - - -2001 COMPLAINT Directions to Sheriff of Dauphin County, PA 11/13/01 CUMBERLAND CO. $100.00 FRANK MILTON 1831 CHESTNUT ST THE PROFESSIONAL BLDG, SUITE 302 PHILA, PA 19103 (215) 569-1666 is?s"OY Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Steven C. Gould Deputy Attorney General Direct Dial 717-783-8035 SAMUEL MCC RAY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,: NO: 5180-CV-2001 PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Defendant G ?l d 7,, ENTRY OF APPEARANCE `-' -' `^ - - ?M Please enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant, Commonweal h of Pevlvafij;L) Pennsylvania Department of Corrections in the above-captioned matter. _ W W J Respectfully submitted, D. MICHAEL FISHER Attorne eneral Bv: STEVEN C. GOULD ID #80156 Deputy Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15`h Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-783-8035 - Direct Dial DATED: December 3, 2001 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving the foregoing; Entry of Appearance upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: MILTON J. FRANK, ESQUIRE MILTON J. FRANK & ASSOCIATES 1831 CHESTNUT STREET SUITE 302 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215-569-1666 (Attorney for Plaintiff) Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-783-8035 - Direct Dial By: - C. GOULD #80156 Deputy Attorney General DATED: December 3, 2001 Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Steven C. Gould Deputy Attorney General Direct Dial 717-783-8035 SAMUEL MCCRAY Plaintiff V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,: DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVAW 74 -- P i NO: 5180-CV-2001 NOTICE TO PLEAD TO ALL PARTIES: YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIRED to respond to the within New Matter within twenty (20) days of the date of service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: D. MICHAEL FISHER Attorn eneral BY: STEVEN C. GOULD #80156 Deputy Attorney General Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15`h Fl., Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 (717) 783-8035 DATED: October 3, 2002 Office of Attorney General Steven C. Gould Torts Litigation Section Deputy Attorney General 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Direct Dial 717-783-8035 Harrisburg, PA 17120 SAMUEL ACC AY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYI*ANIK ``y N Plaintiff v. r a COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,: NO: 5180-CV-2001 - DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Defendant ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections, (hereinafter, "Commonwealth Defendant"), by and through the Office of Attorney General, files the following Answer and New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint: 1. DENIED. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of these averments, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 2. ADMITTED in part; DENIED in part. It is ADMITTED only that the Commonwealth Defendant is a state agency organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is specifically DENIED that the Commonwealth Defendant is a Municipal agency and organized and existing under the ordinances of the City and County of Dauphin. By way of further answer, the Commonwealth Defendant affirmatively states that the principal place of business is located at 2520 Lisburn Road, P.O. Box 598, Camp Hill, -v -77 q> ;.. J ? ? F Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17001. 3. DENIED. The allegations set forth in paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 4. DENIED. The allegations set forth in paragraph 4 of Plaintiff's Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. If a responsive pleading is deemed required, it is admitted only that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections owns and controls the correctional facility at Camp Hill and that the State Correctional Institution at Camp Hill is an agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections that manage and maintains the correctional facility at Camp Hill. ADMITTED in part; DENIED in part. It is ADMITTED only that on November 4, 1999, Plaintiff was an inmate at the Camp Hill State Institution. It is also ADMITTED, based solely on medical records, that Plaintiff was taken to the medical facilities within the Camp Hill State Institution on November 4, 1999 complaining of back injury. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments that Plaintiff sustained a lower back injury on November 4, 1999, and therefore, said averments are DENIED. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 6. DENIED. It is specifically DENIED that the Plaintiff was negligently, carelessly and/or recklessly treated with moist heat compresses to his lumbar area. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 2 7. DENIED. The allegations set forth in paragraph 7 of Plaintiff's Complaint, constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that portions of paragraph 7 could be construed as factual allegations, said allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, it is specifically DENIED that the Department of Corrections or any "Commonwealth Party" and "Commonwealth Employee" within the definition of that term at section 8501 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8501, failed to apply a barrier between the Plaintiff's skin and the moist heat compresses and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that the Department of Corrections or any "Commonwealth Party" and "Commonwealth Employee" within the definition of that term at section 8501 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8501, were in any manner careless, reckless and/or negligent with respect to Plaintiff's alleged cause of action or breached any duty owed to the Plaintiff. By way of further answer, the averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 8. DENIED. The allegations set forth in paragraph 8 of Plaintiff's Complaint, constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that portions of paragraph 8 could be construed as factual allegations, said allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, it is specifically DENIED that the Department of Corrections or any "Commonwealth Party" and "Commonwealth Employee" within the definition of that term at section 8501 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8501, carelessly, recklessly and/or negligently maintained the moist heat compresses to the Plaintiff's lumbar area throughout the night rather than a ordered. Strict proof thereof is hereby demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that the Department of Corrections or any "Commonwealth Party" and "Commonwealth Employee" within the definition of that term at section 8501 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8501, were in any manner careless, reckless and/or negligent with respect to Plaintiff's alleged cause of action or breached any duty owed to the Plaintiff. By way of further answer, the Commonwealth Defendant affirmatively avers that the Plaintiff was instructed to wait ten minutes before applying the warm compress. Plaintiff was further instructed after waiting ten minutes, to apply the compress for one hour then remove the compress for hour. By way of further answer, the averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 9. DENIED. The allegations set forth in paragraph 9 of Plaintiff's Complaint, constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that portions of paragraph 9 could be construed as factual allegations, said allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 4 By way of further answer, it is specifically DENIED that the Department of Corrections or any "Commonwealth Party" and "Commonwealth Employee" within the definition of that term at section 8501 of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8501, were in any manner careless, reckless and/or negligent with respect to Plaintiff's alleged cause of action or breached any duty owed to the Plaintiff. By way of further answer, the Commonwealth Defendant affirmatively avers that the Plaintiff was instructed to wait ten minutes before applying the warm compress. Plaintiff was further instructed after waiting ten minutes, to apply the compress for one hour then remove the compress for hour. By way of further answer, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments regarding Plaintiff's alleged injuries, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, the averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). COUNTI SAMUEL McCRAY V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION 10. The Commonwealth Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 9 of Plaintiff's Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 11. DENIED. The allegations set forth in paragraph 11 of Plaintiff's Complaint, including subparagraphs "(a)" through "(i)", constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the 5 extent that portions of paragraph 11 including subparagraphs "(a)" through "(i)", could be construed as factual allegations, said allegations specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that the Commonwealth Defendant, or any of its agents, servants, workmen, and/or employees, were negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiff's alleged cause of action. By way of further response: (a)-(i) Denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further answer, the Commonwealth Defendant, affirmatively avers that the Plaintiff was instructed to wait ten minutes before applying the warm compress. Plaintiff was further instructed after waiting ten minutes, to apply the compress for one hour then remove the compress for hour. By way of further answer, Commonwealth Defendant states that subparagraph 116) of Plaintiff's Complaint have been stricken per Stipulation of Counsel filed herein. By way of further answer, Commonwealth Defendant states that the words "recklessness", "recklessly" and "inter alia" have been stricken from paragraph 11 of Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Stipulation filed herein. 12. DENIED. The allegations set forth in paragraph 12 of Plaintiff's Complaint, constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that portions of paragraph 12 could be construed as factual allegations, said allegations specifically are denied, and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded at the time of trial. 6 By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that the Commonwealth Defendant, or any of its agents, servants, workmen, and/or employees, were negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiff's alleged cause of action. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments regarding Plaintiff's alleged damages, injuries and/or losses, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, paragraph 12 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 13. DENIED. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments regarding Plaintiff's alleged damages, injuries and/or losses, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, paragraph 13 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 14. DENIED. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments regarding Plaintiff's alleged damages, injuries and/or losses, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, paragraph 14 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 7 15. DENIED. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments regarding Plaintiff's alleged damages, injuries and/or losses, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, paragraph 15 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against the Plaintiff. COUNT II SAMUEL McCRAY V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 16. The Commonwealth Defendant incorporates herein by reference its answers to paragraphs 1 through 15 of Plaintiff's Complaint as though fully set forth herein at length. 17. DENIED. The allegations set forth in paragraph 17 of Plaintiff's Complaint, constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that portions of paragraph 17 could be construed as factual allegations, said allegations are specifically, denied, and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that the Commonwealth Defendant was in any manner negligent with respect to Plaintiff's alleged cause of action or breached any duty owed to the Plaintiff. By way of further answer, the averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 8 18. DENIED. The allegations set forth in paragraph 18 of Plaintiff's Complaint, constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that portions of paragraph 18 could be construed as factual allegations, said allegations are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Commonwealth Defendant was in any manner negligent with respect to Plaintiff's alleged cause of action or breached any duty owed to the Plaintiff. By way of further answer, the averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 19. DENIED. The allegations set forth in paragraph 19 of Plaintiff's Complaint, including subparagraphs "(a)" through "(d)", constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that portions of paragraph 19 including subparagraphs "(a)" through "(d)", could be construed as factual allegations, said allegations specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is hereby demanded at the time of trial. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that the Commonwealth Defendant, or any of its agents, servants, workmen, and/or employees, were negligent in any manner with respect to Plaintiff's alleged cause of action. By way of further response: (a)-(d) Denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further answer, the Commonwealth Defendant affirmatively avers that the Plaintiff was instructed to wait ten minutes before applying the warm compress. Plaintiff was 9 further instructed after waiting ten minutes, to apply the compress for one hour then remove the compress for hour. By way of further answer, Commonwealth Defendant states that the subparagraph 19(e) of Plaintiff's Complaint have been stricken per Stipulation of Counsel filed herein. By way of further answer, Commonwealth Defendant states that the words "recklessness", "recklessly" and "inter alia" have been stricken from paragraph 19 of Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to Stipulation filed herein. 20. DENIED. After reasonable investigation, the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments regarding Plaintiff's alleged damages, injuries and/or losses, and therefore, said averments are denied. Strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, paragraph 20 is denied generally pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against the Plaintiff. NEW MATTER DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF 21. The present action is controlled by the provisions of 1 Pa. C. S. §2310 and Act No. 1980-142, set forth in 42 Pa. C.S. §§8501, et seq., which Acts are incorporated herein and pled by reference. The Commonwealth Defendant asserts all the defenses contained therein. 22. The Commonwealth Defendant is immune from suit pursuant to 1 Pa. C. S. §2310, and this action is not within any of the exceptions to immunity as set forth in 42 Pa. C.S. §8522, and therefore this action is barred. 10 23. The Commonwealth Defendant maintains that it cannot be sued for discretionary functions, and therefore these causes of action are barred. 24. The Commonwealth Defendant avers that recovery cannot be had against it for the exercise of authorized discretion. 25. Should liability be found on the part of the Commonwealth Defendant, the amounts and types of damages recoverable in the present action are limited and controlled by 42 Pa. C.S. §8528. 26. The Judicial Code at 42 Pa. C.S. §5522(a), which section is incorporated herein and pled by reference, provides that the Commonwealth and the: Attorney General must have received written notice of intent to sue within six (6) months from the date the cause of action accrues. In the absence of such notice, this action is barred. 27. The alleged conduct of the Commonwealth Defendant, standing alone, did not cause the Plaintiff's harm; therefore, the Commonwealth Defendant cannot be held liable for the Plaintiff's alleged injuries and/or damages. 28. If the accident occurred as alleged, then the conduct complained of did not cause the accident or the injuries complained of. 29. The Commonwealth Defendant avers that if negligence is found to exist on their part, said negligence was not the proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries. 30. If the accident occurred as alleged, then the conduct complained of did not create a reasonably foreseeable risk of the accident or the injuries complained of. 31. The Commonwealth Defendant is absolved from liability because any negligence alleged on their part merely facilitated the Plaintiff's injuries and/or damages. 11 32. The Plaintiff was contributorily negligent and/or failed to mitigate his claimed damages, thereby limiting and/or barring any recovery. 33. Employees of an agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania cannot be vicariously liable for the acts of others lower in the chain of command of the agency. 34. Commonwealth employees acting within the scope of their duties, are "Commonwealth parties" as defined by 42 Pa. C. S. §8501. 35. The Commonwealth parties are specifically entitled to the defenses set forth in 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8524, which section is incorporated herein and pled by reference. 36. The Commonwealth Defendant invokes any and all common law defenses available to them pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S. §8524. 37. The Commonwealth Defendant is immune from claims grounded upon negligent supervision or employment. 38. Plaintiff's knowing and conscious assumption of the risk led to the alleged resulting injuries and is a bar to recovery. 39. The causal negligence of the Plaintiff is greater than any negligence on the part of the Commonwealth Defendant, and Plaintiff's recovery is therefore barred, or, in the alternative, must be diminished in accordance with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 40. At all times relevant, Commonwealth Defendant acted with due care and diligence and in accordance with all applicable laws and policies. 41. Punitive damages are not recoverable against the Commonwealth Defendant. 42. The Commonwealth Defendant is immune from claims grounded upon negligence of independent contractors. 12 43. It is specifically averred that Plaintiff was aware of any risk attentive to the care and treatment provided, and thus assumed all risk relative to same. 44. The Commonwealth Defendant has immunity for any claims premised upon theories of apparent or ostensible agency and/or corporate liability, as immunity has not been waived for either of these classes of claims. 45. The Commonwealth Defendant may not be held responsible for injuries incurred by third parties which were allegedly caused by the acts of another. 46. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 47. Plaintiffs' claim may be barred by the Doctrine of Assumption of the Risk. 48. Plaintiffs' claim may be barred by the Doctrine of Release. Liability on the part of the Commonwealth Defendant is specifically denied. 49. The Commonwealth Defendant is immune from suit, and therefore Plaintiffs' action is barred. WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections, respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against the Plaintiff. Respectfully submitted, D. MICHAEL, FISHER Att ey General By: STEVEN C. GOULD, I.D. #80156 Deputy Attorney General Dated: October 3, 2002 13 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving the Answer and New Matter of Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections to Plaintiffs Complaint upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: MILTON J. FRANK, ESQUIRE MILTON J. FRANK & ASSOCIATES 1831 CHESTNUT STREET SUITE 302 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (Attorney for Plaintiff) C r. By: STEVEN C. GOULD ID #80156 Deputy Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-783-8035 - Direct Dial DATED: October 3, 2002 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW RANDY LYKINS, V. DEBORAH A. LYKINS, Defendant : No. 5520-CV-2001-DV ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE I, Deborah A. Lykins, state that on 'VAI c2o-oh personally J received a copy of the Complaint in Divorce and Notice to Defend and Claim Rights in relation to the above captioned matter. I verify that the statements made in this Acceptance are true and correct. I understand that false statements made in this Acceptance are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: C? 190_0 DEBORAH A. LYKINS, endant v o C» C7 a --i re, w; =r ^rt W --? Plaintiff Office of Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Steven C. Gould Deputy Attorney General Direct Dial 717-783-8035 SAMUEL MCCRAY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. I> -?, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,: NO: 5180-CV-2001 ° DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS C- M Defendant 1tDM :Z << STIPULATION X IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between counsel for Plaintiff and counsel for the Defendant, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections, that Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby amended as follows: A) The word "recklessness" is hereby deleted from Paragraph 11 of Plaintiff's Complaint; B) The word "recklessness" is hereby deleted from Paragraph 19 of Plaintiff's Complaint; C) The word "recklessly" is hereby deleted from Paragraphs 11 (b) and (c) of Plaintiff's Complaint; D) The word "inter alia" is hereby deleted from Paragraphs 11 and 19 of Plaintiff's Complaint; E) Paragraph 110) of Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby deleted and stricken; F) Paragraph 19(e) of Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby deleted and stricken; G) This case should be transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County; all expenses for such transfer to be borne by Plaintiff, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1006(e). on J. Fr s Steven C. eputy Attorney General Attorney f laintiff Attorney for Department of Corrections 4-aa-o3 SAMUEL McCRAY, Plaintiff V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :NO. 5180 S 2001 ORDER AND NOW, this o D" day of April, 2003, upon consideration of the attached stipulation, it is hereby ORDERED that the Prothonotary of Dauphin County is directed to transfer this case to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. All costs and fees associated with the transfer are to be paid by plaintiff. Distribution: J. Milton J. Frank, Esquire, The Professional Building, 1831 Chestnut Street, 3rd Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103 Steven Gould, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, Torts Litigation Section, 15th Floor, Strawberry Square, Harrisburg, PA 17120 Stephen Farina, Dauphin County Prothonotary Curt Long, Cumberland County Prothonotary, One Courthouse Square, Carlisle, PA 17013-3387 AN z o 2003 hr";1 nr±;ly thi A.i;, C_-`` 13 is a tru.- ap- coy., :spy ,:Po original Office of Attorney General Steven C. Gould Deputy Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Direct Dial 717-783-8035 Harrisburg, PA 17120 S j SAMUEL MCC RAY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,: NO: 5180-CV-2001 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Defendant OBJECTIONS OF THE COMMONWEALTH DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES The Commonwealth Defendant objects to Plaintiff's Interrogatories as the set exceeds the amount permissible pursuant to Dauphin County R.C.P. 4005. 8. (c)-(d). Objection pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4011(b). The Commonwealth Defendant objects to providing personal information such as the addresses and telephone numbers of its employees as it may lead to unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to those employees. 9. (b). Objection pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4011(b). The Commonwealth Defendant objects to providing personal information such as the addresses and telephone numbers of its employees as it may lead to unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to those employees. (d). Objection pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4011(b). The Commonwealth Defendant objects to providing personal information such as the addresses and telephone numbers of its employees as it may lead to unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to those employees. 10. (a). Objection pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4011(b). The Commonwealth Defendant objects to providing personal information such as the addresses and telephone numbers of its employees as it may lead to unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to those employees. 13. (b). Objection pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4011(b). The Commonwealth Defendant objects to providing personal information such as the addresses and telephone numbers of its employees as it may lead to unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to those employees. (d). Objection pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4011(b). The Commonwealth Defendant objects to providing personal information such as the addresses and telephone numbers of its employees as it may lead to unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to those employees. 14. (a). Objection pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4011(b). The Commonwealth Defendant objects to providing personal information such as the addresses and telephone numbers of its employees as it may lead to unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to those employees. (d). Objection pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4011(b). The Commonwealth Defendant objects to providing personal information such as the addresses and telephone numbers of its employees as it may lead to unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to those employees. 15. (e)-(f). Objection pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4011(b). The Commonwealth Defendant objects to providing personal information such as the addresses and telephone numbers of its employees as it may lead to unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to those employees. (h). Objection pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4011(b). The Commonwealth Defendant objects to providing personal information such as the addresses and telephone numbers of its employees as it may lead to unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to those employees. 16. Objection pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4011(b). The Commonwealth Defendant objects to providing personal information such as the addresses and telephone numbers of its employees as it may lead to unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to those employees. 17. Objection pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4011(c). This interrogatory seeks the identity of expert witnesses/physicians who may have been consulted and will not be called at trial which is beyond the scope of discovery pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5. 22. Objection pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4011(b). The Commonwealth Defendant objects to providing personal information such as the addresses and telephone numbers of its employees as it may lead to unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to those employees. Without waiver of objection, the identities of individuals who may have knowledge of the alleged incident are identified in the medical records which were previously supplied to counsel for the Plaintiff. 24. (g)-(h). Objection pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4011(c). The information requested in these interrogatories are beyond the scope of discovery pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5. Respectfully submitted, D. MICHAEL FISHER, Attorney General By: STEVEN C. GOU:LD, I.D. #80156 Torts Litigation Section 15`h Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 DATED: March 13, 2003 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving the Objections of the Commonwealth Defendant to Plaintiffs Interrogatories upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: MILTON J. FRANK, ESQUIRE MILTON J. FRANK & ASSOCIATES 1831 CHESTNUT STREET SUITE 302 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215-569-1666 (Attorney for Plaintiff) By: STEVEN C. GOULD ID #80156 Deputy Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-783-8035 - Direct Dial DATED: March 13, 2003 Office of Attorney General Stet jn C. Gould Torts Litigation Section Peod`ty Attorney General 15th Floor, Strawberry Square ` Direct Dial 717-783-8035 Harrisburg, PA 17120'`" SAMUEL MCC RAY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAUPHINCOUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,: NO: 5180-CV-2001 DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Defendant OBJECTIONS OF THE COMMONWEALTH DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1. Objection pursuant to Rule 4011(b). The Commonwealth Defendant objects to providing personal information regarding its employees to the Plaintiff pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4011(b), as it may lead to unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to those employees. Objection pursuant to Rule 4011(c). The Commonwealth Defendant objects to to providing this information since the request seeks information that may be privileged by the Peer Review Protection Act. Additionally, the information sought is irrelevant and not likely to lead to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 2. Objection pursuant to Rule 4011(b). The Commonwealth Defendant objects to providing personal information regarding its employees to the :Plaintiff pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4011(b), as it may lead to unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to those employees. Objection pursuant to Rule 4011(c). The Commonwealth Defendant objects to providing this information since the request seeks information that may be privileged by the Peer Review Protection Act. Additionally, the applications sought are irrelevant and not likely to lead to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 3. Objection pursuant to Rule 4011(c). The Commonwealth Defendant objects to providing reports, decisions or conclusions relating to Commonwealth Defendant's staff care and treatment of Samual McCray as that information is privileged by the Peer Review Protection Act. 5. Objection pursuant to Rule 4011(b). The Commonwealth Defendant objects to providing personal information regarding its employees to the Plaintiff pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4011(b), as it may lead to unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to those employees. Objection pursuant to Rule 4011(c). The Commonwealth Defendant objects to to providing this information since the request seeks information that may be privileged by the Peer Review Protection Act. Additionally, the applications sought are irrelevant and not likely to lead to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 6. Objection pursuant to Rule 4011(b). The Commonwealth Defendant objects to providing personal information regarding its employees to the Plaintiff pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4011(b), as it may lead to unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to those employees. Objection pursuant to Rule 4011(c). The Commonwealth Defendant objects to to providing this information since the request seeks information that may be privileged by the Peer Review Protection Act. Additionally, the application sought is irrelevant and not likely to lead to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 7. Objection pursuant to Rule 4011(b). The Commonwealth Defendant objects to providing personal information regarding its employees to the Plaintiff pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4011(b), as it may lead to unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to those employees. Objection pursuant to Rule 4011(c). The Commonwealth Defendant objects to to providing this information since the request seeks information that may be privileged by the Peer Review Protection Act. Additionally, the information sought are irrelevant and not likely to lead to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Respectfully submitted, D. MICHAEL FISHER Attorney General 7 By: STEVEN C. GOULD, I.D. #80156 Deputy Attorney General DATED: March 13, 2003 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving the Objections of the Commonwealth Defendant to Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below: SERVICE BY FIRST CLASS MAIL POSTAGE PREPAID ADDRESSED AS FOLLOWS: MILTON J. FRANK, ESQUIRE MILTON J. FRANK & ASSOCIATES 1831 CHESTNUT STREET SUITE 302 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 215-569-1666 (Attorney for Plaintiff) -? By: '?;4 ?-' TEVEN C. GOULD ID #80156 Deputy Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 717-783-8035 - Direct Dial DATED: March 13, 2003 _W^ vl T 4 C y C.? s V5 _1 BROWNSTEIN VITALE & WEISS, P.C. By: Frank Pollock, Esquire I.D. No. 81072 1308 Spruce Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 732-4780 Samuel McCray V. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Dept. of Corrections ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO: 03-2577 PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw the appearance of Milton J. Frank & Associates and enter the appearance of Brownstein Vitale & Weiss, P.C. on behalf of Plaintiff in the above matter. MILTON J & ASSOCIATES By: Brett Tesler V By: „ ??il ? ? cam. c ? y-r .? ?7r?: ; i`-;' ? Cr-.. . , . }_ _ t qv ,,,.,. ?4 yr ?-; :G 2-. .C :.1 P BROWNSTEIN VITALE & WEISS, P.C. BY: Frank Pollock, Esquire Identification No.: 80172 Two Penn Center Plaza 1500 JFK Blvd., Suite 1020 Philadelphia, PA 19102 215-751-1600 Attorney) for Plaintiff(s) SAMUEL MCCRAY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY V. . 03 _ as77 COMMONWEALTH OF PA STATEMENT OF INTENTION TQ PROCEED TO THE COURT: Plaintiff, Samuel McCray intends to proceed with the above captioned matter. Said Plaintiff is presently incarcerated. DATED: October 2, 2008 BROWNS IN E & WEISS, P.C. B . FRANK POLLOCK, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF(S) _ ?..? CX? t,,ra ,. o BROWNSTEIN VITALE & WEISS, P.C. BY: Frank Pollock, Esquire Identification No.: 80172 Two Penn Center Plaza 1500 JFK Blvd., Suite 1020 Philadelphia, PA 19102 215-751-1600 E, t1_; t i li.? iN€?tiOiA;? ?` IISEp-9 PM 12*ttI ., PE1` NSYLVANIA1T,? Attorney for Plaintiff(s) SAMUEL MCCRAY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY V. DOCKET NUMBER: 03-2577 COMMONWEALTH OF PA PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER 21. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, any affirmative defense not specifically pled is deemed waived. 22. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 23. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 24. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 25. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 26. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 27. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the applicable -1- 37. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 38. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, Plaintiff was, at no time material hereto, aware of the negligence of Defendant(s), which such negligence is more particularly described in Plaintiff's Complaint, and cannot, therefore, be charged with assuming a risk of which he was not aware. 39. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff was in any way negligent with regard to the happening of the subject accident. 40. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 41. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 42. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 43. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, Plaintiff was, at no time material hereto, aware of the negligence of Defendant(s), which such negligence is more particularly described in Plaintiff's Complaint, and cannot, therefore, be charged with assuming a risk of which he was not aware. 44. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the applicable -3- Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 45. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 46. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 47. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, Plaintiff was, at no time material hereto, aware of the negligence of Defendant(s), which such negligence is more particularly described in Plaintiffs Complaint, and cannot, therefore, be charged with assuming a risk of which he was not aware. 48. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 49. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required by the applicable Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment of Defendant as more fully set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint. BROWNSTEIN VITALE & WEISS, P.C. BY: Jzf FRANK POLLOCK, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF(S) -4- BROWNSTEIN VITALE & WEISS, P.C. BY: Frank Pollock, Esquire Identification No.: 80172 Two Penn Center Plaza 1500 JFK Blvd., Suite 1020 Philadelphia, PA 19102 215-751-1600 Attorney for Plaintiff(s) SAMUEL MCCRAY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY V. DOCKET NUMBER: 03-2577 COMMONWEALTH OF PA CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that service of a true and correct copy of Plaintiff s Reply to Defendant's New Matter was mailed on September 2, 2011, to counsel listed below by United States mail, postage pre-paid. Steven C. Gould, Deputy Attorney General Torts Litigation Section 15' Floor-Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 BROWNSTEIN VITALE & WEISS, P.C. BY: ??3z,•? FRANK POLLOCK, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF(S) CRONIN LAW FIRM, LLC BY: Joseph D. Cronin, Esquire ATTORNEY I.D. NO.: 61997 175 Richey Avenue Collingswood, NJ 08107 (856) 579-7801 SAMUEL MCCRAY V. COMMOONWEALTH OF PA 1 h`' EP a 7. r ?a; ?+°r dal •, 2012 MAR - I PM 2: 17 CUMBERLAND COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR PPIRN WEVA N I A COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw the appearance of Frank Pollock, Esquire, as attorney for Plaintiff in the above matter. BROWNSTEIN VITALE & WEISS, P.C. DOCKET NUMBER: 03-2577 By: TO THE PROTHONOTARY: FRANK POLLOCK, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiff ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Kindly enter the appearance of Joseph D. Cronin, Esquire, as attorney for Plaintiff in the above matter. CRONIN L LLC D. CRONIN, ESQUIRE for Plaintiff