The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About99-029491- C1 `® / / OCT 0 1 2004 I ?? WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 99-2949 MICHAEL J. BUCK, CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF MICHAEL J. BUCK AND NOW, comes Defendant, Michael J. Buck, by and through his attorneys Nealon & Gover, P.C., and respectfully submits the following Pre-Trial Memorandum. 1. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS This civil action arises out of an automobile accident that took place on May 15, 1997, in the area of Routes 11 and 15 in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Defendant, Michael J. Buck, was operating a motor vehicle directly behind Plaintiff's vehicle on Routes 11 and 15. Defendant's front portion of his vehicle came in contact with the rear portion of Plaintiffs vehicle. Plaintiff contends that the accident was caused by Defendant and that the accident resulted in injuries to Plaintiff. The Defendant concedes that his negligence brought about the accident. II. PRINCIPLE ISSUES OF LIABILITY AND DAMAGES Whether this accident, allegedly caused by Defendant, was a factual cause in bringing about Plaintiffs injuries? What damages, if any, Plaintiff suffered from this accident? III. LEGAL ISSUES A. The only legal issue is that of whether the Plaintiff will be able to introduce evidence of medical bills that have been paid by his carrier pursuant to first-party benefits. B. Dr. Todd Selgal was employed by the defense to review radiological studies, however, the plaintiff has not been able to produce original or copies of x-rays studies from 1997 and the defendant's attempts to secure these x-rays by subpoena has proved fruitless. Dr. Seigal may be called as an expert in radiology, if his opinions previously rendered can be stated to a reasonable radiological certainty. IV. WITNESSES A. The Plaintiff, William Crowley, as if on cross-examination. B. The Defendant, Michael J. Buck. C. Dr. Bruce Goodman, M.D. D. Dr. Todd Seigal, M.D. E. Defendant reserves the right to call any other expert deemed necessary provided that reasonable notice is provided prior to trial. F. Defendant reserves the right to call any and all witnesses listed on Plaintiffs Pre-Trial Memorandum and called at trial. V. EXHIBITS Medical records of William Crowley. Defendant suggests that there be a stipulation as to the authenticity of these medical records. All other objections should be reserved for trial. VI. SETTLEMENT OFFER $7,500.00. Respectfully submitted, NEALON & GOVER, P.C. By:dG(uG<??t Michael S. Ferguson, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 83882 2411 North Front Street Date: c3 3? Q Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 232-9900 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this day of 3t 14 day of September, 2004, 1 hereby certify that I have served the foregoing Pre-Trial Memorandum on the following by depositing a true and correct copy of same in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, addressed to: David S. Wisneski, Esquire Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski, LLP 2040 Linglestown Rd., Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Michael S. Ferguson, Esquire WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff NO. 99-2949 V. MICHAEL J. BUCK, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, this ?5' day of Oyk36e, , 2004, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion in Limine, it is hereby Ordered such Motion is Granted. Defendant, his counsel, and any and all witnesses called on behalf of the Defendant, are precluded from making any mention, directly or indirectly, in any manner during opening statement, interrogation of witnesses, objections, argument or in any manner whatsoever, of the opinions of physicians who will not be called to testify at trial. This preclusion shall apply to any attempt of defense counsel to elicit such opinions through the Plaintiff as on cross-exam. BY THE COURT: WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff V. MICHAEL J. BUCK, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-2949 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE TO PRECLUDE DEFENDANT FROM INTRODUCING THE OPINIONS OF PHYSICIANS WHO WILL NOT BE CALLED TO TESTIFY AT TRIAL AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, William F. Crowley, by and through his attorneys, Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP, and hereby moves the Court for an Order in Limine instructing the Defendant, his representatives and witnesses to refrain from making any mention, directly or indirectly, in any manner during opening statement, interrogation of witnesses, objections, argument or in any manner whatsoever, of the opinions of physicians who will not be called to testify at trial. In support of this Motion, Plaintiff avers as follows: I. This is a personal injury action arising out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on or about May 15, 1997. 2. In anticipation of trial, Plaintiff obtained the videotape deposition of Plaintiffs treating orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Montague Blundon, on or about January 15, 2002. 3. Also in anticipation of trial, Defendant obtained the videotape deposition of Defendant's Independent Medical Examiner, Bruce Goodman, M.D., or about January 23, 2002. 4. No additional medical testimony has been obtained in this case, and it is not anticipated that any additional physicians or experts will be called to testify at trial. 5. After the trial testimony of Drs. Blundon and Goodman was obtained via videotape deposition, the Plaintiff, William Crowley, sought medical care from several additional physicians. These include Dr, John Caruso (February 15, 2002), Dr. Bruce Rabin (April 29, 2002), Dr. Brian Sullivan (December 12, 2002) and Dr. William Thant (June 27, 2003). 6. Notre of these physicians have been deposed in this case, and nor will they be called to testify ut triad. 7. Additionally, none of their records generated by physicians identified in paragraph 5 were utilized or relied upon by Drs. Blundon or Goodman when they rendered their expert opinion testimony in this case. 8. Accordingly, since said physicians have not been deposed and will not be called to testify live, and are not subject to cross-examination, the admission of their opinions, or any records containing their opinions, would constitute impermissible heresay. Wl IEREFO1tE, the Plaintiff, William Crowley, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to instruct the Defcndanl and his representatives and counsel not to mention, refer to, interrogate, or attempt to convey to the jury in any manner, either directly or indirectly, any of the above-mentioned facts and issues and that before they make any attempt to do so, they must obtain special permission from this Court outside the presence and hearing of the jury, and to further instruct the Defendant and his counsel not to make any reference of the fact that this Motion has been filed and granted and to warn and caution each and every one of their witnesses to strictly follow the same instructions. Respectfully submitted, NAVkfSKY,4SON &MISIgESKI L) P David'S. Wisneski, Esquire I.D. No. 58796 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/541-9205 Counsel for Plaintiff Datc: October 25, 2004 2 , L...'" WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff V. MICHAEL J. BUCK, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-2949 CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PROPOSED POINTS FOR CHARGE OF DEFENDANT, MICHAEL J BUCK Date: ?? as awl Respectfully submitted, NEALON & GOVER, P.C. By: ?"' O( ca - ' Michael S. Ferguson, Esquire I.D. #: 83882 2411 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/232-9900 DEFENDANT'S POINT FOR CHARGE NO 1 You are not permitted to determine your verdict based on guesswork, speculation, conjecture or sympathy for a party. Emile v. Snino. 425 Pa. 254, 228 A .2d 745 (1967). 2 DEFENDANT'S POINT FOR CHARGE NO 2 ISSUES IN THE CASE AND FACTUAL CAUSE The plaintiff claims that he was injured and sustained damage as a result of the negligent conduct of the defendant. The plaintiff has the burden of proving his claims. Based upon the evidence presented at this trial, the only issue for you to decide in accordance with the law as I will give it to you, are: Was the defendant's conduct a factual cause in bringing about harm to the plaintiff? Conduct is a factual cause of harm when the harm would not have occurred absent the conduct. An act is a factual cause of an outcome if, in the absence of the act, the outcome would not have occurred. In order for the conduct of a party to be a factual cause, the conduct must not be fanciful or imaginary, but must have played a real role in causing the injury. Therefore, in determining factual cause, you must decide whether the negligent conduct of the defendant was more than an insignificant factor in bringing about any harm to the plaintiff. Under Pennsylvania law, conduct can be found to be a contributing factor if the action or omission alleged to have caused the hams was an actual, real factor, not a negligible, imaginary, or fanciful factor, or a factor having no connection or only an insignificant connection with the injury. However, factual cause does not mean it is the only, primary, or even the most important factor in causing the injury. A cause may be found to be a factual cause as long as it contributes to the injury in a way that is not minimal or insignificant. 3 To be a contributing factor, the defendant's conduct need not be the only factor. The fact that some other cause concurs with the negligence of the defendant in producing an injury does not relieve the defendant from liability as long as [his] [her] own negligence is a factual cause of the injury. In effect, the test for factual causation has been met when the conduct in question has such an effect in producing the harm as to lead reasonable persons to regard it as one of the contributing causes that is neither insignificant nor inconsequential considering all the circumstances. Pa.SSJI (Civ) 3.00. 4 DEFENDANT'S POINT FOR CHARGE NO.3 FACTUAL CAUSE The plaintiff must prove to you that the defendant's conduct caused the plaintiffs damages. This is referred to as "factual cause." The question is. "Was the defendant's negligent conduct a factual cause in bringing about the plaintiffs damages?" Conduct is a factual cause of harm when the harm would not have occurred absent the conduct. An act is a factual cause of an outcome if, in the absence of the act, the outcome would not have occurred. Remember, a factual cause is an actual, real factor, although the result may be unusual or unexpected. A factual cause can not be an imaginary or fanciful factor having no connection or only an insignificant connection with the injury. Although a factual cause can not be minimal or insignificant with regard to the injury, it can be relatively minor in relation to other factors and need not be quantified as being either considerable or large. Pa.SSJI (Civ) 3.25. 5 DEFENDANT'S POINT FOR CHARGE NO.4 NUMBER OF WITNESSES The number of witnesses offered by one side or the other does not, in itself, determine the weight of the evidence. It is a factor, but only one of many factors that you should consider. I Whether the witnesses appear to be biased or unbiased or whether they are interested or disinterested persons, are among the important factors that indicate the reliability of their testimony. The important thing is the quality of the testimony of each witness. In short, the test is not which side brings the greater number of witnesses or presents the greater quantity of evidence; but which witness or witnesses, and which evidence, you consider most worthy of belief. Even the testimony of one witness may outweigh that of many, if you have reason to believe his or her testimony in preference to theirs. Obviously, however, where the testimony of I the witnesses appears to you to be of the same quality, the weight of numbers assumes particular I significance. Pa.SSJI (Civ.) 5.03. 6 A DEFENDANT'S POINT FOR CHARGE NO 5 CONFLICTING TESTIMONY You may find inconsistencies in the evidence. Even actual contradictions in the testimony of witnesses do not necessarily mean that any witness has been willfully false. Poor memory is not uncommon. Sometimes a witness forgets; sometimes he or she remembers incorrectly. It is also true that two persons witnessing an incident may see or hear it differently. If different parts of the testimony of any witness or witnesses appear to be inconsistent, you the jury should try to reconcile the conflicting statements, whether of the same or different witnesses, and you should do so if it can be done fairly and satisfactorily. If, however, you decide that there is a genuine and irreconcilable conflict of testimony, it is your function and duty to determine which, if any, of the contradictory statements you will believe. Pa.SSJI (Civ.) 5.04. 7 DEFENDANT'S POINT FOR CHARGE NO. 6 WILLFULLY FALSE TESTIMONY If you decide that a witness has deliberately testified falsely about a material point that is, about a matter that could affect the outcome of this trial, you may for that reason alone choose to disbelieve the rest of the witness' testimony. But you are not required to do so. You should consider not only the deliberate falsehood, but also all other factors bearing on the witness' credibility in deciding whether to believe other parts of the witness' testimony. Pa.SSJI (Civ.) 5.05. 8 DEFENDANT'S POINT FOR CHARGE NO. 7 CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES GENERALLY As judges of the facts, you are the only judges of the credibility of the witnesses and their testimony. This means that you must judge the truthfulness and accuracy of each witness' testimony and decide whether to believe all, or part, or none of that witness' testimony. The following are some of the factors that you may and should consider when judging credibility and deciding whether or not to believe witnesses. (1) Was the witness able to see, hear, or know the things about which he or she testified? (2) How well could the witness remember and describe those things? (3) Was the ability of the, witness to see, hear, know, remember, or describe those things affected by youth or old age or by any physical, mental, or intellectual deficiency? (4) Did the witness testify in a convincing manner? How did the witness look, act, and speak while testifying? Was the testimony uncertain, confused, self- contradictory, or presented in any kind of evasive manner? (5) Did the witness have any interest in the outcome of the case, or any bias, or any prejudice, or any other motive that might have affected the testimony? 9 (6) How well does the testimony of the witness square with the other evidence in the case, including the testimony of other witnesses? Was it contradicted or supported by the other evidence and testimony? (7) Does the testimony make sense to you? (8) If you believe some part of the testimony of a witness to be inaccurate, consider whether that inaccuracy cast doubt upon the rest of that same witness' testimony. This may depend on whether the inaccuracy is in an important matter or in a minor detail. (9) You should also consider any possible explanation for the inaccuracy. Did the witness make an honest mistake or simply forget, or was there a dcliberate attempt to present false testimony to you? (10) If you find that a witness deliberately testified falsely on a material point, that is, on a matter that might affect the outcome of the trial, you may, for that reason alone, choose to disbelieve other parts or all of that same witness' testimony. But you are not required to do so. You should consider all the other factors that bear on credibility in determining whether to believe other parts of that witness' testimony. (11) While you are judging the credibility of each witness, you are likely to be judging the credibility of other witnesses or other evidence in the case. If there is a real irreconcilable conflict, it is up to you to decide which, if any, of the conflicting testimony or evidence you believe. 10 As the only judges of credibility and fact in this case, you, the jurors, are responsible to give the testimony of every witness, and all the other evidence, whatever credibility and weight you think it is entitled to receive. Pa.SSJI (Civ.) 1.44. DEFENDANT'S POINT FOR CHARGE NO 8 EXPERTISI TESTIMONY--CREDIBILITY GENERALLY You will recall that Drs. Bruce Goodman and Montague Blundon gave testimony of his qualifications as an expert in the field of Orthopedics. A witness who has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in a particular science, profession, or occupation may give an opinion as an expert as to any matter in which he or she is skilled. In determining the weight to be given to the expert's opinion, you should consider the qualifications and reliability of the expert and the reasons and facts given for the opinion. You are not bound by an expert's opinion merely because he or she is an expert; you may accept or reject it, as in the case of other witnesses. Give it the weight, if any, to which you deem it entitled. Pa.SSJI (Civ.) 5.30. 12 DEFENDANT'S POINT FOR CHARGE NO.9 EXPERT OPINION-BASIS FOR OPINION GENERALLY In general, the opinion of an expert has value only when you accept the facts upon which it is based. This is true whether the facts are assumed hypothetically by the expert, or they come from the expert's personal knowledge, from some other proper source, or from some combination of these. Pa.SSJI (Civ.) 5.31. 13 DEFENDANT'S POINT FOR CHARGE NO. 10 WEIGHING CONFLICTING EXPERT TESTIMONY In resolving any conflict that may exist in the testimony of expert witnesses, you are entitled to weigh the opinion of one expert against that of another. In doing this, you should consider the relative qualifications and reliability of the expert witnesses, as well as the reasons for each opinion and the facts and other matters upon which it was based. 14 DEFENDANT'S POINT FOR CHARGE N0.11 BURDEN OF PROOF In civil cases such as this one, the plaintiff has the burden of proving those contentions ;I that entitle him or her to relief. When a party has the burden of proof on a particular issue, the party's contention on that issue must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence. The evidence establishes a contention by a fair preponderance of the evidence if you are persuaded that it is more probably accurate and true than not. . To put it another way, think, if you will, of an ordinary balance scale, with a pan on each side. Onto one side of the scale, place all of the evidence favorable to the plaintiff; onto the other, place all of the evidence favorable to the defendant. If, after considering the comparable weight of the evidence, you feel that the scales tip, ever so slightly or to the slightest degree, in favor of the plaintiff, your verdict must be for the plaintiff. If the scales tip in favor of the defendant, or are equally balanced, your verdict must be for the defendant. In this case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the following propositions that the injuries he claims resulted from the accident with Michael Buck, that the defendant was negligent, and that the defendant's negligence was the factual cause in bringing about the accident. The Defendant has conceded that he was negligent in causing the accident. Therefore, I direct you to find that the Defendant was negligent. You still must determine whether the Defendant's negligence was a factual cause in bringing about injuries claimed by the Plaintiff. Pa.SS1I (Civ.) 5.50. 15 DEFENDANT'S POINT FOR CHARGE NO 12 DAMAGES If you find that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff, you must then find an amount of money damages you believe will fairly and adequately compensate the plaintiff for all the physical and financial injury he has sustained as a result of the occurrence. The amount you award today must compensate the plaintiff completely for damage sustained in the past, as well as damage the plaintiff will sustain in the future. Pa.SSJI (Civ.) 6.00. 16 WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff V. MICHAEL J. BUCK, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-2949 CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S POINTS FOR CHARGE Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to read the following Points for Charge to the jury. Respectfully submitted, NAVITSKL OLSJQN & David Wisneski, Esquire I.D. No. 58796 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/541-9205 Counsel for Plaintiff LLP Date: October 25, 2004 I POINT FOR CHARGE NO.1 1.43 (Civ.) ADMITTED NEGLIGENCE The Defendant has admitted negligence in causing the accident in question. i i Thus, you are required to determine: (1) What injury, if any, the plaintiff sustained that was caused by the accident, and (2) The amount of damages, if any, to which the plaintiff is entitled as compensation for such injury. 2 POINT FOR CHARGE NO.2 1.45 (Civ.) DISCREPANCIES IN TESTIMONY Discrepancies in a witness's testimony or between such witness's testimony and that of other witnesses, if there were any, do not necessarily mean that [any] [such] witness should be discredited. Failure of recollection is common. Innocent misrecollection is not uncommon. Two persons witnessing an incident or a transaction often will see or hear it differently. Whether a discrepancy pertains to an important matter or only to something trivial should be considered by you. If, however, you decide that there is a genuine and irreconcilable conflict of testimony, it is your function and duty to determine which, if any, of the contradictory statements you will believe. 3 POINT FOR CHARGE NO.3 3.00 (Civ.) ISSUES IN THE CASE AND FACTUAL CAUSE The Plaintiff claims that he was injured and sustained damage as a result of the negligent conduct of the Defendant. The Plaintiff has the burden of proving his claims. The Defendant admits that he was negligent, but denies that such negligence was a factual cause in bringing about Plaintiff's injuries. Based upon the evidence presented at this trial, the only issues for you to decide in accordance with the law as I will give it to you, are: First: Was the Defendant's conduct a factual cause in bringing about harm to the Plain tiff? Conduct is a factual cause of harm when the harm would not have occurred absent the conduct. An act is a factual cause of an outcome if, in the absence of the act, the outcome would not have occurred. In order for the conduct of a party to be a factual cause, the conduct must not be fanciful or imaginary, but must have played a real role in causing the injury. Therefore, in determining factual cause, you must decide whether the negligent conduct of the Defendant was more than an insignificant factor in bringing about any hams to the Plaintiff. Under Pennsylvania law, conduct can be found to be a contributing factor if the action or omission alleged to have caused the harm was an actual, real factor, not a negligible, imaginary, or fanciful factor, or a factor having no connection or only an insignificant connection with the injury. However, factual cause does not mean it is the only, primary, or even the most important factor in causing the injury. A cause may be found to be a factual cause as long as it contributes to the injury in a way that is not minimal or insignificant. 4 To be a contributing factor, the Defendant's conduct need not be the only factor. The fact that some other cause concurs with the negligence of the Defendant in producing an injury does not relieve the Defendant from liability as long as his own negligence is a factual cause of the injury. The negligence of a Defendant may be found to be a factual cause of a Plaintiffs harm even though it was relatively minor as compared to the negligence of the Plaintiff. In effect, the test for factual causation has been met when the conduct in question has such an effect in producing the harm as to lead reasonable persons to regard it as one of the contributing causes that is neither insignificant nor inconsequential considering all the circumstances. 5 POINT FOR CHARGE No. 4 5.50 (Civ.) BURDEN OF PROOF in civil cases such as this one, the Plaintiff has the burden of proving those contentions that entitle him or her to relief. When a party has the burden of proof on a particular issue, the party's contention on that issue must be established by a fair preponderance of the evidence. The evidence establishes a contention by a fair preponderance of the evidence if you are persuaded that it is more probably accurate and true than not. To put it another way, think, if you will, of an ordinary balance scale, with a pan on each side. Onto one side of the scale, place all of the evidence favorable to the Plaintiff, onto the other, place all of the evidence favorable to the Defendant. If, after considering the comparable weight of the evidence, you feel that the scales tip, ever so slightly or to the slightest degree, in favor of the Plaintiff, your verdict must be for the Plaintiff. If the scales tip in favor of the Defendant, or are equally balanced, your verdict must be for the Defendant. In this case, the Plaintiff has the burden of proving the following proposition: that the Defendant's negligence was a factual cause in bringing about harm to the Plaintiff. If, after considering all of the evidence, you feel persuaded that this proposition is more probably true than not true, your verdict must be for the Plaintiff. Otherwise, your verdict should be for the Defendant. 6 POINT FOR CHARGE. NO.5 5.30 (Civ.) EXPERT[S] TESTIMONY-CREDIBILITY GENERALLY You will recall that Dr. Blundon gave testimony of his qualifications as an expert in the field of orthopedic surgery. Similarly, Dr. Goodman testified as to his qualifications as an expert in this same field. A witness who has special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in a par- ticular science, profession, or occupation may give an opinion as an expert as to any matter in which he or she is skilled. In determining the weight to be given to the expert's opinion, you should consider the qualifications and reliability of the expert and the reasons and facts given for the opinion. You are not bound by an expert's opinion merely because he or she is an expert; you may accept or reject it, as in the case of other witnesses. Give it the weight, if any, to which you deem it entitled. 7 POINT FOR CHARGE NO.6 5.33 (Civ.) WEIGHING CONFLICTING EXPERT TESTIMONY In resolving any conflict that may exist in the testimony of expert witnesses, you are entitled to weigh the opinion of one expert against that of another. In doing this, you should consider the relative qualifications and reliability of the expert witnesses, as well as the reasons for each opinion and the facts and other matters upon which it was based. 8 POINT FOR CHARGE NO.7 6.00 (Civ.) DAMAGES If you find that the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff, you must then find an amount of money damages you believe will fairly and adequately compensate the Plaintiff for all the physical and financial injury he has sustained as a result of the occurrence. The amount you award today must compensate the Plaintiff completely for damage sustained in the past, as well as damage the Plaintiff will sustain in the future. 9 POINT FOR CHARGE NO. S 6.23 (Civ.) PREEXISTING CONDITION OR INJURY Damages should be awarded for all injuries caused by the accident even if. (1) the injuries caused by the accident were more severe than could have been foreseen because of the plaintiffs prior physical condition; or (2) a preexisting medical condition was aggravated by the accident. If you find that the Plaintiff did have a preexisting condition that was aggravated by the Defendant's negligence, the Defendant is responsible for any aggravation caused by the accident. I remind you that the Defendant can be held responsible only for those injuries or the aggravation of a prior injury or condition that you find was legally caused by the accident. 10 POINT FOR CHARGE NO.9 6.01 (Civ) INJURIES TO ADULT NOT RESULTING IN DEATI-I The damages recoverable by the Plaintiff in this case and the items that go to make them up, each of which I will discuss separately, are as follows: (1) Past Medical Expenses (2) Past Pain and Suffering (3) Future Medical Expenses (4) Future Pain and Suffering (5) Loss of Life's Pleasures (6) Embarrassment and Humiliation In the event that you find in favor of the Plaintiff, you will add these sums of damage together and return your verdict in a single, lump sum. 11 POINT FOR CHARGE NO. 10 6.01A (Civ.) MEDICAL EXPENSES The Plaintiff is entitled to be compensated in the amount of all medical expenses rea- sonably incurred for the diagnosis, treatment, and cure of his injuries in the past. The parties have stipulated that these expenses, as alleged by the Plaintiff, amount to $6,096.76 12 POINT FOR CHARGE NO I I 6.01 B (Civ.) FUTURE MEDICAL EXPENSES The Plaintiff is entitled to be compensated for all medical expenses that you find he will reasonably incur in the future for the treatment and care of his continuing injuries. 13 POINT FOR CHARGE NO 12 6.O1 E (Civ.) PAST PAIN AND SUFFERING The Plaintiff is entitled to be fairly and adequately compensated for all physical pain, mental anguish, discomfort, inconvenience, and distress you find he has endured, from the time of the accident until today. 14 POINT FOR CHARGE NO. 13 6.01 F (Civ.) FUTURE PAIN AND SUFFERING The Plaintiff is entitled to be fairly and adequately compensated for all physical pain, mental anguish, discomfort, inconvenience, and distress you find he will endure in the future as a result of his injuries. In determining the amount of just compensation, you may consider as part of the dam- ages from the Defendant's conduct, expert testimony regarding the probability that additional I i physical, emotional, and/or psychological effects from the injury will occur in the future. `i I i FYI 15 POINT FOR CHARGE NO. 14 6.01 G (Civ,) EMBARRASSMENT AND HUMILIATION The Plaintiff is entitled to be fairly and adequately compensated for such embarrassment and humiliation as you believe lie has endured [and will continue to endure in the future] as a result of his injuries. r 16 WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff V. MICHAEL J. BUCK, #e IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant 99-2999 CIVIL TERM PRETRIAL CONFERENCE AND NOW, this 6th day of October, 2009, before Edgar B. Bayley, Judge, present for the plaintiff was David S. Wisneski, Esquire, and for the defendant, Michael S. Ferguson, Esquire. This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on May 15, 1997, when plaintiff stopped his vehicle behind a car in front of him that had come to a stop waiting for oncoming traffic to clear so as to make a left-hand turn. Plaintiff was then struck by a vehicle operated by defendant. Negligence is admitted. Plaintiff was a resident of Maryland and was insured under a policy issued in Maryland. Accordingly, even if objected to, medical expenses will come in as a part of plaintiff's case. Estimated time of trial, one to on)nd a half days. By/ the Court, David S. Wisneski, Esquire For Plaintiff Michael S. Ferguson, Esquire For Defendant prs v7 ) ?: : V. '? ?.' ?__ `.('- ( _ ?:?_ C.1 !!_ (") v_? c? ?`? C?J i' 7, . r WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff v. r r .? I?qw IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-2949 CIVIL ACTION- LAW MICHAEL J. BUCK, Defendant JURY TRIAL, DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident that took place on May 15, 1997, on Routes 11 & 15 in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff William Crowley, who was traveling North on I 1 & 15, slowed his vehicle to a halt because the car in front of him had come to a stop while waiting for oncoming traffic to clear so that it could make a left hand turn. Plaintiffs car was then struck in the rear by a Pontiac Grand-Am operated by Defendant Michael J. Buck. II. STATEMENT OF DAMAGES Plaintiff sustained injuries to his neck and back, including a disc herniation at C6-C7, as a result of the accident. Plaintiff's treating orthopedic surgeon, Montague Blundon, 111, M.D. has indicated that Mr. Crowley sustained a twenty-five (25%) percent permanent impairment of the cervical spine, as well as a twenty-five (25%) percent permanent impairment of the lumbar spine, as a direct result of the motor vehicle accident of May 15, 1997. He also opined that Mr. Crowley will ultimately need surgery on his neck, and that the total cost for same, including hospital fees, surgical fees, anesthesia fees and subsequent rehabilitation, will total $25,000. 'I i Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks special damages in the amount of $25,000 for future medical expenses, plus general damages, including physical and mental pain and suffering, inconvenience in carrying out his daily activities and loss of life's enjoyment and pleasures. At the time of the accident, Plaintiff was a resident of Maryland and insured under a Nationwide Auto Policy issued pursuant to the law of the state of Maryland. As discussed more II?: fully below, it is Plaintiff's position that §1722 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, which precludes pleading, proving and recovering medical bills paid for by Plaintiff's insurance carrier, does not apply to this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff also seeks to recover approximately $7,346 in past medical expenses. III. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPAL ISSUES AS TO LIABILITY AND DAMAGES Plaintiff does not believe there are any issues with regard to liability, and requests that Defendant stipulate to same. The only issue will be the causal relationship between Plaintiff's injuries and the accident and the amount of damages to which Plaintiff is entitled. IV. LEGAL ISSUES Plaintiff was a resident of Maryland, and was insured by a Nationwide policy issued in Maryland at the time of the accident. The only unusual legal issue in this case will be, with respect to damages, whether Plaintiff may plead, prove and recover the medical expenses paid by insurance since he is a Maryland Insured. It is Plaintiff's position that, under these factual circumstances, §1722 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law which precludes the recovery of such expenses, does not apply. Smith v. Klein's Bus Service. Inc., 1997 W.L. 67729 (E.D. Pa. 1997) and O'Malley v. Vilsmeier Auctions Co., 986 F. Supp. 306 (E.D. Pa. 1997), which support Plaintiffs position are attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Y 2 V. WITNESS William Crowley (liability) 357 Berkshire Drive Riva, MD 21140 Kathy Crowley (Plaintiffs spouse - damages) 357 Berkshire Drive Riva, MD 21140 Michael J. Buck (Defendant as on cross - liability) 535 East Fifth Street Nescopeck, PA 18635 Terry Milloway (Witness to accident - liability) (if liability is not stipulated to) 322 Broad Nescopeck, PA 18635 Montague Blundon, III, M.D. (Plaintiffs treating orthopedic surgeon - damages) Wyngate Medical Park 5640 Shields Drive Bethesda, MD 20817 Records Custodians if it is necessary to obtain testimony relating to the authenticity of any of the medical records or documents involved. All witnesses identified by Defendant. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this list in a timely fashion prior to trial VI. LIST QF EXHIBITS Photographs of damage to Plaintiffs vehicle Photographs of damage to Defendant's vehicle Photographs of accident scene Statement signed by Terry Milloway Plaintiffs medical records Plaintiffs medical bills List of Plaintiffs recoverable medical bills/future medical bills Medical treatment summary Videotape of deposition of Montague Blundon, III, M.D. Transcript of deposition of Montague Blundon, 111, M.D. Anatomical models and diagrams Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this list in a timely fashion prior to trial. VII. EXPERT REPORT Plaintiff does not anticipate calling any expert witnesses, other than Plaintiffs treating orthopedic surgeon, Montague Blundon, III, M.D. to testify at trial. Copies of Dr. Blundon's reports are attached hereto as Exhibit "B". VIII. STIPULATIONS DESIRED Plaintiff requests that Defendant stipulate to liability. Plaintiff also requests that Defendant stipulate to the authenticity of Plaintiffs medical records and bills and that Defendant stipulate to the amount of Plaintiffs recoverable past medical expenses in the event that the jury finds for the Plaintiff on causation. A medical bill summary is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". IX. CURRENT STATUS OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS Plaintiff has requested that Defendant's insurance carrier tender its $50,000 policy limits in settlement of the claim. Defendant has extended a settlement offer of $7,500. Respectfully submitted, NAVITSKY, OLS & WISNE?KI LLP David S. Wisn ki, Esquire I.D. No. 58796 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/541-9205 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: September 29, 2004 4 imuff" ?11 Page 2 of 3 Westlaw. 1997 WL 67729 1997 WL 67729 (E.D.Pa.) (Cite as: 1997 WL 67729 (E.D.Pa.)) Only the Westlaw citation is currently available. United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. Wanda SMITH and Jerry Smith, Plaintiffs V. KLEIN'S BUS SERVICE, INC., Defendant No. CIV. A. 94-7154. Feb. 14, 1997. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER HUYETT, J. *1 Defendant Klein's Bus Service, Inc. ("Defendant") has filed a Motion in Limine, asking the Court to preclude plaintiffs Wanda Smith and Jerry Smith ("Plaintiffs") from pleading, proving or recovering medical expenses incurred in connection with this action. The background of this motion is stated in the Court's Memorandum dated February 3, 1997. Defendant relies on section 1722 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law ("MVFRL"), 75 Pa.C.S.A. section 1701 et seq., in support of its motion, arguing that Plaintiffs should not recover amounts already paid by Cigna or payable by State Farm. Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law ("MVFRL"), 75 Pa.C.S.A. section 1701 et seq., specifically prohibits a plaintiff from recovering any "benefits paid or payable under ... any program, group contract or other arrangement for payment of benefits as defined in section 1719." Section 1719(b) entitled "definition" states that "program, group contract or other arrangement ... i ncludes, b ut i s not limited t o, benefits payable by a hospital plan corporation or a professional health service corporation subject to 40 Pa.C.S. Ch. 61 (relating to hospital plan Page 1 corporations) or 63 (relating to professional health services plan corporations)." (emphasis added). The definition of "program, group contract, or other arrangement" contained in section 1719 does not specifically include or exclude benefits payable by an out-of-state insurer not subject to Pennsylvania law. The Court concludes that any "program, group contract or other arrangement for payment of benefits as defined in section 1719" was not intended to include benefits recoverable from out-of-state insurers not subject to Pennsylvania law. Section 1722 is intended to prevent a plaintiffs double-recovery. Davish v. Cidley, 417 Pa.Super. 145, 611 A.2d 1307, 1310 (Pa.Super.1992). The same language concerning any "program, group, contract or other arrangement" is also contained in section 1720. Section 1720 eliminates subrogation. Sections 1720 and 1722 must work together for this legislative scheme to work. Id. (emphasizing Pennsylvania's policy of limiting an injured employee to a single recovery through the interplay between sections 1720 and 1722 in both the majority and dissenting opinions). Browne v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 449 Pa.Super. 661, 674 A.2d 1127 (Pa.Super.1996) ( "where benefits similar to those found in an auto insurance policy were once recoverable, but then subject to subrogation, now under section 1722, they simply cannot be recovered, thereby eliminating the need for subrogation"). Section 1720 cannot forbid out-of-state insurers from obtaining subrogation from their out-of-state insureds. Thus, section 1722 cannot be intended to be applied benefits recoverable from insurers not subject to Pennsylvania law. Another reading of section 1722 would make it possible for out-of-state insurers to subrogate amounts which a plaintiff was not permitted to recover pursuant to section 1722. [FNl] Benefits paid by an out-cf-state insurer do not fall within the purview of sections 1720 and 1722. See id. (holding social security benefits do not fall within the purview of sections 1720 and 1722). (FN2) Copr, c0 2004 West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://print.westlaw.corn/dclivery.fitnil?tiest=atpla dataid=B0055800000036910003444984BBE4B... 9/29/2004 Page 3 of 3 1997 WL 67729 1997 WL 67129 (E.D.Pa.) Page 2 (Cite as: 1997 WL 67729 (E.D.Pa.)) FN 1. Such would not occur in the instant END OF DOCUMENT case. Neither of Plaintiffs' Virginia insurers would be entitled to subrogation under Virginia law. Va.Codc Ann. § 38.2-3405 (prohibiting subrogation in medical insurance policies); Va.Codc Ann. § 38.2-2209 (prohibiting subrogation in certain motor vehicle policies). FN2. In Panichelli v. Liberty Mutual, 543 Pa. 114, 669 A.2d 930, 932 (1996), and Browne, supra, the courts noted in dicta that the plaintiff paid for their benefits, so receipt does not result in "double dipping." Similarly, Plaintiffs in the instant case likely. paid higher premiums in Virginia because although Virginia does not allow subrogation, Virginia has no statute like section 1722, abrogating the collateral source rule. •2 The parties agree that Virginia law would not preclude recovery of the benefits paid by Plaintiffs' insurers. Thus atrue contlict of law d oes n ot e xist, and the Court does not need to decide if Virginia or Pennsylvania law would apply to this case. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants motion to preclude plaintiffs Wanda Smith and Jerry Smith ("Plaintiffs") from pleading, proving or recovering medical expenses incurred in connection with this action will be DENIED. An appropriate Order follows. ORDER For the reasons stated in the foregoing Memorandum, Defendant Klein's Bus Service, Ine.'s Motion in Limine, asking the Court to preclude plaintiffs Wanda Smith and Jerry Smith ("Plaintiffs") from pleading, proving or recovering medical expenses incurred in connection with this action is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1997 WL 67729 (E.D.Pa.) Copr. 0 2004 West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. http://print.westlaw.comldelivery.htm l?dcst=atp&dataid=BO055800000036910003444984BB E4B... 9/29/2004 986 F.Sitpp. 306 (Cite as: 986 F.Supp. 306) United States District Court, B.D. Pennsylvania. James D. and Dcidre O'MALLEY, Plaintiffs, V. VILSMEIER AUCI'IONS CO., ct al., Defendants. No. Civ.A. 97-2334. Dec. 8, 1997. New York resident sued Pennsylvania business for injuries sustained in motor vehicle collision that occurred in Pennsylvania. New York plaintiff filed motion in litnine to preclude introduction of evidence regarding plaintiffs election of insurance coverage. The District Court, Katz, J., held that: (1) Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL) provision precluding plaintiff in automobile accident case from submitting evidence on or recovering for economic losses that have been paid or are payable by another source did not apply to action, and (2) under either New York or Pennsylvania law, plaintiff had to prove "serious injury" to recover pain and suffering damages. Motion granted in part and denied in part. West 11cadnotes JU Action X17 13kl7 Most Cited Cases Under Pennsylvania choice of law rules, if law of either jurisdiction may be applied without impairing governmental interests whose law is not being applied, no conflict exists and court should apply law of forum. W Action C=17 13k I7 Most Cited Cases Under Pennsylvania choice of law rules, if only one of two jurisdiction's governmental interests would be impaired by application of other jurisdiction's law, a "false conflict" arises and court applies law of jurisdiction whose interests would be harmed otherwise. J31 Action C::?17 13k 17 h4gs1C4_C CascS Under Pennsylvania choice of law rules, true conflict Page 1 arises only if, no matter which jurisdiction's law is applied, governmental interests of other jurisdiction would be impaired. W Action C=17 13117 Most Cited Crises Under Pennsylvania choice of law rules, if true conflict is present, then court applies choice of law system that combines elements of both governmental interest approach and significant contacts test. LS Automobiles X251.17 48Ak251.17 Most Cited Cases Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL) provision precluding plaintiff in automobile accident case from submitting evidence on or recovering for economic losses that have been paid or are payable by another source did not apply to action by New York resident with non-Pennsylvania insurer seeking damages for injuries sustained in collision which occurred in Pennsylvania. 75 Pa.C.$ A S 1722. JGj Automobiles X251.15 48Ak251.l5 Most Cited Cases New York resident could not recover pain and suffering damages for injuries sustained in automobile collision that occurred in Pennsylvania, under either New York or Pennsylvania law, without proving that he sustained "serious injury" in accident. N.Y.McKinney's Insurance Law § 5104(a); 75 Pa.C.$ A ti S 1702, 1705. "307 Adrian R. Reid, Gregory F. Sciolla, Leonard, Tillery and Sciolla, Philadelphia, PA, Brian S. Pas7amant, Leonard, Tillery and Sciolla, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiffs. Jay L Solnick, Zarwin, Baum, DeVito, Kaplan, and O'Donnell, Philadelphia, PA, Joseph M. Toddy, Zarin, Baum, DeVito, Kaplan & O'Donnell, P.C., Philadelphia, PA, for Defendnats. ORDER and MEMORANDUM KATZ, District Judge. AND NOW, this 81h day of December, 1997, upon consideration of Plaintiffs Motion in Limine to Preclude Defendants from introducing Evidence Regarding or Othenvise Mentioning Plaintiff James D. O'Malley's, Election of Insurance Coverage at CoPr. '(` West 2002 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works 986 F.Sitpp, 306 (Cite as: 986 F.Supp. 306) Trial, and the response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that the said motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Plaintiffs shall be allowed to present evidence on and recover for their economic damages, but plaintiffs must prove a serious injury to recover pain and suffering damages. haroduction The issue disputed in this motion is at its core a two. pronged choice of law problem. Plaintiffs are residents of New York, and defendant is a Pennsylvania corporation. The accident that is the subject of this case occurred in Pennsylvania, when a car carrying sound equipment through defendant's auction grounds backed into plaintiff James O'Malley. At issue in this motion is whether plaintiffs are allowed to recover either economic damages or pain and suffering damages, or whether provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law (MVFRL) should be applied to preclude or burden such recovery. Choice gfLaw Rules 12 3 4 A federal court applies the choice of law rules of the state in which it sits. See Klaron v. Stentor Elec. bffg 313 U.S. 487. 496. 61 S Ct. 1020 1021. 85 LEd 1477 (1941 ; Laleune v. Blis,s- Salent Inc.. 85 F .3d 1069, 1071 (3d Cir 19961. A preliminary step of engaging in Pennsylvania's choice of law analysis is that the court must determine whether a true conflict actually exists. Three outcomes are possible. First, if the law of either jurisdiction may be applied without impairing the governmental interests whose law is not being applied, no conflict exists and the court should apply the law of the forum. Second, if only one of the two jurisdiction's governmental interests would be impaired by the application of the other jurisdiction's law, a "false conflict" arises and the court applies the law of the jurisdiction whose interests would be harmed otherwise. Third, awe conflict arises only if, no matter which jurisdiction's law is applied, the governmental interests of the other jurisdiction would be impaired. See Austin v. Dianne 909 F.Sup ?,71 274 (F.D.Pa.19951. If a true conflict is present, then Pennsylvania court apply a choice of law system that combines elements of both the govemmental interest approach and the significant contacts test. See Cri ah v. (Inited.4ir Lines Inc.. 416 Pa. I "_03 A:2d 79(h 1964. Fconomic Darrmgcs FN I Page 2 FN1 Plaintiffs' motion focuses only on the question of their ability to recover pain and suffering damages without proving a serious injury and does not address this issue. The court will address the economic damages issue, however, because it is clearly raised in Defendant's Trial Brief, to which plaintiffs state their motion is in response, and the parties have submitted contradictory jury instruction on this point which make it clear that the point is in dispute. Defendants argue that, as required under Pennsylvania law, plaintiffs should be precluded *308 from submitting evidence on or recovering for their economic losses (i.e., medical bills and wage losses) that have been paid or are payable by another source, as that is the rule under 1722 of the MVFRL. See Carlson v. Ruhash 432 Pa Suner 514 639 A'2d 458 (1994), allot. denied, 540 Pa. 592.655 A.2d 982 (1995). This statutory abrogation of the common law collateral source rule is designed to prevent double recovery by accident victims. See Davish v. Gidlen 417 P3 Super 145, 611 A .2d 1307 1310 (19921. The New York statutory scheme has that same goal, but uses the mechanism of subrogation to reach it. Section 5104(b) of New York's Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Insurance Reparations statute provides that an insurer who pays or who is liable for first party benefits has a lien against any recovery by its insured. See N.Y. Ins. Law ' 5104(b) (McKinney 1997). Whether plaintiffs recover such damages in this case or not, then, they will not in the end have received a double recovery. The enly question is whether Pennsylvania's or New York's statutory scheme should be used to effect that result. U In Smith v. Kleins Bus Service. Inc.. 1997 WL 67729 (E.D Pa 1997). the court resolved this issue in the appropriate way. In that case, as in the present case, plaintiff was an out-of-slate resident suing a Pennsylvania corporation for damages incurred in a motor vehicle accident, and defendant argued that plaintiff should be precluded under MVFRL 1722 from pleading, proving, or recovering medical expenses Id. at • I . The court there pointed out that .§ 1722 must work together with the MVFRL provision Thal eliminates subrogation, § 1720. Because "[ § ] 1720 cannot forbid out-o6 state insurers from obtaining subrogation from their out-of-state insureds," 17241 cannot be applied to benefits recoverable by out-of•state insurers. !d. (citing !bonne, v. ,?'alinrhvidr Aful his- Co 449 Pa.Super 661,_674, A;.c] 11,7-L---1996J) Thus, §- 1722's ----- Copr. V, West .1002 No Claim to Ong. ti.S. Govt. Wutks '986 F.Shpp. 306 (Clle as: 986 F.Supp. 306) preclusion of proving or recovering economic damages does not apply to this case which involves a non-Pennsylvanin plaintiff with a non-Pennsylvania insurer. There is thus no conflict because the Pennsylvania law an its fact cannot be applied. Non-Economic Damages Both New York and Pennsylvania have limited tort liability provisions in their respective motor vehicle insurance statutes. Under the Pennsylvania MVFRL, an insured who elects the limited tort option relinquishes his or her chance to sue a tortfeasor for non-economic, pain and suffering damages unless the injury is "serious," in return for paying lower premiums. See 75 Pa.Cons . Stat.Ann. & 1705; see also 75 Pa.Cons.Stat.Ann. & 1702 (defining "serious injury" as "[a] personal injury resulting in death, serious impairment of body function or permanent serious disfigurement"). The New York Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Insurance Reparations statute sets forth the same rule: for a person electing New York's parallel limited tort option, "there shall be no right of recovery for non-economic loss, except in the case of a serious injury." N.Y. Ins. Law & 5104(a) (McKinney 1997). Moreover, the stated purpose of both laws is the same: to assure prompt compensation for economic loss for accident victims, to eliminate the vast majority of auto accident negligence suits, and to provide substantial insurance premium savings to motorists. See Dannelly v, Saner. 453 Pa.Super. 396, 683 A.2d 1242, 1244 C1296), allot. granted, 548 Pa. 627. 693 A.2d 967 (1997); Thomas v. Hannrer, 109 A.D.2d 80, 489 N.Y.S.2d 802, 805 (1985). At first blush, then, it would seem that the two statutes present no conflict. The difficulty arises, however, because the New York statute applies to cases dealing with "personal injuries arising out of negligence in the use or operation of a motor vehicle in this state." N.Y.Ins.Law & 5104(x) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs argue that neither statute applies to them in this case: because the accident did not occur in New York, the New York statute does not apply; because they arc not persons covered under the Pennsylvania statute, the Pennsylvania law does not apply. Plaintiffs' argument continues that since neither *309 limiting statute applies, they are allowed to recover pain and suffering damages without having to prove that the injury Mr. O'Malley suffered was serious. U In applying the identical language of the statute that was the predecessor to & 510.1, a New Yotk court ruled that "as a statute which abrogates a page 3 common-law right, [the law] must be strictly construed, and as so construed, the section does not purport to regulate actions for personal injury arising out of the negligent use or operation of a vehicle outside this Slate." Morean v. Bisorni. 100 A.D.2d 956. 475 N.Y.S.2d 98, 100 (1984). Yet when faced with a case in which applying § 5104 to an out-of- state accident benefited a New York plaintiff, the New York court did apply it. See Thomas v. Harmer. 109 A.D.2d 80, 489 N.Y.S.2d 802, 803-806 (19851. The lesson of Thomas is that when it furthers the statute's policy to apply & 5104(a) to an accident occurring out of state (in that case allowing plaintiff to recover pain and suffering damages if they could prove the injury was serious, as compared to Ontario's law of disallowing pain and suffering damages altogether), New York courts do not allow the literal reading of "in this state" to strictly limit the statute's out-of-state applicability. Because under either New York's or Perutsylvania's statutory scheme plaintiff must prove a serious injury to recover non-economic damages, and the interests of each state's policy are served equally by the application of either statute, there is no conflict between the two laws. Therefore, the law of Pennsylvania shall apply and plaintiff shall plead and prove that his injury was serious in order to recover non-economic damages: FN2 FN2. If choice of law analysis were pursued, Pennsylvania law would be chosen. As explained in Lopez v. USdIR. Inc.. 1990 WL 175653, at " I (E.D.Pa.1990), "To effect the legislative purpose, the MVFRL should be applicable whenever the injured party or the tortfeasor has significant contacts with Pennsylvania, and, in addition, when the accident occurred in Pennsylvania." Even a New York court would choose to apply Pennsylvania law on the facts presented. Sec AfcCann v .Sonroza 933 F.Suaa. 362, 366 (S.D.N.Y.1996) (explaining that rules governing an accident victim's ability to sue for non-economic damages is a loss- allocating rule, and thus New York follows the rule that where the accident occurred in a state in which only one of the parties is domiciled, and the law of that state favors that party, the law of that state will generally apply). END OF DOCUMENT Copr.,C, 1Vcst?(102 Nu('laim la Orig. 11.5. Govt. \Varks r 1 MONTAGUE BLUf1DOry, III, M.D., P.A. PRACTICE LIMITCO To oKrfloPACOIC SUROCRY WYMOATE MEDICAL PARK 5840 SHIELDS DRIVC OMICSDA, MARYLAND 20817 301.897.5505 January 10, 2002 David Wisneski 2040 Linglestown Road, Ste. 303 Harrisburg, PA 171 10 Re: William Crowley Dear Mr. Wisneski: Please allow this letter to confinn that it is my opinion, with a reasonable de medical certainty, that the C6.7 disc herniation revealed in Mr. Crowley 's MRI of November 2001 is a direct result of the motor vehicle accident of May degree of Yours truly, Y 1 S, 1997. ?? I d"V4 -7ff Montague Blundon, III, M.D. MONTAGUE BLUNDON, M M.D. WYNGATE MEDICAL PARK 5640 SHIELDS DRIVE BETHESDA, MD 20817 August 31, 2001 Mr. David Wisncski Re: William Crowley File#446 Dear Mr. Wisncski: Please allow this letter to supplement my report of August 23, 2001 regarding William Crowley. As indicated in Mr. Crowley's medical records from my office, I do believe that Mr. Crowley has a 25% permanent impairment of the cervical spine, plus a 25% permanent impairment of the lumbar spine as a direct result of the injuries that he sustained in the motor vehir le accident of May 15, 1997. All of the opinions in this report, as well as my report of August 23, 2001, have oeen rendered with a reasonable degree of medical certainty. If t can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. ' Yours Truly Montague Hlundon. MD I i I MONTAGUE'BLUNDON, 111, M.D.,P.A. PRACTICE LIMITED TO ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY WYNGATE MEDICAL PARK 5640 SHIELDS DRIVE BETHESDA, MARYLAND 20917 August 23, 2001 Mr. David Wisneski RE: William Crowley File 9446 Dear Mr. Wisneski: In response to your letter of August 3, 2001, let me specifically respond to your questions. I understand you are in receipt of all of his medical records. 1. Mr, William Crowley was-first seen in this office on November 20,1997, after he had sustained injuries from a motor vehicle accident on May 15, 1997. 2. The patient's condition at that time was stable, although he was continuing to complain of spasms and pain radiating out of his neck and also out his back with decreased range' of motion of 50% for flexion, extension, lateral bending and , rotation throdghout the cervical spine and the lumbar spine. 3:. The history that he gave me was that he had been involved in an accident in Pennsylvania, but had obtained initial medical treatment in Elmara in New York. 4. My diagnosis was #1 acute cervical strain and #2 acute lumbar strain. 5. He was treated conservatively with chiropractic treatments and also Lodine as an antiinflammatory. Please review my medical records. 6. He was treated approximately every couple of months for his injuries and he was initially seen oli'November 20, 1997, next on March 17, 1999, and subsequently on November 3, 1999, and on July 30, 200 L 7. He was last seen in this office on July 30, 2001. 8. The patient's condition still reveals pain and tenderness radiating out of his neck and out of his back as a result of his injuries. 9. His future treatment consists of medical consultation approximately once a year averaging about 250 dollars per year. 10. Prognosis is guarded. We feel that he will continue with neck and back pains. 11. We feel that he will have continued medical bills for this injury in the range of 200-300 dollars per year for the foreseeable and the indefinite future. I hope this answers your questions. If I can be of any of any further assistance, please, let me know. Yours MontTru I 1 on, MD s a r? Medical Bill Summary for William Crowley Provider Total Charge Amount Paid b Client Amount Paid b Insurance Sinai Hospital of Baltimore $877.00 $15.00 $862.00 St. Joseph's Hospital $281.25 $281.25 Dr. Brian Sullivan/Annapolis Neurosurgery, LLC $420.00 $15.00 $75.00 William Tham, M.D./Physical Medicine & Pain Mngmt. Assoc. $190.00 $152.00 $38.00 Dr. Caruso/Neurosurgical Specialists $212.00 $15.00 $197.00 Health South Radiology Diagnostic Center $1,450.00 $15.00 $453.00 Montague Blundon, III, M.D. $1,314.00 Andres Gale o, D.C. $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Julie Rosenberg, D.C. $880.75 75 $880. Shad Grove Radiology $221.19 $77.51 Totals $7,346.19 $2,592.75 $1,983.76 • . . 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law firm of Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs Pretrial Memorandum was served upon the following persons by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid on September 30, 2004, as follows: Michael S. Ferguson, Esquire NEALON & GOVER 2411 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Defendant Lois E. Stauffer WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff VS. MICHAEL J. BUCK, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 99-2949 CIVIL CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN RE: PRETRIAL CONFFRENCF Present at a pretrial conference held January 9, 2002, were David Wisneski, Esquire, attorney for the plaintiff, and Brian Zulli, Esquire, attorney for the defendant. While this case is currently scheduled for the week of January 28, 2002, there may be some last minute developments which will necessitate a continuance. The defendant has only recently received wi MRI of the plaintiff and may not have sufficient time to procure an expert review. In addition, in the unlikely event that liability is not conceded, the parties will need to schedule a deposition of Terry Milloway, a witness to the accident. The plaintiff was a resident of Maryland and insured by a Nationwide policy issued in Maryland at the time of the accident. If Maryland law is deemed to apply to this case, the plaintiff seeks to recover all medical expenses incurred. The parties will file a memorandum on this issue during the week preceding trials. Mr. Zulli indicated that James Nealon, Esquire, may be trying the case for the defense. Trial in this matter should be of no more than two days' duration. Settlement is not likely. January 9, 2002 /9 Kevi A. Hess, .I. I I David Wisneski, Esquire For the Plaintiff Brian Zulli, Esquire For the Defendant Court Administrator ' Am WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff V. MICHAEL J. BUCK, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-2949 CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF MICHAEL J BUCK AND NOW, comes Defendant, Michael J. Buck, by and through his attorneys Nealon & Gover, P.C., and respectfully submits the following Pre-Trial Memorandum. 1. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS This civil action arises out of an automobile accident that took place on May 15, 1997, in the area of Routes 11 and 15 in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Defendant, Michael J. Buck, was operating a motor vehicle directly behind Plaintiff's vehicle on Routes 11 and 15. Defendant's front portion of his vehicle came in contact with the rear portion of Plaintiffs vehicle. Plaintiff contends that the accident was caused by Defendant and that the accident resulted in injuries to Plaintiff. II. PRINCIPLE ISSUES OF LIABILITY AND DAMAGES Whether Defendant caused this automobile accident? Whether this accident, allegedly caused by Defendant, was a substantial factor in bringing about Plaintiffs injuries? What damages, if any, Plaintiff suffered from this accident? III. LEGAL ISSUES A. Defendant is still awaiting medical records from the Plaintiffs expert, specifically regarding MRis which were recently taken of the Plaintiff. These records are required in order for Defendant's expert to evaluate this matter and render an opinion. Plaintiff has agreed that if, prior to trial, Defendant has not received the MRls and has not had a sufficient amount of time to procure Defendant's expert opinion, this case would be stricken from the January 2002 trial list and moved to the following civil term of court. IV. WITNESSES A. The Plaintiff, William Crowley, as if on cross-examination. B. The Defendant, Michael J. Buck. C. Bruce Goodman, M,D. D. Terry Milloway. E. Defendant reserves the right to call any other expert deemed necessary provided that reasonable notice is provided prior to trial. F. Defendant reserves the right to call any and all witnesses listed on Plaintiffs Pre-Trial Memorandum and called at trial. V. EXHIBITS Medical records of William Crowley. Defendant suggests that there be a stipulation as to the authenticity of these medical records. All other objections should be reserved for trial. VI. SETTLEMENT OFFER $7,500.00. Respectfully submitted, NEALON & GOVER, P.C. By: Attorney I.D. No. 859481 2411 North Front Street ®P Harrisburg, PA 17110 Date: 11 (717) 232-9900 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this day of 3rd day of January, 2002, 1 hereby certify that I have served the foregoing Pre-Trial Memorandum on the following by depositing a true and correct copy of same in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, addressed to: David S. Wisneski, Esquire Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski, LLP 2040 Linglestown Rd., Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 ?i Brian . Zulli, Esc 0 (r 0 r w ? ¢ Q ¢ z O 0 J r Q a Q z i u 0 ? a } LL i Z 0 w = a Z O N D: rc Ur J ,"? 0 0 rc Q z w 0 ¢ v m Z w a Nawim•noviuo•lY[iim •JY nuo ?'pNNw? ]NI T'40UVYW UNI ?'JVIi 11O Vp NdiNgY 1YDI1 LYIC llY ,t' _ i i i 1? WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-2949 CIVIL ACTION - LAW MICHAEL J. BUCK, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM 1. STATEMENT OF FACTS This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident that took place on May 15, 1997 on Routes I1 & 15 in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff William Crowley, who was traveling North on 1 I & 15, slowed his vehicle to a halt because the car in front of him had conic to a stop while waiting for oncoming traffic to clear so that it could make a left hand turn. Plaintiff's car was then struck in the rear by a Pontiac Grand-Ant operated by Defendant Michael J. Buck. II. STATEMENT OF DAMAGES Plaintiff sustained injuries to his neck and back, including a disc herniation at C6-C7, as a result of the accident. Plaintiffs treating orthopedic surgeon, Montague Blundon, 111, M.D. has indicated that Mr. Crowley sustained a twenty-five (25'%1 percent permanent impairment of the cervical spine, as well as a twenty-five (25%) percent permanent impairment of the lumbar spine, as a direct result of the motor vehicle accident of May 15, 1997, lie also opined that Mr. Crowley will ultimately need surgery on his neck, and that the total cost for same, including hospital fees, surgical fees, anesthesia fees and subsequent rehabilitation, will total S25,000. r 7; 'e Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks special damages in the amount of $25,000 plus general damages, including physical and mental pain and suffering, inconvenience in carrying out his daily activities and loss of life's enjoyment and pleasures. If Maryland law is deemed to apply, Plaintiff additionally seeks to recover all medical expenses incurred, which total approximately $5,000, in addition to the future medical expenses. III. STATFMG Nm nn o...- --_ _ Plaintiff does not believe there are any issues with regard to liability, and requests that Defendant stipulate to same. The only issue will be the causal relationship between Plaintiff's injuries and the accident and the amount of damages to which Plaintiff is entitled. IV. LEGAL ISSUES Plaintiff was a resident of Maryland, and was insured by a Nationwide policy issued in Maryland at the time of the accident. The only unusual legal issue in this case will be, with respect to damages, whether Maryland or Pennsylvania law applies. V. WITNESS William Crowley (liability) 357 Berkshire Drive Riva, MD 21140 Kathy Crowley (Plaintiff's spouse - damages) 357 Berkshire Drive Riva, MD 21140 Michael J. Buck (Defendant as on cross - liability) 535 East Fifth Street Nescopeck,PA 18635 Terry Milloway (Witness to accident - liability) 322 Broad Nescopeck, PA 18635 2 Montague Blundon, 111, M.D. (Plaintiffs treating orthopedic surgeon - damages) WNtgate Medical Park 5640 Shields Drive Bethesda, MD 20817 Records Custodians if it is necessary to obtain testimony relating to the authenticity of any of the medical records or documents involved. All witnesses identified by Defendant. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this list in a timely fashion prior to trial VI. LIST OF EXHIBITS Photographs of damage to Plaintiffs vehicle Photographs of damage to Defendant's vehicle Photographs of accident scene Repair estimates/invoices pertaining to damage to Plaintiffs vehicle Statement signed by Terry Milloway Plaintiffs medical records List of Plaintiffs recoverable medical bills/future medical bills Medical treatment summary Videotape of deposition of Montague Blandon, III, M.D. Transcript of deposition of Montague Blandon, III, M.D. Anatomical models and diagrams Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this list in a timely fashion prior to trial. VII. EXPERT REPORT Plaintiff does not anticipate calling any expert witness, other than Plaintiffs treating orthopedic surgeon, Montague Blundon, III, M.D., to testify at trial. Copies of Dr. Blundon's reports arc attached hereto as Exhibit "A". Plaintiff has requested a supplemental report from Dr. Blundon pertaining to the recent MRI results. A copy of the report will be supplied to defense counsel prior to Dr. Blundon's deposition. Vill. STIPULATIONS DESIRFD Plaintiff requests that Defendant stipulate to liability. Plaintiff also requests that Defendant stipulate to the authenticity of Plaintiffs medical records. 3 IX. CURRENT STATUS OF SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS Plaintiff has requested that Defendant's insurance carrier tender its $50,000 policy limits in settlement of the claim so that Plaintiff can proceed to make a claim for underinsured motorist coverage. Respectfully submitted, NAVITSKY, OLSON & WISNESKI LLP David S. Wisneski, Esquire I.D. No. 58796 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/541-9205 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: January 3, 2002 4 R MONTAGUE BLUNDON, III, M.D.,P.A. PRACTICE LIMITED TO ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY WYNGATE MEDICAL PARK 5640 SHIF,LDS DItIVE DETHESDA, MARYLAND 20817 August 23, 2001 Mr. David Wisneski RE: William Crowley File #446 Dear Mr. Wisneski: In response to your letter of August 3, 2001, let me specifically respond to your questions. I understand you are in receipt of all of his medical records, 1. Mr. William Crowley was first seen in this office on November 20, 1997, after he had sustained injuries from a motor vehicle accident on May 15, 1997. 2. The patient's condition at that time was stable, although he was continuing to complain of spasms and pain radiating out of his neck and also out his back with decreased range of motion of 50% for flexion, extension, lateral bending and rotation throughout the cervical spine and the lumbar spine. 3. The history that lie gave me was that he had been involved in an accident in Pennsylvania, but had obtained initial medical treatment in Clmara in New York. 4. My diagnosis was #1 acute cervical strain and #2 acute lumbar strain. 5. He was treated conservatively with chiropractic treatments and also Lodine as an antiinflitnmatory. Please review my medical records. 6. He was treated approximately every couple of months for his injuries and he was initially seen oil November 20, 1997, next on March 17, 1999, and subsequently on November 3, 1999, and on July 30,200 1. 7. He was last seen in this office on July 30, 2001. 8. The patient's condition still reveals pain and tenderness radiating out of his neck and out of his back as a result of his injuries. 9. His future treatment consists of medical consultation approximately once a year averaging about 250 dollars per year. 10. Prognosis is guarded. We feel that he will continue with neck and back pains. 11. We feel that he will have continued medical bills for this injury, in the range of 200-300 dollars per year for the foreseeable and the indefinite future. 1 hope this answers your questions. If I can be of any of any further assistance, please let me know. Yours Tru Mont) a IuTitifiii, A1D .,J -4 MONTAGUE BLUNDON, M M.D. WYN6AfE MEDICAL PARK 5640 SHIELDS DRIVE BEiHESOA, MD 20811 August 31, 2001 Mr. David Wisncski Re: William Crowley PileN44G Dcar Mr. Wisneski: Please allow this letter to supplement my report of August 23, 2001 regarding Williatu Crowley. As indicated in Mr. Crowley's medical records from my office, I do believe that Mr. Crowley has a 25% permanent impairment of the cervical spine, plus a 25% permanent impairment of the lumbar spine as a direct result of the injuries that he sustained in the motor vehicle accident of May l5, 1997. All of the opinions in this report, as well as my report of August 23, 2001, have oeen rendered with a reasonable degree of medical certainty. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours Trull(, 8" Montague Blundon, MD Nov 2E 01 03:33p Radiology Diagnostic Center - ArALMSOUTH A p.2 11I031U1 13603 M ORDERED DY: DR. MONTAGUE DLUNDON III :=SPINE: history: Neck pain. MVA trauma three years ago. MR[ technique: Magnetic resonance imaging of t;tc lumbar spine was performed in the sagittal plane using T1 weighted and multiecho U. weighted spin echo sequences and in the axial plane using a v weighted spin echo sequence. MRf findings: C2-3: Normal C3-4: There is mild uncovcrtebral joint hypertrophy and facet joint hypertrophy right greater than left. There is minimal right neural furaminal stenosis as a result. Spinal canal left neural foramen are ample. There is no disc herniation. C4.5: Normal. C5-6: There is mild facet joint hypertrophy. There is uo disc herniation or spinal stenosis. C6.7: There is a left posterior subligamentous disc herniation with mild encroachment upon the thecal sac. There is still CSF signal anterior to the cord and normal cord signal without apparent cord compression. The neural foramina are widely patent. C7-TI: Normal There is normal signal in the partially evaluated posterior fossa and cord. There is mild signal loss about the odoutuid tip, associated with some hypertrophic change at Cl-C2 of mild degree. There is no paraspinal soft tissue abnormElity. IMPRESSION: LEFT POSTERIOR SUBLIG.M:ENTOUS DISC HERNIATION AT C6-7 WITH MILD LEFT SIDED SPINAL CANAL STENOSIS. DEGENERATIVE HYPERTROPHIC CHANGE ATC3-4 CAUSING MILD RIGIIT NEURAL FORAMINAL STENOSIS. DK/rjs/ROW DAVID KOWA?2SKI, M.D. DD: 11/05/01 DT: 11105101 4 •301 RDS-lg7p • !'nx 3Ql 8051-9?y?? ?_ _ 4(YJ0 MdC.ho901e Read Su4,x n. r'_+C_&I,,P. 1,402C776 ?r MONTAGUE BLUNDON, III5 M.D., P.A. PRACTICE LIMITED TO ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY WYNGATE MEDICAL PARK 5640 Shields Drive Bethesda Maryland 20817 301-897-5505 PATIENT: WILLIAM CROWLEY File #: 446 111H VQx Today , his range of motion is decreased by 35% throughout the cervical spine for ion, extension, lateral bending, and rotation with a 35% loss of strength, function, and endurance. He also has decreased range of motion throughout the lumbar spine by 30% with a 30% loss of strength, function, endurance of the lumbar spine. We feel that he is eventually going to have to have surgery on the neck, and the total cost of the surgery including hospital fees, surgical fees, anesthesia fees, and subsequent rehabilitation would be 25,000 dollars. In the meantime, we will prescribe Celebrex as an antiinflammatory plus chiropractic treatment, and see him back in the office in 4 weeks for evaluation and consultation. y. M m-a B 9 ! l.J???i?? M. BLUNDON, M.D. MB/cbs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law firm of Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFF'S PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM was served upon the following persons by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid on January 3, 2002, as follows: Brian Zulli, Esquire NEALON & GOVER 2411 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Defendant Lois E. Stauffer ~'?- WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, 15151 Deer Valley Terrace Silver Spring, MD 20906 Plaintiff VS. MICHAEL J. BUCK, RR1, Box 1929 Berwick, PA 18603.9709 Defendant COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. qq- a l ?G u? jP1?(tl CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please issue a Writ of Summons in the above-captioned action. The Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to the Sheriff. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL, SMITH & HADDICK, P.C. Date: Mav 14.1999 Charles E. Haddick, Jr.koquire Attorney I.D. No: 55666 20 South 36th Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-4800 Attorneys for Plaintiff, William F. Crowley WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT: YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Date: May 14, 1999 C 1n Prothonotary ? By mac . ?\ ?1c:1?c??cty Deputy ? Cn i7" ?•?. I`: ? ?/?? ? Vim' ?? 7 J 010 ?, ltl ?J r SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 1999-02949 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CROWLEY WILLIAM F VS. BUCK MICHAEL J R. Thomas Kline Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: BUCK MICHAEL J but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of LUZERNE County, Pennsylvania. to serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS On May 25th, 1999 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from LUZERNE County, Pennsylvania. Sheriff's Costs: So answers: y Docketing Out of County 18.00 9.00 Surcharge 8.00 iom s ine, , Dep. Luzerne Co 31.00 ?U 05?25%1L SMITH & HADDICK Sworn and subscribed to before me this A S`-` day of 19-q'9 A.D. ?- - At- ?) A D 7 'O4 _ ona iS y?i i In the Court Of Common Pleas of Cumberland Counl?-, Pennsyi?>anfa William F. Crowley vs. Michael J. Buck No. 99-7f49 19 Now, 5/17/99 19_, I SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Luzerne county to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pa. Affidavit of Service Now, TtltteDAY m Ay 70 19-, at 11.35 o'clock A. M, served the within SUMMONS Yl ---_. _-_•-••••? •uaras wn 1747, DD. by handing to SANDRA BDCK - IIIS MOTHER attested copy of the original HER the contents thereof. So answers, .# Z4 4, ?f chi Sheriff of Sworn and subscribed before me this 21ST day of MAY 19 99 COSTS SERVICE S MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT a true and and made known to -_DEPUIY SHERIFF County, Pa. S IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA i WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Civil Action - Law Plaintiff No. 99-2949 Civil Term i v. MICHAEL). BUCK • JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant NOTICE TO DEFEND 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 you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice, for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim for 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. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166 or (800) 990-9108 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff V. MICHAEL). BUCK Defendant Civil Action - Law No. 99-2949 Civil Term JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICIA Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas sugnuientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presenter Una apariencia escrita o en persona o por abodado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar Una Orden contra usted sin previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en la petition de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importances para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE E!_ DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166 or (800) 990-9108 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Civil Action - Law Plaintiff No. 99-2949 Civil Term V. MICHAEL J. BUCK JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff, William F. Crowley, is an adult individual residing at 15151 Deer Valley Terrace, Silver Spring, Maryland. 2. Defendant, Michael J. Buck, is an adult individual residing at RR1, Box 1929, Berwick, Pennsylvania. 3. On or about May 15, 1997, Plaintiff was operating his motor vehicle on Routes 11 and 15 near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 4. On or about May 15, 1997, Defendant was operating a motor vehicle directly behind Plaintiffs automobile on Routes 11 and 15 near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 5. At the aforementioned time and place, Defendant caused his automobile to strike Plaintiffs automobile from the rear. 5. At all times relevant hereto, Plaintiff was exercising due care. i 7. The aforementioned collision was caused solely by Defendant's negligence. 8. Defendant's negligence consisted of the following: a. Driving at an unsafe speed b. Following too closely c. Failure to maintain an assured clear distance ahead d. Failure to maintain a proper lookout. e. Failure to control his vehicle f. Failure to avoid striking Plaintiff's vehicle 9. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff's body was propelled forward and backward with great force, and was shaken violently causing severe pain and fright. 10. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence Plaintiff i has suffered from the following: cervical and lumbar sprain/strain, chronic i headaches, lumbar radiculitis, chronic neck and back pain and spasm, decreased range of motion, decreased strength, decreased functional capacity, decreased endurance, and permanent partial impairment of the cervical and lumbar spine. 11. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence and the aforementioned injuries, Plaintiff has suffered, continues to suffer and will suffer in the future, severe pain and suffering. 2 12. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence and the aforementioned injuries, Plaintiff has expended, continues to expend and will be required to spend in the future, large and various sums of money for medical care and treatment. 13. As a direct a and proximate result of Defendant's negligence and the aforementioned injuries, Plaintiff has suffered, continues to suffer and will suffer in the future, a loss of income and earning capacity. 14. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence and the aforementioned injuries, Plaintiff has been, is, and will continue to be restricted in his normal daily activities. 1 15. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has suffered permanent disability. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Court to grant judgment in his favor and against the Defendant in an amount exceeding $25000.00, together with costs and all other relief available under law. Charles E. Haddic , Jr., Esquire Attorney I.D. No: 5566 Alan M. Robinso Es ire Attorney I.D. No.: 82670 20 South 36th Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-4800 Attorneys for Plaintiff 3 .. ..... 09/28/99 14:16 '&7177314803- -' _-- --INS&ll,_.P. C. [moos VERIFICATION I, William F. Crowley, hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Wiliam F. Crow DATED: - II2C)h'q i (f? 11. IJ I r-; Il, Q7J ? -1 is ; .. u. l.j Ci) C^, i c-> Cl C'1 L_ •-J .Y C.J -J J :G U Q Q Imo- N Q F G ? F = G N U x L- L WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff V. MICHAEL J. BUCK, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-2949 : CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER TO REQUEST FQR ADMISSIONS AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Michael J. Buck, by and through his attorneys, Nealon and Gover, PC, and files the following Answer to the Request for Admissions: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. It is admitted that the Plaintiff sought medical care on May 15, 1997. It is further admitted that he sought medical care from time to time thereafter. To the extent that this paragraph is construed to allege that any medical treatment is related to the May 15, 1997 collision, the same can neither be admitted or denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation. At this point, no Discovery has taken place in this matter. Therefore, Defendant can neither admit or deny that any medical care sought after May 15, 1997 is related to the collision of that date. 5. After reasonable investigation, Defendant can neither admit nor deny the averments of this paragraph. No Discovery has taken place in this matter. Therefore, Defendant is without knowledge as to whether Plaintiff actually incurred any recoverable medical exoenses related to the Mav 15. 1997 collision. WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff V. MICHAEL J. BUCK, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-2949 : CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Michael J. Buck, by and through his attorneys, Nealon and Gover, PC, and files the following Answer to the Request for Admissions: Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. It is admitted that the Plaintiff sought medical care on May 15, 1997. It is further admitted that he sought medical care from time to time thereafter. To the extent that this paragraph is construed to allege that any medical treatment is related to the May 15, 1997 collision, the same can neither be admitted or denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation. At this point, no Discovery has taken place in this matter. Therefore, Defendant can neither admit or deny that any medical care sought after May 15, 1997 is related to the collision of that date. 5. After reasonable investigation, Defendant can neither admit nor deny the averments of this paragraph. No Discovery has taken place in this matter. Therefore, Defendant is without knowledge as to whether Plaintiff actually incurred any recoverable medical exoenses related to the Mav 15. 1997 collision. 6. After reasonable Investigation, Defendant can neither admit nor deny the averments of this paragraph, No Discovery has taken place in this matter. Therefore, Defendant does no possess sufficient information to admit or deny that Plaintiff has suffered any injury of any kind related to the May 15, 1997 collision. 7. After reasonable Investigation, Defendant can neither admit or deny the averments of this paragraph, No Discovery has taken place in this matter. Therefore, Defendant does not possess sufficient information regarding Plaintiffs medical history to admit or deny that Plaintiff suffered from no impairments of his cervical or lumbar spine prior to May 15, 1997. 8. It Is admitted that the name of the person who signed the Statement is the same as the person who was in Defendants vehicle when the accident occurred. After reasonable Investigation, Defendant can neither admit nor deny the remaining averments in the paragraph. No Discovery has taken place in this matter. Therefore, Defendant does not have sufficient information to establish the authenticity of the attached Statement. Respectfully submitted, NEALON & GOVER b2".Xlfax David J. Freed, Esquire Atty. I.D. #76622 301 Market St. - 9th Fl. PO Box 865 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0865 (717) 232-9900 Dalo: I/ I6 11 VERIFICATION I, Michael J. Buck, hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer to Request for Admissions are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904, relating to Unsworn Falsification to Authorities. Michael J. B ck Dated: la - 1-3 - y I AND NOW, this day of IA A of December, 1999 1 hereby certify that I have servod the foregoing Answer to Request for Admissions on the following by depositing a true and correct copy of same in the United States mails, postage prepaid, addressed to; Charles E, Haddick, Jr., Esquire 20 South 36th Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 David J. Freed, Esquire i ,i.. t. ?I? y C CN CL S ? t WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff V. MICHAEL J. BUCK, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-2949 CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AND NOW, comes Michael J. Buck, by and through his attorneys, Nealon and Gover, PC, and files the following Answer to Complaint: 1. Admitted. 2. It is admitted that Michael J. Buck is an adult individual. His correct address is 535 East 5th Street, Nescopeck, Pennsylvania. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. It is admitted that Michael Buck's vehicle collided with the Plaintiffs vehicle. It is specifically denied that Michael Buck caused the collision. Strict proof of this allegation is demanded at trial. 6. This paragraph states a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 'T'o the extent that it alleges facts, the same are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 7. This paragraph states a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that it alleges facts, the same are denied pursuant to Pa. R.G.P. 1029(e). 8. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 9.-15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant, Michael J. Buck, is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the matter asserted and proof is demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Michael J. Buck, respectfully requests that the Complaint filed against him be dismissed. Respectfully submitted, NEALON & GOVER By: 'ate ,alii?st9A David J. Freed, Esquire Atty. I.D. #76622 301 Market St. - 9th Fl. PO Box 865 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0865 (717) 232-9900 Date: ) L - i S-M I, Michael J. Buck, hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904, relating to Unsworn Falsification to Authorities. Mich e? Dated: 1a - 13 - I? 11 i AND NOW, this day of /5.hf/ of December, 1999 1 hereby certify that I have served the foregoing Answer to Complaint on the following by depositing a true and correct copy of same in the United States mails, postage prepaid, addressed to: Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire 20 South 36th Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 David J. Freed, Esquire i i >- ni (.?_ H ?? ?'1 Gi li; ' ?.: l r ??- .. ...- - (_ ` , _ ? l i. - - ??) ui.._ CJ z C : ,.i C ?L: CP l.) L WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. MICHAEL J. BUCK, NO. 99-2949 CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL/ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Please withdraw my appearance on behalf of Plaintiff in the above-captioned action. MARSHALL & HADDICK, P.C. Ghar-legt. Had is .1r., Esquire I.D. No. 55666\ 1 20 South 36`h Stradt Camp Hill, PA 17011 717/731-4800 Counsel for Plaintiff Please enter my appearance on behalf of Plaintiff in the above-captioned action. David S. Wisneski, Esquire I.D. No. 58796 2040 Lingleslown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/541-9205 Counsel for Plaintiff NAVITSK OLSO & WIS ESKI LLP Date: 3 -QC-0/ CERTIFICATE. OF SERVICE I, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL/ENTRY OF APPEARANCE was served upon the following persons by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid on March 26, 2001, as follows; David J. Freed, Esquire NEALON & GOVER 301 Market Street, 9`h Floor P.O. Box 865 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0865 Counsel for Defendant Lois E. Stauffer ?i• ;.i n: •- . .i Yrtl lvtO•..F: .IVti:.i.1'i.:V ['?l%:/'.R.-v if T?v :? _i WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff V. MICHAEL J. BUCK, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-2949 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, this I I [? day of_.. Z ,_, n C- _, 2001, it is Hereby Ordered and Decreed that a Pretrial Case Management Conference will be held on "? '? > -,-t to W % , c?3 2001, in C at 3 /$ -.M. BY THE COURT: ej ? 6e, ok ?4' ?;;C. ? Z ,7 ; ?. ? , ,,, ?, ? , y WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff V. MICHAEL J. BUCK, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-2949 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR A PRETRIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 212.3 AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, William F. Crowley, by and through his attorneys, Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP, and hereby requests a Pretrial Case Management Conference, and avers the following: 1. This is an personal injury case arising out of an automobile accident that took place on May 15, 1997. 2. Suit was initiated by Writ of Summons on or about May 14, 1999. 3. Written discovery has been exchanged and answered by the parties. 4. Nearly all depositions have been completed. 5. The Plaintiff is represented by David S. Wisneski, Esquire, of the law firm of Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP, 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303, Harrisburg, PA 17110. 8. The Defendant is represented by David J. Freed, Esquire, of the law firm of Nealon & Gover, 2411 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110. 9. Court intervention is requested pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 212.3 to establish deadlines for discovery and a definitive trial dale, if possible. WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that the Court schedule a Pretrial Case Management Conference involving all counsel of record. Respectfully submitted, NAVITSKY, OLSON & WISNESKI LLP David S. Wis ski, Esquire I.D. No. 58796 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/541-9205 Counsel for Plaintiff ?'- Date: June 6, 2001 CERTIFICATE, OF SERVICE I, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law firm ofNavitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP, hereby I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR PRETRIAL CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 212.3 was served upon the following persons by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid on June 6, 2001, as follows: David J. Freed, Esquire NEALON & GOVER 2411 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Defendant ld? VV . Lois E. Stauffer r' ti u. 5? iv ci J_.4 l1? :? u.:- ??Jlll ?-? O U WILLIAM F V. CROWLEY Plaintiff : MICHAEL J. BUCK IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-2949 CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 23rd day of July, 2001, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Petition for a Pretrial Case Management Conference Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 212.3, and following a conference in chambers of the undersigned judge in which Plaintiff was represented by David S. Wisneski, Esquire, and Defendant was represented by Brian Zulli, Esquire, and pursuant to an agreement of counsel, the deadline for completion of discovery in this case is September 4, 2001. Counsel have indicated that they will be listing the case for trial during the November 2001 term of court. By the Court, (David S. Wisneski, Esquire 2040 Linglestown Road, STE 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 For the Plaintiff Brian N. Zulli, Esquire 2411 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 For the Defendant pcb L"' I, d- * WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. NO. 99-2949 CIVIL ACTION - LAW MICHAEL J. BUCK, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 TO: Counsel and Parties of Record William F. Crowley, Plaintiff intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection is made, the subpoena may be served. Date: August 3, 2001 NAVITSKY, OLSON & WISNESKI LLP 2 David S. isneski, Esquire I.D. No. 58796 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/541-9205 Counsel for Plaintiff WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 99-2949 MICHAEL J. BUCK, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, P.O. Box 2655, Harrisburg, PA 17015 To: Policy #52A840825; Claim#5219A84082505159701; Insured: William Crowley (Name of person or Entity) . Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all photographs of William Crowley's vehicle as well as any and all n}iotographs or Michael Buck's vehicle, including all photographs of damage to such vehicles in your possession, custody or control, obtained in conngc.ion with your invpctigation of the out of the motor vehicle 15 Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP 2040 Linolestown Rd Su' '302 Harriohnrg M 17110 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: David Wisneski, Esquire ADDRESS: 2040 Linglestuwn Road, Suite 303, Harrisburg, PA 17110 TELEPHONE: 717/541-9205 SUPREME COURT I.D. NO.: 58796 ATTORNEY FOR: Plaintiff BY THE COURT, Date: 2. '7nw Seal f the Court Prothonotary Deputoothonotary CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law firm of Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 was served upon the following persons by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid on August 3, 2001, as follows; Brian Zulli, Esquire NEALON & GOVER 2411 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Defendant er vv Lois E. Stauffer ti. °_? a? v . ? r, - ?_'_ ?" `t, :_-:?.. CID '. L7 Iy. f l ?. ] ?')lIJ (1. t_i ? . U WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff V. MICHAEL J. BUCK, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-2949 CIVIL ACTION- LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 TO: Counsel and Parties of Record William F. Crowley, Plaintiff intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection is made, the subpoena may be served. Date: August 3, 2001 NAVITSKY, OLSON & WISNESKI I.D. No. 58796 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/541-9205 Counsel for Plaintiff WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 99-2949 MICHAEL. J. BUCK, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Allstate Insurance Company, 6345 Flank Drive, Suite 1000, Harrisburg, PA 17112 To: Policy #628624132; Claim #1552741207 B17; Insured: Michael Buck (Name of person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all photographs of William Crowley's vehicle, as well as, any and all photographs of Michael Buck's vehicle, including all photographs of damage to such vehicles in your possession, custody or control obtained in connection with r investigation of the above-captioned claim, or in c Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLF, 2040 Linglestown Road 303 (Address) PA 17110 cont. on separate pg.) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: David Wisneski, Esquire ADDRESS: 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303, Harrisburg, PA 17110 TELEPHONE: 717/541-9205 SUPREME COURT I.D. NO.: 58796 ATTORNEY FOR: Plaintiff BY THE COURT, Date: Gulp. 3 ;2d271 'e S of the Court Prothonotary Deputf rothonotary . I 1 1{11 1 1 i damage claim(s) arising out of the adjustment of the property motor vehicle accident of May 15, 1997. I b', CERTIFICATE, OF SERVICE I, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law timi ofNavitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 was served upon the following persons by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid on August 3, 2001, as follows: Brian Zulli, Esquire NEALON & GOVER 2411 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Defendant Lois E. Stauffer r a? i... S'. ca =i r a. JLL T" I 0 0 WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff v MICHAEL J. BUCK, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-2949 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, William Crowley, Plaintiff, certifies that: (1) A notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served; (2) A copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to this certificate; (3) No objection to the subpoena has been received; and (4) The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. Date: August 15, 2001 NAVIT KY, 0 ON & WINESKI LLP David S. isneski, Esquire I.D. No.58796 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/541-9205 Counsel for Plaintiff WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff V. MICHAEL J. BUCK, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-2949 CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 TO: Counsel and Parties of Record William F. Crowley, Plaintiff intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection is made, the subpoena may be served. NAVITSKY, OLSON & WISNESKI Date: August 3. 2001 David S?Wisheski, Esquire I.D. No. 58796 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/541-9205 Counsel for Plaintiff WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 99-2949 MICHAEL J. BUCK, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUME Nationwide To: Pot (Name of person or Entity) DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.2 GS FOR Mutual Insurance Company, P.O. Box 2655, Harrisburg, #52AB40825; Claim#5219A84082505159701; Insured: Willi,,,, PA 17015 Crowley Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all photographs of William Crowle 's vehicle, as well as any and all a of Michael Buck's vehir-le, including All in your of the out of the motor (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: David Wisneski, Esquire ADDRESS: 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303, Harrisburg, PA 17110 TELEPHONE: 717/541-9205 SUPREME COURT I.D. NO.: 58796 ATTORNEY FOR: Plaintiff BY THE COURT, Date: Sealbfthe Court Prothonotary - 17110 Depot rothonotary CERTIFICATE, OF SERVICE I, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law firm ofNavitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 was served upon the following persons by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid on August 3, 2001, as follows: Brian Zulli, Esquire NEALON & GOVER 2411 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Defendant Lois E. Stauffer WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff V. MICHAEL J. BUCK, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-2949 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE To Nationwide Insurance Company: You are required to complete the following Certificate of Compliance when producing documents or things pursuant to the Subpoena. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.23 1, , certify to the best of my knowledge, information and belief that all documents or things required to be produced pursuant to the subpoena issued on August 3, 2001 have been produced. Date: Print or type your name Print or type title and position Print or type organization Signature PLEASE COMPLETE THIS DOCUMENT AND RETURN IT WITH THE SUBPOENAED RECORDS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. 1, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law fine of Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 was served upon the following persons by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid on August 15, 2001, as follows: Brian Zulli, Esquire NEALON & COVER 2411 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Defendant VIA CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT RE UESTED Allstate Insurance Company 6345 Flank Drive Suite 1000 Harrisburg, PA 17112 Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company P.O. Bor. 2655 Harrisburg, PA 17015 Lois E. Stauffer r C ? h N r .rT C> :7 U WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff V. MICHAEL J. BUCK, r; Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A -'.. SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 ' V As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, William Crowley, Plaintiff, certifies that: f'1 (1) A notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served; (2) A copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to this certificate; (3) No objection to the subpoena has been received: and (4) The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. NAVITSKY SO & WISNE KI LLP Date: August 15, 2001 _ David S. Wis eski, Esquire I.D. No.58796 2040 Linglcstown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/541-9205 Counsel for Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-2949 CIVIL ACTION - LAW WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-2949 CIVIL ACTION - LAW MICHAEL J. BUCK, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Counsel and Parties of Record William F. Crowley, Plaintiff intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection is made, the subpoena may be served. Date: August 3, 2001 NAVITSKY, OLSON & WISNESKI LLP j. David S. isneski, Esquire I.D. No. 58796 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/541-9205 Counsel for Plaintiff WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 99-2949 MICHAEL J. BUCK, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Allstate Insurance Company, 6395 Flank Drive, Suite 1000, Harrisburg, To: Policy #628625132; Claim #1552791207 B17; Insured: Michael Buck (Name of person or Entity) PA 17112 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all photographs of William Crowley's vehicle, as well as, any and all photographs of Michael Buck's vehicle, including all photographs of damage to such vehicles in your possession, custody or control obtained in connection with ation of the above-captioned claim, or in connection wi Olson & Wisneski LLP, 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 303, Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: David Wisneski, Esquire ADDRESS: 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303, Harrisburg, PA 17110 TELEPHONE: 717/541-9205 SUPREME COURT I.D. NO.: 58796 ATTORNEY FOR: Plaintiff BY THE COURT, Date: & .3. ??/ 6• l -'e .?irc S of the Court Prothonotary Depu rothonotary T on pg.) adjustment of the property damage claim(s) arising out of the motor vehicle accident of May 15, 1997. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law fine of Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 was served upon the following persons by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid on August 3, 2001, as follows: Brian Zulli, Esquire NEALON & GOVER 2411 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Defendant (tea ? . " i .rz Lois E. Stauffer WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff V. MICHAEL J. BUCK, Defendant To Allstate Insurance Company: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-2949 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE You are required to complete the following Certificate of Compliance when producing documents or things pursuant to the Subpoena. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.23 I, information and belief that all documents or things requi edototbe produced pursuant t dthe subpoena issued on August 3, 2001 have been produced. Date: Print or type your name Print or type title and position Print or type organization Signature PLEASE COMPLETE THIS DOCUMENT AND RETURN IT WITH THE SUBPOENAED RECORDS CERTIFICATE, OF SERVICE. I, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law finn of Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 was served upon the following persons by first-class United Slates mail, postage prepaid on August 15, 2001, as follows: Brian Zuili, Esquire NEALON & GOVER 2411 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Defendant VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RFCFIPT REQUESTED Allstate Insurance Company 6345 Flank Drive Suite 1000 Harrisburg, PA 17112 Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company P.O. Box 2655 Harrisburg, PA 17015 ? Gtr `(_1 emu- ? R`?'1 Lois E. Stauffer r.? 'c ?' ?- .,.r u + -? =] in c, ?,?? ? :y v PRAEC?FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PrOIMNJTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Please list the following case: SAL (Check one) ( X ) for JURY trial at the next tern of civil court. ( ) for trial without a jury. -------------------- CAPTION OF CASE - - - - - - - (entire caption must be stated in full) (check one) WILLIAM F. CROWLEY (X ) Civil Action - Law ( ) Appeal from Arbitration (other) VS. NICRAEL J. BUCK VS. (Plaintiff) (Defendant) The trial list will be called on Oct. 91 and Trials comnence on Novemlher 5, 2001 Pretrials will be held on October 17, 2001 (Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials.) (The party listing this case for trial :ht l) provide forthwith a copy of the praecip all counsel, pursuant to local Rule 214.1.) No. 99-2949 Civil Action - Lnr 19 Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: Brian Zulli, Esq., Nealon & Gover, 2411 Nora, Front Street, Barristncg, PA 17110 This case is ready for trial. Date: September 13, 2001 Signed: Print Naae: Attorney for: Plaintiff i } i?J 11(y v: PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL TO THE PR01710N0TARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Please list the following case: (Check one) ( X ) for JURY trial at the next term of civil court. ( ) for trial without a jury. ----------------------------------------- CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) (check one) WILLIAM F. (ROWLEY (X ) Civil Action - Law ( ) Appeal from Arbitration (other) VS. MICHAEL J. 110R (must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) (Plaintiff) The trial list will be called on JM December 31, 2001 Trials commence on January 28, 2002 VS. ( Defendant ) Pretrials will be held on January 9, 2002 (Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials. ) (The party listing this case for trial shall provide forthwith a copy of the praecipe to all counsel, pursuant to local Rule 214.]..) No. 99-2949 Civil Action - Law 19 Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: David Wisneski, Esquire N:avftsky Olson & Wisneski LLP 2090 Lini7lestovn Rd., Ste. 303, Harrisburg, PA 17110; 717/` 41 9205 Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: Brian 7ulli, Esquire, Nealon & Gover, 2411 Nortb Front St., Harrisburg, PA 17110 This case is ready for trial Date: Dcoamber 6, 2001 signed: VA- Print Name: 1/14Y!0 t4,J; SNEs ,1;! Attorney for: Plaintiff OWNAL fM a I' :.^Y?n ..% J _ ?~ ' ? L^ . ?? ??•? _ ??'? 1 tl? :.1 ?) 1 ?? (.: I1 •j 4 , `1 (__ L_ ' . _. j _ i? WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff V. MICHAEL J. BUCK, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 99.2949 CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE Please enter the undersigned's appearance on behalf of the Defendant, Michael J. Buck, in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, NEALON & COVER, P.C. By: Nu(Z;P1e4_o. Michael S. Ferguson, E quire Attorney I.D. No. 83882 2411 North Front St. Date: 2 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 232-9900 0 a0 F? jaa rcz /0 n J N > V o Q Z l? } I ¢ _ 4 Z o z a N K rc In 0 0 Q 4 F Z 7 W °a ¢ c a Z N R tt S wnwun.fowlm•wiaul•w mua LW II U. '.IM'IiM011M1Y11M ?iIY1i lry 10 N!N6WOY'lYpi1 LYIf IN CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ? AND NOW, this day of 'Z? day of April, 2003, 1 hereby certify that I have served the foregoing Praecipe to Enter Appearance on the following by depositing a true and correct copy of same in the United States mail, first-class, postage prepaid, addressed to: David S. Wisneski, Esquire Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski, LLP 2040 Linglestown Rd., Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 IV GLL i` Michael S. Ferguson, Es ire cr, a? W ?., Wc.- -r j p_ rICU Ii ' 3 ? U CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 99 , a qy 9 ?tv t,l, I, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law time ofNavitsky, Olson & Wisncski LLP, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs Trial Interrogatories Propounded upon Defendant Michael J. Buck was served upon the following persons by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid on May 19, 2004, as follows: Michael S. Ferguson, Esquire NEALON & GOVER 2411 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Defendant Lois E. Stauffer irl V) LL.!!• " N l . CJ LLi U- <v WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff V. MICHAEL J. BUCK, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-2949 CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Michael J. Buck, by and through his attorneys, Nealon and Gover, PC, and files the following Answer to Trial Interrogatories Propounded by the Plaintiff, William Crowley: 1. A. The Plaintiffs medical records; B. The videotape deposition of Dr. Bruce Goodman; C. The written report of Dr. Bruce Goodman; D. The written report of Dr. Todd Siegal; E. The deposition of Dr. Todd Siegal (tentative); and F. All the documents and exhibits listed by the Defendant in his Pre-Trial Memorandum of January 3, 2001. 2. Defendant does not intend to use any admissions of the party at trial except for those made in the course of any deposition or other statements. 3. No additional fact witnesses other than those listed on the Plaintiffs Pre-Trial Memorandum filed on January 3, 2001. 4.(a) Dr. Bruce Goodman, Orthopedic Surgeon Dr. Todd Siegal, Radiology (b) Dr. Goodman, please see deposition transcripts Dr. Todd Siegal. Dr. Siegal Is expected to testify as an expert Radiologist regarding the studies done of the Plaintiff and how radiology studies of the Plaintiff may, or may not, relate to the injuries he claims he sustained as a result of this accident. Respectfully submitted, NEA?Micha-e LON & GOVER ByS. Fe rguson, Esquire .D. #83882 2411 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 232-9900 Date: June 9, 2004 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this day of 9th of June, 2004, 1 hereby certify that I have served thc, foregoing Defendant's Answer To Trial Interrogatories Propounded By The Pl intiff. William Crowley on the following by depositing a true and correct copy of same in the United States mails, postage prepaid, addressed to: David S. Wisneski NAVITSKY, OLSON & WISNESKI LLP 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 X640u Michael S. Ferguson, Esquire i?? u .r e_j,r . ? w N PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROT[i0NOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Please list the following case: (Check one) ( X ) for JURY trial at the next term of civil court. ( ) for trial without a jury. ----------------------------------------- CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) (check one) WILLIAM F. CROWLEY (X ) Civil Action - Law ( ) Appeal from Arbitration (other) VS. MICHAEL J. BUCK VS. (Plaintiff) (Defendant) The trial list will be called on September 28, 2004 Trials comnence on October 25, 2004 Pretrials will be held on October 6, 2004 (Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials.) (The party listing this case for trial shall) provide forthwith a copy of the praecipe to all counsel, pursuant to local. Rule 214.1.) No. 99-2949 Civil 19 Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: Navitsky, Olson & Wlsneski LLP David S. Wisneski, Esquire for Plaintiff, 2040 Linglestown Rd., Ste. 303, Harrisburg, PA - i:7 110 Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: Michael S. Ferguson, Esquire for Defendant, Nealon S Gover, 2411 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110 This case is ready for trial. Signed: Print Nacre: David S. Wisneski Date: August 27, 2004 Attorney for: Plaintiff l l.l r1 J? \ ? di CL- ? o U N U WILLIAM 1. CROWLEY, Plaintiff VS. MICHAEL J. BUCK, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW 99-2949 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VERDICT QUESTION 1: Do you find that the negligence of the defendant, Michael Buck, was the factual cause in bringing about harm to the plaintiff, William Crowley? Yes: -Z No: If you answer Question 1 "Yes," proceed to Question 2. If you answer Question 1 "No," the plaintiff cannot recover and you should not answer any further questions and should return to the courtroom. QUESTION 2: State the amount of damages, if any, sustained by the plaintiff, William Crowley, as a result of the accident: Past and Future Medical Expenses: $ / to 10 v Past and Future Pain and Suffering: $ / 2- S0 D Total Award: $ 3 3 1 !0 0 0 Please have the foreperson sign and date this verdict slip. The jury should then return to the courtroom to make its verdict known. Date: C) :!fA_(s o? G o `? Forepersont pG 1, `lu• judge _ Clerkmrotl vT pchff CASE NO.: COURTROOM NO.: t A) ;e)L ,K r• c r cw?e,? VS hj,cr« u? x.13 e DOCKET NO. : 9 9 • 0???/7 DATE: /D J '• r/ ..... ,Juror N ...Name. ....... ...,...,.., _..... ,,...... .., Random No 1 100 WINSLOW, RICHARD L -1999592859 2 119 BARNHART, THOMAS R -1897767272 3 126 HOCKENBERRY, ROBERT D -1807899051 4 96 WEBSTER, HEATHER K, -1473941900 5 112 SHENK, BARBARA N -1014191634 -933041471 11 ? 128'. BAKER, DOROTHY L. -815880053 Pe, C ( ?«r -556578366 10 148 BEASOM, ERIN -501472257 ? Z I2fri`' 12 95 MILLER, DAVID H IR -350213345 n ` AIR 14 114 HERB, HARRY A -87189044 ??{ ?j 0 G - - 16 133 PERCHERKE, MICHAEL 24178206 17 113 MANDERBACH, SHANNON L 367375063 18 136• BUMGARDNER, MARK 377324237 19 127 ELLIOTT, SUSIE D. 512137970 '(l lnr RG16E S j?1A4r QDi n R? -- 6359 - ? 3 --- - 585zJ ( 21 122' DINTIMAN, LOUISE H 638174854 c"- 134 HELD, JOHN L jR 675860295 137 RODRIGUEZ, MIGUEL 701770767 'n ,q to rI 129 HOOVER, NELSON M. 718307952 121 DOWNING, THOMAS L 751251641 135 TRAYER, DAVID A 767965564 93 HENSCHKE, WILLIAM R 1098725462 142 ROT7_, KELLY S 1123146056 115 BACKLEY, ROBERT 1162957021 131 WENERICK, DORIS M 1205308849 117 LUCAS, ANTHONY 1209759315 141 HULSEY, CINTHIA R 1247590851 125 149 HAMSIIER, BRIAN M DORISG QLdo *cid'Gt? ONES 1273456676 J , 1275686356 145 1iENRY, DALE R. 1772781750 Monday, Occlo(b`er 25, 2004 Page 1 of I ? ?1eI1(41n4 W,"1405 3r`t qfk PCXIt"Pfo,u VILOCn Q-- f 1 r V WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff V. MICHAEL J. BUCK, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-2949 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE To: Michael J. Buck, and his counsel Michael Ferguson, Esquire Nealon & Gover 2411 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 You are hereby notified to file a written answer to the attached Motion for Delay Damages within 20 days from the filing of the motion or the delay damages sought in the motion may be added to the verdict or decision against you. Respectfully submitted, Date: November 2, 2004 I.D. No. 58796 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/541-9205 Counsel for Plaintiff WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff V. MICHAEL J. BUCK, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-2949 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, this _ day of , 2004, upon consideration of Plaintiffs Motion For Delay Damages, it is hereby Ordered such Motion is Granted. Plaintiff is awarded $10,515.15 in delay damages and the verdict is molded to $44,115.15. BY THE COURT: J. 1 77 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff NO. 49-2949 I V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW MICHAEL J. BUCK, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S lvltl i i? PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 238 i Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski Plaintiff William F. Crowley, by and through his attorneys, moves this Honorable Court to award delay damages pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule ' LLP, hereby of Civil Procedure 238. In support of this motion, Plaintiff avers the following: William As a result of the personal injuries that Crowley sustained in a motor dant Michael J. Buck's negligence, Plaintiff filed a Writ of vehicle accident resulting from Defen 14, 1999. A copy of the Writ of Summons is attached hereto as Summons in this action on May ,. Exhibit "A"• of the 2. Original process was first served in this action on May 25, 1999. A copy Cumberland County Sheriffs Return is attached hereto as Exhibit "B 3, On October 26, 2004, during the course of a civil trial in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, a jury awarded Plaintiff William Crowley seBuck. $33,600.00 in compensatory damages against Defendant Michael ttlement of $7,500.00 prior to 4. Defendant Michael Buck made, a written offer of trial. Pa. R.C.P. 238(b)(1). 5. The jury's award of $33,600 is greater than 125% of the Defendant's settlement offer. Pa. R.C.P. 238(b)(3). 6. Damages for delay are to be awarded from May 25, 2000, the date one year after the Writ of Summons was served upon Defendants, to October 26, 2004, the date of the award. Pa. R.C.P. 238(a)(2)(i). 7. Damages for delay are calculated at the rate equal to the prime rate as listed in the first edition of the Wall Street Journal published for each calendar year for which the damages are awarded, plus one percent, not compounded. Pa. R.C.P. 238(a)(3). 8. The prime rate as listed in the first edition of the Wall Street Journal for 2000 was 8 %: %, and therefore, the rate of damages for delay awarded for 2000 would be 9 %1 %. 9. The delay damages owed to Plaintiff William Crowley for 2000 (220 days) are $1,918.69, calculated at a rate of $8.72 per day. (9 %2% of $33,600.00 verdict is $3,192.00. $3,192.00 divided by 366 (leap year) _ $8.7213 per day. $8.7213 x 220 days = $1,918.69.) 10. The prime rate as listed in the first edition of the Wall Street Journal for 2001 was 9.5% , and therefore, the rate of damages for delay awarded for 2001 would be 10.5%. 11. The delay damages owed to Plaintiff William Crowley for 2001 are $3,528.00. 10.5% of $33,600.00 verdict is $3,528.00. 12. The prime rate as listed in the first edition of the Wall Street Journal for 2002 was 4.75%, and therefore, the rate of damages for delay awarded for 2002 would be 5.75%. 13. The delay damages owed to Plaintiff William Crowley for 2002 are $1,932.00. 5.75% of $33,600.00 verdict is $1,932.00. 14. The prime rate as listed in the first edition of the Wall Street Journal for 2003 was 4.25%, and therefore, the rate of damages for delay awarded for 2003 would be 5.25%. 2 15. The delay damages owed to Plaintiff William Crowley for 2003 are $1,764.00. 5.25% of $33,600,00 verdict is $1,764.00. 16. The prime rate as listed in the first edition of the Wall Street Journal for 2004 was 4%, and therefore, the rate of damages for delay awarded for 2004 would be 5%. 17. The delay damages owed to Plaintiff William Crowley for 2004 (299 days) are $1,372.46, calculated at a rate of $4.59 per day. (5% of $33,600.00 verdict is $1,680.00. $1,680.00 divided by 366 (leap year) = $4.5902 per day. $4.5902 x 299 days = $1,372.46.) 18. Total delay damages owed to Plaintiff William Crowley are $10,515.15 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff William Crowley respectfully requests This Honorable Court to award Plaintiff $10,515.15 in delay damages, molding his verdict to $44,115.15. Respectfully submitted, NAVITSKY, 0 SON & WiSNES LLP David S. Wl neski, Esquire I.D. No. 58796 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/541-9205 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: November 2, 2004 3 I WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, 15151 Deer Valley Terrace Silver Spring, MD 20906 Plaintiff VS. MICHAEL J. BUCK, RRt, Box 1929 Berwick, PA 18603-9709 Defendant COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. qCj - 0a4 Lq CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please issue a Writ of Summons in the above-captioned action. The Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to the Sheriff. Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL, SMITH & HADDICK, P.C. Date: Mav 14. 1999 Charles E. Haddick, Jr.kgsquire Attorney I.D. No: 55666 20 South 36th Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-4800 Attorneys for Plaintiff, William F. Crowley WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT: YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. C w&. rr '?. Prothonotary ?n Date: May 14, 1999 By V AC??? 4 ` \rntwlL' Y' ?, TRUE COPY FROM RECORD Deputy in Tostirmy whereof, I here unto M my hano and the seal of ?1d Court at Cariisie, Pa. This K-O" day 19 Prothonotary -.` r__?. is ?. SHERIFF'S RETURN •• OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 1999-02949 COMMONWEAL SYLVANIA: COUNTY OF UMBER CROWLEY WILLIAM F VS. BUCK MICHAEL J R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: BUCK MICHAEL J but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of LUZERNE County, Pennsylvania. to serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS On May 25th, 1999 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from LUZERNE County, Pennsylvania. Sheriff's Costs: So answers: / Docketing 18.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 8.00 oma ine, SfSerlTi Dep. Luzerne Cc 31.00 _uu OS 25?19(gSMITH & HADDICK Sworn and subscribed to before me this day of 19 A.D. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law firm of Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs Motion to Award Delay Damages was served upon the following persons by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid on November 2, 2004, as follows: Michael S. Ferguson, Esquire NEALON & GOVER 2411 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Defendant _ ?? 114{, ?_ J9tGxldl?Qn Lois E. Stauffer .- in cu'? co C)<? "'.i 0 Ll.l O. LU - ' ? U_ 4r N C? b WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff V. MICHAEL J. BUCK, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-2949 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, this _ day of , 2004, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion For Delay Damages, it is hereby Ordered such Motion is Granted. Plaintiff is awarded $10,515.15 in delay damages and the verdict is molded to $44,115.15. BY THE COURT: J. WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff V. MICHAEL J. BUCK, Defendant AND NOW, this - day of IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-2949 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER 2004, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion For Delay Damages, it is hereby Ordered such Motion is Granted. Plaintiff is awarded $10,515.15 in delay damages and the verdict is molded to $44,115.15. BY THE COURT: 7. NAVfIS (Y,,OLSON &WML:4KI I j j, A TTORN El'S AT LAN' 2010 Lioglestown Road I, Suite 909 Harrisburg, PA 17110 L} 7- ("..S- I'OS'I'AGY: ' 1410 P63512515 14015CiO.3 0 36 1 1 MNLED FROM ZIP CODE 1 7 1 10 11111111111111111111111111111111 NAVITSKY, OLSON & WISNESKI LLP 2040 LINGLESTOWN ROAD, SUITE 303 HARRISBURG, PA 17110 II NAV11SK5; OI.SON&WISNGSiCi 113 AT TO R N E Y S A T L A W 2010 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 M r U.S. POSTAGC 1480 PB3512515 14G 1510.370 3 6 1 2 M/BLED FROM ZIP CODE 1 7 1 1 0 fill MICHAEL FERGUSON, ESQUIRE NEALON & GOVER 2411 NORTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17110 ?t i? In the Court of Common Pleas of CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania RELATIONS SECTIN 13 N. HANOVVER Sr,I P.O . OX 320, CARLIS E, PA. 17013 Phone: (717) 240-6225 Fax: (717) 240-6248 Defendant Name: THEODORE T. MINER Member ID Number: 5883100403 Please note: All correspondence must Include the Member to Number. ORDER TO VACATE ATTACHMENT OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS Financial Break Down of Multiple Cases on Attachment Plaintiff Name PACSES Docket Case Number Number Attachment Amount/FreOuenev RUTH A. BROWN 516101625 99-6008 CIVIL $ 800.00 /MONTH S / SS S / TOTAL ATTACHMENT AMOUNT, $ 0.00 The prior Order of this Court directing the Department of Labor and Industry, Bureau of Unemployment Compensation Benefits and Allowances (BUCBA), to attach $ o. oo or 50 % per week of the Unemployment Compensation benefits of THEODORE T. MINER , Social Security Number 084-40-8255 , Member ID Number 5883100403 is hereby vacated. This Order to Vacate shall be effective upon receipt of the notice of the Order by the Department and shall remain in effect until a further Order of the Court is filed. BY THE COURT Date of Order: _NOV 1 u 204 Service Type M Q"' ?OGAw- 6. d451CEy JUDGE Form EN-035 WorkerlD $iATT rte: 7 L.lf• (Li 1.1 Cj ?iI ,ORIGINAL WILLIAM F. CROWLEY, Plaintiff V. MICHAEL J. BUCK, Defendant TO THE PROTHONOTARY: : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 99-2949 CIVIL ACTION - AT LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE Please mark the above-captioned matter settled, satisfied and the docket discontinued. Respectfully submitted, NAVITSKY, OLSON & WISNESKI, LLP i David S. Wisneski, Esquire I.D. No. 58796 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 541-9205 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: 11 11/7 CN :-) cj? LL1 w. l L ._T G'.. i?J