Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-04445 Q Z '? N Z t L \\MAINSERVER\PUBLIC\rogcr\litigation\Hoffmpn Summons.doc 07/;2/99 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BEULAH E. HOFFMAN, CIVIL ACTION-LAW Plaintiff vs. NO. 99- yy` CIVIL TERM MANOR CARE, INC., doing Business as MANOR CARE HEALTH SERVICES, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: SIR: PLEASE ISSUE WRIT OF SUMMONS IN THE ABOVE- CAPTIONED CIVIL ACTION. Date: July 22, 1999 Roger M. M ro genthal, Esquire ID# 17143 FISHMAN & MORGENTHAL 95 Alexander Spring Road #3 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-6333 Attorneys for Plaintiff Address of Defendant: 940 Walnut Bottom Road, Carlisle, PA 17013 d s c 0 CY) A -'I m U v a aL ..,???? Ynz da3. 4 f Ya q 'ry4; 5 dry , I ?? 5S i t 7r YI r1ipLF t 1 f , 1 + 50 ' ? 1 ? up...pKS+ s:.?1.. 4 1 1. I,?,f x,14 d4F C +? sYL1nYtil. k?e ?ry :., gta?FpSt a F P k'".? 4l? ?q'fa?y?}s u ? ? 7 7H' 'CS?aa n??R 4uaY#elk#n'?h Y'm? , !fxf 5??? GK r?yy?Ni?rK? f i r " .. 4 ? r+ ')y?4'?rt%f is u'? fIt r Y > L? 5 +-`? ??NY +.. dv_ r ??.. ? s?vrL t f trx dv P'`Sf_ r t'+7?Bv; f, fl .ci.:' r ;? t( r>1w, iV`" IN" + k?C ?x# t0 w 1 "ri?r aeaXt ><<? a W C gx t` r {MOM, W$ I'x[us d vti r U ?+ a > ` ??yy [ ` ' µI 1 1t fC?? { ? r 1x?y?fMr4F aF r ,'_ ? O Nip ?aw nya tl gt? ..i r , , w r v ?'` d S? b f J3t('?' hRt` l?M7 i. l f.r '' 1+r 1 ? m-r sYV w ?i PA< x y U 1 !"T X141 S awtla ?, a f! t?+f"?+5q, ?t'+I?V C4 s _ r f ??G^Tl Y dP^5 1 u p ,'t .? ±Sdt lr rr Y d1t['.1}}irt t` x yyd u n 'i ':i t So1a1A.? a!?(?s raMx ?T? ? ?) :F y_ ?4 5f Fh? '4'ry" ?1 ??' `?a J r kafxda '.?? ? a ;?nYtg , `S Y A t tr7 f ry1 :J ," ?4' xs i d, ? e f t air' G ' r at 1 1 F ? f 4' l S t1 ' ? ... " { F? f Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland BEULAH E. HOFFMAN V& MANOR CARE, INC. DOING BUSINESS AS MANOR CARE HEALTH SERVICES 940 WALNUT BOTTOM ROAD CARLISLE, PA 17013 Court of Common Pleas No. ______ 99-4445_CIVIL______-_--_ ly__-- ht ___ CIVIL ACTION LAW ToMANOR CARE_INC doing__t??2d119S.S__a5 MANOR CARE HEALTH SERVICES, You are hereby notified that -------------------------------------- if3ALAH_-E.._1iQEFMAN----------------------------------- the Plaintiff haS commenced an action in ___--___.__ CIVIL_ ACTION LAW against you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may be entered against you. (SEAL) RIK - -------------------- P thon Date _ --------------------- 19-99 By XUJ-1-1- -------------- ! i , a 91 H; U, ?i , ? 1 ; i Z G. W S = U Z H W x m N A c m a W v Z W w ? i i C .7 z ' 0 a rz ri F Z Z H H M W C', r+1 b o N a °` £ a N x Z H n x x N ~ 0 Q U Ln rn SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 1999-04445 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND HOFFMAN BEULAH E VS. MANOR CARE INC ET AL RICHARD SMITH , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon _MANOR CARE INC D/B/A MANOR CARE HEALTH SERVICES the defendant, at 15:35 HOURS, on the 26th day of July 1999 at 940 WALNUT BOTTOM ROAD CARLISLE, PA 17013 CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, by handing to ROBERT MCQUILLAN (ADMIN) a true and attested copy of the WRIT OF SUMMONS and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge So answe 18.00 3.00 000 8.00 omas ine, eri 07%27 199 by Sworn and subscribed to before me this _,17 day o 19A. D. » (/ DD., per"' A:\Hoflinan Notice to delend.doc 11/10/99 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BEULAH E. HOFFMAN, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION-LAW vs. MANOR CARE, INC., doing Business as MANOR CARE HEALTH SERVICES, Defendant NO. 99- 4445 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL OF TWELVE DEMANDED NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and riling 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 or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, CO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN CET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 oger M. Morgemh I, Esquire Attorney IDk 17143 FISFIMAN $ MORGENTHAL Attorneys for plaintiff 95 Alexander Spring Rd.. Suite 3 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)249-6333 C:\My Documents\Litigation\I-Iof roan Complaint.doc .11/10/99 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BEULAH E. HOFFMAN, CIVIL ACTION-LAW Plaintiff vs. NO. 99- 4445 CIVIL TERM MANOR CARE, INC., doing Business as MANOR CARE HEALTH SERVICES, JURY TRIAL OF TWELVE Defendant DEMANDED COMPLAINT And now comes Beulah E. Hoffman, Plaintiff in the above matter, and states the following cause of action: I . Plaintiff is Beulah E. Hoffman, an adult individual residing at 1712 Newville Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant Manor Care, Inc., doing business as Manor Care Health Services, is a corporation doing business under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business at 940 Walnut Bottom Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. On July 28, 1997, Plaintiff's husband, Leroy D. Hoffman, now deceased, was a resident at Defendant's facility at 940 Walnut Bottom Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. On that date, at approximately 3:00 P.M., prevailing time. Plaintiff arrived at Defendant's facility at 940 Walnut Bottom Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (hereinafter "the home") to visit her husband 5. After leaving her vehicle in the parking lot of the home, Plaintiff walked to the main entrance of the home, carrying her purse and some laundry that she had done for her husband. C:\My Documents\t.itigation\llotltuan Contplaint.doc -11/10/99 6. At all times relevant to this claim, the door at the main entrance of the home was a large, heavy automatic door that was operated by pushing a "push plate" from the outside, and from the inside either by a push plate or by manually opening the door. The business premises of the Defendant, including the main entrance area and the said door, were open to and used by the general public including Plaintiff, at all times relevant hereto. 8. The Plaintiff was a business invitee of the Defendant at all times relevant hereto. 9. As the Plaintiff approached the said door from the outside, with her left arm outstretched to touch the outer push plate to open the door so that she could enter the home, an employee of Defendant whose name is not known to Plaintiff pressed the interior push plate in order to open the door to exit the hone. 10. When the interior pressure plate was pushed by said unknown employee, the door swung open with great force, striking the Plaintiff on the left arm and knocking her to the ground, causing her to sustain the serious personal injuries hereinafter set forth. 11. The unknown employee of the Defendant, after seeing the injuries caused to Plaintiff, was apologetic and remorseful, explaining that she could not see the Plaintiff approaching the door from the outside because of where the interior push plate was located. 12. Based on the remarks of the unknown employee and other unknown persons at the scene, Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that had the said door been opened manually, rather than with the push plate, the said employee would have been able to see through a window at the door and have avoided the accident entirely. 13. The aforesaid accident and the injuries resulting to the Plaintiff occurred solely as a result of the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of Defendant, which was in exclusive control of the said door and the main entrance to the home, which said negligence, carelessness and recklessness consisted of the following: A. Failing to design and engineer the main entrance to the home and the said automatic door so that said door functioned in a proper and safe manner; C:\My Documents\Litigation\lloll'mmn Complaint.duc .11/10/99 B. Failing to recognize and correct the obvious hazard created by the placement of the interior push plate, which could not be operated from a position where persons approaching the door from the outside could be seen and protected; C. Failing to detect and appreciate the foreseeability of harm to persons approaching the said door caused by its opening; D. Failing to warn Plaintiff of the likelihood that she could be struck by the opening door; Failing to make changes to the design and/or operation of the automatic door and main entrance to assure that persons attempting to enter the home would not be struck by the opening door; F. Failing to use additional windows or a closed-circuit video camera to enable persons inside the home to see anyone approaching the main entrance before the automatic door was opened by using the interior push plate; G. Failing to provide other adequate safeguards to prevent the injury to the Plaintiff, H. Failing to instruct its employees about the danger to others caused by opening the door using the interior push plate and requiring its employees to open the said door manually; and Being otherwise negligent, careless and reckless under the circumstances. 14. By reason of the above said accident, Plaintiff sustained injuries to her left arm and body, including but not limited to a broken left wrist and abrasions and bruises over her entire body. 15. By reason of the said injuries, Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur various expenses for physicians, therapists and other medical care providers in an effort to treat and cure herself of the said injuries. C:\My Documents\Litigation\1loffman Complaint.doe .11/10/99 16. By reason of the said injuries, Plaintiff has also sustained great pain, suffering, anguish, shock, and injury to her nerves and nervous system, and site will continue to suffer the same in the future. 17. By reason of the said injuries, Plaintiff was permanently deprived of her former active lifestyle, in that she was rendered unable to drive a motor vehicle, take care of her home and do other normal activities of daily living without assistance. 18. By reason of the said injuries. Plaintiff was required to depend upon ramily members and friends for transportation, hired persons for assistance at home, and was required to pay for meals to be delivered to her because she could no longer cook for herself. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demandsjudgment against Defendant Manor Care, Inc., doing business as Manor Care Health Services for unliquidated damages in an amount in excess of the limit for compulsory arbitration in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, together with interest and costs of suit. Roger M. Morg nthal, Esquire Attorney ID#! 17143 FISHMAN & MORGENTHAL 95 Alexander Spring Rd.. Suite 3 Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorneys for Plaintiff A;\Moore Verilication.doc 11/10./99 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BEULAH E. HOFFMAN, Plaintiff VS. MANOR CARE, INC., doing Business as MANOR CARE HEALTH SERVICES, Defendant CIVIL ACTION-LAW NO. 99- 4445 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL OF TWELVE DEMANDED VERIFICATION I, BEULAH E. HOFFMAN, verify that I am the plaintiff in this action and that the Complaint as filed is 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.A. j 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. BEULAH E. FMAN Date: ! 0 `? ? _ C, 1 C, uj r c. u.. 41 -? CF, r ?h x " r v 1 w Ski, ?? .' 1 Rµ } ? rVr ?l a. C } L? c 1(r N iC, '?j 7 viy7 +, ? )? va r J?f{717 t rotij 1441 n°? to ); ?i r'?trtt ter ?a, ? .y i rJS?r.??,( 4 lq iD.: ?, ?.?J. ni a ty ?M1A kO A? ; , 1 r'. i r r,• r, r S ?N ?; Irv 1 ? ?l l ,1 ?u U r t ff Jr ? Y,? :?r r Ir ??ul n \` I C G/ H' y }N L ?1? r ? 3a r, n rJ M a { t? ,m3'di?;d 44.' 1 fld,,{{ x44'l? 7''W?yH? ? } r IiArz}?}ee{??{ q,F4', s , Fe-V PY''Sf? y, e A r ?J• J Is.Yq i rL 11 f r +? 4 d 7 ?r y 4 ayr ;m J r . W1 f?l u od a , I by H I'v'Y' At iA?3 y rv?J; idiFrv? . e + iF vi7 ?'d7; A y r?1 ?r ' rv N 1?F`SI. fi i r McKISSOCK & HOFFMAN, P.C. BY: William J. Mundy Identification No. 57679 1700 Market Street, Suite 3000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 246-2100 BEULAH E. HOFFMAN VS. Attorney for Defendant COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NO. 99-4445 CIVIL TERM MANOR CARE, INC., doing Business: as MANOR CARE HEALTH SERVICES ENTRY OF APPEARANCE AND DEMAND FOR JURY OF TWELVE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance as attorney for Defendant Manor Care, Inc., doing business as Manor Care Health Services in the above matter. The Defendant Manor Care, Inc., doing business as Manor Care Health Services here by demands a jury of twelve (12) jurors in the above-captioned case. McKISSSSOOCK & HOFFMAN, P.C. BY: William J. Mundy ?, _ -, , ?? F __ --, ?? : ? ?? ;? - McKISSOCK & HOFFMAN, P.C. BY: William J. Mundy Identification No. 57679 BY: Brandon R. Wind Identification No. 78229 1700 Market Street, Suite 3000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 246-2100 BEULAH E. HOFFMAN Vs. MANOR CARE, INC., d/b/a MANOR CARE HEALTH SERVICES ORDER AND NOW, to wit this day of CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 99-4445 2000, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that defendants, Manor Care, Inc., d/b/a Manor Care Health Services' Preliminary Objections are SUSTAINED and: 1. Subparagraphs (g) and (i), of Paragraph 13 of Plaintiff's Complaint are STRICKEN; in the alternative, Plaintiff is hereby directed to provide a more specific pleading in support of his claims of negligence; 2. All allegations of recklessness are STRICKEN. BY THE COURT: Attorney for Defendant, MANOR CARE, INC. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY J. McKISSOCK & HOFFMAN, P.C. BY: William J. Mundy Identification No. 57679 BY: Brandon R. Wind Identification No. 78229 1700 Market Street, Suite 3000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 246-2100 BEULAH E. HOFFMAN VS. MANOR CARE, INC., d/b/a MANOR CARE HEALTH SERVICES COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 99-4445 PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT, MANOR CARE HEALTH SERVICES TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Defendant, Manor Care Health Services, (hereinafter "Manor Care"), by and through its counsel, McKissock & Hoffman, P.C., hereby files these Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint and, in support thereof, avers as follows: 1. The present civil action was commenced by the filing of a Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County on or about November 10, 1999. A true and correct copy of said Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 2. According to the Complaint, Beulah E. Hoffman, had been visiting a patient of Defendant Manor Care's nursing home on July 28, 1997, during which time she was allegedly Attorney for Defendant, MANOR CARE, INC. struck by an electric door being opened by an employee of the facility. I. Motion to Strike for Lack of Specificity 3. Rule 1028(a)(2) permits the filing of preliminary objections in the nature of a motion to strike a pleading because of lack of conformity to law or rule of court. 4. Rule 1019(a) requires the material facts upon which a cause of action is based to be stated in a concise and summary form. 5. Pennsylvania law requires a plaintiff to plead sufficient facts to give a defendant notice of what the plaintiff's claim is and to adequately inform the defendant of the relevant issues. 6. Subparagraphs (g) and (i) of Paragraph 13 of Plaintiff's Complaint aver that Defendant Manor Care was negligent as follows: 13. (g) Failing to provide other adequate safeguards to prevent the injury to the Plaintiff; (i) Being otherwise negligent, careless, and reckless under the circumstances. 7. Such boilerplate averments fail to contain the requisite specificity. 8. Vague allegations of negligence afford Plaintiff with the opportunity to introduce new theories of recovery at any time prior to the commencement of trial and after the expiration of the statute of limitations. See, Connor v. Allegheny Hospital. 501 Pa. 306, 461 A.2d 600 (1983). 9. Defendant is prejudiced because it does not know what specific acts constitute the alleged negligence of which Plaintiff complains as alluded to in the broad language of the above- cited subparagraphs. Defendant is, therefore, unable to prepare a proper defense to such nonfactual allegations and cannot sufficiently answer Plaintiff's allegations in these paragraphs. 2 WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to strike subparagraphs (g) and (i) of Paragraph 13 of Plaintiff's Complaint or, in the alternative, direct Plaintiff to provide a more specific pleading. II. MOTION TO STRIKE ALLEGATIONS OF RECKLESSNESS. 10. Throughout the Complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendants acted in a "reckless" manner. 11. However, the Complaint fails to set forth any factual averments required under the law to support such a claim. 12. Absent factual allegations which support a claim of reckless indifference to the rights of others, plaintiff cannot, as a matter of law, sustain such a claim or a claim for exemplary damages. Chambers v. Montgomery, 411 Pa. 339, 192 A.2d 355 (1963); Feld v. Merriam, 506 Pa. 383, 485 A.2d 742 (1984). WHEREFORE, defendant, Manor Care, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant their Preliminary Objections and enter the attached Order. McKISSOCK & HOFFMAN, P.C. BY: William J. Mundy Brandon R. Wind Attorney for Defendant Manor Care 3 ' i t7 C. l.; PAroger\litigation\Hoffman Notice to defend.doc 01/17/00 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BEULAH E. HOFFMAN, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION-LAW vs. NO. 99- 4445 CIVIL TERM MANOR CARE, INC., doing Business as MANOR CARE HEALTH SERVICES, Defendant JURY TRIAL OF TWELVE DEMANDED NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without 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 or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 7 'Roger M. Morgenth I, Esquire Attorney ID# 17143 FISHMAN & MORGENTHAL Attorneys for Plaintiff 95 Alexander Spring Rd., Suite 3 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-6333 \\MAINSERVER\PUBLIC\roger\litigation\Hoffntan AMENDED Complaint.doc 01/17/00 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BEULAH E. HOFFMAN, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION-LAW VS. MANOR CARE, INC., doing Business as MANOR CARE HEALTH SERVICES, Defendant NO. 99- 4445 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL OF TWELVE DEMANDED AMENDED COMPLAINT And now comes Beulah E. Hoffman, Plaintiff in the above matter, and states the following cause of action: 1. Plaintiff is Beulah E. Hoffman, an adult individual residing at 1712 Newville Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant Manor Care, Inc., doing business as Manor Care Health Services, is a corporation doing business under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business at 940 Walnut Bottom Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 3. On July 28, 1997, Plaintiffs husband, Leroy D. Hoffman, now deceased, was a resident at Defendant's facility at 940 Walnut Bottom Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County. Pennsylvania. 4. On that date, at approximately 3:00 P.M., prevailing time, Plaintiff arrived at Defendant's facility, at 940 Walnut Bottom Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (hereinafter "the home") to visit her husband After leaving her vehicle in the parking lot of the home, Plaintiff walked to the main entrance of the home, carrying her purse and some laundry that she had done f'or her husband. \\MAINSERVER\PUBLIC\roger\litigation\Hoffman AMENDED Complaint.doc 01/17/00 6. At all times relevant to this claim, the door at the main entrance of the home was a large, heavy automatic door that was operated by pushing a "push plate" from the outside, and from the inside either by a push plate or by manually opening the door. The business premises of the Defendant, including the main entrance area and the said door, were open to and used by the general public including Plaintiff, at all times relevant hereto. 8. The Plaintiff was a business invitee of the Defendant at all times relevant hereto. 9. As the Plaintiff approached the said door from the outside, with her left arm outstretched to touch the outer push plate to open the door so that she could enter the home, an employee of Defendant whose name is not known to Plaintiff pressed the interior push plate in order to open the door to exit the home. 10. When the interior pressure plate was pushed by said unknown employee, the door swung open with great force, striking the Plaintiff on the left arm and knocking her to the ground, causing her to sustain the serious personal injuries hereinafter set forth. 11. The unknown employee of the Defendant, after seeing the injuries caused to Plaintiff, was apologetic and remorseful, explaining that she could not see the Plaintiff approaching the door from the outside because of where the interior push plate was located. 12. Based on the remarks of the unknown employee and other unknown persons at the scene, Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that had the said door been opened manually, rather than with the push plate, the said employee would have been able to see through a window at the door and have avoided the accident entirely. 13. Tile aforesaid accident and the injuries resulting to the Plaintiff occurred solely as a result of the negligence of Defendant, which was in exclusive control of the said door and the main entrance to the home, which said negligence consisted of the following: A. Failing to design and engineer the main entrance to the home and the said automatic door so that said door functioned in a proper and safe manner; \\MAJNSERVER\PUBLIC\roger\litigation\HoffmanAMENDED Complaint.doc 01/17/00 B. Failing to recognize and correct the obvious hazard created by the placement of the interior push plate, which could not be operated from a position where persons approaching the door from the outside could be seen and protected; C. Failing to detect and appreciate the foreseeability of harm to persons approaching the said door caused by its opening; D. Failing to warn Plaintiff of the likelihood that she could be struck by the opening door; E. Failing to make changes to the design and/or operation of the automatic door and main entrance to assure that persons attempting to enter the home would not be struck by the opening door; F. Failing to use additional windows or a closed-circuit video camera to enable persons inside the home to see anyone approaching the main entrance before the automatic door was opened by using the interior push plate; G. Failing to provide motion sensors or other electronic devices to detect a person approaching the main entrance and alert persons inside the home to that fact; or H. Failing to instruct its employees about the danger to others caused by opening the door using the interior push plate and requiring its employees to open the said door manually. 14. By reason of the above said accident, Plaintiff sustained injuries to her left arm and body, including but not limited to a broken left wrist and abrasions and bruises over her entire body. 15. By reason of the said injuries, Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur various expenses for physicians, therapists and other medical care providers in an effort to treat and cure herself of the said injuries. 16. By reason of the said injuries, Plaintiff has also sustained great pain, suffering, anguish, shock, and injury to her nerves and nervous system, and she will continue to suffer the same in the future. 17. By reason of the said injuries, Plaintiff was permanently deprived of her former active lifestyle, in that she was rendered unable to drive a motor \\MAINSERVER\PUBLIC\roger\litigation\HoftinanAMENDED Complaint.doc 01/17/00 vehicle, take care of her home and do other normal activities of daily living without assistance. 18. By reason of the said injuries, Plaintiff was required to depend upon family members and friends for transportation, hired persons for assistance at home, and was required to pay for meals to be delivered to her because she could no longer cook for herself. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Manor Care, Inc., doing business as Manor Care Health Services for unliquidated damages in an amount in excess of the limit for compulsory arbitration in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, together with interest and costs of suit. -714 1O7J4'tL Roger M. Morgedthal, Esquire Attorney ID# 17143 FISHMAN & MORGENTHAL 95 Alexander Spring Rd., Suite 3 Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorneys for Plaintiff (717) 249-6333 (717) 249-7334 Fax roger 3carlislelaw.com \\MAINSERVER\PUBLIC\rogcr\litigation\Hoffman Veritication.doc 01/I7/00 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BEULAH E. HOFFMAN, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION-LAW VS. MANOR CARE, INC., doing Business as MANOR CARE HEALTH SERVICES, Defendant NO. 99- 4445 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL OF TWELVE DEMANDED VERIFICATION I, BEULAH E. HOFFMAN, verify that I am the plaintiff in this action and that the Amended Complaint as filed is 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.A. § 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. ZLUL? A? ? BEULAH E. H0 Date: ^ 01GvO ?: ? r J F " ') i? ? ?7 ' ?°' j _. ? i P_ .? `. ? ;i, ':? u :J r ? . A A 1. i F ?rFxN ',1 ? r [Y) t'" ' + ?y .y. IM1 ' ,u ? - d.1 T,?r?.' f'n?. tP'sA .Y:!" A e Y 4.i ' 17 v f?! Y Y +rfUt S h}t ° ?£ ?' ? r a Ltd gr4&t 1 + '• I sr? ?r??t?, c' C D Qd +?ij}?y?, r:ySt spy 1 v:? L44'? s .?5: ?r r? r.f e it 1 1?`l?d t Self( 'A.i 11 F1 .Wf Md t Y? 1?? f W z<` +??? k pd. tL ? H 3 Vky'V? 1 }a1rS til t ??? 1 ? 4 r 7' ?fi `$,-5fi?yx'la tCpn A' ?': 'y ?r5' i 1ib1?$ Sx 10 G7 t tS'2 x°.1 t;r'?wL'2' J 1 111 W 9?,? ??. a T t Y ? a?1 1l y 'fir S rij ?eYp 'E g ^p? ( I ,?qq t y s?1S1 i 1, ?4 ?i ,.fit k ?V 1? t ,yCrF' bit.t?1 7nS i .A r I r t XY11 yw?t J ?> ?tti Y b py3 a?,yr i i¢wiyrJ3 ??? ? ?,E+''`. v v S. xr f? t f t ,t. 1 A?h Y I 7 r e??{? t? r tin r. , ? + k +3 ?' x C m? + f ?F v}? its} ': r t?i ? Sly ?( aYl t •_ Y??: t BEULAH E. HOFFMAN, Plaintiff V. MANOR CARE INC., Defendant TO THE PROTHONOTARY: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 99-4445 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Kindly enter my appearance as co-counsel, with William Mundy, Esquire, on behalf of Defendant, Manor Care Health Services, in the above captioned matter. McKISSOCK & HOFFMAN, P.C. BY: Date: i-a8'Ob Edwin A.D. Schwarz Attorney I.D. No.: 75902 105 North Front Street Suite 205 Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-0103 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United Slates Mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Roger M. Morgenthal, Esquire 95 Alexander Spring Rd. Carlisle, PA 17013 McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. BY: Edwin A.D. Sefiwattz, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. No. 75902 105 North Front Street Suite 205 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: (717) 234-0103 DATED: /- ;.18- 0 0 ?- -- ?,: ?: ' ;; --- ;,.. ... ?_. ;; ?_. - ?. ; - ?' iJ ;J BEULAH E. HOFFMAN, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. Plaintiff JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW MANOR CARE INC., doing business as MANOR CARE HEALTH SERVICES, NO. 99-4445 Defendant DEFENDANT'S ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendant, Manor Care, inc., d/b/a Manor Care Health Services, (hereinafter referred to as Manor Care) by and through its attorneys, McKissock & Hoffman, P.C., responds to Plaintiff's Amended complaint by the filing of the foregoing Answer and New Matter, and as such, provides as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without insufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and as such, the averments contained in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are denied and strict proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Manor Care, Inc., is a Corporation "doing business" in the Commonwealth. The remaining averments contained in Paragraph 2 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are denied and strict proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 3. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that on or about July 28, 1997 an individual by the name of Leroy D. Hoffman was a resident at Defendant's facility located at 940 Walnut Bottom Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, PA. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments contained in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and as such, the remaining averments contained in Paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are denied and strict proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and as such, the averments contained Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are denied and strict proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information or knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and as such the averments contained Paragraph 5 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are denied and strict proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 6. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that there is a doorway at the main entrance of Defendant's facility which is primarily used for egress and ingress of residents, employees, and visitors of residents. The remaining averments contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are denied as improper subjective characterizations and as such, the remaining averments in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded, if relevant, at the time of trial. By way of further response, Defendant specifically denies Plaintiff's characterization of the door as being "large" and "heavy" and as such, strict proof thereof, if relevant, at the time of trial. 7. The averments contained in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that there is a doorway at the main entrance of Defendant's facility which is primarily used for egress and ingress of residents, employees, and visitors of residents. The remaining averments contained in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are specifically denied, and strict proof thereof, is demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, Defendant avers that the facility is for the private use of its residents, employees, and visiting family and medical personnel for the residents and as such, Plaintiff's characterization Defendant's facility being open "to the general public" is improper and is hereby denied. M 8. The averment contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint represents a conclusion of law to which no response is required. If it is later judicially determined that a response is so required, the averment contained in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is specifically denied and strict proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 9. Denied. Plaintiff has failed to specifically identify the alleged employee as referenced in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, accordingly, all allegations of employment are specifically denied. By way of further response, all allegations contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are generally denied in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e), and strict proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 10. Denied. Plaintiff has failed to specifically identify the alleged employee as referenced in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, accordingly, all allegations of employment are specifically denied. By way of further response, all allegations contained in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are generally denied in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e), and strict proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 11. Denied. Plaintiff has failed to specifically identify the alleged employee as referenced in Paragraph 11 of plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, accordingly, all allegations of employment are specifically denied. By way of further response, all allegations contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are generally denied in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e), and strict proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 12. Denied. Plaintiff has failed to specifically identify the alleged employee or other persons at the scene as referenced in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and, accordingly, all allegations of employment are specifically denied. By way of further response, all allegations contained in Paragraph 12 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are generally denied in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e)I and strict proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 13 (A)-(H). The averments contained in Paragraph 13 (A)- (H), inclusive, of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint represent conclusions of law to which no response is required. if it is later judicially determined that a response is so required, the averments contained in Paragraph 13 (A)-(H) of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are specifically denied and strict proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Defendant was negligent in any manner set forth in Paragraph 13 (A)-(H) of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint or in any other respect. 14. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are generally denied as stated in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e), and strict proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 15. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are specifically denied in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e)I and strict proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 16. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are specifically denied in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e), and strict proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 17. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are specifically denied in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e), and strict proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 18. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 18 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are specifically denied in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e), and strict proof thereof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Manor Care, Inc., d/b/a Manor Care Health Services, respectfully request this Honorable Court enter Judgment in its favor and dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint with prejudice and further grant Defendant all such other relief as is proper and just. NEW MATTER 19. Plaintiff's claims are barred and/or limited because of the conduct of the Plaintiff under the doctrines of comparative negligence and/or assumption of risk, to the extent that subsequent discovery may implicate. 20. Plaintiff's claims are barred and/or limited by virtue of any consent signed by Plaintiff under the doctrines of release and consent, to the extent that subsequent discovery may implicate. 21. Plaintiff's claims are barred and/or limited because the injuries alleged to have been sustained by the Plaintiff are the result of some person, party or entity of Defendant, Manor Care, Inc., d/b/a as Manor Care Health Services, exercised no control. 22. Nothing done or omitted by the Defendant, Manor Care, Inc., d/b/a Manor Care Health Services, was the proximate cause of any injuries alleged to have been sustained by the Plaintiff. 23. Plaintiff's failure to exercise due care was the proximate cause of any injuries alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiff. 24. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to identify the alleged "employees" who acted or failed to act at any time relevant to the Plaintiff's cause of action. 25. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to identify the alleged "employees" were acting "within the scope of their employment authority" at any time relevant to the Plaintiff's cause of action. 26. Plaintiff's action is barred by the applicable statute of limitations, to the extent subsequent discovery may implicate. 27. Plaintiff has failed to set forth the requisite elements to assert personal injury action to recover damages from Defendant, Manor Care, Inc., d/b/a as Manor Care Health Services. 28. If there is a judicial determine that Pa.R.C.P. 238 is constitutional, said constitutionality being expressly challenged i as being in violation of the due process and equal protection I clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983; Article I, §1, 6, 11, 25; and Article V §10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, then liability for any interest imposed by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure should be suspended during any such period of time that Plaintiff: (a) failed to convey to Defendant, settlement figure; (b) delayed in responding to any interrogatories properly served; (c) delayed in responding to any request for production of documents and/or things as properly served; (d) delayed in producing Plaintiff for deposition on service of proper notice; (e) delayed in producing Plaintiff for physical examination, upon proper notice; and (f) delayed in any other manner to discovery requests properly made by Defendant and the result of any of the delays as asserted above, Plaintiff should be estopped from obtaining any interest because of the violation of the discovery rules. 29. Inasmuch as Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 1032, provides that a party waives all defenses not presented byway of answer, Defendant, Manor Care, Inc., d/b/a Manor Care Health Services, upon advice of counsel, hereby asserts all affirmative defenses as set forth in Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1030, those defenses to include, in addition to the defenses already enumerated above, assumption of the risk, consent, contributory negligence, discharge and bankruptcy, demised, estoppel, failure of consideration, fair comment, illegality, immunity from suit, impossibility of performance, justification, latches, license, payment, privilege, release, statute of frauds, statute of limitations, truth and waiver, with these said affirmative defenses being subject to demonstration during the discovery process and proof, as relevant, at the time of trial. Respectfully submitted, McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. Hy William J. MurQT Supreme Court I.D. No. 57679 Edwin A.D. Schwartz Supreme Court I.D. No. 75902 105 North Front Street Suite 205 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: (717) 234-0103 Dated: 0 - -'o 1, Thom Wright, NHR, hereby verify that the statements and responses in Defendant's Answer and New Matter to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that the statements are made subject to the penalties of PA.C.S. Section 4904, relating to the unsworn falsification to authorities. I-di - l Thom Wright, NH Date: -* 7/CV) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Roger Morganthal, Esquire FISHERMAN & MORGANTHAL 95 Alexander Spring Road Suite 3 Carlisle, PA 17103 McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. BY: Edwin A.D. S wartz, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. No. 75902 105 North Front Street Suite 205 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: (717) 234-0103 Date: Z-zZ-Ov I? `: ? ? I \\MAINSERVER\PUBLIC\roger\litigalion\llorfmon reply to new matteedoc IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BEULAH E. HOFFMAN, CIVIL ACTION-LAW Plaintiff VS. NO. 99- 4445 CIVIL TERM MANOR CARE, INC., doing Business as MANOR CARE HEALTH SERVICES, JURY TRIAL OF TWELVE Defendant DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER And now comes Beulah E. Hoffman, Plaintiff in the above matter, and makes the following reply to New Matter of Defendant: 19. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no reply is required. 20. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no reply is required. By way of further answer, Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that she signed no consent as referred to by Defendant. 21. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no reply is required. 22. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no reply is required. 23. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no reply is required. By way of further answer, Plaintiff avers that at all times relevant hereto, she 03/14/00 exercised due care. \\MAINSERVER\PUBLIC\roger\litigation\Hol'fmmti reply to new mattecdoc 24. Admitted, because knowledge of such identities is within the exclusive control of Defendant, and discovery will be conducted to ascertain the same. 25. Admitted, because knowledge of such identities is within the exclusive control of Defendant, and discovery will be conducted to ascertain the same. 26. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no reply is required. By way of further answer, Plaintiff's complaint was timely filed. 27. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no reply is required. 28. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no reply is required. 29. Denied as a legal conclusion to which no reply is required. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment as set forth in her Complaint against Defendant Manor Care, Inc., doing business as Manor Care Health Services for unliquidated damages in an amount in excess of the limit for compulsory arbitration in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, together with interest and costs of suit Date: 3' Z I"-e n4= Roger M. Morgenthal, Esquire Attorney ID# 17143 FISHMAN & MORGENTHAL 95 Alexander Spring Rd., Suite 3 Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorneys for Plaintiff (717) 249-6333 03/14/00 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Edwin A. D. Schwartz, Esquire McKISSOCK & HOFFMAN, P.C. 105 North Front Street Suite 205 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Date: dO ?11hA'J4 Roger M. Mo genthal, Esquire Attorney ID# 17143 FISHMAN & MORGENTHAL 95 Alexander Spring Rd., Suite 3 Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorneys for Plaintiff (717) 249-6333 U. C: I. , ](L CD ) CD C? r § ?7' th. ? r; 7 frs L.•.1 In 7c ?c 4?. .e ICL I f") ..? t t r p ? t ? It 9µ? 4';nr tlk ?; t Y ?? i^n r}A I+Mt??A1?dD f r /q rM? ! t ?t K Y t? i ?' , ?, C,a•I ??i?r? " " . r alt W.{bL A Y t?Y? ? m qCqt ' r ?0 r r O' da 1?!1 i '?' -k J Y J / V l y ' / `G/ J I A w l? }9 i?4 (LUt !, t 4 I p7 LL ? 0. M.. LL r N Q. ? K C Z "I ? 4 tS ' x k i h? k hi k Lzi <. ? O to ? . s a?ry ? , ,q ; y ? n J e.&J1r.r ._ +Yrr tl.c .., u. , ? "'PI?A'SaID is r ?,i fUW a 4 I y ft Yi ?.'} '+µK,l ,/ o r jt t it . t ^? 5 Mk 7. A fF ?? BEULAH E. HOFFMAN, Plaintiff V. MANOR CARE, INC., doing business as MANOR: CARE HEALTH SERVICES, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 99-4445 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 16°i day of July, 2001, upon consideration of Defendant's Motion To Compel Discovery, a Rule is hereby issued upon Plaintiff to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. RULE RETURNABLE within 20 days of service. BY THE COURT, Roger Morganthal, Esq. 95 Alexander Spring Road Suite 3 Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esq. 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Defendant /I J. Wesley OlecyJr, b? :rc ,:. a BEULAH E. HOFFMAN, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. Plaintiff JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW MANOR CARE, INC., doing business . as MANOR CARE HEALTH SERVICES,: NO. 99-4445 Defendant ORDER AND NOW, this day of 2001, in consideration of Defendant's Motion to Compel Discovery, and any responses thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff shall provide full and complete responses to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories as addressed to Plaintiff within days of the date of this Order or suffer sanctions as may later be applied for by Defendant. BY THE COURT: J. McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire Attorney I.D. 75902 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-3400 BEULAH E. HOFFMAN, Plaintiff vs. MANOR CARE, INC., doing business as MANOR CARE HEALTH SERVICES,: Defendant Attorneys for Defendant Manor Care, Inc. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 99-4445 DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY Defendant, Manor Care, Inc., d/b/a Manor Care Health Services, (hereinafter referred to as "Manor Care") by and through its attorneys, McKissock & Hoffman, P.C., respectfully requests this Court to enter an Order to Compel the Plaintiff, Beulah E. Hoffman, to provide Defendant, Manor Care, with the full and complete Responses to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories addressed to Plaintiff, and in support thereof avers the following: 1. On July 22, 1999, Plaintiff, Beulah E. Hoffman, filed a Praecipe for Writ of Summons under the above caption. 2. Subsequently, on or about January 27, 2000, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint under the above caption averring that Defendant was liable for injuries that Plaintiff purportedly sustained while visiting the Defendant's facility. Plaintiff alleges that she suffered injuries from being struck by an automatic door at the entrance to the facility. 3. On or about March 20, 2000, Defendant served Plaintiff with its First Set of Interrogatories. A true and correct copy of Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. 4. In accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 4006, Responses to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories should have been served on or about April 19, 2000. 5. On April 20, 2000, Defendant's counsel forwarded a letter to Plaintiffs counsel to seek information as to when Defendant could expect Plaintiffs responses to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories. A true and correct copy of Defendant's counsel's April 20, 2000 correspondence to Plaintiffs counsel is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference. 6. On May 18, 2000, Defendant's counsel forwarded another letter to Plaintiffs counsel requesting information as to when Defendant could expect Plaintiffs responses to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories. Defendant's counsel's May 18, 2000, letter also advised Plaintiffs counsel as to the possible filing of a Motion to Compel Discovery in the event Plaintiff continued to refuse to respond to the outstanding discovery. A true and correct copy of Defendant's counsel's May 18, 2000 correspondence to Plaintiffs counsel is attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference. 7. On or about May 23, 2000, Defendant's counsel received a letter dated May 22, 2000 from Plaintiffs counsel indicating Plaintiff responses to the outstanding discovery would be provided "within the next several weeks". A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs counsel's May 22, 2000 correspondence to Defendant's counsel is attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by reference. 8. Despite the passage of several weeks (actually the passage of several months), Plaintiff did not provide any responses to the outstanding discovery. 9. On December 1, 2000, Defendant's counsel forwarded another letter to Plaintiffs counsel requesting information as to when Defendant could expect Plaintiffs responses to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories. Defendant's counsel's December 1, 2000, letter again advised Plaintiffs counsel as to the possible filing of a Motion to Compel Discovery in the event Plaintiff continued in her refusal to respond to the outstanding discovery. A true and correct copy of Defendant's counsel's December 1, 2000 correspondence to Plaintiffs counsel is attached hereto as Exhibit "E" and incorporated herein by reference. f 10. On or about December 12, 2000, Defendant's counsel received a letter dated December 11, 2000 from Plaintiffs counsel indicating Plaintiff responses to the outstanding discovery would be provided "in 30 days of less". A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs counsel's December 11, 2000 correspondence to Defendant's counsel is attached hereto as Exhibit "F" and incorporated herein by reference. 11. On or about February 6, 2001, Defendant's counsel received a letter dated February 6, 2000 from Plaintiffs counsel indicating that Plaintiffs counsel had "all the information to complete the answers to interrogatories". A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs counsel's February 6, 2001 correspondence to Defendant's counsel is attached hereto as Exhibit "G" and incorporated herein by reference. 12. Finally, on June 12, 2001, Defendant's counsel forwarded a final letter to Plaintiffs counsel insisting on Plaintiffs responses to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories. Defendant's counsel's June 12, 2001 letter outlined the fact that the discovery requests were now delinquent by more than a year and insisted on Plaintiffs responses. A true and correct copy of Defendant's counsel's June 12, 2001 correspondence to Plaintiffs counsel is attached hereto as Exhibit "H" and incorporated herein by reference. 13. To date, Defendant's counsel has received no response to the outstanding discovery from Plaintiff. 14. Accordingly, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court Order Plaintiff to provide Defendant full and complete Responses to Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories addressed to Plaintiff. 15. Counsel for Defendant certifies that he has attempted contact with Plaintiffs counsel in an effort to resolve this discovery dispute as evidenced by Exhibits B, C, E and H, as attached hereto. However, despite such attempts by Defendant's counsel, no response to the outstanding discovery has been received. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Manor Care, Inc., d/b/a Manor Care Health Services, respectfully requests this Honorable Court Order Plaintiff to provide Defendant with the full and complete Responses to Defendant's First Set Of Interrogatories and further award Defendant's counsel all such reasonable costs and fees associated with the necessity of filing Defendant's instant motion to Compel. Respectfully submitted, McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. By: Edwin A.D. Schwa e Attorney I.D. No. 75902 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Date: July 3, 2001 (717) 540-3400 EXHIBIT "A" C:%COR ELUANORCARE.HOFFMAMOISCO VERMOGS.320 BEULAH E. HOFFMAN, Plaintiff COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. vs. MANOR CARE, INC., d/b/a MANOR CARE HEALTH SERVICES, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 99-4445 DEFENDANT, MANOR CARE, INC. d/b/a MANOR CARE HEALTH SERVICES', FIRST SET OF INTERROGAJQRIES TO PLAINTIFF, BEULAH E H FFMAN TO: Beulah E. Hoffman c/o Roger Morganthal, Esquire FISHER & MORGANTHAL 95 Alexander Spring Road Suite 3 Carlisle, PA 17103 You are required to respond to the attached Interrogatories within the time prescribed by the Rules of this Court. These Interrogatories are continuing in character so as to require you to file supplemental responses to the Interrogatories if you obtain further or different information prior to trial. Where the words "incident" or "occurrence" are used, they refer to events which took place as alleged in the Complaint. DEFINITIONS I. As used herein, the word "Plaintiff' refers to Beulah E. Hoffman her agents, representative, attorneys, prior business entities (if any) and all other persons acting or purporting to act on behalf of Plaintiffs. il. All references in these Interrogatories to "document" shall include the plural and shall mean, without limitation unless otherwise indicated, the original and each copy of each and any writing, evidence of indebtedness, memorandum, letter, correspondence, telegram, note, minutes, contract, agreement, inter-office communication, bulletin, circular, procedure, pamphlet, photograph, study, notice, summary, invoice, diagram, plan, drawing, diary, record or note of telephone conversation, chart, schedule, entry, print, representation, record, report and tangible item or thing of written, readable, graphic, audible, or visual material, of any kind or character, whether handwritten, typed, xeroxed, photostated, printed, duplicated, reproduced, recorded, photographed, copied, microfilmed, microcarded, or transcribed by any means, including, without limitation, each interim as well as final draft and each revision which in the possession or subject to the control of you or your present or former agents, employees or representatives, including counsel and including any related corporations. III. Whenever in these Interrogatories there is a request to identify a document: a. state the type of document (e.g., letter, etc.); b, set forth its date; C. identify the signer or signers and the addressee or addresses; d. set forth the title, heading or other designation, numerical or otherwise, of the document; e. identify the person (or, if widely distributed, set forth the organization or classes of persons) to whom the document was sent; and f. set forth the present or last-known location of the document and of each copy thereof having notations or marking unique to such copy. IV. Whenever in these Interrogatories there is a request to identify any oral communication: a. state the type of communication (e.g., conversation, telephone call, etc.); b. state where and when such communication occurred: C. identify by full name, title and job description, all persons who participated in such communication or who observed or heard such communisations at the time of their occurrence; setting forth which person effected such communication and which person received the same; d. identify all documents embodying or in any way relating to such communication, if any; and e. state the substance of any such communication. V. "Accident" or "occurrence" refers to the events described in and which will form the basis for Plaintiffs Amended Complaint. 1NBIRUCTIONS 1. In answering these Interrogatories, you shall furnish all information available to you at the time of answering, including information in the possession of your agents, and shall supplement your answers in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. I It. If you claim, in your answer to any Interrogatory, that any requested facts, documents or other information are "privileged" and not subject to discovery, you shall so state and, in addition, state every fact supporting your claim that such fact, document or other information is "privileged" and with respect to any document, you shall identify the document by stating the date and subject matter of the document, the name of the person who prepared the document and the name of the person for whom the document was intended. State the following: a) Your full name; b) Date and place of birth; c) Home address; d) Occupation. 2. Please state what names, other than your present one, you have ever used, and the dates that each one was used. 3. State where you were coming from at the time of the incident as alleged in your Amended Complaint. 4. State where you were going at the time of the incident as alleged in your Amended Complaint. 5. Without incorporating by reference the allegations of your Amended Complaint, state in detail your version of how the incident as alleged in your Amended Complaint happened. 6. State the weather conditions at the time of the incident as alleged in your Amended Complaint. 7. State the condition of the sidewalk immediately in front of the Defendants' facility entrance wherein the incident as alleged in your Amended Complaint occurred. 8. What action, if any, did you take to attempt to avoid being struck by the door as alleged in Paragraph 10 of your Amended Complaint. 9. Were you familiar with the doorway on which the incident occurred? 10. State the name and present or last known addresses of all persons who were present at the scene of the incident as alleged in your Amended Complaint when it occurred, noting specifically those who were eyewitnesses and the names and present and last known address of each person at the time of the incident and at the present time. 11. State the names and present or last known addresses of all persons, other than those listed in the foregoing Interrogatory, who have knowledge of any fact concerning how the incident as alleged in your Amended Complaint occurred, and the names and present and last known addresses of each such person's employer at the time of the incident and at the present time. 12. State whether or not there were any defects in the doorway or obstructions to the doorway or that the door mechanism malfunctioned, which contributed to the happening of the incident as alleged in your Amended Complaint. 13. If your answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the affirmative, state: a) The location of the defects or obstructions with reference to specific landmarks; b) Describe the defects or obstructions (length, width, depth, etc.); and c) The facts upon which you state the defects or obstruction contributed to the accident. 14. State whether you assert that the Defendant made any admissions against interest upon which you intend to rely. If so, please state: a) The name, address and employer of any individual alleged to have made any such admission; b) The nature, substance and precise statement of such admission; c) Where such admission was made; d) To whom such admission was communicated; and e) The names and addresses of all individuals present when such admission was made. 15. Have you ever been examined medically or received any kind of medical care, treatment or surgery since the date of the incident for the injuries sustained in the incident? If so, state: a) The name(s), address and telephone numbers of all medical practitioners, including hospitals, who rendered you the service. 16. To the best of your knowledge or that of your attorney, has any doctor advised you or your attorney as to the diagnosis and/or prognosis of any of your injuries? If so, state: a) The diagnosis and/or prognosis made of each injury; b) The name and address of the doctor making the diagnosis and/or prognosis. 17. Do you claim any permanent injuries as a result of the incident and, if so, what is the nature and location of each permanent injury? 18. When, where and by whom did you last receive any treatment from a medical practitioner or hospital, whether or not related to injuries allegedly sustained in the incident? 19. Identify all health insurance coverage for the Plaintiff insuring her for the damages she alleges in regard to the present action. Include in your answer a disclosure of which of the Plaintiffs medical expenses she claims as damages or expenses that were paid or reasonably expected to be paid by any such health insurance, including Medicare and Medicaid; a determination of any amounts representing the difference between the total charges for medical services rendered and the amounts of any co-payments actually paid or reasonably expected to be paid by any such health insurance; the amounts of any co-payments actually paid by the Plaintiff or anyone else on her behalf and the amount of any deductible paid by the Plaintiff or reasonably expected to be paid by the Plaintiff or anyone on her behalf. 20. Identify each person that you expect to call as an expert witness at trial in this matter and with regard to each person state the following: a) The subject matter upon which the expert is expected to testify; b) The substance of facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for such opinion; c) The qualifications upon which each such expert intends to rely in order to qualify as an expert at trial. 21. Identify with specificity all insurance carriers, government agencies and/or other sources (including Medicare and/or Medicaid) for which you are receiving benefits or made a claim for the damages and injuries allegedly sustained in the incident in question. Please supply available policy numbers and the claim numbers. 22. Please state: a) How long was your husband, Leroy D. Hoffman, now deceased, a resident at Defendant's facility; b) During your husband's residence at Defendant's facility, how often would you visit him at the facility? 23. At the time of the incident as alleged in your Amended Complaint, were you carrying anything? If so, please state: a) The items you were carrying; carried. b) The approximate size, weight and dimensions of the items being . 24. Specify what part of your body was struck by the door. 25. Please provide the name, address and relation of all individuals who assisted you in responding to these Interrogatories. McKISSOCK & HOFFMAN, P.C. BY: Edwin A.D. Schwartz-- Supreme Court I.D. No. 75902 McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. 105 North Front Street Suite 205 Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-0103 DATE: 3-moo-oo I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing Interrogatories (First Set) upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Roger Morganthal, Esquire FISHERMAN & MORGANTHAL 95 Alexander Spring Road Suite 3 Carlisle, PA 17103 McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. BY: Edwin A.D. Sch Esquire Supreme Court I. D. No. 75902 105 North Front Street Suite 205 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: (717) 234-0103 Attorneys for Defendant, Manor Care, Inc. d/b/a Manor Care Health Services DATED: EXHIBIT "B" McKISSOCK & HOFFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 105 NORTH FRONT STREET SUITE 205 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17101 PHONE-77-17T-234-0103 EDWIN A.D. SCHWARTZ FAX: (717) 234.1350 DIRECTDIAL(717)234-0103 _ EWHWART7@MCKHOF.COM WN'NMnM01'(501H April 20, 2000 Roger Morganthal, Esquire FISHERMAN & MORGANTHAL 95 Alexander Spring Road Suite 3 Carlisle, PA 17103 Re: Hoffman v. Manorcare. Inc CCP - Cumberland County Docket M 99-4445 Our File #: 300-151 Dear Mr. Morganthal: 1700 MARKET STREET SURE 3000 PHMOElg4A, PA 10103 (215) 2462100 FAX (2155) 2462144 16 NORTH FRANKLIN MEET SUITE 300 WriE6TOWN, PA 18001 (215) 3461W1 FAO (21S) 3454503 105 EAST EVANS STREET P.O. Sox 3080 WEST CHESTER, PA 19361 (010) 7365650 FAX (810) 736-0121 216 HAOOON AVENUE SURE 603 WESIMONT, NJ 05106 (650) SS616W FAX (656) 6561466 The purpose of this correspondence is simply to ascertain the status of your client's responses to our Interrogatories which were previously served on March 20, 2000. 1 would appreciate it if you would please advise me as to when I may expect to receive your client's responses to these discovery requests. I look forward to hearing from you shortly. Sincerely, Edwin 5D chwartz for McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. EAS:rkw EXHIBIT "C" McKISSOCK & HOFFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 105 NORTH FRONT STREET SUITE 205 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17101 EDWIN A.D. SCHWARTZ DIRECT DIAL (717) 234-0103 ESCHWARTZOMCKHOF.OOM PHONE: (717) 234-0103 FAX: (717) 234.1350 Roger Morganthal, Esquire FISHERMAN & MORGANTHAL 95 Alexander Spring Road Suite 3 Carlisle, PA 17103 N'V: AI4C1gI0 mm May 18, 2000 Re: Hoffman v. Manorcare Inc CCP - Cumberland County Docket #: 99-4445 Our File #: 300-151 Dear Mr. Morganthal: 1700 MARKET STREET SUITE 5000 PHILADELI4IA, PA 10103 (215) 2IW2100 FAX (215) 246.2111 10 NORTH FRANKLIN STREET SUITE 300 DOYLESTOWN, PA 10001 (215) 3154501 FAX (215) 3404003 105 EAST EVANS STREET P.O. BOX 3000 WESTCHESTER, PA 10301 (810)7354M FAX (010) 7300121 210 HADDON AVENUE SUITE 003 WESTMONT, W 05100 (am) 55015m FAX (Sm) 5501400 Please be advised that I have not received your client's responses to the discovery requests which remain outstanding. As you may recall, Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories addressed to the Plaintiff were served on you on or about March 20, 2000. On or about April 20, 2000, 1 contacted you via correspondence to determine the status of your client's responses. To date, I have not had any response to the Interrogatories or my correspondence of April 20"'. I would appreciate if you would please advise me as to when I may expect to receive your client's responses to the outstanding Interrogatories. Please be advised that if I do not hear from you within fifteen (15) days of the date of this correspondence, I will have no alternative but to file the appropriate Motion to Compel with the Court. If it becomes necessary for me to proceed in filing a Motion to Compel, I will be seeking fees and costs associated with such filing. EXHIBIT "D" FISHMAN & Steven J. Fishman Roger M. Morgenthal May 22, 2000 Edwin A. D. Swartz, Esquire McKISSOCK & HOFFMAN 105 North Front Street, Suite 205 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Xegehted L Law Offices vo ntcxanoer spring aom, Suite 3 Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-9137 E-MAIL: roger@carlislclaw.com (717) 249-6333 FAX (717) 249-7334 RE: HOFFMAN v. MANOR CARE, INC. NO. 99-4445 CIVIL TERM CUMBERLAND COUNTY YOUR FILE NO. 300-151 Dear Mr. Swartz: 1 apologize for the delay in responding to your discovery. Mrs. Hoffman and I are working on it, and we hope to file it within the next several weeks. During the month of April, I had a case of the flu that persisted for three weeks, and during that time I was reluctant to visit the nursing home where she resides because of a general request that visitors with the flu should stay away. Mrs. Hoffman tires easily, so my sessions with her now have to be relatively short. Thank you for your cooperation. Very truly yours, ,A Roger M. Morgenthal, Esquire FISHMAN & MORGENTHAL EXHIBIT "E" McKISSOCK & HOFFMAr4' 1700 MMKET sTREEr SUITE 3000 A PROFESSIONAL.CORPORATION PHI (ADELPHIA, PA 10103 ATTORNEYS AT LAW (215)246.2100 FAX (215)2462144 105 NORTH FRONT STREET _ SUITE 205 16 NORTH FRANKLIN STREET HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17101 SUITE 300 DOYLESTOWN. PA 13001 PHONE: (717) 234-0103 (215) 3454501 FAX (215) 345.4503 FD SCHW MTZ FAX: (717) 234.1350 T DIAL (717) 236 DIRECT DIAL 0105 -? - 105 EAST EVANS STREET ESCHWAAT743MCKHOF.COM 'AW Nmw.t WEST PCHESTE .O. BOq p1%31 (610)7364350 FAX (010)7360121 216 HADDON AVENUE SURE 303 WESTMONT, NJ 03106 December 1, 2000 FAX, (858W11) Roger Morganthal, Esquire FISHERMAN & MORGANTHAL 95 Alexander Spring Road Suite 3 Carlisle, PA 17103 Re: Hoffman v. Manorcare Inc CCP - Cumberland County Docket #: 99-4445 Our File #: 300-151 Dear Mr. Morganthal: Please be advised that I have not received your client's responses to the discovery 'requests which continue to remain outstanding. As you may recall, Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories addressed to the Plaintiff were served on you on or about March 20, 2000. On or about April 20, 2000 and May 18, 2000, 1 contacted you yja correspondence to determine the status of your client's responses. Per your correspondence dated May 22, 2000 you advised that you "hope to file it within the next several weeks." It has now been in excess of six (6) months and your answers to discovery continue to remain outstanding. I would appreciate if you would please advise me as to when I may expect to receive your client's responses to the outstanding Interrogatories. Please be advised that if I do not hear from you within fifteen (15) days of the date of this correspondence, I will have no alternative but to file the appropriate Motion to Compel with the Court. If it becomes necessary for me to proceed in filing a Motion to Compel, I will be seeking fees and costs associated with such filing. EXHIBIT "F" FISHMAN & MORGENTHAL Roger M. Morgenthal 95 Alexander Sprang Road, Suite 3 Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-9137 E-MAIL: roger@carlislelaw.com (717)249.6333 December 11, 2000 PAX (717) 249-7334 Edwin A. D. Swartz, Esquire McKISSOCK & HOFFMAN 105 North Front Street, Suite 205 Harrisburg, PA 17101 RE: HOFFMAN v. MANOR CARE, INC. NO. 99-4445 CIVIL TERM CUMBERLAND COUNTY YOUR FILE NO. 300-151 Dear Mr. Swartz: Again I apologize for the delay. This has been a year in which every close relative of mine has experienced a serious illness and hospitalization between the date of my last letter and now, and I have been struggling to maintain a practice while dealing with their care. Finally, everyone seems to have recovered or at least stabilized, and I am working overtime to get caught up. I am working on the response and meeting with Mrs. Kauffman and her relatives, and barring any additional obstacles, the response should be filed in 30 days or less. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding. Very wtrrully yours, ?Ivr?`?& Roger M. Morgenthal, Esquire FISHMAN & MORGENTHAL EXHIBIT "G" Roger M. Morgenthal Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013-9137 E-MAIL: roger@carlislelaw.com (717) 249-6333 FAX (717) 249-7334 February 6, 2001 Edwin A, D. Swartz, Esquire McKISSOCK & HOFFMAN 105 North Front Street, Suite 205 Harrisburg, PA 17101 RE: HOFFMAN v. MANOR CARE, INC. NO. 99-4445 CIVIL TERM CUMBERLAND COUNTY YOUR FILE NO. 300-151 Dear Mr. Swartz: I met with Mrs. Hoffman again last week and have all the information to complete the answers to interrogatories. We have not been able to locate the Medicare records for payments made immediately after the injury, but the family is still looking for them. Thanks for your coooperation. Very truly yours, Roger M. Morgenthal, FISHMAN & MORGENTHAL FISHMAN & MORGENTHAL Law Offices EXHIBIT "H" I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing Motion to Compel Discovery upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Roger Morganthal, Esquire FISHERMAN & MORGANTHAL 95 Alexander Spring Road Suite 3 Carlisle, PA 17103 McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. BY: Edwin A.D. Sch quire Supreme Court I.D. No. 75902 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-3400 Attorneys for Defendant, Manor Care, Inc. d/b/a Manor Care Health Services Date: July 3, 2001 ?? • ,,? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BEULAH E. HOFFMAN, CIVIL ACTION-LAW Plaintiff vs. NO. 99- 4445 CIVIL TERM MANOR CARE, INC., doing Business as MANOR CARE HEALTH SERVICES, JURY TRIAL OF TWELVE Defendant DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: Please mark the above case "Settled and Discontinued" including costs of suit. 'Roger M. Morgenthal, Esquire ID #17143 Attorney for Plaintiff FISHMAN & MORGENTHAL 95 Alexander Spring Road, Suite 3 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-6333 - Lf Z J cn i[Iu L i ,-? CJ