Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-7423Stephen G. Held, Esquire I.D.#72663 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: Heid@HHRLaw.com EULES BAKER and SILVIA BAKER, his wife, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP and PETRO, INC. Defendants . NO. 0q - 74013 Civi ( -1;-m : CIVIL ACTION -LAW 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, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Lawyer Referral Service 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar acci6n dentro de los pr6ximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificaci6n de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar acci6n como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamaci6n o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. Lawyer Referral Service 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By: Stephen G. Held, Esquire Stephen G. Held, Esq. I.D.#72663 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiffs Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: Held@HHRLaw.com EULES BAKER and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF SILVIA BAKER, his wife, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs . V. . NO. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP and PETRO, INC., : CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendants . COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Eules Baker and Silvia Baker, his wife, by and through their attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, by Stephen Held, Esquire, who brings forth this Complaint against Defendants Petro Stopping Centers, LP and Petro, Inc., and aver as follows: 1. Plaintiffs, Eules Baker and Silvia Baker, are adult individuals residing at 639 Garden Walk Boulevard, Apt. 1731, College Park, Georgia 30349. 2. Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, is a corporation registered to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with its corporate office located at 6080 Surety Drive, El Paso, Texas 79905. 3. Defendant, Petro, Inc., is a corporation registered to do business in the 1 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a registered office located at 2407 Duss Avenue, Ambridge, Pennsylvania 15003. 4. At all times material hereto Petro Stopping Centers, LP, was in ownership, possession, management, and control of the Premises located at and known as Petro Stopping Center, 1179 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 5. At all times material hereto Petro, Inc., was in ownership, possession, management, and control of the Premises located at and known as Petro Stopping Center, 1179 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 6. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, was an invitee upon said Premises. 7. On or about December 11, 2005, Claimant was parked in the bobtail lot on the Premises. Claimant exited his truck to use the restroom on the premises when he slipped and fell on snow and ice that had been allowed to accumulate on the Premises. 8. At all times material hereto, there were no signs, cones, or other warning devices regarding the snow and/or ice. 9. At all times material hereto, Defendants, who had exclusive control of said Premises, allowed snow and/or ice to accumulate on the bobtail parking lot surface without any warning signs or postings. 10. At all times material hereto, Defendants either knew, or should have known through a reasonable inspection of the premises, that snow and ice had accumulated on the bobtail parking lot creating a dangerous condition. 11. On or about December 11, 2005, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, was walking 2 through the bobtail parking lot on the Premises after using the public restroom. While crossing the bobtail parking lot, Plaintiff was caused to slip and fall on snow and ice accumulation, causing personal injuries to the Plaintiff. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE EULES BAKER v. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP 12. Paragraphs 1 - 11 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 13. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, believes and therefore avers that Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, was in possession, management, and control of the Premises and was responsible for maintaining the safe condition of the property known as Petro Stopping Center, 1179 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 14. At all times material hereto Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, assumed the duty to provide reasonably safe parking lots for all individuals who were patronizing the Premises at Petro Stopping Center, 1179 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 15. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to Plaintiff, Eules Baker, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, by its agents, servants, workmen or employees, acting in the scope of their authority and employment, generally and more specifically as set forth below: (a) In causing or permitting snow and ice accumulation on said Premises to remain, thereby posing an unreasonable risk of injury 3 to the Plaintiff and to other persons lawfully upon the premises; (b) In causing or permitting snow and ice accumulation to remain without a warning when Defendant knew or should have known of the likelihood that the snow and ice accumulation could cause injury; (c) In failing to make a reasonable inspection of said Premises which would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition posed by the snow and ice accumulation, and thereby allowing the same to be and remain a dangerous condition when the Defendant knew or should have known of it; (d) In failing to ensure the bobtail parking lot of said Premises was maintained in a safe condition to prevent injury to the Plaintiff and other persons lawfully upon the Premises; (e) In failing to post a warning sign or device in the area to notify of the dangerous condition of the snow and ice accumulation on said Premises; (f) In failing to remedy the snow and ice accumulation on said Premises so as to avoid the situation in which the Plaintiff fell; (g) In failing to maintain the bobtail parking lot of the Premises in a reasonably safe condition that would prevent Eules Baker from slipping and falling due to the accumulation of ice and snow. (h) In failing to insist upon necessary safety precautions as part of the contract of employment with the individuals or entities performing 4 snow and/or ice removal work at the Premises; and (i) In failing to exercise with reasonable care the control retained over the individuals or entities performing snow and/or ice removal work at the Premises; 16. Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, had actual knowledge or should have known through the exercise of ordinary care and diligence that there was snow and ice accumulation on the bobtail parking lot where Plaintiff, Eules Baker, fell. 17. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, sustained serious, including but not limited to, an oblique distal fibular fracture of his left ankle. 18. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, has undergone physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his detriment and loss, physically, emotionally, and financially. 19. As 'a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to his daily duties to his detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 20. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, has, and will in the future, suffer a loss of life's pleasures. 21. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, has suffered lost wages/income and will in 5 the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. 22. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, has been compelled, in order to affect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention and will be required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to his detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, seeks damages from Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE EULES BAKER v. PETRO, INC. 23. Paragraphs 1 - 22 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 24. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, believes and therefore avers that Defendant, Petro, Inc., was in possession, management, and control of the Premises and was responsible for maintaining the safe condition of the property known as Petro Stopping Center, 1179 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 25. At all times material hereto Defendant, Petro, Inc., assumed the duty to provide reasonably safe parking lots for all individuals who were patronizing the Premises at Petro Stopping Center, 1179 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 26. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to Plaintiff, Eules Baker, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of 6 Defendant, Petro, Inc., by its agents, servants, workmen or employees, acting in the scope of their authority and employment, generally and more specifically as set forth below: (a) In causing or permitting snow and ice accumulation on said Premises to remain, thereby posing an unreasonable risk of injury to the Plaintiff and to other persons lawfully upon the premises; (b) In causing or permitting snow and ice accumulation to remain without a warning when Defendant knew or should have known of the likelihood that the snow and ice accumulation could cause injury; (c) In failing to make a reasonable inspection of said Premises which would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition posed by the snow and ice accumulation, and thereby allowing the same to be and remain a dangerous condition when the Defendant knew or should have known of it; (d) In failing to ensure the bobtail parking lot of said Premises was maintained in a safe condition to prevent injury to the Plaintiff and other persons lawfully upon the Premises; (e) In failing to post a warning sign or device in the area to notify of the dangerous condition of the snow and ice accumulation on said Premises; (f) In failing to remedy the snow and ice accumulation on said Premises so as to avoid the situation in which the Plaintiff fell; 7 (g) In failing to maintain the bobtail parking lot of the Premises in a reasonably safe condition that would prevent Eules Baker from slipping and falling due to the accumulation of ice and snow. (h) In failing to insist upon necessary safety precautions as part of the contract of employment with the individuals or entities performing snow and/or ice removal work at the Premises; and (i) In failing to exercise with reasonable care the control retained over the individuals or entities performing snow and/or ice removal work at the Premises; 27. Defendant, Petro, Inc., had actual knowledge or should have known through the exercise of ordinary care and diligence that there was snow and ice accumulation on the bobtail parking lot where Plaintiff, Eules Baker, fell. 28. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro, Inc., Plaintiff, Eules Baker, sustained serious, including but not limited to, an oblique distal fibular fracture of his left ankle. 29. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro, Inc., Plaintiff, Eules Baker, has undergone physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his detriment and loss, physically, emotionally, and financially. 30. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro, Inc., Plaintiff, Eules Baker, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to his daily duties to his detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 31. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro, 8 Inc., Plaintiff, Eules Baker, has, and will in the future, suffer a loss of life's pleasures. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro, Inc., Plaintiff, Eules Baker, has suffered lost wages/income and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. 33. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro, Inc., Plaintiff, Eules Baker, has been compelled, in order to affect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention and will be required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to his detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, seeks damages from Defendant, Petro, Inc., in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT III - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM SILVIA BAKER v. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP 34. Paragraphs 1-33 are incorporated herein as fully set forth below. 35. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, the Plaintiff, Silvia Baker, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort from her husband, Eules Baker, and she will continue to suffer a similar loss in the future. 36. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, the Plaintiff, Silvia Baker, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for her husband's injuries, to spend money for medicine and medical attention and will be required to spend money for the same purposes in the future, to her great detriment 9 and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Silvia Baker, seeks damages from Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT IV - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM SILVIA BAKER v. PETRO, INC. 37. Paragraphs 1-36 are incorporated herein as fully set forth below. 38. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, Petro, Inc., the Plaintiff, Silvia Baker, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort from her husband, Eules Baker, and she will continue to suffer a similar loss in the future. 39. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, Petro, Inc., the Plaintiff, Silvia Baker, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for her husband's injuries, to spend money for medicine and medical attention and will be required to spend money for the same purposes in the future, to her great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Silvia Baker, seeks damages from Defendant, Petro, Inc., in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & OSENBERG, LLP By: Stephen G. Held I.D. # 72663 Attorney for Plaintiffs 10 Dec 05 07 03:30p 4235876207 p•1 VERIFICATION THE UNDERSIGNED hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing document are based on information that was gathered by counsel in preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the above-named document is of counsel and not my own. I have read the said document and, to the extent that it is based on information that I gave to counsel, it is true and correct to the hest of my knowledge, information, and belief. To the extent that the contents of the said document is that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in preparing this Verification. THE UNDERSIGNED also understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date:,,/,.) - 7 w i Eules Baker -6v oho t'> r- V r, r ? ? ? AJ LOA STEPHEN L. BANKO, JR., ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I. D. No. 41727 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 760-7501 FAX: (717) 975-8124 E-mail: sbankoP-margolisedelstein.com Attorney for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY EULES BAKER and SILVIA BAKER, his wife, DOCKET NO. 07-7423 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP JURY TRIAL DEMANDED and PETRO, INC., Defendants PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendants, Petro Stopping Centers, LP. and Petro, Inc., in the above-captioned matter. EDELSTEIN Date: By: ST N L. BAN KO, J R. Attorney for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on all counsel of record by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, I)n Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the 17 day of DIC 2007, and addressed as follows: Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) f,: Angel M. Gayman, ecr ary ? Cam., N ca srFP CK) STEPHEN L. BANKO, JR., ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I. D. No. 41727 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 760-7501 FAX: (717) 975-8124 E-mail: sbanko@margolisedelstein.com Attorney for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY EULES BAKER and SILVIA BAKER, his wife, DOCKET NO. 07-7423 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED and PETRO, INC., Defendants NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attomey for Plaintiffs You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. IS EDELSTEIN r J? Date: By: STI HUN V. BANKO, JR. Attorney for Defendants STEPHEN L. BANKO, JR., ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I. D. No. 41727 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 760-7501 FAX: (717) 975-8124 E-mail: sbanko(&margolisedelstein.com Attorney for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY EULES BAKER and SILVIA BAKER, his wife, DOCKET NO. 07-7423 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED and PETRO, INC., Defendants ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS, PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP and PETRO, INC. 1. Admitted in part and denied in part. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment concerning Plaintiffs' residence address and, therefore, such allegation is denied. 2. Admitted. 3. Denied as stated. At the current time, Petro, Inc. is no longer a viable corporate entity. However, it is believed and therefore averred that such inclusion of Petro, Inc. as a Defendant in this action is of no consequence because Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP ("Petro"), was the legal entity which owned, possessed 1 controlled and managed the location known as the Petro Stopping Center at 1179 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied. The Answer contained in paragraph 3 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. 6. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. To the extent that a response is deemed to be necessary, after reasonable investigation, Petro is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, they are denied. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Petro is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, they are denied. By way of further answer, some time after the alleged fall, Plaintiff informed an employee of Petro that he had fallen on his way back to the parking lot after having first used the restroom on the premises. 8. Denied as stated. With regard to any allegation that there was any ice or snow which created an unreasonable risk or hazard, after reasonable investigation, Petro is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, such allegations are denied. 9. Admitted in part and denied in part. The Answers contained in paragraphs 3 and 8 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 2 10. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. To the extent that an Answer is deemed to be required, the Answer contained in paragraph 8 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that there existed any condition for which Petro would be liable under Pennsylvania Law. 11. Denied. The Answers contained in paragraphs 7-10 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. By way of further answer, with regard to any allegation that Plaintiff fell while on the premises of Petro, after reasonable investigation, Petro is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said occurrence and, therefore, it is denied. COUNT I. - NEGLIGENCE EULES BAKER V. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS. LP 12. The Answers contained in paragraphs 1 through 11 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 13. Admitted. 14. Admitted. 15(a)-(i). Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. By way of further answer, the Answers contained in paragraphs 7-11 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 3 16. Denied. The Answers contained in paragraphs 11 and 15 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 17. Denied. The Answer contained in paragraph 16 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. By way of further answer, Petro is unable to admit or deny the characterization that any injury which Plaintiffs may have sustained, which Petro specifically denies is responsible therefore, was "serious." 18. Denied. The Answer contained in paragraph 17 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. By way of further answer, with regard to all other allegations of damages by Plaintiff contained in this paragraph, after reasonable investigation, Petro is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments and, therefore, they are denied. 19. Denied. The Answer contained in paragraph 18 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. 20. Denied. The Answer contained in paragraph 18 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. 21. Denied. The Answer contained in paragraph 18 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. 22. Denied. The Answer contained in paragraph 18 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs. 4 COUNT II. - NEGLIGENCE EULES BAKER V. PETRO, INC. 23. The Answers contained in paragraphs 1 through 22 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 24. Denied. The Answers contained in paragraphs 3 and 4 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 25. Denied. The Answer contained in paragraph 24 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. 26(a)-(I). Denied. The Answer contained in paragraph 24 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. 27-33. Denied. The Answer contained in paragraph 24 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Petro, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs. COUNT III. - LOSS OR CONSORTIUM SYLVIA BAKER V. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LLP. 34. The Answers contained in paragraphs 1 through 33 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 35. The Answers contained in paragraphs 7-11 and 15-22 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. By way of further answer, with regard to the allegation concerning the marital status of Sylvia Baker, after reasonable investigation, Petro is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averment and, therefore, they are denied. Accordingly, with 5 regard to any claim for damages on behalf of Plaintiff-Wife, after reasonable investigation, Petro is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments and, therefore, they are denied. 36. Denied. The Answer contained in paragraph 35 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs. COUNT IV. - LOSS OR CONSORTIUM SYLVIA BAKER V. PETRO, INC. 37. The Answers contained in paragraphs 1 through 36 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 38-39. Denied. The Answer contained in paragraph 24 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Petro, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs. NEW MATTER 40. The Answers contained in paragraphs 1 through 39 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 41. Plaintiffs' claims, if any, are or may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 42. Plaintiffs have failed to join indispensable parties to this action. 6 43. Plaintiffs' injuries, if any, were caused by individuals or entities not parties to this action. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Petro, Inc. and Petro Stopping Centers, LP., demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiffs. IS EDELSTEIN Date: ?- A By: $"T PEN L. BANKO, JR. Attorney for Defendants 7 VERIFICATION I, lCcu 4 ,n C cam , am of Petro Stopping Centers, LP. and I have read the foregoing Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint. The factual statements contained therein are known by me and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This statement and verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to - unsworn falsifications to authorities, which provides that, if I knowingly make false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. Date: i Aq Name CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on all counsel of record by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, J?--fWl a Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the day of YLli11 , 2008, and addressed as follows: Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) La YA. Angela M. Gayman, Secre a 8 C? N C7 c? ? -zt rr? ? i j _ :. ? ' "? =?. ??? -i i ????% . ?-.-- ? ttl , W --1 .. ?_? r ? t A Stephen G. Held, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 72663 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tele: (717) 238-2000 Fax: (717) 233-3029 HELDaHHRLAW.COM EULES BAKER and, SILVIA BAKER, his wife, Plaintiffs V. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP and PETRO, INC., Defendants PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT PETRO STOPPING CENTERS ET AL. AND NOW, comes the Plaintiffs, Eules Baker and Silvia Baler, by and through their attorneys, Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP, by Stephen Attorney for Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA NO.: 07-7423 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDE Held, Esquire, and answers Defendant's New Matter as follows: 40 This paragraph is one of incorporation to which no ponse is required. 41 The averments of this paragraph are a conclusion of to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, it is denied. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in any manner by the limitations. icable statute of 42. The averments of this paragraph are a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the a deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of ampl that Plaintiffs have failed to join indispensable partie ent may be n, it is denied 43. The averments of this paragraph are a conclusion of flaw to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, Plaintiff's injuries were caused by incident to the Defendant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs' demand judgment in their favor against Defendants. Respectfully submitted, 11 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP Date: ?A )MOX By: Ste . Held, Esqu' I.D. #72663 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO PA R.C.P. NO. 1024 (c) STEPHEN G. HELD, ESQUIRE, states that he is the atto foregoing document; that he makes this affidavit as an attorney, represents lacks sufficient knowledge or information upon which and/or because he has greater personal knowledge of the i of the party for whom he makes this affidavit; and that he has or the party filing the the party he make a verification and belief than that cient knowledge or information and belief, based upon his investigation of the matters a erred or denied in the foregoing document; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. \ IV Date. S E . HELD, ESQUIRE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct document upon all parties of counsel of record by depositing a py of the foregoing of the same in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class 'postage prepaid on February 25, 2008, addressed to the following: Stephen L. Banko, Jr., Esquire Margolis Edelstein 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Date: February 25, 2008 Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By G- Wd' Stephen G. Held, Esqu re I.D. No.: 72663 1300 Linglestown Roa Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff f"`3 C_.? ?.. r.:t:J .,,,,? -? ?s'} j i'1 ?- :- F?J ,? "! ._;- j"'- ?? ?'_ t i ? -?- _"" .vl ' .? _ M ?3 y SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2007-07423 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BAKER EULES ET AL VS PETRO STOPPING CENTERS LP R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT to wit: PETRO INC but was unable to locate Them deputized the sheriff of BEAVER in his bailiwick. He therefore serve the within COMPI ATNT F, 'NTnTTr7 County, Pennsylvania, to On March 7th , 2008 , this office was in receipt of t attached return from BEAVER Sheriff's Costs: So answers: Docketing 6.00 _ " --' Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 R Thomas Kline Dep Beaver County 50.00 Sheriff of Cumt5 rland County Postage .97 75.97 ? 31/.x/61 03/07/2008 HANDLER HENNING ROSENBERG Sworn and subscribe to before me this day of A.D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2007-07423 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BAKER EULES ET AL VS PETRO STOPPING CENTERS LP MARK CONKLIN Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPT,ATNTT 9, rTnrrTOU PETRO STOPPING CENTER LP was served upon the DEFENDANT , at 0835:00 HOURS, on the 13th day of December , 2007 at 1179 NAT?PT.c RTTUr 1-)TT,n1 CARLISLE, PA 17013 TRACEY KENNEDY, MANAGER by handing to ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTTr7 together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 311110.- 6 .- 18.00 4.80 .00 10.00 i .00 32.80 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day of So Answers: R. Thomas Kline P 03/09/2008 AENDLER HENNING ROSENBERG By. Dep y S eriff A. D. In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Eules Baker et al vs . r.11ER OFF S? V ED Petro Stopping Centers LP et al rjFFlrr SERVE: Petro Inc -z ifl. 7 DEC/ 7 N?.I? 2 07-7423 civil Now December 11, 2007 hereby deputize the Sheriff of Beaver q VFR C I, SHERIFF OF CWkP-&,AND COUNTY, PA, do deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. County to execute this Writ, this Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Please mlil return of service to Cumberland County Sheriff. Thank you. Affidavit of Service Now, within upon at by handing to a , and made known to 20 , at o'clock M. served the copy of the, original the contents thereof. So answers, Sheriff of Sworn and subscribed before me this day of 20 COSTS SERVICE $ MILEAGE AFFIDAVIT County, PA CASE NO: 2007-07423 T COMMONTWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF BEAVER EULES BAKER ET AL VS PETRO STOPPING CENTERS LP ETAL JAMES A MANN Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT to wit: PETRO INC ETAL ' but unable to locate Them in his bailiwick. He therefore returns the was COMPLAINT NOT FOUND , as to the within named DEFENDANT PETRO INC ' ETAL 2407 DUSS AVENUE AMBRIDGE, PA 15003 DEPUTY SPOKE TO JOHN PROVICH WHO HAS OWNED THIS BUILDING FOR 30 YRS & HAS NEVER HEARD OF DEFT, ADDRESS IS APT BUILD o answers: • Sheriff's Costs. Gf:wDocketing 00 Service 50.00 eorge avi eri .00 Surcharge .00 By: Affidavit ?.t •gitiy?,. .00 QUO- epu eri ATTY Sworn and subscribed to before1me17/2007 this 1 day oft A.D. o ary SHERIFF'S RETURN - NOT FOUND .'NERlFF SI ? D FFICE i?97 DEC I ? P 12. `AV ER COIJNT r f WM CO" FROM RECORD 1" T whelW, I here unto set my hm end t4 $0 of said Court at cure, Pa. Stephen G. Held, Esquire y +°? I.D.#72663 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: Held@HHRLaw.com EULES BAKER and SILVIA BAKER, his wife, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP and PETRO, INC. Defendants NO. 07- 74013 : CIVIL ACTION -LAW NOTICE 10,16 ( -Fe,*, 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, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. 4 i{f qvmmw? Lawyer Referral Service 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar acci6n dentro de los pr6ximos veinte (20) dias despu6s de la notificaci6n de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar acci6n como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamaci6n o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. Lawyer Referral Service 4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By: Stephen G. Held, Esquire Stephen G. Held, Esq. I.D.#72663 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: Held HHRLaw corn EULES BAKER and SILVIA BAKER, his wife, Plaintiffs V. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP and PETRO, INC., Defendants . NO. CIVIL ACTION -LAW COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Eules Baker and Silvia Baker, his wife, by and through their attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, by Stephen Held, Esquire, who brings forth this Complaint against Defendants Petro Stopping Centers, LP and Petro, Inc., and aver as follows: 1. Plaintiffs, Eules Baker and Silvia Baker, are adult individuals residing at 639 Garden Walk Boulevard, Apt. 1731, College Park, Georgia 30349. 2. Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, is a corporation registered to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with its corporate office located at 6080 Surety Drive, El Paso, Texas 79905. 3. Defendant, Petro, Inc., is a corporation registered to do business in the Attorney for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA 1 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a registered office located at 2407 Duss Avenue, Ambridge, Pennsylvania 15003. 4. At all times material hereto Petro Stopping Centers, LP, was in ownership, possession, management, and control of the Premises located at and known as Petro Stopping Center, 1179 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 5. At all times material hereto Petro, Inc., was in ownership, possession, management, and control of the Premises located at and known as Petro Stopping Center, 1179 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 6. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, was an invitee upon said Premises. 7. On or about December 11, 2005, Claimant was parked in the bobtail lot on the Premises. Claimant exited his truck to use the restroom on the premises when he slipped and fell on snow and ice that had been allowed to accumulate on the Premises. 8. At all times material hereto, there were no signs, cones, or other warning devices regarding the snow and/or ice. 9. At all times material hereto, Defendants, who had exclusive control of said Premises, allowed snow and/or ice to accumulate on the bobtail parking lot surface without any warning signs or postings. 10. At all times material hereto, Defendants either knew, or should have known through a reasonable inspection of the premises, that snow and ice had accumulated on the bobtail parking lot creating a dangerous condition. 11. On or about December 11, 2005, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, was walking 2 through the bobtail parking lot on the Premises after using the public restroom. While crossing the bobtail parking lot, Plaintiff was caused to slip and fall on snow and ice accumulation, causing personal injuries to the Plaintiff. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE EULES BAKER v. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP 12. Paragraphs 1 - 11 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 13. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, believes and therefore avers that Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, was in possession, management, and control of the Premises and was responsible for maintaining the safe condition of the property known as Petro Stopping Center, 1179 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 14. At all times material hereto Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, assumed the duty to provide reasonably safe parking lots for all individuals who were patronizing the Premises at Petro Stopping Center, 1179 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 15. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to Plaintiff, Eules Baker, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, by its agents, servants, workmen or employees, acting in the scope of their authority and employment, generally and more specifically as set forth below: (a) In causing or permitting snow and ice accumulation on said Premises to remain, thereby posing an unreasonable risk of injury 3 to the Plaintiff and to other persons lawfully upon the premises; (b) In causing or permitting snow and ice accumulation to remain without a warning when Defendant knew or should have known of the likelihood that the snow and ice accumulation could cause injury; (c) In failing to make a reasonable inspection of said Premises which would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition posed by the snow and ice accumulation, and thereby allowing the same to be and remain a dangerous condition when the Defendant knew or should have known of it; (d) In failing to ensure the bobtail parking lot of said Premises was maintained in a safe condition to prevent injury to the Plaintiff and other persons lawfully upon the Premises; (e) In failing to post a warning sign or device in the area to notify of the dangerous condition of the snow and ice accumulation on said Premises; (f) In failing to remedy the snow and ice accumulation on said Premises so as to avoid the situation in which the Plaintiff fell; (g) In failing to maintain the bobtail parking lot of the Premises in a reasonably safe condition that would prevent Eules Baker from slipping and falling due to the accumulation of ice and snow. (h) In failing to insist upon necessary safety precautions as part of the contract of employment with the individuals or entities performing 4 snow and/or ice removal-work at the Premises; and (i) In failing to exercise with reasonable care the control retained over the individuals or entities performing snow and/or ice removal work at the Premises; 16. Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, had actual knowledge or should have known through the exercise of ordinary care and diligence that there was snow and ice accumulation on the bobtail parking lot where Plaintiff, Eules Baker, fell. 17. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, sustained serious, including but not limited to, an oblique distal fibular fracture of his left ankle. 18. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, has undergone physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his detriment and loss, physically, emotionally, and financially. 19. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to his daily duties to his detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 20. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, has, and will in the future, suffer a loss of life's pleasures. 21. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, has suffered lost wages/income and will in 5 the future continue to suffer a loss of income-and/or loss of earning capacity. 22. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, has been compelled, in order to affect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention and will be required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to his detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, seeks damages from Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE EULES BAKER v. PETRO, INC. 23. Paragraphs 1 - 22 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 24. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, believes and therefore avers that Defendant, Petro, Inc., was in possession, management, and control of the Premises and was responsible for maintaining the safe condition of the property known as Petro Stopping Center, 1179 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 25. At all times material hereto Defendant, Petro, Inc., assumed the duty to provide reasonably safe parking lots for all individuals who were patronizing the Premises at Petro Stopping Center, 1179 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 26. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to Plaintiff, Eules Baker, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of 6 Defendant, Petro, Inc., by its agents, servants, workmen or employees, acting in the scope of their authority and employment, generally and more specifically as set forth below: (a) In causing or permitting snow and ice accumulation on said Premises to remain, thereby posing an unreasonable risk of injury to the Plaintiff and to other persons lawfully upon the premises; (b) In causing or permitting snow and ice accumulation to remain without a warning when Defendant knew or should have known of the likelihood that the snow and ice accumulation could cause injury; (c) In failing to make a reasonable inspection of said Premises which would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition posed by the snow and ice accumulation, and thereby allowing the same to be and remain a dangerous condition when the Defendant knew or should have known of it; (d) In failing to ensure the bobtail parking lot of said Premises was maintained in a safe condition to prevent injury to the Plaintiff and other persons lawfully upon the Premises; (e) In failing to post a warning sign or device in the area to notify of the dangerous condition of the snow and ice accumulation on said Premises; (f) In failing to remedy the snow and ice accumulation on said Premises so as to avoid the situation in which the Plaintiff fell; 7 (g) In failing to maintain the bobtail parking lot of the Premises in a reasonably safe condition that would prevent Eules Baker from slipping and falling due to the accumulation of ice and snow. (h) In failing to insist upon necessary safety precautions as part of the contract of employment with the individuals or entities performing snow and/or ice removal work at the Premises; and (i) In failing to exercise with reasonable care the control retained over the individuals or entities performing snow and/or ice removal work at the Premises; 27. Defendant, Petro, Inc., had actual knowledge or should have known through the exercise of ordinary care and diligence that there was snow and ice accumulation on the bobtail parking lot where Plaintiff, Eules Baker, fell. 28. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro, Inc., Plaintiff, Eules Baker, sustained serious, including but not limited to, an oblique distal fibular fracture of his left ankle 29. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro, Inc., Plaintiff, Eules Baker, has undergone physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and he will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to his detriment and loss, physically, emotionally, and financially. 30. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro, Inc., Plaintiff, Eules Baker, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to his daily duties to his detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 31. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro, 8 Inc., Plaintiff, Eules Baker, has, and will in the future, suffer a loss of life's pleasures. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro, Inc., Plaintiff, Eules Baker, has suffered lost wages/income and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. 33. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro, Inc., Plaintiff, Eules Baker, has been compelled, in order to affect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention and will be required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to his detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, seeks damages from Defendant, Petro, Inc., in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT III - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM SILVIA BAKER v. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP 34. Paragraphs 1-33 are incorporated herein as fully set forth below. 35. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, the Plaintiff, Silvia Baker, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort from her husband, Eules Baker, and she will continue to suffer a similar loss in the future. 36. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, the Plaintiff, Silvia Baker, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for her husband's injuries, to spend money for medicine and medical attention and will be required to spend money for the same purposes in the future, to her great detriment 9 v and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Silvia Baker, seeks damages from Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT IV - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM SILVIA BAKER v. PETRO, INC. 37. Paragraphs 1-36 are incorporated herein as fully set forth below. 38. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, Petro, Inc., the Plaintiff, Silvia Baker, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort from her husband, Eules Baker, and she will continue to suffer a similar loss in the future. 39. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, Petro, Inc., the Plaintiff, Silvia Baker, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for her husband's injuries, to spend money for medicine and medical attention and will be required to spend money for the same purposes in the future, to her great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Silvia Baker, seeks damages from Defendant, Petro, Inc., in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING & OSENBERG, LLP By: Stephen G. Held I . D. # 72663 Attorney for Plaintiffs 10 v Dec 05 07 03:30p 4235876207 VERIFICATION THE UNDERSIGNED hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing p.1 document are based on information that was gathered by counsel in preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the above-named document is of counsel and not my own. I have read the said document and, to the extent that it is based on information that I gave to counsel, it is true and correct to the hest of my knowledge: information, and belief. To the extent that the contents of the said document is that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in preparing this Verification. THE UNDERSIGNED also understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.R.C.P. 2252(d) C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date:,i2 - S v -7 Eules Baker STEPHEN L. BANKO, JR., ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I. D. No. 41727 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 760-7501 FAX: (717) 975-8124 F-m2il• ahankndtDmamnlisadalsttein_rnm Attorney for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY EULES BAKER and SILVIA BAKER, his wife, DOCKET NO. 07-7423 Plaintiffs V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP and PETRO, INC., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants y '14 1 pet `.. 1. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint on or about December 5, 2007. 2. Plaintiffs allege that on December 11, 2005, they were injured and suffered damages as a result of a fall suffered by Plaintiff-Husband at the Petro Stopping Center on the Harrisburg Pike, Middlesex Township, PA. 3. On or about January 21, 2008, Defendants served upon counsel for Plaintiffs, written Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. A copy of said Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents are attached hereto, incorporated herein by reference and marked as Exhibits A and B, respectively. 4. With regard to Interrogatories, Pa. R.C.P. No. 4006(a)(2) provides in pertinent part that: The answering party shall serve a copy of the 1 answers and objections, if any, within thirty days after service of the interrogatories. 5. Similarly, with respect to Requests for Production of Documents, Pa. R.C.P. No. 4009.12 provides that: The party upon whom the request [for production] is served shall within thirty days after the service of the request (1) serve the answer including objections to each numbered paragraph in the request; and (2) produce or make available to the parties submitting the request those documents and things described in the request to which there is no objection. 6. Five (5) months have elapsed since Defendants served the written Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents upon Plaintiffs and, to date, Plaintiffs have not served written verified answers to the Interrogatories nor have they served a verified written Response to the Request for Production of Documents or provided documents in response thereto. 7. Defendants are unable to prepare a defense to this'action without Plaintiffs providing full and complete written and verified answers to the discovery requests. 8. Pa. R.C.P. No. 4019 provides that: (a)(1) The court may, on motion, make an appropriate order if: (i) a party fails to serve answers, sufficient answers or objections to written interrogatories under Rule 4005; (vii) a party, in response to a request for production or inspection made under Rule 4009, fails to response to that inspection will 2 be permitted as requested or fails to permit inspection as requested. 9. Plaintiffs are represented by Stephen G. Held, Esquire, Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP, 1300 Linglestown Road, Harrisburg, PA 17110, telephone number (717)238-2000, fax number (717)233-3029. 10. Defendants are represented by Stephen L. Banko, Jr., Esquire, Margolis Edelstein, 3510 Trindle Road, Camp Hill, PA 17011, telephone number (71117)760-7501, fax number (717)975-8124. 11. By letter dated April 23, 2008, counsel for Defendants informed Plaintiffs' counsel that absent receipt of full and complete verified answers to the discovery within thirty (30) days, a Motion to Compel Discovery would be filed. A copy of said letter is attached hereto, incorporated herein by reference and marked as Exhibit C. 12. On June 13, 2008, in response to an electronic mail message seeking concurrence in a Motion to Compel Discovery, counsel for Plaintiffs stated that he did not object to the Motion. A copy of said electronic mail message is attached hereto, incorporated herein by reference and marked as Exhibit D. 13. No Judge has been assigned to this matter and there have been no prior rulings on any issue in this case. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Petro Stopping Centers, LP and Petro, Inc., pray this Honorable Court enter an Order pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 4019 compelling Plaintiffs to serve full and verified Answers to Interrogatories and a verified written Response to Request for Production of Documents within thirty (30) days of the date of said Order or face appropriate sanctions upon motion of Defendants. 3 Date: 621OW MAR LIS DELSTEIN By: ST&PAA L. BANKO, JR. Attorney for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on all counsel of record by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, Qo Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the v day of , 2008, and addressed as follows: Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Angela M. Cayman, Secret 5 STEPHEN L BANKO, JR., ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I. D. No. 41727 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 760-7501 FAX: (717) 975-8124 Attorney for Defendants E-mail: sbanko®maroolisedelstein.com IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY EULES BAKER and SILVIA BAKER, his wife, DOCKET NO. 07-7423 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP JURY TRIAL DEMANDED and PETRO, INC., Defendants TO: Eules Baker and Silvia Baker, his wife, Plaintiffs c% Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handier, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Plaintiffs PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that you are hereby required pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure No. 4005 to serve upon the undersigned within thirty (30) days from service hereof your answers in writing and under oath to the following Interrogatories. These Interrogatories shall be deemed to be continuing Interrogatories. If, between the time of your answers to said Interrogatories and the time of the trial of this case, you or anyone acting on your behalf learns the identity and whereabouts of any other witnesses not identified in your said answers, or if you obtain or become aware of additional requested information not supplied in your answers, you shall promptly furnish the same to the undersigned by supplemental answers. MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN Date: ?i L ?)" By: Q V S n . Banko, Jr. Attor ey I.D. No. 41727 Counsel for Defendants -2- DEFINITIONS As used in these Interrogatories, the words and terms set forth below shall be defined as follows: (a) "Person" has its customary broad meaning and shall also include any human being, corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship, unincorporated' association, joint venture, or any other organization or entity. (b) "Identify" or "identity" when referring to an individual means to state his/her: (1) full name; (2) social security number; (3) present address; (4) . present home telephone number; (5) present business address; and, (6) present business telephone number. (c) "Identify" or "identity" when referring to a document means to: (1) state the type of document (e.g_ record, report, letter, memoranda, telegram, chart, photograph), its date, its title (if any), its identifying number, a generalized summary of the subject matter of the contents of the document, and its present location; and, (2) identify each person who prepared it, each person for whom it was prepared, each person to whom--it-was sent, and each person who presently has custody of the original or copies thereof. (d) "Identify" or "identity" when referring to a claim, action or other legal proceeding, means to set forth the name of the court or other tribunal involved with the legal proceeding, the date on which the legal proceeding was commenced and the docket -3- number or other index number assigned by the tribunal to identify the legal proceeding.. (e) "Describe", "specify", and/or "state" shall mean to set forth fully and unambiguously, using professional words of art if necessary, each and every fact relevant to the matter requested by the Interrogatory. (f) "Document" includes any written, recorded or graphic matter however produced or reproduced including but not limited to correspondence, telegrams, other written communications, contracts, agreements, notes, reports, records, x-rays, memoranda, photographs, tape recordings or any other writing, including copies of any of the foregoing presently or previously in your possession, custody or control. (g) "Statement" includes any written statement signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the person making it. It includes the stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other method of recording or a transcription thereof which is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement by the person making it and contemporaneously recorded. (h) "Incident" means, unless otherwise indicated, the incident that gives rise to this action. -4- 1. Please identify yourself and state your date and place of birth, your marital status at the time of the incident which forms the basis of this action, your present social security, number, Medicare and/or Medicaid numbers, your Blue Cross and Blue Shield group number and agreement number and, .if you were ever in the Armed Forces, please state the dates, the branch of service; your rank at discharge, whether you had any infirmities at discharge, whether you have any claim or are receiving benefits for any infirmities from said service, your Identification service number and your Veterans "C" number. -5- 2. If you suffered or were examined for any injury, illness, disease or abnormality within the ten (10) years prior to the incident upon which this action is based, specify the nature of each such injury, illness, disease or abnormality, when, where and how each such injury, illness, disease or abnormality was sustained, and the names and address of all.medical personnel and medical care facilities having any connection with the treatment of each such injury, illness, disease or abnormality, the nature of such treatment and the date upon which such treatment was rendered. -6- 3. If you suffered or were examined for any injury, illness, disease or abnormality of any kind at any time prior to the incident upon- which this action is based involving any part or function of the body claimed to have been injured in the incident which constitutes the basis of this action, specify the nature of each such injury, illness, disease. or abnormality, when, where and how each such injury, illness, disease or abnormality was sustained, and the names and addresses of all medical personnel and all medical facilities in any way connected with the treatment of each such injury, illness, disease or abnormality, the nature of such treatment and each date upon which such treatment was rendered. -7- 4. If you have ever asserted a claim or filed suit for any purpose including, without limitation, a claim for injury, damage, property damage, or disability, workmen's compensation or occupational disease to obtain benefits, identify the claim or suit, the nature of the injuries alleged in each such suit, the period during which you were disabled, and, if said suit has been terminated, state the results of the trial or settlement, including the amounts of each recovery or settlement, if any. -8- 5. State the name and address of your family physician at the time of the incident upon which this action is based, the approximate number of visits made in the year preceding said treatment and the reason for each such visit. -9- 6. State in detail what injuries you claim you sustained as a result of the incident upon which this action is based, the dates confined to bed by your injuries, the dates confined to your house by your injuries, the date you recovered from each particular injury and if you are not fully recovered, please describe in what respect you are still affected by your injuries, disabilities and complaints. -10- 7. If you claim a permanent injury resulting from the incident upon which this action is based, describe such injury fully and in detail and the treatment you have received and the treatment you are currently receiving for such residual injury or disability, including the identity of all medical personnel presently involved in your treatment, where such treatment is being rendered, the nature of the treatment and how frequently such treatments are given. -11- 8. State the names and addresses of all medical facilities in which you have been confined or through which you have received outpatient treatment as a result of your injuries, the dates of each such confinement or treatment, the general nature of the treatment in each, the charges for same, and the amount that has been paid. -12- 9. State the names and addresses of all medical personnel who have rendered treatment or service to you because of the injuries referred to in your answers to Interrogatories Nos. 6 and 7, the dates of such treatment or service, where such treatment or service was rendered, the general nature of each treatment or service, the charges for each treatment or service, and the amount that has been paid as to each. -13- 10. Identify all medical personnel who were consulted by you in connection with the incident upon which this action is based or the injuries you claim to have resulted from said incident, and state, when, where and for what purpose each such person was consulted. -14- 11. State your contentions as to the liability of each defendant as well as the specific facts known to you upon which you base each claim of negligence alleged in this action. -15- 12. If you have received any medical, hospital or x-ray reports from any medical facility or medical personnel concerning the injuries alleged to have been caused by the incident upon which this action is based, identify such report, where and when each report was received, the person from whom each report was received, the person who has custody or possession of each report or any copy thereof, and whether each report was written or oral. -16- 13. Identify all individuals, insurance adjusters, attorneys, parties or others who have conducted any investigation or review of medical or legal literature with respect to the issues involved in this case and whether you will produce or have produced at a mutually convenient place and time the results of the investigation (without disclosing the mental impressions of the party's attorney or his conclusions, opinion, memoranda, notes or summaries, legal research or legal theories or, with respect to the representative of the party, without disclosing his mental impressions, conclusions or opinions respecting the value or merit of the claim or defense or respecting strategy or tactics). -17- 14. If you have obtained from any person any oral or written statements or documents concerning the incident upon which this action is based or if you have given any such statements or documents to anyone, specify the identity of each such person, when, where and by whom each such statement or document was obtained or made, whether each such statement or document was oral or written and. the identity of the person who has custody, or possession of each such statement or document. -18- 15. If the injuries you allege in this action were caused in whole or in part by sickness, disease, abnormality or injury other than the injuries you claim resulted from the incident upon which this action is based, specify the nature of each such sickness, disease, abnormality or injury and how each affected you, whether there are any medical, x-ray, hospital or other reports which indicate the nature of each such sickness, disease, abnormality or injury and how each affected you and, if so, state where and when each such report was made, the identity of the person who made each such report, each person who has custody or possession of each such report and whether you have been furnished any such information in any way other than by the documents referred to in this Interrogatory and, if so, how, when, where and by whom. -19- 16. Describe any conversations, whether held in person or using any device of communication, between or among any defendant and any other person pertaining to the subject matter of this action by stating the date, time and place of each such conversation and exactly what was said by each person privy to each conversation if you can, and if you cannot, summarize as accurately as you can each such conversation. -20- 17. If you or anyone to your knowledge are in possession of any photographs, drawings, sketches, plans, documents or blueprints relating to the subject matter of this action, including, but not limited to, the area involved in the incident upon which this action is based, the local or surrounding area of this site of said incident, the injuries you allege in this action, or any other matter or thing involved in the incident, state the date each such photograph, drawing, sketch, plan, document or blueprint was taken or prepared, the name and address of the party taking or making it, where it was taken or made, the object(s) or subject(s) or the particular site or view it represents, its present whereabouts and the name and address of the person who has possession or custody of each or any copy or print thereof. -21- 18. Identify all persons who you know or believe witnessed all or any part of the incident upon which this action is based, were present at or near or within the sight or hearing of the scene of the incident upon which this action is based and/or has any knowledge of the injuries you claim to have resulted from said !incident. -22- 19. With respect to each of the persons named in your answer to the preceding Interrogatory, state his exact location at the time of said incident or other relevant time and the activity in which he was engaged at the time of said incident or other relevant time. -23- 20. Identify any and all fact witnesses who have any knowledge whatsoever pertaining to the issues involved in the instant case, as well as any and all potential witnesses or individuals whom you may call at trial and who have not heretofore been identified, including the name, place and manner of contact between the potential witness and the parties, the substance of facts to which the witness could testify if called by any party, and method of discovery of the potential witnesses, the purpose of the witness' testimony (if applicable) and whether any statement or summary or written memoranda has been taken with respect to the potential witness and if so, who has possession of that statement or document at the present time. (Please attach a copy of the same without the necessity of filing a formal request for production of documents). -24- 21. Identify all other witnesses other than those identified in the foregoing Interrogatories who you will call to testify at trial and with respect to each such witness, summarize all of the testimony they will offer. -25- 22. Please specify the damages you claim by itemizing lost earnings, loss of earning capacity, all medical expenses, expenses incurred for rehabilitation and custodial care, future losses and all other elements of special damage. -26- 23. If you sustained any financial loss as a result of the incident upon which this action is based, other than those covered by the preceding Interrogatories, specify the nature, dates and amounts of such losses; and if a claim is being made for nursing service or household help, identify each such person employed, the period of employment, the amounts of the charges for the services, the amounts actually paid and whether you have retained any bills, canceled checks or copies thereof reflecting such charges. -27- 24. If you have no claim for loss of earnings or earning power, do not answer this or the following five Interrogatories and merely state "no claim". If, during the five years preceding the incident which is the subject matter of this action, you were employed by another, please state, for that five year period, the name and address of each employer, the job title or classification of your work for each employer, the dates of your employment with each employer, the amount of salary or wages received from each employer during each calendar year, the weekly, monthly or annual wage or rate of pay received from each employer, and the exact weekly, monthly or annual wage or rate of pay being received from your employer at the time of said incident. -28- 25. If, during the five years preceding the incident upon which this action is based, you were engaged in a business as a partner with others, identify each of the other partners or associates, the name and address of the partnership, the type of business engaged in by the partnership, the dates during which such partnership or association operated, and the exact amount of income and other benefits distributed to you from the partnership for each of the five years,, stating specifically the income during each year and the amount received during the last calendar year in which the incident occurred up to the time thereof. -29- 26. If, during the five years preceding the incident, upon which this action is based, you were self-employed, identify the business, the nature of the business, and your exact income, gross and net, from the business for each of the five years stating specifically the income during each year and the income earned during the calendar year in which the incident occurred up to the time thereof. -30- 27. For the five years prior to the incident which constitutes the basis for this action and for each of the years since that date, state the name in which your federal income tax return was filed, your gross income, adjusted taxable net income, and for each such year, the aggregate gross income stated on W-2 forms attached to your federal income tax return; if you did not file a federal income tax return, supply the requested information as contained on your state and local income tax returns. -31- 28. If you claim that you were unable to work as a result of the incident upon which this action is based, specify the dates you were unable to work and the reasons you were unable to work. -32- 29. If you claim that you have not been able to perform your work satisfactorily as a result of the incident upon which this action is based, specify the dates you were unable to perform, the duties you were unable to perform, the manner in which you were prevented from performing those duties, and the identity of all persons having knowledge of same including your supervisors or employers. -33- 30. Identify any insurance company, association, exchange or benefit society or groups which have paid any health, sickness, incident, medical, disability or life insurance benefits arising out of the incident which forms the basis of this action, specify the amount and dates of such payments and specify the nature and extent of any subrogation interest claimed or asserted. -34- 31. If your claim in this action is based in whole or in part upon expert opinion, please identify each and every expert you. expect to call at trial, his profession or occupation, the subject matter upon which the expert will testify, the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert will testify, a summary of the grounds for each opinion of the expert, the date upon which you first contacted the expert, the author, title, date and publisher of any article, text, part of a text, treatise, paper, speech, or any other source of medical information upon which the expert will rely in expressing his opinion and identify all claims or actions in which such person has served as an expert witness. -35- 32. For each expert identified in the previous Interrogatory, please state the expert's age, present professional affiliations and employment, prior educational background, the titles and dates of publication of any article, text, part of a text, treatise, paper or speech authored by the expert or to which the expert contributed. -36- 33. Specify all educational and training institutions which you attended including the dates of attendance, degrees awarded and the reasons for leaving if no degree was awarded. -37- 34. Prior to the occurrences alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint, did any person, including but not limited to the Plaintiff or Defendant, observe the alleged defect or defective condition? -38- 35. If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is in the affirmative, please identify such person and state: a. When such person first observed or had notice of the defective condition or situation giving the date and time; and b. All actions taken by such person at the time of such notice or observation to correct, remedy or notify Defendant of such alleged defective condition or situation. MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN Date: 1 '0 A By: STO-Wid# L. Sanko, Jr., Esquire Att ne No. 41727 Counsel for Defendants -39- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on all counsel of record by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the day of ? , 2008, and addressed as follows: Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) 1 11 flo A/ 7y) bf?, a VkAA it An ela 01. Gayman, S retary ?{tik STEPHEN L BANKO, JR., ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I. D. No. 41727 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 760-7501 FAX: (717) 875-8124 Attorney for Defendants E-mail: sbankoiRmaroolisedelstein.com IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY EULES BAKER and SILVIA BAKER, his wife, DOCKET NO. 07-7423 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP JURY TRIAL DEMANDED and PETRO, INC., Defendants TO: Eules Baker and Silvia Baker, his wife, Plaintiffs cto Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Plaintiffs Pursuant to Rule 4009 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants, Petro Stopping Centers, LP and Petro, Inc., request that Plaintiffs produce the documents hereinafter described and permit Defendants, through their attorneys to inspect them and copy such of them as they may desire. Defendants request that the documents be made available for this inspection at the offices of Defendants' attorney located at 3510 Trindle Road, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, within thirty (30) days of the date of service hereof. Defendants' attorneys will be responsible for these documents as long as they are in their possession. Copying will be done at Defendants' expense and the documents will be properly returned after copying has been completed. This request is intended to cover all documents in the. possession, custody and control of Plaintiffs, their agents, employees, insurance carriers and attorneys and is considered to be continuing. Plaintiffs' response to the Request should be modified or supplemented as Plaintiffs, and/or their attorneys obtain further additional documents up to the time of trial. Requested documents are more particularly itemized and described as follows: 1. Produce a true and correct copy of any and all investigative reports, test results, summaries, records, drawings, sketches or photographs of the incident involved in the above-referenced case, or in any way pertaining to the events surrounding it, or in any way pertaining to the facts which will be adduced by and on behalf of Plaintiffs at the trial of this case. 2. Produce true and correct copies of all statements, or memoranda of statements, of any and all persons who will be called as a witness at the trial of this case. 3. Produce true and correct copies of all statements or memoranda of statements, of any party, his/her agent, or employees, concerning the subject matter of this case and the events surrounding it. 4. Produce true and correct copies of the report of any expert retained by you and/or your attorney in connection with this case. 5. Produce the curriculum vitae of your expert witnesses and a list of all of their publications. -2- 6. Produce any and all other documents prepared by each expert identified together with all correspondence between said expert and you and/or your agent, attorney or anyone acting on your behalf. 7. Produce any and all documents or papers of any kind which would have any probative value on Plaintiffs' behalf in connection with this case, or which will be introduced at the trial of this case. 8. Produce any and all medical bills, reports, hospital reports, hospital charts, physician's reports, x-ray reports and all medical bills concerning the injuries and damages allegedly sustained by the Plaintiffs which pertain to the claims made in this case. Date: I q,01 0 b By: Attorney I.D. No. 41727 Counsel for Defendants OLIS EDELSTEIiN S4pn L Banko Jr. -3- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on all counsel of record by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the day of 2008, and addressed as follows: Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) w A ?A Angela . Gayman, Secr ary =STATELEGAL' KU-222-510 Yea Wd'ter. Stephen L. Banko, Jr., Esquire"' ' Direct Dial: (717)760-7501 E-Mail: sbanko?maroOlisedelstein corn ATTORNEYS AT LAW www.margolisedelstein.Com April 23, 2008 HARRISBURG OFFICE:* 3510 TmnDta ROAD CAMr HILL, PA 17011 Stephen G. Held, Esquire 717-975-9114 Handler, Henning & Rosenberg LLP FAX 717-975-8124 , 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 PHILADELPHIA OFFICE:* THE CURns CENTER, 4TH FLOOR 601 WALNUT STREET Re: Baker and Baker v. Petro Stopping Centers et al INDEPENDENCE SQUARE WEST Cumberland CCP• 07-7423 PHILADELPHIA, PA 191063304 Our File No 82368 4-00002 215-922-1100 . . FAX 215-922-1772 PITTSBURGH OFFICE: Dear Steve: 525 WILLIAM PENN PLACE SUITE 3300 PITTSBURGH, PA 15219 The purpose of this letter is twofold. By letter dated February 25, 412-281-4256 2008, you y asked whether we could stipulate to the correct identity of the FAX 412-642-2380 parties to make the matter more streamline. I wrote to you on March 4, SCRANTON OFFICE: 2008, agreeing that a stipulation would be in order and requesting that 220 PENN AVENUE you draft the stipulation and forward it to me for consideration by my SUITE 305 SCRANTON. PA 18503 client and me. Thus far, I have not received this document. Please 570-342-4231 prepare the stipulation at your earliest convenience FAX 570-342-4841 . CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE: Second, and more importantly, under cover dated January 21, P.O. BOX 628 2008, 1 served upon you as counsel for Plaintiffs written Interrogatories 80 4L-L6195-55064 G, PA 16646 and a Request for Production of Documents. To date, I have not FAX 814-695-5066 received your clients' responses to these discovery requests. I would like SOUTH NEW JERSEY OFFICE:* to avoid the costs and unpleasantries associated with ) motions practice. SENTRY OFFICE PLAZA However, if I do not receive full and complete verified Answe s t th 216 HADDON AVENUE, 2ND FLOOR P O B 9 22 r o e Interrogatories and a verified Response to the Request for Production of . . OX 2 2 WESTMONr, NJ 08108 Documents within thirty (30) d0-y$ of the date of this letter I will have no 858-858-7200 other alternative but to file a Motion to C l Di FAX 856-858-1017 ompe scovery. NORTH NEW JERSEY OFFICE: CONNELL CORPORATE CENTER THREE HUNDRED CONNELL DRIVE SUITE 6200 BERKELEY HEIGHTS, NJ 07922 908-790-1401 FAX 908-790-1486 DELAWARE OFFICE: 760 SOUTH MADISON STREET SUITE 102 r WILMINGTON, DE 19801 302-888-1112 FAX 302-888-1119 Should you have any questions regarding this. Matter, please feel free to contact me. SLBJr./amg Jr. MEMBER OF THE HARMOW GROUP ?. ` Steve Banko - Re: Baker v. Petro Stopping Centers CLAIM NUMBER [106-0144-BI-01 MEFiie No. 82368.4-00002 Page 1 From: "Stephen G. Held" <held@hhrlaw.com> To: <SBanko@margolisedelstein.com> Date: 6/13/2008 3:11:17 PM Subject: Re: Baker v. Petro Stopping Centers CLAIM NUMBER 06-0144-BI-01 MEFile No. 82368.4-00002 I do not object - we sent the discovery to our client and I have been trying to get responses back from him. No response. I do not know what the problem is, but you are entitled to answers. Very truly yours, Stephen G. Held, Esq Handler, Henning & Rosenberg 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Held@HHRLaw.com This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by replying to Held@HHRLaw.com,and deleting the message. Thank you very much. --- Original Message --- From: Steve Banko [SBanko@margolisedelstein.com] To: Held@HHRLaw.com Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 06:13 pm Subject: Dear Steve; On 4/23/08, 1 wrote to you concerning a Stipulation to Amend the Caption and concerning your clients' long overdue discovery answers. Next week, I intend to file a Motion to Compel Discovery which will ask for an order with the following language: AND NOW, this day of , 2008, upon consideration of the Motion of Steve Banko - Re: Baker v. Petro Stopping Centers CLAIM NUMBER F06-0144-BI-01 MEFile No. 82368.4-00002 Page 2 Defendant, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED that Plaintiffs shall provide full and complete answers to Interrogatories and a written response to the Request for Production of Documents served upon them on within thirt (30) days of the date hereof, or face appropriate sanctions upon motion of Defendants. BY THE COURT: J. Do you concur? Stephen L. Banko, Jr Certified As A Civil Trial Advocate By The National Board of Trial Advocacy A Pennsylvania Supreme Court Accredited Agency 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 General Office No. (717) 975-8114 Fax (717) 975-8124 Direct Dial (717) 760-7501 sbanko@margolisedelstein.com Margolis Edelstein: www.margolisedelstein.com OFFICES THROUGHOUT PENNSYLVANIA, NEW JERSEY, AND DELAWARE CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic message from the law firm of Steve Banko - Re: Baker v. Petro Stopping Centers CLAIM NUMBERi X06-0144-13I-01 MEFile No. 82368 4-00002 Page 3' Margolis Edelstein contains confidential information intended solely for the use of the individual(s) and/or entity(ies) to whom and/ or which it is addressed. This message may also contain information subject to the attorney-client privilege, the joint-defense privilege, the settlement privilege, the work-product doctrine, or other privileges or immunities. No waiver of any of these privileges or immunities is intended or should be inferred from the inadvertent transmission of this message to, or receipt of this message by, an individual or entity not intended to receive or review it. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to an intended recipient, that reader is hereby notified that any review, copying, dissemination, distribution or use of the contents of this message, as well as the taking of any action in reliance upon the contents of this message, is not authorized by Margolis Edelstein but is, instead, strictly forbidden. If the reader of this message has received it in error, that reader is asked to notify us immediately by reply message, to destroy all hard copies and delete all electronic copies permanently, and to confirm in the reply message that such destruction and deletion have been accomplished. Dear Steve On 4/23/08, 1 wrote to you concerning a Stipulation to Amend the Caption and concerning your clients' long overdue discovery answers. Next week, I intend to file a Motion to Compel Discovery which will ask for an order with the following language: AND NOW, this day of , 2008, upon consideration of the Motion of Defendant, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED that Plaintiffs shall provide full and complete answers to Interrogatories and a written response to the Request for Production of Documents served upon them on within thirt (30) days of the date hereof, or face appropriate sanctions upon motion of Defendants. Steve Banko - Re: Baker v. Petro Stopping Centers CLAIM NUMBER C06-0144-BI-01 MEFile No. 82368.4-00002 Page 4 BY THE COURT: J. Do you concur? Stephen L. Banko, Jr Certified As A Civil Trial Advocate By The National Board of Trial Advocacy A Pennsylvania Supreme Court Accredited Agency 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 General Office No. (717) 975-8114 Fax (717) 975-8124 Direct Dial (717) 760-7501 sbanko@margolisedelstein.com Margolis Edelstein: www.margolisedelstein.com OFFICES THROUGHOUT PENNSYLVANIA, NEW JERSEY, AND DELAWARE CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This electronic message from the law firm of Margolis Edelstein contains confidential information intended solely for the use of the individual(s) and/or entity(ies) to whom and/ or which it is addressed. This message may also contain information subject to the attorney-client privilege, the joint-defense privilege, the settlement privilege, the work-product doctrine, or other privileges or immunities. No waiver of any of these privileges or immunities is intended or should be inferred from the inadvertent transmission of this message to, or receipt of this message by, an individual or entity not intended to receive or review it. If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to an intended recipient, that reader is hereby notified that any review, copying, dissemination, distribution or use of the contents of this message, as well as the taking of any action in reliance upon the contents of this message, is not authorized by Margolis Edelstein but is, instead, strictly forbidden. If the reader of this message has received it in error, that reader is asked to notify us immediately by reply message, to destroy all hard copies and delete all electronic copies permanently, and to confirm in the reply message that such destruction and deletion have been accomplished. t? f . t. a em -o 5j fV 90N 34IiB0YL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY EULES BAKER and SILVIA BAKER, his wife, DOCKET NO. 07-7423 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP JURY TRIAL DEMANDED and PETRO, INC., Defendants ORDER i? AND NOW, this 'X5 day of Ivq C' 2008, upon consideration of the Motion of Defendants to Compel Discovery, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 4019 that Plaintiffs shall provide full and complete verified Answers to Interrogatories and a verified written Response to the Request for Production of Documents served upon them on January 21, 2008, within 30 Defendants. days of the date hereof, or face appropriate sanctions upon motion of BY THE COURT: ?'. ?1' N % - J. s ?fv W-- . ?f-x'37. °t STEPHEN L. BANKO, JR., ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I. D. No. 41727 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 760-7501 FAX: (717) 975-8124 F-mail. ahanlrnGifmarnnlisarlalctain rnm Attorney for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY EULES BAKER and SILVIA BAKER, his wife, DOCKET NO. 07-7423 Plaintiffs V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP and PETRO, INC., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants 100TMN OF MFENDANTS, PEM STOPPM CENTERS, LP AND PETRO, INC., FOR SANCTIONS - PA. R.C.P. NO.40ig 1. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the above-captioned action on or about December 5, 2007. 2. Plaintiffs allege that on December 11, 2005, they were injured and suffered damages as a result of a fall suffered by Plaintiff-Husband at the Petro Stopping Center on the Harrisburg Pike, Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, PA. 3. On or about January 21, 2008, Defendants served upon counsel for Plaintiffs written Interrogatories and a Request for Production of Documents. 4. On or about June 18, 2008, with concurrence of counsel for Plaintiffs, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Discovery by reason of Plaintiffs' failure to respond, in any fashion, to the Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents served upon them on January 21, 2008. 1 4. By Order dated June 25, 2008, the Honorable M. L. Ebert, Jr. issued an Order requiring Plaintiffs to provide full and complete verified Answers to Interrogatories and a verified written Response to the Request for Production of Documents within thirty (30) days of the date of said Order or face appropriate sanctions upon Motion of Defendants. A copy of said Order is attached hereto, incorporated herein by reference and marked as Exhibit A. 5. Plaintiffs did not comply with the requirements of the June 25, 2008, Order and, accordingly, on August 15, 2008, counsel for Defendants contacted Plaintiffs' counsel by telephone inquiring as to the status of the overdue discovery answers. Counsel for Plaintiffs indicated that he had not heard from his clients and that they had not provided the necessary information to provide the discovery answers as required by the aforesaid Order of Court. 6. Accordingly, counsel for Defendant indicated that a Motion for Sanctions would be filed and concurrence of Plaintiffs' counsel in said Motion was sought, but not given. 7. To date, Plaintiffs have not complied, in any manner, with the aforesaid Order of Court dated June 25, 2008. Nearly sixty (60) days have elapsed since the date of said Order. 8. Pa. R.C.P. No. 4019 provides in pertinent part: (a)(1) The court may, on motion, make an appropriate order if: (i) A party fails to serve answers, sufficient answers or objections to written interrogatories under Rule 4005. 2 (vii) A party, in response to a request for production or inspection made under Rule 4009, fails to respond that inspection will be permitted as requested or fails to permit inspection as requested; (viii) A party or person otherwise fails to make discovery or obey an order of court respecting discovery. 9. Pa. R.C.P. No. 4019(c) further provides that: The court, when acting under sub-division (a) of this rule, may make (2) an order refusing to allow the disobedient party to support or oppose designated claims or defenses, or prohibiting such party from introducing into evidence designated documents, things or testimony, or from introducing evidence of physical or mental condition; (5) such order with regard to the failure to make discovery as is just. 10. Pursuant to the aforesaid provisions of Pa. R.C.P. No. 4019, Defendants seek an Order from this Honorable Court providing the following appropriate relief: a. Plaintiffs are prohibited from introducing into evidence any document or other tangible item, the identity or production of which would have been responsive to the written Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents served on January 21, 2008; 3 b. Plaintiffs are prohibited from introducing into evidence the testimony, report or affidavit of any witness, fact or expert, whose identity would have been responsive to the written Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents served on January 21, 2008; C. Plaintiffs are prohibited from introducing at the time of trial any evidence of physical or mental condition of Plaintiff-Husband; and d. Plaintiffs shall pay to counsel for Defendants the amount of $600.00 for preparation and filing of this Motion for Sanctions and Supporting Brief. 11. Plaintiff is represented by Stephen G. Held, Esquire, Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP, 1300 Linglestown Road, Harrisburg, PA 17110, telephone number (717)238-2000, fax number (717)233-3029. 12. Defendants are represented by Stephen L. Banko, Jr., Esquire, Margolis Edelstein, 3510 Trindle Road, Camp Hill, PA 17011, telephone number (717)760-7501, fax number (717)975-8124. 13. A copy of this Motion for Sanctions and Proposed Order was served upon counsel for Plaintiffs by hand delivery on August 21, 2008. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Petro Stopping Centers, LP and Petro, Inc., pray this Honorable Court enter an Order pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 4019 granting their Motion for Sanctions and ordering the relief set forth in paragraph 10 above. 4 EDELSTEIN oate g/ 7A/ 09 :PHEN L`. BANKO, JR. rney for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on all counsel of record by hand delivery and by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the 91134- day of 2008, and addressed as follows: Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) a 0-11, q- A Angela M Gayman, Secre 0 JUN 2420 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY EULES BAKER and SILVIA BAKER, his wife, DOCKET NO. 07-7423 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP JURY TRIAL DEMANDED and PETRO, INC., Defendants AND NOW, this a` day of 2008, upon consideration of the Motion of Defendants to Compel Discovery, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 4019 that Plaintiffs shall provide full and complete verified Answers to Interrogatories and a verified written Response to the Request for Production of Documents served upon them on January 21, 2008, within -;?d days of the date hereof, or face appropriate sanctions upon motion of Defendants. BY THE COURT: ' J. TRUE COPY FROM RECORU in Tjesumony whamd, I twe unto set try hang tt (it ,iW, d at Carlisle, ft dad i TA P _ ? h EULES BAKER and, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF SILVIA BAKER, his wife CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFFS V. : PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP, and PETRO INC. : DEFENDANTS : NO. 07-7423 CIVIL IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR CONTEMPT. TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND FOR SPECIAL RELIEF ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 51h day of September, 2008, upon consideration of the Motion for Sanctions filed by the Defendants, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that: 1. A Rule is issued upon the Plaintiffs to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted; 2. The Plaintiffs will file an answer on or before September 26, 2008; 3. The Prothonotary is directed to forward said Answer to this Court 4. If no answer to the Rule to Show cause is filed by the required date, the relief requested by Defendants shall be granted upon the Court's receipt of a Motion requesting Rule be made Absolute. If the Plaintiffs file an answer to this Rule to Show Cause, the Court will determine if a hearing, status conference or further Order of Court is required. By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. a ? ? ?P ? _ i 'fi+?r? ? ?p,N r-Sfy ?.3, ? ? `,,J3 A?cF w? :4i.. 4 ??-;.: _-cal=Y?1':? A Stephen G. Held, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs Stephen L. Banko, Jr., Esquire Attorney for Defendants bas a a% PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within matter for the next Argument Court.) CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) EULES BAKER AND SILVIA BAKER, HIS WIFE vs. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP AND PETRO, INC. No. 7423 , 2007 Term 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiffs motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Defendants' Motion for Sanctions - Pa. R.C.P. No. 4019 2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiffs: Stephan G Held, For}ulse, Handler. Henning & Rosenberg 1.L.P (Name and Address) 1300 Linglestown Road, Harrisburg, PA 17110 (b) for defendants: Stephen L. Danko. Jr Margolis Edelstein (Name and Address) 3510 Trindle Road, Camp Hill, PA 17011 3. 1 will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: Stephen L. Banko, Jr. Print your name Date: Attorney for Defendants INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Two copies of all briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) before argument. 2. The moving party shall file and serve their brief 12 days prior to argument. 3. The responding party shall file their brief 5 days prior to argument. 4. If argument is continued new briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) after the case Is relisted. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on all counsel of record by hand delivery and by placing the same in the United States mail at Cap Hill, Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the ? day of 2008, and addressed as follows: Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) f Angel M. ayman, S etary ;-a -} S t. ', t- -y1 (?. c,:::? : ,,? ty S ?'? _ ?: } t, . .? _' i wM „' , .?? -^0.. ?. STEPHEN L. BANKO, JR., ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I. D. No. 41727 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 760-7501 FAX: (717) 975-8124 E-mail: nhanknAmmmnlicoriolatain r•r,m Attorney for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY EULES BAKER and SILVIA BAKER, his wife, DOCKET NO. 07-7423 Plaintiffs V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP and PETRO, INC., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PeirnmOF CEFMANTS?, P$Tft" 51 LP AND PEM, If#+iC., TO IVM RtU „UTE 1. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the above-captioned action on or about December 5, 2007. 2. Plaintiffs allege that on December 11, 2005, they were injured and suffered damages as a result of a fall suffered by Plaintiff-Husband at the Petro Stopping Center on the Harrisburg Pike, Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, PA. 3. On or about January 21, 2008, Defendants served upon counsel for Plaintiffs written Interrogatories and a Request for Production of Documents. 4. On or about June 18, 2008, with concurrence of counsel for Plaintiffs, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Discovery by reason of Plaintiffs' failure to respond, in any fashion, to the Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents served upon them on January 21, 2008. 1 5. By Order dated June 25, 2008, the Honorable M. L. Ebert, Jr. issued an Order requiring Plaintiffs to provide full and complete verified Answers to Interrogatories and a verified written Response to the Request for Production of Documents within thirty (30) days of the date of said Order or face appropriate sanctions upon Motion of Defendants. A copy of said Order is attached hereto, incorporated herein by reference and marked as Exhibit A. 6. Plaintiffs did not comply with the requirements of the June 25, 2008, Order and, accordingly, on August 15, 2008, counsel for Defendants contacted Plaintiffs' counsel by telephone inquiring as to the status of the overdue discovery answers. Counsel for Plaintiffs indicated that he had not heard from his clients and that they had not provided the necessary information to provide the discovery answers as required by the aforesaid Order of Court. 7. Accordingly, counsel for Defendant indicated that a Motion for Sanctions would be filed and concurrence of Plaintiffs' counsel in said Motion was sought, but not given. 8. Defendants filed a Motion for Sanctions on or about August 22, 2008. 9. In response to the Motion for Sanctions, the Honorable Judge Ebert issued an Order dated September 5, 2008, issuing a Rule upon Plaintiffs to show cause, if any they have, why the relief requested by Defendants in their Motion for Sanctions should not be granted. The Rule was returnable on or before September 26, 2008. A copy of said Order is attached hereto, incorporated herein by reference and marked as Exhibit B. 10. The aforesaid Order of this Honorable Court further stated that if Plaintiffs did not answer the Rule to Show Cause by September 26, 2008, the relief requested by 2 Defendants would be granted upon this Honorable Court's receipt of a Motion requesting Rule be made Absolute. 11. Plaintiffs have not filed or served an Answer to the Rule to Show Cause in the time prescribed in said Order and, accordingly, Defendants file the instant Petition to Make Rule Absolute. 12. Plaintiffs are represented by Stephen G. Held, Esquire, Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP, 1300 Linglestown Road, Harrisburg, PA 17110, telephone number (717)238-2000, fax number (717)233-3029. 13. Defendants are represented by Stephen L. Banko, Jr., Esquire, Margolis Edelstein, 3510 Trindle Road, Camp Hill, PA 17011, telephone number (717)760-7501, fax number (717)975-8124. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Petro Stopping Centers, LP and Petro, Inc., pray this Honorable Court enter an Order making the Rule to Show Cause dated September 5, 2008, Absolute by reason of Plaintiffs' failure to file the requisite answer within the time prescribed in said Order and grant the sanctions requested in Defendants' previously filed Motion for Sanctions. S EDELSTEIN Date: -?-1q 0 ? By: 1, EN `L. BANKO, JR. ? for Defendants 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on all counsel of record by hand delivery and by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the C?` th day of 4?Pg&&A , 2008, and addressed as follows: Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Angela M. ayman, Secr ry 4 JUN 2 4 200S? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY EULES BAKER and SILVIA BAKER, his wife, DOCKET NO. 07-7423 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP JURY TRIAL DEMANDED and PETRO, INC., Defendants iC•:•. i;A• •rL,.:c: r I ::. s • .::.: ":•. , •.. ,.... f.i'ar,..eaa ::?!.a: ' ti. •: 'rs: s J .? :r. :::.., s i :.. ;. •... :; r _:3 L, : r,'. s.: s:.....lf :iliii5!+_--••!:? ? i ..l;.n:^:'x„br. g(?,..nl.; .. iv : {is?•rt.• •r sli;i:3IIP : i± .! !II ?' x':1:3: , .Ei!!•! ?3i rn:e,•.•u :... .::.?.:.:ee:..:......_s. • ?'.?c`5-s?:!a::x+::? ......,..? -};.'?.u =u ? uc ?-.?:€ - . '-•? i ir .::: -:.cuu .:.. :: .......... ,. ..nu• ::• - •I a:. !lsa,,..3 .! ...........333.:.,._x:: ! :L9il:.'iiilE:::::.... :a : ?a::::..a.....r • : p3: .. •, .:.. ! "" ::_.. • • ! ......un--r -_•___ .. :....u .• ..:::•i! ... , m :.... .•.. r? a ...• .. ..r ,. .....:! ..., n -?-r,.....:xSnlisE ?a ..,..EF.:?•:{?mi ?..?. ...f.:rr ...1?? . i ..ts ,.... ... .c^_.. x:a::::: s??r.....; .;.;.,! a?.....;.aif?'! nn. !il.. !•r r.. 9 ?! 3 !•;f lk r +'? E? ? _ ' ? l . .. .. ... . :m. : s # : : : !t! i f AND NOW, this .254'Nday of jux fE . , 2008, upon consideration of the Motion of Defendants to Compel Discovery, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 4019 that Plaintiffs shall provide full and complete verified Answers to Interrogatories and a verified written Response to the Request for Production of Documents served upon them on January 21, 2008, within d days of the date hereof, or face appropriate sanctions upon motion of Defendants. BY THE COURT: RUE COPY FA0,11l :w ? ?a uwL' 4 v _3e, IAA ?y , EULES BAKER and, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF SILVIA BAKER, his wife CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFFS V. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP, and PETRO INC. : DEFENDANTS : NO. 07-7423 CIVIL IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR CONTEMPT, TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND FOR SPECIAL RELIEF ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 5t' day of September, 2008, upon consideration of the Motion for Sanctions filed by the Defendants, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that: 1. A Rule is issued upon the Plaintiffs to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted; 2. The Plaintiffs will file an answer on or before September 26, 2008; 3. The Prothonotary is directed to forward said Answer to this Court 4. If no answer to the Rule to Show cause is filed by the required date, the relief requested by Defendants shall be granted upon the Court's receipt of a Motion requesting Rule be made Absolute. If the Plaintiffs file an answer to this Rule to Show Cause, the Court will determine if a hearing, status conference or further Order of Court is required. By the Court, M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. Stephen G. Held, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs Stephen L. Banko, Jr., Esquire Attorney for Defendants bas C__ -=? ,3 c:"? _"? .. ; ? : FLLe r. _ C..? f'.? j ..:..?. .. f:`rt i ti` ;? , ? V ?" ?, s b OCT 01 MCI IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY EULES BAKER and SILVIA BAKER, his wife, DOCKET NO. 07-7423 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP JURY TRIAL DEMANDED and PETRO, INC., Defendants AND NOW, this t S1 day of 0 a*NNe.r , 2008, upon consideration of the Petition of Defendants, Petro Stopping Centers, LP and Petro, Inc., and it appearing that Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the Orders of this Court regarding discovery dated June 25, 2008, and September 5, 2008, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED that the Rule to Show Cause dated September 5, 2008, is made Absolute and the following sanctions are imposed: 1. Plaintiffs are prohibited from introducing into evidence any document or other tangible item, the identity or production of which would have been responsive to the written Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents served on January 21, 2008; 2. Plaintiffs are prohibited from introducing into evidence the testimony, report or affidavit of any witness, fact or expert, whose identity would have been responsive to the written Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents served on January 21, 2008; 3. Plaintiffs are prohibited from introducing at the time of trial any evidence of the physical or mental condition of Plaintiff-Husband; and 4. Plaintiffs shall pay reasonable counsel fees associated with the preparation and filing of their Motion for Sanctions and Supporting Brief in the amount of $600.00. BY THE COURT: M.L. Ebert, Jr., J. G 91 .C IWJ I - 130 SON -Hi 30 STEPHEN L. BANKO, JR., ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I. D. No. 41727 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 760-7501 FAX: (717) 975-8124 F-mail- shankn0marnolisedalstain_com Attorney for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY EULES BAKER and SILVIA BAKER, his wife, DOCKET NO. 07-7423 Plaintiffs V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP and PETRO, INC., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Kindly remove Defendants' Motion for Sanctions from the October 22, 2008, argument court list as the Motion is now the subject of an Order granting a Rule Absolute upon Plaintiffs. A copy of said Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A. illy Submitted, IS EDELSTEIN Date: I L, ? A By: 'STErHENIL. BANKO, JR. Attorney I. D. No. 41727 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 PHONE: 717-760-7501 FAX: 717-975-8124 Counsel for Defendants 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on all counsel of record by hand delivery and by placing the same in the United States mail at TVN Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the day of AftIzo _, 2008, and addressed as follows: Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Angela . Gayman, S etary 2 C 0 (D 0- OCT 01200;; G, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY EULES BAKER and SILVIA BAKER, his wife, DOCKET NO. 07-7423 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP JURY TRIAL DEMANDED and PETRO, INC., DefenAim- AND NOW, this day of 6 ,. , 2008, upon consideration of the Petition of Defendants, Petro Stopping Centers, LP and Petro, Inc., and it appearing that Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the Orders of this Court regarding discovery dated June 25, 2008, and September 5, 2008, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED that the Rule to Show Cause dated September 5, 2008, is made Absolute and the following sanctions are imposed: 1. Plaintiffs are prohibited from introducing into evidence any document or other tangible item, the identity or production of which would have been responsive to the written Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents served on January 21, 2008; 2. Plaintiffs are prohibited from introducing into evidence the testimony, report or affidavit of any witness, fact or expert, whose identity would have been responsive to the written Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents served on January 21, 2008; 3. Plaintiffs are prohibited from introducing at the time of trial any evidence of the physical or mental condition of Plaintiff-Husband; and 4. Plaintiffs shall pay reasonable counsel fees associated with the preparation and filing of their Motion for Sanctions and Supporting Brief in the amount of $600.00. BY THE COURT: M.L. Ebert, Jr., J. ME COPY FROM REWRu Tasbwy w1wed, t here carte 3K my hm A the "d d aaidCair O. PA. c'o A WA V, r_' r,? •-a c:°;> -? ,° ,`-r ;'?j ~ r i - ~ ?= ?^? ;::, ?a ,. 'I STEPHEN L. BANKO, JR., ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I. D. No. 41727 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 760-7501 FAX: (717) 975-8124 Attorney for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON'PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY EULES BAKER and SILVIA BAKER, his wife, DOCKET NO. 07-7423 Plaintiffs V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP and PETRO, INC., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants MOTION l DEFENDANTS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - PA. R.C.P. NO. 1035.2 1. Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in the above-captioned action on or about December 5, 2007. A copy of said Complaint is attached hereto, incorporated herein by reference and marked as Exhibit A. 2. Plaintiffs allege that on December 11, 2005, they were injured and suffered damages as a result of a fall suffered by Plaintiff-Husband at the Petro Stopping Center on the Harrisburg Pike, Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, PA. 3. On or about February 5, 2008, Defendants' filed their Answer and New Matter denying that they were negligent. A copy of said Answer and New Matter is attached hereto, incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. 4. On or about January 21, 2008, Defendants served upon counsel for Plaintiffs written Interrogatories and a Request for Production of Documents. 2 II 5. On or about June 18, 2008, with concurrence of counsel for Plaintiffs, Defendants filed a Motion to Compel Discovery by reason of Plaintiffs' failure to respond, in any fashion, to the Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents served upon them on January 21, 2008. 6. By Order dated June 25, 2008, the Honorable M. L. Ebert, Jr. issued an Order requiring Plaintiffs to provide full and complete verified Answers to Interrogatories and a verified written Response to the Request for Production of Documents within thirty (30) days of the date of said Order or face appropriate sanctions upon Motion of Defendants. A copy of said Order is attached hereto, incorporated herein by reference and marked as Exhibit C. 7. Plaintiffs did not comply with the requirements of the June 25, 2008, Order and, accordingly, on August 15, 2008, counsel for Defendants contacted Plaintiffs' counsel by telephone inquiring as to the status of the overdue discovery answers. Counsel for Plaintiffs indicated that he had not heard from his clients and that they had not provided the necessary information to provide the discovery answers as required by the aforesaid Order of Court. 8. Accordingly, counsel for Defendant indicated that a Motion for Sanctions would be filed and concurrence of Plaintiffs' counsel in said Motion was sought, but not given. 9. Defendants filed a Motion for Sanctions on 'or about August 22, 2008. 10. In response to the Motion for Sanctions, the Honorable Judge Ebert issued an Order dated September 5, 2008, issuing a Rule upon Plaintiffs to show cause, if any they have, why the relief requested by Defendants in their Motion for Sanctions 3 should not be granted. The Rule was returnable on or before September 26, 2008. A copy of said Order is attached hereto, incorporated herein by reference and marked as Exhibit D. 11. The aforesaid Order of this Honorable Court further stated that if Plaintiffs did not answer the Rule to Show Cause by September $6, 2008, the relief requested by Defendants would be granted upon this Honorable Court's receipt of a Motion requesting Rule be made Absolute. 12. When Plaintiffs did not respond to the Rule to Show Cause as required, Defendants filed a Petition to Make Rule Absolute on September 30, 2008. 13. On October 1, 2008, the Honorable Judge Ebert issued an Order making the Rule to Show Cause dated September 5, 2008, absolute and imposed the following sanctions: a. Plaintiffs are prohibited from introducing into evidence any document or other tangible item, the identity orl production of which would have been responsive to the written Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents served on January 21, 2008; b. Plaintiffs are prohibited from introducing into evidence the testimony, report or affidavit of any witness, fact or expert, whose identity would have been responsive to the writtenllnterrogatories and Request for Production of Documents served on January 21, 2008; C. Plaintiffs are prohibited from introducing at the time of trial any evidence of the physical or mental condition of Plaintiff-Husband; and d. Plaintiffs shall pay reasonable counsel fees associated with the preparation and filing of their Motion for Sanctions and Supporting Brief in the amount of $600.00. A copy of said Order is attached hereto, incorporated herlein by reference and marked as Exhibit E. 4 ? 14. In accordance with the Order of October 1, 2008, attached hereto as Exhibit E, Plaintiffs are now unable to introduce into evidence at the time of trial any testimony, report, or Affidavit of any witness, fact or expert, whose identity would have been responsive to the written Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents served on January 21, 2008. Further, Plaintiffs are precluded from introducing into evidence at the time of trial any evidence of the physical or mental condition of Plaintiff- Husband and they are further precluded from introducing into evidence any document or other tangible item, the identity or production of which would have been responsive to the previously identified Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. 15. Therefore, Plaintiffs are unable to sustain their burden of proof at the time of trial as they may not introduce into evidence any testimony or other evidence of the alleged negligence of Defendant, the physical or mental condition of Plaintiff-Husband, or the causal relationship between the two. 16. As Plaintiffs are unable to sustain their burden of proof, it is submitted that Defendants are entitled to Summary Judgment as a matter of law pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 1035.2 which provides as follows: After the relevant pleadings are closed, within such time as not to unreasonably delay trial, any party may move for summary judgment in whole or in part as a matter of law. (1) whenever there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a necessary element of the cause of action or defense which could I be established by additional discovery or expert report, or (2) if, after the completio of discovery relevant to the motion, including the roduction of expert reports, an adverse party has fail d to produce evidence or facts essential to the cause f action or defense in which a 5 jury trial would require the issues to be submitted to a jury. 17. As Plaintiffs are now precluded from introducing any evidence, testimonial or documentary, they cannot sustain their burden of proof with regard to the cause(s) of action set forth in their Complaint and, therefore, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. 18. Plaintiffs are represented by Stephen G. Held, Esquire, Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP, 1300 Linglestown Road, Harrisburg, PA 17110, telephone number (717)238-2000, fax number (717)233-3029. 19. Defendants are represented by Stephen L. Banko, Jr., Esquire, Margolis Edelstein, 3510 Trindle Road, Camp Hill, PA 17011, telephone number (717)760-7501, fax number (717)975-8124. 20. Counsel for Defendants has sought the concurrence of Plaintiffs' counsel in the instant Motion for Summary Judgment, but Plaintiffs' counsel was unable to give his concurrence. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Petro Stopping Centers, LP and Petro, Inc., pray this Honorable Court enter an Order granting Summary Judgment in their favor and against Plaintiffs pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 1035.2. EDELSTEIN ?( v Date: I B V Y V?l 1 H L. ANKO, JR. Attorney for Dofendants 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on all counsel of record by hand delivery and by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the LOV day of 2008, and addressed as follows: Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Angela hil. Gayman, Secr ary I I I I I I I l I I l I I I I I 1 I I 1 I ? ??? x DEC-12-2007 23:07 FROM:MIKE POLPr EK-TA 15706897594 TQ;16179694697 P.2/14 l:?/ Y ?/ 1F7b / u!j : y4 Il llbuy., eL I KU H tI *Jb rant vii Ali 4, r ?. Ito Stephen G. Held, Esquire HANDLER, HENNINt3 A ROSENBIEM LLP .,....... - 1300 Unghw1awn Road H>t "Wm ng, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238,2000 Atlomey? for Plaintiff Fax : (717) 2334029 E-mail: - EULES BAKER and SILVIA BAKER, his wife, Plaintiffs V. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUM13ERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 07- (2.4-wtTu3 PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP and PETRO, INC. Defendants CIVIL ACT -LAW M"0XI1-34 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 I(20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entertnp a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objectlons to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fall 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 daimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the PlalrlW. 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, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, HIS OFFICE: MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCE FEE OR NO FEE. DEC-12-2007 23:08 FROM:MIKE POLArr- c-'K-TA 15706897594 Tf"!16179694697 P.3/14 ll! iJ! t17l7/ V7: J4 fl IL?dLJa rCiku r{ c,. nJO rmw- 62, .La t t Lawyer Referral Savice 4th Floor, Cumbealand County Courthouse . Carlisle, PA 17013 l (717) 240-6200 AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADOlA EN CORTE. Si usted doses defenderse de las demandes quo se presentan mOs adelante on las slguisOes pilginas, debe tornar accidn dent* de W prftmos veinte (20) dias despufrs de la hotlflcacl6n de eats Demands y Aviso radleando personalmente o por medlo de un abogedo una comperecencia eecft y redleando en la Corte por escrito sus defenses de, iy objecciones a, las dernsndas presentadas ®qui an contra says. Se le advierte de q%Je si usted fWW de tong aocidn Como se dewAbe antertormente, el caw puede proceder sin usted y un falo por c usiquier sums de dinero redemada en is demands o cuaiquier otra redarnscl6n o ramedlo solicitado por 91 dernandants puede oar ditctedo an contra Buys por to Corte sin mike sviso adidonai. Usted puede perder dinero o propladed u otros derechoe Importentes pare usted. USTED DEBE L LEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO WMEDIATAMAENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGAD0, LLAME O VAYAA jLA SIGUIENTE OF'MA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CEIWA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS E UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORM N SOBRE AGENCiAS QUE Of IRMAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QM CUALIFICAN. LawyOF xeferral Sarvica 4th Floor, Cumberland County C4urdwuse Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240-6200 _ HANDLER, WNNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By: Stepho G. Held, Esquire PEC-12-2M7 23:08 FROM:MIKE POLP-"_K-TA 1:?/1?/L!?!7I l7?; Sy /1 /L?iJl? 15706897594 T` 1617%94697 P.4/14 M I nu r unI_ wao r'"= U01 iJ Stephen G. Held, Esq. 1.13.#72683 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSBNBERG. LLP 1300 I.Ingimtown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Fax : (717) 233-3029 EULES BAKER and SILVIA BAKER, his wffe, PiaintfAs V. Attomey for PISInUft IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA NO. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP and PETRO, INC., : CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defbndants COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Plaintiffs, Eules Baker and Silvia Baker, his. wife, by and through their attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING $ ROVOSERG, by Stephen Held, Esquire, who brings forth this Complaint against Defendants Petro Stopping Centers, LP and Petro, Ina., and aver as follows: 1. Plaintiffs, Eules Baker and Silvia Baker, are adult Individuals residing at 639 Garden Walk Boulevard, Apt. 1731, College Pardo, Georgia 30349. 2. Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, is a corporation registered to do business in the CommonweeM of Pennsylvania, with its corporate office located at 6060 Surety Drive, El Paso, Texas 79905. 3. Defendant, Petro, Inc., is a corporation registered to do business in the t DEC-12-2007 23:09 FROM:MIKE POLfr-9(-TA 15706897594 Tn`1617%94697 P.5/14 1;q 1 d/ zM / OV: jq /1 /'Lbtud", M l KU r ULL flab t'1 7G o4/ 1 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a registered office located at 2407 Duss Avenue, Ambridge, Pennsylvania 15W3. 4. At all times material hereto Petro StopPing Centers, LP, was in ownership, possession, management, and control of the Premises located at and known as Petro Stopping Center, 1179 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 5. At ail times material hereto Petro, inc,, was in ownership, possession, management, and control of the Premises located at and known Qs Petro Stopping Center, 1179 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 1'013. 6. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Wes Baker, was an invitee upon said Premises. 7. On or about December 11, 2005, Claimant was parked in the bobtail lot on the Premises. Claimant exited his truck to use the trestroom on the premises when he slipped and fen on snow and Ice that had been allowed to accumulate on the Premises. 8. At all times material hereto, there were no signs, cones, or other warning devices regarding the snow and/or ice. 9. At all times material hereto, Defendants, who had exclusive control of said Premises, allowed snow and/or Ice to accumulate on the bobtail parking lot surface without any warning signs or postings. 10. At all times material hereto, Defendants either knew, or should have known through a reasonable Inspection of the premix' is, that snow and Ice had accumulated on the bobtail parking lot creating a dangerous condition. 11. On or about December 11, 2005, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, was walking 2 DEC-12-2807 23:89 FROM: MIKE POLAF' '';K-TA A « L .W cur, r 07. OH 1A . c:ro.4aa 15706897594 Tr IL, 16179694697 P-6/14 ?.? .? rG 1 nV r VG4 wiJu ? VV. aV through the bobtail parking tot on the Premises after using the public (estroom. While crossing the bobtail perking lot, Plaintiff was caused to 811113 and fall on snow and ice accumulation, causing personal injuries to the Plaintiff. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCt EULES BAKER v. PETRO STOPPING (CENTERS, LP 12. Paragraphs 1 - 11 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 13. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, believes and therefore avers that Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, was In possession, management, and control of the Premises and was responsible for maintaining the ssfe condition of the property kr o as Petro Stopping Center, 1179 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 14. At all. times material hereto Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, assumed the duty to provide reasonably safe parking lots for all Individuals who were patronizing the Premises at Petro Stopping Center, 1179 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Penneyivenle 17013. 15. The occurrence of the aforementloned Incident and the riewiting injurles to Plaintiff, Eules Baker, were caused directly and pro)imately by the negligence of Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, by its agents, servants, workmen or employees, aging in the scope of their authority and Omployment, generally and more specifically asset forth below. (e) In causing or permitting snow and Ice accumulation on said Premises to remain, thereby posIN an unreasonable risk of injury. 3 DEC-12-2007 23:09 FROM:MIKE POLP-''EK-TA 15706897594 7111617%94697 P.7/14 ! Y/ 113/ [f7n / fly: 134 I 1 / L?d'L13i M 1 KU r UGL 11130 1'fA7C Vvi A Q to the Plaintiff and to other persons (lawfully upon the premises; (b) in causing or permitting snow and Ice accumulation to remain without a warning when Defendant anew or should have known of the likelihood that the snow and Ice accumulation could cause injury; (c) In failing to make a reasonable inspection of said Premises which would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition posed by the snow and ice accumulation, and thereby allowing the some to be and remain a dangerous condition when the Defendant knew or should have known of it; (d) in fading to ensure the bobtail parking lot of said Premises was maintained In a safe condition to prevent injury to the Plaintiff and other persons lawfully upon the Premises; (e) In falling to post a warning sign or device in the area to notify of the dangerous condition of the snow and ice accumulation on saki Premises; (f) In failing to remedy the snow and ice accumulation on said Premises so as to avoid the situation in which the Plaintiff fell; (g) In failing to maintain the bobtail parking lot of the Premises in a reasonably safe condition that would prevent Eules Baker from slipping and falling due to the accumulation of Ice and snow. (h) In failing to insist upon necessary safety precautions as part of the contract of employment with the Ir*%duals or enddes performing 4 DEC-12-2007 23:10 FROM:MIKE POLP"--_K-TA 15706897594 TP,16179694697 P.8/14 12/13/2807 89:34 71725823: - PEfRO FUEL #36 PAL*- U" snow and/or ice removal work at the Premises; and (i) in failing to exercise with reasonable care the control retained over the individuals or entities performing snow and/or Ice removal work at the Premises; 16. Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, had actual knowledge or should have known through the exercise of ordinary care and diligence that there was snow and ice accumulation on the bobtail parking lot where Plaintiff, Eules Baker, fell. 17. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, sustained serious, including but not limited to, an oblique distal fibular fracture of his left ankle. 18. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, has undergone physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and he will continue to endure the carne for an Indefinite period of time in the futures, to his detriment and loss, physically, emotionally, and financially. 19. Asa direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to his daily duties to his detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment 24, As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, Plaintiff, Wes Baker, has, and will in the future, suffer a loss of life's pleasures. 21. As a direct and proximate result of the nleglonc a of Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers. LP, Plaintiff, Was Baker. has suffered lost wages/income and will In 5 DEC-1272007 23:10 FROM:MIKE POL.Ar""EK-TA 15706897594 Tn,16179694697 P.9/14 11/ 13/ kVd / V!J: J4 /112bu2s HOW K&L Nib YAl7t C!!/ I J the future continue to suffer a toss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. 22. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, has been compelled. In order to affect a cure for the aforesaid injuries. to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention and will be required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to his detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, seeks damages from Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers. LP, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County. exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT 11- NEGLIGENCE EULES BAKER v. PETRO, INC: 23. Paragraphs 1 - 22 are Incorporated herein by reference as If fully set forth at length. 24. At ail times material hereto, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, believes and therefore avers that Defendant, Petro, Inc., was In possession, management, and control of the Premises and was responsible for maintaining the safe cond#ion of the property known as Petro Stopping Center, 1179 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 25. At all times material hereto Defendant, Petro, Inc.. assumed the duty to provide reasonably safe parking Its for all individuals who were patronizing the Premises at Petro Stopping Center, 1179 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013. 26, the occurrence of the aforementioned Incident and the resulting Injuries to Plaintiff, Eules Baker, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of 6 DEC-12-2007 23:10 FROM:MIKE POLP-EK-TA 15706897594 Tn 16179694697 P.10/14 1,LI 1J/ LVV/ vim. ar 11 /LJOLJ. I ?/, 4 r.. Defendant, Petro, Inc,, by its agents, servants, workmen or employees, aging in the scope of their authority and employment, generally and more specifically as set forth below: (a) In causing or permitting snow and ice accumulation on said Premises to remain, thereby posing an unreasonable risk of injury to the Plaintiff and to other persons lawfully upon the premises; (b) In causing or permitting snow and ice accumulation to remain without a waming when Defendant knew or should have known of the likelihood that the snow and ice accumulation could cause injury; (c) in failing to make a reasonabis inspection of said Premises which would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition posed by the snow and ice accumulation, and thereby allowing the same to be and remain a dangerous condition when the Defendant knew or should have known of it, (d) In failing to ensure the bobtail parking lot of said Premises was maintained in a safe condition to prevent injury to the Plaintiff and other persons lawfully upon the Premises; (e) In failing to post a warning sign or device in the area to notify of the dangerous condition of the snow and ice accumulation on said Premises; (f) In failing to remedy the snow and to accumulation on said Premises so as to avoid the situation in which the Plaintiff fail; 7 DEC-1272007 23:11 PROM:MIKE POLpf"'cK-TA iLI iJf LVV f V:f• JY f i f iJi1LJ 15706897594 • Trk 16179694697 P.11/14 1 1_ 11W 1 M4V „J4 , f7LR. . Wr A (g) In failing to maintain the bobtali parking lot of the Premises in e reasonably safe condition that would prevent Eules Baker from slipping and felling due to the ac curnula#ton of ice and snow. (h) In falling to insist upon necessary safety precautions as part of the contract of employment with the individuals or entities performing snow and/or ice removal work at the Premises; and (1) In failing to exercise with reasonable care the control retained over the individuals or entities performing snow and/or ire removal work at the Premises; 27. Defendant, Petro, Inc., had actual knowledge or should have known through the exercise of ordinary care and diligence that there was snow and ice accumulation on the bobtail parking lot where Plaintiff, Eules Baker, fell. 28. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro, Inc-, Plaintiff, Pules Baker, sustained serious, including but not limited to, an oblique distal fibular fwWre of his left ankle. 29. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro, Inc., Plaintiff, Eules Baker, has undergone physical pain, discomfort, and mental anguish, and he will continue to endure the same for an Indefinite period of time in the future, to his detriment and kiss, physically, emotionally, and financially. 30. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro, Inc., Plaintiff, Eules Baker, has been, and will in the future be, hindered from attending to his daily duties to his detriment, loss, humiliation, and embarrassment. 31. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro, 8 DEC-12-2007 23:11 FROM:MIKE POLFr"--K-TA 15706897594 TCI:16179694697 P.12/14 1Y/1. 1 ZV0! IM S4 /1 /'LotlY3 mimi rlctL BJo 1"I?l7C 11/ 1 7 inc., Plaintiff, Eules Baker, has, and will in the future, suffer a loss of Iffe's pleasures, 32. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro, Inc., Plaintiff, Eules Baker, has suffered lost wages/income and will in the future continue to suffer a loss of income and/or loss of earning capacity. 33. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Petro, Inc., Plaintiff, Eules Baker, has been compelled, in order to affect a cure for the aforesaid Injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention and will be required to expend large sums of money for the some purposes in the future, to his detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Eules Baker, seeks dameges from Defendant, Petro, Inc., in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration ilmUs of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT III - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM SILVIA 13AKER v. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP 34. Paragraphs 1-33 are incorporated herein as fury set firth below. 35. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, the Plaintiff, Silvia Baker, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort from her husband, Eules Baker, and she will continue to suffer a similar loss In the future. 36. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, the Plaintiff, Silvia Baker, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for her husband's injuries, to spend money for medicine and medical attention and wil be required to spend money for the some purposes in the future, to her great detriment 9 DEC-12-2007 23:12 FROM:MIKE POLF EK-TA .. 1.2/13/2887 89:34 7172582- and loss. 15706897594 Tn:1617%94697 P.13/14 H-1 ICU I- L%--L * Jb P'ws- 1 a 1 i WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, 811vis Baker, seeks damages from Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers. LP, in an an=nt in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs. COUNT N - LOBS OF CONSORTIUM SILVIA BAKER v. PETRO, INC. 37. Paragraphs 1-36 are incorporated herein as fully set forth below. 38. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, Petro, Inc., the Plaintiff, Silvia Baker, has suffered a loss of consortium, society, and comfort from her husband, Eules Bake, and she will continue to suffer a similar loss -in the future. 39. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, Petro, Inc., the Plaintiff, Silvia Baker, has been compelled, in order to effect a aurae for her husband's Injuries, to spend money for medicine and medical attention and Will be required to spend money for ft same purposes In the future, to her great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Silvia Baker, seeks damages from Defendant, Petro, Inc,, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbkn tlan limits of Cumberland County, exclusive of interest and costs. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, ENNING SENBERG, LLP By. - - -- - Stephen G. Held I.D. # 726'63 Attorney for Plaintiffs to DEC-12;2007 23:12 FROM:MIKE POLP-4EK-TA 12/13/2987 99: 34 /1 /15tl1i . Dee 05 07 03:30P 15706897594 Tn 1617%94697 rt mu rutt_ woo 4235876207 .. l7el;? THE UNDERSIGNED hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing P.14/14 t P. i document are based on Information that was gathered by counsel in preparation of this lawsuit The language of the above-named document Is of ©ouneet and not my own. 1 have read the said document and, to the extent that ft is based on information that I gave to counsel, It Is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, informion, and belief. To the extent that the contents of the said document Is that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in prepering this Verification. t THE UNDERSIGNED also understands that the sWernents therein are made ? submit to the penalties of 18 P&MC.P. 2252(d) C.S. Seen 4904, relating to unswocn falsifloation to authorities. Date: '-• ,7 ^- L'> ?? s.?r /??? Eulas Baker Cx k)b;? 8 STEPHEN L. BANKO, JR., ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I. D. No. 41727 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 760-7501 FAX: (717) 975-8124 Attorney for Defendants E-mail: sbankoO-margolisedelstein.com IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY EULES BAKER and his wife SILVIA BAKER DOCKET NO. 07-7423-a - , , , rn' f t , t•*i r1 '?' intiffs Pl a CIVIL ACTION - LAW v`== a+ V. -r1 PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED and PETRO, INC., J Defendants TO: Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Plaintiffs You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed New Matter within #wP__=nT4Z) days_ from sPrvire hereof ova default judgment maybe entered against you. M I EDELSTEIN Date: J By: ST N V. BANKO, JR. Attorney for Defendants STEPHEN L. BANKO, JR., ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I. D. No. 41727 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 760-7501 FAX: (717) 975-8124 Attorney for Defendants E-mail: sbank _maraolisedelstein.com IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY EULES BAKER and SILVIA BAKER, his wife, DOCKET NO. 07-7423 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED and PETRO, INC., Defendants 1. Admitted in part and denied in part. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment concerning Plaintiffs' residence address and, therefore, such allegation is denied. 2. Admitted. 3. Denied as stated. At the current time, Petro, Inc. is no longer a viable corporate entity. However, it is believed and therefore averred that such inclusion of Petro, Inc. as a Defendant in this action is of no consequence because Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP ("Petro"), was the legal entity which owned, possessed 1 controlled and managed the location known as the Petro Stopping Center at 1179 Harrisburg Pike, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied. The Answer contained in paragraph 3 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. 6. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. To the extent that a response is deemed to be necessary, after reasonable investigation, Petro is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, they are denied. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Petro is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, they are denied. By way of further answer, some time after the alleged fall, Plaintiff informed an employee of Petro that -he had fallen on his way back to the parking lot after having first used the restroom on the premises. 8. Denied as stated. With regard to any allegation that there was any ice or snow which created an unreasonable risk or hazard, after reasonable investigation, Petro is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, such allegations are denied. 9. Admitted in part and denied in part. The Answers contained in paragraphs 3 and 8 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 2 10. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. To the extent that an Answer is deemed to be required, the Answer contained in paragraph 8 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as.if set forth in its entirety. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that there existed any condition for which Petro would be liable under Pennsylvania Law. 11. Denied. The Answers contained in paragraphs 7-10 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. By way of further answer, with regard to any allegation that Plaintiff fell while on the premises of Petro, after reasonable investigation, Petro is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said occurrence and, therefore, it is denied. COUNT I. - NEGLIGENCE EULES BAKER V. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP 12. The Answers contained in paragraphs 1 through 11 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 13. Admitted. 14. Admitted. 15(a)-(i). Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph state a legal conclusion to which no response is necessary. By way of further answer, the Answers contained in paragraphs 7-11 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 3 16. Denied. The Answers contained in paragraphs 11 and 15 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 17. Denied. The Answer contained in paragraph 16 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. By way of further answer, Petro is unable to admit or deny the characterization that any injury which Plaintiffs may have sustained, which Petro specifically denies is responsible therefore, was "serious." 18. Denied. The Answer contained in paragraph 17 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. By way of further answer, with regard to all other allegations of damages by Plaintiff contained in this paragraph, after reasonable investigation, Petro is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments and, therefore, they are denied. 19. Denied. The Answer contained in paragraph 18 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. 20. Denied. The Answer contained in paragraph 18 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. 21. Denied. The Answer contained in paragraph 18 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. 22. Denied. The Answer contained in paragraph 18 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs. 4 COUNT II. - NEGLIGENCE EULES BAKER V. PETRO. INC. 23. The Answers contained in paragraphs 1 through 22 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 24. Denied. The Answers contained in paragraphs 3 and 4 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 25. Denied. The Answer contained in paragraph 24 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. 26(a)-(I). Denied. The Answer contained in paragraph 24 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. 27-33. Denied. The Answer contained in paragraph 24 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Petro, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs. COUNT III. - LOSS OR CONSORTIUM SYLVIA BAKER V. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LLP. 34. The Answers contained in paragraphs 1 through 33 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 35. The Answers contained in paragraphs 7-11 and 15-22 hereof are incorporated herein . by reference as if set forth in their entirety. By way of further answer, with regard to the allegation concerning the marital status of Sylvia Baker, after reasonable investigation, Petro is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averment and, therefore, they are denied. Accordingly, with 5 regard to any claim for damages on behalf of Plaintiff-Wife, after reasonable investigation, Petro is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments and, therefore, they are denied. 36. Denied. The Answer contained in paragraph 35 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Petro Stopping Centers, LP, demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs. COUNT IV. - LOSS OR CONSORTIUM SYLVIA BAKER V. PETRO, INC. 37. The Answers contained in paragraphs 1 through 36 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 38-39. Denied. The Answer contained in paragraph 24 hereof is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in its entirety. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Petro, Inc., demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs. 40. The Answers contained in paragraphs 4 through 39 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in their entirety. 41. Plaintiffs' claims, if any, are or may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 42. Plaintiffs have failed to join indispensable parties to this action. 6 43. Plaintiffs' injuries, if any, were caused by individuals or entities not parties to this action. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Petro, Inc. and Petro Stopping Centers, LP., demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiffs. EDELSTEIN Date: -Ikg- 01 By: tlEN L. BANKO, JR. Attorney for Defendants 7 VERIFICATION (rQcxA ILA n?eOM am It ?M of Petro Stopping Centers, LP. and I have read the foregoing Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint. The factual statements contained therein are known by me and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This statement and verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to- unworn falsifications to authorities, which provides that, if I knowingly make false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. Date: Name I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on all counsel of record by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the day of 1rlAQn , 2008, and addressed as follows: Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Oxq?lI'(1• .04 1 jAAAA 1A Angela M. Gayman, Secre a 8 v JUN 3420 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY EULES BAKER and SILVIA BAKER, his wife, plaintiffs V. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP and PETRO, INC., DOCKET NO. 07-7423 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants _ r 6:.....:,:.l?°.cs'•ii'(ti:y i''{i{iii4e,Sii,i£;I ii{iiiii'Siiusl?f?3a{£ yiusy?'mzi?t• {: iii •ii ?i:iiii •s•.:::.:m:.?:nrt's"iii•Stii it1•.i3ii?:lkiii!£i.i.:iiiiirr i iii. ;..:.. £..,.... { .....x• .ztiS, :3 ffzi ;z.• i.. .. ;::!, •-'•,n: gr., ? i i'! :. s3?jy` ? { c f i? nu, ?. ...... :,r: s , n:.. :S }Lutz..... S:S b:::? s:ec.: :ui;::.zz.a;!!F,:a:?•::B:c::m:: { ..s.,..i_...-,xr?:.-.,:..r_? ss..:..... ?::::•3{{t iT iial :. =_:!{?I :; . ::::., :{r:iN, r' {i :.. ? {•rlisi,a?:s a ? , : o„ .. { .,x:.. ! ? .? . !! z {ic'auik:ii::.l?z:zssz •?:::... ul?{£i, iiii .t•••?Ii;aaii,i{{t:.. ?y+zs i??£i i z 9 UX)C- , 2008, AND NOW, this eZ??aY of .,,? consideration of the Motion of Defendants to Compel Discovery, IT IS HEREBY upon ORDERED AND DECREED pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 4019 that Plaintiffs shall provide full and complete verified Answers to Interrogatories and a verified written Response to the Request for Production of Documents served upon them on January 21, 2008, within days of the date hereof, or face appropriate sanctions upon motion of Defendants. BY THE COURT: J. ?p - ' U! COPY FROM V?`Zo ? fxj,jkj4- J EULES BAKER and, SILVIA BAKER, his wife PLAINTIFFS V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP, and PETRO INC. : DEFENDANTS : NO. 07-7423 CIVIL IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR CONTEMPT, TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND FOR SPECIAL RELIEF ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 5t' day of September, 2008, upon consideration of the Motion for Sanctions filed by the Defendants, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that: 1. A Rule is issued upon the Plaintiffs to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted; 2. The Plaintiffs will file an answer on or before September 26, 2008; 3. The Prothonotary is directed to forward said Answer to this Court 4. If no answer to the Rule to Show cause is filed by the required date, the relief requested by Defendants shall be granted upon the Court's receipt of a Motion requesting Rule be made Absolute. If the Plaintiffs file an answer to this Rule to Show Cause, the Court will determine if a hearing, status conference or further Order of Court is required. By the Court, ?"-', ?-4 M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. Stephen G. Held, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs Stephen L. Banko, Jr., Esquire Attorney for Defendants bas & ?; ?, ? F,-,- OCT 01200b IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY EULES BAKER and SILVIA BAKER, his wife, DOCKET NO. 07-7423 Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP JURY TRIAL DEMANDED and PETRO, INC., Defendants AND NOW, this )Ak. day of 2008, upon consideration of the Petition of Defendants, Petro Stopping Centers, LP and Petro, Inc., and it appearing that Plaintiffs have failed to comply with the Orders of this Court regarding discovery dated June 25, 2008, and September 5, 2008, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED that the Rule to Show Cause dated September 5, 2008, is made Absolute and the following sanctions are imposed: 1. Plaintiffs are prohibited from introducing into evidence any document or other tangible item, the identity or production of which would have been responsive to the written Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents served on January 21, 2008; 2. Plaintiffs are prohibited from introducing into evidence the testimony, report or affidavit of any witness, fact or expert, whose identity would have been responsive to the written Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents served on January 21, 2008; 3. Plaintiffs are prohibited from introducing at the time of trial any evidence of the physical or mental condition of Plaintiff-Husband; and 4. Plaintiffs shall pay reasonable counsel fees associated with the preparation and filing of their Motion for Sanctions and Supporting Brief in the amount of $600.00. BY THE COURT: i -51 7n . •F ?"X_' (?.. M.L. Ebert, Jr., J. IME COPY FROM RECORD TeNWWY vHWW, I here note eet my hand .:J the sal of so C at Caro. PM. V7 L pmew "iV ??.? r'_? ^k, .i.? l .a .,1.. W_ ? ??._? t_. t ff ? ?.? t 0. r Stephen G. Held, Esquire I.D.#72663 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiffs Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: Held HHRLaw.com EULES BAKER and SILVIA BAKER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF his wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. DOCKET NO. 07-7423 PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP CIVIL ACTION - LAW and PETRO, INC., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANTS PETRO STOPPING CENTERS LP and PETRO INC.'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. By way of further answer, Plaintiff's Counsel submits that numerous attempts have been made by Plaintiffs' Counsel to procure said Discovery from Plaintiffs including letters sent February 25, 2008; March 7, 2008; April 2, 2008; May 22, 2008; and June 9, 2008. I 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs' Counsel submits that contact with Plaintiffs, in an attempt to procure the due and owing Discovery, was made by letter on June 27, 2008. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted. 12. Admitted. 13. Admitted. 14. Admitted. 15. Denied. The Plaintiffs assert that not all evidence and/or testimony is precluded from being entered into evidence at the time of trial pertaining to the negligence of the Defendants, Plaintiff's physical and/or mental condition and the causal relationship between the two. The Plaintiffs submit that, prior to the issuance of Discovery by Defendant, Defendant was in possession of Plaintiff's medical records documenting Plaintiff's physical condition and treatment following Plaintiff sustaining the injury, with said medical records provided by Plaintiff's Counsel to Defendant on March 7, 2007. Attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked as "Exhibit A" is a copy of the Demand sent to Defendants dated March 7, 2007, along with the Medical Records sent to Defendants by way of attachment to the Demand. As such, regardless of this Honorable Judge's previous Order prohibiting the admission into evidence any document, report or affidavit which would have been responsive to the written Interrogatories and Request for Production of 2 Documents, there is prior evidence that was provided and known to Defendant that Plaintiffs are able to rely on to support their burden of proof at the time of trial. Plaintiffs further submit that expert testimony related to the causal link between Plaintiffs' injury and Defendants' negligent acts is not required. While in most cases, expert testimony is required to prove the causal connection, there is an exception where the causal relationship is obvious. Smith v. German, 434 Pa. 47, 253 A.2d 107 (1969). An obvious causal relationship exists where the injuries are either an "immediate and direct" or the "natural and probable" result of the alleged negligent act. Tabuteau v. London G. & A.. Ltd., 351 Pa. 183, 40 A.2d 396 (1945); and Fenstermaker v. Bodamer, 195 Pa.Super. 436, 171 A.2d 641 (1961). "The two must be so closely connected and so readily apparent that a layman could diagnose (except by guessing) the causal connection." Smith v. German, 253 A.2d at 109. In the present case, Plaintiffs' injuries are an immediate and direct or natural and probable result of Defendants' negligent act. Defendant acted negligently by failing to ensure that it's premises was in a safe condition when it refused to remove the accumulated ice which was left to create a slippery condition. Defendants' failure to maintain the safe condition of its premises resulted in Plaintiff slipping and falling on the slippery condition thereby breaking his fibula. Prior to the slip and fall, Plaintiff's fibula was not fractured. Therefore, Defendant's negligent act of failing to remove the slippery condition and Plaintiffs' injury of a fractured fibula are so closely connected and apparent that a layperson could diagnose the causal connection between the slippery condition and Plaintiffs' fractured fibula and expert testimony is not required or needed at trial. 16. Denied. The allegation set forth in Paragraph 16 is a conclusion of law in that it is a recitation of the legal circumstances under which a party is entitled to a Motion for 3 Summary Judgment and, to that extent, no responsive pleading is required from the Plaintiffs. 17. Denied. The assertions submitted by Plaintiffs in Paragraph 15 above, are incorporated into this Paragraph as if the same were set forth more fully herein. In way of further response, the remainder of the allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph are in the nature of a request to which no response is required of Plaintiffs. If a response is deemed necessary, Plaintiffs, deny the allegations. 18. Admitted. 19. Admitted. 20. Admitted. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the Honorable Court to deny the Moving Defendants, Petro Stopping Centers, LP and Petro, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment. Respectfully submitted, Date: J HANDLER HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By: Steve eld, Esquire I.D. #72663 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiffs 4 Stephen G. Held, Esquire I.D.#72663 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiffs Fax : (717) 233-3029 E-mail: Held HHRLaw.com EULES BAKER and SILVIA BAKER, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF his wife, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. : DOCKET NO. 07-7423 PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP CIVIL ACTION -LAW and PETRO, INC., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On 10/9/08, 1 hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants, Petro Stopping Centers, LP and Petro, Inc.'s Motion for Summary Judgment was served upon the following by depositing same in the United States Mail, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Mr. Stephen L. Banko, Esq. Margolis Edelstein 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP Dated: 10/29/08 Steven 49.4%16/, Esquire I.D. #72663 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiff 5 andIer, ¦ ginning & osenberg,LLA I ATTORNEYS AT LAW Leslie B. Handler, Retired W. Scott Henning David H Rosenberg (PA, FL) Carolyn M. Anner (PA, NY, RN) Matthew S. Crosby (PA, NJ) Gregory M. Feather (PA, NJ) Stephen G. Held Jason C. Imler Michelle Kupronis Liberty Mutual Insurance PO Box 100058 Deluth, GA 30096 Re: Our Client: Your Insured: Claim Number: Date of Loss: Dear Mr. Kupronis: March 7, 2007 Eules Baker Petro Shopping Centers P505-152251-01 December 11, 2005 HARRISBURG OFFICE 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-238-2000 1-800-422-2224 717-233-3029(fax) LANCASTER OFFICE 140A E King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 717-431-4000 DIRECT MAIL TO: 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 www.HHRLaw.com Held@HHRLaw.com As you know, this firm has been retained to represent the interests of Eules Baker, with respect to injuries he received on December 11, 2005. Enclosed please find our settlement proposal. These materials are submitted for the sole purpose of negotiating and/or settlement of this claim. They are not by any way intended as admissions against interest. These materials are submitted on the condition that they are not to be used in the event this matter proceeds to litigation, and they are submitted without prejudice to Mr. Baker's rights or positions which might be available and/or taken at trial and/or arbitration. BACKGROUND Eules Baker, at the time of incident, was a 44-year old man who currently resides with his wife at 614 Greenleaf Road, Apt 614 in Conyers, Georgia. SUMMARY OF THE INCIDENT In the early morning hours of December 11, 2005, Eules Baker stopped at truck stop to use the restroom. Upon coming out of the restroom he slipped on ice that had accumulated on the ground and came crashing to the ground where he sustained major injuries. LIABILITY The issue of liability is clear. Mr. Baker was an invitee and as such the owner/owners of the complex had the obligation to properly shovel and remove the ice or snow from the parking lot and/or to conduct a reasonable inspection of the p to ensure the safety of their customers. Their failure to do this was the direct proximate cause of the incident which resulted in the injuries suffered by Mr. B reasonable inspection of the property would have revealed the necessity for fu snow and ice removal and/or the placement of anti-skid materials such as salt or cinders. Had Petro Shopping Centers and/or their agents/employees conducted a reasonable inspection of the premise they would have been made aware of the condition of the parking lot and thus, the dangerous condition of the parking lot would not have been allowed to exist. MEDICAL TREATMENT & INJURIES On December 11, 2005, Eules Baker was seen at the Carlisle Regional Medical Center. X-rays reveal that Eules suffers from an acute distal fibula fracture. Eules was placed in a splint and was told to utilize crutches until his follow-up appointments. Eules was given a prescription of Vicodin. On December 27, 2005, Eules was seen at the Oklahoma Sports Science and Orthopaedics (OSSO) where he was placed into a short leg cast and told he was to maintain a NO-weightbearing routine. On January 9, 2006, Eules returned to OSSO. Eules is experiencing some stiffness due to being immobilized in the cast. He has moderate tenderness. At this time, Eules is permitted to begin weightbearing activity. On January 12, 2006, Eules had his cast removed. The cast was replaced after examination. On January 19, 2006, Eules was seen at OSSO. Examination showed blisters on the foot. Eules is released to work but is told to limit the amount of standing or prolonged walking. On January 23, 2006, Eules returned to OSSO. Examination showed the fracture and blisters both healing well. Eules is released to light duties and has a weight restriction of 20 pounds. On January 30, 2006, Eules returned to OSSO. Eules is instructed to continue to use his boot walker. He is released to light-duty and is to maintain the weight restriction previously given. On February 13, 2006, Eules was seen at OSSO. At this time, Eules is being put into a lace-up ankle brace. He is being released at maximum medical improvement. Eules is instructed to follow-up with a provider in his home state should his symptoms worsen. Eules's ankle fracture has healed unevenly. For the fracture, he receives an 8% lower extremity and 4% whole person disability rating. LOSS OF LIFE'S PLEASURES Prior to the incident, Eules Baker enjoyed hunting, fishing, and camping. During his treatment, he could not participate in any of these activities. After the incident, Eules' life was drastically altered. He was living out of a hotel until he was released to return to his home state of Georgia. He was forced to rely on different individuals from the hotel to assist him while he was undergoing treatment in Oklahoma. As a result of this incident, Eules now has a disability rating of 4% for his entire body and an 8% disability rating for his lower extremity. Eules has had increased anxiety as a result of this accident, with a constant fear of being re-injured. Eules is a truck driver and as a result of this incident, Eules experiences difficulty at times shifting due to the pain in his foot. As you can see, this incident has had a dramatic effect on his life. ECONOMIC LOSS As a result of this incident, Eules Baker has incurred medical expenses totaling approximately $3,921.78 which are itemized as follows: Carlisle Regional Medical Center $2,230.18 Oklahoma Sports Science and Orthopedics $1,691.60 TOTAL $3,921.78 Of this, AIG, Eules Baker's Workers Compensation Carrier paid $7,007.73, for which they are asserting a lien for. This is broken down as follows: ?wlndemnity $2,243.63 ?,?Medical $4,764.10 Eules Baker missed work from his job. He was employed as a driver for CRST International. As a result of his injuries, he was unable to work for CRST International from 12/12/05 through 2/12/06, for a total of 8 weeks and 4 days. Based on his average weekly pay of $470.82, 1 have calculated he lost approximately $4,143.22 in wages. DEMAND A plaintiff in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may recover for personal injuries for past, present and future harm which is the result of a defendant's tortious conduct. Schwegal v. Goldberg, 209 Pa.Super 280, 228 A.2nd 403 (1967). It is well settled in Pennsylvania law that compensatory damages awarded to a plaintiff in a personal injury action include past, present and future physical and mental suffering, medical expenses, scarring, lost wages, as well as impairment of future earning capacity and loss of life's pleasures. Moreover, a plaintiff is also entitled to recover damages for heightened possibility that a plaintiff will suffer future additional injuries due to plaintiff's present physical condition. Starlings v. Ski Round Top Corp., 490 F.Supp 507 (M.D. Pa. 1980). If this case proceeds to trial, we will request recovery for our client's past, present and future physical and mental pain and suffering. In addition, this incident has had a very negative effect on my client's emotions and mental state. The feeling is often a sense of burden for himself and that he causes others to have a sense of burden as well. As you can see, Eules Baker has suffered and will continue to suffer a great deal. At this time, I would recommend to my client signing a full release for no less than $75,000.00. We submit this demand in good faith and we trust that you will carefully examine these materials with a tenor for an amicable settlement and evaluate it honestly, responding in the same good faith in which this submission has been tendered. We wish to provide you with sufficient time in which to review these materials. However, please contact me within thirty (30) days from the date of this letter to discuss this case. Absent hearing from you, I will take the steps necessary to begin a formal lawsuit. I look forward to hearing from you. Very truly yours, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By: Stephen G. Held SGH/jlz cc: Eules Baker Enclosures -olncident Report -oWorker's Compensation Lien -*,Wage Loss -oCarlisle Regional Medical Center aMedical Records aMedical Billing -POklahoma Sports Science and Orthopedics aMedical Records aMedical Billing view . OSLASOMA "m &=NCR AND Orr "I ca, P.L.L.C. ieoei soth wt?. • o?oRl,. Cdty, ol?Ltioiea 73139 • (40S) 02-3700 • FAX (4" 02-3750 J. CalvitJahseon, MA . Robot E H;ttta, M.Q . Jtany i•L Caa? h; MD.. Micird O.V tV ?h'ane, MD.. Thatme C. C?? MD. Rabat S lJredl, MJ7.. 91we D. Catpoa, M.D.. Mitfiad K ? MD.. A. Ht>mdaq MD.. Milted J. Cal, MD.. G. David Capes MD..AAhr K Ctadey; M.D. Daryl D. R?obrtaat, M.D. • Phillip Palmer, M.D. • Joseph A. Kopa. M.D. • Door E. Adams, M.D. • Hal Matirt, D.O. FRT13"lEG%LNMNE: LAST P1RST mootFntn sex WTMDAM AOE 111k) V-1 7 .. ?? J Y UAFn%LeT am- O Sloale U Maeried 0 TVldowed Divorced O Swm tad t: q t-75 66lgV 10K _ WIT: ZIPCOM, NB N l l C pq; / c3 j PEPatwNrst+ttvaia?N wtvYoe Q BnploW Q rw7oma ftam a ftt-Tiore awwo a ft&w Naps Of the PFintey kmxw a None of the Parson who anlm the Posey Relmonnalip Pstkrtt Cordes DOB Carries sso caries Employer ssowAw ? Ins.rano. Carder Nwns RakNonshlp to Puft Riot Apploob ? ceders Door Cantsn Emgoyr N/A ? N/A ? MIA ? Patients Empl.Yer Ph# 6Zel --I ? hmwed Employer Phis H the tutimt s m?er_ pie he both Pia homes oral employer Mather Employer Father EVOPIGl- t?Ttes?Trvepttntaip, NOTSPt7llagteDTLNatpYrrrNl?pAk rN 'E ?fl/;? rZ (S/7 ) -J)3-/O-)q Ph# HOW PNDNE: Ft&a ON" m Ttf Pmmw. Ph# m 0 Aem r 0 Attorney ? Bilhoatd 16 Cane i i der 0 Cweh Cl Doctor 0 Employer ? Faiiy 0 Friend. ? Hospital ? *m mm Co. O mwdw ? ?1 WM ? Newspaper ? Phone Boot ? Physical Therapist 0 Radio ? School ? Trainer L Yetar htjmy %Wt Releted9 X11 Y. ? No N Yaw bM Doe T. d Have ? Yes No I< Yoer pttry h1 MYA Ro RaioteMed Hare You Obtaiped m Aocideot Report? O Ya - ? No Name: Date: Are you here for a second opinion? ? Yes 19 No Date of Injury: 1a-11-6 S Dat s Began: Were you injured on the job? 16 Yes If yes, how did injury happen AND FC-1 1 DN i,L'C 12U f r,10,e fv/' &XWf lA?' Where? 6t+&1 i S I C5 1"0 What time? d - aw, '3 a ? Have you been treated before for this injury? E! Yes ? No Were x-rays or tests done? d Yes ? No Did you bring them or a report with you? dl Yes O No Able to continue activity or work: ? Yes 6 No if unable to work, please give date of last day worked 12) -I 1 ' O S C,4 N4 DIL'YE ed Lje :4 C Location of pain (i.e., shoulder, knee, etc.): Ato(IC Circle Rt. Diagnosis given: Treatment given: Was surgery performed? ? Yes ? No Date of surgery: Surgery performed: List all previous surgeries (name and approximate date) 1. 2. 3. 4. List any medications you are currently taking and how you take them. 1. V (0d; i -Fwm a f'yal `f -? )Owo 2. e-' A 14N 5A EM I a h 'r7z ?'ti J4. OQt OF 4hrr. /row 3. 4. f!d 2lgt aeMq_ 1 h & x aa. Drug allergies? O Yes -14 0 HEIGHT WEIGHT Alb 1. -- ?.-- 3. 4. Have you ever.had (Please circle Y for yes and N for no)? Heart trouble, attack, angina Y High bk)od pressure N Abnormal EKG Y Stroke Y &: Emphysema, other lung or Y ® Jaundice, hepatitis, mono Y breathing problems Abnormal bleeding tendencies OV Y Epilepsy or seizures Y Blood disease (Anemia, etc.) Y Glaucoma Y Facial bone fractures Y <:P Blood thinners Y Paralysis Y CW Kidney disease Y < lW Diabetes Y 1?w Neck or back trouble (2-? N Cancer Y C3V Muscle weakness Y Positive HIV/Aids test Y Co Blood vessel disease Y ulcers Y ? Arthritis N Thyroid dx Y r' Do you smoke? ® Packs/day N Could you be prqgnaW ?? Y C?v Signature4 4 December 19, 2005 AIG 120 S. Central Ave. Ste 300 Clayton, MO 63105 EMPLOYEE: Eules Baker EMPLOYER: CRST International CLAIM: Pending 372-76-1534 DOI: 12/04/05 Dear Adjuster: The following is an orthopaedic report on the above patient HISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS: Eules is a forty-four year old male who comes in for evaluation of an injury that he sustained to his left ankle. He evidently slipped on some ice and sustained a twisting injury to his ankle. He was told he had a fracture. He was placed into a splint and referred for evaluation. REVIEW OF SYSTEMS: Review of systems were taken from patient information. EXAMINATION: His examination today shows him to have minimal swelling in the ankle. He has some point tenderness over the medial malleolus and the lateral malleolus. His distal neurocirculatory status is grossly intact. RADIOGRAPHS: Radiographs show a fractured lateral malleolus with minimal displacement. The mortis is intact. PLAN: We are going to place him into a short leg, non-weight bearing cast and on crutches. I will see him back in three to four weeks for cast removal and repeat radiographs. WORK STATUS: He can work but should have a sedentary type job only. ANTICIPATED NMI: I do not feel the patient is at maximum medical improvement yet. "I declare, under penalty of perjury, that I have examined the statements contained herein, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct and complete." Sincerely, Steven D. Coupens, M.D. SDC/tss OKLAHOMA SPORTS SCIENCE AND ORTHOPAEDICS 6205 North Santa Fe Oklahoma City, OK 73118 TAX ID 73-1488111 WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRESS REPORT January 9, 2006 AIG Attn: Judith M. 120 S. Central Avenue, Suite 300 Clayton, MO 63105 EMPLOYEE: Eules Baker EMPLOYER: C R S T International CLAIM: Pending 372-76-1534 DOI: 12/04/2005 This is a follow-up orthopaedic report on the above patient. Mr. Baker comes back in today for follow-up and evaluation of his distal fibula fracture. Overall, he is not doing badly. REVIEW OF SYSTEMS: All previous histories remain the same. EXAMINATION: The examination out of the cast shows him to have some stiffness secondary to his immobilization. He still has some pain with percussion and pain with palpation over the lateral malleolus. RADIOGRAPHS: Radiographs show healing of the fracture and continued good alignment. PLAN: We are going to put him into a cast and allow him to be weight bearing. We will then see him back in four weeks for cast removal and repeat radiographs. WORK STATUS: He can work but should limit any prolonged walking or standing. He should also restrict any climbing activities. He should limit any lifting to about twenty pounds. ANTICIPATED MMI: I do not feel the patient is at maximum medical improvement yet. "I declare, under penalty of perjury, that I have examined the statements contained herein, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct and complete." Steven D. Coupens, M.D. SDC/tss cc: Genex Attn: Shanna Spencer 5600 N. May Avenue, Suite 290 Oklahoma City, OK 73112 Concentra 6101 W. Reno Avenue, Suite 800 Oklahoma City, OK 73127 OKLAHOMA SPORTS SCIENCE AND ORTHOPAEDICS 6205 North Santa Fe Oklahoma City, OK 73118 TAX ID 73-1488111 WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRESS REPORT January 19, 2006 AIG Attn: Judith M. 120 S. Central Avenue, Suite 300 Clayton, MO 63105 EMPLOYEE: Eules Baker EMPLOYER: C R S T International CLAIM: Pending 372-76-1534 DOI: 12/04/2005 This is a follow-up orthopaedic report on the above patient. Mr. Baker comes back in today for follow-up and evaluation of some sores that he has developed on the plantar aspect of his foot. When he was last seen his cast was extremely macerated from getting wet and also from sweat. REVIEW OF SYSTEMS: All previous histories remain the same. EXAMINATION: When he comes in today, he has multiple little blisters on the plantar aspect of his foot. These are not any sort of pressure areas, so they are not from the cast. It appears to be more from an infectious standpoint. PLAN: We cleaned up the blisters. I am going to have him soak the foot in warm water and Betadine twice a day. I am also going to get him on an antibiotic. We will see him back in the office in four to five days for follow-up. WORK STATUS: He can work but should limit any prolonged walking or standing. He should also restrict any climbing activities. He should limit any lifting to about twenty pounds. ANTICIPATED MMI: I do not feel the patient is at maximum medical improvement yet. "I declare, under penalty of perjury, that I have examined the statements contained herein, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct and complete." Steven D. Coupens, M.D. SDC/tss cc: Genex Attn: Shanna Spencer 5600 N. May Avenue, Suite 290 Oklahoma City, OK 73112 Concentra 6101 W. Reno Avenue, Suite 800 Oklahoma City, OK 73127 OKLAHOMA SPORTS SCIENCE AND ORTHOPAEDICS 6205 North Santa Fe Oklahoma City, OK 73118 TAX ID 73-1488111 WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRESS REPORT January 23, 2006 AIG Attn: Judith M. 120 S. Central Avenue, Suite 300 Clayton, MO 63105 EMPLOYEE: Eules Baker EMPLOYER: C R S T International CLAIM: Pending 372-76-1534 DOI: 12/04/2005 This is a follow-up orthopaedic report on the above patient. Mr. Baker is here for follow-up of his left ankle fracture. It first needs to be noted that this patient came in this past Thursday because he was having some issues related to his cast. When the cast was removed, he had several blisters on the bottom of his foot. Some were coming up to the medial aspect. At that time, the cast was removed and the patient as placed into a boot walker. The blisters were aspirated and the patient was to proceed with Betadine soaks twice a day. He was also placed on non-weight bearing status and given Keflex. He returns today for follow-up. CURRENT MEDICATIONS: Keflex. ALLERGIES: No known drug allergies. RADIOGRAPHS: X-rays continue to show good healing across the fracture site. REVIEW OF SYSTEMS: Review of systems was taken from the patient information. EXAMINATION: He has no significant symptoms across the distal fibula. The blisters appear to be drying out and healing some. There is still an open lesion. It is not erythematous, draining, or oozing. IMPRESSION: Left ankle fracture with complication of blisters. PLAN: Seeing that the blisters seem to be doing well, we are going to have him continue with the boot walker and partial weight bearing. I am going to have him continue with the Keflex and Betadine soaks. We will see him back in about one week for follow-up. WORK STATUS: We are going to release him to light duties. He should restrict his lifting to twenty pounds. He should not do any prolonged walking or standing. He should not do any climbing. ANTICIPATED MMI: We would anticipate placing him at maximum medical improvement when we see him back in one week. "I declare, under penalty of perjury, that I have examined the statements contained herein, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct and complete." Steven D. Coupens, M.D. SDC/rbr/tss cc: Genex Attn: Shanna Spencer 5600 N. May Avenue, Suite 290 Oklahoma City, OK 73112 Concentra 6101 W. Reno Avenue, Suite 800 Oklahoma City, OK 73127 OKLAHOMA SPORTS SCIENCE AND ORTHOPAEDICS 6205 North Santa Fe Oklahoma City, OK 73118 TAX ID 73-1488111 WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRESS REPORT January 30, 2006 AIG Attn: Judith M. 120 S. Central Avenue, Suite 300 Clayton, MO 63105 EMPLOYEE: Eules Baker EMPLOYER: C R S T International CLAIM: Pending 372-76-1534 DOI: 12/04/2005 This is a follow-up orthopaedic report on the above patient. Mr. Baker comes back in today for follow-up and evaluation of his ankle fracture. REVIEW OF SYSTEMS: All previous histories remain the same. EXAMINATION: His examination today shows him to have minimal to no tenderness to palpation over the medial or lateral malleolus. The lesions on the bottom of his foot have all healed. RADIOGRAPHS: Radiographs show a healing fracture, but it has not completely healed. PLAN: We need to continue him in the boot walker. I have told him that he still needs to do a good job with hygiene on the foot by changing the sock and soaking the foot like we have talked about in the past. We will see him back in about two to three weeks for follow-up. Hopefully, we will be able to put him into a brace and release him to more duties at that time. WORK STATUS: He can work light duties. He should restrict his lifting to twenty pounds. He should also restrict any walking and standing. ANTICIPATED NMI: I do not feel the patient is at maximum medical improvement yet. "I declare, under penalty of perjury, that I have examined the statements contained herein, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct and complete." Steven D. Coupens, M.D. SDC/tss cc: Genex Attn: Shanna Spencer 5600 N. May Avenue, Suite 290 Oklahoma City, OK 73112 Concentra 6101 W. Reno Avenue, Suite 800 Oklahoma City, OK 73127 OKLAHOMA SPORTS SCIENCE AND ORTHOPAEDICS 6205 North Santa Fe Oklahoma City, OK 73118 TAX ID 73-1488111 WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRESS REPORT February 13, 2006 AIG Attn: Judith M. 120 S. Central Avenue, Suite 300 Clayton, MO 63105 EMPLOYEE: Eules Baker EMPLOYER: C R S T International CLAIM: Pending 372-76-1534 DOI: 12/04/2005 This is a follow-up orthopaedic report on the above patient. Mr. Baker is here for follow-up of his left ankle fracture. RADIOGRAPHS: X-rays today revealed the fracture site to be healing very well. REVIEW OF SYSTEMS: All previous histories remain the same. EXAMINATION: He has neutral dorsiflexion and about thirty degrees of plantarflexion. He inverts and everts without any trouble. He has no pain with percussion. He has no pain to palpation in his distal fibula. IMPRESSION: Left ankle fracture. PLAN: We are going to get him into a lace-up ankle brace. We have discussed with the patient and his case manager that we are going to release him at maximum medical improvement since he does not live here but lives in Georgia. We are releasing him to full, unrestricted work activities. We have discussed that if he has problems in the future that he can return to our clinic or follow-up with someone in his home state. IMPAIRMENT RATING: This rating is in accordance with the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Fifth Edition. This patient had an ankle fracture that went on to heal uneventfully. For the fracture, he receives an eight percent (8% ) lower extremity or a four percent (4%) whole person disability rating. "I declare, under penalty of perjury, that I have examined the statements contained herein, and to the best of my knowledge and belief, they are true, correct and complete." Steven D. Coupens, M.D. SDC/rbr/tss cc: Genex Attn: Sharma Spencer 5600 N. May Avenue, Suite 290 Oklahoma City, OK 73112 Concentra 6101 W. Reno Avenue, Suite 800 Oklahoma City, OK 73127 Canisle Regional Medical Cei.Ler (Instructions: circle positive - backslash negative, provide additional pertinent information.) NAME: BAKER JR., EULES WILLIAM Pt#: 9327167 DATE OF SERVICE: 12/11/2005 DOB: 1/17/1961 Age: 44 Yrs 0 Mos 0 Wks MR#: 0001047479 Pros rime: 09:19 Sex: M Wt: KG Ht: Triage rime: 09:19 Chief Complaint: FALL T: 98.7 PO Medicines: CALAN SR, PROZAC P:98 Regular 11:20 Unlabored Allergies: NKDA BP: 126/073 Sa02: % Normal / Hypoxia EDP: GATRELL, CLOYD B. PCP: " NON-STAFF, OUT OF TOA Arrival Mode: WALKED Pain Scaler 5 HISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS Exam Time: Hx b Patient family EMS NH Translator Limited by: ALOC Intoxication Severity Dementia C ! C I HPI: (Narrative): C-colla'fTbackboard PTA Y / N EMTRLA Medical Screen: Emergent Q Non-Emergent / 71 U Timing: Sx sta su denl gradual) / min. / hrs. / . ago ': nuous / intermittent Duration: Sx last min. / hrs. / days ! s. at a time ent t \ Location of injury: head neck back chest abd upper ext R / L lower ext R / L_ L Qualiity cannot describe fell down stairs fell dff ladder fell from roof fell from height It Severity- mild severe 1-10 scale life threatening Context: accident pushed assaulted ETCH ! drug related syncope found unrespons Exacerbated by nothing moverrren' alpation Relieved bp: nothin rest ice OTC coeds Assoc.`Signs >3< Symp none L mental status change neck / bads pain HA N / V visual changes REVIEW OF SYSTEMS Limited Due To: ALOC Intoxication Severity Dementia Constitutional: fever chills weakness diaphoresis Neurological HA seizures weakness confusion ENT:, sore throat ear pain facial pain Psychological: anxious depressed Eyes pain visual changes Endocrine: polyuria polydipsia Cardiovascular'' C.P. palpitations DOE PND Integument`: rashes pruritis lesions Respiratory: S.O.B. cough congestion. Hematologic: anemia bleeding disorders transfusion GI: N / V diarrhea / constipation pain meiena hematemesis Allergyltmm.: frequent infections allergies hives GV: flank pain dysuria he 'ria frequency Other: 11 Ausculoskeletai joint neck ! back pain ext. pain All Other Systems Reviewed And Are Negative E] Agree With Nursing Assessment MEDICAL AND SOCIAL HISTORY Med. Hx: none r-GAIX, HTN IDDM ! NIDDM eviewed Past Med. H : ?-ITN Meds'. CALAN SR, PROZAC eviewed Allergies`. NKDA wed Surg. Hx:. none Appy Chole Hyster Family Hx: negative R I L Handed Lives Alone: Y ! N Social Hx: Tobacco: Y IN _ Packs/Day , Years ETOH: Y I N ! Drinkslft. Drugs: Y / N Occupation'. Immunizations: Up-to-date: Y ! N Tetanus: Reproductive Hx: LMP: G P AS Pro-MED Maximus Fall - Page 1 of 2 =4pyroW 2001 Pro-MED Ckvcal Systems, L.L.C. Rev, 03IM04 Carlisle Regional Medical Center (Instructions: circle positive - backslash neaative. nmvide additinnni nAr inan+ info nVt.,., NAME: BAKER JR., EULES WILLIAM Pt#: 9327167 PHYSICAL EXAM MR#: 0001047479 GENERAL: NAD mild / rrm64qjR) severe stress ' VITAL SIGNS: T98.7 P98 R 20 BP 126/073 HEENT: NC /AT PERRLA EOMI JVD Bruits C1/: ! RRR PMI NL murmurs /6 sys / dys rubs clicks gallops S3/S4 Location/Description of Symptoms: RESP:' lungs dear / equal bilateral resp. effort NL / distress { rales rhonchi wheezes GI: soft flat / distended bowel sounds NL / ABN tender / non-tender guarding rebound rigidity J? MS:, ROM NL dubbing cyanosis edema SKIN: - warm - dry..' diaphoretic rashes NEURO: CN 2-12 intact DTRs equal/ symmetric r f motor /5 all ext. foc l deficits sensation NL / ABN GCS a PSYCH: HMO X3-% mood /affect NL LYMPH: adenopathy -- GU: NL / deferred Other: MEDICAL DECISION MAKING 7 4 M _, : - BSANUST()MS•. +; ET--C'0OKS-EANID TX ? Labs reviewed and are negative X-Ray: C-Spine MEDS: CXR(port): AP / LAT NF: NL / ABN NL / ABN C.T.: DIFF S - ETOH: B RE-EVAL: Time: UDS: L EKG: NSR no acute disease Improved Same Worse UA: SG prot RBCs WBCs Pulse Ox: % NL / hypoxia UCG / HCG: + / - DDX- intracranial bleed cervical strain Fx lumbar strain ext. Fx pneumothorax Critical Care: 30-74 175-90 191-104 1105-120 concussion contusion abrasion laceration other: 121-1341135-164 Minutes Excl. biNable proc. CLINICAL IMPRESSION(S) DISCHARGE INSTRUCTIONS ?c_ _72:?Z to: H !!!9j> Home Family 2. Fo ,Uenfs Dr. in days. 3. Other Instructions: 4. 5. C ? CONSULTATION DISPOSITION Discussed with Dr. Discharge Time Out: Admit Admit: OBS ICU PCU Floor Tele. OR Prescriptions Given: Follow-up in Office Transfer: &/, Old Records Reviewed Y I N AMA: Reviewed DNV Radiol[doiq Y IN ppq; se D/W Patient I Family / N Condition: Improver Stable Deceased RETURN T ER IF CONDITKNI WORSENS. ? , 'pep procedure form attached ? Signatures,' pq/ Np Gr,?7 Md/DO Record Complete ? Pro-MED M xlmus OCApyr4W 2001 Pr MEDk Systems. L.L.C. Fall -Page 2 of 2 rte. , 'ORDER PROCEDURE FORM MEDICAL EMERGENCIES Date in: 12/11/2005 Time: C isle Regional Medical Center Name:BAKER JR., EULES WILLIAM Pt#:9327167 Age: 44YRS DOB: 01 /17/1961 Sex: M MR#: 0001047479 EDP: GATRELL, CLOYD B. PCP: * NON-STAFF, OUT OF TOWN P Laboratory _ Tests Other Diagnostic:Tests Order Time Order, Son 8 rderTm Radiology Order Sent By CBC CXR PA/LAT - Portable BMP CMP Amylase Abd. (flat & upright) Drug screen (serum), (urine) c ` - ETOH Uzi y Liver profile Magnesium Glucose (bedside), (serum) Cardiopulmonary UA EKG ABG 02 LPM Misc. 'Orders Medical Necessity ' Infonnatfon Previous Medical Records Physical Therapy - Eval & Tx Weight: Ibs: ' :nom kgs_ Allergies: .NKDA,' , , ? ¢. ?' Order Time Medication. I' Dosage ! Routs VO Read Back dmtime , Admm'by ',Site' Time Reassessment Pair} Initials Z u?_?d Improved ? Worse ? Unchanged ?- ? Improved ? Worse ? Unchanged p i G L- Q 11 Improved ? Worse ?Unchanged Improved ? Worse ? Unchanged ? Improved ? Worse ? Unchanged ? Improved ? Worse ? Unchanged ,Order7ime ° IV l Solution f Added Medicalion ,: ? . StartTime °.OevicelS'¢e Location. AttemptsA mount Improved ? Worse ? Unchanged Start by'° DfC Time Amt'fnf ised DtC b ? KVO Device: ?IV Fluid: Procedures rNursiM Assistance ? Cardiac Monitor. Rate Rhythm: ? NGT Insertion # Fr. ? Endotracheal Intubation ? NIBP Monitor ? Gastric Lavage ? Cardioversion ? Pulse Oximetry ? Central Line Placement ? Oral Airway Insertion ? Urinary Catheter Insertion: # Fr. ? CVP Monitoring ? Oropharyngeal Suctioning ? CPR Discharge Instructions r / 1 ature: In •als/Signatur n<i is/Signature:` y Initials/Signature: PA/AR P:',, PhysicianMS'iure: j / - v `. Rev. 09/14104 ' EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT ONGOING NURSING ASSESSMENT Date: 12/11/2005 L-, lisle Regional Medical Center Name:BAKER JR., EULES WILLIAM Pt#:9327167 Age: 44YRS DOB:01 /17/1961 Sex: M MR#: 0001047479 EDP: GATRELL, CLOYD B. PCP:' NON-STAFF, OUT OF TOWN Ph tNURSING DIAGNOSIS (Number, in order of priority- Each, patient must have at least one selected.) Airway Clearance, Ineffective Communication Impaired Infection, Potential Self Care Deficit -Anxiety Coping, Ineffective -Injury, Potential -'Skin Integrity Impairment --Breathing Patterns, Ineffective Fluid Volume, Alteration in -Knowledge Deficit -'Thought Processes, Impaired rdiac Output, Decreased Gas Exchange, Impaired Mobility Impaired Thought Processes, Alteration in omfort, Alteration in Hyperthermis (Fever) Non-Compliance Tissue Perfusion, Alteration in O er Other The GOAL I PLAN for this patient is to assist in meefi identified needs and initiate interventions for Ito- Not Not Not Met Met Int Met Met Int met met int ? FB REMOVAL ? IMMOBILIZATION / PROPER ALIGNMENT ? IMPROVEMENT OF BREATHING EEDING CONTROL [3 DECREASE /PREVENT SWELLING ? STABILIZE PATIENT IN DISTRESS N CONTROL ? MAINTAIN STABLE HOMEOSTASIS ? meet ENVIRONMENTAL NEEDS ? ALLEVIATE N/V ? MAINTAIN SKIN / TISSUE INTEGRITY ? meet PSYCHOSOCIAL NEEDS ? FEVER CONTROL ? PREVENT FURTHER INJURY ? meet SELF CARE ABILITY NEEDS ? DECREASE ANXIETY ? MAINTAIN / IMPROVE CIRCULATION ? meet EDUCATIONAL NEEDS ? SAFETY IN THE ED ? INFECTION CONTROL ? Other Int: N = documentation in nurses notes, other'codes' per Hospital Policy. Tme' N urses' Progress !'lobes - & Reassessinetrt: Signature : Time T . f P . -R ' BP 02 Sat NG Emesi Cardiac `Monitor, Urine GCS ain ° Q. - U Ct G CC d G5 ti'2.?,j ?Z- J `G C'P / ??-C Dispas ltion_ . Discharged in care of.ry Am ' E3 l1 tret O Carried G '?QVerb la zl ed understanding Discharge instructions given to e4 it # Ad R t D d f R T : : m oom o r. Rea y or oom ime: Report called at and given to Transfered to ? Transfer Verified Report called at and given to ? Left without treatment Left Against Medical Advise C diti Di ' ' on on at spos proved ? Stable Serious 13 Expired Pain Scale: Pain Location: Patient reports that pain ?is: ? Improved n// ? Y changeedL;702 Wrssee Disposition Vitals: T 0d'R -1 BP 1 Disposition Date: ?lYfime:?? Nu e ?? Rev. 03105/04 'EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT PRIMARY NURSING ASSESSMENT Date In: 12/11/2005 Time:-nCluS_ ( lisle Regional Medical Center Name:BAKER JR., EULES WILLIAM Pt#:9327167 Age: 44YRS DOB:01/17/1961 Sex: M MR#:0001047479 EDP: GATRELL, CLOYD B. PCP: * NON-STAFF, OUT OF TOWN PHY' Subjective Notes: Pain ?P_ t denies pain Location: (_' Quality: [Sharp [Dull [Cramping78uming [Aching Severity Scale: Onset: Provocation: i [Other: Aggravating Factors: Radiating: ?No c3 (Specify) [Constant [Intermittent Relieving Factors: Psychosociai Appearance: can ? nk mpt [Other Environment ?No steps ? Few steps ? Many steps Mood / Affect / Behavior: ? propriate [ Depressed [Anxious Nutritional status: ? Normal ? Cachetic ? Obese [T a I ?O er Religious / Cultural preference: [None (sp_d Caregiver: [ Family member [3 Significant Other c3 Group home Best learn by:' [Verbal [Written ? Retum demo elf Activity level: bulates independently [Requires assistance [Non-ambulatory Learning Barriers: ?TDD phone [interpreter ?No [Yes [Performs ADL's independently [Requires assistance with ADL's [Other: Neu ogical Gastrointestinal _ orAssessed Alert„ , nted X 3 Cooperative ? Awake but Confused ?Uncaoperative [Combative ? Agitated ? Restrained Responds: o To Verbal ? To Pain ? Unresponsive Posturing: ? No ? Decorticate ? Decerebrate Pupils: Brisk Slu ish Fixed Pinpoint Dilated Abdomen: ? Soft ? Flat ? Rigid ? Di ded ? Non-Tender ? Tender (Area) Bowel Sounds: [ Present ? Decreased ? Absent Elimination: ? Normal [ Constipation [ Diarrhea # of Stools: Extremities: RUE LUE RLE LLE rtounnary of Movement: O=None 1= arely rea s ravity = ea = trong Sensation: NR=No response DP=Deep pain MP=Mod pain LT=Light touch Urine: ? Colorless ? Yellow [ Red ? Brown [3Cloudy ? Anuda ? Dysuria [ Hematuria [ Frequency ? Urgency Vaginal D/C ? No LMP: Penile D/C [ Yes Type: • _ r . .. AAuscu][oskeletal" ;. Assessed Skin: nn ry n Cooi ? Moist [Diaphoretic Color.', k oPale [Ashen [Flushed [Cyanotic ?3aundiced O Capillary Refill: ? <2 Secs (Normal) ?>2 Secs (Delayed) Lacerations / Abrasions / Contusions Location: Size: Turgor: [ Normal ? Decreased Pulses: R L Carotid Brachial Radia Bleeding: [ Absent ? Present [ Scant [ Moderate ? Heavy ? Pulsating ROM: ? WNL ? Decreased ? Absent Edema ? Absent [ 1 + ? 2+ ? 2+ Deformity ? Yes ? No Scars: ? Yes ? No Distal pulses: ? Absent ? Present Femora Poplitea li P di D Pre-FlospitaF Care ? ranspoct on y orsa s s e ? CPR ASG[Not Inflated YPe m n S=Strong W=Weak D=Doppler A=Absent ? Intubated [Legs Inflated Respiratory [3 Ambu-Assist ?Abd Inflated Airway .. r ? Other ? Mask [3 C Collar Effort nlabored ' ? Labored ? Mikity o Severely • , ? Nasal Cannula ? Backboard Medication Amt Rout ? Retractions ? Stridor ? Nasal Flaring ? 02 @ Ipm % ? Traction ` Cough: ? None ? Productive ? Non-Productive ` S li t ? p n Lung Sounds: R L Comments Clear Wheezing Crackles Rhonchi Decreased Absent L v V? t \ l Vital Signs: T: 98.7 P: 98 Regular R: 20 BP: 1261073 Nurse Signature: - V" V Rev. 03/05/04 'INITIAL ASSESSMENT FORM , lisle Regional Medical Center PRIORITY: 4 Patient: BAKER JR., EULES WILLIAM Pt#: 9327167 Non-Urgent DOB: 01/17/1961 AGE: 44YRS Sex: M MR#: 0001047479 EDP: GATRELL, CLOYD B. Worker's Comp: DATE: 12/11/2005 PCP: * NON-STAFF, OUT OF TOWN PHY* Emp. Referred: Presentation Time: 09:19 Triage Time: 09:19 Arrival Mode: WALKED Height: _ Weight: lbs. kgs. LMP: Last Tetanus: Acc By: Chief FALL Vital Signs Complaint: ANKLE INJURY/PAIN (Suspicious for FX) ANKLE INJURY/PAIN (Suspicious for FX) T: 98.7 PO Brief PATIENT FELL WHILE WALKING ACROSS TRUCK STOP PARKING LOT AND SLIPPED ON THE P: 98 Regular Assessment: ICE. PATIENT WAS WEARING NEW COWBOY BOOTS. LEFT ANKLE SWOLLEN AND PAINFUL. R: 20 Unlabored ALSO HAS PAIN TO LEFT KNEE WITH SMALL ABRASION TO LATERAL ASPECT LEFT KNEE. BP: 126/073 02: % RA NIGHT SWEATS NO HEMOPTYSIS NO Pain Intensity Scale: 5 / 10 WEIGHT LOSS NO FEVER NO Pain Location: Ankle ANOREXIA NO SAFETY NO NUMBNESS NO DECREASED SENSATION NO ROM INTACT YES PULSE DISTAL TO INJURY ABSENT NO CAP REFILL > 2 SECONDS NO HEAD INJURY NO LOSS OF CONCIOUSNESS NO TRIPPED OR LOST BALANCE YES RELAED TO DIZZINESS NO Suooen Unset: Pre-Hospital Treatment: Pediatric N/A Assessment: Past Medical HTN History: Allergies: NKDA Medicines: CALAN SR, PROZAC Nurse Signature: SMM Additional Notes: Rev 05/18/04 Carlisle Regional Medical Center -- Eme, icv Department Baker 'illiam 246 Parker St. Carlisle, PA 17013 -- (717) -6-5500 12/111, _ i 0:00am 1047479 DISPOSdTION SUMMARY Patient: Baker, William SS #: Current Ph: CURRENT Address: City: Zip: Arrival: 12/11/05 10:00am Disch: 12/11/05 10:12am MD ED: Cloyd Gatrell, MD PMD: Res/PA/NP: Joey L. Wisner, PA-C PMD Ph: Dx #1: Fibula Fracture, Closed (Unspecified Part) ICD-9 #1: 823.81 #1 Dx Engl: BROKLEG.ESW Rx #1: Vicodin (hydrocodone/acetaminophen) 5mq hydrocodone/500mq acetaminophen 1-2 every 4-6 hours for pain as needed 30(thirty) Aqe/DOB: Medical Record: 1047479 Disposition: #1 Dx Span: BROKLEG.SSW Rx#1 Printed: 12/11/0510:12am Follow-up: MIRA,ALLAN J 220 WILSON ST. SUITE 206 CARLISLE, PA F/U MD Ph: 7172497400 F/U D/T: Other Instr: Call for follow up appt. Use splint and crutches until follow up. Elevate. Do not drive or work while taking pain medications. MY SIGNATURE BELOW INDICATES: > I have received and understood the oral instructions regarding my current medical problem. > I will arrange follow-up care as instructed above. > I acknowledge receipt of the written instructions as outlined on this and any previo age(s). I will re d and review these instructions. X X z- Patient (or Legal Guardian) Signature (Witness) Signature CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER RADIOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION PATIENT NAME: BAKER EULES WILLIAM X-RAY#: 1047479 EXAM DATE: 12/11/2005 ORDERING: CLOYD B GATTRELL MD- ATTENDING: CONSULTING: OUT OF TOWN NON-STAFF MD- HISTORY: FALL FALL LEFT ANKLE - THREE VIEWS HISTORY: Fall. MED REC #: 1047479 ACCOUNT #: 9327167 D.O.B.: 01/17/1961 ROOM: ER There is an oblique distal fibular fracture. There is no definite ankle mortise widening or additional bony finding. IMPRESSION: Nondisplaced distal fibular fracture. REVIEWED AND SIGNED CHRISTOPHER LADD,MD INTERPRETING PHYSICIAN DATE DICTATED: 12/11/2005 DATE TRANSCRIBED: 12/11/2005 15:52 DATE SIGNED: 12/12/2005 11:08:33 TRANSCRIPTIONIST: JND 5625808 E.R. PAGE 1 OF 1 ANKLE COMPLETE MIN 3V CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER RADIOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION ATTENDING: CONSULTING: OUT OF TOWN NON-STAFF MD- HISTORY: FALL FALL PATIENT NAME: BAKER EULES WILLIAM X-RAY#: 1047479 EXAM DATE: 12/11/2005 ORDERING: CLOYD B GATTRELL MD- LEFT KNEE - FOUR VIEWS HISTORY: Fall. COMMENT: Radiographs of the knee appear normal. evidence of a fracture or joint effusion. IMPRESSION: Normal knee. REVIEWED AND SIGNED CHRISTOPHER LADD,MD INTERPRETING PHYSICIAN MED REC #: 1047479 ACCOUNT #: 9327167 D.O.B.: 01/17/1961 ROOM: ER There is no DATE DICTATED: 12/11/2005 DATE TRANSCRIBED: 12/11/2005 15:53 DATE SIGNED: 12/12/2005 11:08:34 TRANSCRIPTIONIST: JND 5625807 E.R. PAGE 1 OF 1 KNEE COMPLETE 4+ VIEWS PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within matter for the next Argument Court.) CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in lull) EULES BAKER and SILVIA BAKER, vs. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP and PETRO, INC., his wife, Plaintiffs Defendants No. 7423 2007 Term 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiffs: Stephen G._Held, Esquire/Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP jName and Address) 1300 Linglestown Road, Harrisburg, PA 17110 (b) for defendants: Stephen L. Banko, Jr./Margolis Edelstein (Name and Address) 3510 Trindle Road, Camp Hill, PA 17011 3. 1 will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: February 4, 2009 Stephen L. Banko, Jr. Print your name Attorney ID No. 41727 Date: Attorney for Defendants INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Two copies of all briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) before argument. 2. The moving party shall file and serve their brief 12 days prior to argument. 3. The responding party shall file their brief 5 days prior to argument. 4. If argument is continued new briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) after the case is relisted. STEPHEN L. BANKO, JR., ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I. D. No. 41727 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 760-7501 FAX: (717) 975-8124 Attorney for Defendants E-mail: sbank mar olisedelstein.com IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY EULES BAKER and SILVIA BAKER, his wife, DOCKET NO. 07-7423 Plaintiffs V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP and PETRO, INC., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants 6M The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of Praecipe for Listing Case for Argument was served upon the person and in the manner indicated below: Service by First Class Mail Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) MA G S ELSTEIN e Date: l C, By: `Steph L ank , Jr., Esquire Attorney No. 417 7 Counsel for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on all counsel of record by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, first- class postage prepaid, on the jtday of Q 2008, and addressed as follows: Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Angela . Gay man, Se retary EULES BAKER AND SILVIA BAKER, HIS WIFE PLAINTIFFS V. PETRO STOPPING CENTERS, LP AND PETRO, INC., DEFENDANTS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 07-7423 CIVIL IN RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE BAYLEY, J., AND EBERT J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 5th day of February, 2009, upon consideration of the Motion of the Defendants, Petro Stopping Centers, LP and Petro, Inc., for Summary Judgment, the Plaintiffs' reply thereto and after argument, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED and Judgment is entered in favor of the Defendants and against the Plaintiffs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Prothonotary shall provide notice of the entry of Judgment pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 236. By the Court, v /Stephen G. Held, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs ? Stephen L. Banko, Jr., Esquire Attorney for Defendants //bi?as J 1:.0 t ES rYt? ll£CL ?C ` I l A M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. ui? W,