Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-6182 DORIS M. SIPE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff vs. NORMAN L. PLANK, a/k/a NORMAN L. PLANK, JR., individually and t/d/b/a CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, and CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. (g - (vt8a'? CiVi( (?flM Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT(S) OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please issue a Writ of Summons in the above-captioned matter against the Defendants, named herein and forward the Writ to the Cumberland County Sheriffs Office once issued for service upon them at the following address: Norman L. Plank a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr., individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic 21 W. Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3217 Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic 21 W. Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3217 By LAW OFFICE OF BRADLEY D. ALLISON BrAdly D. Rllisofi, Esquire PA I. # 80072 Attorney for Plaintiff 102 W. Penn Street, Suite 1 Bedford, PA 15522 (814)623-7566 DATE: October 13, 2008 m ^64- t©7 +t cm . +, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland WRIT OF SUMMONS DORIS M. SIPE Plaintiff Court of Common Pleas Vs. No 08-6182 CIVIL TERM NORMAN L. PLANK, a/k/a NORMAN L. PLANK, JR, individually and t/d/b/a CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, and CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC In CivilAction-Law Defendant To NORMAN L. PLANK, a/k/a NORMAN L. PLANK, JR., individually and t/d/b/a CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, nad CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, You are hereby notified that DORIS M. SIPE the Plaintiff(s) has / have commenced an action in Civil Action-Law against you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may be entered against you. (SEAL) Curt' R. Lo othon ary Date 10/16/08 By Deputy Attorney: BRADLEY D. ALLISON, ESQUIRE Name: Address: LAW OFFICE OF BRADLEY D. ALLISON 102 W. PENN STREET, SUITE 1 BEDFORD, PA 15522 Attorney for: Plaintiff Telephone: 814-623-7566 Supreme Court ID No. 80072 SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR .A CASE NO: 2008-06182 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SIPE DORIS M VS PLANK NORMAN L ET AL STEVE BENDER , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon PLANK NORMAN L A/K/A NORMAN L PLANK JR the DEFENDANT at 1105:00 HOURS, on the 22nd day of October , 2008 at 21 W POMFRET STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 NORMAN PLANK by handing to a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Postage Surcharge Cl jl l /o r (?,., 18.00 5.00 .59 10.00 .00 33.59 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day So Answers: h R. Thomas Kline 10/23/2008 BRADLEY ALLISON By: Deputy Sheriff of A. D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2008-06182 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SIPE DORIS M VS PLANK NORMAN L ET AL STEVE BENDER Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon PLANK NORMAN L JR T/D/B/A CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC the DEFENDANT , at 1105:00 HOURS, on the 22nd day of October , 2008 at 21 W POMFRET STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 NORMAN PLANK by handing to a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge Sworn and Subscibed to before me this So Answers: 6.00 .00 .00 10.00 R. Thomas Kline .00 16.00 10/23/2008 BRADLEY ALLISON By: day eputy Sheriff of A. D. SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2008-06182 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SIPE DORIS M VS PLANK NORMAN L ET AL STEVE BENDER , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC the DEFENDANT , at 1105:00 HOURS, on the 22nd day of October , 2008 at 21 W POMFRET STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to NORMAN PLANK, OWNER, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge !o/21 f o s So Answers: 6.00 .00 .00 10.00 R. Thomas Kline .00 ? 16.00 10/23/2008 BRADLEY ALLISON Sworn and Subscibed to before me this of By: day Deputy Sheriff A. D. DORIS M. SIPE, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff vs. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW C a c n ? a NO. 08-6182 ! NORMAN L. PLANK, a/k/a NORMAN L. PLANK, JR., individually and t/d/b/a CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, and CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, y.- N Defendants - JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 DORIS M. SIPE, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff vs. NORMAN L. PLANK, a/k/a NORMAN L. PLANK, JR., individually and t/d/b/a CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, and CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 08-6182 Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICIA Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objectiones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea adisado que si usted no se defiende, la sin previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier quja o puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 DORIS M. SIPE, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. NORMAN L. PLANK, a/k/a NORMAN L. PLANK, JR., individually and t/d/b/a CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, and CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2008-6182 Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Doris M. Sipe, by and through her attorney, Bradley D. Allison, Esquire and files this Complaint, respectfully averring as follows: 1. Plaintiff Doris M. Sipe is an adult individual with current address being 539 Second Street, Carlisle, PA 17013. 2. Defendant Norman L. Plank, a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr. is an adult individual with last known address being 21 W. Pomfret Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013-3217. At all times material hereto, it is believed and thus averred that said Defendant was trading and doing business as Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic. 3. Defendant Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic is a business entity having its principal place of business located at 21 W. Pomfret Street, Carlisle, PA 17013-3217 at all times material hereto. 4. At all times material hereto, Defendant Plank was a licensed professional working out of the offices of Defendant Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania at the address set forth in Paragraph 2 above and licensed to practice and held himself out to the members of the 1 public, including Plaintiff Doris M. Sipe, as being licensed and capable of practicing and providing chiropractic care in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff is asserting a professional liability claim. against Defendant Plank. 5. At all times material hereto, Defendant Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic held itself out to the Plaintiff and the public as offering and being capable of offering chiropractic care and treatment by a licensed chiropractor and/or chiropractic professional providing such care in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff is asserting a professional liability claim against Defendant Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic. 6. On or about August 14, 2007, Plaintiff presented to Defendant Plank at Defendant Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic with complaints of pain in her lower back. 7. Prior to such time, Plaintiff had not, to her recollection, received any chiropractic care or treatment by Defendant Plank in more than three (3) years preceding such date. 8. After providing treatment to Plaintiff on such date, Plaintiff requested and Defendant Plank scheduled Plaintiff for another appointment to receive treatment from him on her lower back on or about August 17, 2007. 9. On or about August 17, 2007, Plaintiff against presented to Defendant Plank at the Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic. 10. Prior to performing treatment, care, and/or manipulation of Plaintiff on such date, Defendant Plank did not take any x-rays or other films or 2 diagnostic tests of Plaintiff's cervical, thoracic, and/or lumbosacral spine to ascertain whether Plaintiff had any problems associated therewith and/or any pre-existing difficulties, injuries, or conditions with respect thereto, nor did he take a history from her or otherwise examine her to make such a determination. 11. On or about August 17, 2007 Defendant Plank performed a manipulative procedure on Plaintiff's spine and/or area(s) of her spine without first determining, by history and examination of the area(s), whether an articular thrust would be appropriate. 12. During the course of performing a manipulative procedure(s) upon Plaintiff on such date with respect to her lower back, Defendant Plank asked Plaintiff if anything else hurt, to which she responded her shoulder, pointing to the same. 13. Thereafter, Defendant Plank began rubbing her shoulder and went up to her neck. 14. Subsequent thereto, he grabbed her head and pulled it up as far as it would go; then, he pushed down on her head, crunching it in such movement. 15. Defendant Plank followed such procedures by pushing her head very far to the right and then very far to the left. 16. Following such manipulative procedures, Plaintiff returned to her vehicle. 17. As she began pulling away in her vehicle, her neck began to hurt. 3 18. Plaintiff Sipe got out of her vehicle and went back into Defendant Plank's office, whereupon he asked her what was wrong. 19. Defendant Sipe advised Defendant Plank that the hurt in her neck was now a pain, which was getting much worse all the time. 20. After Defendant Plank put Doris back on his table, her body began to go numb, particularly her arms and legs. 21. Eventually, Doris fell to the floor and Defendant Plank caught her. 22. Thereafter, he called her daughter and 911, and Doris was taken by ambulance to Hershey Medical Center, where she was initially diagnosed as being quadriplegic. COUNTI DORIS M. SIPE V. NORMAN L. PLANK, A/K/A NORMAN PLANK, JR., individually and t/d/b/a CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC 23. Paragraphs 1 through 22 above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 24. The accident complained of was the direct and proximate result of the recklessness, careless, and negligence of Defendant Plank generally and in the following particulars: a. In performing a manipulative procedure(s) on an area(s) of Plaintiff's spine, including but not limited to her neck, without first determining whether an articular thrust would be appropriate; 4 b. In failing to take and/or failing to properly take a history from Plaintiff in relation to her spine, including but not limited to her neck and cervical spine, to determine whether an articular thrust would be appropriate; C. In failing to examine and/or properly examine Plaintiff and the area(s) of her spine, including but not limited to her neck, to determine whether an articular thrust would be appropriate. 25. As a result of the recklessness, carelessness and/or negligence of Defendant Plank as aforesaid, Plaintiff sustained very serious injuries to her person, some or all of which may be permanent in nature, including but not limited to the following: a) aggravation of a pre-existing, severe cervical spinal stenosis, resulting in a subdural hematoma and subsequent paraplegia; b) right epidural cervical hematoma causing mass effect on the posterolateral spinal cord with displacement of the cord and thecal sac laterally to the left extending from the C2 to C5 level and/or from C2-C6; c) left vertebral artery dissection, with small flow voidsare in such artery from the C2-C5 levels; d) quadriplegia; e) weakness in her left arm, including but not limited to being limp at the elbow, and in all four limbs; f) numbness in her feet; g) numbness in her left hand; h) limpness and loss of grip and strength in her left hand; 5 i) pain in her neck and about her body; j) permanent scarring in her neck and cervical region. 26. As a result of the injuries suffered by Plaintiff Doris M. Sipe, she has in the past and will in the future experience great pain and suffering, mental anguish, embarrassment, a limitation and/or loss of use of some portion(s) of her body, permanent scarring of her body; and a loss of life's pleasures, and claim is made therefor. 27. As a result of the injuries suffered by Plaintiff Doris M. Sipe, she has in the past and will in the future require medical treatment and incur expense for the same, and claim is made therefor. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Doris M. Sipe respectfully requests your Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against Defendant Norman L. Plank a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr., individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic in an amount in excess of the limits set for compulsory arbitration, together with interest and costs of suit. A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED. COUNT II DORIS M. SIPE V. CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC 28. Paragraphs 1 through 27 of Plaintiff's Complaint above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 29. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant Plank was acting as the agent, servant, and employee of Defendant Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic and within the course and scope of his employment with said Defendant. 6 30. Defendant Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic is vicariously liable for the tortious conduct of Defendant Plank as aforesaid. 31. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant Plank as aforesaid, Plaintiff Doris M. Sipe has sustained injuries and damages as aforesaid. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Doris M. Sipe respectfully requests your Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against Defendant Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic in an amount in excess of the limits for compulsory arbitration, together with interest and costs of suit. COUNT III PLAINTIFF DORIS M. SIPE V. DEFENDANT CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC 32. Paragraphs 1 through 31 of Plaintiff's Complaint above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 33. The accident complained of was the direct and proximate result of the recklessness, careless, and negligence of Defendant Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic, acting by and through its agent(s), servant(s), or employee(s), generally and in the following particulars: a. In performing a manipulative procedure(s) on an area(s) of Plaintiff's spine, including but not limited to her neck, without first determining whether an articular thrust would be appropriate; b. In failing to take and/or failing to properly take a history from Plaintiff in relation to her spine, including but not limited to her neck and cervical spine, to determine whether an articular thrust would be appropriate; 7 C. In failing to examine and/or properly examine Plaintiff and the area(s) of her spine, including but not limited to her neck, to determine whether an articular thrust would be appropriate. 34. As a direct and proximate result of the recklessness, carelessness, and negligence of Defendant Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic as aforesaid, Plaintiff Doris M. Sipe has sustained injuries and damages as aforesaid. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Doris M. Sipe respectfully requests your Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against Defendant Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic in an amount in excess of the limits for compulsory arbitration, together with interest and costs of suit. A JURY TRIAL IS DEMANDED. Respectfully Submitted, Braley D. Alf on, Esquire Pa. . D. No. 0072 Attorney for Plaintiff 102 W. Penn Street, Ste. 1 Bedford, PA 15522 (814) 623-7566 8 LAW OFFICE OF BRADLEY D. ALLISON VERIFICATION I, Doris M. Sipe, hereby verify that the facts contained in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that false statements made herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. Con. Stat. Ann. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Y: JOIO--? M Doris M. Sipe Dated: 7 - /& -/ 6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document has been served in this matter on the 16th day of February, 2010, by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, Postage Paid, addressed as follows: Norman L. Plank a/ka Norman L. Plank, Jr. 21 W. Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3217 Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic 21 W. Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3217 By? B dley D. 1son, Esquire A orney for Plaintiff 102 W. Penn St., Ste. 1 Bedford, PA. 15522 (814) 623-7566 .? -J DORIS M. SIPE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff vs. NORMAN L. PLANK, a/k/a NORMAN L. PLANK, JR., individually and t/d/b/a CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, and CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 08-6182 Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF MERIT as to NORMAN L. PLANK a/k/a NORMAN L. PLANK, JR co ? A - ' l rn ti --- -< I, Bradley D. Allison, Esquire hereby certify, in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1042.3(a) that an appropriate licensed professional(s) has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there exists a reasonable probability that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm. --7 Date. 0 /;_0 hq 4foAftor IAI ' on, Es ire radley D. Allison, Esquire r Plai ntiff ff i-` CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document has been served in this matter on the 16th day of February, 2010, by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, Postage Paid, addressed as follows: Norman L. Plank a/ka Norman L. Plank, Jr. 21 W. Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3217 Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic 21 W. Pomfret Street lisle, PA 1701_3-3217 f By adley D. A son, Esquire Attorney for laintiff 102 W. Penn St., Ste. 1 Bedford, PA. 15522 (814) 623-7566 DORIS M. SIPE, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff vs. NORMAN L. PLANK, a/k/a NORMAN L. PLANK, JR., individually and t/d/b/a CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, and CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW - a . NO. 08-6182 F7'' M "- -, cx? ? =' + c-, t JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF MERIT as to CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC I, Bradley D. Allison, Esquire hereby certify, in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1042.3(a) that an appropriate licensed professional(s) has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there exists a reasonable probability that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm. Date: /( (' Id o /D tiW?y U. Allin, Esquire taw ffice of Bradley D. Allison, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document has been served in this matter on the 16th day of February, 2010, by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, Postage Paid, addressed as follows: Norman L. Plank a/ka Norman L. Plank, Jr. 21 W. Pomfret Street Carlisle, PA 17013-3217 Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic 21 W. Pomfret Street Carlis4, PA 17013,317 i r By -'?ee4 Z-11, ra ley D. All' on, Esquire Att ney for Praintiff 102 W. Penn St., Ste. 1 Bedford, PA. 15522 (814) 623-7566 Marc T. Levin, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 70294 RHOADS & SINON LLP One South Market Square, 12th Floor P.O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 (717) 233-5731 Attorneys for Defendants DORIS M. SIPE, V. Plaintiff E? ?Y 2010HAR 10 ;? 10: 32 NTY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2008-6182 NORMAN L. PLANK, a/k/a NORMAN L. PLANK, JR., individually and t/d/b/a CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, and CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC Defendants PETITION TO ALLOW THE APPEARANCE OF LARRY M. WARANCH, ESQUIRE PRO HAC VICE NOW COMES Defendants Norman L. Plank, a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr., individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic and Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic, by and through their attorney, Marc T. Levin, Esquire of Rhoads & Sinon LLP, and respectfully petition this Court to allow the appearance of Larry M. Waranch, Esquire, pro hac vice and in support thereof, aver as follows: Larry M. Waranch, Esquire, is a duly licensed attorney in the state of Maryland since 1978 and in Washington, DC, since 1985. 2. Mr. Waranch is a member of the law firm of Waranch & Brown, LLC, is in good standing with each of the Courts above, has never been disciplined, and does not have any disciplinary actions pending against him. 3. Mr. Waranch has been retained by Defendants to defend them against the claims of Plaintiff in the above-captioned action. 772566.1 4. Marc T. Levin, Esquire, is an attorney with the law firm of Rhoads & Sinon LLP, and is licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, License No. 70294, has never been disciplined by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and does not have any pending disciplinary actions against him. Mr. Levin will act as local counsel and adviser to the lawyers of Waranch & Brown, LLC, and counsel them on the Rules of Court for the Court of Common Pleas for Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and the corresponding case law. 6. The undersigned hereby certifies that as evidenced by his signature below that he has sought the concurrence of Plaintiff's counsel, Bradley D. Allison, and he has concurred in the instant Petition to allow the appearance of Larry M. Waranch, Esquire, pro hac vice. WHEREFORE, your Petitioners, Defendants Norman L. Plank, a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr., individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic and Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic, respectfully request that this Honorable Court allow the entry of Appearance of Larry M. Waranch, Esquire, for the herein matter and before this Honorable Court pro hae vice. Respectfully submitted, RHOADS & S1NON P By: Marc T. Levin Attorney I.D. 70294 One South Market Square P. O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 (717) 233-5731 Attorneys for Defendants 2 VEIMCATION Larry M. Waranch, deposes and says, subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities, that he makes this verification by its authority and that the facts set forth in the Petition to Allow the Appearance of Larry M. Waranch, Esquire pro hac vice are tnie and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. -- 3 . ) S? ) )0 '/'-v ?O Date 124a-rranch CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this ?/? day of , 2010, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice was served by means of United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, upon the following: Bradley D. Allison, Esquire Law Office of Bradley D. Allison 102 W. Penn Street, Suite 1 Bedford, PA 15522 ?n Teresa H. Laughead Marc T. Levin, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 70294 RHOADS & SINON LLP One South Market Square, 12th Floor P.O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 (717) 233-5731 Attorneys for Defendants DORIS M. SIPE, Plaintiff V. NORMAN L. PLANK, a/k/a NORMAN L. PLANK, JR., individually and t/d/b/a CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, and CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC Defendants FILED-+ F fCE - THE P_,C T 'C%TAPY 2010 MAR -8 APB 10: 21 UIlM.LL_ ? i r1ry T j , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2008-6182 PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE OF MARC T. LEVIN TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of Marc T. Levin, Esquire and Rhoads & Sinon LLP as counsel for Defendants, Norman L. Plank, a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr., individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic and Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic, in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, RHOADS & SINON LLP By: //`Gl f Marc T. Levin One South Market Square P. O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 (717) 233-5731 Attorneys for Defendants 772567.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 1114 day of March, 2010, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Entry of Appearance was served by means of United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, upon the following: Bradley D. Allison, Esquire Law Office of Bradley D. Allison 102 W. Penn Street, Suite 1 Bedford, PA 15522 Teresa H. Laughead DORIS M. SIPE, V. Plaintiff NORMAN L. PLANK, a/k/a NORMAN L. PLANK, JR., individually and t/d/b/a CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, and CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2008-6182 NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Doris M. Sipe c/o Bradley D. Allison, Esquire Law Office of Bradley D. Allison 102 W. Penn Street, Suite I Bedford, PA 15522 c -? : r c ? You are hereby notified to plead to the within Answer With New Matter of Defendants, Norman L. Plank, a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr., individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic, and Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic to Plaintiffs' Complaint within twenty (20) days of service or a default judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, RHOADS & SINON LLP f By: Marc T. Levin One South Market Square P. O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 (717) 233-5731 Attorneys for Defendants Norman L. Plank, a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr., individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic, and Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic W Marc T. Levin, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 70294 RHOADS & SINON LLP One South Market Square, 12th Floor P.O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 (717) 233-5731 Attorneys for Defendants DORIS M. SIPE, V. Plaintiff NORMAN L. PLANK, a/k/a NORMAN L. PLANK, JR., individually and t/d/b/a CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, and CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2008-6182 DEFENDANTS NORMAN L. PLANK, A/K/A NORMAN L. PLANK, JR. INDIVIDUALLY AND T/D/B/A CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC AND CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW come Defendants Norman L. Plank, a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr., individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic, and Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic by and through their counsel Rhoads & Sinon LLP by Marc T. Levin, Esquire in response to Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows: Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendants are without information sufficient to admit or deny the truth or falsity of the said averments and accordingly deny the same and demand strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. 2. Admitted. Admitted. 772631.1 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029(e). 7. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 8. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 9. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 10. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 11. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 12. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 13. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 14. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 15. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). -2- 16. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 17. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 18. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 19. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 20. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 21. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 22. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). COUNTI DORIS M. SIPE v. NORMAN L. PLANK, a/k/a NORMAN PLANK, JR., individually and t/d/b/a CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC 23. Answering Defendants incorporate the foregoing responses as though fully set forth herein. 24. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph and its subparts are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029(e). By way of further response, the averments contained in this paragraph and its subparts are conclusions of law to which no affirmative responses are required. To the extent affirmative responses may be required, -3- said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of yet further response: a. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant, Norman L. Plank, a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr., individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic negligently performed a manipulative procedure(s) on an area(s) of Plaintiff's spine, including but not limited to her neck, without first determining whether an articular thrust would be appropriate. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Dr. Plank acted properly and appropriately and within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. b. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Dr. Plank failed to take and/or failed to properly take a history from Plaintiff in relation to her spine, including but not limited to her neck and cervical spine, to determine whether an articular thrust would be appropriate. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Dr. Plank acted properly and appropriately and within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Dr. Plank failed to examine and/or properly examine Plaintiff in the area(s) of her spine, including but not limited to her neck, to determine whether an articular thrust would be appropriate. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Dr. Plank acted properly and appropriately and within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. -4- 1 25. a) -j) Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph and its subparts are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029(e). By way of further response, the averments contained in this paragraph and its subparts are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of yet further response, to the extent this paragraph and its subparts contain averments of direct or proximate causation, said averments are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent that this paragraph and its subparts contain allegations regarding Plaintiff's alleged damages, answering Defendant denies said allegations, since after reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the said averments and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. 26. Denied. To the extent this paragraph contains averments of direct or proximate causation, said averments are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further response, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments regarding Plaintiff's alleged damages and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. -5- 27. Denied. To the extent this paragraph contains averments of direct or proximate causation, said averments are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further response, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments regarding Plaintiff's alleged damages and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, and that Defendants be awarded appropriate costs and fees. COUNT II DORIS M. SIPE v. CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC 28. Answering Defendants incorporate the foregoing responses as though fully set forth herein. 29. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029(e). By way of further response, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. 30. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may -6- k be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. 31. Denied. To the extent this paragraph contains averments of direct or proximate causation, said averments are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further response, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments regarding Plaintiff's alleged damages and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, and that Defendants be awarded appropriate costs and fees. COUNT III PLAINTIFF DORIS M. SIPE v. DEFENDANT CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC 32. Answering Defendants incorporate the foregoing responses as though fully set forth herein. 33. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph and its subparts are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029(e). By way of further response, the averments contained in this paragraph and its subparts are conclusions of law to which no affirmative responses are required. To the extent affirmative responses may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of yet further response: 7- i a. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant, Norman L. Plank, a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr., individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic negligently performed a manipulative procedure(s) on an area(s) of Plaintiff's spine, including but not limited to her neck, without first determining whether an articular thrust would be appropriate. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Dr. Plank acted properly and appropriately and within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. b. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Dr. Plank failed to take and/or failed to properly take a history from Plaintiff in relation to her spine, including but not limited to her neck and cervical spine, to determine whether an articular thrust would be appropriate. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Dr. Plank acted properly and appropriately and within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. C. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Dr. Plank failed to examine and/or properly examine Plaintiff in the area(s) of her spine, including but not limited to her neck, to determine whether an articular thrust would appropriate. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Dr. Plank acted properly and appropriately and within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. 34. Denied. To the extent this paragraph contains averments of direct or proximate causation, said averments are conclusions of law to which no affirmative -8- r response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further response, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments regarding Plaintiff s alleged damages and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, and that Defendants be awarded appropriate costs and fees. NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS NORMAN L. PLANK, A/K/A NORMAN L. PLANK, JR. INDIVIDUALLY AND T/D/B/A CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC AND CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFFS I . Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 2. Plaintiff s claims are barred and/or limited by the applicable Statute of Limitations. 3. It is believed, and therefore averred, that the discovery will show that the Plaintiff was negligent and that her negligence exceeded the negligence, if any, of the Answering Defendants, thereby barring her recovery by operation of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 4. It is believed, and therefore averred, that discovery will show that the Plaintiff was negligent and that by virtue of her negligence, their claims may be limited by the operation of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. -9- 40 ?w 5. It is believed, and therefore averred, that discovery will show that the Plaintiff voluntarily assumed a known risk thereby barring recovery by the operation of the Doctrine of Assumption of Risk. 6. Plaintiff's injuries, if any, were sustained as a result of natural or unknown causes and not as the result of any action or inaction on behalf of the Answering Defendants. 7. At all times material hereto, Answering Defendants provided full, complete, proper, reasonable and adequate chiropractic medical care and treatment in accordance with the applicable standard of care. 8. No conduct on the part of the Answering Defendants was a substantial factor in causing or contributing to any harm which the Plaintiff may have suffered. 9. If Plaintiff suffered any damage, the damages were caused by the conduct of others over whom the Answering Defendants had no control or right to control. 10. All claims and causes of action pleaded against the Answering Defendants are barred by Plaintiff's knowing and voluntary informed consent to the care in question. 11. Insofar as the Answering Defendants, any agent, servant or employee of the Answering Defendants or any person for whom it is or may be vicariously liable, elected a treatment modality which is recognized as proper but may differ from another appropriate treatment modality, then said Answering Defendants raise the "two schools of thought" defense. 12. To the extent they were required to do so, the Answering Defendants took all reasonable and necessary steps to make a proper and appropriate diagnosis and to the -10- extent it may be determined that that diagnosis was in error, the Answering Defendants assert that the error in diagnosis was a reasonable and legally justifiable error. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants, Norman L. Plank, a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr., individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic, and Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against the Plaintiff and that Answering Defendants be awarded appropriate costs and fees. Respectfully submitted, RHOAD By: Marc T. Levin One South Market Square P. O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 (717) 233-5731 Attorneys for Defendants Norman L. Plank, a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr., individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic, and Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic -11- t ATTORNEY VERIFICATION I, Marc T. Levin, Esquire, depose and state that I am the attorney for the Defendants, Norman L. Plank, a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr., individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic, and Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic, and that I am acquainted with the facts set forth in Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint with New Matter and verify that the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct. I am signing this veri fication in order to file Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint with New Matter, and a substituted verification will be filed in a timely manner hereafter. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to aiM rities. rc T.Levin, squire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 7 day of , 2010, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint was served by means of United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, upon the following: Bradley D. Allison, Esquire Law Office of Bradley D. Allison 102 W. Penn Street, Suite 1 Bedford, PA 15522 7?f Teresa H. Laughead l MAR 7 12010 DORIS M. SIPE, NORMAN L. PLANK, a/k/a NORMAN L. PLANK, JR., individually and t/d/b/a CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, and CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2008-6182 ORDER AND NOW this / 2 ' day of March, 2010, the Petition to allow the appearance of Larry M. Waranch, Esquire, pro hac vice is GRANTED in the above-captioned matter. cs T :?; 4.a r Marc T. Levin, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 70294 RHOADS & SINON LLP One South Market Square, 12th Floor P.O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 (717) 233-5731 Attorneys for Defendants DORIS M. SIPE, Plaintiff V. NORMAN L. PLANK, a/k/a NORMAN L. PLANK, JR., individually and t/d/b/a CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, and CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC OF FILE a?Fr1 ,. .; ,= r QRY ; 2910 ,' T PH ; t 2: 5 ? 4 !'i :f 1I . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2008-6182 Defendants PRAECIPE TO SUBSTITUTE VERIFICATION PAGE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly substitute the within Original Verification Page for the Verification Page previously filed in connection with Defendants Norman L. Plank, a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr. individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic and Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint filed in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, RHO rS LLP By: ?-- Marc T. LOne South Market Square P. O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 (717) 233-5731 Attorneys for Defendants Norman L. Plank, a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr., individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic, and Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic 774551.1 r.1 VERIFICATION Norman L. Plank, Jr., deposes and says, subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities, that he makes this verification by its authority and that the facts set forth in the Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. U3 - \&_ 2ON C5 Date Norman L. Plank, Jr. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this a,34-day of , 2010, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Substitute Verification Page was served by means of United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, upon the following: Bradley D. Allison, Esquire Law Office of Bradley D. Allison 102 W. Penn Street, Suite I Bedford, PA 15522 Teresa H. Laughead 774551.1 DORIS M. SIPE, Plaintiff V. NORMAN L. PLANK, a/k/a NORMAN L PLANK, JR., individually and t/d/b/a CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, and CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2008-6182 ca ^? CO Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Plantiff, Doris M. Sipe, by and through her attorney, Bradley D. Allison, Esquire and files these Preliminary Objections to Defendants' Answer with New Matter pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028, et seq., respectfully setting forth as follows: 1. The instant case arises out of Defendants' chiropractic treatment of Plaintiff alleged to have injured her 2. Plaintiff instituted this case by the filing of a Writ of Summons on or about December 17, 2007. 3. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an Complaint on or about June 12, 2008. 4. Defendants' Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint was filed on or about March 9, 2010. 5. In the "Wherefore" clauses of their Answer with New Matter, Defendants seek, in pertinent part, "appropriate costs and fees." 1 6. No averment, however, is made by Defendants in connection with its pleading that Plaintiff and Defendants reached any agreement, whether written or oral in nature, that in the event of litigation, Plaintiff would pay Defendants' attorney's fees or costs of litigation, including expert witness fees, nor are material facts averred sufficient to give rise to a valid claim for the same against the Plaintiff. 7. Neither is a statutory basis asserted by Defendants entitling them to an award of attorney's fees and the expenses incurred by them in litigation. 8. Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10 of Defendant's New Matter attempt to assert legal defenses to Plaintiff's claims; however, Defendant does not set forth the material facts upon which such claims are based within those paragraphs. (See Answer with New Matter). I. PRELIIMINARY OBJECTION - DEMURRER 9. Paragraphs 1 through 8 above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 10. Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) permits a party to raise preliminary objections to any pleading based upon legal insufficiency (demurrer). 11. Defendants' Answer with New Matter fails to set forth facts sufficient to establish any valid claim against the Plaintiff cognizable under Pennsylvania law for attorney's fees and expenses of litigation. 12. Accordingly, Defendants' claim for same should be dismissed with prejudice and such language stricken with prejudice from Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint. 2 II. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION -MOTION TO STRIKE FOR FAILURE TO CONFORM TO LAW OR RULE OF COURT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION FOR MORE SPECIFIC PLEADING 13. Paragraphs 1 through 12 above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 14. Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a) provides, in pertinent part, that the material facts upon which a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated in concise and summary form. 15. Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2) permits a party to raise preliminary objections to any pleading which fails to conform to law or rule of Court. 16. Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3) permits a party to raise preliminary objections to any pleading based upon insufficient specificity. 17. In Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10 of their New Matter, the Defendants do not state the material facts upon which its alleged defenses are based as required under Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a). 18. As the aforesaid Paragraphs fail to conform to Rule 1019(a), Plaintiff request this Court to grant her Motion to Strike such Paragraphs of Defendants' New Matter and enter an Order striking such Paragraphs with prejudice, or alternatively, grant Plaintiff's Motion for a More Specific Pleading as to these Paragraphs and enter an Order striking such Paragraphs without prejudice and requiring Defendants to file an Amended New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint within twenty (20) days of the date of this Court's Order. 3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Doris M. Sipe respectfully requests your Honorable Court to grant her the relief set forth herein. Respectfully Submitted, LAW OTWeE OF BRADLEY D. ALLISON r BY -Elf dley D. glfison, 1='s4uire P ic I .D. NQ/80072 A rney for Plaintiff 102 W. Penn Street, Ste. 1 Bedford, PA 15522 (814) 623-7566 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document has been served in this matter on the 25th day of March, 2010, by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, Postage Paid, addressed as follows: Marc T. Levin, Esquire One South Market Square P.O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 Larry M. Waranch, Esquire Waranch & Brown, LLC 1301 York Road, Suite 300 Lutherville, MD 21093 By dley D. ison, Esquire A orney f Plaintiff 1 2 W. Penn St., Ste. 1 Bedford, PA. 15522 (814) 623-7566 DORIS M. SIPE, V. Plaintiff NORMAN L. PLANK, a/k/a NORMAN L. PLANK, JR., individually and t/d/b/a CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, and CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2008-6182 NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Doris M. Sipe c/o Bradley D. Allison, Esquire Law Office of Bradley D. Allison 102 W. Penn Street, Suite 1 Bedford, PA 15522 r- r,a You are hereby notified to plead to the within Amended Answer With New Matter of Defendants, Norman L. Plank, a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr., individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic, and Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic to Plaintiffs' Complaint within twenty (20) days of service or a default judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, By: RHOADS & SINON LL Marc T. Levin One South Market Square P. O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 (717) 233-5731 Attorneys for Defendants Norman L. Plank, a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr., individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic, and Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic Marc T. Levin, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 70294 RHOADS & SINON LLP One South Market Square, 12th Floor P.O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 (717) 233-5731 Attorneys for Defendants DORIS M. SIPE, V. Plaintiff NORMAN L. PLANK, a/k/a NORMAN L. PLANK, JR., individually and t/d/b/a CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, and CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2008-6182 DEFENDANTS NORMAN L. PLANK, A/K/A NORMAN L. PLANK, JR. INDIVIDUALLY AND T/DB/A CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC AND CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC AMENDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW come Defendants Norman L. Plank, a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr., individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic, and Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic by and through their counsel Rhoads & Sinon LLP by Marc T. Levin, Esquire in response to Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows: Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendants are without information sufficient to admit or deny the truth or falsity of the said averments and accordingly deny the same and demand strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. 2. Admitted. Admitted. 776890.1 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029(e). 7. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 8. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 9. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 10. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 11. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 12. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 13. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 14. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 15. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). -2- 16. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 17. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 18. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 19. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 20. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 21. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 22. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). COUNTI DORIS M. SIPE v. NORMAN L. PLANK, a/k/a NORMAN PLANK, JR., individually and t/d/b/a CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC 23. Answering Defendants incorporate the foregoing responses as though fully set forth herein. 24. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph and its subparts are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029(e). By way of further response, the averments contained in this paragraph and its subparts are conclusions of law to which no affirmative responses are required. To the extent affirmative responses may be required, -3- said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of yet further response: a. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant, Norman L. Plank, a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr., individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic negligently performed a manipulative procedure(s) on an area(s) of Plaintiff's spine, including but not limited to her neck, without first determining whether an articular thrust would be appropriate. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Dr. Plank acted properly and appropriately and within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. b. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Dr. Plank failed to take and/or failed to properly take a history from Plaintiff in relation to her spine, including but not limited to her neck and cervical spine, to determine whether an articular thrust would be appropriate. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Dr. Plank acted properly and appropriately and within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. C. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Dr. Plank failed to examine and/or properly examine Plaintiff in the area(s) of her spine, including but not limited to her neck, to determine whether an articular thrust would be appropriate. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Dr. Plank acted properly and appropriately and within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. -4- 25. a) -j) Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph and its subparts are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029(e). By way of further response, the averments contained in this paragraph and its subparts are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of yet further response, to the extent this paragraph and its subparts contain averments of direct or proximate causation, said averments are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent that this paragraph and its subparts contain allegations regarding Plaintiff's alleged damages, answering Defendant denies said allegations, since after reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the said averments and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. 26. Denied. To the extent this paragraph contains averments of direct or proximate causation, said averments are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further response, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments regarding Plaintiff's alleged damages and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. -5- 27. Denied. To the extent this paragraph contains averments of direct or proximate causation, said averments are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further response, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments regarding Plaintiff's alleged damages and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, and award any other relief that this Court deems appropriate. COUNT II DORIS M. SIPE v. CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC 28. Answering Defendants incorporate the foregoing responses as though fully set forth herein. 29. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029(e). By way of further response, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. -6- 30. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. 31. Denied. To the extent this paragraph contains averments of direct or proximate causation, said averments are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further response, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments regarding Plaintiff's alleged damages and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, and award any other relief that this Court deems appropriate. COUNT III PLAINTIFF DORIS M. SIPE v. DEFENDANT CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC 32. Answering Defendants incorporate the foregoing responses as though fully set forth herein. 33. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph and its subparts are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029(e). By way of further response, the averments contained in this paragraph and its subparts are conclusions of law to which no 7- affirmative responses are required. To the extent affirmative responses may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of yet further response: a. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant, Norman L. Plank, a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr., individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic negligently performed a manipulative procedure(s) on an area(s) of Plaintiff's spine, including but not limited to her neck, without first determining whether an articular thrust would be appropriate. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Dr. Plank acted properly and appropriately and within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. b. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Dr. Plank failed to take and/or failed to properly take a history from Plaintiff in relation to her spine, including but not limited to her neck and cervical spine, to determine whether an articular thrust would be appropriate. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Dr. Plank acted properly and appropriately and within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Dr. Plank failed to examine and/or properly examine Plaintiff in the area(s) of her spine, including but not limited to her neck, to determine whether an articular thrust would appropriate. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Dr. Plank acted -8- properly and appropriately and within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. 34. Denied. To the extent this paragraph contains averments of direct or proximate causation, said averments are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further response, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments regarding Plaintiff's alleged damages and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, and award any other relief that this Court deems appropriate. NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS NORMAN L. PLANK, A/K/A NORMAN L. PLANK, JR. INDIVIDUALLY AND T/DB/A CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC AND CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFFS 1. Plaintiff s injuries, if any, were sustained as a result of natural or unknown causes and not as the result of any action or inaction on behalf of the Answering Defendants. 2. At all times material hereto, Answering Defendants provided full, complete, proper, reasonable and adequate chiropractic medical care and treatment in accordance with the applicable standard of care. -9- 3. No conduct on the part of the Answering Defendants was a substantial factor in causing or contributing to any harm which the Plaintiff may have suffered. 4. If Plaintiff suffered any damage, the damages were caused by the conduct of others over whom the Answering Defendants had no control or right to control. 5. Insofar as the Answering Defendants, any agent, servant or employee of the Answering Defendants or any person for whom it is or may be vicariously liable, elected a treatment modality which is recognized as proper but may differ from another appropriate treatment modality, then said Answering Defendants raise the "two schools of thought" defense. 6. To the extent they were required to do so, the Answering Defendants took all reasonable and necessary steps to make a proper and appropriate diagnosis and to the extent it may be determined that that diagnosis was in error, the Answering Defendants assert that the error in diagnosis was a reasonable and legally justifiable error. 7. Answering Defendants reserve the right to amend their New Matter to include defenses which may become available during and after the course of discovery. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants, Norman L. Plank, a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr., individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic, and Carlisle Chiropractic -10- Clinic, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against the Plaintiff, and award any other relief that this Court deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted, RHOADS & SINON L By: Marc T. Levin One South Market Square P. O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 (717) 233-5731 Attorneys for Defendants Norman L. Plank, a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr., individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic, and Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic -11- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this /3? day of , 2010, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Amended Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint was served by means of United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, upon the following: Bradley D. Allison, Esquire Law Office of Bradley D. Allison 102 W. Penn Street, Suite 1 Bedford, PA 15522 Teresa H. Laughead DORIS M. SIPE, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2008-6182 NORMAN L. PLANK, a/k/a NORMAN L. PLANK, JR., individually and t/d/b/a CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, and CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, ti Defendants G' ~ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ru ? PLAINTIFF'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANTS' AMENDE? ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Doris M. Sipe, by and through her attorney, Bradley D. Allison, Esquire and files these Preliminary Objections to Defendants' Answer with New Matter pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028, et seq., respectfully setting forth as follows: 1. The instant case arises out of Defendants' chiropractic treatment of Plaintiff alleged to have injured her 2. Plaintiff instituted this case by the filing of a Praecipe for Writ of Summons on or about October 16, 2008. 3. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a Complaint on or about February 18, 2010. 4. Defendants' Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint was filed on or about March 9, 2010. 5. In response thereto, Plaintiff filed Preliminary Objections on or about March 25, 2010 6. Thereafter, Defendants filed their Amended Answer with New Matter on or about April 13, 2010. 7. Paragraph 7 of the New Matter Section of Defendants' Amended Answer with New Matter attempts to assert and/or reserve legal defenses to Plaintiff's claims; however, Defendant does not set forth the specific defenses and/or the material facts upon which such alleged defenses are based within such paragraph. (See Defendants' Amended Answer with New Matter, New Matter section, Paragraph 7). 8. No verification form is attached to the Defendants' Amended Answer with New Matter. I. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION -MOTION TO STRIKE FOR FAILURE TO CONFORM TO LAW OR RULE OF COURT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION FOR MORE SPECIFIC PLEADING 6. Paragraphs 1 through 5 above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 7. Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a) provides, in pertinent part, that the material facts upon which a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated in concise and summary form. 8. Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2) permits a party to raise preliminary objections to any pleading which fails to conform to law or rule of Court. 9. Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3) permits a party to raise preliminary objections to any pleading based upon insufficient specificity. 10. In Paragraphs 7 of the New Matter section of their Amended Answer with New Matter, the Defendants do not state the specific defenses which they are 2 attempting to raise by reservation let alone the material facts upon which such alleged defenses are based as required under Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a). 11. As the aforesaid Paragraphs fail to conform to Rule 1019(a), Plaintiff request this Court to grant her Motion to Strike such Paragraph of Defendants' Amended Answer with New Matter and enter an Order striking such Paragraph with prejudice, or alternatively, grant Plaintiff's Motion for a More Specific Pleading as to this Paragraph and enter an Order striking such Paragraph without prejudice and requiring Defendants to file a Second Amended New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint within twenty (20) days of the date of this Court's Order. II. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION -MOTION TO STRIKE FOR FAILURE TO CONFORM TO LAW OR RULE OF COURT, OR ALTERNATIVELY, MOTION TO REQUIRE ATTACHMENT OF VERIFICATION 12. Paragraphs 1 through 11 above are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 13. Pa.R.C.P. 1024(a) requires every pleading to be verified. 14. Defendants' Amended Answer with New Matter contains no verification. 15. As noted above, Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2) permits a party to raise preliminary objections to any pleading which fails to conform to law or rule of Court. 16. Because Defendants' pleading is not verified, it fails to meet the requirements of Rule 1024(a). 17. Thus, Plaintiff's Motion to Strike such pleading should be granted and an Order entered striking same with prejudice, or alternatively, Plaintiff's Motion to require Defendants to attach their verification to their pleading 3 should be granted and an Order entered requiring such attachment within twenty (20) days of the date of this Court's Order. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Doris M. Sipe respectfully requests your Honorable Court to grant her the relief set forth herein. Respectfully Submitted, LAW OFFICE OF BRADLEY D. ALLISON BY Bdadley D. Alli n, Esquire a. 11D. No. 0072 Attorney for Plaintiff 102 W. Penn Street, Ste. 1 Bedford, PA 15522 (814) 623-7566 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document has been served in this matter on the 29th day of April, 2010, by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, Postage Paid, addressed as follows: Marc T. Levin, Esquire One South Market Square P.O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 Larry M. Waranch, Esquire Waranch & Brown, LLC 1301 York Road, Suite 300 Lutherville, MD 21093 8 adley DIlison, Esquire orney or Plaintiff 1b2 W. Penn St., Ste. 1 Bedford, PA. 15522 (814) 623-7566 DORIS M. SIPE, V. Plaintiff NORMAN L. PLANK, a/k/a NORMAN L. PLANK, JR., individually and t/d/b/a CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, and CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2008-6182 NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Doris M. Sipe c/o Bradley D. Allison, Esquire Law Office of Bradley D. Allison 102 W. Penn Street, Suite 1 Bedford, PA 15522 n ^? "Z -ri - You are hereby notified to plead to the within Second Amended Answer With New Matter of Defendants, Norman L. Plank, a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr., individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic, and Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic to Plaintiffs' Complaint within twenty (20) days of service or a default judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, RHOADS & SINON L By: Z- Marc T. Levin One South Market Square P. O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 (717) 233-5731 Attorneys for Defendants Norman L. Plank, a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr., individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic, and Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic 779195.1 Marc T. Levin, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 70294 RHOADS & SINON LLP One South Market Square, 12th Floor P.O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 (717) 233-5731 Attorneys for Defendants DORIS M. SIPE, Plaintiff NORMAN L. PLANK, a/k/a NORMAN L. PLANK, JR., individually and t/d/b/a CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, and CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC V. Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2008-6182 DEFENDANTS NORMAN L. PLANK, A/K/A NORMAN L. PLANK, JR. INDIVIDUALLY AND T/D/B/A CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC AND CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC SECOND AMENDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW come Defendants Norman L. Plank, a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr., individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic, and Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic by and through their counsel Rhoads & Sinon LLP by Marc T. Levin, Esquire in response to Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows: Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendants are without information sufficient to admit or deny the truth or falsity of the said averments and accordingly deny the same and demand strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. 2. Admitted. 779195.1 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029(e). 7. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 8. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 9. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 10. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 11. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 12. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 13. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 14. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 15. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). -2- 779195.1 16. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 17. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 18. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 19. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 20. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 21. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). 22. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029 (e). COUNTI DORIS M. SIPE v. NORMAN L. PLANK, a/k/a NORMAN PLANK, JR., individually and t/d/b/a CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC 23. Answering Defendants incorporate the foregoing responses as though fully set forth herein. 24. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph and its subparts are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029(e). By way of further response, the averments contained in this paragraph and its subparts are conclusions of law to which no affirmative responses are required. To the extent affirmative responses may be required, -3- 779195.1 said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of yet further response: a. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant, Norman L. Plank, a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr., individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic negligently performed a manipulative procedure(s) on an area(s) of Plaintiff's spine, including but not limited to her neck, without first determining whether an articular thrust would be appropriate. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Dr. Plank acted properly and appropriately and within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. b. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Dr. Plank failed to take and/or failed to properly take a history from Plaintiff in relation to her spine, including but not limited to her neck and cervical spine, to determine whether an articular thrust would be appropriate. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Dr. Plank acted properly and appropriately and within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. C. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Dr. Plank failed to examine and/or properly examine Plaintiff in the area(s) of her spine, including but not limited to her neck, to determine whether an articular thrust would be appropriate. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Dr. Plank acted properly and appropriately and within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. -4- 779195.1 25. a) - j) Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph and its subparts are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029(e). By way of further response, the averments contained in this paragraph and its subparts are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of yet further response, to the extent this paragraph and its subparts contain averments of direct or proximate causation, said averments are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent that this paragraph and its subparts contain allegations regarding Plaintiff's alleged damages, answering Defendant denies said allegations, since after reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the said averments and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. 26. Denied. To the extent this paragraph contains averments of direct or proximate causation, said averments are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further response, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments regarding Plaintiff's alleged damages and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. -5- 779195.1 27. Denied. To the extent this paragraph contains averments of direct or proximate causation, said averments are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further response, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments regarding Plaintiff's alleged damages and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, and award any other relief that this Court deems appropriate. COUNT II DORIS M. SIPE v. CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC 28. Answering Defendants incorporate the foregoing responses as though fully set forth herein. 29. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029(e). By way of further response, the averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. -6- 779195.1 30. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. 31. Denied. To the extent this paragraph contains averments of direct or proximate causation, said averments are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further response, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments regarding Plaintiff's alleged damages and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, and award any other relief that this Court deems appropriate. COUNT III PLAINTIFF DORIS M. SIPE v. DEFENDANT CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC 32. Answering Defendants incorporate the foregoing responses as though fully set forth herein. 33. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph and its subparts are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029(e). By way of further response, the averments contained in this paragraph and its subparts are conclusions of law to which no -7- 779195.1 affirmative responses are required. To the extent affirmative responses may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of yet further response: a. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant, Norman L. Plank, a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr., individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic negligently performed a manipulative procedure(s) on an area(s) of Plaintiff's spine, including but not limited to her neck, without first determining whether an articular thrust would be appropriate. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Dr. Plank acted properly and appropriately and within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. b. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Dr. Plank failed to take and/or failed to properly take a history from Plaintiff in relation to her spine, including but not limited to her neck and cervical spine, to determine whether an articular thrust would be appropriate. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Dr. Plank acted properly and appropriately and within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. C. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Dr. Plank failed to examine and/or properly examine Plaintiff in the area(s) of her spine, including but not limited to her neck, to determine whether an articular thrust would appropriate. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Dr. Plank acted -8- 779195.1 properly and appropriately and within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. 34. Denied. To the extent this paragraph contains averments of direct or proximate causation, said averments are conclusions of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further response, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments regarding Plaintiff's alleged damages and therefore denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Court enter judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff, and award any other relief that this Court deems appropriate. NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS NORMAN L. PLANK, A/K/A NORMAN L. PLANK, JR. INDIVIDUALLY AND T/DB/A CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC AND CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFFS 1. Plaintiff's injuries, if any, were sustained as a result of natural or unknown causes and not as the result of any action or inaction on behalf of the Answering Defendants. 2. At all times material hereto, Answering Defendants provided full, complete, proper, reasonable and adequate chiropractic medical care and treatment in accordance with the applicable standard of care. -9- 779195.1 No conduct on the part of the Answering Defendants was a substantial factor in causing or contributing to any harm which the Plaintiff may have suffered. 4. If Plaintiff suffered any damage, the damages were caused by the conduct of others over whom the Answering Defendants had no control or right to control. Insofar as the Answering Defendants, any agent, servant or employee of the Answering Defendants or any person for whom it is or may be vicariously liable, elected a treatment modality which is recognized as proper but may differ from another appropriate treatment modality, then said Answering Defendants raise the "two schools of thought" defense. 6. To the extent they were required to do so, the Answering Defendants took all reasonable and necessary steps to make a proper and appropriate diagnosis and to the extent it may be determined that that diagnosis was in error, the Answering Defendants assert that the error in diagnosis was a reasonable and legally justifiable error. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants, Norman L. Plank, a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr., individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic, and Carlisle Chiropractic -10- 779195.1 Clinic, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against the Plaintiff, and award any other relief that this Court deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted, RHOADS & SINON P By: ? J - Marc T. Levin One South Market Square P. O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 (717) 233-5731 Attorneys for Defendants Norman L. Plank, a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr., individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic, and Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic -11- 779195.1 ATTORNEY VERIFICATION I, Marc T. Levin, Esquire, depose and state that I am the attorney for the Defendants, Norman L. Plank, a/k/a Norman L. Plank, Jr., individually and t/d/b/a Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic, and Carlisle Chiropractic Clinic, and that I am acquainted with the facts set forth in Defendants' Second Amended Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint with New Matter and verify that the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct. I am signing this verification in order to file Defendants' Second Amended Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint with New Matter, and a substituted verification will be filed in a timely manner hereafter. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Marc T. Levin, Esquire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this .? day of `? , 2010, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Second Amended Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint was served by means of United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, upon the following: Bradley D. Allison, Esquire Law Office of Bradley D. Allison 102 W. Penn Street, Suite 1 Bedford, PA 15522 ?-? W LA4? Teresa H. Laughead 779195.1 DORIS M. SIPE, V. Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NORMAN L. PLANK, a/k/a NORMAN L.: PLANK, JR., individually and t/d/b/a CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, and CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, Defendants NO. 2008-6182 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED n r.? b `?n PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Doris M. Sipe, by and through her attorney, Bradley D. Allison, Esquire and files this Reply to Defendants' New Matter, respectfully averring as follows: 1 - 6. Paragraphs 1 through 6 of Defendants' New Matter contain conclusions of law to which no responses are required. To the extent that responses are deemed required, each and every averment of same is specifically denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Doris M. Sipe respectfully requests your Honorable Court to deny and dismiss Defendants' Second Amended Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice and enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor and against Defendants as more particularly set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint, with costs of suit to be paid by Defendants. Respectfully Submitted, LAW OFFICEOF BRAD IVY D. ALLISON gr`4dley D,,FCllison:"squire P I.D. 0.80072 Attorney for Plaintiff 102 W. Penn Street, Ste. 1 Bedford, PA 15522 (814) 623-7566 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document has been served in this matter on the 18th day of May, 2010, by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, Postage Paid, addressed as follows: Marc T. Levin, Esquire One South Market Square P.O. Box 1146 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1146 Larry M. Waranch, Esquire Waranch & Brown, LLC 1301 York Road, Suite 300 Lutherville, MD 21093 Bedford, PA. 15522 (814) 623-7566 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY DORIS M. SIPE CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiffs, No. 2008-CV-6182 V. SUBSTITUTION OF APPEARANCE NORMAN L. PLANK, ET AL. Filed on behalf of Defendants. Counsel of Record for this Party Marc T. Levin PA I.D. 70294 WEBER GALLAGHER SIMPSON STAPLETON FIRES & NEWBY LLP 200 North 3`d Street Suite 9A Harrisburg, PA 17101 Phone: (717) 237-6940 Fax: (717) 237-6949 r7j i .... r' ? ` rt- q t _ ty .) M ?,. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY DORIS M. SIPE, : CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiffs, : No. 2008-CV-6182 V. NORMAN L. PLANK, ET AL., Defendants. SUBSTITUTION OF APPEARANCE Kindly withdraw the appearance of Rhoads & Sinon, LLP on behalf of Defendant, Norman L. Plank and substitute the appearance of Marc T. Levin, Esquire and Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby, LLP, 200 North 3`d Street, Suite 9A, Harrisburg, PA 17101. . WEBER GALLAGHER SIMPSON STAPLETON FIRES EWBY, LLP Marc T. Levin, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing SUBSTITUTION OF APPEARANCE was served via United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, this 1" day of June, 2010, on the following: Prothonotary's Office Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Larry M. Waranch, Esquire Waranch & Brown, LLC 1301 York Road, Suite 300 Lutherville, MD 21093 Bradley D. Allison, Esquire Law Office of Bradley D. Allison 102 W. Penn Street, Suite 1 Bedford, PA 15522 Date: June 1, 2010 Marc T. Levin, Esquire Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby, LLP The Fulton Bank Building 200 North Third Street, Suite 9A Harrisburg, PA 17101 mlevin ,wglaw.com T: (717) 237-7483 PA I.D. 70294 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY DORIS M. SIPE, Plaintiff V. NORMAN L. PLANK, a/k/a NORMAN L. PLANK, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND t/d/b/a CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, AND CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, Defendants CIVIL DIVISION No. 2008-CV-6182 = Motion to Schedule Status Conference CD D cy r Q -?, Filed on behalf of Defendant o _ C) c Norman L. Plank ? CO Counsel of Record for this Party Marc T. Levin PA I.D. 70294 WEBER GALLAGHER SIMPSON STAPLETON FIRES & NEWBY LLP 200 North P Street Suite 9A Harrisburg, PA 17101 Phone: (717) 237-6940 Fax: (717) 237-6949 MOTION TO SCHEDULE STATUS CONFERENCE WITHOUT CONCURRENCE DEFENDANTS, Norman L. Plank, Et al., by and through their counsel, Larry M. Waranch, Esquire, and Marc T. Levin, Esquire, file this Motion to Schedule a Status Conference as follows: 1. Plaintiff's Complaint alleging chiropractic malpractice was filed on or about February 18, 2010, along with Certificates of Merit. 2. Defendants' original Answer with New Matter was filed on March 10, 2010. 3. Counsel for Defendants believes that a Status Conference is necessary to ensure progress by establishing deadlines through a Status Conference and Case Management Order. 4. Defendants herein request that This Honorable Court schedule a Case Management Conference for the purpose of discussing the status of this litigation and establishing discovery, expert report, dispositive motions, pretrial motions deadlines and other applicable and desirable deadlines as may be determined. 5. Counsel for Defendants contacted Plaintiff's counsel on or about April 5, 2011, to seek his concurrence in this Motion. 6. Counsel for Plaintiff does not concur in this Motion. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request This Honorable Court schedule a Status Conference so that this case may proceed pursuant to a Case Management Order. Respectfully submitted, WEBER GALLAGHER SIMPSON STAPLETON FIRES & NEWBY, LLP By: Marc T. Levin, squire PA I.D. NO: 70294 200 North 3rd Street, Suite 9A Harrisburg, PA 17101 Phone: (717) 237-6940 Fax: (717) 237-6949 Larry Waranch, Esquire Waranch & Brown, LLC Date: April 7, 2011 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Marc T. Levin, hereby certify that the foregoing Motion to Schedule Status Conference was forwarded to the following via first class, U.S. mail, postage prepaid: Prothonotary's Office Cumberland County Courthouse 1 Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Bradley D. Allison, Law Office of Bradley D. Allison 102 W Penn Street, Suite 1 Bedford, PA 15522 WEBER GALLAGHER SIMPSON STAPLETON FIRES & NEWBY, LLP Marc T. Levin, Esq ire Attorney for Defendant Date: April 7, 2011 DORIS M. SIPE, Plaintiff VS. NORMAN L. PLANK, a/k/a NORMAN L. PLANK, JR., Individually and t/d/b/a CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, and CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 08-6182 a- M IN RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER AND NOW, this / Sday of April, 2011, a rule is issued on the plaintiff to show cause why the relief requested in the within motion ought not to be granted. This rule returnable fifteen (15) days after service. BY THE COURT, 1 Kevin A ess, P. J. T. Levin, Est Bradley b. AiI on, ?I..ar9 M. W h, ELt 4/1s/it i Od I I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY DORIS M. SIPE, V. P N L. PLANK, a/k/a NORMAN L. JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND t/d/b/a LE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, AND :,E CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, CIVIL DIVISION No. 2008-CV-6182 Motion to Withdraw Request for Status Conference Filed on behalf of Defendant Norman L. Plank Counsel of Record for this Party Marc T. Levin PA I.D. 70294 WEBER GALLAGHER SIMPSON STAPLETON FIRES & NEWBY LLP 200 North 3`d Street Suite 9A Harrisburg, PA 17101 Phone: (717) 237-6940 Fax: (717) 237-6949 ANTS, Norman L. Plank, Et al., by and through their counsel, Larry M. W Esquire, and Marc T. Levin, Esquire, file this Motion to Withdraw their Request to Schedule la Status. c°) C. r-":) ,.--, z", r N) ems. r ?i ..aa -°? -.4 N` parties have mutually agreed to schedule deposition in this matter and request the iog of a Status Conference following the completion of said depositions. Respectfully submitted, WEBER GALLAGHER SIMPSON STAPLETON FIRES & NEWBY, LLP By: y Marc T. Levin, Esquire PA I.D. NO: 70294 200 North 3rd Street, Suite 9A Harrisburg, PA 17101 Phone: (717) 237-6940 Fax: (717) 237-6949 Larry Waranch, Esquire Waranch & Brown, LLC Date: Plnril 20 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY DORIS M. SIPE, Plaintiff V. NORMAN L. PLANK, a/k/a NORMAN L. PLANK, JR., INDIVIDUALLY AND t/d/b/a CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, AND CARLISLE CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC, Defendants C CIVIL DIVISION w z+''+ ? Fri-, No. 2008-CV-6182 r cn ° ORDER Filed on behalf of Defendants ? ' Norman L. Plank -4 Counsel of Record for this Party Marc T. Levin PA I.D. 70294 WEBER GALLAGHER SIMPSON STAPLETON FIRES & NEWBY LLP 200 North 3`d Street Suite 9A Harrisburg, PA 17101 Phone: (717) 237-6940 Fax: (717) 237-6949 ORDER AND NOW, this Z (, ' day of 2011, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Schedule a Status Conference is hereby Withdrawn BY THE COURT: Date: , 2011 V &,,,die,y D, Alison, Ma= `r. Levin ,CF-scL 6,pie,s