Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-2572DONNA YANKO, and GARY YANKO, her husband, Plaintiffs, V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. Oq - ?5' , CIUtL QJ'y1 MECHANICSBURG CARPET MART, INC. CIVIL ACTION -LAW t/b/d/a Carpet Mart Defendant. 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 Telephone 717-249-3166 or 800-990-9108 HANDL , HENNING & By ROSENBERG,LLP 44 Stephen G. Held, Esquire 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorney for Plaintiffs DONNA YANKO, and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS GARY YANKO, her husband, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs, V. No. MECHANICSBURG CARPET MART, INC. CIVIL ACTION - LAW t/b/d/a Carpet Mart Defendant. AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de [as demandas quo se presentan m6s adelante an Ills siguientes piginas, debe tomar acci6n dentro de Ice pr6ximos veinte (20) dias despu6s de la notificaci6n de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando on la Corte por escrito sus defenses de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui an contra suya. Se le advierte de qua si usted falla de tomar accl6n como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada on la demanda o cualquier otra reclamoci6n o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado an contra suya por la Corte sin mAs aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 Liberty Avenue, Carlisle, PA 17013 Telephone 717-249-3166 or 800-990-9108 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By: kn ,Esquire es wn Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 DONNA YANKO, and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS GARY YANKO, her husband, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs, n V. No. MECHANICSBURG CARPET MART, INC. CIVIL ACTION - LAW Vb/d/a Carpet Man`. Defendant. COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Donna Yanko, by and through her attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by Stephen G. Held, Esquire, and brings forth this Complaint against Defendant, Mechanicsburg Carpet Mart, Inc., and avers as follows: 1. Plaintiffs, Donna Yanko and Gary Yanko, her husband, are competent adult individuals currently residing at 93 Greenwood Drive, New Cumberland, York County, Pennsylvania 17070. 2. Defendant, Mechanicsburg Carpet Mart, Inc. Is a Pennsylvania corporation and is currently doing business at 5103 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055. 3. At all times material hereto, Mechanicsburg Carpet Mart, Inc., was in ownership, possession, management and/or control of the Premises located at and known as 5103 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055 (hereinafter 'Premises"). 4. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Donna Yanko, was lawfully upon said Premises. 5. At all times material hereto, Defendant, who had exclusive control of said Premises, had allowed a significant deviation in height between two segments of the floor within the Premises located at 5103 Carlisle Pike. 6. At all times material hereto, there were no warning signs posted on the Premises warning of the significant deviation in height between the two segments of the floor. 7. On or about June 25, 2002, at about 2:00pm or 3:00 p.m., Plaintiff, Donna Yanko, was shopping within the defendant's store at 5103 Carlisle Pike when she tripped and fell due to the significant deviation in height between the two segments of the floor. Plaintiff tripped and fell harshly into the counter causing personal injuries to the Plaintiff. 8. At all times material to hereto, Plaintiffs, Donna Yanko and Gary Yanko, her husband, believe and therefore aver, that Defendant, Mechanicsburg Carpet Mart, Inc., was in ownership, possession, management and/or control of the Premises and was responsible for maintaining the safe condition of the premises known as 5103 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17055.. 9. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendant, Mechanicsburg Carpet Mart, Inc., Plaintiff, Donna Yanko, sustained extensive and serious personal injuries, as set forth more specifically below. COUNT I- NEGLIGENCE Donna Yanko v. Mechanicsburn Carpet Mart. Inc. 10. Paragraphs 1 - 9 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 2 11. The occurrence of the aforementioned incident and the resulting injuries to Plaintiff, Donna Yanko, were caused directly and proximately by the negligence of Defendant, Mechanicsburg Carpet Mart Inc., by its agents, servants, workmen or employees, acting in the scope of their authority and employment, generally and more specifically as set forth below: (a) In causing or permitting a significant deviation in height between two segments of the floor at the Premises to remain, thereby posing an unreasonable risk of injuryto the Plaintiff and to other persons lawfully upon the premises; (b) In causing or permitting to be present a significant deviation in height between two segments of the floor to remain when Defendant knew or should have known that the likelihood of the significant deviation in height between two segments of the floor could be a tripping hazard to individuals traversing the floor; (c) In failing to make a reasonable inspection of said Premises which would have revealed the existence of the dangerous condition posed by the significant deviation in height between two segments of the floor, and thereby allowing the same to be and remain a dangerous condition when the Defendant knew or should have known of it; (d) In failing to ensure the floor at said Premises was maintained in a safe condition to prevent injury to the Plaintiff and other persons lawfully upon the Premises. 3 (e) In failing to post a warning sign or device in the area to notify of the dangerous condition of the floor of said Premises; (f) In failing to remove or remedy the significant deviation in height between two segments of the floor of said Premises so as to avoid the situation in which the Plaintiff tripped and fell; and (g) In failing to maintain the floor area of the said Premises in a reasonably safe condition that would prevent the Plaintiff from becoming injured. 12. Defendant, Mechanicsburg Carpet Mart, Inc., had actual knowledge or should have known through the exercise of ordinary care and diligence that there was a significant deviation in height between two segments of the floor on said Premises where Plaintiff, Donna Yanko, fell. 13. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Mechanicsburg Carpet Mart, Inc., Plaintiff, Donna Yanko, sustained serious injuries including, but not limited to, a left rotator cuff strain, numbness, and pain in her left hand and neck. 14. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Mechanicsburg Carpet Mart, Inc., Plaintiff, Donna Yanko, has undergone great physical pain, discomfort and mental anguish and she will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, to her great detriment and loss, physically, emotionally and financially. 15. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Mechanicsburg Carpet Mart, Inc., Plaintiff, Donna Yanko, has been, and will in the future 4 be, hindered from attending to her daily duties to her great detriment, loss, humiliation and embarrassment. 16. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Mechanicsburg Carpet Mart, Inc., Plaintiff, Donna Yanko, has, and will in the future, suffer a loss of life's pleasures. 17. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Mechanicsburg Carpet Mart, Inc., Plaintiff, Donna Yanko, has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention, and will be required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 18. Plaintiff, Donna Yanko, believes and, therefore, avers that her injuries are permanent in nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Donna Yanko, seeks damages from Defendant, Mechanicsburg Carpet Mart, Inc., in an amount in excess of compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County. COUNT II - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Garv Yanko v. Mechanicsburg Carpet Mart. Inc. 19. Paragraphs 1-18 are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 20. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Mechanicsburg Carpet Mart, Inc., Plaintiff, Gary Yanko, has suffered a loss of consortium, society and comfort from his wife, and he may continue to suffer similar loss in the future. 21. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Mechanicsburg Carpet Mart, Inc., Plaintiff, Gary Yanko, has been compelled, in order to 5 VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing document are based upon information which has been furnished to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the document is of counsel and not my own. I have read the document and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the document are that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this Verification. The undersigned also understands that the statements made therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 4")'a Donna Yanko ?147? Date: r a hoO? it i VE IFICATION The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing document are based upon information which!, has been furnished to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the document is of counsel and not my own. I have read the document and to the extent that it islbased upon information which I have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the my counsel in making this statements made therein are made 4904, relating to unsworn Date: 6-- /- 0 ` f Ga ment are that of counsel, I have relied upon The undersigned also understands that the to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section to authorities. rte" effect a cure for his wife's injuries, to expend large sums of money for medicine and medical attention, and may be required to expend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to his great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Gary Yanko, seeks damages from the Defendant, Mechanicsburg Carpet Mart, Inc., in an amount in excess of compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County. Respectfully submitted, Dated: 601 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG LLP By: I#7263 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 6 (J 1 w Lei d SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2004-02572 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND YANKO DONNA ET AL VS MECHANICSBURG CARPET MART INC JASON VIORAL , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon MECHANICSBURG CARPET MART INC T/D/B/A CARPET MART the DEFENDANT , at 0935:00 HOURS, on the 9th day of June 2004 at 5103 CARLISLE PIKE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 by handing to JAMES TRIPPETT a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 7.59 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 35.59 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this 1/E day of 26wYn h A. D. Prothonotary So Answers: 6 R. Thomas Kline 06/09/2004 HANDLER HENNING ROSENBERG By : 1 'Q D puty Sheriff THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP C. Kent Price, Esquire I.D. No. 06776 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 255-7632 Attorney for Defendant DONNA YANKO and GARY YANKO, her husband, Plaintiffs IN THE COURTOF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04-2572 V. MECHANICSBURG CARPET MART, CIVIL ACTION -LAW INC., t/d/b/a Carpet Mart, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP as counsel on behalf of Defendant Mechanicsburg Carpet Mart, Inc., t/d/b/a Carpet Mart in the above-captioned matter. All papers may be served upon the undersigned at P.O. Box 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP C. Kent Price, Esquire 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 255-7632 I.D. No. 06776 CERTIFICATE OF SERVD2E AND NOW, this 12th day of August, 2004, I, C. KENT PRICE, ESQUIRE, for the firm of THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP, attorneys for Defendant, hereby certify that I have this day served the within Praecipe for Entry of Appearance by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP C. Kent Price, Esquire C?) r?'? C i .?1 i"'" - _ -n v T1 -- ..' y -i74-1'' ! T ? i ?l? - ?-''1 1 lY e'"` ltY'` THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP C. Kent Price, Esquire I.D. No. 06776 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 255-7632 DONNA YANKO and GARY YANKO, her husband, Plaintiffs V. MECHANICSBURG CARPET MART, INC., t/d/b/a Carpet Mart, TO: Plaintiffs and Counsel Attorney for Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04-2572 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE YOU ARE HEREBY notified to plead to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days of service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 0- C. Kent Price, Esquire 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (',17)255-7632 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT DATED: P>) ao / 0 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP C. Kent Price, Esquire I.D. No. 06776 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 255-7632 DONNA YANKO and GARY YANKO, her husband, Plaintiffs V. Attorney for Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04-2572 CIVIL ACTION - LAW MECHANICSBURG CARPET MART, INC., t/d/b/a Carpet Mart, : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, therefore, they are denied. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted in part, denied in part. The allegation that the Defendant had exclusive control of the premises at all times material to Plaintiffs' causes of action is a conclusion of law and/or fact to which no answer is required. It is admitted that there was a height differential between two segments of the floor in the subject premises at the time of the incident described in the Complaint. However, it is specifically denied that the Defendant allowed a "significant deviation in height" to exist between the two segments of the floor located within the subject premises. To the contrary, the height differential was trivial and de minimis. 6. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that there was a height differential between two segments of the floor in the subject premises at the time of the incident described in the Complaint. However, it is specifically denied that the Defendant allowed a "significant deviation in height" to exist between the two segments of the floor located within the subject premises. To the contrary, the height differential was trivial and de minimis. It is further admitted that there were no warning signs posted regarding the height differential between the two segments of floor located within the subject premises. However, it is specifically denied that warning signs were necessary or required under the circumstances. 7. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that on June 25, 2002, at or about 2:00 or 3:00 PM, Plaintiff Donna Yanko was shopping within the Defendant's store at 5103 Carlisle Pike, and it is further admitted that she fell into a counter located within the store. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information regarding what caused the Plaintiff to fall, and is also without knowledge or information regarding the nature and extent of any injuries the Plaintiff alleges she sustained and, therefore, such allegations are denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant allowed a "significant deviation in height" to exist between the two segments of the floor located within the subject premises. To the contrary, the height differential was trivial and de minimis. 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information regarding what the Plaintiffs believe. By way of further answer, the allegations are conclusions of law and/or fact to which no answer is required. 9. Denied. The allegations are conclusions of law and/or fact to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that the Defendant caused or contributed to causing the alleged injuries and damages, if any, as the result of any negligent act or omission. To the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, the Defendant acted in a reasonable, prudent and lawful manner. By way of further answer, the allegations are denied in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). COUNT I-NEGLIGENCE Donna Yanko v. Mechanicsburg Carpet Mart, Inc. 10. The answers set forth above in paragraphs 1 through 9 are incorporated herein by reference. 11. Denied. The allegations are conclusions of law and/or fact to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that the Defendant caused or contributed to causing the alleged injuries and damages, if any, as the result of any negligent act or omission. To the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, the Defendant acted in a reasonable, prudent and lawful manner. By way of further answer, the allegations, including those contained within subparagraphs (a) through (g), are denied in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 12. Denied. The allegations are conclusions of law and/or fact to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that there was a "significant deviation in height" between the two segments of the floor in the area where Plaintiff Donna Yanko fell. To the contrary, the height differential was trivial and de minimis. By way of further answer, the Defendant acted in a reasonable, prudent and lawful manner at all times relevant hereto. 13. Denied. The allegations regarding negligence are conclusions of law and/or fact to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that the Defendant caused or contributed to causing the alleged injuries and damages, if any, as the result of any negligent act or omission. The remaining allegations are denied on the basis that, after reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof and, therefore, the allegations are denied. 14. Denied. The allegations regarding negligence are conclusions of law and/or fact to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that the Defendant caused or contributed to causing the alleged injuries and damages, if any, as the result of any negligent act or omission. The remaining allegations are denied on the basis that, after reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof and, therefore, the allegations are denied. 15. Denied. The allegations regarding negligence are conclusions of law and/or fact to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that the Defendant caused or contributed to causing the alleged injuries and damages, if any, as the result of any negligent act or omission. The remaining allegations are denied on the basis that, after reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof and, therefore, the allegations are denied. 16. Denied. The allegations regarding negligence are conclusions of law and/or fact to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that the Defendant caused or contributed to causing the alleged injuries and damages, if any, as the result of any negligent act or omission. The remaining allegations are denied on the basis that, after reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof and, therefore, the allegations are denied. 17. Denied. The allegations regarding negligence are conclusions of law and/or fact to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that the Defendant caused or contributed to causing the alleged injuries and damages, if any, as the 4 result of any negligent act or omission. The remaining allegations are denied on the basis that, after reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof and, therefore, the allegations are denied. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations and, therefore, they are denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant Carpet Mart of Mechanicsburg, Inc. demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff Donna Yanko. COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE, Gary Yanko v. Mechanicsburg Carpet Mart. Inc. 19. The answers set forth above in paragraphs 1 through 18 are incorporated herein by reference. 20. Denied. The allegations regarding negligence are conclusions of law and/or fact to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that the Defendant caused or contributed to causing the alleged injuries and damages, if any, as the result of any negligent act or omission. The remaining allegations are denied on the basis that, after reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof and, therefore, the allegations are denied. 21. Denied. The allegations regarding negligence are conclusions of law and/or fact to which no answer is required. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that the Defendant caused or contributed to causing the alleged injuries and damages, if any, as the result of any negligent act or omission. The remaining allegations are denied on the basis that, after reasonable investigation, the Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof and, therefore, the allegations are denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant Carpet Mart of Mechanicsburg, Inc. demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff Gary Yanko. NEW MATTER 22. The Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to set forth causes of action upon which relief maybe granted against the Defendant. 23. The Plaintiff did cause or contribute to causing the incident and the alleged injuries and damages, if any, as the result of any negligent act or omission. 24. The Defendant acted in a reasonable, prudent and lawful manner at all times relevant hereto. 25. The height differential between the adjoining sections of floor was trivial and de minimis. 26. The height differential between the adjoining sections of floor was open and obvious. 27. The Plaintiffs' claims may be barred or limited by the comparative negligence of Plaintiff Donna Yanko. 28. Plaintiff Donna Yanko was negligent in the following particulars: a.) failing to maintain a look out for existing conditions on the floor where she was walking; b.) failing to observe that which was in her pathway; c.) failing to avoid that which was in her pathway. 29. At all times relevant hereto, the Plaintiff exercised reasonable precautions for the safety of its patrons. 30. The condition complained of did not constitute a dangerous condition. 31. The condition complained of did not pose an unreasonable risk of harm. 32. The Plaintiffs may have failed to mitigate their damages. 33. Some or all of the injuries alleged may be due to or the result of pre-existing conditions. WHEREFORE, Defendant Carpet Mart of Mechanicsburg, Inc. demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs Donna Yanko and Gary Yanko. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP C. Kent Price, Esquire 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 255-7632 I.D. No. 06776 308170.2 7 Yanko v. Carpet Mart VERIFICATION I verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer with New Matter are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that any false statements contained herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. DATED: $ llXl x CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 20th day of August, 2004, I, C. KENT PRICE, ESQUIRE, for the firm of THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP, attorneys for Defendant, hereby certify that I have this day served the within Answer with New Matter by depositing a copy of the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP C. Kent Price, Esquire _ r,.? C ' '{ _ ` ? ....? i i i i r ? ., 7 ? F 3 r, I? Stephen G. Held, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 72663 HANDLER, HENNING 8, ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tele: (717) 238-2000 Fax: (717) 233-3029 HELDaHHRLAW COM DONNA YANKO, and GARY YANKO, her husband, Plaintiffs, V. MECHANICSBURG CARPET MART, INC. t/b/d/a Carpet Mart Defendant. Attorney for Plaintiffs IN THE COUIRT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 04-2572 CIVIL ACTION - LAW INC'S t/d/b/a CARPET MART'S NEW MATTER 22. Denied. The averment of this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, Plaintiffs' Complaint sets forth a cause of action for which relief may be granted. 23. Denied. Defendant's averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, the Plaintiff did not cause or contribute to causing the incident and the alleged injuries. 24. Denied. Defendant's averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, it is denied that the Defendant acted in a reasonable, prudent and lawful manner at all times relevant hereto. 25. Denied. Defendant's averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, it is denied that the height differential between the adjoining sections of floor was trivial and de minimus. 26. Denied. Defendant's averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, the height differential between the adjoining sections of floor was not open nor obvious. 27. Denied. Defendant's averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, the Plaintiffs' claims are not barred or limited by comparative negligence of Plaintiffs. 28. Denied. Defendant's averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, it is denied that Plaintiff, Donna Yanko was negligent and it is denied that Donna Yanko was negligent in the following particulars: a) Plaintiff Donna Yanko did not fail to maintain a lookout for existing conditions on the floor where she was walking; b) Plaintiff Donna Yanko did not fail to observe that which was in her pathway; and c) Plaintiff Donna Yanko was not negligent forfailing to avoid that which was in her pathway. 29. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff acted reasonably. It is denied that Plaintiff had any patrons. 30. Denied. Defendant's averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, it is denied that the condition complained of did not constitute a dangerous condition. The condition which caused Plaintiff to fall was a dangerous condition. 31. Denied. Defendant's averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, the condition complained of did pose an unreasonable risk of harm. 32. Denied. Defendant's averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, Plaintiffs have not failed to mitigate their damages. 33. Denied. Defendant's averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent this averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby denied. By way of amplification, it is denied that some or all of the injuries alleged are due to the result of pre-existing conditions. Assuming arguendo that Plaintiff did have pre- existing conditions, a fact which is strictly denied, these conditions were aggravated or accelerated by the actions of Defendant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Donna Yanko and Gary Yanko, demand judgement in their favor and against Defendant Mechanicsburg Carpet Mart, Inc. t/d/b/a Carpet Mart, Inc. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HIENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP Ke'flblo G field, Esquire I.D. No. 72663 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs PURSUANT TO Pq VERIFICATION O 024 STEPHEN G. HELD, ESQUIRE, states that he is the attorney for the party filing the foregoing document; that he makes this affidavit as an attorney, because the part y he represents lacks sufficient knowledge or information upon which to make a verification and/or because he has greater personal knowledge of the information and belief than that of the party for whom he makes this affidavit; and that he has sufficient knowledge or information and belief, based upon his investigation of the matters averred or denied in the foregoing document; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: C4 ? YT ran S P E 1 G.. HELD, ESQUIRE Stephen G. Held, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 72663 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tele: (717) 236-2000 Fax: (717) 233-3029 HELD@HHRLAW COM vn uvi. Attorney for Plaintiffs GARY YANKO, her husband, Plaintiffs, V. IN THE COURT OIT O COF OMR CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MECHANICSBURG CARPET MART, INC. t/b/d/a Carpet Mart Defendant. No. 04-2572 : CIVIL ACTION -LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 25th day of August, 2004, 1 hereby certify that I have served the within document upon counsel of record by sending a true and correct copy of the same to him via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows: First Class U. S. Mail: C. Kent Price, Esquire THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP Marti Iben, Legal Secretary to Stephen G. Held, Esquire Dated: August 25, 2004 r, o C - - t - 1 C CD , w THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFEP, LLP 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 DONNA YANKO and GARY YANKO, her husband, Plaintiffs V. MECHANICSBURG CARPET MART, INC., t/d/b/a CARPET MART, Defendant C. Kent Price, Esquire Attorney I.D. 06776 717-255-7632 Attorneys for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04-2572 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 1. Plaintiff does not object to the subpoenas and waives the Notice of Intent to Service Subpoenas to Produce Documents and Things for Discovery Pursuant to Rule 4009.21; 2. A copy of a letter dated June 12, 2006, and executed by Plaintiff's counsel, Stephen G. Held, Esquire, indicating no objections and waiver of the notice of intent is attached to this Certificate; 3. A copy of the proposed subpoena is attached to this certificate; and 4. The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to this certificate. 9 6(? Date: (0// THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP C. Kent Price, Esquire I.D. Number: 06776 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 237-7132 434793.1 As a prerequisite to service of subpoenas for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Defendant certifies that: uuPt U7 11 HCI tthNULttS titllfItN1, Ct1A COJ. I-IC ?J }UCH C. UC THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER LLP Ff7&4 ATTOPNrYS AT LAW W Wjtlllaw.com Mailing Address: RO. Box 999, Harrisburg, PA 17J08 Street Address: 305 North From Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101 Phone: (717) 237-7100 Fax: (717) 237-7105 C. Kent Price (717)255-7632 kprice@r0t1aw.com Stephen G. Held, Esquire Handler, Henning & Rosenberg, LLP 1:00 Lingle=-totxm Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 RE: Yanko v. Carpet Mart Our File No.: 347.41362 Dear Attorney Held: June 12, 2006 Enclosed please Find aNotice of Intent to Serve Subpoenas to Clem. Ciccarelli, M.D., pursuant to Rule 4009.21. if you have no objection to the subpoenaing of these records and are willing to waive the 20-day notice period, please sigh where indicated and return a copy of this letter to me at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Enclos re "1,:310 _46.14 I, Esquire, counsel for Plaintiff, have no objection to the. serving of th su oenas iden 1 led in the attached ?police of Intent and hereby waive the 20-day notice period. Counsel Cor Defendant shall provide me with copies of all rrcords they obtain pursuant to these subpoenas. / Date: += b( Esquire ? L JAW Sincerely yours, THOMAS, TIIONIAS AF1rR LLP By: Rick Stains, Jr., Parale al to L. Kent Price Dethlchem Office -7100 Bath Pike, Suite 302, Bethlc+lxcrn, PA 18017 - Phonc: (610) 868-1675 - Fax: (610) 868-1702 Pittsburgh Office - 301 Grant Street, Suite 1150, Pimburgh, PA 15219 - Phone: (412) 697-7403 - Fax: (412) 697.7407 DONNA YANKO and GARY YANKO, her husband, Plaintiffs V. MECHANICSBURG CARPET MART, INC., t/d/b/a CARPET MART, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04-2572 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection is made, the subpoena may be served. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP C. Kent Price, Esquire Identification Number: 06776 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 (717) 255-7632 Attorney for Defendant Date: 6 // / 120c>6 433972.1 DONNA YANKO and GARY YANKO, her husband, Plaintiffs V. MECHANICSBURG CARPET MART, INC., Ud/b/a CARPET MART, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04-2572 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Custodian of Records, Clem A. Ciocarelli, M.D., Green Hill Family Health Center, 503 Bridge Street, New Cumberland, PA 17070. (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the follovAng documents or things: Any and all correspondences, hospitalization and medical records regarding treatment rendered on behalf of DONNA YANKO, SSN: 177-42-4277, DOB: 03/21/1949, including, but not limited to patient histories, charts, progress notes, consultation reports, medication charts, statements of injury, diagnosis, prognosis, x-rays or other diagnostics, diagnostic test results and reports without limitation. at THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP, 305 N. Front Street, P.O. Box 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108. You may deriver or map legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together vith the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek, in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, within txenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with It. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: C. Kent Price. Esquire ADDRESS 305 N. Front Street. P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg. PA 17108 TELEPHONE: (717) 255-7632 SUPREME COURT ID No: 06776 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant DATE: Seal of the Court Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Division Deputy 433967.1 I, Rick Stains, Jr., Paralegal for the law firm Thomas, Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document on the following persons by placing a copy of the same in the United States mail, first class mail, directed to their office addresses as follows: Stephen G. Held, Esquire HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: ERA2Z?) Rick Stains, Jr., Paralegal to C. Kent Price Date: 61f4JOL 433972.1 I, Rick Stains, Jr., a Paralegal for the law firm Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document on the following person by placing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, on the date set forth below: Stephen G. Held, Esquire HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: Rick Stains, Jr., Paralegal o C. Kent Price Date: 434793.1 ?? `, _ ?._ "' , . -,_ -. ? " Tf ?) ?, _+ , F.i: 'G PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Please list the following case: X for JURY trial at the next term of civil court. ? for trial without a jury. CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) DONNA YANKO and GARY YANKO, her husband (check one) X Civil Action - Law ? Appeal from arbitration (other) Plaintiffs VS. MECHANICSBURG CARPET MART, INC., t/d/b/a Carpet Mart, The trial list will be called on August 22, 2006 and Trials commence on September 18, 2006 Defendant Pretrials will be held on August 30, 2006 (Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials No. 04-2572 Term Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: C. Kent Price, Esquire Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: This case is ready for trial. Signed: 0, Print Name: C. Kent Price, Esquire Date: June 26, 2006 Attorney for: Defendant z-_ ; ??.? ..i ? ? ---? -- - ?.1 ..,-T ;._. ?? '..) •. --t, DONNA YANKO, and GARY YANKO, her husband, Plaintiffs, 5. MECHANICSBURG CARPET MART, INC. t/b/d/a Carpet Mart Defendant. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 04-2572 CIVIL ACTION -LAW PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND ACCOMPANYING INTERROGATORY PROPOUNDED UPON DEFENDANT PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 4014 To: Mr. C. Kent Price Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 AND NOW comes the Plaintiffs, Donna Yanko and Gary Yanko, by and through his attorneys, Handler, Henning and Rosenberg, by Stephen G. Held, Esquire, and request that Defendant either admit or deny the following Requests for Admissions and accompanying Interrogatory in conformity with PA. R.C.P. 4014 and 4005. INSTRUCTIONS Pursuant to the mandates of PA. R.C.P. No. 4014, responses to these Requests for Admissions and accompanying Interrogatory must be provided within thirty (30) days of the date of service hereof or they will be deemed admitted. If an objection is made, the reasons for the objection must be stated. Answers shall admit or deny the matter or set forth in detail the reasons why you cannot truthfully do so. You may not give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or deny unless you have conducted a reasonable inquiry and the information known or readily obtainable is insufficient to enable you to admit or deny the Requests for Admission. If the Court determines that an answer does not comply with the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, it may order that the request be admitted. In addition, pursuant to PA. R.C.P. No. 4005, Plaintiffs hereby request that Defendant answer under oath the accompanying Interrogatory. 1. These Requests for Admissions and accompanying Interrogatory are directed to the Defendant, Mechanicsburg Carpet Mart, Inc.. t/d/b/a Carpet Mart and unless privilege is claimed, each and every attorney, past and present, of such individual. As used herein, "Defendant," "you" and "your" means the Defendant to which these Requests for admissions and accompanying Interrogatory are addressed. 2. These Requests for Admissions and accompanying Interrogatory encompass all information, documents and records that are in the possession, control, or custody of Defendant or any of their attorneys. 3. If any objections are made to any Requests for Admissions or to the accompanying Interrogatory, the reasons therefor shall be stated. 4. If there is any claim of privilege relating to any request to admit, or interrogatory, you shall set forth fully the basis for the claim of privilege, including the facts upon which you rely to support the claim of privilege in sufficient detail to permit the court to rule on the propriety of the privilege. If your response to any request is not an unqualified admission, your answer shall specifically deny the matter or set forth in detail the reasons why you cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter. 6. A denial shall fairly meet the substance of the requested admission, and when good faith requires that you qualify your answer or deny only a part of the matter of which an admission is requested, you should specify so much of it as true and qualify or deny the remainder. 7. You may not give lack of information or knowledge as a reason for failure to admit or deny, unless you state that you have made reasonable inquiry and that the information known to you or readily obtainable by you is insufficient to enable you to admit or deny. 8. These Requests for Admissions and accompanying Interrogatory are continuous in nature and must be supplemented promptly if Defendant obtains or learns further or different information between the date of the response and the time of the trial bywhich Defendant knows that a previous response was incorrect when made, or though correct when made, is now no longer true. 9. This request seeks the admission of the genuineness of various documents. In some cases, there may be identifying words and marks that were affixed during the accumulation and copying of the documents for discovery and are thus not to be considered part of the document itself, except for purposes of referencing the document. The request does not seek Defendant's admission regarding the accuracy and genuineness of those marks, but only of the document on which those marks have been placed. All verbs are intended to include all tenses. 2. References to the singular are intended to include the plural and vice versa. 3. "Any" as well as "all" shall be construed to mean "each and every." 4. "And" as well as "or" shall be construed disjunctively as well as conjunctively, as necessary, in order to bring within the scope of these requests all information that might otherwise be construed to be outside their scope. "Refer to" or "relate to" means constituting, defining, describing, discussing, involving, concerning, containing, embodying, reflecting, identifying, stating, analyzing, mentioning, responding to, referring to, dealing with, commenting upon, or in any way pertaining to. A. EACH OF THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS, ATTACHED AS EXHIBITS TO THIS REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS AND MARKED AS PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBITS P-1 THROUGH P-6 IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT AND IS ADMITTED AS BEING GENUINE AND AUTHENTIC AND IS ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL UNDER THE BUSINESS RECORDS AS EVIDENCE ACT, 42 PA. C.S.A. SECTION 6108 AND/OR PA. R.E. 803(6): P-1 Medical records from Clem Ciccarelli, M.D., dated July 1, 2002 through September 17, 2003 concerning their examination and treatment of plaintiff, including opinions, diagnosis and prognosis. P-2 Medical records from Healthsouth, dated July 15, 2002 through August 4, 2005, concerning their examination and treatment ofplaintifJ', including opinions, diagnosis and prognosis. P-3 Medical records from Holy Spirit, dated June 25, 2002 through June 26, 2005, concerning his examination and treatment of plaintiff, including opinions, diagnosis and prognosis. P-4 Medical records from Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania, dated January 27, 2003, concerning their examination and treatment ofplaintiff, including opinions, diagnosis and prognosis. P-5 Medical records from Pennsylvania Neurological Associates, Ltd., dated January 123, 2003 through October 24, 2005, concerning his examination and treatment of plaintiff, including opinions, diagnosis and prognosis. P-6 Medical records from Smith Radiology, dated July 16, 2002 , concerning their examination and treatment ofplaintiff, including opinions, diagnosis and prognosis. B. YOU ARE HEREBY REQUESTED TO ADMIT, FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ACTION ONLY, PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. RULE 4014: 1. At all times material to this case, Defendant, Mechanicsburg Carpet Mart, hic.. t/d/b/a Carpet Mart, is business premises residing at 5103 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050. 2. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff, Donna Yanko, was lawfully upon said Premises. 3. At all times material hereto, Mechanicsburg Carpet Mart, Inc., was in ownership, possession, management and/or control ofthe Premises located at and known as 5103 Carlisle Pike, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17050 (hereinafter "Premises"). 4. At all times material hereto, Defendant, who had exclusive control of said Premises, had allowed a significant deviation in height between two segments of the floor within the Premises located at 5103 Carlisle Pike. 5. At all times material hereto, there were no warning signs posted on the Premises warning of the deviation in height between the two segments of the floor. 6. On or about June 25, 2002, at about 2:00 p.m. or 3:00 p.m., Plaintiff, Donna Yanko, was shopping within the defendant's store at 5103 Carlisle Pike when she tripped and fell due to the deviation in height between the two segments of the floor. Plaintiff tripped and fell harshly into the counter causing personal injuries to the Plaintiff. 7. As a result of the injuries she sustained in the incident of June 25, 2002, Plaintiff was seen by Dr. Clem A. Ciccarelli, M.D., from whom she received the treatment and/or examination, including diagnosis as set forth in the medical records dated July 1, 2002 through September 17, 2003. (Exhibit P-1) The treatment of Dr. Clem A. Ciccarelli, M.D. as set forth in the records and orreports was reasonable and necessarybecause ofthe injuries sustained by Plaintiff as a result of the incident which occurred on June 25, 2002. 9. As a result of the injuries she sustained in the incident of June 25, 2002, Plaintiff was seen by Healthsouth, from whom she received the treatment and/or examination, including diagnosis as set forth in the medical records dated July 15, 2002 though August 4, 2005. (Exhibit P-2) 10. The treatment of Healthsouth as set forth in the records and or reports was reasonable and necessary because of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff as a result of the incident which occurred on June 25, 2002. 11. As a result of the injuries she sustained in the incident of June 25, 2002, Plaintiff was seen by Holy Spirit, from whom she received the treatment and/or examination, including diagnosis as set forth in the medical records dated June 25, 2002 through June 26, 2005. (Exhibit P-3) 12. The treatment of Holy Spirit as set forth in the records and or reports was reasonable and necessary because of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff as a result of the incident which occurred on June 25, 2002. 13. As a result of the injuries she sustained in the incident of June 25, 2002, Plaintiff was seen by the Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania, from whom she received the treatment and/or examination, including diagnosis as set forth in the medical records dated January 27, 2003. (Exhibit P-4) 14. The treatment of Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania as set forth in the records and or reports was reasonable and necessary because of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff as a result of the incident which occurred on June 25, 2002. 15. As a result of the injuries she sustained in the incident of June 25, 2002, Plaintiff was seen by Pennsylvania Neurological Associates, Ltd., from whom she received the treatment and/or examination, including diagnosis as set forth in the medical records dated January 24, 2003 through October 24, 2005 (Exhibit P-5). 16. The treatment of Pennsylvania Neurological Associates, Ltd. as set forth in the records and or reports was reasonable and necessary because of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff as a result of the incident which occurred on June 25, 2002. 17. As a result of the injuries she sustained in the incident of June 25, 2002, Plaintiff was seen by Smith Radiology, from whom she received the treatment and/or examination, including diagnosis asset forth in the medical records dated July 16, 2002, (Exhibit P-6). 18. The treatment of Smith Radiology as set forth in the records and or reports was reasonable and necessary because of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff as a result of the incident which occurred on June 25, 2002. 19. Defendant has no basis to dispute the accuracy of the opinions, diagnosis and prognosis contained in the medical records set forth as Exhibits P1 - P6. 20. Plaintiff was born on March 21, 1949, and is presently fifty-seven years of age. INTERROGATORY 1. Plaintiff hereby request that for each request for admission set forth above which you deny, in whole or in part, state: a. All facts, information and matters, including relevant dates, times and places, upon which your denial is based; b. Any statutory, regulatory provision(s) or other legal basis upon which your denial is based; C. The identity by name, address, phone number, and employment title of all persons with information or matters upon which your denial is based; d. A summary of the information or knowledge possessed by each such person; and e. The identity and description of all documents that refer or relate to the facts, information and matters upon which your denial is based. HANDLER, HENNING,& RORG, By: St en G. Held, Esquire Dated: I.D. No. 72663 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 DONNA YANKO, and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS GARY YANKO, her husband, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs, 5. No. MECHANICSBURG CARPET MART, INC. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW t/b/d/a Carpet Mart Defendant. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 21st day of July, 2006, I hereby certify that I have, on this date, served Plaintiff's Request For Admissions and Accompanying Interrogatory Propounded Upon Defendant Pursuant to PA. R.C.P. 4014 upon all counsel of record via first class, United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows: Mr. C. Kent Price Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG DONNA YANKO, and GARY YANKO, her husband PLAINTIFF V. MECHANICSBURG CARPET MART, INC., t/b/d/a CARPET MART DEFENDANT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 04-2572 CIVIL TERM PRE-TRIAL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 30" day of August, 2006, a pre-trial conference was held in the above captioned matter and the Attorney for the Plaintiff having determined that the amount in controversy is now $35,000.00 or less, IT IS HEREBY ORDERD AND DIRECTED that pursuant to Cumberland County Rule of Procedure 1301-1, the matter shall be submitted to arbitration. By the Court, t phen G. Held, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs ,4. Kent Price, Esquire J Attorney for Defendant Court Administrator bas _ 1* _? "-\/ M. L. Ebert, Jr., J. 1\o y ,lief - -?nin? all :11 b!`! OG Iqw 9992 Jbyio iU UCI--i'd ]1A d0 3^J aJ-Cl: V A DONNA YANKO, and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS GARY YANKO, her husband, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs, V. No. 04-2572 MECHANICSBURG CARPET MART, INC.: CIVIL ACTION - LAW t/b/d/a Carpet Mart Defendant. PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: Stephen G. Held, Esquire, counsel for the plaintiff in the above action (or actions), respectfully represents that: 1. The above-captioned action (or actions) is (are) at issue. 2. The claim of the plaintiff in the action is <$35,000.00 . The counterclaim of the defendant in the action is $0.00. The following attorneys are interested in the case(s) as counsel or are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: C. Kent Price, Esquire THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER ENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP By S he . Held, Esquire I.D. No. 72663 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-2000 Attorneys for Plaintiffs r Stephen G. Held, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 72663 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tele: (717) 238-2000 Fax: (717) 233-3029 HELDO-hhrlaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff DONNA YANKO, and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS GARY YANKO, her husband, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs, V. No. 04-2572 MECHANICSBURG CARPET MART, INC.: CIVIL ACTION - LAW t/b/d/a Carpet Mart Defendant. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 15th day of September, 2006,1 hereby certify that I have served the within document upon counsel for Defendants, by sending a true and correct copy of the same to them via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows: First Class U. S. Mail. C. Kent Price, Esq. Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP `" DJU-? W.? Maria Wells, Legal Secretary to Stephen G. Held, Esquire a •?? ?? V f"1 ~3 f, :_? c.^ 'Sl _ ? ?.k ' {^ i ii4 -S 4?"-? '-? II Donna Yanko and Gary Yanko, her IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS husband OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. Mechanicsburg Carpet Mart, Inc., t/d/b/a Carpet Mart NO. 04-2572 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, August 30, 2006, by agreement of counsel, the above captioned case is stricken from the September 18, 2006 trial term and the matter is referred to arbitration. By the Cou Edgar B. Bayley, J. /ephen G. Held, Esquire or the Plaintiff ent Price, Esquire or the Defendant Court Administrator km ?o \a.o VINVAIASWd Z0 :Z Wd 61 d3S90OZ AdVIQ;NO} iOW aHI d0 3?€?aR"?31H DONNA YANKO, and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS GARY YANKO, her husband, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs, V. No. 04-2572 MECHANICSBURG CARPET MART, INC.: CIVIL ACTION - LAW t/b/d/a Carpet Mart Defendant. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, , 2006 , in consideration of the foregoing petition , ke Essq..and ,Esq., are 67 appointed arbitrators in the above-captioned action (or actions) as prayed for. H C R , I ov? P.J. FILED-OFF Ill OF THE PROTHONOTARY 2005 SEP 22 PH 3., 3 3 PENNSYLVANIA AVL5 10A IV 1> In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland Plaintiff r;V` dt? Pf i /1 +/7 r Defendant County, Pennsylvania No. y - Z ?-7 Civil Action - Law. Oath We do solemnly swear (or affirm) that we will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that we will discharge the duties of our office with fidelity. Signature Signature t,4 SignatYK ?G /Q n ?C?c?Al Ju-1N 44. /41jo i Name (Chairman) Name Name J e1-4 Law Firm ?/ oft !'c?/? ti?GtJU ?'? lU? }? ; E /o Address 1-4wtr-rtatf c°) r?N' Afc'/{ riryc?rc.rtAN ?TpCFr ;t,v,>1-tq,j,0t, e15 Law Firm Law Firm Address 3 6 S ,'I/,+u VQ= 2, si Address C Vie ????.? i7u,i - 37 9 Ui?tz?iSLf j? 17o 13 City, zip city, zip. City, zip Award We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sworn (or affirmed), make the following a ar • (Note: If damages for delay are awarded, 2:yha 1 b ar tely stated.) 7 C ?'? ¦ . Arbitrator, dissents. (Insert name if applicable.) Date of Hearing: Date of Award: -4->- 4, 107 Notice of F Now, the 84 day of P&' hMary , 20Dq _, at ; 13 , P M., the above award was entered upon the docket and notice thereof given by mail to the parties or their attorneys. Arbitrators' compensation to be paid upon appeal: $ '490, do By: rothonotary Deputy C00. A N,cc ,lip iU15AANo Plaintiff ' C' (? t} N tC e`3 ? i' E C t4 f'Jk r-i df iZ 7- Defendant In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania No. (". `? - 4 ?-7 z Civil Action - Law. Oath We do solemnly swear (or affirm) that we will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that we will discharge the duties of our office with fidelity. ? y Signature /Signature Signat-qK t rt A?, 1 el r,e h # /VV JL ? r A/ A. 141) r, Name (Chairman) Name Name ' . .,? f S ? A%4 D ?yat- c A A5 Nk'/?A 2? H ? 1T f t ? !- J w' c t- if,Mr rc rt ?V c ,s, rv D , v [,&l PF S Law Firm Law Firm Law Firm / P '4?r titcc,=U GT /'Y/ a 3 s-r A; -2,47 s, ?, ?-•;? ??,? ? 6 f1F7 5T Address Address Address L ke/-/ L ?3 e.?Fh/'/Ei??. i 7v;t _ 3._1 ?1 ? ,rSCf / 14- /70 City, zip city, zip. City, Zip # HEM + Imes # loaaa, Award We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sworn (or affirmed), make the ha 1 b e separately stated.) following awar (Note: If damages for delay are awarded, 2:y / ? ? . Arbitrator, dissents. (Insert name if applicable.) Date of Hearing: r Date of Award: ?ln l° t d --- Notice of Entry of Awar?? Now, the day of , 20.0 at 1; 13 , P M., the above award was entered upon the docket and notice thereof given by mail to the parties or their attorneys. Arbitrators' compensation to be paid upon appeal: $ o?ql) . on /1 -0 By: rothonotary Deputy