Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-4342SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson Sheriff Jody S Smith Chief Deputy Richard W Stewart Solicitor Perini Services/ South Hampton Manor, LP vs. William Rhoads ~4`~t~tr oC 1",uutf~~~„r~fi~ ~.- i n t~F;~E r ~ ~ ~~ ~EFIFF Case Number 2010-4342 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 07/01/2010 Dennis Fry, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on July 1, 2010 at 2116 hours, he served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: William Rhoads as attorney-in-fact for Ruth Rhoads, by making known unto himself personally, at 111 Steelstown Road, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17241 its contents and at the same time handing to him personally the said true and correct copy of the same. ZQlO JUG -6 A;~ 8~ 38 t~ r1 %t^.~i~`, RI+++ rs=.l~iV~i~V~ CI f DENN RY, DE 07/01/2010 Dennis Fry, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on July 1, 2010 at 2116 hours, he served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: William Rhoads individually, by making known unto himself personally, at 111 Steelstown Road, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17241 its contents and at the same time handing to him personally the said true and correct copy of the same. SHERIFF COST: $55.24 July 02, 2010 (c) County5uite Sheriff. Teloosoft. hoc. i DENNI FRY, DEP SO ANSWERS, RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF ~~~~ i= _.~ ,_ ~ `rT; ,. IU ,•, 2ptn..Wt.aa P~ t~oc~ f it Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire Attorney Identification Number: 83889 36 Donegal Drive Cazlisle, PA 17013 (717) 385-1866 PERINI SERVICES/ SOUTH HAMPTON MANOR, L.P. Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. RUTH BROADS and WILLIAM BROADS, Individually and as attorney-in-fact for RUTH BROADS Defendants CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW NO: 2010-4342 CIVIL TERM PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE To The Prothonotary: Kindly enter my appearance as attorney for the Defendant in the above captioned matter. Date: July 28, 2010 DOUGLAS C. LOVELACE, JR., Esquire Attorney for Defendants ~~i ; ,.~. ~~°~r~ ~~~~ ?pl~.lUt. ~ ~ l%Ob _ ,. PERINI SERVICES/ SOUTH HAMPTON MANOR, L.P Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW RUTH BROADS and NO: 2010-4342 CIVIL TERM WILLIAM BROADS, Individually and asattorney-in-fact for RUTH BROADS Defendants NOTICE TO PLEAD To: Perini Services/South Hampton Manner, L.P., through its attorney, David A. Baric, Esquire, Attorney at Law, 19 West South Street, Cazlisle, PA 17013. You are hereby notified to plead to the within New Matter, within twenty days from service hereof, or a default judgment may be entered against you Very respectfully, ~Y.~~_ Date: July 28, 2010 Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire Attorney Identification Number: 83889 36 Donegal Drive Cazlisle, PA 17013 (717)385-1866 Attorney for Defendants Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire Attorney Identification Number: 83889 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)385-1866 PERINI SERVICES/ SOUTH HAMPTON MANOR, L.P. Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. RUTH BROADS and WILLIAM BROADS, Individually and as attorney-in-fact for RUTH BROADS Defendants CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW NO: 2010-4342 CIVIL TERM ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND NOW, July 28, 2010, Defendants, by their attorney, Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., file this Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint with New Matter and aver as follows: ANSWER 1. Admitted. 2. Denied. William Rhoads' mailing address is 111 Steelstown Road, Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17241. 3. Denied. Ruth Rhoads address is 1070 Stouffer Avenue, Chambersburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17201. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted in part and denied in part. Defendant, William Rhoads, admits executing an admission agreement on behalf of Ruth Rhoads. Exhibit "A" to Plaintiff's Complaint is a document that speaks for itself; therefore, Defendants deny it is a true and correct copy of the admission agreement Defendant William Rhoads executed on behalf of Ruth Rhoads and demand proof at trial, if relevant. 8. Denied. Exhibit "A" to Plaintiff s Complaint is a document that speaks for itself. Defendants specifically deny that the admission agreement William Rhoads entered into on behalf of Ruth Rhoads made Ruth Rhoads responsible for paying costs of care not covered by a third party payer. 9. Admitted. 10. Denied. Exhibit "A" to Plaintiff s Complaint is a document that speaks for itself. Defendant, William Rhoads, specifically denies that the admission agreement he entered into on behalf of Ruth Rhoads made him responsible for paying the costs of care provided from the income of Ruth Rhoads. To the contrary, Plaintiff led Defendant William Rhoads to believe that all Ruth Rhoads' costs of care provided by Plaintiff would be covered by Medicaid. 11. Denied. Plaintiff s averment is an incorrect conclusion of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, Exhibit "B" is a document that speaks for itself; therefore Defendants deny Plaintiffs characterization of the document as a true and correct copy of a statement which accurately reflects a balance due to Plaintiff from Defendants, and demand strict proof to the contrary at trial, if relevant. 2 12. Denied. Defendant, William Rhoads, denies demand has been made upon him for the amount due to Plaintiff from Defendants for care Plaintiff provided to Ruth Rhoads. To the contrary, Defendants deny owing Plaintiff the amount claimed by Plaintiff. COUNT I- BREACH OF CONTRACT 13. Defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs one through twelve as though set forth herein at length. 14. Denied. Plaintiff s averment is an incorrect conclusion of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 15. Denied. Plaintiffs averment is an incornect conclusion of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 16. Denied. Plaintiff s averment is an incorrect conclusion of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 17. Denied. Plaintiff s averment is an incorrect conclusion of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 18. Denied. Plaintiff s averment is an incorrect conclusion of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 19. Denied. Plaintiff s averment is an incorrect conclusion of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint with prejudice, assess all costs and attorney fees against Plaintiff, and provide Defendants such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. COUNT II-MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED 20. Defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs one through nineteen as though set 3 forth herein at length. 21. Denied as stated. Defendant William Rhoads denies Plaintiffs implication that he and not Ruth Rhoads had received and used Ruth Rhoads' social security and pension benefits. 22. Denied as stated. Defendant William Rhoads denies Plaintiffs implication that he did not use Ruth Rhoads funds for her benefit. 23. Denied. Plaintiff s averment is an incorrect conclusion of law to which no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 24. Denied as stated. Defendant, William Rhoads, denies Plaintiffs implication that he did not use Ruth Rhoads funds for her benefit. 25. Denied. William Rhoads has received no demand from Plaintiff that William Rhoads tender Ruth Rhoads' funds to Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiff s Complaint with prejudice, assess all costs and attorney fees against Plaintiff, and provide Defendants such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. NEW MATTER 26. Defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 25, inclusive, as though fully stated and set forth herein. 27. During Plaintiffs counseling of Defendant William Rhoads prior to and in conjunction with Plaintiff and Defendant William Rhoads entering into an admission agreement for Defendant Ruth Rhoads, Plaintiff specifically led Defendant William Rhoads to believe that all costs of care provided to Ruth Rhoads would be covered by Medicaid. 28. Plaintiff willfully and wrongfully opened and retained the "MA LTC Eligible Notice" sent to Ruth Rhoads at 121 Walnut Bottom Road, without notifying William Rhoads of 4 its receipt and without providing the correspondence to William Rhoads until several months later, all the while knowing that William Rhoads was attorney-in-fact for Ruth Rhoads. 29. Plaintiff failed to provide Defendants a rate schedule for the cost of care to be provided to Ruth Rhoads. 30. Plaintiff did not bill Defendants monthly, or at any other interval, for the costs of care Plaintiff now claims Defendants owe. 31. Plaintiff improperly disclosed health information concerning Ruth Rhoads to an unauthorized third parry in violation of Section 1177a of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended. 32. Plaintiff s Complaint fails to state a cause of action, upon which relief may be granted. 33. Plaintiff's claim is barred or limited by the doctrine of unclean hands. 34. Plaintiff s claim is barred or limited by the doctrine of laches. 35. Plaintiff s claim is barred or limited by the doctrine of estoppel. 36. Plaintiff s claim is bazred or limited by the doctrine of release. 38. Plaintiff s claim is barred or limited by the doctrine of waiver. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiff s Complaint with prejudice, assess all costs and attorney fees against Plaintiff, and provide Defendants such other relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire Attorney Identification Number: 83889 36 Donegal Drive Cazlisle, PA 17013 (717) 385-1866 Attorney for Defendants 5 VERIFICATION The undersigned does hereby verify, subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904, PERINI SERVICES/ SOUTH HAMPTON MANOR, L.P. Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW RUTH BROADS and NO: 2010-4342 CIVIL TERM WILLIAM BROADS, Individually and as attorney-in-fact for RUTH BROADS Defendant relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, that that the statements of fact made in the foregoing Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint with New Matter are true and correct to the best of his personal knowledge, information, and belief. Date: July ~, 2010 ~.tJ,c~,~,,,`, William Rhoads PERI1~iI SERVICES/ SOUTH HAMPTON MANOR, L.P. Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW RUTH BROADS and NO: 2010-4342 CIVIL TERM WILLIAM BROADS, Individually and asattorney-in-fact for RUTH BROADS Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., attorney for Defendants, hereby certify that on July 28, 2010, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants' Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint with New Matter upon the below named individual by depositing the same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, at Cazlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. SERVED UPON: David A. Baric, Esquire 19 West South Street Cazlisle, 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff H~ ~ ~A- Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire Attorney Identification Number: 83889 36 Donegal Drive Cazlisle, PA 17013 (717)385-1866 Attorney for Defendants PERII~TI SERVICES/ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLIES ~ ~; SOUTH HAMPTON MANOR, L.P.: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSLVTIA=~ . Plaintiff ~, -+ ~'~; - v. ... - o_ rti N0.2010-4342 CIVIL TERM ~ .~, RUTH BROADS and . , ~ e . w` -- '' ~ •~ WILLIAM BROADS, Individually °-,, y, ~~_- o ~ _ ~ and asattorney-in-fact for Ruth Rhoads, Defendants ° REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Perini Services/South Hampton Manor, L.P., by and through its attorneys, BARK SCHERER, and files the within Reply to New Matter and, in support thereof, sets forth the following: 26. Plaintiff incorporates by reference its averments set forth at paragraphs one through twenty-five (25) of its Complaint as though set forth at length. 27. Denied. To the contrary, William Rhoads was aware of the payment responsibilities for costs of care as set forth in the Admission Agreement. 28. After reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and they are, therefore, denied. 29. Denied. To the contrary, Defendants were advised that the private pay obligation they would incur for the costs of care would be calculated by the County Assistance Office and they were responsible to pay that amount. 30. Denied. To the contrary, Defendants were advised that the private pay obligation they would incur for the costs of care would be calculated by the County Assistance Office and they were responsible to pay that amount. When the CAO established the amount, Defendants were provided statements for the costs. r 31. Denied. To the contrary, no such disclosure or violation of law took place. 32. This averment is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 33. This averment is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 34. This averment is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 35. This averment is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 36. This averment is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 38.(sic) This averment is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgment be entered in its favor and against Defendants as prayed for in Plaintiff's Complaint. Respectfully submitted, BARIC SCHERER David A. Baric, Esquire I.D. # 44853 19 West South Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-6873 Attorney for Plaintiff .~ VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Reply To New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This verification is signed by David A. Baric, Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiff and is based upon the statements provided by Plaintiff, as well as documents reviewed by the undersigned as attorney for Plaintiff. This verification will be substituted and ratified by a verification signed by the Plaintiff who is presently unavailable to sign said verification. I undersigned that false statements herein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.5. §4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. r David A. Baric, Esquire Dated: Dg t` ,~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on August ~ ~ , 2010, I, David A. Baric, Esquire of Baric Scherer, did serve a copy of the Reply To New Matter, by first class U. S. mail, postage prepaid, to the party listed below, as follows: Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, Penns lvania 17013 David A. Baric, Esquire I 4 PERINI SERVICES/ SOUTH HAMPTON MANOR, L.P. Plaintiff V. RUTH RHOADS and WILLIAM RHOADS, Individually and as attorney-in-fact for Ruth Rhoads, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVWA„, NO. 2010-4342 CIVIL TERM ;A ; ap PRAECIPE TO ATTACH SUBSTITUTE VEREMADO T Please attach the following Substitute Verification to the Reply To New Matter filed in this matter on August 12, 2010. Respectfully submitted, BARIC SCHERER David A. Baric, Esquire Date: August 17, 2010 I.D. #44853 19 West South Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-6873 011/2010 16:25 7172495755 DBS PAGE 02 ?RdFICA'CION I, Alistm Klimowicz, verify that the statements made in the foregoWg Reply To New Matter am true and correct to the best of my Imowledge, information and belief. I hereby ratify the verification previously supplied by my attorney, Davi4A. Etc, Esquire and execute this verification as a substituted verification. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties-of 18 Pa.C.S. §4404 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. Date: $ 12 1O Allison. KIitnawscz Corporate Operativna Center Director f 4 PERINI SERVICES/ SOUTH HAMPTON MANOR, L.P. Plaintiff V. RUTH RHOADS and WILLIAM RHOADS, Individually and as attorney-in-fact for Ruth Rhoads, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2010-4342 CIVIL TERM MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER __ -- -a rT -< tv NOW, comes Plaintiff, Perini Services/South Hampton Manor Limited Partnership d/b/a Shippensburg Health Care Center ("Perini"), by and through its attorneys, BARIC SCHERER, and files the within Motion for Protective Order and, in support thereof, sets forth the following: 1. This matter relates to a claim filed by Perini to recover costs arising from the providing of skilled nursing care by Perini to Ruth Rhoads. 2. Counsel for Defendants has now served upon counsel for Perini a Request for Production of Documents ("Request"). A true and correct copy of the Request for Production of Documents is appended hereto as Exhibit "A" and is incorporated by reference. 3. The Request, as presented, would cause unreasonable annoyance, oppression, burden and expense to Plaintiff in violation of Pa.R.C.P. 4011. 4. Pa.R.C.P. 4012 permits this Court to issue any order which justice requires to protect a party from unreasonable annoyance, oppression, burden or expense. 5. No judge has ruled on any issue in this case. 6. Document Request No. 2 includes a request for production of all records which "would assist in understanding your answers..." This request is not proper under the rules of civil procedure. t'. 7. Document Request No. 4 includes a demand for production of all reports, notes or other documents of counsel for Plaintiff. This request is not appropriate under the rules of civil procedure. 8. Document Request No. 9 demands records of "...Plaintiffs interaction with third parties regarding the matter being litigated." This request is not proper under the rules of civil procedure. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this Court enter an Order as justice may require to protect Plaintiff from unreasonable annoyance, oppression, burden or expense in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 4012 and such further relief as this Court may deem just and fair. Date: November 22, 2010 Respectfully submitted, B C SCHERE J David A. Baric, Esquire I.D. 44853 19 West South Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-6873 Attorney for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 22, 2010, I, David A. Baric, Esquire of Baric Scherer, did serve a copy of the Motion For Protective Order, via federal express overnight mail, to the parties listed below, as follows: Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr. 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 David A. Baric, Esquire VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Motion For Protective Order are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 40 & 41 David A. Baric, Esquire Date: November 22, 2010 r ?? Q PERM SERVICES/ SOUTH HAMPTON MANOR, L.P. Plaintiff V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW RUTH RHOADS and NO: 2010-4342 CIVIL TERM WILLIAM RHOADS, Individually . and as attorney-in-fact for RUTH RHOADS Defendants DEFENDANTS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS ADDRESSED TO PLARW FF (FIRST REQUEST) TO: Perini Services/South Hampton Manor, L.P. c/o David A. Baric, Esquire Law Offices of Baric Scherer 19 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 You are hereby requested to produce, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, the following documents, writings, photographs or tangible things. Requested documents must be provided whether in written or electronic form such as computer entries and files. Requested documents, writings, photographs, or tangible things are to be produced, for the purpose of inspecting, photographing and copying, at 36 Donegal Drive, Carlisle Pennsylvania, 17013, on or before thirty days from the date of service of this Request for Production of Documents and Things. The term "document" means any medium in which information or intelligence can be recorded or retrieved, and includes, without limitation, the original or copy, regardless of origin and location, of any book, pamphlet, periodical, letter, memorandum, (including any memorandum or report of a meeting or conversation), invoice, bill, order, form, receipt, financial Exhibit "A" statement, accounting entry, diary, calendar, telex, telegram, cable, report, record, contract, study, handwritten note, draft, working paper, chart, paper, print, laboratory record, drawing, sketch, graph, index, list, tape, photograph, microfilm, data sheet, data processing card, phonographic and audio tape, magnetic tape, computer disk, memory stick, flash drive, USB drive, other computer storage medium, or any other written, recorded, automated, transcribed, punched, taped, filmed, or graphic matter, and any other data compilations from which information can be obtained, however produced or reproduced, which is or was in your possession, custody or control. ( `- When, after a reasonable and thorough search and investigation, you are unable to provide any document, writing, photograph or tangible thing herein requested, in whole or in part, specify in full and complete detail the reason the document, writing, photograph or tangible thing is not available to you and what has been done to locate or recover such document, writing, photograph or tangible thing. In addition, specify what knowledge or belief you have concerning the whereabouts of the document, writing, photograph or tangible thing requested but not provided. In the event you destroyed, lost, or deleted any document covered by this request, state the time, place, medium, circumstances, and reason for the loss, destruction, or deletion and the actions you have taken to recover such document. Provide copies of: 1. Each and every document whose identification was requested in the Defendants' Written Interrogatories Addressed to Plaintiff (First Set), as well as any additional documents you identified or referred to, in answering Defendants' Written Interrogatories Addressed to Plaintiff (First Set). 2. Each and every document used to answer or help answer the Defendants' Written Interrogatories Addressed to Plaintiff (First Set), or that would assist in understanding your answers to Defendants' Written Interrogatories Addressed to Plaintiff (First Set). 3. Any and all reports, diagrams, notes, records or correspondence from expert witnesses you intend to call to testify at the trial of this case, whether for issues of liability or damages. 4. The entire contents of any investigation files to include any reports, notes, or other documents in your possession, custody, or control or in that of your agents, attorneys, or representatives which were prepared during or as a result of the instant action, or otherwise related to the subject matter of this litigation, excluding references to mental impressions, conclusions or opinions representing the value or merit of the claim or a defense, or respecting strategy, tactics, or privileged communications from and to counsel. 5. Any and all invoices, bills or statements prepared by Plaintiff regarding its interaction with Defendants regarding this matter. 6. Any and all documents or communications records prepared by or in the possession of Plaintiff related to the instant action, other than those provided in response to the preceding paragraphs. 7. Any photographs, video image, drawings and/or sketches made relating to the instant action. 8. Any and all exhibits that you will use during trial of this case. 9. Any and all documents, communications, and records of Plaintiff's interactions with third parties regarding the matter being litigated. 10. Any and all statements or recordings obtained from any potential witnesses and recordings made of any conversations with or within parties to this action, including their agents and representatives. 11. Any and all documents related to the interactions between Plaintiff and Defendants regarding this matter that are not requested in preceding paragraphs. Respectfully submitted, Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 (717)385-1866 Attorney for Defendant Dated: October 6, 2010 i PERM SERVICES/ SOUTH HAMPTON MANOR, L.P Plaintiff V. RUTH RHOADS and WILLIAM RHOADS, Individually and as attorney-in-fact for RUTH RHOADS Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW NO: 2010-4342 CIVIL TERM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire, certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants' Request for Production of Documents and Things Addressed to Plaintiff (First Request), by placing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Carlisle, PA, on the date below indicated, on the following individual: David A. Baric, Esquire Law Offices of Baric Scherer 19 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Date: October 6, 2010 zyneo-p, Douglas C. Love aceJr. ;squire 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 385-1866 Attorney for Defendants c ? 1 ? k NOV 2 3 2010 i PERINI SERVICES/ SOUTH HAMPTON MANOR, L.P. Plaintiff V. RUTH RHOADS and WILLIAM RHOADS, Individually and as attorney-in-fact for Ruth Rhoads, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2010-4342 CIVIL TERM RULE AND NOW, this 4? day of 14 , 2010, upon consideration of the foregoing Motion For Protective Order, it is hereby ordered that (1) a rule is issued upon the Defendants to show cause why the Plaintiff is not entitled to the relief requested; (2) the Defendants shall file an answer to the Motion within 970 days of this date; (3) the Motion shall be decided under Pa.R.C.P. No. 206.7; (4) depositions shall be completed within days of this date; (5) argument shall be held on , the day of 20 ti , at 44 "300 a.m./. in Courtroom of the Cumberland County Courthouse; and (6) notice of the entry of this order shall be provided to all parties by the Plaintiff. HE COU T, f b, /Q5 C. 1-00elact, d' J. L .i ;; ...a /4. /3aric., Esf VINVAIASNN3d A1N003 ONV IUMIJ OZ :Z h e U C'o?;?s yua.l l ?z'a?ll?b r-0 :C Wd " z AON010Z AUV ON014I©Ud 314130 xm-031tj ,?''J PERM SERVICES/ SOUTH HAMPTON MANOR, L.P. Plaintiff V. RUTH RHOADS and WILLIAM RHOADS, Individually and as attorney-in-fact for RUTH RHOADS Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT CUMBERLAND COUNTY, C") PENNSYLVANIA -":r cza r .rn CIVIL ACTION - IN LAW r NO: 2010-4342 ?z CIVIL TERM.< 21C) ca r .n C-) Z; X* C? x? rn _or? zic:) :15-1 rn =a DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PROTECRIVE ORDER 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted 3. Denied. Defendants' Request for Production of Documents and Things Addressed to Plaintiff (First Request) complies with Pa.R.C.P 4011, in that it will not cause unreasonable annoyance, oppression, burden or expense. On the contrary, Defendants' Request for Production of Documents and Things Addressed to Plaintiff (First Request) reasonably requests Plaintiff provide only those unprivileged documents and things relevant to the subject matter of the pending litigation that appear reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admisable evidence, as provided for in Pa.R.C.P. 4003.1. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Denied as stated. Request No. 2 of Defendants' Request for Production of Documents and Things Addressed to Plaintiff (First Request) is proper under the :Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Request No. 2 asks Plaintiff to provide "[e]ach and every document used to answer or help answer the Defendants' Written Interrogatories Addressed to Plaintiff (First Set), or (emphasis added) that would assist in understanding your answers to Defendants' Written Interrogatories Addressed to Plaintiff (First Set)." Therefore, were Plaintiff to provide the documents used to answer or help answer the Defendants' Written Interrogatories, then there would be no need for Plaintiff to provide documents to assist Defendants in understanding Plaintiffs answers to Defendants' interrogatories. Clearly Defendants' Request No. 2 is designed to enable Defendants to learn the basis of Plaintiffs answers. If Defendants had intended for Plaintiff to provide "all records which 'would assist in understanding your answers; as Plaintiff suggest by quoting out of context, Defendants would have used the "and" conjunction, rather than the "or" conjunction. 7. Denied as stated. Request No. 4 of Defendants' Request for Production of Documents and Things Addressed to Plaintiff (First Request) is appropriate under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Request No. 4 asks Plaintiff to provide "[t]he entire contents of any investigation files to include any reports, notes, or other documents in your possession, custody, or control or in that of your agents, attorneys, or representatives which were prepared during or as a result of the instant action, or otherwise related to the subject matter of this litigation, excluding references to mental impressions, conclusions or opinions representing the value or merit of the claim or a defense, or respecting strategy, tactics, or privileged communications from and to counsel." Defendant's Request No. 4 requests disclosure of investigation files created as a result of the action being litigated, as provided for by Pa.R.C.P. 4003.3. Plaintiff appears to misstate Defendants' request out of context when it claims that Defendants "demand for production of all reports, notes or other documents of counsel for Plaintiff." Defendants demand production only of reports, notes or other documents which are part of the investigative file prepared for the instant litigation and which do not contain Plaintiffs counsel's mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, strategy, or tactics. 2 8. Denied as stated. Request No. 9 of Defendants' Request for Production of Documents and Things Addressed to Plaintiff (First Request) is proper under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Request No. 9 asks Plaintiff to provide "[a]ny and all. documents, communications, and records of Plaintiffs interactions with third parties regarding the matter being litigated." Exhibit A to Plaintiffs Complaint, as well as Plaintiffs Answers to Defendants' Written Interrogatories (First Set), appended hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference, states and implies that Plaintiff interacted with third parties who may be able to provide admissible evidence or information reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence important to Defendants' defense. One can reasonably conclude that the number of third parties with whom Plaintiff interacted regarding the matter being litigated is limited., Therefore, Defendants' Request No. 9 complies with the Pennsylvania Rules of civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter an order denying Plaintiffs Motion for Protective Order, requiring Plaintiff to provide the documents requested in Defendants' Request for Production of Documents and Things Addressed to Plaintiff (First Request), and providing such further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate. Date: 6r / d Respectfully submitted, 4ae e ?r Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire ID No. 83889 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 385-1866 Attorney for Defendants 3 EXHIBIT "A" Perini Services/ Southampton Manor Plaintiff Case No: 2010-4342 Civil Term V. Ruth Rhoads and Wiiliam Rhoads, Individually and as attorney-in-fact for Ruth Rhoads PRELIMINARY STATEMENT AND OBJECTIONS 1. Whenever the text of a response refers to the text of another response, such references shall be deemed and is intended to incorporate the text of that response as if set forth in full. 2. Plaintiff, Perini Services, objects to each document request and/or interrogatory which: (a) Could be construed to require Perini Services to produce voluminous quantities of documents on the grounds that such a request is unduly burdensome and harassing; (b) Could be construed to require it to provide information or documents protected by the attorney-client privilege or the doctrine of attorney work-product; or ( c ) is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence. 3. Perini Services neither intends to waive its attorney-client privilege nor its protection of any attorney work-product nor should any waiver be inferred from the fact that Perini Services has responded to these document requests and interrogatories through counsel. Without waiving any of the foregoing, Perini Services responds as follows: Plaintiffs Answers to Defendants' Written Interroeatories (First Set) 1) The legal name of the Facility/Business is Perini Services/Southampton Manor, LLP. a. Perini Services-Part of the business's legal name b. Southampton Manor-Part of the legal name c. Shippensburg Health-Nothing (not a legal name of trade) d. Shippensburg Health Care Center-Trade name 2) Plaintiff objects to the request for identification of "documents" as being vague, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence. a. Debra Black EXHIBIT "A" Business Office Coordinator 121 Walnut Bottom Road Shippensburg, PA 17257-9005 (717) 530-8300 b. William Plavkin Admission Coordinator 121 Walnut Bottom Road Shippensburg, PA 17257-9005 (717) 530-8300 Plavkin and Black reviewed the admission contract, and other admission documents, with defendant. 3) Defendant was admitted on 10/09/2009, and discharged on 12/24/2009. Plaintiff objects to the request for identification of "documents" as being vague, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence. 4) •Hyperlipidemia *Hip Fracture •Depressive disorder *Mental Retardation *Anemia Information derived from Ms. Rhoads's medical records. Plaintiff objects to the request for identification of "documents" as being vague, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence. 5) Yes. Monthly account statements are generated and mailed by Magnolia Management's automated system. Manually generated statements/collection letters were mailed on 4/29/2010 and 5/14/2010. Plaintiff objects to the request for identification of "documents" as being vague, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence. 6) Yes. As stated above, monthly statements were sent to the defendant. The manual letters/statements were prepared by: a. Art Cosner Collections Representative Magnolia management, Inc. 1710 Underpass Way Hagerstown, MD 21740 b. Allison Klimowicz Operations Center Director 17 10 Underpass Way Hagerstown, MD 21740 Plaintiff objects to the request for identification of "documents" as being vague, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence. 7) Collection letters were mailed on 4/29/2010 and 5/14/2010. They were prepared by Art Cosner and Allison Klimowicz. Plaintiff objects to the request for identification of "documents" as being vague, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence. 8) No Plaintiff objects to the request for identification of "documents" as being vague, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence. 9) Initially Ms. Rhoads was "Pending Medical Assisstance" and once approved, she was "Medical Assisstance with a Patient Liability." The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare informed Ms. Rhoads of her particular status and responsibility. Plaintiff objects to the request for identification of "documents" as being vague, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence. 10) William Rhoads's, Ms. Rhoads's son and power of attorney lined through pages 12-15 of the contract. We are not aware of his intent. Plaintiff objects to the request for identification of "documents" as being vague, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence. 11) The Medicare Program and Medicaid Program paid a portion of Ms. Rhoads's cost of care. Plaintiff objects to the request for identification of "documents" as being vague, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence. 12) The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare determined that Ms. Rhoads was responsible for paying a portion of her income (Social Security/Pension) to Shippensburg Healthcare Center for her cost of care. This is evidenced via the written County Assisstance Office Determination. Plaintiff objects to the request for identification of "documents" as being vague, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence. 13) Mr. Rhoads signed admission contract as responsible party. The admission contract outlines the Medicaid process. Mr. Rhoads also signed the admission application, statements were mailed to him, collection letters were mailed to him, collection calls were made to him, the County Assisstance Office sent correspondence to him (as POA) Plaintiff objects to the request for identification of "documents" as being vague, unduly, burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence. 14) No Plaintiff objects to the request for identification of "documents" as being vague, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence. 15) Mr. Rhoads, as Ms. Rhoads's fidiciary and legal representaive, had a contractual duty, owed to Ms. Rhoads and Shippensburg Healthcare Center to pay Shippensburg Healthcare with Ms. Rhoads's income. Mr. Rhoads did not respond to monthly statements, or collection letters and phone calls from Shippensburg Healthcare Center. Plaintiff objects to the request for identification of "documents" as being vague, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence. 16) Mr. Rhoads was not entitled to Ms. Rhoads's funds, as she was not in his care. Plaintiff objects to the request for identification of "documents" as being vague, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence. 17) Mr. Plavcin provided Ms. Rhoads with a rate schedule at admission. Plaintiff objects to the request for identification of "documents" as being vague, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence. 18) Ms. Rhoads received communications from the County Assisstance Office which outlined Ms. Rhoads financial obligation to Shippensburg Healthcare Center. Plaintiff objects to the request for identification of "documents" as being vague, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence. 19) The Medicaid program was explained at admission to Mr. and Ms. Rhoads. Additionally, the program and payment obligations were explained to Mr. Rhoads by Shippensburg Healthcare Center's Business Office (BOC) during the Medicaid application process. Plaintiff objects to the request for identification of "documents" as being vague, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence. 20) The BOC received it and forwarded it to Ruth Rhoads. Plaintiff objects to the request for identification of "documents" as being vague, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence. 21) a. Art Cosner Collections Representative Magnolia management, Inc. 1710 Underpass Way Hagerstown, MD 21740 b. Allison Klimowicz Operations Center Director 1710 Underpass Way Hagerstown, MD 21740 Debra Black Business Office Coordinator 121 Walnut Bottom Road Shippensburg, PA 17257-9005 (717) 530-8300 d. William Plavcin Admission Coordinator 121 Walnut Bottom Road Shippensburg, PA 17257-9005 (717) 530-8300 Plaintiff objects to the request for identification of "documents" as being vague, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence. 22) None Plaintiff objects to the request for identification of "documents" as being vague, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence. 23) a. Art Cosner Collections Representative Magnolia management, Inc. 1710 Underpass Way Hagerstown, MD 21740 b. Allison Klimowicz Operations Center Director 1710 Underpass Way Hagerstown, MD 21740 c. Debra Black Business Offipe Coordinator 121 Walnut Bottom Road Shippensburg, PA 17257-9005 (717) 530-8300 d. William Plavcin Admission Coordinator 121 Walnut Bottom Road Shippensburg, PA 17257-9005 (717) 530-8300 e. Stephen Coetzee Administrator 121 Walnut Botton Road Shippensburg, PA 17257-9005 (717) 530-8300 Plaintiff objects to the request for identification of "documents" as being vague, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence. 24) None at present, Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement answer. 25) Admission contract, Admission application, invoices and statements of Ms. Rhoads's account generated by Magnolia Management and County Assisstance Correspondence and Documents. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement answer. 26) None Plaintiff objects to the request for identification of "documents" as being vague, unduly burdensome and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissable evidence. 27) None 28) None 29) None at this time. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement 30) None at this time. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement As to Objections David A. Baric Baric Scherer 19 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-6873 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answers to Interrogatories are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This verification is signed by David A. Baric, Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiff and is based upon the statements provided by Plaintiff, as well as documents reviewed by the undersigned as attorney for Plaintiff. This verification will be substituted and ratified by a verification signed by the Plaintiff who is presently unavailable to sign said verification. I undersigned that false statements herein are made subject to penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsificat' to authorities. I V David A. Baric, Esquire Dated: November 22, 2010 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 22, 2010, I, David A. Baric, Esquire of Baric Scherer, did serve a copy of the Answers to Interrogatories, via first class mail, to the parties listed below, as follows: Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr. 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 David A. Baric, Esquire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire, certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants' Request for Production of Documents and Things Addressed to Plaintiff (First Request), by placing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Carlisle, PA, on the date below indicated, on the following individual: David A. Baric, Esquire Law Offices of Baric Scherer 19 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for Plaintiff Date: emAst l.3, d A21? it e 4 f 41. Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr., Esquire 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, PA 170:13 (717) 385-1866 Attorney for Defendants PERINI SERVICES/ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF SOUTH HAMPTON MANOR, L.P. : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : v. NO. 2010-4342 CIVIL TERM RUTH RHOADS and WILLIAM RHOADS, Individually and as attorney-in-fact for Ruth Rhoads, Defendants PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly mark the above -captioned action as satisfied and discontinued without prejudice. Date: September 4, 2014 Respectfully submitted, B C SCHERER LLC David A. Baric, Esquire I.D. # 44853 19 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-6873 Attorney for Plaintiff m 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 4, 2014, I, David A. Baric, Esquire of Baric Scherer LLC, did serve a copy of the Praecipe To Discontinue, by first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to the parties listed below, as follows: Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr. 36 Donegal Drive Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 David A. Baric, Esquire