HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-4469IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No.6V-14410 2004
Civil Action- ( ) Law
( ) Equity
MOHAMED ATTEYA : STACY L. STEWART
318 W. MAIN STREET : 523 BRIDGE STREET
FAYETTEVILLE, PA 17222 : NEW CUMBERLAND, PA 17070
versus
Plaintiff(s) &
Address(es)
Defendant(s) &
Address(es)
PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT:
Please issue writ of summons in the above captioned acti .
Names/Address/Telephone No.
of Attorney Date: 09/02/04
WRIT OF SUMMONS
TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S):
Stephen J. Hoqg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Ste. 101 Si nature of ney
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 245-2698 Supreme Court ID No. 36812
YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF(S) HAS/H COMMENCED
AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. /?t
Prothonotary
Date: a -by 1200.,,o
Deputy
Writ of Summons shall be issued and forty ()Attorney (X) Sheriff
n"?Fv.?
( ) Check here if reverse is issued for additional information
PROTHON. -55
VERIFICATION
S OF
HOGG
STREET
t
7013
1 verify that the statements made in this Writ of Summons to the
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, are true
and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made
subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. Section 4904, relating to unsworn
falsifications to authorities.
Date: Or 131 l C ` -
MOHAMED A. ATT'EYA
_ Cn
71 Wil?
N ` ?l
l .f.
p L
w
T-I
s1,
sv
y
SHERIFF'S RETURN - NOT FOUND
CASE NO: 2004-04469 P
COMMONTWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
ATTEYA MOHAMED
VS
STEWART STACY L
R. Thomas Kline Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff, who being
duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and
inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT
STEWART STACY L
but was
unable to locate Her in his bailiwick. He therefore returns the
WRIT OF SUMMONS
NOT FOUND , as to
the within named DEFENDANT STEWART STACY L
523 BRIDGE STREET
NEW CUMBERLAND, PA 17070
PER NEIGHBOR, DEFENDANT MOVED TWO YEARS AGO.
PER POST OFFICE, DEFENDANT IS NOT KNOWN AT GIVEN ADDRESS.
Sheriff's Costs: So answers:
Docketing 18.00
Service 26.64 Not Found 5.00 / R. Thomas irfe-
Surcharge 10.00 Sheriff of Cumberland County
.00
59.64 STEPHEN HOGG
09/24/2004
Sworn and subscribed to before me
this / =l day of (Tclzt?
y A. D.
tary
Prroo?
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA, CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiff,
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
v.
PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant. (Jury Trial Demanded)
Filed on Behalf of the Defendant
Counsel of Record for This Party:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Pa. I.D. #83058
SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE and SKEEL, L.L.P.
Firm #911
1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300
Lemoyne, Pik 17043
(717) 901-5916
#13378
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA, CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiff,
V.
NO. 04-446512004, Civil
STACY L. STEWART, (Jury Trial Demanded)
Defendant.
PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE
TO: THE PROTHONOTARY
Kindly enter the Appearance of the undersigned, Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire, of the
law firm of Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P., on behalf of the
Defendant, Stacy L. Stewart, in the above case.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Respectfully submitted,
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE & SKEEL L.'L.P.
By:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Counsel for Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE:
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy, of the foregoing PRAECIPE
FOR APPEARANCE has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class
mail, postage pre-paid, this day of January, 2005.
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
SUMMERS, MCDONNE:LL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE &SKEEL L.L.P.
By. / K'?.?
Kfvin D. Rauch, Esquire
Counsel for Defendant
f: c
`
Tj
: rHr'
_ _? m
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA, CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiff,
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
V.
PRAECIPE FOR RULE
STACY L. STEWART, TO FILE COMPLAINT
Defendant.
(Jury Trial Demanded)
Filed on Behalf of the Defendant
Counsel of Record for This Party:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Pa. I.D. #83058
SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE and SKEEL, L.L.P.
Firm #911
1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300
Lemoyne, PA 17043
(717) 901-5916
#13378
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA,
Plaintiff,
V.
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant.
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
(Jury Trial Demanded)
PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT
TO: The Prothonotary
Kindly rule the Plaintiff, Mohamed Atteya, to file a Complaint in Civil Action within
twenty (20) days.
Respectfully submitted,
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIEA SK.EEL L.L.P.
By:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Counsel for Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE
FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record
via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this day of January, 2005.
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GU
By
Counsel for Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA,
Plaintiff,
V.
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant.
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
(Jury Trial Demanded)
RULE
AND NOW, thisf S+ day of XL" 2005, upon
consideration of Defendant's Praecipe for Rule to File a Complaint, a Rule is hereby
granted upon Plaintiff to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days of service, or suffer
judgment Non Pros.
Rule issued this L day of ?J 2005.
doi& .2 -
Prothonot ry (
' ,?
a.?-
C::
1-
i=
MOHAMED ATTEYA, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON
Plaintiff : PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
: PENNSYLVANIA,
V. NO.: 04-4469
CIVIL ACTION LAW
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE TO DEFEND
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 LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE
32 S. Bedford Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Telephone: (717) 249-3166
LAW OFFICES OF
STEPHEN J. HOGG
19 S. HANOVER STREET
SUITE 101
CARLISLE, PA 17013
MOHAMED ATTEYA,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT
OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
V. : CIVIL ACTION-LAW
: NO. 04-4469
STACY L. STEWART, : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Mohamed Atteya, by his
attorney, Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire and respectfully sets forth as
follows:
1. Plaintiff is Mohamed Atteya, is an adult individual currently
residing at 10 Railroad Avenue, Apt. 301, Shiremanstown,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011.
2. Defendant is Stacy L. Stewart, an adult individual currently
residing at 2075 Laurel Grove Road, New Bloomfield,
Pennsylvania 17068.
3. The motor vehicle accident addressed in the following
paragraphs took place on or about September 7, 2002 on the
Carlisle Pike in Silver Spring Township, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania.
4. At the aforementioned time and place, Plaintiff Mohamed Atteya
was operating a motor vehicle in an east bound direction in the
LAW OFFICES OF
STEPHEN J. HOGG
19 S. HANOVER STREET
SUITE 101
CARLISLE, PA 17013
center turn lane attempting to turn left and the Defendant was
operating a motor vehicle in the same lane of travel behind
Plaintiff's vehicle.
5. At the aforementioned time and place, the Plaintiff was stopped
in his vehicle and was struck from behind by Defendant's
vehicle.
6. The collision between the Defendant's vehicle and the Plaintiff's
vehicle caused the injuries to Plaintiff Mohamed Atteya set forth
below.
The aforementioned collision was caused by the negligent,
carelessness and recklessness of Defendant Stewart and was
in no way caused or contributed to by Plaintiff.
The negligence, carelessness and recklessness of Defendant
consisted of the following:
LAW OFFICES OF
STEPHEN J. HOGG
19 S. HANOVER STREET
SUITE 101
CARLISLE. PA 17013
a. Inattentiveness;
b. Driving to fast for conditions;
c. Operating her vehicle at an excessive rate of speed
under the circumstances;
d. Failing to have her vehicle under proper and adequate
control;
e. Failing to apply her brakes in time to avoid a collision with
the Plaintiff's vehicle;
f. Negligently applying the brakes;
g. Failing to observe the Plaintiff's vehicle lawfully on the
highway;
h. Failling to operate her vehicle in accordance with existing
traffic conditions;
i. Failing to keep a reasonable lookout for other vehicles
lawfully on the roadway;
j. Operating her vehicle so as to create a dangerous
situation for other vehicles on the roadway; and
k. Otherwise operating her vehicle in a careless, reckless
and negligent manner and in a manner violating the
Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
9. As a direct and proximate result of the accident, Plaintiff
suffered injuries including the following: low back, neck, legs
and shoulders.
10, As a direct and proximate result of the collision, Plaintiff has
incurred medical expenses to date and may continue to incur
medical expenses into the future, and thus, a claim for these
expenses is made.
11, As a direct and proximate result of the injuries sustained in the
motor vehicle collision, Plaintiff has been advised and therefore
avers that the aforementioned injuries may be permanent in
nature and affect and, thus, a claim for these injuries is made.
12. As a direct and proximate result of the injuries sustained in the
motor vehicle accident Plaintiff has undergone in the past, and
will continue to undergo in the future, great pain and suffering,
and thus, a claim for these losses is made.
11 As a direct and proximate result of the injuries sustained in the
motor vehicle accident, Plaintiff has been obliged to spend
various sums of money and to incur various expenses for the
injuries that he has suffered, and may continue to incur the
same in the future, and thus, a claim for these losses is made.
I,AW OFFICES OF
STEPHEN J. HOGG
19 S. HANOVER STREET
SUITE 101
CARLISLE, PA 170t3
14. As a direct and proximate result of the injuries sustained in the
motor vehicle accident, Plaintiff suffered a permanent dimunition
of his ability to enjoy life and life's pleasures and, thus, a claim
for these losses is made.
15. As a direct and proximate result of the injuries sustained in the
motor vehicle accident, Plaintiff has suffered a loss of earnings
and an impairment of his earning power and capacity in the
future, and thus, a claim for these losses is made.
Wherefore, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendant in
an amount in excess of the maximum amount requiring compulsory
arbitration.
Respectful Submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF
STEPHEN J. HOGG
19 S. HANOVER STREET
SUITE 101
CARLISLE, PA 17013
„ f
Date: /
Stephen J. Hog X, E quire
Attorney for PI nti
19 S. Hanover Street, Ste. 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 245-2698
Attorney IN 36812
VERIFICATION
LAW OFFICES OF
"TEPHEN J. HOGG
19 S. HANOVER STREET
SUITE 101
CARLISLE, PA 17013
I verify that the statements made in this Answer to the Court of
Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, are true and
correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to
the penalties of 18 Pa. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsifications
to authorities.
0z- z3- c- ;
Date
"e z
Mohamed Atteya
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire, Attorney for the Plaintiff, hereby
rtify that I did on this day serve one true and correct copy of the
ached Complaint by United States Mail, postage pre-paid, addressed
the following:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, LLP
1017 Mumma Road
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Stephen J. Hogg, s ire
Attorney for Plaintiff
19 S. Hanover Street, Ste. 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 245-2698
Attorney ID# 36812
IA0 OFFICES OF
STEPHEN J. HOGG
19 S. HANOVF,R STREET
SUITE 101
CARLISLE, PA 17013
?.}
? i
? J
j
?
.
'
y
(`.7
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA,
Plaintiff,
V.
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant.
TO: Plaintiff
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 04-4469 2004. Civil
ANSWER AND NEW MATTER
(Jury Trial Demanded)
Filed on Behalf of the Defendant
Counsel of Record for This Party:
You are hereby notified to file a written
response to the enclosed Answer and
New Matter within twenty (20) days
from service hereof or a judgment
aT d against you.
Su mers, McDonnell, Hudock,
Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P.
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Pa. I.D. #83058
SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE and SKEEL, L.L.P.
Firm #911
1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300
Lemoyne, PA 17043
(717) 901-5916
#13378
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA, CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiff,
V. NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
STACY L. STEWART, (Jury Trial Demanded)
Defendant.
ANSWER AND NEW MATTER
AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Stacy L. Stewart, by and through her counsel,
Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P., and Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire,
and files the following Answer and New Matter and in support thereof avers as follows:
1. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information as
to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict
proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
5. Admitted.
6. Paragraph 6 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To
the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied
generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the
time of trial.
7. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the accident was caused
by the Defendant's negligent operation of her vehicle on the date, time, and place of the
subject accident. The remainder of the allegations in paragraph 7 are denied generally
pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
8. Paragraph 8 and all of its subparts state legal conclusions to which no
response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said
averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
9. Paragraph 9 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To
the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied
generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the
time of trial.
10. Paragraph 10 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To
the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied
generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the
time of trial.
11. Paragraph 11 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To
the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied
generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the
time of trial.
12. Paragraph 12 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To
the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied
generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the
time of trial.
13. Paragraph 13 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To
the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied
generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the
time of trial.
14. Paragraph 14 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To
the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied
generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the
time of trial.
15. Paragraph 15 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To
the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied
generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the
time of trial.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Stacy L. Stewart, respectfully requests this Honorable
Court enter judgment in her favor and against the Plaintiff with costs and prejudice
imposed.
NEW MATTER
16. The motor vehicle accident in controversy is subject to the Pennsylvania
Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility law and this Defendant asserts, as affirmative
defenses, all rights, privileges and/or immunities accruing pursuant to said statute.
17. Some and/or all of Plaintiffs claims for damages are items of economic
detriment which are or could be compensable pursuant to either the Pennsylvania Motor
Vehicle Financial Responsibility law and/or other collateral sources and same may not be
duplicated in the present lawsuit.
18. To the extent that the Plaintiff has selected the limited tort option or is
deemed to have selected the limited tort option then this Defendant sets forth the relevant
provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law as a bar to the
Plaintiffs ability to recover non-economic damages.
19. This Defendant pleads any and all applicable statutes of limitation under
Pennsylvania law as a complete or partial bar to any recovery by Plaintiff in this action.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Stacy L. Stewart, respectfully requests this Honorable
Court enter judgment in her favor and against the Plaintiff with costs and prejudice
imposed.
Respectfully submitted,
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE & SKEEL L.L.P.
By:
evin D. Rauch, Esquire
Counsel for Defendant
VERIFICATION
Defendant verifies that she is the Defendant in the foregoing action; that the
foregoing ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is based upon information which she has
furnished to her counsel and information which has been gathered by her counsel in the
preparation of the lawsuit. The language of the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is that of
counsel and not of the Defendant. Defendant has read the ANSWER AND NEW
MATTER and to the extent that the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is based upon
information which she has given to her counsel, it is true and correct to the best of her
knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content of the ANSWER AND
NEW MATTER is that of counsel, she has relied upon counsel in making this Affidavit.
Defendant understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of
18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date: 3 L
#13378
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER
AND NEW MATTER has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class
mail, postage pre-paid, this 11 day of Mwek. _'2005.
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE & SKEEL L.L.P.
By:
I vin D. Rauch, Esquire
Counsel for Defendant
-
f, .,,
_r ?
-r ?,
('?1 ?._.
-, rt-4
TV
"Cl ('_
?; . C
-. ?';l
?> -•
_..q _?
`J
:K
MOHAMED ATTEYA,
Plaintiff
V.
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA,
NO.: 04-4469
CIVIL ACTION LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO NEW MATTER
Plaintiff Mohamed Atteya, through his attorney, Stephen J.
Hogg, Esquire, files this response to new matter as follows:
Plaintiff asserts the allegations raised in Paragraphs 1-15 of the
Complaint as if fully set forth herein.
16. Defendant states a legal conclusion to which no
affirmative response is deemed necessary, Plaintiff
denies the allegations set forth herein.
17. It is denied that Plaintiff has alleged any damages for
which recovery has already been made from other
collateral sources.
18. It is specifically denied that the Pennsylvania Motor
Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law bars Plaintiffs
recovery of non-economic damages based on his limited
tort coverage.
LAW OFFICES OF
STEPHEN J. HOGG
19 S. HANOVER STREET
SUITE 101
CARLISLE, PA 17013
19. It is denied that any statutes of limitation would apply to
completely or partially bar any recovery by Plaintiff in this
action.
Wherefore, Plaintiff Mohamed Atteya respectfully requests
Judgment in his favor and against Defendant Stacie L. Stewart as set
forth in the Complaint.
Respectfully Submitted,
Stephen J. Hogg ire
Attorney for Plai Iff
19 S. Hanover Street, Ste. 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 245-2698
ID# PA 36812
Date: 4
LAW OFFICES OF
STEPHEN J. HOGG
19 S. HANOVER STREET
SUITE 101
CARLISLE, PA 17013
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in this Answer to the Court of
LAW OFFICES OF
STEPHEN J. HOGG
19 S. HANOVER STREET
SUITE 101
CARLISLE, PA 17013
Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, are true and
correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to
the penalties of 18 Pa. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsifications
to authorities.
e q
Date
a
Mohamed Atteya
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire, Attorney for the Plaintiff, hereby
certify that I did on this day serve one true and correct copy of the
attached Answer by United States Mail, postage pre-paid, addressed to
the following:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, LLP
1017 Mumma Road
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Stephen J, Hog Es uire
Attorney for PI hti
19 S. Hanover Street, Ste. 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 245-2698
Attorney ID# 36812
LAW OFFICES OF
STEPHEN J. HOGG
19 S. HANOVER STREET
SUITE 101
CARLISLE, PA 17013
171
4'1
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA, CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiff,
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
V.
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
STACY L. STEWART, ANSWERS AND RESPONSES
Defendant.
(Jury Trial Demanded)
Filed on Behalf of the Defendant
Counsel of Record for This Party:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Pa. I.D. #83058
SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE and SKEEL, L.L.P.
Firm #911
1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300
Lemoyne, PA 17043
(717) 901-5916
#13378
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA, CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiff,
V. NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
STACY L. STEWART, (Jury Trial Demanded)
Defendant.
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
ANSWERS AND RESPONSES
AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Stacy L. Stewart, by and through her
attorneys, Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P., and Kevin D. Rauch,
Esquire, and files the following Motion to Compel Discovery Answers and Responses
and in support thereof avers the following:
1. On January 28, 2005, Defendant served Plaintiff with Interrogatories and
Request for Production of Documents relative to the above-referenced matter. (A true
and correct copy of correspondence between the parties dated January 28, 2005, is
attached hereto as Exhibit "A".)
2. In accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4009, Plaintiff's
Responses to Defendant's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents
should have been received by February 27, 2005.
3. On March 10, 2005, Defendant's counsel forwarded a letter to Plaintiff's
counsel requesting that he respond to the outstanding discovery. (A true and correct
copy of correspondence between the parties dated March 10, 2005, is attached hereto
as Exhibit "B".)
4. On April 26, 2005, Defendant's counsel forwarded another letter to
Plaintiffs counsel requesting that he respond to the outstanding discovery. (A true and
correct copy of correspondence between the parties dated April 26, 2005, is attached
hereto as Exhibit "C".)
5. To date, Defendant has not received a full response from Plaintiff or
Plaintiff's counsel regarding Defendant's Interrogatories or Request for Production of
Documents or the correspondence enumerated above.
6. It is necessary for proper defense of this lawsuit that Plaintiff file full and
complete responses to Defendant's discovery requests.
7. Accordingly, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4019,
Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter an Order directing
Plaintiff to provide Defendant with full and complete Answers and Responses to
Defendant's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to Plaintiff within
twenty (20) days or suffer additional sanctions.
8. Counsel for Defendant certifies that he has attempted contact with
Plaintiffs counsel in an effort to resolve this discovery dispute as set forth above.
Despite such attempts by Defendant's counsel, however, Plaintiff's discovery responses
have not been received by Defendant's counsel.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Stacy L. Stewart, respectfully requests this Honorable Court
enter an Order compelling Plaintiff to provide Defendant with full and complete Answers
and Responses to Defendant's Interrogatories and Request for Production of
Documents to Plaintiff.
Respectfully submitted,
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE & SKEEL L.L.P.
By: d /vv C1" [' L?-
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Counsel for Defendant
SUMRS, MCDONNELL, DOCK,
TH RIE & SKEEL, 0WIL-P
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
' STEPHEN J. SUMMERS
HARRISBURG OFFICE: JASON A. HINES
ERIN M. BRAUN
THOMAS A. MCAONNELL
JOSEPH A. HUOOCK, JR. 1017 MUMMA ROAD Guy E. BLASS
GREGG A. GUTHRIE LEMOYNE, PA 17043 JFNNI
MAHKFEF M. IRVIN
ARK J. GOLEN
PETER B. SKEEL PHONE: 717-901-5916 COLLEEN P. . KA
KARTTCMAK
PATRICK M. CONNELLY'
FAX: 717-920-9129
BRETT L. HUSTON
.
JEFFREY C CATANZARITE
R09ERT J. FISHER, JR.
ANNE M. PAUL CAROLYN S. LAURO
KEVIN D. RAUCH
i AL50 ADMITTED IN WV
January 28, 2005
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
RE: Atteya v. Stewart
Our File No. 13378
Dear Mr. Hogg:
Enclosed please find Defendant's Interrogatories and Request for Production of
Documents to the Plaintiff in the above-referenced matter. Kindly respond to the same
within the timeframe established by the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure.
Also, enclosed please find the following authorizations for your client's signature:
1. Hershey Medical Center;
2. Holy Spirit Hospital;
3. Arthur Schoenfeld, D.C.;
4. Deajess Medical Imaging;
5. Rockaway Open MRI and Diagnostic Imaging;
6. New York Community Hospital; and
7. Boris Tsatskis, M.D.
If you should have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to
contact me. Thank you.
V truly s,
vin D. Rauch
KQR:laz
Enclosures
PITTSBURGH OFFICE: GULF TOWER. SUITE 2400, 707 GRANT STREET, PITTSBURGH, PA 15210
PHONE 412-281-n S3
FAX 4ISI2 1-3238
SUM ARS, MCDONNELL, 40U,DOCK,
THRIE & SKEEL, L.P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
STEPHEN J. SUMMERS
THOMAS A. MCOONNELL
JOSEPH A, HUDOCK. JR.
GREGG A_ GUTHRIE
PETER B. SKEEL
PATRICK M. CONNELLY*
JEFFREY C. CATANZARITE
ANNE M. PAUL
KEVIN D. RAUCH
HARRISBURG OFFICE:
1017 MUMMA ROAD
LEMOYNE, PA 17043
PHONE: 717-901-5916
FAX: 717-920-9129
JASON A. HINES
ERIN M. BRAUN
Guy E. BLASS
JENNIFER M. IRVIN
MARK J. GOLEN
COLLEEN P. KARTYCHAK
BRETT L. HUSTON
ROBERT J. FISHER, JR.
CAROLYN S. LAURO
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
RE: Atteya v. Stewart
Our File No.
Dear Mr. Hogg:
March 10, 2005
13378
ALSO ADMITTED IN WV
In review of my file, I noticed I have not yet received discovery responses in the
above-referenced matter. Kindly advise as to when I can expect to receive the same.
If you should have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to
contact me. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Kevin DWRauchl F
KDR:Iam
PITTSBURGH OFFICE: GULF• TOWER, SUITE 2600, 7G7 GRANT STREET, PITTSBURGH, P. Isve
PHONE 612-261-3232
FA% 612-261-3239
SUMS, MCDONNELL, DOCK,
TH RIE & SKEEL, L. .P.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
STEPHEN J. SUMMERS JASON A. HINES
THOMAS A. MCDONNELL HARRISBURG OFFICE: ERIN M. BRAUN
JCGEPH A. HUDOCK. JR. 1017 MUMMA ROAD GUY E. BLASE
GREGG A. GUTHRIE LEMOYNE, PA I704S JENNIFER M. IRVIN
PETER B. SKEEL
'
PHONE: 717-901-5916 MARK J. GOLEN
PATRICK M. CONNEUY BRETT L. HS
JEFFREY C. CATANZARITE FAX: 717-920 9129 ROBERT J. FISHER. JR.
KEVIN D. RAUCH JOSHUA G. FERGUSON
CAROLYN S. LAURO
KIM9ERLY L. HENSLEY
ELAINE J. WIZZARD
April 26, 2005 EMILY F FASULO
LUCAS A. MILLER
ALSO ADMITTED IN WV
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
RE: Atteya v. Stewart
Our File No. 13378
Dear Mr. Hogg:
Pursuant to my office's conversation with your paralegal, I can expect your
discovery responses by May 4, 2005. In the event that I have not received your
discovery responses by that date, I will file a Motion to Compel.
If you should have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to
contact me. Thank you.
Ve nn AAtr??uly yo rs,
K in D. Rauc
KDR:asw
PITTSBURGH OFFICE: GULF TOWER. SUITE 2400, 707 GRANT STREET, PITTSau RGH, PA 15219
PHONE 412-261-3z32
FAX a1z zslazas
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY ANSWERS AND RESPONSES has been mailed by U.S. Mail to
counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this ' day of
2005:
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE & SKEEL L.L.P.
By:
K vin D. Rauch, Esquire
Counsel for Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA,
Plaintiff,
V.
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant.
AND NOW, TO WIT, this
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
(Jury Trial Demanded)
ORDER
day of
2005, it is
hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiff, Mohamed Atteya, provide
Defendant, Stacy L. Stewart, with full and complete Answers and Responses to
Defendant's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents within twenty
(20) days of the date of this Order.
J.
MOHAMED ATTEYA,
Plaintiff
V.
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant
IN THE COURT
OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
NO. 04-4469
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFF'S ANSWERS TO DEFENDANT'S
INTERROGATORIES -SET #1
LAW OFFICES OF
STEPHEN J. HOGG
19 S. HANOVER STREET
SUITE 101
CARLISLE, PA 17013
DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORIES
DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFF - SET #1
L BACKGROUND
1. Please state the following:
(a) full name;
(b) maiden name (if applicable);
(c) your present address;
(d) your address on the date of the accident;
(e) the name and relationship to you of
each person residing with you at the time of the
accident;
(f) date of birth;
(g) present marital status;
(h) the date of any marriage;
(i) whether you have been divorced or legally separated
and if so, w hen and for what period of time;
Q) your social security number;
(k) spouse's social security number; and
(1) names, addresses and ages of any children.
ANSWER:
(.BACKGROUND
1. a. Mohamed Atteya
b. N/A
C. 10 Railroad Avenue, Apt. 301, Shiremanstown, PA 17011
d. 329 Gettysburg Street, Dillsburg, PA 17019
e. Kalliopi Atteya, wife, Stephano Atteya, son
f. July 20, 1975
g. Married
h. November 24, 1999
i. In process of divorce started April of 2003
j. 205-78-4410
k. 189-66-8329
1. Stephano Atteya, 4 years old; 318 West Main Street, Fayetteville,
PA 17222
IL INJURIESITREATMENT FOLLOWING ACCIDENT
2. Set forth a detailed description of all iniuries you suffered as a result of
the subject accident.
ANSWER:
II. INJURIESITREATMENT FOLLOWING ACCIDENT
2. Injuries to low back, right shoulder, left arm and neck.
The pain goes from my back down both legs and from neck
down both shoulders and left arm to fingers.
Set forth a detailed description of any injury or condition claimed to be
permanent.
ANSWER:
4. Please list the names and office addresses of all physicians,
chiropractors, or other health care providers (including hospitals) who have examined,
treated or attended you for any injuries suffered in the subject accident.
ANSWER:
4. Holy Spirit Hospital
503 N. 21St Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Dr. Paul Orange
4225 Lincoln Way East
Fayetteville, PA 17222
5. Was it necessary for you to undergo any surgery as a result of any
injuries you sustained in this accident? If so, please state:
(a) the nature or type of surgery you underwent;
(b) the date of the surgery;
(c) where the surgery was performed;
(d) the full name and address of the physician who
performed the surgery; and
ANSWER:
6. Did you undergo any physical therapy as a result of the subject
Accident? If so, please state:
(a) the name and address of the facility where you
underwent physical therapy;
(b) the date(s) you attended physical therapy; and
(c) the nature of the treatment you received at physical
therapy.
ANSWER:
6. a. Dr. Victor Tkach
New York Community Hospital
2525 Kings Highway
Brooklyn, NY 11229
Physical Therapy Department
45268 th Street
Brooklyn, NY 11220-5945
September 19, 2002 and ongoing
7. Did you undergo any diagnostic studies, including but not limited to,
x-rays, CT scans or MRI scans following the subject accident? If so, please state:
(a) the part of your body which was studied;
(b) the type of diagnostic study;
(c) the date of each diagnostic study;
(d) where each diagnostic study was performed; and
(e) the result of each diagnostic study.
ANSWER:
7, a. Cervical Spine
b. MRI
C. September 26, 2002
d. Deajess Medical Imaging, P.C., Brooklyn, New York
e. Diffuse herniated nucleus pulposus C5-C6; diffuse posterior bulging
disc C5-C6; straightening of normal cervical curvature is noted
consistent with muscle spasm
a. Upper extremities
b. Electromyography
C. October 14, 2002
d. Boris Tsatskis, Brooklyn, New York
e. C5-6 cervical radiculopathy
a. Right knee
b. MR[
C. October 17, 2002
d. Rockaway Open MRI & Diagnostic Imaging; Rockaway Beach,
New York
e. Tears of the lateral meniscus and posterior horn of the medical
meniscus; lateral patella tilt and narrowing of the lateral patella
facet.
a. Lower extremities
b. Electromyography
C. October 29, 2002
d. Boris Tsatskis, Brooklyn, New York
e. L5-S1 lumbar nerve root denervation
a. Lumbosacral Spine
b. MRI
C. November 5, 2002
d, Preferred Medical Imaging, P.C.
e. L5-S1 disc space level demonstrates a posterior bulging disc
extending into the epidural fat abutting the bilateral S1 nerve roots
a. Lumbar Spine
b. MRI
G. July 16, 2003
d. Open MRI Chambersburg, Chambersburg, PA
e. There may be a small protrusion at L5-S1, however, there is no
contour abnormality.
a. Cervical Spine
b. X-ray
C. March 31, 2005
d. Holy Spirit Hospital; Department of Radiology and Diagnostic
Imaging
e. Reversal of cervical lordosis compatible with muscle spasm. No
evidence of fracture subluxation or degenerative changes.
a. Chest
b. X-ray
C. March 31, 2005
d. Holy Spirit Hospital;
Imaging
e. Normal chest
Department of Radiology and Diagnostic
IV. MEDICAL EXPENSES
8. Please set forth the total amount of medical bills incurred to date for
treatment rendered to you as a result of the subject accident.
ANSWER:
8. 1 have exhausted my first party benefits of $5,000.00 and believe I have
had in excess of $4,000.00 more in treatment costs.
9. Please set forth the total amount of medical bills which were paid by
Plaintiff's first party carrier or any other source. (Please set forth the amount of first
party medical coverage and the amount of bills which were paid by that coverage after
Act 6 reduction).
ANSWER:
10. Please indicate the total amount of unpaid medical bills relating to the
subject accident.
ANSWER:
10. Estimated to be $4,000.00
11. Please indicate whether Plaintiffs first party carrier refused to pay any
medical bills, and if so, please state:
(a) the name and address of the medical provider whose
bills were refused for payment;
(b) the reason your first party carrier refused payment;
(c) whether your first party carried submitted any of your
bills to a PRO: and
(d) whether a PRO determined that any treatment
following this accident was not reasonable medically or necessary.
If so, please describe.
ANSWER:
11. a. The Plaintiffs first party carrier refused to pay any medical bills over
and above the $5,000.00 coverage limit which include the following:
Dr. Victor Takch
New York Community Hospital
2525 Kings Highway
Brooklyn, NY 11229
Holy Spirit Hospital
503 N. 21St Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
b.
Not to my knowledge; and
Not to my knowledge
V. PRIOR/SUBSEQUENT INJURIES/MEDICAL TREATMENT
12. Before the date of the accident alleged in the Complaint, did you consult
with or receive any treatment for any reason (other than for the subject accident) from
any physician, chiropractor or other health care provider. If so, please provide the name
and address of the provider as well as the nature and dates of the treatment received.
ANSWER:
V. PRIOR/SUBSEQUENT INJURIES/MEDICAL TREATMENT
12. Prior to the accident alleged in the Complaint the Plaintiff suffered from
hemmorhoids treated by Dr. Paul Orange at 4225 Lincoln Way East, Fayetteville,
PA 17222.
13. Were you e?
limited to auto accidents,
resulted in injury to you no
the Complaint?
ar involved in any accident of any kind (including, but not
slip and falls, sports injuries or any other mishap which
matter how minor) before the date of the accident alleged in
ANSWER:
13. No
14. If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is "yes," please state:
(a) the date of each accident;
(b) a description of each accident;
(c) the nature of any injuries received in each accident;
and
(d) the name and address of each doctor, chiropractor,
hospital or other medical provider who provided treatment to you as
a result of each accident.
ANSWER:
14. N/A
15. Have you undergone any diagnostic testing, including but not limited to
x-rays, CT scans, or MRI scans before the date of the subject accident? If so, please
state:
(a) the part of the body studied;
(b) the name and address of the place where the x-rays
were taken;
(c) the name and address of the person who took them;
(d) the date each was taken; and
(e) what part of your body was x-rayed and what it
disclosed.
ANSWER:
16. After the date of the accident alleged in the Complaint, did you consult
with or receive any treatment for any reason (other than for the subject accident) from
any physician, chiropractor or other health care provider. If so, please provide the name
and address of the provider as well as the nature and dates of the treatment received.
ANSWER:
16. On or about August 6, 2003 Plaintiff slipped and fell due to leg giving out
from the injuries from the car accident. Treatment was at the Holy Spirit Hospital
at 503 N. 21St Street, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. Treatment was for a bruised and
scraped right arm and aggravation of back injuries from car accident.
17. Have you been involved in any accident of any kind (including, but not
limited to, auto accidents, slip and falls, sports injuries or any other mishap which
resulted in injury to you no matter how minor) after the date of the accident alleged in
the Complaint?
ANSWER:
17. See Answer 16
18. If the answer to the preceding Interrogatory is "yes," please state:
(a) the date of each accident;
(b) a description of each accident;
(c) the nature of any injuries received in each accident;
and
(d) the name and address of any doctor, chiropractor,
hospital or other medical provider who provided treatment to you as
a result of each accident.
ANSWER:
18. a. August 6, 2003
b. The Plaintiff slipped on a wet floor at work.
G. Injuries to right arm and aggravation of back injuries from car
accident.
Holy Spirit Hospital
503 N. 21St Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
19. Have you ever filed a claim for Social Security Disability Benefits in your
lifetime? If so, please state:
(a) the date the claim for disability was made;
(b) the address of the office where the claim was made;
(c) the nature of the disability claimed;
(d) whether the claim was granted or denied; and
(e) the amount of any benefits you received for such
claim.
ANSWER:
19. No
20. Have you ever filed a claim for disability under any disability insurance
policy? If so, please state:
(a) the date the claim was made;
(b) the name and address of the disability insurance carrier;
(c) the nature of the disability claimed; and
(d) the amount of any benefits received
ANSWER:
20. No
21. Have you filed a claim for worker's compensation before the date of the
subject accident? If so, please state:
(a) the date the worker's compensation claim was made;
(b) the nature of the work-related accident;
(c) the nature of any injuries received in the work-related
accident;
(d) the name and address of your employer for each
worker's compensation claim;
(e) the name of the worker's compensation carrier who
paid you benefits; and
(f) the amount of worker's compensation benefits paid to
you as a result of each claim.
ANSWER:
21. No
22. Please state the name and address of your family doctor(s) for the ten
(10) year period before the date of the subject accident.
ANSWER:
22. Dr. Paul Orange
4225 Lincoln Way East
Fayetteville, PA 17222
VI. EMPLOYMENTIWAGE LOSS
23. If employed at the time of the accident, please state:
(a) the name and address of your employer at the time of
the accident;
(b) the position you held and the nature of the work you
performed;
(c) the name and address of your immediate Supervisor;
and
(d) your salary or rate of pay.
(e) please set forth the total amount of your wage loss to
date as a result of the subject accident. (Please also set forth how
your wage loss claim was calculated.)
ANSWER:
24. Please state whether you have received any payments from your first
party carrier or any other source for loss of income. If so, please state the total amount
received.
ANSWER:
24, No
25. Please state whether you ever filed a claim for unemployment
compensation. If so, please state when you received unemployment compensation
benefits, the amount received and the time period when you received such benefits.
ANSWER:
25. No
VII. DESCRIPTION OF ACCIDENT
26. State the destination and the purpose of the trip in which you were
engaged at the time of the accident.
ANSWER:
26. Plaintiff was going to Advanced Auto Parts on the Carlisle Pike.
27. Describe specifically and in detail how the accident occurred.
ANSWER:
27. Plaintiff was headed in an easterly direction on the Carlisle Pike and was
in the middle turn lane waiting to turn left across westbound traffic when he was
hit from behind by the Defendant. The Defendant made a statement to the
investigating police officer at the scene that she was looking over her right
shoulder while attempting to merge into eastbound traffic when she failed to
observe the Plaintiffs car in the same middle turn lane that she was traveling in.
28. Were you using a cellular/mobile phone at the time of the accident? If so,
please state:
(a) the name and address of your cellular/mobile phone service
provider;
(b) the name and address of the person to whom you were speaking;
(c) whether the cellular/mobile phone was a hand held or "hands free"
model.
ANSWER:
28. No
29. Did the police arrive at the accident scene? if so, please state:
(a) how long after the accident the police arrived;
(b) what the police did at the accident scene;
(c) whether you gave a statement to the police;
(d) the substance and content of any conversations you
had with the police;
(e) whether a police report was made; and
(f) who called the police.
ANSWER:
29. a. Shortly after the accident occurred
b. Prepared an accident report
c. Plaintiff did not give a statement to police as he was being
examined by the West Shore Ambulance crew for injuries
d. None
e. A police report was made
Unknown
30. Were you on business at the time of the subject accident? If so, have you
made any claims for workers' compensation or received any workers' compensation
benefits from any carrier as a result of this accident? If so, please state:
(a) The name and address of the carrier;
(b) The amount of benefits paid to date;
(c) Whether any claim for workers compensation
benefits has been denied; and
(d) Whether any payment of benefits has been
suspended, modified or discontinued and the reason therefore.
ANSWER:
30. No
VIII. VEHICLE/INSURANCE INFORMATION
31. Please state whether you or a resident relative of your household owned a
motor vehicle on the date of the accident. If so, please state:
(a) the make, model and year of the vehicle(s);
(b) the registered or titled owner(s) of the vehicle(s);
(c) whether the vehicle(s) was insured. If so, the name of the
insurance carrier;
(d) whether the full or limited tort selection was made under any
applicable policy;
(e) the amount of first party medical coverage under the subject
policy; and
(f) the amount of first party wage loss coverage under the subject
policy.
ANSWER:
f
32. Please state whether you were an insured or named insured under any
other motor vehicle insurance policy in effect at the time of the subject accident. If you
were, please provide the following information:
(a) the name of the insurance carrier;
(b) the policy number;
(c) the applicable policy dates;
(d) whether you selected the full tort or
limited tort option; and
(e) a description of the vehicle(s) insured by
the subject policy including the vehicle make and
model, vehicle identification number (VIN) and the
name of the registered or titled owner of the
vehicle(s);
(f) the amount of first party medical coverage under the subject
policy; and
(g) the amount of first party wage loss coverage under the subject
policy.
ANSWER:
Respectfully submitted,
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK
GUTHRIE & SKEEL, L.L.P.
BY:
Kevin-'D. Rauch, Esquire
Attorneys for Defendant
32. No
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in these Answers to
LAW OFFICES OF
STEPHEN J. HOGG
19 S. HANOVER STREET
SUITE 101
CARLISLE. PA 17013
Interrogatories to the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, are true and correct. I understand that false statements
herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. Section 4904,
relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities.
a ` // 7 A,
Date
n A I Le&
Mohamed Atteya
V a
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire, Attorney for the Plaintiff, hereby
certify that I did on this day serve one true and correct copy of the
attached Answers to Defendant's Interrogatories by United States Mail,
postage pre-paid, addressed to the following:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, LLP
1017 Mumma Road
Lemoyne, PA 17043
LAW OFFICES OF
STEPHEN J. HOGG
19 S. HANOVER STREET
SUITE 101
CARLISLE, PA 17013
Date:
l! %F;
Stephen J. Ho
I ,
Attorney for P i Ifi
19 S. Hanover tre
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 245-2698
Attorney ID# 36812
Ste. 101
r.?
? CJ
it
:?..., -?
r.J
MOHAMED ATTEYA, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant NO. 04-4469 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this I17' day of May, 2005, upon consideration of Defendant's
Motion To Compel
Plaintiff to show cause
RULE RE
,Stephen J. Hogg, Esq.
19 S. Hanover Street
Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Plaintiff
.evin D. Rauch, Esq.
?Y017 Mumma Road
Suite 300
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Attorney for Defendant
Answers and Responses, a Rule is hereby issued upon
the relief requested should not be granted.
,E within 20 days of service.
BY THE COURT,
J( esley Ole , Jr., J.
05/9
:rc
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA, CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiff,
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
V.
PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW
STACY L. STEWART, MOTION TO COMPEL
Defendant.
(Jury Trial Demanded)
Filed on Behalf of the Defendant
Counsel of Record for This Party:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Pa. I.D. #83058
SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE and SKEEL, L.L.P.
Firm #911
1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300
Lemoyne, PA 17043
(717) 901-5916
#13378
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL DIVISION
V.
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant.
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
(Jury Trial Demanded)
PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW MOTION TO COMPEL
AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Stacy L. Stewart, by and through her
attorneys, Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P., and Kevin D. Rauch,
Esquire, and files the following Praecipe to Withdraw Motion to Compel Discovery
Answers and Responses and in support thereof avers the following:
1. On or about May 6, 2005, Defendant filed a Motion to Compel Discovery
Answers and Responses with the court.
2. On or about May 12, 2005, Defendant received Plaintiffs discovery
responses.
WHEREFORE, Defendant's counsel respectfully requests this Honorable Court
enter an Order withdrawing Defendant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff to provide Defendant
with full and complete Answers and Responses to Defendant's Interrogatories and
Request for Production of Documents.
Respectfully submitted,
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE & SKEEL L.L.P.
By: ui
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Counsel for Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1 HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE TO
WITHDRAW MOTION TO COMPEL has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record
via first ?c(lass mail, postage pre-paid, this ?j day of
? V I 1 ___,2005:
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE & SKEEL L.L.P.
By: AD" Z,?
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Counsel for Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA,
Plaintiff,
V.
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant.
AND NOW, TO WIT, this
day of
2005, it is
hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Defendant's Motion to Compel
Discovery Answers and Responses is withdrawn.
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
(Jury Trial Demanded)
ORDER
J.
d
C
t?
frC!
t, -
4
P -?
t ?'
PEGEIVED JUN 0 6 M a3'
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA,
Plaintiff,
V.
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant.
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
(Jury Trial Demanded)
ORDER
AND NOW, TO WIT, this I I [L day of j ',-&A r , 2005, it is
hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Defendant's Motion to Compel
Discovery Answers and Responses is withdrawn.
r ° ???
?
?>. _=
;
?
,?? _?
,_. -
t--
? ,
? = `'
?, _,.
?? =; 'u_
w o
N U
??`,
C
?.?
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA, CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiff, NO. 04-4469 2004. Civil
V. PRAECIPE FOR SUBSTITUTION OF
APPEARANCE
STACY L. STEWART, (Jury Trial Demanded)
Defendant.
Filed on Behalf of the Defendant
Counsel of Record for This Party:
Jeffrey C. Catanzarite, Esquire
Pa. I.D. #72765
SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE & SKEEL, L.L.P.
Firm #911
2400 Gulf Tower
707 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
(412) 261-3232
#13378
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA, CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiff,
V.
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant.
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
PRAECIPE FOR SUBSTITUTION OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly substitute the appearance of Jeffrey C. Catanzarite, Esquire, in place of the
appearance previously entered by Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire, on behalf of the Defendant,
Stacy L. Stewart, in the above case.
Respectfully submitted,
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE & SKEEL L.L.P.
By:,??
C. Catanzarite, Esquire
,I for Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe for
Substitution of Appearance has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first
class mail, postage pre-paid, this V day of November, 2005:
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE & SKEEL L.L.P.
By: L J111 ""
Catanzarite, Esquire
for Defendant
ro
P E FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL
(Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Please list the following case:
? for JURY trial at the next term of civil court.
? for trial without a jury.
------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAPTION OF CASE check one)
{entire caption must be stated in full}
91 Civil Action - Law
MOHAMED ATTEYA,
(Plaintiff)
VS.
STACY L. STEWART,
(Defendant)
VS.
? Appeal from arbitration
(other)
The trial list will be called on 5 0? a
and
Trials commence on
l6_
Pretrials will be held on
(Briefs are due S days before pretria s
No. 4469 2004 Term
Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe:
Stephen J. Hogg, Es uire (for Plaintiff)
Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire (for Defe g1ant
This case is ready for trial.
Print Name: Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
Date: 04/30/07
Attorney for: Plaintiff
C3
- - C u
ra
Rl
a
N
a
?,2
?? r°n
i
MOHAMED ATTEYA,
Plaintiff
V.
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant
: IN THE COURT
: OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
: PENNSYLVANIA
: CIVIL ACTION-LAW
: NO. 04-4469
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE TO REMOVE FROM TRIAL LIST
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Counsel in the above-captioned matter are in agreement in
LAW OFFICES OF
STEPHEN J. HOGG
19 S. HANOVER STREET
SUITE 101
CARLISLE, PA 17013
removing this case from the June 18, 2007 Civil Trial List. Thank you
for your attention to this matter.
Attorney for Plaintiff
19 S. Hanover Street, Ste. 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 245-2698
LAW OFFICES OF
STEPHEN J. HOGG
19 S. HANOVER STREET
SUITE 101
CARLISLE, PA 17013
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire, Attorney for the Plaintiff, hereby
ify that I did on this day serve one true and correct copy of the
ched Praecipe by United States Mail, postage pre-paid, addressed to
he following:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, LLP
1017 Mumma Road
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Attorney for Plaintiff
19 S. Hanover Street, Ste. 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 245-2698
Attorney ID# 36812
N
j.
rII3
r\J " r
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL
(Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Please list the following case:
(Check one) (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) (check one)
( X) Civil Action - Law
MOHAMED ATTEYA
( ) Appeal from Arbitration
(other)
VS.
STACY L. STEWART
vs.
(Plaintiff)
(Defendant)
The trial list will be called on 8 / 21 / 0,7
and
Trials conyr ence on 09/17/07
Pretrials will be held on 0 8/ 2 9/ 0 7
(Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials.)
(The party listing this case for trial shall
provide forthwith a copy of the praecipe to
all counsel, pursuant to local Rule 214.1.)
No. 4469 Civil
2004
Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe:
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire (for Plaintiff)
Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire (for Defendant)
This case is ready for trial. Signed:
L'
Print Name: Stephen Hogg, Esquire
Date: 07/13/07 Attorney for: Plaintiff
f
C.:n
01
9
w ,
MOHAMED ATTEYA,
Plaintiff
V.
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant
: IN THE COURT
OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
NO. 04-4469
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE TO REMOVE FROM TRIAL LIST
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Counsel in the above-captioned matter are in agreement in
removing this case from the August 21, 2007 Civil Trial List. Thank
you for your attention to this matter.
Stephen J. Hog wire
Attorney for Pla' ti
19 S. Hanover Str et, Ste. 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 245-2698
LAW OFFICES OF
STEPHEN J. HOGG
19 S. HANOVER STREET
SUITE 101
CARLISLE, PA 17013
LAW OFFICES OF
STEPHEN J. HOGG
19 S. HANOVER STREET
SUITE 101
CARLISLE, PA 17013
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire, Attorney for the Plaintiff, hereby
certify that I did on this day serve one true and correct copy of the
attached Praecipe by United States Mail, postage pre-paid, addressed
to the following:
k11144?
Date:
Kevin D. Rauch
Summers, McDonnell, Hudock,
Guthrie & Skeel, LLP
1017 Mumma Road
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Attorney for Plairdiff
19 S. Hanover Street, Ste
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 245-2698
Attorney I D# 36812
101
Is
T....,.
a. lT rn
#15
MOHAMED ATTEYA, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v CIVIL ACTION - LAW
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant 04-4469 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: CASE STRICKEN FROM LIST
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 21st day of August, 2007, the
above-captioned case having not been called for trial during the
call of the civil trial list, the case is stricken from the trial
list.
?Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
Suite 101
19 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013-3307
For Plaintiff
/evin D. Rauch, Esquire
1017 Mumma Road
Lemoyne, PA 17043-1145
For Defendant
Court Administrator
:mae
By the Court,
?1?17j lrl lN-,Id
9? :II WV 8Z 9AV LOOZ
/lU'i;lOPviyiRlOd DHi ?O
9OUn k-031H
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL
(Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Please list the following case:
® 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) (check one)
® Civil Action - Law
? Appeal from arbitration
13
MOHAMED .ATTEYA (other)
(Plaintiff)
VS. The trial list will be called on 10 / 16 / 2 0 0 7
and
STACY L. STEWART Trials commence on 11 / 13/2007
(DeAndant) _ Pretrials will be held on _ 10/24/2007
VS. (Briefs are due S days before pretKab
No. 4469 2004 Term
Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe:
Ste?hen_J. Hoqq, Esquire (for Plaintiff)
Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire (for Defendant),/_
This case is ready for trial. Signed:
Print Name: Stephen ?(/ VOgg, Esquire
Date:- ()q/ 4-/ 1 4 / 07 Attorney for: plaintiff
-- G
--.a
co
It
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA,
Plaintiff,
V.
STACY L. STEWART'i,
Defendant.
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
MOTION TO STRIKE CASE LISTED
FOR TRIAL
(Jury Trial Demanded)
Filed on Behalf of the Defendant
Counsel of Record for This Party:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Pa. I.D. #83058
SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE and SKEEL, L.L.P.
Firm #911
1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300
Lemoyne, PA 17043
(717) 901-5916
#13378
IN THE COURT OF 60MMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA, CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiff,
V.
STACY L. STEWARD,
Defendah
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
(Jury Trial Demanded)
5E LISTED FO
AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Stacy L. Stewart, by and through her counsel,
Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P., and Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire,
and files the followind Motion to Strike Case Listed for Trial and in support thereof avers
as follows:
1. This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on
September 7, 2002.
2. On March 2, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint sounding in negligence
against the Defenda
3. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged the following injuries were a result of
the accident:
(a) low back injury;
(b) neck injury;
(c) log injury; and
(d) shoulder injury.
4. Further, the Plaintiff averred that as a direct and proximate result of the
alleged injuries sustained, the Plaintiff has undergone pain and suffering, loss of
earnings and earning, capacity, as well as permanent injuries.
5. On March 21, 2005, the Defendant filed an Answer with New Matter.
6. Defense counsel and Plaintiffs counsel verbally agreed to list this case for
trial in September.
7. On or about April 30, 2007, Plaintiffs counsel listed this case for trial on
June 18, 2007.
8. By agreement of all parties, this matter was stricken from the June, 2007,
trial term, with the anticipation that all discovery in this matter would be concluded prior
to the September term.
9. On or about July 13, 2007, Plaintiffs counsel filed a Praecipe to List Case
for Trial for September 17, 2007.
10. On or bout August 3, 2007, Defense counsel sent Plaintiffs counsel a
letter and indicated hat, as there were numerous outstanding discovery issues, the
above-referenced matter could not be tried in September. (See letter of August 3, 2007,
attached hereto as Exhibit "A.")
11. On or about August 16, 2007, Plaintiffs counsel filed a Praecipe to
Remove the above-referenced matter from the September Trial List. It was Defense
counsel's understanding that this matter would be re-listed once all discovery was
complete.
12. On or about September 14, 2007, Plaintiffs counsel again filed a Praecipe
to List this matter for trial commencing on November 13, 2007.
13. On or about September 6, 2007, Defense counsel contacted Plaintiffs
counsel and indicated that discovery was not complete in this matter and that Defense
counsel could not agree to list this matter for the November 13, 2007, trial term.
Additionally, in an e0ort to list this matter for trial, in an expedient manner, Defense
counsel has, on several occasions, requested additional information from Plaintiffs. To
date, Defense coun el has only received a portion of this discovery. (See letter of
September 6, 2007, ttached hereto as Exhibit "B" and letter of September 21, 2007,
attached hereto as Exhibit "C.")
14. On or about September 18, 2007, Defense counsel contacted Plaintiffs
counsel and asked that this matter be stricken from the November 13, 2007, trial list.
Plaintiffs counsel has not agreed to strike this matter; however, Defense counsel has
filed a Motion for Status Conference, contemporaneous with this Motion to Strike, in
order to agree upon a mutually convenient and agreeable trial date. (See Motion for
Status Conference attached hereto as Exhibit "D.")
15. In Defense counsel's letter of September 6, 2007, Defendant requested
that the Plaintiff provide any and all outstanding medical bills so that the bills could be
reduced, under Act 6, prior to the time of trial. Defense counsel just recently received
these billing statem nts from Plaintiffs counsel, and upon review of these billing
statements and ou standing unpaid bills, Defense counsel identified Central
Pennsylvania Rehabilitation Associates an additional medical provider. As Plaintiff
intends to submit these bills for recovery, Defendant has a right to obtain these records
prior to the time of
16. The Defendant must obtain full and complete employment records
regarding the Plaintiff's wage loss claim. The Plaintiff is asserting a significant wage
loss/loss of earning capacity claim which, as alleged by Plaintiffs counsel, may exceed
$283,952.00. Due to the sheer amount of the claim, and the limited information
previously supplied by the Plaintiff, Defense Counsel has requested, on several
occasions, that Plaintiff provide any and all documentation regarding the same.
17. On October 3, 2007, just five (6) days prior to the filing of this Motion,
Defense Counsel received a Vocational Assessment Report authored by Leslie
Vocational Consulting. (See Vocational Assessment attached hereto as Exhibit "E.")
After review of this Report, it is apparent that the Plaintiff has worked at both Alladin
Food Management and Sbarro Pizza subsequent to this accident. According to the
Plaintiffs Vocational Report, Plaintiff was unable to maintain steady employment with
these companies as he could not tolerate the physical requirements. Defendant is not
receipt of any records regarding the Plaintiffs subsequent employment with these
companies and, therefore, is unable to defend these unsubstantiated claims.
18. Additionally, Defendant should be afforded an opportunity to retain the
services of their own Vocational Expert to review this report and/or render an
independent report regarding the same. As the Defendant has just recently received
this report, Defendant will be unable to retain the services of an expert prior to the time
of trial.
19. In addition to the discovery outlined above, Defendant has not yet
received the followings medical records:
(a) T? date, Defense counsel is still in the process of obtaining
t e following medical records:
all records regarding the Plaintiffs treatment at Rehab
Options - Pinnacle Hospital;
(b)
all records regarding the Plaintiffs treatment at Central
Pennsylvania Rehabilitation Associates;
outstanding records from Dr. Orange in regards to all
transcribed records requested by Defense counsel;
ow-up with any additional medical providers identified
m the acquired records;
(c) ?ave the Defendant's Independent Medical Examiner, Dr. Beutler,
r view any and all of the Plaintiffs medical chart once complete and
rovide an addendum to his initial Independent Medical
xamination ("IME").
20. For the reasons outlined above, Defense counsel will not have sufficient
time to obtain the a ove-referenced information necessary to conduct an adequate
defense of this case prior to a November 13, 2007, trial.
21. Thus, this case must be stricken from the November 13, 2007, trial list.
22. Contemporaneous with this Motion to Strike the above-referenced case
listed for trial, Defendant has filed a Motion for Status Conference and respectfully
requests that this Honorable Court strike this matter from the November 13, 2007 trial
list.
23. On August 30, 2007, Judge Oler issued an Order striking the above-
referenced matter from the August 21, 2007, trial list (September Trial List).
24. Theref0e, Judge Oler has previously issued an Order regarding the
above-referenced m
25. Defense counsel respectfully requests this court continue this matter until
a Status Conference in the above-referenced matter can be scheduled between the
parties.
26. Plaintiffs counsel has agreed to a status conference in the above-
referenced matter, however, Plaintiffs counsel has not agreed to remove this matter
from the November trial list.
27. No addi ional discovery is required to hear this motion.
28. Defens Counsel believes that this matter may be resolved without Oral
I
Argument. However, if argument is requested, Defense Counsel anticipates that
argument will last 15 to 20 minutes.
WHEREF
the within motion
13, 2007, trial term.
the Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court grant
enter an Order striking the case listed for trial from the November
Respectfully submitted,
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRI & SKEEL L.L.P.
By: `
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Counsel for Defendant
August 3, 2007
Stephen J. Hogg; Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
RE: Atteva v. §tewart
Our File No. 13378
Dear Mr. Hogg:
Please allow this letter to serve as a follow-up to my telephone message
left with your office on August 3, 2007. After a review of your Supplemental
Interrogatories, it is apparent that we will not be able to proceed to trial in
September. There are numerous outstanding discovery issues which I will outline
as follows:
1. In your Answers to Supplemental Interrogatories, you
indicated that your client's incurred approximately $42,486.46 in medical bills;
however, I do not have any documentation verifying the amounts paid by Pa Blue
Shield and Mountain State. Further, I do not have any records to verify the
unpaid and outstanding medical bills in the amount of $14,137.69.
2. In your Answers to Supplemental Interrogatories, you
indicated that your client has incurred $190.70 in out-of-pocket expenses. To
date, I have not received any documentation verifying these out-of-pocket
expenses.
3. Further, you indicated that your client will be asserting a
wage loss claim in the amount of $107,224.00. At this time, I have received
limited information from your client's previous employers and do not have any
documentation regarding how you arrived at this amount. If it is your intention to
present this claim' at the time of trial, I would ask that you forward any and all
corresponding documentation.
4. ' Further, you indicated that your client has been involved in a
subsequent accident which he inured his shoulder. Although you indicated your
client has been i volved in a subsequent accident, you did not provide any
l
additional details. I would request any and all medical records in your possession
regarding Plaintiff's subsequent injuries. Further, I would ask that you update my
records as to who your client treated with as a result of this subsequent accident.
5. Further, I am in receipt of your Response to Request for
Production of Documents in regards to medical records from Dr. Boris Tstatskis,
M.D. After cursory of the documents, it appears that your copies are missing
several treatment notes. It appears, at this time, that Dr. Tstatskis has not
provided his full and complete file to either party.
6. Further, as I have recently received several updated records
from several providers, my independent medical examiner has not had an
opportunity to review these records in preparation for the upcoming video-
deposition.
It is not my intention to move this trial indefinitely. However, as it is
apparent that discovery will not be complete as of September, this matter can not
be tried during this session. Upon receipt of this correspondence, kindly contact
me to discuss this outstanding discovery and as well as a mutually convenient
and practical trialdate.
In the meantime, should you have any questions or concerns regarding
the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
COPY
John A. Lucy
JAL:kan
I V,
September 6, 2007
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
RE: Atteva v. Stewart
Our File No. 13378
Dear Mr. Hogg:
As it is not my intention to move this trial indefinitely, I would ask that you provide
me with the following discovery so that we may move this matter forward:
1. If there are any outstanding medical bills at this time, I would ask
that you provide these bills on the appropriate form with the CPT
and Diagnostic Codes so that I may have these bills reduced.
2. After a cursory business check regarding your client's business
ventures, it has come to my attention that your client is the principle
owner of American Dollar 2000, which is located at 329 Gettysburg
Street, 'Dillsburg, PA 17019. 1 have issued a subpoena regarding
any and all records from American Dollar 2000 and would ask that
you waive the 20-day notice period associated with the subpoena.
Further, if you are in receipt of any documents regarding your
client's business venture with American Dollar 2000, 1 would ask
that you provide these documents in a timely fashion.
3. 1 would ask that you please confirm that the Plaintiff was only
involved in one subsequent accident which was the slip-and-fall of
August 6, 2003.
Additionally, 1, am in receipt of your client's medical bills, and I am in the process
of reviewing the same.
In the meantime, should you have any questions or concerns regarding the
above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
COPY
John A. Lucy
JAL:Iam
jr
September 21, 2007
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
RE: Atteva v. Stewart
Our File No. 13378
Dear Mr. Hogg:
Please allow this letter to serve as a follow-up to our conversation on September
18, 2007. It is my understanding that you have praeciped to list this case for trial in
November. At this time, I have additional discovery which needs to be received prior to
agreeing to list this for trial in November. Please allow the following to serve as a
summary of those records and/or other evidence that I have not yet received:
1. All records regarding your client's treatment at Rehab
Options - Pinnacle Hospital;
2. All records regarding your client's treatment at Central
Pennsylvania Rehabilitation Associates (I was not aware that
your client had treated with this provider until I received
billing statements from your office regarding the same.);
3. Outstanding records from Dr. Orange in regards to all
transcribed records;
4. Any additional information from you regarding your client's
wage loss in the amount of $107,000. At this time, I have not
received any information documenting the same.
As I have not received this outstanding discovery, I cannot agree to move this
matter forward for trial in November. As such, I have suggested that we schedule a
status conference with Judge Oler regarding the same. I have spoken with Judge Oler's
law clerk who indicated that all status conferences need to be scheduled through the
Judge's secretary. A this time, his secretary will be out of the office until Monday,
September 24, 2007. Further, it is my understanding that you will not be in town during
this week. Therefore, I would suggest that we attempt to schedule this for the week of
October 1 - 5, 2007. pon receipt of this correspondence, kindly inform me as to your
availability during this eek.
As I stated to you on several occasions, it is not my desire to put this trial off
indefinitely. However, it is important that I receive all of the medical records for
outstanding bills submitted, or attempting to be submitted, at the time of trial. If you are
in receipt of any of the above-referenced documents, I would ask that you forward the
same to my attention.
Additionally, we had discussed that your client is a principle business partner for
American 2000, a clothing business in Dillsburg, Pennsylvania. I would ask that you
contact your client regarding this entity and inform me of the same.
In the meantime, should you have any questions or concerns regarding the
above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
0(0
John A. Lucy
JAL:Iam
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA, CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiff,
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
V.
MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant. (Jury Trial Demanded)
Filed on Behalf of the Defendant
Counsel of Record for This Party:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Pa. I.D. #83058
SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE and SKEEL, L.L.P.
Firm #911
1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300
Lemoyne, PA 17043
(717) 901-5916
#13378
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL DIVISION
V.
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant.
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
(Jury Trial Demanded)
MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE
AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Stacy L. Stewart, by and through her counsel,
Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P., and Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire,
and files the following Motion for Status Conference and in support thereof avers as
follows:
1. This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on
September 7, 2002.
2. On March 2, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint sounding in negligence
against the Defendant.
3. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged the following injuries were a result of
the accident:
(a) low back injury;
(b) neck injury;
(c) leg injury; and
(d) shoulder injury.
4. Further, the Plaintiff averred that as a direct and proximate result of the
alleged injuries sustained, the Plaintiff has undergone pain and suffering, loss of
earnings and earning capacity, as well as permanent injuries.
5. On March 21, 2005, the Defendant filed an Answer with New Matter.
6. At this time, this matter is scheduled for Trial on November 13, 2007.
7. As discovery has not been completed in this matter, Defendant has filed a
Motion to Strike this matter from the November Trial List. (Enclosed please find
Defendant's Motion to Strike the above-referenced matter from the November Trial List
attached hereto as Exhibit "A.")
8. At this time, Plaintiffs counsel has declined to continue this matter from
the November Trial List. However, all parties have agreed to the scheduling of a Status
Conference in order to review any and all outstanding discovery in this matter.
9. On August 30, 2007, Judge Oler issued an Order striking the above-
referenced matter from the August 21, 2007, trial list (September Trial List).
10. As outlined above, Defense counsel has obtained Plaintiffs counsel's
concurrence with the Motion for Status Conference; however, Defense counsel has not
obtained Plaintiffs counsel's concurrence as to the Motion to Strike the above-
referenced matter from the November Trial List.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court grant
the within motion and issue an Order scheduling a Status Conference in the above-
referenced matter.
Respectfully submitted,
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE & SKEEL L.L.P.
By:
evin D. Rauch, Esquire
Counsel for Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION FOR
STATUS CONFERENCE has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first
class mail, postage pre-paid, this 1 day of October, 2007.
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE & SKEEL L.L.P.
By: LT L
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Counsel for Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA,
Plaintiff,
V.
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant.
AND NOW, TO WIT, this
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
(Jury Trial Demanded)
ORDER
day of
2007, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that a Status Conference in the above-
referenced matter is hereby scheduled for
BY THE COURT:
, 2007.
J.
Distribution to:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P.
1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
Leslie Vocational Consulting
Terry P. Leslie, M.Ed., ABVE-D, CRG, LPC
President
a
P.O. Box 248
Landisville, PA 17538
September 21, 2007
Stephen J. Hogg, Esq.
19 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Plaintiff: Mohamccl Atteya
Date of Birth: July 20, 1975
Date of Injury: September 7, 2002
Vocational Assessment
Introduction:
(717) 892-6608
Fax(717)892-6609
MD WCC # 0524
www.leslievc.com
Leslie Vocational Consulting has been requested to determine the vocational/economic loss experienced by Mr.
Mohamed Atteya who was involved in a motor vehicle accident on September 7, 2002. Since that time he has
worked to the best of his ability, but is presently restricted only to sedentary work. Mr. Atteya came to the
United States in 1999 on a work visa and became a citizen in October of 2006. The result of his motor vehicle
accident and subsequent treatment has had a significant impact in his life. He has been divorced and has filed
bankruptcy. Throughout this tirne, he has worked to the best of his ability. The total loss of earnings
experienced by Mr. Atteya both historic and future equals $283,952.
The methodology utilized to cc,rnplete this as';essment is the standard for the vocational expert field. The
analysis seeks to determine the probable vocational tract and earnings of an individual prior to a specific event
and compares these factors to llie probable tract following the same event. The earnings of an individual are
influenced by demographics, education, industry, work ethic, age and disability. This report will take all of
these factors into account in addressing the impact experienced by Mr. Atteya. The references used to render
the ultimate opinion in this mat ter are cited throughout this report. In addition to my interview of Mr. Atteya on
August 16, 2007, I have reviewed the following documents:
1. The August 29, 2007 cerrrespondence from Stuart A. Hartman, D.O.
2. Earnings statement frorn Haulmans Pizza and Subs, Inc. dated September 6, 2002.
3. Correspondence dated f )ecember 15, 2006 from Al's Pizza & Subs.
4. Complaint of Mohamed Atteya v. Stacy L. Stewart.
5. Income tax returns for 2001 through 2006.
6. Medical records from f fershey Medical Center.
7. Medical records from Iirian Holmes, \l.D.
8. Medical records from J )r.1 Tsatskis' from September 19, 2002 to December 29, 2004.
9. MRI report of Septemf)cr130, 2002.
10. June 19, 2007 medical report of Stuart A. Hartman, D.O.
2
Medical Status:
Mr. Mohamed Atteya was involved in a motor vehicle accident on September 7, 2002 when his vehicle was
struck on the rear bumper. He complained of low back and neck pain and was transferred to Hershey Medical
Center. Mr. Atteya continued to experience pain in his neck at a level of 10/10 with conservative treatment. He
complained of limited ability to hold items in his left hand and an inability to tolerate full-time employment. He
was evaluated by Brian Holmes, M.D. on May 3, 2005 for a neurosurgical evaluation. Dr. Holmes noted that an
MRl was completed showing a large C5-6 disc herniation and recommended surgical intervention. The MRI
showing the disc herniation was completed on September 30, 2002. Mr. Atteya then underwent an anterior
microdiscectomy and fusion at this level on June 8, 2005.
Additional medical treatment has been provided by Boris Tsatskis, M.D. who practices in Brooklyn, New York.
Mr. Atteya also receives medical treatment in the form of pain management from Stuart A. Hartman, D.O. in
Harrisburg, PA. Dr. Hartman has noted that Mr. Atteya is suffering from a left cervical radiculopathy at C6-7.
His correspondence of August 29, 2007 highlights that Mr. Atteya remains symptomatic and does not have the
ability to return to work in his chosen profession as a cook in a pizza shop. However, in Dr. Hartman's opinion,
Mr. Atteya is capable of performing sedentary work. In addition, Mr. Atteya is restricted from repetitive use of
the left upper extremity, reaching or overhead activities.
Mr. Atteya held his neck and left arm throughout the interview. He feels that his back and neck pain is worse
with pain radiating down his left arm. He has attempted on two occasions to return to work at Al's Pizza
without success. Mr. Atteya feels that he can not carry more than 5 lbs. with his left arm and can't hold a
telephone for more than 5 minutes. He spends his time reading and sees his son every two weeks. Mr. Atteya
does not have a television in his home. He has attempted to complete home exercises, ice and heat, but the pain
has remained the same. Mr. Atteya is able to take care of himself and can walk. He has been prescribed a
cervical collar, but has not used it recently. His current medications include Lyriea, 75 mg., which he takes 4-5
times per day.
At the beginning of this year, Mr. Atteya was involved in a work hardening program at Rehab Options which
lasted less than two months. Due to his symptoms he has not been able to complete the physical therapy
programs recently prescribed. This gentleman is right handed. During the vocational interview, I asked that he
provide his opinion of his tolerances. He has provided them as follows:
Sitting: Mr. Atteya must support his neck when he sits.
Standing: He is able to stand.
Driving: Mr. Atteya must use his right arm and has difficulty with cervical range of motion. He tries to
limit his driving to '0-40 minutes.
Walking: 30-40 minutes
Bending: Mr. Atteya is able t bend.
Stooping: Mr. Atteya is able t stoop.
Lifting: He is able to lift wi h his right hand, but his left hand is numb causing him to drop objects such
as a cup of coffee. li
3
Nothing makes Mr. Atteya feel better. He had an injection from Dr. Hartman which helped for one day only
and notes that physical activity increases his pain level along with changes in the weather. Mr. Atteya continues
to be seen by Dr. Hartman and has appointments scheduled for October 2, 2007 and January 8, 2008.
Arrangements have been made for him to have an MRl and he would be examined at Johns Hopkins if he had
insurance coverage.
Medical History:
Mr. Atteya fell at work in 2004 and was examined at the hospital for right shoulder and arm complaints. He has
fully recovered from this situation. Other than this incident, he has no medical history which would impede his
ability to perform gainful employment.
Educational History:
Mr. Atteya graduated from King Fasall High School in Egypt having taken plumbing courses. He has not
received any additional formal' training or education. He did complete two years in the Egyptian Air Force
where he was the driver of a cargo vehicle. Having completed the required two years of service he was then
discharged. As Mr. Atteya's education did not take place in this country, the Wide Range Achievement Test-
Revision 4, green version, was administered to him. The results are as follows:
Subtest Raw Score Standard Score %ile Rank Grade Equivalent
Word Reading 33 67 1 3.3
Sentence Compr. 10 55 0.1 1.9
Spelling 21 58 0.3 1.7
Math Computation 32 78 7 5.9
Reading Composite 122 60 0.4 ------
The results of the testing show that Mr. Atteya is functioning at the first percentile or lower in word reading,
sentence comprehension, spelling and reading composite. Out of 100 individuals in his age group, 32 years of
age, 99 or more are functioning at a higher level than he is. His highest area is math computation where he is
functioning at the 7th percentile and the equivalent of a 5th grader. His higher score in arithmetic is expected
since this skill set is not language dependant. The results of this testing places him in the lower extreme of the
standard score range. Reading composite is the combination of word reading and sentence comprehension
standard scores. There are no grade equivalent norms for this measurement.
Vocational History:
Prior to coming to this country, r. Atteya helped to manage his father's store in Egypt which focused on the
importation and exportation of t pical retail items. His first employment in this country was at Wal-Mart in
Chambersburg, PA from 2000-2 01. Mr. Atteya worked as a full-time Produce Clerk (DOT #922.687-058,
Medium, SVP 2 unskilled, RML 211) earning approximately $7.00 per hour. He was responsible for stocking
fruit and produce on shelves duri g the overnight shift.
i
?I
i?
w
4
In 2001, Mr. Atteya started working for Haulman's which is the same as Al's Pizza & Subs as a Pizza Maker,
(DOT #313.381-014, Medium, SVP 5 semi-skilled, RML 321) at their locations in Mechanicsburg and
Dillsburg. He was responsible for making pizzas, subs, making bread and cleaning up. The correspondence
from Mike Spadafor who runs this business outlines that prior to this incident, Mr. Atteya would work 60-65
hours per week and since the incident he has not been able to work more than 10 hours per week due to his
health condition. Mr. Atteya was employed on a full-time basis earning $10.00 per hour with no fringe benefits
at the time of the motor vehicle accident. His hourly rate increased since this time to $12.00 per hour.
For less than six months in 2006, Mr. Atteya worked as a Cook through Aladdin Food Management at the
Scotland School in Scotland, PA. He was responsible for cooking lunch for the students. This was done on a
full-time basis with Mr. Atteya being paid $10.00 per hour with full benefits. Unfortunately, Mr. Atteya could
not tolerate the physical requirements and was forced to resign his position. He was also employed for
approximately two months with Sabarro's Pizza in Camp Hill as a Pizza Maker. He cooked and prepared bread,
assisted customers and helped to make pizzas. This was done on a full-time basis with an hourly rate of
approximately $8.00 per hour.
A review of his income tax returns and pay stubs provides the following earnings:
2001 $10,733
2002 $9,724
2003 $5,889
2004 $2,426
2005 $1,725
2006 $6,857
Vocational Impressions:
Mr. Atteya has no criminal record. He feels that his English and math skills are weak which is supported by the
results of the testing. He is unable to type and has not used a cash register or switchboard. He has used a
computer but only to complete internet research. He has also used a fax machine and copier. Mr. Atteya has
not done record keeping or bookkeeping. However he has completed inventory, filing and the supervision of
other employees. He has not operated heavy equipment, machinery or tools. Mr. Atteya does have a valid
drivers' license and insured vehicle.
Mr. Atteva's transferable skills have been determined by utilizing his employment, education and the
Dictionary of Occupational Titles, 4`h edition, 1991; The Classification of Jobs, 1992; and the VDARE
Transferability Worksheet. His, previous employment working for Scotland School/Aladdin Food Management
was not done long enough to b considered past relevant work. His other employment in this country has been
limited to working as a produc clerk and pizza maker. Based on this employment his reasoning skills are
average with his math skills bei g below average and language skills being low. Mr. Atteya's aptitudes range
from average to below average with his highest areas being intelligence, form perception, and manual dexterity.
Even though these were his hig est areas they only represent the functioning of the middle third of the
population.
5
This employment is classified!, as medium work requiring lifting and carrying of 50 lbs. This work also required
frequent stooping, crouching, eaching, handling, fingering and vision ability. It required occasional climbing,
kneeling feeling and hearing. ,,This employment was performed in moderate noise environments. Based on this
employment, Mr. Atteya has the ability to make judgments and perform repetitive work. The work has all been
in the mechanical field.
There are no sedentary occupations which are within the transferable skills of these positions. This leaves only
entry level general sedentary positions open to Mr. Atteya which would include bench assembly, cashier and
unarmed security guard. Based on the 2006 occupational employment statistics survey completed for the
Harrisburg metropolitan statistical area by the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, the entry level
earnings of cashiers are $13,300, the entry level earnings of security guards are $16,670 and the entry level
earnings of bench assemblers are $16,380. Wages have increased this year by 1.9% providing Mr. Atteya with
an entry level earning capacity of $15,743.1 As he was earning $10.00 per hour at the time of this accident, his
pre-injury earning capacity is $20,000. I understand that his employer noted that Mr. Atteya would average
working 60-65 hours per week, but based on his skills, education and earnings prior to this event, full-time
employment at $10 best represents his pre-injury earning capacity.
Conclusions:
Mr. Mohamed Atteya was a 27.13 year old male who was involved in a motor vehicle accident on September 7,
2002. Following the accident he has received a significant amount of medical treatment but remains restricted
to sedentary work by his treating physician, Stuart Hartman, D.O. Mr. Atteya immigrated to this country in
1999 from Egypt and is functioning at the elementary school level in basic academic subjects. He had
previously been employed as a,pizza cook earning $10.00 per hour or $20,000 per year. Since the accident, he
has attempted unsuccessfully to continue in cook positions. However, due to his symptoms his work attempts
have not been successful. Based on his current level of functioning his earning capacity is $15,743. No
calculations have been made for fringe benefits as Mr. Atteya was not receiving them at the time of the injury or
in his limited employment prior to the motor vehicle accident.
Mr. Mr. Mr.
Atteya Atteya's Atteya`s
Would Actual Losses
Have Earnings
Earned
Date Date Earnings Annual Annual Lost
From To Growth' Income Income Income
09/07/2002 12/31/2002 0.80% $6,407 $0 $6,407
01101/2003 12/3112003 170% $20,502 $5,889 $14,613
01/0112004 12/3112004 2.50% $21,015 $2,426 $18,589
01/01/2005 12/31/2005 3.18% $21,684 $1,725 $19,959
01/01/2006 12/31/2006 3. 6% $22,478 $6,857 $15,621
01/01/2007 09121/2007 1. 0% $16,567 $0 $16,567
Totals: $108,653 $16,897 $91,756
' Employment Cost Index, Bureau of ?abor Statistics, United States Department of Labor, September 2007.
r
Mr. Atteya's historical loss oflincome fr6m the date of the accident until the present equals $91,756.
Future Wage Loss Proiections:
6
On September 7, 2002, Mr. Atteya was 27.13 years of age with a high school diploma. This would provide him
with a worklife expectancy of 31.88 years from that date or July 23, 2034.2 Worklife expectancy is the
statistical probability of how long a person will be actively engaged in the world of work. It takes into account
the probability of death, disability, voluntary separation from the workforce and involuntary separation from the
workforce. As a result of Kaczkowski v. Bolubasz, future earnings are not to be adjusted for the growth of
those earnings nor are they to be reduced to re resent the resent value bas
Mr. Mr. Mr.
Atteya's Atteya's Atteya's
Pre- Current Losses
Injury Earning
Earning Capacity
Capacity
Year Earnings Discount Annual Annual Lost
Ending Growth Rate Income Income Income
09121/2008 0.00% .00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2009 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2010 0.00% 0100% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09121/2011 0.00% 0100% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2012 0.00% 0400% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
0912112013 0.00% O00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/2112014 0.00% 0,00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2015 0.00% 0,00% $22,905 ,$15,743 $7,162
09/21/2016 0.00% 0;00% $22,905 --$15,743 $7,162
09/21/2017 0.00% 0:,00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2018 0.00% 0!00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2019 0.00% 0.100% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/2112020 0.00% 0.100% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09121/2021 0.00% 0.pO% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
0912112022 0.00% 0., 0% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09121/2023 0.00% 0. 0% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2024 0.00% 0. 0% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/2112025 0.00% 0. 0% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2026 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2027 0.00% 0. 0% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2028 0.00% 0. 0% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09121/2029
0.00%
0. 0%
$22,905
$15,743 ed on investment return. 3
$7,162
2 Work Life from Recent Trends in M ian Years to Retirement and Worklife Expectancy for the Civilian U.S. Population, Tamorah
Hunt, Joyce Pickersgill and Herbert R temiller, Journal of Forensic Economics, Fall 2001, Vol. XIV, Number., for men active in the
work force, with a high school diplom .
3 421 A.2d 1027, 491 Pa. 561 KaczkoWski v. Bolubasz, (Pa. 1980)
r
09/21/2030 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2031 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/2112032 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2033 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2034 0.00% 0.00% $19,139 $13,155 $5,984
Totals: $614,669 $422,473 $192,196
7
The loss of future earnings experienced by Mr. Atteya as a result of his injuries equals $192,196. The total loss
both historic and future equals $283,952.
The opinions contained in this report are within a reasonable degree of vocational certainty based on the data
that has been provided.
Sincerely,
Terry P. eslie, M.Ed., CRC, A13VE-D, LPC
Vocational Expert
Y
46
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION TO
STRIKE CASE LIST
via first class mail, pc
FOR TRIAL has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record
ge pre-paid, this day of October, 2007.
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHR E & SKEEL L.L.P.
iy.
Kkvin D. Rauch, Esquire
Counsel for Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA, CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiff,
V. NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
STACY L. STEWART, (Jury Trial Demanded)
Defendant.
ORDER
AND NOW, TO WIT, this day of , 2007, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED by this Honorable Court, that the above-
referenced matter is hereby stricken from the November 13, 2007, trial term.
BY THE COURT:
Distribution to:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P.
1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300
Lemoyne, PA 17043
J.
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
n D
_.T ter.-?.J
Z ?Z' _
r CD
c a
?
i
tt
t.' -i11
r-o
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA, CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiff,
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
V.
MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant. (Jury Trial Demanded)
Filed on Behalf of the Defendant
Counsel of Record for This Party:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Pa. I.D. #83058
SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE and SKEEL, L.L.P.
Firm #911
1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300
Lemoyne, PA 17043
(717) 901-5916
#13378
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA, CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiff,
V. NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
STACY L. STEWART, (Jury Trial Demanded)
Defendant.
MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE
AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Stacy L. Stewart, by and through her counsel,
Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P., and Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire,
and files the following Motion for Status Conference and in support thereof avers as
follows:
1. This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on
September 7, 2002.
2. On Maroh 2, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint sounding in negligence
against the Defendant'.
3. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged the following injuries were a result of
the accident:
(a) low back injury;
(b) neck injury;
(c) leg injury; and
(d) shoulder injury.
4. Further, the Plaintiff averred that as a direct and proximate result of the
I,
alleged injuries sustained, the Plaintiff has undergone pain and suffering, loss of
earnings and earning Oapacity, as well as permanent injuries.
5. On March 21, 2005, the Defendant filed an Answer with New Matter.
6. At this time, this matter is scheduled for Trial on November 13, 2007.
7. As discovery has not been completed in this matter, Defendant has filed a
Motion to Strike this matter from the November Trial List. (Enclosed please find
Defendant's Motion to Strike the above-referenced matter from the November Trial List
attached hereto as E)chibit "A.")
8. At this time, Plaintiffs counsel has declined to continue this matter from
the November Trial List. However, all parties have agreed to the scheduling of a Status
Conference in order to review any and all outstanding discovery in this matter.
9. On August 30, 2007, Judge Oler issued an Order striking the above-
referenced matter from the August 21, 2007, trial list (September Trial List).
10. As outlined above, Defense counsel has obtained Plaintiffs counsel's
concurrence with the Motion for Status Conference; however, Defense counsel has not
obtained Plaintiffs counsel's concurrence as to the Motion to Strike the above-
referenced matter from the November Trial List.
WHEREFORE,; the Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court grant
the within motion and issue an Order scheduling a Status Conference in the above-
referenced matter.
Respectfully submitted,
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE & SKEEL L.L.P.
By:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Counsel for Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA, CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiff,
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
V.
MOTION TO STRIKE CASE LISTED
STACY L. STEWART, FOR TRIAL
Defendant.
(Jury Trial Demanded)
Filed on Behalf of the Defendant
Counsel of Record for This Party:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Pa. I.D. #83058
SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE and SKEEL, L.L.P.
Firm #911
1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300
Lemoyne, PA 17043
(717) 901-5916
#13378
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL DIVISION
V.
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant.
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
(Jury Trial Demanded)
MOTION TO STRIKE CASE LISTED FOR TRIAL
AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Stacy L. Stewart, by and through her counsel,
Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P., and Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire,
and files the following !Motion to Strike Case Listed for Trial and in support thereof avers
as follows:
1. This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on
September 7, 2002.
2. On March 2, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint sounding in negligence
against the Defendant.
3. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged the following injuries were a result of
the accident:
(a) low back injury;
(b) neck injury;
(c) leg injury; and
(d) sho?lder injury.
4. Further, the Plaintiff averred that as a direct and proximate result of the
alleged injuries sustained, the Plaintiff has undergone pain and suffering, loss of
earnings and earning capacity, as well as permanent injuries.
5. On March 21, 2005, the Defendant filed an Answer with New Matter.
6. Defense counsel and Plaintiffs counsel verbally agreed to list this case for
trial in September.
7. On or about April 30, 2007, Plaintiffs counsel listed this case for trial on
June 18, 2007.
8. By agreement of all parties, this matter was stricken from the June, 2007,
trial term, with the anticipation that all discovery in this matter would be concluded prior
to the September term.
9. On or about July 13, 2007, Plaintiffs counsel filed a Praecipe to List Case
for Trial for September 17, 2007.
10. On or about August 3, 2007, Defense counsel sent Plaintiffs counsel a
letter and indicated that, as there were numerous outstanding discovery issues, the
above-referenced matter could not be tried in September. (See letter of August 3, 2007,
attached hereto as Exhibit "A.")
11. On or about August 16, 2007, Plaintiffs counsel filed a Praecipe to
Remove the above-referenced matter from the September Trial List. It was Defense
counsel's understanding that this matter would be re-listed once all discovery was
complete.
12. On or about September 14, 2007, Plaintiffs counsel again filed a Praecipe
to List this matter for trial commencing on November 13, 2007.
4
13. On or about September 6, 2007, Defense counsel contacted Plaintiffs
counsel and indicated that discovery was not complete in this matter and that Defense
counsel could not agree to list this matter for the November 13, 2007, trial term.
Additionally, in an effort to list this matter for trial, in an expedient manner, Defense
counsel has, on several occasions, requested additional information from Plaintiffs. To
date, Defense counsel has only received a portion of this discovery. (See letter of
September 6, 2007, attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and letter of September 21, 2007,
attached hereto as Exhibit "C.")
14. On or about September 18, 2007, Defense counsel contacted Plaintiffs
counsel and asked that this matter be stricken from the November 13, 2007, trial list.
Plaintiffs counsel has not agreed to strike this matter; however, Defense counsel has
filed a Motion for Status Conference, contemporaneous with this Motion to Strike, in
order to agree upon a mutually convenient and agreeable trial date. (See Motion for
Status Conference attached hereto as Exhibit "D.")
15. In Defense counsel's letter of September 6, 2007, Defendant requested
that the Plaintiff provide any and all outstanding medical bills so that the bills could be
reduced, under Act 6, prior to the time of trial. Defense counsel just recently received
these billing statements from Plaintiffs counsel, and upon review of these billing
statements and outstanding unpaid bills, Defense counsel identified Central
Pennsylvania Rehabilitation Associates an additional medical provider. As Plaintiff
intends to submit these bills for recovery, Defendant has a right to obtain these records
prior to the time of trial.
16. The Defendant must obtain full and complete employment records
regarding the Plaintiff's wage loss claim. The Plaintiff is asserting a significant wage
loss/loss of earning capacity claim which, as alleged by Plaintiffs counsel, may exceed
$283,952.00. Due to the sheer amount of the claim, and the limited information
previously supplied by the Plaintiff, Defense Counsel has requested, on several
occasions, that Plaintiff provide any and all documentation regarding the same.
17. On October 3, 2007, just five (6) days prior to the filing of this Motion,
Defense Counsel received a Vocational Assessment Report authored by Leslie
Vocational Consulting. (See Vocational Assessment attached hereto as Exhibit "E.")
After review of this Report, it is apparent that the Plaintiff has worked at both Alladin
Food Management and Sbarro Pizza subsequent to this accident. According to the
Plaintiff's Vocational Report, Plaintiff was unable to maintain steady employment with
these companies as he could not tolerate the physical requirements. Defendant is not
receipt of any records regarding the Plaintiff's subsequent employment with these
companies and, therefore, is unable to defend these unsubstantiated claims.
18. Additionally, Defendant should be afforded an opportunity to retain the
services of their own Vocational Expert to review this report and/or render an
independent report regarding the same. As the Defendant has just recently received
this report, Defendant will be unable to retain the services of an expert prior to the time
of trial.
19. In addition to the discovery outlined above, Defendant has not yet
received the following medical records:
(a) To date, Defense counsel is still in the process of obtaining
the?following medical records:
i. all records regarding the Plaintiffs treatment at Rehab
Options - Pinnacle Hospital;
ii. all records regarding the Plaintiffs treatment at Central
Pennsylvania Rehabilitation Associates;
iii. outstanding records from Dr. Orange in regards to all
transcribed records requested by Defense counsel;
(b) follow-up with any additional medical providers identified
from the acquired records;
(c) have the Defendant's Independent Medical Examiner, Dr. Beutler,
review any and all of the Plaintiffs medical chart once complete and
provide an addendum to his initial Independent Medical
Examination ("IME").
20. For the reasons outlined above, Defense counsel will not have sufficient
time to obtain the above-referenced information necessary to conduct an adequate
defense of this case prior to a November 13, 2007, trial.
21. Thus, this case must be stricken from the November 13, 2007, trial list.
22. Contemporaneous with this Motion to Strike the above-referenced case
listed for trial, Defendant has filed a Motion for Status Conference and respectfully
requests that this Honorable Court strike this matter from the November 13, 2007 trial
list.
23. On August 30, 2007, Judge Oler issued an Order striking the above-
referenced matter from the August 21, 2007, trial list (September Trial List).
24. Therefore, Judge Oler has previously issued an Order regarding the
above-referenced matter.
25. Defense counsel respectfully requests this court continue this matter until
a Status Conference in the above-referenced matter can be scheduled between the
parties.
26. Plaintiffs counsel has agreed to a status conference in the above-
referenced matter, however, Plaintiffs counsel has not agreed to remove this matter
from the November trial list.
27. No additional discovery is required to hear this motion.
28. Defense Counsel believes that this matter may be resolved without Oral
Argument. However, if argument is requested, Defense Counsel anticipates that
argument will last 15 to 20 minutes.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court grant
the within motion and enter an Order striking the case listed for trial from the November
13, 2007, trial term.
Respectfully submitted,
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE & SKEEL L.L.P.
By; `
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Counsel for Defendant
August 3, 2007
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
RE: Atteva v. Stewart
Our File No. 13378
Dear Mr. Hogg:
Please allow this letter to serve as a follow-up to my telephone message
left with your office on August 3, 2007. After a review of your Supplemental
Interrogatories, it is apparent that we will not be able to proceed to trial in
September. There' are numerous outstanding discovery issues which I will outline
as follows:
1. In your Answers to Supplemental Interrogatories, you
indicated that your client's incurred approximately $42,486.46 in medical bills;
however, I do not have any documentation verifying the amounts paid by Pa Blue
Shield and Mountain State. Further, I do not have any records to verify the
unpaid and outstanding medical bills in the amount of $14,137.69.
2. In your Answers to Supplemental Interrogatories, you
indicated that your client has incurred $190.70 in out-of-pocket expenses. To
date, I have not received any documentation verifying these out-of-pocket
expenses.
3. Further, you indicated that your client will be asserting a
wage loss claim inl the amount of $107,224.00. At this time, I have received
limited information from your client's previous employers and do not have any
documentation regarding how you arrived at this amount. If it is your intention to
present this claim at the time of trial, 1 would ask that you forward any and all
corresponding documentation.
4.
subse uent accident which he inured his shoulder. Although you indicated your
client has been involved in a subsequent accident, you did not provide any
additional details. I would request any and all medical records in your possession
regarding Plaintiffs subsequent injuries. Further, I would ask that you update my
records as to who your client treated with as a result of this subsequent accident.
5. Further, I am in receipt of your Response to Request for
Production of Documents in regards to medical records from Dr. Boris Tstatskis,
M.D. After cursory of the documents, it appears that your copies are missing
several treatment notes. It appears, at this time, that Dr. Tstatskis has not
provided his full and complete file to either party.
6. Further, as I have recently received several updated records
from several providers, my independent medical examiner has not had an
opportunity to review these records in preparation for the upcoming video-
deposition.
It is not my intention to move this trial indefinitely. However, as it is
apparent that discovery will not be complete as of September, this matter can not
be tried during this session. Upon receipt of this correspondence, kindly contact
me to discuss this outstanding discovery and as well as a mutually convenient
and practical trial date.
In the meantime, should you have any questions or concerns regarding
the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
COPY
John A. Lucy
JAL:kan
September 6, 2007
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
RE: Atteva v. Stewart
Our File No. 13378
Dear Mr. Hogg:
As it is not my intention to move this trial indefinitely, I would ask that you provide
me with the following discovery so that we may move this matter forward:
1. If there are any outstanding medical bills at this time, I would ask
that you provide these bills on the appropriate form with the CPT
and Diagnostic Codes so that I may have these bills reduced.
2. After a cursory business check regarding your client's business
venturers, it has come to my attention that your client is the principle
owner of American Dollar 2000, which is located at 329 Gettysburg
Street, IDillsburg, PA 17019. 1 have issued a subpoena regarding
any and all records from American Dollar 2000 and would ask that
you waive the 20-day notice period associated with the subpoena.
Further, if you are in receipt of any documents regarding your
client's business venture with American Dollar 2000, 1 would ask
that you provide these documents in a timely fashion.
3. 1 would ask that you please confirm that the Plaintiff was only
involved, in one subsequent accident which was the slip-and-fall of
August 6, 2003.
Additionally, I am in receipt of your client's medical bills, and I am in the process
of reviewing the same.
In the meantime, should you have any questions or concerns regarding the
above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
CEO PY
John A. Lucy
JAL:Iam
September 21, 2007
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
RE: Atteva v. Stevyart
Our File No. 13378
Dear Mr. Hogg:
Please allow this letter to serve as a follow-up to our conversation on September
18, 2007. It is my understanding that you have praeciped to list this case for trial in
November. At this time, I have additional discovery which needs to be received prior to
agreeing to list this for trial in November. Please allow the following to serve as a
summary of those records and/or other evidence that I have not yet received:
1. All records regarding your client's treatment at Rehab
Options - Pinnacle Hospital;
2. All records regarding your client's treatment at Central
Pennsylvania Rehabilitation Associates (I was not aware that
your client had treated with this provider until I received
billing statements from your office regarding the same.);
3. Outstanding records from Dr. Orange in regards to all
transcribed records;
4. Any additional information from you regarding your client's
wage loss in the amount of $107,000. At this time, I have not
received any information documenting the same.
As I have not received this outstanding discovery, I cannot agree to move this
matter forward for trial in November. As such, I have suggested that we schedule a
status conference with Judge Oler regarding the same. I have spoken with Judge Oler's
law clerk who indicated that all status conferences need to be scheduled through the
Judge's secretary. At his time, his secretary will be out of the office until Monday,
September 24, 2007. urther, it is my understanding that you will not be in town during
this week. Therefore, would suggest that we attempt to schedule this for the week of
October 1 - 5, 2007. 1pon receipt of this correspondence, kindly inform me as to your
availability during this eek.
I
As I stated to you on several occasions, it is not my desire to put this trial off
indefinitely. However, it is important that I receive all of the medical records for
outstanding bills submitted, or attempting to be submitted, at the time of trial. If you are
in receipt of any of the above-referenced documents, I would ask that you forward the
same to my attention.
Additionally, we had discussed that your client is a principle business partner for
American 2000, a clothing business in Dillsburg, Pennsylvania. I would ask that you
contact your client regarding this entity and inform me of the same.
In the meantime, should you have any questions or concerns regarding the
above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
(D(Opy
John A. Lucy
JAL:Iam
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA, CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiff,
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
V.
MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant. (Jury Trial Demanded)
Filed on Behalf of the Defendant
Counsel of Record for This Party:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Pa. I.D. #83058
SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE and SKEEL, L.L.P.
Firm #911
1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300
Lemoyne, PA 17043
(717) 901-5916
#13378
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL DIVISION
V.
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant.
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
(Jury Trial Demanded)
MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE
AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Stacy L. Stewart, by and through her counsel,
Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P., and Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire,
and files the following Motion for Status Conference and in support thereof avers as
follows:
1. This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on
September 7, 2002.
2. On March 2, 2005, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint sounding in negligence
against the Defendant.
3. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleged the following injuries were a result of
the accident:
(a) low back injury;
(b) neck injury;
(c) leg injury; and
(d) shoulder injury.
4. Further, the Plaintiff averred that as a direct and proximate result of the
alleged injuries sustained, the Plaintiff has undergone pain and suffering, loss of
earnings and earning cap city, as well as permanent injuries.
5. On March 21, 2005, the Defendant filed an Answer with New Matter.
6. At this time, this matter is scheduled for Trial on November 13, 2007.
7. As discovery has not been completed in this matter, Defendant has filed a
Motion to Strike this matter from the November Trial List. (Enclosed please find
Defendant's Motion to Strike the above-referenced matter from the November Trial List
attached hereto as Exhibit "A.")
8. At this time, Plaintiffs counsel has declined to continue this matter from
the November Trial List. However, all parties have agreed to the scheduling of a Status
Conference in order to review any and all outstanding discovery in this matter.
9. On August 30, 2007, Judge Oler issued an Order striking the above-
referenced matter from the August 21, 2007, trial list (September Trial List).
10. As outlined above, Defense counsel has obtained Plaintiffs counsel's
concurrence with the Motion for Status Conference; however, Defense counsel has not
obtained Plaintiffs counsel's concurrence as to the Motion to Strike the above-
referenced matter from the November Trial List.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court grant
the within motion and issue an Order scheduling a Status Conference in the above-
referenced matter.
Respectfully submitted,
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE & SKEEL L.L.P.
By:
evin D. Rauch, Esquire
Counsel for Defendant
5 ?
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION FOR
STATUS CONFERENCE has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first
class mail, postage pre-paid, this ! day of October, 2007.
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE & SKEEL L.L.P.
By: LT L
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Counsel for Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
M0HAMED ATTEYA,
Plaintiff,
V.
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant.
AND NOW, TO WIT, this
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
(Jury Trial Demanded)
ORDER
day of , 2007, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that a Status Conference in the above-
referenced matter is hereby scheduled for , 2007.
BY THE COURT:
J.
Distribution to:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Summers, McDonnell, Huddck, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P.
1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
L..axioc vocational. Consulting
Te=ry P. Leslie, M.Ed., ABVE-D, CRC, LPC
President
R.O. Box 248
Landisville, PA 17538
September 21, 2007
Stephen J. Hogg, Esq.
19 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Plaintiff.
Date.of Birth:
Date of Injury
MohaMCLI Atteya
July 20, 1975
September 7, 2002
Vocational Assessment
Introduction:
(717) 892-6608
Fax (717) 892-6609
MD WCC-# 0524
www.leslievc.com
Leslie Vocational Consulting has been requested to determine the vocational/economic loss experienced by Mr.
Mohamed Atteya who was involved in a motor vehicle accident on September 7, 2002. Since that time he has
worked to the best of his ability, but is presently restricted only to sedentary work. Mr. Atteya came to the
United States in 1999 on a work visa and became a citizen in October of 2006. The result of his motor vehicle
accident and subsequent treatment has had a significant impact in his life. He has been divorced and has filed
bankruptcy. Throughout this tune, he has worked to the best of his ability. The total loss of earnings
experienced by Mr. Atteya both historic and future equals $283,952.
The methodology utilized to complete this as%essment is the standard for the vocational expert field. The
analysis seeks to determine the probable vocational tract and earnings of an individual prior to a specific event
and compares these factors to t f ie probable tract following the same event. The earnings of an individual are
influenced by demographics, Cd ucation, industry, w9rk ethic, age and disability. This report will take all of
these factors into account in addressing the impact experienced by Mr. Atteya. The references used to render
the ultimate opinion in this mai ter are cited throughout this report. In addition to my interview of Mr. Atteya on
August 16, 2007, I have reviewed the following documents:
1. The August 29, 2007 correspondence from Stuart A. Hartman, D.O.
2. Earnings statement frorn Haulmans Pizza and Subs, Inc. dated September 6, 2002.
3. Correspondence dated I )ecember 15, 2006 from Al's Pizza & Subs.
4. Complaint of Mohamed Atteya v. Stacy L. Stewart.
5. Income tax returns for 2001 through 2006.
6. Medical records from I f ershey Medical Center.
7. Medical records from Arian Holmes, M.D.
8. Medical records from Or. T'patskis' from September 19, 2002 to December 29, 2004.
9. MRI report of Septeml)er 30, 2002.
10. June 19, 2007 medical report of Stuart A. Hartman, D.O.
2
Medical Status:
Mr. Mohamed Atteya was involved in a motor vehicle accident on September 7, 2002 when his vehicle was
struck on the rear bumper. He complained of low back and neck pain and was transferred to Hershey Medical
Center. Mr. Atteya continued to experience pain in his neck at a level of 10/10 with conservative treatment. He
complained of limited ability to hold items in his left hand and an inability to tolerate full-time employment. He
was evaluated by Brian Holmes, M.D. on May 3, 2005 for a neurosurgical evaluation. Dr. Holmes noted that an
MRI was completed showing a large C5-6 disc herniation and recommended surgical intervention. The MRI
showing the disc herniation was completed on September 30, 2002. Mr. Atteya then underwent an anterior
microdiscectomy and fusion at this level on June 8, 2005.
Additional medical treatment has been provided by Boris Tsatskis, M.D. who practices in Brooklyn, New Fork.
Mr. Atteya also receives medical treatment in the form of pain management from Stuart A. Hartman, D.Q. in
Harrisburg, PA. Dr. Hartman has noted that Mr. Atteya is suffering from a left cervical radiculopathy at C6-7.
His correspondence of August 29, 2007 highlights that Mr. Atteya remains symptomatic and does not have the
ability to return to work in his chosen profession as a cook in a pizza shop. However, in Dr. Hartman's opinion,
Mr. Atteya is capable of performing sedentary work. In addition, Mr. Atteya is restricted from repetitive use of
the left upper extremity, reaching or overhead activities.
Mr. Atteya held his neck and left arm throughout the interview. He feels that his back and neck pain is worse
with pain radiating down his left arm. He has attempted on two occasions to return to work at Al's Pizza
without success. Mr. Atteya feels that he can not carry more than 5 lbs. with his left arm and can't hold a
telephone for more than 5 minutes. He spends his time reading and sees his son every two weeks. Mr. Atteya
does not have a television in his home. He has attempted to complete home exercises, ice and heat, but the pain
has remained the same. Mr. Atteya is able to take care of himself and can walk. He has been prescribed a
cervical collar, but has not used it recently. His current medications include Lyrica, 75 mg., which he takes 4-5
times per day.
At the beginning of this year, Mr. Atteya was involved in a work hardening program at Rehab Options which
lasted less than two months. Due to his symptoms he has not been able to complete the physical therapy
programs recently prescribed. This gentleman is right handed. During the vocational interview, I asked that he
provide his opinion of his tolerances. He has provided them as follows:
Sitting: Mr. Atteya must support his neck when he sits.
Standing: He is able to stand.
Driving: Mr. Atteya must use his right arm and has difficulty with cervical range of motion. He tries to
limit his driving to 30-40 minutes.
Walking: 30-40 minutes
Bending: Mr. Atteya is able to bend.
Stooping: Mr. Atteya is able to stoop.
Lifting: He is able to lift with his right hand, but his left hand is numb causing him to drop objects such
as a cup of coffee.
3
Nothing makes Mr. Atteya feel better. He had an injection from Dr. Hartman which helped for one day only
and notes that physical activity increases his pain level along with changes in the weather. Mr. Atteya continues
to be seen by Dr. Hartman and has appointments scheduled for October 2, 2007 and January 8, 2008.
Arrangements have been made for him to have an MRI and he would be examined at Johns Hopkins if he had
insurance coverage.
Medical History:
Mr. Atteya fell at work in 2004 and was examined at the hospital for right shoulder and arm complaints. He has
fully recovered from this situation. Other than this incident, he has no medical history which would impede his
ability to perform gainful employment.
Educational History:
Mr. Atteya graduated from King Fasall High School in Egypt having taken plumbing courses. He has not
received any additional formal training or education. He did complete two years in the Egyptian Air Force
where he was the driver of a cargo vehicle. Having completed the required two years of service he was then
discharged. As Mr. Atteya's education did not take place in this country, the Wide Range Achievement Test-
Revision 4, green version, was administered to him. The results are as follows:
Subtest Raw Score Standard Score %ile Rank Grade Equivalent
Word Reading 33 67 1 3.3
Sentence Compr. 10 55 0.1 1.9
Spelling 21 58 0.3 1.7
Math Computation 32 78 7 5.9
Reading Composite 122 60 0.4 ------
The results of the testing show that Mr. Atteya is functioning at the first percentile or lower in word reading,
sentence comprehension, spelling and reading composite. Out of 100 individuals in his age group, 32 years of
age, 99 or more are functioning at a higher level than he is. His highest area is math computation where he is
functioning at the 7rh percentile and the equivalent of a 5ch grader. His higher score in arithmetic is expected
since this skill set is not language dependant. The results of this testing places him in the lower extreme of the
standard score range. Reading composite is the combination of word reading and sentence comprehension
standard scores. There are no grade equivalent norms for this measurement.
Vocational History:
Prior to coming to this country, r. Atteya helped to manage his father's store in Egypt which focused on the
importation and exportation of ty ical retail items. His first employment in this country was at Wal-Mart in
Chambersburg, PA from 2000-20 1. Mr. Atteya worked as a full-time Produce Clerk (DOT #922.687-058,
Medium, SVP 2 unskilled, RML 211) earning approximately $7.00 per hour. He was responsible for stocking
fruit and produce on shelves durin the overnight shift.
4
In 2001, Mr. Atteya started working for Haulman's which is the same as Al's Pizza & Subs as a Pizza Maker,
(DOT #313.381-014, Medium, SVP 5 semi-skilled, RML 321) at their locations in Mechanicsburg and
Dillsburg. He was responsible for making pizzas, subs, making bread and cleaning up. The correspondence
from Mike Spadafor who runs this business outlines that prior to this incident, Mr. Atteya would work 60-65
hours per week and since the incident he has not been able to work more than 10 hours per week due to his
health condition. Mr. Atteya was employed on a full-time basis earning $10.00 per hour with no fringe benefits
at the time of the motor vehicle accident. His hourly rate increased since this time to $12.00 per hour.
For less than six months in 2006, Mr. Atteya worked as a Cook through Aladdin Food Management at the
Scotland School in Scotland, PA. He was responsible for cooking lunch for the students. This was done on a
full-time basis with Mr. Atteya being paid $10.00 per hour with full benefits. Unfortunately, Mr. Atteya could
not tolerate the physical requirements and was forced to resign his position. He was also employed for
approximately two months with Sabarro's Pizza in Camp Hill as a Pizza Maker. He cooked and prepared bread,
assisted customers and helped to make pizzas. This was done on a full-time basis with an hourly rate of
approximately $8.00 per hour.
A review of his income tax returns and pay stubs provides the following earnings:
2001 $10,733
2002 $9,724
2003 - $5,889
2004 $2,426
2005 $1,725
2006 $6,857
Vocational Impressions:
Mr. Atteya has no criminal record. He feels that his English and math skills are weak which is supported by the
results of the testing. He is unable to type and has not used a cash register or switchboard. He has used a
computer but only to complete internet research. He has also used a fax machine and copier. Mr. Atteya has
not done record keeping or bookkeeping. However he has completed inventory, filing and the supervision of
other employees. He has not operated heavy equipment, machinery or tools. Mr. Atteya does have a valid
drivers' license and insured vehicle.
Mr. Atteva's transferable skills have been determined by utilizing his employment, education and the
Dictionary of Occupational Titled 4ffi edition, 1991; The Classification of Jobs, 1992; and the VDARE
Transferability Worksheet. His previous employment working for Scotland School/Aladdin Food Management
was not done long enough to be onsidered past relevant work. His other employment in this country has been
limited to working as a produce lerk and pizza maker. Based on this employment his reasoning skills are
average with his math skills bein below average and language skills being low. Mr. Atteya's aptitudes range
from average to below average 'th his highest areas being intelligence, form perception, and manual dexterity.
Even though these were his highest areas they only represent the functioning of the middle third of the
population.
5
This employment is classified as medium work requiring lifting and carrying of 50 lbs. This work also required
frequent stooping, crouching,' reaching, handling, fingering and vision ability. It required occasional climbing,
kneeling feeling and hearing. I This employment was performed in moderate noise environments. Based on this
employment, Mr. Atteya has the ability to make judgments and perform repetitive work. The work has all been
in the mechanical field.
There are no sedentary occupations which are within the transferable skills of these positions. This leaves only
entry level general sedentary positions open to Mr. Atteya which would include bench assembly, cashier and
unarmed security guard. Based on the 2006 occupational employment statistics survey completed for the
Harrisburg metropolitan statistical area by the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, the entry level
earnings of cashiers are $13,300, the entry level earnings of security guards are $16,670 and the entry level
earnings of bench assemblers are $16,380. Wages have increased this year by 1.9% providing Mr. Atteya with
an entry level earning capacity of $15,743.1 As he was earning $10.00 per hour at the time of this accident, his
pre-injury earning capacity is $20,000. I understand that his employer noted that Mr. Atteya would average
working 60-65 hours per week, but based on his skills, education and earnings prior to this event, full-time
employment at $10 best represents his pre-injury earning capacity.
Conclusions:
Mr. Mohamed Atteya was a 27.13 year old male who was involved in a motor vehicle accident on September 7,
2002. Following the accident he has received a significant amount of medical treatment but remains restricted
to sedentary work by his treating physician, Stuart Hartman, D.O. Mr. Atteya immigrated to this country in
1999 from Egypt and is functioning at the elementary school level in basic academic subjects. He had
previously been employed as a pizza cook earning $10.00 per hour or $20,000 per year. Since the accident, he
has attempted unsuccessfully to, continue in cook positions. However, due to his symptoms his work attempts
have not been successful. Based on his current level of functioning his earning capacity is $15,743. No
calculations have been made for fringe benefits as Mr. Atteya was not receiving them at the time of the injury or
in his limited employment prior to the motor vehicle accident.
Mr. Mr. Mr.
Atteya Atteya's Atteya's
Would Actual Losses
Have Earnings
Earned
Date Date Earniogs Annual Annual Lost
From To Growih" Income Income Income
09/07/2002 1213112002 0.80% $6,407 $0 $6,407
01/01/2003 12/3112003 1.70% $20,502 $5,889 $14,613
0110112004 12/31/2004 2.10% $21,015 $2,426 $18,589
01/01/2005 12/31/2005 3.18% $21,684 $1,725 $19,959
01101/2006 12131/2006 3.6 % $22,478 $6,857 $15,621
01/01/2007 09/21/2007 1.9 % $16,567 $0 $16,567
Totals: $108,653 $16,897 $91,756
Employment Cost Index, Bureau of La?or Statistics, United States Department of Labor, September 2007.
6
Mr. Atteya's historical loss of income fr6m the date of the accident until the present equals $91,756.
Future Wage Loss Proiections:
On September 7, 2002, Mr. Atteya was 27.13 years of age with a high school diploma. This would provide him
with a worklife expectancy of 31.88 years from that date or July 23, 2034.2 Worklife expectancy is the
statistical probability of how long a person will be actively engaged in the world of work. It takes into account
the probability of death, disability, voluntary separation from the workforce and involuntary separation from the
workforce. As a result of Kaczkowski v. Bolubasz, future earnings are not to be adjusted for the growth of
those earnings nor are theY to be reduced to re resent the resent value based on investment return.3
Mr. Mr. Mr.
Atteya`s Atteya's Atteya's
Pre- Current Losses
Injury Earning
Earning Capacity
Capacity
Year Earnings Discount Annual Annual Lost
Ending Growth Rate Income Income Income
09/21/2008 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2009 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2010 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2011 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
0912112012 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/2112013 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162.
09/21/2014 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/2112015 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 ,$15,743 $7,162
09121/2016 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 %'$15,743 $7,162
09121/2017 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2018 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2019 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2020 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09121/2021 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2022 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2023 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2024 0.00% 0.001% $22,905 $15,743 17,162
09/21/2025 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 :$7,162
09121/2026 0.00% 0.00'/0 $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2027 0.00% 0.00 0 $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
0912112028 0.00% 0.00 0 $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2029 0.00% 0.00 0 $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
2 Work Life from Recent Trends in Medi Years to Retirement and Worklife Expectancy for the Civilian U.S. Population, Tamorah
Hunt, Joyce Pickersgill and Herbert Ruter iller, Journal of Forensic Economics, Fall 2001, Vol. XIV, Number 3, for men active in the
work force, with a high school diploma. ;
3 421 A2d 1027, 491 Pa. 561 Kaczkowski?v. Bolubasz, (Pa. 1980)
7
09/21/2030 0.00% 0.00% _$22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2031 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
0912112032 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/2112033 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2034 0.00% 0.00% $19,139 $13,155 $5,984
Totals: $614,669 $422.473 $192,196
The loss of future earnings experienced by Mr. Atteya as a result of his injuries equals $192,196. The total loss
both historic and future equals $283,952.
The opinions contained in this report are within a reasonable degree of vocational certainty based on the data
that has been provided.
Sincerely,
Terry P. eslie, M.Ed., CRC, ABVE-D, LPC
Vocational Expert
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION TO
STRIKE CASE LISTED FOR TRIAL has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record
via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this I day of October, 2007.
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHR E & SKEEL L.L.P.
t
By: L(? IA?,
K vin D. Rauch, Esquire
Counsel for Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA, CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiff,
V. NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
STACY L. STEWART, (Jury Trial Demanded)
Defendant.
ORDER
AND NOW, TO WIT, this day of , 2007, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED by this Honorable Court, that the above-
referenced matter is hereby stricken from the November 13, 2007, trial term.
BY THE COURT:
J.
Distribution to:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P.
1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION FOR
STATUS CONFERENCE has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first
class mail, postage p?e-paid, this 1 day of October, 2007.
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE & SKEEL L.L.P.
By:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Counsel for Defendant
r
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA,
Plaintiff,
V.
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant.
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
(Jury Trial Demanded)
ORDER
AND NOW, TO WIT, this day of , 2007, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that a Status Conference in the above-
referenced matter is hereby scheduled for , 2007.
BY THE COURT:
Distribution to:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P.
1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite101
Carlisle, PA 17013
J.
r'; O
?? r-, "c1
(
? .,J
r
_;
-,-- ??1-?---?
t :. ? ,? }?
??
_ . =..=
?y4n M_?LYl
} ??
.• '
? {-?
r
...? {,.3
MOHAMED ATTEYA, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW
STACY L. STEWART, :
Defendant NO. 04-4469 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 16`h day of October, 2007, upon consideration of Defendant's
Motion for Status Conference, a status conference is scheduled in chambers of the
undersigned judge for Thursday, December 20, 2007, at 1:30 p.m.
BY THE COURT,
/tephen J. Hogg, Esq.
19 S. Hanover Street
Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Plaintiff
vin D. Rauch, Esq.
1017 Mumma Road
Suite 300
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Attorney for Defendant
rc
i l': 1 t J - 'fit .?
0
MOHAMED ATTEYA, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v CIVIL ACTION - LAW
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant 04-4469 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: CASE STRICKEN FROM LIST
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 16th day of October, 2007, upon
consideration of the call of the civil trial list in the
above-captioned matter, and no counsel having appeared to call
the case for trial, the case is stricken from the trial list.
phen J. Hogg, Esquire
Suite 101
19 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 170130-3307
For Plaintiff
...K?vin D. Rauch, Esquire
1017 Mumma Road
Lemoyne, PA 17014-1145
For Defendant
Court Administrator
mae
By the Court,
Qft-
00
s
??- i: :7
=CLij
L%l (L
4
U
cv
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL
(Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Please list the following case:
0 for. JURY trial at the next term of civil court.
? for trial without a jury.
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated in futl)
MOHAMED ATTEYA
(check one)
® Civil Action - Law
? Appeal from arbitration
(other)
(Plaintiff)
vs.
STACY L. STEWART
(Defendant)
vs.
The trial list will be called on 1/08/2008
and
Trials commence on 2/04/08
Pretrials willbe held on 1 / 16/ 08
(Briefs are due S days before pretrials
No. 4469 ) 2004 Term
Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe:
STEPHEN J. HOGG, ESQUIRE (for Plaintiff)
Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known:
KEVIN D. RAUCH. ESOUIRE (for Defendant) z z_
This case is ready for trial.
Date: 12/05/07
Signed: -" U
Print Name: Stephen T-/
Attorney for: Plaintiff
oe2. Esquire
.,5 G .
l 3
rn
tr,
G
MOHAMED ATTEYA,
Plaintiff
V.
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 04-4469 CIVIL TERM
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 17'h day of December, 2007, upon agreement of counsel, the
status conference previously scheduled for December 20, 2007, is rescheduled to
Wednesday, January 2, 2008, at 11:15 a.m., in chambers of the undersigned judge.
BY THE COURT,
,8(ephen J. Hogg, Esq.
19 S. Hanover Street
Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Plaintiff
?I 'evin D. Rauch, Esq.
1017 Mumma Road
Suite 300
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Attorney for Defendant
A
i
J/iWesley Ole , Jr., J.
Y
rc
ViNVAIAS N3d
S S : I I WV 61 030 LODZ
MViONOHiOdd 3H1 ?O
3OL40-O
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA, CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiff,
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
V.
MOTION TO STRIKE CASE LISTED
STACY L. STEWART, FOR TRIAL
Defendant.
(Jury Trial Demanded)
Filed on Behalf of the Defendant
Counsel of Record for This Party:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Pa. I.D. #83058
SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE and SKEEL, L.L.P.
Firm #911
1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300
Lemoyne, PA 17043
(717) 901-5916
#13378
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL DIVISION
V.
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant.
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
(Jury Trial Demanded)
MOTION TO STRIKE CASE LISTED FOR TRIAL
AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Stacy L. Stewart, by and through her counsel,
Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P., and Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire,
and files the following Motion to Strike Case Listed for Trial and in support thereof avers
as follows:
1. This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on
September 7, 2002.
2. On March 2, 2005, a Complaint was filed by the Plaintiff sounding in
negligence against the Defendant.
3. the Plaintiff is alleging the following injuries as a result of the alleged
accident:
(a) low back injury;
(b) neck injury;
(c) leg injury; and
(d) shoulder injury.
4. The Plaintiff is averring that as a direct and proximate result of the alleged
injuries sustained, the Plaintiff has undergone pain and suffering, loss of earnings and
earning capacity, as well as permanent injuries.
5. The Defendant filed an Answer with New Matter on March 21, 2005.
6. On or about April 30, 2007, Plaintiffs counsel listed this case for trial on
June 18, 2007.
7. By agreement of all parties, this matter was stricken from the June, 2007,
trial term, with the anticipation that all discovery in this matter would be concluded prior
to the September term.
8. On or about July 13, 2007, Plaintiffs counsel filed a Praecipe to List Case
for Trial for September 17, 2007.
9. On or about August 3, 2007, Defense counsel sent Plaintiffs counsel a
letter and indicated that, as there were numerous outstanding discovery issues, the
above-referenced matter could not be tried in September. (See letter of August 3, 2007,
attached hereto as Exhibit "A.")
10. On or about August 16, 2007, Plaintiffs counsel filed a Praecipe to
Remove the above-referenced matter from the September Trial List. It was Defense
counsel's understanding that this matter would be re-fisted once all discovery was
complete.
11. On or about September 14, 2007, Plaintiffs counsel again filed a Praecipe
to List this matter for trial commencing on November 13, 2007.
12. On or about October 9, 2007, the Defendant filed a Motion to Strike the
above-referenced matter from the November Trial List.
13. On October 16, 2007, Defense counsel attended the Call of the List in
order to object to scheduling the above-referenced matter for the November Trial List.
14. On October 16, 2007, Judge Oler issued an Order striking the above-
referenced matter from the November Trial List as Plaintiffs counsel did not appear at
the Call of the List.
15. On October 9, 2007, contemporaneous with Defendant's Motion to Strike
the above-referenced matter from the November Trial List, Defense counsel filed a
Motion for Status/Discovery Conference. It was Defense counsel's understanding that
all parties would attend this conference in order to ascertain the outstanding discovery
and to establish a timeline in which to complete this discovery and list this matter for
trial.
16. Despite Defendant's Motion for Status Conference, Plaintiffs counsel
again unilaterally scheduled and praeciped this matter for trial for the February Trial
Term.
17. In Defense counsel's letter of September 6, 2007, Defendant requested
that Plaintiff provide any and all outstanding medical bills so the bills could be reduced,
under Act 6, prior to the time of trial. Defense counsel just recently received these billing
statements from Plaintiffs counsel, and upon review of these billing statements and
outstanding unpaid bills, Defense counsel identified Central Pennsylvania Rehabilitation
Associates as an additional medical provider. Defense counsel has recently received
these records as well as updated records from Plaintiffs counsel and will forward these
to their Independent Medical Examiner in order to provide an addendum, if necessary.
As Plaintiff intends to submit these bills for recovery, Defendant has a right to obtain
these records prior to the time of trial and provide these records to their Independent
Medical Examiner.
18. On October 3, 2007, Defense counsel received a Vocational Assessment
report authored by Leslie Vocational Consulting. (See Vocational Assessment attached
hereto as Exhibit "B.") After review of this report, it is apparent that the Plaintiff has
worked at both Aladdin Food Management and Sbarro Pizza subsequent to this
accident. According to the Plaintiffs vocational report, the Plaintiff was unable to
maintain steady employment with these companies as he could not tolerate the physical
requirements.
19. As a result of this Vocational Assessment report, Defendant subpoenaed
the Plaintiffs records from Aladdin Food Management and requested the Plaintiff
provide a copy of any and all records received in their file. (See letter of October 17,
2007, attached hereto as Exhibit "C.")
20. Additionally, after review of the Vocational Assessment report, Defendant
requested that the Plaintiff provide any and all employment records regarding the
Plaintiffs employment with Sbarro Pizza as referenced by the Plaintiffs expert.
21. As of the date of this motion, Defendant has not received any records from
Sbarro Pizza. (See letter of November 12, 2007, attached hereto as Exhibit "D.")
22. On November 26, 2007, the Defendant requested the Plaintiffs first party
benefits file from Progressive Insurance, to include a payout in regards to the Plaintiffs
first party medical benefits. As of the date of this motion, Plaintiff has not received an
indication of payout in regards to the Plaintiffs first party benefits.
23. Additionally, in a letter dated November 26, 2007, Defendant requested
that Plaintiffs counsel provide information in regards to the Plaintiffs health insurance
coverage dates prior to the year 2006. As of the date of this motion, Defense counsel
has not received any information in regards to the Plaintiffs health insurance coverage
prior to 2006. (See letter of November 12, 2007, attached hereto as Exhibit "E.")
24. Defendant should be afforded an opportunity to retain the services of their
own vocation expert to review this report and/or render an independent report regarding
the same. As the Defendant has not received any information or confirmation in regards
to the Plaintiffs employment records from Sbarro Pizza, the Defendant is unable, at this
time, to retain the services of a vocational expert to review this information as the file is
incomplete. Additionally, as the Defendant has just recently received this report,
Defendant will be unable to retain the services of an expert prior to the time of trial listed
in February.
25. It should be noted, in a telephone conference with opposing counsel on
December 17, 2007, he indicated that he had a verbal response from Sbarro Pizza
which indicated that this was the Plaintiffs employer prior to the time of the accident.
Additionally, opposing counsel indicated that as his vocational expert noted in his report
that the Plaintiff was employed with Sbarro Pizza after the subject accident that he
would have to have his expert amend his report. As such, Defendant should be entitled
to this amended report prior to scheduling of their vocational expert in order to review
this report.
26. In addition to the discovery outlined above, Defendant has not yet
received the following medical records:
(a) outstanding records from Dr. Orange in regards to all transcribed
records requested by Defense counsel;
(b) follow-up with any additional medical providers identified from the
acquired records; and
(c) have the Defendant's Independent Medical Examiner, Dr. Beutler,
review any and all of the Plaintiffs medical chart once complete and provide an
addendum to his initial Independent Medical Examination (IME).
27. For the reasons outlined above, Defense counsel will not have sufficient
time to obtain the above-referenced information necessary to conduct an adequate
defense of this case prior to a February 2008 trial.
28. Thus, this case must be stricken from the February 2008 Trial List.
29. Contemporaneous with this Motion to Strike, there is a Discovery
Conference rescheduled for January 2, 2008. Defendant respectfully requests that
Judge Oler address this issue at the time of the Discovery Conference.
30. Judge Oler has previously issued an Order regarding the above-
referenced matter and is respectfully requested that Judge Oler issue an Order striking
the above-referenced matter from the February 2008 Trial List.
31. Defense counsel respectfully requests this court to continue this matter
until such time that Defense counsel can obtain the above-referenced records and
provide them to their Independent Medical Examiner as well as their vocational expert,
once identified.
32. Plaintiffs counsel has agreed to a Discovery Conference on January 2,
2008; however, Defense counsel has not agreed to remove this matter from the
February Trial List.
33. No additional discovery is required to hear this motion.
34. Defense counsel believes that this matter may be resolved without Oral
Argument, and can be addressed at the time of the Discovery Conference on January 2,
2008. However, if argument is requested, Defense counsel anticipates that argument
will last approximately 15 to 20 minutes.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court grant
the within motion and enter an Order striking the case listed for trial from the February
2008 Trial Term.
Respectfully submitted,
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE & SKEEL L.L.P.
By: ?(. - T .
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Counsel for Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION TO
STRIKE CASE LISTED FOR TRIAL has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record
via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this 27th day of December, 2007.
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE & SKEEL L.L.P.
-\D
By: I(At? ,-, I ? kcl_
evin D. Rauch, Esquire
Counsel for Defendant
r
August 3, 2007
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
RE: Atteva v. Stewart
Our File No. 13378
Dear Mr. Hogg:
Please allow this letter to serve as a follow-up to my telephone message
left with your office on August 3, 2007. After a review of your Supplemental
Interrogatories, it is apparent that we will not be able to proceed to trial in
September. There are numerous outstanding discovery issues which I will outline
as follows:
1. In your Answers to Supplemental Interrogatories, you
indicated that your client's incurred approximately $42,486.46 in medical bills;
however, I do not have any documentation verifying the amounts paid by Pa Blue
Shield and Mountain State. Further, I do not have any records to verify the
unpaid and outstanding medical bills in the amount of $14,137.69.
2. In your Answers to Supplemental Interrogatories, you
indicated that your client has incurred $190.70 in out-of-pocket expenses. To
date, I have not received any documentation verifying these out-of-pocket
expenses.
3. Further, you indicated that your client will be asserting a
wage loss claim in the amount of $107,224.00. At this time, I have received
limited information from your client's previous employers and do not have any
documentation regarding how you arrived at this amount. If it is your intention to
present this claim at the time of trial, I would ask that you forward any and all
corresponding documentation.
4. Further, you indicated that your client has been involved in a
subsequent accident which he iniured his shoulder. Although you indicated your
client has been involved in a subsequent accident, you did not provide any
. r
additional details. I would request any and all medical records in your possession
regarding Plaintiffs subsequent injuries. Further, I would ask that you update my
records as to who your client treated with as a result of this subsequent accident.
5. Further, I am in receipt of your Response to Request for
Production of Documents in regards to medical records from Dr. Boris Tstatskis,
M.D. After cursory of the documents, it appears that your copies are missing
several treatment notes. It appears, at this time, that Dr. Tstatskis has not
provided his full and complete file to either party.
6. Further, as I have recently received several updated records
from several providers, my independent medical examiner has not had an
opportunity to review these records in preparation for the upcoming video-
deposition.
It is not my intention to move this trial indefinitely. However, as it is
apparent that discovery will not be complete as of September, this matter can not
be tried during this session. Upon receipt of this correspondence, kindly contact
me to discuss this outstanding discovery and as well as a mutually convenient
and practical trial date.
In the meantime, should you have any questions or concerns regarding
the above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
John A. Lucy
JAL:kan
_ . "%-a .lunat t onsulting
Terry P. Leslie, M.Ed., ABVE-D, CRC, LPC
president'
P.O. Box 248
Landisville, PA 17538
September 21, 2007
Stephen J. Hogg, Esq.
19 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Plaintiff:
Date.of Birth:
Date of Injury:
Mohamed Atteya
July 20, 1975
September 7, 2002
Vocational Assessment
Introduction:
(717) 892-6608
Fax (717) 892-6609
MD WCC# 0524
www.leslievc.com
Leslie Vocational Consulting h;?s been requested to determine the vocational/economic loss experienced by Mr.
Mohamed Atteya who was involved in a motor vehicle accident on September 7, 2002. Since that time he has
worked to the best of his ability, but is presently restricted only to sedentary work. Mr. Atteya came to the
United States in 1999 on a work visa and became a citizen in October of 2006. The result of his motor vehicle
accident and subsequent treatment has had a significant impact in his life. He has been divorced and has filed
bankruptcy. Throughout this tirne, he has worked to the best of his ability. The total loss of earnings
experienced by Mr. Atteya both historic and Future equals $283,952.
The methodology utilized to complete this as%essment is the standard for the vocational expert field. The
analysis seeks to determine the probable vocational tract and earnings of an individual prior to a specific event
and compares these factors to the probable tract following the same event. The earnings of an individual are
influenced by demographics, education, indu%try, work ethic, age and disability. This report will take all of
these factors into account in addressing the impact experienced by Mr. Atteya. The references used to render
the ultimate opinion in this matter are cited throughout this report. In addition to my interview of Mr. Atteya on
August 16, 2007, I have reviewed the following documents:
1. The August 29, 2007 correspondence from Stuart A. Hartman, D.O.
2. Earnings statement frorn Haulmans Pizza and Subs, Inc. dated September 6, 2002.
3. Correspondence dated l )ecember 15, 2006 from Al's Pizza & Subs.
4. Complaint of Mohamed Atteya v. Stacy L. Stewart.
5. Income tax returns for 2001 through 2006.
6. Medical records from F Iershey Medic 11 Center.
7. Medical records from Brian Holmes, Ni.D,
8. Medical records from J )r. Tsatskis' from September 19, 2002 to December 29, 2004.
9. MRI report of September 30, 2002.
10. June 19, 2007 medical report of Stuart A. Hartman, D.O.
2
,If I .
Medical Status:
Mr. Mohamed Atteya was involved in a motor vehicle accident on September 7, 2002 when his vehicle was
struck on the rear bumper. He complained of low back and neck pain and was transferred to Hershey Medical
Center. Mr. Atteya continued to experience pain in his neck at a level of 10110 with conservative treatment. He
complained of limited ability to hold items in his left hand and an inability to tolerate full-time employment. He
was evaluated by Brian Holmes, M.D. on May 3, 2005 for a neurosurgical evaluation. Dr. Holmes noted that an
MRI was completed showing a large C5-6 disc herniation and recommended surgical intervention. The MRI
showing the disc herniation was completed on September 30, 2002. Mr. Atteya then underwent an anterior
microdiscectomy and fusion at this level on Tune 8, 2005.
Additional medical treatment has been provided by Boris Tsatskis, M.D. who practices in Brooklyn, New York.
Mr. Atteya also receives medical treatment in the form of pain management from Stuart A. Hartman, D.O. in
Harrisburg, PA. Dr. Hartman has noted that Mr. Atteya is suffering from a left cervical radiculopathy at C6-7.
His correspondence of August 29, 2007 highlights that Mr. Atteya remains symptomatic and does not have the
ability to return to work in his chosen profession as a cook in a pizza shop. However, in Dr. Hartman's opinion,
Mr. Atteya is capable of performing sedentary work. In addition, Mr. Atteya is restricted from repetitive use of
the left upper extremity, reaching or overhead activities.
Mr. Atteya held his neck and left arm throughout the interview. He feels that his back and neck pain is worse
with pain radiating down his left arm. He has attempted on two occasions to return to work at Al's Pizza
without success. Mr. Atteya feels that he can not carry more than 5 lbs. with his left arm and can't hold a
telephone for more than 5 minutes. He spends his time reading and sees his son every two weeks. Mr. Atteya
does not have a television in his home. He has attempted to complete home exercises, ice and heat, but the pain
has remained the same. Mr. Atteya is able to take care of himself and can walk. He has been prescribed a
cervical collar, but has not used it recently. His current medications include Lyrica, 75 mg., which he takes 4-5
times per day.
At the beginning of this year, Mr. Atteya was involved in a work hardening program at Rehab Options which
lasted less than two months. Due to his symptoms he has not been able to complete the physical therapy
programs recently prescribed. This gentleman is right handed. During the vocational interview, I asked that he
provide his opinion of his tolerances. He has provided them as follows:
Sitting: Mr. Atteya must support his neck when he sits.
Standing: He is able to stand.
Driving: Mr. Atteya must use his right arm and has difficulty with cervical range of motion.. He tries to
limit his driving to 30-40 minutes.
Walking: 30-40 minutes
Bending: Mr. Atteya is able to bend.
Stooping: Mr. Atteya is able to stoop.
,ifting: He is able to lift with his right hand, but his left hand is numb causing him to drop objects such
as a cup of coffee.
3
'1
11 Nothing makes Mr. Atteya feel better. He had an injection from Dr. Hartman which helped for one day only
and notes that physical activity increases his pain level along with changes in the weather. Mr. Atteya continues
to be seen by Dr. Hartman and has appointments scheduled for October 2, 2007 and January 8, 2008.
Arrangements have been made for him to have an MRI and he would be examined at Johns Hopkins if he had
insurance coverage.
Medical History
Mr. Atteya fell at work in 2004 and was examined at the hospital for right shoulder and arm complaints. He has
fully recovered from this situation. Other than this incident, he has no medical history which would impede his
ability to perform gainful employment.
Educational History:
Mr. Atteya graduated from King Fasall High School in Egypt having taken plumbing courses. He has not
received any additional formal training or education. He did complete two years in the Egyptian Air Force
where he was the driver of a cargo vehicle. Having completed the required two years of service he was then
discharged. As Mr. Atteya's education did not take place in this country, the Wide Range Achievement Test-
Revision 4, green version, was administered to him. The results are as follows:
Subtest Raw Score Standard Score %ile Rank Grade Equivalent
Word Reading 33 67 1 3.3
Sentence Compr. 10 55 0.1 1.9
Spelling 21 58 0.3 1.7
Math Computation 32 78 7 5.9
Reading Composite 122 60 0.4 ------
The results of the testing show that Mr. Atteya is functioning at the first percentile or lower in word reading,
sentence comprehension, spelling and reading composite. Out of 100 individuals in his age group, 32 years of
age, 99 or more are functioning at a higher level than he is. His highest area is math computation where he is
functioning at the 7th percentile and the equivalent ofa 5th grader. His higher score in arithmetic is expected
since this skill set is not language dependant. The results of this testing places him in the lower extreme of the
standard score range. Reading composite is the combination of word reading and sentence comprehension
standard scores. There are no grade equivalent norms for this measurement.
Vocational History:
Prior to coming to this country, Mr. Atteya helped to manage his father's store in Egypt which focused on the
importation and exportation of typical retail items. His first employment in this country was at Wal-Mart in
Chambersburg, PA from 2000-2001. Mr. Atteya worked as a full-time Produce Clerk (DOT #922.687-058,
Medium, SVP 2 unskilled, RML 211) earning approximately $7.00 per hour. He was responsible for stocking
fruit and produce on shelves during the overnight shift.
4
In 2001, Mr. Atteya started working for Haulman's which is the same as Al's Pizza & Subs as a Pizza Maker,
(DOT #313.381-014, Medium, SVP 5 semi-skilled, RML 321) at their locations in Mechanicsburg and
Dillsburg. He was responsible for making pizzas, subs, making bread and cleaning up. The correspondence
from Mike Spadafor who runs this business outlines that prior to this incident, Mr. Atteya would work 60-65
hours per week and since the incident he has not been able to work more than 10 hours per week due to his
health condition. Mr. Atteya was employed on a full-time basis earning $10.00 per hour with no fringe benefits
at the time of the motor vehicle accident. His hourly rate increased since this time to $12.00 per hour.
For less than six months in 2006, Mr. Atteya worked as a Cook through Aladdin Food Management at the
Scotland School in Scotland, PA. He was responsible for cooking lunch for the students. This was done on a
full-time basis with Mr. Atteya being paid $10.00 per hour with full benefits. Unfortunately, Mr. Atteya could
not tolerate the physical requirements and was forced to resign his position. He was also employed for
approximately two months with Sabarro's Pizza in Camp Hill as a Pizza Maker. He cooked and prepared bread,
assisted customers and helped to make pizzas. This was done on a full-time basis with an hourly rate of
approximately $8.00 per hour.
A review of his income tax returns and pay stubs provides the following earnings:
2001 $10,733
2002 $9,724
2003 - $5,889
2004 $2,426
2005 $1,725
2006 $6,857
Vocational Imvressions:
Mr. Atteya has no criminal record. He feels that his English and math skills are weak which is supported by the
results of the testing. He is unable to type and has not used a cash register or switchboard. He has used a
computer but only to complete internet research. He has also used a fax machine and copier. Mr. Atteya has
not done record keeping or bookkeeping. However he has completed inventory, filing and the supervision of
other employees. He has not operated heavy equipment, machinery or tools. Mr. Atteya does have a valid
drivers' license and insured vehicle.
Mr. Atteya's transferable skills have been determined by utilizing his employment, education and the
Dictionary of Occupational Titles 4t' edition, 1991; The Classifioation of Jobs, 1992; and the VDARE
Transferability Worksheet. His previous employment working for Scotland School/Aladdin Food Management
was not done long enough to be considered past relevant work. His other employment in this country has been
limited to working as a produce clerk and pizza maker. Based on this employment his reasoning skills are
average with his math skills being below average and language skills being low. Mr. Atteya's aptitudes range
from average to below average with his highest areas being intelligence, form perception, and manual dexterity.
Even though these were his highest areas they only represent the functioning of the middle third of the
population.
5
This employment is classified as medium work requiring lifting and carrying of 50 lbs. This work also required
frequent stooping, crouching, reaching, handling, fingering and vision ability. It required occasional climbing,
kneeling feeling and hearing. This employment was performed in moderate noise environments. Based on this
employment, Mr. Atteya has the ability to make judgments and perform repetitive work. The work has all been
in the mechanical field.
There are no sedentary occupations which are within the transferable skills of these positions. This leaves only
entry level general sedentary positions open to Mr. Atteya which would include bench assembly, cashier and
unarmed security guard. Based on the 2006 occupational employment statistics survey completed for the
Harrisburg metropolitan statistical area by the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry, the entry level
earnings of cashiers are $13,300, the entry level earnings of security guards are $16,670 and the entry level
earnings of bench assemblers are $16,380. Wages have increased this year by 1.9% providing Mr. Atteya with
an entry level earning capacity of $15,743.1 As he was earning $10.00 per hour at the time of this accident, his
pre-injury earning capacity is $20,000. I understand that his employer noted that Mr. Atteya would average
working 60-65 hours per week, but based on his skills, education and earnings prior to this event, full-time
employment at $10 best represents his pre-injury earning capacity.
Conclusions:
Mr. Mohamed Atteya was a 27.13 year old male who was involved in a motor vehicle accident on September 7,
2002. Following the accident he has received a significant amount of medical treatment but remains restricted
to sedentary work by his treating physician, Stuart Hartman, D.O. Mr. Atteya immigrated to this country in
1999 from Egypt and is functioning at the elementary school level in basic academic subjects. He had
previously been employed as a pizza cook earning $10.00 per hour or $20,000 per year. Since the accident, he
has attempted unsuccessfully to continue in cook positions. However, due to his symptoms his work attempts
have not been successful. Based on his current level of functioning his earning capacity is $15,743. No
calculations have been made for fringe benefits as Mr. Atteya was not receiving them at the time of the injury or
in his limited employment prior to the motor vehicle accident.
Mr. Mr. Mr.
Atteya Atteya's Atteya's
Would Actual Losses
Have Earnings
Earned
Date Date Earnings Annual Annual Lost
From To Growth* Income Income Income
0910712002 12/3112002 0.80% $6,407 $0 $6,407
01101/2003 12/31/2003 1.70% $20,502 $5,889 $14,613
01/01/2004 12/3112004 2.50% $21,015 $2,426 $18,589
01/01/2005 12131/2005 3.18% $21,684 $1,725 $19,959
01101/2006 1213112006 3.66% $22,478 $6,857 $15,621
01/01/2007 09/21/2007 1.90% $16,567 $0 $16,567
Totals: $108,653 $16,897 $91,756
1 Employment Cost Index, Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor, September 2007.
6
Mr. Atteya's historical loss of income fr6m the date of the accident until the present equals $91,756.
Future Wage Loss Projections:
On September 7, 2002, Mr. Atteya was 27.13 years of age with a high school diploma. This would provide him
with a worklife expectancy of 31.88 years from that date or July 23, 2034.2 Worklife expectancy is the
statistical probability of how long a person will be actively engaged in the world of work. It takes into account
the probability of death, disability, voluntary separation from the workforce and involuntary separation from the
workforce. As a result of Kaczkowski v. Bolubasz, future earnings are not to be adjusted for the growth of
those earnings nor are they to be reduced to represent the present value based on investment return.3
Mr. Mr. Mr.
Atteya's Atteya's Atteya's
Pre- Current Losses
Injury Earning
Earning Capacity
Year
Ending Earnings
Growth Discount
Rate Annual
Income Annual
Income Lost
Income
09121/2008 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2009 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2010 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2011 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2012 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09121/2013 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09121/2014 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/2112015 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 ,$15,743 $7,162
09/21/2016 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 '.*$15, 743 $7,162
09/2112017 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09!21/2018 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2019 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2020 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09121/2021 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09121/2022 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
0912112023 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2024 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 '$7,162
09/21/2025 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 :$7,162
09/21/2026 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2027 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2028 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2029 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
'' Work Life from Recent Trends in Median Years to Retirement and Worklife Expectancy for the Civilian U.S. Population, Tamorah
-aunt, Joyce Pickersgill and Herbert Rutemiller, Journal of Forensic Economics, Fall 2001, Vol. XIV, Number 3, for men active in the
York force, with a high school diploma.
421 A.2d 1027, 491 Pa. 561 Kaczkowski Y. Bolubasz, (Pa. 1980)
09/21/2030 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09121/2031 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09121/2032 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2033 0.00% 0.00% $22,905 $15,743 $7,162
09/21/2034 0.00% 0.00% $19,139 $13,155 $5,984
Totals: $614.669 $422,473 $192,196
7
The loss of future earnings experienced by Mr. Atteya as a result of his injuries equals $192,196. The total loss
both historic and future equals $283,952.
The opinions contained in this report are within a reasonable degree of vocational certainty based on the data
that has been provided.
Sincerely,
Terry P. eslie, M.Ed., CRC, ABVE-D, LPC
Vocational Expert
October 17, 2007
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
RE: Atteva v. Stewart
Our File No. 13378
Dear Mr. Hogg:
Please be advised I have subpoenaed your client's medical records from Central
Pennsylvania Rehabilitation Associates as well as his employment records from Aladdin
Food Management. As my document retrieval company will contact you regarding
waiver of the 20-day notice period, kindly agree to the same.
Additionally, pursuant to our most recent conversation, your client has recently
worked at Sbarro Pizza. I would ask that, upon receipt of this correspondence, you
contact me in regards to the physical location of this Sbarro Pizza.
In the meantime, should you have any questions or concerns regarding the
above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
John A. Lucy
JAL:Iam
November 12, 2007
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
RE: Atteya v. Stewart
Our File No. 13378
Dear Mr. Hogg:
Please be advised that I am in receipt of, and thank you for, a printout of your
client's earnings from Aladdin Food Management. Upon receipt of this correspondence,
kindly provide me the full and complete file in regards to your client's employment with
this agency.
In the meantime, should you have any questions or concerns regarding the
above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
John A. Lucy
JAL:Iam
November 26, 2007
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
RE: Atteya v. Stewart
Our File No. 13378
Dear Mr. Hogg:
Please be advised that after review of your client's first party benefits file from
Progressive Insurance Company, there is no indication as to the total amount of payout
in regards to his first party medical benefits. If you are in possession of a payout sheet,
kindly forward this to my attention at your earliest convenience. Additionally, after review
of your client's health care records, it appears that he had coverage in the years 2006
and 2007. Upon receipt of this correspondence, 1 would ask that you confirm whether
your client had coverage prior to and at the time of time of the loss.
In the meantime, should you have any questions or concerns regarding the
above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
John A. Lucy
JAL: kan
??
l ?,
l ?'. y
? ?
?
LLM .
??
? -t"
`?
?
-tl
.?'
.-
_. _ ? -3
A
?
F '
?.
?
??i
L
MOHAMED ATTEYA, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v CIVIL ACTION - LAW
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant 04-4469 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: STATUS CONFERENCE
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 2nd day of January, 2008, upon
consideration of Defendant's Motion for Status Conference and of
Defendant's Motion To Strike this Case from the Forthcoming Trial
List, and following a conference in chambers, in which Plaintiff
was represented by Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire, and Defendant was
represented by Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire, and pursuant to an
agreement of counsel, it is ordered and directed as follows:
1. This case is stricken from the forthcoming
trial term list, and counsel are directed to relict this case for
the civil trial term commencing on March 31, 2008; no further
continuances will be granted to the Defendant;
2. With the exception of the exchange of expert
reports, all discovery in this case shall be completed as of
February 7, 2008;
3. A copy of Plaintiff's expert report(s) shall
be furnished to Defendant's counsel on or before February 15,
2008;
4. A copy of Defendant's expert report(s) shall
be furnished to Plaintiff's counsel on or before February 29,
2008.
By the Court,
L?
-WI J. J e y Ole 7J.
91 :11 WV £- Nvr BQOZ
V.
Stephen J. Hogg, Es
19 South Hanover St
Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
For Plaintiff
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
1017 Mumma Road
Suite 300
TPmnVne. PA 17043
mae
?n atGUL
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL
(Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Please list the following case:
® for JURY trial at the next term of civil court.
? for trial without a jury.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated in fulo (check one)
® Civil Action - Law
? Appeal from arbitration
Mohamed Atteya
(Plaintiff)
VS.
Stacy L. Stewart
vs.
(Defendant)
(other)
The trial list will be called on 0 3 / 0 4 / 0 8
and
Trials commence on 03/31/08
Pretrials will be held on 03/12/08
(Briefs are due S days before pretrials
No. 4469 . 2004 Term
Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe:
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire (for Plaintiff)
Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known:'
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire (for DefendarP )
This case is ready for trial.
Date: 01/18/08
Signed:
Print Name: Stephe
Attorney for: P l a i n t i f f
Esauire
i 4 1
f L„
W
V
c
? T]
F ? `C7
co
MOHAMED ATTEYA, : IN THE COURT
Plaintiff : OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
: PENNSYLVANIA
V. CIVIL ACTION-LAW
NO. 04-4469
STACY L. STEWART, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant :
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT LIST
1. Accident Report
2. Pictures of Accident Scene
3. Pictures of Plaintiff's Automobile
4. Video Deposition Dr. Brian Holmes January 30, 2007
5. Terry Leslie/Vocational Report and supporting
documents
6. Dr. Brian Holmes Report and supporting documents
7. Medical bills
Respectfully Submitted,
'Stephen J. HI, Esquire
Date. EY
??
LAW OFFICES OF
STEPHEN J. HOGG
19 S. HANOVER STREET
SUITE 101
CARLISLE, PA 17013
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire, Attorney for the Plaintiff, hereby
ertify that I did on this day serve one true and correct copy of the
ttached Plaintiff's Exhibit List by United States Mail, postage pre-paid,
dressed to the following:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, LLP
1017 Mumma Road
Lemoyne, PA 17043
St phen J. Hogg, quire
Attorney for Plainti
19 S. Hanover Street, Ste. 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 245-2698
Attorney ID# 36812
LAW OFFICES OF
STEPHEN J. HOGG
19 S. HANOVER STREET
SUITE 101
CARLISLE, PA 17013
'TJ C
r n
rr?
MOHAMED ATTEYA,
Plaintiff
V.
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant
IN THE COURT
OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
NO. 04-4469
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS LIST
1. Mohamed Atteya
2. Terry Leslie
3. Jordan Myers
4. Dr. Brian Holmes
5. Michael V. Spadafore
6. Officer Todd Lindsay
LAW OFFICES OF
STEPHEN J. HOGG
19 S. HANOVER STREET
SUITE 101
CARLISLE, PA 17013
Date:
Respectfully Submitted,
S ephen J. Hogg, sire
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire, Attorney for the Plaintiff, hereby
that I did on this day serve one true and correct copy of the
ed Plaintiff's Witness List by United States Mail, postage pre-paid,
ressed to the following:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, LLP
1017 Mumma Road
Lemoyne, PA 17043
ate: 7 a F
Stephen J. Ho quire
Attorney for Plaintiff
19 S. Hanover Street, Ste. 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 245-2698
Attorney I D# 36812
LAW OFFICES OF
STEPHEN J. HOGG
19 S. HANOVER STREET
SUITE 101
CARLISLE, PA 17013
r-a p
?
? m
<?, fi
-x?
? -i
??
'-
? ; _,
??
F" ??
=w .
+,?a
I
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant 04-4469 CIVIL TERM n N
MOHAMED ATTEYA,
Plaintiff
v
STACY L. STEWART,
°i O
?Z ? -+
r;
711
r7l -n
IN RE : PRETRIAL CONFERENCE F;, v?
N
A pretrial conference was held in the ?Piambej's az + r\3 c5m
Judge Oler in the above-captioned case on Wednesday, ?
March 12, 2008. Present on behalf of the Plaintiff was Steen{
J. Hogg, Esquire. Present on behalf of the Defendant was
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire.
This is a negligence action for personal injuries
arising out of a two vehicle collision on the Carlisle Pike in
Silver Spring Township on September 7, 2002, which occurred when
Defendant's vehicle rear-ended the Plaintiff's vehicle as it
waited to make a left turn. Liability for causing the accident
is admitted by Defendant, but causation and damages are
contested.
This will be a jury trial, in which each side
will have 4 peremptory challenges, for a total of 8.
The estimated duration of trial is 2 days.
This is a limited tort case, and one of
Defendant's contentions is that the serious injury required for
recovery of noneconomic damages is not present.
To the extent that any deposition testimony is to
be shown or read to the jury and contains objections requiring
rulings by the trial court, counsel are directed to furnish to
the Court copies of the affected transcripts, with the areas of
objection being pursued highlighted, and with brief memoranda in
support of their respective positions on the objections.
With respect to settlement negotiations, counsel
have indicated that they do not anticipate that this case will be
resolved short of trial.
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 South Hanover Street
Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
For Plaintiff
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
1017 Mumma Road
Suite 300
Lemoyne, PA 17043
For Defendant
Court Administrator
:mae
By the Court,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA, CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiff,
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
V.
MOTION IN LIMINE AND BRIEF IN
STACY L. STEWART, SUPPORT TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE
Defendant. OF THE PLAINTIFF'S UNPAID MEDICAL
BILLS
(Jury Trial Demanded)
Filed on Behalf of the Defendant
Counsel of Record for This Party:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Pa. I.D. #83058
SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE and SKEEL, L.L.P.
Firm #911
1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300
Lemoyne, PA 17043
(717) 901-5916
#13378
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA,
Plaintiff,
CIVIL DIVISION
V.
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant.
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
(Jury Trial Demanded)
MOTION IN LIMINE AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF THE
PLAINTIFF'S UNPAID MEDICAL BILLS
AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Stacy L. Stewart, by and through her counsel,
Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P., and Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire,
and files the within Motion in Limine to Preclude Evidence of Unpaid Medical bills and in
support thereof avers as follows:
1. The Plaintiff filed suit at the above term and number to recover money
damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained in a motor vehicle accident which
occurred on September 7, 2002.
2. According to the Plaintiffs Pretrial Memorandum, the Plaintiff will introduce
evidence, at the time of trial, of unpaid medical expenses in the amount of $12,183.56
for treatment with the following providers:
a. HealthSouth Rehab. ($2,964.62)
b. Dr. Tsatskis ($2,940.05)
C. Associated Cardiologists ($25.00)
d. Quantum imaging ($547.00)
e. Central Pennsylvania Rehabilitation ($127.27)
f. Dr. Holmes ($862.54)
g. Dr. Orange ($477.00)
h. PNNI ($180.00)
i. Holy Spirit ($887.60)
j. Chambersburg Hospital ($823.68)
k. RS Medical ($228.00)
1. Susquehanna Valley Management ($228.20)
M. Pinnacle Health ($1,274.36)
3. Although the Defendant has attempted to itemize the above referenced
expenses, the Plaintiff has failed to provide a summary of the benefits for this Court,
and the Plaintiff did not provide any exhibits summarizing these benefits in their Pre-
Trial Memorandum.
4. Additionally, the Plaintiff has not presented, nor is he able to present, a
foundation upon which to proffer this evidence, as there is no expert testimony
regarding the reasonableness or medical necessity of the above referenced treatment.
5. The video-taped deposition of the Plaintiffs treating physician, Brian
Holmes, M.D., was conducted on January 30, 2007.
6. Dr. Holmes related the Plaintiff's surgery of June 8, 2005 to the subject
accident; however, no testimony was elicited, nor did Dr. Holmes ever testify that the
above referenced medical treatment was reasonable and necessary. Although a
testifying physician may relate the Plaintiffs injuries to the accident, this testimony is not
sufficient to allow the Plaintiff to introduce evidence of bills allegedly related to the
accident.
7. As only a physician is qualified to testify as to the above referenced
standard, the Plaintiff can not seek to introduce this evidence solely through the
Plaintiff's testimony. Ratan v. Liu, 260 A.2d 484, 486 (Pa. Super. 1969).
8. It is clear, under Pennsylvania Law, that a foundation for the relevance of
such evidence must be provided by the Plaintiff to show that the treatment was
reasonable under the circumstances. Id. It is the Plaintiffs burden to show that the
bills are reasonable and necessary and, therefore, if such evidence is not provided the
Plaintiff must be precluded from presenting this speculative evidence to the jury.
9. In proving these special medical damages for personal injury, the Plaintiff
must provide proof of the following: (1) that the medical services were rendered; (2)
what the reasonable charges are therefore; (3) that the services for which they were
rendered were necessary, and; (4) that they are related to the trauma suffered in the
accident. Id.; see also Piwoz v. lannacone, 178 A.2d 707 (Pa. 1962).
10. In addition to this four part test, proof of the necessity of the Plaintiffs
medical services and their causal connection with the accident must be produced
through competent evidence. Id.
11. In Pennsylvania, a physician has been held to be qualified generally to
testify on the reasonableness of medical charges for services rendered by other doctors
and hospitals. Id. at 486. Therefore, a doctor may testify that certain treatment was
reasonable and necessary though she never administered the treatment, or oversaw
the treatment received. Id.
12. In the seminal case of Rata the Superior Court, after reviewing the
record of the trial court, found sufficient evidence of both reasonableness and necessity
where a treating physician testified directly that "all the charges appearing on
the...exhibits [presented] were reasonable and that all the services rendered, therefore,
were necessitated" by the accident. Id. at 486. (emphasis added).
13. In the case at hand, the deposition transcript of Dr. Holmes is void of any
testimony which would provide a basis to prove that the Plaintiffs medical bills were
reasonable and necessary.
14. In Phillips, the court reasoned that although the "law" does not require
exact certainty as to the precise amount of damages incurred it does, however, require
the Plaintiff to produce evidence which establishes, with a fair degree of probability, a
basis for assessment damages. 801 A.2d 568 (Pa. Super. 2002).
15. In Kravinsky, the Superior Court, after reviewing the record, held that the
trial court improperly allowed medical billing by three separate providers. The Superior
Court reasoned that none of the Plaintiffs experts testified that the services rendered by
these three providers were necessary or reasonable under the circumstances. 396
A.2d 1349, 1357 (Pa. Super. 1979)
16. In the present case, and during the course of the deposition of Dr.
Holmes, the doctor never testified, nor was any testimony elicited, as to the necessity of
the Plaintiffs medical bills.
17. Further, the Plaintiffs treating physician, Dr. Holmes, made no specific
mention of any referral or recommendations of treatment outside of his own practice.
Therefore, as the doctor did not comment directly on the reasonableness and necessity
of the Plaintiff's treatment, it cannot be inferred that this treatment was necessary.
18. As the Plaintiff has not provided a causal connection, nor has any proof
been submitted regarding the reasonableness or medical necessity of the bills being
offered by the Plaintiff, this evidence must be precluded.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter an
Order precluding Plaintiff and/or Plaintiffs witnesses from mentioning or introducing any
testimony or evidence at trial in regards to the Plaintiffs unpaid medical bills as a result
of the subject accident.
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION IN LIMINE
1. ARGUMENT
A. THE PLAINTIFF MUST BE PRECLUDED FROM PRESENTING
EVIDENCE OF UNPAID MEDICAL BILLS TO THE JURY AS THE
PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY PROOF THAT THE BILLS
ARE REASONABLE AND MEDICALLY NECESSARY
It is well settled in Pennsylvania that a party, who intends to present evidence of
unpaid medical bills, must provide proof that the treatment was reasonable and medical
necessary. Rata y, 260 A.2d at 486. In proving these special medical damages for
personal injury, the Plaintiff must show that: (1) that the medical services were
rendered; (2) what the reasonable charges are therefore; (3) that the services for which
they were rendered were necessary and; (4) that they are related to the trauma suffered
in the accident. Id. It is clear, under Pennsylvania law, that the proof of the necessity of
the Plaintiffs medical services and their causal connection with the accident must be
produced through competent evidence. See id. In Pennsylvania, the party offering the
evidence need not compel each treating physician to testify as it has been held that one
physician is generally qualified to testify on the reasonableness of medical charges for
services rendered by other doctors and hospitals. Id. Although the "law" does not
require exact certainty as to the precise amount of damages incurred it does, however,
require that Plaintiff to produce evidence which establishes, with a fair degree of
probability, a basis for assessment damages. Phillips, 801 A.2d at 568. As more fully
outlined below, this evidence must be provided through competent expert testimony as
to the reasonableness and necessity of each treating provider.
In the seminal case of Ratay, the plaintiff presented five exhibits outlining his
treatment with several different providers as the result of an automobile accident. 260
A.2d at 484. The Plaintiff, in support of this treatment, called one sole medical witness
who testified that the treatment, and resulting medical bills, were reasonable and that all
the services rendered were necessitated by the automobile accident. Id. at 486. The
Defendant filed an appeal arguing, among several issues, that the testifying doctor was
not qualified to express an opinion as to the treatments necessity. Id. The Superior
Court reviewed the record and held that the doctor was qualified to testify as to the
reasonableness of all of the medical charges and, after corroborating this with the
Plaintiffs testimony, the exhibits were properly submitted. Id.
In Kravinsky, a case clearly analogous to the one at hand, the Superior Court,
using the factors in Rata y, held that the trial court improperly submitted three medical
bills at the time of trial. 396 A.2d at 1357. The court reasoned that none of the plaintiffs
experts testified that the services rendered by these three providers were necessary. Id.
In addition, the court held that their review of the record did not reveal any
circumstances in which the lower court could infer the necessity of those services and,
therefore, the lower court improperly admitted the billing statements. Id. As the plaintiffs
expert failed to testify as to necessity, it should be argued that the court never reached
the conclusion as to whether the bills were, in fact, reasonable. As the plaintiff failed to
meet any of the criteria of Rata y, the Superior Court found that the bills were improperly
submitted. See id.
Similarly, in Moore v. Home Depot U.S.A. Inc., in reviewing the lower court's
decision, the Third Circuit held that the although the plaintiff presented evidence of
medical necessity, the plaintiff did not ask any of the physicians called to discuss the
reasonableness of the medical charges incurred. 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 90074 (E.D.
Pa. Dec. 6, 2007). As the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient testimony from his
physician, the court could not find sufficient evidence of reasonableness of the charges
submitted to the jury. Id. The court recognized that a single physician is competent to
testify as to the reasonableness of medical charges rendered by other doctor's and
hospitals; however, the plaintiffs failure to elicit such testimony barred the plaintiff from
presenting this evidence.
In the present case, as the Plaintiff failed to elicit any testimony from his treating
physician as to the reasonableness and medical necessity of his unpaid medical bills,
the plaintiff must be precluded from presenting this information to a jury. The Plaintiffs
treating physician, Dr. Holmes, was competent to testify as to the Plaintiffs treatment
with other providers and hospitals for his alleged injuries in the subject accident. The
Plaintiff, however, failed to elicit any testimony to this point. The Defendant concedes
that the evidence of these medical bills need not be submitted with precision; however,
the plaintiff has failed to meet even the most minimal burden of proof. To allow the
plaintiff to present such evidence, absent any competent evidence, would force the jury
to speculate as to the plaintiff's past medical expenses. Further, as there is no
testimony that the treatment was casually related to the trauma, the jury is, again, asked
to speculate as to the nature of the treatment. Under Pennsylvania law, the Plaintiff
must present foundational evidence to submit medical bills to the jury at the time of trial.
To allow the Plaintiff to present such evidence despite his failure to meet this burden
would unduly prejudice the Defendant and improperly compel the jury to speculate as to
damages.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter an
Order precluding Plaintiff and/or Plaintiffs witnesses from mentioning or introducing any
testimony or evidence at trial in regards to the Plaintiffs unpaid medical bills as a result
of the subject accident.
Respectfully submitted,
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE & SKEEL L.L.P.
By:
Rau h, Esquire
Clounsel for Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing MOTION IN
LIMINE AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT TO PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF UNPAID MEDICAL
BILLS has been sent to counsel of record via facsimile transmittal this 26th day of
March, 2008.
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE & SKEEL L.L.P.
By: ?
Kevi bRia6ch, Esquire
Co sel for Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA, CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiff,
V. NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
STACY L. STEWART, (Jury Trial Demanded)
Defendant.
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of , 2008, it is hereby ORDERED,
ADJUDGED, and DECREED that all evidence of Plaintiffs unpaid medical bills shall
not be submitted to the jury at the time of trial.
BY THE COURT:
Distribution to:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P.
1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300
Lemoyne, PA 17043
J.
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
C? ?> ._-?
,. ??
`
,
?
,
? ? ?=?
?!
C"
"
. m ?.
MOHAMED ATTEYA,
Plaintiff
V.
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant
: IN THE COURT
: OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
: PENNSYLVANIA
: CIVIL ACTION-LAW
: NO. 04-4469
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION IN-LIMINE TO
PRECLUDE EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF'S UNPAID MEDICAL BILLS
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Mohamed Atteya, by his
LAW OFFICES OF
STEPHEN J. HOGG
19 S. HANOVER STREET
SUITE 101
CARLISLE, PA 17013
attorney, Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire, and files this Answer to
Defendant's Motion In-Limine to Preclude Evidence of Plaintiffs
Unpaid Medical Bills and offers the following:
The Plaintiff did have unpaid medical expenses of $9,441.82, for
treatment by the following providers;
Provider Amount
Healthsouth Rehab $565.47
Dr. Tsatskis $2,949.05
Associated Cardiologist $9.71
Quantum Imaging $898.24
Dr. Holmes $431.27
Dr. Hartman $852.20
Dr. Orange $477.00
Pa Neurosurgery $60.00
Holy Spirit Hospital $887.60
Chambersburg Hospital $12.04
RS Medical $823.68
Susquehanna Valley Pain Management $228.20
Pinnacle Health $1,247.36
Plaintiff concedes that Dr. Holmes, P laintiffs treating physician,
did not specifically testify in his deposition of January 30, 2007 that any
of the above medical expenses were reasonable or necessary in
LAW OFFICES OF
STEPHEN J. HOGG
19 S. HANOVER STREET
SUITE 101
CARLISLE, PA 17013
treating Plaintiff's injuries. However, this testimony is not always
necessary to support medical expenses, Kravinsky v. Glover, 396
A.2d 1349 (Pa. Super. 1979). In Kravinsky, the Superior Court ruled
that the lower court did improperly admit some medical expenses but
allowed other expenses by inference of reasonableness. Kravinsky at
1356. This inference was made by the combined testimony of the
physician and the Plaintiff. Even though the physician did not
specifically testify the bill was reasonable or necessary, the court could
infer such from his testimony. Also in Willaims v. Delaney, 480 A.2d
1080 (Pa. Super. 1984), citing Kravinsky, the Superior Court again
found that reasonableness of medical bills could be inferred from
doctors' testimony and letters admitted into evidence. Plaintiff notes
that Dr. Hartman on multiple occasions has stated that the Plaintiff's
2
treatment has been reasonable and necessary to treat his injuries from
the motor vehicle accident (Exhibit 1). Plaintiff asserts that the four
prongs of proving medical expenses set forth in Ratay v. Liu, 260
A.2d 484 (Pa. Super. 1969) requiring a showing that the medical
expenses were rendered; that charges for those medical expenses
were reasonable; that the medical services were necessary; and that
the medical expenses were related to the injuries suffered in the
accident on trial. Plaintiff asserts that these four prongs may be met by
inference from medical testimony and the testimony of the Plaintiff.
Specifically, Dr. Holmes testified that the Plaintiffs disc herniation was
related to the automobile accident (Holmes Dep. Pg. 13) and that the
Plaintiffs symptoms both before and after his cervical surgery were
related to the automobile accident (Pg. 14). An inference may be
made under Williams that the treatment for the related condition was
reasonable and necessary.
Wherefore, the Plaintiff respectfully submits that the medical
expenses as listed above are admissible.
Stephen J.
Attorney for
Date: 10K
LAW OFFICES OF
STEPHEN J. HOGG
19 S. HANOVER STREET
SUITE 101
CARLISLE, PA 17013
3
EXHIBIT 1
LAW OFFICES OF
STEPHEN J. HOGG
19 S. HANOVER STREET
SUITE 101
CARLISLE, PA 17013
HARTMAN REHABILITATION ASSOCIATES
Stuart A. Hartman, D.O.
man Caplan Pavilion Harrisburg 00108
44 8 Willow streets 2501 North TMrd Street
Third Floor Third Floor - Landis Bldg.
Lebanon, PA 17046 Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: 717-272-1050 Telephone 717-782-2148
Fax. 717-272-1740 Fax 717-782-2155
PROGRESS NOTE
RE: !Mohammed Atteya
DOB: 7120175
April 17, 2007
Mr. Atteya was seen for a physiatric pain management follow-up on April 17, 2007 at my
Harrisburg Office. He is doing the same or a little bit worse overall. He reports his pain level at
a 7 to 8, which is his best and worst. He had to stop working. His family doctor gave him
Lyrica, which helps a little bit. It relaxes him and helps to take the edge off. His arm feels weak.
--,-He is having persistent constant pain in the rAecK He completed his recheck and progress note
sheet. He still does his exercises and stretches, and uses ice and heat. He is only working
about 25 hours every two weeks. When he gets up in the morning his neck is very stiff and
sore, but he states he basically has pain 2417. Its just there constantly. He is now feeling about
the sa to his surgery. He has numbness down the left arm and shooting pain.
is physical examination today shows decreased reflexes on the left side. Range of motion is
functional at the neck. He is tender at the neck. He had a negative Spurfing's sign. Left arm
strength is decreased at the shoulder girdle, upper arm and grip. He had a suppressed reflex at
both the brachial radialis and biceps today. This was a new finding. Otherwise, the exam is
stable. Affect is stable.
Mr. Atteya is suffering from a cervical spine herniated disc with radicular problems. He still has
muscle tension/migraine-tike headaches.
He will continue with his program and medications, and I did review some stretches. He is
going to continue with the Lyrica. The medication is medically necessary and reasonable. It is
helping him to function somewhat, but he is not able to work. I gave him a note to take him off
of work because of an increase in pain and symptomatology. I feel that this is reasonable and
necessary due to his problems. If he does not improve in the next few weeks I asked him to call
and we will schedule an MRi of his neck for comparison. 1 will see him for follow-up and he will
call with any problems.
/'WW"
Stuart A. Hartman, D.O.
Board Certified in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
SAH11s
z
Iman Caplan Pavilion Harrisburg Office
4 & Willow Streets 2501 North Third Street
Third Floor Third Floor - Landis Bldg.
Lebanon, PA 17046 Harrisburg, PA 17110
Telephone: 717-272-1050 Telephone 717-782-2148
Fax: 717-272-1740 Fax: 717-782-2155
PROGRESS NOTE
RE: Mohammad Atteya June 19, 2007
DOB: 7/20/75
Mr. Atteya was seen for a physiatric pain management follow-up on June 19, 2007 at my
Harrisburg Office. He is doing a little worse overall. He still reports high pain levels with his
pain being an 8 to a 9 out of 10. He feels he is getting worse and is having more weakness in
his arm. He saw the original doctor that treated him in Brooklyn, New York, Dr. Tsatskis a
month ago. He did not make any other recommendations per Mr. Atteya. He is not getting any
therapy. He does keep up with his stretches and home exercise program. He is not working.
He continues with the Lyrica, which helps to relax him. There are no major charges otherwise in
his history or his review of systems. He is dropping things.
His physical examination today shows depressed reflexes on the left. He has weakness of the
left C6-7 innervated muscles. Sensation is decreased. He has a positive Spuding's sign on
the left. There was no visible atrophy. He appears a little bit more depressed. Otherwise, he is
stable.
Mr. Atteya is suffering from a left cervical radiculopathy C6-7 distribution.
He is going to be referred back for an MRI. Its been over a year, and his exam and symptoms
are worsening. I feel its medically necessary and reasonable for him to have a follow-up MRI. I
will see him for follow-up in six to eight week's time. Further treatment will depend upon his
findings on MRI.
Stuart A. 4r*tman, D.O.
Board Certified in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
SAH/Is
..... .., .. :ia Vi'a' wiy v..: :.r'_i. C:,y.?..••,^;: a`e:
a ., •, .f.. .•,. ' •'. .e•a.:.p•.•r r•. 1.;,..:? •:.,? ?"^?. ? ?.n.^^•,,. •+. t..:: :.i s.,;. ?:>•? '? .•. w• t?',C •-.f.!„'?a'' .?h.i. __.; ?,.'.?.,M • 1..
'C' PAIN
??` ?'..hc'??• ?SSO ?%/<{?,
y 1I • • . •.? .. ?3...hx w ''!? `v.1 ??P4•Y tN!'Ji•ti.NN".i•''••S•.C.,:M?? N •?'_:.? w.?.`' •?•'??, Y •i.Y•Zf ,. ,.?•1:, •4iw?,t? i
, .' . fir. _ ••,.-•,•'..
rrdd ^ t.
... ...... „'?,' '10497 •, n f •ei t
?. . ._ .. ? _.. .. _ ... .. , .. ... .. .._ .. ._., .._ .. .. _......... .,: t4lotiamei tova?: W ? i . rid .n ? ?: _
.,
f?AfteAtlr°'
^
, :^
?•
' i}
• •'
•
S}
X? .
•,
l:
'.Rnfyv.:..:•^:J::.•% :: X:lry:•,
v.W.Rl'. ., .:.:).r• niM,: l^x^N.yiytpt:J:
'07
97
d:
t .
.
•
., y?,yix ' y,:i»i. <..Jw':., j:(J:. ':.Nity ::i? ?YV?VM?fwt i':1i.lt'?t:•'Y,p.(•M
.vA': •'r4^.:%:: :'F'
.} ?S.Wfff .2
•
:
t
'
« yp,.??
v ,.!V•Pr<?FA4, •. ...fi.w.,:x,wR.
.: R :r • .rw.'.s•< ..,.`p., ..a;..,..:,:..
...<....,.: >tt.•:
•. f::F•:o".: <ay..kcw.,
n
,M.. f'i:,.:.",'`4s,.,.. ,;.:.: ..Yw:«::':'' .x?,..r ..\..., rsra•.,•n!:
.uA
.
. ?::Nc': ..?i,'f.•.3?!?a .31.°wik '7,t4` .:{=+ •:<r: :i?.oicj .?v .:??:i ?': °::§;;: a.P., ti.1.. S. /.yaow•?k•i,P;?, •.
.
. ^ .
• Y
i
?
,
T•
- ?4••
^«{ ..
h
.?,
rlw
f'Q'
ra:
V,{
YJM •f?••i' +• Yr
v 'r:YHA:xMV::N+.e tOM:??Al?
w.::::..%;!:tAlrr )+x y«x.<;:n ., n•a4y
R':?C4.•
A ., •,%? .
No Patldkrt PtiCb .. .:.,:
:, _ "v .
' • ' :
i <
a
r
n7[[?? y ,.% ??.?M
N??? "??ks'.P?
^??aa
.y is i?Y?
l,:
G?y^
c• 'W??
C'. -1 11 11
::R:. i/,. :r3." •+fRy?M:Jyn::lN`rV :?. '£'..i.,b.Aff v+A w<3/
:..i: ?.° t't.. i:' 'tr.'.. •'if•}' ?: :' e h ?Y' . D".;? ?il':...,.. .
•• •'<F ..li l::i •? ??? .5'. "^:rR:!•"
:4: ??t <:??': t'; M
„
1
y
F ,
,
'tom ? t•
.?C ,
N.
'
:fs::+'9
:
'
5
,,
?,?,.y?
Y' NfYT':!. W:i:?!•'RY•JIJ't.R`^ .x 1. ,
u
,s
.•
;
.
r
M .:', «..y ! J".%% . :. \, :•:S: %,`Y. ,• `v'w•, •, ?
:P
January 15, 2008
Date Of Service: Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Provider: Stuart A_ Hartman, D.O.
Chief Complaint
• Paresthesia of the posterior neck, the upper back, the posterior shoulder, the posterior upper arm, and the
forearm on the left. (no change)
• Weakness of the muscles of the shoulder girdle, the muscles of the anterior upper arm, and the muscles of
the palmar forearm on the left. (no change)
• Injury of the posterior head, the posterior neck, the upper back, the posterior shoulder, the interscapular
region, the trapezius area, and the posterior upper arm. (no change)
Pain of the posterior head, the posterior neck, the upper back, the posterior shoulder, the trapezius area,
and the interscapular region. (no change)
History of Present illness
Pain. Location: the posterior head, the posterior neck, the occiput, the upper back, the interscapular region,
the posterior shoulder, and the trapezius area. Quality: additional muscuioskeletal symptoms (reports
[discomfort, function loss, muscle ache, myosifis, radiates, numbness, soreness, tenderness, and tightness]
and denies [loss of bladder control and hot jointu, condition status (not adequately improved and feels
worse), similar condition (persistent problem), symptom status (appeared at time of incident, increases with
exertion, and increasing), and pain (estimated intensity level 8-9110, aching, constant; deep, radiating,
shooting, and stabbing). Context Available medical records were reviewed.; Recheck/progress note is
available for review., condition interferes (with activities of daily living, with sleep, and with work activities),
and mechanism of injury (MVA - motor vehicle accident). Modifying factors: no Improvement with treatment,
medication (was effective and exacerbation of symptoms while on medication), and previous treatment
(Patient reports that stretching helps, heat, ice pack, pain medications, physical therapy modaiides, steroid
injections, and surgery [dlscectomy of [the cervical spinal). Neck muscles still feel weak, neck pain is worse
than the arm.
Stuart A. Merhan, D.U.
1 6:36 AM 4th & MOW Streets, 3rd H - P. O. Box 1110 • Lebanon PA 17046 17 272.1050 • Fed Id 23.2917527 Pa 1 of 3
Hman, ih`saczats x
'_' •^r 'i'P •'re:"1- ^'f:.L".. :. Te-•Cr'.'?w•"'-. ":.d,:. Fy.'!•-0. .. ?i:w.r:: "'__',:: `7
?:`t'ro`•?ress=ltitofe?` ... .. :°.
,f'. .i'i"! ._;?'V .s..::?oe<,: ,••Y. d::p? t••=w,•:: •r `.: ?"Y',,.: ?. ../:r.Y'}•.,,`
.. _.. ...: • .. ' . _ '.. :: •• . ? ... "aired atteva `f010497:--.initial Iticider?tlt;;'.
Review_of Systems
Musculoakeletal.
• Reports abnormal muscles (of the muscles of the posterior neck, the muscles of the upper back, and the
muscles of the posterior shoulder), degree of disability (unable to return to any gainful employment and
cares for personal needs), migratory pain, muscular weakness, myositle, spine problems, and swelling. (no
change)
• Denies abnormal joints, posture abnormalities, dislocations, fractures, kidney or UTI symptoms, wasting or
atrophy, swelling, recent trauma or injury, and night cramps.
• ROS is otherwise noncontributory. (no change)
Neurological:
• Reports unusual pain and pnresthesia or numbness. (no change) (controlled)
• Denies limitation of motion of neck, muscular atrophy, convulsions or seizures, gait disturbance,
incoordination, involuntary movements, motor skill loss, lightning or shooting pains, areas of sensation loss
or anesthesia, incontinence of urination or defecation, and syncope. (no change)
Examination
Musculoskeletal:
• Normal. Examination of the musculoskeletal system, unless otherwise noted, reveals normal findings,
Stability was assessed, Muscle tone was assessed. Gait and station was evaluated. No scollosis. No
kyphosis. Has ability to undergo exercise testing and/or participation in exercise programs.
• Examination is stable and otherwise noncontributory. (no change)
• Palpations. Palpated the occipital muscles, the muscles of the posterior neck, and the muscles of the
posterior shoulder on the left tenderness. (controlled)
• Muscle Strength rest Estimate of general muscular strength: (+515 -100% - normal) on the right, (+415 -
76% - good) on the left, and weak. (controlled) (no change)
• Range of Motions Active cervical spine ROM; with restrictions and and pulling. (controlled)
Neurological,
• Normal. Testing, palpation, and inspection of the neurological system, unless otherwise noted, revealed the
fntlowing. Oriented to time, place and person. Evaluation revealed' normal speech and comprehension.
Estimate of mood and affect show no evidence of depression, excessive anxiety, or agitation. Deep tendon
reflexes are ]risk and symmetrical. Coordination and fine motor sMis are in normal range.
• Sensation. Pinprick sensation: decreased dermatome pattern (CB and C7 on the left)-
la o is
723.4 Brachlal neuritis or radiculids NOS
722.0 Displacement of cervical intervertebrai disc without myelopathy
Management
Procedures.
Treatment Assessment.,
Stuart A, Hartman, D.O.
19:57 AM 4th Q Willow Streets, 3rd F1 • P. o. Sox 1110 • Lebanon, FA 17046- (717)272-11050 • Fed Id 23.2917527 P e 2 of 3
_,.
- :..Y,.. `y'.... vX.'.l?? •:ry• :.Y:,:.• ....:S :.: ti4`N- ,YR. .?=. ..,: ?.4 :.''•^t?'••n JIi••N. J.
y •.
4 ;1
As0E?%?. •?"`.: CM'.' .?li •?••'1 .'•TT ri:w.
„Il r. j •, 1, I??!'?. i,?i
raes:: :Y..:.:,..?
Ulm
-''.^!,b.:vo-i'.UhYw.'?',t •: A_. .?.%: ?$r, t; ?.?.•?, .?;% ?? ,, T.^w •.,,?.?•• ri,, ..:. .. ."'A_,; ;,?:•:: •,; ."
• No assessment will be made until the patient undergoes further treatment. HEP and Percocet for pain. (no
change)
+ See diagnosis far assessment.
+ The patient is at MMI but continues palliative treatment Apparently not a surgical candidate.
+ The patient's overall condition: remains status post MVA, stable, and remains the same. He has not fully
recovered and treatment is medically necessary and reasonable.
No assessment will be made until the patient undergoes further evaluations.
Refer to OVR. (no change)
Treatment Plans.
+ The nature of the diagnosis was discussed with the patient and/or the parent, spouse or guardian. The
patient and/or parent, spouse or guardian expressed understanding and all questions were answered to
their satisfaction. They are aware that they can call me if they have further questions. (no change)
Return in 12 weeks. (no change)
M®dicadon Allergy.
• None
Discorfinued !Medications:
* None
Current Modketlons.,
• Percocet 7.5 25 MG 1 Tab every B hours (Oral) as needed for pain (Quantity: 60 Refills: 0) [prior -
02/1912005]
Board Certified in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
cc. ! , i
tuartA. Hartman, D.O.
19:57 AM 4th & Willow Streets 3rd Ft • P. 0. Bdx 1110 • Lebanon, PA 17046 • 1 272-1054 • Fed ld 23-2917527 e 3 of 3
February 19, zuua
Date Of Service: Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Provider: Stuart A. Hartman, D.O.
Chief Complaint
• Paresthesia of the posterior neck, the upper back, the posterior shoulder, the posterior upper arm, and the
forearm on the left. (inadequately controlled)
• Weakness of the muscles of the shoulder girdle, the muscles of the anterior upper arm, and the muscles of
the palmar forearm on the left. (no change)
• Injury of the posterior head, the posterior neck, the upper back, the posterior shoulder, the interscapular
region, the trapezius area, and the posterior upper arm. (no change)
• Pain of the posterior head, the posterior neck, the upper back, the posterior shoulder, the trapezius area,
and the interscapular region. (no change)
History of Present Illness
Pain. Location: the posterior head, the posterior neck, the occiput, the upper back, the interscapular region,
the posterior shoulder, and the trapezius area. Quality: additional musculoskeletal symptoms (reports
[discomfort, function loss, muscle ache, myositis, radiates, numbness, soreness, tenderness, and tightness]
and denies [loss of bladder control and hot joint)), condition status (not adequately improved and feels
worse), similar condition (persistent problem), symptom status (appeared at time of incident, increases with
exertion, and increasing), and pain (estimated intensity level 8-9/10, aching, constant, deep, radiating,
shooting, and stabbing). Context: Available medical records were reviewed., Recheckiprogress note is
available for review., condition interferes (with activities of daily living, with sleep, and with work activities),
and mechanism of injury (MVA - motor vehicle accident). Modifying factors: no improvement with treatment,
medication (was effective and exacerbation of symptoms while on medication), and previous treatment
(Patient reports that stretching helps, heat, ice pack, pain medications, physical therapy modalities, steroid
injections, and surgery [discectomy of [the cervical spine]). Neck muscles still feel weak, neck pain is worse
than the arm. Using stim and meds.
Stuart A. Hartman, D.O.
=el
Review of Systems
Musculoskeletal:
• Reports abnormal muscles (of the muscles of the posterior neck, the muscles of the upper back, and the
muscles of the posterior shoulder), degree of disability (unable to return to any gainful employment and
cares for personal needs), migratory pain, muscular weakness, myositis, spine problems, and swelling. (no
change)
• Denies abnormal joints, posture abnormalities, dislocations, fractures, kidney or UTI symptoms, wasting or
atrophy, swelling, recent trauma or injury, and night cramps.
• ROS is otherwise noncontributory. (no change)
Neurological:
• Reports unusual pain and paresthesia or numbness. (no change) (controlled)
• Denies limitation of motion of neck, muscular atrophy, convulsions or seizures, gait disturbance,
incoordination, involuntary movements, motor skill loss, lightning or shooting pains, areas of sensation loss
or anesthesia, incontinence of urination or defecation, and syncope. (no change)
Examination
Musculoskeletal:
• Normal. Examination of the musculoskeletal system, unless otherwise noted, reveals normal findings.
Stability was assessed. Muscle tone was assessed. Gait and station was evaluated. No scoliosis. No
kyphosis. Has ability to undergo exercise testing and/or participation in exercise programs.
• Examination is stable and otherwise noncontributory. (no change)
• Palpation. Palpated the occipital muscles, the muscles of the posterior neck, and the muscles of the
posterior shoulder on the left: tenderness. (controlled)
• Muscle Strength Test. Estimate of general muscular strength: (+515 -100% - normal) on the right, (+4/5 -
75% - good) on the left, and weak. (controlled) (no change)
• Range of Motions. Active cervical spine ROM: with restrictions and and pulling. (controlled)
Neurological.
• Normal. Testing, palpation, and inspection of the neurological system, unless otherwise noted, revealed the
following. Oriented to time, place and person. Evaluation revealed normal speech and comprehension.
Estimate of mood and affect show no evidence of depression, excessive anxiety, or agitation. Deep tendon
reflexes are brisk and symmetrical. Coordination and fine motor skills are in normal range.
• Sensation. Pinprick sensation: decreased dermatome pattern (C6 and C7 on the left).
Diagnosis
723.4 Brachial neuritis or radiculitis NOS
722.0 Displacement of cervical intervertebral disc without myelopathy
Management
Procedures:
Treatment Assessment.
Stuart A. Hartman, D.O.
10:48 AM _ 4th & Willow Streets, 3rd FI • P. O. Box 1110 - Lebanon, PA 17046 • (717) 272-1050 - Fed Id 23-2917527 Page 2 of 3
• No assessment will be made until the patient undergoes further treatment. HEP and Percocet for pain. (no
change)
• See diagnosis for assessment.
• The patient is at MMI but continues palliative treatment. Apparently not a surgical candidate.
• The patient's overall condition: remains status post MVA, stable, and remains the same. He has not fully
recovered and treatment is medically necessary and reasonable.
• No assessment will be made until the patient undergoes further evaluations.
• Refer to OVR. (no change)
Treatment Plans:
• The nature of the diagnosis was discussed with the patient and/or the parent, spouse or guardian. The
patient and/or parent, spouse or guardian expressed understanding and all questions were answered to
their satisfaction. They are aware that they can call me if they have further questions. (no change)
• Return in 12 weeks. (no change)
Medication Allergy:
• None
Discontinued Medications:
• None
Current Medications:
• Percocet 7.5-325 MG 1 Tab every 6 hours (Oral) as needed for pain (Quantity: 60 Refills: 0) [Prior -
02/19/2008]
Board Certified in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
cc: , , ,
Stuart A. Hartman, D.O.
10:48 AM 4th & Willow Streets, 3rd FI • P. O. Box 1110 • Lebanon, PA 17046 -(717)272-1050 • Fed Id 23-2917527 Pane 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
LAW OFFICES OF
STEPHEN J. HOGG
19 S. HANOVER STREET
SUITE 101
CARLISLE, PA 17013
I, Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire, Attorney for the Plaintiff, hereby
certify that I did on this day serve one true and correct copy of the
attached Plaintiffs Answer to Defendant's Motion In-Limine To Preclude
Evidence of Plaintiff's Unpaid Medical Bills by United States Mail,
postage pre-paid, addressed to the following:
Date: 1:/z7/09
Kevin D. Rauch
Summers, McDonnell, Hudock,
Guthrie & Skeel, LLP
1017 Mumma Road
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Stephen J. Hf
squire
Attorney for PI i
ff
19 S. Hanover Street, Ste. 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 245-2698
Attorney ID# 36812
w?
17
On
MOHAMED ATTEYA, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION-LAW
V. :
STACY L. STEWART,
DEFENDANT 04-4469 CIVIL TERM
VERDICT
QUESTION 1:
Do you find that defendant was negligent?
YES X
Defendant has admitted negligence. Go to Question 2.
QUESTION 2:
Was defendant's negligence a factual cause in bringing about harm to plaintiff?
YES NO?
If you answer Question 2 "No," plaintiff cannot recover and you should not
answer any further questions and should return to the courtroom. If you answer this
question "Yes," go to Question 3.
QUESTION 3:
Did plaintiff suffer a serious impairment of a body function as a result of the
negligence of defendant?
YES
If you answer this question "No," plaintiff can still recover economic damages but
cannot recover non-economic damages. No matter how you answer this question, go
to Question 4.
QUESTION 4:
State the total amount of damages you find plaintiff sustained that were caused
by the negligence of defendant.
NO
ECONOMIC DAMAGES $
NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES $.
0j, 1 4?
(Dat -?
0
Fo man
s
r e - Clew*
_ ~ -
r
r -
dl?
CASE NO.: COURTROOM NO.:
VS
O DATE: 3131 10?
DOCKET N .:
juror # Name Random No.
38 CASTELLI, EDWARD J -2056627824
2 29 COOVER, FRANK E. -2008534600
18 JOHNSON, THOMAS R. -1898685216
4 39 ROGERS, HAROLD C. JR. -1809244591
-1807587382
U-M -1487139495
37 MORRA, ANN G. -1307545557
34 TATE, PATRICIA R -1261851324
r ^?T ^,? ?-- 2
-? I' J -1177178658
0 40 LAVIN, MARK A. -1145628098
P
/ ?? -? ?!'TdTT t =*= m - ^ °==f, U -1100739058
20 MADAR, PATRICIA W -1094347935
13 14 CLOUSER, SHERRY A -672879724
14 25 HYKES, DIANA MARIE -573258883
?G SPTC?T G?? iE TL `*T *? -364714734
-165769995
-107656222
f 24 WARFEL, JORDAN D 85990124
? LA
P. 267084475
?
LaNiK-
431426679
( 5 SHOVER, BARBARA J. 718259597
p 859929352
23 7 PORTERFIELD, DIANE _, __._ 963361411
3 METZGER, MAXINE E 1178928135
1 SMEY, STEPHEN J. 1206969457--
2 2 , 11 HOLTZ, JORDAN A. ?. 12 X303094
27 42 SWARNER, BRIAN J 1329906332
X
4 CHAD DOUGLAS
OSWALT 1357798765
8 ,, ,
2) ?
26 'STRAYER, JEREMY W 1414048506
t 41 M"JQYCE R 1514361063
3I 45 WALTERS, 1544968746
;2 12 LEN GTON, KENNE 1667412159
., 33 INICH, SHERRI L. 1697838895
4 15 GALIC, KAREN 1717117189
3: 9 SPRANZANI, MATTHEW J. -1890599657
> 27 BOLLINGER, DOUGLAS 1994566131
nday, Marc h 31, 2008 Page 1 of 2
f* K Vlhld-? klhnJ
• juror # Name Random No.
7 32 CKA , PATRICIA 2020363942
4 n AROL 2055208764
Monday, March 31, 2008 Page 2 of 2
V
1
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA,
Plaintiff
V.
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant
CIVIL DIVISION
:NO.,O@ Civil
: Qom(-LIW11
MOTION for POST-TRIAL RELIEF
To the Honorable Court:
And now comes the Plaintiff above designated and though his attorney, George
W. Gekas, moves the Honorable Court to order a new trial in the above case.
On April 1, 2008, a jury returned a verdict in the captioned case against the
Plaintiff and in favor of the Defendant; the trial was conducted by the
Honorable J. Wesley Oler.
2. Following the Verdict, Stephen J. Hogg, Esq., who represented the Plaintiff
in the said trial, informed the said Plaintiff that he, Hogg, will not further
represent the Plaintiff.
3. The said Stephen J. Hogg asserted to the Plaintiff that he, the Plaintiff, would
have 30 days in which to file an "appeal", specifically having mentioned May
1, 2008, as the deadline.
4. The Plaintiff on April 14, 2008, consulted with George W. Gekas, Esq., and
Gekas agreed to review the evolvements of the events.
5. The said George W. Gekas contacted the said Stephen J. Hogg by telephone,
wherein Hogg acknowledged that he had informed the Plaintiff that 30 days
from the date of the verdict was the time within which the subject appeal must
have been lodged.
6. When said George W. Gekas asked Stephen J. Hogg whether any post-trial
motions had been filed, Hogg responded in the negative.
7. The Plaintiff knew nothing of the court requirements for the entry of an appeal
and then retained the said George W. Gekas to represent him henceforth.
w
8. The instant Motion is herewith filed to pray that the Court grant Leave to the
Plaintiff to accept the motion for POST- Trial Relief NUNC ;pro TUNC, as if
had been filed timely following the entry of the verdict.
9. The request for a new trial is based on the reasoning of the jury as entered in
the case docket as attended to the verdict, to wit, that although there was no
question but that defendant was negligent, the injuries and damages sustained
by the Plaintiff were not caused by the accident.
Wherefore to prevent the Plaintiff from a court review of the trial by a finding that
the Plaintiff waived his right to a review of the proceedings would cause a severe
injustice and irrepable harm; he verdict was against the weight of the evidence.
Wherefore, the Plaintiff requests the Court to enter and Order granting leave to
the Plaintiff to file and have considered the subject Motion NUNC pro TUNC and
further, to grant a court review of the merits of the motion.
Respectfully Submitted,
q4-
George W. Gekas,
Attorney of the Plaintiff
ID# 7177
4901 Derry Street
Harrisburg, PA 17111
Phone: (717)564-6400
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA,
Plaintiff
:CIVIL DIVISION
:NO. 04-446902004, Civil
V.
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements made in this Motion for Post-Trial Relief are true and
correct.
I understand that false statements herein are made subject to die penalties of 18
PS 4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities.
Date ° - Z 3 - vo?Q /yl ??cb YG'`
MOHAMED ATTEYA
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA, :CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiff
:NO. 04-446902004, Civil
V. :
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, George W. Gekas, Esq., Attorney for the Plaintiff, hereby certify that I did on
this date serve one true and correct copy of the attached Motion of Post-Trial Relief by
United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the following:
Date:
Kevin D. Rauch
Summers, McDonnell, Hudock,
Guthrie & Skeel, LLP
1017 Mumma Road
Lemoyne, PA 170343
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street
Ste. 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
C2
r ;? 1
}
C77)
G
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA, :CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiff
:NO.04- 4690-2904-,Civil
v. pq-qtl,& ?
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant
PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE
TO:
THE PROTHONOTARY
Kindly enter the Appearance of the undersigned, George W. Gekas, Esq., on
behalf of the Plaintiff, Mohamed Atteya, in the above case.
Respe Illy Submitted,
GEORGE W. GEKAS
Attorney for Plaintiff
#ID 7177
4901 Derry Street
Harrigburg, PA 17111
r?
4 "°? .?'?
?"-i"i
_?.?
C.:?
-'s L...`
€.
.. ?I`i;
..,;
MOHAMED ATTEYA, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant NO. 04-4469 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 29`x' day of April, 2008, upon consideration of Plaintiffs Motion
for Post-trial Relief, a Rule is hereby issued upon Defendant to show cause why the relief
requested should not be granted.
RULE RETURNABLE within 30 days of service.
/George W. Gekas, Esq.
4901 Derry Street
Harrisburg, PA 17111
Attorney for Plaintiff
? Kevin D. Rauch, Esq.
1017 Mumma Road
Suite 300
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Attorney for Defendant
??ourtesy Copy:
Stephen J. Hogg, Esq.
19 S. Hanover Street
Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
:rc r
C oPc es m ?n ?cL
41 /;Lei/oe
BY THE COURT,
3Ni ?u
?{_?. 1=114
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA, CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiff,
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
V.
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO
STACY L. STEWART, PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR POST-TRIAL
Defendant. RELIEF
(Jury Trial Demanded)
Filed on Behalf of the Defendant
Counsel of Record for This Party:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Pa. I.D. #83058
SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE and SKEEL, L.L.P.
Firm #911
1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300
Lemoyne, PA 17043
(717) 901-5916
#13378
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA,
Plaintiff,
V.
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant.
CIVIL DIVISION
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
(Jury Trial Demanded)
DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR POST-TRIAL RELIEF
AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Stacy L. Stewart, by and through her counsel,
Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P., and Kevin D. Rauch, and
moves this Honorable Court to deny the Plaintiffs request for a new trial in the above-
captioned case.
1. Denied. On April 1, 2008, a jury in the above-captioned case returned
verdict for the Plaintiff in the amount of $0.00; the trial was conducted by the
Edgar B. Bayley.
2. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information
to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied
3. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information
to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied
4. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information
to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied
5. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information a
to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied
6. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information as
to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied
7. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information as
to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied
8. Paragraph 8 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required.
To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are
denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d).
9. Paragraph 9 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required.
To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are
denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(d).
NEW MATTER
10. The verdict in the above-captioned case was returned by the jury on
1, 2008.
11. Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 227.1, a moving party must file a Motion for Post
Trial Relief within ten (10) days after a verdict is returned by the jury.
12. In the instant case, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Post-Trial Relief on Apri
23, 2008; twenty-two (22) days after the jury returned a verdict in the above-ca
case.
13. Therefore, in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 227.1 the Plaintiff's Motion
Post-Trial Relief should be denied, as it was filed more than ten (10) days after return
the jury's verdict.
14. Additionally, according to Pa. R.C.P. 227.1(f), the moving party shall serve
a copy of the Motion on every other party as well as the trial judge.
15. Plaintiffs Motion for Post-Trial Relief was erroneously filed with the
Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr. and not with the trial judge, the Honorable Edgar B.
Bayley.
16. Furthermore, Defense counsel did not receive notice of Plaintiffs Motion,
despite Plaintiffs counsel's Certificate of Service, until after the Honorable J. Wesley
Oler, Jr. issued a Rule to Show Cause on April 29, 2008.
17. The Plaintiff has filed his Motion for Post-Trial Relief nunc pro tunc, which
in certain extraordinary circumstances allows a Court to grant an appeal although it was;
untimely filed.
18. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated on many occasions that
"time for taking an appeal cannot be extended as a matter of mere indulgence. Ai
extension will only be granted in those cases where there has been fraud or some
breakdown in the court's operation." West Penn Power Co. v. Goddard. 460 Pa. 551
333 A.2d 909 (1975).
19. In this case, the existence of fraud or a breakdown in the court's operati
does not exist, and there is no valid non-negligent reason for the untimeliness of
Motion for Post-Trial Relief.
20. The untimely filing of the Plaintiffs Motion for Post-Trial Relief in this ca
was solely due to the negligence of Plaintiffs trial counsel.
21. Furthermore, an appellant seeking permission to file a Motion for Post-
Trial Relief nunc pro tunc "must proceed with reasonable diligence once he knows that
there is a necessity to take action." Schofield v. Department of Transportation, Bureau
of Driver Licensing, 828 A2d.510 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).
22. On April 23, 2008, more than nine (9) days after having learned that
Plaintiffs trial counsel did not file an "appeal" or Motion for Post-Trial Relief, Plaintiffs
Appellate counsel filed this Motion for Post-Trial Relief nunc pro tunc. As such, by
waiting nine (9) days, Plaintiff's Appellate counsel failed to proceed with reasonable
diligence, once he believed that there was a necessity to take action.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Stacy L. Stewart, respectfully requests this Honora
Court to enter an Order denying the Plaintiff's Motion for Post-Trial Relief nunc pro tunc.
Respectfully submitted,
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE & SKEEL L.L.P.
By: r?) 9 ? Q tz --
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Counsel for Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT'S
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR POST-TRIAL RELIEF has been mailed
by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this I I
day of M a? , 2008:
George Gekas, Esquire
4901 Deny Street
Harrisburg, PA 17111
(Attorney for Plaintiff)
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE & SKEEL L.L.P.
By: Vt, -D . PC, w M
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Counsel for Defendant
C
-n
> `s
Y =K
-
r
iy + n
f
o rn
a?
C'n
w
'1
MOHAMED ATTEYA, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
PLAINTIFF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
STACY L. STEWART,
DEFENDANT 04-4469 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this day of May, 2008, upon review of the motion
of defendant to file a motion for post-trial relief nunc pro tunc, and the answer thereto
and concluding based on the pleadings that there is no legal basis for the grant of relief,
IT IS ORDERED that the motion of plaintiff to file a post-trial motion nunc pro tunc, IS
DENIED.
'/George W. Gekas, Esquire
For Plaintiff
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
For Defendant
:sal
s/?q?oa
r
>- t) ?-I
LIJC
C
C 7
'
S
U I-- cl-
?..
cr?
;,
1
5,
0-
c V
rr
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA, CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiff,
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
V.
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
STACY L. STEWART,
Defendant. (Jury Trial Demanded)
Filed on Behalf of the Defendant
Counsel of Record for This Party:
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Pa. I.D. #83058
SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE and SKEEL, L.L.P.
Firm #911
1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300
Lemoyne, PA 17043
(717) 901-5916
#13378
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MOHAMED ATTEYA, CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiff,
V.
NO. 04-4469 2004, Civil
STACY L. STEWART, (Jury Trial Demanded)
Defendant.
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
TO: PROTHONOTARY
Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 227.4(2) and pursuant to Judge Bayley's Order of May 19,
2008, please enter the Judgment in the above-referenced matter.
Respectfully submitted,
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE & SKEEL L.L.P.
By: 9 fL a -? L--
evin D. Rauch, Esquire
Counsel for Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE
FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via
first class mail, postage pre-paid, this 6th day of August, 2008.
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
19 S. Hanover Street, Suite 101
Carlisle, PA 17013
George Gekas, Esquire
4901 Derry Street
Harrisburg, PA 17111
SUMMERS, MCDONNELL, HUDOCK,
GUTHRIE & SKEEL L.L.P.
BY: D & 1 'u'.
Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire
Counsel for Defendant
_ o
?s
sv '° o
T LP a t :
f?
{
c?
C
cn