Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13-0550 `ILED-0J,FFiCE OF THE PROTHONOTARY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYVLANIA CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA THOMAS KECKLER, as Administrator of the Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and THOMAS KECKLER, individually and No. 13-550 Civil in his own right, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION—PROFESSIONAL V. LIABILITY ACTION NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA. INC., t/d/b/a NEW VISIONS, INC. and LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Thomas Keckler, as Administrator of the Estate of Lance Keckler, and Thomas Keckler, individually and in his own right, by and through his attorneys, Navitsky, Olson &Wisneski LLP and respectfully requests that a Rule to Show Cause be issued why Defendants should not produce Plaintiff's Decedent's records. In support thereof- 1. The Plaintiff, Thomas Keckler, is the father and personal representative of the Estate of Lance Keckler, deceased. 2. Lance Keckler died from starvation and was found deceased in his apartment on or about November 8, 2011. 3. Prior thereto, Mr. Lance Keckler had been a client of the Defendant, Lauren James and New Visions, Inc., which provided services to him by contract. 4. It is Plaintiff's belief, based upon emails and records that are in his possession, that New Visions improperly abandoned its care of Lance Keckler despite his fragile psychological state,thereby permitting him to starve to death. 5. Lance Keckler's medical records and information available to the Plaintiff had been reviewed by an expert witness,who has signed a Certificate of Merit. 6. Suit was started by Writ of Summons on or about January 30, 2013. 7. Prior thereto, Plaintiff requested copies of Lance Keckler's New Vision records, but they have not been produced. 8. Pursuant to law, the personal representative of the Estate of Lance Keckler legally stands in his shoes and is entitled to his medical records. 9. Moreover, pursuant to 28 Pa. Code §115.29, the next of kin responsible for the disposition of a patient's remains shall be given access to, or a copy of, the decedent's medical records. 10. Despite the law, New Visions has refused to provide the records to Plaintiff or Plaintiff's counsel. 11. Plaintiff would like to obtain the records so that a Complaint can be filed with as much specificity as possible. 12. Plaintiff should have been provided with these records before the initiation of suit, and is also entitled to said records after suit is filed pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4003.8. 13. Plaintiffs counsel contacted counsel for Defendants and he has not responded with regard to this Petition. 14. Plaintiff served pre-Complaint written discovery on Defendants which asked for production of the records and Defendants neither answered, nor objected to them. Copies of these documents with proof of service are attached as Exhibit A. 2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Thomas Keckler, as Administrator of the Estate of Lance Keckler, and Thomas Keckler, individually and in his own right, requests that the Court issue a Rule to Show Cause why the records should not be immediately, and without redaction, produced for the benefit of Plaintiff. Respectfully submitted, NAV SKY, OLSON & WISNESKI LLP Jos h W. Melillo, Esquire PA I.D. No. 26211 Duane S. Barrick, Esquire PA I.D. No. 77400 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/541-9205 (phone) 717/541-9206 (fax) jmelillo@nowllp.com dbarrick @nowllp.com Counsel for Plaintiffs Date: July 24, 2013 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law firm of Navitsky, Olson&Wisneski LLP hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs Petition for Rule to Show Cause was served upon the following persons by first-class United States mail,postage prepaid on July 24, 2013 as follows: James A. Doherty, Jr. Scanlon,Howley&Doherty, P.C. 1000 Bank Towers 321 Spruce Street Scranton,PA 18503 Counsel for Defendants Lois E. Stauffer � � t �' , �_ .. � � � � � r { � 1 " i - `. f \ i - �. '" y _ i �y���� _ J R .. � i �, r IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYVLANIA THOMAS KECKLER, as Administrator of the Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and THOMAS KECKLER, individually and No. 13-550 Civil in his own right, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION—PROFESSIONAL V. LIABILITY ACTION NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA.' INC., t/d/b/a NEW VISIONS, INC. and LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED. PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ADDRESSED TO DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO PA R.C.P.4003.8 "PRE-COMPLAINT DISCOVERY" To: Defendants and their counsel, James A.Doherty, Jr.,Esquire Plaintiff, through his counsel, Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP, hereby requests that, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure, Defendants supply Plaintiff within thirty (30) days the originals, or authentic and legible copies, of the documents hereinafter identified to the offices of Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP, 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Instructions 1. With respect to each of the following requests, you shall identify and/or produce all documents which are known to you or which can be located or discovered by you through diligent effort on the part of you,your employees,representatives, attorneys or accountants, including but not limited to, all documents which are in the business or personal files of your employees, in the possession of your representatives, attorneys or accountants, are accessible to you, your employees or your representatives, attorneys or accountants. 2. The following requests shall be deemed to be continuing so as to require further and supplemental production of documents by you in accordance with Rule 4007.4 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. If any documents requested herein have been lost or destroyed, and no such copies of such documents exist, you shall provide in lieu of a true and correct copy thereof a list of the documents lost or destroyed along with the following information: (a) the date of origin of the document; (b) a brief description of each document; (c) the author of each such document; (d) the date upon which the document was lost or destroyed; (e) a brief statement as to the reason why the document was destroyed; and (f) a brief statement as to the manner in which the document was lost or destroyed. 4. If you refuse to produce any requested documents on the grounds of any claimed privilege from discovery, state each ground for such claimed privilege, describe the document withheld by date, author, recipient (including all persons who are shown or received a copy), and give a general description of the subject matter of the document. 5. In the event that more than one copy of a document exists,the original shall be produced, as well as every copy on which appears any notation or marking of any soil not appearing on the original. 6. For any documents which are stored or maintained in files in the normal course of business, such documents shall be produced in such files, or in such a manner as to preserve and indicate the file from which such documents were taken. 7. If you object to a request because a portion of that request seeks a document shielded from discovery by the attorney/client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine, provide those documents sought in the request which are not protected by such privilege or by the work product doctrine. Definitions 1. "You" and "your" shall mean the Defendant(s) as well as his agents, attorneys, employees, accountants, consultants, independent contractors and any other individual or entity associated or affiliated with the Defendant(s) or purporting to act on their behalf with respect to the matter in question. 2. "Document" shall mean all written or printed matter of any kind in your possession, custody or control, which is either known to you or can be located or discovered by diligent effort, including the originals and non-identical copies, whether different from the original by reason of any notation made on such copies or otherwise, including without limitation, correspondence, memoranda, notes, reports, accident and supplemental reports, investigation reports,-diagrams, electronic mail, transcripts of oral communication by phone or otherwise, speeches, press releases, diaries, calendars, agenda, statistics, letters, telegrams, minutes, contracts, purchase orders, reports, studies, checks, statements, receipts, returns, summaries, pamphlets, books, inter-office and intra- office communications, offers, bulletins, printed matter, computer printouts, teletypes, telefax, invoices, work sheets, work papers, records of telephone calls or other communications or conversations, and all drafts, alterations, modifications, changes or amendments of any kind of the foregoing, graphic or aural records or representations of any kind (including without limitation, photographs, charges, graphs, microfiche, microfilm, videotapes, records and motion pictures) and electric or mechanical records of representations or information of any kind (including without limitation, tapes,cassettes, computer disks, and recordings). 2 3. 'Relating to" shall include pertaining to, recording, evidencing, containing, setting forth, reflecting, showing, disclosing, describing, explaining, summarizing, concerning or referring to, whether directly or indirectly. 4. The conjunctions "and" and "or" shall be interpreted to mean "and/or", and shall not be interpreted to exclude any information otherwise within the scope of any request. 5. "Person" shall mean any individual, firm, partnership, corporation, association, business or governmental entity or subdivision, agency, department, and any "person" acting by or through, directly or indirectly, any other "person", as well as any "person" by whom such "person" was controlled with respect to the matter in question. 3 Requested Documents 1• Any and all records in your possession that relate to the services provided to Lance Keckler. 2. Copies of any emails between Lance Keckler and any agent or employee of New Visions of South Central PA or Lauren J. James. 4 3. Copies of any and all letters or phone messages in your possession between Lance Keckler and any agent or employee of New Visions of South Central PA or Lauren J. James. This request is intended to cover all documents in the possession, custody and control of the Defendants, their agents, employees and attorneys, and is deemed to be continuing, thus requiring Defendants to modify and/or supplement their response to Plaintiff's Request as Defendants obtain further or additional documents up to the time of trial. Respectfully submitted, NAVITSKY, OLSON& WISNESKI LLP Jos h . Melillo, Esquire I. . No. 26211 Duane S. Barrick, Esquire I.D. No. 77400 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/541-9205 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law firm of Navitsky, Olson&Wisneski LLP hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents Addressed to Defendants Pursuant to PA R.C.P. 4003.8 "Pre-Complaint Discovery"was served upon the following persons by first-class United States mail,postage prepaid on June 3,2013 as follows: James A. Doherty,Jr. Scanlon,Howley&Doherty,P.C. 1000 Bank Towers 321 Spruce Street Scranton,PA 18503 Counsel for Defendants Lois E. Stauffer I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYVLANIA THOMAS KECKLER, as Administrator of the Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and THOMAS KECKLER, individually and No. 13-550 Civil in his own right, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION-PROFESSIONAL V. LIABILITY ACTION NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL P.A. INC., t/d/b/a NEW VISIONS, INC. and LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, thisA 90ay of L/4j 2013, upon consideration of the foregoing Petition for Rule to Show Cause, it is hereby ORDERED that: (1) A Rule is issued upon the Respondent to show cause why the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief requested; (2) The Respondent shall file an answer to the Petition within AO days of this date; (3) The Petition shall be decided under Pa. R.C.P. No. 2065"7- 3JACIA P" C-it- " 7 ' (4) Argument shall be held on in Courtroom of the Cumberland County Courthouse; and V Notice of the Entry of this Order shall be provided to all parties by the Petitioner. CD -J(f) E--:Z BY THEE OURT: Uj (nu-i CL 66�y J. OURT, Pt",0 FII lJ _ 201: AUG 16 PM 1: 02 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PE-NNSYL ANilA SCANLON,HOWLEY&DOHERTY,P.C. Attorneys for Defendants By: James A. Doherty,Jr.,Esquire New Visions of South Central PA,Inc. Identification#23829 t/d/b/a New Visions,Inc. and By: Kevin C.Hayes Lauren J. James, MSW Identification#202486 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton,PA 18503 Telephone: (570)346-7651 THOMAS KECKLER, as Administrator of IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS the Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY THOMAS KECKLER, individually and in PENNSYLVANIA his own right, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION—PROFESSIONAL V. LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL BY 12 DEMANDED NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA, INC., t/d/b/a NEW VISIONS, INC. and LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW, Defendants NO. 13-550 CIVIL DEFENDANTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR RULE TO SHOW CAUSE NOW COME the Defendants,New Visions of South Central PA, Inc. t/d/b/a New Visions, Inc. and Lauren J. James, MSW; by an through their counsel, Scanlon, Howley & Doherty, P.C., and answers Plaintiff's Petition for Rule to Show Cause as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the corresponding averments because means of proof are within the exclusive knowledge of adverse parties. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation,the Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the corresponding averments because means of proof are within the exclusive knowledge of adverse parties. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 3. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that Mr. Lance Keckler had been a client of the Defendant,New Visions of South Central PA, Inc., t/d/b/a New Visions, Inc. (collectively "Defendant New Visions"). Mr. Keckler terminated his relationship with Defendant New Visions on or about May 8, 2011 .when he failed to accept the services of Defendant New Visions. The remaining averments contained in paragraph 3 are denied as stated and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 4. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants do not have sufficient knowledge or information to formulate a response to the "Plaintiff's belief' or Mr. Keckler's "fragile psychological state"or cause of death. Strict proof thereof is demanded a time of trial. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that the Defendants "improperly abandoned its care of Lance Keckler." To the contrary, Mr. Keckler terminated his relationship with and elected to discontinue the services of Defendant New Visions on or about May 8,2011. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the corresponding averments because means of proof are within the exclusive knowledge of adverse parties. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 6. Denied. The Plaintiff's Writ of Summons was filed with this Honorable Court on January 31, 2013. 7. Denied. 8. Denied. The Plaintiff fails to state the specific law which support his averment. As such,the Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the corresponding averments. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 9. Denied. The averments are denied because they purport to characterize the contents of 28 Pa. Code § 115.29 which speaks for itself. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that this regulatory provision applies to Defendant New Visions which is not a general hospital or special hospital within the Commonwealth pursuant to 28 Pa. Code § 101.3. 10. Denied as stated. The Plaintiff fails to state the specific law which support his averment. 11. Denied. The Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the corresponding averments because means of proof are within the exclusive knowledge of adverse parties. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 12. Denied. When attempting to seek pre-complaint discovery the appropriate section governing such action under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure is Rule 4003.8. Rule 4003.8 is very specific on when pre-complaint discovery can be ordered by the Court and the required parameters for such an order may only be established where such action is not overly burdensome to the non-moving party. Specifically, Rule 4003.8 states as follows: A Plaintiff may obtain pre-complaint discovery where the information sought is material and necessary to the filing of the complaint and discovery will not cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense to any person or party. Generally, the discovery rules do not permit discovery in aid of contemplated litigation and there is no preaction discovery. Cole v. Wells, 406 Pa. 81, 177 A.2d 77 (1962); Lombardo v. DeMarco, 350 Pa. Super. 490, 504 A.2d 1256 (1985); Blum v. Parkview Hospital, 2 Pa. D. & C.3d 345, 1976 WL 437 (C.P. 1976)..The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has addressed this exact issue and established the preliminary guidelines, which drastically limit the circumstances by which pre-complaint discovery may be granted by the trial court. In the case of McNeil v. Jordon, 894 A.2d 1260 (Pa. 2006), the Supreme Court stated: "to obtain pre-complaint discovery a litigant should be required to demonstrate his good faith as well as probable cause that the information sought is both material and necessary to the filing of a complaint in a pending action. A Plaintiff should describe with reasonable detail the material sought, and state with particularity probable cause for believing the information will materially advance his pleading, as well as averring that, but for the discovery request he will be unable to formulate a legally sufficient pleading. Under no circumstance should a plaintiff be allowed to embark upon a"fishing expedition", will otherwise rely on an amorphous discovery process to detect a cause of action he lacks probable cause to anticipate prior to the pre-complaint discovery process under this standard. The reasonableness of a given request, as well as the existence of probable cause and the good faith of the parties seeking discovery, are matters for the trial court to determine in the exercise of its sound discretion." (emphasis added) 894 A.2d 1278. Applied to this case, the Plaintiff fails the two-pronged test. A review of Plaintiff Request of Production of Documents confirms that the Plaintiff attempting to engage in a "fishing expedition," as the over-broad and far-reaching discovery request includes the following: 1. Any and all records in your possession that relate to the services provided to Lance Keckler. 2. Copies of any emails between Lance Keckler and any agent or employee of[Defendant New Visions] or Lauren J. James. 3. Copies of any and all letters or phone messages in your possession between Lance Keckler and any agent or employee of[Defendant New Visions] or Lauren J. James. This request is intended to cover all documents in the possession, custody and control of the Defendants, their agents, employees and attorneys, and is deemed to be continuing, thus requiring Defendants to modify and/or supplement their response to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents obtain further or additional documents up to the time of trial. The Plaintiff indicates in paragraph 5 of his Petition that"Lance Keckler's medical records and information available to the Plaintiff had been reviewed by an expert witness, who has signed a Certificate of Merit." In other words, the Plaintiff has already determined that it has a bona fide negligence claim against the Defendants. If an expert has executed a Certificate of Merit,then the Plaintiff should be in possession of sufficient information to draft a Complaint. The overbroad request for records includes correspondence and phone messages in the possession of counsel which would be privileged. The Plaintiff s pre- complaint discovery request will cause unreasonable burden, expense and annoyance to the Defendants. 13. Admitted. 14. Admitted. By way of further answer, the Defendants intended on objecting to said discovery requests on grounds set forth above in paragraph 12. WHEREFORE, the Defendants, respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter an order denying Plaintiff's Petition for Rule to Show Cause and Plaintiff's request for pre-complaint discovery on the basis that said request is not permitted under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4003.8. Respectfully requested, SCANLON,�HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. By: James A. Doherty, Jr. Kevin C. Hayes 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 (570) 346-7651 Attorneys for Defendants 3 AUG 16 P14 (: G2 CUMBERLAND COUPM' PENNSYLVANIA SCANLON,HOWLEY&DOHERTY,P.C. Attorneys for Defendants By: James A. Doherty,Jr.,Esquire New Visions of South Central PA,Inc. Identification#23829 t/d/b/a New Visions, Inc. and By: Kevin C. Hayes Lauren J. James,MSW Identification#202486 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton,PA 18503 Telephone: (570).346-7651 THOMAS KECKLER, as Administrator of IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS the Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY THOMAS KECKLER, individually and in PENNSYLVANIA his own right, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION—PROFESSIONAL V. LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL BY 12 DEMANDED NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA, INC., t/d/b/a NEW VISIONS, INC. and LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW, Defendants NO. 13-550 CIVIL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff's Petition for Rule to Show Cause and proposed Order were duly served upon counsel for the Plaintiff by mailing the same to him at his address of record by United States First Class Mail on the 14th day of August, 2013 as follows: Joseph M. Melillo, Esquire Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP - 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. By: James A. Doherty, Jr. Kevin C. Hayes 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 (570) 346-7651 Attorneys for Defendants THOMAS KECKLER, as IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Administrator of the CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and THOMAS KECKLER, individually and in his own right, Plaintiff V. NO. 13-550 CIVIL TERM NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA. INC. , t/d/b/a : NEW VISIONS, INC. , and LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW, CIVIL ACTION - PROFESSIONAL Defendants LIABILITY ACTION ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 26th day of August, the last paragraph in the request for production of documents beginning, "This request is intended to cover all documents in the possession . . . " is stricken. The Defendant is directed to provide all other requested documents as set forth in 1, 2 and 3 . By the Court, Edward E. Guido, J. ./ Joseph M. Melillo Esquire A torney for Plaintiff / K even C. Hayes, Esquire Attorney for Defendants Z �Co a rq � t*n - srs --,r": ca ' D N I 1E.7 M-C-21 120L D . q 8 a2/�a >C= Cn E PRO THONO TA t 2013 SEP 26 Ptf 1: 2 7 CUMBERLAND COUNTY' PENIqSYLVANIA SCANLON,HOWLEY&DOHERTY,P.C. Attorneys for Defendants By: James A.Doherty,Jr.,Esquire New Visions of South Central PA,Inc. Identification#23829 t/d/b/a New Visions,Inc. and By: Kevin C.Hayes Lauren J. James,MSW Identification#202486 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton,PA 18503 Telephone: (570)346-7651 THOMAS KECKLER, as Administrator of IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS the Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY THOMAS KECKLER, individually and in PENNSYLVANIA his own right, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION—PROFESSIONAL V. LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL BY 12 DEMANDED NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA, INC., ed/b/a NEW VISIONS, INC. and LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW, Defendants NO. 13-550 CIVIL t CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of Defendants' Answer and Objections to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4003.8 "Pre-Complaint Discovery" were duly served upon counsel for the Plaintiff by mailing the same to him at his address of record by United States First Class Mail on the 12th day of September , 2013 as follows: 1 L. Joseph M. Melillo, Esquire Navitsky, Olson& Wisneski LLP 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 SCANLON, HOWLEY &DOHERTY, P.C. B Y James A. Doherty, Jr. Kevin C. Hayes 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 (570) 346-7651 Attorneys for Defendants 2t OG Z3 Ci.i B Pal RLAND 4 �Y SCANLON, HOWLEY&DOHERTY, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants By: James A. Doherty,Jr., Esquire New Visions of South Central PA, Inc. Identification#23829 t/d/b/a New Visions, Inc. and By: Kevin C. Hayes, Esquire Lauren J. James, MSW Identification#202486 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 Telephone: (570)346-7651 THOMAS KECKLER, as Administrator of IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS the Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY THOMAS KECKLER, individually and in PENNSYLVANIA his own right, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION—PROFESSIONAL V. LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL BY 12 DEMANDED NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA, INC., t/d/b/a NEW VISIONS, INC. and LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW, Defendants NO, 13-550 CIVIL PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly issue a rule on the Plaintiff to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days of service hereof or suffer a judgment of non pros. SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. By: le��/-- Z'_�e::l James A. Doherty, Jr. Kevin C. Hayes 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 (570) 346-7651 Attorneys for Defendants e f SCANLON,HOWLEY&DOHERTY, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants By: James A. Doherty,Jr., Esquire New Visions of South Central PA, Inc. Identification#23829 t/d/b/a New Visions, Inc. and By: Kevin C. Hayes, Esquire Lauren J. James, MSW Identification#202486 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton,PA 18503 Telephone: (570)346-7651 THOMAS KECKLER, as Administrator of IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS the Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY THOMAS KECKLER, individually and in PENNSYLVANIA his own right, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION—PROFESSIONAL V. LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL BY 12 DEMANDED NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA, INC., t/d/b/a NEW VISIONS, INC. and LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW, Defendants NO. 13-550 CIVIL �' RULE NOW, this 0?3 day of October, 2013, upon Praecipe of counsel for the Defendants, a Rule is issued upon the Plaintiff to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days of service of said Rule, or a judgment of non pros will be entered against said Plaintiff. Prothonotary eputy �. I`IL 1-c� �� �•• C� : 20!3 OCT 30 ' 13 cUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA SCANLON, HOWLEY& DOHERTY, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants By: James A. Doherty,Jr., Esquire New Visions of South Central PA, Inc. Identification#23829 t/d/b/a New Visions, Inc. and By: Kevin C. Hayes, Esquire Lauren J. James, MSW Identification#202486 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 Telephone: (570)346-7651 THOMAS KECKLER, as Administrator of IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS the Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY THOMAS KECKLER, individually and in PENNSYLVANIA his own right, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION—PROFESSIONAL V. LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL BY 12 DEMANDED NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA, INC., t/d/b/a-NEW VISIONS, INC. and LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW, Defendants NO. 13-550 CIVIL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a time-stamped copy of Praecipe for Rule and Rule was duly served upon counsel for the Plaintiff by mailing the same to him at his address of record by United States First Class Mail on the 28`h day of October, 2013 as follows: Joseph M. Melillo, Esquire Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 SCANLON,, WLEY rDERTY,.P.C. By: Jdrnes A. Do erty, Jr. Kevin C. Hayes 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 (570) 346-7651 Attorneys for Defendants r'rZL IN COURT OMMON � �`' 22 T��P 12:f 2 CUMBERLAND THE COUNTOF CY, PENNSYVLANIA PLEAS ut1EFF( hi� t=�r PENNSYLALVACNIA THOMAS KECKLER, as Administrator : of the Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and : THOMAS KECKLER, individually and : No. 13-550 Civil in his own right, Plaintiff • • CIVIL ACTION—PROFESSIONAL v. • LIABILITY ACTION NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL : PA, INC., t/d/b/a NEW VISIONS, INC. and LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW, • Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS TO NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA, INC., T/D/B/A NEW VISIONS, INC. I, Joseph M. Melillo, certify that: `1.1kan appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; AND/OR the claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and appropriate licensed professionals have supplied written statements to the undersigned that there are bases to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm OR ❑ expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. Respectfully submitted, NAVITSKY, OLSON & WISNESKI LLP /. ce7 994,111 J•!e. -M. Melillo, Esquire I.D. No. 26211 Duane S. Barrick, Esquire PA I.D. No. 77400 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law firm of Navitsky, Olson&Wisneski LLP hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Certificate of Merit was served upon the following persons by first-class United States mail,postage prepaid on November 22, 2013 as follows: James A. Doherty, Jr. Scanlon,Howley&Doherty, P.C. 1000 Bank Towers 321 Spruce Street Scranton,PA 18503 Counsel for Defendants (6) _ .7) Lois E. Stauffer 2013 NOV 22 P11 f2 " IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYVLANIA CUMBERLAND COUNTT'; PENNSYLVANIA THOMAS KECKLER, as Administrator : of the Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and : THOMAS KECKLER, individually and : No. 13-550 Civil in his own right, • Plaintiff • • CIVIL ACTION—PROFESSIONAL v. • LIABILITY ACTION NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL : PA, INC., t/d/b/a NEW VISIONS, INC. and LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW, • Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS TO LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW I, Joseph M. Melillo, certify that: an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; AND/OR ❑ the claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and appropriate licensed professionals have supplied written statements to the undersigned that there are bases to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm OR ❑ expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. Respectfully submitted, NAVITSKY, OLSON & WISNESKI LLP Jo�-p . Melillo, Esquire P A I.D. No. 26211 Duane S. Barrick, Esquire PA I.D. No. 77400 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law firm of Navitsky, Olson&Wisneski LLP hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Certificate of Merit was served upon the following persons by first-class United States mail,postage prepaid on November 22,2013 as follows: James A. Doherty, Jr. Scanlon, Howley&Doherty, P.C. 1000 Bank Towers 321 Spruce Street Scranton, PA 18503 Counsel for Defendants Lois E. Stauffer l% r1 f riS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYVLANIA C M B L R L A N l) COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA THOMAS KECKLER, as Administrator : of the Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and : THOMAS KECKLER, individually and : No. 13-550 Civil • in his own right, • Plaintiff • CIVIL ACTION—PROFESSIONAL v. • LIABILITY ACTION • NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL : PA. INC., t/d/b/a NEW VISIONS, INC. • and LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW, • Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by an attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 / 717-249-3166 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYVLANIA THOMAS KECKLER, as Administrator : of the Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and : THOMAS KECKLER, individually and : No. 13-550 Civil in his own right, • Plaintiff • CIVIL ACTION—PROFESSIONAL vi. • LIABILITY ACTION • NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL : PA. INC., t/d/b/a NEW VISIONS, INC. • and LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW, • Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO EN LA CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las quejas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, debe tomar accion dentro de veinte (20) dias a partir de la fecha en que recibio la demanda y el aviso. Usted debe presentar comparecencia escrita en persona o por abogado y presentar en la Corte por escrito sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en su contra. Se le avisa que si no se defiende, el caso puede proceder sin usted y la Corte puede decidir en su contra sin mas aviso o notificacion por cualquier dinero reclamado en la demanda o por cualquier otra queja o compensacion reclamados por el Demandante. USTED PUEDE PERDER DINERO, 0 PROPIEDADES U OTROS DERECHOS IMPORTANTES PARA USTED. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE 0 NO CONOCE UN ABOGADO, VAYA 0 LLAME A LA OFICINA EN LA DIRECCION ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE OBTENER ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 717-249-3166 VERIFICATION I, Thomas Keckler, verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing discovery are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that this verification is made subject to the provisions of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to the unsworn falsification to authorities. Thomas Keckler Date: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYVLANIA THOMAS KECKLER, as Administrator . of the Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and . THOMAS KECKLER, individually and No. 13-550 Civil in his own right, . Plaintiff . •: CIVIL ACTION—PROFESSIONAL v. LIABILITY ACTION • NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL . PA, INC., t/d/b/a NEW VISIONS, INC. . and LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW, . Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT 1. The Plaintiff Thomas Keckler is an individual residing in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Thomas Keckler is the Administrator of the Estate of Lance Keckler, deceased, having been granted Letters of Administration on or about July 18, 2012. 3. The Defendant, New Visions of South Central PA, Inc., t/d/b/a New Visions, Inc., (hereinafter Defendant New Visions) is a corporation created under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principle place of business in Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. The Defendant, Lauren J. James, is an adult individual residing in Newville, Pennsylvania, who at all relevant times was employed by Defendant New Visions of South Central PA, Inc., t/d/b/a New Visions, Inc., and acted within the course and scope of her employment for said Defendant. 5. Defendant, Lauren James, currently holds a social worker's license issued by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of State. , 6. Defendant, Lauren James, either was a licensed social worker at all relevant times or was in the process of obtaining her license while providing social work services to Plaintiffs decedent, Lance Keckler. 7. Plaintiff has captioned this as a professional liability case, and Certificates of Merit are being simultaneously filed. However, it does not appear that the provisions of Pa. R.C.P. 1042.11, et al., or those of the MCARE Act, 40 P.S. §1303.503, apply to actions against social workers or their employers. 8. Defendant New Visions, through its employees, including Defendant Lauren James, provides supportive services to disabled individuals in group home settings, and to individuals living in private residential housing, including HUD Section 8 housing. 9. Plaintiffs decedent, Lance Keckler, was born June 24, 1984 and was found deceased on or about November 8, 2011. 10. Lance Keckler was diagnosed with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder in the year 2001. 11. Between March 2001 and September 2008, Lance Keckler was an inpatient at multiple facilities in Pennsylvania for his psychiatric disorder, including Holy Spirit Hospital, Phil Haven Hospital, Danville State Hospital, and the Harrisburg State Hospital. 12. Between June 2007 and September 2007, Lance was an inpatient resident at Holy Spirit Hospital, then transferred on September 28, 2007 to Danville State Hospital. 13. Lance was discharged from Danville State Hospital to a New Visions, Inc. group home in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. 14. By November 2009, Lance was deemed sufficiently fit to live independently and leased HUD Section 8 housing at Episcopal Square Apartments in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. 2 4 15. At all relevant times, Lance Keckler had contracted with Defendant New Visions for services. Defendant, New Visions, was fully aware of all of Lance's psychiatric history and diagnoses. 16. Included in his diagnoses was selective mutism, which manifested as a symptom of his psychiatric disorder. 17. Mr. Keckler's selective mutism would wax and wane as his psychological disease determined. When he was symptomatic, he would withdraw and limit or refuse communication with others. 18. Defendant, New Visions, provides several levels of residential and social rehabilitation services for adults with chronic mental illnesses. 19. One level is community residential rehabilitation services (CRR), which is designed to provide intensive support to individuals to develop the practical skills needed for independent community living. 20. Lance Keckler had received Defendant New Visions' CRR services, and resided in a CRR group home between September 2008 and November 2009. 21. Defendant, New Visions, also provides supportive living services to individuals able to reside in community apartments. 22. Individuals receiving supportive living services are to work closely with a New Visions case manager to develop goals for independence. The case manager provides supportive services as necessary, including assistance with medications, transportation to medical appointments, and other assistance required to maintain independent living. 23. During all relevant times, Defendant Lauren James provided such services to Lance Keckler. The duties of a supporting living case manager are outlined in the New Visions, Inc.job description attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. 3 24. The role of supportive living case manager is to provide the assistance necessary for mentally challenged individuals to live independently and safely. 25. The job description also includes administrative duties, such as the obligation to maintain client files which include pre-admission data, progress notes, emergency information, assessments, and goal plans. 26. Other administrative duties require precisely documenting time sheets and identifying time spent in direct consumer contact/activities. 27. The job description also requires that the supportive living case manager be responsible for ensuring that a supervisor is aware of daily schedule/routine and any client variances that may take place. 28. The job description also includes development of a rapport with landlords, and acting as an intermediary in landlord/consumer agreements and relationships. 29. The services provided by the supportive living case manager are similar or identical to many of the services provided by licensed social workers. 30. One of the services that Defendant Lauren James provided to Lance Keckler was to pack his psychiatric medications. Lauren James knew that these medications were vital to Lance's ability to function and live safely. 31. Defendant Lauren James also transported Lance to doctor appointments so that he could have blood tests for monitoring medication levels. 32. During the time that Lance Keckler received New Visions supportive living services, he continued to receive outpatient treatment at Holy Spirit Hospital's Behavioral Health Center. 33. Holy Spirit's records indicate that on November 18, 2010 an employee of the center spoke with Lauren James and records that Ms. James had noticed a "huge regression in 4 Lance over the past month. She wanted Dr. Sullivan to be aware prior to Lance's appointment on November 22, 2010. She says he is guarded; lack of facial expression; not participating in program; some aggressive behavior. She cannot be sure he is taking his meds . . ." 34. Prior to this time, Plaintiff Thomas Keckler had been in frequent contact with Lance Keckler, both via visitation and by email. 35. However, at other times in the past, Lance Keckler had refused to communicate with his father, Plaintiff Thomas Keckler. This was an expression of his selective mutism. 36. Late in the year 2010, Thomas Keckler also became concerned about the change in Lance's behavior, and concerned that Lance was not taking his medications. He expressed these concerns to Lauren James. 37. Plaintiff Thomas Keckler believes that expressing this concern caused Lance not to consent to his father' visits any further. 38. In January 2011, Lance refused to sign a consent form allowing Thomas Keckler to get information about his progress from Defendant, New Visions. 39. However, Lance did sign a consent form permitting Defendant New Visions to contact Thomas Keckler in case of an emergency. 40. This sequence of events was a typical and recurrent manifestation of Lance Keckler's mental illness. 41. Thomas Keckler was not able to communicate with his son directly during the year 2011 because of this exacerbation in his selective mutism. 42. Thomas Keckler did receive emails from Defendant, Lauren James, through January 26, 2011 which advised him that Lance continued to cooperate with Lauren and New Visions. 5 43. In an email dated February 1, 2011, Lance agreed that Lauren James could pack his medications. 44. Subsequent emails from Defendant, Lauren James, to Lance Keckler offered to take him for blood work, to see his psychiatrist, and to pack medications. These were not answered. 45. On April 8, 2011, Defendant Lauren James wrote to Lance Keckler indicating that if she did not hear from him on or before May 8, 2011, services through New Visions would be terminated. A copy of this letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. 46. The last email from Defendant, Lauren James, to Lance Keckler was dated April 26, 2011 indicating that he had a med check tomorrow with Dr. Sullivan at 1:20 p.m. Ms. James asked him if he planned to go and if he would like transportation 47. There was no response to this email, nor any further email to Lance Keckler from Lauren James. 48. Defendant, New Visions, did not have any further contact with Lance Keckler or made any attempt to contact him following the April 26, 2011 email. 49. The records produced pursuant to Court Order by Defendant, New Visions, do not include any notes documenting times spent in direct consumer contact or any notes indicating that Defendant Lauren James' supervisor was aware of any variances in Mr. Keckler's behavior. The produced records do not document any communication between Defendant Lauren James and her supervisor about Mr. Keckler's case, including any progress notes, emergency information, or assessments. These should have been produced if they exist. 50. Other residents of the apartment complex noticed that Lance behaved oddly in 2011 and communicated this to complex employees. New Visions produced records containing 6 no indication that Lauren James communicated with the apartment complex employees about Lance Keckler, or that she learned what its employees had been told about Lance. 51. Defendant Lauren James did not notify Thomas Keckler that Lance had become totally incommunicative, that she was no longer packing his medications, that he was not going to his doctor, and not having his blood work done. 52. During 2011, Plaintiff Thomas Keckler knew that Lance was exhibiting the psychiatric symptoms of mutism. 53. Plaintiff Thomas Keckler tried to contact Lance, and tried to visit him, but was not able to make contact. 54. During this time, though, Plaintiff Thomas Keckler acted under the assumption that Defendant, New Visions, continued to provide services for his son and have contact with him. 55. On or about November 8, 2011, an employee of the Episcopal Square Apartments where Lance resided entered Lance's apartment. 56. Lance was observed lying nude on the bathroom floor. 57. The police, medical team, and the coroner were called. 58. Lance was pronounced dead and the cause of death was listed as "inanition" and "mental illness" on his death certificate. 59. Lance died of starvation and may have been deceased for several weeks before being discovered. 60. Lance's starvation is a direct result of his mental illness. Plaintiff does not believe he was being treated at all with medications, or otherwise, for some time prior to his demise. 7 61. Plaintiff's decedent's death and related damages as itemized below, are the direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Lauren James, acting within the course and scope of her employment for Defendant, New Visions, and the employees of Defendant, New Visions. COUNT I- NEGLIGENCE THOMAS KECKLER, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LANCE KECKLER, AND THOMAS KECKLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OWN RIGHT V. NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA, INC., T/D/B/A NEW VISIONS, INC. AND LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW 62. Paragraphs 1 through 61 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 63. Defendants New Visions and Lauren James undertook to render services to Lance Keckler which they did or should have recognized as necessary for his protection and safety. 64. When Lance Keckler stopped communicating with Defendant, Lauren James, she knew, or should have known, that this was a manifestation of his severe mental illness. 65. Defendant Lauren James and other employees of New Visions knew, or should have known, that unless there was some direct intervention for the benefit of Lance Keckler, he would not receive the psychiatric medications necessary for him to function and that he would thereby be in grave danger of harm. 66. Because one of the manifestations of Mr. Keckler's illness was non- responsiveness, and because his non-responsiveness was historically correlated with self- harming behavior when his symptoms were acute, intensive follow-up was indicated when outreach efforts were unsuccessful. 67. A request should have been made for a visit by a police officer to check on Mr. Keckler's status. 8 s 68. Defendant Lauren James or other New Visions employees should also availed themselves of the emergency consent which Lance had provided for the benefit of Thomas Keckler and informed Thomas Keckler that Lance had become unresponsive. 69. There is no evidence that Defendant, Lauren James, or any other employee of Defendant, New Visions, alerted either the local authorities to Lance Keckler's foreseeable peril, or notified Plaintiff Thomas Keckler of his son's status. 70. Had that been done, the police would have discovered Lance Keckler's psychiatric emergency in time to obtain medical and psychiatric intervention, thereby saving his life. 71. If Thomas Keckler had been informed of his son's situation, he would have contacted the police even if Defendant, Lauren James, or some other employee of Defendant, New Visions, declined to do so. Lance's psychiatrist could also have been contacted. Lance's commitment would have been considered. 72. There is no evidence that Defendant, Lauren James, informed her supervisor of Lance Keckler's deteriorating condition, or availed herself of pertinent information which apartment complex employees knew about Lance. 73. Had the supervisor been appropriately apprised of Lance's psychological deterioration, either directly by Lauren James or through appropriate record keeping, intervention in time to save Mr. Keckler's life could have taken place. 74. The Defendants' failure to exercise reasonable care increased the risk of Lance Keckler's demise. 75. The harm was suffered because Lance and Thomas Keckler relied upon Defendants New Visions and Lauren James to properly discharge their duties with respect to providing critical services to Lance. 9 76. Plaintiff's rights arise under Restatement (Second) of Torts §323, as adopted by Pennsylvania Courts, and under other provisions of Pennsylvania law. COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE THOMAS KECKLER,AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LANCE KECKLER,AND THOMAS KECKLER,INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OWN RIGHT V. NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA, INC., T/DB/A NEW VISIONS,INC. AND LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW 77. Paragraphs 1 though 61 and Count I of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 78. Defendant, New Visions, contracted to provide critical supportive services to a impaired individual, Lance Keckler, including assistance with medications, doctor's appointments, and related medical testing, knowing he was not able to provide these for himself while living independently in HUD Section 8 housing. 79. The Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to provide these services and secure Lance's safety. 80. The Defendants discontinued services although they knew, or should have known, that by so doing, they left Lance Keckler in a worse position than when they initially assumed the responsibility to provide said services. 81. Plaintiff's rights arise under Restatement (Second) of Torts §324, as adopted by Pennsylvania Courts, and under other provisions of Pennsylvania law. COUNT III—NEGLIGENCE PER SE THOMAS KECKLER,AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LANCE KECKLER,AND THOMAS KECKLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OWN RIGHT V. NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA, INC., T/D/B/A NEW VISIONS,INC. AND LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW 82. Paragraphs 1 through 61 and Counts I of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 10 83. At all relevant times, Defendants Lauren James and New Visions, Inc., provided social services to Lance Keckler. 84. Pursuant to 49 Pa. Code §47.72, responsibilities to clients/patients, services to a client may be terminated only after giving careful consideration to factors affecting the professional relationship, and making an effort to minimize possible adverse effects. If an interruption or termination of services is anticipated, notification and referral for continued services shall be provided to the client/patient. 85. Defendant, New Visions, terminated services to Lance Keckler without giving adequate consideration to the consequences of said termination. 86. The Defendants' termination of services in violation of the aforementioned Code Section constitutes negligence per se. CLAIM I—SURVIVAL ACTION THOMAS KECKLER, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LANCE KECKLER,AND THOMAS KECKLER,INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OWN RIGHT V. NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA,INC., T/D/B/A NEW VISIONS, INC. AND LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW 87. Paragraphs 1 through 61 and Counts I through III of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 88. Plaintiff, Thomas Keckler,brings this action on behalf of the Estate of Lance Keckler, deceased, by and through virtue of the Act of 1976, July 9 P.L. 586 No. 142, §2, 42 Pa. C.S.A.§8302. 89. Defendants, New Visions of South Central PA, Inc., t/d/b/a New Visions, Inc. and Lauren J. James, MSW, are liable to the Estate for injuries and damages resulting in Lance's death as set forth herein. Plaintiff, Thomas Keckler, as Administrator of the Estate of Lance Keckler, deceased claims on behalf of said Estate, all damages suffered by said Estate by 11 reason of the death of Lance Keckler, the pain and suffering Lance Keckler underwent prior to his death, and for all damages properly recoverable under 42 Pa. C.S.A.§8302. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Thomas Keckler, as Administrator of the Estate of Lance Keckler, and Thomas Keckler, individually and in his own right, demands judgment against Defendants, New Visions of South Central PA, Inc., t/d/b/a New Visions, Inc. and Lauren J. James, MSW, for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. CLAIM II—WRONGFUL DEATH THOMAS KECKLER, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LANCE KECKLER, AND THOMAS KECKLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OWN RIGHT V. NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA, INC., T/D/B/A NEW VISIONS, INC. AND LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW 90. Paragraphs 1 through 61, Counts I through III of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 91. Plaintiff, Thomas Keckler, is the father of decedent, Lance Keckler, and is entitled to bring this wrongful death claim pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8301(b). 92. Decedent, Lance Keckler, did not bring an action for his injuries during his lifetime. 93. Persons entitled by law to recover damages for such wrongful death and the relationship to Lance Keckler are as follows: (a) Thomas Keckler, father; (b) Karen J. Faust, mother. 94. At the time of his death, Lance Keckler was 29 years old. 95. As a direct and proximate result of the death of Lance Keckler, Wrongful Death beneficiaries have suffered a pecuniary loss and have been, and in the future will continue to be, 12 deprived of Lance Keckler's companionship, contribution and services, support and comfort, for all of which damages are claimed. 96. Plaintiff, Thomas Keckler, hereby makes claims for all damages to which they are entitled by virtue of Wrongful Death Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8301. 97. As a result of the death of Lance Keckler, deceased, Plaintiff Thomas Keckler has incurred funeral, burial, and related expenses, as well as expenses for the administration of Lance Keckler's Estate, and claim is made therefor. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Thomas Keckler, as Administrator of the Estate of Lance Keckler, and Thomas Keckler, individual and in his own right, demands judgment against Defendants, New Visions of South Central PA, Inc., t/d/b/a New Visions, Inc. and Lauren J. James, MSW, for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. Respectfully submitted, NAVITSKY, OLSON & WISNESKI LLP J''-p 1 . Melillo, Esquire ''. I.D. No. 26211 Duane S. Barrick, Esquire PA I.D. No. 77400 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: i� aa)i3 13 VERIFICATION I, Thomas Keckler, verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that this verification is made subject to the provisions of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to the unsworn falsification to authorities. Thomas Keckler Date: ///al /�v/3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law firm of Navitsky, Olson&Wisneski LLP hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint was served upon the following persons by first-class United States mail,postage prepaid on November 22, 2013 as follows: James A. Doherty, Jr. Scanlon,Howley&Doherty, P.C. 1000 Bank Towers 321 Spruce Street Scranton, PA 18503 Counsel for Defendants \VOW 04 Lois E. Stauffer • r b.\ NEW VISIONS INC. JOB DESCRIPTION Position Title: Supported Living Casemanager Part-time Full-time X Total hours per week: 40 Daily Shift: varied schedule to include evenings and weekends I. Position Definition The Supported Living Casemanager will assist supported living consumers in acquiring and maintaining housing, and assist consumers in using existing community resources with the goal of integrating with the community. II. Job Responsibilities A. Consumer Interactions 1. Face to face contact with each consumer at least one time each week. Daily contact can be made when need face to face or through phone contact. 2. Assist consumer with development of ADL's as needed including but not limited to: budgeting, menu planning, grocery shopping, laundry and housekeeping. 3. Weekly apartment check to ensure they are cleaned, orderly and free of any health hazards. 4. Supervise consumers in medication management and total mental health care by monitoring consumer weekly medication packing and monthly medication count. 5. Maintain a first hand, working knowledge of each consumer's financial and medical status. 6. Regularly review with the consumer, goals, progress on goals, and other areas for development identified by the consumer. 7. Assist consumer with compliance of the lease agreement,to include timely payment of rent, maintenance of apartment and noise control. 8. Provide consumer transportation for community integration, medical and psychiatric appointments, grocery shopping, laundry and any other service needs when public or other transportation is not available. 9. Attend community events with consumers so that they may have an avenue to assist them to integrate into the community. 10.Assist consumer with processing of entitlements, to include SSD, SSI, Public Assistance, etc. 11. Immediately report unusual incidents to the immediate supervisor. 12. Ascertain that each consumer has adequate identification and information regarding their right to vote. B. Housing/Community Resource Development 1. Develop familiarity of all community resources. 2. Develop rapport with landlords, and act as an intermediary in landlord/consumer agreements and relationships. 3. Develop and maintain an effective working relationship with allied agencies to ensure cooperation, coordination, and understanding. C. Physical Site Safety 1. Train all consumers in health and safety procedures. 2. Provide consumers with on-site training of location of fire exits, and emergency phone numbers. 3. Check for any safety hazards and recommend corrections. D. Administrative 1. Precisely document time sheets, identifying times spent in direct consumer contact/activities. 2. Be responsible for ensuring that supervisor is aware of daily schedule/routine and any variances that may take place. 3. Be an active participant in program and interdisciplinary teams. 4. Maintain consumer files that include preadmission data, progress notes, emergency information, assessments, and goal plans. 5. On-call for emergency/crisis intervention biweekly. 6. Meet with supervisor weekly. 7. Other duties as assigned. III. Accountability Reports directly to the Residential Director. IV. Qualifications Bachelor's Degree in human services or related field, 1 year of experience in the mental health field and demonstrated knowledge of mental health, and ability to work well with others. A valid drivers license is required. Skills: Good oral and written communications skills. Self-motivation rt • • I y l 11 f I_H l r! I • NewVisions Promoting mental health through housing, socialization and education. April 8, 2011 Lance Keckler 101 N. Prince St. Apt. 201 Shippensburg, PA 17257 Dear Lance, Over the last few months,you have not utilized New Visions Supportive Living Program. This letter is to notify you that you have 30 days to notify me if you want to continue having Supported Living Services through New Visions, Inc. I have attempted to reach you for the past month with no success. I have tried to reach you by e-mail as I always have and I have physically gone to your apartment each week. You have not returned my e-mails or acknowledged your door calls. If we do not hear you on or before May 8, 2011,your services through New Visions will be terminated. I thank you for your time and hope to hear from you. ,Since ly, Laureames Residential Case Manager,New Visions New Visions inc. 24 HoIlar Avenue, #5 Shippensburg, PA 17257 (717)530-1300 Voice (7171530-13.38 Par Ci THE pRn , ;1 TAR Y ,�3 r :A 2 h3 U �i' T Y 'SCA NLON,HOWLEY&DOHERTY, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants By: James A. Doherty,Jr., Esquire New Visions of South Central PA, Inc. Identification#23829 t/d/b/a New Visions, Inc. and By: Kevin C. Hayes Lauren J. James, MSW Identification#202486 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 Telephone: (570)346-7651 THOMAS KECKLER, as Administrator of IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS the Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY THOMAS KECKLER, individually and in PENNSYLVANIA his own right, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION— PROFESSIONAL v. LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL BY 12 DEMANDED NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA, INC., t/d/b/a NEW VISIONS, INC. and LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW, Defendants NO. 13-550 CIVIL NOTICE TO THE WITHIN-NAMED PLAINTIFF: You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed Preliminary Objections on Behalf of the Defendants to the Plaintiff's Complaint within twenty (20) days of service hereof, or a judgment of non pros may be entered against you. SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. : B Y (1. 414V- James A. Doherty, r. Kevin C. Hayes 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 (570) 346-7651 Attorneys for Defendants 'SCANLON, HOWLEY& DOHERTY, P.C. Attorneys for Defendants By: James A. Doherty,Jr., Esquire New Visions of South Central PA, Inc. Identification#23829 t/d/b/a New Visions, Inc. and By: Kevin C. Hayes Lauren J.James, MSW Identification#202486 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 Telephone: (570)346-7651 THOMAS KECKLER, as Administrator of IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS the Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY THOMAS KECKLER, individually and in PENNSYLVANIA his own right, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION—PROFESSIONAL v. LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL BY 12 DEMANDED NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA, INC., t/d/b/a NEW VISIONS, INC. and LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW, Defendants NO. 13-550 CIVIL PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS TO THE PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT NOW come the Defendants, New Visions of South Central PA, Inc., t/d/b/a New Visions, Inc. and Lauren J. James, MSW (hereinafter"Moving Defendants"), by and through their counsel, Scanlon, Howley & Doherty, P.C., and file the following Preliminary Objections to the Plaintiff's Complaint as follows: I. BACKGROUND: 1. Plaintiff instituted the present action on or about January 31, 2013 by filing a Writ of Summons against the Moving Defendants. 2. The undersigned counsel was retained to represent said Moving Defendants and entered an appearance on behalf of said Moving Defendants on or about February 15, 2013. 3. In response to a Praecipe for Rule and Rule to File a Complaint filed by counsel for the Moving Defendants on or about October 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Complaint on or about November 22, 2013 alleging negligence against the Moving Defendants. A copy of Plaintiffs Complaint is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked as Exhibit "A." 4. Service of the Complaint was made upon counsel for the Moving Defendants at its former address resulting in the undersigned counsel not receiving said Complaint until December 2, 2013. Consequently, the undersigned counsel contacted Plaintiffs counsel to advise of the date of service and that a response to Plaintiffs Complaint would be filed by December 22, 2013. Counsel for the Plaintiff indicated they had no objection. 5. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges the Defendants were negligent in providing certain services to the Plaintiff/Decedent and that as a result of said negligence the Plaintiff/Decedent "died of starvation and may have been deceased for several weeks before being discovered." (Complaint at¶59). 6. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to comply with Pennsylvania law, and these Preliminary Objections are filed to address the infirmities contained within said Complaint. - 2 - • II. MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO PLEAD SUFFICIENT FACTS ESTABLISHING A DUTY OF CARE (DEMURRER): 7. Moving Defendants incorporate herein by reference thereto Paragraphs 1 through 6 inclusive as though the same were fully set forth at length. 8. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(4) allows a party to file preliminary objections to any pleading for"legal insufficiency of a pleading (demurrer)." 9. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges negligence as a result of Moving Defendants' failure to advise Plaintiff that the Plaintiff/Decedent ceased communications with them and that they discontinued their services after notice to Plaintiff/Decedent as a result of his failure to respond to them. 10. Plaintiff has failed to cite any statutory or decisional law establishing a duty upon the Moving Defendants that, as a matter of law, they owed a duty to protect the Plaintiff/Decedent from suicide. 11. Pennsylvania courts have not recognized a duty of care in situations involving suicide, which has been characterized by the Pennsylvania Superior Court as "an independent intervening act so extraordinary as not to have been reasonable foreseeable by the original tortfeasor." See McPeake v. William T. Cannon, Esquire, P.C., 553 A.2d 439, 441 (Pa. Super. 1989). WHEREFORE, Moving Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint for failure to plead sufficient facts establishing a duty of care. - 3 - III. MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS I AND II OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AS PLAINTIFF CANNOT ESTABLISH LIABILITY AGAINST MOVING DEFENDANTS UNDER RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS 44 323 AND 324 (DEMURRER): 12. Moving Defendants incorporate herein by reference thereto Paragraphs 1 through 11 inclusive as though the same were fully set forth at length. 13. Plaintiff alleges negligence against the Moving Defendants pursuant to Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 323 and 324. 14. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323 (1965) provides: One who undertakes, gratuitously or for consideration, to render services to another which he should recognize as necessary for the protection of the other's person or things, is subject to liability to the other for physical harm resulting from his failure to exercise reasonable care to perform his undertaking, if (a) His failure to exercise such care increases the risk of such harm, or (b) The harm is suffered because of the other's reliance upon the undertaking. 15. Comment "c" to Restatement(Second) of Torts § 323 is informative to this issue and provides the following: c. Termination of Services. The fact that the actor gratuitously starts in to aid another does not necessarily require him to continue his services. He is not required to continue them indefinitely, or even until he has done everything in his power to aid and protect the other. The actor may normally abandon his efforts at any time unless, by giving the aid, he has put the other in a worse position than he was in before the actor attempted to aid him. His motives in discontinuing the services are immaterial. It is - 4 - not necessary for him to justify his failure to continue the services by proving a privilege to do so, based upon his private concerns which would suffer from the continuance of the service. He may without liability discontinue the services through mere caprice, or because of personal dislike or enmity toward the other. Where, however, the actor's assistance has put the other in a worse position than he was in before, either because the actual danger of harm to the other has been increased by the partial performance, or because the other, in reliance upon the undertaking, has been induced to forego other opportunities of obtaining assistance, the actor is not free to discontinue his services where a reasonable man would not do so. He will then be required to exercise reasonable care to terminate his services in such a manner that there is no unreasonable risk of harm to the other, or to continue them until they can be so terminated. 16. There is no basis for establishing a negligence claim against Moving Defendants under Restatement(Second) of Torts § 323. 17. Plaintiff does not allege that the Plaintiff/Decedent was at a greater risk of harming himself because of the services provided by Moving Defendants. 18. Since Plaintiff/Decedent suffered from severe mental illness prior to any involvement of Moving Defendants with him, Plaintiff/Decedent continued to suffer during the time frame Moving Defendants were involved with him, and it is believed Plaintiff/Decedent suffered from severe mental illness after being informed that services provided by Moving Defendants were being terminated, Moving Defendants did not put Plaintiff/Decedent in a worse position than before services began. 19. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324 provides: - 5 - One who, being under no duty to do so, takes charge of another who is helpless adequately to aid or protect himself is subject to liability to the other for any bodily harm caused to him by (a) the failure of the actor to exercise reasonable care to secure the safety of the other while within the actor's charge, or (b) the actor's discontinuing his aid or protection, if by so doing he leaves the other in a worse position than when the actor took charge of him. 20. Section 324 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts does not apply since there is no evidence that the Plaintiff/Decedent was "helpless" since he was an adult living independently away from the Plaintiff without supervision. 21. The Moving Defendants' involvement with Plaintiff/Decedent was to aid him in following up with his psychotherapy appointments. 22. Consequently Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 323 and 324 do not apply in the instant action. WHEREFORE, Moving Defendants request this Honorable Court to dismiss Counts I and II of Plaintiff's Complaint due to Plaintiff's failure to establish liability against Moving Defendants pursuant to Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 323 and 324. IV. MOTION TO DISMISS COUNT III OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AS 49 PA. CODE 47.72 DID NOT GOVERN CONDUCT OF MOVING DEFENDANTS AT ANY RELEVANT TIME (DEMURRER): 23. Moving Defendants incorporate herein by reference thereto Paragraphs 1 through 22 inclusive as though the same were fully set forth at length. - 6 - 24. Plaintiff asserts a negligence claim per se again Moving Defendants for allegedly violating 49 Pa. Code §47.72. 25. Moving Defendants aver that 49 Pa. Code §47.72 is not relevant to Plaintiff's claim in that it is a section of the Code of Ethical Practice and Standards of Professional Conduct as adopted by the State Board of Social Workers, Marriage and Family Counselors. 26. It is provided in 49 Pa. Code §47.72 that"licensed social workers and licensed clinical social workers (licensees) shall adhere to these codes and standards, except when they conflict with this chapter." 27. Moving Defendants were not licensed social workers or licensed clinical social workers during their engagement with the Plaintiff/Decedent. 28. Moving Defendant James became a licensed social worker on August 17, 2011 which was four (4) months after services were discontinued to the Plaintiff/Decedent. 29. Consequently, 49 Pa. Code §47.72 is not applicable to Moving Defendants in the instant action. WHEREFORE, Moving Defendants request this Honorable Court to dismiss Count III of Plaintiff's Complaint and find that 49 Pa. Code §47.72 did not govern the conduct of the Moving Defendants at any relevant time herein (demurrer). V. MOTION TO DISMISS PARAGRAPHS 33,34, 40, 44, 50, 53, 54, 56, 57, 60, 61, 65, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80,AND 81 FOR LACK OF SPECIFICITY PURSUANT TO THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE: - 7 - 30. Moving Defendants incorporate herein by reference thereto Paragraphs 1 through 29 inclusive as though the same were fully set forth at length. 31. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a) provides that a complaint must formulate the issues by summarizing those facts essential to support the claim. 32. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a) (2) and (3) permits any party to file Preliminary Objections to any pleading for failure to comply with the law or rules of court or for insufficient specificity of the allegations in the pleading. 33. These Moving Defendants are prejudiced by Plaintiff's failure to set forth the factual basis for his claims. 34. Plaintiff's Complaint contains general, vague, and boilerplate language in Paragraphs 33, 34, 40, 44, 50, 53, 54, 56, 57, 60, 61, 65, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, and 81 as follows: • 33. Holy Spirit's records indicate that on November 18, 2010 an employee of the center spoke with Lauren James and records that Ms. James had noticed a `huge regression in Lance over the past month. She wanted Dr. Sullivan to be aware prior to Lance's appointment on November 22, 2010. She says he is guarded; lack of facial expression; not participating in program; some aggressive behavior. She cannot be sure he is taking his meds...' In Paragraph 33, the Plaintiff fails to identify the "She" referenced on three occasions. • 34. Prior to this time, Plaintiff Thomas Keckler had been in frequent contact with Lance Keckler, both via visitation and by email. In Paragraph 34, the Plaintiff fails to specify the actual dates. • 40. This sequence of events was a typical and recurrent manifestation of Lance Keckler's mental illness. - 8 - In Paragraph 40, the Plaintiff fails to explain what is meant by "this sequence of events". • 44. Subsequent emails from Defendant Lauren James, to Lance Keckler offered to take him for blood work, to see his psychiatrist, and to pack medications. These were not answered In Paragraph 44, the Plaintiff fails to identify the actual emails with dates. • 50. Other residents of the apartment complex noticed that Lance behaved oddly in 2011 and communicated this to complex employees.... In Paragraph 50, the Plaintiff fails to identify the names of these "other residents" and "complex employees". • 53. Plaintiff Thomas Keckler tried to contact Lance, and tried to visit him, but was not able to make contact. In Paragraph 53, the Plaintiff fails to identify the dates on which he attempted to contact and visit the Plaintiff/Decedent. • 54. During this time, though, Plaintiff Thomas Keckler acted under the assumption that Defendant,New Visions, continued to provide services for his son and have contact with him. In Paragraph 54, the Plaintiff fails to identity the timeframe that he is referring to. • 56. Lance was observed lying nude on the bathroom floor. • 57. The police, medical team, and coroner were called. In Paragraphs 56 and 57, the Plaintiff failed to identify the dates and times of these occurrences. • 60. ...Plaintiff does not believe he was being treated at all with medications, or otherwise, for some time prior to his demise. - 9 - In Paragraph 60, the Plaintiff improperly uses the terms "otherwise" and "some time prior". In Paragraphs 61, 65, 68 and 69, the Plaintiff improperly cites unnamed employees of New Visions, without providing their names. • 69. There is no evidence that Defendant, Lauren James, or any other employee of Defendant, New Visions, alerted either the local authorities... In Paragraph 69, the Plaintiff fails to identify which "local authorities" he is referencing. • 70. Had that been done, the police would have discovered Lance Keckler's psychiatric emergency in time to obtain medical and psychiatric intervention, thereby saving his life. In Paragraph 70, the Plaintiff fails to describe what is meant by "had that been done". • 71. If Thomas Keckler had been informed of his son's situation... In Paragraph 71, the Plaintiff fails to describe the time period of when he should have been informed of his son's situation. • 72. There is no evidence that Defendant, Lauren James, informed her supervisor of Lance Keckler's deteriorating condition, or availed herself of pertinent information which apartment complex employees knew about Lance. In Paragraph 72, the Plaintiff fails to specify what is meant by"pertinent information" or the names of the "apartment complex employees"which he references. • 73. Had the supervisor been appropriately apprised of Lance's psychological deterioration, either directly by Lauren James or through appropriate record keeping, intervention in time to save Mr. Keckler's life could have taken place. - 10 - In Paragraph 73, the Plaintiff fails to identify the name of"the supervisor" or what is meant by "appropriate record keeping". In Paragraphs 74 and 79, the Plaintiff cites the Moving Defendants' "failure to exercise reasonable care" without further description. Paragraph 75 alleges "[t]he harm was suffered...] with no further specificity as to what is meant by "harm." In Paragraphs 76 and 81, the Plaintiff improperly cites "other provisions of Pennsylvania law" without specific reference to any statute or regulation. • 80. The Defendants discontinued services although they knew, or should have known, that by so doing, they left Lance Keckler in a worse position than when they initially assumed the responsibility to provide said services. In Paragraph 80, the Plaintiff fails to describe what is meant by "a worse position" and "said services." 35. The above-mentioned allegations are in direct violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a) in that the Plaintiff fails to specify any facts to support these generic allegations in order to allow these Defendants to properly respond to the same. 36. It is evident that these vague allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint clearly prejudice Moving Defendants from asserting a proper defense by Plaintiffs failure to set forth the factual basis for his claims against them. 37. Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the requirements of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a) since he failed to allege with specificity his claims against these Moving - 11 - Defendants. Due to this lack of specificity, Moving Defendants could be exposed to post- Statute of Limitations amendments. 38. General boilerplate, ambiguous, and conclusory allegations of negligence violate the provisions of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. WHEREFORE, Moving Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court to strike Paragraphs 33, 34, 40, 44, 50, 53, 54, 56, 57, 60, 61, 65, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 79, 80, and 81 of Plaintiff's Complaint for lack of specificity. VI. MOTION TO STRIKE PARAGRAPHS 33,34, 38,39, 42, 43, 44, AND 46 OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLIANT FOR VIOLATION OF PA. R.C.P. 1019(i): 39. Moving Defendants incorporate herein by reference thereto Paragraphs 1 through 38 inclusive as though the same were fully set forth at length. 40. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(i) provides the following: When any claim or defense is based upon a writing, the pleader shall attach a copy of the writing, or the material part thereof, but if the writing or copy is not accessible to the pleader, it is sufficient so to state, together with the reason, and to set forth the substance in writing. 41. In direct violation of Pa. R.C.P. 1019(i), Plaintiff fails to attach records referred to in Paragraphs 33, 34, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, and 46 of his Complaint. 42. Failure by the Plaintiff to attach said records severely prejudices Moving Defendants' ability to properly defend the instant action against them. - 12 - WHEREFORE, Moving Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court to strike Paragraphs 33, 34, 38, 39, 42, 43, 44, and 46 of Plaintiffs Complaint as being in violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(i). VII. MOTION TO STRIKE CLAIM II FOR WRONGFUL DEATH PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 1028(a)(4): 43. Moving Defendants incorporate herein by reference thereto Paragraphs 1 through 42 inclusive as though the same were fully set forth at length. 44. The purpose of damages under the Wrongful Death Statute are for the benefit of relatives as measured by pecuniary losses occasioned by them. Miller v. U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co., 450 A.2d 91, 304 Pa. Super. 43 (1982) affirmed 468 A.2d 1097, 503 Pa. 127. 45. Plaintiffs Complaint alleges in Claim II damages for Wrongful Death that the Plaintiff and the mother of Plaintiff/Decedent, who is not a named party in the instant action, allegedly suffered as a result of his death. 46. Within Plaintiff's Complaint there is no allegation that the Plaintiff/Decedent was working and providing pecuniary support to his parents; and, in fact, he was living independently during the relevant time period involved. 47. Without being able to establish even by inference that the Plaintiff/Decedent was providing pecuniary support to the Plaintiff and a non-party (mother), any damages claimed under Wrongful Death should be dismissed. - 13 - WHEREFORE, Moving Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court strike Claim II for Wrongful Death alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint as being invalid pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4). SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. By: James A. Doherty, Jr. Kevin C. Hayes 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 (570) 346-7651 Attorneys for Defendants • - 14 - - • • 1 e C) --f -°cam IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS - CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYVLANIA r— e, , THOMAS KECKLER, as Administrator ...,, — ,--, of the Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and t---, --t THOMAS KECKLER,individually and No. 13-550 Civil c" in his own right, Plaintiff • • CIVIL ACTION—PROFESSIONAL v. • LIABILITY ACTION • NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL . PA. INC., t/d/b/a NEW VISIONS,INC. and LAUREN J. JAMES,MSW, • Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by an attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you.. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle,PA 17013 _ 1-800-990-9108 717-249-3166 TRUE'COPY FROM RECORD In Testimony whereof, I here unto set my hand and the seal of said Cpull at Carlisle,Pa. This as day. f WOW, ,20 Prothonotary WIC(440L-- 901 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYVLANIA • THOMAS KECKLER,as Administrator • of the Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and THOMAS KECKLER,individually and ▪ No. 13-550 Civil • in his own right, • Plaintiff • CIVIL ACTION—PROFESSIONAL vi. • LIABILITY ACTION • • NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA. INC., t/d/b/a NEW VISIONS,INC. . and LAUREN J. JAMES,MSW, • Defendants • JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO EN LA CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las quejas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, debe tomar accion dentro de veinte (20) dias a partir de la fecha en que recibio la demanda y el aviso. Usted debe presentar comparecencia escrita en persona o por abogado y presentar en la Corte por escrito sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en su contra. Se le avisa que si no se defiende, el caso puede proceder sin usted y la Corte puede decidir en su contra sin mas aviso o notificacion por cualquier dinero reclamado en la demanda o por cualquier otra queja o compensacion reclamados por el Demandante. USTED PUEDE PERDER DINERO, 0 PROPIEDADES U OTROS DERECHOS IMPORTANTES PARA USTED. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE 0 NO CONOCE UN ABOGADO, VAYA 0 LLAME A LA OFICINA EN LA DIRECCION ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE OBTENER ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle,PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 717-249-3166 VERIFICATION I, Thomas Keckler, verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing discovery are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that this verification is made subject to the provisions of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to the unworn falsification to authorities. Thomas Keckler Date: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYVLANIA THOMAS KECKLER, as Administrator . of the Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and . THOMAS KECKLER, individually and No. 13-550 Civil in his own right, • Plaintiff • CIVIL ACTION—PROFESSIONAL v. • LIABILITY ACTION NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL . PA, INC.,t/d/b/a NEW VISIONS,INC. and LAUREN J. JAMES,MSW, • Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT 1. The Plaintiff Thomas Keckler is an individual residing in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County,Pennsylvania. 2. Thomas Keckler is the Administrator of the Estate of Lance Keckler, deceased, having been granted Letters of Administration on or about July 18, 2012. 3. The Defendant, New Visions of South Central PA, Inc., t/d/b/a New Visions, Inc., (hereinafter Defendant New Visions) is a corporation created under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principle place of business in Shippensburg, Cumberland County,Pennsylvania. 4. The Defendant, Lauren J. James, is an adult individual residing in Newville, Pennsylvania, who at all relevant times was employed by Defendant New Visions of South Central PA,.Inc., t/d/b/a New Visions, Inc., and acted within the course and scope of her employment for said Defendant. 5. Defendant, Lauren James, currently holds a social worker's license issued by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,Department of State. 6. Defendant, Lauren James, either was a licensed social worker at all relevant times or was in the process of obtaining her license while providing social work services to Plaintiff's decedent, Lance Keckler. 7. Plaintiff has captioned this as a professional liability case, and Certificates of Merit are being simultaneously filed. However, it does not appear that the provisions of Pa. R.C.P. 1042.11, et al., or those of the MCARE Act, 40 P.S. §1303.503, apply to actions against social workers or their employers. 8. Defendant New Visions, through its employees, including Defendant Lauren James, provides supportive services to disabled individuals in group home settings, and to individuals living in private residential housing, including HUD Section 8 housing. 9. Plaintiff's decedent, Lance Keckler, was born June 24, 1984 and was found deceased on or about November 8, 2011. 10. Lance Keckler was diagnosed with schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder in the year 2001. 11. Between March 2001 and September 2008, Lance Keckler was an inpatient at multiple facilities in Pennsylvania for his psychiatric disorder, including Holy Spirit Hospital, Phil Haven Hospital,Danville State Hospital, and the Harrisburg State Hospital. 12. Between June 2007 and September 2007, Lance was an inpatient resident at Holy Spirit Hospital,then transferred on September 28, 2007 to Danville State Hospital. 13. Lance was discharged from Danville State Hospital to a New Visions, Inc. group home in Shippensburg,Pennsylvania. 14. By November 2009, Lance was deemed sufficiently fit to live independently and leased HUD Section 8 housing at Episcopal Square Apartments in Shippensburg,Pennsylvania. 2 L a 15. At all relevant times, Lance Keckler had contracted with Defendant New Visions for services. Defendant, New Visions, was fully aware of all of Lance's psychiatric history and diagnoses. 16. Included in his diagnoses was selective mutism, which manifested as a symptom of his psychiatric disorder. 17. Mr. Keckler's selective mutism would wax and wane as his psychological disease determined. When he was symptomatic, he would withdraw and limit or refuse communication with others. 18. Defendant, New Visions, provides several levels of residential and social rehabilitation services for adults with chronic mental illnesses. 19. One level is community residential rehabilitation services (CRR), which is designed to provide intensive support to individuals to develop the practical skills needed for independent community living. 20. Lance Keckler had received Defendant New Visions' CRR services, and resided in a CRR group home between September 2008 and November 2009. 21. Defendant, New Visions, also provides supportive living services to individuals able to reside in community apartments. 22. Individuals receiving supportive living services are to work closely with a New Visions case manager to develop goals for independence. The case manager provides supportive services as necessary, including assistance with medications, transportation to medical appointments,and other assistance required to maintain independent living. 23. During all relevant times, Defendant Lauren James provided such services to Lance Keckler. The duties of a supporting living case manager are outlined in the New Visions, Inc.job description attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. 3 24. The role of supportive living case manager is to provide the assistance necessary for mentally challenged individuals to live independently and safely. • 25. The job description also includes administrative duties, such as the obligation to maintain client files which include pre-admission data, progress notes, emergency information, assessments, and goal plans. 26. Other administrative duties require precisely documenting time sheets and identifying time spent in direct consumer contact/activities. 27. The job description also requires that the supportive living case manager be responsible for ensuring that a supervisor is aware of daily schedule/routine and any client variances that may take place. 28. The job description also includes development of a rapport with landlords, and acting as an intermediary in landlord/consumer agreements and relationships. 29. The services provided by the supportive living case manager are similar or identical to many of the services provided by licensed social workers. 30. One of the services that Defendant Lauren James provided to Lance Keckler was to pack his psychiatric medications. Lauren James knew that these medications were vital to Lance's ability to function and live safely. 31. Defendant Lauren James also transported Lance to doctor appointments so that he could have blood tests for monitoring medication levels. 32. During the time that Lance Keckler received New Visions supportive living services,he continued to receive outpatient treatment at Holy Spirit Hospital's Behavioral Health Center. 33. Holy Spirit's records indicate that on November 18, 2010 an employee of the center spoke with Lauren James and records that Ms. James had noticed a "huge regression in 4 Lance over the past month. She wanted Dr. Sullivan to be aware prior to Lance's appointment on November 22, 2010. She says he is guarded; lack of facial expression; not participating in program; some aggressive behavior. She cannot be sure he is taking his meds . . ." 34. Prior to this time, Plaintiff Thomas Keckler had been in frequent contact with Lance Keckler,both via visitation and by email. 35. However, at other times in the past, Lance Keckler had refused to communicate with his father,Plaintiff Thomas Keckler. This was an expression of his selective mutism. 36. Late in the year 2010, Thomas Keckler also became concerned about the change in Lance's behavior, and concerned that Lance was not taking his medications. He expressed these concerns to Lauren James. 37. Plaintiff Thomas Keckler believes that expressing this concern caused Lance not to consent to his father' visits any further. 38. In January 2011, Lance refused to sign a consent form allowing Thomas Keckler to get information about his progress from Defendant,New Visions. 39. However, Lance did sign a consent form permitting Defendant New Visions to contact Thomas Keckler in case of an emergency. 40. This sequence of events was a typical and recurrent manifestation of Lance Keckler's mental illness. 41. Thomas Keckler was not able to communicate with his son directly during the year 2011 because of this exacerbation in his selective mutism. 42. Thomas Keckler did receive emails from Defendant, Lauren James, through January 26, 2011 which advised him that Lance continued to cooperate with Lauren and New Visions. 5 43. In an email dated February 1, 2011, Lance agreed that Lauren James could pack his medications. 44. Subsequent emails from Defendant, Lauren James, to Lance Keckler offered to take him for blood work, to see his psychiatrist, and to pack medications. These were not answered. 45. On April 8, 2011,Defendant Lauren James wrote to Lance Keckler indicating that if she did not hear from him on or before May 8, 2011, services through New Visions would be terminated. A copy of this letter is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B. 46. The last email from Defendant, Lauren James, to Lance Keckler was dated April 26,2011 indicating that he had a med check tomorrow with Dr. Sullivan at 1:20 p.m. Ms. James asked him if he planned to go and if he would like transportation 47. There was no response to this email,nor any further email to Lance Keckler from Lauren James. 48. Defendant, New Visions, did not have any further contact with Lance Keckler or made any attempt to contact him following the April 26,2011 email. 49. The records produced pursuant to Court Order by Defendant, New Visions, do not include any notes documenting times spent in direct consumer contact or any notes indicating that Defendant Lauren James' supervisor was aware of any variances in Mr. Keckler's behavior. The produced records do not document any communication between Defendant Lauren James and her supervisor about Mr. Keckler's case, including any progress notes, emergency information, or assessments. These should have been produced if they exist. 50. Other residents of the apartment complex noticed that Lance behaved oddly in 2011 and communicated this to complex employees. New Visions produced records containing 6 no indication that Lauren James communicated with the apartment complex employees about Lance Keckler, or that she learned what its employees had been told about Lance. 51. Defendant Lauren James did not notify Thomas Keckler that Lance had become totally incommunicative, that she was no longer packing his medications, that he was not going to his doctor, and not having his blood work done. 52. During 2011, Plaintiff Thomas Keckler knew that Lance was exhibiting the psychiatric symptoms of mutism. 53. Plaintiff Thomas Keckler tried to contact Lance, and tried to visit him, but was not able to make contact. 54. During this time, though, Plaintiff Thomas Keckler acted under the assumption that Defendant, New Visions, continued to provide services for his son and have contact with him. 55. On or about November 8,2011, an employee of the Episcopal Square Apartments where Lance resided entered Lance's apartment. 56. Lance was observed lying nude on the bathroom floor. 57. The police,medical team, and the coroner were called. 58. Lance was pronounced dead and the cause of death was listed as "inanition" and "mental illness"on his death certificate. 59. Lance died of starvation and may have been deceased for several weeks before being discovered. 60. Lance's starvation is a direct result of his mental illness. Plaintiff does not believe he was being treated at all with medications, or otherwise, for some time prior to his demise. 7 a • 61. Plaintiff's decedent's death and related damages as itemized below, are the direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant, Lauren James, acting within the course and scope of her employment for Defendant, New Visions, and the employees of Defendant, New Visions. COUNT I-NEGLIGENCE THOMAS KECKLER,AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LANCE KECKLER,AND THOMAS KECKLER,INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OWN RIGHT V.NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA,INC., T/DB/A NEW VISIONS,INC.AND LAUREN J.JAMES,MSW 62. Paragraphs 1 through 61 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 63. Defendants New Visions and Lauren James undertook to render services to Lance Keckler which they did or should have recognized as necessary for his protection and safety. 64. When Lance Keckler stopped communicating with Defendant, Lauren James, she knew, or should have known,that this was a manifestation of his severe mental illness. 65. Defendant Lauren James and other employees of New Visions knew, or should have known, that unless there was some direct intervention for the benefit of Lance Keckler, he would not receive the psychiatric medications necessary for him to function and that he would thereby be in grave danger of harm. 66. Because one of the manifestations of Mr. Keckler's illness was non- responsiveness, and because his non-responsiveness was historically correlated with self- harming behavior when his symptoms were acute, intensive follow-up was indicated when outreach efforts were unsuccessful. 67. A request should have been made for a visit by a police officer to check on Mr. Keckler's status. 8 e e 68. Defendant Lauren James or other New Visions employees should also availed themselves of the emergency consent which Lance had provided for the benefit of Thomas Keckler and informed Thomas Keckler that Lance had become unresponsive. 69. There is no evidence that Defendant, Lauren James, or any other employee of Defendant, New Visions, alerted either the local authorities to Lance Keckler's foreseeable peril, or notified Plaintiff Thomas Keckler of his son's status. 70. Had that been done, the police would have discovered Lance Keckler's psychiatric emergency in time to obtain medical and psychiatric intervention, thereby saving his life. 71. If Thomas Keckler had been informed of his son's situation, he would have contacted the police even if Defendant, Lauren James, or some other employee of Defendant, New Visions, declined to do so. Lance's psychiatrist could also have been contacted. Lance's commitment would have been considered. 72. There is no evidence that Defendant, Lauren James, informed her supervisor of Lance Keckler's deteriorating condition, or availed herself of pertinent information which apartment complex employees knew about Lance. 73. Had the supervisor been appropriately apprised of Lance's psychological deterioration, either directly by Lauren James or through appropriate record keeping, intervention in time to save Mr. Keckler's life could have taken place. 74. The Defendants' failure to exercise reasonable care increased the risk of Lance Keckler's demise. 75. The harm was suffered because Lance and Thomas Keckler relied upon Defendants New Visions and Lauren James to properly discharge their duties with respect to providing critical services to Lance. 9 • 76. Plaintiff's rights arise under Restatement (Second) of Torts §323, as adopted by Pennsylvania Courts, and under other provisions of Pennsylvania law. COUNT II-NEGLIGENCE THOMAS KECKLER,AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LANCE KECKLER,AND THOMAS KECKLER,INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OWN RIGHT V.NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA,INC. T/DB/A NEW VISIONS,INC.AND LAUREN J.JAMES,MSW 77. Paragraphs 1 though 61 and Count I of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 78. Defendant, New Visions, contracted to provide critical supportive services to a impaired individual, Lance Keckler, including assistance with medications, doctor's appointments, and related medical testing, knowing he was not able to provide these for himself while living independently in HUD Section 8 housing. 79. The Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to provide these services and secure Lance's safety. 80. The Defendants discontinued services although they knew, or should have known, that by so doing, they left Lance Keckler in a worse position than when they initially assumed the responsibility to provide said services. 81. Plaintiff's rights arise under Restatement (Second) of Torts §324, as adopted by Pennsylvania Courts, and under other provisions of Pennsylvania law. COUNT III—NEGLIGENCE PER SE THOMAS KECKLER,AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LANCE KECKLER,AND THOMAS KECKLER,INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OWN RIGHT.V.NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA,INC., T/DB/A NEW VISIONS,INC.AND LAUREN J.JAMES,MSW 82. Paragraphs 1 through 61 and Counts I of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 10 i e • 83. At all relevant times, Defendants Lauren James and New Visions, Inc., provided social services to Lance Keckler. 84. Pursuant to 49 Pa. Code §47.72, responsibilities to clients/patients, services to a client may be terminated only after giving careful consideration to factors affecting the professional relationship, and making an effort to minimize possible adverse effects. If an interruption or termination of services is anticipated, notification and referral for continued services shall be provided to the client/patient. 85. Defendant, New Visions, terminated services to Lance Keckler without giving adequate consideration to the consequences of said termination. 86. The Defendants' termination of services in violation of the aforementioned Code Section constitutes negligence per se. CLAIM I—SURVIVAL ACTION THOMAS KECKLER,AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LANCE KECKLER,AND THOMAS KECKLER,INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OWN RIGHT V. NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA,INC. T/DB/A NEW VISIONS,INC.AND LAUREN J.JAMES,MSW 87. Paragraphs 1 through 61 and Counts I through III of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 88. Plaintiff, Thomas Keckler,brings this action on behalf of the Estate of Lance Keckler, deceased,by and through virtue of the Act of 1976,July 9 P.L. 586 No. 142, §2,42 Pa. C.S.A.§8302. 89. Defendants,New Visions of South Central PA, Inc.,t/d/b/a New Visions, Inc. and Lauren J. James,MSW, are liable to the Estate for injuries and damages resulting in Lance's death as set forth herein. Plaintiff,Thomas Keckler, as Administrator of the Estate of Lance Keckler, deceased claims on behalf of said Estate, all damages suffered by said Estate by 11 reason of the death of Lance Keckler,the pain and suffering Lance Keckler underwent prior to his death, and for all damages properly recoverable under 42 Pa. C.S.A.§8302. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Thomas Keckler, as Administrator of the Estate of Lance Keckler, and Thomas Keckler, individually and in his own right, demands judgment against Defendants,New Visions of South Central PA,Inc.,t/d/b/a New Visions,Inc. and Lauren J. James, MSW, for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. CLAIM II—WRONGFUL DEATH THOMAS KECKLER,AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LANCE KECKLER,AND THOMAS KECKLER,INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OWN RIGHT V.NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA,INC., T/DB/A NEW VISIONS,INC.AND LAUREN J.JAMES,MSW 90. Paragraphs 1 through 61, Counts I through III of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 91. Plaintiff, Thomas Keckler,is the father of decedent, Lance Keckler, and is entitled to bring this wrongful death claim pursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. §8301(b). 92. Decedent, Lance Keckler, did not bring an action for his injuries during his lifetime. 93. Persons entitled by law to recover damages for such wrongful death and the relationship to Lance Keckler are as follows: (a) Thomas Keckler, father; (b) Karen J. Faust,mother. 94. At the time of his death,Lance Keckler was 29 years old. 95. As a direct and proximate result of the death of Lance Keckler, Wrongful Death beneficiaries have suffered a pecuniary loss and have been, and in the future will continue to be, 12 deprived of Lance Keckler's companionship, contribution and services, support and comfort, for all of which damages are claimed. 96. Plaintiff, Thomas Keckler,hereby makes claims for all damages to which they are entitled by virtue of Wrongful Death Act,42 Pa. C.S.A. §8301. 97. As a result of the death of Lance Keckler, deceased, Plaintiff Thomas Keckler has incurred funeral,burial, and related expenses, as well as expenses for the administration of Lance Keckler's Estate, and claim is made therefor. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Thomas Keckler, as Administrator of the Estate of Lance Keckler, and Thomas Keckler, individual and in his own right, demands judgment against Defendants, New Visions of South Central PA, Inc., t/d/b/a New Visions, Inc. and Lauren J. James, MSW, for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00),exclusive of interest and costs,and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. Respectfully submitted, NAVITSKY,OLSON&WISNESKI LLP J•'-p i Melillo, Esquire 'r I.D. No. 26211 Duane S.Barrick,Esquire PA I.D.No. 77400 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg,PA 17110 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: I I ,a4 13 c „ c , • VERIFICATION I, Thomas Keckler, verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that this verification is made subject to the provisions of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to the unworn falsification to authorities. Thomas Keckler Date: /// / / v/..1 • • CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,Lois E. Stauffer,an employee of the law firm of Navitsky, Olson&Wisneski LLP hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint was served upon the following persons by first-class United States mail,postage prepaid on November 22,2013 as follows: James A.Doherty,Jr. Scanlon,Howley&Doherty,P.C. 1000 Bank Towers 321 Spruce Street Scranton,PA 18503 Counsel for Defendants "4)16-t.W <E- Lois E. Stauffer • • • EXHIBIT "A" NEW VISIONS INC. JOB DESCRIPTION Position Title: Supported Living Casemanager Part-time Full-time X Total hours per week:40 Daily Shift: varied schedule to include evenings and weekends I. Position Definition The Supported Living Casemanager will assist supported living consumers in acquiring and maintaining housing, and assist consumers in using existing community resources with the goal of integrating with the community. II. Job Responsibilities A.Consumer Interactions 1. Face to face contact with each consumer at least one time each week. Daily contact can be made when need face to face or through phone contact. 2. Assist consumer with development of ADL's as needed including but not limited to: budgeting, menu planning,grocery shopping, laundry and housekeeping. 3. Weekly apartment check to ensure they are cleaned,orderly and free of any health hazards. 4. Supervise consumers in medication management and total mental health care by monitoring consumer weekly medication packing and monthly medication count. 5. Maintain a first hand,working knowledge of each consumer's financial and medical status. 6. Regularly review with the consumer, goals,progress on goals, and other areas for development identified by the consumer. 7. Assist consumer with compliance of the lease agreement,to include timely payment of rent,maintenance of apartment and noise control. 8. Provide consumer transportation for community integration, medical and psychiatric appointments, grocery shopping, laundry and any other service needs when public or other transportation is not available. 9. Attend community events with consumers so that they may have an avenue to assist them to integrate into the community. 10.Assist consumer with processing of entitlements,to include SSD, SSI,Public Assistance,etc. 11.Immediately report unusual incidents to the immediate supervisor. 12.Ascertain that each consumer has adequate identification and information regarding their right to vote. B. Housing/Community Resource Development 1. Develop familiarity of all community resources. • 2. Develop rapport with landlords, and act as an intermediary in landlord/consumer agreements and relationships. 3. Develop and maintain an effective working relationship with allied agencies to ensure cooperation,coordination,and understanding. C.Physical Site Safety 1. Train all consumers in health and safety procedures. 2. Provide consumers with on-site training of location of fire exits,and emergency phone numbers. 3. Check for any safety hazards and recommend corrections. D.Administrative • 1. Precisely document time sheets,identifying times spent in direct consumer contact/activities. 2. Be responsible for ensuring that supervisor is aware of daily schedule/routine and any variances that may take place. 3,. Be an active participant in program and interdisciplinary teams. 4. Maintain consumer files that include preadmission data,progress notes, emergency information,assessments, and goal plans. 5. On-call for emergency/crisis intervention biweekly. 6. Meet with supervisor weekly. 7. Other duties as assigned. III. Accountability Reports directly to the Residential Director. IV. Qualifications Bachelor's Degree in human services or related field, I year of experience in the mental health field and demonstrated knowledge of mental health, and ability to work well with others.A valid drivers license is required. Skills: Good oral and written communications skills. Self-motivation EXHIBIT "B" c • NevvVisxons Promoting mental health through housing, socialization and education. April 8,2011 Lance Keckler 101 N. Prince St. Apt.201 Shippensburg, PA 17257 Dear Lance, Over the last few months,you have not utilized New Visions Supportive Living Program. This letter is to notify you that you have 30 days to notify me if you want to continue having Supported Living Services through New Visions,Inc. I have attempted to reach you for the past month with no success. I have tried to reach you by e-mail as I always have and I have physically gone to your apartment each week. You have not returned my e-mails or acknowledged your door calls. If we do not hear you on or before May 8, 2011,your services through New Visions will be terminated. I thank you for your time and hope to hear from you. • Sin - -ly, 4 Laure lIP ames Residential Case Manager,New Visions • • • New Visions Inc. 24 Hollar Avenue, #5 Shippensburg, PA 17257 (717)530-1300 Voice (7171530-1338 Pnr • tJ,'# HE P'RO7 HONo l,Ai 2013 DEC 23 AN 10: 33 LAND COUNTY SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHER M y Attorneys for Defendants By: James A. Doherty,Jr., Esquire, ID 9 �'vA IA New Visions of South Central PA, Inc. Y q By: Kevin C. Hayes,Esquire, ID#202486 t/d/b/a New Visions, Inc. and 217 Wyoming Avenue Lauren J. James, MSW Scranton, PA 18503 Telephone: (570)346-7651 THOMAS KECKLER, as Administrator of IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS the Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY THOMAS KECKLER, individually and in PENNSYLVANIA his own right, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION —PROFESSIONAL v. LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL BY 12 DEMANDED NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA, INC., t/d/b/a NEW VISIONS, INC. and LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW, Defendants NO. 13-550 CIVIL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a copy of Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint and Praecipe for Argument were duly served upon counsel for the Plaintiff by mailing the same to him at his address of record by United States First Class Mail on the 20th day of December, 2013 as follows: Joseph M. Melillo, Esquire Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. /ó ( /�By: r James A. Doherty, Jr. Kevin C. Hayes 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 (570) 346-7651 Attorneys for Defendants C,14 - PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate) --� -,per © ; TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within matter fort nei --& , Argument Court.) February 2014 Argument Court Zr- N c� CAPTION OF CASE 54- (entire caption must be stated in full) 'Z© Q Thomas Keckler, as Admin. Estate of Lance Keckler,&Thomas Keckler, india vs. New Visions of South Central PA, Inc., t/d/b/ No. 13-550 CIVIL Term 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Defendants'Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs Complaint 2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiffs: Joseph M. Melillo, Esq., Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski, LLp (Name and Address) 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303, Harrisburg, PA 17110 (b) for defendants: Kevin C. Hayes, Esq., Scanlon, Howley & Doherty, PC (Name and Address) 217 Wyoming Avenue, Scranton, PA 18503 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: February 14,2014 //‘1._ j.37 -• Signs ure /óri G' es Print your name Defendants Date: December 20, 2013 Attorney for INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Original and two copies of all briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR(not the Prothonotary) before argument. 2.The moving party shall file and serve their brief 14 days prior to argument. 3.The responding party shall file their brief 7 days prior to argument. 4. If argument is continued new briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR(not the Prothonotary) after the case is relisted. C tpalQ3 4-0)qouictio IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS - PRO � A CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYVLANIA 21114 J �� NO:15, 1 THOMAS KECKLER, as Administrator : ti M 1.• 33 of the Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and : PEtgL COU P THOMAS KECKLER, individually and No. 13-550 Civil Nib in his own right, • Plaintiff • CIVIL ACTION—PROFESSIONAL v. • LIABILITY ACTION NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL : PA. INC.,t/d/b/a NEW VISIONS, INC. : and LAUREN J. JAMES,MSW, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Thomas Keckler, as Administrator of the Estate of Lance Keckler, Deceased and Thomas Keckler, individually and in his own right,by and through his attorneys, Navitsky, Olson&Wisneski LLP, to hereby file this Answer to Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint as follows: 1-4. Admitted. By way of further response, the Rule to File a Complaint was not received until October 30. The Complaint was filed by a mutually agreed date. 5. Admitted. By way of further response, Defendants state a conclusion of law to which no response is required. The Complaint also speaks for itself, the legal significance and sufficiency of its averments will be discussed in Plaintiff's responsive brief. 6. Denied. Defendants state a conclusion of law to which no response is required. II. 7-11. Defendants state a conclusion of law to which no response is required. Plaintiff will address the legal issues raised by Defendants in his responsive brief. The significance and sufficiency of the Complaint's averments will be discussed in said brief. III. 12-22. Defendants state conclusions of law to which no response is required. Plaintiff will respond to the arguments Defendants make concerning the law, as applied to the allegations set out in the Complaint, in his responsive brief. The significance and sufficiency of the Complaint's averments will be discussed in said brief. IV. 23-26. Denied. Defendants state conclusions of law to which no response is required. Plaintiff will respond to Defendants' legal arguments in his responsive brief 27-29. Denied. Plaintiff asserts in the Complaint that Defendant James either had a social worker license or was in the process of obtaining one. The impact of this distinction upon Plaintiffs right of recovery constitutes a conclusion of law to which no further response is required. Plaintiff will meet Defendants' arguments in his responsive brief V. 30-38. Defendants state a conclusion of law to which no response is required. The allegations of the Complaint speaks for themselves, and Plaintiff will discuss the sufficiency of these allegations in light of his theory of legal recovery and pleading requirements in his responsive brief VI. 39-42. Defendants state a conclusion of law to which no response is required. It is admitted that medical records are not attached to the Complaint, but denied that pleading rules require their attachment. 2 VII. 43-47. Defendants state a conclusion of law to which no response is required. Respectfully submitted, NAVITSKY, OLSON & WISNESKI LLP Weil,e Joi.h Melillo, Esquire I.2. No. 26211 Duane S. Barrick, Esquire I.D. No. 77400 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/541-9205 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: January 30, 2014 3 VERIFICATION I, Joseph Melillo, verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that this verification is made subject to the provisions of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to the unsworn falsification to authorities. 0 027 Mai /Joseph M. Melillo )4,n.Date: 3v 02 °I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law firm of Navitsky, Olson&Wisneski LLP hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Answer to Preliminary Objections was served upon the following persons by email and first-class United States mail,postage prepaid on January 30, 2014 as follows: Kevin C. Hayes, Esquire Scanlon, Howley&Doherty,P.C. 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton,PA 18503 Counsel for Defendants omitty, `rilk■TI Lois E. Stauffer 2011:FEB --44t4 P 2: I ! 1rL �? CUNE,� PENNS YL4'AN!A SCANLON,HOWLEY&DOHERTY,P.C. Attorneys for Defendants By: James A.Doherty,Jr.,Esquire,ID#23829 New Visions of South Central PA,Inc. By: Kevin C.Hayes,Esquire,ID#202486 t/d/b/a New Visions,Inc.and 217 Wyoming Avenue Lauren J.James,MSW Scranton,PA 18503 Telephone: (570)346-7651 THOMAS KECKLER, as Administrator of IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS the Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY THOMAS KECKLER, individually and in PENNSYLVANIA his own right, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION PROFESSIONAL v. LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL BY 12 DEMANDED NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA, INC., t/d/b/a NEW VISIONS, INC. and LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW, Defendants NO. 13-550 CIVIL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a copy of Defendants' Brief in Support of Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint was duly served upon counsel for the Plaintiff by mailing the same to him and the Court Administrator for Cumberland County at their addresses of record by United States First Class Mail on the 30h day of January, 2014 as follows: Joseph M. Melillo, Esquire Navitsky, Olson& Wisneski LLP 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 �1 Melissa H. Calvanelli District Court Administrator 1 Courthouse Square, Suite 301 Carlisle, PA 17013 SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. By: James A.Doherty, Jr. Kevin C. Hayes 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 (570) 346-7651 Attorneys for Defendants #3. THOMAS KECKLER, as : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Administrator of the Estate of : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, LANCE KECKLER, and : PENNSYLVANIA THOMAS KECKLER, Individually and in his own right, . Plaintiff • V. • • NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH : NO. 2013 —0550 CIVIL TERM CENTRAL PA, INC., t/d/b/a NEW VISIONS, INC. and • LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW, • Defendants • IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS BEFORE GUIDO,EBERT, PECK,JJ. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 21ST day of FEBRUARY, 2014, after reviewing the briefs filed by the parties in su pp ort of their respective positions and having heard argument thereon, Defendants' Preliminary Objections are OVERRULED. They are directed to file an answer to the complaint within twenty (20) days. By the Court, Edward E. Guido, J. oseph M. Melillo, Esquire 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, Pa. 17110 evin C. Hayes, Esquire rn ,z w 217 Wyoming Avenue = rA - - r Scranton, Pa. 18503 c./)c N.) ;-� rte- ! ) ,cam, Court Administrator C ►:A . C'w :sld CD 1. sln4L ect. afa SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. By: James A. Doherty, Jr., Esquire, ID #23829 By: Kevin C. Hayes, Esquire, ID #202486 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 Telephone: (570) 346-7651 Attorneys for Defendants New Visions of South Central PA, Inc. t/d/b/a New Visions, Inc. and Lauren J. James, MSW THOMAS KECKLER, as Administrator of the Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and THOMAS KECKLER, individually and in his own right, Plaintiff v. NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA, INC., t/d/b/a NEW VISIONS, INC. and LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW, Defendants TO THE WITHIN-NAMED PARTY: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION — PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL BY 12 DEMANDED NOTICE NO. 13-550 CIVIL You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. By: James A. Doherty, Jr. Kevin C. Hayes 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 (570) 346-7651 Attorneys for Defendants SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. By: James A. Doherty, Jr., Esquire, ID #23829 By: Kevin C. Hayes, Esquire, ID #202486 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 Telephone: (570) 346-7651 Attorneys for Defendants New Visions of South Central PA, Inc. t/d/b/a New Visions, Inc. and Lauren J. James, MSW THOMAS KECKLER, as Administrator of the Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and THOMAS KECKLER, individually and in his own right, Plaintiff v. NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA, INC., t/d/b/a NEW VISIONS, INC. and LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION — PROFE5.-,VONAL LIABILITY ACTIOTI JURY TRIAL BY 12 DEW/1'#- NDD f--- - 7) -- '-' r 1 c_1,-- r— NO. 13-550 CIVFC c) — (...-- — .p- k..,o =1.• ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA, INC., t/d/b/a NEW VISIONS, INC. and LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT '1 NOW come the Defendants, New Visions of South Central PA, Inc., t/d/b/a New Visions, Inc. and Lauren J. James, MSW (hereinafter "Answering Defendants"), by and through their counsel, Scanlon, Howley & Doherty, P.C., and answer Plaintiff's Complaint as follows: 1. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information to sufficiently form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial. 2. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information to sufficiently form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant, Lauren J. James, is an adult Individual residing in Newville, Pennsylvania who was formerly employed by New Visions of South Central PA, Inc., t/d/b /a New Visions Inc. It is unknown what "all relevant times" of references in the paragraph and, as such, the remaining averments contained in this Paragraph are denied and strict proof is demanded at trial. 5. Admitted. 6. Denied. The Plaintiff fails to define "all relevant times" which he references in Paragraph 6 and as such the averment contained in Paragraph 6 is denied, as stated, and strict proof thereof is demanded. 7. Denied. Said averment calls for a conclusion of law for which no response is required. If said response was required the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is only admitted that records indicate that Lance Keckler was born on June 24, 1984. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the remaining averments, and strict proof is demanded at trial. 10. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment and strict proof is demanded at trial. 11. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment and strict proof is demanded at trial. 12. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 13. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 14. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 2 15. Denied. The said averments call for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof thereof demanded at trial. 16. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the proof of the said averments and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 17. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the proof of the said averments and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 18. Admitted. 19. Admitted. 20. Admitted. 21. Admitted. 22. Admitted. 23. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that Defendant Lauren James provided services to Lance Keckier. The remaining averments contained in Paragraph 23 are denied as Plaintiff has failed to define "all relevant times" and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 24. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that a role of a supportive living case manager is to provide the assistance necessary for mentally challenged individuals to live independently and safely. It is strictly denied that this is the only role of a supportive living case manager and, strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 25. Denied. The Plaintiff has failed to describe what specific "job description" he is referencing in Paragraph 25 and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 26. Denied. The Plaintiff has failed to describe what specific job description he is referencing in Paragraph 25 and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 27. Denied. The Plaintiff has failed to describe what specific job description he is referencing 3 in Paragraph 27 and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. The same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. 28. Denied. The Plaintiff has failed to describe what specific job description he is referencing in Paragraph 28 and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. The same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. 29. Denied. The said averment calls for a conclusion of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. 30. Denied. Defendant Lauren James provided Mr. Keckler with supervision as he packed his own medications. Defendant Lauren James could not administer medications and could only provide supervision with self - administration and packing in hopes that Mr. Keckler would continue the practice independently. 31. Admitted. 32. Admitted. 33. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 33 are denied as they purport to characterize the records of Holy Spirit Hospital, which are writings and speak for themselves. The averments contained in Paragraph 33 are also denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. 34. Denied. Plaintiff has failed to define "prior to this time" and, as such, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial. 35. Denied. The Plaintiff has failed to define "other times in the past" and, as such, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial. 36. Denied. The Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averments, and strict proof is demanded at trial. 37. Denied. The Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averments, and strict proof is demanded at trial. 38. Admitted. 39. Admitted. 40. Denied. The Plaintiff has failed to define "this sequence of events" and, as such, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averments, and strict proof is demanded at trial. 41. Denied. The Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averments, and strict proof is demanded at trial. 42. Denied. The Plaintiff has failed to reference the specific e-mails which he references in Paragraph 41 and, as such, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. 43. Admitted. 44. Denied. Plaintiff failed to define "subsequent e-mail from Defendant" or attach the same in compliance with Pa. R.C.P. 1019(i) and, as such, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial. 45. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 45 are denied on grounds that they purport to characterize an April 8, 2011 correspondence from Defendant Lauren James, which is a writing and speaks for itself. 46. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 45 are denied on grounds that they purport to characterize an April 8, 2011 correspondence from Defendant Lauren James, which is a writing and speaks for itself. 5 47. Denied. Plaintiff fails to define "this e- mail" which he references in this Paragraph 47 and, as Such, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 48. Denied. Defendant Lauren James wrote to Mr. Keckler on May 10, 2011 and advised him that all support living services by New Visions were terminated as of May 8, 2011. 49. Denied. Said averments call for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. 50. Denied. The Plaintiff failed to identify the "other residents" which he references in Paragraph 50 and, as such, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment and strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. The remaining averments contained in Paragraph 50 are denied as they call for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. By way of further answer, Defendant James did not have a signed consent from Mr. Keckler to communicate anything about his treatment with the Episcopal Square Apartment employees. 51. Denied. It is specifically denied whether Lauren James had information that Mr. Keckler had totally become incommunicative, that he was no longer packing his medications, that he was not going to his doctor, or that he was not receiving blood work. By way of further answer, it is averred that Defendant Lauren James did not have authorization from Mr. Keckler to communicate any information relative to his treatment or condition with the Plaintiff. 52. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial. 53. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial. 6 54. Denied. The Plaintiff has failed to define "during this time" which he references in Paragraph 54 and, as such, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial. 55. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial. 56. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial. 57. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial. 58. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial. 59. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial. 60. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial. 61. Denied. The said averments call for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. COUNT I — NEGLIGENCE THOMAS KECKLER, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LANCE KECKLER, AND THOMAS KECKLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OWN RIGHT V. NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA, INC., T/DB /A NEW VISIONS, INC. AND LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW 62. The Answering Defendants incorporate their responses to Paragraphs 1 through 61, inclusive, as if the same were fully set forth herein. 7 63. Denied. The said averment calls for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. 64. Denied. The said averment calls for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. By way of further answer, Mr. Keckler's participation and interaction with other people were always sporadic and inconsistent. Specifically, it was not uncommon for Mr. Keckler to withdraw and discontinue communications with the Answering Defendants and his family. 65. Denied. The said averment calls for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. 66. Denied. The said averment calls for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. 67. Denied. The said averment calls for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. By way of further answer, the police were not notified regarding the discontinued services as Mr. Keckler's lack of communication with the program was not an indication of "great harm" but a continued pattern of his behavior. 68. Denied. The said averment calls for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. By way of further answer, the Answering Defendants did not notify the Plaintiff of their decisions to discontinue services as the only consent that was signed by Mr. Keckler was for emergency 8 situations. The Answering Defendants did not view Mr. Keckler's lack of participation as an emergency, but again as a pattern of his behavior. 69. Denied. The said averment calls for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. By way of further answer, see responses to Paragraphs 67 and 68. 70. Denied. The said averment calls for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. 71. Denied. The said averment calls for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. By way of further answer, Mr. Keckler was not on a commitment at the time he was in the community. 72. Denied. The said averment calls for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. By way of further answer, Defendant Lauren James' supervisor was aware and actively involved in the supervision and support of Mr. Keckler. 73. Denied. The said averment calls for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. 74. Denied. The said averment calls for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. 9 75. Denied. The said averment calls for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. 76. Denied. The said averment calls for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. By way of further answer, it is specifically denied that the Restatement (Second) of Torts §323 is applicable to this action or to the rights of Mr. Keckler in this case. COUNT II — NEGLIGENCE THOMAS KECKLER, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LANCE KECKLER, AND THOMAS KECKLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OWN RIGHT V. NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA, INC., T/D/B /A NEW VISIONS, INC. AND LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW 77. The Answering Defendants incorporate their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 76, inclusive, as if the same were fully set forth herein. 78. Denied. The said averment calls for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. 79. Denied. The said averment calls for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. 80. Denied. The said averment calls for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. 81. Denied. The said averment calls for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof 10 demanded at trial. By way of further answer, it is specifically that the Restatement (Second) of Torts §324 is applicable to this case or is designed to protect the rights or interests of Mr. Keckler in this action. COUNT III — NEGLIGENCE PER SE THOMAS KECKLER, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LANCE KECKLER, AND THOMAS KECKLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OWN RIGHT V. NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA, INC., T/DB /A NEW VISIONS, INC. AND LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW 82. The Answering Defendants incorporate their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 81, inclusive, as if the same were fully set forth herein. 83. Denied. Plaintiffs have failed to identify, "at all relevant times" and "social services" as referenced in Paragraph 83 and, as such, the Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information to sufficiently form an opinion as to the truth of said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial. 84. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 84 are denied as they purport to characterize 49 Pa. Code §47.72 which is a writing that speaks for itself. It is specifically denied that this regulation applied to the Answering Defendants as the Answering Defendants were not licensed social workers or licensed clinical social workers at any time prior to Mr. Keckler ending his relationship with the Answering Defendants. Specifically, Defendant Lauren James became a licensed social worker on August 17, 2011, or four (4) months after the Answering Defendants discontinued services to Mr. Keckler. Since the Answering Defendants were not "licensees ", this code of conduct does not apply to them with regard to their engagement with Mr. Keckler. 85. Denied. The said averment calls for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. 11 86. Denied. The said averment calls for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. By way of further answer, see Answering Defendants response to Paragraph 84. COUNT I — SURVIVAL ACTION THOMAS KECKLER, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LANCE KECKLER, AND THOMAS KECKLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OWN RIGHT V. NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA, INC., T/DB /A NEW VISIONS, INC. AND LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW 87. The Answering Defendants incorporate their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 86, inclusive, as if the same were fully set forth herein. 88. Denied. The said averment calls for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. 89. Denied. The said averment calls for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendants demand Judgment in their favor. COUNT II — WRONGFUL DEATH THOMAS KECKLER, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LANCE KECKLER, AND THOMAS KECKLER, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN HIS OWN RIGHT V. NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA, INC., T/DB /A NEW VISIONS, INC. AND LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW 90. The Answering Defendants incorporate their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 89, inclusive, as if the same were fully set forth herein. 12 91. Denied. The said averment calls for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. 92. Admitted. 93. Denied. The said averment calls for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. 94. Admitted. 95. Denied. The said averment calls for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. 96. Denied. The said averment calls for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. 97. Denied. The said averment calls for conclusions of law or ultimate fact for which no response is required. If said response was required, the same is denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at trial. WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendants demand judgment in their favor. NEW MATTER 98. The Answering Defendants incorporate their answers to Paragraphs 1 through 97, inclusive, as if the same were fully set forth herein. 99. Plaintiff's cause of action is barred under the applicable statute of limitations. 100. Plaintiff's cause of action is barred under the Doctrine of Assumption of Risk. 13 101. Plaintiff's cause of action is barred in that if the accident or resulting injuries occurred in the manner outlined in the Plaintiffs Complaint, then the accident or resulting injuries were caused by the conduct of another individual /entity other than the Answering Defendants. 102. Plaintiff's cause of action should be dismissed as the Plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts establishing the Answering Defendants' duty of care to the Plaintiff /Decedent, Lance Keckler. 103. Plaintiff's cause of action should be dismissed as the Plaintiff cannot establish liability against the Answering Defendants under the Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 323 and 324. . 104. Plaintiff's cause of action should be dismissed because 49 Pa. Code § 47.72 did not govern the Answering Defendants at any time relevant to this case. 105. The Answering Defendants aver that there was no negligence on their part; or in the alternative, in the event that it is judicially determined that there was negligence on the part of the Answering Defendants, the same is not a proximate or substantial factor for any injury alleged by the Plaintiff. 106. The Answering Defendants aver that their actions were within the standard of care of similarly situated social service providers. 107. The Answering Defendants aver that if Plaintiff sustained any injury, same was not due or caused by any act or failure to act on the part of the Answering Defendants, but was caused by Plaintiff/Decedent's own conduct in failing to follow the advice of the Answering Defendants and/or caused by other individuals not within the Answering Defendants' control. 108. The Answering Defendants aver that the acts or omissions of others and not the Answering Defendants constituted intervening and/or superseding causes of the injuries and/or damages alleged to have been sustained by the Plaintiff; the Answering Defendants, therefore, cannot be held liable for the alleged injuries of the Plaintiff pursuant to Pennsylvania law. 109. Plaintiff's claim may be barred, or the amounts recoverable therefrom reduced by operation of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 7201, et seq. 14 110. The Answering Defendants aver that they acted reasonably and within the standard of care. 111. The Answering Defendants aver that insofar as the Answering Defendants elected treatment modality which is recognized as proper but may differ from another appropriate treatment modality, that said Answering Defendant raises the "Two Different Schools of Thought" defense. 112. The Answering Defendants aver that Plaintiff's claims are limited and/or barred in part or in total by the theories of collateral estoppel, res judicata and/or release to the extent that the same apply to this action. WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendants that the Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. By: a Y• James A. Doherty, Jr. Kevin C. Hayes 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 (570) 346 -7651 Attorneys for Defendants 15 VERIFICATION I, Craig Cordell, Executive Director of New Visions, Inc. verify that I have read the foregoing Answer and New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint, and that insofar as it is based on information within my own knowledge, it is true and correct. Insofar as it is based upon the expertise of counsel, I have relied on counsel in making this Verification. The language contained in the foregoing document is that of counsel, and not my own. I understand that this Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 pertaining to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 3 to -t t By: Craig ordell VERIFICATION I, Lauren James, verify that I have read the foregoing Answer and New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint, and that insofar as it is based on information within my own knowledge, it is true and correct. Insofar as it is based upon the expertise of counsel, I have relied on counsel in making this Verification. The language contained in the foregoing document is that of counsel, and not my own. I understand that this Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 pertaining to unsworn falsification to authorities. By: Date: 311.611A SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. By: James A. Doherty, Jr., Esquire, ID #23829 By: Kevin C. Hayes, Esquire, ID #202486 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 Telephone: (570) 346-7651 Attorneys for Defendants New Visions of South Central PA, Inc. t/d/b/a New Visions, Inc. and Lauren J. James, MSW THOMAS KECKLER, as Administrator of the Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and THOMAS KECKLER, individually and in his own right, Plaintiff v. NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA, INC., t/d/b/a NEW VISIONS, INC. and LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION — PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION cf.4 JURY TRIAL BY 12 DEMAND NO. 13-550 CIVIL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a copy of Defendants New Visions of South Central PA, Inc., t/d/b/a New Visions, Inc. and Lauren J. James, MSW's Answer and New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint were duly served upon counsel for the Plaintiff by mailing the same to him at his below address of record by First Class Mail on this 10th day of March, 2014: r-sD "JP Joseph M. Melillo, Esquire Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. By: James A. Doherty, Jr. Kevin C. Hayes 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 (570) 346-7651 Attorneys for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYVLANIA 20k MAR 31 PE I.35 THOMAS KECKLER, as Administrator • CUMEERLAND of the Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and PENNSYLVANIA THOMAS KECKLER, individually and • No. 13 -550 Civil in his own right, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION — PROFESSIONAL v. LIABILITY ACTION NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL : PA. INC., t /d/b /a NEW VISIONS, INC. : and LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Thomas Keckler, as Administrator of the Estate of Lance Keckler, and Thomas Keckler, individually and in his own right, by and through his attorneys, Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP, and hereby enters the following Reply to the New Matter of Defendants to Plaintiff's Complaint: 98. No response is required. 99. Denied. Defendants state a conclusion of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, Plaintiff's action was initiated within the time limitations prescribed by law. 100. Denied. Defendants state a conclusion of law. By way of further response, Plaintiff did not knowingly and intelligently assume the risk of Defendants' negligence or misconduct. 101. Denied. Defendants state a conclusion of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, Plaintiff's injuries were caused by Defendant's negligence for the reasons set out in the Complaint and incorporated herein. ti. 102. Denied. Defendants state a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 103. Denied. Defendants state a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 104. Denied. Defendants state a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 105. Denied. Defendants state a conclusion of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, Defendants are negligent for the reasons set out in the Complaint, and the negligence caused Plaintiff's harm as set out in the Complaint, all of which is incorporated herein in by reference. 106. Denied. Defendants state a conclusion of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, Defendants' conduct was not within the standard of care for similarly situated social service providers for the reasons set out in Plaintiff's Complaint. 107. Denied. Defendants state a conclusion of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, Plaintiff's injuries were caused by the acts and failure to act of Defendants as stated in Plaintiff's Complaint, and incorporated herein by reference. 108. Denied. Defendants state a conclusion of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, the negligent acts set out against Defendants constitute the proximate cause of Plaintiff's harm. 109. Denied. Defendants state a conclusion of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, it is not believed that the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act has any applicability in this case. 110. Denied. Defendants state a conclusion of law to which no response is required. Defendants acted negligently for the reasons set out in Plaintiff's Complaint, and incorporated hereto. 111. Denied. Defendants state a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 2 k. 112. Denied. Defendants state a conclusion of law to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Thomas Keckler, respectfully requests that the New Matter of Defendants be dismissed, and that judgment be entered in favor of the Plaintiff. Date: March 28, 2013 Respectfully submitted, NAV %TSKY, OLSON & WISNESKI LLP 1. • Jo h� . Melillo I. f No. 26211 Duane S. Barrick I.D. No. 77400 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 541 -9205 Counsel for Plaintiff AFFIDAVIT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : ss COUNTY OF DAUPHIN I, Joseph M. Melillo, Esquire, being duly sworn according to law, depose and say that I am counsel for Plaintiff and that I am authorized to make this Affidavit on behalf of said Plaintiff, and that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer to New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief or, are true and correct based on the information obtained from the Plaintiff and from reports and records. Date: 03P4/ Sworn to and subscribed before me this 041 day of W10,xGh Notary Public My Commission expires: P/-Joseph M. Melillo , 2014. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NOTARIAL SEAt took E. Stauthw, Notary Public Son uohauto Twp., Dauphin Camay M Co mrlstlon Ex Moth 3* 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lois E. Stauffer, an employee of the law firm of Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiff's Reply to Defendant's New Matter was served upon the following persons by email and first -class United States mail, postage prepaid on March 26, 2014 as follows: Kevin C. Hayes, Esquire James A. Doherty, Jr., Esquire Scanlon, Howley & Doherty, P.C. 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 Counsel for Defendants A9A-A)- C- Lois E. Stauffer SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. By: James A. Doherty, Jr., Esquire, ID #23829 By: Kevin C. Hayes, Esquire, ID #202486 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 Telephone: (570) 346-7651 Attorneys for Defendants New Visions of South Central PA, Inc. t/d/b/a New Visions, Inc. and Lauren J. James, MSW THOMAS KECKLER, as Administrator of the Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and THOMAS KECKLER, individually and in his own right, Plaintiff v. NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA, INC., t/d/b/a NEW VISIONS, INC. and LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION — PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL BY 12 DEMANDpla',': rn =73 r - r— .3›* (-) NO. 13-550 CIVIL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (N.) c THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a copy of Interrogatories Addressed to Plaintiff by the Defendants New Visions of South Central PA, Inc., t/b/d/a New Visions, Inc. and Lauren J. James, MSW and a copy of Request for Production of Documents Addressed to Plaintiff by Defendants New Vision of South Central PA, Inc., t/d/b/a New Visions, Inc. and Lauren J. James, MSW, were duly served upon counsel for the Plaintiff by mailing the same to him at his below address of record by First Class Mail on this 10th day of June, 2014: Joseph M. Melillo, Esquire Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 SCANLON, OWLEY &D� ERTY P.C. By: James A. Dohe y, Jr. Kevin C. Hayes 217 Wyoming Avenue ScrantOn, PA 18503 (570) 346-7651 Attorneys for Defendants SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. By: James A. Doherty, Jr., Esquire Identification #23829 By: Kevin C. Hayes Identification #202486 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 Telephone: (570) 346-7651 Attorneys for Defendants New Visions of South Central PA, Inc. t/d/b/a New Visions, Inc. and Lauren J. James, MSW THOMAS KECKLER, as Administrator of the Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and THOMAS KECKLER, individually and in his own right, Plaintiff v. NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA, INC., t/d/b/a NEW VISIONS, INC. and LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION — PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL BY 12 DEMANDED NO. 13-550 CIVIL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of Notice of Deposition of Thomas Keckler was duly served upon counsel for the Plaintiff by mailing the same to him at his address of record by United States First Class Mail on the 4th day of August, 2014 as follows: Joseph M. Melillo, Esquire Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 i�� SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, PcACD B James A. Doherty, Jr. Kevin C. Hayes 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 (570) 346-7651 Attorneys for Defendants SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. By: James A. Doherty, Jr., Esquire Identification #23829 By: Kevin C. Hayes Identification #202486 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 Telephone: (570) 346-7651 Attorneys for Defendants New Visions of South Central PA, InT t/d/b/a New Visions, Inc. and Lauren J. James, MSW THOMAS KECKLER, as Administrator of the Estate of LANCE KECKLER, and THOMAS KECKLER, individually and in his own right, Plaintiff v. NEW VISIONS OF SOUTH CENTRAL PA, INC., t/d/b/a NEW VISIONS, INC. and LAUREN J. JAMES, MSW, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION — PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL BY 12 DEMANDED NO. 13-550 CIVIL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of Notice of Deposition of Karen Faust was duly served upon counsel for the Plaintiff by mailing the same to him at his address of record by United States First Class Mail on the 4th day of August, 2014 as follows: Joseph M. Melillo, Esquire Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. By: James A. Doherty, Jr. Kevin C. Hayes 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 (570) 346-7651 Attorneys for Defendants