The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-6243 ROXANN E. MAXWELL 404 Scotland Drive Greenfield Manor Newark, DE 19702, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO.o~- ~~y~ ~ ~~ v. ANN M. PIERCE 271 Carol Street New Cumberland, PA 17070, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please issue a Writ of Summons against the defendant in the above-captioned action. Said Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to the Sheriff for servi upon the above-named defendant. Stephen M. Greecher, Esquire TUCKER ARENSBERG, PC 111 North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 Supreme Court I.D. #36803 Date: /,,;J~..J/oV- WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANT: YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Date: J.. a.,,(~~ 11 d..tJol.( (~/,~ R jJ~ } /~ Prothon&tary By ()1"1 - () )-y,1->>~ Deputy ( ) Check here if reverse is used for additional information 74072.1 () 1'"-<) 0 , = ~ 'c.::...) 11 .."g,;:,..... ~ ~ C:J Jt ' , r.~l ;:-; G \Iv y ......., W V; ..0 -<J ~ -;-, ",. ~ 1'\ " 0' ~ "" ,., s.'-;- ~ ., :~'~1 v e '-. Q IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION NO. 04-6243 Civil Term v. PRAECIPE IFOR APPEARANCE ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant. (Jury Trial D1smanded) Filed on Behalf of the Defendant Counsel of ~~ecord for This Party: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Pa.I.D.#83058 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE and SKEEL, L.L.P. Firm #911 1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 901-5916 #13384 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION v. NO. 04-6243 Civil Term ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant. (Jury Trial Demanded) PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANICE TO: THE PROTHONOTARY Kindly enter the Appearance of the undersigned, Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire, of the law firm of Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P., on behalf of the Defendant, Ann M. Pierce, in the above case. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE SKEE L.L.P. By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this -+- day of January, 2005. Stephen M. Greecher, Esquire Tucker Arensberg, PC 111 North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 By: ~ v . Rauch,~squire Counsel for DefEmdant (, -, '" [:.:~': \ ..'-'" ,.:...- '- -'" o .~~; -t.,._ r--_, ~1 (' 'S -j -', (0 f',) 0", '" c..::> Co::> <J, S. ..t..-:-:' <= - o "11 ::-;-1 dr_I) r- ::9E9 :=}~? , ] "s,'_? ~ )"; a ,J'" -J.7 ........:, ... IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION NO. 04-624:3 Civil Term v. ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant. PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (Jury Trial Dl3manded) Filed on Behalf of the Defendant Counsel of Record for This Party: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Pa.I.D.#83058 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE and SKEEL, L.L.P. Firm #911 1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 901-5B16 #13384 - , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION v. NO. 04-624:3 Civil Term ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant. (Jury Trial Dl~manded) PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO: The Prothonotary Kindly rule the Plaintiff, Roxann E. Maxwell, to file a Complaint in Civil Action within twenty (20) days. Respectfully submitted, By: K vin D. Rauch, Esquire Counsel for Defemdant ..... ~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICI~ I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this ~ day of January, 2005. Stephen M. Greecher, Esquire Tucker Arensberg, PC 111 North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-088B SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE SKEEL, L.L.P. By: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION v. NO. 04-624:3 Civil Term ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant. (Jury Trial Dl3manded) RULE AND NOW, this /O~, day of January, 2005, upon consideration of Defendant's Praecipe for Rule to File a Complaint, a Rule is hereby granted upon Plaintiff to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days of service, or suffer judgment Non Pros. Rule issued this /()~ay of January, 2005. f!wzk~ j;J. Prothonotary ~"7~ t- r- ;:-2 -< ~ -= C;::'lo c-_" o -Tl -f III ;11r",- ,);":1 ~i~~ ~:~~ ~~ ...1 ~ ~~.1 .) ,.< ~ ....N =-.:: a ~ ....Jt'a L-,) N Ul Tucker Arensberg, P.C. By: Stephen M. Greecher, Jr. (LD. No, PA-36803) ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 111 North Front Street p, O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 ROXANN E, MAXWELL, Plaintiff v, ANN M, PIERCE Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION. LAW NO, 04-6243 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CIVIL ACTION COMPLAINT "NOTICE" You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pag~, you must take action within twenty (20) days after thIS complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections .to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that If you fail to do 50 the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you buy 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 of other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR IAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A IAWYER GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A IAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A IAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. IAWYER REFERENCE SERVICE Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street C8.rlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3166 - Toll Free (800) 990-9108 "AVISQ" "Le han demandado en corte. Si usted desea defender contra las demandas dispuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted debe tomar la acci6n en eJ plazo de veinte (20) dias despues de esta queja y se sirve eI aviso, incorporando un aspeeto eserlto personalmente () y archivando en eseribir con la corte sus defensas u objeciones alas demandas dispuestas contra usted el abogado Ie advierte que que si usted no puede haeer asl que el caso puede proceder sin usted y un juicio se. puede incorporar contra usted compra la corte sin aviso adicional para cualquier dmero demandado en la queja 0 para cualquier otra demanda 0 relevaci6n pedida por e! demandante. Usted pue1je perder el dinero 0 1a caracteristica de otra endereza importante a usted. USTED DEBE LLEV AR ESTE PAPEL SU ABOGADO INMEDlA T AMENTE. SI USTED NO HACE QUE UN ABOGADO V A Y A A 0 LLAME POR TELEFONO La OFICINA DlSPUEST A ABAJO. EST A OFICINA PUEDE PROVEER DE USTED LA INFORMACION SOBRE EMPLEAR A UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PERMITIRSE AL HIRE A UN ABOGADO. EST A OFlCINA PUEDE PODER PROVEER DE USTED LA INFORMACION SOBRE LAS AGENCIAS QUE LOS SERVICIOS JURiDlCOS DE LA OFERT A DE MAYO A LAS PERSONAS ELEGIBLES EN UN HONORARIO REDUCIDO o NINGUN HONORARIO SERVICIO DE REFERENCIA LEGAL Cumbf.:rland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Carlisl,e, Pennsylvania 17013 (717) 249-3,66 -Toll Free (800) 990-9108 Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW ROXANN E. MAXWELL, v. NO, 04-6243 CIVIL TERM ANN M, PIERCE Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT 1, Plaintiff is ROXANN E, MAXWELL, an adult individual residing at 404 Scotland Drive, Greenfield Manor, Newark, Delaware 19702, 2, Defendant is ANN M, PIERCE, an adult individual residing at 271 Carol Street, New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17070, 3, On or about December 23,2002, at approximately 2:30 p,m" Plaintiff, Roxann E, Maxwell was operating a 2000 Chrysler Sebring, proceeding southbound on Central Boulevard in Mechanicsburg, Hampden Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, approaching the intersection with Chestnut Street. 4, On or about December 23, 2002, at approximately 2:30 p,m" Defendant, Ann M, Pierce, was operating a 2001 Volvo on Chestnut Street at the intersection of Chestnut Street and Central Boulevard in Mechanicsburg, Hampden Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 5, Traffic traveling on Chestnut Street, as was Defendant, Ann M. Pierce, is subject to a stop sign at the intersection of Chestnut Street and Central Boulevard and must yield the right-of-way to traffic on Central Boulevard, 6. Southbound traffic on Central Boulevard at the aforesaid intersection with Chestnut Street has the right of way and is not subject to any traffic control device such as a stop sign or light 7, Defendant, Ann M, Pierce, either failed to stop at the stop sign at Chestnut Street and Central Boulevard or pulled from the stop sign into the path of the vehicle operated by Plaintiff, Roxann E, Maxwell, on Central Boulevard, causing a collision between the vehicle operated by Plaintiff, Roxann E Maxwell, and the vehicle operated by Defendant, Ann M, Pierce, 8, As a result of the aforesaid collision and motor ve,hicle accident, which was the result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Pierce, Plaintiff, Roxann E, Maxwell, suffered various bodily injuries, some of which may be permanent, including but not limited to the following: a, Injuries to her neck and cervical spine; b, Herniated discs at C4-C5 and C5-C6; c, Cervical radiculopathy: d, Injuries to the left shoulder, left elbow and arm; e, Injuries to the left hand and/or symptoms to the left hand; f Injuries to her back; g, an aggravation of pre-existing conditions, 9, As a result of the aforesaid collision and motor vehicle accident, and as a result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant, Ann M, Pierce, Roxann E, Maxwell underwent care and treatment, including physical therapy, occupational therapy, chiropractic care, massage therapy, evaluations and testing, took medications a,nd has worn a TENS Unit -2- 10, As a result of the aforesaid collision and motor vehicle accident, and the negligence and carelessness of Ann M, Pierce, Plaintiff, Roxann E, Maxwell, has suffered damages which include, but are not limited to: a, Past, present and future physical pain and suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, and a 1055 of life's pleasures; b, Past, present and future expenses for ml9dical care, health care and related care that she has undergone for injuries she sulfered as a result of the aforesaid collision and motor vehicle accident, for which she claims to the extent permitted by applicable law; c, Loss of earnings or earning capacity for which she claims to the extent permitted by applicable law; d, Property damage to her vehicle in excess of $12,000,00, 11 , The aforesaid collision and motor vehicle accident and the resulting damages were the direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelElssness of Defendant, Ann M. Pierce, in that she: a, failed to keep a proper lookout; b, proceeded into the intersection when it was not safe to do so; c, failed to obey a traffic control device; d, failed to yield the right-of-way to the vehicle being operated by Roxann Maxwell; e, failed to stop at and/or obey the stop sign, 12, Defendant, Ann M, Pierce, operated her vehicle in violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and is guilty of negli~lence per se, -3- WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Roxann E, Maxwell, requests that judgment be entered in her favor in an amount in excess of the limits requiring compulsory arbitration in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, plus interest, delay damages, and costs of suit Respectfully submitted, TUCKER AREN By: ~~6~~: / !J~( eph ech , Jr Attorney's 1.0, No, PA-36803 111 North Front Street P. 0, Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF -4- VERI FICA TION I, ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff, acknowledge that the facts stated in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa,C,SA S 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, , ~,".""'"'"_ 1/ ... ._0' . _~ / .," A/ <~~ . ,'=--. - <..:----'- --- Roxann E, Maxwell 74966,1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ;;2,~ IA day of JANUARY, 2005, I, Jacquelyn Zettlemoyer, Secretary to Stephen M, Greecher, Jr, Esquire, for the law firm, Tucker Arensberg, P,C., attorneys for Plaintiff, hereby certify that I have this day served the within document by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Kevin D, Rauch, Esquire Summers, McDonnell, Hudock Guthrie & Skeel, LLP 1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300 Lemoyne, PA 17043 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 74813,1 n ,- f' ~, ~. r-' ".;.:'J c;~;) ("J"'l '- ,.:.. ;;;t: N V'I "'" ~ 1':':> c=' v:> o "n .--l :r: --('\ fi"1(~:\ '-n1'_1 ~:)(~" \:",")-, ';{.',t, {1. - IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROXANN E MAXWELL, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION NO. 04-6243 Civil Term v. ANSWER AND NEW MATTER ANN M, PIERCE, Defendant (Jury Trial Demanded) Filed on Behalf of the Defendant Counsel of Record for This Party: TO: Plaintiff Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Pa.LD,#83058 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer and New Matter within twenty (20) days from servipe hereof or a judgment may tere gai st you, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE and SKEEL, LLP, Firm #911 1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Summ rs, connell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, LLP, (717) 901-5916 #13384 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROXANN E, MAXWELL, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION v, NO, 04-6243 Civil Term ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant. (Jury Trial Demanded) ANSWER AND NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Ann M, Pierce, by and through her counsel, Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, LL.P" and Kevin D, Rauch, Esquire, and files the following Answer and New Matter and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. After reasonable investigation, the Defendant has insufficient information as to the truth or falsity of said averments, therefore said averments are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Admitted, 3, Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5, Admitted. 6, Admitted. 7, Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the accident occurred as a result of the Defendant's negligent operation of her motor vehicle on the date, time, and place of the subject accident. The remainder of the allegations in paragraph 7 are denied generally pursuant to Pa,RC.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 8, Paragraph 8 and all of its subparts state legal conclusions to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to PaRC.P, 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, 9, Paragraph 9 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required, To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.RCP. 1029(d) and (e), Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, 10, Paragraph 10 and all of its subparts state legal conclusions to which no response is required, To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to PaRC.P. 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the tirne of trial, 11. Paragraph 11 and all of its subparts state legal conclusions to which no response is required, To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to PaRCP, 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, 12, Paragraph 12 states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. To the extent, however, that a response is deemed necessary, said averments are denied generally pursuant to Pa.RCP, 1029(d) and (e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, WHEREFORE, Defendant, Ann M. Pierce, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against the Plaintiff with costs and prejudice imposed, NEW MATTER 13, The motor vehicle accident in controversy is subject to the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility law and this Defendant asserts, as affirmative defenses, all rights, privileges and/or immunities accruing pursuant to said statute, 14, Some and/or all of Plaintiff's claims for damages are items of economic detriment which are or could be compensable pursuant to either the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility law and/or other collateral sources and same may not be duplicated in the present lawsuit. 15, To the extent that the Plaintiff has selected the limited tort option or is deemed to have selected the limited tort option then this Defendant sets forth the relevant provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law as a bar to the Plaintiff's ability to recover non-economic damages, 16. This Defendant pleads any and all applicable statutes of limitation under Pennsylvania law as a complete or partial bar to any recovery by Plaintiff in this action, WHEREFORE, Defendant, Ann M, Pierce, respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against the Plaintiff with costs and prejudice irnposed, Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, L.L.P. evin D. Rauc , Esquire Counsel for Defendant By: VERIFICATION Defendant verifies that she is the Defendant in the foregoing action; that the foregoing ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is based upon information which she has furnished to her counsel and information which has been gathered by her counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit The language of the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is that of counsel and not of the Defendant Defendant has read the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER and to the extent that the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is based upon information which she has given to her counsel, it is true and correct to the best of her knowledge, inforrnation and belief. To the extent that the content of the ANSWER AND NEW MATTER is that of counsel, she has relied upon counsel in making this Affidavit Defendant understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 PRe,S. S4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, "l - /'] t;L hJ kt~k ,/ Ann M. Pierce Date: l J1/ oC; #13384 . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER AND NEW MATTER has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this /1#v day of February, 2005, Stephen M. Greecher, Esquire Tucker Arensberg, PC 111 North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 By: K vi . Rauch, Esquire Counsel for Defendant ~ 'i:/ -------- ~ ...... l"'. <:<> 1"-' i:.>> '? ?II' o <;.r' ;S> - - \ Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO, 04-6243 ROXANN E, MAXWELL, v. ANN M, PIERCE, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED REPLY TO NEW MATTER 13. The allegations of Paragraph 13 state legal conclusions to which no response is required, 14, The allegations of Paragraph 14 state legal conclusions to which no response is required, 15, The allegations of Paragraph 15 state legal conclusions to which no response is required, To the extent the allegations are deemed to be factual, it is denied that Plaintiff is subject to any limited tort option. 16, The allegations of Paragraph 16 state legal conclusions to which no response is required, To the extent the allegations are deemed to be factual, it is denied that this case is barred in whole or in part by the statute of limitations in that the action was filed prior to the running of the applicable statute of limitations, By: ~"., ep M. G Attorney's I.D 0, PA-36803 111 North Front Street p, 0, Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF DATE: March 3, 2005 75986.1 . VERIFICATION I, ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff, acknowledge that the facts stated in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa,C,SA ~ 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, ;;--Pff/of 74966.1 . .. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ';;2, RD AND NOW, this ~ day of MARCH, 2005, I, Jacquelyn Zettlemoyer, Secretary to Stephen M, Greecher, Jr, Esquire, for the law firm, Tucker Arensberg, P.C" attorneys for Plaintiff, hereby certify that f have this day served the within document by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Kevin D, Rauch, Esquire Summers, McDonnell, Hudock Guthrie & Skeel, LLP 1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300 Lemoyne, PA 17043 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT Jac~o~e~~ 74813.1 ...,'"> , .-,.. c,.., --- l,,_i,) SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2004-06243 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MAXWELL ROXANN E VS PIERCE ANN M HAROLD WEARY / Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says/ the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon PIERCE ANN M the DEFENDANT , at 1639:00 HOURS, on the 4th day of January 2005 at 271 CAROL STREET NEW CUMBERLAND/ PA 17070 by handing to BEN HENSON, SON a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 18.00 12.58 .00 10.00 .00 40.58 So Answers: ~~./)...// ~V:~/ I' >"~\:'>"', ,,-,;.-"'l'-..t:'.e-"''''''- . //"......<.4" ..- >"'".'-<if~' ~ ..~ ~- R. Thomas Kline 01/05/2005 TUCKER ARENSBERG Sworn and Subscribed to before By: 7 4~t1 ;U~ Deputy S~ff me this ,2 t(~ day of l'f/IlA.-U-'-'7 ,~IfrJ'! A. D. l~~Q~L~q I rothonotary , , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, P~NNSYLVANIA ROXANN E, MAXWELL, Civil Division I! Plaintiff, I No, 04-6243 v. ANN M, PIERCE, Defendant. CERTIFICATE PREREQUISIT TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA P RSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 F;le' '" beh" of the DefeO',"! Counsel of Record for this Part~ I I I Kevin 0, Rauch, Esquire 1.0.#83058 I i Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, LLP. Firm #911 1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 901-5916 #13384 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, P~NNSYLVANIA ROXANN E, MAXWELL, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION v, NO. 04-6243 ANN M, PIERCE, Defendant. (Jury Trial Demanded) CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, this Defendant certifies that: 1. A Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena with a copy of the subpoe a attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty (20) days prio to date on which the subpoena sought to be served, 2, A copy of the Notices of Intent, including the proposed sub oenas, are attached to this Certificate. 3. Plaintiff's counsel waived the twenty (20) day waiting requireme t in a letter dated March 22, 2005, (A true and correct copy of the correspondence date March 22, 2005, is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".) I 4. The subpoenas which will be served are identical to the subpo nas which are attached to the Notices of Intent to Serve the Subpoena. Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, L.L.P. Date:3-J5 -05 BY: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Attorneys for Defendant TUCKERIAREIi~~~~~ March 22, 2005 Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P, 1017 Mumma Road Lemoyne, PA 17043 Stephe M. Greecher, Jr. sgreech r@tuckerraw.com RE: Roxann E. Maxwell v. Ann M, Pierce Our Client/Matter #021999-121334 Dear Kevin: I received the Notices of Intent to serve subpoenas in the above case on the ollowing providers: 1, Dynamic Physical Therapy and Aquatic Rehabilitation Centers 2, First State Physicians 3, Maria Lazar, MD, 4, Swathmore Neurology Associates/Delaware Neurological Center Please be advised that I have no objection to the service of these subpoenas and I am waiving the 20-day requirement on behalf of my client. Sincerely, SMGjr:jz 76697,1 ,\ \ \OV Tucker Arensberg, PC. 111 North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108 www.tuckerlaw.om p,800,257A121 p,717.234A121 f.717.232.6802 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PE NSYLVANIA ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION v. NO. 04-6243 Civil Term ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant. (Jury Trial Demanded) NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUC DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 First State Physicians To: Stephen M, Greecher, Esquire dical Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed bel w in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpo na. If the twenty (20) day notice period is waived or if no objection is made, the subpo na may be served, Date: 3~ID"G-) vin D. RaueR, ire Attorney 1.0. No. 83058 1017 Mumma Road, Suite 30 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 901-5916 Attorney for Defendant, Ann M, Pierce COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff ,. FileNo. 04 6243 v. ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant. SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 First state Physicians, 12 Fox Run Shopping Cente , TO: Bear, DE 1991JiDl (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service ofilis subpoena, you are ordeted by the court ro roduce the foUowing documents or things: See attached Explanation of Re uired Records. ~ 1017 Mumma Road Suite 300 Lema ne PA 17043 (Address) . You may deliver or maillegrble copies of the documents or produce things requeste by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the ad ss listed above. You haye the right ro seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies ot prod . ing the Q .things sought . , If y<>u 4il to produce the docuriJen!f! or things required by this. subpoena within V1enty ( 0) days. after its service, the party serving tins subpoetu. may seek a court order compelling you to cOrriply . th it '11 TIIIS SUBPOENA wAs ISSUED AT TEE REQUEST OF THE FOLWWlNG FERSON ~:KeYin D. Rauch, ESquire ADDRESS: Summers , McDonnell , Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P. . ,1017Mumma Rd.,.Suite 300, Lemoyne, PA 17043 Tl'Y3P,HONl'::f 717) 901-5916 SUR~. CQIST:ID # 83058 ATTORNEY FOR: np.fp.nd~nt Date: (rl;XJ? ri II ;).~ . . Seal ofllie Court I EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: First State Physicians 12 Fox Run Shopping Center Bear, DE 19701 RE: Roxann E. Maxwell - All hospital records (including nurses records and progress notes) - Transcribed hospital records - Clinician office chart notes - Medical records needed for continuity - Dental records - Most recent five-year history - Physical therapy records - Laboratory reports - Emergency & urgency care notes - Pathology reports - Billing statements - X-rays, MRls CT Scans - Diagnostic imaging reports - All reports IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PEN SYLVANIA ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION v. NO. 04-6243 Civil Term ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant. (Jury Trial Demanded) NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 009.21 Swathmore Neurology Associates/Delaware Neurological Center M dical To: Stephen M, Greecher, Esquire Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days frorn the date listed bel w in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpo na, If the twenty (20) day notice period is waived or if no objection is made, the subpo na may be served. Date:}" (t>'7J ~ By: Ke in D. Rauch, Esquire Attorney 1.0. No. 83058 1017 Mumma Road, Suite 30 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 901-5916 Attorney for Defendant, Ann M. Pierce COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff ,. FileNo, 04-6243 v. ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant. SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 Swarthmore Neurology Assocs./Delaware Neurologica ctr., TO: P.O. Box 199 Ridle Park, PA 19078 (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to roduce the following documents or things: See attached Explanation of Re uired Records. ~ 1017 Mumma Road Suite 300 Lemo ne PA 17043 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things re'l\lest by tlris subpoena, together with the certificate (}f compliai1ce, to the party making this re'luest at the addr ss listed above, You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost ofprepariug the cOpies ot pro bing the CLtbingS sought. . . IfyoiI f<til to produce th.e docuIi1en{.jor things requir"d by tlris.subpoena witJrin tWenty ( 0) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to corriply . 'th it. ., ; .. THIS SUBPOENA WAS IssUED AT TIIE REQUEST OF 1HE FOLLOWING I'ERSO NAMP: Ke~in D. Rauch, ESquire ADDRbS~Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P. ,101TMumma Rd. "Suite 300, Lemoyne, PA 17043 TEIBPHQ1\ffi: ( 717) 901-5916 Su];~COYR,.~ID# 83058 ATTORNEY FOR: ' n",f",ndant BY ... .. COURT: Date: fl<;io (' J. 'I 4 ;)jX)S' . Seal of.the Court EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: Swath more Neurology Associates/Delaware Neurological Center P.O, Box 199 Ridley Park, PA 19078 RE: Roxann E. Maxwell - All hospital records (including nurses records and progress notes) - Transcribed hospital records - Clinician office chart notes - Medical records needed for continuity - Dental records - Most recent five-year history - Physical therapy records - Laboratory reports - Emergency & urgency care notes - Pathology reports - Billing statements X-rays, MRls CT Scans - Diagnostic imaging reports - All reports IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PE NSYLVANIA ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION v. NO. 04-6243 Civil Term ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant (Jury Trial Demanded) NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUC DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Maria B. Lazar, M,D, To: Stephen M. Greecher, Esquire Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire intends to serve a subpoena identical to th one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed bel w in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subp na. If the twenty (20) day notice period is waived or if no objection is made, the subpo na may be served. Date: yl'b-05'" By' K vin ,Rauch, Esquire Attorney 1.0, No. 83058 1017 Mumma Road, Suite 30 Lernoyne, PA 17043 (717) 901-5916 Attorney for Defendant, Ann M. Pierce COMMONWEALTII OFPENNSYL VANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff ,. FileNo. 04-6243 v. ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant. SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 Maria B. Lazar, M.D., 1400 People~ Plaza 305, TO: Newark DE 1.9702 (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service oftJris subpoelia, yon are ordered by the court to oduce the following documents or tbings: See attached Explanation of Re uired Record~. ~ 1017 Mumma Road Suite 300 Lemo ne PA 17043 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce tbing8 r,,<!ueste by this subpoena, together with the certificate of couipliance, to the party making tbis request at the addr s8 listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or prod .. g the ."It!rings sought . If yon 4i1 to prqduce.tl1e dQCUIi1ellts 9r things requir"P, by this. subpoena witliin tWenty ( 0); days after its service, th6 party serving this subpoefu. may seek a court order compelling you to coniply 'th it. "" '. rtiIs SUBPOENA WAB ISSUED AT T1IE REQUEST OF TIrE FOLLOWlNG PERSoN NAME: . Kevin D. Rauch. Esquire ADDRESS:' Summer~ , McDonnell , Hudock, Guthrie &,Skeel, L.t.P. ,1017. Mumma Rd. ,.Suite 300, Lemoyne, PA 17043 1FTF;'P,HOm;;:(7171 901 5916 Slry;R.El'f!l. cqP!l' ill # 8 305 8 ATTORNEY FOR: Dp-fp-ndant BY COURT: Date: rr!:::J/2 c I;. II. ;;).()tJS . . Seal of the Court I 1 I. EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: Maria B. Lazar, MD. 1400 Peoples Plaza 305 Newark, DE 19702 RE: Roxann E. Maxwell - All hospital records (including nurses records and progress notes) - Transcribed hospital records - Clinician office chart notes - Medical records needed for continuity - Dental records - Most recent five-year history - Physical therapy records - Laboratory reports - Emergency & urgency care notes Pathology reports - Billing statements - X-rays, MRls CT Scans - Diagnostic imaging reports - All reports IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PE NSYlVANIA ROXANN E. MAXWEll, Plaintiff, CIVil DIVISION v. NO. 04-6243 Civil Term ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant. (Jury Trial Dernanded) NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUC DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Dynamic Physical Therapy and Aquatic Rehabilitation Centers To: Stephen M. Greecher, Esquire Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire intends to serve a subpoena identical to th one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed bel w in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpo na. If the twenty (20) day notice period is waived or if no objection is made, the subpo na may be served, Date: 3/ I ~ -b \" By: Ke in D. Rauch, Esquire Attorney I.D. No, 83058 1017 Mumma Road, Suite 30 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 901-5916 Attorney for Defendant, Ann M. Pierce COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ROXANN E_ MAXWELL, Plaintiff ,_ FileNo. 04 6243 v. ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant. SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR TIllNGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 Dynamic Physical Therapy and Aquatic Rehabilitati n Centers, TO: 130 Executive Dr. Suites 7 & 8 Pencarder Cor tr Newark, DE 19702 (N= of Person or Entity} Within twenty (20) days after service of this snbpoena, you are ordeted by 1he court to roduce 1he following documents or things: See attached Explanation of Re uired Records. -.'"'",-- at 1017 Mumma Road Suite,300 Lema ne PA 17043 (Address) Yon may deliver or rnaillegible copies of 1he documents or produce things reqUeste subpoena, j:Oge1h6r with the certificate, of coo:npliance, to the party making this request at the adill above. Yon have 1he riglitto seek in advance the reasonable cost of pre paring 1he copies otprod CLtlririgs sought. _ :(fyoil fitil t<:> Produce t4edoc~or things required by thissubpoena witliin tv,'enty( )days after its service, 1he party serving this subpoerta may seek a court order compelling you to comply , th it b this y s listed ing the -. TIiIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT TIrE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NA)Im; Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire ADDRES&- Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P. ,1017 Millnma Rd., Suite 300, Lemoyne, PA 17043 TEI13P.HO~:( 717) 901-591 6 SlJj:i:REME COURT ID # 8305 B Ati6IfuEvFOR'-- 6f>Tf'nni'lnf: BY COURT: Date: fYl.'cia ("" t. II:::J IYj~ . . -', , Seal of,1he Court EXPLANA TrON OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: Dynamic Physical Therapy and Aquatic Rehabilitation Centers 130 Executive Drive, Suites 7 and 8 Pencarder Corporate Center Newark, DE 19702 RE: Roxann E. Maxwell - All hospital records (including nurses records and progress notes) - Transcribed hospital records - Clinician office chart notes - Medical records needed for continuity - Dental records - Most recent five-year history - Physical therapy records - Laboratory reports - Emergency & urgency care notes - Pathology reports - Billing statements - X-rays, MRls CT Scans - Diagnostic imaging reports - All reports CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of each of th foregoing CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUA TO RULE 4009.22 has been mailed by U.S, Mail to counsel of record via first class ail, postage pre-paid, this:JsA day of /VIa f{ ~ , 2005. Stephen M, Greecher, Esquire Tucker Arensberg, PC 111 North Front Street P.O, Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK GUTHRIE & SKEEL, LLP. BY: !J~J evin D. Rauch. Esquire Attorneys for Defendant , , ~ () ,~ n - .. :~ ;;n , ,. n 1",) ) ....() ~', :> , ", , Ct.) "..:; ~ , . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff, Civil Division No, 04-6243 v, ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant. CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 Filed on behalf of the Defendant Counsel of Record for this Party Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire I.D. #83058 Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P, Firm #911 1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 901-5916 #13384 '. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION v. NO. 04-6243 ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant. (Jury Trial Demanded) CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, this Defendant certifies that: 1, A Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty (20) days prior to date on which the subpoena sought to be served, 2. A copy of the Notices of Intent, including the proposed subpoenas, are attached to this Certificate. 3. Plaintiff's counsel waived the twenty (20) day waiting requirement in a letter dated April 15, 2005. (A true and correct copy of the correspondence dated April 15, 2005, is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".) 4. The subpoenas which will be served are identical to the subpoenas which are attached to the Notices of Intent to Serve the Subpoena. Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, L.L.P. Date: 5"10 -05 BY: ~ rf!J;t/~ Kevin D, Rauch, Esquire Attorney for Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROXANN E MAXWELL, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION v, NO, 04-6243 Civil Term ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant. (Jury Trial Demanded) NOTICE-OF INTEl'tiTO SERVE-ASUBPOEfifA TO PRODOCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Willow Mills Center Medical To: Stephen M. Greecher, Esquire Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire intends to seNe a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and seNe upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If the twenty (20) day notice period is waived or if no objection is made, the subpoena may be seNed, Date: Lt-II- 05 By: ~ f) ~/ Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 83058 1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 901-5916 Attorney for Defendant, Ann M. Pierce COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff ,. FileNo. 04-6243 v. ANN M. . PIERCE, Defendant. S-YIWOENA-'F(}PROOO€E DOCffMENTS(}RTIIINGS- FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Willow Mills Center (Dr. Greiner) . (Name of Per sou' or Entity) Witirin tweuty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordeted by the court to produce the following documeuts or tirings: See. attached Explanation of Required Records. ~ 1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300, Lemoyne, PA 17043 (Address) . You may deliver or mail legIble copies of the documents or produce things re'Ji1ested by this subpoena, together with the cert\ucate of cOulpliance, to the party making this reqnt<st at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cOst of preparing the copies ot producing the .2. .things sought. " ,. . If YCliI 4i1 ~ Produce tl)e q<:>cnfuel!t!l or things requi:ced by this. subpoena wit]iin nY\'I\ty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoerta may seek a court order compelling you to coniply with it . 11 '0 THIs SUBPOENA wAs ISSUED AT TIm REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWJNG PERSON: N~:Kevin D_ Rauch, Esquire ADDRES~'Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P. . 1017'Mumma Rd. ..,Suite 300. Lemoyne, PA 17043 1JILEi'HOfffi:' ( 71 7l 901 - 5 9 1 6 Su;P~C()~J:1D# 83058 ATTORNEYFO~ OAfAnnrint BY Date: '. f$ii.~-( , ,q.c2.~ a1 of the Coprl " ;'~f~}~~;l;;;~t' ~'i{i' :';fYt';~-:: .. . ~ ".j. . '-. ,. "-., . . >" '-.-~--- _.' ,):':<~ghicl{t~t~itii~j;~i;~~::: ;;: '. EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: Willow Mills Center RE: Roxann E, Maxwell - AttlTOspitat re-cords (tflcluding narSBS recortTInmd prCJgr6ss notes)- - Transcribed hospital records - Clinician office chart notes - Medical records needed for continuity - Dental records - Most recent five-year history - Physical therapy records - Laboratory reports - Emergency & urgency care notes - Pathology reports - Billing statements - X-rays, MRls CT Scans - Diagnostic imaging reports - All reports IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROXANN E, MAXWELL, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION v, NO. 04-6243 Civil Term ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant. (Jury Trial Demanded) NOTICFOF INTENT TOSERVE-JI,SUBPOENA TO-PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Hetrick Physical Therapy Center Medical To: Stephen M. Greecher, Esquire Kevin D, Rauch, Esquire intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If the twenty (20) day notice period is waived or if no objection is made, the subpoena may be served. Date: 4 ~ 11- 0.5 BY:~ Kevin D, Rauch, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 83058 1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 901-5916 IJor Attorney for Defendant, Ann M. Pierce . COMMONWEALTII OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff ,. FileNo. 04 6243 v_ ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant. SUB-POE-Nk-'Fe-PROIHJCE-nOeUMENTSOR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 Hetrick Physical Therapy Center TO: ~ameofPernonorEnti~) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: See,attached Explanation of Required Records. ~ 1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300, Lemoyne, PA17043 (Address) , You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the rigIit to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies at producing the ''ltbings sought . If you fiJil to produce the dQcuinents 9r things ):equired by this subpoena within tWen~ (20) daYs after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to coniply with it. TIiIs SUBPOENA wAs ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: N~: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire ADDRESS: SUmmers , McDonnell. Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel. L.L.P. 101l'Mumma Rd..,Suite 300. Lemoyne, PA 17043 J:ELEPHONE:.( 717) 901-5916 slJ!i~CO~l'ID# 830')8 ATTORNEY FOR: n~f~ndrlnr Date: fJ -);Jr1 \-L,C: ';)()OS c . S6,l of the Court '] , . . EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: Hetrick Physical Therapy Center RE: Roxann E. Maxwell - All hospital records (including norses rec6ras-aliaprogTess TfOtesr - Transcribed hospital records - Clinician office chart notes - Medical records needed for continuity - Dental records - Most recent five-year history - Physical therapy records - Laboratory reports - Emergency & urgency care notes - Pathology reports - Billing statements - X-rays, MRls CT Scans - Diagnostic imaging reports - All reports , . . . \ . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION v, NO, 04-6243 Civil Term ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant. (Jury Trial Demanded) NOTICE OF INTENTTOSERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Navy Depot Dispensary Medical To: Stephen M, Greecher, Esquire Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If the twenty (20) day notice period is waived or if no objection is made, the subpoena may be served. Date: 4 - f/ ~O s By: ~{J~~ Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Attorney 1.0. No. 83058 1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 901-5916 Attorney for Defendant, Ann M. Pierce . ' , ... . ,', ,. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA CODN'TY OF CUMBERLAND ROXANN E_ MAXWELL, Plai.ntiff '" FileNo" 04 6243 v. ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant. SUBPOENA TOPRO>>UCE DOCUMENTS OR THIN&S FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO; Navy Depot.Dispensary - (Nan1e of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordeted by the court to produce the following documents or things: See attached Explanation of Required Records. m 1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300, Lemoyne, PA 17043 (Address) . You may deliver or maillegrbIe copies of the documents or prodnce things rpqirested by this subpoena, together wiflI the certitkate of conwliance, to the party making this requ~st at the address listed above. . You have the right to seek in ildvailce the reasonable cost of preparing the copies at producing the .-:>.tIrings sought., . , If you ~il.t<;> p1,"Qdlice t4e dqcuinen,f!l or things required by this" subpoena witWn tWen,ty (20) days after its service, the party serving tlris subpoena may seek a "?urt order compelling you to, cbniplyWith it. -'i '.. THis SDBPOENA wAs ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: N~:Kevin D. Rauch. Esquire ADDRES&" SUmmers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel. L.L.P. . ,1017 Mtiriuna Rd. . Suite 300. Lemoyne, T-F:T~p'HONE:u(717) 901.5916 . StQ?~ e()~J: ID # 83058 ATIORNEYFOR: f)pfpnn;ml- PA 17043 D~te:-Arti J "~ ;) !X5S S .a1 of the Co" . r-- / .. .... - ':~~W)~;~;;;;!~~;.f. ~1;0(:~ "-. ; -.. ";:'~)~~';f2#;~~t4~.;~l~~1Ji~,.:>:.:. . ....-..,.. " ' , " " " EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: Navy Depot Dispensary RE: Roxann E. Maxwell - All hospitalreCdfds (including-nurses records and-progress notes) - Transcribed hospital records - Clinician office chart notes - Medical records needed for continuity - Dental records - Most recent five-year history - Physical therapy records - Laboratory reports - Emergency & urgency care notes - Pathology reports - Billing statements - X-rays, MRls CT Scans - Diagnostic imaging reports - All reports " , I ... , , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROXANN E, MAXWELL, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION v, NO, 04-6243 Civil Term ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant (Jury Trial Demanded) NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVEAStJBPOENA TO-PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 New Cumberland Army Dispensary Medical To: Stephen M. Greecher, Esquire Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If the twenty (20) day notice period is waived or if no objection is made, the subpoena may be served, Date: 4-11- ()5 By ~ ()~ Kevin D. auch, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 83058 1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 901-5916 Attorney for Defendant, Ann M, Pierce '. , , !II . , COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ROXANN E_ MAXWELL, Plaintiff ,. FileNo. 04 6243 v. ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant. SUBPOENA-TO PROD-UCE-DOCUMENTS'ORTHINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 NewTumoen-a:-rfd Army "ITlspensary' TO: - {Name of Person or Entity} . Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordeted by the court to produce the following documents or things: See attached Explanation of Required Records. ~ 1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300, Lemoyne, PA 17043 (Address) You may deliver Or maillegrble copies of the docmnents Or produce things re'(uested by this subpoena, together with the certiti.tate of conlpliance, to the party making this req~st at the address Iisted above. You have the right to seek:ln advai:1ce fue reasonable cost of preparing the cOPies ot producing the Qthings sought , . . rt YiliI ~ to p+oduce th,< docui:iJ.e$ or things tequir~d by this. subpoena ~thin tWenty (lO) days after its service, the party serving thissubpOMa may seek a c()urt order compelling you to. comply With it " '. THis SUBPOENA wAs ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF TIlE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Kevin D_ Rauch, Esquire ADDRES~'Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P. .101-7'Mumma Rd.,.,Suite 300. Lemoyne, PA 17043 1J'J:.E~HOW-i:.. ( 717) 901 591 6 Sur~ e()~l:ID # 83058' ATTORNEYFO~ n~f~naMn~ BY Date: [)6fL~( , .~ rl09S , d4al of,the Court f .:L~1;~4~;i;;i+-~ti;( ::;[ifi"'i. . -.:'. h ",:""\'::.:...::;~:.:i~..~,,,~~~'i::J.h~. :~':?:~~~~.~-: ~;.;.~~~~;~:'~,~l~~@~~~{i~f~2?~;~'J~~~.~~.,~:.~ :~.! .......' - , . . ~ , ( , ... EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: New Cumberland Army Dispensary RE: Roxann E. Maxwell - All hospital records (incladlng nursesTecords and-progress notes) - Transcribed hospital records - Clinician office chart notes - Medical records needed for continuity - Dental records - Most recent five-year history - Physical therapy records - Laboratory reports - Emergency & urgency care notes - Pathology reports - Billing staternents - X-rays, MRls CT Scans - Diagnostic imaging reports - All reports ~ , ~ .. , ( , *" IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION v, NO, 04-6243 Civil Term ANN M, PIERCE, Defendant (Jury Trial Demanded) NOTICE OP tN-l"ENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENATO PRODtlCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania Medical To: Stephen M. Greecher, Esquire Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If the twenty (20) day notice period is waived or if no objection is made, the subpoena may be served, . Date: 4-;(05 By:?:k tJ~ Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Attorney I.D. No, 83058 1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 901-5916 Attorney for Defendant, Ann M, Pierce , . f " , .. I .. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND . -~<-,..'" ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff " FileNo. 04 6243 v. ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant. SUBPOENA-TO PRODUCE bO(;Ul\1ENTSOR THINGS EOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO:, Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania - (Name of Person or Entity) , , WitIrin twenty (20) d;lys after sentice of this subpoena, you are ordeted by the court to produce the following documents or tIrings: See,attached Explanation of Required Records. ~ 1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300, Lemoyne, PA 17043 , (Address)'", You may deliver or mail legIble copies of the documents or produce things r"'ji1ested by this subpoena, together with the cbrtiii.tate of toniplianc~, to the party making l1ris reqm,st at the address listed above. ,Y 01). have the right to seek in ildvailce'the re:isonable cost of preparing the cOP;e$ ot producing the 0. ,tlrings sought , " " , If You fltii t(l Produce tIle <:!Qcuijlel\fJ! or things :requir,e<i by this, subpoena wif1:iin tW('1\ty (20) days after its service, thb party serving tins subpoerta may seek a c~urt ~rder compelling you to comply With it .'11 ... THrs SUBPOENA wAs ISSUED AT 'hIE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSQN: N:AME: Kevin D. Rauch. EsqUire ADDREsS:' Summers, McDonnell, ' Hudock, Guthrie, & Skeel, L.L.P. ' ,1017'Mumma Rd. ,,'Suite 300. Lemoyne, PA 17043 tF;!,~p,I:IOl%:',n( 717 )901-5916 SUR~eq~J:ID# 83058 ' ATTORNEYFO~ nRfRnn~nt D~fe:-1Lr) fi,;J, ~ J O~ , SdaI of.the Cpurt I , ~_._"- ~..: /~'i: ::~!=~,~~~i:.:.~ . ; ....:-_...~; '.;., . .-.' .. ,-:: '. .~. ,~;,. '~'~';,,:ii:,:::'i?t~;~~J~~il~~~i:}tt~:'::'~i;; :;" .- ..', .' , " . .....,.. - > ;ig?~J~~';~;~;~kf~tl~~j4i"N' - ':'-, : .' ", : ~. '.' ,- " , .., . , .. . . I ~ EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania RE: Roxann E Maxwell _ Althospitanercords (incto-ding nurs-esrecords andprogress notes) - Transcribed hospital records - Clinician office chart notes - Medical records needed for continuity - Dental records - Most recent five-year history - Physical therapy records - Laboratory reports - Emergency & urgency care notes - Pathology reports - Billing statements - X-rays, MRls CT Scans - Diagnostic imaging reports - All reports J ... r eo . , .. TUCKERIARE~~~~~~ Stephen M. Greecher, Jr. sgreecher@tuckerlaw.com April 15, 2005 Kevin D, Rauch, Esquire Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, LLP, 10H Mumma-Road Lemoyne, PA 17043 RE: Roxann E, Maxwell v, Ann M. Pierce Our Client/Matter #021999.121334 Dear Kevin: I received the Notices of Intent to serve subpoenas in the above case on the following providers for Roxann Maxwell: 1, Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania 2, Willow Mills Center 3, Hetrick Physical Therapy Center 4. Navy Depot Dispensary 5, New Cumberland Army Dispensary Please be advised that I have no objection to the service of these subpoenas and I am waiving the 20-day requirement on behalf of my client Sincerely, TUCKER ARENSBERG, P,C. !:!:: ~~~I r/~ SMGjr:jms 77381.1 W&f-W~~I~ Tucker Arensberg, P.C. 111 N. Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108 p.717.234.4121 f.717.232.6802 www.tuckerlaw.com 1500 One PPG Place Pittsburgh, PA 15222 p,412566.1212 f.412.5945619 . ;I ';. j ')' .... . II CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of each of the foregoing CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 has been mailed by U.S. Mail to counsel of record via first class mail, postage pre-paid, this J Ofh day of 1Y1 VI t/ , ( ,2005. Stephen M. Greecher, Esquire Tucker Arensberg, PC 111 North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK GUTHRIE & SKEEL, LLP. BY: ~ffJJL Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Attorney for Defendant !'-.,' L'~ o -n .-, T rn CJ. r",J :~! PRAECIPE FORUSTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO TIlE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Please list the following case: [] for JURY trial at the next tenn of civil court o for trial without a jury. ------..------.....---..--..----------......--..------....----....-----..-------........--....------....----- CAPTION OF CASE (entire ctlption mllSt be stated In fulf) ROXANN E. MAXWELL ( check one) [] Civil Action - Law o Appeal from arbitration o (other) (plaintiff) vs. The trialllst wID be ealled on Auq. 22, 2006 and ANN M. PIERCE (Defendant) Trials commence on Sept. 18, 2006 Pretr\a1s wID be held on August 30, 2006 {Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials vs. No. 04-6243 ,Civil Term Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: Stephen M. Greecher, Jr., Esquire Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: Kevin D. Rauch, Es uire This case is ready for trial. Signed: Print Name: Stephen M. Greecher, Jr. Date:July 31, 2006 Attomeyfor:Plaintiff - Roxann Maxwell L.~ , ~ \ . . -'10 #19 ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant 04-6243 CIVIL TERM PRETRIAL CONFERENCE A pretrial conference was held in the chambers of Judge Oler in the above-captioned case on Wednesday, August 30, 2006. Present on behalf of Plaintiff was Stephen M. Greecher, Jr., Esquire; present on behalf of Defendant was Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire. This is a negligence action for personal injuries arising out of a two-vehicle accident on December 23, 2002, at an intersection in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, when Defendant's vehicle allegedly failed to yield at a stop sign. Defendant admits liability in this case, and the issue for resolution by the jury will be the extent of damages, if any, which Plaintiff suffered as a result of the accident. This is a full tort option case. This will be a jury trial in which each party will have four peremptory challenges for a total of eight. The estimated duration of trial is two days. To the extent that any depositions are to be shown or read to the jury and contain objections being pursued by counsel and requiring rulings by the trial judge, counsel are directed to supply to the Court at least five days prior to commencement of the trial term copies of the affected transcripts with the areas of objection being pursued highlighted and with brief memoranda in support of their positions on the objections. Counsel have been (' -. able to agree that some amount of medical expenses will be going to the jury. With respect to settlement negotiations, Defendant has made more than a nominal offer to settle but the Plaintiff has indicated that she cannot accept the offer made by Defendant and Defendant has indicated that she cannot accept the demand made by Plaintiff. It does appear to the Court that there is a reasonable possibility of settlement of the case given that the parties are not very far apart in terms of dollars. Stephen M. Greecher, Jr., III North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 For the Plaintiff Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire 1017 Mumma Road, Ste. 300 Lernoyne, PA 17043 For the Defendant Court Admin Prothonotary pcb By the Court, J. - (~f''4 ~ 9-0t.-{){. CJ- V!1\i\f/\'1/"8;:-~N3d \ "j'I',"" ':"G:,"'n'"' I .1)\ j;~,', ,'t ;..) '2 ~ :8 HV 9- c!]$ 900Z Ad\iiU\\:["dd 3Hl ::10 j~):o:j(}-mlfd . ,t . ROXANN E. MAXWELL, ANN M. PIERCE DATE: q/}, ~/ 89660,1 / i/ do Plaintiff v. Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 04-6243 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTED POINTS FOR CHARGE Respectfully submitted, te n. cher, Jr,. Attorney I.D. No. 36803 111 North Front Street P. O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF . T' , 1. Request for Binding Instructions In that Defendant has admitted negligence, and in that it is acknowledged that Plaintiff suffered certain injuries as a result of the motor vehicle accident, you are directed to render a verdict for the Plaintiff, Roxann Maxwell, and make an award of damages. Pa.SSJI (Civ) 1.12 2 ," ,1 2. Admitted Negligence and Burden of Proof The Defendant, Ann M. Pierce, has admitted negligence in causing the motor vehicle accident in question. It is also aCknowledged that Plaintiff, Roxann E. Maxwell, suffered injuries as a result of the accident, however, the nature and extent of her injuries is disputed. Thus, you are required to determine: 1. what injuries the Plaintiff sustained that were caused by the accident; and 2. the amount of damages to which Plaintiff is entitled as compensation; for such injuries. In civil cases such as this one, the Plaintiff has the burden of proving the contentions that entitle her to relief. Plaintiff has the burden of proving her case by a preponderance of the evidence. A fair preponderance of the evidence means you are persuaded that it is more probably accurate than not. That, put it another way, think, if you will, of the "scales of justice," which is really an ordinary balance scale, with a pan on each side. Onto one side of the scale, place all of the evidence favorable to the Plaintiff with respect to each issue that you are considering; onto the other, place all of the evidence favorable to the Defendant on each such issue. After considering the comparable weight of the evidence, you feel that the scales tip, ever so slightly, in favor of the Plaintiff, your determination must be for Plaintiff on that issue. If the scales are equally balanced or tip in favor of the Defendant, your determination must be for Defendant on such issue. Pa.SSJI (Civ) 1.43 and 1.42. 3 I' .' 3. Issues in the Case and Factual Cause Plaintiff claims that she was injured and sustained damages as a result of the negligent conduct of the Defendant. The Defendant has admitted negligence in causing the motor vehicle accident. It is also acknowledged that Plaintiff was injured as a result of the motor vehicle accident; however, the nature and extent of Plaintiff's injuries is disputed. Plaintiff has the burden of proving her claims that are in dispute. Based on the evidence presented at trial, the only issues for you to decide in accordance with the law and as I will give it to you are: First: What injuries did Plaintiff suffer as a factual cause of Defendant's admitted negligence? Second: The amount of damages to which Plaintiff is entitled as compensation for such injuries? In order for the conduct of a party to be a factual cause, the conduct must not be fanciful or imaginary, but must have played a real role in causing the injury. Therefore, in determining factual cause, you must decide whether the negligent conduct of the Defendant was more than an insignificant factor in bringing about any harm to the Plaintiff. Under Pennsylvania law, conduct can be found to be a contributing factor if the action or omission alleged to have caused the harm was an actual, real factor, not a negligible, imaginary, or fanciful factor, or a factor having no connection or only an insignificant connection with the injury. However, factual cause does not mean it is the only, primary, or even the most important factor in causing the injury. A cause may be found to be a factual cause as long as it contributes to the injury in a way that is not minimal or insignificant. 4 . . To be a contributing factor, the Defendant's conduct need not be the only factor. The fact that some other cause concurs with the negligence of the Defendant in producing an injury does not relieve the Defendant from liability as long as her own negligence is a factual cause of the injury. The negligence of a defendant may be found to be a factual cause of a plaintiffs harm even though it was relatively minor. In effect, the test for factual causation has been met when the conduct in question has such an effect in producing the harm as to lead reasonable persons to regard it as one of the contributing causes that is neither insignificant nor inconsequential considering all the circumstances. Pa.SSJI (Civ) 3.00. 5 4. Damages Defendant has admitted negligence for the accident. You must find an amount of money damages you believe will fairly and adequately compensate the Plaintiff for all the physical and financial injury she has sustained as a result of the accident. The amount you award today must compensate the Plaintiff completely for damage sustained in the past, as well as damage the Plaintiff will sustain in the future. Pa.SSJI (Civ) 6.00. 6 , 5. Injuries to Adult Not Resulting in Death The damages recoverable by the Plaintiff in this case and the items that go to make them up, each of which I will discuss separately, are as follows: 1. Medical expenses; 2. Non-economic losses consisting of pain and suffering, embarrassment and humiliation, and loss of enjoyment of life. Pa.SSJI (Civ) 6.01. 7 f 6. Medical Expenses The Plaintiff is entitled to be compensated in the amount of all medical expenses reasonably incurred for the diagnosis, treatment, and cure of her injuries. The parties have agreed that these expenses as alleged by the Plaintiff are $3,249.58; an exhibit will be submitted to you itemizing these costs, for your consideration during deliberation. A certain portion of Plaintiff's medical bills were paid and are not recoverable in this action. The medical expenses submitted to you represent those bills that have not been paid from any other source. Pa.SSJI (Civ) 6.01A. 8 7. Non-Economic Losses: The Plaintiff has made a claim for a damage award for past and for future non-economic loss. There are three items that make up a damage award for non-economic loss, both past and future: (1) pain and suffering; (2) embarrassment and humiliation; (3) loss of ability to enjoy the pleasures of life. The first item to be considered in the Plaintiff's claims for damage awards for past non- economic loss and for future non-economic loss is pain and suffering. You are instructed that Plaintiff is entitled to be fairly and adequately compensated for all physical pain, mental anguish, discomfort, inconvenience, and distress that you find she has endured from the time of the injury until today and that Plaintiff is also entitled to be fairly and adequately compensated for all physical pain, mental anguish, discomfort, inconvenience, and distress you find she will endure in the future as a result of her injuries. The second item that goes to make up non-economic loss is embarrassment and humiliation. Plaintiff is entitled to be fairly and adequately compensated for such embarrassment and humiliation as you believe she has endured and will continue to endure in the future as a result of her injuries. The third item is loss of enjoyment of life. Plaintiff is entitled to be fairly and adequately compensated for the loss of her ability to enjoy any of the pleasures of life as a result of her injuries from the time of the injuries until today and to be fairly and adequately compensated for the loss of her ability to enjoy any of the pleasures of life in the future as a result of her injuries. In considering Plaintiff's claims or damage awards for past and future non-economic loss, you will consider the following factors: (1) the age of the Plaintiff; (2) the severity of the injuries; (3) whether the injuries are temporary or permanent; (4) the extent to which the injuries affect the 9 ability of the Plaintiff to perform basic activities of daily living and other activities in which the Plaintiff previously engaged; (5) the duration and nature of medical treatment; (6) the duration and extent of the physical pain and mental anguish which the Plaintiff has experienced in the past and will experience in the future; and (7) the health and physical condition of the Plaintiff prior to the injuries. Pa.R.C.P. 223.3 10 8. Pre-Existing Condition or Injury Damages should be awarded for all injuries caused by the accident even if: (1) the injuries caused by the accident were more severe than could have been foreseen because of the Plaintiff's prior physical condition; or (2) a pre-existing medical condition was aggravated by the accident. If you find that the Plaintiff did have a pre-existing condition that was aggravated by the Defendant's negligence, the Defendant is responsible for any aggravation caused by the accident. I remind you that the Defendant can be held responsible only for those injuries or the aggravation of a prior injury or condition that you find was factually caused by the accident. Pa.SSJI (Civ) 6.23. 11 .. 9. Damages--Life Expectancy If you find that the Plaintiff's injuries will continue beyond today, you must determine the life expectancy of the Plaintiff. According to the statistics compiled by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the average life expectancy of all persons of the Plaintiff's age at the time of the accident, sex, and race was 39.2 years. This figure is offered to you only as a guide, and you are not bound to accept it if you believe that the Plaintiff would have lived longer or less than the average individual in her category. In reaching this decision, you are to consider the Plaintiff's health prior to the accident, her manner of living, her personal habits, and other factors that may have affected the duration of her life. Pa.SSJI (Civ) 6.21 12 '^' -II --~ \~" .~ , :1 C.1 " RECEIVED SEP 1 2 2006 BY: Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW ROXANN E. MAXWELL, v. NO. 04-6243 CIVIL TERM ANN M. PIERCE Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S MEMORANDUM WITH RESPECT TO OBJECTIONS TO TESTIMONY FROM RICHARD A. CLOSE. M.D. CALLED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT 1. Obiection to testimony of Dr. Close reaardina occipital neuritis. Dr. Richard A. Close was called on behalf of Defendant to testify by videotaped deposition. Dr. Close issued two reports dated July 5, 2006 and August 23, 2006, attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B" respectively. A copy of the transcript of Dr. Close's testimony also accompanies this Memorandum. Dr. Bruce Goodman examined Plaintiff and testified on behalf of Plaintiff. His testimony is to be presented by videotape. During the course of the examination of Dr. Close, Dr. Close was asked if he had the opportunity to review the reports of Dr. Goodman. He was also asked to comment on the diagnosis of occipital neuritis made by Dr. Goodman. This testimony begins on page 24, at line 9, and continues over to page 27, line 21. The testimony is highlighted. At the deposition of Dr. Close, counsel for Ms. Maxwell objected to the above referenced testimony of Dr. Close because Dr. Close, at no point in his two reports, discussed his evaluation or opinions concerning Dr. Goodman's diagnosis of occipital neuritis. Also, Dr. Close's testimony about occipital neuritis cannot be considered to be within the fair scope of Dr. Close's reports. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5, the testimony of Dr. Close: may not be inconsistent with or go beyond the fair scope of his or her testimony in the discovery proceedings as set forth in the deposition, answer to interrogatory, separate report or supplement thereto. In accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5, Plaintiff's counsel's objection to the above referenced testimony of Dr. Close should be sustained. Additionally, Plaintiff's counsel's objection to the testimony of Dr. Close should be sustained because Plaintiff is prejudiced by that testimony since Dr. Goodman's deposition for use at trial had previously been concluded. If the Court grants Plaintiff's objection, then the cross-examination of Dr. Close regarding occipital neuritis should also be stricken. The cross examination appears at beginning of page 41 , line 2, concluding on page 42, line 14. 2. Obiection to testimony of Dr. Close on redirect reaardina reports and records of Dr. Grossinaer. The redirect testimony of Dr. Close, beginning on page 43, line 19, through page 44, line 24, should be stricken in accordance with the objections made by Plaintiffs counsel (page 45, lines 1-11). The testimony refers to Dr. Close's reading of a record of Dr. Grossinger and the absence of a reference to headaches in that record. The testimony also included Dr. Close's statement that if Ms. Maxwell had occipital neuritis, he would have expected headaches to be "existent" at that time. Once again, Dr. Close did not render an opinion as to occipital neuritis in his report. Further, specific questioning directed to Dr. Close was beyond the scope of the cross examination since questions were not asked about any reports in Dr. Grossinger's records concerning headaches. In fact, defense counsel indicated when the objection was first raised to Dr. Close's proposed testimony that the testimony to be elicited from Dr. Close regarded the EMG findings which were in fact discussed during cross-examination of Dr. Close. However, the questioning of Dr. Close concerning Dr. Grossinger's records did not refer to the EMG findings. Therefore, based upon Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5 and because the redirect examination of 2 Dr. Close was beyond the scope of the cross examination, it is respectfully requested that Plaintiff's objection be sustained. Respectfully submitted, te . reecher, Jr,. Attorney 1.0. No. 36803 111 North Front Street P. O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS DATE: September 12, 2006 89607.1 3 136~~ llo " 's' . ~~ dB . pIlle all raIn Neurosurgery Center Neurological SurgMns Craig H. Johnson, MO, FACS Richard A. Close, MO, FACS Raymond C. Truex, Jr., MD, FACS Richard J. Meagher, MD Physician Assistant J. Michael Stoltzfus, PA-C Certified Nurse Practitioners Trudy A. Bush, MSN, CRNP Patricia C. Hoover, MSN, CRNP July 5, 2006 Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Sommers, McDonald, Hudock, Guthrie and Skie!, LLP Attorneys at Law 1017 Mumma Road Lemoyne, P A 17043 RE: Maxwell v. Pierce "." -...... Dear Mr. Rauch: An independent medical examination was done at your request on Roxanne E. Maxwell at my office in West R~ading' on 07/05/06.; The'claimant provided me with the followmg history: " Roxanne Maxwell, now 45, date of birth 08/27/60, is a rigpt-handed property manager who states on 12/23/02 she was involved as a belted driver in a motor vehicle accident when she collided with another vehicle at an intersection causing that vehicle to turn over. She sustained $12,000 damage to her automobile. At the time of injury she struck her left elbow on the door and complained of posterior cervical pain and headache. Concerned for her passenger, she refused hospital treatment and states she missed little work. With ongoing symptoms she consulted her physician, and had physical therapy which gave her no relief. She had chiropractic treatment. She noted improvement of short duration with epidural steroid injections x2. CHIEF COMPLAINT: Neck and left upper extremity pain, aggravated by all activities. She consults with a chiropractor q. six months. She states she had to give up sports and exercise activity as a result of her symptoms. She has not seen a surgeon. ALLERGIES: Cedor, Entex and Pe~1ici11in. CURRENT MEDICATIONS: N exiurri, Donriatal SURGICAL HISTORY UNRELATED TO DOl: )( Jl b "A }I Herbert C. Johnson, MD /1952-1987 E." J /7 Ii Ernest E. Reigh, MD /1961-1991 601 Spruce Street. West Reading, Pennsylvania 19611-1496 . p: (610) 375-4567 . f: (610) 375-1203 \M\}J\A/ ir('tnAllr(,\~llrni(,;::l1 ('('\m '. Letter to Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire RE: Roxanne Maxwell July 5, 2006 Page 2 SURGERY RELATED TO DOl: None. GENERAL HEALTH HISTORY: Positive for acid reflux and allergies (seasonal). OCCUPATIONAL. EDUCATIONAL, SOCIAL HISTORY: She is a high school" graduate. She is single' and has no children. She takes alcohol occasionally. She smokes Yz pack/day. PHYSICAL EXAMINATION: BP 122/76. Pulse 76. Pulse oximetry 97%. General: Properly groomed, casually attired middle aged female, no overt pain behavior. Sensorium:, Intact. :-:-.:cc"" ,.... Waddell's testing negative. Dermis: No incisio~ appropriate to the present illness, no rashes. Body habitus: Normal musculature and body build. Braces, walkers, assistive devices: Negative.-' Vascular testing: Pulses equal throughout. Limbs warm to touch. No pre-tibial or pedal edema. No signs of thoracic outlet synd.rome. No signs ofRSD. Cranium: Intact. Cranial nerves: NOr:q1al. Sitting posture normal. Standing posture straight. Flexibility: Cervical 'spine shows some loss of range of motion especially in extension. Flexibility of limbs: Normal. TineI's testing p.egative throughout. . Mo;tor exam: Nonnatpower; normal bulk. Reflex testing: DT~ 1-2+. No spasticity. No clonus. Gait reciprocating. . Cerebellar and balance testing normal. Sensory exam intact. RADIOGRAPHS REVIEWED: There are no radiographs for today's examination. RECORDS REVIEW~D: 1. Diagnostic studies.s2. Physical therapy reports. Letter to Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire RE: Roxanne Maxwell July 5, 2006 Page 3 3. Christiana Ho.spital. 4. Penn State Geisinger. 5. Mario Lazar, M.D. 6. The Hetrick Center. 7. First State Physicians, Inc. 8. Bruce Goodman, M.D. 9. Delaware Therapeutics. ' 10. Delaware Netirologic~ Center. 11. Orthopedic IIistitute of Pennsylvania. 12. Newark Emergency Center. The MRI of the lumbar spine from 03/18/99 shows no evidence of stenosis or herniated disc with bilateral - foramina! narrowing at L4-5 with associated spondylolisthesis. Radiograph of the left shoulder 02/28/03 was negative. Video fluoroscopic evaluation left elbow of 04/02/03 is normal. MRI of the cervical spine 04/07/03 shows cervical spondylosis with bulging and small central soft disc herniation C5-6 and C4-5 with no cord compression, no cord changes. Video fluoroscopic examination cervical spine 06/19/03 shows slight restriction of motion at C5-6 and C6-7 due in part to spur formation. No significant instability identified. Most of the medical records show incidental general medical care. She was evaluated in 02/99 for low back pam. She had an independ~~(lt medical examination by Bruce Goodman, M.D. on OS/25/05 withthe impression the motor vehicle accident did serve as an aggravation of her previously asymptomatic condition, namely cervical spondylosis and degenerative disc disease. He rendered a diagnosis of occipital neuritis. DIAGNOSIS: Neck and left upper extremity pain. DISCUSSIONIRECO.MMENDATIONS: 1bis is an otherwise healthy, cigarette smoking middle aged white collar worker with symptoms of neck and radiating left upper extremity pain post MY A. Her examination today is unremarkable except for slight neck stiffness. Letter to Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire RE: Roxanne Maxwell July 5, 2006 Page 4 I have not had the opportunity to review the MR scans. The reports described spondylosis. I cannot at this point say whether or not she has a surgical lesion in her neck. If this is a valid question, which it may be, I w011ld suggest a high resolution .MR. scan of the cervical spine which I would be happy to review and comment upon. With ongoing cervical radicular symptoms, it is possible surgery may be necessary. She is able to wbrk'akber usn_~l occupatio);l- without restrictibns. It appears,'hersy;mptoms have a quality of life impact however. If other records become available, I would be bappy to review them and issue a report. These opinions are rendered based upon a review of the above-listed materials and on the history and . - physical examination recorded, and are. held with a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Sincerely yours, ~~-- ydL. Richard A. Close, M.D., F.A.C.S. RAC/bek . .~.UG. 203.2006 11: 06 804 747 0043 ROBERTS #1032 P.002 /002 . , :.~ SI)j ?)'at1~I:Br(ljJ'- : , Ncuros..u.ge...~y' tenter ' '., . ;. .' . NeurologIcal Surgeons Craig H. Johnson. M.D.. F.A.C.S. Richard A. Close, M.D., FAC.S. Raymond C. Truex, Jr., MD., FAC.S. Thomas G. Psarro5, M.D. Physician Assistant J. Michael Stoltzfus, PA-C Certified Nurse PractitIoners Trudy A. Bush; MSN, CF~NP Patricia C. Hoover, MSN. CRNP August 23, 2006 Kevin Rauch, Esquln~ Summers McDonnell Hudock Guthrie and Skeel LLP Attorneys olt Law 1017 Mummer Road Lcmoyne, Pi\. 17043 RE: 'Maxwell v. Pierce Dear Mr. Ranch: ~~..; ~.___^t your request, 1 rcvicwcdMR scan films of the cerv~cal spine da~~d 04/07/03 and they ~:- arc of good technical quality. TIlere isriCinl.ndb'rnfn m-am1nTIatl()n. ?-'There'are no ' ' intrapa.rel1cbymalles.ion~ in the cervical spinal cord. There arc dcgcnerativc changes at the discs From C2 thmugh C6 compatible with age. Thcre is no involvement of the spinal canal or neural foramina. SUMMARY; TIus is a bcnign MR scan of the cervical spine. D1SCUSSION: There is no lesion on the cervical MR scan to account for any loss of function whatsoever. ner examination conum:leu on 07/05/06 was unrcmarkable. What she is left \-vith is subj~divc complaints of neck pain only. I might add that for this condition she t.akes no medications. Thc::-;c opinions arc reviewed based upon a review of the ahove-listeu materials and on the prev"ionsly authored IME, and are held with a reasonahle ue&'Tcc oCmedieal certainty. Sincerely, /)~., v-c h. . ~~. y!{/ ,~ ' ...-' Richard A. Close "tYLD., F.A.C.S. RAC195R2 Herbert C. Johnson.. M.D. / 1952-1987 EXH 18 IT f'l3:> /. Ernest E. Reigh, M.D./1961-1991 601 Spruce Street. West Reading, Pennsylvania 19611-1496 · p: (610) 375-4567 . f: (610) 375-1203 www_spineandbrainneurosurgery.Gom CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 1a.-f::A day of SEPTEMBER, 2006, I, Jacquelyn Zettlemoyer, Secretary to Stephen M. Greecher, Jr., Esquire, for the law firm, Tucker Arensberg, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiff, hereby certify that I have this day served the within document by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Summers, McDonnell, Hudock Guthrie & Skeel, LLP 1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300 Lemoyne, PA 17043 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT Ja~er~ 74813.1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 2 3 ROXANN MAXWELL 4 vs. 5 ANN PIERCE, 6 7 8 9 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiff No. 04-6243 Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Wednesday, September 6, 2006 West Reading, Pennsylvania Videotaped deposition of RICHARD A. CLOSE, M.D. taken at 601 Spruce Street, West Reading, Pennsylvania, on the above date, beginning at approximately 1:53 p.m. before Sharon L. Dougherty, Court Reporter and Notary Public. SUZANNE MINELLO COURT REPORTING 573 INDIAN RUN DRIVE HUMMELSTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 17036 (717) 671-7007 (C~ Ir=-.\\ ~l)j I ~':j,.t ~'j I! t "L-,t ~. 2 1 A P PEA RAN C E S: 2 For the Plaintiff: STEPHEN M. GREECHER, JR., ESQUIRE 3 TUCKER & ARENS BERG 111 North Front Street 4 P. O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108 5 6 For the Defendant: KEVIN RAUCH, ESQUIRE 7 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEET, LLP 8 1017 Mumma Road Lemoyne, PA 17043 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 I N D E X 20 Witness: 21 Richard A. Close, M.D. Examination by Mr. Rauch . Examination by Mr. Greecher. 4/10/42 8/31 22 23 24 Exhibits: 25 (None) 3 1 2 3 PRO C E E DIN G S THE VIDEOGRAPHER: My name is Joe Vengoechea. I represent Video Images, 155 Wynshire 4 Lane, Red Lion, Pennsylvania. 5 Today's date is September the 6th, the 6 year 2006. The time of day is 1:53 p.m. 7 This deposition was being videotaped at 8 610 Spruce Street, ,West Reading, Pennsylvania. 9 The caption of the case is Roxann Maxwell 10 v. Ann Pierce, Case No. 04-6243. 11 The name of the witness 2S 12 Richard A. Close, M.D. 13 This deposition is being videotaped on 14 behalf of the defendant. 15 Counsel will now introduce themselves. 16 MR. RAUCH: Kevin Rauch on behalf of Ann 17 Pierce. 18 MR. GREECHER: Steve Greecher on behalf of 19 Roxann Maxwell. 20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: The court reporter will 21 now please identify herself and swear in the witness. 22 23 Dougherty. 24 RICHARD A. CLOSE, M.D., MS. DOUGHERTY: My name is Sharon 25 Having been sworn, was examined and testified as 22 23 24 4 1 follows: 2 DIRECT EXAMINATION (On Qualifications) 3 4 BY MR. RAUCH: 5 Q Good afternoon, Doctor. 6 A Good afternoon. 7 Q Could you please give your full name and 8 profession to the jury? 9 It's Richard Allen Close. A I am a 10 neurological surgeon. 11 What is your educational background, Q 12 Doctor? 13 A I have an M.D. from Temple University, 14 class of '72. Internship and residency, Temple 15 University Hospital '72 to '77. The first year was in 16 the Department of Surgery. The remainder of the 17 training was in the Department of Neurological Surgery. 18 I had a two-year service commitment in the 19 Army where I was assigned as chief of neurological 20 surgery at the Eisenhower Army Medical Center in Fort 21 Gordon, Georgia from '77 to '79. In '79 I came here to West Reading where I have remained currently. I am in practice with three other neurological surgeons. We serve the Reading 25 Hospital, which is located in West Reading, 5 1 Pennsylvania. Reading Hospital is the second largest 2 hospital in the Commonwealth. It is a Level Two trauma 3 center. 4 We have courtesy privileges at a smaller 5 hospital ~n town, St. Joseph Hospital, for purposes of 6 helping them when their neurosurgeon is unavailable. 7 Q Now, Doctor, since medical school, have 8 you specialized in the field of neurological surgery or 9 neurosurgery? 10 A Correct. The residency I described was 11 for that purpose. Testing is done as a result of that, 12 and it ends in what is called board certification. 13 The certification begins with an M.D. 14 from an accredited medical school, and an internship 15 and residency in an accredited program which means that 16 the chairman must certify that the work has been done 17 and the recommendation ~s g~ven. 18 19 A written exam is taken in neurological surgery which lasts one whole day. It involves 20 subjects such as neurosurgery, general surgery, 21 neurology, pathology, radiology, and pharmacology. 22 Following passing that written test and 23 completing the residency, two years of practice is 24 required during which time a list of practice 25 experience is compiled, mostly all the cases treated. 6 1 This 1S what is part of the credentials submitted to 2 the Board. The Board then reviews the cases, reviews 3 the recommendations, and offers an oral examination 4 which is the final phase of the Board. 5 6 The oral examination is given in three one-hour sessions, two examiners per session. Once all 7 three are satisfactorily completed, then what is called board certification is given. I did that in 1982. 8 9 Q You are board certified then in 10 neurosurgery, correct? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Could you tell the Jury a little bit about 13 what neurosurgery is? 14 A Well, it's commonly referred to as brain 15 surgery. In reality, roughly 25 to perhaps 34, 35 16 percent of my practice is dealing directly with brain 17 surgery. 18 As I said, we are a Level Two trauma 19 center so we are seeing a lot more by percentage of 20 brain injuries than we did say four or five years ago, 21 but nevertheless, it is still less than half. 22 The rest is spine work and what is called 23 peripheral nerve work. Spine work involves issues such 24 as what are before us today, neck injuries} 25 degenerative conditions of the neck, ruptured discs in 7 1 the neck which involve the spinal cord, and the spinal 2 -- and the nerves. 3 4 The commonest spine lssues are with regard to the low back. The same thing, degenerative and 5 injury-related conditions. 6 We also do work on the supporting structures. It's not all about nerves and spinal 7 8 cords. We have to deal with the supporting structures 9 of these tissues, the spine, and the cranium. 10 We fabricate skull bones when they are 11 lost or missing by -- due to accident or injury, and we 12 do the same thing with the spine. 13 I also do a fair amount of pain 14 management. 15 Q Doctor, are you a member of any medical 16 societies? 17 A Mostly all of them that are pertinent, the 18 county, local, and state -- well, the county, state, 19 and American Medical Associations, and then the College 20 of Surgeons. 21 The College of Surgeons Fellowship is conferred 22 on individuals who apply and are tested and accepted. 23 In order to apply, one must be a board certified 24 surgeon, either general surgeon or in my case a 25 neurological surgeon. 8 1 I am past president of the Keystone 2 Chapter which involves central Pennsylvania mostly 3 out almost to Pittsburgh. 4 The neurosurgical specialty societies, 5 there are two national societies. I am a member of 6 both of them. There is a regional society which is the 7 Pennsylvania Neurosurgical Society. I am a member of 8 that. 9 MR. RAUCH: At this time I would like to 10 offer Dr. Close as an expert in the field of 11 neurosurgery. 12 CROSS EXAMINATION (On Qualifications) 13 14 BY MR. GREECHER: 15 Q A couple questions, Doctor. 16 You are in neurosurgery, and are there 17 areas of neurosurgery that overlap the specialty of 18 orthopedic surgery? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Like particularly in the areas of the neck 21 and low back? 22 A Yes, that is true. 23 Q And oftentimes neurosurgeons and 24 orthopedic surgeons treat the same conditions In 25 individuals that have the same type of symptoms. 9 1 2 A Q Yes, and we collaborate as well. In this case, Doctor, you did what is 3 known as an Independent Medical Exam? 4 5 A Q Yes. So you weren't Ms. Maxwell's treating 6 physician? 7 8 9 A Q A Correct. Were you compensated for your examination? Yes. 10 MR. RAUCH: I will place an objection on 11 the record at this point. 12 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the video. 13 The time of day is 2 p.m. 14 MR. RAUCH: I don't have any problem with 15 the line of questioning. However, I don't believe that 16 it's appropriate to occur in the qualifications. This 17 is voir dire for the Doctor, and I think that the line 18 of questioning is more appropriately heard during his 19 direct testimony. 20 21 22 MR. GREECHER: No problem. I can reserve it until then. We can move it along. 23 video. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Returning back to the The time of day is 2:01 p.m. MR. RAUCH: Off the record again. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the video. 24 25 10 1 The time of day is 2:01 p.m. 2 MR. RAUCH: Did you have any other 3 questions? 4 5 6 7 8 video. MR. GREECHER: say what I have to say. I can go back on and I will MR. RAUCH: Fine. 9 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Returning back to the The time of day is 2:02 p.m. MR. GREECHER: I will reserve that line of 10 questioning until later. 11 qualifications. 12 DIRECT EXAMINATION I have no other questions on 13 BY MR. RAUCH: 14 Q Doctor, at my request did you perform an 15 Independent Medical Examination of Roxann Maxwell? 16 A I did, on 5 July of this year, '06. 17 Q Prior to doing the Independent Medical 18 Exam, did you have the opportunity to review 19 Ms. Maxwell's medical records? 20 A They were reviewed with the exam. The 21 approach I do, not only with these but with all 22 patients, is that I will usually speak to the person 23 first and then I review anything that the patient 24 brings with him or her, for instance, lab studies or 25 x-rays that need to go back, and then let the person 11 1 get on their way and then review the records. The 2 records were available though. 3 Q Well, in that case then, tell the jury 4 what type of oral history you obtained from 5 Ms. Maxwell. 6 A Well, she's a 45 year old, and she's right 7 handed, and she works as a property manager, and there 8 was a motor vehicle accident that she described that 9 she was a belted driver when the collision occurred at 10 an intersection, and the date that it occurred was 11 12/23/02. Apparently it resulted in substantial damage 12 to her automobile. She described $12,000 worth of 13 damage. 14 At the impact she describes striking her 15 left elbow on the door and had pain in back of the neck 16 and headaches. 17 There was a passenger involved and she 18 said that she was quite concerned with the passenger's 19 well-being, and as a result declined hospital 20 treatment. 21 She also described herself as concerned 22 that -- with regard to missing work and as a result 23 missed very little. 24 She had ongoing symptoms, however, and she 25 consulted her physician. She was treated with physical 12 1 therapy and got no satisfactory relief. She tried 2 chiropractic treatment. She had injections called 3 epidural steroids twice with some improvement for a 4 short duration. 5 At the time I saw her, I asked her where 6 her pain was in order of severity, and it was equal, 7 neck and left arm, and aggravated by any and virtually 8 all activities. 9 She was treating with a chiropractor 10 roughly every six months, and she had said that her 11 life style had been impacted in that she had to give up 12 sports and give up most of her exercise activity 13 because it would bother her symptoms or make them 14 worse, and I asked her if she had consulted with a 15 surgeon with regard to this, and she had not. 16 Her general health was good. She had some 17 allergies. She was using Nexium and Donnatal. These 18 are for upset stomach type symptoms. These are the 19 only medications that she was taking. 20 She never had any sort of surgery, and as 21 I said, she had some seasonal allergies and she had 22 acid reflux. 23 Her social history, she is high school 24 educated. She is single with no children. She takes 25 alcohol occasionally, with smoking a half a pack of ( 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 cigarettes per day. Q Is there anything significant about the cigarette smoking with respect to Ms. Maxwell's health? A Well MR. GREECHER: Just a second. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the video. 7 The time of day is 2:06 p.m. 8 MR. GREECHER: I don't believe the Doctor 9 discussed anything other than the fact that she smoked 10 cigarettes as to a factor as to her health or as to 11 this case, and it's beyond the scope of his report. 12 MR. RAUCH: Well, I am merely asking the 13 Doctor at this point. He does mention -- we are 14 talking about her social history. I am merely asking 15 the Doctor to comment on how the effect of her social 16 history would play into his conclusions with respect to 17 some of her pain complaints at the time. 18 19 video. 20 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Returning back to the The time of day is 2:06 p.m. THE WITNESS: It's important for me to 21 know about cigarettes any time I contact an individual. 22 The issues have to do with circulation, bone health, 23 and ability to recover certainly from complex surgical 24 procedures, and specifically my headache patients, 25 people with brain tumors, brain injuries, or people 14 1 with plain migraine attacks do poorly as long as they 2 are exposed to nicotine. So it's just a general health 3 landmark that I seek. 4 BY MR. RAUCH: 5 Q Now, Doctor, what did you find during your 6 actual physical exam of Ms. Maxwell? 7 A Normal vital signs. Her overall 8 examination, and again, it is focused on what a 9 neurosurgeon focuses on, the brain, the spinal cord, 10 and their supporting structures. 11 That being said, it was a normal 12 neurological examination. That means her strength, her 13 brain function, her ability to understand, to use 14 language, her strength -- as I said, her strength, her 15 balance, her reflexes, her sensation was all normal. 16 There was a very mild degree of loss of 17 flexibility of the neck, especially when asked to look 18 up. Otherwise, it was a normal exam. 19 Q Did you have the opportunity, Doctor, to 20 ask Ms. Maxwell specifically what portions of her body 21 hurt or were in pain? 22 A That was listed under the chief 23 complaints, and I try to get people -- and, of course, 24 it will vary from time to time. I recognize that, and 25 I am only seeing this individual once, and as I 15 1 established, I am not her treating doctor. 2 So that day what was bothering her was 3 equal neck and arm pain. They were equal, and 4 sometimes people will say that; and it was her left 5 arm. 6 Q Doctor, at any point in time did 7 Ms. Maxwell complain to you about headaches? 8 9 A Q No. Did you have the opportunity to palpate or 10 touch Ms. Maxwell's neck or other portions of her body? 11 A Well, yes. Part of the examination when 12 we check the body build, we check the musculature and 13 the range of motion of the spine, we will see if there 14 is spasms, and she had no spasm that day. 15 Q Now, Doctor, you since had the opportunity 16 to also review the films of Ms. Maxwell in terms of her 17 MRI, in particular an MRI of April 7th, 2003; is that 18 correct? 19 A Yes. I saw them just today. I'm sorry. 20 I had the 4/7/03 was available to me about a month 21 after I did the examination. 22 Q You did have the opportunity to review the 23 actual films, correct? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Can you tell the jury what you saw on 16 1 those films? 2 A Well, what we look for is involvement of 3 the -- picture the neck as a jewelry box. The jewelry 4 being the spinal cord, and what people tend not to 5 consider is that the upper portion of the spinal cord 6 is even a more vital structure of the brain stem, and 7 the brain stem lives at the junction of the cranium, 8 which is the head, and the spinal cord. 9 The first thing I look for is the 10 hindbrain. People with hindbrain malformations that 11 they are born with usually can show themselves up in 12 middle age and can sometimes be provoked or aggravated 13 by an incident of this sort. 14 So I wanted to make sure that she did not 15 have a hindbrain malformation and I saw none. 16 The next important question in that line 17 of reasoning would be the spinal cord itself, and this 18 was normal. The substance of the spinal cord was 19 normal which means there were no strokes of the spinal 20 cord, no diseases, no tumors, no cysts of the spinal 21 cord. 22 Now, the compartment where the spinal cord 23 is situated is the spinal canal, and it's bounded by 24 the various structures, front and back, the vertebral 25 column and the joints in the back, and these can -- 17 1 they commonly -- I hate to generalize -- but In most 2 middle age people there will be changes in all of these 3 structures, and that usually is what generates, in my 4 experience, the written reports that read as they do in 5 these cases. 6 What I am saying is, rarely does a middle 7 age person have a totally normal spinal column, and 8 that was the case here. She had degenerative changes 9 in the structures which are called the discs. 10 The discs are the joints in the front of 11 the spinal complex. They look like mortar between 12 cinder blocks. They are solid cartilage joints and not 13 hollow joints like your elbow, but they are solid, and 14 they will wear over time and they will create 15 projections out the back or out the front, and they are 16 potentially problematic. 17 18 What I saw on her was mild or moderate, at the most, amount of degenerative age changes. I did 19 not see involvement of the spinal cord by these 20 changes. I did not see involvement of the spinal 21 nerves as they left the spinal canal. 22 So my conclusion would be that this lS a 23 middle age neck with degenerative changes with no 24 pathology, no cause for worry or concern by a surgeon. 25 Q Can you tell the jury, Doctor, what 18 1 specifically, in layman's terms, degenerative changes 2 are? 3 A Well, if you look at my facel since we are 4 on video, what you see is degenerative changes of a 5 60-year-old man. Age will take its toll. 6 organ, and age will take its toll. Name the 7 The spine is a marvelous organ. It's a 8 structure which is -- which out lives many buildings. 9 You know, if you think about how many buildings have 10 been built and taken down in our lifetime, and yet our 11 spine keeps working, and the price it pays is that it 12 will change. That the texture of the bone will change. 13 The configuration of the bone will changel and I have 14 already described the discs which are buffers, if you 15 will, or cushions as they have been described, but 16 really they are joints. They just hold together the 17 bones, and they will dry out and they will change, and 18 that is what we see. 19 Q Now, Doctor, you've also had the 20 opportunity to review a report, not the actual film, 21 but a report from an MRI taken of Ms. Maxwell in 22 October of 2005. 23 Could you please offer to the jury your 24 conclusions regarding that report? 25 MR. GREECHER: Off the record a second. 19 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the video. 2 The time of day is 2:15 p.m. 3 MR. GREECHER: Once again, I don't believe 4 the Doctor has addressed that in any of his reports. 5 So I want to lodge that objection to protect the 6 record, that it is beyond the scope of his reports. 7 That is it. 8 MR. RAUCH: Let me just make a comment. 9 With respect to the report, I mean, we will establish 10 that he has reviewed the reports of Dr. Bruce Goodman 11 who lS the plaintiff's independent medical examiner, 12 and he does comment In his report regarding the 13 examination of Dr. Goodman and does mention him by name 14 in his report. 15 So I think representation of his review of 16 a report that Dr. Goodman has commented on lS perfectly 17 within the bounds of his report. 21 MR. GREECHER: Okay. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Returning back to the The time of day is 2:16 p.m. THE WITNESS: Radiologists are obliged to 18 19 20 video. 22 describe everything that is seen on the films. They 23 are at a disadvantage in several regards. Number one, 24 they are not surgeons. Few of them have seen the 25 living spine in an operating room as we have. 20 1 They don't know the patient, and they are 2 working with a medium that is barely 25 years old. 3 So they really have no good basis to 4 describe what a normal aging MR scan would look like as 5 they could, for instance, with a chest x-ray. The 6 chest x-rays have been done since the late 1800s. 7 So I think we have to be kind to the 8 radiologist by our criticism. I am certainly not 9 criticizing them. They serve an extraordinarily useful 10 purpose, especially in my practice, but that being 11 said, the radiologist must describe every abnormality, 12 and that is what they do. They will describe things 13 such as osteophytes and narrowing of the canal and that 14 sort of thing. 15 BY MR. RAUCH: 16 Q What do they use as a baseline for coming 17 to their conclusions in their reports? 18 A Perfection. I think they are forced to. 19 If you think about what I just said, the natural 20 conclusion would be that anything that deviates from a 21 perfect or near perfect spinal column is worthy of 22 note, and then the interpretation is in the hands of 23 those carlng for the patient who know more about the 24 patient than a radiologist can be expected to know. 25 Q Along those lines, Doctor, in comparing 21 1 the April 7th, 2003 film with the film that I just 2 referenced, the report of October 20th of 2005, can you 3 explain to the jury what if any differences there are 4 in terms of the two studies? 5 MR. GREECHER: Off the record, off camera. 6 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the video. 7 The time of day is 2:18 p.m. 8 MR. GREECHER: I don't want to keep 9 interrupting, but I do have a continuing objection to 10 this line of questioning. 11 MR. RAUCH: Fine. Again, my response is 12 the same to your continuing objection. 13 14 video. 15 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Returning back to the The time of day is 2:18 p.m. THE WITNESS: No, I think this illustrates 16 why when someone comes to my office for neurosurgical 17 care that we must see the films, and that is for 18 purposes of assigning merit or concern to what a 19 radiologist might be saying. 20 Rarely -- I hate to say never and I won't 21 -- but rarely do we see a report of a middle age man or 22 woman with an MR scan of the neck that is described as 23 normal. It's rarely one line, normal, rarely. 24 BY MR. RAUCH: 25 Q In the event that there were -- there was 22 1 a film taken in October of '05, and a film taken on 2 April 7th of '03, would you expect there to be some 3 progression, Doctor? 4 A Well, yes. There may well be and it may 5 be difficult to see. Remember -- or you won1t remember 6 but I will tell you, these scanners are usually 7 upgraded during that time period, a year or two. There 8 are different technicians. A patient may be in a 9 different position. I really thought that there was 10 really nothing to differ among these scans. 11 Q Doctor, would any progression of a 12 degenerative condition be related to the motor vehicle 13 accident in this case? 14 15 MR. GREECHER: Same objection. Go ahead. THE WITNESS: Well, not that I can 16 document. It's really -- first of all, these changes 17 are -- I have to make a choice in my practice, is this 18 what you expect to see in someone in this age group 19 within certain bounds, and if I already said yes, then, 20 well, she's gotten older and that is really all we are 21 seeing. 22 BY MR. RAUCH: 23 Q Doctor, have you had the opportunity to 24 develop an opinion as to what injury Ms. Maxwell 25 suffered in the accident of December of 102? 23 1 MR. GREECHER: Can we go off the record a 2 minute? 3 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the video. 4 The time of day is 2:21 p.m. 5 MR. GREECHER: Once again, Kevin, to 6 protect the record, I didn't see the Doctor actually 7 give an opinion in either of these reports. You gave 8 findings and so forth. So just to protect the record 9 again, I will lodge an objection in that regard. 10 MR. RAUCH: That is fine. 11 12 video. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Returning back to the The time of day is 2:21 p.m. 13 THE WITNESS: When I saw her, my diagnosis 14 was neck and left arm paln. The -- subsequently I was 15 able to see the scans because at the time I saw her I 16 entertained the possibility that she had ruptured a 17 disc or she had injured one of the nerves to her left 18 arm which would result in the need for surgical 19 consideration. 20 So having seen the scans and done the 21 examination that I described, heard the history that I 22 described, I would say that she had a flexion/extension 23 injury at the time of the motor vehicle accident, and 24 as a result of that she had symptoms that -- at least 25 shortly thereafter of neck pain and arm pain and 24 1 shoulder pain as well, and by the time I saw her, she 2 had a normal examination except for some slight 3 stiffness and had some middle age changes in the neck. 4 BY MR. RAUCH: 5 6 Q A Did she complain of any headaches? No. She told me she had had headaches at 7 the time of the injury, but when I saw her that was 8 specifically discussed and there was no headache. 9 ~Q Doctor, in preparation of your report, did 10 you also have the opportunity to review the reports of 11 Bruce Goodman, M.D.? Q Yes. You were also able to see then, Doctor, 12 13 A 14 that he rendered a diagnosis of occipital neuritis? 15 A Yes. 16 MR. GREECHER: Off the record, please. 17 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the video. 18 The time of day is 2:23 p.m. 19 MR. GREECHER: Once again to protect the 20 record, I know the Doctor looked at the reports, he 21 looked at Dr. Goodman's reports, but in his report he 22 doesn't discuss any analysis. So I think this is again 23 beyond the scope. 24 MR. RAUCH: Again, he specifically 25 references it, and I am responding to your objection, 25 \ ' 1 on July 5th, 2006 in his report that he did have the 2 opportunity to review them, and he is able to comment I 3 believe on the Doctor's diagnosis of occipital 4 neuritis. In fact, he states it point blank in his 5 report. 6 So I believe that it's very much within 7 the scope of his opinions rendered in his written 8 report of July 5th, 2006. 9 Before we go back on, I am gOlng to be 10 asking questions about that. 11 objection to that? Do you want a continuing 12 MR. GREECHER: Sure. That way we can keep 13 moving. 14 15 MR. RAUCH: That lS fine. 16 video. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Returning back to the The time of day is 2:24 p.m. 17 BY MR. RAUCH: 18 Q Now, Doctor, you were able to reVlew the 19 report of Dr. Goodman and that he rendered a diagnosis 20 of occipital neuritis. 21 22 23 A Q A Yes. Do you agree with that? Well, of course, that was October of '05, 24 and in July of '06 she did not have occipital 25 neuralgia. 26 1 Q Actually, I believe it was May of 'OS, 2 Doctor. 3 A Yeah, May, and then he has the addendum 4 where he concluded again in October of '05. By the 5 time I saw her in July of '06 it was not an issue. 6 Q Why is that, Doctor? What didn't she have 7 first of all, tell the jury what occipital neuritis 8 is. 9 A We call it occipital neuralgia. It is a 10 neurological condition that -- there are four nerves 11 that run up the back of the head, and they are scalp 12 nerves and they are called the occipital nerve. There 13 is a greater and lesser. So greater, lesser, so two 14 and two for a total of four. 15 It's usually a nontraumatic condition. 16 People are sent to us -- and people have pain up the 17 back of their head. It's in my experience we are 18 called upon to see them. 19 We will see that nerve when we open the 20 head to do procedures on the brain. We will see the 21 nerves in the scalp and we will cut them and they don't 22 need to be sewn together and no harm comes from it. 23 They are what is called sensory nerves. So while 24 people may have some numbness in their scalp, they may 25 have numbness after any incision, but that usually 27 1 recovers. 2 The condition, the pure condition 3 occipital neuralgia is sometimes treated by injection, 4 although we try to avoid that. Sometimes treated by 5 cutting the nerve. I think I have cut one in thirty 6 years. 7 It's usually treated by medications, and 8 as I say, it doesn't come as a result of trauma. 9 Individuals who have whiplash such as 10 Ms. Maxwell will often describe neck pain, and the neck 11 muscles insert themselves at the base of the head and 12 they can describe headache from that just from the pain 13 in the muscles. 14 The muscles are the main generators of 15 paln in the neck, not necessarily the bones, and even 16 if they are broken, they don't generate as much pain as 17 the muscles do. 18 So I would respectfully disagree with 19 Dr. Goodman saying that she has occipital neuralgia or 20 occipital neuritis. I donlt think she does. Certainly 21 she didn't have it when I saw her. 22 Q Would the pain or injury to muscle that 23 you have just described be characterized by anything 24 specific? 25 A If you've ever had one, acute injury, it's 28 1 quite severe, and what the individual does is splint 2 the neck. That means they won't move the neck. The 3 muscles usually get quite tight and it is usually quite 4 painful to move the neck, and as I say, they can have 5 headache. 6 We as surgeons are concerned to make sure 7 they haven't broken their neck and put their spinal 8 cord at risk or their spinal nerves, and we also want 9 to make sure that they haven't ruptured a disc acutely. 10 That can occur, and again, put the spinal cord and 11 spinal nerves at risk. 12 13 14 Q A Q Would spasm be a part of that? Yes. On your exam of Ms. Maxwell she did not 15 have any spasms? 16 A One wouldn't expect it at that point. 17 That was quite a ways after the injury. 18 MR. RAUCH: Off the record for a second. 19 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the video. 20 The time of day is 2:29 p.m. 21 (Pause.) 22 23 video. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Returning back to the The time of day 2:30 p.m. 24 BY MR. RAUCH: 25 Q Doctor, at the time of your exam of 29 1 Ms. Maxwell, did you have any objective findings? 2 First of all, explain to the jury what an objective 3 finding is. 4 A Well, like everything else, there is 5 the categories are objective and subjective. If I say 6 my arm hurts, that is a subjective finding. If I say 7 my arm hurts and there is a bone sticking out of the 8 arm, that is a pure objective finding. 9 But then like everything else, there are 10 gray zones. If I say my arm hurts and the doctor 11 starts to examine it and I say, ooh, that hurts, ouch, 12 ouch, right there, it's a kind of gray zone. 13 So we like in our business of neurosurgery 14 to have nothing but objective findings to compile data, 15 and that is what I tried to do here for you because I 16 know it's a difficult case. 17 That all being said, she did have some 18 difficulties extending her neck, and I believed her, 19 and I think she -- and I recorded that. 20 Q Is that subjective or objective? 21 A I would have to call that objective, 22 although it's -- you could argue that is in the gray 23 zone, but then I would interject that I judged her to 24 be a reliable, straightforward person, and she couldn't 25 move her neck as much as I would expect a woman in her 30 1 age group to move it, not to any great degree, but she 2 did have a little trouble looking up, but otherwise, 3 no, she had no other objective findings. 4 Q Did she complain of any numbness or 5 anything like that in her left arm? 6 A No, it was pain, pain in the left arm and 7 in the neck. 8 9 Q A Again, were those subjective or objective? That is -- when we are talking history, 10 that lS all subjective because I give the -- any time 11 any of us take a history, we let the patient tell us 12 what is ailing him or her, try to direct them by asking 13 certain questions, but that is all subjective. 14 Q Doctor, given your review of the records, 15 your review of the diagnostic tests and diagnostic 16 reports, are the opinions you've rendered today within 17 -- as well as your exam, were all of the opinions 18 you've rendered today within a reasonable degree of 19 medical certainty? 20 21 22 A Yes. MR. RAUCH: Nothing further. MR. GREECHER: Can we go off camera so I 23 can look at the Doctor's file briefly. 24 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the video. 25 The time of day is 2:33 p.m. 31 1 2 (Discussion off the record.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Returning back to the The time of day is 2:38 p.m. CROSS EXAMINATION 3 video. 4 5 6 BY MR. GREECHER: Q Doctor, some follow-up questions for you. 7 As you indicated, you saw Ms. Maxwell on one occasion, 8 and that was July 5, '06. 9 A Correct. 10 Q That was on -- and you were asked to do 11 that on behalf of Mr. Rauch's client. 12 A Yes. 13 Q You performed what is known as an IME, 14 Independent Medical Exam. 15 A Yes. 16 Q Do you do those on a regular basis in your 17 practice, IME's? 18 19 20 21 22 23 A Yes. I will do them here and I will do them elsewhere. Most of them are done elsewhere just because it's more convenient. Q How do you get patients for performance of Independent Medical Exams? A Well, ever since I have been here, we get 24 requests, mostly by defense concerns, but occasionally 25 someone will move into town who has had an injury and 32 1 his attorneys will want him seen and that sort of 2 thing, but they are mostly defense. 3 We have had requests over the years, and 4 we try to limit them because we -- by nature of the 5 exams, they don't result in further neurosurgery. So 6 we have to limit them, but people will call attorneys' 7 offices, insurance companies, adjustors, and that sort 8 of thingr and there is a fee schedule and they agree to 9 it and we do the examination. 10 Q Do you also get referrals from services or 11 do you participate with any services that refer this 12 type of work to physicians? 13 A That is what I meant by adjustors and 14 services, yes. 15 Q Okay. 16 A Most of the Independent Medical Exams I do 17 are for some of these services. The lion's share are 18 done for a company called IMX which does nothing but 19 these sort of examinationsr and as I saYr it's more 20 convenient because they do the schedulingr they provide 21 the site, they provide the record storage which is 22 often quite challenging. They do the scheduling of the 23 follow-ups if necessarYr things like depositions and 24 that sort of thing. They do the billing and then again 25 I am paid a fee. 33 1 Q Do you know approximately how many 2 Independent Medical Exams you are involved in say on a 3 monthly basis? 4 A I do probably -- the focus seems to be 5 around two dozen, and it doesn't usually drop below two 6 dozen, but I doubt that I have the time. I know I 7 don't have the time to do anymore than three dozen. So 8 it may drift between 24 and perhaps the low thirties, 9 but usually the focus is around two dozen. 10 Q On those cases then on occasion are you 11 called upon to do a deposition as you are today? 12 A We reckon that 15 percent of Independent 13 Medical Examinations will come to deposition. 14 Q Of course, I had asked earlier, you are 15 paid for doing this work. 16 A Well, there is a fee schedule for 17 everything, yes. 18 Q What is the fee schedule -- what is the 19 fee for the examination and report? 20 A Here in the office it's $1500. There was 21 an addendum done, and I don't know what that was 22 billed, but it's $1500 for the examination which is 23 everything that appears on the document you have, the 24 record review, the history, the physical, and that sort 25 of thing. 34 1 Q That is your standard fee for doing the 2 type of work you did in this case? 3 A Here in the office, yes. 4 Q Then there is also a fee then for your - - 5 for this deposition. 6 A Deposition, and I may have it wrong, but I 7 believe it's $3,000. I may be wrong there. 8 Q Now, as you indicated to us, you found 9 Ms. Maxwell to be a reliable, straightforward 10 individual. 11 A Yes. 12 Q And she related to you the facts of the 13 collision, what happened to her car and what happened 14 to the other vehicle. 15 A Yes. 16 Q In fact, the other vehicle was knocked 17 over and Ms. Maxwell's car was inoperable. 18 A Yes. 19 Q So this was a significant crash. 20 A I believe that is true. 21 Q And Ms. Maxwell told you that at the scene 22 she had the neck pain and this headache. 23 A And elbow. 24 Q And elbow. 25 A Yes. 35 1 Q In fact, she hit her elbow on the door or 2 something during the accident, correct? 3 4 A Q Yes. And then you related that she didn't go to 5 a hospital because she was concerned with the -- with 6 her passenger. 7 8 A Q Yes. Who also had some complaints at the scene, 9 some injuries. 10 A Yes. 11 Q And the -- Ms. Maxwell related to you her 12 symptoms were ongoing, that she sDught medical care 13 about a month later. Q Yes. That is all consistent with the medical 14 15 A 16 records you reviewed. 17 18 A Q Yes. In following that, she had -- I think you 19 told us that she had some physical therapy, 20 chiropractic care, and I think she sought a 21 neurologist, Dr. Grossinger. She had a TENS unit, 22 epidural injections, all following up for what she 23 suffered in the motor vehicle accident. 24 25 A Q Yes. Now, in terms of the injuries themselves 36 1 2 MR. GREECHER: Could we go off the record 3 a second. 4 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the video. 5 The time of day is 2:43 p.m. 6 MR. GREECHER: Can we agree, Kevin, I am 7 just generally cross examining and that won't be a 8 waiver of any of the objections I raised to his report? 9 10 MR. RAUCH: Yes. MR. GREECHER: Then we don't have to go 11 back and forth. 12 MR. RAUCH: I guess I can place an 13 objection to your cross examination. 14 15 MR. GREECHER: That is fair enough. MR. RAUCH: At this time I will place an 16 objection to Mr. Greecher's cross examination regarding 17 I guess any questions about the Doctor's conclusions 18 with respect to Dr. Goodman's report or any of the 19 objections raised during Dr. Close's direct 20 examination. 21 MR. GREECHER: That is fair, and which 22 objection then lS, if I waive my objections or the 23 Court rules in your favor, then your objection is off 24 the table also to the questioning that I am going to 25 enter into. 37 1 2 3 MR. RAUCH: Correct. MR. GREECHER: Fair enough. MR. RAUCH: Unless there is a different 4 objection other than what was just stated. 5 6 MR. GREECHER: Yes. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Returning back to the 7 video. The time of day is 2:45 p.m. 8 BY MR. GREECHER: 9 Q Doctor, you did conclude that Ms. Maxwell 10 did have a flexion/extension injury. 11 12 A Q Yes. She had an injury that involved her neck, 13 shoulder, and arm, right? 14 A Yes. 15 Q And you also talked about some MRI's, and 16 so we are clear here, the MRI that the -- the MRI that 17 was done in April of '03 showed degenerative changes in 18 Ms. Maxwell's neck. 19 A Yes. 20 Q You agree that that -- you agree with that 21 part of the finding, that there was degenerative 22 changes in the neck. 23 A Yes. 24 Q The MRI report as read by the radiologist 25 for the April 2003 MRI discussed some spondylosis which 38 1 I understand is abnormal bone in the neck. 2 3 A Q Doctor speak for arthritis. And some disc bulging, correct? 4 A Yes. 5 Q And some herniations at -- specifically at 6 the C4, C5-6 levels. 7 A Yes. 8 Q Then there was an MR -- not an MRI, but 9 there was an EMG that was carried out. 10 11 A Q Yes. That EMG showed C5 -- this EMG was carried 12 -out right around the same time as the MRI, right? 13 14 15 A Q A Yes, that's correct. And that showed a C5 radiculopathy. I believe you are right. I am working on 16 memory. 17 Q If you want to check the records and make 18 sure I am right, that is fine. 19 A I recall it. I am just wondering which 20 side, if it was both sides or one side or the other. 21 That I don't recall, and I have it here. 22 yes. Left side, 23 Q Then that is the side -- I'm sorry. 24 A I would say he described it as a mild but 25 definitive C5 radiculopathy and based on his findings, 39 1 yes. 2 Q That lS the side where she was having the 3 complaints as well on the left side. 4 5 A Q Yes. And the C5 radiculopathy, that lS 6 consistent also with what was seen on the MRI with the 7 levels that she had those problems. 8 A That is where we part company. One would 9 think hearing the report and certainly where I, a 10 non-spine surgeon, and saw that report or gathered that 11 data, my next stop for my patient would be to see 12 someone like myself, a neurosurgeon, to give an 13 opinion. 14 15 Q Okay. Now, the C5 radiculopathy means that that 16 nerve that comes out at that level in the neck is 17 irritated in some fashion. 18 A Well, it means the nerve is irritated. 19 The source may be as it's leaving the neck or may be 20 elsewhere. 21 Q Now, the MRI report also mentions 22 something about the -- that there were findings 23 consistent with spasm or position of the patient, 24 correct? 25 A Yes. 40 1 Q Do you recall also that in March of '03 2 the records of the physical therapist revealed that 3 Ms. Maxwell was reporting cervical muscle spasm? 4 A Yes. 5 Q The spasms are at -- that would fall into 6 the range of an objective finding. 7 A Yes, but I cannot agree that an MRI is a 8 useful indicator, and you already said it. It's either 9 spasm or positioning. The patient is placed in an 10 unnatural situation on the scanner which takes away In 11 some people the natural curve, and that is all they are 12 seeing. They are not seeing the natural curve of the 13 neck. 14 Q Right, and not seeing that natural curve 15 of the neck, as I tried to fairly indicate, the report 16 indicated was that either it was read as being either 17 spasm or positioning. 18 A Right. 19 Q And contemporaneously with this -- roughly 20 contemporaneously with this MRI report, the report from 21 the physical therapist was actually showing spasm on 22 examination. 23 24 25 A injury. Exactly, which is shortly thereafter the Q Correct. 41 v Q Yes. The occipital nerve that you discussed, 1 2 A 3 now that is in the back of the head. 4 5 6 A Actually, as I say, there is a greater and One on either side, yes. The one on the left, is that the greater a lesser. Q 7 or lesser? 8 9 10 11 A Q A Q There is two greaters and two lessers. That lS what I figured there was. I'm sorry. They are greater and lesser because we are 12 kind of symmetrical. We usually have one thing on one 13 side of us and matching on the other. 14 A You got it. 15 Q But this nerve is in the back -- is in the 16 back of the head and in the neck. 17 A In the scalp. 18 Q On the scalp. 19 A In the scalp, yes. 20 Q But that is where it is. It is right in 21 the back, like at the hairline from your neck up into 22 your hairline and so forth. 23 A Well, I could show you on myself. 24 why I wear my hair this way. It's up in here. That is 25 Q Okay. 42 1 A If I want to find it, and in fact, we do 2 find it when we - - as I say, when we take down the 3 scalp to do a brain operation back here, we will find 4 it up in here. So it's really not a neck structure. 5 Q Does it come out of the neck at some 6 point? 7 A It arises up at the top of the junction in 8 the spinal cord. It's really not a neck structure, 9 other than that it traverses through -- there is a 10 muscle complex there that -- where the scalp muscles 11 will join the neck muscles. 12 13 Q A Where you are holding your hand there? Exactly. So I think that is where the 14 nerve is running. 15 Q Do you recall, Doctor, when you saw 16 Ms. Maxwell on the 5th that you -- when you were done 17 your exam or talking with you that you took the 18 opportunity to discuss your impressions with her? 19 20 A Don't recall. MR. GREECHER: That is all of the 21 questions I have. 22 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 23 BY MR. RAUCH: 24 Q Doctor, does the fact that you were 25 compensated for your time today affect any of the 43 1 conclusions that you've discussed with the Jury today? 2 3 A Q No. Would it effect your ability to read 4 Dr. Goodman's reports? 5 6 A Q No. Would it effect your ability to read an 7 MRI scan? 8 9 A Q No. Would it effect your exam or how you 10 examined someone? 11 12 A Q No. Would it have affected whether you would 13 have noted pain complaints such as headaches in your 14 report? 15 16 A Q No. Doctor, you had the opportunity to review 17 Ms. Maxwell's records, correct? 18 19 A Q Yes. And did you review the records of the 20 Neurologist Grossinger? 21 22 23 briefly? 24 A Yes. MR. GREECHER: Can we go off the record THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the video. 25 The time of day is 2:53 p.m. 44 1 MR. GREECHER: I think this is beyond the 2 scope of the Cross, and also outside of the scope of 3 the report. 4 MR. RAUCH: I will specifically address 5 the C5 radiculopathy complaints that were brought up 6 during Cross Examination. 7 MR. GREECHER: Fair enough. 8 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Returning back to the 9 video. The time of day is 2:56 p.m. 10 BY MR. RAUCH: 11 Q Doctor, asking you to reference the report 12 of Dr. Grossinger who I believe is a neurologist? 13 14 A Q Yes. Dated April 17th, 2003, which would have 15 been ten days after the MRI scan that we have been 16 discussing and was discussed on Cross Examination. 17 18 A Q Yes. Doctor, anywhere in Dr. Grossinger's notes 19 do you see anything relating to headaches? 20 21 A Q No. At that time, Doctor, would you have 22 expected in fact if she had occipital neuritis for 23 complaints of headaches to be existent at that time? 24 25 A Yes. MR. GREECHER: Let's go off camera. 45 1 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the video. 2 The time of day 2:57 p.m. 3 MR. RAUCH: That lS all I have. 4 MR. GREECHER: I wanted the same objection 5 that I had, beyond the scope of the report. Move to 6 strike. 7 MR. RAUCH: Again, I believe it's 8 responsive to things that were elicited on Cross 9 Examination. 10 MR. GREECHER: I think it's beyond the 11 scope of Cross. 12 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Returning back to the 13 video. The time of day is 2:57 p.m. 14 MR. GREECHER: Doctor, I don't have any 15 other questions for you at this time. Thank you, sir. 16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: This videotape 17 deposition of Dr. Close is now concluded. The time of 18 day 2:58 p.m. 19 * * * * 20 21 22 23 24 25 46 1 2 3 C E R T I F I CAT E I, Sharon L. Dougherty, a Notary Public for the 4 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, do hereby certify: 5 That the witness named in the deposition, prior 6 to being examined, was by me first duly sworn or 7 affirmed; 8 That said deposition was taken before me at the 9 time and place herein set forth, and was taken down by 10 me in stenotype and thereafter transcribed under my 11 direction and supervision; 12 That said deposition is a true record of the 13 testimony glven by the witness and of all objections 14 made at the time of the examination. 15 I further certify that I am neither counsel for 16 nor related to any party to said action, nor in any way 17 interested in the outcome thereof. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Deposition of Richard Close, M.D. on 9/6/06 Re: Roxann Maxwell - , - '02 [1] 22:25 '03 [3] 22:2; 37:17; 40:1 '05 [4] 22:1; 25:23; 26:1, 4 '06 [4] 10:16; 25:24; 26:5; 31:8 '72 [2] 4:14, 15 177 [2] 4:15, 21 179 [2] 4 :21, 22 - 0 - 43:25; 44:9; 45:2, 13, 18 2003 [4] 15:17; 21:1; 37:25; 44:14 2005 [2] 18:22; 21:2 2006 [4] 1:9; 3:6; 25:1, 8 20th [ 1 ] 2 1 : 2 21 [2] 23 :4, 12 23 [2] 11:11; 24:18 24 [2] 25:16; 33:8 25 [2] 6:15; 20:2 29 [1] 28:20 01 [2] 9:23; 10:1 - 3 - 02 [2] 10:8; 11:11 03 [1] 15:20 04-6243 [2] 1:4; 3:10 06 [2] 13:7, 19 - 1 - 1 [2] 1:16; 3:6 10 [1] 2:21 1017 [1] 2:8 111 [1] 2:3 12 [1] 11: 11 12,000 [1] 11:12 15 [2] 19:2; 33:12 1500 [2] 33 :20, 22 155 [1] 3:3 16 [1] 19:20 17036 [1] 1:24 17043 [1] 2:8 17108 [1] 2:4 17th [1] 44:14 18 [2] 21: 7, 14 1800s [1] 20: 6 1982 [1] 6:8 - 2 - 2 [25] 9:13, 23; 10:1, 8; 13:7, 19; 19:2, 20; 21:7, 14; 23:4, 12; 24:18; 25:16; 28:20, 23; 30:25; 31:3; 36:5; 37:7; 3,000 30 [1] 31 [1] 33 [1] 34 [1] 35 [1] 38 [1] [1] 34:7 28:23 2:22 30:25 6:15 6:15 31:3 - 4 - 4 [2] 2: 21; 15: 20 42 [1] 2:21 43 [1] 36:5 45 [2] 11:6; 37:7 - 5 - 5 [2] 10:16; 31:8 53 [3] 1:16; 3:6; 43:25 56 [1] 44:9 57 [2] 45:2, 13 573 [1] 1:24 58 [1] 45:18 5 th [ 3 ] 2 5 : I, 8; 42:16 - 6 - 6 [1] 1:9 60-year-old [1] 18:5 601 [1] 1:15 610 [1] 3:8 671-7007 [1] 1:25 6 th [ 1 ] 3: 5 - 7 - 7 [1] 15:20 717 [1] 1:25 7 th [3] 15: 17; 21:1; 22:2 - 8 - 8 [1] 2:22 889 [1] 2:4 - A - ability [4] 13:23; 14:13; 43: 3, 6 able [4] 23:15; 24:13; 25:2, 18 abnor.mal [1] 38:1 abnor.mali ty [1] 20:11 above [1] 1:16 accepted [1] 7:22 accident [7] 7:11; 11:8; 22:13, 25; 23:23; 35:2, 23 accredited [2] 5:14, 15 acid [1] 12:22 action [2] 1:3; 46:16 activities [1] 12:8 activity [1] 12:12 actual [3] 14: 6; 15:23; 18:20 actually [4] 23:6; 26:1; 40:21; 41:4 acute [1] 27:25 acutely [1] 28:9 addendum [2 ] 26:3; 33:21 address [1] 44:4 addressed [1] 19:4 adjustors [2] 32:7, 13 affect [1] 42:25 affected [1] 43:12 affir.med [1] 46:7 after [4] 15:21; 26:25; 28:17; Apex Reporting Service 717-545-3553 44:15 afternoon [2] 4: 5, 6 again [14] 9:24; 14:8; 19:3; 21:11; 23:5, 9; 24:19, 22, 24; 26:4; 28:10; 30:8; 32:24; 45:7 age [11] 16: 12; 17:2, 7, 18, 23; 18:5, 6; 21:21; 22:18; 24:3; 30:1 aggravated [2] 12 : 7; 16: 12 aging [1] 20:4 ago [1] 6:20 agree [6] 25:22; 32:8; 36:6; 37:20; 40:7 ahead [1] 22:14 ailing [1] 30:12 alcohol [1] 12:25 alIen [1] 4:9 allergies [2] 12:17, 21 almost [1] 8:3 along [2] 9:21; 20:25 already [3] 18:14; 22:19; 40:8 al though [2 ] 27:4; 29:22 american [1] 7:19 among [1] 22:10 amount [2] 7:13; 17:18 analysis [1] 24:22 ann [3] 1:5; 3:10, 16 anymore [1] 33:7 anything [ 7 ] 10:23; 13:2, 9; 20:20; 27:23; 30:5; 44:19 anywhere [1] 44:18 apparently [1] 11:11 appears [1] 33:23 apply [2] 7:22, 23 approach [1 ] 10:21 appropriate [1] 9:16 Deposition of Richard Close, M.D. on 9/6/06 Re: Roxann Maxwell appropriately [1] 9:18 approximately [2] 1:16; 33:1 april [6] 15:17; 21:1; 22:2; 37:17, 25; 44:14 areas [2] 8: 1 7 , 20 arensberg [1] 2:3 argue [1] 29:22 arises [1] 42:7 arm [13] 12:7; 15:3, 5; 23:14, 18, 25; 29:6, 7, 8, 10; 30:5, 6; 37:13 army [2] 4:19, 20 around [3] 33:5, 9; 38:12 arthritis [1] 38:2 ask [1] 14: 20 asked [5] 12:5, 14; 14:17; 31:10; 33:14 asking [5] 13:12, 14; 25:10; 30:12; 44:11 assigned [1] 4:19 assigning [1] 21:18 associations [1] 7:19 attacks [1] 14:1 attorneys [1] 32:1 attorneys' [1] 32:6 automobile [1] 11:12 available [2] 11:2; 15:20 avoid [1] 27:4 away [1] 40:10 - B - back [29] 7:4; 8:21; 9:22; 10:4, 7, 25; 11:15; 13:18; 16:24, 25; 17:15; 19:19; 21:13; 23:11; 25:9, 15; 26:11, 17; 28:22; 31:2; 36:11; 37:6; 41:3, 15, 16, 21; 42:3; 44:8; 45:12 background [1] 4:11 balance [1] 14:15 barely [1] 20:2 base [1] 27:11 based [1] 38:25 baseline [1] 20:16 basis [3] 20:3; 31:16; 33:3 because [9] 12:13; 23:15; 29:15; 30:10; 31:20; 32:4, 20; 35:5; 41:11 before [4] 1:17; 6:24; 25:9; 46:8 beginning [1] 1:16 begins [1] 5:13 behalf [4] 3:14, 16, 18; 31:11 being [8] 3:7, 13; 14:11; 16:4; 20:10; 29:17; 40:16; 46:6 believe [11] 9:15; 13:8; 19:3; 25:3, 6; 26:1; 34:7, 20; 38:15; 44:12; 45:7 believed [1] 29:18 below [1] 33:5 belted [1] 11:9 between [2] 17:11; 33:8 beyond [6] 13:11; 19:6; 24:23; 44:1; 45:5, 10 billed [1] 33:22 billing [1] 32:24 bit [1] 6:12 blank [1] 25:4 blocks [1] 17:12 board [7] 5:12; 6:2, 4, 8, 9; 7:23 body [3] 14:20; 15:10, 12 bone [ 5 ] 13: 22 ; 18:12, 13; 29:7; 38:1 bones [3] 7:10; 18:17; 27:15 born [1] 16: 11 bo th [2 ] 8: 6 ; 38:20 bother [1] 12:13 bothering [1] 15:2 bounded [1] 16:23 bounds [2] 19:17; 22:19 box [ 2 ] 2: 4; 16: 3 brain [11] 6:14, 16, 20; 13:25; 14:9, 13; 16:6, 7; 26:20; 42:3 briefly [2] 30:23; 43:23 brings [1] 10:24 broken [2] 27:16; 28:7 brought [1] 44:5 bruce [2] 19:10; 24:11 buffers [1] 18:14 build [1] 15:12 buildings [2] 18: 8, 9 built [1] 18:10 bulging [1] 38:3 business [1] 29:13 - C - c4 [1] 38: 6 cS [6] 38:11, 14, 25; 39:5, 15; 44:5 cS-6 [1] 38:6 call [3] 26:9; 29:21; 32:6 called [10] 5:12; 6:7, 22; 12:2; 17:9; 26:12, 18, 23; 32:18; 33:11 came [1] 4:22 camera [3] 21:5; 30:22; 44:25 canal [3] 16:23; 17:21; 20:13 cannot [1] 40:7 caption [1] 3:9 car [2] 34: 13, 17 care [3] 21: 1 7 ; 35:12, 20 caring [1] 20:23 carried [2] 38:9, 11 cartilage [1] 17:12 case [10] 3: 9 , 10; 7:24; 9:2; Apex Reporting Service 717.545-3553 11:3; 13:11; 17:8; 22:13; 29:16; 34:2 cases [4] 5:25; 6:2; 17:5; 33:10 categories [1] 29:5 cause [1] 17:24 center [3] 4: 20 ; 5:3; 6:19 central [1] 8:2 certain [2] 22:19; 30:13 certainly [4] 13:23; 20:8; 27:20; 39:9 certainty [1] 30:19 certification [3] 5: 12, 13; 6: 8 certified [2] 6:9; 7:23 certify [3] 5:16; 46:4, 15 cervical [1] 40:3 chairman [1] 5:16 challenging [1] 32:22 change [4] 18:12, 13, 17 changes [11] 17:2, 8, 18, 20, 23; 18:1, 4; 22:16; 24:3; 37:17, 22 chapter [1] 8:2 characterized [1] 27:23 check [3] 15:12; 38:17 chest [2] 20:5, 6 chief [2] 4:19; 14:22 chi Idren [ 1] 12:24 chiropractic [2] 12:2; 35:20 chiropractor [1] 12:9 choice [1] 22:17 cigarette [1] 13:3 cigarettes [3] 13:1, 10, 21 cinder [1] 17:12 circulation [1] 13:22 civil [1] 1:3 class [1] 4:14 clear [1] 37:16 Deposition of Richard Close, M.D. on 9/6/06 Re: Roxann Maxwell client [1] 31:11 close [7] 1: 14; 2:21; 3:12,24; 4:9; 8:10; 45:17 close's [1] 36: 19 collaborate [1] 9:1 college [2] 7:19, 21 collision [2] 11:9; 34:13 column [3] 16:25; 17:7; 20:21 come [3] 27:8; 33:13; 42:5 comes [3] 21: 16 ; 26:22; 39:16 coming [1] 20:16 comment [4] 13:15; 19:8,12; 25:2 commented [1] 19:16 commitment [1] 4:18 common [1] 1:1 commonest [1] 7:3 commonly [2 ] 6: 14; 1 7: 1 commonwealth [2] 5:2; 46:4 companies [1] 32:7 company [2 ] 32:18; 39:8 comparing [1] 20:25 compartment [1] 16:22 compensated [2] 9:8; 42:25 compile [1] 29:14 compiled [1] 5:25 complain [3] 15:7; 24:5; 30:4 complaints [7] 13:17; 14:23; 35:8; 39:3; 43:13; 44:5, 23 completed [1] 6:7 completing [1] 5:23 complex [3] 13:23; 17:11; 42:10 concern [2 ] 17:24; 21:18 concerned [4] 11:18, 21; 28:6; 35:5 concerns [1] 31:24 conclude [1] 37:9 concluded [2] 26:4; 45:17 conclusion [2] 17:22; 20:20 conclusions [5] 13: 16; 18: 24 ; 20:17; 36:17; 43:1 condition [5] 22:12; 26:10, 15; 27:2 conditions [3] 6:25; 7:5; 8:24 conferred [1] 7:21 configuration [1] 18:13 consider [1] 16:5 consideration [1] 23:19 consistent [3] 35:15; 39:6, 23 consulted [2] 11:25; 12:14 contact [1] 13:21 contemporaneously [2] 40:19, 20 continuing [3] 21:9, 12; 25:10 convenient [2] 31:20; 32:20 cord [14] 7: 1 ; 14:9; 16:4, 5, 8, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22; 17:19; 28:8, 10; 42:8 cords [1] 7: 8 couldn't [1] 29:24 counsel [2] 3:15; 46:15 county [3] 1:1; 7:18 couple [1] 8:15 course [3] 14:23; 25:23; 33:14 court [5] 1: 1, 17, 23; 3:20; 36:23 courtesy [1] 5:4 cranium [2] 7:9; 16:7 crash [1] 34:19 create [1] 17:14 credentials [1] 6:1 cri ticism [1] 20:8 criticizing [1] 20:9 cross [10] 8: 12; 31:4; 36:7, 13, 16; 44:2, 6, 16; 45:8, 11 cumberland [1] 1:1 currently [1] 4:23 curve [3] 40:11, 12, 14 cushions [1] 18:15 cut [2] 26: 21; 27:5 cutting [1] 27:5 cysts [1] 16:20 - D - damage [2] 11:11, 13 da t a [ 2 ] 2 9 : 14 ; 39:11 date [3] 1: 16 ; 3:5; 11:10 dated [1] 44:14 day [30] 3:6; 5:19; 9:13, 23; 10:1, 8; 13:1, 7, 19; 15:2, 14; 19:2, 20; 21:7, 14; 23:4, 12; 24:18; 25:16; 28:20, 23; 30:25; 31:3; 36:5; 37:7; 43:25; 44:9; 45:2, 13, 18 days [1] 44:15 deal [1] 7:8 dealing [1] 6:16 december [1] 22:25 declined [1] 11:19 defendant [3] 1: 6; 2: 6; 3: 14 defense [2] 31:24; 32:2 definitive [1] 38:25 degenerative [10] 6:25; 7:4; 17:8, 18, 23; 18:1, 4; 22:12; 37:17, 21 degree [3] 14:16; Apex Reporting Service 717-545-3553 30:1, 18 demanded [1] 1:6 department [2] 4:16, 17 deposition [11] 1: 14; 3: 7, 13; 33:11, 13; 34:5, 6; 45:17; 46:5, 8, 12 deposi tions [1] 32:23 describe [6] 19:22; 20:4, 11, 12; 27:10, 12 described [11] 5:10; 11:8, 12, 21; 18:14, 15; 21:22; 23:21, 22; 27:23; 38:24 describes [1] 11:14 develop [1] 22:24 devia tes [1] 20:20 diagnosis [4] 23:13; 24:14; 25:3, 19 diagnostic [2] 30:15 didn't [4] 23:6; 26:6; 27:21; 35:4 differ [1] 22:10 differences [1] 21:3 different [3] 22:8, 9; 37:3 difficult [2] 22:5; 29:16 difficulties [1] 29:18 dire [1] 9:17 direct [5] 4:2; 9:19; 10:12; 30:12; 36:19 direction [1] 46:11 directly [1] 6:16 disadvantage [1] 19:23 disagree [1] 27:18 di s c [ 3 ] 23: 1 7 ; 28:9; 38:3 discs [4] 6:25; 17:9, 10; 18:14 discuss [2] 24:22; 42:18 discussed [6] 13:9; 24:8; Deposition of Richard Close, M.D. on 9/6/06 Re: Roxann Maxwell 37:25; 41:2; 43:1; 44:16 discussing [1] 44:16 discussion [1] 31:1 diseases [1] 16:20 doctor's [3] 25:3; 30:23; 36:17 document [2] 22:16; 33:23 doesn't [3] 24:22; 27:8; 33:5 doing [3] 10:17; 33:15; 34:1 done [9] 5:11, 16; 20:6; 23:20; 31:19; 32:18; 33:21; 37:17; 42:16 donnatal [1] 12:17 door [2] 11: 15; 35:1 doubt [1] 33:6 dougherty [5] 1:17; 3:22, 23; 46:3, 20 down [3] 18:10; 42:2; 46:9 dozen [4] 33:5, 6, 7, 9 dr if t [ 1 ] 3 3 : 8 drive [1] 1:24 driver [1] 11:9 drop [1] 33:5 dry [1] 18:17 due [1] 7:11 duly [1] 46:6 duration [1] 12:4 during [7] 5:24; 9:18; 14:5; 22:7; 35:2; 36:19; 44:6 - E - earlier [1] 33:14 educated [1] 12:24 educational [1] 4:11 e f f ec t [ 4] 13: 15 ; 43:3, 6, 9 eisenhower [1] 4:20 either [6] 7:24; 23:7; 40:8,16; 41:5 elbow [5] 11:15; 17:13; 34:23, 24; 35:1 elicited [1] 45:8 else [2] 29:4, 9 elsewhere [3] 31:19; 39:20 emg [3] 38:9, 11 ends [1] 5:12 enough [3] 36:14; 37:2; 44:7 enter [1] 36:25 entertained [1] 23:16 epidural [2] 12:3; 35:22 equal [3] 12:6; 15:3 especially [2] 14:17; 20:10 esquire [2] 2:2, 6 establish [1] 19:9 established [1] 15:1 even [2] 16:6; 27:15 event [1] 21:25 ever [2] 27:25; 31:23 every [2] 12: 10; 20:11 everything [5] 19:22; 29:4, 9; 33:17, 23 exactly [2] 40:23; 42:13 exam [ 12 ] 5: 18 ; 9:3; 10:18, 20; 14:6, 18; 28:14, 25; 30:17; 31:14; 42:17; 43:9 examination [29 J 2:21, 22; 4:2; 6:3,5; 8:12; 9:8; 10:12,15; 14:8, 12; 15:11, 21; 19:13; 23:21; 24:2; 31:4; 32:9; 33:19, 22; 36:13, 16, 20; 40:22; 42:22; 44:6, 16; 45:9; 46:14 examinations [2] 32:19; 33:13 examine [1] 29:11 examined [3 J 3:25; 43:10; 46:6 examiner [1] 19:11 examiners [lJ 6:6 examining [ 1 ] 36:7 exams (4) 31:22; 32:5, 16; 33:2 except [1) 24:2 exercise [1] 12:12 exhibits [1] 2:24 existent [1] 44:23 expect [4] 22:2, 18; 28:16; 29:25 expected (2) 20:24; 44:22 experience [3] 5:25; 17:4; 26:17 expert [1] 8:10 explain [2) 21:3; 29:2 exposed [1] 14:2 extending [1) 29:18 extension [2) 23:22; 37:10 extraordinarily [1] 20:9 - F - fabricate [1) 7:10 face [1) 18: 3 fact [7) 13: 9; 25:4; 34:16; 35:1; 42:1, 24; 44:22 factor [1] 13: 10 facts [1] 34:12 fair [5] 7:13; 36:14, 21; 37:2; 44:7 fairly [1) 40:15 fall [1] 40:5 fashion [1) 39:17 favor [1] 36:23 fee [7) 32: 8, 25; 33:16, 18, 19; 34:1, 4 fellowship [1] Apex Reporting Service 717-545-3553 7:21 few [ 1 ) 1 9 : 2 4 field [2J 5:8; 8:10 figured [1) 41:9 file [1] 30:23 film [ 5 ] 1 8 : 2 0 ; 21:1; 22:1 films [ 5 J 15: 16 , 23; 16:1; 19:22; 21:17 final [1] 6: 4 find [4] 14:5; 42: I, 2, 3 finding [5J 29:3, 6, 8; 37:21; 40:6 findings [6] 23:8; 29:1, 14; 30:3; 38:25; 39:22 fine [ 5 ] 10: 6 ; 21:11; 23:10; 25:14; 38:18 first [7] 4:15; 10:23; 16:9; 22:16; 26:7; 29:2; 46:6 five [ 1 ] 6: 2 0 flexibility [1] 14:17 flexion [2] 23:22; 37:10 focus [2J 33:4, 9 focused [1] 14:8 focuses [lJ 14:9 follow-up [1] 31:6 follow-ups [1 J 32:23 following [3) 5:22; 35:18, 22 follows [lJ 4:1 forced [1) 20:18 fort [1] 4:20 forth [4) 23:8; 36:11; 41:22; 46:9 found [1) 34:8 four [ 3 ) 6: 2 0 ; 26:10, 14 front [4] 2:3; 16:24; 17:10, 15 full [1] 4: 7 function [1] 14:13 further [3] 30:21; 32:5; 46:15 Deposition of Richard Close, M.D. on 9/6/06 Re: Roxann Maxwell - G - ga thered [1] 39:10 gave [1] 23:7 general [4] 5:20i 7:24i 12:16i 14:2 generalize [1] 17:1 generally [1] 36:7 generate [1] 27:16 generates [1] 17:3 generators [1] 27:14 georgia [1] 4:21 give [6] 4:7i 12:11, 12i 23:7i 30:10; 39:12 given [5] 5:17i 6:5, 8i 30:14i 46:13 good [4] 4:5, 6i 12:16; 20:3 goodman [ 6 ] 19:10, 13, 16i 24:11; 25:19i 27:19 goodman's [3] 24:21; 36:18i 43:4 gordon [1] 4:21 go t [ 2 ] 12: 1 ; 41:14 gotten [1] 22:20 gray [3] 29:10, 12, 22 great [1] 30:1 greater [5] 26:13i 41:4, 6, 11 greaters [1] 41:8 greecher [39] 2:2, 22; 3:18; 8:14; 9:20i 10:4i 13:5, 8; 18:25i 19:3, 18i 21:5, 8i 22:14i 23:1, 5i 24:16, 19i 25:12i 30:22i 31:5i 36:2, 6, 10, 14, 21; 37:2, 5, 8i 42:20; 43:22i 44:1, 7, 25i 45:4, 10, 14 greecher's [1] 36:16 grossinger [3] 35:21i 43:20i 44:12 grossinger's [1] 44:18 group [2] 22:18i 30:1 guess [2] 36:12, 17 guthrie [1] 2:7 - H - hair [1] 41:24 hairline [2] 41:21, 22 hal f [2] 6: 21 i 12:25 hand [1] 42:12 handed [1] 11:7 hands [1] 20:22 happened [2 ] 34:13 harm [1] 26:22 harr i sburg [ 1 ] 2:4 ha te [2] 1 7 : 1 i 21:20 having [3] 3: 25 i 23:20i 39:2 head [7] 16: 8 i 26:11, 17, 20i 27:11i 41:3, 16 headache [ 5 ] 13:24i 24:8; 27:12i 28:5i 34:22 headaches [7] 11:16; 15:7i 24:5, 6i 43:13i 44:19, 23 health [5] 12:16i 13:3, 10, 22i 14:2 heard [2] 9:18; 23:21 hearing [1] 39:9 helping [1] 5:6 hereby [1] 46:4 herein [1] 46:9 herniations [1] 38:5 herself [2] 3:21; 11:21 high [1] 12:23 hindbrain [3 ] 16:10, 15 history [8] 11:4; 12:23; 13:14, 16i 23:21; 30:9, IIi 33:24 hi t [ 1 ] 3 5 : 1 hold [1] 18:16 holding [1] 42:12 hollow [1] 17:13 hospital [8] 4:15, 25i 5:1, 2, 5; 11:19i 35:5 however [2] 9:15; 11:24 hudock [1] 2:7 hummelstown [1] 1:24 hurt [1] 14:21 hurts [4] 29:6, 7, 10, 11 - I - identify [1] 3:21 illustrates [1] 21:15 images [1] 3:3 ime [1] 31:13 ime's [1] 31:17 impact [1] 11:14 impacted [1] 12:11 important [2] 13:20i 16:16 impressions [1] 42:18 improvemen t [ 1 ] 12:3 imx [1] 32:18 incident [1] 16:13 incision [1] 26:25 independent [9] 9:3i 10:15, 17; 19:11i 31:14, 22i 32:16i 33:2, 12 indian [1] 1:24 indicate [1] 40:15 indicated [3] 31:7i 34:8; 40:16 indicator [1] 40:8 individual [4] 13:21; 14:25; 28:1; 34:10 Apex Reporting Service 717.545-3553 individuals [3] 7:22i 8:25; 27:9 injection [1] 27:3 injections [2] 12:2i 35:22 injured [1] 23:17 injuries [5] 6:20, 24i 13:25; 35:9, 25 injury [11] 7:11i 22:24i 23:23i 24:7; 27:22, 25i 28:17i 31:25i 37:10, 12; 40:24 injury-related [1] 7: 5 inoperable [1] 34:17 insert [1] 27:11 instance [2] 10:24i 20:5 insurance [1] 32:7 interested [1] 46:17 interject [1] 29:23 internship [2] 4 : 14; 5: 14 interpretation [1] 20:22 interrupting [1] 21:9 intersection [1] 11:10 into [ 5 ] 13: 16 i 31:25; 36:25; 40:5i 41:21 introduce [1] 3:15 involve [1] 7:1 involved [3] 11:17i 33:2; 37:12 involvement [3] 16:2; 17:19, 20 involves [3] 5:19; 6:23; 8:2 irritated [2] 39:17, 18 issue [1] 26:5 issues [3] 6:23; 7:3; 13:22 itself [1] 16:17 - J - jewelry [2] 16:3 Deposition of Richard Close, M.D. on 9/6/06 Re: Roxann Maxwell j oe [1] 3: 2 join [1] 42: 11 joints [5] 16: 25; 17:10, 12, 13; 18:16 joseph [1] 5:5 jr [1] 2:2 judged [1] 29:23 july [6] 10:16; 25:1, 8, 24; 26:5; 31:8 junction [2] 16:7; 42:7 jury [ 11 ] 1: 6 ; 4:8; 6:12; 11:3; 15:25; 17:25; 18:23; 21:3; 26:7; 29:2; 43:1 - K - keep [2] 21:8; 25:12 keeps [1] 18:11 kevin [4] 2:6; 3:-16; 23:5; 36:6 keystone [1] 8:1 kind [ 3 ] 20: 7 ; 29:12; 41:12 knocked [1] 34:16 known [2] 9:3; 31:13 - L - lab [1] 10: 24 landmark [1] 14:3 lane [1] 3:4 language [1] 14:14 largest [1] 5:1 lasts [1] 5:19 late [1] 20:6 later [2] 10:10; 35:13 law [1] 1: 3 layman's [1] 18:1 least [1] 23:24 leaving [1] 39:19 left [11] 11:15; 12:7; 15:4; 17:21; 23:14, 17; 30:5, 6; 38:21; 39:3; 41:6 lemoyne [1] 2:8 less [1] 6:21 lesser [5] 26:13; 41:5, 7, 11 lessers [1] 41:8 let's [1] 44:25 level [3] 5:2; 6:18; 39:16 levels [2] 38:6; 39:7 life [1] 12: 11 lifetime [1] 18:10 like [12] 8: 9 , 20; 17:11, 13; 20:4; 29:4, 9, 13; 30:5; 32:23; 39:12; 41:21 limit [2] 32:4, 6 line [6] 9:15, 17; 10:9; 16:16; 21:10, 23 lines [1] 20:25 lion [1] 3:4 lion's [1] 32:17 list [1] 5:24 listed [1] 14:22 little [3] 6:12; 11:23; 30:2 1 i ve s [2 ] 16: 7 ; 18:8 living [1] 19:25 IIp [1] 2:7 local [1] 7:18 located [1] 4:25 lodge [2] 19:5; 23:9 long [1] 14: 1 look [7] 14:17; 16:2, 9; 17:11; 18:3; 20:4; 30:23 looked [2] 24:20, 21 looking [1] 30:2 loss [1] 14:16 lost [1] 7:11 lot [1] 6:19 low [3] 7: 4 ; 8:21; 33:8 - M - made [1] 46:14 main [1] 27:14 make [7] 12:13; 16:14; 19:8; 22:17; 28:6, 9; 38:17 malformation [1] 16:15 malformations [1] 16:10 man [2] 18:5; 21:21 managemen t [1] 7:14 manager [1] 11:7 many [3] 18:8, 9; 33:1 march [1] 40:1 marvelous [1] 18:7 matching [1] 41:13 maxwell [21] 1:3; 3:9, 19; 10:15; 11:5; 14:6, 20; 15:7, 16; 18:21; 22:24; 27:10; 28:14; 29:1; 31:7; 34:9, 21; 35:11; 37:9; 40:3; 42:16 maxwell's [7] 9:5; 10:19; 13:3; 15:10; 34:17; 37:18; 43:17 may [12] 22:4, 8; 26:1, 24; 33:8; 34:6; 39:19 mcdonnell [1] 2:7 mean [1] 19:9 means [6] 5:15; 14:12; 16:19; 28:2; 39:15, 18 meant [1] 32:13 medical [18] 4:20; 5:7, 14; 7:15, 19; 9:3; 10:15, 17, 19; 19:11; 30:19; 31:14,22; 32:16; 33:2, 13; 35:12, 15 medications [2] 12:19; 27:7 medium [1] 20:2 member [3] 7:15; 8:5 memory [1] 38: 16 mention [2] 13:13; 19:13 mentions [1] 39:21 merely [2] 13:12, 14 merit [1] 21:18 middle [6] 16:12; 17:2, 6, 23; 21:21; 24:3 Apex Reporting Service 717-545-3553 might [1] 21:19 migraine [1] 14:1 mild [3] 14:16; 17:17; 38:24 minello [1] 1:23 minute [1] 23:2 missed [1] 11:23 missing [2] 7:11; 11:22 modera te [1] 17:17 month [2] 15:20; 35:13 monthly [1] 33:3 months [1] 12:10 more [6] 6: 19 ; 9:18; 16:6; 20:23; 31:20; 32:19 mortar [1] 17:11 most [5] 12: 12; 17:1, 18; 31:19; 32:16 mostly [5] 5:25; 7:17; 8:2; 31:24; 32:2 motion [1] 15:13 motor [4] 11:8; 22:12; 23:23; 35:23 move [ 7 ] 9: 2 1 ; 28:2, 4; 29:25; 30:1; 31:25; 45:5 moving [1] 25:13 mri [15] 15:17; 18:21; 37:16, 24, 25; 38:8, 12; 39:6, 21; 40:7, 20; 43:7; 44:15 mri's [1] 37:15 much [3] 25:6; 27:16; 29:25 mumma [1] 2:8 muscle [3] 27:22; 40:3; 42:10 muscles [7] 27:11, 13, 14, 17; 28:3; 42:10, 11 musculature [1] 15:12 must [4] 5:16; 7:23; 20:11; 21:17 myself [2] 39:12; 41:23 - N - Deposition of Richard Close, M.D. on 9/6/06 Re: Roxann Maxwell name [6] 3:2, 11, 22; 4:7; 18:5; 19:13 named [1] 46:5 narrowing [1] 20:13 national [1] 8:5 natural [4] 20:19; 40:11, 12, 14 nature [1] 32:4 near [1] 20:21 necessarily [1] 27:15 necessary [1] 32:23 neck [40] 6:24, 25; 7:1; 8:20; 11:15; 12:7; 14:17; 15:3, 10; 16:3; 17:23; 21:22; 23:14, 25; 24:3; 27:10, 15; 28:2, 4, 7; 29:18, 25; 30:7; 34:22; 37:12, 18, 22; 38:1; 39:16, 19; 40:13, 15; 41:16, 21; 42:4, 5, 8, 11 need [3] 10: 25 ; 23:18; 26:22 neither [1] 46:15 nerve [9] 6:23; 26:12, 19; 27:5; 39:16, 18; 41:2, 15; 42: 14 nerves [10] 7:2, 7; 17:21; 23:17; 26:10, 12, 21, 23; 28:8, 11 neuralgia [4] 25:25; 26:9; 27:3, 19 neuritis [6] 24:14; 25:4, 20; 26:7; 27:20; 44:22 neurological [9] 4:10, 17, 19, 24; 5:8, 18; 7:25; 14:12; 26:10 neurologist [3] 35:21; 43:20; 44:12 neurology [1] 5:21 neurosurgeon [3] 5:6; 14:9; 39:12 neurosurgeons [1] 8:23 neurosurgery [9] 5:9, 20; 6:10, 13; 8:11, 16, 17; 29:13; 32:5 neurosurgical [3] 8:4, 7; 21:16 never [2] 12:20; 21:20 nevertheless [1] 6:21 nexium [1] 12:17 next [2] 16:16; 39:11 nicotine [1] 14:2 non- spine [1] 39:10 none [2] 2:25; 16:15 nontraumatic [1] 26:15 nor [2] 46:16 normal [11] 14:7, 11, 15, 18; 16:18, 19; 17:7; 20:4; 21:23; 24:2 north [1] 2:3 notary [2] 1:17; 46:3 note [1] 20:22 noted [1] 43:13 notes [1] 44:18 nothing [4] 22:10; 29:14; 30:21; 32:18 now [14] 3:15, 21; 5:7; 14:5; 15:15; 16:22; 18:19; 25:18; 34:8; 35:25; 39:15, 21; 41:3; 45:17 number [1] 19:23 numbness [3] 26:24, 25; 30:4 - 0 - objection [14] 9:10; 19:5; 21:9,12; 22:14; 23:9; 24:25; 25:11; 36:13, 16, 22, 23; 37:4; 45:4 objections [4] 36:8, 19, 22; 46:13 objective [10] 29:1, 2, 5, 8, 14, 20, 21; 30:3, 8; 40:6 obliged [1] 19:21 obtained [1] 11:4 occasion [2] 31:7; 33:10 occasionally [2] 12:25; 31:24 occipital [12] 24:14; 25:3, 20, 24; 26:7,9,12; 27:3, 19, 20; 41:2; 44:22 occur [2] 9: 16 ; 28:10 occurred [2] 11:9, 10 october [5] 18:22; 21:2; 22:1; 25:23; 26:4 offer [2] 8:10; 18:23 offers [1] 6:3 office [3] 21:16; 33:20; 34:3 offices [1] 32:7 often [2] 27: 10; 32:22 oftentimes [1] 8:23 old [2] 11:6; 20:2 older [1] 22:20 once [5] 6: 6 ; 14:25; 19:3; 23:5; 24:19 one [ 15 ] 5: 19 ; 7:23; 19:23; 21:23; 23:17; 27:5, 25; 28:16; 31:7; 38:20; 39:8; 41:5, 6, 12 one-hour [1] 6:6 ongoing [2] 11:24; 35:12 only [3] 10: 21 ; 12:19; 14:25 ooh [ 1 ] 2 9 : 11 open [1] 26:19 operating [1] 19:25 operation [1] 42:3 Apex Reporting Service 717-545-3553 op~n~on [3] 22:24; 23:7; 39:13 opinions [3] 25:7; 30:16, 17 opportunity [11] 10:18; 14:19; 15:9, 15, 22; 18:20; 22:23; 24:10; 25:2; 42:18; 43:16 oral [3] 6: 3 I 5; 11:4 order [2] 7:23; 12:6 organ [2] 18:6, 7 orthopedic [2] 8:18, 24 osteophytes [1] 20:13 otherwise [2] 14:18; 30:2 ouch [2] 29:11, 12 outcome [1] 46:17 outside [1] 44:2 overall [1] 14:7 overlap [1] 8:17 - p - pa [2] 2: 4, 8 pack [1] 12:25 paid [2] 32:25; 33:15 pain [20] 7:13; 11:15; 12:6; 13:17; 14:21; 15:3; 23:14, 25; 24:1; 26:16; 27:10, 12, 15, 16, 22; 30:6; 34:22; 43:13 painful [1] 28:4 palpate [1] 15:9 part [5] 6: 1 ; 15:11; 28:12; 37:21; 39:8 participate [1] 32:11 particular [1] 15:17 particularly [1] 8:20 party [1] 46:16 passenger [2] 11:17; 35:6 passenger's [1] 11:18 Deposition of Richard Close, M.D. on 9/6/06 Re: Roxann Maxwell passing [1] 5:22 pas t [1] 8: 1 pathology [2] 5:21; 17:24 patient [9] 10:23; 20:1, 23, 24; 22:8; 30:11; 39:11, 23; 40:9 patients [3] 10:22; 13:24; 31:21 pause [1] 28:21 pays [1] 18:11 pennsylvania [10] 1:1, 10, 15, 24; 3:4, 8; 5:1; 8:2, 7; 46:4 people [12] 13:25; 14:23; 15:4; 16:4, 10; 17:2; 26:16, 24; 32:6; 40:11 per [2] 6:6; 13:1 percent [2] 6:16; 33:12 percentage [1] 6:19 perfect [2] 20:21 perfection [1] 20:18 perfectly [1] 19:16 perform [1] 10:14 performance [1] 31:21 performed [1] 31:13 perhaps [2] 6:15; 33:8 period [1] 22:7 peripheral [1] 6:23 person [4] 10:22, 25; 17:7; 29:24 pertinent [1] 7:17 pharmacology [1] 5:21 phase [1] 6:4 physical [6] 11:25; 14:6; 33:24; 35:19; 40:2, 21 physician [2] 9:6; 11:25 physicians [1] 32:12 picture [1] 16:3 pierce [3] 1:5; 3:10, 17 pittsburgh [1] 8:3 place [4] 9: 10; 36:12, 15; 46:9 placed [1] 40:9 plain [1] 14:1 plaintiff [2] 1:4; 2:2 plaintiff's [1] 19:11 play [1] 13:16 pleas [1] 1:1 please [4] 3:21; 4:7; 18:23; 24:16 point [6] 9: 11; 13:13; 15:6; 25:4; 28:16; 42:6 poorly [1] 14:1 portion [1] 16:5 portions [2 ] 14:20; 15:10 posi tion [2] 22:9; 39:23 positioning [2] 40:9, 17 possibili ty [1] 23:16 potentially [1] 17:16 practice [7] 4:23; 5:23, 24; 6:16; 20:10; 22:17; 31:17 preparation [1] 24:9 president [1] 8:1 price [1] 18:11 prior [2] 10:17; 46:5 privileges [1] 5:4 probably [1] 33:4 problem [2] 9:14, 20 problematic [1] 17:16 problems [1] 39:7 procedures [2] 13:24; 26:20 profession [1] 4:8 program [1] 5:15 progression [2] 22:3, 11 projections [1] 17:15 property [1] 11:7 protect [4] 19: 5; 23:6, 8; 24:19 provide [2] 32 :20, 21 provoked [1 ] 16:12 public [2] 1: 17; 46:3 pure [2] 27:2; 29:8 purpose [2] 5:11; 20:10 purposes [2] 5:5; 21:18 pu t [ 2 ] 2 8 : 7, 1 0 - Q - qualifications [4] 4:2; 8:12; 9:16; 10:11 questioning [5] 9:15, 18; 10:10; 21:10; 36:24 questions [9] 8:15; 10:3, 10; 25:10; 30:13; 31:6; 36:17; 42:21; 45:15 quite [6] 11:18; 28:1, 3, 17; 32:22 - R - r [3] 2:1; 3:1; 46:1 radiculopathy [5] 38:14, 25; 39:5, 15; 44:5 radiologist [5] 20:8, 11, 24; 21:19; 37:24 radiologists [1] 19:21 radiology [1] 5:21 raised [2] 36:8, 19 range [2] 15:13; 40:6 rarely [5] 17:6; 21:20, 21, 23 rauch [37] 2:6, 21; 3:16; 4:4; 8:9; 9:10, 14, 24; 10:2, 6, 13; 13 : 12; 14: 4; 19:8; 20:15; Apex Reporting Service 717-545-3553 21:11, 24; 22:22; 23:10; 24:4, 24; 25:14, 17; 28:18, 24; 30:21; 36:9, 12, 15; 37:1, 3; 42:23; 44:4, 10; 45: 3, 7 rauch's [1] 31:11 read [5] 17:4; 37:24; 40:16; 43: 3, 6 reading [7] 1:10, 15; 3 :8; 4 :22, 24, 25; 5:1 reality [1] 6:15 really [8] 18:16; 20:3; 22:9, 10, 16, 20; 42:4, 8 reasonable [1] 30:18 reasoning [1] 16:17 recall [5] 38: 19 , 21; 40:1; 42:15, 19 reckon [1] 33:12 recognize [1] 14:24 reconnnendation [1] 5:17 reconnnendations [1] 6:3 record [17] 9:11, 24; 18:25; 19:6; 21:5; 23:1, 6, 8; 24:16, 20; 28:18; 31:1; 32:21; 33:24; 36:2; 43:22; 46:12 recorded [1] 29:19 records [9] 10:19; 11:1, 2; 30:14; 35:16; 38:17; 40:2; 43:17, 19 recover [1] 13:23 recovers [1] 27:1 red [ 1 ] 3: 4 redirect [1] 42:22 refer [1] 32:11 reference [1] 44:11 referenced [1] 21:2 references [1] 24:25 Deposition of Richard Close, M.D. on 9/6/06 Re: Roxann Maxwell referrals [1] 32:10 referred [1] 6:14 reflexes [1] 14:15 reflux [1] 12:22 regard [4] 7:3; 11:22; 12:15; 23:9 regarding [3] 18:24; 19:12; 36:16 regards [1] 19:23 regional [1] 8:6 regular [1] 31:16 related [5] 22:12; 34:12; 35:4, 11; 46:16 relating [1] 44:19 reliable [2] 29:24; 34:9 relief [1] 12: 1 remainder [1] 4:16 remained [1] 4:23 remember [2] 22:5 rendered [5] 24:14; 25:7, 19; 30:16, 18 report [31] 13:11; 18:20, 21, 24; 19:9, 12, 14, 16, 17; 21:2, 21; 24:9, 21; 25:1, 5, 8, 19; 33:19; 36:8, 18; 37:24; 39:9, 10, 21; 40:15, 20; 43:14; 44:3, 11; 45:5 reporter [2] 1:17; 3:20 reporting [2] 1:23; 40:3 reports [11] 17:4; 19:4, 6, 10; 20:17; 23:7; 24:10, 20, 21; 30:16; 43:4 represent [1] 3:3 representation [1] 19:15 request [1] 10:14 requests [2] 31:24; 32:3 required [1] 5:24 reserve [2] 9:20; 10:9 residency [4] 4:14; 5:10, 15, 23 respect [4] 13:3, 16; 19:9; 36:18 respectfully [1] 27:18 responding [1] 24:25 response [1] 21:11 responsive [1] 45:8 rest [1] 6:22 result [7] 5:11; 11:19, 22; 23:18, 24; 27:8; 32:5 resul ted [1] 11:11 returning [12] 9:22; 10:7; 13:18; 19:19; 21:13; 23:11; 25:15; 28:22; 31:2; 37:6; 44:8; 45:12 revealed [1] 40:2 review [15] 10:18, 23; 11:1; 15:16, 22; 18:20; 19:15; 24:10; 25:2, 18; 30:14, 15; 33:24; 43:16, 19 reviewed [3] 10:20; 19:10; 35:16 reviews [2] 6:2 richard [5] 1:14; 2:21; 3:12, 24; 4:9 risk [2] 28:8, 11 road [1] 2:8 room [ 1 ] 19: 2 5 roughly [3] 6:15; 12:10; 40:19 roxann [4] 1:3; 3:9, 19; 10:15 rules [1] 36:23 run [2] 1:24; 26:11 running [1] 42:14 ruptured [3 ] 6:25; 23:16; 28:9 - s - same [8] 7:4, 12; 8:24, 25; 21:12; 22:14; 38:12; 45:4 satisfactorily [1] 6:7 satisfactory [1] 12:1 saw [14] 12 :5; 15:19, 25; 16: 15; 17: 17; 23:13,15; 24:1, 7; 26:5; 27:21; 31:7; 39:10; 42:15 saying [3] 17:6; 21:19; 27:19 scalp [8] 26:11, 21, 24; 41:17, 18, 19; 42:3, 10 scan [4] 20: 4 ; 21:22; 43:7; 44:15 scanner [1] 40:10 scanners [1] 22:6 scans [3] 22:10; 23:15, 20 scene [2] 34:21; 35:8 schedule [3] 32:8; 33:16, 18 scheduling [2] 32 :20, 22 school [3] 5:7, 14; 12:23 scope [8] 13:11; 19:6; 24:23; 25:7; 44:2; 45:5, 11 seasonal [1] 12:21 second [5] 5:1; 13:5; 18:25; 28:18; 36:3 see [17] 15:13; 17:19, 20; 18:4, 18; 21:17, 21; 22 :5, 18; 23 :6, 15; 24:13; 26:18, 19, 20; 39:11; 44:19 seeing [6] 6:19; 14 :25; 22 :21; 40:12, 14 seek [1] 14:3 seems [1] 33:4 seen [5] 19:22, 24; 23:20; 32:1; 39:6 sensation [1] 14:15 sensory [1] 26:23 sent [1] 26: 16 september [2] 1:9; 3:5 serve [2] 4:24; 20:9 service [1] 4:18 services [4] 32:10, 11, 14, 17 session [1] 6:6 sessions [1] 6:6 set [1] 46:9 several [1] 19:23 severe [1] 28:1 severity [1] 12:6 sewn [1] 26:22 share [1] 32:17 sharon [4] 1:17; 3:22; 46:3, 20 short [1] 12:4 shortly [2] 23:25; 40:23 shoulder [2] 24:1; 37:13 show [ 2 ] 1 6 : 11 ; 41:23 showed [3] 37:17; 38:11, 14 showing [1] 40:21 side [8] 38:20, 21, 23; 39:2, 3; 41:5, 13 sides [1] 38:20 significant [2] 13:2; 34:19 signs [1] 14:7 since [5] 5: 7 ; 15:15; 18:3; 20:6; 31:23 single [1] 12:24 site [1] 32:21 situated [1] 16:23 situation [1] 40:10 six [ 1 ] 12: 1 0 skeet [1] 2:7 skull [1] 7:10 slight [1] 24:2 smaller [1] 5:4 smoked [1] 13:9 smoking [2] 12 :25; 13:3 social [3] 12:23; 13:14, 15 societies [3] 7:16; 8:4, 5 society [2] 8:6, 7 Apex Reporting Service 717-545-3553 Deposition of Richard Close, M.D. on 9/6/06 Re: Roxann Maxwell solid [2] 17: 12 , 13 someone [5] 21:16; 22:18; 31:25; 39:12; 43:10 something [2] 35:2; 39:22 sometimes [4] 15:4j 16:12; 27: 3, 4 sorry [3] 15:19j 38:23; 41:10 sort [8] 12: 20 j 16:13; 20:14j 32:1, 7, 19, 24j 33:24 sought [2] 35:12, 20 source [1] 39:19 spasm [7] 15:14j 28:12j 39:23j 40:3, 9, 17, 21 spasms [3] 15:14j 28:15j 40:5 speak [2] 10:22; 38:2 specialized [1] 5:8 specialty [2] 8: 4, 17 specific [1] 27:24 specifically [7] 13:24j 14:20j 18:1j 24:8, 24j 38:5j 44:4 spinal [24] 7:1, 7; 14:9; 16:4, 5, 8, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23j 17:7, 11, 19, 20, 21j 20:21j 28:7, 8, 10, 11j 42:8 spine [9] 6:22, 23j 7:3, 9, 12j 15:13j 18:7, 11j 19:25 splint [1] 28:1 spondylosis [1] 37:25 sports [1] 12:12 spruce [2] 1:15j 3:8 st [1] 5:5 standard [1] 34:1 starts [1] 29:11 state [2] 7:18 stated [1] 37:4 states [1] 25:4 stem [2] 16:6, 7 stenotype [1] 46:10 stephen [1] 2:2 steroids [1] 12:3 steve [1] 3:18 sticking [1] 29:7 stiffness [1] 24:3 still [1] 6:21 stomach [1] 12:18 stop [1] 39:11 storage [1] 32:21 straightforward [2] 29:24j 34:9 street [3] 1:15j 2:3j 3:8 strength [3] 14:12, 14 strike [1] 45:6 striking [1] 11:14 strokes [1] 16:19 structure [4] 16:6; 18:8j 42:4, 8 structures [6] 7:7, 8j 14:10j 16:24j 17:3, 9 studies [2] 10:24j 21:4 style [1] 12:11 subjective [6] 29:5, 6, 20j 30:8, 10, 13 subjects [1] 5:20 submitted [1] 6:1 subsequently [1] 23:14 substance [1] 16:18 substantial [1] 11:11 such [5] 5:20j 6:23j 20:13j 27:9j 43:13 suffered [2] 22:25j 35:23 summers [1] 2:7 supervision [1] 46:11 supporting [3] 7:6, 8j 14:10 sure [5] 16:14; 25:12j 28:6, 9j 38:18 surgeon [7] 4:10; 7:24, 25j 12:15j 17:24j 39:10 surgeons [ 6 ] 4:24j 7:20, 21j 8:24j 19:24j 28:6 surgery [10 ] 4:16, 17, 20j 5:8, 19, 20j 6:15, 17j 8:18j 12:20 surgical [2] 13:23i 23:18 suzanne [1] 1:23 swear [1] 3:21 sworn [2] 3:25; 46:6 symmetrical [1] 41:12 symptoms [6] 8:25i 11:24j 12:13, 18; 23:24i 35:12 - T - table [1] 36:24 take [4] 18: 5, 6 j 30:11i 42:2 taken [8] 1:15i 5:18i 18:10, 21i 22:1i 46:8, 9 takes [2] 12:24i 40:10 taking [1] 12:19 talked [1] 37:15 talking [3] 13:14i 30:9i 42:17 technicians [1] 22:8 temple [2] 4:13, 14 ten [1] 44:15 tend [1] 16: 4 tens [1] 35: 21 ter.ms [4] 15:16i 18:1j 21:4; 35:25 test [1] 5:22 tested [1] 7:22 testified [1] 3:25 testimony [2] 9:19i 46:13 testing [1] 5:11 tests [1] 30: 15 texture [1] 18:12 thank [1] 45:15 themselves [4] 3:15j 16:11j Apex Reporting Service 717-545-3553 27:11; 35:25 therapist [2] 40:2, 21 therapy [2] 12:1; 35:19 thereafter [3] 23:25j 40:23; 46:10 thereof [1] 46:17 thing [9] 7:4, 12; 16:9j 20:14; 32:2, 8, 24i 33:25; 41:12 things [3] 20:12; 32:23; 45:8 thirties [1] 33:8 thirty [1] 27:5 though [1] 11:2 thought [1] 22:9 three [4] 4:23i 6:5, 7; 33:7 tight [1] 28:3 tissues [1] 7: 9 today [7] 6:24i 15:19j 30:16, 18i 33:11; 42:25; 43:1 today's [1] 3:5 together [2] 18:16i 26:22 told [3] 24:6j 34:21j 35:19 toll [2] 18:5, 6 took [1] 42: 1 7 top [1] 42:7 total [1] 26:14 totally [1] 17:7 touch [1] 15:10 town [2] 5:5; 31:25 training [1] 4:17 transcribed [1] 46:10 trauma [3] 5:2i 6:18i 27:8 traverses [1] 42:9 treat [1] 8: 24 treated [5] 5:25; 11:25i 27:3, 4, 7 treating [3] 9:5j 12:9; 15:1 treatment [2] 11:20i 12:2 trial [1] 1: 6 tried [3] 12:1; 29:15i 40:15 trouble [1] 30:2 true [3] 8: 22 ; Deposition of Richard Close, M.D. on 9/6/06 Re: Roxann Maxwell 34:20; 46:12 try [4J 14:23; 27:4; 30:12; 32:4 tucker [lJ 2:3 tumors [2] 13:25; 16:20 twice [1] 12: 3 two [14] 5: 2, 23; 6:6, 18; 8:5; 21:4; 22:7; 26:13, 14; 33:5, 9; 41:8 two-year [1] 4:18 type [5] 8: 25 ; 11:4; 12:18; 32:12; 34:2 - U - unavailable [1] 5:6 under [2] 14:22; 46:10 understand [2] 14:13; 38:1 unit [1] 35:21 university [2] 4:13, 15 unless [1] 37:3 unnatural [1] 40:10 until [2] 9:21; 10:10 up [13] 12: II, 12; 14:18; 16:11; 26:11, 16; 30:2; 35:22; 41:21, 24; 42:4, 7; 44: 5 upgraded [1] 22:7 upper [1] 16:5 upset [1] 12: 18 us [ 7 ] 6: 24 ; 26:16; 30:11; 34:8; 35:19; 41:13 use [2] 14:13; 20:16 useful [2] 20:9; 40:8 using [1] 12:17 usually [12] 10:22; 16:11; 17:3; 22:6; 26:15, 25; 27:7; 28:3; 33:5, 9; 41:12 - V - various [1] 16:24 vary [1] 14:24 vehicle [6] 11:8; 22:12; 23:23; 34:14, 16; 35:23 vengoechea [1] 3:3 vertebral [1] 16:24 video [26] 3:3; 9:12, 23, 25; 10:8; 13:6, 19; 18:4; 19:1, 20; 21:6, 14; 23:3, 12; 24: 17; 25:16; 28:19, 23; 30:24; 31:3; 36:4; 37:7; 43:24; 44:9; 45:1, 13 videographer [27] 3:2, 20; 9:12, 22, 25; 10:7; 13:6, 18; 19:1, 19; 21:6, 13; 23:3, 11; 24:17; 25:15; 28:19, 22; 30:24; 31:2; 36:4; 37:6; 43:24; 44:8; 45:1, 12, 16 videotape [1] 45:16 videotaped [3] 1:14; 3:7,13 virtually [1] 12:7 vital [2] 14: 7; 16:6 vo i r [ 1 ] 9: 1 7 vs [ 1 ] 1: 4 - W - waive [1] 36:22 waiver [1] 36:8 want [7] 19:5; 21:8; 25:10; 28:8; 32:1; 38:17; 42:1 wanted [2] 16:14; 45:4 ways [1] 28:17 wear [ 2 ] 1 7 : 14 ; 41:24 wednesday [1] 1:9 well-being [1] 11:19 west [5] 1:10, 15; 3:8; 4:22, 25 whiplash [1] 27:9 whole [1] 5:19 will [38] 3:15, 20; 9:10; 10:4, 9, 22; 14:24; 15:4,13; 17:2, 14; 18:5, 6, 12, 13, 15, 17; 19:9; 20:12; 22:6; 23:9; 26:19, 20, 21; 27:10; 31:18, 25; 32:1, 6; 33:13; 36:15; 42:3, 11; 44:4 woman [2] 21:22; 29:25 wondering [1] 38:19 work [9] 5:16; 6:22, 23; 7:6; 11:22; 32:12; 33:15; 34:2 working [3] 18:11; 20:2; 38:15 works [1] 11:7 worry [1] 17:24 worse [1] 12:14 worth [1] 11:12 worthy [1] 20:21 written [4] 5:18, 22; 17:4; 25:7 wrong [2] 34:6, 7 wynshire [1] 3:3 - X - x-ray [1] 20:5 x-rays [2] 10:25; 20:6 - y - year [5J 3:6; 4:15; 10:16; 11:6; 22:7 years [5J 5: 23; 6:20; 20:2; 27:6; 32:3 yet [1] 18: 10 Apex Reporting Service 717-545-3553 - z - zone [2] 29:12, 23 zones [lJ 29:10 G. -, :) -.-; ;\ 1'\ <.j . ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. NO. 04-6243 CIVIL TERM ANN M. PIERCE Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S TRIAL MEMORANDUM I. FACTS: Ms. Maxwell was injured in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on December 23, 2002. Her injuries came about as a result of a collision between her vehicle and a vehicle operated by Ann Pierce on Central Boulevard, Mechanicsburg, Hampden Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Ms. Pierce had pulled in front of Ms. Maxwell from a stop sign, resulting in the collision. Negligence is admitted. Ms. Maxwell suffered injuries to her neck, left shoulder and arm. She has suffered an aggravation of a pre-existing degenerative condition in her neck. According to the testimony to be presented on behalf of Ms. Maxwell, she has also suffered occipital neuritis, that is an injury to the occipital nerve that runs from the junction of the neck and the skull up over the head. Ms. Maxwell will testify. Also, Kimbra Kurtz, Ms. Maxwell's passenger at the time of the accident, will testify, and Ms. Maxwell's sister, Pam Metzler, may be called as well. Ms. Maxwell will also present the videotape deposition of Dr. Bruce Goodman. 1. Directed Verdict on Causation: Ms. Maxwell is requesting the Court to direct a verdict in her favor on both negligence, which is admitted, and causation. Therefore, the jury should be instructed to proceed to the award of damages. . Directed Verdict on Causation is appropriate since there is no dispute that Ms. Maxwell suffered injuries as a result of the motor vehicle accident. The accident at issue was a violent collision. Ms. Maxwell will explain the injuries that she suffered. Dr. Goodman will testify as to the injuries that Ms. Maxwell sustained. Dr. Close, who will be called on behalf of the Defendant, acknowledges that Ms. Maxwell sustained injuries in the accident. Dr. Close will testify that Ms. Maxwell suffered a flexion extension injury resulting in injuries to her neck, shoulder and left arm and elbow. Dr. Goodman will testify that Ms. Maxwell suffered an injury to her neck with symptoms into her left arm. Both Dr. Close and Dr. Goodman acknowledge that Ms. Maxwell has had substantial medical care as follow-up for the injuries she suffered in the motor vehicle accident. Ms. Maxwell's medical care consisted of treatment with her family doctor, physical therapy, chiropractic care, treatment with a neurologist, injections and a TENS unit. Based on the record in this case the issue of causation should be taken from the jury. Where a defendant has been negligent and there is no dispute that some injuries have been suffered by the plaintiff, a jury cannot be permitted to find that the plaintiff was not injured as a result of the accident. Andrews v. Jackson, 800 A.2d 959 (Pa. Super. 2002) and Lombardo v. Deleon, 828 A.2d 372 (Pa. Super. 2003). 2. An award of damages is required by the evidence in this case: As noted above, there is no dispute as to the fact that Ms. Maxwell suffered injuries as a result of the negligence of Ms. Pierce. Also, there is no dispute that Ms. Maxwell had considerable medical care. Evidence will be presented that plaintiff has medical expenses recoverable in this action of $3,249.58. An award of damages to Plaintiff cannot be limited only to the medical expenses. The evidence, as noted above, is undisputed. Ms. Maxwell suffered 2 ~ injuries as a result of the motor vehicle accident and had substantial medical care. The injuries that she suffered are the type that would ordinarily engender pain. As indicated in the testimony of the doctors and by the extent of Ms. Maxwell's medical care, the injuries have extended over a period of time. In Womack v. Crowlev and Devine, 877 A.2d 1279 (Pa. Super. 2005), a motor vehicle accident case, plaintiff was granted a new trial after the jury only awarded medical expenses. In that case there was no dispute that the plaintiff had suffered injuries and the injuries were of such a nature as would result in pain. The court cited Boooavarapu v. Ponsit. 518 Pa. 162,542 A.2d 516 (1988), for the proposition that some injuries have pain, including a stretched muscle, which a jury may not disregard. Ms. Maxwell's injuries are more than stretched muscles. Similarly, in Marsh v. Hanlev, 856 A.2d 138 (Pa. Super. 2004), plaintiff was also awarded a new trial limited to damages after the jury only awarded plaintiff lost earnings. Plaintiff had suffered back pain for about 6 months after the motor vehicle accident that involved a significant collision. The Superior Court found that the plaintiff was entitled to an award for pain and suffering. In the present case, the evidence requires an award to Ms. Maxwell for her medical expenses and pain and suffering. Plaintiff has set forth jury instructions that permit the jury to find an appropriate amount of damages but remove the phrase "if any" from the discussion of damages. Similarly, the verdict slip to the Plaintiff should advise the jury that Plaintiff has suffered injuries as a result of the accident and request the jury to render a verdict in the amount of damages they find were factually caused by the accident. 3 ~ . Specifically, Plaintiffs request that the following jury interrogatory is supported by the facts of this case and the applicable law. Defendant has admitted negligence and it is acknowledged that Plaintiff suffered injuries as a result of the accident. Therefore, you must determine an amount of damages to award to Plaintiff for the medical expenses and non-economic damages that you find she suffered and that were factually caused by the accident. $ Respectfully submitted, re h , r. Attorney's 1.0. . A-36803 111 North Front Street P. O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF r~;~: 1/11()b 4 1-"""; t-.':' \.'~< , - c:: :~:l " IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION NO. 04-6243 Civil Term v. POINTS FOR CHARGE ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant. (Jury Trial Demanded) Filed on Behalf of the Defendant Counsel of Record for This Party: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Pa.I.D.#83058 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE and SKEEL, L.L.P. Firm #911 1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 901-5916 #13384 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION v. NO. 04-6243 Civil Term ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant. (Jury Trial Demanded) POINTS FOR CHARGE AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Ann M. Pierce, by and through her attorneys, Summers, McDonnell, Hudock, Guthrie & Skeel, L.L.P., and Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire, and files the following Points for Charge: MOTION FOR BINDING INSTRUCTION 1. Under all of the facts and the law, I direct you to return a verdict in favor of Defendant, Ann M. Pierce. _Accepted _ Denied Modified 2. Defendant requests that this Honorable Court give the standard charges found at Pa. SSJI (CIV), ~5.03 (number of witnesses), ~5.04 (conflicting testimony), 95.30 (expert testimony-credibility generally), 95.31 (expert testimony-basis for opinion),~5.33 (weighing conflicting expert testimony) and ~5.50 (burden of preof), . _ Accepted Denied Modified 3. In order to find that the Defendant's acts were the "factual cause" of the Plaintiffs injuries, you must find that the Defendant's allegedly wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the Plaintiffs injury. Maiors v. Brodhead, 416 Pa. 265 (1965). _Accepted _ Denied Modified 4. The Defendant's negligent conduct may not, however, be found to be a factual cause if you find that the Plaintiffs injury would have been sustained regardless of the Defendant's negligence. Hamil v. Bashline, 392 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Supreme Court, 1978). _ Accepted Denied Modified 5. Stated another way, if you find that the Plaintiff would have undergone the same treatment or had the same injury had the accident not occurred you must find in favor of the Defendant. Hamil v. Bashline, 392 A.2d 1280 (Pa. Supreme Court, 1978). _Accepted _ Denied _ Modified 6. If you find that Defendant was negligent, but her negligence was not a factual cause in causing harm to the Plaintiff, you must return a verdict in favor of the Defendant. _Accepted _ Denied Modified 7. Should you find in favor of the Plaintiff, you can award her only those damages that she proved by a preponderance of the evidence and that were proximately caused by the accident in question. Hamil v. Bashline, 418 Pa.256, 392 A.2d 1280 (1978). _Accepted _ Denied _ Modified 8. The Plaintiff claims that she was injured and sustained damage as a result of the negligent conduct of the Defendant. The Plaintiff has the burden of proving her claims. _Accepted _ Denied Modified 9. The mere fact that I am charging you on damages is no indication that, in fact, you must award some damages. Damages are never presumed, but must be proved by competent, credible evidence and your verdict must not be supported by speculation, conjecture or sympathy for the Plaintiff. Schofield v. Kino, 388 Pa. 132, 130 A.2d 93 (1957); Maxwell v. Schaefer, 381 Pa. 13, 112 A.2d 69 (1955); Maoar v. Lifetime, Inc., 187 Pa. Super. 143, 144 A.2d 747 (1958). ~ccepted _ Denied Modified 10. The purpose of awarding damages in cases involving personal injury is to be compensatory and compensatory alone. Thus, the purposes in awarding damages is neither to punish the wrongdoer nor make the injured party wealthy, nor to provide the injured person with a windfall benefit. Incollinoo v Ewino, 44 Pa. 263, 282 A.2d 206 (1971 ). _Accepted _ Denied Modified 11. The theory of damages which is utilized in Pennsylvania is a compensatory one. This is to say that the Plaintiff should be compensated for the damages which she proves. However, she should not be placed in a better position than she was before the damages occurred. You are instructed only to award such damages as will be necessary to make the Plaintiff whole and no more. Wade v. S.J. Croves & Sons, 283 Pa. Super. 464 A.2d 902 (1981). _ Accepted Denied Modified Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & SKEEL, L.L. . K vi . auch, Esquire Counsel for Defendant By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Points for Cha~ ~a~ r been hand delivered to counsel of record this I t i:i day of \~ ,2006. Stephen M. Greecher, Esquire Tucker Arensberg, PC 111 North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & S EEL L. K in D. Rauch, Esquire Counsel for Defendant By: ) -II .--\ <: (" .....f... \ ~'. \J) -- f'"".) '"'"' . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff, CIVIL DIVISION v. NO. 04-6243 Civil Term ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant. (Jury Trial Demanded) DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS A. BACKGROUND Dr. Richard A. Close, the defense medical expert, and Dr. Bruce Goodman, the Plaintiff's medical expert, each prepared Independent Medical Examination reports, which the parties exchanged. Dr. Goodman opines that the Plaintiff suffers from occipital neuritis. The videotaped deposition of Dr. Goodman was on August 25, 2006, and the videotaped deposition of Dr. Close was on September 6, 2006. The Plaintiff objected to Dr. Close's testimony regarding occipital neuritis, arguing that this testimony was outside the scope of his report. He also objected to the redirect of Dr. Close, arguing that it was outside the scope of both his report and the cross-examination. B. ARGUMENT 1. Dr. Close did not exceed the scope of his report: therefore. the Plaintiff's first obiection must be overruled. The Plaintiff's objection is without merit because Dr. Close's testimony is within the scope of his report, as required by Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5(c). This Rule holds that the direct testimony of an expert at trial may not go beyond the fair scope of his report. The Court analyzed this rule in Southerland v. MonoQahela Vallev Hosp., 856 A.2d 55 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004). In Southerland, Defendant doctors appealed a decision in favor of the Plaintiff, arguing that the Plaintiffs expert testified beyond the scope of his report. In examining Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5, the Court held that: In deciding whether an expert's trial testimony is within the fair scope of his report, the accent is on the word "fair." The question to be answered is whether, under the circumstances of the case, the discrepancy between the expert's pretrial report and his trial testimony is of a nature which would prevent the adversary from preparing a meaningful response, or which would mislead the adversary as to the nature of the appropriate response. ld. at 59. Relying on this standard, the Court ruled that the Defendants were not prevented from preparing a meaningful response, nor were they misled as to the nature of the appropriate response. The Defendants could not indicate how they were prejudiced; therefore, there was no error in allowing the doctor's testimony. In the instant case, Dr. Close did not exceed the scope of his report. In his report, Dr. Close listed the records he reviewed for the Plaintiffs IME, which included Dr. Goodman's report. Further, Dr. Close specifically acknowledges Dr. Goodman's diagnosis of occipital neuritis. (See p. 3 of Dr. Close's report, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".) This is fair notice to the Plaintiff that Dr. Close would testify about Dr. Goodman's report and diagnosis. In fact, as part of his objection, Plaintiffs counsel admitted knowing that Dr. Close reviewed Dr. Goodman's report. (See p. 24 of Dr. Close's deposition transcript, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B".) For these reasons, it is clear that the Plaintiff is not prejudiced by Dr. Close's testimony about occipital neuritis. Like the doctor's testimony in Southerland, Dr. Close's testimony is within the purview of Rule 4003.5. 2. The redirect of Dr. Close was within the scope of the cross-examination: therefore. the Plaintiff's second obiection must be overruled. The Plaintiff argues that the Defendant's redirect is beyond the scope of cross- examination because Dr. Close testified about the findings of Dr. Grossinger. The Plaintiff's argument is without merit because the issue addressed on cross-examination and on redirect is exactly the same: occipital neuritis. The Plaintiff also argues that Dr. Close's testimony is beyond the scope of his report. This argument is refuted more fully above. For the above reasons, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Plaintiff's objections be overruled, and Dr. Close's testimony be presented in its entirety. Respectfully submitted, SUMMERS, McDONNELL, HUDOCK, GUTHRIE & EEL, L.L.P. By: K vin D. Rauch, Esquire Counsel for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendant's Memorandum With Respect to Plaintiff's Objections To The Testimony of Richard A. Close, M.D. has been hand-delivered to counsel of record, this ) ~ t^- day of Zj+ ,2006. Stephen M. Greecher, Esquire Tucker Arensberg, PC 111 North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 By: . ~~ dB · /y , 111e an ram P Neurosurgery Center 135~~ Neurological Surgeons Craig H. Johnson. MD, FAGS Richard A Close, MD, FAGS Raym'ond C. Truex, Jr., MD, FACS Richard J. Meagher, MD Physician Assistant J. Michael Stoltzfus, PA-G Certified Nurse' Practitioners Trudy A. Bush, MSN, CRNP Patricia G. Hoover, MSN, CRNP July 5) 2006 Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Sommers, McDonald, Hudock, Guthrie and Skiel, LLP Attorneys at Law 1017 Mumma Road Lemoyne) P A 17043 RE: Maxwell v. Pierce .L:_, _. Dear Mr. Rauch: An independent medical examination was done at your request on Roxanne E. Maxwell at my office in West Reading' on 07!05/06.; The 'claimant provided me with the followin,g history: . " Roxanne Maxwell, now 45, date of birth 08/27/60, is a rigp,t-handed property manager who states on 12/23/02 she was involved as a belted driver in a motor vehicle accident when she collided with another vehicle at an intersection causing that vehicle t9 turn'over. She sustained $12,000 damage to her automobile. At the time of injury she struck her left elbow on the door and complained of posterior cervical pain and headache. Concerned for her passenger, she refused hospital treatment and states she missed little work. With ongoing symptoms she consulted her physician, and had physical1;herapy which gave her no relief. She had chiropractic treatment. She noted improvement of short duration with epiduraJ. steroid injections x2. CHIEF COMPLAJNT: , Neck and left upper extremity pain, aggravated by all activities. She consults with a chiropractor q. six months. She states she had to give up sports and exercise activity as a result dfher symptoms. She has not seen a surgeon. ALLERGIES: CecIar, Entex and PelJicillin. CURRENT MEDICATIONS: Nexium, D"omiataJ.: ' SURGICAL HISTORY UNRELATE Ernest E. Reigh, MD /1961-1991 . p: (610) 375-4567 . f: (f)1 m ~7Fi-1?m -bert C. Johnson, MD /1952-1987 )01 Spruce Street . West Reading, Pe Letter to Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire RE: Roxanne Maxwell July 5, 2006 Page 2 SURGERY RELATED TO DOl: None. GENERAL HEALTH mSTORY: Positive for acid reflux and allergies (seasonal). OCCUPATIONAL. EDucATIONAL. SOCIALIDSTORY: She is a, high school' graduate. She is si~gle' and has no children. She takes alcohol occasionally. She smokes Y2 pack/day. PHYSICAL EXAMINATION: BP 122/76. Pulse 76. Pulse oximetry 97%. General: Properly groomed, casually attired middle aged female, no overt pain behavior. Sensorium:. Intact :-:-__",_......... ., , . Waddell's testing negative. Dermis: No incision$ appropriate to the present illness, no rashes. Body habitus: Normal mus?ulatureand body build. Braces, walkers, assistive devices: Negative." Vascular testing: Pulses equal throughout. "Limbs wannto touch. No pre-tibial or pedal edema. No signs ofthora,cic outlet synd,rome. No signs ofRSD. Cranium: Intact. Cranial nerves: NOr.q;1al. Sitting posture normal.. Standing posture strai.ght. Flexibility: CervicaJ,'spine shows some loss of range ofmotibn especially in extension. Flexibility of limbs: Normal. Tinel's testing pegative throughout. . Mq:tor exam: 'Normal- power; normal bulk. Reflex testing: DT~ 1-2+. No spasticity. No clonus. Gait reciprocating. . Cerebellar and balance testing normal. Sensory exam'intact. RADIOGRAPHS REVIEWED: There are no radiographs for today's examination. RECORDS REVIE\V~D: 1. Diagnostic s~dies. 2. Physical therapy reports. Letter to Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire RE: Roxanne Maxwell July 5, 2006 Page 3 3. Christiana Ho.spital. 4. Penn State Geisinger. 5. Mario Lazar, M.D. 6. The Hetrick Center. 7. First State Physicians, Inc. 8. Bruce Goodman, M.D. 9. Delaware Th~tapeutics. . 10. Delaware NetirolQgic~ Center. 11. OrthopediC rnstitute" of Pennsylvania. 12. Newark Emergency Center. The:MRI of the lumbar spine from 03/18/99 shows no evidence of stenosis or herniated disc with bilateral . foramina! narrowing ;3.t L4-5 with associated spondylolisthesis. Radiograph of the left shoulder 02/28/03 was negative. Video fluoroscopic evaluation left elbow of 04/02/03 is normal. .MRI of the cervical.spine 04/07/03 shows cervical spondylosis with bulging and small central soft disc herniation C5-6 and C4-5 with no cord compression, no cord changes. Video fluoroscopic examination cervical spine 06/19/03 shows slight restriction of motion at C5-6 and C6- 7 due in part to spur formation. No significant instability identified. . Most of the medical records show incidental general medical care. She was evaluated in 02/99 for low back pam. She had an independ~),lt medical examination by Bruce Goodman, "M.D. on 05/25/05 withthe impression the motor vehicle accident did serve as an aggravation ofber previously asymptomatic q:mdition, namely cervical spondylosis and degenerative disc disease. He rendered a diagnosis of occipital neuritis. DIAGNOSIS: Neck and left upper extremity pain. DISCDSSIONIRECOMMENDA TIONS: Tills is an otherwise healthy, cigarette smoking middle aged white collar worker v\lith symptoms of neck and radiating left upper extremity pain post MV A. Her examination today is unremarkable except for slight neck stiffness. .. etter to Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire RE: Roxanne Max-well i July 5, 2006 Page 4 I have not had the opportunity to review the MR scans. The reports described spondylosis. I cannot at this point say whether or not she has a surgical lesion in her neck. If this is a valid question, which it may be, I w011ld suggest a, high resolution 1v1R scan of the cervical spine which I would be happy to review and comment upon. With ongoing cervical radicular symptoms, it is possible surgery may be necessary. She is able to \\,:brk 'akher us.ll.~l occupation without restrictib~s. It app.earsi'hersyinptoms have a qualit'j of life impact however. If other records become available, I would be happy to review them and issue a report. These opinions are rendered based upon a review of the above-listed materials and on the history and , . physical examination recorded,and-are-held with a reasonable degree of medical certainty. Sincerely yours, ydL~ Richard-A-: Close, M.D., F.A.C.S. RAC/bek 24 1 shoulder pain as well, and by the time I saw her, she 2 had a normal examination except for some slight 3 stiffness and had some middle age changes in the neck. 4 BY MR. RAUCH: 5 6 Q A Did she complain of any headaches? No. She told me she had had headaches at 7 the time of the injury, but when I saw her that was 8 specifically discussed and there was no headache. 9 Q Doctor, in preparation of your report, did 10 you also have the opportunity to review the reports of 11 Bruce Goodman, M.D.? 12 13 A Q Yes. You were also able to see then, Doctor, 14 that he rendered a diagnosis of occipital neuritis? 15 A Yes. 16 MR. GREECHER: Off the record, please. 17 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Going off the video. 18 The time of day is 2:23 p.m. 19 MR. GREECHER: Once again to protect the 20 record, I know the Doctor looked at the reports, he 21 looked at Dr. Goodman's reports, but in his report he 22 doesn't discuss any analysis. 23 beyond the scope. So I think this is again 24 MR. RAUCH: Again, he specifically 25 references it, and I am responding to your objection, 0 po...,,) c:::.... 0 C = ""T1 <:?'" 0-" -c~ f]~: (I') :i! (Dr" Pl n1:!:l 7' .-,~.I -0 ~. .~..',~ r- 05 -om \.0 ~!J9 r" f:",:.c~ (:~ .",." >~,- ......1 ~ );~:.; ,;~) -0 (:s 7.2 z J:~ ~M :p. (__,i r:y c: '-) 7' :i;! :~ .r- :n c....... -< , -.. ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA V. ANN M. PIERCE, : NO. 2004 - 6243 CIVIL TERM Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - JURY TRIAL VERDICT State the amount of money damages you award to Plaintiff, Roxann E. Maxwell, in the following categories: a. Medical bills ~4!a-:I(). DD__ b. Non-economic damages /~) 0 OD. DO TOTAL $ IlJ 10 'It:; .00 ) orv, DATE.5?I/9/00 ~/J 4r~ , OREPERSON I .~ ll\C9. \0 .. ',--It.. \C ... ' ( \jJL. \jJ'-".: \ '). r, $J...CV--"1 e:p (~ . \ _ ~~L\JL _ 1 \}6; / ~, , '\ '" \~C ,cry //~ c' \ /// " // /' / ,/ ,/ ..r""". .--' -", s ~{~ co~~~~~~'WEI"'.'. vs Ann MJ1'erce DATE: -9... IS-or, CASE NO.: ~9 -KOXlU'\oe E t1ax l.Ue II DOCKET NO.: ~- 4AlI3 -1822866908 1682325"~!)' -1490054041 -1474261559 1:w5667:381) ~ '0 1- TALLEY, CAROL L. TPIMH, TV SHAFFER, DAVID E. GUISE, JAMEY S. --C01'\luUN, JANl~t ALLEMAN, MICHAEL E. WEAVER, TERRI L. rT TTT ~:R, C~CORY 1.. TIGHE, JOHN J. b1\KK1C1\., lJOULiL1\b 1"'. 100 8Q.. 64 71 P;L ~ 3 4 5 t;.g -1115016244 -1032178750 -91l:i12gS61 89 79 6 -$~ >>"" (?~ ,~ () -659608289 ~~ -512976744 .s114-9~ -473262639 -425782055 -39UUS3697 372~ 73 104 95 -+f) ! i '.1-2" LEE, ERIC J. JAL0151, J~Ur:LRIE HARPSTER, IRITH G. FRAKER, CINDY LOUISE LIM~I{BACI I, LINDA L. r~, ~Al~nRA MARIE ~ROWbN;-fI~I9+m' PHELM~,PATRICIA SHOOP, JOHN R. HARTZELL, PAUL LOVE, LISA DUNDORF, ELIZABETH I. SHARP, JEFFREY D. CORDIER, BEVERLY A. CAMPBELL, ALLEN S. DELL, JENNIFER L. LININGER, JENNIE M. B JOSEPH W. SUNCH CHRISTY L. RICH, SHARON N CLENDENING, BE ROBINSO, NIFER L. C AUGH, ELIZABETH A. CONNOLLY, EUGENE G. MillEN, RUSSELL CLA WSER, HEATHER D~ P3 P,r, Pi. --- 10j 62 54 9~ 13 14 m Qg ...l.h -jlbI:S6S!>23"" -151063337 306644928 307987030 358406227 365710994 482751470 524718214 644345562 74 854 804364326 930274497 945622133 1275584272 1322994351 1596940985 1650809540 1700033450 1712638068 21565 un 85 81 72 94 59 84 97 93 3 55 82 58 61 56 96 57 6 74 90 , [7 18 19 21 22 -- 26 ''I'{ ":;'.,1 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Page of 2 Monday, September 18, 2006 Auto Acc',dent . . " A7 j, MARY ANN BURNETT SIRIS, MARIA 38 65 69 39 Monday, September 18, 2006 1992258661 2037489692 851112 ~" Page 2 of 2 ~ I . .. ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. NO. 04-6243 CIVIL TERM ANN M. PIERCE Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DELAY DAMAGES PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 238 NOTICE You are hereby notified to file a written answer to the attached Motion for Delay Damages within twenty (20) days from the filing of the Motion, or the delay damages sought in the Motion may be added to the verdict or decision against you. Respectfully submitted, By:g, I Stephen . ree er, Jr. Attorney's I.D. No. PA-36803 111 North Front Street P. O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF DATE: 9/28/06 89868.1 . . , -(. "" ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 04-6243 CIVIL TERM ANN M. PIERCE Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DELAY DAMAGES PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 238 NOTICE You are hereby notified to file a written answer to the attached Motion for Delay Damages within twenty (20) days from the filing of the Motion, or the delay damages sought in the Motion may be added to the verdict or decision against you. 1. On September 19, 2006, the jury returned a verdict in the above captioned case in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $13,625.00. The above captioned action was commenced on December 13, 2004. 2. Service of process in the above captioned action was made on Defendant on January 4, 2005 by service of the Writ of Summons. 3. The case was listed for trial by Plaintiff and Plaintiff caused no delay of the trial. 4. On June 9, 2005, counsel for Defendant, Ann M. Pierce, made an offer to Roxann Maxwell of $5,000.00 that complied with the provisions of Pa.R.C.P. 238(b)(2), as set forth on Exhibit "A" hereto. The jury verdict of $13,625.00 is more than 125% of the $5,000.00 offer made by Defendant and, therefore, Defendant's offer does not reduce the time period for which delay damages may be awarded in this action. ., .... . " 5. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of delay damages for the period beginning January 5, 2006 until September 23, 2006. The period begins one year after the date of service of original process in this action. 6. Plaintiff is entitled to delay damages determined as follows: 1/5/06 - 9/23/06 (262/365 days x .0825 x $13,625.00) = $ 806.86 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an Order adding $806.86 as delay damages, for a total verdict with delay damages of $14,431.86. Respectfully submitted, By: St eecher, . ttorney's 1.0. No. P 3 111 North Front Street P. O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ~~~~. 9/? g~t 2 to , , f, ... SUMM~RS, McDoNNELL, GuTHRIE & SKEEL, ATTORNEYS AT LAW '7rIJDOCK, L.L..R JASON A, HINES ERIN M. BRAUN GUY E. BLASS JENNIFER M. IRVIN MARK J, GOLEN BRETT L. HUSTON ROBERT J. FISHER, JR JOSHUA G. FERGUSON CAROLYN S, LAURO KIMBERLY L. HENSLEY ELAINE J, WIZZARD EMILY F. FASULO LUCAS A. MILLER STEPHEN J, SUMMERS THOMAS A, MCDONNELL JOSEPH A HUDOCK, JR GREGG A GUTHRIE PETER B SKEEL PATRICK M CONNELLY' JEFFREY C, CATANZARITE KEVIN D. RAUCH HARRISBURG OFFICE: 1017 MUMMA ROAD LEMOYNE, P A 17043 PHONE,717.901-5916 FAX, 717-920-9129 June 9, 2005 . ALSO AOMITTED IN W V Stephen M. Greecher, Esquire Tucker Arensberg, PC 111 North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 RE: Maxwell v. Pierce and Kurtz v. Pierce Our File No. 13384 and 13411 Dear Mr. Greecher: Please be advised that I am authorized to extend the following offers of settlement with respect to each of your clients in exchange for a general release: 1. Roxann Maxwell - $5,000; and 2. Kimbra Kurtz - $2.500. Total - $7,500 This offer is made in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 238 and will remain in effect for ninety (90) days or until the time of trial, whichever first occurs. If you should have any questions regarding the above. please feel free to contact me. Thank you. KDR:lam EXHIBIT i i I'AI< PITTSBURGH OFFICE: GUL.F TOWER, SUITE 2400,707 GRANT STREET. P,TTSBURGH, PA 15219 PHONE 412..2.6 t.3232 FAX 412-2613239 ... III - ~ ~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ;( t-fA. day of SEPTEMBER, 2006, I, Jacquelyn Zettlemoyer, Secretary to Stephen M. Greecher, Jr., Esquire, for the law firm, Tucker Arensberg, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiff, hereby certify that I have this day served the within document by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Summers, McDonnell, Hudock Guthrie & Skeel, LLP 1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300 Lemoyne, PA 17043 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT Qu. ~~ \ JaCqUely~ttlemOyer ~ 74813.1 "..0 ( ~ J -cll .-4 -r C' ...J~ ,- I .... '. I', ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff vs. ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 04-6243 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DELAY DAMAGES ORDER AND NOW, this ~ fl\ day of October, 2006, a rule is issued upon the defendant to show cause why Plaintiff s Motion for Delay Damages should not be granted. Rule returnable twenty (20) days after service. Edward E. Guido, 1. fiphen M. Greecher, Jr., Esquire For the Plaintiff . ~in D. Rauch, Esquire ~ F or the Defendant :rlm ,D\J \t)\D 2 I :6 0 I .!.:JO 900l . ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. NO. 04-6243 CIVIL TERM ANN M. PIERCE Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE REGARDING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DELAY DAMAGES 1. On September 19, 2006, the jury returned a verdict in the above-captioned case in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $13,625.00. 2. On September 28, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Delay Damages requesting delay damages in the amount $806.86. 3. On October 9, 2006, the Court issued a Rule to Show Cause upon Defendant as to why Plaintiffs Motion for Delay Damages should not be granted (Exhibit "A" hereto). 4. Service was made of the Rule on October 10, 2006 by the Prothonotary mailing the Rule to counsel for the parties. More than twenty (20) days have passed since service was made of the Rule and Defendant has not responded to the Rule or Plaintiff's Motion For Delay Damages. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an Order making the Rule issued October 9, 2006, absolute and granting Plaintiff's request for delay damage in the amount of $806.86 adding said damages to the verdict for a total verdict with delay damages of $14,431.86. Respectfully submitted, DATE: II/~Y eecher, J r. Attorney's 1.0. No. PA-36803 111 North Front Street P. O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF 90603.1 (021999 - 121334) ~ ~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this L day of November, 2006, I, Dawn T. Heilman, Secretary to Stephen M. Greecher, Jr., Esquire, for the law firm of Tucker Arensberg, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiff, hereby certify that I have this day served the within document by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Summers, McDonnell, Hudock Guthrie & Skeel, LLP 1017 Mumma Road, suite 300 Lemoyne, PA 17043 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT DcWJY\}.~ Dawn T. Heilman 90603.1 (021999 -121334) 2 iJjt~~'}~~lQJ I , r ('v ,~ \ ROXANN E. MAXWELL, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Ys. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 04-6243 CIVIL ANN M. PIERCE, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DELAY DAMAGES ORDER AND NOW, this q f'\ day of October, 2006, a rule is issued upon the defendant to show cause why Plaintiffs Motion for Delay Damages should not be granted. Rule returnable twenty (20) days after service. Edward E. Guido, 1. Stephen M. Greecher, Jr., Esquire For the Plaintiff Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire For the Defendant :rlm EXHIBIT "A" ROXANN E. MAXWELL, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiff v. NO. 04-6243 CIVIL TERM ANN M. PIERCE (") JURY TRIAL DEMANDE~ ~;r~, :2 r=~' ~:~ '~'.~ l~1 f'"-.) t::::' c::::> 0'"' (/') ..-q ~u 1'-' co Defendant PLAINTIFF'S MOTiON FOR DELAY DAMAGES PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 238 .:..--\ -::.. NOTICE You are hereby notified to file a written answer to the attached Motion for Delay Damages within twenty (20) days from the filing of the Motion, or the delay damages sought in the Motion may be added to the verdict or decision against you. Respectfully submitted, :PI' ::5: o -n ~-n rrl F:O -':J\"1J :::-09 () (-~ ..-1- ~~0 '--'0 ;;rn u -I "? :~ - - l"") N By: . Stephen ree er, Jr. Attorney's I.D. No. PA-36803 111 North Front Street P. O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF DATE: 9/28/06 89868.1 Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW ROXANN E. MAXWELL, v. NO. 04-6243 CIVIL TERM ANN M. PIERCE Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR DELAY DAMAGES PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 238 NOTICE You are hereby notified to file a written answer to the attached Motion for Delay Damages within twenty (20) days from the filing of the Motion, or the delay damages sought in the Motion may be added to the verdict or decision against you. 1. On September 19, 2006, the jury returned a verdict in the above captioned case in favor of Plaintiff in the amount of $13,625.00. The above captioned action was commenced on December 13, 2004. 2. Service of process in the above captioned action was made on Defendant on January 4, 2005 by service of the Writ of Summons. 3. The case was listed for trial by Plaintiff and Plaintiff caused no delay of the trial. 4. On June 9, 2005, counsel for Defendant, Ann M. Pierce, made an offer to Roxann Maxwell of $5,000.00 that complied with the provisions of Pa.R.C.P. 238(b)(2), as set forth on Exhibit "An hereto. The jury verdict of $13,625.00 is more than 125% of the $5,000.00 offer made by Defendant and, therefore, Defendant's offer does not reduce the time period for which delay damages may be awarded in this action. '! 5. Plaintiff is entitled to an award of delay damages for the period beginning January 5, 2006 until September 23, 2006. The period begins one year after the date of service of original process in this action. 6. Plaintiff is entitled to delay damages determined as follows: 1/5/06 - 9/23/06 (262/365 days x .0825 x $13,625.00) = $ 806.86 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an Order adding $806.86 as delay damages, for a total verdict with delay damages of $14,431.86. Respectfully submitted, By: St eecher, . ttorney's I.D. No. P 3 111 North Front Street P. O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ~~~~: 9/? g~( 2 SUMMFRS, McDoNNELL, GuTHRIE & SKEEL, A TTORNEYS A T LAW H~I.JDOCK, ! L......F? STEPHEN J. SUMMERS THOMAS A. MCDONNELL JOSEPH A. HUDOCK. JR GREGG A. GUTHRIE PETER B. SKEEL PATRICK M. CONNELLY. JEFFREY C CATANZARITE KEVIN D. RAUCH HARRISBURG OFFICE: 1017 MUMMA ROAD LEMOYNE. PA 17043 PHONE: 717-901-5916 FAX: 717-920-9129 JASON A. HINES ERIN M. BRAUN GUY E. BLASS JENNIFER M. IRVIN MARK J. GOLEN BRETT L. HUSTON ROBERTJ. FISHER. JR. JOSHUA G. FERGUSON CAROI..YN S. LAURO KIMBERLY L. HENSI..EY ELAINE J. WIZZARD EMILY F. FASULO LUCAS A. MII..I..ER June 9, 2005 * ALSO ADMITTED IN WV Stephen M. Greecher, Esquire Tucker Arensberg, PC 111 North Front Street P.O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 RE: Maxwell v. Pierce and Kurtz v. Pierce Our File No. 13384 and 13411 Dear Mr. Greecher: Please be advised that I am authorized to extend the following offers of settlement with respect to each of your clients in exchange for a general release: 1. Roxann Maxwell - $5,000; and 2. Kimbra Kurtz - $2,500. Total - $7,500 This offer is made in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 238 and will remain in effect for ninety (90) days or until the time of trial, whichever first occurs. If you should have any questions regarding the above, please feel free to contact me. Thank you. KDR:lam EXHIBIT } i "All PITTSBURGH OFFICE: GULF TOWER. SUITE 2400.707 GRANT STREE:T. PITTSBURGH. PA 15219 PHONE 412.261.3232 FAX 412-261-3239 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this d:< t-IJ.. day of SEPTEMBER, 2006, I, Jacquelyn Zettlemoyer, Secretary to Stephen M. Greecher, Jr., Esquire, for the law firm, Tucker Arensberg, P.C., attorneys for Plaintiff, hereby certify that I have this day served the within document by depositing a true and correct copy of the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Kevin D. Rauch, Esquire Summers, McDonnell, Hudock Guthrie & Skeel, LLP 1017 Mumma Road, Suite 300 Lemoyne, PA 17043 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT ~~ Jacquelyn ettlemoyer 74813.1 (] f-.,:\ c::> (~ = '" 0' -"'.,.~ "-'..., .....-.- I -.J f'J . ~- -, n ~ ( ~ 0.1 ) NOV 0 8 2006 ~t Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW ROXANN E. MAXWELL, v. NO. 04-6243 CIVIL TERM ANN M. PIERCE Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED '" AND NOW, this I j of . - ORDER ,J~ , 2006, upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion to Make Rule Absolute, the Rule issued by the Court in the above-captioned case on October 9, 2006, is hereby made absolute and Plaintiff's request for delay damages of $806.86 is granted and the total verdict in this case with delay damages is $14,431.86. ,J 90603.1 (021999-121334) J J..- /l/- ~(p {f~ ~ "-- ~ 0" '01 LHI tj I ~ n~l gnnz ~,(~" H'" I\,~t~ WI) ROXANN E. MAXWELL, v. ANN M. PIERCE Plaintiff Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 04-6243 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE TO: PROTHONOTARY, CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please mark the above captioned action satisfied and discontinued with prejudice. DATE: December 11, 2006 91337.1 p Attorney's I. o. PA-36803 111 North Front Street P. O. Box 889 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0889 (717) 234-4121 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF ,...., = = cro c:J ...., n o ." :r! rn :n r- -om ~r)? :j< j :~~ :Ii >",() Om ::;-1 ~ -< w :2 .....J1.... '!? o -.1