The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-0061 Robert F. Claraval, Esq. CLARA V AL & CLARA VAL 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court I.D, 19222 Attorney for Plaintiff LESLIE BROWN Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v, NO. 0(", - 1.:./ C;uJ'j-~ OLLIE WARNER Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE - COMPLAINT YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you, and a judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LA WYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (800) 990-9108 NOTICIA Le han demandado a usted an Ia corte. Si usted guiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo aI partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. U sted debe presentar una apariencia escrita 0 en persona 0 por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas 0 sus objeciones alas demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado gue si usted no se defienda, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso 0 notificacion y por cualquier gueja 0 alivio gue es pedido en la peticion de demanda. U sted puede perder dinero 0 sus propiedades 0 otros derechos importantes para usted, LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TlENE ABOGADO 0 SI NO TlENE EL DINERO SUFIClENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, V A Y A EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUY A DIRECCION SE ENCUNENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, P A 17013 (800) 990-9108 LESLIE BROWN Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 01.. - /P { Ciu:L'T~ OLLIE WARNER Defendant CIVIL ACTION. LAW COMPLAINT Parties 1. The Plaintiff Leslie Brown is an adult individual residing at 140 Hill Lane, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17050. 2. The Defendant Ollie Warner is an adult individual residing at 122 Hill Lane, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17050. Background 3. On December 8, 2004 at approximately noon the Plaintiff Leslie Brown was operating her 2001 Kawasaki Motorcycle east on Hill Lane in Mechanicsburg. 4. On that same date the Defendant Ollie Warner was operating a 2002 Hyundai Accent west on Hill Lane and was traveling toward Plaintiff Leslie Brown. 5. With deliberate disregard for the Plaintiff Leslie Brown who was properly occupying the eastbound lane ofHiIl Road, the Defendant Ollie Warner swerved her car from the westbound lane into the eastbound lane and drove direclly in the path of Leslie Brown. 6. Plaintiff Leslie Brown observed the Defendant entering the eastbound lane direclly in front of her had no time to bring her motorcycle to a stop before crashing head-on into Defendant Warner's car. Plaintiff Leslie Brown took the only course of action available to her and swerved to the right, causing the motorcycle fall over onto its side. 7. Plaintiff Leslie Brown attempted to push herself off of the motorcycle as it fell but her right ankle became trapped and caused her to crash to the roadway with the motorcycle. 8. Plaintiff Leslie Brown was pinned underneath the motorcycle, struck the roadway with the motorcycle on top of her and skidded 3-5 feet toward the right hand curb before coming to a halt. 9. The force of the crash caused serious injury to Plaintiff Leslie Brown and caused significant damage to her motorcycle. .2- 10. The collision and all of the hereinafter mentioned injuries and damages sustained by the Plaintiff Leslie Brown are 1he direct result of the carelessness, recklessness and negligence of the Defendant Ollie Warner as more particularly described below. (a) In failing to stop her vehicle before colliding with the motorcycle the Plaintiff Leslie Brown was driving. (b) In failing to keep alert and to maintain a proper lookout for the presence of other motor vehicles, more specifically, the Plaintiff Leslie Brown's motorcycle. (c) In failing to keep adequate and proper control over her vehicle to avoid contact with the motorcycle which the Plaintiff Leslie Brown was driving. (d) In operating her vehicle with careless disregard for the rights or safety of others in violation of the Motor Vehicle Code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, specifically 75 Pa. C.S.A. 93714 "Careless Driving." (e) In operating her vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of o1hers lawfully on the roadway specifically including Leslie Brown in violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. 93736. -3- (f) In violating 75 Pa.C.S.A. 93334, turning movements and required signals. (g) In violating 75 Pa.C.S.A.93302, meeting a vehicle going in the opposite direction. (h) In violating 75 Pa.C.S.A. 93306, driving on the left side of the highway. Damages II. The force and impact ofthe collision as caused by the actions of the Defendant Ollie Warner caused serious and permanent injury to the Plaintiff Leslie Brown for which she has received medical care. 12. The Plaintiff Leslie Brown suffered the following injuries as a result of the actions of the Defendant Ollie Warner: (a) Fractured right ankle; (b) Fractured left thumb; (c) Abrasions to left hand with swelling and ecchymosis; (d) Abrasions to right knee; (e) Loss of strength and range of motion in left hand; (f) Loss of strength and range of motion in right ankle. -4- 13. As a result of the actions of the Defendant Ollie Warner as described herein, the Plaintiff Leslie Brown has suffered and will continue to suffer mental and physical pain, great difficulty in carrying out and engaging in life's activities, a loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, humiliation and embarrassment. 14. Plaintiff Leslie Brown has and will in the future sustain a loss of earnings and an impairment to her earning capacity. 15. Plaintiff Leslie Brown has been forced to expend sums of money for medical services, medication, therapy and related expenses in the past and will be required to continue to do so in the future. 16. All of Plaintiff Leslie Brown's injuries as herein described are continuing and will continue into the foreseeable future, as will the trea1ment costs thereof. 17. The actions of the Defendant Ollie Warner has resulted in the general deterioration of Plaintiff Leslie Brown's well-being. -5- WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff Leslie Brown demands judgment against the Defendant Ollie Warner in an amount which exceeds the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County, together with interest, delay damages and costs of suit. Date: !7./U-/c>r- I I CLARA V AL & CLARA V AL BY~ 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101.1167 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court 1.0. #19222 Attorneys for Plaintiff -6- . VERIFICA nON The language of the foregoing document is that of counsel and not necessarily my own; however, I have read the foregoing document and to the extent that it is based upon information that I have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief; to the extent that the content of the foregoing document is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this verification. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject 10 the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. 94904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. LLQ~ Leslie Brown ,I (:l 'Q. A.> 111 G " ~ \\:. 1I1 c;; s~;~ ..... ..... .-, (- ~'i- ~ --l -U ..,..... :--;, )..l ~ - F I - V) ~ L.:> ("", ~ ~ -" .-.- -r-- .. -....c... ,--' --'.: \...f) . . Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J, Shipman, Esquire 1.0. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne. PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 .1_ JACQUCLlNC DOUOIICrny, -r L€sL,'€. ~~ Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v, CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 06-61 Civil Term OLLIE WARNER, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NEW MATTER NOTICE TO: Leslie Brown, Plaintiff cia Robert F. Claraval, Esquire Claraval & Claraval 500 North Third Street, 2ND Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 YOU ARE REQUIRED to plead to the within Answer and New Matter within 20 days of s service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. ON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER erson J. Shipman, Esquire orneys 1.0. #: 51785 01 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com Attorneys for Defendant DATE: 1/;2I7/0b 266879 t (. Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. No. 51785 301 Market Street P,O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 dACQUCLltK DOUCIICRPf, .l/e.so!..l'€.. ~IU>~....) Plaintiff Attorney for Defendant v, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 06-61 Civil Term OLLIE WARNER, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, OLLIE WARNER AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Ollie Warner, by and through her counsel, Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, and files the following Answer and New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint: 1, Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Mrs. Warner was operating a vehicle on Hill Lane in Mechanicsburg. It is denied, however, that she was operating a 2002 Hyundai Accent. Mrs. Warner was operating an XG350L Hyundai. 5. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 5 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained in Paragraph 5 are specifically denied. It is specifically denied that with deliberate disregard for the Plaintiff that Mrs. Warner swerved her car from the alleged westbound lane into the alleged eastbound lane (there are no designated lanes). It is also specifically denied that Mrs. Warner drove directly into the path of the Plaintiff. To the contrary, Mrs. Warner was lawfully operating her vehicle in a reasonable and careful manner at all times. Further, at no time did her vehicle come into contact with the Plaintiff, nor the Plaintiff's motorcycle. 6. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 6 are, in part, conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. By way of further response, Mrs, Warner is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 6 with regard to what the Plaintiff allegedly saw as well as the Plaintiff's actions causing her motorcycle to fall onto its side, 7, Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that Plaintiff crashed her motorcycle and was caught beneath it. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Warner is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a believe as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 7 and the same are therefore denied. 8. Admitted in part, denied in part. It admitted only that it appeared as though the Plaintiff was underneath the motorcycle. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Warner is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments contained in Paragraph 8 and the same are therefore denied. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Warner is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 9, relating to Plaintiff's alleged injury and damage to her motorcycle, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 10. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 10, and subparagraphs (a) through (h), are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied, (a) Denied. To the contrary, Mrs. Warner was operating her vehicle in a reasonable and careful manner. It is further denied that Mrs. Warner's vehicle collided with the motorcycle. There was no contact between the Warner vehicle and the Plaintiff's motorcycle. The Plaintiff crashed her motorcycle on her own; (b) Denied. To the contrary, Mrs. Warner was alert and maintained a proper look-out for the presence of other vehicles on the roadway; (c) Denied, To the contrary, Mrs. Warner did keep adequate and proper control over her vehicle; (d) Denied, To the contrary, Mrs. Warner was operating her vehicle in a reasonable and safe manner. Further, at no time did Mrs. Warner violate any provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code. Further, at no time did Mrs. Warner receive any type of citation for violation of the Motor Vehicle Code; (e) Denied. To the contrary, Mrs. Warner was operating her vehicle in a reasonable and safe manner. At no time did Mrs. Warner violate the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code. (f) Denied. To the contrary, Mrs. Warner was operating her vehicle in a reasonable and safe manner and not in violation of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code; (g) Denied. To the contrary, Mrs. Warner was operating her vehicle in a reasonable and safe manner and not in violation of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code; and (h) Denied. To the contrary, Mrs. Warner was operating her vehicle in a reasonable and safe manner and not in violation of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code. 11, Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Warner is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 11, relating to Plaintiff's alleged injuries and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 12. Denied, After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Warner is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 12, relating to Plaintiff's alleged injuries and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 13, Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 13 are, in part, conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs, Warner is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 13, relating to Plaintiff's alleged injuries and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 14, Denied, After reasonable investigation, Mrs, Warner is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 14 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Warner is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 15, relating to Plaintiff's alleged injury and damage to her motorcycle, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 16, Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Warner is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 16, relating to Plaintiff's alleged injury and damage to her motorcycle, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 17, Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Warner is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 17, relating to Plaintiff's alleged injury and damage to her motorcycle, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, the Defendant Ollie Warner respectfully requests that judgment be entered in her favor and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. NEW MAHER By way of additional answer and reply, the Defendant, Ollie Warner, interposes the following New Matter defenses: 18. That the Plaintiff's alleged cause of action may be barred in whole or in part by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 19. That the Plaintiff's alleged cause of action may be barred in whole or in part by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 20. That if it should be found that there was any negligence on the part of Mrs. Warner, which is specifically denied, then in that event any such negligence was not a substantial factor, nor factual cause of any injuries to the Plaintiff. 21, That the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of the Plaintiff consisted of the following: (a) Failing to operate her motorcycle in accordance with the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code; (b) Failing to keep alert and to maintain a proper look-out; and (c) Failing to keep proper and adequate control over her vehicle. 22, That the Plaintiff's alleged cause of action may have been caused by third parties or entities not presently involved in this action. 23. That the Plaintiff's alleged cause of action was not caused by any acts, omissions or breaches of duty by Mrs. Warner. WHEREFORE, the Defendant Ollie Warner respectfully requests that judgment be entered in her favor and that any and all claims being asserted against her be dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER DATE: /I~ I()~ 266881 By Je son J. Shipman, Esquire At neys 1.0. #: 51785 30 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com Attorneys for Defendant VERIFICATION I, Ollie Warner, have read the foregoing Answer and hereby affirm that it is true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, or information and belief. This Verification and statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. ~4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities; I verify that all the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct and that false statements may subject me to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. ~4804. " i ! I j:,.,'...t/....L-'- L/ vl'} uA./ Ollie Warner DATE 266968 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been duly served upon the following, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on I /tk /4>u> { I Robert F. Claraval, Esquire Claraval & Claraval 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By J I. . #: 51785 P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 717-761-4540 Attorneys for Defendant 266970 {^ , ...., 1 -- f ; --- ....L 'e c.-,-- - ~$ -" r' { SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2006-00061 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BROWN LESLIE VS WARNER OLLIE DOUGLAS RUZANSKI Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon WARNER OLLIE the DEFENDANT at 2020:00 HOURS, on the 6th day of January 2006 at 122 HILL LANE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 by handing to OLLIE WARNER a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Postage Surcharge So Answers: 18.00 10.56 .39 10.00 .00 38.95 .~__"_p"~,<~2,:,.:ff .p .'"" ",r -"'~ ,;,..':' ><~ "::.'::'>7-7'Y R. Thomas Kline 01/09/2006 ROBERT CLARAVAL ,1 / Sworn and Subscribed to before By: ; / /", ',. } /( /(1/;~.'J 1[(j{/l11/ 'Depuqf S e tlf / // ' !/ me this II~ day of !t-j;~~ A.D. Robert F. Claraval, Esq. CLARA V AL & CLARA V AL 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court I.D. 19222 Attorney for Plaintiffs Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LESLIE BROWN v. : NO. 06-61 OLLIE WARNER Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE TO PLEAD You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed Preliminary Objections within Twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. CLARA VAL & CLARA V AL Date: ~) 10 Inb I I ROBERT. ARA VAL 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PAl 71 0 1-1167 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court J.D. #19222 By Attorneys for Plaintiff Robert F. Claraval, Esq. CLARA V AL & CLARA V AL 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PAl 71 0 t (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court LD. 19222 Attorney for Plaintiff Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LESLIE BROWN v. : NO. 06-61 OLLIE WARNER Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW PLAINTIFF'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO DEFENDANT'S ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER Introduction A Complaint was filed on January 3, 2006. Plaintiff Leslie Brown has averred that the Defendant Ollie Warner negligently swerved her car into the lane of travel properly occupied by Leslie Brown causing Ms. Brown to crash and sustain serious injury. Ms. Brown seeks damages for pain and suffering and loss of income. Defendant Ollie Warner filed an Answer with New Matter on or about January 20,2006 and filed a corrected Answer with New Matter on or about January 23, 2006. The New Matter contains averments of a general nature which are objectionable under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Preliminary Objections in the Nature of a Motion for a More Specific Pleading Pursuant to Pa.R.c.P. l028(a)(3) and in the Nature of a Motion to Strike Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. l028(a)(2) and (3) 1. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure I 019(a) reads: "The material facts on which a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form." 2. Defendant has failed to plead any material facts upon which Defendant bases certain of her defenses enumerated below. 3. The Defendant cannot argue the case is in the preliminary stages and the parties will be exploring the facts surrounding this accident in discovery. 4. This case is governed by the Supreme Court decision ofConnerv. AlleghenvGeneral Hospital, 461 A.2d 600 (1983). 5. The paragraphs in the New Matter which are not specific and to which Plaintiff objects are as follows: 18. That the Plaintiffs alleged cause of action maybe barred in whole or in part by the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law. 19. That the Plaintiff s alleged cause of action may be barred in whole or in part by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 21. That the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of the Plaintiff consisted of the following: (a) Failing to operate her motorcycle III accordance with the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code. 22. That the Plaintiffs alleged cause of action may have been caused by third parties or entities not presently involved in this action. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Leslie Brown moves this Honorable Court for an Order requiring the Defendant Ollie Warner to file an Amended New Matter which complies with Pa.R.C.P. 1019 and states the material facts on which the Defendant's defenses are based. In the alternative, Plaintiff Leslie Brown moves this Honorable Court for an Order striking Paragraphs 18, 19, 21(a) and 22 from Defendant's New Matter. Date: a.- io ~ 6 / / CLARA V AL & CLARA V AL BP&~--f 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court 1.0. #19222 Attorneys for Plaintiff VERIFICATION I, Robert F. Claraval, being duly sworn according to law, depose and state that I am the attorney for the Plaintiffs in this action and that I am making this Verification on behalf of the Plaintiffs because no facts are contained within this pleading. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. ~4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. LESLIE BROWN Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL V ANlA v. : NO. 06-61 OLLIE WARNER Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of the attached Plaintiffs Preliminary Objections to Defendant's Answer with New Matter by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the following person: Jefferson Shipman, Esq. Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street Lemoyne, P A 17043 CLARA VAL & CLARA VAL Date: :;).//0 !O~ By 'Q~\'ljVv- \J1Jh~ ~ DENISE 1. WILLIAMS Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire 1.0. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 LESLIE BROWN, Plaintiff v. OLLIE WARNER, Defendant Attorney for Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 06.61 Civil Term JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NEW MATTER NOTICE TO: Leslie Brown, Plaintiff clo Robert F, Claraval, Esquire Claraval & Claraval 500 North Third Street, 2ND Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 YOU ARE REQUIRED to plead to the within Amended Answer and New Matter within 20 days of service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you, DATE: ~ /2 f/lJ(P ON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER B J erson J. ShiPma~e- '--. .Ai torneys 1.0. #: 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com Attorneys for Defendant Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire 1.0. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 LESLIE BROWN, Attorney for Defendant Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 06-61 Civil Term v. OLLIE WARNER, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AMENDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, OLLIE WARNER AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Ollie Warner, by and through her counsel, Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, and files the following Answer and New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Mrs. Warner was operating a vehicle on Hill Lane in Mechanicsburg. It is denied, however, that she was operating a 2002 Hyundai Accent. Mrs. Warner was operating an XG350L Hyundai. 5. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 5 are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained in Paragraph 5 are specifically denied. It is specifically denied that with deliberate disregard for the Plaintiff that Mrs. Warner swerved her car from the alleged westbound lane into the alleged eastbound lane (there are no designated lanes), It is also specifically denied that Mrs. Warner drove directly into the path of the Plaintiff. To the contrary, Mrs. Warner was lawfully operating her vehicle in a reasonable and careful manner at all times. Further, at no time did her vehicle come into contact with the Plaintiff, nor the Plaintiff's motorcycle. 6. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 6 are, in part, conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. By way of further response, Mrs. Warner is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 6 with regard to what the Plaintiff allegedly saw as well as the Plaintiff's actions causing her motorcycle to fall onto its side. 7. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that Plaintiff crashed her motorcycle and was caught beneath it. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Warner is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a believe as to the truth of the remaining averments of Paragraph 7 and the same are therefore denied. 8. Admitted in part, denied in part. It admitted only that it appeared as though the Plaintiff was underneath the motorcycle. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Warner is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments contained in Paragraph 8 and the same are therefore denied. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Warner is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 9, relating to Plaintiffs alleged injury and damage to her motorcycle, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 10. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 10, and subparagraphs (a) through (h), are conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. (a) Denied. To the contrary, Mrs. Warner was operating her vehicle in a reasonable and careful manner. It is further denied that Mrs. Warner's vehicle collided with the motorcycle. There was no contact between the Warner vehicle and the Plaintiff's motorcycle. The Plaintiff crashed her motorcycle on her own; (b) Denied. To the contrary, Mrs. Warner was alert and maintained a proper look-out for the presence of other vehicles on the roadway; (c) Denied. To the contrary, Mrs. Warner did keep adequate and proper control over her vehicle; (d) Denied. To the contrary, Mrs. Warner was operating her vehicle in a reasonable and safe manner. Further, at no time did Mrs. Warner violate any provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code. Further, at no time did Mrs. Warner receive any type of citation for violation of the Motor Vehicle Code; (e) Denied. To the contrary, Mrs. Warner was operating her vehicle in a reasonable and safe manner. At no time did Mrs, Warner violate the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code. (f) Denied. To the contrary, Mrs. Warner was operating her vehicle in a reasonable and safe manner and not in violation of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code; (g) Denied, To the contrary, Mrs. Warner was operating her vehicle in a reasonable and safe manner and not in violation of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code; and (h) Denied. To the contrary, Mrs. Warner was operating her vehicle in a reasonable and safe manner and not in violation of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code. 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Warner is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 11, relating to Plaintiff's alleged injuries and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Warner is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 12, relating to Plaintiff's alleged injuries and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 13. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 13 are, in part, conclusions of law and fact to which no response is required. If a response is deemed to be required, the averments contained therein are specifically denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Warner is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 13, relating to Plaintiff's alleged injuries and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Warner is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 14 and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Warner is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 15, relating to Plaintiff's alleged injury and damage to her motorcycle, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Warner is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 16, relating to Plaintiff's alleged injury and damage to her motorcycle, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Mrs. Warner is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 17, relating to Plaintiff's alleged injury and damage to her motorcycle, and the same are therefore denied and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, the Defendant Ollie Warner respectfully requests that judgment be entered in her favor and that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. NEW MATTER By way of additional answer and reply, the Defendant, Ollie Warner, interposes the following New Matter defenses: 18. That if it should be found that there was any negligence on the part of Mrs. Warner, which is specifically denied, then in that event any such negligence was not a substantial factor, nor factual cause of any injuries to the Plaintiff. 19. That the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of the Plaintiff consisted of the following: (a) Failing to keep alert and to maintain a proper look-out; and (b) Failing to keep proper and adequate control over her vehicle. 20. That Plaintiff's own contributory negligence was a substantial factor or factual cause of her alleged injuries. 21. That the Plaintiff's alleged cause of action was not caused by any acts, omissions or breaches of duty by Mrs. Warner. WHEREFORE, the Defendant Ollie Warner respectfully requests that judgment be entered in her favor and that any and all claims being asserted against her be dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, JOHNS.oN, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER / DATE: 2-/ :U"~~ By Je At rney 1.0. #: 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com Attorneys for Defendant VERIFICATION I, Ollie Warner, have read the foregoing Answer and hereby affirm that it is true and correct to the best of my personal knowledge, or information and belief. This Verification and statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. S4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities; I verify that all the statements made in the foregoing are true and correct and that false statements may subject me to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. S4904. ()/(~. Ollie Warner k/l~~ DATE: 266968 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been duly served upon the following, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on 2-- / 2-~/O(P Robert F. Claraval, Esquire Claraval & Claraval 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 Attorneys for Plaintiff ~~~)ON' DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER Je rson J. Shipma , Esquire I. . #: 51785 P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 717-761-4540 Attorneys for Defendant 266970 Robert F, Claraval, Esq. CLARA V AL & CLARA VAL 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, P A 17101 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court J.D. 19222 Attorney for Plaintiff Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL V ANlA LESLIE BROWN v. NO. 06-61 OLLIE WARNER Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW PLAINTIFF LESLIE BROWN REPLY TO DEFENDANT OLLIE WARNER'S NEW MATTER 18. Denied. It is denied that Defendant Ollie Wamerwas not negligent. To the contrary, she was negligent and her negligence was a substantial factor and the factual cause of the injuries to Leslie Brown. 19. Denied. It is denied that the Plaintiff Leslie Brown was negligent in any way and specifically: (a) In failing to keep alert and to maintain a proper lookout. (b) Failing to keep proper and adequate control over her vehicle. , 20. Denied. It is denied that Leslie Brown was contributorily negligent or that her contributory negligence was substantial factor or factual cause of her injuries. 21. Denied. To the contrary, the injuries to Leslie Brown were caused by the breaches of duty of Ollie Warner. CLARA V AL & CLARA VAL Date: 3> ) 8 )06 , I By Attorneys for Plaintiff , VERIFICATION The language of the foregoing document is that of counsel and not necessarily my own; however, I have read the foregoing document and to the extent that it is based upon information that I have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief; to the extent that the content ofthe foregoing document is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this verification. I understand that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. S4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. L1Q~ LESLIE BROWN , Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LESLIE BROWN v. NO. 06-61 OLLIE WARNER Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certifY that I have this day served a true and correct copy of the attached Plainti ffLeslie Brown's Reply to Defendant Ollie Warner's New Matter by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the following person: Jefferson Shipman, Esq. Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street Lemoyne, P A 17043 CLARA V AL & CLAP~~VAL Date: "bIB/OW . By DENISE 1. WILLIAMS (') -." 0 C:',~.:> C c:~) -n cr> -;'," '.... -r :.---, fii:J] ;;.J -or;; -J ~~j ~~~ \1 -f"i -'.- C'i ~y ~.5cn .:~::! 0 :JJ ,< Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LESLIE BROWN v. : NO. 06-61 OLLIE WARNER Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served the originals of Plaintiff's Answers to Defendant's Interrogatories and Plaintiff's Response to Defendant's Request for Production of Documents by first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the following person: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esq. Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street Lemoyne, P A 17043 CLARA V AL & CLARA VAL Date: ,~f !S/OLf By /)~hW l))~ DENISE 1. WILLIAMS "" f.5 co' ~ :::J i{;:n ,- -CJ,r.l ?i:I' ~.!, ,1 -,.; -f. ~:'-:-~8 _J ., 2:: :~ -),... j.......~ :;;0 -.. -0 w a Robert F. C1arava1, Esq. CLARA VAL & CLARA VAL 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court J.D. 19222 Attorney for Plaintiff NOTICE TO PLEAD: You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Motion within twenty (20) days from service thereof or a judgment may be entered against you ROBERTF.CLARAVAL Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LESLIE BROWN v. NO. 06-61 OLLIE WARNER Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE AND NOW comes counsel for Plaintiff Leslie Brown and requests that this Court schedule a status conference. 1. This case involves an action brought by Leslie Brown for loss ofincome and personal injuries suffered due to a motor vehicle accident that occurred December 8, 2004. 2. Procedural History: January 3, 2006 Plaintiffs Complaint January 20,2006 Defendant's Answer with New Matter February 13, 2006 Plaintiffs Preliminary Objections to Defendant's Answer with New Matter February 28, 2006 Defendant's Amended Answer with New Matter March 17, 2006 Plaintiffs Reply to Defendant's New Matter 3. Counsel for Plaintiff seeks to establish various guidelines and deadlines relating to depositions, motions and trial so the case may be expeditiously litigated. A proposed Case Management Order is attached as Exhibit A. 4. Counsel for Plaintiff Leslie Brown is Robert F. Claraval, Esq., 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17101. (717) 233-4780. 5. Counsel for Defendant Ollie Warner is Jefferson J. Shipman, Esq., Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, 301 Market Street, Lemoyne, PA 17043. (717) 761-4540. 6. A copy of the proposed Order was faxed to defense counsel in the expectation an agreement could be reached. If so then a Stipulation of Counsel will be presented to the Court. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Leslie Brown move this Honorable Court to hold a status conference to consider the issues raised above. CLARA VAL & CLARA VAL OBERTF. CL VAL 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PAl 71 0 1 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court J.D. #19222 Date: ~I:! )0,," j J By Attorneys for Plaintiff Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LESLIE BROWN v. : NO. 06-61 OLLIE WARNER Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of the attached Plaintiffs Motion for Status Conference by facsimile only to the following person: Jefferson Shipman, Esq. Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street Lemoyne, P A 17043 Fax: (717) 761-3015 CLARA VAL & CLARA V AL Date: 5/2:>/0U2 By~tM lA )d~ ll~l~ DENISE I. WILLIAMS Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LESLIE BROWN v. NO. 06-61 OLLIE WARNER Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER AND NOW, this day of , 2006, the following Order is issued as to the management of the above captioned case. 1. Plaintiff s counsel shall serve on defense counsel a meaningful witness list and brief description of the witnesses anticipated testimony by 2. Defendant's counsel shall serve on Plaintiffs counsel a meaningful witness list and brief description of the witnesses' anticipated testimony by 3. All written discovery shall be completed by 4. All discovery depositions shall be concluded by 5. Plaintiffs counsel shall serve on defense counsel all expert reports and curriculum vitae of experts by ~, 6. Defendant's counsel shall serve on Plaintiffs counsel all expert reports and curriculum vitae of experts by 7. All dispositive motions and briefs shall be filed by 8. Absent the filing of dispositive motions, this case may be listed for trial anytime after by counsel for any party. BY THE COURT: Judge Distribution: Robert F. C1arava1, Esq., 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17101 Jefferson Shipman, Esq., 301 Market Street, Lemoyne, PA 17043 () c- tBm ~_'_. Of"~ i~ ~,,-- ~ ,...., <::::) <::::::l <:n :JI: ;:::.. -< I CO ~ ~:o :-chi @~ O-d 20 om cc-f ~ -< -0 :x ~ co Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire 1.0. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 LESLIE BROWN, Attorney for Defendant Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 06-61 Civil Term v. OLLIE WARNER, Defendant : JURYTR~LDEMANDED CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Robert F. Claraval, Esquire Claraval & Claraval 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 Attorneys for Plaintiff As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Defendant hereby certifies that:: (1) A Notice Of Intent To Serve A Subpoena, with copies of the subpoenas attached thereto, was mailed and sent via Facsimile to each party on May 9, 2006; (2) A copy of the Notice of Intent including the proposed subpoenas, is attached to this Certificate; (3) No objection to the subpoenas has been received; the twenty day waiting period was waived by Plaintiffs counsel; (4) The subpoenas to be served are identical to the subpoenas attached to the Notice Of Intent. By , DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER . I on . hipman, Esquire 1.0. : 51785 P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Attorneys for Defendant e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com DATE: 6 )91 D0 ~... CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been duly served upon the following, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on May 9,2006: Robert F. Claraval, Esquire Claraval & Claraval 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER . By Jeffers n J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. #: 51785 P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 717-761-4540 Attorneys for Defendant Johnson, Duffie, ~Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire 1.0. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 LESLIE BROWN, Attorney for Defendant Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 06-61 Civil Term v. OLLIE WARNER, Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 TO: Robert F. Claraval, Esquire Claraval & Claraval 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 Attorneys for Plaintiff PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant intends to serve three subpoenas identical to the ones that are attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of records and serve upon the undersigned objections to the subpoenas. If no objections are made, the subpoenas may be served. JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By . DATE: 5)9/ ok Jeffi 1.0. : 51785 P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Attorneys for Defendant e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been duly served upon the following, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on May 9,2006: Robert F. Claraval, Esquire Claraval & Claraval 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER . By Jeffer n J. Shipman, Esquire 1.0. #: 51785 P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 717-761-4540 Attorneys for Defendant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Leslie Brown, Plaintiff vs. File No. 06-61 Ollie Warner. Defendant SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Inservco Insurance Services. Inc. (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: anv and all records. corresDondence. reoorts and medical records reaardina Claim No. 2450000875 Date of Accident 7/25/04: reaardina Leslie Brown DOB: 5/12/69 SSN: 191-64-7194 at Johnson. Duffie. Stewart & Weidner. 301 Market Street. P.O. Box 109. Lemovne. PA 17043. 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 right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: SUPREME COURT 10 #: A TIORNEY FOR: Jefferson J. ShiDman. Esauire 301 Market Street Lemovne. PA 17043 717-761-4540 51785 Defendant BY THE COURT: ~ III a~'2~ ,f!.c ~oth6notary/Clerk, Civil DiVIsion " ~ (- / ~ . 0, c P ~-'-_________ Deputy DATE: C!;;J thfto:{Y h (Eft. 7/97) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Leslie Brown, Plaintiff vs. File No. 06-61 Ollie Warner, Defendant SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: State Farm Insurance Comoanies (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: any and all records. corresoondence. reoorts and medical records reaardina Claim No. 38K513154. Date of Accident 7/25/04: Claim No. 38K814738. Date of Accident 12/22/05: Claim No. 38K573162. Date of Accident 12/8/04 reaardina Leslie Brown DOB: 5/12/69 SSN: 191-64-7194 at Johnson. Duffie. Stewart & Weidner. 301 Market Street. P.O. Box 109. Lemovne. PA 17043. 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 right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: ADDRESS: Jefferson J. Shioman. Esauire 301 Market Street Lemovne. PA 17043 717-761-4540 51785 Defendant TELEPHONE: SUPREME COURT ID #: ATTORNEY FOR: P ~c>,~ pCj/b:!~.!(,/'~ t.. Deputy' DATE: fIZ.?:;t~ -:<'DL>b Seal of he ourt (Eft. 7/97) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Leslie Brown, Plaintiff vs. File No. 06-61 Ollie Warner, Defendant SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance. ' (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: anv and all records. corresDondence. reoorts and medical records reaardina Claim No. GP0630161609T124 Date of Accident 12/8/04 and Claim No. GP063016109T006 Date of Accident 7/25/04 reaardina Leslie Brown DOB: 5/12/69 SSN: 191-64- 7194 at Johnson. Duffie. Stewart & Weidner. 301 Market Street. P.O. Box 109. Lemovne. PA 17043. 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 right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: SUPREME COURT 10 #: ATTORNEY FOR: Jefferson J. ShiDman. ESQuire 301 Market Street Lemovne. PA 17043 717-761-4540 51785 Defendant BY THE COURT: at notary/Clerl., Civil Division · J ~p 9~4'ac- , eputy .......... DATE: (>1:=J~ S'G ~D(jf.c Seal oft e Co rt (Eft. 7/97) ?t~ .~ r--.:J <:::) ('":,,~ e'"i, o " ~ nl :!J -oF;. =od ~6 ;"[:!~ ;J(~ c> i11 ;g ..0 -< ::::Ii: > -< o -u :Jl: w .. N N LESLIE BROWN OLLIE WARNER Plaintiff RECEI'lEt)- MAY 1 0 2006 BY: : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEA : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA , ~ v. : NO. 06-61 Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW ORDER AND NOW, this Jd. "t'k. day of ~ , 2006, it is hereby ORDERED that pursuant to Plaintiffs request a status conference is hereby scheduled for I 0 , 2006 at II ~ {} b iL.m in Judge's Chambers. BY THE COURT: ~ ~lk\ ~ JUDGE Distribution: J(',9bert F. Claraval, Esq., 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17101 &kfferson Shipman, Esq., 301 Market Street, Lemoyne, PA 17043 VJN'r;t/~lASNN3d I 'Nt*l~"""';I""l l"'1.t, P<:1"11 t:C:un" I\.L t h.._J..) '.;: '~t:::',"::,:J,.:Hrij V 00 : I , WV Z I ^ VW 900l AWIONOH1OOd 3Hl :10 30/;H(}{J311:f . SAlOIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY AtIUlll'l""""""14W 26 West High Street Carlisle,PA CHRISTINE G. SNYDER, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 2006-81 v. MATTHEW G. SNYDER, Defendant IN DIVORCE PRAECIPE TO TRANSMIT RECORD To the Prothonotary: Kindly transmit the record, together with the following information, to the Court for entry of a Decree in Divorce: 1. Grounds for Divorce: Irretrievable breakdown under Section 3301 (c) of the Divorce Code. 2. Date and manner of seNice of the Complaint: Defendant accepted seNice of the Complaint on January 10, 2006, via certified mail. Proof of seNice was filed with the Court on January 20, 2006. 3. Date Affidavit of Consent required under Section 3301 (c) of the Divorce Code was executed: By Plaintiff: April 15, 2006 and filed with Prothonotary on April 19, 2006. By Defendant: April 27, 2006 and filed with Prothonotary on May 1, 2006. 4. Related claims pending: The terms of the Property Settlement and Separation Agreement dated December 22, 2005 are incorporated, but not merged, into the Decree in Divorce. 5. executed: Date Waiver of Notice under Section 3301(c) of the Divorce Code was By Plaintiff: April 15, 2006 and filed with Prothonotary on April 19, 2006. By Defendant: April 27, 2006 and filed with Prothonotary on May 1, 2006. quire Supreme Co No. 44693 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-243-6222 SAlOIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY N.IUIII'Irl::.oA1'.UW 26 West High Street Carlisle,PA II CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire, of the law firm of SAlOIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY, hereby certify that on this date a copy of the attached document was seNed on the following individual, via first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Matthew G. Snyder 6326 Pine Street Harrisburg, PA 17112 SAlOIS, FLOWER & LINDSAY ) Carol J. Lindsay, Supreme Court I 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-243-6222 (") ~ ~ c. = ,:::'" c:r- 1:,1:;[:; ::s: ~:Q mr:"l ~ '2!:."':::' tJ) 5~:~, I ~~ 2;"- .0 /c; -.:l ~:tl :?c. 0 J-Cl ::s: 5~ PC: r;-? ""' z a :<. 0 - . . LESLIE BROWN Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF C MMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND CO Y, PENNSYL V ANlA v. OLLIE WARNER Defendant : NO. 06-61 CIVIL ACTION - LA CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER AND NOW, this ~i ~\ day of l'\ is issued as to the management of the above captioned case. 2006, the following Order 1. Plaintiff s counsel shall serve on defense counsel a me . ngful witness list and brief description of the witnesses anticipated testimony by July 1, 2006. 2. Defendant's counsel shall serve on Plaintiffs counsel a meaningful witness list and brief description of the witnesses' anticipated testimony by August 1, 006. 3. All written discovery shall be completed by September 1,2006. 4. All discovery depositions shall be concluded by Septe ber 1, 2006. 5. Plaintiff's counsel shall serve on defense counsel all e ert reports and curriculum vitae of experts by October 1,2006. . . 6. Defendant's counsel shall serve on Plaintiff's coun~el all expert reports and curriculum vitae of experts by November 1, 2006. 7. All dispositive motions and briefs shall be filed by No ember 15, 2006. 8. Counsel and the parties shall discuss mediation and advise the Court whether mediation has been scheduled or has been rejected by November 15, 006. 9. Absent the filing of dispositive motions, this case may b listed for trial anytime after November 15, 2006 by counsel for any party. BY THE COURT: -t Judge Distribution: Robert F. Claraval, Esq., 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17101 Jefferson Shipman, Esq., 301 Market Street, Lernoyne, P A 17043 ~~ 1...-0 _I-Ol. 4-~ . \fiN',lhl,\(;r,"Q-1 \jl",-".;,r", 'i,;;7:';;'::I'("n'" I . ',I !,~,' . ' ;,,"\''4( V 9Z :01 \ill 18 A VH 900l Al:frilONQH10:Jd 3Hl :10 3::JH}O-031l:l ..-- Robert F. Claraval, Esq. CLARA VAL & CLARA VAL 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, P A 17101 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court LD. 19222 Attorney for Plaintiff LESLIE BROWN Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 06-61 OLLIE WARNER Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW PLAINTIFF LESLIE BROWN'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE OF SURVEILLANCE TAPES 1. This Motion is brought pursuant to the Court's general authority to issue case management orders and Local Rule 208.3(a) pertaining to motions. 2. Judge M. L. Ebert, Jr. previously issued a Case Management Order on May 31,2006. 3. This case is an action brought by Leslie Brown for personal injuries she suffered on December 8, 2004. 4. Plaintiff's counsel served Interrogatories and a Request for Production of Documents on counsel for Ollie Warner requiring the Defendant to identify whether surveillance tapes were taken of the Plaintiff Leslie Brown. If there were surveillance tapes then copies of the tapes were . . .. requested as well as all edited versions and un-edited versions and all notes, logs, billings and any other documentation from the persons or business entity which took the surveillance video of the Plaintiff Leslie Brown. 5. Defendant Ollie Warner answered the Interrogatory as follows: ANSWER: None. 6. The deposition of Leslie Brown has been taken. Defendant has not provided any surveillance tape of the Plaintiff or supplemented her discovery responses to indicate surveillance was performed. 7. Plaintiff s counsel now intends to take trial depositions of Plaintiff s treating doctors. It is important those doctors be able to view any surveillance tapes to provide their expert opinion as to whether the Plaintiff Leslie Brown is acting consistent with her medical condition as determined by her treating physicians. Specifically, Plaintiffs counsel provided expert reports of Plaintiffs medical providers Dr. Naidu and Dr. Litton and wants them to be able to review the surveillance tape, if one exists. 8. Plaintiff s counsel wishes to avoid the scenario where surveillance tapes are provided on the eve of trial therefore precluding the Plaintiffs treating doctors from offering any opinion as to the contents of the surveillance video. -2- 9. Further, Plaintiff's counsel will wish to depose the "investigator" who took the surveillance video. 10. The surveillance video should be promptly disclosed to Plaintiff Leslie Brown so she can decide whether to use the video to demonstrate her injuries to the jury. 11. The surveillance video, after disclosure, may have the effect of encouraging settlement. 12. The Superior Court and numerous lower Courts have ruled surveillance tapes are discoverable and cannot be withheld until trial. See Groffv. Lauer, 56 Pa. D&C 4th 134, affirmed 813 A.2d 912 (Pa. Super. 2002), Duncan v. Mercy Catholic Medical Center, 813 A.2d 6 (Pa. Super. 2002). 13. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested this Honorable Court enter a supplement to its Case Management Order requiring that all surveillance videos be provided to Plaintiff's counsel on or before October 1, 2006 or the tapes may not be offered at trial. A proposed order is attached. 14. Counsel for Plaintiff is Robert F. Claraval, Esq., 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17101. (717) 233-4780. -3- p 15. Counsel for Defendant Ollie Warner is Jefferson J. Shipman, Esq., Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner, 301 Market Street, Lemoyne, PA 17043. (717) 761-4540. 16. A copy of this Motion and the Proposed Order were faxed to Jefferson Shipman, Esq. on August 31, 2006. 17. As of September 5, 2006, the date this Motion was mailed to the Prothonotary: _ Mr. Shipman has concurred in the filing ofthis Motion --X- Mr. Shipman does not concur in the filing ofthe Motion _ Mr. Shipman has not responded WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Leslie Brown requests this Honorable Court issue an Order in the form of the proposed order attached. CLARA VAL & CLARA VAL Date: "IJ-cJ"t., By ROBERTF. VAL 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court J.D. #19222 Attorneys for Plaintiff -4- LESLIE BROWN Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 06-61 OLLIE WARNER Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF PRE-FILING SERVICE I hereby certify that pursuant to Dauphin County Local Rule 208.2( e) I have this day faxed a true and correct copy of the attached Plaintiff Leslie Brown's Motion to Compel Disclosure of Surveillance Tapes and proposed Order to the following person: Jefferson Shipman, Esq. Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street Lemoyne, P A 17043 Fax: (717) 761-3015 CLARA VAL & CLARA VAL Date: 8/3110LP By , ~Yl~ ~ DENISE I. WILLIAMS LESLIE BROWN Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 06-61 OLLIE WARNER Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day served a true and correct copy of the attached Plaintiff Leslie Brown's Motion to Compel Disclosure of Surveillance Tapes via first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the following person: Jefferson Shipman, Esq. Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street Lemoyne, P A 17043 CLARA VAL & CLARA VAL - Date: alP By ~Q\'t~ W\A~M DENISE I. WILLIAMS L_ t,;)"' ( /.':1 \ C' ~ ,---- ' -- -- (.) , .. V;..,.... ; ) -'Ii .-\ '_C l'j'-l .. ' .:.\ '.-.,.:" ::..:J .-<. .... ... Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire 1.0. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 LESLIE BROWN, Attorney for Defendant Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 06-61 Civil Term OLLIE WARNER, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE OF SURVEILLANCE TAPES 1. No response is required to the averments contained in this paragraph. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff asked for copies of surveillance tapes. The exact phrasing of the Interrogatory was as follows: 30. Has the Defendant or any representative of the defendant, Defendant's counselor Defendant's insurer, performed, or contracted to be performed, or arranged in any way any type of surveillance of the Plaintiff or Plaintiffs activities at any time? If so, please: a. State the name of the person who took the video of Plaintiff; . b. State the name of the business entity that the person worked for at the time; c. State name and address of the person who has control of the edited and unedited surveillance tapes; and d. Attach a complete copy, without editing, of all reports, memoranda, letters, electronic data or information of any type (including computer records) regarding such surveillance activity, along with a copy of any photographs, films, videotapes or other information including, but not limited to, video tapes, 8-millimeter film and handwritten notes. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. Defendant's negative response to the Interrogatory was appropriate as Defendant had not, and still has not, conducted any surveillance on Plaintiff. Since Defendant answered negatively to the initial question, the subparts became irrelevant with no response required. 7. Denied. Plaintiffs treating physicians should themselves be able to examine and observe Plaintiff adequately to determine if Plaintiff is "acting consistent with her medical condition as determined by her treating physicians." Furthermore, if Plaintiffs "medical condition as determined by her treating physicians" is consistent with Plaintiff's actions, then she should not be concerned with what any surveillance of her might divulge. By further response, if it is important for Plaintiffs treating physicians to see her in her daily routine, then Plaintiff should take videos of herself during her daily routine and provide those tapes to her physicians. 2 .. 8. Denied. No response is necessary as Defendant is unable to respond to the truth or falsity of this paragraph because it relates to a hypothetical situation as opposed to a factual one. 9. Denied. No response is necessary as Defendant is unable to respond to the truth or falsity of this paragraph because it relates to a hypothetical situation as opposed to a factual one. 10. Denied. No response is necessary as Defendant is unable to respond to the truth or falsity of this paragraph because it relates to a hypothetical situation as opposed to a factual one. 11. Denied. No response is necessary as Defendant is unable to respond to the truth or falsity of this paragraph because it relates to a hypothetical situation as opposed to a factual one. 12. Admitted. 13. Denied. If Defendant had conducted any surveillance on Plaintiff it would not need a court order to provide a copy of any tapes or other electronic materials to Plaintiff and all counsel in this matter. However, as stated in our discovery response No. 30, Defendant does not have any surveillance tapes and does not have any intention of conducting any surveillance. However, should any evidence come to the attention of Defendant which would cause it to believe that surveillance of Plaintiff is 3 necessary to the defense of this matter, Defendant reserves the right to produce surveillance tapes at a latter date. Therefore, Plaintiff's proposed order should be denied. Should Defendant produce surveillance tapes of Plaintiff after October 1, 2006, their admissibility at trial should be determined by motions in limine and not preemptively. 14. Admitted. 15. Admitted 16. Admitted 17. Admitted. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully demands the court deny Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. Respectfully submitted, , DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER DATE: September 8, 2006 fferson J. Shipm n, Esquire ttorney 1.0. No. 51785 301 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Telephone (717) 761-4540 E-mail: jjs@jdsw.com Attorneys for Defendant 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been duly served upon the following, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on September 8, 2006: Robert F. Claraval, Esquire Claraval & Claraval 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By Jeff 1.0. . 51785 P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 717-761-4540 Attorneys for Defendant (~ f"....) (~..) jj (/) =;J (,:. ~,..:., . C::l .-~ --, LESLIE BROWN, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 06-0061 CIVIL V. OLLIE WARNER, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 1ih day of September, 2006, upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Disclosure of Surveillance Tapes, and upon consideration of the Defendant's Declaration that no Surveillance Tapes exist and that the Defendant does not have any intention of conducting surveillance, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Disclosure of Surveillance Tapes is DENIED at this time. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DIRECTED that pursuant to the Court's Management Order of May 31,2006, the intent of which is clearly to establish that all discovery in this case be completed on or before October 1, 2006, any video surveillance conducted after such date without good cause shown will be subject to a Motion in Limine to exclude. By the Court, ~\.. J. M. L. Ebert, Jr., vR-obert F. Claraval, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff ~efferson J. Shipman, Esquire Attorney for Defendant ~ ~ ~\j Q\' () bas ! ? : I .... --' , ;' , . .~. j 71 (",.' : ;' ,.. ,. ,:..., <,.'..J"",:, Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire 1.0. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 LESLIE BROWN, Attorney for Defendant Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 06-61 Civil Term v. OLLIE WARNER, Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Robert F. Claraval, Esquire Claraval & Claraval 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 Attorneys for Plaintiff As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Defendant hereby certifies that: (1) A Notice Of Intent To Serve A Subpoena, with copies of the subpoenas attached thereto, was mailed, via Certified Mail, or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoenas were sought to be served; (2) A copy of the Notice of Intent including the proposed subpoenas, is attached to this Certificate; (3) No objection to the subpoenas has been received; and (4) The subpoenas to be served are identical to the subpoenas attached to the Notice Of Intent. , DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER . By DATE: q / (gj 00 Je erson J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. #: 51785 P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Attorneys for Defendant e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been duly served upon the following, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on September 18, 2006: Robert F. Claraval, Esquire Claraval & Claraval 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 Attorneys for Plaintiff , DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER . By Jetter on J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. #: 51785 P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 717-761-4540 Attorneys for Defendant \ Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner By: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esquire 1.0. No. 51785 301 Market Street P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com (717) 761-4540 LESLIE BROWN, Attorney for Defendant Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO. 06-61 Civil Term v. OLLIE WARNER, Defendant : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 TO: Robert F. Claraval, Esquire Claraval & Claraval 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 Attorneys for Plaintiff PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant intends to serve three subpoenas identical to the ones that are attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of records and serve upon the undersigned objections to the subpoenas. If no objections are made, the subpoenas may be served. JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By Je rson J. Shipman, Esquire 1.0. #: 51785 P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Attorneys for Defendant e-mail: jjs@jdsw.com DATE: ~/()o,l M:; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been duly served upon the following, by depositing the same in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, in Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, on August 29, 2006: Robert F. Claraval, Esquire Claraval & Claraval 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1167 Attorneys for Plaintiff JOHNSON, DUFFIE, STEWART & WEIDNER By Jeffe on J. Shipman, Esquire I.D. #: 51785 P.O. Box 109 Lemoyne, PA 17043 717-761-4540 Attorneys for Defendant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Leslie Brown, Plaintiff vs. File No. 06-61 Ollie Warner, Defendant SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Hand & Upper Extremity Institute of Central PA (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: any and all medical records. corresoondence, reobrts, diaanostic test results from 1/1/05 to 9/30/06 pertainina to leslie Brown DOB: 5/12/69 SSN: 191-64-7194 at Johnson. Duffie. Stewart & Weidner. 301 Market Street. P.O. Box 109. lemoyne. PA 17043. 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 right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOllOWING PERSON: NAME: ADDRESS: Jefferson J. Shipman, Esauire 301 Market Street lemoyne, PA 17043 717-761-4540 51785 Defendant TELEPHONE: SUPREME COURT 10 #: ATTORNEY FOR: BY THE COURT: DATE: Deputy DOt.o (Eft. 7/97) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Leslie Brown, Plaintiff vs. File No. 06-61 Ollie Warner, Defendant SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Good Hope Family Practice (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: any and all medical records. correspondence. reports. diaanostic test results from 7/1/04 to 9/30/06 pertainina to Leslie Brown DOB: 5/12/69 SSN: 191-64-7194 at Johnson. Duffie. Stewart & Weidner, 301 Market Street. P.O. Box 109. lemovne, PA 17043. 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 right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOllOWING PERSON: NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: SUPREME COURT 10 #: ATTORNEY FOR: Jefferson J. Shipman. Esauire 301 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 717-761-4540 51785 Defendant BY THE COURT: DATE: fL. '^ _1 c: ,uX,J1o ~ Deputy (Eff. 7/97) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Leslie Brown, Plaintiff vs. File No. 06-61 Ollie Warner, Defendant SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Orthooedic Institute of Pennsylvania (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: any and all medical records, corresoondence. ieoorts, diaanostic test results from 7/1/04 to 9/30/06 oertainina to Leslie Brown DOB: 5/12/69 SSN: 191-64-7194 at Johnson. Duffie. Stewart & Weidner. 301 Market Street. P.O. Box 109. Lemoyne. PA 17043. 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 right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: SUPREME COURT ID #: ATTORNEY FOR: Jefferson J. Shioman. Esauire 301 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 717-761-4540 51785 Defendant BY THE COURT: Deputy DATE: {J~ ~S,~cx:)b Seal of t Court (Eff. 7/97) g '" c:::> ~ <.;::) -.,. a-. <<: ;:gi.:o C,,") ...... , rr, r:1 ::r::." Z::Cl -0 rTl- r Z~'_- -uCD (/l,', \,,0 :ny ,-<_0:'-' 0, r- r-"';' _-Ie> ~~: -0 ::j..:::n z,t..l ::r..: ~2 ("", ,;C) ~~~m c N ~ :z ~ c.-.) ?:t -.l -< PRAECIPE FOR liSTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO TIm PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Please list the following case: [ID for JURY trial at the next term of civil cowi. o for trial without a jury. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.. CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stilted in. full) LESLIE BROWN ( check one) IX] Civil Action - Law o Appeal from arbitration o (other) (plaintiff) (Defendant) The trial list will be called on 1 /9/07 and Trials commence on 2/5/07 Pretrials will be held on 1/17/07 (Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials vs. OLLIE WARNER vs. No. 61 2006 Tenn Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: Robert F. Claraaal, Esq., 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor, Harrisburg, 171 01 Indicate trial cOWlsel for other parties if lmown: Jefferson Shipnan, Esq., 301 Market Street This case is ready for trial. Date:JQ.l Z ~/() r... Plaintiff Attorney for: ~ ~ 0"' o C). -. v.') C> ~ .-\ :c -r"\. [1"1 r" "(J i;J::. -' L) '-" i.-~(-). -:,~ :.:t-\ :~? ---.... ",p ::.<. -0 :;t;: ,.- - .. - co Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LA W . . Robert F. Claraval, Esq. CLARA VAL & CLARA VAL 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, P A 17101 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court I.D. 19222 Attorney for Plaintiff Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 06-61 LESLIE BROWN v. OLLIE WARNER PLAINTIFF LESLIE BROWN'S MOTION IN LIMINE Introduction Plaintiff Leslie Brown seeks an Order precluding the Defendant from offering evidence or questioning witnesses regarding subjects clearly wrrelated to the issues in the case. Pa. R.E. 401 states: Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. In this personal injury case, the defense seeks to offer evidence regarding (1) a prior motor vehicle accident and (2) injuries to areas of the Plaintiffs body not injured in the subject accident Such evidence is irrelevant under 401 and extraordinarily prejudicial. -2- ... 1. On December 8, 2004 Leslie Brown, a Harrisburg City police officer, fractured her left thumb and right ankle when the Defendant Ollie Warner drove her car head-on into the lane Leslie was occupying on her motorcycle. Leslie was forced to put the motorcycle on its side, causing the injuries. 2. The actions of Defendant Ollie Warner are per se violations of the Motor Vehicle Code at ~3301 (all drivers shall drive on the right-hand side of the road, but if required to drive on the left-hand side shall yield the right-of-way to oncoming traffic) and ~3302 (each driver shall give one-half of the roadway to the other). 3. The damages sought by Leslie Brown include past loss of income from December 8,2004 to February 4,2005. Leslie's treating doctor Dr. Jason Litton's uncontradicted testimony is that he did not permit Leslie to work during that time period exclusively because of the injuries to her left thumb and right ankle and for no other medical reason. 4. Dr. Sanjiv Naidu, an expert in hand surgery and another of Leslie's treating doctors, has testified that Leslie will be required to have reconstructive surgery of the left thumb. Following that surgery Leslie will only be able to perform "light duty." 5. Because the City of Harrisburg Police Bureau does not offer light duty work for police officers not injured on the job, Leslie will be forced to resign from the police department immediately after the surgery. -3- ~. 6. Leslie's early retirement will mean she will suffer a significant future loss of income as described by Plaintiffs vocational expert Mr. Richard SIeber. 7. The trial deposition of Dr. Litton was taken January 9, 2007. During cross- examination Dr. Litton was asked by defense counsel about three unrelated and objectionable areas: (1) carpal tunnel surgery to Leslie's right wrist (2) a left shoulder injury, and (3) a prior motor vehicle accident which occurred on July 25,2004. 8. Defense counsel questioned Dr. Litton about right carpal tunnel wrist surgery in the year 2000 at page 15, line 22 through page 17, line 6 (Appendix A). 9. The injuries suffered in the December 8, 2004 crash were to Leslie's left thumb and right ankle. 10. Leslie was disabled from December 4,2004 to February 4,2005 for the injuries to her left thumb and right ankle and for no other reason as per all the medical and lay testimony. 11. There is no medical evidence relating any of Leslie's current pain and disability to the right carpal tunnel wrist surgery. 12. Testimony regarding the right wrist is simply a defense tactic to confuse the jury and is not relevant or logically related to the issues in this case. -4- . . 13. The Court should not permit defense counsel's questions to Dr. Litton or to any other witness at trial regarding the right wrist. 14. Dr. Litton was also questioned by defense counsel about the July 25,2004 accident at page 17, line 18 through page 19, line 2; page 25, line 24 through page 26, line 16; and page 26, line 20 through page 27 line 2 (Appendix B)l. The motor vehicle accident mentioned occurred in a parking lot on City Island when Leslie had a syncopal (fainting) episode and drove her police cruiser into the wall. Leslie injured her left shoulder. 15. The defense will call no medical experts at the trial of this case. By Case Management Order issued by Judge M. L. Ebert, Jr., a deadline for defense expert reports was established as November 1, 2006. The Defendant has not provided any medical reports. 16. After Plaintiff's counsel objected to Defendant's counsel questions to Dr. Litton about the syncopal event, defense counsel candidly admitted his purpose was to claim Leslie had a syncopal event on December 8, 2004 causing her to be contributorily negligent for the accident. Defense counsel actually stated it was "an explanation for how the accident occurred." Defense counsel in his pre-trial memorandum stated his intention to introduce this irrelevant fact at trial. 17. Defense counsel in his pre-trial memo also lists as Exhibit F "Records of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation Bureau of Licensing. (The Plaintiff's 1 Plaintiff's counsel also asked rebuttal questions which would not be admissible if the Court grants Plaintiff's Motion in Limine, page 28, lines 1-5 (Appendix C). -5- driver's license was suspended in November 2004 for having been unconscious while driving a vehicle. Her license was suspended for several weeks in November 2004 just prior to the accident.)" 18. As the Court is aware, PennDOT always suspends a motorist's license where there is an unexplained loss of consciousness. Again, this irrelevant fact does nothing to prove or disprove any of the issues involved in the December 8, 2004 crash. Defense counsel is simply asking the jury to speculate that Leslie had another syncopal event on December 8, 2004 with no medical or lay evidence to prove the event. The admission of these records is extraordinarily prejudicial to Plaintiff and irrelevant. Moreover, since PennDOT reinstated Leslie's license on November 29,2004 there was no doubt Leslie was fit to drive and return to her duties as a police officer. 19. There is no factual or medical evidence Leslie Brown had a syncopal event on December 8, 2004. Leslie's testimony at her deposition and throughout this case has been clear that she knew exactly what was happening: she saw the Defendant driving in a head-on collision manner in Leslie's lane and consciously and intentionally laid her motorcycle on its side. 20. Moreover, there is no medical evidence from any source, either Leslie's treating physicians or any physician hired by the Defendant, that indicates Leslie had a syncopal event on December 8, 2004 which in any way contributed to the crash. 21. Finally, the fact that Leslie fainted while in a police cruiser in a parking garage while having her lunch cannot in any way be logically related to her operating a motorcycle where the Defendant drove toward her and Leslie had to take the evasive action of putting the motorcycle on its side. -6- 22. In the July 25, 2004 parking garage accident Leslie injured her left shoulder and was disabled until December 9, 2004. Ironically, Leslie would have returned to work from the shoulder injury the day after the December 8, 2004 motorcycle crash. 23. Defense counsel's questions about Leslie's left shoulder injury should not be permitted because they have nothing logically to do with the broken left thumb and right ankle. 24. It is true Leslie was unable to work because of the shoulder injury. However, Leslie was cleared to return to work on December 9, 2004 by Dr. Litton and would have returned but for the December 8, 2004 crash. 25. The shoulder injury, like the right carpal tunnel wrist surgery, is a smoke screen which does not make "more probable or less probable" the injuries to the left thumb, right ankle and the resulting loss of income. 26. Both the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the lower Courts have addressed the issue of evidence of previous medical complaints. The Courts have uniformly held that evidence of previous medical complaints must be connected to the complaints at issue, and if it is not, the trial court should exclude the evidence as irrelevant and prejudicial. Papa v. Pittsbur~hPennCenter COl]>oration, 218 A.2d 783 (1966). Also in accord is Pennsylvania Standard Suggested Jury t Instruction (Civil) 6.30.: -7- The mere assertion by a tortfeasor that a plaintiff had prior complaints of a backache, for example, is not probative evidence necessarily... such prior complaints should be excluded from evidence unless the defendant's evidence furnishes the jury with an adequate basis for finding that independent of the defendant's negligence, the plaintiffs condition would be the same today. Both Papa and Civil Jury Instruction 6.30 contemplate the case where medical testimony is admissible where a part of the body had been injured pre-crash and now the defendant claims that the post-crash injuries are the result of the pre-crash condition. In the Leslie Brown case, the syncopal event which resulted in an injured shoulder is even less logically related because it has nothing to do medically with the injury to Leslie's right ankle or left thumb. Likewise, the right wrist carpal tunnel syndrome has nothing to do with injuries from the crash. 27. The Defendant appears to be claiming that because Leslie had a syncopal event on one occasion that based on this prior act the jury can infer that she had a syncopal event on December 8, 2004. Our Courts in perpetuity have held that: It is well-established that it cannot be proven that a person committed an act by showing that that person committed a similar act in the past. Levant v. Wasserman. 284 A.2d 794 (1971). There must be some connection and relation between the prior and present acts. Id. In a personal injury case, the relation is often similar injuries. See Paoa v. PittsburghPennCenter C01J>. (testimony concerning any prior fall [is] not admissible for any purpose unless the injuries from that alleged accident [can] be connected to those claimed in the present suit, so as to raise the inference of a pre-existing condition. Valentine v. Acme Markets. Inc., 687 A.2d 1157 (1997) Williams v. Pennlake Realty Associates, 42 Pa. D&C. 4th 276 (Bucks County 1999) -8- 28. In the Levant case, the Supreme Court ordered a new trial, reversing both the Superior Court and the Trial Court, where the defense attorney had attempted to establish that the plaintiff had been injured in a fall several months earlier. The Supreme Court held: The court went too far in allowing cross-examination on the circumstances of the earlier fall. Appellee might have been justified in establishing, if it could, that certain of the injuries complained of in this case resulted from a fall on a prior occasion. Appellee, however, was not justified in cross-examining Appellant to determine that the previous occasion involved a fall on steps, the clear purpose being to buttress its defense of contributory negligence. The well- established rule of evidence is that 'the commission of the act charged cannot be proved by showing a like act to have been committed by the same person... where there is neither connection nor relation between prior acts of negligence and subsequent conduct, evidence of the former is not relevant to prove the later to be negligence.' 29. Quite clearly the Plaintiff would not be permitted to offer testimony as to the Defendant Ollie Warner's prior motor vehicle accidents to prove she was negligent in this crash. Similarly, the Defendant cannot prove any contributory negligence on the part of Leslie Brown because there was a prior accident. 30. It is the responsibility of the defense in a personal injury case like this to causally relate defenses with facts. It is insufficient logically and legally for the defense to bring to the jury events or injuries that existed before the crash without relating and tying those events and injuries to the crash by expert or even lay testimony. Date: ----.1/' ~ J~ 7 J I ROBERTF. ARAVAL 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, P A 17101 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court J.D. #19222 It must be emphasized that Defendant has no medical expert testimony to relate Plaintiff s prior right carpal tunnel wrist surgery and prior left shoulder injury to any aspect of this case. Moreover, there is no lay or expert testimony opining that Leslie fainted and caused the crash. This type of irrelevant testimony invites wild speculation by the jury and is extremely prejudicial. Finally, if the testimony is allowed a significant amount of testimony will be required to rebut these collateral and extraneous issues. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Leslie Brown moves this Honorable Court for an Order precluding Defendant, Defendant's counsel and Defendant's witnesses from in any way referring to (1) the right carpal tunnel surgery (2) the left shoulder injury, and (3) any prior motor vehicle accidents of the Plaintiff Leslie Brown, specifically to include the accident of July 25, 2004 and (4) from making any reference to any injuries to Plaintiff that pre-existed the motor vehicle accident of December 8, 2004. CLARA VAL & CLARA VAL By Attorneys for Plaintiff -9- Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LESLIE BROWN v. : NO. 06-61 OLLIE WARNER Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LA W CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the attached Plaintiff Leslie Brown's Motion in Limine was this day served via hand delivery to the following person: Jefferson Shipman, Esq. Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 Date: CLARA V AL & CLARA V AL By \)J2\'\;~ \}J$~~W DENISE I. WILLIAMS 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 BY MR. SHIPMAN: 19 Q Okay. Dr. Litton, good afternoon. My name is 20 Jeff Shipman. I represent Ollie Warner. I have some 21 follow-up with you, if I may. 22 First of all, I'd like to go back before the 23 accident. I have your records from your office going back 24 to the year 2000, and I'm not going to go through 25 everything, but I just wanted to note for the jury that it 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 appears as though you treated Leslie Brown for some other orthopedic problems including a right carpal tunnel wrist surgery back in the year 2000. Do you remember her having problems with her right wrist back in the year 2000? MR. CLARAVAL: Objection. Let's go off the record. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at 1:19. (The following discussion occurred off camera.) MR. CLARAVAL: The Doctor's care for a right carpal tunnel problem has nothing to do with a fractured right ankle or an injured left hand which is what happened in this crash, and any mention of that is irrelevant and has no bearing on the case. MR. SHIPMAN: Well, I think it does. Where I'm going is that she was having difficulty with her work at that point in time because of this particular injury, and so I think it is relevant. Can we go back on the record. (End of off-camera discussion.) THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the record at 1:19. BY MR. SHIPMAN: Q Doctor, do you recall doing some work on her right wrist back in the year 2000? A Yes, I operated on her right wrist on March 29th of 2000 for carpal tunnel syndrome. Q And was she having some difficulty with her 17 1 ability to work as a police officer at that time? 2 MR. CLARAVAL: The same objection. Go ahead, 3 Doctor. 4 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~ - f> e 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 BY MR. SHIPMAN: Q All right. Now, in late December of 2004 do your records reveal that she had some injury to her left shoulder when she was working as a police officer and had a single vehicle accident at work on July 25, 2004? Do you have record of that? A Yes, sir. MR. CLARAVAL: Objection. Off the camera. THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Off the record at 1:21. 18 1 (The following discussion occurred off camera.) 2 MR. CLARAVAL: The period of disability that 3 Leslie suffered because of the injury to her left shoulder 4 is unrelated. She was cleared to return to work the day of 5 this motorcycle accident, ,so this line of questioning has 6 nothing to do with this case, and it's prejudicial to 7 Leslie. 8 MR. SHIPMAN: Obviously I disagree. It involves 9 her left shoulder. She had a passing out episode when her 10 vehicle hit a concrete wall, and she was unconscious for a 11 period of time. She had some treatment to her left 12 shoulder at that time, and so I think it is certainly 13 relevant. 14 MR. CLARAVAL: All that's true, but it has 15 nothing to do with her disability as a result of this motor 16 vehicle accident. She was cleared to return to work. It 17 can't have any relevance. 18 MR. SHIPMAN: I think it is relevant and 19 specifically her passing out episode as an explanation for 20 how the accident occurred. 21 MR. CLARAVAL: There is no medical evidence 22 relating her passing out to this motor vehicle accident. 23 You have to have medical evidence. You can't just make it 24 up. 25 MR. SHIPMAN: Well, I think it's a pertinent part 19 1 of her medical 2 relevant. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 history, Bob, so I absolutely think it's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 (BY toR. SHIPMAN) Q Did you continue to see her, Doctor, for her left shoulder pain? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 A Yes. MR. CLARAVAL: The same objection. BY MR. SHIPMAN: Q Did you see her on June 8, 2005, where she reported that any kind of vigorous use of her left upper extremity causes considerable left shoulder pain? A Correct. Q And did she report on that -- at that time that she had been directing traffic recently, and she had a great deal of pain during and after -- during and after that work? A Correct. Q Did she report on that date having any problems with her left thumb, or principally she was there to see you for her shoulder? A Correct. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 (BY MR. SHIPMAN) Q Okay. Eventually, Doctor, did she undergo some left shoulder surgery? MR. CLARAVAL: Objection. THE WITNESS: Yes. BY MR. SHIPMAN: Q And was she off work as a result of that? , . . 27 1 A Yes. 2 MR. CLARAVAL: Objection. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 , C/ t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 (BY MR. CIARAVAL) 28 Q Dr. Litton, is there any medical evidence that you have seen that indicates that Leslie fainted or in any other way passed out on December 8, 2004, related to the motorcycle accident? A No, sir. "", c:) C:;::. _-.i c_ o .." --t ~"t'" :::~: ....:;...... \..,::> -u f',) o ... LESLIE BROWN, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 06-0061 CIVIL LAW V. OLLIE WARNER, DEFENDANT JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 17th day of January, 2007, after pre-trial conference in the above referenced case, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED: 1. Trial counsel in this case shall be Robert F. Claraval, Esquire for the Plaintiff and Jefferson Shipman, Esquire for the Defendant. 2. Counsel have indicated that trial will take approximately 3 days. 3. Each party will be granted four peremptory challenges. 4. Upon consideration of Plaintiff's Motion in Limine which was filed with the Court this day, the Defendant will file a reply brief on or before the close of business January 25,2007. The Court will attempt to review the briefs and issue a decision regarding this evidentiary question prior to trial but the Court indicated that the filing of this Motion in Limine may delay trial in this matter until the April 2007 term of Court. 5. Given the predicted length of the trial the jurors will be permitted to take notes. 6. Both parties have been directed to prepare an exhibit list pursuant to the example attached. Two copies of this exhibit list shall be provided to the Court prior to the commencement of trial. All visual aids used in the case shall be disclosed to the opposing party. 7. Counsel for each party is directed to file with the Court on or before 12:00 noon on January 31, 2007, a list of the numbered standard jury instructions the party is requesting. If a party is proposing a unique jury instruction or requesting -- significant modification of a standard instruction it shall provide the full text of the proposed instruction to the Court. 8. On or before 12:00 noon on January 31, 2007, the parties will provide a proposed verdict slip to the Court for review. 9. The Plaintiff has requested that Cumberland County Rule 223-1 be waived in order to allow opening statement and/or summation to exceed 30 minutes, the Court has granted such permission with the proviso that counsel shall not exceed 45 minutes on either opening statement or summation. By the Court, M.~:\~ ~ ~bert F. Claraval, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff ~fferson Shipman, Esquire Attorney for Defendant Court Administrator --- ~ 1 iLiPtv fiAS bas ~ 2 I : II ~.lV 8 I !.Plr LDDl ^tfvlor~,J:{l.Jcij 3Hl .::JO 38U:;c)-G::J1H .-.- .. ~~ COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUN'l'Y I PENNSYLVANIA 96-1183 CRIMINAL v. CHARGE: (1) CRIMINAL HOMICIDE - MURDER OF THE FIRST DEGREE (2) CRIMINAL ATTEMPT TO MURDER (3) AGGRAVATED ASSAULT (4) CRIMES COMMITTED WITH FIREARMS (6) FIREARMS NOT TO BE CARRIED WITHOUT A LICENSE ANTYANE ROBINSON. AFFIANT: DETECTIVE RONALD EGOLF COMMONWEALTH'S EXHIBIT LIST EXHIBIT NUMBER DESCRIPTION 1 Photograph of injury to Tara Hodge's bead 2 Used envelope bearing handwriting of Tara Hodge Photograph of the front of building at 117-119 West Louther Street 3 4 Exterior side view of Tara Hodge's apartment 5 Photograph of body of Rashawn Bass in shower 6 Closeup photograph of Rashawn Bass with bullet casing on shoulder 7 Diagram of Tara Hodge's apartment 8 Plastic shower enclosure from Tara Hodge's apartment 9 Address book of Tara Hodge Date book of Tara Hodge 10 ~ Robert F. Claraval, Esq. CLARA VAL & CLARA VAL 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PAl 71 0 1 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court I.D. 19222 Attorney for Plaintiff Plaintiff : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LESLIE BROWN v. : NO. 06-61 OLLIE WARNER Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW PLAINTIFF LESLIE BROWN'S SECOND MOTION IN LIMINE AND RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION WITH RESPECT TO ISSUES RAISED AT THE PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE AND IN DEFENDANT'S PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT INTRODUCTION The Defendant has renewed her efforts to introduce irrelevant and highly prejudicial evidence of a type never permitted in a personal injury case. The defense strategy here is to attempt to introduce irrelevant information about a prior motor vehicle accident in which the Plaintiff was involved and evidence Plaintiff had other injuries which preceded the current crash. The intellectual difficulty in addressing Defendant's several attempts at introducing irrelevant information is simply the law of averages. That is, Defendant hopes that out of the sheer volume of irrelevant, prejudicial information she seeks to introduce one piece will slip by. Said The Defendant's primary thrust is the hope the jury will find the Plaintiff contributorily differently, each piece of irrelevant information should be judged on its own. If all four, or more, of the irrelevant, prejudicial information is not admissible then Plaintiff s motion in limine as to each offer by the Defendant should be granted. negligent simply because Plaintiff was involved in a prior accident. Defendant further hopes the jury will become confused and unable to distinguish between Plaintiff s prior injuries and the current injuries caused by the crash. Such wild speculation is never permitted and Plaintiffs motion in limine should be granted. Because this type of evidence is clearly irrelevant, prejudicial and confusing, the Appellate Courts have prohibited its admissibility. Nevertheless, Defendant seeks to introduce inadmissible evidence in the instant case. ISSUES A. IS EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF'S PRIOR MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT WHERE PLAINTIFF LESLIE BROWN LOST CONSCIOUSNESS FOR AN UNKNOWN MEDICAL REASON IRRELEVANT TO A CLAIM THAT SHE WAS CONTRIBUTORILY NEGLIGENT IN THE CRASH OF DECEMBER 8, 2004? Suggested Answer: Yes. The Courts have steadfastly held to the established principle that evidence of prior accidents is not admissible to prove negligence unless there is substantial similarity between the accidents. -2- B. IS EVIDENCE LESLIE BROWN HAD AN INJURED LEFT SHOULDER, RIGHT CARPAL TUNNEL WRIST SURGERY, AND A LEFT WRIST INJURY INADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL TO PROVE THIS ACCIDENT WAS CAUSED BY THOSE PRIOR INJURIES OR TO SHOW THOSE PRIOR INJURIES HAD SOME IMP ACT ON LESLIE'S ABILITY TO WORK? Suggested Answer: Yes. 1. Expert medical testimony offering expert opinion is mandatory to relate a prior injury to a functional ability to be less able to operate a motorcycle and since Defendant has no such medical evidence, evidence of prior injury is not admissible for that purpose. 2. Defendant has offered no medical evidence suggesting Leslie's pre-existing injuries have in any way impacted on her ability to work or will affect any decision she has to retire from the Harrisburg Police Bureau. Therefore, evidence of those injuries is irrelevant and prejudicial. C. IS EVIDENCE THAT LESLIE WAS NOT WEARING A MOTORCYCLE HELMET AT THE TIME OF THE CRASH IRRELEVANT AND PREJUDICIAL? Suggested Answer: Yes. Much in the same way a Defendant is not permitted to ask the Plaintiffifhe or she was wearing a seatbelt had she been in a car, the Defendant should not be permitted to offer into evidence that Leslie was not wearing a helmet since there is no head injury claimed in this case. Moreover, since Leslie was not wearing a helmet her view of the oncoming Defendant was actually improved. D. SHOULD THE DEFENDANT BE PRECLUDED FROM QUESTIONING LESLIE BROWN ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT SHE HAD ANY ALCOHOL THE NIGHT BEFORE THE CRASH WHERE THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE ALCOHOL WAS CONSUMED? Suggested Answer: Yes. Evidence of alcohol use is extremely prejudicial and is never permitted unless accompanied by sufficient proof through a toxicologist that at the time of the crash the Plaintiff was intoxicated. In this case, the Defendant's counsel asked Leslie Brown during her deposition whether she had any alcohol the day of the accident which she denied. Defendant's counsel asked her if she had any alcohol to drink the night before when she had dinner with her parents. Plaintiff said "not that I remember." Later during the deposition Defendant's counsel said, "You're not sure if you had anything to drink?" (the night before). Leslie answered, "That's right." In an abundance of caution, Plaintiffs counsel requests a motion in limine that defense counsel not be permitted to broach that subject in any way. -3- ARGUMENT A. Evidence of Plaintiff's prior motor vehicle accident where Plaintiff Leslie Brown lost consciousness for an unknown medical reason is irrelevant to a claim that she was contributorily negligent in the crash of December 8, 2004. 1. Plaintiff Leslie Brown filed a motion in limine at the January 17, 2007 pre-trial conference which is currently being reviewed by this Honorable Court. This motion supplements the arguments raised in the first motion raises two additional issues (helmet and alcohol use) and responds to the Defendant's brief. Those latter two issues have not been mentioned by defense counsel. But, since it is apparent Defendant is attempting to introduce irrelevant and prejudicial evidence to impact the jury, those issues were ferreted out of the records as possible areas of concern. 2. A pre-trial conference before the Honorable M. L. Ebert, Jr. was held January 17, 2007 at which time Defendant's counsel reiterated his position that he was going to ask Leslie Brown about the July 25, 2004 prior motor vehicle accident and her pre-existing injuries. Leslie suffered an unexplained loss of consciousness on July 25, 2004 and her police cruiser ran into a wall. 3. There is no medical evidence whatsoever in this case from Plaintiff s treating doctors or any doctor hired by Defendant to in any way indicate Leslie Brown had a loss of consciousness which contributed to the motorcycle crash of December 8, 2004. Moreover, there is no medical evidence or lay evidence of any type to indicate Leslie had any medical problem which contributed to the crash in any way. -4- .. 4. Attached to this supplemental motion as Exhibit A are various medical records indicating the physicians involved in Leslie's case do not know why she suffered a loss of consciousness on July 25, 2004 which resulted in an accident. 5. Since there is no medical testimony explaining the July 25, 2004 loss of consciousness, there is obviously no medical testimony to indicate Leslie had a reoccurrence of this unknown syncopal event on December 8, 2004. 6. The Defendant is simply blatantly attempting to argue to the jury without any evidence that the subsequent event may have been caused by the prior event. 7. The exclusion of such prejudicial evidence is such an established principle in Pennsylvania that there are very few reported decisions. 8. One of the older reported decisions cited by Ohlbaum on the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence 1998-1999 Edition at 406.07 is Wvatt v. Russell, 308 Pa. 366, 162 A. 256 (1932): The law is well settled that negligence on a former occasion is not admissible to prove later negligence and the same rule applies where the defense is that the injury was caused by Plaintiffs own negligence. 9. A second case even more similar to the one at bar is cited by Ohlbaum at 404.27: The Plaintiff banged his leg in a market on short, pullout shelf and broke his hip. At trial, Defendant presented evidence of two prior falls by Plaintiff and one subsequent fall. Evidence was inadmissible, -5- since only relevance would be whether prior medical conditions existed and no prior medical conditions had been asserted. Valentine v. ACME Markets. Inc., 455 Pa. Super. 256, 687 A.2d 1157 (1997) 10. In Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Litigation by Larrimore at 914.12, the general rule is enunciated as follows: As a general rule, evidence of similar but disconnected acts of negligence are not admissible to prove negligence on a particular occasion. Testimony that a person has done an act on one occasion is not probative of the contention that he did a similar act upon another occasion. Evidence of other accidents cannot be used to show that the Plaintiff would have been driving in the same fashion in this accident. See Jamison v. Ardes, 182 A.2d497 (1962) and Rooneyv. Clearfield County Granf?:e Mutual Fire Insurance Company, 2 A.2d 365 (1939) Further, that case held that to be admissible a foundation must be laid, establishing similarity. 11. The Pennsylvania Bar Institute in its publication Pennsylvania Evidence 1998-2078 sets forth the applicable standard: Finally, the discussion in the following case provides a practical and short form relevance definition useful for litigators at hearings and trial. In Gumbs v. International Harvester. Inc., 718 F.2d 88 (3rd Cir. 1983), Plaintiff alleged that he was injured as a result of a defective V-bolt in a harvester truck. The trial court admitted evidence of accident involving V-bolts on harvester trucks that were the subject of a Department of Transportation investigation. On appeal, the Third Circuit held that admission of the evidence was error. "For evidence to be relevant there must be some logical relationship between the proffered evidence and Plaintiff's theory of the case (underlined in original). The mere fact that the U.S. Department of Transportation report concerned U-bolt failures in harvester trucks is not enough to make the report admissible even under the liberal standard of Federal Rule of Evidence 401. The Plaintiff has the burden of establishing sufficient similarity between the accidents that were the subject of the -6- .. U.S. Department of Transportation investigation and his own theory of how this accident happened so that the admission of the U.S. Department of Transportation report into evidence 'will make the existence of a fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable than it would be without the evidence.' The Plaintiff has failed to carry this burden." The trial court was then overruled. The admission of the evidence was considered an abuse of discretion and a new trial ordered. 12. Ohlbaum at g401.10[2][c] "Examples of Insufficient Similarity of Incident to be Admissible" cites additional cases. Barr v. City of Philadelphia, 653 A.2d 1374 (Pa. S. 1995), reversed on other grounds: In a wrongful death suit for negligent conduct at a swimming pool, evidence of prior swimming accidents at other sites was irrelevant where there was no evidence to demonstrate substantially similar circumstances and conditions. 13. Ohlbaum also cites Harkins v. Calumet Realty Co., 614 A.2d 699 (Pa. S. 1992): Where post-surgery search for sponge that became detached from a string created damage to Plaintiff s nervous system, no error in excluding reports of other problems with the same type of sponge manufactured by the same company, because reports from prior incidents did not show how string became detached from sponge on circumstances in operating room. Here, only similarity was that the sponge became detached from string during surgery. Ohlbaum refers to this theory as the substantial similarity test. -7- 14. There are instances in tort law where evidence of prior accidents is more readily admissible. Those instances are generally restricted to products liability actions. However, even in those circumstances the substantial similarity test is rigidly applied. In Hutchinson v. Penske Truck Leasing Company, 2005 Pa. Super. 1979,876 A.2d 978 (2005) the Superior Court discussed similar accidents in the context of strict product liability. In that context the Court said: For "other accident" evidence to be admissible, the Plaintiff must first establish that there is a "substantial similarity of conditions" between the other accidents and the accident that injured the Plaintiff. Courts have engaged in several inquiries in determining whether the other accidents were sufficiently similar to the accident at issue: Was the same instrumentality involved? Did the accidents occur under the same or similar conditions or circumstances? Did the accidents occur at substantially the same place? See Valentine v. ACME Markets. Inc. 455 Pa. Super. 256, 687 A.2d 1157 (1997); DiFrancesco v. Excam. Inc., 434 Pa. Super., 642 A.2d 529 (Pa. Super. 1994); and Magdic v. Cincinnati Machine Company, 370 Pa. Super. 611, 537 A.2d 334 (Pa. Super. 1988). We stress that the proponent of the evidence bears the burden to establish the similarity between the other accidents and the accident at issue before the evidence is admitted. 15. From the above cited cases, it is clear the Defendant has the duty of showing a substantial similarity between the facts of the prior accident of July 25, 2004 and the current case at bar which is the crash of December 8, 2004. In fact, the Defendant can establish no similarity. The following is a partial list of the dissimilarities. (a) Plaintiff was inside a car and operating a police cruiser versus a motorcycle. (b) Plaintiff was working versus not working. (c) Plaintiff admitted to losing consciousness versus Plaintiff was fully conscious and aware of the action she was taking. -8- (d) Plaintiff s treating doctors found she had a loss of consciousness versus Plaintiff s treating doctors found no loss of consciousness. (e) There were no witnesses to the first accident versus the Defendant Ms. Wamer spoke to the Plaintiff immediately after the crash indicating the Plaintiff had not lost conSCIOusness. (f) The Plaintiffs police cruiser for an unknown reason ran into a wall versus the Plaintiff intentionally put her motorcycle on its side to avoid a head-on collision with the Defendant's car. (g) The Plaintiffwas inside an enclosed parking garage versus the Plaintiff was driving on an open roadway in broad daylight. For all of these reasons and those raised in Plaintiffs first motion in limine, no evidence or discussion in any way of the July 25,2004 accident should be admitted. 16. Defendant also sought to introduce evidence from PennDOT that Plaintiff s license was suspended as a result of her loss of consciousness and July 25, 2004 motor vehicle accident. 17. Judge Ebert ruled at the pre-trial conference that evidence is inadmissible. 18. The Defendant argues in her Brief in Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion in Limine that the unexplained loss of consciousness in the July 25, 2004 accident is relevant to Plaintiffs current medical condition as well as her ability to continue her employment as a police officer. The Defendant then writes, "It is clear that Plaintiffs current medical condition is the result of the -9- injuries sustained or allegedly sustained in these two accidents." Finally, the Defendant writes that the jury should hear all the evidence to determine what injuries were caused by the Defendant. 19. In a personal injury case, it is axiomatic that expert testimony is needed to determine causation of injuries. It is not enough simply for the Defendant's attorney to say to the jury that Leslie had a pre-existing shoulder injury and you may consider that to be the cause of her current problems. Rather, the Defendant is required to supply expert medical testimony that the shoulder injury has some impact on Leslie's ability to perform her job. 20. At page 5 of Defendant's brief, counsel writes: "Furthermore, evidence of the July 2004 accident and shoulder injury are relevant to Plaintiffs claim that she is unable to work due to her current alleged medical conditions." Defendant again seeks to confuse the Court as to Plaintiff s claims in this case. Leslie is working full-time and has never claimed she is unable to work. Rather, Leslie's treating doctor disabled her because of the fractured ankle she suffered at the time of the crash. Leslie was off work two months because of the fractured ankle. There is no evidence Leslie was offwork at any time during that two month period because of the injury to her shoulder or for any other medical reason than the injuries from this crash. 21. Defendant further attempts to confuse the issue by misstating Leslie's future loss of income claim. Leslie's future loss of income claim is specifically and only related to the circumstance where she has reconstructive surgery on her thumb. Dr. Naidu has testified that once he performs that surgery Leslie will be unemployable as a City of Harrisburg police officer. The Defendant is free to argue that Leslie may never have the surgery and therefore will never suffer a -10- future loss of income. However, the Defendant is not free to argue that Leslie's left shoulder, right carpal tunnel surgery or any other pre-existing injury will result in a future loss of income since there is no medical evidence to support that claim. 22. The Defendant has cited Christy v. Darr, 467 A.2d 1362, 1364 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) which states the general proposition that a jury may hear all relevant evidence excluding only that which is prejudicial. Plaintiff s counsel respectfully suggests that the Christy case has nothing to do with the issues in the instant case. Rather, in Christy the Plaintiffs medical expert testified within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that all the Plaintiffs current conditions but one were caused by the accident. 23. In the instant case the Defendant has produced no medical expert testimony and since Christy is the reverse of the instant situation, that is the Plaintiff sought to introduce the evidence, Christy is clearly inapplicable. B. Evidence Leslie Brown had an injured left shoulder, right carpal tunnel wrist surgery and a left wrist injury is not admissible at trial to prove this accident was caused by those prior injuries or to show those prior injuries had some impact on Leslie's ability to work. 24. There is no dispute that prior to the motorcycle crash of December 8, 2004 Leslie Brown had injured her left shoulder, had right carpal tunnel surgery and had an injury to her left wrist. -11- - 25. Plaintiff Leslie Brown has not claimed the motorcycle crash of December 8, 2004 in any way aggravated those injuries and is not seeking any compensation for aggravation to those injuries. 26. Defense counsel during Leslie Brown's deposition inquired as to some of those injuries which is permissible at a deposition, but the scope of discovery depositions is far broader than cross-examination of admissible evidence at trial. 27. The transparent defense strategy is simply to minimize the Plaintiff s serious injuries sustained in the instant crash by confusing the jury with other injuries Leslie had before the crash. The Courts have routinely said such testimony is not admissible. 28. In Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Litigation by Larrimore at S 14.14, captioned "Evidence of Prior Injuries" the author writes: Evidence of prior injury suffered by the Plaintiff mayor may not be relevant in a case. The Defendant should be required to submit evidence that an earlier injury suffered by the Plaintiff had some relationship to the injury being alleged in the current litigation. Even where cross-examination of an injured Plaintiff is permissible on the basis of dual allegation of injuries in each accident, detailed examination on the circumstances of the earlier accident is improper where its purpose is to demonstrate a defense of contributory negligence. Where there is neither connection nor relationship between prior acts of negligence and subsequent conduct, evidence of the former is not relevant to prove the latter negligence. When the defense attorney cross-examines the Plaintiff regarding prior injuries, and there is no evidence introduced to substantiate a connection between those injuries and the current injury, the attorney is at lease indirectly, testifying as a quasi-medical expert. This type -12- of questioning is improper. A motion in limine should be utilized to prevent the mention of prior injuries unless they are indeed relevant in the case at bar. 29. There is no relevance to Leslie Brown's injuries which she had prior to the crash. In fact, the medical records attached as Exhibit B indicate Leslie was prepared to resume her duties full-time as a Harrisburg police officer and had been cleared by her treating physicians to work full- time the day before the crash. Indeed, even after the motorcycle crash Leslie returned to work full- time as soon as the fractured right ankle from this crash permitted. Leslie did not fail to return to work because of any of her pre-existing injuries and there is no medical evidence to indicate she did. 30. At the pre-trial conference defense counsel suggested these injuries would have some relevance as to Leslie's ability to work. Defense counsel misconstrues Leslie's loss ofincome claim. Leslie's loss of income claim is in two parts. The first is the time period after the crash where she suffered a fractured right ankle and fractured left thumb. Leslie was disabled by her physician Dr. Litton from December 8, 2004 until February 2, 2005 solely because of the injuries sustained in the crash and not because of any injuries sustained previous to the crash. Under the Standard Civil Jury Instructions, Leslie is entitled to damages for that time period. 31. Leslie's second claim for future loss of income is based on Dr. Naidu's expert testimony that when he performs reconstructive surgery on Leslie's thumb she will no longer be able to work as a Harrisburg City police officer. That is, Dr. Naidu has opined that Leslie will only be able to perform light duty and the Harrisburg Police Bureau has no job which qualify as light duty for police officers not injured on the job. -13- I 32. The fact that Leslie had an injured left shoulder and carpal tunnel wrist surgery prior to December 8, 2004 has absolutely no bearing on Leslie's future forced retirement from the Harrisburg Police Bureau. Defense counsel cannot act as a quasi-medical expert and attempt to convince the jury that based on a history of carpal tunnel wrist surgery and an injured left shoulder which ultimately required surgery, that Leslie's career at the police department will be shortened. In fact, all of the medical records indicate that Leslie has no limitation that affects her work from the shoulder injury or the carpal tunnel surgery. Such a blatant smoke screen, red herring tactic by Defendant should not be permitted. 33. The Defendant under her Section titled "Question Presented" again misstates the Plaintiff s loss of income claim. Under Section A and the following argument the Defendant argues that evidence of a right wrist injury not caused by the instant accident is admissible because it may contradict Leslie's claim that solely the injuries from the accident with Defendant render her unable to return to work as a Harrisburg City police officer. 34. Leslie returned to work as a Harrisburg City police officer on February 5, 2005. She was cleared by her doctors to return to work starting December 9, 2004 and would have returned to work on December 9,2004 but for the accident of December 8, 2004. There is no indication in any of Plaintiffs medical records stating Leslie was unable to work for the time period December 8, 2004 through February 5,2005 for any reason but for the injuries sustained in this accident. 35. Again, defense counsel is attempting to act as a quasi-medical expert in that he intends to offer this evidence to the jury and then he will opine that medically Leslie may have been -14- unable to work because of these other injuries. The right carpal tunnel wrist surgery was four years before the crash and Leslie had worked continuously since that surgery, therefore it is beyond peradventure that surgery had nothing to do with any disability. 36. The defense attorney, again acting as Defendant's lawyer and medical expert, will argue injury causation to the jury and ask them to reach a medical conclusion as to causation without the benefit of any medical testimony by the Defendant. 37. Such argument is clearly improper and is reversible error. For example, suppose Leslie had not produced medical expert testimony that her thumb was fractured in the crash and needed surgery. Would her attorney be permitted to argue causation and future surgery? The answer is obviously no. c. Evidence that Leslie was not wearing a motorcycle helmet at the time of the crash is irrelevant and prejudicial. 38. This issue was not raised at the pre-trial conference but given the defense's proclivity for raising irrelevant, prejudicial issues an Order in Limine is sought precluding evidence regarding the helmet. 39. The Plaintiff testified she was not wearing a helmet at the time of the motorcycle crash. Plaintiff does not claim that in the crash she suffered a head injury. Moreover, because Plaintiff did not have a helmet on she had a better view of the Defendant's erratic driving than had she worn a helmet. -15- 40. As the Court is aware, a jury is often predisposed to find against a motorcycle operator simply because of their disapproval of motorcycles. Where a motorcycle operator is not wearing a helmet that prejudice may increase. Here, the fact that Leslie was not wearing a helmet is totally irrelevant and should be precluded by the Court. 41. By analogy, there is a Pennsylvania Statute which precludes defense counsel from discussing whether or not a plaintiff was wearing a seatbelt because the legislature determined the potential jury prejudice was inappropriate. See 75 Pa.C.S. 94581(e). 42. That same reasoning should apply here and no evidence as to whether Leslie was or was not wearing a helmet be admitted. D. Defendant should be precluded from questioning Leslie Brown about whether or not she had any alcohol the night before the crash where there is absolutely no evidence alcohol was consumed. 43. Again, this issue has not be previously raised. However, in reading Leslie's deposition, Plaintiffs counsel became aware that Defendant may attempt to introduce this prejudicial, irrelevant, unsupported accusation. 44. At pages 39 and 40 of Leslie Brown's discovery deposition, she testified that the night before the accident she went to her mom's house for dinner and spent most of the evening with her parents. At page 39, line 9 she was asked the following question: -16- I Question: Did you have anything alcoholic to drink that night? Answer: Not that I remember. 45. At page 40, line 16 the question was repeated by defense counsel when he asked: Question: Do you remember what time - - you said you were up until about midnight the night before. You are not sure if you had anything alcoholic to drink? Answer: That's right. 46. As incredible as it may seem, it may very well be that Defendant will suggest to the jury that the Plaintiff may have had an alcoholic drink the night before the crash. Such a question would be extraordinarily prejudicial and demand a mistrial the moment it was asked. 47. The Appellate Courts have ruled that no testimony as to the use of alcohol is admissible unless the Defendant proves the Plaintiff was "intoxicated at the time of the crash." 48. In Binder on Evidence 4th Edition the author writes: Pennsylvania is one of the strictest states in the country in holding that evidence of drinking is unfairly prejudicial to a party in a civil case. See Fisher v. Dye, 125 A.2d 472 (Pa. 1952). 49. Further, Binder writes: Pennsylvania Courts do not allow the introduction of evidence regarding the consumption of alcohol unless the evidence reasonably establishes intoxication. Cusatis v. Reichert, 406 A.2d 787 (Pa. Super. 1969. -17- 50. A question where the Plaintiff cannot remember if she had an alcoholic drink the night before the crash is grossly insufficient to even suggest intoxication, is irrelevant and extraordinarily prejudicial and should not be permitted by the Court. 51. Defendant's strategy in this case is to attempt to offer into evidence anything Defendant can think of in hopes that this Court will compromise and admit at least one irrelevant and prejudicial piece of evidence regardless of its legal admissibility. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff moves this Honorable Court for an Order in the form attached granting Plaintiff s Second Motion in Limine and Response to Defendant's Brief in Opposition with Respect to Issues Raised at the Pre-Trial Conference and in Defendant's Pre-Trial Statement and precluding the Defendant from introducing in any way into trial the issues raised. Date: dd.~? I By ROBERTF.CLARAVAL 500 North Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 233-4780 Supreme Court I.D. #19222 Attorneys for Plaintiff -18- LESLIE BROWN Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : NO. 06-61 OLLIE WARNER Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the attached Plaintiff Leslie Brown's Second Motion in Limine and Response to Defendant's Brief in Opposition with Respect to Issues Raised at the Pre-Trial Conference and in Defendant's Pre-Trial Statement was this day served via facsimile and first class mail to the following person: Jefferson Shipman, Esq. Johnson, Duffie, Stewart & Weidner 301 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 CLARA V AL & CLARA V AL Date: By U,e~ UMihafM- DENISE I. WILLIAMS p ~ - IDUl.T 8ARDIOLOCY <UfI" 1- IlUIiB. M.n.. f A.C.C Qla) ~ t::. JIcaok:.. MD.. fAC.e. (Ra) oN'f: F. 1....., 1\010. FACe. (1CU .a... J. ~ D.O. fAce (lid) :Iix ~ MlJ_ fA.<:.C. U ^- Pw't'n.. MD, FACe lau.i: F..-dl M.D., Hr_c. :>act. N. ~ MD., FA.Ce. M p. 2r>tf>Ma, t.lD, U.(C :bat <;, Bd)', MD. F.A.C:r. :rv;:l ~. JoW, FACe. ~ F .'imih MD. U.c.c., aIlIis L Liuo:. MD rl:I A ~ MD., f.A..(;.C. Im:y S. MandI*,'lfO, f AC.e. 'Jbn Ii ~P&y_ M.n., F.A.<'.(; .... r. ApOIb. .W, fAe.e. Ml~. MO_I'AC.C. :>alll.)n=c >>-I,D, FA....r: mq 1. 1Udk, M.Ll. FACe. .... ~'. no S ).1;MJi. ),(0 b.. _ !lLll JUina c, ).lD, oxxIl~' P W.c.n, MJ),. "ACe. lt1 5. T<t:::c. MD. EDIAT.RIC ARDlOLOGY had .... eoo",.... 1.1 I). fACe. ~ Ii. bt~. M.D, PAc.e ;) Nnrth fton: Sm:d. SI* 1'}) ~""1~ ~ (711) 'l()llml mfJ ']Ij'.(1()\l I'M (Ilm) ~; AIN OFFICE ) "lurIh Prom ~rl'l'1 mk).~'B. PA JM.' f'hM<' (7Hj 'jl-t.1lUl 1717) 7!>1-&3S9 ff- CllOO) 2~<;7 .Rl ! OFFICE ~.unUI Bono". Road ck. i'A llOH .bono:- (717) lH.G557 fil7) ",3-0Ull 'J<:c ((l()O1 211l 02~? ST SHORE OFFlCf. :mm< Mill 1toio<J. Suioe 101 blll'&. "^ 1711Z lOcO! (7]7'\ <<1-1566 (n7) +41-1m -~ (1lOO) !4G-{)l'j 1 utnF:RSBURG ;<JCE dand ^",..nue. s...c 201 =burl(. PA )"201 r>nt' Gl/) :':11-(i881 m..) n7~ ~ UIOO) 21110157 ONNELLSBURG one :ounr; "kdka~ <:'cnlel 1dI$b\ul!;. t'^ F:!"~ " (&:.)) ;/4ll-0157 .moffitthe-~1Ii C',,"; July 29, 2004 RE: LESLIE A BROWN 191647194 DISCHARGE NOTE - 7/28/04 Leslie Brown will most likely be discharged from Harrisburg Hospital today, July 28. Leslie is a 35-year-old woman with the remote history of syncope on one occasion after giving blood. She is currently a policewoman. She was admitted on July 25 with a poorly defined episode resulting in a major motor vehicle accident (please see Dr. Nguyen'S dictation). Following admission, an echocardiogram and EKG were normal. Neurology was evaluated and could not identify the etiology of her event. While Tilt Table test was positive with Isuprel provocation, it was not clear as to whether or not this helped to define the cause of the patient's motor vehicle accident. Dr. Nguyen asked me to evaluate the patient. There is no indication that Leslie did or did not experience a syncopal event prior to a motor vehicle accident. I did not feel that further testing with electrophysiologic study and implantation of a cardiac loop recorder would bear fruit. Therefore I at this point in time, I am asking her to notify ~s if she experiences a recurrence of symptoms, this to include syncope, near syncope, or tachy-palpitations. She is not to drive a motor vehicle until cleared by Dr. Nguyen who she will see in approximately six weeks. John P. Zornosa, M.D. ~TPZ/bhm TNN DD: 07/28/04 DT: 07/29/04 !JJT DIOLOGY R Mcdill,. nu" fACt:. (ktl ,F. ~. MO. 'fACe. ()C.:(.) , Ln~ tuD, FAc.e (RN I .I. JIiuIo. 0.0, FAc.e lPd.-) ......-m::z. ~.. r AC.C . PWn'- /ltD. F.A,C.C. , I'~ ),U), r."-C,C :--:. ~"''O'. MD. r Ac.e. I :z.um.;.. ~t.D. r.I\CC I G o..Ir, loW.. J-:A.C.C J>mlom !>I'D FAce c:l F. Smih '>to F.~ CC 5 t:. Lill... I<W, A. 8ol<dm>r, "W.. fAce .~ MrIIrlak. Mr.. fAc.e k B. e..Jjrs.y, Mn., fAr:c: ~ r ..r,p:6;>. M.O.. F.A,Ce ~ MD.. fACe. R~ Mtl., f.Arc I.. RaIll<<:, M.D, FAC.e. ~DO, .w S. Man "-0., fA-c.e. L. t.t...u. MIl, . ~,Ilcf<'t.ML\. i"~, AU>. 'FAc.e Nice, MU. 'Ie U'\" iY ow (''n..~. UD. 1'A.c.<.: be It ZodIllJ)". un, f.....CI: cIh f'l'Xl ~ ~ 2'Xl ...."ll. ~ 171~ '" (717) 76lo;m 011) 1li1-oR1 (A:(l) ~'I ~ OFFICE nil Fmm Sftt'N "bwf,. PA 17<M3 '\(' pH) 7JI-IJlUl c.t7) '31.J3~59 lllOll) 248..()2'S7 ISLE OFt'lCE UI 1I<Y1nm Il<:>ad 'A 17(J13 e (717) li>,.(J'S'i7 ,- ") 2-tHlIOl 24El-llZ57 mL OFFlCE z:; ~ii1llloatl. Sl.itc 101 ,I'A 17112 (717) 44HjG(i (7)1) -HI.IS'I (lUJ) Z~ BER~RURG J Aveullt. SwIe 2fr5 1J:ll. f~ )-;".!Ol (7\71 2:7-6681 n~ 217 b!lR:> ($IJV! ~-tM)2S' U ,.r C... diuI"':lY ~ ~~, .... ,f ~l}'~OFFITT HEARTOVASCUlAR GROUP November 16, 2004 Rebecca Bickley, Director Bureau of Driver Licensing Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation Harrisburg, PA RE: LESLIE A BROWN 191647194 Dear Ms. Bickley: I have evaluated Leslie Brown today, November 11, 2004. You may recall that she is a 35 year old woman who experienced a motor vehicle accident approximately four months ago. The cause of this accident was not clear, but the possibility that she lost consciousness was entertained. She has undergone extensive cardiac and neurologic evaluations and no etiology for loss of consciousness could be obtained. Keeping in mind that it is not clear as to whether or not she experienced syncope, I feel that she has waited an appropriate period of time (four months) without recurring events. Therefore, I feel that it would be reasonable for her to resume her driving privileges. I hope you agree. If you need more information in regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely yours, F 7> )h> M04~ John P. Zornosa, MD, FAce JPZ/cjg cc: Michael Gawlas, M.D. Ms. Leslie Brown Electronically signed off by JPZ/bb 11-16-04 . i \? - fHedie Fax System Dat-- Dee 17 011 Page 2 Jr December 17, 2004 Michael Gawlas, D.O. 1830 Good Hope Road Enola, PA 17025 RE: Leslie A. Brown 191 64 7194 Dear Doctor: This morning, December 7, 2004, I saw your patient, Leslie A. Brown, in the Poplar Church Road office initially for orthopedic evaluation. CHIEF COMPLAINT: Leslie is here for a second opinion for left shoulder pain. HISTORY OF COMPLAINT: She is a 35-year-old police officer for the City of Harrisburg and has left shoulder pain. She had no history of pain in her left shoulder until she was involved in a single vehicle accident while at work on 7-25-04. She evidently had a syncopal episode and drove her vehicle into a concrete wall. She awakened, got out of the car and was taken to Harrisburg Hospital where she stayed for a few days and they never found the reason for her syncope. She developed shoulder pain on the day of injury. She was treated by Dr. John Rychak. He injected her left shoulder with steroid and that helped minimally. He obtained radiographs of her left shoulder and saw no abnormalities. He also obtained an MRI of her left shoulder on 11-3-04 and saw no significant abnormalities. She said at that point he had no further suggestions for treatment. She still has left shoulder pain. She feels she can do her regular job. The pain comes on when she leans on her left arm, when she is trying to read a newspaper or reaching overhead and tries to bring her hand down to her side. It is quite bothersome. She is not taking medication for it. REVIEW OF SYSTEMS: Review of systems, past medical history, family history and social history have been recorded and reviewed. PHYSICAL EXAM: She is a well developed, well nourished female in no acute distress. She is alert and oriented times three. She is pleasant, cooperative and is a good historian. Posture and gait is normal. Range of motion of the neck does not reproduce any upper extremity symptoms. The skin has normal color and temperature. Distal pulses are intact. Sensory exam is normal. Motor exam of the hand is normal. She has an intact biceps tendon. Her AC joint is neither deformed nor tender. She has full ROM in her left shoulder. Neurovascular function in her left upper extremity is intact. Abduction of her shoulder is slightly painful for her. Resisted abduction a "" ft- t'" I~ ~1 'J. nfH,- ~ ~ 1,~. ,U\J-r _...-_ :C1J~\;--~~ \,.' ;,,';'1'1::~" ,V; .~ .. +Hedic Fax Syste. Date' Dee 17 0'1 Page 3 RE: BROWN, LESLIE A. PAGE 2 December 17, 2004 bit more so. Most of her pain cornea when ahe goes from the fully abducted position down towards the 90 degree position of abduction. She has full internal and external rotation. She has tenderness of her subacromial space especially anteriorly. No evidence of instability. DIAGNOSIS: Subdeltoid bursitis versus impingement syndrome. PLAN: The diagnosis of impingement syndrome was explained to her as were the options of treatment. Today, I injected her subacromial space with Xylocaine and 1 1/2 cc. of Triamcinolone. She is to be fully active" return to her regular job on 12-08-04 and return to Bee me in a month. I hope this information is of value to you in the continuing care of your patient. Sincerely, Jason J. Litton, M.D. JJL/ckb Dictated but not read - Faxed }~'\)TE ~\_j~ ~"<~:,'YEli3r\?1~ l:'OOe ~ >>- "~,'.,"_..,""'2" . / .~:~? :-,. ,- ".-". "-'.' ~ ~ '-'" ..' .)l&l1i. I A -/ 'f>'DUc'''J, 'lD1:1:(! ._,..~".~.["(...:'....Q.,,.-,....,. :... t'..... '~ .L.C....t.-.... , ,/?/~q!()1__- .f FACSIMILE MESSAGE FROM: JOHN S. RYCHAK, M.D. Orthopaedic Surgeons of Central PA FAX: TO: MICHAEL R GAHLAS DO SUBJ: BROWN,LESLIE A FAX: 732-9241 Page 1 of 2 ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS OF CENTRAL PA, LTD. BROWN,LESLIE A 140 HILL LANE MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 ACCOUNT. 4740 CHART. 841860 SS. 191647194 November 'I, 2004 CAMP HILL OFFICE DOB: 01/30/191551,'l/&Cj HISTORY OF PRESENT ILLNESS: Leslie is back to see me and her shoulder seems ~o be doing much better but occasionally she is getting some discomfort going down into her midarm area. PAST MEDICAL HISTORY: Her past medical history, social history, family history and review of systems are all negative. PHYSICAL EXAMINATION: Her range of movement is full. There is no crepitation, induration or erythema. She has pain near the deltoid attachment. DIAGNOSIS: Mild degenerative changes within the Jeft shoulder. PLAN: There is no curative situation that I can offer her at this point in time. I will allow her to perform her regular duties. She will return here at any time in the future if she cannot manage her symptoms. "'~1', \.J,'.',',_ ~.',',.~, ~ ~,.",.J ; ~..,-_; ,ll Ji; II ,. ~ ': l' li .' ,5 4~k.~iU'; John S. Rychak, M,D. JSR/pa DD: 11/04/04 DT : 11/18/04 .. I~~1FI)r;:Jf; H\:1tlt3N'11 jl):i\~ tin lc).l:.~' ~~~. TK-FAX sent to Michael R. Gawlas, D.O....::0t1x',)'i~re NOTE ~ -- T~~ - i ~r~~~ ti~~ - ~~~t~i~~d - i~ - t~i; - r~~;i~i i~ - lBaY~ .A.6.. m(~w~,,",.' privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If ,U^-,~",","-'~""'"'-.'.' 1\ l \. the reader of this facsimile is not the intended recipient, you \\. ~~.()~ ~ ORTHOPEDIC INSTITUTE OF PENNSYLVANIA (717) 761-5530 Patient: Leslie A. Brown DOB: 05/12/69 SSN: 191 64 7194 Chart #: 07078701 Page # 3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2/28/2000 JASON J. LITTON, M.D. LEVEL TWO answered to her satisfaction. The patient stated that she understands and wishes to proceed with the surgery. -CONTINUED- JJL/mee RADIOLOGY RESULTS RIGHT WRIST X-RAYS: Radiographs of her right wrist including carpal tunnel view were taken in our office today and no abnormalities were seen. IMPRESSION: SEE ABOVE STUDY. JJL/mee 3/29/2000 JASON J. LITTON, M.D. GRANDVIEW SURGICAL CENTER March 29, 2000 GRANDVIEW SURGERY CENTER DIAGNOSIS: Carpal tunnel syndrome right wrist PROCEDURE: Division transverse carpal ligament right wrist She is to corne to the office in one week's time. She is to have her dressing changed. The sutures will remain in place for two weeks. JJL/clv 4/05/2000 JASON J. LITTON, M.D. GLOBAL SERVICE VISIT Poplar Church Road Office CHIEF COMPLAINT: Status post division of the transverse carpal ligament of the right wrist. PHYSICAL EXAM: Her wound is healing nicely. She has a nurse friend who is going to remove her sutures in about five days. Her carpal tunnel symptoms are gone. PLAN: She is going to return to work the day after Easter and I have otherwise discharged her for this problem. JJL/mee -----------------------------------------------------------_____M______________ t ORTHOPEDIC INSTITUTE OF PENNSYLVANIA (717) 761-5530 Patient: Leslie A. Brown DOB: 05/12/69 SSN: 191 64 7194 Chart #: 07078701 Page # 4 ----------------------------------------------------~~~~-~--------------------- 4/20/2000 JASON J. LITTON, M.D. GLOBAL SERVICE VISIT Poplar Church Road Office CHIEF COMPLAINT: It has been less than a month since she underwent carpal tunnel release of her right wrist. She is back to work but notes that when she tries to grip her weapon, her hand feels weak. On obtaining a further history it becomes apparent that it is not weakness that is causing her to have difficulty but tenderness and pain when she grips~her weapon. PHYSICAL EXAM: She has intact neurovascular function in her right hand and she still has tenderness of her well healed scar. It is my feeling that the tenderness is inhibiting her grip strength. PLAN: I don't feel she will require physical therapy and told her that I do not recall any patient's not regaining full grip strength. ."r- . " . JJL/mee cc: Jane Rowehl, M.D. via fax 12/07/2004 W/C MEDICAL REPORT (Msc) wjC, FORM OFFICE VISIT Poplar Church Road JASON J. LITTON, M.D. FORM Office CHIEF COMPLAINT: Leslie is here for a second opinion for left shoulder pain. HISTORY OF COMPLAINT: She is a 35-year-old police officer for the City of Harrisburg and has left shoulder pain. She had no history of pain in her left shoulder until she was involved in a single vehicle -accident while at work on 7-25-04. She evidently had a syncopal episode and drove her vehicle into a concrete wall. She awakened, got out of the car and was taken to Harrisburg Hospital where she stayed for a few days and they never found the reason for her syncope. She developed shoulder pain on the day of injury. She was treated by Dr. John Rychak. He injected her left shoulder with steroid and that helped minimally. He obtained radiographs of her left shoulder and saw no abnormalities. He also obtained an MRI of her left shoulder on 11-3-04 and saw no significant abnormalities. She said at that point he had no further suggestions for treatment_ She still has left shoulder pain. She feels she can do her regular job. The pain comes on when she leans on her left arm, when she is trying to read a newspaper or reaching overhead and tries to bring her hand down to her side. It is quite bothersome. She is not taking medication for it. REVIEW OF SYSTEMS: Review of systems, past medical history, family history and social history have been recorded and reviewed. PHYSICAL EXAM: She is a well developed, well nourished female in no acute ---------------------------------------------------------------.--------------- l' .. ORTHOPEDIC INSTITUTE OF PENNSYLVANIA (717) 761-5530 Patient: Leslie A. Brown DOB: 05/12/69 SSN: 191 64 7194 Chart #: 07078701 Page # 5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 12/07/2004 JASON J. LITTON, M.D. OFFICE VISIT distress. She is alert and oriented times three. She is pleasant, cooperative and is a good historian. Posture and gait is normal. Range of motion of the neck does not reproduce any upper extremity symptoms. The skin has normal color and temperature. Distal pulses are intact. Sensory exam. is normal. Motor exam of the hand is normal. She has an intact biceps tendon. Her AC joint is neither deformed nor tender. She has full ROM in her left shoulder. Neurovascular function in her left upper extremity is intact. Abduction of her shoulder is slightly painful for her. Resisted abduction a bit more so. Most of her pain comes when she goes from the fully abducted position down towards the 90 degree position of abduction. She has full internal and external rotation. She has tenderness of her subacromial space especially anteriorly. No evidence of instability. -CONTlNUED- DIAGNOSIS: Subdeltoid bursitis versus impingement syndrome. PLAN: The diagnosis of impingement syndrome was explained to her as were the options of treatment. Today, I injected her subacromial space with Xylocaine and 1 1/2 cc. of Triamcinolone. She is to be fully active, return to her regular job on 12-08-04 and return to see me in a month. JJL/ckb ,.. .-.... LESLIE BROWN, PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 06-0061 CIVIL LAW V. OLLIE WARNER, DEFENDANT : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN LIMINE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 5th day of February, 2007, upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion in Limine and the Defendant's Response thereto, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Plaintiff's Motion in Limine is GRANTED. Defendant's counsel shall not introduce in any way evidence relating to the following during the trial in this case: 1. Plaintiff's injuries including right and left carpal tunnel and the left shoulder injury which pre-existed the December 8, 2004 motorcycle crash. 2. Any prior motor vehicle accident of the Plaintiff including by not limited to the July 25, 2004 accident. 3. Any reference to whether or not the Plaintiff consumed any alcohol the day of or the night before the December 8, 2004 crash. 4. Whether or not the Plaintiff was wearing a safety helmet on the date of the crash. .. , IT IS FURTHER ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Defense counsel will notify the Defendant and all witnesses called by the Defendant that this order applies to their testimony. ~bert F. Claraval, Esquire / Attorney for Plaintiff . 4erson J. Shipman, Esquire, vAttorney for Defendant ~ Court Administrator bas ~ V>kL ~.Jf:;1; d/S!Vl By the Court, ,~ M. L. Ebert, Jr., \it I\J\//\l '/\~3r\! ('~ ::1(1 )J ~.,Ir:'''.'- ".'--:j :'.., ,'''; 'Mfil"'\. -' "~1 :t_,':, -~ ~ _I :j,.>~~:-,t";~'~! t\.j 6 I :8 ~qd s- 83.:1 LDOl AUV10;\JUi,,110dd 3Hl :10 3::)!:!:U}.031L:i . LESLIE BROWN Plaintiff : IN THE COUR OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLA COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. : NO. 06-61 OLLIE WARNER Defendan : CIVIL ACTIO - LAW PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the bove captioned action settled and discontinued. Date: r;2) u, ;'? By ROBER F. CLARA V AL 500 Nort Third Street, 2nd Floor Harrisb g, PA 17101 (717) 23 -4780 Supreme Court J.D. #19222 o ::; s "1:Jt':n [~J I.! ~ '~~>~~.; '"~~ ~::;.:.., ',; v',~ ;. ,:.::: '""r~... ,___ :C')" C -' ~~~~ '_./ :7j -, ~ = = --.l :It ~ ~ :r." rl1F -c,m -T.J CJ ~~~~ .2- rTi 9 '1> ~ w -0 ~'" ~ r