Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout87-0090"i i. ILI.P i,ARDCii, Del' endan ts C:IViL I5}86 ARTHUR T. MCDERMOTT, P.C. ATTORNEY & COUNSELLOR-AT-LAW FIFTY EAST HIGH STREET P. O. BOX 246 CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013-0246 (717) 243-7807 HARRY L. SEIDEL, RPH Plaintiff REVCO DRUG STORES, INC. and PHILIP KARDON, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. ~O CIVIL 1987 WRONGFUL DISCHARGE NOTICE You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by 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 and judgment may be entered against you by the court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. iF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Court Administrator - Third Floor Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone (717) 249-1133 Arthur T. McDermott Attorney for Plaintiff Fifty East High Street P.O. Box 246 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-7807 HARRY L. SEIDEL, RPH Plaintiff Ve REVCO DRUG STORES, INC. and PHILIP KARDON, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. MO CIVIL 1987 WRONGFUL DISCHARGE COMES NOW, HARRY L. SEIDEL, RPH, through his attorney, Arthur T. McDermott, Esquire and avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff is HARRY L. SEIDEL, a Registered Pharmacist, who was employed by Defendant REVCO DRUG STORES, INC. (Revco) at Revco Drug Store, No. 2726 at Shippensburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant REVCO is a corporation having its headquarters at Twinsburg, Ohio. 3. Defendant PHILIP KARDON is the District Manager for REVCO and has his office in Altoona, Pennsylvania. 4. Plaintiff at all times pertinent to this action performed his duties in a competent and professional manner. 5. Commencing on or about November 5, 1985, Defendant Kardon implemented a program designed to force Plaintiff to involuntarily retire. 6. REVCO owns stores at Camp Hill, PA (No. 1177), at Harrisburg (No. 1139) and at York (No. 1108). 7. Plaintiff was required by Defendant KARDON to work at the Shippensburg store and at the stores in Camp Hill, Harrisburg and York on a rotating basis. 8. The distance from Plaintiff's home to the stores at Camp Hill, Harrisburg and York required him to travel between 110 and 120 miles per shift to end from the work site. 9. The hours and days worked varied weekly and the stores worked in varied both weekly and daily. 10. For a period of five months Defendant KARDON added Plaintiff's travel expenses to Plaintiff's salary causing the travel expenses to be considered taxable income. 11. When this was brought to his attention, Defendant KARDON then deducted the amount of $860 from Plaintiff's salary over a period of two to three months, a violation of REVCO'S policy and Federal IRS Regulation. 12. Plaintiff reported this violation to REVCO. 13. On or about August 2, 1986 an incident took place in the Shippensburg store, where an inexperienced store manager interfered in a situation involving a professional pharmaceutical matter. 14. The next day, using the pretext of the professional disagreement, Defendant KARDON fired Plaintiff. 15. Plaintiff hsd an implied contract of employment with Defendant REVCO during his proper & professional performance of his duties. 16. Plaintiff had a professional duty to perform. 17. Defendant REVCO has personnel policies published which constitute an implied contract of fair dealing in employment. 18. Defendant KARDON in his capacity as District Manager violated these personnel policies and wrongfully discharged Plaintiff. 19. Defendant KARDON acted within his capacity as an agent of Defendant REVCO. 20. Defendant REVCO was actions. 21. aware of Defendant KARDON'S As a result of his wrongful discharge Plaintiff has suffered economic losses to the extent of his salary from the time of dismissal. 22. As a result of his wrongful discharge Plaintiff has suffered humiliation and extreme emotional distress. WHEREFORE Plaintiff demands reinstatement in his employment and compensation for past economic losses and compensation for his humiliation and emotional distress, and such other relief as This demand is in excess of this Honorable Court may award. $10,000. Respectfully submitted, Arthur T. McDermott Attorney for Plaintiff Fifty East High Street P.O. Box 246 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-7807 VERIFICATION I, Harry L. Seidel do hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: ~ ~ I~7 H~[rry~eidel · IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 90 CIVIL 1987 WRONGFUL DISCHARGE HARRY L. SEIDEL, RPH Plaintiff Ye REVCO DRUG STORES, INC. and PHILIP KARDON, Defendants ANSWER Michael R. Rundle, Esq. FOWLER ADDAz~,S, SIlIIGHART & RUNDLI'] 28 SOUTH PITT STREET CARLIS~E~ PENNSYLVANIA 7013 HARRY L. SEIDEL, RPH Plaintiff REVCO DRUG STORES, INC. and PHILIP KARDON, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 90 CIVIL 1987 WRONGFUL DISCHARGE ANSWER AND NOW come the Defendants, Revco D.S., Inc., and Philip Kardon by their attorneys, Fowler, Addams, Shughart & Rundle, and respond to Plaintiff's Complaint as follows: 1. Denied in part. Plaintiff was employed by White Cross Stores, Inc. No. 14, a wholly owned subsidiary of Revco D.S., Inc., as a staff pharmacist, a position which involved performing pharmaceutical services in several stores, including Revco Drug Center No. 2726 in Shippensburg, Pennsylvania. The correct name of the corporate defendant is Revco D.S., Inc., not Revco Drug Stores, Inc. 2. It is admitted that Defendant Revco D.S., Inc. is a corporation with its headquarters at Twinsburg, Ohio. S. Denied in part. Defendant Kardon is a District Manager for Defendant Revco, D.S., Inc. with his office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. At all times referred to in Plaintiff's Complaint, Defendant Kardon was an Area Supervisor for Defendant Revco D.S., Inc. with his office in Altoona, Pennsylvania. 4. Denied. On the contrary Plaintiff over a period of time prior to his dismissal performed his duties in an incompetent, unprofessional manner. 5. Denied. At no time did Defendant Kardon implement any program or take any action designed to force Plaintiff to involuntarily retire. 6. Admitted. 7. It is admitted that Plaintiff worked in various stores operated by Defendant Revco D.S., Inc. The position of staff pharmacist involved rotating to stores where pharmaceutical services were needed. Plaintiff, as a staff pharmacist, was requested to perform and did perform services in several stores. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted. However, this was done at the specific request of the Plaintiff. 11. It is admitted that a certain sum of money which represented Plaintiff's travel expenses had at Plaintiff's request been paid to him as salary. Said sum of money was later deducted from Plaintiff's salary, again at Plaintiff's request, and paid to him as travel expenses. The initial payment of travel expenses as salary did not conform with Revco policy, but was done as an accommodation to the Plaintiff because he had specifically requested this course of action. Whether any actions taken by either Defendant was a violation of Federal IRS regulations is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 12. Admitted. IS. It is denied that the store manager of Defendant Revco's Shippensburg store is inexperienced. On the contrary said manager, Janet Alleman, is a competent, experienced manager. It is further denied that on August 2, 1986, said manager interfered in a situation involving a professional pharmaceutical matter. On the contrary, said manager was advised by another store employee that an argument had occurred between Plaintiff and said employee concerning Plaintiff's conduct toward a customer. This incident was reported to Defendant Kardon. 14. Denied. Plaintiff's services with Defendant Revco were terminated as a result of Plaintiff's unsatisfactory work performance and abusive behavior toward customers and other employees. Plaintiff's termination was effective August 5, 1986. 15. The averments contained in paragraph 15 are conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 16. Admitted. 17. It is admitted that Defendant Revco has published personnel policies. The averment that said policies constitute an implied contract of fair dealing in employment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 18. It is specifically denied that Defendant Kardon violated personnel policies of Defendant Revco in terminating Plaintiff's services. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff was wrongfully discharged. On the contrary the Plaintiff was discharged for unsatisfactory performance of his duties and abusive behavior towards customers and other employees. In the alternative, the averment that Plaintiff was wrongfully discharged is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 19. Admitted. 20. Admitted. 21. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff was wrongfully discharged, the averments of paragraph 18 above being incorporated herein. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of all other averments contained in paragraph 21, and said averments are denied and proof thereof demanded. 22. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiff was wrongfully discharged, the averments in paragraph 18 above being incorporated herein. After reasonable investigation, the Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of all other averments contained in paragraph 22, and said averments are denied and proof thereof demanded. WHEREFORE, the Defendants request that the Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed. FOWLER, ADDAMS, SHUGHART & RUNDLE Michael R. Rundle Attorneys for Defendants STATE OF OHIO COUNTY OF SUMMIT RONALD L. LEACH, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is the Corporate Counsel of Revco D.S., Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the Laws of the State of Delaware, the above named Defendant, that he makes this affidavit on its behalf being authorized so to do; and that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 19th day of February, 1987. MT COMMISSION £Xi'IR~S f.~L 21. IN2 STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY PHILLIP B. KARDON, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he is the Defendant above named, and that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. Sworn to and subscribed before me this ~rm~-_ day of ~ , 1987 ~ HARRY L. SEIDEL, RPH Plaintiff Ve REVCO DRUG STORES, INC. and PHILIP KARDON, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 90 CIVIL 1987 WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this date served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer upon counsel for the Plaintiff by depositing same in the United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Arthur T. McDermott, Esquire 50 East High Street P.O. Box 2~6 Carlisle, PA 17013 FOWLER, ADDAMS, SHUGHART & RUNDLE By: Michael R. Rundle Attorneys for Defendant DATE: March &, 1987 I~ TIlE COURT OF COI,iDiON PLEAS OF CUEBERLAND COU~iTY, PENNSYLVANIA HARRY L. SEIDEL, RPH Plaintiff ~ ' ~ I~G and REYGO DRUG STO~o, , PHILIP ~RDON, Defendant NO. 90 CIVIL 1987 WRONGFUL DISCHARGE PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT PHILIP KARDON ARTHUR T. MCDERMOTT, P.C. ATTORNEY & COUNSELLOR-AT-LAW FIFTY EAST HIGH STREET P. O. BOX 246 CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013-0246 HARRY L. SEIDEL, RPH Plaintiff REVCO DRUG STORES, INC. and PHILIP KARDON, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 90 CIVIL 1987 WRONGFUL DISCHARGE TO: Philip Kardon and Michael Rundle, his attorney 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Please take notice that you are hereby required, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 4005 and 4006, to serve upon the undersigned within thirty (30) days after service of this notice, your Answers in writing and under oath to the following Interrogatories. These Interrogatories shall be deemed to be continuing Interrogatories. If between the time of your Answers to said Interrogatories and the time of trial of this case, you or anyone acting on your behalf learns of or discovers the existence of the identit~ or whereabouts of any other witnesses not disclosed in your Answers, the existence of any other documents or data not provided in your Answers, you shall promptly furnish the same to the undersigned by supplemental Answers under oath. Arthur T. McDermOtt, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Fifty East High Street P.O. Box 246 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-7807 Date: July 24, 1987 HARRY L. SEIDEL, RPH Plaintiff Ve REVCO DRUG STORES, INC. and PHILIP KARDON, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : No. 90 CIVIL 1987 : : WRONGFUL DISCHARGE : PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES Plaintiff, by his attorney, Arthur T. McDermott Esquire, hereby demands that Defendant answer the following interrogatories, under oath, pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. Nos. 4001 et. Seq. within thirty (30) days of service hereof. These interrogatories are to be deemed continuing. 1. Please describe the duties and responsibilities that your job required of you during the time that Plaintiff was employed by Revco Drug Stores. ANSWER: (1) That Revco stores in my area operate to company procedures, follow company policy, and comply with Federal, State and local laws. (2) Proper staffing of stores. (3) Stores follow good business practices to maximize sales and profits. (4) Trouble shoot store problems. (5) Act as major contact between stores and corporate headquarters. 2. How many pharmacists under your supervision terminated their employment with Revco during the time period of Plaintiff's employment. ANSWER: From 5/9/84 to 8/4/86 - I believe nine pharmacists terminated employment. It is very difficult to be accurate on this question. My district was changed twice, all my records are gone for stores I supervised before October, 1986. 3. Describe the events of August 2, 1986 in Store 2736 between Janet Alleman and Plaintiff as you know the facts to be. ANSWER: Mr. Seidel was reprimanded by a physician for making him wait on the phone on hold an excessive length of time. He became surly and abusive to customers and clerks; it got so bad that two employees threatened to quit. Ms. Alleman called me to report the incident and ask for help, but I was unavailable. 4. Under your management, did the following incidents occur? a) Did you participate in water pistol fights with employees on store property? Any other "horseplay"? ANSWER: No. b) Describe as to occasions and activities. ANSWER: N/A. b) Did employees under your supervision bring food into the pharmacy and store it in the pharmacy refrigerator in contravention to Pennsylvania State Board regulations governing pharmacy operation? If so was this done with your knowledge and approval? ANSWER: Yes. Most all pharmacies allow employees ~o bring food into the stores, particularly since most pharmacists usually work eight to twelve hours without a designated lunch or dinner break. I never gave any thought to the brown bag activities of the employees of 2726. In checking the accuracy of this statement with employees of 2726, several of them who were employed at the same time as Mr. Seidel commented that on occasion Mr. Seidel brought food into the store for his own use and stored it in the refrigerator. 5. 'Describe in detail the phone conversation between yourself and Plaintiff of August 4, 1986. ANSWER: My best recollection of the incident is as follows: I telephoned Mr. Seidel at h~s home and informed him that his services were no longer required by Revco, and asked him if he had any questions. At this point Mr. Seidel became abusive and somewhat incoherrent; I felt nothing could be accomplished by continuing the conversation so I said good-bye and hung up. 6. With respect to the travel expenses that were paid to Plaintiff: a) When and where, and by what method were you told by Plaintiff to include the travel expenses in his regular salary; ANSWER: Mr. Seidel complained both verbally by telephone, and in writing when he was doing relief work in York, PA, that he could not wait four to six weeks for his expense reimbursement. The four to six week wait was standard at that time, because expenses had to be approved by several department heads and then paid by separate check, all of which was explained to Mr. Seidel. b) Why did you then decide to deduct the amount paid to Plaintiff for travel expenses as salary from his regular paycheck over a period of two to three months? ANSWER: After paying Mr. Seidel travel expenses as regular salary to stop his complaining about the long wait, to the best of my recollection he then started to complain about improper procedure and taxation on his expense reimbursement. By deducting his expense reimbursement for salary and paying it as expenses, we corrected the tax problem and got back to proper procedure. All this was explained to Mr. Seidel and done with his knowledge and approval. 7. When Plaintiff was employed by Revco Drug Stores at what time and at what stores was he required to work? a) Schedule ANSWER: Mr. Seidel was employed by my predecessor in the Central Pa. area as a staff pharmacist and worked in a number of stores in the Harrisburg area, wherever a shortage existed and a relief pharmacist was needed. I continued to use Mr. Seidel's services the same way, so he had no set schedule. b) Who established the schedule. ANSWER: It was my responsibility to determine where and when Mr. Seidel worked. 8. Was there some bona fide reason for moving him around the area to such far flung stores? If so state those reasons. ANSWER: Yes. As a staff pharmacist, Mr. Seidel was required to work at stores where his services were needed most. This practice required Mr. Seidel to travel outside the Shippensburg area. By Arthur T. McDermott Attorney for Plaintiff 50 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-7807 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing Interrogatories was served on the Counsel of record~ by placing a copy in the U.S. mail first class, certified delivery and addressed as follows: Michael Rundle~ Esquire 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle~ PA 17013 Arthur To McDermott Fifty East High Street P.O. Box 246 Carlisle~ PA 17013 {717) 243-7807 VERIFICATION Philip Kardon hereby verifies that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answers to Interrogatories are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, and understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. ¢4904 relating to unsworn falsifications. Dated: August iL, 1987 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 18th day of AuGust, 1987, I, Michael R. Rundle, Esquire, of Fowler, Addams, ShuGhart & Rundle, attorneys for Defendant, hereby certify that I have served a copy of Answers to InterroGatories by mailinG a copy of the same by United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Arthur T. McDermott, Esquire 50 East High Street P.O. Box 246 Carlisle, PA 170iS HARRY L. SEIDEL, RPH Plaintiff Ve REVCO DRUG STORES, INC. and PHILIP KARDON, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 90 CIVIL 1987 WRONGFUL DISCHARGE PLAINTIFF'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES FOR DEFENDANT REVCO DRUG STORES~ INC. Plaintiff, by his attorney, A.r~hur T. McDermott Esquire, hereby demands that Defendant answer the following interrogatories, under oath, pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. Nos. 4001 et. Seq. within thirty (30) days of service hereof. These interrogatories are to be deemed continuing. 1. Are there any general regulations on the corporate level concerning the treatment of employees. (Please provide a copy) ANSWER: Revco D. S., Inc. has a Policy Manual and an Employee,s Handbook, both containinG applicable sections concerning treatment of employees. A copy of each document is available for review at the office of Fowler, Addams, Shughart & Rundle, 28 South Pitt Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. a) If so do these regulations govern how a District manager may supervise a pharmacist? Specifically address the'amount and type of supervision when professional pharmaceutical matters are concerned. ANSWER: Other than general d~ciplinary rules applicable to all employees, a District Manager's responsibility is to insure that all state, federal and corporate rules are being followed. The amount and type of supervision would depend upon the work performance of the particular pharmacist. b) Are there any specific regulations governing pharmacists when they are performing their professional duties. ANSWER: Revco D. S., Inc. has a Pharmacist Manual containing corporate policies, and applicable state and federal laws. A copy of said Pharmacist Manual is available for review at the office of Fowler, Addams, Shughart & Rundle 28 South Pitt Street, Pennsylvania. ' Carlisle, Z. Are there any Corporate policies to protect a pharmacist when a conflict in Professional judgment occurs with a manager and what are these policies. ANSWER: Revco D. A., Inc. does not intrude upon the judgment of the pharmacist in the exercise of his professional duties unless his actions are in conflict with pharmacy law or practice. It is the District Manager's responsibility to settle conflicts between personnel in his region. In areas outside of pharmacy, practice, that is, OTC matters, the pharmacist is obviously not accorded sole judgment.' 3. If there are such policies, how are these policies implemented to protect the pharmacists professional judgment and the relationship between the pharmacist and the customer seeking a prescription. ANSWER: There are no such policies other than the professional judgment of the pharmacist on issues relating to pharmacy practice. 4. How much latitude is granted to the Store Managers in interfering in the pharmacists P~ofessional relationship with customers. ANSWER: The pharmacist in exercising his professional responsibilities is not subject to interference unless a state or federal law is being violated when brought to the attention of a responsible Revco official (e.g., security, District Manager). 5. Are there any Corporate policies regulating the placement, storage and consumption of food in the pharmacy area? ANSWER: No. a) If so, what are these regulations and what is done to enforce them in the stores? 6. What Corporate policies are in place regarding the firing of an employee? ANSWER: Termination of employees is covered by the Disciplinary policies contained in the Revco Policy Manual. 7. Are the policies surrounding the firing of a lay employee any different for pharmacists? If so, describe said policies. ANSWER: No. 8. How much discretion does Revco give its District Managers and Store managers in the firing of a pharmacist? ANSWER: A District Manager may terminate a pharmacist. A store manager would have to consult with the District Manager before a pharmacist could be terminated on his recommendation. 9. Is the decision to fie a pharmacist reviewed by the District Manager's Supervisor? If so, what factors are reviewed. ANSWER: Though not necessary, a District Manager's decision to terminate a pharmacist is normally given prior review by the District Manager's supervisor, the Regional Vice President. By Arthur T. McDermott Attorney for Plaintiff 50 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-7807 VERIFICATION Ronald L. Leach, Corporate Counsel, Revco D. S., Inc. hereby verifies that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answers to Interrogatories are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief, and understands that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsifications. Dated: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 2nd day of November, 1987, I, Michael R. Rundle, Esquire, of Fowler, Addams, Shughart & Rundle, attorneys for Defendant, hereby certify that I have served a copy of Answers to Plaintiff,s First Set of Interrogatories by mailing a copy of the same by United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Arthur T. McDermott, Esquire 50 East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 HARRY L. SEIDEL, RPH : Plaintiff : : VS. : : REVCO DRUG STORES, INC., and : PHILIP KARDON, : Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 90 CIVIL 1987 WRONGFUL DISCHARGE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: PRAECIPE Please mark discontinued. the above captioned matter settled and Respectfully, Arthur T. McDermott, Esq. 50 East High Street P. O. Box 246 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-7807 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing Praecipe was served on the following person(s), by placing a copy in the U.S. mail first class, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows: Timothy E. Kramer, Esquire REVCO, Inc. 1925 Enterprise Parkway Twinsburg, Ohio 44087 Michael R. Rundle, Equire Attorney for Philip Kardon 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Date Arthur T. McDermott, Esq. 50 East High Street P. O. Box 246 Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-7808