HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-00661
, I
~
a
'3
.,
,
I
"
I
",
\1
I I
II
('"
'I;
'I
,
>,
"
, ,
'Ii
, 1
I,
r"
'i'
, ,
.\
I','
1
, I
"J \',
li~
"
~,
,
I,
, 1
"
.,
, I
1.1
\
\
. 1 ,
il
"
"
.,
')
'~
,
/
/
I,
'\1
,
',.1
'Iii
"
,
.)
, ),
,
II'
,
.1
'I
I'
"
I'
'.
, '
, I
I"
,
1
i"
J'q I
'I
I"
"
"
II
'II'
iI
"I I
i,\
"
, 1
~
!I
Ii
"
,I.,
I,
, ,
"
t.,
,
"
1"',1,
, ,
II
,I
I
,
I'
'1
Shrlg.r, McD.ld, LoftUI, Flum' Splv.y
BY, MICHAI!L I, IlI.OOM. UQUlllllVlCJl)lt ~, SCARANO, ElQUlItI
U>IN11PICATlON NUM8U 310132/57970
32... I'LOOk
TWO COMMUCI! IiQUARE
ZOOI MARKET 111IEET
P11ILA1>1!LP11IA. PENNSYLVANIA 19103
(215) 561.7711
RUSSELL S, W~LKER } CUMBERLAND COUNTY
3127 Brighton Road
PltlIburgh, P~ 18212 } COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plalnllff CIVIL DIVISION LAW
VI,
} TERM,
MARK D, REILEY
347 Hlllald. Drive } No:
New Cumbtrtancj, PA 17070
O.r.ndanta
CIVIL ACTION COMPLAiNT
Plaintiff, by his attorneys, Shrager, McDaid, Loftus, Flum &
Spivey, hereby demands damages of the defendant herein for the
sum in excess of Twonty Five Thousand ($25,000.00) Dollars,
together with interest, costa, and damages for prejudgment delay,
upon a cause of action whereof the following are statements I
1, Plaintiff, RUSSELL S. WALKER, is a citizen and resident
of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania residing therein at 3127
Brighton Road, City of Pittsburgh, County of Allegheny.
.1
t i
<I, Defendant, MARl< D. REILEY, (herflinafter aomet imea
reterred to aa 'Dr. Reiley') is a citizen and resident of the
Conunonwealth of Pennsylvania residing therein at 347 Hillsida
Drive, City of New Cumberland, County of Cumberland.
3, At all times pertinent hereto Dr. Reiley was engaged in
the practice of podiatric medicine with an office and place ot
business at 100 Colonial Road, City of Harrisburg, County ot
Dauphin,
4. At all times pertinent hereto, Dr, Reiley pursued the
practice of podiatry and was obliged to bring to bear in the
practice of his profesaion, the profesaional skills, knowledge,
and experience which he possessed and to pursue his profession
in accordance with the reasonable, safe, and accepted
standards of podiatry.
5. On or about April 16, 1992, Mr, Walker, while playing
baaketball with friends twisted hiB right ankle.
6. Mr, Walker came under the care of Dr'. Reiley on or about
April 18, 1992, at which time Dr, Reiley performed a physical and
X-ray examination of Mr. Walker's right ankle, and told Mr,
Walker that he had a fracture of the ankle bones on both sides of
his X'ight ankle.
7. Dr. Reiley applied a plaster cast which extended from
just below the knee to the toes on the right leg. Mr. Walker was
told that he would be in the cast for a minimum of six weeks.
8. When Mr. Walker next visited Dr. Reiley on or about May
1, 1992, he complainsd about a knot that he could feel just
below the top of the cast in his right calf.
9. Dr. Reiley removed the cast and noted tenderness in the
Iloster.1.or right leg in the area where Mr. Walker complained of
tne knot, Dr. Reiley, after examining Mr. Walker's leg, reapplied
the plaster cast,
10. Mr, Walker next saw Dr. Reiley on or about. May 8, l.992.
Mr, Walker complained of pain in the posterior right leg, Dr.
Reiley removed the plaster cast and injected a steroid medication
into the right leg. The plaster cast was then reapplied,
11, Dr, Reiley again saw Mr. Walker in his of.fice on or
about May 15, 1992 and again on or about June 1, 1992.
12. Dr. Reiley saw Mr. Walker on several subsequent office
visits in June and July 1992 during which visits steroid
injections were given and X-ray examinations ordered. Mr, Walker
continued to complain of pain and swelling in the calf area of
the right leg,
13, On or about July 13, 1992, Mr, Walker consulted Rex A.
Herbert, D.O., an orthopedic surgeon, because of the persistence
of swelling in the right leg.
14, Dr. Herbert reviewed Mr. Walker's X-rays, including
thoBe X-rays taken by Dr. Reily on or about April 18, 1992, and
found no evidence of a fracture of the right ankle.
15, A venous Doppler study of the right lower extremity
performed on or about July 14, 1992 revealed deep vein thrombosis
involving the veins of the upper right calf including the
popliteal vein and the distal femoral vein,
16. Mr, Walker was admitted to Harrisburg Hospital on or
about July 14, 1992 with the diagnosis of right deep vein
thrombophlebitis, He was initially anticoagulated with Heparin
and converted to Coumadin therapy prior to discharge.
17, Mr, Walker remained on Coumadin therapy tor
approximately 3 months.
18, Since his hospitalization in Ju~y 1992, Mr, Walker has
suftered with post-phlebitic syndrome of the right leg,
19. During the poriod April 18, 1992 through July 3, 1992,
plaintiff, Russell Walker, was a private paying patient of
defendant, Dr, Reiley.
20, At all times pertinent hereto, a physician-patient
relationahip existed between the plaintiff, Russell Walker and
defendant, Dr. Reiley, acting individually and/or through his
respective agents, servante, or employees acting in the course
and scope of their respective employment.
21. Tho negligent and careless misconduct of the defendant,
Dr, Reiley, consioted of the followingl
(a) Failure to properly diagnose plaintiff's injured right
ankle,
(b) Failure to properly treat plaintiff's injured right
ankle,
(e) Failure promptly and properly on or about April 18,
1992, to accurately interpret the X-rays of plaintiff's right
ankle,
(d) Diagnosing a fracture of plaintiff's right ankle when
no such fracture existed,
(e) Presenting himself as a podiatrist capable of properly
interpreting an X-ray of the ankle,
(f) Failure promptly and properly to request consultation
of a radiologist in reading plaintiff's ankle x-rays/
(g) Inatituting treatm~nt for a fracture of the right ankl~
when no such fracture existed/
(h) Failure promptly and properly to diagnose plaintiff's
phlebitia/
(i) Failure promptly and properly to refer plaintiff to a
specialist for treatment of his phlebitis!
(j) Failure to properly conform with reasonable and acoeptod
standarda of podiatric practice in the diagnosis, care and
treatment of plaintiff's injured right ankle,
(h) Failure promptly and properly to seek consultation from
specialiata knowledgable J,n the diagnosis and treatment of ankle
injuriea,
(i) Failure promptly and properly to seek co~sultation from
speoialiats knowledgable in the diagnosis and treatment of
phlebitia!
(j) Breach of a non-delegable duty to provide quality care
to plaintiff including the provision of competent well-trained
and adequate medical personnel!
22, Mr. Walker's post-phlebitic syndrome was caused solely
and wholly by reason of the negligent and carelesa miaconduct of
the defendant and was not caused or contributed thereto by
plaintiff,
23. Mr. Walker would not have developed a post-phlebitic
syndrome of the right leg had it not been for the negligent and
careless misconduct by defendant.
24. As a result of defendant's conduct, plaintiff has
BUffered and will continue to suffer for an indefinite time in
the future severo physical pain and mental suffering, physical
diaability, depreasion, mental diatreas and anguish, and severe
shock to his nerves and nervous system.
25, As a further consequence of defendant's conduct,
plaintiff haa incurred aignificant expenae~ for medical
treatment, medical consultations, rehabilitation and other
related expenses in and about an effort to treat his condition
and maximize his rehabilitation and will continue to incur auch
expenses in the future to his great detriment and loos.
26. "'s a further consequence of defendant's conduct,
plaintiff has suffered economic loases in the form of lost
income and impairment of his earning capacity and will continue
to suffer auch losses in the futuro.
27. As a further consequence of defendant's conduct,
plaintiff haa been unable to properly attend to his usual daily
duties, occupations, labora, and leisure pursuits and he may
continue to be unable to properly do so for an indefinite time in
the future.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands damages of the defendant herein
for a sum in excess of Twenty Five Thousand ($25,000.00) Dollars,
exclusive of interest, costs, and damage a for prejUdgment delay.
Shrager, McDaid, Loftus, Flum
& Spivey
~ ,.-en
BY I ~-,-' 0 '---'
Michae S, Bloom, Esquire
BYI
Victor R. Scarano, Esquire
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF PHIt.^DEI.PHI^
I SS.
I,
RUSSELL S, WALKER, being duly sworn according to
law, deposes and says that he ia the plaintiff in the
foregoing action, that the facts set forth in the attached Civil
Action Complaint are based upon information which he has
furnished to his counsel and information which has been gathered
by his counsel in preparation of the lawsuit, The language of
the Civil Action Complaint is that of counsel and not of
plaintiff, Plaintiff has read the Civil Action Complaint and to
the extent that it is based upon information which he has given
to his counsel, it is true and correct to the beat of his
knowledge, information, and belief. To the extent that the
contents of the Civil Action Complaint are that of counsel, he
has relied upon counsel in making this affidavit.
& ~ ~,
_/f,e;. I~~.f;l;u
RUSSELL S. WALKER
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED
BE~'ORE ME THIS 9tA" DAY
OF cJ...u.v.~- 1994,
.{1: '. N4.J (/. WdL
NO~ Public
',,
"
I
,
, .
, ,
'I
I)
,
I,
't,
11..'- ~
.~ '"
"
\'to
~
~
<)
~
I,
it!
;;r; "-)00> &', \~. "
,"'1... .~ ,
. .., I' ~
!Ii , ':.' C) "Tl ,
","'1, 'I
'"','1''' 1 ,
~ ~
- " " "
-
\"'I'j ~
-:'r" ,il" "-
,
- , ;'~ I
If! :~) r.", ~.
.....
~~')
.-
~
I.
'j
"
.,
i "
I'i
RUSSELL WALlCZR, I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS or
Plaintiff, I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
I
v. I CIVIL ACTION - LAW
I
MARl( D. REILEY, I NO. 661 CIVIL 1994
Defendant. I
MQ1JCE TO PLEAD TO NEW MATTER
TOI PLAINTIFF
YOU ARE HEREBY REQUIIlED to reapond to the wilrhin New
Matter within twonty (20) days of the date of service hereof or II
default jUdgment may be entered llgllinst you.
METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAt/SS & ERB
By ~(l,C A/O'l,,4J1t:,(,~_
Jered L. Hock, Eaquire
Attorneys for Defendant
Mark D. Reiley
PA Court I.D, No, 19211
P.o, Box 93
Harriaburq, PA 17108-0093
(717) 238-8187
"
,
, ,
, 1
I' I I
"
'1'
, 1
',I
il
I'
, I,
,
I,
,
,
I
I
RUBSE1.1. WA1.KER, I IN THE COURT OF COMMON P1.IAS OF
Plaintiff, I CUMBER1.AND COUNTY, PENNSY1.VANIA
I
v. I CIVIL ACTION - 1.AW
I
MARl< D. REILEY, I NO. 661 CIVIL 1994
Defendant. I
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER
AND NOW, oome. Dstendant Mark D. Reiley by hi8 attorneys
Metzger, Wiokeraham, Knauss' Erb and makea anawer to Plaintiff's
complaint, setting forth New Matter as followal
1. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without
knowledge or information auff ioient to form a belief as to the
truth of these nvermenta.
;I. Admitted, exoept that New Cumberland is not a oity.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted that Dr. Reiley pursued the practice of podiatry.
As to the remaining allegations of this paragraph, the 8IIme
oonstitute oonolusions of law to which no response is required. If
a response is required, Defendant is advised to deny and thsrefore
denies the same as stated, on the contrary, Dr. Reiley had those
obligations whioh are imposed upon him by law.
6. Admitted only that on or about April 18, 1992, Plaintiff
indicated at the office of Defendant that three (3) days earlier
Plaintiff had sprained his ankle while playing ball. However, as
to the aotual averments of this paragraph, after reasonable
investigation Defendant is without knowledge or information
.uttichnt to torm the beUef ftS to the truth thneof and, it
.dmi..ible, .triot proof ie demanded.
6. Date of coming under oare of Dr. Reiley admitted. Takinq
. phyeical elCamination and lC rays admitted. said elCamination
revealed po.aible fracture of distal lateral ankle, which
information was communicated to Plaintiff. As to remaininq
averments, the same are denied. On the contrary, the elCamination
revealed and Dr. Reiley told Plaintiff that which is set forth
earlier in this paragraph.
7. Denied that Dr. Reiley applied a plaster cast as stated.
On the contrary, Dr. Reiley applied a fiberglass/air cast, which
.topped some distance below the head of the fibula. Admitted that
silC (6) weeks is typioal time for casting when such cnts are
utiUzed.
8. Date of next visit admitted.
complahled of awelling, muscle cramps,
Remaining averments denied as stated.
9. Admitted that on May 1, 1992, Dr, Reiley removed the cast,
performod an elCamination, and noted tenderneas to palpation in the
po.terior right leg. Remainder denied as stated. On the contrary,
the complaints and cast were of the types Bot forth in paragraphs
7 and 8 above, which are incorporated by reference.
10. Date ot next visit and elCamination admitted. Admitted
that Plaintiff complained of pain in posterior right leg.
Allegations regarding a plaster cast denied tor reasons set forth
Admitted that Plaintiff
and right log spasm.
2
in pan9r.aph 7 above, incorporated by rllferenoe. Admitted thGt
Dr. ReUey injeoted a non-anabolio steroid, as medioally
appropriate. In addition, further heolth oare measures were
provided on this visit.
11. Admittsd,
12. Th1& puagraph 1& vague in that it speaks of
,
"several...visits" rather than speoifying the dates, so that no
answer 1& required. If an answer 1& required, admitted that
Dr. ReUey saw Plaintitf Walker on certain office visits after
June 1, 1992. Remaining allegations deniod aa stated. On the
oontnry, the injeotions, which were appl'opriate non-anabolio
steroids, were administered in accordance with proper practioe, but
not on every visit. Appropriate additional health oare measures
were also taken and pain and swelling from time to time deoreased
and beoame intermittent, aud Plaintiff's reports or "oomplaints"
and assesBments of his condition varied with hia condition from
visit to visit.
13. After reasonable investigation, responding Defendant is
without knowledge or information suffioient to form a belief as to
the truth of these averments.
14. After reasonable investigation, responding Defendant is
without knowledge or information aUffioiellt to form B beli.f as to
the truth of these averments.
3
le. After reasonable investigation, responding Defendant is
without knowledge or information suffioient to form a belief .1 to
the truth of these averments.
16. After reaeonable investigation, responding Defendant is
without knowlldge or information suffioient to form a belief aa to
the truth of theee averment..
17. After reasonable investigation, responding Defendant is
without knowledge or information sUfficient to form a belief ae to
the truth of these avermenta,
18. After reasonable investigation, responding Defendant is
without knowledge or information Ruffioient to form a belief as to
the truth of these averments,
19. Admitted that Plaintiff waa a paying patient during the
period aVerred. Allegation that Plaintiff was a "private paying
patient" is vague, so that no answer is required, If an answer is
required, the same is denied as stated in that certain billings
regarding Plaintiff'a oare were prssented to a source other than
Plaintiff.
20. Denied as stated. Admittad only that a physician"patient
relationship existed between Plaintiff and Dr. Reiley from on or
about April 18, 1992, to in or about early July 1992, Admitted
that Dr. Reiley acted individually during the course of the
relationship. specifically denied that other persona acted as
Dr. Reiley's agents, servants, or employees in the treatment Of
Plaintiff.
4
21. speoifically denied that Dr, Reiley was negligent and/or
enqaged in carel.ss misconduot. On the contrary, his conduot was
prClper in all respeots. As tCl the remaining averments ot this
paragraph, it iSI
(8) Speoifically denied that Dr. Reiley failed to diagnClse
prClperly Plaintiff's injured right ankle; on the contrary, he
oClmmitted no aotionable failure, and hia diagnosis was reasonable;
(b) Speoifioally denied that Dr. Reiley failed to treat
properly plaintiff'S injured right ankle, Cln the contrary, he
oommitted no aotionable failure and his treatment was reasonable;
(c) Speoifioally denied that Dr, Reiley failed to interpret
promptly, properly, and acourately Plaintiff's x rays; on the
oontrary, he committed no eUGh actionable failure, and his
interpretation of x-rays wae reasonable;
(d) Specifioally denied that Dr, Reiley committed any
actionable failure in the diagnosis of Plaintiff's right ankle; on
the contrary, he committed no such faJ.1ure, and his diagnosis was
reasonable. Allegation that no fracture existed denied as stated;
on the contrary, the examination and x raye contained indioation of
fracture aa aet f~rth elsewhere in this Answer.
(e) Any and all allegations or implications that Dr. Reiley
wos not oapable ot properly interpreting an x ray of the ankle
denied; on the contrary, Dr. Reiley was capable of properly
interpreting x rays, so that he committed no actionable conduct in
connection therewith;
IS
(f) Specitioally denied that Dr. Reiley committed any
aotionable failure regarding any requests for oonsultation with a
radiologist, on the contrary, Or. Reiley committed no such
aotionable failure, and hia conduot in conneotion with x rays was
rsasonable in all respeots/
(g) Specifically denied that Dr. Reiley instituted a
treatment whioh was improper for Pluintitt's oondition, on the
oontrary, the treatment was proper tor Plaintiff's condition as
indioated,
(h) Speoifioally denied that Dr. Reiley committed any
actionable failure regarding diagnosis of Plaintitf's condition/ on
the contrary, his diagnosis was reasonable/ as to the remaining
averments of this paragraph, atter reasonable investigation
responding Defendant is without knOWledge or information aUffioient
to form a belief as to the truth thereof/
(i) Specifically denied that Or. Reiley committed an
aotionable failure regarding referrals of Plaintiff; on the
contrary/ Or. Reiley'S treatment of Plaintiff was reasonable/ as to
the remaining averments of this paragraph, after reaaonable
investigation responding Defendant is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the ~ruth thereof/
(j) ConcluRion of law, no answer required. If an answer is
required, Dr. Reiley is advised to deny and therefore denies that
his duties were as allegedr on the contrary, Dr. Reiley is advised
to aver and therefore avers that his dut ies wore those imposed upon
6
him by law, and it is deni/ed that he failed to oonform to the same,
on the aontrary, Dr. Reiley'e conduct in the diagnosis, oar., and
treatment of Plaintiff was reasonable and proper,
(h"2) speoifioally denied that Dr. Reiley oommitted any
actionable failure regarding seeking of consultations, any and all
allegations that Dr. Reiley was ..ot knowledgeable in diagnosis and
treatment of the condition indioated specifically denied, on the
ccntrary, Dr, Reiley'S diagnosis and treatment of Plaintiff was
reasonable in all respects,
(i-2)
Specifioally denied that Dr. Reiley oommitted any
actionable failure regarding oonsultations, any and all allegations
that Dr. Reiley waa not knowledgeable in the diagnoais and
treatment of the condition indioated specifically denied, on the
oontrary, Dr, Reiley'a treatmont was reasonable, aa to the
remaining avermonts of this paragraph,
after reasonable
investigation reaponding Defendant is without knowledge or
information sufficient t~ form a belief as to the truth thereof,
(j-2) Conclusion of law, no answer required. If an answer is
required, Dr, Reiley is advised to deny nnd therefore denies that
his duties were as alleged, on the contrary, Dr. Reiley had those
duties impoaed upon him by law, committed no breach of duty, and
provided reasonable, competent, and adequate treatment of the
condition indicated,
22. Specifically denied that Dr, Reiley engaged in negligent
or careless misconduct, on the contrary, his conduct was reasonable
7
in all re.pect.. specifically denied that Dr. Reiley caused any
injury to Plaintiff. AB to the remaining allegatione of t,his
paragraph, re.ponding Defendant is without knowledge or information
.utricient to fornl a belief as to the truth thereof.
:u. Specifically denied that Dr. Reiley el1qaged in negligent
or carel..s misconduct I on the contrary, his conduct was reasonable
in all re.pecte. Speoifically denied that Dr. Reiley oauaed any
injury to Plaintiff. fl8 to the remaining allegationa in this
paragraph, respondinq Defendant is without )<nowledge or information
SUfficient to form a belief aa to the truth thereof.
24. specifioally denied that Dr, Reiley oaused any injuries
to Plaintiff. As to the remaining averments of thia paragraph,
after reasonable investigation responding Defendant is wJ.thout
)<nowledge or information suffioient to form a belief aa to the
truth thereof.
25. Speoifioally danied that Dr. Roiley caused any injuries
to Plaintiff. As to the remaining averments of this paragraph,
after reasonable investigation responding Defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a l:elief as to the
truth thereof.
26. Specifioally denied that Dr. Reiley caused any injuries
to Plaintiff. As to the rema ining averments of this paragraph,
after reasonable investigation responding Defendant is without
knowledge or information sUfficient to form a belief as to the
truth thereof.
8
37. speoifioally denied that Dr. Reiley oaused any injuries
to Plaintiff. As to the remaining avermenta of this paragraph,
atter reasona~le investigation l'Osponding Defendant i. without
knowledge or information suffioient to form a ~.1iet all to the
truth thereof.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respeotfully requeata that Plaintiff'.
Complaint be dismi.sed and that judgment ~e entsred in hi. f~vor
toqether with the oosta of thi9 action,
NEW MATTER
2a. Plaintiff haa failed to state a olaim upon whioh relief
oan be granted.
29. If Plaintiff suffered any damages, of which strict proof
i. demanded, the same were caused by peraons, parties, or
oonditions for whioh Dr. Reiley is not responsible.
30. Defendant is advised to aver and therefore avers that if
Plaintiff sustainoad any injuries in conneotion with treatment
provided by Dr. Reiley, which is denied and of which strict proof
is demanded, the same were oaused or contributed to by the
negligence of Plaintiff, so that if Plaintiff were otherwise
entitled to any recovery, Which is denied, tho same is barred by
Plaintiff's excess comparative negligence or is to be reduoed by
Plaintiff's oomparative negligence,
31. Defendant is adviaed to raise and therefore raises any
and all defenses available to him under the Healthoare Services
9
Malpracticll Act or any dmilar or oomparable law ot Pennsylvania or
any other pertinent jurisdiotion.
WHEREFORE, Detendant respectfully requests that Plaintitf's
Complaint be dismissed and that judqment be entered in hi. favor
toqether with the costs of this aotion.
METZGER, WICKERSHAM, KNAUSS , ERB
By
l (;f A,f I)
(.{. C '" -L'v"t:"'lC"l. .l.c.--
Jere L. 100 , Esqu re
Attorneys for Defendant
Mark D. Reiley
PA Court 1.0. No, 19211
P.Q, Bo)( 93
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0093
(717) 238-8187
Dahl
M'y ~,
lU4
-I,
, rt
, '
1 ' i
I I
I ,
I
, (I
II
I 1"
I
,
01 I
I
,
I
I
"
,
"
\,
I '
I
'i
I ,
I ,
, "
"
:, \
I
1
"
I"
;10,
I,'
" ....
"
, ,
Shrlger, MoDlld, LoftuI, Flum . Splv.y
IV, MICIlAU. I, lLOOM.I!IQIJIRl/VlcroIlR, SCARANO, 104, D" UQUIIlI
IJlIN'I1PICAT1ON NUMIU, J1ml'797o
U'" I'LOOIl
TWO CllMMI!IlClIQUAIl!
:100, MAaKIT ,nUT
PIlILADlLPtlIA. PlNNSYLVANIA 19103
(215) 5.1-7111
RUSSELL B. WAU<ER CUMBERLAND COUNTY
} COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff CIVIL ON/S/ON lAW
VI.
} TERM,
MARK 0, REILEY
} No: eel Civil 11184
D.f.ndanl
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEfENDANT
Plaintiff, by his attorneys, Shrager, McDaid, Loftus,
plum & Spivey, hereby replies to New Matter of Defendant, as
followsl
28. Denied as a conclusion of law.
29. Denied as a conclusion of law, It is also
.pecifically denied that the plaintiff's damages were caused by
persons, parties or conditions for which the defendant is not
responsible, On the contrary, the injurios and damages Buffered
,,'
,I,
I
I,
I'
111
'I
, '
I ,
,
;;; , "
I
,. t~ ,1
- "
,
T'"
'7 "
,
,'''1
,.......
r""1 :1'
II
;~
..:l "
l
I'
1,1'
"
'I
"
,
I,
"
I L,
",
"
, I
,.
,
",
,
,
"
I,
'I
"
, ,
II
,. 'I,
'I
. .,
",
,.
~ If) ';J"
1-..
c:: .
~- .. i1k
, ..~ I"~
...... .l.rl
'I' fl.: yj
h .',..
" ." ' t/)
,', - )',
I.' !d", '}\~
'l ~
I. .~
'Lj :9. u
"
1 '
I,
,
,
'I
"
"
'1
1,1,
'I
"
"
, ,
'1
':1
,
:,
'I
" ,
"
"
"
,
I
"
,
"
, ,
1'1
,1
'I
"
"
!I. ,
"
,
,
"
II'
"
ir. In ,-
i:' f_". I
1I"(' I .. ;,
('l',; ...:1
In '.
I ' ,.
(l('-
, '
,. I'::' ,"
1'.': (,... I',
r,i,. c-" '"~to
I, I:.~J 1'11\)
" \~1 1 ,_ .
II, ,... "l
L) t.::' I:
"
" '
" ,
II,
"
"
,
"
Li
"
11',1
, '
:1,
"
"
,'I
I'
I
"
,
,I
I'
I'
.,
1,1
'I
>I
I
... ,'I
1'1: ,t-'.1
t- , .. I.
f' I"~
'II ~
1..L
I', .".
,I,
t)J, "'.1
f, ~', I
",
li. ' L ,1 " I
, I ,
I' ,'11
'.) I.J'.
,I
,
,
I,
,
"
"
'.1
,I
I,
, ,
, ,
i ,(
p,
"
"
"
,I
,I
'II
"
I"
! i
"
.1
I.
Ii
\,
I'
Ii
'"
;,1
'"
I'
,I
, ,
il I
v,
IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
ClJMBERLANI>COUNTY, PENNSYLV ANI A
CIVIL ACTION -LA W
NO. 661 CIVIL 1994
RUSSELL WALKER,
PlaintH},
MARK 0, REIU';V,
Defendant
PRAECIJ'F. FOR msmNl'INuANg;
TO TIlE PROTl!ONOT ARY:
Please mark the above case sellled. discuntinued, and cnded with prejudice,
McDAID, FLUM & BLOOM
By:
,'.....,-,,- '71'
Michael S, Bloom, Esquire
Allorney J.I), Nu, 38432
Twu Commerce Square, 32". Floor
200 I Market Street
Philadelphia. PA 19103
(21~) ~68.7772
"
Allorneys lor Plaintiff
,'. .
Date: _ (J-3/- ~1t'rD
.2000
"
, I
"
, ,
Im.:,,,..., M, 18)9N~ I
If;
,