HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-05556
1
~
-I
~
J
it
(1 '
"
I
~ I
I
,
I
,
i
I
,
J ; !'
I
.
I
j
~
l(1
\J)
tn
d
~: i
@
.tr
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PATRICIA J. DENCE and
DAVID DENCE,
CIVIL ACTION ' LAW
PLAINTIFFS
NO. 94-5556 CIVIL TERM
v.
THOMAS R. ROTH and
T & L AUTO SALES,
DEFENDANTS
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRI-TRIAL MEMORANDUM OP DEPENDANTS.
THOMAS R. ROTH AND T & L AUTO SALES
Defendants hereby file this pre-trial memorandum in
conformance with Cumberland County Local Rule 2t2-4, and in
support thereof aver as follows:
I, FACTS AS TO LIABILITY:
This case arises out of a motor vehicle accident which
occurred on or about August 13, 1993 at the intersection of
Harrisburg pike and Calvary Road in North Middleton Township,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, with plaintiff Patricia Dence
being the driver of one of the vehicles. Defendants have
stipulated to liahility.
II. FACTS AS TO DAMAGES:
An Order was signed by Judge Hess on February 28, 1996,
regarding Defendants' Motion in Limine, which prevents Plaintiffs
from presenting any testimony of incurred medical bills and
expenses, totally approximately $9,667.88, allegedly arising out
of the motor vehicle incident at hand,
Defendants also previously submitted a Motion in Limine with
respect to Plaintiff's expert report from Thomas A. Boch, D.C.,
dated, January 24, 1996. In this report, Mr, Boch makes various
references to "reasonable degree of medical certainty". Mr.
Boch is not a medical doctor and cannot testify to such a degree.
,~
"
i
,I
Defendants submitted the Motion in Limine to curtail plaintiffs'
use of varioue portions of the report of Thomas Bach, Judge
Hess, in the prior pre-trial conference, had ruled that he would
not rule upon such motion at that time, but that Defendants could
raise this issue with the trial judge at the time of trial.
III. PRINCIPAL ISSUES OF LIABILITY AND DAMAGES:
Counsel for Defendants anticipates that the following legal
issues will be presented:
(1) Whether Plaintiffs have suffered compensable injuries?
[Suggested Answer: No]
(2) Whether Plaintiff Patricia Dence's medical treatment
following the motor vehicle accident was necessary and
reasonable?
[Suggested Answer: No]
(3) Whether Plaintiff Patricia Dence will require any
future medical treatment?
[Suggested Answer: No]
-2-
IV, ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED:
Defendants do not anticipate any unueual or evidentiary
problems to be resolved prior to trial, at this time.
V. WITNESSES:
1. Plaintiffs, Patricia J. and David Dence;
2. Dr. Perry Eagle;
3. All doctors from whom Mrs. Dence sought treatment
and/or Records Custodians therefore;
4. Any witness identified in any discovery exchanged
between the parties; and
5. Any witness listed on Plaintiffs' Pre-Trial Memorandum.
6. Defendants reserve the right to supplement this list of
witnesses,
VI. EXHIBITS:
1. All medical records of Plaintiff, patricia J. Dence;
2, All documents exchanged in discovery;
3. All doc~ments listed in Plaintiffs' Pre-Trial
Memorandum;
4, Dr. Perry Eagle's report; and
5. Defendants reserve the right to supplement this list of
exhibits as appropriate.
VII. SPECIAL REOUEST:
Counsel for Defendants has no special request at this time.
-3-
VIII, TRIAL TIME:
It is estimated that the total trial time would be two (2)
days.
IX. SETTLEMENT,
Plaintiffs initially made a demand of $65,000. Defendants
had offered $7,500, which was rejected. plaintiffs lowered their
demand to $60,000. Defendants offered Plaintiffs $12,500 to
which Plaintiffs lowered their demand to $30,000. Defendants
offered $13,000. Plaintiffs raised their demand again to
$60,000.
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER,
COLEMAN & GOGGIN
BY,
E
Str
P.O. Box 803
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0803
1.0. 66887
(717) 232-4641
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
THOMAS R. ROTH and
T & L AUTO SALES
DATE,
CjqlP
-4-
CBRTIFICATB OF SBRVICS
I, Lynn F. Reutelhuber, hereby certify that a true and
correct copy of the Pre-Trial Memorandum in the above-captioned
matter was served upon the following by depositing the same
within the custody of the
postage pre-paid on April
United States
~5
Poet Office, first class,
, 1996 addressed to:
Gregory R. Reed. Esquire
2423 N. Third Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
#--
L , ESQUIRE
1 Fourth Floor
P. . Box 803
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0803
(717) 232-4641
1.0. No. 66887
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
luM'!1C- I CfJ/n.
Date: ~
-5-
"
ei .l!j j I
j 0
~
~
~lli~
""
~ ~ 8 I
e~~ ~ . ~ . fjW
> ~~
!;!~ .
e~ -
~~ I
NI
~ 2~ ~~ I; :!
- . .
... . ..
... . .
. .
. .i ) h ~
.
r
IN THE COURT or COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
PATRICIA J. DENCI and . CIVIL ACTION - LAW
.
DAVID DENCE, .
.
plaintiffs
v. NO. 94-5556 CIVIL TERM
.
.
THOMAS R. ROTH and .
.
T , L AUT~ SALES, .
.
Defendants . JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
.
PLAINTIFFS' PRETRIAL M~MORANDUM
I. BASIC FACTS AS TO LIABILITY
Defendants admit liability.
This action arises from an automobile accident that
occurred at 5:03 p.m. on August 13, 1993, at the intersection of
Harrisburg Pike and Calvary Road in North Middleton Township,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Defendant, Thomas R. Roth, was
traveling south on the Harrisburg pike and failed to stop at a
.
red traffic light. Plaintiff, Patricia Dence, who was turning
north onto Harrisburg pike from calvary Road had a steady green
light. The Defendant's vehicle struck the Plaintiff's vehicle on
the left rear passenger door, causing Plaintiff's vehicle to spin
off the roadway onto the south berm.
II. BASIC FACTS AS TO DAMAGES
Patricia Dence's medical treatment continues.
David Dence's claim is for loss of consortium.
VI. RXlIIBITS
Medical Bills
Medical Records
Dr. Thomas A. Boch's report
Anatomical Visual Aids
VIII. SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
plaintiffs' demand is $30,000.00.
Defendant's offer is $13,000.00.
Date ~ll/U! :< ~. /ff~
G~qulro
Attorney for Plaintiffs
2423 Nor.th Third Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-0434
"
~IFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this~JJ1ray of April, 1996, I, Gregory R. Reed,
Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiffs, do hereby certify that I have
served by first class mail, a copy of the attached Plaintiffs'
Pretrial Memorandum, this day to the following addr.ess:
Lynn F. Reutelhuber, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner
Coleman & Goggin
100 Pine street, 4th Floor
P.O. Box 803
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0803
Gr gory R. Ree, sure
Attorney for Plaint fs
~423 North Third street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110
(717) 238-0434
Attorney I.D. 23705
PATRICIA j, DENCE and
DAVID DENCE.
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs,
CIVIL ACTION. LAW
THOMAS R. ROTH and
T & L AUTO SALES,
Defendants
94-5556 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
Present at a pretrial conference held February 28. 1996, were Gregory R. Reed, Esquire,
attorney for the plaintiffs, and Lynn F. Reutelhuber. Esquire. attorney for the defendants,
This ease arises out of a motor vehicle accident which occurred on August 13. 1993, in
North Middleton Township when the defendant is alleged to have run a red light striking a
vehicle operated by the plaintiff, Patricia j, Dence, Liability is stipulat:d.
The defendants have filed a petition for independent medical examination which was
granted at the pretrial conference over objection. Defendants have also filed a motion in limine
with respect to the plaintiffs' exp..:rt report from Dr, Thomas Boch. D.C, The motion contends,
among other things, that Dr, Boch is notljualified to testify with respect to certain aspects of
medicine because he is not a medical doctor. We indicated to counsel that that matter would be
resolved by the trial judge, We also indicated, however, that in light of our grant of a motion for
an independent medical exam, we would grant any continuance requested by the plaintiffs which
might be necessitated by such an exam.
This otherwise uncomplicated case should be of no more than two days' duration, The
usual number of challenges will pertain, The parties indicated that they are working towards a
settlement,
February 28. 1996
~. ,4. 4-
Kevin Hess, J.
,
/
/
Gregory R, Reed. Esquire
For the Plaintiffs
Lynn F, Reutelhuber. Esquire
For the Defendants
:rlm
..
A
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PATRICIA J. DENCE and
DAVID DENCE,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PLAINTIFFS
NO. 94-5556 CIVIL TERM
v.
THOMAS R. ROTH and
T & L AUTO SALES,
DEFENDANTS
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRB-TRIAL MEMORANDUM ON BBRALr or DBrBNDANTS.
THOMAS R. ROTH AND T . L AUTO SALBS
Defendants hereby file this pre-trial memorandum in
conformance with Cumberland County Rule 212-4 and in support
thereof aver as follows:
I. FACTS AS TO LIABILITY:
This case ariees out of a motor vehicle accident which
occurred on or about August 13, 1993 at the intersection of
Harrisburg Pike and Calvary Road in North Middleton Township,
CUmberland County, Pennsylvania, with Plaintiff patricia Dence
being the driver of one of the vehicles. Defendants have
stipulated to liability.
II, FACTS AS TO DAMAGES:
Plaintiffs list in their pre-trial memorandum that Plaintiff
has incurrerl certain medical bills, totally $ 9,667.88, allegedly
arising out of the motor vehicle incident at hand. Defendants
deny that such figure can be presented to the jury, and have
~
submitted a motion in limine to prevent Plaintiff from attempting
to present any monetary figure of medical damages to the jury, in
accordance with Pennsylvania's Motor Vehicle Financial
Reeponsibility Law.
Defendants also have eubmitted a Motion in Limine with
respect to Plaintiff's expert report from Thomas A. Boch, D.C.,
dated, January 24, 1996. In this report, Mr. Boch makes various
references to "reasonably degree of medical certainty". Mr.
Boch ie not a medical doctor and cannot testify to such a degree.
Defendants hereby submit a motion in limine to curtail
Plaintiff's use of various portions of the report of Thomas Boch.
Plaintiffs counsel produced this report on or about February
1, 1996, even though expert interrogatories were propounded on
March 7, 1995. In this expert report, Thomas Boch states that
Mrs. Dence, the Plaintiff, will have to undergo future
treatments, 1-4 times per month at a cost of approximately $50.00
per visit. The report also states: "It is my opinion based
upon a reasonable degree of medical certainty... that Ms.
Dence's neck and shoulder problems are ~ permanent." (emphasis
added). As Plaintiff has just produced her expert report, and
counsel for Defendants was out of the country for the last two
weeks, upon her return, counsel for Defendants contacted
Plaintiff's counsel to schedule an IME with Dr. Perry Eagle, due
to Boch's report asserting permanency. Such an examination is
scheduled for 8:30am on Friday, March 1, 1996. Plaintiffs
counsel objects to such, and now is claiming that this date is
-2-
'-
demand to $60.000, Defendants recently offered Plaintiffs
$12,500, to which Plaintiffs have not responded,
MARSHAl,L, DENNEHEY, WARNER,
COLEMAN & GOGGIN
BY:
.Lz.
F. REU LHUB R, ESQ.
10 Pine Street - 4th Fl,
P.O. Box 803
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0803
1.0. 66887
(717) 232-4641
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
,
;1
"
i
I
j
DATE:
..
CERTIPICATB OP SERVICE
I, Lynn F. Reutelhuber, hereby certify that a true and
correct copy of the Pre-Trial Memorandum in the above-captioned
matter was served upon the following by depositing the same
within the custody of the United States Post Office, first class,
postage pre-paid on February ~~ ,1996 addressed to:
Gregory R, Reed, Esquire
2423 N, 'rhird Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
ATTORNEY POR PLAINTIPFS
17108-0803
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
Date: f!JJ ~ I tyt)lt.
-6-
3. Thomas A, Boch is a chiropractor, not a medical doctor,
a radiologist, or an orthopedic doctor.
4. In his report, Mr. Boch makes assertions such as having
an opinion to a "reasonable degree of medical certainty."
5. Mr. Boch should be barred from testifying to euch a
standard, as he ie not a medical doctor.
6. Mr. Boch also makes references to orthopedic tests,
which should be barred, as he is not an orthopaedic doctor.
7. Mr. Boch also makea assertions based on his apparent
review of x-ray of plaintiff, Patricia Dence.
8. Mr. Boch is not a radiologiet, or an
orthopaedic/medical doctor, and as such is not qualified to read
x-rays.
9. Mr. Boch cannot also testify as to Plaintiff's need for
medicine or his opinion as to whether or not she should take
medication, due to the fact that Mr. Boch cannot prescribe
medicine.
WHBRBPORE, Defendants hereby request that this Honorable
Court enter the proposed Order, by which Thomas A. Boch would be
-2-
(j
BOCH CHmOPRAcnc CIlNIC
323 York ROAd
CorlIsle, PA 17013
T~n~ (717) 243~
Fax: (717) 243.6444
SUBJECTIVE:
Patient's entrance complaints were left neck pain, pain of the
left shoulder and upper back, mid back pain, headaches, and pain
radiating into left arm. After the entrance date, the patient
began to e~perience lower back pain.
PATIENT: PATTI OENCE
DATE: 24 JAN 96
These symptoms are aggravated by moving her head and are relieved
by a neck brace.
These symptoms have been present for 12 days.
A.A. SYMPTOMS:
Symptoms started on 8-13-93, when the patient was involved in a
.otor vehicle accident. On that date the patient was driving a
car which was hit by another vehicle which ran though a red
light.
OBJECTIVE:
There was tenderness to palpation in the paravertebral muscles at
the levels of Cl-C7, and Tl-T4.
There was limited range of motion of the Cervical spine during
fle~ion, right and left lateral fle~ion, and right and left
rotation.
The following orthopedic tests were positive, correlating to
patient's subjective complaints: Cervical Compression. Hyper-
e~tension Compression, Maximum Foramina Encroachment Test, and
O'Donahue's Maneuver. The left lateral neck flexors test weak
upon manual testing.
There was evidence of muscle spasm at the following locations:
Cl-C2, C5-C7, Tl-T4, and L4-L5.
The spinal X-rays revealed vertebral subluxations at C2, T4, And
a wedged disk at T4-T5, T7-T8, and L2-L3 spinal level, which are
areas of direct nerve supply to patient's areas of chief
cOlllplaints.
The spinal X-rays also revealed a Cervical Kyphosis, decreased
disc space between C7-Tl, spinal degeneration of C4, C5, C7 and
Tl; and mild scoliosis of lumbar and thoracic spine. Patient is
to bring in Cervical stress views taken at her medical doctor'
office for analysis.
ASSESSMENT:
Based on my current exam findings, it is my opinion to a
reasonable degree of 'medical certainty that Ms. Dence's left neck
pain. left shoulder pain, left arm pain. left upper back pain,
mid back pain. and headaches are directly related to injuries due
to the motor vehicle accident of 8-13-93.
DIAGNOSIS:
Injuries due to motor vehicle accident of 8-13-93, resulting in
Cervical hyperflexion/ hyperextension injury, and brachial
neuralgia. Complicated by vertebral subluxation complex of the
cervical and thoracic spine; and spinal degeneration.
PREVIOUS HISTORY
The patient was a previous patient at this clinic. She was under
active care from 1-26-93 to 3-24-93, for right neck, right
shoulder, and right upper back pain. We last saw the patient for
thia condition on 4-9-93, and at that time she had no complaints.
The patient stated she had no problems prior to her accident on
8-13-93.
It is my opinion that Ms. Dence's current condition is due to the
accident which occurred on 8-13-93. I base this on the fact that
now her pin is concentrated on the left side of her necK whereas;
previously it was on the right side; and the fact that the X-rays
taKen after the accident revealed structural changes when we
compared them to previous X-rays.
PROGNOSIS:
It is my opinion based upon a reasonable degree of medical
certainty and having treated and observed this case for the past
2 1/2 years that Ms. Dence's neck and shoulder problems are now
permanent. It is also my opinion that this patient will require
chiropractic care and therapy for an indefinite period of future
time which does afford her temporary relief. Ms. Dence does not
wish to taKe pain pills on an ongoing basis due to possible
damage to stomach, liver, and kidneys. The frequency of future
visits will be 1-4 times per month at a cost of approximately
$50.00 per visit.
We have seen Ms. Dence a total of 77 times since she consulted us
for her injuries on 14 August 1993. We have provided her with
Chiropractic spinal adjustments, localized intersegmental
traction; electrical muscle stimulation and hot packs. We have
done spinal X-rays on 3 separate occasions to document changes in
Ms. Dence's condition. We have also advised her concerning home
exercises and activities of daily living.
~ () ~t>,~
:
,
~ IX'.) '-
.... In r-:;
,- <
Q
~S! - , -
. , " -'..
A '.
- . -.
~ J
.
C C.., t~>
6~t: ('.J .-
q::,e. Cl ~....!
LJ , : ..:;...
I" ~ ,,-
LO. U> 'J
C' c~ U
\,,,,-,.'t::'f;
"'-
,~:,,,':1 ,';;;f<"';'~
'iJ:~~
,:.,17 ~.1'
,~
t., ;i~'oMl~t'
~ '.'," 1
,
.~
.
;,.";'
,-'''~'~,
MARSHAll. DENNF.HEY, WARNER
COlEMAN 8 GoGGIN
ICO P!NI91'J.EEt 4rn R.CCll
1!Q.llOXlIlI
HAJWSIIUlO. f'ENNS'l1.VANIA 1710S.(l1lD)
":~~-",~:~~, ;':;#~;":'.~,:~;
1" -;0.., I;) U ,ju~'""
.1: ,,',. 'I .
\ "JI;~; :~' I, '1 7 " ' .
/~...~,_~\,L .;, 1.... .;.J t..
,~ f:::'f\...,../ ,'r,~' ;" - ~
......~... ,):'7)(,-1.,...._,_ _~~H.'_'.
MARSHAll. DEIIIIEHEY. WARNER
COI1MAN . GOGGIN
100 PINE SlREEl
SUI1E 400
P,O, BOX 803
tlARRISBURG. PA 11108+0803
."._...^,.."..-._.''''~''''''__~ _.....~_~"_h.._.___
- ~1i" :t- J ~-~-.- --r<ri.,
"'
\
I
.
, .
.
ir
..
.
f>'
,
.
.
J
,i
\
.
..
,
..
-~--
. .
Fl:I} 2 G 1996 tr
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PATRICIA J. DENCE and
DAVID DENCE,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PI.AINTIFFS
NO. 94-5556 CIVIL TERM
v,
THOMAS R. ROTH and
T &: L AUTO SALES,
DEFENDAN'fS
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
AND NOW, this
o R D E R
day of
, 1996, upon
consideration of the Motion in Limine of Defendants, and any
response thereto, it ie hereby ORDERED, ADJUDICATED, and DECREED
that the Motion is granted, and Thomas A. Boch is precluded from
testifying as to portions of his expert report of January 31, 1996
regarding medical certainty, orthopedic tests, x-ray results and
evaluations, and medication.
BY THE COURT I
(J.)
0,
\.
"-
"
"<,,, ".>.-., '.',".--'","~
MAR5HAu, DENNEHEY, WARNER
COLEMAN 0 GoccIN
ICO PINIl mE.IT, 4nt 1tLx.
ro. ...u
W.JlA "'-1 ....-n.'IAHlA I1IC&(a1)
J , .-.;..
-_J'~;'_... ;:.;,.,..,.
J;""';.:', 'J~;: "_
/.:' (',". ~
\... '. -,.. ~;
\.::J -
,r:- r- ,..., _~;'., < \ 1,\_
I'
'.
I:
I'
_. .,.1 ~
11
Greqory R. Reed, Eaquire
2423 North Third street
Harriaburq, PA 17110
., ,-",'-,.,
'-''''''''~''-.-
. .~,.",-"_.._._._--.~~-~---,.---
._,lIill~-',i;41;ma4lt. "j~1 ,';'-' 1
~
.
"
..
",
,
'"
.
.
,
.
~
----
'.
..
FEn 26 1OO81J'
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PATRICIA J. DENCE and
DAVID DENCE,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PLAINTIFFS
NO. 94-5556 CIVIL TERM
v.
THOMAS R. ROTH and
T & L AUTO SALES,
DEFENDANTS
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORDER
AND NOW, this
day of
, 1996, upon
consideration of the Motion in Limine of Defendants, and any
response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDICATED, and DECREED
that the Motion is granted, and Thomas A. Boch is precluded from
testifying as to portions of his expert report of January 31, 1996
regarding medical certainty, orthopedic tests, x-ray results and
evaluations, and medication.
BY THE COURT I
(J. )
<
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PATRICIA J. DENCE and
DAVID DENCE,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PLAINTIFFS
NO. 94-5556 CIVIL TERM
v.
THOMAS R. ROTH and
T " L AUTO SALES,
DEFENDANTS
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
MOTION IN LIMINE OP DBPENDANTS.
RBGARDING THB BXPBRT RBPORT OP THOMAS A. BOCK
Defendants hereby move this Honorable Court to enter the
proposed Order by which Thomas A. Boch would be precluded from
testifying as to certain portions of his expert report, at trial,
and in support thereof aver as follows:
1. Plaintiff initiated this suit against Defendants in
this Honorable Court, arising out of a motor vehicle accident
which occurred on August 13, 1993 in Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania,
2. On or about February 1, 1996, Plaintiff's counsel
served counsel for Defendante with a copy of an expert report,
from Thomas A. Boch, a chiropractor, as a supplement to
Defendants' previously propounded expert interrogatories. (A true
and correct copy of such report ie attached hereto as Exhibit
"A") .
~
), Thomas A, Boch is a chiropractor. not a medical doctor,
a radiologist, or an orthopedic doctor,
4. In his report, Mr. Boch makes assertions such as having
an opinion to a "reasonable degree of medical certainty."
5, Mr. Boch should be barred from testifying to such a
standard, as he ie not a medical doctor.
6. Mr. Boch also makes references to orthopedic tests,
which should be barred, as he is not an orthopaedic doctor.
7. Mr. Boch also makes assertions based on his apparent
review of x-ray of Plaintiff, Patricia Dence.
8, Mr. Boch is not a radiologist. or an
orthopaedic/medical doctor, and as such is not qualified to read
x-rays.
9. Mr, Boch cannot also testify as to Plaintiff's need for
medicine or his opinion as to whether or not she should take
medication. due to the fact that Mr. Boch cannot prescribe
medicine.
WHEREPORE, Defendants hereby request that thie Honorable
Court enter the proposed Order, by which Thomas A. Boch would be
-2-
.;
precluded from testifying at the trial of thie matter regarding
any of the issues set forth above.
MARSHALL, DBNNEHBY, WARNER,
COLEMAN & GOGGIN
BY:
L'iNN
100
P.O. Box 803
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0803
I,D. 66887
(717) 232-4641
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1996
-3-
-(j
HOCH CHlROPRACI1C CUNIC
PATIENT: PATTI DENCE
323 YOlk RoMl
Coriisle. PA 17013
T<iephone: 17171243-6396
Fa.; (717) 2U6444
DATE: 24 JAN 96
SUBJECTIVE:
Patient's entrance complaints were left neck pain, pain of the
left shoulder and upper back. mid back pain, headaches, and pain
radiating into left arm. After the entrance date, the patient
began to eaperience lower back pain.
These symptoms are aggravated by moving her head and are relieved
by a neck brace.
These symptoms have been present for 12 days.
A. A. SYMPTOMS:
Symptoms started on 8-13-93, when the patient was involved in a
motor vehicle accident. On that date the patient was driving a
car which was hit by another vehicle which ran though a red
light.
OBJECTIVE:
There was tenderness to palpation in the paravertebral muscles at
the levels of C1-C7, and Tl-T4.
There was limited range of motion of the Cervical spine during
flexion, right and left lateral fleaion, and right and left
rotation.
The following orthopedic tests were positive, correlating to
patient's subjective complaints: Cervical Compression, Hyper-
extension Compression, Maximum Foramina Encroachment Test, and
O'Donahue's Maneuver. The left lateral neck flexors test weak
upon manual testing.
There was evidence of muscle spasm at the following locations:
Cl-C2, C5-C7, Tl-T4, and L4-L5.
The spinal X-rays revealed vertebral subluxations at C2, T4, And
a wedged disk at T4-T5, T7-T8, and L2-L3 spinal level, which are
areas of direct nerve supply to patient's areas of chief
complaints.
The spinal X-rays also revealed a Cervical Kyphosis, decreased
disc space between C7-Tl, spinal degeneration of C4, C5, C7 and
Tl; and mild scoliosis of lumbar and thoracic spine. Patient is
to bring in Cervical stress views taken at her medical doctor'
office for analysis.
.. ~ESSMENT:
Based on my current exam findings, it is my opinion to a
reasonable degree of medical certainty that Ms. Dence's left neck
pain, left shoulder pain, left arm pain, left upper back pain,
mid back pain, and headaches are directly related to injuries due
to the motor vehicle accident of 8-1]-93.
DIAGNOSIS:
Injuries due to motor vehicle accident of 8-13-9], resulting in
Cervical hyperflexion/ hyperextension injury, and brachial
neuralgia. Complicated by vertebral subluxation complex of the
cervical and thoracic spine; and spinal degeneration.
PREVIOUS HISTORY
The patient was a previous patient at this clinic. She was under
active care from 1-26-9] to 3-24-93, tor right neck, right
shoulder, and right upper back pain. We last saw the patient for
this condition on 4-9-93, and at that time she had no complaints.
The patient stated she had no problems prior to her accident on
8-13-93,
It is my opinion that Hs. Dence's current condition is due to the
accident which occurred on 8-13-93. I base this on the fact that
now her pin is concentrated on the left side of her neck whereas;
previously it was on the right side; and the tact that the X-rays
taken after the accident revealed structural changes when we
compared them to previous X-rays.
PROGNOSIS:
It is my opinion based upon a reasonable degree of medical
certainty and having treated and observed this case for the past
2 1/2 years that Hs. Dence's neck and shoulder problems are now
permanent. It is also my opinion that this patient will require
chiropractic care and therapy for an indefinite period of future
time which does afford her temporary relief. Ms. Dance does not
wish to take pain pills on an ongoing basis due to possible
damage to stomach, liver, and kidneys. The frequency of future
visits will be 1-4 times per month at a cost of apprOXimately
$50.00 per visit.
We have seen Ms. Dence a total of 77 times since she consulted us
for her injuries on 14 August 1993. We have provided her with
Chiropractic spinal adjustments, localized intersegmental
traction; electrical muscle stimulation and hot packs. We have
done spinal X-rays on 3 separate occasions to document changes in
Ms. Dence's condition. We have also advised her concerning home
exercises and activities of daily living.
~() ~1;>f-.
"
e,
~ :l j ~n 0
~ ~
~
i. ~I E ~Ifi'
11 ll. 11 ,~ H
~ . III! ;;!~
@t~ I >
~~ r:l;~~
!;~;~ .
e~
P!~ 1m
~~ ~~
~ 2 ~
- >.
-- ..
... . .
~, .
, ,
. . FEB2.1 ~
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS or CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
PATRICIA J. DINCI and
DAVID DINC&:,
I CIVIL ACTION - LAW
I
Plaintiffs
.
.
v.
I
I NO. 94-55515
.
.
THOMAS R. ROTH and
T , L AUTO SAL&:S,
Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
~ORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO
MOTION IN LIMINE OF DEFENDANTS REGARDING THE
EXPERT REPORT or THOMAS A. BOCH
Dr. Thomas A. Boch's Curriculum Vitae is attached hereto,
marked Exhibit "1" and incorporated herein by reference. He has
practiced chiropractic medicine for almost 30 years. He will
testify that he has been recognized as an expert in the field of
chiropractic medicine by the Court of C0mmon Pleas of Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania as well as by other trial courts.
Plaintiffs understand that Defendants Motion goes to the
breadth of Dr. Boch's testimony. Plaintiffs' firmly believe that
limitations, if any, on the breadth of Dr. Boch's testimony can
only ruled upon and/or made by the trial judge following Dr.
Boch's qualification testimony.
Nevertheless, it is anticipated that Dr. Bach will testify
that he has been trained in the reading of X-rays, that reading
X-rays is part of the licensing process for a chiropractor in
Pennsylvania, that he has read X-rays as an integral part of his
practice of about 30 years, and that he has been trained and
educated in a system of health care involving the spinal column,
.
skeletal system and nervous system. Dr. Boch will readily
acknowledge that his opinions are expressed as a doctor of
chiropractic medicine.
?laintiffs verily believe that Defendants' Motion is
premature and ultimately goes to the weight of Dr. Boch's
testimony and not the substance of his testimony.
Date:
~~//f'f"4>
r
Grego R. Ree , Esqu re
Attorney for Plaintiff
2423 North Third street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-0434
Attorney I.D. No. 23705
.
~
A
~
~
JJLTHE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS or CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
PATRICIA J. DENCE and
DAVID DINC!,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Plaintiffs
v.
NO. ~4-5556
THOMAS R. ROTH and
T , L AUTO SALES,
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
MEMORANDUM IN RESPONSE TO
MOTION IN LIMINE or DEFENDANTS REGARDING THE
EXPERT REPORT OF THOMAS A. BOCH
Dr. Thomas A. Boch's Curriculum Vitae is attached hereto,
marked Exhibit "1" and incorporated herein by reference. He has
practiced chiropractic medicine for almost 30 years. He will
testify that he has been recognized as an expert in the field of
chiropractic medicine by the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania as well as by other trial courts.
Plaintiffs understand that Defendants Motion goes to the
breadth of Dr. Boch's testimony. Plaintiffs' firmly believe that
limitations, if any, on the breadth of Dr. Boch's testimony can
only ruled upon and/or made by the trial judge following Dr.
Boch's qualification testi~ony.
Nevertheless, it is anticipated that Dr. Boch will testify
that he has been trained in the reading of X-rays, that reading
X-rays is part of the licensing process for a chiropractor in
Pennsylvania, that he has read X-rays as an integral part of his
practice of about 30 years, and that he has been trained and
educated in a system of health care involving the spinal column,
-
skeletal system and nervous system. Dr. Boch will readily
acknowledge that his opinions are expressed as a doctor of
chiropractic medicine.
Plaintiffs verily believe that Defendants' Motion is
premature and ultimately goes to the weight of Dr. Boch's
testimony and not the substance of his testimony.
Date:
~~,./Pf'~
Grego R. Ree , Esqu re
Attorney for Plaintiff
2423 North Third street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-0434
Attorney I.D. No. 23705
.
-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this ~ay of February, 1996, I, Gregory R.
Reed, Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiff, do hereby certify that I
have served by first class mail, a copy of the attached
Memorandum In Response To Motion In Limine Of Defendants
Regarding the Expert Report Of Thomas A. Boch, this day to the
followinq address:
Lynn F. Reutelhuber, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner
Coleman & Goggin
100 Pin~ street, 4th Floor
P.O. Box 803
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0803
4~"
Attorney for Plaintiff
2423 North Third street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110
(717) 238-0434
Attorney 1.0. 23705
"
'IM ij,a CourT or C=mmO;1 ?ls::s of C:.Ji.::':::.:!t'i::nd C::r.:~~YI Panr:syl'lcnio
Patricia J. Dence and David Dence
'liS.
Thomas R.. Roth
94-5556 Civil
:~--
~o.
~ow,
September 29
'9 94 y r.",--::,,~y-=~ 0'::' ,..........".".."y """ CO'''''''-v :\-' ..
. ----. .... ....__.. _ ........_~__~,4J \.-."1.. _. ..-.., .0
h~ d..'?lC::: C:: Sh='ii 01
Cambria
Cwu=.rr :0 :::e::".1tC .:";4 ',V:::,
=::. =-:,uc:cu =e!:1r :=.:!: :1C == ~ =ci ::..sk of == ;11..:_=.
:--;P"g~~L..__ -j'~4
I~ -,- _-t".~
She..~ at C:.:.=u'.=ci COWlrr. :':1.
.
ASdavit or Ser-n=
~ow,
Oct. 14.
!~ 94
1: 30 o'clc~
I'
p ~L s::,.-d
..
. -.
== ~....:"
Comolaint
~poa ThomaR R.Rnth
1~ 211 Lion St...Johnetown.Cambria countv.Pa.
';y::u:cii:s;:o
Pat Roth. his wifp
I.
c::pr ol == ::Jri;-:...!'!I
Comolaint
...
1Dd -~,.;. Cowu :0 hpr
My costs paid by neumberland Co,
. ,.
:.::.: .:::::.t=~ :..~::=:t.
So amw~
""" 0 r.!::!"-cfd
Co......,., ?..
SWCr:1 me! mesc-:ix:i be:~ J
== ::::.sd 7 T 1:sy 01 (jlJ It. {,:f" .
COSTS
~Y1CZ IR nn S
~au:AGE 11 nn
A.::IDA'Yu 6.00
!9?tj
/
, (/ -~ ' ,
Ik/(lriC'_ .l, /,('., 1!C1"'_'~
~:'/<.-!l_tt;. .l./l t:-r-: < .
. <J
, 37,00
r_ '"-"
'In Tn:) Court ci C.:mmO;1 ?l,;::s of C;.Jr.;:..~,,::,i::nd c;.:;W-;-;-;YI ?anr:syl'l::r:i::
Patricia J. Dence and David dence
"Ii's.
T & L Auto Sales
:-fo.
94-5556 Civil
:?-
:-iow.
Sept, 29
~9~ 1. s:~~; 0-; c~a~..!..A.'m COt,~-=Y. ?~ cia
l:=-~ cL::u= = .ra::'..:i oi
Cambria
~ty :::t ::=-..U: .~i. 'tV:::.
:.=s ":=?u::iou =:i:1c -....:. u ~ ~ ~-d :Z..sk of == ::n,,:_::i'.
~K-r~:f~
r
She.~ at C==:u! Ii CJW1lT. ?:l.
Affidavit or Se:'"7ic:=
:-iow,
Oct. 14.
!9 94
1:45 o'.;lea" p ~c. 1:-:ri
:-
. .-
:= wi'~;" Comolaint
~paa ~ T & L Auto Sales
It 917 Fronheiser St. ,Johnstown,Cambria county,pa.
':y:.ccl:ti:o
Thomas Roth. the owner
t.
~ oi = :J:-:~"."
Complaint
...
md -~':. i::.awa :0
him
, .
:.::.:.-::L
:.:.: ':::1t::::S
So~
~ Ch..&Luo
eo.....,. ~
3_1':1 md sai:sc-.l:cd bel{ J'
''1 ,II I'll I'
=::'::;'~C3?oi : ( (J ."..1
'1 !jr IAu' 1-1 7;', 1.,;}'1''''-'
'"
/", f'_.il_r;:-<rl~, , '-'.T;' , '1'" .
, ~..)
f_.----'
COSTS
::,c...-~ 'VIC::::
~lIL.!.-\GZ
.U:UJAVrr
.s
19'11f
s
. .
. .
IN TKI COURT or COMMON PLEAS
CUMBIRLAND COtlNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA
PATRICIA J. DINCI and
DAVID DINCB,
I
I
PLAINTIrFS.
.
I
I
THons R. ROTH and .
T . L AUTO SALES, .
DEFENDANTS.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 94-5556 CIVIL TBRM
v.
JURY TRIAL DBMANDBD
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
1. Denied. After reasonable investigation and inquiry,
Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of these allegations and accordingly, the
same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Denied. After reasonable investigation and inquiry,
Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of these allegations and accordingly, the
same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
5. Denied. After reasonable investigation and inquiry,
Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of these allegations and accordingly, the
same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
6. Denied. After reasonable investigation and inquiry,
Answering Defendants are without information sufficient to form a
. .
. .
belief as to the truth of these allegations and accordingly, the
same are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
7. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute
conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required
and accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
COUNT I.
PATRICIA J. DBNCE AND DAVID DBNCE v.
THOMAS R. ROTH
8. Answering Defendants incorporate by reference their
responses to paragraphs 1 through 7 above as if fully set forth
at length herein.
9. Denied. Answering Defendant, Thomas R. Roth, denies all
allegations of negligence as set forth in this paragraph,
together with its sunparts (a) through (h). To the contrary,
Defendant Roth acted at all times relevant to the material
allegations set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint with reasonable
care under the ci~cumstances.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Thomas R. Roth, demands
judgment in his favor and against Plaintiffs, together with
interest, costs and attorney's fees.
-2-
. .
. .
COUNT II.
PATRICIA J. DINCE AND DAVID DINCB v.
T . L AUTO SALES
10. Answering Defendants incorporate by reference their
responses to paragraphs 1 through 9 above as if fully set forth
at length herein.
11. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute
conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required
and accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
12. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute
conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required
and accordingly, the same are denied and strlct proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, T & L Auto Sales, demands
judgment in his favor and against Plaintiffs, together with
interest, costs and attorney's fees.
CLAIM I.
13. Answering Defendants incorporate by reference their
responses to paragraphs 1 through 12 above as if fully set forth
at length herein.
14. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph and its
subparts constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive
pleading is required and accordingly, the same are denied and
strict proof thereof is demanded at trial.
-3-
.
.
15. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute
conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required
and accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
16. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph con~titute
conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required
and accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
17. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute
conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required
and accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
18. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute
conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required
and accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
19. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute
conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required
and accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
20. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute
conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required
and accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
21. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute
conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required
-4-
. .
. . .
and accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
WHBRBrORI, Answering Defendants demand judgment in their
favor and against Plaintiffs, together with interest, costs and
attorney's fees.
CLAIM II.
CONSORTIUM
22. Answering Defendants incorporate by reference their
responses to paragraphs 1 through 21 above as if fully set forth
at length herein.
23. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute
conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required
and accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
24. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute
conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required
and accordingly, the same are denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial.
WHERBPORE. Answering Defendants demand judgment in their
favor and against Plaintiffs, together with interest, costs and
attorney's fees.
NEW MATTER DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFFS
25. Plaintiffs have failed to state causes of action upon
which relief can be granted.
-5-
~
,
. .
. . .
26. Plaintiff's causes of action are barred and/or li~ited
by the applicable provisions of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle
Financial Responsibility Law.
27. Plaintiff's causes of action are barred and/or limited
by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Statute and/or any
other applicable comparative negligence statute,
28. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the applicable statute
of limitations.
29. Plaintiff's injuries, if any, were caused in whole or
in part by third-parties over whom Answering Defendants had no
control nor right of control.
30. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the
doctrine of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel.
31. Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited by the
applicable provisions of the Pennsylvania Worker's Compensation
Statute.
32. Plaintiff, David Dence's claims are derivative in
nature and are barred under the circumstances as a matter of law.
WHEREFORE, Defendants, Thomas R. Roth and T & L Auto Sales,
demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiffs, together
with interest, costs and attorney's fees.
-6-
. .
VBRIrICATION
The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the
foregoing ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT are
based upon information which has been furnished to counsel by me
and information which has been gathered by counsel in the
preparation of the defense of this lawsuit. The language of the
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT is that of
counsel and not my own. I have read the ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER
TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT and to the extent that it is based upon
information which I have given to counsel, it is true and correct
to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the
extent that the contents of the ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO
PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT is that of counsel. I have relied upon my
counsel in making this verification. The undersigned also
understands that the statements therein are made subject to the
penalties of 18 Pa.R.C.P. 22s2(d) C.S. Section 4904, relating to
unsworn falsification to authorities.
DATE:
~~ ~ /k~Y
o . TH '
TITLE:
. .
CBRTIrICATB or SIRVICB
I, Robin Kae Nelson. an employee of Marshall, Dennehey,
Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this IC~
day of November, 1994, served a copy of the foregoing document
via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid as follows:
Gregory R. Reed, Esquire
2423 North Third Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
ATTORNBY rOR PLAINTIrrS
~I<~
BIN KAE NELSON
\.t-,,)
-
..
.,.. "'1
_ -.J
...,,,
~~J
J
~
~ ~\~
:Po ~
" ..
~
eJ; ,....
. ....~.
s: .-" .....,
0- .-' I
<":).1.--'
N ,_..:~}'_.'4
N '0-_ -r../~'
-:r . :i :"
-,7.
<
n"
c-> :.--
.... ,. ",
~ --.-
~
f!j
~ of! H
~
!.~ I :3 0
...
...
~ Po. ~ '8 I ..p.
f!j~ I ~ .
:> ~
~8~ ~
ei U~li
~Iq
.
p:;
~ ~2~ ~~ ;~ eel
~~
.1
"
., .
. - .
IN TNI COURT or COMMON PLEAS or CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PATRICIA J. DINCZ and
DAVID DZNCE,
P1a!ntiff8
v.
NO. qll. ~'':i 5"(, ~ I.L.U<->
THOMAS R. ROTH and
T , L AUTO SALES,
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE TO DEFEND AND CLAIM RIGHTS
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,
bI entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and
f ling 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 cou~t without further notice for any
money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief
requested by the Defendant. You may lose money or property or
other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAItE 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
4th Fl., Cumberland county Courthouse
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 240-6100
NOTICIA
Le han demaandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quieie
defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguientes,
usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la
demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia
escrita 0 en persona 0 por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma
escrita sus de fens as 0 sus objections alas demandas en contra de
su persona. Sea ayisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte
tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo
aviso 0 notificacion y port cualquier queja 0 alivio que es pedido
en 1a peticion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero 0 sus
propiedades 0 otros derechos importantes para usted.
LLIVB ISTA DIMANDA A tIN ABOGADO INMEDIATAMlNTI. SI NO TUNE
ABOGADO 0 BI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SIVICIO,
VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION BE
ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUIDE CONSEGUIR
ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
court Administrator
4th Fl., Cumberland county Courthouse
Carlisle, pennsylvania 17013
(717) 240-6100
Date:
,,~
~. , ~A':~ :;.{.,1Y1 Y
,. f f
A //)V)
ji 't/ t..:/~../
Gregory R. Reed, Esqu1re
2423 North Third street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-0434
Attorney I.D. No. 23705
IN THI COURT or COMMON PLEAS or CUMBIRLAND COUNTY. PINNSYLVANIA
PATRICIA J. DINCB and I CIVIL ACTION - LAW
DAVID DINCI, I
Plaintiff. I
I
V. I NO.
I
THONAS R. ROTH and I
T , L AUTO SALES, I
Defendant. I JURY TRIAL DEMANDID
COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, the Plaintiffs, PATRICIA J. DENCE and DAVID
DENCE, by and through their attorney, Gregory R. Reed and for
thtiir causes of action allege:
1. Plaintiffs, PATRICIA J. DENCE and DAVID DENCE, are adult
individuals, residing at 20 Heather Drive, Carlisle, Pennsylvania
17013.
2. Defendant THOMAS R. ROTH, is nn adult individual,
residing at 211 Lion Street, Johnstown, Pennsylvania 15904.
3. Defendant, T & L AUTO SALES, is a business located at
619 Horner Street, Johnstown, Pennsylvania 15902.
4. The facts and occurrences hereinafter related took place
on or about August 13, 1993, at the intersection of Harrisburg
Pike and Cavalry Road, North Middleton Township, Cumberland
County, Pennsylv~nia.
5. At that time and place, Plaintiff, PATRICIA J. DENCE,
was the operator of a 1993 Pontiac Grand Am and was turning north
onto Harrisburg Pike from Cavalry Road with a steady green
traffic light.
6. At that time T & L AUTO SALES was the owner of a 1991
Dodge Dynasty and Defendant THOMAS R. ROTH was the driver of said
vehicle. Defendant THOMAS R. ROTH was traveling south on the
Harrisburg Pike, as he approached the intersection of cavalry
Road and failed to stop for a steady red light.
7. At that time and place the vehicle operated by Defendant
ROTH was caused or allowed to crash into the left rear of
Plaintiff PATRICIA J. DENCE's vehicle.
COUNT I
PATRICIA J. DCNCI and DAVID DENCI v.
THOMAS R. ROTH
8. paragraphs 1 through 7 of this Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length.
9. The aforesaid collision and all the herein mentioned
injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff, PATRICIA J. DENCE
are the direct result of the negligence, carelessness and
recklessness of Defendant, THOMAS R. ROTH as follows:
(a) In failing to keep alert and maintain a proper
lookout for the presence of other motor vehicles
on the highway;
(b) In failing to keep proper and adequate control
over his vehicle;
(c) In failing to stop for a red light;
(d) In failing to exercise the high degree of care
required at an intersection and in failing to
maintain a proper lookout for traffic at said
intersection;
In failing to yield the right-of-way to the
Dence vehicle;
In failing to apply his brakes in time to
avoid striking the Plaintiff's vehicle;
Failing to take measures to avoid striking
the Plaintiff's vehicle;
In driving his vehicle in a reckless manner and
with careless disregard for the rights and safsty
of others and in otherwise operating her vehicle
upon the highway in a manner endangering persons
and property and in violation of the motor vehicle
code of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against THOMAS R. ROTH
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional requirement for
compulsory arbitration in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
COUNT II
PATRICIA J. DENC! and DAVID DENCE v.
T , L AUTO SALES
10. Paragraphs 1 through 9 of this Complaint are
incorporated hereby by reference as though set forth at length.
11. At the time of the aforesaid accident Defendant T & L
AUTO SALES knew or should have known that Defendant ROTH was
incapable of driving a vehicle in a careful, responsible and non-
negligent manner.
12. At the time of the aforesaid accident Defendant ROTH was
the agent, employee, servant or workman of Defenda.nt T & L AUTO
SALES and was driving said vehicle in said capacity.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against T & L AUTO
SALES in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional requirement
tor compulsory arbitration in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
CLAIM I
13. Paragraphs 1 through 12 ot this complaint are
incorporated herein by reference as though set forth at length.
14. As a result of the aforesaid collision, Plaintiff,
PATRICIA J. DENCE, was thrown and jostled about, thereby
sustaining painful, permanent, severe and disabling injuries and
serious impairment of function including, but not to limited to,
the following:
(a) multiple intersegmental disrelationships
of vertebral spinal motor units;
(b) hyperextension-hyperflexion (whiplash) type
injury, of the cervical spine;
(c) sprain/strain of the cervical spine,
traumatically induced, associated with
radicular syndrome;
(d) Multiple intersegmental vertebral spinal
disrelationships (of motor units), with
accompanying paraspinal myospasm and
neuromyalgia;
(e) Lumbar radiculitis presenting as radiating
pain, to the buttocks and legs, via the
lumbosacral plexus;
(t) Soft tissue strain; and
(g) Pain in the left side of her upper back,
neck, and trapezius and left shoulder and
arm.
15. Plaintiff, PATRICIA J. DENCE, has been advised and
therefore avers that the aforesaid injuries are permanent in
nature, and claim is made therefore.
16. By reason of the aforesaid injuries sustained by
plaintiff, PATRICIA J. DENCE, she was forced to incur liability
for medical treatment, medicine, physical therapy, and similar
miscellaneous expenses in and about an effort to restore herself
to health; and because of the nature of said injuries she is
advised, and therefore avers, that she will be forced to incur
similar expenses in the future, and claim is made therefore.
17. As a result of said injuries Plaintiff, PATRICIA J.
DENCE, has undergone and in the future will undergo great mental
and physical pain and suffering, great inconvenience in carrying
out her daily activities, loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment
and claim is made therefore.
18. As a result of the said injuries, Plaintiff, PATRICIA J.
DENCE, has been, and in the future will be subject to great
humiliation and embarrassment, and claim is made therefore.
19. As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff, PATRICIA J.
DENCE, has sustained a lOSR of earnings and claim is made
therefore.
20. As a result of said injuries, Plaintiff, PATRICIA J.
DENCE, has sustained a permanent impairment of earning power and
earning capacity, and claim is made therefore.
21. The injuries sustained by PATRICIA DENCE are such that
she is permitted to file suit pursuant to 75 Pa. C.S.A. 11705 in
that PATRICIA J. DENCE sustained serious bodily injury.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, PATRICIA DENCE, demands judgment
against the Defendants THOMAS R. ROTH and T & L AUTO SALES in an
amount in excess of the jurisdictional amount requiring
compulsory arbitration in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
CLAIM II - CONSORTIUM
22. Paragraphs 1 through 21 of this Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth
herein.
23. As a result of the aforesaid injuries sustained by his
wife, PATRICIA DENCE, Plaintiff DAVID DENCE has been made to
incur liability for his wife's medical treatment, medicine,
physical therapy, and similar miscellaneous expenses in and about
an effort to restore his wife to health, and because of the
nature of said serious injuries he has been advised and therefore
avers, that he will be forced to incur similar expenses in the
future, and claim is made therefore.
24. As a result of the aforesaid injuries sustained by his
wife, PATRICIA DENCE, resulting from the aforesaid negligence of
the Defendants, Plaintiff DAVID DENCE has been deprived of the
companionship, comfort, and society of his wife and has been
advised that he will be deprived of the same in the future, and
claim is made therefore.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, DAVID DENCE, demands judgment against
the Defendants THOMAS R. ROTH and T & L AUTO SALES in an amount
We, Patricia J. Dence and David Dence, hereby verify that
the statements made in the attached complaint are true and
correct to the best of our personal knowledgs or information and
belief. We understand that if false statements are made herein
we are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.B. 14904 relating to
unsworn falsification to authorities.
~j)lp 0\ hr(' 2~ '?r
Da e'
-::::::S-"4n, bff :J t. '1(1
Oats I . ,.
~?
a Dence ~
-,.
'.J)
:7t
~:: ~y.
(:._ .' ...1
,
~ ,,>..-'::;~
Ii," .
:~~ ,. ._. _~ ...1
, ",
~
- ,
i....~.j , .L
,-
,:") - ,.,
::;;.:;: .-.-
~
~ ~
!.~ ~ P
i~a~~ e~
~ ~;~ ~~
2S ~j p.;~
-. .
'I
t
; im~
~~
~~
o
...
...
.llil
!iel~
~I~~C
~I
~
~i
I~
Po.
.. .
- . .
IN THI COURT or COMMON PLEAS or CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
PATRICIA J. DENCI and I
DAVID DENCE, I
Plaintiffs I
I
V. I
I
THOMAS R. ROTH and I
T , L AU'l'O SALES,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 94-5556
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO N~ MATTER
25. specifically denied. Furthermor~, Defendants'
allegations are conclusions of law to which no responsive
pleading is required.
26. Specifically denied. Furthermore, Defendants'
allegations are conclusions of law to which no responsive
pleading is required.
27. Specifically denied. Furthermore, Defendants'
allegations are conclusions of law to which no rssponsive
pleading is required.
28. specifically denied. Furthermore, Defendants'
allegations are conclusions of law to which no responsive
pleading is required.
29. Specifically denied. Furthermore, Defendants'
allegations are conclusions of law to which no responsive
pleading is required.
30. Specifically denied. Furthermore, Defendants'
allegations are conclusions of law to which no responsive
31. Specifically denied. Furthermore, Dsfendants'
allegations are conclusions of law to which no responsive
pleading is required.
32. Specifically denied. Furthermore, Defendants'
allegations are conclusions of law to which no responsive
pleading is required.
Date: ~/S,If"V
, /
~gz()
Grego . Reed, Esquire
Attorney for Plaintiffs
2423 North Third Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-0434
Attorney I.D. No. 23705
"
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this ~ay of Novermbe~, 1994, I, Gregory R.
Reed, Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiffs, do hereby certify that I
have served by first class mail, a copy of the attached
Plaintiffs' Reply to New Matter this day to the following
address:
Lynn F. Reutelhuber, Esquire
Marshall, Dennehey, Warner
Coleman & Goggin
100 Pine street, 4th Floor
P.O. Box S03
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0803
~&t~ulre
2423 North Third street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110
(717) 238-0434
Attorney I.D. 23705
Ii
Ln
~ ..
=c:
C>._
r... ~_. I
N'
";"")
i:-"
''''
-
~ u ,_
1.:
iL of! j 0
~ ...
...
II t:; ::
~ ~I~!~
!f~d ~ Po.
i ::: ~ . ii~l~
~~
g~ ~ ~. E
!I!!~ e~ e:::1
~~ ~~H
~ ii!
. ~
~~ ~~ I~b
~ ~2~
Po.~
IN THI COURT or COMMON PLEAS or CUMBKRLlUfD COlDl'fY. PDlNSYLVARIA
PATRICIA J. DINCI and
DAVID DUCI,
Plaintiff8
I CIVIL ACTION - LAW
I
I
I
I NO. '.-5556 CIVIL TraM
I
I
I
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
v.
THOMAS R. ROTH and
T , L AUTO SALKS,
Defendant.
OBJECTIONS TO
REQUEST rOR PRODUCTION or DOCUMENTS
I SIT II}
NOW COMES, Plaintiffs, PATRICIA J. DENCE and DAVID DF~CE, by
and through their attorney, Gregory R. Reed, and objects to
Defendants' Request For Production Of Documents (Sst II) as
follows:
1. Plaintiffs have formally stated their intention to make
no claim for loss of earnings or diminished earning capacity and
therefore this Request falls outside the scope of discovery.
2. Plaintiffs have formally stated their intention to make
no claim for loss of earnings or diminished earning capacity and
therefore this Request falls outside the scope of discovery.
D.te, ~"?S;&1> "~"'Uln
Attorney tor Plaintiffs
2423 North Third Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 23S-0434
Attorney I,D. No. 23705
~RAfCTPE FOR L1STP./G C.~SE FOR TRI.~L
(~luSl be rypewrillen Jnd submilteu in duplicJte I
TO THE PROTIlOL'iOHRY OF CL'~IBERL.-\.'1D ccn::-iTY
P!USI ~t ~. :\JUt;wlni ':u,;
I Auumpsll
i..l
( )
, ,
r: " I
; .
: I ~"1
I') ,--
.- '"
0 .- .... ,?
, . ,
, 0' 0
."
. ,:C' .' 00'1
~; :, "0 ~ ;-Z'
._"c)
,... !~; r.~) l.i rq
::~ '11 .. I
.
CJI ,. ,
-;;
,C:'tel< on.)
I X
(or It:RY 1:1:11 U :11< ~':\I :erm )( ~:vu ~Jur:.
I ) (er trial ","hoUI s jury.
CAPTION OF CASE
(.ntlte ~sptlon mwt ~. IIsl.d in :uJJ)
I~h.cl< ~n.)
PATRICIA J. DmcE and
DAVID DENCE,
( ) T:llpw
I X) Tlllpass (~lolor V'Ne!.)
I )
(other)
(l'lauldfl')
n.
The trial list will be called on
Feb. 20, 1996 and
TIOlA'l R. IOIll and
T & L J\IJro SALES,
Trials commence on March l8, 199~
IOtC.nWII)
Pretrials will be held
(Briefs are due 5 days
trials. )
(The party lis=ing this case for trial
shall provide forthwith a copy of the
p,raecipe to all counsel, pursuant to
Iocal Rule 214-1.)
on Feb. 28.
before pre-
1996
.
,
vs.
~o.
5556
Civil
i9-2!
In~lcsl' lh. morn.y ...ho ...,U IlY .... (or the ?:Il"t"/ 'Nhu .it.s !hi> ?"ec'pe: Greqorv R. Reed.
Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiff, 2423 N. Third St., Harrisbura. PA 1711 0
lncllcsll trial eounStI Cor other pullll if I<.,own: Lynn F. Reutelhuber. F.souirF', Attornev for
Marsb<\lll, Dennehey, Warner Cb1anan & Goggin
Defendants, 100 P1ne Street, P.O. Box ~03, Harrisburg, PA 17108-0803
This -=- :s ready (Ollrial.
~
Slgn.e:
Pnnl :-';sm.:
Gregory R. Reed, Esquire
Date:
l/29/96
Attctnc)' (or: Plrdnti ff~
., ,.J
\... ::-;., r .,~,-:.
." -../
~_"'''--l~' .,,(.r
~ .1" !. ~ I ,. I ..' ..' \
cu.. ' ,1 i
\.";: .:Jlt:.._.L",
~oJf'9~ &,;/. 'l}?' ;;t ;'if ~k4
.;l.af?/, /1~~ r~"'~' &i?j ~/
fi
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PATRICIA J. DENCg and
DAVID DENCE,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PLAINTIFFS
NO, 94-5556 CIVIL TERM
v,
THOMAS R. ROTH and
T & L AUTO SALES,
DEFENDANTS
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
MOTION IN LIMINE or DBI'BNDANTS.
RBGARDING THB ADMISSIBILITY AND RBCOVBRABILITY or
PLAINTIFF'S MEDICAL BILLS AND EXPBNSBS
Defendants hereby move this Honorable Court to enter the
proposed Order by which Plaintiff is precluded from presenting
any testimony at trial concerning Plaintiff's medical expenses
and bills, and recovery therefrom, and in support thereof aver as
follows:
1. Plaintiffs initiated this suit against Defendants in
this Honorable Court, arising out of a motor vehicle accident
which occurred on August 13, 1993 in Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania.
2. Plaintiff Patricia Dance alleges that she incurred
medical expenses and bills arising out of said accident, in the
amount of approximately $9,667.88.
3. Said medical bills and expenses have been paid for by
Plaintiff's insurance carriers, Aetna Insurance Company and Blue
Cross/Blue Shield.
4. At the trial of this matter, Plaintiff may seek to
introduce into evidence these aforementioned medical bills and
expenses in support of her claim against Defendants.
S. Plaintiff is barred as a matter of law from the
introductior. of medical bills and expenses arising out of a motor
vehicle accident, when such bills and expenses have been paid for
by a plaintiff's insurance carrier.
6. 75 Pa.C.S.A. S 1722 states:
In any action for damages against a tortfeasor, or
in any uninsured or under insured motorist
proceeding, arising out of the maintenance or use
of motor vehicle, a person who is eligible to
receive benefits under the coverages set forth in
this subchapter, or workers' compensation, or any
program, group contract or other arrangement for
payment of benefits as defined in section 1719
(relating to coordination of benefits) shall be
precluded from recovering the amount of benefits
payable under this subchapter, or workers'
compensation or any program, group contract or
other arrangement for payment of benefits as
defined in section 1719.
7. Allowing plaintiff to introduce such material would
lead to the instance of "double recovery", as Plaintiff has
already received payment for the medical treatment allegedly
arising out of this motor vehicle accident.
8. Therefore, under 75 Pa.C.S.A. S 1722, Plaintiff is
barred from presenting any evidence of her medical bills and
expenses arising out of the motor vehicle accident of August 13,
1993, and recovering such amounts, as Plaintiff's medical bills
and expenses have been paid.
-2-
-, \~.
"
" -,.."
r '~ r.~., '1"} '. r. r.t
- J, . " U J i .' ,;"
[1)'\ ,. ,I ".,.
.,., , i,...{ 'j
l'-'" .., ,';. -',oo '.
n.::"..'.';;,l:i';] :L\
,:JiJlft
c:A:8'" ft
tkI. I~ ~ -t J{ &t7;l/-~kf
~r~A ~ aTf Ra/.
~
j
'i"
...
,.'..~-, ""'''-"
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PATRICIA J. DENCE and
DAVID DENCE,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PLAINTIFFS
NO. 94-5556 CIVIL TERM
v.
THOMAS R. ROTH and
T & L AUTO SALES,
DEFENDANTS
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
MOTION TO COMPBL INDEPENDENT MEDICAL BXAMINATION
Defendants hereby move this Honorable Court to enter the
proposed Order requiring Plaintiff to submit to an independent
medical examination, and in support thereof aver as follows:
1. Plaintiffs initiated this suit against Defendants in
the Honorable Court, arising out of a motor vehicle accident
which occurred on August 13, 1993 in Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania.
2. On or about February 1, 1996, Plaintiff's counsel
served counsel for Defendants with a copy of an expert report,
from Thomas A. Boch, a chiropractor, as a supplement to
Defendants' previously propounded expert interrogatories. (A true
and correct copy of such report is attached hereto as Exhibit
"A") .
3. In this expert report, Mr. Boch asserts that Plaintiff
Patricia Dence's injuries are permanent in nature.
4. In part.icul~r, he states "it is my opinion 'based on a
reasonable degree of medical certainty and having treated and
observed this case for the past 2 1/2 years that Ms. Dence's neck
and shoulder problems are ~ permanent." (emphasis added) (See
Exhibit A, under the subsection entitled "Prognosis.").
s. This report, dated January 24, 1996, was the only
expert report which Plaintiffs have produced in accordance with
Defendants' expert interrogatorie~, which were propounded in
March of 1995.
6. Given the fact that Plaintiffs will attempt at trial to
assert, through the expert report of Thomas A. Boch, as to the
permanent nature of Plaintiff's injuries and the need for future
treatment of 1 to 4 times per month, Defendants are entitled to
have Mrs. Dence examined. via an independent medical examination.
7. Plaintiffs are arguing that the nature of Plaintiff's
alleged permanency has been know for some time.
8. However, Plaintiffs seem to conveniently disregard the
fact that they just produced their expert report to "support"
this assertion of both permanency and the need for future
treatment.
9. While it is true that the issue of permanency may have
come up before this report, such as Ms. Dence's testimony, such
was never supported by an expert report, which is recognized
under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
-2-
10. As this is an issue which Plaintiffs plan to pursue,
Defendants are entitled to contest such, via their own doctor, in
accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 4010.
11. On February 20, 1995, after returning from a vacation,
counsel for Defendants immediately contacted Plaintiffs' counsel
with independent medical dates which would not delay the trial,
which is currently scheduled for the week of March 18, 1996.
12. D~ring this telephone conversation, Plaintiffs' counsel
objected to such an examination, but testified that Plaintiff
would undergo such if the court ordered Plaintiff to do so.
13. Two dates had been provided for the examination,
February 28 and March 1, 1996, both at 8:30am.
14. Given the fact that the Pre-Trial Conference in this
case is scheduled for February 28, 1996, the undersigned advised
Plaintiffs' counsel that the IME would then be set for March 1,
1996.
15. Plaintiff's counsel did not oppose the date itself,
merely that he did not believe that Defendants were entitled to
have Plaintiff undergo the IME.
16. Now, Plaintiffs' counsel is stating that his client was
not available, even though he knew we had scheduled an
examination for that date.
17. Defendants hereby requests that the Court order
Plaintiff patricia Dence to undergo an independent examination
for March 1, 1996; in the alternative, if the court wishes
-3-
another date to be chosen, if possible, that plaintiff pay the
cost for this cancellation.
WBBaBrORB, Oefendants hereby request that this Honorable
Court enter the proposed Order, by which Plaintiff patricia Dence
is to undergo an independent medical examination.
MARSHALL, DBNNIBBY, WARNBR,
COLlMAN . GOGGIN
BY:
L
10 Pine St eet
P.O. Box 803
Harrisburg, PA
I.D. 66887
(717) 232 -4641
'IJ-
17108-0803
ATTORNEY FOR OEFENDANTS
DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1996
-4-
-
~
BOCH CHIROPRACf1C CLINIC
PATIENT: PATTI DENCE
DATE: 24 JAN 96
32J Vorl< Roed
Carfbl.. PA 17013
T~n<< (717)2~
Fax; (717) 243-6444
SUBJECTIVE:
Patient's entrance complaints were left neck pain, pain of the
left shoulder and upper back, mid back pain. headaches, and pain
~adiating into left arm. After the entrance date, the patient
began to experience lower back pain.
These eymptoms are aggravated by moving her head and are relieved
by a neck brace.
These symptoms have been present for 12 days.
A. A. SYMPTOMS:
Symptoms started on 8-13-93. when the patient was involved in a
motor vehicle accident. On that date the patient was driving a
car which was hit by another vehicle which ran though a red
light.
OBJECTIVE:
There was tenderness to palpation in the paravertebral muscles at
the levels of CI-C7, and TI-T4.
There was limited range of motion of the Cervical spine during
flexion, right and left lateral flexion, and right and left
rotation.
The following orthopedic tests were positive, correlating to
patient's subjective complaints: Cervical Compression, Hyper-
extension Compression, Maximum Foramina Encroachment Teet, and
O'Oonahue's Maneuver. The left lateral neck flexors test weak
upon manual testing.
There was evidence of muscle spasm at the following locations:
CI-C2, C5-C7, TI-T4, and L4-L5.
The spinal X-rays revealed vertebral subluxations at C2, T4, And
a wedged disk at T4-T5, T7-TB. and L2-L3 spinal level. which are
areas of direct nerve supply to patient's areas of chief
complaints.
The spinal X-rays also revealed a Cervical Kyphosis, decreased
disc space between C7-Tl, spinal degeneration of C4, CS, C7 and
Tl; and mild scoliosis of lumbar and thoracic spine. Patient is
to bring in Cervical stress views taken at her medical doctor's
office for analysis.
ASSESSMENT:
Based on my current exam findings, it is my opinion to a
reasonable degree of medical certainty that Ms. Dence's left neck
pain, left shoulder pain, left arm pain, left upper back pain,
mid back pain. and headaches are directly related to injuries due
to the motor vehicle accident of 8-13-93.
DIAGNOSIS:
Injuries due to motor vehicle accident of 8-13-93, resulting in
Cervical hyperflexion/ hyperextension injury, and brachial
neuralgia. Complicated by vertebral subluxation complex of the
cervical and thoracic spine; and spinal degeneration.
PREVIOUS HISTORY
The patient was a previous patient at this clinic. She was under
active care from 1-26-93 to 3-24-93, for right neck. right
shoulder, and right upper back pain. We last saw the patient for
this condition on 4-9-93, and at that time she had no complaints.
The patient statsd she had no problems prior to her accident on
8-13-93.
It is my opinion that Ms. Dence's current condition is due to the
accident which occurred on 8-13-93. I base this on the fact that
now her pin is concentrated on the left side of her neck whereas;
previously it was on the right side; and the fact that the X-rays
taken after the accident revealed structural changes when we
compared them to previous X-rays,
PROGNOSIS:
It is my opinion based upon a reasonable degree of medical
certainty and having treated and observed this case for the past
2 1/2 years that Ms. Dence's neck and shoulder problems are now
permanent. It is also my opinion that this patient will require
chiropractic care and therapy for an indefinite period of future
time which does afford her temporary relief. Ms. Dence does not
wish to take pain pills on an ongoing basiB due to possible
damage to stomach. liver, and kidneys. The frequency of future
visits will ~e 1-4 times per month at a cost of approximately
$50.00 per visit.
We have seen Ms. Dence a total of 77 times since she consulted us
for her injuries on 14 August 1993. We have provided her with
Chiropractic spinal adjustments, localized intersegmental
traction; electrical muscle stimulation and hot packs. We have
done spinal X-rays on 3 separate occasions to document changes in
Ms. Dence's condition. We have also advised her concerning home
exercisee and activities of daily living.
d~{)~p~.
Al'rIDAVIT
I, Lynn F. Reutelhuber, attorney for Defendant, verify that
the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true to the
beat of my knowledge, information and belief. If the above
statements are not true, the deponent is subject to the penalties
of 18 Pa.C.S. 54904 relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
DATE: f-4 J~) /qq l.,
... '" ~:::
t; IJJ
} .. J/
- "..~
~, - ::;
IF ;"~~::1
i;.F --
, , ~.'") "
8' '" .~ ,.-,~
j- \:
u:\' (" j
'...l
l- I.-. :::;
1:_ ,n
0 ..:...-"\ U
. t.:' ..~ \: ~,~:
.,. ,
1 ,I
. :-.' 'I' '
".J ",1'"'.)
(,:'.: '
. I" ,'I
, '.........,;..1
Cd "," '\" ""\
rl:l"H,('IL ,'./\,;
.~
'0
~"
~
I"J
1
4
~
/~
4. In particular, he states "it is my opinion based on a
rsasonable degree ot medical certainty and having treated and
observed this case tor the past 2 1/2 years that Ms. Dence's neck
and shoulder problems are ~ permanent." (emphasis added) (Bee
Exhibit A, under the subsection entitled "Prognosis.").
5. This report, dated January 24, 1996, was the only
expert report which Plaintitts have produced in accordance with
Detendants' expert Interrogatories, which were propounded in
March ot 1995.
6. Given the tact that Plaintitts will attempt at trial to
assert, through the expert report ot Thomas A. Boch, as to the
permanent nature ot Plaintiff's injuries and the need tor future
treatment of 1 to 4 times per month, Defendants are ~ntitled to
have Mrs. Dence examined, via an Independent Medical Examination.
7. plaintiffs are arguing that the nature of Plaintiff's
alleged permanency has been know for some time.
8. However, Plaintiffs seem to conveniently disregard the
fact that they just produced their expert report to "support"
this assertion of both permanency and the need for future
treatment.
9. On February 20, 1996, Defendants informed Plaintiffs'
counsel of Defendants' intention to take Plaintiff Patricia
Dence's Independent Medical Examination.
10. During this telephone conversation, plaintiffs' counsel
objected to such an examination, but testified that Plaintiff
would undergo such if the court ordered Plaintiff to do so.
-2-
11. Two dates had been provided for the examination,
February 28 and March 1, 1996, both at 8:30am.
12. Given the fact that the Pre-Trial Conference in this
case was scheduled for February 28, 1996, the undersigned advised
Plaintitfs' counsel that the IME would then be set for March 1,
1996.
13. Plaintiff's counsel did not oppose the date itself,
merely that he did not believe that Defendants were entitled to
have plaintiff undergo the IME.
14. However after it was scheduled, plaintiffs' counsel
stated that his client was not available, even though he knew
that Defendants had scheduled an examination for that date.
15. Defendants therefore filed a Motion to compel Plaintiff
to appear at an Independent Medical Examination.
16. On February 28, 1996, counsel for both parties attended
a Pre-Trial Conference before the Honorable Kevin A. Hess.
17. At said conference, Judge Hess granted Defendants'
Motion tor Plaintiff to undergo an Independent Medical
Examination, at a mutually agreed upon time. (A true and correct
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit liB".)
18. As Plaintiff alleged that she was not available for the
March 1, 1996 date, that date had to be cancelled and Defendants
had to incur the cancellation fee.
19. Defendants then obtained dates from Dr. Eagle regarding
this availability to conduct an Independent Medical Examination
-3-
of plaintiff Patricia Dence on: March 12, March 13, March 15,
March 20, and March 21, 1996.
20. plaintiffe' counsel conferred with his client, and
decided on the March 13, 1996 to conduct the ime.
21. However, when confirming the availability of this date
on March 1, 1996, Defendants' counsel was informed that Dr. Eagle
wae not available to undergo a video tape deposition prior to
March 26, 1996.
22. As this court is aware, an IME report, without the
testimony of the examining doctor, renders the expert report
useless.
23. Unless the court agrees to this continuance, Defendants
will be barred from being able to use an expert, even though the
court granted them the right to conduct an IME.
24. This is the first time that this matter has been
praeciped and listed for trial.
25. This need to have Plaintiff undergo an IME is due to
Plaintiffs having failed to provide an expert report until after
they had praeciped this matter for trial.
26. An IME had been scheduled for March 1, 1996.
27. After returning from a vacation, Defendant's counsel
immediately tried to set up the IME with Plaintiffs' counsel.
28. While plaintiffs' counsel may say that Defendants'
request to continue the trial should not be granted as plaintiffs
do not want to delay trial, Defendants urge this court to
consider Plaintiffs' actions in not producing their expert report
-4-
until the beginning ot February, as well as never havihg
propounded expert Interrogatories on Detendants.
29. Detendants are entitled to contest Plaintitt.' damage.
allegations via their own doctor, in accordance with Pa.R.C.P.
4010.
30. Judge Hes. agreed to such, and granted Detendant.'
Request to compel Plaintitt to undergo an Independent Medical
Examination.
31. To not grant this continuance would be in opposition to
Judge Hess's intention for Detendants to be able to present their
own expert, as well as the fact that this is the tirst time that
this matter has been listed tor trial.
WBBRI.ORB, Defendants hereby request that this Honorable
Court enter the proposed Order, by which this case shall be
continued to the next trial list, tor the foregoing reasons.
KAJlSJlALL, DDIJIUIY, WAJUlBR,
COLIXAH , GOGGI.
BY:
LY
100
P.O. Box 803
Harrisburg, PA
I,D. 66887
(717) 232-4641
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
,b-
17108-0803
DATE I MARCH 4, 1996
-5-
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PATRICIA J. DENCE and
DAVID DENCE,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PLAINTIFFS
NO. 94-5556 CIVIL TERM
v.
THOMAS R. ROTH and
T , L AUTO SALES,
DEFENDANTS
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
A r rID A V I T
I, Lynn F. Reutelhuber, attorney for Defendant, verify that
tha facts set forth in the foregoing document are true to the
best of my knowledge, information and belief. If the above
statements are not true, the deponent is subject to the penalties
of 18 Pa.C.S. 54904 relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
DATE: 1'~tWw 4, ItpJ[p
. .
BOCH CHmOPRAcnc CLINIC
PATIENT: PATTI DENCE
DATE: 24 JAN 96
32J yon. Road
c..rtlsl.. PA 17013
Telephone: (717) 243.6396
F4lt m 7) 243-6444
SUBJECTIVE:
Patient's entrance complaints were left neck pain. pain of the
left shoulder and upper back. mid back pain. headaches, and pain
radiating into left arm. After the entrance date, the patient
began to experience lower back pain.
These symptoms are aggravated by moving her head and are relieved
by a neck brace.
~hese symptoms have been present for 12 days.
A.A. SYMPTOMS:
Symptoms started on 8-13-93, when the patient was involved in a
motor vehicle accident. On that date the patient was driving a
car which was hit by another vehicle which ran though a red
light.
OBJECTIVE:
There was tenderness to palpation in the paravertebral muscles at
the levels of Cl-C7, and Tl-T4.
There was limited range of motion of the Cervical spine during
flexion, right and left lateral flexion, and right and left
rotation.
The following orthopedic tests were positive, correlating to
patient's subjective complaints: Cervical Compression, Hyper-
extension Compression, Maximum Foramina Encroachment Test, and
O'Donahue's Maneuver. The left lateral neck flexors test weak
upon manual testing.
There was evidence of muscle spasm at the following locations:
Cl-C2, C5-C7, Tl-T4, and L4-L5.
The spinal X-rays revealed vertebral subluxations at C2, T4, And
a wedged disk at T4-T5, T7-TB, and L2-L3 spinal level, which are
areas of direct nerve supply to patient's areas of chief
complaints.
The spinal X-rays also revealed a Cervical Kyphosis. decreased
disc space between C7-Tl, spinal degeneration of C4. C5, C7 and
Tl; and mild scoliosis of lumbar and thoracic spine. Patient is
to bring in Cervical stress views taken at her medical doctor's
office for analysis.
EXHIBIT "1"
Based on my current exam f1nd1ngs, 1t 1e my
reasonable degree of medical certainty that Ms. Dence's left neck
pain, left shoulder pain. left arm pain, left upper back pain,
mid back pain, and headaches are directly related to injuries due
to the motor vehicle accident of 8-13-93.
DIAGNOSIS:
Injuries due to motor vehicle accident of 8-13-93, resulting in
Cervical hyperf1exion/ hyperextension injury, and brachial
neuralgia. Complicated by vertebral subluxation complex of the
cervical and thoracic spine; and spinal degeneration.
PREVIOUS HISTORY
The patient was a previous patient at this clinic. She was under
active care from 1-~6-93 to 3-24-93, for right neck, right
shoulder, and right upper back pain. We last saw the patient for
thie condition on 4-9-93, and at that time she had no complaints.
The patisnt stated she had no problems prior to her accidsnt on
8-13-93.
It is my opinion that Hs. Dance's current condition is due to the
accident which occurred on 8-13-93. I base this on the fact that
now her pin is concentrated on the left side of her neck whereas;
previously it was on the right side; and the fact that the X-rays
taken after ths accident revealed structural changes when we
compared them to previous X-rays.
PROGNOSIS:
It is my opinioll based upon a reasonable degree of medical
certainty and having treated and observed this case for the past
~ 1/2 years that Hs. Dence's neck and shoulder problems are now
permanent. It is also my opinion that this patient will require
chiropractic care and therapy for an indefinite period of future
time which does afford her temporary relief. Ms. Dence does not
wish to take pain pills on an ongoing basis due to possible
damage to stomach, liver, and kidneys. The frequency of future
visits will be 1-4 times per month at a cost of approximately
$50.00 per visit.
We have seen Hs. Dence a total of 77 times since she consulted us
for her injuries on 14 August 1993. We have provided hsr with
Chiropractic spinal adjustments. localized intersegmental
traction; electrical muscle stimulation and hot packs. We have
done spinal X-rays on 3 separate occasions to document changes in
Hs. Dence's condition. We have also advised her concerning home
exercises and activities of daily living.
~ () ~~.C
FEB 2 G 19gev-'
CC(Q)~11
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PATRICIA J. DENCE and
DAVID DENCE,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PLAINTIFFS
NO. 94-5556 CIVIL TERM
v.
.
.
.
.
THOMAS R. ROTH and
T , L AUTO SALES,
DEFENDANTS
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORDIIR
AND NOW, this ,;)gY" day of "':A.t11J~ ' 1996, upon
consideration of the Defendants' Motion to Compel the independent
medical examination of Plaintiff, and any response thereto, it is
hereby ORDERED, ADJUDICATED, and DECREED that the Motion is
granted, and Plaintiff patricia Denee is ordered to submit to the
-. ..4 ~ ~ ..&. ~~
independent medical examination rll!;(\,Iel!l1l 'f gllfllR ilrQA 1-,
199', Qr ray any C21nl"'ollatiel. fee if s\lea can gg r~u:u"'h8d.\lled.
BY THII COURT I
15/ J!L/~ a. ~
(J.)
tlcUE COpy FROM RECORD
I T llstimony whereof, I here unlo set my hand
'~d the seal of said Court a Cartlsle, ~~
;h' day of ". 1
, I . ~
Prothonot
~"~!.Ia.~. o. ...VIO.
I, Jane Man.ell, an employ.. of Mar.hall, oennehey, Warner,
Cole.an , Goqqin, do hereby certify that on this ~) day
of March 1996, I .erved a true and correct copy of the foreqoinq
document, via Fir.t elas. united stat.. mail, po.taqe pr.paid,
addr....d a. follow.l
Greqory R. Reed, I.quir.
2423 North Third street
Harri.burq, fA 17110
~:: M ~
~',. ,"
1- ::'j..-
<, C')
~-' " '1-.:11
ItC; ,;j::;
J..., "'- .... ~..
,I __ '1;]
~;
" L") . . ~..:)
:J" I qJ>."
li.' 1': i;;,5
r :.: ' "-
", L'l :-J
L- C;" U
f
q
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PATRICIA J. DENCE and
DAVID DENCE,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PLAINTIFFS
NO. 94-5556 CIVIL TERM
v.
THOMAS R. ROTH and
T & L AUTO SALES,
DEFENDANTS
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CBRTIFICATB or SBRVICB
I, Lynn F. Reutelhuber, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey,
Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this 11th day
of March 1996, I s€rved a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document, via hand delivery, addressed as follows I
(~
Gregory R. Reed, Esquire
2423 North Third Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
--',
PATRICIA J. DENCE and
DA VID DENCE.
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
CIVIL ACTION. LAW
THOMAS R. ROTH and
T & L AUTO SALES,
Defendants
94-5556 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
ORDER
AND NOW, this
9 '
day of March, 1996, a ru Ie is issued on the plaintiffs to
show cause why the within mailer ought not to be continued until the May term. This rule
returnable five (5) days after service.
BY THE COURT.
r:..~;L
"
TRUE C"PY FROM RECORD
I" T "r:'c" " I of, I h.rz L'MO set my hand
" .,cd ih~ s...i 0, sa:d Court at Carlisle, Pa.
l;,is..'8;#.,." day of:J?1~.", 19..'l.f?,
~"........,.~;~!~t~-
PATRICIA J. DENCB and
DAVID DENCE,
PlaintiffB
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
CIVIL AcrlON - LAW
THOMAS R. ROTII and
T & L AUTO SALES,
Defendants
94-5556 CIVIL TERM
QRJ)..ID!
AND NOW, this
I 'I . day of March, 1996, by agreement of the parties, trial in
the above captioned mailer scheduled for the Mareh term is continued generally. Counsel are
directed to relist the case when ready.
BY THE COURT.
Gregory R. Reed, Esquire
For the Plaintiffs
-/I,lL
Lynn F. Reutelhuber, Esquire
For the Defendants
- C"r'-<> "..,,:~,.t "3/lyJf',
...t.~,
:rlm
t :: -1- r ::,'~r-:~
\'
"
J I,
I,
, II: :~ J
, '
'_~'.'" I
IT."::;;il
_'..,ll
,: ,1\
,
r
~-
.
i.
i
~
~"
PRAECIPE FOR L1S1L'1G CASE FOR TRIAL
(~IUSI be typewritten ~nd submiued in duplic~lel
rC:ltck "ne)
( X
lor Jl.'RY Iml 11 the noXI torm JI ;iv~ court.
.. , ,
, 'l
I , "
r) ',/
; ,~~ , )
, ,
I, .:1'1
~ ( )
. ,- ;l'n
.. ,
,
- 0:-') ~- !
~ "'" - ".
-
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CDiBERL.-\.'1D COL:~TY
P!e:u. !ist ~e f"Uowlnj ..::as.:
)
(or lna! withoUI ~ jury.
---------
-----------------------
CAPTION OF CASE
(.nlln capllon must ~. st~lId in full)
PATRICIA' J. DENCE and
DAVID DENCE,
(ch.ck on.)
( Auumpm
( TrespllS
(X) Trespass (~Iolor Vohicl.)
(
(olhor)
(l'lailllltO
V1.
The trial list will be called on
APril 2~, 1996 and
'llIGllIS R. 00l'H and
T & L Al1l'O SJ\LFS,
Trials cotlllllence on May 20, 1996
(Def.ndant)
Pretrials will be held on May 1, 1996,
(Briefs are due 5 days before pre-
trials. )
(The party listing this case for trial
shall provide forthwith a copy of the
p'raecipe to all counsel, pursuant to
Iocal Rule 214-1.)
.
VI.
~o.
5556
Civ~
192!-
Indlcat. the ~ltornoy who ..ill try cu. ror th. i'~rty whu li10s thi.> ."OClp.: Greqory R. Reed;
Esquire, Attorney for Plaintiff, 2423 N. Third St., HarrisburCT. PAl7110
lndlcall trial counStI for olher putles if known: Lvnn ,F. Reute] hllhPr. Esauire. Attnn1py for
Defendants, lOO Pine Street, P.O. Box 803. HarrisbUlU. PA 17]08-0801
Slgr..d:
.#~J
this C:lSll Is ,esdy ror lri~l.
Pnnt :-;.m.: Gregory R. Reed, Esquire
0.111
3/28/96
Al:orne)' ror:
Plaintiffs
.'
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
PATRICIA J. DENCE and
DAVID DENCE,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PLAINTIFFS
NO. 94-5556 CIVIL TERM
v,
THOMAS R. ROTH and
T & L AUTO SALES,
DEFENDANTS
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE TO SETTLE AND DISCONTINUE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please mark the above-captioned matter, Settled,
Discontinued and Ended, With Prejudice.
Date: ~J J ~ Irl~
Gr ry R. Re , Esqu re
Attorney for PI iffs
2423 North Third Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-0434
Attorney 1.0, No. 23705
>-
n'
-'
~
UJ~:
()-
ff!"
c;5,
c~ "
L
[L~I :
i
,
<..;
..
'1.-
I :~
.~
)~,
~-'.
~
~
(I)
-,-".
, ",
t If.a
,}u..
~tj
6
\"cl
,:::-'"
"'4)
-,
',":')
~h