HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-01974
CIl
~
p.
z e
~ ~Cl
O' rllil
t)~ '~Cl
f5g tJi
!jU..;....Cl
... HI'
g!~~:.1
t) >IH
,..:j1llP:
~ >tOlE-<
tIllilUl
E-<!!l ~ .l;l
ZSMOP
. . ~
In
en
-
::r. "
~"t '''.
'u
::r
'-
en
, ,
:.,
:,
-,
.
H
1>:....
..;....
(,!l....
:H
"'l'M
III
.rl
Zp.
M
Z
M
(,!l
::>
.... ..~" ~. ." ,~" If ,,'1~1,.. '.. ", '..
. .....,~" ,-, '-H '" I' 1t01' ".
, .
.
:>
.
M
U
~
::>
Ul
Z
H
Eo<+J
Z ~
Mill
Cl'lJ
He
UQI
U....
..; QI
Cl
~
~
M
Eo<
Z
H
::i
p.
::!:
o
t)
ffi
~I~~I
e~~~~
~ ffi ~ ~ .
~<~2i
~ 3
o
~
. . ~ .
- .. . .
:.
..i.... _
5. On that date, Plaintiff, while operating the said
insured motor vehicle, was involved in an accident which
resulted in bodily injury to the Plaintiff herein when the
insured motor vehicle was struck from behind by another
vehicle at the intersection of Market Street and 32nd
Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania,
6. As a result of this accident, Plaintiff has been
obliged to receive and undergo medical attention and care
and to expend various sums of money or to incur various
expenses described as "allowable expenses" in 40 P.S. 1009
et seq. and he may be obliged to continue to expend such
sums or incur such expenditures for an indefinite period of
time in the future.
7. Following thia accident the Plaintiff gave timely
and reasonable notice to the Defendant. Plaintiff completed
"Application For Benefits" and returned it to Defendant on
March 16, 1983. Said Application is attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit "B".
8. As a result of the injuries sustained in the motor
vehicle accident of February 16, 1983, the Plaintiff was
obliged and continues to be obliged to seek medical
treatment. Bills from said medical treatment were paid by
the Defendant up to and includiog D~cember 23, 1993.
9. As a result of his accident related injuries,
Plaintiff has continued to treat with Jason Litton, MoD" a
Board Certified Orthopaedic Surgeon. In order to keep the
Plaintiff's condition stable. Dr. Litton has prescribed
LA"\' l )HJq~ l'~
TIMllTll\' A. SlInLLf.NnER(jER
l!'l!.' IIS\ ;11...1'1 )\\'!',I Hll:"P - l'l1 1\1..)\ f>\'H' . 11^"n''''nl 'Ill i, 1',.\ I ;I~'t> ,'H'
17111 :'<4 I:~\' . t.,,;.; 11171 :U,I~:I:
certain periods of physical therapy. Plaintiff has
undergone these physical therapy treatments at Rehab
Medicine Associates, P.C.
10. Sometime after December 23, 1993 and without
notice or explanation to the Plaintiff, Defendant denied
payment of said medical bills. This was despite a report by
Balint Balog, MoD, who saw the Plaintiff on behalf of the
Defendant, and agreed that the treatment provided to the
Plaintiff was reasonable and necessary as a result of
injuries sustained in the motor vehicle accident of February
16, 1983. Dr. Balog further opined that the Plaintiff's
condition may well necessitate future physical therapy
treatment. Dr Balog's report, dated March 17, 1993, is
attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as
Exhibit "C".
11. Dr, Litton most recently prescribed physical
therapy for the Plaintiff at Rehab Medicine Associates
during the months of october, November, and December 1994.
A copy of the Summary of Treatment for said therapy is
attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as
Exhibit "0".
12. From October 5, 1994 through January 25, 1994,
Plaintiff has also been seen by Dr. Litton as an out-
patient. A copy of the bills for said services are attached
hereto and incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit "E".
13. Plaintiff submitted these bills to the Defendant
in February, 1995, Defendant has, to date, failed or
1....\\' pHil l:- ~,~
TIMllTlI\' ^. sIHlI.LENnU\tiER
1~:\1 USI it ,..." ,!\\'N Ih \...11 . I'll 1\1.. lX t>,'H\ . II."HIU~I\1 'IU i, 1',4" I ih'fll".'
1;'1~':U \j,\' . 1..\\ t71il1H ~:I:
.
refused to pay for any of the treatment referenced in
paragraphs 10 and 11, despite Plaintiff's timely submission
of the bills therefore,
14. Instead, on January 20, 1995, Defendant, through
its agent and employee, Glenda E, Shreffler, advised
Plaintiff that they had made an appointment for Plaintiff to
undergo an Independent Medical Examination. In that letter.
Defendant also advised that Plaintiff's medical bills had
been submitted to Comprehensive Rehabilitation Associates,
Inc. for a Peer Review. A copy of said letter is attached
hereto and incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit "P".
15. On March 9, 1993, Plaintiff, through its counsel,
sent a letter to Glenda E. Shreffler advising her of
Plaintiff's position, which was that they would submit to an
Independent Medical Examination with Balint Balog, M.D., the
physician chosen by the Defendant to examine Plaintiff in
1993, and that Defendant's attempt to involve the Peer
Review process was improper. A copy of said letter is
attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as
Exhibit "G".
16. Defendant never responded to the letter referenced
in Paragraph 15, necessitating the plaintiff to initiate the
above referenced action by Writ of Summons on April 18,
1995.
L"\\.'I)H\t:bl)~
TIMOTHY A, sHOHENnEnliF.n
1'\.\1I.1Slill:~n'l\\'N "11:~1l . I'll 1\t'X ~\4\ . 11."IHUS1\1!(llj, I'." 17IN'll'"''''
\71il :1-4-\1l\' . b\X 17171:H 1i:1:
"",. ..
i, lH~ t^HU~N ~lK~ IN~l
If '0" 0"'" ... ....O' "'"
.P1I.I~ A!.~ul.l,'''!I.~
, l~l :J-;G't.\~ 1- p~~'gr ^',',;"i,- -[ tl91 ~'ll H~ 1- ~~~i;~6 T"'~I ~:; T~~i{~a~T' "
I Polic~ Number
I ItPA ,"''''-Itbll-lJU
I Slalldllltllllll(!
- . - ...._.._ .._"._." .u.... ._______. -.
I )"'A10' NU"'" , NA"'
GHAZlO ALlll:kl J bIRTH DAT~
'ur 320 HAltKET ~n
lanl p (/ flOX 297 1 I:UGI:NI: H 2.mGAKI e>t/Zbl2b
'. LI::MOVNk: I'A L'lU43 2 HARI~A ZANGARI oalZb'''5
,. I ZANGARI EUGENe N Ani
'd 131 !. 32NU Sl'
d CAMP HILL PA null
, ,
, .
I . L J
, .
" loss Payee: (Name and address) Loss Payable Clause on reverSe Side
I DAUPHIN Ol:l'tJSIT lR t:u !lOX <tu',,1) HAKRI!.bUKb I'A 11111
'.IeserlOtion 01 the owned automobile: Rating Inlo,matlon
" 'h., of Trade Nomo Modol eOdy Type IdenllllCrlt'on Numbe, '1m "0 len. ClaSSlllcatlQn Sym,
Aulo
I, III CII.UILLA' l:.LUUKAUU I.PE :2.LJ Il~AL51Nbb~b~bl.l 9 II 011120 13
. 81 LANtIA IH:TA tl'f ZLASt':I:l11bl:..!> lb ~ 07 811120. 10
, 16 CHEV VEGA !.PT C;PI: 2 1 VIlbbUl414!) 7 9 '.'1 811120 . "
Coverage Is provided where a premium and a limit of liability Is shown,
Coverage Descriptions Car 1 Car 2 Car 3
Llmll p,em Llmll Pren1 LutHI p,em
BASIC PI::KSUNAL INJul(V I'kU 1I:l.IlLJN srArlJTUKY j~ ~ n~'I'U'rUKY 3~ :.l'Al'lJl'UKY 3!>>
AOOITItJNAL P~kSUNAL. INJUR ., I'kUlt:tULN I"Tl~ C2 1f: JPl'HJN C2 1': lJPTlUN 02 1';1
\ LlABILl TY 3\ O,(IOU bb ,,'.:o,aUl' uE ::!(JO,UOO bt>
tJNIHSllR~LJ MuluR4Sn 311,ll(.1{' 4 ::I.' ,'J(,t) ~ ::IhUUO It
UNlJERIN$UKt:LJ MU10kISTS ::I' lUll. li'itL ,W I ',,",I\) lll!tl 3~IOOO INL.L.
, DAMAGE: TO VlIUk tAt\
OTHE:R THAN (;ULLISoN lUSS
ACTUAL tA~tt VALlIl: - Lt:SS UI:LJ {Jf lOr.' :;t. Ira 19
COLLI SIUN LOSS
AtTUAL CAS" VALUt: - LESS Ul:U 01' 251J 91 ~~ "1l
1
EXHIBIT
I R
RIGINAL Ex! ibit HAlt
LJAlt lIF ISSUI: O<J/OZ
,dorsements made part of thiS Policy 01 lime 01 issue -- - --.----
CArl I~'\ 'if'r' (1" I "~I 1;.,...pOIO.....U,...),.,.
1111. Pnt 1,1Pl COMP COll UM lH.' UIM flIP PIP OPT fRO
PO OEQ L110l
001'\-2 PP.l~l "I'; !;':' 1 ilr''lIl'' 1 II 1. (b 3 '. 5 9 01 1
1'1'0551 A1;(43 1'1-('111 ~ II 1" lb J " !; 9
..
j I) " (1 !i 9
---....--- ._---'. . _ .--.. ---. - ' ' . ---'"
1l'TIIL l'id!1 S.~5t.J.. .,
" ^:!!~~! ~~'~~d ;l'I(lr~t .~~gnilt~J.~..?.~~~~..~". :2:~___.
. --' ..--- .' _ h . . .-" -.-..-.-. ---_.~ -'-' .-
f1t1llAOl':l ,'UIA flA I {) I 115
1..1... iI. .,
" ,
., \(1 ~~
I.
l'tNN)' L OJ AIIlIA
NO-FAULT MOTOR VEHICLE INSURP ~CE ACT
APPLICATION FOR BENEF'
(iiAii-------[-OU.'()licYHOU.llJl---. I "AIf;' .;~t~,j~" -'-~'I 'UiNUMlii. '
L3 ,_1..4_63.,__,_,E,ugene,N. Zangari.}6 A,~,16-,~6..,
TO ENABLE US TO DETERMINE IF YOU ARE ENTITLED TO BENEFITS UNDER HiE PENNSYlVANIA NO,FAULT MOTOR VEHle
INSURANCE ACT, PLEASE COMPLETE nlls FORM AND RETURN IT PROMPTlY. 717 763 7331
,.. .'1 10, I. Kimmel
CLAIM OIP!, "
Eugene Zangari 1'1"'1.101' ALJUIIUO' COMPANY oUlP PliOi'll NUl
137 South 32nd St. General Accident Ins.
Camp Hill. Pa. 17011 P.O. Box 226
L ~ Lemoyne. Pa. 17043
UPiiCAtWSHAMI---- .-----.-.-~ PIiOPlf ,iOMI - .-iUSiNU5 -
,~ul!,Glf.tll...=-,IArJIJA,e.l ", NUl 173?o,J9/173?!!.rr/
YO . .1.001155 IND., 5UI~':c\f,y~. fOWN, sUIl AND lIP 'ODfI UAtl O' 1111111 SOCIAL $leU_lrY NO,
IJ7._5.Ql.>TIt. '32 sr'JAt1fJltu.., ,P/I. '7tJl/ '11)'6/~6~y.3_-:3,2:,o~rs
OWNU o. \lUtlCU YOU OCCUPieD OA OWIAnD I PlAC! o. "CCIO[NTISlRdr,'CIfY O'IOWN AND SIAUI
Ij),Q.f.,=IVt. ,nrtn ttl'llWIl ZA"'CiV~_ SO()[ If '?2. ..5t- - ClU,t(UUl.c.. t.C,Ll7tJ/1
..", OI$CIUPlloN 0' AcdDINf
...............ear.,W<\B..hJ.t;..j,n,.l~i;\r........................... "....,.....' '.."., ,"."',, .....' '.,.',.,..', ,......,." '" ,.,'....',......" ..."...........,
2.
2.
A,
,.
DiSciiifAmoMoiiii~ OWNio"jvyoU 01 ANfMiMBl1l ofYouit ;"MILY .iSIDING -iN itjfs"ME-iiousiH6LD'---~'--'+' ------"---
AUfOMOIILl OWNU IN5U~U
1981 Lancia
Eugene v.angari
Gcneral(J\ccident
poLICY HUMIU
R t'A tI~-~r:.B'r
.,
A5 A lliSuire>>liiis'AccTDfNrwiir-you INJuiIDl-;;j nsmtj NO.I'.YOUR....NSWElCIS '1U..COMPUIE 'tH(USl ofmis fORM'.--j; No:-siihf11iir-AHOWU.
1HIS 'OaM TO us.
~,*,~l~~:bu~t~~"'.~ )cvr1tJrr;(~c."~=,~c.,=~==" ' _DA",=J.J}(J.!
............tJet:k,...rj,9ht;..I;;IpW,~.f....~..E~.c;l~t...~.~.............,.......,... ....... '............... ......... ...... '. .......... ,.....,. ....,.....,......'
7,
.....
..
Wiir-youiiE~iitrlY A Doctofoioliiil' ;ii50N ;iJjNISHINo I NAMfAND ADDRESS 0'- SUCH PUSON --' -._," --.- .. -.- __"0_. - -.
~,r~~~~:~~~:.,~ ~~ A~O~~il;.niinOu Hoj'''..... N..~;Nf::.~~,~~~ton.~~.D~_ ~~5_~lar al_~~.1. Ri, C00~~:l.
o AN IH.,,,JlfNT1 0 AN aUT.,AlIENl?
AMoiiNrOniUiHriiHs-Hf D"'~'+.-:-'-:': _.- WILL - YOlfilAiii MOil "llfALIII"fxPtNslrd'--- -AT - THE -,iMl Of-YOUR-- AC<:IOENf Wlllf-ioUTti'HI-,ouijE 01
. ~
L_ u.nk!!SJ~!!.,___ ,~_ '_"',0 ,iJI VIS ,o~o =1,,'_ / 6 J"'O' 'ou""'''O'MIN''_ 0',1.\ .. CO NO,St'LF-EMPLOY I
~~::_I~,"M' 110M WO'"'. 1(1 m f,J NO" ~r~'z@" /j'ff ":I:1~o.=~ '~'I~' 1\ ,Y~U~_AV"A~I_~'I~LY IA,J'1t"E'XGt'ES S. O"'t!'l- 21-
:A:;~~:~I~:;'oM~~~'lo~~-',2/16/J1L '.__ .....__.."...._ ___t=:ElU':':,..wo>'ER_WEEK ~Y',
H4\11 'toU .(ellVED 01 AU 'l'OU U1011U fOI AN" MEDtCAL Olt DISABIliTY BENEfITS Uf'4DUI,
WOIKII'S COMPEHS"'ION 0 'us Xl tlO SlATE R[QUIIIEc NON.acCUPAJlOHAl DISABIUTY BENEfits 0 us XJ NO
flDIIAl SOCIAL SlCUIIITY 0 Tn KJ NO AHY OlHEII oovUlNMENTAL BENEFITS PIIOOlAM 0 yES Xl NO
LiirNAMfslNDADOiissls"(jrVOUREMPlOYlil "NO-CHilli EMPLOYERS ;oit"ONE-YfAilpliioItTO-ACCltlENI DAlE ANo-oivE OCCUPAtiON A'NO-IJA,ts'ofiMPiOfMEN'
10,
II,
12,
12.
'A,
II,
(self) J.37 S. 3200 Street, CanlJ Hill, PA
.....................".i"MPl"OYIA.ANO..ADC_l"SS.. ..' .... ................
'l'ailor
...... .......OCCU'ATlON
,.. ,..l.:?. Y~ClrS...I2.~.~r1t."
,.OM 'TO
.... ..... ............. . 'iMHovli'ANc,'ADoiiss"
............;.0-"'.............-,(;.....
'oCCUPAiiON
......... ......... .... ..i~i;loy(i..'AN.D.:.:Djji(S5 .....
.. CiCCU;A'YI'ON.
...... .................'iioij.............TO...'
..,
liA-iiSUrro'~'oijiINJlj.Y-It.i,yi.YOu. jjAO'-.N'Y OTHli-ufENSESf-U yu' 'kJ-NO-- -'1('1(5;- AT'Acllt.Pl...~AjjON ANO.....MOUNlS'oi-sDCH-!.'EHSis:--
ji1fI;pUcAHriulu6tiii(SIHI iN5UliiR"io' SUB,i,\Ij-ANY-AND 'All" 0; 'IHuf fOIMS-it:)" ANO'HlIl'PARrY OIl'INSURER' I,-suett' is ,.4ECESiA.{'O~;.O'ECT-iji-flIQHfS~o'
I!CDVEl'f ,.OVIDID ,Olt UNDU IHI5 ACT.
{I ;J
I~;~~~~~~~'O";' -;~;~;~~;;~'.:~~~~~:;I;" ~N'~~~~~c
IIUS APPLICATiON. ,=:I!
2. YOU MUSI AlSO SIGN ANY A'TACtIED AUTltORIZ.T10NISI.
'7,
. ~Urcll 16, 1983
.~:_-;~:_..::..=.".---:o_!!.:...::..,;~:-..-- _--:-:-~-::_-=--=__--:--.,
3, AHURN PROMPtly Willi COPIES 0' AHY BILlS YOU HAVE IICUVEC'
TO DAlE.
.t. USE REVERSE SIDE I' NECUSAIY.
"3141 U"UOIUl '1l1"""1 . 'u"'" 01'1.
DO NO! D!lACH
AUTHORIZATION FOR RelEASE OF WORK AND OTHER lOSS INFORMATION
THIS AUTHORIZATION OR PtlOTOCOPY tlEREOF. Will AUH10RIZE YOU TO fURNIS.. ALL INfORMATION YOU MAY HAVE REGARD.
ING MY WAOES, SALARY OR OTHER lOSS WIUlE [MPlOY[O BY YOU. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE litiS INfOAM...lION
IN "'CCORDANCE WIIH HiE PENNSYLVANIA UO.FAUlT MOIOR VHHClE INSURANCE ACT.
,_._..E U,llUL i'.:llly,\ri
HAME ('RINT OR "PEl
~~'I/lk~ ___:,,;.1 (1'(~t..r( -
510 lUll /
, "
SOCIAL SECURity NUMBER ______~.llJ::J2=-O'O'9_5~__
_..JlL6,1BL
DAlE
eXHIBIT
'~!3
,;'
MAR 2 6 1993
HARRISBURG ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATES, PoCo
2800 GREEN STREET
HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17110
Phone (7111 234.5916
339 W, GOVERNOR ROAD
HERSHEY, PENNSYL.VANIA 11033
Phone (7111 533.2348
Practict Limlttd To Orlhopatdic Surgt1')l
JOHN S, RYCHAK, Mo~,
reo B, ESHBACH, M,O,
ROBERT R, DAHMUS. M.D,
BALINT BALOO, Mo~,
URNEST II, RUBBO. M,D.
fMNK L, HORNER, M..C.
- Il,n,rd -
C/,."iP' C, /'0.1, MD,
(/9'101984/
WII"',d 1/, l<lw, MD,
/1966-19811
s.vn"cI J. Am''''. ^"D.
{JP7l-19PI/
, ,(:..to"
f~4
'""
March Ii. 1993
-.". ....------
Douglas B. Narcello
305 N. Front Street. 6th Floor
PO Box 999
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Post.lt'. brand fax Iransmlllal memo 7671 . of p.gll .
T"7I O"l'1l- ~ ~~WLl<-t' 'rom ~ <1 J SrAff!
coru.: fl.lG~"" 2AIJCAtf..: .' b It \4.~Cr
Dept. .none"-? 31 -l( $''( "
ru. full
RE: Eugene Zangari
Dear Attorney Marcello:
Eugene Zangari I~as seen for an independent medical evaluation in
our Hershey office on 3/17/93. Records provided by your office as
well as X-l'lI}'S of the cervical spine from Dr. Litton's office as
well as a cervical MRI from 1991 were hal'O for review. These x-
rays and records together with patient's history appear to form a
sufficient information base on which to base an indopcnd~nt
medical evaluation,
Mr. Zangari, \~ho is currently 66 years old. had an .Injury o~
February 16, 1983 where apparently he was hit from behind while in
a vehicle. This injury caused a cerviel sprain I"hich went on to'
develop neck pain as wdl as right shoulder and right arm pain.
This WilS qUite seVoilre initially causing him to be unable to Ivor\:
ns a self-employed tailor for a time period. This even required
initial hospitalization at Holy Spirit Hospital.
Nore recently. he has been managing Quite well with control of his
symptomatology with only occasional use of Darvocet as an
analgesic. HOIVClver. it appears that at It1ast once 11 year he has
an exacerbnt ion for no apparent reason tlll!t c~u,ses significant
I. .....
I
EXHIBIT
G
r~'.- 1,.
., .,r_. (, e;, -' I
hi',,\." .v-,
"r,.mr~':IP ~""':.j f-A ~SX'J ~i.': f",:
111: .,. , ,,, '" '
APR-!J'1993 12:59 FROI'I GA
TO
2362817 P.02
Poge (2)
RE: Eugene Zangari
TO: Attorney ~Inrcello
neck pain, right shoulder pain, right llrm pain 8S well as right
arm numbness I~hich becomes severe enough to requi ra a period of
outpatient physical therapy which has been Biven ar Mechanicsburg
Rehab with apparent rei ief of his acute:. exacerbat ion each time.
He has. hOI~ever. never had full resolution of his symptoms since
his accident.
His history is significant for ~everal 8,cidsnts prior to this one
of 1983, appartlntly one in 1971 and another 'one in the late
1970's. Apparently, however. these cause,d only brief period of
neck pain and perhaps left arm pain with no residual neck or right
arm pain and certainly no need for ongoing treatment or re-
evaluation.
However, since his 1983 accJ.dent he has never quite bet'n fully
discharged, He has apparently been able to resume his occupation
as a tailor which was always on a part-tim!! basis. There is
concern regarding the ungoing nature 'of this problem \\'11ich is
still not resolved ten years later.
The patient tells me there has been some consideration for
surgical decompression with surgical decompression and fusion of
the cervical spine, however. patient has not seriously considered
this as h is symptoms were of an annoying nature, but not totally
disabling to him. Again, \\'ith resolution of the symptoms with
some physIcal therapy modal it ies as well as occas ional use of a
whirlpool which he has installed at home for relief of
symptomatology, he hDs been able to manage Idth this condition,
He has specifically had no radiation of the symptoms to the lower
extremities and he has had no evidence of any balance problems nor
any evidence of bowel or bladder !ncontincnce. Apparently, he has
JUSt completed a course of physical therapy as an outpatient at
Nechanicsburg Rehab.
The patient tells me that he doe~. not particularly enjoy th'e
physical thcrnp)', but he is convinced that it has ho.llpcd him
repeatedly over the years and would prefer to continue with this
on an intermittent basis if and "hen it is required rathilr and
consid~r any surgical opt ions. He tells me that he has had
intermittent radiation of pain as wel J as numbness In the dorsum
of the right hand to the dorsum of the thumb and index finger,
This apparently resolves after the therapy sessions.
Ilis Hudies Ivhich are reviewed include x'raY5:l:,(),;fiqt;he..;~i'Vical
spine from Dr. L Inon' s off ice from 1991. :'Th~e"s-e'~'te~e'n'" some
degree of mid to low ctlrvicul spine spond>'losis. No fracturo or
APR031393
'''''''''1''(1::'> CIAIIIClOtq\;
.~I.\'.If.kU'~I:'I;'.4 r.:}'~. ',..h,..;.)..h 1.'1
APR-13-1993 13: 00 FROI" GA
TO
2362817 P.03
Page (3)
RE: Bugene Zangari
TO: Attorney Marcello
dislocation is I\ottld, Some degree of foraminal stenosis is noted
on oblique views.
Reviel>' of his ~IR[ scan from 1991 revc:t\ls no significant evidence
of spinal cord compression. Thertl Js perhaps 50mc spondylosis
noted on these films as well,
As mentioned in your letter and ftom Dr. Litton's deposit10~ wh1ch
1~IlS also revitl,,'ed, he has had some degree of degenerative
arthritis in the cervical spine both before and after the 1983
occident ond it 15 a superimposed sprain that is felt. to be
causing his problems rather thon the underlying arthritis.
On examination of ~Ir. Zangari. hi! is 1n no acute distr€'ss, He is
able to walk unassisted. Cervical spine mot ion is 51 ightl Y
limited. Hhile fl€'xion appears full. extension is limited by
pain. Side bending and rotation tow/lrds the right are limited to
perhnps 50% of normal by pain. He does have 2+/4 biceps, triceps,
brachial radialis and patellar r~fl~xes bilaterally. He has full
should~r RON and he has no evidence of muscular atrophy in either
upper extremity.
On today's exam I cannot el ieit ony sensory deficits or motor
deficitS to resistencc testing of his upper extremities. Th<'lre
(lrc nO symptoms today referable to thoracic: or J umbnr spine areas.
Hy ()vernll Impression is that ~tr. Zangari still suffers from
residuals of a cervica\ spruin in the 1983 accident. Intermittent
exacerbations for no apparent reason hove responded ancl are still
res\\onding I~ell to physical tr'\lltrnent modal itiAS, r cio not fe~l
that Mr. Zangari has been abusing the physical therapy nor does it
seem that he has been ree ieving an eXcess lve l\ffiOunt of this
treatment, Given his 'symptoms a& "ell 05 responSll to these
treatment modnl iti~s I 1 feel that this loJOuld st ill be the most
appropriate way to manaRe exacerhation,
It appears that by all indications that this is still related to
the automobile accident of rebruary 16. 1983. Specifically. there
is no evidence of on!Joinp- treatment prior to this accident. nor is
there any cvidclH:e of ongulng pnin prior to this (,ccident.
\1ith re!li1rds to tho lnst C'jul3st1on 11\ your letter dated pebrllal'Y
17, 1993, ~Ir, Zilnltilri'5 cOlldition ~;tlll jll!;tiflo:.'s ond necessitates
occasional physicol thi,...npy tl'catrn.JlII. 01 though I call1lot stattl
that it has to be at Hechunicsbllrp, IliJhilb CL'nt.()r. ~'. :,~C<~r/:',:,',~
,- l" ",n "~'\-:1
,.';-;/'1 " 1,',,',<)
."; . I .. '" ~
.' .... .-.....
(October con't)
97124
Massage
30.00
Total
110.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------
oct. 25
97128
97010
97124
Ultrasound(2)
Hot Packs
Massage
60.00
20.00
30.00
Total
110.00
--------------~---------------------------------------------------
Oct. 26
97128
97010
97124
Ultrasound(2)
Hot Packs
Massage
60.00
20.00
30.00
Total
110.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 27
97128
97010
97124
Ultrasound(2)
Hot Packs
Massage
60.00
20.00
30.00
Total
110.00
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 28 97110 P.T. Initial 70.00
97128 Ultrasour.d(2) 60.00
97010 Hot Packs 20.00
97124 Massage 30.00
------
Total 180.00
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oct. 31
97128
97010
97124
Ultrasound(2)
Hot Packs
Hassage
60.00
20.00
30.00
Total
110.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Charges For Octob~r 1994
$1790.00
~.!Jvfedkine9tssociD ~I P.C.
SPECIo<L1ZING IN PHYSICAL t.4EDICINE AIm R[IlAOllll A I ICtj
05124 e, Tondlo Rood
Mechonic'burg, PA 17055
ToI.phono (71 7) 795,7943
FIU(717) 795-71l42
JAY J CIlO, M 0
HONG SPARK, M 0
TflOMAS 0 CARUSO, 0 0
ROBERTA E GRIFF, M 0
U 120 N 7U, S~""t, Suito 102
Chnmbo"burg, PA 17201
Tolophono (717) 267.7735
F.. (7171267.0508
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT
PATIENT NAME: Eugene Zangari
November 1994 Charges Per Day
Procedure Description
Date Code of Charges Charge
---- --------- ----------- ------
Nov. 1 97128 ultrasound(2) 60.00
97010 Hot PacKs 20.00
97124 Massage 35.00
------
Total 115.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 2
97128
97010
97124
Ultrasound(2)
Hot PacKs
Hassage
60.00
20.00
35.00
Total
115.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Nov. 3
97128
97010
97124
Ul trasound (2)
Hot Pac~:s
HaGsage
60.00
20.00
35.00
Total
115.00
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ho\', .;
97128
':<'010
~'712 ,;
Ultr1\solll1d(2)
Hot Pad:,;
l'la" G1\9"
60.00
2fl.OO
35.00
'l'otl.11
115.00
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY OF TREATMENT
PATIENT NAME: Eugene Zangari
charges for December 1994
Procedure Description
Date code Of Charges charge
--------- ----------- ------
Dec. 1 97010 Hot Packs 20.00
97124 Massage 35.00
------
Total 55.00
Dec. 2 97010 Hot Packs 20.00
97124 Massage 35.00
------
Total 55.00
Dec. 5
97010
97124
Hot Packs (2)
Massage,
40.00
35.00
Total
75.00
Dec. 6 97010 Hot Packs 20.00
97128 U1trasound(2) 60.00
97124 Massage 35.00
------
Total U5.00
Dec. 7 97010 Hot Packs 20.00
97128 Ultrasound(2) 60.00
97124 Massage 35.00
------
Total U5.00
Dec. Charges continued
Dee, 8 97010 Hot Packs 20.00
97128 Ultrasound(2) 60.00
97124 Massage 35.00
------
Total 115.00
Dec. 12 97010 Hot Packs 20.00
97128 Ultrasound(2) 60.00
97124 Massage 35.00
------
Total 115.00
Dec. 13 97010 Hot Packs 20.00
97128 Ultrasound(2) 60.00
97124 Massage 35.00
------
Total 115.00
Dec. 14 97010 Hot Packs 20.00
97128 Ultrasound(2) 60.00
97124 Massage 35.00
------
Total 115.00
Dec. 15 97010 Hot Packs 20.00
97128 Ultrasound(2) 60,00
97124 Hassage 35.00
------
Total 115.00
Total charges for December 1994 $990.00
.15/301"'5 .
Ouarantorl13675
Eugene N, Zangari *
m,;rISFIC1IlJN liEGl GlER
I"c.ge '
1 '
A
A Dr.
=============~=============~=====~===~=~===:=======~=~=;=====~====:======================~===
For ,11/>;11/,"4 to
Date
Proc edur'e
Code/Desc
Arr'OLII1t
=========~=======================~====~================~===~========::======~~================
flue
Unlt<;/CI
/RIII!:
Ell 11 i ng
~, CO Dale
o F
PS SL T I I
In~.
Filed
HJ/.15/94 '~9214 .13 C Y Y 11,1/0704 Y 1'12;,5,~II'
Office visit L4
Diag: 72100 Spine' CervicRI-Arthritis ID.J.D.)
IIN3/942224 P Y T: 12.53 c12 -%,79
11edicare F'ayment Ins Col (llillill 11edicRre
11/03/94 2252 A Y T: -103.34 02 -19.01
Medicare Adjust Ins COI 1,I,iI01 Medicare
11/17/94 2236 P Y T: 1:,:. n I~:: -"'. 2!~
Os 65 Spec Checl'
10N5N4 72L'51:1 1i13 C Y Y 11;IN7/'?4 Y 1;12 129.,111\
Xray Cerv Spine 4v
Diag: 72100 Spine - Cervical-Arthritis (D.J,D,)
11/03/';'4 2224 P Y T: 72.5302 -35.74
Medicare Payment Ins Co: 0,101 Medicare
11 N3I'P4 2252 A Y T: - W3. 34 ,,12 -:34.33
Medicare Adjust Ins Co: 0001 Medicare
11/171942236 P Y T: 18.13 1i12 -:3.n
Bs 65 Spec Check
11/161'74 Sl9213 1:1:3 C Y Y 11/231"'4 Y ,,12 3'?1i10
Office Visit L3
Diagl 72100 Spine - Cervical-Arthritis ([I.J.D.)
12/15/94 2224 P Y T: 25.49 02 -25.49
Merlicare Payrr,ent Ins Co: ,11,101 Medicare
12/15/94 2252 A Y T: -7.1402 -7.14
Medicare Adjust Ins Co: c'.101 Medicare
12/301'74 2236 P Y T: 6.37 02 -6.37
Bs 65 Spec Check
12/2G/'Y4
10/Iil7N4
::::;5,:1~1195 12/.28/94
II /~13/')4
;::3SlZi-3195 12/2:~/';>4
11/1il3/?4
C'oI"O 12/28/,,"4
11/17/?4
12/28N4
10/07/?4
::85,131 '15 12/23/'14
11/.13/94
385.13195 12/28/94
11/0:3/94
0.1'~' 12/28/94
11/17/94
01/30/95
11/22194
3:3c.~;7178 12/28/94
12/15/94
3E't'~17178 12/28/94
12/15/'~4
0.00 01/30/95
12/30/'14
CLlrrent 31-60 61-90 ,'1-12~1 Over 121!i Total [lLle
0.0,' IJ.013 1~.~10 lil.lill~ iJ.~10 1::1.0121
Bi Il/Int. Other Chgs. Cash F'mts. Other Prrlts. Adjustrr,el1ls
0.1:10 233.013 ~,. 0~1 - 1:'::2 . 52 -11~'.48
ELlgene N. Zangal'i
1.157 Country C1Llb
Camp HIll
*
Road
PA
17.'11
Pennsylvania O,-lhopedics, P.C.
E:7S Pop 1 ar ChLlrch Rd.
Carr,p Hi 11 PA 17<111
Telephone: (717) Jt.1-5131
Doctor: Jason J ~ i tton, MD
Ta. I~': 23,1741481
lAW oFFIcES Of
TIMOTHY A. SHOLLENBERGER
TIMOTny ^, SHOLLENBERGER
~RL J, J^NUZZI
ltIl0 lINOLESlO\\'N 1'01\0
r 0 80X tN1H
HARRISBURG, PA. 17106.0545
(717) IJH700
FAX (717) lJ4-811l
March 9, 1995
Mr. Glenda E. Shreffler
General Accident Insurance
100 Corporate Center Drive
P. O. Box 8851
Camp Hill, Pa. 17011-8851
Re: Claim No. 036A51696AE
My Client: Gene zangari
Your Insured: Gene Zangari
Date of Loss: 2/16/83
Dear Ms. Shreffler:
As you know, I represent Gene zangari relative to the above
claim. You had written and asked that he attend a medical
examination with Dr. Dahmus. We had opposed that examination as
I do not believe there is good cause for same.
My basis for reaching this conclusion largely stems frum a
report issued by Harrisburg Orthopedic Associates, P.C. under the
signature of Balint Balog, M.D. dated March 17, 1993. Dr. Balog
examined Mr. Zangari at General Accident's request. Among his
conclusions were the following:
"My overall impression is that Mr. Zangari still suffers
from residuals of a cervical sprain in the 1983 accident.
Intermittent exacerbations for no apparent reason have
responded, and are still responding well to physical
treatment modalities. I do not feel that Mr. Zangari has
been abusing the physical therapy, nor does it seem that he
has been receiving an excessive amount of this treatment.
Given his symptoms as well as response to these treatment
modalities, I feel that this would still be the most
appropriate way to manage exacerbation.
It appears by all indications that this is still related to
the automobile accident of February 16, 1983. Specifically,
there is no evidence of on-going treatment prior to this
accident, nor is there any evidence of on-going pain prior
to this accident.
With regard to the last question in your letter dated
February 17, 1993, Mr. Zangari's condition still justifies
and necessitates occasional physical therapy treatment,
although I cannot state that it has to be at Mechanicsburg
Rehab Center.
EXHIBIT
I C~
TiMOTHY A. SHOLLENBERGER
Mr. Glenda E, shreffler
-2 -
~larch 9. 1995
It is hard to state whether this condition will ever fully
resolve. Certainly the intermittent exacerbations with no
apparent injuries over the last 10 years are an ominous sign
that this may indeed be a continued, on-going problem. On
the other hand, as long as fairly benign treatment such as
physical therapy keeps this condition under control and does
not fully disable this patient, this may be a worthwhile
modality to continue to consider on an intermittent basis if
and when exacerbations occur."
It appears as if this particular report answers the
questions posed and contains a prognosis which would encompass
the future.
However. if you will agree to have Mr. Zangari return to Dr.
Balog for another medical examination, I will recommend to Mr.
zangari that he attend it and will not oppose same.
Doctor shopping until you get the opinion you want violates
both the spirit and intent of the no-fault act by which this
claim is governed.
There are, however, some new laws that have been passed that
would be applicable to this case. specifically Section 8371 of
Title 42, First Party Bad Faith Statute. As you are not doubt
aware, that statute provides as follows:
"in an action arising under an insurance policy, if the
court finds that the insurer has acted in bad faith toward
the insured. the court may take all of the following
actions:
1. award interest on the amount of the claim from the date
the claim was made by the insured in an amount equal to
the prime rate of interest plus 3%;
2. award punitive damages against the insurer;
3. assess court costs and attorney's fees against the
insurer. "
The potential for bad faith lies in the continued insistence
of your company to challenge this claim despite the report from
Dr. Balog and his statements regarding prognosis. More
significantly, it lies in the use by your company of the peer
review process when same is contrary to a Superior Court
decision. I suggest that you read the case of Nationwide Mutual
continues to require physical therapy for the injuries sustained in
the accident.
10. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that
Defendant has not paid medical bills after December 23, 1993. It
is admitted that nine (9) months prior to that date Dr. Balog
issued a report. The paraphrasing of the report in paragraph 10 is
denied as the report speaks for itself.
11. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is denied that
any physical therapy prescribed by Dr. Litton is necessary and
related to the accident.
12. Denied. Answering Defendant is without information or
belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 12 and answer
is denied and proof is demanded at time of trial.
13. Admitted.
14 . Denied as stated. The averments of paragraph 14 are
denied to the extent they seek to paraphrase Ms. Shreffler's
correspondence.
15. Denied. It is denied that Defendant's attempt to involve
peer review process is improper.
16. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff was necessitated to
commence this action.
COUNT I
Breach of Contract
17. Paragraphs 1 through 16 of Plaintiff's Complaint are
2
incorporated herein by reference hereto and made a part hereof as
if set forth in full.
18. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff fully complied with
the terms and conditions of the aforesaid policy of insurance.
Plaintiff has refused to submit to an independent medical
examination pursuant to the terms and conditions of the policy.
19. Denied. It is denied that Defendant's denial of payment
of medical bills is in breach of any contract of insurance and/or
in direct violation of Pennsylvania No-Fault Motor Vehicle
Insurance Act.
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests this Honorable Court to dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint.
COUNT II
Attol'nev's Fees
20. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of Plaintiff's Complaint are
incorporated herein and are made a part hereof as if set forth in
full.
21. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff is entitled to
attorney's fees incurred as a result of Defendant's failure to pay
the benefits alleged in the Complaint.
22. Denied. It is denied that Plaintiff is entitled to
attorney's fees and/or that the insurer has unreasonably denied the
claim. It is denied that General Accident's denial of this claim
3
is unreasonable:
(a) Denied. It is denied that Defendant has denied the claim
without any stated basis;
(b) Denied. It is denied that Defendant improperly invoked
the peer review process has denied the claim; and,
(c) Denied. It is denied that Defendant acted unreasonably
and denied the claim and/or that any physician selected
by Defendant had seen the Plaintiff within nine (9)
months of the date Defendant has ceased paying bills.
COUNT III
Bad Psi th
23. Paragraphs 1 through 22 of Plaintiff's Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference and are made a part hereof as if
set forth in full.
24. Denied. It is denied that the Defendant's handling of
this claim is in violation of the Pennsylvania No Fault Act, the
insurance policy, for the insurance policy's implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing. Any allegations of bad faith are
denied.
(a)
(c)
Denied. It is denied Defendant failed to provide
Plaintiff with an explanation of denial of the claim;
Denied. It is denied Defendant improperly invoked the
peer review process to deny the claim;
Denied. Plaintiff refused to attend an independent
4
(b)
medical examinationi
(d) Denied. It is denied Defendant acted in bad faith in
failing to respond to Plaintif f' s letter of March 9,
1995i
(e) Denied. It is denied Defendant failed or refused to
provide any basis or good cause for the Independent
Medical Examination the Defendant scheduled with Dr.
Robert Dahmus in February, 1995i and,
(f) Denied. It is denied Defendant forced Plaintiff to file
this action to enforce his rights under the pOlicy.
25. Denied. It is Defendant has violated 42 Pa.C.S.A. ~8371,
or is liable for interest on the claim from the date the claim was
made in an amount equal to the prime rate of interest, plus three
(3\) percent, court costs, attorney's fees, or punitive damages.
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests this Honorable Court to dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint.
NEW MATTER
26. Plaintiff failed or refused to cooperate in the
processing of this claim.
27. Plaintiff failed or refused to attend an Independent
Medical Examination scheduled with Dr. Robert Dahmus in February,
1995.
28. Some or all of Plaintiff's claims may be barred by the
provisions of the Pennsylvania No Fault Act.
5
29. Some or all of Plaintiff's claims for bad faith may be
barred, limited or preempted by the penalty provisions of the
Pennsylvania No Fault Act.
30. Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim for which
punitive damages may be recovered.
31. Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages cannot be
sustained because an award of such exemplary relief, without proof
of every element beyond a reasonable doubt, would viola~e
Defendant's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution and under the provisions of the
Pennsylvania Constitution. Alternatively, unless Defendant's
liability for punitive damages and the appropriate amount of such
damages are required to be established by clear and convincing
evidence, any ward of punitive damages would violate Defendant's
due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution and by the provisions of the
Pennsylvania Constitution.
32. Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages cannot be
sustained because any award for punitive damages under Pennsylvania
law, without bifurcating the trial of all punitive damages issues,
would violate Defendant's due process right guaranteed by the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the due
process provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
33. Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages cannot be
sustained because an award of punitive damages under Pennsylvania
6
law subject to no predetermined limit, such as a maximum multiple
of compensatory damages or a maximum amount of punitive damages
which a jury may impose, would violate Defendant's due process
rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and by the due process provisions of the Pennsylvania
constitution.
34. Plaintiff's claim fo~ punitive damages cannot be
sustained because an award of punitive damages under Pennsylvania
law by a jury that:
(a) is not provided with a standard of sufficient clarity for
determining the appropriateness or the appropriate size
of a punitive damage award;
(b) is not instructed on the limits of punitive damages
imposed by the applicable principles of deterrence in
punishment;
(c) is not expressly prohibited from awarding punitive
damages, in whole or in part, on the basis of invidiously
discriminatory characteristics, including the corporate
status of Defendant;
(d) is permitted to award punitive damages under a standard
for determining liability for punitive damages as vague
and arbitrary and does not define with sufficient clarity
the conduct or mental state that makes punitive damages
permissible; and,
(e) is not subject to
judicial
7
review on the
basis of
obj ective standards would violate Defendant's due process
and equal protection rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and the
double jeopardy clauses of the Fifth Amendment as
incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment and by the
Pennsylvania constitutional provisions pertaining to due
process, equal protection and guarantee against double
jeopardy.
35. Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages cannot be
sustained because an award of punitive damages under Pennsylvania
law for the purpose of compensating Plaintiff for elements of
damages is not otherwise recognized by Pennsylvania law and would
violate Defendant's due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and by the due process
provisions of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
36. Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages cannot be
sustained because an awareness of punitive damages under
Pennsylvania law, without the same protection that is accorded
criminal defendants, including protection against unreasonable
searches and seizures, double jeopardy and self-incrimination and
the rights to confront adverse witnesses, a speedy trial and the
effective assistance of counsel, would violate Defendant's rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
and the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments as incorporated into the
Fourteenth Amendment and the Pennsylvania Constitution provisions
B
providing for due process and the rights to confront witnesses,
speedy trial, effective assistance of counsel, protection against
unreasonable searches and seizures, double jeopardy and compelled
self-incrimination.
37. Any award of punitive damages based on anything other
than Defendant's conduct in connection with the specific single
vehicle that is the subject of this litigation would violate the
due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment,
as incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Pennsylvania
constitutional provisions providing for due process and against
double jeopardy; any other judgment for punitive damages in this
case cannot protect Defendant against impermissible punishment for
the same alleged wrong.
38. Plaintiff'S complaint, to the extent that it seeks
punitive or exemplary damages, violates Defendant's right to
protection from "excessive fines" as provided in the Eighth
Amendment of the United States Constitution and the applicable
State Constitution, and violates Defendant's right to substantial
due process as provided in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of
the Constitution and the State Constitution, and therefore fails to
9
EUGENE ZANGARI
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaint if f
GENERAL ACCIDENT INS.:
Respondent
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 95-1974 CIVIL TERM
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
v.
AASWER TO >>EW MATTER
AND NOW comes the Plaintiff, EUGENE N. ZANGARI, by and
through his attorneys, LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY A.
SHOLLENBERGER, and does respectfully respond to Defendant's
New Matter as follows:
26. Paragraph 26 of the Defendant's New Matter is in
the nature of a conclusion of law and to that extent
requires no answer. To the extent that an answer is
required, the Plainti.ff is, after reasonable investigation,
without knowledge sufficient to form a believe as to the
truth of the averment contained in said paragraph and said
paragraph is therefore denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at the time of trial.
27. Paragraph 27 is denied. On the contrary.
Plaintiff has not failed or refused to attend an independent
medical examination with Dr. Dahmus but instead indicated
that he would be more than willing to undergo an independent
medical examination with Dr. Balog. By way of further
answer, Defendant has never responded to Plaintiff's
~uggestion that the examination take place with Dr. Balog.
28. paragraph 28 of the Defendant's New Matter is in
the nature of a conclusion of law and to that extent
requires no answer. To the extent that an answer is
required, the Plaintiff is, after reasonable investigation,
without knowledge sufficient to form a believe as to the
truth of the averment contained in said paragraph and said
paragraph is therefore denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at the time of trial.
29. paragraph 29 of the Defendant's New Matter is in
tAW l1fHCts ~)f
TIMOTlIl' A, SBOLLENnERGER
I~;~' l1snUSTnWN Rl'-'\Il . I'l) I\OX ~~..~ . IlARH1Sl1l'Hti, I'^ I7lCf'I{\~"~
\7171 !14-1i.\' . fAX \71;1 t\u.!I!
the nature of a conclusion of law and to that extent
requires no answer. To the extent that an answer is
required, the Plaintiff is, after reasonable investigation,
without knowledge sufficient to form a believe as to the
truth of the averment contained in said paragraph and said
paragraph is therefore denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at the time of trial.
31. Paragraph 31 of the Defendant's New Matter is in
the nature of a conclusion of law and to that extent
requires no answer. To the extent that an answer is
required, the Plaintiff is, after reasonable investigation,
without knowledge sufficient to form a believe as to the
truth of the averment contained in said paragraph and said
paragraph is therefore denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at the time of trial.
32. Paragraph 32 of the Defendant's New Matter is in
the nature of a conclusion of law and to that extent
requires no answer. To the extent that an answer is
required, the Plaintiff is, after reasonable investigation,
without knowledge sufficient to form a believe as to the
truth of the averment contained in said paragraph aud said
paragraph is therefore denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at the time of trial.
32. Paragraph 32 of the Defendant's New Matter is in
the nature of a conclusion of law and to that extent
requires no answer. To the extent that an answer is
required, the Plaintiff is, after reasonable investigation,
without knowledge sufficient to form a believe as to the
truth of the averment contained in said paragraph and said
paragraph is therefore denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at the time of trial.
34. Paragraph 34 of the Defendant's New Matter is in
the nature of a conclusion of law and to that extent
requires no answer. To the extent that an answer is
required, the Plaintiff is, after reasonable investigation,
without knowledge sufficient to form a believe as to the
tAW t'HIl"!::; llf
TIMllTllV A, SIlUtLENnER"ER
\,..:.' USt .11,"'1\ 1\\'~ Ih l,\n . I'l) 1\4.11( hl'H~ . IlAHIU:-I\1 'JI{ I, (','" 111.'tq'~H
\;171 !'04 17~\.' . J:AX 17171 !14 ~:l:
truth of the averment contained in said paragraph and said
paragraph is therefore denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at the time of trial.
35. Paragraph 35 of the Defendant's New Matter is in
the nature of a conclusion of law and to that extent
lC"equires no answer. To the extent that ar. answer is
required, the Plaintiff is, after reasonable investigation,
without knowledge sufficient to form a believe as to the
truth of the averment contained in said paragraph and said
paragraph is therefore denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at the time of trial.
36. Paragraph 36 of the Defendant's New Matter is in
the nature of a conclusion of law and to that extent
requires no answer. To the extent that an answer is
required, the Plaintiff is, after reasonable investigation,
without knowledge sufficient to form a believe as to the
truth of the averment contained in said paragraph and said
paragraph is therefore denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at the time of trial.
37. Paragraph 37 of the Defendant's New Matter is in
the nature of a conclusion of law and to that extent
requires no answer. To the extent that an answer is
required, the Plaintiff is, after reasonable investigation,
without knowledge sufficient to form a believe as to the
truth of the averment contained in said paragraph and said
paragraph is therefore denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at the time of trial.
38. Paragraph 38 of the Defendant's New Matter is in
the nature of a conclusion of law and to that extent
requires no answer.. To the extent that an answer is
required, the Plaintiff is, after reasonable investigation,
without knowledge sufficient to form a believe as to the
truth of the averment contained in said paragraph and said
paragraph is therefore denied and strict proof thereof is
demanded at the time of trial.
1....\l"ltJh]:.~~)~
TIMOTHY ^. SIIUI.lENnEfUiI:H
1~:\\IIS(i1I:--hl\l,'S Ih'."ll . 1'1' 1\1." N'\H . tt,"~ltI"I\I'lhi.I'." I,h'f.~",,\
"Iii: 14 1;\\' . .....x \i'1 il ~14 "': I:
EUGENE N. ZANGARI,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
NO . 'I J' I 1 /4 (I I c'; ( ,) I ,
/l.."'--.
v.
GENERAL ACCIDENT
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
PLEASE ISSUE A WRIT OF SUMMONS AGAINST THE DEFENDANT,
GENERAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY. DEFENDANT GENERAL
ACCIDENT INSURANCE COMPANY CAN BE SERVED AT 100 CORPORATE
CENTER DRIVE, CAMP HILL, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
LAW OFFICES OF
TIMOTHY A. SHOLLENBERGER
Attorneys for Plaintiff
B~' .
T' thy S
A 'torney I. D.
DATE: April 17, 1995
,.....IJ.' l '~~Il 'l~ l )~
TIMUTIIV A. SIIOI.lENnf.hliER
\..:.' 11"ljll"tll\1.'~ Ih'.\I' . I'll '\\':\ fX'H~ . 11.A.I\ItI:'IIl'IHi. I'i~ lill''''\'~''\
1;\1l:14 1;\\' . L...X ,ilil nt ~:I:
""~~"~'"~!6~)r/~~~1;0!;1:;:U':'i2:;;'(?~.';i~~'~':'7IL:{~;.~i~[~:;!~~).~,\\r.}~!~r~~~~?~~~"" .
, ,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
NO.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
EUGENE N. ZANGARI, 11,111 III II 51 !l~' 195
Plain ti ff , ,
i'r
V. ,
GENERAL ACCIDENT ) JtJ 1 (~ jr
INSURANCE COMPANY, 1/
De fendant ,!)
1,5 ,),
(1/ 20'0 J'
PRAECIPE FOR 1/ )/
II'
WRIT OF SUMMONS /07 (})
( (t' (
LAW OFFICES OF
TIMOTHY A. SHOLLENBERGER
1820 L1NOlES'TOWN RG\[)
roo. I\OX ~Hi
HARRISBURO. VA 17106.0HI
gr~~J n nG'l tt1 z
....' o IT C 0
<: 3 ;l to .
....' '0 IT IT
f-' c: t1 ;l
;l c: IT \0
~!~ .r l> tII '<f-' U1
n ~ z I
rt :x> f-'
~ ~ ~ ....' n \0
0 n I N -.j
;l z ..... <: 0: ....
8~. f tII P. I ;l
IT to
H ;l 0: n
!::i t'" Z rt t1 .....
[ 0: ..... <
'"' ~ H .....
~ ;l ....
Ul
. C .;
~ j t1 ro
0: ~
VI ;l
. n
IT