HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-04921
After her discharge, she was followed on an out-patient basis
with Doctor Allen Mira with respect to her hip injury; Dr. Todd
Samuels with respect to her post-concussion syndrome causing
headaches, depression, irr1tability and poor concentration; and
with Dr. Ronald Hoban, chiropractor, with respect to her cervical
strain with resulting headaches and neck pain.
Although the treatment of her hip has been characterized as
successful, Michelle does continue to have symptoms of this injury,
including pain and numbness in her hip upon various activities,
such as roller skating and/or running, or after standing or sitting
in one position for extended periods of time. In addition, she
hears a popping or cracking within her hip upon moving her leg in
certain positions. Dr. Mira is optimistic that her symptoms will
subside as she matures into her early twenties. She still suffers
headaches and neck discomfort, and this along with the pain
relating to her hip has caused her to miss many days in school and
her grades have suffered accordingly.
The first party benefits limit under the automobile policy of
the Defendant in the amount of $10,000 have been exhausted and the
balance of medical bills are expected to be covered under
Michelle's parents HMO program. It is uncertain at this time what
the effects would be when Michelle would leave her parents'
household and no longer be covered by that insurance coverage.
2
III. PRINCIPAL ISSUES:
Measure of damages for pain and suffering, loss of life's
pleasures, etc., and if necessary and appropriate potential future
medical expense.
IV. LEGAL ISSUES:
1. Because Michelle Cohick will be 18 years of age (date of
birth February 20, 1979) and therefore an adult by the time of
trial, it will not longer be pursued by her mother, Juanita Cohick,
on her behalf.
2. Potential amendment of the pleadings of the Complaint to
reflect the additional element of damage of cervical strain.
y.... WITNESSES:
1. Plaintiff. Michelle Cohick
.
2. Defendant as on cross examination
3. Investigating police officer if liability is not conceded
by the defense.
4. Michelle Cohick's mother and father
5. Dr. Mira (video tape
.._.0.-
Dr. Samuels (video taped) ,.. );rt
...--........-
Dr. Hoban (1 e or by video tape) - .
nurses of Michelle Cohick (Nurse Madden, Nurse
Carey)
9. Friends and/or co-workers of Plaintiff
'3
~ ~
In~
-Id
.il
,
,
JUANITA COHICK, PARENT AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN OF
MICHELLE R. COHICK, A MINOR.
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
No.
JARED MYERS,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
AND NOW comes the Plaintiff, Juanita Cohick, parent and
natural guardian of Michelle R. Cohick, a minor, by and through her
attorney, Leslie M. Fields, Esquire, and respectfully represent as
follows:
1. Plaintiff, Juanita Cohick, an adult individual, is the
parent and natural guardian of Michelle R. Cohick, a minor, both of
whom reside at CME Lot 168, Newville, Cumberland County.
Pennsylvania 17241.
2. Defendant, Jared Myers, is an adult individual residing at
III North 23rd Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
17011.
3. The events giving rise to this complaint occurred on or
about May 17, 1994, at or about 11:15 p.m. on Brickchurch Road (SR
4019) near its intersection with Bridge Road in Upper Frankford
Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
4. At the aforesaid time and place, Plaintiff's minor,
Michelle R. Cohick, was a passenger in an automobile operated by
1
Defendant, Jared Myers, which was travelling northbound on
Brickchurch Road at a high rate of speed when Defendant failed to
negotiate a curve, lost control of the vehicle and crashed into an
embankment along the roadway.
5. At the aforesaid time and place, Plaintiff's minor,
Michelle R. Cohick, was caused to sustain severe injuries to her
person, hereinafter more fully described.
6. At the aforesaid time and place, the collision and
injuries resulting therefrom were caused by the negligent. careless
and/or reckless actions of Defendant, Jared Myers, in that he:
(a) was driving his vehicle at an unsafe speed;
(b) was negligent per se in that he violated
Section 3361 of the Vehicle Code (75 Pa.C.S. ~
3361) on "Driving vehicle at safe speed";
(c) was speeding;
(d) was operating his vehicle at too high a rate of speed;
(e) was driving carelessly;
( f) was negligent per se in that he violated
Section 3714 of the Vehicle Code (75 Pa.C.S. ~
3714) on "Careless driving";
(g) failed to slow down as he entered a curve;
(h) failed to negotiate the curve;
(i) failed to keep his eyes and attention on the
roadway;
(j ) failed to maintain his car under proper and
lawful control;
2
(k) failed to stop before causing an accident;
(1) failed to keep a proper lookout;
(m) failed to see what he should have seen;
(n) failed to notice the imminence of an accident
and to take the necessary steps to avoid the
same; and
(0) acted without regard for the safety and rights
of Plaintiff.
7. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent,
careless and/or reckless acts of the Defendant, Jared Myers, the
Plaintiff's minor, Michelle R. Cohick, has suffered injuries which
were and are severe, painful, serious and permanent.
These
injuries include, but are not limited to:
(a) an acute posterior dislocation of the ~ight hip;
(b) laceration of anterior maxilla involving nasal
spine fracture;
(c) oral lacerations;
(d) a concussion; and
(e) numerous contusions and abrasions.
8. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligent,
careless andlor reckless acts of the Defendant. Jared Myers. the
Plaintiff I S minor, Michelle R. Cohick, has been obligated to
receive and undergo medical attention, care and expenses for the
injuries she has suffered and may be obligated to continue to incur
3
such expenses for an indefinite time in the future.
9. As a further direct and proximate result of the negligent,
careless and/or reckless acts of the Defendant, Jared Myers, the
Plaintiff's minor, Michelle R. Cohick, has suffered a loss of
earnings and/or impairment of her earning capacity and power.
10. As a further direct and proximate result of the
negligent, careless and/or reckless acts of the Defendant, Jared
Myers, the Plaintiff's minor.. Michelle R. Cohick, has suffered
medically determinable physical impairments which have prevented
her from performing all of the normal acts and duties which
constitute her usual and customary daily activities.
11. As a further direct and proximate result of the
negligent, careless and/or reckless acts of the Defendant, Jared
Myers, the Plaintiff's minor, Michelle R. Cohick, has experienced
severe pain and suffering, mental anguish and humiliation, and in
the future may continue to so experience.
12. As a further direct and proximate result of the
negligent. careless and/or reckless acts of the Defendant, Jared
Myers, the Plaintiff's minor, Michelle R. Cohick, has suffered a
loss of life's pleasures and in the future will continue to suffer
a loss of life's pleasures.
4
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Juanita Cohick, parent and natural
guardian of Michelle R. Cohick, a minor. demands judgment against
Defendant, Jared Myers, in an amount in excess of the compulsory
arbitration limits plus costs and interest as provided by law.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
slie M. Fields, Esquire
COSTO ULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS
831 rket Street/P.O. Box 222
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Phone: (717) 761-2121
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
,
DATED: St.r J1
, 1995.
5
~ ~
Ii. _
Inl
'ii~
8 .
~ci~
~ ~
:3HERIFF .::: RETIJRIl ' REGULAR
CASE NO: 1995-049:::1 r
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
COHICK JUANITA ET AL
VS.
MYERS JARErI
JACOB BAKER . SherIff .or ['eputy ShE'flti 01
CUMBERLAND County, PennsylvanIa, who bE'lng duly "worn accordIng
to law. says. thE' WI thin COMPLAINT
upon MYERS JARED
dE'fendant. at 1945:00 HOURS. on thE' 19th day c:f September
was served
the
1995 at
III NORTH 23RD STREET
CAMP HILL. PA 17011 ,CUMBERLAND
County. PennsylvanIa. by handln~ to STEVE CROUSE. STEPFATHER OF
JARED MYERS
a truE' and attested copy of the COMPLAINT
and at the same tlme dIrectIng HIS attention to the contents thefeof.
Sheflff's Costs:
('l'cket I ng
SerVll.~
AffIdavIt
SUI"chal'ge
18.00
8.40
.OW
2.1/10
So ~f':/ ~
r ~1~t:. ~
~ Thomas K1lne. ShefIff
s7t':;;m--L E S LI E F'I E L D S
09/21/1995
by
D~rsh(}~
thlS
~nd subscr-lbed fl) b~tor~ m~'
_ ~_~_~ day If ~~._~_.
'1'< A. U.
Syorn
19
~'
\.. ~ _ ' I I
'"'7~u... - r\1'fji':tnr.1' a1-M--.
JUANITA COHICK,
Parent and Natural Parent of
MICHELLE R. COHICK, a minor,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OP COMMON PLEAS OP
I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Defendant
I NO. 95-4921 CIVIL
I
I
I CIVIL ACTION - LAW
I
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
v.
JARED MYERS,
ANSWER AND NEW MATTER
1. Denied. Answering Defendant is without information
or belief as to the truth of the averments in paragraph #1. Hence
it is denied and proof is demanded at time of trial.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4.
Denied as stated.
It is admitted that at the
aforesaid time and place, MICHELLE R. COHICK, was a passenger in an
automobile operated by JARED MYERS, which was traveling northbound
on Brickchurch Road. Any and all other averments of paragraph #4
are denied and proof is demanded at time of trial. It is denied
that Defendant was traveling at a high rate of speed and/or failed
to negotiate a curve and/cr lost control of the vehicle.
i. Denied. It is denied that Defendant failed to
keep his eyes and attention on the roadway;
j. Denied. It is denied that Defendant failed to
maintain his car under proper and lawful
control;
k. Denied. It is denied that Defendant failed to
stop before causing an accident;
1. Denied. It is denied that Defendant failed to
a proper lookout;
m. Denied. It is denied that Defendant failed to
see what he should have seen;
n. Denied. It is denied that Defendant failed to
notice the imminence of an accident and/or
take any necessary steps to avoid same;
o. Denied. It is denied that Defendant acted
without regard to the safety and rights of
Plaintiff.
7. Denied. Any and all allegations of negligence of
Defendant are denied and proof is demanded at time of trial.
Answering Defendant is without information and belief as to the
balance of the averments in paragraph 7. Hence it is denied and
proof is demanded at time of trial.
B. Denied. Any and all allegations of negligence of
Defendant are denied and proof is demanded at time of trial.
Answering Defendant is without information and belief as to the
balance of the averments in paragraph 8. Hence it is denied and
3
proof is demanded at time of trial.
9. Denied. Any and all allegations of negligence of
Defendant are denied and proof is demanded at time of trial.
Answering Defendant is without information and belief as to the
balance of the averments in paragraph 9. Hence it is denied and
proof is demanded at time of trial.
10. Denied. Any and all allegations of negligence of
Defendant are denied and proof is demanded at time of trial.
Answering Defendant is without information and belief as to the
balance of the averments in paragraph 10. Hence it is denied and
proof is demanded at time of trial.
11. Denied. Any and all allegations of negligence of
Defendant are denied and proof is demanded at time of trial.
Answering Defendant is without information and belief as to the
balance of the averments in paragraph 11. Hence it is denied and
proof is demanded at time of trial.
12. Denied. Any and all allegations of negligence of
Defendant are denied and proof is demanded at time of trial.
.
Answering Defendant is without information and belief as to the
balance of the averments in paragraph 12. Hence it is denied and
proof is demanded at time of trial.
WBBRBPORB, Defendant requests this Honorable Court to dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint.
NEW MATTER
13. Some or all of Plaintiff's claims may be barred by
the Statute of Limitations.
14. Some or all of Plaintiff's claims may be barred by
Plaintiff's assumption of a risk.
15. Some or all of Plaintiff's claims may be barred by
Plaintiff's contributory and/or comparative negligence.
16. Some or all of Plaintiff's damages may be barred or
limited by the provisions of the Financial Responsibility Law.
5
17. Some or all of Plaintiff's claims or damages may be
barred by Plaintiff's election of limited tort option.
WHEREPORE, Defendant request this Honorable Court to dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint.
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER
BY:DO~~a
Attorney 1.0. No. 36510
305 North Front Street
P.O. Box 999
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108
(717) 255-7238
Attorney for Defendant
6
t
.
,
JUANITA COHICK, PARENT AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN OF
MICHELLE R. COHICK, A MINOR.
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
.
.
.
.
.
.
:
vs.
.
.
No. 95-4921 Civil
:
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
JARED MYERS,
:
Defendant
.
.
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER
AND NOW comes the plaintiff, Juani ta Cohick, parent and
natural guardian of Michelle R. Cohick. a minor, by and through her
attorney, Leslie M. Fields, of Costopoulos, Foster and Fields, and
replies as follows:
13. Denied. None of plaintiff's claims are barred. The
events forming the subject of this complaint occurred on May 17,
1994, approximately one year and four months ago. Furthermore, the
affected individual has not reached the age of majority.
14. Denied. None of plaintiff's claims are barred in that
she did not knowingly or voluntarily assume the risk of her
injuries. To the contrary, those injuries were unexpected and were
caused by defendant as set forth in the complaint.
15. Denied. None of plaintiff's claims are barred in that
she was not contributorily or comparatively negligent.
To the
contrary, those injuries were caused by defendant as set forth in
the complaint.
,
16. Denied. Plaintiff's de.mages are recoverable as ",et forth
in the complaint.
17. Denied. None of plaintiff's claims are barred because
she did not elect a limited tort option.
WHEREFORE, the relief requested by defendant should be denied.
By:
~
M. Fields, Esquire
COS POULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS
831 Market Street/P.O. Box 222
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043
Phone: (717) 761-2121
ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Dated:
&~bw 0I,'i / 99 S-
,
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document
are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein
are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904,
relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Dated:1}P :J.3tf1c:;'
I
~Jn,ni ~otl
uanita Cohick
.
.....
t:n
-
....
..
..)
'.--.1
,-
"
c;:)
~ ~
II. _
III ~
~~m~
~~;~
glir
~ c Dr
~ ~
.
AllG n 7 \996 4"
JUANITA COHICK,
Parent end Natural Parent of
MICHELLB R. COHICK, a minor,
Plaintiffs
I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBBRLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 95-4921 CIVIL
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JARED MYERS,
Defendant
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDBD
AND NOW,
~ULB TO SHOW CAUSB
this ~ day of I
, 1996, a Rule is
hereby issued against Plaintiff to sh
why she should not
have to attend an Independent Medical Examination with Dr. David
Baker and Dr. Craig Jorgenson on dates set by Defendant. A Rule is
further issued for Plaintiff to show cause why she should not be
required to reimburse Plaintiff in the amount of $325.00 for her
failure or refusal to attend
the Independent
Exam#ttnnso
"n~ ... .."
[!OD:' - ~
ij;C" - ",r'
servl' r z '~i
,~ :-- ...:;J
(-, :.c "').
.... ....
[. '9 tj
"'" r., ~
previously scheduled.
Rule returnable within
20
days of its
BY THE COURT:
J
.
v.
I IN THB COURT or COMMON PLBAS or
I cmmBRLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
I
I NO. 95-4921 CIVIL
I
I
JUANITA COHICK,
Parent and Natural Parent of
MICHELLB R. COHICK, a minor,
Plaintiff.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JARED MYBRS,
I
Defendant
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DBF~~'S PBTITION FOR INDBPENDENT
HlPI~ BXAMINATIQB J\ND RBIMBURSPIBNl' OF BXPBNSB
1. Defendant seeks this Court to order Plaintiff to attend
Independent Medical Examinations after she has failed or refused to
attend Independent Medical Examinations by an orthopaedic surgeon
and a neurologist and seeks reimbursement for the cost of her
failure or refusal to attend the examinations.
2. Plaintiff has brought an action against Defendant
alleging she suffered injuries in an automobile accident, including
but not limited to dislocation of the right hip, lacerations. and
a concussion. (Plaintiff's Complaint, paragraph 7) .
3. Defendant has scheduled an Independent Medical
Examination with Dr. David Baker in Carlisle, Pennsylvania for May
24, 1996 at 3:00 p.m.
4. Defendant informed Plaintiff's counsel by correspondence
of June 4, 1996, of the date and time of the Independent Medical
Examination and the fact that there was a $200.00 fee for
Plaintiff's failure to attend.
5. counsel for Defendant has been informed by Dr. Baker's
office that Plaintiff, herself, rescheduled the examination for the
following week.
6. plaintiff failed or refused to attend the examination
which she herself rescheduled, causing Defendant to incur the
expense of $200.00 for her failure to attend the examination.
7. Defendant attempted to reschedule the examination with
Dr. Perry Eagle, an orthopaedic surgeon, and informed Plaintiff's
counsel, a copy of said correspondence is attached hereto and made
a part hereof as Exhibit "B."
8. plaintiff's counsel, by her correspondence of June 6,
1996. indicated that her client refused to attend the examination
with Dr. Eagle, a copy of said correspondence is attached hereto
and made a part hereof as Exhibit "C" causing Defendant to incur
the cost of $100.00.
g. Defendant also scheduled an Independent Medical
Examination with neurologist, Dr. Craig Jurgensen for June 17, 1996
and so informed plaintiff's counsel by correspondence in Exhibit A.
plaintiff failed or refused to attend the Independent Medical
2
Examination with Dr. Jurgensen, causing Defendant to be charged
$25.00 for Plaintiff's non-appearance.
10. As Plaintiff is making claims for orthopaedic and
neurological injuries, Defendant is entitled to have an Independent
Medical Examination by doctors of his choice.
11. Plaintiff has failed or refused to attend the examination
scheduled by Defendant.
12. Defendant has incurred cost because of Plaintiff's
failure or refusal to attend the Independent Medical Examinations
in the total amount of $325.00.
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests this Honorable Court order
Plaintiff to attend an Independent Medical Examination with Dr.
David Baker and Dr. Craig Jurgensen, and further order Plaintiff to
reimburse Defendant, $325.00 for the costs incurred due to
Plaintiff's failure or refusal to attend the previously scheduled
Independent Medical Examinations.
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER
t:dbm\home\mlc\doc\~.r.\ple.d1ng\petit1on.doc
By: J
Dou B. Marcello
At rney I,D. No. 36510
305 North Front Street
P.O. Box 999
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108
(717) 255 -7238
Attorney for Defendant
3
CBRTI'J~~ OF SBRVICE
AND NOW, this 5+1-1 day of QU3US+
, 1996, I, MARTHA L.
CLARK, a secretary in the law firm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer,
hereby certify that I sent a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail,
first class, postage prepaid, to the following:
Leslie M. Fields, Esquire
Costopoulos, Foster & Fields
831 Market Street
P.O. Box 222
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043
Attorney for Plaintiff
"rn o.M:JJ... ~. CJ.M.Ie-
Martha L. Clark
4
JUANITA COHICK. PARENT AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN OF
MICHELLE R. COHICK, A MINOR,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
No. 95-4921 Civil
JARED MYERS,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S PETITION FQR AN "INDEPENDENT"
MEDICAL EXAMINI\ liON AND FOR REIMBURSEMENT
1. Denied. Plaintiff, through counsel, notified counsei for defendant of ~ orthopedic
surgeon with whom she had a conflict or whose designation would otherwise be unreasonable.
At no time did she refuse to submit to an "independent" medical examination.
2. Admitt~. Plaintiffs daughter, a minor, was a passenger in defendant's car.
3. Admitted in pan and denied in pan. Counsel for defendant scheduled and then
changed and then rescheduled an appoinbnent with Dr. Baker, and Plaintiff had no objeclion to
that, despite the lack of showing of any cause.
4. Admitted. There were three or four faxed and then mailed letters changing the
arrangements as to place and lime, which were transmitted each time to plainliff. Confusion
apparently resulted. One of the scheduled times must have posed a scheduling conflict for
plainliff and she rescheduled the examination based on one of the letters. See Exhibit D.
5. No answer required.
6. Denied. It is denied that she refused to attend. To the contrary, the defendant's
allegations in paragraph 5 confino the opposite. It is admitted that she did not or was unable
to appear at the other date and time. It is denied that Defendant, Jared Myers has incurred any
expense whatsoever. The allegations concerning the expense, if true, are denied in that an
insurance company is defending and assuming any expenses to be incurred, not the defendant.
7. Admitted. In response, counsel for the plaintiff notified defense counsel by phone
and mail of her refusal to submit to an examination by that one doctor. No exlubits are attached
to Plalntifrs copy of the motion, so she cannot answer to the contents or meaning of exhibit B.
The confinnation from defense counsel was dated three days before the arbitrarily scheduled
appoinbnent. In paragraph 8. he admits to knowing of this on June 6, 1996, fifteen days before
the appolnbnent.
8. Prior to that, petitioner's counsel was advised of her position. In fact, that was made
clear within a day or two of plaintiffs attorney receiving notice that Dr. Eagle had been
selected. If anything was charged by Eagle, it is not the result of Piaintiffs actions.
Funhermore, it is denied that Defendant, Jared Myers has incurred any expense whatsoever.
The allegations concerning the expense, if true, are denied in that an insurance company is
defending and assuming any expenses to be incurred, not defendant. Plaintiffs counsel sent
another letter explaining her position on July 17, 1996. Since the confirmation from defense
counsel was dated three days before the arbitrarily scheduled appointment and in the allegations
in paragraph 8, he admits to knowing of this on June 6, 1996, fifteen days before the
appoinbnent, it is unclear why he, much less the plaintiff, should be charged anything and strict
proof thereof is demanded. See exhibit E attached hereto.
9. No exhibit A was attached to what was served, so plaintiffs counsel cannot comment.
However. it is denied that Defendant, Jared Myers has incurred any expense whatsoever. The
allegations concerning the expense, if true, are denied in that an insurance company is defending
and assuming any expenses to be incurred, not the defendant.
10. Admitted in part and denied in part. Rule 4010 (a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of
Civil Procedure and the interpretive case law speak for themselves. It is denied that the
foregoing confinn the position set forth in defendant's paragraph 10.
11. Denied as set forth above. However, plaintiff does not now nor has she ever refused
to be examined by Drs. Baker or Jurgenson and will do so with acceptable notice of a reasonable
nature .
12. Denied as set forth above.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff agrees, as she always has, to submit to examination by Drs.
Baker and Jurgenson. However, she has neither the financial ability nor the responsibility for
the alleged expenses claimed herein.
Respectfully submitted,
Fields
COS POULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS
831 Market StreetJP.O. Box 222
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043
Phone: (717) 761.2121
A TIORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Dated: -4r ?, " ~"
(\
.\
"
JOSEPH p, HAFER
JAMES K THOMAS. II
JEFFREY B REnIG
PETER J CURRY
R BURI<.E MtlEMORE. JR
EDWARD H JORDAN. JR
C KENT PRICE
RANDAll G GALE
DAVID l SCHWAlM
KEVIN E OSBORNE
PETER J SPEAKER
DOUGlAS B w.ACELlO
PAUl J OELLAS€GA
DANIEL J GALlAGHER
ROBEm A TAYlOR
SAAAH W AAOSELL
EuGENE N McHUGH
RICHARD C S[NECA
STEPHEN E, GEOUl.OIG
I(}.REN S COATES
GARY lLATHROP
ANN F OEPAULIS
TOOO 8 NARVOl
KEVIN C. McNAMARA
8ROOKS R FOlAND
STACY L WILSON
'J~omas. 'J~omas & Jfa/er
7l/lornl''1s 01 ..raw
CI c:puflS(\
,',",1(S- THon'
305 NORTH FRONT STREET
SIXTH FLOOR
POBOX 999
....P:Tl~ <; OIJl(C T Dl"t 'IUf.ljl( 11
255-7238
HARRISBURG. PA 17108
1;111237-]100
FA)!: fil:) ;'1,.1\0',
tVlR.fY 171;1 ;'5S-7f4:'1
,/
~ - k
.:.J1 ' J
'YO" ."Jl.}
...\,;., ),Y
'If' \]' I
'7.
oJ .
V' V
('!'
It-
'7
~
May 3, 1~96
Leslie M. Fields, Esquire
COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS
831 Market Street
P.O. Box 222
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043
I
\
\
Re: Cohick v. Mvers
Dear Leslie: \
I am in receipt of your correspondence demandingl policy limits
in the above captioned matter. At this time, we dq not evaluate
this case as being one in which your client is enti'led to policy
limits. 'iI
As part of our further review of this case, we have scheduled
the independent medical examillddon will. Dr. David Baker in
Carlisle.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Best regards,
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER
By:
)
"...---,
DOUgla~ Marcello
..;,.....-
DBM:mlc
EXHIBIT
I _))__
JOSEPH P HAFER
JAMES K THOMAS. II
JEFFREY B RmiG
PETER J. CuRRY
R BURKE MeUMOAE, JR
EDWARD H JORDAN. JR
C, KENT PRICE
RANDALl G GAlE
DAVID L SCHWAlM
KEvIN E OSBORNE
PETER J sPEAKER
llOUGlAS B MARCEUO
PAlA. J. CEUASEGA
DANIEL J. GAll.AGHER
ROBERT A. TAYLOR
SARAH w. AROSEL1.
EUGENE N. t.IcHUGH
RiCHAAO C. SENECA
STEPHEN E. GEOlADIG
KAREN S. COATES
GARY T LATl-iROP
TOOD B NARVOl
KEVIN C. McNAMARA
BROOKS R FOlANO
STACY L WILSON
r:J~oma$, 'J~Oma8 & Jfajer
7lI/ornl!'1$ a/ .raw
305 NORTH FRONT STREET
SIXTH FLOOR
POBOX 999
HARRISBURG. PA 17108
255-7238
Of COUNSEl
JAMES Il.. THOMAS
'NJIITEA S DlnECT O....L Nut.lAEA
17171237.1100
FAX (i1112JT.7105
lVERlFY lil1125S.7642)
May 16, 1996
Ms. Leslie M. Fields
COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER AND FIELDS
831 Market Street
Lemoyne, PA 17042
Re: Cohick vs. Meyers
Dear Leslie:
As you know, we previously advised you that an independent
medical examination by Dr. Dave Baker in Carlisle, Pennsylvania had
been set for client on May 24, 1996, @ 3:00 p.m.
We have, on this date, scheduled an additional IME with a
neurologist, Dr. craig Jurgenson, 850 Walnut Botton Rd. Carlisle,
PA 17013 (243-3944). The IME with Dr. Jurgenson is set for June
17, 1996, @ 4:00 p.m. Please ask your client to be there
approximately 15 minutes prior to the scheduled appointment time.
Again, please ask Ms. Cohick to bring any and all x-rays to
this examination. Unless we hear otherwise, we will assume that
your client will be in attendance for the independent medical
examination as noted above. We thank you for your assistance and
cooperation in this ~atter.
Best regards,
TIlNIAS, THOMAS & HAFER
BY;/'-;? ~
DOU~~ B. Marcello
DBM:km
CoSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS
WlUlAM C COSlOPOUl.OS
DAVID J. FOSnll
LESUE M. AE1DS
CHARUS RECTOR
ALUN C WELCH
TIMOTHY P. KEATING
ATTORNFiS AND COUNSBl.ORS AT LA.v
811 MARKIT STREET
r.o. 80;( III
LEMOYI'E. PENNSYlVANIA I7NH1111
TEIJ:PIIONE 761.llll
AREA CODE 717
FAX 761-4011
July 17, 1996
Douglas Marcello, Esquire
Thomas, Thomas, & Hafer
P. O. Box 999
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Re: Michelle Cohi~ v. Jared Myers
No. 95-4921 (Cumberland County)
Dear Mr. Marcello:
I recently received your letter scheduling an "independent" medical examination of the
plaintiff to be performed by Dr. Eagle. I have a few problems with this and so offer the
following: this is a Cumberland county case and the plaintiff lives in Newville. It seems
unnecessary and unreasonable to require her to travel all the way to the far south end of York
for such an appointment. I would also like to bring to your attention the fact that I represent
the plaintiffs in a medical malpractice action currently before the Superior Court in which Dr.
Eagle is the defendant. This could mean that the doctor lacks the "requisite objectivity." And
that, along with other qualities he possesses, could result in his opinions on my client's condition
being less than "independent". See Widman v. Melan, 47 D&C3d 113 (1987) and Bennett v.
Clark EouiDment Co., 54 D&C2d 207 (1911). Therefore, I suggest that you name another
"independent" physician to conduct the examination.
Please advise us at your earliest possible convenience of your decision on this issue. Of
course, if you have questions or wish to discuss this matter, please do not hesitate to call.
Very truiy yours,
Leslie M. Fields
LMF/jvsy
EXHIBIT
I
E"
I
~
JOSEPH P. HAFER
JAMES K THOMAS. II
..EFmEY B RETTIG
PETER J. CURRY
R. BURKE ""-EMORE. JR
EDWARD H. JORDAN. JR
C. KENT PRICf
RANllAU. G. GAl..E
DAVID ~ SCHwALM
KEVIN E. OSBORNE
PETER J. SPEAKER
OOUGlAS B. MARCEllO
PAUlJ DEUASEGA
DANIEL J. GAU..AGHER
ROBERT A. TAYl.OR
SARAH W. AROSEU.
EUGENE N, McHUGH
RICHARD C. SfNECA
STEPHEN E. GEllULDlG
KAREN S. COATES
GARY T. LATHROP
TOOD B. NARYOl
KEVIN C McNAMARA.
IlROOKS R FOlANO
STACY L WILSON
j7~onml.j7~omal~~/er
7ll/orne'll af .faw
305 NORTH FRONT STREET
SIXTH FLOOR
POBOX 999
HARRISBURG. PA 17108
255-7238
0' COuNSEl
J....ESK THO,.."'S
'o'tAtTERS Q1AE':T Q1.Al NUt,lBEA
11'17) 2:17.1100
FAX {117j i'37.710S
'VERIFY 17171 i'5S.16'i')
June 18, 1996
Leslie M. Fields, Esquire
COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS
831 Market Street
P.O. Box 222
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043
Re: Cohick v. Mvers
Dear Leslie:
It is my understanding that Ms. Cohick refuses to attend the independent medical
examination with Dr. Eagle scheduled for June 21, 1996. Accordingly, I have contacted the
doctor's office and canceled that independent medical examination. Unfortunately, we are
forced to proceed to litigate the obtaining of such an examination. If you have any
questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Best regards,
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER
BY:~
Douglas B. Marcello
DBM:rnlc
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Leslie Fields Esquire, attorney for the Plaintiff hereby
certify that I have, this day, served the foregoing by depositing
a copy of same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Douglas Marcello, Esquire
Thomas, Thomas & Hafer
P. O. Box 999
Harrisburg, PA 17108
.
.
~
DB'" 1:5 1 /I 9 (.
- <..~.
e M. Fields, Esquire
COSTOPOU OS, FOSTER & FIELDS
831 Market Street/P.O. Box 222
Lemoyne, PA 17043
(717) 761-2121
ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF
^'.
" ~ lr) ~
c:
,... :j~
l-'. ..
~9 ..:z . )-
r :'.l: ' );<E
~ l4. .: .:::;
-;" )0-
n N . .:J)
(; "12
"- .-
ll! C,.!: lU]
G:. ~ , 10..
r~ ;:t ...,:
H. .0 5
<;) en U
~ I
Ii: _
jn!
-III
ell
.
.
.
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL
,.
,,':-
.
(Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate)
-
.
:-)
.1
1
\'"1
':J
. 7"1
~(')
'I
:1
,'.' ,
. )\'"
I
:.q
~,,)
'IO 'mE PlUlllCltUl'ARY OF ClJolBERI..Am COUNI'Y
..,
Please list the following case.
-
(Check one)
xx)
for JURY trial at the next term of civil court. "
.-
.'.
for trial witlxlut a jury.
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated in full)
JUANITA COHICK, Parent and Natural
Guardian of
MICHELLE R. COHICK, a Minor
(check one)
(zz) Civil Action - Law
Appeal fran Arbitration
(other)
(Plaintiff)
vs.
JARED MYERS
The trial list will be called on 2/18/97
and
Trials c:annence on ~'Ar...h 17, 1 !l!l7
( Defendant)
Pretrials will be held on 2/26/97
(Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials.)
('!he party listing this case for trial shall
provide forthwith a copy of the praecipe to
all counsel, pursuant to local ~ 214.1.)
vs.
No. 4921
Civil
1995
Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this preecipel
nnllf?'lA~ R. I\1Arrplln. F.~QlIirp. 305 North Front Strpl't PO Roy ~~!lt HArri~hllrp'_ PA 1710R
Indicate trial counsel for other parties if kn<:Mn1
LpsHp Fiplds. Rc;Quirp-. R31 Market StreeL Lemovne. PA 17043
Datel
January 23, 1997
Signedl ~?~
Print ~ Doultlas n. Marcello
Attorney fan Jared ~'yers, Derendant
This case is ready for trial.
7~oma'. 7~oma' & Jfaler
7lIlorn,'1' al .faw
JOSEPH P. HAFER
JAMES K. THOMAS. II
JEffIlEY B. RETTIG
PETtll J. CIRl\'
R. BURKE McLEMORE. JR
EDWARD H..JOIlDAN. JR
C. KENT PRICE
............. Q. GALe
~VtO L SCHWALM
KEVlH E. OSIIORNE
PETER J_ SfIE.AM!A
IlOIJGlAS B MARCEllO
PAlL J IlEUASEGA
DANIELJ. GAU.AGHER
AOeEm A. TAYLOR
SARAH w. AAOSEU.
EUGENE N_ Mct<<JGH
RICHARD C. SENECA
STEPHEN E. GElJU.DIQ
K/.REN s_ COAtES
GARY l LATKKlP
rOOD B NARYOl.
KEV1NC _
8ROOI<.S R. Fa..ANO
JOHN FI.OUNlACKER
The Honorable George E. Hoffer
Cumberland County Courthouse
1 Courthouse S ar
Carlisle 013
305 NORTH FRONT STREET
SIXTH FLOOR
P. O. BOX 999
HARRISBURG. PA. 17108
(7171237.1100
FAX (717) 237-7105
(VERIFY (711) 237.7142)
February 28, 1997
Dear
Cohick v. Mvers
No: 95-4921 Civil
Hoffer:
OF COUNSEL
JAMES K THOMAS
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL HUMBER
255-7238
Pursuant to the discussions at the Pre-Trial Conference,
please be advised that Defendant will not contest negligence in
this case.
Best regards,
i
J
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER
By:--q>~~
Douglas B. Marcello
j
DBM/cdb
cc: David Foster, Esquire
/
l'w ..,
JUAIIITA COHICK,
PAUli': AIID HATURAL PARIII'r
OF MICULLB R. COHICK,
A MIIIOR
I III THB COURT OF CONKOII PLIAS or
I CUMBBRLlUID COUIITY, PBIIJISYLVAIIIA
I
I 110. 95-4921 CIVIL TBRM
I
I
I
I
I JURY TRIAL
V.
JAUD MYBRS
VERDICT
STATE TU &MOUIIT OF MOIlEY DAMAGBS A'tfARDBD TO MICBBLLB R. COHICK
FOR IIIJURIBS SU SUSTAIIlED III TU ACCIDBIIT OF MAY 17, 1994.
TOTAL S
j ~ O()d
MARCB 18, 1997
~~-~J~_
rORBIWI/FO Y
IY\TE; ~--31h Ir:; 7 CASE 00. dO
CourtnXJn # /
No. qS-l-fq';'l CIVIL tERM
1. " .8t.J R.ulY);r1skl) Jorl1(E. M.
2. " t.t5 !-\l)Y~beY5er) N((r''(Y C:i.
'9\ 3. " L.f5-ttCC\i€Y) Lnl,'-tJod .A.
'V~ 4. " . .
5. ,,1tJic 1,ij~\CS/ ~eJlri"l.{-,-
if I 22..:p~
~,... 6. ",-,4-Z: I
7. · 50 J~fY)c"..s. I CQrro \I
8. " q(o ~ 'f d erJ H ek -t:her
9. · 32 ~i~ RU\"oJd. J
\::>~10. · I I!:D ~
(ot LU' QY14c r'l.A...LLI \"~
,j 11. . J
\):1
12 . . ) D
. qo S h eG\ er-) :[XE?.Y\d.cL
13.' 8& Set ~y-t i AnY\ L.
14. , -t i"I
35 be'! z-J VI Q.ne.,
-rr~ 15... ~ ..,Me <-
16. I 8CR Sco-t+ I ~o~e }J,
17. I 24 Ger),AOfI / 1A;f\cJ.d D"
1ri3 18. , .
19. I 1'/4 fJ euhQ~ : I::byoth" "
20. I Gio )Jc JJt~ I j~h 6; Jr.
)1. <I 41 ffo+t I CMdQ.ce. A.
.
3. Imoeachment of Partv bv Prior Inconsistent Statement.
The evidence that Ms. Cohick made an earlier statement
inconsistent with her testimony at this trial my be considered by
you not only in your evaluation of her credibility but also as
evidence of the truth of the contents of the statement bearing upon
the facts in issue.
./ (."!
/ ~f
. ,
Affirmed
\;
Denied
\ ,
f~
4. If you decide that a witness deliberately falsified his
testimony on a significant point, you should take this into
consideration in deciding whether or not to believe the rest of his
testimony; and you may refuse to believe the rest of her testimony,
but you are not required to do so.
Pa. S.S.J.I., S5.05.
Affirmed
Denied
I _'
L--'
6. You should not allow sympathy, emotion or prejudice to
influence your deliberations. You should not be influenced by
anything other than the law and the evidence of the case.
Pa. S.S.J.I., S20.00.
Affirmed
,"
Denied
7. In civil cases such as this on, Ms. Cohick, as the
Plaintiff, has the burden of proving those l:on~entions which
entitled him to relief.
When a party has the burden of proof on a particular issue,
their contention on that issue must be established by a fair
preponderance of the evidence.
The evidence establishes a
contention by a fair preponderance of the evidence if you are
persuaded that it is more probably accurate and true than not.
To put it another way, think, if you will, of an ordinary
balance scale, with a pan on each side. Onto one of the scales,
place all of the evidence favorable to the Plaintiff; onto the
other, place all of the evidence favorable to the Defendant. If,
after considering the comparable weight of the evidence, you feel
the scales tip ever so slightly or to the slightest degree, in
favor of the Plaintiff, your verdict must be for the Plaintiff. If
the scales tip in favor of the Defendant, or are equally balanced,
your verdict must be for the Defendant.
In this case, the Plaintiff has the burden of proving the
following propositions with respect to the Defendant:
That the
Defendant was negligent, and that the negligence was a substantial
factor in bringing about the accident. If, after considering all
of the evidence, you feel persuaded that these propositions are
more probably true than not true, your verdict must be for the
Plaintiff. Otherwise, your verdict should be for the Defendant.
Pa. S.S.J.I., S5.50 (Civ.).
/'
Affirmed
,- I
dO, j'
I
. '
{
Denied
8. Ms. Cohick, as the Plaintiff, has the burden of proving
the nature and extent of any injuries that she claims were caused
by the accident.
Bronchak v. Rebman, 263 Pa. Super. 136, 397 A.2d 438 (1979)
/
Affirmed
Denied
11. You are not required to believe all that you are told.
You are not required to believe claims that are contrary to your
common experience.
Boaaavaracu v. Ponist, 542 A.2d 516 (Pa. 1988)
Affirmed Denied
13. Evidence is not proof of a claim unless you, as jurors,
accept the evidence and believe it.
Boaaavaracu v. Ponist, 542 A.2d 516 (Pa. 1988)
Affirmed
Denied
14. To the extent you believe Ms. Cohick should be
compensated, you should do so to the least burden to Mr. Myers.
Incollinao v. Ewina, 282 A.2d 206 (pa., 1971)
Affirmed
Denied
15. Any damages you award to Ms. Cohick should only be to
compensate her for her damages. Your purpose in any award of
should be to compensate Ms. Cohick for her damages. You should not
award any damages for the purpose of punishing Mr. Myers.
Incollinao v. Ewina, 282 A.2d 206 (pa., 1971)
Affirmed
/
Denied
18. A witness who has special knowledge, skills, experience,
training or education in a particular profession or occupation may
give an opinion as an expert as to any matter in which that
individual is skilled. In determining the weight to be given to
this opinion, you should consider the qualifications and
reliability of the expert and the reasons given for the opinion.
You are not bound by an expert's opinion merely because they are an
expert; you may accept or reject it, as in the case of the other
witnesses, and you should give this testimony the weight, if any,
to which you deem it entitled.
Pa. S.S.J.I., 55.30.
Affirmed
Denied
~
~ J ~ 8
1-...0:
... ~ . -
.. a · ~
~J",,"i~
~ ~cl:
'J' !'!
, 1iI %
~
.
.
.
.
.
JUANITA COHICK, PARENT AND
NATURAL GUARDIAN OF
MICHELLE R. COHICK, A MINOR,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
No. 95-4921 Civil
JARED MYERS,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant
PLAINTIFF'S PROPOSED POINTS FOR CHARGE
DAMAGES
1. The Defendant has conceded the issue of liability in this
case and your verdict must be in favor of the Plaintiff. You must
now determine damages. As a general principle of law, one who has
caused injuries to or damages to another must restore the injured
party as equally as possible to original condition. This is only
possible by having a responsible party pay a sum of money which
will compensate the injured party for losses. You must therefore
find an amount of money damages which you believe will fairly and
adequately compensate the plaintiff for all of the physical and
financial injury which he has sustained as a result of the
accident. The amount which you award today must compensate the
plaintiff completely for damages sustained in the past, as well as
damage the plaintiff will sustain in the future. Standard Jurv
Instruction, Sec. 6.00.
2. The Plaintiff is entitled to be fairly and adequately
compensated for such physical pain, mental anguish, discomfort,
inconvenience and distress as you find that she has endured from
the time of the accident until today, and as you believe she will
endure in the future as a result of her injuries. Standard Jurv
Instruction, Sec. 6.01(E) and 6.01(F).
3. The Plaintiff is also entitled to be fairly and adequately
compensated for such embarrassment and humiliation as you believe
she has endured and/or will continue to endure in the future as a
result of her injuries. Standard Jurv Instruction, Sec. 6.01(G).
4. The Plaintiff is entitled to be fairly and adequately
compensated for past, present and future loss of her ability to
enjoy any of the pleasures of life as a result of her injuries.
Standard Jurv Jnstruction, Sec. 6.01(1).
-
5. You are instructed that, in computing the damages due to
the Plaintiff because of pain and suffering, you must take into
account the Plaintiff's feelings of loss of well-being and the
inability of Plaintiff to enjoy what she was able to enjoy prior to
receiving her injuries. Corcoran v. McNeal, 400 Pa. 14, 161 A.2d
367 (1960).
6. Pain and suffering must be included in the calculation of
a just verdict. Pain and suffering are substantive losses and just
as a person is entitled to collect damages from one who wrongfully
injures limbs, organs, and other parts of body, so is he equally
entitled to collect damages for physical and sensory torment and
pain and suffering. Buraan v. City of Pittsburah, 373 Pa. 608, 96
A.2d 889.
7. I have no test to tell you how much you should award for
pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental distress, embarrassment and
discomfort. These are difficult things to assess. I do have the
duty, however, to bring to your attention the fact that pain and
suffering are not limited to any particular part or time of the day
or period of the day. It will be for you to say what portion of a
24-hour day the Plaintiff has or will endure physical and mental
anguish, pain, suffering, distress, inconvenience and
embarrassment. It will be for you to decide how many days of the
week, how many weeks of the year, how many years of the remainder
of life you believe that she will endure this. While the purpose
of awarding damages is not penal, it is, however, your duty to make
an award in full appreciation of the extent and nature of the
injuries. It is described in the law as an amount which must be
fair, and it must be just, and it must fully appreciate the nature
of the pain and suffering she has endured. It must be adequate.
8. The Plaintiff is also entitled to damages as in your best
judgment will reasonably and adequately compensate for the physical
injuries to her. In arriving at this sum, you may find that you
should take into consideration the damages suffered by bodily
structures, loss of bodily functions, inability following the
accident to pursue her normal course of her life, and her inability
to engage in the same activities, vocations, and pleasures
following the accident as before. DiChiaccio v. Rochsraft Stone
Products Co., 424 Pa. 7/, 225 A.2d 913 (1967).
9. If you find that the Plaintiff's damages are not capable
of exact ascert ainment, that does not mean that they are not
recoverable. The law only requires that a reasonable quantity of
information must be supplied for you to fairly estimate the amount
of damages from the evidence. Ashcraft v. e.G. Hussey & Co., 58
2
~
A.2d 170, 172.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
~~
David J. F ster, Esquire
COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS
831 Market Street/p.O. Box 222
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043
Phone: (717) 761-2121
ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF
Dated: March
,...,
I , 1997.
3
IV. EVIDENTIARY ISSUES
No evidentiary issues are anticipated at this time other than
the preclusion of pleading and proving damages pursuant to the
Financial Responsibility Act.
V. WITNESSES
Defendant's witnesses are attached hereto and made a part
hereof as Exhibit "A". Defendant reserves the right to supplement
its answer in a timely manner prior to trial and to call witnesses
identified in discovery and/or identified by Plaintiff in their
Pre-Trial Memo.
VI. EXHIBITS
Defendant's exhibits are attached hereto and made a part
hereof as Exhibit "B". Defendant reserves the right to supplement
its answer in a timely manner prior to trial and utilize exhibits
identified in discovery and/or by Plaintiff in their Pre-Trial
Memo.
VII. SBTTLBMBNT NBGOTIATIONS
Plaintiff has demanded the policy limits.
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER
--
/O~
By:
. Marcello
A torney I.D. No. 36510
305 North Front Street
P.O. Box 999
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108
(717) 255-7238
CBRTIFICATB OF SERVICB
AND NOW, this ,~(}/hday of,-4!)~'lu/Ut<'-t' 1997, I, Cynthia D.
Byrd, a secretary in the law firm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, hereby
certify that I sent a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail,
first class, postage prepaid, to the following:
Leslie M. Fields, Esquire
Costopoulos, Foster & Fields
831 Market Street
P.O. Box 222
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043
(717) 761-2121
Attorney for Plaintiff
"~I . 0 /) L
~Aj~~ /1, . f05rr
eyn . D. yrd
l.
2 .
3.
4.
5.
WITNESSES
g~~e~a~~~~'.~- ~ ' vtk
Dr. Mira
Mike Vishnesky
James Combs
;t,e..,..',....,
\
". ~-~"'.,..
Exhibit B
'\
'j
BXHIBITS
l.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
ll.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Carlisle Hospital Records
Dr. Townsend Records
Dr. Hecht Records
Dr. Samuels Records
Dr. Hoban Records
Dr. Mira Records
Dr. Becker Records
High School Records L... -
Surveillance Videos~
Dr. Alster Records
MGM Pharmacy Records
Carlisle ALS Records
Carie & Hecht Records
Central PA MRI Records
Carlisle Imaging Association Records
Friendship Hose Records
," ..'.~. - -,....
.~ '
~ ti
~ i l 3
..~..E
J1iti
.. i f
~t;~:
f"; i
~
.
20 Hoffer
JUANITA COHICK, Parent and
Natural Guardian of MICHELLE
R. COHICK, a minor.
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
JARED MYERS,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
95-4921 CIVIL TERM
Defendant
IN RE: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
A pretrial conference was held before the Honorable
George E, Hoffer, Judge, on Wednesday. February 26. 1997.
In this motor vehicle accident case. David Foster.
Esquire. represents the plaintiff: and Douglas B. Marcello.
Esquire, represents the defendant.
Plaintiff. a young lady now eighteen. was fifteen at
the time of the accident. Defendant. a young man now
twenty-four. had a date with plaintiff on the evening in
Question. While on a secondary road on the way home. defendant
lost control of his vehicle on a curve and crashed the vehicle
causing variouS injuries to the plaintiff. all of which have now
resolved except for possible future headaches and hip pain.
Plaintiff suffered a hip dislocation from the accident which was
resolved with a closed reduction.
It appears the claim is for poin and suffering from
the accident, unless plaintiff's attorney has some theory on
future medicals arising after the taking of the deposition of
95-4921 Civil Term
Page 2
plaintiff's treating physician in the next two weeks. Should
such claim arise, both attorneys are directed to immediately
have a conference call with the court so that this issue can be
resolved. Defense counsel is directed to notify the court and
plaintiff's counsel by the close of business on Friday as to
whether liability is still contested, so that the court can
determine on what basis liability is contested for purposes of a
Jury charge.
This is a Jury trial estimated to take two days to try
with four challenges apiece.
If either counsel receives any supplemental medical
reports before the actual deposition starts. they are directed
to immediately FAX such cOPies of such reports to oPPosing
counsel.
By the Court.
G
David J. Foster, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Douglas B. Marcello. Esquire
P.O. Box 999
Harrisburg, Pa. 17108
For the Defendant
:mtf
Court Administrator
Prothonotttry
.- J
"., .
, , ,
- '
:',
I ... ~
r1<
JUANITA COHICK,
Parent and Natural Parent of
MICHELLE R. COHICK, a minor,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 95-4921 CIVIL
v.
JARED MYERS,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
AND NOW,
, I ~ ORDER
this ~ day of April,
1997, upon the Petition of
the parties, the Court hereby approve the settlement of this matter
directly with Michelle Cohick who is now 18 years of age.
BY THE COURT:
J.
I
.\
"
JUANITA COHICK,
Parent and Natural Parent of
MICHELLE R. COHICK, a minor,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 95-4921 CIVIL
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JARED MYERS,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PBTITION FOR MAJORITY OF PLAINTIFF
1. Plaintiff, Juanita Cohick brought an action as parent and
natural guardian of her daughter, Michelle Cohick.
2. At the time of the institution of this action, Michelle
Cohick was a minor.
3. Michelle Cohick is no longer a minor, as her date of
birth is 2/20/79.
4. At the trial of this matter, the jury awarded damages to
Plaintiff in the amount of $11,000.00.
5. The parties have agreed that Defendant will pay the
amount of $11,000.00 in full and complete satisfaction of any and
all claims of Plaintiff in this action.
6. As Plaintiff, Michelle Cohick, has reached the age of
majority, the parties petition this Court to approve payment and
settlement of the claim directly with Michelle Cohick as she has
now reached the age of majority.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff and Defendant in this action move this
Honorable Court to approve the settlement of this case directly
with Michelle Cohick as she has reached the age of majority.
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER
-- ~~/'?-
By: \ 7~- ~
Dou as . Marcello
At orney I.D. No. 36510
305 North Front Street
P.O. Box 999
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108
(717) 255-7238
Attorney for Defendant
3
CB~TIFICATE OF SBRVIC,
AND NOW, this 't'ih day of upiJ ,1997, I, Cynthia D.
Byrd, secretary in the law firm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, hereby
certify that I sent a true and correct copy of the foregoing
document by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail,
first class, postage prepaid, to the following:
David Foster, Esquire
831 Market Street
P.O. Box 222
Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043
(717) 761-2121
Attorney for Plaintiff
G 't ~- IL:0;J f), 13ft zd -
Cynthi D. Byrd