HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-05083
JEAN E. BALL, EXECUTRIX
OF THE ESTATE OF
VERA E. WALKER,
Plaintiff
"
. I.,'._u
~I'-
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
U:
NO. 95-5083 CIVIL
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MANOR HEALTHCARE CORP., t/a
LEADER NURSING AND
REHABILITATION CENTER OF
CARLISLE,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant
ORDER
AND NOW, this ~ day of ~t'oII--l....I , 1996, it is
hereby ordered and decreed that the Petition of Jean E. Ball,
Executrix of the Estate of Vera Walker for approval of settlement
and apportionment of settlement funds is hereby approved.
The proceeds of the settlement shall be distributed as
follows:
Gross Recovery:
$10,000.00
$ 3,602.48
$ 6,397.52
Attorney's Fee and Costs:
Mrs. Jean Ball, Executrix
of the Estate of Vera E.
Walker
The Petitioner is authorized to execute any releases, and all
necessary checks or other documents to effectuate this settlement.
Mrs. Jean E. Ball, Executrix of the Estate is ordered to
comply strictly with the requirements of the Pennsylvania Probate,
Estates and Fiduciary's Code with respect to all monies allocated
herein, including but not limited to funds distributed to her as
representative of the !state of Vera E. Walker.
BY THE COURT: ~ I
,/:' ,g
1 11 1 I ' '
fl- ~~ a of:
~ ~
!~ N
~ ~
[i! ~
6:\: ~
F= c
~ ~
r::
'~
'5:'lj;
.)7.:
.).~
1~
:.:0
"~~
;~~
a
t
Q
Z
:i ::!
fIJ I-Rtl
< w-",
w ,~
12 ~~e:~~
!:! ~)(tIlz~
It olp::~~
o Q 0._
~....ox~~
< ;:J~~~o
...l ~ ""c.=X
. N<ll.
fIJ u
....
Q
....
<
fIJ
.
JEAN E. BALL, EXECUTRIX
OF THE ESTATE OF
VERA E. WALKER,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 95-5083 CIVIL
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MANOR HEALTH CARE CORP., t/a
LEADER NURSING AND
REHABILITATION CENTER OF
CARLISLE,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant
PETITION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AND
APPORTION OF SETTLEMENT FUNDS
PURSUANT TO 20 PA. C.S.A. ~ 3323
AND NOW, comes Jean E. Ball, Executrix of the Estate of Vera
E. Walker, the Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys, Saidis,
Guido, Shuff & Masland and petitions this Court pursuant to
Pa. C.S.A. S 3323 to approve settlement and apportion the net
settlement funds and in support thereof avers as follows:
1. The Petitioner is Jean E. Ball, executrix of the Estate
of Vera E. Walker. Mrs. Ball is the daughter of the decedent and
only living issue of decedent. No minors are involved.
2. On or about September 25, 1995, the Executor of the
Estate of Vera E. Walker, at the time, John William Walker, filed
an action against Manor Health Care Corporation t/a Leader
Nursing and Rehabilitation Center of Carlisle alleging that
SAID1S, GUIDO, Defendant provided negligent care on December 2, 1994 which
SHUFF &
MASLAND resulted in the fracture of the proximal diametaphysical portion
26 W Ulgh Slrff'
Carh,le,PA of the right humerus,
,I
:i
ii
~ Defendant caused the death of the decedent.
Ii
Ii
3.
There is no allegation that the care provided by
4.
On March 1, 1995, Vera E. Walker died.
I:
"
5. Or about April 17, 1995, a Contingent Fee Agreement was
executed by Mrs. Walker's surviving husband and her two children,
John William Walker and Jean E. Ball. A copy of the Contingent
Fee Agreement is attached hereto and made a part hereof marked as
Exhibit "A". The Contingent Fee Agreement calls for payment of
one-third (33 1/3) of the net recovery.
6. Letters Testamentary were granted to William Walker on
February 15, 1996.
7. Subsequently, John William Walker died on August 10,
1996.
8. On December 9, 1996, Letters of Administration
D.B.N.C.T.A. were granted to Jean E. Ball. A copy of the short
certificate is attached as Exhibit "B".
9. Subsequently, the caption on the above case was changed
to reflect the change in executors.
10. The decedent's husband, John William Walker, is living
but not competent.
11. Petitioner has a power of attorney for her father.
12. Counsel for Petitioner has incurred costs in the amount
of $269.15. A copy of the unreimbursed expenses is attached as
Exhibit "C".
13. Petitioner respectfully requests that this Honorable
SAlOIS, GUIDO.
SHUFF &
MASLAND
Court approve settlement and distribution of the estate as set
26 w. lh&h Street
Carlisle. PA
I forth in the Statement of Distribution attached hereto as Exhibit
i
I
II
tl
,I
11
'I
Ii
11
,.
ii
"D" .
2
14. Petitioner respectfully requests this Honorable Court
to authorize Petitioner to execute the release, which is attached
hereto as Exhibit "E".
15. The Petitioner and counsel believe that this is a fair
and equitable settlement.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests this Honorable
Court to approve the settlement and apportionment of settlement
funds.
Date: tZ-ZO-'t4
I
Respectively submitted, I
i
i
HUFF & MASLAND I
I
o6--J
I
cott D. Moore, Esquire
Supreme Ct. I.D. . 55694
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-6222
Attorney for the Petitioner
.)
'~;;i~10nl;~ k)-t((.
,./Jean E. Ball
Executrix of the Estate of
Vera E. Walker
SAJDlS, GUIDO,
snUFF &
MAS LAND
26 w lliJh SIlffi
Carli~le. PA
I
I
"
,.
il
!I
'I
I'
d
,
H
Ii
i
H
3
.
.
,
, ,
'.
"
11"1111 .
. ~1 i.'- ~. ,-~:C.C:tlf fi><lr':~-~"jjfif""'o"~lIl;ilil;..~4,;,;,~""-"~,,_,,,,,, ""~~ -.......-...
:1
EXHIBIT "A"
POIfBR OF ATTOIUfBY
CONTINGBNCY FBB AGREBMENT
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that the undersigned:
1. Does hereby nominate, constitute and appoint
SAlOIS, GUIDO, SHUFF & MASLAND, as my true and lawful attorney in
the matter of any claims and all damages arising from an injury
that occurred on or about December 2, 1994 at the Leader Nursing
and Rehabilitation Center of Carlisle, 940 Walnut Bottom Road,
Carlisle, Pennsylvania against any person, firm corporation or
other entity who or which may be legally responsible therefor,
and I do hereby authorize Saidis, Guido, Shuff & Masland, my said
attorney to bring suit or to settle and compromise the said
claims.
NO SBTTLEMENT SHALL BE HADB WITHOUT MY PRIOR APPROVAL.
2. Agrees that the compensation of said attorneys for
services rendered in the investigation and prosecution of said
claims shall be one-third (33 1/3%) of any sums recovered by way
of settlement or verdict plus reimbursement of all costs expended
by them incident to the investigation, institution, prosecution
SAIDIS, GUmo,
SHUFF '"
MASLAND
26 W. Hiah Str<et
CarlisI<, PA
and trial, if any, of the case. The remainder of the balance of
. any sum recovered after deduction of said counsel fees and
!!expenses shall be paid to the Estate of Vera Walker OI' her heirs
as appropriate.
3.
Understands that should no sum be recovered by
suit or settlement, my attorneys will have no claim against me
i
I for any
!entitled
fee for services rendered.
However, they wi 11 be
to reimbursement for any costs and expenses incurred in
SAIDIS, GUIDO,
SHUFF &.
MASLAND
26 W. High S.....
CarIi.le, PA
the investigation and/or prosecution of this case.
4. Represents that no other person has been retained
to represent the Estate of Vera Walker in connection with this
matter.
'5. ACknowledges receipt of a copy of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, intending to be legally bound hereby, we
have hereunto set our hands and seals.
ESTATE OF VERA WALKER
DATED: 4~1!.1t.
/; 1'19) .I:~~
/)
\
J{. II' /l ,/I t/
A.<: .L< ~t. ct:qc..,.
SAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF & HASLAND
BY'(~
Robe t C. Sai loS, Esq.
;....
'1
I
I
" "
"
.
"
.
"^'"
ldIlIl
~"'''~'i!f : :<.'"'~ ~""'-'1f
EXHIBIT "Boo
.~.:' '~i~ -"0;:"
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
SHORT CERTIFICATE
I, MARY C. LEWIS
Register for the Probate of Wills and Granting
Letters of Administration &c. in and for said
County of CUMBERLAND do hereby certify that on
the 11th day of December A.D.,
one thousand nine h~ndred and ninety six.
Letters of ADMINISTRATION D.B.N. C.T.A.
estate of WALKER VERA E
(LA~T, rlK~T, MIUUL~)
in common form were granted by the Register of
said County, on the
, late of CARLISLE BOROUGH
in said county, deceased, to
N/K/A JEAN E BALL
(LA~T, rlK~'l', MIUUL~)
JEAN ELIZABETH BALL
\LA~~, r!K~T, M!UUL~'
and
and that same has not since been revoked.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand
of said office at CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA, this 13th day
A.D., one thousand nine hundred and ninety six.
File No. 1995-00671
PA File No. 2195-0671
Date of Death 03/01/1995
S.S. , 174-09-2370
and affixed the seal
of December
Register
NOT VALID WITHOUT ORIGINAL SIGNATURE AND IMPRESSED SEAL
l" "'_-",",',~': ,-:.,..-'l_"'.....~M_d:"".irt~
~
;1
EXHIBIT .C"
DATE EXPENSES/RECEIPTS EXPENSES RECEIPTS
Sep 20/1995 Filing Fees Filing Complaint 45.50
Sep 20/1995 Filing Fees Service of Complaint 100.00
Oct 02/1995 Sheriff Refund SHERIFF REFUND 77 .20
Jan 29/1996 Cumberland County Prothonotary _ 2.00
seal Subpoena
I
Mar 05/1996 Martson, Deardorff, Williams & 40.40
Otto - administrative fee.
Mar 14/1996 Copies of hospital records 94.45
Mar 14/1996 Fee for medical records 30.00
Dec 09/1996 Register of Wills - Petition for 34.00
Probate & Grant of Letters.
------------ ------------
Total Expenses/Receipts
$346.35
$77 . 20
Total Expenses:
$269.15
ill . ~f r
II1'fll\ll",,;
'."1,n D
'nrl----~
.c.....
:1
,
.
STATBMENT OF DISTRIBUTION
Estate of Vera Walker v. Manor Healthcare CorD.
Gross Recovery
$10,000.00
Less:
Saidis, Guido, Shuff & Masland - fee
Saidis, Guido, Shuff & Masland - costs
$3,333.33
$269.15
Net Recovery
$6,397.52
Bxhibit "D"
i
;
I
i
i
I
I
f
I
EaIME
_'};''tt:i1'.
f
-
?~
"'~''''-"~,....~,~;.'ilj.C
:,
EXHIBIT HE"
r \J1LES\DATAfIU.VllI{"() r.........kt.L 11\d.
(.,.... IVIMtOUUOAM
RmMd U/WMIIG411AM
GENERAL RELEASE
FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION OF the payment to JEAN E. BALL, EXECUTRIX OF
TIlE ESTATE OF VERA E. WALKER of the sum ofTEN TIlOUSAND DOLLARS (SIO,OOO.OO),
and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, I, being of
.
lawful age, have released and discharged, and by these presents do for The Estate of Vera E, Walker,
its heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, release, acquil and forever discharge
MANOR HEALTIlCARE CORP, T/A LEADER NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER
OF CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA HOSPITAL INSURANCE COMPANY, and any and all other
persons, finns, insurers, and corporalions, of and from any and all pasl, present and future actions,
causes of action, claims, demands, damages, medical payments, costs, loss of services, insurance
benefits. expenses, compensation, third party actions, suits at law or in equity. including claims or
suits for contribution and/or indemnity, of whatever nature, and all consequential damage on account
of. or in any way growing oul of any and all known and unknown personal injuries to Vera E
Walker resulting from an alleged accident that occurred on or about the 2nd day of December, 1994.
as more fully set forth in my Complaint against the released parties named above.
I do hereby declare and represent that I rely wholly upon my own judgmenl, belief and
knowledge of the nature, extent and duration of said injuries.
I understand that this settlement is Ihe compromise of a doubtful and disputed claim, and that
the payment is nOI 10 be construed as an admission of liability on the part of Ihe persons, finns
and/or corporations hereby released by whom liability is expressly denied.
It is understood and agreed that Ihis Release is execuled in conneclion with the settlement
of the claims of the undersigned as set forth in a Civil Action entered to No 95-5083 in the Court
of Common Pleas of Cumberland Counly, Pennsylvania. which aclion is to be marked as
discontinued, sell led and withdrawn
It is further understood, and agreed. that this is Ihe complete release agreemenl, and thallhere
are no written or oral understandings, or agreements, directly or indirectly connected wilh Ihis
release and selllemenl that are not incorporated herein This agreemenl shall be binding upon and
inure 10 the successors. assigns. heirs. executors. administralors. and legal representatives of the
respeclive parties herclo
I fully understand thaI any person knowingly and with intent to defraud any insurance
company or other person files a statement of claim containing any materially false infonnation or
conceals. for the purpose of misleading. infonnation concerning any fact material1hereto, commits
a fraudulent insurance act, which is a crime and subjects such person to criminal and civil penal1ies,
The existence ofthis settlement and the amount paid pursuant hereto shall be kept in strictest
,
confidence and shall not be disclosed to any other person. Neither I nor my attorneys or other
representatives will in any way publicize or cause to be publicized, in any news or communications
media. including but not limited to newspapers, magazines, journals, radio or television, the facts
of or the tenns and conditions of this settlement. All parties to this agreement expressly agree to
decline conunent on any aspect of1his settlement to any member of the news media. This paragraph
is in1ended to become part of the consideration for settlement of this case.
THE UNDERSIGNED HEREBY DECLARES that the terms of this settlement have been
completely read and are fully understood and voluntarily accepted for the purpose of making a full
and final compromise adjustment and settlement of any and all claims on account of the injuries and
damages above-mentioned. and for Ihe express purpose of precluding forever any legal actions
arising out of the aforesaid claims, and that my attorney, Scott D. Moore, Esquire, has explained to
my satisfaction and understanding the full legal effect of this release to me and I am satisfied that
lhis is fair, just and in Ihe best interests of the Estate of Vera E. Walker.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunlo set my hands and seals this day of December,
1996, intending to be legally bound Ihereby
SAlDIS. GUIDO.
SHUFF "
MASLAND
26 W. HiCh Slre<t
Carli,Ie,PA
'.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
40-1'-.
I, Scott D. Moore, Esquire, certify that on the L day of
~:~J( I~ t'P ~ l..e r-
, 1996, I served the attached Petition to
Approve Settlement and Apportion of Settlement Funds by
depositing same in the United States mail, first class, postage
prepaid addressed as follows:
Thomas J. Williams, Esquire
MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
SAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF & MASLAND
/. .-.
/. '" -:>
('/~fJ""" I') /
l..._\.'~ 1__, (,....----..!J--c:...
'-' ~('
cott D. Moore, Esquire
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-6222
Attorney for the Plaintiff
I 'HI_I.SJ1AI AIIlt: 1'1111-( lilt It. ~~,AN' lid...
l'IUttd Inlfj.~\OI \fIUI'Y
R~ IM"''II\O\21\<lrM
JOHN WILLIAM WALKER. EXECUTOR :
OF THE EST ATE OF VERA EW ALKER. :
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
v.
NO 95-5083 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MANOR HEAL THCARE CORP. TIA
LEADER NURSING AND
REHABILITATION CENTER OF
CARLISLE,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
hNSWER
Defendant
AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Manor Healthcare Corp.. t/a Leader Nursing and
Rehabilitation Center of Carlisle, by and through its attorneys, MARTSON. DEARDORFF,
WILLIAMS & OTTO. and denies Plaintiffs Complaint generally in accordance with Pa. R.C.P.
1029 (e). and specifically avers as follows:
13. Denied that Defendant's employees dropped Plaintiffs decedent,
14, Denied. On the contrary. decedent's injured arm was immobilized and all physician
orders were carried out.
15. Denied that decedent's injury on December 2, 1994 had anything to do wilh her death
on March I. 1995,
16. Denied that any employees of Defendant provided inadequate or inappropriate care
to Plaintiff s decedent at anytime
18 Denied that the use oflift sheets or pads were appropriate under the circumstances.
20. Denied that any employees of the Defendant allowed the Plaintiffs decedent to drop.
27. Denied that any of Defendant' s employees engage in any wide pattern ofabuse and
neglect. It is further denied that Plaintiff accurately summarizes the report of the Pennsylvania
Department of Health By way of further answer. said report speaks for itself.
RespeclliJlly submitted.
MARTSON. DEARDORFF. WILLIAMS & OTTO
BY-;~) ~Jl~
Thomas J Wil\i(ms. Esquire
Ten East High Street
Carlisle. PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Defendant
Dated October 26. 1995
j
i
I
I
VERIFICATION
Kathie Eisenhart. who is Administrator of Leader Nursing Care and Rehabilitation Center
and Manor Care. Inc and acknowledges 1hat she has the authority to execute 1his Verification in
behalf of Leader Nursing Care and Rehabilitation Center and Manor Care, Inc, certifies thaI the
foregoing Answer is based upon information which has been gathered by my counsel in the
preparation of 1he lawsuit. The language of this Answer is that of counsel and not my own, I have
read the document and to the extent that the Answer is based upon informa1ion which I have given
to my counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. information and belief. To the
extent thaI the content of the Answer is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this
Verification.
This statement and Verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa, C.S. Section 4904
relating to unsworn falsification to aU1horities. which provides that if I make knowingly false
averments. I may be subject to criminal penalties.
Leader Nursing Care and Rehabilitation Cen1er
and Manor Care, Inc
~l~~g;~
K thleen L. Eisenhart. Administrator
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certifY that a copy of the foregoing Answer was served 1his date by depositing same
in the Post Office at Carlisle, P A. first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Roben C, Saidis, Esquire
Timothy M. Anstine, Esquire
SAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF & MASLAND
2109 Market Street
Camp Hill. PA 17011
MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO
By :!...~.J.. t!: ~.
Ten East High Street
Carlisle. P A 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Defendant
Dated: October 26, 1995
Il'"
,
..,
'-
o
"
J ~
- ....
j .- ..
:lI- .~. ";
T " ,
,.
.'7' v."
t:> ~ ':) l/'I 14.'.'
....~ .t
" ... CO "
, ,.
~ '" II'
I,p ,. _ ~.l
.. <'oJ
....
if ~
~
Q
Z
III <
<>
r.l...:l
...:l:><
ll.1Il
Z
ZZ
Or.l
:Ell.
:E
o '
U:><
E-t
r..Z
00
o
E-tU
~
00
OZ
U<
...:l
r.l~
:J::r.l
E-t~ .
ZOO
HUZ
~
r..
~
O~
E-tr.l
0:>::
U...:l
r.l<
><3:
r.l
<
.......
E-t
Q
Z
<
...;I ....
~ !;j~a
~ ~55l:il<:5:
~ ~~!ii~;?;
It OO:r:Ult:"
o =Oc..;::
~ Q .- .-
:s 8~:~~
~ ;!l; if
fI'J -<
- U
Q
-
<
fI'J
r..
, 0
.
c.. ~
I!: r.l
o E-t
UO Z
Zr.l
r.l< U
~Cl Z
UZ 0
:J::H H
. E-tlll E-t
> ...:ll!: <
<0 E-t '
r.lZ Hr.l
:J:: ...:l...:l
I!: Hill
l!:r.llllH
g~ ~g
~~ \:It)
E-t
Z
H
<
...:l
c..
:E
o
U
. ....
'r.l ....
I!: ."j
r.l< ...
:>::I!: c:
...:lr.l ....
<> III
3: .-t
r.. c..
~O
Hr.l
...:lE-t
...:l<
HE-t
3: III
r.l
Z
:J::r.l
0:1:
.,E-t
...
c:
III
'tl
c:
ell
....
ell
o
.'
f:\wpSl\users\jo\tma\rcs\walker,cmp
JOHN WILLIAM WALKER,
THE ESTATE OF VERA E
Plaintiff
EXECUTOR OF:
WALKER,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANI
v.
NO. 9s.S'N J &.:~' -r,-
MANOR HEALTHCARE CORP., T/A
LEADER NURSING AND
REHABILITATION CENTER OF
CARLISLE,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant
NOTICE
You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against
the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take actio
within twenty (20) days after this Complaint is served, by enter in
a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing i
writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims
set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do s
the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entere
against you by the court without further notice for any mone
claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requeste
by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights
important to you. I
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU ~
NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE TH
OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Cumberland County Court Administrator
Cumberland County Courthouse
South Hanover Street
Fourth Floor
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 240-6200
SAIDIS, GUIDO, I
SHUFF & i
MASLAND !I
26 W Jhgh SIrn1 I,!
C4J'h",k. VA
I
I
I
I
1
SAID1S, GUIDO.
SHUFF &
I\fASLAND
:!h W High SU'tt1
Carh"I('.PA
JOHN WILLIAM WALKER, EXECUTOR OF:
THE ESTATE OF VERA E. WALKER,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANI
v.
NO. 'I)'. H',; .\ CU:J r.,,,-
MANOR HEALTHCARE CORP., T/A
LEADER NURSING AND
REHABILITATION CENTER OF
CARLISLE,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendant
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff. John William Walker, Executor of
the Estate of Vera E. Walker, by and through his attorneys, Saidis,
Guido, Shuff & Masland, and respectfully avers the following:
1, Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to 20 P.S. ~3373 as
the Executor of the Estate of Vera E. Walker.
2. Defendant is a Delaware corporation engaged in the
business of providing skilled nursing care.
3. Defendant operates the Leader Nursing and Rehabilitationl
Center of Carlisle at 940 Walnut Bottom Road, Carlisle,
Pennsylvania 17013.
4. Defendant holds itself out to the public as being expert
in the treatment of health problems of elderly persons, and
represents itself to employ and train expert medical and nursing
staff in order to supply nursing care to elderly persons.
5. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant was acting by and
,
I
II
"
I
I
,I
II
"
"
'I
I:
,:
r
"
Ii
through its agents, servants and employees, who were acting within
the scope of their authority and on the business of Defendant.
6.
I
On or about December 9, 1993, Plaintiff's Decedent, veral
was admitted to Defendant's facility. I
E. Walker
7. At the time of her admission to Defendant's facility,
2
Mrs. Walker was 77 years of age, in declining health, and in nee
of the skilled nursing services offered by Defendant.
8. At the time of her admission to Defendant's facility an
at all times relevant hereto, Mrs. Walker was bedridden an
generally frail.
9. Prior to December 2, 1994, Mrs. Walker's family an
attending physician noted that she was alert, and that her overall
physical condition was improving.
10. On December 2, 1994, at approximately 10:20 p.m., while
in Defendant's facility, Mrs. Walker suffered a fracture of the
proximal diametaphysical portion of the right humerus.
11. Defendant's Incident Report indicated that Mrs. Walker
was injured when two of Defendant's nurses aides attempted to lift
Mrs. Walker.
12. Defendant's nurses aides lifted Mrs. Walker by the arms
while she was lying in her bed. Each nurses aide held one arm and
one leg during the procedure when they "heard a loud popping
noise" .
13. Mrs. Walker's injuries were also consistent with having
been dropped by Defendant's employees.
14. Following the injury to Mrs. Walker, Defendant failed to
give timely care to Mrs. Walker, which exacerbated Mrs. Walker's
SAlD1S, GUIDO. I
SHUFF &
MASLAND I
26 W Illgh 51""'1
e",",k, PA I
I
injury.
Specifically, despite the specific instructions of the
physician who was treating Mrs. Walker, Defendant failed to
immobilize Mrs. Walker's injured arm in the 24-hour peri
following her injury.
15. Following her injury Mrs. Walker's physical condition
I
I 3
II
,!
II
I.
11
Ii
SAID1S, GUIDO, I
SHUFF 8<
MASLAND II
2f'1 \It' H1lh SIm:-1
Carlisle. PA
steadily declined, and she died on March 1, 1995.
16. The aforementioned incident causing injury to Mrs. Walke
was only one of many instances of similar treatment of Mrs. Walke
by Defendant.
COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE
17. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 17 as
though set forth at length herein.
18. Defendant's nurses aides failed to provide the care to
Mrs. Walker in accordance with its own policies and procedures for
lifting and moving patients, in that no lift sheets or pads were
used.
19. The lifting procedure employed by Defendant's nurses
aides was not in accordance with medically accepted procedures for
the lifting of frail patients.
20. In the alternative, Defendant's nurses aides allowed Mrs.
Walker to drop while attempting to lift or move her.
21. The failure of Defendant's staff to use proper technique
resulted in Mrs. Walker's injury.
22. Defendant is responsible for the acts of omission and
conunission of its agents, servants and employees as set forth
below:
a.
!
Failing to train its nurses aides in the proper!
manner of lifting and/or moving patients.
I,
I
,
b. Failing to properly supervise the nurses aidesl
before and during the lifting and/or movingl
I
procedure attempted on Mrs. Walker. i
i
Fail ing perform the lifting procedure ,
c. to on Mrs'i
4
SAID1S, GUIDO. Ii
SHUFF & I'
MASLAND II
I"
2h W Il1gh Sllffl
l'arh\le. f'A il
!I
Ii
I
I.
II
;i
II
II
Ii
Walker in accordance with Defendant's own policie
and medically accepted standards.
d. Failing to direct the prompt and adequate treatment
of Mrs. Walker when her injury was discovered.
e. In the alternative, allowing Mrs. Walker to be
dropped while attempting to lift or move her.
23. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of
Defendant, Mrs. Walker suffered injury to her right arm and the
resultant use of the arm.
i!
iI
24. As a direct and proximate result of the injury sustained,
Mrs. Walker suffered from physical and/or mental anguish, pain,
suffering and inconvenience.
25. Plaintiff has been informed by an anonymous source who
claimed to work at Defendant's facility that Mrs. Walker was
treated "very roughly" on December 2, 1994, and also prior to thatl
date.
26. The Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Mrs.
Walker was neglected and not treated in a dignified manner by
Defendant.
27. The accident involving Mrs. Walker was one incident in a
wide pattern of abuse and neglect at Defendant's facility that
caused the Pennsylvania Department of Health, by its Order dated
February 22, 1995, to rescind Defendant's regular license and
continue a ban on admissions to Defendant's facility.
In its
report of deficiencies, portions of which are attached hereto as
Exhibit "A", the Department Health charged Defendant with, inte
alia, the following:
5
a. Failure to report numerous violations of abuse 0
safety of Defendant's patients;
potential abuse of numerous patients at the facility;
b. Failure to enforce rules relative to the health care an
c. Widespread and repeated neglect of patients i
Defendant's facility, including ignoring calls of
patients in distress, neglecting to feed patients unable
to feed themselves, failure to turn and/or reposition
patients targeted for observation;
d. Failure to treat patients in a dignified manner relative
to meal assistance and prevention of exposure, by
allowing patients to languish with food stains on their
faces for several hours after meals, and allowing
patients' bodies to be exposed with no effort to cover
the patients;
e. Failure to provide a clean, home-like environment, by
allowing filthy conditions to exist in patient shower
stalls;
f. Failure to adequately assess patients requiring special
care; and
g. Failure to serve patients palatable meals by allowing
SAlOIS, GUIDO.
SHUFF ...
MAS LAND
26 W Hilb 5_'
Carli.I., PA
was
foods to cool before they were served to the patients. ,
28. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Mrs. Walkeri
I
subject to the same or similar abuse and neglect that wasl
i
detailed in said report.
i
29. Defendant's conduct was wanton and outrageous, and wasi
I
done with reckless indifference to the injuries its conduct caused:
I
,
,
,
i
6
II
!i
.- .....
to Mrs. Walker.
WHBRBFORB, Plaintiff claims of Defendant compensatory damage
in a sum in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00),
exclusive of interest and costs, together with punitive damages.
Respectfully submitted,
- ,.-
Date: ~f1\- 2)llq~\
/'
SHOPF & MASLAND
/
By: /
obert . Saidis, Esquire
Supreme Court 10 #21458
Timothy M. Anstine, Esquire
Supreme Court 10 #44879
2109 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 761-1881
Attorney for Plaintiff
SAlOIS, GUIDO,
SHUFF &
MASLAND
26 W Hi.h Sum
Carli.I., PA
7
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
ss
I verify that the statements made in this
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: ~()~ ,9, Iq~r
'"" ,
/u .~g~-r /~~~
/I
"
/
/
JOHN WILLIAM WALKER, I
EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE .
.
OF VERA E. WALKER, .
.
Plaintiff .
.
.
.
v.
.
.
MANOR HEALTHCARE CORP., .
.
t/a LEADER NURSING AND .
.
REHABILITATION CENTER .
.
OF CARLISLE, .
.
Defendant .
.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 95-5083 CIVIL TERM
AND NOW, this 21cl day of July, 1996, upon consideration of
the Motion To Compel More Complete Response To Plaintiff's Request
For Production of Documents, a Rule is hereby ISSUED upon the
Defendant to show cause why the relief requested should not be
granted.
RULE RETURNABLE within 20 days of service.
BY THE COURT,
Scott D. Moore, Esq.
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Plaintiff
Thomas J. Williams, Esq.
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Defendant
~o.; ~w., 7/3/,'''.
...& .,.,.
lrc
"'w,'~c;~
..' . ...,,""....
~ . '. i . . . ..' ~'";' 1. I
s~ :3 :.:: C-ll~' 96
- ,-,."',, .f0
}.uul:W~QHt -
It
~ M "-
In ,..
~ -~~
r ..
-
:.)
4(") .- ~):~
T '-
~ ,,~
<:0 . >-
.."
1.'-- ". I,':
-'
0':" . :i7 :~
-,
''" -. "
.' 'I..'
(.) 1
c. '_J
Q
Z
<
.. ...
~ ti~a
l{l ~f6gj<:S:
!:! alJ~!;;~~
!::: gO:I:LIlt:'
o iii Oil.;:::
.- .-
~ -O:I:~LIl
<(;:) , 'cnZ
..l ro.c.~-O
OW ..JX
. :!ill!: c.
rn <(
_ u
Q
-
<
rn
1111 n 1 m6 ~
SAIDlS, GUIDO,
SHUFF ...
MASLAND
2b W High SUftl
C3flide. .'A
JOHN WILLIAM WALKER, EXECUTOR
OF THE ESTATE OF
VERA E. WALKER,
plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 95-5083 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
MANOR HEALTHCARE CORP., t/a
LEADER NURSING AND
REHABILITATION CENTER OF
CARLISLE,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant
MOTION TO COMPEL MORE COMPLETE
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
AND NOW, comes the plaintiff John William Walker, Executor
of the Estate of Vera E. Walker by and through his attorneys
Saidis, Guido, Shuff & Masland, and respectfully avers the
following:
1. On or about september 25, 1995, John William Walker,
Executor of the Estate of Vera E. Walker filed a Complaint
against Manor Healthcare Corporation trading as Leader Nursing
and Rehabilitation Center of Carlisle.
2. The complaint alleges that while Vera Walker was a
patient at Leader Nursing Home, the employees of Defendant broke
her arm while trying to move her.
3. The Complaint further alleges that incidents occurred
prior to this injury that put Defendant on notice of
inappropriate training in care of patients.
4.
Defendant failed to remedy this circumstance.
5. plaintiff has alleged and seeks punitive damages in
this case.
I
II
6. The State Department of Health has issued a report
noting numerous incidents of inappropriate treatment.
7. On January 11, 1996, Plaintiff served Interrogatories
and Request for Production of Documents on Defendants.
8. The request included the following:
8. All incident reports that describe injuries
sustained by residents of the Defendant from 1990 to the
presenti
9. All investigation reports prepared for Manor Care,
Inc. and subsidiaries and/or any insurance company and/or
state health department and/or any federal agency which
describe incidents which in any way could be categorized
as inappropriate treatment or care or allegedly
inappropriate care or treatment on behalf of Defendant.
10. All records of training and/or continuing education
provided to the staff in the five years preceding the
incident.
11. All policies, procedures, manuals that pertain to
staff, including registered nurses, LPN's, nursing aids,
nursing-assistants that provide geriatric care to
patients.
Request for Production of Documents to Defendant - First Set 8
through 11. A copy of Plaintiff's Request for Production of
Documents is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
9. On May 22, 1996, Defendants filed responses to the
SAlOIS, GUIDO.
SHUFF '"
MAS LAND
2h W Hllh Slrttt
Carlililc.PA
Request for Production of Documents and objected to the above
Request for Production of Documents by saying:
Objection is made to these Requests as they are not
calculated to lead to discovery of relevant information, or
overly broad to the extent they are incapable of inaccurate
response and/or unreasonably burdensome.
A copy of Defendant's Response to Plaintiff's Request for
Production is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" without attachments.
JOHN WILLIAM WALKER, EXECUTOR
OF THE ESTATE OF
VERA E. WALKER,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERI,AND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAN I ^
NO. 95-5083 CIVIL
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MANOR HEALTHCARE CORP., tla
LEADER NURSING AND
REHABILITATION CENTER OF
CARLISLE,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDeD
Defendant
PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
TO DEFENDANT - FIRST SET
TO: Manor Healthcare Corp. tla Leader Nursing
and Rehabilitation Center of Carlisle
clo Thomas J. Williams, Esquire
MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4009,
Plaintiff requests that Defendants produce the documents
hereinafter described and permit Plaintiff, through his
attorneys, to inspect them and copy such of them as they may
desire. Plaintiff requests that the documents be made available
for this inspection at the offices of Plaintiff's attorneys
located at 26 West High Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, within
thirty (30) days of the date of service hereof.
Plaintiff's
S.\IlIlS, GUIDO,
SIIU.T ...
MAS LAND
!^W IloChSlr<<t
Carhslt. PA
at torneys will be respons i1> I.. for these documents as lOllY as they
are in their possession.
Copying will be done at Plaintiffs'
expense and the documents wi 11 be prompt ly returned after copy i ng
has been completed.
This request is intended to cover all documents in the
possession, custody and control of Defendants, their agents,
EXIlIBIT "^"
employees, insurance carriers and attorneys, and is considered to
be continuing,
Defendant's response to the Request should be
modified or supplemented as Defendant, and/or its attorneys,
obtain further or additional documents up to the time of trial.
REQUESTS
1. Copies of a 11 statements, memorandums, summar ies or
other writings, or signed statements, transcripts, recorded
statements or interviews of any persons or witnesses relating to,
referring to or describing any of the events described in
Plaintiff's Complaint which is the subject matter of this
I
Ii
:1
II
"
I
I
litigation.
2. Copies of all expert opinions, reports, summaries or
other writings in the custody or control of any of the parties to
whom this Request for production of Documents is sent, or their
attorneys, or insurers, which relate to the subject matter of
this litigation,
3. All documents prepared by Defendant, or any insurer,
representative, agent or anyone acting on behalf of said
defendant except their attorneys during any investigation of this
incident in question or any of the events or allegations
described in Plaintiff ',; Complaint. Such documentf] shall include
S.\1D1S, GtJIIlO.
SHun' &
MASLAND
26 WHiCh 511ftl
Culisle.PA
any documents made or prepared up through the present time, with
the exclusion of the mental impressions, conclusions or the
opinions respecting the value or merit of the claim or defense or
respecting strategy or tactics.
4. All Plaintiff's records in your possession, from the
SAIIJIS, (;\1100,
SIIU.... &.
MASJ.AND
2. W Ifi.h S.....
Carhsle. PA
date she entered the faciJ ity unti I the date she left the
facility.
5. All photographs, plans, drawings, schedules or diagrams
in your possession, custody or control, or in the possession,
custody or control of your attorney, your insured or anyone else
acting on your behalf, dealing with any aspect of thjs litigation
including, but not limited to, the instrumentalities, or incident
site, involved in the incident that is the subject matter of this
litigation.
6. All photographs of any item or thing involved in this
litigation, or the demonstrative evidence that will be introduced
or used at trial.
7. All documents in which you intend to rely upon or
introduce at trial in this litigation.
8. All incident reports that describe injuries sustained
by residents of the Defendant from 1990 to the present.
9. All investigation reports prepared for Manor Care, Inc.
and subsidiaries and/or any insurance company and/or state heal th
department and/or any federal agency which describe incidents
which in any way could be categorized as inappropriate treatment
or care or allegedly inappropriate care or treatment on behalf of
Def endant.
10. All records of training and/or continuing education
provided to the staff in the five years preceding the incident.
11. All policies, procedures, manuals that pertain to
staff, including registered nurses, LPN's, nursing aids, nursing-
assistants that provide geariatric care to patients.
l
12. All pol icies, procedures, manuals that pertain to
staff, including registered nurses, LPN's, nursing aids, nursing-
assistants that involve moving patients.
13. All policies, procedures, manuals that pertain to
staff, including registered nurses, LPN's, nursing aids, nursing-
assistants that involve reporting procedures.
SAIDIS, GUIDO,
F & MASLAND
Dated:
I-I"-q,
BY
Scott D. Moore, Esquire
26 West High Street
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
(717) 243-6222
Attorney for Plaintiff
I
.;AIDIS, GUmo, !
SHUFF &
MASLAND
26 W. Hilh 511<<'
Catli.Ie,PA
DEFINITIONS
The word "document" or "documents" as used in the preceding
Request, includes, without limitation or exception, the original
and copies of the following items, (whether printed or recorded
or produced by any other mechanical process, or written or
produced by hand): agreements, communications, correspondence,
telegrams,
memoranda,
summaries
records
of
personal
or
conversations or interviews, diaries, reports, graphs, notebooks,
note charts, plans, drawings, sketches, maps, summaries or
records of meetings or conferences, summaries or reports of
investigations or negotiations,
opinions,
or reports of
consultants, drafts, letters, any marginal comments appearing on
any document, and writings of every kind. This definition shall
also be deemed to include any machine produced document, whether
from a computer or not, notes or records of any oral
communication and recordings (tape, disk or other) of oral
communications.
The word "communication" as used in the preceding Request
shall mean any transmission of infor-mation by oral, written,
pictorial or otherwise perceptible means, including, but not
limited to, telephone conversations, letters, telegrams, and
" \IUIS, GUIDO,
SHUFF"
MASLAND
!h \II,' fI.,h Street
ClIhlle. PA
personal conversations.
The word "person" as used in the preceding Motion shall mean
individual,
corporation,
partnership,
any
unincorporated
associated or business entity.
JOHN WILLIAM WALKER. EXECUTOR :
OF THE ESTATE OF VERA E.WALKER. :
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v,
NO. 95-5083 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MANOR HEALTHCARE CORP" TIA
LEADER NURSING AND
REHABILITATION CENTER OF
CARLISLE.
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANT'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S REOUEST
FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
TO: JOHN WILLIAM WALKER. Executor of the Estate of VERA E, WALKER. Plaintiffs, and
his attorney. SCOTT D. MOORE, ESQUIRE
1-6. None, other than those previously provided,
7. Documents 10 be used allria! have nol yet been identified. These will be provided in
accordance with local rules of procedure al the appropriate time.
8-11. Objection is made to these requests as they are not calculated to lead to discovery of
relevant infonnation, are overly broad to the extent they are incapable of accurate response and/or
unreasonably burdensome.
12. See attached outlines and checklists from the State Wide Nursing Assisting
Curriculum. and Positioning Techniques fonn.
] 3. See attached Incident! Accidenl report.
MARTSON. DEARDORFF. WILLIAMS & OTTO
By '~iAA) ~:t4,,,-
Thomas 1. Williams, Esquire
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-334\
Attorneys for Defendant
Dated: May 22, \9%
EXHIBIT "8"
Law Offices
SAlOIS, GUIDO, SHUFF & MASLAND
John I!, Slikc
Robert C. Saidis
Edward I!. Guido
Geoffrey S, Shuff
Albert H. Muland
Johnna J, Deily
RiehVd p, MislilSky
limolhy M. Ansline
Sco.!l D. Moore
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
26 Wesl High Slrecl . Posl Office Dox S60
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Telephone: (717) 243-6222' Facsimile: (717) 243-6486
WfJI Shore Office:
2109 Market SUCCI
Comp Hill. PA 17011
Telephone: (717) 737.3405
Foalmile: (717) 737-)407
Reply 1b Carlisle
May 28, 1996
Thomas J. Williams, Esquire
MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
RE: John William Walker, Executor of the Estate of
Vera E. Walker v. Manor Healthcare Corp., t/a
Leader Nursing and Rehabilitation Center of Carlisle
No. 95-5083 Civil
Your File No. 3831.94
Dear Tom:
I am in receipt of the Answers to Interrogatories and Response
to our Request for production of Documents. You made numerous
objections to various discovery. specifically, your objections to
the Request for production of Documents questions 8 through 11.
I believe the information that is requested is
relevant and designed to lead to discoverable information.
know, punitive damages have been alleged in this case
inquiry into prior incidents involving the nUl-sing home are
relevant to establ i sh a course of conduct on the part
nursing home.
clearly
As you
and an
clearly
of the
I have attempted to limit my requests to 1990 to the present.
I believe this is a reasonable time frame. I am willing to limit
request number 9 to investigative files relating to injuries
sustained by patients at the nursing home from 1990 to the present.
EXHIBIT .C.
Thomas J. Williams, Esquire
May 28, 1996
page 2
I would be happy to discuss with you any specific objections
that you have to producing this material.
If we are unable to resolve this dispute, I will file a Motion
to compel this information. Thank you for your cooperatipn in this
matter.
Sincerely,
, SHUFF & MASLAND
. Moore
SDM/tam
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Scott
~~~
D. Moore, Esquire, certify that on the ~~ day of
, 1996, I served the attached Motion to
Compel More Complete Response to Plaintiff's Request for Production
of Documents by depositing same in the United States mail, first
class, postage prepaid addressed as follows:
Thomas J. Williams, Esquire
MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
UFF & MASLAND
By:
ott D. Moore, Esquire
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-6222
Attorney for the Plaintiff
F \F1lES'DATAF1lE\PHICO OOC\N.ANS J.1dw
C....tId Il)'lllI9'OllollPM
RMMd. C&'14IQ6111"lAM
JOHN WILLIAM WALKER, EXECUTOR:
OF TIlE EST ATE OF VERA E.w ALKER, :
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTy, PENNSYL VANIA
v.
NO. 95-5083 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MANOR HEALTHCARE CORP., T1A
LEADER NURSING AND
REHABILITATION CENTER OF
CARLISLE,
Defendant
JURy TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL MORE
COMPLETE RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION
OF DOClJMENTS
AND NOW, comes the Defendant above named by its attorneys, MARTS ON,
DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO, and answers Plaintiffs Motion as follows:
1-12. The allegations of Plaintiffs Motion are correct as stated. The reason that Defendant
refuses to produce the documents requested is because:
a. There would be significant time and expense involved in obtaining the
documents. Defendant estimates a QJ.lalified person. probably an
administrator or professional nurse, would take at least two weeks to get
everything together, if it included copying.
b. Many of the records are confidential in nature. This is particularly true for
the incident reports and investigative reports in Request No.9. Defendant
believes it would be necessary to obtain a release from each patient
mentioned in such reports.
c. Plaintiffs offer to negotiate more specificity in the type of document
requested is not feasible in that it would require significant additional time
to go through each document and determine whether it meets the criteria of
specificity. For eltample, there are approximately one hundred incident
reports per month, on average, that are made in the normal course of
operation. Anything that occurs that is unexpected or in anyway out of the
ordinary is the subject of an incident report There would be thousands of
incidents reports to go through ITom IINO to the present. as requested by
Plaintiff
d. None of the records requested have anything to do with Plaintiff.
e. None of the records requested have anything to do with the injury which is
the subject of this action.
f. The only conceivable relevance of these extensive documents would be for
Plaintiffs claim of punitive damages. Defendant's Motion for Summary
Judgment is presently pending before the Court on the issue of punitive
damages. It was supposed to be argued on August 14, 1996, but this
argument was continued until the October Argument Court at the request of
Plaintiff.
g. This case involves a broken arm on the part of Plaintiff's decedent that
occurred on December 2, 1994, allegedly as a result of improper lifting
techniques used by two nursing aides who were employees of Defendant.
The extensive discovery request on the part of Plaintiff pales in comparison
to the gravamen of this action.
WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests Your Honorable Court to deny Plaintiff's
Motion to Compel.
Respectfully submitted.
MARTS ON, DEARDORFF. WILLIAMS & OTTO
BY'1~) ~~,~
Thomas J. Williams, Esquire
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Defendant
~
Dated: ~st~, 1996
F'l1l.ESlOATAFlL.E'J'Hlro()(X",....VUI
I'm" OW2l)19' OIlt ~ AM
R~ \lIII1~OI~H'AM
VERIFICATION
Wes Bartlett. N.H.A. who is Administrator of Leader Nursing Care and Rehabilitation Center
and Manor Care, Inc and acknowledges that he has the authority to execute this Verification in
behalf of Leader Nursing Care and Rehabilitation Center and Manor Care, Inc. certifies that the
foregoing Answer is based upon information which has been gathered by my counsel in the
preparation of the lawsuit. The language of this Answer is that of counsel and not my own. I have
read the document and to the extent that the Answer is based upon information which I have given
to my counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the
extent that the content of the Answer is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this
Verification.
This statement and Verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904
relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if I make knowingly false
averments. I may be subject to criminal penalties.
Leader Nursing Care and Rehabilitation Center
and Manor Care, lnc
.& &114: #/Il
IWes Bart(ett, N.H. A. Administrator
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certifY that a copy of the foregoing Defendant's Answers to Plaintiffs Motion to
Complete More Complete Response to Plaintiffs Request for Production was served this date by
depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, P A. first class mail, postage prepaid. addressed as
follows:
ex.-
Dated: ~st 2-, 1996
Scott D. Moore, Esquire
SAIDlS, GUIDO, SHUFF & MAS LAND
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO
By '1~) ~~
Thomas J. Williams, Esquire
Ten East High Street
Carlisle. P A 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Defendant
SHERIFF'S RETU~N
HEtJ;jLAF-;
CASE NO: 1995-0500J P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLANP
l'IAU;EILJOH1L.~lLLJAM ET_._~L__.._
VS.
MANOR HEAleTHCA!!';: CORP ET AL
ROBER..L..k....LH!1i.__..pR .________..__
Sherlif or [Iepu~y ~!)0rlff of
CUMSERLAN[' County, rennsylv"nl", whu hPl"9 duly "'''''''f''
t.o I"w. saylo', the wIthIn CQrllLAJ.NT..___________________________
aC(-:':..lrd~flC1
was
servl-:'d
upon MANOR HEAl, TlKARE CORPORATION T: A_ Lf:A.r'f:3.._m'B-'~d,_..REHA[\ _SJ:l!.EJL_ "t.P
defendant., at. 1110:00 HOURS, nn "he ~ZJ_h day ,=,f 2~t~('mbl-~T
19~.2 at. ...34~__,~ALNUT SOTIC'N "'-'AL__________________..___
CARLISLE, FA 17013
_.____.______________ _________. CUtlI)ERLANr,__. _
Count.y. Pennsylvanla, by han,Hno to KAIH.I_ ET5ENHART. ADMINISTRATOR
611J'_ApUL L..HLCHARGE
a true and attested co~y
.,~.911PLA J N_L_____
of the
and at thE? same tlme dlrectlog H(->~ '3~tentJ.l)n to tho? contE':1t::.; there.:-f.
SherIff's Costs:
vocketlno
Servlce -
A ff d a..' 1 t
Surcharge
18.12>0
::. !3\i"1
S?12:'~~<~ff'~
J:':'- ;1,;-,...,;, KE-,,~; Sr;eiTfi
i"'!i7':
. ..--
:+:. ~~0
s':r~~_.P"0..--SAID!S r.,UI[.il ':;HLFF f. !1A:-.LANr,
~ll~"'~fL- L it'?~';
"Y'-~~-~Tot~r~ ~::-k
~-.?t"'J,-'r '.i'~T ~~--~
Sworn ~nd Edbsc t l t-E,rj t !:.,"...t':.~ 'f'P
thl" Il.:!--:jsr ,_,1 ~,
1,' 9{ A. r,.
~fA.rf,!;~~~t~
F\}ll.tS\lIATAnl.l,~.PllIn)l.lI-q"APP Ildw
1',nleo:l JB.1~'9\Olllll:r"l
RtmC'd lal~'Q\OI"'10'P'"'
JOHN WILLIAM WALKER, EXECUTOR :
OF THE EST ATE OF VERA E. WALKER, :
Plaintiffs
v.
MANOR HEALTHCARE CORP., T/A
LEADER NURSING AND
REHABILITATION CENTER OF
CARLISLE,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 95-5083 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
Enter the appearance of MARTS ON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO in behalf of
Defendant in the above matter.
Dated: October 16, 1995
MARTSON, DEARDORFF. WILLIAMS & OTTO
By ,,~~ /,An.tt ~
Thomas J. Williams, Esquire
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Defendant
F\f1I.E.\'\I)ATAFIl,F.\rIUCO 1j()t~.Q4<PR.A 1'Ju
Cntted 0711V-10l,..1 AM
RntMd 07111JQf110n01AM
.1ll"'4
JOHN WILLIAM WALKER. EXECUTOR :
OF THE EST ATE OF VERA E.w ALKER. :
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
NO. 95-5083 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MANORHEALTHCARECORP., T/A
LEADER NURSING AND
REHABILITATION CENTER OF
CARLISLE,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant
PRAECIPE
TO THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY PROTHONOTARY:
Please file the attached Interrogatories of record in the above captioned action.
MAIJfSON, D~AROO~, WU~~:: & OTTO
~(h_..-W
By
Thomas J. illiams, Esquire
W. Darren Powell, Esquire
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Defendant
Dated: July 12, 1996
, \P!LU\DATAPU.l\PHICO OOC\tI&-iHT I'lld.
~.,crl""OIMll'M
l.-.I. IOi'''S O'UIJHM
JOHN WILLIAM WALKER. EXECUTOR :
OF THE EST ATE OF VERA E.W ALKER. :
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO
L~
\ \ . r.
Byl <2:.,., ~
Thomu J . 'ams, Esquire
Ten East gh Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Defendant
v.
NO. 95-5083 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MANOR HEALTHCARE CORP., T/A
LEADER NURSING AND
REHABILITATION CENTER OF
CARLISLE,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANT'S INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFF
TO: JOHN WILLIAM WALKER. Executor of the Estate of VERA E. WALKER, Plaintiff, and
his attorneys, ROBERT SAlOIS, ESQUIRE and TIMOTHY J ANSTINE, ESQUIRE
Enclosed are Interrogatories propounded by Defendants to be answered under oath by the
aforesaid Plaintiff pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 4005, within thirty (30) days from the date of service
hereof A copy of said Answers shall be served upon counsel for Defendants at the address below.
These Interrogatories shall be deemed to be continuing Interrogatories and if, between the
time of your Answers to said Interrogatories and the time of trial of this case, you or anyone acting
in your behalf learn of any further information not contained in your said Answers, you shall
promptly furnish said information to the undersigned by supplemental answers.
As used herein, the words "accident" or "occurrence" refer to the incident described in your
Complaint and all related events and circumstances.
Unless otherwise specified, response to the following Interrogatories shall give the requested
information for the period from December 2, 1994, to the present (hereinafter sometimes referred
to as the "time period").
It is hereby certified that a true and correct copy of these Interrogatories was mailed to
counsel for the Plaintiff on this date by the undersigned
Dated October 16. 1995
I
._. ......
Interrogatory No. I
Please identifY each person you expect to call as an expert witness at trial and state the
subject matter on which each person is expected to testifY.
ANSWER:
Plaintiff's expert witnesses are unknown at this time.
Interrogatory NO.3
IdentitY by author, title and page number what text, journals or other writings provide a basis
for the opinions held by each person identified in your answer to Interrogatory No. I or which may
in any way be relied upon by you at the upcoming trial.
ANSWER:
Unknown at this time.
Interrogatory 4
(a) List the names and addresses of the persons known or believed by you, or any person
acting on your behalf, to have been within sight or hearing of the said occurrence and with respect
to each of the aforesaid witnesses, state their exact location and activities at the time of the said
occurrence and whether he saw the incident.
ANSWER:
Unknown at this time. Identities will be secured from Plaintiff by reason
of Interrogatories.
(b) Except as set forth in (a) above, list the names and addresses of all persons known or
believed by you, or any person acting on your behalf, to have first-hand knowledge of the facts and
circumstances of the said occurrence or of the events leading up to or following it.
ANSWER:
Nurses's Aides on duty, LPN on duty, and any other witnesses provided by
the Defendant.
(c) Except as set forth in (a) above, list the names and addresses of all persons known or
believed by you, or any person acting on your behalf, to have first-hand knowledge of the conditions
at the scene of the said occurrence existing prior to, at or immediately after the same.
ANSWER:
Unknown at this time, See the answer to (b),
Interrogatory No. 5
IdentifY every person known to you, or to your attorneys, or representatives, who claims to
have seen or heard the Plaintiff make any statement or statements pertaining to any of the events or
happenings alleged in the Complaint.
ANSWER:
Unknown at this time. Answer to this Interrogatory to be secured by
Plaintiff from the Defendant once employees of the Defendant have been determined
who were on duty,
. _.4....
Interrogatory No. 7
If any of the witnesses listed in your answers to Nos. 1 and 4 or whom you propose to use
at trial are related to you, or to each other, please state the nature of such relationship(s).
ANSWER:
Unknown,
- .....
Interrogatory No 8
Please state the names and addresses of 011 persons you plan to call as witnessea at the trial
of this case.
ANSWER:
Unknown at this time,
.-,......
Interrogatory No. 9
Please identify all witnesses to any of the events described in the Complaint.
ANSWER:
Unknown at this time.
.
" "
,
Interrogatory No. II
In Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, you refer to "medically accepted procedures for the lifting
offrai1 patients." With regard to those procedures, please provide the foUowing information:
<a> A description of the procedure that you feel should have been used; and
(b) The identity of the source or authority for your contention as to this procedure.
ANSWER:
See a copy of the lifting procedures. attached hereto.
Interrogatory No. 13
In Paragraph 28 of the Complaint, you a\'er that Plaintilrs decedent was "subject to the same
or similar abuse and neglect that was detailed in said report." In the regard, please pro\;de the
foUowing information:
(a) The date of each instance of such alleged abuse or neglect;
(b) A description of each instance of such similar abuse or neglect; and
(c) The identity of any person or document providing infonnation with regard to each
such instance of alleged similar abuse and neglect.
Unknown as this tiwe, Plaintiff's investigation of the same or
similar use and neglect is continuing_
-
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYL VANIA )
: SS,
COUNTY OF ct!-lBERLAND )
John William Walker being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that
the facts set forth in the foregoing Answers to Interrogatories are true and correct,
~fI}t~,;.",'~~
/Chn William Walker
Sworn to and subscnbed before me
thiS~Y~99Ei
eOW4
NOTARIAl. sw.
JOAN E SMITH. NOTARY Pl!BUC
CAlU.ISU BOROUGH. CUMBBlLANO CO.. PA
IIY COUIllSSKlN EXPllI!S MARCH 23, '811
CF.RTIFICA TE OF SERVICE
I hereby certifY that a copy of the foregoing Defendant's Interrogatories to Plaintiff was
served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, P A, first class mail, postage
prepaid, addressed as follows:
Dated: October 16, 1995
Robert C. Saidis, Esquire
Timothy M. Anstine, Esquire
SAlOIS, GUIDO, SHUFF & MASLAND
2109 Market Street
Camp Hill, P A 17011
MARTS ON, DEARDORFF, Wll.LIAMS & OTTO
o ~ I': ..2i ~___
B~~ ,W
Thomas 1. Iiams, Esqwe
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Defendant
Attorneys for Defendant
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certifY that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe was served this date by depositing same
in the Post Office at Carlisle, P A, first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Scott D. Moore, Esquire
SAlOIS, GUIDO, SHUFF & MAS LAND
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO
By ~ (2.{j
W. Darren Powell, Esquire
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Dated: July 12, 1996
f .fll.lS."ATAFII.I:'PIIlf'llIo......Mm Ildw'ju
("fftkd 1l}1~~ol"\&I2PM
MMIed 01112.NtlIO "... AM
"'11 .,~
JOHN WILLIAM WALKER, EXECUTOR :
OF THE ESTATE OF VERA E.WALKER, .
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
NO 95-5083 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MANOR HEAL THCARE CORP., T/A
LEADER NURSING AND
REHABILITATION CENTER OF
CARLISLE,
. !~.
,_."
,-,
,"q
,'.-
I
. )
)
I
'\
,
n
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
t''-
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT;'
.,
~ ;1
AND NOW, comes the Defendant. Manor Care, Inc. d/b/a Leader Nursing Home'llild < ,';'
Rehabilitation Center. by and through its attorneys, MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS &
OTTO, and requests this Honorable Court to enter partial summary judgment in its favor and
against Plaintiff, and in support thereof. avers as follows:
I. Defendant is Manor Care. Inc. d/b/a Leader Nursing Home and Rehabilitation Center.
2. Defendant operates the Leader Nursing Home and Rehabilitation Center located at
940 Walnut Bottom Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania (the "Facility").
3. Plaintiff is John William Walker, Eltecutor of the Estate of Vera E. Walker.
4. Vera E. Walker, Decedent, was admitted to the Facility on or about December 9,
1993. frail and in declining health.
5 Plaintiff alleges that on or about December 2, 1994, Decedent suffered a fractured
bone when two of Defendant's employees were lifting Decedent.
6. ApprOlumately three months later, on or about March I, 1995, Decedent passed away.
7. On or about September 25, 1995, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in negligence against
Defendant seeking compensatory and punitive damages
I MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AS TO UNSUBSTANTIATED AVERMENTS
8. Paragraphs 1 through 7 are hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth fully
herein
9. In paragraph 27 of the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the December 2, 1994
accident was one incident in a wide pattern of abuse and neglect evidenced by a Pennsylvania
Department of Health report (the "Report") wherein certain deficiencies at the Facility were noted.
10. The Report identifies no acts or omission of Defendant or its employees with regard
to Decedent.
II. Nevertheless, in paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs Complaint he avers that the Decedent was
"subject to the same or similar abuse and neglect that was detailed in said report."
12. Defendant has provided Plaintiff with the records pertaining to Decedent and her
care and there is no evidence of such conduct.
13. Additionally, on or about October 16, 1995, Defendant served continuing
Interrogatories upon Plaintiff.
14. Interrogatory No. 13 thereof requested Plaintiff to identify each incident complained
of in paragraph 28 of the Complaint.
15. By notarized Answer dated January 4, 1996, Plaintiff responded to said Interrogatory
to the effect that none are known and that Plaintiff is still investigating same.
16. Plaintiff has not supplemented or provided additional responses to these
Interrogatories.
17. Therefore, Plaintiff s averment that Decedent was "subject to the same or similar
abuse and neglect that was detailed in said report" is without factual basis.
18. Plaintiff has attempted to use the broad and wholly unsubstantiated averment of
Paragraph 28 to conduct intrusive and irrelevant discovery.
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Honorable Court enter partial summary
judgment as to Plaintiff s unsubstantiated allegations, in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff.
11 MOTION FOR PARTIAL SI1MMARY mDGMENT
AS TO PUNITIVE DAMAGE CLAIM
19 Paragraphs 1 through 18 are hereby incorporated by reference as though set forth
fully herein
20 Plaintiff alleges in his Complaint that Defendant's negligence resulted in Decedent's
death
- ....
21. In paragraph 22 of the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was negligent in
the following respects:
(a) Failing to train its nurses aides in the proper manner oflifting and/or moving
patients;
(b) Failing to properly supervise the nurses aides before and during the lifting
and/or moving procedure attempted on Mrs. Walker;
(c) Failing to perform the lifting procedure on Mrs. Walker in accordance with
Defendant's own policies and medically accepted standards;
(d) Failing to direct the prompt and adequate treatment of Mrs. Walker when her
injury was discovered;
(e) In the alternative, allowing Mrs. Walker to be dropped while attempting to
move or lift her.
22. Plaintiff s averments, although denied, if taken as true, constitute only ordinary
negligence for which Pennsylvania law does not permit the recovery of punitive damages.
23. Under Pennsylvania law, punitive damages are recoverable only where the
complained conduct is done with bad intent, or where an act is done intentionally in disregard of a
known risk so obvious and so great that harm would likely follow.
WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Honorable Court enter partial summary
judgment as to Plaintiffs demand for punitive damages, in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff.
MAR:ryON, D~RDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO
-;~ lli.-..}, IAJ ~---
I
By ',j,
Thomas J dliams, EsqUIre
W Darren Powell, Esquire
Ten East High Street
Carlisle. PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Defendant
Dated July 12, 1996
fERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certifY that a copy of the foregoing Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment was served this date by depositing same in the Post Office at Carlisle, P A. first class mail,
postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Scott D. Moore, Esquire
SAlOIS. GUIDO, SHUFF & MASLAND
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
L1AMS & OTTO
By \. \
W. Darren Powell, Esquire
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
--...
Attorneys for Defendant
Dated: July 12, 1996
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT
(Must be typewritten and subnitted in dup.l.icate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
Please list the within matter for the next ArgU1I!I1t COUrt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption IlLISt be stated in full)
John William Walker. Executor of the Estate of Vera E, Walker
,._"' -)
, .
,
r,
")
',-'
( Plaintiff)
-.'1
::;
"'-,
. I
.'-1
,
,n
VB.
Manor Healthcare Corp., tla Leader Nursing and Rehabilitation Center of Carlisle
c
,'.
.,
( Defendant)
No. 95-5083 Civil A","; en
19 qr;
1. State matter to be argued (i.e.. plaintiff's I1Dtion for new trial. defendant's
dalm:rer to COltllaint. etc.): Defendant' s ~Iotion for SlJIlIMry Judgment
2. Identify counsel who will argue case:
(a) for plaintiff: Scott D. Moore. Esquire
Address: 26 West High Street. Carlisle. PA 17013
(b) for defendant: Thomas J. William. Esquire
Address: Ten East High Street. Carlisle. PA 17013
3. I will notify all parties in writing within t:ItO days that this case has
been listed for argurertt.
4. ArqUIelt Court Date: August 14. 1996
'I ~) iNJJ..... ~-
. ..;__ "'"'4=.......4."...P
20.
JOHN WILLIAM WALKER,
EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF
VERA E, WALKER
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V
AND NOW, August 19,1996, by agreement of counsel, the above-
ORDER OF COURT
MANOR HEALTHCARE CORP., TIA : NO, 95-5083 CIVIL TERM
LEADER NURSING AND REHABILlTA. :
TION CENTER OF CARLISLE
captioned matter is hereby continued from the August 14, 1996, Argument Court list.
Prothonotary la directed to renat the caae.
By the Court,
/f("rrl"
Harold E. SheelY, P,J.
Scott D. Moore, Esq.
For the Plaintiff
~\ \C\,\ \.., c.' C (l X' \' c)
Thomas J. Williams, Esq.
For the Defendant
'is. ~v I\V
\'O'\.'f'1t.-\'\" I
......\, .,...."1
. .."" '. ~:. "!n~
Court Administrator
C:'.' .~1' " E" ""1 %
_J "-:.lI .(" toil' -
.,-
':.:J
11 . ., "0
1\...,1:"', '".1_' -. ." - -
3J.;l;:O{J31U
,
,
I
:br
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT
(!bit be typewritten and subnitted in o'..-pl.icate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
Please Ust the within matter for the next Argunent COUrt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAPTION OF CASE
(entiJ:e capticn lILISt be stated in full)
JOHN WILLIAM WALKER, Executor of the Estate of Vera E. Walker
(Plaintiff)
VB.
MANOR HEALTHCARE CORP. t/A LEADER NURSING AND REHABILITATICtl
CENTER OF CARLISLE
( Defendllnt )
No. 1l<;-<;ORl
Civil
19 95
Law
1. State matter to be argued (i.e.. plaintiff's motion for new trial. defendant's
~ to ccmplaint. e~c.): Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery and
Defendant's Motion for Sl.lI11l1ary Judgment should be heard at the same time since
these are related motions.
2. Identify axmsel who will argue case:
(a) for plaintiff: Scott D, Moore, Esquire
Address: 26 West High Street, Carlisle, PA 17013
(bl for defendant: Thomas J. Williams, Esquire
Address: .
Ten East H1Qh Street, Carlisle, PA 17013
]. I will notify all plSrties in wrlting within bID days that this ~ has
been listed for arglIIlI!Ilt.
4. ArglJrent Court Date: DecentJer 11. 1996
1".
,
''\ 1",11
, '\'" t.--,,-..w'\--
t
I i)./I '.4. ~
,.....-.-lDV
."""',.. n.#CIl""."'~
, IU,Ui'IIATAnU:rUI("III. .-"4-DRI:
!"~ltd 11'1",~11 "OOAM
by,,,,,1 11'1",. II '0 II AM
JOHN WILLIAM WALKER, EXECUTOR
OF THE ESTATE OF VERA E. WALKER,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
v.
NO. 95-5083 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MANOR HEAL THCARE CORP., T/A
LEADER NURSING AND
REHABILITATION CENTER OF
CARLISLE,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO COMPEL MORE COMPLETE
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
I. FACTS:
This action arises out of a December 2, 1994 accident which occurred at the Defendant
Leader Nursing Home's Carlisle facility. In this incident Mrs Vera Walker ("Decedent") suffered
a broken arm allegedly as a result of being improperly lifted by two of Defendant's employees
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on or about September 25, 1995, seeking compensatory and punitive
damages On July 12, 1996 Defendant filed a Motion For Partial Summary Judgment, seeking to
have Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages and broad unsubstantiated claims dismissed. This
motion is also pending before the court.
Since initiating this case, Plaintiff has proceeded with discovery, filing Interrogatories and
Requests for Production of Documents. Defendant has responded fully to these Interrogatories and
the majority of Plaintiffs Requests for Production of Documents However, Defendant did object
to four of Plaintiffs requests for production on the basis that they are overly broad, burdensome, and
will not likely lead to relevant information In response to these objections, Plaintiff filed a Motion
to Compel More Complete Response to Plaintiffs Request For Production of Documents On or
about October 9, 1996. Defendant Answered this Motion. elaborating on why the requests would
require an unreasonably investigation, were unreasonably burdensome, related to conlidential patient
records, and would not likely lead to relevant information
Both Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Plaintill's Motion to Compel
and presently before this Honorable Court for disposition
II, ISSUE:
SHOULD PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL BE DENIED WHERE
PRODUCING THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS WOULD PLACE AN UNREASONABLE
EXPENSE AND BURDEN ON DEFENDANT. TilE DOCUMENTS ARE PROTECTED BY
PATIENT CONFIDENTIALITY. AND ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE CASE?
\II. ARGUMENT:
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL SHOULD BE DENIED WHERE
PRODUCING THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS WOULD PLACE AN UNREASONABLE
EXPENSE AND BURDEN ON DEFENDANT. THE DOCUMENTS ARE PROTECTED BY
PATIENT CONFIDENTIALITY. AND ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE CASE,
Subject to other limitations. a plaintiff may obtain discovery regarding any matter not
privileged which is relevant to the subject matter. 42 Pa CS. Pa R.CP 40031. Stated otherwise.
a plaintiff may not obtain discovery of documents which are not relevant to the plaintiff s case
Euller v Jackson. 37 Cumbo 419, 50 D&C 3d 628 (1987)(J. Bayley): SJ:j:. McEwen v Bulletin Co..
12 D&C 3d 428 (1979). To be relevant. discovery must be calculated to lead to evidence which
possess sufficient probative force to affect a material part of the cause of action. ~,Sll\lU. To
that end. requests for documents pertaining to any complaints against the defendants. without
limitation to the nature or types of complaints or claims has been prohibited as not relevant. 1d.
Similarly, requests which simply request information as to prior citations and warnings for sewage
discharge violations, which are not adequately limited have been ruled as not relevant. Sharon Steel
Corp V Rakoci, 23 D&C 3d 321 (1982)
In addition to the prerequisite that the discovery must be calculated to lead to relevant
evidence concerning a material part of the case, Pennsylvania R.CP 4011 protects a party from
discovery which is, among other things. unreasonable or related to privileged information. This rule
states:
No discovery or deposition shall be permitted which
(a) is sought in bad faith:
(b) would cause unreasonable annoyance. embarrassment, oppression, burden or expense
to the deponent or any other person or party:
(c) relates to matter which is privileged. or
(d) rescinded
(e) would require the making of an unreasonable investigation by the deponent or
any other party or wtlness. or
(t) rescinded
42 PaC.S, Pa.RCP, 4011
Subsections (b) and (e) prohibit discovery which will cause "unreasonable" burden, eltpense
or investigation for the responding party Id The reasonableness of discovery requests depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case, Davis v Pennzoil Co , 438 Pa, 194, 264 597 (1970)
However, it is clearly established that overly broad requests which amount to "fishing expeditions"
are unreasonable. Estate of Townsend, 430 Pa, 318. 241 A.2d 534, cert. denied. 393 U.S, 934, 21
LEd 2d 270, 89 S.Ct. 293. (1968). In addition, courts have held that requests for masses of
documents generated over an extended period of time. such as eight years, are unreasonably
burdensome for the answering party. Universal Film Exchanl1es lnc v Budco, 44 D&C 2d 695
(1968). It has also been held that a request to identify every lawsuit or claim that the party has been
involved in was unreasonable. Heitz v General Motors Corp" 57 D&C 2d (1972)
Applying the above law to the present action, it is clear that Defendant' s objections to
Requests 8 through II are valid and that the Plaintiffs motion to compel should be denied.
Plaintiffs Request Number 8 states:
All incident reports that describe injuries sustained by residents of the
Defendant from 1990 to the present.
This request is. on its face, overly broad and objectionable. It must be noted that Defendant !wi
provided to Plaintiff any and all reports which, in any reasonable way, may be construed as relating
to Decedent (who entered the facility in 1994) and the incident giving rise to this action, Despite
this, Plaintiffs Request 8 seeks would require review and reproduction of a massive amount of
documents generated over a period of almost seven years. To understand the magnitude of this
request. it is important to understand that incident reports are required to be generated for numerous
reasons, many of which have little or no direct relationship to patient injuries. Indeed, the
occurrence of anything unexpected at the facility requires that an incident report be prepared. At
the Defendant's Carlisle facility approximately 100 such reports are created each month. These
incident reports are not filed or separated in any manner except chronologically Therefore, in order
to respond to Request 8 Defendant will be required III review of approximately 8.400 separate
incident reports and determine which ones may be responsive to this request Not only would this
entail an unreasonable burden, but the request overly broad. limiting itself only to personal injuries
since I qqo This action involves a broken arm which Decedent sutTered allegedly while Defendant' s
employee's were moving her. Given that the nature of this action such a request is clearly
unreasonably burdensome and unlikely to lead to any relevant information.
Further, any reports that may be responsive to this request will likely involve confidential
patient information. The Defendant would not be permitted to disclose these without first locating
and obtaining the appropriate releases form each resident or redacting any personal information.
However, given the broad scope of this request, either option would only add to the
unreasonableness of the burden placed upon Defendant by this request. In short, the request is
overly broad, will not likely lead to relevant information and will be extremely burdensome for
Defendant, therefore, Plaintiffs Motion To Compel should be denied as to Request 8.
Likewise, Plaintiffs Request Number 9 states:
All investigation reports prepared for Manor Care. Inc. and subsidiaries and/or any
insurance company and/or state health department and/or any federal agency which
describe incidents which in any way could be categorized as inappropriate treatment
or care or allegedly inappropriate care or treatment on behalf of Defendant.
This request is also unreasonable and unlikely to lead to relevant information. Again, Defendant
has provided any such reports which in any reasonable way relate to Decedent or the incident giving
rise to the suit. Regardless, Plaintiff seeks all investigative reports from Manor Care facilities,
subsidiaries. or government agencies, wherever located, which were prepared from 1990 to present,
and in which Defendant's care could be categorized as inappropriate. See, Exhibit "C" to Motion
to Compel, letter limiting Request 9 to 1990 through present. First, the facts giving rise to this
action. involve the Defendant's employees allegedly improperly moving Decedent. The discovery
of any and all reports which negatively characterize care is surely overly broad and an obvious
fishing eltpedition by Plaintiff Second, the operation of nursing homes is highly regulated and
investigations of different natures are not uncommon procedures However, the Defendant does not
maintain a central depository or management of such "investigative" reports Therefore. if required
to respond. Defendant would be forced to go through records or interview persons at all of the
facilities it now, or in the past. operated to determine the existence and substance of any
investigations Given the nature of this case. such a request is clearly overly broad and
unreasonable
In addition these reports would also likely wntam contidential patient mformation, requiring
proper releases he obtam\.-d or redaction hetilre dlsclosmg them Again. thiS would add to the burden
of this request
Requcst Number 10 is cqually objcctionablc as overly broad. burdensome, and not likely to
Icad to relevant information. Request 10 is as follows:
All rccords of training and/or continuing education provided to the staff in
the five years preceding the incident.
Staff at nursing homes continually provided training and educational programs on a variety of topics.
The accident giving rise to this action allegedly occurred when two of Defendant's employees were
moving Decedent and Defendant has already provided copies of its policy for moving patients.
Request 10 goes beyond this, however, and seeks all records of any type of training provided and
in so doing is clearly overly broad. Moreover, Defendant maintains no central management of
training records or educational records per Sl!. In order to answer Plaintiffs request 9, Defendant
would need to review extensive files and determine whether documents related to training or
education. Clearly, given the circumstances of this case, this request is overly broad and
unreasonably burdensome to Defendant.
Similarly, Request II is overly broad, burdensome. and not likely to lead to relevant
information. Request II states:
All policies, procedures, manuals that pertain to staff, including registered
nurses, LPN's, nursing aids, nursing assistants that provide geriatric care to
patients
Essentially, Request II seeks all of Defendant's manuals, policies and procedures which pertain to
staff In order to respond to this request, Defendant would need to compile and reproduce numerous
staff manuals, policies and procedures, many of which only tangentially, if at all, relate to patient
care This would entail compiling and reproducing thousands of pages of documents and would
require Defendant to hire someone to attend to the demands thereof Again, however, Defendant
has already provided Plaintiff copies of its manuals on moving patients However, Defendant should
not be required to undergo the expense or responding to such a request where the discovery will not
lead to relevant information
In Et.IllcJ:. SUIlm, the plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against the Defendant
physician and the corporation in which he practiced The plaintiff brought the action after suffering
a perforation of the esophagus during a surgical procedure Similar to the case at bar, the plaintiff
in ElIlkI: soughlto obtain through requests It)r production numerous documents to which defendant
objected on the grounds that they were overlv broad. burdensome. and would not lead to relevant
F 'nLES\DATAnl.E'"ItK'oOlX",''''KMll
n......llm.....IIUOOAM
l.... 1111',"'11 o,o!lAM
tJv
JOHN WILLIAM WALKER. EXECUTOR
OF THE ESTATE OF VERA E. WALKER.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTy,
PENNSYL V ANlA
Plaintiff
v.
NO. 95-5083 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MANOR HEALTHCARE CORP., T/A
LEADER NURSING AND
REHABILITATION CENTER OF
CARLISLE,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSmON TO MOTION TO COMPEL MORE COMPLETE
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
I. FACTS:
This action arises out of a December 2. 1994 accident which occurred at the Defendant
Leader Nursing Home's Carlisle facility. In this incident Mrs. Vera Walker ("Decedent") suffered
a broken arm allegedly as a result of being improperly lifted by two of Defendant's employees.
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on or about September 25, 1995, seeking compensatory and punitive
damages. On July 12. 1996 Defendant filed a Motion For Partial Summary Judgment, seeking to
have Plaintiff s claim for punitive damages and broad unsubstantiated claims dismissed. This
motion is also pending before the court.
Since initiating this case, Plaintiff has proceeded with discovery, filing Interrogatories and
Requests for Production of Documents. Defendant has responded fully to these Interrogatories and
the majority of Plaintiffs Requests for Production of Documents. However, Defendant did object
to four of Plaintiffs requests for production on the basis that they are overly broad, burdensome. and
will not likely lead to relevant information. In response to these objections, Plaintiff filed a Motion
to Compel More Complete Response to Plaintiff's Request For Production of Documents. On or
about October 9, 1996, Defendant Answered this Motion, elaborating on why the requests would
require an unreasonably investigation. were unreasonably burdensome, related to confidential patient
records. and would not likely lead to relevant information
Both Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs Motion to Compel
and presently before this Honorable Court for disposition
II. ISSUE:
SHOULD PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL BE DENIED WHERE
PRODUCING THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS WOULD PLACE AN UNREASONABLE
EXPENSE AND BURDEN ON DEFENDANT, THE DOCUMENTS ARE PROTECTED BY
PATIENT CONFIDENTIALITY, AND ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE CASE?
01, ARGUMENT:
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL SHOULD BE DENIED WHERE
PRODUCING THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS WOULD PLACE AN UNREASONABLE
EXPENSE AND BURDEN ON DEFENDANT, THE DOCUMENTS ARE PROTECTED BY
PATIENT CONFIDENTIALITY, AND ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE CASE,
Subject to other limitations, a plaintiff may obtain discovery regarding any matter not
privileged which is relevant to the subject matter. 42 Pa. CS, Pa. R.C.P. 4003.1. Stated otherwise,
a plaintiff may not obtain discovery of documents which are not relevant to the plaintiff s case.
Fullerv Jadc!:On. 37 Cumbo 419, 50 D&C 3d 628 (1987)(1. Bayley); 5=, McEwen v Bulletin Co.,
12 D&C 3d 428 (1979). To be relevant, discovery must be calculated to lead to evidence which
possess sufficient probative force to affect a material part of the cause of action. Eilkl:,~. To
that end, requests for documents pertaining to any complaints against the defendants, without
limitation to the nature or types of complaints or claims has been prohibited as not relevant. IlL.
Similarly, requests which simply request information as to prior citations and warnings for sewage
discharge violations. which are not adequately limited have been ruled as not relevant. Sharon Steel
COQ) V Rakoci, 23 D&C 3d 321 (1982).
In addition to the prerequisite that the discovery must be calculated to lead to relevant
evidence concerning a material part of the case, Pennsylvania R.C.P. 4011 protects a party from
discovery which is. among other things, unreasonable or related to privileged information. This rule
states:
No discovery or deposition shall be permitted which
(a) is sought in bad faith;
(b) would cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, burden or elqlell5e
to the deponent or any other person or party:
(c) relates to matter which is privileged: or
(d) rescinded
(e) would require the making of an unreasonable investigation by the deponent or
any other party or witness, or
(I) rescinded
42 Pa.C.S., Pa.R.C.P. 4011.
Subsections (b) and (e) prohibit discovery which will cause "unreasonable" burden, expen~e
or investigation for the responding party. Id. The reasonableness of discovery requests depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case. Davis v Pennzoil Co , 438 Pa. 194, 264 597 (1970).
However, it is clearly established that overly broad requests which amount to "fishing expeditions"
are unreasonable. Estate of Townsend, 430 Pa. 318,241 A.2d 534, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 934, 21
LEd 2d 270, 89 S.Ct. 293. (1968). In addition, courts have held that requests for masses of
documents generated over an extended period of time, such as eight years, are unreasonably
burdensome for the answering party. Universal Film Exchanlles Inc v Budco, 44 D&C 2d 695
(1968). It has also been held that a request to identify every lawsuit or claim that the party has been
involved in was unreasonable. Heitz v General Motors COQ)., 57 D&C 2d (1972).
Applying the above law to the present action, it is clear that Defendant's objections to
Requests 8 through II are valid and that the Plaintiffs motion to compel should be denied.
Plaintiffs Request Number 8 states:
All incident reports that describe injuries sustained by residents of the
Defendant from 1990 to the present.
This request is, on its face. overly broad and objectionable. It must be noted that Defendant lw
provided to Plaintiff any and all reports which. in any reasonable way, may be construed as relating
to Decedent (who entered the facility in 1994) and the incident giving rise to this action. Despite
this, Plaintiffs Request 8 seeks would require review and reproduction of a massive amount of
documents generated over a period of almost seven years. To understand the magnitude of this
request, it is important to understand that incident reports are required to be generated for numerous
reasons. many of which have little or no direct relationship to patient injuries. Indeed, the
occurrence of anything unexpected at the facility requires that an incident report be prepared. At
the Defendant's Carlisle facility approximately 100 such reports are created each month. These
incident reports are not filed or separated in any maMer except chronologically. Therefore. in order
to respond to Request 8 Defendant will be required to review of approximately 8,400 separatetincident reports and determine which ones may be responsive to this request. Not only would this
entail an unreasonable burden, but the request overly broad. limiting itself only to personal injuries
since 1990 This action involves a broken arm which Decedent suffered allegedly while Defendant's
,>:'t;..<,ii;;' ."
. '~"'~.
employee's were moving her. Given that the nature of this action such a request is clearly
unreasonably burdensome and unlikely to lead to any relevant information.
Further, any reports that may be responsive to this request will likely involve confidential
patient information. The Defendant would not be permitted to disclose these without first locating
and obtaining the appropriate releases form each resident or redacting any personal information.
However, given the broad scope of this request, either option would only add to the
unreasonableness of the burden placed upon Defendant by this request. In short, the request is
overly broad, will not likely lead to relevant information and will be extremely burdensome for
Defendant. therefore. Plaintiffs Motion To Compel should be denied as to Request 8.
Likewise. Plaintiff s Request Number 9 states:
All investigation reports prepared for Manor Care, Inc. and subsidiaries and/or any
insurance company and/or state health department and/or any federal agency which
describe incidents which in any way could be categorized as inappropriate treatment
or care or allegedly inappropriate care or treatment on behalf of Defendant.
This request is also unreasonable and unlikely to lead to relevant information. Again. Defendant
has provided any such reports which in any reasonable way relate to Decedent or the incident giving
rise to the suit. Regardless, Plaintiff seeks all investigative reports frorn Manor Care facilities,
subsidiaries. or government agencies. wherever located, which were prepared from 1990 to present,
and in which Defendant's care could be categorized as inappropriate. See. Exhibit "e" to Motion
to Compel, letter limiting Request 9 to 1990 through present. First, the facts giving rise to this
action, involve the Defendant's employees allegedly improperly moving Decedent. The discovery
of any and all reports which negatively characterize care is surely overly broad and an obvious
fishing expedition by Plaintiff. Second, the operation of nursing homes is highly regulated and
investigations of different natures are not uncommon procedures. However, the Defendant does not
maintain a central depository or management of such "investigative" reports. Theretore, if required
to respond. Defendant would be torced to go through records or interview persons at all of the
facilities it now. or in the past, operated to determine the existence and substance of any
investigations Given the nature of this case. such a request is clearly overly broad and
unreasonable
In addition these reports would also likely contain confidential patient information, requiring
proper releases be obtained or redaction before disclosing them Again, this would add to the burden
of this request
Request Number 10 is equally objectionable as overly broad, burdensome, and not likely to
lead to relevant information. Request 10 is as follows:
All records of training and/or continuing education provided to the staff in
the five years preceding the incident.
Staff at nursing homes continually provided training and educational programs on a variety of topics.
The accident giving rise to this action allegedly occurred when two of Defendant's employees were
moving Decedent and Defendant has already provided copies of its policy for moving patients.
Request 10 goes beyond this, however, and seeks all records of any type of training provided and
in so doing is clearly overly broad. Moreover, Defendant maintains no central management of
training records or educational records per se. In order to answer Plaintiffs request 9, Defendant
would need to review extensive files and determine whether documents related to training or
education. Clearly, given the circumstances of this case. this request is overly broad and
unreasonably burdensome to Defendant.
Similarly, Request II is overly broad. burdensome, and not likely to lead to relevant
information. Request II states:
All policies. procedures, manuals that pertain to staff. including registered
nurses, LPN's, nursing aids. nursing assistants that provide geriatric care to
patients.
Essentially, Request II seeks all of Defendant's manuals, policies and procedures which pertain to
staff. In order to respond to this request. Defendant would need to compile and reproduce numerous
staff manuals, policies and procedures, many of which only tangentially, if at all, relate to patient
care. This would entail compiling and reproducing thousands of pages of documents and would
require Defendant to hire someone to attend to the demands thereof Again, however, Defendant
has a1ready provided Plaintiff copies ofilS manuals on moving patients. However, Defendant should
not be required to undergo the expense or responding to such a request where the discovery will not
lead to relevant information
In fuIla:, ~ the plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against the Defendant
physician and the corporation in which he practiced The plaintiff brought the action after suffering
a perforation of the esophagus during a surgical procedure Similar to the case at bar, the plaintiff
in fWkI: sought to obtain through requests tor production numerous documents to which defendant
objected on the grounds that they were overly broad. burdensome. and would not lead to relevant
information. Among those documents requested, plaintiff sought al complaints filed against
defendant, all documents describing or relating to claims by patients, and all documents of
disciplinary proceedings. After analyzing these requests, this Honorable Court held that such
requests were objectionable and denied plaintiffs motion to compel, with limited exception. In this
case, as in~, Plaintiffs objectionable requests are also overly broad, burdensome, and will not
lead to relevant information. Therefore, Plaintiffs Motion to Compel should be denied.
It is anticipated that Plaintiff will argue that the objectionable discovery is justified as he
is seeking punitive damages. See. Exhibit "C" to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel. As noted above.
Defendant has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages.
See, Defendant's Motion For Partial Summary Judgment. Where the claims upon which discovery
are based are subject to pending demurrer, a Defendant should not be subjected to the discovery.
See, e.g.. Deans v Pollock-Timblin Co., 14 D&C 2d 455 (1958).
IV, CONCLUSION:
For the above stated reasons, the Plaintiffs Motion to Compel More Complete Response to
Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents should be denied.
MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO
I ~..,
By .
Thomas J. Williams, Esquire
W. Darren Powell, Esquire
Ten East High Street
Carlisle. PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
i'\
Attorneys for Defendant
Dated: November 27, 1996
r 'F1UI\VATAflLE'PItK'n ()()("\'4.RRI2
l.tlMlltllfl1~llnOllA'"
Rn'lIoId 1I111,"'Il~IIAM
.tf
JOHN WILLIAM WALKER. EXECUTOR
OF THE EST ATE OF VERA E. WALKER.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTy,
PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiff
v.
NO. 95-5083 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MANOR HEALTHCARE CORP., T/A
LEADER NURSING AND
REHABILITATION CENTER OF
CARLISLE,
Defendant
JURy TRIAL DEMANDED
DEFENDANT'S BRIEF IN OPPOSmON TO MOTION TO COMPEl. MORE COMPI.ETE
RESPONSE TO PI.AINTIFF'S REOUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
I. FACTS:
This action arises out of a December 2. 1994 accident which occurred at the Defendant
Leader Nursing Home's Carlisle facility. In this incident Mrs. Vera Walker ("Decedent") suffered
a broken arm allegedly as a result of being improperly lifted by two of Defendant's employees.
Plaintiff filed his Complaint on or about September 25, 1995. seeking compensatory and punitive
damages. On July 12, 1996 Defendant filed a Motion For Partial Summary Judgment, seeking to
have Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages and broad unsubstantiated claims dismissed. This
motion is also pending before the court.
Since initiating this case, Plaintiff has proceeded with discovery, filing Interrogatories and
Requests for Production of Documents. Defendant has responded fully to these Interrogatories and
the majority of Plaintiffs Requests for Production of Documents. However, Defendant did object
to four of Plaintiff's requests for production on the basis that they are overly broad, burdensome, and
win not likely lead to relevant information. In response to these objections. Plaintiff filed a Motion
to Compel More Complete Response to Plaintiffs Request For Production of Documents. On or
about October 9, 1996, Defendant Answered this Motion, elaborating on why the requests would
require an unreasonably investigation. were unreasonably burdensome, related to confidential patient
records, and would not likely lead to relevant information.
Both Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs Motion to Compel
and presently before this Honorable Court for disposition
II. ISSUE:
SHOULD PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL BE DENIED WHERE
PRODUCING THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS WOULD PLACE AN UNREASONABLE
EXPENSE AND BURDEN ON DEFENDANT, THE DOCUMENTS ARE PROTECTED BY
PATIENT CONFIDENTIALITY, AND ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE CASE?
III. ARGUMENT:
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL SHOULD BE DENIED WHERE
PRODUCING THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS WOULD PLACE AN UNREASONABLE
EXPENSE AND BURDEN ON DEFENDANT, THE DOCUMENTS ARE PROTECTED BY
PATIENT CONFIDENTIALITY, AND ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE CASE.
Subject to other limitations, a plaintiff may obtain discovery regarding any matter not
privileged which is relevant to the subject matter. 42 Pa. CS, Pa. R.C.P. 4003.1. Stated otherwise
a plaintiff may not obtain discovery of documents which are not relevant to the plaintiffs case.
Fuller v Jackson. 37 Cumbo 419, 50 D&C 3d 628 (1987)(J. Bayley); ~,McEwen v Bulletin Co.,
12 D&C 3d 428 (1979). To be relevant, discovery must be calculated to lead to evidence which
possess sufficient probative force to affect a material part of the cause of action. ~,~. To
that end. requests for documents pertaining to any complaints against the defendants, without
limitation to the nature or types of complaints or claims has been prohibited as not relevant. ld..
Similarly, requests which simply request information as to prior citations and warnings for sewage
discharge violations. which are not adequately limited have been ruled as not relevant. Sharon Steel
Coq> V Rakoci, 23 D&C 3d 321 (1982).
In addition to the prerequisite that the discovery must be calculated to lead to relevant
evidence concerning a material part of the case, Pennsylvania R.C.P. 4011 protects a party from
discovery which is. among other things, unreasonable or related to privileged information. This rule
states:
No discovery or deposition shall be permitted which
(a) is sought in bad faith;
(b) would cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment. oppression, burden or expense
to the deponent or any other person or party;
(c) relates to matter which is privileged; or
(d) rescinded
(e) would require the making of an unreasonable investigation by the deponent or
any other party or witness; or
(0 rescinded
42 Pa.C.S., Pa.R.C.P. 401 \.
Subsections (b) and (e) prohibit discovelY which will cause "unreasonable" burden, expense
or investigation for the responding party. Id. The reasonableness of discovery requests depend on
the facts and circumstances of each case. Davis v Pennzoil Co , 438 Pa. 194, 264 597 (1970).
However, it is clearly established that overly broad requests which amount to "fishing expeditions"
are unreasonable. Estate of Townsend, 430 Pa. 318,241 A.2d 534, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 934, 21
L Ed 2d 270, 89 S.Ct. 293. (1968). In addition, courts have held that requests for masses of
documents generated over an extended period of time, such as eight years, are unreasonably
burdensome for the answering party. Universal Film Exehanies Ine v Budeo, 44 D&C 2d 695
(1968). It has also been held that a request to identify every lawsuit or claim that the party has been
involved in was unreasonable. Heitz v Gem:ral Motors COql., 57 D&C 2d (1972).
Applying the above law to the present action, it is clear that Defendant's objections to
Requests 8 through II are valid and that the Plaintiffs motion to compel should be denied.
Plaintiff s Request Number 8 states:
All incident reports that describe injuries sustained by residents of the
Defendant from 1990 to the present.
This request is. on its face, overly broad and objectionable. It must be noted that Defendant hA.i
provided to Plaintiff any and all reports which, in any reasonable way, may be construed as relating
to Decedent (who entered the facility in 1994) and the incident giving rise to this action. Despite
this, Plaintiff s Request 8 seeks would require review and reproduction of a massive amount of
documents generated over a period of almost seven years. To understand the magnitude of this
request, it is important to understand that incident reports are required to be generated for numerous
reasons. many of which have little or no direct relationship to patient injuries. Indeed, the
occurrence of anything unexpected at the facility requires that an incident report be prepared. At
the Defendant's Carlisle facility approximately 100 such reports are created each month. These
incident reports are not filed or separated in any manner except chronologically Therefore, in order
to respond to Request 8 Defendant will be required to review of approximately 8.400 separate
incident reports and determine which ones may be responsive to this request Not only would this
entail an unreasonable burden. but the request overly broad. limiting itself only to personal injuries
since 1990. This action involves a broken arm which Decedent suffered allegedly while Defendant's
employee's were moving her. Given that the nature of this action such a request is clearly
unreasonably burdensome and unlikely to lead to any relevant information.
Further, any reports that may be responsive to this request will likely involve confidential
patient information. The Defendant would not be permitted to disclose these without first locating
and obtaining the appropriate releases form each resident or redacting any personal information.
However, given the broad scope of this request. either option would only add to the
unreasonableness of the burden placed upon Defendant by this request. In short, the request is
overly broad. will not likely lead to relevant information and will be extremely burdensome for
Defendant, therefore. Plaintiff's Motion To Compel should be denied as to Request 8.
Likewise. Plaintiffs Request Number 9 states:
All investigation reports prepared for Manor Care. Inc. and subsidiaries and/or any
insurance company and/or state health department and/or any federal agency which
describe incidents which in any way could be categorized as inappropriate treatment
or care or allegedly inappropriate care or treatment on behalf of Defendant.
This request is also unreasonable and unlikely to lead to relevant information. Again. Defendant
has provided any such reports which in any reasonable way relate to Decedent or the incident giving
rise to the suit. Regardless. Plaintiff seeks all investigative reports from Manor Care facilities,
subsidiaries. or government agencies, wherever located, which were prepared from 1990 to present,
and in which Defendant's care could be categorized as inappropriate. See, Exhibit "C" to Motion
to Compel. letter limiting Request 9 to 1990 through present. First, the facts giving rise to this
action. involve the Defendant's employees allegedly improperly moving Decedent. The discovery
of any and all reports which negatively characterize care is surely overly broad and an obvious
fishing expedition by Plaintiff Second. the operation of nursing homes is highly regulated and
investigations of different natures are not uncommon procedures. However, the Defendant does not
maintain a central depository or management of such "investigative" reports. Therefore, if required
to respond, Defendant would be forced to go through records or interview persons at all of the
facilities it now, or in the past. operated to determine the existence and substance of any
investigations. Given the nature of this case, such a request is clearly overly broad and
unreasonable
In addition these reports would also likely contain confidential patient information. requiring
proper releases be obtained or redaction before disclosing them. Again, this would add to the burden
of this request
Request Number 10 is equally objectionable as overly broad, burdensome, and not likely to
lead to relevant information. Request 10 is as follows:
All records of training and/or continuing education provided to the staff in
the five years preceding the incident.
Staff at nursing homes continually provided training and educational programs on a variety of topics.
The accident giving rise to this action allegedly occurred when two of Defendant's employees were
moving Decedent and Defendant has already provided copies of its policy for moving patients.
Request 10 goes beyond this, however, and seeks all records of any type of training provided and
in so doing is clearly overly broad. Moreover, Defendant maintains no central management of
training records or educational records per se. In order to answer Plaintiffs request 9, Defendant
would need to review extensive files and determine whether documents relat::d to training or
education. Clearly, given the circumstances of this case, this request is overly broad and
unreasonably burdensome to Defendant.
Similarly, Request II is overly broad, burdensome. and not likely to lead to relevant
information. Request II states:
All policies, procedures, manuals that pertain to staff. including registered
nurses, LPN's, nursing aids, nursing assistants that provide geriatric care to
patients.
Essentially, Request II seeks all of Defendant's manuals, policies and procedures which pertain to
staff. In order to respond to this request. Defendant would need to compile and reproduce numerous
staff manuals, policies and procedures, many of which only tangentially, if at all, relate to patient
care. This would entail compiling and reproducing thousands of pages of documents and would
require Defendant to hire someone to attend to the demands thereof Again, however, Defendant
has a1ready provided Plaintilfcopies of its manuals on moving patients However, Defendant should
not be required to undergo the expense or responding to such a request where the discovery will not
lead to relevant information
In fIllkt, ~, the plaintiff brought a medical malpractice action against the Defendant
physician and the corporation in which he practiced The plaintiff brought the action after suffering
a perforation of the esophagus during a surgical procedure Similar to the case at bar, the plaintiff
in f.IIIlc[ sought to obtain through requests for production numerous documents to which defendant
objected on the grounds that they were overly broad, burdensome, and would not lead to relevant
information. Among those documents requested, plaintiff sought al complaints filed against
defendant, all documents describing or relating to claims by patients, and all documents of
disciplinary proceedings. After analyzing these requests, this Honorable Court held that such
requests were objectionable and denied plaintiffs motion to compel, with limited exception. In this
case, as in~, Plaintiffs objectionable requests are also overly broad, burdensome, and will not
lead to relevant information. Therefore, Plaintiffs Motion to Compel should be denied.
I t is anticipated that Plaintiff will argue that the objectionable discovery is justified as he
is seeking punitive damages. See, Exhibit "C" to Plaintiffs Motion to Compel. As noted above,
Defendant has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages.
See, Defendant's Motion For Partial Summary Judgment. Where the claims upon which discovery
are based are subject to pending demurrer, a Defendant should not be subjected to the discovery.
See, e.g., Deans v Pollock-Timblin Co., 14 D&C 2d 455 (1958).
IV. CONCLUSION:
For the above stated reasons, the Plaintiffs Motion to Compel More Complete Response to
Plaintiffs Request for Production of Documents should be denied.
MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO
By
Thomas J. Williams, Esquire
W. Darren Powell, Esquire
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, P A 170 IJ
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Defendant
Dated: November 27, 1996
JOHN WILLIAM WALKER, I
EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE I
OF VERA E. WALKER, .
.
Plaintiff I
.
.
v. .
.
.
.
MANOR HEALTHCARE CORP., .
.
t/a LEADER NURSING AND .
.
REHABILITATION CENTER .
.
OF CARLISLE, .
.
Defendant .
.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 95-5083 CIVIL TERM
AND NOW, this
'ttl.
day of December, 1996, upon consideration
of Plaintiff's Motion To Compel More Complete Response to
Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, and of Defendant' s
Answer to Plaintiff's Motion To Compel More Complete Response to
Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents, and upon relation
of Plaintiff's counsel, Scott D. Moore, Esq., that this issue has
been resolved, Plaintiff's motion is DEEMED MOOT and the rule
issued on the motion is DISCHARGED.
BY THE COURT,
Scott D. Moore, Esq.
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Plaintiff . 111 i ,J
~ ,.--
Thomas J. Williams, Esq. 11-/'1/46 ~
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Defendant
Irc
JOHN WILLIAM WALKER, EXECUTOR
OF THE ESTATE OF
VERA E. WALKER,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO, 95-5083 CIVIL
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MANOR HEALTH CARE CORP" tla
LEADER NURSING AND
REHABILITATION CENTER OF
CARLISLE,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please change the caption of this case pursuant to the
attached Stipulation to read as follows:
Jean E. Ball. Executrix of the Estate of Vera E. Walker
v. Manor Healthcare Corp, tla Leader Nursina and
Rehabilitation Center of Carlisle.
Date: /2 -fri- 9,
Respectively submitted,
F & MASLAND
By:
~"",
Scott 0, Moore, Esquire
Supreme Ct. 1.0. . 55694
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-6222
Attorney for Plaintiff
SAIDIS. GUIDO.
SHUFF "
MASLAND
26 W. Hilh S....,
Carlisle. PA
JOHN WILLIAM WALKER, EXECUTOR
OF THE ESTATE OF
VERA E, WALKER,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO, 95-5083 CIVIL
y,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
MANOR HEALTHCARE CORP" t/a
LEADER NURSING AND
REHABILITATION CENTER OF
CARLISLE,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant
STIPULATION
The parties hereby stipulate and agree that Jean E. Ball has
been named Executrix of the Estate of Vera E, Walker and as a
result, the caption of this case should now read as follows:
Jean E. Ball. Executrix of the Estate of Vera E. Walker
y. Manor Healthcare CorD. t/a Leader Nursina and
Rehabilitation Center of Carlisle,
The parties agree through counsel to this amendment.
Date: /2 w(e-tG
HUFF & MASLAND
By:
J)~ ,,~
cott D. Moore, Esquire
Supreme Ct, I.D. . 55694
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 11013
(111) 243-6222
Attorney for Plaintiff
Date:
(2.-,&...~"
MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO
By:
~;'11"~ -
Thomas J. lliams, Esquire
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 11013
Attorney for Defendant
. .
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On this (i~ day of ~c..,Ju-
, 1996, I, Scott
D. Moore, Esquire, hereby certify that I served a true and
correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe upon counsel for all
parties of record via United States Mail, postage prepaid,
addressed as follows:
Thomas J. Williams, Esquire
MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
SAIDIS, GUIDO, SHUFF & MASLAND
... -~
Moore, Esquire
SAIDIS. GUIDO.
snUFF "
MASLAND
26 w. Hilh Slr<eI
Carhile. fA
1-' I' IUSIlATMII r,pIlIClllllll'\",,"PRA: Idw
n..ted O'111.IWtI021"IAM
RtWINd l1.1n~ u n II PM
1I11v"
j~\... SA<(.
:10m) V,'ILLlAM 'Ni.LKI!It, EXECUTb:[.:
OF THE ESTATE OF VERA E. WALKER. :
Plaintiff
v.
MANOR HEAL THCARE CORP., TI A
LEADER NURSING AND
REHABILITATION CENTER OF
CARLISLE,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 95-5083 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE
TO THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY PROTHONOTARY:
Please mark the above captioned case settled and discontinued and issue a certificate
reflecting same.
Dated: December "'&.1 . 1996
HUFF & MAS LAND
~
ott . Moore, Esquire
26 West High Street
Carlisle, P A 170 I 3
(717) 243-6222
Attorneys for Plaintiff
y
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certifY that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe was served this date by depositing same
in the Post Office at Carlisle, P A. first class mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Dated: January 2, 1997
Scott D. Moore, Esquire
SAlOIS, GUIDO, SHUFF & MASLAND
26 West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
MARTSON, DEARDORFF, WILLIAMS & OTTO
By ft-""'4A-d w.ti~
Thomas J. Willi s, Esquire
Ten East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-3341
Attorneys for Defendant