Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-3481 Civil DEBORAH KNOWLES, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW BONNIEF. THARP, Defendant NO. 04-3481 CIVIL IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE HESS AND OLER. JJ. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER On the morning of July 19, 2002, the plaintiff, Deborah Knowles, was involved in a car accident as she was stopped along Route 114 in Mechanicsburg, waiting to make a left-hand turn into the parking lot of her place of employment. (Compl. at 3, ~ 5.) At the time of the accident, Knowles had elected the limited-tort option for purposes of her automotive insurance. (Pi.'s Dep. at 38.) Following the accident, Knowles was taken by ambulance to Holy Spirit Hospital, where she was given X-Rays, given a neck brace for minor neck pain, and released despite complaints of severe lower back pain. (Id. at 52-55.) Sometime later she returned to the hospital because of the continuing lower back pain, and was diagnosed with a possible fracture of her tailbone. (Pi. 's Br. at 2.) Approximately six months after the accident the pain in Knowles' lower back was "almost gone." (Pi.'s Dep. at 55.) However, Knowles has complained of recurring pain in her lower back, making it difficult to sit for longer than half an hour at a time without taking over- the-counter pain medication. (Id. at 55-56.) She has also stated that the lingering effects of the injury make it difficult for her to play on the floor with her granddaughter. (Id. at 72.) Finally, NO. 04-4581 CIVIL she stated generally that she can no longer "do a lot of stuff... because now it's painful." (Id) Despite these complaints, Knowles has not seen a doctor about the injuries in some time (Id at 73), has never undertaken a course of physical therapy (Id at 56), has never taken prescription medicine for the pain1 (Id), and never received any injections or other form of treatment for the injury (Id). Knowles also claimed that the accident aggravated a pre-existing psychological condition that made it difficult for her to drive on busy highways.2 (Id at 60). Despite having a current driver's license and her own automobile, Knowles claimed that she is psychologically unable to go beyond a twenty-five mile radius from her home. (Id at 59-60). Knowles had numerous telephone consultations with a licensed psychologist to deal with this condition. (Id at 57). However, Knowles stopped the consultations in August of2004, and has pursued no further course of therapy for the condition. (Id at 62). The only other documented aggravation of Knowles' condition within the record refers to an inability to make left turns after the accident. (Id at 60). However, this "left turn phobia" disappeared shortly thereafter. (Id) Under the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, a person electing the limited-tort option for automotive insurance must demonstrate a "serious injury" before she may sue for non-economic damages. 75 Pa. C.S. SI705(d). Under the statute, a "serious injury" is defined to be "a personal injury resulting in death, serious impairment of body function or permanent serious disfigurement." 75 Pa. C. S. S 1702. As Knowles' injuries did not result in 1 Knowles explains this refusal to take prescription medicine because of her numerous allergies to various chemicals, and her belief in a "homeopathic" lifestyle. However, the record reveals that in the past she has taken prescription medicine for psychological problems, albeit for a short time. Her aversion to chemicals, however, does not explain her refusal to undertake physical therapy. 2 NO. 04-4581 CIVIL death or permanent serious disfigurement, the issue before this Court is whether her injuries resulted in a "serious impairment of body function." Knowles has presented evidence of two injuries to show that there was a "serious impairment of a body function." When reviewing this evidence, the courts look at it "in a light most favorable to [Knowles]." Ertel v. Patriot News Co., 674 A.2d 1038, 1041 (Pa. 1996). Only when "reasonable minds could not differ on the issue of whether a serious injury [has] been sustained" may summary judgment be granted. Washington v. Baxter, 719 A.2d 733, 740 (Pa. 1998) In Washington v. Baxter, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted the test set forth in Difranco v. Pickard, 398 N.W.2d 896 (Mich. 1986), for determining whether an injury has caused a "serious impairment of a body function." The court stated that "the 'serious impairment of body function' threshold contains two inquiries: (a) What body function, if any, was impaired because of injuries in a motor vehicle accident?; [and] (b) Was the impairment of the body function serious?" Baxter, 719 A.2d at 740, quoting Difranco, 398 N.W.2d at 901. The Baxter court also emphasized that the focus of the inquiry was not on the injuries, but on how the injuries affected the person's body function. 719 A.2d at 740. The court went on to state that when evaluating whether the impairment was "serious," the courts should consider "the extent of the impairment, the length of time the impairment lasted, the treatment required to correct the impairment, and any other relevant factors." Id. 2 This condition, dating back to 1999, was the basis for an application Knowles filed for Social Security disability benefits in 2002. See generally Def.' s Mot. for Summ. 1., Ex. B. That application was denied, and Knowles did not pursue the matter further. 3 NO. 04-4581 CIVIL In applying the Baxter test to this case, it is apparent that Knowles' body function was impaired. Her lower back pain makes it difficult to sit for long periods of time, and play on the floor with her granddaughter, and her psychological fear of driving makes it difficult to drive in traffic, as well as go beyond a twenty-five mile radius from her house. Under the second part of the Baxter test, it is possible that Knowles' back injury may have caused a "serious impairment." The record reveals that it took approximately six months for the pain in her lower back to go away. Pi.'s Dep. at 55. Although Knowles admitted to receiving virtually no treatment for the injury, Id. at 56, and has been able to work, Id. at 67, she is unable to sit for long periods of time, Id. at 55-56, and is unable to sit on the floor and play with her granddaughter, Id. at 72. Although, it is also possible that the back injury did not cause a serious impairment, the Baxter court made it clear that only in the clearest of cases involving limited-tort should summary judgment be granted. ORDER AND NOW, this day of October, 2005, the motion of the defendant for summary judgment is DENIED. BY THE COURT, Kevin A. Hess, 1. David W. Knauer, Esquire F or the Plaintiff Kevin C. McNamara, Esquire F or the Defendant 4 DEBORAH KNOWLES, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW BONNIEF. THARP, Defendant NO. 04-3481 CIVIL IN RE: DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEFORE HESS AND OLER. JJ. ORDER AND NOW, this day of October, 2005, the motion of the defendant for summary judgment is DENIED. BY THE COURT, Kevin A. Hess, 1. David W. Knauer, Esquire F or the Plaintiff Kevin C. McNamara, Esquire F or the Defendant :rlm