Judges Opinions Public Notices, — October 13, 2021 8:38 — 0 Comments
Public Notices, October 13, 2021
Volume 59, No. 11
PUBLIC NOTICES
DECEDENTS’ ESTATES
CHANGE OF NAME
NOTICE OF ACTION IN MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Rebecca Espinosa, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Margaret Lutz, deceased, v. Luthercare, et al., Spang Crest, et al., and Musaddiq N. Nazeeri, M.D., et al.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Letters Testamentary or of Administration have been granted in the following estates. All persons indebted to the said estate are required to make payment, and those having claims or demands to present the same without delay to the administrators or executors named.
FIRST PUBLICATION
ESTATE OF HOWARD K. VASSALLO, late of Myerstown Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters of Administration have been granted to the undersigned Administrator.
John M. Zimmerman, Administrator
Caleb J. Zimmerman, Esquire
Zimmerman Law Office
466 Jonestown Road
Jonestown, PA 17038
ESTATE OF MADELINE A. CHORNEY, late of Palmyra Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased August 21, 2021. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.
Mr. Michael J. Chorney, Executor
1931 Wexford Road
Palmyra, PA 17078
Bradford Dorrance, Esquire
Keefer Wood Allen & Rahal, LLP
417 Walnut Street, 3rd Floor, Rear
- O. Box 11963
Harrisburg, PA 17108-1963
ESTATE OF ANITA J. RISSER, late of North Londonderry Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Co-Executors.
Bonita S. Golla, Co-Executor
Robert L. Bomgardner, Co-Executor
Gerald J. Brinser, Esquire
P.O. Box 323
Palmyra, PA 17078
ESTATE OF LESTER N. BERGER, JR., late of Heidelberg Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.
Michael A. Berger, Executor
237 S. Market Street
Schaefferstown, PA 17088
Thomas S. Long, Esquire
Long Brightbill
315 South Eighth Street
Lebanon, PA 17042
ESTATE OF BARBARA A. MILLER a/k/a BARBARA ANN MILLER, late of Millcreek Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executrix.
Kathy D. Venning, Executrix
1424 Hillpoint Circle
Sinking Spring, PA 19608
Timothy T. Engler, Esquire
Steiner & Sandoe, Attorneys
36 West Main Avenue,
Myerstown, PA 17067
ESTATE OF STANLEY R. CORBIN, late of Palmyra Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.
Nora Eileen Drust, Executor
17801 Lake Road
Lakewood, OH 44107
Stephanie E. Murphy, Esquire
108 W. Main St., P.O. Box 330
Annville, PA 17003
ESTATE OF RONALD BETZ, late of the City of Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters of Administration have been granted to the undersigned Administrator.
Tammy Knight, Administrator
544 W. Walnut Street
Cleona, PA 17042
- Chadwick Schnee, Esquire
108 W. Main St., P.O. Box 330
Annville, PA 17003
ESTATE OF LINDA LAUER, late of the City of Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters of Administration have been granted to the undersigned Administrator.
Cory Lauer, Administrator
52 N. Lancaster Street
Annville, PA 17003
- Chadwick Schnee, Esquire
108 W. Main St., P.O. Box 330
Annville, PA 17003
ESTATE OF CAMILLE S. TYLDEN, late of Cornwall Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.
Michelle S. Hazel, Executor
5406 Blantyre Road
Broad Run, VA 20137
Stephanie E. Murphy, Esquire
108 W. Main St., P.O. Box 330
Annville, PA 17003
ESTATE OF MELVIN A. RITTEL a/k/a MELVIN AMMON RITTEL, late of Annville Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters of Administration have been granted to the undersigned Administrators.
Jamie H. Rittel, Administrator
322 Reigerts Ln.
Annville, PA 17003
Joey A. Rittel, Administrator
1141 Alpha Ave.
Lebanon, PA 17046
Michael M. Rittel, Administrator
1450 North State Route 934
Annville, PA 17003
- Chadwick Schnee, Esquire
108 W. Main St., P.O. Box 330
Annville, PA 17003
ESTATE OF CHING L. STODDART, late of North Lebanon Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters of Administration have been granted to the undersigned Co-Administrators.
Treasure Stoddart, Co-Administrator
Treavor B. Stoddart, Co-Administrator
Ching B. Stoddart, Co-Administrator
Stephen D. W. Miller, Esquire, CELA
Miller Law Firm PC
718 Poplar Street, Suite 1
Lebanon, PA 17042
ESTATE OF KATHY J. RHOADS, late of North Cornwall Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters of Administration have been granted to the undersigned Administrators.
Dustin J. Rhoads, Administrator
1897 Walnut Street
Lebanon, PA 17042
Barbara J. Wolfe, Administrator
2202 Baltimore Pike
Gettysburg, PA 17325
Donna Long Brightbill, Esquire
Long Brightbill
315 South Eighth Street
Lebanon, PA 17042
SECOND PUBLICATION
ESTATE OF RUTH ANNA SEIBERT, late of North Londonderry Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased February 27, 2021. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.
Jean D. Seibert, Executor
Jean D. Seibert, Esquire
Caldwell & Kearns, PC
3631 N. Front St.
Harrisburg, PA 17110
ESTATE OF JASON C. MORRIS, late of Myerstown Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters of Administration have been granted to the undersigned Administratrix.
Brijana N. Morris, Administratrix
Katherine L. McDonald, Esquire
Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC
2132 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 975-9446
ESTATE OF MILDRED W. WEIDMAN, late of Myerstown Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.
Franklin L. Weidman, Executor
366 West Washington Avenue
Myerstown, PA 17067
Kenneth C. Sandoe, Esquire
Steiner & Sandoe, Attorneys
36 West Main Avenue,
Myerstown, PA 17067
THIRD PUBLICATION
ESTATE OF NANCY B. LATSHAW, late of North Lebanon Township, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.
Jay G. Saylor, Executor
275 West Strack Drive
Myerstown, PA 17067
Kenneth C. Sandoe, Esquire
Steiner & Sandoe, Attorneys
36 West Main Avenue,
Myerstown, PA 17067
ESTATE OF CRAIG L. LEISEY, late of the City of Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters of Administration have been granted to the undersigned Administratrix.
Ashley L. Santer, Administratrix
Kevin M. Richards, Esquire
P.O. Box 1140
Lebanon, PA 17042-1140
ESTATE OF JAQUELINE M. OWENS, late of Palmyra Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.
Christopher G. Spicer, Executor
133 Delaware Road
Pa Furnace, PA 16865
Joseph M. Farrell, Esquire
201/203 South Railroad Street
P.O. Box 113
Palmyra, PA 17078
ESTATE OF GLORIA S. KETTERING, late of Palmyra Borough, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Co-Executors.
Thomas J. Kettering, Co-Executor
Cynthia A. Frantz, Co-Executor
Keith D. Wagner, Esquire
P.O. Box 323
Palmyra, PA 17078
ESTATE OF DAVID M. ROCK, late of the City of Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters Testamentary have been granted to the undersigned Executor.
Tracey Yasi, Executor
Stacey W. Betts, Esquire
75 East Main Street
Mount Joy, PA 17552
ESTATE OF CHARLES H. LUCABAUGH, late of the City of Lebanon, Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, deceased. Letters of Administration have been granted to the undersigned Administrator.
Lisa M. Buckwalter, Administrator
354 Sunnyside Road
Newmanstown, PA 17073
John D. Enck, Esquire
Spitler, Kilgore & Enck, PC
522 South 8th Street
Lebanon, PA 17042
Attorney
CHANGE OF NAME
Notice is hereby given that on 22nd day of September, 2021, the petition of Manuel Enrique Ricar- Nuesi was filed to Lebanon County docket no. 2021-01158 requesting a decree to allow a correction of name. Petitioner requests his name be changed to Manuel Enrique Ricart- Nuesi. The court has fixed the 1st day of November, 2021, at 8:30 A.M. in Courtroom 1 of the Lebanon County Courthouse, located at 400 South 8th Street, Lebanon, Pennsylvania, as the time and place for the hearing of said petition, when and where all persons interested may appear and show cause, if any they have, why the prayer of the said Petitioner should not be granted.
Manuel Ricar
250 E. Maple St.
Lebanon, PA 17046
NOTICE OF ACTION IN MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CIVIL DIVISION
LEBANON COUNTY
No. 2021-00817
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. S/B/M
WACHOVIA BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION
Plaintiff
vs.
Unknown Heirs, Successors, Assigns and All
Persons, Firms or Associations Claiming Right,
Title or Interest from or under Terrence M.
Gingrich, Jr., Deceased
Defendant
NOTICE
TO:
Unknown Heirs, Successors, Assigns and All Persons, Firms or Associations Claiming Right, Title or
Interest from or under Terrence M. Gingrich, Jr., Deceased
You are hereby notified that on July 13, 2021, Plaintiff, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. S/B/M
WACHOVIA BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION filed a Mortgage Foreclosure Complaint endorsed
with a Notice to Defend, against you in the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County Pennsylvania,
docket No. 2021-00817. Wherein Plaintiff seeks to foreclose on the mortgage secured on your property
located at 1572 Chestnut St, Lebanon, PA 17042 whereupon your property would be sold by the Sheriff
of Lebanon County.
You are hereby notified to plead to the above referenced Complaint on or before 20 days from
the date of this publication or a Judgment will be entered against you.
NOTICE
You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages,
you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and notice are served, by entering a
written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or
objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may
proceed without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief
requested by the Plaintiff. you may lose money or property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS NOTICE TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO
NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
MIDPENN LEGAL SERVICES 513
CHESTNUT STREET, SUITE 1 LEBANON,
PA 17042 TELEPHONE: (717) 274-2834
JUDGES OPINION
Rebecca Espinosa, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Margaret Lutz, deceased, v. Luthercare, et al., Spang Crest, et al., and Musaddiq N. Nazeeri, M.D., et al.
Civil Action-Law-Medical Malpractice-Negligence-Discovery-Depositions-Manner of Appearance-Facial Covering or Mask Worn by Witness-Duty of the Factfinder-Credibility-Trial Court Discretion-Facial Expressions
Rebecca Espinosa (“Plaintiff”) filed the within action following the death of her mother, Margaret Lutz (“Decedent”) alleging that Defendants Spang Crest and its employee or contractor Musaddiq N. Nazeeri (“Dr. Nazeeri”) caused Decedent’s death by failing properly to evaluate and treat her while she was a resident of Spang Crest’s facility. Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Compel Dr. Nazeeri to appear for a videotaped deposition and to provide testimony at that deposition without wearing a facial covering or mask.
- As a factfinder in a trial on a quest for the truth, one of the important tools in the factfinder’s toolbox is the demeanor of a witness.
- The demeanor of a witness is the very touchstone of credibility.
- A factfinder should be able to see witnesses as they testify.
- A trial court possesses discretion in determining how to manage court proceedings including discovery.
- Despite precautions undertaken to minimize the risks of the COVID-19 pandemic including the provision of testimony behind Plexiglass shields, the Court never has permitted a witness to wear a mask or facial covering while testifying.
- When a process is available that reduces the risk of infection to an almost de minimus level, that process should be preferred over one that obscures the facial expressions of a witness providing testimony.
- Where precautionary measures against COVID-19 will be undertaken that reduce the risk of infection to an almost de minimus level including allowing Dr. Nazeeri to be deposed while sitting in a room by himself with no one else present, Dr. Nazeeri will not be permitted to testify during the deposition wearing a mask or facial covering.
L.C.C.C.P. No. 2019-02130, Opinion by Bradford H. Charles, Judge, July 28, 2021.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION – LAW
REBECCA ESPINOSA, Individually :
And as Administrator of the Estate of :
Margaret Lutz, deceased, : No. 2019-02130
Plaintiff :
:
- :
:
LUTHERCARE, ET AL :
SPANG CREST, ET AL :
MUSADDIQ N. NAZEERI, M.D., ET AL :
Defendants :
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 28th day of July, 2021, in accordance with the attached Opinion, the Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel the unmasked deposition of Dr. Musaddiq Nazeeri is GRANTED. Dr. Nazeeri is to appear for a deposition at a date and time selected by the Plaintiff. During the deposition, Dr. Nazeeri will not be permitted to wear a mask, but he will be able to be deposed while sitting in a room without anyone else present.
BY THE COURT:
__________________________J.
cc: Justin Bernstein, Esquire// 334 W Front St., Media PA 19063
Andrew Foulkrod, Esquire// 1011 Mumma Rd., Ste. 201, Lemoyne PA 17043
Court Administration
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF LEBANON COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION – LAW
REBECCA ESPINOSA, Individually :
And as Administrator of the Estate of :
Margaret Lutz, deceased, : No. 2019-02130
Plaintiff :
:
- :
:
LUTHERCARE, ET AL :
SPANG CREST, ET AL :
MUSADDIQ N. NAZEERI, M.D., ET AL :
Defendants :
APPEARANCES:
Justin Bernstein, Esq. FOR PLAINTIFFS
SCHUSTER
Karen Minehan, Esq. FOR LUTHERCARE/SPANGCREST
MARSHALL DENNEHY (Not participating in argument)
Andrew Foulkrod, Esq. FOR Musaddiq N. NAZEERI, M.D.
CIPRIANI & WERNER
OPINION BY CHARLES, J. JULY 28, 2021
Can a witness demand to be masked during testimony? If so, does the “right” to wear a mask extend even when the lawyers are willing to conduct questioning via video conference while the witness is alone in a camera-surveilled room? We respond to these questions seriatim with “it is unlikely” and “absolutely not.” Because of these conclusions, we will order that Dr. Musaddiq Nazeeri, (hereafter “NAZEERI”) provide unmasked videotaped testimony in the above-referenced case.
- FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This is a medical professional negligence action that was filed by Plaintiff on December 5, 2019. Named Defendants were NAZEERI and Luthercare/Spang Crest Nursing Facility (hereafter “SPANG CREST”). According to the Complaint, NAZEERI was a physician working as an employee or independent contractor for SPANG CREST during 2018.
According to the Complaint, Margaret Lutz (hereafter “LUTZ”), was admitted to SPANG CREST on January 19, 2018 suffering from cellulitis, breathing difficulties and acute coughing. The Complaint alleges that in early February, LUTZ developed a fever and stated that she did not feel well. Medications were prescribed. Very little improvement was noted. Moreover, LUTZ’ blood sugar was found to be elevated. X-rays were obtained on February 12, 2018. The Complaint alleges that the x-rays, and all of the above information, was provided to NAZEERI.
According to Plaintiff, LUTZ’ condition continued to decline. On February 14, 2018, LUTZ was transferred to the WellSpan Good Samaritan Hospital, where she was diagnosed with respiratory distress, pneumonia and sepsis. LUTZ died at the Good Samaritan Hospital on March 1, 2018.
Plaintiff’s Complaint charges both SPANG CREST and NAZEERI with negligence. According to the Complaint, the death of LUTZ was caused by the failure of NAZEERI and/or SPANG CREST to properly evaluate and treat LUTZ while she was in SPANG CREST’s facility.
The above-referenced matter is now proceeding through the discovery phase of litigation. Approximately one year ago, Plaintiff served a Notice of Deposition on NAZEERI for August 25, 2020. All parties agreed that NAZEERI should undertake a videotape deposition. On August 25, 2020, the deposition began as scheduled with NAZEERI and his counsel participating from NAZEERI’s home. NAZEERI’s counsel indicated that his client would not be removing his mask due to COVID-19 concerns. Plaintiff objected and requested that NAZEERI participate without any facial covering. An impasse developed. Eventually, Plaintiff decided to adjourn the deposition and re-schedule.
Negotiations commenced regarding the process by which NAZEERI’s deposition should occur. Ultimately, Plaintiff agreed that NAZEERI could participate in a videotape deposition where he would be located alone in a room. NAZEERI continued to insist that his face be covered with a mask. Therefore, even this accommodation was not satisfactory.
On October 5, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel NAZEERI to appear for a videotape deposition and testify without wearing a mask. NAZEER opposes this motion. Both parties have filed briefs. For reasons that follow, we will grant Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel.
- DISCUSSION
In our system of justice, factfinders perform a special role; they have the difficult and weighty responsibility to determine truth. And in performing this function, finders of fact do not always have unassailable corroborating evidence upon which to rely. In fact, sometimes fact finders have little more than their visceral instinct as they determine credibility. As fact finders undertake a quest for the truth, on of the important tools in thier toolbox is the demeanor of a witness. Pennsylvania’s Superior Court aptly described how this tool can be so powerful:
[The factfinder] possesses an advantage not granted to [appellate courts]. He sees the parties and their witnesses face to face and observes their appearance and demeanor as they testify. We are restricted to the cold type of the record from which temperament and personality have been subtracted. Yet the demeanor of witnesses is the very touchstone of credibility; in the absence of reactions produced by other applicable tests, the appearance and demeanor of witnesses are the litmus by which the presence of truth is revealed. They are trifles light as air, imponderables, but for all that they are luminous integrants which ineluctably enter into the calculation by which trustworthiness is appraised. The spontaneous gesture, the lifting of an eyebrow, the shrug of the shoulders, the intonation of the voice, the flash of the eye, the facial expression,-these are a few of the vital and influential indicia of credibility which the [factfinder] observes and by which he is guided. The mental and psychological impact of these inarticulate expressions experienced by a [factfinder] form the basis for a conclusion which . . . ‘will depend upon a judgment or intuition more subtle than can be objectively demonstrated.’ Frequently they speak more eloquently and possess greater significance than the verbal utterance which they accompany, yet they cannot be reproduced upon the record submitted to the reviewing court.
Smith v. Smith, 43 A.2d 371, 583–84 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1945) (emphasis added) (citations omitted).
It is the duty of this Court to preserve assessment of demeanor as a tool to be used in determining credibility. We will not shirk this duty absent compelling exigent circumstances. NAZEERI argues that the COVID-19 pandemic constitutes an emergency that affords him with the “right” to wear a mask whenever and wherever he chooses. We disagree.
Without question, the COVID-19 pandemic has changed business as usual in the courts. Throughout the pandemic, this Court has employed robust COVID prevention measures in an effort to minimize the risk of infection to everyone involved in the process. For example, we have positioned parties and jurors six (6) feet apart, we have required most trial participants to wear masks, we have erected plastic and Plexiglas shields at strategic locations in the courtroom and our Court Attendants have liberally used disinfectant. Thus far, the protective measures we have used have been successful; no juror, lawyer or witness has complained that he/she contracted COVID because of participation in a trial.
As robust as our COVID precautions have been, from the outset of the pandemic we have never permitted a witness to wear a mask while testifying. It has always been the belief of this Court that fact finders should be able to see witnesses as they testify. Sometimes, facial expressions that accompany verbal testimony are of critical importance in assessing whether somebody is unsure, or perhaps even lying. Therefore, we have required that witnesses provide testimony unmasked.[1]
The wearing of masks in judicial proceedings has triggered a rapidly evolving body of decisional precedent. In Commonwealth v. Delmonico, 251 A.3d 829 (Pa. Super. 2021), our Superior Court declared that jurors can be required to wear masks. In Nautica Entertainment v. Allied Debt, 2020 WL 10356124 (D.C.Wyo, 2020), the court approved a process that required witnesses to appear in person and without masks given required social distancing and disinfectant. In U.S. v. Tagliaferro, 2021 WL 1225990 (S.D.N.Y. 2021), the Court stated:
“The witness at Tagliaferro’s trial will remain unmasked and completely visible to both him and the jury. Accordingly, the jury will be able to adequately assess credibility, and the witness, in turn, will be impressed with the gravity of the proceedings at which they testify.”
In a case very close to the one at hand, a plaintiff wanted to conduct a videotape deposition of a doctor. The doctor insisted on being masked. The plaintiff wanted the doctor to wear a Plexiglas shield through which his face was visible. The court described the issue before it as “novel” and triggered by a “once-in-a-century pandemic.” Although the court did not employ lengthy legal analysis, it did grant the plaintiff’s request that the doctor be required to wear a transparent mask during the deposition. See, Tucker v. Princeton Community Hospital Association, 2021 WL 864768 (S.D.W.Va. 2021).
All of the above cases emphasize the discretion that a trial judge possesses in determining how to manage court proceedings. In Pennsylvania, as it relates to proceedings such as depositions, trial judges have broad discretion to manage the discovery and issue appropriate orders as necessary. See, Pa.R.C.P 4001(a); Kuntz v. Firth, 264 A.2d 432, 433 (Pa. Super. 1970).
In this case, the Plaintiff has agreed to allow NAZEERI to testify while sitting in a room by himself. The Plaintiff is willing to set up an unmanned camera in a small conference area. The camera operator and both lawyers will be located outside of the room where NAZEERI will be testifying. This process not only facilitates social distancing, it provides NAZEERI with complete social isolation. We cannot perceive of any better COVID protection than the one offered by the Plaintiff.
In the opinion of this Court, NAZEERI’s request to remain masked given the opportunity for social isolation is unreasonable. NAZEERI’s risk of contracting COVID-19 while sitting alone in a disinfected room is virtually nonexistent. NAZEERI’s objection to this process borders on nonsensical.
It is not the intent of this Court to depreciate the seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic, nor do we advocate ignoring its existence. However, when a process is available, facilitated by technology, that will reduce the risk of infection to an almost de minimus level, such a process should be preferred over one that obscures a witness’ facial expressions during testimony. We will therefore direct that NAZEERI testify at a videotaped deposition while unmasked and in an isolated environment as proposed by the Plaintiff. An Order to effectuate this decision will be entered today’s date.
[1] However, to afford witnesses with protection, we have positioned them behind Plexiglas shields.