Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-02400 ) , ""1' ~ '" ~ I !' I ~ , I , ) I ~ . J " I , , "",/' 'I\JI~ ,1,1- .. ! I I I , , " ! <, " , J 11 " '\ .. , .o, , J ' , I' " .s >., " ~. . '" 0- 83. Denied. The uvermelll c()IJltIined in Puragruph 83 of Defendunts' New MUlier represents u conclusion of luw 10 which u response is not reljuired, lIowever, if it were judiciully determined lhut u response were rCljuired. the uverment is specificully denied. with strict proof thereof demunded utthe time of triu!. 84, Denied, This is un incorrect conclusion of luw, 42 Pu, C.S.A, * 5524, reluting to uctions thutl11ust be commenced withinlwo years include but is not limited to "An action to recover dumuges for injuries III the person or for the deuth of an individual cuused by the wl'Ongful uct or neglect or unluwful violence or negligence of unother", The incident in this cuse occurred on or ubout December 5. 11)1)4. and the uction wus filed on Muy 15. 1996 und is therefore cJeurly within the mandates of * 5524 of the Act. Should any allegtllion therein be deemed factual in nuture, suid allegutions arc specifically dcnied. 85. Denied. The avcrmelll contained ill Puragruph 85 of [)efendunts' New Maller represents a conclusion of law and fact [0 which a rcsponse is not required. However. if it were judiciully determined thut a response were reljuired. the averment is specificully denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at the time of trial. 86. Denied. The avermelll \:ontained in Paragraph 86 of Defendants' New Maller represents u conclusion of law and fact to whil:h a response is nol reljuired. 1I0weYt'r. if it were judicially determined that u response were reljuired. the averment is specilkally denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at the time of trial. . - ....,. 87. Denied. The avermelll contained in Pamgmph 87 of Defendants' New Maller represents a conclusion of law and fact 10 which a response is nOI re4uired. 1I0wever, if it were judicially determined that a response wen: re4uired. lhe averment is spccitkally denied, with strict proof lhereof demanded at the lime of triaL 88. Denied. The avermelll contained in Paragmph 88 of Defendants' New Maller represents a conclusion of law and facllo which a response is nOI re4uired. Howcver, if II were judicially determined thai a response were rC4uired. the averment is specitkally denied. with strict proof thereof demanded al the lime of triaL 89. Denied. The avermelll cOJ1lained in Paragraph 89 of Defendants' New Maller represents a conclusion of law and fact to which a response is not re4uin:d. lIowever. if it were judicially determined that a response were re4uired, the avermelll is specifically denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at the lime of triaL 90, Denied. The avermelll contained in Paragraph 90 of Defendants' New Maller represents a conclusion of law and fact 10 which a response is not re4uired. However. if it were judicially determined that a response were re4uired. the avermelll is specifically denied. with strict proof thereof demanded at the time of triaL 91. Denied. The avermelll contained in Paragraph 91 of Defendants' New Maller represents a conclusion of law and fact to which a response is not re4uired. However, if il were judicially determined that a response were re4uired. the avermelll is specitkally denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at the lime of triaL ',' .... If> ,I: (..: i .. I .r ,,<. \ ...1 I l' (l .1 , rc; ,." l' (;1)' r'" r. l,', I II : ." . ~'" , , I lL ( ,- l.... , , , " <II , :.J " " '" " , , " . . , '.. f," i '!Il , I r< I,":~ ( . , ltl l~_ ,.. Q: W Z w 8 3: . w ~ w , , . ~ , w 0 . - 1\1 U C ;; Z g : . ~ 3 < ~ ~ . 1\1 ! . · 0 , ~ Q: . m . . - W ii ':: ...J M ~ 0 I Z < :c . ... . . . . il. 1.'.1 .. (, " " -, ( ,. fl',", 1I.. , (,'): " r , I I, ! I .' II ( " ~; , , " >.' .- " . . [l w z w . " u ;; . o t ~ 8 ~ " ;. ~ ~ ~ - ~ o I/l - 0( N Z ~:.~ c( ,~~N IX IO~;;' LaJ 01 11. ; ~ .J ~ ~ o I Z c( I ~ . f .~ r... l,', e ) .~. .. r' l .'V ''') '-S;") ~- ~ ,;:) ~' ~ ""::.....' '-'.\ \ ~jt'l . Rl ,') -<) \'l<:. ~IV) "(') No'") I HI' I' I;:' , . r: .,. j, , j " (\~ '- '~r' ''i (::.) "\(, ~'i")' ~ I '"':" a: LU Z LU , ~ ~ 3 III W ,.. ~ ~ " ~ " - u 0 III - i: z ~ _ 0( I\J 0 c( ~ ~ ~ J d g. . IX ~ ,- ~ 01 ~ ~ ~ LU oJ - .' 0 PI ~- z x c( I: - . . . . engaged in the practice of medicine, with a subspecialty in obstetrics and gynecology, 4. Defendant Polyc link Med ical Cente!', Defendant herein (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant Polyclinic"), is a non- profit corporation, chartered and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a principal place of. business at 2601 North Third Street, Ha!risburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 5. Medical records indicate that Plaintiff Sharon Mower treated with Defendant Hall since 1993. 6. Plaintiff Sharon Mower presentF.!d herself to D~fer.dant Hall on ~umerous occasions with problems related to infertility. 7. Medical records indicate that Plaintiff Sharon Mower was treating with Defendant Hall for irregular bleeding, as well as infertility since 1993. 8. Medical records indicate that a pelvic sonogram done on November 25, 1994 at Pol ycl inic Medical Center showed a 17 millimeter endometrial echo in the uterus, and a 2.5 times 3.5 centimeter cystic mass in the left ovary. 9. Modical records indicate that Defendant Hall recommended a hysteroscopy with a fractional D&C for an excision of the ovarian mass. 10. On or about December 5, 1994, Plaintiff Sharon Mower entered Polyclinic Medical Center for a diagnostic hysteroscopy, fractional D&C, dJ, vision of the uteral sacral ligaments, and laparoscopy with left ovarian cystectomy. 2 . 11. Plaintiff sharon Mower was to undergo these procedures on the out-patient service of che hospital. 12. During the course of these procedures, Defendant Hall's corson needle stimulated the iliac nerve of Plaintiff Shar.on Mcwer's leg, 13. The stimulation of the nerve caused Plaintiff Sharon Mower's leg to move. 14. Defendant Hall's hand was moved by this nerve reaction. 15. Medical records indicate that "patient's leg jumped at this point, and it was quite apparent that we had an arterial bleeder" . 16. Medical records indicate that there was perforation of the iliac artery by contact with the activated electrical needle. 17, Defendant Hall placed a small stitch during the laparotomy to control the bleeding. 18. Medical records indicate that it was a "good sized bleeder". J.9. Medical records indicate that Defendant Hall had to remove the left fallopian tube, as it had twisted itself during the suturing of the "good-sized bleeder". 20. Medical recol'ds indicate that Defendant Hall delayed Plaintiff Sharon Mower's discharge home because of complaints of pain, inability to void and light-headedness. 3 21. Medical records indicate that, th~t evening, Plaintiff Sharon Mower continued to complain of light-headedness and an inability to void. 22. Medical l"ecol'ds indicate t.hat that evening, on December 5, 1994, Plaintiff Sharon Mower's pulse increased to 130 to 140, and her blood pressure decreased. 23. Medical records indicate that on or about December 6, 1994, at approximately 12:30 a.m., Defendant Hall called Dr. Orecchia, a vascular surgeon. 24. Medical records indicate that Or. Orecchia performed a repeat emergency laparotomy. 25. Medical records indicate that Dr. Orecchia found bleeding at the mid-external iliac artery in two areas. 26. Medical records indi.cate t hat Dr. Orecchia found a 2 centimeter area of damage caused by the earlier electrocaudery, and a 1 centimeter defect in the interior wall of the artery. 27. Medical records indicate tha t Dr. Orecchi a placed a 6 millimeter gortex graft to secure the two sites that had been damaged by the cauter.y, 28. Medical records indicate that during the course of the surgery, Plaintiff Sharon Mower's left ovary had to be removed, due to the positioning of the arterial damage. 29. Medical records indicate that Plaintiff Sharon Mower was moved to the intensive care unit at Polyclinic Medical Center. 4 30, Medical records indicate that Plaintiff Sharon Mower had severe respiratory problems following this surgery. 31. Medical records indicate that Plaintiff Sharon Mower had gastrointestinal complications following the surgery. 32. Medical records indicate that on or about December 14, 1994, Plaintiff Sharon Mower was discharged home. 33. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants and the i r agents, Ilervants and/or employees in the care and treatment provided, Plaintiff Sharon Mower, as described above and more particularly hereinafter, suffered severe and disabling injuries, which will be described in full hereinafter. ~:OlJNT I SHARON MOWER V. VIRGINIA E. HALL, M.D. 34. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and makes a part of this count, Paragraphs 1- 33 of this complaint as if fully set forth. 35. At all times relevant to the matters set forth in this complaint, the physicians, nurses, and other personnel who cared for and treated Plaintiff Sharon Mower while she was a patient of Defendant Hall, were agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant Hall and were act ing whi le in and upon the business of said Defendant, and while in the course and scope of their employment with said Defendant. 5 (k) In placing Plaintiff Sharon Mower at risk from these multiple blood transfusions for blood borne diseases; (1) In failing to recognize a complication of damaging the 11 iac artery; (m) In failing to adequately monitor Plaintiff Sharon Mower during the evening hours of December 5, 1994 and during the early hours of December 6, 1994; (n) In failing to adequately monitor Plaintiff Sharon Mower during the post-operative period; (0) In failing to recognl ze a maj or vascular incident; (p) In causing damage to the artery in two areas; (q) In perfot'ating the 11 iac artery due to slicing it with an activated electrical needle; (I') In failing to properly identify the injury, which she acknowledged to be arterial; (s) In treating an arterial injury; (t) In failing to demonstrate any ability to control a complication that she produced; (u) In failing to possess and employ the appropriate and requil'ed level of skill and knowledge and performance below the standard of care for a gynecologist; (v) In employing inappropriate and/or inadequate methods, techniques and procedures in the care and treatment of Plaintiff Sharon Mower; and 7 (w) In failing to perform proper and/or adequate examination of Plaintiff Sharon Mower. 37. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower suffers from scarring of the abdomen. 38. As u further result. of the negligence and cnrelessness of Dp.fendant Hall nnd l:er agents, servnnts and/or employees, Plaintiff sharon Mower currently suffers from pain and numbness along her foot and leg. 39. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and h€=r agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower suffers from chronic intermittent constipation. 40. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower Buffers from infertility. 41. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Shar'on Mower was forced to endUl'e great pain, suffering and inconvenience, and she will suffer the same in the future. 42. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon M<~wer has been, and probably will be in the future, hindered from attending to her usual occupation and daily activities, to great detriment, loss, humiliation and embarrassment. 8 48. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of .Defcndant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower has suftered lost ,wages and she will suffer a future lOBS of earnings and earning capacity, and thus makes a claim therefore. 49. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to extend large sums of money for. medicine, medical and surgical attention and treatment, and she will be required to extend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 50. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower will be compelled to be blood tested for such infectious conditions as HIV and hepatitis, due to the high volume of blood loss. 51. As a: further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower will be compelled to undergo duplex scans on her graft on a yearly basis. 10 COUNT 1.1 SHARON MOWER V. POLYCLINIC MEDICAL CENTER 52, Plaintiff incorporates by reference and makes a part of this count, Paragraphs 1- 33 of this complaint as if fully set forth. 53. At all times relevant to the matters set forth in this complaint, the physicians, nurses, and other personnel who cared for and treated Plaintiff sharon Mower while she was a patient of Defendant Polyclinic were agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant Polyclinic, and were acting while in and upon the business of said Defendant, and while in the course and scope of their employment with said Defendant. 54. Defendant Polyclinic and/or its agents, servants and/or employees were :1.egligent and/or careless in some or all of the following particulars: (al In allowing Defendant Hall to perform laperoscopies with no clear understanding of the procedure; (b) In credentialing Defendant Hall to do laperoscopies in a hospital setting with no clear understanding of the procedure; (c) In failing to formulate, adopt, and enforce appropriate and adequate rules. policies and procedures with respect to the performance of laperoscopic surgery; 11 "" , (d) In failing to oversee and/or supervise surgeons, dentists, physicians and/or nursing personnel properly and adequately; and (e) In failing to select and retain only competent physicians. 55. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and ita agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower suffers from scarring of the abdomen. 56. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and its agents, servants and/or employees, plaintiff Sharon Mower currently suffers from pain and numbness along her foot and leg. 57. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polycl inic and its agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower suffers from chronic intermittent constipation. 58. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and its agents, servants and/or employees, plaintiff Sharon Mower suffers from infertility. 59. As a further resul t of the negl igence and carelessness of Defendant Polycl inic and its agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower was forced to endure great pain, suffering and inconvenience, and she will suffer the same in the future. 12 60. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and its agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon .Mower has been, and pl"obably will be in the future, hindered from attending to her usual occupation and daily activities, to great detriment, loss, humiliation and embarrassment. 61. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and its agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower has suffered a Loss of life's pleasures and probably will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 62. As a further result of the neQligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and its agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower has undergone great physical pain, discomfort, embarrassment and ment.al angulsi'l, and will she will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of timo in the future, causing her physical, emotional and financial detriment and loss, 63. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and it.s agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower was forced to submit to medical, medicinal, surgical and therapeut.,ic treatment and she will be forced to slJbmit. t.o the same in the future. 64. As a further result of the negligence and calelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and its agent.s, servants and/or employees, 13 Plaintiff sharon Mower's health in general has been seriously and permanently impaired. 65. As a furthe1' result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic clnd its agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff sharon Mower has Buffered lost wages and she will suffer a future loss of earnings and earning capacity, and thus makes a claim thereforE!. 66. As a further l'esult of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and its agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to extend large sums of money for medicine, medical and surgical attention and treatment, and she will be required to extend la1'ge sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 67. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and its agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower will be compelled to be blood tested for such infectious conditions as HIV and hepatitis, due to the high volume of blood loss. 68. As a further result of thf: negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and its agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff sharon Mower will be compelled to undergo duplex scans on her graft on a yearly basis. 14 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sharon Mower seeks damages from Defendant Polyclinic in an amount in excess of Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($35,000), and demands trial by jury. COl/NT III INFORMED CONSENT AGAINST VIRGINIA E. HALL. M.D. G 9. Plaint i ff Sharon Mower incorporates by reference and makes a part of this count, Paragraphs 1-33 of this complaint as if fully set. 70. Defendant Hall failed to obtain Plai.ntiff Sharon Mower's informed consent prior to performing the laparoscopy surgery by attempting to "stitch an arterial bleeder" that she caused instead of consulting with a vascular surgeon. 71. Defendant Hall failed to obtain Plaintiff Sharon Mower's informed consent prior to performing the surgery of December 5, 1994, by failing to disclose all material facts and the inherent risks and side affects of surgery. 72. The conduct of Defendant Hall constituted technical assault and battery on Plaintiff Sharon Mower. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sharon Mower seeks judgement from Defendant Hall in an amount in excess of Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($35,000.001, and demands trial by jury. 15 COUNT V RANDY MOWER V, VIRGINIA E. HALL. M.D. AND POLYCLINIC MEDICA4~IER 76. Plaihtiff incorporates by reference and makes a part of this count, Paragraphs 1-33 of this complaint as if fully set forth. 77. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendants and their agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Randy Mower has suffered the loss of consor- tJ.um, service, society, and companionship of his wife, Sharon Mower, and he will suffer similar loss in the future. 78. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendants and their agents, servants and/or employees, plaintiff Randy Mower has been forced to expend large sums of money for doctors, hospitals and other items necessary for his wife's proper care and treatment, and he will be forced to expend similar sums for like items in the future. 79. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendants and their agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Randy Mower has suf fered a loss of life's pleasures due to the infertility of his wife, and he will continue to suffel' the same in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 17 ." , , \.. . '\ ,,' 'I IX W Z w 8 ~ " w ~ w ~ ~ . ~ ~ - w 0 '" - ~ u - << . z ~ . . . 0 0( ~q ! IX · 0 , ,; W m . - ~ - . ..J '" ~ 0 x Z 0( J: ,', . engaged in the practice of medicine, with a subspecialty in obstetrics and gynecology. 4. Defendant Polyclinic Medical Center, Defendant herein (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant Polyclinic"), is a non- profit corporation, chartered and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a principal place of business at 2601 North Third Street, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 5. Medical records indicate that Plaintiff Sharon Mower treated with Defendant Hall since 1993. 6. Plaintiff Sharon Mower presented herself to Defendant Hall on numerous occasions with problems related to infertility, 7. Medical records indicate that Plaintiff Sharon Mower was treating with Defendant Hall for irregular bleeding, as well as infertility since 1993. 8. Medical records indicate that a pelvic sonogram done on November 25, 1994 at Polyclinic Medical Center showed a 17 millimeter endometrial echo in the ut.erus, and a 2.5 times 3.5 centimeter cystic mass in the left ovary. 9. Medical records indicate that Defendant Hall recommended a hysteroscopy with a fractional D&C for an excision of the ovarian mass. 10. On or about December 5, 1994, Plaintiff Sharon Mower entered Polyclinic Medical Center for a diagnostic hysteroacopy, fractional D&C, division of the uteral sacral ligaments, and laparoscopy with left ovarian cystectomy. 2 11 . Plaint iff Sharon Mower was to undergo these procedures on the out-patient service of the hospital. 12. During the course of these procedures, Defendant Hall's corson needle stimulated the iliac nerve of Plaintiff Sharon Mower's leg. 13. The stimulation of the nerve caused plaintiff Sharon Mower's leg to move. 14. Defendant Hall's hand was moved by this nerve reaction. 15. Medical records indicate that "patient's leg jumped at this point, and it was qui te apparent that we had an arterial bleeder" . 16. Medical records indicate that there was perforation of the iliac artery by contact with the activated electrical needle. 17. Defendant Hall placed a small stitch during the laparotomy to control the bleeding. 18. Medical records indicate that it was a "good sized bleeder" . 19. Medical records indicate that Defendant Hall had to remove the left fallopian tube, as it had twisted itself during the suturing of the "good-sized bleeder". 20. Medical records indicate that Defendant Hall delayed Plaintiff Sharon Mower's discharge home because of complaints of pain, inability to void and light-headedness. 3 21. Medical records indicate that, Sharon Mower cont.inued to complain of that evening, plaintiff 1 ight - hSildedness and an inability to void. 22. Medical records indicate that that evening, on December 5, 1994, Plaintiff Sharon Mower's pulse increased to 130 to 140, and her blood pressure decreased. 23. Medical records indicate that on or about December 6, 1994, at approximately 12:30 a.m., Defendant Hall called Dr. Orecchia, a vascular surgeon. 24. Medical records indicate that Dr. Orecchia performed a repeat emergency laparotomy. 25. Medical records indicate that Dr. Orecchia found bleeding at the mid-external iliac artery in two areas. 26. Medical records indicate that Dr. Orecchia found a 2 centimeter area of damage caused by the earl ier electrocaudery, and a 1 centimeter defect in the interior wall of the artery. 27. Medical records indicate that Dr. Orecchia placed a 6 millimeter gortex graft to secure the two s;i.t.es that had been damaged by the cautery. 28. Medical records .indicate that during the course of the surgery, Plaintiff Sharon Mower's left o'/ary had to be removed, due to the positioning of the arterial damage. 29. Medical records indicate that Plaintiff Sharon Mower was moved to the intensive care unit at Polyclinic Medical Center. 4 30. Medical records indicate that Plaintiff Sharon Mower had severe respiratory problems following this surgery. 31. Medical records indicate that Plaintiff Sharon Mower had gastrointestinal complications following the surgery. 32. Medical records indicate that on or about December 14, 1994, Plaintiff Sharon Mower was discharged home. 33. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants and their agents, servant.s and/or employees in the care and treatment provided, Plaintiff Sharon Mower, as described above and more particularly hereinafter, suffered severe and disabling injuries, which will be described in full hereinafter. s;;..OUNT I SHARON MOWER V. VIRGINIA E. HALL. M~ 34. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and makes a part of this count, Paragraphs 1-33 of this complaint as if fully set forth. 35. At all times relevant to the matters set forth in this complaint, the physicians, nurses, and other personnel who cared for and treated plaintiff Sharon Mower while she was a patient of Defendant Hall, were agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant Hall and were act ing while in and upon the business of said Defendant, and while in the course and s~ope of their employment with said Defendant. 0; 36. Defendant Hall and/or her agents, servants and/or employees were negligent and/or careless in all of the following particulars I (a) Improper UBEl of the electrocaudery technique by inaccurate use; (b) Apparent inattention to the anatomy causing the inadvertent electro-stimulation of the iliac nerve during the procedure; (e) Causing a 3 centimeter area of damage to the iliac artery; (d) In failing to recognize the extent of the damage to the iliac artery; (e) In failing to contact a vascular surgeon for immediate consult; (f) In placing a small stitch during the laparotomy procedure in light of a "good-size bleeder"; (g) In failing to appropriately suture and thus necessitating the removal of the left fallopian tube; (h) In creating a complication that caused the left ovary to be removed; (i) In increas ing the bleeding from the hilum due to improper suturing'; (j) In causing Plaintiff Sharon MOWel" to lose high volumes of blood; 6 (k) In placing plaintiff sharon Mower ,It risk from these multiple blood transfusions for blood borne diseases; (1) In failing to recognize a complication of damaging the iliac artery; (m) In failing to adequately monitor plaintiff Sharon Mower during the evening hours of December S, 1994 and during the early hours of December 6, 1994; (n) In failing to adequately monitor plaintiff sharon Mower during the post-operative period; (0) In failing to recognize a major vascular incident; (p) In causing damage to the artery in two areas; (q) In perforating the iliac artery due to slicing it with an activated electrical needle; (r) In failing to properly identify the injury, which she acknowledged to be ar.terial; (s) In treat ing an arterial inj ury; (t) In failing to demonstrate any ability to control a complication that she produced; (u) In failing to possess and employ the appropriate and required level of skill and knowledge and performance below the standard of care for a gynecologist; (v) In employing inappropriate and/or inadequate methods, techniques and procedures in the care and treatment of Plaintiff Sharon Mower; and 7 (w) In failing to perform proper' and/or adequate examination of Plaintiff Sharon Mower. 37. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, Plaint iff Sharon Mower suf fel's from scarring of the abdomen. 38. As a further result of the negl igence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff S~aron Mower currently suffers from pain and numbness along her foot and leg. 39. As a further result of the llegligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower suffers from chronic intermittent constipation. 40. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower suffers from infertility. 41. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower was forced to endure great pain, suffering and inconvenience, and she will suffer the same in the future. 42. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, plaintiff Sharon Mower has been, and probably will be in the future, hindered from attending to her usual occupation and daily activitles, to great detriment, loss, humiliation and embarrassment. 8 43. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower haa suffered a loss of life's pleasures and probably will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 44. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower has undergone a loss of life's pleasures, due to her infertility, and probably continue to endure the same in the future. 45. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff sharon Mower has. undergone great physical pain, discomfort, embarrassment and mental anguish, and will she will continue to endure the same [or an indefinite period of time in the future, causing her physical, emotional and financial detri.ment and loss. 46. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower was forced to submit to medical, medicinal, surgical and therapeutic treatment and she will be forced to submit to the same in the future. 47. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, Plail',tiff Sharon Mower's health in general has been seriously and permanently impai.red. 9 48. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, plaintif f sharon Mower has suffered lost wages and she will suffer a future loss of earnings and earning capacity, and thus makes a claim therefore. 49. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hal.l and her agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to extend large sums of money for medicine, medical and surgical at tent ion and treatment, and she wi 11 be required tC) extend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 50. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower will be compelled to be blood tested for such infectious conditions as HIV and hepatitis, due to the high volume of blood loss. 51. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower will be compelled to undergo duplex scans on her graft on a yearly basis. 10 COUNT II SHARON MOWER V. POLYCLINIC MEDICAL CENTER 52. plaintiff incorporates by reference and makes a,part of this count, Paragraphs 1- 33 of this complaint as if fully set forth. 53. At all times relevant to the matters set forth in this complaint, the physicians, nurRes, and other personnel who cared for and treated Plaintiff Sharon Mower while she was a patient of Defendant Polyclinic were agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant Polyclinic, and wel-eacting while in and upon the busines8 of said Defendant, and while in the course and scope of their employment with said Defendant. 54. Defendant Polyclinic and/or its agents, servant8 and/or employees were negligent and/or careless in some or all of the following particulars: (a) In allowing De fendant Hall to perform laperoscopies with no clear understanding of the procedure; (b) In credentialing Defendant Hall to do laperoscopies in a hospital setting with no clear understanding of the procedure; (c) In failing to formulate, adopt, and enforce appropriate and adequate rules, policies and procedures with respect to the performance of laperoscopic surgery; 11 (d) In failing to oversee and/or s~pervise surgeons, dentists, physicians and/or nursing personnel properly and adequately; and (e) In failing to select and retain only competent physicians. 55. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and its agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower suffers from scarrihg of the abdomen. 56. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and its agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff sharon Mower currently suffers from pain and numbness along her foot and leq. 57. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and its agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower suffers from r.:hronic intermittent constipation. 58. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and its agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower suffers from infertility. 59. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and its agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower was forced to endure great pain, Buffering and inconvenience, and she will suffer the same in the future. 12 60. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and its agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower has been, ,Ind probably will be in the future, hindered from attending to her usual occupation and daily activitles, to detriment, great loss, humi 1 iat ion embarrassment. 61,. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and its agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower has suffered a loss of life's pleasures and probably will continue to suffer the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 62. As a further result of the negllgence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinir. and its agents, servants and/or. employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower has l.llldergone great physical pain, discomfort, embarrassment and mental anguish, and will she will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, causing her physical, emotional and financial detriment and loss. 63. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and its agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower was for.ced to'submit to medical, medicinal, surgical and therapeutic treatment and she will be forced to submit to the same in the future. 64. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and it~ agents, servants and/or employees, 13 and Plaintiff Sharon Mower's health in general has been seriously and permanently impaired. 65. As a f.urther result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and its agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower has suffered lost wages and she will suffer a future loss of earnings and earning capacity, and thus makes a clai.m therefore. 66. As a fl.lrther result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and its agents, l3ervants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesa.id injuries, to extend large sums of money for medicine, medical and surgical attention and treatment, and she will be required to extend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 67. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and its agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower will be compelled to be blood tested for such infectious conditions as HIV and hepatitis, due to the high volume of blood loss. 68. As a further result of. the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and its agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower will be compelled to undergo duplex scans on her graft on a yearly basis. 14 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sharon Mower seeks damages from Defendant Polyclinic in an amount in excess of Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($35,000), and demands trial by jury. COUNT III INFORMED CONSENT AGAINST VIRUINIA E. HALL. M.D. 69. Plaintiff Sharon Mowel- incorporates by reference and makes a part of this count, Paragraphs 1-33 of t.his complaint as if fully set. 70. Defendant Hall failed to obtain Plaintiff Sharon Mower's informed consent prior to performing the laparoscopy surgery by attempting to "stitch an arterial bleeder" that she caused instead of consulting with a vascular surgeon. 71. Defendant Hall failed to obtai.n Plaintiff Sharon Mower's informed consent prior to performing the surgery of December 5, 1994, by failing to disclose all material facts and the inherent risks and side affects of surgery. 72. The conduct of Defendant Hall constituted technical assault and battery on Plaintiff Sharon Mower. WHEREFORE,. Plaintiff Sharon Mower seeks judgement from Defendant Hall in an amount in excess of Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($35,000.00)., and demands trial by jury. 15 " COUl':/T IV PUNITIVE DAMAGES 73. ,plaintiff incorporates by reference and makes a part of this count, Paragraphs 1-33 of this complaint as if fully set forth. 74. plaintiff Sharon Mower' belip.ves, and thoerefore avers, that Defendant Hall's action of severing an artery and attempting to conceal such by repairing the artery constitutes wanton, outrageous behavior and reckless indifference to the welfare and well-being of plaintiff Sharon Mower. 75. Plaintiff Sharon Mower be 1 i eves, and therefore avers, that Defendant Hall's inattention to the second wound that she had created during the laparoscopy by her failure to note, as well as treat this wound properly constitutes wanton and outrageous behavior and recldess indifference to the welfare and well-being of plaintiff Sharon Mower. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sharon Mower seeks damages from Defendant Hall in an amount in excess of Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($35,000), and demands trial by jury. 16 COUNT V RANDY MOWER V. VIRGINIA E. HALL. M.D. AND POLYCLINIC MEDICAL CENTER 76. plaintiff incorporates by reference and makes a part of thiB count, Paragraphs 1- 3 3 of this complaint as if fully set forth. 77. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendants and their agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Randy Mower has suffered the 10SB of consor- tium, service, society, and companionship of his wife, Sharon Mower, and he will suffer similar lOBS in the future. 78. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendants and their agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Randy Mower has been forced to expend large sums of money for doctors, hospitals and other items necessary for his wife's proper care and treatment, and he will be forced to expend similar sums for like items in the future. 79. As a further t'esult of the negligence and carelessness of Defendants and their agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Randy Mower has suf fered a loss of 1 i fa's pleasures due to the infertility of his wife, and he will continue to suffer the same i.n the future, to his great detriment and loss. 17 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Randy Mower claims damages against Defendants in a sum in excess of Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($35,000), and demands trial by jury. HANDLER By re 17108 Datel " , I 18 "') 1'1' , , , J , J . " . r. ~ ~ e ~ :, .. ~ ~ 0 .. E ~ ... .. .. ! z " ~ i K oj ~ .. 0 IX Q .. :> ~ E ~ ci .. '" ~ 0 .. ii z IX ~ ~ ~ '" . 0 .., Q ~ # .. I,t.; I- 1\1 I 'il I I I r !-,'.' ! I I ,', ~ ''1'1 i.1 ,1"llj I 'f/.l. IIi /;1 ii/,f 'i II i ! i 1'1 1.'1' 'I' I , I- I , , , I Ii> I , I I; I ! , , I , " , , , I " r I ~ ; i ,j I, "i' I- I " ! , ri i , , I 'JI) " Iii' I I , " I , Ii " ,,:\ " I ill I ,- .. I lIi ii I: I' , I i ,I " , , 'I .. I i'! " ! I I ',.; ii, /.. , I, i,. I, I , , I rr ) ~ " I I '1 I I -, r 'I , I, I I' ,l;!l I I' i' .' i , ! 1-;, ""'" '.'1 t '.1' , I 'i 'ii' !ll! ! I n I 'i"!!' Ii " '\!I "-,Iil..l i. II I; ';.':~ .) ..;.~) . :-/'/ ...- " (/ ,., ;t, ~. ;~~~4"'/-' , ".<~:/ /~?-'-i ,.. " "II \111' !" I I,,,, ,. .j. i I "l tl!\ ',F! I,',., I j'i' '1, 9t'l~' "'1l."7 --}1'- C;' IWl4A.;, -~~ .' :I'!l.. 'i 1'1; I III II I', I,'" 'I " , '\ ,I I I I : , 'iL I. I' !! \,. I" 'J , " , 'I I , 'I, ii \ 1'1. ,. 'I I ! -, Ii' , , I - I' I I,i: I II .I ," " "1\ " I I \ ./ I - " Iii ,Il!: !' III 11, I " I , I ". II' II .', 1,"1 I' 11 ! ., :1" Iii' Ii I! I'll' , ' I" I- I ',li'I,I".'I,\II:" " , , 'l(,I'"III/', , : \ I.I',.! .1.\.'1 (',Ii ('(1, ,\( 1'1) , , 1,1, ;t " i,\ "i' " , " I:. I , I ! !I' II I"~ ,'I ~~<~~ " ,~ I' " 'II" ,.'" " ',:\. ,,1 .' ~.L1X ;/~,~/z: ,J'~ 'jl~ IkA7 ~v-c ~~........,~- , . COMMONWEAl/I'll OJ.' IIHNNA: COLJN'l'V OF IMUI'IIIN: SIlI-:ltlFF'S ItETlIHN NO. 96-2400 PAUl'; 426 , ,/ I , AND NOW: May 7, WITIIIN .~~E~~int. & Notice.. .. Polyclinic Medical Center III 96 .1113120 P ~I. SEKVlm TilE UPON II\' PEHSO:'\AI.I.Y IIANDIl\'li TO Melissa Major ( Secretary and person in charge at time of service ). j j A THUE ATTESTHD COPY OF TilE OHIUlNAL Compliant & Notice AND MAKING KNOWN TO Harrisburg, Pa them TilE CONTENTS TIIEREOF AT 2601 North Third St. RB S~!:~E SHERIFF.OF DAUPHIN COUNTY. PENNA ~. .. . .....' ~ ..-' ,... ,/..1' 1./ ; ','. .' , 11\' "'.~ ~ . .' .,' " " ' ...... ....,..'~......\;:. ", ........\..1 ')',..' ..~.., "",,:.,,.~ ":J,.ir~o"'\~ ..J,,~. llEPUTY SIIEKIFF Sworn and HubsCl'UHld to 0",0" me ch ~7~::;' I'HOTIIONOl'ARY 1996 SIIE/lI'I'I"S ('OST ~ 25.50 Pd. 5-7-96 Rec. 080100 S'IA ~ Cl '.. - r,_; .. ,'3 :1i r -' - r., ~j. )- '" aJ ., ""'.. 1::i I.. .':;~ ' , '="' r~' (~ . "ie tE\'! ,- II :(1 ~; c..:; ., ~ .0 <5 (). w a: w z w ~ 8 3: w~~~ ~ 0 ~~-~ v 111 - 0( N 'Z~:~~ ~ c( ~~~III !~:~H -oJ Pl ~ o x Z c( J: . , PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Musl bt! lypewrlllen and 5ubmllled In duplicate) TO TilE PRO'fIlONOf,\RY/OF CUMDEltl^NIJ l:OUNlY: P1.11I1l1I the wlllJn malter for lh. nut: o Pre. Trial Arlument Coull UJ Arlumenl Courl ---------------------------------------------------------------------- CAPTION OF CASE (.nU" caption mUll b. lIal.d In full) SHARON MOWER ANO RANDY MOWER. Husband and Wife ~ .~~ 9 " I (PlalnUff) ';'h '", ~;.l 01'1 r .~. ':l . VI. 1"- ,.J... ~;,' - VIRGINrA E. HALL. M.D. and ii; ',' C> .~ POL YCLlNIC MED ICAL CENTER ":>- i':0!\ '.,.." ,-. j;. :1: '..) ;j~ , :1'-1 - - (Def.ndanl) rl,. .. -',-t, r VI. .,', Cl :9. No. Civil 96-2400 19~ I. Sial. mlltlllo b. ar....d (I. ... plalntlffl motion for n.w trial, def.ndanl'l d.murrer 10 complalnl, .Ic.): Defendant's Prel iminary Objections 2. Id.nUfy couns.1 who willalgu. cast: (a) for plllnllff: Carolyn M. Anner. Esq. (b) ford.r.ndanl: Leigh A.J. Ellis. ESQ. 3. I will notify all partin In wrltln~ wilhln Iwo days thallhls else has betn IIsl.d for arlum.nt. _ . ,. ) Dal.d: 6/10/96 '1; ~ (lC) I;: - I~ .. 1 , , N (' ~ f". J{: t. f.,J~. "- 'j:) ~r N ,;,~ <.l. - ~l~ I{' cr.: ' ~., I}~ F; o:i ~ ~ .0 ct' d " t Q) ~ - ~. N I.!'~ A~ $.~ :r.: t... "f .\- ,- C' " '... fJ. N -'{1 ',. c, - "I~ ~, I .,.. c;o,. ~ "'5 ~!. 0.; ~ ~ ~ 4. Admitted in part and denied in part. At the time of the pertinent events Plaintiff, Sharon Mower, was treated at Polyclinic Medical Center located at 2601 North Third Street, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennoy1v~nia. Currently, Pinnacle Health Hospital is the legal successor in interest to Polyclinic Medical Center. 5-7. The averments contained in paragraphs 5 through 7 of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint do not apply to the responding Defendant and no answer is required. B. The averments contained in paragraph B of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint are generally denied pursuant to Rule 1029 (e) of the Pa. R. C . P . 9. The averments contained in paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint do not apply to the responding Defendant and no answer is required. 10-32. The averments contained in paragraphs 10 through 32 of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint are generally denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pa.R.C.p. 33. The averments contained in paragraph 33 of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint set fort~ conclusions as opposed to atatements of fact and no response is required. Nevertheless, said averments are denied and proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. Furthermox'e, at all times relevant hereto, Polyclinic Med.ical Center and its agents, servants and employees acted in accordance with the required standards of care and did not cause Plaintiffs' alleged injuries. ~OUNT I SHARON KOWlM V. VIRGINIA B. HALL. H.D. 34-51. The averments contained in paragraphs 34 through 51 of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint do not pertain to the responding Defendant and no answer is required. Inasmuch as references are made to agents, servants and employees of Polyclinic Medical Center, said averments are denied and proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WKBRB'ORB, the x'esponding Defendant demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs. COUNT II, SHARON HOWlR V. POLYCLINIC MBDICAL CBNTBR 52. The averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 51 of the Answer with New Matte>: to Plaintiffs' ~'irst Amended Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 53. Denied. Dr. Hall and other physicians that cared for Ms. Mower at the time of the pertinent events were not agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant Polyclinic MedJ.cal Center. It is further denied that Dr. Hall and other physicians that treated Sharon Mower were acting while in and upon the business of said Defendant, and while in the course and scope of their employment with said Defendant. 54. The averments contained in paragraph 54 of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint set forth conclusions as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. Nevertheless, said averments are denied and proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. Furthermore, at all times relevant hereto, Polyclinic Medical Center and its agents, servants and employees acted in accordance with the required standards of care and did not cause Plaintiffs' alleged injuries. 55-68. The averments contained in paragraphs 55 through 66 of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint set forth conclusions as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. Nevertheless, said averments are denied and proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. Furthermore, at all times relevant hereto, P.olyc1inic Medical Center and its agents, servants and employees acted in accordance with the required standards of care and did not cause Plaintiffs' alleged injuries. WHIRl PORI , the responding Defendant demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs. COUNT III INPORMID CONSINT AGAINST VIRGINIA I. HALL. M.D. 69-72. The averments contained in paragraphs 69 through 72 of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint do not pertain to the responding Defendant and no answer is required. WHIRIPORI. the responding Defendant demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs. COUNT IV PUNITIVI DAMAGIS 73-75. The averments contained in puagraphs 73 through 75 of Plaintiffs' First Amended complaint do not pertain to the responding Defendant and no answer is required. WHIRIPORI. the responding Defendant demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs. COtlNT V JAHgY MOWJR V. VIRGINIA I. HALL. M.D. AND POLYCLINIC MIDICAL CINTIR 76. The averments contained in paragraphs 1 through 75 of this Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs' First Amended complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 77-79. The averments contained in paragraphs 77 through 79 of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint set forth conclusions as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. Nevertheless, said averments are denied and proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial, Furthermore, at all times relevant hereto, Polyclinic Medical Center and its agents, servants and employees acted in accordance with the required standards of care and did not cause Plaintiffs' alleged injuries. WHIRl PORI , the responding Defendant demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs. !IBM MATTIR By way of further response to the allegations contained in Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, the responding Defendant hereby raises the following New Matter pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1031: 80. All care and treatment rendered to plaintiff, Sharon Mower, by responding Defendant and its agents, servants and employees was appropriate, reasonable, and within the required standards of medical care and did not cause Plaintiffs' alleged injuries. 81. Plaintiffs' Firet Amended Complaint fails to state a cause of action on which relief can be granted. 82. To the extent that the evidence may show that other persons, partnerships, corporations, or other legal entities caused or contributed to the injuries and/or the exacerbation of the pre-existing conditions of Plaintiff, Sharon Mower, as alleged, then the conduct of responding Defendant was not the proximate cause of such condition~ or inj uries. 83. Injuries and damages, if any, sustained by the Plaintiffs as averred in the First Amended Complaint were caused in whole or in part by persons or entities ovsr whom responding Defendant had no duty to supervise or control; and therefore, the responding Defendant is not liable and Plaintiffs may not recover against it. 84. Dr. Hall and other nameless physicians nebulously referred to in Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint were not agents, servants and employees, either actual or apparent, of Polyclinic Medical Center at the time of the pertinent events. 85. Plaintiffs' injuries and losses, if any, were not caused by the conduct or negligence of the responding Defendant, but rather were caused by medical conditions and causes beyond the control of the responding Defendant; therefore, Plaintiffs may not recover against it. 86. Any acts or omissions of the responding Defendant alleged to constitute negligence were not substantial contributing factors to the injuries and damages alleged in Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. 8? The acts or omissions of others and not responding Defendant consti tute" intervening and/or superseding causes of the injuries and/or damages alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiffs and e.1 I i I .1 VERIFICATION I, Mark Van Blargan, Esquire, have read the foregoing ANSw.a WITH NJlW. MATTIlR TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMIlNDID COMPLAINT, which has been drafted by counsel for Pinnacle Health Hospitals, the legal successor in interest to Polyclinic Medical Center. The factual statements contained therein are known by me and are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, i.nformation and belief. This statement and verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 5'a. C. S.A. 94904 rerlating to UllilWOl'n falsification to authorities, which provides that, if I knowingly make false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. Esquire Date: L\~,\ \ u . 83. D.:nir:d. Th.: awrmelll containcd in Parugmph Il~ of D.:fendants' N.:w Mult.:r represents u conclusion of law to which a rcsponse is not required. Howev.:r. if' it were judlciully dehmninedlhut 1\ respollse were required, the avennenl is specificully denied. with strict proof' thereof dcmunded lit the limc of trial. 84. Denir:d. The averment cOlllained in Pamgmph 84 of' Def'endants' New Maller represenls a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. However. if' it were judicially determined thaI a response were required. the averment is specifically denied, with strict proof' thereof demandcd OIl Ihe time of lrial. 85. Denied. The avermel1l conlained in Paragraph 85 of Def'endants' New Maller represents a conc1usionof' law and f'act to which a respons.: is not required. However, if'it were judicially determin.:d that a response w.:re required, Ihe ;\Vermenl is specifkally denied, with strict proof' thereof' demanded at Ihe time of Irial. 86. Denied. The av.:rment COnlained in Paragmph 86 of' D.:f'.:ndanls' New Maller represenls a conclusion of law and fact to which a response is not r.:quir.:d. However. if it were judicially determined Ihat a response were required, Ihe avermcnt is specifically denied, with strict proof' thereof' demanded at the time of trial. 87. Denied. The averment conwined in Paragraph 87 of' Defendanls' New Maller represenls a conclusion of law and fact to which a response is nOI required. However. if it were judicially determined that a response were required, the averment is specifically denied, with strict proof thereof demanded at Ihe time of Irial. 88. Denied. The averment contuined in I'urugruph 88 of Defendanls' New Maller represents II conclusion of law und fact to which u response is nol re(juired. However. if it were judicially delermined Ihut a response were re(juired. the uvermenl is specificully denied. wilh slrict proof thereof demumled ut the time of trial. 89. Denied. The averment contuined in I'uragraph H<J of Defendants' New MUlier represents a conclusion of law ,lI1d fact to which a response is nOl re(juired. However. if it were judicially determined that u response were re(juired. the uverment is specifically denied. with strict proof thereof demanded atth,~ time of trial. 90. Denied. This is an incorrecl conclusion of luw. 42 I'u. C.S.A. * 5524. relating to actions thaI must hc cOll1lnenced within two years include hut is not limited 10 "An action to recover damages for injuries to the person or for the death of an individual caused by the wrongful act or neglect or unlawful violem;e or negligem;e of anolher". The incident in this case occurred on or ahout Decemher 5. 1994. and the action was filed on May 15. 1996 and is therefore clearly within the mandates of * 5524 of the Acl. Should any allegation therein be deemed factual in nature, said allegations are specifically denied. 91. Denied. The averment contained in I'aragruph 91 of Defendants' New Maller represents a conclusion of law and fact 10 which a response is not re(juired. However, if it were judicially determined that a response were required. thc averment is spccifically denicd, with strict proof thercof dcmandcd at the timc of triul. I I -- (">. 0 o. h: , ~!.:. .u .' i~l, ,-'; ; ~ r: ,.... r .... ;'L. ~I:' ... ,i....j J, .I':;;j pi r- 'I _1'1. . OJ ':'~ 0::'" :;.:' ",;,} . t-:'; ,II.\.. .,!: ., ," I U (Jl ,~ I, I LEIGH A.J. ELLIS' ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: Lei9h A.J. Ellis Identification No. 53229 Lee A. ciccarelli Identification No. 56115 1850 William Penn Way suite 209 P.O. Box 10696 Lancaster, PA 17605-0696 (717) 390-3020 60,572 Attorney. for Defendant: Vir9inia E. Hall, M.D. v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 96-2400 SHARON MOWER AND RANDY MOWER, Husband and Wife VIRGINIA E. HALL, M.D. AND and POLYCLINIC MEDICAL CENTER TWELVE JURORS DEMANDED PRILIMINARY OBJICTIONS O. DI.INDANT, VIRGINIA I. HALL, M.D. ~lQ_fliADrU..S I .IRST AMBNDIlD COMPLAINT AND NOW COMES the Defendant, Vir9inia E. Hall, M.D., by and throu9h her attorneys, LEIGH A.J. ELLIS' ASSOCIATES, P.C., in support of her Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint avers as follows: 1. This is a medical negligence and informed consent action in which Plaintiffs allege improper treatment, and lack of informed consent in connection with a diagnostic hysteroscopy, fractional D'C, division of the uteral sacral ligaments, and laparoscopy with left ovarian cystectomy. (see Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit "A".) 2. Plaintiffs allege that during the procedure, Defendant, Hall's corson needle stimulated the iliac nerve causing Defendant, Hall's hand to be moved by the Plaintiff's nerve reaction, causing an arterial "bleeder". NJ."'I"L_...,.,... 11II"".11 11m "1(IUIIl (i) , I /,1' 1',' , " " " , , ,r~ '.', , I , , ,', I I I I;.' , f" , j. I i~. , , " , , ", , I I " , , ! I, " " " " i, ! >I, \ Exhibit A . "'",'if' ,i..' :'I> " ('}'~,'"I \ 'J I I :" I' ,I . , 'Ii' engaged in the practice of medicine, with a subspecialty in obstetrics and gynecology. 4. Defendant Polycl ir,ic Medica 1 Center, Defendant herein (hereinafter' referred to af.J "Deblndanl' Polyclinic"), iB a non. profit corporation, chartered and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a principal place of business at. 2601 North Third Street, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 5. Medical recol'ds indicate that plaintiff Sharon Mower treated with Defendant. Hall since 1993. 6. Plaintiff sharon Mower presented herself to Defendant Hall on numerous occasions with problems related to infertility. 7. Medical records indicate that plaintiff Sharon Mower was treating with Defendant Hall for irregular bleedi.ng, as well as infertility since 1993. 8. Medical records indicate that a pelvic sonogram done on November 25, 1994 at. Polyclinic Medical Center showed a 17 millimeter endometrial echo in the uterus, and a 2.5 times 3.5 centimeter cystic mass in the left ovary. 9. Medical records indicate that Defendant Hall recommended a hysteroscopy with a fractional D&C for an excision of the ovarian mass. 10. On or about December 5, 1994, Plaintiff Sharon Mower ent.~red Polyclinic Medical Center for a diagnostic hysteroscopy, fractional D&C, division of the uteral sacral ligaments, and laparoscopy with left ovarian cystectomy. 2 11. Plaintiff Sharon Mower was to undergo thliSO procedures on the out-patient service of tho hospital. 12. During the course of these proc,dures, Defendant Hall's corson needle stimulated thei liac lwrve of Plaintiff sharon Mower's leg. 13. The stimulation of the nerve caused Plaintiff Sharon Mower's leg to move. 14. Defendant Hall's hand was moved by this nerve reaction. 15. Medical records indicate that "patient's leg jumped at this point, and it was quite apparent that we had an arterial bleeder" . 16. Medical records indicate that there was perforation of the iliac artery by contact with the activated electrical needle. 17. Defendant Hall placed a small stitch during the laparotomy to control the bleeding. 18. Medical records indicate that it was a "good sized bleeder" . 19. Medical records indicate that Defendant Hall had to remove the left fallopian tube, as it had twisted itself during the suturing of the "good-sized bleeder". 20. Medical records indicate that Defendant Hall delayed Plaintiff Sharon Mower's discharge home because of complaints of pain, inability to void and light-headedness. 3 21. Medical records indicate that, that evening, Plaintiff Sharon Mower continued tv complain of light -headedness and an inability to void. 22. Medical records indicate that that evening, on December 5, 1994, plaintiff Sharon Mower's pulse increased to 130 to 140, and her blood pressure decreased. 23. Medical records indicat.e that on or about December 6, 1994, at approximately 12:30 a.m., Defendant Hall called Dr. Orecchia, a vascular surgeon. 24. Medical records indicate that Dr. Orecchia performed a repeat emergency laparotomy. 25. Medical records indicate that Dr. Orecchia found bleeding at the mid-external iliac artery in two areas. 26. Medical records indicate that Dr. Orecchia found a 2 centimeter area of damage caused by the earlier electrocaudery, and a 1 centimeter defect in the interior wall of the artery. 27. Medical records indicate that Dr. Orecchia placed a 6 millimeter gortex graft to secure the two sites that had been damaged by the cautery. 28. Medical records indicate that during the course of the surgery, plaintiff Sharon Mower's left ovary had to be removed, due to the positioning of the arterial damage. 29. Medical records indicate that Plaintiff Sharon Mower was moved to the intensive care unit at Polyclinic Medical Center. 4 30. Medical records indicate ['.hat Plaint iff Sharon Mower had severe respiratory problems following this surgery. 31. Medical. recor.ds indicate that. Plaint i fE Sharon Mower had gastrointest inal complications following the surgery. 32. Medical records indicate that on or about December 14, 1994, Plaintiff Sharon Mower was discharged home. 33. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants and their agents, servants and/or employees in the care and treatment provided, Plaintiff Sharon Mower, as described above and more particularly hereinafter, suffered severe and disabling injuries, which will be described in full hereinafter. COUNT I SHARON MOWER V. VIRGINIA E. HALL. 1:L.Q... 34. Plaintiff incorporat.es by reference and makes a part of this count, Paragraphs 1- 33 of this complaint as if fully set forth. 35. At all times relevant :0 the matters set forth in this complaint, the physicians, nurses, and other personnel who cared for and treated Plaintiff Sharon Mower while she was a patient of Defendant Hall, were agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant Hall and were acting while in and upon the business of said Defendant, and while in the course and scope of their employment with said Defendant. 5 36. Def"mdant Hall and/or her agents, F,Iervants and/or. employees were negligent and/or careless in all of the following particulars: (a) Improper use of the electrocaudery technique by inaccurate use; (b) Apparent inattent ion to the anatomy causing the inadvertent electro-stimulation of the iliac nerve during the procedure; (c) Causing a 3 centim.etel:" area of damage to the iliac artery; (d) In fai 1 ing to recognize the extent of the damage to the iliac artery; (e) In failing to contact a vascular surgeon for immediate consult; (f) In placing a small stitch during. the laparotomy procedure in light of a "good-size bleeder"; (g) In fai ling to appropr iately suture and thus necessitating the removal of the left fallopian tube; (h) In creating a complication that caused the left ovary to be removed; (i) In increasing the bleeding from the hilum due to improper suturing; (j) In causing plaint iff sharon Mower to lose high volumes of blood; 6 (k) In placing Plaintiff sharon Mower at dsk from these multiple blood transfusions for blood borne diseases; (1) In failing to recognize a complication of damaging the iliac artery; (m) In failing to adequately monitor Plaintiff sharon Mower during the evening hours of December 5, 1994 and during the early hours of December 6, 1994; (n) In failing to adequately monitor Plaintiff Sharon Mower during the post-operative period; (0) In failing to recognize a major vascular incident; (p) In causing damage to the artery in two areas; (q) In perforating the iliac artery due to slicing it with an activated electrical needle; (r) In failing to properly identify the injury, which she acknowledged to be arterial; (s) In treating an arterial injury; (t) In failing to demonstrate any ability to control a complication that she produced; (u) In failing to possess and employ the appropriate and required level of skill and knowledge and performance below the standard of care for a gynecologist; (v) In employing inappropriate and/or inadequate methods, techniques and procedures in the care and treatment of Plaintiff Sharon Mower; and 7 (w) In faiUng to perform propel' and/or adequate examination of Plaintiff Sh,n'on Mower. 37. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carfllessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employef.!s, Plaintiff Sharon Mower suffers from scarring of the abdomen. 38. As a further result of the negligence and carel.essness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/ot' employees, Plaint if f Sharon Mower currently suffers from pain and numbness along her foot and leg. 39. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, plaintiff Sharon Mower suffers from chronic intermittent constipation. 40. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower suffers from infertility. 41. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mowar was forced to endure grpat pain, suf fering and inconvenience, and she will suffer the same in the future. 42. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servant s and/or employees, Plaint iff Sharon Mower has been, and probably wi 11 be in the future, hindered from attending to her usual occupation and dally activities, to great detriment, loss, humiliation and embarrilssment, 8 43. As a further t'esult of the negli'lQnce and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agentfJ, servants and/or employees, Plaint iff Sharon Mower has suttered a loss of life's pleasu~eB and probably will continue to suffer' the same in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 44. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, Plaint if f Sharon Mower has undergone a loss of life's pleasures, due to her infertility, and probably continue to endure the same i.n the future. 45. As a further resul t of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agente, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower has unde~gone great physical pain, discomfort, embarrassment and mental anguish, and will she will continue to endure the same for an indefinite period of time in the future, causing her physical, emotional and financial detriment and loss. 46. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, plaintiff Sharon Mower was for.ced to submit to medical, medicinal, surgical and therapeutic treatment and she will be forced to submit to the same in the future. 47. As a further resul t of the negl igence and carelessne.ss of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintif f Sharon Mower's health in general has been seriously and permanent.ly impaired. 9 48. As a further result of the negl igence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, I'laintiff Sharon'Mower has suffered lost wages and she will suffer a future loss of earnings and earning capacity, and thus makes a claim therefore. 49. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employee,S, Plaintiff Sharon Mower has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to extend large sums of money for medicine, medical and surgical attention and treatment, and she will be required to extend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 50. As a further resul t of the negl igence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower w...ll be compelled to be blood tested for such infectious conditions as HIV and hepatitis, due to the high volume of blood loss. 51. As a further resul t of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Hall and her agents, .servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower will be compelled to undergo duplex scans on her graft on a yearly hasis. 10 (d) In failing to oversee illld/or super'vise surgeons, dentists, physicians and/or nursing personnel properly and adequately; and (e) In failing to fJel,~ct dlld retain only competent physicians. 55. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and .its agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff sharon Mower. suffers from scarring of the abdomen. 56. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and its agents, servants and/or employees, plaintiff Sharon Mower currently suffers from pain and numbness along her foot and leg. 57. As a further result of the negligence and carelessnesB of Defendant Polyclinic and its agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower suffers from chronic intermittent constipation. 58. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and its agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower suffers from infertility. 59. As a further result of the negligence ar.d carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and its agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower was forced to endure great pain, suffering and inconvenience, and she will suffer the same in the future. 12 plaintiff Sharon Mower's health in gener-ill hils been seriously and permanently impaired. 65. As a furthet. result. of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Pol ycl inic and its agellUl, servantB and/or employees, plaintiff Sharon Mower has suffered lost. wages and she will suffer a future loss of earnings and earning capacity, and thus makes a claim therefore. 66. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and its agents, servants and/or employees, plaintiff Sharon Mower has been compelled, in order to effect a cure for the aforesaid injuries, to extend large sums of money for medicine, medical and surgical attention and treatment, and she will be required to extend large sums of money for the same purposes in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 67. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and its agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower will be compelled to be blood tested for such infectious conditions as HIV and hepat.itis, due to the high volume of blood loss. 68. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendant Polyclinic and its agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Sharon Mower will be compelled to undergo duplex scans on her graft on a yearly basis. 14 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sharon Mower /Il~()kll damaqes from Defendant Polyclinic in an amount in excess of Thll"ty"l'ive Thousand Dc1llars ($35,000), and demands trial by jury. COUNT III ll1FORMED CONSENT AGAINST VIRGINIA E. HAr,L. M.D. 69. plaintiff Sharon Mower incorporates by reference and makes a part of this count, Paragraphs 1-)3 of this complaint as if fully set. 70. Defendant Hall failed to obtain Plaintiff Sharon Mower's informed consent prior to performing the laparoscopy surgery by attempting to "stitch an arterial bleeder" that she caused instead of consulting with a vascular surgeon. '11. Defendant Hall failed to obtain plaintiff Sharon Mower's informed consent prior to performing the surgery of December 5, 1994, by failing to disclose all material facts and the inherent risks and side affects of surgery. 72. The. conduct of Defendant Hall constItuted technical assault and battery on Plaintiff Sharon Mower. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Sharon Mower seeks judgement from Defendant Hall in an amount in excess of Thirty- Fi veThol.lsand Dollars ($15,000.00), and demands trial by jury. 15 ~I...J.Y PUNITIVE DAMAG8S 73. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and makes a part of this count, puragraphs 1,.33 of this compJ.aint as if fully set forth. 74. Plaintiff Sharon Mower believes, and therefore avers, that Defendant Hall's action of severing an artery and attempting to conceal such by repairing the artery constitutes wanton, outrageous behavior and reckless indi ff,erence to the welfare and well-being of Plaintiff Sharon Mower. 75. Plaintiff Sharon Mower believes, and therefore avers, that Defendant Hall's inattention to the second wound that she had created during the laparoscopy by her failure to note, as well as treat this wound properly constitutes wanton and outrageous behavior and reckless indifference to the welfare and well-being of Plaintiff Sharon Mower. WHEREFORE, plaintiff Sharon Mower seeks damages from Defendant Hall in an amount in excess of Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($35,0001, and demands trial by jury. 16 COUNT Y. RANDY MOWER V. VIRGINIA E. HAL].>. M.D. AND POl,'{CLINIC MEDICAL C8NTER 76. plaintiff incorporates by reference and makes a part of this count, Paragraphs 1- 3 3 of this compl.aint as if fully set forth. 77. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendants and their agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Randy Mower has suffered the loss of consor- tium, service, society, and companionship of hie wife, Sharon Mower, and he will suffer similar loss in the future. 78. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendants and their agents, servants and/or employees, Plaintiff Randy Mower has been forced to expend large sums of money for doctors, hospitals and other items necessary for his wife's proper care and treatment, and he will be forced to expend similar sums for like items in the future. 79. As a further result of the negligence and carelessness of Defendants and their agents, servants and/or employees, plaintiff Randy Mower has suffered a loss of life's pleasures due to the infertility of his wife, and he will continue to suffer the same in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 17 ,'., , " " ~ '. . " I I' ,I I, It I' " I.i' 1\' I,' '" HANDLIR AND W'INIA ArrOAN~YI9-AT.LAW P,O, lOX 1177, 318 MARKET STREET HARIIII9IUIIG, P~NNSYLVANIA 1710~ TELI!PHoNE: ,(717) 23HOOO @ ~ ,.,., .. i ., ,.1 'L', '....1. " I pi , " " , , :ruN l' 0 '19986w1' " .1', I ': I " , 1...../-._.... ~.,~-_.,---,......_--- '. ", " ~~ : r" " J, 1".1 I .).,,-. I, ',I 'I t, \ .1 I I , " ," : r '0' ,t" ',.~ .. J~ AI ~'~ I~ ',.n ,'I' "" ~ , ! i ~J 'l . dismissed unlooll tll., 1.lw 1'liIY''! wll h e"l'tainty that no nicovery is possibl.!. ~Cr,1I1L ~,,__<':'\JJllJl.!!JllW'J.lLth :it.lte Emolovees Retirement Board, 47'.1 A.:W. .j(,H IP,1. 1:IH.11. [n the <:;ase at bar, the Plaintiffs havl~ .ll1"..,..d ",'v"J,..l Llet,; in their amended complaint which demonllt r.\t,... I h.., t h.. Ii,:, r '1ndant 'f1 conduct const i tuted wanton indiffoen,'nc(! 1:" Ulo.' w".ll,II" "t Sholl"m Mowel:. Paragraphs 16 and 18 indicate that n'ltl~l1')."l1l' P"II:'":at"d Slvll'on Mower's iliac artery and t.hat it W"Hl .1 "',onr! IIi z,,,1 l,l..,>'.,j,'r." P,lragraphs 17 and 19 indicate that. Defendant did n.,I,' i1l1l1wdiilt,dy contact. a vascular surgeon but unsuccessfully .ttt',,1l1PI"'c1 tu Illltchel' the would herself which renlllted in tll<'l lOfl/J ''.If th." Plaintiff's fallopian tube. Paragraphs 23 throllC/h 28 lndkat.. Ih,lt co V,18clllal' surgeon was not called until December' 6 .'It l~dO ",111. wh<J t.hen p'H'formf.!d an emergency procedure whir.:h t'tlv",,]l..,d .1Iidi,I:l"l1,ll hl,!."dinq in the damaged artery and l"Ji(ld l'''.!d t I", r'1l1l1'Jv.-,l ut ,~nl;ll'on Mower's ovary. Count I of the Am.,nded (":llnp l iI Lnt t II It' h"l ,IV.! 1'1'1 t hat due to Defendant's inattentive op'H'atill'l plnClldlll'''!, Uw Defendant, failed to recognize the extent .llld 8l!l'i()llfJn''Hlll ot 11'"1' ."ITO)', faded to consult with a vascular IlI.lt"IlfOn b"tnu, Pl'oc",'d.inq with the operation, and negligently "tt.tllmptl'td t<i l"l[lc\il: Pldinti[ f' s severed artery which eventually eillll.'llld. a ~""v"n, and dililabling injury. These facts sufficiently pl".~d a caU/J09 llt act ion whh:h constitute an award of punitive dall1il'j61ll. [n tlll'th".!l' I!lUPPO)'t, Con'iqan v. Methodist Hosoital, 869, [-'.1;lIl>p. 1202 (E.D,Pa. 19941 holds that allegations by a patient in ,~ ('oll1pldint in ii mE'Ciical malpractice action that. the physician 3 LEIGH A.J. ELLIS' ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: Leigh A.J. Ellis Identification No. 53229 Lee A. Ciccarelli Identification No. 56115 1850 William Penn Way suite 209 P.O. Box 10696 Lancaster, PA 17605-0696 (717) 390-3020 60,572 At~orneys for Defendant: Virginia E. Hall, M.D. v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 96-2400 SHARON MOWER AND RANDY MOWER, Husband and Wife VIRGINIA E. HALL, M.D. AND and POLYCLINIC MEDICAL CENTER TWELVE JURORS DEMANDED MIa... AIID liD IlATTIUl or DlraNDAIIT, VIRGIIIIA I. HALL, N.D. TO PLAIIlTIrrS I rIRST AMBHOBD COHPLAIJI'l' AND NOW comes the Defendant, Virginia E. Hall, M.D., by and through her attorneys, Lee A. Ciccarelli, Esquire of Leigh A.J. Ellis' Associates, P.C., and files t~is Answer and New to Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint against the Plaintiffs as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in paragraph one (1), and therefore, demands strict proof thereof at trial, if relevant. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in paragraph two (2), and therefore, demands strict proof thereof at trial, if relevant. 3. Admitted. 4. Denied. Aft~r reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in paragrlph four (4), and therefore, demands strict proof thereof at trial, if relevant. 5-33. Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e), the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint are generally denied. strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if relevant. COUMT I 8HAROM NO.B. V. VI.OIHIA B. BALL. N.D. 34. Defendant, Virginia E. Hall, M.D., incorporates herein b1 referenoe the averments contained in paragraphs one (1) through thirty-three (33) of the foregoing Answer as if fully set forth herein. 35. Denied. It is specifically denied that the physicians, nurses, and other porsonnel who cared for and treated the Plaintiff while she was a patient of Defendant, Hall, M.D., were agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant, Hall, M.D., and were acting while in and upon the business of said Defendant, and while in the course and scope of their employment with Baid Defendant. 36(a-w). It is specifically denied that Defendant, Virginia E. Hall, M.D., was negligent and careleBS in any manner in the care and treatment of Plaintiff. All other allegations are denied as conclusions of law. It is specifically denied that Virginia E. Hall, M.D. was negligent in the following respects: (a) Improper use of the electrocautery technique by 2 inaccurate use; (b) Apparent inattention to the anatomy cauBinq the inadvertent electro-stimulaticm of the iliac nerve durinq the procedure; (c) causinq a 3 centimeter area of damaqe to the iliac artery; (d) In failinq to recognize the extent of the damaqe to the iliac artery; (e) In failinq to contact a vascular surqeon for immediate consult; (f) In placinq a small stitch during the laparotomy procedure in light of a "gOOd-size" bleeder"; (g) In failing to appropriately suture and thuB necessitating the removal of the left fallopian tube; (h) In creatinq a complication that caused the left ovary to be removed; (i) In increasing the bleeding from the hilum due to improper suturing; (j) In causinq plaintiff Sharon Mower to lose high volumes of blood; (k) In placinq Sharon Mower at risk from thes. multiple blood transfusions for blood borne diseases; (1) In failinq to recognize a complication of damaging the iliac artery; (m) In failinq to adequately monitor Plaintiff Sharon Mower during the evening hourI of December 5, 1994 and 3 durinq the early hour. ot December 6, 1994; (n) In failing to adequately monitor Plaintiff Sharon Mower during the post-operative period; (0) In failing to recognize a major vascular incident; (p) In causing damage to the artery in two areas; (q) In perforating the iliac artery due to slicing it with an activated electrical needle; (r) In failing to properly identify the injury, which .he acknowledged to be arterial; (I) In treating an arterial injury; (t) In failing to demonstrate any ability to control a complication that she produced; (u) In failing to pOBsess and employ the appropriate and required level of skill and knowledge and performance below the star.dard of care for a gynecologist; (v) In employing inappropriate and/or inadequate methods, techniques and procedures in the care and treatment of Plaintiff Sharon Mower; and, (w) In failing to porform proper and/or adequate examination of Plaintiff Sharon Mower. 37. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant, Hall, M.D., and/or any agent., .ervant and/or employee was negliqent and careless or that any such act or admission by Defendant, Hall, M.D., and/or any agent, servant and employee was the direct and proximate result of any injury Plaintiff may have made claim including scarring of the abdomen. 4 38. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant, Hall, M.D., and/or any agents, .ervant and/or employee was negligent and carele.. or that any such act or admission by Defendant, Hall, M.D., and/or any agent, servant and employee was the direct and proximate re.ult of any injury Plaintiff may have made claim including pain and numbness along her foot and leg. 39. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant, Hall, M.D., and/or any agents, servant and/or employee was negligent and careless or that any such act or admission by Defendant, Hall, M.D., and/or any agent, servant and employee was the direct and proximate result of any injury Plaintiff may have made claim including chronic intermittent constipation. 40. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant, Hall, M.D., and/or any agents, servant and/or employee was negligent and careless or that any such act or admisBion by Defendant, Hall, M.D., and/or any agent, servant and/or employee was the direct and proximate result of any injury Plaintiff may have made claim including infertility. 41. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant, Hall, M.D., or any agent, servant and/or employee acted negligently or carelessly. It is further denied that any act or admission by Defendant Hall, M.D., or any agent, servant and/or employee caused Plaintiff to endure great pain, suffering and inconvenience now and into the future. 42. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Hall, M.D., or any agent, .ervant and/or employee acted negligently or 5 carele..ly. It is furthermore denied that Defendant, Hall, M.D. or any agent, servant and/or employee by their act or admission caused Plaintiff to be hindered in attending to her usual occupation and daily activities. 43. Denied. It is speoifically denied that Defendant, Hall, M.D., and/or any agent, servants and employees acted negligently or carelessly. It is further denied that any act or admission by Defendant, Hall, M.D., and/or any agent, servant and/or employee caused Plaintiff to suffer a loss of life's pleasures now or in the future. 44. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant, Hall, M.D., and/or any agent, servants and employees acted negligently or carelessly. It is further denied that any act or admission by Defendant, Hall, M.D., and/or any agent, servant and/or employee caused Plaintiff to suffer a loss of life's pleasures now or in the future. 45. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant, Hall, M.D., or any agent, servant and/or employee acted negligently or carelessly. It is further denied that any act or admission of Defendant, Hall, M.D., or any agent, servant and/or employee caused Plaintiff to underqo great physical pain, discomfort, embarrassment and mental anguish now and into the future. 46. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant, Hall, M.D., or any agent., servant, and/or employee acted negligently or carelessly. It is further denied that any action 6 or admi..ion by Defendant, Hall, M.D., or any agent, .ervant and/Qr employe. caused Plaintiff to .ubmit to medical, medicinal, .urgical and/or therapeutic treatment now and into the future. 47. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant, Hall, M.D., or any agent, servant, and/or employee acted negligently or carelessly. It i. further denied that any act or admi..ion by Defendant, Hall, M.D., or any agent, servant and/or employee caused a serious and permanent impairment of Plaintiff's health. 48. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant, Hall, M.D., or any agent, servant, and/or employee acted negligently or carelessly. It is opecifically denied that any act or admission by Defendant, Hall, M.D., or any agent, servant and/or employee caused Plaintiff to suffer lost wages now and into the future. 49. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant, Hall, M.D., or any agent, servant, and/or employee acted negligently or carelessly. It is specifically denied that any act or admission by Defendant, Hall, M.D., or any agent, servant ~nd/or employee compelled plaintiff to expend large sums of money for medicine, medical and surgical attention and treatment, now and into the future, for any claimed injury. 50. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant, Hall, M.D., or any agent, servant, and/or employee acted negligently or carelessly. It is specifically denied that any act or admis.ion by Defendant, Hall, M.D., or any agent, .ervant 7 and/or employee compelled Plaintitt to blood tested tor such intectious conditions as HIV and hepatitis. 51. Denied. It is specitically denied that Oetendant, Hall, M.D., or any agent, servant, and/or employee acted negligently or carelessly. It is specitically denied that any act or admis.ion by Oetendant, Hall, M.O" or any agent, servant and/or employee caused Plaintitt to undergo duplex scans on her gratt on a yearly basis. COURT II 8BARON .O.B. V. POLYCLINIC .BDICAL CBNTBR 52. Oetendant, Virginia E. Hall, M.D., incorporates herein by reterence the averments contained in paragraphs one (1) through titty-one (51) ot the foregoing Answer as it tully set forth herein. 53-68. The allegations of paragraphs fifty-three (53) through sixty-eight (68) are not applicable to answering Oetendant. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Virginia E. Hall, M.D., respectfully requests that this Court grant judgment in her favor and against the Plaintiffs on the First Amended Complaint, together with costs, expenses and attornoy's fees. COUNT III I"O".D CO.'.NT AGAIN8T VIRGINIA .. BALL. ..D. 69. Oetendant, Virginia E. Hall, M.D., incorporates herein 8 by reterence the av.rments contained in paragraphe one (1) through .ixty-eight (68) at the toregoing Anewer as it tully eet forth herein. 70. Denied. Plaintitf.' averment ie a legal conclusion to which no re.ponee is required. 71. Denied. It is specitically denied that Detendant, Hall, M.D., tailed to obtain Plaintitt's intormed consent. It is further denied that Defendant, Hall, M.D., tailed to disclose all material facts as w.ll as the inherent risks and side atfects ot surgery. 72. Denied. Plaintiffs' averment is a legal conclusion to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, Detendant, Virginia E. Hall, M.D., respectfully requeete that this Court grant judgment in her favor and against the Plaintiffs on the Complaint, together with costs, expenses and attorney's fees. COUIT IV 'mNITIVI DAMAGII 73-75. Def.ndant, Virginia E. Hall, M.D., is not r.quired to re.pond to Plaintiffs' allegations as a r.sult of the Court Order Itriking Count VI ot Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint. WHEREFORE, D.f.ndant, Virginia E. Hall, M.D., ~espectfully request. that thie Court grant judgment in her favor and against the plaintifts on the Complaint, together with costs, expense. and attorney'. f.... 9 COUll'l' V IAlDY KO." V. VIRGIWIA I. BALL, H.D. AWD POLYCLIWIC .IDICAL CaNTI. 76. Defendant, Virginia E. Hall, M.D., incorporates herein by reference the averments contained in paragraphs one (1) through seventy-five (75) of the foregoing Answer as if fully set forth herein. 77. Denied. The allegations of paragraph seventy-seven (77) are not applicable to answering Defendant, and no response is required. To the extent a response is required, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Hall, M.D., or any other agent, employee and/or servant acted negligently or carelessly or any act or admission of Defendant Hall, M.D. caused Plaintiff, Randy Mower to suffer loss of consortium, services, society and companionship of his wife now and into the future. 78. Denied. The allegations of paragraph seventy-eight (78) are not applicable to answering Defendant, and no response i. required. To the extent a response is required, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Hall, M.D., or any other agent, employee and/or servant acted negligently or carelessly or any act or admission of Defendant Hall, M.D. caused Plaintiff, Randy Mower to expend large sums of money for doctors, hospitals and other items necessary for hi. wife's proper care and treatment now and into the future. 79. Denied. The allegations of paragraph seventy-nine (79) are not applicable to answering Defendant, and no response is 10 required. To the extent a response is required, it is specifically denied that Defendant, Hall, M.D., or any other agent, employee and/or servant acted negligently or carelessly or any act or admission of Defendant Hall, M.D. caused Plaintiff, Randy Mower to suffer a loss of life's pleasures due to any condition of his wife. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Virginia E. Hall, M.D., respectfully requests that this Court grant judgment in her favor and against the Plaintiffs on the Complaint, together with costs, expens~s and attorney's fees. HEW MATT.. 80. Defendant, Virginia E. Hall, M.D., hereby raises the following New Matter pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1026, 1030, and 1032. 81. Whatever injuries and damages, if any, were sustained by the plaintiffs as averred in Plaintiffs' First Amended Co.plaint, were caused in whole or in part or were contributed to the conditions beyond the control of Answering Defendant. 82. Whatever injuries and damages, if any, were sustained by the Plaintiffs, as averred in the First Amended Complaint, were or may have been caused in whole or in part or were contributed to by the Plaintiff's pre-existing medical condition. 83. The plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon whioh relief can be granted. 84. The applicable statute of limitations has expired before the institution of the action. 11 85. Answering Defendant was not negligent, not did .he engage in any liability producing conduct at any time relevant to the cau.e of action alleged by the Plaintiffs. 86. Acts or omis.ions of An.wering Defendant alleged to con.titut. negligence were nqt sub.tantial cause. or factors of the .ubject incident nor did they re.ult in the injuries or lo..e. alleged by the Plaintiffs. 87. Negligent acts or omi.sions or other liability producing conduct of other individuals, persons, or entities constitute an intervening, superseding causes of the damages or injuries alleged to have been sustained by the Plaintiffs. 88. Incidents, injuries, and damages alleged to have been .u.tained by the Plaintiffs were not proximately caused by Answering Defendant. 89. Pennsylvania Rule of civil Procedure 238 is unconstitutional on its face and as applied herein. 90. Answering Defendant hereby raises all affirmative defense. of the Health Care Service. Malpractice Act of 1975, as amended, including but not limited to section 602 and section 606. 91. Plaintiffs may have entered into a release which pertain. to the instant allegations and its existence is affirmatively pled. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Virginia E. Hall, M.D., denies any and all liability to any party within litigation and demand. that the 12 'pt.- l- I' I \ I I I II) - . , '- I i (, IUI .' I , , ". L_ " t .1, , I. , ,. i I I , ," I <. ; I, .' " " I (,) \,;1/ ," liP*" LEIGH A.J. ELLIS & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: Leigh A.J. Ellis Identification No. 53229 Lee A. Ciccarelli Identification No. 56115 1850 william Penn Way suite 209 P.O. Box 10696 Lancaster, PA 17605-0696 (717) 390-3020 60,572 Attorneys for Defendant I Virginia E. Hall, M.D. SHARON MOWER AND RANDY MOWER, Husband and Wife v. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 96-2400 VIRGINIA E. HALL, M.D. AND and POLYCLINIC MEDICAL CENTER TWELVE JURORS DEMANDED BRII' 0' DI'BNDANT, VIRGINIA I. HALL, M.D. IN SUPPORT 0' PRILIMINARY OBJICTIONS TO PLAINTI"S' PIRST AKINDID COMPLAINT I. PACTS AND PROCIDURAL HISTORYr The instant case is a medical malpractice action in which Plaintiffs allege deficient care in connection with a diagnostic hysteroscopy, fractional D&C, division of the uteral sacral ligaments, and laparoscopy with left ovaJ;'ian cystectomy. Plaintiffs allege that during the course of these procedures Defendant Hall's corson needle stimulated the iliac nerve of Plaintiff's leg causing said leg to move. The reaction caused Defendant Hall's hand to move, causing an arterial "bleeder". Plaintiffs further allege that Defendant Hall failed to immediately seek a vascular surgeon or properly monitor the Plaintiff post-operative. This brief is offered in support of the Preliminary Objections Defendant, Virginia E. Hall, M.D. I n. lI.UlI A. nlTRIR PLAIllTlFrs' FlR.T U'NDID. COMPLAIIlT 'AIL' TO PLBAD 8U"ICIIHT FACT' IH ORD'R TO 'UPPORT A CLAIM 'OR IXIKPLARY DANAGI.? (Suggested answer in the affirmative.) III. ARGUKINTI A. PLAIIlTI"S' 'IRST AMIll'DBP COMPLAINT 'AILS TO PLBAD SUFFICIBNT 'ACTS IN ORDBR TO STATI A CLAIH FOR IXBNPLARY DAMAGI.. The law regarding claims for punitive damages is well established. "Punitive damages are awarded only for conduct that is espllcially egregious or outrageous." Martin v. Johns Manville corp., 508 Pa. 154, 170, 494 A.2d 1088, 1096-97 (1985). Thus, a Court may not award punitive damages merely because a tort has been committed. Additional evidence must demonstrate willful, malicious, wanton, reckless, or oppressive conduct. pittsburah outdoor Advertisina Comoanv v. Virainia Manor Aoartments, 436 Pa. 350, 353, 260 A.2d 801, 803 (1970). One must look for the act itself together with all circumstances, including the motive of the wrongdoer and relations between the parties. Chambers v. Montaomory, 411 Pa. 339, 344-45, 192 A.2d 355 (1963). Additionally, "the state of the mind of the actor is vital. The act, or failure to act, must be intentional, reckless, or malicious." Feld v. Merriam, 506 Pa. 383, 485 A.2d 742, 748 (1984) . The case law regarding punitive damages is undisputed and clear. Most recently, the supreme Court of Pennsylvania has reiterated the exacting standards for a plaintiff to prevail on punitive damages. specifically: . The assessment of punitive damages are proper when a person's aotions are of such an outrageous nature as to demonstrate intentional, willful, wanton, or reckless conduct..., and ar~ awarded to punish that person for such conduct. SHV Coal. Inc. v. Continental Grain co., Pa. 587 A.2d 702 (1991). The SHV Coal Court cited in support of their posJ.tion flllsl v. Merriam, 506 Pa. 383, 485 A.2d 742 (1984) where they adopted section 908(2) of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, that states in pertinent part: (2) Punitive damages may be awarded for conduct that is outrageous, because of the defendant's evil motive, or his reckless iogifferenoe to the riqhts of others. In assessing punitive damages, the trier of fact can probably consider the character of the defendant's act, the nature and extent of the harm to the plaintiff, that the defendant caused or intended to cause and the wealth of the defendant. (Emphasis added in case cite). Punitive damages are not justified where the defendant's mental state rises to no more than gross negligence. ThomaD-YL American cvstoscoDe Makers. Inc.. 414 F. Supp. 255, 257 (E.D. Pa. 1976) . Appellate courts in the Commonwealth are in accord with the above standard. Only the outrageous defendant with evil motive, who acts in reckless indifference to the rights of others should be held before a jury on the issue of punitive damages. Rizzo v. MiChener, __ Pa. Super. __, 584 A.2d 973 (1990); Hess v. H~, 397 Pa. Super. 395,580 A.2d 357 (1990). Further, the Superior Court has held that even though a high degree of physical harm could occur to the plaintiff as a result of the defendant's conduct, if the defendant did not realize it, even though a reasonable man would, a claim for the punitive I damages should fail. Feld v. PhiladelDhia Electric ComDanv, 388 Pa. super. 400, 565 A.2d 1170 (1989)/ see also McDaniel v. Merck. SharD. Dohme, 367 Pa. Super. 600, 533 A.2d 436 (1987). Although Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint uses the language "wanton, outrageous behavior and reckless indifference to the welfare and well-being of Plaintiff" to describe Defendant Hall's conduct, there are no facts pled sufficient to support such a claim. There are no averments indicating that any conduct on the behalf of the Defendant was intentional or demonstrated evil motive in allegedly severing and repairing an artery during the procedure in question. "Buzz words" are insufficient to support any claim for exemplary damages. IV. CONCLU8IONI For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully requested that all claims for punitive damages be dismissed, with prejudiced. ReBpectfu~ly submitted, By: ~)EL LEIGH A.J. ELLIS LEE A. CICCARELLI Attorneys for Defendant, Virginia E. Hall, M.D. ATES, P.C. SHARON MOWER and RANDY MOWER, husband and wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COliRT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACfION - LAW 96-2400 VIRGINIA E, HAll., M.D. and POLYCLINIC MEDICAL CENTER, a corporation Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL ORDER AND NOW, this (,' day of December, 1996, this mailer having been previously set for hearing, it is ordered and directcd that the defendants pay to the plaintiffs the sum of $185.00 as counsel fees and expenses allendantto the cancellation of a deposition which was the subject of this motion. BY THE COURT, Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire For the Plaintiffs -::h: ~/! f!- / leigh A. J. Ellis, Esquire For Defendant Hall . ~ '))1<.8..1. IL-' _Ii' J."- Joseph P. Hafer, Esquire ..or Defendant Polyclinic :rlm II,W' " ''.I r ,," r~,,"--:' ./,.,., , ,.., "'l( ',::-j\ r " "~I' r1' " ... I'" ( j: ,:: nE 1,,,,,',' 1',':",.1\.'1,' , , " -, ,I ,,' I I I I i I I I I I SHARON MOWER and RANDY MOWER. hushand Imd wife. Plllintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW 'i6-2400 VIRGINIA E. HALL. M.D. and POLYCLINIC MEDICAL CENTER, a enrpurlltioll Defendanls JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE; PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL ORDER AND NOW, this 1"'-' T day uf Deeemher, 1'1'16, our order uf Decemher 6, 1'1'16, is modified to provide that the p"ymentthercin directed shall he made hy the defendant, Virginia E,Hall,M.D. BY THE COURT, .,4;..L Cllmlyn M. Anner, Esquire For the Plaintiffs Leigh A. J. Ellis, Esquire For Defendant HIIII Joseph p, Hafer, Esquire For Defendant Polyclinic :rlm <:.~~ (l'..."'.:t....,.I.. 1;'/1'11/%. .,g'f' , ., , lr. -,.. " , C1' ~ t;.: I~ ' . ('" ~l' ( r . ." ~, ~) ::c ..J:.~ ;ij u.. r.):~ -,.:- " .3 . .. f/~ I. I).. N ;;J~ 11' 0-: r.l) . r iE ~ r" ~ ~ a:l Cl'I " " ' - c-J is tT; u"l ~~ , .. 1"., . ~ f. ' v" ~..-' ..1.. I~ 0, I) :' -'I ) ~. , , ' ...... .-'71 ~\~. (.;1 -' ;" \.1_11 I , ,1':1 , , .;.:. '-'.' N \~ '..'.. I ....' U. r;:: :"'j >.J ~', U 'I ,', " " ~ Cl t ~!; . Q '~", ~.j _'T" ~~t; f,..J..1 :C ( . J : ~:J f!i"l' 0- ':) ;ci ~k .3 '" (.j I' C'I . I.. 'Ii"'" ~I.) o=! ",I'Q I.'.: O?, ~L1, .. ll. C"J ,oJ U 0' (.) a: w z w 8 ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ '" u 0 III - N - ( , ;; z ~ . . ~ . 0 >( ~ ~ ~ ! ' ,. Q: ~ 0 , ~ W en l1. - " - '- oJ '" ~ 0 x Z >( I: ",.. .,... .~. "":, " , . i r ..............-.., ~.....- '7 ,. ",t " I' SHARON MOWER end RANDY MOWER. HUlb.nd and Wife. :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plelntlff. CIVIL ACTION - LAW ':'f ", .1), 'I" 'I f , ':~ Y. VIRGINIA E. HALL. M.D.. end POLYCLINIC MEDICAL CENTER. e corporetlon, : No. 96-2400 Defendente : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I'" ) On this 24th day of July, 1998, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy I,,:;,j "11 .' t .,1 I ~iI 1\'1:: ,1 , of the Notice of Deposition of Patricia Seeley, R.N., Steven Welty, R.N., Crystal Mace, R.N. and Carol Talllck, R. N. was served upon the following counsel of record by depositing same In the United States Mall, postage prepaid, regular service, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Joseph P. Hafer, Esqulra THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER 306 North Front Street - 6lh Floor POBox 999 Harrisburg PA 17108-0999 Lauralee Baker, Esquire 101 Pine Street Harrisburg PA 17101 i' 'I 'Ii \; HANDLER AND WIENER , I. (. I f1' \ (,. (-t', C41-\ E. Green, Secretary EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: MECBANICSBURG FAMILY PRACfICE 122 S. FILBERT STREET MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 RE: 87280 SHARON MOWER Any and all records, correspondence, files and memorandums, handwrillen notes, original X-Rays, bilhng and payment records, relating to any examination. consullation, care or treatment. D.tes Requested: up to .nd Including the present. SubJect: SHARON MOWER 5U8 EATON PlACE, MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 Sod.1 Security II: 169.60.3504 D.1e ofBlrth: 01.14.63 " 5U10-179092 e 7 280 - LO 1 >>> ~OCATtON ~tST <<< PAGI, RECORDS REQUESTED MEDICAL, 8ILLING, AND X-RAVeS) MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL 8I~~ MEDICAL, 8ILLING, AND X-RAVeS) MEDICAL. BILLING, AND X-RAVeS) MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL BI~~ INStIRAIICE I NStIRAIICE MEDICAL, BILLING, AND X-RAVeS) MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL BI~~ MEDICAL, BILLXNG, AND X-RAVeS) MEDICAL, BILLING, AND X-RAVeS) MEDICAL, BILLING, AND X-RAVeS) MEDICAL, BILLING, AND X-RAVeS) MEDICAL, 8ILLING, AND X-RAVeS) X-RAV ONLV X-RAY ONLY MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL BJL~ X-RAY ONLY X-RAV ONLV MEDICAL, BI~LING, AND X-RAVeS) ~OCATION NAME MECHANICS8URG FAMILV PRACTIC! SEIDLE KEHORIAL HOSPITAL - PHVSICIANS POR WOMEN HEALTH LARRV SOLL!N8EIGIR, HD PINNACLE HEALTH AT HARRISBURG BLUE CROSS 8LUE SHIELD or PA CARLIS~E ARMY BARRACKS COHHUNITY GEN OSTEOPATHIC HOSP PAULINE WALLIN, PH.D. TODD L. SAHUE~S. H.D. DR ALBERT W HECK PIRSTP~ACE HEALTH CENTER GRAHAM MEDICAL CLINIC PINNAC~E HEALTH AT HARRISBURG SEID~I MEMORIAL HOSPITAL - HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL COHHUNITY GENERAL OSTF.OPATHIC APPLI-A-DAV MEDICAL CENTER 0102-086262 07280 -co 1 1 1 EXPlANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: LARRY SOLLENBERGER, MD 1511 N. FRONT ST. HARRISBURG, PA 17102 RE: 87280 SHARON MOWER Any and all records, correspondence, files and memorandums, handwrillen notes, original X-Rays, bilhng and payment records, relating to any examination, consuhation, care or treatment. Dates Requested: up to and Including the present. SubJect: SHARON MOWER 5218 EATON PLACE, MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 Sodsl Security II: 169.60.3504 Date of Birth: 01.14.63 5U10-179098 e 7 280 -L04 .. -&..! CDIII.~ or ...IMNNIIA CXDfl'Y or aJI ....All) I I I SHARON MOWER AND RANDY MOWER, HUSBAND AND WIFE I FI I. No. II 96-2400 VS. VIRGINIA E. HALL. M.D. AND POLYCLINIC MEDICAL CENTER lll--' TO Patn_ 1Ylt'lI-.n'<I at ~I_ Fat 01--""- PlJIlIIlA_ TO IIllIr ~.. 22 CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: PINNACLE HEALTH AT HARRISBURG HOSPITAL (N... of P..son or Ent1ty) Wlth1n bwIty (20) day. an.. ...v1ce of thl. "Cll ana, you ... or... ed by the CCIrt to ~ the 'ollowl". dclc:u!wlta or th1nesl SEE ATTACHED. TOI ROU~ INC.. 1601 MARKET STREET SUITE# 800 PHILADELPHIA,PA. 19103 tit _ THE MCS G " CAdIt-...) fOU /NY deliv.. or mail 1..1ble cop1. of the ~ or PF'OGIce thines ,,~ted by th1. I~. together w1th the cer'tlf1cata of ~1i__, to tM party malel". this "equftt It tM aot-flas H.ted above. You have the ,,1...t to ... In edvence the "MIClNbI. cost of gr',,*,1,. the cop1. or ~1,. the thlnga IOUtht. I' you '.11 to ~ICI the doc::uNnts or th1ngs "equ1"ed by thll __CleM wlth1n tWWity (20) day. 1ft.. It. Mr'V1ce, the prty ,,,v.1,. th1a .'iIlllO...lNy.eek a COW't ordr 0CII1l811 I rlg you to CIIl'D I y w 1 th 1 t. I " , THIS 'UIHlINA WAS ISSUID AT 1ME '-"ST (# ,.. PQJ.QfINllIllMCln. NNCc LAURALEE B. BAKER. ESQUIRE AIDlISSI 101 PINE STREET P.O. BOX 932 ~RISBURG,PA. 17108 (215) 246-0900 TUIJIH:lNI r SU .1&.. <XlMT 4 TTaltCY FOIl 1 10. THE DEFENDANT QA,., ~\ \); \C\\~ Sell oi the Clu't IV 1ME CllUn'1 ~t\ ~ \tJ'{'CA /Clerk, Ctvi ljD1v1a1l11l \ \.:\~\. ~\\\~\V'c,y\(~ (I". 1/17) CIITlPICATI PUUQUlSITB TO SIlVICB or A SUlPOBIIA PURSUANT TO lULl 4009.22 IN THI MATTIR op, SHARON HOWER' RANDY HOWER H/W -VS- COURT or COljHON PLEAS TERM, 0000 CASI NO. 96-2400 VIRGINIA E. HALL,H.D., IT AL As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 MCS on behalf of LAURALEE B. BAKER, ESQUIRE defendant certifies that (1) A notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served. (2) A copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to the certificate, (3) No objection to the subpoena has been received, and (4) The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. DATI, 3/24/99 LAURALII B. BAJOER, ESQUIRE Attorney for DEPENDANT DEll-094016 87 280-L08 >>> LOCATION LIST <<< PAG., 1 RECORDS REQUESTED MEDICAL. BILLING, AND X-RAY(S) HlDICAL AND HOSPItAL BILL HlDICAL, BILLING, AND X-RAY(S) MEDICAL, BILLING, AND X-RAY(S) HlDICAL AND HOSPITAL BILL INSUlANCE 1 NSUlANCE HlDICAL, BILLING. AND X-RAY(S) MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL BILL HlDICAL, BILLING, AND X-RAY(S) HlDICAL, BILLING. AND X.RAY(S) HlDICAL, BILLING, AND X-RAY(S) HlDICAL, BILLING, AND X-RAY(S) MEDICAL, BILLING, AND X-RAY(S) X-RAY ONLY' X-RAY' ONLY' MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL BILL X-RAY' ONLY' X-RAY ONLY' MEDICAL, BILLING, AND X.RAY(S) LOCATION NAME MECIlANICSBURG I'AMILY PRACTlCE SEIDLE HlMORIAL HOSPITAL . PHYSICIANS rOR WOH!N HEALTH LARRY SOLLENBERGER. He PINNACLE HEALTH AT HARRI:iBURG BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD 01' PA CARLISLE ARMY BARRACKS COHKUNITY GEN OSTEOPATHIC HOSP PAULINE WALLIN, PH.D. TODD L. SAMUELS, H.D. DR ALBERT W HECK I'IRSTPLACE HEALTH CENTER GIWIAH MEDICAL CLINIC PINNACLE HEALTH AT IfARRISBURG SEIDLE HlHORIAL HOSPITAL _ HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL COHKUNITY GENERAL OSTEOPATHIC APPLE-A-DAY MEDICAL CENTER 0102-016212 87280-001. ~T1I1WW" ".1Jl/LVNIIA aJllfft ,. CD _\lID I : I SHARON MOWER AND RANDY MOWER, HUSBAND AND WIF~ VS. VIRGINIA E. HALL, M.D. AND POLYCLINIC MEDICAL CENTER File No. II 96-2400 CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: CARLISLE ARMY BARRACKS (N... of PrlOl'l or rnt Ity) Within tw.\ty (20) clava aft.. ...vlce of thl. .'~~I*". you ..e or" eel by the COIrt to ~ the followl". ~ta or th1neel SEE ATTACHED. OATIl ~~ \~~ Sea 1 of the IV 'IHI Cll1RT1 . (Uv~) ~~ ~/Cltrk, C1vt DtV1S~ \ \ ')0 \.:::) 1\ \Ji )'{'Cili\ '--' - Dllluty ~--& TO PlIeD.... nt'lt'I-.wS aI nil... 1'011 DI~ PlJtcu'&U'P TO AlL. ~':2~ TOI THE MCS GROUP, INC., 1601 MARKET STREET SUITEn ROO PHILADELPHIA,PA. 191UJ .t _ (Adcr..) 'fOIl "..y dallv.. or".11 legtbl. (qI1. of the doc:unwttl or Ill"OCb:s tht".. ,.equ..teel by this IlQa..... togeU- wtth the c:rtlflcate of ~111IlCe, to the Pll"ty nwklng this "equest at the aclcl-.. lI.ted above. You have the ,.t~t to ... In edvence the "8UONIb1. cost of Pl"tOII"lng the CODI. or ~lng the things scught. I f you fall to ~ the doc:uMnt. or thl".. "equired by thl. "~oeI" within tWWlty (20) day. aft.. It. I4rYlca, the prty Irv,l". thla ,'ibpoer..,..y I" a ClClIrt order CIaI1MIIl':8 you to ~ly with It. THIS SIIIIClINA WAS lsam AT'IHI ....ST 01 THI f'QJ.QfINll PIMOn. ~: LAURALEE B. BAKER. ESQUIRE AODRISSI 101 PINE STREET P.O. BOX ::: HARRISBURG,PA. 17108 TILIPHONII__ (215) 246-0900 u_. CXUIT ID . 4TTQ11JIIY 'ClRI THE DEFENDANT (Iff. 1/t1) I I ! EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: CARLISLE ARMY BARRACKS 122 FORBES AVENUE CARLISLE, PA 17043 RE: 117280 SHARON MOWER Any and all records, correspondence, files and memorandums, handwrinen noles, original X-Rays, billing and paymenl records, relating to any examination, consullalilln, care or lreatment. Dates Requested: up to and Including the present. SubJect: SHARON MOWER 5118 EATON PlACE, MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 Soc:lal Security I/: 169.60.3504 Date 01 Birth: 01.14.63 SU10.179106 87 280-L08 >>> LOCATION LIST <<< PAGEl 1 RECORDS REQUESTED MEDICAL. BILLING. AND X.RAVeS) MEDICAl. AND HOSPITAL BILL MEDICAL. BILLING. AND X-RAVeS) MEDICAL. BILLING. AND X-RAVeS) MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL BILL INSURANCE INSURANCE MEDICAL. BILLING, AND X.RAveS) MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL BILL MEDICAL. BILLING, AND X-RAVeS) MEDICAL, BILLING. AND X.RAVeS) MEDICAL. BILLING, AND X',~VeS) MEDICAL. BILLING, AND X.RAVeS) MEDICAL. BILLING, AND X.RAVeS) X.RAV ONLY X.RAV ONLY MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL BILL X-RAV ONLY X-RAV ONLY MEDICAL, BILLING. AND X.RAVeS) LOCATION NAMIl HlCHANICSBURG FAMILY PRACTICE SEIDLE HEHORtAL HOSPITAL . PHVSICIANS FOR WOHlN HEALTH LARRY SOLLENBERGER. HD PINNACLE HEALTH AT HARRISBURG BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF PA CARLISLE ARMY BARRACKS COHHUNITV GEN OSTEOPATHIC HOSP PAULINE WALLIN, PH.D. TODD L. SAHU!LS, H.D. DR ALBERT W HECK PIRSTPLACE HEALTH CENTER G~ MEDICAL CLINIC PINNACLE HEALTH AT HARRISBURG SEIDLE HEHORIAL HOSPITAL . HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL COHHUNITY GENERAL OSTEOPATHIC APPLE-A.DAV MEDICAL CENTSR DIOZ-OI6262 8 7280 - CO 1 CII'I'IPICATII PUUqUISI'I'K TO SIIIVICI or A SUlPOBIIA PURSUANT '1'0 RULli 4009.22 IN THE HATTIR OFI SHARON HOWER' RANDY HOWER H/W -VS- COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TERM, 0000 CASE NOI 96-2400 VIRGINIA I. HALL,H.D., IT AL As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents snd things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 HCS on behalf of LAURALEE B. 8AKER. ESQUIRE defendant cert.ifies that (1) A notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was msiled or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the dste on which the subpoena is sought to be served, (2) A copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to the certificate, (3) No objection to the subpoens has been received, and (4) The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. DATE. 3/24/99 LAURALEE 8. BAKER. ISQUIRE Attorney for DEFINDANT 0111-094020 87280- L12 <DIQnlW\ln ,. "I~ <XlUIft'Y ,. 01 I I I SHARON MOWER AND RANDY MOWER, HUSBAND AND WIFt: VS. VIRGINIA E. HALL, M.D. AND POLYCLINIC MEDICAL CENTER ,.ile No. II 96-2400 lll__' TO 1IIItW_ IW'I__ OR THltaa '011 01- PUlClI..". TO IU. .wa.. 22 CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: ALBERT W. HECK,.D. (N.... of P..eon 01" Ent I ty) Within t~y (20) day. .ft.- ......lce of tIlle ..t1~_... you lI"'e or... ed by the ClCU't to IlI"OClIce the fo 11 ow 1"1 doc:u'Iwlte 01" th 1"..: SEE ATTACH ED . TOI lit _ , 1601 MARKET STREET SUITEI/ 800 PHILADELPHIA,PA. 19103 THE MCS GROUP, INC. , (Adcr... ) , , 't f~ NY de II VII"' 01" nail legible CIOPI. of the doaII*\te 01" Ilr'od.lct thlnga requ..ted by thla "~~oena. toeethr with the certificate of ~1Ienc:e. to the perty INk I", thla r~t at the addrq. 11ated above. You have the r1~t to ... In adv~ the rMlOMble cost of pr'tPrl", the ceol. 01" IlrOCtIcl", the till,.. ~t. 'f you ~al1 to Ilt"OCb:e the ~t. 01" thl..... r~,Ii,.td by thl. .!bIlaln. within twenty (20) day. aft.. lte ..-vIce. the IlW'ty ,,,v,l", till. t..... NY'" . CQrt OI"der COI1Mllk., you to caTDly with It. THIS '.P'OINA WAS ISSlB AT ntI flIQJEST ~ 11<< II'<lU.ClWIIG PIIIIClNI NNtEI LAURALEE B. BAKER, E~QUIRE ACCflISS: 101 PINE STREET P.O. BOX 932 HARRISBURG,PA. 17108 TELIJIHCHI: (215) 246-0900 A1 .Ii:t-.. c:a.wT ID. 4TTtl1.'" '01" THE DEFENDANT DATIl ;;). \ ~'8 \<f1 sea 1 01 the CI:u't rt M caurr. C UJ\.~ AJI R \,.i;.'l"Q. fIroothanotry/Clrtl. Civ}1 Otvl.lon \ \.Kt \){~'\~\n '~y (I". 1/17) EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECOImS FOR: GRAHAM MEDICAL CLINIC 100 SOUTH HIGII STREET NEWVILLE, PA 17241 REI 117280 SHARON MOWER Any and all records, correspondence, files and memorandums, handwrillen notes, original X-Rays, billing and payment records, relating to any examination, consultation, care or treatment. Dates Requested: lip to and Including the present. SubJect: SHARON MOWER 5218 EATON PlACE, MECIIANICSBURG, PA 17055 Sodal Security II: 169.60.3504 Date of Birth: 01.14.63 SUIO-179UlI e 7 ze 0 - L:L 4 " CIRTIflCATI PUUQlJ1l1ITI TO SIIVICI 0' A SUBPOINA PlIasUANT TO lULl 4009.22 IN THE HATTER 01', SHARON HOWER' RANDY HOWER H/W COlJ1\T 0' COHMON PLEAS TERM, 0000 .VS- CASE NOI 96-2400 VIRGINIA E. HALL,H.D., ET At Aa a prerequisite to service of a aubpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 MCS on behalf of LAURALEE B. BAKER, ESQUIRE defendant certifies that (1) A notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served, (2) A copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed ,ubpoena. is attached to the certificate, (3) No objection to the subpoena has been received, and (4) The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. DATE, 3/24/99 LAURALEE B. BAKER, ESQUIRE Attorney for DE'ENDANT DEll-094024 B72BO-L16 I I I II '1' " I~ o. -- ':'. I .. -- .- ., , " ~" (, "" I" , ( -. , fl. ,. ~ t ( Co. , , , , " McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. BYI . No. 36818 Edwin A.D. Schwartz Supreme Court 1.0. No. 75902 105 North Front Street Suite 205 Harrisburg, PA 17101 Telephone: (717) 234-0103 Attorneys for Defendant, Virginia E. Hall, M.D. DATED: 3-10 ~~d