Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-05213 ., ~ ~ ~ I 1 i , j . It 4- , . ... ~ ':" .. ~ 'tJ /,/ l f , , I I . ~ ~ ~ .... ,.' ~ CO': . .'. "1 ~., '" t.. .. \.; ~; r:: ) .,,) - -<< IV', C':" ci: \:;j P{ l" " Qi - M '9- ~ E: - ,- -' >- .~ U;. ..;;1 "..l.. :s;: ',.- cl ~. ., .... ;1 U cr <.J Q:' . 'l~ -I''..,:::' ('"....,~ c~ C-......-.....' ~a a.._ __..... j . _,"u,,'_" . -. -,~-~ . .--- . -- wi ... t 1.., I"' -..._--, ..,.-...". ....':'"'.:::::::.h. i_.I....;. .....-...... f I :!-:,"'~~yl\,,-- i...., .. _.U.....I .....loa...... Shelva Spitz. Executrix of the Estate of Herman Spitz --- 'I'=:. POlyclinic Medical C~nter of Har~iBburg ~e. 96-5213 Civil Term .- .~- :icw, Sept. 23. 1996 :9- T S~.::: C:' C~G::::=,:!",..1_"-:J CO :'-X-:? ::~ e~ .. .-- . . '" .- ci Dauphin c.:..-- ~ === = ',~'::~ =--r c:.:--'- :::: -=== --- -..: :s . . ...-.--- -':'---- \..:-- "- ::.:.::.: :.: = ~-=: . --- ::..:it ci :.:: ?!.:.::=. r~-.~<~ ~r~:~C==~~:~~h:~ - J. ~, .. .... . .~c.z:n.. Of ~~, ~= - :-\0"', '0 .. - 0"_- -- '1.[. 1::-,~ :: w:.:';' .- ~: . .. .. =r \.-..~- ....- "'-.;. J. C":1!c!::.: ...--=-..f ...-t- .. :.::: -..... - i::::w: = =.: -.-- -.- :.:.-:::.. !4 . --...... ---- fM=.:! d c..~. .. .- CC::...1 :...-::-:. :.:t :.:~~ ~~_._ ~"'-".... .~~.. w..__ . . :~::..J: _;:.'t:1 If_ >,.,.. ~ \::! ,\.: : _,-\ \.':7 ------~...."" I ~ - (: ~ .:J ...,. ~~ .. :5 - .-,;S - :r: '):.e ~~ 0< J~ ~F'- en u.,.L. Z ~L' ;> -,v.:; S >-! i.'. !u... -. , " \~ ";i: (.; 'U"t Q .... . . ...-- ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS, BARRY B. MOORE, M.D. and NEUROLOGICAL SURGERY, LTD. TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW come Defendants, Barry B. Moore, M.D. ("Dr. Moore") and Neurological Surgery, Ltd. ("NSL"), collectively hereinafter referred to as Answering Defendants, and answer and assert new matter to Plaintiff's Complaint as follows: 1. Denied. After a reasonable investigation answering defendants do not have sufficient information to form a belief as to the accuracy or inaccuracy of the corresponding averment of Plaintiff's Complaint and the same is accordingly denied. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that NSL is and Was at all times relevant hereto a corporation. It is speCifically denied that NSL was engaged in the business in providing healthcare services to the public. To the contrary. NSL provided facilities and services to neurosurgeons who owned its issued and outstanding capital stock to tacilitate their practice of n<lturosurgny. Accordingly, NSL 15 and was a bUlliMU entity. Under the Pennsylvania Medical Practice Act, only a natural per.on may be li~sed to practice ..dicine and surgery. I'fSL III not a licensed penon. NSL wu not authoriled to under Pennsylvanla l~ and did not practice aedlelne, surgery, .. :. .. neurosurgery or provide healthcare services to the public. Therefore NSL cannot be vicariously liable for the conduct of Dr. Moore. 4. Denied. It is specifically denied that NSL was the employer of Dr. Moore. It is not denied that NSL billed for professional services rendered by Dr. Moore, collected fees therefor and distributed compensation to him net of NSL's operating expenses. Answer to 13 hereof is herein incorporated by reference. It is specifically denied that any other natural person who provided healthcare services to Hr. Spitz was an agent, servant, employee of either Dr. Hoore or NSL. It is specifically denied that NSL provided any services to Plaintiff's decedent. It is denied that Dr. Hoore is an agent, servant, employee or was otherwise acting for or on behalf of NSL. 5. Answering defendants are advised by counsel that the corresponding allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint do not pertain to them and that no answer is required. 6. Denied. To the extent that the allegations of 16 of Plaintiff's Complaint allege or imply that Dr. Moore was an agent, aer~ant, employee or otherwise acting for or on behalf of Defendant, Polyclinic Medical Center, the saae is speCificallY denled. Dr. Moore had staff priVileges in neurOSUtqeryat ~olyclinic ~lcal Center and he was strictly an independent c~nttaetor, - ) - It is specifically denied that the x-ray did not include the possibility of a cancerous lesion. It is admitted that the interpretation of the chest x-ray by Dr. Huerter did not specifically discuss cancer as being within the differential. 13. Denied. At the time of preparing this Answer, Answering Defendants do not have a copy of the chart for Mr. Spitz' admission to Polyclinic Medical Center. Accordingly, after a reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants do not have information sufficient to form a belief as to the accuracy or inaccuracy of the corresponding averment of Plaintiff's Complaint and the same is accordingly denied. It is specifically denied that the office chart for Mr. Spitz contains the entry as alleged. 14. Admitted. By way of further answer, Dr. Moore's office chart states that Dr. Kretzing will be notified that the patient had given Dr. Moore a history of tu~rculosis back in 1961 and that Dr. Kret:in9 _19M want to u:p<!at the chut x-ray il\ u!vtlnl ~Qnths to see if th~ lesion has changed. 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted. 12. Denied as stated. interpretation of the chest ~t. Plaintiff's Complaint states a conclusion of law which is deemed to be denied by operation of law and with respect to which no further response is required. 29 - 30. Denied. After a reasonable investigation answering defendants do not have information sufficient to form a belief as to the accuracy or inaccuracy of the corresponding averments of Plaintiff's Complaint and the same are accordingly denied. 31. Denied. It is specifically denied that answering defendants were negligent or that their conduct caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint. By way of further answer, answering defendants are advised by counsel and therefore aver that the allegations of negligence contained in i31 including subparagraphs (a) through If) are deemed to be denied by operation of Pa.R.C.P. No. 1029(e) and that no further answer is required. 32 - 34. Denied. It is specifically denied that answering defendants were negligent or that their conduct caused or contributed to the injuries as alleqed in Plaintiff's Complaint, WHEREFORE, aarry B. Moore, M.D. and Neurological Surgery, Ltd. de.and jUdqaent in their favor and against Plaintiff. .. t~ .. COUNT II - SURVIVAL SHELVA J. SPITZ, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF HERMAN F. SPITZ, DECEASED, vs. DR. MOORE AND NEUROLOGICAL SURGERY, LTD. 35. Answering defendants herein incorporate by reference answers contained in paragraphs 1-34 above as though the same were fully set forth herein at length. 36. Denied. Answering defendants are advised by counsel and therefore aver that the corresponding allegation of Plaintiff's Complaint states a conclusion of law which is deemed to be denied by operation of law and with respect to which no further response is required. WHEREFORE, Barry B. Moore, H.D. and Neurological Surgery, Ltd. demand judqment in their favor and against Plaintiff. COUNT III . DONGIUL DEATH 8H1LVA J. SPITZ, EXECU'!'RIX OF THE UTAn: Of' HlIIHNI F. SPITZ, DECEASED, vs. JIOl,YCLINIC MEDICAL Cl:N'l'IR OF HARRISBURC 31, Answering defendants herein incorporate by reference answers contained in paragraphs 1-36 above as t.hol1gh the sUle were fully set forth herein at length. 38 - 44. Denied. Answerlnq defendants are advised by counsel and therefore aver that the correspondinq allegations of Plaintiff's Coeplalnt do not r~rt.ln to thea and that nQ answer . " - other Defendant in this action or any other natural person, partnership, corporation or other legal entity. 49. At no time relevant hereto was any other natural person, partnership, corporation or other legal entity acting or serving as an agent, servant, employee or otherwise for or on behalf of Dr. Moore. SO. At no time relevant hereto was NSL an agent, servant, employee or otherwise acting for or on behalf of any other Defendant in this action or any other natural person, partnership, corporation or other legal entity. 51. At no time relevant hereto was any other natural person, partnership, corporation or other legal entity acting or serving as an agent, servant, employee or otherwise for or on behalf of NSL. 52. NSL did not render any medical or surgical or professional services to Plaintiff's decedent. NSL is not and cannot be vicariously liable for the conduct of Dr. Moore. Under the Pennsylvania Medical Practice Act of 1985, 63 P.S., S422.10 et seq., only an individual person may be licensed as a medical doctor to practice medicine and surgery. At no time hereto was NSL licensed as a medical doctor and NSL did not in fact have the riqht to supervise, direct or control the manner In which Dr. Moore provided profeSSional swrvices to NSL. - ~ - 53. In the event it is ultimately determined that NSL is liable to Plaintiff, which liability is specifically denied, under the Pennsylvania Professional Corporation Law, 15 Pa.C.S.A. ~2925(c), the professional corporation may be held liable only to the extent of the value of its property. 54. At all times relevant hereto Dr. Moore complied with the applicable standard of care. 55. All care and treatment rendered to Plaintiff's decedent by the employees, agents, apparent agents and/or servants of the corporation was appropriate, reasonable and within the applicable standard of care. 56. At all times relevant hereto Dr. Moore acted within and followed the precepts of a respected school of thought and, accordingly, his professional conduct was fully commensurate with the applicable standard of care. Evidence at trial may establish two or more schools of thought applicable to the issues presented in this case. 57. Plaintiff's decedent assumed the risk of his injuries and this action is therefore barred by the Doctrine of A$sumptlon of Risk. 5&. Dr. Moore believes and therefore avers that evidence accumulated through discovery an1 provided at trial may establish Plaintiff's dtcedent was contributorily or comparatively ne~ligent, and in order to protect the record, Dr. Moore hereby -In ... pleads contributory and comparative negligence as an affirmative defense. 59. Dr. Moore is entitled to contribution in accordance with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 P.S. 97102. 60. In the event that it is determined that Dr. Moore was negligent with regard to any of the allegations contained in, and with respect to Plaintiff's Complaint, said allegations being specifically denied, said negligence was superseded by the intervening negligent acts of other persons, parties and/or organizations other than answering Defendant and over whom said Answering Defendants had no control, right or responsibility and, therefore, Dr. Moore is not liable. 61. At all times relevant hereto, Dr. Moore was a competent and qualified physician acting in compliance with the applicable standard of care. 62. To the extent that the evidence may show that other persons, partnerships, corporatlons or other legal entities caused or contributed to the injuries or exacerbation of the preexisting condition of Plaintiff's decedent, then the conduct of the Answering Defendants was not the legal cause of such conditions or inJuries. 63. Any acts or omissions of Ansloieong ~ff!l'ldants alleged to constitute negligence were not substantul hctorl contributing and the injuries ami damages alleged in Plaintl.ff's ~ ~ ~ - Respectfully submitted, Date: It!r~( fJ .y,~ATES Attorney 1.0. No. 01982 S. WALTER FOULKROD, IV Attorney 1.0. No. 65207 ANDREW H. FOULKROD Attorney 1.0. No. 77394 Attorneys for Defendants, BARRY B. MOORE, M.D. and NEUROLOGICAL SURGERY, LTD. 2215 Forest Hills Drive - Suite 35 Harrisburg, PA 17112-0600 (717) 54l-0400 ~ I') . -- -, i'- ('0 i' ~. t~ '~ Ul~ .~ ',:' . . F'. ,~ " L' , :~ . t" ("" .- -. L. .'.. ." ( <... " .) , , ... " '. , ~ SHELVA SPITZ, Executrix of . COURT OF COMMON PLEAS , the Estate of HERMAN SPITZ, . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . Plaintiffs . , . NO. 96-5213 . v. , . . CIVIL ACTION - LAW , BARRY B. MOORE, M.D" . . NEUROLOGICAL SURGERY, LTD., : and POLYCLINIC MEDICAL CENTER . . OF HARRISBURG, , . Defendants . Jury Trial Demanded , ~1ftl'TPIl POll IIRT'P 'l'O JODI &.1V\T'PTn8&.T. D.rK.-DA.-I' -CIIUJI'f' 'l'O PA.R.C.P. IlULI: 2252 TO THB PRanfONOTARY: Please issue Writ to join as additional defendant Tristan Associates, 4518 Union Deposit Road, Harrisburg, FA 17111 aa an additional Defendant in the above aatter, By l. . H ez: 0, 07186' ortb Front street P . Box 999 rri8bur9, PA 17108-0999 e: (717) 255-7613 0('("1,11',(... tt4'. (~,(,.. (./ d~J . ,@ 0 >- c: r: .. ~:S C'1 t.' :c .~ t Q.. ~) ;:3 ( , .:r .~~ , . N :::2 \ ~ ' u ;~ff J;; ~ b ~ a " . . . J h I I- f ... N I J2 - - 0 .. ~~ < I .... ~ I )( Q. ~ ! .II .... ln k - . h .. c: . >ou I ::2 ! Q "'.... '" tI . ., C :l ~ . E 01.... JJ . ~I~ :~ .... )( . ~ "'~ III .. > Ill1 :I: - :l u.... " - .... &I III >0 '" .... ~~ u - ... H ~'" U N 0 0 ....0" 0, I.~I ~ "" I~ . 0 "Q,:Z: III ... E U III ~~ N a. .. ....'0... "' ..., 11/1 ~ . Oleo 11.1 ., I . ~'"I c: \Q a _ a '" Iii; >. 0 .., ... ... ... ..... - ~ i~~ ~ k :l '0 c: .... .j, 1:1 .,.... '" 113 Z..lO foo .. SHEL V A SPITZ, Executrix of the Estate of HERMAN SPITZ, . . Plaintiffs . . . . Y. . . BARRY B. MOORE, M.D., . . NEUROLOGICAL SURGERY, LTD., and POLYCLINIC MEDICAL CENTER OF HARRISBURG, Defendants Y. . . TRISTAN ASSOCIATES, . . Addition-I Defendant . . .. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 96-5213 CIVIL ACTION. LAW Jury Trial Demanded ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE OF WRIT JOINING ADDmONAL DEFENDANT Pursuant to the provisions of Pa. R.C.P. 402(b). I bercby accept service of the writ to join additionIJ defCDdant on behalf of Tristan Associates. Additional Defendant. and certify that I IlII autborizcd to do so. DATE: ~(.I26. 1996 MIUER and MIUER Br.~~ I.D. 107219 P.O. 1m 709. 105 Locust St. Harrisllur&. PA 1710&-0709 (717) 232.0750 ~, for Additional Dera.tuc. TriaD AssocIHu ~ co i; "',," N 0 .. ;~~ C"l '.'''' .., ~~ L)4 :r: \J:;~ Q.. "...,~ ~t, ~~~ ':...:, 0 .~:'"" ~. r: ~') ,-:: l:l:Y L' ;;1:u ~ h' , -1~' " c;.: 'J.';..- I' .0 a 0 (Tl . ... BEASLEY. CASEY 8< ERBSTEIN employer of defendant, Dr. Moore, and other individuals involved with healthcare, clerical, and administrative duties with respect to patient care who were agents, servants, and employees acting within the course and scope of the employment relationship. The corporate defendant is, therefore, vicariously liable for the tonious acts and omissions of all of these individuals, each of whom was acting within the course and scope of the employment relationship. S. Defendant. Polyclinic Medical Center of Harrisburg. is and was, at all times material hereto, a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of I I Pennsylvania engaged in the business of providing healthcare services to the public. Polyclinic I 11:"" Medical Center of Harrisburg is an institution for the treatment and care of patients which 'I I owns, operates. and maintains hospital facilities and a place of business at 2601 North Third i i Street. Harrisburg. PA 17110. , , i Ii 6. At all times material hereto, the decedent received treatment from individuals who were acting as agents (express. implied. apparent. ostensible, or Olberwise) servants, and employees of the Medical Center. thereby rendering the institution liable for alllCtS. omissions, and ocher tortious conduct of those individuals, who were acting within the coune I and scope of their empJoyment. 7. In May of 1993. Herman F. Spill was referred to Of. MOOI'C fur evaluation of a Ion&-standina condition of spinal ~l1OIis. I. Follow.. Il!eIlmtUl1ical naluation on July 7. 1993. Of. MooR rectlII'Imcndcd alvmbar lalni*.,'llI, pI~...ith dccompteUlon It the U. U. ud LA Ievtls, 9. Pu. .... IIeStint prilY to the af<<tmcmionrd llIl'J1cal plo..dA k<<We4 . I " , .1. I I I I i ! I I , ! I I ! I I i i ! I , j ~ - - BEASLEY. CASEY 8< ERBSTEIN brought. 40. At no lime during his lifetime did Herman F. SpilZ bring an action for his personal injuries. and no other action for his death has been commenced against any of the defendants in this lawsuit. 41. The death of Herman F. Spitz and the damages resulting therefrom were proltirnately caused by the acts, omissions. and other tonious conduct of agents, servants, and employees of the above-named Medical Center. generally. and in the following panicular respects: II I: " I; Ii Ii Ii a. Misinterpreting the chest films of July 23. 1993; b. Incorrectly reporting on the chest films of July 23. 1993; c. Failing to request clinical follow-up of the condition Ihown on the H'Y films of July 23. 1993: Failina to compare the 7 f2J193 study with previous chest I-rays and/or blC:CU~y makiRl this comparison; e. Failing to diqnme JURI canm; and d. f. CorporaIe nealiacnce pursuant to 'J'hn,.,r-o'" y 11I__ ~IllJ. 42. 1be IdS. omiaions. and other tortious conduct of dle abovc-namcd defend... increurd the risk of harm and dim:tly and prmimately reIlIhed In the dealIs of Haman F. SpiU. .&J. As a dirut II1d prolima result of dle dads of liefmu f. Spitz. his llein I\a~ betn 4qwi.t4 of f'utwc aid. auiMancc. lIeNica. CUlftfurt. and/or flftUl:iaI...,. 44. As. f'lInba raWt of thuon.. ~ of dw abc.1 pq-rUdt ~-t. dw heln ht..e I1all v 14. f~ ~"kM .... fat ~ irII. lMlticll. 1iMleI.... w-lMtl: ... .f. 1;: - ?: It: .' ~~ a. " ~~ - ~, ;2 ,r t. ' 0 '~ .f "'i . .... :.t\ (;.'" L' . jUo ~- C;J 3 u. * U ~ g. ,.. - ',- . , ..' .. '-,~ ~f. .::r .,.t<. -7- )~ r - ~\=:i ,~~ 8': co ;(..J C'.J ~.<1 u:~ " .... -"@ .. w ;.~I~~ ~ ::3 u \r.l 0 ,,\ 0 .-",,~'~_. .- ~ ,'" ..~.. . . . SHELVA SPITZ, Executrix of . COURT OF COMMON PLEAS . the Estate of Herman spitz, . CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA . Plaintiffs . . . NO. 96-5213 . v. . . . CIVIL ACTION - LAW . BARRY B. MOORE, M.D., . . NEUROLOGICAL SURGERY, LTD., . . and POLYCLINIC MEDICAL CENTER . . OF HARRISBURG, . . Defendants . Jury Trial Demanded . BULl TO: Shelva Spitz, Executrix of the btate of Herun spitz c/o Slade H. McLaughlin Beasley, Casey' Erbstein 1125 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 You are hereby directed to file a COIIplaint within twenty (20) claye of service or suffer a jucSCJII8nt of non pros. Date: /0 IS, 9"' ~ 1 F -. ~~ < <": LC ~ ~ u..;f.' .. ~ ~- f( ~ ..- ~ i . - :)'. !.~ ;i . . \~ ~;.. . . ~ M - c. . ~ \ ~ " .;::. _J ,. t:_ p i~ '\. t.. .J (.,. :'l. " , I.~" \ ~ ~ .; , ~ ~ .~. S. WALTER FOULKROO, III, ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court 1.0. No. 01982 S. WALTER FOULKROO. IV, ESQUIRB Pa. Supreme Court 1.0. No. 65207 ANDREW H. FOULKROO, ESQUIRE Pa. Suprema Court 1.0. No. 77394 S. WALTER FOULKROO, I II , ASSOCIATES 2215 Forest Hills Drive . Suite 35 Post Office Box 6600 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17112-0600 Telephone: (717) 541-0400 Fax: (717) 541.1727 Attorneys for: BARRY B. IIXlRE, M.D. and NEUROLOGICAL SURGBRY, LTD. SHELVA SPITZ, Executrix of the Estate of HERMAN SPITZ, Plaintiff, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. Docket No. 5213 of 1996 BARRY B. MOORE, M.D., NEUROLOGICAL SURGERY, LTD., and POLYCLINIC MEDICAL CENTER OF HARRISBURG, Defendants. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE TO: PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Kindly enter our appearance as counsel on behalf of Defendants. BARRY B. MOORE, M.D., and NEUROLOGICAL SURGERY, LTD., in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, s. , ASSOCIATES Date: njlu By: S. Attorney 1.0. No. 01982 S. MALTER FOULXROD. IV, ESQUIRB Attorney 1.0. No. 65207 ANDREW H. FOULKROD, ESQUIRE Attorney 1.0. No. 77394 Attorneya for Defendants, BARRY B. MOORE, M.D.. and NlUROLOGICAL SURGERY. LTD. 2215 Foralt Hills Drive. Suite )5 P. O. Box 6600 Harrisburg. PA 11112-0600 17171 541-0400 S. WALTER FOULKROD, III, ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court 1.0. No. 01982 S. WALTER FOULKROD, IV, ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court 1.0. No. 65207 ANDREW H. FOULKROD, ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court 1.0. No. 77394 S. WALTER FOULKROD, III , ASSOCIATES 2215 Forest Hills Drive - Suite 35 Post Office Box 6600 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17112-0600 Telephone: (717) 5U -0400 Fax: (717) 541-1727 Attorneys for: BARRY B. tIJORE, M.D. and NEUROLOGICAL SURGERY, LTD. SHELVA SPITZ, Executrix of the Estate of HERMAN SPITZ, Plaintiff, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. Docket No. 5213 of 1996 BARRY B. MOORE, M.D.. NEUROLOGICAL SURGERY, LTD., and POLYCLINIC MEDICAL CENTER OF : HARRISBURG, Defendants. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO: PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA Please issue a Rule upon Plaintiff to file a Complaint within twenty (201 days from service hereof or suffer judgment mm 1l[.QA. hJ Date; Ill!? /f/I , ( s. W By: S. Attorney 1.0. No. 01982 S. WALTER FOULKROO. IV Attorney 1.0. No. 65207 ANDREW H _ FOULKROO Attorney 1.0. No. 77394 Attorneys for Defendants. BARRY B. M:)()RS, M.D., and NlUROLOGlCAL SURGBRY, LTD. s RULB TO THE PLAINTIFF: Yau are hereby ordered and directed to file your co.plaint against Defendant in the above-captioned ~tt.r within twenty (~Ol days of ..rvlce of this Rule against yqu or suffer judgment :~.7(Jtf 6" "(';4(. J .) aunty ~,. t"'''' ,. , L~ 1 ('"; <:" (e. I ~ " ( C''', \. I , .. ~.. . '- .. ...... (;,,', .) SHELVA SPITZ, Executrix of . . the Estate of Herman Spitz, . . plaintiffs . . . . v. . . . . BARRY B. MOORE, M.D., . . NEUROLOGICAL SURGERY, LTD., . . and pOLYCLINIC MEDICAL CENTER : OF HARRISBURG, : Defendants . . COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 96-5213 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JUry Trial Demanded PRAECIPB FOR RULE TO FILE t"nIIPt.Jo.llI'P TO CUMBERLAND COUNTY PROTHONOTARY: Please issue a Rule directinq plaintiff'S to file a C~plaint within twenty (20) days or suffer a 1~nt of non pros. THOMAS, THOMAS , " fet, ra . 01186 rth Froo street Box 999 isburq. PA 17101-099' a: (717) 255-761)