Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-06298 . C) ~ .. ~ ~ tI <t 0. 0- ~ .., . ..., 0- <) ';;!, \ ['ii, I " " " ", 'I " , , " " , 'I " I 'I \ ," " , " ,or 'I , I " , 'i' : " I " " . , ;.14,,'1, {.,l" , (',-:11 t,~ I ' I i';H'\:/ltl, I ".L'f' q II! tJ'r..,f'i'!/{ 'i~b\,".JI. :,.",'11 ..? ' ,'j,1 ill.,,\'." '1.1,1" ',' , ,t,_' Ii" ,I;' ~, r, I 1'1',)/1'11. f',,',':,!:::. -'~ ,I \', d ',11", (:i ,:;", '-- ~ \! ' , .';;i "_'I I. I"" .J .<1 , J:?,(,II"/ r;:',",'1 I 11/') '\ ~ ' i" HI"" Ii' "),",> Ill, ,i'i: .,J,' :1 ' ", I I L' I I " , I, "'Il " \ , !' I, " ,', I' '~ .,~' " ~'t>\ ~ "- .~&~~ ~. ~~~ ", ., , 'I ':11' ..'l " , , I', . " , , , , 'I , , 'I , " . , ,,1"1 I , .~ .. t " .,' ,'."" . , " " . , , I j J.~ '~. ',\ ~. I ,,'/ " , , I I I I, \1 .f ,', I' , " " I, I" ,I,: , Ii' ;',1' , I: , , ,',\'i,.! "-i . '. ',,' . I, I '!;j'.! "'!', f1j~lIil}rl)I!SI\"t A " ''i'''./;Hiol,!,~' ;.,.:;II.,jll'\_"I\'tliIJUi iJ '.'I/! ' i 111)",'11 :Ii, , " ,.",/, \1"'/'11' 1,1. . ,," "'lii.1)~i\lf.? Ii: ;i, : I ~ f~;' .~\ , ,'/\" , ~1'11"I'I)li')'I'~ , I":' ',', "I~;j,:lk'~ . 'l ",r.'l""~ :II' , ',I ;;.' lil. I,';:;i.:i ;' Iii ,;,' "/',/y' 1 I,.: (''''1:''11\ }::i) ,} \'L:d,,~,:!~, f II In.., 'r';"i II , '1' ,,\I;O_.JI,. ,"II" t:,'lV~//I;1 "",. """"",,/1, , . I .. , 1 '~~, \" '," Ii I'~ (!,.,Il 1-,1,1,,1 'J'r ~~.,!:I.'~ ~!'h!i('~i ~) 'I I' ,1' , !,II " "', ,j [' ,I 'lIH.'1 1.,1 , (. '11\1. -, L,,' ," I ' I' It' I ,I' , . II 1)'" , I ,I , " " ,."1 , ", ',j Il', I}.j,,) \ I" i/,': ,I'I ,', ',' , , 1 ,,' " I :'1,1 WAUI'ER a. PARMER/ IndividuallYI and as EHeoutor of the Estato I of GAIL A. PARMER, I Plaintiff I I V. I I DONALD A. BRUAW, 1).0. / I Dofendant I IN 'l'lm COUR'I' 01' COMMON l'l,f;AS 0f1' CUMllEIH..ANl> COUN'l''l / l'ENNfJYLVANIA NO. '/" (, ,) 'II' ("iv. /'T/.,- CIVIl, AC'I'ION - LAW JUHY 'J'IUAl, DEMANDED COMPLAIltr 1. Plal.ntiff, Walter G. Parmer, is a oiti~en of the Commonwoalth of Pennsylvnnia and is the EHeoutor of the Estate of his late wife, Gail A. Pnrmer, by Letters of Administration duly issued by the Register of Wills of Cumberland county/ Pennsylvania. 2, Defendant, Donnld A. I3ruaw, D.O. / is an ostecpathic physioian licensed to prnctioe medicine in the Commonwealth of Ponnsylvania. 3, Deoedent, Gail A. Parmer/ was a patiol1t of Defondant/ Donald A. Bruaw, D.O., and was examined and treated at Oef.endant's office in Enolft, Cumberland county, pennsylvania, at all material timas herein. 4. At all material times herein, the nurses, medical assistants, office staff, and other medical personnel at Oefendant, Donald A. Bruaw, D.O. 's, office in Enola, Cumberland county, Pennsylvania wero agents, apparent agents, servants, partnet's / members, and/or employees of Defendant, Donald A. Bruaw, 0.0. 5. Donald A. Bruaw, D.O. (hereinafter Defendant BrUaw) had been Mrs. Parmer's family physician for at least the last fifteen lQ0655/JkW (151 yoarQ and hod treated her various al.lrnents datinq baok to at least 1990. 6. On or about April 3, 1995/ Mrs. Parmer waR B 57-year old fomale who had B history of a heart murmur/ hypertension, diabetos, mellitus, hyperlipidemia and tobacoo use. 7. At this visit, it was recorded by Defendant Uruaw and/or hiu aqents, apparent agents, servants/ partners, members, and/or employeQQ that Mrs. Parmer weighed 203 lbs., had a blood pressure of 140/90 and was cllrrently taking Calan SH (sntihypertensive), Glynase (hypoglycemic), and Lescol (lowers cholesterol) . B. Additionally, Plaintiff believes Defendant had presorIbed additional medications to include appetite suppressants to Mrs. Parmer over the last ten yoars. 9. At this visit, on or about April J, 1995, Defendant Uruaw and/or his agents, apparent agents, partners, members, servants, and/or employees prescribed two appetite SUppl:'essants for Mrs. parme r . 10. Theso appetite suppressants or anorectics were Pondimin (l'enfluramine) and Ionamin (Phentermina). 11. Defendant Bruaw and/or his agentl3, apparent agents, partnera/ members, servants, and/or employees knew or shOUld have known that there were substantial risks of harm associated with the proscribing of the appetite suppressants, Phentermine and Fenfluramine, to a patient, such as Mrs. Parmer who had history of hypertenaion, diabetes, and heart murmur. 2 12. Defendant Bruaw, in pl'elllurihin9 fentluramino and l'hentormino, knuw or shoUld havo Imown that a goneral history and physioal exalnillftthln IU'O to be porformed nnd specific lab dntft obtained, espeoially in a patient, such as Mrlll. Parmar, who had ft history of hypertenaion, diabetes, and heart murmur. 13. Defendant Ilruaw/ in preBodbing F'antluraml.ne and PhelltermJ.llo, I<now or should hllve Imown the oontra indicat ionB / precautions, and/or lIdverse reactions IIssociatod with these two dru\JR, especially in II patiant, such as Mrs. Parmor, who had a history of hyportension, diabeteo, and heart murmur. 14. hcaording to Defendant Bruaw'a rucords, Defendant Bruaw and or his agentB, apparent agents, partners/ members, servants/ and/or employees did not perform a physical examination of Mrs. Parmer, nor did they obtain any base line laboratory data prior to prescribing these two dangerous appetite suppressants, despite the fact that Mrs. Parmer had a history of hypertension, diabetes, and heart murmur. 15. De fendant merely recorded Mrs. Parmer I s blood pressure and weight. 16. Plaintiff avers that the standard of care prior to initiating treatmellt with Phentermine and f'enfluramine (or any appetite suppressants) is that a general history and physical examination shOUld be performed and specific lab data obtained. 17. Plaintiff avers that the appropriate standard is to, at the very least, record blood prossure, pUlse, height and weight and perform and record an examination of a patient such as, Mrs. Parmer 3 to inolude BlIsellsmont of thel.r neok, lungs, hellrt/ f1pdomen, Rnd general neuroloqiofll systom. 10. Additionally, 1'1Bintl.ft Ilvers that the Ilpproprillte IItllndard of oaro, at tho very loast, noooaaitatea the taking and recording of aptloifie lap atudioa slleh All hemoglobin or homatoot'it, blood gluoose, electrolytoll, liplda, And thyroid profile. 19. Defendflnt Urullw / in proser iblllg l'enr.lurllmine Ilnd l'hentermine, knew or should hllve I<nown thAt Iln EKG is to be performed, ellpoaially in A pationt, such IlS Mrs. Pllrmer/ who had a history of hypertenaion, dillbetes, and hellrt murmur. 20. No EKG was performed on Mrs. Pllrmer on April 3, 1995 or at Ilny time durinl/ the proscription of f'entluramine and l'hentermine. 21. Alao, Plllintiff avera that again the Ilppropriate atandBrd of care calls for the performance of an J!:1<G prior to initiating treatment with aforementioned appetite suppressants, espeoially in a patient with a history of hypertension, dillbetes, Bnd heart murmur/ such as Mrs. Parmer. 22. Moreover, on or about April 3, 1995/ when Defendant Bruaw and/or his agents, apparent agents, partners / members, servants, and/or employees prescribed Pondimin and Ionomin to Mrll. Parmer, they failed to order any follow-up or monitoring for Mrs, Parmer, despite the fact that she was receiving appetite suppressants and had a history of hypertension, diabetes, and heart murmur. 23. Defendant Bruaw, in prescribing Fentluramine and Phentermine, knew or should have known that follow-up or monitoring 4 appointments are to occur, at least, at monthly intervals, eapecial1y in a patient, Buch au Mrs. Parmer/ who had a hiutory of hypertenuion, di"botes, and heart murmur. 24. 01\ or about ;Iune 5/ 1995/ Mra, Parmer returned to Defendant'a office complaining at 0 problem with numbnesB which ahe hod complained of prior to the initiation 01' the oppetite suppressant treatment. 25. At this visit, Defendant merely obtained her blood preullluro (which had .ill~eased to 160/90) / recorded hl'ilr weight (which hod incrella~ to 204 1/2, despite her appetite suppressant treatment), and adjusted her Lescol dose. 26. Defendant failed to perform any tcllowMup examination, obtain any lob studies, or addrean or even consider tho performance of any monitoring of Mrs. Parmer while he prcvided her with dangerous appetite auppreosant treatment. 27. Plaintitl' avers that the accepted standard of practi,ce is to follow-up with patients on appetite supprel$sant therapy at intervals not to exceed one month. 20. Plaintiff avers that following the ll1itiation of this dangerous appllt i te suppressant therapy, in Apr i 1 of 1995/ no follow-up visits Wllre scheduled in MayoI' 1995, June of 1995, July of 1995, or in August of 1995. 29. In fact, no follow-ups were ordered at all. 30. Plaintiff avers that follow-up visits, according to the standard of care, should include such assessments as weight, pulse, 5 Rnd blood preosure IInd thRt fur.ther phyoioal and olinioal exams oal1 be indicated by the pationt'a hlato~y or oomplainta. 31. l.'rom approxlmRtely JunlJ 5, 199!\, until her hoapitaliution on ,'July 1/ 1995/ Mra. PArmer had no toll ow-ups with De tendant IH:Uaw. 32. In addition, the two assessments that were reoorded at both of those vioits, Mr.s. Parmer's weight and blood preasure, appeRr from DefendRnt UruRw'a reoords to be aasesaments that he or his IHJents, appCH'ont nqonta / partners / ml:llnbers / servants, and/or employees always performed on Mrs. Parmer/ even betore the initiation of her appetito suppressant therapy. 33. On or. about July 1, 1995, Mrs. Parmer suttered Ii myocardial infarction at home, lost consciousness, and was transported to Uoly spirit /lospital. 34. She never. regained oonsciousness due to her suttlJring an al10xic inj ury to her bra in and she subsequently passed a~lay on August 17, 1995, at the age of 57. COUNT I Walter G. Parmer. Individually and as Executor ot the Estate of Gail A. Parmqr v. Donald A. Bruaw. 0.0. 35. Paragraphs one through thirty- four are incorporated by referonce as if set forth at length herein. 36. Plaintiff, Walter Parmer, and his wife, decedent Gail Parmer, reasonably relied upon Defendant Bruaw's apparent expertise, apparent competence, and authority in assessing, 6 prescribl.ng, llnd monitoring Mrs. Parmer's health llnd llppetito suppressant thorapy proporly. 31. Ponald A. Bruaw/ P.o. and/or through tho aotions of hia ll'iJenta/ apparont llgonts/ servants, pllrtners/ members, and/or employees are liable to Plaintiff for their negll.gence inr (a) Presoribing l'entluramine and Phentermine to Mrs. Parmer on April 3/ ],995, despite the tllet tMt she had a history of hypertension, diabetes llnd heart murmur, (b) Failing to obtain II consultation with a speoialist in llPpotite suppJ.'essBnt therapy or obesity management tor II patient, such as Mrs. PBrmer, who had a history of hypertension, diabetes, Bnd hellrt murmur, (c) Fa i ling to perform n phys ion 1 ellllmitlBtion of Mrs. Parmer prior to the initiation of her Bppetite Buppressant therapy, (d) Failing to record a physical ellamination on Mrs. Parmer prior to the initiation of her appetite Buppressant therapy, (e) F'ailil1g to perform any laboratory studiea on Mrs. Parmer prior to the initiation of her appetite suppressant therapy, (f) Fa il ing to record any laboratory values on Mrs. Parmer prior to initiating her appetite suppressant therapy, ('iJ) Failing to perform an EKG on Mrs. Parmer prior to initiating her appetite suppressant therapy, 7 (h) Failing to understand tho neces~ity of or to even con.idor / order / record, and/or perform the appropriate physical, examination and laboratory studios on Mrs. Parmer prior to initiating her appetite uuppressant thorapy, (i) Fail ing to order t'ollow-up appeti te supprenant monitoring appointments with Mrs. Parmer/ despite the fact that she had a history of hypertension, diabetes, and heart murmur, (j) FCliling to understand the necessity of follow-up appointments or evon consider or encoul:age follow-up appetite suppressant monitoring appointments for Mrs. Parmer/ (k) Failing to inform Mra. Par.mor and her husband of the dangerous nature of Fenfluramine and Phentermino, eapecially in somoone who has a history of hypertension, diabetes, and heart murmur, (1) Failing to inform, Mrs. Parmer and her husband of the importance of proper monitoring and follow-up appointments with the administration of Fenfluramine and Phentermine, especially in someone who has a history of hypertension, diabetes, and heart murmur, (m) Failing to recognize the appropriate physical examination that shOUld have been performed and recorded on an individual, such as Mrs. Parmer, undergoing appetite suppressant therapy, 8 (n) "Riling to I."ocognhe whnt lab repol."ts should havo been obta inod and 1110n i torod on an ind iv idua 1, lIuah us Ml."s. Parmor / undorgol.ng appot ite supproasant thel."apy, and (0) Ful.ling t,o realize or ovell conaider tho harmful etrocts thRt Fentlul."nmine and Phentormine would have on an individual, auoh as Mn. Pal."mel."/ who haa a hilltory of hypertension, diabetes, and heart nwrmur. la. All a direct and proximate I."osult of Defendant's negligence in aaaessing Mrs. Pal."mer, proscribing Fenflurnmine and Phentermine to Ml."s. Parlllol."/ and monitoring Mrs. Parmel."/ as a fOI:esa id / De fondant Llrunw increufled the risk of harm to Mrs. Pal."mer chat sho would suffer an MI with subsequent anoxic injury and death, and a claim is made therefor. 39. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's negligence in failing to appropriately assess Ml."s. Parmer/ presoribe appetite suppressant therapy to Mrs. Parmer/ and monitor Mrs. Pal."mel.", Ml."s. Pal."mer suffered a MI with subsequont anoxic injury and death. 40. As a direct and pl."oximato result of Defendant'~ negligence in failing to properly assess and monitor Mrs. Parmer, while prescribi.lg appot i to suppressant therapy, Mrs. Parmer suffered a myocardial infarction with subsequent anoxic injury to hel." brain and resultant death, and claim is made therefor. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Walter G. Parmer, Individually, and as Executor of the Estate of Gail A. Parmer, demands jUdgment against Defendant, Donald A. Bruaw, 0.0., in an amount in excess of 9 compensatory damagea l.n the amount of Twonty-Pive ($25,000) 'l'houJ:land Dollars, exclusivEl of interest and oosts alld in exoess of any jurisdiotional amount requiring compulsory arbitration, CLkIH I - SURVIVkL OLkIH I1li te r G. l:a.rm~lJ;,.-.lJl!;lj,ylgl.ljJUY...JIIJ!;l,JHLJ:;JlJI aU to rot the Estate ,!.lJ:...J.ill1L[I. Pamer v----D!lllJJl.'il..AJ_J3nIaw, 0,0. 41. Paragrapha one through thirty-four and count I of thl.s complaint are inoorporated herein by reforence, 42. PlaintiH, Walter G. Parmer, brings this action on behaJ.f of the Estate of Gail A. Parmer, under and by virtue af the Act of 1.976, July 9/ P.L. 586/ No. 142/ ~2, 42 Pa. C.S.A. ~8302. 43. Defendant and/or his agents, apparent agents/ servants/ members, partner.s and/or employees are liable to the Estate of Gail A. Parmer for damages as set forth herein. 44. Defendant and/or his agents, apparont agents/ servants/ members, partnLlrs/ and/or employees are jointly and severally liable to the Estate of Gail A. Parmer for damages as set f.orth herein. 45. Pla intiff, Walter G. Parmer, as Executor of the Estate of Gail Parmer, deceased, and Walter G. Parmer, Individually, claims on behalf of said Estate the damages suf.fer.ed by the said Estate by reason of the death of the decedent, for the pain and SUffering the decedent underwent prior to death, loss of ear.nings and earning capacity for decedent's life expectancy, and for all other damagea sustained by the said Estate by reason of the death of deoedent. 10 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Walter G, Parmer/ Indivl.duallY, and as Executor of the E9tate of Gail Parmer/ demanda judgment againRt Defendant l.n an amount in exaea9 of Twenty-Fl.ve ($25,000) Thousand Dollara, exclusive of interest al1d costs and in exceas of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. OLAIM II - WRONOFUL D!ATH IiallJl~-iJU'JD.!U:J-InsUYJ..r.Ul.llllY-..AJllL~n9U to rot thL.b.t.ate of GlIU A. .EJU'.m.gr v. DQn.ll.l5Lfu_J3n1.ll.1i.L..JltiL. 46. Paragraphs one through thirty-tour and Count I and Claim I of this complaint are inQorporated herein by reference. 47. Plaintiff, Walter G. Parmer, Individually and BS Executor of the Estate of Gail A. Parmer, deceased, brings this action for the wrongful death of Gail A. Parmer/ on behalf of all persona entitled to recover therefor under and by virtue of the Act of 1976, July 9, P.L. 586/ No. 142, 42 Pa. C.S.A. ~8301, as amended 1982, Dec. 20, P.L. 1409, No. 326, art. II, 8201. 49. Decedent Gail A. Parmer did not bring an action for her injuries during her lifetime. 49. As a result of the aforementioned events, Mrs. Parmer sustained cons iderable emotional trauma / aa well a8 pain and SUffering, and a claim is made therefor. 50. As a result of the death of the decedent, Mrs. Parmer has suffered a pecuniar.y loss Bnd has been, and in the future will be deprived of the decedent's companionship, contribution, aupport, comfort, Bnd services and so on, for all of which damages are claimed. 11 t:'ri '~ II I' 'k ~1I L J ~: ~ ~ r~ 'r' ~ I~ .. Co),;. 'I 0:, '~ 'J~ ,I, - ~~ ~:tl fIi ~ m ~~Id J till j ~! . e-:; I, I., . . 'I , , , " .' . CLAIM II - WRONGFUL DEATH Waltor (j. Parmer, Indlvldu,llIy and .IS E~llrulor of Iho fatale o( Gall A. Palrn1l'r v. Oil/wid A. Oruilw, 0,0. 46, Pnragrapln 1.]4 .lI1d CounlI ,lI1d Claim I o( Ihls Answer Wllh New Maller to Plaintiff's Campl,tlnt i1rll InrOrpllrilllllllwl!ln hy ru(l!tenCl!s ,IS SI!I (orlh i1llenglh, 47, 1115 ,ldlllllled thill Plillnll(( Is hrlnKlngthls ,IClIllnlJy Vlrlul! o( 42 PiI. C.S,A, S 6301, Howevl!r, Ills denied Ihatlho dl!(l!nd.ullls In ,lilY W,IY 1I,Ibll! to or rl!spllnsllJle 10 Ihe 1)ll1lnll(( undcr silld statute. 48. The avermcnls ronl.llr1l'd In P,lr.1Kt.lph 48 o( PI,llnllff's Complillnt aro illlrnllll!C1. 49.50. II Is oIdmllled thiltli'll! Plillntlf( Is nhlklllgthc c1.1Ims (or damages set (orth In Paragraphs 49 and 50 o( Plillnll(('s COll1plollnl. Howl!vl!r, It 15 denied Ih.1t Ihe responding DI!(elldant Is In any WilY IIi1bll! or responslblll (or s,lld dill1'iages. Furthermore, Ihe responding De(endant bellcves ill1d Ihere(ore, i1vers Ih,lt the dilmilges c1i1lmed In Paragraph 49 o( Plaintiff's Complaint as well as the loss o( consortium claims set (orth In Paragraph 50 o( Plalntl(('s Complaint alre '101 pl!rmllled under Ihe wrong(ul deitlh statu Ie, 51. It Is admllled that Plalnllf( Is maklngthl! c1illms for dallll1ges set (orth In Paragraph 51 o( Plaintiff's Complaint. However, Ills denied thiltlhe responding De(endant Is any way liable (or or I'l!sponslble (or said dilmolgl!s. WHEREFORE, the responding De(cndolnt dl!mandsjudgmcntln his (avor and against Plalntlf(s. NEW MAHER By way af (urther answer to PloIlntlWs Complaint, the responding Defendant offers the (ollowlng new mailer.