HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-00125
JUDY HANNA,
As Administrator of the Estate
of Julie SOM, Deceased and for
the bmefit of COURTNEY SOHN
and MOLLY SOHN, Millors
Plaintiff
; 1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
; CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
; CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: NO. ;;}OOO - I;?S
eu;L~
v.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL
Defmdant
; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claim set forth in the following
pages, you must take actiort within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice is served, by entering a writtert
appearance persoruilly or by attorney and f1ling in writing with the Court your defense or objections to the claim sct
forth against YOIL You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed withont you iindjudgemmt may be
entered against you by the Conrt without furthemoticc for any moneycIaimedin tile Complaint or for any other claim
or relief reqnested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A
LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GOTOOR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTII BELOW TO FIND
OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEQAL BELP.
NOTICIA
Lehan demandado a usted m la corte, Si usted quiere defertderse de estas demandas expuestas enlas pagirtas
sigrmientes, usted tiertc vicnta (20) dias de plazo al partir de a1 feeha de la demartda y Ia r\Otificacion. Usted debe
prcsentar una aparicncia escrita 0 en persona a por abogado y archivar en la corte en fOffim cscrita &uS defensas 0 sus
objectiones alas demandas m centra de su persorta. Sea avisado que si usted rtO scfefiertde, la corte tomara medidas
y puedc una orden contra usted sin previa aviso 0 notificacion y por cualquicr qucja 0 akuvui que cs pediclo en la
peticiort de demanda Usted puedo parder dinero 0 sus propiedades 0 otms derechos importarttes para usted.
LLEVEEST A DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO Il'vlMEDIATAMENTE. SI NOTIENE ABOGADO 0 SI NO
TIENE EL DIMERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGARTAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR
TELEPONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE EMCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR
DONDE SE PUEDE CONSSGUIA ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
COURT ADMINISTRATOR
4th Floor, Cnmbcrktad Courtty C07rthO !$"c
Carlisle, P A 17013
Tclephorte: (717) 240-GhD /
HANDL WIENER/
By
Carp yrt M. cr, Esqnire
1.,0. No. 6~ 3'6
319ct St., POBox 1177
H' . urg PA 17108-1177
(7. ) 238-2000
Atlomeys for PIailltiff(S)
.' '
JUDY HANNA,
As Administrator of the Estate
of Julie Sohn, Deceased and for
the benefit ofCOURTNEYSOHN
and MOLLY SOHN, Minors
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: NO. .;2tnrO - ps ~ --)~
v.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL
Defendant
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys, files this Complaint against Defendant, Carlisle
Hospital (hereafter "Defendant Hospital"), as follows:
I. Judy Hanna is an adult citizen ofthe State of Pennsylvania. She was appointed as
Administrator of the Estate of Julie Sohn (hereafter "Plaintiff's Decedent").
2. Plaintiff's Decedent had two minor children Courtney Sohn and Molly Sohn.
3. Plaintiff s Decedent had a long history of mental illness and treatment. She reported
that her mental illness began when she was approximately ten years old and suffered from
depression. She had attempted suicide prior to her hospitalization at Defendant Hospital.
4. Plaintiff's Decedent had been treated at The Meadows Psychiatric Center in March
1990; Philhaven Hospital in October 1990; Polyclinic Hospital in 1991; Harrisburg Hospital in
199]; Philhaven Hospital in ]995; and Harrisburg State Hospital in ]995.
5, Plaintiff s Decedent continued to receive mental health treatment; however, she was
not hospitalized in 1996 or 1997.
.'
6. On February 16, 1998, Plaintiff s Decedent called Crisis Intervention indicating she
had taken an overdose of medication. She further indicated that she was cutting herself with a razor,
but she did agree to stop.
7. On February 17, 1998, Plaintiffs Decedent was found on the sixth floor ledge ofa
garage contemplating jumping. She refused help and she was left in her car,
8. On February 18, 1998, Plaintiff s Decedent called Crisis Intervention several times
indicating a desire tc commit suicide. When she refused to voluntarily admit herself for
hospitalization, she was transported tc Harrisburg Hospital. She attempted tc escape the police.
9. Upon admission to the Emergency Room at Harrisburg Hospital, Plaintiffs Decedent
attempted to flee again. She was placed in restraints and was transferred to Edgewater Psychiatric
Center for an involuntary commitment
10. Upon admission to Edgewater Psychiatric Center, Plaintiffs Decedent barricaded
herself in her room by placing beds in front ofthe door. She also attempted tc elope. Accordingly,
the staff at Edgewater placed restraints upon her
11. Following the involuntary commitment period, Plaintiff s Decedent was discharged
from the Edgewater Psychiatric Center on February 23, 1998, with instructions for follow-up care
at the outpatient department of the Hershey Medical Center.
12. On February 25, 1998, Plaintiffs Decedent was taken to Harrisburg Hospital by
ambulance after she took an overdose of Depakote while intoxicated. While irt the ambulance she
attempted tojump out of the ambulance. During her hospital intake interview she was shackled and
restrained due tc her elopement risk and "biting" her IV in half
2
"
13. Subsequently, that day Plaintiff's Decedent was transported to Defendant Hospital
for an involuntary commitment.
14. Upon admission to Defendant Hospital, Plaintiff's Decedent denied suicidal ideation;
nonetheless, she was placed on fifteen minute checks per hospital policy. Later that day, she advised
the hospital staff that she wanted to cut herself. No changes were made to the ordcrs.
15. That evening, Plaintiffs Decedent barricaded herself in her room by placing a desk
and a bed in front of the door. The staff gained entry to her room and placed her in the quiet room.
Plaintiff s Decedent punched a wall in the quiet room and refused to contract that she would not
repeat the behavior. Accordingly, the staff placed her in four point restraints.
16. On February 27, 1998, the staffadvised Plaintiff's Decedent abouttheMarch 2, 1998
hearing regarding its request for an extended involuntary commitment, pursuant to Section 303.
17. On February 28, 1998, Plaintiffs Decedent agreed to use a nicotine patch to stop
smoking.
18. On March 1, 1998, Plaintiffs Decedent expressed concerns about the 303
commitment hearing, She further indicated that she was afraid she might hurt herself using the
journal notebooks. As a result of the comments, she was escorted to a seclusion room and placed
on visuals. While in seclusion, she indicated that she "needed to feel pain."
19. On March 2, 1998, the Section 303 involuntary commitment for twenty days was
ordered. Plaintiff's decedent was found to be a serious danger to herself and to others.
20. Plaintiff s Decedent "hit the wall" due to anger about the Section 303 commitment
hearing. Thereafter, she was restricted to her room.
3
, ,
21. Plaintiffs Decedent was observed by the staff smoking in her room. She signed a
contract agreeing to desist from this behavior. She refused to assist In the application for State
Hospital admission. The attending physician later noted that she wanted to smoke. He indicated
that suicide precautions should be maintained,
22. On March 3, 1998, at 6:30 p.m., Plaintiffs Decedentreportcd thoughts of hanging
herself on a bathroom door. The staff did not report her comments to a physician.
23. According to the progress notes, at 9:50 p.m., the staff heard a loud bang. In
response to the noise, the staff discovered Plaintiff's Decedent hanging by a sheet from the hinges
on a bathroom door.
24. Resuscitation attempts were started; subsequently, Plaintiffs Decedent was
transferred to the Intensive Care Unit where she remained unresponsive.
25. . By March 5, 1998, Plaintiff's Decedent's blood pressure was almost nonexistent.
At 11 :30 p.m, life support was removed and Plaintiffs Decedent expired immediately.
26. Prior to her February 1998 hospitalizations, Plaintiffs Decedent was employed on
a full-time basis at Mid-Atlantic Corporate, a federal credit union.
COUNT I. WRONGFUL DEATH - NEGLIGENCE
J udv Hanna. Administrator of the Estate of J "lie Sohn
v. Carlisle Hospital
27. Plaintiff. Judy Hanna, Administrator of the Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased,
incorporates by reference paragraphs 1-26.
28. At all times relevant to the matters set forth in this Complaint, physicians, nurses and
other personnel who cared for and treated Plaintiff s Decedent, Julie Sohn, while she was a patient
4
of Defendant Hospital, were acting in and upon the business of said Defendant and within the course
and scope of their employment with said Defendant.
29, The gross negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of Defendant Hospital by and
through its agents, servants and/or employees consisted of the following:
a) Failing to properly select, supervise and trairt its agents, scrvants, and/or employees
in diagnosing, treating, and assessing Plaintiff"s Decedent, who had a major
psychiatric disorder and history of suicide attempts;
b) Failing to conduct a thorough diagnostic assessment of Plaintiff's Decedent's
psychiatric disorder;
c) Failing to follow the treatment recommendations contained inPlaintiff s Decedent's
treatment plan;
d) Pemlitting the nursing staff to make clinical and treatment decisions with regard to
Plaintiff's Decedent's care and treatment, with little or no supervision from
Plaintiffs Decedent's attending physician;
e) Failing to maintain charts of contractual agreements between Plaintiffs Decedent
and the attending staff;
f) Failing to maintain charts of "fifteen minute checks";
g) Failing to maintain proper and accurate medical records on Plaintiff's Decedent by
making enhancements to her medical records in violation of Hospital record keeping
policies;
5
. .
h) Failing to maintain proper and accurate medical records on Plaintiff's Decedent by
making additions to her medical records in violation of Hospital record keeping
policies after her suicide attempt;
i) Failing to keep appropriate watch and supervision over Plaintiff's Decedent,
especially in light of her comments about hanging herself on a bathroom door;
j) Failing to remove bed sheets and other materials for Plaintiff's Decedent to carry out
her suicide plan by hanging;
k) Failing to obtain records from Plaintilrs Decedent's hospitalization at Edgewater
Psychiatric Center;
I) and in other ways.
30. The wrongful death of Plaintiff s Decedent, Julie Sohn, was caused by the gross
negligence, recklessness, and carelessness of Defendant , Carlisle Hospital by and through its agents,
servants, and employees.
31. As a result of the gross negligence, recklessness, and carelessness of Defendant,
Carlisle Hospital, by and through its agents, servants and employees, funeral and administrative
expenses have been incurred, and a claim is made therefore.
32. As a result of the gross negligence, recklessness, and carelessness of Defendant
Carlisle Hospital, by and through its agents, servants and employees, the minor children have
suffered the loss of pecuniary benefit ofJulie Sohn's life including the deprivation of her earnings
that they would have received from her and the loss of society, comfort, services and guidance that
she would have provided to them, had she lived.
6
.,'
, .
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Judy Hanna, Administrator of the Estate of Julie Sohn, on behalf
of Courtney Sohn and Molly Sohn, seeks to recover all damages as permitted by law against the
Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, in a sum in excess of Twertty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000), plus
costs and such further relief as is deemed just, and demands a trial by jury.
COUNT 11- WRONGFUL DEATH - CORPORATE NEGLIGENCE
Judv Hanna. Administrator of the Estate of Julie Sohn
v. Carlisle Hosnital
33. Plaintiff, Judy Hanna, Administrator of the Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased,
incorporates by reference the facts as alleged in paragraphs 1-32.
34, The gross negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of Defendant Carlisle Hospital
as a corporation, consisted of the following:
a) In breaching its duty to ensure that patients receive quality care by failing to
adequately and properly select, supervise, and train its agents, servants and
employees in diagnosing, treating and assessing patients' condition and status,
specifically Plaintiff's Decedent, who had a major psychiatric disorder with ahistory
of suicidal ideation and suicide attempts;
b) In breaching its duty to ensure that patients receive quality care by failing to enforce
its rules and regulations which require notification to physicians of suicidal ideation
by any patient;
c) In breaching its duty to ensure that patients receive quality care by failing to enforce
its rules and regulations which require accurate documentation in a patient's medical
file;
7
"
. .
d)
In breaching its .duty to ensure that patiertts receive quality care by taking reasonable
steps to preclude patients from carrying out expressed plans for attempts at suicide;
In breaching its duty to ensure that patients receive quality care by failing to enforce
its rules and regulations which prohibit making false enhancements and alterations
to medical reGards, specifically those of Plaintiff's Decedent;
f) Failing to have procedures and policies in place or in the alternative, failing to
e)
enforce such procedures and policies, to require staff and treating physicians to
acquire information in a timely fashion regarding earlier hospitalizations, from
family members and friends.
g) Failing to have procedures and policies in place, or in the alternative, failing to
enforce such procedures and policies, to require staff members and physicians to
assess the risk that Plaintiff' s Decedent posed to herselfwhen she expressed thoughts
of hanging herself on the bathroom door;
h) In knowing, or, in the alternative, should have known, that patients, specifically,
Plaintiff's Decedent, would not be afforded quality care due to the lack of adequate
rules, policies, and supervision to ensure the quality care of patients, and;
i) In knowing, or, in the altemative, should have lmown that all the aforementioned
violations of its rules and regulations were ongoing, subjecting patients, specifically,
Plaintiff's Decedent, to harm, and lack of quality care to her detriment, and thereby
willfully breaching its duty of quality care owed to patients by failing to take
measures to stop the aforementioned violations.
35. The wrongful death of Plaintiff's Decedent, Julie Sohn, was caused by the gross
8
,"
negligence, recklessness, and carelessness of Defendant, Carlisle Hospital by and through its agents,
servants, and employees.
36. As a result of the gross negligence, recklessness, and carelessness of Defendant,
Carlisle Hospital, as a corporation, funeral and administrative expenses have been incurred, and a
claim is made therefore.
37. As a result of the gross negligence, recklessness, and carelessness of Defendant
Carlisle Hospital, as a corporation, the minor children have suffered the loss of pecuniary benefit
ofJulie Sohn' s life including the deprivation of her earnings that they would have received from her
and the loss of society, comfort, selVices and guidance that she would have provided to them, had
she lived.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Judy Hanna, Administrator of the Estate ofJulie Sohn, On behalf
of Courtney Sohn and Molly Sohn, seeks to recover all damages as permitted by law against the
Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, in a sum in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000), plus
costs and such further relief as is deemed just, and demands a trial by jury.
COUNT II1- SURVIVAL - NEGLIGENCE
Judv Hanna, Administrator ofthe Estate of Julie Sohn
v. Carlisle HosDital
38. Plaintiff, Judy Hanna, Administrator of the Estate of Julie Sohn, incorporates by
reference the facts as set forth in paragraphs 1-37.
39. As a result of the gross negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of Defendant,
Carlisle Hospital, Plaintiff's Decedent suffered a loss of earning power and income, and a claim is
made therefor.
9
40. As a result of the gross negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of Defendant
Carlisle Hospital, Plaintiff's Decedent suffered various injuries resulting in undue pain and suffering
until her death.
41 , As a result of the gross negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of Defendant,
Carlisle Hospital, Plaintiff's Decedent was compelled to expend large sums of money for medical
care.
42. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers, that Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, through its
agents, servants and employees, willfully, wantonly and with reckless disregard for the
consequences, failed to maintain accurate medical records on Plaintiff's Decedent by improperly
making material alterations, changes, and additions to Plaintiffs Decedent's medical records, in
violation of rules and regulations to Plaintiff's Decedent's detriment and that such conduct
constitutes wanton outrageous behavior and reckless indifference to Plaintiff's Decedent.
43, Plaintiff believes and therefore avers, that Defendant, Carlisle Hospital through its
agents, servants and employees, willfully, wantonly and with reckless disregard for the
consequences failed to keep adequate logs of the 15 minute checks on Plaintiffs Decedent and that
such conduct constitutes wanton, outrageous behavior and reckless indifference to the well-being
of Plaintiff's Decedent.
44. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers, that Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, through its
agents, servants and employees, willfully, wantonly and with reckless disregard for the
consequences, failed to seriously appreciate Plaintiff's Decedent's comments about hanging herself
from the bathroom door and that such conduct, in light of Plaintiff s prior actions during her
10
"
admission, constitutes wanton, outrageous behavior and reckless indifference to the well-being of
Plaintiff's Decedent.
45. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers, that Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, through its
agents, servants and employees, willfully, wantonly and with reckless disregard for the
consequences, failed to properly and carefully assess Plaintiff's Decedent's risk of suicide at the
time of her comments about hanging herself from a bathroom door, failed to take appropriate
monitoring and cautionary actions and that such conduct constitutes wart ton outrageous behavior
and reckless indifference to Plaintiff's Decedent.
46. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, through its
agents, servants and employees, willfully, wantonly and with reckless disregard for the
consequences, failed to properly consult with Plaintiff's Decedent's attending physicians following
her comments about hanging herself from a bathroom door and that such conduct constitutes
wanton, outrageous behavior with reckless indifference to Plaintiff's Decedent.
47, Plaintiff believes and therefore avers, that all of the aforementioned conduct by
Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, through its agents, servants and employees, when taken together,
constitutes wanton, outrageous behavior with reckless indifference to the well-being of Plaintiffs
Decedent and that all such conduct was the proximate cause of Plaintiff's Decedent's wrongful
death.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Judy Hanna, Administrator of the Estate of Julie Sohn, seeks
compensatory and punitive damages against the Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, in a sum in excess of
Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000), plus costs and such further relief as is deemed just, and
demands a trial by jury.
II
."
"
COUNT IV - SURVIVAL - CORPORATE NEGLIGENCE
Judv Hanna. Administrator of the Estate of Julie Sohn
v. Carlisle Hosnital
48. Plaintiff, Judy Hanna, Administrator of the Estate of Julie Sohn, incorporates by
reference paragraphs 1-47.
49. As a result of the gross negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of Defendant,
Carlisle Hospital, as a corporatio", Plaintiff's Decedent suffered a loss of earning power and
income, and a claim is made therefor.
50. As a result of the gross negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of Defendant,
Carlisle Hospital, as a corporation, Plaintiff s Decedent suffered various injuries resulting in undue
pain and suffering nntil her death.
51. As a result of the gross negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of Defendant,
Carlisle Hospital, as a corporation, Plaintiff's Decedent was compelled to expend large sums of
money for medical care.
52. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers, that Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, as a
corporation, willfully failed to have procedures artd policies in place or in the alternative, willfully
failed to enforce such procedures and policies, to require staff members and treating physicians to
maintain accurate medical records on Plaintiff's Decedent as is evidenced by the alterations,
changes, and additions made to Plaintiff's Decedent's medical records, and that such conduct
constitutes wanton, outrageous behavior with reckless indifference to the well-being of Plaintiff's
Decedent.
12
"
53. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers, that Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, as a
corporation, willfully, wantonly, and with reckless disregard for the consequences, failed to enforce
its rules and regulations by permitting material alterations to be made to Plaintiff's Decedent's
medical records in order to cover-up Defendant's gross tortuous conduct to Plaintiff's Decedent, and
that such conduct constitutes wanton, outrageous behavior and reckless indifference to the well-
being of Plaint iff's Decedent.
54, Plaintiff believes and therefore avers, that Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, as a
corporation, willfully, wantonly, and with reckless disregard for the consequences, failed to have
procedures and policies in place, or in the alternative, failed to enforce such procedures and policies,
to require consultation with a physician when a patient indicates suic1dal thoughts, ideation or a
method of co=itting suicide and that such conduct constitutes wanton outrageous behavior and
reckless indifference to Plaintiffs Decedent.
55. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers, that Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, as a
corporation, willfully, wantonly and with reckless disregard for the consequences, failed to have
procedures and policies in place, or in the alternative, failed to enforce such procedures and policies,
to seriously appreciate all comments about suicide and to take reasonable steps to preclude those
methods from being executed, specifically as to Plaintiffs Decedent, and that such conduct
constitutes wanton outrageous behavior and reckless indifference to Plaintiff's Decedent.
56. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers, that Defendartt, Carlisle Hospital as a
corporation, willfully, wantonly and with reckless disregard for the consequences knew, or, in the
alternative, should have known, that the aforementioned violations of its rules and regulations were
ongoing, subjecting patients, specifically, Plaintiffs Decedent, to harm and lack of quality care to
13
,.,.
her detriment, and thereby willfully breached its duty of quality care owed to patients, specifically
Plaintiff's Decedent, by failing to take measures to enforce its rules and regulations and stop the
aforementioned violations, and that such conduct constitutes wartton outrageous behavior and
reckless indifference to Plaintiff's Decedent.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Judy Hanna, Administrator of the Estate of Julie Sohn, seeks
compensatory and punitive damages against the Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, in a sum in excess of
Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000), plus costs and such further relief as is deemed just, and
demands a trial by jury.
COUNT V - PUNITIVE DAMAGES
Judv Hanna, Administrator of the Estate of Julie Sohn
v. Carlisle Hospital
57. Plaintiff, Judy Hanna, Administrator of the Estate of Julie Sohn, incorporates by
reference paragraphs I through 56.
58. Plaintiff believes and, therefore, avers that Defendant's agents, apparent agents,
servants and/or employees acted in a wanton, outrageous and reckless manner when they failed to
monitor Plaintiff's Decedent on March 3, 1998 when she was on suicide precautions.
59. Plaintiff believes and, therefore, avers that Defendant's agents, apparent agents,
servants and/or employees acted in a wanton, outrageous and reckless manner when they failed to
monitor Plaintiff's Decedent from 630 p.m. until 9:50 p.m. on March 3, 1998 when they found
Plaintiff's Decedent hanging by a sheet from the hinges on the bathroom door.
14
."
"
60. Plaintiff believes and, therefore, avers that Defendant's agents, apparent agents,
servants and/or employees acted in a wanton, outrageous and reckless manner when they failed to
report her comments to a physician on March 3, 1998 at 6:30 p.m. that Plaintiffs Decedent had
thoughts of hanging herself on the bathroom door.
61. Plaintiff believes and, therefore, avers that Defendant's agents, apparent agents,
servants and/or employees acted in a wanton, outrageous and reckless manner when they failed to
follow and maintain suicide precautions Ort Plaintiff's Decedent.
62. Plaintiff believes and, therefore, avers that Dcfendant's agents, apparent agents,
servants and/or employees acted in a wanton, outrageous and reckless manner when they failed to
document suicide precautions between 6:30 p.m, and 9:50 p.m, on March 3, 1998.
63. Plaintiff believes and, therefore, avers that Defendant's agents, apparent agents,
.servants and/or employees acted in a wanton, outrageous and reckless manner when they failed to
rcmove objects from the immediate environment of Plaint iff's Dccedent that Plaintiffs Decedent
could reasonably use to carry out her suicide threats.
64, ' Plaintiffbelieves and, therefore, avers that the wanton, outrageous behavior and the
reckless indifference ofDefertdant's agents, apparent agents, servants and/or employees caused the
death of Plaintiff s Decedent.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Judy Hanna, Administrator of the Estate of Julie Sohn, seeks
compensatory and punitive damages against the Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, in a sum in excess of
15
Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000), plus costs and such further relief as is deemed just, and
demands a trial by jury.
Respectfully submitted,
C
~~~~
DANIEL M. CLEME S
ISRAELSON, SALSBURY, CLEMENTS
& BEKMAN, L.LC.
300 West Pratt Street
Suite 450
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
(410) 539-6633
DATE tI~ryw
I'
Attorneys for Plaintiff
16
'>." .... "'..', .."...'.'...',. .,..... ' ...', ,...........'.......">i.'. ,....,.. '......... ..,............',.'.i...'.'...... '" ,
',.,."..,'<..' "". . '. ",," ..'...'.,. . ,'""",, .........',..... ,'.,'",,' ,
,".,,'. ."..' ...".".", ...'..,' .' , ".,. "'. .,. ....',..,., ,.' ,,"'. '",". ,'.,,' ... .,i.... "',.".'..'..
. ......" .'..'. ,"."..'.'" .'..",'. ..".',".,'." '" .,.,.., .'., ", " "",,Jet',, ... · '.., ,.. ." ., , """"" """. ',,' . ,',
<>< .i' " , ,. "~"";"> ' ".,', '....... .,." , ',' , '.....' ,"'. ,,', ,,' ,
"".,i... "".".,...~....',.".........i.-._~........ ....... .,""".>." ".', " , .....,..,,'..
'.'.... .... ,'...,..t;.,.......:.......... .... ..'.'. ,j.'("l?ff .'....".!1'<~.,.~) ;;;, ...,..>>.'.".....i.,....<.',.',.,."....'....'.............',.....'.'.;,...' ,
'-''';t.;..''''> t;4x'" 1....r .'.'..',. '..'..',. .'...' .',.".',..'.".'..
(C;:)<:.', "U.:'.. ,.' G}.l Q~.>.i~.!.i. ....>.: """"
'- ly.. '..' .;.,... .<;. '--1'....,. '\.l~..;"'..
.---t' , '" ','" .' ,.,'.".'-". '...,.... ' .."",'.!'8',.,,',~,....,il...~,..'#j., '.','.',
< "..t<..o: .' ,< , :$....~jU...~...j;7.;i..;...., '....'....'.
' ,'......... ".'1.'.. ,i. ...... ........' ,'" '6:1' ..ii:i!'.".,,,...;.... ,'.', ".'.',...
,.,'.'.. """,..'U.....,.,.,<' '..".....""...;,......
",'"",,',,.,.'... ". ."...,..., ,".",'.,'" .,. .,'"'"",,, ,'",' ," ",'"", , .',
'.....'.'.,.," ...,...... ..'. ". ".' ".." .,.>;,... ',',... ,', '. ".,>;;....i. " ". '.'..' ..'...'.... .'...i ,,',," ,",
.'.......,.'...'.'...., .' .".. ..........', , . "'.',,,,'..... ..,. ,..'.................;:..;..."....."."........i..,.l,.,.. ."'....,..,..'.,.>...... ".." ," ",
. .l._,_'~_"...;. ,-
'..
.".'
....'.
· :t....t..t.tl. ,.,".'.."" '., . '...' , ,.' I " ..... I'i ,pll "" '~!':'i '; 'i ".'ll~.'..~~. y, r
..', ....' , ..' .' "..........." "" '. ... '....~ I ""!',....'...~\ 'gi~h;F ".,4" ".
, '", ',..,... ..,.,..,. '...1'",'",.,'.'...','.,.. lu..~""~E.;j.",.. "",~"3"
.. ..'.'. >.. .. ...,....' .....,. "" . hi. , , "... I..U == il!jlI;l1I~>im~m:.~;'r:.9 h ~
',' , ,,", ,.;.. .','.'.,','.' .....'. · '. ' '...'.',,'.. ' 1<. ...'.., i....'.~r'" "...., I
;< < ..,' ,.,.' ".'.'. ';,'", '" .....; " " " " I, " "" " .'..,... '" .....,.1
< ',' ,',.......'.'....'. ',.', I '.'. ..',.. '..,., . ..,' '.', ,,'.' ",..l.. 1<'< "," '~
/> ",'" ,1; .'." ",.i.....< "", , "', "1 ",'" , "" .'.',.' .'...,,'" ."""'~
.' .....:t. ~-II -'. .iflim'.r;l;s:..::~!ill\].l;I.. ·
,"..'....,',.'..,.".......; " , " "'."'l';.:i;:'li'::'i...:.., ".'. ,
," ", , " . ,. "... ' ""u '" ",,'. ',,"'" , ,,'.,.,.,',
;...l<><<,. ' . .", . ,'" . ",' ....'t.. ".... .,i......, .,' ',,;
'...,...... .> .,...,.......,'...".....," ,"'........;',< <U' .,." ,.,....u. .'. .<,...,.",...,.., ...,.....,...'.,..'",'..,.,'.'., .,. U,', .,'..'.,'. .... ,.,...........,..;...."..,.' ....,',..,..,..,..'..,.....".,..,..',',. ',' ,,',.. , "."....
......' '.,'. ,',',',' .'.......'..'....' .."'.'.",.,.".,."", i.',...,,>, ..,.....,....'.".',..,.,......,.<:'..... .'.'.'. ....'.'........""""'" , '....
,.,'... ..'. '"",,"",'.",,'."."...'."....".".'..'..'.".''."..'.'.'...,',' "",',".','..'..'.
.......' " . ' ,...,..,....", ..." ,",',', ",', ,'," ,
.......'., ,'."..,........ ..'...... "."..,'.'"", '>...'" '.'i.,.....' ..,..,". ......
<. ' .'. ' .<. ..,.'..........<, '.'.'.',..' . ,.,...' , ,;i.'.;':':', ,'., .., ,,> .'.'.
,U. .....'.. .i>: .......>. ' .'. .'.,' , ,'.. ';..;......," '.' ,'"',, ,", , ,.,,".
i .;. · l,,)' .......i:,.iilii)iii/ ..., :,',.,...,.]].;,:.,..1,.,..,1..,/..,...... .
" '" ...'. ' ,',"..'. .....' .'.... .,. ','.,',','.',,' .'.'... .'.'.
'.""..',.',.,.' .,,"'.,.,'.'...'.. ".,. '" ",,', , , '.' ,.'< .., .", ...."".,'",.. ",. .......,. "" ,
,. ..,',,".'., .,.',','..'.'..." '".",".....,.'.'.,.,.,',"....,'
· ',.,.i< ..'.'..., ., ,,', "..... '., , .,"'.'.',.'.',.....',' '.'.'.' , , . , ". ',"'.'., """""."
, "..'" , . "'i;.. .'.,.>, ........:;,". ".,'" "" , ,'.',',',',',,',',',"
"'.< .... ....,...., , , . ",,;. .,', ." '..'... ,".' " . '...' , " ......'.......'...'
< .:: <<".'''- '. '.. .'.'. ' '.........:.... .io;':, '...,.',
.'" ',,' .. .'. ,>'" ,..l'tit.,.'..U.~ ":...;>, ,'i.; .... '.". .".. ',,' ,..,.,...
.'"".;,,, '..'. ',' '<<>' .'.;" , , '. . <<
.;,.,...,. ,l.>U, /, '.~ ~<t · ...' " , i"> . .. ...., . . ,., " ..'..'..'.' .;...'..'..'.... , .." '., ,."'"....:.,..",..". .::.tttttttt:..
;' , ..'." '.'., ,'> .',' , , , .~... ,,'.. .<<
., ' ",.,".,', .. ..,
-':-::->,::.. -- ~.:;'---: --:-:-:- - - _"_;~:. - ,-.:,: -'.:',i;.." .,:,,:::--:::-.:_:- -
.<
......'
.... ,.'.".'"
.,.'.'"
(I
~
'.
JUDY HANNA, As Administrator of the
Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased and for
the benefit of COURTNEY SOHN and
MOLLY SOHN, Minors,
Plaintiff's
v.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
,
"
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 2000-125 Civil Term
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
Please enter the appearance of the undersigned as counsel for Defendant, Carlisle
Hospital, in the above-captioned matter.
Dated: January ;;.1. 2000
Respectfully submitted,
FARRELL & RICCI,P.C.
--
Marc T. Levin, Esquire
Attorney J.D. No. 70294
2000 Ling1estown Road, Suite 108
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Counsel for Defendant
'-
.
~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 9- 1'lb.-;ray of January, 2000, I, Joseph A Ricci, Esquire, hereby
certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance upon all
counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, regular delivery,
postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as fullows:
Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg
P.O. Box 1177
Harrisburg, PA 17108
~
J eph A. . cci, Esquire
6: t.O ~.
~.:: ~ z
,.- 3~
UJ9 -
f~~ ~;.~. ::c 0<
..,,; cj)~
'5;.:-'"
, '0 ~t(J)
0'. I .JZ
~~:. feZ
ro l:..JLU
'--' n.1 n..
,.-- l.J- ::;:
L..:"_ 0 :::>
0 .0 0
..
'Farrelf&mca:-p~---~---
--- --
_ _2000 W-Pclg!itown Rd
----( . Suite f08 -
Harrisbur~, PA 17110
(717) 652-6101
"-
,
~~~~-
JUDY HANNA, as Afuninfstra.tor
ofthe Estate of Julie Sohn.,
Deceased, and for the benefit of
COURTNEY SOHN iind MOLLY
SOHN,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
t
_ CIVIL ACTION - LAW
00-125 CIVIL
vs.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
IN RE: PRETRIA.L CONFERENCE
Present at a pretrial conference held October 6, 2004, were Daniel Clements, Esquire,
attorney for the plaintiff, and Joseph Ricci, Esquire, attorney for the defendant.
This case arises out of incidents that occurred in early March 1998 when the
plaintiffs decedent was admitted to the psychiatric unit of the Carlisle Hospital. Plaintiff
alleges that, though Ms. Sohn had indicated that she was contemplating suicide, the hospital
staff failed to monitor her actions and Ms. Sohn was subsequently found hanging from her
bathroom door by her bed sheets. She died two days later.
Judge Bayley's most recent order in this case reinstated the plaintiffs claim for
punitive damages. Counsel agreed that the complaint for punitive damages is framed by the
language of the original complaint.
One ofthe plaintiffs experts is no longer able to testify at the trial and a Dr. Neil
Blumberg will tal(e his place. Plaintiffs counsel indicated that a report from Dr. Blumberg
would be forthcoming no later than October 25, 2004.
...-~~lit;-~"
Plaintiff s coUrtsel alerted the court to the fact that he will lodge on the record a
challenge to the enhanced burden of proof in psychiatric negligence cases. It is anticipated
that this would occur in the course of a discussion on points for charge.
This case has been specifically set for November 15, 2004. The case is expected to
be of at least five (5) days' duration.
October 6, 2004
Daniel Clements, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Joseph Ricci, Esquire
For the Defendant
Court Administrator
:rlm
,
.
(8
IN THE COURTOF COM~~~4
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
*
JUDY HANNA, As Administrator
ofthe Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased
and for the benefit of COURTNEY SOHN *
and MOLLY SOlIN, Minors,
*
Plaintiffs
.
v.
Civil Action - Law
No.: 2000-125 Civil Term
*
CARLISLE HOSPlT AL,
· JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant
*
*
*
*
*
PLAINTIFF'S PRE-TRIAL MEMORANDUM
COME NOW, the Plaintiffs, Judy Hanna, As Administrator of the Estate of Julie Sooo,
_ Deceased and for the benefit of CQurtney 8oOO_and Molly SoOO, minors by their attorneys,
-Daniel M. Clements and Salsbury, Clements, Beklllan, Marder & Adkins, L.L.C. and Carolyn
Anner and Handler, Henning and Rosenberg and sets forth their Pre-Trial Statement.
L PLAINTIFFS' STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Decedent, Julie 8.000, the mother of a two and four year old, was admitted to Defendant
Carlisle Hospital on February 25, 1998 because of an attempted suicide. On March 2, 1998 at an
administrative hearing found to be a danger to herself and to others and was further committed to
the institution for an "additional twenty days. On March 3, 1998 in the late afternoon she advised
the Defendant's staff that she was contemplating suicide.
In response, the Staff failed to monitor her actions, failed to removed her bed sheets
despite Ms. Sohn's advising that she would hang herselfin her bathroom, failed to place her on
one to one observation, failed to do 15 minute checks, failed to advise the physician in charge of
her care, failed to insure that during a change in nursing staff that the new staff learned of her
threat, failed to establish a plan to respond to her threat, and asked her to contract for safety
,
despite the fact that the nurse to whom she made the threat believed she was untrustworthy.
Around 9:50 p.m. the staff found Ms. Sohn hanging from her bathroom door by her bed
sheets. She died from her self-inflicted injuries two days later, on March 5, 1998. This action by
the executor of the estate and on behalf of her two minor children followed.
Plainti!rs original complaint requested damages and punitive damages. The punitive
damages were originally stricken but at a hearing on July 30'h, this court approved Plaintiffs'
motion to permit the original complaint to stand and for the issue of punitive damages to be
considered by the jury. Trial is scheduled for November 15,2004 before ajury. Defendant's
Pre-Trial Memo spends an extraordinary number of pages re-fighting the issue of Punitive
Damages, when this Court has already ruled again it.
II WITNESSES FOR THE PLAINTIFFS
1. Robert Dobler
2. Gerald Fronko, M.D.
3. Judy Hanna
4. Natalie Hume
5. Pat Krebs
6. Judy Lenk
7. Rocco Manfredi, M.D.
8. Steven Murdoch
9. . Debra Martini
10. Jennifer McDanel
11. Pamela Shur
2
12. Matt Solm
13. Rena Wilson
14. Neil Blumberg, M.D. ,
15. Jerry Stalle.r, Ph.D.
16. Zelda Falck, R.N.
17. Howard Sudak, M.D.
III MOTIONS IN LIMINE
With the presentation of the proposed Jury Instructions at the time of trial, Plaintiff will
be making a motion to Strike the State's requirement that psychiatric malpractice cases carry the
burden of gross negligence for plaintiffs. The Americans for Disability Act, ADA, explicitly
forbids the discrimination against individuals based on medical disabilities. Defendants must
concede that Ms. Sohn's mental condition constituted a disability before and during her
admission. To establish different burdens of proof for plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases
dependant upon the nature oftheir illness is a) clearly State imposed discrimination; and b)
clearly a violation ofthe ADA. The Plaintiffs will submit jury instructions seeking a finding by
the jury based upon the preponderance of the evidence for the initial findings on liability (as
distinct from the instructions on punitive damages which have the same standard regardless of
the nature of the plaintiff's medical condition.)
IV. PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT LIST
1. Medical records of Timothy Bennett, M.D.
2. Medical records of Community General Osteopathic Hospital
3. Medical records of Community Hospital
3
Medical records of William Curry,M.D.
Medical records of Edge water Psychiatric Center
Medical records otI:-Jarrisburg Hospital. .
Medical records of Hershey Medical Center
Medical records of Holy Spirit Hospital
Medical records of Pinnacle Health Hospital
Medical records of Carlisle Hospital
Mcdical records of Phil hay en Hospital
Police reports from Highspire Police Department
Police reports from Middletown Police Department
Report and Curriculum Vitae of Zelda Ann Falck, RN. (Plaintifrs expert)
Report and Curriculum Vitae of Neal Blumberg, M.D..(Plaintiffs expert)
Report and Curriculum Vitae of Howard Sudak, M.D. (Plaintiffs expert)
Report and Curriculum Vitae of Jerome Staller, Ph.D. (Plaintiff's expert-
Employment records regarding Julie Sohn
Discovery responses from the Defendant Carlisle HospitaL
V. REOUESTED STIPULATIONS
Plaintiffs request that the Defen.dant stipulate to the authenticity and admissibility of each
of the above listed Plaintiffs' exhibits.
4
~
Respectfully submitted,
~~~
DANIEL M. CLEMENTS
SALSBURY, CLEMENTS, BEKMAN, MARDER
AND ADKINS, LLC
Suite 450
300 W. Pratt Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
(410) 539-6633
Attorney for Plaintiff
5
...
JUDY HANNA, As Administrator
of the Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased
and for the benefit of COURTNEY SOHN *
and MOLLY SOHN, Minors,
*
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
*
Plaintiffs
*
*
Civil Action - Law
No.: 2000-125 Civil Term
v.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
* JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant
*
*
*
*
*
NOTICE OF SERVICE
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a copy of the aforegoing Plaintiffs Pre-Trial Memorandum
was faxed and mailed (via First Class Mail) this 4'h day of October, 2004 to:
Joseph Ricci, Esquire
Farrell and Ricci, P.C.
4423 North Front Street
. Harrisburg, PAl 7110
~~
SALSBURY, CLEMENTS, BEKMAN, MARDER
AND ADKINS, LLC
Suite 450
300 W. Pratt Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
(410) 539-6633
Attorney for Plaintiff
6
l,.,
( ~-?
o
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
FARRELL & RICCI, PC
4423 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
717-230-9201
G
reT ~D4
JUDY HANNA, As Administrator of
the Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased and
for the benefit of COURTNEY SOHN
and MOLLY SOHN, Minors,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2000-125 Civil Term
vs.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRETRIAL MEMORANDUM OF DEFENDANT CARLISLE HOSPITAL
1. STATEMENT OF FACTS AS TO LIABILITY
This litigation has its genesis in the February 1998 admission of Julie Sohn
to the psychiatric ward of the Carlisle Hospital. During this period of time, Miss
Sohn was under the care of Dr. Rocco Manfredi, Director of Psychiatric Services. In
conjunction with the psychiatric treatment team, efforts were made to control the
psychiatric illness from which Miss Sohn suffered. As is typical with such illness,
Miss Sohn showed both improvements and setbacks in her condition.
By early March it was clear that Ms. Sohn was going to require extended
hospitalization. Accordingly, plans were made to secure admission to the
Harrisburg State Hospital. Although Ms. Sohn was initially reluctant to go to the
State Hospital, by March 3, 1998 she told her physician "1 agree I should go to the.
State Hospital. Maybe 1 need a longer time to get well." Carlisle Hospital progress
notes. Later in the day, Ms. Sohn spoke with her psychiatric nurse Steve Murdoch.
She again noted that going to the State Hospital was appropriate, noting: "It will be
--'-"--.~
okay because I know some guy there who gave me flowers." ld. These comments
were very positive and indicative of a cooperative and engaged patient.
Ms. Sohn, in addition to providing favorable indications of progress in her
care, also provided evidence of her continuing mental illness by engaging in a
continuing pattern of attention getting behavior by expressing suicidal thoughts.
Sigriificant1y, she noted that she had no intent to act on those thoughts.
Nonetheless, Nurse Murdoch made an evaluation of the nature of the threats voiced
by the patient. Although it was determined that the threats were not valid
expressions of a true intent to take her life, Nurse Murdoch cautiously maintained
the patient on 15 minute checks. Sadly, Ms. Sohn, later in the evening, between 15-
minute checks, attempted to take her life by hanging.
Upon hearing a noise, the nursing staff immediately responded. When Ms.
Sohn was found, resuscitative efforts immediately began. The resuscitation was
initially successful, however, Ms. Sohn did not regain consciousness. She passed
away several days thereafter.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS AS TO DAMAGES
See Plaintiff's pretrial memorandum. Defendant Carlisle Hospital contests
its alleged responsibility for all aspects ofthe Plaintiffs damage claims.
III. STATEMENT AS TO PRINCIPAL ISSUES OF LIABILITY AND DAMAGES
L Elements of a Medical Maloractice Suit
In Pennsylvania, medical malpractice is viewed as a tort and, as such,
the general rule of negligence is applied to medical malpractice lawsuits. Soeck v.
Finegold. 268 Pa. Super. 342, 408 A.2d 496 (1979), affd in part and ~ in part 497
Pa. 77, 439 A.2d 110.
2
~\'
As a general rule, negligence in a medical malpractice case may be
viewed as a breach of the physician's duty to exercise reasonable skill and care in
the treatment of a patient. In order to recover from a physician for malpractice
based upon negligence, the plaintiff must prove all four of the following:
(1) DUTY. The patient-plaintiff must show that the physician in
question owed him or her a particular duty or obligation. This
duty, recognized by law as created by the physician/patient
relationship, requires the physician to act in accordance with
specific norms or standards established by the profession,
commonly referred to as the standard of care.
(2) BREACH OF DUTY. The patient-plaintiff must show that the
physician failed to act in accordance with those norms by any
act or omission violating the standard of care owed the patient-
plaintiff.
(3) CAUSATION. The patient-plaintiff must show that a
reasonable, close, causal connection exists between the acts of
the physician and the resulting injury.
(4) DAMAGES. The plaintiff must establish that because ofthe
physician's acts or omissions, actual loss or damage has been
incurred.
In order to establish that a defendant breached some duty of care
owed to the plaintiff, "it is incumbent on a plaintiff to establish a causal connection
between the defendant's conduct and the plaintiffs injury." Hamil v. Bashline. 481
Pa. 256, 265, 392 A.2d 1280, 1284 (1978). In other words, the mere occurrence of an
injury does not prove negligence unless the defendant's conduct is shown to have
been the proximate cause of plaintiffs injury. Gift v. Pulma, 392 Pa. 628, 141 A.2d
407 (1958).
3
}
Proximate cause is a term of art denoting the point at which legal
responsibility attaches for the harm to another arising out of some act
of defendant, . . . and it may be established by evidence that the
Defendant's negligent act or failure to act was a substantial factor in
bringing about the plaintiffs harm. (Citations omitted).
Hamil v. Bashline, supra. at 265, 392 A.2d at 1284. Where the plaintiffs injury
would have been sustained even in the absence of the actor's negligence, however,
the defendant's negligent conduct may not have been found to be a substantial cause
of the injury. Hamil v. Bashline,!lJ.ill!:!!. Although the element of the causation is
normally a question of fact for the jury, it is permissible to remove the question of
causation from the jury's consideration where it is clear that reasonable minds could
not differ on the issue. TopelskV v. Universal Southside Autos. Inc., 407 Pa. 339,
180 A.2d 414 (1962); Hamil v. Bashline. sunra.
2. Standard of Care
Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of medical malpractice
without, inter alia, presenting an expert witness who will testify
to a reasonable degree of medical certainty. that the acts of the
[defendant] physician deviated from good and acceptable medical
standards. . .. Mitze1felt v. Kamrin, 526 Pa. 54 at 62, 584 A.2d 888 at
892 (1H9-0).
Maurer v. Trustees of the Universitv of Pennsylvania. 418 Pa. Super. 510, 614 A.2d
754 (1992). See also Lira v. Albert Einstein Medical Center, 384 Pa. Super. 503 at
509, 559 A.2d 550 at 552 (1989), stating the general rule that expert testimony is
required to establish the standard of reasonable medical care in a medical
malpractice case. A physician's own personal standard of care does not suffice to
prove a deviation from the applicable standard of care. See Maurer v. Trustees of
the Universitv of Pennsvlvania. supra.
4
The standard of care for a specialist is "[t]hat degree of skill, learning and care
normally possessed and exercised by the average physician who devotes special
study and attention to the diagnosis and treatment of diseases within the specialty."
Pratt v. Stein, 298 Pa. Super. 92 at 156, 444 A.2d 674 at 708 (1982). It is an
objective and not a subjective standard. See Maurer v. Trustees of the Universitv of
Pennsvlvania, 418 Pa. Super. 510, 614 A.2d 754 (1992).
IV. SUMMARY OF LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING ADMISSIBILTY OF
TESTIMONY, EXHIBITS OR ANY OTHER MATTER.
1. Punitive Damages.
The plaintiff sought amendment of the Complaint to assert a claim for
punitive damages. Although this Court permitted the amendment, it is the position
of the Defendant that the facts do not support a claim for punitive damages under
the Law of the Commonwealth. The only defendant in this action is the Carlisle
Hospital. Thus, any alleged liability of the hospital for the care afforded to Julie
Sohn, must be based upon a theory of vicarious liability. The award of punitive
damages in instances of a claim of vicarious liability asserted against a hospital is
governed by the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act, 40 P .S.
1301.101 et. sea. Section 1301.505 controls the award of Punitive damages. This
section provides in relevant part:
(c) Vicarious Liability.-Punitive damages shall not be awarded
against a health care provider who is only vicariously liable for the
actions of its agent that caused the injury unless it can be shown by a
preponderance of the evidence that the party knew of and allowed the
conduct by its agent that resulted in the award of punitive damages.
40 P.S. ~1301.505(c).- Thus, to establish a right to amend the complaint to assert a
claim for punitive damages, it is necessary for the Plaintiff to show that the Carlisle
5
Hospital knew of and allowed the conduct by its agents. Significantly, the record is
completely devoid of any testimony that the Carlisle Hospital possessed any
knowledge of a pattern of conduct by its employees, which would give rise to a claim
for punitive damages. It is significant that the Plaintiffs memorandum confines
itself solely to the actions of the individuals providing treatment, and does not
address the knowledge or conduct of the hospital as a corporate entity. Such
absence of support for a claim against the hospital is fatal to the requested
amendment.
In addition to being fatally flawed for its failure to allege facts to meet the
legislative requirements to create potential punitive damage liability, the requested
amendment is flawed for its failure to allege facts which would give rise to
individual liability for punitive damages. To understand the nature of the deficiency
in the Plaintiffs requested amendment it is first necessary to discuss the nature of
punitive damage claims pursuant to Pennsylvania Law. In Pennsylvania, a claim
for punitive damages is based upon the elements set forth in Restatement (Second)
of Torts, Section 908(2). See Chambers v. Montl!omerv. 411 Pa. 339, 192 A.2d 355
(1963). This section states, in pertinent part:
Punitive damages may be awarded for conduct that is outrageous
because of the defendant's evil motive or his reckless indifference to
the rights of others. In assessing punitive damages, the trier of fact
can properly 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.
Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section 908(2).
In interpreting this section, the Supreme Court of this Commonwealth has
determined that:
The imposition of damages to punish a civil defendant is appropriate
only where the conduct complained of is especially egregious. Punitive
6
damages may not be awarded for misconduct that constitutes ordinary
negligence such as inadvertent mistake and error of judgment.
Martin v. Johns-Manville Cornoration, 508 Pa. 154, 170, 494 A.2d 1088, 1096-97
(1985) (citations omitted). Significantly, even conduct that rises to the level of gross
negligence is also insufficient to sustain a claim for punitive damages. ~ ~
Takes v. Metropolitan Edison Companv, 548 Pa. 92, 97, 695 A.2d 397, 400 n. 4
(1997). As noted by the Supreme Court, "negligent conduct, no matter how gross or
wanton, cannot be equated with the conduct required for punitive damages." Martin
v. Johns-Manville Corn oration, 508 Pa. 154, 172, 494 A.2d 1088, 1098 (1985).
When determining if punitive damages should be awarded, the Martin court
further noted that:
The nature of the tortfeasor's act itself together with his motive, the
relationship between the parties and all other circumstances should
be taken into account.
Id. at 170, 494 A.2d at 1096 (citing Fe1d v. Miriam, 506 Pa. 383, 585 A.2d 742
(1984)). This need to assess the conduct of the tortfeasor requires a subjective
analysis of the facts as plead. This subjective standard was explicitly adopted in the
case of SVH Coal v. Continental Grain Co., 526 Pa. 489, 587 A.2d 702, (1991) noting:
Comment a to Section 500 [Restatement (Second) of Torts] describes
two distinct types of reckless conduct which represents very different
mental states: (1) where the "actor knows, or has reason to know...of
the facts which create a high degree of risk of physical hann to
another, and deliberately proceeds to act, or to fail to act, in conscious
disregard of , or indifference to, that risk," and (2) where the "actor
has such knowledge, or reason to know, of the facts, but does not
realize or appreciate the high degree of risk involved although a
reasonable man in his position would do so." The first type of reckless
conduct described in Section 500 demonstrates a higher degree of
culpability than the second on the continuum of mental states which
range from specific intent to ordinary negligence. An" indifference" to
a known risk under Section 500 is closer to an intentional act than the
failure to appreciate the degree of risk from a known danger....Under
Pennsylvania law, only the first type of reckless conduct described in
7
Comment a to section 500 is sufficient to create a jury question on the
issue of punitive damages.
Id. at ~ 587 A.2d at 504-05. Accordingly, it is necessary to plead facts to show
that the tortfeasor was aware that his conduct would create a high degree of risk yet
deliberately proceeded forward despite his knowledge. This burden is further
complicated in the medical malpractice case which, as here, seeks to impose punitive
damages vicariously upon a hospital for the actions of its alleged agents. As set
forth by the Pennsylvania Legislature:
"Punitive damages shall not be awarded against a health care
provider who is only vicariously liable for the actions of its agent that
caused the injury unless it can be shown by a preponderance of the
evidence that the party knew of and allowed the conduct by its agent
that resulted in the award of punitive damages."
40 P.S. ~1301.505 (c).
Turning to the facts in the case at bar the Plaintiff attempts to support the
request to amend the Complaint with a retrospective and selective review of the
evidence gathered to date. Such an approach is impermissible as it reasons
backwards from a result and fails to consider the state of mind of the healthcare
providers at the time that care was provided. It is the state of mind at the time of
care which is crucial. As explained by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, it is the
actor's state of mind which is central to the question of entitlement to an award of
punitive damages. Sw. SVH Coal v. Continental Grain Co.. 526 Pa. 489, 587 A.2d
702, (1991).
The essence of the Plaintiffs support for an amendment of the Complaint
focuses upon a comment made by Julie Sohn to psychiatric nurse Steve Murdoch.
On March 3, 1998, Nurse Murdoch noted: "Made reference to thoughts of hanging
herself on bathroom door, 'but, I really don't think I would do it.''' The Plaintiff
8
asserts that this statement waa significant because "it [the defendant] will not be
able to point to a single other point in the recorda of Ms. Sohn at Carlisle Hospital
where she made statements about harming herself." Memorandum page 7. The
Plaintiff then concludes that the statement on the 3'" of March required immediate
action but was ignored. While this concluaion makes for a compelling argument it
fails to recognize the factual realities of the course of treatment. It fails to recognize
that a psychiatric patient's care occurs within the context of the entire
hospitalization and not as a result of specific out of context atatements.
When the entire record is examined, it becomes clear that Julie Sohn was a
very troubled lady with a long and difficult mental health history. Contrary to the
assertions of the Plaintiff, Ms. Sohn did not make only one isolated threat to commit
harm. In fact, the reason for Ms. Sohn's admission waa a suicide attempt. Mter her
initial examination, and during transport to the emergency room, Ms. Sohn
seriously damaged the interior of the ambulance in an attempt to jump from the
moving vehicle.
Moreover, Ms. Sohn'a destructive behaviors continued in the hoapital. As
noted by Plaintiff at page 7 in her memorandum, on the day before her
suicide attempt Ms. Sohn attempted to cut herself with a notebook taken
from her roommate. Significantly, prior to this incident, Ms. Sohn had
indicated a desire to harm herself with her notebook and the notebook was
removed. As explained by Ms. Sohn's nurse Robert Dobler:
A Well, what happened, I was on the -- part of my duty in the
night shift was to do 15 minute checks, and I was going around doing
those, and at one point she - I checked her, and she indicated to me,
she told me that she was feeling like hurting herself, and so at that -
she had a notebook out and said that she was thinking of cutter
herself with it, and we talked about it for a few minutes, and I took-
we both agreed. I took the notebook, and she said felt safer, and I
took the notebook down to the nurses station.
9
Robert Dobler deposition page 23. Significantly, this incident differs from the
incident on March 3m since Ms. Sohn indicated an inability to protect herself and
contract for safety'.
Shortly after her admission to the Carlisle Hospital on February 25, 1998,
Ms. Sohn engaged in potentially dangerous and self-destructive behaviors. On
February 26th she barricaded herself in her room. Ms. Sohn was placed in a
seclusion room for observation where she then punched the waIL Because she could
not contract for safety, the patient was placed in restraints..
Thus, the hospital
staff did have, from the outset of the admission, a pattern of conduct which allowed
them to develop a sense of Ms. Sohn's behavior pattern.
The sense of Ms. Sohn's behavior pattern was also evaluated as a result of
the development of a psychosocial history. Social worker Natalie Hume testified
that she obtained a psychiatric history from the patient's sister. She explained:
A: 2/26/98. Patient reluctantly allowed me to contact her sister,
Jennifer McDonald. She did note on the release that she did not want
me to tell her sister the circumstances of her admission and. about
being self-destructive. Sister reports the patient has had a problem
since tenth grade and frequent hospitalizations. She self-mutilates.
Sister states the patient claims her bother sexually abused her. The
allegation was investigated, ans sister reports it was found to be,
quote, child sexual play, unquote. Brother is two years older. She
adds patient claims to have been raped several times. Sister believes
there is a lot of alcohol consumption. Patient by sister's report, quote,
plays games, unquote, while in hospitals. She escaped form Phi1haven
and from the Harrisburg Emergency Room while being committed.
She will have charges for breaking property in the ambulance that
brought her to the hospital. Patient's father has also threatened
suicide many times. And I've signed that.
I A contract for safety is an agreement between the patient and the staff that the patient will
not engage in self-destructive behavior. It is further an agreement that if the patient
experiertces self-destructive thoughts she will report them to a staffperson.
10
Natalie Hume deposition pages.31-32. Thus the hospital staff was made aware of
the fact that Ms. Sohn had a long history of self-destructive behavior characterized
by "game playing."
Over the course of the hospital admission, the staff found that Ms. Sohn was
slowly becoming more participatory in and cooperative with her care. Although
initially reluctant to participate in care and initially fearful of a Harrisburg State
Hospital admission, Ms. Sohn began to recognize a need for continuing care. By
March 3'" the patient was expressing an understanding of the benefit of an extended
hospitalization. As explained by her attending physician Dr. Manfredi in his
progress note:
Attending note. Subjective, quote, I guess I should go to the
State Hospital. Maybe I need a longer time to get well, end quote,
although I didn't put the end of the quote on there. Objective, affect
broad, mood cheerful. Jokes about her situation. Discussed more
about her chronic problem with - problems with relationships. I can't
read my own writing. Discussed more about her chronic problem with
relationship difficulties and lack of responsibility for her problems.
Reviewed medication history. No meds have truly affected her in
positive or negative ways. Quote, only when I take charge of my life
do I do any better, end Quote. Adamantly denied suicidal ideation.
Quote, I'll behave, end quote.
New paragraph. Discussed plan to maintain Pam. Review
plan for State Hospital only if current situation does not improve over
next week to ten days. Patient feels, quote, motivated, end quote, to
get well. Quote, I won't kill myself, end quote. Assessment and plan,
No.1, continue Paxil. No.2, continue therapy and suicide
precautions. 3, family work to be scheduled when patient complies
hyphen attempt for this week period.
Deposition of Dr. Manfredi page 35. Thus, after several days of inpatient psychiatric
care, Ms. Sohn was gaining an understanding of the benefits of psychiatric care and
indicating her willingness to participate in her care in an effort to get better.
11
It was with the above history that Nurse Murdoch was asked to evaluate the
statement that Ms. Sohn wanted to hang herself. Significantly, Nurse Murdoch
documented the incident of the threat as follows:
Patient continue.s with manipulative, adolescent behaviors and
smiling when asked a question of serious nature. Sta.tes not wanting
to go to Harrisburg State Hospital, but in quotes, it will be okay
because I know some guy there who gave me flowers. Made reference
to thoughts of hanging herself on bathroom door and in quotes, but I
really don't think I would do it, unquote. Fells depressed because
everyone is mad at her for always doing the wrong thing.
Nurse Murdoch deposition page 20 (emphasis added). Nurse Murdoch then
explained why he did not think the threat was a serious threat requiring greater
surveillance than that which was already in place:
Q: You didn't take here seriously enough when she told you
that she was going to hang herself on the bathroom door to put her in
solitary or to put her in one on ones or to increase the nature of her
suicide watch, did you?
A: No, because in the same sentence that she said that, she
said but I really don't think I would do it, and whenever anything is
discussed like that, we clarify and go in more detail, the thoughts of
why the person said this, and if there was any indication at all that I
felt that this was any more serious than just a vague thought of hers,
then I would discuss it more seriously with the staff, and we would
have put her on a suicide watch or put her in seclusion.
But I didn't feel and neither did the others feel that this was
serous enough because of her stating that she didn't feel as though she
would do it, and just remembering that when we discussed it further
that she wasn't suicidal at the time, and which 1 did not put in here in
this note, and I remembered that I didn't to put in it when I was ready
to leave. And I told Pam that I didn't write it in the note, but I did tell
her that she did contract with me that she was not suicidal, and I
think Pam said she was going to put in the note, in her note.
Nurse Murdoch deposition page 21. Nurse Murdoch further testified that the
patient's willingness to contract for safety was significant. He further noted that the
contract for safety was reliable given the patient's past history on the unit. Nurse
Murdoch explained:
12
Q: Was she a reliable person to contract for safety with?
A: Yes, because she contracted for safety in the past on the unit,
and she never made any attempts of - any attempts to hurt herself
that I remember. Just as part of their therapy we have to trust the
patient, and as part of their rights we have to believe in what they tell
us, unless they give us some clear indication that we shouldn't believe
them, and she didn't give me any indication at all that I should have
believed her, because she told me that she would not do this and that
she was not feeling suicidal, so I felt that I should believe her.
Nurse Murdoch deposition page 27. Thus it is clear that Nurse Murdoch evaluated
and fully considered the statements made by his patient. The fact that Nurse
Murdoch may have been proven wrong in his evaluation does not give rise to a claim
for punitive damages. It is clear from his testimony that he was lacking the state of
mind sufficient to impose punitive damage liability.
The lack of the necessary subjective state of mind is also made clear from the
testimony of the attending physician Dr. Manfredi. In commenting on the decision-
making displayed by Nurse Murdoch, Dr. Manfredi explained:
I don't believe based on knowing Steve and his quality of work as well
as what he said about that situation that he just blew it off like it was
no big deal or, you know, or he didn't care or didn't think that he could
- or didn't take her situation seriously.
You're constantly weighing a patient's freedom, liberties, their
ability to carry out their activities, of daily living with dignity versus
maintaining their safety, so al all times when you're observing their
behavior, listening to what there're saying, you constantly have to
weigh one against the other.
So at that point when she made that statement, what all the
nurses are trained to do is think through that situation and weigh
what level of intervention they need to make versus allowing the
patient more freedom, dignity and privileges to help them, you know,
advance along the way and make progress. And at that point when
she made that statement, those factors all have to be weighed and
taken into consideration.
His conclusion at the end of his thought process, I presume,
was that let's keep her on the Q 15-minute checks. That's a pretty
good level of intervention. It's not like he's ignoring her. He would
have taken her outside and said go smoke if he really didn't take it
seriously, but he kept her on the Q 15-minute checks and didn't up her
13
to a more restrictive level, again helping her to move along with more
freedom, dignity and privileges to help her make progress in her care.
Dr. Manfredi deposition page 47. The doctor testified further that allowing the staff
to make evaluation of patient thoughts of suicide is appropriate. He explained the
process as follows:
Q: ... But just because a patient may have expressed a suicidal one
of those thoughts?
A: We had patients who would say they were suicidal constantly.
Q: Okay. And some of those patients that would express suicidal
thoughts would recant them, correct?
A: Yes.
Q: And some of those patients that would express suicidal
thoughts would express that they would be able to let somebody know
if those thoughts became more persistent or they wanted to act upon
those thoughts?
A: Yes, that's correct.
Q: It's called a contract for safety?
A: That's right.
Q: And it was a legitimate psychiatric technique in your mind to
alow the staff to contract for safety with the patient's?
A: Yes, that would be a necessity.
Q: Okay. Did you have any reason to believe that Julie 80hn was
incapable of contracting for safety?
A: Not incapable, no.
Q: Okay. And while Julie had been resistant to treatment at
times, based upon your review of prior records and conversations with
other doctors, you learned that Julie routinely did take steps to protect
herself ultimately from harm; is that fair to say?
A: Yes.
Q: And a person that has that type of behavior would you expect
to be able to contract with a psychiatric professional for safety?
14
.,
***
A: She should have that ability, yes. thought that did not in your
mind rise to the level that you must be called with each and every
Dr. Manfredi deposition pages 91-92. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs claims that Nurse
Murdoch completely failed in his duties to Ms. Sohn are not supported by the record
when read in its proper context. In fact, the record shows that Mr. Murdoch
considered Ms. Sohn's statements in a proper context. The record further shows
that Nurse Murdoch's response was in accordance with the behaviors expected from
the patient's attending physician. Upon such facts, it is not possible to establish the
requisite state of mind to support a claim for punitive damages.
Plaintiff further suggests that there is an attempt by the staff to conceal a
failure to act properly in regard to Ms. Sohn. In this regard, the Plaintiff suggest a
lack of documentation in the patient's medical record of 15-minute checks is
evidence supportive of a punitive damage claim. When the testimony of Dr.
Manfredi, the attending physician and co-director of the psychiatric unit, is reviewed
it is clear that Ms. Sohn's records were kept in accordance with hospital policy. As
exp lained by the doctor:
Q; Do you know if Julie was maintained on Q 15-minute checks
throughout her hospitalization?
A: I believe she was. If not all of it, at least the majority, but it
may have been all ofit.
Q: Okay. And when those Q 15-minute checks took place, the
nurses had a separate clipboard where they would mark off that they
checked on the patient separate and apart from the patient's medical
chart; is tha t correct?
A; That was kept in the nurses station, yes.
Q: There was some confusion at least in my mind as to some of
your testimony about what was documented in the progress notes
about Q 15-minute checks. You weren't suggesting, Doctor, that every
15
I5-minute check throughout an entire hospitalization would be
recorded in the patient's individual chart; is that correct?
A: You mean on I5-minute increments?
Q: Correct.
A: No, that would not be on the chart.
Q: But the nurses would occasionally note in the progress records
that Q 15-minute checks were being maintained is that correct?
A: That's correct. They should have been entered with their
progress note.
Q: Okay. And I think you told us that there was a note by Pam
Shur on 3/3 at 2000 hours that indicated Q I5-minute checks had been
maintained throughout the day; is that right?
A: That's right.
Dr. Manfredi deposition pages 92-93. Thus, the absence of a checklist of 15-minute
observations in the psychiatric records of Julie Sohn is not the result of a conspiracy
but the result of the normal hospital protocol.
Pennsylvania law is clear that a claim for punitive damages is meant to
address the extraordinary situation in which a defendant acts with a sufficiently
culpable mental state as to warrant punishment for his actions. As noted by the
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania "negligent conduct, no matter how gross or wanton,
cannot be equated with the conduct required for punitive damages." Martin v.
Johns-Manville Corporation, 508 Pa. 154, 172, 494 A.2d 1088, 1098 (1985). Instead
it is necessary to show a state of mind manifesting wanton and egregious behavior.
The record in the case at bar simply does not support such a finding.
V. IDENTITY OF WITNESSES TO BE CALLED
1. Jennifer McDonel (As on cross examination)
2. Dr. Patricia Krebs (As on cross examination)
16
"
3. Juddy Hanna (As on cross examination)
4. Debra Martini
5. Judith Lenk
5. Rena Wilson
6. Robert Dobler
7. Pamela Shur
8. Natalie Hume
9. Gerald Fronco, M.D.
10. Rocco Manfredi, M.D.
11. Joseph DiGiacamo, M.D. (expert witness, See report attached hereto as
Exhibit "A."
12. Isadore Mihalikis, M.D. (expert witness, See report attached hereto as
Exhibit "B."
13. Representative of Ms. Sohn's employer
14. Defendant Carlisle Hospital reserves the right to call any witness
identified by the Plaintiff.
15. Defendant Carlisle Hospital reserves the right to supplement this
witness list.
VI. LIST OF EXHIBITS
1. Psychiatric records of Carlisle Bospital
2. Medical records of Carlisle Hospital
3. Policies and Procedure of Carlisle Hospital Psychiatric Department
4. Personnel records of Mid-Atlantic Federal Credit Union
5. Deposition transcripts of parties and witnesses deposed in this action
6. Expert Report and Curriculum vitae of Joseph DiGiacamo, M.D.
17
7. Expert Report and Curriculum vitae ofIsasore MihaIikis, M.D.
8. Plaintiff's responses to discovery requests
9. Defendant Carlisle Hospital reserves the right to utilize any exhibit
identified by the Plaintiff.
10. Defendant Carlisle Hospital reserves the right to supplement this exhibit
list.
VII. STATUS OF SEtTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS
The Plaintiff has made a settlement demand of 1.1 million dollars. Plaintiff
has also suggested mediation. At this time the Defendant's insurance carrier has
not authorized an amount for settlement.
Respectfully submitted,
Farrell & Ricci, P.C.
Jos h A.
PAID 498
Farr icci, P.C.
4423 North Front Street
Harrisburg, P A 17110
(717) 230-9201
Counsel for Defendant
Date: /t7/~y
18
ISIDORE MIHALAKIS, M.D.
Forensic Pathologist
OFFICE:
1024 HIGHLAND AVENUE
BETHLEHEM, PA 18018-2137
PHONE (610) 691-1564
FAX (610) 691-1139
October 2, 2000
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
Farrell and Ricci, P.C.
Suite 108
2000 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
RE: Sohn, et al. vs. Carlisle Hospital
Your File No. M-202
Dear Attorney Ricci:
Pertinent to the above-captioned case, I have reviewed the records of Carlisle Hospital.
Historically, at 9:50 p.m. on 3/3/98, the nurses heard a loud bang coming from Ms. Sohn's room and
on inquiry they found her hanging by the sheet from the hinges of the bathroom door. She was lowered
(weight 192 Ibs.) and Dr. Fronko, the covering physician from the emergertcy room was called. He
came to the psychiatric unit where she was being housed and found her in asystole. She was initially
found with the neck at an acute angle. She was resuscitated with a BVM and subsequently, she was
endotracheally intubated and vigorously resuscitated subsequent to which after about a twenty-minute
period she was found to have a pulse and blood pressure. She never regained consciousness. In the
beginning she had some seizures/tremors/fasciculations. there was some sluggish reaction of the pupils,
she began to breathe on her own and, subsequently assisted in the ventilation. Additionally, she had
some minimal withdrawal with painful stimuli. She evell;tually deteriorated and passed away peacefully
on 3/3/98.
OPINIONS:
You specifically inquire about the length oftime necessary to canse an anoxic injury of the type
suffered by Ms. Sohn.
The answer to that is four minutes; however, that is a meaningless number. primarily because that is
not meam to represent the time delay from hearing the noise umil the nurses checked on her. In this
particular instance. the very fact that she was in cardiac arrest when first seen indicates that there was
sufficient pressure on the neck, especially considering her weight, that there was immediate
cardiopulmonary arrest. That arrest occurred when the neck was subjected to the pressure, which
preceded the seizures/tonic clonic movements, which caused the noise, which alerted the nurses. That
lag time varies from a half-minute to about two'minutes. We then have to contend with lowering a
EXHIBIT
j A
Joseph A. Ricci. Esquire
Octcber 2, 2000
Page Two
192-lb. individual to enable resuscitation to be performed. A third mitigating factcr to immediate
efficient resuscitation is the fact that you cannot easily perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation Or\
someone as large as Ms. Sohn and expect it to be immediately effective. Lastly, from the time when
Dr. Fronko was called until his arrival to the floor also had an adverse effect.
I. Thus, it is my opinioi1wlth reasonable medical certainty 1hat while there is a minimum four-
minute delay in order to have the lethal anoxic encephalopathy suffered by Ms. Sohn, the
comportertts of this four-minute delay are such that logistically it is unavoidable and would
have occurred even if a nurse were standing outside Ms. Sohn's room when the entire hartging
scenario transpired.
2. The very fact that the heart was able to be restarted, that there was eventually some
sluggishness irt the reactivity of the pupils, that she resumed breathirtg, that there was minimal
withdraWal with painful stimuli artd that there were seizures all irtdicate that there was no delay.
Otherwise, death would have been pronounced at the scene and 1here would have been no
response to the resuscitation..
The opinions noted above are with reasonable medical certainty, which I am prepared to defend in
court.
ldore Mihalakis, M.D.
Forensic Pathologist
IMlkmm
Enclosure
~UNIVERSITY OF
PENNSYIYANIA
, SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
Joseph DiGiacomo, M.D.
o Clinical Professor of Psychiatry
Department of Psychiatry
July 28, 2004
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
Farrell & Ricci, P.C.
4423 North Front Street
Harrisburg, Pa. 17110
RE: Hanna/Sohn v. Carlisle Hospital
Dear Mr. Ricci:
Pursuant to your request, I reviewed the records, listed in Table I, in
the above mentioned litigation. The purpose of my review was to
determine whether the evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment of Ms. Julie
Hanna Sohn by Carlisle Hospital Mental Health treatment team was within
the standard of care.
Ms. Julie Hanna Sohn was a 24-year-old single mother of two
children by different fathers. She also had a long history of a disordered
life, starting at age 15, with few periods of stability. She had numerous
admissions to psychiatric facilities in the Central Pennsylvania area. She
has a history of multiple suicide gestures, acted out violently and was
committed to Carlisle Hospital. She was also committed and had a lengthy
stay at Harrisburg State Hospital (HSH).
Ms. Sohn's index admission, 2/25/98, to Carlisle Hospital was from
Edgewater Hospital. She had taken an excess amount of Depakote
(Valproic Acid) and alcohol and called her sister to request she be taken
to the ER. On the way to the hospital, she became violent in the
ambulance and was approved for a 302 commitment. An evaluation at
Carlisle Hospital indicated diagnosis of a major depressive disorder,
alcohol and mixed substance abuse and an Axis II diagnosis of borderline
EXHIBIT
8
"- ~ !Email: josdi&iaeo@aol.com or jdi:iaco@maiLmed.upenn.edu
111 East Montgomery Avenue. Ardmf;lre., PennsyI J
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
July 28, 2004
Page 2
personality disorder. Ms. Sohn was uncooperative and assaultive with the
hospital staff and not participating in therapies when she first entered the
hospital. She was placed in seclusion and restraints alter refusing to stop
self-destructive behaviors. Over time she became more participatory and
cooperative, but continued to display behaviors suggesting a need for
extended hospitalization. Steps were taken to secure a bed at HSH in the
event she would again require a lengthy hospital stay.
On March 3, Ms. Sohn was evaluated in the early evening by one of
the psychiatric nurses. Ms. Sohn appeared willing to participate in further
care at Harrisburg State Hospital and looked forward to the transfer.
That evening she advised a nurse that she was contemplating hanging
herself on the bathroom door. The nurse explored the suicidal thoughts
with the patient; she recanted her thoughts and contracted for safety.
She was on a 15 minutes check throughout this period of time.
Later that evening, Ms. Sohn approached the Nurses Station to
inquire about the status of her roommate and returned to her room. The
nursing staff heard a loud noise, which was unusual for the ward. The
staff ran to her room and found Ms. Sohn had hung herself with her bed
linens on the bathroom door of her hospital room. The staff immediately
removed the self made noose and applied cardiopulmonary recitation.
She survived the suicide attempt, but never regained consciousness. She
died several days later.
Select psychiatric and medical records will be highlighted,
relating to diagnostic and treatment resistant issues involved
in Ms. Sohn's care followed by a discussion of my conclusions.
1 . Edgewater' Psychiatric Center.
Admission Physical Assessment: "This patient is a 24 year old white
female who was admitted on a 302 commitment. Patient apparently had
called crisis several times claiming different methods of suicide attempts.
One being on overdose on Paxil and another that she was going to cut
herself with a razor. She was also found on the 6th floor of a garage
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
July 28, 2004
Page 3
sitting on the edge and ready to jump . . . at the time of admission,
patient was very aggressive and had to be kept in seclusion . . . There is
also a question of alcohol abuse. . . Paxil 20 mg. Q daily." Conclusion
was an Axis I diagnosis of Dysthymia and Axis \I Borderline personality
disorder. Aftercare Plan: Ms. Sohn was discharged on 30 mg. Paxil and
750 mg. Depakote a day.
Consultation Report by Beth A. Kratosky, 2/25/98: Ms. Sohn was
taken to the ER after "taking an overdose of Depakote while intoxicated."
She was "oriented X3, agitated and non cooperative. Pt. would not admit
reason for 00 - she did state she is depressed. pt. would not answer
questions as asked by CI counselor. She was shackled & restrained during
interview due to elopement risk and "biting" her IV in half. Pt. admitted
to alcohol abuse (.13 bal). Edie Baldwin (ER nurse) petitioned on 302,
Martin Gespy (delegate) approve & Dr. Caruso signed off. pt to be
transported to Carlisle Hospital by Quality Ambulance."
2. Section 303. Mental Health Procedure Act
Noted, "Enroute to hospital she jumped out of moving ambulance.
While in RE, she loosened her leg restraints with her other foot, bit her IV
tubing. I feel given her behavior she is in danger to herself. She was also
a pt. here last week and attempted to run at that time and had to be
tackled at that time."
3. Carlisle Hospital.
a. Psychiatric Evaluation Dr. Manfredi reviewed Ms. Sohn's
history and past psychiatric medications, noting "The patient states that
all of her problems are due to sexual abuse which occurred within her
family as a young child. She would not describe the details. , She claims
that it happened repeatedly . . . She has abused alcohol intermittently
and drank the day prior to admission. In the past, she has abused LSD,
cocaine, crack cocaine and marijuana. . . She is the youngest of three
siblings having an older brother and sister. She is not close with either of_
them. There is a family history of depression in the patient's father and
mother, both of whom are on antidepressants. The patient's paternal
grandfather died in a state hospital. There is history of alcohol use in the
patient's brother. . . She smokes a pack of cigarettes per day. The
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
July 28, 2004
Page 4
patient is Gravida 3 Para 2 having one abortion." Admitting diagnosis was
major depression, recurrent, severe, without psychotic features, Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder, chronic type, Alcohol abuse and Mixed
substance abuse in remission and an Axis II diagnosis of borderline
personality disorder. She was considered an elopement risk, placed in a
locked unit.
b. Patient Assessment Form.
Ms. Sohn, "Could not name any" support person.
c. Psychiatric Assessment Form.
"Tattoo R. breast" . . . "Evasive" about Precipitating
Factors/Stressors. Her Therapist was Tim Bennett, MA Hershey. "Pt.
arrived unaccompanied . . . pt. displayed disinterest." Her appearance
was "Disheveled. . . Hostile."
d. Social Work Services Biopsychosocial Assessment Natalie L.
Hume, MSW, LSW, 2/25/98, noted Ms. Sohn was "uncooperative with the
interview process. . . many questions that she will not answer, stating, 'I
do not care to answer that.' She will also not give the names and
numbers of anyone in her family to be reached to provide an additional
history. . . Her parents divorced when she was 15 . . . She quit school in
the 10th grad and when questioned why she quit, she state, 'I do not like
to talk about that.' She did obtain a GED and some college credits. She
has never been married but has two children, ages 2 and 4, two different
men. . . currently works at a credit union doing adjustments and has
been there almost two years. . . first hospitalized in 1990 at the
Meadows. . . Philhaven in 10/90, Polyclinic in 11/91, Philhaven 1/95,
Harrisburg State Hospital in /95, the Windows program in 8/96 and was
discharged from Edgewater on 2/24/98. She states that she first
became suicidal in the 5th grade. She admits to one prior overdose
approximately 5 or 6 years ago. . . Her children are currently being cared
for by her older sister. She will not talk about her children. She denies
any problems with drugs and alcohol . . ." Plan of Intervention was
"Individual and group therapies to work on impulse control and
communication. We will encourage her to allow us to contact her family
and have her provide numbers of the family so we can get a better
picture of what is happening in the patient's life."
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
July 28, 2004
Page 5
e. Admitting Orders include a Level I restriction on the locked
psychiatric unit.
f. Physician's Orders She was maintained on Paxil 30 mg. at
bedtime and Depakote levels were evaluated. She was considered an
elopement risk and did not have off unit privileges. Seclusions and
restraints were prescribed every four hours for "Protection of pt. and
others" as needed. "Trial out @nsg discretion." She was started on
Nicoderm 21 mg. patch for smoking cessation and Trazodone 100 mg. at
bedtime was started on 3/2198.
g. Clinical Laboratory Report, 2/26/98, revealed a Cannabinoid
level of 17, a high Valproic Acid of 111.
h. Progress Notes.
2/25/98, 1415, Admitting Note: "... Safety search done - pt.
wearing scrubs - pt. denies SI @ present - contracted for safety should SI
reoccur. . . "
2/25/98, NN: " . . . Very gamey with staff. Refusing to answer
questions, found sitting in bathroom floor, but refused to give reason.
She favored r arm when getting up and at first refused to show staff the
problem. After staff insisted she showed her arm and appeared to be
free of injury. She told staff she wanted to cut self and staff told her of
the need to stay in common room, then she changed her mind and
suddenly was not interested in cutting self. Denies SI."
2/26/98, Attending Note: "Would not talk with me. Could not
assess thoroughly due to pts uncooperative attitude . . . remains too
unstable to D/C."
2/26/98, NN: "Pt. seclusive to room - in bed all AM, refused groups
. . . pt. denies SI @ present. Focused on 'getting out of here.'''
2/26/98, SWS: "pt. reluctantly allowed me to contact her sister
Jennifer McDonald . . . She did not want me to tell her sister the
circumstances of her admission about being self destructive. Sister
reports the pt. has had a problem since 10th grade & frequent
hospitalizations. She self mutilates. Sister states the pt. claims her
brother sexually abused her. The allegation was investigated 7 sister
reports it was found to be 'child's sexual play' brother is 2 yrs. older. She
adds pt. claims to have been raped several times . . . "
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
July 28, 2004
Page 6
2/26/98, 1600, NN: "Pt. refused to attend AA RAP, 'I don't like it'
. . . now states there is no reason for her to attend group to keep her
behavior in control because 'you won't let me smoke anyway.' Explained
to pI. that assaultive behavior on unit would be prosecuted, and damaged
items would need paid for. . . "
2/26/98, 2030, NN: "refuses to talk to staff, escorted to quiet
room for time out. Resistive to changing into scrub suit for safety. pt.
than lay curled up against wall on bare floor. pt. informed of reason for
time out and need to maintain behavioral controls."
2/26/98, 2110, NN: "PI. punched wall in quiet room and is unable
to contract that she would not repeat this behavior. Place in 4 pt.
restraints with no resistance offered . . . "
2/27/98, 1045, P.Tech: " . . . She was resistive to getting her
vitals < breakfast. . . pt. refused groups stating 'what difference does it
make I can't smoke'."
2/27/98, Attending Note: "'I want to go home.' Mood irritable. . .
little insight into the severity of her~elf destructive behavior. Discussed
petition for 20 d commitment, and the likelihood of state hospitalization.
Reviewed expectation for her behaviors. Discussed that she will have no
level 2 privileges and we cannot trust her statement @ this time.
Continue Paxil - pt. reported to be very helpful. Depakote level - resume
if level acceptable."
2/27/98 SWS: "303 hearing scheduled for 3/2/98 @ 10 AM. . .
Pointed out that her behaviors prior to admission and last evening show
that she is not safe & has poor control. Worried she will be sent to the
State Hospital. Sister will not testify because she fears the pt. will keep
her children from her."
2/27/98: "Did not attend the 12 step group. Here to being on the
self destructing protocol. Denies having a problem with alcohol . . . "
2/27/98, 2100, NN: "Pt. remains in Q 15 min. per self destructive
protocol . . . She needed verbal prompt to retrieve her self destructive
protocol assignment. . . pt. currently has the sexual abuse protocol. . .
She denies SI . . . No depression protocol so pt. given self esteem
protocol, reviewed thought distortion with pt."
2/28/98, Attending: "Reports feeling much better. 'I'm behaving
myself.' pt. acknowledged her pre-admission self destructive behavior.
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
July 28, 2004
Page 7
'I Just get impulsive. I do it for attention. My parents don't
give me enough attention. They hold it against me that I told
on my brother (i.e. sexual abuse issues).' Pt. denies SIIHI. 'I'll
behave now. I don't want to go back to the state hospital.'
Acknowledged alcohol use. Continue Paxil. Will not start other meds @
this time as there are no clear indications for additional meds @ this time.
Maintain level I. Discussed how pt. must demonstrate one week of
appropriate behavior before will consider level 2."
2/28/98, 1430, NN: "Pt. remains in 'poor me' state. Passive
aggressive with attempts to play staff with emotional guilt. 'I have to
work the street' (referring to prostituting herself). pt. encouraged to
continue to work on issues to help heal her wounds and past hurts."
2/28/98, 1660, Group Note: "Patient attended & participated in
drug & alcohol orientation group. . . "
2/28/98, 1930, NN: " . . . Pt. attempted to go off unit on 1630
walk, states, 'I was allowed to go out early today, they just think I'll run
away.' Testing limits with staff, able to maintain appropriate control.
Reading in protocol. Denies SI and auditorylvisual hallucinations."
3/1/98, P.Tech: ". . . Reported that she was afraid that she would
hurt herself. pt. asked that notebooks be removed from room because
she might hurt herself with them, then was observed with room-mates
notebook. Pt. was escorted by staff at 02:30 to seclusion room and
placed on visual to ensure safety at this time. . . "
3/1/98, 1350, NN: " . . . pt. utilize passive aggressive measures to
get the attention she is desiring. Pt. has attempted to manipulate unit
rules. Ex. 1. She overslept breakfast then wanted to skip Community
Mtg. to eat breakfast, 2. She wanted to go to Community Mtg in her
pajamas, 3. She wanted staff to phone in her menu selections for
tomorrow due she wouldn't get up & eat & fill her menu out, so she got
potluck. Boundaries & limits per unit ruleslroutine maintained. Pt. given
$ feedback for work done in college. Reviewed college with pt. Pt.
attending groups yet is needy of attention. 1:1 focused on pt. seeking to
have needs met in healthy way."
3/1/98, 1800, P.Tech, Group Note: "Pt. was able to complete an
assignment within her protocol. She tended to need redirection away
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
July 28, 2004
Page 8
from her avoidance of her task. However, encouraged pt. to complete
chemical history of substance abuse protocol."
3/1/98, 2350, P.Tech: " . . . Pt. is worried about hearing tomorrow.
However, she told her family she was going to be committed for 20 days.
Spoke with pt. about secondary gains to being sick. She rattled off a list
benefits within seconds. Then pt. states, 'I not ready to go back to work
yet.' Encouraged pt. to use 'creating safety' area in protocol prior to
completing assignments. No self-mutilation noted."
3/2/98, Attending note: "hearing upheld the 303."
3/2/98, 1205, P.Tech: "... left communication group early. . .
got upset and angry about 303 hearing this morning and about content
of commitments of group discussion . . . pt. reported that she 'hit the
wall' and showed this writer her right hand which was swollen and the
knuckles with some skin scraped. pt. was placed on self-destruction
protocol and given assignment, restricted to room for 40 beginning at
12:00. When nurse attempted to examine pt's hand pt. refused and
stated 'it's alright'."
3/2/98, 8W8: "pt. found smoking in her room. . . cigarettes &
lighter found. Behavior contract reviewed with the pt. She agreed and
signed this but is reluctant to arrange for a family meeting stating her
father sides with her & he hits walls too. . . She minimizes her problem,
jokes about them. Refuses to assist me in filling out the State Hospital
application."
3/2/98, Attending Note: "... 'I want to smoke.' No responsibility
taken for aberrant behavior. E9 81 . . . Denies plan or intent, uncooperative
. . , pursue State Hosp., maintain suicide precautions."
3/2/98, 2300 Group note: "pt. attended aftercare group. She
completed her 2 page assignment. Encouraged pt. to bring it to next
group. . . pt. has been complying with behavior plan & unit policy. She
was able to actively participate in groups. Pt. attempted to get out of
responsibility due to hurting hand. Explained consequences and required
pt. to complete the assignment using alternative method. Pt. has
behavioral plan."
On 3/3/98, Ms. Sohn was sleeping well, attending all of her
required events, "She would not participate in role play stating 'I can't'."
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
July 28, 2004
Page 9
3/3/98, 1830, NN: "pt. continues with manipulative adolescent
behaviors and smiling when asked a question of serious nature . . . Made a
reference to thoughts of hanging herself on bathroom door, 'but I really
don't think I would do it: Feels depressed because everyone is mad at her
for always doing the wrong thing."
3/3/98, 2000, NN: "Staff nurse reported pI. contracted for safety
at this time. Pt. has been maintained on q 15 min checks throughout
day."
3/3/98, Attending Note: "'I guess I should go to the State
Hospital. Maybe I need a longer time to get well.' Affect broad, mood
cheerful, jokes about her situation. Discussed more about her chronic
problem with relationship difficulties and lack of responsibility for her
problem. Reviewed medication history. No meds have truly affected
her . . . 'only when I take charge of my life do I do any better.'
Adamantly denied SI - 'I'll behave: Discussed plan to monitor Paxil.
Reviewed plan for State Hospital only if current situation does not
improve over next week-10 days. Patient feels 'interested' to get well. "
won't kill myself: Continue Paxi!. Continue Therapy & suicide precautions.
Family work to be scheduled when pt. complies - attempt for this week."
3/3/98, 2145, NN: "pt. approached door of nurses station at this
time asking if her roomate had been discharged."
3/3/98, 2150, NN: "Staff heard a loud band down hallway and 3
staff started down hall in direction of the noise. PI. was found hanging by
a sheet from hinges on bathroom door. P. was lifted by a male staff while
another female staff untied sheet from pt's neck. PI. was lowered to the
floor. Neck stabilized and CPR- started by RN and other staff. A stat was
immediately initiated."
i. Beck Depression Inventoty (BDI):
On 2/28/98: score = 6.
On 3/1/98: score == 4.
On 3/2/98: score == 4.
On 3/3/98: score == 4.
These scores indicate there is no clinical depression. She denied
she had thoughts of killing herself and was not discouraged about the
future.
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
July 28, 2004
Page 10
j. Completed forms: Problem List and Goals, Multi- disciplinary
Plan of Care. Dual Diagnosis Information and History. Behavior Contract on
3/2/98 and Seclusion/Restrain Documentation Form.
k. Discharae Summary, 3/3/98.
Dr. Manfredi noted, 'The patient's story is not always consistent so
it is difficult to assess the accuracy of the information provided. . . She
claims that she in no way wanted to die when she took the
overdose of Depakote and alcohol. She claims that she simply
wanted to get people's attention that she was desperate for
help. . . The patient was discharged to the IMCU following what appears
to be a self-induced hanging. Following stabilization with cardiopulmonary
resuscitation the patient was transferred to the IMCU."
I. Discharge Summary, 3/5/98.
Dr. Debra D. Taylor stated, "She was successfully resuscitated after
about 20 minutes of aggressive efforts and was admitted to the Intensive
Care Unit for further care. . ." The patient deteriorated neurologically
and was pronounced dead at 11 :30 P.M. on 3/5/98.
4. Deposition of Rocco L. Manfredi. M.D.. 212.6f02.
Dr. Manfredi's deposition revealed a well-informed psychiatrist,
particularly regarding hospital policies and procedures. He articulated the
different. types of suicidal precautions. Dr. Manfredi also spoke to Dr.
Davis in order to get more background on Ms. Sohn and was aware of her
previous suicidal gestures. He articulated that psychiatric nurse Steve
Murdoch did not feel that Ms. Sohn was a serious threat at the time,
despite mentioning she was thinking of hanging herself on the bathroom
door. Dr. Manfredi was satisfied, and tr.usted his staff. He felt "she was
frequently making statements about hurting herself or about not caring,
and that had been going on from the time that she was admitted, and he
didn't see this one as out of line with any of the others that she had mad,
plus she had contracted for safety and said that she really wasn't going
to hurt herself but that she had that thought." (p.9).
Dr. Manfredi discussed Ms. Sohn's suicide gestures, "I don't know if
anyone has an actual tally of how many suicide gestures that she had
made, and was this one different than the others that she had made, she
could have ended her life numerous times in the past but didn't succeed,
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
July 28, 2004
Page 11
and why this one did succeed and the others didn't, I can't say. . . "
(P.11). Dr. Manfredi discussed the level of privileges allowed to the
patients, spelled out the differences in the various categories. He trusted
his nurses to make interim decisions about restriction levels. He was
available 24 hours, 7 days a week. (p. 42-43). In response to a question
of taking the risk of suicide seriously, (p 47), Dr. Manfredi replied, "Yes, J
guess it's not absolute though, either taking it serious or not taking it
serious. I don't believe based on knowing Steve and his quality of work as
well as what he said about that situation that he just blew it off like it
was no big deal or, you know, or he didn't care or didn't think that he
could n or didn't take her situation seriously. You're constantly weighing
a patient's freedom, liberties, their ability to carry out their activities of
daily living with dignity versus maintaining their safety, so at all times
when you're observing their behavior, listening to what they're saying,
you constantly have to weigh one against the other. So at that point
when she made that statement, what all the nurses are trained to do is
think through that situation and weigh what level of intervention they
need to make versus allowing the patient more freedom, dignity and
privileges to help them, you know, advance along the way and make
progress."
5. Deposition of Steve Murdoch. 2/25/02.
Discussing an increase in Ms. Sohn's suicide watch:
"No, because in the same sentence that she said that, she said but I
really don't think I would do it, and whenever anything is discussed like
that, we clarity and go in more detail, the thoughts of why the person
said this, and if there was any indication at all that I felt that this was any
more serious than just a vague thought of hers, then I would discuss it
more seriously with the staff, and we would have put her on a suicide
watch or put her in seclusion. But I didn't feel and neither did the others
feel that this was serious enough because of her stating that she didn't
feel as though she would do it, and just remembering that when we
discussed it further that she wasn't suicidal at the time, and which I did
not put in here in this note, and I remembered that I did not put it in
when I was ready to leave. And I told Pam that I didn't write it in the
note, but I did tell her that she did contract with me that she was not
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
July 28, 2004
Page 12
suicidal, and I think Pam said she was going to put it in the note, in her
note." (p. 21).
6. Deposition of Matthew Sohn. 7/16/02.
Mr. Sohn noted his mother bought a house for his sister Julie. He
noted, (p. 13), "She had been through many jobs. She always had
problems keeping a job . . ." On p. 53 he notes in response to previous
suicide attempts, 'There were approximately three times where she took
over-the-counter drugs that I knew about."
7. Deposition of Jennifer McDonel. 7/1 5/02.
Ms. Sohn's sister, Jennifer McDanel, took care of the first daughter,
Courtney, about 50% of the time. (p. 15)
Q. "And why is it that you were providing 50 percent of the girls'
care?"
A. "Because there were a lot of times that she was in the
hospital. "
She discussed calling Child Services. There was a question that Ms.
Sohn had left her youngest daughter, Molly, alone in the apartment.
Daycare called Child Services. (P. 33)
Q. "And what is it about the incident that prompted you to call
Children & Youth Services?"
A. "they told me that she had been out drinking and was driving
around with the girls in the car."
Q. "Who told you that?"
A. 'The daycare worker."
Q. "And do you know how the daycare worker knew?"
A. "Because she lived with her." (P. 35),
Jennifer had to leave work early in order to pick up Molly. She also
considered taking custody of the children and contacted a lawyer. "The
lawyer advised us that as long as we had as much contact as we had with
the girls, that we should not do anything, because if we started it she
could take the kids and run." (p. 37)
Jennifer states she received a call from her mother in the middle of
the night "and told me to go get the kids." (p. 40)
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
July 28, 2004
Page 13
" . . . Mom was in Florida. Somebody had called her in Florida. . . and said
that she was at the house, that Julie had disappeared, and she didn't
know what to do . . ." She then learned Ms. Sohn was at Edgewater.
8. Deposition of Judy Hanna. (mother of Ms. Sohn). 7/15/02.
Ms. Hanna spoke of the conversation she had with her daughter,
Julie, on the day of the hanging, "Well, when I talked to her on the 3rd,
she -- then she told me she was -- what she was doing. . . I think they
were doing like a craft class or something. . . that she went to or a
group. She mentioned she would go to group, but never said anything
that happened. . . She told me she needed giasses, and she lost a cavity,
and she needed to have a filling done. It was very upbeat, that she
wouldn't be going to the State Hospital." (p 75-76)
Discussion of Data
The critical issue in evaluating Ms. Sohn's suicide is related to her
primary psychiatric disorder. Although she has been described to have
recurrent episodes of major depression, there was no evidence of clinical
depression during her hospitalization and her SOl scores were all in the
low normal range, indicating the absence of depression and a sense of
hope for the future.
Ms. Sohn's primary psychiatric disorder Is borderline
personality disorder (BPD). Personality disorder is "an enduring
pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the
expectation of the individual's culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an
onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time, and leads to
distress or impairment." (DSM-IV-TR) Cluster S personality disorders
include antisocial, borderline, histrionic, and narcissistic categories. BPD is
defined in DSM-IV-TR as "a pervasive pattern of instability of interpersonal
relationships, self image, and affects, and marked impulsivity beginning by
early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by 5 (or
more)" of 9 criteria. Ms. Sohn's had,
--- of.
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
July 28, 2004
Page 14
(1) A pattern of unstable and intense interpersonal relationships
characterized by alternating between extremes of idealization and
devaluation.
(2) Identity disturbance: markedly and persistently unstable self-
image or sense of self.
(3) Impulsivity in at least two areas that are potentially self-
damaging, (e.g., spending, sex, substance abuse, reckless driving, binge
eating).
(4) Recurrent suicidal behavior, gestures, or threats, or self-
mutilating behavior.
(5) Affective instability due to a marked reactivity of mood (e.g.,
intense episodic dysphoria, irritability, or anxiety usually lasting a few
hours and only rarely more than a few days).
(6) Inappropriate, intense anger or difficulty controlling anger (e.g.,
frequent displays of temper, constant anger, recurrent physical fights).
Ms. Sohn clearly fulfills 6 of the 9 diagnostic requirements for the
diagnosis of BPO. The remaining three criteria, (7) Chronic feelings of
emptiness, (8) Frantic efforts to avoid real or imagined abandonment,
and, (9) Transient, stress-related paranoid ideation or severe dissociative
symptoms, are not clearly evident but are viable possibilities.
Ms. Sohn had a chronic, life-long, chaotic life style. She had been
hospitalized on psychiatric units on numerous occasions and committed
to the Harrisburg State Hospital. She had an addiction to drugs and
alcohol and Iied/ denied the extent of her addiction. She had a long
history of suicide gestures, by her own admission, to attract attention.
She was committed for having a rage attack in an ambulance. She had
impaired relationships with the men in her life and her own family. She
left her children unattended and was reported to Child Services. She did
not take her medications appropriately. Treating this type of patient, a
severe personality disorder, is a psychiatrist's and treatment team's
worst nightmare. It is akin to treating an antisocial personality disorder
(sociopath). One can understand why mental health professionals are
loath to accept someone of this ilk into their treatment program,
especially since it is associated with a high incidence of treatment failure.
-" ..--.
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
July 28, 2004
Page 15
Ms. Sohn had the typical pattern displayed by severe BPD. She
would appear stable for a while and then suddenly require hospitalization
or therapy in a crisis situation. She was unable to take care of herself and
her daughter or maintain employment for a sustained period. Her
prognosis for recovery was bleak. Ms. Sohn's pattern of instability,
outbursts, and suicide gestures would certainly continue until one gesture
would go awry and she succeeded, as in this case, in accidentally killing
herself.
The hospital records reported objectively classical findings noted in
people with BPD. The entries are not pejorative and do not reflect
negative attitudes in the staff. They describe Ms. Sohn's attitude
towards the staff as manipulative, negativistic, uncooperative, hostile.
She refused to comply with orders on the unit. She would try to elope.
She was smoking on the unit against advice. These are traits that are
consistent with both borderline and antisocial personality disorder.
Considering the severity and the chronicity of a very chaotic individual,
the hospital treatment team did an excellent job of working with Ms.
Sohn.
The Carlisle Hospital treatment team, headed by Dr. Rocco
Manfredi, did a professional job of working with Ms. Sohn under very
adverse conditions. Dr. Manfredi did an excellent evaluation and made the
appropriate and correct diagnoses. His psychopharmacologic intervention
was appropriate. He was on call for the unit 24/7. He was well
connected to his staff and knew them well. For instance, his comments
about Steve Murdoch's impressions that Ms. Sohn had contracted for
safety and that he trusted that, goes to the issue of trust in a colleague's
clinical judgment. The staff worked together well and it was appropriate
they took each other's input seriously.
I disagree with plaintiff's expert, Howard S. Sudak. Dr. Rocco
Manfredi had the ultimate responsibility for Ms. Sohn's treatment. He had
an awareness of Ms. Sohn's previous behavior, having spoken to Dr. Davis
to elicit additional information. Dr. Sudak talks about the failure to
document adequate information on a suicidal threatening patient. The
1 , ; _,,-
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
July 28, 2004
Page 16
doctors/staff are there primarily to treat/manage/contain Ms. Sohn.
They bring a great deal of past experience and clinical judgment in the
management of Ms. Sohn. Unfortunately, there is a tendency to judge a
completed suicide case by hindsight by what is written in the chart. I
believe this is patently absurd. In point of fact, the written chart is a
convincing document that Ms. Sohn was an untreatable, noncompliant
personality disorder.
. '
In my review of other suicide cases, I have not seen many charts
that comply with all of the plaintiff's experts possible objections in
information gathering and managing patients like Ms. Sohn. I believe the
staff did 15 minute checks as ordered. The staff has worked together
sufficiently to know when someone is dishonest in their charting. The
hospital staff are not sociopaths or afflicted with a personality disorder.
It was Julie Sohn that had the severe personality disorder. Regarding the
entry, which appears at the bottom of the progress notes page on March
3, many records, including my own, have notes at the bottom of the
chart, writing sometimes even into the advertising section. There is a
tendency to vilify and make sinister decent people who work in the
mental health profession, often with little appreciation of years of quiet
productivity.
Dr. Sudak notes suicide gestures should be taken seriously. Does
he really believe the staff did not take Ms. Sohn seriously? .In a borderline
patient with a life story of a chaotic disorderly life, with multiple suicide
attempts, hospitalizations, commitment for acts of violence, Dr. Manfredi
put it best by noting that there are many gestures and why this one
resulted in death is a major question. He struggled with allowing his
patients the greatest freedom, because he follows the rule of the least
restrictive alternative, in the goal of providing them a sense of personal
responsibility, dignity, and self empowerment.
How does a staff prepare to deal with Ms. Sohn's type of
impulsivity? Any trivial event in life will be perceived as an issue of
abandonment or frustration and precipitate an impulsive self-harming
gesture. Medications are not very effective in controlling this feature of
~ , j .
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
July 28, 2004
Page 17
BPD. Since suicidal behavior can't be predicted, should a 24/7 one-to-
one monitoring of the patient from the age of 15 continue until the age
of 24? I don't believe one can ever feel assured that Ms. Sohn could be
trusted not to attempt another gesture. Ms. Sohn was ultimately
responsible for her destiny. Ms. Sohn said it concisely, "only when I take
charge of my life do I do any better." (3/3/98 Ajtending note)
Thus, I believe to a reasonable degree of medical
certainty 'that the care provided to Ms. Julie Sohn by the
Carlisle Hospital mental health team was within the standard of
care.
Sincerely yours,
Q, If' ," .(% _ I ,,)
:€'b 1dZ (fL-tX~Ci/U.-O j\;( d
I
Joseph DiGiacomo M.D.
I
JDld
. , , '"
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
July 28, 2004
Page 18
Table I
1. Psychiatric records of Carlisle Hospital;
2. Medical records of Carlisle Hospital;
3. Policies and procedures of Carlisle Hospital psychiatric unit;
4. Plaintiff's Complaint;
5. Answer of Carlisle Hospital;
6. Deposition transcript of Judith Lenk;
7. Deposition transcript of Rena Wilson;
8. Deposition transcript of Robert Dobler;
9. Deposition transcript of Pamela Shur;
10. Deposition transcript of Natalie Hume;
11. Deposition transcript of Gerald Franco, M.D.;
12. Deposition transcript of Rococo L. Manfredi, M.D.;
13. Deposition transcript of Steven Murdoch;
14. Deposition transcript of Dr. Patricia Krebs;
15. Deposition transcript of Jennifer McDonel;
1 6. Deposition transcript of Matthew Sohn;
1 7. Deposition transcript of Judy Hanna;
18. Deposition transcript of Debra Martini;
19. Expert report of Howard S. Sudak, M.D.;
20. Expert report of Harvey L. Ruben, M.D.;
21. Expert report of Isidore Mihalakis, M.D.
. . J ..
CERTIFICATE: OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this ~ day of (/JbiJ-k.J. 2004, I hereby certify that I
served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon all counsel of record by
facsimile and by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, regular delivery,
postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows:
Daniel M. Clements, Esquire
ISRAELSON, SALSBURY,
CLEMENTS & BEKMAN, L.L.C.
300 W. Pratt Street, Suite 450
Baltimore, MD 21201
Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17112
FARRELL & RICCI, P.C.
-zd~/
~..l'\I'\.CL-
l
~I(if) L-t-/oSpr-/zz t
Ii ~()H) -/J.--~~
VERIFICATION
I verify that the statements contained in the foregoing Complaint are true and
correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
I understand that false statements contained therein are made subject to the
-_penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. ~4904 relating to unsworn falsification to auttlOrities.
~. dy renna, as Administrator
of the Estate of Julie Sohn,
Deceased
Date:
I J 5/dCtJO
---~._"---- -- _ ~...o..-,_~_ ....'--.___-
~ M ~~
<n
~O
-~ ;:s:;
<: I
~5 N
, 8:
rE,,' z
~ "'"
--,
5 0
0
.'
,
JUDY HANNA, As Administrator of the
Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased and for
the benefit of COURTNEY SOHN and
MOLLY SORN, Minors,
Plain tiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
NO. 2000-125 Civil Term
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
TO: Judy Hanna, Administrator of the Estate of
Julie Sohn, Deceased, and for the benefit of
Courtney Sohn and MollY Sohn, Minors, Plaintiffs
c/o Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg
P.O. Box 1177
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Counsel for Plaintiffs
NOTICE TO PLEAD
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TD PLEAD TO THE PRELIMINARY
OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT CARLISLE HOSPITAL TO PLAINTIFFS'
COMPLAINT WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF SERVICE OR A DEFAULT
JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU.
Respectfully submitted,
FARRELL & RICCI, P.C.
Date: 9../glo()
. cci, Esquire
ttorney 1. No. 49803
20 g estown Road, Suite 108
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 652-6101
Counsel for Defendant Carlisle Hospital
<
JUDY HANNA, As Administrator
of the estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased
and for the benefit of COURTNEY SOHN :
and MOLLY SOHN, Minors,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
No. 2000-125 Civil Term
v.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT CARLISLE HOSPITAL
AND NOW COMES Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, by and through its counsel,
Farrell & Ricci, P.C., by Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire and preliminarily objects to Plaintiffs
Complaint for the following reasons:
1. The above-captioned matter is a psychiatric malpractice action which seeks
recovery of damages allegedly arising from the death of Julie Sohn.
2. The Plaintiff commenced suit on or about January 6, 2000 with the ftIing of a
Complaint
3. The Complaint was served on counsel for Defendant Carlisle Hospital on
January 10, 2000.
4. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028, it is permissible to assert preliminary objections
to a Complaint which 1) fails to state a claim with sufficient specifiCity and 2) fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.
I. MOTION TO STRIKE PARAGRAPH 29(1)
5. Pursuant to Count I, the Plaintiff asserts a claim premised upon the alleged
negligence of agents of the Carlisle HospitaL
6. Pursuant to Paragraph 29 and its subparts, the Plaintiff attempts to set forth
the alleged negligence upon which her claim is premised.
7. Pursuant to Paragraph 29(1) it is alleged that the negligence of the
Defendant's agents consisted of negligence "in other ways."
8. Paragraph 29(1) is in violation of the pleading rules of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania which require a party to state the material facts upon which their claim is
premised. See Pa.R.C.P. 1020(a).
9. Defendant Carlisle Hospital is prejudiced by the existence of Paragraph 29(1)
since its presence will allow the Plaintiff to avoid the bar of the statute of limitations and
assert claims which are time barred. ~ Connor v. Alleehenv General Hospital, 501 Pa.
306, 461 A.2d 600 (1983).
10. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2) it is proper to strike from a pleading
averments which fail to conform to law or rule of court.
WHERFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Honorable Court strike from the
Complaint Paragraph 29(1) for failure to conform with law or rule of court.
II. DEMURRER TO CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF CONSORTIUM CONTAINED IN
COUNTS II AND III OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
11. Pursuant to Counts II and III of Plaintiffs Complaint claims are made for
damages pursuant to the Pennsylvania Wrongful Death Statute 42 Pa.C.S.A. ~8301.
12. Pursuant to Paragraphs 32 and 37 of the Complaint, the Plaintiff, on behalf
of the minor children of Julie Sohn, seeks damages for the alleged "loss of society, comfort,
services and guidance [Julie SohnJ would have provided to them, had she lived."
13. Damages recoverable pursuant to the Pennsylvania Wrongful Death Statute,
42 Pa.C.S.A. 98301, are limited to the pecuniary losses occasioned by the decedent's
passing.
14. Damages for 1088 of consortium are not recoverable pursuant to the
Pennsylvania Wrongful Death Statute, 42 Pa.C.s.A. 98301.
15. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) it is proper to dismiss from a Complaint
allegations which fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Honorable Court dismiss
Plaintiff claims for loss of consortium contained in Counts II and III.
III. MOTION TO STRIKE CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
16. Pursuant to Counts IV, V, and VI, Plaintiff makes a demand for punitive
damages.
17. To properly state a claim for punitive damages, it is necessary to allege that
the Defendant's conduct was outrageous because of the Defendant's evil motive or his
reckless indifference to the rights of others.
18. The Plaintiffs Complaint fails to set forth sufficient facts to establish the
alleged culpability of Defendant Carlisle Hospital for imposition of punitive damages.
19. Plaintiffs demand for punitive damages fails to conform to the requirements
of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
20. Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(2) it is proper to strike from a Complaint
allegations which do not properly conform to law or rule of court.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Honorable Court strike
Plaintiffs claims for punitive damages for failure to conform to law or rule of court.
Respectfully submitted,
FARRELL & RICCI, P.C.
seph A. .
e J.D. o. 49803
Marc T. Levin, Esquire
Attorney 1.D. No. 70294
2000 Linglestown Road, Suite 108
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 652-6101
Counsel for Defendant Carlisle Hospital
D
c:--
Date:
J..je/co
,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 8th day of February, 2000, I, Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire, hereby certify
that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Preliminary Objections upon all
counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, regular delivery,
postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows:
Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg
P.O. Box 1177
Harrisburg, PA 17108
>:
0,
~l
1,.-'
u: ~'-.,l
c,'-
rr~ ~, .~
'f ..c._
@,t-:_.
i'c-?:
ECi~.:.::.
..
--". .
C:~.i:
1-'
1'_
o
r-'
c<;c
N
(t:
f-:
z
::::-<-,..
C-J-;;
-CJ:-;i
C1:3
~~?
'S3
:':.)0-
~
::::J
-<;>
en
I
C""'-
L:,~l
L.-
=
=
.;
--~---------.--.-.--'--'
Farrell & Ricci. P.c.
2QOO Lhi.Qlestown Rd,
Sui ter 108
Harrisbur~. PA 17110
(71 7) 652-6 101
3
SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY
.t.__ ___~__
CASE NO: 2000-00125 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
HANA JUDY ET AL
VS
CARLISLE HOSPITAL
R::- Thoma.s Kline
, Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being
duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and
and inquiry for the within named DBFENDANT
, to wit:
CARLISLE HOSPITAL
but was unable to locaEe Him in bis bailiwick. He therefore
deputized the sheriff of DAUPHIN County, Pennsylvania, to
seTve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE
On February 1st, 2006 ,-this off:lce was in receipt of the
attached return from DAUPHIN
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing
om: of County
Surcharge
DE? DAUPHIN CO
18.00
9.00
:10.00
-29.25
.00
66.25
02/01/2000
. '.HANDLER, HENNING
S.~. ans s: ~. _. ..
-~ .
R. Thomas Kline . .- .
_ Sheriff of Cumberland County
& ROSENBERG
Sworn and subscribed to before me
this .;tr~ day of J'Jd"'UA'"
I
"-.d(.c--v-Q A. D .
~Q ~JIlJ~ A~T
. Prothonotaty
~~
(@ffic~ of. tlp~ ~4e:riff
William T. Tully
Solicitor
Ralph G. McAllister
Chief Deputy
Mary Jane Snyder
Real E,tate Deputy
Michael W. Rinehart
Assistant Chief Deputy
Dauphin County
Harrisburg. Pennsylvania 17101
ph: (717) 255-2660 fax: (717) 255-2889
Jack Lotwick
Sheriff
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
HANNA JUDY
vs
County of Dauphin
CARLISLE HOSPITAL
Sheriff's Return
No. 0126-T - -2000
OTHER COUNTY NO. 2000-125
AND NOW: January 24, 2000
at 1:00PM served the within
NOT~CE & COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION
upon
CARLISLE HOSPITAL
C/O JOSEPH RICCI, ESQ
to KATHY TONEY - SEC
by personally handing
1 tru~~ attested .copy(ies)
of the original
NOTICE & COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION
and making known
to him/her the contents thereof at
200.0 LINGLESTOWN RD
SUITE 108 --
HBG, PA 00000-0000
Sworn and subscribed to
So Answers,
lK~
befora me this 25TH day of JANUARY, 2000
S+--~ C-. ~L-na)
I .
PROTHONOTARY
Sherif~ Dauphin County, Pa.
BY~'
Deputy Sheriff
Sheriff's Cost,S: $29.25 PD 01/19/2000
RCPT NO 132452
TW/TF
_ . I.n The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
Judy Hanna, et'v~l'
Carlisle Hospital, c/o
Joseph Ricci, Esq.
No. 2000-125 Civil
Now,
1/13/2000
__n' 20-00 I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do
hereby deputize the Sheriff of
Dauphin
County to execute this Writ, this
deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff.
~~~~f
Sheriff of Cumbe land County, P A
Affidavit of Service
Now,
M. serv_ed the
,20--, at
o'clock
within
upon
at
by handing to
- copy of the original
a -~
and made known to
c__ . the contents thereof.
So answers,
Sheriff of
County, PA
Sworn and subscribed before
me this_day of ,20_
COSTS
SERVICE
MILEAGE
AFFIDAVIT
$
$
Df.UPH1N GOUIJT'(
SHERIFF'S or-FleE
c .~\ U?HiH COUNT t caul-: IHCU-::'{
IL'.~;iSeUHG Pf. 17E)1
CJJMJ 19 /Ji 8:32
RECEIVED
-;:--'" ~~-
><'
{
JUDY HANNA
As Administrator of the Estaeof
Julic Sohn, Deceased and for the
benefit of COURTNEY SOlIN and
MOLLY SOlIN, Minors
.
IN THE
*
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
*
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Plaintiff
*
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
*
CIVIL ACTION LAW
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
.
No.: 2000-125 Civil Term
Defendant
.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
*******
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO P~ELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF
DEFENDANT. CARLISLE HOSPITAL
Now Comes the Plaintiff, Judy Hanna, et al., by and through her counsel, Carolyn Anner,
Handler, Henning and Rosenberg, Daniel M. Clements and Israelson, Salsbury, Clemcnts and
Bekman and responds to the preliminary objections filed by Defendant, Carlisle Hospital.
I. RESPONSE TO DEMURRER TO CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF CONSORTIUM
CONTAINED IN COUNTS II AND III OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
I. Defendant demurrers to the Plaintiffs Complaint filed under the Pennsylvania
Wrongful Death Statute 42 P A CSA 8301. Defendant claims that paragraphs 32 and 37 of the
Complaint seek damages for loss of society, comfort, services and guidance which could have
been provided to the childrcnhad she lived. Defendant claims that there is no such cause of
action.
2. Plaintiff asserts that there is, in fact, such a cause of action. Plaintiff is entitled to
loss of guidance, tutelagc and moral upbringing. Under Pennsylvania Law, a child can recover
under a Wrongful Death Action for loss of companionship, comfort, society and guidancc of"
,
,
parent. Steiner By Steinery. Bell Telephone Co. ofPennsvlvanifb 358 Pa. Supra., 505. 510, 517
A.2d 1348,1356 (1986) affd 518 Pa. 57, 540 A.2d 266 (1988). Buchecker Y. The Reading
Comoany, 271 Pa. Supra 35, 57, 412 A.2d 147, 158 (1979).
II. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKECLAIM
FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES
3. Defendant claims that the Plaintiff s Complaint fails to set forth facts sufficient to
establish the alleged culpability of Defendant, Carlisle Hospital for imposition of punitive
damages. The Complaint sets forth with great specificity, the reckless wanton disregard for
Plaintiffs decedent as evidenced by the lack of medical care provided by Defendant Carlisle
Hospital.
And for reasons which will be set out further in response to the Defendant's Briefs and
Memorandum.
Respectfully submitted,
~-~~ ~,
CAROL ANNER
ID No.: 62636
Handler, Henniog and Rosenberg
319 Market Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
(717) 238-2000
~~"'~
DANIEL M. CLEMENTS
Israelson, Salsbury, Clements & Bekman
Suite 450
300 W. Pratt Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
(410) 539-6633
Attorneys for Plaintiff
-2-
.'"
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a copy of the aforegoing Plaintiff's Response To Preliminaty
Objections of Defendant, Carlisle Hospital was mailed this 24th day of February, 2000 to:
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
Marc T. Levin, Esquire
Farrell and Ricci
2000 Linglestown Road
Suite 108
Harrisburg, PA l7110
Attorney for Defendant, Carlisle Hospital
~~~
Daniel M. Clements
-3-
,.',.
'l._
)...... ", ~
roc
;::-:-.: ;z
, t~_-! - ::><<:
C'-
., ''c, cJz
"
,. <.c.. ~
'"'- n::::;
, CD :.";1.;)
e~.- N Sz
.. ~:. !; en -LC':Z
UJLU
--- W rY J a..
'.,-. "'- ..;;
, , = :s
u C) 0
,
.JUDY HANNA, As Administrator of the
Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased and for
the benefit of COURTNEY SOHN and
MOLL Y SOHN, Minors,
P lain tiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
CIVIL ACTlON - LAW
NO. 2000-125 Civil Tcrm
v.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
.--,k ORDER ~ (
And now, this U d~ of ~ I on consideration of the motion of
Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire, for special admission of Daniel M. Clements, Esquirc, on behalf of
Plaintiffs, Judy Hanna, As Administrator ofthe Estate of Julie 80hn, Dcceased and for the benefit of
Courtney 80hn and Molly 80hn, Minors, in this matter, and for good cause shown, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1. that Danicl M. Clements, Esquire, be and hereby is admitted pro hac vice to the Bar
of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania under Pennsylvania Bar Admission Rule 30 I,
as co-counsel on behalf of Plaintiffs, Judy Hanna, As Administrator of the Estate of
Julie 80hn, Deceased and for the bcnefit of Courtney Solm and Molly 80hn, Minors,
in this matter;
ii. that Daniel M. Clements, Esquire, shall abide by the rules ofthis Court, including all
disciplinary rules;
iii. iliat Daniel M. Clements, Esquire. shall immediately notify this Court of any matter
affecting his standing at the bar of any other court where he may be admitted to
--------~
-------
FlLElrOFFlCE
OF THE PROW01\DTARY
00 MAR I 7 AM 10: 5 !
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
,
,
practice; and
iv. Carolyn M. Armer, Esquire, the moving party herein, shall continue to be responsible
as counsel of record for the conduct of this matter on behalf of Plaintiffs, Judy Hanna,
As Administrator of the Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased and for the benefit of
Courtney Sohn and Molly SOhn, Minors.
BY THE COURT:
:t.
!!-:
.
J. ~
o'J '\'
p1'{ ,," ~J!:J
1'-
:!
jci\motions\prohacvice-clements.wpd
JUDY HANNA, As Administrator of the
Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased and for
the benefit of COURTNEY SOHN aud
MOLLY SOHN, Minors,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 2000-125 Civil Term
v.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
MOTION FOR SPECIAL ADMISSION
Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire, respectfully moves this Court pursuant to Pennsylvania Bar
Admission Rule 301 for thespecial admission pro hac vice of Daniel M. Clements, Esquire in this
matter and in support represents as follows:
1. I am an attorney at law duly admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania and am a member in good standing of the bar of this Commonwealth.
2. I am an associate in the law firm of HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG and am
counsel of record representing the Plaintiffs in this matter.
3. Daniel M. Clcments, Esquire is associated with me in this matter and seeks admission
pro hac vice on behalf of the Plaintiffs.
4. Daniel M. Clements, Esquire, is a partner in the firm of ISRAELSON, SALSBURY,
CLEMENTS & BEKMAN, L.LC. of Maryland, practicing in Baltimore, Maryland, and is duly
qualified to practice in the courts of Maryland. The supporting affidavit of Daniel M. Clements,
Esquire, is attached hereto.
5. The admission of Daniel M. Clements, Esquire, pro hac vice will materially advance the
conduct of this matter on behalf ofthe Plaintiffs in this matter and will prejudice no one.
WHEREFORE, Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire, respectfully requests that this Court specially
admit Daniel M. Clements, Esquire, pro hac vice on behalf of Plaintiffs in this matter.
Respectfully Submitted,
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG
Date:
S/MJ/(jIJ
I I
Attorney for Plaintiffs
.,
,,'
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Cumberland County
AFFIDAVIT
Daniel M. Clements, Esquire, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
I. I am a member in good standing of thc bar of the courts of Maryland, having been duly
admitted to practice in \'\ '\ ~ (year).
2. I am a partner with Israelson. Salsbury, Clements & Bekman, L.LC. of Maryland and
practice at the office located at 300 West Pratt Street, Suite 450, Baltimore. Maryland 21201.
3. I am presently associated with Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire. in this matter.
4. Plaintiffs desire that I participate in the trial and all other phases of this matter in
Pennsylvania.
5. I Wlderstand that I will be bound by Pennsylvania rules of procedure and professional
conduct.
~~
Israelsof'~ Salsbury, Clements & Bekman, L.LC.
300 West Pratt Street - Suite 450
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
d--
"
Sworn to and subscribed before
me this 4q1h day of F4. ,<Xn?
, - ___u__
f!hJ?JIi!iYr; ;J (J ) (l/~ .
~tary)
Christine L. Weidner, Notary f'.
Harford Counly
Slale of Maryland
My Commission Expires /.My', ~()()3
l ,-)': - - .-.~" - - .'-~'-:'-:"':'-~';'-';"':'-'-'-;'-;.;'-;;:''-':':''':''':'':.~':'':''':'-'
- - - - - - --- ---- ------------, -,--------------,---
-..-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.---.-...-..----.---.-..--.--..-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-
'" .. , ...." , .. ....,
"
_Ii
!i
-.............-....-
M_'.'.'M .'_'MM _ _.
<
,
'Ij'
,..~,-, -
:::E~lrit~f!t:t
0,
r
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT
(Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
Please list the within matter for the next:
Pre-Trial Argument Court
X Argument Court
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated in full)
JUDY HANNA, As Administrator of the
Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased and for
the benefit of COURTNEY SOHN and
MOLLY SOHN, Minors,
Plain tiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
CMLACTION - LAW
v.
NO. 2000-125 Civil Term
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
. Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
1. State matter to be argued (i.e. plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's
demurrer to complaint, etc.): Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs'
Complaint
2. Identify counsel who will argue case:
a. for Plaintiff: Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire and
Daniel M. Clements, Esquire
b. for Defendant: Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
3.
I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed
for argument.
~-
.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 20th day of April, 2000, I, Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire, hereby certify that
I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to List for Argument upon all
counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, regular delivery,
postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows:
,
Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg
P.O. Box 1177
Harrisburg, P A 17108
Daniel M. Clements, Esquire
Israelson, Salsbury, Clements & Bekman, L.L.C.
300 W. Pratt Street
Suite 450
Baltimore, MD 21201
>- '4"> 1=
0:
!~~.: m :z
t, :"<
U ":;5
::~. ~',.... ,. )-~
~ =.: ;:.~
(,~' ~-.J \_..1::::;
I::':, :n ~:-: >--
,- :S~
.- ("-.j
'"- ~:: r5&~
Co.
"'" {;'JCI-
I 0 :::s:
0 ::J
a (.)
,
,
,
Farrell & Ricci. P.C.
- .-<<!
2000 LinQlestQ-WTI Rd_
. Suite 1O~
Harrisbur9. PA 17110
{TIT) 652-610 1
--" ..,....
r \
JUDY HANNA, as Administrator
of the Estate of JULIE SOHN,
Deceased, and for the benefit of
COURTNEY SOHN and MOLL Y
SOHN, minors,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
00-0125 CIVIL
IN RE: DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
BEFORE HOFFER. P.J.. AND HESS. J.
ORDER
AND NOW, this If) 4 day of August, 2000, following argument on the preliminary
objections of the defendant, it is ordered and directed as follows:
1. The plaintiff having no objection, the language of the plaintiff's complaint in
paragraph 29(1) alleging that the defendant was negligent "in other ways," is STRICKEN.
2. The court being satisfied that any claim for loss of services are limited to those
recoverable under the Wrongful Death Act, to the extent that there is a claim for loss of parental
consortium apart from the provisIons of said Act, a preliminary objection thereto is
SUSTAINED
3. It appearing that the plaintiff has improperly alleged punitive damages in connection
with the a wrongful death case and, in addition, has failed to allege facts supporting a contention
that the defendant "knew of and allowed the conduct" in question, as required by 40 P.S. Section
l301.812-A(c), the preliminary objection ofthc defendant to the claim for punitive damages is
SUSTAINED with leave to amend.
FiLED-OffiCE
OF THE PROTHONOTARY
00 AUG It; AM 8: 02
CUMBERLAND COUNTy
PENNSYLVANIA
, .
'- s
.r~. ....
Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire.
For the Plaintiffs
Joseph A. Ricci., Esquire
Marc T. Levin, Esquire
For the Defendant
:rlm
BY THE COURT
,
. Ad.
) <2.oft'cr- rvaat'kc tP}/.(/oo
::::J?r)
"
JUDY HANNA,
As Administrator of the Estate
of Julie Sohn, Deceased and for
the benefit of COURTNEY SOHN
and MOLLY SOHN, Minors
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: NO. 2000 - 125 Civil Term
v.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL
Defendant
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claim set forth in the following
pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice is served, by entering a written
appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defense or objections to the claim set
forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and judgement may be
entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim
or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A
LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND
OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
NOTICIA
Le han demandado a listed en la corte. Si listed quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas
signuientes, usted tiene vienta (20) dias de plazo al partir de al fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe
presentar una apariencia escrita 0 en persona a por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas 0 sus
objectiones alas demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se fefiende. la corte tomara medidas
y puede una orden contra listed sin previa aviso 0 notificacion y por cualquier queja 0 akuvui que es pedido en la
peticion de demanda. Usted puedo parder dinero 0 sus propiedades 0 otros derechos importantes para usted.
LLEVE EST A DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO IMMEDlA TAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO 0 SI NO
TIENE EL D1MERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVIClO, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR
TELEPONO A LA OFICINA CUYA D1RECCION SE EMCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR
DONDE SE PUEDE CONSSGUlA ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
COURT ADMINISTRATOR
4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse
Carlisle, PA 17013
Telephone: (717) 240-6200
HANDLER A
05~4/2000
14:44
lSC&~ i7172333029PP49419181
NO. 624 [;l020
..
JUDY HANNA, . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
As Administrator of the Estate . CUMBERLAND COUNTY
of Julie Sobn, Deceased ... PBN'NSYL V ANL4
and for the benefit ...
ofC01}RTNEY SOHN .
and MOLLY SOHN, Minors ...
... CIVIL ACTION-LAW
Plaintiff ...
. NO. 2000-125 Civil Term
...
... JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
...
v. ...
...
CARLISLE HOSPITAL .
.
Defendant ...
REFILED
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINI
Plaintiff, Judy Hanna, as Administrator of the Estate of Julie 80hn, and for the
benefit of the Decedent's minor children, Courtney and Molly So~ through her attorneys,
Carolyn M. Amner, Handler Hennin,g and Rosenberg, and Daniel M. ClemenlS, and Israelson,
Salsbury, Clements & Bekman, LL.C-, hereby amends her Complaint against Defendant,
Carlisle Hospital, as follows:
1. Judy Hanna is an adult citizen of the State of Pennsylvania. She was appointed as
Administrator of the Estate of Julie Sohn (hereafter "Ms. Sohn").
2. Ms. Sohn had two minor children, Courtney Sobn and Molly Sobn.
3. Ms. Sobn had a long history of mental illness and treatment She reported that her
mental illness began when she was approximately ten years old and suffered from depression.
She had attempted suicide prior to her hospitalization at Carlisle Hospital (hereafter "Defendant
. OS/24/2000
14'44
15C&B ? 17172333029PP49419181
NO. 624 1>1021
'" ....
, .
, ,
Hospital).
4. Ms. Sohn had been treated at The Meadows Psychiatric Center in March 1990;
Philhaven Hospital in October 1990; POlyclioic Hospital in 1991; Harrisburg Hospital in 199J;
Philhaven Hospital in 1995; and Harrisburg State Hospital in 1995.
5. Ms. SOM continued to receive mental health treatment; however, she was not
hospitalized io 1996 or 1997.
6. On February 16, 1998, Ms. Sohn called Crisis Intervention indicating she had
taken an overdose of medication. She further indicated that she was cutting herself with a razor,
but she did agree to stop.
7. On February 17,1998, Ms. 80hn was found on the sixth floorledgeofa garage
contemplating jumping. She refused help and she was left in her car.
~
8. On February 18, 1998, Ms. Sohn called Crisis Intervention several times
indicating a desire to commit suicide. When she refused to voluntarily admit herself for
~
hospitalization, she VillS transported to Harrisburg Hospital. She attempted to escape the police.
9. Upon admission to the Emergency Room at Harrisburg Hospital, Ms. Sohn
attempted to flee again. She was placed in restraints and was transferred to Edgewater
I
; .
Psychiatric Center for an involuntary commitment.
10. Upon admission to Edgewater Psychiatric Center, Ms. Sohn barricaded herself in
her room by placing beds in front of the door. She also attempted to elope. Accordingly, the
staff at Edgewater placed restraints upon her.
II.
Following the involuntary commitment period, Ms. 80hn was discharged from the
J
I
Edgewater Psychiatric Center QnFebruary 23, 1998, with instructions for follow-up care at the
i
:z
,
1
,
i
~
. .
A
I
. 135/24/201313
14:44
ISC&B ~7172333G29PP49419181
NO. 624 [;lG22
'., "
,
, .
outpatient department of the Hershey Medical Center.
12. On February 25, 1998, Ms. SOM was taken to Harrisburg Hospital by ambulance
after she took an overdose ofDepakote while intoxicated. While in the ambulance she attempted
to jump out of the ambulance. During her hospital intake ioterview she was shackled and
restrained due to her elopement risk and "biting" her IV in half.
13.
Subsequently, that day Ms. Sohn was transported to Defendant Hospital for an
;. .
involuntary commitment.
14. Upon admission to Defendant Hospital, Ms. Sohn denied suicidal ideation;
nonetheless, she was placed on fifteen minute checks per hospital policy. Later that day, she
advised the hospital staff that she wanted to cut herself No changes were made to the orders.
15. That evening, Ms. Sohn barricaded herself in her room by placing a desk and a
bed in front of the door. The staff gained entry to her room and placed her in the quiet room.
Ms. Sohn punched a wall in the quiet room and refused to contract that she would not repeat the
behavior. Accordingly, the staff placed her in four point restraints.
16. On February 27,1998, the staff advised Ms. Sohn about the March 2, 1998
hearing regarding its request for an extended involuntary commitment, pursuant to Section 303.
17. On February 28, 1998, Ms. Sohn agreed to use a nicotine patch to stop smoking.
18. On March 1, 1998, Ms. Sohn expressed concerns about the 303 commitment
hearing. She further indicated that she was afraid she might hurt herself using the journal
notebooks. As a rr;ult of the comments, she was escorted to a seclLlSion room and placed on
visuals. While in ,seclusion, she indicated that she "needed to feel pain."
19. On March 2, 1998, the Section 303 involuntary commitment for twenty days was
3
, 105/c<'4/210101O
14'44
-1SC&B . Y7i723331029PP49419181
NO. 624 "1023
~
,
. -~ "
ordered. Ms_ 80hn was found 10 be a serious danger 10 herself and to others.
20. Ms. Sohn "hit the wall" due to anger about the Section 303 commitment hearing.
Thereafter, she was restricted to her room.
21. Ms. Sahn was observed by the staff smoking in her room. She signed a contract
agreeing to desist from this behavior. She refused to assist in the application for State Hospital
, . admission. The attending physician later noted that she wanted to smoke. He indicated that
suicide precautions should be maintained.
22. On March 3, 1998, at 6:30 p.m., Ms. Sohn reported thoughts of hanging herself on
a bathroom door. Th~ staff did not report her comments to_ a physician.
23. According to the progress notes, at 9:50 p.m., the staff heard a loud bang. In
response to the noise, the staff discovered Ms. Sohn hanging by a sheet from the hinges co a
bathroom door.
24. Resuscitation attempts were started; subsequently, Ms. Sohn was transferred to
the Intensive Care Unit where she remained unresponsive.
25. By,March 5, 1998, Ms. Sohn's blood pressure was almost nonexistent At 11:30
. .
p.m., life support was removed and Ms. Sohn expired immediately.
. .
26. Pri?r to her February 1998 hosphalizations, Ms. Sohn was employed on a full-
time basis at Mid-fl.tlantic Corporate, a federal credit union.
27. Defendant Hospital and its agents, employees and servants knew andlor had
reason to know thl).t Ms. Sahn had an extensive psychiatric history. Defendant Hospital and its
agents, employee"and servants knew andlor had reason to know that Plalntiffhad engaged in
highly erratic behavior dangerous to her health and well-being for several weeks prior to her
"
4
.'
c
. \)5/24/20\)0
14:44
ISC&P J7172333029PP49419181
NO. 624 "'024
'-0 ,-'
admission to Defendant Hospital. Defendant Hospital and its agents, employees and servants
knew andlor had reason to know on March 3, 1998 that Ms._ Sohn intended to kill herselfby
hanging herself from the bathroom door. Defendant Hospital and its agents, employees and
servants, therefore knew and! or had reason to know of facts which created a high degree of risk
of physical harm to Ms. SOM and deliberately proceeded to act, or to fail to act, in conscious
. '
disregard of, or indifference to;that known risk
COUNT 1- WRONGFUL DEATH - NEGLIGENCE
Judv Hanna. Adminsrrator ofthe Estate of Julie Sohn v.
Carlisle Hosoital -
28. Plaintiff, Judy Hanna, Administrator of the Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased, adopts
and incorporates by reference paragraphs one through twenty-seven above.
29. At all times relevant to the matters set forth in this Complaint, physicians, nurses
and other personnel who cared for and treated Ms. Sohn, Julie Soho, whik she was a patie.ut of
Defendant Hospital, were acting in and upon the business of said Defendant and within the
course and scope of their employment with said Defendant
30. The gross negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of Defendant Hospital by
and through its agents, servants and/or employees consisted ofthe following:
a) Failing to properly select, supervise and train its agents, servants, and/or
employees in diagnosing, treating, and assessing Ms. Sohn, who had a
major psychiatric disorder and history of suicide attempts;
b) Failing to conduct a thorough diagnostic assessment of Ms. 80hn's
psychiatric disorder;
5
OS/24/2000
t4:44
ISC&B ' t7t72333029PP494t9t81
NO. 624 1>'025
".,. .'
c) Falling to follow the treatment recommendations contained in Ms. 80hn's
treatment plan;
d) Permitting-the nursing staff to make clinical and treatment decisions with
regard to Ms. 80hn' s care and treatment, with little or no supervision from
Ms. 80hn's attending physician;
e) Failing to maintain charts of contractual agreements between Ms. 801m
and the attending staff;
f) Failing to:maintain charts of "fifteen minute checks";
g) Falling to maintain proper and accurate medical records on Ms. 801m by
making enhancements to her medical records in violation of Hospital
record keeping policies;
h) Failing to maintain proper and accurate medical records on Ms. 801m by
making additions 10 her medical records in violation of Hospital record
keeping policies after her suicide attempt;
i) Falling to keep appropriate watch and supervision over Ms. Sohn,
especially in light of her comments about hanging herself on a bafuroom
door;
j) Falling to remove bed sheets and other materials for Ms. 801m to carry out
her suicide plan by hanging; andek) Failing to obtain records from Ms. SOM' s hospitalization at Edgewater
psychiatric Center.
6
, OS/24/2000
14:44
15C&E
i717Z333029PP49419i81
NO.624 G1026
4--, ,.
"
~ --.
31. The wrongful death of Ms. Sobn was caused by thc gross
negligence, recklessness, and carelessness of Defendant Hospital by and through its agents,
servants, and employees.
32. As a ,esult of the gr-oss negligence, recklessness, and carelessness of Defendant
Hospital, by and through its agents, servants and employees, funeral and administrative expense.
have been incurred, and a claim is made therefore.
33. A. a result of the gross negligence, ,ecklessness, and carelessness of Defendant
Hospital, by and through its age1llS, servants and employees, the minor children have suffered the
los. of pecuniary benefit of Julie 80hn's life including the deprivation of the earnings that they
would have received from her. In addition, the minor children have suffered the loss of Ms.
80hn's services as a mother, including the guidance, tutelage and moral upbringing which they
would have received up to the time such services would have been provided had Ms. 80hn's
death not occur,ed.
WHEREFORE, PJaiotiff; Judy Hanna, Administrator of the Estate of Julie 80bn, on
:
behalf of CourtneYrSohn <md Molly Sohn, seeks to recover all damages as permitted under the
Rules of Court an~ under the law of Pennsylvania against the Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, in a
sum in excess ofTwenly-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000), plus costs and such further relief as
. ,
is deeroedjust, and demands a trial by jury.
,
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
, 105/24/2101010
14:44
I~E ~ 171723331029PP49419181
NO. 624 [;>1027
~ "
. .
COUNT II - WRONGFUL DEATH - CORPORATE NEGLIGENCE
Judv Hanna Administrator ofthe Estat~ of Julie Sohn
v. Carlisle :Hospital
33. Plaintiff, Judy :Hanna, Administrator of the Estate of Julie 80hn, Deceased,
incoxporates by reference the facts as alleged in paragraphs one through thirty-three above.
, '
34. The gross negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of Defendant Hospital as a
coxporation, consisted of the following:
a) In breaching its duty to ensure that patients receive quality care by failing to
adequately and properly select, supervise, and train its agents, servants and
employees in diagnosing, treating and assessing patients' condition and status,
specifically Ms. 80hn, who had a major psychiatric disorder with a history of
suicidal ideation and suicide attempts;
b) In breaching its duty to ensure that patients receive quality care by failing to
enforce its rules and regulations which require notification to physicians of
suicidal ideation by any patient;
c) In breaching its duty to ensure that patients receive qlliility care by failing to
enforce its rules and regulations which require accurate documentation in a
patient's medical file;
d) In breaching its duty to ensure that patients receive quality care by taking
reasonable steps to preclude patients from carrying out expressed plans fOr
attempts at suicide;
e) In breaching its duty to ensure that patients receive quality care by faiiing to
8
. OS/2'\/2000
14:44
tsa!
17172333J1l29PP49419181
NO. 624 J;lG28
.~ .'
enforce its rules and r~egulations which prohibit making false enhancements and
alterations to medical records, specifically those of Ms. Sohn;
_ f) Failing to have procedures and policies in place or in the alternative, failing to
enforce such procedures and policies, to require staff and treating physicians to
acquire infonnation in a timely fashion regarding earlier hospitalizations, from
family members and friends.
g) Failing to have procedures and policies in place, or in the alternative, failing to
enforce such procedures and policies, to require staff members and physicians to
assess the risk that Ms. Sohn posed to herself when she expressed thoughts of
hanging herself on the bathroom door;
h) In knowing, or, in the alternative, should have kno"Vm, that patients, specHically,
Ms. Sohn, would not be afforded quality care due to the lack of adequate rules,
policies, arid supervision to ensure the quality care of patients, and;
i) In knowing, or, in the alternative, should have known that all the aforementioned
violations ofits rules and regulations were ongoing, subjecting patients,
specifically, Ms. Sohn, to hann, and lack of quality care to her detriment, and
thereby willfully breaching its duty of quality care owed to patients by failing to
take measures to stop the aforementioned violations.
35. The VlIoogful death of Ms. Sohn, Julie SOM, was caused by the gross
negligence, recklessness, and carelessness of Defendant Hospital by and through its agents,
servants, and employees.
36. As a result of the gross negligence, recklessness, and carelessness of Defendant
9
.05/24/2000
i4:44
15C&1 ,i7i72333029PP494i9i8i
NO. 624 [;)029
. ;
Hospital, as a corporation, funeral and administrative expenses have been incurred, and a claim
is madc therefore.
37. As a result of the gross negligence, recklessness, and carelessness of Defendant
Hospital, by and through its agents, servants and employees, the mioor children have suffered the
loss ofpecunisry benefit of Ms. 80bn's iife including the deprivation of the earnings that they
would have received from her. In addition, the minor children have suffered the Joss of Ms.
80bn's services as a mother, including the guidance, tutelage and moral upbringing which they
would have received up to the time such services would have been provided had Ms. 8oOO's
death not occurred.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Judy Hanna. Administrator of the Estate of Julie 8000, on
behalf of Courtney 80hn and Molly 8ohn, seeks to recover all damages as pennitted under the
Rules of Court and under the law of Pennsylvania against the Defendant, Carlisle Hospital. in a
sum in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000), plus costs and such further relief as
is deemed just, and demands a trial by jury.
COUNT III - SUR VIV AL - NEGLIGENCE
Judv Hanna.. Administrator of the Estate of Julie 80bn
v. Carlisle Hospital
38. Plaintiff: Judy Hanna, Administrator of the Estate of Julie Sobn, incorporates by
reference the facts as set forth in paragraphs one through thirty-seven above.
39. As a result of the gross negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of Defendant,
Carlisle Hospital, Ms. 80bn suffered a loss of earning power and income, and a claim is made
therefor.
10
. OS/24/2000
14:44
ISC&J
17172333029PP49419181
NO. 624 1;1030
, "
. .
.'
. '
40. As a result of the gross negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of Defendant
Carlisle Hospital, Ms. Sohn suffered various injuries resulting in undue pain and suffering uiJtil
her death, and a claim is made therefor.
41. As a result of the gross negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of Defe.ndant,
Carlisle Hospital, Ms. Sohn was compelled to expend large sums of money for medical care.
42. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers, that Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, through
its agents, servants and employees, willfully, wantonly and with reckless disregard for the
consequences, failed to maintamaccurate medical records on Ms. 80hn by improperly making
material alterations, changes, and additions to Ms. Sohn's medical records, in violation of rules
and regulations to Ms. 8ohn's detriment and that such conduct constitutes wanton outrageous
behavior and reckless indifference to Ms. 80hn.
43. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers, that Defendant Hospital, through its agents,
servants and employees, willfully, wantonly and with reckless disregard for the consequences
failed to keep adequate logs of the 15 minute checks on Ms. Sohn and that such conduct
constitutes wanton, outrageous bellavior and reckless indifference to the well-being of Ms. 8000.
44. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers, that Defendant Hospital, through its agents,
servants and employees, willfully, wantonly and with reckless disregard for the consequences,
failed to seriously appreciate and act upon Ms. 801m'S comments about hanging herself from the
bathroom dOor and that such conduct, in light of Plaintiff's prior actions during her admission,
constitutes wanton, outrageous bellavior and reckless indifference to the well-being of Ms. 801m.
45. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers, that Defendant Hospital, through its agents,
servants and employees, willfully, wantonly and with reckless disregard for the consequences,
11
. 05/.24/2000
14:44
ISC8.1
171723331;J29PP49419181
NO.624 [;)031
~ .'
"
failed to properly and carefully assess Ms. Solm's risk of suicide at the time of her comments
about hanging hersclf from a bathrwm door, failed to take appropriate monitoring and
cautionary actions and that such conduct constitutes wanton outrageous behavior and reckless
indifference to Ms. Sohn.
46. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant Hospital, through its agents,
servants and employees, willfully, wantonly and with reckless disregard for the consequences,
failed to properly consult with Ms. 80hn's attending physicians following her commepts about
hanging herselffrom a bathroom door and that such conduct constitutes wanto~ outrageous
behavior with reckless indifference to Ms. 8000.
41. Plaintiff believes and therefor avers that Defendant Hospital, and its agents,
employees and seryants knew and/or had reason to know that Ms. Sohn had an extensive
psychiatric history.
48. Plaintiffbelieves and therefore avers that Defendant Hospital, and its agents,
employees and servants knew and/or had reason to know that Plaintiff had engaged in highly
erratic behavior dangerous to her health and well.being for several week& prior to her admission
to Defendant Hospital.
49. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant Hospital, and its agents,
j
i
4
,
i
employees and se~ants knew and/or had reason to know at 6;30 p.m. on March 3, 1998 that Ms.
3000 intended to ~ herself by hanging herself from the bathroom door.
50. Plainti,ffbelieves and therefore avers that Defendant Hospital, and its agents,
employees and servants, therefore knew and/or had reason to know of the aforementioned facts
12
I
1
1
1
which created a high degree of risk of physical harm to Ms. 80hn and deliberately failed to take
. OS/24/2000
14:44
rsc&:
17172333029PP494191$1
NO. 624 "'032
~ "
"
appropriate measures, in consclousdisregard of, and/or indifference to, the known risk, namely
that Ms. 8000 wOllld attempt to kill herself.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Jlldy Hanna, Administrator of the Estate of Julie So~ seeks all
I
I
damages as permitted under the RuIes of Court and under the law of Pennsylvania, including
compensatory and punitive damages, agaiost the Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, in a Sl.lllJ. in excess
of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000), plus costs and such further relief as is deemed just,
and demands a trial by jury.
COUNT IV . SURVIVAL - CORPORATE NEGLIGENCE
Judy Hanna. Administrator of the Estate of Julie Solm
v. Carlj~Je Hospital
51. Plaintiff, Judy Hanna, Administrator of the Estate of Julie 8000, incorporates by
reference paragraphs one through fifty-one above.
52. As a result of the gross negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of Defendant
53.
r _ --
As a result of the gross negligence, carelessness, and recklessness of Defendant
j
j
I
I
I
.
,
'J
Hospital, as a corporation, Ms. Sooo suffered a loss of earning power and income, and a claim is
made therefor.
,
Hospital, as a corporation, Ms. Sooo suffered various injuries l"CSulting in undue pain and
,
suffering until her death, and a claim is made therefor.
(
54. As a result of the gross negligence. carelessness, and recklessness of Defendant
Hospital, as a corporation, Ms. Sooo was compelled to expend large sums of money for medical
care, and a claim i~ made therefor.
55.
PI~ntiffbelieves and therefore avers, that Defendant Hospital, as a corporation,
13
1
1
"
.1115/24/2<)10111
14:44
[SC&B ~171723~G~9PP49419181
NO. 624 1;1033
, ,
~.,
. .
.'
willfully failed to have procedures and policies in place or in the alternative, willfully failed to
enforcc such procedures and policies, to require staff members and treating physicians tQ
maintaln accurate medical records on Ms. Solm as is evidenced by the alterations, changes, and
additions made to Ms. Sohn's medical records, and tha! such conduct constitutes wanton,
56. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers, that Defendant Hospital, as a corporation,
I
I
i
I
!
I
I
;
I
,
outrageous behavior with reckless indifference to the well-being of Ms. Solm.
wiUfully, wantonly, and with reckless disregard for the consequences, failed to enforce its rules
and regulations by permitting materiai alterations to be made to Ms. 801m's medical records in
order to cover-up Defendant's gross tortuous conduct to Ms. 80hn, and that such conduct
constitutes wanton, outrageous behavior and reckless indifference to the well-being of Ms. 801m.
57, Plaintiff believes and therefore avers, that Defendant Hospital, as a corporation,
willfully, wantonly, and with reckless disregard for the consequences, failed to have procedures
and policies in place, or in the alternative, failed to enforce such procedures and policies, to
require consultation with a physician when a patient indicates suicidal thoughts, ideation or a
method of committing suicide and that such conduct constitutes wanton outrageous behavior and
reckless indifference to Ms. 80hn.
58. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers, that Defendant Hospital, as a
corporation, willfully, wantonly and with reckless disregard for the consequences, failed to have
procedures lll1d policies in place, or in the alternative, failed to enforce sllch procedures and
policies, to seriously appreciate all comments about suicide and to take reasonable steps to
preclude those methods from being executed, specifically as to Ms. Sohn, and that such conduct
constitutes wanton outrageous behavior and reckless indifference to Ms. SOM.
14
. 1'15/24/21'11'10 ~ 14: 44
ISC&B 7 17172333029PP4941918J
NO. 624 [;>034
'. ~
.'
59. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers, that Defendant Hospital, as a corporation,
willfully, wantonly and with reckless disregard for the consequences knew, or, in the alternative,
should have known, that the aforementioned violations of its rules and regulations were ongoing,
subjecting patients, specifically, Ms. Sohn, to hann and lack of quality care to her detriment, and
thereby willfully breached its duty of quality care owed to patients, specifically Ms. Sohn, by
failing to take measures to enforce its rules and regulations and stop the aforementioned
violations, and that such conduct constitutes wanton outrageous behavior and reckless
indifference to Ms. Sohn.
60. Plaintiff believes and therefor avers that Defendant Hospital, as a corporation,
knew and/or had reason to know that Ms. Solm had an extensive psychiatric history.
61. Plaintiff believes and therefor avers, that Defendant Hospital, as a corporation,
knew and/or had reason to know that Ms. Solm had engaged in highly erratic behavior dangerous
to her health and well-being for several weeks prior to her admission to Defendant Hospital.
62. Plaintiff believes and therefor avers that Defendant Hospital, as a corporation,
knew and/or had reason to know on March 3, 1998 that Ms. 30hn intended to klll herself by
hanging herself from the bathroom door. Defendant Hospital, as a corporation, therefore knew
and/or had reason to know offacts which created a high degree of risk of physical harm to Ms.
30hn and deliberately failed to take the aforementioned measures, in conscious disregard of,
and/or indifference to, the known risks that Ms. 301m would attempt to kill herself.
63. Plaintiff believes and therefor avers that Defendant Hospital, as a corporation,
knew and/or had reason to know that its failure to adopt and/or to enforce the aforementioned
policies and procedures, created a high degree of risk of physical hann to person in the position
15
OS/24/2000 ~ 14' 44
15C&1
i7f72333029PP49419181
NO. 624
-
"'035
, ,
. .
of Ms. Sohn and delibcmtely failed to take the aforementioned measures, in conscious disregard
of, andlor indifference to, the known risks, that is, that patients with suicidal ideation will be
insuffieiently attended to avert their deaths by suicide.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Judy Hanna, Administrator of the Estate of Jillie 801m, seeks all
damages as permitted under the Rilles of Court and under the law of Pennsylvania, including:
compensatory and punitive damages, against the Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, in a sum in excess
of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000), plus costs and such further relief as is deemed just,
and demands a trial by jury.
Respectfully submitted,
16
,
, .'
JUDY HANNA, as Administrator of
the Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased, and
for the benefit of COURTNEY SOHN and
MOLLY SOHN, Minors,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
v.
No. 2000-125 Civil Term
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On this 22nd day of February, 2001, I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of
the foregoing Complaint was served upon the following by depositing same in the United
States Mail, postage prepaid, regular service, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania:
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
Farrell & Ricci, P.C.
2000 Linglestown Road - Suite 108
Harrisburg, PA 17110
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG
e. ~
Jean E. Green, Secretary
... C< ./C. ......... ......... ....... '" ." ..... ...i/c..i.ic CCn ........ii . .............. .../cc ..< c< /x"c .//c . .. .....</ I
.c '.' ........ . . ................./</i../< ./c r-..........m...... .......... ......... ........ ". : ftti / ...... ... . ...... .. .'. ..... ......... .c
........... . ....... .......... .... .. .......... . ....... .. ....... .1" ... . ...... . .. ... ...... .JI ...../. ",U' .....
n." . .'. .. ..n J~ .~~...~.~~ .....~....~..TT._.n... !I1"'",'1;''' .
....... ..c .....il.. .h'J': ..;..;.';.J.['J.,i.,:.,'i:,W.;,
I'I ..... ............ ......../: .....)
i Ii> ...... · .... .. .:n. ..' ...... .. ...... ..i " ...
y. ... .. ..1.... .....<n ............ ::i/> .... ... ....:....<
.... . ... ...... . .... ..Ic .........<../11 ...... .... . .... ... ........< ......n.<". .............C.. ..
. .) .....111.. ...............C I{ :.. .......... ." .>) ......
. . . .....1.. ... ij................ ............ .....<< ...... ........ ........ .............. ............... .../............
... . .... ,.r.............. ...<.............. ... ....... C:' ....... .'. .... .. .. <... ...
... '" . ..."" . ni ..... ....... ..).. ........
.. . ...... ... .... ............. .... : ...
.. ..... ... ..1..... ... ...... . >'C'!C.<.. . ..........<. ..... .. ... .. . . r. ..... ........!...n C.
. ...... ....)! li~ii~~;2.r: !Ii l') '.. i;~~ii';;)'I~11 'i'!:.,.i~
. .. . ..... .......................mAP.".~;!~t(h";;h;t] . ...!I .... ..) ..........{. .... .... ..... .
. ... .. .~~,~r~~~~~~#16J~ . ... · .1> ... .... ..,c ... .. .... .... ) ......./ ..
. .. ......... .... ..!ln~~r~tJ~;1~~t~mim(l. .. .... ... ........ ... ...... ................:. ........ .................;....... I
. ... ..... ....... IC ...........>~Jf~f'~~~t,;::E! ..c..l./ ..... ....... .. ..... ....... .. ... ... ...{.. .. .. . >(. ...... .. ..... .:.. < ..
. )..... '};,'",q~",.~X17~D2 . ........ < ..... .... . ... ... · < ... ... .'. ': . .... ....... .... .
. . ..... . ... ". .... ..........Ij:. . .. . . . 71743",,000 ">"c'.. ... .............. ... ... ... ... '.. ... ...
. .... ...... ... ..... .. .......... .... ...... .....
. ............... ... . ....,...ic:,.:...... ..........;....;:......""..i '.
......
.. T.C . C......; ...... .... ...... .... · .....<.. .., . " ....
. ....3 ).{ . ): .... . {C (C< . . ......... ...... ..
.;.................... .... ..... '...... .C.... .... .... . ...cn.........C. ........C ..,
.. .......... .,. ..... :.})> ......... (...... .. ...
. . . ... ..' ..... ... < '. ...... .. . {{< .... .... ..... . .<...... ..... ...
... ... .. ...... ....... ......: .'. ....... . .,. ..... . ..... . .
.. '.. ............n . ..{............. ....... ... .'. ..... ... ............
>... .....i(< . {.C ...: .... ... ........ .., ... .,. ........ ..... ..... ....
n..... ............. ... ......... ... .... .' . '.. .....:.... ....
..... ....<......... ....... .......< ... .... ..... ...... '. . . .. ... ............... ....
'.. .' .............. '. ....... ........n . .. .. .
:... .. ..........:.. ........... .. ...
,"< ......... ......... . .i'
/..1...111.1.1.........) ........ ... ..... ......... .....{. . .
.... C ..< .CC' .>..... ..... .... '" ........i... ........ . . ..
...........C.m ... .'. .. .'
<. .. ..' . .'. .
....... ...... ................y.. ....i . . ...... ... ....
'C. ii. .. ... ... .. ... ".f. .'.. ....".. .!!, ........ ii .............. .
... .. ....... ....: .... ...... ........<... ......., ...... .. .... .
. ........ . .. .. . ... ...... ...... .....
.C........i.. ../ ..... ........{. ... ...........
: .: ....! i),. .... i!"').' ') : i. .I
(.. .c... ..) .
. ......
<,
7
JUDY HANNA, As Administrator of the
Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased and for
the benefit of COURTNEY SOHN and
MOLLY SOHN, Minors,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
NO. 2000-125 Civil Term
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
TO: Judy Hanna, Administrator of the Estate of
Julie Sohn, Deceased, and for the benefit of
Courtney Sohn and Molly Sohn, Minors, Plaintiffs
c/o Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg
P.O. Box 1177
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Counsel for Plaintiffs
NOTICE TO PLEAD
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO PLEAD TO THE ANSWER WITH NEW
MATTER OF DEFENDANT CARLISLE HOSPITAL TO PLAINTIFFS' REFILED
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF SERVICE OR A
DEFAULT JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU.
Respectfully submitted,
FARRELL & RICCI, P.C.
Date: l.//VJ/o I
&pflL& E(/J~
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
Attorney LD. No. 49803
Colleen E. Ehresman, Esquire
Attorney LD. No. 82482
4423 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 230-9201
Counsel for Defendant
>
<
o(i' t-
JUDY HANNA, As Administrator of the
Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased and for
the benefit of COURTNEY SOHN and
MOLLY SOHN, Minors,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
NO. 2000-125 Civil Term
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF
DEFENDANT CARLISLE HOSPITAL
TO PLAINTIFF'S REFILED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, by and through its counsel, Farrell
& Ricci, P.C. by Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire and Colleen E. Ehresman, Esquire and replies to
the Plaintiffs Reftled First Amended Complaint as follows:
L Denied. After reasonable investigation Answering Defendant is without
information sufficient to admit or deny the truth or falsity ofthe said averments and
accordingly denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed
material.
2. Denied. After reasonable investigation Answering Defendant is without
information sufficient to admit or deny the truth or falsity of the said averments and
accordingly denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed
material.
3. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
4. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
,.
..
5. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
6. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
7. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
8. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
9. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
10. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
11. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
12. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
13. Denied as stated. It is admitted only that the patient was taken to Carlisle
Hospital on February 25, 1998, under Section 302 of the Mental Health Procedures Act.
14. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
15. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
2
,
16. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
17. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
18. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
19. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
20. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
21. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
22. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
23. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
24. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
25. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
26. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
3
.
27. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
COUNT I - WRONGFUL DEATH - NEGLIGENCE
Judv Hanna. Administrator of the Estate of Julie Sohn v.
Carlisle Hospital
28. Answering Defendant hereby incorporates by reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 through 27 of the Plaintiffs Refiled First Amended Complaint as if more fully
set forth herein at length.
29. Denied. The averments contained in the corresponding paragraph of
Plaintiffs Reftled First Amende_d Complaint contain conclusions oflaw to which no
affirmative response is required. To extent affirmative responses may be required, said
averments are specifically and unequivocallY denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at
the time of trial if deemed materiaL By way of further answer, it is specifically and
unequivocally denied that the physicians who cared for and treated Julie Sohn while she
was a patient of Defendant Hospital were acting in and upon the business of said
Defendant and within the course and scope of their employment with said Defendant. To
the contrary, all physicians who cared for and treated Julie Sohn were independent
contractors of Carlisle Hospital. It is further specifically denied that "other personnel" who
cared for and treated Julie Sohn while she was a patient of Defendant Hospital were acting
in and upon the business of said Defendant and within the course and scope of their
employment with said Defendant as those "other personnel" are not identified.
4
30. Denied. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Answering
Defendant was negligent, grossly negligent, careless and/or reckless as alleged in Plaintiffs
Reftled First Amended Complaint. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Answering
Defendant rendered proper and appropriate care within the standard of care required for
treatment of patients such as Plaintiffs decedent. By way of further answer, it is more
specifically denied that:
a) Denied. The averments contained in this subparagraph are denied in
conformity with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
b) Denied. The averments contained in this subparagraph are denied in
conformity with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
c) Denied. The averments contained in this subparagraph are denied in
conformity with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
d) Denied. The averments contained in this subparagraph are denied in
conformity with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
e) Denied. The averments contained in this subparagraph are denied in
conformity with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
1) Denied. The averments contained in this subparagraph are denied in
conformity with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
g) Denied. The averments contained in this subparagraph are denied in
conformity with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
h) Denied. The averments contained in this subparagraph are denied in
conformity with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
5
i) Denied. The averments contained in this subparagraph are denied in
conformity with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
j). Denied. The averments contained in this subparagraph are denied in
conformity with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
k) Denied. The averments contained in this subparagraph are denied in
conformity with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
31. Denied. To the extent this Paragraph is an averment of proximate causation,
it is a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To extent affirmative
responses may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and
strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further
answer, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Answering Defendant is liable to
the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages set forth in her Refiled First Amended Complaint.
It is also specifically and unequivocally denied that Answering Defendant was negligent,
grossly negligent, reckless, and/or careless in its care and treatment of Ms. Sohn. To the
contrary, Answering Defendant, at all times material hereto, rendered proper and
appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as
Plaintiffs decedent.
32. Denied. To the extent this Paragraph is an averment of proximate causation,
it is a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To extent affirmative
responses may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and
strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further
answer, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Answering Defendant is liable to
the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages set forth in her Reftled First Amended Complaint.
6
It is also specifically and unequivocally denied that Answering Defendant was negligent,
grossly negligent, reckless, and/or careless in its care and treatment of Ms. Sohn. To the
contrary, Answering Defendant, at all times material hereto, rendered proper and
appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as
Plaintiffs decedent.
33. Denied. To the extent this Paragraph is an averment of proximate causation,
it is a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To extent affirmative
responses may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and
strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further
answer, it is specifically and unequivocallY denied that Answering Defendant is liable to
the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages set forth in her Refiled First Amended Complaint.
It is also specifically and unequivocally denied that Answering Defendant was negligent,
grossly negligent, reckless, and/or careless in its care and treatment of Ms. Sohn. To the
contrary, Answering Defendant, at all times material hereto, rendered proper and
appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as
Plaintiffs decedent.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant respectfully request that judgment be entered
in its favor and against the Plaintiff and that Answering Defendant be awarded appropriate
costs and fees.
7
COUNT II - WRONGFUL DEATH - CORPORATE NEGLIGENCE
Judv Hanna. Administrator of the Estate of Julie Sohn v.
Carlisle Hospital
33.(sic)
Answering Defendant hereby incorporates by reference its responses
to Paragraphs 1 through 33 of the Plaintiffs Reftled First Amended Complaint as if more
fully set forth herein at length.
34. Denied. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Answering Defendant
was negligent, grossly negligent, careless and/or reckless at all times material hereto. To the
contrary, at all times materiaLh~I"ej;p, Answering Defendant rendered proper and appropriate
care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiffs
decedent. By way of further answer, the averments contained in subparagraphs (a) through
(i) of Paragraph 34 are denied in conformity with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
35. Denied. To the extent this Paragraph is an averment of proximate causation,
it is a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To extent affirmative
responses may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocallY denied and
strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed materiaL By way of further
answer, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Answering Defendant is liable to
the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages set forth in her Reftled First Amended Complaint.
It is also specifically and unequivocally denied that Answering Defendant was negligent,
grossly negligent, reckless, and/or careless in its care and treatment of Ms. Sohn. To the
contrary, Answering Defendant, at all times material hereto, rendered proper and
8
appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as
Plaintiffs decedent.
36. Denied. To the extent this Paragraph is an averment of proximate causation,
it is a conclusion oflaw to which no affirmative response is required. To extent affirmative
responses may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and
strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further
answer, it is specificallY and unequivocally denied that Answering Defendant is liable to
the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages set forth in her Ref1led First Amended Complaint.
It is also specifically and unequivocally denied that Answering Defendant was negligent,
grossly negligent, reckless, ancIJor careless in its care and treatment of Ms. Sohn. To the
contrary, Answering Defendant, at all times material hereto, rendered proper and
appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as
Plaintiffs decedent.
37. Denied. To the extent this Paragraph is an averment of proximate causation,
it is a conclusion oflaw to which no affirmative response is required. To extent affirmative
responses may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and
strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further
answer, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Answering Defendant is liable to
the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages set forth in her Ref1led First Amended Complaint.
It is also specifically and unequivocallY denied that Answering Defendant was negligent,
grossly negligent, reckless, ancIJor careless in its care and treatment of Ms. Sohn. To the
contrary, Answering Defendant, at all times material hereto, rendered proper and
9
appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as
Plaintiffs decedent.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant respectfully requests that judgment be entered
in its favor and against the Plaintiff and that Answering Defendant be awarded appropriate
costs and fees.
COUNT III - SURVIVAL -NEGLIGENCE
Judv Hanna. Administrator of the Estate of Julie Sohn v.
Carlisle Hospital
38. Answering Defendant hereby incorporates by reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 through 37 of the Plaintiffs Reftled First Amended Complaint as if more fully
set forth herein at length.
39. Denied. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Answering
Defendant was negligent, grossly negligent, careless and/or reckless in its care and
treatment of Julie Sohn. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Answering
Defendant rendered proper and appropriate care within the standard of care required for
treatment of patients such as the Plaintiffs decedent. The remainder of the averments
contained in this Paragraph are conclusions oflaw to which no affirmative responses are
required. To the extent affirmative responses may be required, said averments are
specifically and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of
trial if deemed material. By way of further answer, it is specifically and unequivocally
denied that Answering Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages set
forth in her Reflled First Amended Complaint.
10
40. Denied. To the extent this Paragraph is an averment of proximate causation,
it is a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To extent affirmative
responses may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and
strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed materiaL By way of further
answer, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Answering Defendant is liable to
the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages set forth in her Reftled First Amended Complaint.
It is also specifically and unequivocally denied that Answering Defendant was negligent,
grossly negligent, reckless, and/or careless in its care and treatment of Ms. Sohn. To the
contrary, Answering Defendant, at all times material hereto, rendered proper and
appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as
Plaintiffs decedent.
41. Denied. To the extent this Paragraph is an averment of proximate causation,
it is a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is requi.red. To extent affirmative
responses may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and
strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed materiaL By way of further
answer, it is specificallY and unequivocally denied that Answering Defendant is liable to
the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages set forth in her Refiled First Amended Complaint.
It is also specifically and unequivocally denied that Answering Defendant was negligent,
grossly negligent, reckless, and/or careless in its care and treatment of Ms. Sohn. To the
contrary, Answering Defendant, at all times material hereto, rendered proper and
appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as
Plaintiffs decedent.
11
42. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). The remainder of the averments contained in the corresponding
paragraph of Plaintiffs Reftled First Amended Complaint contain conclusions of law to
which no affirmative responses are required. To extent affirmative responses may be
required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof
is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material.
43. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). The remainder of the averments contained in the corresponding
paragraph of Plaintiffs Reftled First Amended Complaint contain conclusions oflaw to
which no affirmative responses are required. To extent affirmative responses may be
required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof
is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material.
44. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). The remainder of the averments contained in the corresponding
paragraph of Plaintiffs Reftled First Amended Complaint contain conclusions oflaw to
which no affirmative responses are required. To extent affirmative responses may be
required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof
is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material.
45. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). The remainder of the averments contained in the corresponding
paragraph of Plaintiffs Refrled First Amended Complaint contain conclusions of law to
which no affirmative responses are required. To extent affirmative responses may be
12
required, said averments are specificallY and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof
is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material.
46. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). The remainder of the averments contained in the corresponding
paragraph of Plaintiffs Reftled First Amended Complaint contain conclusions of law to
which no affIrmative responses are required. To extent affirmative responses may be
required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof
is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material.
47. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
48. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
49. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
50. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). The remainder of the averments contained in this Paragraph are
conclusions of law to which no affi1:mmive responses are required. To the extent
affirmative responses may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally
denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant respectfully requests that judgment be entered
in its favor and against the Plaintiff and that Answering Defendant be awarded appropriate
costs and fees.
13
COUNT IV - SURVIVAL - CORPORATE NEGLIGENCE
Judv Hanna. Administrator ofthe Estate of Julie Sohn v.
Carlisle Hospital
51. Answering Defendant hereby incorporates by reference its responses to
Paragraphs 1 through 50 of the Plaintiffs Reftled First Amended Complaint as if more fully
set forth herein at length.
52. Denied. To the extent this Paragraph is an averment of proximate causation,
it is a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To extent affirmative
responses may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and
strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further
answer, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Answering Defendant is liable to
the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages set forth in her Reflled First Amended Complaint.
It is also specifically and unequivocally denied that Answering Defendant was negligent,
grossly negligent, reckless, and/or careless in its care and treatment of Ms. Sohn. To the
contrary, Answering Defendant, at all times material hereto, rendered proper and
appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as
Plaintiffs decedent.
53. Denied. To the extent this Paragraph is an averment of proximate causation,
it is a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To extent affirmative
responses may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocallY denied and
strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further
answer, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Answering Defendant is liable to
the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages set forth in her Refiled First Amended Complaint.
14
It is also specifically and unequivocally denied that Answering Defendant was negligent,
grossly negligent, reckless, and/or careless in its care and treatment of Ms. Sohn. To the
contrary, Answering Defendant, at all times material hereto, rendered proper and
appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as
Plaintiffs decedent.
54. Denied. To the extent this Paragraph is an averment of proximate causation,
it is a conclusion oflaw to which no affirmative response is required. To extent affirmative
responses may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and
strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further
answer, it is specificallY and unequivocally denied that Answering Defendant is liable to
the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages set forth in her Reftled First Amended Complaint.
It is also specifically and unequivocally denied that Answering Defendant was negligent,
grossly negligent, reckless, and/or careless in its care and treatment of Ms. Sohn. To the
contrary, Answering Defendant, at all times material hereto, rendered proper and
appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as
Plaintiffs decedent.
55. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). The remainder of the averments contained in the corresponding
Paragraph of Plaintiffs Refiled First Amended Complaint are conclusions oflaw to which
. no affirmative responses are required. To the extent affirmative responses may be
required, said averments are specificallY and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof
is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further answer, it is
15
specifically and unequivocally denied that Answering Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for
the injuries and damages set forth in her Reftled First Amended Complaint.
56. . Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). The remainder of the averments contained in this Paragraph are
conclusions of law to which no affirmative responses are required. To the extent
affirmative responses may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally
denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material.
57. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). The remainder of the averments contained in this Paragraph are
conclusions of law to which no affirmative responses are required. To the extent
affirmative responses may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally
denied and stl'ict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material.
58. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). The remainder of the averments contained in this Paragraph are
conclusions oflaw to which no affirmative responses are required. To the extent
affirmative responses may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally
denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material.
59. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). The remainder of the averments contained in this Paragraph are
conclusions of law to which no affirmative responses are required. To the extent
affirmative responses may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally
denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed materiaL
16
60. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
61. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
62. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). The remainder of the averments contained in this Paragraph are
conclusions oflaw to which no affirmative responses are required. To the extent
affirmative responses may be required, said averments are specificallY and unequivocally
denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed materiaL
63. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). The remainder of the averments contained in this Paragraph are
conclusions oflaw to which no affirmative responses are required. To the extent
affirmative responses may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally
denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed materiaL
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant respectfully requests that judgment be entered
in its favor and against the Plaintiff and that Answering Defendant be awarded appropriate
costs and fees.
NEW MATTER
64. Answering Defendant is immune from civil liability pursuant to 50 P.8. S;7101
et. sea., the Mental Health Procedures Act, and specifically 50 P.8. S;7114.
17
65. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
66. Plaintiffs claim is barred and/or limited by the applicable Statute of
Limitations.
67. It is believed, and therefore averred, that the discovery will show that the
Plaintiffs decedent was negligent and that her negligence exceeded the negligence, if any, of
the Answering Defendant, thereby barring recovery by operation of the Pennsylvania
Comparative Negligence Act.
68. It is believed, and therefore averred, that discovery will show that the Plaintiffs
decedent was negligent and that by virtue of her negligence, her claims may be limited by the
operation of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act.
69. It is believed, and therefore averred, that discovery will show that the Plaintiffs
decedent voluntarily assumed a known risk thereby barring recovery by the operation of the
Doctrine of Assumption of Risk.
70. Plaintiffs decedent's injuries, if any, were sustained as a result of natural or
unknown causes and not as the result of any action or inaction on behalf of the Answering
Defendant.
71. At all times material hereto, Answering Defendant provided full, complete,
proper, reasonable and adequate medical care and treatment in accordance with the
applicable standard of care.
72. No conduct on the part of the Answering Defendant was a substantial factor in
causing or contributing to any harm which the Plaintiff or Plaintiffs decedent may have
suffered.
18
73. If Plaintiff or Plaintiffs decedent suffered any damage, the damages were
caused by the conduct of others over whom the Answering Defendant had no control or right to
control.
74. All claims and causes of action pleaded against the Answering Defendant are
barred by Plaintiffs decedent's knowing and voluntary informed consent to the care in
question.
75. All physicians renilering medical care or treatment to the Plaintiffs' decedent
were independent contractors in relationship to the Answering Defendant Carlisle Hospital
and were not the agents, ostensible agents, servants or employees of the Defendant Hospital.
76. Insofar as any agent, servant or employee of the Defendant Carlisle Hospital or
any person for whom it is or may be vicariously liable, elected a treatment modality which is
recognized as proper but may differ from another appropriate treatment modality, then said
Defendant raises the "two schools of thought" defense.
77. To the extent it was required to do so, the Answering Defendant took all
reasonable and necessary steps to make a proper and appropriate diagnosis and to the extent
it may be determined that that diagnosis was in error, the Answering Defendant asserts that
the error in diagnosis was a reasonable and legally justifiable error.
19
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant respectfully requests that judgment be entered
in its favor and against the Plaintiffs and that it be awarded appropriate costs and fees.
Respectfully submitted,
FARRELL & RICCI, P.C.
Date: t.J J) ~Jo I
f1e1t<< ~ 4J
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
Attorney 1.D. No. 49803
Colleen E. Ehresman, Esquire
Attorney J.D. No. 82482
4423 North Front Street
Harrisburg, P A 17110
(717) 230-9201
Counsel for Defendant
20
VERIFICATION
PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C,P. l024(c)
Colleen E. Ehresman, Esquire states that she is the attorney for the party filing the
foregoing document; that she makes this affidavit as an attorney, because the party she
represents lacks sufficient knowledge or information upon which to make a verification
and/or because she has greater personal knowledge of the information and belief than that of
the party for whom she makes this affidavit; and/or because the party for whom she makes
this affidavit is outside the jurisdiction of the court, and verification of none of them can be
obtained within the time allowed for the ftling of the document; and that she has sufficient
knowledge or information and belief, based upon her investigation of the matters averred or
denied in the foregoing document; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of
18 Pa.C.S. 4904, relating to unsworn falsification of authorities.
DATE:
April &.. 2001
C~C&PJ q~
Colleen E. Ehresman, Esquire
.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this ~y of April, 2001, I, Colleen E. Ehresman, Esquire, hereby
certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer with New Matter to
Plaintiffs' Refiled First Amended Complaint upon all counsel of record by depositing a
copy of same in the United States mail, regular delivery, postage prepaid at Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, addressed as follows:
Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17112
Daniel M. Clements, Esquire
Israelson, Salsbury, Clements & Bekman, L.L.C.
300 W. Pratt Street
Suite 450
Baltimore, MD 21201
~f~
Colleen E. Ehresman, Esquire
0.-
r;.:;.
.~
f..
~ J I ,-.......
'.
1.,'
,
u
r-
c
f-:
::;-7
:::>:5;
0-/
f",....-...
-~. <J
-- ->
U;;.J
7f;;
..~-~
~~
:-..J
(.)
cr;
0...
m
=
!:L
"'"
o
.
.
,
.~
Farr~1l & RI~d. P.C.
44~ North Front Street
HarrlsbufI/, PA 17110
(717) ~O-920 I
~
mDY HANNA, As Administrator of the
Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased and for
the benefit of COURTNEY SOHN and
MOLLY SOHN, Minors
*
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
*
* Civil Action - Law
Plaintiffs
* No. 2000-125 Civil Term
v.
*
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
*
Defendant
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
ANSWER TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT
CARLISLE HOSPITAL
Now comes the Plaintiff, Judy Hanna, et a!., by and through their counsel, Daniel M.
Clements, Israelson, Salsbury, Clements and Bekman, Carolyn M. Anner, and Handler, Henning
and Rosenberg and replies to the Defendant's Answer to new matter as follows:
NEW MATTER
64. Denied. The averment of this paragraph is a conclusion oflaw to which no
response is necessary. However, if a response is deemed necessary said averment is denied and
proof demanded at tria!.
65. Denied. The averment of this paragraph is a conclusion oflaw to which no
response is necessary. However, if a response is deemed necessary said averment is denied and
proof demanded at tria!.
66. Denied. The averment of this paragraph is a conclusion oflaw to which no
response is necessary. However, if a response is deemed necessary said averment is denied and
proof demanded at trial.
67. Denied. The averment of this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no
,
response is necessary. However, if a response is decmed necessary said averment is denied and
proof demanded at trial. By way of further answer, it is specifically and unequivocally denied
that the Plaintiffs decedent was negligent and that her negligence exceeded the negligence, if
any, of the Defendant.
68. Denied. The averment of this paragraph is a conclusion oflaw to which no
response is necessary. However, if a response is deemed necessary said averment is denied and
proof demanded at trial. By way of further answer, it is specifically and unequivocally denied
that the Plaintiffs decedent was negligent and that by virtue of her negligence that her claims
may be limited by the operation of the Pennsylvania comparative negligence act.
69. Denied. The averment of this paragraph is a conclusion oflaw to which no
response is necessary. However, if a response is deemed necessary said averment is denied and
proof demanded at trial. By way of further answer, it is specifically and unequivocally denied
that the Plaintiffs decedent voluntarily assumed the risk and it is denied that she is barred
recovery by operation of the doctrine of asswnption of risk.
70. Denied. The averment ofthis paragraph is a conclusion oflaw to which no
response is necessary. However, if a response is deemed necessary said averment is denied and
proof demanded at trial. This statement is an averment of proximate causation. It is a
conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent affirmative
responses may be required, said averment is specifically and unequivocally denied and strict
proofthereofis-demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further answer, it is
specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiffs decedent's injuries were sustained as a
result of unnatural or unknown causes notas a result of any action or inaction on behalf of the
answering defendant as she hung l!erself in the Defendant hospital.
.
71. Denied. Said averment is specifically and unequivocally denied and proof
demanded at trial.
72. Denied. To the extent that this paragraph is an averment to the proximate
causation it is a conclusion of Jaw to which no aftirmative response is required. To the extent
that affirmative responses may be required said averments are specifically and unequivocally
denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time trial if deemed material.
73. Denied. Said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and if the
answering Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs decedent suffered any damages by the conduct
of others over whom the answering Defendant had no control or right to control strict proof will
be demanded at trial and a cross claim against those other individuals must be filed if they are, in
fact, real parties in interest.
74. Denied. Said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial. It is further averred that the Plaintiff's decedent did not
knowing consent to grossly negligent conduct by the Defendant.
75. Denied. The averment of this paragraph is a conclusion oflaw to which no
response is necessary. However, if said response is necessary, said averment is denied and proof
is demanded at trial.
76. Denied. The averment of this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no
response is necessary. However, if a response is deemed necessary, said averment is denied and
proof is demanded at trial.
77. Denied. The averment of this paragraph is a conclusion oflaw to which no
response is necessary. However, if a response is deemed necessary, said averment is denied and
proof demanded at trial.
Respectfully submitted,
~~,
ID Number: 62636
Handler, Henning and Rosenberg
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17112
(717) 238-2000
~~~
Israelson, Salsbury, Clements and Bekman
Suite 450
30crW. Pratt Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
(410) 539-6633
Attorneys for Plaintiff
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a copy of~~Oing Answer to New Matter of
Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, was mailed this --=---- . of April, 2001 via United States mail,
regular delivery, postage prepaid at Baltimore, Maryland, to the following counsel of record:
Colleen E. Ehresman, Esquire
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
4423 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Attorney for Defendant
~\~
Daniel M. Clements ...~
,
.
VERIFICATION PURSUANT TO
Pa.R.C.p. 1024 (c)
Daniel M. Clements, Esquire states that he is the attorney for the party filing the
foregoing document; that he makes this affidavit as an attorney, because the party he represents
lacks sufficient knowledge or information upon which to make a verification and/or because he
has greater personal knowledge of the information and belief than that of the party for whom he
makes this affidavit; and/or because the party for whom he makes this affidavit is outside the
jurisdiction of the court, and verification of none of them can be obtained within the time
allowed for the filing ofthe document; and that he has sufficient knowledge or information and
belief, based upon his investigation of the matters averred or denied in the foregoing document,
and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 4904, relating to unsworn
falsification of authorities.
DATE:
.~~
Daniel M. Clements '"
April 30, 2001
~ ..:l" ~
""
C- gs ~
wQ M
~(; :I: ~
-~r' c_ C')::j
-'To-
9C~\ ~>-
0-, ;:":e~_
0;'1- I ,-j~
l:!..!f..-... ffi65
--~~: >-
"'" (;:Ie...
C' :l!: ~~
"'"
,,- ~
- 0 C> 0
,
.
-...
JUDY HANNA, As Administrator of the
Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased and for
the benefit of COURTNEY SOHN and
MOLLY SOHN, Minors,
Plaintiffs
v.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
>-
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 2000-125 Civil Term
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE TO SUBSTITUTE VERIFICATION
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly affix the attached Verification to Defendant's Answer with New Matter to
Plaintiffs Reftled First Amended Complaint in the above-captioned matter.
Date: S \?::. \CJ \
Respectfully submitted,
FARRELL & RICCI, P.C.
~(~fL
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
Attorney LD. No. 49803
Colleen E. Ehresman, Esquire
Attorney LD. No. 82482
4423 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 230-9201
Counsel for Defendant
~
~
M.202
VERIFICATION
I, Georgeann Reilly, Director, Business Ethics and Risk Management, of Carlisle
Hospital hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer with New Matter to
Plaintiffs Refiled First Amended Complaint are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief.
I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18
Pa.C.S. ~4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Date: 5) f I
~illfJ7
Title: Director, Business Ethics and
Risk Managment.
~
~.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this ~ day of May, 2001, I, Colleen E. Ehresman, Esquire, hereby
certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Substitute
Verficiation upon all counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States
mail, regular delivery, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows:
Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, P A 17112
Daniel M. Clements, Esquire
Israelson, Salsbury, Clements & Bekman, L.L.C.
300 W. Pratt Street
Suite 450
Baltimore, MD 21201
~,~
Colleen E. Ehresman, Esqtfue
>- ro.
R ti
,~.~
wO c;, :::l
C}~ 0$
I+- -.: x: ()~
9~~ CL a~
oc:: .-. ::?:5='
t.w..-_ I SU)
-'- cc2
LL.I,,_} >- ,,,if]
i..: ~. ale...
1.1.. ~ ~
0 <::> :::l
()
.,
Farren & Ricci, P.C.
4423 North Front Street
Harrisburq, PA 17110
(717) 5130-9201
JUDY HANNA, As Administrator of the
Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased and for
the benefit of COURTNEY SOHN and
MOLLY SOHN, Minors,
Plaintiffs
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
NO. 2000-125 Civil Term
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
REPLY OF DEFENDANT CARLISLE HOSPI'l'AL TO
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
AND NOW COMES, Defendant Carlisle Hospital and responds to Plaintiffs' Motion
to Compel Discovery as follows:
1. Admitted.
2. Denied as stated. The response of Defendant Carlisle Hospital to Plaintiffs'
Request for Production number 5 was an objection on the grounds of overbreadth and
irrelevance. It is admitted that counsel advised that certain protocols may exist, but
requested further clarification of the nature of the request.
3. Denied. To the contrary counsel was provided with copies of all protocols that
were in existence at the time of treatment of Julie Sohn. See letter attached hereto as
Exhibi.t "A."
4. Denied as stated. It is admitted that depositions were held two months ago.
It is further admitted that counsel for the hospital indicated that, pursuant to PlaintiffB'
cCounsel's requests, attempts would be made to see if documents could be reviewed at the
time of the depositions. As counsel was advised at the time of the depositions, the
representative of the hospital who would have access to the records was unavailable to
produce the records. Further, the records in question are records of Carlisle Hospital and
Health Services doing business as the Carlisle HospitaL Carlisle Hospital was purchased
by HMA, Corporation and all of its records have been placed in an off-site storage facility
which is not easily accessible. Following the conclusion of the depositions, arrangements
were made to access the storage facility and review voluminous documents to find those
documents which were responsive to the Plaintiffs' counsel's request.
5. Denied as stated. It is admitted only that counsel agreed to make
arrangements to review the stored records to determine if any of the records would be
responsive to Plaintiffs' counsel's requests. It is denied that counsel has refused to respond
to e-maila and correspondence.
6. Denied. To the extent this Paragraph refers to counsel's impressions, it is
denied since after reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendant can neither admit
nor deny the truth or falsity of the statement and accordingly denies the same. By way of
further answer, counsel for the Plaintiffs has been provided copies of all documents in the
possession of Carlisle Hospital, which are responsive to the Plaintiffs' request.
7. Denied. It is respectfully suggested that the relief sought by Plaintiffs'
counsel should be denied.
A) Plaintiffs' counsel has already been provided with complete copies of all
responsive documents.
B) It is unnecessary for counsel to travel to Carlisle for a hearing as he has
already been provided with complete copies of all responsive documents.
C) Sanctions are inappropriate since counsel has already been provided with
complete copies of all responsive documents.
2
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Honorable Court deny
Plaintiffs' Motion to CompeL
Respectfully submitted,
FARRELL & RICCI, P.C.
Date: ~
f2,~-=>
osep h A. . ci, Esquire
Attorney J.D. o. 49803
4423 N ont Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 230-9201
Counsel for Defendant Carlisle Hospital
3
EXHIBIT A
/
c
:Farre{[ &' 9\,icciJ P-C r
J1I.ttamtys arut Cmmstfars at Law
44:23 'J{grtfi ;Fron.t Street
:Hi:misGu:rgJ P5l.17110
.
!M1&adl'!. ~arrdt
Jastpli.l'!.~t
""= 'T. LaIin'
>]),u.ut J. (jaffoeliu
sttplim ~ %mis
eotr- 'Eo "EIirr.mum, 'l(;l{,
'iinoory'D. 'iieiss~
'IlimnDs '" _iii
.l.o:wrt:nccif.'Barrm.e.
L!J1'n fl. """.. '
'afsu ai6nitwf Ix "fFw Jersey
'T~
Jiq;
'E-""",,
: (71712.30.92ot
(7t7) 2.30:9202
mtkuin@jipcIaw._
May 29~ 2002
Daniel M. Clements, Esquire
Israelson, Salsbury, Clements & Bekman, L.L.C,
300 W. Pratt Street
Suite 450
Baltimore, MD 21201
RE: HannafSohn v. Carlisle Hospital
Civil Action No. 2000-125 (C=berland)
Our File No. M-Z02
Dear Attorney Clements:
Enclosed for service upon you please find Defendant's Supplemental Response to
Plaintiffs' Request for Production of Documents in the above-captioned matter. As you can
see from the enclosed Answers, I have attached an attorney verification. Upon receipt of my
client's verification, I will forward same to you.
Please notify Joe Ricci or me l:f you intend to withdraw your pending Motion to Compel
prior to June 6, 2002, which is the date the Motion is scheduled for argument.
If you have any questions, or if you would like to.. discuss this or any other matter
_further, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Very~Y
1M~(~
MarcT. Levm
MTUcas
Enclosures
cc: Carolyn .M. Anner, Esquire
-'
t Cmifid as " Cwil'!JidJ'.;{w",.. 5y tIU 9>fJttWnd'1Juanf uf'TrwL J'.;{vo=y
j( fJ?en.n.sy{'f/a1I.{.asupmnl- cau:rt~tri%t:n.Gy
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
J-- .
AND NOW, this.2- day of June, 2002, I, Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire, hereby certify
that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Response to Motion to Compel upon all
counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, regular delivery,
postage prepaid at Hanisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows:
Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire
Handler, Henning & Rosenberg
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, P A 17112
Daniel M. Clements, Esquire
Israelson, Salsbury, Clements & Bekman, L.L.C.
300 W. Pratt Street
Suite 450
Baltimore, MD 21201
~~
i'i; ...::l" f;
""'- L-
D ::::>
..::r 0:;;;
t:5{5 x: u~
fE,," a... ('):3
G1t::::, ::,~
' ~. -' ('")
?r~: 1 G:Z
"'" l'JLW
CC'; = lnn...
j:-. ....., ::2'
lL N ~J
(.) 0 0
b; ...:!. ~:
-7
;:..~ ~-.-
~~
w0 J L)-7
s.2i, ~ C)~
-
~j~~., !.J- ~-::J~
7";:<_
("") ~>C)
6;i. \ ~--::'j "=......
u.;:::J CCZ
~~\ ~ ;.LI\..Li
::::;l CO 0..
F~ -, ::;;;:
LL ('oJ ::::>
u c::> U
, ..
,
Parrell & Ricci, P.C.
4423 North Front Street
Harrlsburq. PA 17110
(717) 230-9201
(.
CERTIFICATE
PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA
PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
IN THE MATTER OF:
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
JUDY HANNA, ADM. OF ESTATE OF
JULIE SOHN; ET AL.
TERM,
-VS-
CASE NO: 2000-125
CARLISLE HOSPITAL
As a prerequisite to se_rvice of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant
to Rule 4009.22
MCS on behalf of
JOSEPH A. RICCI, ESQ.
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 this 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: 11/13/2002
DEll-373758 :L08S2-LO:L
<..
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF Cl:.JMBERLAND
IN THE MATTER OF:
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
JUDY HANNA, ADM. OF ESTATE OF
JULIE SOHN; ET AL.
-VS-
TERM,
. CASE NO: 2000-125
CARLISLE HOSPITAL
NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND
THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21
MID-ATLANTIC CORPORATE
EMPLOYMENT
TO: DANIEL M. CLEMENTS, ESQ.
CAROLYN M. AHNER, ESQ.
MCS on behalf of JOSEPH' A. RICCI, ESQ. intends to serve a subpoena
identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20)
days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the
undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If the twenty \lay notice period is
waived or if no object;!.on is made, then the subpoena may be served. Complete
copies of any reproduced records may be ordered at your expense by completing
the attached counsel card and returning same to MCS or by contacting our local
MCS office.
DATE: 10(24(2002
MCS on behalf of
JOSEPH A. RIGGI, ESQ.
Attorney for DEFENDANT
CC: JOSEPH A. RICCI, ESQ.
- M-202
An.,. questions regarding this matt.er, contact
THE MCS GROUP INC.
1601 MARKET STREET
#aoo
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
(215) 246-0900
DE02-204545 1. 0 a:3 2. - C 0 1.
.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNT' OF CUMBERLAND
JUDY HANNA,' ADM. OF THE ESTATE OF JULI~
SOliN, ET AL
VS
File No. 2000-125
CARLISLE HOSPITAL
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS
FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: MID ATLANTIC CORPORATED FEDERAL CREDIT-UNION
(Nam~ ot PftlIort or Entity)
Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena. you are ordeIed bv the court to produce the following documents or
things: SEE ATTACHED
at
MCS GROUP INC., 1601 MARKET ST., #800, PHlLA.,PA 19103
(AddrHo)
.u
You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena. together with the
certificate of compllance, to the party making thio request at the addresslioted above. You have the right to seek. in
advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought.
If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena. within twenty (2O) days after its service, the party
serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it.
THIS SUBP<JENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERS<JN:
NAME:
ADDRESS:
JOSEPH A. RICCI. ESO.
4423 NORTH FRONT ST.
HARR.T!,;RTTlW. FA 17110
TELEPHONE: 215-246-0900
SUPREME COURT ID II:
ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANT
DATE: ~~n
17
;)r'r1;2.
-
BYcr;~~:/:) ~
ProthonotarytCtertc.. CI Ion
0f?/> " . P ~P/l-'V''-
D. ty
"-
Seal of the Court
(Eff. 7/97)
~
EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS
TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR:
MID-ATLANTIC CORPORATE
FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
1201 FULLING MILL RD
HARRISBURG, PA 17113
RE: 10832
JULIE E. SOHN
Any and all employment records; including computerized records, files,
memoranda, compensation, time and attendance records, personnel records,
payroll and salary reports and all medical records as an employee pertaioing
to:
Dates Requested: up to and including the present.
Subject: JULIE E. SOON
1022 PLANE ST., MIDDLETOWN, PA 17057
SocIal Security #: 198-50-9916
Date of Birth: 06-02-1973
SUIO-406236 l0832-LOl
iJ: <.t.) r
4_ C': Z-
\~..::.. 2 :::>;<;;
~-'~-- C)~
rl7"=-, CL_ v;?;
~ 1-. c"):::'j
",
'''r':~ -7>-
C) '~/Q-
\.---'-..:.- N
f....'"I--.:.. ~. CC :z: .
tL~;. ~ ?Hl>!:
0
,.." Z '::;:-
" '" 6
c., c:>
.
,
JUDY HANNA, As Administrator of the * IN THE
Estate of Julie Sooo, Deceased and for the
benefit of COURTNEY SOHN and * COURT OF
MOLLY SOHN, Minors
* COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiffs
* CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
v. PENNSYLVANIA
*
CARLISLE HOSPITAL CIVIL ACTION - LAW
* NO.: 2000-125 Civil Term
Defendant
* JURY TRlALDEMANDED
* * * * *
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a copy of the Plaintiffs' Response to Request for Production
of Documents propounded by the Defendant, Carljsle Hospital was mailed this ~ ~~ day of_
MAY ,2001 to:
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
4423 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Attorney for Defendant Carlisle Hospital
~~
Daniel M. Clements
C~~-
5
;; i ,.~~.,
. ,,--,'
~ ...... ~
""
~ -
llL~
~O :t:: i
"'"
~ <h a~
. 0_ I ~z
lfg' ;;;:;: lliH:!
:r:: ~
f-- =s ~
~ 0
"
JUDYHANNA, As Administrator of The - -.
-E8tate d']ttHe Sahli, Deceased and [or-the
'b<luefit ofCQURTNEY SOHN ami
~DU.XSOHN, Minors
IN THE
.
COURT OF
.
COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiffs
"".*
CUMBERLAND'COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
-v.
.
,',';.,~C!i.RLISU~ HOSPlTAL
'.
, CIVIL ACTION _~ LAW
NO.: 2000~I25Civil Term
Defendant
* -JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
.
.
*
.
.
CERTII<'ICATE OF SERVICE
'fms IS TO CERTIFY that a copy of the Plaintiffs'Answers to IntcrrogatOl ies
"C ';"~fiWp0l!i1(1e(l.by the DefelJdant, CarIis!e~HQ~pitaLwa5 mailed this_, ~ ,~~ ~J?Xqf ~,__._.....:... '
. ' ~'~~
. '---:~20!)i tJ): _
- Joseph A. F~icei, Esquire
4423 North Fmnt Street
I'Iar6~bu':g, PA17110
Attorney fl.'r Defendant Carlisle Hospital
~~~
Daniel M. Clem nts ~
~~~--~
~ r- ~
N
0 CP 8~
uJ-.""
~/-
-9 X ~
c <l: ~l
-t::; t.."-'
@ti: I
cEy, :;r. ~
--L :::l
1--. ...., a
u_
0 0
-
, ~
JUDY HANNA, as Administrator
of the Estate of Julie Sahli,
Deceas.ed, and for the benefit of
COURTNEY SOHN and MOLLY
SOHN, Minors,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
:- CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
OO~ I 25 CIVIL
vs.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
IN RE: PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL
ORDER
AND NOW, this
z. 0 ~ day of May, 2002, argument on the within motion to
compel is set for Thursday, June 6, 2002, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom NlUllber 4, ClUllberland
County Courthouse, Carlisle, P A.
BY THE COURT,
Daniel M. Clements, Esquire
Carolyn Anner, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
,//4
Joseph Ricci, Esquire
For the Defendant
c.~ rv>~ '5...2/-0.2.-
q
:rIm
. RLED-DFRCE
OF THE PROT!-~,)NOTi\RY
02 MAY 20 PH 3: 20
CUM8Ei1LN~O COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
, .
.
JUDY HANNA, As Administrator
of the Estate of Julie Solm, Deceased
and for the benefit of COURTNEY SOHN *
and MOLLY SOHN, Minors,
.
MAY 1 'l 2002 j)
IN TIIE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
.
Plaintiffs
.
.
Civil Action - Law
No.: 2000-125 Civil Tcrm
v.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
* JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant
*
*
.
*
*
ORDER
Upon the aforegoing Plaintiffs Motion to Compel, it is this
day of
May, 2002;
ORDERED, that the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is hereby GRANTED and that
A. The Defendant, Carlisle Hospital. produce such doclUllents to the Plaintiffs
within fifteen days of thc date of this Order;
B. The Defendant Hospital pay the legal fees for Plaintiff's counsel for
preparation ofthe Motion to Compel and
C. The Defendant Carlisle Hospital be sanctioned with the paymcnt to
Plaintiff s counsel in the amount of $ I ,000.00 for the absolute failure to
comply with the rules of this Court.
JUDGE,
Court of Common Pleas - Cumberland County, PA
Date
,..,
JUDY HANNA, As Administrator
of the Estate of Julie Sahli, Deceased
and for the benefit of COURTNEY SOHN *
and MOLLY SOlIN, Minors,
*
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
*
Plaintiffs
*
.
Civil Action - Law
No.: 2000-125 Civil Tcrm
v.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
* JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant
*
.
*
*
*
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
COME NOW, the Plaintiffs, Judy Hanna, As Administrator of the Estate of Julie Sahli,
Deceased and for the benefit of Courtney Sohn and Molly Sohn., minors by their attorneys,
Daniel M. Clements and Israelson, Salsbury, Clements and Bekman and Carolyn Anner and
Handler, Henning and Rosenberg and moves to. compel discovery and for reasons states as
follows:
I. When the Complaint was filed in this case, two years ago, attached was included a
Request for Production of DoclUllents. The Request for Production of DoclUllents stated at
number 5 as follows:
Any and all documents which constitute procedure manuals. protocols.
department regulations or guidelines regarding:
A. suicide prevention;
B. suicide protocols;
C. self destruction protocols;
D. depression protocols;
E. 15 minute checks;
F. "visuals";
G. the quiet room:
H. restraints;
I. seclusion;
J. one to one observation;
...
K telephone use by psychiatric patients;
L. transfers to state hospitals;
M. laboratory testing to determine thcrapeutic drug levels;
N. sexual abuse protocols;
O. self esteem protocols;
P. section 303 commitment;
Q. psychologic testing;
R. contracts for safcty;
S. staffing requircments for the psychiatric unit.
2. Counsel for defcndant has admitted on many occasions that there were protocols
covering these areas and indicated that they would provide them.
3. They have never becn forthcoming.
4. Plaintiir s counsel has written repeatedly and e-mailed counsel repeatedly for said
documents. In March, two months ago, dcpositions were taken of the various hospital employees
before which it was expected that the protocols would be provided. They were not. Nor were
they provided at the depositions. At the depositions, counsel for the defendant claimed that they
were in existence, that they were in the possession of the hospital and would be delivered on the
second day of the depositions. This did not happen.
5. After the second day of depositions. counsel for the defendant said that the
hospital had the doclUllents and that they would be provided shortly. Counsel for Plaintiff
indicated that at this point, he wantcd copies of all and would not come back to Carlisle for the
purpose of reviewing them therc but simply that they would pay the expense of copying all such
doclUllents. Since March, counsel for the Plaintiff has e-mailed counsel for the Defendant
several times again requesting these protocols and they have not been delivered nor has defense
counsel even responded to the e-mails and correspondence. See the most recent letter dated
April 8, 2002 and attached as exhibit A.
6. Unfortunately, Plaintiirs counsel is now in a position where we must move to
v
compel discovery.
7. It is respectfully requested that the following occur:
A. An Order be issued requiring the Defendant, Carlisle HospitaL to
produce such documents to the Plaintiffs within fifteen days of the signing
of the Order;
B. The Dcfendant Hospital pay the legal fees for Plaintiff s counsel
preparation ofthesc documents and ifneed be travel timc to and from the
hearing on this Motion to Compel.
C. Defendant Carlisle Hospital be sanctioned with the payment to Plaintiffs
counsel in the amount of $ 1,000.00 for the absolute failure to comply with
the rules of this Court.
Respectfully submitted,
~~\0~
Daniel M. Clements
Israelson, Salsbury, Clements and Bekman
Suite 450
300 W. Pratt Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
(4 I 0) 539-6633
~~
Carolyn Annh
Handler, Henning and Rosenberg
1300 Linglcstown Road
Harrisburg, P A 17 I 10
(717) 238-2000
...
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a copy ofthe aforegoing Motion to Compel was mailed this
14th day of May, 2002 to:
Joseph Ricci, Esquire
Farrell and Ricci, P.C.
4423 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PAl 71 10
~~
Daniel M. Clements
.
,-,,-'
I."
.
.-
STUART M. SALSBUR.Y *
PAUL D. BEKMAN
DANIEL ~_l CLEMENTS *
LAURENCE A. :MARDER
WENDY L SHIff
LAw O-FF-ICES OF
ISRAELSON, SALSBURY, CLEMENTS ~ BEI<~MAN, LL.C.
300 W. PRATT STR.EET
SUITE 450
BALTIMORE. MARYLAND 21201
.(AIO) 539-6633
FAX (4iO) 625.9554
MAx R. ISRAELSON
([9i5-2000)
MICHAEL P. SMITH
JUliA A. LoDOWSK!
JASON C. BUCllL
* AlSO MM,rTTED IN D. C.
OF COUNSEL
LESUE HAYES R.usso
..
April 8, 2002
Joseph Ricci, Esquire
Farrell and Ricci, P.C.
4423 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
RE: _HANNA, ET UX.V. CARLISLE HOSPITAL
Dear Joe,
I am about to file a Motion to Compel for the procols which you have refused to provide
to me. I will also include within the Motion to Compel a further request for the charts for the
fifteen minute checks which have, allegedly, not been found. Please,note that because you have
unresponsive to our letters and telephone calls, I am requesting sanctions and costs for the filing
of these motions and for my trip to Carlisle. I regret that I have reached this point but I do not
know what else to do. I not~ that in today's mail there is a letter from you dated April 4th which
for at least the fifth time promises a prompt delivery of those' documents. I refuse to rely on
anything less than the documents in hand as your client has told you and told you and you have
told me, but all has not come to.pass.
If! do not hear from you in response to this letter by deliver of the protocols within the
next ten days, the Motionlo Compel for Sanctions and Costs will be filed.
Sincerely,
~
Daniel M. Clements
EXHIBIT
DMC/clw
I
.A:
~ C) ~
0
!--' c;, 8l
wQ
(.) s_ x::
cc9 n... i33.~
'.1-,..-,.'
09 -..D 3~
t:J'-- ~
u_ r.c:m
cr:t~ >-
<l: ilia..
;:::: :x: ~ -- -----
u- N :::>
0 0 (.)
:: '-.~-~~-
..
-,
.
MAY 1 ? 2002 '0
JUDY HANNA, As Administrator ·
of the Estate of Julie 801m, Deceased
and for the benefit of COURTNEY SOlIN *
and MOLLY SOHN, Minors,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEA8
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
.
Plaintiffs
.
.
Civil Action - Law
No.: 2000-125 Civil Term
v.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
· JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant
.
.
.
*
.
ORDER
Upon the aforegoing Plaintiffs Motion to Compel, it is this
day of
May, 2002;
ORDERED, that the Plaintiffs Motion to Compel is hereby GRANTED and that
A. The Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, produce such documents to the Plaintiffs
within fifteen days of the date of this Order;
B. The Defendant Hospital pay the legal fees for Plaintiffs counsel for
preparation of the Motion to Compel and
C. The Defendant Carlisle Hospital be sanctioned with the payment to
Plaintiffs counsel in the amount of$ 1,000.00- for the absolute failure to
comply with the rules ofthis Court.
JUDGE,
Court of Common Pleas - ClUllberIand County, PA
Date
MAY 1 'I wllZ 9
JUDY HANNA, As Administrator ·
of the Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased
and for the benefit of COURTNEY SOHN ·
and MOLLY SOHN, Minors,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
.
Plaintiffs
,
*
*
Civil Action - Law
No.: 2000-125 Civil Term
v.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
* JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant
*
.
*
.
*
ORDER
Upon the aforegoing Plaintiffs Motion to Compel, it is this
day of
May, 2002;
ORDERED, that the Plaintiffs Motion to Compel is hereby GRANTED and that
A. The Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, produce such documents to the Plaintiffs
within fifteen days ofthe date of this Order;
B. The Defendant Hospital pay the legal fees for Plaintiff s counsel for
preparation of the Motion to Compel and
C. The Defendant Carlisle Hospital be sanctioned with the payment to
Plaintiffs counsel in the amount of$l,OOO.OO for the absolute failure to
comply with the rules of this Court.
JUDGE,
Court of Common Pleas - Cumberland County, PA
Date
JUDY HANNA, As Administrator
of the Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased
and for the benefit of COURTNEY SOHN ·
and MOLLY SOl-IN, Minors,
.
MAY 1 '1 ZOD2 Y
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
.
Plaintiffs
,
.
.
Civil Action - Law
No.: 2000-125 Civil Teml
v.
CARLISLE IIOSPIT AL,
· JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant
.
.
.
.
*
ORDER
Upon the aforegoingPlaintiffs Motion to Compel, it is this
day of
May, 2002;
ORDERED, that the Plaintiffs Motion to Compel is hereby GRANTED and that
A. The Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, produce such doclUllents to the Plaintiffs
within fifteen days of the date of this Order;
B. The Defendant Hospital pay the legal fees for PlaintifTs counsel for
preparation of the Motion to Compel and
C. The Defendant Carlisle Hospital be sanctioned with the payment to
Plaintiffs counsel in the amount of $ 1,000.00 for th~ absolute failure to
comply with the rules of this Court.
JUDGE,
Court of Common Pleas - Cumberland County, PA
Date
~
..--
'f'
MAR 1 0 2004 ~
JUDY HANNA, as Administrator of
the Estate of Julie Sohu, Deceased, and
for the benefit of COURTNEY SOHN
and MOLLY SOHN, Minors,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
v.
No. 2000-125 Civil Term
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORDER
AND NOW, this 1'7 "lJday Of~ ~ ,2004, upon consideration of Plaintiff's
Motion for Scheduling of Status Conference, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a status
conference is scheduled for ?-nt' (p ,2004,at~jL.m.in~mLofthe
Cumberland County Courthouse.
BY THE COURT:
7/1J.
J.
~
~()-\
_ ,et'
0::5
RLEO-DFFICE
OF THE PROTHONOTARY
2DD4tlJ\R 18 Prl 3: 0 I
CUMBEF1lNiD COUNTY
PENNSYLVANiA
,
~
JUDY HANNA, as Administrator of
the Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased, and
for the benefit of COURTNEY SOHN
and MOLLY SOHN, Minors,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
v.
No, 2000-125 Civil Term
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
MOTION FOR SCHEDULING OF STATUS CONFERENCE
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Judy Hanna, by and through her attorneys, HANDLER,
HENNING & ROSENBERG, by Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire, and brings forth this Motion as
follows:
I. Plaintiff requests that this action be assigned to a Judge for the purpose of scheduling
a status conference.
Respectfully submitted,
Date:
~)~ll <j
I f
HANDLER, HENNIN~~~NBER~, LLP
//' /
...- /'
Carolyn M. Annef,'Esquire
.r.'.D. No. 62636
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg PA I7IlO
(717) 238-2000
By
v^
~
JUDY HANNA, as Administrator of
the Estate of Julie Sohn,
Deceased, and for the benefit
of COURTNEY SOHN and MOLLY
SOHN, Minors,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA_
Plaintiff
v.
No. 2000-125 Civil Term
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On this 5th day of March, 2004, I hereby certify that a true
and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Scheduling of Status
Conference was served upon the following by depositing same in the
United States Mail,
postage prepaid,
regular service,
in
Harrisburg, 'Pennsylvania:
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
Farrell & Ricci, P.C.
4423 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110-1709
Daniel M. Clements, Esqulre
Israelson, Salsbury, Clements & Bekman, LLC
300 West Pratt Street
Suite 450
Baltimore MD 21201
HANDLER,
By
HENNING &.R)lSENBERG,
/ c' / ~//,c
/ / -
/,,/" ,,/-
"
/
LLP
Anner, Esquire
~ = ~
~,- N ~j<
GO
z x:: Q-
--0 07-
i:t-FE a.. ~
96 O:-r
= ~c; fi2
~g: I :~L
"'" L1.:Z
a:: lU .< ill~
FE =-=
...or >
l.L = :::>
0 = u
.....
.
JUDY I-IANNA, as Administrator
of the Estate of Julie Sohli, Deceased:
and for the benefit of COURTNEY :
SOHN and MOLLY SOHN, Minors, :
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
00-0125 CIVIL
VB.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORDER
AND NOW, this sJ- day of April, 2004, at the request of counsel for the plaintiff
and with the concurrence of counsel for the defendant, the status conference set for May 6, 2004,
is continued to Thursday, June 3, 2004, at 1:30 p.m. in Chambers of the undersigned.
BY THE COURT,
Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire ~
Daniel M. Clements, Esquire"'-/
F or the Plaintiff
l:t>flO (Yla. wl
Ar; I &. 'JoO~
(</VI+!
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire ..-/
-For the Defendant
:rlm
RLED-OFFICE
OF THE PROTHONOTA.I1Y
2DD4 APR -5 PM 3: 44
CUMBI~RL.AUD COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
C--. ,----...
JUDY HANNA, as Administrator
of the Estate of Julie Sahli,
Deceased, and for the benefit of
COURTNEY SOlIN and MOLLY
SOHN,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
00-125 CIVIL
vs.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORDER
AND NOW, this "Jd_day of June, 2004, following conference with counsel in
chambers, the following case management order is entered:
I. All discovery with the exception of expert reports shaJI be completed on or before July
30, 2004.
2. All plaintiffs expenreports shall be forthcoming on or before June 30, 2004.
3. All defense expert reports with respect to liability shall be forthcoming on or before
July 30, 2004, and all defense expert repgrts regarding damages shall be due on or before August
16,2004.
4. Ail rebuttal expert reports shall be due on or before &epteriiber 30, 2004.
The Prothonotary is ordered and directed'to list this case-for trial on the term
commencing October 25, 2004. Notwithstanding the listing of this case for October, trial in this
case will commence on Monday, November 15, 2004.
It appearing that tile plaintiff intends to file a motion to anlend the complaint to again
. .
allege punitive damages, by agreement of the parties, the plaintiff will file said motion forthwith
-4.. ~..... ...--
and list same for arglUllent during the regular session of arglUllent court on July 28, 2004.
BY THE COURT,
Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire
Daniel M. Clements, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
~
Joseph Ricci, Esquire
For the Defendant
'~ ~ G.c;:.'i
~ -d jA /! - GA'l/kcf - ~
Court Administrator - rt.a-rl. eLk'- c.. <
:rlm
f'r:
=<c
'0
u..J--;.
06
r~.~~
.... w_
.0...
- Lil
-:J:
,-
u...
o
... .
..:T
o
N
:.c
0...
..:s
I
%
~
-""
g
""
~
~~
0~
Cl~
'..-~........
.~--.;.'"
..lZ
ffi(ti
~~
JUDY HANNA, as Administrator
of the Estate of Julie Sohn,
Deceased, and for the benefit of
COURTNEY SOHNandMDLLY_
SOHN,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
00-125 CIVIL
vs.
-CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
IN RE: MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT ADDING PUNITIVE DAMAGES
ORDER
AND NOW, this l' day of July, 2004, the Prothonotary is directed to list this
.
-matter for the regular session of argument court to be held July 28, 2004.
BY THE COURT,
Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire.
Daniel M. Clements, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Court Administrator
.~
~
1- 0'\- 0'-1
cr-
Joseph Ricci, Esquire
For the Defendant
:rlm
FILED-OFflCE
OF THE PROTHONOT.o.RY
2nn~ JUL -7 PM 2: 37
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
PENNSYLVANIA
-
'V
JUL 0 1 20041
JUDY HANNA, as Administrator
of the Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased:
And for the benefit of COURTNEY
SOHN and MOLLY SOHN, Minors,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
Civil Action - Law
Plaintiffs
No: 2000-125-Civil Term
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
ORDER
AND NOW, this
day of
, 2004, it is. hereby ordered that
Complaint be Amended Adding Punitive Damages and Memorandum of Points and
Authorities as requested by Plaintiffs.
BYTHE COURT,
,J.
,
JUL 0 1 2004 {;-
JUDY HANNA, As Administrator
of the Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased
and for the benefit of COURTNEY SOHN ·
and MOLLY SOHN, Minors,
.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
.
Plaintiffs
.
*
Civil Action - Law
No.: 2000-125 Civil Term
v.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
* JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant
.
.
*
*
.
MOTION TO AMEND COMPLAINT ADDING PUNITIVE DAMAGES
AND MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
COME NOW, the Plaintiffs, Judy Hanna, As Administrator of the Estate of Julie Sohn,
Deceased and for the benefit of Courtney Sahli and Molly 80hli, minors by their attorneys,
Daniel M. Clements and Salsbury, Clements, Bekman, Marder and Adkins, L.L.C. and Carolyn
Armer and Handler, Henning and Rosenberg and moves to permit Plaintiffs to amend the
complaint adding punitive damages and for reasons states as follows.
The original complaint filed in this Court requested punitive damages. The Defendant
moved to strike that portion of the pleadings and said motion was granted by this court. The
Plaintiffs believe that discovery has now shown that punitive damages are appropriate undcr the
circlUllstances of this case and should be an issue considered by the jury.
On February 25t", 1998 Julie Sahli was admitted to the Defendant Hospital following an
attempted suicide and with a substantial psychiatric history of suicide attempts and suicidal
ideation. On March 2, 1998 an administrative hearing was held pursuant to Section 303 and Ms.
Sohn was involuntary committed to the Dcfcndant institution as a result of representations by thc
Hospital and its staff that !VIs:-So!ill\vas a danger to herself and a danger to others.
On March 3, sometime before 6:30 in the evening, Ms. Sohn told Nurse Steven Murdoch
according to his notes and his deposition that; " Made reference to thoughts of hanging herself
on bathroom door and in quotes, but I really don't think I would do it, unquote. Feels depressed
because everyone is mad at her for always doing the wrong thing." (Murdoch deposition, page
20,) At 9:30 that evening Ms. Sahli was found in her room hanging from the bathroom door with
her bed sheets "'Tapped around her neck. In the intervening period, between 6:30 and 9:30
neither Nurse Murdoch or any other staff member advised the doctor in charge of her threat, nor
removed possible instruments of harm, nor placed her on one on one observation, nor recorded
checking on her every l5urilinutes, nor insured that when Nurse Murdoch went off shift at 6:30
that any other nurse was assigned to keep an eye on her, nor required Ms. Sahli to remain with
the other patients. In fact no action, zero efforts, were undertaken in response to her threat. It
was ignored, considered a joke -.part of her "manipulative, adolescent behaviors" (Murdoch
deposition, page 19 and 20). She died from her self inflicted injuries several days later.
ARGUMENT
Pennsylvania follows the standard for punitive damages as asserted in the Restatement
(Second) ofTorts S 908(2) and S 500.
Section 908( s) provides:
"Punitive damages may be awarded for conduct.that is outrageous, because of the
defendant's evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others. In
assessing punitive damages, the trier of fad can properly consider the character of
the defendant's act, thc nature and extent ofthe harm to the plaintiff that the
defendant caused or intended to cause and the wealth of the defendant."
2
Courts have held that claims for punitivedarnages must be related to an injury-producing cause
of action. Judgc Tcchnical Sen'iccs, Inc. v. Clancy, 813 A.2d 879, 888 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002).
For the purposes of awarding punitive damages, "outrageous conduct" has been defined
as "acts done with a bad motive or with a reckless indifference to the interests of others." Id. at
889, quoting Shared Communications Services of 1800-80 JFK Blvd Inc, , v. Bell Atlantic
Properties Inc., 692 A.2d 570, 571i(Pa. Super. Ct. 1997). In Reading Radio, Inc., v. Fink,833
A.2d 199 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2003), the Court held that soliciting sales employees for a competitor in
violation of a covcnant-not-to-compete, and forming an agreement to hire a competitor, in
violation of his duty ofIoyalty, constituted outrageous conduct and, as such, the jury's award for
punitive damages was appropriate. Id. at 214.
Pennsylvania has also adopted a portion of Restatement (Second) of Torts S 500 defining
reckless conduct. The relevant portion of this section provides:
"Recklessness may consist of...[conduct where] the actor knows, or has reason to
know... of facts which create a high degree of risk or physical harm to another,
and deliberately proceeds to act, or fail to act, in conscious disregard of, or
indifferenc'eto that risk."
This explanation focuses on the state of mind ofthe defendant. It requires that the act or
omission to act be intentional, reckless or malicious. Fcld v. Mcrriam, 485 A.2d 742, 748 (Pa.
1984). Courts have interpreted this as meaning that the actor "must recognize that his conduct
involves a risk substantially greater in amount than that which is necessary to make his conduct
negligent." Moran v. G. & w.H. Corson, Inc., 586 A.2d 416,423 (1991); Hall v. Jackson, 788
A.2d 390, 403 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002). The state of mind component is consistent with the purpose
3
of punitive damages, which is to "punish the person doing the wrongful act and to discourage
him and others from similar conduct in the future." Restatement (Second) of Torts S 908(1)
(1979). The reasoning behind the state ofmiild requircment is that you cannot deter a person
from engaging in risky activities unless the person is consciously aware of the risk. Martin 494
A.2dat 1097n.12 CPa. 1985); Burke v. Maassen, 904 F.2d 178, 182 (1990).
However, S 500 Comment (1) makes an important distinction between intentional
misconduct and recklessness, which supports our right to let this issue. be decided by the jury.
Although the actor must intend to engage in the conduct or fail to engage in the conduct in order
for it to qualify as reckless, the actor does not have to intend to cause the harm w'hich ultimately
results from his action or inaction. Jd Instead, it is enough that the actor "realizes or, from the
facts which he knows, should realize that there is a strong probability that harm may result, even
though he hopes or even expects that his conduct will prove harmless." Jd
The Court in Johnson v. Hyundai, 698 A:2d 631, 640 CPa. Super. Ct. 1997), held that
-Defendant Garage behaved recklessly when they failed to spend time or effort to determine the
precise problem with the automobile on four occasions, despite assurances to the customer that
various problems had been fixed. Jd The court attributed the Defendant's behavior to failing to
believe Plaintiff customer and.heed the warnings regarding the problems ofthe car. Id. This
analysis is analogous to the our facts in that the Hospital nurse failed to take Ms. Sahli's suicide
threat seriously. As a result, he did not dedicate any time or effort into discovering the
. - underlying problem or ensuring Ms. Sohn' s personal safety by removing potentially dangerous
objects from her room.
Punitive danlages have also been awarded in medical maljlractice cases. In Taylor v,
4
Albert Einstein Medical Ccnter, 723 A.2d 1027 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998), the Court held that a jury
could award punitive damages where a doctor consc.iously provided parents false and misleading
. .
information regarding who would perform a catheterization on their minor daughter in order to
obtain parental consent and experience performing these procedures. The Court in Taylor further
noted that this is "precisely the type of conduct which punitive damages are intended to prevent".
ld at 1038.
Lastly, punitive damages may be awarded on the basis of vicai-J"ous liability. Shiner v.
Moriarty, 706 A.2d 1228, 1239 (PA. Super. Ct. 1998), citing Dean Witter Reynolds, lllc. v.
Genteel, 499 A.2d 637, 643 (Pa. 1985). A jury may award punitive damages without the agent
committing a tortious act under the direction of his principal. ld. Further, punitiVe damages may
be awarded against the principal without the principal ratifying the act of his agent. Jd.
The admitted facts and circumstances in this case are exactly the type of circlUllstances
where such recklessness by Defendants should be punished. Ms. Sahli was in Carlisle Hospital
because she was a threat to herself and to others. Dr. Manfredi, in charge of the psychiatric ward
testified at his deposition, page 7:
8 Q Okay. The day before on the 2nd of March-- she
9 hung herself on the 3rd, and on the 2nd of March you
10 testified at the 303 hearing?
11 A Correct.
12 Q And your testimony was that she was still at that
13. time a danger to hcrself and a danger to others?
14 A Correct. That's why we were having the hearing.
5
15 Q Sure. If you didn't think that she was a danger
16 to herself or a danger to others you wouldn't have tried to
17 keep her there against her will, correct?
18 A Exactly.
Dr. Manfredi went on to testify at page 25 of his deposition: ._
21 Q Yes. Otherwise you-wouldn't have represented to
22 the hearings examiner that she wasa threat and danger to
23 herself and others?
24 A Correct. Yes, she was a'constant potential harm
25 to herself, yes, definitely.
So we being with a committed patient who is a constant potential harm to herself. She
then threatens to kill herself, and the nurse to whom she makes the threat does nothing. He
admitted to Dr. Manfredi thathe did not take her threat seriously. Manfredi deposition, page 9:
8 A I asked Steve about the note, that it was pretty
9 specific, and obviously it matched up to what actually had
10 occurred, and to the best of my recall, what Steve had said .
I I was that I didn't feel it was a serious threat at the time,
12 that she was frequently making statements about hurting
13 herself or about not caring, and that had been going on
14 from the time that she was admitted, and he didn't see this
15 one as out of line with any of the others that she had
16 made, plus she had contracted for safety and said that she
6
17 really wasn't going to hurt herself but that she had that
18 thought!
Unfortunately for the Defendant, it wiII not be able to point to a single other point in the
records of Ms. Sohn at Carlisle Hospital where she made statements about harming herself. And
the Defendant wiII admit, because the records so show, that the previous day when Ms. Sahli
began to cut herself on her arm with a notebook, the instrument was remOVed, she was placed in
seclusion and closely watched.
On page 25 of his depostion, Nurse Murdoch admits he did not take Ms. Sohn's threat
seriously and then goes on to admit that it would have been easy to take protective measures
which are routine but which he did not institute:
I Q What was the cost of putting her on one-an-one
2 observation?
3 A There was reaUy no cost.
4 Q Okay. What was the cost of putting her in the
5 seclusion room where she could be watched from the nurses
6 station by the TV monitor?
7 A There was no cost.
AU admit that under these circlUllstances, Ms. Sohn should have been placed on 15
! Nurse Murdoch claims the patient "contracted for safety" but his notes at the timc fail to
make mention of such act. Later notes in the record make mention of the "contract for safety"
but those were, Plaintiffs assert, improperly inserted into the medical record after Ms. Sohn's
suicide. Further, Plaintiffs experts reports, all provided to the Defendant, indicate that the
Hospital's actions constituted gross negligence and that a "colltract for safety" with this patient
was a useless act.
7
minute watch, but unless the Defendants produce a doclUllent for this Court that has not been
produced to the Plaintiffs, proof of such 15 minute watch occurring does not exist.
Nurse Murdoch heard the threat but fflils:d to pass Ms. Sahli off to another nurse when he
left the hospital and his shift early. Murdoch deposition pages 32-33:
22 Q And there's no evidence that anybody checked on
23 her between 6:30 in the evening and 9:45, correct?
24MR. RICCI: As documented on the progress
25 record?
33
I BY MR. CLEMENTS:
2 Q Yes, as -c well--
3 A I don't know if someone else had talked with her
4 or not.
5 Q Okay. And, in fact, there's no record that
6 anybody else was assigned to her; is that correct?
7 A Someone may have been assigned to her and had
8 planned on charting on her by the end of the night. Maybe
9 as a result of the incident that was -- that doclUllentation
10 was overlooked. I don't know.
11 Q But that would have been all the more reason to
12 document?
I3 A Correct.
8
As Dr. Manfredi admits on page 22 of his deposition:
17 Q Yes. Did you find anything -- thank you. Did
18 you find anybody -- anything in the record that indicates
19 she was passed offto somebody after Steve Murdoch left?
20 A Not specifically, no.
Nurse Murdoch admits he failed to tell Dr. Manfredi of Ms. Sohn's suicide threat, at page
35 of his deposition:
15 Q Okay. After she had the suicidal ideation about
16 hanging herself on the bathroom door, did you tell
17 Dr. Manfredi that?
18 A I don't believe so.
Unfortunately, Nurse Murdoch ignored the fact that the doctor in charge and the Hosptial
considered Ms. Sohn a constant threat to herself and a danger to herself. Murdoch deposition
page 50:
13 Q On the day that she killed herself, hung herself,
14 that resulted in her death, did you consider herself -- you.
15 didn't consider her a danger to herself?
16 A At the time, the night before when I spoke with
17 her?
18 Q Right.
19 A No, I didn't.
9
What could better fit the Restatement's definition of reckless conduct, as set forth above
and again immediately below, than the behaviors of Nurse Murdoch. .Ms. Sahli was a known and
accepted risk to herself. She wask..ept in the Hospital against her wiIJ asa result ofthose risks.
She threatens to kiIJ herself and Nurse Murdoch basically does nothing.
Restatement (Second) of Torts S 500 defining reckless conduct. The relevant portion of
this section provides:
"Recklessness may consist of...[ conduct where] the actor knows, or has reason to
know... of facts which create a high degrec of risk or physical harm to another,
and deliberately procecds to_act, or fail to act, in conscious disregard of, or
indifference to that risk."
And perhaps in a common sense way, one should accept that punitive damages are
appropriate where the behavior is so egregious as to create anger on the part of the very physician
who is in charge of the ward and responsible for the staff and its actions. Dr. Manfredi described
his thoughts upon hearing that Ms. Sohn had hung herself in his institution, on his ward as
follows at page 17 of his deposition:
10 Q And then you said you were angry?
II A Yes.
12 Q Like for the same reasons or different?
13 A For all of those reasons. I was angry with the
14 patient for doing it. I was angry with the staff for the
IS fact that it did occur. I was angry about the whole
16 situation.
10
CONCLUSION
For all of the above reasons, therefore, it is respectfully submitted that the original
complaint as drafted be permitted to once again be considered as the complaint for this case
including its demand for punitive damages.
~'-'--
CAROLYN r\\. ANNER
HANDLER, HENNING AND ROSENBERG
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-2000
~~~
SALSBURY, CLEMENTS, BEKMAN, MARDER
& ADKINS L.L.C.
300 West Pratt Street
Suite 450
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
410-539-6633
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
11
JUl 0 1 ZQ04j
JUDY HANNA, As Administrator of the * IN THE
Estate ofJulie Sooo, Deceased and for the
benefit of COURTNEY SOHN and * COURT OF
MOLLY SQHN, Minors
* COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiffs
* CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
v. PENNSYL V ANlA
.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL CIVIL ACTlON~ LAW
. NO.: 2000-125 Civil Term-
Defendant
. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
.
*
.
.
.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a copy of the Plaintiffs' Motion To Amend The Complaint
was mailed this 28th day of June, 2004.
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
Farrell and Ricci, P.C.
4423 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Attorney for Defendant Carlisle Hospital
~~~
CAROLYN M. R "----
HANDLER HENNING AND ROSENBERG
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PAl 7I 10
(717)238-2000
~~~:~
DANIEL M. CLEME S . ..'
SALSBURY, CLEMENTS, BEKMAN, MARDER
& ADKINS L.L.C.
300 West Pratt Street
Suite 450 .
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
410-539-6633
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
12
>---
""
"'"
,-
w9
5.;>~'::
,"-0
15[';
SJ~
a:u..:
FE
~
<..n
'>-
~-
Z .
:::0
C)~
u':?
Q~
~,i
~
-,
o
cO
-
""--
"'"
=
("j
~
:5
-:;
eS-
=
'"
...~..--
~....,.;#'
/'
".~
#:...:-'
.'
v
"_........:
"
JUDY HANNA, as Administrator
of the Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased:
And for the benefit of COURTNEY
SOHN and MOLLY SOHN, Minors,
JUL 0 1 nD1~
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
Civil Action - Law
Plaintiffs
No: 2000-125-Civil Term
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
ORDER
AND NOW, this
day of
, 2004, it is hereby ordered that
Complaint be Amended Adding Punitive Damages and Memorandum of Points and
Authorities as requested by Plaintiffs.
BY THE COURT,
,J.
JUL 0 1 11l1l( f
JUDY HANNA, as Administrator
of the Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased:
And for the benefit of COURTNEY
SOHN and MOLLY SOHN, Minors,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
Civil Action - Law
Plaintiffs
No: 2000-125-Civil Term
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
ORDER
AND NOW, this
day of
, 2004, it is hereby ordered that
Complaint be Amended Adding Punitive Damages and Memorandum of Points and
Authorities as requested by Plaintiffs.
BY THE COURT,
,J.
JUl 0 1 20D4f '
JUDY HANNA, as Administrator
of the Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased:
And for the benefit of COURTNEY
SOHN and MOLLY SOHN, Minors,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
Civil Action - Law
Plaintiffs
No: 2000-12S-Givil Term
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
ORDER
AND NOW, this
day of
, 2004, it is hereby ordered that
Complaint be Amended Adding Punitive Damages and Memorandum of Points and
Authorities as requested by Plaintiffs. .
BYTHE COURT,
,J.
JUl 0 1 ZOO~f
JUDY HANNA, as Administrator
of the Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased:
And for the benefit of COURTNEY
SOHN and MOLLY SOHN, Minors,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
Civil Action - Law
Plaintiffs
No: 2000-125-Civil Term
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
ORDER
AND NOW, this
day of
. 2004, it is hereby ordered that
Complaint be Amended Adding Punitive Damages and Memorandum of Points and
Authorities as requested by Plaintiffs.
BY THE COURT,
,J.
. /!V r
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT
(Must be typewritten and subnitted in duplicate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
Please list the within matter f= the next I\rgunent Court.
--~~------------------------~----------------------------------------------------------
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated in full)
JUDY HANNA, as Administrator of the Estate of
,Lulie Sahn, Deceased, and for the benefit of
OOURTNEY SOHN and MJLLY.~SOHN, Minors
(Plaintiff)
vs.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL
( Deferx:lant )
No. 2000-125 Civil Term 161::
1. State matter to be argued (Le., plaintlif's rrotion for new trial. defendant's
demurrer to canplaint. etc.):
Defendant 's Motion to !\mend the Complaint Adding PUnitive Damages and
Memorandum of Points and AUthorities
2. Identify =81 who will argue case:
(a) f= plaintiff:
Address:
Carolyn Armer, Esquire
1300 Ling1estown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(b) f= deferx:lant:
Address:
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
4423 North Front Street
Ha=isburg, PA 17110
3. I will notify all parties in writing within boo:> days that this case has
been listed for argment.
4. Argunent Court Date:
July 28, 2004
ll::it:ed: Ju~yL 2004
:... ~
>- .t.r.>
{i€ '" i:::
'-' ~t
~@ - .-
-
if .. ~
'rg ..
<.0 925
, ~~t
~ ;5 .
IBM:
....,
i!s. ""'" ~
. "'"
--~~ ~
0
JUDY HANNA, As Administrator
of the Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased
and for the benefit of COURTNEY
SOHN and MOLLY SOHN, Minors,
PLAINTIFFS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
DEFENDANT
00-0125 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: MOTION OF DEFENDANT TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT
AND NOW, this
BEFORE BAYLEY, J. AND HESS, J,
. .... ORDER OF COURT
. ~. day of July, 2004, IT IS ORDERED that the
motion of defendant to file an amended complaint to add a claim for punitive damages,
IS GRANTED.
Aaniel M. Clements, Esquire
For Plaintiffs
~ePh A. Ricci, Esquire
For Defendant
.>
01~d..9 -()I.{
:sal
FllED-Oi-T-ICE
OF THE PROTHONOTA,clY
znn~ JUL 28 PH 3: 48
. CUMBERLAND CQUi\rrY
PENNSYLVANIA
o
"
-~-T" -"
N~ 2004
JUDY HANNA, As Adminisfrator of
the Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased and
for the benefit of COURTNEY SOHN
and MOLLY SOHN, Minors,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2000-125 Civil Term
vs.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORDER
AND NOW this
/6'" day of November, 2004, upon consideration of Defendant's
Petition for Continuance pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 216(A)(2), it is hereby Ordered and
Decreed that the trial of this matter scheduled to commence Monday, November 15, 2004
is CONTINUED.
'/ld
J.
~ r..n
N
~- ..
W~ -
CJ x:
tEif 0..
@~ =
0.:
-tU >-
u..:c =
l- Z
1J... @;
0 =
""
, ,
> .
~
:::><
0--
O~
0:::1
~>-
<.(,UJ
.,...,Z
II.:::':'::~ -
f.UlD
a~o..
:::;:
8
~
~
l~
-::J.
i~
-J. cd :r-
7 -Z,~
~ ;r !!J1
()-. c::t "'--
~
-:::31"
~ ...J
~1
o..E
/'- .
D-/--
~l
Marc T. Levin, Esquire
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
FARRELL & RICCI, PC
4423 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
717-230-9201
JUDY HANNA, As Administrator of
the Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased and
for the benefit of COURTNEY SOHN
and MOLLY SOHN, Minors,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND CODN'rY,PENNSYLV ANIA
NO. 2000-125 Civil Term
vs.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DE.M.ANDED
PETITION FOR CONTINUANCE
AND NOW comes Defendant Carlisle Hospital by and through their attorneys
Farrell & Ricci, P.C. and aver as follows:
1. The above-captioned matter is attached for trial before the Honorable Kevin A. Hess
to commence Monday, November 15, 2004 by Judge Hess' October 6, 2004 Pretrial
Order.
2. Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire, is the sole trial counsel for the Defendant Carlisle Hospital.
3. Approximately one week ago, Attorney Ricci became ill and was seen by his family
physician, Kenneth Guistwite, M.D. of Guistwite Family Practice.
4. Attorney Ricci was placed on antibiotics on or about Friday, November 5, 2004 to
treat his medical condition.
5. Since that time, Attorney Ricci's condition has not improved and has III fact,
worsened.
2
o~ ."
6_ Attorney Ricci followed up with his family physician, Dr. Guistwite, on or about
November 9, 2004 and his physician sent him to the hospital for a chest x-ray to rule
out pneumonia_
7. Dr. Guistwite's current working diagnosis of Attorney Ricei is viral bronchitis.
8. A Physician's Certificate from Dr. Guistwite is attached hereto and marked as
Exhibit "A". The Certificate, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 216(A)(2), states that Attorney
llicci's illness will probably be of sufficient duration to prevent him from
participating in the trial scheduled to begin November 15, 2004.
9. Attorney Ricci is the sole trial counsel approved by Defendant Carlisle Hospital's
insurance carrier.
10. Pursuant to Cumberland County Loeal Rule of Court 206-2(c) the concurrence of
Plaintiffs counsel, Daniel M. Clements, Esquire, was sought by the undersigned
with respect to the instant Petition for Continuance.
11. Pursuant to Rule 216(A)(2), Attorney Clements has indicated his concurrence with
this Petition for Continuance.
WHEREFORE, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 216(a)(2),
Defendant Carlisle Hospital, by and through its counsel hereby requests that the trial in
the above-captioned action, which is currently scheduled to commence November 15, 2004,
be continued.
BY:~~
Marc T. Levin,
J.D. No. 70294
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
LD. No. 49803
Farrell & Ricci, P.C.
4423 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
717-230-9201
3
"
;. .
AND NOW come. Kenneth R. G1.listwite,
. "
Gui8twite :Family Practice, JOBeph
A. Ricci, Esquire's fatnily physj~~l'IR, Mr. Ricci he-been:ill for approximately one week and
haa been l.Ill.dex the alire of my group liurinlil" Iua resent illness. He had been on antibiotics
since the end of lest week and has shown no' rovt>.ment in his condition which, in fact,
see"-"$ to ha.." wors.oned. Altho~h the current orki:ttg ifulgnoais l.s virlll bronchitis, teste
lave ~n ordered to detennin" whether or not fact he has pneumonia. In my opinjon.,
given the aeveri;ty of his medical condition and. t e medical treatment received to date with
1>0 improvement shown, that Mr. Ricci's illness ill be of sufficient duration to prevent him
from );lreparin~ for or participati.ne' in the jury
2004.
scheduled to o<)mmenoo November 15,
I beJ:eby vexif;y that the fact6 set forth in t foregoing document are true and correct to
the best of my knowledge, .Information IUld belie The opinions expre~ herein have be-en
I undsratand that :fulse statements he
expr/il9sed to It reasonable deiI'OO of medJcal cePtai ty.
are made subject to the penaltJell of 18
Pa.C,S. 94904, rdating to 1.W.swom fal.effication to....thc>rities.
Date: 1(-(0 - af
EXHIBIT
I A
~~~~
, Kenneth R. tristwite, fl-:e;- 11117
~ .
VERIFICATION
I hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to
the best of my know ledge, information and belief.
I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18
Pa.C.S. ~4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date:
1;jl%Y
~::: rI
Marc T. Levin, Esquire
. ~ -- .. .
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
11-
AND NOW, this /0 - day of )joi#m~ , 2004, I hereby certify that I served a true
and correct copy of the foregoing doclUllent upon all counsel of record via facsimile ans by
depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, regular delivery, postage prepaid at
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows:
Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG
1300 LingIestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17112
Daniel M. Clements, Esquire
ISRAELSON, SALSBURY, CLEMENTS & BEIUV1AN, L.L.C.
300 W. Pratt Street - Suite 450
Baltimore, MD 21201
F:;#Sj~
,
5
>- '-D ~
~ tr.>
~9 N ~Jg;
(.Z 2: ~~Z
0
~~ 0- -~
')>
C> (~,<--,
":-,$
:::JtlJ '':1-
:> Cr.~S;
1I.f:l= = ",,,0:...
z m&
5 ~ ::.2
= a
=
c-..
.. " ," .1'.
._.JUDY HANNA, as Administrator
of the Estate of Julie Sohn,
Deceased, and for the benefit of
COURTNEY SOHN and MOLLY
SOHN,
Plaintiff
vs.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
. -IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
',,,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
. 00- f 25 CIVIL
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORDER
AND NOW, this Z o' day of December, 2004, following conference call with
counsel, the Prothonotary is directed to list the jury trial oftms case for the term commencing
July 18,2005.
~el M. Clements, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
,A6seph Ricci, Esquire )
For the Defendant
,/COurt Administrator- ~Ox.
:rlm
BY THE COURT,
.~
fiLED-OffiCE
OF THE PROTHONOTAt'iY
2004 DEe 20 AM! I: 52
CUM2E:iLA~'E) COUNTY
PENNSYLV.4NJA
JUDY HANNA, AS
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
ESTATE OF JULIE SOHN,
DECEASED, AND FOR THE
BENEFIT OF COURTNEY SOHN
AND MOLLY SOHN,
Plaintiff
v
CARLISLE HOSPITAL
IN RE:
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,. PENNSYLVANIA
.CIVIL ACTION - LAW
00-125 CIVIL TERM
CALL OF CIVIL LIST
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 21st day of June, 2005, upon
consideration of the call of the civil trial list, and with
respect to Hanna versus Carlisle Hospital at No. 00-125 Civil
Term, the Court hav~ng been advised by Defendant's counsel,
Joseph Ricci, Esquire, that this case is in the process of being
resolved, the case is stricken from the trial list.
~niel M. Clements, Esquire
300 South Pratt Street _
Suite 450
Baltimore, MD 21201
For the Plaintiff
~seph Ricci, Es~uire
4423 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
For the Defendant
Court Administrator
:mae
By the Court,
J.
~
FiLED-0fFlCE
OF T1-IE PROTl-IONOTi\Qy
ZOUS JUN 22 AN 9: 24
~~
CUM8tf{j~.}L.J i)JUNTf
PENi\'SYlVP-NiA
'~
"
L/ '.,
, .'.
,"':"
, ~~ 'l
t,.\. ."' '-, '
-~..... ~
-~- -.......--
- ,,~
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP
Sarah W. Arosell, Esquire
Identification Number: 58797
305 North Front Street
P.O. Box 999
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999
7171255-7231
Attorneys for Defendant
JUDY HANNA, as Administrator of the
ESTATE OF JULIE SOHN,
Deceased, and for the benefit of
COURTNEY SOHN and MOLLY
SOHN, Minors,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2000-125
Plaintiffs
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please enter the appearance of the undersigned as attorneys for Defendant in
the above matter.
DATE: I~~~~~
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP
By: c;;?1~~(
Sarah W. Arosell, Esquire
I.D.#58797
305 North Front Street
P.O. Box 999
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999
(717) 255-7231
Attorneys for Defendant
397173-1
....
~
~
~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Sarah W. Arosell, Esquire, hereby certify that I have selVed a true and correct
copy of the foregoing document on the following person by placing same in the United
States mail, postage prepaid, on the I~ of :;;j)~,,- , 2005:
Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg,PA 17112
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
FARRELL & RICCI, P.C.
4423 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
::OM@:r:;LP
Sarah W. Arosell, Esquire
397173.1
-!'" '- ~
1:1
~ In 2".::
...:r
l-" ~ Z
UJ2 ::::>
o-S:
0 :lC o~
fE~ '"'"
0""' 2~
0 en
60: <cSP
::JD.. --'2
U L""'---""
cr:~ l.LJ tU~
F- e::> rn
a o.r.> :::E
= a
=
......
,
~
~ .
.....
"
<.-
,
.,--'---=----\....-
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
FARRELL & RICCI, PC
4423 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
717-230-9201
JUDY HANNA, As Administrator of the
Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased and for the
benefit of COURTNEY SOHN and MOLLY
SOHN, Minors,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plain tiffs
NO. 2000-125 Civil Term
vs.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE
Kindly withdraw my appearance as counsel for Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, in the
above captioned matter.
Respectfully submitted,
FARRELL & RICCI, P.C.
DATED: I+<J/O)
...
~ -
<-
,
"
~,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, thi~y of December, 2005, I, Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire, hereby
certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Withdrawal of
Appearance upon all counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States
mail, regular delivery, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows:
Sarah Arosel!, Esquire
Thomas, Thomas & Hafer
305 North Front Street
Harrisburg, P A 17102
1vr:A
~1
~ ..::l" "?=
=
1--" ;:s:
wO E;s
Qb x:: ;:sz
~X ~ ~
fi~ ;~_:J
('oJ :~zn
'" ,)Z
u ~~
lU ~~
iE U.l ....tJlU
0 me...
u... u" ::;:;
= [5
0 =
C'-'
, .
"'~ -' ,
~..........-' ~~
~"'
JUDY HANNA, as Administrator of the
ESTATE OF JULIE SOHN,
Deceased, and for the benefit of
COURTNEY SOHN and MOLLY
SOHN, Minors,
Plaintiffs
v.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2000-125
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please mark the above-captioned matter settled, satisfied and discontinued.
DATE: ?/Vd G
408505-1
Respectfully submitted,
HANDLER, HENN G & ROSENBERG
/
/--
/
By: //
>" Carolyn Anwr, Esquire
1300 Lingtestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17112
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
V"~
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Sarah W. Arosell, Esquire, hereby certify that I have served a true and correct
copy of the foregoing document on the. following person by placing same in the United
States mail, postage prepaid, on the If, day of r:e;b, , 2006:
Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17112
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP
By @~~
arah W. Arosell, Esquire
408505-1
>- cry i=;:
~ cry
,- e, ::Jq:
I..UQ
0;..::... :c o~~
i.1:Q "" ():;;;.
~~ t=: :::;:
(:'!.~
-rp '" ~;Co
@ci: '" J'::;-~
<::::l .-~
o::tu TiLt
'FE w
lL.. r;..t:Jc..
u.. ~ --'"
0 = (5
'"
.. - > .r
\~
JUDY HANNA, as Administrator
of the Estate of Julie Sohn,
Deceased, and for the benefit of
COURTNEY SOHN and MOLL Y
SOHN,
Plaintiff
vs.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LA'W
00-125 CIVIL
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORDER
AND NOW, this Z o. day of December, 2004, following conference call with
counsel, the Prothonotary is directed to list the jury trial of this case for the term commencing
July 18,2005.
~el M. Clements, Esquire
F or the Plaintiff
~seph Ricci, Esquire )
For the Defendant
,/Court Administrator - ~O^
:rlm
BY THE COURT,
.A~
,
~
\-~
('
.':)
J J. - :2-0 0 l~
, .
" ,,'
?>~ : i!
, ,
--...J , __ ~_ ,
,L,
Jt: ~~?;Ji~JSZ
__......l
,-
JUDY HANNA, AS
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
ESTATE OF JULIE SOHN,
DECEASED, AND FOR THE
BENEFIT OF COURTNEY SOHN
AND MOLLY SOHN,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
CARLISLE HOSPITAL
00-125 CIVIL TERM
IN RE:
CALL OF CIVIL LIST
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 21st day of June, 2005, upon
consideration of the call of the civil trial list, and with
respect to Hanna versus Carlisle Hospital at No. 00-125 Civil
Term, the Court having been advised by Defendant's counsel,
Joseph Ricci, Esquire, that this case is in the process of being
resolved, the case is stricken from the trial list.
By the Court,
~~ie!t
~niel M. Clements, Esquire
300 South Pratt Street
Suite 450
Baltimore, MD 21201
For the Plaintiff
Court Administrator
~seph Ricci, Esquire
4423 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
For the Defendant
:mae
t] Z :5 HiJ 2Z !m!'SIJGZ
j~.b\i1(}\/]H', Gdd 3Hl :10
:;l:)\~~~',\CI-G:nH
.~
PloJrn~ 's pJr hr.Jn 0Jr IYJJ.\J~' fo
SeJ~\" OJ)d O;l{(f~'tlml~.
o,r;d
C6VX~ oC'okr &o.lu)
'&,d FRf Orj~r O~ C.p\J.rt
DolltJ '1-;}S- cJ)'
y-
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP
Sarah W, Arosell, Esquire
Identification Number: 58797
305 North Front Street
P,O. Box 999
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999
717/255-7231
Attorneys for Defendant
JUDY HANNA, as Administrator of the
ESTATE OF JULIE SOHN,
Deceased, and for the benefit of
COURTNEY SOHN and MOLLY
SOHN, Minors,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2000-125
Plaintiffs
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please enter the appearance of the undersigned as attorneys for Defendant in
the above matter.
DATE: p//:;1u;;--
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP
By: Vd1JJ21t~wL
Sarah W. Arosell, Esquire
1.0.#58797
305 North Front Street
P.O. Box 999
HarrisburQ, PA 17108-0999
(717) 255-7231
Attorneys for Defendant
397173-1
'lIt__
,
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Sarah W. Arosell, Esquire, hereby certify that I have served a true and correct
copy of the foregoing document on the following person by placing same in the United
-- ~
States mail, postage prepaid, on the I.) day of '2:!..JdU4Vu~ ,2005:
Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17112
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
FARRELL & RICCI, P.C.
4423 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP
O~
By:
Sarah W. Arosell, Esquire
397173-1
o
S
";":",
-of,-'
rn"
-;.- ,
:t>
~/} ~~'
~<
:;-;<
~,~;, (,
>r;~~
:'::\
""',~
,....,
""
=
en
o
r"
n
o
-n
.~
:t:-n
fl1p
-or::Q
~~'~.j ;<
~;:~ 2;
/-rn
9
25
=<
<.0
'"t7O
7:Jt:
9
&"
(Jl
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
FARRELL & RICCI, PC
4423 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
717-230-9201
JUDY HANNA, As Administrator of the
Estate of Julie Sohn, Deceased and for the
benefit of COURTNEY SOHN and MOLLY
SOHN, Minors,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs
NO. 2000-125 Civil Term
vs.
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE
Kindly withdraw my appearance as counsel for Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, in the
above captioned matter.
Respectfully submitted,
FARRELL & RICCI, P.C.
DATED: Id!.JJjO(
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, thi~~y of December, 2005, I, Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire, hereby
certifY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Withdrawal of
Appearance upon all counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States
mail, regular delivery, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows:
Sarah Arosell, Esquire
Thomas, Thomas & Hafer
305 North Front Street
Harrisburg, P A 17102
r
r-'
~,~,~
cf\
c:J
f.n
"
N
N
-~)
C"l
.0
-'
~-'C---r'l:
ill(;
:'.~IC~
'. ,
")\L)
..-r,
-','.\
z)
.<-n
;r-)'
':::..
-,'''0
~.
-
o
"'-
JUDY HANNA, as Administrator of the
ESTATE OF JULIE SOHN,
Deceased, and for the benefit of
COURTNEY SOHN and MOLLY
SOHN, Minors,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2000-125
PI a i ntiffs
ivlEDICAL MALPRACTiCE
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendant
PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please mark the above-captioned matter settled, satisfied and discontinued.
Respectfully submitted,
HANDLER, HENi'lltllG & ROSENBERG
DATE:
'I /;1. ./
'7/ Y/iJ ~
I
\
Carolyn AnDer, Esquire
1300 Ling~town Road
Harrisburg, PA 17112
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
By:
408505.1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Sarah W. Arosell, Esquire, hereby certify that I have served a true and correct
copy of the foregoing document on the following person by placing same in the United
States mail, postage prepaid, on the It, day Ofr;};, ,2006:
Carolyn M. Anner, Esquire
HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG
1300 Linglestown Road
Harrisburg, PA 17112
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP
By CiJ< aiJJ,~
arah W. Arosell, Esquire
408505-1
f....'
-,:
"
,'oj
f~'.)
c
------