Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-01359 .... ~ ", ~ }~ ~- ., " tI ".. ~ '" ~ J~ ~ .',;, .'1 . ',oj , j . C . . :E 0' fI Ul >. '0 . W t"l Cl C 0 I"'! Ul III ."j . c '0 U .S >. r- I"'! C I"'!Ul III Cl I"'! ."j ."j III Cl ~ ~ I"'!Cl I > ..:l ololU I ~~ ell ii ."j ~ ...t...c III u."j .., CJ >. ~~ ::l I ::ll:l<Ill;..,.., l~ Cl t:l ~ III ~"'N ell ~ o Cl >. ..,1 '< Ill, U :cenoo , 'I"'! . ell ell t"l ::l Ct') rn .~ CI"'!Clt"l.., I"'! olol Cl..c:: III U, OI"'!*,N 1 en I"'!olol >. , ..c:::cUl r- Ull"'! C , C. .rot .- ell C ."j III 0 , Clr-I"'!Cr- Cl I"'!Cl ..c:: I Ult"lk I"'! I I"'! k:C olol I ON III ,r- ~ Cl III C I t')I"'!CJH- I :c CJ Ill; I j, i I I i I I I i >- -, :- q; - I~'.; C\. '.. ~J~" N .-,....,.. .: :~) ff!i' - ;:;;. !-i:: -,. c.. '.- gf. ... ;:j -"J" " - .'t:/J L1.J ~; - .;:}i~ _I O:t': C'::: i=-~ c.. -..; ':.!Q.. lr. .... ::3 0 O'l U >.: 0' r= ;::: ...:z .~ ,_. if; :'J..-,: L1JQ o~, <","-'. ~: u~" .-(, ' ...,!. ft:;: 0.. ~.)2 6t"; t'J .~. If) \, ('J -',-,. U.~L" .--- /. l'~ -/ U:l.:' W .~.ltU (:. - ~10- .... ~. '0. r- :::> u U' (,) ~ lO ~ Q , , "" ~ gi ~~ f1l2= :t: Q., :..... C)-' ~& ,... 7~ - ~:fl ,if FE: .'rr~ !H~ lJ... ~ . ~ ~ ~H~l ; .. a ~Ii 11 g I~ -'I - I- -.--'lo . 4, At all times material to plaintilrs caU5e of action, defendant Carlisle Hospital and Health Services (hereinafter called "Carlisle Hospital") was the owner, operator and possessor, maintainer and in control of a hospital open to the patients for medical care for pay. 50 At all times material to plaintilrs cause of action, defendant Anthony], Guarracio, MoD. (hereinafter called "Guarracio"), was the agent, servant, workman and/or employee of Carlisle Hospital, acting at all times in the course and scope of his employment with and on behalf of said Carlisle Hospital. 6. All of the acts alleged to have been done or not to have been done by defendant Guarracio were done or not done by said defendant, his agents, servants, workmen and/or employees, acting in the course and scope of their employment with and on behalf of said defendant. 7. All of the acts alleged to have been done or not to have been done by defendant Carlisle Hospital were done or not done by said defendant, its agents, servants, workmen and/or employees, acting in the course and scope of their employment with and on behalf of said defendant. S, On Thursday, March 23, 1995 plaintiff fell down a set of steps injuring her left ankle and lego 9. Citizen's Ambulance, Inc. responded to an emergency call for a possible leg fracture, discovered plaintiff complaining of pain in her left ankle. Plaintiff's ankle and lower leg was immobilized with a splint, she was placed on a stretcher and transported to the emergency room of the Carlisle Hospital. 10, Plaintiff was placed in Room No. One and the responding paramedic of Citizen's Ambulance, Inc. gave Carlisle Hospital's emergency room personnel a report of the incident which noted possible leg fracture. 11, Plaintiff was seen by Defendant Guarracio sometime after being delivered to the hospital at which time he touched the toes on her left foot and despite the pain she felt and despite her assertions that she believed she had suffered a broken ankle and/or leg, the said defendant did not physically examine her ankle or leg. 120 Despite her assertions that she believed she had suffered a broken ankle or leg, Defendant Guarracio did not order that x-rays be taken of plaintitrs lower left leg and her left ankleo 13, Plaintiff was seen by agents, employees, and servants of Carlisle Hospital including nurses, assistants and/or technicians after being delivered to the hospital and despite the pain she felt and despite her assertions that she believed she had suffered a broken ankle and/or leg, no agent, employee or servant of said defendant physically examined her ankle or leg. 14, Despite her assertions that she believed she had suffered a broken ankle or leg, no agent, employee and/or technician of Carlisle Hospital including doctors, nurses, assistants and technicians ordered that x-rays be taken of plaintitrs lower left leg and her left ankle. 150 Plaintiff was diagnosed by Guarracio and agents of Carlisle Hospital, to have suffered a sprained ankle, 16, Plaintiff requested that her leg and ankle be x-rayed as she believed that her leg and/or ankle had been brokeno 17, Guarracio and agents of Carlisle Hospital refused to x-ray plaintiffs lower left leg and ankle and prescribed treatment as follows: that an ace bandage be wrapped around plaintitrs left ankle, that she be given crutches and bear no weight on her left ankle, that she take Advil for pain (2-3 tablets 4 times a day with food), that she place ice on her ankle for four hours a day, and that ifher ankle still bothered her on the following Monday (four days later) that she call her family doctor. 18, Plaintiff was discharged from Carlisle Hospital within approximately three hours of her being delivered to its emergency room without having an x-ray of her lower left leg or ankle, She informed Carlisle Hospital's agents, employees and servants and Guarracio that she would have to drive herself home and was instructed that she was physically capable of doing so. 19, During the remainder of that day and the days to follow, plcintiff experienced great pain in her lower left leg and ankle and she could barely drive to her home after her visit to the hospital's emergency room. move from her car to her house or even from the couch in her living room to the bathroom without great paino 200 On the day of her release from Carlisle Hospital and the care ofGuarracio and the days to follow. the pain in Plaintiffs lower left leg and ankle became increasingly unbearable. her foot began to discolor and on Monday when she called her family doctor to find he was on away. she returned to the Carlisle Hospital and its emergency room. 21. From the time that she was transported to Carlisle Hospital and its emergency room on Thursday March 23. 1995 at 12:17 p.m. until she returned to Carlisle Hospital and its emergency room on March 27, 1997 at 4:34 p.m" plaintiff did not re-injure her leg by placing weight on it. striking it, falling, stumbling, standing, jumping or the like, or in any manner whatsoever and had followed the directions of Guarracio and Carlisle Hospital as per the prescribed treatment she should follow. 22. Upon her readmittance to the Carlisle hospital an x-ray was taken and it was detennined that she was suffering from a comminuted fracture of the left distal tibia. diaphysis and proximal fibular neck, that said injuries had occurred on Thursday March 23, 1995 as a result of a fall plaintiff had suffered prior to her being delivered to the Carlisle Hospital on said date and an orthopedic surgeon was contacted. 23, Plaintiffs lower left leg and ankle was thereafter immobilized in a short leg cast. advised continued elevation and ice and scheduled for intramedullary nailing of the fracture on the following Wednesday morning. Plaintiff was given a prescription for percocel. 24. Guarracio. Carlisle Hospital. their agents, servants and employees were negligent in failing to properly diagnose on March 23. 1995, the multiple fractures suffered by plaintiff in her fall and for failing to order x-rays for diagnostic purposes. 25. Guarracio was negligent in failing to review the report of the emergency medical technicians from the ambulance company which noted possible broken leg and failing to examine plaintiff's lower left leg and ankle and failing to order an x-ray after repeatedly being told by plaintiff that she believed her leg and/or ankle to be broken. 26, Carlisle Hospital, their agents. servants and employees were negligent in failing to fonnulate, instruct its personnel as to proper emergency room procedures for the handling of possible fractures to insure that persons diagnosed by emergency ambulance crews as having possibly suffered broken bones have x-rays perfonned for diagnostic purposes. 27, Carlisle Hospital, their agents, servants and employees were negligent in failing to fonnulate, instruct its personnel as to proper emergency room procedures for the handling of possible fractures to insure that persons complaining that he or she believed that he or she had possibly suffered broken bones have x-rays perfonned for diagnostic purposes. 28, Carlisle Hospital, their agents, servants and employees were negligent in failing to employ competent and capable doctors, nurses, assistants and other employees. 29, The negligence, carelessness and malpractice of the Defendants also consisted of the following: a, Failing to properly diagnosis her multiple fractures. b, Failing to recognize the complaints of the plaintiff as to her condition, c. Failing to recognize that Plaintiff was in acute distress, d. Failing and omitting to take proper precautions and to use proper remedies to avoid or to minimize the injuries sustained by Plaintiff which resulted in her damages as set forth hereinafter. e. Failing and neglecting to order tests sufficient to reveal the cause of Plaintiff's symptoms and the true nature of her condition. f. Failing to order the proper medications which plaintill's condition required. g. Failing to adequately conduct examinations on Plaintill's lower, left leg, or in perfonning the examination so carelessly as not to have discovered that Plaintiff was in serious danger after her fall. h. The situation that occurred in respect to plaintiff would occur only in the presence of negligence and would not have occurred in the absence of negligence. 30, In addition to the allegations of negligence set forth above, Defendant Carlisle Hospital is further responsible to Plaintiff for her injuries and damages as a direct and proximate result of its negligence, carelessness and malpractice as follows: a. Failing to enact or promulgate or if enacted or promulgated, failing to enforce sufficient and adequate rules and regulations regarding to the treatment of patients in the condition of Plaintiff. bo Failing to provide adequate supervision of its doctors, nurses, staff and other agents, servants and employees to ensure that proper hospital practices and procedures were followed. c, Failing and neglected to employ and hire doctors, nurses, staff and other agents, servants and employees with adequate experience, training, qualifications and skills to promptly and properly treat persons exhibiting symptoms and complaints as were exhibited by Plaintiff. d. Pennitting Plaintiff to be treated and cared for, when Defendant knew or in exercise of reasonable care and diligence should have known, that treatment and care was being rendered by persons not properly qualified, trained, skilled or experienced to render such medical care. e, Extending staff privileges to doctors who are not sufficiently qualified by experience, training, research and educational background to adequately and properly diagnose, treat and attend to Plaintiff with the condition then effecting her. f. Failing to have reasonable, diligent and properly trained personnel on duty to care for PlaintilT. g. Failing to properly supervise doctors, nurses, staff and other agents, servants and employees in the diagnosis and treatment of Plain tilT. 310 As a result of the negligence, carelessness and malpractice of the defendants, as more fully set fbrth herein, plaintiff sustained serious, painful and pennanent personal injuries, more particularly hereinafter set forth. 32, As a result of the accident caused by Defendants, negligent act or acts, Plaintiff has been unable to work in any capacity and has been detennined to be disabled by the social security administration, 33. As a result of the accident caused by Defendants, negligent act or acts, Plaintiff has been disfigured and must use a cane to help her walk. She also has a pronounced limp while walking. 34, As a result of the accident caused by Defendants, negligent act or acts, and the multiple injuries sustained therefrom, Plaintiff will have to in the future as she has had to in the past since the accident endure intensifYing pain in her leg and the mental stress associated with such pain. 35. As a result ofthe accident caused by Defendants, negligent act or acts, and the multiple injuries sustained therefrom. Plaintiff has been unable to perfonn many of the minor tasks she had been able to perfonn prior to the accident including, but not limited to, standing for periods of time, kneeling, dancing, walking and has thus suffered greatly. 36. Plaintiff has incurred medical bills not in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00). 370 Plaintiff will incur future medical bills in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000,00), 38, Plaintiff has suffered lost wages in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00). VERIFICATION I, Helen Stuckey Lindsey, the Plaintiff in this action, verilY that I have read the foregoing Complaint and to the best of my individual knowledge, infonnation and belief the statements made therein are true and correct. I understand that the statement made herein are subject to the provisions and penalties of 18 Pa, C,S, Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. Date: ~ - 9- 9/' , -?/cry I ., i >- o. . Cf: ,..,: r:: is -'-i 1J1!-:; "': h~r: n:: 11.0 C;l~- , T t.' ~n {,-\ c:,: LUl. , u.: 12 : c~ " . , .' ~..~. r:~LL l'~. u. (/' ::3 (') u' U 6. Denied. To the extent that Paragraph 6 contains allegations of agency, those allegations are denied since after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained therein. The remainder of the averments contained in Paragraph 6 are denied generally in accordance with Pa.R.C,P. 1029(e). 7. Denied. To the extent that Paragraph 7 contains allegations of agency, those allegations are specifically and unequivocally denied since after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained therein. The remainder of the allegations contained in Paragraph 7 are denied generally in accordance with the Pa.R,C.P. 1029(e). 8-12. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraphs 8 through 12 are denied generally in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 13. Denied. To the extent that Paragraph 13 contains allegations of agency, those allegations are specifically and unequivocally denied since after reasonable investigation. Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained therein. The remainder of the allegations contained in Paragraph 13 are denied generally in accord with Pa.R.C,P. 1029(e), 14. Denied. To the extent that Paragraph 14 contains allegations of agency. those allegations are specifically and unequivocally denied since after reasonable investigation. Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained therein. The remainder of the allegations contained in Paragraph 14 are denied generally in accord with Pa.R.C.P, 1029(e). 15. Denied. To the extent that Paragraph 15 contains al1egations of agency. those allegations are specifically and unequivocally denied since after reasonable investigation. Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained therein. The remainder of the allegations contained in Paragraph 15 are denied generally in accord with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 16, Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 16 are denied generally in accord with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 17. Denied. To the extent that Paragraph 17 contains allegations of agency. those allegations are specifically and unequivocally denied since after reasonable investigation. Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained therein. The remainder of the allegations contained in Paragraph 17 are denied general1y in accord with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 18. Denied. To the extent that Paragraph 18 contains allegations of agency. those al1egations are specifically and unequivocal1y denied since after reasonable investigation. Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained therein. The remainder of the allegations contained in Paragraph 18 are denied general1y in accord with Pa.R,C.P. 1029(e). 19,23. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 19 through 23 are denied general1y in accord with Pa,R.C.P. 1029(e). 24. Denied. To the extent that Paragraph 24 contains allegations of agency. those allegations are specifically and unequivocally denied since after reasonable investigation. Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of those averments. The remainder of the allegations contained in Paragraph 24 constitute conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative, to the extent that the remainder of the allegations of Paragraph 24 are deemed to contain facts to which a response is deemed required, the averments of this paragraph are denied in accord with Pa.R.C.P. l029(e). 25. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 25 of the Plaintiffs Complaint set forth conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative, to the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 25 are deemed to contain facts to which a response is deemed required, the averments of this paragraph are denied in accord with Pa.R.C.P. l029(e). 26. Denied. To the extent that Paragraph 26 contains allegations of agency. those allegations are specifically and unequivocally denied since after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of those averments. The remainder of the allegations contained in Paragraph 26 set forth conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that the remainder of the allegations of Paragraph 26 are deemed to contain facts to which a response is deemed required, the remainder of the averments of this pamgraph are denied in accord with Pa,R,C.P. l029(e). 27. Denied. To the extent that Pamgraph 27 contains allegations of agency, those allegations are specifically and unequivocally denied since after reasonable investigation. Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of those averments. The remainder of the allegations contained in Paragraph 27 set forth conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that the remainder of the allegations of Paragraph 27 are deemed to contain facts to which a response is deemed required, the remainder of the averments of this paragraph are denied in accord with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 28. Denied. To the extent that Paragraph 28 contains allegations of agency. those allegations are specifically and unequivocally denied since after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of those averments. The remainder of the allegations contained in Paragraph 28 set forth conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that the remainder of the allegations of Paragraph 28 are deemed to contain facts to which a response is deemed required, the remainder of the averments of this paragraph are denied in accord with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 29. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraph 29 ofthe Plaintifrs Complaint set forth conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative, to the extent that the allegations of Paragraph 29 are deemed to contain facts to which a response is deemed required, the averments of this paragraph are denied in accord with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 30, Denied. To the extent that Paragraph 30 contains allegations of agency. those allegations are specifically and unequivocally denied since after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of those averments. The remainder of the allegations contained in Paragraph 30 set forth conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that the remainder of the allegations of Paragraph 30 are deemed to contain facts to which a response is deemed required, the averments of this paragraph are denied in accord with Pa,R.C.P. 1029(e). 31-35. Denied. The allegations contained in Paragraphs 31 through 35 set forth conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that the allegations of Paragraphs 31 through 35 are deemed to contain facts to which a response is deemed required, the averments of these paragraphs are denied in accord with Pa.R.C.p. 1029(e). 36-43. Denied. The averments contained in Paragraphs 36 through 43 are denied generally in accord with Pa.R.C.p. 1029(e). Wherefore, Answering Defendants deny that the Plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief whatsoever and demand that judgment be entered in their favor and against the Plaintiff and that they awarded appropriate costs and fees. NEW MA'ITEa 44. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 45. To the extent that the Plaintiff has stated a claim for damages arising out of injuries to her person, those claims are barred by the doctrine of the election of remedies as Plaintiff has been paid $60,000.00 by Donald R. Barrick, Individually and Trading as Barrick's Flea Market Barn, Paul E, Weibley, Barbara J. Weibleyand Erie Insurance Group for all damages and injuries set forth in the Plaintiffs Complaint. 46. Plaintiffs claims are barred by her execution of a Release executed on or about October 28, 1997, for and in consideration of the receipt of $60,000,00 paid to the Plaintiff by Donald R. Barrick, Individually and Trading as Barrick's Flea Market Barn, Paul E. Weibley, Barbara J. Weibley and Erie Insurance Group, 47. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 48. It is believed and therefore averred, that discovery will show that the Plaintiff was negligent and that her negligence exceeded the negligence, if any, of the Answering Defendants, thereby barring recovery by operation of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 49. It is believed and therefore averred, that discovery will show that the Plaintiff voluntarily assumed a known risk thereby barring recovery by the operation of the doctrine of assumption of the risk. 50. Plaintiffs injuries, if any, were sustained as a result of natural or unknown causes and not as a result of any action or inaction on behalf of Answering Defendants. 51. At all times material hereto, Answering Defendants acted in accord with the applicable standard of care. 52. No conduct on the part of the Answering Defendants was a substantial factor in causing or contributing to any harm which the Plaintiff may have suffered. 53. If the Plaintiff suffered any damage, the damage was caused by the conduct of others over whom the Answering Defendants had no control or right to control, 54. In so far as Answering Defendants or any agent, seIVant or employee of Answering Defendants or any person over whom Answering Defendants may be vicariously liable elected a treatment modality which is recognized as proper but may differ from another appropriate treatment modality, and Answering Defendants raise the "two schools of thought" defense. 55. In so far as Answering Defendants or any agent, seIVant or employee of Answering Defendants or any person for whom Answering Defendants may be vicariously liable was required to render a diagnosis in this case, Answering Defendants or said agent, servant or employee of the Answering Defendants took all reasonable and necessal}' steps to make a proper and appropriate diagnosis and to the extent it may be detennined that that diagnosis was in error, Answering Defendants assert that the error in diagnosis was a reasonable and legally justifiable error. 56. Answering Defendants and all agents, servants and employees of Answering Defendants and all persons over whom Answering Defendants may be vicariously liable acted reasonably, prudently and properly at all times material hereto. 57. If Plaintiff suffered any damages, Plaintiff has been fully and completely compensated for those damages and any judgment or verdict rendered in this case should be set, off in the amount of $60,000.00 which the Plaintiff received in exchange for her execution of a Release on or about October 28,1997. 58. Plaintiff by and through her counsel agreed to the settlement of a disputed claim with the Answering Defendants and the Plaintiff is in breach of that agreement to settle by proceeding with this civil action. Wherefore, Answering Defendants deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief whatsoever and demand that judgment be entered in their favor and against the Plaintiff and that they be awarded appropriate costs and fees. ~ Q ~ C\I .. ~2 .:t 8~ !~~ x: Q." ~ [=5 0'\ ~fi! FE '''(I) I ..)z ti:!P 2: tJi~ ::J 1= -, a t5 (l:) 0'\ 3H~1 ~ I ~ ~I!: ~ eat> .~ . . .. .. .. - _... ..... ,P- .; ~ . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA HELEN STUCKEY LINDSEY Lot 207, Creekview Fanus Shcrmansdale, PA 17090 Plaintiff v. NO.97-1359 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW CARLISLE HOSPITAL AND HEALTH SERVICES and ANTHONY J. GUARRACINO, M.D. : 246 Parker Strcct Carlisle, PA 17013 Defendants: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND NOW this qa day of Junc, 1998 comes Plaintiff, by and through her counsel, Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire and Replys to Defendants' New Mattcr as follows: 44 - 580 Dcnied, The allcgations containcd in Paragraphs 44 - 58 sct forth conclusions of law as opposcd to statements of fact and no response is requircd. In the altemativc to the extent that thc allegations of Paragraphs 44 - 58 are decmcd to contain facts to which a responsc is deemed required, the avenucnts of the paragraphs arc dcnied in accord with Pa.R.C,P. 1024(c). WHEREFORE, Plaintiff rcquests this Honorablc Court entcr a judgmcnt in hcr favor as sct forth in hcr original Complaint. Respectfully submitted .' ....- r-. . ,- (~- .. i:. ~ I.!! ~.- ''" '. " , , p: . t~. t~) ':: , .. "; ~ j"'" J C. , ..::;. 1.. ...1, , ~ 1 !J (j:' . , , , , (L -, ; '. I , m ::, () u' U :- ~. f; CT: - ;S "';.: /-, :;l...~ u , , ~,-);; ( ,- \".;- , --)4:." (.<- :'~=.:i C-r); - C'\J ,..-:>= c, . (I) L'j I ' .~ , ,.,-::::.-;; II ~ I ::~~! ,. ,'ifij " -' 2]C!.. -J U. '.. C7\ ::J f... , e'-. (,) -- - '- j-'~ L~-; ~'~.~ .. I ,,:-: II I '.: - , . ~_.!; ~ \,- c C_ " ~-_l .:~ \ rIll. N .. :} ~-).. r;-- I I I ,':I 0.." :;;~ 1 .- ,. . ....-.: I m :) -- U\ U . 22 HELEN STUCKEY LINDSEY : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V CARLISLE HOSPITAL AND HEALTH SERVICES AND ANTHONY J. GUARRACINO, M.D. : NO. 97-1359 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, August 17, 1999, by agreement of counsel, the above captioned case is hereby continued from the September 13, 1999 trial tenn, Counsel is directed to relist the case when ready. By the Court, Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire For the Plaintiff Kendra D, McGuire, Esquire For the Defendant Court Administrator ?i\tC\\qq Cq)(U P1a.'Llcc( >- co ~ !? c I-" c;; ;)~ L!s9. ' ,-):-:.... ~o :r:: u..... <1.: tf-j:L Q.. l~~ i'ir' ,-.,;;- 1 _, (") '~~(..n OU, ...-,. I ~......- UJU. 'riiD --:-~tl' U U:T LLl '00.. F c::l .""; U. m ':3 0 c.n u