HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-01879
,
I; i!
li'i'
,'III.' Iii"
) ,-I
,(1)-1111111\\1 I'
U'IJIl'I', Ii
Iii 'II
ill'll<
II I:'
I ,I;)
, ,
, " ii-Pi "1 , " il I ,
',I'
j'JJ:/\IL!\!'i ~'I , I , i I\J'I
i i I ,il
11,'1/
1!III'"ll II.
1_'!.JI'IHI:r.:LidiLi I . rllll'
Li I I I ~ I
,.,1
"
ii' ",
d-/,
I"
'n') II II 1,1 i- ) i
'I
Ili'i,!'dl'
,I;:
IlJllill .1.i.E/\)Ud'! \.11 II ),i\q
III
II
.j.:,t:PII,f.'!tl'
,I
Illil!
,lltl
I'
).;"
I'i'):l IiI
./1-.:, til
I_itl : i I' 'Ij I I II i ],1';
,',lil,L I' 1.1',
l' I ~
IIi 1
Iii
I'
,;1
i' i I I
I"
" I
1\
I"
:,
i j,'
"
III!II;)
I ".!ul'll i "111' 'Ii I, I , '1 I ;,'1 Il.-'..j I I :1 I i, I ![ I
L'lJ{ I'I,Y 1.:',
,', I , II,:' IlilJ , I I ;,1 !, ,I' 'I , I ill'li!1 'ii
-lljll " , " Iii Id" ", I , ! 1111 I!, " , ,. ! , I
I.;lp.'J I t' I ':i I "
f.,,, j.:,! i It')
'.-,I'J'/),O'
1\ r: t. 1 ,j ::' '; i, f,
:';tjJ., 'hu I 'jl'
,-jl, ,I'
i:
it 111,\1 '1
..: Iii' j
).1"
,'"
I,r:;;;;;:;~~,~
,I
1 ;', ! / :i,. :',
-I-j , I
1,lil i,.
,jJ;.J_J- ,,~(~~~t~.
;\1.,. , I, it'l' Id'
'I q,-
i, , /
,1 I q ') " I'
'f J]' 11 ,:'
Op-.;./
(--)t,,.,yt'r ,
Q,
, , (11,
f}\-,-e~<~
11;1 "
. L~'j'
,
"j.,
! I
11
Ol'r-I'" ~r .", ''1I'''!I'r-
I'P, r'(
APR II 8 05 Ml 'g',
,.
II. Ii j, ,_ ';,\/11/,
I
I,
J c:i
.
:E ""
m . 0
H .....
H . ,.
H .S :1 '"'
..., ....
~ 8 . ... ....
! 8 ~ ~ tn~ 0 If
II ~ -
J ,~ .'3lJ)~~~ '<
aI . ... ... .... I
..... V) . ~ ..:r;1~~
CD l>o I
.... .:!j ~ s' ..... I
I .~ ~ I
..... II . :c
aI os 'l:J CD ij J;::'
;::l .... I
u 0'" .... I
~ '... ro....,l;! ..... I
~ :3 I Q"N - I
I
, "11"111"
OfFI/.' ,', '\1 ".
(01' ,
~. 1'1 8.,as, All'S,!:
II/:~I '.' '
\"~ I, I ' ' I
," 1
" ,.1\11\
J .
0
.
:;:
'"
m 0
H r--
H . ,.
H .8 ~I I-<
..., ....
:;:l 8 . '"' ....
~ I . ~ ~ J
.~ ~ - ~ B In.... 0
u 6 Vl~~g
." <
'" 0 '"' j.J ....
r-- Vl . ;,! . l! . I ,
lXl Po I
.... ,~~ 11) iiS~~ I
, ,~ :;1
r-- U
'" ," 'dl . lXl ~ ;:::- ,
1J 8 I
0,", J.... I
& ltl....:i! r--
:2 " fl.'" ~ I
, ,
[!;!,',:'
@~Z
c.::,:
r.J1.;,
t':!'" ,
E
'.. '"
I
i '. "
..
11,1 , ,; ,,'.
Cl'
\',.' "
, \.... ,I
II'
'l,' "
t, \, "
t;, .,J
, ~.
" r" '.l
l,) ":\', ',)
-....
.".-.
MCQUAIDE, OL.A61<O, SCHWARTZ, FLI.':MING 0. FAUI..I<NER, INC, .
^ I I QI"rtrYI1 in LAW '
III I UNIVI:IWII Y I.JIIIVI:
fJT^T" COI..I..CO", PI:NNllYI..V^NI^ 10001
IN TIlE COURT or COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LA W
.
PATRICIA S. ClORDON,
Plaintln:~
DefcndllnlS
) NO, '17-1'111'1 CIVIL TERM
~
~
)
)
~
)
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
VS.
WILLIAM P. GRAHAM, III, M.D., IInd
AESTHETIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE
SURGERY or CENTRAL PA, P,C.,
AFFIDI\Y.IT OF SERVl.Cli
COMMONWEALTH or PENNSYLVANIA )
) ss:
COUNTY or CENTRE )
April L, Chllmbcrlain, E~q\ljrc, attorney lor Dcfcndants, William P. Gruhum, III, M,D.
and Acsthetic & Rcconstmctivc Surgcry of Ccntrul P A, P.C" in thc abovc-captioncd mattcr, uf1cr
having bccn duly sworn according to low, dcposes and says that u truc nnd corrcct eopy of our
Entry of Appearance was mailcd by rcgular IlInil at thc post office State Collcgc, Pcnnsylvania,
postage prcpaid, this 7th dny of May 1997 to thc filllowing:
Jeanne B. Wigbcls, Esquire
Law Offices of Patrick F. Lauer, Jr.
2108 Mnrket Street; Aztce Building
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Sworn to and Subscribed
be' Os 7th day
o 7
McQUAIDE, BLASKO, SCHWARTZ,
FLEMING & FAULKNER, INC.
By: ,('::"~.;>Ol'.~~,
Aprifi:alllmberlain "~,
SfOPhomo A Noi.rla, S..,
Sfll/o Call nn Fr,'nklln N
Mv Commis.~g~ ~oro, c;'n,~~ag PUblic
ll';'n/l,", (l . . >CP/ros March 601lnty
Olin,;\! I','I/Jri' . ' 2000
~"nrl,1'lOn n
ot"ri,j,
j';: ,tl '..
<:.;
r~ .. \ -
Cl ..:t ,~ t:'..
~u. . . .
,~ "
lV,' " '\.
l.l- '!~
~~~" '" ~/l
'II
1'" 1,',
,':;.':
>- 'I,;)
r;: I': .,,; ..;r:l..
,I =.:
I
'I, 1- ':'i
0 '" l~.)
IIlc:;:-- ...........
--.. ........
.'--- .~
. .
>- I,r,1
C ",
i ..
Uf' ,
. ,
, ,
I',"
(..1 .
,.1) ~
1.11' '
r/'
" ~,
I' ,-'
(. , (/' .'
SHERIff'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NOI 1997-01879 P
COMMONWEALTH Of PENNSYLVANIAI
COUNTY OP CUMBERLAND
GORDON PATRICIA S
VS.
GRAHAM WILLIAM P III MD
KATHY CARPER , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according
to law, says, the within COMPLAINT AND NOTICE was served
upon GRAHAM WILLIAM P III MD the
defendant, at 1115100 HOURS, on the ~ day of AUQust
19~ at AESTH & RECON SUR OF CENT PA 816 BELVEDERE ST~EET
CARLISLE.. PA 17013 . CUMBERLAND
County, Pennsylvania, by handing to DENISE LEHMAN. BILLING CLERK
AND ADULT IN CHARGE
a true and attested copy of the ~PLAINT AND NOTICE
and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents
--'
thereof.
Sheriff's COStSI
Docketing
Service
Affidavit
Surcharge
18.00
3,10
.00
2.00
So answ~rsl ~~~
R. Tho!:::?line, ::n
923.1~ PATRICK LAUER
08/04/1997
by
JR.
Xfi '(II~ fi; t (~
De~ y She ift
Sworn and subscribed to before me
<<-.- ,-,
this t/ - day of ~J'HJ.-
19 q 7 A. D.
L.Lf" r; )tl, It.".~ tLkJf1'<.
I. 'p'rotfionota:ty'
..
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NOI 1997-01B79 P
ggOn~~W5~L6tlM~~RE~n~SYLVANIAI
,
GORDON PATRICIA S
VS.
GRAHAM WILLIAM P III MD
K~THY CARPER . She,iff or Deputy She,iff of
CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, who being duly Bworn according
to law, BaYB, the within 90MPLAINT AND NOTICE waB Berved
upon AESTHETIC & ijECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY OF CENTRAL PA the
defendant, at 1115JjW. HOURS, on the ...lILt. day of AuauBt
1922 at 81G BELVEDERE STREET
CARLISLE~ 17013 ,CUMBERLAND
County, Pennsylvania, by handing to DENISE LEHMAN. BILLING CLERK
----'
AND PERSON IN CHARGE
a true and atteBted copy of the COMPLAINT AND NOTICE
and at the Bame time di,ecting ~ attention to the contentm the,eof.
,
Sheriff's CostElI
Docketing
Se,vice
Affidavi t
Surcharge
6.00
.00
.00
2.00
So anBwe,BI
~;..~~
R:- Thomas ne, ~ er '
ee.0W PATRICK LAUER
08/04/1997
by
JR.
)I,lf/L'f '}'fl L
uep\-'}tY hel' 11
Sworn and SUbBo,ibed to befo,e me
this oJ!':' /1
, day of I fUr""/'
19 91 A.D.
C 1. '," f.1 ')" 11';'1' ",1Afi, ,
I ~rotnono~aPY' r
SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR
CASE NOI 1997-01879 P
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
i '
~ORDON PATRICIA S
VS.
GRAHAM WILLIAM P III MD
~
KATHY CARPER . Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of
CUMBERLAND County, Pennsylvania, ~ho being duly sworn according
to law, says, the within COMPLAINT AND NOTICE was served
upon PERLMAN HERBERT C the
defendant, at 1105100 HOURS, on the ~ day of ~st
19~ at 245 PARKER STREET
CARLISLE. PA 17013 . CUMBERLAND
County, Pennsylvania, by handing to SUE MELLOT. RECEPTIONIST AND
PERSON IN CHARGE
a true and attested copy of the COMPLAINT AND NOTICE
and at the same time directing ~ attention to the contents thereof.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing
Service
Affidavi t
Surcharge
5.00
.00
.00
2.00
So answers: _ .-/?/ .L/~
r >;;~I'''~~~4?
R. Thomal!J Kline, ~her
68.00 PATRICK LAUER
08/04/1997
by
JR.
l '
,~ (i ( 11.(/
DepU'y
,.
/;'; I j)/ I.
Slier;t'~f
Sworn and subscribed to before me
~ 0.<<
this i'- day of -t,..J-'
19 'i7 A. D.
C~'V- O)),t< i'P'~ (j)~tt"
I'rothonot:ary .
~ U"l f:
,~ '"
~: (.; :)~s
0 o.~
~b a.: LJ :~;~
[....". r' .,;;_i
~F- :':~(r)
~~ ..:l' I";
I. " IT
-\11 (.!) Il iJ
r.!: :::l ,d .\..
ell: ~.
"':
u_ r- {3
(;) Cf\
IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON Pl.EAS OF CUMBERl.AND COUNTY, I'ENNSYLV ANIA
CIVIl. ACTION. l.A W
PATRICIA S, GORDON nnd
ROBERT GORDON, her husbund,
)
) NO.lJ7-IH7lJ CIVIL TERM
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plulntlfts
vS.
WILLIAM P. GRAHAM, III, M,D" und
AESTHETIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE
SURGERY OF CENTRAL PA, PoCo,
HERBERT C. PERLMAN. MoD"
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Detendnnts
DEFENDANTS' WILLIAM P. GRAHAM. III. M.n. tlliIl
AESTHETIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY OF CENTRAL PA. P.C.'S
ANSWER TO THE PLAINTIFFS' COMI'LAINl:
AND NOW, come Detendants, William P. Grahum, III, M,[)" and Aesthetic &
Reconstructive Surgery of Central PA, P,C., by and through their nttorneys, McQuaide,
masko, Schwartz, Fleming & Faulkner, Inc., to respond to PlaintiffS' Complaintns
tollows:
I. Paragraph I is denied. Alter reasonable investigation Dc!cndants are
without knowledge or information sufficient to tbrm a belief as to the truth oCthe
averments of paragraph I of the Complaint. The same arc theretbre denied IInd strict
proof thereof demanded.
2. Paragraph 2 is admitted.
3. Paragraph 3 is admitted.
4 - 5. The averments ofparugraphs 4 IInd 5 reter to Defendunts other than
unswering Defendants. Accordingly, no response on the part of the answering
Defcl1llnnts \s deemed rcquircd, TlIlhe cxlcnt lIllnftil'llllltive rcsponse mllY hl~ requircd.
said pnrllgraphs nre spcclllcnlly dcnlcd nnd strkt pl'OlIf thereof demulldcd atthc tlmc of
trinl.
6. Pnrllgrnph 6 is ndmitlcd ill (Jnrtnlld dcnled in part. It is admitlcd only thut
nt nlltimcs mntcrinl hcrcto, Dclcndullt Willinm P. (il'llhllll1, 111, M.D. was nil lIgent, mal/or
employee of f)cfclldnllt, Acsthctic & Rcconstructivc Surgery ofCentrul PA, PoCo Aller
rellsonnble invcstigntlon, Dclcndnnts arc without knowledge or in(i.mllation sufficient to
(i.mllll bcliefns to thc trath of the rcmnining lIvcrments ofparllgrnph 6. The slime nrc
therelbrc denicd nnd strict proof thercof dcmnndcd.
7, The nvcrmcnts of pnrugrllph 7 reler to II Dclclldnnt othcr thallllnswcrillg
Delcndnnts. Accordingly, no rcsponsc onlhc part of thc answcring Dcli:lldllnts is dccmcd
rcquircd. To the extcnt Ilnllftil'lllntlvc rcsponse muy be requlrcd, suid pUl'llgruphs nrc
specificnlly denied und strict proofthercofdemnnded ut the time oftriul.
8. PUl'llgl'llph 8 is udmitlcd in purtund denied in part. It is udmitlcd thut on
Septcmbcr 8, 1995, Plaintifl; Putricin S, Gordon, underwentu brcast exnmination
condueted by Defcndunt Willinm P. Gruham, Ill, M.D. It is tllrther udmitled that
Delcndants records lllr Plaintiff, Patricia S. Gordon, rellectthut she rcported that she hud
II three (3) week history ofpainnnd induration of the lell breast and thut Itlclt us though
the breast or nipple area would burst. II is denicd thntthe "Iell breast was inverted."
More accurately, the nipple aren of the lell breast was inverted. It is also admitted that
skin ehunges nnd redness of the lell breast were observed.
9. Pal'llgraph 9 is ndmitled in part and denied in parI. II is admitted that
Delendant William P. Grnham, III, M.D. Ibrwarded a letter to Plaintjfl~ Patricia S.
Gordon, on September 12, 1995 regarding her September 8, 1995 oflice visit. It is denied
that "[)efendant William P. Grnham's diagnosis was that thc Icll brcast was infected and
- 2 -
should bc trcutcd with antibiotics." Morc accurutcly, and as statcd in Ill'. Oruhum's
Scptcmbcr 12, 1995 Icucr: "I think thlltthe situlltion is one of infection and hopclltlly the
untibiotie will benefit you. If this wlll'sens while you lire onthc lIntiblotie, we nccd to sec
you as soon liS possible. Itl1lay be necessary to n:commend another biopsy il'lhc process
docs not qukkly disappcar,"
10, Parugrnph 10 is ndmittcd,
II. Parugl'llph II is udmitted in pllrtnnd dcnied in par!. It is admitted only that
the Carlislc Hospital Radiology report prcparcd by Defendant Hcrbcrt C. Perlman, M,D"
rcflccts that an ultrusound examination WlIS pcrtbrmcd on Octobcr 13, 1995. Insofar as
thc remaining avermcnts pertllining to Dclendant Hcrbcrt C, Perlman, M.D., pertain to a
delendant othcr than Ilnswcring Defendllnts, no Ilnswer is deemed requircd by Ilnswcring
Dclendllnts. to thc cxtcnt that an answer is decmcd required, answering Delcndants admit
only that Dclendant Dr. Pcrlman's Octobcr 13, 1995 ultrasound rcport statcs that "thc
currcnt examination is cvalulltcd in conjunct!t'n with scveral prcvious studies, including a
mummogram from Walnut Aouom Rlldiology datcd July 20, 1995." It is furthcr udmilled
that the rcsults of Dr. Pcrlmun's Octobcr 13, 1995 ultrasound cxumination werc convcycd
to Dcfendant WilIium P. Graham, Ill, M.D.
12. Paragraph 12 is admillcd in part and dcnied in purl. It is admilled that
corrcspondcnce wrillcn by dclendant William P. Gruhum, 111, M.D. ,on October 17, 1995
reflccts a dccision to trcat thc Plaintiff: Patricia Gordon, with aspirin as opposed to a
biopsy of the Ictl brcast sincc the ultrusound exuminution did not rcvcal any mass lcsion.
It is denicd that Dcfcndant William P. Grahum, III, M.D.'s October 17, 1995 leucr in any
way rctlects that Dcfcndant Herbcrt C. Pcrlmun, M.D., had uny opinion on thc issuc of
treatmcnt.
13. Paragraph 13 is ndrnillcd in part and dcnied in part. It is dcnicd that thc
- 3 -
Jllnuary 19. 1996 mecting with Putriclu (hwdon, Robcrt Gordon, Jcllrcy l), Scdlllck,
M.D., and Defcndunt William P. Gruhllm, III, MoD" WIIS only to inlimll Plllintifls thllt
Patricia Gordon hud cllncer ofthc Icll brcusl. Morc UCCUl'lItcly, on Junullry 19, 1996,
Dcfcndant Willium P. GruhUlll, 111, M.D., IIlct with Jcffrcy 1>, ScdlllCk, M.D. und
Pluintifls to udvise PllllntiflS tIlUt PutriciulI Gurdon hlld cunccr ofthc lell brcusl., to discuss
a treatmcnt plun, und to discuss the issuc of brellst rcconstruction If u mastcclomy WIIS
determined to be ncccssary. It is IIdmittcd that on JUIllHlry 19, 1996, Dclcndullt Willillm
P. Gruham, Ill, M.D. scnt a Icttcr to WilliulIl J, Phellln, MoD, Thc rcmuining uvcrments
ofparugruph 13 are dcnied liS stuted in cOlllimlluncc with Plio R.C.P. I029(e),
14. Aller rellsonablc investiglltion, unswering Delcndllnts ure without
knowlcdge or inlimnation suflicientto limll II belieflls to thc truth ofth,~ uvermcnts sets
forth in purugruph 14. Thc samc arc thcrcliJl'c dcnied and strict proofthcreof dcmanded.
IS. Allcr rcasonable invcstiglltion, IInswering Dclcndunts IIrc without
knowlcdge or inlimnation suflicielltto form a bclief us to thc truth of thc IIvermcnts sets
forth in parugruph IS. The slime are thcrcliJrc dcnied IInd strict proofthcreofdemanded.
COUNT ONE
NCilliilcnce: PlaintilI Patriciu S. Gordon v,
lliJcndanl. Willillm P. Grahllm. III. M.D.
16. Paragruphs I through IS rlre incorponlted hcrein by rcfcrence as if flllly sets
forth.
17, Paragraph 17 sets forth a conclusions of law and thercfore no response is
decmed required, To the extcnta rcsponsc is decmcd requircd, the averments of
paragraph 17 as stated are denied and strict proofthereot'is demandcd.
18. Puragraph 18 is denied. Purugruph 18 sets fiJrth conclusions of luw and
therefore no response is deem cd required. To thc extent u response is deemed required,
- 4 -
Dclcnuunt, Willium P. Gruhulll, Ill, MoD.. spcclJlcully dcnies thut hc IhUcd to cxcrcisc thc
rcusonublc unu ordlllury curc ulld skill excrcised by othcr mcmbcrs or his pwlcsslon In
cxumlning und trcullng the Pllllnlin: I'atrlcin S. (jordoll. f)elcndunt Willluml'. Gruhum,
Ill, M.D., I'urther dcnies thUI hc wus in uny wny negligclllln rendcring 11Icdieul cure und
treulmenlto the Plulnlin: Putriciu S. Gordon. '('olhe contrury. ulull tlmcs muteriul hereto,
Dclcndunt, WiIlium P. Gruham, Ill, M.D., rcndercd curc und IrClllmcnl tolhe I'lulntW:
Putriciu S. Gordon, In contormunec with thc slundul'lJ or cure. By wny of Illrther
response, Dclcndanl, Willium P. Gl'llham, Ill, M.D., t\trlher dcnics subpurugruphs (Il)
through (d) in conlill'lnily wilh Plio R.C.P, 1029(c).
19, PlIl'llgrnph 19 is denicd. In conti.Jrmity with PlI. R.C.P. 1029(c), lhc
lIVCl'lnents or pUl'llgmph 19 ure denicd. By WllY of I'urthcr responsc, il is spccit1eully
denicd thut the Plninlil}' PlItriciu S. Gordoll's cancerous condition wus obvious utlhe time
she wus exumined by Dclcndalll, Willium p, Gl'llhum, Ill, M.D. Any und ull ullcgutions
ofnegligcncc on the pari of Dclcndunt, William P. Grnhlllll, Ill. M.D., lire specifically
denicd.
20, PlIrugl'llph 20 is dcnicd, Parugruph 20 scts forth conclusions oflllw und
therelore no responsc is deemcd required, to the exlentu rcsponsc is deemed required, thc
lIvermcnts ofpurllgraph 20 lire denied in COnf(JI'Illily with Pa, R,C.P. 1029(e). By was of
further response, it is specifieully denied that Dctcndant Willium 1'. Graham, Ill, M.D.
was in any wuy negligenl in rcndering medical carc ulld trealmenlto the Plaintiff: PlItdcia
S. Gordon. To thc contrnry, ululltimcs mUlcrial hcrcto, the carc provided to Phlintiff
Patricill S, Gordon conlormed to the slundard of care. It is furlher denicd lhat Dcfcndant
William P. Grnhllm, III, M.D.'s earc and treatment oflhe PlaintiffPalricia S. Gordon was
a substantial factor ill causing hcr to completcly "lose her lell breasl."
21. Paragruph 21 is denied. Paragraph 21 sels I(Jrth a conclusions of law and
thereli.Jre no response is decmcd required. To the exlent a response is dcemed rcquired,
- 5 .
the IIverlllenls of pllrugruph 21 lire denied. By wuy or further response, uny und ull
ullegutions ofnegHgenee on the purl of Defendllnt Willilllll P. Cirnhnlll, III, M.D" ure
specifieully denied. To Ihe contrUl'y, utulltillles mUleriul hcreto, the cure nnd trentmenl
provided 10 Pluinlill'by [)elcndunl WiIIlum P. Grnhum, III, M.D., conlbnned 10 the
standard oreure. IfPluintill'Plltriciu S. Gordon hus susluined the injuries nlleged, they
were nolln uny wuy due to the ulleged negligence of Dclcndunt Willium P. Gruhum.lII.
M.D.
22. Paragruph 22 Is denied. Puragruph 22 sets lbrth conclusions of luw und
Iherefore no response Is deemed required. To Ihe extentlhutu response is required, the
averments ofpnragruph 22 ure denied in eonlbrmity with PU. R.C.P. I029(e). Any nnd nil
ullegations of negligence onll1e pnrt of Defcndunt WillinmP. Gruham, 111. M.D. ure
specilieully denied, To the conlrary, al ulllimes muteriul hereto, Ihe cnre und treatment
r\:ndered to PlaintiffPalricill S. Gordon conformed to Ihe stundl.rd of ell reo IfPlnintiff
Putriciu S. Gordon has sullcred the injuries ulleged, il wus nol occasioned by any alleged
negligence on the part of Defendant William P. Grahum, Ill, M,D.
23. Paragraph 23 is denied. Paragraph 23 sels torlh conclusions ofluw nnd
theretore no response Is deemed required. To the exlent that a response is required, the
averments ofparagruph 23 arc denied in conformity with Pa. R,C.P. 1029(e). Any and all
nllegations of negligence onlhe pal'l of Detendant William P. Graham, 111, M.D. are
specifically denied. To the contrary, f.It all times malerial herelo, the care and treatment
rendered to Plaintiff Patricia S. Gordon conformed to the standard of care, If Plainllff
Patriein S. Gordon has suffered the injuries alleged, il was not occasioned by uny allegcd
negligence on the part of Delcndant William P. Graham, Ill, M.D.
24. Paragraph 24 is denied. Paragraph 24 sels lorth conclusions of law and
- 6 -
thcrc1(Jrc norcspllnsc Is dccmcd rcqulrcd. To thc cxtclltlhut u rcsponsc Is rC(lulrcd, thc
avcrmcnts ofparugruph 24 urc dcnicd III cOlllill'lnity \Vllh I'u. ({,Col'. I029(c), AllY and
all allcgutions of ncgligcncc olllhc purl of DclcndulIl Wllliuml', (jl'llhum, III, M.D. urc
spccificully dcnicd. To thc cOlltrnry, utulltlmcs mutcrlul hcrcto, thc curc ulld trcutmcnt
rcndcrcd tol'luintlll' I'utriciu S, Gordon conlimncd lothc stundunl of curc. I I' I'lnllltitl'
Putriciu S. Gordon hus sul'lcrcd thc injurics ullcgcd, it \Vus not occusiollcd by ullY ullcgcd
ncgligcncc onthc purt of Dctclldunt WlIliuml'. Grnhum, III, M.D.
25. PUl'Ugruph 25 is dCllicd, Purngrnph 25 scts tbrth conclusions ofluw und
thcrctorc no rcsponsc is dccmcd rcquircd. To thc cxtcntthut u rcsponsc is rcquircd, the
avcrmcnts ofpuragruph 25 urc dcnicd in contimnity with Pa. R.C.P. I029(c). Any and
all allcgntions ofnegligcncc onthc purt of Dcfcndunt Willium P. Grnhum.III, M.D. urc
spccifically dcnied. To the contrury, ut alltimcs mutcriul hcrcto, thc cure und trcutmcnt
rcndcrcd to Plaintiff Patricia S. Gordon contbl'll1cd to thc standurd of cure. If Pluintiff
Pntricin S. Gordon hns sum~rcd thc injurics nllcged, it wns not occusioncd by nny nlleged
ncgligcncc on the part of Detcndunt William P. Grnhnm, III, M.D.
26. Parugrnph 26 is dcnicd. Puragraph 26 scts 1(Jrth conclusions of lu\V und
thcreforc no rcsponse is deemcd rcquired, To the cxtent that n rcsponsc is required, thc
nvcrmcnts ofparagruph 26 nrc denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). Any nnd
ull allcgntions of negligence on the part of Defcndant William P. Graham, III, M.D. arc
spccifically denied. To the contrary, at all timcs matcrial hereto, thc curc and treatment
rendered to PlaintitTPatricia S. Gordon conformcd to the standard of care. If Plaintiff
Patricia S. Gordon has suffered the injuries nll(Jged, it wus not occasioncd by any alleged
negligence on the part of Defendant William p, Graham, III, M.D.
27. Paragraph 27 is denicd. Paragl'Uph 27 sets ti>rth conclusions of law and
therefore no response is deemed required. To thc extent that a response is requircd, the
.7-
uvcrmcnts ofpurngruph 27 urc dcnicd in conlbrmity with Pu. R.C.P. I029(c). Any ulld
ullullcgulions of ncgligcncc on the Jlurt or Dcll.ll1llunt Wi Ilium P. (jruhum. 1/1, M.D. urc
speclllcully dcnlcd. To thc contrury. utulltimcs mutcrlul hcrcto, thc curc und trcutmcnt
rcndercd to Pluintlll' Putrlclu S. GonIon con/brmcd to thc stundurd or curc. I I' Pluilltirf
Putrlciu S. Gordon hus suf'fl.lrcd thc inJurics ullcgcd, It wus notoccusloncd hy uny ullcgcd
ncgligcnce on the purt orDell.lndunt Wi ilium P. Gruhum. 1/1. M.l>.
WHEREFORE, Delendunl, Willlum P. (jrnhum. III. M.D., dcmunds thut Pluintifls'
Compluint be dismissed.
COUNT TWO
NClllil,lencc: Pluintill'Putricil1 S. (Jordoll V.
Dcfcndullt At;slhetic & Reconstructive Surl,lel'Y ofCclltrul PA. P,C.
forth.
28. Purngruphs I through 27 urc Incorpol'llted hercin by reference us If Hilly sets
29. Puragraph 29 is admittcd.
30. PUl'Ugraph 30 is udmittcd in part and dcnicd in parI. It is udmitted that
Dc/endant, Acsthetic & Rcconslructive Surgcry ofCcntral pA. PoCo, is a professional
corporation which provides physicians othcr stu/l' and facilities for mcdical care and
treatmcnt. It is furthcr admittcd that Dcfendant William p. Graham, III. M.D. did perform
an cxamination of and providcd mcdical treatmcnt to Plaintill; Patricia S. Gordon. It is
furthcr admittcd that Kayc Riolo. M.D. examincd Plaintift; Patricia Gordon's Icll breast
during an oflice visit on Octobcr 10, 1995, and that Dr, Riolo recommended that Plainliff
undcrgo an ultrasound examination. It is dcnicd that Dr. Riolo had any furthcr
- 8-
Inv\llvcmcnt in Pllllntln; Pntrlcln Gordon's ellrc olher Ihnn Ihllllnv\llvcmcnt which Is
nllmlltcll hcreln. Ills ndmllled thllt n nursc cmploycc of Delendnntmuy huve pnrliclpntcd
in nn cxullllnutlon \lflhc Plnlntlll; Pnlrlcln (Jordon, during uny ofthc orncc visits which
oecurrcd dllring thc lime pcrl\ld rClerenecd in the Complulnl. Ills dcnled Ihnt nny nursc
cmpl\lyec ofDclendnntrcndcrcd trcntmcntto PlnlnllfC I'ntrlcln Gordon. II is dcnled thut
nny othcr ngcnts, scrvunls or cmployccs of Dclendnnt pcrllll'lncd "nn cxuminntlon of nnd
provided medlcnl trclltmcntto" Plnlntln; Plltrlclu S. Gordon, during thc tlmc period sct
lbrth In the Compllllnl. Thc rcmlllnlng nvcrmenls of purngl'Uph 30 urc dcnlcd in
eon/brmily with Pn. R.C.P, I02lJ(e).
31. Pllrngrnph 31 is denied. Ills spcd fieully dcnied thut Dclendunt, Acsthctie
& Reeonstructlvc Surgcry ofCcntl'll1 PA, P.C., inuny WilY rcndercd ncgligcntmcdil:ul
trcatmentto I'Iuinlin; Putricia S. ()ordonthrough its actuulor ostcnsiblc ugcnts. scrvunls,
01' employees, including but not limited to, Dclendunt WI Ilium 1'. Gl'Uham, Ill, M.D. To
thc contrury, at ulltimcs matcriul hcrcto, the medicuI treatment rendcred to Plaintirt;
Patricin S. Gordon, conformcd to thc stundnrd of care, Subparngraphs (u) through (I) urc
dcnied in conformunec with I'n. R,C.P. I029(c).
32. Purngrnph 32 is denied. Purngrnph 32 sets lhrth co..;c!usions ofluw and
there/ore no response is dcemed rcquired. To the extentthut u rcsponsc Is dccmed
required, the uvermcnls ofpurngraph 32 arc dcnied in con/lmnity with Pa, R.C.P,
I029(e). By way of furthcr rcsponse, De/endant, Acsthetic & Reconstl'\lctivc Surgcry of
Central PA, PoCo specifically denies uny und ullalleglltions ofnegligenec. To the
contrary, utlllltimes matcrial hcrelo, the mcdical care and trentment rendered to Plaintiff;
Patricia S. Gordon, con/hrmed to the standard of care. Dc/endant, Aesthetic &
Reconstructive Surgcry ofCentrul PA, PoCo lurther dcnies that any allcged negligence
was a suhstllntinl/uctor in cnusing Plaintiff Patricia S. (Jordon's injurics. Defendant,
- I)-
Aeslhelic & Reconslructive Surgery lJfeenlrulPA, p.e., furlher denies thntthe mcdlcnl
cure lInd trelltment rendered toPllIlnUn; PlIlrlcln S. Gordon, wns 1I substnntilll Ihclor In
cnusing the 1I11eged inJuries.
33. PlIrllgrnph 33 Is denied. PlIrugrnph 33 sels (imh conclusions oflllw lInd
thcrclhre no response is deemed relluired. To the exlentthlltll responsc is ceellled
required, the uverments ofpllrllgruph 33 lire denied in ClJntill'lllity with Pn. R.C.P.
I029(e). Uy wuy oflilrther response,lIny IInd 1111 nlleglltiolls ol'negllgence onlhe pllrtol'
Delcndlllll, Aesthctic & Rcconslructive Surgery ofCentrul PA, P.c. ure dCllied. To the
contrnry, mllll times materinl hereto, Defcndllnl, Aesthctic & Reconstructive Surgery 01'
Centrul PA, P.C.. its actual or o:ilenslble IIgents. sel'Vllnts, lIJlll/or employees, Including but
not limited 10, Defcndunt, Willillm P. Gruhall1, III, M.D., rendered mediclll cllre IInd
trelltment to the Plaintlft: plItricill S. Gordon, in contill'lllance with the stllndard of cllre. II'
plllintin: plItricill S. Gordon, hilS sunered the injul'ics nlleged, they hllve not bcen
occllsioned by allY alleged negligence Oil the part 01' Defcndant its agents, sel'vllnls, or
employees.
WI fEREFORE, Delcndllllt, Aesthctie & Reconstructive Surgery ofCelltrul
PI\, p.e. demands that Plaintifts' Complain be dismissed.
COUNT TllRrm
V' . I' bT PI' 'ffp .. Sed
Icanous "HI I Ity: mntl atncHl. Illr on v.
Defendant Aesthetic & Reconslructivc Sur~ery of Central PA, p.e.
fi>rll\.
34. Paragruphs I through 33 arc incorporatcd herein by refcrence liS il'lillly sets
. 10.
35. Pnrugruph 35 is denied. Pnrugruph 35 sets Ihrth conclusions orruw IInd
theretiJre no reiiponse is deemed required. To the extentthnt IIl'esponse is deemed
required, the avermenls ofparugrnph 35 lire denicd in cl)lllill'llllty with I'll. R.C.P.
l029(e). By WilY Ill' lill'lher response, lIny lInd 1I11 1I11eglltions of negligence on the pllrt Ilf
Delcndllllts, Aesthetic & Rccllnslructive Surgl:ry oJ'Centrul PA, p.e. lInd William P.
Gruhllm, 111, M.D. lire denied. To the contrury, III alltimcs mlltcrilll hcreto, the medicul
cure ulld treutment rendered to Pluintift: Patricia S. GonIon, conlill'llled to the slandurd of
mcdieul cure.
36. Purugraph 36 is denicd. Puragruph 36 sets tilrth couclusions of law und
therelbre nil response is deemed required. To the extcnt a response is deemed required,
the averments ofparugl'llph 26ure denied in conlill'lllity with I'a. R.e.p. 1029(e). Any
Ilnd ull allegutions of negligence on the part of Defendnnt, Aesthelic & Reconstructive
Surgery ofCentml PA, p.e., and WilliamI'. Graham, III, M.D. are specifically denied.
To the contrary, at all times material hereto, the medical cure and treatment rendered to
Plaintift; Patriciu S. Gordon, by Delendants Aesthetic & Rel:onstructive Surgery of
Central PA, P.C.and William P. Graham, III, M.D., contill'llled to the standard of cure.
37. Paragl'llph 37 is denied. The avermcnts of paragraph 37 sets tilrth
conclusions of law and therefore no response is deemed required. To the extent that a
response is deemed requirr:d, the uverments of paragraph 37 lire denied in contilrmity
with Pa, R.C.P. 1029(e). By way offurther response, any and all allegations of
negligence on the part of Del end ants, Aesthetic & Reconstructive Surgl~ry of Central PA,
p.o. and William P. Graham, III, M.D. arc specifically denied. To the contrary, at all
times material hereto, Delendants rendered care and treatment to Plainti IT Patricia S.
Gordon in conthrmity with the stundard of care. Detcndants Ae~lthctic & Reconstructive
Surgery of Central PA, P.C. and William P. Graham, III, M.D., 111rther deny that any
. II .
ulleged negligence wns n substnntinl titctor In cuuslng the nllegcd Injuries und dUlllages to
Plulntiff, PlIlrlciu S. (jordon. Defendants Acsthetic & Reconslructive Surgery ofCentl'll1
PA, P.e.und WI Ilium P. Gl'lIhUl1l, 111. M.l). 1\lrther deny thut the cure nnd trentment
rendered to P!uintifl; Putricia S. Gordon, wus u substantlultitctol' in cuusing the ulleged
InJuries und dumugcs to Pluintift; l'utriclu S. Gordon.
38. Ilal'llgl'llph 38 is dcnled. The UVel'll1ents or pnl'Ugruph 38 scts tilrth
conclusions of luw und therclill'e no response Is dcemcd relluired. To the extentthut a
response is dcemed rcquired, the uverments of purugl'llph 38 arc denied in confill'lllity
with Pa. R.e.p. 1029(e). Any nnd ullullegutions ofncgligencc on the part of Detendants,
Aesthctie & Rcconst1'llctive Surgery ofCentrul PA, P.e. und Williulll P. Grnhum, III,
M.D., ure specilically denied. To thc contrnry, atulltimcs materiul hereto, Defendunts
rendered care und medical trentment to the PluintilT Patriciu S. Gordon in confi.lI'111il.y with
the standard ofeurc. IfPluintin; Putricia S. Gordon, has sustained the inJuries und
damages alleged, they huve not been occusioned by uny ulleged negligellce of
Defendunts.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Aesthetic & Reconstructive Surgery of Central PA,
P.C. demands that P)uintitlk Compluint be dismissed.
rOlJNT FOUR
Ne~lil.lence: PluintiffPutriciu S. Gordon v.
Defendant Aesthetie & Reconstructive Surllery ofCcntral PA' P.C.
39. Paragrnphs I through 38 arc incorporah:d herein by referencc as if fully sets
forth.
. 12 -
40. I'ul'llgruph 40 is udmitted in purt und dcnied in purt. It is udmitted unly thut
in uddltluntu Dclendunt, Willlllll1 P. (Jruhum, III, M,D" thutone uther physlcilln uftillutell
with Acsthetic & Recunstructive Surgcry ufCentrull'A, p.e., Kllye Riulu, M.D.
cXlllnined I'lulntln; Plltriciu S. (Jurdon during thc time period llllegcd inthc I'luintifti;'
Cumpluint. It is denicd Ihut Dr. Riolo rendered uny trcutmcntto Pluintin: Putriciu
r.jordon. It is lilrther udmitted thut u nursc cmployee or DefelllJuntmuy huve parllciputed
In un exumination ofthe Plaintirt's lell breast during the time period relcrellccd in the
eompluint. It Is denied tllllt uny nursc cmpluyee rendercd uny treutment to Plalntift;
Putrieiu Gurdun. It is denied thutothcr SlurI' members or Delcndant, Aesthetic &
Reconstructive Surgery orCcntrul PA, I'.c., and techniciuns "cxumined and treuted"
Pluintifl; Putriciu S. Gordun.
41. Purugraph 41 is denied. It is denh:d thut physicians, nurses, technicluns und
other stuff members of Dclendunt, AC~llhetic & Reconstructive Surgery of ecntl'lll PA,
P.C., other thun Dclcndant, Willium P. Ciruham, Ill, M.D" examincd llnd trcuted Pluintin;
Putricia S. Gordon, dul'ing the time period alleged in the Complaint. Insothr as Plaintifti;
havc Hliled tu specifically identifY the individuals who they alleged tu be physiciuns,
nurses, technicians, and utber stufr members of Defendant, Aesthetic & Reconstructive
Surgery ufCentrul PA, P.C. Detendant is unable to admit ur deny whether such
individuals ure ugents, sel'vants, and/or employccs. The remaining averments or
paragraph 41 sets forth conclusions of law and therelilre no response is deemed rcquired.
To the extent thut a response is deemed required, set averments arc denicd in conlill'lnity
with Pa. R.C.P. I029(e).
42. Paragraph 42 is admitted in part and denied in pal't. It is admitted only that
Dcfendant, Aesthetic & Reconstructive Surgery urCentrall'A, P.C. is a profcssional
corporation which provides physicians, starr and Illcilitics lilr rcndering medical eurc and
. 13.
lreutment. The remuining nVCl'lllcnts or pumgruph 42 sels lilrlh conclusions or luw IInd
IherefiJre no rCNponse Is deemed rctjull'ed. TOlhe extent lhutn responHe is deemed
required, the sume uverlllents ure denied in conlill'llllty with I'n. R.e.!'. 102lJ(e),
43, PlIl'lIgruph 43 is denicd. It is spcdlicuIly denied lhul I>ctcndllnt, Aesthetic
& Reeonstrucllve Surgery orCenlrull'A, I'.e. rendered negllgentmedicultreutmentto
Pluintift: I'lItriclu S. Gonion, by ul1llthrough Its nctulIl or ostensible ugenls, servants, or
employees, including but not limited to, physieiuns, nurses, 1I1\l1/or technicians. To the
contrul'Y, lit ullllmes muteriul hereto, Dclel1llunt, Aesthctic & Reconstructive Surgery of
Centrul PA, I),C.. Its uctuul or ostensible ngents, scrvunts, or employees, physidnns,
nurses und teehnieiuns pl'Ovided trcutmenlund cure to the I'luintift; l'utricln S. Gordon,
whieh conlill'llled with the stundurd of care. l3y wuy or Ihrther response, the uverments
setlorth In subpurugruphs (u) through (I) ure denied in conli.lI'Inlty with Pu. R.C.P.
I029(e).
44. PUl'llgruph 44 is denied. It is specilicully dl:nied that Putricia S. Gordon's
"cuncerous condition" was obvious ullhe time she was examined ut Delcndunt, Aesthetic
& Reconstructive Surgery ofCentrul PA, p.e, during the timc period ullcged in thc
Complaint. The alleged failurc to diagnose cancer during the lime period sets torth in the
Complaint docs nol constitute negligence. l3y way of lilrlher response, any und all
allegations of negligence on the part of Detcndant, Aesthetic & Reconstructive Surgery of
Central PA, P.C. arc specifically denied. To the contrary, at all times material herem, the
cure und trentmcnl rendered to Plaintifl; Patricia S. Gordon, conformed to the standard of
cure. The remaining averments of paragraph 44 setli)rlh conclusions of law and therefore
no response is deemed required. To the extent that II response is required, the averments
ofparagruph 44 lire denied in contbrmity with Pa, R.C.P. I029(e).
45. Pal'llgruph 45 is denied. The averments of paragraph 45 set ti.lI'lh
- 14.
conelUHlollH of 11I\\IlInd therclilre norcHponsc is dccmed rellulrcd. Tolhe extcntthllt u
responsl: Is deemed rellulrcd, the IIvcrments of pllrugl'llph 45 ure dcnled In cl)lllill'llllty
with PII, R.C.P, 102lJ(e). By WilY or further respOllse, uny und 1111 ullcgutions of'
negllgencc onthc pllrtof ()elcndunt, Aesthetic & Rcconstructivc Surgery ofecntrul PA,
I',C. III'e spcdlielllly denied. To the contrury. ut 1111 times ll1uterlul hcreto, the Il1cllicul cure
and trelltment rendl:red to 1'llIlntif'f, l'utrldu S. Gordon, l:onfill'lned to the stundurd of cure,
Defcndant further denies thut the ullcged litllurc to diugnose cuncer WIIS II "suhstllntiul
litctor" in cuusing the alleged injuries und dllmuges sustuined by I'luintit'f, Putrlcia S.
Gordon, Dcfendant lilrther dcnies thut the curc und treutmcnt rendcred to Plaintiff,
Putricill S. Gordon, was u "substuntiul fitctor" in cuusing thc injuries IInd dumages
ullegedly sustuined by Plaintin; Putricia S. Gordon. 1 I' Plaintifl; Putridll S. Gordon has
sustuined the injuries Illleged, they were notoccusioned by uny negligence of Delcndunts.
46. l'arugruph 46 is denied. The uverments of pal'll graph 46 sets forth
conclusions oflaw und therclilre no response is deemed required. To the extent a
responsc is deemed required, the averments of parugruph 46 me denied in conlbrmity
with I'll. R.C.P. l029(e). By WilY oflurther response, uny und 1111 allegations of
negligence on the part of Dclcndunt, Aesthetie & Reconstructive Surgery ot'Centrul PA,
P.C. are specilically denied. To the contrnry, atull times materiul hereto, the care und
treatment rendered to Plaintift; Patricia S. Gordon, conformed to the standard ot'eare. If
Plaintifl~ Patricia S. Gordon, hilS sustained the injuries and damages alleged, they were
not occasioned by any negligence on the part of Detendants.
WHEREFORE, Delendant, Aesthetic & Reconstructive Surgery ofCentrul PA,
P.C., demunds the Phlintiffs Complaint be dismissed.
. 15.
70. Purugrul1hs I lhrough 69 ure inCllrpol'llted hCl'ein by rcfcrence us if tl1lly sets
fbrth.
71.77, Theuvermentsllfpurugl'llphs 71, 72, 73, 74. 75, 76,and 77und their
subpul'llgruphs rcfcr to u delendunl olher lhun Answering Dcfendunts. Accordingly, no
rcsponse on the pllrt of Answering Dcfendllllts Is deemcd required. To the extcnllhatun
lIf1jrmntlve response mllY be decmed required, suid pllrugl'Uphs und their suhpurugruphs
are specilieally denied und strict prooflhercof demand lIlthe time oftruil.
WHEREFORE, Delcndunts, Willillml'. Gruhum. III, M.D. lInd Aeslhetic &
Reeonslructive Surgery ofCelltrull'A, P.C, dellllllld thatl'luintift);' Complaint be
dismissed.
COUNT NINE
Plaintiff Robel't Gordon v, Defendants: Loss of Consortium
(PlaintillS') I. The responses made in paragl'llphs I through 5 above ure
incorporated Iwrein by reference as if fl1l1y sets fbrlh.
(Plaintills') 45. Puragraph 45 of Count Nine is denied. Aller reasonable
investigation, llnswering Delendants are without knowledge or infonnation suflicient to
liJrm a belief liS to the truth of the uverments ofparugruph 45 of Count Nine of the
Complaint. The same are therefore denied and strict proof thereof demanded.
(Plailltifts') 34. Paragraph 34 of Count Nine is denied. Any and allllllegations of
negligenee on the part of Delendants, William P. Graham, Ill, M.D. lInd Aesthetic &
Reconstructive Surgery ofCentl'll1 PA, P.C. are specilically denied. To the contrury, at all
- 18.
>: oJ, ",0.
n, ('oJ r,;
;:.. cb L-
'. r
~n q..~
B " .~ ! :"
~. or' :~ ,-'; ''':.
~~'
r,: N :"~'J~~
u;~;.! ('oJ
0- Il.....
Il.ll,U
i': LI.J iT)\.-,.
v: ..".
c<. r- ::l
0 CJ" U
Irreparnbly prejudice Defendant Cllrllsle Ilosrltnl's defense of this cnse. By WilY of fUlther response,
by virtue of Exhibit "A", Defendnnt Cnrllsle Hospltnl hns telllntlvely IIgreed to provide slIrnples of non.
suspicious tissue and Is In the process of working out IIn agreement with I'llllntlffs' counsel to
determine how much nnd whllttype of tissue Is required for Plaintiffs' DNA eXllrntnlltion,
4. D'mled. Pllllntiff has IIbsolutely no nuthority or IIffidllvit to substullllate this bald
nvel'l11ent. By way of further response, uncontrolled destructlvc testing of thc speclmcn by I'lalllliffs
willlrreparubly prejudice Defendnnt Carlisle Hospital's defense of this cUsc.
5. Dcnled. Plnlntlff has absolutely no nuthority or affidavit to substantiatc this bold
avel'l11cnt.
6, Dcnied. Plaintiffs' proposed testing Inherently requires dcstruction of at least a
portion of tile subject paruffin blocks. Uncontrolled transfllr of the blocks to Plaintiffs to perform sllch
destructive testing will irreparably prejudicc Defendant Carlisle Hospital's dcfense of this case.
7. Dcnied. By signing 0 "Request for Operation", attached hereto as Exhibit "0",
Plaintiff surrendercd ownership of subject specimens to Carlisle Hospitul. Plaintiff is thcrcfore not
cntitlcd to them.
WHEREFORE, Defcndant Carlislc Hospital respectfully requests that this Honorable Court
DENY Plaintiffs' motion to compel Defcndant Carlislc Hospital to producc the paraffin blocks
allegedly contuining biopsy spccimens of the Plaintiff, Patricia S. Gordon without prejudice pending
resolution of on agrcement between the pnrties for the transfer of tissue samples to Plaintiffs.
~ Carlisle I-Iospital
(:::.J
RmLqE6T FOR OPERATION
1\TTACliMENT A
PA'l'!EN'l" S NAME:
Pat riciu Gordon
I have discussed with Dr. ---1 1'hn"'p.snn the nature and
purpose of an operation which is to be performed on
(state name of patient or "myself") which he has told me to be
Excigion left breast mnsB,nced1a locA1iza~iDn,frozcn section,
, ,
(state nature of procedure(s) to be performed.)
He/she has explained to me the nature of the operation and has described
the part of, my body which will undergo the operati.on. He/she has also
explained to me other methods of treatment of condition. He/she has also
explained the risks involved and the possibility of complications from the
operation.
I request ~he administration of anesthesia to be applied by or under the
direction of Carlisle Hospital Anesthesiologists and to the use of sllch
anesthetics as he may deem advisable.
I am aware that no guarantee or assurance as to the results of the
operation have been made and I have been told that no guarantee of the
results could be made.
I authorize the taking of still motion pictures or televising of the
procedure(s) to be performed, including appropriate portions of my body, for
medical, ,scientific or educati.onal purposes, provided my identity is not
revealed by the pictures or by descriptive texts accompanying them.
I authorize Carlisle Hospital to preserve for scientific or teaching
purposes, or to dispose of, any tissue, body parts, or organs removed as a
necessary part of my care except as noted here:
NONE
I authorize in such cases where an artificial device is being either
implanted or removed (explanted) and such device is one applicable to the
Safe Medical Devices Act of 1990, that my social security number be released
to the manufacturer of the device and/or the ,Food and :tflrug Administration
(FDA). I understand this will assist j,n my implant.able device being tracked
should the manufacturer of the device and/or ths ~'ood and Drug Administration
(FDA) want to contact me regarding information on the device or the potential
of recall,
I further authorize Carlisle Hospital to dispose of any artificial
devices which may be removed (explanted). I understand that if I want to
maintain possession of such devices, I must inform my surgeon prior to the
surgical removal of the devices.
Any questions I had regarding the operation have been answered to my
satisfaction and by signing this request, I agree that all of the foregoing
has taken place to my satiafaction.
Therefore, I request Dr. Thompson , or his partner or
associatns, in addition to any assistants whom he might designate, to perform
this operation, t,Ogether with any preoperative care or postoperatJre
tre.t.emt mpmm mm. ~
~~f~ g /Jo:':"<t /T1"
fXIl! BIT [)
(over)
AM 1815 (8/93)
When patient is a minor or unable to issue, request signature ot person
authorized tor consent for patient.
Signature and Relationship to Patient
Date
T1l1le
Witness
I, the undersigned, hereby acknowledge that I was present when the
explanations eferred to above were given to the patient.
#8
I H..L./D.....
<!..\1IY/
- ,
Time
~ D,P.M.
that I was present when the
patient
/JW
Time
v
..
.. ~T"'"
~;;,'''l"
toW -4-00
,..., ..J:::J:-.o"
c O''''C/I
.D:&NO
n ..J"O'-"'-D
.. v............
"" f-O....D
", -4:ZI~""
aI O' a....t:t
~ ......,...,."NO
"'ICO";o
C'" o.
~-iC.ItO
,.",-::a:;a
.....-.
n",....
/'\.I"'. -0...,
",,..
...I:,,""O~....
O' :a-tA;a
cr ta-
- en
..J:- ""-
L~~~.;, :;,~~;,
~';:' . l'Ui4lfl
.-
7:: <'l\ \ .-
,.... ;
." f;'
I- '"
\1.1....... (.',
~):
\' I\.'
"
'('J'"
i" p'
e"
I. ~' ,.
G. , , .1
I
r,' MO'
\.'.. I" .-.)
I.;) ,\ol' '.J
IN TilE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUro.IIIEIU.ANlJ COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL AC'J'ION . LA W
I
!.
Defendwlls
)
) NO. 'J7.IX79 CIVIL TERM
l
)
l
)
)
)
l
)
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PATRICIA S. GORDON IInd
ROBERT GORDON, her husband,
Plllintill's
VS,
WILLIAM p, GRAHAM, III, M.D" IInd
AESTHETIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE
SURGERY OF CENTRAL PA. P.C.,
HERBERT C. PERLMAN, M.D.,
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
DEFENDANTS WILLIAM P. GRAHAM. III. M.D. AND AESTHETIC &
RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA. P.C.'S
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DEFENDANT
CARI.ISLE HOSPITAL TO PRODUCE PARAFFIN BLOCKS FOR DNA TESTING
AND NOW, come Defcndants William 1'. Grahum. III, M,D.. and Aesthetic &
Reeonstructive Surgery of Central Pennsylva:Jiu, P.C. by and through their utlorneys, McQuaide,
Blasko, Schwartz, Fleming and Faulkner, Inc" to nsscrt their position with respect to Plaintiffs'
MOlion to Compel and represents as follows:
1. PlaintilTs allege negligence on the pUl1 of Defendants William P. Gruham, III.
M,D" and Aesthetic & Reconstructive Surgery of Central Pennsylvania, P,C. regarding the care
and treatment rendered to Plaintiff. Patricia Gordon.
2. Specifically, Plaintiffs 1I11ege that Defendant William P. Graham. III, M.D, failed
to diagnose Plaintiff, Pntricia Gordon, with canccr of the left brcast in the Full of 1995.
3. PlaintilTs have filed a Motion to Compel Defendant Carlisle Hospital to produce
paraffin blocks containing tissue samples obtained from Plaintiff Patricia Gordon's left breast via
a biopsy performed at Carlisle Hospital in September 1994.
4. Plllintiffs huvc indicutcd lhulthe tlssuc slllllplcs contuineJ In thc pUJ'llflin blocks
will be submiued fill' DNA tcstlng. Plulntlll~ Imvc IIcknowledged tllllt DNA testing will destroy
3% of the tissue,
5, Defcndant Carlisle Hospitul hus offcrcd 10 providc Pluintln:~ with tissue sl\lnplcs
cut lrmll the paruftln blucks, Cllrlisle lluspitul hils nolugreed 10 pl'lJducc the purumn bl\)cks lhr
uniluternl possession und tcsting by Pluintlfls,
6. Pluintitls Imvc dcclined Curllsl<: Iluspitul's offcr to provide tissue sumplcs cut
frol1lthc purullin blocks, Ruthcr, Pluintill's mlllntlllnthat they should be cntitled tu haw
pusscssiun of 1\11 paratlin blucks, und III cut tissue slllllples from the blocks thut would allow for
DNA tcsting oftissuc frum suspicious IInd nun-suspicious arcus of the left breast.
7. Insofar lIS Dcfcndant Willium p, Graham, Ill, M,D. relicd upon the pathology
analysis of the brcasttissuc sl\lllples trum 1994 in dlagnusing and trellling Pluintiff, Patricia
Gordon in 1995, hc has an iatcrcst in having the tissue cuntained within the pal'llflin blocks
protected from spoliation so that he 1IlllY also have 1111 opportunity to haw expert evuhmtion of
the surne,
WHEREFORE, Defendants William P. Graham. \11, M.D., and Aesthetic &
Reconstructive Surgery ofCentrul Pennsylvania, ["C. respectfully requcstthut this honorable
court enter such order liS will prevent the spoliation uf evidence nnd protect the rights of other
partics to have eqlllll aCCI:SS to tissue samples fur expcrt evaluation.
McQUAIDE, BLASKO, SCHWARTZ.
FLEMING & FAULKNER. INC.
By:
~~.C~~~~
April L. Chamberlain, ~squire
Attorney for Defcndnnts
811 University Drive
State College. PA 16801
(814)238.4926
Dated: 'dol:./ "7
I I
2
',. .'
S, Walter Foulkrod, lII, Esq,
S, WALTER FOULKROD, III & ASSOCIATES
2215 Forest Hills Drive. Suite 35
P.O. Box 6600
Harrisburg. P A 17112-0600
Francis E. Marshall, Ir" Esq,
MARSHALL, SMITH & HADDlCK, P,C.
20 South 36th Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Sworn to and Subscribed
b.efore me this 2nd day
of December 1997,
. ~--
Not;~bIF
McQUAIDE, BLASKO, SCHWARTZ,
FLEMING & FAULKNER, INC.
By: ~~fM~~
April L. Chamberlain
~IAI.S~l
~ WOl ,NOTARY PUBlll
t>> EGl CEH.lM, f~
PATRICIA S. GORDON and
ROBERT GORDON, her husband,
Plaintiffa
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NOr 97-1879 civil 'rerm
v,
I
WIT.LIAM P. GRAHAM, III, M.D., I
AESTHETIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
SURGERY OF CENTRAL PA, P.C., r
HERBERT C. PERLMAN, M.D, / : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CARLISLE HOSPITAL, I
Defendanta I
MarION TO COMPBL DISCOVERY OF PARAFIN BLOCRS
AND NOW, come the Plaintiffa, Patricia S. Gordon and Robert
Gordon, by and through their attorney, Patrick F. Lauer, Jr., and
aver the following in aupport of their motion to compel production
pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 4019(13):
1. Plaintiffs requeated that Defendant, Carlisle Hospital,
present to Plaintiffa parafin blocka containing biopaiea of the
Plaintiff, Patricia S. Gordon. See Exhibit A.
2, Defendant, Carliale Hoapital, refuaed to produce the
Iblocka. See Exhibit B.
3. Plaintiffs' expert needs the blocks to conduct a DNA
examination to determine potential liability of the defendants,
4. Testing by t.he Plaintiffa' expert will not destroy the
entire specimen.
5. Only three percent (3%) of the specimen ia destroyed by
the testing procedure.
6. Defendant, Carlisle Hoapital, will not be prejudiced by
producing the blocks for Plaintiffs' teating.
PATRICIA S. GORDON and
HOBERT GORDON, her huaband,
Plaintiffa
v.
WILLIAM P. GRAHAM, III, M.D.,
AESTHETIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE
SURGERY OF CENTRAL PA, P.c.,
HERBERT C. PERLMAN, M.D.,
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendanta
I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
I
I NOI 97-1879 civil Term
I
I
I
I CIVIL ACTION - LAW
I
I JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
I
I
CBRTIFICATB OF SBRVICB
I, Patriok F. Lauer, Jr., Esquire, hereby oertify that I have
aerved a true and oorreot copy of the foregoing Motion to Compel
Diacovery of Parafin Blooks upon the following counael for
Defendant by United Statea firat-claas mail, poatage prepaid:
Frank Marshall, Esquire
MARSHALL, SMITH & HADDICK
20 S. 36th street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Grant H. ~'leming, Esq.
MCQUAID BLASKO
One Briarcreat Square
Herahey, PA 17033
S. Walter Foulkrod, III, Enquire
S. WALTER FOULKROD, III & ASSOCIATES
2215 Forest Hilla Drive
P.O. Box 6600
Harrisburg, PA 17112-0600
Date:
J /
! ,
\,
Patr.ick F. Lauer, Jr.
PATRICIA S. GORDON and
ROBBRT GORDON, her hUBband,
Plaintiffs
v.
I IN THB COURT OF COMMON PLBAS OF
I CUMBBRLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA
I
I
I No.1 97-1879 Civil TeL~
WILLIAM P. GRAHAM, III, M.D., I
AESTHBTIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE I CIVIL ACTION - LAW
SURGERY OF CBNTRAL PA, P.C., I
HBRBERT C. PERLMAN, M. D. , I JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CARLISLB HOSPITAL, I
Defendants I
REQQBST Ii'OR PRODUCTION OP EVIDBNCB
PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. NO. 40Q.2
TOI Francis E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire
Counsel for Defendant, Carlisle Hospital
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that plaintiff, PATRICIA S. GORDON, hereby
requests, pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 4009, as amended, that
Carlisle Hospital produce for inspection, examination and analysis
by the Law Office of Patrick F. Lauer, Jr., 2108 Market Strset,
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, 17011, within thirty (30) days of the date
of this notice, the following evidence I
1. All biopsies, paraffin blocks containing putial or entire
biopsies, pathology slides containing partial or entire biopsies,
or any other type of preserved biopsies taken from the breast of
Plaintiff, PATRICIA S. GORDON, in 1994.
..
,.
8 S, HanDver S\nlet
CarIIa1e, l'A 17018
(717) UlJ.OO71
THE LAW OFFICES OF PATWCK F, LAUER, JR.
2108 MAnKE'l' BTREET, AZTEC nUllJ>lNG
CAMl'IIILL, PENNBYINANlA 17011
(717) 7611-1800 FAX (717) 703-4247
HlOO..822.....LAW
48 B. Duke B\nlet
York, PA 1U01
(717) 841H700
082 N. Second S\nlet
H.arr\aburlJ. P A 17102
(717) 282.77.7
Aaaoc:IaI(l CounIlcl
MatUICW J. EahAlman, Esq.
Joonn6 n. W1gbc1s, Esq.
(UcpJ,y to Camp IIlll Addreaa)
4111 N. Hlgh B\nlet
Dunrennon, PA 17020
(717) a:w-.4645
September 2, 1997
Francie E. Marshall
20 South 36th Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
SEP - 3 1997
RBI PATRICIA GORDON V. CM~ISLB HOSPITAL, BT AL
DOCKET NO. 97-1879, YOUR FILE NO. H-138
Dear Francisl
I recently provided you a request for the production of
evidence pursuant to the Pa Rules of Civil Procedure, regarding the
biopsies which were obtained from my client and are currently
maintained at the Carlisle Hospital.
I would appreciate it if you could provide me these biopsies
retained in the paraffin blocks so I can have them examined by my
expert witnese. Obviously, the paraffin blocks will determine
whether or not I will even proceed with this case. This case might
be completed rather quickly, depending upon the examination of
those blocks. I would appreciate it if you would contact me and
let me know if you will provide me with. this vit~ information.
Obviously, I would need the paraffin blocks in the current form in
which they are maintained so they can be forwarded to my expert for
further testing.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
r~
pat~~ Laue;,
Jr., Esq.
PFL/jak
CCI Patricia Gordon
Catherine Mahady-Smith, Esq.
file
~/lt.'ll~~.""",' 0'I11.IPI"';"
Exhibit B
.
MIll'"
, "
.
.
.
Patrick F. Lauer, Jr" Esquire
Catherine Mahody.Smlth, Esquire
September 8, 1997
, Page 2
At this juncture, however, please accept this letter os an objection to the production of
the paraffin blocks outside the hospital setting.
I expect to receive more detailed Information from you so that I can di5cuss It further
with my client and see If some. arrangement can be made that protects the integrity ond quollty
of the biopsy paraffin blocks.
I awolt your advices.
FEM/jds
Attachment
cc: Gmnt Fleming. Esquire (w/att.)
Walter S. Foulkrod, Esquire (w/att.)
Froneis E. Mnrshllll, Jr.. Eaq,
MARSHALL, SMITH & HAPDICK. P.C.
20 South 36th Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Sworn to and Subserlbcd
before me this 29th day
of September, 1997.
N~~~
McQUAIDE, BLASKO, SCHWARTZ,
FLEMING & FAULKNER, INC,
By: ~~.~
John A. Snyder
./"
ldtID-i.1
I'
I
I"
I
I
i
I
I
I
Y.I.ili1 Fie AT! 0 N
STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
)
) ss:
)
COUNTY OF CllMIJERLAND
Delilre me, the undcrsigncd uUlhority, pcrsonully uppeured Williull1 P.
Grahum, III, M.D. who dcposes und SIIYS lhul he Is Dclcndunt in the wilhinuclioll, und us such is
uuthorized 10 ll1uke this Verilicution on his own behulr, and stutes thutthe ulluehed,
DEFENDANT WILLIAM p, GRAHAM, lII, M,D.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS'
COMPLAINT is bus cd upon inrol'lnlltlon which hus bcen tiJrnlslll:,d 10 counselllll' Delcndullt und
thutthe infol'lnution hus becn guthered by suid counsel in prepurulion Illr the defcnse of this
luwsuit. The lunguuge III Dcfcndunts' Answer to Pluintirfs' COlllpluint is thut of counsel und not
of the undcrsigned, The undersigned has read Dcfcndllnls' Answer 10 Pluintiffs' eompluint to
the extcnt thut the Answer is buscd upon informution which hus hcen givcn to counsel f(lr
Derendullts, it is true and correct 10 the bcst of the undcrsigned's knowledge, inforll1ution und
bclief, To the extent that the content of the Answer 10 Pluintitl"s' COlllphlint is thut of counsel,
the undersigned hus relied upon counscl inllluking this Afliduvit.
.... --,,-.J ) //
--'- /" ./ I _..
/ '... . . I '- .>
.-1"':"(,/("-,1/// / .\jl/'I/t,,~
. WilliUIll P. Gruhmn, III, M.D. ']
Sworn to und subsc~ibcd
before me this ')<jT'tluy
of September, 1997.
VERIFICATION
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA )
) s~:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND )
Llelilre me, the undcrsigncd ulIIhority, flcrsonully uppeured John 1'. Struti~,
M.D" who depo~c~ und ~uy~ thut he is Pre~identof Ae~thcllc & Rcconstructi vc Surgcry of
CentruII'A,I'"C, ,und liS such i~ uuthorizcd to mukc this Vcriticution on its behulf, und ~tulcs
thutlhe ullu.ched, DEFENDANT, AESTHETIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY OF
CENTRAL PA, I'.C.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT is buscd upon intiJrlnution
which hus bccn furnlshcd to counscltilr Defcndunls und thllllhe inllll'lllulion hus heen guthered
by suid counsel in prepllrution for thc dcfcnse of lhis Inwsuil. Thc lunguuge in Dclcndunls'
Answers is thut of counsel und not of thc undcrsigncd. The undersigned has reud Delcndunts'
Answers to the extcntthutthe Answers ure bused upon inlilrlnntion which hus becn given to
counsel for Defcndanls, thcy ure truc und correct to thc best of the undersigned's knowledgc,
inlimnution und bclicf, To the extcnttllUtlhc contcnt of the Delcndunts' Answcrs mc thosc of
counsel, the undersigncd hus relicd upon cOllnsel in muking this Affidavit.
'" ~ ~I f S itd-.t.-
mI'. Strutls, M.D.
:!'resident of Acsthetic & Rcconstructive
Surgery ofCcntl'll1 PA, P,C.
Sworn to und subssribcd
bclore me this ~'"\Juy
of Septcmbcr, 1997.
l~-
Notur~b I'
r 'j;i'i',,~";,<fr.;t;;~i1;r
il: l"l) .-,
'''/' .,'
t..' ..
(1.Il--1 '..
f'i
,-- . .
I,{, . .
)'l, '.
1-' , ,,'
.hl':' ,
ceLl ,-,
f" ,.... Li,
<-,
I'. ,-,. J
(~
0' U
PATRICIA S. GORDON,
PLAIN'l'IFF
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 9'7 - l~l(r C""A~T~'</II
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PERSONAL INJURY
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
vo.
WILLIAM P. GRAHAM, III, M.D.
DEFENDANT
PRABCIPB FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS
TO THE PROTHONOTARY'
Please issue a Writ of Summons on ths above-namsd Defendant.
Defendant William P. Graham, III, M.D. works at the following
address I
William P. Graham, III, M.D.
AESTHETIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY
OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA, PC
816 Belvedere Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter has the following
address I
Patricia S. Gordon
426 Shippensburg Road
Newville, PA 17241
Respectfully submitted,
,
:Datel
I
,
,
I
I
I
I
L\/ ~-=-q l
(
Pat ick F. Lauer, Jr., E
2108 Market Street, Aztec Building
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011-4706
ION 46430 Tel. (717) 763-1800
J
a
':- co "R.
r" c-
.' ..~, l()
" r()
~~ .. 0 -
(0) c,' . .'~ lIi S
::~ , If)
~!' ::.; :., (0 L[J
I:'j ~ '"fl
._)1 (.:,
.J.I' "1,1 oj i1
, " ~
u:l (\. ';1';1 c) ~
j' (\..
1I _J; ~ r '......
(.J r- ,
CT' I...l
"
J ,
0
.
:I: ""
0
. ....
m H . ,.
H .S ~ '"
H "'", ....
....
8 . J ~$R 11
~ ! I
~ - 5 J:j tn.... 0 ~
tJ .'Sen~r.l:g
,"'
'" '" '"'
0\ . . :i ~]~~~
.... en P-
OJ .~ ;,:j .>: ~ . ....
'"' ~ u :r:
I u .~ EOJ~ ;::'
.... B
0\ (J 0'" !'"'
III '"'!;! r-
~ :;0 P-N ~
~
\
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
GORDON
Vs.
NO. 97 1879
CAHLISLB HOSI?
CEln'lfiICA'I'E
PUEREQUISI'I'E TO SERVICE OF A SUIWOENA
I'UI{SUANT '1'0 IWLE 4009.22
As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena(s) for documents and things
pursuant to Rule 4009.22 FRANCIS B MARS~ffiLL, ESQUIRB certifies that:
1. A Notice of Intent to Serve the Subpoena(s) with a copy of
the subpoena(s) attached thereto was mailed or delivered to
each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which
the subpoena(s) is sought to be served,
2. A copy of the Notice of Intent, including the proposed
subpoena(s) is attached to this certificate,
3. No objection to the subpoena (s) has been received, and
4. The subpoena(s) which will be served is identical to
the subpoena(s) which is attached to the Notice of Intent
to Serve the Subpoena(s) .
Date:
10/8/97
FRANCIS E MARSHALL, ESQUIRE
20 S 36TH ST
-3
'~
\.
File ., M233091-01 1-
CAMP HILL, PA 1'7011
717-731-4800
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
INQUIRIES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TOI
MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS, INC.
4940 DISSTON STREET
PHILADELPHIA I?A 19135
(215) 335..3590
By: Heide Collins
,
r
"
',. ~.. I"
fl,; .:1
i ..
1.'11_ .;.J
l I
1.'
~' :) I
I I' .1
f, ! ~ ,
,.11' " ,"
u.. C I, ,)..
I L
", I~!. .;.)
<..;' u'
. .
4, Pluintlffll huvc indiculcllthutlhe llllsue Slllllplcll cUlltuillcd illlhc purnmll hluc),s
will be sublllittcd fill' DNA lcsling, !'Iullllift's huvc uc)(JIuwlcllged thUl DNA lcstlng will d.:su'oy
3% of the tlssuc,
5, Defendllnt Curlislc J luspltul hus offered to provide Plulllllt'l:~ wllllllssuc sUlllples
cut Irolllthe purnmn blocks. Curllslc lluspitul hus nOlugrecd lu pl'<lducc the PUI'III'liIl blockll li.)r
ulllluterul pusllession und tcsting by !,Iullltl ft:~,
6. I'luintil1i1lmve declincd Curllslc I fuspilul 's offcr lu pruvidc tislluc sUlllplcs cut
frum the puramll blocks. Ruther, Pluinti 11's Illuilltullllhutlhey should be elltltlcd lu huve
possession uf ull paraffin blucks, ulld lu cut tissue sUlllples Ihllllthe blocks thut wuuld ulluw IiII'
DNA testing of tissue from suspiciuus ulld nOli-suspicious ureus of the lell breust.
7. Illsofur us Delendullt Willlmn p, Grnhulll, III, M.D. relied upollthe putholugy
1I11alysls of the breustllssue sUlllplcs Ihllll 1994 ill diuglloslllg und treutlllg I'lullIllff, Putriclu
Gurdon in 1995, he hus un interest ill huvillg lhc tissue eUlltuined withlll the purnl'lin blucks
protected from spollution so that he IllUY ulso huve un opporlunlly to huve cxpert evuluutiun of
the sume.
WHEREFORE, Delendants Williullll'. Grnhum, III, M.D., und Aesthetic &
Recunstructive Surgery ofCentrul!'ennsylvaniu, P.c. respcctfully requcst thut this honoruble
court enter such order us will prevent the spollution uf evidence und proteetthe rightll of uther
purties to have equal ueeess to tissue sUlllplcs lilr expert evuluutiun.
McQUAIDE, BLASKO, SCIIWARTZ,
FLEMING & FAULKNER, INC.
By:
~,C?(.Ct;~~
April L. Chumherlain, 'squire
Atto1'l1ey till' Dcfcndants
811 UllIvcrsity Drlvc
State Collcgc, PA 16801
(814)238.4926
Datcd: 1~1 t,f '?
,
2
t~- n)
.,'
, I"
r,--
, I "
I
" 'I'
I
1 r
I"
I' (.' , "
',I r-
\I' ,
'J
.~ ~':n'-'--
" r t'r{II ..:I~I' tl-.',"
H tlI.l. C,II""
__..., MOI",,11' I,'
-.
PATRICIA S GORDON IInd
ROBERT GORDON, her husband,
Plalntllli;
vs.
WILLIAM P. GRAHAM, III, MD., and
AESTHETIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE
SURGERY OF CENTRAL PA, P.C.,
HERDERT C. PERLMAN, M.D,
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendants
) IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
) ClJMBEllLANIJ COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
)
)
) NO. 97.1879 CIVIL TERM
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) JURY TRIAL IJEMANDJm
1"'..-
AffillAYlT OF SERVICE
I, April L. Chamberlain, Esquire, Altomey for Defendants In the above-captioned l11alter, aileI'
having ben duly sworn according to law, deposes and says tbat lme and correct copies of Defendants'
Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents were I11l1iled by regular 1111111 allhe United
States Post Ollice in State College, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, this .-d.~ day of December, 1997
to the attorneys of record addressed as follows:
Patrick F. Lauer, Jr., Esquire
Law Ollices of I'll trick F. Lauer, Jr.
2108 Market Street, Azetc Building
Camp Hill, PA 17011
S. Walter Foulkrod, III, Esquire
S. WALTER FOULKROD, III & ASSOC.
2215 Forest Hills Drive. Suite 35
P.O. Box 6600
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17112-0600
Francis E. Marshall, Jr. , Esquire
MARSHALL, SMITH & HADDlCK, P.C.
20 South 36th Street
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011
I
MCQUAIDE BLASKO
By: ~v'{.C4.~
April L. Chamberlain, Esquire
Sworn to and Subscribed
before me this 2.\'\d day
of '~9 7.
. s..~)
/ 71 Notanal Seal
..(. ,.. J 1..1'..'" Stt'phdnl8 Ann Frnnklln, Notary Public
I' Slnto Callogo Bora. Cenlm County
L_' My COn\l11l~I~lon ElIpltcS March 6,2000
L -----_ 1',11111"- '.'I\!l':>'I\ 'IPI'I /l',S()(I,lfIfHlul (11,111111.
, , ,-
,'- In
i'.l "-'. ,.-.~
j'l' ..
..... '.
f }. ,-, , ..
I'; , "
I" .,::
(o':
, ' .. ..
r- .,-')
1.1,
[.1, I
,
I' I )':.1
I l;. ,""
LJ 1.-
\..~.
I,
PMRICIA S, (JORDON nlld
'WilER,/, GOIWON, hel' hUNhnlld,
Plnhllltlil
I IN TilE COlmT OF COMMoN Pl.EAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYl. VAN/A
vs,
97.1 H79 CI VII.
WIl.LlAM p, ORA/lAM, III, M,f).. :
nnd AEST/ /ETle &
RECONSTRUCTIVE SLJROER y.
OF CENTRAl. PA., p,('"
IIERDERT c. PEltl.MAN, M.D"
C/\nLlSLE IIOSPITAL,
Del\:ndnnts .IUR Y TRIM. DEMANDED
ill RE: PLAlliTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEl.
ORm':f~
AND NOW, lhls ,:r H-... dny or Dccemher, 1997, filllowing nrgumentthercou, the
plaintltlil' motlollto compel is GRANTED in pnrtnlld thc dcJ\:ndanl, Carlisle Hospilnl, Is
directcd to producc u snmple, suflieienllor DNA lcsling, orcnch of the parufl1n blocks which is
lhe suhjcet orlhis mOlionnnd shall pel'mit the obtaiuing or said snmplcs to be observcd by n
represcntative orthe plaintHl:
It is rUl'lher ordered that any plJrty who shull causc lhe destruction of the subject paruflin
blocks to the prejudice of any other purty shall hc su~iectto sanctions fhr Spoliulion.
BY T/IE COURT,
~:-~. /-I J.._
Kevin'A. Hess, J.
.
/
/
PATRICIA S, GORDON and
ROBERT GORDON, her husband,
Plaintil11i,
vs.
WILLIAM p, GRAHAM, III, M,D" and
AESTHETIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE
SURGERY OF CENTRAL PA, P.C.,
HERBERT C. PERLMAN, M.D.,
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendants.
) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
) CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
)
)
) NO, 97.1879 CIVIL TERM
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
M.ElJ)A vl'r OF SERVICE
~
I, Keith P. Mangan, a Paralegal for McQuaide, Blasko, Schwartz, Fleming & Faulkner, Inc.
depose and say that true and correct copies of Defendants' First Supplemcntallnterrogatorics for
Answer by Plaintiffs were mailed by regular mail at the United States Post Office in Statc Collcge,
pennsyivania, postage prepaid, this 19th day of Decembcr, 1997 to thc attorneys of record addressed
as tollows:
Patrick F. Lauer, Jr., Esquirc
Law Officcs of Patrick F. Lllucr, Jr.
2108 Market Strcct, Azctc Building
Camp HiII,PA 17011
S, Waltcr Foulkrod, III, Esquire
S. W ALTER FOULKROD, III & ASSOC.
2215 Forest Hills Drivc - Suitc 35
P.O. Box 6600
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17112-0600
Francis E. Marshall, Jr. , Esquirc
MARSHALL, SMITH & HADDlCK, P.C.
20 South 36th Strcct
Camp Hill, Pcnnsylvania 170 II
Sworn to and Subscribed
bcfoJe me this /fjr,!1 day
90; .. ?97.
o
NOlari.ii Se~1
St~tPh~'!.~~n Franklin. NOIBry PubllG
., Bill "",,,,,,e Bora, Cantro County
My COmmlllslon E'p1res Man:h 6, 2000
Mmnhor, flllOSV vanl;1 !ll:jnc at on 0 fllilnl"
l...--.
i (,
, ,
I :
,
, I'
,
t. (
" (
f:- I
1.-
I' 1-"
.' '.:J'
S. WALTBR FOULKROo, III, BSQUIRB
~a. Supreme court 1.0. No, 01982
S. WALTIlR FOULKROo, IV, BSQUIRE
~a. Supreme Court 1.0. No, 65207
J\NDRBW II, FOlJLKROo, IlSQUIRIl
Pa, Supremo Court I,D. No, 7'/394
S. WALTIlR FOULKROD, III & ASSOCIATBS
2215 Forest Hills Drive - Suite 35
Post Office BOK 6600
Harrisburg, Pennaylvania 17112-0600
Telephone I In7) 541-0400
Faxl In7) 541-1127
PATRICIA S. GORDON and
ROBERT GORDON, HER HUSBAND,
Plaintiffs
Attorneys for Defendant,
HIlRBERT C. PIlRLMAN. M.D.
I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND cOUNtry, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
: NO: 97-1879 Civil Term
WILLIAM p, GRAHAM, III, M.D,
AESTHETIC & RECONSTRUC1'IVE
SURGERY OF CENTRAL PA, P _ C. ,
HERBERT C. PERLMAN, M.D.,
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION . LAW
,JURY TRIAlJ DEMANDED
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION
OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE A COMPLAINT
1, Admitted,
2. Admitted,
3. Admitted.
4. Denied. It is spedfically denied that Plaintiffs have
not been able to obtain the paraffin blocks from Carlisle Hospital.
To the contrary, Judge Hess entered an Order providing a mechanism
by which Plaintiffs could gain access to the paraffin blocks, and
Plaintiffs have delayed in doing so.
5. Denied as stated. On information of belief, Herbert C.
Perlman, M.D., specifically denies that once the paraffin blocks
are reviewed by Plaintiff's expert, Plaintiff will be able to
determine whether or not Plaintiff has a cause of action.
PlaintHfs' counsel Patrick r. Laue!:, .Tr., Esquire, represented to
the Court that the paraffin blocks would have to be subject to DNA
testing to ascertain whether the tissue specImens contained in the
blocks were in fact the tissue specImens of wife Plaintiff.
Answering Defendants are infornled, believe and therefore aver that
DNA testing can be perfonned only on live tissue specImens. If Mr.
Lauer made the representation to the Court as contained herein,
then on information and belief, answering Defendant believes that
Mr. I,auer misrepresented the facts to the Court in order to obtain
an extension of time within which to file a Complaint,
6. Admitted in part and denied in part. Answer to
paragraph 5 is herein incorporated by reference.
7. Denied. It is specifically denied that, "valuable
resources of time and effort, and in the sake of judicial economy,
the Defendant's refusal to grant the Plaintiff an extension of tin~
to file the Complaint is without good cause." To the contrary,
judicial economy will be fostered if the action proceeds post
haste.
8. Answering Defendant requests that the Motion be
dismissed and that Plaintiff be ordered to file a Complaint within
twenty (20) days or suffer judgment Non Pros.
9. Denied. Answer to paragraph 8 is herein incorporated by
reference.
WHEREFORE, Herbert C. Perlman, M.D., prays for an Order
denying Plaintiffs' Motion for an Extension of Time within which to
-.. I~'
ir'" l'
;.. ..
\1,1" , :
i'J'
I
I' '
,>,'
\'
\.i' "
( ,I.'
\' ,
'I, I
I' I. I
U ,~ , ..,
5. The Plaintiffs submit and aver that once the paraffin
blocks are received from the Defendant/ Carlisle Hospital, they
will be able to have the paraffin blocks reviewed by their expert
witnese to determine whether or not the Plaintiffs even have a
"cause of action".
6. The Defendant, has requested the Plaintiffs to file a
Complaint even though the Plaintiffs do not know whether or not
there is a "cause of action" / and even though the Plaintiffs
requested a continuance until the scientific study can be completed
on the paraffin blocks, the Defendant's Counsel S. Walter Foulkrod,
III, Esquire would not agree to a continuance or an extension of a
period of time until the aforesaid information is completed. (See
Exhibit "A").
7. The Plaintiffs submit that valuable resources of time and
effort, and in the sake of judicial economy/ the Defendant's
refusal to grant the Plaintiff an extension of time to file the
Complaint is without good cause.
B. The Plaintiffs, in the sake of judicial economy/ request
Your Honorable Court to issue a Rule upon the Defendant(s) to Show
Cause why, the Plaintiffs should not be given 60 days in order to
have their scientific study completed in order to determine whether
or not there is a "cause of action".
PATRICIA S. CORDON and
ROBERT GORDON, her husband,
Plaintiffs
v.
WILI,IAH P. GRAHAM, III, M.D.,
ABSTDBTIC , IWCONSTRllCTIVE
SURGERY OF CBNTRAL PA, P.C.,
DERBERT C. PBRLMAN, M. D. ,
CARLISLE DOSPITAL,
Defendanto
IN TUB COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUHDBRLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NOI 97-1879 Civil Term
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DBMANDED
~Y VERIFICATION
I, Patrick F. Lauer, Jr., Enquire, attorney for Plaintiffs,
Patricia S. Gordon and Robert Gordon, hereby verify Clnd state thatl
1. I am the attorney for Patricia S. Gordon and Robert Gordon,
Plaintiffs .
2. I am authorized to make this verification on Plaintiff8'
behalf .
3. The facts set forth in the foregoing Motion are known tn me and
not necessarily to my client.
4. The facts set forth in the foregoing Motion are true and
correct to the best of nlY knowledge, information, and beliet.
5. I am aware that false statements herein are made subject to the
penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. S 4904, relating to unsworn falsification
to authorities.
Date:
/ - 'Z z - 9r.::-
, -
Respestfylly submitted,
/;(' I~
patrlmt 'I. Lauer, <Jr.-,.... Esquire
2108 Market Street, Aztec Building
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011-4706
10# 46430 Tel. (717) 763-1800 .
EXHIBIT A
PATRICIA S. <lOIWON und
ROBERT (jORDON, her hllshund,
Pluintifli;
IN TIlE COLlin OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
VS.
97-1 H79 CI VII. TERM
WILLIAM p, GRAIIAM. III, M,D"
und AESTIIETIC &
RECONSTRI)CTIVE SUIWERY
OF CENTRAL PA" P,C"
HERBERT C. PERLMAN, M.D..
und CARLISLE IIOSPITAL,
Dufendunts
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
IN RE: PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REOIJEST EXTENSION
OF TIME TO FIl.E COMPLAINT
ORDER
AND NOW, this
It'"
duy of Febrllury, 199H. thc Prolhonotury Is directed to
list this nmlter (hI' the next argument court to he held on March 4, 1991!. The Locul Rule with
rcgurd to time Iimils lllr liIing briels is wlIivcd. The lJloving party is dirccted to IiIc 1I brief prior
to the close of business on Friday, FebrulIry 27. I 99l!, und thc rcsponding pllrty at least one day
prior to the date set for urgulJlenl.
BY TI IE COURT,
1\ t... / ) / L
,
Kevin A. IIcss. J.
Patrick LlIuer, Esquire
For the Plaintiffs
- c,M><<..... (Y>'<t~J!..4 "'-/1 '1/9 8
.V ,.g ~)
F. Walter Foulkrod, III, Esquire
Frllneis E. Marshall, Esquire
April L. Chllmberlain. Esquire
For the Defcndants
IN TIlE couln OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMIIERLi\ND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVil. ACTION -LAW
PATRICIA S, GORDON lInd
ROUERT GORDON, hcl' IlUHllllUd,
Plillutll'lii
DelcnduutH
)
) NO. 97-IH79 CIVIL TliRM
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) .JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
VH.
WILLIAM p, GRAIIAM, Ill, M,D" uud
AESTHETIC & RECONSTIUJCTIVE
SURGERY OF CENTRAL PA, P,C"
IIERUERT C. PERLMAN, M.D"
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
DEFENDANTS WIl.LlAM 1'. ORAl lAM. Ill. M.D. AND AESTlIFTlC' AND
RECONSTRUCTIVE S(JIWERY OF CENTRAl. p.A.. P.C.'S RESPONSE TO pl.AINTIFFS'
MOTION TO REOlJEST EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE COMpl.AINT
AND NOW, come Defendunts WilliumP, OruhUlll, Ill, M.D. uud Aeslhc:tic &
Reeoustructive Surgery orCentI'llIP.A" p,c. by und through thcir uttol'l1eys, MeQuuidc, Blusko,
Schwurt7., Fleming & Fllulkner 10 respond to pluilllirrs' Motion To Rcquest Extcnsiou or Till1e
To File Complllint as folluws:
l. On April 10, 1997, Pluintil'lii /ilcd u Writ or Summons 10 initiute this mcdicul
malpractice action.
2, Thereal\er, on .July 29,1997, Pluintiffii' Compluiut wus tiled.
3. Defcndunts' Answer to the Complaint wus filcd on September 19, 1997,
4. Detcnduut Curlislc Ilospitul filcd uu Answer to the Compluint on or about
Septembcr I H, 1997.
5, On Junuul'Y 2:1, I 991l, I'lulnllfl:~' cllllnscllilcd u MOlion '1'0 RC'iUC~1 EXlcnslonof
Time To File COlllpllllnl inthc ubovc-l'dcl'cnccd uctlon,
6, I'lulnllfls huvc notlilcd ul'clition with lhc Court ~ccldllg uUlhorily 101ll1lcnd thc
eOl\1pluinttllllt wus liIed liS 10 Delcndllllls Willillllll'. o I'll I 111 III , Ill, M.Il. IInd ACSlhctic &
Reconslruclivc Slll'gery ofCcnll'llll',A" I',C.. IInd lhe StlltUlc o1'l1l11ilullons III I' usscl'ling IIncw
elluse of IIctlonus to these Delcndunls hus expil'cd,
II
[I
i'
7. Since the plelldings In this IIclionlll'e closed hecuuse the I'luinlll'ls' huve IiIcd II
COlllplllintund the Dcfendllnls hllve liIed un Answer, Defcndants WillltIIl1 1'. (irnhul11. Ill, M,D,
IInd Aesthetic & ReCollstructlve Surgery of Centra I 1'. A.. I',C, donolunderstulld the purpose Illl'
which the iustunt Motion of the PluintilI~ WIIS liIed.
8. On Janllury 29, I 991l. the Ilonoruhle Kevin A, Hess issucd u Rule to Show Cuuse
us 10 why the relief requested by the I'llIilllifls should not be granted. 'l'he Rule WllS l'elUmable
on or before twenty (20) ollYs of Ihe oatc of the Ordcr.
9. Therefi.ll'c, in response 10 thc Rule to Show Clluse. Delclldanls Willlul11 1'.
Grahllm,lII, M,D. IInd Aeslhetic & Rceollslructive Surgery ofCcntrall'.A..I'.C. set forth the
instllnt response.
WHEREFORE, Dctcndants WilliamI'. Grahum. III. M,D. lIlld Aesthetic &
Reconstructive Surgery of Ccntrnll',A., I'.c. respeclfully rl~'iuestthatl'lalntin:~' Motion To
2
RequeHt ExtellslollofTlllle To File COIllf1I1111l1 he DENIED.
McQUAII>E Il/.ASIW
By:
~'~ 6t.t4~
^pl'lI L. Chlllllhcl'llllll, I:sllulrc
Allol'/ley Ibr Dclimullllls
IllllJlllvel'slty Drive
Slllte College, PAl CIllO I
(1l14)231l-4926
DUled: ~
)
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERI.AND COUNTY, PENNSYI.VANIA
CIVIL ACTION - I.AW
I)ATRICIA S, GORDON,
Plulntillii
) NO. '17-1'18') CIVIl. TERM
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
V6,
WILLIAM P. GRAHAM, III, Mil, IInd
AESTHETIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE
SURGERY OF CENTRAL PA, pc.,
Detcndunts
M.EJIM.Y.IJ.OEJiE./iY.KE
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYL VANIA
ss:
COUNTY OF CENTRE
April L. Chlllllberlllln, Esquire, IItto/'l1ey !'lr Delcndanls, Willialll P. Gl'lIhalll, III, M.D, and
Aesthetic & Reconstructive Surgery of Central PA, P,C., ill the above-cuplioned Illatter, aileI'
hllving been duly sworn according to IIIW, deposes IInd SIIYS that a true and correct copy of the
Defendants William p, Grnhulll, 111, M,D, und Aesthetic & Reconstructive Surgery ofCentml PA,
P,C.'S Response to Plaintilli;' I'vlotion to Request Extension to File COlllplaint was Illailed by
Federnl Express, postage prepaid, this 9th day of February 1998 to the !'lllowing:
Patrick F. Llluer, Jr., Esquire
2108 Market Street; Aztec Building
Cllmp Hill, PA 17011
S. Wulter Foulkrod, III, Esquire
S. WALTER FOULKROD, 111 & ASSOCIATES
2215 Forestl-Iills Orive - Suite 35
P.O. Box 6600
Harrisburg, I' A 17112-0600
~ (>'1 ~:;
~~ .:J
0 c~ . . ~
fi~'" I'
.... I. f ;', ~
f" I .'t
"J I_- I . l,:i
@~; Cl ',.')
..'i 1-.-
H: ,.'>
fL'.:' r'_') "'0
'..
1.1,' '...'.It
I.. L...
~I 'JJ I~~)
Q'\ (j
"'i. Cl '. ".
i' f!': I,;':
.....:
/. ..
IJ,.,!':; ~'2 . :
C?..
8"' . ..
.1....(, I..;
c'ir '. .'
I If". ,~)
C.JI'
'1" :(fJ
tot ~' 0':
l , /1..
r' /1"
lI.j;'l ,~
q. '.-rJ :1
Ci C't C)
I
,
ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, HERBERT C. PERLMAN, M.D.,
TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
AND NOW comes Defendant, Herbert C. Perlman, M.D. ("Dr.
Esquire, and answers and asaerts New Matter as follows:
Perlman"), by and through his counsel, S. Walter Foulkrod, III,
1. Admitted.
2-3. Denied. Dr. Perlman is advised by counsel that the
corresponding allegations of Plaintiffs' Complaint do not pertain
to him and that no answer is required.
4. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted
that Dr. Perlman is a licensed physician. It is specifically
denied that Dr. Perlman is engaged in the practice of his
pI:ofession "with Carlisle Hospital." To the contrary, Dr.
Perln~n is an independent contractor.
5-6. Dp.nied. Dr. Perlman is advised by counsel that the
corresponding allegations of Plaintiffs' Complaint do not pertain
to him and that no answer is required.
7. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is specifically
denied that with respect to services r.endered to the Plaintiff,
Patricia S. Gordon, Dr. Perlman was acting as an agent, servant,
employee or otherwise for or on behalf of Defendant, Carlisle
Hospital, or any other. Defendant. To the contrary, Dr. Perlman
was an independent contractor with privileges in radiOlogy.
8-10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Dr. Perlman
does not have information sufficient to form a belief as to the
- 2 -
accuracy or inaccuracy of the corresponding averments of
Plainti.f fa' Complaint and the same is accordingly denied.
11. Admitted.
12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Dr. Perlman
does not have information sufficient to form a belief as to the
accuracy or inaccuracy of the corresponding averment in
Plaintiffs' Complaint and the same is accordingly denied.
13-15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Dr. Periman
does not have information sufficient to form a belief as to the
accuracy or inaccuracy of the corresponding averment in
Plaintiffs' Complaint and the same is accordingly denied.
!'COUNT ONE
~~: Plaintiff. patricia S. Gordon v.
Defendant. William P. Graham. III, M.D.
16. Dr. Perlman hereby incorporates by reference answers
contained in 11-15 above as though the same were fully set forth
herein at length.
17-27. Denied. Dr. Perlman is advised by counsel and
therefore avers that the corresponding allegations of Pla!,ntiffs'
Complaint do not pertain to him and that no answer is required.
WHEREFORE, Herbert C. Perlman, M.D., demands judgment in his
favor and against Plaintiffs.
- 3 -
COUN'r TWO
Negligence: Plaintiff patricia S. Gordon v.
Defendant Aesthetic & Reconstructive Su~y of Central PA. P.C.
28. Dr. Perlman hereby incorporates by reference answers
contained in '1-27 above as though the same were fully set forth
herein at length.
29-33. Denied. Dr. Perlman is advised by counsel and
therefore avers that the corresponding allegations of Plaintiffs'
Complaint do not per.tain to him and that no answer is required.
WHJ;:REFORE, Herbert C. Perlman, M.D., demands judgment in his
favor and against Plaintiffs.
COUNT THREE
~rious Liability: Plaint~ff patricia S. Gordon v.
Defendant Aesthetic & Reconstructive Surgerv of Central PA. P.C.
34. Dr. Perlman hereby incorporates by reference answers
contained in '1-33 above as though the same were fully set forth
herein at length.
35-38. Denied. Dr. Perlman is advised by counsel and
therefore avers that the corresponding allegations of Plaintiffs'
Complaint do not pertain to him and that no answer is required.
~rnEREFORE, Herbert C. Perlman, M.D., demands judgment in his
favor and against Plaintiffs.
- 4 -
~N'r FOUR
Negligence: PlaintHf Patricia s.JQUiQ!LY....
Defendant Aestl}etic &..llill;.Q1111tructive S\lrg!ll:Y......Q~ntral l?A. P.C.
39. Dr. J,:>erlman hereby incorporates by reference answers
cont11ined in '1- 38 above as though the same were fully set forth
herein at length.
40-46. Denied. Dr. Perlman is advised by counsel and
therefore avers that the corresponding allegati.ons of Plaintiffs'
Complaint do not pertain to him and that no answer is required.
WHEREFORE, Herbert C. Perlman, M.D., demands judgment in his
favor and against Plaintiffs.
COUNT I<'I~
Plaintiff Patricia ~Gordon ~
Defend~erbert C. Perlman. M.D.
47. Dr. Perlman hereby i.ncorporates by reference answers
contained in 11-46 above as though the same were fully set forth
herein at length.
48. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is
specifically denied that Dr. Perlman was "required" to adhere to
any standard of care. It is admitted that Dr. Perlman was
obligated to adhere to the standard of care applicable to
qualified radiologists in interpreting an ultrasound of Mrs.
Gordon's breast. By way of further answer, Dr. Perlman fully
complied with the applicable standard of care at all times
relevant hereto.
- 5 -
49. Denied. It is specifically denied that Dr. Perlman
failed to exercise reasonable and ordinary care, skill and
ability exercised by other members of his profession in
interpreting imaging studies of Plaintiff patricia S. Gordon's
left breast. To the contrary, at all times relevant hereto, Dr.
Perlman complied with the applicable standard of care. By way of
further answer, Dr. Perlman is advised by counsel and therefore
avers that the allegations contained in '49 including subparts
(a) through (d) are denied by operation of Pa.R.c.P. 1029(e) and
that no further answer is required.
50. Denied. It is specifically denied that Dr. Perlman had
a duty to diagnose cancer during the evaluation of imaging
studies. To the contrary, Dr. Perlman's duty was to interpret
the ultrasound performed on October 13, 1995 in conjunction with
prior imaging studies available with respect to the same part of
the anatomy. Diagnosis of cancer of the breast is a pathologic
diagnosis from a tissue specimen and is not made by radiologists.
It is specifically denied that the failure to diagnose cancer
under the circumstances does not ordinarily occur in the absence
of negligence. To the contrary, there are many malignancies
which can not be detected on imaging studies specifically
including, without limitation, ultrasound of the breast. The
primary purpose of an ultrasound of the breast is to
differentiate between a cystic versus a solid mass; ~ltrasound
can occasionally be helpful in differentiating solid lesions. It
is specifically denied that the diagnosis of cancer is within the
scope and duty of care of Dr. Perlman. To the contrary, Dr.
- 6 .
Perlman's obl igatiol1 was to interpret the imaging study
commensurate with the applicable standard of care and report that
information to Dr. Graham, which obligation Dr. Perlman
discharged carefully.
51-58. Denied. It is specifically denied that Dr. Perlman
was negligent or that his conduct caused or contrlbuted to the
injuries as alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint.
WHEREFORE, Herbert C. Perlman, M.D., demands judgment in his
favor and against Plaintiffs.
COUNT SIX
Neqligen~e: PlaintifUatrida S. Gordon v.
Defendant Carlisle Hospital
59. Dr. Perlman hereby incorporates by reference answers
contained in '1-58 above as though the same were fully set forth
herein at length.
60 - 62. Denied. It is specie ically denied that Dr. Perlman
was negligent or that his conduct caused or contributed to the
injuries as alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint. By way of further
answer/ answer to '4 is herein incorporated by reference. By way
of further answer, Dr. Perlman's answers to '49 are herein
incorporated by reference.
63-64. Denied. Dr. Perlman is advised by counsel and
therefore avers that the corresponding allegations of Plaintiffs'
Complaint do not pertain to him and that no answer is required.
WHEREFORE, Herbert C. Perlman, M.D., demands judgment in his
favor and against Plaintiffs.
- 7 -
cQUN'l' SE.'iJlli
Vicarious [,iability: Plain!:.iff Patric.ia S. Gordon v....
Qefendant Carlisle Hosnital
65. Dr. Perlman hereby incorporates by reference answers
contained in '1-64 above as though the same were fuily set forth
herein at length.
66. Denied. It is speciE ically denied that Dr. Perlman at
any time relevant hereto was an agent, servant, employee or
otherwise acting for or on behalf of Carlisle Hospital. By way
of further answer, answer to '4 is herein incorporated by
reference.
67-69. Denied. Corresponding allegations of Plaintiffs'
Complaint are specifically denied. It is specifically denied
that. Dr. Perlman negligently rendered false conclusions after
reviewing medical records and comparing test results. To the
contrary, Dr. Perlman reviewed certain prior available imaging
studies of the left breast for comparison purposes in
interpreting the ultrasound of the left breast imaged on October
13, 1995. It is specifically denied that Dr. Perlman's
Interpretation was not fully commensur.ate with the applicable
standard of care. It is specifically denied that Dr. Perlman's
conduct caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged in
Plaintiffs' Complaint.
WHEREFORE, Herbert C. Perlman, M.D., demands judgment in his
favor and against Plaintiffs.
- 8 -
1:Q!J1f1'-1UillIT
Negliqence: 1?1a.i.ntJ.li..J?atricia S. GOJ:don v.
~fendant Carlisle Hosnital
70. Dr. Perlman hereby incorporates by reference answers
contained in '1-69 above as though the same were fully set forth
herein at length.
71-73. Denied. It is specifically denied that Dr. Perlman
was negligent or that his conduct caused or contributed to the
injuries as alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint. To the contrary,
Dr. Perlman adhered to the applicable standard of care at all
times relevant hereto. By way of further answer, answers
contained in 166-69 are herein incorporated by reference.
74-77. Denied. Dr. Perlman is advised by counsel and
therefore avers that the corresponding allegations of Plaintiffs'
Complaint do not pertain to him and that no answer is required.
WHEREFORE, Herbert C. Perlman, M.D., demands judgment in his
favor and against Plaintiffs.
COUNT NINE
Plaintiff Robex..\;.. Gordon v. Defendants: Loss of Consortium
1. Dr. Perln~n hereby incorporates by reference answers
contained in '1- 5 above as though the same were fully set forth
herein at length.
45. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Dr. Perlman
does not have information sufficient to form a belief as to the
accuracy or inaccuracy of the averment of marriage.and the same
is accordingly denied.
- 9 -
34. Denied. It is specifically denied that Dr. Perlman was
negligent or that his conduct caused or contributed to the
injuries as alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint.
WHERJ;:FORE, Herbert C. Perlman, M.D., demands judgment in his
favor and against Plaintiffs.
NEW MATTF.R
78. Facts set forth in the foregoing answers to Plaintiffs'
Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as though fully
set forth at length.
79. At no time relevant hereto was Dr. Perlman an agent,
servant, employee or otherwise acting for or on behalf of any
other Defendant in this action or any other natural person,
partner.ship, corporation or other legal entity.
80. At no time relevant hereto was any other natural
person, partnership, corporation or other legal entity acting or
serving as an agent, servant, employee or otherwise for or on
behalf of Dr. Perlman.
81. At all times relevant hereto Dr. Perlman complied with
the applicable standard of care.
82. At all times relevant hereto Dr. Perlman acted wi thin
and followed the precepts of a respected school of thought and,
accordingly, his professi,onal conduct was fully commensurate with
the applicable standard of care. Evidence at trial may establish
two or more schools of thought applicable to the issues presented
in this case.
- 10 .
83. Plaintiff, patricia S. Gordon, assumed the risk of her
injuries and this action is theretore barred by the Doctrine of
Assumption of Risk.
04. Dr. Perlman believes and therefore avers that evidence
accumulated through discovery and provided at trial may establish
Plaintiff, Patricia S. Gordon, was contributorily or
comparatively negligent, and in order to protect the record, Dr.
Perlman hereby pleads contributory and comparative negligence as
an affirmative defense.
85. Dr. Perlman is entitled to contribution in accordance
with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 P.S. !i7102.
06. In the event that it is determined that Dr. Perlman was
negligent with regard to any of the allegations contained in, and
with respect to Plaintiffs' Complaint, said allegations being
specifically denied, said negligence was superseded by the
intervening negligent acts of other persons, parties and/or
organizations other than answering Defendant and over whom said
Answering Defendant had no control, right or responsibility and,
therefore, Dr. Perlman is not liable.
87. At all times relevant hereto, Dr. Perlman was a
competent and qualified physician acting in compliance with the
applicable standard of care.
88. To the extent that the evidence may show that other
persons, partnerships, corporations or other legal entities
caused or contributed to the injuries or exacerbation of the pre-
existing condition of Plaintiff, Patricia S. Gordon, then the
11
conduct of the Answet'ing Defendant was not the legal cause of
such conditions or injuries.
89. Any acts or omissions of Answering Defendant alleged to
constitute negligence were not substantial facto.s contributing
and the injuries and damages alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint.
90. Whatever injuries and damages / if any, were sustained
by Plaintiffs as averred in Plaintiffs' Complaint, were caused in
whole or in part by persons or entities over whom Answering
Defendant had no duty to supervise or control, then Answering
Defendant's not liable, and Plaintiff may not recover against
him.
91. Plaintiff, Patricia S. Gordon's injuries and losses, if
any, were not caused by the conduct or negligence of Answering
Defendant but rather were caused by pre-existing medical
conditions and causes beyond the control of Answering Defendant,
Plaintiffs may not recover against him.
92. The acts or omissions of others, and not Answerlng
Defendant, constituted intervening and/or superseding causes of
the injuries and/or damages alleged to have been sustained by
Plaintiffs and Answering Defendant cannot, therefore, pursuant to
Pennsylvania law, be held liable for the alleged injuries to
Plaintiff, patricia S. Gordon.
WHEREFORE, HERBERT C. PERLMAN, M.D., demands judgment in his
favor and against Plaintiffs.
- 12 -
f. irst class
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that true and correct copies of the
foregoing ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF
DEFENDANT, HERBERT C. PERLMAN,
of record thia-lt'c0! day of
M~" were served upon all counsel
(~0-.(.--(_, 1998, by depositing said copy in the
Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid,
United States
delivery, and addressed as follows:
Patrick F. Lauer, Jr., Esquire
The Law Office of Patrick F. Lauer, Jr.
2801 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Robin J. Marzella, Esquire
R. J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Grant H. Fleming, Esquire
McQuaide, Blasko, Schwartz,
Fleming & Faulkner, Inc.
811 University Drive
State College, PA 16801
Francis E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire.
Marshall, Smith & Haddick
20 South 36th Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 731-4800
S. WALTER fOULKROD, III & ASSOCIATES
./-) /,/ '.' , ) ./
// / // /r.. fi r. _-C ZA--------
ay~.'J./. , , ',' .'.' --
/' 0 Ann E. Nelson, 'ecretary
H2, The alleg:uilln Iwrein Slale~ a umdnsilln of law 10 which no re~pllnse Is
necessary, To the eXlelll Ihat all answer may hc requireLl it Is specifically denied Ihal Ul all
IllIIes relevanl herelll Dr, Perllllall uCled wilhill and followed the precepts of a respected school
of thought. II Is specifkally dellkd Ihal his professional conduct was fully clllllmlserate wilh
Ihe uppllcahle standard of care, 11 is specilkally denied that the two schllols of Ihought
dllclrille IS applkuhle III Ihe Issues presellled III this case,
a3, The allegation h~r,~ill stales a cOlldusill1l of law III which 110 respllllse III
nccessary, To the extl:lllthUl all ,mswer may he rcquircd it Is spccifically denicd Ihal 1'101111I11'1'.
Patricia S, Gordon, assumed Ihe risk Ill' hcr injuries, II is specifically denicd Ihal Ihis aclioll is
harred and/or limilcd hy thc Doctrillc Ill' As~umplion of Risk, said Assumplion of Risk heillg
spcclfically dCllied,
84, Thc allcgaliolls herein Slutc a cllnciusion of law III which no rcsponse is
ncccssary, To the Cslcllllhat an answer may he required il Is spcclfically L1cnicLlthat Plaillliff.
Patricia S. GorLlon was cOlllrihulorily or comparalively ncgllgcnt. II is specifically denicd that
thc doclrlncs of cllnlrlhulory and/or comparalive ncgllgcncc predudc and/or limit the Plaintiffs
recovery in installl action,
as, Thc allegations hercin Slate a cllnclusion llf law III which nll responsc Is
necessary, To Ihe cxtent thai all ;umvcr may hc required it is specifically denied Ihat Dr,
Perlman is cntitled III cOlllrihullon in accllrdance wilh Pcnnsylvania Comparative Negligence
Act. 42 P,S, sectllln 7102,
86, The allcgalions herein slatc a conclusion of law lO which no response is
necessary, To till' extcnl that all allswcr may he reqoircd It is specifically dCllled that Dr.
Perlman's negligence was superseded hy thc illlervellillg ncgligelll aCI of olhcr persons. parties
and/or organizations over whom answering Defendant had no control, righl or rcsponsihillty to
cmllrol. h Is sp,'dt1cully dellled 1111I1 Dr, PCrh!H1I1 Is 1101 lIahle 10 Ihe I'lalllllffs III Ihe IIISIUIII
cnsc.
H7, The allegallolls herelll slale a cllII<:Iusloll of law III which 110 respollse Is
lIecessary. To Ihe eXlelll IhuI UII ullswer IIH1Y he required II Is specifically dellled thai Dr,
l'erlmulI wus a conlpetelll ulld quaJit1ed physlclall aCllng in compliallce wllh Ihe appllcahle
slundard of cure.
HH, The allegations herelll Slale a conclusion (If law 10 which 110 response Is
necessury. To Ihe eXlelll that an answer may he required II Is specifically uenled Ihal
unswerlng DefendaIH's conduct was notlhe legal cause of Ihe Plalllllff's conditions or InJuries.
II Is specil1cully denied Ihat Defenualll Perlmall is nol liahle In the instanl aClion, The
answering [)efendalllalong with other nal11l:d Defendallls arc Jollllly :lIId severally Iluhle for Ihe
injuries und damages ulleged herein. It is specifically denied thai other persons. pUrlucrshlps.
corporations or Ihe conuuct of other legul elltilles in allY fashioll dilllinishes the allswering
Ddenuallls liuhiJity in this action,
H9, The ullegalions herein state a conclusion of luw 10 which 110 response Is
necessary. To Ihe eXlelll Ihat un unswer IIIUY he required il is specific:llly denied Ihut the
negligelll acls and omissions of Ihe answering Delendalll were nol suhslallllal faclors
cOlllrlbuting 10 lhe injuries and damages sustained hy the Plaintiffs,
90, The allegations herein stule a cOllclusion of law 10 which no respouse is
ne<:essary, To the extelll thut an answcr lIIay he required il Is specifically denied Ihat the
injuries und damages suslaineu hy the I'luillliff were <:aused in whole or in pari by persons or
elllilies over whom unswering Defendulll had no dUly 10 supervise or cOlllrol. It is specifically
denied Ihat answering Defendulll is without liahilily illlhis lIIaner, It Is specilicully denied Ihut
Pl,lintiffs IllUY nOI recover aguinstanswering Defendunt. The unswering Defendant along with
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
GORDON
Vs.
CARLISI,E HaSP, E'r Au
NO. CV971879
CEln'IFlCATE
PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUIIPOENA
I'URSUANT TO RULE 4009.22
As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena(s) for documents and things
pursuant to Rule 4009.22 FRnNCIS E MARSHALL, ESQUIRE certifies that:
1. A Notice of Intent to Serve the Subpoena(s) with a copy of
the subpoena(s) attached thereto was mailed or delivered to
each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which
the subpoena(s) is sought to be served,
2. A copy of the Notice of Intent, including the proposed
subpoena(s) is attached to this certificate,
3. No objection to the subpoena(s) has been received, and
4. The subpoena(s) which will be served is identical to
the subpoena(s) which is attached to the Notice of Intent
to Serve the Subpoena(s) .
Date: 5/11';98
'tj;
fYr?
. (/
(( ~i, I//r
L i.t1,., ~_)
, '/~.~"
File #: M240494-05, '\ \
~"~(J
FRANCIS E MARSHALL, ESQUIRE
20 S 36TH S'l'
CAMP HIl.L, PA 17011
717-731-4800
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
INQUIRIBS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TOI
MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODOCTIONS, INC.
4940 DISSTON STREET
PHILADELPHIA PA 19135
(215) 335-3590
By: Margaret Basiura
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
GORDON
Vs.
CARLISLE HOSP, ET AL
No. CV971B79
TO: PATRICK LAUER JR, ESQ
EVAN BLACK, ESQ
GIU\NT FIJEMING, ESQ
WALTER FOULKROD, ESQ
NOTICE 011 INTENT TO SERVE A SUIWOENA 1'0 I'RODUCE
DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY I'UltSUANT 1'0 RULE 4009.21
DEFENDANT intends to serve a subpoena(s) identical to
the one(s) 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 no objection is
made the subpoena may be served.
Date: 4/20/98 FRANCIS E MARSHALL, ESQUIRE
20 S 36TH ST
CAMP HILL, PA 17011
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
INQUIRIES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TOI
MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS, INC.
4940 DISS~ON STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19135
(215) 335-3590
By: Margaret Basiura
Enc(s) : Copy of subpoena(s)
Counsel return card
File #: M240494
"
. .
~,', ,
;'-::-,.:-"11>'
--,
'~:r I,
l.XMOlWEAI/l1I OF l'l'N'lSYLV/lNIA
roJN'l"{ OF aJMllrnL/IND
CV 971B79
f
~..
, ,
GORDON
VS.
CARLISLE HOSP/ E'!' AL
File No.
I"
" l
., 1 ,,;
1''"'1
Ii'
;1
'r
~i
J
1,'1' "
I'
," (
i
"
j:
,
,
,
I
I
SlJ8POF.NA TO PROOU::E DOa..M:NTS OR TH I ~
FOR OISCXlVERY ~T TO R!.!!.E 4009.22
BELVEDERE MED CTR
TOIC/O DR HAROLD KRE'l'~_ING
(NlIlle of P~t'son or Entity)-'---
Within twenty (20) days after aervice of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court t
produce the following docunentR or thingsl
, , Se-E-M''l'AGHIW-ACPJj;ND~-
MEDICAL LEGAl. R~l'RUUUV!' wN5 INC 4!r1t{} DISO'l'6N-!:'l' PHILA P!. 191 ~"
at
(Address)
You may deliver or mail legible copies of the ~ments or produce things requested!
this subpoena, together with the certificate of o::rrpliance, tothepartymakingth
request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advwlce the reasonab
cost of preoaring the copies or producing the things sought.
I f you fai 1 to produce the docunents or things required by this subpoena within twenl
(20) d4YS after its serv1ce, the party serving this subpoena may seek a Court ord,
o::rrpelling you to carply with it.
NA/'E :
THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REGU:ST OF THE FOLL<N/ING PERSOIl:
FRANCIS MARSHALL JR, ESQ
ADORESS: 20 !'; ~fi'I'H ST
CAMP HILL PA 17011
l~l:>} 335-3212
TELEPIi:)NE:
27594
StJ'REI1! ~T 10 ~l!:NDAN'f .
ATTORNEY FOR:
" ,
DATE:
~...:JI /., Lift] f'
al of the Court
BY THE ~T:
(l/p~~t~~&~'k tc~vi'I'OiViS ion
~U- C- ~
, ,
Deputy
'i'
(Eff. 1/97:
j>!
"
OJIoM.lNWEI\LTH Of' PaJNSYLVl\NIA
o:xJNl'Y OF CUMBE1UJ\ND
CV 971879
GORDON
VS.
CARLISLE HOSP, ET AL
Fi Ie No.
DR RICHARD DITLOW
TOI
SUBPOENA TO PROOl.l::l:: lXXUEm-S OR TH I NClS
EQB DIS(X)VERLE...URSUANT TO FlULE 4009.22
(NlIrT1e of Pet'son eij::'Ent ity)
Within twenty (20) days aftar service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court t(
produce the following docunentn 01' things:
~ AnDEtlillJM:!
..'un"'L"'~ '''G '9 '0 C'SSmO" "'" PHTT.l\ PA 19135
--m;,U1CI\L (,,,,GAL Rl!:!'ROBl:k.'.-~ " . .". _
at
( Address)
You may deliver or mail legible COpies of the docunents or produce ~hing(l requested h
this subpoena, together with the certificate of carplill11ce, to the party making thi
request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the rea~onabl
cost of nreoaring the COpies or producing the things sought.
If you fail to p,'educe the docunents or things required by this subpoena within t....cnt
(20) days after its servke, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court orde
corpelling you to CQl'1Jly with it.
THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOlLo.'ilNG PERSON:
FRANCIS MARSHALL JR, ESQ
NAI'E :
AOOAESS:21L-S_.36TH ST
CAMP HILL PA 17011
(215) 33:> J21~
TELEPf1ONE:
27594
5U>REt'E ~T 10 BSFEl!lOAN'l'
ATTORNEY FOR:
DATE: ~;I /5 /1<;f
cal of the Court
BY nE ~T:
en t:i.-l .,e :1:-. - /."
prothonot~~vision
Ch", a hu.jJt?~
Deputy
(Eff. 1/97)
I .
ADDENDUM TO SUBPOENA
GORDON
Va.
CN~LISLE HOSP, ET AL
No. CV971879
CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FORI DR RICHARD D1TLOW
ANY AND ALL OFFICE RECORDS, INCLUDING NOTES, CORRESPONDENCE,
MEMORANDA, X-RAY REPORTS, HIS'rORY NOTES, INDEX CARDS AND ANY OTHER
INFORMATION RELATING TO ANY EXAMINATION OR TRJ;:ATMENT RENDERED TO:
NAME: PA'!'RICIA S GORDON
ADDRESS: 426 SHIPPENSBURG RD NEWVILLE PA
DATE OF BIRTH: 11/23/47
SSAN: 535345906
ALL RECORDS, NOTES, MEMORANDA, ETC.
CERTIFIED PHOTOCOPIES OF THE RECORDS WILL BE
ACCEPTED IN LIEU OF YOUR PERSONAL APPEARANCE.
County of: CUMBERLAND
MLR File #: M240494-05
CER'l'IFICA'!'E 01" SER~
I HEREBY CER'l'II"Y that a true and correct copy of the
fOI'egoing Praecipe has been served this IP'" day of
~j,1.1 , 1998, by first class mall, postage prepaid,
(J
upon:
Patrick F. Lauer, Jr., Esquire
2108 Market Street
Aztec Building
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Robin J. Marzella, Esquire
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Walter S. Foulkrod, Esquire
Suite 35
2215 Forest Hills Drive
P.O. Box 6600
Harrisburg, PA 17112"0600
April Chamberlain, EsqUire
811 University Drive
State College, PA 16801-6699
BARL~Y, SNYDERL~NFT & COHEN, LLC
" / d
... (, IJ.*; {
/'1".(0#, I -' ~
Kendra D. McGuire, Esquire
Attorneys for Defendant
Carlisle Hospital
By:
126 East King Street
Lancaster, PA 17602-2832
(717) 299-5201
Court 1.0. No. 50919
PATRICIA S. GORDON and
ROBERT GORDON, Hcr Husband,
Plaintiffs
IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS or
CUMBERLAND COUN'IY, PENNSYLVANIA
vs.
NO, 97.1879 Civil Tcrm
CIVIL ACTION. LAW
i
!
I
WILLIAM P. GRAHAM, Ill, M,D.,
AESTHETIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE
SURGEIW or CENTRAL PA, P.C.,
HERBERT C. PERLMAN, M.D.,
CARLISLE HOSPITAL.
Dcfcndants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE
Kindly withdraw thc appcarancc of thc undcrslgned as counsel for Dcfendant Carlislc
Hospital in the above. captioned matter.
Respectfully submitted.
-~
~
MARS~l, SMITH ll.t DICK, p.e.
t:Y /// l//Zz-
Francis E. ors I, Jr.
Attorne !.D.o.: 27594
/
20 Sou h 36th Street
Camp Hill. PA 17011
(717) 731.4800
Attorney for Defendant Carlisle Hospital
Dated: July 8, 1998
.
1)7-661l4 CIVIL TERM
dclcndunt Curllslc Ilospitulund dclcndunt Curlislc IlIluging AssodulCS. 1',('. Accllrding lothc
pluinlilr, thc nUlllcd dclcndunts lidled to propcrly idcntify und locullzc lhc uhnornHllity.
Thc lissuc spccllllcns Ihlllllhc hlopsy wcrc thcn scnt10 thc pulhology dcpurllllcnt of
dclcudunt Curllslc Ilospitul whcrc thcy wcrc intcrprctcd hy dclcndunt Cristund/or thc ugcnts.
uppurcntugcnts. scrvunts, und/llr cmployccs of delcndull! Curlislc Ilospltul. It is ullcgcd thut
dclcndunt Cristlilllcd to propcrly cxulllinc thc tissuc spcclmcns und rcporlcd tlHllthcrc wus no
cvidcncc of mulignaucy Inthc tissuc spcclmcns.
Thc pluintlff continucd to lilllow-up wilh dclcndant Acsthctic & Rcconstructive Surgcry
ofCcntrulPcnnsylvuniu. P.c" hccausc ofprohlcms shc was continuing tll cxpcricncc. Over the
coursc oflhc ncxt ycur uud a hult: no addilional diagnostic studies wcrc rcclllllmcndcd. ordcrcd.
or pcrformcd.und lhc pluintiffwus ussurcd rcpcatcdly that shc did not huve hrcasl canccr.
In JUlllmry of 11)96, thc plaintiffwas diugnoscd with Stuge IIIB brcust cunccr, (nthc
liJllowing lbrcc months. thc plaintiffundcrwcnt chcmothcrupy und alell totulmastcetomy. The
plaintiff continucs to recclvc chclllotherupy daily in anUll.Clllpt to prevcll! rccurrcncc.
Plainti fl:~ J1lcd their compluinl on April I. 11)1)1l, Thercullcr. dclcndanls Thompsonund
Aesthctic & Rcconstructive Surgcry ol'CcntraIPennsylvaniu. P.C. lilcd preliminary objcctions
to the compluint.
LD!ili:mlallt's Motion lilr More Spccllic Pleu~~
Dclcndant's Thompsollund Acsthctic & Reconstructivc Surgery ofCcnlraIPA.P,C'"
movc to huve plllintiff plcad morc spccilicully thc matcriullilcts tbut give risc to thc pllliutill's
2
j>- <')
)"'
a't~ '" I
'0.
e'" &
I./{.' I .r'
l ". )
FI'" ::1,;
J...:, I
il}I' ,:1,. ,l '. ~ 'j
"1 1,'.1
(!W 1,"-) I.,l
Ie.
U~''-J i r.' ;'.~ .,."i
'I~'; f.l.. I'I()
b ~" ~,!'L
(j' ,'-
.:1
, , (..)
-.
2, ObJection. To the extelll this Interrogiltory seeks facts Imown 01'
Opl1110ns held by experts retained fill' the purposes of IItlgatloll but not Identll1ed as
trial witnesses, It exceeds the scope of permissible discovery under Pa. R,C,P, 400:1,5,
This Interrogatory exceeds the permissible scope of expert discovery under Pa. R,C,I'.
4003,5, See Harrison v. Hershey Mc'dic'llJSnter. 107 lJauph, 43(, (1987), I'lallltll1s
hnve not yet determined whom they will GIll as expert witnesses at trial. Upon
completion of discovery, when such a designation Is nwdc, I'lalntll1s will se,lsonahly
supplement their response In compliance with the requlremellts of 1',1. R,CI', 4003.5,
By way of further response without waiving said obJections, Dr. Wlsecolver.
3, ObJection. To the extelll this Interrogatory seeks fitets Imown 01'
opinions held by expel'ls retained for the purposes of litigation but not Idellllfied as
trial witnesses. It exceeds the scope of permissible discovery under I'a. R,CP, 400:1.5.
This Interrogatory exceeds the permissible scope of expert discovery under I'a, R,C.P,
4003.5, See Harrison v. Hershev Medical CJ:llliJ:, 107 Dauph, 436 (1987), Plaintiffs
have not yet determined whom they will call as expert wltl1esses at trial. Upon
completion of discovery, when such a designation Is made, Plnintlffs will se,lsonobly
supplement their response in compliance with the requirements of Pa, R,CP, 4003,5,
By way of further response without waiving said obJections. no reports or WI'llten
documentation was produced,
4, ObJection, To the extent this lnterrog,ltory seel(s titets known or
opiniQns held by experts retained for the purposes of litigation but not identified as
trial witnesses, it exceeds the scope of permissible discovery under Pa, R,C.P. 4003,5,
This Interrogatory exceeds the permissible scope of expert discovery under Pa, R,CP,
4003.5. See tlarrison v, Hershey Medical Center, 107 Dauph, 436 (1987). Plaintiffs
have not yet determined whom they will call as expert witnesses at trial. Upon
completion of discovery. when such a designation is made. Plaintiffs will seasonably
supplement their response in compliance with the requirements of Pa. R,CP, 4003.5,
By way of further response without waiving said objections, at this time. Plaintiff docs
not intend to produce any reports regarding the DNA testing at the time of trial.
5-7. Objection, To the extent this Interrogatory seel(s facts known or
opinions held by experts retained for the purposes of litigation but not identified as
trial witnesses, it exceeds the scope of permissible discovery under Pa. R,CP, 4003.5.
This Interrogatory exceeds the permissible scope of expert discovelY under Pa, R,CP,
4003,5. See Harrison v. Hershev Medical Center, 107 Dauph. 436 (1987). Plaintiffs
have not yet determined whom they will call as expert witnesses at trial. Upon
completion of discovery, when such a designation is made, Plaintills will seasonably
supplement their response in compliance with the requirements of Pa. R.CP, 4003.5,
2
,-. '~l
!':, ..
L.
I
'J "
I ,
I'. ',"
I , , ,
(;),1
, , "
f . (.~ I
,
II. -
,
'.
,. !'\ 1
C:J I., )
I '
MCQU'\IlH; BLASIW
A T T l) R N E \' S " T 1. A W
611 U"lvmUy Dllv., SI"I. ColI.y', I'.nnijylvunln 1l\61)/ .M,')')
21\01 Murk.II'I"., SuU.12U.llunl,bury, 1'.nn'yll'n'/luI7111)
61.1.2.16..1')2(, FAX 61".2.14.5(,21/
717.1>51.')64" FAX 717.(,51.')646
www.lm:quuid.:blulIko. &:UII1
-Reply to Stute College Oll1ce
Nowmber 11, 1999
Robin J. Murzellu, Esq.
R,J. Mnrzellu & Associates, P.C.
3S 13 North Front Street
Hurrisburg, PA 17110
In Re: Gordon v. Gruhum, el ul.
No. 97-1879
Dear Ms. Marzella:
Enclosed is our NOlice of lntenllo Serve Subpocnus ulong with copies of the subpoenus
to be f1Ied. If you have any questions regarding this Informution, please feellree to cull me.
Very lruly yours,
McQUAIDE BLASKO
6-, S2~~
Kuy Elliott ZQle~, M.S.
RN.Senior Parulegul
By:
:kez
Enclosures
celEne:
Evan Black, Esq.
S. Wallcr Foulkrod, Esq.
Kendra S, McGuirc, Esq.
l\-kQll,\IIU:, UI.,\SI\O, Sfll\\,\lnt., FI.f:.'II:\Ci ,,'It FAlll...."'F:Il, INt',
Jl~)" W IIIn..~<) Th'MMill1! S~h""a1l1 <1r~nlll Hrlllinw It Mlllk hlll~!lfr ()u",j PI! Wmtl Sl~\fll S Il\l1\!!1 J.lIlln /II IIlll'lf Wr'I,lrU 1/ ("'Ut1r"~ llul1')'llt SlImnk M~r. Rlllhlltf DMillll "Iilhl
Palll J r'Mnuuk jQnlll. C (j(ltlmnJi MUllr.rn II Ci~II\l~hfr 1,,1In ^ Sn)Jrr IIproll' SU111"tlll IIlIflll' Nrfly (ho,IeII'I~M'Uhl, III I(ulhril,"V Oliwrr KAthrrinr M Allrn
Wayn.l. Mnl',r)', Jr P.ullrlu" flue\! "'h~hrllr S K,1I1 "l~h~l.j I( 11I,n ~I~llr lJII~wnrr P,IIIIII"" Alhlry 1lrl11rt Kr.llli~h ('h,na l. Glrnn,llIu1 SlUnl R Tlflr.
'"hll (j 1.'"1 n~'l.l.I%111 II..>, Wllkl""'II, Jr 1I'II~, 1'"j.~1 In'ihl,t I /ltd)uAI,k 11'III\,I'N1)
AESTIlETIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE
SURGERY, ET AL.
j' " f.'" I~..', 'r.\ '
( , .' '" ~"., ,/,~ "il",,\.~"t ,:C' ,,' ,.,
. t., : ~ I. I' j,; l. ' " ... I. '
: " ,_ -,','i . t.,.. ,- ,
COMMONWEAL TII OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND . ;.
, :l.,;, \flt",;'1't~.., '-"h \. \ tt t d
") ,.1,,~ ".' ..1, ~ . - "\
PATRICIA S. GORDON Wld : . "I'-\~, .~.,. ~ :;, ..
ROBERT GORDON, her husbWld, ; . "~.:""'!"" "" '''''.~''.,
, ,~'/~~'~'Fl1e No: 97-1879; i':" :'
Plnlntil11s . "I ' .,\ 'e", ' "'" ' ...' '.
,. - ~1 I r, . '. , ,~..,,' ~ ,
.: ' ; 'J.~. , ... ' I . .'. . ~" ,~
~ 1-,'1:'-,.',' \,,_', '"'. I". ",:".,
.. ",:,1,,, ....... " .' '''i',Ii'"
:. ~(...l1.' ' , i . -I, ::' '1', ,
- .I~ I, :',.1 r' l II
1>. I .,' .. .'
. ,",., ' , ,', ~. . --II "
..' '" '..,.
:. ,\, h '"
.
: ,~"" >'f,.......<..' r-"-'~n. 'e:
J -, , . "'\\' .... ',~'.,'
". "-'~Jj .1',
, ,..',~, ,'t ". ".i - J~AiV;'
. . ,~ ' -,.;.,'
"
, ," .
,,) ,',.
.
'--,
~ t'.'~,
,.
"
VB.
", \ '~)\ L
DefendWlts
SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THING~
EQJ.l. IlISCOVERY PURSUANT TO J{ULE 4009.U
.; ~
. ,.
TO: Dr. Leon Sweer
, I,ll"",'!'"
,
. , .' ,
.:.
'.,'
Within twenty (20) days after servlcc of this subpoena, you arc ordered by dlc court to produce thc following
docunlcnts or things: ANY AND ALL MEDICAL RECORDS PERTAINING TO PATRICIA S. GORDON
(SS# SJS-S4-S9061INCLUDlNG BUT NOT LIMITED TO PATIENT INFORMATION FORMS, PROGRESS
NOTES, DIAGNOSTIC STUDIES, OUTSIDE RECORDS, MEMOS, NOTES, CORRESPONDENCE, ETC.
at MCQUAIDE BLASKO LAW OFFICES, 811 UNIVERSITY DR., STATE COLLEGE, PA 1680 I
YOIl may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things by this subpoenll,
together with the certificate of com~IiWlce, to the party making this request at the address listed
above. You havc the ~isht to seek, In advWlce, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or
producing the things sought. .,
,I,,;'.
"V .. """,,-,"-" ',. .
If you foil to produce the documents or things required by this subpoenll, .....ithin twenty (20) days
after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court ordering compelling you to
comply with it.
TIllS Subpoena WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF TIlE FOLLOWING PERSON:
,.
NAME: April Chamberlain Simpson, Esq.
ADDRESS:
811 University Drive, State College, PA 16801
\
\ .
~
TELEPHONE: 814-238-4926
SUPREME COURT 10#
A TIORNEY FOR: DefendWlts
DATE:
By the Court
Seal Oflhc C~
Prothonotary
"
.'"
..-----=:..
'" i::l '"
I
.. , .-
'. .
, .'
! "
, , !
I I
I , t'""j
l.i ll.l~
I.'"
J j
'--.J )
IN TIlE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ('UMIH~I{J.^NJ) COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LA W
PATRICIA S, GORDON und
ROBERT GORDON, hcr hu~bund,
Plulntil'til
l
)
)
NO, 97-11l7'1 CIVIL TERM
VS,
WILLIAM P. GRAHAM, Ill, M,D" !lnd
AESTHETIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE
SURGERY or CENTRAL PA. P,C"
HERBERT C, PERLMAN, M,O"
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Ocfcndunts
)
)
)
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO
PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR
DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21
Defendants intcnd to scrvc a subpocnu Idcnticulto the one lIuaehed to this notice, You
,
have twenty (20) days frol11 the duted Iistcd bclow In which to file of record und serve upon the
undersigned an objectiollto the subpocnu, Ifno objcction is made thc subpoena may bc served,
Date: ;l.('4.1eo L]~.,A'4.1..~ I~
A ml Chamberlain Simpson
Attorney for Defendants
... Cl ~
b:; c::
~..'.. r"j.,.
1-' ..
1I~~~ .;1 ().)
'-,-t. !..T: f..J;,,:
~Ii;' I;~ (~\;'.j
C ,:, -.~ >"
G( o. '.::"1
~..., I .-I,c-
II,. /-
':--1' '" U~I.t)
1.1.. ~ .~ ~ ,.; '1..
;~. :J.; ~.!:
1/. (."":J -j
(~.j C) .0
"'.-. 17:,) r-
rr:: (,~
-I >~
I..: t~ ") ...
, '1 :~' ~
,
I. . . I .~ 01,
: :; ~ I ".. "'!!',.
c.. '1 ~. i
, ,.) ,0'.'1
"\ ;~.
if ,
c... ~ CI
I., .:.~u..
(.;.; ,.
,. e:) ,J
, .. C.:') ,'J
~ <:'1 ' ~
~ c:
~. III "''j
~ll(\~! '~1;2
", :1:: "').;~
;,..,,;
i~" t ,0- C\~
f'.fo ,",~
.r)',. ,n
j;':". IN :14
1).-"
, C:. : h(iJ
[, :, CJ.. IJ!o..
" ... ~
IJ a
l) CJ
McQUAIDE. BLASKO. SCIlWARTZ,
FLEMING & FAlJLKNER, INC.
~~ ~ ,~~
~mrOll icTgr-;-', rvmr:----- ~
I{N-Scnllll' "lIIul gll
Evunllluek, E~lJ.
POST & SCIIE!.!.
240 Grundvlew Avenue
Sulle 110
ClIll1p 11111. PA 17011
!
,,- ()\, ' .
Lf:: IJ; F:;
j',' .. ~: -j ,.~
" I'
, , :~: '., ~ ;?~
! ~.:.
u. I:,:,,!
'., ):
'" C::t I'll
, ("; -L:-~
I ..,
, "{{ill
1.1.:' -
'"';
I .. -
,
I' N :')
t.,) t:'J 0
'.. -
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Cllf\H\I~RL^N[) COUNTY. I'ENNSYL VANIA
CIVIl. ACTION .l.AW
PATRICIA $, GORDON und
ROBERT GORDON, her hu~bund,
Pluintlffs
)
) NO, '17-IH79 CIVIL TERM
)
)
~
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
VS.
WILLIAM p, GRAHAM. 111, M,D" und
AESTHETIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE
SURGERY OF CENTRAL PA, p,c..
HERBERT C. PERLMAN, M.D"
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendants
NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENAS TO
PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR
D1SCOVEH.Y PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21
Defendunt~ intend to serve ~ubpoenas Identiclllto the ones attuched to this noticc. You
havc twenty (20) days from the dated listed below in which to file of rceord and serve upon the
undersigned an objection to the subpoena~, lfno objection is made the ~ubpoenas may be served.
Date: {PI [O"L
AS OF ~~O ftl.ooItJ
CASE#
HAS BEEN SCANNED.
ALL EARLIER
FILINGS TO THIS
CASE HAVE BEEN
MICROFILMED.
..
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 Carlisle Hospital
ROBERT W. GORDON, Individually and
as Administrator of the Estate of
PATRICIA S. GORDON, deceased,
Plaintiffs
v.
JAMES D. TAGGART, M.D., CARLISLE
IMAGING ASSOCIATES, P.C.,
LAWRENCE K. THOMPSON, M.D.,
AESTHETIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE
SURGERY OF CENTRAL PA, P.C. and
CARLISLE HOSPITAL
Defendants
ROBERT W. GORDON, Individually and
as Administrator of the Estate of
PATRICIA S. GORDON, deceased,
Plaintiffs
v.
AESTHETIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE
SURGERY OF CENTRAL PA, P.C.,
HERBERT C. PERLMAN, M.D. and
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 97-6684
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 97-1879
(Consolidated under No. 97-6684)
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION
449129-1
AND NOW comes Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, by and through their attorneys,
Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, and files this Motion for Status Conference, averring as
follows:
1. Plaintiff initiated this medical malpractice action against Defendant,
Carlisle Hospital by Writ of Summons filed on April 11, 1998. A Complaint was filed on
July 29, 1998 alleging failure to timely diagnose Patricia Gordon's breast cancer
2. There were two actions filed as noted above. The two actions were
consolidated by Order of Court to No. 97-6684 on February 15, 2001.
3. To date, substantial and protracted discovery has taken place.
4. The parties have also exchanged expert reports pursuant to the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and prior Scheduling Orders issued by the
Honorable J. Wesley Oler, Jr.
5. Defendant, Carlisle Hospital requests a Status Conference for the purpose
of expediting the resolution of this matter which has been in litigation since 1998.
6. Defendant, Carlisle Hospital avers that discovery is complete, however,
dates for the filing of dispositive motions, as well as a trial date certain should be set by
the Court at a Status Conference.
7. Counsel for all the parties have busy civil trial schedules in both
Cumberland County and the surrounding counties. Since the case involves complicated
medical issues requiring the testimony of multiple witnesses and experts, a date certain
for trial will assure the availability of not only counsel, but all witnesses, as well.
8. In addition, Plaintiff's counsel has repeatedly represented to defense
counsel that Plaintiff, Robert W. Gordon is often difficult to locate. A trial date certain
will also allow counsel to provide adequate notice to the parties of the trial date.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, respectfully requests that this
Honorable Court grant Defendant, Carlisle Hospital's Motion for Scheduling Conference.
Respectfully submitted,
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP
By: v~aMAttl
Sarah W. Arosell, Esquire
I.D. #58797
P.O. Box 999
305 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999
(717) 255-7231
Attorney for Defendant, Carlisle Hospital
DATE: ',/7/'/'
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Sarah W. Arosell, of the law offices of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, do hereby
certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following
persons via United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, as follows:
Robin J. Marzella, Esquire
R.J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
S. Andrew Foulkrod, Esquire
FOULKROD ELLIS
2010 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
April L. Chamberlain Smith, Esquire
MCQUAIDE BLASKO
811 University Drive
State College, PA 16801-6699
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP
Date: I ofi I~
By:_OlUJ~a4.dt
Sarah W. Arosell, Esquire
"'"
<::::l
c;::)
a"
<=>
c->
~
~
~:n
-of;;
-at?
l=j c.J
1~
S~
'~i>
~
\J:)
-0
::::
f')
\,,0
\.
ROBERT W. GORDON, Individually and
as Administrator of the Estate of
PATRICIA S. GORDON, deceased,
Plaintiffs
v.
JAMES D. TAGGART, M.D., CARLISLE
IMAGING ASSOCIATES, P.C.,
LAWRENCE K. THOMPSON, M.D.,
AESTHETIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE
SURGERY OF CENTRAL PA, P.C. and
CARLISLE HOSPITAL
Defendants
ROBERT W. GORDON, Individually and
as Administrator of the Estate of
PATRICIA S. GORDON, deceased,
Plaintiffs
v.
AESTHETIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE
SURGERY OF CENTRAL PA, P.C.,
HERBERT C. PERLMAN, M.D. and
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendants
AND NOW, this 14 +'1
day of
OCT 2 0 2006
iYli
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 97-6684
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 97-1879 /'
(Consolidated under No. 97-6684)
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION
ORDER
~.
, 2006, upon consideration of the
Motion for Status Conference of Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, and any response thereto, it is
hereby ORDERED that said Motion is GRANTED and a Scheduling Conference is scheduled
for the JL)+h day Of~, 2006 at ~p.m. before the
Honorab,d.J...(, n\ up. in C8."roO," ~.
,~YT ~n cD
'"
,
"...' .-..
ROBERT W. GORDON, Individually
and as Administrator of the
Estate of PATRICIA S. GORDON,
deceased,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JAMES D. TAGGART, M.D, CARLISLE
IMAGING ASSOCIATES, P.C.,
LAWRENCE K. THOMPSON, M.D.,
AESTHETIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE
SURGERY OF CENTRAL PA, P.C. and
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendants NO. 97-6684 CIVIL TERM
***********************************
ROBERT W. GORDON, Individually
and as Administrator of the
Estate of PATRICIA S. GORDON,
deceased,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
Plaintiffs
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
AESTHETIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE
SURGERY OF CENTRAL PA, P.C.,
HERBERT C. PERLMAN, M.D. and
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendants
NO. 97-1879 CIVIL TERM ~
(Consolidated under No. 97-6684)
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 20th day of December, 2006, upon
consideration of the Motion for Status Conference of Defendant,
Carlisle Hospital, and following a status conference in the
chambers of the undersigned judge in which Plaintiffs were
represented by Robin Marzella, Esquire, Defendants James D.
Taggart, M.D., and Carlisle Imaging Associates, P.C., were
represented by Michael C. Mongiello, Esquire, Defendants Lawrence
K. Thompson, M.D., and Aesthetic & Reconstructive Surgery of
Central Pennsylvania, P.C., were represented by April C. Simpson,
Esquire, and Defendant Carlisle Hospital was represented by Sarah
Arosell, Esquire, and pursuant to an agreement of counsel the trial
in this matter shall be held during the Civil Term of court
commencing on April 16, 2007, and the Prothonotary is hereby
directed to list this case for trial during that term.
.'
...., "., ''Z
\."':' ..
j V .J
(\ f."'"
Jlj\lt.
~'-~ -.,
By the Court,
~bin Marzella, Esquire
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110-1438
For the Plaintiffs
vfarah Arosell, Esquire
126 East King Street
Lancaster, PA 17602-2893
For Defendant Carlisle Hospital
~ril C. Simpson, Esquire
600 Centerview Drive, M.C. A560
Hershey, PA 17033
For Defendants Dr. Lawrence
K. Thompson and Aesthetic &
Reconstructive Surgery of Central
Pennsylvania, P.C.
~ichael C. Mongiello, Esquire
2010 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
For Defendants
James D. Taggart, M.D., and
Carlisle Imaging Associates, Inc.
pcb
.
,
.
R. J. MARZELlA & ASSOCIATES, P.c.
BY: Robinj. Marzella, Esquire
rmarzella@rjmarzella.com
Pennsylvania Supreme Court I.D. No. 66857
3513 North Front Street
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110
Telephone: (717) 234-7828
Facsimile: (717) 234-6883
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
Patricia Gordon and
Robert Gordon
PATRICIA S. GORDON and
ROBERT GORDON, her husband,
Civil Action - Law
No.: 97-1879
Medical Professional Liability Action
Plaintiffs
v.
AESTHETIC & RECONSTRUCTIVE
SURGERY OF CENTRAL PA, P.c.,
HERBERT C. PERLMAN, M.D., and
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE ACTION, WITH PREJUDICE, PURSUANT TO Pa. R.C.P 229
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERlAND COUN1Y:
Kindly mark this matter discontinued, with prejudice, pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 229.
Dat.aPe In
r 19, Esquire
tification No. 66856
'\
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Dennis C. Dougherty, hereby certifY that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing document was seIVed upon all counsel of record this 28th day of February
2007 by depositing said copy in United States mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania First-Class
delivery, addressed as follows:
Sarah W. Arosell, Esquire
Thomas, Thomas & Hafer
305 N. Front Street
P.O. Box 999
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999
April Chamberlain Simpson, Esquire
McQUAIDE BLASKO
811 University Drive
State College, PA 16801-6699
Andrew H. Foulkrod, Esquire
FOUlKROD ElUS, P.c.
1800 linglestown Road, Suite 305
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(')
~~.
f"'.;)
=
c.."'?
--'
:;I:
';t1'"
?.::J
I
N
o
-n
~
:1:-n
f11p
-o~,
~;~i
".:;~~~
,.5(:)
.?:.rn
.~~
~1i1o
"'0
:<.
-t'
-"'.
....;.t..
o