HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-04578
" '.
,
' ,
" . .
,
,
" ,
, '"
I , .
" ,
'.
'II
" ,I I'
. .
~ ,. I
I rr,
U I, , /
,
~
" ,
I
,
~ , ,
, ,
I
I " "
~ . I . I
I' . ,
~ "
I ,
~
~
~ , ,
. , .
0 ,
, . I
"
"
,
. I
, I ,
.
"
"l,l
. , " , , , ,
,
. , "
'I ~ i
" , , I,
, ,
" " 'I
, i . ,
\I'l ' I "
. I 1\1
I
" "
, \" 'I
,
I
. , , "
I 'I
, " ' I' "
'I
" I, I,
"II
,
" ,
,
" ,
,
" , , ' , "
. 1,), , I , " . ,
I . /, ), 11 i'
. , , , ,
, I .
" " I'
, , " " , \ !' I :
, . II' , ,,' ' .
" " d . , ,
, , , .'/'
" 'iJ '\ r I,
I
1I',l,I,. , , I' , 1,'
" "'\ , I
\ <1"''''\, "
,I , " , ,
" " , " ~
,r'
]'1, " "I
I . ,
, \ ,
, .'
\, J
'~ '
,'IL I, "l
, .'
"
"
~."
I~.l.
i
,;~l\
I.
,
~~.
",
HECTOR GONZALEZ, t
Plaintiff :
t
V. t
:
THOMAS J. YUGHA, M.D., t
OR'rHOPEDIc INSTITUTE OF' :
PENNSYLVANIA, oRTHOPEDIC :
SURGEONS, LTD., EDWARD DAMORE,:
M.D., HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, :
COMMONWEALTH OF' PENNSYLVANIA t
DEPARTMENT OF' CORRECTIONS, :
STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION:
AT CAMP HILL, NilS NATIONAL t
HEALTH SERVICES, INC. r/d/b/a :
EHG-NATIONAL HEAL'rH SERVICES, t
WILLIAM W. YOUNG, M.D., t
MARTIN L. LASKY, D.O. and t
GARY LENGEL, M.D., t
Defendants :
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA
NO. 97-4578
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
1. Plaintiff, Hector Gonzalez, is an adult individual, who
at all relevant times to this action, was a resident of the State
Correctional Institution at camp Hi 11, Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania.
2. Defendant, Thomas J. Yucha, M.D., (hereinafter Defendant
Yucha) is an adult individual who is licensed to practice medicine
in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and at all relevant times to
this action practiced in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3.
Defendant,
Orthopedic
Institute
of
Pennsylvania,
(hereinafter Defendant Orthopedic Institute) is a fictitious name
registered with the Pennsylvania Corporation Bureau and is an
orthopedic specialty group practice serving patients and conducting
business in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
1
4. Defendant, orthopedic Institute, is a fictitious name for
orthopedic Burgeons, Ltd.
5. orthopedic Surgeons, Ltd. is a professional corporation
registered with the Pennt3ylvania corporation Bureau and is an
orthopedic specialty group practice serving patients al1d conducting
business in Cumberland County, Pennsylvnnia.
6. Defendant, Edward Damore, M.D., (hereafter Defendant
Ddmore) is an adult individual who is licensed to practice medicine
in the Commonwe~lth of Pennsylvania and in the state of California
and at all relevant times to this action practiced in cumberland
county, Pennsylvania.
7. Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, is a
institution with medical facilities and offices
cumberland county, Pennsylvania.
B. At all relevdnt times herein, Defendants Vucha and Damore
acted as agents, apparent agents, servants, employees, members,
and/or partners of Defendants orthopedic Institute, orthopedic
surgeons, Ltd., and Holy spirit Hospital.
9. Defendant Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of
Corrections, (hereinafter Defendant Department of corrections) is
a governmental entity responsible for the operation of
Pennsyl vania's State correctional Institutions, to include the
state Correctional Institution at Camp Hill, and is located in
Cumberland county, Pennsylvania.
corporate
located in
2
10. Defendant, state Correctional Institution at Camp Hill,
(hereinafter Defendant SCIC) is a Pennsylvania state correotional
Faoility in cumberland County, Pennsylvania, which at all relovant
times to this nction, W(tH responsible for the incnrceration and
medicnl needs of Plaintiff, /lector Gonz1\lez.
11. Defcndnnt, NilS National /lealth Servioes, Ino.,
(hereinafter Defendant NIlS/EHG) formerly doinCJ business as
EHG-National Health Services, is a corporation registered with the
New York Bureau of Corporations and Pennsylvania Department of
state, and at 1111 relevant times herein contracted for and was
retained by Defendants Department of Corrections and SCIC to
provide health care services to the inmates at Defendant SCIC.
12. At all relevant times herein, Defendants Vucha,
Orthopedic Institute, and Orthopedic Surgeons, Ltd. acted as
agents, apparent agents, servants, employees, members, and/or
partners of Defendants NHS/EHG, Department of corrections, and/or
SCIC.
13. At all relevant times herein, Defendant NHS/EHG was a
corporation retained by Defendants SCIC and Department of
corrections as an independent contractor to provide health care
services to the inmates of Defendant SCIC.
14. Defendant, Gary Lengel, M.D., (hereinafter Defendant
Lengel), is an adult individual licensed to practice medicine in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and at all relevant times to this
action practiced in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3
15. Defendant, William W. Young, M.D., (hereinafter Defendant
Voung), is an adult individual licensed to praotice medioine in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and at all relevant times to this
action practiced in cumberlMld county, I'ennsylv,lnia.
16. Defendant, Martin L. Lasky, D.o., (hereinatter Defendant
Lasky) is an adult individuol licensed to practice medicine in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvonio and at all relevant times to this
action practiced in Cumberland County, Pennsylvanio.
17. At all relevant times herein, Defendants Lengel, Young,
and Lasky, and all medical personnel, nurses, physicians,
physicians' assistants, and staff who provided medical ca~e to the
Plaintiff at Defendant scrc, were agents, apparent agents,
servants, emplf,lyees, or members of Defendant NHS/EHG and were
acting within the scope of their employment.
lB. At all relevant times herein, Defendants Vucha,
orthopedic Institute. Orthopedic Surgeons, Ltd., Lengel, Voung, and
Lasky, and all medical personnel, nurses, physicians, physicians'
assistants, and staff who provided medical care to Plaintiff at
Defendant SCIC as part of t.he services provided by Defendant
NHS/EHG, were acting under the authority of Defendants SCIC and the
Department of Corrections.
19. At all relevant times herein, Defendants Vucha,
orthopedic Institute, orthopedic Surgeons, Ltd., and Damore, and
all medical personnel, nurses, physicians, physicians' assistants,
4
and staff of Defendant Holy spirit Hospital who provided care to
Plaintiff, Hector Gon~alez, were acting within tho scope of their
employment with Defendant Holy spirit Hospital.
20. At all relevant times herein, all medical personnel,
nurses, physicians, physicians' assistants, and/or corrections
staff who were responsible for Plaintiff's health care needs as
part of the services provided by Defendants, SCIC and thp.
Department of Corrections were acting as agents, apparent agents,
servants, employees, and/or partners of Defendants, SCIC and/or the
Department of Corrections.
21. All Commonwealth Defendants have been placed on notice C)f
this claim in a timely fashion by virtue of letters dated
October 9, 1996.
22. On or about May 28, 1995, Plaintiff fell out of his upper
bunk and injured his right knee and ankle.
23. On or about May 30, 1995, Plaintiff was seen by an agent
of Defendant NHS/ EHG, Greg Didaleusky, Pa-c, an EHG physician
assistant.
24. At all relevant times herein, Greg Didaleusky, Pa-C,
acted as an agent, apparent agent, servant, employee, member,
and/or partner of Defendant NHS/EHG and was acting within the scope
of this employment.
25. This NHS/EHG physician assistant ordered an x-ray of
Plaintiff's right knee.
26. This x-ray of Plaintiff's right knee find patella wafl
reported as showing prepatellar soft tissue swelling.
5
27. On or about Juno 20, 1995, Pl~intirf again complained of
his right knee to an agent, apparent agent, employee, servant,
member, and/or partner of Defendant NHB/EHG, physician assistant
Colleen NeWfield, Pu-c.
2B. Physician assistant Newfield concluded Plaintiff had a
right knee sprain.
29. On or about July 3, 1995, Plaintiff again complained of
right knee problems to the staff of Defendant NHS/EHG. This time,
physician assistant Didaleusky concluded that Plaintiff had a
possible torn medial meniscus of his right knee and referred him to
the SCIC orthopedic Clinic.
30. On or about July 14, 1995, Plaintiff again presented on
sick line complaining of right knee pain.
31. At this time, Defendant NHS/EHG's agent, concluded that
Plaintiff had a possible torn medial meniscus and ordered that
Plaintiff be placed on a bottom tier and in a bottom bunk.
32. On or about July 26, 1995, Plaintiff was evaluated in the
SCIC orthopedic Clinic by Defendant Vucha.
33. Defendant Vucha diagnosed torn medial meniscus of
Plaintiff's right knee and scheduled him for arthroscopic surgery
at Holy spirit Hospital.
34. On or about September 1, 1995, Plaintiff was admitted as
an outpatient to Defendant Holy spirit Hospital by Defendant Vucha
with the preoperativE! dIagnosis of internal derangement of the
right knee.
6
35. On September 1, 1995, Defendant
Defendant Damore, performed a subtotal
menisoeotomy on Plaintiff's right knee.
3G. According to the oporative report dictnted by Defendant
Vucha, Plaintiff's .lnter<ll moniscus tenr was incised using the
Basket forceps. In addition, a tear in the under surface of
Plaintiff/s medial meniscus was thoroughly probed from posterior to
anterior.
Vucha, assisted by
endoscopio latera 1
37. Postoperatively, Plaintiff went to Defendant Holy Spirit
Hospital's recovery room and then was discharged to the infirmary
at Defendant SCIC.
3a. Plaintiff was discharged from Defendant SCIC's infirmary
to hi~ block on September 3, 1995.
39. On or about September G, 1995, Plaintiff had his first
post-operative visit with Defendant Yucha. Defendant Vucha
discontinued Plaintiff's medical lay-in and crutches.
40. On or about September 20, 1995, Defendant Vucha saw
Plaintiff and reported that Plaintiff had difficulty picking his
right foot up and bending his right knee, "almost like he has a
peroneal nerve that is out."
41. Upon realizing that Plaintiff might have a peroneal nerve
injury, Defendant Vucha mere ly prescr ibed range of motion and
strengthening ~xercises and ordered a follow-up in two weeks.
42. F'or Borne reason, the October 4, 1995, SCIC Orthopedic
Clinic was cancelled and Plaintiff was not re-evaluated as ordered
on September 20, 1995.
7
43. on or about October 17, 1995, Defendant Vucha recorded
that Plaintiff needed to have his eKercises that were ordered but
which he had not received yet.
44. Additionally, Defendant Vucha reported that Plaintiff
still had some problems with the peroneal nerve and that he does
have drop foot. He reported that Plaintiff could not walk on his
heels and that he would like to see Plaintiff back in two weeks.
45. Moreover, Defendant Vucha reported that if Plaintiff's
symptoms persisted, he would consider an EMG and nerve conduction
study of the peroneal nerve at that time.
46. On or about November 1, 1995, Defendant Vucha reported
that Plaintiff still had the problems with the right drop foot and
weakness. With this in mind, Defendant Vucha ordered an EMG and
nerve conduction study of Plaintiff's peroneal nerve.
47. On or about November 2, 1995, Defendant Lasky ordered an
EMG/NCS of Plaintiff's right peroneal nerve.
4B. Approximately, nineteen days later Plaintiff underwent an
EMG and nerve conduction study.
49. The nerve conduction study revealed temporal dispersion
of Plaintiff's right peroneal ~,AP and relative slowing of peroneal
nerve conduction across the right fibular head. It concluded that
these findings were consistent with peroneal neuropathy at
Plaintiff's right fibular head.
50. On or about November 21, 1995, agents, apparent agents,
servants, members, employees, and/or partners of Defendant NHS/EHG,
B
to include DefendLlnt LLlJ3ky, reviewed Plaint!rf's EMO/NC6 results
LInd ordered a follow-up with Dr. Yucho.
51. on or nbout Novombor 29, 1995, Defendnnt Yuchn reported
the Llcknowledqment thLlt the EMG showod some peronea 1 net've
involvement at the oren of the fibular hend. He nlso noted thnt he
expected this td improve and scheduled LI follow-up in four weeks.
52. On or about November 30, 1995, Defendant LLlsky ordered a
follow-up of plaintiff's right knee LInd ankl~ at the SCIC
orthopedic Clinic on December 27, 1995.
53. On or about December 27, 1995, Defendant Vucha r~ported
that he felt Plaintiff's peroneal nerve WLlS coming back even though
Plaintiff still dragged his right. foot. At this time, he again
pr'escribed the exercises and additionally he notified the NHS/EHG
and SCIC medical staff that Plaintiff needed a molded ankle foot
orthosis (MAFO).
54. On or about December 27, 1995, Defendant Lasky wrote that
Plaintiff was to return to the orthopedic Clinic for evaluation
after he received his MAF'O brace.
55. On or about January 14, 1996, Plaintiff was transported
to the SCIC dispensary in a wheelchair because he had fallen down.
It was reported that Plaintiff claimed he could not move his right
leg or pick up his right foot. "It's like it's dead, it's been
this way since I had the knee surgery."
56. Additionally, it was reported that Plaintiff claimed that
he has been unable to fully extend his right leg without difficulty
9
status post his arthr~scopia knee surgery for torn medial meniscus
on Septomber 1, 1995.
57. On or about Jonuary 14, 1996, on NHS/ EHG physician
assistant, R.W. Jones, Po-C, ordered crutches, medical lay-in and
ordered an ace wrap and ice bag to PIa inti ff' s right knae. In
addition, he ordered a follow-up in two days.
58. on or about January 16, 1996, Defendant Lengel
discontinued Plaintiff'6 crutches and continued the medical lay-in
until Plaintiff. had a follow-up with the SCIC orthopedic Clinic.
59. On or about January 24, 1996, Defendant Vucha reported
that Plaintiff had still not received his MAF'O brace which had been
ordered approximately one month earlier.
60. Additionally, Defendant Vucho reported that Plaintiff
fell the other day because he tripped over his foot and that he
thought this was another indication that Plaintiff needed a molded
ankle foot orthosis.
61. Defendant Vucha aga in notif ied the NHS/ EHG and SCIC
medical staff that Plaintiff needed the MAF'O brace as ordered and
that he would see him back in the SCIC orthopedic Clinic once
Plaintiff got the MAfO broce.
62. On or about January 29, 1996, Plaintiff was measured for
his ordered right MAfO brace.
63. On or about F'ebruary 20, 1996, Plaintiff received his
MAF'O brace.
64. On or about F'ebruary 21, 1996, Defendant Vucha diagnosed
Plaintiff with right pcroncal nerve palsy. He wrote that the MAFd
10
brace was rUbbing and ordered Plaintiff to have the brace adjusted
by the brace providdr.
65. On or about March 13, 1996, Plaintiff reoeived back his
righc MAFO brace.
66. On or about March 20, 1996, Defendant Vucha again
diagnosed Plaintiff with right peroneal nervo palsy and also
reported that Plaintiff was having some weakness of the quadriceps
and again told Plaintiff to do his leg strengthening exercises.
67. On or aloout May 15, 1996, Plaintiff complained to
Defendant Young about his right foot and leg problems.
6B. Additionally, on or about May 15, 19~6, Def.endant Vucha
agaIn diagnosed Plaintiff with right peroneal nerve palsy and
):eported that Plaintiff continued to have some weakness in his
right leg but that he was wear ing his brace.
He again just
recommended exercises.
69. To date, Plaintiff's right drop foot and right leg
atrophy have only increased and he now transports himself via
wheelchair. Plaintiff is forty-seven years old and is presently
eligible for release to a half-way house in the Pittsburgh area.
COUNT I
Heotor Gonzalez v. Thomas J. Vucha. M.D.. Orthopedic
~stitute of Pennsvlvania. and ort~dic Suraeons. Ltd.
70. Paragraphs one through sixty-nine of this Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length.
11
71. plIIintift, lIector Gonzalez, reasonably relied upon
Defendants appllrent expertise IInd apparent competence in diagnosing
and treating right knee injuries.
72. At 1111 rolevant times herein, Defendnnt VuchB and all
agents, apparent agents, servants, members, partners, ond/or
employees of Defendants Vuchn, orthopedic Institute, and orthopedic
surgeons, Ltd., were acting within the scope of their employment.
73. Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for the injuries
and damages alleged herein which were directly and proximately
caused by their negligence and/or gross negligence in:
a. failing to attend to the immodiate and serious
medical/surgical needs of Plaintiff;
b. injuring Plaintiff'S right peroneal nerve during the
subtotal endoscopic Internl meniscectomy;
c. failing to order, follow-up, monitor, or otherwise
respond to Plaintiff's repented complaints of his right drop
foot and right muscle atrophy;
d. failing to properly evaluate, diagnose, monitor, and
treat Mr. Gonzalez for his right peroneal nerve injury;
e. failing to order, recommend, or perform surgery to
address Plaintiff's right peronoal nerve injury;
f. failing to order, recommend, or even consider
referral to another physician to address Plaintiff's right
peroneal nerve injury;
12
9. failing to insure that Plaintiff reoeived his MAFO
braoe within a reasonable time after Buftering his right
peroneal nerve injury!
h. failing to order an immediate consultation with a
specialist better able to evaluate Mr. Gon7.alez's peroneal
nerve complaints!
1. failing to order, perform, or even consider any
diagnostic testing to determine and evaluate Mr. Gonzalez's
right peroneal nerve injury!
j. failing to appreciate the significance of the
symptoms Mr. Gonzale7. was experiencing in connoction with his
right peroneal nerve injury and right leg atrophy!
k. inappropriately ordering, reorderJ.ng, and reordering
range of motion exorcises and strengthening exercises to
Mr. Gonzalez when, in fact, Defendants knew or should have
known of Mr. Gonzale7.'s need for immediate and interventional
treatment and monitoring because of the severity of his right
peroneal nerve injury;
1. failing to act on the results of the EMG/Nerve
conduction studies in a timely fashion when, in fact,
Defendants knew or should have known that Mr. Gonzalez had II
severe right peroneal nerve inJury;
m. failing to order an immediate consultation or
referral to a specialist in nerve injuries, even after the
results of the EMG/Nerve conduction studies confirmed the
severity of Mr. Gonzalez's right peroneal nerve injury;
13
n. failing to order, refer, or even recommend an
immediate nerve graft or nerve-sparing surgery, even after the
results of the EMG/Norve conduction studies were known and
Plaintiff's symptoms continued to worson due to his right
peron~al nerve injury;
o. failing to appreciate the significance of Mr.
Gonzalez's complaints of right foot drop and right leg
musoular atrophy and inability to properly walk and lift his
right lower extremity;
p. failing to timoly diagnose Mr. Gonzalez's right
peronoal nerve injury;
q. surgically causing Mr. Gonzalez's right peroneal
nerve injury and/or positioning him in such a fashion as to
stretch and thereby injured the nerve;
r. failing to treat Mr. Gonzalez's right peroneal nerve
injury; and
s. failing to even consider the possibility that
Mr. Gonzalez'S complaints and the results of his EMG/Nerve
conduotion studies demonstrated a condition necessitating
immediate further diagnostic testing, fOllOW-UP, surgical
treatment, and/or referrals to specialists for prompt
evaluation and/or performance of nerve drafting and/or
nerve-sparing surgeries.
74. These Defendants are jointly and severally liable to
Plaintiff for the damages set forth below.
14
75. As a diract and proximate result of Defendants'
negligence, Plaintiff suffereJ a right peroneal nerve injury when
no such injury should have occurred during this type of knee
arthroscopic surgery, and a claim is made therefor.
76. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants'
negligence, plaintiff's right peroneal nerv~ injury was not
diagnosed timely and treated at a point when plaintiff could have
had a better prognosis or perhaps would not have suffered any loss
of use of his right lower extremity at all, and a claim is made
therefor.
77. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants'
negligence, Mr. Gonzalez has incurred and will in the future incur
medical and surgical bills, and a claim is made therefor.
7B. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants'
negligence, Mr. Gonzalez has sustained a permanent impairment of
his earning power and earning capacity, and a claim is made
therefor.
79. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants'
negligence, Mr. Gonzalez has unrlergone and in the future will
undergo great mental and physical pain and suffering, great
inconvenience, and a loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, and a
claim is made therefor.
BO. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants'
negligence, Mr. Gonzalez will be forced to undergo and incur
liability for further medical treatment, medicines,
15
.' ..
hoepitalizationM, surgeries, and similar expenses in an attempt to
use his right lower extremity, and a claim is made therefor.
B1. As a direct and proximate result of Defendnnts'
negligence in injuring Plaintlff's right peroneal norve, Plaintiff
has been requ ired to undergo surq ical procedures and further
medical treatmont that would have otherwise boen unnecessary and in
connection with these procodures he has suf fered extreme pain,
SUffering, mental anguish and permanent scarring, disability, and
limitation which would have otherwise not have been necessary, and
a claim is made therefor.
B2. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants'
negligence, Mr. Gonzalez has been and in the future will be subject
to great humiliation, disfigurement, embarrassment, anxiety, and
scarring, and a claim is made therefor.
WHEREF'ORE, Plaintiff, Hector Gonzalez, demands judgment
against Defendants, Vucha, Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania,
and orthopedic surgeons, Ltd., for damages in an amount in excess
of Twenty-F'ive Thousand ($25,000.00) DOllars, exclusive of
interests and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount
requiring compulsory arbitration.
COUNT II
Hector Gonzalez v. Holv SPirit Hospital and Edward Damore. M.D.
B3. Paragraphs one through eighty-two and Count I of this
Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at
length.
16
B4. Plaintiff, Bector G(lnzalez, reasonab ,y relied upon
Defendants' apparent expertise and apparent competence in
diagnosing and treat.ing right knee injuries.
B5. At all relevant times herein, Defendants Oamore and Holy
spirit and all agents, upparent agents, servants, members,
partners, and/or employees were acting within the scope of their
employment.
B6. Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for the injur.ies
and damages alleged herein which were directly and proximately
caused by their negligence and/or gross negligence in:
a. failing to attend to the immediate and serious
medical/surgical needs of Plaintiff,
b. injuring Plaintiff's right peroneal nerve during the
subtotal endoscopic lateral meniscectomy,
c. failing to order, follow-up, monitor, or otherwise
respond to Plaintiff's repeated complaints of his right drop
foot and right muscle atrophy,
d. failing to properly evaluate, diagnose, monitor, and
treat Mr. Gonzalez for his right peroneal nerve injury,
e. failing to order, recommend, or perform surgery to
address Plaintiff's right peroneal nerve injury;
f. failing to order, recommend, or even consider
referral to another physician to address Plaintiff's right
peroneal nerve injury;
17
g. failing to insure that Plaintiff reoeived his MAFO
braoe within ft reasonable time after SUffering his right
peroneal nerve injurYI
h. failing to order an immediate oonsultation with a
speoialist better able to eValu~te Mr. Gon?aleZ's peroneal
nerve oomplaintsl
i. failing to order, perform, or eVliln consider any
diagnostic testing to determine and evaluate Mr. Gonzalez's
right peroneal nerve injurYI
j. failing to appreciate the significance of the
symptoms Mr. Gonzalez was experiencing in connection with his
right peroneal nerve injury and right leg atrophYI
k. inappropriately ordering, reordering, and reordering
range of motion exercises and strengthening exercises to Mr.
Gonzalez when, in fact, Defendants knew or should have known
of Mr. Gonzalez's need for immediate and interventional
treatment and monitoring because of the severity of his right
peroneal nerve injury;
1. failing to act on the results of the EMG/Nerve
conduction studies in a timely fashion when, in fact,
Defendants knew or should have known that Mr. Gonzalez had a
severe right peroneal nerve injury;
m. failing to order an immediate consultation or
referral to a specia list in nerve injuries, even after the
results of the EMG/Nerve conduction studies confirmed the
severity of Mr. Gonzalez's right peroneal nerve injury;
18
n. fail in9 to order, refer, or even reoommend an
immediate nerve graft or nerve-sparing surgery, even after the
results of the EMG/Nerve oonduction studies were known and
Plaintiff's symptoms continued to worsen due to his right
peroneal nerve injury!
o. failing to nppreciate the significance of Mr.
Gonzalez's complaints of right foot drop and right leg
muscular atrophy and inability to properly walk and lift his
right lower extremity!
p. failing to timely diagnose Mr. Gonzalez's right
peroneal nerve injury!
q. surgically causing Mr. Gonzalez's right peroneal
nerve injury and/or positioning him in such a fashion as to
stretch and thereby ignore the nerve!
r. failing to treat Mr. Gonzalez's right peroneal nerve
injury; and
s. failing to even consider the possibility that Mr.
Gonzalez's complaints and the results of his EMG/Nerve
conduction studies demonstrated a condition necessitating
immediate further diagnostic testing, follow-up, surg ical
tr.eatment, and/or referrals to specialists for prompt
evaluation and/or performance of np.rve grafting and/or
nerve-sparing surgeries.
B7. As a direct and proximate' result of Defendants'
negligence, Plaintiff suffered a right peroneal nerve injury when
19
no such injury should have occurred during this type of knee
orthoscopic surgery, and a claim is made therefor.
BB. As n direct und proximate result of Defendants'
negligence, Plaintiff's right peroneal nerve injury was not
diagnosed timely and treated at a point when Plaintiff could have
had a better prognosis or perhaps would not have suffered any loss
of use of his right lower extremity at all, and a claim is made
therefor.
B9. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants'
negligence, Mr. Gonzalez has incurred and will in the future incur
medical and surgical bills, and a claim is made therefor.
90. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants'
negligence, Mr. Gonzalez has sustained a permanent impairment of
his earning power and earning capacity, and a claim is made
therefor.
91. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants'
negligence, Mr. Gonzalez has undergone and in the future will
undergo great mental and physical pain and SUffering, great
inconvenience, and a loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, and a
claim is made therefor.
92. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants'
negligence, Mr. Gonzalez will be forced to undergo and incur
liability for further medical treatment, medicines;
hospitalizations, surgeries, and similar expenses in an attempt to
use his right lower extremity, and a claim is made therefor.
20
9J. As a ~lrect and proximate result of Defendants'
negligence in injuring Plaintiff's right peroneal nerve, Plaintiff
has been required 1:0 undergo surgical procedures and further
medical treatment that would have otherwise been unnocessary and in
connection with these procedures he has suffered extreme pain,
SUffering, mental anguish and permanent scarring, disability and
limitation which would have otherwise not have been necessary, and
a claim is made therefor.
94. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants'
negligence, Mr. Gonzalez has been and in the future will be subject
to great humiliation, disfigurement, embarrassment, anxiety, and
scarring, and a claim is made therefor.
WHEREF'ORE, Plaintiff, Hector Gonzalez, demands judgment
against Defendants, Damore and Holy Spirit Hospital, for damages in
an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000.00) Dollars,
exclusive of interests and custs, and in excess of any
jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration.
COUNT I II
Hector Gonzalez v. NHS - National Health Services.
f/d/b/a EHG Health Services. Garv Lenqel. M.D..
William Vounq. M.D.. and Martin Laskv. D.O.
95. Paragraphs one through ninety-four and Counts I and II of
this complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth
at length.
21
96. At all relevant times herein, Defendants Lengel, Young
and Lasky and all medical staff, nursing staff, physioians,
physicians' aBsistants, nnd other medical staff acted as the
agents, apparent agents, servants, members, employees, and/or
partners of Defendant NHS/EHG ilnd acted within the course and scope
of their employment.
97. Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff for the injuries
and damages d lleged here in wh ich were directly and proximately
caused by their negligence and/or gross negligence in:
a. failing to attend to the immediate and serious
medical/surgical needs of Plaintiff;
b. failing to order, fOllow-up, monitor, or otherwise
respond to Plaintiff's repeated complaints of his right drop
foot and right muscle atrophy;
c. failing to properly evaluate, diagnose, monitor, and
treat Mr. Gonzalez for his right peroneal nerve injury;
d. failing to order, recommend, or even consider
referral to another orthopedic physician to address
Plaintiff's right peroneal nerve injury;
e. failing to insure that Plaintiff received his MAF'O
brace within a reasonable time after SUffering his right
peroneal nerve injury;
t. failing to order an immediate consultation with a
specialist better able to evaluate Mr. Gonzalez'S peroneal
nerve complaints;
22
g. failing to order, perform, or even oonsider any
diagnostic testlng to determine and evaluate Mr. Gonzalez's
right peroneal nerve injury;
h. fililing to ilPpreciate the signlfioanoe of the
symptoms M~. Gonzalez was experiencing in connection with his
right peroneal nerve injury and right leg atrophy;
1. inappropriately ordering, reordering, and reordering
range of motion exercises and strengthening exercises to Mr.
Gonzalez when, in fact, Defendants knew or should have known
of Mr. Gonzalez's need for immediate and interventional
treatment and monitoring because of the severity of his right
peroneal nerve injury;
j. failing to act on the results of the EMG/Nerve
oonduction study in a timely fashion when, in fact, Defendants
knew or should have known that Mr. Gonzalez had a severe right
peroneal nerve injury;
k. failing to order an immediate consultation or
referral to a specialist in nerve injuries even after the
results of the EMG/Nerve conduction studies confirmed the
severity of Mr. GOI:7,alez's right peroneal nerve injury;
1. failing to order, refer, or even recommend an
immediate nerve graft or nerve-sparing surgery, even after the
results of the EMG/Nerve conduction studies were known and
Plaintiff's symptoms continued to worsen due to his right
peroneal nerve injury;
23
m. failing to appreciate the $ignificance of
Mr. Gonzalez's complaints of right foot drop and right leg
musoular atrophy and inability to properly walk and lift his
right lower extremity;
n. failing to timely diagnose Mr. Gonzalez's right
peroneal nerve injury;
o. causing Mr. Gonzalez's right peroneal nerve injury;
p. failing to treat Mr. Gonzalez'S right peroneal nerve
injury; and
q. failing to even consider the possibility that Mr.
Gonzalez'S complaints and the results of his EMG/Nerve
conduction studies demonstrated a condition necessitating
immediate further diagnostic testing, follow-up, surgical
treatment, and/or referrals to specialists for prompt
evaluation and/or performance of nerve grafting and/or
nerve-sparing surgeries.
98. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants'
negligence, Plaintiff's right peroneal nerve injury was not
diagnosed timely and treated at a point when Plaintiff could have
had a better prognosis or perhaps would not have suffered any loss
of use of his right lower extremity at all, and a claim is made
therefor.
99. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants'
negligence, Mr. Gonzalez has incurred and will in the future incur
medical and surgical bills, and a claim is made therefor.
24
100. As A direct und proximate result of Defendants'
negligence, Mr. Gonzalez has sustained a permanent impairment of
his earning power And earning capacity, and a claim is made
therefor.
101. As a direct n~d proximate result of Defendants'
negligence, Mr. Gonzalez has undergone and in the future will
undergo gr.eat mental and physical pain and sUffering, great
inconvenience, and a loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, and a
claim is made therefor.
102. As a direct i1nd proximate result of Defendants'
negligence, Mr. Gonzalez will be forced to undergo and incur
1 iabi lity for further medical treatment, medicines,
hospitalizations, surgeries, and similar expenses in an attempt to
use his right lower extremity, and a claim is made therefor.
103. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants'
negligence, Plaintiff has been required to undergo surgical
procedures and further medical treatment that would have otherwise
been unnecessary and in connection with these procedures he has
suffered extreme pain, sUffering, mental anguish and permanent
scarring, disability and limitation which would have otherwise not
have been necessary, and a claim is made therefor.
104. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants'
negligence, Mr. Gonzalez has been and in the future will be sUbject
to great humiliation, disfigureme~t, embarrassment, anxiety, and
scarring, and a claim is made therefor.
25
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Hector Gonzalez, demands judgment
against Defendants, NHS/EHG, Lengel, Young and Lasky, for damages
in an amount in excess of TwentY-F'ive ~housand ($25,000.00)
DOllars, exclusive of interests and costs, and in excess of any
jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration.
COUNT IV
Hector Gonzalez v. Commonwealth of Pennsvlvania. Department
of Corrections. and stat~correctional Institute at CamD Hill
105. Paragraphs one through one hundred-four and count~ I, II,
and III of this complaint are incorporated herein by reference as
if set forth at len~th.
106. The Defendants are responsible for the actions of thei~
own employees and those individuals or corporations who were
retained as independent contractors, such as Defendant NHS/EHG and
its agents, and who provided services to inmates, such as
Plaintiff, which this Defendant chose not to provide.
107. The Defendants are liable for the negligent actions or
inactions of those health care providers in the medical department
at SCIC who were not independent contractors.
lOB. Defendants Vucha, Orthopedic Institute, Orthopedic
Surgeons, Ltd., Lengel, Young, and/or Lasky, and/or any of the
medical personnel, nurses, physicians, physician assistants, and/or
staff. of Defendants NHS/EHG or Defendants SCIC or the Department of
Corrections are agents, apparent agents, servants, and/or employees
of Defendant SCIC and/or the Department of Corrections, then
26
.
'"
, I'
j ,
, ,
,
,
'.
,;-\
,
, I
"
'II
'I
I.,
"
" ,
','
"
, f~ ,I~ ~
....I
~..,rl', ,0') ,
'''I . ~ ,."
rtlll '," '\'"
;l~ _I I',) n 'J
.>,1 " ('
'" (), , l
'.
i "~~ i ' Ie'
" '11 I JJ
':J~ 1. , ~! '. '-ll,;')
r ,," r;"' I~') 111
/. ~~~ .. !}'l
:C\ ", ~.l
~ N
, '
,
,
I'
I
,
',I
~
states oauses of action upon which relief oan be granted against
Defendant NHS National Health Services, Inc.
25. This allegation constitutes a conclusion of law to which
no response is required. To the extent that any response is
required, said allegation is denied. Defendant is not entitled to
immunity from this law suit.
26. These allegations constitute conolusions of law to which
no response is required. To the extent that any response is
required, said allegations are denied.
27. These allegations constitute conclusions of law to which
no response is required. To the e>ctent that any response is
required, said allegations are denied. Defendants have no defense
available to them under the e>cisting civil Rights Act.
2B. These allegations constitute conclusions of law to which
no response is required. To the extent that any response is
required, said allegations are denied. Plaintiff's claims are not
barred by sovereign immunity and are within an e>cception to
sovereign immunity under 42 Pa. C.S. SB522.
29. These allegations constitute conclusions of law to which
no response is required. To the extent that any response is
required, said allegations are denied. Defendant has no defenses
nor limitations upon Plaintiff's claims under 42 Pa. C.S.
SB522-B52B.
2
,
,
, ,
II'
"
"
"
,
,
,
";,
"
\,
I'
,
I:,
p' :!3 ',','
,"1"1
~d,!' 'I'
., I..! ".n
11"1 '. I"~
, I ~.~ I - "h)
t/", . ,r,' ,;\
ri' 'J I
".. ::J "('1
1,)5 }
:1,:"
.., iq
(Ii,'~ J r,' I (lid
" ~":'I .. ~i '
:J' '"
t:J I
, ...
, ,
I'
,,'
"
,
I'
, '
,
,
"
HECTOR GONZALEZ, t
Plaintiff t
I
V. I
t
THOMAS J. VUCHA, M. D. , t
ORTHOPEDIC INS'l'ITUTE OF I
PENNSVLVANIA, ORTHOPEDIC I
SURGEONS, LTD" EDWARD DAMORE, I
M.D., HOLV SPIRIT HOSPITAL, I
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSVLVANIA I
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, I
STA'l'E CORREC'l'IONAL INSTITU'l'ION:
AT CAMP HILL, NHS NA'l'IONAL I
HEALTH SERVICES, INC. f/d/b/a I
EHG-NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, I
WILLIAM W. YOUNG, M.D., I
MARTIN L. LASKV, D.O. and I
GARV LENGEL, M.D., I
Defendants I
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA
NO. 97-457B
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURV TRIAL DEMANDED
ORIGINAL
PLAINTIF'F"S RESPONSE TO NEW MATTER OF' DEFENDANTS'
COMMONWEALTH OF' PENNSVLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF' CORRECTIONS
AND STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT CAMP HILL
109. These allegations constitute conclusions of law to which
no response is required.
To the extent that any response is
required, said allegations are denied. Plaintiff's claims are not
controlled by the provisions of 1 Pa. C.S. 52310 and Act No. 19BO-
142, set forth in 42 Pa. C.S. 5B501.
110. These allegations constitute conclusions of law to which
no response is required.
To the extent that any response is
required, said allegations are denied. Plaintiff's claims are not
limited and/or barred by 5103, 602 & 606 of Health Care Services
Malpractice Act of 1974.
111. These allegations constitute conclusions of law to which
no response is required.
To the extent that any response is
required, said allegations are denied. Plaintiff avers that the
.
Commonwealth party does not h~ve immunity from any of the claims
brought against thorn in this aotion.
112. Those allegations constitute oonclusions of law to which
no response is requ irad. '1'0 thfl extent that any response is
required, said allegations arc denied. Plaintiff avers that the
Commonwealth party is not i~nune from suit pursuant to 1 Pa. C.S.
52310 and that this action falls within one of the exceptions to
immunity as set forth in 4~ PR. C.S. 59522, thus this action is not
barred.
113. Thoso allegations constitute conclusions of law to which
no response is requi red. '1'0 the extent that any response is
required, said allegations arc denied.
114. These allegations constitute conclusions of law to which
no response is required. To the extent that any response is
required, said allogations nre denied. The Commonwealth and the
Attorney General have received timely notice of this action.
115. These allegations constitute conclusions of law to which
no response is requir~d. To the extent that any response is
required, said i111eqation is denied. Plaintiff's claims are not
barred by any applicablo statutes of limitations.
116. These allegations constitute conclusions of law to which
no response is rlllquired. To the extent that any response is
required, said allegations are denied. Plaintiff's damages did
result from acts or omissions of Defendant Commonwealth's
employees.
2
...
"
,/
, '
I
I
"
,
,
"I
,
"
"
, ,
"
"
, '
I'
I I,'
, '
,
"
,I
,
,
I"
"
,
,
,
I ~n I
I' ,; ., / Ii
,
, , I ~ 1
I I I
" ; 1"1
I I
(,I L,
,
I', I'
. .' ,
. , /, 1,; )
" . (il "
.'
" ~'I
t -'t.:1
..~-~ I_d ..,'oJ
...~
v,
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYL.V ANIA
: CIVIL ACTION. LAW
HECTOR GONZALEZ,
PhlintilT
THOMAS J. YUCHA. M,D.,
ORTHOPEDIC INSTITUTE OF
PENNSYL VANIA. ORTHOPEDIC
SURGEONS. LTD" EDWARD DAMORE, :
M,D., HOL Y SPIRIT HOSPITAL.
COMMONWEALTH OF
PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS. STATE
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION AT
CAMP HILL, NflS NATIONAL HEALTH:
SERVICES, INC., li'dJb/uJ EHG-
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, GARY:
LENGEL, M,O,. WILLIAM W, YOUNG.
M,D. and MARTIN L LASKY. D.O.,
Defendants : NO. 97-4578 CIVIL
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
Please enter my appearantc on behalf of the Defendants, Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, Department of Corrections and State Correctionallllstitution at Camp Hill, in the
above-captioned action.
Respectfully submilled.
D. MICHAEL FISHER
Allomey G~neral
By:
(, 'I';::; '/ I
r. .dr"!" {f(; /l~'lt' t^1L-l.tl
'GE ARD SCHWAIBOLD ID #55379
Senior Deputy Allomey General
Torts Litigation Section
IS'" Floor, Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, P A 17120
717-783-1683
DATED: SEPTEMBER 2.1997
, I,
,
,
I},
, ,
I"
I,
"
"
,
,I
, ,
, "
"
;'1
n 1./',) ("')
,I './ "
."r '! ~.(.l d
Illlj "Q '",'iU
;""-.1-) I , ""~l
.i.,I, \.~ l
(li:: '(.,) dr
:\": ,ISi'
L' "p~
' < <~(
"-~ ' ,I !WI '~!.:J.1't
, .. S')
'~:i I'" ~'
I-t "" CJI
, ,
I'
, ,
"I
I
I',
"
"
,I,
),,
,
,
~
~
,
!,
,
,
"
'I (n.. </:)1 ~. ')
'.':
t. ....; "
, 'Il ,
'i'~ i " I ,
l~l! ~ ' ,) ,
, I 'I
, , :' f, , ,
:./ I' ,I
.,' " I
;
II .. ,
, ~,~ , ,)1 i\
, " .. .
r.l'l ~,' 'I'
~.l
..( IrJ '",
, ,
"
, ,
,
,
I
,
;,
, ,
,
II
, ,
"
,
,
,
I'
"
"
"
III
"
.
,
,'j
,I
,
"
'f
I'
,
"
, I
"
f:,':'( IJ) j--l
~j '.1
1",1 f(l !
'..,j " !
d1 ;, .'i.} (-, ~
J " , !J
!
~,JI , j
I-I.l
X. ." " ''I
: I".
" :' ~ illl
. .. I
, '~ ,!'
:'1 , , I
H'';' HI "1'
,I
,
,
~I
, ~) I
I
I
"
"
,
, I
,',
"
,
"
"
I'
I,
, ,
I,
"
"
I
,I
"
,I
P' V" q
" -I
" "'1 "
-tl, " ,:!}
ft"!,.'. 'y
- :12
I::-J
" ... "') ;~'J
, .... ,.
, ", l..)r{1
r"r /;"
"1,'; .. .:.t
;'i - ~.j
", .... . ,
,
,
"
I,
, ,
"
"IIlil, liT':' '"l::lU''''
1iF:liULAI\
('A:,',: till I 1')'.J'/~H")'!ft I"
('I,IMI1' JI'\o/~:AI.TII IJlr 1'~;'Hl'ij'(LVAt' 1 A I
COUHTY 'W CllNlJlWLANO
I"jl)""" I~~ lIt'cTOl'i
_:~!.Ubl1k...J:::b:~.l..bJ.;r..__..
vt.j,
YLJC/lA,J:lJ!lJ.iAJLL.J'ID I~T ^~
>--
_:rl1l!lJ1JLJlliT1 Z .J Sh.... 11 r 'JI 0." I' II l Y Shl/ll' l f r 'OJ r
r;lJl1~I':RLANO Count.y, P"nnllY Lllunlu, whOJ ~...ln\l duly llWOl'1I IlcCQI'dill\ol
t.,) I H". uuys, the wlthln WRIT r;Jr' :3.lJ1111Qlj!i_. WI\IO l'l"I\I~'d
"I"i" "ilRTlfIJPI::DIC ~jtJRGEIJNG LTlJ __ thli'
,j"lc'II,j,lnt., Ilt 1537100 1I0URS, OJn th~' ~. duy OJl AUlJuul _____,
1']"17 ''1t,3'3F' TrHNPLE 110AD _____
l,:!lJ'!l'._JJ11L. PA lLW. --' Q,J1'lUI!:HL.AtJD
I;ount,y. P,mnaylllania, by handll1g to TIHSIIA CLO'ImEU.....llECr::PTlONI~T
il tn!',' und att"st",d copy or. the .JiIi.U-.OF SUMI1.QJ;li;L __'
flno:! "t Ule, :!lall!e time dirF.lctl.ng /l!iLL att..:mf,ioll t.o the '~ont.lilntiJl th...I'~'of.
She!' L f f' S Cost.I~:
Uock..'ting
'.~je... v ice
Affldallit
SU1'cht'1rge
0.1JJ0
.00
.00
2.00
So Un~Wl;:lr:.i~
;
R. Thoma..
I .,., .,., ",'
"I", ,'.' ~'t ' tk..,.~;. .....J
. ..: Ip ~~. . ' ,I.',~J ,"- 'I
,
Kline, She, Ltt.
SWOl"n and ~ubscr1bed to befoJ"e 111~
thhJ ~q., d'JY, rJf jJD,,+r::d..~
,
1 'J _,.'1..1- A. D.
~ \. .t'~ (2, }", "'-h... ~.
I proth'onr)tary' ",7
r
1'\
"
"
'"l:l W ~~
,,,,, ~ ,.l~
%0
~~ '1', ,:>
" (/1::' '"
, , Ol' ..
-.,' r.
,,' ~;~' ~ ,.
"'
\' ~ ,,,,
'1"'1"
':1~ I '\'\
.... ~
'Jl" ,~
"
,.
, ,
, ,
:'1
.,
"
"
I.
"
..'
I '.i.,
"
'.,
--
"
II'
" ,
.,
"
"
"
" ,
I
~?- u) 8
~.I
., l::l ,,/
, , 1.,
~Ii' " ~) l' "'1
, I.',I.I! ., 1r'
" , l'
, .. I ")"}
.( I ._/ ", ,)
'"',\1 , .-),
L. .." I . ~ j
" ::t ) .
" ;o:'~)
'( j C., ,,1.
~ . , '~1
'r ..
t:.J :11 "'/
" , .... ....
-,
,I
"
"
"
.,
, '
I
i
,
.,
"
,
,
, .1
, ,
"
P L
, -
','1 , r:
i!J,II' .'
~ .
~~::-, i--' , ..
1;1},t; l~ J
f!('J I ,
, , , ~. ,
, ,1::'<"1 t. "
, ., ,
r-.,,-, ,
.,'11
"
"
':d
. -,
"
",
, ,
"
,
,
, ,
"
"
"
"
'.
"
"
,.
HECTOR GONZALEZ, t
Plaintiff t
t
V. t
t
THOMAS J. YUCHA, M.D., t
OR'rHoPEDIC INSTITUTE OF t
PENNSYLVANIA, ORTHOPEDIC t
SURGEONS, LTD., EDWARD DAMORE, t
M.D.., HOLY SPIHIT HOSPITAL, t
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ,
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, t
STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION'
AT CAMP HILL, NHS NATIONAL I
HEALTH SERVICES, INC. f/d/b/a ,
EHG-NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, t
WILLIAM W. YOUNG, M.D., I
MARTIN L. LASKY, D.O. and I
GARY LENGEL, M.D., I
Defendants I
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA
NO. 97-4578
CIVl:L ACTION - LAWOR\Gr . , '_
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on the 27th day of August, 1997, a
true and correct WRIT OF SUMMONS, No. 97-4578 was mailed to the
Defendant, NHS NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., t/d/b/a EHG -
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, via certH ied mail, return receipt
~equested, c/o CT corporation systems, 1633 Broadway, New York, NY
10019. A copy of the certified mail receipt No. Z 455 074 672 is
attached hereto.
'1 .
, I / .', r I;
.. ...~.... I" ; \. ' ......... ( "-
Jessie K. Walsh' .
RETURN OF SERVICE
This is to certify that on the 3rdh day of september, 1997, a
true and correct WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon Defendant, NHS
NATIONAL HEAL'rH SERVICES, INC., t/d/b/a EHG - NATIONAL HEALTH
SERVICES, v iil cert i tied mil i 1, ~eturn receipt requested at the
above-noted ilddress. A copy of the signed return receipt No. Z 455
074 672 is attached hereto.
" . (.; J' ,") i ( ,1 (, I ( '......
Jessie K. Walsh
Sworn to ilnd E\lI~)S",~ibed
befo~ me this ~ day
of ~UdWl. ~- 1997
fi ~t)t{ ,+J.d.i..>__~:~=_
My commls~:i~~rLplr(!E\: I ~.&.,. j
. "'~lYl'.2OOI .
",
"
I, !
'1
.
;,'
"
"
"
i'
tp v:l ()
../ "
" <" ,-) I
~7I',i ,,) 1 )
(l}!,<! j
.' .111
" ,1.:1 i,'t I
!',.:\
I, ... "
"J
" ., )
C., ,/I,
.
.. "
, :::,
i.;J ~'j
, . hI -,
,
,
"
,
. "
'.
Hospital at any time mntorial to Plaintia's Complaint. RathQr, Dr. Yuchn Willi II
statf orthopedist and indoJlondont contrllclor. Dr. Dilmore WllIInn elllllloyoo
of Temple Univorllity nnd nn orthopodic resident in thoir Jlrogrnm who Wllllllcting
undor the suporvision of Dr. Yuclll\.
9-18. Tho avermenta of the corresponding JlnrllgrllJlhllOf I'lnintHl'lI
Complaint refer to the nctivities. acta and/or omissionll of Dnlilllllllnl.H othnr t1UII1
Holy Spirit Hospital. Accordingly, no answer is requirlJll from IlnllwnrlnlC
Defendanta.
19, Denied for reasons set HIrth in ParagrllJlh 8. It IlIlIdmittod thnt lIomll
of the medical personnel, nurses, physicians, physicinnll' nllsilltnnl.H, Ilnd "stna" of
Holy Spirit Hospital providing Clire to Plaintiff were Ilcting within tho IICOJlIl of
their employment. Because such persons are not identitied, hosl'ltnl ill without
information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief IlII to thl! truth of tho
averments, the same are therefore denied and strict proof, if rnlovllnt, is
demanded at time of trial.
20. Denied for reasons set forth in Pnragrnph 9.
21. The averments of Paragraph 21 nre conclullions of hlW to which no
answer is required.
22. Denied for reasons set forth in I'nrngrnph a.
23-33. Denied for reasonllllet forth in I'nrngrl'lJlh 9.
34-35. Admitted according to hOIlJlitnl'1l records.
- 2-
correllpondlng pllrllgrllph of Plllinllll'll COlllplllinl. '('hu Illlnlll IU'U therefore denied
Ilnd Iltrlct preof, If rl!levllnt, III dUlllllndud lItlillln of trill\.
85. Dnnlnd lilr rl1lHionllllntlilrth in Pllrul,'1'lIphll H IInd lB.
86. Denind ill IIccordllncn with PII. HC.l'. lO:lfl(n). Thn denilllll of agency
lIet lorth In Pllrtlgraphll Ii and HJ IIn! incorporuted by n!li!nmce. It ill denied that
Plaintiff Illude uny cOlllpluints of ril(ht drop fi)[)t and/or rightlllullde utrophy to
answerlnl( D,!fimdant. It ill denied that nnllweril'l( Defimdunt had knowledge of
the complicution of ril(ht peroneal nerve injury. It ill dnnied thatllllllwering
Defendant ordered runge-of-lIlotion exercillell or Iltrnngthnning exercises. It is
denied thatllnswering Dnfi!lldantll hud knowledge of thn rellults of EMG/nerve
conjunction studies.
87-94. The deniulll of negligence set forth in Paragraph 86 are
incorporated by reference liS though fully set forth. After reasonable investigation,
answering Defendants [Ire without inlormation or knowledge sufficient to form a
belief as to the truth of the avermentll of alleged injury set forth in the
corresponding paragraph II of Plaintill's Complaint, thl! same are therefore denied
and strict proof. if relevant, ill demanded at time of trial.
WHEREFORE. answering Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital demands that
Plaintiffll Complaint be dismissed with cost.~ to it.
- 4 .
~EW MA'M'ER
1, Plalntill's c1nhlls llro bllrred by operlllion of tho IIppllcable statuto of
IImitntiolla, Including 42 Pn,C.S,A. ~55:l4 nnd 4() P.S, ~ 1ao 1.606.
2. Pllllntllf flllls to stllte n clnim upon which relief cnn be grllnted
against HOllpltal.
3. Plain till's c1nill1S lire limited IInd bnrred by the provisions of the
Pennsylvania Compllrntive Negligence Act.
4. The dnmnges nlleged by Plnintitf did not result from acts or omissions
of Hospital, its agents, servnnts or employees, t Jt, rather, from acts or omissions
of other persons and/or entities over whom hospital hnd no control or right of
control.
5. Plaintifl's claims are limited and barred by Sections 103, 602 and 606
of the Health Care Services Malpractice Act of 1974, 40 P.S. H301, et seq., as
amended,
6. Hospital hereby demands trial by jury on all issues raised in
Plaintiff's Complaint.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital demands that Pl,untift's
Complaint be dismissed with costs to it.
, ,
1,1 !,
- 6.
"
1'1 I
"
I, "
, ;
"
I ,
, " ,l ,
, )
I
, , } ,
I,)'
, .
" ','
i
I
r,1 ]111
:j,' ,. \
II , ,-- ,
I ... ..1 I, ,
, I I , , "
,
,
,
"
"
,
I, I,
"
, ,
,
,
,
'II
11
, I
"
, '
, '
I,
,
,11
I
,
"
'I
,
I
"
!! I
II
"
r ,
, ..
, ,
, ) ,"Jl
I , , '
I , ';
, ,
" t
'. ,\
I 1
r f,I_; "
, "
I ~1
- I~ . ,
.
,
"
"
,
,
,
,
"
,
,
"
,
with Ihc COllllllonweuhh Dclc/Illuntlo provldc hcuhh eurc scrvlecs 10 InlllUlcs ulthc
Conullonwcuhh l.)elcndunl's facility. Thc rClllulnlng uvcnncnls oflhispurugruph of I'lulntilT's
COlllplulnt urc ,knied pursuunt to l'u,R,C.P. I02'1(c),
12, Dcnicd, It is spccllkully denied thut Dcfcndunt Yuehu. Orthopcdic Instilulc, und
Orthopcdic Surgeons. Ltd, Acled us ugcnts. uppurcntngcnls. scrvunts. cmployccs, Illcmbcrs,
und/or purtncrs of Ihe Connnoll\l/Clllth Ddcndunt.
13, Adll1illed Jlnd Denicd, It is Ildlnilled only thut NHS/EHG wus rctaincd by thc
COll1ll1onwculth Dcfcndunt us un indepcndcnt contractor to providc hcuhh curc servlccs 10 Ihe
illlllUtcs ut thc COll1ll1onwculth Dcfcndunt. Thc rCl11uining uvcnncnls urc denicd pursuant to
Pu,RC,p, 1029(e),
14-17, Denied pursuuntlo l'u,R,C.p. I029(e).
18. Dcnicd, It is spcclticully dcnicd Ihut ul alllimcs rclcvant hcrein, Defendant
Yuchu, Orthopedic Inslilulc, Orthopcdic Surgcons, Ltd.. Lcngcl. Young. und Lusky. and all
mcdical pcrsonnel, nurscs. physicians, physlciuns' assislants, and slaff who providcd medical
curc to Plainliffal Dcfcndant SCIC us part ofthc serviccs providcd by Dcfcndant NHS/EHG,
wcrc aCling undcr Ihe aUlhority of Defendant SCIC and thc Departmcnt ofCorrcctions, By way
of furthcr rcsponsc, thc individuals nal11ed and unnamed were not cmployees of the
Commonwealth Dcfendant or acting in any l11anncr under the Authority of the Commonwealth
Defendant. Thc rcmaining averl11cnts of this paragraph are dcnicd pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
19. Dcnicd pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. I029(e),
20. It is dcnied that all mcdical pcrsonnel. nurscs. physicians, physicians' auistants
named as defendants in Plainliffs Complaint wcre acting as agcnts, apparent agents, servants, '
2
clllployccs. and/or partncrs ofthc COllllllonwculth Dcfcndanl. Tothc contrllry, only thc unnamcd
corrcctlons stlllTwho wcrc rcsponslhlc IiII' Plulntlfl's hcalth carc nccds wcrc clllployccs oflhe
COllllllollwcallh Dclimdanl. Thc rClllainlng aVCl1l1Cnls are dcnlcd pursualllto Pa.R.C.P. I029(e).
21. Thc allegations sctlorth In this puragruph of PlulntlJrs COlllplul1ll constilutc
conclusions of luw to which no responslvc plcadlng Is rcquircd pursUllIllll) thc Pcnnsylvunla
Rules of Civil Proccdurc. To thc cxtcntthal portions oflhis puragraph could hc construcd as
factual allegations, said allCgatlons are sJlccillcally denicd in that ullcr reusonahlc Invesllgatlon,
the Commonwealth Defendant is without sufficienl knowledge or Inlol1nation to fonn a belief as
to the truth of thesc allegations.
22-28. Denied pUrS1ll1l1tto Pa.R.C.P. 1029(c).
29. Dcnied. It is specifically dcnicd thatthc COllllnonweallh Defendant own or are
associated in any manner with an entity describcd as the "SCIC Orthopedic Clinic" in this
paragraph of Plain tilT's Complainl. Thc rcmainlng avcmlents are denlcd pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.
1029(e).
30-3 I. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(c).
32. Denicd. It Is spcclfieally dcnied that the Commonwealth Defendllllt own or are
associatcd in any manner with an cntity described as the "SCIC Orthopedic Clinic" in this
paragraph ofPlaintifrs Complainl. The remaining avenncnts are dcnied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.
I029(e).
33-37. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(0).
38. Admlttcd only that Plaintiff was discharged from thc infilmary under the care and
by other partics. The remaining avcnnents arc denicd pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. I029(e).
,
,
3
39.41. Dcnlcd pUnllllnllO PII.ltC.I'. I021J(c).
42. Dcnlcd. Ilia 6pcclllcnlly llcnlcd lhullhll COllllllonwculth Dcfcndunl own or urc
u560clUIcd Inuny lIIunncr with un cnllty dll6crlhed U6 the "SCle Orthopcdlc Clinic" Inlhls
purugrullh of Plulnlifl'6 COlllplulnl. The relllulninlluvennenl6 urc dcnled pursuunllo Pu.R.C.P.
I029(c).
43.52. Dcnlcd pur6uunllo Pu.R.C.P. I029(e).
53. Dcnled. II is specillcully dcnlcd IhUllhc "SCIC" I11cdicul slaffwus cvcr notified
of Defcndunl Yuchu's rcquesl us sct forth In this parallruph ofPluinllrrs Compluinl. The
rcmalning UVClnlents oflhis purugruph urc dcnicd pursuuntlo Pu.R.C.P. 1029(e).
54. Denicd pursuunllo Pu.R.C.P. 1029(c).
55. Admiucd.
56.57. Denied pursuunllo Pu.R.C.P. 1029(e).
58. Denied. II is specifically dcnied Ihal the COllllllonweulth Defendunt own or are
IIssociated in any munner with an entity dcscribed as the "SCIC Orthopedic Clinic" In this
parugraph ofPluinlifrs Complulnt. The rCllluininlluvennenls are denied pursuuntlo Pa.R.C.P.
1029(e).
59.69. Denied pursuuntto Pa.R.C-P. 1029(e).
COUNT I
70. The averments ofparallraphs llhrough 69 of this Answer and New Maller are
incorporated herein by reference lIS if fully set forth.
71.82. The averments of Ihese paragraphs are directed to other parties, und, aer.ordingly,
no response is required.
4
COUNT II
83. The tlvennenls ofptlrugruphs llhrough 82 oflhis Answer Il/ld New Mtlller arc
Incorporated herein hy reference as if fully sellordl,
84.94, The tlVennenls of these parugruphs arc direeled to olher parties, and, w:eordingly,
no response Is required,
COUNT III
95. The avemlenls ofparugruphs I through 94 oflhis Answer and Ncw Maller arc
Incorporated herein by referencc as i I' fully sel forth,
96-104, The tlvennenls of these purugruphs ure direcled to other parties, and,
tlccordlngly, no response is required.
COUNTIY-
105. The avennents ofparagruphs Ilhrough 104 of this Answer and New Maller are
incorporuted herein by reference us if fully sel torth.
106. Admilled only that the Commonweallh Defendant are responsible for the actions
of their own employees within the scope of their employment. The remaining aVemlents of this
paragraph ofPlaintilrs Complaint conslitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading
Is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, To the extent that portions of
this paragraph eould be constmed as factual allegations. said allegations are specifically denied
in that aller reasonable investigation. the Commonweallh Defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or information to form a belief us 10 the Imth of these allegations,
107, The allegations set forth in this puragruph of Plaintiffs Complaint constltutc
conclusions of law to which no responsive plcuding is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania
5
Rule~ orClvil Procedure. To lhe cXlcntlhal portions of this paragraph could he constructl as
luctual allegallons. saltl allegulions ure spccll1cally denied In lhaluller reasonable investll:!ation,
lhe COllllllonweallh Dcli;n.tunl is wilhoUI &umclcnt knowletlge or Inronl1allonlo fonnu bclief as
tolhe lrulh orlhese allegallons.
108. Denicd. II is speciflcully denlcd lhat Defcndunts Yuchu. Orthopedic Instltule,
Orthopcdic Surgeons. Uti.. Lengcl. Young. and/or Lasky, und/or any ofthc Illcdical pcrsonnel,
nurscs, physicians. physician ussistants. und/or stalT of Defcndants NHS/EHG werc agents,
apparcnt agcnls. scrvunts, anti/or cmployees of lhc COlllmonwcalth Dcfcndant. By way of
further rcsponsc, the allegations sel forth In this paragraph of Plain tift's Complaint constitute
conclusions of law to which no rcsponsivc plcading is rcqulretl pursuanlto thc Pennsylvunia
Rulcs of Civil Procedure. To thc extent that portions of this paragraph could be conslruetl as
faclual allcgatlons. said allegations arc spccifically dcnied Inthilt after reasonable investigation,
the Commonwealth Defendant Is without sufficient knowledge or infonnationto fonn a bclief as
10 lhe truth of these ullegations.
WHEREFORE. COlllmonwealth Defendant, respectfully request that judgment be entered
in its favor und against all other parties.
NEW MATTER
109. The present action is controllcd by tbe provisions of I Pa. e.s. ~2310 and Aet No.
1980-142. sel forth in42 Pa. e.s. ~~8501. et se'!., which Acts arc incorporated herein and pled
by referencc. Thc, COlllmonwealth Deli;ndant asserts all the dcfenses contained therein.
110. Plaintifrs claims are limited and barred by Seclions 103.602 and 606 oflhe
Health Cart: Services Malpractice Acl of 1974. 40 P.S. ~ 130 I, ct scI{.. as amended.
6
Ill. The Commonwealth party has itnmunlty lor any claims prcmiscd upontheorics of
apparcnt or ostcnsible agcncy and/or corporatc liability. as Immunity has not bcen waivcd for
clther ofthcsc c1asscs of claims.
112. Thc Commonwcalth party Is immunc from suit pursuant to I Pa. C.S. ~231 0, and
this action Is not within any ofthc cxceptions to immunity as sct forth In 42 Pa. C.S. ~8S22, and
thercfore this action Is barrcd.
113. Should liability be found on the part ofthc Conllllonwcalth Defcndant, thc
amounts and typcs of damages rceovcrablc inthc prcscnt action arc limitcd and controlled by 42
Pa. COS. ~8528.
114. The Judicial Codc at 42 Pa. C.S. ~5522(a). which section is incorporated herein
and pled by refercncc. providcs that the Commonwealth and thc Allorncy General must have
received wrillcn notice of intent to sue within six (6) months from the datc the cause ofaetlon
accrues. [nthe absence of such notice. this action is barred.
lIS. This action is barred by thc applicable statutc of limitations.
116. Thc damages alleged by Plaintiff did not result from acts or omissions of the
Commonwealth Defcndant's employees. but, rather, from acts or omissions of othcr persons
and/or entities over whom thc Commonwealth Dcfcndant had no control or right of control.
117. The Commonwcalth party is absolvcd from liability bccause any ncgligence
alleged on its part mcrcly facilitated the Plaintiffs injuries.
118. The Commonwcal:;l Defendant avers thati f ncgligcncc is found to cxist on its
part, said negligence was not the proximate causc of Plaintiffs injurics.
119. Thc causal ncgligcnce of the Plaintiffis greater than any negligcnee on thc part of
7
KATHLEEN DAILY MOCK. ESQUIRE
MYLOTrE, DAVID & FITZPATRICK
1635 MARKET STREET
SEVEN PENN CENTER, 9'11 FLOOR
PHILADELPHIA. PA 19103
(Allol11ey for DIIlllore)
CRAIG A. STONE. ESQUIRE
METTE. EVANS & WOODSIDE
3401 NORTH FRONT STREET
P,O. BOX 5950
HARRISBURG. PA 17110-0950
(Allomey for Holy Spirit H06p.)
JOHN J, BARBERA, ESQUIRE
KIMBERLY A, SOMMAR. ESQUIRE
MARTIN. CLEARWATER & BELL
220 EAST 42NIl STREET
NEW YORK. NY 10017
(Allomeys for NHS NII!'I Helllth Servo Inc.)
GARY LENGEL. M.D.
1000 NORTH BAY A VENUE #5
BEACH HAVEN. N,j, 08008-2158
JOHN R. KANTNER. ESQUIRE
POST & SCHELL, P.c.
101 NORTH FRONT STREET
HARRISBURG, PA 17101
(Allomey for Lasky & Young)
/)'
/i ~1'
# / ,
/ ~tn:1 ~l?u,h(~
~GERHARD SCHW AIBOLD ID #55379
Senior Deputy Attorney General
By:
Torts litigation Section
15'" Floor. Strawberry Square
Harrisburg, P A 17120
717-787-2168
DATED: OCTOBER 29,1997
"
;ll
"
"
.I !
, '
"
,I
'I
, '
"
,
,
I
r,
"
"
"
,
"
"
,
'"
fI I
, .'It
I. ")
,. I '1
,
I I
,
,":- )
1
'. r I
.,.1
, - ,
.. ,
-
r ~" , -
..,
,
2. The nllel!nlhms cOlllnlncJ III purnl!rtIph "II" nrc udmllled,
3. Jlnrullruphs "12", "13", "17", "IS", "20", und "24" urc udmittcd unl)' lu Ihe eXlcnl
Ihut delimdunl NilS NA'nONAI.IIEAI.TI' SERVICFS mulnlulncd un cmplo)'mclIl conlruct with
defendunl SCIC und us slIch cmplo)'ed pcrsonnello provide mcdlcnl cure lu the Inmules ul Sell'.
All ulher ullcl!ulluns urc dClllc:d I!encrull)', cxcepl dc:fendul1l NHS NATIONAL HEALTH
SERVICES bCl!s leuve lu n:rcr ull ljuestlons or fucllolhe trlcr ur lucl und ull ljucslluns of luw lo
Ihe COllrt,
4, Aller rcusunnble IlIvesllglltlun, dclendnnl NHS NATIONAL IIEALTII
SERVICES Is wllhoul knowlcdl!e or Inll1nnntlon sullicicnllo Ilmnn bcHcfus 10 the Iruth of ench
unll cver)' nvcrmenlln pllrugrtlphs Inlhc Compluinl dcsll!nUled '" <)" und "21",
5. The uvennenlS conlnlned In pUl'Ul!ruphs "22", "23", "25", "26", "28", "2<)", "30",
and "3 I "ure admllled unl)' IOlhe exlenllhnl If the mcdlen! records of Ihe plainlilT rcl1ect such
, facts, It is admllled such facts ure recorded therein, Whcre the records do not rel1ect und/or
eontrndlctthe facts allel!cd in paral!rnphs "22", "23", "25", "26", "28", "2<)", "30", and" J I" and
aner n:usonable Investigallon, defendant NilS NATIONAL IIEALTII SERVICES NATIONAL
HEALTH SERVICES is wilhout knowledl!e or Information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth of the averments in paragraphs of the complaint designated "22", "23", "25". "26". "28",
"29", "30", and "31", except defendant NilS NATIONAL IIEALTlI SERVICES begs 'eave to
refer all questions of fact to the trier of fuct und all ljuestions or law to the Court.
6, The avermenls contained in purngraph "27" arc admilled only to the extent that
if the medical rccords of the plainliff rel1ect such facts, it is admilled such facts ure recordcd
therein. Where the records do not rel1ect and/or contradict the fucts alleged in paragraph "27" and
1'~)M^'Sf)flSI>l.'.III'SlltTSnl.\llt'l"I'l\l1
2
uncI' rcuNunuhle InWNlll!ullun, ddcndlllll NilS NATIONAl. IIEAI.T11 SERVICES NA'I'IONAI.
II EA 1.T1 I SERVICl.:S IN wlthuUI knowledl!e llr Inlimnullon Nulliclcntlolimnu heliefuN 10 lhe
truth ufthe uwrmentN in PUrtlllrtlph oflhe compllllnt deNlgnuled "27", Allolher ullegullons ure
denied Ilenerull)', except delcndllnt NilS NATIONAl. I IEAI.TI I SERVICES begs leaw to retcr
ullqueNtluns uf'uctto the trier ofluctllnd ullquestlons of luw to the Cuurt.
7, The uvennents contulned In purtlgrtlphs "32", "33", "3"", "35", "36", "37", "38",
"39", ""0", ""I", ""2",ul1d "43" ure udmlned unl)' tu the extent lhut if the medicul records of the
plalntlll'refleet such fUCIS, it is udmltted such lucts ure recorded therein, Where the records do
110t reflect und/or conlrudictthe fUCIS ulleged In purugruphs "32", "33", "34", "35", "36", "37",
, "38", "39", "40", "41", "42", und "43" und utier reusonuble investlgution, defendunt NilS
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES NAnONAL IIEM.T11 SERVICES is wilhout knowledge
or informutlon suffieiel1llo form u belief us to the truth of lhe uwrments in paragruphs of the
complaint designated H32''. "33'\ u34u, H35", H36''. "37'\ "38", H39'" u40", "41", H42", and u43n.
8. The uverments contuined in purugraphs "44", "45", "46", "47", "48", "49", "51",
I' "52", "53", "54", "55", "56", "57", "58", "59", "60", und "61" ure udmined onl)' to the extentthut
if the medical records of the pluintifl' reflect such fncts, it is ndmined such fncts arc recorded
, therein. Where the records do not reflect und/or contrudictthe fncts ulleged in pnrugruphs "44",
"45", U46'\ H47'\ "48", "49", "51'" U52'\ U53'\ "54'\ "55'" "56''. u57", u58", u59u, U60'\ nnd "61H
I and after reasonable investigntion, defendunt NHS NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES
NATIONAL HEAL HI SERVICES is without knowledlle or infomllltion sufficient to form u
, beliefas to the truth of the averments in puragraphs of the complaint designated "44", "45", "46",
"47'" "48'\ "49'" usIH, "52", uS3". "54'" "55", "56'" uS7''. uS8", "59", "60'\ and "61H,
I
, OOM^\~OFnOI.\JII\'iOfT!i0l.\11691'M
3
.
prooflhereufls delllunded Ullrlul Il'relevllnt.
13. Denied, Aller reusolluble IllvcslIgntlun, unswerlllll delimdunlls wllhout sulllclcllt
knowledge or Inlimnllllonlo limn u bellel'tls 10 Ihe It'ulh or lillslty ol'lllulntlll's ullegullonund strkl
proof thereofls delllunded ullriul If relevunt.
14. Denied, Aller rellsolluble Invcstlllullon, IInswerlllg delcndullt is without sutllelent
knowledge or intonnllllon to "mnu bellel'lIs to Ihe lnuh or lillslly ofplulntitl's ullegullonund slrlct
proof lhercofls delllunded uttriullf relevunt.
15, Denied, Aller reusolluble Invcstlgntlon, unswerlng dclcndant is wlthoul sutllcient
knowledge or Infonnulion to form u bcllcfus to thc truth or lulslly ofpluilllltl's ullcgatlon and strict
proofthercofis dClllundcd atlrlul if relevant.
16. Dcnlcd. Aller reasonable Invesligation, answering dcfcndanl is wllhout sufl1cient
knowlcdgc or Inlonnlltionto lonn a bcllcflls 10 thc lruth or fulsity ofplalntifi's allcgation nnd strict
proofthcreofis dClllanded at trial ifl'clevunt.
17. Denied. Aller retlsonablc investiglltion, answcring defendant is without sufl1cicnt
knowlellgc or inlonnationto limn a bclicfus 10 the lruth or fulsity ofplalntitfs allcgation and strict
proof thcreof is dClllandcd lit trial ifrelcvant.
18. Dcnied. Allcr reasonablc invcsligation. answcring defendant is without sufiicient
knowlcdgc or inlol111ationto limn a bclicfus to the truth or falsity of plaint ill's allcgation IInd strict
proof thcrcof is dClllandcd lit trial ifrelcvllnt.
19. Denicd. Un the conlrary, Dr. Damorc was II rcsidcnt physician in training at Holy
Spirit Hospital.
20. Dcnicd. Allcr rcasonable invcstigation, answering delendant is without sufiicient
knowlcdge or information to lomla bcliefas to Ihc trulh or fulsity ofplainlifl's allcgation nnd strict
proof Ihereof is delllunded utlriullf relevunt.
21. Denied. Aller reasonuble Inve~tigulion, answering defendBllt is without sulllcient
knowledge or Inllmnatlontolimn a belief us 10 the trulh or 1i1lslty of plulntltl's ullegutlon und slrict
prooflhereofis del11unded ultrlullfrelevunt.
22. Denied. Aller reasonable invcstlgutlon, answering delcnduntl~ without ~ulncient
knowledge or Inloll11utlonto lonn a belief us 10 Ihe truth or fal~lty ofplulntll1's allegation and strict
prooflhereofis delllBllded attriul ifrelevBllt.
23. Denied. Aller reasonable invcsIlgation, wlswerlng defendant Is without ~umclent
knowledge or Infonnation to tonn a bellefus to Ihe truth or falsity ofplulntill's ullegatlon and strict
proofthereofls del11B11ded attriallfrclevBllt.
24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, BIIswerlng defendant Is without sulllclent
knowledge or infonnatlon to fonn a belief us to Ihe truth or falsity ofplalntilfs allegation and strict
proof thereof is demanded attriullfrelevBllt.
25. Denied. Aller reasonable investigation, answering defendwlI Is without sulllcient
knowledge or Infonnatlon to lonn a belief us to the truth or falsity ofplulntitl's allegation BIId strict
proofthereofis demanded at trial ifrelevan:.
26. Denied. After reasonable Investigation, answering defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or infonnation to lonn a belief us to the truth or falsity ofplaintllfs allegation Md strict
proof thereof Is demanded at trial if releVWll.
27. Denied. Aller reasonable investigation, answering defendant Is without sutlicient
knowledge or infonnation to lonn a belief us to the truth or falsity ofplaintilfs allegation Md strict
proof thereof is demanded at trial if relevant.
28. Denied. After reasonable investigution. answering defendant is without sufficient
knowlcdl!c or Inlbnlll1tlontolimnll belicl'lIllto thc tnnh or lillshy Ill'plllintil1's 1I11Cl!lltionllnd slrlct
proul'lhcrcufis dClllllndcd lit trilll il'rclcvllnt.
29. Dcnlcd. Allcr rCllsonahlc Inwstll!atlon, answcrlng dcl'cndantls without uull1clcnt
knuwlcdl!e or Inlbnll11tlon to Ibml a belicl'lIlltothc truth or lillshy ol'pllllnlll1's allcl!ation and ulrict
proofthcrcofls dClllwldcd lit trial il'rclcvant.
30. Dcnled. Allcr rCllsonablc InWSlll!atlon, answcrlng dclcndunt is without sul11clent
knowlcdgc or Inlomlation to limll II belicfllS tOlhc trulh or tillsity of plaint ill's allcglltionllnd strict
proof Ihercoflu dcmanded at trial If relcvanl.
31. Dcnicd. Aller rClISonable invcstigatlon, answcring defendant Is without sufficient
knowledge or infonnatlon to loml a belief lIS 10 the truth or falsity of plaintltr u allegation und strict
proof thereof Is dcmanded at trial If relevant.
32. Dcnled. Aller reasonable Investigation, answering delimdunt is without sufficient
knowledge or infonnation to fonn a belief as to the truth or falsity of plalntitr s allegation and strict
proof thereof is demunded at trial If relevunt.
33. Denied. After rellSonable invcstigation, answcring defendunt is without sufficient
knowledge or inlolmation to fonn a belief lIS to the tnJIh or falsity ofplaintitl's allegation and strict
proof thereof is demunded at trial If relevant.
34. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or inlonnation 10 lonn a belicfllS to the truth or falsity ofplaintltrs allegation and strict
proof thereof is demanded allrlal if relevant.
35. Admitted.
36. Denied. On the contrary, the operative report speaks for itself.
37. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or lnfimnutlon to limn u beliefus tolhe truth or Ih1611)' ofpluintitl'6 ullegution und 6trlct
pruuf Ihereof i6 dCll1unded lit trlnl if relevnnt.
JH. Dcnicd. Allcl' rCll60flllhlc Invc611gntion, IIn6wcrlng defcndnntl6 wlll1\lut 6ufllcient
knowlcdge or inlill'lnlltluntu Illnn n belicfns to thc truth ur thl6it)' ufplullllill'6 nllegutiun nnd 6trict
pl'uof lhcreuf 16 dClllllllded IIllrlullf relcvullt.
.l<J. Dcnled. Aller ren6unuble invc6tigntlon, unswcring del~ndunt is without sullklent
knuwledgc or inlill'lnutlunlo (llnll n belicfusto the Iruth or Ihlsil)' of pili In till's nllcgutlon und 6trlct
pruuf thereuf is dell1unded lIltrinl if relevunt.
40, Denied. Aller reusonnble investigullun, IInswerillg delendunt is without sumcient
knuwledge or inlomlution tu lonllll beliefus tuthe trulh or Ihlshy of pili in till's nllegation und strict
proofthcreofis dell1anded utlrinl ifrelevunt.
41. Denied. Allcr reasunuble investigation, unswering delendant is without sufficient
knowledge or infonnalion to foml u belief as 10 thc truth or thlsit)' of plaintiffs allegation and strict
prooflhereofis demanded altrial ifrelcvunt.
42. Dcnied. Aticr rcusonablc investigation, answering dcfendant is without sufficient
knowledge or infonnation to toml a bcliefas to Ihe truth or falsity ofplailllill's allegation and strict
proof thereof is demwhlcd at trial if relcvunt.
43. Denicd. Aticr rcasonablc investigation. answering defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or infimllution to fonn u belicfas to the truth or falsit)' ofplaintifl's allegation and strict
proof thereof is demanded at trial if relevant.
44. Denied. Aller reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or inlormation t'l fonn a belief as to the truth or falsit)' of plaintiffs allegation and strict
proof thereof is dcmanded ut trial if relevant.
45. Dcnicd. Allcr reusonuble InVCslll!ution, unswering delcndulll is wlthllut sulllcient
knowledgc or Inlbmmtiontolimn u beliefus 10 the truth or lillsity ofpluintil1's ullcgutlon und strict
prollfthercofis dClllundcd uttrlul ifrdcvunt.
46. Dcnled. Aller reusonuble invcstll!utillll, unswerlng delcnduntls without sulllclent
knowledgc or inlbnnutlon to limn u bclicfus 10 the truth or lillslty ofplulntlll's ullcgutlon und strkt
proof thereofls dcmunded uttriullf rclevunt.
47. Dcnicd. Allcr rcusonublc invcstlgutlon, unswering dcfcndunt Is without sufficient
knowledgc or inlbnnution to limn u bellefus to thc truth or lillsity ofplulntll1's ullegution and strict
proofthereofls demundcd uttriul ifrelcvant.
48. Dcnied. Aller rcusonuble Invcstigution. unswerlng defendant is without sufficient
knowledgc or Infonnation to fonn u bcliefus to the truth or fillsity of plaintiff's ullegation und strict
proof thereof is demanded uttrlal If relevant.
49. Denied. After reasonuble investigation, unswering defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or infonnation to fonn a beliefus to the truth or falsity of plaintiff's allegation and strict
proof thereofis demanded at trial if relevant.
50. Denied. After reusonable investigation, answering defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or infonnation to fonn a belief us to the truth or falsity of plaintiff's allegation and strict
proofthereofls demanded at trial if relevant.
51. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or infonnation to fonn a belief us to the truth or lalsity of plaintiff's allegation and strict
proof thereof is demanded at triul if relevant.
52. Denied. After reasonuble investigation, answering defcndant is without sufficient
knowledgc or infomlation to fonn a bcliefas to the truth or lalsity of plaintiff's allegation and strict
proof lhereof IN demunded Ullilul If rclevunl.
53. Denied. Aller reuNonuble InwNllgutlon, 1Il1Nwcrlng defi:ndunl IN without Nulllch:nl
knowledge or in!onnutiontolimn u helieI' UN to the truth or till6ity llfplulntlll'N ullegutlon und strict
proof Ihereof is demunded ullrlullf rclevunl.
54. Denied. Alll.'r reusonuble inwstlgtlllon, unswering delendunl is without sulllcient
knowledge or inlonnutionlo limn u bcllefus tOlhc tMh or fillslty ofpluinlitl.s ullcgatlon and strict
proofthereofis demanded attrlul ifrclevunt.
55. Denied. Aller reasonublc InvcstigUllon. answering defi:ndunt is without sufficient
knowledge or inlonlllltlonlo lonn a bcllefas 10 the truth or falsity ofplaintW's allegation and strict
proof lhereofis demanded utlrlul if relevunt.
56. Denied. Aller reasonable invesligution, 1Il1swcring defendunt is without sufficient
knowledge or Infonnation to limn u bcliefas to lhe truth or falsity ofplaintift.s ullegation und strict
proof thereof is demunded at trlallfrelevunt.
57. Dcnied. Aller reasonable investigation, unswering defendunt is without sufficient
knowledge or infonnationto lorm a bclief[l~ 10 thc truth or fhlsity ofplaintitl.s allegation und strict
proof thereof is demanded atlrlallfrclevant.
58. Denied. Aller reasonable invesligation, answering defendant is wilhout sufficient
knowledge or inlonnation to limn a bcliefas to the trulh or fhlsily of plain tilTs allegation and strict
proof thereof is demanded at lrial if relevant.
59. Denied. Aller reasonable invesligalion. onswering defendanl is wilhout sufficient
knowledge or inlonnalionlo limn a bcliefas lolhe lruth or fulslty ofplainlilfs allegation and strict
prooflhereofis demanded allrlal if relevant.
60. Denied. Aller nmsonable invcstigution. answering defendanl is without sufficient
knowledgc or InlonnUllonto limnll belleflls to Ihe truth or tillslty ofpllllntUl's 1I11eglltlon and strict
proof thereof Is demanded nttrlal if relevant.
61, Dcnied, Aller rellsonable invcstlgatlon, lInswerlng delcndantls without sumclent
knowledge or Inlilmmtlonto limn a belief as to Ihe truth or Iidslly of plain 1111's alleglltlon and strict
proofthercofis demanded nttrlallfrelevlInt.
62. Dcnied. Aller reasonable invcstlgatlon, unswcring defendant is without sutllclent
knowledgc or Infomlutlon to lonn a belief us to the truth or falsity of plaint ill's allegation WId strict
proof thereof Is dcmWlded at trial If rclevalll,
63. Denied, After reusonable investigation, Wlswering defcndant is without sufficient
knowledge or Infonnation to lonn a beliefus to the truth or falsity ofplaintltrs allegation WId strict
proof thereofis demwlded at trial If relevant.
64. Dcnled. After reasonable investigation, answering defendWlt is without sufficient
knowledge or intonnation to fonn a belief us to the truth or falsity of plalntltr s allegation WId strict
proof thereof is dcmWlded at trial if relevWlt.
65. Denied. After reusonable investigation, answering defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or infonnation to fonn a belief as to the truth or falsity of plain tilT's allegation WId strict
proof thereof is demWlded at trial if relevant.
66, Denied. After reasonable investigation, unswering defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or infonnation to fonn a belief us to the truth or falsity ofplaintifi's allegation and strict
proof thereof is demWlded at trial if relevant.
67. Denied. Aner reusonablc investlgution, Wlswering defendWlt is without sufficient
knowledge or Infonnution to fonn u belief us to the truth or falsity ofplaintitrs allegation WId strict
proof thereof Is dcmWlded at trial if relevant.
611. Denied, Aller reasonable Investigation, answering deli!lIda/ll Is without sufl1cient
knowledge or Inlbnnatlon to limn a belief liS to Ihe tl1l1h or lillslty ofplaintlll'N 1I11egation and strict
proof thereof Is demanded lItlrlallfrelevunt.
6'1, Denied, AlIcr rcusonllhle Investlgutlon, answering defendant is without Nulllcient
knowledge or inlimnlltlon to limn II hcllcfus to the truth or fillsity of pili In till's ullegatlon and slrlct
proof thereof is denllllld'ld at trial If rclevllnt.
COlJNT.l
70. Denicd as afi)resald ,
71. Denied. Aller reasonahle investigation, answering detimdant is without sufl1cient
knowledge or inlomlation to fonn a belief as 1\) the truth or fillsity of plainlitl' s allegation wld strict
proof thereof Is demanded at trial if relevant.
72. Denied. Aller rcasonable investigation, answering defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or infonnation to fimn a belief as to the truth or fillslty ofplaintitl's allegation and strict
proof thereof is demanded at trial if relevant.
73. Denied. This allegation is specifically denied. On the contrary, at all times material
hereto, answering delendantllcted in keeping with the appropriate standard of care.
74. Denied. This allegation constitutes a conclusion of law not requiring answer.
75. Denied. This allegation is specifically denied. On the contrary, at all times material
hereto, answering defendant actcd In kceping with the appropriate standard of care.
76. Denied. This allegation is specifically denied. On the contrary, at all times material
hercto, answering defendant ucted in keeping with the uppropriate standard of care.
77. Denied. This allegation is specifically denied. On the contrary, at 1111 times material
hereto, unswering defendantllcled in keeping with the appropriate standllrd of care.
7H. Dcnlcd. Thl~ ullcgutionl~ ~pccilicully dcnicd. On the contrary, ut alllimc~ l1lulcrlul
hcrclo, ullNwcrlng defenduntuctellln keeping with the upproprlule slundurd of cure.
79. Dcnlcd, This ullegution Is specilicully denied. Onlhe cOlltrury, ulull time~ nlllterial
hereto, ullswerlng defclldunlucled In kecping wilh lhe IIpproprlute Ntundurd of cure.
HO, Denlcd. This ullegutlon is speci Iicully denicd. On the contrury. ululllime~ l1luteriul
herclo, unswering dclcl1dlllllucted in kceping with the upproprilltc slul1durd of cure.
HI. Dcnicd. This IIl1egation is specilicully denied. On the cOlllrury, ut ull times malerlal
herelo, answering defcndant ucled In kceplllg Wilh the uppropriate stllndurd of cure.
H2. Denied. This allegation is spccilically denied. On the contrary, alalltimes material
hereto, answering defcndant acled in keeping with the appropriate standard of care.
WHEREFORE, wlswering defimdunt demands judglllent in his favor W1d against all parties.
COUNT II
H3. Dcnied lIS aforesaid.
84. Denied. Aller reasonable invesligation. answering defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or infonnutionto loml a belief us to the truth or falsity of plaintiff's allegation W1d strict
proof thereof is demanded at trial if relevant.
85. Denied. On the contrary. Dr. Damore wus a resident physician in training at Holy
Spirit Hospital.
H6. Denied. This allegation is slX~citically denied. On the contrary, at all times material
hereto. answering defendant acted In keeping with the appropriate stundard of care.
H7. Denied. This llllegation is spccifically denied. On the contrary. at all times material
hereto, answering defendant aetcd in keeping with the uppropriate stundard of carc.
HH. Denied. This ullcgation is spcclliclllly dcnied. On the contrury,ut ulltimes material
hcrclo, unswcrlng dclcllllunl uclcd In kccplng with lhc upproprlulc slllndllrd of cllrc.
IN. Dcnlcd. This 1I11cgllllonls spccllklllly dcnlcd. Onlhc conlrury, ul ulllimcs l1luteriul
hcrclll. unswcrlng dcfcndulllllCICd In kccplng wllh lhc upprllprlulc slundurd of curc.
90. Dcnlcd. This ullcgllllllnls spcclliclllly dcnlcd. Onlhc cllnlrllry, 1l1ll1111l1lcS mUlcriu:
hcrctll, unswcrlnll dclcndllnlllclcd In kccplng Wllh lhc upprllprhllc slundurd of curc.
<)1. Dcnlcd. This ullcglllillnls spccilicully dcnlcd. Onlhc cllnlrury, ulullllmcs l11ulerial
hcrclo, answcrinll dclcndunt uctcd In kccping with Ihe uppropriute slundurd of curc.
92. Dcnled. This ullegutilln is specilicully denied, Onlhc conlrury, U1ulltimes malerial
hereto, unswcrinll delcndunt uclcd In kccplng Wllh lhe IlpprOprlule stundurd of curc.
93. Dcnied. This ullcgulilln is spccifically dcnicd. On the contrary, ut all limes material
hcreto. wIswerlnll dctcndunt uctcd in kccping with lhe uppropriute slundurd of care.
94. Denied. This ullegallon is spccilicully denicd. Onlhe contrary, at all times material
hereto, unswerinll detcndanluctcd In keeping wllh the uppropriutc stundard of care.
WHEREFORE, wIswcring defcndwlt demands judgment in his favor WId against all parties.
COUNT III
95. Denied as aforesaid.
96. Denied. Alier rcasonable invcstigutlon, answcring defendant is without sufficient
knowledge or infonnatlon 10 limn u bcliefas to lhe lruth or falsity of plain tilTs allegation and strict
proofthereofis demundcd ultriul ifrclCVlIIlt.
97. Dcnied. Alicr rcusonuble invcsligulion, unswering defendant is without sutlicient
knllwledlle or Inlimnalion tll tlmn u bcllcfus tll the trulh or fulsily ofplainlill's allellution and strict
prollf thereof is dcmunded ul triul if rclcvunl.
98. Denied. Alicr rcusonuble invcslillulion, answcring defcndant is witbout sullicient
knowledgc or Inlimllallon tolill1l1 n hcllcfus to thc truth or Ihlslt)' of plaint ill's nllcgntlon nnd strict
proofthcrcofis dcmandcd attrlnl if relcvant.
9<). Dcnicd. Allcr rcnsonablc invcstigatlon, answcrlng dcfimdant is without sulllclcnt
knowlcdgc or inlimnntiontollmn n bellcflls to the truth or Ihlslty of pili In till's 1I11cgation lInd strict
proofthercofis demllndcd lIttrinllfrelcvlInt.
100. Dcnicd. Aller rcnsonllblc invcstlgution, answcrlng dcfcndant is without sufficient
knowledgc or inlormutionto 1l)l1l1 a bclicfus lO the truth or Ihlsity ofplalntUl's allcgation and strict
proof thereof is dcmanded at triul if relevant.
101. Denied. Alicr reasonable investigation. answcrlng defcndant is without sulllcient
knowlcdge or inlonnalion to lorm a beliefus to the truth or Ihlsit)' of plaint ill's allegation and strict
proof thcreof is dcmanded nttrinl if relcvant.
102. Dcnicd. After rcasonuble invesligntion, unswcrlng defcndunt is without sullicicnt
knowledgc Qr infonnation to form a belicf us to thc truth or falsity of plaintill's allcgation and strict
proof thcrcof is dcmandcd at trial if relcvnnt.
103. Denicd. Aft':r re(L~onablc investigation, answcring dcfcndant is without sufficient
knowlcdgc or infom1ation to fom1 a belief us to the truth or falsity of plaintill's allegation and strict
proof thereof is dcmtlJ1ded at trial ifrclcvant.
104. Denicd. Aller reasonable invcstigation, answering dcfcndant is without sufficient
knowledge or inlonnation to form a bclicfus to the truth or falsity ofplaintifl's allcgation and strict
proof thereof is demtlJ1dcd at trial if relcvant.
WHEREFORE, tIJ1swerlng delimdtlJ1t dcmtlJ1d judgment in their favor and against all parties.
COUNT IV
105. Denied as aloresnid .
106. Denied. Aller reuNonuhle InVCNlIl!Jltlou, ullNwerlllg delimdulllls without sut11c1ellt
knowledge or IllliJrlnmlon to 1l1l'1ll U hellefus to the lrulh or n,lsllY ofplulllllll's ullegutlon und slriel
proof thercofls delllundcd llttrlull/' relevunt.
107. Denied. Aller reusonuhle investlgutioll, unswel'inl! defellduntls without sut11c1ellt
knowledgc or intiJrlnutlon to Ilmn u belief us tolhe lruth or lillsily ofplulntlll's ullegullon und slrlel
proof thereof Is dClllunded ut triul ifrelevullt.
108. Denied. Aller reusonuble Invcstil!ulion. unswcrlng dcfendunt is without sut11cicllt
knowledge or infonnution to limn a heliefus to thc truth or lalslty ofpluintil1's ullcgution und strict
proof thereof Is delllunded ut trial ifrelcvant.
WHEREFORE, wlswering defendwlt dcmands judglllcnt In his lavor and against 011 pW1ies.
NEW MAIIER
109. Answering dclcndunt raises the applicable Pennsylvania Slatutes of Limlllltlons os a
cOlllplele bar WId defense to the Plulntlfl's cuuse of uelion.
110. At 011 times ll1uterial hcreto, answcrlng dclclldwlt provided lreutment to the Plailltiff In
accordance wilh tile applicuble standurd of medical core ut the time and place of his treatment.
III. Nothing done or omilled to be done by unswering delcnduntlVas the proxilllate cause
of the injury sustained by the Plaintiff.
112. Beeuuse thc unswering detcndunt disclosed ull of those facts, risks und alternatives thut
u reusonuble person, in II situation which the answering delcndwlt knew 10 be that of the Plaintltf, would
deem significant In ll1aklng decision 10 undergllthe recommcnded trealment, the Plaintiff consented to
all procedures performcd by the unswering defendant.
113. The alleged injuries to thc Plaintll1'were euused or contributed to in whole or in port by
the negligence OfWWlt of due curc of the persons. purties und/or orgWlizations othcr thun the unswerin~
dcl~ndunl.und OWl' Whom Muld unswcl'ing dcl~ndunt hud no CUlllrol. rll!htllr conlrolor rcsponMihllhy.
114. Iflhe unswcring dcl~ndunt werc ncgligcnt inuny uMpecI us ulleged in the COl11plulnt.ull
such uliegulions helng spcdllcnlly dcnled. suid unswerlng de'~ndunt' ncgllgcncc wus pussiw und the
Injuries Mustulncd by the Pluintilrwere the rcsultofthe intervcning ncgligcntucts ofu third pcrMonor
pcrsons which was a supcrcedlng cause of his injuries und therclilre. lhc unswcrlng dcfendanlls nOI
liable.
liS. Thc ulleged Injuries oflhe Plulnllll'were the resull of his own negligence which exceed
uny negligcncc oflhe answering del~ndant. all negligence oflhe unswcring defcndanl being expressly
denied. and Iherclore. pursuanllo Pennsylvunin Compurutlve Negligcnce Acl (42Pa. C.S.A. *7102).
Plull1lifl's c1ulms are burrcd.
116. Decuuse Ihe Plulnllll' had knowlcdge ot; understood and appreciated Ihe consequences
of thc mcdical trealmcnl al issuc. hc volunlarily assumcd Ihc risk undo Ihcrefore. Ihe answering
delendant is nOlllable.
117. Any award given the Plaintiff shall be offset by any public collateral source of
compcnsatlon or bcnefits purs' IUntlo *602 of the Heulth Care Serviccs Mulpruclice Act.
118. Under Pennsylvania luw. u hospitul is not obligated to obtain WI inlonned consent from
a paticnt and Iherefore. wlswering hospital del~ndanl is not liublc.
119. The Complaint. in whole or ill part. luils to slate a cuuse of action upon which rclief can
bc grunted.
120. There was no special warranty given to Plaintitl'by unswering detcndunl in writing with
respect 10 any medical or health care and Ihcretilre any claim ns 10 u breach of warranty by the
umiwcring defendant is barred. (40P.A. 1301.6(6).
121. Plaintifl's cuuse of action is limited by the upplicuble scetions of thc Health Care
113. Theae allegations oonstitute oonolusions of law to whioh
no response is required. To the extent that any rElSpOnlile ilil
required, said allegatlons are denied.
114. These allegatlonlil constitute conclusions of law to which
no response ls required. To the extent that any responslll is
required, liIaid allegations are denied.
115. These allegatlons constitute conclusions of law to which
no response is required. To the extent that any response is
required, said allegatlons are denied. Plaintiff's injuries were
not the result of his own negligence thus his claims are not barred
by Pennlilrlvanla'liI Comparative Negligence Act.
116. These allegaticns constitute conclusions of law to whioh
no response is required. To the extent that any response ilil
required, said allegations are denied. Plalntiff did not assume
the risk.
117. This allegation constitutes a conclusion of law to which
no response is requi.red. To the extent that any response is
required, said allegation is denied. Plaintiff's claims are not
limited by 5602 of the Health Care Services Malpractice Act.
118. These allegations constitute conclusions of law to which
no response is required. To the extent that any response is
required, said allegations are denied.
119. These allegations constitute conclusions of law to which
no response is required. To the extent that any response is
required, said allegations are denied. Plaintiff's Complaint does
state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.
2
,
,
'1
r~ I"' ',. "
t..;, r,'.
,"l '.. "
.,
t"',' - "
,. '-":.
, I';
I: ' II .~ . I
/,/ !'"
','
,; , I,
.. ,
i t. I I j
"
" L I ' ~,'-~
r.. ,
" r- )
U f~'" ..
,
,.
,
"
,
'"
. ,
"
'I,
"
,
"
, ,
, ,
, ,
"
.,
"
"
i'
, ,
,
,
,
,
"
"
Investigation, answering Defendant Is without knowledge or information sufficient to forn! a
belief as to the truth or falslly of thl) avermenu conlllined therein.
18. Denied. The avennents contained in parugraph 18 of the Plaintiffs Complaint set
forth condusions of IlIw as OPl105Cd to stlllelllents of fllclund no response is required. In the
alternative, to the extellt tbat till: allegations of purugruph 18 ure deemed fncls to which a
response is deemed required thc uvcnnlHlls of these pnrngrnphs lire denied in nccordance with
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 1029 (e).
19. Paragraph 19 of the Plaintiffs Complaint refers to parties olher than answering
Defendant: consequently, no response is required under the Pennsylvllnia Rules of Civil
Procedure. In the alternative. wlllving none of the foregoing, to the extent thaI parngraph 19 Is
deemed to pertain 10 nnswerlng Defendnnt, il is specificully and unequivocally denied since after
reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to Ihe Iruth or falsity of Ihe uvenneflls contained therein.
20. Denied. II is specif1clllly IInd unequivocally dcnied that Defendant Gllry Lengel, M.D,
is an agent, apparent agent. servant. employee or partner of Defendant, SCIC an<l!or the Department
of Corrections, and strict proof Ihereof is demanded at time of trial if deemed material. To the
contrary, at all limes material hereto, Defendant Gary Lengel, M.D. was an employee of Defendant
NHS/EHG who was in lurn nn independcnt COlllra<:tor of serc and/or tbe Depnrtment of
Corrections. The remaining avermenlS contained in this paragraph refer to parties other than
answering Defendant: consequently, no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of
Civil Procedure. Intbe alternalive, waiving none of the foregoing, to the extent that the
remaining allegations contained in paragraph 20 are deemed 10 pertain to answering Defendant,
it is specifically and unequivocally denied since after reasonable investigation, answering
Defendant 15 without knowledge or Information sumclcmt to form a belief 05 to the truth or
falsiI}' of the averments eonlained therein.
21. Purogruph 210f the Pluintilfs Complaint refers to PU111r.s olher than answering
Defendant! cOIl~cquently, no response 15 required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil
Procedure. In the alternative, waiving non(' of the foregoillll, to the extent that porasraph 21 15
deemed to pertain to answerinllDefendant, it 15 spcdlkally and unequivocally denied since after
reasonable investigolion. answerlnll Defendant is without knowledlle or information sufficient to
form a belief 05 to the truth or falsity of the averments contained Iherein.
22. Denied. The averments conlained in paragraph 22 are denied generally in
accordance with Po. R.C.P. 1029(e) as amendr.d June 16, 1994.
23. To the extent that parallraph 23 of Ihe Plaintif!'s Complaint contains allegations
of agency, those allegations refer to parties other than answering Defendant; consequently, no
response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. In the alternative,
Waiving none of the foregoing. to the extent that the allegations of agency contained in
paragraph 23 are deemed to pertain to answering Defendant, it is specifically and unequivocally
denied since after reasonable investigation, answering Defendunt is without knowledge or
information suflicientto form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained
therein. The remaining allegations contained in paragraph 23 are denied generally in
accordance with Pa. R.C.p. 1029(e) as amended June 16, 1994.
24. Paragraph 24 of the Plaintif!'s Complaint refers to parties other than answering
Defendant! consequently, no response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil
Procedure. In the alternative, waiving none of the foregoing. to the extent that paragraph 24 is
deemed to pertain to answering Defendant, it is specifically and unequivocally denied since ofter
rllasonable investigation, answering Defendant 15 without knowledge or Information surncientto
form a belief as to the truth or falslly of the lIVC!rmenlS contained therein.
25.26. Denied. The llVC!rmenls cOllllllned In purugruphs 25 Ilnd 26 arc denied Ilene rally
In accordance with I'll. ItC.ll, 1029(e) aSllmended ,June 16. 1994.
27. To the extenlthat paragrllph 27 of the Pllllntifrs Complllinl contlllns allegations
of agency, those Illlegntlons refer to panics olher thun answering Defcndllnl: consequently, no
response is required under Ihe Pennsylvllnlll Hules of Civil Proccdure. In thc alternative,
waiving none of the forr.golng, to Ihc extent thut the ullegations of agency contained In
paragraph 27 are decmed to perlaln to lInswcring Defendant, It is specifically and unequivocally
denied since after reasonable investigation, answering Defendllntls without knowledge or
Information sufliclentto forlllll belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained
therein. The remaining allegations containcd in parugraph 27 arc denied gencrally in
accordance with Pa. H.C.p. 1029(c) as amended June 16, 1994.
28.30. Denied. The avermcnts contained in paragraphs 28 through 30 arc denied
generally in accordance with Pa. H.C.P. 1029(e) as amended June 16, 1994.
31. To the extent that paragraph 31 of tbe Plaintifrs Complaint contains alleglltions
of agency, those allegations refer to partics other thun answering Defcndant: consequently, no
response is required under the Pennsylvania Hules of Civil Proccdure. In the alternative,
waiving none of the foregoing, to the cxtentthat the allegations of agency contained in
~Bragraph 31 arc dcemed to pcrtainto answcring Dcfcndant, it is specifically and unequivocally
denied since after reasonable invcstigation. answcring Defendant is without knowledge or
information suflicientto form a belief as to thc truth or falsity of the averments contained
knowledgc or information sufficlcnt 10 form a belielf 65 to the truth or falsity of thc aVermenli
contained therein.
WHEREFORE, Answcrlng Pcfendant dcnll!s that Plaintiff is entitled to the relicf claimed
or any rcllef whatsoever and demand that judgment be entcrcd in its favor and against the
Plaintiff and that It. be uwardcd appropriate costs und fces.
COUNT II
Hector Gonzalez v. Holy Spirit Hospltalmd Edward Damore. M.D.
83. The answers to the allegations Ilnd averments of paragraphs 1 through 82 and
Count I are incorporated herein as though more fully set forth.
84-94. Paragraphs 84 through 94 of the Plaintifrs Complaint refer to parties other than
answering Defendant; conscquently, no respoll5e is required und.]r the Pennsylvania Rules of
Civil Procedure. In thc alternative, waiving none of thc foregoing, to the extent that paragraphs
84 through 94 are deemed to pertain to answcring Defendant, it is specifically and
unequivocally denied sincc after reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without
knowlcdge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments
contained therein.
WHEREFORE. Answering Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief claimed
or any relief whatsoever and demand that judgment be entered in its favor and against the
Plaintiff and that it be awarded appropriate costs and fees.
WHEREfORE, Answcrlng Dcfendant denies that Plaintiff Is entitled to thc relief claimed
or ony relief wha150ever and dcmand that judglllcnt be cntcred In 115 fllvor IInd against the
Plaintiff ond thotlt bc awordcd IIpproprllltc costs IInd fees.
NEW MAl"fER
109. Plaintiff has fulled to stute u c10im upon which relief can be sranted.
110. Plaintifrs claim is bllrred and/or limltcd by the applicuble Statute of Limitations.
ill. It is bellevcd, and therefore avcrred, that the discovery will show that the
Plaintiff was nesllgent and that his negllgcncc cxcecded the negligence, If any, of the Answering
Defendant, thereby barring their rccovery by operalion of the Pennsylvania Comparative
Negligence Act.
112. It Is believed, and therefore avcrred. that discovery will show that the Plaintiff
voluntarily assumed a known risk thcreby barring recovery by the operation of the Doctrine of
Assumption of Risk.
113. Plaintifrs injuries, if any, werc sustained as a result of natural or unknown causes
and not os the result of any action or inaction on behalf of thc Answcring Defcndant.
114. At alltimcs matcrial hcreto, Answering Defcndant provided full, complete,
proper, reasonable and adequate medical care and treatment in accordance with the applicable
standard of care.
115. No conduct on the part of the Answering Defendant was a substantial factor in
causing or contributing to any harm wbich the Plaintifrs may have suffered.
116. If Plaintiff suffered any dalllage, the damages were caused by the conduct of
others over whom the Answering Defendant had no control or right to control.
"
"
'I'
,,, ,'I-
,.. '"
,I . ~ i r
..
, , 1"1
,
I
< " !
( ,
f ,
l J
I
I. '.
1-', ,"
'- ,
":.-' U
, , rI
,
,
" ,
: L I,
.. '.
"
.
'!
"
,
.,
, ,
ii
"
.,
, ,
')
"
"
"
II
, '
"
,
,
,
"
i'
,
I; 1
"
,
Iii'
"
I'
,')1
,
.'
"
Ii
" "
fl.
, ,
i' " ,
i' "
I
"
,
,
I
, , "
"I
,
"
,I'
I,., "
'. 0'. ,
, . . .
, "
,
i' ,
1',.!Hell & Ricci.' P.C. ,
12000 I.II1Wll'~Il)Wn ~.I, "
Suite 108
11"rrl,hOrw, VA '07110
(717) 6~12.0101
.
.
6. Donicd. Aftor rcnaonllblu hlvoHtillulion, Anawerinll DefendnntH IIrc without
knowledllc 01' information Huffident to ndmit or deny the truth or fulslty of the uvcrmenta
contllined In thia Plu'ugruph und, thol'efore, deniea anme IInd demllnds strict proof thereof lit
time of trilll if demned Illllterinl.
7. Admitted,
8. Denied. 'l'he uverlllents eontllined in thia Pnrugruph lire conclualons of law to
which no IIflil'mlltive responaea lIre l'equired. '1'0 the extent affirmlltive responses mllY be
required, suid llvel'ments ure apecificlllly llnd unequivo{lally denied and strict proof thereof
demanded lIt time of trial if deemed mllterinl.
9. Tho llvermenta contllined in thia Pllragrllph refer to II PII1'ty other than
answering Defendllnts; llccordingly, no affirmlltive responses are required. '1'0 the extent
affirmlltive responses mllY be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally
denied in conformity with Pll.H.C.P. 1029(e).
10. 'l'he IIvermenta contllined in this Pllragruph refor to a pllrty other than
answering Defendants; accordingly, no affirmative responses are required. '1'0 the extent
affirmative responsea may be required, Raid aVCl'ments are specifically and unequivocally
denied in conformity with Pa.H.C.P. 1029(e).
11. The avcrmenta contllined in this Parllgraph l'efer to a party other than
answering Defendnnts; accordingly, no affirmative responses lire required. '1'0 the extent
affirmative responses may be required, said averments are slJecifically and unequivocally
denied in conformity with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
12. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are conclusions of law to
which no nffirmntive responses are required. '1'0 the extent affirmative responses may be
2
.
required, Buhluvel'lIlentB ure Bpecil1cully llnd unequivoeully denied und Btrict proof thereof
delllundellut time of h'ial if deemed llluteriul. Uy wuy of furthel' unBwer, it iB Bpeciflcully und
unequivoeully dellied thut DefenduntB YUChll, Orthoplldic InBtitute, und/ol' Orthopedic
BUI'geonB, Ltd. wel'e ugents, UPIlUl'ent ullcnts, sCI'vunt I, employccs, membel's, lind/or IlUl'tnerB
of Defcndunts NHS/l';HG, Depul'tment of ConectionB, und/or BCIC.
1:1. 'l'he IlVel'nwnts eontuined in this l'urulll'llph refer to u purty other thun
unswering JJefendunts; Ilccol'dingly, no uffirmlltive I'esponses are required. 'l'o the extent
affirmlltive responses muy be I'equired, sllid uverments ure specificully Ilnd unequivocally
denied in conformity with Pu.RC.P. 10:!fJ(e).
1,1. The IlVel'ments contained in this 1'111'11 graph refer to u party other than
answering Defendants; accordingly, no nffirmlltive responses are required. 1'0 the extent
affirmlltive l'esponses muy be required, said IlVel'ments ul'e specificnlly and unequivocally
denied in conformity with Pa.RC.I'. 1029(e).
15. The avel'monts contained in this Paragraph refer to a party other than
answering Defendnnts; accordingly, no affirmative responses are required. 1'0 the extent
affirmative responses may be required, Baid averments are specifically and unequivocally
denied in conformity with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
16. The averments contained in this Paragraph refer to n party other than
answering Defendants; lIccordingly, no affirmative responses lire required. To the extent
affirmntive responses may be required, suid uverments arc specifically and unequivocally
denied in conformity with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
17. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragrnph arc conclusions of law to
which no affirmative responses fire required. To the extent affirmative responses mny be
:J
l'e'luired, said Ilvermol1ts ore spoeitlclllly lInd unequlvecally denied in conformity with
PIl.RC.P. 10:/0(0) lInd strict proof thoreof demllndod lit time of triullf deomod mutol'i1I\.
111. Donicd. 'I'ho IIvel'lllonts contllinod in this PlIl'lIl!l'lIph l\l'O conclusions of IlIw to
whioh no IIffil'mlltivo l'osponsos 111'0 l'equil'od. '1'0 tho oxtont uffil'llllltivo responses lllllY be
requil'ed, sllid uverments 1I1'e spedticlllly und unoquivocully deniod lInd strict proof thoreof
demundod lit time of triul if doemed lllllterill\.
lfJ. Denied. The uvel'monts contllined in this PlIrugrllph lire conclusions of IlIw to
which no uffirmutive responses Ul'e refluired. To the extent uffirlllutivo l'osponses mllY be
roquircd, sllld lIvermonts ure speciticully lInd unequlvocully denied und strict /lr<lof thereof
demllnded lit time of tri1l1 if deemed mllwl'iul. By way of further lInswer, it is specitieully und
unequivocully deniod thut Defend/lilts Yuchu, Orthopedic Institute, und/ol' Orthopedic
Surgoons, Ltd. wel'e agents, appurent ugents, servunts, employees, und/ol' members of
Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital.
20. Denied. The uverments contoined in this Puragraph ure conclusions of low to
which no uffirmotive responses ore required. To tho extent offirmotive I'osponsos moy be
required, said overments arc speeitically und unoqulvocully denied and strict proof thereof
demanded at time of trial if deemed motoria\. By way of further unswer, it is specitieally and
unequivocally denied thnt Defendonts Yuchn, Orthopedic Institute, ulllVor Orthopedic
Surgeons, Ltd. were agents, opparent agents, servants, employees, IInd/ol' members of
Defendants SCIC and/or the Department of Corrections.
21. Denied. After reasonable Investigation, Answering Defendants are without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the overments
4
rllnLlihll.lllln thia P'Il'U\fI'Ullh und, therefore, deniea snme nnd demunds strict proof thereof lit
LIllie Ilf U'iul if deenwd 1lI11teriul.
21.!, Denied. 'I'he uvel'ments contained In this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with PII.ltC.p, 1020(e).
I.!:J. Dunlud. The Ilvurment8 contained in this Paragrallh ure dunied In conformity
with l'u.ltC.I'. 1020(e).
2,1. Denied. The avel'ments contained in this Pamgrllph are conclusions of 11Iw to
which no uflirmutivu l'esponses ure required. 1'0 the extent aflirmutive responses may be
re'luired, aald UWI'ments lire denied in confol'mity with Pa.R.C.P. 1020(e) and strict proof
thereof demunded at time of h'ial if deemed material.
1.!1l. Denied. The avel'ments contained In this Puragraph are denied in conformity
with Pu.R.C.I'. 1020(e).
26. Denied. The lIVermellts contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with 1'1I.RC.P. 1020(e).
27. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.H.C.P. 1020(e).
28. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.RC.P. 1020(e).
20. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.RC.P. 1020(e).
80. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
5
131. Denied. The avermentli contnlned in this Pnrngrnph ure denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C,P. 1029(e).
32. Denied. 'i'he nverment.s crmtnlned in this Pnrullrnph llre denied in eonformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
33. Denied. 'i'he llverments eentulned in this Pllrallrnph lire denied in conformity
with Pn.R.C.P. 1029(e).
34. Denied. The avel'ments contained in this Parollraph nre denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
35. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
36. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph ore denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
37. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph ore denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
38. Denied. The averments contained in this Parallraph are denied in
conformity with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
39. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in eonformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e),
40. Denied. The averments contained in this Parallraph ore denied in eonformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
41. Denied as stated. It is admitted only that Defendant Yuchn proscribed rnnlle
'of motion and strengthening exercises and ordered a follow. up in two weeks. The
6
l'cmuining uyormonts contuinod in this Porugl'oph ore donled in eonformity with Po.R.C.P.
1029(0).
,12. Donied. 'I'he UVllrments contoined In this PUl'agruph ure denied in
confol'mity with Pu.RC.P. 1029(e),
43. Deniod, The UVOl'lllentB contnined in this Purngroph ure doniod in conformity
with Pu.H.C.P. 1029(e).
H. Donied. The ovel'monts eontuined in this Pnl'llgmph ure donied in confol'mity
with PA..RC,P. 1029(e).
.15. Donied. The uvel'ments contoinod in this Purogrnph Ul'e deniod in conformity
with Pn.R.C.P. 1029(e).
46. Denied. The nvorments contuined in this Pnrogrnph ure denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
.17. Denied. Tho overments contninod in this Parngrnph arc denied in
conformity with Pu.R.C.P. 1029(e).
48. Denied. The nvel'ments contained in this Paragraph are denied in
conformity with Pu.H.C.P. 1029(e).
49. Donied. Tho nverments contained in this Paragraph are denied in
conformity with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e),
50. Denied. Tbe averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in
conformity with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
51. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C,P. 1029(e).
7
/}2. Donlod. The IIvorlllont~ contuinod In thi~ l>ul'ullrllph lire deniult in
conformity with Pu.H.C.P. 1020(0).
/}:l. Doniod. TIll' IIVOI'munt~ contlllnt!d In thl~ Pllrllgruph I1rt! don led in conformity
with Pu.R.C.P. 1020(0).
M. Dt!nled. The IIVOI'IllUnt6 contuinud In this PlIl'IIllrllph lire donlod in
confol'mity with PII.R.C.P. 1020(e).
M. Denied. The lIVel'lllonts contulned In thi6 Pllrl1grllph Ilrt! donied In
conformity with PlI.R.C.P. 1020(0).
56. Denied. The I1vermonts contained in thi6 Pllrl111I'lIph I1re deniod in
conformity with Pa.R.C.P. 1020(e).
57. Denied. The averments contl1ined in this Pnrngl'l1ph aro denied In
conformity with Pn.R.C.P. 1020(e).
58. Denied. The averments. contained in this Pnl'agraph ore denied in
conformity with Pa.R.C.P. 1020(e).
59. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph ore denied in eonformlty
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
60. Denied. The averments eontained in this Paragraph are deniod in eonformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
61. Denied. The averments contained in this Paragraph are denied in conformity
with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e).
62. Denied. The averments contained in t.his Paragraph ore denied In
conformity with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(0).
8
71. Dellled. "ho IIvorlllollts COil till lied in this P,lrllgrllph IIro dOllied ill
eonfol'llIity with PII.n.c.p. 1O~f)(e).
72. Deniod us stlltod. It is udllllttod thllt Dofondunt Yuchu wus IIn agont of
Orthopedic hlstituto IInd Orthopodie Surlloons, Ltd. Tho rOlllllinder of the llvurments in
this Pllrllgl'l\ph III'e denied in eonfm'mity with plI.RC.p. 10~O(e).
7:J. Denied. It i8 spocifielllly IInd unccluivoelllly donied thllt the unswel'ing
Defondllnts wel'o neglillent nnd dil'eetly nnd proximntcly cuu80d 1'1IIintifr8 injurics and/or
dllmullcs. '1'0 the conll'lll'y, lit nil time8 mlltet'inl hel'eto, the unswel'ing Defendunts
l'ondered pl'opel' nnduJlproPrlute clu'e within the stllndllrd of cure requircd for treatment of
plltients such liS the Plnintiff. Dy wuy of further unswer, it is more specificully denied thllt
answering Defendants were nogligont IInd/ol' grossly negligent in:
II. Deniod. It. i8 spccifically IInd unequivocnlly denied thnt tho answering
Defendnnt8 were negligent in "fuiling to nttend to the immedinte and serious
medicaUsurgicnl need8 of Plllintifr'. '1'0 the contrary, ut all times material hereto,
the answering Defendllnts rendel'ed proper and appropriate care witbin the
standard of care required fm' tl'entment of the Plnintiff.
b. Denied. It is sJlecificnlly and unequivocally denied that the answering
Defendants were negligent in "injuring Plaintifrs right peroneal nerve during the
subtotal endoscopic lateral mcnisccctomy". '1'0 the contrary, at all times material
hereto, the answering Defendants rendered proper and appropriate care witbin the
standard of eare required for trelltment of the Plnintiff.
e. Denied. It is specifically IInd unequivocally donied thnt the nnswering
Defendants were negligent in "fuiling to order, follow.up. monitor, or otherwise
10
rC6PQnd tl) Pluintll'l'6 l'Opolltmt eompllllnt6 of hl6 rlKht drop fC)l)t und riKht lllu6olo
IItl'l)phy". '1'0 tho eonll'lIl'Y, lit 1111 thl106 llIlItcrilll herotl), the 11ll6worlnK Defendllnt6
I'endered pl'OpOl' IIllII "PIH'oJlrlltc elll'c within the 6tllndllrd of Cllre reljuircd for
tl'cllllllcnt of thu Plllintiff.
d. Duniud. It i6 6JlucilicIIlly IInd unuljuivl)cnlly dunied thnt tholln6woring
Defendllnt6 woru nugligunt in "fnlling to JlI'opol'ly evnlunte, dlugrl06e, llIonltor, and
h'cat MI'. Gonznluz for hia l'ight Jlel'onelll nervo injury". 1'0 the contrary. nt nU timo6
Illatel'iul heruto, the unawlll'ing Dufundllnta rendered proJlur nnd appropriate cllre
within thu atnndlll'd of cut.u l'equil'ed for tl'outmunt of the Plnintiff.
e. Denied. It ia apecificnlly nnd unequivocally denied thnt the answering
Defendunta were negligent in "fnlling to order, recommend. 01' pc dorm aurgery to
addl'ess Plaintiffs right pel'onelll nerve Injury". 1'0 the contrary, at aU times
materlul hereto. the IInswel'lng Defendnnts rendel'ed propel' and appropriate care
within the standard of care required for treatment of the Plaintiff.
f. Denied. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that the answering
Defendants were negligent in "falling to order. recommend. m' even consider referral
to another physician to address Plaintiffs right peroneal nerve Injury". To the
contrary, at all times material hereto, the answering Defendants rendered proper
and appropriute carll within the standard of care required for treatment of the
Plaintiff.
g. Denied. It Is specifically And unequivocally denied that the answering
Defendants were negligent in "failing to insure that PlAintiff received his MAFO
brace within a reasonable time after suffering his right peroneal nerve injury". To
11
the conh'lIl'y, lit nil Hlllell Illntel'lnl hOI'eto, thll nnllwel'hlK Defendnntll I'endered
proper nnd upPI'epl'lnte c/ll'e within the Ilt/IIl,hll'll of enrll l'equlred fOl' trelltlllent of
the 1)lnhltltf.
h. Deuled, It illllpucificnlly nncluullljulvocully cleniod thllt tho nnllwel'lng
Defendnntll were negllgllnt in "fnlllug to ol'dor IIn illlmodintc consultnti'lIl with U
Ilpeeinllllt bottlH' nble to cVllluntc Ml'. GonznleZ'1l pel'OnclII nOl've complnintll". "0 the
contr,u'y, lit ull timell mlltol'illl hereto, the IInllworing Dofendllnts l'endured proper
and appropl'inte Clll'e within the standul'd of Clll'e required fOl' treatment of the
Plaintiff.
i. Denied. It Is specifienlly nnd unequivocally denied that the nnllwcl'ing
Defendantll were negligent in "flliling to Ol'dcr, perform, 01' even conllider any
diagnostic testing to determinc and cvaluate Mr. Gonzulez's right pel'oneal nerve
injury". To the contl'llry, at all timell material hereto, the answering Defendantll
rendered propel' and appropriate cure within the standard of carc requil'ed for
treatment of the Plaintiff.
j. Denied. It is Ilpecifically and unequivocally denied that the answering
Defendants were negligent in "failing to appreciate the significance of the symptoms
Mr. Gonzalez was experiencing in connection with his right pcroneal nCl've injury
and right leg atrophy". To the contrnry, at all times material hereto, the answering
Defendants rendcred propel' nnd appropriatc cure within the standard of care
required for treatment of the Plaintiff.
k. Denied. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that the answering
Defendants were negligent in "inappropriately ordering, reordering, and reordering
12
1'11I11111 or Illotlon IIXllrelRIIR Ilncl Htrlll111thllning IIxorciRoH to Mr. (10111.111111. whol1, in
filet, Dllflll1c\lll1tH kl111W 01' should hllVll known of Mr. (JOI11.Ulll1.'H nlllld for hlllnlldillte
and inwrventlonlll t.'lllltlllllnt und Illonitlll'inll bllCIlUSll of the severity of hlH right
peroneul nerve InJul'Y'" To thc eonh'llry, lit ull timcs mutllrilll hel'eto, thllunHwllring
DcfenduntH rendcl'cd pl'OpCI' und UPPI'opl'iute cm'o within thc Htlll1dllrd 01' e/lre
required 1'01' treutlllent of the Plrlintiff.
1. Denied. It iH specificlIlly and unequivocally denied thllt the IInswering
Defendllnts were negligent in "fuiling to IICt on the results 01' the f;M(J/Nerve
conduetion studios in II timely fllshion when, in fnct, DefenduntH knew or should
have known that Mr. Oon1.lIle1. hlld n severe right peroneal nerve injury". To the
contrary, at all times Illllterial heroto, the answering Defendants rendered proper
and appropriate cure within the stnndurd of care required for h'eutment of the
Plaintiff.
Ill. Denied. It is specificully and unequivocally denied thllt the answering
Defendants were negligent; in "failing to order an immediate consultation or referral
to a specialist in nerve injuries, even after the results of the EMO/Nerve conduction
studieH confirmed that severity of Mr. Gon1.a1ez's right peroneal nerve injury". To
the contrary, at 1111 times material hereto, the IlnBwering Defendants rendered
proper and appropriute care within the standard of eure required for treatment of
the Plaintiff.
n. Denied, It i8 specificully and unequivocally denied thut the answering
Defendants were negligent in "failing to order, refer, or even recommend an
immediate nerve graft or nerve-sparing surgery, even after the results of the
1:1
~iMOINol'VO conduction atudioa woro known IInd PlllinUfl'a aYlllpl<uns eonUnuod to
",oracn duo to hla rll!ht pl!l'lHlOlI1 norvo injury". To tho ellntl'lU'Y, lit 1111 tillloa
l11l1tul'illl hllruto, thll IInaworlng J}l!fondllnlH rondol'ml pl'llpOl' IInd IIpproprillto claro
within tho Htllndlll'el of cm'o I'o'luh'od for trOlltnlUnt of tho PlllinUff.
o. Doniee\. I t Is Hpl!dlielllly nnd unl!lluivllcnlly dllniod thut tho unHwol'hlg
DefendlllltH WI!I'O noglil!ont in "fnilhll! to IIpprl!dllto tho sll!nilicnncl! of Mr,
Oon1.lIlo1.'s cOlllplnintB of I'i!lht foot d,'op nnd I'i!lht 10!l lIIusculur utrollhy und
inubility to pl'opol'l)' wnlk nnd lift his I"!lht 10woI' oxll'emity". To thll conll'ul'y, ut ull
Ulllea llll1tol'iul hl!l'oto, tho unswel'ing Defendl1nta rendel'od pl'OpOl' und nPPl'opl'iate
eare within tho atunde\l'll of cnl'o re'lu'l'od 1'01' trentlllent of tho Pluintiff.
p. Denied. It is apodl1eully und unequivocully denied thut the answering
Defendanta were negligent in "fuillng to timely diugnose Mr. Gon1.nlez'a right
peroneal nerve injury". '1'0 tbl! contrury, at nil tillles Illuterinl hOl'oto, the nnswering
Defendants rendol'ed proper nnd nppropl'inte cure within the atnndllrcl of care
required for treatment of the PIllintiff.
q. Denied. It is spccilicully und unequivocally denied thnt the answering
Defendants were negligent in "surgicnlly enusing Mr. Gonzalez's right peroneal
nerve injury and/or positioning him in such u fushion us to stretch und thereby
injured the nerve". '1'0 the eontrul'Y, at all times Illnterinl hereto, the answering
Defendants rendered proper Imd approprinte cnre within the standard of care
required for treatment of the Pluintiff.
1'. Denied. It is spocilicnlly und unequivocally donied that the answering
Defendants wero negligent in "fuiling to treat Mr. Gonzalez's right peroneal nerve
14
In)\II'Y". '1'0 thu eontrlll'Y, lit ull tlmot! IlIl1tol'1ul horoto, tho unt!wol'lnll DofondnntH
l'ondol'OII pl'opor und IIppropl'lnto cnro within tho IItllnl(,u'd of euro roqulrell for
trolltlllont of tho I'lulntlli.
K. Dllnil!ll. It iK Kpecll1cully IInd unoqulvoelllly denied thnt tho IInKwerinll
DofendllntK WOI'l! Ill!KIiKl!nt In "fllilinK to CVl!n contlidl1!' thl! pOKt!lbillty thllt MI'.
Oom:nle1.'K cOlllplnintK und thl! I'et!ultt! of hit! EMG/Nel've condllction KtudleK
delllonKlrnlud u condition neeeKKitutinll imllledirlte further diagnostic testing, follow.
up, sUI'gicul treutlllont, und/or l'eforrultl to spociulista for prompt eVlIlulltion IIncUor
perfol'mnnce of nel've drllfting und/or nervo.tlpllring tlUl'gel'ieK". To the contrllry, at
all timeK matel'lal hel'eto, the unswel'ing Defendllnts rendered proper and
IIppropriute Cllre within the stuncillrd of CIII'e required fOl' trentlllent of the Plaintiff.
74. Denied. The llverlllenttl contllined in thitl Plll'agrnph llre conclusiontl of law
to which no nfl1rmutive retlponsetl ure required. To the extent IIf11l'lllative responses lllay
be required, said IIverlllents are specil1cally and unequivocally denied IInd strict proof
thereof demanded at time of trial if deemed IllllteriaJ. By way of further answer, to the
extent this Pllrllgrllph contains averments pertllining to the Plllintiffs ulleged damages,
they IIl'e denied since after reasonable investigation, llnswering Defendnnts nre without
knowledge or informntion tlufl1cient to formn belief IlS to the truth 01' falsity of the IIvermenls
contnined in tbis Paragrnph IInd. therefore. denies snme nnd dellltlllds strict proof thereof at
time of trial if deemed mnterinl.
75. Denied. To the extent this Pnrngrnph contnins uverments of proximate
enusntion, it is a conclusion of Inw to which no nffirmntivc response is required. To the
extent till affirmlltive response mllY be required, sRid averments lire denied and strict proof
15
thel'eof delllllnded lit tho tlllIe of trllll, if deelllod llI11lerilll. By WIlY of flll'thel' IInswer, to tho
extent this 1'1ll'II11I'IIph cllntllins IIVlll'lllonts porlllinlllll to the I'IIIintifl's nlleged dnllllllles, It
is denied since IIftor l'clIBonllblc lllvcstlKlltlon, IInswerinK Defendllnts lire without knowledlle
or Illfol'lllllUOn sufficiont to form II bclicf liB to thc \l'uth or flllaity of tho IIVOI'IIlents contllined
in thia l'lu'IIKrllph lind, thlll'cfore, denica snllle IInd demands stl'ict proof thereof at time of
t.rill! if deemed mlltel'inl.
70. Denied. 1'0 the cxtent this I'lIrllgruph contllins I1Vel'lllents of proximute
enuslltion, it is 11 conclusion of IIIW to which no IIffirmutive I'esponse is required, 1'0 the
extent un nflirmlltive I'esponse IIlIlY be requit'ed, snid nverments lire denied and strict proof
thOl'eof demanded lit the time of trilll, if deemed muterilll. By WilY of further answer, to the
extent this I'lIrllKl'lIph contains IIverments pertllining to the Plaintiffs alleged damages, it
is denied since lifter reasonllble investigation, answering Defendants are without knowledge
or illfol'mlltion sufficient to form a belief as to the lI'uth 01' falsity of the averments contained
in this pal'llgruph and, therefore, denies slime lllld demands strict proof thereof at time of
trial if deemed material.
77. Denied. 1'0 the extent this Paragraph contains averments of proximate
causation, it is a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the
extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments arc denied and striet proof
thereof demanded at the time of trial, if deemed material. By way of further answer, to the
extent this Purllgl'Rph contains averments pertaining to the Plaintiffs alleged damages, it
is denied since aftor reasonable investigation, answering Defendants are without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief os to the truth or falsity of the averments contained
16
in this PIII'lIllrllph nnd, thurufol'u, rlunius HIUlIO IInd dOll1ulIds strict proof thoruof III Ullll' of
tl'illl if duulllUlllllntul'ill1.
711. DUlliud. '1'0 thu extunt thiH I'lIrlllll'ullh eontnhlH nvurmontH of pl'oximntn
clluHution, it is n conclusion of lnw to which no nflhmlltive reHpollHU iH I'oquirud. To the
uxtunt lI11uffil'llllltive l'usponHe lllllY bu I'uquil'ud, HlIid UVllrmllllts lire denicd nnd Htrict proof
thuruof dl>llIllllded lit the tillle of lI'illl, if deemed mntul'inl. By WilY of furthel' Il11HWllr, to the
extent this PUI'ngl'lIph contnillS IIVerlllents pertnininll to the l'lnintifrs ullelled dllllHllles, it
is denied since uftcl' l'cusonnble investiglltion, IIllsweringDcfcndllnts lll'e without knowledgc
01' infol'llllltioll sufficient to fOl'lll II belief liS to the truth 01' fnlsity of the nverlllellts contllillud
in this I'IIl'llgl'llph lind, thcl'efore, dcnics sUllie ulld delllands stl'ict proof thel'eof Ilt tillle of
trilll if deemcd mntoriul.
79. Donicd. 1'0 the extent this PlIragruph eontuins (WermclltH of proximate
causution, it is a conclusion of lllw to which 110 affirmative response is rcquired. 1'0 the
cxtent an Ilffirmative l'cspon8C may bl! requil'ed, said llvermcnts are denied nnd strict proof
thereof demnndlld nt thc time of trial, if deemed material. By way of further answer, to the
extent this PlIra!lroph contains averments pertaining to the P1aintifrs alleged damages, it
is denied since aftel' l'casonable investigation, answel'ing Defendants IlI'e without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief liS to the truth 01' fnlsity of the averments contained
in tbis Paragruph and, therefore, denies same und demands strict proof thereof at time of
trial if deemed matel'ial.
80. Denied. To the extent this Paragruph containH averments of proximate
causation, it is a eonclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the
extent an affirmative response may be required, said avermellts U1'e denied and strict proof
17
thlH'uof <IuIII II ll<lUlIlit thu tillll! of Irilll, if duulllc<llllflturilll. By wny of furthur lI11swcr, to thu
uxtunl this PIII'n~I'lIllh ~OlltllillS IlVUl'nlllnts pUl'tllininll to the Plnintirt's IIl1ellu<l c1nllllllles, it
is deniml din~e III' tel' l'UIIKUllllhle illvustillnliun, lI11swel'illll Defull<lllnls IIl'e without knowlcdllU
01' inl.ill'lIIl1tioll sufficiellt tu fU1'1II U helief liS to the truth 01' flllsity of the uvurments ~olltnillcd
ill this PIII'UIlI'lIph lind, thel'cfol'e, ,jellied sUllie ulld demnnds stl'iet Ill'ool' thel'eof lit timc of
triul if deemed IIIl1tel'iul.
Ill. DUllied. '1'0 the extent this PUl'ulll'uph cOlltuins IIVUl'll1ents of proximntc
cllusntion, it is u conclusion of luw to which 110 uffirmlltive responsc is required. '\'0 thc
cxtent ulluffil'mutivc response muy he l'cquil'cd, suid uvcrmcnts llI'e dcnicd und stri~t proof
thcrcof demundcd ut thc timc of trinl, if dcemcd mutcrlnl. Dy wuy of furthcr unswcr, to the
cxtcnt this Purnllruph eontuins nverments pcrtnining to thc Plllintiffs nllegcd dllmnlles, it
Is denicd sincc ufter rcnsonnhlc invcstillution, nnswerinll Dcfendnnts III'C without knowllldgc
or infol'mution sufficicnt to fOI'm u bcllcf ns to the t1'uth or fulsity of thc uverments contuined
in this Pnrngruph and, thcrcforc, denics some and dcmunds strict proof thcreof ot timo of
trial if dccmed muteriul.
82. Dcnied. '1'0 tbc extent this Pnl'Ugrllph contuins nvcrmcnts of proximate
causation, it is a conclusion of Inw to which 110 nffirmntivc rcsponsc is rcquired. '\'0 the
extcnt nn nffirmativc response mny be rcquil'cd, snid averments nru denied and strict proof
thcrcof demandcd nt thc timc of trinl. if decmed matcriul. By way of furthcr unswcr, to the
cxtcnt this Pllrlllll'oph contains uvurmcnts pcrtnining to thc Plnintifl's allcged dUlllages, it
is dcnicd sincc tlf'~r rcnRonnblc invcstigntion, Ilnswcring Defcndunts nrc without knowledge
or information sufficient to form n belicf ns to thc truth or fn1sity of thc uvcrmcnts contained
III
In this 1'lIl'lIl1l'lIph nnd, Ihul'llfol'e, denies Sllllle IInd delllllnds strlet proof thereof lit tillle of
tl'lullf deemed llllltul'lnl.
WHEREI"ORE, it is rllspllctCully requested thflt this Honerllhle Court enter judgment
In CllVOl' of the IInswerinlllleCendflnts IInd IIglllnst the Plflintiff IInd ,lwllrd IIpproprifltu costs
(lIld tCIlS to IInswel'inK DeCendllnts.
COUNT II
Hector Oonzfllez v. Holv Sllil'lt HOsllitfllllnd Edwllrd Damore. M,D.
83. Answering DeCendnnts, Thomfls .1. Yuehfl, M.D., Orthopedic Institute of
PennsylvlInill nnd Orthopedic SurKcons, Ltd., hcreby incorpornte by reCerence their
responses to PUl'lIgraphs 1 through 8:3 oC the Plnintifrs Complaint us if more Cully set Corth
herein fit length.
84.!).I The nverments contllined in thcse Pnrngraph rcfer to Dcfendnnts other than
answcring Dcfcndnnts; ncc'll"Clingly, no nffirmntive responses IIrc l'cquircd. To tbe extent
affirmative rcsponses Illay bc required, said IIverments ure specificlllly and unequivocally
denied in conformity with Pn.R.C,P. 1029(e).
WHEREFORE, it is respcctfully requested that this Honoruble Court enter judgment
in Cavor of thc nnswcring Dcfenrlnnts nnd ngninst the Plaintiff nnd aWllrd appropriate costs
and fces to nnswering Defendants.
19
1011,107 'l'hllllVlll'mllntK ctlntlllnlld In thllKll PlIruKrllph rcfllr tll DllfcndllntH lIthllr
tlllln unK\\'llrinK DlllimdllntK; lICclIl'dinKly, no uffil'mutivll rCKpOl1KCK lIl'UI'u1lulrucl. '1'0 thu cxtunt
uffil'mlltivu l'UKJ.'onHUK muy be l'c'Illi1'ed, Hllid lIVU1'mentK 1I1'e Kpcdfielllly lInd unu'IllivoclIlly
clunled In eonfol'mity with PlI.H.C.P. 102!!(u).
lOti. Deniud. '['hu lIVUl'ml.!lltK contllinod in thiK PU1'IIKl'lIph Ill'C conclusionK of IlIw to
which no IItnl'llllltiVU l'eKponses 1I1'e l'uquirud. '1'0 the uxtcnt IIffil'mlltivu responscs IllIlY bc
rcquh'cd, sllid lIVUl'lllUlltK lll'U sJ.'eciticully Ulld ullequivocully denied und stl'ict J.'roof thereof
dCl1lllndud lit time of tl'iul if duullled mllturill\. By wuy of furthul' linK we I', to the uxtunt thu
UVel'tlWntH contuillcd in this PlIl'ugl'lIph imllly thut DcfendllntK Yuchu, Ol'thopeclie Illstitute of
PUllnsylvllnill UIl,V01' CkthoPUdic SU1'geoIlM, Ltd. Wel'e llgents, nppnl'unt IIgunts, HC1'Vllnts
IIIllVor employeus of Dcfendllnt SCIC IIndJor thc Depllrtl1lent of Corrcctions IIndJor werc
acting in such capucity, thc avel'mcnts ure specificlllly IInd unequivocally denicd and strict
proof thlll'cof is dUlllundcd lit the timc of tl'ial if decmcd material. By wUy of fur.ther answer,
to the Uxtllltt this Pnrngl'llph contnins averments of negligencc liS to Defendants Yuchu,
Orthopedic Institutc of Pcnnsylvllniu undJor Orthopcdic Surgeons, Ltd., suid avcrments of
negllgcnce arc spccificnlly IInd uncquivocnlly denied nnd strict proof thereof is demanded at
thc timc of triul if dccmcd mntcrilll.
WHEREFORE, it is rcspcctfully requestcd thllt this Honorablc Court enter judgment
in favor of the answering Defendants and ngllinst the Plaintiff and award appropriate eosts
and fees to answering Defendants.
21
NEW MATTER
100, PlBIntlff hua falled to atlltll II claim upon which relief can be granted,
110. Plnintifh clnlln la burred unlVlll' limited by the nppHcnble Statute of
Limitlltiona.
Ill. It la bcliovud, nnd thorefol'e nvorrod, that the dlacovery will ahow that the
plllinW'f wus negligent and thnt his negligence exceeded the negligence; if any, of the
anawering Defendnnta, thereby bnrrlng his recovery by operntion of the Pennsylvania
COlllpnl'ntive Negligence Act.
112. It Is belioved, nnd therefel'e nverred, thnt discovery will show that the Plaintiff
Wns negligent nnd thnt by vil.tue of his negligence, hia claima mny be limited by the operatien
of the Pennsylvnnia Compnrutive Negligence Act.
113. It is believed, al1d therefore averred, that discovery will show that the Plnintiff
voluntarily assumed n known risk thereby barring recovery by the operntion of tbe Doctrine
of Assumption of Risk.
114. Plaintiffs injuries, if any, were austained as n result of nnturnl or unknown
causes nnd not ns the result of nny action or inaction on behalf of the answering Defendants.
115. At all timcs material hercto, answering Defendants provieled full, complete,
proper, reasonable anel aelequlltc medieal CAre and treatment in accordance with the
applicable stnndard of care.
116. No conduct on the part of the anawering Defendants was a substantial factor
in causing or contributing to any harm which the Plaintiff may have suffered.
22
117. If Plllintiff llulTered IIny dllmlllle, the dUlllllllell were cllulled by the COllduct of
othel'll ovel' whom the IInllwerhlll Defelldlllltll hlld 110 cUlltrol or rlllht to cOlltrol.
I Ill. All cluillllllllld ellllHlllluf Ilctiun ph!llded IIllllinllt the IInllwerinll Defllllllrtntlllll'e
burl'ed by Plllintifl'll klluwinllund vollllltlll'Y Int(ll'lllCcl conllent to the clll'e In quclltion.
110. Any of the Dct'enclnnts. 1':dwlll'cl Dnmore, M.D., Holy Sph'it Hospitnl,
COllllllonwcnlth of Pcnllllylvllnill Depllrtment of COI'rectlons, Stllte COl'rectionll1 Institution nt
Cllmp Hill, NHS Nlltionlll Henlth Services, Inc. t1dJb/u Io:HO.Natiolllll Hellllh Services.
Willialll W. Young, M.D., Mnrtin L. Losky, D.O. und Oury Lengel, M.D., who may hove
rendercd medienl core or treatment to the Pin in tiff were independent contrnetors in
l'l!hltionllhip to the Ilnswel'ing Defendonts und were not the ngents, ostensible Ilgents,
servants or employees of the answerillll Defendllnts.
120. Insofnr lIS ony Ilgent, servnnt or cmployee of the Ilnswering Defcndants or any
person for whom it is 01' moy be vicariously liable, elocted a lI'eatment modality which is
recognized os proper but mny differ fl'om nnother approprinte treotment modnllty, then said
answering defendllnt I'llises the "two Ilr.hools of thought" defenlle.
121. To the extent it was required to do so, the nnswering Defendants took all
rcnsonnble nnd necellsnry steps to mnke n proper and nppropriote diognosis and to the extent
it may be determined that that diagnosis was in error, the answering defendant asserts that
the error in diagnosis was a reasonable and legally justifiable error.
23
112. These allegations constitute conclusions of law to which
no responlile is required, 'ro the extent that any responlile ls
required, said allegations ar~ denled. Piaintiff did not
voluntarily assume a known risk, therefore Plaintiff's reoovery is
not barred by the operation of the ooctrlne of ASlilumption of Risk.
113. These allegations constitute conclusions of law to which
no response is required. '1'0 the extent that any responSG is
r~quired, said allegations are denied. Plaintiff's injuries were
not sustained as a result of natural or unknown causes but rather
as a result of action or inaction on behalf of the Defendants.
114. These allegations constitute conclusions of law to which
no response is required. To the extent that any response is
required, said allegations are denied. Defendants did not provide
full, complete, proper, reasonable, and adequate medical care and
treatment in accordance with the applicable standard of care.
115. These allegations constitute conclusions of law to which
no response is required. To the extent that any response is
required, said allegations are denied. The conduct on the part of
all Defendants was a substantial factor in causing or contributing
to the harm which the Plaintiff has suffered.
116, These allegations constitute conclusions of law to which
no responlile is required, To the extent that any response is
required, said allegations are denied. Plaintiff's damages were
caused by the conduct of all Defendants.
2
112. These allegations constltute conolusions of law to whioh
no response is required. 'ro the extent that any response is
required, said allegations are denied. Plaintiff was not negligent
and his recovery is not limlted by operatlon of the Pennsylvania
Comparative Negligenoe Act.
113. These allegations constltute conolusions of law to which
no responsl!l is required. To the extent that any response ilil
required, said allegations are denled, Plaintiff did not
voluntarily assume any known risk thus his recovery is not barred
by operation of the Doctrine of Assumption of Rililk,
114. These allegations constitute conoluslons of law to which
no response is required. To the extent that any response is
required, said alllllgations are denied. Plaintiff's injuries were
not sustained as a result of natural or unknown causes but rather
were the results of action or inaction on behalf of the Defendants.
115. These allegations constitute conclusions of law to which
no response is required. To the extent that any response is
required, said allegations are denied.
116. These allegations constitute conclusions of law to which
no response is required, To the extent that any response ilil
required, said allegations are denied. Defendants' conduct was a
substantial factor in causing or contributing to the harm which
Plaintiff suffered.
2
!,
'1/
"
,
,
,
,
,
! j
,
,
"
0' ill 11
~.., '- ~I
,J1Hl 1"1
;.It
('f'.1 I "j
..
," ~!j .1" /,/1 j
"0.1'
r~ ..I ffi If
,.
,,"-r'j .'
";'~'1 - ~3
~
lit . l," t.-
;~ , ~.
"" (II
"
,
"
, '
,
"
,.
"
,
, '
Ii
;11,
. ,
2. Denied. Aller reu~unuble InvcMllgullull, un~wednl! I>elillldunl~ ure whhuut sulllclenl
knuwkdge or Inlimllllllon lu udml\ ur dellY Ihe ullegutions of Ihe curreMpondlng purugruph uf Plulntllr s
Compluint, und thus deny the sume. Striel prouf is demunded ut Iriul, if relevunl.
3. Denied. After reusunubk lnvcsligution, unswering J)efendunls urc withoUI sufl1c1enl
knowledge or inlimnutlon 10 udmil or deny the ullegulions of the currespunding purugruph of Plulnliffs
Compluint. und thus deny the sume. Striel prUOf is demundcd ut lrlul, If relevunl.
4. Denied. After reusonuble invcsligution. unswering Delcndunts urc withuut suflicient
knowledge or informulion 10 udmlt or deny the ullegutlons of the clll'respondlng puragruph of Pluintlffs
Compluint, und Ihus deny the sume. Striel proof Is demunded ul Irlul. if relevunt.
5. Denied. After reusonable invesligulion. unswering Delimdunts arc wilhout sufl1cient
knowledge or intormution to udmit or dcny the allegulions uf Ihe corresponding purugraph of Plaintiff s
Complaint, and thus deny the same. Strict pruof is demunded atlriul. if relevunt.
6. Denied. After reasonubk invcstigllliun, answering Defendants ure without sufl1cient
knowledge or information to admit or dcny Ihe ullegations of the corresponding puragraph of Plaintiffs
Compluint, and thus deny Ihe sume. Strict proof is demunded uttriul. if relevant.
7. Denied. After reusonablc invcstigation, answering Defendants ure without sufticient
knowledge or information 10 admit or deny the ullegutions of Ihe corresponding puragraph of Plainlill's
Complaint, and thus deny the same. Stricl proof is demanded ut lrial, if rclevunt.
2
H. Dellled. Aller reuM'lIluble InwMll~ullulI, UIIM\WI'III~ llefendunlM ure withuUl Nullicienl
knuwled~e ur Inlimllullun tu udmit llr deny the ulle~utlunM uf lhe eUl'respundill~ purugruph uf I'lallllll'l" s
Complulllt, and thUM deny lhe MUme. Strlcl pl'Lluf Is del11unded Ul lrlul, if l'c1evUIlt.
9. Denied. Aller reusolluble inve~ll~utllln, an~werilll,! Delcndullts arc Wilhoul sufliclelll
knowledge llr inlormutllln III admit ur deny Ihe ullel,!Uliuns lll' lhe corre~pondllll,! puntl,!ruph uf I'luilllll'l's
Complulnt, and thus deny the sume. Strict pl'ouf Is del11unded ut trlul, il'l'elevunt.
10. Denied. Aller reusunuble Inl'C~tII,!Ullon. unswerinl,! Delimdunts ure withoul suflicient
knowledge or Intimnutlon to udmltor deny thc Ullel,!lllillns uf the curresponding puragruph of I'luilltlffs
Complalnl, und lhus dellY the sume. Strict pruof is del11unded III trial, Il'rclevunt.
II. Denied, Aller reusonuble Invcstil,!Ulion, unswerinl,! Detcndunts ure without suflicient
knowledge or inlormutlon tu udmit ur deny the llllel,!utlllns ul'the currespunding purugruph of Pluinllft's
Compluint, and thus deny Ihe same. Strict prouf is demunded ut lrlul. If rclevunl.
12. Denied. Aller reusonuble investil,!ution, llnswerinl,! lktcndants ure wilhout suflident
knowledge or intimlllltion 10 udmit ur deny the ullegutiuns of the corresponding purugruph of Plaintiff s
Complaint, und thus deny the sume. Stricl prouf is del11unded ut lriul. if rc\evunt.
13. Denied. Aller reusonuble invcstil,!Uliun. answerlnl,! Dclcndunts ure withuut suflicielll
kl10wledge or inlimnatiol1 10 udmit ur deny thc ullel,!utions uf the eurrespllndinl,! purogruph of Plaintiffs
Compluint, und thus deny the sume. Slrlel prouf is del11unded ut triul. if rclevul1t.
3
14. Denied. Al\cr reuMonuble invcMlgulion, unM\wring I>elimdunls ure withoUI sufllcienl
knowledge or Intimllulion lu udmh or deny Ihe ullegutiunM of Ihc corresponding purugruph of I'luinlin"s
Cumplulnl, und lhus dcny Ihe sume. Slriel pruof Is demundcd ullriul, if relevunl.
15. Admllled.
16. Admilled.
17. It is udmilled only thut I>etimdu/lls Young und I.lIsky were ugenls und/or employees of
Defendunt NIIS/EI [0 ul ull limes relevunl, ueting within thc course und seupe Ihereof, Answering
Defendunts ure without sufliclenl knuwledge ur informution to udmit ur deny ullcgulions rcgurding
individuuls ur lnslitullons ulher lhun Ihemselves, und lhus deny lhe sume, und further, und tiJr thc sume
reasons, deny uny remuining ullegulluns of the correspondillg purugruph.
IS. Denied gencrully and as conclusiuns uf luw with respect 10 Detcndunts Young und Lusky.
Answcring Detcndunls arc without sufliclent kllo\\ledge ur inl'lrI11utiun lu udmit or dcny ullcgations
regurding individuals or institutions olher thanthemsclvcs. und lhus deny Ihe sume, und further dcny uny
remuining ullcgUlions 10 the correspunding puragraph lilr the same reasons.
19. Denied. Alier reusunable invcstigation. answering Dcfendants arc wilhoul sufliclent
knowledge or inlonllUlion lu admit or deny the ulleglltiolls uf the eurresponding puragraph of Plainliffs
Compluint. und thus deny the sume. Stricl prouf is del11l1nded lit Irial, if rclevulll.
20. Denied gcnerully lInd us eonclusiuns uf law with respect to Delcndants Young und Lusky.
Answering Defendunts ure withoul suflicient knowledge or intimllution to admit or deny allegations
4
rcgarding individuals or Inslllutions olhcr Ihanlhemsclws, und thUM dCIl)' Ihc samc, LInd furthcr dcny any
remaining allcgations to thc eorrcsponding plIragruph li)r Ihe MalllC rCa6onM.
21. Dcnlcd. Alier reusonablc InvcMliglllion, unswerlng Dclcndunts arc without sufficlcnl
knowlcdgc or intormalion to admilor deny the ullegutlons of the eorre6ponding puragruph of Plainliff's
Compluint, and lhus deny lhe samc. Strlel proof is demunded uttriul, If rclevunt.
22. Dcnled. Al'ler reasonuble Invcsllgulion, unswedng Defendunts ure withoUI sufficient
knowlcdgc or inlonllullon to lIdmit or dcny the ulleglltions of lhe corresponding purugraph of Plulntifl's
Compluinl, und Ihus deny Ihe sume. Slriel proof is demunded uttriul. if rclevunt.
23. Admitted in part und denied in purt. To the extent thut the mcdlcul records of Plaintiff
Hector Gon1.ulc1. from Dcfendllnt SCIC relleet the luets ulleged in lhe corresponding paragruph of
Plaintiffs Complaint, il is udmitted only thut such is recorded liiercin. Otherwise, and to the cxtentlhat
the mcdical rceords do not so retleet and/or conlradict the ullegutions, denied for thc reusons indicuted
in Puragraph I, above. For furthcr response, unswering Detcndants ure without sufticient knowlcdgc
or informallon 10 admit or deny agency rclutionships of individuuls or institutions other than themselves,
and thus deny the sume.
24. Denied. Ancr reusonublc invcsligution. answering Dctcndunts urc without sufticicnt
knowledge or intormation to admit or deny thc nllcglltions of the eorrcsponding paragruph of Plaintiff s
Complaint. and thus dcny Ihe same. Strict proof is demnnded nt trial, if relevant.
5
25-26, Admltlcd In purl uud dcnicd In purt. Tu lhe extenl thul the mcdienl reeord~ of I'lniuti 1'1'
Heclor (jonl~llcz from Dcli:ndunl selC' rcl1ccl thc fuets ulleged In lhe eorreMpunding purugruph of
I'lulntlfl'~ Compluint, II iM udmilled ollly lhut MlICh Is rcconlcd therein. Olherwise. und 10 thc cxtent thm
lhe Illedlcul records do nol so rellecl und/or contrudicl the ullegulluns, denicd liJr Ihe reusuns indicuted
in I'urugruph I. ubove.
27. Admitted in purl und denied In pllrt. To thc eXlent thUI the medieul recurds of I'luinliff
Hector Gouzulcz from Dclcndunt SCIC rcl1eet lhe tucts ulleged in the corresponding purugruph uf
Plulntiffs Cumpluint, II is udmilled only thut slIch is recorded lherein. Othcrwise, und to lhe extentlhut
the mcdienl records do nol so rellecl und/or cOlllrudicl lhe ullegutlons. denied liJr the reusons indicuted
in Parugruph \, ubovc. For further respunse, unswering Dcfcn<!unts ure without suft1cient knowledgc
or inlormuliOll 10 udmit or deny ugeney rclutiuuships of individuuls ur instilulions other thun themselves,
and thus deny Ihe sume.
28-34. Denied. After reusonublc investlgulion. unswering Det~ndullls ure without suflicient
knowledge ur inlormulion 10 udmit or dcny the allegulions of lhe correspunding purugruph of Pluintiffs
Compluint, and Ihus deny the sume. Slriel pruuf is demunded Ul lriul, if rclevunt.
35-37. Admilled in purt and denied in purl. Tu the extelll thul the medical reeurds of Pluintiff
Hector Gonzulcz from Defendunt Iluly Spirit IlospilUI rctlecl thc fucts ulleged in the corrcsponding
parugruph of Plaintiffs Compluint, it is udmllled only thut such is recorded therein. Othcrwisc, and 10
6
lhc cxtcnt lhut lhc IlIcdleul rceordM do not Hll rcllcet und/or eonlrudict Ihc ullcllutlllnM, dcnlcd lilr Ihe
rcusons indleuted In I'urugruph I. ubovc.
311-56. Admhtcd in purtund denied in (ltlrl. To the extenl Ilml lhc mcdieul ,'ceordM of Pluintlll'
lIector Oonzulcz fmm lJelcndunl serc rcllcet the luels ulleged In thc corresponding purugruph of
I'luinlifCs Cllmpluinl, IIIH udmilled only thut such is recorded therein. Otherwise. und to the eXlenllhul
thc medicul records do nol so rellect und/or ellntrudict the ullegutions, dcnled lilr Ihe reusons indlcuted
in I'urugruph I, ubove.
57. Admllled In purl und denied In purl. To the extent thut thc medicul records of 1'1<llnliff
Ileclor Oonzalez from Dcfendunl sCle rellcet the luets ullcged in the corresponding pumgruph of
I'lulnllfCs Compluint, it is udmillcd only thut such is recorded thercin. Otherwise. llnd to the extentthut
the medieul records do not so relle't und/or contradicl the ullegutions, dcnied filr Ihe reusons indlcuted
in Purugruph I, ubow. For further response, unswering Delcndunts tire without sufl1cienl knowledge
or informutlon to udmit or deny ugem:y rc\utionshlps of Individuuls or Institutions other thun themselves,
and thus deny Ihe sume.
58-68. Admilled In part and denied in purl. To the extenl thut the medieul records of Pluintiff
Hector Oonzulez Irom lJetcndunt SCIC relleet thc luets ullegcd in the corresponding parugruph of
Plaintiffs Complaint, it is udmillcd only lhut such is recorded thercin. Olherwise, und to thc extent that
thc mcdieal records do not so relleel und/or contrudiel the ullegutions. denied tilr the reusons indicated
in Parugruph I. above.
7
ImlivlduulM llr InMlltuII1lI1M llth~r thun IllCIllMClvcM, und Ihus deny thc MlIIllC, ulld I'urthcr, umllilr Ihe sume
rcusonM, dcny uny remulnlng ullel!-1I110nK Ill' Ihe cllrreMpondlnl!- purugruph.
'17. Dcnied generully und us conclusions 01' luw with respect tll unswering DclcnduntM Young
und Lusky only. Answering Delcndunts ure wlthoul suflkicnl knllwledge or Inl'ormution to udmil or
deny ullegutions directed III inJividuuls und inslitutions other tllUn lhcmsclvcs, und thus deny Ihe sume.
Fllr I'urther response, it is spccilieully denicd thut [klcndunts Young und I.usky uded with ncgligeuee
und/llr gross negligence in Ihe liJllowiug rcgurds:
u. fulling III ullend tll the Immediute un" serious Illedicul/surgicul needs of
Plaintiff;
b. failing to order, follow-up, monitor, or olherwise respond 10 Plaintiff's repeated
complaints of his right drop tool and right muscle ulrophy:
c. failing to properly evaluate, dlagnllse, monitor, and treat Mr. Gon7.l11ez for his
right peroneal nervc injury:
d. fuiling to order. recommend, or even consider rcferral to anothcr orthopedic
physician to address Plaintiffs right peroneul ncrw injury:
c. failing to insure Ihal Plaintiff receiwd his MAFO brace within a reasonable
timc aller suffcring his right peron cui nerve injury:
1', failing 10 order an immediute consultatilln with u specialist beller ablc to
evaluate Mr. Gom'.lllez's peroneal nerve complaints:
10
g. lalllng to order, pcrlorm, or evcn eonMider uny dlugnoKllc Icstlng to delennlne
and evuluule Mr. Gon~~llelM r1ghl peroneal nervc Injury;
h. tailing 10 uppreciule the Mll!nll1eunee of the MymlltolllK Mr. Oon~.ulcz WUM
cxperlenclng in conneellon with his rlghl Ileroneul nervc in.lur)' nnd right leg utrophy;
L Inuppruprlulely orderinl!. reordering, und reordering runge of motion exerelKeK
und Ktrengthening exerciKes to Mr. Gonzulez when, in Ih~t. DefenduntK knew or Mhould
huvc known of Mr, Gon~lIlez' sneed lilr inullediute und intervenlionul treutmcnt und
monitoring because of the sevel'ity of his right peroneul nerve injury;
j. Ihiling to llet on lhe results of the EMGlNervc conduelion study In a timely
fashion when, in tuCl, Defendunts knew or should huvc known thut Mr. Gonzalez had a
severc right peroneul nerve injury;
k. tuiling to ordcr an immediate consullullon or relcrrul to a specialist in nerve
injuries even after the results of the EMG/Nervc conduction studies cont1rmed Ihe severity
of Mr. Gonzalez's righl peroneulnerve injury:
I. fuiling to order, reier, or even recommend un immediate nel'vc graft or nerve-
sparing surgery, even ufter the results of Ihe EMG/Nervc conduclion studies were known
and Pluintiffs symploms continued to worsen due to his right peroneal nerve injury;
II
m. rulHn~ tll ul'llrel:lutu the MI~nllleunl:u Ill' Mr. (hlll~.llle~'M elllllplulllls ur ri~htli)Ut
drllp und rlghtle~ mUKeulur ull'Uphy ullLl Inuhlllty III properly wulk und Iln hill right lower
extremity.
n. fulling tll timely dlugnllse Mr. Olln~ulelM r1l!hl perllneul nervc Injury.
o. euusltll! Mr. (illlWlllels I'Ighl pel'lllleul nervc inJury:
p. fulling 10 treut Mr. <ion~.lllels right peroneul nervc injury: und
q. fulling tll even eonsldcr the possibility lhm Mr. Gl1IlIulcls ellmplulntK und lhe
rusults of his EMOINerve conduellon studies demonstruted u condition neeeKsituling
inlllledlute further dlugnostle testing. tilllow-up. surgicul treutmenl, und/or referruls to
speciulists liJr prompl evuluution und/or pertiJrlllUnee or nervc grul'ting und/or nerve-
sparing surgeries.
98-104. Denied generully und us conclusions of luw with respect to unswerlng Defcndants
Young und Lasky only. Answering Delcndunts ure without suflicienl knowledge or inliJrlllution 10 udmit
or deny ullegutions directed to individuuls or instilutions other limn themselves, und thus deny the sume,
und further deny uny remuining ullegulions of the corresponding purugruph tilr the reusons Indicuted In
I'urugruph I, ubovc.
WHEREFORE, Detcndunts Willium W. Young. M.D.. and Murtin 1.. Lasky. D.O., deny liability
touny und ull purties to the within litigution. del1lund llml Pluintirrs cluims aguinst them be dismissed
with prejudice, und ult~rnutively dcmund thutjudgl1lent be entered in their tuvor on ulll'laintiffs c1uims.
12
N.:W MATn:lt
AnMwerlllg Delcndnnts her~hy rnls~ lh~ J'ulluwlnl! New MUlier pUrM\lUllltu Pn. ItC.l'. \026, \030,
und 1032.
IO!). The I'lnlnlll1' hus flailed lu Mlute u cuuse uf uCliun upun which relief enn be I!runled.
110. The upplicuhle slulute uf Ihnilutions IllUY huvc expired prlur tothc illSllluti'lIl oJ' this uClion.
III. Answering Defendunls were not negllgenl.
112. ^ny UCIS or umissions of unswering Defendunts ulleged to e'lIlslilule negligence were nol
u substunllul cuuse or flletor of the subject incidenl und/or did not result in lhe injuries und/or losses
ulleged by I'luinllff.
113. The negligenl ucls or (lI'Ilissions of olher indivlduuls und/ur cntities muy huvc eonsliluled
intervening, supcrseding euuses of the dumuges und/or injuries ulleged 10 I!lIVe bcen sustained by the
Plaintiff.
114. The incident, injuries, und/or damugcs alleged 10 havc becn sustained by the I'luintiff were
nol proximalely caused by unswering Dclcndunts.
115. I'luintiff l11uy not huvc properly mitigated his dUl11uges.
116. I'luintiff muy huve entered inlo u relcase with ulher persons wilh Ihe effect of discharging
unswcring Defcndants in this ueliun.
117. The answering Delcndunts hereby ruise the uftirmutivc dclcllscs of Sections 602 und 606
of lhc lIealth Care Services Malprnctiee Ael uf 1975.
14
, -.
"
, I
:~~ 'd :1
~ ;I'~
Vl~l~ c..) \'
r"e\ - ;;A
~8. ...,
~~ :x .?;
."
~ ~ t~
Vl ~
.IP
,
, '
,
, I
"
"
HECTOR GONZALEZ, l
Plaintiff I
l
V, l
I
THOMAS J. YUCHA, M.D" l
ORTHOPEDIC INSTITUTE OF I
PENNSYLVANIA, ORTHOPEDIC I
SURGEONS, vro" EDWARD DAMORE, r
M.D" HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, I
COMMONWEAL'l'H OF PEllNSYI,VANIA I
DEPARTMENT OF CORREC'rIONS, r
STATE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION I
AT CAMP HILL, NilS NA'rIONAL I
HEALTH SERVICES, INC, f/d/b/a I
EHG-NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICES, I
WILLIAM W. YOUNG, M,D., I
MARTIN L. LA8KY, 0,0, and I
~ARY LENGEL, M,D" I
Defendants I
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA
NO. 97-4578
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS,
WILLIAM W, YOUNG. M,D, AND MARTIN L, LASKY, D.O.
109. Thilil allegation constitutes a conclusion of law to which
no response is required. To the extent any response is required,
said allegation is denied, Plaintiff has stated a cause of action
upon which relief can be granted.
110. This allegation constitutes a conclusion of law to which
no response is required,
To the extent that any response is
required, said allegation is denied. The applicable statute of
limitations dirt not expire prior to the institution of this action.
111. These allegations constltute conclusions of law to which
no response is required,
To the extent that any response is
required, said allegationlil are denied. Defendants were negligent
in their care of Plaintiff, as outlined in the Complaint.
112. These allegations constitute conclusions of law to which
no response is required,
To the extent that any response is
required, said allegations are denied. The acts or omissions of
answerinCjJ Defendants did constitute negligence and they were a
substantial causa or factot' of the subject incident and/or did
result in the injuries and/or losselil suffered by Plaintiff,
113. These allegations constitute conclusionlil of law to which
no response is requlred, To the extent that any response is
required, said allegations are denied. Pl~intiff's damages and/or
injuries were directly and proximately caused by the negligent actlil
or omislilions of the named Defendants.
114. These allegations constitute conclusionlil of law to which
no responlile is required. To the extent that any response is
required, said allegations are denied. The incident, injuries,
and/or damages sustained by Plaintiff were proximately caused by
answering Defendants.
115. This allegation constitutes a conclusion of law to which
no response is required, To the extent that any response is
required, said allegation is denied, Plaintiff at all times acted
appropriately and properly mitigated his damages.
116. These allegations constitute a conclusion of law to which
no response is required. To the extent that any response is
required, said allegations are denied, Plaintiff has not entered
into nor signed any release(liI) regarding this instant action,
117. These allegations constitute conclusions of law to which
no response is required. To the extent that any response is
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERV~
AND NOW, thilil
/ .
.) day of
,
I, I ~
1998 I, Jessie K. Walsh,
an employee of Angino , Rovner, P.C., do hereby oertlfy that I have
liIerved a true and correct copy of Plaintiff'liI Response To New
Matter of Defendants Young , Lasky, in the Unlted states mail,
postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addresliled as followsr
Gerhard Schwaibold
Senior Deputy Attorney General
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Torts Litigation Section
15th Floor, Strawberry sq,
Harrlsburg, PA 17120
Counsel for Commonwealth of PA, Dept,
of Corrections and SCIC
Craig A. Stone, Esquire
Mette, Evans , Woodside
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
Counsel for Holy Spirit Hospital
John R, Kantner, Esquire
POST' SCHELL, P,C,
101 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Counsel for Dr. Young' Dr. Lasky
Mark T. Levin, Esquire
FARRELL' RICCI, P.C.
2000 Linglestown Road, suite 108
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Counsel for Dr. Yucha, orthopedio Institute
of PA, and Orthopedic Surgeons, Ltd.
Kimberly A. Sommar, Esquire
MARTIN, CLEARWATER' BELL
220 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10017-5842
Counsel for NHS National Health Services,
Inc. f/d/b/a EHG-National Health Services
4
,
I,
I
,
"
"
II
, '
',I
,
,
, ,
I
"
q ,0 q
t",; t.;IJ
, "
, , , , ( ,~~ I
, . 1'1
I':, "
I~ .... ,;. ,I
,,'')
, , ~t-) "1
,"
'J ~ t. )
, f'l ! 1'1
, J ',.J
I " ~ 1
') ',)
III .'1
. . ....
..
"
"
'l I'
"
."
I,
, I
"
"
, ,
,
I,
, ,
..
I'
q \("1 .')
! lJ/ \1
'., ',,
~_I_' I ,'q "
I'" ,/ :f']
. Ii) r,.)
~ ..1 I")
, , I' :,
,.
" )
" ...~ Iii
Il' I,. ..
.' " I
. - ,,/
../ h..
I , 1
"
, "
"I
"
, ,
..
,I
,
, ,
"
,
,
I,
"
II,
'"
. ,
Ii
,
,',
. .
,
0/
. , .
., i
..
I '
[.
~
I '
I '
"
."1
[
II
'.
','
, ,
J,
,.
" ,
, . ,
, ,
'.
"
,I
I,
"
\1
, ,
"
"
, ,
I,
~