Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-05196 ,'" ." " I , " :\ ,"'i'~~' , r.:'i1'~' i'!f( L ~il ,t', ' It l' \ ~ , ,.1 ','.1f , c,,;r ,,'-\';-\-1\ " , , , , " , .,,' " , ,I, I, " i! " i , 1,)111 " dl , , , 'I.,; , , I, , , , " " " , , " ': , ;1:'1 I' , -j' '" , , , ,. , , " ., .1 1,lf "1 ',' " , " , , , , , " " , , , ", I' " II ii' " --.I ,fit; ',iW ,[ , " 'I " " , ,I ,', ;!'!u' 1 I,', ,', , , , ~ I '1,:1 I' , , ,I \'1' 1'( " , " II" " .,' " " " , ' ,,' .i , ,', ,'1,' ':; " , I,ill jl' , I " " ,,' " " , '" ) , , ., ", I, i, " , , , , " , ' li'l , " .,1 , '. \; I"~ ,. " , , '1', . ','I " , , ,) ',.' .,: '" . ,. ~ ..... . .. .~ ~ 'I " " , 'I ij, , : '" " " , , :! " , 1 'j ./ ", ". , I, " " , ':1 , " ( ..~ " " " "., " '. , I",' ,1 , " ,,' , ,i' ,. " ,I, ",.1 'I :I( f", ", " " , :' " 'II', i, " " ,(,I " , ',',I,': , .' " ,,' ;'1"1 , ,P , ;1,1 I " " ,-' ',1 i , II',,, d,. ." 6. , At all times relevant tQ this Complaint, Defendant Elj.seo Rosario, M.D., held himself out to the pUblic as a specialist in pediatrics. 7. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M,D., held himdelf out to the public as a specialist in pediatrics. 8. Defendant Carlisle Pediatric Associates, a Professional Corporation (hereinafter "Carlisle Pediatric Associates"), is a professional corporation which, at all times relovant to this Complaint, maintained offices and facilities in Carlisle, Cumberland county, Pennsylvania, 9, At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M.D. was a servant, agent, apparent agent, owner and/or employee of Defendant Carlisle Pediatric Associates, and was acting in such capacity. 10. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr" M.D. was a servant, agent, apparent agent, owner and/or employee of Defendant Carlisle Pediatric Associates, and was acting in such capacity, 11. Defendant J. craig Jurgensen, M,D, is currently, and was at all times relevant to this Complaint, a physician licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 12. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen, M.D" held himself out to the public as a specialist in neurology, 2 13,. On November 7, 1992., while performinq ciurinCjJ a cheer leading oontest, 13 year old Suzanne Beam suddenly slumped to the ground and became unresponsive. 14. Suzanne was taken by ambulance to the Carlisle Hospital. 15. After beinq evaluated in the Emergency Room, Suzanne was admitted to the Carlisle Hospital on the service of Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M.D. and/or Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M.D, 16, Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M.D. and/or Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr" M.D" was Suzanne Beam's attending physician throughout the course of her November 7, 1992 through November 8, 1992 Carlisle Hospital admission, 17, As Suzanne Beam's attending physician, Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M,D" and/or Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M.D. was responsible for coordinatinq, overseeing and managing the medical care that was provided to her. 18, Suzanne's principle diagnosia at the time of her admission was "acute loss of consciousness and disorientation, etiology unclear." 19. Suzanne Beam had previously experienced a similar passing-out episode during a cheer leading contest approximately one year prior to the November 7, 1992 Carlisle Hospital admission. 20. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M.D, and/or Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M.D, was aware, or should have been aware, of the prior passing-out epiSOde. 21, After completing an admission history and physical examination upon Suzanne, Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M. D. and/or 3 Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr" M,P. noted that he was "cop.sidez:inq cardiac versus CNS etiologies" for Suzanne's acute loss ot consciousness and disorientation, 22. During the course of Suzanne Beam's November 7, 1992 throuqh November 8, 1992 Carlisle Hospital admission, Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M,D, and/or Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M,D. consulted a Neurologist, Defendant J. craiq Jurqensen, M.D., regardinq Suzanne's condition, 23. Without having the results of a cardiac consultation and/or a full cardiac work-Up, Defendant J, Cr.aig Jurgensen, M,D. advised Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M. D. and/or Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr" M.D. that the syncopal episode seemed more likely CNS, as opposed to cardiac, in etiology and that Suzanne miqht have possibly b'en SUffering from a "sports migraine." 24. On the morning of November 8, 1992, Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M.D. and/or Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M.D. once aqain noted that he was considering a cardiac event versus a CNS event as the etiology of Suzanne's syncopal episode. 25. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M,D. and/or Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M.D, failed, despite his suspicion that Suzanne'. passing-out episode might have been caused by a cardiac event, to refer Suzanne for a cardiology consultation or for a complete cardiac work-Up. 26. Suzanne's condition improved gradually overniqht and ehe was released on November 8, 1992 with the same diagnosis of "acute loss of consciousness and disorientation, etiology unclear." 4 27. At the time of Suzann,' s qischarge from the ,CarUsle Hospital, Defendant Eliseo Rosario, H,D. and/or Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., H,D. ordered a sleep deprived EEG, a stress test and a pediatric neurological consult. 28. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, H.D. and/or Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., H,D. ordered the pediatric neurological consult to determine whether the etiology of Suzanne's syncopal episodes was CNS related. 29, Defendant Eliseo Rosario, H.D, and/or Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., H,D. failed, despite his awareness of the fact that the passing-out episode might have been caused by a cardiac event, to order a cardiology consultation or a complete cardiac work-up for Suzanne. 30. Although Defendant Eliseo Rosario, H.D, and/or Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., H.D. made arrangements for a cardiologist, Dennis E. Line, H,D" to perform a stress test upon suzanne, he did not request a consultation from Dr. Line, or from any other cardiologist, regarding the cause of Suzanne's syncopal episodes, 31. Suzanne Beam's neurological testing revealed no demonstrable abnormality that could explain her syncopal episod.s Which, by history, occurred at times of high excitement and maximum levels ot exercise. 32, Defendant Eliseo Rosario, H.D, and/or Defendant Elis.o Rosario, Jr., M.D. did know, or should have known, in 1992 of so- 5 call,ed "long QT syndrome", a diaease process with sympt'Oms that include s~dden syncope in otherwise healthy individuals, otten at peak levels of stress and exercise, 33. Long QT syndrome presents a substantial risk ot sudden cardiac death. 34. In evaluating Suzanne's history of two unexplained syncopal episodes at peak levels of exerc.ise and excitement, Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M.D. and/or Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr" M.D. limited his cardiac evaluation to a single exercise test of Suzanne Beam. 35. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M.D. and/or Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M,D. did not conduct, or. request, any echographic studies, did not utilize a Holter monitor, and did not examine available exercise testing from Suzanne Beam's family, 36. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M.D. and/or Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr" M,D, did not calculate, or request, a corrected QT segment from the exercise testing that had been performed upon Suzanne Beam by Dr. Line or from the exercise testing of any other Beam family member, even though Long QT Syndrome should have been part of his differential diagnosis. 37. Long QT Syndrome can be hereditary, making other family members' exercise testing relevant, 38. Atter Suzanne Beam's death, Dr, Line calculated corrected QT segments, finding them to be prolonged in several stages of the exercise protocol, 6 39. Recalculations of Suz.anne's father's exerci.e tre.t conducted in 1990 likewise showed prolonged QT intervals, 40. without having obtained the corrected QT .egment calculations, without having had the patient tested with an echocardiogram for 8tructural abnormalitie8 in the heart and without having had the patient tested with a Holter monitor \:0 determine Qlectrophysiological changes over time, Detendant Eli.eo Rosario, M.D. and/or Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M,D. conoluded that Suzanne Beam had no cardiac abnormality. 41. On september 29, 1995, Suzanne Beam was attending a pep rally at Cumberland Valley High School when she, once again, pa.aed out. This time, her heart completely stopped and she died, at ago 16, with her teacher and classmates looking on, COUNT I BAaL L. BBAN AND KATHY A. BlAH, A' ADNIMI'TRATOa. 0' Tal ISTATI 0' SUZANNI BlAH, DBCIIASID, AND IARL L. aBAII AND KATHY A. BlAH, INDIVIDUALLY AND 1M THlIa 0.. RIGHT V. ILISIO ROSARIO. N.D. 42. Paragraphs 1 through 41 of this complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 43. The injuries to Plaintiffs and to Plaintifts' Deoedent a. alleged herein were a direct and proximat3 result ot the negligence of Defendant Elioeo Rosario, M.D" as set torth in paragraph. 45 through 72 below. 44. Detendant Eliseo Rosario, M,D, i. liable to plaintitt. 7 for the injuries alleged herein which were a direct and proxilllate result of his negligence as set forth in paragraphs 45 through 72 below, 45. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M,D. failed to consult Suzanne Beam's family physicians fcr information and advice regarding her medical history and condition. 46. Defendant Elisdc Roaari~, M,D. failed to obtain Suzanne Beam's medical chart from her family physicians in order to gain additional information regarding her prior medical history and condition, 47. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M.D, failed, during and atter her hospitalization in November of 1992, to refer Suzanne Beam to a pediatric cardiologist in order to determine whether the passin.g- out episodes were related to a cardiac problem. 48. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M.D, failed, both during and after her hospitalization in November of 1992, to refer Suzanne Beam to a cardiologist for a complete consultation and cardiac work-up in order to determine whether Suzanne's passing-out episodes were related to a cardiac problem, 49. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M.D. failed to request that Dennis E, Line, M. D. perform a complete cardiac work-Up and evaluation of Suzanne Beam in order to determine whether her syncopal epiSOdes were related to a cardiac problem. 50. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M.D, requested Dennis E. Line, M.D, to perform only a stress test upon Suzanne Beam. 8 51. . Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M,D, failed, upon beinG) advised by Dr. Line's office that the results of Suzanne's stress test were normal, to request further evaluation and testing by a cardiologist in order to determine whether Suzanne's syncopal episodes were related to a cardiac problem. 52. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M,D, tailed to request and/or conduct an echocardiogram for Suzanne Beam, 53. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M,D. tailed to determine whether Suzanne Beam's syncopal problems were related to structural or electrophysiological abnormalities in her heart or to any other cardiac pathology, 54. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M,D. tailed to consider long QT syndrome as a diagnosis for Suzanne Beam's syncopal episodes and to take steps to evaluate that diagnosis. 55. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M,D. tailed to recognize that Suzanne Beam had signs and symptoms ot clu'diac problems that presented the possibility of sudden cardiac death. 56. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M,D, tailed to advise Suzanne's parents about the possibility that she might be suffering from cardiac problems and/or to recommend additional cardiology tollow- up beyond the stress test performed by Dr. Line, 57. Defendant Eliseo ROl/ario, M,D, tailQd, prior to Suzanne's death, to diagnose her as Buttering trom Long QT Syndrome or from any other cardiac disease or abnormality, 9 58. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M.D. failed to determine that Suzanne Beam's passing-out episodes were caused by cardiac abnormalities, 59. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M,D. failed to determine that Suzanne Beam had structural heart abnormalities of an Ebstein-like malfunction of the tricuspid valve, an abnormality which is associated with sudden cardiac deaths in children. 60, Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M,D, failed to diagnose abnormal prolonged QT intervals in an otherwise healthy child presenting with a series of unexplained syncopal episOdes at peak levels of exercise and stress, 61, Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M.D. failed to utilize, or to order, a Holter monitor to determine the presence of any abnormalities, including T-wave alternans, 62. Defendant Elisso Rosario, M.D, failed to consider long QT syndrome as part of his differential diagnosis. 63, Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M.D, failed to calculate and "correct" Suzanne Beam's, or any other Beam family member's, QT intervals, or to request that corrected QT intervals be calculated and corrected, 64. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M.D. failed to aggressively evaluate a child whose syncopal episodes occurred at the peak of exercise, which strongly suggested a cardiac source, 65, Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M.D, failed to keep current in the literature concerning Long QT syndrome and sudden cardiac death in children, yet proceeded to evaluate a pediatric patient whose 10 symptoms suggested, or should have suggested, the possibility of Long QT or other electrophysiological abnormalities associated with sudden cardiac death. 66. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M.D. advised Plaintiffs that their daughter had no cardiac prcblems, when in fact she did. 67. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M.D. failed, after completing his evaluation in 1992, to advise the Plaintiffs to get follow~up care or evaluation concerning a possible cardiac basis for Suzanne's syncope episodes. 68, Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M.D. failed, after completing his evaluation in 1992, to advise Suzanne or her parents to restrict her activities or place appropriate limits on her activities, 69. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M.D. failed to recognize the signs and symptoms of cardiac abnormalities which could lead to sudden cardiac death, 70. Defendant Eliseo Rosa~io, M.D. failed to use all of the tests avail.able and required to determine whether Suzanne's signs and symptoms were cardiac in origin. 71. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M.D. failed to treat Suzanne for any cardiac problems, including I,ong QT Syndrome, from 1992 until the date of her death in 1995. 72. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M.D. failed to diagnose Suzanne as suffering from Long QT syndrome and to properly treat her for such. 11 73. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant EUseo Rosario, M.D.'s negligence as set forth above, Suzanne Beam suffered a fatal cardiac arrhythmia. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Earl t. Beam and Kathy A. Beam, as Administrators of the Estate of Suzannu Beam, Deceased, and Earl L. Beam and Kathy A, Beam, Individually and in Their Own Right demand judgment against Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M,D. in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000), exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT II IARL L. BBAK AND KATHY A. BEAH, AS ADMINISTRATORS or THB BSTATB or SUZANNB BEAH, DECBASED, AND EARL L. BBAN AND KATHY A. BEAM, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THBIR OWN RIGHT V. BLISEO ROSARIO. JR.. M.D. 74, Paragraphs 1 through 41 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 75, The injuries to Plaintifftl and to Plaintiffs' Decedent as alleged herein we~e a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M.D., as set forth in paragraphs 77 through 104 below, 76. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr" M.D. is liable to Plaintiffs for the injuries alleged herein which were a direct and proximate result of his negliqence as Bet forth in paragraphs 17 through 104 below. 12 .77, Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M.D. failed to conClult Suzanne Beam's family physicians for information and advice regarding her medical history and condition, 78, Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr" M,D. failed to obtain Suzanne Beam's medical chart from her family physicians in order to gain additional information regarding her prior medical history and condition. 79, Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M,D, failed, during and after her hospitalization in November of 1992, to refer Suzanne Beam to a pediatric cardiologist in order to determine whether the passing-out episodes were related to a cardiac problem. 80. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M.D. failed, both during and after her hospitalization in November of 1992, to refer Suzanne Beam to a cardiologist for a complete consultation and cardiac work-up in order to determine whether Suzanne's passing-out episodes were related to a cardiac problem, 81. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M,D. failed to request that Dennis E. Line, M.D. perform a complete cardiac work-up and evaluation of Suzanne Beam in order to determine whether her syncopal episodes were related to a cardiac problem. 82, Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M,D, requested Dennis E. Line, M,D. to perform only a stress test upon Suzanne Beam. 83. Defendant Elisao Rosario, Jr" M,D. failed, upon being advised by Dr. Line's office that the results of Suzanne'. stress test were normal, to request further evaluation and testing by a 13 cardiologist in ol':der to determine .whether Suzanne's' syncopal episodes were related to a cardiac problem. 84, Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M.D, failed to request and/or conduct an echocardiogram tor Suzanne Beam, 85. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M.D. failed ~o determine whether Suzanne Beam's syncopal problems were related to structural or electrophysiological abnormalities in her heart or to any other cardiac pathology. 86. Defendant Eljseo Rosario, Jr., M.D, failed to consider long QT syndrome as a diagnosi~ for. Suzanne Beam's syncopal episodes and to take steps to evaluate that diagnosis. 87. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M.D, failed to recognize that Suzanne Beam had signs and symptoms of cardiac problems that presented the possibility of sudden cardiac death. 88. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M,D, failed to advise Suzanne's parents about the possibility that she might be SUffering from cardiac problems and/or to recommend additional cardiOlogy follow-up beyond the stress test performed by Dr, Line. 89. Defendant Elisea Rosario, Jr" M.D. failed, prior to Suzanne's death, to diagnose her as suffering from Long QT syndrome or from any other cardiac disease or abnormality. 90. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M.D. failed to determine that Suzanne Beam's passing-out episodes were caused by cardiac abnormalities. 91, Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr" M.D, failed to determine that Suzanne Beam had structural heart abnormalities of an Ebstein- 14 like malfunction of the tricuspid valve, an abnormality which is associated with sudden cardiac deaths in children. 92. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr" M.D, failed to diagnose abnormal prolonged QT intervals in an otherwise healthy child presenting with a series of unexplained syncopal episodes at peak levels of exercise and stress. 93. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M,D. failed to utilize, or to order, a Holter monitor to determine the presence of any abnormalities, including T-wave alternans, 94. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M.D. failed to consider long QT syndrome as part of his differential diagnosis. 95. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M.D, railed to calculate and "correct" Suzanne Beam's, or any other Beam family member's, QT intervals, or to request that corrected QT intervals be calculated and corrected. 96. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M.D. failed to aggressively evaluate a child whose syncopal episodes occurred at the peak of exercise, which strongly suggested a cardiac source. 97. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M.D. failed to keep current in the literature concerning Long QT syndrome and sudden cardiac death in children, yet proceeded to evaluate a pediatric patient whose symptoms suggested, or should have suggested, the possibility of Long QT or other electrophysiological abnormalities associated with sudden cardiac death, 98. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M,D, advised Plaintiffs that their daughter had no cardiac problems, when in fact she did. 15 99. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr" M.D, failed, after completing his evaluation in 1992, to advise the Plaintiffs to get follow-up care or evaluation concerning a possible cardiac basis for Suzanne's syncope episodes, 100. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr" M.D, failed, after completing his evaluation in 1992, to advise Suzanne or her parents to restrict her activities or place appropriate limits on her activities. 101. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M,D. failed to recognize the signs and symptoms of cardiac abnormalities which could lead to sudden cardiac death. 102. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M.D. failed to use all of the tests available and required to determine whether Suzanne's signs and symptoms were cardiac in origin. 103. Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr" M.D. failed to treat Suzanne for any cardiac problems, including Long QT Syndrome, from 1992 until the date of her death in 1995. 104. Defendant Elisso Rosario, Jr., M.D. failed to diagnose Suzanne as suffering from Long QT Syndrome and to properly treat her for such. 105. As a diroct and proximate result of Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr" M,D.'s negligence as set forth above, Suzanne Beam suffered a fatal cardiac arrhythmia. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Earl L. Beam and Kathy A. Beam, as Administrators of the Estate of Suzanne Beam, Deceased, and Earl L. Beam and Kathy A. Beam, Individually and in Their Own Right demand 16 judgment against Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M.D, in an amount in 8XC.SS of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000), exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT I II IARL L. BBAK AMD KATHY A. BBAH, AS ADKIMISTRATOa8 O. TH. .STAT. O. 8UZANNI BBAK, DBCIASID, AHD IARL L. BlAH AHD KATHY A. BlAH, INDIVIDUALLY AHD 1M TIBIa OWN RIGHT V. CARLISLB PBDIATRIC ASSOCIATIS 106. Paragraphs 1 through 41 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference, 107. At aU time relevant to this complaint, Eliseo Rosario, M,D. and/or Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M.D. was a servant, agent, apparent agent, employee and/or officer of Defendant Carlisle pediatric Associates, al~ was acting in such capacity, 108. Defendant Carlisle Pediatric Associates is liable to Plaintiffs for the injuries alleged herein which were a direct and proximate result of the negligence of its employees, servants, agents, apparent agents and/or and officers, including Defendant Eliseo Rosario, M.D, and/or Defendant Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M.D. as set forth in paragraphs 109 through 136 below. 109. Said agent~, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed to consult Suzanne Beam's family physicians for information and advice regarding her medical history and condition. 110. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed to obtain Suzanne Beam's medical chart from her 17 family physicians in order to gain addi tional information regarding her prior medical history an~ condition, 111. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed, during and after her hospitalization in November of 1992, to refer Suzanne Beam to a pediatric cardiologist in order to determine whether the passing-out episodes were related to a cardiac problem. 112. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed, both during and after her hospitalization in November of 1992, to refer Suzanne Beam to a cardiologist for a complete ccnsultation and cardiac work-up in order to determine whether Suzanne's passing-out episodes were related to a cardiac problem, 113. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed to request that Dennis E. Line, M.D. perform a complete cardiac work-up and evaluation of Suzanne Beam in order to determine whether her syncopal episodes were related to a cardiac problem. 114, Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees requested Dennis E. Line, M,D, to perform only a stress test upon Suzanne Beam. 115. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed, upon being advised by Dr. Line's office that the results of Suzanne's stress test were normal, to request further evaluation and testing by a cardiologist in order to determine 18 whether Suzanne's syncopal episodes were related to a cardiac problem, 116. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed to request and/or conduct an echocardiogram tor Suzanne Beam. 117. Said agents, apparent agents, cfficers, servants and/or employees failed to determine whether Suzanne Beam's fJyncopal problems were related to structural or electrophysiological abnormalities in her heart or to any other cardiac pathology, 118. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed to consider long QT syndrome as a diagnosis tor Su?anne Beam's syncopal episodes and to take steps to evaluate that diagnosis. 119. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed to recognize that Suzanne Beam had signs and symptoms of cardiac problems that presented the possibility of sudden cardiac death. 120. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed to advise Suzanne's parents about the possibility that she might be suffering from cardiac problems and/or to recommend additional cardiology follow-up beyond the stress test performed by Dr. Line, 121. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed, prior to Suzanne's death, to diagnose her as suttering from Long QT Syndrome or from any other cardiac disease or abnormality. 19 122. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees tailed to determine that Suzanne Beam's passing-out episodes were caused by cardiac abnormalities, 123. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed to determine that Suzanne Beam had structural heart abnormalities of an Ebstein-like malfunction of the tricuspid valvo, an abnormality which is associated with sudden cardiac deaths in children. 124. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed to diagnose abnormal prolonged QT intervals in an otherwise healthy child presenting with a series of unexplained syncopal episodes at peak levels of exercise and stress. 125. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed to utilize, or to order, a Holter monitor to determine the presence of any abnormalities, including 1'-wave alternans. 126. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed to consider long QT syndrome as part of their differential diagnosis. 127. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed to calculate and "correct" Suzanne Beam's, or any other Beam family member's, QT intervals, or to request that corrected QT intervals be calculated and corrected. 128. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or 20 employees failed to aggressively evaluate a child whose syncopal episodes occurred at the peak of exercise, which strongly suggested a cardiac source. 129, said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed to keep current in the literature concerning Long QT syndrome and sudden cardiac death in children, yet proceeded to evaluate a pediatric patient whose symptoms suggested, or should have suggested, the possibility of Long QT or other electrophysiological abnormalities associated with sudden cardiac death. 130, Selid agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees advised Plaintiffs that their daughter had no cardiac problems, when in fact she did. 131. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed, after completing their evaluation in 1992, to advise the Plaintiffs to get follow-up care or evaluation concerning a possible cardiac basis for Suzanne's syncope episodes. 132. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed, after completing their evaluation in 1992, to advise Suzanne or her parents to restrict her activities or place appropriate limits on her activities, 133. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed to recognize the signs and symptoms of cardiac abnormalities which could lead to sudden cardiac death. 21 134. Said agents, apparent agenta, officers, servants anp/or employees failed to us. all of the tests available and required to determine whether Suzanne's signs and symptoms were cardiac in origin, 135. said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed to treat Suzanne for any cardiac problems, including Long QT syndrome, from 1992 until the date of her death in 1995. 136. said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed to diagnose Suzanne as suffering from Long QT syndrome and to properly treat her for such. 137, As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees of Defendant Carlisle Pediatric Associates as set forth above, Suzanne Beam suffered a fatal cardiac arrhythmia. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Earl L. Beam and Kathy A, Beam, as Administrators of the Estate of Suzanne Beam, Deceased, and Earl L. Beam and Kathy A. Beam, Individually and in Their Own Ri~ht demand judgment against Defendant Carlisle Pediatric Associates, ^ Professional Corporation in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000), exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration, ,. 22 COl'NT IV IARL L. BBAN AMD KATHY A. BBAN, AS ADKINISTaAToaS or THB ISTAU or SUZANNI BlAH, DECBuaD, AND BAaL L. BBAN AID KATHY A. BlAH, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THBIR OWN RIGHT V. J. CRAIG JURGENSBN. N.D. 138, Paragraphs 1 through 41 of this complaint are incorporated herein by reference, 139. plaintiffs' decedent's injuries, and the injuries to Plaintiffs, as alleged herein, were a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant .7. craig Jurgensen, M.D. as set forth in paragraphs 141 through 172 below. 140, As a direct and proximate result of his negligence as set forth in paragraphs 141 through 172 below, Defendant J. craig Jurgensen, M.D, is liable to the Plaintiffs for the damages alleged herein, 14l.Defendant J, Craig Jurgensen, M,D. failed to consult Suzanne Beam's family physicians for information and advice regarding her medical history and condition. 142, Defendant J. craig Jurgensen, M.D. failed to obtain Suzanne Beam's medical chart from her family physicians in order to gain additional information regarding her prior medical history and condition, 143. Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen, M. D. failed, during and after her hospitalization in November of 1992, to refer Suzanne Beam to a pediatric cardiologist in order to determine whether Suzanne's the passing-out episodes were related to a cardiac problem. 23 144. Defendant J, craig Jurgensen, M,D. failed, both during and after her hospitalization in November of 1992, to refer Suzanne Beam to a cardiologist for a complete consultatj,on and cardiac work-up in order to determine whether Suzanne's passing-out episodes were related to a cardiac problem. 145. Defendant J, Craig Jurgensen, M. D, failed to request that Dennis E. Line, M,D, perform a complete cardiac work-up and evaluation of Suzanne Beam in order to determine whether her syncopal episodes were related to a cardiac problem, 146. Defendant J, Craig Jurgensen, M,D, requested Dennis E. Line, M.D. to perform only a stress test upon Suzanne Beam. 147. Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen, M, D. failed to apprise himself of the results of the stress test performed upon Suzanne Beam by Dr. Line. 148. Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen, M. D. failed, upon being advised by Dr, Line's office that the results of Suzanne's stress test were normal, to request further evaluation and testing by a cardiologist in order to deterlnine whether Suzanne's syncopal episodes were related to a cardiac problem. 149. Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen, M.D, failed to request and/or conduct an echocardiogram for Suzanne Beam. 150. Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen, M,D. failed to determine whether Suzanne Beam's syncopal problems were related to structural or electrophysiological abnormalities in her heart or to any other cardiac pathology. 24 1510 Defendant J. craig JUl.'gensen, M. D, failed to' cons.l.der long QT syndrome as a diagnosis for Suzanne Beam's syncopal episodes and to take steps to evaluate that diagnosis. 152, Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen, M.D. failed to recognize that Suzanne Beam had signs and symptoms of cardiac problems that presented the possibility of sudden cardiac death. 153, Defendant J, Craig Jurgensen, H.D. tailed to advise Suzanne's pa~ents about the possibility that she might be sUffering from cardiac problems and/or to recommend additional cardiology follow-up beyond the stress test performed by Dr, Line. 154. Defendant J, Craig Jurgensen, M.D. tailed, prior to Suzanne's death, to diagnose her as sUffering from Long QT Syndrome or from any other cardiac disease or abnormality. 155. Defendant J, craig Jurgensen, M,D, advised Eliseo Rosario, M.D. that Suzanne Beam's syncopal episode was more likely eNs, as opposed to cardiac, in etiology, despite the fact that a complete cardi~c work-up and evaluation of Suzanne Beam had not been performed or obtained. 156. Defendant J, Craig Jurgensen, M.D, failed to determine that Suzanne Beam's syncopal episodes were caused by cardiac abnormalities, 157. Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen, M.D, failed to detect structural heart abnormalities of an Ebstein-like malfunction of the tricuspid valve, an abnormality which is associated with sudden cardiac deaths in children. 25 158. Defendant J, craig Jurgensen, M,D, tailed to' diagnose abnormal prolonged QT intervals in an otherwise healthy child presenting with a series of unexplained syncopal episodes at peak levels ot exorcise and stress. 159. Defendant J. craig Jurgensen, M,D, failed to utilize a Holter monitor to determine the presence of any abnormalities, including T-wave alternans. 160. Defendant J, craig Jurgensen, M.D. failed to consider long QT syndrome as part of his differential diagnosis. 161. Defendant J, craig Jurgensen, M,O. failed to calculate and "correct" Suzanne Beam's, or any other Beam family member's, QT intervals, or to request that corrected QT intervals be calculated and corrected, 162. Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen, M.D. failed to aggressively evaluate a child whose syncopal episodes occurred at the peak of exercise, which strongly suggested a cardiac source. 163. Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen, M,D, failed to keep current in the literature concerning Long QT syndrome and sudden cardiac death in children, yet proceeded to evaluate a pediatric patient whose symptoms suggested, or should have suggested, the possibility of Long QT or other electrophysiological abnormalities associated with sudden cardiac death. 164. Defendant J, Craig Jurgensen, M,D, advised Plaintiffs that their daughter had no cardiac problems, when in fact she did. 165. Defendant J, Craig Jurgensen, M,D. failed, after 26 completing hie evaluation in 1992., to ,advise the Plaintiffs to get fOllow-up care or evaluation concerning a possible cardiac basi. for Suzanne's syncope episodes. 166. Defendant J, Craig Jurgensen, H,D. tailed, after completing his evaluation in 1992, to advise Suzanne or her parents to restrict her activities or place appropriate limit. on her activities. 167. Defendant J, Craig Jurgensen, M.D. failed to recognize the signs and symptoms of cardiac abnormalities which could lead to sudden cardiac death. 168, Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen, M,D. failed to use all of the tests available and raquired to determine whether Suzanne's signs and symptoms were cardiac in origin, 169. Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen, M,D. failed to treat Suzanne for any cardiac problems, including Long QT Syndrome, from 1992 until the date of her death in 1995. 170. Defendant J, Craig Jurgensen, M.D. failed to diagnose Suzanne as SUffering from Long QT Syndrome and to properly treat her for such, 171. Defendant J. craig Jurgensen, M.D. advised Dr. Rosario that Suzanne Beam's syncopal episode was more likely CNS, as opposed to cardiac, in etiology, 172. Defendant J. craig Jurgensen, M.D, advised Dr. Rosario that Suzanne Beam's syncopal episode was more likely CNS, as opposed to cardiac, in etiology despite the fact that he did not 27 pertorma complete neurologic evaluation and work-up of SUZiSnne Beam during the course of her Ncvember, 1992 Carlhle Ho.pital ad.i..ion. 173, As a direct and proximate result of Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen, M,D.'s negligence as sst forth above, Suzanne Beam suffered a fatal cardiac arrhythmia, WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Earl L, Beam and Kathy A, Beam, as Administrators of the Estate of Suzanne Beam, Deceased, and Earl L, Beam and Kathy A. Beam, Individually and in Their Own Right demand judgment against Defendant J, Craig Jurgensen, M,D. in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000), exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration, CLAIM I - SURVIVAL ACTION BAaL L. BBAM AND ltATHY A. BEAM, AS ADMINISTRATORS OF THB BSTATE OF SUZANNE BBAM, DBCEASBD V. ELISBO ROSARIO, M.D., BLISBO ROSARIO, JR., M.D., CARLISLE PBDIATRIC ASSOCIATBS, A PROFBSSIONAL CORPORATION AND J. CRAIG JURGBNSBN. H.D. 174. Paragraphs one through 41 and Counts I, II, III and IV of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference, 175. Plaintiffs Earl L. Beam and Kathy A. Beam bring this action on behalf of the Estate of Suzanne Beam, deceased, under and by virtue of the Act of 1976, July 9, P.L. 586, No. 142, 52, 42 Pa.C,S.A. 58302, 176. The decedent did not bring an action for her injuries during her lifetime. 28 177, For the reasons set forth above, the named Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Eatate of Suzanne Beam, deceased, for the damages set forth herein. 178. Plaintiffs Earl L, Beam and Kathy A. Beam, as Administrators of the Estate of Suzanne Beam, deceased, claim on bohalf of said Estate the damages suffered by the Estate by reason of the death of Suzanne Beam, inclUding the Decedent's medical expenses, the conscious pain and suffering of the Decedent prior to death, the Decedent's loss of earnings and earning capacity, and all other damages properly recoverable under 42 Pa.C,S,A, 58302. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Earl L. Beam and Kathy A. Beam, as Administrators of the Estate of Suzanne Beam, demand judgment against Defendants Eliseo Rosario, M.D" Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M.D" Carlisle Pediatric Associates, a Professional Corporation and J, Craig Jurgensen, M,D" in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000), exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any juriSdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration, CLAIM II - WRONGFUL DEATH IARL L. BBAM AND KATHY A. BEAM, AS ADMIN:ESTRATORS 01' THI ISTATI 01' SUZANNE BEAM, DECEASED AND BAaL L. BBAM AND KATHY A. BEAM, INDIVIDUALLY AND :EN THI:ER 0.. RIGHT V. ILISEO ROSARIO, M.D., ILISEO ROSAR:EO, JR., M.D., CARLISLI P2DIATRIC ASSOCIATES, A PROI'ESS:EONAL CORPORATION AND J. CRAIG JURGENSEN. M.D. 179. Paragraphs one through 41 and Counts I, II, III and IV of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 29 180. Plaintiffs Earl L, Beam and Kathy A, Beam, as parents of the decedent Suzanne Beam, are beneficiaries entitled to bring this wrongful death claim pursuant to 42 Pa,C.S.A, 58301(b), 181. Plaintiffs Earl L, Beam and Kathy A. Beam bring this action for the wrongful death of Suzanne Beam, deceased, in their own right and on behalf of all persons entitled to recover damages under and by virtue of the Act of 1976, July ~, P.L. 586, No. 142, 52, 42 Pa.C.S.A. 58301, 182, The Decedent did not bring an action for her injuries during her lifetime. 183, Plaintiffe Earl L. Beam and Kathy A, Beam are the parents 9f Suzanne Beam, who died on September 29, 1995, and they are the Administrators of the Estate of Suzanne Beam. 184. The following are the names of all persons entitled by law to recover damages for such wrongful death and their relationship to decedent: ~ RelationshiD Address Earl L. Beam father Carlisle, PA Kathy A. 8eam mother Carlisle, PA Amy Beam sister Carlisle, PA 185. For the reasons set forth above, the named Defendants are joir.tly and severally liable to the aforesaid beneficiaries of Suzanne Beam, deceased, for the damages set forth herein, 186. As a direct and proximate result of the death of Suzanne Beam, Earl L, Beam and Kathy A. Beam have incurred medical, 30 , ' , , ~ ~ ,.. (; "Jl.' r:- ~.. h'0. (Yj :~,i .;1' 0 ,~ ). r. ) ~ .: It) ~ , S , c".,;.' ~! : t, 't' ~~ , }-)(.: l.'... i ('." ., lri l.D " ~' ,;'- Ir. "J ] J I" ..",: <~. I \ ({l. I r.. .! ! ~, ," -=t" ~ ( ~ ,~ ;'.If',l ~ ~ "" ._' !L.. 1.1" r-' ..:': , w ~:, t;J' W , " " I' " I' " " ., ",' " " ~~:\:::~~~, hU,L.lt ,lun'!'J" , , :;j!/!'P~~' ,_\;': ;~':--;";.'L'Y-:;;--:'-: . ~- ;" ~,',~),: '_~~:~:'~--'-~:: ,: ';::~(::i:v;:;,,~:~-:',":;i!' '?;~,,: /,,: ;.. ,:' \ I .), '," \ '1' 'If'" ~\'.' ,)~ ,d,\ "'\_~' :,J ~. ii, ,- . j -J .-, '" - I \ ;,', \d.':v'rfYj";:r:.!l\,,\I, 1-': ' I . 'I! , "I \ , . _I..... " " f:.-!tL,,'r,';:J! , I L I 'I" ',',I!\-"_ "i:,',''d_;r.:'H,I ~8~J., $H''1'~, . . H:A"~~~~{!Aii;;;~ii " 'Il() lIOUTIt 06'\'8 eTa.n. .,' .',':','I::'~' Cl"IP\BI~'PB!fH~V~L\ 170.tl ~.'!",\ii:l't~~1\ .,' , .(71'), ;.I:.U~ . ',,";"i{i;;()/j)j " .) ) ::/_::~S~i;(r:g~:b~~ ,;-, '''''l~,_,-,~",'J- ,,\,! 1 ,"-::t, . ~ \ I .Ii' .- " ~ '. t r ..t1 k\ , \ " ...:;'" .~---- ...:':-......, belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in these paragraphs and, therefore, denles same and demands strict proof thereof at time of trial. 4.10. Paragraphs 4 through 10 ofthe Plaintiffs' Complaint refer to a 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 paragraphs 4 through 10 are deemed to pertain to answering Defendant, It ls specifically and unequivocally denied since after reasonable investigatlon, answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained therein. 11. Admitted. 12. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that answering Defendant worked in neurology at the Carlisle Hospital at the time of Plaintiffs' Decedent's admission to the Carlisle Hospital. The remainder of the averments contained in paragraph 12 of the Plaintlffs' Complaint set forth conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the altemative, to the extent that the remainder of the allegations of paragraph 12 are deemed facts to which a response is deemed required the averments of this paragraph are denied in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 1029 (e). 13-21. Denied. The averments contained in paragraphs 13 through 21 are denied generally in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) as amended June 16, 1994. 22. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen, M.D. performed any "consultation" with respect to Plaintiffs' Decedent during or after her November 1992 admission to the Carlisle Hospital. To the contrary, Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was not requested to perform a "consultation" nor did he perform a "consultation" 139.140. Denied. The averments contained in paragraphs 139 and 140 of the Plalntiffs' Complaint set forth conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative. to the extent that the allegations of paragraphs 139 and 140 are deemed to contain facts to which a response is deemed required. the averments of these paragraphs are denied in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 1029 (e). 141. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 141 set forth conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was requested to perform or performed any dlrect role in the care or treatment rendered to Plaintiffs' Decedent during or after her 1992 admission to the Carlisle Hospital that would have provided him with the obligation or opportunity to consult Plaintiffs' Decedent's family physician for information and advice regarding her medical history and condition. 142. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 142 set forth conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response ls required. In the alternative, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was requested to perform or performed any direct role in the care or treatment rendered to Plaintiffs' Decedent during or after her 1992 admission to the Carlisle Hospital that would have provided him with the obligation or opportunity to obtain Plaintiffs' Decedent's medical chart irom her family physician for information regarding her medical history and condition. 143. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 143 set forth conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was requested to perform or performed any direct role in the care or treatment rendered to Plaintiffs' Decedent during or after her 1992 admission to the Carlisle Hospital that would have provided him with the obligation or opportunity to refer Plaintiffs' Decedent to a pediatric cardiologist. 144. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 144 set forth concluslons of law as opposed to statements <>f fact and no response is requlred. In the alternative, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Cralg Jurgensen was requested to perform 01' performed any direct role in the care or treatment rendered to Plaintiffs' Decedent during or after her 1992 admission to the Carlisle Hospital that would have provided him with the obligation or opportunity to refer Plaintiffs' Decedent to a cardiologist for a complete consultation and cardiac work up. 145. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 145 set forth conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was requested to perform or performed any direct role in the care or treatment rendered to Plaintiffs' Decedent during or after her 1992 admission to the Carlisle Hospital that would have provided him with the obligation or opportunity to request Dennis E. Line to perform a complete cardiac work up of Plaintiffs' Decedent. 146. Denied. It is specifieally and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was requested to perform or performed any direct role in the care or treatment rendered to Plaintiffs' Decedent during or after her 1992 admission to the Carlisle Hospital that would have provided him with the obligation or opportunity to request or limit the testing to be performed by Dennis E. Line on the Plaintiffs' Decedent. 147. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 147 set forth conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was requested to perform or performed any direct role in the care or treatment rendered to Plaintiffs' Decedent during or after her 1992 admission to the Carlisle Hospital that would have provided him with the obligation or opportunity to I.Ipprise himself of the results of the Plaintiffs' Decedent's stress test performed by Dennis E. Line. 148. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 148 set forth conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was requested to r~rform or performed any direct role in the care or treatment rendered to Plaintiffs' Decedent during or after her 1992 admission to the Carlisle Hospital that would have provided him with the obligation or opportunity to request further evaluation or testing of Plaintiffs' Decedent by a cardiologist. 149. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 149 set forth concluslons of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig JurKensen was requested to perform or performed any direct role in the care or treatment rendered to Plair.ti;'fs' Decedent during or after her 1992 admission to the Carlisle Hospital that would have provided him with the obligation or opportunity to request or conduct an echocardiogram Plaintiffs' Decedent. 150. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 150 set forth conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was requested to perform or performed any direct role in the care or treatment rendered to Plaintiffs' Decedent during or after her 1992 admission to the Carlisle Hospital that would have provided him with the obligation or opportun~ty to determine whether Plaintiffs' Decedent syncopal problems were related to structural or eleclrophysiological abnormalities in her heart or to any other cardiac pathology. 151. Denied. The averments contained In paragraph 151 set forth concluslons of law os opposed to statements of fact and no response ls required. In the alternative. it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was requested to perform or performed any diret;t role in the care or treatment rendered to Plaintiffs' Decedent during or after her 1992 admission to the Carlisle Hospital that would have provided him with the obligation or opportunity to conslder, test and evaluate Plaintiffs' Decedent for long QT syndrome. 152. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 152 set forth conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative. it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was requested to perform or performed any direct role in the care or treatment rendered to Plaintiffs' Decedent during or after her 1992 admission to the Carlisle Hospital that would have provided him with the obligation or opportunity to recognize that Plaintiffs' Decedent had signs or symptoms of cardiac problems. 153. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 153 set forth conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative. it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was requested to perform or performed any direct role in the care or treatment rendered to Plaintiffs' Decedent during or after her 1992 admission to the Carlisle Hospital that would have provided him with the obHsation or opportunity to advise the parents of Plaintiffs' Decedent that she might be suffering from cardiac problems and or to recommend additional cardiology studies, 154. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 154 set forth conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response ls required. In the alternative, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was requested to perform or performed any direct role in the care 01' treatment rendered to Plaintiffs' Decedent durlng or after her 1992 admission to the Carllsle Hospital that would have provided him with the obligation or opportunity to diagnose Plaintiffs' Decedent as suffering from any cardiac disease or abnormallty. 155. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen excluded a cardiac condition or in any way suggested that a cardiac condition should be excluded from consideration as a possible etiology of Plaintiffs' Decedent's November 1992 ~yncopa] episode. To the contrary, Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was not requested to make nor did he make any diagnosis or recommendation as to the care or treatment that Plaintiffs' Decedent should undergo during or after her November 1992 admission to the Carllsle Hospital. Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen's sole involvement with Plaintiffs' Decedent's November 1992 admission to the Carllsle Hospital was to su~gest during a general telephonic conversation with Co-Defendant Rosario, without comment as to the presence or absence of a cardiac condition. that a sports migraine should be considered as a possible example of a cause of a syncopal episode in a patient that presents with complaints of a head ache and seizure activity. 156. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 156 set forth conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative. it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was requested to perform or performed any direct role in the care or treatment rendered to Plaintiffs' Decedent during or after her 1992 admission to the Carlisle Hospital that would have provided him with the obligation or opportunity to determine that Plaintiffs' Decedent's syncopal episodes were caused by cardlac abnormalities. 157. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 157 set forth concluslons of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response ls required. In the alternativ~. it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was requested to perform or performed any direct role in the care or treatment rendered to Plaintiffs' Decedent during or after her 1992 admission to the Carlisle Hospital that would have provided hlm with the obligatlon or opportunity to detect Plaintiffs' Decedent's structural heartabnormalities, 158. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 158 set forth conclusions of law as opposed to 6tatements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative. it Is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was requested to perform or performed any direct role in the care or treatment rendered to Plaintiffs' Decedent during or after her 1992 admission to the Carlisle Hospital that would have provided him with the obligation or opportunity to diagnose abnormal prolonged QT intervals at Plaintiffs' Decedent's peak levels of exercise and stress. 159. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 159 set forth conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative, it is specificaHy and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was requested to pel'form or performed any direct role in the care or treatment rendered to Plaintiffs' Decedent during or after her 1992 admission to the Carlisle Hospital that would have provided him with the obligation or opportunity to utili:te a halter monitor to determlne the presence of any abnormalities. 160. Denied. The averments contained in poragraph 160 set forth conclusions of low as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was requested to perform or performed any direct role in the care or treatment rendered to Plaintiffs' Decedent during or after her 1992 admisslon to the Carlisle Hospital that would have provided him with the obligation or opportunity to diagnose or conslder that Plaintiffs' Decedent had long QT syndrome. 161. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 161 set forth concluslons of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was requested to perform or performed any direct role in the care or treatment rendered to Plaintiffs' Decedent during or after her 19n admission to the Carlisle Hospital that would have provided him with the obligation or opportunity to calculate, correct or request that Plaintiffs' Decedent's QT intervals be calculated or corrected. 162. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 162 set forth conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was requested to perform or performed any direct role in the care or treatment rendered to Plaintiffs' Decedent during or ofter her 1992 admission to the Carlisle Hospital that would have provided him with the obligation or opportunity to aggressively evaluate Plaintiffs' Decedent. 163. Denied, The averments contained in paragraph 163 set forth conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative, it is spedflcally and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was requested to perform or performed any direct role in the care or treatment rendered to Plaintiffs' Decedent during or after her 1992 admission to the Carlisle Hospital that wOllld have provided him with the obligation or opportunity to evaluate Plaintiffs' Decedent. 164. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen advised Plaintiffs that Plaintiffs' Decedent had no cardiac problems. To the contrary, Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen had no direct contact with Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' Decedent during or after Plaintiffs' Decedent's November 1992 admission to the Carlisle Hospital. 165. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 165 set forth conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was requested to perform or performed any direct role in the care or treatment rendered to Plaintiffs' Decedent during or after her 1992 admission to the Carlisle Hospital that would have provided him with the obligation or opportunity to evaluate Plaintiffs' Decedent or advise Plaintiffs as to possible follow up care of Plaintiffs' Decedent. 166. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 166 set fOlth conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was requested to perform or performed any direct role in the care or treatment rendered to Plaintiffs' Decedent during or after her 1992 admission to the Carlisle Hospital that would have provided him with the oblisation or opportunity to evaluate Plaintiffs' Decedent or advlse Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' Decadent as to restrictions In Plaintiffs' Decedent's activities. 167. Denied. The averments contained In paragraph 167 set fonh conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternatlve, it is speclfically and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was requested to perform or performed any direct role in the care or treatment rendered to Pluintiffs' Decedent durins or after her 1992 admission to the Carlisle Hospital that would have provided him with the oblisation or opportunity to recognize signs or symptoms of cardiac abnormalities in the Plaintiffs' Decedent. 168. Denied. The averments contained in poragraph 168 set fonh conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative, it is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was requested to perform or perfonned any direct role in the care or treatment rendered to Plaintiffs' Decedent during or after her 1992 admi~sion to the Carlisle Hospital that would have provided him with the oblisation or opportunity to use tests to determine whether Plaintiffs' Decedent's problems were cardiac in origin. 169. Denied. The averments contoined in paragraph 169 set fonh conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative, It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was requested to perform Of performed any direct role in the care or treatment rendered to Plaintiffs' Decedent during or after her 1992 admission to the Carlisle Hospital that would have provided him with the obligation or opportunity to treat Plaintiffs' Decedent for any cardiac problem. 170. Denied. The averments contained In paragraph 170 set forth conclu~ions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response Is required. In the alternative, it is speclfically and unequivocally denled that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was requested to perform or performed any direct role in the care or treatment rendered to Plalntiffs' Decedent during or after her 1992 admission to the Carllsle Hospltal that would have provided him with the obligation or opportunity to diagnose or treat Plaintiffs' Decedent for long QT syndrome. 171. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen excluded a cardiac condition or in any way suggested that a cardiac condition should be excluded from consideration as a possible etiology of Plaintiffs' Decedent's November 1992 syncopal episode. To the contrary, Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was not requested to make nor did he make any diagnosis or recommendation as to the care or treatment that Plaintiffs' Decedent should undergo during or after her November 1992 admission to the Carllsle Hospital. Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen's sole involvement with Plaintiffs' Decedent's November 1992 admission to the Carllsle Hospital was to suggest during a general telephonic conversation with Co- Defendant Rosario, without comment as to the presence or absence of a cardiac condition, that a sports migraine was an example of a cause for a syncopal episode in a patient that presents with complaints of a helld ache and seizure activity. 172. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen excluded a cardiac condition or in any way suggested that a cllrdiac condition should be excluded from consideration as a possible etiology of Plaintiffs' Decedent's November 1992 syncopal episode. To the contrary, Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen was not requested to make nor did he make any diagnosis or recommendation as to the care or treatment that Plaintiffs' Decedent should undergo during or after her November 1992 admission to the Carllsle Hospital. response is requlred. In the alternative, to the extent that the allegations of paragraphs 180 and 181 are deemed facts to which Il response is deemed required the averments of this paragraph are den led in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Clvil Procedure No. 1029 (e). 182. Denied. The averments contalned in paragraph 182 are denied generally in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) as amended June 16, 1994. 183. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without knowledge or informatlon sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore. denies same and demands strict proof thereof at time of trial. 184. Denied. The averments contained in paragraph 184 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint set forth conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative, waiving none of the foregoing, to the extent that paragraph 184 is deemed to pertain to answering Defendant, it is specifically and unequivocally denied since after reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without knowledge or inrormation sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments contained therein. 185-187. Denied. The averments contained in paragraphs 185 through 187 or the Plaintiffs' Complaint set forth conclusions of law as opposed to statements of fact and no response is required. In the alternative. to the extent that the allegations of paragraphs 185 through 187 are deemed facts to which a response is deemed required the averments of this paragraph are denied in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure No. 1C29 (e). WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief claimed or any relief whatsoever and demand that judgment be entered in its favor and against the Plaintiffs and that it be awarded appropriate costs and fees. NEW M.UTER 18B. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 189. Plaintiffs' claim is barred and/or limited by the applicable Statute of Limltations. 190. It ls believed, and thcrcfore averred, that the discovery will show that the Plaintlffs and or Plaintiffs' Decedent were negligent and that thelr negligence exceeded the negligence, if any, of the Answering Defendant, thcreby barring their recovery by operation of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 191. Plaintiffs' injuries, if any, were sustained as a result of natural or unknown causes and not as the result of any action or inaction on behalf of the Answering Defendant. 192. At all times material hereto, Answering Defendant provided acted in accordance with the applicable standard of care. 193. No conduct on the part of the Answering Defendant was a substantial factor in causing or contributing to any harm which the Piaintiffs may have suffered. 194. If Plaintiffs suffered any damage, the damages were caused by the conduct of others over whom the Answering Dcfendant had no control or right to control. 195. All physicians rendering medical care or treatment to the Plaintiff were not the agents, ostensible agents, selVants or employees of the Answering Defendant. 196. Answering Defendant acted reasonably, prudently, and properly at all times material hereto. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief claimed or any relief whatsoever and demand that judgment be entered in its favor and against the Plaintiffs and that it be awarded appropriate costs and fees. , ~. C::) =1 (!; <'. Cf;-. " .:!.: .. '1011. IU<.'1 -- , " I - ~ ) ". ,; J'- :..~ (.{ , . '/', .1.. I ..... ,. . I ~~~ (';!,: ' r' , ......) 'l'i; [,. "~oj. ,j", ,jf,-. \1 [,1" [J , IjrfJ' -, I~j~ )..-. ;j " roo: 0 oJ '. I,' " . i; . , " , , I, 'I I' , " . , " . . " , , " " , , " ., . , I'>' JI', , . '. , " " 'i, , " 11,1 ...... .:S t ,;' , ~1;' ..:. .- ,-' ~ ...,) .~ CI , ).', ~,~/ '.1: -' ~ '1~ -'" " I'''' \:.. I.i ~' r:1' l/: -" I _.r_ ~~~\', ' . ,~-; ,,, lid Le., w '! \ I u.. " 0 B ~ ~ " .. " , , ",," " " i'r.: ..:I' '- ,..~ r,. ", .- ..., .. 'i .I~ ('1 ';',~ I , , " , " " ) '. > " - ,) . r,;, , n.. " >, ! 'OJ :-~,! , y ( ,. ;,] C' ,"". 'f;1 - ~j iT) iJ I '".., \ C , , 1;\.., ~ ..r; u r- :J u tr (..) ". " " " ' " , I " I,', ','i" 'I 1,1 '" " " ,I .: , ' ", " > , , > , , \II r .- :" - , { " " lu " ( , I I:; , I, , l-J i I I:;' , ,,"-' ~ j! f " l~, " f'- '- 'J' ( \( ':i " " .. " ., " , ", , , " 'I I, ',' I, " ,r, I' ., ,; " 'i " 1 , '/ , 'i' " I' ';l .1, " , , , 189. Paragraph 189 of Defendant's New Matter states a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that II response is deemed necessary, the averments contained in paragraph 189 of Defendant's New Matter are denied. Plaintiffs' decedent died as a result of Defendant's negligence on or about september 29, 1995. A Complaint was filed against Defendant on september 23, 1997 and timely service was effectuated promptly thereafter. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' claims are neither barred nor limited by the applicable statute of limitations. 190. Paragraph 190 of Defendant's New Matter states a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the averments contained in paragraph 190 of Defendant's New Matter are denied. Neither Plaintiffs nor Plaintiffs' decedent were in any manner negligent, comparatively negligent or contributorily negligent with regard to the matter that is the subject of this litiqation. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' claims are in no manner barred, or reduced, by operation of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 191. Paragraph 191 of Defendant's New Matter states a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the averments contained in paragraph 191 of Defendant's New Matter are denied. 2 Plaintiff.' injuries, and Plaintiffs' decedent's injuries, were solely a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the named Defendants in this action and of the named Defendants in the companion cases to this action. 192. Paragraph 192 of Defendant's New Matter states a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the averments contained in paragraph 192 of Defendant's New Matter are denied. As set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint, which is incorporated herein by reference, Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen, M.D. failed to act in accordance with the applicable standard of care. 193. Paragraph 193 of Defendant's New Matter states a conclusion of law to which no re,sponsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the averments contained in paragraph 193 of Defendant's New Matter are denied. The negligent conduct on the part of Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen, M.D. as set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint was a direct, proximate, and substantial cause or contributing factor to the harm which the Pl~intiffs and Plaintiffs' decedent suffered. 194. Paragraph 194 of Defendant's New Matter states a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the averments 3 contained in paragraph 194 of Defendant's New Matter are denied, as stated. The damages suffered by Plaintiffs and by Pl11intJ,ffs' decedent were caused solely by the conduct of the named Defendants in this action and by the named Defendants in the companion cases to this litigation, all of whom are jointly and severally liable to Plaintiffs for such injuries. 195. Paragraph 195 of Defendant's New Matter states a concl.usion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, Plaintiffs state that after reasonable investigation, they are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraph 195 of Defendant's New Matter, and same are therefor denied. 196. Paragraph 196 of Defendant's New Matter states a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the averments contained in paragraph 196 of Defendant's New Matter are denied. As set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint, which is incorporated herein by reference, Defendant J. Craig Jurgensen, M.D. failed to act reasonably, prudently and properly. Defendant Jurgensen acted unreasonably, imprudently and improperly and in a manner that was below the applicable standard of care. 4 , " ". l/, ,,- 1-- r-; " jOt:' .. t\ ~ , . l\ J ~ , " I,~.! (' ~l:' , ) , 1'- .-/: "if '1 " r.:"? " '{ (,,\' I , IJ '. '): ~.11 ' r .. ~ '.Ii lJ '-- II 1U.. , ..:" ,:;.1 , u. r~ ':.1 u 0' (,) " " '. ) " " " , , " " I', ,1-" " " " " , " ';' , , " " .. \ , . . n..Jo i.'ii ," ~ " I , , 1 . " " i~ , " \ ~ ~ ~, -""-- .~.,.- -.-;'....- ~"',.;--.;,.~-:"';.;...,. " , , , , '.- 12 (: r.~ ~:'.~ .. ; .; 1.1) ~ I. elr ,,' p~ ' ~, : ,i ,. (?: " ,.,") '. F;t~; I ! .". ...-1,1, ("." ,il '.1 l....,!, I_J,! It,). ,-.' Coli .' P.. r- :\ u, 0' u , . , , . , " ,/ . " , " I' . , . ,.,1 .' .. , , , .,- tr> r;:; ~~ .. , , : \.'..1 , t.J ' C., .' ~. , ....-. " ~?"", ,'J'_' " C. , , l';"'" ',,',1 5!t , , , \;: !f.:... ,- C~ .. j I.' r- , d C"'o (J , , , " " " " I" " , , .. , , , ;1 I " ,,' , , " " " " " II " t,.' . , , " i:,~ to - , I.:: , -" /.1". l'.J -- 'L " " \';. " ~, . , (' " " , ,. , 'J (. " " \.'-' I ," ,I, : , ;:' ~ \ "I \.J.. l' , ' . ~ l' \_ ". .j Lt. \.- , U' (~,) ,II, " , ' " , ' I' " . ,. ',' , , " ,. I I , , " , , I' 'I I! " , I, , I , I I I II , I , I III r-;: :-..- ~\? t.:: I' t.u;- (). rJ.:( \ I.~ I {'.()(;' r.:",l L~)l _.Jl (,;. " tj, 1_' .. . . 'I ,e i 'I' 'I ;1, :~) I .,1.,' I', ,\ ~" ~ UJ ,,",'j r" ..1' d " I I ::' II' I , 1,\ '\',1 ,'. , , I , I " I I I , I I !,j , , " ,I, " Ii ,I" " , .1\' I " , " .. , . '"' ~ L !,. , , t , , , -~ " , ' I I ',' i ~ )'~ .:'-1 <, " ~d I ' ' , !ll ,,1: .~. , , ~ , , , , " '" , "I , , , , , " " , , I' " '1,1 " , , ',' , , J r " , " " " ,i' " " " ,'''''' , , 11" (oJ (. t , ' , ',.. , ~ ;.j " ('I' . ., , , " I,~ ; , 'Ii C.' ...,- )' ~J' ',", .,) (..J " " " ", , .,'j' ",','1 , ': IIARTMAN , MILLER; P.C. .26-121 W,u,NUT IIT1Ur ' HAIIIUl1JG. ,,. 11101 , , ('71'1)>>wNi' ,'! J., '," ':! . -' ...., , , oW ~ '" , I , I .- I' , ~~-- ~. :-....,_._, r~"'-_~;.~. , S. Admittcd. 6. In rcsponsc to lhc uvcnllcnts conluincd in Purugruph 6 of Pluintin's' Compluint, thc Answcring Dcfemh1l11s inclIrporutc by rcfcrcncc thc Stipululionof Counscl dismissing Dcfcndunt. Eliseo Rosurio, M.D. us II Dcfcndlll1t in this mutter. 7, Thc uvcrmcnts contuincd in Pnrugruph 7 of Plnlntlfl's' Compluint urc conclusions of law or luct to which no rcsponsc is required; to the cxtcnl that a rcsponsc is dccmcd rcquired, thc avcnncnts arc dcnicd us slatcd. It is admittcd that Dr. Rosurio ls a pediutrician practicing with Carli sic Pcdiatric Associntcs. 8. Admittcd. 9. In rcsponse 10 thc avcrmcnts contuincd In Parugraph 9 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. the Answering Defendants incorporute by refcrencc the Stipulation of Counscl dlsmissing Defendant, Eliseo Rosario, M,D. as a Dcfcndant in this mattcr. 10. The aVel111cnts contained in Puragraph 10 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law or fuct to which no responsc is rcquircd; to thc exlcnllhat a rcsponsc is deemcd required, thc avermer.ts arc denicd as stntcd. It is admitted that Dr. Rosario is a pediatrician cmploycd by Carlisle Pediatric Associates and was ucting in such capacity at ulltimcs relevant herein. 11-12. Allcr rcasonablc invcstigation, thc Answcring Dcfcndants lack knowledge or information sufficicnt to fom1 a belicf as to thc truth of the averments contained in Paragraphs 11 and 12 of Plaintiffil' Complaint; the avcnncnts arc thereforc dcnied, and strict proof thcreof is demanded at trial. 2 13-14. Allcr rcusonublc lnvcstigutlon. thc Answcring Dcfendunts luck knowlcdgc or inll>nllutlon sullicicnt to lorlllu helief us to the truth of thc uvennents contuincd in Purugruphs 13 und 14 ofPlulntifls' ('olllpluillt; thc uVCl'mcnts ure therelllre denied,und strict proofthercof;s delllundcd uttriul. 15. The uvennellls eontuincd in Parugruph 15 of Pluintiffs' Complaint urc conclusions of law or lactto which no responsc is rcquircd; to thc extcnt that u responsc ls dccmed rcquired, thc avenncnts arc denicd as statcd. 11 is admilled that Suzannc Beam was cvaluatcd inlhc Emergcncy Room ofthc Carlislc Hospital on Novcmber 7, 1992, following which thc Emergcncy Room physician consu1lcd Dr, Rosario conccming thc patient's condition. 11 is admittcd that the patient, Suzannc Bcam. was admillcd to thc service of Dr. Rosario, the pediatrician on call on Novcmber 7, 1992, in accordancc with thc rccords of Carlisle Hospital which documents spcak for thcmselvcs as to thc contcnt thcrcof. 16. The avcmlents contained in Paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs' Complaint arc conclusions of law or fact to which no rcsponsc is requircd; to thc cxtcnt that a rcsponse is decmcd requircd, the avcrments arc denicd as statcd. It is admitted thatthc patient, Suzannc Beam, was admittcd to the scrvice of a pediatl'ician, Dr. Rosario, on Novcmbcr 7, 1992 and that thc patient was dischargcd by Dr. Rosario on Novcmbcr 8, 1992, in accordancc with the records of Carlislc Hospital which documents speak for themsclves as to thc content thercof. 17. Thc avenncnts containcd in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law or fact to which no response is requircd; to the extent that a response is deemed required, 3 thc uvcnnents urc dcnied In uccorduncc with Rulc I029(c) ofthc Pcnnsylvunlu Rulcs of Civil Procedurc. 18. Thc uvcnncnts contuincd In I'(lrugruph 18 of Plulntifls' Compluint urc conclusions of law or fuctto which no rcsponsc is rcquired, 10 thc extcnt thut a rcsponsc is deem cd rcquired, thc uvcrmcnts ure dcnied us slalcd, It is admittcd that the admitting diagnosis l(lr Suzannc Bcam on Novcmbcr 7, 19<)2 was "acutc loss of consciousness and disoricntation" according to thc Carlislc Hospitul rccords, which documcnls spcuk lor thcmselvcs as to thc contcnt thercof. 19. Aftcr rcasonablc invcstigation, thc Answering Dcfcndants arc without knowledge or information sufficicnt to I\lnn a bclicf as to the truth of thc avcmlcnls containcd in Puragruph 19 of Plaintiffs' Complaint; thc avcrments arc therelorc dcnicd, and strict proof thereof ls dcmandcd at trial. 20. Thc avcmlcnts eontaincd in Paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law or fact to which no responsc is rcquired; to the cxtcnt that a rcsponse is decmcd required, the averments ;Irc denicd as slated. It is admitted that Dr. Rosario was adviscd that Suzanne Beam had a similar episode of loss of consciousness one (I) ycar prior, lasting only seconds, without any thrashing or disoricntation, and which was attributed to rcactivc hypoglycemia according to the Carlislc Hospital rccords for Suzannc Bcam, which documcnts speak for themselves as to the content thcrcof. 21. Admittcd in accordancc with the Carlisle Hospital rccords for Suzanne Beam, which documents spcak for thcmselvcs as to the contents thereof. 4 22. Admllled In accordance with the Carlisle Hospltal records for Suzanne Beam. Which documents speak lor themselve& as to the contents thereof. 23. The avennents contained in Paragraph 23 of Phtintiffs' Complaint arc conclusions of law ,)1' fact to which no responsc is required; to thc cxtcnt that a responsc is deemed required, thc avenllcnts are dcnicd as statcd. It is udmillcd thut Defendant, J. Craig Jur!!cnsen, M.D. discussed ncurological possibilities for thc cuuse of Suzannc Bcam's loss of consciousncss, including thc possibllity of un uctivity induced migruine complcx, in uccordancc with thc Carlisle Hospital rccords for Suzannc Bcam, which documents speak for themselves as to the contcnts thereof. 24. The avcrments contained in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs' Complaint arc conclusions of law or fact to which no rcsponsc is rcquircd; to thc cxtcnt that a rcsponsc is deemcd rcquired, the avenncnts arc dcnied as stated. It is admitted that Dr. Rosario cvaluated and examincd Suzanne Bcam on November 8, 1992, at which time hc continued to consider both cardiac and ncurological causcs ofSuzannc Bcum's condition, in accordancc with the Carlisle Hospital rccords for Suzanne Bcam, which documcnts spcak for themselves as to the content thereof. 25. The averments contained in Paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law or fact to which no responsc is required, to thc cxtent that a response is dcemed required, the avemlents are denied as stated. It is admilled that Dr. Rosario continued to consider a cardiac condition as the cause ofSuzannc Beam's condition and ,IS a result thereof, arranged for a stress test and Ilvaluation to be perfonned by a cardiologist, Dr. Dennis E. Line. 5 26. The IIvennents contuined inl'urugruph 26 ufPluintlflil' Compluinture cuncluslons of lu\\' or Ihctto whlch no respunsc is requlrcd; to thc cxtentthutu rcsponsc is dccmed rcquircd, thc uvenncnts ure dcnicd us stuled. It is udmined thut Suzannc Beum's conditionlmprovcd belwccn Nuvcmhcr 7. 1<)l)2 und November H. 1<)<)2 us u rcsult of which she \VIIS ublc to bc dlschargcd from Curlisle Hospilal with a dischargc diagnosis of: "acutc loss of consciousncss und disoricntation, etiology unclear", 27. The avenncnls contained in Puragraph 27 of Plaintiffs' Com(lluint arc conclusions of law or fact to which no response is required; to thc extcntthat a response is dccmed rcquircd. the avennents are dcnied as slaled. It is lldmincd that atthc limc of Suzanne Bcam's discharge from Carlislc Hospital on Novcmber 8. 19<)2, Dr. Rosario ordcrcd a slccp dcprived EEG. an evaluation by a cardiologist with a stress tcst. and a consultation with a pediatric neurologist, in accordance with the Carlisle Hospital rccords, which documents spcak for thcmsclvcs as to the contents thereof. 28. The: avcmlents containcd in Paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs' Cor,lplaint are conclusions of law or fact to which no response is requircd; to thc extent that a response is deemed required, thc avcrments arc dcnied as statcd. It is admincd thut thc etiology ofSuzannc Bcam's initial cpisode of loss of eonsciousncss had bccn attributcd to rcaetivc hypoglyccmia at that time. It is admittcd that Dr. Rosario ordcrcd a pcdialric ncurological consult atlhc timc of Suzanne Beam's discharge from Carlislc Hospital on Novcmber 8. I <)92 for thc purposc of detcrmining whcther thc cause of Suzannc Beam's loss of consciousncss and disoricntation on Novcmbcr 7, 1992 was 6 caused by a neurologlcal condition. 29. The avcnncnts containcd in Paragraph 290f Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law or fact to whlch no rcsponsc is requircd; to thc cxtcntthat a rcsponsc is dccmed requlrcd, the avcrmcnts arc dcnicd us statcd. 11 is admillcd that on Novcmbcr 8, 1992, atthc timc of Suzanne BCllm's dlschargc Irom Carlisle Hospital, Dr, Rosario ordcrcd an cvaluation by a cardiologist and requcstcd that a strcss tcst bc pcrfonncd in ordel' to prccipitate silnihlr circumstances such as cxistcd at thc timc of Suzannc Beam's loss of consciousncss on Novcmbcr 7,1992, 30. Thc avcrmcnts contained in Paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions oflaw or fact to which no rcsponsc is required; to thc cxtentthat a responsc is dcemcd required, the averments are dcnicd as statcd, 11 is admillcd that Dr. Rosario requested an cvaluation of Suzanne Beam by Dr. Dcnnis E. Line for the purposc ofdctcrmining whether Suzanne Beam's loss of consciousness was causcd by a cardiac condition and requcstcd that u strcss tcst bc pcrformed in order to prccipitute similar circumstanccs such as cxisted at thc time of Suzanne Bcam's loss of consciousness 011 Novembcr 7, 1992, 31-37. The avcrments containcd in Paragraphs 31 through 37 ofPluintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law or fact to which no responsc is required; to the extcnt that a response is deemed required, the avcrments are denied in accordance with Rule 1029(e) ofthc Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Proccdurc. 38-39, Aller rcasonable investigation. the Answcring Dcfcndants arc without knowledge 7 or infimnation sufliclcntto limn a bcllcf as to thc truth of thc avemlcnts contalncd In Paragraphs 38 and 39 of PlalntllTs' Complaint; thc avcrmcnts are thcrcforc dcnicd, and strict proofthcrcof ls dcmanded at trial. 40, Thc lIvcnncnts cOlllaincd in Paragraph 40 of Plaintiffs' Complaint arc concluslons of law or fact to which no rcsponsc is rcquircd; to the cxtcntthat a rcsponsc is dccmcd rcquircd, thc lIvcnncnts arc denicd as statcd. It is admitted that Dr, Rosario requcstcd an evaluation by a cardiologist, Dr, Dcnnis E. Linc. for thc purposc of delcmlining whcthcr thc cause of Suzanne Bcam's loss of consciousncss on Novcmbcr 7, 1992 was due to a cardlac conditlon and rcquested that a stress lcst bc performcd, As to the rcmaining avcmlcnts containcd in Paragraph 40 of Plaintiffs' Complaint, the avcnncnts arc denied pursualllto Rule 1029(e) of the Pcnnsylvania Rules of Civil Procedurc. 41. After reasonablc invcstigation, the Answerillg Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficicntto fonn a belicfas to thc !nuh of the averments contained in Paragraph 41 of Plaintifr.~' Complaint; the avemlents arc therefore denicd, and strict proofthercofis dcmanded at trial. 42. No further response is required, 43-73. In response to the averments contained in Paragraphs 46 through 73 of Plaintiffs' Complaint, the Answering Defendants incorporatc by rcferencc thc Stipulation of Counsel dismissing Defcndant Eliseo Rosario, M.D. as a Dcfcndant. 74. No further rcsponsc is rcquircd. 8 75-105. Thc avcnncnts contained in PlIrngrnphs 75 through 105 of Pluintil1s' Compluint arc conclusions of luw or fuctto which no rcsponse ls rcquired, To the extent thut u response is deemed required, the uvenllents arc denied pursuunt to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvunia Rules of Clvil Procedure. 106. No further response is required. 107. The uvennents contained in Paragraph 107 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law or fact to which no responsc is required; to the oxtcnt that a response is deemed required, the avcrments arc dcnicd as statcd. It is admitted that Dr. Rosario ls a pcdiatriciun employcd by Carlisle Pcdiatric Associatcs und wus acting in such capacity at all timcs relevant hercin. 108-137. The avcnnents containcd in Parugraphs 108 through 137 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law or fact to which no response is required; to the extcnt that a response is deem cd required, the avermcnts arc denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pcnnsylvania Rulcs of Civil Procedure. 138. No furthcr rcsponse is required. 139-173. Thc avelments containcd in Paragraphs 139 through 173 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are not dirccted at these Answering Defendants, and therefore no response to the avemlents set forth in Paragraphs 139 through 173 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is required by the Answering Defendants; to the cxtent that a rcsponse is deemed rcquired, the averments are dcnied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of'the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 9 174. No lurthcr rcsponsc Is rCljulrcll. 175. Thc uvcnllcnts contuincllln Purugruph 175 of Pluintll1's' Compluint urc conclusions of law or fuctto which no rcsponsc is rCljuircll; tothc cxtcnt thut a rcsponsc is lIecmcd reljulrcd. thc uvcnncnts ure dcnicll pursuuntto Rulc 1029(c) ofthc Pcnnsylvuniu Rules of Civil Proccdurc. 176. Aftcr reasonllble investigution, the Answering Dcfcndants arc without knowledge or informution suflicientto IlJrlll a belief as 10 Ihe truth of the avcl1nents containcd in Paragraph 176 of Plaintiffs' Complaint; thc avcrmcnts are thereforc dcnicd, und strict proofthercofis dcmanded at trial. 177-178. The avenllents containcd in Paragraphs 177 and 178 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law of fact to which no responsc is required; to thc cxtent that a response may be deemed required, thc avcrmcnts are denicd pursuant to Rulc 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Proccdurc. 179. No furthcr rcsponse is rcquired. 180-181. The uvemlents containcd in Paragraphs 180 and 181 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions of law of fact to which no response is required; to the extent that a response may be deemed required, the averments arc denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedurc, 182. After reasonablc investigation, the Answcring Defendants arc without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in Paragraph 10 182 of Plaintiffs' Complaint; thc avcmlcnts arc thcrcfore dcnicd, and strlct prooflhcrcof ls dcmandcd attrlal. 183.187. The avcrments containcd in Paragraphs 183 through 187 of Plaintiffs' Compluint arc conclusions of law or fuctto which no rcsponsc is rcquircd; to thc cxtent that a rcsponsc is dccmcd rcquircd, thc avemlents arc dcnicd pursuuntto Rulc I029(c) ofthc Pcnnsylvunia Rules of Civil Procedurc. WHEREFORE, Defcndants, Elisco Rosario, Jr., M.D. and Carlisle Pedlatric Associutes dcmand judgment inthcir favor and against Plaintiffs and all other parties and that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismisscd with prcjudice and costs of this action. NEW MATTER 188. The averments sct forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint fail to state a claim or cause of action against the Answcring Defendants upon which rclicf may be granted. 189. At all times rclcvant hcrcin. thc Answering Defendants conformed their conduct to the state of mcdical knowlcdgc. common and acccpted proccdures in the medical profession, thc state-of-the-art of medical practice, and all other information availablc in response to any existing and ascertainable clinical conditions of Suzanne Beam. 190. Any claim or cause of action as set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint is barred by operation of the contributory/comparativc negligence of Plaintiffs, Earl L. Bcam and Kathy A. Bcam lmd/or Suzanne Beam. as may be developed during discovery. 191. Any claim or cause of action as set forth in P~uintiffs' Complaint is barred by 11 assumption ofa known risk by Plalntlffs, Earl L. Bcam amI Kathy A. Bcam and/or Suzannc Beam, as may be dcveloped during discovery, 192. Any claim or causc of action as sct forth in Plaintill's' Complalnt is barred by the applicablc statute of limitations. including specificlllly, but notlimilcd, any claim or CllUSC of lIclion which, by reason of IlIck of spccilicily of plcading. is not directly and specifically sct forth in tl1l' languagc ofPlaintifTs' Complaint, but which Plaintill's scck to raisc at a latcr timc by furthcr amendment, claiming to havc prcscrvcd such claim or CllUSC of action wlthin Plaintiffs' Complaint. 193. lfSuzannc Bellm suffered injury and damages as averred in Plaintiffs' Complaint, such injury and damages were not as a rcsult of any medical care and treatment, or failure to provide any medical carc and treatmcnt on thc part of the Answering Defendants and were solely thc rcsult ofNicolc Bouder's medical condition. 194. IfSuzannc Beam suffercd injury and damagcs as a rcsult ofthc actions or inactions ofthc individuals or cntities, as allcgcd in Plaintiffs' Complaint, such actions or inactions wcre of individuals or entitics other than the Answering Defendants, their agents, servants, and employees, and over whom lhe Answcring Dclendants ncither cxerciscd nor had the right or duty to exercisc control. and for whose actions or inaclions thc Answcring Defcndants are not rcsponsiblc or otherwisc legally liable. 195. Neithcr Dr. Rosario nor Carlislc Pcdiatric Associatcs breached any duty or the applicablc standard of care in rcgard to any cxisting and asccrtainablc clinical condition of 12 , , . . \ , . ij,t'II/.1'1' ,tl""'J ,~~:)".:,:::!i:l:::;:;,':. . r-:--, , ,~m~\': ,.,"r"J< .;/ ~ , . I " , ~~ ( '. : '~ 't' . " \1. , "I I I , I \ , " ! " .. -..~. ~--r' ..-.;.. \~-",~.,.i,''''':- ,. , ,'. I ,- , . ~_'.:l' the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the averments contained in paragraph 189 ot Defendants' New Matter are denied in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 190. Paragraph 190 of Defendants' New Matter states a conclusion ot law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the averments contained in paragraph 190 ot Defendants' New Matter are denied in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 191. Paragraph 191 of Defendants' New Matter states a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the averments contained in paragraph 191 of Defendants' New Matter are denied in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 192. Paragraph 192 of Defendants' New Matter states a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the averments contained in paragraph 192 of Defendants' New Matter are denied in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 193. paragraph 193 of Defendants' New Matter states a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the averments contained in paragraph 193 of Defendants' New Matter are denied in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 194. Denied as stated. The injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffs and by Plaintiffs' decodent were a direct result of the negligence of the Defendants named in this action and the companion 2 ,I ',- '>. .;.... (....I f.. , , l, :-' ", ').r: . .. r> - ,~., . " UJ . ()./ :' : F:: ~. ~c , .l~. J 1..../1. , -' ~;~ I' fil.- ('J lli;j. - '. , ... ': I \,51 .' L~_. . I . ': i(I,J.. I -) :.i ,<. m c 0' (..1 , , , , , 'Ii , , " I, " " " " , II " , !: I' , , " " ;,(' i'l " , . , ,; I " Ii " I, I , , " I " " " I I, , , I , I" 'i 'II ,'," " EARL L. BEAM and KATHY A. BEAM, as Administrators of the Estate of SUZANNE BEAM, Deceased, and EARL L. BEAM and KATHY A. BEAM, Individually and in Their Own Right, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 97-5196 Ph intiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. ELISEO ROSARIO, M.D., ELISEO ROSARIO, JR., M.D., CARLISLE PEDIATRIC ASSOCIATES, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION and J. CRAIG JURGENSEN, M.D., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED STIPULATION 1. The above-captioned actions arise out the same facts, circumstances and injuries. 2. The parties hereby stipulate and agree that the actions shall be consolidated and that the actions shall proceed under a single caption. 3. Counsel for Defendants Eliseo Rosario, M.D. and Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M.D., has indicated, and hereby affirms, that the proper name of the physician who was involved in the care of treatment of Plaintiffs' decedent is Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M.D. Accordingly, all parties hereby agree to the dismissal of Eliseo Rosario, M.D. as a Defendant in this matter and to the removal of his name from the caption. 4. During the course of the pleadings in action no. 97-2069, counsel for Defendant Family Practice Belvedere Medical Corporation indicated, and hereby affirms, that Family Practice- Belvedere Medical Corporation is not the proper name of the family physic ian group that was involved in the care and treatment of @ '.. 1..-,,)1 ()', L,: , "; , L,; , " , " , " .. , , , ,I " '. L., I. Jil- I ." rt.~ I' (I": ,~ , (J c.;.' ,.> , , " , " ,'r, " , , " , , " , , " 'I , , , , , , 1 J r , , " Earl L. Beam and Kathy A. Beam, Administrators of the ",stilte of Beam, cn'H;/IWr:J~ 01-' r~IN~WLVNIT,\ (~;I/NI'Y r)F nl"'l!l!lrNI~! as Suzllnnn v, Eliseo Rosario, Jr., M.b., CarLi~le Pediatric Associates, and J. Craig Jurgenson, M.O" Plaintiffs Flit! No. 97 51<;19 noFendants SlJeF-:f:ll~ TO Pr,<;ClXr: C':C.M:I~R Tl11 /'r4 PCP 0 I s.:QV!;t;'( PUR~IJAII, Tv Ft..n..E 4009. 22 Te: Landisburo EMS =-p.o. 80x 12.LLandls!:iJr'l, P" 17040 (II.::J~ of P~scr, c;r Ertl~'/) - WIthin t',"I?r.t'l (:0) C.:l'l~ after ~'lr';l-:,! of thIS o,.=c-:e,~.:I, Y'-:<J are c;rC'lrec t:y the CClJrt ~rccuc;e the F<Jllclolr,,,, d:-:'..MP.r;t,. cr thir,,;:.: ^ COt'.' c~ an\' and aU rp.cords reLatin<:: the care and treatm'lnt of PL,intlu. SU2cln~,," !:o:am. 008: 8/30/79, including. Ct ,.,. "". ".<H,o;- '"'' . ,,,"". ,"." n." "'d,..,.~,."..'t", " _r... .el"I,o", "". ." "" _ C<2Lresoondp.n'7p', h""~it,ll di"....h,'~IJ~m[lli]ri"'e. "'....... _ a~ Hartm,1r1 F. ~!:llpr. F,C" 12~.I'P !';,lnut ~~~PP'.. f;,'u:.J..sj:llr'1. P,~ lilOl (:'cc;re:c :' 'rC'J fr.l', C~;l"~~ cr fr.ll' 1~:::1t:1,) C;~Cl"!,, ,:F ~.~ :::cr.;~,t: C~ crccU<:"<thir,g,. re:'J'lS':~.' -.'0 Ol;tC'-:"!,,<!, t.;,;:'l':,-,,,'. 101'::' ':/",,1) :'!~':lfl';l':.. ~, c~IIa--<:~, t: t~.e ~ar':l ""-1',lr,>;; ,:. r~:'.e:': a': t-" e:c:-~~:; J '''':e.j .:1::0:.,,), '(,:" /"".1'.1) ~'" "',,",,: t: :"!;,~. ir, 1,j'0'3I",ce ':/"',e "~l$,:ri.: :::-: cf ~re':arlr,:; ':,"o! <::::Ie';.-:r ~"<:':J::r] ,:"" '::-,..:;: ::"S",':. 'I-:~ f.1, ~ ; : :: C.J'(: af::~.... r:c-c ~ 111r.'1 y':t,.l t.: ,-. -. '=::r-c : 'I ,:.: cr::r:'_,,:,:,~ t,....~ '::I:'J~,,?"" ~ ~ c,... ~'?r-'I ~ ,;~ I t,"',,) ..... '..-... '.., :... "~':'..~r~j:: t'.' thl:'; w ~ -:h ~ r: . r: 1r ~ / .;~~. . ,'" ~ ':...., 1:: ~~..tc;:~"",.l ~'-'::t:-::~."",<l iot~,:,.., r. t-~... /"t"..l/ 5p.e~ r1. ':.:-....- ': C. *, 7"-: 0 S:.EF-:€.'I.I W.I: I:::.E: A, ,.,E i=E:'.'F.::;, Cp 7"r-E F;'...:,_ "3 F":::.:,,, ~t~.--C:: Nf.o1tinda S. Sh()0l')~lLs(Jl.lir~: -':':,==:~.;: 126-12A 1';.1l~Il' Stn:>0r. lJa~~j"loll~'J. O~ 171Q.l 1=:_:='-<:111;, (717) 232.304~_ S\..Fii~ C:CRT 10 II 'i149 -'-:-7':'::.'.1;'( "':R:Dr. Pos~rio an.sLt;;artisle Pediatric ASsociates '- ::. ""! : -:! Jr.", I I /3-;:-12 iJ- ~e,ll C r -i;1~ c.:..r_ e'l ~ C.~I <OT' :} /:.' l!,_;;,:i4' f; .,<;';;j '=~::':'''cr~r:..JrI/CI ~" Cl't'" ~t::;IC'" :f--1-C i,. . 'Ji M./.' -r.' 'll) f7'J c,,:.:,,~. (~'~. 7". " ~ C:) f; t!: M \l(-' M g~ ~ :c; j,- ;.f. ~ .' I:\." r.~~ 5". c"" Ln ?,. 1 L~. , c)~ .. fttl' :t":" i.a :'71 ~: -, ~ !l,. C\O " ,I 0 0"" i' 'I" 1" " " , i ,', "., I I;' , " " , , , 'I ';' I , ,