Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-05206 , , , " " " , , :q , ,,' t ',' IJ I, " ,i, , f,',J ",I' "/i ')] 'j '1/ 1'.'."1 , ' -'I'il ,I , i )!:'I,-,_ ,I I:' "i,I' '10- " ,J, ,,' I il" "111 l--,,! " ," ~ ) .f ... .t\ -L. U ~ , I' , , I \i' ';/ I ''. " \, ,I,' , , " , , " , '., j " 'i '., ""i, " 'I', ,,' , I. ',I' , " " ,', , , ",! ,I " ',to, ./ I ," " , " ., j,> , I 'I I " '. " , , , " ',' I, 1',1 " " " ,I, , , " , ,,' ,\ ;/',1 , I " , , " )L,_', 'J-} ':';, '", " I,' 'jl lJ' " " I . ~ I ,I " , " I, "', ~, ,Ii I I-Ii " -'I,' :', , , , .!:'",: ,\'1 , I , " ,', I', , , 11 I;' ~ ~. IIj p' , " " '111;1,., " " 'I, " " , ',1,'1 , , 'I "I 'I, '-"I " " " ,I 'r ,',,' " , " ".' " , It, ."\ , , " ,i , " , " ;,"';1 )1" "I " , ," " " " " ," /' ,,'" 'I' 1,,' " , " " ;',..'1, " '.'if, I, ,I;, , , ,t! I': " j' , '~ I , , , , :11 \'1' 'I 'I"" ", , , " I': " ",1, " , ",1-\:: Jjl i'r" ,- I ~ ;1' }' " " :'(1 , ' . , , I " , , , " " Ii ,'1, :,1,1,1,',111 'J, ' r ,'1 , ., 'I ,':;(" , " " , I, II.' , " ,:'11' , ':' I" " 1,', I" " 'I ," ',[ ~ 1 I.' I I ',I " , " , , , " ',' ;1 " , ! 'I '" ,"i", '-,' , ,It " , , II'" ".'111 ",\' , , ',I, J" " ,t " :, 1,1 I, ' ,', , , '-j, 'I, " " "I , , , , , "q" ", ,'j 'I' \1 , 'I', ,\1 :,1 ','I ',I' , ,. , , 'IJi , i q " , , , 1"'" " ,"t -\1 q , '\ '" , " , , , , " II' "'-'l .) J' !q'lil '-, I f ','ill " , I ,,' ._, 'i,l' ", "'I') , 'II " , , i' " ,\\-,' ;,: " ,,' , , " ,I, j--' " 1,1" "I'., IF_ '!, I " ,i'l , '1"'1' 'i_j' ," " , '. I ,',,,(! " , '"~I " " , " " "I 11", 'J-' " "il. , ,j. ,), " .,t' 1-",-/,,1;-1 I, _,_ , I-I" "'it II, '-"'" I, " , " \J , _ 'J!!-' , ~ ':,1 'I,:' ) '1\, , I,,' f ," \,\', .',-'J;;';}' ' ;J'J_; :," ,,', Ii 'I' , , ,i' ',I' ';1 " ,y'l,j:/:;:i,:,_: " " L , , , " ; I, .- ~ -I '- II ' ";"':'!;,-'/!Ir\/, I" ',,' ~,\ .- , - -, "~'Ii "~, _ !. t;i. 1"- 1.- '1';,-, i "I ,/ I'),! ", /-'i , " " , I' /iil, " '" :",1' , \1 'I': 1"1,' 'Ii'n, "10.": ;1,1 " " " ',' 'if' , \j;': ., i' 'j'!I' ,'I" 'I' , '" " :" ,I.' ", t-,' ,'_- -, !_, f i ',-I ~ I ' , 1'11/;_ _ 1 ;' '_'L\ll'-' ;.1.,)_" " ';(" il',lt,;,!. ,-.'_1-.q:"'.'f "',,',:,-,-':)1..',I,:,,t-_-:II': i'j ',1,11,-- -, '" ,( ,\'I:::_-I,! ","t,iPlI' j il I, "1" , '" " " "~I " , " " ',) 1-" 'I', .\.1:'1 " I' '\i' " .. , , '( ~ .' \-. , },t\! , "'.'.'__1''-' :, .' _' ';' I, '_, ,''- ~ _, \', ',,/ ,,(;,- 1(: '1.1 "i, /'1 ' , ;V,I -;', ',i':\, ; Ii': 1"-,, i', ",' d ,)' , , " "j, I', " I, , ': :' t,. " " , , , " ", ~ ,I , " , , " '-, ,';' . , , , ,~:' I, , ," '~-- , I,' , " " '.., :il, 1 ," 'II' "'I' , 'j,\I'., 'J :-,i},f, ,',: ~ -~i<i " t_",,1,_I' '-, '(',I " ''-I~-,rJ.;_, : I'",,,,"i;~ "','1- .(1--_1, I '-('If\! I' ,:1,\ ~,!:)~;'f ,j -:-" ;',1 i,! -':-.t:~:~ "'ili?_hl ':\!:jl;,~ ,,' ,il , , " t, I, i " , " "/:(-';~,,, ", 'liJj~, 1 Jf-'I-It., i;' /~I:l ':';.:It 'I, ':'.'I;";:J~ ,", .': }l/~\ll ';.,\~\J.1 " --'.,'-',1 ! ,\_~ - 1,ll,!:Ii. :'::"', ..".?!;~ ,,'1,_1 ," :Hd~~ f ,1.:;\: ;i\~ ',I, "(;'~; ,'<II 1.,.l1 ~ , , , .' " ""II',~ ,t I :",\;!,~ 1, __"~;"-'! ,\;;~ :\, '-" ::l,:!:t\: I' II~ "I"\;~ . ',,",I. '" " ,I "I" ''-,,, "11. ",.!;,',,, 'i, i\/~~' ;'JI;,! ,1 ;'; !!,:;~,;, ',Iii' 1 " 'jl~ I' ! r, ,I , 1 ,. ce I t' II , , , {,~ <. ) : , , I , , ! , .. J , h ,-.rJ , , 1.',- .' l' r; : ~ j " , (.'. u '" C; ~J' ." ~ . ~ ~ , ~. ,,~ \' ~' " ~~ ~ ") ~J '-\"'- " ~~ ~ ", ~\J\ 1'\ \\ ~'~ 0"11""/0 r" t' i', . . n.,I , \..1 : <I " I,)' 'I ''4,.,.. , , I ,. l J' " , ' " ~ " , _'t' , ',.. I::; i-.T."I C- l-~; .. ,'I ~_ , ' - , UJ~_; ( " , ~~<. :i. t\., G,~ <, ~~. , ..',"" (11 " 'J , )1"" I : 'i' '; J 1- 11\1 (\.y c.:, ~ c'- \' c.;i '6 1"" tJ 0' , , ,/ " I' " " Ii, t/, IJ; I: I" " , , I, , " " " , 'I 'I I 'p I) " " " .~ ro' .~ t:.; "" l'; . ., , 'Li Co'; ," t.J,I'~ , ',~ ; (,. C'. , , ". ..,', ('1-, I \ J <.?, L') ["' r. 'I .#1. ....t I". , :11 ("1_ ,.: "'''' \ W " I , 1-, '..:) <.oj 0"'1 <'J , , ..' , II' , ' " ' " , ' " " , " " I, " " ", 1 , " u ~~g , Ihlll !m g ,'I , , , . - iii' a . , ....."I"'~....l'..'.rtl'.....,..I'. ONMIOJ 0') .,..",. 1'I'O~1 IIy,,11' , - "" . I . .. .. .A. 5. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Harold Kretzing, M.D., held himsolf out to the public as a specialist in Family Medicine. 6. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Harold Kretzing, M. D. was a servant, agent, apparent agent, and/or employee of Defendant Belvedere Medical Corporation, and was acting in such capacity, 7. Defendant Robert Hollen, M,D. is currently, and was at all times relevant to this Complaint, a physician licensed to practJ.ce medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 8. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Robert Hollen, M.D., held himself out to the pUblic as a specialist in Family Medicine. 9. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Robert Hollen, M,D. was a servant, agent, apparent agent, and/or employee of Defendant Belvedere Medical Corporation, and was acting in such capacity. 10. Defendant Bruce Bailey, M.D. is currently, and was at all times relevant to this Complaint, a physician licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 11. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Bruce Bailey, M.D., held himself out to the pUblic as a specialist in Family Medicine. 2 , ". 12. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Bruce Bailey, M.D. was a servant, agent, apparent agent, and/or employee of Defendant Belvedere Medical Corporation, and was acting in such capacity. 13. Defendant Carol Robison, D.O. is currently, and was at all times relevant to this Complaint, a physician licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 14. At all times relevant to this complaint, Defendant Carol RObison, D.O., held herself out to the public as a specialist in Family Medicine. 15. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Carol RObison, M.D, was a servant, agent, apparent agent, and/or employee of Defendant Belvedere Medical Corporation, and was acting in such capacity. 16. Defendant Bruce Kipp, III, P.A. is currently, and was at all times relevant to this Complaint, a physician's assistant. 17. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Bruce Kipp, III, P.A. was a servant, agent, apparent agent, and/or employee of Defendant Belvedere Medical Corporation, and was aoting in such capacity. 18. Defendant Belvedere Medical Corporation is a professional corporation duly organized pursuant to the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which is engaged in the business of providing family medical care. 3 , . 19. Defendant Belvedere Medical Corporation provide.. services to patients from, and otherwise regularly conducts business in, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 20. From the first month of her birth in September 1979, until the date of her death on September 29, 1995, physicians who were servants, agents, apparent agents and/or employees of Defendant Belvedere Medical Corporation acted as Suzanne Beam's family physicians. 21. For the first 12 years of her life, Suzanne Beam had no significant illnesses beyond ordinary colds and flus. 22. On October 22, 1991, at age 12, Suzanne had an episode in which she passed out while leading a cheer with a group of cheerleaders at the Forum in Harrisburg. 23. The episode was immediately reported to Defendant Kretzing of Defendant Belvedere Medical Corporation. 24. Defendant Kretz ing performed an EEG and diagnosed the syncopal episode as a possible hypoglycemic episode or seizure. He did not, however, do any cardiac evaluation to rule out a possible cardiac source of the syncope. 25. The EEG and lab tests performed and/or ordered by Defendant Kretzing did not serve to verify his diagnosis of a neurologic problem or hypoglycemia. 26. Approximately one year later, on November 7, 1992, again 4 .. while she was in the midst of performing during a cheerleading contest, Suzanne suddenly slumped to the ground. 27. Suzanne was taken by ambulance to Carlisle Hospital where she remained unresponsive and where she was admitted to the hospital with a diagnosis of "acute loss of consciousness and disorientation, etiology unclear." 28, Suzanne's condition improved gIadually overnight and she was released on November 8, 1992, with the same diagnosis of "acute loss of consciousness and disorientation, etiology unclear." 29, From November 1992 through October 1995, Suzanne Beam continued to treat regularly with Defendants, 30. During that period, Suzanne reported complaints of chest pain and episodes of dizziness, including chest discomfort associated with swimming. 31. On or about December 9, 1994, Suzanne reported to Defendants that she felt discomfort in her chest and that she felt like she had to take deep breaths, 32, On May 31, 1995, Suzanne reported "continued problems with syncope or Ilear syncope" to the Defendants, 33. Defendants neither conducted testing nor sought any consultation to determine if the syncope episodes in 1995 were related to the client's prior history of significant syncope. 34. Defendants did know, or should have known, of so-called "long QT syndrome", a disease process with symptoms that include 5 sudden syncope in otherwise healthy individuals, often at peak levels ot stress and exercise. 35. Long QT Syndrome presents a substantial risk of sudden cardiac death. 36. In evaluating Suzanne's history of unexplained syncopal episodes at peak levels of exercise and excitement, Defendants did not request or obtain a consultation from a cardiologist. 37. Defendants did not request or conduct any echographic studies, did not utilize a Holter monitor, and did not examine available exercise testing from Suzanne Beam's family. 38. Defendants did not obtain or request corrected QT intervals for Suzanne Beam, even though Long QT Syndrome should have been part of their differential diagnosis. 39. Without having performed or ordered any testing, studies, neurological consultation or cardiac consultation, Bruce Bailey, M.D., of Defendant Belvedere Medical Corporation decided that the syncopal episodes were "related to stress," 40. Four months later, on September 29, 1995, Suzanne Beam was attending a pep rally at Cumberland Valley High School when she, for II third time in her life, passod out. This time, her heart completely stopped and she died, at age 16, with her teacher and classmates looking on. 41. Suzanne Beam's death was a direct result of Long QT 6 Syndrome and/or a cardiac abnormality that could, and should, have been diagnosed and treated prior to her death. COUNT I BARL L. BBAK AND KATHY A. BEAM, AS ADMINISTRATORS or THB BSTATB or SUZANNB BEAM, DECBASED, AND BARL L. BEAK AND KATHY A. BEAK, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THBIR OWN RIGHT V. HAROLD KRETZING. M.D. 42. Paragraphs 1 through 41 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference, 43. At all time relevant to this complaint, Harold Kretzing, M.D., was a servant, agent, apparent agent, employee and/or officer of Defendant Belvedere Medical corporation, and was acting in such capacity. 44. Defendant Kretzing is liable to Plaintiffs for the injuries alleged herein which were a direct and proximate result of his negligence as set forth in paragraphs 45 through 66 below. 45. Defendant Kretzing failed to obtain a complete and up-to- date medical history of Suzanne Beam so as to have apprised himself of the November 7, 1992 syncopal episode and the subsequent hospitalization at the Carlisle Hospital, 46. Defendant Kretzing failed to report all of Suzanne Beam's episodes and symptoms of syncope accurately and completely to a neurologist, to a cardiologist and to the physician who treated Suzanne during her November, 1992 hospital admission. 7 47. Defendant Kretzing failed, both prior to and after her hospitalization in 1992, to refer Suzanne 8eam to a pediatric cardiologist for evaluation of her syncopal episodes. 48. Defendant Kretzing failed, both prior to and after her hospitalization in 1992, to refer Suzanne Beam to a cardiologist for evaluation of her syncopal episodes, 49, Defendant Kretzing failed, both prior to and after her hospitalization in 1992, to take steps to determine whether Suzanne Beam's syncopal episodes were related to a cardiac problem, 50. Defendant Kretzing failed to determine whether the cause of Suzanne's syncopal problems were related to struct;ural or electrophysiological abnormalities in her heart or to any other cardiac pathology. 51. Defendant Kretzing failed to consider long QT syndrome as a diagnosis for Plaintiff's syncopal episodes and to take steps to evaluate that diagnosis. 52. Defendant Kretzin9 failed to take steps beyond simple auscultation tc determine if Suzanne had any structural abnormality in her heart. 53. Defendant KI'etzing failed to recognize that Suzanne Beam had signs and symptoms of a cardiac problem that presented the possibility of sudden cardiac death, 54. Defendant Kretzin9 failed to detect structural heart abnormalities of an Ebstein-like malfunction of the tricuspid 8 valve, an abnormality which is associated with E:udden cardiac deaths in children. 55. Defendant Kretzing failed to diagnose abnormal prolonged QT intervals in an otherwise heal thy chi ld presenting with a series of unexplained syncopal episodes at peak levels of exercise and stress. 56. Defendant Kretzing failed to request or to cor.duct an echocardiogram. 57. Defendant Kretzing failed to request or to utilize a Holter monitor to determine the presence of any abnormalities, including T-wave alternans. 58. Defendant Kretzing failed to calculate or "correct" Suzanne Beam's, or any other Beam family members', QT intervals, or to request that such calculations be performed, 59. Defendant Kretzing failed to aggressively evaluate a child whose syncopal episodes occurred at the peak of exercise, which strongly suggested a cardiac source. 60. Defendant Kretzing 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, Qr should have suggested, the possibility of Long QT or other elec:trophysiological abnormalities associated with BUdden cardiac death. 61. Defendant Kretzing failed 9 to advise Suzanne Or her parents to restrict her activities or place appropriate limits on her activities. 62. Defendant Kretzing failed to use all of the tests available and required to determine whether Suzanne's signs and symptoms were cardiac in origin. 63. Defendant Kretzing failed to consider or utilize Suzanne's past history of syncopal episodes his differential diagnoses for the continuing medical problems she presented with following her discharge from Carlisle Hospital in November 1992. 64. Defendant Kretzing failed to advise Suzanne's parents about the possibility that she might be suffering from cardiac problems and/or to recommend additional cardiac follow-up. 65. Defendant Kretzing failed, prior to Suzanne's death, to diagnose her as suffering from Long QT Syndrome or from any other car.diac disease or abnormality. 66. Defendant Kretzing failed, prior to Suzanne's death, to appropriately treat Suzanne Beam for Long QT Syndrome for any other cardiac disease or abnormality, 67. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Kretzing'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 10 neurologi~t, to a cardiologist and to the physician who treated Suzanne during her November, 1992 hospital admission. 73. Defendant Hollen failed, both prior to and after her hospitalization in 1992, to refer Suzanne Beam to a pediatric cardiologist for evaluation of her syncopal episodes. 74, Defendant Hollen failed, both prior to and after her hospitalization in 1992, to refer Suzanne Beam to a cardiologist for evaluation of her syncopal episodes. 75. Defendant Hollen failed, both prior to and after her hOGpitalization in 1992, to take steps to determine whether Suzanne Beam's syncopal episodes were related to a cardiac problem. 76. Defendant Hollen failed to determine whether the cause of Suzanne's syncopal problems were related to structural or electrophysiological abnormalities in her heart or to any other cardiac pathology. 77. Defendant Hollen failed to consider long QT syndrome as a diagnosis for Plaintiff's syncopal episodes and to take steps to evaluate that diagnosis, 78. Defendant Hollen failed to take steps beyond simple auscultation to determine if Suzanne had any structural abllormality in her heart. 79. Defendant Hollen failed to recognize that Suzanne Beam had signs and symptoms of a cardiac problem that presented the possibility of sudden cardiac death. 12 80. Defendant Hollen 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. 81. Defendant Hollen failed to diagnose abnormal prolonged QT intervals in an otherwise healthy ohild presenting with a series of unexplained syncopal episodes at peak levels of exercise and stress. 82. Defendant Hollen failed to request or to conduct an echocardiogram, 83. Defendant Hollen failed to request or to utilize a Holter monitor to determine the presence of any abnormalities, including T-wave alternans, 84. Defendant Hollen failed to calculate or "correct" Suzanne Beam'S, or any other Beam family members', QT intervals, or to request that such calculations be performed, 85. Defendant Hollen failed to aggressively evaluate a child whose syncopal episodes occurred at the peak of exercise, which strongly suggested a cardiac source. 86. Defendant Hollen 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 QTor 13 other electrophysiological abnormalities associated with sudden cardiac death. 87. Defendant Hollen failed to advise Suzanne or her parents to restrict her activities or place appropriate limits on her activities. 88. Defendant Hol.len failed to use all of the tests available and required to determine whether Suzanne's signs and symptoms were cardiac in origin, 89. Defendant Hollen failed to consider or utilize Suzanne's past history of syncopal episodes in his djfferential diagnoses for the continuing medical problems she presented with following her discharge from Carlisle Hospital in November 1992. 90. Defendant Hollen failed to advise Suzanne's parents about the possibility that she might be suffering from cardiac problems and/or to recommend additional cardiac follow-up. 91. Defendant Hollen failed, prior to Suzanne's death, to diagnose her as sUffering from Long QT syndrome or from any other cardiac disease or abnormality. 92, Defendant Hollen failed, prior to Suzanne's death, to appropriately treat Suzanne Beam for Long QT syndrome for any other cardiac disease or abnormality. 93. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Hollen's negligence as set forth above, Suzanne Beam suffered a fatal cardiac arrhythmia. 14 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 Th~ir Own Right demand judgment against Defendant Robert Hollen, M.D. in an amount in excess of Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($35,000), exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT III EARL L. BEAM AND KATHY A. BEAM, AS ADMINISTRATORS or THB ESTATE OF SUZANNE BEAM, DECEASED, AND EARL L. BEAM AND KATHY A. BEAM, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THBIR OWN RIGHT V. BRUCE BAILEY. M.D. 94. Paragraphs 1 through 41 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 95. At all time relevant to this Complaint, Bruce Bailey, M.D., was a servant, agent, apparent. agent, employee and/or officer of Defendant Belvedere Medical corporation, and was acting in such capacity. 96. Defendant Bailey is liable to Plaintiffs for the injuries alleged herein which were a direct and proximate result of his negligence as set forth in paragraphs 97 through 118 below. 97. Defendant Bailey failed to obtain a complete and up-to- date medical history of Suzanne Beam so as to have apprised himself 15 of the November 7, 1992 syncopal episode and the subsequent hospitalization at the Carlisle Hospital, 98. Defendant Bailey failed to report all of Suzanne Beam's episodes and symptoms of syncope accurately and completely to a neurologist, to a cardiologist and to the physician who treated Suzanne during her November, 1992 hospital admission. 99. Defendant Bailey failed, both prior to and after her hospitalization in 1992, to refer Suzanne Beam to a pediatric cardiologist for evaluation of her syncopal episodes. 100. Defendant Bailey failed, both prior to and after her hospitalization in 1992, to refer Suzanne Beam to a cardiologist for evaluation of her syncopal episodes. 101. Defendant Bailey failed, both prior to and after her hospitalization in 1992, to take steps to determine whether Suzanne Beam's syncopal episodes were related to a cardiac problem. 102. Defendant Bailey failed to determine whether the cause of Suzanne's syncopal problems were related to structural or electrophysiological abnormalities in her heart or to any other cardiac pathology, 103. Defendant Bailey failed to consider long QT syndrome as a diagnosis for Plaintiff's syncopal episodes and to take steps to evalu~te that diagnosis. 104. Defendant Bailey failed to take steps beyond simple 16 auscultation to determine if Suzanne had any structural abnormality in her heart. 105. Defendant Bailey failed to recognize that Suzanne Beam had signs and symptoms of a cardiac problem that presented the possibility of sudden cardiac death. 106. Defendant Bailey 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. 107. Defendant Bailey 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. 108, Defendant Bailey failed to request or to conduct an echocardiogram. 109. Defendant Bailey failed to request or to utilize a Holter monitor to detel:mine the presence of any abnormalities, including T-wave alternans, 110. Defendant Bailey failed to calculate or "correct" Suzanne Beam's, or any other Beam family members', QT intervals, or to request that such calculations be performed. 111. Defendant Bailey failed to aggressively evaluate a child whose syncopal episodes occurred at the peak of exercise, which strongly suggested a cardiac source, 17 112. Defendant Bailey 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 electrophY6iological abnormalities associated with sudden cardiac death, 113. Defendant Bailey failed to advise Suzanne or her parents to restrict her activities or place appropriate limits on her activities. 114. Defendant Bailey failed to use all of the tests available and required to determine whether Suzanne's signs and symptoms were cardiac in origin. 115. Defendant Bailey failed to consider or utilize Suzanne's past history of syncopal episodes in his differential diagnoses for the continuing medical problems she presented with following her discharge from Carlisle Hospital in November 1992. 116. Defendant Bailey failed to advise Suzanne's parents about the possibility that she might be suffering from cardiac problems and/or to r.ecommend additional cardiac follow-up, 117. Defendant Bailey failed, prior to Suzanne's death, to diagnose her as suffering from Long QT Syndrome or from any other cardiac diseaso or abnormality. 118. Defendant Bailey failed, prior to Suzanne's death, to 18 appropriately treat Suzanne Beam for Long QT Syndrome for any other cardiac disease or abnormality. 119. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Bailey's negligence as set forth above, Suzanne Beam suffered a fatal cardiac arrhythmia. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Earl L. Beam and Kathy A. Belim, 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 Bruce Bailey, M. D. in an amount in excess of Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($35,000), exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT IV EARL L. BEAM AND KATHY A. BEAM, AS ADMINISTRATORS or THE ESTATE OF SUZANNE BEAM, DECEASED, AND EARL L. BEAM AND KATHY ~. BEAM, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR OWN RIGHT V. CAROL ROBISON. ~ 120. Paragraphs 1 through 41 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 121. At all time relevant to this Complaint, Carol RObison, 0.0" was a servant, agent, apparent agent, employee and/or officer of Defendant Belvedere Medical corporation, and was acting in such capacity. 122, Defendant Robison is liable to Plaintiffs for the 19 injuries alleged herein which were a direct and proximate result of her negligence as set forth in paragraphs 123 through 144 below. 123. Defendant Robison failed to obtain a complete and up-to- date medical history of Suzanne Beam so as to have apprised herself of the November 7, 1992 syncopal episode and the subsequent hospitalization at the Carlisle Hospital. 124. Defendant Robison failed to report all of Suzanne Beam's episodes and symptoms of syncope accurately and completely to a neurologist, to a cardiologist and to the physician who treated Suzanne during her November, 1992 hospital admission. 125. Defendant Robison failed, both prior to and after her hospitalization in 1992, to refer Suzanne Beam to a pediatric cardiologist for evaluation of her syncopal episodes. 126. Defendant Robison failed, both prior to and after her hospitalization in 1992, to refer Suzanne Beam to a cardiologist for evaluation of her syncopal epiSOdes. 127. Defendant Robison failed, both prior to and after her hospitalization in 1992, to take steps to determine whether Suzanne Beam's syncopal episodes were related to a cardiac problem. 128. Defsndant Robison failed to determine whether the cause of Suzanne's syncopal problems were related to st.ructural or electrophysiological abnormalities in her heart or to any other cardiac pathology. 129. Defendant Robison failed to consider long QT syndrome as 20 a diagnosis for Plaintiff's syncopal episodes and to take steps to evaluate that diagnosis. 130. Defendant Robison failed to take steps beyond simple auscultation to determine if Suzanne had any structural abnormality in her heart. 131. Defendant Robison failed to recognize that Suzanne Beam had signs and symptoms of a cardiac problem that presented the possibility of sudden cardiac death. 132. Defendant Robison failed to detect structural heart abnormillities of an Ebstein-like malfunction of the tricuspid valve, an abnormality which is associated with sudden cardiac deaths in children. 133. Defendant Robison 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. 134. Defendant Robison failed to request or to conduct an eChocardiogram. 135. Defendant Robison failed to request or to utilize a Holter monitor to determine the presence of any abnormalities, including T-wave alternans, 136. Defendant Robison failed to calculate or "correct" Suzanne Beam's, or any other Beam family members', QT intervals, or to request that such calculations be performed, 21 137. Defendant Robison failed to aggressively evaluate a child whose syncopal episodes occurr.ed at the peak of exercise, which strongly suggested a cardiac source. 138. Defendant Robison 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, 139. Defendant Robison failed to advise Suzanne or her parents to restrict her activities or place appropriate limits on her activities. 140. Defendant Robison failed to use all of the tests available and requireu to determine whethe~ Suzanne's signs and symptoms were cardiac in origin. 141. Defendant Robison failed to consider or utilize Suzanne's past history of syncopal episodes in her differential diagnoses for the continuing medical problems she presented with following her discharge from Carlisle Hospital in November 1992, 142. Defendant Robison failed to advise Suzanne's parents about the possibility that she might be suffering from cardiac problemlil and/or to recommend additional cardiac follow-up. 143. Defendant Robison failed, prior to Suzanne's death, to 22 diagnose her as SUffering trom Long QT syndrome or from any other cardiac disease or abnormality. 144. Defendant Robison failed, prior to Suzanne's death, to appropriately treat Suzanne Beam for Long QT Syndrome for any other cardiac disease or abnormality. 145. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Robison'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 judgment against Defendant Carol Robison, D.O. in an amount in excess of Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($35,000), exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration, COUNT V EARL L. BEAM AND KATHY A. BEAM, AS ADMINISTRATORS or THB BSTATB or SUZANNE BEAM, DECEASED, AND BARL L. BBAM AND KATHY A. BEAM, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THBIR OWN RIGHT V. BRUCE KIPP. III. P.A. 146. Paragraphs 1 through 41 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference, 147. At all time relevant to this Complaint, Bruce Kipp, III, P.A., was a servant, agent, apparent agent, employee and/or officer 23 of Defendant Belvedere Medical corporation, and was acting in such capacity. 148. Defendant Kipp is liable to Plaintiffs for the injuries alleged herein which were a dirlOct and proximate result of his negligence as set forth in paragraphs 149 through 170 below. 149. Defendant Kipp failed to obtain a complete and up-to-date medical history of Suzanne Beam so as to have apprised himself of the November 7, 1992 syncopal episode and the subsequent hospitalization at the Carlisle Hospital. 150. Defendant Kipp failed to report all of Suzanne Beam's episodes and symptoms of syncope accurately and completely to a neurologist, to a cardiologist, to the physician who treated Suzanne during her November, 1992 hospital admission and to the physicians supervising his work. 151. Defendant Kipp failed, both prior to and after her hospitalization in 1992, to refer Suzanne Beam to a pediatric cardiologist for evaluation of her syncopal episodes. 152. Defendant Kipp failed, both prior to and after her hospitalization in 1992, to refer Suzanne Beam to a cardiologist for evaluation of her syncopal episodes. 153. Defendant Kipp failed, both prior to and after her hospitalization in 1992, to take steps to determine whether Suzanne Beam'. syncopal episodes were related to a cardiac problem. 154. Defendant Kipp failed to determine whether the cauee of 24 Suzanne's syncopal problems were related to structural or electrophysiological abnormalities in her heart or to any other cardiac pathology. 155. Defendant Kipp failed to consider long QT syndrome as a diagnosis for Plaintiff's syncopal episodes and to take steps to evaluate that diagnosis. 156. Defendant Kipp failed to take steps beyond simple auscultation to determine if Suzanne had any structural abnormality in her heart. 157. Defendant Kipp failed to recognize that Suzanne Beam had signs and symptoms of a cardiac problem that presented the possibility of sudden cardiac death. 158. Defendant Kipp failed to detect structural heart abnormalities of an Ebstein-like malfunction of the tricuspid valve, an abnormality which is associated wit.h sudden cardiac deaths in children. 159. Defendant Kipp 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. 160. Defendant Kipp failed to request or to conduct an echocardiogram. 161. Defendant Kipp failed to request or to utilize a Holter 25 monitor to determine the presence of any abnormalities, including T-wave alternans. 162. Defendant Kipp failed to calculate or "correct" Suzanne Beam's, or any other Beam family members', QT intervals, or to request that such calculations be performed. 163. Defendant Kipp failed to aggressively evaluate a child whose syncopal episodes occurred at the peak of exercise, which strongly suggested a cardiac source. 164. Defendant Kipp failcd to keep currcnt 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. 165. Defendant Kipp failed to advise Suzanne or her parents to restrict her activities or place appropriate limits on her activities. 166. Defendant Kipp failed to use all of the tests available and required to determine whether Suzanne's signs and symptoms were cardiac in origin. 167. Defendant Kipp failed to consider or utilize Suzanne's past history of syncopal episodes in his differential diagnoses for the continuing medical problems she presented with following her discharge from Carlisle Hospital in November 1992. 26 168. Derendant Kipp railed to advise Suzanne's parents about , the possibility that she might be sUffering from cardiac problems and/or to recommend additional cardi,ac follow-up. 169. Defendant Kipp failed, prior to Suzanne's death, to diagnose her as suffering from Long QT Syndrome or from any other cardiac disease or abnormality. 170. Defendant Kipp failed, prior to Suzanne's death, to appropriately treat Suzanne Beam for Long QT Syndrome for any other cardiac disease or abnormality. 171. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Kipp'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 judgment against Defendant Bruce Kipp, III, P.A. in an amount in excess of Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($35,000), exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. 27 COUNT VI BARL L. BIlAN AND KATHY A. BEAN, AS ADMINISTRATORS or TN. IlSTATIl or SUZANNE BEAN, DECEASID, AND BARL L. BlAH AND KATHY A. BEAH, INDIVIDUALLY AND IN THEIR OWN RIGHT V. BELVEDERB MEDICAL CORPORATION 172. Paragraphs 1 through 41 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 173. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Robert A. HOllen, M.D., Harold G. Kretzing, M.D., Carol K. RObison, D.O., Bruce O. Bailey, M.D., and Bruce G. Kipp, III, P.A. were servant&, agents, apparent agents, employees and/or officers of Defendant Belvedere Medical corporation, ~nd were acting in such capacity. 174. Defendant Belvedere Medical Corporation 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 Robert A. Hollen, M.D.. Harold G. Kretzing, M.D., Carol K. RObison, D.O., Bruce O. Bailey, M.D., and Bruce G. Kipp, III, P.A., as set forth in paragraphs 175 through 1.95 below. 175. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed to obtain a complete and up-to-date medical history of Suzanne Beam GO as to have apprised themselves of the November 7, 1992 syncopa 1 episode and the subsequent hospitalization at the Carlisle Hospital. 28 176. said agents, apparent agents, officers, servant and/or employees tailed to report all of Suzanne Beam's episo es and symptoms of syncope accurately and completely to a neurologist, to a cardiologist, to the physician who treated Suzanne during her November, 1992 hospital admission. 177. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed, both prior to and after her hospit~lization in 1992, to refer Suzanne Beam to a pediatric cardiologist for evaluation of her syncopal episodes. 178. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed, both prior to and after her hospitalization in 1992, to take steps to determine whether Suzanne Beam's syncopal episodes were related to a cardiac problem. 179. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed to determine whether the cause of Suzanne's syncopal problems were related to structural or electrophys1010gical abnormalities in her heart or to any other cardiac pathology. 180. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed to consider long QT syndrome as a diagnosis for Plaintiff's syncopal episodes and to take steps to evaluate that diagnosis. 181. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or 419 employ.tes failed to take steps beyond simple ausr.:ultation to determine if Suzanne had any structural abnormality in her heart. 182. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed to recognize that Suzanne Beam had signs and symptoms of a cardiac problem that presented the possibility of sudden cardiac death. 183. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed to detect structural heart abnormalities ot an Ebstein-like malfunction of the tricuspid valve, an abnormality which is associated with sudden cardiac deaths in children. 184. Said aqents, 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 oe exercise and stress. 185. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed to request or to conduct an echocardiogram. 186. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed to request or to utilize a Holter monitor to determine the presence of any abnormalities, including T-wave alternans. 187. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed to calculate or "correct" Suzanne Beam's, or any other Beam family members', QT intervals, or to request that such calculations be performed. 30 188. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed to aggressively evaluate a child whose syncopal episodes occurred at the peak of exercise, which strongly suggested a cardiac source. 189. 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. 190. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed to advise Suzanne or her parents to restrict her activities or place appropriate limits on her activities. 191. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed to use all of the tests available and required to determine whether Suzanne's si.gns and symptoms were cardiac in origin. 192. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed to consider or utilize Suzanne's past history of syncopal episodes in their differential diagnoses for the continuing medical problems she presented with following her discharge from Carlisle Hospital in November 1992. 31 193. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, ssrvants 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 cardiac follow-up. 194. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed, prior to Suzanne's death, to diagnose her as suffering from Long QT Syndrome or from any other cardiac disease or abnormality. 195. Said agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees failed, prior to Suzanne's death, to appropriately treat Suzanne Beam for Long QT Syndrome or for any other cardiac disease or abnormality. 196. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the agents, apparent agents, officers, servants and/or employees' of Defendant Belvedere Medical Corporation 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 judgment against Defendant Belvedere Medical corporation in an amount in excess of Thirty-Five Thousand Dollars ($35,000), exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. 32 CLAIM I - SURVIVAL ACTION BARL L. BEAM AND KATHY A. BEAM, AS ADMINISTRATORS OF THB ESTATE OF SUZANNB ~EAM, DECBASED V. HAROLD KRETZING, H.D., ROBBRT HOLLIN, M.D., BRUCB BAILEY, M.D., CAROL ROBISON, D.O., BRUCB KIPP. III. P.A. AND BELVEDERB MEDICAL CORPORATION 197. Paragraphs 1 through 41 and Counts I through VI of this Complaint are incorporeted herein by reterence. 198. 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, Jul.y 9, P.L. 586, No. 142, 52, 42 Pa.C.S.A. 58302. 199. The decedent did not bring an action for her injuries during her lifetime. 200. For the reasons set forth above, the named Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Estate of Suzanne Beam, deceased, for the damages set forth herein. 201. Plaintiffs Earl L. Beam and Kathy A. Beam, as Administrators of the Estate of Suzanne Beam, deceased, claim on behalf 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 33 against Defendants Harold Kretzing, M.D., Robert Hollen, M.D., Bruce Bailey, M.D., Carol Robison, D.O., Bruce Kipp, III, P.A. and Belvedere Medical corporation, in an amount in excess of Thirty- Five Thousand Dollars ($35,000), exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. CLAIM II - WRONGFUL DEATH BARL L. BEAK AND KATHY A. BEAM, AS ADMINISTRATORS OF THB BSTATB OP SUZANNB BEAK, DECEASED, AND INDIVIDUALLY IN THEIR OWN RIGHT V. HAROLD ~RBTZING, M.n., ROBERT HOLLEN, M.D., BRUCB BAILBY, M.D., CAROL ROBISON, D.O., BRUCB KIPP, III, P.A. AND BELVBDERB MEDICAL CORPORATION 202. Paragraphs 1 through 41 and Counts I through VI of this complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 203. 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. S8301(b). 204. 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 9, P.L. 586, No. 142, S2, 42 Pa.C.S.A. S8301- 205. The Decedent did not bring an action for her injuries during her lifetime. 34 206. Plaintiffs Earl L. Beam and Kathy A. Beam are the parents of Suzanne Beam, who died on Saptember 29, 1995, and they are the Administrators of the Estate of Suzanne Beam. 207. 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 I.. Beam father carlisle, PA Kathy A. Beam mother CarliSle, PA Amy Beam sister Carlisle, PA 208. For the reasons set forth above, the named Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the aforesaid beneficiaries of Suzanne Beam, deceased, for the damages set forth herein. 209. As a direct and proximate result of the death of Suzanne Beam, Earl L. Beam and Kathy A. Beam have incurred medical, funeral, burial and related expenses, as well as expenses for the administration of the Decedent's estate, for all of which claim is made. 210. Earl L. Beam and Kathy A. Beam hereby make claims tor all other damages to which they and the decedent's beneficiaries are entitled under and by virtue of the Wrongful Death Act, Pa.C.S.A. 58301. 35 ~ I~! .e, e ~j ~ ii, N o M :c 0.. ',' 'I " " 'I " " , , , " ') il . , . I ,I - M c..l ~. t;; f.';' g~ ;;: 8lf d~ ~~~ a 'I , , " " . . I .. , I' I' { , , , . . , .'. . . il ,I ':' '. ,,' .1 .,' 1," I .' ,. . . " " -' ., '4 '" . - .. .. " . I,,' 'I ,;jl 'f';." . " , I " 'li , . ., ,I " I I \.', :1 EARL L. BEAM and KATHY A. BEAM, as Administrators of the Estate of SUZANNE BEAM, Deoeased, and EARL L. BEAM and KATHY A. BEAM, Individually and in Their Own Ri<jht, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 97-5196 Plaintiffs 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 EJ.iseo 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 tor Defendant Family Practice Belvedere Medical Corporation indicated, and hereby affirms, that Family Practice- Belvedere Medical Corporation is not the proper name of the family physician group that was involved in the care and treatment of Suzanne Beam. Accordingly, all pl,rtlop hllruby agree to the dismissal of Family Practice - nelvedero Medicnl corporation as a D~fendant in this matter and to the removal of its name from the caption. 5. During the cour.. of dhcovery in civil action no. 97-2069, it was determined, lSnd counllol for Defendant Line hereby affirms, that Denni. Line Cardiology, P.C. was not the employer of Defendant Lino at the timo of the incident that is the subject of this litigation. Accordingly, all parties hereby agree to the dismissal of Dennis Lino cardIology, P.C. as a Defendant in this matter, and to the removal of such name from the caption. 6. Tho parties to eRch of tho nbove-captioned actions hereby Btipulate and agree that tho actions shall proceed under the following caption: EARL L. BEAM "nd KATlIY A. BEAM, as Administrators of the Estate of SUZANNE BEAM, Deceasod, and EARL. 1.. BEAM and KATHY A. BEAM, Individually and in Their Own Right, IN un: COUR'l' OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 9'1-2069 CIVIL Plaintiff's CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. DENNIS E. LINE, M.D., ELISEO ROSARIO, JR., M.D., CARLISLE PEDIATRIC ASSOCIATES, A PROFESSIONAL CORI'ORATION, J. CRAIG JURGENSEN, M.D., HAROLD KRETZING, M.D., ROBERT HOl.l,f:N, M. [)., IIRUCF. BAILEY, M.D., CAROl, ROBISON, 0.0., BRUCE KIPP, III, P.A., and BE1,vEOERE: MEDICAL CORPOHATION, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED , , '.~ ,. I '>- , 0; V' , . , " {."j " , , ..., ,- I ,- ":'1.: I ',' 1 ( I..: , ..- C" .' L " ,] (.. !Ii-. ~ -, ..~ ~I' L' c.'" 'J , (..J 0' (J -~ o;~ ...... ... " ~ " 1 " 4 ~ , ' , ' , '" . form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint and, therefore, said averments are denied. 3. The corresponding averment of Plaintiffs' Complaint states a legal conclusion to which no response is required. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted in part and denied in palc. It is admitted only that throughout his professional practice Defendant Kretzing, M.D. has engaged in general and family medicine. Plaintiffs averments to the effect that Defendant Kretzing, M.D. specialized in family medicine constitute conclusions of iaw to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that said averments are factual, same are denied. Strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 6. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that Defendant Kretzing, M.D. was an employee of Defendant, Belvedere Medical Corporation during the time periods relevant to Plaintiffs' Complaint. The remaining allegations in paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. All other portions of Plaintiff's allegations in paragraph 6 are denied in accordance w'ith Pa. R.C.P. No. l029(e). 7. Admitted. 8. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that throughout his professional practice Defendant Hollen, M.D. 2 has engaged in general and family medicine. Plaintiffs' averments to the effect that Defendant Hollen, M.D. specialized in family medicine constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that said averments are factual, same are denied. strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 9. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that Defendant Hollen, M.D. was an employee of Defendant, Belvedere Medical Corporation during the time periods relevant to Plaintiffs' Complaint. The remaining allegations in paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. All other portions of Plaintiff's allegations in paragraph 9 are denied in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029(e). 10. Admitted. 11. Admittp.d in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that throughout his professional practice Defendant Bailey, M.D. has engaged in general and family medicine. Plaintiffs' averments to the effect that Defendant Bailey, M.D. specialized in family medicine constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that said averments are factual, same are denied. Strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 12. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that Defendant Sailey, M.D. was an employee of Defendant, 3 17. Admitted in part, denied in .part. It is admi t ted only that Defendant Kipp, III, P.A. was an employee of Defendant, Belvedere Medical Corporation between September 1991 and July 31, 1995. The rembining allegations in paragraph 17, of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responl3ive pleading is required. All other portions of Plaintiffs' allegations in paragraph 17 are denied in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. No. 1029(e). 18-19. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Belvedere Medical Corporation is a professional corporation. It is specifically denied that Defendant Belvedere Medical Corporation provides family medical care. To the contrary, as a professional corporation, Belvedere Medical Corporation does not practic~ medicine. 20. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Answering Defendants provided family medical care and treatment to Suzanne Beam after her birth. As to whether Answering Defendants were considered to be her "family physicians", after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without information to verify the accuracy or inaccuracy of the corresponding averment of Plaintiffs' Complaint and the same is, accordingly, denied. By way of further answer, the corresponding allegations of I:'laintiffs' Complaint represent a conclusion ,of law which is deemed to be denied by operation of law and the same are accordingly denied. 5 21. After reasonable investigation, Answerlng Defendants are without information to verify the accuracy or inaccuracy of the corresponding averment of Plaintiffs' Complaint and the same is, accordingly, denied. 22. Admitted only to the extent this is the history reported to Answering Defendants. 23. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the episode was reported to Dr. Kretzing. As to whether the episode was "immediately reported", Answer.ing Defendants are without information to verify the accuracy or inaccuracy of the correspon.ding averment of Plaintiffs' Complaint, and the same is, accordingly, denied. 24-25. The corresponding allegations of Plaintiffs' Complaint are not directed toward Answering Defendants, and therefore, no response is required. 26-28. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without information to verify the accuracy or inaccuracy of the corresponding averment of Plaintiffs' Complaint and the same is, accordingly, denied. 29. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Suzanne Beam was treated by physici.ans at Answering Defendants from 1992 through 1995. As to whether this treatment can be considered to be "regular", this constitutes a conclusion to which no response is necessary. By way of f.urther answer, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without 6 information to verify the accuracy or inaccuracy of the corresponding averment of Plaintiffs' Complaint and the same is, accordingly, denied. 30. Denied as stated. The averments in paragraph 30 of Plaint Hfs' Complaint represent only a portion of the facts a.nd circumstances governing Answering Defendants care of Suzanne Beam. The contentions contained in paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted only to the extent that said averments are consistent with the entries in Suzanne Beam's medical records of Belvedere Medical Center. To the ~xtent that said averments are inconsistent with any entries in said medical records, same are denied. By way of further answer, during this time frame, the medical records reveal Suzanne Beam reported numerous complaints, inclnding, but not limited to, acne, knee pain, depression, discomfort in the upper chest, dizziness, fat.igue, ear pain, cough, among other things. 31. Denied as stated. The averments in paragraph 31 of Plaintiffs' Complaint represent only a portion of the facts and circumstances governing Answering Defendants' care of Suzanne Beam. The contentions contained in paragraph 31 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted only to the extent that said averments are consistent with the entries in Suzanne Beam's medical records of Belvedere Medical Center. To the extent that said averments are inconsistent with any entries in said medical records, same are denied. By way of further answer, during this time. frame. By 7 way of further answer, the medical records reveal what a wheeze was associated with the deep breath. 32. Admit ted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that on May 31, 1995, Suzanne reported problems with syncope to Dr. Bailey. It is denied that these problems were reported to all Defendants as the corresponding averment of Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges. By way of further answer, these episodes were accompanied by severe depression related to her menstrual period. 33. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, a work-Up was commenced to determine the possible causes of the symptoms identified in Answer to paragraph 32. 34. The averments of the corresponding paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint recite general medical conclusions to which no response is required. Said allegations are further denied in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 1029 (e) . 35. The averments of the corresponding paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint recite general medical conclusions to 'which ' no respo~se is required. Said allegations are further denied in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 36. Admitted in part and denied in part. The corresponding averments of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted only to the extent consistent with the medical records. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendants were aware that Suzanne's syncopal episodes occurred at peak levels of exercise and excitement. Under the history as presented to Answering 8 205. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answer.ing Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint and, therefore, said averments are denied. 206-207. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this par.agraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint and, therefore, said averments are denied. 208. Denied. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Estate of Suzanne Beam. To the contrary, the answers to the foregoing paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 209. Denied. Complaint states a required. 210. Denied. Complaint states a required. The corresponding averment of Plaintiffs' legal conclusion to which no response is The corresponding averment of Plaintiffs' legal conclusion to which no response is WHEREFORE, Defendants, Bruce Bailey, M.D., Bruce Kipp, III, P.A., and Belvedere Medical Corporation, request judgment in their favor and against Plaintiffs. 18 , NEW MATTER 213. The foregoing paragraphs are Lncorporated herein as though set forth fully at length. 214. PlaintLffs' Complaint fails to state any claim upon which relief can be granted as against Answering Defendants. 215. To the extent currently applicable, or to the extent that it can iater become applicable, Answering Defendants plead the statute of limitations to preserve this affirmative defense for the record. 216. At all times and for all purposes material to the events set out in Plaintiffs' Complaint, Answering Defendants acted appro~riately in providing primary health care and treatment to Plaintif.fs' decedent, Suzanne Beam, which was commensurate with a standard of health care applicable under similar circumstances. 217. At all times and for all purposes material to the events described in Plaintiffs' Ccmplaint, Answering Defendants followed the teachings, practices and precepts of a respected school of thought followed by a considerable number of practicing primary health care providers and, accordingly, its professional conduct was fully commensurate with an applicable standard of care. 218. To the extent that discovery or the evidence at trial may establish that the Plaintiffs' decedent, Suzanne Beam, was 19 negligent and that such negligence caused or contributed to cause the injuries and damages of which Plaintiffs complain, Answering Defendants expressly reserve the right to assert the affirmative defense of contributory/comparative negligence and/or assumption of risk. 219. To the extent that Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' decedent sustained any injury or damage as alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint, which is specifically denied, Answering Defendants aver that any such injury or damage was the result of the acts or omissions of third parties for whom Answering Defendants are in no way liable. 220. To the extent that Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs' decedent sustained any injury or damage as claimed in Plaintiffs' Complaint, Answering Defendants in no way negligently or otherwise caused or contributed to cause any such injury or damage. 221. Plaintiffs' allegations of negligence as against Answering Defendants are without reasonable basis in fact or medicine and may constitute an abuse of civil process. 222. Answering Defendants hereby assert and incorporate by reference allY and all defenses which may be available to them under the Pennsylvania Health C~re Services Malpractice Act, 40 P.S. ~1301.101, ~~. 20