HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-01474
,
,j
"
'1
1
~\
.
~,
.l
; ',~
'.l
"
4...
,~
It
",.
It
\I
~
~
.'"
.
::l
q:
<::)
(
'--.
~,
......
.
~
'::I'
......:
'-J,
~
t---.,
:::t-.
........
~
<'I',
"
~
1
{
.
'tl >,
C -1.1
J III Q),o-I , ,
.<:: k , . ~ ,
, ,
. -1.1 III I I I
0.....<:: , \D
- , Cjl ,
~l 'oU , I
:;: I . ~ ,
I
o-lC , . I
~l . III III .S , ~ ,
~' l!l ,
-1.1 -1.1'0-1 I
C '0-1-1.1 III . ,
o-l III Po en J ~ I .~. Ii
'0-1 - en en '0-1
> III 0 k IB
'0-1 Q):I:.<:: Ul lQ
u .<:: u C '<
en 1>.-1.1 0 r~
sl '0-1 '0-1.... '0-1
> . k 0 -1.1
III e::,o-I tJ ,~ !:l
0 Po en .0: ~\D
d., enUl,", -
en III Q) o-l ~ ,= ~
0" Q) E >,-1.1 . '0-1 Q) N'
~ E o o-l en tJ > -I.I~ N
III .t: 0..... C '0-1 ~U1 -
~ E-<:I:U1H U
.. .
I
JAMES DAVIS
Plaintiff
V.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
PLEAS
r
I ~ '
I'
U;
I~ I
I '
l~ I
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
THOMAS R, PHEASANT, M.D. and
HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE
SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY,
INC,
NO, 98..1474 CIVIL TERM
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
1, Plaintiff, James Davis, currently resides at
Rockview State Prison, Bellefonte, PA,
2, Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of
Christian Charity, Inc, (hereafter "Holy Spirit"), is a not for
profit corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and located at North 21st
Street, Camp Hill, PA 17011.
3, Defendant, Thomas R, Pheasant, M.D., is a duly
licensed surgeon and physician under the laws of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania who, at all relevant times herein mentioned, was
engaged in the practice of medicine at defendant Holy Spirit
Hospital, Defendant, Dr. Pheasant, is currently engaged in the
practice of medicine at 220 Grandview Avenue, Camp Hill, PA
17011,
4, Defendant, Dr, Pheasant, at all times mentioned,
was the employee, agent and servant of defendant, Holy Spirit
Hospital, and was acting within the scope and authority of his
employment and his acts and omissions were therefore the acts and
omissions of defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital,
5, On March 22, 1996, plaintiff was admitted to Holy
Spirit Hospital for treatment of tears to the retina of his left
eye due to trauma sustained in a boxing match.
6. On March 23, 1996/ defendant, Dr. Pheasant, a
licensed ophthalmologist, undertook as physician and surgeon, to
perform eye surgery upon plaintiff to repair the tears in
plaintiff's retina, At all material times, there existed a
physician-patient relationship between the defendants and
plaintiff.
7, In performing the operation defendant, Dr.
Pheasant, was negligent in failing to exercise the degree of
skill and care ordinarily exercised by other physicians and
surgeons engaged in this type of practice in the City of Camp
Hill, Cumberland County, PA, or in like localities. Defendant,
Holy Spirit Hospital, on March 22, 1996, by and through its duly
authorized employee and agent, defendant, Dr. Pheasant, was
guilty of negligently repairing the tears in plaintiff's retina
and failing to properly treat plaintiff in his postoperative
condition,
8, If reasonable medical care had been given by
defendants to plaintiff, plaintiff's injury in the nature of
blindness in the left eye would not have occurred, Plaintiff
alternately relies upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur,
9, Defendants failed to inform plaintiff concerning
the risks involved in such a surgical procedure, and plaintiff
alleges there was a lack of informed consent, Defendants should
have realized and disclosed the 'risk of blindness to the patient.
-2-
10. Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, negligently
failed to supervise or train properly, defendant, Dr. Pheasant,
and the nursing personnel on duty at the time of the incident
described above.
11, As a direct and proximate result of the negligent
acts and omissions of the defendants, plaintiff has been rendered
totally blind in his left eye and has endured great physical pain
and mental anguish, which will continue into the future.
12, As a direct and proximate result of one or more of
the foregoing acts or omissions of defendants, plaintiff has been
and will be kept from attending to his ordinary affairs and
duties and has suffered a loss of earnings and earning capacity
and will suffer further loss in the future,
13, As a fur.ther direct and proximate result of one or
more of the foregoing acts or omissions of defendants, plaintiff
has become liable for medical expenses and will be liable for
medical expenses incurred in the future.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff claims damages from the
defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of
Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00).
?
Respectfully sub . ted,
~P'd 0
NATALE F, C 0, JR.,
Attorney for Plaintiff
1528 Walnut Street, Suite
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Attorney I,D, No, 14099
(215) 735-4256
ESQUIRE
620
-3-
ir- 0' r::;
,- ....-..;.
-. .~'-
,- 9 :-:'<'
l!Jr~ ~.., ~.
t.lt-:', ..- .,.;,,/....
0: .;" ..;;:. (;':::~I
tl. ...-
0'(: ,0"'"
(;:",i. (") :.':~J
,
U.~'.l. .' ..,.
U:~.~l ,.- fUl:P
,0' ~1; ~@ -
.' .'-
LJ_ C') :.-)
(.) Cf\ (,)
~
S, On March 22, 1996, plaintiff was admiued to Holy Spirit Hospital for
treatment of tears to the retina of his left eye due to trauma sustained in a boxing match.
6. At this time, plaintiff had 20/30 vision in his left eye. Presently, after
defendants perfonned surgery upon plaintiff, his vision in the left eye is worse than
20/200,
7. On March 23, 1996, defendant, Dr. Pheasant, a licensed ophthalmologist,
under took as physician and surgeon, to perfonn eye surgery upon plaintiff to repair the
tears in plaintiff's retina. In addition to the retinal tears, a mild vitreous hemorrhage was
discovered. At all material times, there existed a physician-patient relationship between
the defendants and plaintiff.
8. On March 23, 1996, defendant, Dr. Pheasant, perfonned a pars plana
vitrectomy with fluid gas exchange, endolaser photocoagulation, membrane removal and
scleral buclde,
9, In perfonning the operation defendant, Dr, Pheasant, was negligent in
failing to exercise the degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised by other physicians and
surgeons engaged in this type of practice in the City of Camp Hill, Cumberland County,
PA, or in like localities, Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, on March 22, 1996, by and
through its duly authorized employee and agent, defendant, Dr, Pheasant, was guilty of
negligently repairing the tears in plaintiff's retina and failing to properly treat plaintiff in his
post-operative condition.
10. The carelessness and negligence of defendant, Dr, Pheasant, in rendering
the aforementioned medical care to plaintiff includes but is not limited to:
2
II. If reasonable medical care had been given by defendants to plaintiff,
plaintiff's injury in the nature of blindness in the left eye would not have occurred.
Plaintiff alternately relies upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
12. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts and omissions
ofthe defendants, plaintiff has been rendered totally blind in his left eye and has endured
great physical pain and mental anguish, which will continue into the future.
13. As a direct and proximate result of one or more of the foregoing
acts or omissions of defendants, plaintiff has been and will be kept from attending to his
ordinary affairs and duties and has suffered a loss of earnings and earning capacity and will
suffer further loss in the future.
14. As a further direct and proximate result of one or more of the
foregoing acts or omissions of defendants, plaintiff has become liable for medical expenses
and will be liable for medical expenses incurred in the future.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff claims damages from the defendant, Dr. Pheasant,
in an amount in excess of Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00).
COUNT II - BA TIERV
JAMES DAVIS v, THOMAS R. PHEASANT, M.D.
15, Plaintiff incorporates by specific reference the allegations contained
in paragraphs I through 14, inclusive, as though set forth at length herein.
16, Defendants failed to infonn plaintiff concerning the risks involved in
such a surgical procedure and plaintiff alleges there was a lack ofinfonned consent.
4
exhibit A
V.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JAl-!ES DAVIS
Plaintiff
THOMAS R, PHEASANT, M.D, and
HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE
SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY,
INC,
NO, 98-1474 CIVIL TERM
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
1. Plaintiff, James Davis, currently resides at
Rockview State Prison, Bellefonte, PA,
2, Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of
Christian Charity, Inc. (hereafter "Holy Spirit"), is a not for
profit corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and located at North 21st
Street, Camp Hill, PA 17011,
3, Defendant, Thomas R, Pheasant, M,D., is a duly
licensed surgeon and physician under the laws of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania who, at all relevant times herein mentioned, was
engaged in the practice of medicine at defendant Holy Spirit
Hospital. Defendant, Dr, Pheasant, is currently engaged in the
practice of medicine at 220 Grandview Avenue, Camp Hill, PA
17011.
4, Defendant, Dr, Pheasant, at all times mentioned,
was the employee, agent and servant of defendant, Holy Spirit
Hospital, and was acting within the scope and authority of his
employment and his acts and omissions were therefore the acts and
omissions of defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital,
5, On March 22, 1996, plaintiff was admitted to Holy
Sp~rit Hospital for treatment of tears to the retina of his left
eye due to trauma sustained in a boxing match.
6. On March 23, 1996, defendant, Dr, Pheasant, a
licensed ophthalmologist, undertook as physician and surgeon, to
perform eye surgery upon plaintiff to repair the tears in
plaintiff's retina. At all material times, there existed a
physician-patient relationship between the defendants and
plaintiff,
7. In performing the operation defendant, Dr.
Pheasant, was negligent in failing to exercise the degree of
skill and care ordinarily exercised by other physicians and
surgeons engaged in this type of practice in the City of Camp
Hill, Cumberland County, PA, or in like localities, Defendant,
Holy Spirit Hospital, on March 22, 1996, by and through its duly
authorized employee and agent, defendant, Dr. Pheasant, was
guilty of negligently repairing the tears in plaintiff's retina
and failing to properly treat plaintiff in his postoperative
condition,
8, If reasonable medical care had been given by
defendants to plaintiff, plaintiff's injury in the nature of
blindness in the left eye would not have occurred. Plaintiff
alternately relies upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur,
9, Defendants failed to inform plaintiff concerning
the risks involved in such a surgical procedure, and plaintiff
alleges there was a lack of informed consent, Defendants should
have realized and disclosed the 'risk of blindness to the patient,
-2-
10. Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, negligently
failed to supervise or train properly, defendant, Dr. Pheasant,
and the nursing personnel on duty at the time of the incident
described above.
11. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent
acts and omissions of the defendants, plaintiff has been rendered
totally blind in his left eye and has endured great physical pain
and mental anguish, which will continue into the future.
12. As a direct and proximate result of one or more of
the foregoing a7ts or omissions of defendants, plaintiff has been
and will be kept from attending to his ordinary affairs and
duties and has suffered a loss of earnings and earning capacity
and will suffer further loss in the future.
13. As a further direct and proximate result of one or
more of the foregoing acts or omissions of defendants, plaintiff
has become liable for medical expenses and will be liable for
medical expenses incurred in the future,
WHEREFORE, plaintiff claims damages from the
defendants, jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of
Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000,00).
Respec~~l~sub
~~1(~.~
NATALE F, ~O, JR" ESQUIRE
Attorney for plaintiff
1528 Walnut Street, Suite 620
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Attorney I,D, No. 14099
(215) 735-4256
-3-
">. ('I '-
~~~. c: [
~:;-, .. ,
.:1
U ,
C'
i..
,.
t l:
, '
t>
\,
C' , : ..
..
'L .. :J
L' e,'
::- ('I F.:
a; c:
.'... :.::.
I- N
Lur2 ~:3{~
~)f, ~
fE.,- "- '-J.",J
~r:ij
~". C--l ;:: :-'?
~c.. <'" iL: :~~
U:~! ! =-: ':.:'u
r.!: :..::.. (J.1C-J..
-, ::->:
u. "" ::)
0 a- U
.,
6. Denied. This paragraph represents a conclusion of law and is deemed to be
at issue under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is therefore
required.
7, Denied, This paragraph represents a conclusion of law and is deemed to be
at issue under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is therefore
required,
8. Admitted,
9. Denied. This paragraph represents a conclusion of law and is deemed to be
at issue under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is therefore
required.
10. Denied, This paragraph represents a conclusion of law and is deemed to be
at issue under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is therefore
required,
II. Denied. This paragraph represents a conclusion of law and is deemed to be
at issue under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is therefore
required,
12. Denied, This paragraph represents a conclusion of law and is deemed to be
at issue under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is therefore
required.
13, Admitted,
2
14. Dcnicd. This paragraph rcprcscnts a conclusion of law and is dccmcd to bc
at issue under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is thcreforc
required.
IS. Denied. This paragraph represents a conclusion of law and is deemcd to be
at issue under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thcreofis thcrefore
required.
16, Denied, This paragraph represents a conclusion of law and is deemed to be
at issue under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is therefore
required,
17, Admilled.
18. Denied. This paragraph represents a conclusion of law and is deemed to be
at issue under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereofis therefore
required.
19, Admilled,
20. Denied, This paragraph represents a conclusion oflaw and is deemed to be
at issue under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is therefore
required.
21. Denied, This paragraph represents a conclusion of law and is deemed to be
at issue undcr the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is therefore
required.
3
22. Dcnicd. This paragraph rcprcscnts a conclusion of law and is dccmcd to bc
at issuc undcr thc Pcnnsylvania Rulcs of Civil Proccdurc. Strict proof thcrcof is thcrcforc
rcquircd,
23. Denied. This paragraph rcprcscnts a conclusion of law and is deemcd to bc
at issue under the Pcnnsylvania Rulcs of Civil Proccdure. Strict proofthcreofis thcrcfore
required.
24, Admilled,
25, Denicd, This paragraph rcpresents a conclusion of law and is deemcd to be
at issue under the Pcnnsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is thcrefore
required.
26. Admilled.
27, Admilled,
28, Admilled,
29, Admilled,
30. Denied, This paragraph represents a conclusion oflaw and is deemed to be
at issue under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Strict proof thereof is therefore
required,
31, Denicd. This paragraph represents a conclusion of law and is deemed to be
at issue under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is therefore
required. By way of further answer, plaintiff would point out to the defendant that
Bellefonte is in Centre County and not Cumberland and thus not within the Court's
jurisdiction.
4
,',/;
'~1 ~ >
"
>. <"'I >-
c:; C f-,.
"" -~
.- ~,.
UJ!=? G (:'~i ~;",:
0':- !,_J .-;:.
cr- ~._" 0.: (""'l,~
~i~
I l .. -~ ',-
r'r..: <'.1 ~- i:.')
We.. N :J
Ft!!v =!: r;~;{5
f~ ;:.; (r.4l.L
-.J .7:E
'J. c=o :::>
0 c...,., (J
Er: ro. ;==
.." >.~
1.- (/:
HIC~ ;~~.;.:
().<. '-'
r-l"; ,,-
I..; I~'-
eir:- " :-:,.1
6~~'~ :..) ,,;. -
::J~' .,J ~~
L.c~I.! (O'.: : :j(j
r !..:~ (.:0. C-.l ,...
.,' H '_~
I.f_ c::> ..o}
0 0' U
'- :-
.":>.. (<"J !
n: c:
...
,:.: tJ "
I!JC: " ..
!:::!;' -
, '- ,
,- ,
()
r':1 (....,
l..!..:' I ! ,
..,
-".1
1J... ~>~ ~ ~! J
. '.~~
u t:'-~ :.J
C1 r.' , ~'-,
... C". is
ir~ c
j..l: oj '..t
UJ';~ 'L.;
,). . ...-
[-C
i_.: ..1..
.t'j ,
<}' ; ,::1
' I, <"I
C!~ I
lJ.J ,
-' ,
li ~ ~ . . ,~
j.'::. ~.) . ,
lI, ~; :~i
(.~, C" U
S. On March 22, 1996, plaintiff was admitted to Holy Spirit Hospital for
treatment of tears to the retina of his left eye due to trauma sustained in a boxing match.
6. At this time, plaintiff had 20/30 vision in his left eye. Presently, after
defendants performed surgery upon plaintUI: his vision in the left eye is worse than
201200.
7. On March 23, 1996, defendant, Dr. Pheasant, a licensed ophthalmologist,
under took as physician and surgeon, to perform eye surgery upon plaintiff'to repair the
tears in plaintiffs retina. In addition to the retinal tears, a mild vitreous hemorrhage was
discovered. At all material times, there existed a physician-patient relationship between
the defendants and plaintiff.
8. On March 23, 1996, defendant, Dr. Pheasant, performed a pars plana
vitrectomy with fluid gas exchange, endolaser photocoagulation, membrane removal and
scleral buckle.
9. In performing the operation defendant, Dr. Pheasant, was negligent in
failing to exercise the degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised by other physicians and
surgeons engaged in this type of practice in the City of Camp Hill, Cumberland County,
PA, or in like localities. Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, on March 22, 1996, by and
through its duly authorized employee and agent, defendant, Dr. Pheasant, was guilty of
negligently repairing the tears in plaintiff's retina and failing to properly treat plaintiff in his
post-operative condition.
10. The carelessness and negligence of defendant, Dr. Pheasant, in rendering
the aforementioned medical care to plaintiff includes but is not limited to:
2
II. If reasonable medical care had been given by defendants to plaintiff;.
plaintiffs injury in the nature of blindness in the left eye would not have occurred.
Plaintiff alternately relies upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.
12. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent acts and omissions
of the defendants, plaintiff has been rendered totally blind in his left eye and has endured
great physical pain and mental anguish, which will continue into the future.
13. As a direct and proximate result of one or more of the foregoing
acts or omissions of defendants, plaintiff has been and will be kept from attending to his
ordinary affairs and duties and has suffered a loss of earnings and earning capacity and will
suffer further loss in the future.
14. As a further direct and proximate result of one or more of the
foregoing acts or omissions of defendants, plaintiff has become liable for medical expenses
and will be liable for medical expenses incurred in the future.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff claims damages from the defendant, Dr. Pheasant,
in an amount in excess of Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00).
COUNT II - BATTERY
JAMES DA VISv. THOMAS R. PHEASANT, M.D.
15. Plaintiff incorporates by specific reference the allegations contained
in paragraphs 1 through 14, inclusive, as though set forth at length herein.
16. Defendants failed to inform plaintiff concerning the risks involved in
such a surgical procedure and plaintiff alleges there was a lack of informed consent.
4
..-.'
'-
~ C", "-
E..
~ .'..
UJf'l (...J :,) ......
c:....:. t '):,'~
h:' !_J 1:.;' :-:..~
FV:: ..... (,!::'~
6" \L) ;' t',:~
,0::
Ulr.l.. I J.:,
u!q~ /
,,-l~ 'liJ
=:'
;::: -';1; . ~n..
...~
I'. c= ~:J
0 0" <.)
I~
"- \(1
EX; '-
""- (-.
t-'. z.
l~Q "" :~) ...
(.6 (:) ~",
FE.L ,~- C;.<J
Of.., r") :~1
7C ,-
0<::: (':1 . -. (:~.:;
UJI.,..
u!~I.: ) ',~
C.t: I' :~:
r, -~ . ;jtj
~ r~.j 1J...
1,- cr' ..i.:
0 :;;J
en U
.
~ '" ~
N
.... N :5:;;
1-
~0 gz
=-c ':':
~t) C:l~
It. :;.- "-
.., in
\- ~..... ()
"bO U> -~ 7-
U)~, - C~7-
fu UlU
::d.lll c.uo-
''-is ....
Vl 3
11- co
0 0'
",