The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About98-01895 i I '-I , i I Q' ~ < ~ ~ ~ ~ 1i ~ .- ~ ........ ... .~ ~ ~ D..:. "" ,.'; . u.., c;::,... 0(,)' ~I I J I ~ Ol I 401 Ol ,~ I Eo< :J .El . :J 0 .-t III 0 III t ~ I ,.-I 'tl,~ . J ...:i > Cl.d X l:; II ..-1 III - U . . w~~ .l<.l< d d to III III 0 0 1< '" 00 4-1 'M I co :r.:r. 4-1 4-1 I .-t 'M U .If I I Ill>' ...:i 0<( I <Xl Ol..-t . ... I '" .-tH d .-t " Z l"- I il~' E I H Ol 0 'M I III > III > I :i I .dOl III 'M I UlQ ,.., U I .- . '.. POST & SCIU<:U,. P.C, BY: EVAN BLACK, ESQUIRE !.D. 1117884 240 GRANDVIEW A VENUE CAMP HILL, PA 17011 (717) 731-1970 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT JASON LITTON I M.D. CHARLES HOAK und BEVERLY HOAK, his wife IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA DOCKET NO. 98-1895 CIVIL TERM Pluintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION - LA W JASON LITTON, M,D. Defendunt. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR lSSllAN.CE OF RULE.IQ..FILE A COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY; Please issue a Rule upon the Plaintiffs to file II Compluint within twenty (20) dllYs hereof or suffer the entry of a Judgment of Non Pros, POST & SCHELL, P,C, EV A LAC, ESQUIRE Atto ley for Defendllnt Litton I' I r ~'" ~ .... eo (>~ ,,: '.' ," (~/: 1J J~- (.', ~, u: l_L. C'ii I 'I l C): (-~J Lti' ....1[' CO: to' , i,." LI : I', ..~ I, u. en 0 ~To , "I ,Ii B. Dr, conroy suspected a cancerous bone growth possibly a chondrosarcoma. 9. On April 1B, 1996, Defendant l.itton examined Mr. Hoak and the previous radiographs and determined that surgery was required for fixation of the bone and biopsy, 10. On April 23, 1996, Defendant Litton performed surgery including a biopsy of the chondrosarcoma and a Richard's nail plate fixation of Mr, Hoak's hip. 1.1.. Following the surgery, Dr. Litton did not adequately drain the surgical site. 12. In the surgery, Dr. Lit.ton did not adequately protect and wall off the area of the tumor to prevent spillage of the tumor locally and to reduce the possibility of distant metastasis. 13. Pla.i.nti ff returned to Dr. conroy for follOW-Up treatment following the surgery and his release from the hospital. 14. Dr. Conroy immediately referred Mr. Hoak to Dr. William Parrish at the Milton S. Hershey Med.i.cal center in Hershey, Pennsylvania. 15. Dr. Parrish rec{)gnized that there was a significant hematoma. 16. On or about May 22, 1996, as a result of the spreading hematoma and the failure to perform definitive surgery on the part of Dr. Litton, Dr. Parrish was forced to perform surgery in an attempt to salvage Mr. Hoak's leg. 2 17. Dr. Parrish found a signi t'icant hematoma due to the failure to properly drain and achieve hemostasis by Defendant Litton. lB. As a resul t.: of the significant hematoma, Dr, pan'ish had to widely excise the vastus lateralis muscle of the right hip in an attempt to prevent and stop local spread of the tumor. 19. A chondrosarcoma as the tumor was diagnosed by a biopsy is a "sticky" tumor as they will spread locally through the bone and distantly if no attempt is made to prevent spillage from the tumor. 20. Dr. Parrish also removed a section of the tumor containing the bone and the Richard's nail plate and replaced it with a cemented allograft, 21. As a result of the spread of the hematoma, significant muscle had to be removed leaving Mr. Hoak with instability and disabili ty. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE CHARLES HOAK v. JASON LI'rTON. M. 0,.. 22. Paragraphs 1 through 21 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 23. The injuries suffered by Mr. Hoak resulted in the careless, negligent and unskilled conduct of Defendant Litton in: (a) failing properly to achieve hemostasis during his surgery; (b) performing the wrong surgery by failing to definitively remove and wall off the tumor from spillage; 3 (c) placing in a Richard's nail plate for stability without recognizing the increase risk of tumor spread; (d) failing to properly drain the surgical wound allowing a large hematoma to form causing the necessity of removing extensive amounts of muscle in order to assure that the potentially tumor contaminated blood did not cause local spread of the tumor; and (e) being unaware or unable to perform definitive surgery thus requiring a second, larger surgery and increasing the risk of local and distant tumor spread. 24. As a result of the negligence of Defendant Litton, Plaintiff Charles Hoak had to undergo further surgery, more extensive then would have been originally necessary and had to undergo a second surgery because the first definitive surgery was not performed. 25. As a result of the negligence of Defendant Litton, Plaintiff Charles Hoak has been rendered disabled, with instability in his gait and is unable to work and, therefore, has suffered a loss of income and, in the future, will suffer a loss of earnings and earning potential, and claim is made therefor. 26. As a result of the negligence of Defendant Litton, Plaintiff Charles Hoak has been, and in the future will be, SUbject to great humiliation and embarra~1sment, and claim is made therefor. 27. As a result of the failure of Defendant Litton to perform definitive surgery to prevent the spread of his tumor, Plaintiff Charles Hoak has been put in "n additional risk of both distant and local metastases of his chondrosarcoma. 4 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Charles Hoak demands judgment against Defendant Jason Litton, M. D., in an amount in excess of twenty-fIve thousand ($25,000) dollars, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any amount requiring Jurisdictional arbitration. gOUNT II >>EVERL~t_ v. JASON LITTON, M.p. 2B. Paragraphs 1 through 27 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 29. As a direct and proximate result of his negligence as set forth above, Defendant Jason Litton, M.D. is liable to Plaintiff Beverly Hoak for the negligence described herein. 30. As a direct result of Charles Hoak' s injuries as set forth above, Plaintiff Beverly Hoak has been deprived of the assistance, companionship, consortium and society of her husband, all of which has been and in the future will be to her great damage and loss, and claim is made therefor. 31. As a result of the negl igence of Defendant Litton, Plaintiff Beverly Hoak has suffered a loss of income and, in the future, will suffer a loss of earnings and earning potential because of her husband's inability to assistant her with her in- home pet care business, and claim is made therefor. 5 records do not reneet and/or eontl'lldiet said averments, denied for the reasons stated in Pal'l1graph I, abovc, 4, - 6. Denied, Allcr reasonable investigation, answering Dl:fendant is without sufficient knowledge or information to admit or dcny the allegations of the corresponding parugraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint and thus deny the same. Strict proofis dcmanded at tri,d, if relevant. 7. Admitted in part and denied in part. To the extent that the IIl1egations of the corresponding puragraph are renccted in the medical records of Charles Hoak from Jason Litton, M.D" it is admitted only that such is recorded therein. Otherwise, and to the extent that the medical records do not renect and/or eontradkl said averments, denied for the reasons stated in Paragruph 1, above. 8. Denied, Aller reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without sufficient knowledgc 01' information to admit or deny thc allegations of thc corresponding paragraph of PllIintiffs' Complaint and thus deny the same, Strict proof is demandcd at trial, ifrelevllnt. 9. -10. Admitted in part and denied in part. To the extent that the IIl1eglltions of the eorresponding parugraph are renected in the medical records of Charles Hoak from Jason Litton, M.D" it is admitted only that such is recorded therein, Otherwise, and to the extent that the medical rceords do nol reneet and/or contradict said averments, denied for the reasons stated in Paragraph 1 , above. 11, Denied gcnerully und as a conclusion of law. It is specifically denied thllt Dr. Litton did not adequately drain the surgical site following the surgery. -2- 12. Denied gencl'lIlIy und liS a conclusion of luw. It is spcci tieally denied Ihut during the surgery Dr, Litton did not udequately protect and wall off the area of the tumor to prevcnt spilluge \lfthe tumor locally and to reduce the possibility of distant mctastasis, 13. - 15. Denied. After reasonllble investigation, answering Defendant is without surticient knowledge or informlltion to admit or d~ny the allegations of the corresponding palllgraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint and thus deny the same. Strict proof is demanded at trial, ifrclevllnt. 16. - 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Dcfendunt is without surticient knowledge or information to admit or deny the lIlIegations of the corresponding puragraph ofPluintiffs' Complaint and thus deny the same, Strict proof is demanded at triul, ifre1evunt. By way of further answcr, it is specifically denied that Dr. Litton failed to perform definitive surgery 01' to properly drain and achieve hemostasis. 18. Denied. After rellsonable investigation, answering Defendant is without surticient knowledge or information to admit or deny the allegations of thc corresponding paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint and thus deny the same. Strict proofis demanded at trial, ifrelcvllnt. 19. Denied gcncmlly and as a conclusion of law, 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendant is without surticient knowledge or informlltion to admit or dony the allegations of the corresponding paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint and thus deny the same. Strict proofis dcmanded at trial, ifrclevant. 21. Denied gencrally lInd as a conclusion of law. By WllY of fUl1her answer, aftcr reasonuble investigation, answering Defendant is without knowledge sufficicnt to admit or deny the allcgations regarding Plaintif'fs' injuries IInd the same lire therefore denied. -3- / p".". *. .....tt> x... r;,~ ~ ~ :$' G <;). ~. ~. .. ~' A,O ~ "V ~.. ~ ~ ,l. A ~ / " ~. Q"t- ;~ :'k:,"""~~~"'~f', , CE\\.'tIl'ICt.'tE ........."". " ...v<" " · ..."", l'U\\.SUt.N't 'to \\.\1\.1', 4009. '1.'1. IN 't"E ~'t'tE\\. O\', C"/>,\\.LES "O/>,~ COU\\.'t OF co\oll'lON l'LEMl 'tE\\.l'\. 0000 C/>,SE NO' 98.l895.CI~IL 'tt~ .'1S- fot documentS and t~in~s ?utSuant , to setvice of a SUP?oena />,S a ?rete~Uis>te t.o \\.ule 4009.'1.'1. LI't 't oN , lo\,P' - ll) on pehalf of E~J>,N ~LJ>,C~' ES UI\\.E lo\CS -;lefendant cettlfies that ~ith a co?1 of the suP?oena . .."" ., ,."., CO ",., ,M .,by"o~ CO ",b ,,,,, ., ,,,., d th tetO ~aS mailed or delivere s"hnO~1\a is sou~ht to pe attache e " he date on ~hich the ~Vr ~ t~et\t.1 da1s ?t lOr to t served, ('1.) < the notice of intent, A co?1 o. at.t.ached to the certificate, including the ?rO?osed suP?oena, is h peen teceived. and (3) No opiection to the suP?oena as d is identical to the suP?oena ~hich <" 1" "".... ,."b "" b' .~'~::.., ,. "'0' ,b' .",..... is attached to the notice E'IAN ~LAC~. ES UI\\.E ----- Attorne1 fot PEFENPJ>,N't PA'tE' 6/1,BI9~ -~~ pi.n_0436'l.3 5942:1--~OZ .'- Cr,' ;~"i. IJ,I(') ( . p:':. (~;( . f J 6j,r'. fC"! " r.,) (/: " :- "'.,-' ""'., C\J . n. /. ~j o , -' ~ /;? <~'i' () J n; Ol '. I' i 'or' 1,_';' . , " ANy AND ALL RHCORDS, CORREsPONDENCE PlLMS RBPORTS STUDms LA. RBSU~~TS" ET(:, PERT AlNINa TO CHARLBS IIOAK, INC:'UDlNO .irr NOT liMITED TO INp A 1 IBN', Ou fp A TIENT, ER, CLINIC OR OBPICB VISITS llXPLANI\.'l10N 01'- I!IlQVIIU;n I!IlCOI!/)S TO: CUS1'ODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: VANCE STOUFFER, M.D. 179() OLD TRAIL ROAD ElTERS, /'A 17319 nE: 5942,1 CHARLES 1I0AK ,,"y '"",/1 """'" """"''''d,,,,, m" ".d m'm","d""", I,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, '''''', Od""" X, R" y" hll/ '" """ '" Y m 'm '''" 'd", "'m'., ,,, "", C)(~mlO~lion, consul/~tiolJ, C~re or lrclllmcn!. 0"" R""",." 'p"... I"""",., Ih, P"'''m, SUbject: CllARtES 1IOAI( '"'" IYOODBOX LANE, MECHAN'CBURa PA l7ass Social Security #: 195-28-0286 , Date of Bkth: 08.04_37 SUlO-149810 5942J._LOS ./1 . #~ &-1/ At$; ~: . #71 """" ,*" .....0 <<..... r:,~ ~ ~ / .:.~. ~. +. ~. .# "V ~~ ~.r ~Ji v.; & /; q}~~ / COMMCINWI,:^I,'1'11 nl" PENNf>Y1~"^N'I..A. GoUN'rY nF CUM1.\l!:RL.A.ND COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TE~. o IN TIIF. MA "T1'.1I OF I (\\IAlll.~:!l IIOAK CASE NO. 98_l09S-CIVIL TE~ ...\In.. 1,t1'rON, M,II. ELYr\t" "F 'ET"ET TO SERVE A SUBPOEEA TO PRODUCE IlOCU"E"rs ---~~ ----_.,-..---"-_._--~ MEDICAL RECORDS & XRJ\YS X-RAY oNLY MEDICAL .101111 11, GOIIllOy,.lIl,I1,O. MII,1'OIl \It:I\\\\It:Y tlt;PIcM. CENTER MII,1'OIl !\. \It:llS\l~:Y M~:DIC^L CTR, 'I'() I lit: II, IlOl/lIt:ll, t:5Q\JlRE .'" ,," t",b"tf "t ,,'" ,,,,OK, "'l"L~~- in<~d. 10 ..~. , "bpOO'" "b.." ",,,} '" "'0';;;' thi,I' ,,,~b.d 10 ,bI' .""... '''0 h".' tw.nt, ('01 ,',," ,,,m ",,' '"''' ll".d ,.ol ". I' "" I. b I" fll" o. "." ,d ".d oo~. 'l"" th. ""t.." I ''''',' " ,b J" ".. I' th. '0"""" " .. .hi "II". ., "d' Ih. '0""'" ~, }," ",,,.od p","o"l I" Ih. ,,,ll,,bI' ,...",."" '"'" .f ".ll p,~.do" .",..1', ",..}.I' ,,,p,.. ". .., ,.p,.do,.d ,.,.,d' .., b. .,d.,.d .1 ,,,, ..p"" by "..,1"'" lho ",,,b.d ......, ",d .nd ""row, .... I" ." " 1'1 cun\.actl.nl\ our lucal MCS office, PATEl 11104/1999 MCS on behalf of _~AN liLAC!. ESQUIRE Attorney for DEFENDANT CCI EI/AN IIIJ\CK. ESQUIRE C"ARt.ES JOINER. SR, CL. REP, - ZlHPPA4Sl6ll Any quolll.ions regarding this \IlIltter. contact THE MCS GROUl' IIlC. 1601 l'WJCET STREET '800 PHILADELPHIA. PA 1.9103 (nS) Z46-0900 DEOZ-I06036