Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-05461,~~_ JRN-15-2002 12:51P FRAM: 70:4123912762 - P:2~5 1N 'fHI COURT O1' COMMON PLlrAS QF CTTMk31r1iLAND COUNTY, I'J;NNSYLVANIA KAKEN KI,ETT and GRl(iORY'' KL.F.TT Plaintiff, vs. KOSJ:RT T. T TALL, U, M.D., JOFlNSON Cr. COYLIi, M.D„ and CARLTSI.F H()SYITAL, a. corporation. T)el'endants NOTICE TO PLEAll: You arc required to plead to the enclosed Complaint within twenty (20) days of the date o'f service ho~nf. CNIL DIVISION No, 54b1 Civil Term 2001 J[JRY I'1t1AL DEMANU~D COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION Filed nn behalf of Plainliff Counsel of Reand for This Parly: Rolx;tt A, Cohen Pa, T.D. #k00467 13N:HREND ~ ERNSBETtGER 306 r'ourth Avenue, Suite 300 PittShurgh, PA 15222 (412)391-2515 ~~~~~ Robert A. Cohen SRN-15-2002 09:59R FROM: 70:4123912762 P:2~16 IN 1'HF. CUIJRT OF CUMMON PhEAS QF CUM13L•'Ri,AND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION KAREN KLBTT and (;RF.,C"xOkY KL13'11, PlaintifFs. vs. No. 5461 Civil Tenn 2001 JURY 'SRth[, DP,MANDED RODEILT F. HALL, 11, M.D., JOHNSON G. COY[,E, M.ll„ and CARLISLE HUSYI'1'AL, a corporation Uclbndants COMPT.,AINT IN CIVIL ACTION Eirzt Count Karen Klett v8. Johnson G. Coyle, M:11. Karen Klett [hcrcinafler "Plaintiff'] and [iregory Klett are wife and husband, respectively, acrd an; residents of Pottage, Catnbria County, Pennsylvania. 2, llefendant Johnson Cr, Coyle, M.D. [hereinafter "llr. L'uyle"] is a medical doctor duly aulhori~.ed and licensed to practice medicine in Ctumberland County, Pennsylvania, with oftices located 246 Parker Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 17013. Dr, Coyle is engaged in the piacticc of emergency medicine. Defcndanl Robert f. Hall, M.U. [hcrcinaller "Dr. Hall"~ is a medical doctor duly authnri~.ed and liccnsc;d to practice medicine in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, with offices located 246 Parker Street, Carlisle, Pctutsylvania, 17013, Dr. Hall is engaged in the practice of radiology. JAN-15-2002 12:51P FRAM: 70:4123912762 P:3~5 4. At all times material to this action, Dr. Ball afar Dr. Coyle were employed by Carlisle Hospital, and as such, acted rrs agetlts> servants, or employees of Carlisle Tospital, acting in and about the business of the Carlisle Hospital, and in furtherance thereof. 5. Defendant Carlisle Hospital [hereinafter "the 1-lospital"] is a private hospital facility for the care of sick and injun;d people, with its prhtcipal place of business and hospital facilities la:alal at 24G Parker Strcct, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Peruasylvania, 17013_ 6. At the time of the negligence and wrongful acts herein complained of, the Hospital engaged, agreed, undertook, and held itself out to the Plaintiffs, and to the general public, as being ready, willing and able to provide appropriate hospital care for patients received by the IIospilal for hospital care and treatment, including cnlcrgency treatment and radiological procedures. The Hospital further undertook, agreed, and held itself out to pn,vide all reasonably necessary and fit and pru}xr personnel, facilities and surroundings, and agt'ced and held iLr'elf out to the Plaintiffs, and to the general public, as providing an adequate number of reasonably competent administrators, physicians, radiologists, and other health care professionals adequate to meet the requirements of providing proper emergency a<1d radiological treannent. nn or about Junc 7, 1997, Plaintiff was cniployed by Cilen Moore Transport as a coast-lo-vast Hector-trailer operator. At appmximalnly 9:00 P.M. on that date, Flainti fl' was operating a Freight L.ina tractor-trailer condo in New Mexiw on US 40 West, i.e., Wward California; the husband Plaintiff, Crregory IUett, was asleep in the bunl~, 2 JAN-15-2002 12:51P FROM: 70:4123912762 P:4~5 When Plainti 17''s rig cntct'ed a construction area approximately 6t1 to 70 miles East of Jamestown, New Mexico, another vehicle attempted to pass Plaintift'sfractor-trailer on the Jeff. Plailiff thereupon signaled her intention to make a right tom as soon as the vehicles would have loft the construction aeca, and the oQtcr vehicle went bchiod her. Just before the end of the construction area, Plaintiff kx:gan to move toward the right, but the other vehicle begau to pans her on the right, knocking over some construction cones in the course of so doing. 'The other vehicle then disappeared from view, and while Plaintiff was attempting to shift gears, she fumed her head far to the right, to look f i~r dte other vehicle, and then she turned her head hack sharply to t11e left. However, bevausc she had to huh her head far to the right, and then back Fee w the left, while attempting to shift gears at the same lime, she over-extended her neck and felt a sudden "pop" and immediately felt severe and excruciating pain. Shc pulled over, stopped, and stayed near the accident scene for a period of tithe, and then continued on to Jamestown, where thcnC was a truck stop. After sitting at the truck stop for the maximum allowed of 5 hours, Plaintiff continued with her load to its destination, althought the husband PlaintiffT, Gregory L. Kleti, did most of the driving. R. hollowing the California delivery, although Plaintiff was in severe pain, the Rlelt team took on a load in California which they delivered in Plnrida. Again, Plaintiff Gregory Klett did most of the driving on this trip. After a 12 hour stay in Tlnrida, Plaintifftelephonedhcr place of employment, fold them that she was in gccat pain and getting sicker, and had to come home. She returned to the of3ices of Glen JRN-15-2002 10:008 FROM: 70:4123912762 P:5~16 Moore Transport in Carlisle, and was immediately sent to the Carlisle Hospital Emergency Room for appropriate care and treatment. 4• Plaintiti'arrivcd al Gazlisle Hospital approximately 12:30 P.M, to 1:00 P.M. on June 12, 1997, where she was examined and treated by Dr. Coyle. llr Coyle referred Plaintifffor X-Kays, which were taken oi'the neck and cervical spine under the direction oi'.Dr. Hall, who provided a radiology report, which report diagnosed no sigttiiicant ahnonnalitics. llr. Coyle reviewed the X-Ray report and performed an examittatiort, attempted to move Plaintiff's artrrs, although such movements were limited, particularly with the right arm, and attempted to move Plaintiff's head on and about her neck. Again, such movetncnts were limited and caused severe pain. lJr. Coyle told Plaintiff that she had suffered a separated shoulder and a pulled muscle which he described as a brachial plexus injury. Dr. Coyle told Plaintil~'that he would give her an injection, and referred her to a chin~practor for further care and treatmcut. lle also gave Plaintiffa prescription, Cyclobertcaprine, and told her where to have the prescription tilled. 111. During the #'ollowing couple of years, Plaitlfitl'attempted to continue fu work, off and on, under the impression that she had suffered from the injury which Dr. Coyle had described to her and tlothitrg more serious. Howt~vcr, over the course of time, she began to experience more severe pain and other symptomatology, including numbness it1 the lingrrtips of the right hand, severe pain in the arm, first going up to the elbow, and tlu:n al I the way up to the311oulder, stabbing pains itt the back of the neck and up to the hc",ad, and severe pain in the fleck and right shoulder, together with severe TRN-1~-2002 10:008 FROM: TD:4123912762 P:6~16 headaches. As n result, Ylaintiil:'s chiropractor fold her that her condition was deterioruing and that she nryuired medical care and attention. She waa referred lu CICCCOn L. Oipida, M.D., a neurologist in .Altoona, Aennsylvania, with principal complaints of severe pour, numbness, and limitation ofmotion in the right upper and lower extremity, and through further diagnostic testing, care, and treatment, Dr. ~pida made the correct diagnosis, i.e., a severe herniafut cervical disc at C4 and/or a disc extrusion al C3-b. Thereafter Dr. (]pida ordered various studies which diagnosed and cnntimted the above findings and were performed on and shortly after September 21, 1999, and Dr. Opida informed Plairtiff of the results shortly thertalter. 11. Ai a result of Dr. Qpida' s exttntination, cvaluatinn, and testing, plaintiff learned for the first time that she had suffered serious injuries to her intervertcbral discs in the accident ol'lune 7, 1997, and that Dr. Coyle and Dr. Hall had failed properly to diagnose and treat those injuries and misdiagn<~sed her condition. 12. Dr. Coyle, as the agcni, servant, nr employoc of the hospital, was reckless, careless, and negligent in the following particular respects; a. In tailing to take a thoranugh and complete history, a~; a basis for making a u,rrect diagaosis; b. In failing to perform a thorough and complete examination and evaluation; e. In view of the patient's history, complaints, and symptomatology, in failing to call in for consultation an orthopedic surgeon, neurosurgeon, or neurologist; SRN-15-2002 10:00R FROM: 70:4123912762 P:7~16 d. In failing to enter aPPropriatc diagnostic testa, including but not necessarily littlitcd to a CAT scan and/or an MKI of the neck and cervical spine; e, In failing to order the patient's admission to the hospital, for further examination, evaluation, and testing; t: 1n failing to diagnose the ruptured and/or herniated cervical interverkebral discs at C.'4-5 and/or LS-ti; g. By diagnosing Plaintiff's condition as consisting of a brachial plexus injury rather than severe injuries to cervical intcrverterbral discs, disc spaces, and surrounding soft tissues, such ac nerve roots, muscles, nerves, etc.; h. In relegsjtlg Plainli 17' from the Hospital with a prescription and instructions to see a chiropractor, rathca than referring her for immediate and appropriate follow-up care and treatment: and ]n the above respects, in failing to exercise that degree of care due and owing the Plaintiff under the circumstances. 13. Plaintiff claims damages arising fmm Defendants' failure promptly and properly to diatmosc her condition, which diagnosis would have lead to prompt and proper treatment, which would have lead to a rcaamably nolmal and wmplete recovery. Instced, Plaintiff s condition was caused to worsen considerably over time, so that when her injuries were finally correctly diab~noscd, as set forth above, and proper treatmem was instituted, it was too late to prevent and reverse many of the adverse consequences of SRN-15-2002 10:00R FROM: 70:4123912762 P:8~16 their diagnostic and treatment failuro, which c:onsidcralrly aggravsted and exacerbated her condition and made it impossible to achieve a significant cure, although subsequent surgery considerably alleviated Plaintiff's condition. The negligence and wrongful acts of llr. Chyle, jourtly and/or severally and concurrently or consecutivoly with the tu:gligence and wrongful acts of Dr.l3all and the Hosgtital, wcxc a direct and proximate cause ofthe injuries and damsge sustained by Plaintiffherein. 14. Following the wrrect diagnosis of Plaintiff)"s condition by Dr. Opida, Plaintiff saw other physicians and eventually came under the csre of William C. Welch, M.U., llepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh. Plaintiff was admitted to UPMG Presbyterian on l~'ebruary t 4, 2000, and lJr. Welch pertbrmed a C5-6 anterior surgical discectolny with non-instrumental fusion. 15. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and wa~ngful acts of Defendants, asset 4'orth above, and hereinafter, Plaintiff has been and will hereafter be requir+cd to suffer and endure severe pain of body and mind. She has been disahled, and her disability will wntinue into the fiiturc. She suffered the aftermath of severe injuries to her neck and cervical spine, which eventually were diagnosed and appropriately treated, via surgery, but only after considerable damage had been done because of the delay as diagnosis and tendering appropriate treatment. As a t+esult, her health, strength, and vitality have bccix and will hereafter be adversely alTeCted. Her activities have been and will hereafter be considerably limited and restricted. She was required to lose earnings and her earning, power has been destroyed. She sutlers from severe pain, discomfort, disability, ntunbness, limitations of motion and function, and other JRN-15-002 12:52P FROM: 70:4123912762 P:5~5 manifestations of her neck and cervical spine injuries and the cousiderablc delay in providing appropriate treatment. Shc is unable to run. Shc has great dif~"iculty in lifting her right leg. 11er right hand and right arm feel weak, heavy, almost numb. Shc is unable to raise ltcr right arm above her shoulder. She is unahte to grip objects fumly with her right hand, or open jars, etc. She suffers from wnstant headaches, severe stabbing pains in nrfik from sitting, aad limitation of motion in the neck. Shc has difficulty in dressing herself, .lining and catryhtg objects, and is unable to lift more than S pounds. She has been and will llereaHer be deprived of the ordinary pleasures of life. WFIERGI~U]tE, Plaintiff demands judgnent against Dr. Coyle in an amount in excess of the arbitration limits of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Second Count Gregory KletY vs. Johnson G. Coyle, M_D. 16. The husband Plaintiff; C;regory Klett. incorporates by referenw Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the First Count as though the said Paragraphs were fully set forth herein. 17. The husband Plaintiff; Gregory Klett, has been and will hereallcr be required to spend large sutras of money for hospitalizations, medical care and attention, surgery, nursings, drugs, and the use of appliances and other trealtncnt modalities, for the care and treatment o f his wife. In addition, the busbattd Plaintiff has lost and wit I hereal~er lose the services, society, and consortium of his wife. JRN-15-2002 10:01R FROM: 70:4123912762 P:10~16 Wi1TiREFORE, fife husband Plaintiff dctttands judgment against Dr. Coyle in an amotwt in excess of the arbitration limits of the Court of Common Pleas of C"umbcrland County, Pennsylvania. [Note: Counts iiT and N, Plaintiffs vs. Robert 1?. Hall, II, M.D., attd any Paragraphs incorporating those Counts, are presently excluded tmm this case bocausc ul' the recent entry of a judbm~ent of non pros in favor of Dr, Hall. Those Counts will be cl'1'utively pleaded if utd orily if lhut judgment or non pros is opened by this Honorable C:ourt.j CTbird Count 1K'uren Klctt vs. Robert F. Elan, Il, M_11_] 18. Plaintiff inwtporates by reference 1'at~agraphs 1 through 9 and 11 through 13 of the First Cowtt as though the said Paragraphs were fully set forth herein. 19. Dr. Hall, was reckless, careless, and negligent in the lhllowing particular respecC~; a. l11 failing w receive a sufficient and adequate history of the patient and her condition. upon presentation to the F,mergency !loom, such as would require cervical spine and neck X-Rays that would have disclosed the severe disc injuries which Ylaintiil'had sustained in an accident several d~y~ before; b. In the aiternativc, in failing properly to interpret the X-Rays, which did show the severe disc injuries, but instead in reporting that the X-Ray films showed no such injuries; 9 JRN-15-2002 10:01R FROM: 70:4123912762 P:11~16 c. in (.'ailing to suggest and take additional films and studies appropriate to the condition of the patient, such ae MRIs and CAT Scan films, that would have disclosed Plaintiff's dice injuries and would thereby havC lead to a atrrect diagnosis and consequent approprratc and prompt Care and treatment; and d. & the above t+especls, in Calling to exercise that degree of care due and owing to Plaintiff under the circumstances. WFiGRETORR, Plaintiff dcmaruls judgment against nr. hall in an amotutt itt excess of the arbitration limits of the Court of Common Picas of Cumberland Courny, Pennsylvania. Fourth C:ountJ [Gregory I{lett vs. Rohcrt F. Aall, lX, M.ll.J 20. 'l"he husband Plaintiff; Gregory I{lett, incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through I 1 and l3 through 15 of the First Count, Paragraph 19 of the Sccoad Cuunl, and Paragraph 17 of the 7~hird Count as though the said Paragraphs were fully set forth herein. WFf1Jlt>JN'(?RJ•:, fire husband Plainlill"demands judgment against 17r. Hall in an amount in excess of the arbitration limits of fire Court of (:ottunon Pleas of Cumberland Crnmty, Pctutsylvarua. la ~~~~ JRN-15-2002 10:01R FROM: 70:4123912762 P:12~16 r';tttr Count Karen Klett vs. Carlisle iinspital 21. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Naragraplls 1 duvugh 11 acrd 13 through 15 of the Firsl Counl as lhougtt the said Paragraphs were fully sel forth herein. 22. At all times ntatcrial to tktis action, the lvmcrgcncy Room of tltc Hospital was owned, operated, controlled, and maintained by the Hospital as a section, branch or department thereof. Dr. Coyle, who performed Emergency Room services at the Hospital, in so doing wes noting as gent nr employee ofthe Hospital acting nn hehalt'ot' the Hospital and within the course and scope of his authority and in and about the business of the Hospital and in furtherance thereni: 23. The Huapil:[l is liable as principal for the negligent acts and omissions of Dr. Coyle, who at the time of the events complairicd of was noting as agc[1t or employee of the Hospital, as a#iiresaid, and the lluspital is therCforc bound by and responsible for the negligent acts and omissions on the part of Ur. Coyle as set forth in the Third Count of this Complaint. 24. The Hospital knew or should have known that Dr. Coyle was until and unqualified ba;attsc of lack of proper training, competence, qualifications, experience, and expertise necessary to undertake the care and treatment of Plaintiff. 25. The Hospital is liable as principal for the negligent acts and omissions nl' Dr, Coyle, who at dtc time of the events complained of was acting as agent or employee of the Hospital, as aforesaid, and the Hospital is theretiire lmund by and responsible fur 11 JRN-15-2002 10:018 FROM: 70:4123912762 P:13~16 d1c negligent acts and omissions on the part of Dr. Coyle us set {iarth in the G'irst Count of this C'nlnplaint. 26. At all times material to this action, the Radiology Departmont of the Hospital was awned, operated, umtmlled, and maintained by the Hospiutl as a seCtiom, brunch or department lhereol: Dr. Hall, who performed X-ray studies at the Hospital, in so doing was acting as agent or employee of the l-lospital tatting on behalf of'the Hospital and within the e:nursc and scope of their employmem or authority and in and about the business crl'the Hospital sod iu furtherance thereof. 27. The hospital is liable as principal #iir the negligent acts and omissions of Dr. Ball, w11u at the time of the events complained of was acting as agent or employee of the Hospital, as aforesaid, and the Hospital is thereliire hound by and 1~csponsible for the negligent arts and omissions on the part of Th. Hall as set forth in the Third Count of this Conaplaiut. 28. TNe Hospital knew or should have known that Dr. Hall was unfit and unqualified because of lack of pmper treining, competence, qualifications, experience, and expertise necessary to undertake the tarn and treatment of Plaintiff. try, The Hospital is liable as principal for the negligent acts and omissions of Dr. Hall, who at the time of the events complained of was acting as agent nr employee of the Hospital, ati alimessid, sad the Hospittd is Therefore bound by and responsible for the negligent acts and omissions on the part of Dr. &•tll as set forth in the 'third C.oamt of this Complaim. 12 JAN-1,5-2002 10:028 FROM: 70:4123912762 P:14~16 30. the lospital is liable as a corporate emily, because dte Hospital has a duty to select and retain only competent physicians, to oversee all persons who practiced medicine within its walls as to patient care and testing, and to formulate, adopt, and enli~rte adequate rules and politics to ensure quality care for the patients. The Hospital is, ftuthcr, liable as a corporate entity he;c:ause of the breaches of duly owed to Plaintiff on the pert of Dr. Coyle and Dr. Hall, who were agents, servantc, or employees of the Hospital, as aforesaid, as set forth ahcrvc morn specifically in previous Counts of this Complaint. These responsibilities save rise to a nondelegable duly which tht Hospital, as a corporate entity, owed to the Plaintiff and which it breached by failing to uphold the proper standard of care owed Wits patient, as set forth above. 31. The Hospital is liable as a corporate entity, because the Hospital has a duty to select and retain only competent physicians, to oversee all persons who pmeticed medicine within its walls as to patient care and testing, and to formulate, adopt, and enforce adequate rules and policies to ensure qualify Care for the patients. The Hospital is, i'urther, liable as a corporate entity because of the breaches of duty owed to Plaintiff ou the part of llr. Coyle and Dr. Hall, who were agents, servants or employees of the Hospital, as aforesaid, as set Birth above more specifically in previous L'ounts of this Usmplaint. These responsibilities gave rise to a nondelegahle duty which the Hospital, as a corporate etrtity, owed to the plaintik~'and which it breached by failing to uphold the proper standard of care owed to its patient, as set forth above. 13 SqN-15-2002 10:02fa FROM: T~:4123912762 P:15~16 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Carlisle Hospital in an amount in excess of the arbitration limits of the Courl of L'otnutOn Pleas of Cumberland County, Pctu>sylvania. 5iath Count Gregory IUett vs. Carlisle Hospital 32. The husband Plaintiff; C)regory iClett, incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 tkvough 1.5 of the First Count, Yara~-aph 17 of the Seetmd Count, and Paragraphs 22 through 31 as though the said Paragraphs were fully set forth herein. Wl-IEREFORF, the husband Plaintiff demands judgment against Carlisle Hospital h1 an amount in excess of the arbitration limits ofthe Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland CQUnty, Pennsylvania. ~... Robert A. Cohen Ya. I.D. #Q(><4fi7 REHRENT) & ERNSRF.R(~F.lt 31)6 F'ourlh Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (alz) 391-asls VERIFICATION I, KAREN KLETT, state that the statements made in the foregoing COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This statement and verification aze made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4404 relating to unsworn falsification, to authorities which provides that, if I make knowingly false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. DATE: ~/ ~0//l ~~~ Karen Klett ~~: JRN-,15-2002 10:02R FROM: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 717:4123912762 P:16~16 I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the'forcgoing (:UMYLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION was misled to the following counsel of record, by Fast Class Mail, postage prepaid, this 15th day of January, 2002. Lauralec B. Biker,lsquire Margolis P.delstcin k'.O. Box 932 llarrisburg, PA 17108 Kendra D. Mc~uire, Esquire 5tephcnic L~arIley, Esquire Barley, Snyder, Sena r& Cohea 12G East King Street l.anc's~ler, PA 17602 Rabari A. Cohen _I C_ i ~l 7 r- ~- - i~ _ a, r-_f ~~~' r'~ . z.`._ •.: ~'r: '.,i f, a,~ -f C :a G R~~ VI-~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLANB COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT Plaintiff, vs. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants CNII, DNISION No. 0!- S4G( e~uc~~~h-~ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS IN CIVIL ACTION Filed on behalf of Plaintiff Counsel of Record for This Party: Robert A. Cohen Pa. I.D. #00467 BEHREND & ERNSBERGI 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412)391-2515 .- '. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, vs. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants No. OI- -~~o~ l..ec~~~~E/t.y,~ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS IN CIVIL ACTION TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly issue a Writ of Summons in Civil Action in the above captioned case Robert A. Cohen Pa. I.D. #00467 BEHREND & ERNSBERGI 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 against Defendants Robert F. Hall, II, M.D., Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital. (412)391-2515 .~ ~. 6 X~n V ~o J C.i ~ 'i: Z [.,, GJ.:_ ~ i_ G Ci ~; (~ C t,_ a ~L) .F -n -.~, C .-.- ~, -< . ,,. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CNIL DNISION KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, vs. No. NRY TRIAL DEMANDED ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants TO THE SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Pllease make service of the attached Writ of Summons in Civil Action upon Defendant Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. at the following address: Cazlisle Hospital 246 Pazker Street P.O. Box 310 Carlisle, PA 17013 Robert A. Cohen •i IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, vs. No. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ROBERT F. HALL, R, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants TO THE SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please make service of the attached Writ of Summons in Civil Action upon Defendant Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. at the following address: Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. c% Carlisle Hospital 246 Parker Street P.O. Box 310 Carlisle, PA 17013 Robert A. Cohen ~f IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CPJIL DIVISION KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, vs. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation No. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants TO THE SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please make service of the attached Writ of Summons in Civil Action upon Defendant Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. at the following address: Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. c/o Carlisle Hospital 246 Pazker Street P.O. Box 310 Carlisle, PA 17013 ~( Hobert A. Cohen ~~. .• ' _ Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT VS. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation 246 Parker Street P.O.Box 310 Carlisle, PA 17013 Court of Canunon Pleas No. _____ 01=5461_Civil Term _________ 19____ In _____Civ_il Action -Law - - -- ------ --------------------- To __RObert F_ Hall, II, M.D., Johnson G. Coyle, M.D., and Carlisle Hospital, --- - --- -- -- - -- --- - -- - -- - a corporation You are hereby notified that Karen Klett and Gregory Klett -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- the Plaintiff hag commenced an action in _ Civil Action_ _ IK7W ________________________ against you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may be entered against you. (SEAL) Date __ Septanber_19,- 2001-_-__ ly-_-- •---------- Qu'tis_R._ Long-------------------- Prothonotary tLa1CMk.bY26rwis.. L „ u> .. ~~. a_ ~ .~. e .y..,, .~ +~eu., n..le~d. FHHiliSi~ - 'z'8dtd~ftu.xiau-~••-e. Y d ro ~' ° ~ i q d n i i i rt ~ ~ c~ ~~ ~ O ~ r• y y IP ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~w ~ u~i (gyp ~ 1 ~ ~ , UI 1 i N N C/1 'Tl iLl C C ~ rG. N• ~ £ I 1 W ~ ~ a a n ~ ~ ~~~ c~ ~ i ~ x A i ~ H rt U~i ~ ~ Gl ~ ~ xl x i i ~ o ~ P ~ H H ' ~ irn N ygr ~ H a 1 ~ ~ j ; ~ c ' H ~ ~ a ~ i i ~F ~H ~ ~ i ~ 1 C7 ~ 1 i a 1 ~ ~ ~° _ _ __ SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2001-05461 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND KLETT KAREN ET AL VS ROBERT F II MD ET AL KENNETH GOSSERT Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon HALL ROBERT F II MD the DEFENDANT at 1500:00 HOURS, on the 5th day of October 2001 at 161 CANDLELITE DR CARLISLE, PA 17013 KATHLEEN HALL, WIFE by handing to a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge So Answers: 18.00 3.25 ,.~ . 0 0 ,a 10.00 R. Thomas Kline .00 31.25 10/08/2001 BEHREND & ERNSBERGER SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR ,. CA'SkE NO: 2001-05461 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND KLETT KAREN ET AL VS HALL ROBERT F II MD ET AL RICHARD SMITH Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS COYLE JOHNSON G MD was served upon the DEFENDANT at 1512:00 HOURS, on the 4th day of October 2001 at 246 PARKER STREET CARLISLE, PA 170 JOHNSON COYLE a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service 3.25 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 19.25 Sworn and Subscribed to before me //this /,S'~ day of IYCP.~e~. ao~~~'j,, ~ ~~A,~D. tho~-ar~'~ by handing to So Answers: ~~ R. Thomas Kline 10/08/2001 BEHREND & ERNSBE ER By: e uty Sheriff SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2001-05461 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND KLETT KAREN ET AL vs HALL ROBERT F II MD ET AL BRIAN BARRICK Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS CARLISLE HOSPITAL was served upon the DEFENDANT at 1547:00 HOURS, on the 21st day of September, 2001 at 246 PARKER STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 by handing to MARK HARMON, DIRECTOR a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service 3.25 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 19.25 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this /~`= day of ~e.~A, 3oc~( A.D. ... Q 1~.-~,~~~; thonotary So Answers: ,~ s~~.t R. Thomas Kline 10/08/2001 BEHREND & E BERGER By: Deputy Sheriff LAURALEE B. BAKER, ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I.D. No. 58874 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN Post Office Box 932 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-0932 Telephone: [717] 975-8114 Fax: [717] 975-8124 E-Mailr lbaker®margolisedelstein.com Attorney for Defendant: ROBERT F. BALL, II, M.D. KAREN KLETT AND GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, vs. :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :CIVIL ACTION - LAW :NO. 5461 CIVIL TERM 2001 ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, A CORPORATION,: Defendants. :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please issue Rule upon Plaintiffs to file a Complaint withir. twenty (20) days from service hereof or suffer judgment non pros. Respectfully submitted, Date : O l~ D'( By MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN ICU 4LEE B. BAKER, ESQUIRE PA. Attorney I.D. No. 58874 Attorney for Defendant, ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. P. 0. Box 932 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0932 (717) 975-8114 R U L E TO THE PLAINTIFFS: Xou are hereby ordered against the Defendant in the (20) days of ser~•ice of this non pxos. Dated:~~ oZ001 and directed to file your Complaint above-captioned matter within twenty Rule against you or suffer judgment Prothonotary ~ ~~ '. J _. ~ ; 3~' r Z W ~~t ~ ~!! ^C ~S ~i~ 1 f, LAURALEE B. BAKER, ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I.D. No. 58874 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN Post Office Box 932 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-0932 Telephone: [717] 975-8114 Fax: [717] 975-8124 E-Mail: lbaker(~lmargolisedelstein.com Attorney for Defendant: ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. KAREN KLETT AND GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, vs. :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :CIVIL ACTION - LAW :NO. 5461 CIVIL TERM 2001 ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, A CORPORATION,: Defendants. :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant, Robert F. Hall, M.D., in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN Date:_ IO~~ By: p,~..L_ U LEE B. BAKER, ESQUIRE P Attorney I.D. No. 58874 Attorney for Defendant, ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. P. O. Box 932 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0932 (717) 975-8114 ., ~ ~~' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing ENTRY OF APPEARANCE on all interested parties by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, Pen/,~{ 1~ first-class postage prepaid, on the %~~ day of ~U~.I//~J ~LG~.. 2001, and addressed as follows: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue - Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Risk Manager Carlisle Hospital 246 Parker Street P. O. Box 310 Carlisle, PA 17013 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN ~~ ,-'" _ Ann E. Nelson, ecretary .~ c~ ~T, r~ -- - , -cs Il-,~~' -- z ~_ ~~ _ r_ ~ _. =; 1 r - ~'~~ ~ ~ -_ c' _ _ c; ~ rri ~ ~ ~ ~~ .(` 1023612.1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs v. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation, Defendants PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: No. 01-5461 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Kindly enter the appearance of Barley, Snyder, Senft & Cohen, LLC, by Kendra D. McGuire, Esquire and Stephanie Carfley, Esquire on behalf of Defendant Carlisle Hospital. Please serve all papers at 126 East King Street, Lancaster, PA 17602. BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & Date: ~ ~ ' ~ ~- 0'_ BY: Kendra D. Mc ire, Esqui Stephanie Carfl ,Esquire Attorneys for Defendant Carlisle Hospital 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2832 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 50919 Court I.D. No. 79136 ,LLC 1023612.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HER~EB~Y~CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe has been served this f 1i 'day of October, 2001, by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 BARLEY, SNYDER, S~NFT & Kendra D. McGuire, Stephanie Carfley, E Attorneys for Defenc Carlisle Hospital 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2832 (717)299-5201 Court I.D. No. 50919 Court I.D. No. 79136 c-; `~ c p- ; r~~~7~r _, ~ ~:~~ ~- :~ ~ i~~~ J i.3 r ~ ~ ~~C ~ ~~7 '~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, )~ No. 01-5461 Plaintiffs v. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation, Defendants TO THE PROTHONOTARY: PRAECIPE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Please enter a Rule upon the Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days of the Rule or suffer a judgment of non pros. Date: to ~ 23 I o I BY: BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC Kendra D. McGuir , Esl Stephanie Carfley, squ Attorneys for Defe dant Carlisle Hospital ax Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 50919 Court LD. No. 79136 AND NOW, this ~ay of s<rzc , 2001, a Rule has been entered upon the Plaintiffs as above directed. Prothonotary~M -~ ' 1 10.22.01/SC/I024009.1 .. n ,::~ _ ~. ._ ;. rn rn - , - _~ ~, , ~ ~''CJ -~ - ~' .~ _- , ~ . : _ ~ ` ~~ cl~'i~! '~ ' L$URALEE H. BAKER, ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I.D. No. 58874 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN Post Office Sox 932 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-0932 Telephone: [717] 975-8114 Attorney for Defendant: Fax: [717] 975-8124 ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. E-Mail: lbaker®margolisedelstein.com KAREN KLETT AND GREGORY KLETT, :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :CIVIL ACTION - LAW vs. :NO. 5461 CIVIL TERM 2001 ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, A CORPORATION,: Defendants. :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED P R A E C I P E TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: Kindly file of record the attached Certificate of Service of the Rule to File Complaint which was entered by the Prothonotary on October 18, 2001, and served on the date reflected in the attached Certificate of Service. Respectfully submitted, MARL LIS L TEIN Date: o L2 ~'+ By: ~ U LEE B. BAKER, ESQUIRE PA Attorney I.D. #58874 Attorneys for Defendant, ROBERT F. HALL, TI, M.D. P. O. Box 932 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0932 (717) 975-8114 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT on all interested parties by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, Pen/ lvaL~ rst-class postage prepaid, on the..,3~day of 2001, and addressed as follows: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue - Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Risk Manager Carlisle Hospital 246 Parker Street P. O. Box 310 Carlisle, PA 17013 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN By: ~ o Ann E. Nelson, Secretary CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE TO FILE OF RECORD THE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF THE RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT on all interested parties by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, Pen lvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the,~~ day of 2001, and addressed as follows: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue - Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Risk Manager Carlisle Hospital 246 Parker Street P. 0. Box 310 Carlisle, PA 17013 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN B </ Ann E. Nelson, ecretary zaoaQaas r. _,. „zt, .emus uxc3aes3sxo-reb. -~. ~ z. ~s.~.,;.~,us-aamkiaz~s~nax:.a.,~~a.~~esamu~..aiaa~ra~raha~h4d~lY' 9 r ~ ~ ~ ^' `~ ~. !._ i `" .. { ~C 1. _, __ ;. D __ - -i~ ~. t{ ~ ' ~ f i7 -~ r~~ ~~ ~~S IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs v. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation, Defendants TO THE PROTHONOTARY: No. 01-5461 1024093.1 JTJRI' TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE Kindly enter the appeazance of Bazley, Snyder, Senft & Cohen, LLC, by Kendra D. McGuire, Esquire and Stephanie Carfley, Esquire on behalf of Defendant Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. Please serve all papers at 126 East King Street, Lancaster, PA 17602. Date:/ ~'/0 / BARLEY,SNYDER,SENF sCOHEN,LLC BY: Kendra D. Mc uire, Esquire Stephanie Cazfley, Esquire Attorneys for Defendants Carlisle Hospital and Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2832 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 50919 Court I.D. No. 79136 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1024093.1 I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe has been served this a~ay of October, 2001, by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 BARLEY,SNYDER,SENF cCOHEN,LLC Kendra D. McGuire, squire Stephanie Carfley, Esquire Attorneys for Defendants Cazlisle Hospital and Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2832 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 50919 Court LD. No. 79136 ~ ~~ ~ _... 'T. z.~~s• ~ ~, ~; ~ > ,,...,~ L-:J:= U,`,~ c 1.- -- ~7 r~. 7 ~ ' 9 _ _ ~ C u ~. .~. , /~~~ ,(9 ~ /~~~ ..~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs v. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation, Defendants STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF LANCASTER SS: STEPHANIE CARFLEY, ESQUIRE, being duly affurned according to law, deposes and saysahat a true,and correct copy of a Rule to File Complaint has been served thisa~~` day of October, 2001, postage prepaid, upon: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger, P.C. Union Bank Building, 3`d Floor 306 Fourth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 BARLEY, SNYDER, SpNFT & COHEN, LLC Sworn to and subscribed before me this 5tday By: Kendra D. Mc ire, Esqui Stephanie Carfl ,Esquire Attorneys for Defendants Carlisle Hospital and .Tohnson G. Coyle, M.D. of October, 2001. l26 East King Street , Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 ~ourt LD. No. 50919 Notary Public ~ourt LD. No. 79136 io.zs.oi/scnozaoov.~ A IA SE .NJLMTH f. BINNlEY, NoMry Pub6~ lancaeter, I.OtlCastx C0., PA Commksiort Exphae Matdl t 6006 . )~ No. 01-5461 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE .. , ~-~ G <° ti ~_, --~ ? °t ~ ~ P~.S __ U7:; iL` f:L. ~C n t ~ ~ _ _ _ G° ~- -7 i% -c pCW1FEP~WNm~n jq',i4 .~:1,1}.., Y'~'4 4f1AaY~! Rj1i3k~+Y~- 9~:3k.. d' 3 ~ Ni~Y]IUI. s'> <Ak 49.rar wi ~ ;assn 3 ha -.. it ar ~ -' H ".", i s f r IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, vs. No. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants NOTICE OF SERVICE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please take nofice that on the 5th day of December, 2001, Plaintiffs' counsel served Answers to Interrogatories upon counsel for Defendants. -~ Robert A. Cohen Pa. I.D. #00467 BEHREND & ERNSBERGER 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 391-2515 .' e CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF SERVICE was mailed to the following counsel of record, by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, this 5th day of December, 2001. Lauralee B. Baker, Esquire Margolis Edelstein P.O. Box 932 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Kendra D. McGuire, Esquire Stephenie Carfley, Esquire Barley, Snyder, Senft & Cohen 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 Robert A. Cohen ~, .. ~ (-' - 7 ~ ~. rn ~- t}~, , , "' ~, } ~ % _ ~ J> ~ . C~ ~ 1 r~C __ --_- -r cn ~~ MICHAEL M. BADOWSKI, ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I.D. No. 32646 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 Telephone: [717] 975-6114 Fax: [717] 975-8124 E-Mail: mbadowski@margolisedelstein.com Attorney for Defendant: ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. KAREN KLETT AND GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, vs. :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :CIVIL ACTION - LAW :NO. 5461 CIVIL TERM 2001 ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, A CORPORATION,: Defendants. :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO ENTER JUDGMENT NON PROS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: Kindly enter judgment non pros against Plaintiff and in favor of Defendant, Robert F. Hall, II, M. D., for Plaintiff's failure to timely file a Complaint pursuant to the Notice issued and served in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 237.1(a)(2), a copy Dated: ,/~w Z By Attorneys for Defendants, ROBERT E. HALL, M.D. MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN PHILADELPHIA OFFICE THE CURTIS CENTER FOURTH FLOOR INDEPENDENCE SQUARE WEST PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-3304 215-922-1100 FAX 215-922-1772 PITTSBURGH OFFICE 1500 GRANT BUILDING PITTSBURGH, PA 15219-2203 412-281-0256 FAX 412-842-2380 ATTORNEYS AT LAW POST OFFICE BOX 932 HARRISBURG, PA 17108-0932 STREET ADDRESS: 3510 TRINDLE ROAD CAMP HILL, PA 17011 717.975.9114 FAX 717.975.9124 NEW JERSEY OFFICE P.O. BOX 2222 216 HADDON AVENUE WESTMONT, NJ 08108-288fi 856-858-7200 FAX 856-858-1017 SCRANTON OFFICE WRITER: PAMELA R. SHAPER, PARALEGAL DIRECT E-MAIL: pshaferQmargoliaedelstein.com November 19, 2001 Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue - Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Re: Klett v. Hall, et al. Qur File No. 57300.4-0120 Dear Mr. Cohen: THE OPPENHEIM BUILDING 409 LACKAWANNA AVENUE SUITE 3C SCRANTON, PA 18503 570-342-4231 FAX 570-342-4841 Enclosed please find our Notice of Intent to Enter Judgement Non Pros Pursuant to PA. R. CIV. P. 237.1(a)(2) We are serving this Notica as a formality due to the fact that counsel have agreed to give Plaintiffs a 60 day extension of time to file a Complaint. In accordance with the agreement between counsel, Plaintiffs have until January 7, 2002 to file a Complaint. Very truly yours, ~ ~, ~i Pamela R. Shafer, Paralegal prs Enclosures DELAWARE COUNTY OFFICE 216 SOUTH ORANGE STREET MEDIA, PA 19063 610-565-8311 FAX 610565-8318 cc: Kendra McGuire, Esquire (w/encl.) MICHAEL M. HADOA7SKI, ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I.D. No. 32646 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 Telephone: [717] 975-8114 Fax: [7177 975-8124 H-Mail: mbadowaki(4margolisedelstein.com Attorney for Defendant: ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. KAREN KLETT AND GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, vs. :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :CIVIL ACTION - LAW :NO. 5461 CIVIL TERM 2001 ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, A CORPORATION,: Defendants. :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO ENTER JUDGMENT NON PROS PURSUANT TO PA. R. CIV. P. 237.1(a)(2) T0: KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT c/o Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue - Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Date of Notice: November 14, 2001 IMPORTANT NOTICE YOU ARE IN DEFAULT BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO FILE A COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE. UNLESS YOU ACT WITHIN TEN DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE, A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU WITHOUT A HEARING AND YOU MAY LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO SUE THE DEFENDANT AND THEREBY LOSE PROPERTY OR OTHER IMPORTANT RIGHTS. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS NOTICE TO A LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE FOLLOWING OFFICE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP: Lawyer Referral Service Date: ////S'~~ BY: ---7° Pa. Sup. Ct. I.D. #32646 Attorney for Defendant, ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE TO FILE OF RECORD THE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF THE RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT on all interested parties by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, Pe`nn~}sylvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the !`~ day of ~p1G~~~1`~-~~ 2001, and addressed as follows: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue - Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Kendra McGuire, Esquire BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC 126 E. King Street P.O. Box 83126 Lancaster, PA 17602 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN Pamela R. Shafe-; Paralegal CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE TO FILE OF RECORD THE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF THE RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT on all interested parties by placing the same in the United S*_ates mail at Camp Hi11, Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the ~' day of 2002, and addressed as follows: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue - Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Kendra McGuire, Esquire BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC 126 E. King Street P.O. Box 83126 Lancaster, PA 17602 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN By. ~ U" Pamela R. Shaf Paralegal N ~ ~ r '69. 4 r C_ °i]~ (-' r! Cl) `- __ i `- t_;,. 1- F.. (~~~ t iN V~ ~.. __ r• _ __ ____ , ~,~ ~~~_ a . t. MICHAEL M. BADOWSKI-, ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I.D. No. 32646 MARGOLTS EDELSTEIN 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 Telephone: [717] 975-8114 Attorney for Defendant: Fax: [717] 975-8124 ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. E-Mail: mbadowskiWa:argolisedelstein.com KAREN KLETT AND GREGORY KLETT, :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :CIVIL ACTION - LAW vs. , :NO. 5461 CIVIL TERM 2001 ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, A CORPORATIOI3,: Defendants. :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant, Robert F. Hall, M.D., in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, Date : l 7i///// J(// MIOHAEL BADOWSKI Attorney for Defendant, ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. P. O. Box 932 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0932 (717) 975-8114 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on all interested parties by placing the same in the United States mail atlCamp Hill, Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the /~~ day of 2001, and addressed as follows: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue - Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Kendra McGuire, Esquire BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC 126 E. King Street P.O. Box 83126 Lancaster, PA 17602 MARGOLI'S EDELSTEIN ByQ~"''v Paraleg - 2 - ~4 Q r' - ` I 1 1' ~ ~~ I ~^'~ 1 1 ('~ Y I ~ ~../`.` // V _ , ~ t . ~ . 1 ~ / ~ ~ I /~' y ` .G_ -F~_1 ~7 O `v ~I l 1~~ M1 #K ~ ~ ~GIAR 0 4 2002 I[V THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, vs. No. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPTI'AL, a corporatnon Defendants ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 6' day of ~, Aif c.~ , 2002, upon consideration of the foregoing Petition, it is hereby ORDERED that (1) A Rule is issued upon the Respondent to show cause why the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief requested; (2) The Respondent shall file an Answer to the Petition within 2 o days of this date; (3) The Petition shall be decided under Pa.R.C.P. No. 206.7; (4) Depositions shall be completed within 'f S days of this date; / (5) Argument shall be held pn o~6 dOa a , in Courtroom ~7 of the ~,~iirn . ~~,~/~nir,a( County Courthouse; L ~ 1 ~ ` ~ G ' rn' (6) Notice of the entry of ~is Order shall be provided to all parties by the Petitioner. i d.~r~eti~e~~~#IAYm~t.,ahe1 Jam" ~~~~: z_.e.<~c.~. ,k~'~~~j`~i~( ~^„ _, '' .>, C!) __. f• t BY THE COURT: /~fo /CL-CCy ,J ~""~' C3 -07- o R~5 . ~~~~ aR~ma~ ~W a~~z I1V THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, vs. No. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants AMENDED PETITION TO OPEN JUDGMENT OF NON PROS AND NOW come Karen J. Klett [hereinafter "Plaintiff'] and Gregory L. Klett, by Robert A. Cohen and Behrend & Ernsberger, their attorneys, and respectfully pray that this Honorable Court issue a Rule to Show Cause why a Judgment of Non Pros in favor of Robert F. Hall, II, M.D., should not be opened, and in support thereof, aver the following: As set forth in the following paragraphs of this Amended Petition, Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. [hereinafter "Defendant"] through his counsel entered a Judgment of Non Pros on January 8, 2002, one day after an agreed extension had expired but within the time pararneters for an extension sought and agreed upon with the other Defendants, Dr. Coyle and Carlisle Hospital. When Plaintiffs' counsel, the undersigned, contacted Dr. Hall's attorney on January 9, 2002, to make sure that Dr. Hall would be willing to allow the filing of the Complaint within that time limit, Plaintiffs' counsel was informed that a Judgment of Non Pros had been entered the day before, i.e., on January 8, 2002, and Plaintiffs' counsel immediately asked defense counsel whether or not he would agree to open the Judgment of Non Pros so that an appropriate Stipulation could be presented. Plaintiffs' counsel assumed that such a Stipulation would demonstrate prompt action to open the Judgment of Non Pros and would be reasonable in view of the 10 day requirements of Rule 237.3. However, defense counsel did not respond uutil he sent a letter dated January 15, 2002, attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 2. Plaintiffs brought this action to recover for injuries sustained by the wife Plaintiff on or about June 7, 1947, while she was operating a tractor trailer. Several days later, Glen Moore Transport, her employer, sent her to the Emergency Room at Carlisle Hospital for evaluation, care, and treatment. The Hospital failed to diagnose at least one pmtmding, rnptured, or herniated disc, as a result of which proper treatment was not timely instituted, and corrective measures were not taken until her injuries were correctly diagnosed a couple of years later. A true copy of Plaintiffs' Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 3. This lawsuit was instituted by the filing of a Summons, because the Statute of Limitations was about to expire and Plaintiffs' counsel had not completed his review of the medical facts in order to verify that the case was meritorious against the proposed Defendants. That situaflon was explained to the Defendants by letters dated September 14, 2001; the letter to Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. so informing him is attached hereto as Exhibit "C" 2 4. Subsequent to the filing of the Summons and service thereof upon Defendants, counsel entered an Appearance on behalf of all Defendants, and defense counsel shortly thereafter served a Notice to Plead upon the undersigned, attorneys for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' counsel thereupon contacted defense counsel and requested an extension of time within which to plead, stating that Plaintiff has recently submitted to physical examinations and testing, and that those results would be required in order for Plaintiffs' counsel to determine that the case was meritorious against any or all of the Defendants. Defense counsel then granted extensions, both expiring at approximately the same time, although the extension granted by Dr. Hall's counsel expired on January 7, 2002, and the extension granted by counsel for the Hospital and Dr. Coyle expired a few days later. 5. However Dr. Hall's counsel, simultaneously with granting the extension, also served the 10 Day Notice upon Plaintiffs' attorney, rather than defemng the filing and service of the 10 Day Notice until the extension of time had expired, in accordance with Rule 237.1, providing that Plainfiffs should have an additional 10 days within which to file their Complaint following the expiration of the agreed extension. Plaintiffs' Complaint was filed within that additional 10 days, but Defendant Dr. Hall was able to enter his Judgment of Non Pros before that additional extension time had expired rather than commencing thereafter, by including that 10 day requirement within the agreed extension, in violation of Rule 237.1. 6. On January 9, 2002, after receiving the 10 Day Notice from counsel for Dr. Coyle and the Hospital, Plaintiffs' counsel, assuming that Dr. Hall's attorneys would 3 abide by the same time frame as that arranged with Dr. Coyle and the Hospital, contacted Dr. Hall's attorneys to let them know that a Complaint would be filed timely within 10 days from the deadline set by the attorneys for Dr. Coyle and the Hospital. Later that day, Plaintiffs' counsel received a Notice that a Judgment of Non Pros had already been entered, only one day after the expiration of the deadline, i.e., on January 8, 2002, and counsel for Dr. Hall so informed Plaintiffs' attorney. Previously, the attorneys for Dr. Hall had served Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on Plaintiffs' counsel. That discovery was responded to in timely fashion, and the attorneys for Dr. Hall had the benefits thereof. 8. Dr. Hall's attorneys did not contact Plaintiffs' counsel by telephone or otherwise prior to entering the Judgment of Non Pros only one day after the agreed extension had expired, but simply went ahead and entered the Non Pros. 9. Plaintiffs' attorney immediately requested of Dr. Hall's attorney that the Judgment of Non Pros be voluntarily opened, so that a Complaint could be prepared and filed against all Defendants. Dr. Hall's counsel took the matter under advisement and subsequently responded by letter dated January 15, 2002, which was not received by the undersigned until January 19, 2002, that Dr. Hall's carrier refused to open the Judgment of Non Pms, primarily because this case is likely to be submitted to the CAT Fund as a Section 605 matter, by virtue of the age of the alleged incident. A copy of the letter from Michael Badowski, Esquire to Plaintiffs' counsel dated January 15, 2002 is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". Attorney Badowski has now been replaced by Jack M. Hartman, Esquire, Hartman, Osborne & Joyce; see letter of 2/19/02 from Attorney Hartman, attached hereto as Exhibit "D". ~, . 10. Although a Non Pros had been entered in favor of Dr. Hall, and in order to protect Plaintiffs from the possible entry of a Non Pros on the part of remaining Defendants, Plaintiffs' counsel filed the Complaint against Defendants within the time frame established with counsel for Dr. Coyle and the Hospital, including averments against Dr. Hall which are stated to be appropriately set forth if and only if the Judgment of Non Pros entered in favor of Dr. Hall and against the Plaintiffs, is opened by this Honorable Court. A true copy of the Complaint filed agauvst Dr. Coyle and the Hospital, and against Dr. Hall if the Judgment of Non Pros is opened, is attached hereto as Exhibit "B", as required by Rule 237.3(a). 11. Plaintiffs have attempted to comply with arrangements made with defense counsel and the Rules of Procedure and Rules of Court by responding in timely fashion, although they missed the deadline set by the attorneys for Dr. Hall by approximately 2 days. The presence of Dr. Hall in the lawsuit is desirable in order to establish the negligence, if any, on the part of all potential parties Defendant, in the appropriate degree, and leaving Dr. Hall out of the case would create a void which could have an unfavorable impact upon this litigation. 12. On January 23, 2002, Plaintiffs' counsel was contacted by the attorneys representing Dr. Coyle and the Hospital and informed that in due course they would be replaced in the case, and requested a 45 day extension of time within which to plead to the Complaint. Plaintiffs' counsel readily granted that extension. A true copy of the confirming letter of 1/28/02 from Kendra D. McGuire, Esquire, is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". The reason for the replacement is, as stated by Dr. Hall's attorneys, this case will be submitted to the CAT Fund, as a Section 605 case, and hence counsel may be replaced and further defense activity will be deferred. Since that contention is admitted by Dr. FIall's counsel, as a reason why they would not agree to open the Judgment of Non Pms, the same would hold tme of Dr. Hall's carrier, which similarly will be replaced by the CAT Fund, and hence there is no possibility of any prejudice to Dr. Hall by opening this Judgment of Non Pros. New counsel for Dr. Coyle and the Hospital have now entered an Appearance; see Exhibit "E" attached hereto; the undersigned has granted them an additional 30 days within which to respond. 1.4. Plainfiffs believe, and therefore aver, that they have acted timely under the circumstances, although Plaintiffs' counsel sought an agreement to open rather than filing the Petition directly with the Court, but acted immediately in so doing; that Plaintiffs' counsel has supplied a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse for the delay; and that Plaintiffs have set forth a reasonable cause of action by virhxe of the Complaint which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Honorable Court issue a Rule to Show Cause why this Judgment should not be opened and Plaintiffs be permitted to include in the lawsuit their claims against Dr. Hall. Respectfully submitted: Robert A. Cohen Pa I.D. #00467 BEHREND & ERNSBERGER 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412)391-2515 _ ..~_ _ ._ . ~, ~..~ PHILADELPHIA OFFICE THE CURTIS CENTER FOURTH FLOOR INDEPENDENCE SQUARE WEST PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-3304 215-922-1100 FAX 215-922-1772 PITTSBURGH OFFICE 1500 GRANT BUILDING- PITTSBURGH, PA 15219-2203 412-281 X258 FAX 412-642-2380 ATTORNEYS AT LAW POST OFFICE BOX 932 HARRISBURG, PA 17108.0932 STREET ADDRESS: 3510 TRINOLE ROAD CAMP HILL, PA 17011 717.875-8114 FAX 717.875.0124 NEW JERSEY OFFICE P.O. BOX 2222 218 HADDON AVENUE W ESTMONT, NJ 08108-2886 856$58-7200 FAX 856-858-1017 SCRANTON OFFICE WRITER: MICHAEL M. BADOWSKI• DIRECT E-MAIL: mbadowskiQa margolisedelstein.com January 15, 2002 Robert A. Cohen, Esquire BEHI2END & ERNSBERGER 306 Fourth Avenue - Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN Re: Klett v. Hall, et aI. Our File No. 57300.4-0120 Deax Mr. Cohen: THE OPPENHEIM BUILDING 409 LACKAWANNA AVENUE SUITE 3C SCRANTON, PA 18503 570-342231 FAX 570-342841 I broached with Dr. Hall's carrier your request that we voluntarily lift the r_on pros entered in this case. As I had mentioned to you, in view of the fact that this case is likely to be Submitted to the Ca. Fund as a Section 605 matter, the carrier feels that it is not a. liberty to grant your reaue~t. ~ /% u ~/ ~~ ~" ~, L adowski MMB/na Verfy~ ~trul~9 /~ % ~~ ~ C Mi~hael M. B EXHIBIT "A" 'Certifed as a Civii Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy A Pennsylvania Supreme Court Accredited Agency DELAWARE COUNTY OFFICE 216 SOUTH ORANGE STREET MEDIA, PA 19063 610-565$311 FAX 610-565-8318 n. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT CIVIL DIVISION Plaintiff, vs. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants NOTICE TO PLEAD: You are required to plead to the enclosed Complaint within twenty (20) days of the date of service hereof. Robert A. Cohen No. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION Filed on behalf of Plaintiff Counsel of Record for This Party: Robert A. Cohen Pa. LD. #00467 BEHREND & ERNSBERGER 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412)391-2515 EXHIBIT "B" a Judgment of Non Pros had been entered the day before, i.e., on January 8, 2002, and Plaintiffs' counsel immediately asked defense counsel whether or not he would agree to open the Judgment of Non Pros so that an appropriate Stipulation could be presented. Plaintiffs' counsel assumed that such a Stipulation would demonstrate prompt action to open the Judgment of Non Pros and would be reasonable in view of the 10 day requirements of Rule 237.3. However, defense counsel did not respond until he sent a letter dated January 15, 2002, attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 2. Plaintiffs brought this action to recover for injuries sustained by the wife Plaintiff on or about June 7, 1997, while she was operating a tractor trailer. Several days later, Glen Moore Transport, her employer, sent her to the Emergency Room at Cazlisle Hospital for evaluation, care, and treatment. The Hospital failed to diagnose at least one protruding, ruptured, or herniated disc, as a result of which proper treatment was not timely instituted, and corrective measures were not taken until her injuries were correctly diagnosed a couple of yeazs later. A true copy of Plaintiffs' Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 3. This lawsuit was instituted by the filing of a Summons, because the Statute of Limitations was about to expire and Plaintiffs' counsel had not completed his review of the medical facts in order to verify that the case was meritorious against the proposed Defendants. That situation was explained to the Defendants by letters dated September 14, 2001; the letter to Robert F. Ha11, II, M.D. so informing him is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". 2 When Plaintiff's rig entered a construction area approximately 60 to 70 miles East of Jamestown, New Mexico, another vehicle attempted to pass Plaintiff's tractor-trailer on the left. Plaintiff thereupon signaled her intention to make a right turn as soon as the vehicles would have left the construction area, and the other vehicle went behind her. Just befi~re the end of the construction area, Plaintiff began to move toward the right, but the other vehicle began to pass her on the right, knocking over some construction cones in the course of so doing. The other vehicle then disappeared from view, and while Plaintiff was attempting to shift gears, she turned her head far to the right, to look for the other vehicle, and then she turned her head back sharply to the left. However, because she had to turn her head far to the right, and then back far to the left, while attempting to shift gears at the same time, she over-extended her neck and felt a sudden "pop" and immediately felt severe and excruciating pain. She pulled over, stopped, and stayed near the accident scene for a period of time, and then continued on to Jamestown, where there was a truck stop. After sitting at the truck stop for the maximum allowed of 5 hours, Plaintiff continued with her load to its destination, although the husband Plaintiff, Gregory L. Klett, did most of the driving. Following the California delivery, although Plaintiff was in severe pain, the Klett team took on a load in California which they delivered in Florida. Again, Plaintiff Gregory Klett did most of the driving on this trip. After a 12 hour stay in Florida, :Plaintiff telephoned her place of employment, told them that she was in great pain and getting sicker, and had to come home. She returned to the offices of Glen Moore 7Cransport in Carlisle, and was immediately sent to the Carlisle Hospital Emergency Room for appropriate care and treatment. 9. Plaintiff arrived at Carlisle Hospital approximately 12:30 P.M. to 1:00 P.M. on June 12, 1997, where she was examined and treated by Dr. Coyle. Dr Coyle referred Plaintiff for X-Rays, which were taken of the neck and cervical spine under the direction of Dr. Hall, who provided a radiology report, which report diagnosed no significant abnormalities. Dr. Coyle reviewed the X-Ray report and performed an examination, attempted to move Plaintiff s arms, although such movements were limited, particularly with the right arm, and attempted to move Plaintiff s head on and about her neck. Again, such movements were limited and caused severe pain. Dr. Coyle told Plaintiff that she had suffered a separated shoulder and a pulled muscle which he described as a brachial plexus injury. Dr. Coyle told Plaintiff that he would give her an injection, and referred her to a chiropractor for further care and treatment. He also gave Plaintiff a prescription, Cyclobenzaprine, and told her where to have the prescription filled. 10. During the following couple of years, Plaintiff attempted to continue to work, off and on, under the impression that she had suffered from the injury which Dr. Coyle had described to her and nothing more serious. However, over the course of time, she began to experience more severe pain and other symptomatology, including numbness in the fingertips of the right hand, severe pain in the arm, first going up to the elbow, and then all the way up to the shoulder, stabbing pains in the back of the neck and up to the head, and severe pain in the neck and right shoulder, together with severe 4 headaches. As a result, Plaintiff's chiropractor told her that hex condition was deteriorating and that she required medical care and attention. She was referred to Ciceron L. Opida, M.D., a neurologist in Altoona, Pennsylvania, with principal complaints of severe pain, numbness, and limitation of motion in the right upper and lower extremity, and through further diagnostic testing, care, and treatment, Dr. Opida made the correct diagnosis, i.e., a severe herniated cervical disc at C4 andJor a disc extrusion at CS-6. Thereafter Dr. Opida ordered various studies which diagnosed and confirmed the above findings and were performed on and shortly after September 21, 1999, and Dr. Opida informed Plaintiff of the results shortly thereafter. 11. As a result of Dr. Opida' s examination, evaluation, and testing, Plaintiff learned for the first time that she had suffered serious injuries to her intervertebral discs in the accident of June 7, 1997, and that Dr. Coyle and Dr. Hall had failed properly to diagnose and treat those injuries and misdiagnosed her condition. 12. Dr. Coyle, as the agent, servant, or employee of the Hospital, was reckless, careiess, and negligent in the following particular respects: a. In failing to take a thorough and complete history, as a basis for making a correct diagnosis; b. In failing to perform a thorough and complete examination and evaluation; c. In view of the patient's history, complaints, and symptomatology, in failing to call in for consultation an orthopedic surgeon, neurosurgeon, or neurologist; d. In failing to order appropriate diagnostic tests, including but not necessarily limited to a CAT scan and/or an MRI of the neck and cervical spme; e. In failing to order the patient's admission to the hospital, for further examination, evaluation, and testing; f. In failing to diagnose the ruptured and/or herniated cervical intervertebral discs at C4-5 and/or CS-6; g. By diagnosing Plaintiff's condition as consisting of a brachial plexus injury rather than severe injuries to cervical interverterbral discs, disc spaces, and surrounding soft tissues, such as nerve roots, muscles, nerves, etc.; h. In releasing Plaintiff from the Hospital with a prescription and instructions to see a chiropractor, rather than referring her for immediate and appropriate follow-up care and treatment; and In the above respects, in failing to exercise that degree of care due and owing the Plaintiff under the circumstances. 13. Plaintiff claims damages arising from Defendants' failure promptly and properly to diagnose her wndition, which diagnosis would have lead to prompt and proper treatment, which would have lead to a reasonably normal and complete recovery. Instead, Plaintiff s condition was caused to worsen considerably over time, so that when her injuries were finally correctly diagnosed, as set forth above, and proper treatment was instituted, it was too late to prevent and reverse many of the adverse consequences of 6 their diagnostic and treatment failure, which considerably aggravated and exacerbated her condition and made it impossible to achieve a significant cure, although subsequent surgery considerably alleviated Plaintiff's condition. The negligence and wrongful acts of Dr. Coyle, jointly andlor severally and concurrently or consecutively with the negligence and wrongful acts of Dr. Hall and the Hosptital, were a direct and proximate cause of the injuries and damage sustained by Plaintiff herein. 14. Following the correct diagnosis of Plaintiff's condition by Dr. Opida, Plaintiff saw other physicians and eventually came under the care of William C. Welch, M.D., Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh. Plaintiff was admitted to UPMC Presbyterian on February 14, 2000, and Dr. Welch performed a CS-6 anterior surgical discectomy with non-instrumental fusion. 15. As a drect and proximate result of the negligence and wrongful acts of Defendants, as set forth above, and hereinafter, Plaintiff has been and will hereafter be required to suffer and endure severe pain of body and mind. She has been disabled, and her disability will continue into the future. She suffered the aftermath of severe injuries to her neck and cervical spine, which eventually were diagnosed and appropriately treated, via surgery, but only after considerable damage had been done because of the delay in diagnosis and rendering appropriate treatment. As a result, her health, strength, and vitality have been and will hereafter be adversely affected. Her activities have been and will ]hereafter be considerably limited and restricted. She was required to lose earnings and her earning power has been destroyed. She suffers from severe pain, discomfort, disability, numbness, limitations of motion and function, and other 7 manifestations of her neck and cervical spine injuries and the considerable delay in providing appropriate treatment. She is unable to run. She has great difficulty in lifting her right; leg. Her right hand and right arm feel weak, heavy, almost numb. She is unable to raise her right arm above her shoulder. She is unable to grip objects firmly with her right hand, or open jars, etc. She suffers from constant headaches, severe stabbing pains in neck from sitting, and limitation of motion in the neck. She has difficulty in dressing herself, liffing and carrying objects, and is unable to lift more than 5 pounds. She has been and will hereafter be deprived of the ordinary pleasures of life. WIIEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Dr. Coyle in an amount in excess of the azbitration limits of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Second Count Gregory HIett vs. Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. 16. The husband Plaintiff, Gregory Klett, incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through I S of the First Count as though the said Paragraphs were fully set forth herein. 17. The husband Plaintiff, Gregory Klett, has been and will hereafter be required to spend large sums of money for hospitalizations, medical care and attention, surgery, nursings, drugs, and the use of appliances and other treatment modalities, for the caze and treatment of his wife. In addition, the husband Plaintiff has lost and will hereafter lose the services, society, and consortium of his wife. VJIIEREFORE, the husband Plaintiff demands judgment against Dr. Coyle in an amount in excess of the azbitration limits of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. [Note: Counts III and IV, Plaintiffs vs. Robert F. Hall, II, M.D., and any Paragraphs incorporating those Counts, aze presently excluded from this case because of the recent entry of a judgment of non pros in favor of Dr. Hall. Those Counts will be effectively pleaded if and only if that judgment or non pros is opened by this Honorable Court.] [Third Count] [Karen Klett vs. Robert F. Hall, H, M.D.] 18. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 9 and 11 through 13 of the First Count as though the said Paragraphs were fully set forth herein. 19. Dr. Hall, was reckless, careless, and negligent in the following particular respects: a. In failing to receive a sufficient and adequate history of the patient and her condition upon presentation to the Emergency Room, such as would require cervical spine and neck X-Rays that would have disclosed the severe disc injuries which Plaintiff had sustained in an accident several days before; b. In the alternative, in failing properly to interpret the X-Rays, which did show the severe disc injuries, but instead in reporting that the X-Ray films showed no such injuries; 9 c. In failing to suggest and take additional films and studies appropriate to the condifion of the patient, such as MRIs and CAT scan films, that would have disclosed Plaintiff's disc injuries and would thereby have lead to a correct diagnosis and consequent appropriate and prompt caze and treatment; and d. In the above respects, in failing to exercise that degree of care due and owing to Plaintiff under the circumstances. \1VIiEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Dr. Ha11 in an amount in excess of the arbitration limits of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. [Fourth Count] [Gregory Klett vs. Robert F. Hall, II, M.D.] 20. The husband Plaintiff, Gregory Klett, incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 11 and 13 through 15 of the First Count, Pazagraph 19 of the Second Count, and Paragraph 17 of the Third Count as though the said Paragraphs were fully set forth herein. WHEREFORE, the husband Plaintiff demands judgment against Dr. Hall in an amount in excess of the arbitration limits of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 10 ~,_ Fifth Count Karen Klett vs. Carlisle Hospital 2,1. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 11 and 13 through 15 of the First Count as though the said Paragraphs were fully set forth herein. 22. At all times material to this action, the Emergency Room of the Hospital was owned, operated, controlled, and maintained by the Hospital as a section, branch or department thereof. Dt. Coyle, who performed Emergency Room services at the Hospital, in so doing was acting as agent or employee of the Hospital acting on behalf of the Hospital and within the course and scope of his authority and in and about the business of the Hospital and in furtherance thereof. 23. The Hospital is liable as principal for the negligent acts and omissions of Dr. Coyle, who at the time of the events complained of was acting as agent or employee of the Hospital, as aforesaid, and the Hospital is therefore bound by and responsible for the negligent acts and omissions on the part of Dr. Coyle as set forth in the Third Count of this Complaint. 24. The Hospital knew or should have known that Dr. Coyle was unfit and unqualified because pf lack of proper training, competence, qualifications, experience, and expertise necessary to undertake the care and treatment of Plaintiff. 25. The Hospital is liable as principal for the negligent acts and omissions of Dr. Coyle, who at the time of the events complained of was acting as agent or employee of the Hospital, as aforesaid, and the Hospital is therefore bound by and responsible for 11 the negligent acts and omissions on the part of Dr. Coyle as set forth in the First Count of this Complaint. 26. At all times material to this action, the Radiology Department of the Hospital was owned, operated, controlled, and maintained by the Hospital as a section, branch or department thereof. Dr. Hall, who performed X-ray studies at the Hospital, in so doing was acting as agent or employee of the Hospital acting on behalf of the Hospital and within the course and scope of their employment or authority and in and about the business of the Hospital and in furtherance thereof. 27. The Hospital is liable as principal for the negligent acts and omissions of Dr. Hall, who at the time of the events complained of was acting as agent or employee of the Hospital, as aforesaid, and the Hospital is therefore bound by and responsible for the negligent acts and omissions on the part of Dr. Hall as set forth in the Third Count of this Complaint. 28. The Hospital knew or should have known that Dr. Hall was unfit and unqualified because of lack of proper training, competence, qualifications, experience, and expertise necessary to undertake the care and treatment of Plaintiff. 29. The Hospital is liable as principal for the negligent acts and omissions of Dr. Hall, who at the time of the events complained of was acting as agent or employee of the Hospital, as aforesaid, and the Hospital is therefore bound by and responsible for the negligent acts and omissions on the part of Dr. Hall as set forth in the Third Count of this Complaint. 12 30. The Hospital is liable as a corporate entity, because the Hospital has a duty to select and retain only competent physicians, to oversee all persons who practiced medicine within its walls as to patient care and testing, and to formulate, adopt, and enforce adequate rules and policies to ensure quality care for the patients. The Hospital is, further, liable as a corporate entity because of the breaches of duty owed to Plaintiff on the part of Dr. Coyle and Dr. Hall, who were agents, servants, or employees of the Hospital, as aforesaid, as set forth above more specifically in previous Counts of this Complaint. These responsibilities gave rise to a nondelegable duty which the Hospital, as a corporate entity, owed to the Plaintiff and which it breached by failing to uphold the proper standard of care owed to its patient, as set forth above. 31. The Hospital is liable as a corporate entity, because the Hospital has a duty to select and retain only competent physicians, to oversee all persons who practiced medicine within its walls as to patient care and testing, and to formulate, adopt, and enforce adequate rules and policies to ensure quality care for the patients. The Hospital is, further, liable as a corporate entity because of the breaches of duty owed to Plaintiff on the part of Dr. Coyle and Dr. Hall, who were agents, servants or employees of the Hospital, as aforesaid, as set forth above more specifically in previous Counts of this Complaint. These responsibilities gave rise to a nondelegable duty which the Hospital, as a corporate entity, owed to the Plaintiff and which it breached by failing to uphold the proper standard of care owed to its patient, as set forth above. 13 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Cazlisle Hospital in an amount in excess of the azbitration limits of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Sixth Count Gregory Klett vs. Carlisle Hospital 32. The husband Plaintiff, Gregory Klett, incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the First Count, Pazagraph 17 of the Second Count, and Paragraphs 22 through 31 as though the said Paragraphs were folly set forth herein. WHEREFORE, the husband Plaintiff demands judgment against Cazlisle Hospital in an amount in excess of the arbitration limits of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. -~ Robert A. Cohen Pa. I.D. #00467 BEHREND & 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 391-2515 ... ' ' ~• B~:l~ill/Ni~ ~~ Ea~vst~>/>Iic~>i, }~.c. ' AT'rORNG\"S AT LA\V I~:I11112 PJ IRrNU r-'J'I'~'~P.A IiI IIPI PIit I-I?I-i~RPRl .1'R - - II"'ll lilt' I'r IIRpFII~ P''1'1 I'I ~~ ~'I II'! ! IMt 1N IlrANK II(IILi )II a ~. II;I ~ I'I I ri IP. - i0o I-UI Ila I 1 /AVI'IJI q~ bl -('h (-Ill) 14I 1515 .I,r±p I,nr;I September 14, 2001 Robert F. Hall, ll, NLD. c/o Carlisle Flospital 246 Parker Street P.O. Box 310 ('arli~le.I'A 17013 RF,: Karen Klett Dear I)r. Hall: Karen Klett has retained us to investigate the merits of a possible claim against you arising frorn alleged improper care acid treatment of an injury to Karen Kletl. V3ecause of time limitations, we are instituting suit by the filing of a Summons. I his will give us an opportunity to explore the merits of the case. A copy of the Praecipe lirr Writ of Summons in Civil Action is enclosed. if cve find that our case review discloses no professional negligence on your part: or no serious consequences of professional negligence, we will voluntarily drop the case. I f our review discloses that you performed improper procedures or failed to take necessary remedial action, causing serious damage to Karen Klett. we will prepare a Complaint accordingly. }'lease turn this letter, and the Summons that will be served upon you by the Sheril~l's Office of Cumberland County, over to your liability insurance carrier. Sincerely, ~- ~ (~~ Robert A. Cohen IZnc:s~l, EXHIBIT "C" .,' , ILARTMAN, OSBORNE & JOYCE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 126-128 WALNUT STREET, HARRISBURG, PA 17101 • TELEPHONE (717) 232-3046 • FACSIMILE (717) 232-3538 JACK M. HARTMAN MELINDA S. IOYCE KEVIN E. OSBORDIE DREW P. GANNON AMY C. POERSTER CINDY L. NICHOLSON February 14, 2002 Curt Long, Prothonotary Cumberland. County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 WRITER'S EXTENSION: 109 WRITER'S E-MAIL ADDRESS: iackhartman a hoslawon.com Re: Karen Klett v. Robert F. Hall, II, M.D., et al. Cumberland County Docket No. 5461 Dear Mr. Long: Enclosed for filing please find an original and one (1) copy each of a Withdrawal of Appearance and an Entry of Appearance on behalf of Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. in regard to the above-referenced matter. Please time stamp the copies and return them to me in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope. Should you have any questions regarding the same, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, J• M. Hartman JMH:cks Enclosures.- cc: ~bert A. Cohen, Esquire (w/enc.) Michael Badowski, Esquire (w/enc.) Kendra McGuire, Esquire (w/enc.) Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. (w/enc.) Kristin Twilley (CAT Fund File #031967-A)(w/o eno.) EXHIBIT "D" FEB-25-02 MON 09;59 AM MCKISSOCK HOFFMAN FAX:7175403434 PAGE 2 ~'. ,. MCYCTSSOCK & HOFFMAN A vRUnF$CIUNAL UVitI'URA]'IUN AT'S'URNEYS AT I.AW 2U4U L,IN(yLESTUWN RUAU tillfl'F., 3pZ IIARRItiR~)R(i, PA 17110 PIION& (717) 540-341X) FAX (717)$40.3474 EUWIN A.O 9UIIWnR'1[ UbC11Jl>I ]IL HO-3Jp0 M1a134 WwW.AAlGNk.WM February 25, 2002 Robert A. Gohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Via Facsimile (412) 39i-2762 And U.S. First Class Mail F2e: Klett, et ux., v. Hall, et al, CCP (Cumberland) 50.61 Givil Term 2001 Our File: 241-399 Dear Mr. Cohen: nrni n1A ~tKla' STREET SUITE 3000 YxILAULIA'HIA.fA 19101 (? I J) 2ms Ilnl PAX- I.IS) ide ]wa I6 NOR1'll fknNKLIN $'I'RF L-1' SUITE 300 UVVLe<fpwN, YA IP')VI (;. ~5)39Y1t01 TAX (LS) Jai-¢vn ±5 ('x LS'I'rvUT 9TREG7 surze loe NAUWN196LU, NJ O81J! PAX (NSti)n34+xlm) 1056 GVAN$STRRPT,SUIt'kn P.0.11UX 309e wx$'I'Cxb'S'IER, PA I?SPI (d10) ]]r 9NA1 1'AX IG~01 T3P-ola Please accept my thanks in your generous extension of time in speaking with me regarding the above referenced matter. As you will recall, I introduced myself as the attorney who will be continuing with the defense of Dr. Johnson Coyle and the Carlisle Hospital. I am forwarding my Entry of Appearance to the Cumberland County Prothonotary today. You will receive a copy of the filing. I recently received this file from former counsel and contacted you regarding a possible extension of time by which I must respond to the Complaint. You gratiously offered to extend the time for which a response to the Complaint must be filed to end of March 2002. If this is not your understanding as to our earlier telephone conference, please contact as soon as possible so that we may avoid any future confusion in this regard. Thank you for your courtesy in this matter. EXIIIBIT "E" Sinc~erel~y, Edwin A.- R McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. ~° ., VERIFICATION I, KAREN KLETT, state that the statements made in the foregoing AMENDED PETITION TO OPEN NDGMENT OF NON PROS are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This statement and verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification, to authorities which provides that, if I make knowingly false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. DATE: o'{ -oZ `7 - ©2~ ,/ , ~~ >~~~° ~ 1~ Klett ~~ .~~ -~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing AMENDED PETITION TO OPEN JUDGMENT OF NON PROS was mailed to the following counsel of record, by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, this 27th day of February, 2002. Jack M Hartman, Esquire Hartman, Osborne & Joyce 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire McKissock & Hof&nan 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Robert A. Cohen ~ ~ar ~S- n f.3 {_ Y*J -vr,r, ,_ {} <<:i ~~ :~. ~ <~^ -K ~. f. C1 ,~ ~' L-7 W]L: :I>C :J _y ..J O .-: l _ ';, ~: ~' , `' =;._7 ~~n y r~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs CIVIL DIVISION N0. 5461 Civil Term 2001 v. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPTIAL, a corporation, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO: Karen & Gregory Klett, Plaintiffs c/o Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Preliminary Objections within 20 days from service hereof or judgment may be entered against you. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS JOHNSON G. COYLE. M.D. AND CARLISLE HOSPITAL TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D., and Carlisle Hospital, by and through their counsel, McKissock & Hoffman, P.C., hereby file the following Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint and as such, aver as follows: 1. Plaintiffs, Karen and Gregory Klett have commenced an action against Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. (hereinafter "Dr. Coyle"); Robert F. Hall, M.D. (hereinafter "Dr. Hall"); and Carlisle Hospital (hereinafter "Hospital") setting forth various allegations of professional negligence, vicarious liability and corporate liability. 2. The Preliminary Objections of Dr. Coyle and Hospital are directed to the allegations contained in Counts I, II, V and VI of Plaintiffs' Complaint 3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 hereinabove are incorporated by reference as if more fully set forth. 4. Under Pennsylvania law, "The material facts upon which a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form" Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a). 5. Count I of Plaintiffs' Complaint seeks to set forth a claim of negligence against Dr. Coyle for his alleged failure to properly care for and treat Plaintiff, Karen Klett. Plaintiffs further aver that said actions or inactions of Dr. Coyle resulted in the alleged injuries sustained by Plaintiffs. 6. In paragraph 12(i) of Plaintiffs' Complaint, Plaintiffs allege "Dr. Coyle, as the agent, servant, or employee of the Hospital, was reckless, careless, and negligent in the following particular respects:... (i) in the above respects, in failing to exercise that degree of care due and owing the Plaintiff under the circumstances." 7. The allegation set forth in paragraph 12(i) of Plaintiffs' Complaint does not contain the factual specificity required by Pennsylvania law, nor is it supported by factual allegations elsewhere within the Complaint. See: Conner v. Alleaheny Hospital, 501 Pa. 306, 461 A.2d 600 (1983). Absent a clear and concise pleading of the specific and relevant facts upon which Plaintiffs' assert their claims against Dr. Coyle, and without a clear and concise statement of the precise conduct by which Dr. Coyle is alleged to incur liability, Dr. Coyle cannot provide a knowing and intelligent response to Plaintiffs' Complaint and is prejudiced thereby. This same prejudice is shared by Carlisle Hospital. 8. Count V of Plaintiffs' Complaint seeks to set forth a claim of vicarious liability against Hospital due to the alleged acts and/or omissions of Dr. Coyle in his alleged failure to properly care for and treat Plaintiff, Karen Klett. 9. In paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs' Complaint, Plaintiffs allege "The Hospital knew or should have known that Dr. Coyle was unfit and unqualified because of lack of proper training, competence, qualifications, experience, and expertise necessary to undertake the care and treatment of Plaintiff." 10. Plaintiffs' Complaint is void of any factual averments which address (either expressly or by inference) the training, competence, qualifications, experience, and expertise of Dr. Coyle. 11. Absent any specific factual averments regarding Plaintiffs' basis for asserting that Dr. Coyle somehow lacked proper training, competence, qualifications, experience, and expertise necessary to undertake the care and treatment of Plaintiff, Defendants cannot provide a knowing and intelligent response to Plaintiffs' allegation. 12. Notwithstanding the fact that paragraphs 30 and 31 are identical (and one should be stricken as being redundant) Plaintiffs allege a breach of duty by the Hospital in "failing to uphold the proper standard of care owed to its patient, as set forth above." 13. However, despite the Plaintiffs' qualification of the alleged breach as being "set forth above", a review of the Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to reveal any factual allegations which support a breach of the Hospital's "nondelegable" duty. 14. Absent any factual allegations in support of the alleged breach of the Hospital's `°nondelegable" duty, Plaintiffs' claims in this respect must be dismissed for lacking the requisite specificity. 15. Dr. Coyle and Hospital are prejudiced in that Plaintiffs' failure to specifically and concisely set forth all material facts upon which they assert their various claims, effectively precludes Dr. Coyle and Hospital from preparing an intelligent and responsive defense thereto. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court strike paragraphs 12(i); 24, 30 and 31 of Plaintiffs' Complaint for insufficient specificity, or in the alternative, Plaintiffs should be directed to file a more specific pleading in conformity with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a) . 16. Paragraphs 1 and 15 hereinabove are incorporated by reference as if more fully set forth. 17. Plaintiffs appear to be attempting to set for a claim for corporate liability against defendant Hospital. See Plaintiffs' Complaint, Count V, paragraphs 30-31. 18. These paragraphs merely recite boilerplate language as identified by the Courtin Thompson v. Nason Hospital, 527 Pa. 330, 591 A.2d 703 (1991). 19. There are no facts set forth in the Complaint which would support a cause of action for corporate liability against Defendant Hospital. 20. Inasmuch as the alleged claim for corporate negligence, as set forth in paragraphs 30 and 31, is unsupported by the facts as pled in the Complaint, Plaintiffs' claims for corporate negligence must be dismissed. Furthermore, due to the derivative nature of the claims as set forth in Count VI of Plaintiffs' Complaint for Plaintiff, Gregory Klett's alleged loss of consortium, such claim must also fail. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court strike paragraphs 30 and 31 of Plaintiffs' Complaint for failing to state a claim for which relief may be granted and further award Defendants all such other relief as is proper and just. III. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE 21. Paragraphs 1 and 20 hereinabove are incorporated by reference as if more fully set forth. 22. A review of Plaintiffs' Complaint reveals that paragraphs 23 and 25 are identical with the exception that paragraph 23 references Count III of the Complaint and paragraph 25 references Count I. 23. While it is acknowledged that Count I of Plaintiffs' Complaint refers to allegations pertaining to Dr. Coyle, Count III of Plaintiffs' Complaint refers to allegations of Dr. Hall. Notwithstanding the fact that Count III refers to the alleged acts and/or omissions of Dr. Hall, paragraph 25 specifically references Dr. Coyle as the individual whose acts are alleged to impose liability upon Hospital. 24. Notwithstanding the Plaintiffs' reference to different Counts in paragraphs 23 and 25, both paragraphs allege liability of Hospital due to the acts and/or omissions of Dr. Coyle. 25. Paragraphs 23 and 25 are inconsistent with one another and as such, one of the paragraphs should be stricken. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court strike paragraph 23 or 25 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and further award Defendants all such other relief as is proper and just. McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. BY: C~ B. Craig Black, E Supreme Court I.D. No. 36818 Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. No. 75902 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-3400 Attorneys for Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital Date: 3~5~6 ~ ~~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing Preliminary Objections upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Jack M. Hartman, Esquire Hartman, Osborne & Joyce 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (Counsel for Robert F. Hall, 11, M.D.) McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. BY: B. Craig Black, Es ire Supreme Court I.D. No. 36818 Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. No. 75902 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717)540-3400 Attorneys for Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital Date: 3/8~o z _... _ c~ {`> C, c. ~- s~.~ _ .1' f D. N ~~ , .~~ C .. -i a Si °-` -L MARY E. HEFFLEFINGER , Plaintiff vs. RODGER L. HEFFLEFINGER, Defendant TO THE PROTHONOTARY: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. 01- 5507 CIVIL TERM JUDGMENT ON ARREARAGES PRAECIPE Please mark the judgment entered on the certification of arrears of September 11, 2001, in the amount of $3,315.00 satisfied. Respectfully submitted, SAIDIS,SHUFF,FLOWER & LINDSAY Carol J. Lin say ID #44693 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-243-6222 SAIDIS IRIFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY ATTORNEYS•AT•LAW 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA IleWw~9YWW MARY E. HEFFLEFINGER , Plaintiff vs. RODGER L. HEFFLEFINGER, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. 01 - 5507 CIVIL TERM JUDGMENT ON ARREARAGES CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND now, this t~ day of ~~~`~ , 2002, I, Carol J. Lindsay, Esquire, of the law firm of SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, Attorneys, hereby certify that I served the within Praecipe to Satisfy Judgment this day by depositing same in the United States Mail, First Class, Postage Prepaid, in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed to: Samuel L. Andes, Esquire 525 North 12t" Street P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, PA 17043 SAIDIS SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY 26 W. High Street Carlisle, PA SAIDIS, SHUFF, FLOWER & LINDSAY, P.C. Attorneys for I~laintiff Car J. indsay, Es. ID 93 26 West High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 243-6222 ~~ 7"~ CJ -'~ C; iv ' =i ,~ `C%Q ear _ tlti 7~, ; _ -_ ~;7: l-iJ _ -<<' r_t: .__. ~~, yc ~, ~~ ) C _.Y"~ fV fir'; CG -i '~^/ _._ ~,~~~~_; ~ ~ 4 } i FOUT,KROD fiLLIS Professional Corporation 1800 Linglestown Rd., Suite 305 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorneys for Defendants: Telephone: (717) 213-4200 Sambhu Kundu, M.D. and Fax: (717) 213-4202 George H Jeffries III M D P C JANET L. PRAVE AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NICK THOMAS PRAVE CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION LAW N0. 01-5612 v. , SAMBHU KUNDU, M.D. AND . GEORGE E. JEFFERIES, III, M.D.: Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO FILE A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE T0: PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Kindly file of record the attached Certificate of Service of the Praecipe to Enter Judgment Non Pros. Respectfully submitted, FOULKROD ELLIS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Date: J ~ D By: Aa Jayman, Esquire Atto I.D. No. 85651 } CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE TO ENTER JUDGMENT NON PROS was served upon counsel of record this 11th day of MARCH, 2002, by depositing said copy in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, first class delivery, and addressed as follows: C. Lee Anderson, Esquire Smigel Anderson & Sacks 2917 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 FOULKROD ELLIS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ~ ` t ~~~ By: l Beth E. Forbes, Paralegal __ ~. • ..~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE TO FILE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF THE PRAECIPE TO ENTER JUDGMENT NON PROS was served upon counsel of record this 11th day of March, 2002, by depositing said copy in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, first class delivery, and addressed as follows: C. Lee Anderson, Esquire Smigel Anderson & Sacks 2917 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 FOULKROD ELLIS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION By: ~ . Be h E. Forbes, aralegal ~~ - ~ c ~ ' ~ ~ ~ -_ ~ ~ ~ . _, _> ._ (D ~' ~ ~ '~ } S~ ~: _. i= ~"~7 ~~ -G FS KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, vs. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants No. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' ANSWER TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D. AND CARLISLE HOSPITAL TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW come Plaintiffs, Karen Klett and Gregory Klett, by Robert A. Cohen and Behrend & Ernsberger, their attorneys, and Answer the Preliminary Objections of Defendants Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital to Plaintiffs' Complaint, as follows: 1. The allegations of Paragraph 1 of the Objections are admitted, insofar as Paragraph 1 briefly summarizes the gravamen of various counts of the Complaint. 2. The allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Objections are admitted. 1 ~ R I. 1028(a)(31. The allegations of Paragraph 3 of the Objections require no response, since they simply incorporate Paragraph 1 and 2. 4. The allegations of Paragraph 4 of the Objections require no response, because Pazagraph 4 simply sets forth a conclusion of law. By way of further answer, the Paragraph is admitted, and has been complied with by Plainfiffs' Complaint. The allegations of Paragraph 5 of the Objections aze admitted, as constituting a brief summarization of Count I. 6. The allegations of Paragraph 6 of the Objections are admitted, as quoting Paragraph 12(i) of the Complaint. 7. The allegations of Paragraph 7 of the Objections are denied. On the contrary, 12(i) is specific, is supported by factual allegations elsewhere within the Complaint, and does not fall within the purview of the Conner v. Alle env Hos~tal case, 501 Pa. 306, 461 A.2d 600 (1983). A close reading of 12(i), in the light of Aefendants' Objections, discloses that Defendants do not comprehend 12(i), which refers specifically to subparagraphs 12(a) through 12(h) and states that, in violating those specific subpazagraphs, Defendants have breached their duty of care to the Plaintiff. Paragraph 12(i) does not assert anything new or general, but simply asserts that the standard of care, as set forth in 12(a) through 12(h), was breached, thereby causing injury and damage to the Plaintiffs. 8. The allegations of Pazagraph 8 of the Objections aze admitted. 9. The allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Objections aze admitted. 10. The allegations of Pazagraph 10 of the Objections are denied. Dr. Coyle is addressing issues of testimony rather than averments. These issues will be addressed during the discovery process, which will demonstrate factually whether or not the pleaded "deficiencies" exist. 11. The allegations of Paragraph 11 of the Objections are denied. Dr. Coyle is addressing issues of testimony rather than averments. These issues will be addressed during the discovery process, which will demonstrate factually whether or not the pleaded "deficiencies" exist. 12. The allegations of Paragraph 12 of the Objections are admitted, as describing a Paragraph of the Complaint. Plaintiff further admits that, if Paragraphs 30 and 31 are redundant, one of those Paragraphs should be stricken, such duplication constihrting a typographical error for which Plaintiffs' counsel apologizes. 13. The allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Objections are denied. The "nondeIlegable duty" is to provide professionally competent agents and employees and to properly supervise their work, in accordance with appropriate hospital standards and policies. All of these issues have been properly pleaded and await development via the discovery process. 14. The allegations of Paragraph 14 of the Objections aze denied. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs incorporate their Answer to Pazagraph 13. 15. The allegations of Pazagraph 15 of the Objections are denied. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs incorporate their Answer to Paragraph 13. h WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs' respectfully request that Count I of Defendants' Preliminary Objections should be dismissed. II. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION AND MOTION TO STRII~ FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM FOR WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED (DEMURRERI PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P.1028ta1t31. 16. The allegations of Paragraph 16 of the Objections require no response, since Paragraph 16 simply incorporates previous Paragraphs, to which Plaintiffs have already responded. 17. The allegations of Paragraph 17 of the Objections are admitted. 18. The allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Objections are admitted in part and denied in part. The language which Defendants characterize as "boilerplate", pursuant to Thomason v. Nason Hosaital, 527 Pa. 330, 591 A.2d 703 (1991) refers to averments of fact in this Klett case which describe subject matter which falls within the purview of the doctrine of corporate liability. Since Plaintiffs' Complaint, herein, meets the requirements of the Thomason case, those averments should be permitted to stand. 19. The allegations of Paragraph 19 of the Objections are denied. On the contrary, pertinent averments are set forth in Count V of the Complaint, wherein Plaintiffs assert their claim for breaches of the doctrine of corporate liability. 20. The allegations of Paragraph 20 of the Objections are denied. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs incorporate herein their answer to previous paragraphs of Defendants' Objections. WHEREFORE, Count lI of Defendants' Preliminary Objections should be dismissed. III. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE 21. The allegations of Pazagraph 21 of the Objections require no response, since Paragraph 21 simply incorporates previous Paragraphs, to which Plaintiffs have already responded. 22. The allegations of Paragraph 22 of the Objections are admitted. 23. The allegations of Paragraph 23 of the Objections are admitted. Plaintiffs intend to claim hospital liability because of the negligent and wrongful acts of both Dr. Coyle and Dr. Hall. The intent was to set forth those negligent actions against each of these doctors in separate counts, giving rise to liability on the part of the Hospital because of the negligent and wrongful acts of both. If that intent is not clearly effectuated by the Complaint, because of one or more typographical errors, Plaintiffs request leave to correct their Complaint by striking Pazagraph 23, which is redundant and incorrect. Pazagraph 25 correctly references Dr. Coyle in Count I, whereas the averments of Hospital liability arising from the negligent and wrongful acts of Dr. Hall aze set forth in Paragraph 27. Therefore Paragraph 23 is incorrect, surplusage, and should be stricken. 24. The allegations of Paragraph 24 of the Objections are admitted. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs incorporate herein their answer to Paragraph 23 of the Objections. 25. The allegations of Paragraph 25 of the Objections are admitted. As set forth in answer to Paragraph 23, Paragraph 23 of the Complaint should be stricken. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs concur that Paragraph 23 of the Complaint should be stricken. Respectfully submitted: Robert A. Cohen Pa. I.D. #00467 BEIIREND & ERNSBERGI 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412)391-2515 6 VERIFICATION I, KAREN KLETT, state that the statements made in the foregoing ANSWER TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D. AND CARLISLE HOSPITAL TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This statement and verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. G.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification, to authorities which provides that, if I make knowingly false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. DATE: `~/`~/d ~ ~~ -#" Karen Kl~ett~ .~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, vs. No. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants PROPOSED ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of 2002, it is hereby ORDERED that Pa~•agraph 23 and Paragraph 31 of the Complaint be stricken, as redundant. In all other respects, the Preliminary Objections of Dr. Coyle and Carlisle Hospital are hereby DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: m w; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D. AND CARLISLE HOSPITAL TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT was mailed to the following counsel of record, by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, this 4th day of April, 2002. Jack M Hartman, Esquire Hartman, Osborne & Joyce 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire McKissock & Hoffinan 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Robert A. Cohen # " Y7 C C~J rrir; - ~ ;~ -= ~ ~ , _ cr> ~ , ~ -c; `r ~'~ ~ ~~ f~ ~.~ KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT Plaintiffs v. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D, and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION NO. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AND NOW comes, Defendant, Robert F. Ha11, II, M.D. (hereinafter "Dr. Hall"), by and through his attorneys, Hartman, Osborne & Joyce, P.C., and files this Answer to the Petition to Open Judgment of Non Pros of Plaintiffs as follows: The Judgment of Non Pros was pursued by prior counsel to Dr. Hall and was granted on January 8, 2002. 2. On February 1, 2002, Plaintiff filed a Petition to Open Judgment of Non Pros. 3. Prior counsel for Dr. Hall drafted an Answer to Plaintiffs' Petition to Open Judgment of Non Pros. 4. Undersigned counsel assumed representation of Dr. Hall by filing an Entry of Appearance on February 20, 2002. Prior counsel withdrew his appearance on February 20, 2002. 5. On or about February 27, 2002, Plaintiff filed an Amended Petifion to Open Judgment of Non Pros with essentially the same averments as those found in the original Petition and appropriately addressed by previous counsel's drafted Answer. 6. Accordingly, Dr. Hall hereby incorporates by reference prior counsel's Answer to Plaintiffs' Petition to Open Judgment of Non Pros as if set forth in it entirety herein with the understanding that there may be inconsistency in the numbering of paragraphs. Prior counsel's Answer to Plaintiffs' Petition to Open Judgment of Non Pros is attached hereto. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Robert F. Hall, II, M.D., respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Plaintiffs' Petition to Open Judgment Non Pros. Respectfully submitted, HARTMAN, OSBORNE & JOYCE, P.C. By: , Jack M. Hathnan, Esquire Supreme Court LD. #21902 Cindy L. Nicholson, Esquire Supreme Court LD. #83823 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 717-232-3046 Dated: "~' I~J~I D~ Attorneys for Defendant Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. MICHAEL M. BADOWSK2, ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I.D. No. 32646 SHAUN J. MUMFORD, ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I.D. No. 84176 MARGOLIS I'sDELSTE2N 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 Telephones [7171 975-8114 Fax: [717] 975-8124 E-Mail: mbadowski®margolisedelstein.com Attorneys for Defendant: ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. KAREN KLETT AND GREGORY KLETT, :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :CIVIL ACTION - LAW vs. :NO. 5461 CIVIL TERM 2001 ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, A CORPORATION,: Defendants. :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., TO PLAINTIFFS' PETITION TO OPEN JUDGMENT OF NON PROS AND NOW, comes Defendant, Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. (hereinafter "Dr. Hall"), by and through his counsel, Margolis Edelstein, and files this Answer to the Petition to Open Judgment of Non Pros of Plaintiffs, Karen and Gregory Klett (hereinafter "Plaintiffs"), averring the following in support thereof: 1. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that wife-Plaintiff presented to the Emergency Room at Carlisle Hospital. on June 12, 1997, where she was evaluated by Johnson G. Coyle, M.D., for work-related injuries. As part of the evaluation, x-rays of wife-Plaintiff's cervical spine were taken, which were read by Dr. Hall. Dr. Hall interpreted the x-ray film as showing "no significant abnormalities", but noted a slight reversal of the normal curvature of the mid-cervical spine, as well as some minimal narrowing of the interspace at C5-C6. The remainder of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs' petition are denied. 2. Admitted. It is admitted that Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on January 16, 2002, which sets forth claims against Dr. Hal]_, Dr. Coyle and Carlisle Hospital. However, Plaintiffs' Complaint was filed eight days following the filing of Dr. Hall's Praecipe to Enter Judgment Non Pros, which was granted by this Honorab7_e Court on the same day. 3. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the instant matter was initiated by way of the filing of a Praecipe for Writ of Summons on September 19, 2001. The remainder of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs' petition are denied. 4. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that counsel for Dr. Hall entered their appearance on October 18, 2001, following service of the Writ of Summons upon Dr. Hall. It is also admitted that a Praecipe for Rule to File Complaint was filed on October 18, 2001, such Rule being served on Plaintiffs on October 23, 2001. It is further admitted that Plaintiffs' counsel, by way of letter dated, October 30, 2001, requested a sixty day extension to file a Complaint, which was granted by counsel for Dr. Hall, extending the deadline for Plaintiffs to file a Complaint to January 7, 2002. The remainder of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs' petition are 2 denied. 5. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that on November 19, 2001, counsel for Dr. Hall served and filed a Notice of Intent to Enter Judgment Non Pros, simply as a formality in that, as mentioned above, counsel for Dr. Hall had granted Plaintiffs until January 7, 2002, to file a Complaint. The remainder of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs' petition are denied. 6. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that counsel for Ar. Hall filed a Praecipe to Enter Judgment Non Pros on January 8, 2002, after Plaintiffs failed to file a Complaint within the extension of time granted by Dr. Hall. It is also admitted that this Honorable Court entered a Judgment Non Pros, in favor of Dr. Hall, on the same day. The remainder of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs' petition are denied. 7. Admitted. 8. Denied. Counsel for Dr. Hall contacted Plaintiffs' counsel regarding the Judgment Non Pros by sending Plaintiffs a Notice of Intent to Enter Judgment Non Pros, on November 19, 2001, as required by law, and by informing Plaintiffs' counsel that an extension to file a Complaint was being granted until January 7, 2002. Since Plaintiffs failed to file a Complaint by January 7, 2002, and had been provided with legal notice that Dr. 3 Hall intended to Enter a Judgment Non Pros if a Complaint was not filed by January 7, 2002, this Honorable Court correctly ordered a Judgment Non Pros in favor of Dr. Hall on January 8, 2002. 9. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs` counsel requested that counsel for Dr. Hall voluntarily open the Judgment Non Pros, such request being denied by letter dated January 15, 2002. As stated in the January 15, 2002, letter, Dr. Hall's medical liability carrier, PMSLIC, did not feel it was at liberty to grant Plaintiffs' request to voluntarily open the Judgment Non Pros, because the case would likely be submitted to the CAT Fund as a Section 605 matter due to the facts of the case. The remainder of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs' petition are denied. 10. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on January 16, 2002. Prior to Counts III and IV of Plaintiffs' Complaint, which make claims against Dr. Hall, Plaintiffs have inserted a note acknowledging that any claims against Dr. Hall are excluded from the case due to the Judgment Non Pros in favor of Dr. Hall, and therefore, such claims are effectively pleaded only if the Judgment Non Pros is opened. The remainder of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs' petition are denied. 11. Denied. Plaintiffs filed a Complaint nine (9) days after the sixty (60) day extension granted by Dr. Hall had 4 passed, and therefore, Judgment Non Pros was appropriately entered in favor of Dr. Hall. The remainder of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs' petition are denied. 12. Denied. Dr. Hall is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a basis as to the truth of this averment. 13. Denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Robert F. Hall, II, M.D., respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Plaintiffs' Petition to Open Judgment Non Pros. MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN Date:_ a~l /tlx MICHAEL M. BADOWSKI Pa. Sup. Ct. I.D. #32646 SHAUN J. MUMFORD Pa. Sup. Ct. I.D. #84176 Attorneys for Defendant, ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. 5 .~~ . _ W :,, ~... CE12TiifiC`ATF. [lTi ST.RUi('F. I, Cindy L. Nicholson, Esquire, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, as follows: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (Counsel to Plaintiffs) Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire McKissock & Hoffinan 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 HARTMAN, OSBORNE & JOYCE, P.C. By: - Cindy L. Nicholson, Esquire Supreme Court LD. #83823 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 717-232-3046 Dated: 3 /a 5/ U ~ Attorney for Defendant Robert F. Hall, M.D. ~~) !`.; _.1; ~~ '.. ":-_ - ~`- ; __ __ <'j _.~ -" ~S B~ 11 ' KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT Plaintiffs v. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants f IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION NO. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IEhITRY ~~r ~~J~~A1~1±ic; Please enter the appearance of Hartman, Osborne & Joyce, P.C. on behalf of Defendant Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. in regard to the above-captioned action. Respectfully submitted, HARTMAN, OSBORNE & JOXCE, P,C. By: l~a7Gr~~ Ja .Hartman, Esquire Supreme Court LD. #21902 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 717-232-3046 Dated: ~/ C'/f 07~ Attorneys for Defendant Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. MICHAEL M. BADOWSKI, ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I.D. No. 32646 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 Telephone: [717] 975-8114 Fax: [717] 975-8124 E-Mail: mbadowski6margolisedelstein.com f. y Attorney for Defendant: ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. KAREN KLETT AND GREGORY KLETT, :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :CIVIL ACTION - LAW vs. :NO. 5461 CIVIL TERM 2001 ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, A CORPORATION,: Defendants. :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: Kindly withdraw my appearance on behalf of Defendant, ROBERT F. HALL, M.D., in the above-captioned matter. Date: ,w-~/ Z~,1/l Z By: Attorney for Defendant, ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. CIS, ~ :LCA~I1=t~l:,;~'UTi'1'+'.: I, Jack M. Hartman, Esquire, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, as follows: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (Counsel to Plaintiffs) Kendra McGuire, Esquire Barley, Snyder, Senft & Cohen 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (Counsel to Defendants Carlisle Hospital and Johnson G. Coyle, M.D.) Michael Badowslci, Esquire Margolis Edelstein 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 HARTMAN, OSBORPIE & JOYCE, P.C. J .Hartman, Esquire S preme Court LD. #21902 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 717-232-3046 Dated: ~~/'~~~" Attorney for Defendant Robert F. Hall, M.D. ~° ~. n ~_:. ~_ ~.._ ~, .T; _ _ ~_ _ C _i -. - `.3 _ Q: ~ r': -'~ .D ln~ _'/ 1052997.1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs v. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation, Defendants TO THE PROTHONOTARY: No. 01-5461 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE Kindly withdraw the appearance of Barley, Snyder, Senft & Cohen, LLC, by Kendra D. McGuire, Esquire and Stephanie Carfley, Esquire on behalf of Defendant Carlisle Hospital. Please serve all papers at 126 East King Street, Lancaster, PA 17602. pate: 6 BARLEY,SNYDER,SENFT OHEN,LLC BY: endra D. McGuire, Esquire Attorneys for Defendant Carlisle Hospital 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2832 (717)299-5201 Court LD. No. 50919 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs CIVIL DIVISION NO. 5461 Civil Term 2001 v. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPTIAL, a corporation, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Please enter my appearance on behalf of Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital, in the above-captioned action. Respectfully submitted, McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. By: ~ B. Craig Black, Es ' e Attorney I.D. No. 36818 Edwin A.D. Schwartz Attorney I:D. No. 75902 2040 Linglestown-Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717)540-3400 Date: February 25, 2002 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Lauralee B. Baker, Esquire Margolis Edelstein P.O. Box 932 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (Counsel for Robert F. Hall, 11, M. D.) McKissock & Hoffman, P.C BY: B. Craig Black, E ui~ Supreme Court I.D. No. 36818 Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. No. 75902 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717)540-3400 Attorneys for Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital Date: February 25, 2002 ~~,~, ~` C f - . c -s~ _i; ~ N _- -' r CA ; ~~ Q'~ j , ~, ~~;, :~.~: yCi ~" ~ ~ tv ~i Z ~ in ~ '~ < ~~ -, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, vs. ROBERT F. HAIL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants No. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' PRAECIPE TO WITIIDRAW PETITION TO OPEN JUDGMENT OF NON PROS Plaintiffs hereby withdraw their Petition to Open the Judgment of Non Pros filed on behalf of Robert F. Hall, II, M.D., with prejudice to the Plaintiffs. Respectfiilly submitted: ~~ i~~ ~l /1 ~~ Robert A. Cohen Pa. I.D. #00467 BEHREND & 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 391-2515 _, w _ ;; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW PETITION TO OPEN JUDCzMENT OF NON PROS was mailed to the following counsel of record, by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, this 20th day of May, 2002. Jack M Hartman, Esquire Hartman, Osborne & Joyce 126-12R Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire McKissock & Hof&nan 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 -,~ Robert A. Cohen §J,°JtffiYR-8~1?~P~i's¢~' ~ ~ a~ciegni2'a;4:~tuYtlA'f~l~w:c. ~ :-~.,.z- _ -„am .~~,ar~u~:..~ -~ r.. ~~ ~, ~ -~ ~~ ~ W~ _ fil . ~ ! ._r_ ~ ~ ~ J% l_% ~ ~~ ~~ ~ r, (3'+ =~G ~~/! ~, ~~ PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court. CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, (Plaintiff) vs. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D. and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation, (Defendant) No. 5461 Civil Term 2001 1. State matter to be argued (i.e, plaintiff s motion for new trial, defendant's demurer to complaint, etc.) Preliminary Objections of Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Cazlisle Hospital 2. Identify counsel who will argue case (a) for plaintiff: Robert A. Cohen Address: Behrend & Ernsberger, Union Bank Building, #300, 306 Fourth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (b) for defendant: Jack M Hartman, Esquve Address: Hartman, Osborne & Joyce, 126-128 Walnut Street, Hamsburg, PA 17101 Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire Address: McKissock & Hof&nan, 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 302, Harrisburg, PA 17110 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for azgument Argument Court Date: Dated: Attorney for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECII'E FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT was mailed to the following counsel of record, by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, this 28th day of May, 2002. Jack M Hartman, Esquire Hartman, Osborne- & Joyce 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire McKissock & Hof&nan 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Hamsburg, PA 17110 Robert A. Cohen LLX c~ktG~'EN2~FRii4~3=t3itl2Y~~f`d~S~~Va`5r.~.uk+Wnx. - ~Ii :E9K15,. >•. ._ ~ .. _. ,.~ SM fug J C f`J f t :/ ~ i'~~ , ~ '~ l _: ~: 1 C..~ ~ ~ ~ { '~ }_~. , \_f __ l ~1 [~ •r .FS . _ ~~~ ': ~v~~ APR 2 6 2002 IN THE COURT OF_COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA __ - - CIVIL DIVISION KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, vs. No. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., J013NSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants PLAINTIFFS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION TO OPEN JUDGMENT OF NON PROS AND NOW come Plaintiffs Kazen Klett [hereinafter "Plaintiff'] and Gregory Klett, by Robert A. Cohen and Behrend & Ersberger, their attorneys, and file this Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Petition to Open the Judgment of Non Pros entered on behalf of Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. Statement of Facts and Procedural History Plaintiffs brought this action against Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. [hereinafter "Dr. Hall"], Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. [hereinafter " Dr. Coyle"], and Carlisle Hospital [hereinafter "the Hospital"] arising from the alleged failure of Dr. Hall and Dr. Coyle to diagnose one or more severely damaged intravertebral discs which Plaintiff had suffered several days earlier in an incident which had occurred several days earlier while she was operating atractor-trailer in the Southwestern part of the United States, and she was required to take sudden evasive action to avoid a collision, thereby wrenching her neck and shoulders. Between the time of the incident and Plaintiff s appeazance at the Hospital, she had attempted to work, but her pain and limitation of motion became increasingly severe, and her employer referred her to the Emergency Room at the Hospital. Dr. Hall, who was an employee of the Hospital, took X-Rays, which he reported as demonstrating no bony injury or disc involvement; he did not recommend any additional follow-up or definitive studies. Dr. Coyle examined Plaintiff in the Emergency Room, and diagnosed only soft tissue injuries. He prescribed care and treatment which would have been appropriate for such injuries, but which failed to address Plaintiff s real problem. Plaintiff thereupon continued to work for a period of time, but because of increasing pain, limitation of motion, and other symptomatology, Plaintiff finally sought care and treatment from physicians in the Altoona area, who performed testing and found the problem, and Plaintiff was referred to William Welch, M.D., a neurosurgeon in Pittsburgh, who performed corrective surgery. Dr. Welch's surgery considerably alleviated Plaintiff's problems, but her residuals are much more serious and permanent than if she had been correctly diagnosed and treated in the first instance. Because of the imminent expiration of the two year Statute of Limitations, taking into account the operation of the Discovery Rule, Plaintiffs instituted this action by the filing of a Summons. Service was made upon the Defendants, in order to perfect the tolling of the Statute. Respective counsel then entered Appearances on behalf of the Defendants. Michael Badowski, Esquire of Margolis Edelstein, entered an Appearance for Dr. Hall, and Kendra D. McGuire, Esquire and Stephenie Carfley, Esquire, Barley, Snyder, Senft & Cohen, entered Appearances on behalf of Dr. Coyle and the Hospital. Defense counsel then ruled Plaintiffs to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days of the service of the Rule, and Plaintiffs' attorney, the undersigned, then contacted defense counsel for an extension of time within which to file the Complaint, because counsel had not yet obtained all of the medical records, reports, and test results required for expert review in order to determine whether or not the case was meritorious.' Defense counsel then granted extensions, both expiring at approximately the same time, although the extension granted by Dr. Hall's counsel expired on January 7, 2002, and the extension granted by counsel for the Hospital and Dr. Coyle expired a few days later. However Dr. Hall's counsel, simultaneously with granting the extension, also served the 10 Day Notice upon Plaintiffs' attorney, rather than deferring the filing and service of the 10 Day Notice until the extension of time had expired. On January 9, 2002, after receiving the 10 Day Notice from counsel for Dr. Coyle and the Hospital, Plaintiffs' counsel, assuming that Dr. Hall's attorneys would abide by the same time frame as that arranged with Dr. Coyle and the Hospital, contacted Dr. Hall's attorneys to let them know that a Complaint would be filed timely within 10 days from the deadline set by the attorneys for Dr. Coyle and the Hospital. Later that day, Plaintiffs' counsel received a Notice that a Judgment of Non Pros had already been ~ This situation was explained by letters from Plaintiffs' counsel to the proposed Defendants dated September 14, 2001, prior to the filing of the Summons. See Exhibit "A" attached to the Petition to Open Judgment of Non Pros. entered, only one day after the expiration of the deadline, i.e., on January 8, 2002, and counsel for Dr. Hall so informed Plaintiffs' attomey. Previously, the attorneys for Dr. Hall had served Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on Plaintiffs' counsel. That discovery was responded to in timely fashion, and the attorneys for Dr. Hall had the benefits thereof. Dr. Hall's attorneys did not contact Plaintiffs' counsel by telephone or otherwise prior to entering the Judgment of Non Pros only one day after the agreed extension had expired, but simply went ahead and entered the Non Pros. Plaintiffs' attorney immediately requested of Dr. Hall's attorney that the Judgment of Non Pros be voluntarily opened, so that a Complaint could be prepazed and filed against all Defendants. Dr. Hall's counsel took the matter under advisement and subsequently responded by letter dated January 15, 2002, which was not received by the undersigned until January 19, 2002,2 that Dr. Hall's carrier refused to open the Judgment of Non Pros, the primary stated reason being that the case was likely to be submitted to the CAT Fund as a Section 605 matter, by virtue of the age of the alleged incident. A copy of the letter from Michael Badowski, Esquire to Plaintiffs' counsel dated January 15, 2002 is attached to the Petition to Open Judgment of Non Pros as Exhibit "B". Plaintiffs' counsel then filed the Complaint within the time period agreed upon with Dr. Coyle and the Hospital, including averments against Dr. Hall which are stated to z We recognize that, had we proceeded to file [his Petition to Open the Judgment of Non Pros within ten (l o) days from the entry thereof, the judgment would be opened, because the Complaint sets forth a meritorious cause of action, pursuant to Rule 237.3(b). However, Plaintiffs' counsel alternatively relied upon the good grace and professionalism of defense counsel by seeking the voluntary vacation of the non pros, and by the time Dr. Hall's counsel responded negatively, the ten (10) day period had already expired. be appropriately set forth if and only if the judgment of Non Pros entered in favor of Dr: Hall and against the Plaintiffs, is opened by this Honorable Court. As predicted by Attorney Badowski in his letter of January 15, 2002, attached to Plaintiffs' Petition to Open Judgment of Non Pros, after some period of time original counsel were replaced by attorneys representing the CAT Fund. Attomey Badowski and his firm have been replaced by Jack M. Hartman, Esquire, Hartman, Osborne & Joyce, and Attorneys McGuire and Carfley, and their firm, have been replaced by Edwin A.D. Schwartz, McKissock and Hoffinan, for Dr. Coyle and the Hospital. Responsive pleadings have been filed on an agreed-upon delayed basis, and Attorney Schwartz has now filed Preliminary Objections to the Complaint, to which Plaintiffs have responded, which Objections will also be argued before this Honorable Court. When Attorney Harhnan, on behalf of Dr. Hall, responded to Plaintiffs' Amended Petition to Open the Judgment of Non Pros, he did not add anything additional but simply incorporated Attorney Badowski's Answer to the original Petition. The matter is now before this Honorable Court for determination. _ - Question Presented 1. Have Plaintiffs established reasonable entitlement to the opening of the Judgment of Non Pros which had been entered against them by Dr. Hall? Argument I. PLAINTIFFS HAVE SATISFIED THE THREE PRONG TEST WHICH MAY ENTITLE THEM TO THE EXERCISE OF FAVORABLE DISCRETION IN OPENING THE JUDGMENT OF NON PROS: A. PROMPTLY FILING A PETITION TO OPEN; B. PRESENTING A REASONABLE EXPLANATION OR EXCUSE FOR THE DEFAULT OR DELAY; AND C. ESTABLISHING SUFFICIENT FACTS TO SUPPORT A CAUSE OF ACTION In considering whether or not a Judgment of Non Pros should be opened, this Honorable Court should consider the following criteria: A request to open a judgment of non pros is by way of grace and not of right and its grant or refusal is peculiazly a matter for the [trial] court's discretion. Before a petition to open a judgment of non pros may be granted, the moving party must 1) promptly file a petition to open, 2) present a reasonable explanation or excuse for the default or delay that precipitated the non pros, and 3) establish that there are sufficient facts to support a cause of action. MacKintosh-Hemphill Intern, Inc. v. Gulf & Western, Inc., 451 Pa.Super. 385, 679 A.2d 1275, 1278-79 (1996), appeal denied, 548 Pa. 637, 694 A.2d 622 (1997), cited in Kruis v. McKenna, 790 A.2d 322 (Pa. Super. 2001). Considering the foregoing requisites, subpart 3, the establishment of a meritorious cause of action, is satisfied by the Complaint which was attached to the Petition to Open, and which sets forth proposed averments setting forth a cause of action against Dr. Hall, should this Honorable Court, in its discretion, permit the Judgment of Non Pros to be opened. 6 If Plaintiffs' counsel had filed Petition to Open within ten (10) days from the date of entty of the Non. Pros, which could have been readily accomplished, the mere filing of the Complaint would have been sufficient to accomplish opening the judgment, and Plaintiffs' counsel would not have been required to argue the first two prongs of the right to relief, (1) prompt action, and (2) a reasonable excuse, pursuant to the provisions of Rule 237.3(b)> Pa. R.C.P. Instead, Plaintiffs' counsel acted promptly, but in a different direction, by contacting Dr. Hall's attorney and asking him whether or not he would consent to opening of the Judgment of Non Pros. By the time Attorney Badowski's reply had been received, the ten (10) day grace period had already expired. Plaintiffs' counsel filed the Petition to Open the Judgment of Non Pros promptly thereafter. Initially, counsel for Dr. Hall may not have been entitled to enter the Judgment of Non Pros as early as January 8, 2002, only one day after the agreement with Plaintiffs' attorney that the Complaint should be filed by January 7, 2002 had elapsed. The Ten (10) Day Notice was sent during that agreed-upon extension rather than thereafter, which may have violated the letter and spirit of Rule 237.1(a)(2)(i), which appears to indicate that the Ten (10) Day Notice should apply following the last date of the agreement, rather than taking place within the extension, thereby extending the time for filing to January 17, 2002. The very recent case of Kruis v. McKenna, 790 A.2d 322 (Pa. Super. 2001) sets forth-the requirements which must be met before a Judgment of Non Pms should be set aside.3 _ _ We respectfully urge that the actions of Plaintiffs' counsel satisfy the test of (a) prompt filing, and (b) providing a reasonable excuse. Counsel contacted the attorney for Dr. Hail only one day after the Non Pros was entered, simply to verify that the extension of time agreed upon between counsel and attorneys for the Hospital and Dr. Croyle would also be understood to apply to Dr. Hall, and counsel was surprised to learn that the Non Pros had been entered the day before, only one day after the agreed upon extension had elapsed. Counsel for Dr. Hall did not telephone Plaintiffs' attorney regazding his intention to enter the Judgment of Non Pros despite the fact that an additional few days had been granted by attorneys for the other Defendants in the case, and Plaintiffs had responded timely to Interrogatories that had been served upon them by Dr. Hall's attorneys.4 Plaintiffs' counsel then sought an agreement from Dr. Hall's attorneys that a Judgment of Non Pros could be opened, relying on principles o€ courtesy and professionalism, Dr. Hall's attorneys did not respond negatively until January 19, 2002. This Petition to Open was filed promptly thereaRer. Attorney Badowslci's letter stating his refusal to agree to the opening of the ' In this Kruis case, a Judgment of Non Pros was entered for failure of the Plaintiff to attend a Pretrial Conference pursuant to Pennsylvania R.C.P. 218(a). The Superior Court affnned the action of the trial court in refusing to open the Judgment of Non Pros, stating that under the circumstances of the Kruis case, the Petition for Relief is controlled by Bute 3051 alone, whereas if a Judgment of Non Pros is entered by the Prothonotary pursuant to Rules ] 037(a) or 1659 for the failure of the Plaintiffs to file a Complaint, then Rule 3051 and 237.3 govern the Petition for Relief. Kris 322 A.2d at 326. ° In addition, as previously stated, Plaintiffs did not have the benefit of the Ten (10) Day Notice following the expiration of the agreed upon extension. 3udgment of Non Pros was based on the stated reason that the defense of the case would be taken over by the CAT Fund, which would appotrtt new attorneys. VVe submit that this delay in establishing representation €or all of the Defendants demonstrates a lack of prejudice to any of the De€endants by virEue of the requested opening of the Judgment of Non Pros, since some period of time was required to elapse before insurance counsel was replaced by CAT Fund counsel and the matter was essentially "on hold" during that period of time.5 New counsel aze now in place, and the case is presently proceeding on the pleadings as to the other Defendants. Dr. Hall's continuing presence in the ease, based upon averments tentatively proposed, subject to the approval of this Honorable Court, would enable Plaintiffs to establish legal responsibility, if any, against each of the Defendants, for the damages sustained, should the fact finder so decide. We have not procrastinated, and Defendants have suffered no prejudice by the delay encountered by Plaintiffs in filing the Complaint, which had been necessitated by the necessity of obtaining all perEinent medical records and test results and having them reviewed by an expert in order to establish potential merit. We respectfully request that this Honorable Court exercise its discretion favorably and grant Plaintiffs' Petition to Open the Judgment of Non Pros which had been entered in favor of Dr. Hall and against the Plaintiffs. 9 e When new CAT Fund counsel entered an Appearance on behalf of Dc Croyle and the Hospital, those attorneys requested an extension of 45 days within which to respond to the Complaint, which extensiou Plaintiffs' attorney readily granted, and CAT Fund counsel expressed appreciation for that courtesy. - Respectfully submitted: Robert A. Cohen Pa. I.D. #00467 BEHREND & 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 391-2515 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PETITION TO OPEN JUDGMENT OF NON PROS was mailed to the following counsel of record, by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, this 23rd day of April, 2002. Jack M Hartman, Esquire Hartman, Osborne & Joyce 126-128 Walnut Street Hamsburg, PA 17101 Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire McKissock & Hoffman 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 ~_(~~_ Robert A. Cohen 22. Karen Klett and Gregory Klett V IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Robert F. Hall, II, M.D., Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. NO. 01-5461 CIVIL TERM and Carlisle Hospital, a Corporation ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, July 24, 2002, by agreement of counsel, the above-captioned matter is continued from the July 24, 2002 Argument Court list. Counsel is directed to relist the case when ready. By the Court, /kobert A. Cohen, Esquire For the Plaintiff ack M. Hartman, Esquire ~.'dwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire For the Defendant Court Administrator Ge g ei .. C°~'°~r1°"~'.~ ras-oz ~ RAJ ld ~~. -r PRAECII'E FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO TH@ PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court. CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in KAREN KLETT and GREGORY I{L,ETT, (Plaintiff) vs. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D. and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation, (Defendant) No. 5461 Civil Term 2001 State matter to be azgued (i.e., plaintiff s motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.) Preliminary Objections of Johnson G. Coyle, M.D, and Carlisle Hospital 2. Identify counsel who will azgue case (a) for plaintiff: Robert A. Cohen Address: Behrend & Ernsberger, Union Bank Building, #300, 306 Fourth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (b) for defendant: Jack M Hartman, Esquire Address: Hartman, Osborne & Joyce, 126-128 Walnut Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101 Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire Address: McKissock & Hoffman, 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 302, Hamsburg, PA 17110 I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for azgument d Argument Court Date: August 28, 2002 Dated: August 6, 2002 ~-' Attorney for Plaintiff ~'~r' . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT was mailed to the following counsel of record, by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, this 6th day of August, 2002. Jack M Hatlmazi, Esquire Hartman, Osborne & Joyce 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire McKissock & Hoffman 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 ~~ Robert A. Cohen -~ ,,,~°^ ~ ; o ~ .. , ~. _{ m n ~ ;'„r => T: _, h ~_ ~ ~ ~ .;' Gay- ~7 ;, '- . ' 7y ,~...., ._... T, __ ~ t ~- <_ ~~i ~ %'C ti` ~' ~{ ~ 4~ -G t!J ©~~ Y KAREN KLETT AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF GREGORY KLETT, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFFS V ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D. AND CARLISLE HOSPITAL, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS 01-5461 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D. AND CARLISLE HOSPITAL TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE BAYLEY. J. AND HESS. J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 'O~l~---- day of September, 2002, IT IS ORDERED: Q1) Paragraph 23 of plaintiffs' complaint, IS STRICKEN. Q2) All other preliminary objections of defendants Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital to plaintiffs' complaint, ARE DISMISSED. Robert A. Cohen, Esquire For Plaintiffs Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire For Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital Jack M. Hartman, Esquire For Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. Vi"a" 9-l~~P~o~ :saa il.4itl lV~ri~ ~''~' 1'.'1.,.~~~2 ~~ l4/ U ~cv~ ;:~.- -ri1 ~C? `~; ,~ iu ~ Fi;+-C?~l i~~ ., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs CIVIL DIVISION NO. 5461 Civil Term 2001 v. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPTIAL, a corporation, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD To: Karen & Gregory Klett, Plaintiffs c/o Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed Answer and New Matter pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1030 within 20 days from service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. AND NOW, comes Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "Answering Defendants"), by and through its counsel, McKissock & Hoffman, P.C, and respectfully files the foregoing Answer and New Matter in response to Plaintiffs' Complaint and as such, provides as follows: FIRST COUNT Karen Klett v. Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. 1. Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the averments contained in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and as such, strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Admitted in part, denied part. It is admitted that Defendant, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D., is a medical doctor duly authorized and licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The remaining averments of Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, Dr. Coyle no longer is actually engaged in the practice of emergency medicine. 3. To the extent that the averments contained in Paragraph 3 refers to individuals other than Answering Defendants and as such, no response is provided. 4. To the extent that the averments contained in Paragraph 4 refers to individuals other than Answering Defendants, no response is provided. The averments contained in Paragraph 4 as they relate Answering Defendants are conclusions of law to which no response is required. If it is later judicially determined that a response is required, the averments contained in Paragraph 4 as they relate to Answering Defendants are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 5. Admitted. By way of further response, Carlisle Hospital is now known as Carlisle Health Sen~ices Corporation and the Carlisle Area Health and Wel{ness Foundation no longer operates a health care facility. 6. The averments contained in Paragraph 6 represent conclusions of law to which no response is required. If it is laterjudicially determined the averments contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, at all times relevant hereto, Carlisle Hospital provided care and treatment to Plaintiff, Karen Klett, in conformance with the applicable standard of care charged to hospitals in the Commonwealth. 7. Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the factual averments set forth in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and as such, these averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 8. Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the factual averments set forth in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and as such, these averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 9. To the extent the averments contained in Paragraph 9 are consistent with the medical records maintained in the ordinary course of business by Carlisle Hospital, such averments are admitted. To the extent the averments contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are inconsistent with the medical records maintained in the ordinary course of business by Carlisle Hospital, such averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, any and all actions of Defendant, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D., relative to his care and treatment of Plaintiff, Karen Klett, were in compliance with the standard of care charged to emergency room physicians acting in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 10. Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the factual averments set forth in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and as such, these averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 11. Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the factual averments set forth in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and as such, these averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response to the extent the averments contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs' Complaint represent conclusions of law, no response is required. If it is later judicially determined that any portions of the averments contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs' Complaint require a response, such portions of the averments contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 12(a -i). The averments contained in Paragraph 12, and all subparagraphs thereunder, represent conclusions of law to which no response is required. If it is laterjudicially determined that a response is so required, the averments contained in Paragraph 12, and all subparagraphs thereunder, are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 13. The averments contained in Paragraph 13 represent conclusions of law to which no response is required. If it is later judicially determined that a response is so required, the averments contained in Paragraph 13 are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 14. Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the averments contained in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and as such, the averments contained in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 15. The averments contained in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs' Complaint represent conclusions of law to which no response is required. If it is later judicially determined that a response is so required, the averments contained in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are Specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice and further grant Defendants all such further relief as is proper and just. SECOND COUNT Gregory Klett v. Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. 16. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 15 as set forth above as if more fully set forth herein. 17. Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the averments contained in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and as such, these averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response to the extent any averments or inferences garnered therefrom as set forth in Paragraph '17 of Plaintiffs' Complaint represent conclusions of law, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice and further grant Defendants all such further relief as is proper and just. THIRD COUNT/FOURTH COUNT Karen Klett v. Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. Gregory Klett v. Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. 18-20. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 18 through 20, inclusive, of Plaintiffs' Complaint refer to individuals other than Answering Defendants and as such, now response is required. FIFTH COUNT Karen Klett v. Carlisle Hospital 21. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 20 as set forth above as if more fully set forth herein. 22. The averments contained in Paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs' Complaint represent conclusions of law to which no response is required. If it is later judicially determined that a response is so required, the averments wntained in Paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 23. Paragraph 23 has been stricken by Order of Court dated September 4, 2002 and as such, no response is required. 24. The averments contained in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs' Complaint represent conclusions of law to which no response is required. If it is later judicially determined that a response is so required, the averments contained in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 25. The averments contained in Paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs' Complaint represent conclusions of law to which no response is required. If it is later judicially determined that a response is so required, the averments contained in Paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 26-29. The averments contained in Paragraphs 26 through 29, inclusive, address actions of individuals other than Answering Defendants and as such, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, all such averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 30. To the extent the averments contained in Paragraph 30 refer to actions and/or omissions of individuals other than Answering Defendants, no response is provided. By way of further response, the averments contained in Paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as they pertain to Answering Defendants represent conclusions of law to which no response is required. If it is later judicially determined that response is so required, the averments contained in Paragraph 30 as they pertain to Answering Defendants are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 31. To the extent the averments contained in Paragraph 31 refer to actions and/or omissions of individuals other than Answering Defendants, no response is provided. By way of further response, the averments contained in Paragraph 31 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as they pertain to Answering Defendants represent conclusions of law to which no response is required. If it is later judicially determined that response is so required, the averments contained in Paragraph 31 as they pertain to Answering Defendants are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice and further grant Defendants all such further relief as is proper and just. SIXTH COUNT Gregory Klett v. Carlisle Hospital 32. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 31 as set forth above as if more fully set forth herein. 33. The averment contained in Paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs' Complaint represents an incorporation clause to which no response is required. If it is later judicially determined that a response is required, all averments contained in Paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs' Complaint together with the incorporated references therein, are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice and further grant Defendants all such further relief as is proper and just. NEW MATTER 34. Paragraphs 1 through 33, inclusive, of Answering Defendants' Answers are incorporated herein as if more fully set forth at length. 35. To the extent that future discovery may implicate, Plaintiffs' claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations. 36. Plaintiffs' injuries and losses, if any, were caused in whole or in part by persons or events outside the control of Answering Defendants. 37. Plaintiffs' injuries and losses, if any, were caused in whole or in part by persons not a party to the within action. 38. Plaintiffs' injuries and losses, if any, were sustained as a result of natural and unknown causes and not related to any actions or omissions of Answering Defendants. 39. At all times relevant hereto, Answering Defendants rendered care in an appropriate manner, within the standard of care applicable thereto and in compliance with all statutes, rules, regulations, protocols and/or procedures applicable thereto. 40. Any acts and/or omissions of Answering Defendants were and are not the proximate cause or a substantial factor giving rise to Plaintiffs' injuries andlor damages. 41. To the extent that Answering Defendants elected a treatment modality which is recognized as proper but may differ from other appropriate treatment modalities, Answering Defendants hereby invoke the two schools of thought doctrine. 42. Plaintiffs' may have entered into a release agreement with other individuals or entities which has the effect of discharging any and all liability of Answering Defendants. 43. Plaintiffs' have failed to state a claim against Answering Defendants upon which relief may be granted. 44. All claims and causes of action pleaded against Answering Defendants are barred by the Plaintiffs' knowing and voluntary informed consent to the care in question. 45. Plaintiffs' claims, if any, are barred and/or limited by the doctrines of comparative and/or contributory negligence. 46. To the extent that subsequent discovery may implicate, Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited because of the conduct of Plaintiff, Karen Klett, under the doctrine of assumption of risk. 47. Plaintiffs' injuries and damages, if any, are barred or limited due to the Plaintiffs' failure to exercise due care and/or follow instructions. 48. Plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any, (the existence of which are expressly denied) are the result of supervening and intervening events over which Answering Defendants had no control or no right of control 49. If there is a judicial determination at Pa.R.C.P. 238 is constitutional, with said constitutionality being expressly challenged as in violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14"' Amendment of the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Article I, § 1, 6, 11, 25; and Article V, §10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, then any and all liability for interest imposed by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure should be suspended during any such period of time that Plaintiffs: (a) tailed to convey to Answering Defendants a settlement figure; (b) delayed in responding to any Interrogatories as properly served; (c) delayed in responding to any Requests for Production of Documents and/or things as properly served; (d) delayed in producing Plaintiffs for deposition following proper service of Notice of Deposition upon Plaintiffs and/or their counsel; (e) delayed in producing Plaintiffs four physical examination upon proper notice; or (f) delayed in any other manner relating to discovery requests properly made by Answering Defendants. 50. Inasmuch as the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 1032, provides that a party waives all defenses not presented by way of new matter, Answering Defendants, upon advice of counsel hereby asserts all affirmative defenses as set forth in Pa.R.C.P. 1030 with those defenses to .include, in addition to the defenses as already enumerated above, of assumption of risk, consent, contributory negligence, discharge and bankruptcy, estoppel, failure of consideration, fair comment, illegality, immunity from suit, impossibility of performance, justification, latches, license, payment, privilege, release, statute of limitations, truth and waiver, with all these said affirmative defenses being subject to demonstration during discovery process and proof thereof, if relevant, at the time of trial. Respectfully submitted, McKissock & H man, P.C. By: Edwin A. D. Schwart wire Supreme Ct. I.D. #75902 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-3400 Date: la~a~o z Attorneys for Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital OCT -09-2002 WE:D 10;13 AM CAHWF FAX N0. 7179609992 p, 02 10/84/2802 19:45 7t~2431050 t~JO ,+ PA(~ 03/83 VEl31FICATlOA1 {, Larry R. Frasaplman, hereby verthes that the statements in Defendants Answers and New Metier W PhaintiffS' Complaint are irua and correct to the best of my Infarmat'wn, knowledge erld belief. 1 understand that the t;tatemanta are made SubJed t0 the penalties of PA.C.5. Section 4804, relating to the unewom falslfl~atlon to authorities. ~' arty R. F Selman, Spedal Consultan-'~~'~t'~ --~~~ Dated;_ ~ 0 ~ tJ Z- OCT-09-02 WED 10:08 AM FHOM;7179609992 TO;MCKISSOCK HOFFMAN PAGE 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing Defendants Answers and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Mc~Kissoc~k & Hoffman, P.C. Edwin A.D. Sch rtz squire Supreme Gt. I.D. #75902 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-3400 Date: /a~ia ~ Attorneys for Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital n ~~ n -f r_. r -, , ~-~ __ -~„ ... - f ,.• -¢~ - l 1 .~ _ _ ~ , ~ `iJ ~ ~._ { ~r ~~ !N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs CIVIL DIVISION NO. 5461 Civil Term 2001 v. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPTIAL, a corporation, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO ATTACH VE621FiCAT90N To the Prothonotary: Please attach the enclosed Verification to the Answer and Matter of Defendants previously filed in the above-referenced matter. Respectfully submitted, McKissock 8S, Hoffman, P.C. Date: o > a By:, Edwin A.D. Sc , E Supreme Ct. I.D. 0 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-3400 Attorneys for Defendants, Johnson- G. Coyie, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital VERIFICATION I, .lohnson G. Coyle, M.D., hereby verifies that the statements in Defendants Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that the statements are made subject to the penalties of PA.C.S. Section 4904, relating to the unsworn falsification to authorities. Johns n G. Coyle, Dated: ~ o ~ '~ ~~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Attach Verification upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. By: Edwin A.D. Schw z, Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. 02 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-3400 Date: ib a Attorneys for Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital c:• ~~ ~ ; ~, _ ~, U. fTJ ~i~l. _~`~ __ 7 ~ ~ „ GT3 < ~~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, vs. No. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D. AND CARLISLE HOSPITAL AND NOW come Plaintiffs, Karen Klett and Gregory Klett, by Robert A. Cohen and Behrend & Ernsberger, their attorneys, and Regly to the New Matter of Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital as follows: I. Plaintiff are informed and believe that they need make no response to Paragraph 34 of the New Matter, since that Paragraph simply incorporates Paragraphs of the Answer. 2. The allegations of Paragraph 35 of the New Matter aze denied. On the contrary, Plaintiffs' claims are not barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable Statute of Limitations. 3. The allegations of Paragraph 36 of the New Matter are denied. On the contrary, Plaintiff's injuries and losses were caused by events within the control of answering Defendants, and Plaintiffs claim herein those losses which were caused by the negligence and wrongful acts of the answering Defendants. By way of further answer, Plaintiff incorporate pertinent paragraphs of the Complaint as though the said pazagraphs are set forth herein in full. 4. The allegations of Paragraph 37 of the New Matter are denied. On the contrary, Plaintiff s injuries and losses were not caused by events within the control of persons not a party to the this action, and Plaintiffs claim herein those losses which were caused by the negligence and wrongful acts of the answering Defendants. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs incorporate pertinent paragraphs of the Complaint as though the said pazagraphs were are set forth herein in full. 5. The allegations of Paragraph 38 of the New Matter are denied. On the contrary, Plaintiffs' losses were sustained as a result of negligent acts and/or omissions of answering Defendants, and not as a result of natural and unloiown causes, and Plaintiffs' claim compensation therefor. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs incorporate pertinent paragraphs of the Complaint as though the said paragraphs aze set forth herein in full. 6. The allegations of Paragraph 39 of the New Matter aze denied. The said Pazagraph 39 is a response rather than an affirmative defense. Nevertheless, Plainfiffs claim herein those injuries and losses resulting from negligent act and/or omissions on the part of the answering Defendants which constitute a deviation from proper standards of 2 ., caze.:By way of further answer, Plaintiffs incorporate pertinent paragraphs of the Complaint as though the said paragraphs are set forth herein in full. The allegations of Paragraph 40 of the New Matter are denied. On the contruy, Paragraph 40 is simply a response and not an affirmative defense. By way of further answer, the negligence and wrongful acts of the answering Defendants were and are the proximate cause or a substantial factor of the injuries and damages claimed by Plaintiffs, and compensation is requested therefor. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs incorporate pertinent paragraphs of the Complaint as though the said paragraphs are set forth herein in full. The allegations of Paragraph 41 of the New Matter are denied. On the contrary, the two schools of thought doctrine is not applicable to the facts in this case. Plaintiffs claim herein injuries and damages not arising from a recognized mode of treatment but arising from negligent deviations from proper standards of professional practice. 9. The allegations of Paragraph 42 of the New Matter are denied. On the contrary, Plaintiffs have entered into no release agreement whatsoever and hence no document has the effect of dischazging any or all liability of answering Defendants, who remain liable for their negligent and wrongful acts. 10. The allegations of Paragraph 43 of the New Matter aze denied. On the contrary, Plaintiffs have stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs incorporate pertinent paragraphs of the Complaint as though the said paragraphs are set forth herein in full. _ _ ~, ., 11. The allegations of Pazagraph 44 of the New Matter aze denied. On the contrary, Plaintiff did not knowingly and voluntarily consent to negligent and improper caze, and the doctrine of informed consent is not applicable to the facts in this case. 12. The allegations of Pazagraph 45 of the New Matter aze denied. On the contrary, Plaintiff was neither comparatively nor contributorily negligent in any degree whatsoever. 13. The allegations of Paragraph 46 of the New Matter aze denied. On the contrary, Plaintiff did not assume any risk of injury whatsoever. 14. The allegations of Paragraph 47 of the New Matter are denied. On the contrary, Plaintiff exercised due care and followed the instructions of her treating physicians. 15. The allegations of Paragraph 48 of the New Matter are denied. Plaintiff's injuries and damages are the result of the negligence and wrongful acts of the answering Defendants, and not the result of supervening and/or intervening events over which the answering Defendants had no control or no right of control. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs incorporate pertinent paragraphs of the Complaint as though the said pazagraphs are set forth herein in full. 16. The allegations of Pazagraph 49 of the New Matter aze denied. Plaintiffs have attempted to respond to discovery requests expeditiously, and no actions or inactions on the part of the Plaintiffs have served to unduly delay this litigation. Therefore Plaintiffs should suffer no penalties by withholding the applicability of Rule 238 when the time comes to compute delay damages. 17. The allegations of Paragraph 50 of the New Matter aze denied. On the contrary, none of the defenses raised ni Paragraph 50 are applicable to the facts in the case. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants as prayed for in Plaintiffs' Complaint. ~.1\ Robert A. Cohen Pa. I.D. #00467 BEHI~EPi)) ~r ERNSBERGER 306 FpurUi t~venue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, Pt# 15222 (412) 391-2~J5 VERIFICATION I, KAREN KLETT, state that the statements made in the foregoing REPLY TO NEW MATTER are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This statement and verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unswom falsification, to authorities which provides that, if I make knowingly false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. DATE: ///~~~ z ul~~ - I~ar n Klett _ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D. AND CARLISLE HOSPITAL was mailed to the :Following counsel of record, by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, this 6th day of November, 2002. Jack M Hartman, Esquire Hartman, Osborne & Joyce 126-12,8 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire McKissock & Hoffinan 2040 L,inglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Robert A. Cohen b1F.Y f i 1!6.?':Z:i~ t ~. -,_ JT --~.vzt. «. r~~ro. ~~ ` [.) ~ s -~ U. ;; f v ~~ - _,_ '`~~ :~ _'~ =; - <~ -< ~~ JAN 0 6 2003 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT Plaintiffs CIVIL DIVISION NO. 5461 Civil Term 2001 v. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPTIAL, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~~ day of .o.... 2003, upon consideration of Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital's Motion to Compel Discovery, it is hereby ORDERED that (1) A Rule is issued upon Plaintiffs to show cause why Defendants are not entitled to the relief as requested: (2) Plaintiffs shall file an Answer to the Motion within ?Q days of dais-date: sv~~~ . (3) Notice of entry of this Order shall be provided to all parties by counsel for Defendants. BY THE COURT: ~~ J. G L f '"a7f~a'~Y .i1vYLt~r,;,n~;f, ~'~ :, ~~ s, ,~ ~~ ~y n IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs CIVIL DIVISION NO. 5461 Civil Term 2001 v. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPTIAL, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of , 2003, upon consideration of Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M. D. and Carlisle Hospital's Motion to Compel Discovery, it is hereby ORDERED that the Plaintiffs are granted days to serve full and complete answers to Defendants' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. In the event Plaintiffs do not provide full and complete answers to Defendants' discovery within time as set forth in this Order, Plaintiffs will be precluded from presenting any evidence regarding the information sought through Defendants' discovery. By the Court: J. • t McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. By: Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire I.D. 75902 2040 Lingiestown Road, Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-3400 Attorneys for Defendants, JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPTIAL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs CIVIL DIVISION NO. 5461 Civil Term 2001 v. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPTIAL, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AND NOW, come Defendants Johnson G. Coyle, M.D., and Carlisle Hospita{, by and through their attorneys, McKissock & Hoffman, P.C., and file the foregoing Motion to Compel Discovery in the above-referenced matter, and as such, provides as follows: 1. On or about September 21, 2001, Plaintiffs Karen and Gregory Klett commenced an action against Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. (hereinafter "Dr. Coyle"); Robert F. Hall, M.D. (hereinafter "Dr. Hall"); and Carlisle Hospital (hereinafter "Hospital"). On or about January 16, 2002, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against above Defendants setting forth various allegations of professional negligence, vicarious liability and corporate liability. 2. On March 12, 2002, Defendants Coyle and Hospital filed Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint. ~ ~ • 1 3. Following the Order of the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley dated September 4, 2002, Defendants Coyle and Hospital filed their Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint on October 1'I, 2002. 4. On or about November 6, 2002, Plaintiffs filed a Reply to New Matter thereby closing the pleadings in this case. 5. On or about July 16, 2002 Plaintiffs were served with: Defendant Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiffs (hereinafter "Interrogatories"); and Defendant Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital First Set of Request Addressed to Plaintiffs (hereinafter "Request for Documents"). True and correct copies of Defendants' Interrogatories and Request for Documents are attached hereto and made part hereof respectively as Exhibits "A" and "B". 6. Plaintiffs' failed to respond to Defendants' Interrogatories and Request for Documents within the time frame set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 7. On or about November 19, 2002 counsel for Defendants Coyle and Hospital forwarded correspondence to Plaintiffs' counsel seeking the status of the Plaintiffs' response to the outstanding discovery. A true and correct copy of defense counsel's November 19, 2002 correspondence is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "C". 8. In light of the continued failure of the Plaintiffs to provide any response Defendants' Interrogatories and Request for Documents, Defendant's counsel forwarded another correspondence to Plaintiff's counsel on or about December 17, 2002 seeking information as to when the outstanding discovery would be responded to by Plaintiff. A true and correct copy of defense counsel's December 17, 2002 correspondence is attached hereto and made a part hereof as "Exhibit D". 9. To date, Plaintiffs have failed to provide any responses to the outstanding discovery as identified above. Defendants' counsel has tried in vain to obtain answers to the outstanding discovery, but all such efforts have been ignored by Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, Defendants Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter an Order compelling Plaintiffs to provide full and complete responses to the outstanding discovery within (20) days following the issuance of the Order and further grant Defendants all such further relief as is just and proper including, but not limited to, the time and costs associated with the filing of the instant Motion to Compel. Respectfully submitted, McKissock & Hoffman, P.C By Edwin A.D. Schwa~Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. #75902 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-3400 pate: /z~3~~ Attorneys for Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital (f) "Persons" and/or "individual" shall mean any individual, partnership, firm, corporation, trust, governmental agency or other entities; and also, relevant, individual representing such "person". A. These Interrogatories are deemed continuing and any information secured after the filing of answers hereto shall be filed of record as supplemental answers. B. To the extent that they are not otherwise identified in the course of answering these Interrogatories, identify with respect to each Interrogatory all documents upon which you rely in answering said Interrogatories. 3 _~~.° Please state Plaintiffs Karen Klett and Gregory Klett (a) Full name; (b) home and business address, if applicable (c) date and place of birth; (d) occupations; (e) social security numbers. 4 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs NO. 5461 Civil Term 2001 v. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, NI.D., and CARLISLE HOSPTIAL, a corporat6on, Defendants CIVIL DIVISION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT, JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D AND CARLISLE HOSPITAL FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFFS TO: Karen Klett, and Gregory Klett Go Robert Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 You are required to answer the following Interrogatories under oath pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. These Interrogatories are continuing in character so as to require you to file supplemental answers if you obtain further or different information prior to trial. Where the words "incident" or "occurrence" are used, they refer 4o the events which took place as alleged in the Complaint. 1 1. DEFINITIONS 1. As used in these Interrogatories, the words and terms set forth below shall be defined as follows: (a) "Describe" and "specify", and/or "state" shall mean to set forth fully and unambiguously, using technical terms or words of art, if necessary, each and every fact relevant to the answer called for by the Interrogatory which the answering party or those agents, employees or representatives to have knowledge. (b) "Identify" when referring to an individual means to state: (i) his name or her name; (ii) title or job classification at the time of the events referred to in the Interrogatory answer; (iii) present address, if known, and/or the last known address and current or last known employer. (c) "Identify" when referring to a document means to: (i) state the type of document (e.g., letter, journal, record, memorandum); its date; title, and identifying number, if any; general subject matter; and its present location; (ii) state each person who prepared it, each person for whom it was prepared, the known address of each person who presently has custody of the original copies thereof. (d) "Document" shall mean the original of any nonidentical copy of any written, grunted, typed, photographed or other graphic or recorded matter of any kind or nature prepared or received, by or in possession, custody or control of the answering party, their agents, servants, employees or other representative. (e) "You" or "your" shall mean to include the answering party, and each of the said party's representatives, and where appropriate the directors, agents, officers and employees and all other persons acting for or on behalf of the answering party. 2 2. If, in the course of the alleged occurrence, Plaintiff, Karen Klett, was attended by physicians other than the Defendant propounding these interrogatories, please state: (a) what treatment was performed by propounding Defendant; (b) what treatment was performed by other physicians; (c) the date of propounding Defendant's first attendance upon Plaintiff; (d) the date of propounding Defendant's last attendance upon Plaintiff; (e) the dates of each treatment by each such other physician, and; 5 (f) each date of treatment by other physicians, identifying each such other physician. 6 3. If you contend that the propounding Defendants' refusal at any time to see, examine, or treat Plaintiff caused or contributed to cause the alleged occurrence, please state: (a) the date and time of the refusal; (b) any reasons given by the propounding Defendants for refusal, and; (c) whether the prppounding Defendants referred Plaintiff to another physician, hospital or other health care professional. 7 4. Please describe in detail any advice and instructions given by the propounding Defendants to Plaintiffs including: (a) the date and time of such advice and/or instruction; (b) the substance of the advice and instructions, and; (c) all action taken as a result of the advice and instructions. 8 5. State the name and address of Plaintiff Karen Klett's family physician prior to and subsequent to the time of the treatment, surgery or examination upon which this action is based. 9 ~~.. 6. Please state the nature, address and dates of treatment for all physicians and health care providers who have examined or evaluated Plaintiff since the date of the accident which this action is based. 10 ~,., 7. Subsequent to the treatment, surgery, or examination referred to in the Complaint, had Plaintiff ever suffered any injuries, illnesses or diseases? If so, state: (a) a description of the injuries or diseases Plaintiff suffered; (b) the date and place of any accident, if such an injury or disease was caused by an accident; and (c) the names and addresses of all hospitals, doctors or allied health practitioners who rendered treatment or examination because of any such injuries or diseases. 11 8. Itemize the damages you claim which arise out of this incident for: (a) medical and hospital expenses; (b) miscellaneous expenses including, but not limited to, blood, transportation, wheelchair, nursing care, therapy, special academic expenses etc.; (c) lost earnings and the number of workdays lost; (d) loss of future earnings; (e) other future losses, specifying the nature and extent of such losses; 12 ~~. 9. State the name and address of each person who (a) was a witness to the treatment, surgery or examination through sight or hearing and/or (b) has knowledge of facts concerning the happening of the treatment, surgery or examination or conditions or circumstances at the time of the treatment, surgery or examination, excepting those persons who acquired such knowledge during the course of this litigation. 13 10. With respect to each person identified in the immediately preceding interrogatory, state that person's exact location and activity at the time of the treatment, surgery or examination. 14 ~~. 11. Have you, or anyone acting on your behalf, obtained from any person, party or entity, a statement concerning this action or its subject matter? If so, state:- (a) the name and address of each such person; (b) when, where, by whom and to whom, each such statement was made and whether it was reduced to writing or otherwise recorded; (c) the name and address of any person(s) who has custody of any such statement that was reduced to writing or otherwise recorded; and (d) kindly attach hereto any and all such statements identified above. 15 12. Have you given a statement concerning this action or its subject matter? If so, state: (a) the name and address of each person to whom a statement was given; (b) when and where each statement was given; (c) kindly attach hereto any and all such statements identified above. 16 13. Have you or anyone acting on your behalf, conducted any investigation of the treatment, surgery or examination which is the subject of this action? if so, state: (a) the name, address and employer of alt persons who conducted any investigations; (b) the date of the investigation; (c) the dates of any reports of any investigations and the identity of the person in possession thereof; and (d) kindly attach hereto all investigation reports identified above. 17 14. State the name, address and occupation of each person whom you intend to call as expert witnesses at trial and state the subject matter upon which each such person is expected to testify, and the grounds upon which such opinions are based. 18 r ~ 15. With respect to each person identified in the immediately preceding interrogatory, have the expert state the substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and summarize the grounds for each such opinion. 19 F ", t 6. With respect to each person identified in Interrogatory #14, state: (a) if the expert is employed and/or self-employed and the nature of employment thereof; (b) identify all documents submitted to the expert and all products and/or locales and/or materials inspectgd by the expert; and (c) set forth the qualifications of each expert, listing the schools attended, years of attendance, degrees received, experience in any particular field of specialization or expertise, all publications authored, including the title of the work, title of the publication in which it appeared and the date of publication. In lieu of answering this sub-part you may attach a copy of the experts curriculum vitae, if such curriculum vitae is cumulative of the information requested herein. 20 17. If in answer to Interrogatory #14 you attach a copy of a report, does the expert have any additional opinions or knowledge not contained in said report? If so, state: (a) The facts and opinions not contained in the report; and (b) A summary of the grounds for each opinion. 21 __ - - r I 18. Please identify by author, title, date and publisher any article, text, portion of text, treatise, paper or speech, or any other source of information which your expert(s) relied upon when expressing the opinions contained in his/her report. 22 19. Please identify by author, title, date and publisher any article, text or portion of text, treatise, paper or speech, or any other source of information which supports the opinions and/or conclusions contained in your expert(s) report. 23 20. Please identify by author, title, date and publisher any article, text, portion of text, treatise, paper or speech, or any other source which your expert(s) consider to be authoritative in determining the applicable standard of care for the allegations of negligence as set forth in paragraph 12 (a-i) of Plaintiffs' Complaint. 24 21. State the specific facts known to you or anyone acting on your behalf upon which you base each claim of negligence or malpractice as asserted against propounding Defendants in this action. 25 _o - _,.., a_. 22, Do you intend to use any book, magazine, document or other writing at trial in this case. If so, describe the writing in detail as to author, publisher, copyright date and page number, and give the name and address of any known present custodian of said writing. 26 23. Were the injuries alleged in this action caused in whole or in part by sickness, disease, abnormality or injury other than the injuries you claim resulted from the treatment, surgery; or examination upon which this action is based? If so, state: (a) specifically, the nature of each such sickness, disease, abnormality or injury and how each affected Plaintiff; (b) are there any medical, hospital, x-ray or other reports which indicate the nature of each such sickness, disease, abnormality or injury and how each affected Plaintiff; and (c) if so, where and when each such report was made and the name and address of the person making each such report, as well as the identity of the person in possession thereof. 27 24. If you contend that propounding Defendant is legally responsible for the injuries and/or damages sustained as the result of the treatment, surgery or examination which is the subject of this action, state: (a) each such contention as to each named defendant; (b) all facts which you believe support each contention; (c) the identity of all person with knowledge of the facts stated above; (d) the identity of all witnesses whom you intend to call in support of such contention; and (e) the identity of all documents which support each such contention. 28 ~~. 25. Do you contend that the treatment, surgery or the examination which is the subject of this action violated any Statute, Code or other Standard. If so, state: (a) specifically, the Statute, Code or Standard which you contend was violated; (b) specifically, the nature of, and manner in which such Statute, Code or Standard was violated; and (c) specifically, the identity of all persons, parties or entities whose conduct was in violation of such Statute, Code or Standard. 29 . _ _. L a~aoa~y 26. Identify each person that you expect to call as a witness at trial in this matter and provide a concise statement of the nature of the testimony for which each witness will be called. 30 27. Identify all exhibits which you intend to utilize at trial of this matter. 31 28. Are you alleging that you are entitled to damages for any medical expenses arising out of the care and treatment that was rendered by the Defendant(s) and/or any other medical care providers in this section? If so, kindly enter the names of the medical care providers who rendered these services in Column A of the accompanying chart. Kindly enter the total amount of charges for each medical care provider in Column B of the accompanying chart. Please attach copies of all medical bills/invoices for the treatment rendered due to the injuries alleged in the Complaint and reflecting the amounts claimed in Column B. 32 r: 29. Did the Plaintiff possess medical insurance (e.g. accident and health insurance, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare or Medicaid...) which paid any portion of Plaintiffs alleged medical expenses? 1. If so, please state the name of the insurer(s), the address(es), and the policy number(s) for the medical insurance which paid any portion of Plaintiffs alleged medical expenses. 2. Please enter the total amount of the medical expenses for each provider that was paid by Plaintiffs insurance carrier in Column C of the accompanying chart. 3. Please attach copies of any receipts showing amounts paid by Plaintiffs medical insurer and reflecting the amounts paid in Column C. 33 30. Were any of Plaintiffs medical expenses "written off' or forgiven or otherwise not owed by reason of a contract or agreement between the medical provider and Plaintiffs medical insurer, as a compromise of a bill between the medical provider and the Plaintiff or for any other reason? 4. Please enter, in Column D of the accompanying chart, the amount of the medical expenses that were "written off' or forgiven or otherwise not owed by reason of a contract between the health care provider and Plaintiffs medical insurer, as a compromise of a bill between the medical care provider and the Plaintiff or for any other reason. 34 31. Were or are any of Plaintiffs medical expenses personally owed or owing by Plaintiff or his or her representatives, and, therefore, not paid by Plaintiffs insurance carrier and/or written off, forgiven or otherwise not owed with respect to any medical care provided by Defendant(s) and/or any other medical care providers who provided care for which Plaintiff is claiming damages? Please enter, in Column E of the accompanying chart, the amount of the medical expenses personally that were or are personally owed by Plaintiff or his or her representatives, and, therefore, not paid by Plaintiffs insurance carrier and/or written off, forgiven or otherwise not owed with respect to any medical care provided by Defendant(s) and/or any other medical care providers who provided care for which Plaintiff is claiming damages. 35 TO DEFENDANT GREGORY KLETT 32. Please provide in detail the loss of services, society and consortium as alleged in Paragraph 17 of Count 2 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and the dates of such loss. 36 Respectfully submitted, McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. By: G~- Edwin A.D. Schw ,Esquire I.D. #75902 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717)540-3400 Date: a ~// G, zb~ 36 A Medical care provider B Total medical charge for each medical care provider C Amount of medical charges paid by Plaintiffs insurance D Amounts "written off', forgiven or otherwise not owed E Amounts paid/owed by Plaintiff or his/ her representatives personally (i.e. not paid by insurance and not written off) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing Interrogatories upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Emsberger 306 Fourth Averiue Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Jack M. Hartman, Esquire Hartman, Osborne & Joyce 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (Counsel for Roberf F. Hall, 11, M.D.) McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. BY: /~_ B. Craig Black, E~uire' Supreme Court I.D. No. 36818 Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. No. 75902 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717)540-3400 Attorneys for Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital Date:.~~y >G, z6oz . , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs NO. 5461 Civil Term 2001 v. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPTIAL, a corporation, Defendants CIVIL DIVISION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS, JOHNSON G. COYLE AND CARLISLE HOSPITAL'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ADDRESSED TO PLAINTIFFS. -SET i TO: Karen Klett, and Gregory Klett c/o Robert Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4009, Defendants hereby requests that Plaintiffs produce and permit Defendants and/or their counsel to inspect and copy, within 30 days after service hereof, at the office of McKISSOCK & HOFFMAN, P.C., 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 302, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110, the documents requested herein. I. As used herein the words "Plaintiffs" and/or "Plaintiffs"' refers to Plaintiffs, their agents, representatives, attorneys, etc. II. All references in this Request for Production of Documents to "document" will include the plural and shall mean, without limitation unless otherwise indicated, the original and each copy of each and any writing, evidence of indebtness, memorandum, letter, correspondence, telegram, note, minute, contract, agreement, inter or intra-office communication, bulletin, circular, procedure, pamphlet, photograph, study, notice, summary, invoice, diagram, plan, drawing, diary, record or note of telephone conversation, chart, schedule,. entry, print, representation, record, compilation of data, report of tangible item or thing of written, readable, graphic, audible, or visual material, of any kind or character, whether handwritten, typed, xeroxed, photostated, printed, duplicated, reproduced, recorded, photographed, copied, microfilmed, microcarded, or transcribed by any means, or otherwise subject to translation into useable form, including, without limitation, each interim as well final draft and each revision which is in the possession or subject to the control of you or your present or former agents, employees or representatives, including counsel and including any related corporations. III. Whenever in this Request for Production of Documents there is a request to identify a document, state: (a) the type of document (e.g. letter, report, memorandum, etc.); (b) set forth its date; (c) identity the signer or signers and the addressee or addressees; (d) set forth the title, heading or other designation, numerical or otherwise, of the document; (e) identify the person (or, if widely distributed, set forth the organization or classes of persons) to whom the document was sent; and (f) set forth the present and/or last known locations of the document(s) and of each copy thereof having notations or marking unique to such copying. ~,~. _~ I. In answering these Requests for Production of Documents, you shall furnish all information available to you at the time of answering, including information in the possession of your agents, and shall supplement your answers in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. II. If you claim, in your answers to these Requests for Production of Documents that any requested fact, document, or other information is "Privileged" and not subject to any discovery, you shall so state and, in addition, state every fact supporting your claim that such fact, document or other information is "privileged" and with respect to any document, you shall identify the document by stating the date and subject matter of the document, the name of the person who prepared the document and the name of the person for whom the document was intended. L' ' . THE DOCUMENTS REQUESTED ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Any and all statements, memoranda or writings (signed or unsigned) of any and all witnesses including any and all statements, memoranda, writings of the Plaintiffs and/or Defendants. For purposes of this Request for Production, "statement" means a written statement signed or unsigned or stenographic, mechanical, electrical or other recording, or transcription thereof, which is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement by the person making it, contemporaneously recorded. 2. All photographs taken, or diagrams prepared, of any matter which is the subject of this litigation, or of any subject involved therein. 3. Any and all documents containing the names, home and business addresses of all individuals contacted as potential witnesses. 4. Any and all documents which, in any way, chronicled or reported on any meeting concerning the allegations in Plaintiffs' Complaint. 5. Any and all reports, statements, memoranda, testimony or photographs identified in your answers to Interrogatories previously or hereafter served. 6. Any and all investigations, reports, test results, drawings, sketches, maps, summaries of records or exhibits intended to be offered at trial in the above pending action. 7. The current Curriculum Vitae for each expert identified in your answers to Interrogatories. 8. All documents prepared by each expert identified in your answers to Interrogatories, together with all correspondence between expert and Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' agent, attorney or anyone acting on Plaintiffs' behalf. 9. Any and all reports of any laboratory investigations, reconstructive study, scientific tests, research or other studies made by each such expert or other person retained by him/her. 10. Any and all objects or materials examined by your expert(s). 11. All medical records, hospital records, physician's reports, X-ray records and all other records which relate in any manner whatsoever to the injuries and damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff, as well as treatment of any similar disease, abnormality or condition prior to or subsequent to the treatment which is the subject of this action. 12. Any and all bills, invoices, canceled checks or receipts relating directly or indirectly to those damages described by Plaintiffs in the Complaint and alleged to be resulting from the cause of action referred to in the Plaintiffs' Complaint. 13. Copies of any and all federal, state and local tax returns pertaining to Plaintiffs, Karen Klett and Gregory Klett for the period commencing three years prior to the date of the incident referred to in the Complaint to the present. 14. All supporting documentation for answering party(ies) claim for damages and/or relief in this case. 15. Any and all documents identified in your Answers to Interrogatories served previously, simultaneously herewith, or hereafter served. I. ' ' s 16. Copies of any and all Exhibits which you intend to introduce at the trial of this matter, whether during the liability or damage phase. Respectfully submitted, McKISSOCK & HOFFMAN By cx--- Edwin A.D. Schwa re Attorney I.D. No. 75902 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-3400 Dated: ~// iG Z6OL ~-~ ~':',°- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing Request for Production of Documents upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Emsberger 306 Fourth Avenue Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Jack M. Hartman, Esquire Hartman, Osborne & Joyce 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (Counsel for Robert F. Hall, 11, M.D.) McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. BY: _ B. Craig Black uire Supreme Court I.D. No. 36818 Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. No. 75902 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717)540-3400 Attorneys for Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital Date: ~`y ~G, zebz .' . _CKISSOCK & HOFFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION STEPHAME A GRAYBILL PARALEGAL D'vea Dia1717/540-1/00 EA 35 spsy6i11®ncklwfcd0 Robert A.. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue Suite 30U Pittsburgh, PA 15222 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2040 LINGLESTOWN ROAD 1]00 MARKET STREET SUITE 3000 SUITE 302 PHILADLEPHIA, PA 19103 (215)246-2100 HARRISBURG, PA 17110 FAX: (215) 246-2144 PHONE: (717) 540-3400 16 NORTH FRANKLIN STREET SUITE 300 FAX: (7l7) 540-3434 DOYLESTOWN, PA 18901 (215) 745-0501 FAX: (215) 3/5-0503 WWW.MCKFiOP.COM _ 25 CHESTNUT STREET November 19 2002 HADDONFIELD, N708133 , (856)429-7200 FAX (856)429-0099 105 E. EVANS STREET. SUITE D P.O. BOX 30Bfi WEST CHBSTBR PA 19381 (610)778-8850 PAX: (610) 718-9121 Re: Klett, et ux.. v. Hall, et al. CCP (Cumberland) 5461 Civil Term 2001 Our File: 241-399 Dear Mr. Cohen, As you may recall we served Defendant, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D and Carlisle Hospital's First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Request for Production of Documents directed to Plaintiff on July 16, 2002. To date, we have not responses or objections to the above. I would appreciate if you would contact me and inform me as to when we may expect to receive the same. Thank you for your attention and cooperation to this matter. Sincerely, ~' Stephanie Graybill, Paralegal For Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. /sg i. ~ ~ ~~:~ EDWM A. D. SCHWARTZ Dust Die171 ]! 540-3400 Ew 24 eschwml~mcklwfwm Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Re: Klett, et ux., v. Coyle, et al. CCP (Cumberland) 5461 Civil Term 2001 Our File: 241-399 Dear Mr. Cohen, 105 E. EVANS STREET, SUPPE D P.O. BOX 3086 WEST CHESTER PA 19381 (610)]38-88511 FAX: (610) ]38-9121 As you may recall I served Defendant, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D and Carlisle Hospital's First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Request for Production of Documents directed to Plaintiff on July 16, 2002. Approximately 4 months later, 1 sent a correspondence to you dated November 19, 2002 inquiring as to when I may expect to receive your clients' responses to the previously served discovery. To date, I have not received your clients' responses or objections to outstanding discovery. I would appreciate if you would contact me and inform me as to when I may expect to receive the same. I wish to avoid having to file a motion to compel discovery in this matter but given the lack of any response from your clients, it appears that such a motion may be necessary. Thank you for your attention and cooperation to this matter. Sinc~er~el!y C~-- Edwin A.D. Schw uire McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. MCKISSOCK & HOFFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1]00 MARKET STREET 2040 LEJGLESTOWN ROAD sIRTe 3000 $urrE 302 PHILADLfiPH1A, PA 19103 (213)246-2100 HARRISBURG, PA 17110 FAX: (215) 2A6-2144 PHONE: (717) 540-3400 Ib NORTH FRANKLIN STREET SUFPE l00 FAX: (717) $40-3434 DOVLESTOWN, PA 18901 (213)345-4501 FAX: (215) 345-0503 WWW.MCKHOPCOM - 23 CHESTNU'1'STREET - SDITe IUe December 17 2002 HADDONFIfiLD, NJ 08133 , (856)429-]200 FAX: (856)429-0099 EAS/sg '; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) McKi~ssock~& Hoffman, P.C. By: c~-- Edwin A. D. Schwartz, Supreme Ct. I.D. #75902 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717)540-3400 Date: /Z z Attorneys for Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital ~ • n ~ C .3 _ !_, -{ ~: ' _ - C i CA ? ~ ~' ' ' rte ~ _- _ ~ ri %' C~~ .. v yr ~ [~ "~`~ IN THE CpURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs CIVIL DIVISION NO. 5461 Civil Term 2001 v. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.U., and CARLISLE HOSPTIAL, Defendants TO THE PROTHONOTARY: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE Please mark the above referenced matter as discontinued with prejudice. Furthermore , please mark all judgments asesatisfi,ed. BEHREND & ERNSBERGER Date: ~ ©~3 Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Attorney I.D. # 00467 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412)391-2515 Attorneys for Plaintiff (. S r_ ~ L- -- _ . ~~~- i =y ~ ~ ~'~ ' '- _ i =- ,`_ `~ y. r. _ ~ .~. - _ i~,i - _~ ,~~ ~N