Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-05464SANDRA E. BACHMAN and I1P,VID E. BACHMAN, her husband, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CAHILL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICH, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., and D. STARNER, R.N., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON FLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.Ol-5464 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Sandra E. Bachman and David E. Bachman, her husband, Plaintiffs c/o James DeCinti, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 You are hereby notified to plead to the within document within twenty (20) days after service hereof, or a default judgment may be entered against you. METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE By: _-~ /law Steven D. Snyder, Esqui e Sup. Ct. I. D. #34344 3401 North Front Street DATED: February 22, 2002 283688 1 P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717)232-5000 Attorneys for Defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N.,1VI. Kozich, L.P.N., C. Kauffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N. '~,', SANDRA E. BACHMAN and DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CARTEL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICH, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., and D. STARKER, R.N., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.Ol-5464 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT. D. STARKER. R.N.. TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the defendant, D. Starner, R.N., by and through her attorneys, Mette, Evans & Woodside, and in response to the plaintiffs' complaint avers as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 1 of the plaintiffs' complaint and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. 2-8. Admitted. 9. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Mrs. Bachman was admitted to Holy Spirit Hospital under the care of her physician on December 10, 1999. After reasonable investigation, the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments set forth in paragraph 9 of the plaintiffs' complaint and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. 10. Admitted in part and denied in part. To the extent that the medical records of Mrs. Bachman fram Holy Spirit Hospital reflect the averments of the corresponding paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint, it is admitted only that such is recorded therein. Otherwise, and to the extent that the medical records do not so reflect and/or contradict the corresponding averments, said averments are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and for the reasons set forth in paragraph 1 hereof. 11. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 11 of the plaintiffs' complaint are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 12-29. Admitted in part and denied in part. To the extent that the medical records of Mrs. Bachman from Holy Spirit Hospital reflect the averments of -2- ,. the corresponding paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint, it is admitted only that such is recorded therein. Otherwise, and to the extent that the medical records do not so reflect and(or contradict the corresponding averments, said averments are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and for the reasons set forth in paragraph 1 hereof. 30. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 1 of the plaintiffs' complaint and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. COUNTI Sandra E. Bachman v. J. Cahill. L. Warner. R. Bubb. M. Kozich. C. Kauffman and D. Starner 31. Paragraphs 1 through 30 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 32. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 32 of the plaintiffs' complaint are deemed denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. -3- WHEREFORE, defendant, D. Starner, R.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT II Sandra E. Bachman v Holy Spirit Hosuital 33. Paragraphs 1 through 32 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 34. Denied. Because the plaintiffs have not identified by name or adequate description the "nursing staff' and "all other hospital personnel" referred to generally in paragraph 34 of the complaint, the defendant is unable to admit or deny said general averment and therefore, it is deemed denied. By way of further answer, paragraphs 1 through 8 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 35. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph.35 of the plaintiffs' complaint are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. -4- 36. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 36 of the plaintiffs' complaint are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, paragraphs 33, 34, and 35 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 37: Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 37 of the plaintiffs' complaint are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, paragraphs 38 through 46 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. WHEREFORE, defendant, D. Starner, R.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in, her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and fizrther relief as the Court deems just and proper. CLAIM I Sandra E. Bachman v. Holy Sprit Hospital, J. Cahill. R.N.. L. Warner. R.N.. R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozich. L.P.N.. C. Kauffman. R.N. and D. Starner. R.N. 38. Paragraphs 1 through 37 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. -5- 39-43. Denied. It is specifically denied that the defendants were negligent in any manner and that their conduct was the proximate or legal cause of any of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries or losses. These averments are further denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. With respect to any remaining averment, after reasonable investigation, the answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. WHEREFORE, defendant, D. Starner, R.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. CLAIM II David E. Bachman v. Holy Spirit Hospital. J. Cahill. R.N., L. Warner. R.N.. R. Bubb. R.N.. M. Kozich. L.P.N.. C. Kauffman. R.N. and D. Starner. R.N. 44. Paragraphs 1 through 43 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 45-46. Denied. It is specifically denied that the defendants were negligent in any manner and that their conduct was the proximate or legal cause of -6- any of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries or losses. These averments are further denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. With respect to ariy remaining averment, after reasonable investigation, the answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. WHEREFORE, defendant, D. Starner, R.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' cotnplaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. NEW MATTER The defendant, D. Starner, R.N., further avers as follows: 47. Paragraphs 1 through 115 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 48. The plaintiff s Complaint fails to state a claim against the answering defendant upon which relief can be granted. -7- 49. The injuries and the damages, if any, alleged by the plaintiff, which damages are specifically denied, were caused in whole or in part by conditions or circumstances beyond the control of the answering defendant. 50. The answering defendant, at all times material hereto, acted in conformity with the standard of care applicable to a nurse in like circumstances. 51. The answering defendant specifically denies any and all allegations of negligence axed malpractice. 52. Any alleged negligence of the answering defendant, if any, the same being specifically denied, was not a substantial factor in causing the harm complained of in this suit. 53. The damages alleged by plaintiff did not result from acts or omissions of the answering defendant but rather may have resulted from acts or omissions of other persons and/or entities over whom the answering defendant had no control or right of control and for whom the answering defendant is not legally liable. 54. Plaintiffs' claims are limited and barred by Sections 103, 602 and 606 of the Health Care Services Malpractice Act of 1974, 40 P.S. §1301, et seg., as amended. -8- 55. At all times relevant hereto answering defendant acted within and followed the precepts of a respected school of thought and, accordingly, all professional conduct was fully commensurate with the applicable standard of care. Evidence at trial may establish two or more schools of thought applicable to the issues presented in this case. 56. Plaintiffs' injuries and losses, if any, were not caused by the conduct or negligence of answering defendant, but rather were caused by pre-existing• medical conditions and/or causes beyond the control of answering defendant, and plaintiffs may not recover against her. 57. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by operation of the applicable statute of limitations, including 42 Pa.C.S.A. §5524 and 40 P.S. §1301.605. 58. All claims that might have been asserted by plaintiffs including claims for medical expenses are barred by operation of the applicable statute of limitations. 59. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238 created substantive rights and, therefore, it is beyond the authority of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to promulgate procedural rules. -9- 60. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238 violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 61. The collateral source rule does not apply such that if the plaintiff should be awarded any money damages, such possibility being specifically denied, then the amount of said damages must be reduced by the total amount of any and all payments that the plaintiff received from any and all collateral sources for any injuries and/or damages that the plaintiff allegedly suffered in this matter. 62. If the plaintiff should be awarded any money damages, such possibility being specifically denied, then the amount of said damages must be reduced by the total amount of any and all medical expenses charged but not actually paid by or on behalf of the plaintiff; that is, any amount recovered by the plaintiff must be reduced by the sum of any and all medical expenses "written off ' by any health care provider. 63. Inasmuch as plaintiff is or may be alleging that answering defendant is vicariously liable for the actions of other defendants, answering defendant cannot be held jointly and/or severally liable for any damages. To the contrary, the liability of answering defendant, if any, and specifically denied, may be secondary to that of other defendants. -10- WHEREFORE, defendant, D. Starner, R.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE By: ~" Steven D. Snyder, Es ire Sup. Ct. I. D. #34344 3401 North Front Street P. 0. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717)232-5000 Attorneys for Defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozich, L.P.N., DATED: February 22, 2002 C. Kauffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N. VERIFICATION I, Denise L. Starner, R.N., verify that the statements made in the foregoing answer and new matter which are within the personal knowledge of the undersigned, are true and correct, and as to the facts based on the information of others, the undersigned, after diligent inquiry, believes it to be true. And further, I signed this verification on the recommendation of my attorneys, who advise me that the allegations and language in this document are required legally to raise issues for resolution at trial, by the Court, or by continuing investigation and preparation for trial. I understand that some of these allegations may prove inappropriate after investigation and trial preparation are complete and I leave determination of these matters to my attorneys on their advice. I understand that all statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Denise L. Starner, R.N. Dated: ~ ` f~ ~ ~ 6c~--~ . ~ . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the persons 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, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage, prepaid, as follows: James DeCinti, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE By: _~ Steven D. Snyder, quire Sup. Ct. I. D. #34344 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717)232-5000 Attorneys for Defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozich, L.P.N., DATED: February 22, 2002 C. Kauffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N. ,~. . c> c7 r, r' _ -. ~! ~ c:;.7 _~. t_ . ,"~..} ~ vi.'" 6.'1 _ t_J l : ~ :~: n C' c }) ~ . '~~~ '~ W fM y ~3 1 'R.S ~} ~ ~~ K SANDRA E. BACHMAN, and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CAHILL, ~~~~~~ R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., :CIVIL ACTION LAW A M. KOZICK, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., AND D. STARNER, R.N., :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants NOTICE TO DEFEND You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and judgment may be entered against you by the Court without fiuther notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA 17013 717/249-3166 SANDRA E. BACHMAN, and DAVID E, BACHMAN, her husband, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CAHILL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICK, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., AND D. STARNER, R.N., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. DI - s'~!6'Y l.: i v c l„ l 41L-r+~~ CIVIL ACTION LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICIA Le hen demandado a usted en la torte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas sugnuientes, usted tiene viente (20) dies de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notification. Usted debe presenter una apariencia escrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en la torte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea auisado que si usted no se defiende, la torte tomara medidas y puede entrar una Orden contra usted sin previo aviso o notification y por cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en la petition de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes pare usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO IMMEDIATEMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEPFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARR AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEQUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA 17013 717!249-3166 SANDRA E. BACHMAN, and DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, Plaintiffs v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. C,1- .~uc.y ~~v~~~ \ HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CAHILL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., :CIVIL ACTION LAW M. KOZICK, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., AND D. STARKER, R.N, :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiffs Sandra E. Bachman (hereinafter Mrs. Bachman) and David E. Bachman (hereinafter Mr. Bachman) are wife and husband adult individual residing in Mifflintown, Juniata County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital is a corporate medical institution with facilities and offices which provide medical services in East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant J. Cahill is an adult individual and a registered nurse who at all relevant times to the facts as described herein was employed as a registered nurse at Holy Spirit Hospital and acting within the course and scope of her employment as such. 4. Defendant L. Warner is an adult individual and a registered nurse who at all relevant times to the facts as described herein was employed as a registered nurse at Holy Spirit Hospital and acting within the course and scope of her employment as such. 5. Defendant R. Bubb is an adult individual and a registered nurse who at all relevant times to the facts as described herein was employed as a registered nurse at Holy Spirit Hospital and acting within the course and scope of her employment as such. 235924.1~.TD~BSB I 6. Defendant M. Kozick is an adult individual and a licensed practical nurse who at all relevant times to the facts as described herein was employed as a licensed practical nurse at Holy Spirit Hospital and acting within the course and scope of her employment as such. 7. Defendant C. Kaufftnan is an adult individual and a registered nurse who at all relevant times to the facts as described herein was employed as a registered nurse at Holy Spirit Hospital and acting within the course and scope of her employment as such. 8. Defendant D. Starner is an adult individual and a registered nurse who at all relevant times to the facts as described herein was employed as a registered nurse at Holy Spirit Hospital and acting within the course and scope of her employment as such. 9. On December 10, 1999, Mrs. Bachman was admitted to Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital under the care of her physician for an exploration of the left popliteal vein graft at the upper calf. 10. For purposes of this surgical procedure, anesthesia was provided by way of a spinal catheter which was removed following surgery at approximately 3:00 p.m. 11. Over the course of approximately the next day and one half, the Defendant Nurses, as identified above through medical records, acting in the course and scope of their employment with Holy Spirit Hospital failed to recognize clear signs of Mrs. Bachman's deteriorating neurologic condition. 12. At approximately 8:00 p.m. on December 10, 1999, Mrs. Bachman complained of back pain. Neither the type nor degree of pain was documented by the nurse, however, pain medication (Vicodin) was ordered and administered. 13. The notes reflect that Mrs. Bachman experienced "some" relief. 235924.1UD~B5B 2 II 1 III~III~IS~I}AlRI~9l~IPII~~IAR~l1ll~A~:`F~ 14. At approximately 10:00 p.m. on December 10, 1999, Mrs. Bachman was examined by one of the Defendant Nurses and positive a Doppler was indicated. In addition, it was noted that Mrs. Bachman's extremities were warm with positive sensation. 15. At approximately 11:00 p.m. on December 10, 1999, Mrs. Bachman continued to complain of back pain and in addition complained of left (operative) leg pain. 16. Defendant Nurses monitored the Doppler pulses every hour beginning at 4:00 p.m. on December 10, 1999, and each and every time the Doppler pulse was indicated to be positive. 17. The first note of December 11, 1999, was recorded at 12:30 a.m. (0300 hours) indicating "no changes in assessment from 12/10/99." Doppler pulse was positive. 18. At 8:00 a.m. on December 11, 1999, it was indicated that Mrs. Bachman's left leg (operative leg) was warm to touch and that she was resting with complaints. 19. At approximately 6:30 p.m. (1830 hours) on December 11, 1999, Mrs. Bachman told a Defendant Nurse that her left (operative) foot felt numb. It was indicated that the foot felt warm but that it felt cold to Mrs. Bachman. 20. Mrs. Bachman was unable, at this time, to feel the nurse touching her foot. It was noted that Mrs. Bachman had limited movement in the foot, less movement than the day before. 21. At this time, it was indicated that Doppler pulses were strong. 22. At approximately 9:30 p.m. on December 11, 1999, it was indicated only that Mrs. Bachman was having discomfort. She was transferred from her bed to a chair and then back to her bed at 10:00 p.m. 23. The first assessment of December 12, 1999, was at 12:30 a.m. (0300 hours) and it was indicated that the left leg was warm to touch. Mrs. Bachman complained of numbness and 235924.1~JD~BSB 3 ,~~ ~- tingling, unable to feel touch to her feet and that movement was limited. Mrs. Bachman also continued to complain of pain in her left leg. 24. At approximately 4:05 a.m. on December 12, 1999, Mrs. Bachman activated the call button to notify the nurses. Mrs. Bachman complained that she was now unable to feel her right (non-operative) leg. 25. Mrs. Bachman, at this time, could not move either foot nor could she bend either leg at the knees. 26. Mrs. Bachman began to cry and asked the nurse why she couldn't feel her move either leg. 27. According to a note of 4:15 a.m., a "Vasculaz doctor" was notified. However, there is no record indicating that Mrs. Bachman received any care between 4:05 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. 28. At approximately 8:30 a.m. on December 12, 1999, Mrs. Bachman's legs were cool to touch and she was unable to move either leg. 29. Upon assessment by two physicians at approximately 8:30 a.m. on December 12, 1999, Mrs. Bachman was found to have total paraplegia of the lower extremeties. An epidural hematoma was diagnosed at L2, L3 and L4 which necessitated an emergency lumbar laminectomy. 30. Since the events described herein, Mrs. Bachman has been diagnosed with, among other things, pazaplegia of the lower extremities. 235924.1~dD~BSB 4 COUNTI SANDRA E. BACHMAN v. J. CAHILL, L. WARNER R BUBB M. KOZICK, C. KAUFFMAN and D. STARNER 31. Paragraphs 1 through 30 of the Complaint are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 32. The injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffs, as more fully articulated below, were the direct and proximate result of the negligence of all of the nurses on duty and responsible for Mrs. Bachman's care, specifically, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N., as follows: (a) failing to recognize clear indications of Sandra Bachman's deteriorating neurologic condition post-surgery; (b) failing to properly assess Sandra Bachman's neurologic condition post-surgery; (c) completely failing to monitor and/or assess Sandra Bachman's neurovascular status from 4:05 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. on December 12, 1999, despite the fact that Mrs. Bachman had complained that she could not feel or move either legs; (d) failing to timely notify any physician with regard to Sandra Bachman's deteriorating neurologic condition post-surgery; (e) failing to properly maintain complete and accurate medical records; (f) failing to properly attend to, monitor and/or provide proper nursing care to Sandra Bachman; 235924.1~.1D~BSB 5 I (g) inappropriately monitoring Sandra Bachman's post-surgical status in such a way as prevent Mrs. Bachman's severe condition from being properly diagnosed; (h) failing to minimize the risk of Sandra Bachman's injury from an epidural hematoma; and (i) increasing Sandra Bachman's risk of serious and/or permanent injury. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of jurisdicfional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT II SANDRA E. BACHMAN v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL 33. Paragraphs 1 through 30 and Count I of the Complaint are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 34. At all times relevant to the events described herein the nursing staff and all other hospital personnel who provided care and treatment to Sandra Bachman were acting as agents, apparent agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital and at said times were acting within the scope and course of said relationship with Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital. 35. As such, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital is liable to Plaintiffs for injuries and damages hereinafter related which were the direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's nursing staff and other personnel in: (a) failing to recognize clear indications of Sandra Bachman's deteriorating neurologic condition post-surgery; zssvza.t~.m~sss 6 (b) failing to properly assess Sandra Bachman's neurologic condition post-surgery; (c) completely failing to monitor and/or assess Sandra Bachman's neurovascular status from 4:05 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. on December 12, 1999, despite the fact that Mrs. Bachman had complained that she could not feel or move either legs; (d) failing to timely notify any physician with regard to Sandra Bachman's deteriorating neurologic condition post-surgery; (e) failing to properly maintain complete and accurate medical records; (f) failing to properly attend to, monitor and/or provide proper nursing care to Sandra Bachman; (g) inappropriately monitoring Sandra Bachman's post-surgical status in such a way as prevent Mrs. Bachman's severe condition from being properly diagnosed; (h) failing to minimize the risk of Sandra Bachman's injury from an epidural hematoma; and (i) increasing Sandra Bachman's risk of serious and/or permanent injury. 36. In addition, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital, acting through its agents, apparent agents, servants and/or employees, is liable to the Plaintiffs for injuries and damages alleged herein, which were directly and proximately caused by its negligence in: 235924.]WD~BSB 7 II ~ (a) failing to properly train, instruct, or notify the nurses and other personnel of the proper steps to be taken in a situation involving severe neurologic deterioration; (b) failing to properly select and supervise nurses and other personnel to whom they entrusted the care of neurologic patients; (c) failing to timely intervene and appreciate the significance of Mrs. Bachman's symptoms and deteriorating condition; and (d) failing to devise, promulgate, implement and/or enforce rules or regulations requiring nurses and other personnel entrusted with the care and treatment of patients such as Mrs. Bachman to take all proper and necessary steps to avoid injuries such as those sustained by Plaintiff Sandra Bachman. 37. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's negligence, Plaintiffs have sustained injury and damage more fully set forth below in Claims I and II, which aze incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. 2359241~JD~BSB S II ` CLAIM I SANDRA E. BACHMAN v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL. J CAHILL R N L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICK L.P.N. C KAUFFMAN R N and D. STARNER, R.N. 38. Paragraphs I through 30 and Counts I and II of the Complaint are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 39. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants as herein related above, Plaintiff Sandra Bachman has suffered painful, severe and permanent injuries included, but not limited to, paralysis and paraplegia of the lower extremities as well as complete loss of the control of bodily function. 40. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, and the resulting injuries, Plaintiff Sandra Bachman was forced to incur medical expenses in an effort to restore herself to health, and because of the nature of her injuries, Mrs. Bachman will be forced to incur similar expenses in the future, and claim is made therefor. 41. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, and the resulting injuries, Plaintiff Sandra Bachman has undergone and in the future will undergo great physical and mental pain and suffering, great inconvenience in carrying out her daily activities, loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, and claim. is made therefor. 42. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants,. and the resulting injuries, Plaintiff Sandra Bachman has been and in the future will be subject to great humiliation and embarrassment, and claim is made therefor. 43. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, and the resulting injuries, Plaintiff Sandra Bachman has in the past and may in the future sustain a loss of earnings and diminution of her earning power and capacity, and claim is made therefor. zssvza.r~.m~sss 9 II WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. CLAIM H DAVID E. BACHMAN v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CARTEL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICK, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N. and D. STARKER, R.N. 44. Paragraphs 1 through 30, Counts I and II and Claim I of the Complaint are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 45. Iiy reasons of the aforesaid injuries sustained by his wife, Plaintiff David Bachman incurred liability for medical treatment, specialized medical equipment, medications, and similaz expenses in an effort to restore his wife to health, and may incur similar expenses in the future, and claim is made therefor. 46. By reasons of the aforesaid injuries sustained by his wife, Plaintiff David Bachman has been and in the future will be deprived of the assistance, companionship, consortium and society of his wife all to his great loss and detriment, and claim is made therefor. 235924.IWD~BSB I~ a WHEREFORE, Plaintiff David Bachman demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. Respectfully submitted, ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C James DeCinti, Esquire LD. No. 77421 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717)238-6791 Attorney for Plaintiffs Date: ~~i~{~1 235924.I~JD~BSB 11 e VERIFICATION I, DAVID E. BACHMAN, verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing COMPLAINT are true and correct to the best of my Imowledge, informafion or belief. I understand that this verification is made subject to the provisions of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DAVID E. BACfIMAN DATED: ` °~ ~~~ ` ~ ~ VERIFICATION I, SANDRA E. BACHMAN verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing COMPLAINT are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information or belief. I understand that this verification is made subject to the provisions of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. SANDRA E. BACHMAN DATED: ~ :_ /~ - d w c; - : '_ !J ~ ~ ~ „ _ j F ~ t ~ .~ `1 V ~ ' J "G .~' -G :. SANDRA E. BACHMAN and DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CAHILL, R.N„ L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICK, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., and D. STARNER, R.N., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA N0.01-5464 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRL4L DEMANDED PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL J. CARTEL. R.N.. L. WARNER. R.N.. R. BUBB. R.N.. M. KOZICK. L.P.N.. C. KAUFFMAN. R.N.. AND D. STARNER. R.N.. TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT The Defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N., by their attorneys, Mette, Evans & Woodside, preliminarily object to the plaintiffs' Complaint as follows: 1. On September 19, 2001, plaintiffs filed a Complaint containing two counts purporting to set forth causes of action against the defendants. A true and correct of plaintiffs' Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". T 2. Count I, paragraphs 31 and 32, is directed against defendants, J. Cahill, L. Warner, R. Bubb, M. Kozick, C. Kauffman, and D. Starner. 3. Count II, paragraphs 33 through 37, is directed against Holy Spirit Hospital. MOTION TO STRIKE OR. IN THE ALTERNATIVE. FOR A MORE SPECIFIC COMPLAINT 4. In paragraph 32 of the Complaint, and subparagraphs thereunder, the Plaintiffs purport to allege negligence on the part of J. Cahill, L. Warner, R. Bubb, M. Kozick, C. Kauffman, and D. Starner. 5. Paragraph 32 provides in pertinent part as follows: 32. The injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffs, as more fully articulated below, were the direct and proximate result of the negligence of all of the nurses on duty and responsible for Mrs. Bachman's care, specifically, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N., as follows: ~** (f) failing to properly attend to, monitor and/or provide proper nursing care to Sandra Bachman; *** -2- (h) failing to minimize the risk of Sandra Bachman's injury from an epidural hematoma; and (i) increasing Sandra Bachman's risk of serious and/or permanent injury. (See Exhibit "A", pages 5-6.) .~ 6. In paragraph 35 of the Complaint, and subparagraphs thereunder, the plaintiffs purport to allege negligence on the part of Holy Spirit Hospital. 7. Paragraph 35 provides in pertinent part as follows: 35. As such, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital is liable to Plaintiffs for injuries and damages hereinafter related which were the direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's nursing staff and other personnel in: **~ (f) failing to properly attend to, monitor and/or provide proper nursing care to Sandra Bachman; *** (h) failing to minimize the risk of Sandra Bachman's injury from an epidural hematoma; and (i) increasing Sandra Bachman's risk of serious and/or permanent injury. (See Exhibit "A", pages 6-7.) -3- r s 8. Subparagraphs 32(f), 32(h), and 32(i) fail to set forth with particularity and specificity the factual basis for the allegations contained therein and, therefore, fail to comply with law and rules of court. 9. Subparagraphs 35(f), 35(h), and 35(i) fail to set forth with particularity and specificity the factual basis for the allegations contained therein and, therefore, fail to comply with law and rules of court. WHEREFORE, defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital, J. Cahill, L. Warner, R. Bubb, M. Kozick, C. Kauffman, and D. Starner, request that subparagraphs 32(f), 32(h), 32(i), 35(f), 35(h), and 35(i) of the Complaint be stricken or, in the alternative, that the plaintiffs be directed to specifically set forth the facts in support of their claims in said paragraphs. MOTION TO STRIKE OR. IN THE ALTERNATIVE. FOR A MORE SPECIFIC COMPLAINT 10. Count II is directed against Holy Spirit Hospital. 11. Paragraph 34 of Count II provides as follows: 34. At all times relevant to the events described herein the nursing staff and all other hospital personnel who provided care and treatment to Sandra Bachman were acting as agents, apparent agents, servants and/or -4- I ~ ~ ~ employees of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital and at said times were acting within the scope and course of said relationship with Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital. (See Exhibit "A", page 6, emphasis added.) 12. Paragraph 35 of Count II provides in pertinent part as follows: 35. As such, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital is liable to Plaintiffs for injuries and damages hereinafter related which were the direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's nursing staff and other personnel .... (See Exhibit "A", page 6, emphasis added.) 13. Paragraph 36 of Count II provides in pertinent part as follows: 36. In addition, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital, actine throueh its agents. apparent agents, servants and/or emplovees, is liable to the Plaintiffs for injuries and damages alleged herein, which were directly and proximately caused by its negligence in: (a) failing to properly train, instruct, or notify the nurses and other personnel of the proper steps to be taken in a situation involving severe neurologic deterioration; (b) failing to properly select and supervise nurses and other personnel to whom they entrusted the care of neurologic patients; ~** (d) failing to devise, promulgate, implement and/or enforce rules or regulations requiring nurses and other personnel entrusted with the care and treatment of patients such as Mrs. Bachman to take all proper and -5- r ~ ~ . necessary steps to avoid injuries such as those sustained by Plaintiff Sandra Bachman. (See Exhibit "A", pages 7-8, emphasis added.) 14. It has been held that a complaint must not only give the defendants notice of what plaintiff s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests, but also must formulate the issues by summarizing those facts essential to support the claim. Baker v. Ramos, 229 Pa. Super. 333, 324 A.2d 498 (1974). 15. At the very least, a complainant must allege facts which: 1) identify the agent by name or appropriate description; and 2) set forth the agent's authority, and how the tortuous acts of that agent fall within the scope of that authority. Alu i Association v. Sullivan, 369 Pa. Super. 596, 535 A.2d 1095 (1987). 16. Without further facts to reasonably identify the "other hospital personnel" referred to in paragraph 34; the "other personnel" referred to in paragraph 35; the "agents, apparent agents; servants and/or employees" referred to in paragraph 36; and the "other personnel" referred to in paragraph 36, subparagraphs (a), (b), and (d), Holy Spirit Hospital is without knowledge as to those individual or individuals plaintiffs allege to be its employees or agents and is without notice as to plaintiffs' claims and the grounds upon which they are based. -6- ~'. . . WHEREFORE, Holy Spirit Hospital respectfully requests this Honorable Court to grant its preliminary objections to paragraphs 34, 35, and 36 of plaintiffs' Complaint and strike the references to "all other hospital personnel" in paragraph 34, the references to "other personnel" in paragraph 35; the general reference to "agents, apparent agents, servants and/or employees" in paragraph 36; and the general reference to "other personnel" in subparagraphs 36(a), (b), and (d). In the alternative, defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, requests that this Honorable Court direct plaintiffs to file a more specific Complaint. Respectfully submitted, METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE By: , Steven D. Snyder;, + quire Sup. Ct. I.D. #34344 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717)232-5000 Attorneys for Defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N. DATED: October 9, 2001 z' SANDRA E. B?TCHMAN, and DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, Plaintiffs v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PEN~/N}}SYLVANIA NO. ~(- S~~-~f L.tc~~(,~crz~-L HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CAHILL, R.N., L. ER;fR.N., R. BUBB, R.N., :CIVIL ACTION LAW NI: K : ,:gip , C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., AND D. STARNER, R.N., :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants NOTICE TO DEFEND You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plavntiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA 17013 717/249-3166 !n ~gsit.i. ~.lr,~±~.~r^cI, i ~~ra ±s~ic gat Y~ hand ~zd ;~ ::;~:: ~ b,~w ~~~~ ~; war='.:s3s, Fa. Ths c,:° ~ _, rathonotary ~~ :, SANDRA E. BACHNIAN, and DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CAHILL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICK., L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., AND D. STARKER, R.N., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. CIVIL ACTION LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICIA Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas sugnuientes, usted tiene viente (20) dial de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentaz una apariencia escrita o en persona o por abogado y archivaz en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede entraz una Orden contra usted sin previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en la petition de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes paza usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO IMMEDIATEMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEPFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARR AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEQUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA 17013 717/249-3166 SANDRA E. BACHMAN, and DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, Plaintiffs v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CAHILL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., :CIVIL ACTION LAW M. KOZICK, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., AND D. STARNER, R.N., :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiffs Sandra E. Bachman (hereinafter Mrs. Bachman) and David E. Bachman (hereinafter Mr. Bachman) are wife and husband adult individual residing in Mifflintown, Juniata County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital is a corporate medical institution with facilities and offices which provide medical services in East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant J. Cahill is an adult individual and a registered nurse who at all relevant times to the facts as described herein was employed as a registered nurse at Holy Spirit Hospital and acting within the course and scope of her employment as such. 4. Defendant L. Warner is an adult individual and a registered nurse who at all relevant times to the facts as described herein was employed as a registered nurse at Holy Spirit Hospital and acting within the course and scope of her employment as such. 5. Defendant R. Bubb is an adult individual and a registered nurse who at all relevant times to the facts as described herein was employed as a registered nurse at Holy Spirit Hospital and acting within the course and scope of her employment as such. 23592A.1AJDABSB 1 a 6. Defendant M. Kozick is an adult individual and a licensed practical nurse who at all relevant times to the facts as described herein was employed as a licensed practical nurse at Holy Spirit Hospital and acting within the course and scope of her employment as such. 7. Defendant C. Kauffman is an adult individual and a registered nurse who at all relevant times to the facts as described herein was employed as a registered nurse at Holy Spirit Hospital and acting within the course and scope of her employment as such. 8. Defendant D. Starner is an adult individual and a registered nurse who at all relevant times to the facts as described herein was employed as a registered nurse at Holy Spirit Hospital and acting within the course and scope of her employment as such. 9. On December 10, 1999, Mrs. Bachman was admitted to Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital under the care of her physician for an exploration of the left popliteal vein graft at the upper calf. 10. For purposes of this surgical procedure, anesthesia was provided by way of a spinal catheter which was removed following surgery at approximately 3:00 p.m. 11. Over the course of approximately the next day and one half, the Defendant Nurses, as identified above through medical records, acting in the course and scope of their employment with Holy Spirit Hospital failed to recognize clear signs of Mrs. Bachman's deteriorating neurologic condition. 12. At approximately 8:00 p.m. on December 10, 1999, Mrs. Bachman complained of back pain. Neither the type nor degree of pain was documented by the nurse, however, pain medication (Vicodin) was ordered and administered. 13. The notes reflect that Mrs. Bachman experienced "some" relief. ?35923.1UD~BSB 2 ~a 14. At approximately 10:00 p.m. on December 10, 1999, Mrs. Bachman was examined by one of the Defendant Nurses and positive a Doppler was indicated. In addition, it was noted that Mrs. Bachman's extremities were warm with positive sensation. 15. At approximately 11:00 p.m. on December 10, 1999, Mrs. Bachman continued to complain of back pain and in addition complained of left (operative) leg pain. 16. Defendant Nurses monitored the Doppler pulses every hour beginning at 4:00 p.m. on December 10, 1999, and each and every time the Doppler pulse was indicated to be positive. 17. The first note of December 11, 1944, was recorded at 12:30 a.m. (0300 hours) indicating "no changes in assessment from 12/10/99." Doppler pulse was positive. 18. At 8:00 a.m. on December 11, 1999, it was indicated that Mrs. Bachman's left leg (operative leg) was warm to touch and that she was resting with complaints. 19. At approximately 6:30 p.m. (1830 hours) on December 11, 1999, Mrs. Bachman told a Defendant Nurse that her left (operative) foot felt numb. It was indicated that the foot felt warm but that it felt cold to Mrs. Bachman. 20. Mrs. Bachman was unable, at this time, to feel the nurse touching her foot. It was noted that Mrs. Bachman had limited movement in the foot, less movement than the day before. 21, At this time, it was indicated that Doppler pulses were strong. 22, At approximately 9:30 p.m. on December 11, 1999, it was indicated only that Mrs. Bachman was having discomfort. She was transferred from her bed to a chair and then back to her bed at 10:00 p.m. 23. The first assessment of December 12, 1999, was at 12:30 a.m. (0300 hours) and it was indicated that the left leg was warm to touch. Mrs. Bachman complained of numbness and 23592J.1\JDVBSB 3 ai tingling, unable to feel touch to her feet and that movement was limited. Mrs. Bachman also continued to complain of pain in her left leg. 24. At approximately 4:05 a.m. on December 12, 1999, Mrs. Bachman activated the call button to notify the nurses. Mrs. Bachman complained that she was now unable to feel her right (non-operative) leg. 25. Mrs. Bachman, at this time, could not move either foot nor could she bend either leg at the knees. 26. Mrs. Bachman began to cry and asked the nurse why she couldn't feel her move either leg. 27. According to a note of 4:15 a.m., a "Vascular doctor" was notified. However, there is no record indicating that Mrs. Bachman received any care between 4:05 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. 28. At approximately 8:30 a.m. on December 12, 1999, Mrs. Bachman's legs were cool to touch and she was unable to move either leg. 29. Upon assessment by two physicians at approximately 8:30 a.m. on December 12, 1999, Mrs. Bachman was found to have total paraplegia of the lower extremeties. An epidural hematoma was diagnosed at L2, L3 and L4 which necessitated an emergency lumbar laminectomy. 30. Since the events described herein, Mrs. Bachman has been diagnosed with, among other things, paraplegia of the lower extremities. 23>92J.1\dD\BSB 4 COUNTI SANDRA E. BACHMAN v. J. CAHILL. L. WARNER R. BUBB M. KOZICK. C. KAUFFMAN and D. STARNER 31. Pazagraphs 1 through 30 of the Complaint aze incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 32. The injtuies and damages sustained by Plaintiffs, as more fully articulated below, were the direct and proximate result of the negligence of all of the nurses on duty and responsible for Mrs. Bachman's care, specifically, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N., as follows: (a) failing to recognize clear indications of Sandra Bachman's deteriorating neurologic condition post-surgery; (b) failing to properly assess Sandra Bachman's neurologic condition post-surgery; (c) completely failing to monitor and/or assess Sandra Bachman's neurovascular status from 4:05 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. on December 12, 1999, despite the fact that Mrs. Bachman had complained that she could not feel or move either legs; (d) failing to timely notify any physician with regazd to Sandra Bachman's deteriorating neurologic condition post-surgery; (e) failing to properly maintain complete and accurate medical records; (f) failing to properly attend to, monitor and/or provide proper nursing care to Sandra Bachman; 2359?J.1\,Tp\BSB ~ f. , (g) inappropriately monitoring Sandra Bachman's post-surgical status in such a way as prevent Mrs. Bachman's severe condition from being properly diagnosed; (h) failing to minimize the risk of Sandra Bachman's injury from an epidural hematoma; and (i) increasing Sandra Bachman's risk of serious and/or permanent injury. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT II SANDRA E. BACHMAN v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL 33. Paragraphs 1 through 30 and Count I of the Complaint are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 34. At all times relevant to the events described herein the nursing staff and all other hospital personnel who provided Gaze and treatment to Sandra Bachman were acting as agents, apparent agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital and at said times were acting within the scope and course of said relationship with Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital. 35. As such, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital is liable to Plaintiffs for injuries and damages hereinafter related which were the direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's nursing staff and other personnel in: (a) failing to recognize clear indications of Sandra Bachman's deteriorating neurologic condition post-surgery; ?3592J.1~.1D\BSB 6 (b) fading to properly assess Sandra Bachman's neurologic condition post-surgery; (c) completely failing to monitor and/or assess Sandra Bachman's neurovascular status from 4:05 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. on December 12, 1999, despite the fact that Mrs. Bachman had complained that she could not feel or move either legs; (d) failing to timely notify any physician with regard to Sandra Bachman's deteriorating neurologic condition post-surgery; (e) failing to properly maintain complete and accurate medical records; (f) failing to properly attend to, monitor and/or provide proper nursing care to Sandra Bachman; (g) inappropriately monitoring Sandra Bachman's post-surgical status in such a way as prevent Mrs. Bachman's severe condition from being properly diagnosed; (h) failing to minimize the risk of Sandra Bachman's injury from an epidural hematoma; and (i) increasing Sandra Bachman's risk of serious and/or permanent injury. 36. In addition, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital, acting through its agents, apparent agents, servants and/or employees, is liable to the Plaintiffs for injuries and damages alleged herein, which were directly and proximately caused by its negligence in: zsssza.~~~u~BSS 7 ~ i ~ 1 ' y (a) failing to properly train, instruct, or notify the nurses and other personnel of the proper steps to be taken in a situation involving severe neurologic deterioration; (b) failing to properly select and supervise nurses and other personnel to whom they entrusted the care of neurologic patients; (c) failing to timely intervene and appreciate the significance of Mrs. Bachman's symptoms and deteriorating condition; and (d) failing to devise, promulgate, implement and/or enforce rules or regulations requiring nurses and other personnel entrusted with the care and treatment of patients such as Mrs. Bachman to take all proper and necessary steps to avoid injuries such as those sustained by Plaintiff Sandra Bachman. 37. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's negligence, Plaintiffs have sustained injury and damage more fully set forth below in Claims I and II, which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000) Dollazs, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. 23592A.IUD\BSB g w CLAIM I SANDRA E. BACHMAN v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL J. CAHILL R.N. L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICK. L.P.N C KAUFFMAN R N and D. STARKER, R.N. 38. Paragraphs 1 through 30 and Counts I and II of the Complaint are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 39. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants as herein related above, Plaintiff Sandra Bachman has suffered painful, severe and permanent injuries included, but not limited to, paralysis and paraplegia of the lower extremities as well as complete loss of the control of bodily function. 40. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, and the resulting injuries, Plaintiff Sandra Bachman was forced to incur medical expenses in an effort to restore herself to health, and because of the nature of her injuries, Mrs. Bachman will be forced to incur similar expenses in the future, and claim is made therefor. 41. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, and the resulting injuries, Plaintiff Sandra Bachman has undergone and in the future will undergo great physical and mental pain and suffering, great inconvenience in carrying out her daily activities, loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, and claim is made therefor. 42. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, and the resulting injuries, Plaintiff Sandra Bachman has been and in the future will be subject to great humiliation and embarrassment, and claim is made therefor. 43. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, and the resulting injuries, Plaintiff Sandra Bachman has in the past and may in the future sustain a loss of earnings and diminution of her earning power and capacity, and claim is made therefor. ?3592.1\JD\BSB 9 mow, ~~. ~.e. ...,, ,a e ~ WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of 'Cwenty-Five Thousand ($25,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory azbitration. CLAIM II DAVID E. BACHMAN v. HOLY_SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CAHILL R N L. WARNER, R.N.. R. BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICK L.P.N. C KAUFFMAN R N and D. STARKER, R.N. 44. Paragraphs 1 through 30, Counts I and II and Claim I of the Complaint are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 45. By reasons of the aforesaid injuries sustained by his wife, Plaintiff David Bachman incurred liability for medical treatment, specialized medical equipment, medications, and similar expenses in an effort to restore his wife to health, and may incur similaz expenses in the future, and claim is made therefor. 46. By reasons of the aforesaid injuries sustained by his wife, Plaintiff David Bachman has been and in the future will be deprived of the assistance, companionship, consortium and society of his wife all to his great loss and detriment, and claim is made therefor. 23i92d.1\JD\BSB I~ .. ..' WHEREFORE, Plaintiff David Bachman demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. Date: ~(1~(~~ Respectfully submitted, ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C ~J~~z ~S ,~ ~~ James DeCinti, Esquire I.D. No. 77421 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717)238-6791 Attorney for Plaintiffs 23592J.IWD~BSB I1 r ~ ~ . e ~ ~ ~ VERIFICATION T, DAVID E. BACHMAN, verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing COMPLAINT are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information or belief. I understand that this verification is made subject to the provisions of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. i`~---` ~~~ DAVID E. BACHMAN DATED; ~ - ~<-% _ J 1 ~:~ ~. ., VERIFICATION I, SANDRA E. BACHMAN verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing COMPLAINT are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information or belief. I understand that this verification is made subject to the provisions of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. SANDRA E. BACHMAN DATED: ~ ._- /` j - d J i' 1 ~ ~ ~ r CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person 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, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage, prepaid, as follows: James DeCinti, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE i By: , Steven D. Snyder, Esq re Sup. Ct. I. D. #34344 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717)232-5000 Attorneys for Defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N. DATED: October 9, 2001 :274127 1 c ~ -0. V ~- ~ N ~~ _ lro/ n G ~ +-- =.' ~~ .~~ ~~ " __ : ~ - , i _ r~s - _-= ~ Y ;~ ~ _. SANDRA E. BACHMAN and DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CAHILL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICK, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., and D. STARKER, R.N., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.O1-5464 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPF.Arz.ANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: PLEASE enter our appearance on behalf of defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N., reserving however our rights to answer or otherwise plead. METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE ~~ By: Steven D. Snyder, Esq re Sup. Ct. I.D. #34344 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717)232-5000 Attorneys for Defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., DATED: October 9, 2001 C. Kauffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person 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, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage, prepaid, as follows: James DeCinti, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE By: Steven D. Snyder, E quire Sup. Ct. I. D. #34344 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717)232-5000 Holy Spirit Hospital, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., DATED: October 9, 2001 C. Kauffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N. :274186 l _ ~ ~~~. , r. ~ _ _.. - ~5~sw~~3uY"~`'° ~9k,wk ~,. ., d,.k-~~:~ara~ im~nmma-' ~`,rcwx nrai~~~'n`~I~ 5~ ~~` ~-:, (._ .-~ __ _- _ i , `~- ..< ~ ' ~_~ ' i_ ' ~~ ~~ ~~ ~:. SHERIFF'S RETURN - NOT FOUND CASE NO: 2001-05464 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BACHMAN SANDRA E ET AL VS HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL ET AL R. Thomas Kline ,Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant, DEFENDANT KOZICK M but was unable to locate Her in his bailiwick. He therefore returns the COMPLAINT & NOTICE , NOT FOUND as to the within named DEFENDANT KOZICK M NO RECORD OF THIS PERSON EVER WORKING AT HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL. Sheriff's Costs: So answers: Docketing 6.00 Not Found 5.00 _____ Affidavit .00 R. Th as Kline Surcharge 10.00 Sheriff of Cumberland County .00 21.00 ANGINO & ROVNER 10/02/2001 Sworn and subscribed to before me this y ~ day of ~~.., ~bol A. Dn. Pr tl onotary ' ~~lR ~ ~~~~~~ it we SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR II ' i CASE NO: 2001-05464 P I COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BACHMAN SANDRA E ET AL VS HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL ET AL DOUGLAS DONSEN Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL DEFENDANT the at 1340:00 HOURS, on the 1st day of October 2001 at 503 NORTH 21ST STREET CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to GWEN BINNER, ADMIN SEC a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 9.75 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 37.75 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this y ~ day of Q J/n.p~yl A.D. ~2e.. Or'. ~'I t~lLc~J rothonotary ~~ So Answers: ~~~~ R. Thomas Kline 10/02/2001 ANGINO & ROVNER / n By ° ~a+~.C l~.w~ eputy Sheriff SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2001-05464 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BACHMAN SANDRA E ET AL VS HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL ET AL DOUGLAS DONSEN Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon CAHILL DEFENDANT the at 1340:00 HOURS, on the 1st day of October 2001 at 503 NORTH 21ST STREET CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to GWEN BINNER, ADMIN SEC a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 16.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this y ~ day of ~(~C4{/.G/ d ~ I A . D . Prothonotary So Answers: ~c~'~rs~ ~,~~~ R. Thomas Kline 7 10/02/2001 ANGINO & ROVNER By . ~~ - (/aw--- Deputy Sheriff SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2001-05464 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BACHMAN SANDRA E ET AL VS HOLY SFIRIT HOSPITAL ET AL DOUGLAS DONSEN Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon WARNER L DEFENDANT the at 1340:00 HOURS, on the 1st day of October 2001 at 503 NORTH 21ST STREET CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to GWEN BINNER, ADMIN SEC a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 16.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this }~~' day of ~C.eaTi~+ o2.(xy ~ A . D . ~,~ Q ., Prothonotary So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 10/02/2001 ANGINO & ROVNER By . ~~~ ~r...`i Deputy Sheriff _ i ~~ ~n SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE N0: 2001-05464 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BACHMAN SANDRA E ET AL VS HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL ET AL DOUGLAS DONSEN Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon the DEFENDANT at 1340:00 HOURS, on the 1st day of October 2001 at 503 NORTH 21ST STREET CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to GWENN BTNNER, ADMIN SEC a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at Ghe same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 16.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this ~ day of 1J LC4'llwi a"~'7h~~v I~ ~ ~~~A~,p.~~D~ . ..o= U'. /YI.~CGL.~rTT Prothonotary So Answers: v R. Thomas Kline 10/02/2001 ANGINO & ROVNER By ~ ~~ aM-~ D uty Sheriff CASE NO: 2001-05464 P SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BACHMAN SANDRA E ET AL VS HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL ET AL DOUGLAS DONSEN Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE C was served upon the DEFENDANT at 1340:00 HOURS, on the 1st day of October 2001 at 503 NORTH 21ST STREET CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to GWENN BINNER, ADMIN SEC a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 16.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this 9 ~ day of C~I~w ~ (rU 1 ~~App,,.~~D . Pr~a~ '7""'~ So Answers: ~-~~!~ R. Thomas Kline 10/02/2001 ANGINO & ROVNER / n Deputy Sheriff CASE N0: 2001-05464 P SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BACHMAN SANDRA E ET AL VS HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL ET AL DOUGLAS DONSEN Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon STARNER D the DEFENDANT at 1340:00 HOURS, on the 1st day of October 2001 at 503 NORTH 21ST STREET CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to GWENN BINNER, ADMIN SEC a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 16.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this N ~ day of i.e~ L~' / V~cex.e.a ~ .~ othonotary ~ So Answers: ~~~~ R. Thomas Kline 10/02/2001 ANGINO & ROVNER By ~ ~u~.~ Q,~..~ puty Sheriff `+i\Mf)I.'~~0 E. Ii 1 C'S liwl,y?I. 3a~r.4 CS;~,~`Il) };. I3,.1F_'EI:[~f:\:;`:, IAt~r husl-,rr:<l, f'lni c~fsff'1> ~: IC+. `i'fII: (_'d:dUl: ( I)&' ~'taC~CNEQ"}hi hd-,d~~,~F~ c.:UC+,9£°I.:I~:L<~MI~t-"4tIIN I `r', P{?C~iC,l;ti`t'1.~,'.q-MEe~ Mc~. ~~ -e5°~so~f ~w~ i-la.3I: S` SPIIf~I' f IC);~PI~I':\L„ J, {:;~'s}~IILL.., ' R.M., C.. ~V:~It:NT~t.. I2..P~~., EZ. BL~IiL,, F;..>~L, t,F~'IL "~,d'T1S;:AM LA'vY ~,:f ~~it"~+~`: L.P.M., ~', K.fll1k~F`~1A1'~'. - k:N., ,~I"dl3 T), ti'1';~9~~Ml;.}L IT..f*l.. .IEJI.'Y I'6ZE.'°~i. FiE1~f~Ml~P'C~t f7e.lc~xGEr,~~¢<. MCS'I'ft, Fi' ~I't`p LALsFENU `dc,~i I~tiavl, bcc~e~au~c~i iii c~~tsxt. D, t' y++u wc;F~ f+, ~7elvntl ~t~n3ast tlw ci~iEttzs t.ef fF~rth in ti~tz fb[k~4a, ink ptat;~c:. y'eslE rrR~r,i 'qik.~: auai~7et ~~~ithln iwcnty I ~)) ~.lav; eil'to¢ [tus ~.'arx~pl.iat zaad _REofic~C are scxvtx9, I7y t^~~4~.rir~~~, a wK~iktiai ~~I~+C7cnrsar:c~i i~~~~:ti~rnafly ter by afltr~ra~icw esncf Iileai~ in .vritii3g ~uiC.h the ('o~grf yotin~ o;ld^Icrro.c.; ~~~r ~tl~,jectinns ~~ tdya• ct8ant~ set Pa~1h .~;;ai¢~.,t y~c~~.t, 1'ou etrc. ^,v;~z~tee~f thmt i€' ycn~a i'aiil t~7 ,fr< sa, th4 t:ase~ itury Crz'acc~d cvi¢0eaxx ~oFa cuit3 pc~~~~rartrt rt7;~y be. ~ ttta`.e~e~.{ :x~aii~;a ~~a~o~~ by t11e C_`syi.irt rov°itC1t>iat fi~.iher naGCe IesC coil ~ere~tzew s Y ccz~cv:l iii f~1cr t:'ort-~g~It~iril oc ti>r airy othee° ~:.iu~ioi~ car ecl3cf re~gtx~>"ie<f fey the Pf,:ria~tifE'. 5'i~q.~ ~~~i x~ Inse e~rion: ~r err hrnperf!,' u~• uel~¢er oir;l'if n~oiporr~~i~t ta7 y a:ru. Y'taU ~hTd i~I7LI~r T?,hE TfII~ f~i~hI3I1 T~1 '1'd)L1 Ft I..aW`~'i~ft, ~"f C1t~r(~'.L;. I,P ~1~~aL~ j){y MID'9' fi.a.5~f{ L~#~4~"Y'N:I2 ON, i'AI~;IVd:D'9~ =~PFC)Itt:d c1NE-:, cad) f¢.~~d CiR. 1'I:CI~,PHt7~11' "["FILE t17 &'Td:'P' tiI;'C I^^°I>II't'H I~HI_d>'vV'G't: P P4P~d&:~ IaI7T WHI:[;F "s`C)i) C'.0.(tii C~:F E' L&-;(_L~1t. EfI~LP, i;'l1i\fl~Pif~.Li1T'd1t:'d:ii.JI~J`P1' Ii\fw ;\4i.`+d')d'Ir"if'-{)^,r 2 L3IiI?F~I'1` ,'l~`f?.NLI9-: SANDRA E. BACHMAN, and DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CAHILL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICK, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., AND D. STARNER, R.N., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. CIVIL ACTION LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICIA Le hari demandado a usted en la torte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas sugnuientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notification. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en la torte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la torte tomara medidas y puede entrar una Orden contra usted sin previo aviso o notification y por cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en la petition de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO IMMEDIATEMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEPFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARR AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEQUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA 17013 717/249-3166 SANDRA E. BACHMAN, and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. NO. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CAHILL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., :CIVIL ACTION LAW M. KOZICK, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., AND D. STARNER, R.N., :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiffs Sandra E. Bachman (hereinafter Mrs. Bachman) and David E. Bachman (hereinafter Mr. Bachman) are wife and husband adult individual residing in Mifflintown, Juniata County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital is a corporate medical institution with facilities and offices which provide medical services in East Pennsboro Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant J. Cahill is an adult individual and a registered nurse who at all relevant times to the facts as described herein was employed as a registered nurse at Holy Spirit Hospital and acting within the course and scope of her employment as such. 4. Defendant L. Warner is an adult individual and a registered nurse who at all relevant times to the facts as described herein was employed as a registered nurse at Holy Spirit Hospital and acting within the course and scope of her employment as such. 5. Defendant R. Bubb is an adult individual and a registered nurse who at all relevant times to the facts as described herein was employed as a registered nurse at Holy Spirit Hospital and acting within the course and scope of her employment as such. 235924.14TD~BSB I ~_ r~r; 6. Defendant M. Kozick is an adult individual and a licensed practical nurse who at all relevant times to the facts as described herein was employed as a licensed practical nurse at Holy Spirit Hospital and acting within the course and scope of her employment as such. 7. Defendant C. Kauffman is an adult individual and a registered nurse who at all relevant times to the facts as described herein was employed as a registered nurse at Holy Spirit Hospital and acting within the course and scope of her employment as such. 8. Defendant D. Starner is an adult individual and a registered nurse who at all relevant times to the facts as described herein was employed as a registered nurse at Holy Spirit Hospital and acting within the course and scope of her employment as such. 9. On December 10, 1999, Mrs. Bachman was admitted to Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital under the care of her physician for an exploration of the left popliteal vein graft at the upper calf. 10. For purposes of this surgical procedure, anesthesia was provided by way of a spinal catheter which was removed following surgery at approximately 3:00 p.m. 11. Over the course of approximately the next day and one half, the Defendant Nurses, as identified above through medical records, acting in the course and scope of their employment with Holy Spirit Hospital failed to recognize clear signs of Mrs. Bachman's deteriorating neurologic condition. 12. At approximately 8:00 p.m. on December 10, 1999, Mrs. Bachman complained of back pain. Neither the type nor degree of pain was documented by the nurse, however, pain medication (Vicodin) was ordered and administered. 13. The notes reflect that Mrs. Bachman experienced "some" relief. 2ss~aa.nm~sss 2 14. At approximately 10:00 p.m. on December 10, 1999, Mrs. Bachman was examined by one of the Defendant Nurses and positive a Doppler was indicated. In addition, it was noted that Mrs. Bachman's extremities were warm with positive sensation. 15. At approximately 11:00 p.m. on December 10, 1999, Mrs. Bachman continued to complain of back pun and in addition complained of left (operative) leg pain. 16. Defendant Nurses monitored the Doppler pulses every hour beginning at 4:00 p.m. on December 10, 1999, and each and every time the Doppler pulse was indicated to be positive. 17. The first note of December 11, 1999, was recorded at 12:30 a.m. (0300 hours} indicating "no changes in assessment from 12/10/99." Doppler pulse was positive. 18. At 8:00 a.m. on December 11, 1999, it was indicated that Mrs. Bachman's left leg (operative leg) was warm to touch and that she was resting with complaints. 19. At approximately 6:30 p.m. (1830 hours) on December 11, 1999, Mrs. Bachman told a Defendant Nurse that her left (operative) foot felt numb. It was indicated that the foot felt warm but that it felt cold to Mrs. Bachman. 20. Mrs. Bachman was unable, at this time, to feel the nurse touching her foot. It was noted that Mrs. Bachman had limited movement in the foot, less movement than the day before. 21. At this time, it was indicated that Doppler pulses were strong. 22. At approximately 9:30 p.m. on December 11, 1999, it was indicated only that Mrs. Bachman was having discomfort. She was transferred from her bed to a chair and then back to her bed at 10:00 p.m. 23. The tlrst assessment of December 12, 1999, was at 12:30 a.m. (0300 hours) and it was indicated that the left leg was warm to touch. Mrs. Bachman complained of numbness and 23592d.14TD~BSB 3 ~, .~. tingling, unable to feel touch to her feet and that movement was limited. Mrs. Bachman also continued to complain of pain in her left leg. 24. At approximately 4:05 a.m. on December 12, 1999, Mrs. Bachman activated the call button to notify the nurses. Mrs. Bachman complained that she was now unable to feel her right (non-operative) leg. 25. Mrs. Bachman, at this time, could not move either foot nor could she bend either leg at the knees. 26. Mrs. Bachman began to cry and asked the nurse why she couldn't feel her move either leg. 27. According to a note of 4:15 a.m., a "Vascular doctor" was notified. However, there is no record indicating that Mrs. Bachman received any care between 4:05 a.m. and 8:30 a.m. 28. At approximately 8:30 a.m. on December 12, 1999, Mrs. Bachman's legs were cool to touch and she was unable to move either leg. 29. Upon assessment by two physicians at approximately 8:30 a.m. on December 12, 1999, Mrs. Bachman was found to have total paraplegia of the lower extremeties. An epidural hematoma was diagnosed at L2, L3 and L4 which necessitated an emergency lumbar laminectomy. 30. Since the events described herein, Mrs. Bachman has been diagnosed with, among other things, paraplegia of the lower extremities. 235924.1~dD~BSB 4 ~~ ~ COUNTI SANDRA E. BACHMAN v. J. CAHILL. L. WARNER R BUBB M. KOZICK. C. KAUFFMAN and D. STARKER 31. Paragraphs 1 through 30 of the Complaint are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 32. The injttt'ies and damages sustained by Plaintiffs, as more fully articulated below, were the direct and proximate result of the negligence of all of the nurses on duty and responsible for Mrs. Bachman's care, specifically, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N., as follows: (a) failing to recognize clear indications of Sandra Bachman's deteriorating neurologic condition post-surgery; (b) failing to properly assess Sandra Bachman's neurologic condition post-surgery; (c) completely failing to monitor and/or assess Sandra Bachman's neurovasculaz status from 4:05 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. on December 12, 1999, despite the fact that Mrs. Bachman had complained that she could not feel or move either legs; (d) failing to timely notify any physician with regard to Sandra Bachman's deteriorating neurologic condition post-surgery; (e) failing to properly maintain complete and accurate medical records; (f) failing to properly attend to, monitor and/or provide proper nursing care to Sandra Bachman; 23592J.14TD~BSB 5 (g) inappropriately monitoring Sandra Bachman's post-surgical status in such a way as prevent Mrs. Bachman's severe condition from being properly diagnosed; (h) failing to minimize the risk of Sandra Bachman's injury from an epidural hematoma; and (i) increasing Sandra Bachman's risk of serious and/or permanent injury. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT II SANDRA E. BACHMAN v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL 33. Paragraphs 1 through 30 and Count I of the Complaint are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 34. At all times relevant to the events described herein the nursing staff and all other hospital personnel who provided care and treatment to Sandra Bachman were acting as agents, apparent agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital and at said times were acting within the scope and course of said relationship with Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital. 35. As such, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital is liable to Plaintiffs for injuries and damages hereinafter related which were the direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's nursing staff and other personnel in: (a) failing to recognize clear indications of Sandra Bachman's deteriorating neurologic condition post-surgery; 235924.1WD~BSB 6 i (b) failing to properly assess Sandra Bachman's neurologic condition post-surgery; (c) completely failing to monitor and/or assess Sandra Bachman's neurovascular status from 4:05 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. on December 12, 1999, despite the fact that Mrs. Bachman had complained that she could not feel or move either legs; (d) failing to timely notify any physician with regard to Sandra Bachman's deteriorating neurologic condition post-surgery; (e) failing to properly maintain complete and accurate medical records; (f) failing to properly attend to, monitor and/or provide proper nursing care to Sandra Bachman; (g) inappropriately monitoring Sandra Bachman's post-surgical status in such a way as prevent Mrs. Bachman's severe condition from being properly diagnosed; (h) failing to minimize the risk of Sandra Bachman's injury from an epidural hematoma; and (i) increasing Sandra Bachman's risk of serious and/or permanent injury. 36. In addition, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital, acting through its agents, apparent agents, servants and/or employees, is liable to the Plaintiffs for injuries and damages alleged herein, which were directly and proximately caused by its negligence in: 235924.1\IA~BSB 7 (a) failing to properly train, instruct, or notify the nurses and other personnel of the proper steps to be taken in a situation involving severe neurologic deterioration; (b) failing to properly select and supervise nurses and other personnel to whom they entrusted the care of neurologic patients; (c) failing to timely intervene and appreciate the significance of Mrs. Bachman's symptoms and deteriorating condition; and (d) failing to devise, promulgate, implement and/or enforce rules or regulations requiring nurses and other personnel entrusted with the Gaze and treatment of patients such as Mrs. Bachman to take all proper and necessary steps to avoid injuries such as those sustained by Plaintiff Sandra Bachman. 37. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's negligence, Plaintiffs have sustained injury and damage more fully set forth below in Claims I and II, which aze incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. 235924.1VD~BS16 g - .. ~~ ~- - -iezw' CLAIM I SANDRA E. BACHMAN v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL J. CAHILL R.N. L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICK LPN C KAUFFMAN R N and D. STARNER, R.N. 38. Paragraphs 1 through 30 and Counts I and II of the Complaint are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 39. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants as herein related above, Plaintiff Sandra Bachman has suffered painful, severe and permanent injuries included, but not limited to, paralysis and paraplegia of the lower extremities as well as complete loss of the control of bodily function. 40. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, and the resulting injuries, Plaintiff Sandra Bachman was forced to incur medical expenses in an effort to restore herself to health, and because of the nature of her injuries, Mrs. Bachman will be forced to incur similar expenses in the future, and claim is made therefor. 41. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, and the resulting injuries, Plaintiff Sandra Bachman has undergone and in the future will undergo great physical and mental pain and suffering, great inconvenience in carrying out her daily activities, loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, and claim. is made therefor. 42. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, and the resulting injuries, Plaintiff Sandra Bachman has been and in the future will be subject to great humiliation and embarrassment, and claim is made therefor. 43. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Defendants, and the resulting injuries, Plaintiff Sandra Bachman has in the past and may in the future sustain a loss of earnings and diminution of her earning power and capacity, and claim is made therefor. 235924.1\JD\BSB 9 ~. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. CLAIM II DAVID E. BACHMAN v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CARTEL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICK, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N. and D. STAI2NER, R.N. 44. Paragraphs 1 through 30, Counts I and II and Claim I of the Complaint are incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 45. By reasons of the aforesaid injuries sustained by his wife, Plaintiff David Bachman incurred liability for medical treatment, specialized medical equipment, medications, and similaz expenses in an effort to restore his wife to health, and may incur similar expenses in the future, and claim is made therefor. 46. By reasons of the aforesaid injuries sustained by his wife, Plaintiff David Bachman leas been and in the future will be deprived of the assistance, companionship, consortium and society of his wife all to his great loss and detriment, and claim is made therefor. 235924.1~JD~BSB IO ~~ i m WHEREFORE, Plaintiff David Bachman demands judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand ($25,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. Respectfully submitted, ANGINO & RO~VN~ER, P.C James DeCinti, Esquire I.D. No. 77421 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 Attorney for Plaintiffs Date: GI~~~I 235924.1~TA~BSB I I A~.~.~ VERIFICATION I, DAVID E. BACHMAN, verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing COMPLAINT are true and correct to the best of my lrnowledge, information or belief. I understand that this verification is made subject to the provisions of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DAVID E. BACHMAN DATED: ~ `~ ~~ `" d ~ VERIFICATION I, SANDRA E. BACHMAN verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing COMPLAINT are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information or belief. I understand that this verification is made subject to the provisions of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~j'/`~ ,, ~'A SANDRA E. BACHMAN DATED: `~ ._. /~ -- d J ~' r~ :; C'~ -, ,~ r, a s ;:t. , ao ;,i ; ddtU3N ; '`''- F.,n ~~ c1J .~ 1 •. 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 full) SANDRA E. BACHMAN, and DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, Plaintiffs v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO.O1-5464 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CAHILL, RN., L. WARNER, RN., R BUBB, R.N., : CIVIL ACTION LAW M. KOZICK, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., AND D. STARNER, RN., :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants No. 01-5464 Civil Term 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiffs motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Defendants' Preliminary Objections 2. Identify counsel who will argue case: a. for plaintiff: James DeCinti, Esquire, Angino & Rovner, P.C., 4503 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110 b. for defendant: Steven D. Snyder, Esquire, Mette, Evaus & Woodside, 3401 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110 3. I will notify all parties in wrifing within two days that this case has been listed for azgument. 4. Argument Court Date: December 12, 2001 James DeCinti, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs Date: 10/19/01 ~ ~ c 5 ~ - v~ n _-, mrn ..a __ - z ^ z c: ~ , ~~; ~= ~,,, ~~ ~`J '~ "= °` CTS -{ ~~S ~. ^ i SANDRA E. BACHMAN and DAVID E. BACIIMAN, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CARTEL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUB13> R.N., M. KOZICK, L.P.N. C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., and D. STARNER, R.N., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW NO. 01-5464 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., and OLER J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 17~` day of December, 2001, after careful consideration of Defendants' preliminary objections in the form of motions to strike or, in the alternative, for a more specific complaint, the preliminary objections are denied and Defendants are given 20 days from the date of this order to file answers to the complaint. BY THE COURT, iii. esley Oler~ J. James DeCinti, Esq. ~ , 4503 North Front Street dQ]~A 0~-LQ.d1 Harrisburg, PA 17110 ~_ 1 Attorney for Plaintiffs ~~rJ ~~-i9-ol. ,iw~° - ~,aisi~a5:L'fid-tiahee. ~a n~~.wx.~.- ..nax+t ~ttbk~Ja~~ ~:.. ,~ w Steven D. Snyder, Esq. 3401 North Front Street P.O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 Attorney for Defendants :rc SANDRA E. BACHMAN and DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CAHILL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., M. Kozich, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., and D. STARKER, R.N., Defendants TO: Sandra E. Bachman and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUI~'I', PENNSYLVANIA NO.O1-5464 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD David E. Bachman, her husband, Plaintiffs c/o James DeCinti, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 You are hereby notified to plead to the within document within twenty (20) days after service hereof, or a default judgment maybe entered against you. METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE Steven D. Snyder, Es ire Sup. Ct. I. D. #34344 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 DATED: January 22, 2002 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717)232-5000 Attorneys for Defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozich, L.P.N., C. Kauffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N. :282934 1 SANDRA E. BACHMAN and DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CAHILL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICH, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., and D. STARNER, R.N., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUI~`1'Y, PENNSYLVANIA NO.O1-5464 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL. TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, by and through its attorneys, Mette, Evans & Woodside, and in response to the plaintiffs' complaint avers as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 1 of the plaintiffs' complaint and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. 2-8. Admitted. 9. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Mrs. Bachman was admitted to Holy Spirit Hospital under the care of her physician on December 10, 1999. After reasonable investigation, the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments set forth in paragraph 9 of the plaintiffs' complaint and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. 10. Admitted in part and denied in part. To the extent that the medical records of Mrs. Bachman from Holy Spirit Hospital reflect the averments of the corresponding paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint, it is admitted only that such is recorded therein. Otherwise, and to the extent that the medical records do not so reflect and/or contradict the corresponding averments, said averments are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and for the reasons set forth in paragraph 1 hereof. 11. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 11 of the plaintiffs' complaint are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 12-29. Admitted in part and denied in part. To the extent that the medical records of Mrs. Bachman from Holy Spirit Hospital reflect the averments of -2- the corresponding paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint, it is admitted only that such is recorded therein. Otherwise, and to the extent that the medical records do not so reflect and/or contradict the corresponding averments, said averments are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and for the reasons set forth in paragraph 1 hereof. 30. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 1 of the plaintiffs' complaint and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. COUNTI Sandra E. Bachman v. J. Cahill. L. Warner. R. Bubb. M. Kozich. C. Kauffman and D. Starner 31. Paragraphs 1 through 30 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 32. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 32 of the plaintiffs' complaint are deemed denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. -3- WI3EREFORE, defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT II Sandra E Bachman v Holy Suirit Hospital 33. Paragraphs 1 through 32 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 34. Denied. Because the plaintiffs have not identified by name or adequate description the "nursing staff"' and "all other hospital personnel" referred to generally in paragraph 34 of the complaint, the defendant is unable to admit or deny said general averment and therefore, it is deemed denied. By way of further answer, paragraphs 1 through 8 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 35. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 35 of the plaintiffs' complaint are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. -4- 36. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 36 of the plaintiffs' complaint are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, paragraphs 33, 34, and 35 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 37. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 37 of the plaintiffs' complaint are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 13y way of further answer, paragraphs 38 through 46 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. WHEREFORE, defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. CLAIM I Sandra E. Bachman v. Holy Spirit Hospital. J. Cahill R N L Warner R.N R. Bubb R N M. Kozich. L.P.N.. C. Kauffman. R.N. and D. Starner. R.N. 38. Paragraphs 1 through 37 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. -5- 39-43. Denied. It is specifically denied that the defendants were negligent in any manner and that their conduct was the proximate or legal cause of any of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries or losses. These averments are further denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. With respect to any remaining averment, after reasonable investigation, the answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. WHEREFORE, defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. CLAIM II David E. Bachman v. Holy Spirit Hospital. J. Cahill. R.N.. L. Warner. R.N.. R. Bubb. R.N.. M Kozich LPN C Kauffman R N and D Starner R.N 44. Paragraphs 1 through 43 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 45-46. Denied. It is specifically denied that the defendants were negligent in any manner and that their conduct was the proximate or legal cause of -6- any of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries or losses. These averments are further denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. With respect to any remaining averment, after reasonable investigation, the answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. WHEREFORE, defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. NEW MATTER The defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, further avers as follows: 47. Paragraphs 1 through 115 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 48. The plaintiff s Complaint fails to state a claim against Holy Spirit Hospital upon which relief can be granted. -7- 49. The injuries and the damages, if any, alleged by the plaintiff, which damages are specifically denied, were caused in whole or in part by conditions or circumstances beyond the control of Holy Spirit Hospital. 50. Holy Spirit Hospital, and its employees, at all times material hereto, acted in conformity with the standard of care applicable to a hospital and hospital employees in like circumstances. 51. Holy Spirit Hospital specifically denies any and all allegations of negligence and malpractice. 52. Any alleged negligence of the answering defendant or its employees, if any, the same being specifically denied, was not a substantial factor in causing the harm complained of in this suit. 53. The damages alleged by plaintiff did not result from acts or omissions of Holy Spirit Hospital, its servants or employees, but rather may have resulted from acts or omissions of other persons and/or entities over whom Holy Spirit Hospital had no control or right of control and for whom Holy Spirit Hospital is not legally liable. -g- 54. Plaintiffs' claims are limited and barred by Sections 103, 602 and 606 of the Health Care Services Malpractice Act of 1974, 40 P.S. §1301, et sec ., as amended. 55. At all times relevant hereto answering defendant, through its agents, servants, and employees, acted within and followed the precepts of a respected school of thought and, accordingly, all professional conduct was fully commensurate with the applicable standard of care. Evidence at trial may establish two or more schools of thought applicable to the issues presented in this case. 56. Plaintiffs' injuries and losses, if any, were not caused by the conduct or negligence of answering defendant, but rather were caused by pre-existing medical conditions and/or causes beyond the control of answering defendant, and plaintiffs may not recover against it. 57. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by operation of the applicable statute of limitations, including 42 Pa.C.S.A. §5524 and 40 P.S. §1301.605. 58. All claims that might have been asserted by plaintiffs including claims for medical expenses are barred by operation of the applicable statute of limitations. -9- ~____ ___ ~, 59. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238 created substantive rights and, therefore, it is beyond the authority of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to promulgate procedural rules. 60. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238 violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 61. The collateral source rule does not apply such that if the plaintiff should be awarded any money damages, such possibility being specifically denied, then the amount of said damages must be reduced by the total amount of any and all payments that the plaintiff received from any and all collateral sources for any injuries and/or damages that the plaintiff allegedly suffered in this matter. 62. If the plaintiff should be awarded any money damages, such possibility being specifically denied, then the amount of said damages must be reduced by the total amount of any and all medical expenses charged but not actually paid by or on behalf of the plaintiff; that is, any amount recovered by the plaintiff must be reduced by the sum of any and all medical expenses "written off ' by any health care provider. -10- 63. The defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, is a corporate health care institution and not medical professionals and is therefore incapable of, and not authorized to, provide direct medical care and advice. 64. Inasmuch as plaintiff is alleging that Holy Spirit Hospital is vicariously liable for the actions of other defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital cannot be held jointly and/or severally liable for any damages. To the contrary, the liability of Holy Spirit Hospital, if any, and specifically denied, would be secondary to that of other defendants. WHEREFORE, defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in its favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' -11- .~ ~. complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE By: Steven D. Snyder, Esq ire Sup. Ct. I. D. #34344 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717)232-5000 Attorneys for Defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozich, L.P.N., DATED: January 22, 2002 C. Kauffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N. ., .. VERIFICATION I, Franchesca J. Charney, Director of Risk Management at Holy Spirit Hospital, verify that the statements made in the foregoing answer and new matter which are within the personal knowledge of the undersigned, are true and correct, and as to the facts based on the information of others, the undersigned, after diligent inquiry, believes it to be true. And further, I signed this verification on the recommendation of my attorneys, who advise me that the allegations and language in this document are required legally to raise issues for resolution at trial, by the Court, or by continuing investigation and preparation for trial. I understand that some of these allegations may prove inappropriate after investigation and trial preparation are complete and I leave determination of these matters to my attorneys on their advice. I understand that all statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL Franchesca J. Char U Director of Risk Management Dated: Gtn'~ . l ~ ~ v0 3- ., .. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the persons 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, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage, prepaid, as follows: James DeCinti, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE By: Steven D. Snyder, Esq ire Sup. Ct. I. D. #34344 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717)232-5000 Attorneys for Defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozich, L.P.N., DATED: January 22, 2002 C. Kauffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N. ~'4 _ - -_E~_s~. _ _ 'A#~~-~siu ,m.,3aaista" --A'n~'s~~P I I" v h R M C.> ~} (`-. f < , f it ~' •~_ 1. _ _ Vl ~~' 11 ' __ _ _ ~ _ _ . ; C -°R G ~ r r,3 .~ ~~ SANDRA E. BACHMAN and DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CAHILL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICH, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., and D. STARNER, R.N., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.O1-5464 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Sandra E. Bachman and David E. Bachman, her husband, Plaintiffs c/o James DeCinti, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 You are hereby notified to plead to the within document within twenty (20) days after service hereof, or a default judgment may be entered against you. DATED: February 1, 2002 METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE By: Steven D. Snyder, quire Sup. Ct. I. D. #34344 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717)232-5000 Attorneys for Defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N.; R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozich, L.P.N., C. Kauffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N. :283602 1 SANDRA E. BACHMAN and DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CAHILL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICH, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., and D. STARNER, R.N., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.01-5464 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AND NOW, comes the defendant, J. Cahill, R.N., by and through her attorneys, Mette, Evans & Woodside, and in response to the plaintiffs' complaint avers as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 1 of the plaintiffs' complaint and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. 2-8. Admitted. 9. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Mrs. Bachman was admitted to Holy Spirit Hospital under the care of her physician on December 10, 1999. After reasonable investigation, the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments set forth in paragraph 9 of the plaintiffs' complaint and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. 10. Admitted in part and denied in part. To the extent that the medical records of Mrs. Bachman from Holy Spirit Hospital reflect the averments of the corresponding paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint, it is admitted only that such is recorded therein. Otherwise, and to the extent that the medical records do not so reflect and/or contradict the corresponding averments, said averments are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and for the reasons set forth in paragraph 1 hereof. 11. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 11 of the plaintiffs' complaint are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 12-29. Admitted in part and denied in part. To the extent that the medical records of Mrs. Bachman from Holy Spirit Hospital reflect the averments of -2- the corresponding paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint, it is admitted only that such is recorded therein. Otherwise, and to the extent that the medical records do not so reflect and/or contradict the corresponding averments, said averments are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and for the reasons set forth in paragraph i hereof. 30. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 1 of the plaintiffs' complaint and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. COUNTI Sandra E. Bachman v. J. Cahill. L. Warner. R. Bubb. M. Kozich. C. Kauffman and D. Starner 31. Paragraphs 1 through 30 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 32. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 32 of the plaintiffs' complaint are deemed denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. -3- WHEREFORE, defendant, J. Cahill, R.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COi7NT II Sandra E. Bachman v. Holy Spirit Hospital 33. Paragraphs 1 through 32 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 34. Denied. Because the plaintiffs have not identified by name or adequate description the "nursing staff 'and "all other hospital personnel" referred to generally in paragraph 34 of the complaint, the defendant is unable to admit or deny said general averment and therefore, it is deemed denied. By way of further answer, paragraphs 1 through 8 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 35. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 35 of the plaintiffs' complaint are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. -4- 36. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 36 of the plaintiffs' complaint are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, paragraphs 33, 34, and 35 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 37. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 37 of the plaintiffs' complaint are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, paragraphs 38 through 46 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. WHEREFORE, defendant, J. Cahill, R.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. CLAIM I Sandra E. Bachman v. Holy Spirit Hospital. J. Cahill. R.N.. L. Warner. R.N.. R. Bubb. R.N.. M. Kozich. L.P.N.. C. Kauffman. R.N. and D. Starner. R.N. 38. Paragraphs 1 through 37 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. -5- 39-43. Denied. It is specifically denied that the defendants were negligent in any manner and that their conduct was the proximate or legal cause of any of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries or losses. These averments are further denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. With respect to any remaining averment, after reasonable investigation, the answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. WHEREFORE, defendant, J. Cahill, R.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. CLAIM II David E. Bachman v. Holy Spirit Hospital. J. Cahill, R.N.. L. Warner. R.N.. R. Bubb. R.N., M. Kozich, L.P.N.. C. Kauffman. R.N. and D. Starner. R.N. 44. Paragraphs 1 through 43 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 45-46. Denied. It is specifically denied that the defendants were negligent in any manner and that their conduct was the proximate or legal cause of -6- any of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries or losses. These averments are further denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. With respect to any remaining averment, after reasonable investigation, the answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. WHEREFORE, defendant, J. Cahill, R.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. NEW MATTER The defendant, J. Cahill, R.N., further avers as follows: 47. Paragraphs 1 through 115 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 48. The plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a claim against the answering defendant upon which relief can be granted. -7- 49. The injuries and the damages, if any, alleged by the plaintiff, which damages are specifically denied, were caused in whole or in part by conditions or circumstances beyond the control of the answering defendant. 50. The answering defendant, at all times material hereto, acted in conformity with the standard of care applicable to a nurse in like circumstances. 51. The answering defendant specifically denies any and all allegations of negligence and malpractice. 52. Any alleged negligence of the answering defendant, if any, the same being specifically denied, was not a substantial factor in causing the harm complained of in this suit. 53. The damages alleged by plaintiff did not result from acts or omissions of the answering defendant but rather may have resulted from acts or omissions of other persons and/or entities over whom the answering defendant had no control or right of control and for whom the answering defendant is not legally liable. 54. Plaintiffs' claims are limited and barred by Sections 103, 602 and 606 of the Health Care Services Malpractice Act of 1974, 40 P.S. §1301, et sec,., as amended. -8- 55. At all times relevant hereto answering defendant acted within and followed the precepts of a respected school of thought and, accordingly, all professional conduct was fully commensurate with the applicable standard of care. Evidence at trial may establish two or more schools of thought applicable to the issues presented in this case. 56. Plaintiffs' injuries and losses, if any, were not caused by the conduct or negligence of answering defendant, but rather were caused by pre-existing medical conditions and/or causes beyond the control of answering defendant, and plaintiffs may not recover against her. 57. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by operation of the applicable statute of limitations, including 42 Pa.C.S.A. §5524 and 40 P.S. §1301.605. 58. All claims that might have been asserted by plaintiffs including claims for medical expenses are barred by operation of the applicable statute of limitations. 59. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238 created substantive rights and, therefore, it is beyond the authority of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to promulgate procedural rules. -9- 60. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238 violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 61. The collateral source rule does not apply such that if the plaintiff should be awarded any money damages, such possibility being specifically denied, then the amount of said damages must be reduced by the total amount of any and all payments that the plaintiff received from any and all collateral sources for any injuries and/or damages that the plaintiff allegedly suffered in this matter. 62. If the plaintiff should be awarded any money damages, such possibility being specifically denied, then the amount of said damages must be reduced by the total amount of any and all medical expenses charged but not actually paid by or on behalf of the plaintiff; that is, any amount recovered by the plaintiff must be reduced by the sum of any and all medical expenses "written off ' by any health care provider. 63. Inasmuch as plaintiff is or may be alleging that answering defendant is vicariously liable for the actions of other defendants, answering defendant cannot be held jointly and/or severally liable for any damages. To the contrary, the liability of answering defendant, if any, and specifically denied, may be secondary to that of other defendants. -10- WHEREFORE, defendant, J. Cahill, R.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE ~ ~ i~ By: teven D. Snyder, Esq ire Sup. Ct. I. D. #34344 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717)232-5000 Attorneys for Defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozich, L.P.N., DATED: February 1, 2002 C. Kauffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N. VERIFICATION I, Jennifer K. Cahill, R.N., verify that the statements made in the foregoing answer and new matter which are within the personal knowledge of the undersigned, are true and correct, and as to the facts based on the information of others, the undersigned, after diligent inquiry, believes it to be true. And further, I signed this verification on the recommendation of my attorneys, who advise me that the allegations and language in this document are required legally to raise issues for resolution at trial, by the Court, or by continuing investigation and preparation for trial. I understand that some of these allegations may prove inappropriate after investigation and trial preparation are complete and I leave determination of these matters to my attorneys on their advice. I understand that all statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: ~~ ~~'~ ~~ 1 ~ [ ~G w"' nnifer ahill, R.N. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the persons 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, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage, prepaid, as follows: James DeCinti, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE By: ,, M Steven D. Snyder, Es ire Sup. Ct. I. D. #34344 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717)232-5000 Attorneys for Defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozich, L.P.N., DATED: February 1, 2002 C. Kauffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N. ,. _ n ` c -- -, 'f7 ij) "~i -- r~i~~.,. _. ~. - ~ 11 3 ~... '... J - ~ z u ,~ --/~ ''.~'7' T SANDRA E. BACHMAN and DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CARTEL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICH, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., and D. STARNER, R.N., Defendants I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.O1-5464 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Sandra E. Bachman and David E. Bachman, her husband, Plaintiffs c/o James DeCinti, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 You are hereby notified to plead to the within document within twenty (20) days after service hereof, or a default judgment may be entered against you. DATED: February 1, 2002 METTE, EVANS & WOODS`IDE C~ By: Steven D. Snyder, Esqu •e Sup. Ct. I. D. #34344 3401 North Front Street P. O, Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717)232-5000 Attorneys for Defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozich, L.P.N., C. Kauffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N. :283627 1 ~, SANDRA E. BACHMAN : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF and DAVID E. BACHMAN, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA her husband, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CAHILL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICH, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., and D. STARNER, R.N., Defendants NO.Ol-5464 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRL4L DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT. L. WARNER. R.N.. TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the defendant, L. Warner, R.N., by and through her attorneys, Mette, Evans & Woodside, and in response to the plaintiffs' complaint avers as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 1 of the plaintiffs' complaint and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. 2-8. Admitted. 9. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Mrs. Bachman was admitted to Holy Spirit Hospital under the care of her physician on December 10, 1999. After reasonable investigation, the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments set forth in paragraph. 9 of the plaintiffs' complaint and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. 10. Admitted in part and denied in part. To the extent that the medical records of Mrs. Bachman from Holy Spirit Hospital reflect the averments of the corresponding paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint, it is admitted only that such is recorded therein. Otherwise, and to the extent that the medical records do not so reflect and/or contradict the corresponding averments, said averments are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and for the reasons set forth in paragraph 1 hereof. 11. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 11 of the plaintiffs' complaint are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 12-29. Admitted in part and denied in part. To the extent that the medical records of Mrs. Bachman from Holy Spirit Hospital reflect the averments of 2- .~., - k ' , the corresponding paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint, it is admitted only that such is recorded therein. Otherwise, and to the extent that the medical records do not so reflect and/or contradict the corresponding averments, said averments are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and for the reasons set forth in paragraph 1 hereof. 30. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 1 of the plaintiffs' complaint and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. COUNTI Sandra E. Bachman v. J. Cahill. L. Warner. R. Bubb. M. Kozich. C. Kauffman and D. Starner 31. Paragraphs 1 through 30 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 32. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 32 of the plaintiffs' complaint are deemed denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. -3- WHEREFORE, defendant, L. Warner, R.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT II Sandra E. Bachman v. Holy Spirit Hospital 33. Paragraphs 1 through 32 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 34. Denied. Because the plaintiffs have not identified by name or adequate description the "nursing staff 'and "all other hospital personnel" referred to generally in paragraph 34 of the complaint, the defendant is unable to admit or deny said general averment and therefore, it is deemed denied. By way of further answer, paragraphs 1 through 8 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 35. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 35 of the plaintiffs' complaint are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. -4- 36. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 36 of the plaintiffs' complaint are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, paragraphs 33, 34, and 35 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 37. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 37 of the plaintiffs' complaint are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, paragraphs 38 through 46 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. WHEREFORE, defendant, L. Warner, R.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. CLAIM I Sandra E. Bachman v. Holy Spirit Hospital. J. Cahill. R.N.. L. Warner. R.N.. R. Bubb. R.N.. M. Kozich. L.P.N.. C. Kauffman. R.N. and D. Starner. R.N. 38. Paragraphs 1 through 37 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. -5- .. uvmu ~...,,....~.L...~..... :... ... .:. ....mL~.:~...at..~e.. t. v ~.. I ~. '. ..: 39-43. Denied. It is specifically denied that the defendants were negligent in any manner and that their conduct was the proximate or legal cause of any of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries or losses. These averments are further denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. With respect to any remaining averment, after reasonable investigation, the answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. WHEREFORE, defendant, L. Warner, R.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. CLAIM II David E. Bachman v. Holy Spirit Hospital. J. Cahill. R.N.. L. Warner. R.N.. R. Bubb. R.N.. M. Kozich. L.P.N.. C. Kauffman. R.N. and D. Starner. R.N. 44. Paragraphs 1 through 43 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 45-46. Denied. It is specifically denied that the defendants were negligent in any manner and that their conduct was the proximate or legal cause of -6- any of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries or losses. These averments are further denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. With respect to any remaining averment, after reasonable investigation, the answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. WHEREFORE, defendant, L. Warner, R.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. NEW MATTER The defendant, L. Warner, R.N., further avers as follows: 47. Paragraphs 1 through 115 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 48. The plaintifi"s Complaint fails to state a claim against the answering defendant upon which relief can be granted. -7- 49. The injuries and the damages, if any, alleged by the plaintiff, which damages are specifically denied, were caused in whole or in part by conditions or circumstances beyond the control of the answering defendant. 50. The answering defendant, at all times material hereto, acted in conformity with the standard of care applicable to a nurse in like circumstances. 51. The answering defendant specifically denies any and all allegations of negligence and malpractice. 52. Any alleged negligence of the answering defendant, if any, the same being specifically denied, was not a substantial factor in causing the harm complained of in this suit. 53. The damages alleged by plaintiff did not result from acts or omissions of the answering defendant but rather may have resulted from acts or omissions of other persons and/or entities over whom the answering defendant had no control or right of control and for whom the answering defendant is not legally liable. 54. Plaintiffs' claims are limited and barred by Sections 103, 602 and 606 of the Health Care Services Malpractice Act of 1974, 40 P.S. §1301, et sew., as amended. -8- 55. At all times relevant hereto answering defendant acted within and followed the precepts of a respected school of thought and, accordingly, all professional conduct was fully commensurate with the applicable standard of care. Evidence at trial may establish two or more schools of thought applicable to the issues presented in this case. 56. Plaintiffs' injuries and losses, if any, were not caused by the conduct or negligence of answering defendant, but rather were caused by pre-existing medical conditions and/or causes beyond the control of answering defendant, and plaintiffs may not recover against her. 57. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by operation of the applicable statute of limitations, including 42 Pa.C.S.A. §5524 and 40 P.S. §1301.605. 58. All claims that might have been asserted by plaintiffs including claims for medical expenses are barred by operation of the applicable statute of limitations. 59. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238 created substantive rights and, therefore, it is beyond the authority of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to promulgate procedural rules. -9- um~:wu~_~ 60. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238 violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 61. The collateral source rule does not apply such that if the plaintiff should be awarded any money damages, such possibility being specifically denied, then the amount of said damages must be reduced by the total amount of any and all payments that the plaintiff received from any and all collateral sources for any injuries and/or damages that the plaintiff allegedly suffered in this matter. 62. If the plaintiff should be awarded any money damages, such possibility being specifically denied, then the amount of said damages must be reduced by the total amount of any and all medical expenses charged but not actually paid by or on behalf of the plaintiff; that is, any amount recovered by the plaintiff must be reduced by the sum of any and all medical expenses "written off ' by any health care provider. 63. Inasmuch as plaintiff is or maybe alleging that answering defendant is vicariously liable for the actions of other defendants, answering defendant cannot be held jointly and/or severally liable for any damages. To the contrary, the liability of answering defendant, if any, and specifically denied, may be secondary to that of other defendants. -10- WHEREFORE, defendant, L. Warner, R.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE By: Steven D. Snyder, Esq e Sup. Ct. I. D. #34344 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717)232-5000 Attorneys for Defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozich, L.P.N., DATED: February 1, 2002 C. Kauffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N. VERIFICATION I, Lori A. Warner, R.N., verify that the statements made in the foregoing answer and new matter which are within the personal knowledge of the undersigned, are true and correct, and as to the facts based on the information of others, the undersigned, after diligent inquiry, believes it to be true. And further, I signed this verification on the recommendation of my attorneys, who advise me that the allegations and language in this document are required legally to raise issues for resolution at trial, by the Court, or by continuing investigation and preparation for trial. I understand that some of these allegations may prove inappropriate after investigation and trial preparation are complete and I leave determination of these matters to my attorneys on their advice. I understand that all statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: ~ aJ~ ~ ?' ~LJGw~--ate Lori A. Warner, R.N. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the persons 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, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage, prepaid, as follows: James DeCinti, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE ~ ;~ gy: , Steven D. Snyder, Es ire Sup. Ct. I. D. #34344 3401 North Front Street P. 0. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717)232-5000 Attorneys for Defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R: Bubb, R.N., M. Kozich, L.P.N., DATED: February 1, 2002 C. Kauffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N. io5'MK~aY~4~a'c"kY.P~~k~~'a~53iY~~~3!',53}~Ipk`WYtia,~i~d 4'i p. ~ 4z "~f:._4. 'LrbrF el - •-...~. .. 44Y.. .••.•n`•pC, • Y~I .a eel 1 ~_ ~ . F" ~ ~.~ ~ { ° ~ 1~, ~ ~ W l + ~ L. _ -~ 1 _ ~.~ e~ aw'e' ~i- :> ~~ SANDRA E. BACHMAN and DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CARTEL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICH, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., and D. STARNER, R.N., Defendants TO: Sandra E. Bachman and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA N0.01-5464 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD David E. Bachman, her husband, Plaintiffs c/o James DeCinti, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 You are hereby notified to plead to the within document within twenty (20) days after service hereof, or a default judgment maybe entered against you. METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE By: Steven D. Snyder, Esqu •e Sup. Ct. I. D. #34344 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 DATED: February 1, 2002 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717)232-5000 Attorneys for Defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozich, L.P.N., C. Kauffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N. :283633 l SANDRA E. BACHMAN and DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CAHILL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICH, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., and D. STARNER, R.N., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA N0.01-5464 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT. R. BUBB. R.N.. TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the defendant, R. Bubb, R.N., by and through her attorneys, Mette, Evans & Woodside, and in response to the plaintiffs' complaint avers as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 1 of the plaintiffs' complaint and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. 2-S. Admitted. ... ,.. _~:. .' 9. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Mrs. Bachman was admitted to Holy Spirit Hospital under the care of her physician on December 10, 1999. After reasonable investigation, the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments set forth in paragraph 9 of the plaintiffs' complaint and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. 10. Admitted in part and denied in part. To the extent that the medical records of Mrs. Bachman from Holy Spirit Hospital reflect the averments of the corresponding paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint, it is admitted only that such is recorded therein. Otherwise, and to the extent that the medical records do not so reflect and/or contradict the corresponding averments, said averments are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and for the reasons set forth in paragraph 1 hereof. 11. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 11 of the plaintiffs' complaint are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 12-29. Admitted in part and denied in part. To the extent that the medical records of Mrs. Bachman from Holy Spirit Hospital reflect the averments of -2- the corresponding paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint, it is admitted only that such is recorded therein. Otherwise, and to the extent that the medical records do not so reflect and/or contradict the corresponding averments, said averments are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and for the reasons set forth in paragraph i hereof. 30. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 1 of the plaintiffs' complaint and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. COUNTI Sandra E. Bachman v. J. Cahill. L. V~'arner. R. Bubb. M. Kozich. C. Kauffman and D. Starner 31. Paragraphs 1 through 30 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 32. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 32 of the plaintiffs' complaint are deemed denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil-Procedure. -3- WHEREFORE, defendant, R. Bubb, R.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COiJNT II Sandra E. Bachman v. Holy Spirit Hospital 33. Paragraphs 1 through 32 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 34. Denied. Because the plaintiffs have not identified by name or adequate description the "nursing staff"' and "all other hospital personnel" referred to generally in paragraph 34 of the complaint, the defendant is unable to admit or deny said general averment and therefore, it is deemed denied. By way of further answer, paragraphs 1 through 8 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 35. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 35 of the plaintiffs' complaint are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. -4- 36. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 36 of the plaintiffs' complaint are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, paragraphs 33, 34, and 35 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 37. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 37 of the plaintiffs' complaint are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, paragraphs 38 through 46 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as i f set forth in full. WHEREFORE, defendant, R. Bubb, R.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. CLAIM I San a E. Bachman v. Holy Spirit Hospital. J. Cahill. R.N.. L. Warner. R.N.. R. Bubb. R.N.. M. Kozich. L.P.N.. C. Kauffman. R.N. and D. Starner. R.N. 38. Paragraphs 1 through 37 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. -5- 39-43. Denied. It is specifically denied that the defendants were negligent in any manner and that their conduct was the proximate or legal cause of any of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries or losses. These averments are further denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. With respect to any remaining averment, after reasonable investigation, the answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. WHEREFORE, defendant, R. Bubb, R.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. CLAIM II David E. Bachman v. Holy Spirit Hospital. J. Cahill. R.N.. L. Warner. R.N.. R. Bubb. R.N.. M. Kozich. L.P.N.. C. Kauffman. R.N. and D. Starner. R.N. 44. Paragraphs 1 through 43 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 45-46. Denied. It is specifically denied that the defendants were negligent in any manner and that their conduct was the proximate or legal cause of -6- any of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries or losses. These averments are further denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. With respect to any remaining averment, after reasonable investigation, the answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. WHEREFORE, defendant, R. Bubb, R.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. NEW MATTER The defendant, R. Bubb, R.N., further avers as follows: 47. Paragraphs 1 through 115 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 48. The plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a claim against the answering defendant upon which relief can be granted. -7- ~:. 49. The injuries and the damages, if any, alleged by the plaintiff, which damages are specifically denied, were caused in whole or in part by conditions or circumstances beyond the control of the answering defendant. 50. The answering defendant, at all times material hereto, acted in conformity with the standard of care applicable to a nurse in like circumstances. 51. The answering defendant specifically denies any and all allegations of negligence ar~d malpractice. 52. Any alleged negligence of the answering defendant, if any, the same being specifically denied, was not a substantial factor in causing the harm complained of in this suit. 53. The damages alleged by plaintiff did not result from acts or omissions of the answering defendant but rather may have resulted from acts or omissions of other persons and/or entities over whom the answering defendant had no control or right of control and for whom the answering defendant is not legally liable. 54. Plaintiffs' claims are limited and barred by Sections 103, 602 and 606 of the Health Care Services Malpractice Act of 1974, 40 P.S. § 1301, et sec ., as amended. -8- 55. At all times relevant hereto answering defendant acted within and followed the precepts of a respected school of thought and, accordingly, all professional conduct was fully commensurate with the applicable standard of care. Evidence at trial may establish two or more schools of thought applicable to the issues presented in this case. 56. Plaintiffs' injuries and losses, if any, were not caused by the conduct or negligence of answering defendant, but rather were caused by pre-existing medical conditions and/or causes beyond the control of answering defendant, and plaintiffs may not recover against her. 57. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by operation of the applicable statute of limitations, including 42 Pa.C.S.A. §5524 and 40 P.S. §1301.605. 58. All claims that might have been asserted by plaintiffs including claims for medical expenses are barred by operation of the applicable statute of limitations. 59. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238 created substantive rights and, therefore, it is beyond the authority of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to promulgate procedural rules. -9- 60. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238 violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 61. The collateral source rule does not apply such that if the plaintiff should be awarded any money damages, such possibility being specifically denied, then the amount of said damages must be reduced by the total amount of any and all payments that the plaintiff received from any and all collateral sources for any injuries and/or damages that the plaintiff allegedly suffered in this matter. 62. If the plaintiff should be awarded any money damages, such possibility being specifically denied, then the amount of said damages must be reduced by the total amount of any and all medical expenses charged but not actually paid by or on behalf of the plaintiff; that is, any amount recovered by the plaintiff must be reduced by the sum of any and all medical expenses "written off' by any health care provider. 63. Inasmuch as plaintiff is or may be alleging that answering defendant is vicariously liable for the actions of other defendants, answering defendant cannot be held jointly and/or severally liable for any damages. To the contrary, the liability of answering defendant, if any, and specifically denied, maybe secondary to that of other defendants. -10- WHEREFORE, defendant, R. Bubb, R.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE By: _' Steven D. Snyder, Esquire Sup. Ct. I. D. #34344 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717)232-5000 Attorneys for Defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozich, L.P.N., DATED: February 1, 2002 C. Kauffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N. VERIFICATION I, Rachel L. Bubb, R.N., verify that the statements made in the foregoing answer and new matter which are within the personal knowledge of the undersigned, are true and correct, and as to the facts based on the information of others, the undersigned, after diligent inquiry, believes it to be true. And further, I signed this verification on the recommendation of my attorneys, who advise me that the allegations and language in this document are required legally to raise issues for resolution at trial, by the Court, or by continuing investigation and preparation for trial. I understand that some of these allegations may prove inappropriate after investigation and trial preparation are complete and I leave determination of these matters to my attorneys on their advice. I understand that all statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: ~ ~` ~ T>o2 ~_~~~~~ ^~ Rachel L. Bubb, R.N. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the persons 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, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage, prepaid, as follows: James DeCinti, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE sy: Steven D. Snyder, Es ire Sup. Ct. I. D. #34344 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717)232-5000 Attorneys for Defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital; J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozich, L.P.N., DATED: February 1, 2002 C. Kauffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N. gyn. sN~=siYL§fsK f.$M,~I§aY: ":, f~`$ ~. -, 30 , x n:5...:;~ ...? s d.,!e:-zgkrs~uaa4~.M" "•, ••~.:IYS~wx~cm.~o< ..` ..• -. - .. i - - - i C~ f';l ~ C f'.y ~ ! .i' r; ~J .,~' i r° V ' .4.~` -. f~C J - `,~ , h' ~ i r ' C.. r G3 i .! ~-i "~ (~ G~ B-~ s r, SANDRA E. BACHMAN : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF and DAVID E. BACHMAN, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA her husband, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CAHILL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICH, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., and D. STARKER, R.N., Defendants NO.Ol-5464 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Sandra E. Bachman and David E. Bachman, her husband, Plaintiffs c/o James DeCinti, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 You are hereby notified to plead to the within document within twenty (20) days after service hereof, or a default judgment may be entered against you. DATED: February 1, 2002 ME~fTTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE Steven D. Snyder, Esq ' e Sup. Ct. I. D. #34344 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717)232-5000 Attorneys for Defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozich, L.P.N., C. I~uffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N. :283635 1 SANDRA E. BACHMAN and DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CAHILL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICH, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., and D. STARNER, R.N., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.Ol-5464 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRL~I. DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT. M. KOZICA. L.P.N.. TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the defendant, M. Kozich, L.P.N., by and through her attorneys, Mette, Evans & Woodside, and in response to the plaintiffs' complaint avers as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 1 of the plaintiffs' complaint and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. 2-8. Admitted. 9. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Mrs. Bachman was admitted to Holy Spirlt Hospital under the care of her physician on December 10, 1999. After reasonable investigation, the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments set forth in paragraph 9 of the plaintiffs' complaint and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. 10. Admitted in part and denied in part. To the extent that the medical records of Mrs. Bachman from Holy Spirit Hospital reflect the averments of the corresponding paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint, it is admitted only that such is recorded therein. Otherwise, and to the extent that the medical records do not so reflect and/or contradict the corresponding averments, said averments are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and for the reasons set forth in paragraph 1 hereof. 11. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 11 of the plaintiffs' complaint are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 12-29. Admitted in part and denied in part. To the extent that the medical records of Mrs. Bachman from Holy Spirit Hospital reflect the averments of -2- the corresponding paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint, it is admitted only that such is recorded therein. Otherwise, and to the extent that the medical records do not so reflect and/or contradict the corresponding averments, said averments are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and for the reasons set forth in paragraph 1 hereof. 30. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 1 of the plaintiffs' complaint and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. COiTNT I Sandra E. Bachman v. J. Cahill. L. Warner. R. Bubb. M. Kozich. C. Kauffman and D. Starner 31. Paragraphs 1 through 30 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 32. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 32 of the plaintiffs' complaint are deemed denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. -3- WHEREFORE, defendant, M. Kozich, L.P.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT II Sandra E. Bachman v. Holy Spirit Hospital 33. Paragraphs 1 through 32 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 34. Denied. Because the plaintiffs have not identified by name or adequate description the "nursing staff' and "all other hospital personnel" referred to generally in paragraph 34 of the complaint, the defendant is unable to admit or deny said general averment and therefore, it is deemed denied. By way of further answer, paragraphs 1 through 8 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 35. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 35 of the plaintiffs' complaint are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. -4- 36. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 36 of the plaintiffs' complaint are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, paragraphs 33, 34, and 35 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 37. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 37 of the plaintiffs' complaint are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, paragraphs 38 through 46 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. WHEREFORE, defendant, M. Kozich, L.P.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. CLAIM I Sandra E. Bachman v. Holy Spirit Hospital. J. Cahill. R.N.. L. Warner. R.N.. R. Bubb. R.N.. M. Kozich. L.P.N.. C. Kauffman. R,.ly. and D. Starner. R.N. 38. Paragraphs 1 through 37 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. ~5- 39-43. Denied. It is specifically denied that the defendants were negligent in any manner and that their conduct was the proximate or legal cause of any of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries or losses. These averments are further denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. With respect to any remaining averment, after reasonable investigation, the answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. WHEREFORE, defendant, M. Kozich, L.P.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. CLAIM II David E. Bachman v. Holy Spirit Hospital. J. Cahill. R.N.. L. Warner. R.N.. R. Bubb. R.N.. M. Kozich. L.P.N.. C. Kauffman. R.N. and D. Starner. R.N. 44. Paragraphs 1 through 43 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 45-46. Denied. It is specifically denied that the defendants were negligent in any manner and that their conduct was the proximate or legal cause of -6- any of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries or losses. These averments are further denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. With respect to any remaining averment, after reasonable investigation, the answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. WHEREFORE, defendant, M. Kozich, L.P.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, casts, ar_d such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. NEW MATTER The defendant, M. Kozich, L.P.N., further avers as follows: 47. Paragraphs 1 through 115 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 48. The plaintiff s Complaint fails to state a claim against the answering defendant upon which relief can be granted. -7- 49. The injuries and the damages, if any, alleged by the plaintiff, which damages are specifically denied, were caused in whole or in part by conditions or circumstances beyond the control of the answering defendant. 50. The answering defendant, at all times material hereto, acted in conformity with the standard of care applicable to a nurse in like circumstances. 51. The answering defendant specifically denies any and all allegations of negligence and malpractice. 52. Any alleged negligence of the answering defendant, if any, the same being specifically denied, was not a substantial factor in causing the harm complained of in this suit. 53. The damages alleged by plaintiff did not result from acts or omissions of the answering defendant but rather may have resulted from acts or omissions of other persons and/or entities over whom the answering defendant had no control or right of control and for whom the answering defendant is not legally liable. 54. Plaintiffs' claims are limited and barred by Sections 103, 602 and 606 of the Health Care Services Malpractice Act of 1974, 40 P.S. §1301, et sec ., as amended. -8- 55. At all times relevant hereto answering defendant acted within and followed the precepts of a respected school of thought and, accordingly, all professional conduct was fully commensurate with the applicable standard of care. Evidence at trial may establish two or more schools of thought applicable to the issues presented in this case. 56. Plaintiffs' injuries and losses, if any, were not caused by the conduct or i:egligence of answering defendant, but rather were caused by pre-existing medical conditions and/or causes beyond the control of answering defendant, and plaintiffs may not recover against her. 57. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by operation of the applicable statute of limitations, including 42 Pa.C.S.A. §5524 and 40 P.S. §1301.605. 58. All claims that might have been asserted by plaintiffs including claims for medical expenses are barred by operation of the applicable statute of limitations. 59. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238 created substantive rights and, therefore, it is beyond the authority of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to promulgate procedural rules. -9- 60. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238 violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 61. The collateral source rule does not apply such that if the plaintiff should be awarded any money damages, such possibility being specifically denied, then the amount of said damages must be reduced by the total amount of any and all payments that the plaintiff received from any and all collateral sources for any injuries and/or damages that the plaintiff allegedly suffered in this matter. 62. If the plaintiff should be awarded any money damages, such possibility being specifically denied, then the amount of said damages must be reduced by the total amount of any and all medical expenses charged but not actually paid by or on behalf of the plaintiff; that is, any amount recovered by the plaintiff must be reduced by the sum of any and all medical expenses "written off"' by any health care provider. 63. Inasmuch as plaintiff is or may be alleging that answering defendant is vicariously liable for the actions of other defendants, answering defendant cannot be held jointly and/or severally liable for any damages. To the contrary, the liability of answering defendant, if any, and specifically denied, may be secondary to that of other defendants. -10- WHEREFORE, defendant, M. Kozich, L.P.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, METTE, EV~A(N"'S) & WOODSIDE By: Steven D. Snyder, Esqui e Sup. Ct. I. D. #34344 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717)232-5000 Attorneys for Defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozich, L.P.N., DATED: February 1, 2002 C. Kauffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N. VERIFICATION I, Mary S. Kozich, L.P.N., verify that the statements made in the foregoing answer and new matter which are within the personal knowledge of the undersigned, are true and correct, and as to the facts based on the information of others, the undersigned, after diligent inquiry, believes it to be true. And further, I signed this verification on the recommendation of my attorneys, who advise me that the allegations and language in this document are required legally to raise issues for resolution at trial, by the Court, or by continuing investigation and preparation for trial. I understand that some of these allegations may prove inappropriate after investigation and trial preparation are complete and I leave determination of these matters to my attorneys on their advice. I understand that all statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: ! ~ ~ ~'~ o a ~ ary S. ich, L.P.N. „ << CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the persons 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, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage, prepaid, as follows: James DeCinti, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE By: even D. Snyder, Esq ire Sup. Ct. I. D. #34344 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717)232-5000 Attorneys for Defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozich, L.P.N., DATED: February 1, 2002 C. Kauffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N. Y ~", } : 1 ° f~='t ~ rr'f f9 ~- i ~ _ V-! . i .L' ~' ~_; ',~ _>.. _ __ 1J ~/~ ~ ~~ C .+1 -G ~~ SANDRA E. BACHMAN and DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CARTEL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICH, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., and D. STARNER, R.N., Defendants TO: Sandra E. Bachman and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.O1-5464 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD David E. Bachman, her husband, Plaintiffs c/o James DeCinti, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 You are hereby notified to plead to the within document within twenty (20) days after service hereof, or a default judgment maybe entered against you. METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE By: Steven D. Snyder, Esq e Sup. Ct. I. D. #34344 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 DATED: February 1, 2002 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717)232-5000 Attorneys for Defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozich, L.P.N., C. I~uffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N. :283684 1 SANDRA E. BACHMAN and DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CAHILL, R.N., L. WARNER, It.N., R. BUBB, R.N:, M. KOZICH, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., and D. STARNER, R.N., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.Ol-5464 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT. C. KAUFFMAN. R.N.. TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the defendant, C. Kauffman, R.N., by and through her attorneys, Mette, Evans & Woodside, and in response to the plaintiffs' complaint avers as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 1 of the plaintiffs' complaint and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. 2-8. Admitted. 9. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Mrs. Bachman was admitted to Holy Spirit Hospital under the care of her physician on December 10, 1999. After reasonable investigation, the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining averments set forth in paragraph 9 of the plaintiffs' complaint and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. 10. Admitted in part and denied in part. To the extent that the medical records of Mrs. Bachman from Holy Spirit Hospital reflect the averments of the corresponding paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint, it is admitted only that such is recorded therein. Otherwise, and to the extent that the medical records do not so reflect and/or contradict the corresponding averments, said averments are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and for the reasons set forth in paragraph 1 hereof. 11. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 11 of the plaintiffs' complaint are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 12-29. Admitted in part and denied in part. To the extent that the medical records of Mrs. Bachman from Holy Spirit Hospital reflect the averments of -2- ,~; the corresponding paragraph of plaintiffs' complaint, it is admitted only that such is recorded therein. Otherwise, and to the extent that the medical records do not so reflect and/or contradict the corresponding averments, said averments are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and for the reasons set forth in paragraph 1 hereof. 30. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 1 of the plaintiffs' complaint and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. COUNTI Sandra E. Bachman v. J. Cahill. L. Warner. R. Bubb. M. Kozich. C. Kauffman and D. Starner 31. Paragraphs 1 through 30 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 32. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 32 of the plaintiffs' complaint are deemed denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. -3- WHEREFORE, defendant, C. Kauffman, R.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. COUNT II Sandra E. Bachman v. Holy Suirit Hospital 33. Paragraphs 1 through 32 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 34. Denied. Because the plaintiffs have not identified by name or adequate description the "nursing staff 'and "all other hospital personnel" referred to generally in paragraph 34 of the complaint, the defendant is unable to admit or deny said general averment and therefore, it is deemed denied. By way of further answer, paragraphs 1 through 8 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 35. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 35 of the plaintiffs' complaint are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. -4- 36. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 36 of the plaintiffs' complaint are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, paragraphs 33, 34, and 35 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 37. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 37 of the plaintiffs' complaint are denied and at issue pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further answer, paragraphs 38 through 46 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. WHEREFORE, defendant, C. Kauffman, R.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. CLAIM I Sandra E. Bachman v. Holy Spirit Hospital. J. Ca ill. R.N.. L. Warner. R.N.. R. Bubb. R.N.. M. Kozich. L.P.N.. C. Kauffman. R.N. and D. Starner. R.N. 38. Paragraphs i through 37 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. -5- 39-43. Denied. It is specifically denied that the defendants were negligent in any manner and that their conduct was the proximate or legal cause of any of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries or losses. These averments are further denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. With respect to any remaining averment, after reasonable investigation, the answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. WHEREFORE, defendant, C. Kauffman, R.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper CLAIM II David E. Bachman v. Holy Spirit Hospital. J._ Cahill, R.N.. L. Warner. R.N.. R. Bubb. R.N.. M. Ko ich. L.P.N.. C. Kauffman. R.N. and D. Starner. R.N. 44. Paragraphs 1 through 43 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 45-46. Denied. It is specifically denied that the defendants were negligent in any manner and that their conduct was the proximate or legal cause of -6- any of the plaintiffs' alleged injuxies or losses. These averments are further denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. With respect to any remaining averment, after reasonable investigation, the answering defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said averments and, therefore, said averments are deemed denied. WHEREFORE, defendant, C. Kauffman, R.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. NEW MATTER The defendant, C. Kauffman, R.N., further avers as follows: 47. Paragraphs 1 through 115 hereof are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 48. The plaintiff s Complaint fails to state a claim against the answering defendant upon which relief can be granted. -7- 49. The injuries and the damages, if any, alleged by the plaintiff, which damages are specifically denied, were caused in whole or in part by conditions or circumstances beyond the control of the answering defendant. 50. The answering defendant, at all times material hereto, acted in conformity with the standard of care applicable to a nurse in like circumstances. 51. The answering defendant specifically denies any and all allegations of negligence and malpractice. 52. Any alleged negligence of the answering defendant, if any, the same being specifically denied, was not a substantial factor in causing the harm complained of in this suit. 53. The damages alleged by plaintiff did not result from acts or omissions of the answering defendant but rather may have resulted from acts or omissions of other persons and/or entities over whom the answering defendant had no control or right of control and for whom the answering defendant is not legally liable. 54. Plaintiffs' claims are limited and barred by Sections 103, 602 and 606 of the Health Care Services Malpractice Act of 1974, 40 P.S. §1301, et sec ., as amended. -8- 55. At all times relevant hereto answering defendant acted within and followed the precepts of a respected school of thought and, accordingly, all professional conduct was fully commensurate with the applicable standard of care. Evidence at trial may establish two or more schools of thought applicable to the issues presented in this case. 56. Plaintiffs' injuries and losses, if any, were not caused by the conduct or negligence of answering defendant, but rather were caused by pre-existing medical conditions and/or causes beyond the control of answering defendant, and plaintiffs may not recover against her. 57. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by operation of the applicable statute of limitations, including 42 Pa.C.S.A. §5524 and 40 P.S. §1301.605. 58. All claims that might have been asserted by plaintiffs including claims for medical expenses are barred by operation of the applicable statute of limitations. 59. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238 created substantive rights and, therefore, it is beyond the authority of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania to promulgate procedural rules. -9- 60. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 238 violates then due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. 61. The collateral source rule does not apply such that if ithe plaintiff should be awarded any money damages, such possibility being specifically denied, then the amount of said damages must be reduced by the total amount of arty and all payments that the plaintiff received from any and all collateral sources for any injuries and/or damages that the plaintiff allegedly suffered in this matter. 62. If the plaintiff should be awarded any money damage:a, such possibility being specifically denied, then the amount of said damages must bey reduced by the total amount of any and all medical expenses charged but not actue~lly paid by or on behalf of the plaintiff; that is, any amount recovered by the plaintiff must be reduced by the sum of any and all medical expenses "written off ' by any health care provider. 63. Inasmuch as plaintiff is or may be alleging that answering defendant is vicariously liable for the actions of other defendants, answering dei'endant cannot be held jointly and/or severally liable for any damages. To the contrary, the liability of answering defendant, if any, and specifically denied, may be secondary to that of other defendants. -10- WHEREFORE, defendant, C. Kauffman, R.N., requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the plaintiffs and dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice, costs, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Respectfully submitted, METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE By. Steven D. Snyder, Es uire Sup. Ct. I. D. #34344 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717)232-5000 Attorneys for Defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozich, L.P.N., DATED: February 1, 2002 C. Kauffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N. VERIFICATION I, Carisa J. Kauffman, R.N., verify that the statements made in the foregoing answer and new matter which are within the personal knowledge of the undersigned, are true and correct, and as to the facts based on the information of others, the undersigned, after diligent inquiry, believes it to be true. And further, I signed this verification on the recommendation of my attorneys, who advise me that the allegations and language in this document are required legally to raise issues for resolution at trial, by the Court, or by continuing investigation and preparation for trial. I understand that some of these allegations may prove inappropriate after investigation and trial preparation are complete and I leave determination of these matters to my attorneys on their advice. I understand that all statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: Carisa ffman, R.N. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the persons 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, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage, prepaid, as follows: James DeCinti, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE e ,~~ / By: ~,`~,t'J Steven D. Snyder, Esquire Sup. Ct. I. D. #34344 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717)232-5000 Attorneys for Defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital, J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozich, L.P.N., DATED: February 1, 2002 C. Kauffman, R.N., and D. Starner, R.N. - ~_.: 3 ' 1 _""'4 -C.1 ~_a ""5 - ,. (!i t ;_ ~. =^ ~~ ~~~ SANDRA E. BACHMAN, and DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CARTEL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICK, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., AND D. STARNER, R.N., Defendants NO. 01-5464 CIVIL ACTION LAW ~~! JURY TRIAL DEMANDED yJ~A r!"(~ 47. No response is required to this paragraph. Plaintiffs' Complaint is incorporated herein by reference. 48. The allegation contained in this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, it is hereby specifically denied that Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim against J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffinan, R.N. and D. Starner, ILN., upon which relief can be granted. Byway of further response, Plaintiffs' Complaint is incorporated herein as if set forth at length. Strict proof of this defense and all of Defendants' J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffinan, R.N. and D. Starner, R.N. affirmative defenses are demanded at the time of trial. 49. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of fact and of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, it is hereby specifically denied that Plaintiff's injury and damages were caused by conditions and circumstances beyond the control of Defendants J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, RN., R. Bubb, R.N, 1 II ,~; M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffinan, R.N. and D. Starner, R.N. By way of further response, Plaintiffs' Complaint is incorporated herein by reference. Strict proof of this defense and all of Defendants' J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffinan, R.N. and D. Starner, R.N., affirmative defenses are demanded at the time of trial. 50. The allegation contained in this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, it is hereby specifically denied that Defendants J. Cahill, R.N, L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffinan, R.N. and D. Starner, R.N., acted in conformity with the standard of care applicable to the circumstances presented in Plaintiffs' case. By way of further response, Plaintiffs' Complaint is incorporated herein as if as set forth at length. Strict proof of this defense and all of Defendants' J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffinan, R.N. and D. Starner, R.N., affirmative defenses are demanded at the time of trial. 51. No response to this paragraph is required because it neither sets forth an affirmative defense nor does it state a material fact. Rather, it is merely a denial of the allegations set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint and, thus, is objectionable. 52. The allegation contained in this paragraph is a conclusion of fact and of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, it is hereby specifically denied that the negligence of Defendants J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffinan, R.N. and D. Starner, R.N., is not a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's injury and damages. Strict proof of this defense and all of Defendants' J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffinan, R.N. and D. Starner, R.N., affirmative defenses are demanded at the time of trial. 2 ~. 53. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of fact and of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, it is hereby specifically denied that Plaintiffs' injuries and damages did not result from the acts or omissions of Defendants J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffman, R.N. and D. Starner, R.N. By way of further response, Plaintiffs' Complaint is incorporated herein as if as set forth at length. Strict proof of this defense and all of Defendants' J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffinan, R.N. and D. Starner, R.N., affirmative defenses are demanded at the time of trial. 54. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, it is hereby specifically denied that Plaintiffs' claims are limited and/or barred by the Healthcare Services Malpractice Act of 1974, 40 P.S. §1301, et seg. Moreover, to the extent that the Healthcare Services Malpractice Act was not repealed, its applicability to this case is specifically denied. Plaintiffs' Complaint is incorporated herein as if as set forth at length. Strict proof of this defense and all of Defendants' J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffman, R.N. and D. Starner, R.N., affirmative defenses are demanded at the time of trial. 55. The allegation contained in this paragraph is a conclusion of fact and of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, it is hereby specifically denied that Defendants J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffinan, R.N. and D. Starner, R.N.,, followed a respected school of thought and that it and their conduct was fully commensurate with the applicable standard of care. On the contrary, Defendants acted in a negligent manner as set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint which is incorporated herein by reference. Strict proof of this defense and all of Defendants' J. Cahill, 3 R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffinan, R.N. and D. Starner, RN., affirmative defenses are demanded at the time of trial. 56. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of fact and of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, it is hereby specifically denied that Plaintiffs' injuries and damages were caused by any pre-existing medical condition that she may have had. By way of further response, Plaintiff's Complaint is incorporated herein as if set forth at length. Strict proof of this defense and all of Defendants' J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N, R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffman, R.N. and D. Starner, R.N., affirmative defenses are demanded at the time of trial. 57. Denied. Plaintiffs' Complaint was timely filed. Strict proof of this defense and all of Defendants' J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffinan, R.N. and D. Starner, R.N., affirmative defenses are demanded at the time of trial. 58. Denied. Plaintiffs' Complaint was timely filed. Strict proof of this defense and all of Defendants' J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffinan, R.N. and D. Starner, R.N., affirmative defenses are demanded at the time of trial. 59. The allegation contained in this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, Rule 238 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure has been held to be constitutional in all respects. 60. The allegation contained in this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, Rule 238 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure has been held to be constitutional in all respects. 61. The allegation contained in this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, it is hereby specifically 4 denied that the collateral source rule does not apply in Plaintiffs' case. Strict proof of this defense and all of Defendants' J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffman, R.N. and D. Starner, R.N., affirmative defenses are demanded at the time of trial. 62. The allegation contained in this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, it is hereby specifically denied. Strict proof of this defense and all of Defendants' J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffinan, R.N. and D. Starner, R.N., affirmative defenses are demanded at the time of trial 63. The allegation contained in this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, it is hereby specifically denied. Strict proof of this defense and all of Defendants' J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffinan, R.N. and D. Stamer, R.N., affirmative defenses are demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendants J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffinan, R.N. and D. Starner, R.N. Date:~'7~h Respectfully submitted, ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C Q%ra.~ CPL,~r~~ J es DeCinti, Esquire I. . No. 77421 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 Attorney for Plaintiffs 5 AFFIDAVIT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF DAUPHIN ss I, James DeCinti, Esquire, being duly sworn according to law, depose and say that I am counsel for Plaintiffs and that I am authorized to make this affidavit on behalf of said Plaintiffs, and that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are tme and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief or, are true and correct based on the information obtained from the Plaintiffs. In~6Z, i f~- J s eCinti Sworn to and subscribed before me this ~ day of ~~ 2002. Notary Pi 1~- My Commission Expires: NOTAPoAL SEAL SEL~IBSG BORQ; RN~YDE~R C~OULPII CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, on this 7th day of February, 2002, I, Betty S. Berdanier, an employee in the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I served PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS J. Cahill, RN., L. Warner, RN., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffman, R.N. and D. Starner, RN., by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first-class, addressed to: Steven D. Snyder, Esquire METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE 3401 North Front Street P.O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 Counsel for Defendants ~~ ~~ Betty ~ Berdanier ~~ ~'~ sea~4n~aa~A~= ~--~ ~ ; <S e'.J =. G -1 t c`~_.~ _, _ _ _.. , i 1~ .- ~.. ~f .~ SANDRA E. BACHMAN, and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. NO.O1-5464 hh HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CAHILL, p/'r~/"~~ R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., :CIVIL ACTION LAW """" ~~~~ ((,~~ ~~~ M. KOZICK, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., AND D. STARNER, R.N., :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL 47. No response is required to this paragraph. Plaintiffs' Complaint is incorporated herein by reference. 48. The allegation contained in this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, it is hereby specifically denied that Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim against Holy Spirit Hospital upon which relief can be granted. By way of further response, Plaintiffs' Complaint is incorporated herein as if set forth at length. Strict proof of this defense and all of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's affirmative defenses are demanded at the time of trial. 49. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of fact and of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, it is hereby specifically denied that Plaintiff's injury and damages were caused by conditions and circumstances beyond the control of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital. By way of further response, Plaintiffs' Complaint is incorporated herein by reference. Strict proof of this defense and all of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's affirmative defenses are demanded at the time of trial. 1 II ~ ___~ ~~ ii ., 50. The allegation contained in this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, it is hereby specifically denied that Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital and/or its employees, agents, apparent agents and/or servants, acted in conformity with the standard of care applicable to the circumstances presented in Plaintiffs' case. Byway of fiirther response, Plaintiffs' Complaint is incorporated herein as if as set forth at length. Strict proof of this defense and all of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's affirmative defenses are demanded at the time of trial. 51. No response to this paragraph is required because it neither sets forth an affirmative defense nor does it state a material fact. Rather, it is merely a denial of the allegations set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint and, thus, is objectionable. 52. The allegation contained in this paragraph is a conclusion of fact and of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, it is hereby specifically denied that the negligence of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital and/or its employees, agents, apparent agents, and/or servants is not a suhstantial factor in causing Plaintiff's injury and damages. Strict proof of this defense and all of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's affirmative defenses are demanded at the time of trial. 53. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of fact and of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, it is hereby specifically denied that Plaintiffs' injuries and damages did not result from the acts or omissions of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital and/or its employees, agents, apparent agents, or servants. By way of further response, Plaintiffs' Complaint is incorporated herein as if as set forth at length. Strict proof of this defense and all of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's affirmative defenses are demanded at the time of trial. 2 .~ 54. The allegations contained in this paragraph are conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, it is hereby specifically denied that Plaintiffs' claims are limited and/or barred by the Healthcare Services Malpractice Act of 1974, 40 P.S. §1301, et sec. Moreover, to the extent that the Healthcare Services Malpractice Act was not repealed, its applicability to this case is specifically denied. Plaintiffs' Complaint is incorporated herein as if as set forth at length. Strict proof of this defense and all of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's affirmative defenses are demanded at the time of trial. 55. The allegation contained in this paragraph is a conclusion of fact and of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, it is hereby specifically denied that Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital, its employees, agents, apparent agents and/or servants, followed a respected school of thought and that it and their conduct was fully commensurate with the applicable standard of care. On the contrary, Defendants acted in a negligent manner as set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint which is incorporated herein by reference. Strict proof of this defense and all of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's affirmative defenses are demanded at the time of trial. 56. The allegations contained in this pazagraph are conclusions of fact and of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, it is hereby specifically denied that Plaintiffs' injuries and damages were caused by any pre-existing medical condition that she may have had. By way of further response, Plaintiff's Complaint is incorporated herein as if set forth at length. Strict proof of this defense and all of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's affirmative defenses are demanded at the time of trial. 57. Denied. Plaintiffs' Complaint was timely filed. Strict proof of this defense and all of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's affirmative defenses aze demanded at the time of trial. 3 ... 58. Denied. Plaintiffs' Complaint was timely filed. Strict proof of this defense and all of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's affirmative defenses are demanded at the time of trial. 59. The allegation contained in this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, Rule 238 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure has been held to be constitutional in all respects. 60. The allegation contained in this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, Rule 238 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure has been held to be constitutional in all respects. 61. The allegation contained in this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, it is hereby specifically denied that the collateral source rule does not apply in Plaintiffs' case. Strict proof of this defense and all of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's affirmative defenses are demanded at the time of trial. 62. The allegation contained in this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, it is hereby specifically denied. Strict proof of this defense and all of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's affirmative defenses are demanded at the time of trial 63. The allegation contained in this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, it is hereby specifically denied. Strict proof of this defense and all of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's affirmative defenses are demanded at the time of trial. 64. The allegation contained in this paragraph is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed required, it is hereby specifically 4 .~ denied. Strict proof of this defense and all of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's affirmative defenses are demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and against Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital. Respectfully submitted, ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. ~~ (' ~'"~~ James DeCinfi, Esquire I.D. No. 77421 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 Attorney for Plaintiffs Date: ~~~ ~ b~ 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, on this 7th day of February, 2002, I, Betty S. Berdanier, an employee in the law firm of Angina & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I served PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first-class, addressed to: Steven D. Snyder, Esquire METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE 3401 North Front Street P.O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 Counsel for Defendants ~~~ Betty S. erdanier ii ~r ,l AFFIDAVIT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF DAUPHIN ss I, James DeCinti, Esquire, being duly sworn according to law, depose and say that I am counsel for Plaintiffs and that I am authorized to make this affidavit on behalf of said Plaintiffs, and that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief or, are true and correct based on the information obtained from the Plaintiffs. es DeCinti Sworn to and subscribed before me this ~~'1 day of ~- r , 2002. ~-r~.~. Notary ' blic My Commission Expires: NOTARIAL SEAL aIEGRM A. REIRAR©, BOfARY PUBLIC MY OMM~ I NEOP SPETfDME YGOUN~YY li 1, C? `" ,~ c_ ~ , „ -'1 -~ 'iii ~ 1 _ [P.fl :..a :. ._ __! _ _G' ,- [YJ ~~' - - -_ _ , _- _. , 'l ~ ~~ i.J J tJ'~v ~~ J7 -~ •- -G r. d r ,:hY SANDRA E. BACHMAN, and DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, Plaintiffs v. ~~~~~oz IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-5464 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CARTEL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., :CIVIL ACTION LAW ~~ f f1~ M. I~OZICK, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, {,a ~~ R.N., AND D. STARKER, R.N., .JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW, this _~` 'day of ~~ n c 2002, it is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED that Defendants show cause as to why Plaintiff's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents should not be granted. Rule returnable within ~(~ days of service. 1 1 ~ L~-II-D~ MKS ~' ff N ~~~ '~ 246678.1~BSBU..CI BY THE COURT: •., ~r. ~ ~: F ~ X a ' ~ r~ ~~ J ~~ `~ ~ ~~ ~~"~ d ~~ i.eJ - J PJ_ ~. iL ._~ '~ ~._ ~ CJ Q U \1 "/~ i~ T SANDRA E. BACHMAN, and DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIRIT HO5PITAL, J. CARTEL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICK, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., AND D. STAI2NER, R.N., Defendants AND NOW, this day of 2002, after due consideration of the attached Motion to Compel Discovery Responses of Defendant to Plaintiffs Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, it is hereby Ordered that Defendants provide the requested answers within ten (10) days of service of this Order or show cause why such answers and documents are being withheld. Failure to comply with this Order will result in sanctions as provided by Pa.R.C.P. 4019, and deemed appropriate by the Court. BY THE COURT: J. za66~s.i~assv~ct IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. O1-5464 CIVIL ACTION LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER +' r •' SANDRA E. BACHMAN, and DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, Plaintiffs v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CI)IvIBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.O1-5464 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CARTEL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., :CIVIL ACTION LAW M. KOZICK, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., AND D. STARNER, R.N., :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES OF DEFENDANTS Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, Angino & Rovner, P.C., respectfully move this Honorable Court to compel Defendants to file full and complete answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents for the following reasons: 1. The instant action was commenced by the filing of a Complaint on September 19, 2001, with service made on Defendants via Cumberland County Sheriff on October 2, 2001. 2. On March 19, 2002, Plaintiff forwarded to Defendants Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. A copy of these discovery requests are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B respectively. 3. Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendants' Responses were due on or before Apri119, 2002. 4. Having received no response by May 13, 2002, Plaintiffs' counsel wrote to Defendants' counsel inquiring as to the status of Defendants' responses. See, Exhibit C. Plaintiffs' counsel has received no response. 246678.1~BSB~L.C1 1 ~~ , 5. As of the date of this Motion, Defendants have failed to respond to Plaintiffs Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. 6. All of the discovery sought by Plaintiff through her Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents is relevant to the instant action. 7. Defendants have had more than ample time to respond to Plaintiffs Interrogatories, yet Defendants have failed to comply with the discovery as required by Pa.R.C.P. 4005 and 4006. 8. Plaintiffs' counsel, by letter to Defendants' counsel, attempted to resolve this dispute without the intervention of this Honorable Court. 9. Pa.R.C.P. 4019 provides that upon motion of a party, the Court can make an appropriate order when a party "fails to make discovery." Pa.R.C.P 4019(a)(viii). 10. Plaintiffs believe that answering all of Plaintiffs discovery requests would not burden or oppress Defendants. 11. Additionally, and importantly, the depositions of the Defendant nurses are scheduled for June 27, 2002, and the discovery responses sought by this Motion are vital to Plaintiffs' counsel's ability to take those depositions. 12. Plaintiff is represented by James DeCinti ,Esquire of the firm of Angino & Rovner, ', P.C., 4503 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110, (717) 238-6791. 13.. Defendants are represented by Steven D. Snyder, Esquire of the firm Mette, Evans & Woodside, 3401 North Front Street, P.O. Box 5950, Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 232-5000. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court order Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents. Plaintiff further 246678.1~BSB~LC1 2 { i requests that should Defendants fail to comply with the Court Order, then Defendants should be prohibited from presenting any testimony at the trial of this matter, precluded from entering defenses to Plaintiffs claims at trial, required to pay Plaintiffs attorney's fees and costs associated with the instant Motion and such other sancfions as the Court deems appropriate. Respectfully submitted, ANGINO & RO1VNER, P.C. ~~~ I - Date: ~j[~~~ti James DeCinti, Esquire I.D. No. 77421 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717)238-6791 Attorney for Plaintiffs za66~8.~~ssBV_c~ 3 SANDRA E. BACHMAN, and DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CARTEL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, RN., M. KOZICK, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., AND D. STARNER, R.N., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.OI-5464 CIVIL ACTION I.AW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO: Defendants J. Cahill, RN., L. Warner, R.N., R Bubb, RN., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffinan, RN., and D. Starner, RN., and their counsel, Steven D. Snyder, Esquire Plaintiffs, through their attorneys, hereby propound the following Interrogatories to Defendants pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4006 to be answered within thirty (30) days from service thereof. These Interrogatories shall be deemed to be continuing Interrogatories. If, between the time of your answer to said Interrogatories and the time of the trial of this case, you, or anyone acting on your behalf, learns the identity and whereabouts of any other witnesses not identified in your said answers, or if you obtain or become aware of additional information not supplied in your answers, you shall promptly famish the same to Plaintiff s attorney by supplemental answers. For the purposes of these Interrogatories, "yon" or "Your" refers to the defendants and their files, and defendants' insurance comuany and its files, the defendants attomey and his files, and all other persons. agents or representatives of the defendants and their files. "You" shall further include all persons on whose behalf defendants prosecute this action and all persons who will benefit or be legally bound by the results of this action. Your answers to the Interrogatories shall reflect and contain the knowledge of all of the above persons. References to plaintiff and/or defendant shall be interpreted as singular or plural, depending upon the particular circumstances of each case. The term "description" or "describe" as used herein shall mean that the defendants shall set forth the name and address of the author or originator, dates, title or subject matter, the present custodians of the original and of any copies and the last-known address of each custodian. "Document" shall mean any written, printed, typed or other graphic matter of any kind, whether handwritten, typed or printed, whether distributed or undistributed. It shall include without limitation letters, memoranda, articles, studies, notebooks, diaries and notes, as well as all mechanical and electronic sound recordings or transcripts thereof in the possession or control of the defendants or known by them to exist. It shall also mean all copies of documents by whatever means made. 243859.IVDVD Answer each Interrogatory in the space following the interrogatory. Supplemental sheets may be attached for answers which require additional space. ,Please take notice that you are required to serve upon the undersigned your answers in writing within thirty (30) days, pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Procedure 4006. These Interrogatories are deemed continuing, and supplemental answers should reasonably be provided. Dater/~G~~py Respectfully submitted, AN ~ O & ROVNER, P.C. ~~~~~~ ~ James DeCinti, Esquire I.D. No. 77421 4503 N. Front Street Hamsburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 Attorney for Plaintiffs 243859.1VDVD ,. Please identify yourself fully, giving your full name, residence address, office address, social security number, occupation and provide a copy of your current Curriculum Vitae. ANSWER: 243859.1UDVD ,~ 2. Please state your employment history for the previous ten (10) years and in responding, please provide: (a) name and address of employer; (b) job title; (c) job responsibilities; (d) immediate supervisor; and (e) length of employment at each employer ANSWER: 243859.1UDVD 1 3. If you are covered by any type of insurance, including any excess or umbrella insurance, which may be applicable to the incident in this matter, state the following with respect to each policy: (a) the name of the insurance carrier which issued the policy; (b) the name insured under each policy and the policy number of each policy; (c) the type(s) and effective date(s) of each policy; (d) the amount of coverage provided for injury to each person, for each occurrence, and in the aggregate for each policy; and (e) each exclusion, if any, in the policy which is applicable to any claim thereunder and any reasons, if any, why you or the carrier claim the exclusion is applicable. ANSWER: 243859.IVDVD 4. (a) If you have ever been certified by any specialty board, or if you are now or have ever been a member of any specialty board, set forth the following: (1) the name and address of each specialty board; (2) the date you were certified or became a member; and (3) if you are no longer certified or a member, give the date your certification or membership was terminated and the reason for the same; (b) Have you ever sought specialty certification and been denied it? (c) Did you ever take a medical specialty certification examination and not received a passing score? ff so, set forth: (1) name and address of each specialty certification sought or specialty examination taken; and (2) date of certification denial ornon-passing score. ANSWER: 243859.1UDVD i 5. Identify your specific parhicipation in any lawsuit, civil or criminal, other than the present one, whether you were a plaintiff, defendant, expert witness, and or otherwise involved. ANSWER 243859.IVDVD . r 6. Set forth each and every date you had professional contact with the Plaintiff. Please consider this a request to produce all records relating to said professional contact, excluding any previously supplied medical records. ANSWER: 243859.1VDUD 7. Do you personally intend to offer an opinion at trial on any of the following: (a) the standazd of Gaze applicable to this case; (b) your conformance or non-conformance with the standard of care; (c) any other physicians' or healthcare providers' (whether named as a Defendant in this action or not) conformance ornon-conformance with the standazd of caze; (d) the existence or non-existence of negligence on your part or the part of any person participating in Plaintiffs care; (e) the presence or lack of a causal connection between your treatment and the injuries alleged in the Complaint; (f) whether Plaintiffs conduct contributed in any fashion to his injury; (g) if the answer to (a) through (f j is answered affirmatively, provide: (1) a statement of the opinion(s); (2) all facts relied upon in reaching the opinion(s); (3) all grounds for the opinion(s); (4) if the defendant will testify that his opinions aze consistent with or based upon the medical literature, identify the specific article, texts or studies deemed consistent with or based upon the medical literature, identifying the specific article, texts or studies deemed consistent with or in support of his opinion(s). ANSWER: 243859.1VDVD { 8. If it is your contention that you were not negligent with respect to the treatment and caze of Plaintiff provide: (a) the facts supporting that contention; (b) identify any documents containing facts supporting that contention; (c) identify each individual who you believe has lmowledge of the facts supporting that contention; (d) the identity of each individual who will testify to the facts supporting that contention; (e) a summary of the substance of the testimony of each individual identified herein, ANSWER: 243S59.lUDUD 9. If you contend that Plaintiff was contributorily negligent and/or assumed the risk: (a) state in detail the manner in which Plaintiff was contributorily negligent and/or assumed the risk ofhis/her injuries; (b) the manner in which Plaintiffis responsible for and/or assumed the risk of injury; (c) the facts upon which your contention is based; (d) every person you believe to have knowledge of the facts you will offer in support of your contention; (e) every document containing facts upon which you will base your contention. ANSWER: 243659.IUDVD 10. Have you or anyone acting on your behalf obtained from any person any statement concerning this action or its subj ect matter? If so, state: (a) the name and last Imown address of each person; (b) when, where, by whom and to whom each statement was made, and whether it was reduced to writing or otherwise recorded; and (c) the name and address of any person who has custody of any such statements that were reduced to writing or otherwise recorded Please consider this a request to produce those statements referred to in the above answers. ANSWER: 243859.1VDVD ,~ 11. Have you given any statement(s) concerning this action or its subject matter to anyone, excluding your attorney, but specifically including an agent or representative of your insurance carrier? If so, state: (a) the name and address of each person to whom the statement was given; and (b) when and where such statement was given. Please consider this a request to produce those statement referred to in the above answer. ANSWER: 243859.IVDVD 12. Have you or anyone on your behalf conducted any investigations of the medical care which is the subject matter of this Complaint? If so, please provide the following: (a) the name, address and employer of all persons who conducted any investigations; (b) the dates of the investigations; and (c) the dates of any reports of any investigations and the identity of the persons who have possession thereof. Please consider this a request to produce your investigation report. ANSWER; 243859.IVDVD 13. State the names of any persons interviewed, questioned and/or contacted by you regarding the subject matter of this litigation and include in your answer the following: (a) the address of the person interviewed; (b) the method used in interview (i.e., in person, by written inquiry, or by telephone); (c) the date of the interview; and (d) the substance of the interview provided to you by the person interviewed. ANSWER: 243859.IVDUD 14. Identify each person whom you expect to call as an expert witness at trial in this case. In accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 4003.5, you may file as your answer, each expert report or have the interrogatories answered by the expert. The answer submitted as your separate report shall be signed by the expert. With respect to each person you expect to call as an expert witness at trial please state the following: (a) the subject matter in which the expert is expected to testify; (b) the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify; (c) a summary for the grounds for each opinion so expressed; and (d) please also supply a current curriculum vitae for each of your experts. ANSWER: 243859.1UDUD 15. If it is your contention that any element of damages alleged in the Complaint or the proofs and extent of the damages described in Plaintiffs' response fo your interrogatories is not causally related to your negligence as alleged in the Complaint, provide: (a) the specific item alleged to be unrelated; (b) identify any documents containing facts supporting that contention; (c) the factual basis for your contention the item is unrelated; (d) the identity of the individual who will testify to any fact in support of your answer herein; and (e) a summary of the testimony of each individual identified in response to subsection (d) of this interrogatory. ANSWER: 243859.IUDVD 16. Identify every document, book, journal, writing, diagram or other tangible object which you intend to use as an exhibit during the trial. For each: (a) . identify the document by title, date, and author, (b) summarize the substance of each; and (c) identify the custodian of the writing. ANSWER: 243859.IVDVD 17. For each non-expert witness who you intend to call at trial, provide: (a) their name, address and telephone number; (b) their relation to you, if any; and (c) a summary of the facts each will offer into testimony. ANSWER: 243859.iVDVD 18. Describe any actions taken by any hospital or professional medical association to investigate, discipline or reprimand you or to limit, suspend, ~ternvnate or deny hospital or association privileges to you. ANSWER: 243859.IUDVD 19. Describe any records whatsoever of which you are awaze concerning this action or its subject matter which are not part of your office records that aze routinely supplied through a medical authorization Please consider this a request to provide any such documents. ANSWER: 243859.1UDVD 20. Describe your course of treatment for Plaintiff apart from what is reported in your office records that are routinely supplied through a medical authorization, and/or in response to Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents. ANSWER: 243859.1VDVD 21. Identify any technical source that you relied on in treating Plaintiff, or in fomung an opinion concerning the diagnosis, monitoring and/or treatment of Plaintiffs condition. ANSWER: 243859.IVDVD 22. With respect to any conversation or communication of which you aze aware in which the nature of any alternatives to and/or risks of surgery were discussed with Plaintiff, set forth: (a) the dates of each occurrence; (b) the substance of each conversation; (c) the identity of each party to the conversation; (d) the identity of each witness to the conversation; and (e) were there any documents relating to the nature of, alternative to and/or risk of the procedure presented to the patient. If so, please consider this a request to produce such documents. ANSWER: 243859.1VDUD 23. (a) Identify any other medical practitioner, nurse, or any other persons with whom you consulted (formally or informally) concerning the diagnosis and/or treatment of Plaintiffs condition for which he/she sought your medical treatment. (b) Give the details of the consultation, including substance of consultation, findings, treatment, and recommendations. The details of said consultation(s) should include: (1) identify the consultant by name, occupation, title, address, azea of specialization and professional relationship to you; (2) the date, time of day, nature, and scope of your request for a consultation; (3) the nature and scope of the opinion given by the consulting professional; (4) the identity of any document in any way relating to each consultation; and (5) action taken as a result of the consultation. ANSWER: 243659.]VDVD 24. Have you or your counsel, or anyone else on your behalf contacted any of the Plaintiffs treating physicians or physician that was involved in any fashion in Plaintiffs care. If so, state: (a) name of physician contacted; (b) date, time and location of contact and discussion; (c) name and address of anyone else present; and (d) the identity of any document, note, record, memoranda, letter or any other reduction of information to a tangible form regazding each contact. ANSWER: 243859.IUDVD 25. Describe in detail every discussion or coritact of any nature which you or your employees had with Plaintiff or any member of his/her family regarding her medical condition, treatment or diagnosis or any other relevant matter. The description should include, but not be limited to: (a) the time and place of the discussion; (b) the identity of any document, note, record, memoranda, letter or any other reduction of information to a tangible form regarding each contact; (c) the substance of what you said to Plaintiff or her family; (d) the substance of what Plaintiff or her family members said to you; (e) what conclusions or assumptions you drew from your conversation(s) with Plaintiff or her family members; (fj with respect to each conversation or contact identified in this interrogatory, identify any person lrnown to you to have witnessed the wnver;ation or contact by stating their name, current address, business address and relations, if any, to you; (g) State whether any of the individuals identified as witnesses to the conversation will testify for you at trial and summarize in detail the facts to which they will testify. ANSWER: 243859.IUDVD 26. With regard to your treatment of Plaintiff, state in detail: (a) the medical history of Plaintiff related to you the first time you were in contact with Plaintiff; (b) any other medical history you learned regarding Plaintiff; (c) a complete description of all physical examination(s) which you performed on Plaintiff, including the list of your findings there&om; (d) any laboratory or similar tests performed by you or at your direction, including the results therefrom; and (e) the identity of every document containing Plaintiffs medical history, results of any physical examination, or laboratory test. ANSWER: 243859.IVDUD u 27. State with particularity the factual basis for each defense you are asserting in this claim. ANSWER: 243859.IVDUD I ~ ~ ; 28. If you lmow of the existence of any photographs, motion pictures, video recordings, dfagrams, or models relevant to the incident, state: ' (a) the nature or type of such item; (b) the date when such item was made; (c) the identity of the person that prepared or made each item; and (d) the subject that each item represents or portrays. ANSWER: 243859.NDVD 29. If you contend now or if you will contend at trial that the treatment utilized by you in treating Plaintiffs condition was consistent with the recognized methods contained in medical literature, provided by author, title, publication and date of publication, each reference upon which you will base that contention. ANSWER: 243859.IVDUD ~, CERTIFICATE OF"SERVICE AND NOW, on this' ~ day of _~/,~.r.~/F--- , 2002, I, Betty S. Berdanier, an employee in the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I served PLAINTIFFS' INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED UPON DEFENDANTS J. CAHILL, RN., L. WARNER, RN., R BUBB, RN., M. KOZICK, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, RN., and D. STARKER, RN. - SET I by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, 6rst- class, addressed to: Steven D. Snyder, Esquire METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE 3401 North Front Street P.O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 Counsel for Defendants ~l ~ .. Beatty S. erdanier 243859.1UDVD ,,. I SANDRA E. BACHMAN, and DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, Plaintiffs v, HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CARTEL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICK, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., AND D. STARNER, R.N., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-5464 CIVIL ACTION LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO DEFENDANTS J. CARTEL, RN., L. WARNER RN. R BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICK, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, RN., and D. STARKER R.N. -SET I To: Defendants J. Cahill, R.N., L. Warner, R.N., R. Bubb, R.N., M. Kozick, L.P.N., C. Kauffinan, R.N., and D. Starner, and their counsel, Steven D. Snyder, Esquire PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 4003.4 and 4009, you ate required to famish, at our expense; at our office, on or before thirty (30) days after service hereof, a photostatic copy or like reproduction of the materials concerning this action or its subject matter that are in your possession, custody or control, and which are not protected by the attorney/client privilege; or, in the alternative, to produce the requested materials at said time and place in order to permit inspection and copying thereof. In responding to this request, you shall utilize the defmitions and follow the instructions hereinafter set forth, each of which shall be deemed to be a material part of each request. Instructions 1. With respect to each of the following requests, you shall identify and/or produce all documents which aze known to you or which can be located or discovered by you through diligent effort on the pazt of you, your employees, representatives, attorneys or accountants, including but 241980.1VD~BSB not limited to, all documents which aze in the business or personal files of your employees, in the possession of your representatives, attorneys or accountants, aze accessible to you, your employees or your representatives, attorneys or accountants. 2. The following requests shall be deemed to be continuing so as to require further and supplemental production of documents by you in accordance with Rule 4007.4 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. If any documents requested herein have been lost or destroyed, and no such copies of such documents exist, you shall provide in lieu of a true and correct copy thereof a list of the documents lost or destroyed along with the following information: (a) the date of origin of the document; (b) a brief description of each document; (c) the author of each such document; (d) the date upon which the document was lost or destroyed; (e) a brief statement as to the reason why the document was destroyed; and (~ a brief statement as to the manner in which the document was lost or destroyed. 4. If you refuse to produce any requested documents on the grounds of any claimed privilege from discovery, state each ground for such claimed privilege, describe the document withheld by date, author, recipient (including all persons who are shown or received a copy), and give a general description of the subject matter of the document. 5. In the event that more than one copy of a document exists, the original shall be produced, as well as every copy on which appears any notation or mazking of any sort not appearing on the original. 241980.IUD~BS6 _. , . ~.: 6. For any documents which are stored or maintained in files in the normal course of business, such documents shall be produced in such files, or in such a manner as to preserve and indicate the file from which such documents were taken. 7. If you object to a request because a portion of that request seeks a document shielded from discovery by the attorney/client privilege or the attorney work product doctrine, provide those documents sought in the request which aze not protected by such privilege or by the work product doctrine. Definitions 1. "You" and "your" shall mean the Defendant as well as its agents, attorneys, employees, accountants, consultants, independent contractors and any other individual or entity associated or affiliated with the Defendants or purporting to act on their behalf with respect to the matter in question. 2. "Document" shall mean all written or printed matter of any kind in your possession, custody or control, which is either known to you or can be located or discovered by diligent effort, . including the originals and non-identical copies, whether different from the original by reason of any notation made on such copies or otherwise, including without limitation, correspondence, memoranda, notes, speeches, press releases, diaries, calendars, agenda, statistics, letters, telegrams, minutes, contracts, purchase orders, reports, studies, checks, statements, receipts, returns, summaries, pamphlets, books, inter-office and infra-office communications, offers, bulletins, printed matter, computer printouts, teletypes, telefax, invoices, work sheets, work papers, records of telephone calls or other communications or conversations, and all drafts, alterations, modifications, changes or amendments of any kind of the foregoing, graphic or aural records or representations of any kind (including without limitation, photographs, changes, graphs, microfiche, microfilm, 241980.1VD1BSB videotapes, records and motion pictures) and electric or mechanical records of representations or information of any kind (including without limitation, tapes, cassettes, computer disks, and recordings). 3. "Relating to" shall include pertaining to, recording, evidencing, containing, setting forth, reflecting, showing, disclosing, describing, explaining, summarizing, concerning or referring to, whether directly or indirectly. 4. The conjunctions "and" and "or" shall be interpreted to mean "and/or", and shall not be interpreted to exclude any information otherwise within the scope of any request. 5. "Person" shall mean any individual, firm, partnership, corporation, association, business or governmental entity or subdivision, agency, department, and any "person" acting by or through, directly or indirectly, any other "person", as well as any "person" by whom such "person" was controlled with respect to the matter in question. 241980.1VD~BSB Requested Documents 1. All documents identified in your Answers to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories Propounded upon Defendant (Set n and all documents reviewed by Defendant or anyone acting on behalf of Defendant in order to prepare the answers to said Interrogatories. 2. All photographs and videotapes in the possession, custody or control of the Defendant, counsel for Defendant or any other person or entity acting on behalf of the Defendant, including any insurers of the Defendant, showing, representing or purporting to show any surgical procedures, physical condition of Plaintiff, instrumentalities, persons, injuries, or any other matter related to'the surgery and medical care that is the subject of this litigation. 241980.ND~BSB 3. All diagrams, sketches, or drawings in the possession, custody or control of Defendant, counsel for Defendant or any other person or entity acting on behalf of the Defendant, including any insurer of the Defendant, showing, representing, or purporting to show any of the surgical procedures, instrumentalities, physical condition of Plaintiff, persons, injuries, or other items or matters involved in or related to surgery and medical caze that is the subject of this litigation. 4. All statements, signed statements, transcripts of recorded statements or interviews, recorded statements if not transcribed, or any summary of recorded statements if not transcribed verbatim, taken of any parties, persons, or witnesses as part of an investigation of the surgery and medical caze and treatment which is the subject of this litigation, conducted by, or in the possession, of Defendant, Defendant's attomey, Defendant's insurers, or anyone else acting on behalf of the Defendant. Statements shielded from discovery by the attomey/client privilege need not be supplied. aa9ao.wo~ese 5. All medical records and medical bills which aze in your possession, custody or control, specifically including, but not limited to, a complete copy of the medical chart of Plaintiff. 6. To the extent not already provided in response to previous requests herein, any and all records (including telephone logs, telephone message slips, office notes, and documents of any kind) relating to your professional contact with Plaintiff. 241980.1VD~BSB 1 •' 7. All written procedures, policies, protocols which you did follow, or were supposed to follow, with regard to your care of Plaintiff. 8. All expert reports prepared for this case by each person who you expect to call as an expert witness at the trial of this action. 241980.IUD~BSB _a.a L J 9. All documents prepared by Defendant or any of Defendant's insurers, representatives, agents or anyone acting on behalf of Defendant, during an investigation of any aspect of the surgery and medical caze and treatment that is the subject of this litigation. Documents shielded from discovery by attorney/client privilege or by attorney work product doctrine need not be provided. 10. All documents obtained during, or prepazed as a result of, any investigation of Plaintiffs' expert, including prior expert reports, letters, and deposition transcripts. 241980.1 VD~BSB .,.. , 11. ff not otherwise covered by the above requests, the complete claims/investigation/subrogation file(s) of any and all insurers of Defendant, concerning the surgery and medical caze and treatment that is the subject of this litigation, excluding the mental impressions, conclusions, or opinions respecting the value or merit of a claim or defense, or respecting the strategy or tactics. 12. All documents in your possession, custody or control prepazed in anticipation of litigation of the trial of this case, except those documents which disclose the mental impressions of your attorney or your attorney's conclusions, opinions, notes, memorandum or summaries, legal research or legal theories, and except those documents prepazed in anticipation of litigation by your representatives to the extent that they would disclose the representative's mental impressions, conclusions or opinions concerning the value or merit of the claim or defense. 241960.1VD~46B 13. To the extent not already provided in response to previous requests made herein, all statements made by any party to this action, including written statements, signed or otherwise adopted or approved by the person making it, or stenographic, mechanical, electrical or other recording or transcription thereof, which is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement contemporaneously recorded as allowed by Pa.R.C.P. 4003.4. 14. To the extent that you have not already provided same in response to the previous requests herein, copies of all records, documents and memoranda which in any way relate to the responsibility of Plaintiff for the matter that is the subject of this litigation. 241980.IVDIBS6 a 15. To the extent not akeady provided in response to previous requests herein, copies of all exhibits which you intend to offer into evidence at the trial of this matter. 16. Copies of the declarations sheets of each and every oolicy of insurance insuring you against the claims made in the instant action. 241980.1UD~BSB 17. To the extent not already provided in response to previous requests herein, any and all documents which evidence any facts on the basis of which you will assert a defense against the causes of action set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint. tANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. \~~~~ James DeCinti, Esquire I.D. No. 77421 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 Attorney for Plaintiffs Date: ~~~9/Q Z 241980.1VD~BSB i ~„~ ~ i ~. ';, ~: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, on thisi~ day of ~ ~ , 2002, I, Betty S. Berdanier, an employee in the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I served PLAINTIFFS' REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO DEFENDANTS J. CAHILL, RN., L. WARNER, RN., R BUBB, RN., M. KOZICK, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, RN., and D. STARKER, RN. - SET I by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first-class, addressed to: Steven D. Snyder, Esquire METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE 3401 North Front Street P.O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 Counsel for Defendants ~*--~`" Betty S. Bed anier 241980.1VDV3SB ~.~~~~o &Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Stteet Harrisburg, PA 171141708 717/238b791 Fax 717/2385630 Richard C. Augino Michael E Kosik Neil J. Rovner Richard A. Sadlock Joseph M. Melillo Joseph M. Doris Terry S. Hymau James DeCind David L List: Joan L Stehulak uulv.angino-toweccom Fimaib jdecinti@anginoroweawm May 13, 2002 Steven D. Snyder, Esquire METTE, EVANS & WOOI7SIDE 3401 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 RE: Sandra E. Bachman and David E. Bachman, her husband, v. Holy Spirit Hospital, et al. No. 02-5464 Dear Steve: I would appreciate receiving from you an indication of when you anticipate providing responses to discovery that was propounded upon your clients on or about Mazch 19, 2002. I would appreciate receiving those responses in adequate time to prepare for the depositions of the nurses, which have been scheduled for June 27, 2002. Very truly yours, fllE COPY James DeCinti JD/bsb ~ Y • ~~ 4! CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Betty Berdanier, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES OF DEFENDANT on the following via postage prepaid, fast class United States mail, requested addressed as follows: Steven D. Snyder, Esquire METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE 3401 North Front Street P.O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 Counsel for Defendants Date: ~/y/~~- za66~s.i~ass~,ci yj -~ /~7~ , . Betty B •danier I '~ ° ~ - . ,.~ n r n :;.~ ; ~ . - __ -, - ' c.r - ' - r - -•,, -- -' L;, SANDRA E. BACHMAN, and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. NO.Ol-5464 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CARTEL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N, R. BUBB, R.N., :CIVIL ACTION LAW ®®)~~ M. KOZICK, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, ~('~ ! R.N., AND D. STARNER, R.N., .JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PLAINTIFFS' PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW MOTION TO COMPEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery Responses of Defendants filed on June 6, 2002, in the above-captioned case. Respectfully submitted, ANGINp~O,~&~RO cVrNER, P.C. u "" - //~ James DeCinti, Esquire I.D. No. 77421 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717)238-6791 Attorney for Plaintiffs Date: ~I ~l J /~CyE~RTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, on this/%°"` day of June, 2002, I, Betty S. Berdanier, an employee in the law fum of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I served PLAINTIFFS' PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW MOTION TO COMPEL WITHOUT PREJUDICE by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first-class, addressed to: Steven D. Snyder, Esquire METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE 3401 North Front Street P.O, Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 Counsel for Defendants ~ ~ Betty S. erdanier Dated: (o~9~Z t c~ ~.-:. _~ ~,= ", °~ ~; ~~ ~ ~ - _ ' ~`' y ~n t -<< [. ~>~ ~~ _; -57 .L.. 7> =j m z ;a v ma •.r - c ~~ SANDRA E. BACHMAN, and DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIlZIT HOSPITAL, J. CA$ILL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICK, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., AND D. STARNER, R.N., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.Ol-5464 CIVIL ACTION LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER ~'Vlv~ ~~ 2vo3 J AND NOW, it is hereby ORDERED that David E. Bachman is substituted as Plaintiff on behalf of the Estate of Sandra Bachman. In addition, the action is amended to include a Survival Action pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. §8302. The caption is hereby amended to read as follows: DAVID E. BACHMAN, Individually : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and on Behalf of the Estate of :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SANDRA E. BACHMAN, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIItiT HOSPITAL, J. CAHILL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICK, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., AND D. STARNER, R.N., Defendants NO. 01-5464 CI6'IL ACTION LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ~? r~ ,~~ ~'~ ~~ ~ ~ J. 253984.1UDADZ a. ... ~ ~ ~G H; ~jGi"~;r rr ~! ~ ,_,~~M1Vfj'~~ ~~:~:x~ ;,a ; , ~ , ,s,~ ~ QS Y ~~ ~ _ri ~~~i~ ~': i~ r e SANDRA E. BACHMAN, and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DAVID E. BACHMAN, her husband, :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v NO.OI-5464 HOLY SPII2IT HOSPITAL, J. CAHILL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., :CIVIL ACTION LAW M. KOZICK, L.P,N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., AND D. STARKER, R.N., :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants STIPULATION TO AMEND AND FOR SUBSTITUTION OF PARTY AND NOW, come the parties, by and through their respective counsel, and hereby agree and stipulate as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Sandra E. Bachman, along with her husband, Plaintiff, David E. Bachman, initiated the instant action by Complaint dated September 19, 2001. 2. On July 1, 2002, Plaintiff, Sandra E. Bachman, passed away during the pendency of the instant action. 3. On August 26, 2002, Letters of Administration were granted to Plaintiff, Dauid E. Bachman. See, Exhibit "A." 4. Plaintiff, David Bachman, seeks to be substituted as Plaintiff on behalf of his wife's estate. 5. Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1033, Plaintiff, David E. Bachman, seeks to amend the caption of the instant case and to amend the action into a survival action pursuant to 42 Pa.C.S.A. §8302. 1 253984. ND~DZ Y 6. The parties request that the caption of the case be amended to read as follows DAVID E. BACHMAN, Individually : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and on Behalf of the Estate of :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SANDRA E. BACHMAN, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, J. CARTEL, R.N., L. WARNER,- R.N., R: BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICK, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., AND D. STARNER, R.N., Defendants NO. 01-5464 CIVII. ACTION LA W JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 7. This Stipulation shall be effective as of the date it is last signed on behalf of all parties. 8. Plaintiff s counsel shall file of record the fully executed Stipulation. ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. James DeCinti, Esquire Counsel for Plaintiff Date: l t 2? p 7, METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE I Steven D. Snyder, uire Counsel for Defendants 2 253984.1VD~DZ I~ ,~- f,a'~ Register of Wills of JUNIATA County, Pennsylvania Certificate of Grant of Letters No. 3402-00072 ESTATE OF BACHMAN SANDRA E Late of FERMANAGH TOWNSHIP , Deceased Social Security No. 164-34-9588 WHEREAS, BACHMAN SANDRA E late of FERMANAGH TOWNSHIP JUNIATA COUNTY ,, died on the 1st day of July 2002; and WHEREAS, the grant of letters of administration -~ required for the administration of the estate. THEREFORE, I, NANCY P. LEBKICHER Register of Wills ' in and for the County of JUNIATA in the `' Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, have this day granted Letters of Administration- to BACHMAN DAVID E who has duly qualified as administrator(rix) of the above named decedent and has agreed to administer to law, all of which fully appears of record in my Office COUNTY COURT HOUSE, MIFFLINTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand an. of my Office on the 23rd day of August 2002. of the estate the estate according at JUNIATA 3 affixed the seal CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, on this ~ day of ~ e W ~~1"1 , 2000, I, Katherine D. Zimmerman, an employee in the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I served STIPULATION TO AMEND AND FOR SUBSTITUTION OF PARTY by depositing same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, first-class, addressed to: Steven D. Snyder, Esquire METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE 3401 North Front Street P.O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 Counsel for Defendants r ~. atherine D. Zimmerman 3 253984.1VD~DZ ~~ z l . .~ C> r"> C <' ,. ~~ [; ~: ~ ..., r~; -: ,, c;;~ _. c _. (SI ~`; ---:;r-: ~': -: t,y ~ M ~i DAVID E. BACHMAN, Individually and on Behalf of the Estate of SANDRA E. BACHMAN, Plaintiff v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL J. CAHILL, R.N., L. WARNER, R.N., R. BUBB, R.N., M. KOZICH, L.P.N., C. KAUFFMAN, R.N., and D. STARNER, R.N., Defendants TO THE PROTHONOTARY: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-5464 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE PLEASE mark the above action discontinued with prejudice as to all Defendants. ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C By: ~ ' James DeCinti, Esquire I.D. No. 77421 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717)238-6791 Attorney for Plaintiff f ~ Date: Ne~errtlTar , 2003 385859v1 ~ ~ ~; ~' ~ ,::a - ~„ ~ :-> - ' ^ " ~ f ~. . :. ~. ~' . ~ " .,j G`S ~::. "` ~,i. j w i.("".~ ..~ ~ -si ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~ C"_ ~