Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-3424IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LARRY J. RUNK, II 32 George Brown Road Millerstown, PA 17062 Plaintiff VS. NO. d7- 3 S°ay CIVIL JOHN L. PENNOCK, M.D. 423 N. 21St Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 and CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, P/C. 423 N. 21St Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Defendants PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY, Please issue a writ of summons upon the above captioned Defendants. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted Date. l11LV111N.' LVl illy 1 1(.Llllllll ID # 38444 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2448 v v1 C -T„ r_-- ..i N I=n t co L? t.?7 ?7 T -i C.. C?J '-C Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland WRIT OF SUMMONS Larry J. Runk, II 32 George Brown Rd. Millerstown, PA 17062 Plaintiff Vs. John L. Pennock, M.D. Court of Common Pleas No 07-3424 Civil Term and Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P/C 423 N. 21St St. Camp Hill, PA 17011 Defendant In CivilAction-Law To John L. Pennock, M.D. and Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P/C, You are hereby notified that Larry J. Runk, II the Plaintiff(s) has / have commenced an action in Civil Action-Law against you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may be entered against you. (SEAL) Curtis R. Long, Protho otary Date June 8, 2007 Attorney: Joseph D. Buckley, Esq. Name: Joseph D.Buckley, Esq. Address: 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 Attorney for: Plaintiff Telephone: (717) 249-2448 Supreme Court ID No. 38444 By ?i S;? Deputy r IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR Larry J. Runk, II, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff PENNSYLVANIA V. No. 07-3424 Civil Term John L. Pennock, M.D. and Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., Defendants ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY Kindly enter the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of both Defendants in the above action. Respectfully submitted, STEVENS & LEE Date: July 10, 2007 144A;j 69kZ- James W. Saxton Attorney I.D. 36815 Michael D. Pipa Attorney I.D. #53624 17 North Second Street 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 255-7376 (717) 234-1099 (Facsimile) mdp@stevenslee.com SLI 735381vl /041199.00266 1 i IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Larry J. Runk, II, FOR CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff PENNSYLVANIA V. No. 07-3424 Civil Term John L. Pennock, M.D. and Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michael D. Pipa, Esquire, hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance to be served upon the following counsel of record via First Class United States Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 Date: JulyX 2007 I1 SL1 735381v 1(041199.00266 2 - fl- r` , ri SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2007-03424 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: I.OUNTY OF CUMBERLAND RUNK LARRY J II VS PENNOCK JOHN L MD ET AL MEGAN GILBRIDE , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE PC the DEFENDANT , at 1639:00 HOURS, on the 13th day of June , 2007 at 423 NORTH 21ST STREET CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to STEVE VICKERS, MANAGER, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge LI14Iq (4- So Answers: 6.00 .00 . 00 10.00 R. Thomas Kline .00 -"16.00 06/14/2007 JOSEPH BUCKLEY Sworn and Subscibed to before me this of By: day Deputy Sheriff A SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2007-03424 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND RUNK LARRY J II VS PENNOCK JOHN L MD ET AL MEGAN GILBRIDE , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon PENNOCK JOHN L MD the DEFENDANT , at 1639:00 HOURS, on the 13th day of June , 2007 at 423 NORTH 21ST STREET CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to STEVE VICKERS, MANAGER, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 14.40 Postage .41 Surcharge 10.00 .00 LIIgIID 42.81 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day of So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 06/14/2007 JOSEPH BUCKLEY By: eput - Sheri f f !"? /?% Gam GiL?•ciO?.? A. D. t LARRY J. RUNK, II, Plaintiff V. JOHN L. PENNOCK, MD AND CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 07-3424 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Defendant certifies that: A. a Notice of Intent to Serve a Subpoena with a copy of the subpoenas attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty (20) days prior to the date on which the subpoenas were sought to be served, B. a copy of the Notice of Intent, including the proposed subpoenas, are attached to this Certificate, C. no objections to the subpoena have been received, and D. the subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the Notice of Intent to Serve a Subpoena. 3L1 760976v 1 /041199.00266 STEVENS & LEE Date: ,? '45, S Ll 760976v 1 /041199.00266 By: G ?-C James W. Saxton Attorney I.D. 36815 Michael D. Pipa Attorney I.D. #53624 17 North Second Street 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 255-7376 (717) 234-1099 (Facsimile) mdp@stevenslee.com Attorneys for Defendants f LARRY J. RUNK, II, Plaintiff V. JOHN L. PENNOCK, MD AND CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 07-3424 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENAS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Defendants intend to serve subpoenas identical to the ones attached to this Notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned any objection to the subpoenas. If no objections are made, the subpoenas may be served. STEVENS & LEE Date: q 1 g b? By: James W. Saxton Attorney I.D. 36815 Michael D. Pipa Attorney I.D. #53624 17 North Second Street 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 255-7376 (717) 234-1099 (Facsimile) mdp@stevenslee.com Attorneys for Defendants SLi 751682vl/041199.00266 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Intent to Service Subpoenas was served upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage pre-paid, on September , 2007, addressed as follows: Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 Dated: Q 1 Is 16 4 STEVENS & LEE By: Attorney I.D. 36815 Michael D. Pipa Attorney I.D. #53624 17 North Second Street 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 255-7376 (717) 234-1099 (Facsimile) mdp@stevenslee.com Attorneys for Defendants S L 1 751682v 1 /041199.00266 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Intent to Service Subpoenas was served upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage pre-paid, on J , 2007, addressed as follows: Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 TEVENS & LEE By: kA'f-'_; Michae D. Pipa Attorney I.D. #53624 SLl 760976v]/041199.00266 ' O Cy E E, Wit , p -I M LARRY J. RUNK, II, Plaintiff V. JOHN L. PENNOCK, MD AND CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 07-3424 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Defendant certifies that: A. a Notice of Intent to Serve a Subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty (20) days prior to the date on which the subpoena was sought to be served, B. a copy of the Notice of Intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to this Certificate, C. no objections to the subpoena have been received, plaintiffs counsel has agreed to waive the twenty (20) day notice requirement, and D. the subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the Notice of Intent to Serve a Subpoena. S L 1 760976v 1 /041199.00266 STEVENS & LEE Date: C-). \ l` D? S L 1 7 60976v 1 /041199.00266 By: )()(\ .lac n t Q '?. Michael D. Pipa Attorney I.D. #53624 17 North Second Street 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 255-7376 (717) 234-1099 (Facsimile) mdp@stevenslee.com Attorneys,for Defendants r STEVENS & LEE LAWYERS & CONSULTANTS 17 North Second Street 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-1090 Fax (717) 234-1099 www.stevenslee.com Direct Dial: (717) 255-7368 Email: plb@stevenslee.com Direct Fax: (610) 371-7751 January 30, 2008 Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire Law Offices of Joseph D. Buckley, The 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Runk v. Pennock, M.D. Dear Mr. Buckley: This is to memorialize my conversation with Cheryl of your office on January 23, 2008 during which she stated that you had no objections to the issuance of subpoenas and were willing to waive the twenty (20) notice requirement for their issuance, for records as set forth in our Notice of Intent to Service of Subpoenas dated January 21, 2008. Thank you for your courtesy in this matter. Sincerely, ?-UD 65-"' Pamela L. Boger Paralegal Philadelphia • Reading • Valley Forge • Lehigh Valley • Harrisburg • Lancaster • Scranton Williamsport Wilkes-Barre Princeton • Cherry Hill • New York Wilmington A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION SL I 781785 v 1 /041199.00266 STEVENS & LEE LAWYERS & CONSULTANTS 17 North Second Street 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-1090 Fax (717) 234-1099 www.stevenslee.com Direct Dial: (717) 255-7368 Email: plb®stevenslee.com Direct Fax: (610) 371-7751 January 21, 2008 Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire Law Offices of Joseph D. Buckley, The 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 Dear Mr. Buckley: Enclosed is Defendant's Notice of Intent to Service of Subpoenas for records from the Hospital of University Pennsylvania and Holy Spirit Hospital. Please let us know as soon as possible if you are willing to waive the twenty (20) notice so that we may immediately serve the subpoenas. We will provide you with copies of any records we receive in response to our subpoena at your request. In addition, also enclosed are release of information documents provided by the Hospital of University of Pennsylvania to allow us to obtain copies of the echocardiograms as well as outpatient records from that provider. If you have no objections please forward the executed authorizations to us as soon as possible. If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact Mr. Pipa or me. Sincerely, Q A^ Pamela L. Boger Paralegal Enclosures Philadelphia • Reading • Valley Forge • Lehigh Valley • Harrisburg • Lancaster • Scranton Williamsport Wilkes-Barre • Princeton • Cherry Hill • New York • Wilmington A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION SLl 779502v 1 /041199.00266 i LARRY J. RUNK, II, Plaintiff V. JOHN L. PENNOCK, MD AND CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 07-3424 • JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENAS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Defendants intend to serve subpoenas identical to the ones attached to this Notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned any objection to the subpoenas. If no objections are made, the subpoenas may be served. STEVENS & LEE Date: l I a\N A By: Michael D. Pipa Attorney I.D. #53624 17 North Second Street, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 255-7376 (610) 371-7743 (Facsimile) mdp@stevenslee.com Attorneys for Defendants S L 1 751682v 1 /041199.00266 LARRY J. RUNK, II, Plaintiff V. JOHN L. PENNOCK, MD AND CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 07-3424 : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Holy Spirit Hospital 503 North 21" Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce to Stevens & Lee, 17 North Second Street, 16th Floor, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 17101 , the following documents or things: Complete copies of any and all records, including but not limited to all reports, progress notes, hospital admissions records, outpatient records, handwritten notes, memoranda, correspondence, phone messages, billing documents, AND COPIES OF ECHOCARDIOGRAMS AND/OR CARDIAC CATHETERIZATIONS (preferably on CD) and any other documents in your file regarding LARRY J. RUNK, II, DOB: 4/10/62, SSN: 180-50-0301. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. This subpoena was issued at the request of the following person: Michael D. Pipa Esquire, Stevens & Lee, 17 N. Second Street, 16th Floor, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 ; (717) 255-7376; Court I.D. No. 53624. Attorneys for Defendants. Date: 008 Seal of the Court BY THE COURT: A. if J'a fflu lea By: (Prothonotary) S L 1 7 79477 v 1 /041199.00266 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Intent to Service of Subpoenas was served upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage pre-paid, on January 21, 2008, addressed as follows: Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 Dated: N? ?\\ oq (S?TEVENS & LEE By: \ k v ?" Pamela L. Boger, Paralegal to: Michael D. Pipa Attorney I.D. #53624 17 North Second Street, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 255-7368 ( (Facsimile) (610) 371-7751 plb@stevenslee.com Attorneys for Defendants S L 1 7 51682v 1 /041199.00266 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Certificate Prerequisite to Service of Subpoenas was served upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage pre-paid, on February 1, 2008, addressed as follows: Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 Dated: c,I 1 1 l U Cr CL r^ex SI.1 760976v 1 /041199.00266 T J rn rn LARRY J. RUNK, II, Plaintiff V. JOHN L. PENNOCK, MD AND CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 07-3424 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 As a prerequisite to service of subpoenas for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Defendant certifies that: A. a Notice of Intent to Serve a Subpoena with a copy of the subpoenas attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty (20) days prior to the date on which the subpoenas were sought to be served, B. a copy of the Notice of Intent, including the proposed subpoenas, is attached to this Certificate, C. no objections to the subpoenas have been received, and plaintiff's counsel has agreed to waive the twenty (20) day notice requirement, and D. the subpoenas which will be served are identical to the subpoenas which are attached to the Notice of Intent to Serve a Subpoena. s Ll 760976v1 /041199.00266 STEVENS & LEE Date: `? 1a 0-6 By: Michael D. Pipa Attorney I.D. 453624 17 North Second Street 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 255-7376 (717) 234-1099 (Facsimile) mdp@stevenslee.com Attorneys.for Defendants SL I 760976v 1 /041199.00266 THE LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH D. BUCKLEY 1237 HOLLY PIKE CARLISLE, PA 17013 TELEPHONE (717) 249-2448 JoeBLaw@aol.com FAX (717) 249-4103 February 28, 2008 Pamela L. Boger Stevens & Lee 17 North Second Street 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Re: Runk v. Pennock, M.D. Dear Pam: As we discussed by telephone this morning, Mr. Buckley has instructed me to let you know that we are willing to waive the twenty (20 day notice period in the above mentioned matter that you requested in your letter of February 18, 2008. Also as we discussed, please provide us with copies of any and all records that you receive in response to your subpoenas. Thank you. Very sincerely yours, Cheryl L. Bennecoff, assistant to Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire JDB/clb cc: Larry Runk STEVENS & LEE LAWYERS & CONSULTANTS 17 North Second Street 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-1090 Fax (717) 234-1099 www.stevenslee.com Direct Dial: (717) 255-7368 Email: plb@stevenslee.com Direct Fax: (610) 371-7751 February 18, 2008 Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire Law Offices of Joseph D. Buckley, The 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 Re: Runk v. Pennock, M.D. Dear Mr. Buckley: Enclosed is Defendant's Notice of Intent to Service of Subpoenas for records from Morganstein Rehabilitation Associates, Albert Hooke, LCSW, and William Rolle Jr., M.D. Please let us know as soon as possible, in writing, if you are willing to waive the twenty (20) notice period so that we may immediately serve the subpoenas. We will provide you with copies of any records we receive in response to our subpoenas at your request. Sincerely, fj_? \_? ar Pamela L. Boger Paralegal Enclosures Philadelphia • Reading • Valley Forge • Lehigh Valley • Harrisburg • Lancaster • Scranton Williamsport Wilkes-Barre Princeton Cherry Hill New York Wilmington A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION S L 1 7960 56v 1 /041199.0026 6 LARRY J. RUNK, II, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. JOHN L. PENNOCK, MD AND CAPITAL CIVIL ACTION LAW AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL No. 07-3424 INSTITUTE, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENAS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Defendants intend to serve subpoenas identical to the ones attached to this Notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned any objection to the subpoenas. If no objections are made, the subpoenas may be served. STEVENS & LEE Date: a l it I o<? By: `M tCSZ ?. Michael D. Pipa Attorney I.D. #53624 17 North Second Street, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 255-7376 (610) 371-7743 (Facsimile) mdp@stevenslee.com Attorneys for Defendants S L 1 7 51682v 1 /041199.00266 LARRY J. RUNK, II, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA V. JOHN L. PENNOCK, MD AND CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 07-3424 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: William Rolle Jr, MD Prism 450 Powers Ave Rear Harrisburg, PA 17109 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce to STEVENS & LEE, 17 North Second Street, 16th Floor, Harrisburg, PA. 17101, ATTN: Pamela L. Boger, Paralegal, the following documents or things: Your complete file concerning (DOB: SSN: ) including, but not limited to, all admissions, emergency department visits, out patient records, progress notes, correspondence, reports of all kinds, phone messages, billing documents, and everything else you maintain concerning this patient. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produced things requested by this subpoena, together with the Certificate of Compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies pr producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things requires by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this?subpnena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. This subpoena was issued at the request of the following person: Michael D. Pipa, Esquire, Stevens & Lee, 17 North Second Street, 16th Floor, Harrisburg PA, 17101 Court ID # 53624. Attorneys for Defendants. Date: 3L0q?08 Seal of the Court BY THE COURT: By: (? tart' S L 1 796045 v 11041199.00266 LARRY J. RUNK, II, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. JOHN L. PENNOCK, MD AND CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 07-3424 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Albert R Hooke Jr, LCSW 2215 Forest Hills Dr Ste 38 Harrisburg, PA 17112 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce to STEVENS & LEE, 17 North Second Street, 16th Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17101, ATTN: Pamela L. Boger, Paralegal, the following documents or things: Your complete file concerning (DOB: SSN: ) including, but not limited to, all admissions, emergency department visits, out patient records, progress notes, correspondence, reports of all kinds, phone messages, billing documents, and everything else you maintain concerning this patient. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produced things requested by this subpoena, together with the Certificate of Compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies pr producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things requires by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. This subpoena was issued at the request of the following person: Michael D. Pipa, Esquire, Stevens & Lee, 17 North Second Street 16t" Floor Harrisburg PA 17101 Court ID # 53624. Attorneys for Defendants. Date: 3112YIOg Seal of the Court BY THE CO RT: By: (Protho SL l 796045v 1 /041199.00266 LARRY J. RUNK, II, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. JOHN L. PENNOCK, MD AND CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 07-3424 Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Morganstein Rehabilitation Associates, LLC 845 Sir Thomas Court Harrisburg, PA 17109 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce to STEVENS & LEE, 17 North Second Street, 16th Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17101, ATTN: Pamela L. Boger, Paralegal, the following documents or things: Your complete file concerning (DOB: SSN: ) including, but not limited to, all admissions, emergency department visits, out patient records, progress notes, correspondence, reports of all kinds, phone messages, billing documents, and everything else you maintain concerning this patient. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produced things requested by this subpoena, together with the Certificate d Compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies pr producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things requires by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. This subpoena was issued at. the request of the following person: Michael D. Pipa, Esquire Stevens & Lee 17 North Second Street 16th Floor Harrisburg PA 17101 Court ID # 53624. Attorneys for Defendants. Date: ,8?oy?09 Seal of the Court BY THE CO T: By: (Protho ) S L l 796045 v 1 /041199.00266 LARRY J. RUNK, II, Plaintiff V. JOHN L. PENNOCK, MD AND CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 07-3424 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, PAMELA L. BOGER, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Intent to Service of Subpoenas was served upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage pre-paid, on February 18, 2008, addressed as follows: Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: N?q ?3o S L 1 7 516 82v 1 /041199.00266 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Certificate Prerequisite to Service of Subpoenas was served upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage pre-paid, on March 12, 2008, addressed as follows: Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 Dated: 3 ? l'„ `0`76 SL 1 7609760/041199.00206 r> ,,, ;?' ? h.t,?.= ?. ?? ? .? _?; "'L7 17'2 v fj •... - ? ,R7 m ' ?' ? ` `?•_?l ,. r 1?_) Z? ,. 7?t -? LARRY J. RUNK, II, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 07-3424 r, JOHN L. PENNOCK, MD AND CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ° INSTITUTE, 'TT" Defendants _y PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter a Rule upon the Plaintiff Larry J. Runk, II to file a Complaint in the present matter within twenty (20) days after service of said Rule or suffer a judgment of non pros. Respectfully submitted, STEVENS & LEE Q'u , ? JPIJ??? Date: March 31 , 2010 Mic ael D. Pipa, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 53624 Karen E. Minehan, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 78050 17 North Second Street, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 255-7376 (610) 371-7743 (facsimile) mdp@stevenslee.com kem@stevenslee.com SLl 988243v]/041199.00266 2 LARRY J. RUNK, II, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. JOHN L. PENNOCK, MD AND CAPITAL CIVIL ACTION LAW AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL No. 07-3424 INSTITUTE, Defendants . JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, KAREN E. MINEHAN, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document(s) was served upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage pre-paid addressed as follows: Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: March 31, 2010 CUL Kare E. Minehan, Esquire S L l 988243 v 1 /041199.00266 LARRY J. RUNK, II, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 07-3424 JOHN L. PENNOCK, MD AND CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED INSTITUTE, Defendants RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND NOW, this ? day of April, 2010, a Rule has been entered upon Plaintiff to file a complaint within twenty (20) days after service of the Rule or suffer a judgment of non pros. Dated: April a$4? 2010 David D. uell, rotho otary S L l 988243 v 1 /041199.00266 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LARRY J. RUNK, II 32 George Brown Road Millerstown, PA 17062 Plaintiff vs. JOHN L. PENNOCK, M.D. 423 N. 21St Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 and NO. 07- CIVIL CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SURGICAL INSTITUTE, P/C. 423 N. 21St Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Defendants COMPLAINT o C7 . And now this 16-ay of April, 2010, comes Plaintiff, Larry J. Runk, II, by and through his attorney, Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire and complaints of Defendants as follows: Parties and Background 1. Plaintiff, Larry J. Runk, II, is an adult residing at 32 George Brown Road, Millerstown, Perry County, PA 17062. 2. Defendant, JOHN L. PENNOCK, M.D., at all times pertinent to this complaint was a licensed medical doctor practicing medicine in the central Pennsylvania region specializing in cardiovascular surgery, with offices located at 423 N. 21St Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, PA 17011. 3. Defendant, Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., , a professional corporation, employs Pennock through its 423 N. 21St Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, PA 17011 offices. 4. Defendant Pennock is an owner and shareholder of said Defendant Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute and also serves as its Vice President and Treasurer. 5. In 2005, Plaintiff then aged 43 years, developed a heart condition necessitating repair one or more of the valves of his heart. 6. Plaintiff was referred to Defendants for heart surgery, specifically a mitral valve repair. 7. Thereafter, Plaintiff met with Defendant Pennock to discuss Plaintiff s condition and health problem and to review a course of proposed surgical intervention to correct Plaintiffs heart condition. 8. Defendants schedule Plaintiff for surgery at the Harrisburg Hospital and thereafter on June 5, 2005, Plaintiff, as requested by Defendants reported to and was admitted to the Harrisburg Hospital for heart surgery. 9. On or about June 6, 2005, Defendants performed a coronary artery bypass grafting and a mitral value repair on Plaintiff which included placement of a medical devise, that being an annuloplasty ring on one of Plaintiff s heart valves. 10. Following the surgery Plaintiff began experiencing additional problems with his heart and felt much worse than before the surgery. 11. Plaintiff through his cardiologists contacted Defendants inquiring into whether additional surgery should be performed. 12. Plaintiff was informed by Defendants through his cardiologist that Defendants had performed a proper surgery, but because of Plaintiff s medical condition and his weak heart, that he should resolve that his life would soon terminate and he should ready himself for death. 13. Sometime thereafter, Plaintiff was referred to a specialist at the University of Pennsylvania Health System, Department of Surgery, Division of Cardiac Surgery, specifically Michael A. Acker, M.D. 14. In February 2006, said Dr. Acker agreed to meet with Plaintiff, reviewed his case and records and scheduled Plaintiff for surgery. 15. On February28, 2006, said Dr. Ackers operated on Plaintiff and upon opening his chest and viewing Plaintiff's heart and the work previously performed by Defendants discovered Plaintiffs problem was a result of a very heavily tethered posterior leaflet and a misplaced annuloplasty ring that was sewn anteriorly to the anterior leaflet and not to the anterior annulus and there were also sutures placed between A3 and P3. 16. Dr. Acker removed the misplaced annuloplasty ring and replaced Plaintiff's damaged valve with a 29 St. Jude valve. 17. Dr. Acker also repaired Plaintiff's trispid valve with a #32 annuloplasty ring and properly in sutured the ring in the proper place and in the proper manner. NEGLIGENCE - Dr. Pennock and Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P. C 18. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 14, above, as though set forth herein at length. 19. The carelessness, negligence and recklessness of defendant Dr. Pennock and Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C. in rendering the aforementioned medical care to the plaintiff includes but is not limited to the following: (a) Failing to render proper treatment and care to the plaintiff. (b) Failing to perform proper surgical procedures and to utilize appropriate surgical methods and techniques in performing surgery on the plaintiff. (c) Failure to properly disclose the medical devise to be used and how it would be placed inside plaintiff's body during the surgical procedure. (d) Failing to properly and safely insert the medical devise utilized in the procedure. (e) Failing to utilize safe, proper and acceptable methods for placement of medical device in Plaintiff s heart. (f) Failing to perform proper tests and procedures subsequent to the surgery which would have identified Defendants' improper placement of a medical devise . (g) Failing to inform plaintiff as to his actual condition and the reasons why following the surgery his pain and problems were continuing was continuing. (h) Advisng Plaintiff that Dr. Pennock and Defendants had performed a proper surgery, that it was Plaintiff's pre-surgery condition which was the cause of his difficulties and that Plaintiff should prepare himself for death. (i) Failing to provide proper and adequate follow-up care to the plaintiff after the surgery performed by Defendants. 20. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' carelessness, negligence, and recklessness, plaintiff has suffered in the past increasing levels of pain, helplessness, anxiety, depression, loss of sleep, loss of enjoyment of life. 21. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' carelessness, negligence, and recklessness, plaintiff will suffer continued loss of enjoyment of life.. 22. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' carelessness, negligence, and recklessness, plaintiff has suffered continued loss of employment and earning capacity. 23. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' carelessness, negligence, and recklessness, plaintiff has suffered irreparable damage to his heart and its valves. 24. As a result of the injuries set forth above, Plaintiff has been required and will continue to be required to undergo continued medical treatment, and has incurred and will continue to incur medical expenses for an indefinite time into the future. 25. As a result of the injuries set forth above, plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer from severe physical pain, mental anguish and emotional distress. 26. As a result of the injuries set forth above, plaintiff has and/or will suffer a loss of earnings and earning capacity. 27. As a result of the injuries set forth above, plaintiff has suffered a loss of ability to attend to his daily activities and needs and a loss of life's pleasures. 28. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' carelessness, negligence, and recklessness, plaintiff was responsible and required to pay for extensive medical expenses for services provided by others to correct the errors made by Defendants. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants Dr. Pennock and Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00), together with costs and any other relief this Court deems appropriate. Fa. l.ll. No. 38444 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2448 JoeBLaw(a,aol.com VERIFICATION I, Larry J. Runk, II, Plaintiff in this matter, hereby certify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. It is understood that statements made herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: ?-? l LARRY-RUM , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LARRY J. RUNK, II 32 George Brown Road Millerstown, PA 17062 Plaintiff VS. : NO. 07-4324 CIVIL JOHN L. PENNOCK, M.D. 423 N. 21St Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 and CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SURGICAL INSTITUTE, P/C. 423 N. 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the forgoing Complaint in the above mentioned case was duly served on the following persons at the following addresses by means of United States First Class Mail, prepaid: Michael D. Pippa, Esquire and Karen E. Minehan, Esquire Stevens & Lee 17 North 2°d Street, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Date: April 29, 2010 ID# 38444 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2448 JoeBLaw@aol.com 4 . ; IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF:-- F , r'V CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LARRY J. RUNK II 32 George Brown Road Millerstown, PA 17062 , ?rh Plaintiff vs. NO. 07-444+ CIVIL JOHN L. PENNOCK, M.D. And CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SURGICAL INSTITUTE, P.C. : Camp Hill, PA 17011 : Defendants Certificate of Merit as to Defendants John L Pennock, M.D. and Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C. I, Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire certify that : an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the defendants in the treatment, practice or work that is subject of the complaint in this matter, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; AND/OR the claim that the defendants deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to concluded that the care, skill, or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice or work that is subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm. ,4 Date: May 2, 2010 t Attorney for the 11. ID #38444 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2448 uire IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LARRY J. RUNK, II 32 George Brown Road Millerstown, PA 17062 Plaintiff vs. NO. 07-434 CIVIL JOHN L. PENNOCK, M.D. 423 N. 21St Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 and CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SURGICAL INSTITUTE, P/C. 423 N. 21St Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the forgoing Certificate of Merit as to Defendants John L. Pennock, M.D. and Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C. in the above mentioned case was duly served on the following persons at the following addresses by means of United States First Class Mail, prepaid: Michael D. Pippa, Esquire and Karen E. Minehan, Esquire Stevens & Lee 17 North 2nd Street, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Date: May 2, 2010 ID# 38444 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2448 JoeBLaw@aol.com s LARRY J. RUNK, II, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. CIVIL ACTION LAW ~ ~ : a No. 07-3424 ~~ . -c~ i-~ c~ T, JOHN L. PENNOCK MD AND CAPITAL '~': `_ ' r== ~':i ~~ AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ,~, -= - ,r INSTITUTE, t_ ; ~' -~ Defendants ~' c'. ~ ~ _ r.> ~ ^'~' ~.' ~? .. STIPULATION CONCERNING PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT ~''' AND NOW, the parties, by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to the following: 1. Plaintiff stipulates and agrees to replace the phrase "includes but is not limited to the following" with the phrase "consists of in the Amended Complaint. 2. Plaintiff stipulates and agrees to withdraw the averments of recklessness as variously set forth in the Amended Complaint. 3. Plaintiff grants Defendants a reasonable extension within which to file their Answer and New Matter to Plaintiff s Amended Complaint. 4. Nothing in the present Stipulation shall be intended to result in any admissions by the Defendants. 5. The Stipulation maybe executed in counterparts and shall be considered effective when signed by all counsel even though signed on separate signature pages. 6. All counsel certifies that they have authorization to execute the Stipulation on behalf of their respective clients. 7. The parties, by their respective counsel, have caused this Stipulation to be executed and intend to be legally bound thereby. S L 1 1002870v 1 /041199.00266 ~, Respectfully submitted, STEV NS & LEE Date: June ~ 1, 2010 Micha D. Pipa, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 53624 Karen E. Minehan, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 78050 17 North Second Street, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 255-7376 (610) 371-7743 (facsimile) mdp@stevenslee.cnm kem@stevenslee.cnm Attorneys_ for Defendants Date: June f , 2010 S L 1 1002 870v 1 /041199.00266 ~. Buckley, Esgi Attorney I.D. No. 38444 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2448 JoeBLaw@aol.com Counsel for Plaintiff 2 • ! LARRY J. RUNK, II, Plaintiff v. JOHN L. PENNOCK, MD AND CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 07-3424 • JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Plaintiff Larry J. Runk, II c/o Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 ~ ^' c~ ~, .; r -~ , s = - -:-~ ,~.- >~.) _ -: ~~ N t- -. _.~ d c':. You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed new matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, STEVENS & LEE ~.~. ~.,r Date: July 27 , 2010 Michael D. Pipa, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 53624 Karen E. Minehan, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 78050 17 North Second Street, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 255-7376 (610) 371-7743 (facsimile) mdp@stevenslee. com kem@stevenslee.cnm Attorneys for Defendants SL 1 1004652v 1/041199.00266 . ~ LARRY J. RUNK, II, v. Plaintiff JOHN L. PENNOCK, MD AND CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 07-3424 • JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS JOHN L. PENNOCK, MD AND CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE'S ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, come Defendants John L. Pennock, MD and Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, by and through their attorneys and in response to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint (as amended by Stipulation filed on July 22, 2010), states as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments at this time, strict proof thereof being demanded at trial. 2. Admitted. By way of further answer, Dr. Pennock was a licensed medical doctor who practiced medicine in the central Pennsylvania region and who specialized in cardiovascular surgery with a medical office at 423 North 21st Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, PA 17011 at the time of Plaintiff s relevant care in 2005. 3. Admitted. By way of further answer, it is admitted that Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., a professional corporation, maintained a medical office at 423 North 21st Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, PA 17011 in 2005 at the time of Plaintiff's relevant care. It is further admitted that Dr. Pennock was an employee of Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C. at the time of and with regard to Plaintiff's relevant care in 2005. SL 1 1004652v U041199.00266 4. Admitted. By way of further answer, it is admitted that Dr. Pennock is an owner and shazeholder and a Treasurer of Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C. Otherwise, Plaintiff s allegations are denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation regazding when Plaintiff s heart condition first developed, strict proof thereof being demanded at trial. By way of further answer, the allegations of these paragraphs appeaz to relate to the facts of medical condition, treatment and caze that occurred prior to Defendants' care of Plaintiff. Plaintiff s prior medical records are incorporated herein by reference. To the extent that Plaintiff's allegations aze inconsistent with or in conflict in any way with the contents of the records, the allegations are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 6. Admitted in part and denied in part. By way of further answer, the allegations of these pazagraphs appear to relate to the facts of medical treatment and caze, which have been recorded in the appropriate and associated medical records. Those medical records are incorporated herein by reference. To the extent that Plaintiff s allegations aze inconsistent with or in conflict in any way with the contents of the records, the allegations aze denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. To the extent any further response is required, such allegations aze denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and/or as legal conclusions. 7. Admitted in part and denied in part. By way of further answer, the allegations of these paragraphs appeaz to relate to the facts of medical treatment and caze, which have been recorded in the appropriate and associated medical records. Those medical records are incorporated herein by reference. To the iextent that Plaintiff s allegations are inconsistent with or in conflict in any way with the contents of the records, the allegations are denied and strict proof thereof is 3 SL 1 1004652v 1/041199.00266 demanded at the time of trial. To the extent any further response is required, such allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and/or as legal conclusions. 8. Denied. Said allegations are unanswerable as written and are, therefore, denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). To the extent a response is required, the procedure performed by Dr. Pennock on Plaintiff at Harrisburg Hospital on June 9, 2005 is characterized in the relevant medical records as follows: "Insertion of Swan-Ganz catheter, left internal mammary artery graft to left anterior descending coronary artery, reverse saphenous vein bypass graft the circumflex marginal coronary artery, mitral valve repair, and replacement with a #30 Carpentier- Edwards annuloplasty ring." 9. Denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). To the extent a response is required, the response to paragraph 8 above is incorporated herein by reference. 10. Denied. The allegations of these paragraphs appear to relate to the facts of medical treatment and care, which have been recorded in the appropriate and associated medical records. Those medical records are incorporated herein by reference. To the extent that Plaintiff's allegations are inconsistent with or in conflict in any way with the contents of the records, the allegations are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. Other allegations may involve medical concepts that constitute medical expert opinions or legal conclusions, which are not the proper subject of pleading, and no response is required. To the extent any further response is required, such allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and/or as legal conclusions. By way of further response, it is denied that Answering Defendants were negligent or that any act or omission of Answering Defendants caused or contributed to the Plaintiff's alleged damages. 4 SL 1 1004652v 1/041199.00266 11. Denied. After reasonable investigation Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form the belief as to the truth of certain of the averments pertaining to Plaintiff s conversations with his cardiologists, strict proof thereof being demanded at trial. By way of further answer, the allegations of these paragraphs appear to relate to the facts of medical treatment and care, which have been recorded in the appropriate and associated medical records. Those medical records are incorporated herein by reference. To the extent that Plaintiff s allegations are inconsistent with or in conflict in any way with the contents of the records, the allegations are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. To the extent any further response is required, such allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). By way of further response, it is denied that Answering Defendants were negligent or that any act or omission of Answering Defendants caused or contributed to the Plaintiff's alleged damages. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form the belief as to the truth of certain of the averments pertaining to Plaintiff's conversations with his cardiologists, strict proof thereof being demanded at trial. By way of further answer, the allegations of these paragraphs appear to relate to the facts of medical treatment and care, which have been recorded in the appropriate and associated medical records. Those medical records are incorporated herein by reference. To the extent that Plaintiff's allegations are inconsistent with or in conflict in any way with the contents of the records, the allegations are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. To the extent any further response is required, such allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). By way of further response, 'it is denied that Answering Defendants were negligent or that any 5 SL 1 1004652v 1/041199.00266 act or omission of Answering Defendants caused or contributed to the Plaintiffls alleged damages. 13-17. Denied. By way of further answer, the allegations of these paragraphs appear to relate to the facts of medical treatment and care, which have been recorded in the appropriate and associated medical records. Those medical records are incorporated herein by reference. To the extent that Plaintiffls allegations are inconsistent with or in conflict in any way with the contents of the records, the allegations are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. Other allegations may involve medical concepts that constitute medical expert opinions or legal conclusions, which are not the proper subject of pleading, and no response is required. To the extent any further response is required, such allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and/or as legal conclusions. After reasonable investigation Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form the belief as to the truth of certain of the averments pertaining to care rendered by other providers, strict proof thereof being demanded at trial. By way of further response, it is denied that Answering Defendants were negligent or that any act or omission of Answering Defendants caused or contributed to the Plaintiff's alleged damages. NEGLIGENCE - Dr. Pennock and Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C. 18. The preceding paragraphs are all incorporated herein by reference. 19. (a-g). (as amended). Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the allegations against Defendant are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and/or as a legal conclusion. By way of further response, it is denied that Answering Defendants were negligent or that any act or omission of Answering Defendants caused or contributed to the Plaintiff's alleged damages. 6 SL 1 ] 004652v l/041199.00266 20. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the allegations against Defendant are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and/or as a legal conclusion. By way of further response, it is denied that Answering Defendants were negligent or that any act or omission of Answering Defendants caused or contributed to the Plaintiff s alleged damages. 21. (as amended). Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the allegations against Defendant are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and/or as a legal conclusion. By way of further response, it is denied that Answering Defendants were negligent or that any act or omission of Answering Defendants caused or contributed to the Plaintiff's alleged damages. 22. (as amended). Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the allegations against Defendant are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and/or as a legal conclusion. By way of further response, it is denied that Answering Defendants were negligent or that any act or omission of Answering Defendants caused or contributed to the Plaintiff's alleged damages. 23. (as amended). Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the allegations against Defendant are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and/or as a legal concllzsion. By way of further response, it is denied that Answering Defendants were negligent or that any act or omission of Answering Defendants caused or contributed to the Plaintiff s alleged damages. 24. (as amended). Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the allegations against Defendant are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and/or as a legal conclusion. By way of 7 SI,1 1004652v 1/041199.00266 further response, it is denied that Answering Defendants were negligent or that any act or omission of Answering Defendants caused or contributed to the Plaintiff s alleged damages. Plaintiff s allegations are denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). 25. (as amended). Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the allegations against Defendant are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and/or as a legal conclusion. By way of further response, it is denied that Answering Defendants were negligent or that any act or omission of Answering Defendants caused or contributed to the Plaintiff's alleged damages. Plaintiff s allegations are denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). 26. (as amended). Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the allegations against Defendant are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and/or as a legal conclusion. By way of further response, it is denied that Answering Defendants were negligent or that any act or omission of Answering Defendants caused or contributed to the Plaintiff s alleged damages. Plaintiff s allegations are denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). 27. (as amended). Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the allegations against Defendant are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and/or as a legal conclusion. By way of further response, it is denied that Answering Defendants were negligent or that any act or omission of Answering Defendants caused or contributed to the Plaintiff's alleged damages. Plaintiff s allegations are denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). 28. (as amended). Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the allegations 8 SL 1 1004652v 1/041199.00266 against Defendant are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and/or as a legal conclusion. By way of further response, it is denied that Answering Defendants were negligent or that any act or omission of Answering Defendants caused or contributed to the Plaintiff s alleged damages. Plaintiffs allegations are denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor, and against Plaintiff, with prejudice, together with such other relief as is deemed just. NEW MATTER 29. The preceding paragraphs are all incorporated herein by reference. 30. The Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted as against Answering Defendants. 31. Answering Defendants were not negligent. 32. Any acts or omissions of Answering Defendants alleged to constitute negligence were not substantial causes or factors of the subject incident and/or did not result in the injuries and/or losses alleged by Plaintiff. 33. The incidents and/or damages described in Plaintiff s Amended Complaint may have been caused or contributed to by Plaintiff. 34. If Plaintiffs sustained the injuries alleged, proof of which is specifically demanded, said injuries may have been the result of the negligent or careless acts and/or omissions of persons and/or entities over whom Answering Defendants exercised no control or right of control. 35. Any negligent acts or omissions proven by Plaintiff, of other individuals and/or entities, may have constituted intervening and/or superseding causes of the damages and/or injuries alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiff. 9 SL 1 ] 004652v 1/041199.00266 36. The incident, injuries and/or damages sustained by the Plaintiff, if any, were not proximately caused by Answering Defendants. 37. Plaintiff s claims may be barred by the doctrine of the assumption of risk. 38. Plaintiff s claims may be barred by the doctrine of comparative negligence. 39. Plaintiff s claims may be barred or reduced by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 7201 et seq., the relevant portions of which are incorporated herein by reference as though same or more fully set forth at length herein. 40. At all times material hereto, Answering Defendants provided care and treatment in accordance with the applicable standards of care at the time and place of treatment. 41. Plaintiff may have failed to mitigate any damages allegedly sustained. 42. Plaintiff s claim and/or request for damages is barred or limited and/or precluded by the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. 43. Plaintiff s claim and/or request for damages is barred or limited by the provisions of the Medical Care and Reduction of Error Act, 40 P.S. § 1301 et seq., also known as Act 13. 44. Plaintiff s claims may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 45. To the extent that the evidence reveals that Answering Defendants, or any person for whom it was or may be vicariously liable, elected a treatment modality that is recognized as proper, but that may differ from another appropriate treatment modality, then the "two schools of thought" defense is hereby raised. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor, and against Plaintiff, with prejudice, together with such other relief as is deemed just. Respectfully submitted, 10 SL1 ]004652v1/041199.00266 STEVENS & LEE 1_ Date: July 27 , 2010 Michael D. Pipa, Esquire Attorney LD. No. 53624 Karen E. Minehan, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 78050 17 North Second Street, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 255-7376 (610) 371-7743 (facsimile) mdp@stevenslee.cnm kem@stevenslee.cnm Attorneys for Defendants SL 1 l 004652v 1 /041199.00266 11 t ~ VERIFICATION (Runk) I, Stephen A. Vickers,',depose and state that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer and New Matter, are true and +correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. !~' V Date: Stephen A. Vickers, Executive Director Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C S L 1 1004652v 1 /041199.00266 12 .. VERIFICATION (Runk) I, John L. Pennock, M,D., depose and state that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer and New Matter, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: S L 1 1004652v 1 /041199.00266 John L. 13 >b LARRY J. RUNK, II, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. . JOHN L. PENNOCK, MD AND CAPITAL CIVIL ACTION LAW AREA CARDIOVASCULAF~ SURGICAL No. 07-3424 INSTITUTE, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage pre-paid addressed as follows: Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: July 27, 2010 Karen E. mehan, Esquire 12 SL 11004652v 1/041199.00266 i REPLY TO NEW MATTER 'v W " ?r V c, z yci ? N `a 1'x`1 O x- -?c And now this 24`x' day of August, 2010, comes Plaintiff, Larry J. Runk, II, by IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LARRY J. RUNK, II Plaintiff vs. JOHN L. PENNOCK, M.D. NO.07. CIVIL and CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SURGICAL INSTITUTE, P/C. Defendants and through his attorney, Joseph D. Buckley, Esquire and replies to Defendants' New Matter as follows: 30-45. These averments constitute legal conclusions to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment against defendants Dr. Pennock and Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00), together with costs and any other relief this Court deems appropriate. ly submitted, Jo " kle Esquire Attorney for the Plaintiff Pa. I.D. No. 38444 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2448 JoeBLaW a)aol.com IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA LARRY J. RUNK, 11 vs. NO. 07-4324 CIVIL JOHN L. PENNOCK, M.D. and CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SURGICAL INSTITUTE, P/C. Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the forgoing Reply to New Matter in the above mentioned case was duly served on the following persons at the following addresses by means of United States First Class Mail, prepaid: Michael D. Pippa, Esquire and Karen E. Minehan, Esquire Stevens & Lee 17 North 2°d Street, 16`h Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 t? F ? ?A Date: August 22010 eph D. uckle , Esq i Attorney for Plaintiff ID# 38444 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-2448 JoeBLaw@aol.com LARRY J. RUNK, II, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA j:, ya t V. ya ?> - yi CIVIL ACTION LAW JOHN L. PENNOCK MD AND CAPITAL No. 07-3424 , AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL ' r" ) INSTITUTE : , Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED -; MOTION TO TRANSFER MATTER TO DAUPHIN COUNTY - AND NOW, the parties, by and through their respective counsel, hereby move that the above captioned matte be transferred to the Court of Common Pleas for Dauphin County, Pennsylvania based on the following: 1. The alleged negligence of the Defendant John L. Pennock occurred at the Harrisburg Hospital located in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 2. Venue is proper in Dauphin County rather than Cumberland County. 3. The parties agree to share in any and all cost of the transfer of the files from the Prothonotary of Cumberland County to the Prothonotary of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 4. This matter has not been before any Judge of this Honorable Court. WHEREFORE the parties request the Court enter an Order transferring this matter to Dauphin County. kes ,ectfuli,y submitted, 4 ?A 46sepfi D. Buckley, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 38444 1237 Holly Pike Carlisle, PA 17013-4435 (717) 249-2448 JoeBLaw( c%aolxom Attorney (or the Plaintiff ?, nQ Michael D. Pipa, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 53624 Karen E. Minehan, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 78050 17 North Second Street, 16th Floor Farrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 255-7376 mdp(a)stevenslee.com kem@stevenslee.com Attorney for Defendants SL I 1051696v]/041199.00266 Z- LARRY J. RUNK, II, Plaintiff V. JOHN L. PENNOCK, MD AND CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 07-3424 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, this y{ day of March, 2011, the above captioned matter is transferred to the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County. The Prothonotary of Cumberland County is directed to transfer this matter to Dauphin County and the costs of such transfer is to be split equally between the parties. BY THE COURT soseph b. Queklry, ESG. rl *, 6 44e h. P:/4 KQr'tn ? . ?'?rh??14n?Sy, D copes. 31411, r; I-etc 6-4CC;c.C q-A 'P o -? One+ar/ ® a'N1 Pln