Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08-7444
Edward R. Kennett, Esquire ATLEE, HALL & BROOKHART, LLP 8 North Queen Street Lancaster, PA 17603 (717) 393-9596 I.D. No. 69072 Ronald E. Beinhaur, II and Adrienne S. Beinhaur, 4911 Colorado Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17109 Plaintiffs vs. Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D. 423 North 21" Street, Suite 301 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C. 423 N 21St Street, Suite 301 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Associated Cardiologists, P.C. 856 Century Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital 503 N 21St Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION No. CS- Igg4 &Vit-Farm JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT 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 AN 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 A 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 PALINTIFF. 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 A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO THE TELEPHONE OR THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 717-249-3166 AVISO Le han demandado en cone. Si usted quiere defenderse contra las demandas nombradas en las paginas siguientes, tiene viente (20) dias a Qartir de recibir esta demanda y notification para entablar personalmente o por un abogado una comparecencia escrtta y tambien Para entablar con la Corte en forma escrita sus defensas y obleciones a las demandas contra usted. Sea advisado que si usted no se defiende, el caso puede continuar sin usted y la torte puede incorporar un juicio contra usted sin previo aviso para conseguir el dinero demandado en el pleito o para conseguir cualquier otra demanda o alivio solicitados por el demandante. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 717-249-3166 USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE ABOGADO (0 NO TIENE DINERO SUFICIENTE PARA PAGAR A UN ABOGADO), VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO LA OFICINA NOMBRADA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASSISTENCIA LEGAL. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROPORCIONARLE LA INFORMACION SOBRE CONTRATAR A UN ABOGADO, SI USTED NO TIENE DINERO SUFICIENTE PARA PAGAR A UN ABOGADO ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROPORCIONARLE INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFRECEN SERVICIOS LEGALES A PERSONAS QUE CUMPLEN LOS REQUISITOS PARA UN HONORARIO REDUCIDO 0 NINGUN HONORARIO. 2 PARTIES TO THE CAUSE OF ACTION 1. Plaintiffs, Ronald E. Beinhaur, II, and Adrienne S. Beinhaur, are adult individuals residing at 4911 Colorado Avenue, Harrisburg, PA 17109. 2. Defendant, Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., is a cardiac surgeon licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal place of business at 423 North 21" Street, Suite 301, Camp Hill, PA 17011. 3. Defendant, Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., is a professional organization and doing business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal place of business at 423 North 21" Street, Suite 301, Camp Hill, PA 17011. 4. Defendant, Associated Cardiologists, P.C., is a professional organization and doing business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal place of business at 856 Century Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. 5. Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System, t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital ("Holy Spirit Hospital") is a non-profit organization and doing business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal place of business at 503 North 21" Street, Camp Hill, PA 17011. STATEMENT OF LIABILITY 6. In accordance with Pa. R.C.F. 1042.2 this is a professional liability action brought against all Defendants. 3 STATEMENT OF FACTS 7. On October 1, 2007, Mr. Beinhaur, whose date of birth is October 3, 1964, was taken to Holy Spirit Hospital for complaints of chest pain. 8. Mr. Beinhaur has a history of aortic insufficiency and aortic stenosis. As a result of this history and his presenting symptoms, Mr. Beinhaur was admitted to the hospital with a plan for a heart catheterization and an evaluation for the possible placement of a mechanical heart valve. 9. On October 2, 2007, Kenneth May, Jr., M.D., performed a heart catheterization, which revealed there was no significant coronary artery disease. 10. Subsequently, a recommendation was made for Mr. Beinhaur to undergo placement of a mechanical valve. 11. On October 3, 3007, Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., assisted by Mark Watson, PA- C, performed an aortic valve replacement. Mr. Beinhaur tolerated the surgery well and was transferred to the intensive care unit in stable condition. 12. When a patient undergoes the placement of a mechanical heart valve, anti- thrombotic therapy is necessary to decrease the risk of clotting. 13. The effectiveness of anti-clotting therapy is monitored by use of the international normalized ratio (INR). The INR is the ratio calculated from a patient's prothrombin time. The therapeutic range for mechanical valves is 2.5-3.5. 14. On October 5, 2007, Mr. Beinhaur's INR was 1. 1, well below the therapeutic range for someone with a recent mechanical valve placement. 15. On October 6, 2007, Mr. Beinhaur's INR was 1.2, well below the therapeutic range for someone with a recent mechanical valve placement. 4 16. Despite not having achieved therapeutic INR levels, Mr. Beinhaur was discharged from Holy Spirit Hospital on October 6, 2007, at approximately 11:15 a.m. 17. After the mechanical valve surgery, orders for the administration of Coumadin had been written. 18. On October 4`h, Dr. Mumtaz and/or J. Quatman, RN, PA-C, ordered 5 mg of Coumadin along with daily INR levels to be performed. 19. On October 0, a representative from Associated Cardiologists, P.C., which appears to be Stuart B. Pink, M.D., wrote a progress note after the mechanical valve surgery noting "begin Coumadin, ? Lovenox as per surgery." 20. On October 5`h, an order for 7.5 mg of Coumadin was written; however, the signature is illegible, but it may be an order by Dr. Pink, of Associated Cardiologists, P.C. 21. On October 5`h, representatives from Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., wrote a progress note that Mr. Beinhaur should be "discharged when INR therapeutic." This note appears to be written by J. Quatman, RN, PA-C, and co-signed by a physician from the practice. 22. On October 61h, prior to discharge, Dr. Pink, of Associated Cardiologists, issued a verbal order for 10 mg of Coumadin. Dr. Pink noted in the progress notes on October 6th that Mr. Beinhaur's INR was 1.2 and that he should be "discharged when INR greater than 2.0." 23. In the order section of the chart, an order to discharge Mr. Beinhaur to home is written on October 6`h prior to the order by Dr. Pink for the administration of 10 mg of Coumadin. The signature of the order to discharge Mr. Beinhaur is illegible but it 5 appears to be written by a representative of Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C. The signature below the order to discharge Mr. Beinhaur appears to be the same signature found below a progress note that is written after Dr. Pink's progress note of October 6`n indicating that Mr. Beinhaur should not be discharged until his INR is greater than 2.0. The note from the Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., representative notes that the INR is 1.2. Even so, that representative ordered Mr. Beinhaur to be discharged. 24. Mark L. Watson, PA-C, believed to be from Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., dictated the discharge summary. 25. Not only did Mr. Beinhaur get discharged before his INR levels were therapeutic, but there was never an order for or administration of anti-clotting medication that works more quickly than Coumadin, such as, but not limited to, Lovenox or Heparin or Warfin, to enable Mr. Beinhaur's INR levels to become therapeutic within a reasonable period of time post-operatively. 26. On October 6, 2007, at approximately 3:30 pm, Mr. Beinhaur was at home and experienced a sudden right sided head ache. Within a few minutes, Mr. Beinhaur experienced facial droop, slurred speech, drooling, and left sided arm and leg weakness. 27. Immediately thereafter, he was taken back to Holy Spirit Hospital emergency department, where it was determined Mr. Beinhaur had suffered a stroke due to clotting in and around his middle cerebral artery. 28. Holy Spirit Hospital transferred Mr. Beinhaur to Hershey Medical Center ("HMC") at approximately 6:00 p.m. on October 6cn 6 29. Later that evening at HMC, Kevin Cockroft, M.D., operated to endeavor to break up and dislodge the clotting in Mr. Beinhaur's brain. 30. Mr. Beinhaur remained at HMC until October 25, 2007. 31. As a result of the negligence of the defendants, plaintiffs sustained severe and extensive personal injuries as set forth herein. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the defendants' negligence, Mr. Beinhaur suffered a stroke and devastating permanent neurologic injuries, including, but not limited to, hemiparesis, sensory deficits, seizures, visual deficits, and the need for assistance with activities of daily life. 33. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the defendants, plaintiffs have incurred significant medical expenses, and will continue to incur such expenses in the future. 34. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the defendants, plaintiffs have suffered a loss of earnings and loss of earnings capacity. 35. As a direct and proximately result of the negligence of the defendants, plaintiffs have endured severe pain and suffering, scarring, disfigurement, mental anxiety and anguish, embarrassment, humiliation, and the loss of the enjoyment of life's pleasures. COUNTI RONALD E. BEINHAUR, II v. MUBASHIR A. MUMTAZ, M.D. NEGLIGENCE 36. Paragraphs 1-35 are incorporated herein. 37. At all material times Ronald Beinhaur, Il, was a patient of Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., and was receiving care and treatment from Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D. 7 38. Dr. Mumtaz is a physician practicing in the specialty of cardiology and cardiac surgery. 39. Dr. Mumtaz rendered negligent medical treatment to Mr. Beinhaur in the following particulars: a. failing to order and/or administer anti-coagulant medication so that Mr. Beinhaur's INR was in the therapeutic range; b. failing to properly monitor and/or address Mr. Beinhaur's INR levels; c. allowing Mr. Beinhaur to be discharged from the hospital even though Mr. Beinhaur's INR level was not yet therapeutic; d. failing to properly supervise, oversee, guide and/or monitor residents, physician assistants and/or nurses assisting with Mr. Beinhaur's care; e. failing to take necessary and available steps to minimize the risk of a stroke; f. failing to provide Mr. Beinhaur with necessary and indicated anti- coagulant treatment and care in the proper and timely manner; g. failing to perform necessary and proper monitoring, testing, and/or diagnostic tools to minimize the risk of clotting and stroke; h. failing to respond timely and/or appropriately to Mr. Beinhaur's condition; and/or i. failing to communicate adequately with other healthcare providers involved in Mr. Beinhaur's care. 40. The negligence of defendants increased the risk of harm to plaintiffs and was a causal factor in causing damages as set forth herein. 8 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., in an amount in excess of $50,000, together with interest and costs. COUNT II RONALD E. BEINHAUR, II v. CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE,P.C. NEGLIGENCE 41. Paragraphs 1-40 are incorporated herein. 42. At all times material hereto, Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C. was acting by and through Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Mark Watson, PA-C, J. Quatman, RN, PA-C, and any other physician, resident, physician assistant, nurse or staff member involved in Mr. Beinhaur's post-operative care from October 3, 2007, through October 6, 2007, its actual or ostensible agents, servants, employees and/or principals who were acting within the course and scope of their employment. 43. At all times material hereto, the defendant, acting through its actual or ostensible agents, servants, employees and/or principals vicariously administered negligent medical treatment to Plaintiff. 44. At all times material thereto, the defendant held out the individuals identified or described in paragraph 42 herein as its agent, servant, and/or employee. 45. At all times material hereto, the defendant controlled or had the right to control the work of the individuals identified or described in paragraph 42 herein. 46. Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., is responsible for the following negligence of its agent or employee: a. failing to order and/or administer anti-coagulant medication so that Mr. Beinhaur's INR was in the therapeutic range; 9 b. failing to properly monitor and/or address Mr. Beinhaur's INR levels; c. allowing Mr. Beinhaur to be discharged from the hospital even though Mr. Beinhaur's INR level was not yet therapeutic; d. failing to properly supervise, oversee, guide and/or monitor residents, physician assistants and/or nurses assisting with Mr. Beinhaur's care; e. failing to take necessary and available steps to minimize the risk of a stroke; f. failing to provide Mr. Beinhaur with necessary and indicated anti- coagulant treatment and care in the proper and timely manner; g. failing to perform necessary and proper monitoring, testing, and/or diagnostic tools to minimize the risk of clotting and stroke; h. failing to respond timely and/or appropriately to Mr. Beinhaur's condition; and/or i. failing to communicate adequately with other healthcare providers involved in Mr. Beinhaur's care. 47. The negligence of defendants increased the risk of harm to plaintiffs and was a causal factor in causing damages as set forth herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C. in an amount in excess of $50,000, together with interest and costs. 10 COUNT III RONALD E. BEINHAUR, II v. ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS, P.C. NEGLIGENCE 48. Paragraphs 1-47 are incorporated herein. 49. At all times material hereto, Associated Cardiologists, P.C. was acting by and through Dr. Pink and any other physician, resident, physician assistant, nurse or staff member from Associated Cardiologists, P.C., involved in Mr. Beinhaur's post-operative care from October 3, 2007, through October 6, 2007, its actual or ostensible agents, servants, employees and/or principals who were acting within the course and scope of their employment. 50. At all times material hereto, the defendant acting through its actual or ostensible agents, servants, employees and/or principals vicariously administered negligent medical treatment to Plaintiff. 51. At all times material thereto, the defendant held out the individuals identified or described in paragraph 49 herein as its agents, servants, and/or employees. 52. At all times material hereto, the defendant controlled or had the right to control the work of its actual or ostensible agents, servants, employees and/or principals. 53. Associated Cardiologists, P.C. is responsible for the following negligence of its agent or employee: a. failing to order and/or administer anti-coagulant medication so that Mr. Beinhaur's INR was in the therapeutic range; b. failing to properly monitor and/or address Mr. Beinhaur's INR levels; 11 c. allowing Mr. Beinhaur to be discharged from the hospital even though Mr. Beinhaur's INR level was not yet therapeutic; d. failing to properly supervise, oversee, guide and/or monitor residents, physician assistants and/or nurses assisting with Mr. Beinhaur's care; e. failing to take necessary and available steps to minimize the risk of a stroke; f. failing to provide Mr. Beinhaur with necessary and indicated anti- coagulant treatment and care in the proper and timely manner; g. failing to perform necessary and proper monitoring, testing, and/or diagnostic tools to minimize the risk of clotting and stroke; h. failing to respond timely and/or appropriately to Mr. Beinhaur's condition; and/or i. failing to communicate adequately with other healthcare providers involved in Mr. Beinhaur's care. 54. The negligence of defendants increased the risk of harm to plaintiffs and was a causal factor in causing damages as set forth herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Associated Cardiologists, P.C. in an amount in excess of $50,000, together with interest and costs. 12 COUNT IV RONALD E. BEINHAUR, II v. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM t/d/b/a HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL NEGLIGENCE 55. Paragraphs 1-54 are incorporated herein. 56. At all times material hereto, Holy Spirit Health System and Holy Spirit Hospital was acting by and through Dr. Mumtaz, Mark Watson, PA-C, J. Quatman, RN, PA-C, Dr. Pink, and any other physician, resident, physician assistant, nurse or staff member involved in Mr. Beinhaur's post-operative care from October 3, 2007, through October 6, 2007, its actual or ostensible agents, servants, employees and/or principals who were acting within the course and scope of their employment. 57. At all times material hereto, the defendant acting through its actual or ostensible agents, servants, employees and/or principals vicariously administered negligent medical treatment to Plaintiff. 58. At all times material thereto, the defendant held out the individuals identified or described in paragraph 56 herein as its agents, servants, and/or employees. 59. At all times material hereto, the defendant controlled or had the right to control the work of its actual or ostensible agents, servants, employees and/or principals. 60. Holy Spirit Health System is responsible for the following negligence of its agent or employee: a. failing to order and/or administer anti-coagulant medication so that Mr. Beinhaur's INR was in the therapeutic range; b. failing to properly monitor and/or address Mr. Beinhaur's INR levels; c. allowing Mr. Beinhaur to be discharged from the hospital even though Mr. Beinhaur's INR level was not yet therapeutic; 13 d. failing to properly supervise, oversee, guide and/or monitor residents, physician assistants and/or nurses assisting with Mr. Beinhaur's care; e. failing to take necessary and available steps to minimize the risk of a stroke; f. failing to provide Mr. Beinhaur with necessary and indicated anti- coagulant treatment and care in the proper and timely manner; g. failing to perform necessary and proper monitoring, testing, and/or diagnostic tools to minimize the risk of clotting and stroke; h. failing to respond timely and/or appropriately to Mr. Beinhaur's condition; and/or i. failing to communicate adequately with other healthcare providers involved in Mr. Beinhaur's care. 61. The negligence of defendants increased the risk of harm to plaintiffs and was a causal factor in causing damages as set forth herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Holy Spirit Health System in an amount in excess of $50,000, together with interest and costs. COUNT V RONALD E. BEINHAUR II v. MUBASHIR A. MUMTAZ M.D. CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE P.C. ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS P.C. and HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM t/d/b/a HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL LOSS OF CONSORTIUM 62. Paragraphs 1-61 are incorporated herein. 14 63. Mr. Beinhaur and Mrs. Beinhaur are and at all times material hereto were husband and wife. 64. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Defendants, Mrs. Beinhaur has been deprived of the care, comfort, society and services of her husband, Mr. Beinhaur. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Mubashir M. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., Associated Cardiologists, P.C., and Holy Spirit Health System in an amount in excess of $50,000, together with interest and costs. ATLEE, Dated: 12-712-0-4 By: E and R. Kennett, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs 8 North Queen Street P.O. Box 449 Lancaster, PA 17608-0449 (717) 393-9596 I.D. No. 69072 15 VERIFICATION I hereby verify that the facts contained in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: Ronald E. Beinhaur, II 01> Ala ? C ?. 'JC c'v1?m?,,> Y Print Name Here VERIFICATION I hereby verify that the facts contained in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: DY JW cyyl-? [")?' Adrienne S. Beinhaur Atirtc?ivtc 5. `Q it i hatv- Print Name Here N L All: LA CA Q -] jC ?fi^ ?t s J Y?i ` r Edward R. Kennett, Esquire ATLEE, HALL & BROOKHART, LLP 8 North Queen Street Lancaster, PA 17608 717-393-9596 Court I.D. No. 69072 Ronald E. Beinhaur, II and Adrienne S. Beinhaur, 4911 Colorado Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17109 Plaintiff(s) vs. Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D. 423 North 21st Street, Suite 301 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Captial Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P. C. 423 N 21st Street, Suite 301 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Associated Cardiologists, P.C. 856 Century Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 170555 Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital 503 N 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Defendant(s) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW-- MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION No. O$ - gg4q Civil Ter'I? JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS TO MUBASHIR A. MUMTAZ. M.D. I, Edward R. Kennett, Esquire, certify that: X An appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or f Ae exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice, or work that is the subject of the Complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; or X The claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely upon 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 conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice, or work that is the subject of the Complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; or Expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. Respectfully s itte / Dated: (2.22- 0 S ATLEE, HA BROOKHART, LLP Edward R. Kennett, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs 8 North Queen Street P.O. Box 449 Lancaster, PA 17608-0449 (717) 393-9596 I.D. No. 69072 t? - _ ?? ,.? ? ? f,,? °'? ?-?' _ t? ,, ? , ? - ^7 } ? ?_ f. _ r1?3 ._1 i7i _ .- ? .` ? ?? ., Edward R. Kennett, Esquire ATLEE, HALL & BROOKHART, LLP 8 North Queen Street Lancaster, PA 17608 717-393-9596 Court I.D. No. 69072 Ronald E. Beinhaur, II and Adrienne S. Beinhaur, 4911 Colorado Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17109 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW-- MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION Plaintiff(s) vs. Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D. 423 North 21st Street, Suite 301 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Captial Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C. 423 N 21st Street, Suite 301 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Associated Cardiologists, P.C. 856 Century Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 170555 Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital 503 N 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 No. D% - jggq Civi l -Tem JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant(s) CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS TO CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, P.C. I, Edward R. Kennett, Esquire, certify that: K An appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice, or work that is the subject of the Complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; or The claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely upon 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 conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice, or work that is the subject of the Complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; or Expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. Dated: (Z- 22-06 ATLEE,XAI L & By. Edward R. Kennett, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs 8 North Queen Street P.O. Box 449 Lancaster, PA 17608-0449 (717) 393-9596 1. D. No. 69072 3 k _:. C 7 / CD e Edward R. Kennett, Esquire ATLEE, HALL & BROOKHART, LLP 8 North Queen Street Lancaster, PA 17608 717-393-9596 Court I.D. No. 69072 Ronald E. Beinhaur, II and Adrienne S. Beinhaur, 4911 Colorado Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17109 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW-- MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION Plaintiff(s) vs. Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D. 423 North 21st Street, Suite 301 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Captial Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C. 423 N 21st Street, Suite 301 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Associated Cardiologists, P.C. 856 Century Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 170555 Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital 503 N 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Defendant(s) No. 0% - 'Yy4q Ctvi ITi'm JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS TO ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS, P.C. I, Edward R. Kennett, Esquire, certify that: _)?_ An appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice, or work that is the subject of the Complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; or X The claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely upon 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 conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice, or work that is the subject of the Complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; or Expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. Respectful) ubm tted, Dated: n2 rL - 06 ATLEE, A ROOKHART, LLP By: Edward R. Kennett, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs 8 North Queen Street P.O. Box 449 Lancaster, PA 17608-0449 (717) 393-9596 I.D. No. 69072 C7 ? '= c? ? -r n - ... "' ? ''" -n ti '-'?';? ;-? t ? ;;i`t --- -.?Y? w ??' : .. --? : vi. ,, • ?_:: C ?: Y vl .; ? ?a,» d? ?h. .?? f Edward R. Kennett, Esquire ATLEE, HALL & BROOKHART, LLP 8 North Queen Street Lancaster, PA 17608 717-393-9596 Court I.D. No. 69072 Ronald E. Beinhaur, II and Adrienne S. Beinhaur, 4911 Colorado Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17109 Plaintiff(s) vs. Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D. 423 North 21st Street, Suite 301 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Captial Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P. C. 423 N 21st Street, Suite 301 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Associated Cardiologists, P.C. 856 Century Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 170555 Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital 503 N 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW-- MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION No. 09- '71qq CiVi I I el?- JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant(s) CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS TO ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS, P.C. I, Edward R. Kennett, Esquire, certify that: _X_ An appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or P exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice, or work that is the subject of the Complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; or The claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely upon 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 conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice, or work that is the subject of the Complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; or Expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. Dated: 08 ATLEE, A ROOKHART, LLP By: Edward R. Kennett, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs 8 North Queen Street P.O. Box 449 Lancaster, PA 17608-0449 (717) 393-9596 I.D. No. 69072 r-a t -TI Vil ? -f-S rrz Y 1, ?y 4 wM Edward R. Kennett, Esquire ATLEE, HALL & BROOKHART, LLP 8 North Queen Street Lancaster, PA 17608 717-393-9596 Court I.D. No. 69072 Ronald E. Beinhaur, II and Adrienne S. Beinhaur, 4911 Colorado Avenue Harrisburg, PA 17109 Plaintiff(s) VS. Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D. 423 North 21st Street, Suite 301 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Captial Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C. 423 N 21st Street, Suite 301 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Associated Cardiologists, P.C. 856 Century Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 170555 Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital 503 N 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW-- MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION No. DI - ?44y 0'i-vi ( Ter, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant(s) CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS TO HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM t/d/b/a HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL I, Edward R. Kennett, Esquire, certify that: X An appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or v exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice, or work that is the subject of the Complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; or The claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely upon 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 conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice, or work that is the subject of the Complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; or Expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. Respectfully Dated: (I- 22 - a & ATLEE, HALL)£ BROOK-IIART, LLP By: Edward R. Kennett, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs 8 North Queen Street P.O. Box 449 Lancaster, PA 17608-0449 (717) 393-9596 I.D. No. 69072 f c:n 7 c .?. 390293 DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT BY Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM T/DB/A HOLY ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 78565 SPIRIT HOSPITAL BY Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)731-4800 (Tele) (717)7314803 Fax RONALD E. BEINHAUER, II AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ADRIENNE S. BEINHAUR, OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiffs PENNSYLVANIA V. MUBASHIR A. MUMTAZ, M.D., CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS, P.C. AND HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEMS T/D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, Defendants NO. 08-7444 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire and Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire, as counsel for Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital, in the above- captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, Date: January 9, 2009 L COTE, P.C. DICKIE, MCCAMr B I o as M. Chairs, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #78565 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 Attorney for Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, January 9, 2009, I, Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing ENTRY OF APPEARANCE upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First-Class Mail: Edward R. Kennett, Esquire ATLEE HALL, & BROOKHART, LLP 8 North Queen Street Lancaster, PA 17603 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS, P.C. 856 A Century Drive Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D. CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, P.C. 423 North 21 st Street, Suite 301 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire r4 qp r Om _ !`J Co SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2008-07444 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BEINHAUR RONALD E II ET AL VS MUMTAZ MUBASHIR A MD ET AL DENNIS FRY , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon MUMTAZ MUBASHIR A MD the DEFENDANT , at 1133:00 HOURS, on the 29th day of December , 2008 at 423 NORTH 21ST STREET SUITE ';01 CAMP HILL, PA 17011 DIANE YOHN, CLINICAL by handing to SUPERVISOR, ADULT IN CHARGE 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 Service Postage Surcharge Sworn and Subscibed to before me this of So Answers: 18.00 13.50 ? .76 ??E.•?.P 10.00 R. Thomas Kline .00 42.26 01/07/2009 ATLEE HALL BROOKHART By: day Deputy eriff A.D. We LU N C.? SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2008-07444 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BEINHAUR RONALD E II ET AL VS MUMTAZ MUBASHIR A MD ET AL DENNIS FRY , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE PC the DEFENDANT , at 1133:00 HOURS, on the 29th day of December , 2008 at 423 NORTH 21ST STREET SUITE 301 CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to DIANE YOHN, CLINICAL SUPERVISOR, ADULT IN CHARGE 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 Service Affidavit Surcharge Sworn and Subscibed to before me this of So Answers: 6.00 .00 * 00 10.00 R. Thomas Kline .00 16.00 01/07/2009 ATLEE HALL BROOKHART By: day Deputy Sh if A.D. c 3= f"L iL? ? i.-.. H SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2008-07444 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BEINHAUR RONALD E II ET AL VS MUMTAZ MUBASHIR A MD ET AL STEVE BENDER , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS PC the DEFENDANT , at 1000:00 HOURS, on the 6th day of January , 2009 at 8S6 CENTURY nPTVR MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 by handing to CINDY HATTER, OFFICE MANAGER, ADULT IN CHARGE 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 10.80 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 26.80 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day of So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 01/07/2009 ATLEE HALL BROOKHART By. 5 vaj: n ? < z ??? Deput Sheriff A. D. LLt - t? _ =J LQ a- N CU SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2008-07444 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND BEINHAUR RONALD E II ET AL VS MUMTAZ MUBASHIR A MD ET AL DENNIS FRY , 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 HEALTH SYSTEM T/D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL the DEFENDANT , at 1143:00 HOURS, on the 29th day of December , 2008 at 210 SENATE AVFNTTR '2'DT) LIT nrNID CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to KAY TIPTON, LEGAL COORDINATOR, ADULT IN CHARGE 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 Service Affidavit Surcharge So Answers: 6.00 13.50 ,.. ???,,?,a?; ?y? ? 00 _ , 10.00 R. Thomas Kline .00 29.50 01/07/2009 ATLEE HALL BROOKHART Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day of By: eputy S ri A. D. r r- 1 4 5 . . C3 Lo r LLJ LU Zr- r'? = Lt- C= ? C> C=? C-i Michael D. Pipa, Esquire STEVENS & LEE 17 North 2"d Street, 16`h Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 717-234-1090 Attorneys for Defendants Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., and Associated Cardiologists, P.C. RONALD E. BEINHAUR, II and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ADRIENNE S. BEINHAUR, CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs : NO. 08-7444 Civil Term V. MUBASHIR A. MUMTAZ, M.D.; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, P.C.; ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS, P.C.; and HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM t/d/b/a HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, Defendants ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Please enter the appearance of Michael D. Pipa, Esquire of Stevens & Lee on behalf of Defendants Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., and Associated Cardiologists, P.C. STEVENS & LEE Date: January 16, 2009 By: *Ja? Michael D. Pipa, Esqu e Attorney ID #36815 17 North 2nd Street, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 717-234-1090 Attorneys for Defendants Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P. C., and Associated Cardiologists, P. C. SL I 896564v 1 /041199.00364 NI CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance was served upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Edward R. Kennett, Esquire Atlee, Hall & Brookhart 8 North Queen Street Lancaster, PA 17603 Thomas Chairs, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 STEVENS & LEE By: !:L& Michael D. Pipa, Esq ' e Date: January 16, 2009 S L 1 8965 64v 1 /041199.003 64 C.r '? CX) Stevens & Lee, P.C. Michael D. Pipa, Esquire I.D. #53624 17 North Second Street, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 255-7376 Attorney for Defendants Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D.; Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C. and Associated Cardiologists, PC RONALD E. BEINHAUR, II AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ADRIENNE S. BEINHAUR, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION V. MUBASHIR A. MUMTAZ, M.D.; CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, P.C.; ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS, P.C.; and HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM T/D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL Defendants : No. 08-7444 Civil Term : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Edward R. Kennett, Esquire Atlee, Hall & Brookhart, LLP 8 North Queen Street Lancaster, PA 17601 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 ---4 42' Dated: February 24, 2009 By: Lue - - V Michael D. Pipa Attorney I.D. #53264 Lori A. Edwards Attorney I.D. #92875 17 N. Second Street, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 255-7376 Attorneys for Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C. and Associated Cardiologists, P.C. S L 1 898848v 1(041199.00364 Stevens & Lee, P.C. Michael D. Pipa, Esquire I.D. #53624 17 North Second Street, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 255-7376 Attorney for Defendants Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D.; Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C. and Associated Cardiologists, PC. RONALD E. BEINHAUR, II AND ADRIENNE S. BEINHAUR, Plaintiffs V. MUBASHIR A. MUMTAZ, M.D.; CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, P.C.; ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS, P.C.; and HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM T/D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION : No. 08-7444 Civil Term : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT MUBASHIR A. MUMTAZ, M.D. AND CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, P.C. TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Defendants, Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area CArdiovascular Surgical Institute, and Associated Cardiologists, by and through their attorneys, and respond to Plaintiff s Complaint, as follows: PARTIES TO THE CAUSE OF ACTION 1. Admitted based upon information and belief. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted based upon information and belief. 5. Admitted based upon information and belief. SL I 898848v 1 /041199.00364 STATEMENT OF LIABILITY 6. Admitted that Plaintiff alleges that this is a professional liability action brought against all Defendants named in the Complaint. This allegation constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required the allegation is denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). STATEMENT OF FACTS 7. Denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). By way of further answer the allegations of this paragraph appear to relate to the facts of medical treatment and care which are recorded in the related medical records. Those records are in writing and speak for themselves. The medical records are incorporated herein by reference. To the extent that the allegations of this paragraph are inconsistent with or conflict with the contents of the medical records the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). 8. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. 9. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. 10. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. 11. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. It is admitted that Dr. Mumtaz performed a valve replacement and was assisted by Mark Watson. 12. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. By way of further answer, this paragraph contains statements that constitute matters of general medical principles and opinions, not factual allegations, and no response is thus required. These topics are more properly the subject of medical expert witness commentary. To the extent a response is required, the allegation is denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). 13. The response to Paragraph 12 above is incorporated herein by reference. 2 S L 1 8 98 848v 1!041199.003 64 14. The responses to Paragraphs 7 and 12 above are incorporated herein by reference. 15. The responses to Paragraphs 7 and 12 above are incorporated herein by reference. 16. The responses to Paragraphs 7 and 12 above are incorporated herein by reference. 17. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. 18. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. By way of further answer, it is admitted that the hospital chart contains a note of a verbal order by Dr. Mumtaz, taken by J. Quatman, for Coumadin 5 mg, daily INR, and that the signature of Dr. Mark Osevala appears in the chart directly below this note. 19. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. 20. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. 21. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. By way of further answer, it is admitted that the hospital chart contains a note that appears to state "D/C when INR thera.," which appears to have been written by J. Quatman, and that the signature of Dr. Mark Osevala appears in the chart directly below this note. 22. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. 23. The responses to Paragraphs 7 and 12 above are incorporated herein by reference. By way of further answer, it is admitted that the physician's orders section of the hospital chart contains a note entered on 10/6, which appears to have been signed by Dr. Mark Osevala, for "D/C Home today," and is followed by a verbal order for Coumadin 10 mg, and also admitted that the progress notes section of the chart contains what appears to be a note by SLl 898848v 1 /041199.00364 Associated Cardiologists followed by a note signed by Dr. Osevala, which note includes "INR = 1.2." There is no order for discharge on the progress note. 24. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. The discharge summary is in writing and speaks for itself. It is admitted that the summary appears to have been dictated by Mark Watson, who is not an employee of Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C. 25. The response to Paragraph 12 above is incorporated herein by reference. 26. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. 27. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. 28. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. 29. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. 30. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. 31. The allegation constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required the allegation is denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). 32. The response to Paragraph 31 above is incorporated herein by reference. 33. The response to Paragraph 31 above is incorporated herein by reference. 34. The response to Paragraph 31 above is incorporated herein by reference. 35. The response to Paragraph 31 above is incorporated herein by reference. COUNTI Ronald E. Beinhaur, II V. Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D. Negligence 36. Paragraphs 1 through 35 are incorporated herein by reference. 4 S L 1 898848v 1 /041199.00364 37. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Dr. Mumtaz was one of the treating physicians at various relevant times. It is denied that he was the only treating physician or that he treated Plaintiff "at all material times," to the extent that this phrase can be understood. it appears from the chart that Dr. Mumtaz last entered a note on October 3, 2007. 38. Admitted that Dr. Mumtaz practices in the specialty of cardiac surgery, denied that he practices in the specialty of cardiology. 39. (a)-(i) Allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). By way of further answer, all allegations of negligence or medical professional liability are denied and it is averred to the contrary that Dr. Mumtaz at all times acted with reasonable care and met the applicable standards of care under the circumstances then and there existing. 40. 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 are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). COUNTII Ronald E. Beinhaur, II V. Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C. (CVSI) Negligence 41. Paragraphs 1 through 40 are incorporated herein by reference. 42. 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 are vague and overbroad and incapable of precise answer, and are otherwise denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). To the extent that any further response is deemed required, it is admitted that Dr. Mumtaz, as a S L l 898 848 v 1 /041199.003 64 member of CV SI, was authorized to act and acted on its behalf. It is denied that Mark Watson or J. Quatman are employed by CV SI. It is admitted that those individuals acted, from time to time, in concert with and at the direction of CVSI and its members. 43. (a)-(i) Allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). By way of further answer, all allegations of negligence or medical professional liability are denied and it is averred to the contrary that all persons acting on behalf of CVSI at all times acted with reasonable care and met the applicable standards of care under the circumstances then and there existing. 44. The responses to Paragraphs 42 and 43 are incorporated herein by reference. 45. The responses to Paragraphs 42 and 43 are incorporated herein by reference. 46. 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 are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). The response to paragraph 43 above is incorporated herein by reference. By way of further answer, all allegations of negligence or any other liability producing conduct on the part of Answering Defendant are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary the Answering Defendant at all time acted with the appropriate care and reasonably under the circumstances then and there existing and all allegations of liability or liability producing conduct are specifically denied. 47. 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 are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). 6 S L 1 8 98 848v 1 /041199.003 64 COUNT III Ronald E. Beinhaur, II V. Associated Cardiologists, P.C. Negligence 48. Paragraphs 1 through 47 are incorporated herein by reference. 49. The allegations of this paragraph are directed to a party other than answering defendant and no response is thus required. To the extent a response is required, the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). 50. The response to paragraph 49 above is incorporated herein by reference. 51. The response to paragraph 49 above is incorporated herein by reference. 52. The response to paragraph 49 above is incorporated herein by reference. 53. The response to paragraph 49 above is incorporated herein by reference. COUNT IV Ronald E. Beinhaur, II V. Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital Negligence 54. Paragraphs 1 through 54 are incorporated herein by reference. 55. The allegations of this paragraph are directed to a party other than Answering Defendant and no response on their part is therefore required. To the extent a response is deemed required the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). 57. The response to Paragraph 56 above is incorporated herein by reference. 58. The response to Paragraph 56 above is incorporated herein by reference. 59. The response to Paragraph 56 above is incorporated herein by reference. 60. The response to Paragraph 56 above is incorporated herein by reference. 7 S L 1 898848v l /041199.00364 61. The response to Paragraph 56 above is incorporated herein by reference. COUNT V Ronald E. Beinhaur, II V. Mubashir A. Mumtaz. M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., Associated Cardiologists, P.C. and Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital Lost of Consortium 62. Paragraphs 1 through 61 are incorporated herein by reference. 63. Admitted based upon information and belief. 64. 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 are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS MUBASHIR A. MUMTAZ, M.D., CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, P.C., AND ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS. P.C. 65. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 66. Plaintiff s injuries were caused as a result of natural, unknown causes, and not as a result of any action or inaction on behalf of Answering Defendants. 67. No conduct on the part of the Answering Defendants was a substantial factor in causing or contributing to the injuries alleged to have been sustained by the Plaintiff. 68. If the Plaintiff suffered any damages, those damages were caused by the conduct of others over whom Answering Defendants had no control or right of control. 69. Plaintiffs injuries and those alleged in the Complaint, if any, were the result of pre-existing medical conditions and causes beyond the control of Answering Defendants. 8 SLl 898848v 1/041199.00364 70. Injuries alleged in the Complaint, if any, are the result of superseding and intervening causes. 71. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the MCARE Act, Act 13 of 2002, or the Healthcare Services Malpractice Act, 40 p.s. § 1301.101, et seq., and Answering Defendants raise all affirmative defenses and applicable provisions of both Acts. 72. To the extent that the evidence shows that Answering Defendants or any person for whom it is or may be vicariously liable, elected a treatment modality that is recognized as proper, but that may differ from another appropriate treatment modality, then Answering Defendants raise the "two schools of thought" defense. 73. All claims raised in the Complaint are barred at whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations. 74. Causes of action raised in the Complaint are barred in whole or reduced in part by the applicable doctrines of assumption of the risk, comparative negligence or contributory negligence or some combination of the three. Respectfully submitted, STEVENS & LEE Date: February 24, 2009 By: V-1,11 Michael D. Pipa Attorney I.D. #53264 mdp@stevenslee.com Lori A. Edwards Attorney I.D. #92875 lae@stevenslee.com 17 N. Second Street, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 255-7376 Attorneys for Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C. and Associated Cardiologists, P.C. 9 S L 1 898 848v 1 /041199.003 64 VEI+ CATION I, MUBASH R A. MUMTAZ, M.D:, verify that I am one of the Defendants in the within action, that the attached. Answer With New Matter is based upon the facts of which I have personal knowledge or information famished to me by counsel; that the language of the document is that bf counsel and not my own; and that the facts set forth.in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my-knowledge, information and belief. I understand. that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties.of 18 Pa. C.S.A..§ 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authozittxes. 'Daft-: SLi 9"948v11041199.00364 v -ENWAT-10-N I, 5! ?'•? 4,e q A. 4111 being duly axed according to law, depose and say that I am the G: XtG???I Y?c.?o'API!'AL AAA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL IN'STMJTE, P.C.; that I am authorized to make this Verification on its behalf and that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my Iamowledge, icformation and belief. . 'his Verification is made subject to theWnalties of IS Fa.. C.S.A. §4904, mlating to unswom falsification to authorities. gated: ?- 2009 Ey:? X eve Title ' SM $988UYIM411"M64 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this date, I served a certified true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer with New Matter of Defendant Mubashir A. Mumtaz, MD., and Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P. C. To Plaintiffs' Complaint upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Edward R. Kennett, Esquire Atlee, Hall & Brookhart, LLP 8 North Queen Street Lancaster, PA 17603 Thomas Chairs, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 AtL? Michael D. Pip Dated: February 24, 2009 S L 1 898 848v 1 /041199.003 64 C 7 jY T1 UI -?. 7 i T No. 08-7444 Civil Term Edward R. Kennett, Esquire ATLEE, HALL & BROOKHART, LLP 8 North Queen Street Lancaster, PA 17608 717-393-9596 Court I.D. No. 69072 Attorney for Plaintiffs Ronald E. Beinhaur, II and Adrienne S. Beinhaur Plaintiff(s) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW vs. Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., Associated Cardiologists, P.C., Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital Defendant(s) No. 08-7444 Civil Term JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT MUBASHIR A. MUMTAZ, M.D., AND CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, P.C., AND ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS, P.C., TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT 65-74. Neither admitted nor denied. Paragraphs 65 through 74 state conclusions of law to which no response is required. Nevertheless, in further answer thereto, Plaintiff denies the allegations set forth in paragraphs 65 through 74. Plaintiff incorporates the Complaint herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Mubashir M. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., Associated Cardiologists, P.C., and Holy Spirit Health System in an amount in excess of $50,000, together with interest and costs. Respectfully Dated: 2G ?? ATLEE, H KHART, LLP By: fEdward R. Kennett, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs 8 North Queen Street P.O. Box 449 Lancaster, PA 17608-0449 (717) 393-9596 I.D. No. 69072 2 VERIFICATION I hereby verify that the facts contained in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. As all factual averments to a degree of reasonable belief are known to plaintiff counsel through investigation, I am verifying this pleading to allow prompt filing and service. I understand that false statepts herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904 relating to unsw9mf fal?ffication to authorities. Dated: Z' ?? v'1 Signed: . Kennett, Esquire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document, to be served upon the following persons by placing a copy of the said document in the United States mail, first class mail, directed to their office addresses as follows: Michael D. Pipa, Esquire Stevens & Lee 17 North Second Street 160' Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendants Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P. C., and Associated Cardiologists, P. C. Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital Dated: ""A 1 ATLEE, HALL j&/BRQdKHART, LLP By: / Edgard R. Kennett ttorney for Plaintiffs 8 North Queen Street P.O. Box 449 Lancaster, PA 17608-0449 (717) 393-9596 I.D. No.69072 t? ?' _- ``a ,i 6.'x 1 'j"1 - ' «,,,? ?? _i °- , i`r% c. ', ?? c.? 4 ? ; RONALD E. BEINHAUR, II AND ADRIENNE S. BEINHAUR, V. Plaintiffs MUBASHIR A. MUMTAZ, M.D.; CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, P.C.; ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS, P.C.; and HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM T/DB/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION : No. 08-7444 Civil Term : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Edward R. Kennett, Esquire Atlee, Hall & Brookhart, LLP 8 North Queen Street Lancaster, PA 17608 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. Date: March 2, 2009 Respectfully submitted, STEVENS & LEE By: vvt?..?c? Michael D. Pipa Attorney I.D. #53264 mdp@stevenslee.com Lori A. Edwards Attorney I.D. #92875 lae@stevenslee.com 17 N. Second Street, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 255-7376 Attorneys for Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C. and Associated Cardiologists, P.C. S L 1 8 99 7 83 v 1 /041199.0 03 64 Stevens & Lee Michael D. Pipa, Esquire Lori A. Edwards, Esquire 17 North 2°d Street, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorneys for Defendants Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P. C. and Associated Cardiolo ists, P. C. RONALD E. BEINHAUR, II AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ADRIENNE S. BEINHAUR, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. Plaintiffs MUBASHIR A. MUMTAZ, M.D.; CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, P.C.; ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS, P.C. and HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM T/D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION : No. 08-7444 Civil Term : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS P.C. TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Defendant, Associated Cardiologists, P.C., by and through its attorney, and respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint, as follows: PARTIES TO THE CAUSE OF ACTION 1. Admitted based upon information and belief. 2. Admitted based upon information and belief. 3. Admitted based upon information and belief. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted based upon information and belief. S L l 899783 v 1 /041199.00364 STATEMENT OF LIABILITY 6. Admitted that Plaintiffs allege that this is a professional liability action brought against all Defendants named in the Complaint. This allegation constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the allegation is denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). STATEMENT OF FACTS 7. Denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). By way of further answer the allegations of this paragraph appear to relate to the facts of medical treatment and care which are recorded in the related medical records. Those records are in writing and speak for themselves. The medical records are incorporated herein by reference. To the extent that the allegations of this paragraph are inconsistent with or conflict with the contents of the medical records the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). 8. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. 9. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. 10. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. 11. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. 12. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. By way of further answer, this paragraph contains statements that constitute matters of general medical principles and opinions, not factual allegations, and no response is thus required. These topics are more properly the subject of medical expert witness commentary. To the extent a response is required, the allegation is denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). 13. The response to Paragraph 12 above is incorporated herein by reference. 14. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. 15. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. S L l 8997 83 v 1 /041199.003 64 16. The response to Paragraph 12 above is incorporated herein by reference. IT The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. 18. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. 19. Admitted that Dr. Pink authored the progress note within the quotations of this Paragraph of the Complaint. To the extent any further response is required, the response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. 20. Admitted that Dr. Pink wrote an order for Coumadin 7.5 mg on October 5, 2007. To the extent any further response is required, the response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. 21. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. 22. Admitted that Dr. Pink issued a verbal order for 10 mg of Coumadin on October 6, 2007. Admitted the Dr. Pink authored a progress note on October 6, 2007, in which he noted an INR of 1.2 and also wrote "d/c when INR > 2.0." To the extent that a further response is deemed required, the response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. 23. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. 24. Admitted based upon information and belief. 25. The response to Paragraph 12 above is incorporated herein by reference. 26. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. 27. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. 28. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. 29. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. 30. The response to Paragraph 7 above is incorporated herein by reference. S L l 8997 83 v 1 /041199.003 64 31. The allegation constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required the allegation is denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). 32. The response to Paragraph 31 above is incorporated herein by reference. 33. The response to Paragraph 31 above is incorporated herein by reference. 34. The response to Paragraph 31 above is incorporated herein by reference. 35. The response to Paragraph 31 above is incorporated herein by reference. COUNTI Ronald E. Beinhaur. II V. Mubashir A. Mumtaz. M.D. Negligence 36. Paragraphs 1 through 35 are incorporated herein by reference. 37. The allegations of this paragraph are directed to a party other than Answering Defendant and no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). 38. The response to Paragraph 37 is incorporated herein by reference. 39. (a)-O) The response to Paragraph 37 is incorporated herein by reference. 40. The response to Paragraph 37 is incorporated herein by reference. COUNT II Ronald E. Beinhaur. II V, Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute. P.C. (CVSI) Negligence 41. Paragraphs 1 through 40 are incorporated herein by reference. SLl 899783v 1/041199.00364 42. The allegations of this paragraph are directed to a party other than Answering Defendant and no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). 43. The response to Paragraph 42 is incorporated herein by reference. 44. The response to Paragraph 42 is incorporated herein by reference. 45. The response to Paragraph 42 is incorporated herein by reference. 46. The response to Paragraph 42 is incorporated herein by reference. 47. The response to Paragraph 42 is incorporated herein by reference. COUNT III Ronald E. Beinhaur. II V. Associated Cardiolo ists. P.C. Negligence 48. Paragraphs 1 through 47 are incorporated herein by reference. 49. Admitted that Dr. Pink was acting on behalf of Associated Cardiologists when he treated Plaintiff between October 3 and 6, 2007. It is denied that any other authorized agent, employee, or representative of Associated Cardiologists was involved in the Plaintiff's post- operative care. The remaining of this paragraph are either too broad, conclusory, and non- specific to allow a response or constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). 50. 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 are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). By way of further answer, all allegations of negligence or medical professional liability are denied and it is averred to the contrary that Associated Cardiologists, S L l 8997 83 v 1 /041199.003 64 P.C., and any of its authorized agents, at all times acted with reasonable care and met the applicable standards of care under the circumstances then and there existing. 51. Admitted only as to Dr. Pink. To the extent that a further response is deemed required, the response to Paragraph 49 above is incorporated herein by reference. 52. The response to Paragraph 51 above is incorporated herein by reference. 53. The responses to Paragraphs 49 and 50 above are incorporated herein by reference. 54. The responses to Paragraphs 49 and 50 above are incorporated herein by reference. COUNT IV Ronald E. Beinhaur. II V. Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital Nealieence 55. Paragraphs 1 through 54 are incorporated herein by reference. 56. The allegations of this paragraph are directed to a party other than Answering Defendant and no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). 57. The response to Paragraph 56 above is incorporated herein by reference. 58. The response to Paragraph 56 above is incorporated herein by reference. 59. The response to Paragraph 56 above is incorporated herein by reference. 60. The response to Paragraph 56 above is incorporated herein by reference. 61. The response to Paragraph 56 above is incorporated herein by reference. S L l 8997 83 v 1 /041199.003 64 COUNT V Ronald E. Beinhaur, II V. Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Sureical Institute, P.C, Associated Cardiologists, P.C. and Hol_y Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital Lost of Consortium 62. Paragraphs I through 61 are incorporated herein by reference. 63. Admitted based upon information and belief. 64. 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 are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS P.C. 65. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 66. Plaintiff's injuries were caused as a result of natural, unknown causes, and not as a result of any action or inaction on behalf of Answering Defendant. 67. No conduct on the part of the Answering Defendant was a substantial factor in causing or contributing to the injuries alleged to have been sustained by the Plaintiff. 68. If the Plaintiff suffered any damages, those damages were caused by the conduct of others over whom Answering Defendant had no control or right of control. 69. Plaintiff's injuries and those alleged in the Complaint, if any, were the result of pre-existing medical conditions and causes beyond the control of Answering Defendant. 70. Injuries alleged in the Complaint, if any, are the result of superseding and intervening causes. S L 1 899783v I /041199.00364 71. Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part by the MCARE Act, Act 13 of 2002, or the Healthcare Services Malpractice Act, 40 p.s. § 1301.101, et seq., and Answering Defendant raise all affirmative defenses and applicable provisions of both Acts. 72. To the extent that the evidence shows that Answering Defendant or any person for whom it is or may be vicariously liable, elected a treatment modality that is recognized as proper, but that may differ from another appropriate treatment modality, then Answering Defendant raise the "two schools of thought" defense. 73. All claims raised in the Complaint are barred at whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations. 74. Causes of action raised in the Complaint are barred in whole or reduced in part by the applicable doctrines of assumption of the risk, comparative negligence or contributory negligence or some combination of the three. Respectfully submitted, STEVENS & LEE By: Michael D. Pipa Attorney I.D. #53264 mdp@stevenslee.com Lori A. Edwards Attorney I.D. #92875 lae@stevenslee.com 17 N. Second Street, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 255-7376 Attorneys for Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C. and Associated Cardiologists, P.C. Date: March 2, 2009 SLl 899783v1 /041199.00364 VERIFICATION I' - `=;9 being duly affirmed according to law, depose and say that I am the FXe cj i ac Tj rti--f b-of ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS, P.C.; that I am authorized to make this Verification on its behalf and that the facts set forth in the foregoing document 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 unworn falsification to authorities. I Dated: e? ?J 2009 gY; R Title SLl 899783v1/041199.00364 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this date, I served a certified true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer With New Matter of Associated Cardiologists, P.C. to Plaintiffs' Complaint upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Edward R. Kennett, Esquire Atlee, Hall & Brookhart, LLP 8 North Queen Street Lancaster, PA 17603 Date: March 2, 2009 Thomas Chairs, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 SLl 899783v 1 /041199.00364 ???-; v p DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANT BY Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM T/D/B/A ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 78565 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)7314800 (Tele) (717)7314803 Fax RONALD E. BEINHAUR, II AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ADRIENNE S. BEINHAUR, OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs NO. 08-7444 V. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION MUBASHIR A. MUMTAZ, M.D., CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS, P.C. AND HOLY JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEMS T/DB/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, Defendants ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO THE PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FILED ON BEHALF OF HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM T/DB/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL AND NOW, comes the Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "Holy Spirit Hospital"), and files the within ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO THE PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT and in support thereof avers as follows: PARTIES TO THE CAUSE OF ACTION 1. After reasonable investigation Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments set forth in Paragraph No. 1 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint and therefore Answering Defendant denies same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial. 2.- 4. Paragraph Nos. 2 through 4 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint refers to a party other than Answering Defendant consequently no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraphs Nos. 2 through 4 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint are deemed to contain facts with pertain to the Answering Defendant those allegations of fact are denied generally as after reasonable investigation Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments set forth therein. 5. Admitted in part. Denied in part. The Holy Spirit Hospital is a Pennsylvania non-profit Hospital organized and doing business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principal place of business at 503 North 21St Street, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011. The Holy Spirit Health System however is a separate and distinct nonprofit organization with a principal place of business at 503 North 21St Street, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Holy Spirit Health System is a proper party to this litigation. STATEMENT OF LIABILITY 6. Paragraph No. 6 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint sets forth a conclusion of law as opposed to statements of facts, consequently no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph No. 6 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required. Those allegations of fact are denied generally and in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. By way of further response, Answering Defendant denies that it is in any way liable to the Plaintiffs. STATEMENT OF FACTS 7. Paragraph No. 7 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. 2 8. Paragraph No. 8 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. 9. Paragraph No. 9 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. 10. Paragraph No. 10 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. 11. Paragraph No. 11 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. 12. Paragraph No. 12 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. 13. Paragraph No. 13 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. 14. Paragraph No. 14 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. 15. Paragraph No. 15 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. 16. Paragraph No. 16 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. IT Paragraph No. 17 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. 18. Paragraph No. 18 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. 3 19. Paragraph No. 19 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. 20. Paragraph No. 20 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. 21. Paragraph No. 21 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. 22. Paragraph No. 22 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. 23. Paragraph No. 23 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. 24. Paragraph No. 24 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. 25. Paragraph No. 25 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. 26. Paragraph No. 26 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. 27. Paragraph No. 27 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. 28. Paragraph No. 28 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. 29. Paragraph No. 29 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. 4 30. Paragraph No. 30 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. 31. Paragraph No. 31 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint sets forth conclusions of law as opposed to statement of facts. Consequently no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph No. 31 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of facts that are not generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. 32. Paragraph No. 32 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint sets forth conclusions of law as opposed to statement of facts. Consequently no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph No. 32 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of facts that are not generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. 33. Paragraph No. 33 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint sets forth conclusions of law as opposed to statement of facts. Consequently no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph No. 33 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of facts that are not generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. 34. Paragraph No. 34 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint sets forth conclusions of law as opposed to statement of facts. Consequently no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph No. 34 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of facts that are not generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. 5 35. Paragraph No. 35 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint sets forth conclusions of law as opposed to statement of facts. Consequently no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph No. 35 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of facts that are not generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. COUNTI RONALD E. BEINHAUR, II V. MUBASHIR A. MUMTAZ, M.D. NEGLIGENCE 36.-40. Paragraph Nos. 36 through 40 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint pertains to a party other than answering Defendant consequently no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph Nos. 36 through 40 are deeded to contain facts which pertain to the Answering Defendant those allegations of facts are denied generally as after reasonable investigation Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments set forth therein. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant denies that it is in any way liable to the Plaintiffs and demands that Judgment be entered against the Plaintiffs and in favor of the Answering Defendant and Answering Defendant further requests an award of appropriate costs and fees. COUNT 11 RONALD E. BEINHAUR, II V. CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, P.C. NEGLIGENCE 41.-47. Paragraph Nos. 41 through 47 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint pertains to a party other than answering Defendant consequently no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph Nos. 41 through 47 are deeded to contain facts which pertain to the 6 Answering Defendant those allegations of facts are denied generally as after reasonable investigation Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments set forth therein. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant denies that it is in any way liable to the Plaintiffs and demands that Judgment be entered against the Plaintiffs and in favor of the Answering Defendant and Answering Defendant further requests an award of appropriate costs and fees. COUNT III RONALD E. BEINHAUR, II V. ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS, P.C. NEGLIGENCE 48.-54. Paragraph Nos. 48 through 54 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint pertains to a party other than answering Defendant consequently no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph Nos. 48 through 54 are deeded to contain facts which pertain to the Answering Defendant those allegations of facts are denied generally as after reasonable investigation Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments set forth therein. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant denies that it is in any way liable to the Plaintiffs and demands that Judgment be entered against the Plaintiffs and in favor of the Answering Defendant and Answering Defendant further requests an award of appropriate costs and fees. COUNT IV RONALD E. BEINHAUR II V. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM t/d/b/a HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL NEGLIGENCE 55. The above stated responses to Paragraphs No. 1 through 54 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint are incorporated herein as though fully set forth. 7 56. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that Dr. Mumtaz and/or Dr. Pink were agents, servants and/or employees of the Holy Spirit Hospital. By way of further response Dr. Mumtaz and Dr. Pink were independent contractors with respect to the Holy Spirit Hospital. It is admitted that PA-C Watson and PA-C Quatman were at all times material hereto employees of the Holy Spirit Hospital. By way of further response the general allegations of agency set forth in Paragraph No. 56 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint are specifically denied. 57. Paragraph No. 57 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint sets forth conclusions of law as opposed to statement of facts consequently no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph No. 57 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint is deeded to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with the Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. By way of further response the general allegations of agency set forth of Paragraph No. 57 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint are specifically denied. 58. Paragraph No. 58 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint sets forth conclusions of law as opposed to statement of facts consequently no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph No. 58 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint is deeded to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with the Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. By way of further response the general allegations of agency set forth of Paragraph No. 58 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint are specifically denied. 59. Paragraph No. 59 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint sets forth conclusions of law as opposed to statement of facts consequently no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph No. 59 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint is deeded to contain facts to which a 8 responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with the Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. By way of further response the general allegations of agency set forth of Paragraph No. 59 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint are specifically denied. 60. Paragraph No. 60 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint sets forth conclusions of law as opposed to statement of facts consequently no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph No. 60 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint is deeded to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with the Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. By way of further response the general allegations of agency set forth of Paragraph No. 60 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint are specifically denied. 61. Paragraph No. 61 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint sets forth conclusions of law as opposed to statement of facts consequently no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph No. 61 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint is deeded to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with the Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant denies that the Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and demand that Judgment be entered in its favor and against the Plaintiffs and Answering Defendant further requests an award of the appropriate costs and fees. 9 COUNT V RONALD E. BEINHAUR, II V. MUBASHIR A. MUMTAZ, M.D., CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, P.C., ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS, P.C. AND HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM t/d/b/a HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL LOSS OF CONSORTIUM 62. The above stated responses to Paragraphs No. 1 through 61 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint are incorporated herein as though fully set forth. 63. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient as to the truth or falsity of the averment set forth in Paragraph No. 63 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint and therefore Answering Defendant denies same and demands certain proof thereof at the time of trial. 64. Paragraph No. 64 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint sets forth conclusions of law as opposed to statements of facts consequently no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph No. 64 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint is deeded to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with the Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant denies that the Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and demand that Judgment be entered in its favor and against the Plaintiffs and Answering Defendant further requests an award of the appropriate costs and fees. 10 NEW MATTER 65. To the extent that the evidence reveals that Plaintiff failed to follow medical advice, failed to treat properly, or otherwise failed to mitigate his damages, this Defendant pleads the defense of the failure to mitigate. 66. To the extent that the evidence reveals that Plaintiff failed to file this action in a timely manner, this Defendant pleads the defense of the statute of limitations. 67. To the extent that the evidence reveals that the Plaintiff had a pre-existing condition that caused or contributed to his injuries, this Defendant pleads the existence of that pre-existing condition as a defense. 68. If at the time of trial it is established that this Defendant accepted less than full payment for certain of Plaintiff's medical expenses or otherwise forgave certain of those expenses, then this Defendant pleads any such set-off as an affirmative defense. 69. This Defendant raises the acts and/or omissions of third parties over whom Defendants had neither the right nor duty to control as a complete and/or partial bar to Plaintiff's claims. 70. To the extent that the evidence reveals that Plaintiff lacked the capacity to sue at the time this action was commenced, or at any time relevant hereto, this Defendant pleads the lack of capacity to sue as an affirmative defense. 71. To the extent that it is determined that Plaintiff is or was engaged in other litigations or proceedings pertaining to the injuries alleged in this Complaint, this Defendant pleads the defenses of accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, estoppel, and release. 11 72. The recovery of medical expenses paid by any third-party, including any insurance carrier, is barred pursuant to Section 508 of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Errors Act (Act 13 of 2002 (40 P.S. §1301.508)). 73. Answering Defendant hereby invokes all provisions of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act to the extent such provisions constitute affirmative defenses to Plaintiffs claims. Respectfully submitted, DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. f; Date: March_ , 2009 _. _.__.,.... .__ . BY: L? Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #78565 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 Attorney for Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital 12 Verification General VERIFICATION I, Ellen Feidt, R.N., Risk Manager, Holy Spirit Hospital, hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer with New Matter to the Plaintiffs' Complaint filed on behalf of Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL Ellen Feidt, R.N. Risk Manager CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, March 5, 2009, I, Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO THE PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FILED ON BEHALF OF HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM T/D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First-Class Mail: Edward R. Kennett, Esquire ATLEE HALL & BROOKHART, LLP 8 North Queen Street Lancaster, PA 17603 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Michael D. Pipa, Esquire Stevens & Lee, P.C. 17 North Second Street 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (Co-Defense Counsel) 3 Tho . Chairs, Esquire 391053 -n ? r: F 77 t Edward R. Kennett, Esquire ATLEE, HALL & BROOKHART, LLP 8 North Queen Street Lancaster, PA 17608 717-393-9596 Court I.D. No. 69072 Attorney for Plaintiffs Ronald E. Beinhaur, II and Adrienne S Beinhaur Plaintiff(s) vs. Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., Associated Cardiologists, P.C., Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital Defendant(s) No. 08-7444 Civil Term IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 08-7444 Civil Term JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS P.C., TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT 65-74. Neither admitted nor denied. Paragraphs 65 through 74 state conclusions of law to which no response is required. Nevertheless, in further answer thereto, Plaintiff denies the allegations set forth in paragraphs 65 through 74. Plaintiff incorporates the Complaint herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Mubashir M. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., Associated Cardiologists, P.C., No. 08-7444 Civil Term and Holy Spirit Health System in an amount in excess of $50,000, together with interest and costs. Respectfully Dated: 19 ATLEE, HAL BROO _LAAt, LLP By: Edward R. Kennett, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs 8 North Queen Street P.O. Box 449 Lancaster, PA 17608-0449 (717) 393-9596 1. D. No. 69072 01 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document, to be served upon the following persons by placing a copy of the said document in the United States mail, first class mail, directed to their office addresses as follows: Michael D. Pipa, Esquire Stevens & Lee 17 North Second Street 16' Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendants Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P. C., and Associated Cardiologists, P. C. Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Dated: _ f (0 S ATLEE, HALL OOKHJW LLP By: Edward R. Kennett Attorney for Plaintiffs 8 North Queen Street P.O. Box 449 Lancaster, PA 17608-0449 (717) 393-9596 I.D. No.69072 C= C7 -ri C* i Y s c No. 08-7444 Civil Term Edward R. Kennett, Esquire ATLEE, HALL & BROOKHART, LLP 8 North Queen Street Lancaster, PA 17608 717-393-9596 Court I.D. No. 69072 Attorney for Plaintiffs Ronald E. Beinhaur, II and Adrienne S. Beinhaur Plaintiff(s) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW vs. Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., Associated Cardiologists, P.C., Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital Defendant(s) No. 08-7444 Civil Term JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM t/d/b/a HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL 65-73. Neither admitted nor denied. Paragraphs 65 through 73 state conclusions of law to which no response is required. Nevertheless, in further answer thereto, Plaintiff denies the allegations set forth in paragraphs 65 through 73. Plaintiff incorporates the Complaint herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Mubashir M. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., Associated Cardiologists, P.C., No. 08-7444 Civil Term and Holy Spirit Health System in an amount in excess of $50,000, together with interest and costs. Respectfully Dated: 3 - ? - C)9 ATLEE, HALL By: f.dward R. Kennett, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs 8 North Queen Street P.O. Box 449 Lancaster, PA 17608-0449 (717) 393-9596 I. D. No. 69072 2 VERIFICATION I hereby verify that the facts contained in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. As all factual averments to a degree of reasonable belief are known to plaintiff counsel through invest' ion, I am verifying this pleading to allow prompt filing and service. I under and that f se ents her ' are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904 relating to n orn f ication to authorities. Dated: Signe Edward R. Kennett, Esquire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document, to be served upon the following persons by placing a copy of the said document in the United States mail, first class mail, directed to their office addresses as follows: Michael D. Pipa, Esquire Stevens & Lee 17 North Second Street 16`' Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendants Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P. C., and Associated Cardiologists, P. C. Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Dated: ? - `f. 04) ATLEE, H , LLP By: ? Edward R. Kennett Attorney for Plaintiffs 8 North Queen Street P.O. Box 449 Lancaster, PA 17608-0449 (717) 393-9596 I.D. No.69072 N G? ? `T1 Him x f? Fn -? C-n N Edward R. Kennett, Esquire ATLEE, HALL & BROOKHART, LLP 8 North Queen Street Lancaster, PA 17608 717-393-9596 Court I.D. No. 69072 Attorney for Plaintiffs Ronald E. Beinhaur, II and Adrienne S. Beinhaur Plaintiff(s) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW -MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION vs. Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., Associated Cardiologists, P.C., Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital No. 08-7444 Civil Term JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant(s) PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SCHEDULING CONFERENCE PURSUANT TO PA.R.CIV.P. 212.3(a) AND LOCAL RULE 208.3(a) 1. This case involves severe permanent neurologic injuries suffered by Mr. Beinhaur. These injuries are such that Mr. Beinhaur requires constant assistance in almost every aspect of his life. 2. The Complaint was filed in December of 2008. 3. On February 3, 2009, plaintiffs' counsel requested the depositions of Stuart Pink, M.D., Mubashir Mumtaz, M.D., Mark Watson, PA-C, J. Quatman, RN, PA-C, and Mark Osevala, D.O., all of whom were involved in Mr. Beinhaur's care at Holy Spirit Hospital. Since then, plaintiffs' counsel made repeated requests for dates for the depositions via telephone, email and correspondence. 4. The only deposition for which defense counsel ever provided dates was the deposition of Dr. Osevala. Dr. Osevala's deposition was scheduled to be held on July 22, 2009; however, Mr. Pipa unilaterally cancelled that deposition a few days prior to the deposition due to a pre-trial conference Mr. Pipa had to attend. Mr. Pipa assured that his office would contact plaintiffs to reschedule Dr. Osevala's deposition and the deposition of the other witnesses. 5. On July 30, 2009, having heard nothing from counsel regarding dates for the depositions, plaintiffs' counsel wrote a letter indicating that if dates were not provided by August 6, 2009, plaintiffs' counsel would select dates for the depositions. 6. No dates were provided by the defense for any depositions. Accordingly, deposition notices were sent by plaintiffs' counsel. It is important to note that plaintiffs' counsel has still indicated a willingness to reschedule the depositions so long as new dates are provided prior to the depositions being cancelled again. 7. As is set forth in the Complaint, portions of the medical records involved in this case are illegible such that it is difficult for the plaintiffs to identify pertinent information regarding possible defendants. The facts out of which the case arises began on October 1, 2007, so it is getting close to the time when statute of limitations issues may arise. Part of the reason plaintiffs have been so interested in completing the depositions sooner rather than later was due to clarify information so any statute issues can be resolved prior to October of 2009. 8. Additionally, in light of the injuries suffered by Mr. Beinhaur, it is important that this case proceed with reasonable alacrity. Because of the unnecessary delay already experienced in this case by the failure to provide dates for any depositions for almost eight full 2 months, plaintiffs are concerned that this case will not proceed reasonably without a scheduling order from the court. Additionally, since the seriousness of the injuries in this case will necessitate participation by MCARE, resolution of the case prior to August 31, 2010, is important. 9. Plaintiffs' counsel inquired of defense counsel as to whether they had any objection to a scheduling conference. 10. Plaintiffs propose the following schedule: (a) close of discovery: January 29, 2010; (b) plaintiff's expert reports - February 19, 2010; (c) defendants' expert reports - April 16, 2010; (d) pre-trial conference - May of 2010; and (e) trial - sometime from June to August of 2010. 11. No judge has ruled on any other issue in this case. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request a scheduling conference be held to aid in the disposition of the action as is authorized by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 212.3(a)(6). Respectfully Dated: U' G' G \ ATLEE, HkLBROOKHART, LLP By: )'dwakd R. Kennett, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs 8 North Queen Street P.O. Box 449 Lancaster, PA 17608-0449 (717) 393-9596 I. D. No. 69072 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document, to be served upon the following persons by placing a copy of the said document in the United States mail, first class mail, directed to their office addresses as follows: Michael D. Pipa, Esquire Stevens & Lee 17 North Second Street 16' Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendants Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P. C., and Associated Cardiologists, P. C. Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital Dated: F'G G 0\ ATLEE, By: ward R. Kennett Attorney for Plaintiffs 8 North Queen Street P.O. Box 449 Lancaster, PA 17608-0449 (717) 393-9596 I.D. No.69072 FILED-& i= :.? OF THE 2099 AUG -7 Fil 3: 10 t AUG 1 1 2009 q 1 Edward R. Kennett, Esquire ATLEE, HALL & BROOKHART, LLP 8 North Queen Street Lancaster, PA 17608 717-393-9596 Court I.D. No. 69072 Attorney for Plaintiffs Ronald E. Beinhaur, II and Adrienne S. Beinhaur Plaintiff(s) vs. Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P. C. , Associated Cardiologists, P.C., Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital Defendant(s) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 08-7444 Civil Term JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, this /0 day of , 2009, it is hereby ORDERED that a 01 scheduling conference will be held on 2009, at 3:06 ate./p.m. in chambers No.. BY THE COURT: J. OF THE PAOTHON03ARY 2W9 AUG 13 PH Z: ©b CLMBFLR40 COUNTY PDVi4">Yi.1f M RONALD E. BEINHAUR, II and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ADRIENNE S. BEINHAUR, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs vs. MUBASHIR A. MUMTAZ, M.D., CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVAS- CULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, P.C., ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS„ P.C., HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM T/D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL: Defendants ORDER AND NOW, this J'` day of September, 2009, following conference with counsel in Chambers, we enter the following case management order: 1. All discovery in this case will be completed on or before March 15, 2010. 2. Plaintiffs' expert report shall be forthcoming on March 15, 2010. 3. Defendants' expert reports will be exchanged on or before May 15, 2010. It is anticipated that this case will be tried during the week commencing June 21, 2010, and the court notes that the last day for setting down causes for this trial list is May 10, 2010. It is anticipated that this case will be listed for trial by counsel for the plaintiffs. BY THE COURT, CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 08-7444 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: STATUS CONFERENCE - Edward R. Kennett, Esquire For the Plaintiffs Am/ichael D. Pipa, Esquire For Defendants Mumtaz, Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute and Associated Cardiologists, P.C. /lrhomas M. Chairs, Esquire For Defendant Holy Spirit Health System :rlm cof 'es L?L 4lksloq - rr1 ,RLED- O tom OF PKOT NMTARY 2M9 SEP -d AM 9: 50 OUMBE-PENNSYLVANIA Ronald E. Beinhaur, II and Adrienne S. Beinhaur Plaintiff(s) vs. Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., Associated Cardiologists, P.C., Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 08-7444 Civil Term JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant(s) Ronald E. Beinhaur, II and Adrienne S Beinhaur Plaintiff(s) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW vs. Mark A. Osevala, D.O., and Stuart B. Pink, M.D. Defendant(s) No. 09?-6560 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED STIPULATION FOR CONSOLIDATION It is hereby stipulated by and between counsel of record in the two above-captioned cases that the matters be consolidated for purposes of discovery and trial. This Stipulation may be executed in counterparts and shall be considered effective when signed by counsel, even those signed on separate signature pages, and may be filed of record. Facsimile or photocopy reproductions of signatures shall have the effect of original signatures. The following caption shall be used: Ronald E. Beinhaur, II and Adrienne S Beinhaur Plaintiff(s) vs. Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P. C. , Associated Cardiologists, P.C., Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital; Mark A. Osevala, D.O., and Stuart B. Pink, M. D. Defendant(s) Dated: IQ (2 Lv tog IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 08-7444 Civil Term & No. 09-6560 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED By: Fd R. Ke tt, Esquire Hall & rookhart, LLP th een Street Y. U ox 449 ancaster, PA 17608-0449 (717) 393-9596 I.D. No. 69072 Attorney for Plaintiffs Dated: 10' 1,;"I Q By: < Michael D. Pipa, Esquire Stevens & Lee 17 North Second Street 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-1090 I.D. No. 53624 Attorney for Mark A. Osevala, D.O. & Stuart B. Pink, M.D. Oct- 23. 2")0 ';'^???^ CICKIE MoBAMEY 717 731 4803 No, 2867 P. 3/3 Dated: B l y: , Thomas airs, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 170113700 (7.17) 731-4800 I.D. No. 78565 Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document, to be served upon the following persons by placing a copy of the said document in the United States mail, first class mail, directed to their office addresses as follows: Michael D. Pipa, Esquire Stevens & Lee 17 North Second Street 16' Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendants Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P. C., and Associated Cardiologists, P. C. Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P. C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital Dated: ATLEE, HALL By: Edward R. Kennett Attorney for Plaintiffs 8 North Queen Street P.O. Box 449 Lancaster, PA 17608-0449 (717) 393-9596 I.D. No.69072 FILED-OFFICE OF THE PPO7T',ON$OTARY ZU09 OCT 28 PM 1: 02 CU r.; OUT '- 9 20091 Ronald E. Beinhaur, II and Adrienne S. Beinhaur Plaintiff(s) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW vs. Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., Associated Cardiologists, P.C., Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital No. 08-7444 Civil Term JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant(s) Ronald E. Beinhaur, II and Adrienne S Beinhaur Plaintiff(s) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW vs. Mark A. Osevala, D.O., and Stuart B. Pink, M.D. Defendant(s) No. 09-6560 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, this Z`T • day of (jcJa1? ?r , 2009, upon consideration of the Stipulation For Consolidation entered into by all parties, it is hereby ORDERED that the action captioned at 08-7444 and the action at 09-6560 are hereby consolidated for purposes of discovery and trial. It is further ordered that the caption shall be: Ronald E. Beinhaur, II and Adrienne S. Beinhaur Plaintiff(s) vs. Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., Associated Cardiologists, P.C., Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital; Mark A. Osevala, D.O., and Stuart B. Pink, M. D. Defendant(s) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 08-7444 Civil Term & No. 09-6560 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED J. ALED-? t-riCE CE THE rpf-) - rIj,J?rARY 1009OCT 30 AH 10: 05 * Stevens & Lee, P.C. Michael D. Pipa, Esquire I.D. #53624 Karen E. Minehan, Esquire I.D. #78050 17 North Second Street, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-1090 (717) 234-1099 (facsimile) F 11, tic T??r r .jY 2C 19 „i';?1 '2 G P ! i I. 5 t -W Attorneys for Defendants Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Mark A. Osevala, D. 0., Stuart B. Pink, M.D.; Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C. and Associated Cardiologists, PC. RONALD E. BEINHAUR, II AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ADRIENNE S. BEINHAUR, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION - LAW - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION V. / No. 08-7444 & 09-6560 MUBASHIR A. MUMTAZ, M.D.; CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, P.C.; ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS, P.C.; and HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM T/DB/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, MARK A. OSEVALA, D.O. AND STUART B. PINK, M.D., Civil Term JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants. NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Plaintiffs Ronald E. and Adrienne S. Beinhaur c/o Edward R. Kennett, Esquire Atlee Hall & Brookhart, LLP 8 North Queen Street Lancaster, PA 17601 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 Dated: January 18, 2010 By: ta XI-A Q A&??? Michael D. Pipa, squire Karen E. Minehan, Esquire SL I 971328v 1!041199.00364 Stevens & Lee, P.C. Michael D. Pipa, Esquire I.D. #53624 Karen E. Minehan, Esquire I.D. # 78050 17 North Second Street, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 234-1090 (717) 234-1099 (facsimile) Attorneys for Defendants Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Mark A. Osevala, D.O., Stuart B. Pink, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P. C. and Associated Cardiologists, PC. RONALD E. BEINHAUR, II AND ADRIENNE S. BEINHAUR, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs, V. MUBASHIR A. MUMTAZ, M.D.; CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, P.C.; ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS, P.C.; and HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM T/DB/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, MARK A. OSEVALA, D.O. AND STUART B. PINK, M.D., Defendants. CIVIL ACTION - LAW - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION No. 08-7444 & 09-6560 Civil Term JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS STUART B. PINK, M.D. AND ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS, P.C. TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Defendants Stuart B. Pink, M.D. and Associated Cardiologists, by and through their attorneys, and respond to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, as follows: PARTIES TO THE CAUSE OF ACTION 1. Admitted based upon information and belief. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. SL 1 971328v1/041199.00364 4. Admitted based upon information and belief. 5. Admitted based upon information and belief. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. STATEMENT OF LIABILITY 8. Admitted that Plaintiffs allege that this is a professional liability action brought against all Defendants named in the Complaint. This allegation constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required the allegation is denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and as a legal conclusion. STATEMENT OF FACTS 9-32. Denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). 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 Plaintiffs' 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 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 response is required, such allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). After reasonable investigation Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form the belief as to the truth of certain of these 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 Plaintiffs' alleged damages. 2 S L l 971328 v 1!041199.00364 33. 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 are denied pursuant to Rule 1029. 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 Plaintiffs' alleged damages.. 34. 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 are denied pursuant to Rule 1029. 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 Plaintiffs' alleged damages. 35. 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 are denied pursuant to Rule 1029. 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 Plaintiffs' alleged damages. 36. 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 are denied pursuant to Rule 1029. 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 Plaintiffs' alleged damages. 37. 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 are denied pursuant to Rule 1029. By way of further response, it is denied that Answering Defendants were 3 SLI 971328vl /041199.00364 negligent or that any act or omission of Answering Defendants caused or contributed to the Plaintiffs' alleged damages. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor, and against Plaintiffs, with prejudice, together with such other relief as is deemed just. COUNTI Ronald E Beinhaur, II v Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D. and Mark A. Osevala, D.O. Negligence 38. Paragraphs 1 through 37 are incorporated herein by reference. 39. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are directed to a party other than the Answering Defendants, and no response on their behalf is therefore required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and as legal conclusions. 40. Admitted upon information and belief. 41. (a)-(i) Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are directed to a party other than the Answering Defendants, and no response on their behalf is therefore required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and as legal conclusions. 42. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are directed to a party other than the Answering Defendants, and no response on their behalf is therefore required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and as legal conclusions. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor, and against Plaintiffs, with prejudice, together with such other relief as is deemed just. 4 SLl 971328v]/041199.00364 COUNT II Ronald E. Beinhaur, II v. Stuart B. Pink, M.D. Neelieence 43. Paragraphs 1 through 42 are incorporated herein by reference. 44. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Dr. Pink, was Plaintiff's treating physicians at various times as set forth in the relevant medical records. It is denied that he was Plaintiff's only treating physician or that he treated Plaintiff "at all material times," to the extent that this phrase can be understood. Otherwise, Plaintiffs' allegations are denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029. 45. Admitted. 46. (a-i). Denied. Allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). By way of further answer, all allegations of negligence or medical professional liability are denied and it is averred to the contrary that Dr. Pink at all times acted with reasonable care and met the applicable standards of care under the circumstances then and there existing. 47. 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 are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). By way of further answer, all allegations of negligence or medical professional liability are denied and it is averred to the contrary that Dr. Pink at all times acted with reasonable care and met the applicable standards of care under the circumstances then and there existing. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor, and against Plaintiffs, with prejudice, together with such other relief as is deemed just. 5 S L l 9713 28 v 1 /041199.003 64 COUNT III Ronald E Beinhaur, II v. Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C. Neelieence 48. Paragraphs 1 through 47 are incorporated herein by reference. 49. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are directed to a party other than the Answering Defendants, and no response on their behalf is therefore required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and as legal conclusions. 50. (a)-(i) The allegations of this paragraph are directed to a party other than the Answering Defendants, and no response on their behalf is therefore required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and as legal conclusions. 51. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are directed to a party other than the Answering Defendants, and no response on their behalf is therefore required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and as legal conclusions. 52. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are directed to a party other than the Answering Defendants, and no response on their behalf is therefore required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and as legal conclusions. 53. (a-i) Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are directed to a party other than the Answering Defendants, and no response on their behalf is therefore required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and as legal conclusions. 6 SLl 971328v1 /041199.00364 54. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are directed to a party other than the Answering Defendants, and no response on their behalf is therefore required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and as legal conclusions. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor, and against Plaintiffs, with prejudice, together with such other relief as is deemed just. COUNT IV Ronald E. Beinhaur, II v. Associated Cardiologists, P.C. Neeligence 55. Paragraphs 1 through 54 are incorporated herein by reference. 56. Denied. After reasonable investigation Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form the belief as to the truth of certain of these averments at this time, as Plaintiffs fail to define what they mean by "at all times material hereto" and fail to identify the acts or the unnamed individuals. It is admitted only that Defendant Pink acted within the course and scope of his agency relationship with Associated Cardiologists, P.C. with regard to the medical care that he rendered to Plaintiff Ronald Beinhaur as set forth in his medical records from October 3, 2007 to October 7, 2007. Any other averments are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) or as legal conclusions. 57. Denied. The response to paragraph 57 above is incorporated herein by reference. 58. Denied. The response to paragraph 57 above is incorporated herein by reference. 59. Denied. The response to paragraph 57 above is incorporated herein by reference. 60. (a-i). 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 are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). By way of further answer, all allegations of negligence or any 7 S L 1971328v 1 /041199.003 64 other liability producing conduct on the part of Answering Defendants are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary the Answering Defendants at all time acted with the appropriate care and reasonably under the circumstances then and there existing and all allegations of liability or liability producing conduct are specifically denied. The response to paragraph 57 above is incorporated herein by reference. 61. The response to paragraph 60 above is incorporated herein by reference. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor, and against Plaintiffs, with prejudice, together with such other relief as is deemed just. COUNT V Ronald E Beinhaur, II v Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital Negligence 62. Paragraphs 1 through 61 are incorporated herein by reference. 63. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are directed to a party other than Answering Defendant and no response on their part is therefore required. To the extent a response is deemed required the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and as legal conclusions. 64. Denied. The response to Paragraph 63 above is incorporated herein by reference. 65. Denied. The response to Paragraph 63 above is incorporated herein by reference. 66. Denied. The response to Paragraph 63 above is incorporated herein by reference. 67. Denied. The response to Paragraph 63 above is incorporated herein by reference. 68. Denied. The response to Paragraph 63 above is incorporated herein by reference. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor, and against Plaintiffs, with prejudice, together with such other relief as is deemed just. 8 SLl 971328v1 /041199.00364 COUNT VI Ronald E Beinhaur, II v Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Mark A. Osevala, D.O., Capital Area Cardiovascular Sureical Institute, P.C., Associated Cardiologists, P.C., Stuart B Pink, M .D. Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital Lost of Consortium 69. Paragraphs 1 through 68 are incorporated herein by reference. 70. Admitted based upon information and belief. 71. 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 are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor, and against Plaintiffs, with prejudice, together with such other relief as is deemed just. NEW MATTER 72. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 73. Plaintiffs' injuries were caused as a result of natural, unknown causes, and not as a result of any action or inaction on behalf of Answering Defendants. 74. No conduct on the part of the Answering Defendants was a substantial factor in causing or contributing to the injuries alleged to have been sustained by the Plaintiffs. 75. If the Plaintiffs suffered any damages, those damages were caused by the conduct of others over whom Answering Defendants had no control or right of control. 76. Plaintiffs' injuries and those alleged in the Amended Complaint, if any, were the result of pre-existing medical conditions and causes beyond the control of Answering Defendants. 77. Injuries alleged in the Amended Complaint, if any, are the result of superseding and intervening causes. 9 S L l 9713 2 8 v 1 /041199.003 64 78. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part by the MCARE Act, Act 13 of 2002, or the Healthcare Services Malpractice Act, 40 p.s. § 1301.101, et seq., and Answering Defendants raise all affirmative defenses and applicable provisions of both Acts. 79. To the extent that the evidence shows that Answering Defendants or any person for whom it is or may be vicariously liable, elected a treatment modality that is recognized as proper, but that may differ from another appropriate treatment modality, then Answering Defendants raise the "two schools of thought" defense. 80. All claims raised in the Amended Complaint are barred at whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations. 81. Causes of action raised in the Amended Complaint are barred in whole or reduced in part by the applicable doctrines of assumption of the risk, comparative negligence or contributory negligence or some combination of the three. 82. To the extent that the evidence reveals that Defendants, or any person for whom he 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. 83. At all times material hereto, Defendants provided care and treatment in accordance with the applicable standards of care at the time and place of treatment. 10 SL1 971328v1 /041199.00364 WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor, and against Plaintiffs, with prejudice, together with such other relief as is deemed just. Respectfully submitted, STEVENS & LEE Date: 2010 By: Cq- c Michael D. Pipa, Esquire Karen E. Minehan, Esquire 11 S L 1 971328v 1 /041199.00364 VERIFICATION (Beinhaur) I, Allen Glotfelty, 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: 13 LG%/ 10 / 2. C.. Allen Glotfelty, Execut' e ector Associated Cardiologists, P.C. S L 1 971349v 1 /041199.00364 VERIFICATION (Beinhaur) I, Stuart B. Pink, 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: I ?-)1 AO ? o SCGQI Stuart B. Pink, M.D. S L 1 971343 v 1 /041199.00364 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this date, I served a certified true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer with New Matter To Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Edward R. Kennett, Esquire Atlee Hall & Brookhart, LLP 8 North Queen Street Lancaster, PA 17603 Thomas Chairs, Esquire Dickie McCamey & Chilcote 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 &-Ww- t Karen E. Minehan Dated: January 18, 2010 SLl 971328v]/041199.00364 L Edward R. Kennett, Esquire ATLEE, HALL & BROOKHART, LLP 8 North Queen Street Lancaster, PA 17608 717-393-9596 Court I.D. No. 69072 Attorney for Plaintiffs Ronald E. Beinhaur, II and Adrienne S Beinhaur Plaintiff(s) vs. Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., Associated Cardiologists, P.C., Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital, Mark A. Osevala, D.O., and Stuart B. Pink, M.D. Defendant(s) gala p, 25 2- 41 „ir`(! 7.. '_ti I J'? C1 ?b Vi??,:..' IN 111.,1.A IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 08-7444 & 09-6560 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS STUART B. PINK, M.D., AND ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS, P.C., TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT 72-83. Neither admitted nor denied. Paragraphs 72 through 83 state conclusions of law to which no response is required. Nevertheless, in further answer thereto, Plaintiff denies the allegations set forth in paragraphs 72 through 83. Plaintiff incorporates the Amended Complaint herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Mubashir M. Mumtaz, M.D., Mark A. Osevala, D.O., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., Associated Cardiologists, P.C., Stuart B. Pink, M. D., and Holy Spirit Health System in an amount in excess of $50,000, together with interest and costs. Respectfully Dated: (?;4(o ATLEE, By: Edward R. Kennett, Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiffs 8 North Queen Street P.O. Box 449 Lancaster, PA 17608-0449 (717) 393-9596 I. D. No. 69072 2 1 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document, to be served upon the following persons by placing a copy of the said document in the United States mail, first class mail, directed to their office addresses as follows: Michael D. Pipa, Esquire Stevens & Lee 17 North Second Street 16" Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendants Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P. C., and Associated Cardiologists, P. C. Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P. C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital Dated: Z ?? D ATLEE, HA & BRO,OJCZ?ART, LLP By: ,E'dward R. Kennett Attorney for Plaintiffs 8 North Queen Street P.O. Box 449 Lancaster, PA 17608-0449 (717) 393-9596 I.D. No.69072 Stbvens & Lee, P.C. Michael D. Pipa, Esquire I.D. #53624 Karen E. Minehan, Esquire I.D. #78050 17 North Second Street, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 255-7376 (717) 371-7743 (facsimile) FIv "" Attorney for Defendants Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Mark A. Osevala, D. 0., Stuart B. Pink, M.D.; Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P. C. and Associated Cardiologists, PC. RONALD E. BEINHAUR, II AND IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ADRIENNE S. BEINHAUR, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION - LAW - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION V. No. 08-7444 & 09-6560 MUBASHIR A. MUMTAZ, M.D.; CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR Civil Term SURGICAL INSTITUTE, P.C.; ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS, P.C.; and HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED T/D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, MARK A. OSEVALA, D.O. AND STUART B. PINK, M.D., Defendants. NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Plaintiffs Ronald E. and Adrienne S. Beinhaur c/o Edward R. Kennett, Esquire Atlee, Hall & Brookhart, LLP 8 North Queen Street Lancaster, PA 17601 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, Dated: 018 , 2010 STEVENS & LEE By: 6 W _- Eoj Michael D. Pipa, Esquire Karen E. Minehan, Esquire S L 1 96 8641 v2/041199.00364 Stevens & Lee, P.C. Michael D. Pipa, Esquire I.D. #53624 Karen E. Minehan, Esquire I.D. # 78050 17 North Second Street, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 255-7376 (717) 371-7743 (facsimile) Attorney for Defendants Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Mark A. Osevala, D. 0., Stuart B. Pink, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P. C. and Associated Cardiologists, PC. RONALD E. BEINHAUR, II AND ADRIENNE S. BEINHAUR, Plaintiffs, V. MUBASHIR A. MUMTAZ, M.D.; CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, P.C.; ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS, P.C.; and HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM T/DB/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, MARK A. OSEVALA, D.O. AND STUART B. PINK, M.D., Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION No. 08-7444 & 09-6560 Civil Term JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS MUBASHIR A. MUMTAZ, M.D., MARK A. OSEVALA, D.O., AND CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, P.C. TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, come the Defendants, Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Mark A. Osevala, D.O., and Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, by and through their attorneys, and respond to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, as follows: PARTIES TO THE CAUSE OF ACTION 1. Admitted based upon information and belief. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. SL I 968641 v2/041199.00364 4. Admitted based upon information and belief. 5. Admitted based upon information and belief. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted. STATEMENT OF LIABILITY 8. Admitted that Plaintiffs allege that this is a professional liability action brought against all Defendants named in the Complaint. This allegation constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required the allegation is denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and as a legal conclusion. STATEMENT OF FACTS 9-32. Denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). 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 Plaintiffs' 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 involve medical concepts that constitute medical expert opinions and legal conclusions, which are not the proper subject of pleading and no response is required. To the extent any response is required, such allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). After reasonable investigation Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form the belief as to the truth of certain of these 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 Plaintiffs' alleged damages. 2 SLl 968641v2/041199.00364 33. 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 are denied pursuant to Rule 1029. 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 Plaintiffs' alleged damages.. 34. 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 are denied pursuant to Rule 1029. 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 Plaintiffs' alleged damages. 35. 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 are denied pursuant to Rule 1029. 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 Plaintiffs' alleged damages. 36. 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 are denied pursuant to Rule 1029. 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 Plaintiffs' alleged damages. 37. 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 are denied pursuant to Rule 1029. By way of further response, it is denied that Answering 3 SL I 968641 v2/041199.00364 Defendants were negligent or that any act or omission of Answering Defendants caused or contributed to the Plaintiffs' alleged damages. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor, and against Plaintiffs, with prejudice, together with such other relief as is deemed just. COUNTI Ronald E. Beinhaur, II v. Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D. and Mark A. Osevala, D.O. Negligence 38. Paragraphs 1 through 37 are incorporated herein by reference. 39. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Drs Mumtaz and Osevala were Plaintiff's treating physicians at various relevant times as set forth in the relevant medical records. It is denied that they were Plaintiffs' only treating physicians or that they treated Plaintiff "at all material times," to the extent that this phrase can be understood. Otherwise, Plaintiffs' allegations are denied pursuant to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1029. 40. Admitted. 41. (a)-(i) Allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). By way of further answer, all allegations of negligence or medical professional liability are denied and it is averred to the contrary that Drs. Mumtaz and Osevala at all times acted with reasonable care and met the applicable standards of care under the circumstances then and there existing. 42. 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 are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). 4 S L 1 968641 v2/041199.00364 WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor, and against Plaintiffs, with prejudice, together with such other relief as is deemed just. COUNT II Ronald E. Beinhaur, II v. Stuart B. Pink, M.D. NeElizence 43. Paragraphs 1 through 42 are incorporated herein by reference. 44. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are directed to a party other than the Answering Defendants, and no response on their behalf is therefore required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and as legal conclusions. 45. Admitted upon information and belief. 46. (a-i). Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are directed to a party other than the Answering Defendants, and no response on their behalf is therefore required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and as legal conclusions. 47. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are directed to a party other than the Answering Defendants, and no response on their behalf is therefore required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and as legal conclusions. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor, and against Plaintiffs, with prejudice, together with such other relief as is deemed just. 5 SL I 968641 v2/041199.00364 COUNT III Ronald E. Beinhaur, II v. Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C. Negligence 48. Paragraphs 1 through 47 are incorporated herein by reference. 49. Denied. After reasonable investigation Answering Defendants lack sufficient knowledge and information to form the belief as to the truth of certain of these averments at this time, as Plaintiffs fail to define what they mean by "at all times material hereto" and fail to identify the relevant acts or the unnamed individuals. It is admitted only that Defendants Mumtaz and Osevala acted within the course and scope of their agency relationship with Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C. with regard to the medical care that they rendered to Plaintiff Ronald Beinhaur as set forth in his medical records from October 3, 2007 to October 7, 2007. It is specifically denied as a legal conclusion that Mark Watson, PA-C or J. Quatman, PA-C were employed by CVSI in October of 2007 with regard to the care rendered to Plaintiff. It is admitted only that Drs. Mumtaz and Osevala served as supervising physicians for PA Watson and PA Quatman, but it is specifically denied that this creates any vicarious liability on the part of CVSI or its physicians based upon the actions of the physicians assistants. Any other averments are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) or as legal conclusions. 50. Denied. The response to paragraph 49 above is incorporated herein by reference. 51. Denied. The responses to Paragraphs 49 above is incorporated herein by reference. 52. Denied. The response to paragraph 57 above is incorporated herein by reference. 6 S L 1 968641 v2/041199.00364 53. (a-i) 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 are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). The response to paragraph 49 above is incorporated herein by reference. By way of further answer, all allegations of negligence or any other liability producing conduct on the part of Answering Defendant are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary the Answering Defendant at all time acted with the appropriate care and reasonably under the circumstances then and there existing and all allegations of liability or liability producing conduct are specifically denied. 54. 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 are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor, and against Plaintiffs, with prejudice, together with such other relief as is deemed just. COUNT IV Ronald E. Beinhaur, II v. Associated Cardiologists, P.C. Nealizence 55. Paragraphs 1 through 54 are incorporated herein by reference. 56. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are directed to a party other than the Answering Defendants, and no response on their behalf is therefore required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and as legal conclusions. 57. Denied. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are directed to a party other than the Answering Defendants, and no response on their behalf is therefore required. To the 7 S L 1968641 v2/041199.00364 extent a response may be deemed required, the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and as legal conclusions. 58. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are directed to a party other than the Answering Defendants, and no response on their behalf is therefore required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and as legal conclusions. 59. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are directed to a party other than the Answering Defendants, and no response on their behalf is therefore required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and as legal conclusions. 60. (a-i). Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are directed to a party other than the Answering Defendants, and no response on their behalf is therefore required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and as legal conclusions. 61. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are directed to a party other than the Answering Defendants, and no response on their behalf is therefore required. To the extent a response may be deemed required, the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and as legal conclusions. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor, and against Plaintiffs, with prejudice, together with such other relief as is deemed just. COUNT V Ronald E. Beinhaur, II v. Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital Nealieence 62. Paragraphs 1 through 61 are incorporated herein by reference. 8 S L 1 968641 v2/041199.00364 63. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph are directed to a party other than Answering Defendant and no response on their part is therefore required. To the extent a response is deemed required the allegations are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e) and as legal conclusions. 64. Denied. The response to Paragraph 63 above is incorporated herein by reference. 65. Denied. The response to Paragraph 63 above is incorporated herein by reference. 66. Denied. The response to Paragraph 63 above is incorporated herein by reference. 67. Denied. The response to Paragraph 63 above is incorporated herein by reference. 68. Denied. The response to Paragraph 63 above is incorporated herein by reference. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor, and against Plaintiffs, with prejudice, together with such other relief as is deemed just. COUNT VI Ronald E. Beinhaur, II v. Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Mark A Osevala, D O , Capital Area Cardiovascular Suraical Institute, P.C., Associated Cardiologists, P.C., Stuart B. Pink, M.D. Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital Lost of Consortium 69. Paragraphs 1 through 68 are incorporated herein by reference. 70. Admitted based upon information and belief. 9 SL I 968641 v2/041199.00364 71. 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 are denied pursuant to Rule 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor, and against Plaintiffs, with prejudice, together with such other relief as is deemed just. NEW MATTER 72. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 73. Plaintiffs' injuries were caused as a result of natural, unknown causes, and not as a result of any action or inaction on behalf of Answering Defendants. 74. No conduct on the part of the Answering Defendants was a substantial factor in causing or contributing to the injuries alleged to have been sustained by the Plaintiffs. 75. If the Plaintiffs suffered any damages, those damages were caused by the conduct of others over whom Answering Defendants had no control or right of control. 76. Plaintiffs' injuries and those alleged in the Amended Complaint, if any, were the result of pre-existing medical conditions and causes beyond the control of Answering Defendants. 77. Injuries alleged in the Amended Complaint, if any, are the result of superseding and intervening causes. 78. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part by the MCARE Act, Act 13 of 2002, or the Healthcare Services Malpractice Act, 40 p.s. § 1301.101, et seq., and Answering Defendants raise all affirmative defenses and applicable provisions of both Acts. 79. To the extent that the evidence shows that Answering Defendants or any person for whom it is or may be vicariously liable, elected a treatment modality that is 10 S L 1 968641 v2/041199.00364 recognized as proper, but that may differ from another appropriate treatment modality, then Answering Defendants raise the "two schools of thought" defense. 80. All claims raised in the Amended Complaint are barred at whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations. 81. Causes of action raised in the Amended Complaint are barred in whole or reduced in part by the applicable doctrines of assumption of the risk, comparative negligence or contributory negligence or some combination of the three. 82. To the extent that the evidence reveals that Defendants, or any person for whom he 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. 83. At all times material hereto, Defendants provided care and treatment in accordance with the applicable standards of care at the time and place of treatment. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor, and against Plaintiffs, with prejudice, together with such other relief as is deemed just. Respectfully submitted, STEVENS & LEE Date: 2010 By: ichael D. ipa, Esquire Karen E. Minehan, Esquire 11 SL1 968641 v2/041199.00364 VERIFICATION (Beinhaur) I, Mark A. Osevala, D.O., 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: 111010 Mark A. Osevala, D.O. SL I 971372v1/041199.00364 VERIFICATION (Beinhaur) I, Mubashir A. Mumtaz, 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: a 144,- Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D. SL I 971374v 1 /041199.00364 VERIFICATION (Beinhaur) 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. Date: /// 8 dojo Stephen A. Vickers, Executive Director Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C. S L 1 971369v 1 /041199.00364 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this date, I served a certified true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer with New Matter To Plaintiffs'Amended Complaint upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Edward R. Kennett, Esquire Atlee, Hall & Brookhart, LLP 8 North Queen Street Lancaster, PA 17603 Dated: , 2010 Thomas Chairs, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Karen E. M L 1 968641 v2/041199.00364 Edward R. Kennett, Esquire ATLEE, HALL & BROOKHART, LLP 8 North Queen Street Lancaster, PA 17608 717-393-9596 Court I.D. No. 69072 Attorney for Plaintiffs Ronald E. Beinhaur, II and Adrienne S. Beinhaur Plaintiff(s) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW vs. Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., Associated Cardiologists, P.C., Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital, Mark A. Osevala, D.O., and Stuart B. Pink, M.D. Defendant(s) N 08-7444 & 09-6560 ? N O { JURY TRIAL DEMANDED -o -n ? ` a : Cp rn Z. -r r? •) N PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS MUBASHIR A. MUMTAZ, M.D., MARK A. OSEVALA, D.O., AND CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, P.C. 72-83. Neither admitted nor denied. Paragraphs 72 through 83 state conclusions of law to which no response is required. Nevertheless, in further answer thereto, Plaintiff denies the allegations set forth in paragraphs 72 through 83. Plaintiff incorporates the Amended Complaint herein. 1 61, X WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Mubashir M. Mumtaz, M.D., Mark A. Osevala, D.O., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., Associated Cardiologists, P.C., Stuart B. Pink, M. D., and Holy Spirit Health System in an amount in excess of $50,000, together with interest and costs. Respectfully By: Edward R. Kennett, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiffs 8 North Queen Street P.O. Box 449 Lancaster, PA 17608-0449 (717) 393-9596 I.D. No. 69072 Dated: Z. ' - (a ATLEE, HALL &(M OKHART, LLP . A CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document, to be served upon the following persons by placing a copy of the said document in the United States mail, first class mail, directed to their office addresses as follows: Michael D. Pipa, Esquire Stevens & Lee 17 North Second Street 16' Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendants Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P. C., and Associated Cardiologists, P. C. Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital Dated: E. }.i ? ATLEE, By: Edward R. Kennett Attorney for Plaintiffs 8 North Queen Street P.O. Box 449 Lancaster, PA 17608-0449 (717) 393-9596 I.D. No.69072 J JARY PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Please list the following case: ?X for JURY trial at the next term of civil court. ? for trial without a jury. CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in fulo Ronald E. Beinhaur, II and Adrienne S. Beinhaur (other) (Plaintiff) VS. Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., Associated CardiologistseC.A/a Holy Spirit Health Syste ??''`` Holy Spirit Hos6-ital, Mark A. Osevala, D.O., and Stuart B. Pink, M.D. The trial list will be called on 6/1/2010 and Trials commence on 6/21/2010 6/9/2010 Pretrials will be held on (Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials No. 08-7444 & 09-6560 Tenn Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: Edward R. Kennett, Esquire Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire & Michael D. Pipa, Esquire This case is ready for trial. Signed: ?Ql1 f,3 10 2 4 `,' (check one) X? Civil Action - Law ? Appeal from arbitration i Edward R. Kennett, Esquire Name: Date: ? - 6 -to * a5100 P a AT N CL-w 5bqq9 P,T#x38765 Plaintiffs Attorney for: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document, to be served upon the following persons by placing a copy of the said document in the United States mail, first class mail, directed to their office addresses as follows: Michael D. Pipa, Esquire Stevens & Lee 17 North Second Street 16`t' Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendants Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P. C., and Associated Cardiologists, P. C. Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital II -, By: Edward R. Kennett Attorney for Plaintiffs 8 North Queen Street P.O. Box 449 Lancaster, PA 17608-0449 (717) 393-9596 I.D. No.69072 N TI a, F T?h1T pK Stevens & Lee, P.C. Michael D. Pipa, Esquire I.D. #53624 Karen E. Minehan, Esquire I.D. #78050 17 North Second Street, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 255-7376 (610) 371-7743 mdp@stevenslee.com Attorneys for Defendants Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., Associated Cardiologists, PC. Mark A. Osevala, D.O. and Stuart B. Pink, M.D. t t RONALD E. BEINHAUR, II AND ADRIENNE S. BEINHAUR, Plaintiffs V. MUBASHIR A. MUMTAZ, M.D.; CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, P.C.; ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS, P.C.; HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM T/D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; MARK A. OSEVALA, D.O. AND STUART B. PINK, M.D. Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION No. 08-7444 Civil Term ? No. 09-6560 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED STIPULATION TO DISCONTINUE ALL CLAIMS AGAINST LESS THAN ALL DEFENDANTS PURSUANT TO PA.R.CIV.P. 229(B)(1) All named parties, by and through their counsel, hereby stipulate and agree to the following: 1. All parties voluntarily discontinue all claims against Defendants Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., Associated Cardiologists, PC., and Stuart B. Pink, M.D. pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 229(b)(1), with prejudice. 2 SL I 920965v2/041199.00364 2. All parties stipulate that the caption should be amended to reflect that all claims against Defendants Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., Associated Cardiologists, PC., and Stuart B. Pink, M.D. are hereby discontinued. 3. All parties stipulate and agree that the caption should be amended to read: Ronald E. Beinhaur, II and Adrienne S. Beinhaur, Plaintiffs v. Mark A. Osevala, D.O. and Holy Spirit Health System, t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital, Defendants. 4. The discontinuance as to the claims against Defendants Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., Associated Cardiologists, PC., and Stuart B. Pink, M.D., will not be interpreted or understood in any way to dismiss or discontinue any claims against remaining Defendants and all claims against remaining Defendants shall remain as set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint. 5. The Stipulation may be executed in counterparts and shall be considered effective when signed by all counsel even though signed on separate signature page. 6. All counsel certify that they have authorization to execute the Stipulation on behalf of their respective clients and that they authorize the filing of any non-original facsimile or other copy of the present Stipulation. See Pa.Rule Civ.P. 205.3. 7. The parties, by their respective counsel, have caused this Stipulation to be executed and intend to be legally bound thereby. SL 1 920965v2/041199.00364 Atlee, )Ya)V"r,v6khart, LLP R. Tennett, Esquire 816 rth Q en Street L cast , PA 17603 Cbunfelfor Plaintiffs Ronald E. Beinhaur, II and Adrienne S. Beinhaur Date: Stevens & Lee, P.C. ?R - U - 1 6, Michael D. Pipa, Esquire Karen E. Minehan, Esquire 17 North Second Street, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Counsel for Defendants Mubashir A. Mumtaz, MD., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., Associated Cardiologists, PC. Mark A. Osevala, D. O, and Stuart B. Pink, MD. Date: Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote Thomas Chairs, Esquire 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Counsel for Holy Spirit Health System t/dlb/a Holy Spirit Hospital Date: SL I 920965v2/041199.00364 4 Atiee, O"aW"rp6khart, LLP R. 1?ennett, Esquire 8 rth Q en Street L cast , PA 17603 Cbwtfe for Plaintiffs Ronald E. Beinhaur, H and Adrienne S. Beinhaur Date: Stevens & Lee, P.C. Michael D. Pipa, Esquire Karen E. Minehan, Esquire 17 North Second Street, 16th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Counsel for Defendants Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., Associated Cardiologists, PC. Mark A. Osevala, D. O. and Stuart B. Pink, M. D. Date: Dickie, McC mey & Chilcote Thoma airs, Esquire 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Counsel for Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital Date: 4 S L I 920965v2f041199.00364 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this date, I served a certified true and correct copy of the foregoing Stipulation and Order upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Edward R. Kennett, Esquire Atlee Hall & Brookhart, LLP 8 North Queen Street Lancaster, PA 17603 Dated: Mayp6, 2010 Thomas Chairs, Esquire Dickie McCamey & Chilcote 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Karen E. Minehan, Esquire SL 1 920965v2/041199.00364 5 JUN 612010 RONALD E. BEINHAUR, II AND ADRIENNE S. BEINHAUR, Plaintiffs V. MUBASHIR A. MUMTAZ, M.D.; CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR SURGICAL INSTITUTE, P.C.; ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS, P.C.; HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM T/D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; MARK A. OSEVALA, D.O. AND STUART B. PINK, M.D. Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION No. 08-7444 Civil Term ? No. 09-6560 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, this Z 4 day of 2010, upon consideration of the Stipulation to Discontinue All Claims Against Less than All Defendants, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that all claims against Defendants Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., Associated Cardiologists, PC and Stuart B. Pink, M.D. are discontinued and ended. It is further ORDERED and DECREED that the caption is amended to read as follows: Ronald E. Beinhaur, II and Adrienne S. Beinhaur, Plaintiffs V. Mark A. Osevala, D.O. and Holy Spirit Health System, t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital, Defendants • PLE9 mkt BY THE COURT: M Z., C = R 7 2 ?; A44? J. 5-, =r - L??/d ?1? SL1920965v2/041199.00364 1 RONALD E. BEINHAUR, II IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF and ADRIENNE S. BEINHAUR, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs VIL ACTION - LAW v O. 08-7444 CIVIL TERM NO. 09-6560 CIVIL TERM MUBASHIR A. MUMTAZ, M.D. CAPITAL AREA CARDIOVASCULAR: SURGICAL INSTITUTE, P.C., : ASSOCIATED CARDIOLOGISTS, P.C., HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM t/d/b/a HOLY SPIRIT: HOSPITAL, MARK A. OSEVALA,: D.O., and STUART B. PINK, M.D., Defendants IN RE: CASE STRICKEN FROM LIST ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 1st day of June, 2010, upon consideration of the call of the civil.trial list, and no counsel having appeared to call the above-captioned case for trial, it is stricken from the trial list. By the Court, _,-?dward R. Kennett, Esquire 8 North Queen Street Floor 4 P.O. Box 449 Lancaster, PA 17603 ,e-"Michael D. Pipa, Esquire 17 North Second Street Floor 16 Harrisburg, PA 17101 omas M. Chairs, Esquire 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Court Administrator / : mae /7 tP?S r m l Cctc(_ ??3ltD N 0 a a's = e cry r i ORIGMAL Edward R. Kennett, Esquire ATLEE, HALL & BROOKHART, LLP 8 North Queen Street Lancaster, PA 17608 717-393-9596 Court I.D. No. 69072 Attorney for Plaintiffs Ronald E. Beinhaur, II and Adrienne S. Beinhaur Plaintiff(s) vs. Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P.C., Associated Cardiologists, P.C., Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital, Mark A. Osevala, D.O., and Stuart B. Pink, M.D. Defendant(s) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 08-7444 (? N Q JURY TRIAL DEMANDED c- c rM?'?''_ = .ter ern ___ o° - . ?o - , o- n Cm ? ch D -c PRAECIPE TO SETTLE AND DISCONTINUE TO THE PROTHONTARY: Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule and Civil Procedure 229, please mark the docket in the above-captioned matter settled and discontinued with prejudice. Respectfully subm' Dated: ATLEE, H L & B OOKHART, LLP By: Edw, d R. enne _ sninre orth Ween Street 11.0. Box 449 Lancaster, PA 17608-0449 (717) 393-9596 1. D. No. 69072 y CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document, to be served upon the following persons by placing a copy of the said document in the United States mail, first class mail, directed to their office addresses as follows: Michael D. Pipa, Esquire Stevens & Lee 17 North Second Street 16" Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Attorney for Defendants Mubashir A. Mumtaz, M.D., Capital Area Cardiovascular Surgical Institute, P. C., and Associated Cardiologists, P. C. Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Health System t/d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital Dated: ATLEE, HA]ROOKHART, LLP By: 'Attorney for Plaintiffs 8 North Queen Street P.O. Box 449 Lancaster, PA 17608-0449 (717) 393-9596 I.D. No.69072