Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-1933U IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA, LTD.; MICHAEL L. GLUCK; L. LYNNE BRITTON; RICHARD SCHREIBER; JAMES A. TYNDALL; PETER M. BRIER; AND IRA J. PACKMAN Harrisview Professional Center 108 Lowther Street Lemoyne, PA 17043, Plaintiffs, VS. R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., and ROBIN J MARZELLA 3515 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110, Defendants. No. 33 PRAECIPE FOR A WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly issue a writ of summons - civil action to Robin J. Marzella of 3513 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110, and R.J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C., of 3513 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110, in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, April 30, 2004 David Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 66742 Philip M. Bricknell Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 88330 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP 240 North Third Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507 (717) 231-4500 Counsel for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA, LTD.; MICHAEL L. GLUCK; L. LYNNE BRITTON; RICHARD SCHREIBER; JAMES A. TYNDALL; PETER M. BRIER; AND IRA J. PACKMAN Harrisview Professional Center No. Gq- ob 108 Lowther Street Lemoyne, PA 17043, Plaintiffs, VS. R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., and ROBIN J MARZELLA 3515 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110, Defendants. WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS: You are notified that Plaintiffs Internists of Central Pennsylvania, Ltd.; Michael L. Gluck; Peter M. Brier; James A. Tyndall; Ira J. Packman; Richard Schreiber; and L. Lynne Britton have commenced an action against you. Dated: 11-4, 21,1" 0" Prothonotary K z'fl Seal of the Court By: ?-w C eputy Pro. of N 71 m Cli O 0 ? ?Cj T T• cam, U c C IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL No.: 04-1933-CIVIL PENNSYLVANIA, LTD.; MICHAEL L. GLUCK; L. LYNNE BRITTON; RICHARD SCHREIBER; JAMES A. TYNDALL; PETER M. BRIER; AND IRA J. PACKMAN Harrisview Professional Center 108 Lowther Street Lemoyne, PA 17043, Plaintiffs, vs. R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., and ROBIN J MARZELLA 3515 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110, Defendants. ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE I accept service of process on behalf of Robin J. lv[arzella and R.J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C. I certify that I am counsel for both defendants, and that I am authorized to accept service of the writs of summons in this case. This acceptance of service is without prejudice to any defense Defendants might offer exce se cp. , Albert 1P. Massey Jirr Lentz, Cantor & Ma 460 East King Road Malvern, PA 19355 May _, 200 c-7 ? o y t X C%, 11 W J ?) N W IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA, LTD.; MICHAEL L. GLUCK; L. LYNNE BRITTON; RICHARD SCHREIBER; JAMES A. TYNDALL; PETER M. BRIER; and IRA J. PACKMAN Harrisview Professional Center CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 04-1933 108 Lowther Street Lemoyne, PA 17043, Plaintiffs V. R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. and ROBIN J. MARZELLA 3515 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110, Defendants PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter a Rule upon Plaintiffs, Internists of Central Pennsylvania, Ltd., Michael L. Gluck, L. Lynne Britton, Richard Schreiber, James A. Tyndall, Peter M. Brier, and Ira J. Packman, to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days of service thereof or suffer the entry of a judgment of non pros. Date: May 19, 2004 LENTZ. CANTOR 8 MASSEY, LTD. 460 E. KING ROAD MALVERN, PA 19355-3049 Respectfully submitted, LENTZ, ¢ OR, & I? §EY, LTD. By: Albert P. Massey, Jr., Esgifte Attorney I.D. # 04851 Lentz, Cantor & Massey, Ltd. 460 East King Road Malvern, PA 19355 (610)'722-5800 Counsel for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMP40N PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL CIVIL ACTION - LAW PENNSYLVANIA, LTD.; MICHAEL L. GLUCK; L. LYNNE BRITTON; NO. 04-1933 RICHARD SCHREIBER; JAMES A. TYNDALL; PETER M. BRIER; and IRA J. PACKMAN Harrisview Professional Center 108 Lowther Street Lemoyne, PA 17043, Plaintiffs V. R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. and ROBIN J. MARZELLA 3515 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110, Defendants RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT NOW, this 19th day of May, 2004, upon Praecipe of Defendants R.J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C., and Robin J. Marzella, a Rule is hereby entered upon Plaintiffs, Internists of Central Pennsylvania, Ltd., Michael L. Gluck, L. Lynne Britton, Richard Schreiber, James A. Tyndall, Peter M. Brier, and Ira J. Packman, to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days after service of this Rule or suffer the entry of a judgment of non pros. PROTHONOTARY Date: 200y BY:_ - LENTZ. CANTOR 8 MASSEY, LTD. 460 E. KING ROAD MALVERN. PA 19355-3049 ( ` hD ?.y A' ?l l r_ \7 ?G %" C CJ i CD IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL No.: 04-1933 - CIVIL PENNSYLVANIA, LTD; MICHAEL L. GLUCK; L. LYNNE BRITTON; RICHARD SCHREIBER; JAMES A. TYNDALL; PETER M. BRIER; AND IRA J. PACKMAN Plaintiffs, vs. R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., and ROBIN J. MARZELLA Defendants. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT I hereby certify that I served a Rule to File Complaint, by first class mail, postage LENTZ. CANTOR 8 MASSEY• LTD. 460 E. KING ROAD MALVERN. PA 19355-3049 i Prepaid, this 241h day of May, 2004, upon: David R. Fine, Esquire Philip M. Bricknell, Esquire Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP 240 North Third Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Date: May 24, 2004 x o ? ': -prn s~- co O CJ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA, LTD., MICHAEL L. GLUCK, L. LYNNE BRITTON, RICHARD SCHREIBER, JAMES A. TYNDALL, PETER M. BRIER, and IRA J. PACKMAN Plaintiffs, Civil Action - Law Docket No. 04-1933 - CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED VS. R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. and ROBIN J MARZELLA Defendants. NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and 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 Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania (717) 249-3166 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA, LTD., MICHAEL L. GLUCK, L. LYNNE BRITTON, RICHARD SCHREIBER, JAMES A. TYNDALL, PETER M. BRIER, and IRA J. PACKMAN Harrisview Professional Center 108 Lowther Street Lemoyne, PA 17043, Plaintiffs, V. R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. and ROBIN J. MARZELLA 3515 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110, Defendants. COMPLAINT A. PARTIES Civil Action - Law Docket No. 04-1933 - CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 1. Plaintiff Internists of Central Pennsylvania Ltd. i;"ICP") is a professional corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Comrnonwealth of Pennsylvania, and it maintains a principal place of business located at 108 Lowther Street, Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Plaintiff Michael L. Gluck, M.D. ("Dr. Gluck") is an adult individual who maintains a principal place of business located at 108 Lowther Street, Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Plaintiff L. Lynne Britton, M.D. ("Dr. Britton"') is an adult individual who maintains a principal place of business located at 108 Lowther Street, Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. Plaintiff Richard Schreiber, M.D. ("Dr. Schreiber") is an adult individual who maintains a principal place of business located at 108 Lowther Street, Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 5. Plaintiff James A. Tyndall, M.D. ("Dr. Tyndall") is an adult individual who maintains a principal place of business located at 108 Lowther Street, Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 6. Plaintiff Peter M. Brier, M.D. ("Dr. Brier") is an adult individual who maintains a principal place of business located at 108 Lowther Street, Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 7. Plaintiff Ira J. Packman, M.D. ("Dr. Packman") is an adult individual who maintains a principal place of business located at 108 Lowther Street, Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 8. Defendant Robin J. Marzella ("Ms. Marzella") is an adult individual who maintains a principal place of business located at 3513 North Front Street, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 9. Defendant R.J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C. is a professional corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and it maintains a principal place of business located at 3513 North Front Street, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 2 10. Dr. Gluck, Dr. Britton, Dr. Schreiber, Dr. Tyndall, Dr. Brier, and Dr. Packman ("Internists") are internists licensed to practice medicine in the! Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Drs. Gluck, Tyndall, and Brier are shareholders of ICP; Drs. Britton, Schreiber, and Packman are employee physicians of ICP. 11. Robin J. Marzella is a lawyer licensed to practice law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 12. Defendant Robin J. Marzella is a licensed professional with offices in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs note, but do not concede, that this action could be construed to present a professional-liability claim. 13. Robin J. Marzella was at all relevant times an officer or agent of R.J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C., and was the agent and attorney authorized to act on behalf of Paul Little, as described below. Since the establishment of R.J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C., Ms. Marzella has been acting on behalf of and within the scope of her agency with R.J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C. 14. Cumberland County is an appropriate venue because it is the county where an occurrence giving rise to this action took place. B. OPERATIVE FA(:TS 15. At all times relevant to this complaint, Paul Little is and was an adult individual who resides in Perry County. 16. Paul Little is and was the executor of the estate of his deceased wife, Dolores Little. 17. Drs. Gluck, Brier, Tyndall, Britton, and Schreiber provided medical care to Dolores Little from the time of her admittance to Holy Spirit Hospital on January 24, 1995, until 3 her death on February 16, 1995. Dr. Packman was not directly involved in Dolores Little's treatment. 18. On January 24, 1995, Dr. Gluck diagnosed Dolores Little as suffering from severe pneumonia with respiratory failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with an extremely strong smoking history, sepsis, and hypertension when she was admitted to Holy Spirit Hospital. The Internists and other medical professionals treated Dolores Little's various ailments at Holy Spirit Hospital. Despite the care she received, Dolores Little died on February 16, 1995. 19. At some time following his wife's death, Paul Little sought legal advice and representation from the law firm of Angino & Rovner regarding the circumstances of Dolores Little's death. At that time, Catherine Mahady-Smith, Esq., and Ms. Marzella were associated with Angino & Rovner. Ms. Mahady-Smith was primarily in charge of Paul Little's matter and was assisted by Ms. Marzella. 20. Ms. Mahady-Smith and Ms. Marzella left Anginno & Rovner in January 1996 and practiced law together. Paul Little initially remained a client of Angino & Rovner, but he became a client of Ms. Mahady-Smith in the spring of 1996 and had continuing contact with Ms. Marzella. 21. Ms. Mahady-Smith and Ms. Marzella stopped practicing law together in the autumn of 1996. Paul Little remained a client of Ms. Mahady-Smith but eventually became a client of Ms. Marzella. 22. Ms. Marzella obtained Dolores Little's medical records from Holy Spirit Hospital several months after Dolores Little's death in February 1995. These records include details of the medications and treatments Dolores Little received and the contemporaneous notes made by the various medical professionals involved in Dolores Little's treatment. The records also 4 contain the results of tests done on Dolores Little during her treatment in January and February 1995. 23. On January 9, 1997, at least 12 months after receiving Dolores Little's medical records, Ms. Marzella, as attorney for Paul Little, filled a complaint in this Court against Holy Spirit Hospital; Sporting Hill Family Health Center; Richard R.eh, M.D.; Valentine Osborn, M.D.; Internists of Central Pennsylvania, Ltd.; Michael Gluck, M.D.; L. Lynne Britton, M.D.; Richard Schreiber, M.D.; James Tyndall, M.D.; Peter Brier, M.D.; Ira Packman, M.D.; Robert Kantor, M.D.; Stephen Davis, M.D.; Charles Inners, M.D.; and. Inners Davis Associates. A copy of the complaint in that case (the "Little Complaint") is attached to this document as Exhibit "A." The litigation commenced by the Little Complaint will be referred to throughout this complaint as the "Underlying Litigation." 24. On information and belief, Ms. Marzella prepared and filed the Little Complaint. 25. On information and belief, Ms. Marzella did not have a medical professional thoroughly review Dolores Little's medical records before she filed the Little Complaint. 26. Ms. Marzella did have Dolores Little's records reviewed by a pulmonologist sometime after she filed the Little Complaint. The pulmonologist told Ms. Marzella that he saw no fault with Dolores Little's pulmonary care, but he suggested that Ms. Marzella consult with an infectious-disease specialist. 27. On information and belief, Ms. Marzella did not at any time consult with an infectious-disease specialist regarding Dolores Little's care. 28. On information and belief, Ms. Marzella never received an opinion from any qualified and appropriate medical professional that any duty of professional care had been breached by the Internists or ICP. Moreover, on information and belief, Ms. Marzella failed to make reasonable efforts to secure such an opinion. 29. Ms. Marzella never engaged a medical expert to testify in support of Paul Little's allegations against the physicians of ICP. Moreover, on information and belief, Ms. Marzella failed to make reasonable efforts to secure such an expert. 30. The Little Complaint includes identical allegations that were made against each Internist individually and against ICP as an entity. Identical allegations were also made against Drs. Stephen Davis, Charles Inners, and Robert Kantor, and against Holy Spirit Hospital and Inners Davis Associates as entities. 31. The Little Complaint alleges that the Internists and ICP failed properly to monitor and treat Dolores Little by ignoring the significance of her symptoms and test results. 32. More specifically, the Little Complaint alleges that the Internists and ICP failed properly to diagnose and treat Dolores Little's fungal and general infections. 33. Dolores Little's medical records clearly show that her fungal infection was identified, treated, and cured, yet Ms. Marzella alleged and continued to maintain in documents filed in court that the Internists and ICP had been negligent with respect to this matter. 34. The Little Complaint also alleges that the Internists and ICP failed properly to monitor and treat Dolores Little's pulmonary condition or her theophylline levels. 35. The Little Complaint alleges that the Internists and ICP failed properly to monitor and maintain Dolores Little's tracheostomy resulting in erosion around the tracheostomy tube that caused the tube to dislodge, depriving Dolores Little of oxygen and causing brain damage and ultimately her death. 6 36. The Little Complaint asserted each of these allegations against each of the plaintiffs in this action individually without regard to the actual role any of the plaintiffs in this action actually played. Further, Ms. Marzella did not make an appropriate effort to ascertain what were the roles of each of the Internists before she filed the Little Complaint. 37. Ms. Marzella named Dr. Packman as a defendant in the Little Complaint. Dr. Packman never actually saw Dolores Little. He received a call about an increase in her temperature when he was on call. Dr. Packman ordered appropriate tests and adjustments to her treatment in response to her increased temperature. 38. Each of the allegations of the Little Complaint described in Paragraphs 31-35 above is incorrect, and, on information and belief, Ms. Marzella did not make an appropriate effort to ascertain its accuracy before she filed the Little Complaint. 39. As a direct result of the action filed against them both as individuals and collectively, the Internists and ICP (with the assistance of their insurance carrier) retained counsel to represent their interests in the Underlying Litigation.. 40. At the time Ms. Marzella prepared and filed the Little Complaint, Ms. Marzella had actual or constructive knowledge that Dolores Little's medical records did not support the allegation that the Internists had been negligent in the treatment of Dolores Little. 41. At the time Ms. Marzella prepared and filed the Little Complaint, Ms. Marzella had actual or constructive knowledge that there was no factual or legal basis for her assertion that the Internists had breached their professional duty to Dolores Little and that her worsening condition and death were in no way the result of any act or omission of the Internists. 42. At the time Ms. Marzella prepared and filed the Little Complaint, Ms. Marzella had actual or constructive knowledge based on Dolores Little's .medical records that the 7 Internists had not failed properly to examine, treat, or monitor Dolores Little from January 24 to February 16, 1995. 43. At the time Ms. Marzella prepared and filed the Little Complaint and during the subsequent 58 months that Ms. Marzella maintained the action, Ms. Marzella had actual or constructive knowledge that the Internists correctly treated Dolores Little's gastrointestinal bleeding and properly monitored her nutritional support, the treatment of her pulmonary conditions, and the maintenance of her tracheostomy, and yet Ms. Marzella alleged that the Internists and ICP had been negligent with respect to those matters. 44. At the time Ms. Marzella prepared and filed the Little Complaint, Ms. Marzella had actual or constructive knowledge that the Internists and ICP had not breached their duty of care to Dolores Little; on the contrary, the Internists had provided exemplary care to Dolores Little as is recorded in her medical records. 45. On information and belief, Ms. Marzella maintained the Underlying Litigation against Internists and ICP from January 1997 through October 2001 without ever receiving an opinion from any qualified and appropriate medical professional that any duty of professional care had been breached by the Internists or ICP. 46. Moreover, on information and belief, Ms. Marzella failed to take reasonable efforts to secure such an opinion. 47. On October 18, 2001, Ms. Marzella filed a petition for leave to withdraw from her representation of Paul Little. The Court granted her petition on October 22, 2001. 48. On December 26, 2001, Internists and ICP filed a motion for summary judgment. On June 17, 2002, the Court granted the motion. The prothonotary entered judgment for the 8 Internists and ICP on June 28, 2002. Pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1019(i), a copy of the entry of judgment is attached as Exhibit "B." 49. In initiating and continuing the Underlying Litigation without any basis to believe the allegations in the Little Complaint were true, Ms. Marzella acted willfully, outrageously, oppressively, maliciously, and with reckless disregard for the rights of the plaintiffs in this action. 50. Ms. Marzella, as counsel and agent for Paul Little, initiated and continued legal proceedings against ICP and the Internists when she knew or should have known that: (a) the facts asserted in the Little Complaint were inaccurate and without any arguable factual basis; and (b) there was no recognizable theory of liability that could be maintained against ICP and the Internists. 51. Ms. Marzella's initiation and continuation of the- Underlying Litigation against ICP and the Internists was grossly negligent because she had actual or constructive knowledge that the allegations contained in the Little Complaint as to ICP and the Internists lacked any factual basis. 52. Ms. Marzella failed to take reasonable steps to determine whether any duty of care was breached and failed to take any reasonable steps to identify whether any particular physicians may have breached any duty of care. 53. Ms. Marzella maintained her broad-brush suit against all physicians whom she perceived may have had some connection to the care of Dolores Little based on nothing more than the unfortunate fact of her death and unwarranted suppositions about her care that were belied by the medical records in Ms. Marzella's possession. 9 54. Ms. Marzella's initiation and continuation of the Underlying Litigation against ICP and the Internists was without probable cause because: (a) she did not have (and could not reasonably have had) a belief that the facts alleged in the Little Complaint were true or that they could be proven through discovery; (b) the facts as evidenced by Dolores Little's medical records did not permit a reasonable belief that a claim could be warranted under either existing or developing law; and (c) Ms. Marzella did not conduct necessary or appropriate consultation with appropriate professionals to corroborate (or disprove) the allegations. 55. In commencing and continuing the Underlying Litigation, Ms. Marzella harassed and maliciously injured each of the plaintiffs in this action fora purpose other than seeking and obtaining a proper adjudication of the Underlying Litigation and vindicating her client's rights. COUNTI Internists of Central Pennsylvania vs. Robin J. Marzella and R.J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C. (Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings, 42 Pa.C.S. & 8351, et seg.) 56. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference. 57. Ms. Marzella asserted all of the allegations of the Little Complaint against ICP based upon the allegation that Drs. Gluck, Britton, Schreiber, Tyndall, Brier, and Packman were agents, apparent agents, servants or employees of ICP. 58. As a direct and proximate result of Robin J. Marzella's wrongful use of civil proceedings, ICP was injured and is entitled to recover lost revenues and actual expenses, including, but not limited to, lost revenue and reasonable counsel fees incurred by ICP in defending Drs. Gluck, Britton, Schreiber, Tyndall, Brier, and Pa.ckman and itself in the Underlying Litigation. 10 WHEREFORE, Internists of Central Pennsylvania, Ltd. demands judgment against Robin J. Marzella and R.J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C., in an amount which exceeds the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County and in an amount in excess of $25,000, together with payment of interest and costs and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. COUNT Il Michael L. Gluck vs. Robin J. Marzella and R.J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C. (Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings, 42 Pa.C.S. ? 8351, et seq.) 59. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference. 60. As a direct and proximate result of Ms. Marzella's wrongful use of civil proceedings, Dr. Gluck was injured and is entitled to recover for the following damages among others: (a) harm to his reputation caused by the deflunatory nature of the Little Complaint; (b) harm to his reputation caused by the incorrect assertions of fact in the Little Complaint; (c) damages for emotional distress resulting from the Underlying Litigation; (d) damages from the loss of income due to defending against the Underlying Litigation; (e) punitive damages; and (f) such other damages or relief to which he may be lawfully entitled under the facts. WHEREFORE, Michael L. Gluck, demands judgment against Robin J. Marzella and R.J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C., in an amount which exceeds the compulsory arbitration 11 limits of Cumberland County and in an amount in excess of $25,000, together with payment of interests and costs and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. COUNT III L. Lynne Britton vs. Robin J. Marzella and R.J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C. (Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8351, et seq.) 61. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference. 62. As a direct and proximate result of Ms. Marzella's wrongful use of civil proceedings, Dr. Britton was injured and is entitled to recover For the following damages among others: (a) harm to her reputation caused by the defamatory nature of the Little Complaint; (b) harm to her reputation caused by the incorrect assertions of fact in the Little Complaint; (c) damages for emotional distress resulting from the Underlying Litigation; (d) damages from the loss of income due to defending against the Underlying Litigation; (e) punitive damages; and (f) such other damages or relief to which she may be lawfully entitled under the facts. WHEREFORE, L. Lynn Britton, demands judgment against Robin J. Marzella and R.J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C., in an amount which exceeds the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County and in an amount in excess of $25,000, together with payment of interests and costs and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. 12 COUNT IV Richard Schreiber vs. Robin J. Marzella and R.J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C. (Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings, 42 Pa.C.S. ? 8351, et seq.) 63. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference. 64. As a direct and proximate result of Ms. Marzella's wrongful use of civil proceedings, Dr. Schreiber was injured and is entitled to recover for the following damages among others: (a) harm to his reputation caused by the defamatory nature of the Little Complaint; (b) harm to his reputation caused by the incorrect assertions of fact in the Little Complaint; (c) damages for emotional distress resulting from the Underlying Litigation; (d) damages from the loss of income due to defending against the Underlying Litigation; (e) punitive damages; and (f) such other damages or relief to which he may be lawfully entitled under the facts. WHEREFORE, Richard Schreiber, demands judgment against Robin J. Marzella and R.J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C., in an amount which exceeds the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County and in an amount in excess of $25,000, together with payment of interests and costs and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. COUNT V James A. Tyndall vs. Robin J. Marzella and R.J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C. (Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings, 42 Pa.C.S. ? 8351, et seq.) 65. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference. 13 66. As a direct and proximate result of Ms. Marzella's wrongful use of civil proceedings, Dr. Tyndall was injured and is entitled to recover the following damages among others: (a) harm to his reputation caused by the defamatory nature of the Little Complaint; (b) harm to his reputation caused by the incorrect assertions of fact in the Little Complaint; (c) damages from the loss of income due to defending against the Underlying Litigation; (d) punitive damages; and (e) such other damages or relief to which he may be lawfully entitled under the facts. WHEREFORE, James A. Tyndall, demands judgment against Robin J. Marzella and R.J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C., in an amount which exceeds the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County and in an amount in excess of $25,000, together with payment of interests and costs and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. COUNT VI Peter M. Brier vs. Robin J. Marzella and R.J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C. (Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings, 42 Pa.C.S. & 8351, et seq.) 67. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference. 68. As a direct and proximate result of Ms. Marzella's wrongful use of civil proceedings, Dr. Brier was injured and is entitled to recover for the following damages among others: 14 (a) harm to his reputation caused by the defamatory nature of the Little Complaint; (b) harm to his reputation caused by the incorrect assertions of fact in the Little Complaint; (c) damages for emotional distress resulting, from the Underlying Litigation; (d) damages from the loss of income due to defending against the Underlying Litigation; (e) punitive damages; and (f) such other damages or relief to which he may be lawfully entitled under the facts. WHEREFORE, Peter M. Brier, demands judgment against Robin J. Marzella and R.J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C., in an amount which exceeds the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County and in an amount in excess of $2:1,000, together with payment of interests and costs and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. COUNT VII Ira J. Packman vs. Robin J. Marzella and R.J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C. (Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings, 42 Pa.C.?;. § 8351, et sea.) 69. The foregoing paragraphs are incorporated by reference. 70. As a direct and proximate result of Ms. Marzella's wrongful use of civil proceedings, Dr. Packman was injured and is entitled to recover for the following damages among others: (a) harm to his reputation caused by the defamatory nature of the Little Complaint; 15 (b) harm to his reputation caused by the incorrect assertions of fact in the Little Complaint; (c) damages for emotional distress resulting; from the Underlying Litigation; (d) damages from the loss of income due to defending against the Underlying Litigation; (e) punitive damages; and (f) such other damages or relief to which he may be lawfully entitled under the facts. WHEREFORE, Ira J. Packman, demands judgment against Robin J. Marzella and R.J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C., in an amount which exceeds the compulsory arbitration limits of Cumberland County and in an amount in excess of $2:5,000, together with payment of interests and costs and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. January 6, 2005 David R. Fine Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 66742 Phillip M. Bricknell Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 88330 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP 240 North Third Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507 (717) 231-4500 Counsel for Plaintiffs 16 VERIFICATION I hereby certify that the statements contained in the attached complaint filed in this matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, or information and belief. As a shareholder of Internists of Central Pennsylvania Ltd, I am authorized to offer this verification. I understand that this certification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsifications to authorities. December 2004 t'z? /'41? Michael L. Gluck, M.D. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA, LTD., MICHAEL L. GLUCK, L. LYNNE BRITTON, RICHARD SCHREIBER, JAMES A. TYNDALL, PETER M. BRIER, and IRA J. PACKMAN Harrisview Professional Center Civil Action - Law Docket No. 04-1933 - CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 108 Lowther Street Lemoyne, PA 17043, Plaintiffs, vs. R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. and ROBIN J. MARZELLA 3515 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110, Defendants. CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS TO ROBIN' J. MARZELLA I, Philip M. Bricknell, certify as follows: (1) 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 defendant Robin J. Marzella in the 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; and (2) expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional may be unnecessary for prosecution of the claim against this defendant January 6, 2005 Philip M. Bricknell Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 88330 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP 240 North Third Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507 (717) 231-4500 Counsel for Plaintiffs Exhibit A PAUL LITTLE, individually and as the Executor of the Estate of DOLORES LITTLE, Deceased Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNT', PENNA. NO. 97-99 CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, SPORTING HILL FAMILY HEALTH CENTER, RICHARD REH, M.D., VALENTINE OSBORN, M.D,, INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA, LTD., MICHAEL GLUCK, M.D. L. LYNNE BRITTON,L M. D., RICHARD_SCHREIBER, M.D., JAMES TYNDALL. M. .1 PETER BRIER, M.D., IRA PACKMAN, M.D., ROBERT KANTOR, M.D., STEPHEN DAVIS, M.D., CHARLES INNERS, M.D. and INNERS DAVIS ASSOCIATES Defendants JURY TRIAL ]DEMANDED NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defense 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 claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Court Administrator 4th Fl. Cumberland County Courthouse Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 240.6200 1 NOTICIA Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted guiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguintes, usted tiene A6ente (20) dias de plaza al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la nontificacion. Usted debe prEesentar una apariencia escrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objectiones a las demandas en contra de su p esona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la cone tomara medidas y puede entrar una order conha usted sin previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en la peticion de demanda. Usted pueda perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABODAGO INMEDIATAMENTA. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEF ONO A LA LFICINA CU'Y'A DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PEUDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL, PAUL LITTLE, individually and as the Executor of the Estate of DOLORES LITTLE, Deceased Plaintiffs IN THE COUNT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. `l f-7` q q au? CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, SPORTING HILL FAMILY HEALTH CENTER, RICHARD REH, M.D., VALENTINE OSBORN, M.D., INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA, LTD., MICHAEL GLUCK, M.D. L. LYNNE BRITTON, M. D., RICHARD SCHREIBER, M.D., JAMES TYNDALL, M.D., PETER BRIER, M.D., IRA PACKMAN, M.D., ROBERT KANTOR, M.D., STEPHEN DAVIS, M.D., CHARLES INNERS, M.D. and INNERS DAVIS ASSOCIATES Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff, Paul Little, Executor of the Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased, is an adult individual and is a resident of Marysville, Perry County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, is a corporate medical institution with offices and facilities in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. Defendant, Sporting Hill Family Health Center, (hereinafter: "Sporting Hill") is a corporate medical institution with offices and facilities Hill, TRUE COPY FMA ' l ?,,,re ?: at3?t?y spIn v j;,b r f my hand and $?? ; caj o; said l:c rt at Carlisle, Pa. This 4A 'da ? Of Jam 1992 - Prothonotary Cumberland County, Pennsylvania and is a satellite/subsid.iary office of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital. 4. Defendant, Richard Reh, M.D., (hereinafter "Defendant Reh") is an adult individual licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, who in 1995, was engaged in the practice of family/internal medicine in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 5. Defendant Valentine Osborn, M.D., (hereinafter: "Defendant Osborn") is an adult individual licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, who in 1995, was engaged in the practice of family/internal medicine in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 6. At all relevant times herein, Defendants Re:h and Osborn, all physicians, interns, residents, nursing staff, medical staff and office staff were the agents, apparent agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant Sporting Hill and were acting within the scope of their employment when providing professional medical services to the Plaintiff. 7. Defendant Michael Gluck, M.D. (hereinafter: "Defendant Gluck") is an adult individual licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, who in 1995, was engaged in the practice of internal medicine in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 8. Defendant L. Lynne Britton, M.D. (hereinafter: "Defendant Britton") is an adult individual licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, who in 1995, was engaged in the practice of internal medicine in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 9. Defendant Robert Schrieber, M.D. (hereinafter: "Defendant Schrieber") is an adult individual licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, who in 1995, was engaged in the practice of internal medicine in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2 10. Defendant James Tyndall, M.D. (hereinafter: "Defendant Tyndall") is an adult individual licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, who in 1995, was engaged in the practice of internal medicine in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 11. Defendant Peter Brier, M.D. (hereinafter: "Defendant Brier") is an adult individual licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, who in 1995, was engaged in the practice of internal medicine in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 12. Defendant Ira Packman, M.D. (hereinafter: "Defendant Packman") is an adult individual licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, who in 1995, was engaged in the practice of internal medicine in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 13. Defendant Internists of Central Pennsylvania, Ltd. (hereinafter: "ICP"), is a corporate medical institution with offices and facilities in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 14. At all relevant times herein, Defendants Gluck, Britton, Schreiber, Tyndall, Brier, and Packman, all physicians, interns, residents, nursing staff, medical staff and office staff were the agents, apparent agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant ICP and acting within the scope of their employment when providing professional medical services to the Plaintiff. 15. Defendant Robert Kantor, M.D. (hereinafter: "Defendant Kantor") is an adult individual licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, who in 1995, was engaged in the practice of infectious disease medicine in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 16. Defendant Stephen Davis, M.D. (hereinafter: "Defendant Davis") is an adult individual licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 3 who in 1995, was engaged in the practice of pulmonology in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 17. Defendant Charles Inners, M.D. (hereinafter: "Defendant Inners") is an adult individual licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, who in 1995, was engaged in the practice of pulmonology in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 18. Defendant Inners Davis Associates is a corporate medical institution with offices and facilities in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 19. At all relevant times herein, Defendants Davis and Inners, all physicians, interns, residents, nursing staff, medical staff and office staff were the agents, apparent agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant Inners Davis Associates and acting within the scope of their employment when providing medical services to the Plaintiff. 20. At all relevant times herein, Defendants Reh, Osborn, Gluck, Britton, Schrieber, Tyndall, Brier, Packman, Kantor, Davis, Inners, all physicians, interns, residents, nursing staff and all other medical staff were the agents, apparent agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital and were acting within the scope of their employment when providing professional medical services to the Plaintiff. 21. Prior to January of 1995, Dolores Little had been a patient of Defendant Sporting Hill, a subsidiary/satellite of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital for the past five years. 22. Specifically, Mrs. Little was seen at Defendant Sporting Hill by Defendants Reh, Osborn and other doctors as her family physicians. 23. Although Mrs. Little had been in relatively good health prior to January of 1995, she did suffer from chronic hypertension which was treated by Defendant Reh and other physicians with various medications. 24. In or about January of 1995, Mrs. Little began to experience "sweats" and shortness of breath. 4 25. On or about January 9, 1995, Mrs. Little was examined by Defendant Reh and/or Defendant Osborn at Defendant Sporting Hill. 26. At the time of her presentation on January 9, 1995, Mrs. Little was complaining of a severe and productive cough with concomitant back pain and night sweats. 27. Based solely on her physical examination, without recommending, ordering or performing any additional diagnostic studies, including but not limited to a chest x-ray, or other pulmonary studies, Defendant Reh and/or Defendant Osborn diagnosed Mrs. Little as suffering from bronchitis and prescribed Amoxicillin 500 mg. T.I.D. 28. Thereafter, Mrs. Little was given instructions to return in one month's time for re-evaluation. 29. As instructed and prescribed, Mrs. Little tool: the Amoxicillin. 30. However, her symptoms worsened. 31. Instead of waiting to return at the one month interval, Mrs. Little telephoned Defendant Sporting Hill on or about January 16, 1995 with the same complaints as noted previously. 32. In addition, Mrs. Little was experiencing a sore throat and had developed sores in her mouth. 33. The agent, apparent agent, servant and/or ernployee of Defendant Sporting Hill and/or Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital instructed Mrs. 'Little to increase her intake of fluids and to call back to make an appointment if there was no improvement in the next few days. 34. Over the next twenty-four hours, Mrs. Little's condition continued to deteriorate. 35. Consequently, she scheduled an appointment at Defendant Sporting Hill on or about January 17, 1995. 5 36. At the time of this evaluation, Mrs. Little was still experiencing the same symptoms including a severe productive cough, sweats, a sore throat, and sores in her mouth. 37. At the time, Mrs. Little had an elevated temperature and she was experiencing difficulty and wheezing while breathing. 38. Moreover, the phlegm that was being produced was greenish in color. 39. Again, Defendant Reh and/or Defendant Osborn and/or the agents, apparent agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant Sporting Hill and/or Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital diagnosed Mrs. Little as suffering from bronchitis and oral candidiasis. 40. No chest x-ray or other diagnostic studies were recommended, ordered or performed to evaluate the cause and severity of Mrs. Little's symptoms. 41. Instead of the Amoxicillin, Mrs. Little was instructed to begin Bactrim 500 mg. B.I.D. and Mycolex Troches 5 times a day for the oral infection. 42. As on previous occasions, Mrs. Little was discharged with instructions to return if she was no better. 43. Six days later, seeing his wife's condition deteriorate, Mr. Little telephoned Defendant Sporting Hill. 44. After relaying his wife's symptoms, Mr. Little was instructed by an agent, apparent agent, servant and/or employee of Defendant Sporting Hill and/or Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital that his wife should continue the medications as prescribed and to return if there was no improvement in the next few days. 45. That evening, Mrs. Little was having extreme difficulty breathing. 46. Consequently, Mr. Little decided to take his wife to the Emergency Room at Holy Spirit Hospital. 47. Mrs. Little was seen at Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's HealthCare 24 on or about January 24, 1995. 6 48. At the time of presentation, Mrs. Little was pale and weak. 49. At the time, Mrs. Little's temperature, pulse, respiration and blood pressure were all elevated (abnormal). 50. Mrs. Little was having difficulty breathing and swallowing and her oxygen saturation level was extremely low. 51. At the time Mrs. Little presented to HealthCare 24, she informed the agents, apparent agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital that she was suffering from an infection in her mouth for which she was taking medication. 52. Mrs. Little was examined by Dr. McGuire who diagnosed her as suffering from possible pneumonia. 53. Mrs. Little was immediately placed on oxygen in an attempt to increase her oxygen saturation level. 54. Rales were audible bi-laterally in her lungs with expiratory wheezing in all fields. 55. The nurses described Mrs. Little as pale and diaphoretic. 56. At the time of her presentation, Mrs. Little's Po2 was 40, her PCo2 was 31 on 6 liters of oxygen. 57. A chest x-ray was obtained which revealed diffuse infiltrate strongly suggestive of pneumonia. 58. A stat CBC was ordered which revealed white blood cell count of 22,500. 59. The additional laboratory studies revealed her sugar to be 122, CPK was 44, lytes, BUN and creatinine were normal. Her hemoglobin was 13.2, 66 polys, 12 lymphs, and 15 bands. 60. Due to the severity of her condition, Dr. McGuire requested that she be admitted to the hospital immediately for treatment. 7 61. At the time, Mrs. Little was admitted to the care of Defendant Internists of Central Pennsylvania, Ltd. for severe respiratory distress and pneumonia. 62. Mrs. Little's blood pressure on admission was 160/100 and her temperature was elevated to 102.8 F. 63. After performing a physical examination and receiving the results of the initial laboratory studies and diagnostic tests, Mrs. Little was diagnosed as suffering from i severe pneumonia with respiratory failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, sepsis and hypertension. 64. At admission, a consultation was requested from Pulmonology and Mrs. Little was seen by Dr. Stephen Davis and/or an agent, apparent agent, servant and/or employee of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital and/or Defendant Inners Davis Associates. 65. After examining the' patient, Defendant Davis agreed with the patient's diagnosis. In addition, Defendant Davis diagnosed her as suffering from severe hypoxia and ARDS. 66. Defendant Davis and Defendant Gluck concurred on the transfer of Mrs. Little to the ICU. 67. A subclavian line was inserted for antibiotic administration. 68. A broad spectrum antibiotic was prescribed for treatment of Mrs. Little's condition. 69. At the time it was anticipated that ventilator support might be necessary. 70. Mrs. Little was then admitted to the ICU Sand placed on broad spectrum antibiotics with ventilator support. 71. Due to the severity of her respiratory condition, Mrs. Little required intubation. 72. Thereafter, she was heavily sedated and paralyzed in order to adequately ventilate her. 8 73. Although antibiotics were ordered for the bacterial infection, fungal medications, and/or the Mycolex Troches, Mrs. Little was taking at the time of admission were discontinued. 74. Although Defendant Gluck consulted with Defendant Davis, an infectious disease consultation was not requested or obtained prior to January 30, 1995. 75. Although sputum cultures on or about January 24, 1995 were positive for candida albicans, the fungal medications and/or other medications to treat the aforementioned were never recommended, ordered or prescribed in a timely fashion. 76. When an infectious disease consultation was ultimately requested, Mrs. Little's temperature was 103 degrees F. and her white blood cell count was 25,000, even though she had been on antibiotic therapy for more than two weeks. 77. The infectious disease consultation was requested from Defendant Kantor and/or an agent, apparent agent, servant and/or employe of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital. 78. Ultimately, Defendant Kantor and/or an agent, apparent agent, servant and/or employee of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital suspected a "superinfection - perhaps C.difficile" and/or other infectious/fungal organisms. 79. However, Defendant Kantor and the other physicians caring for Mrs. Little continued to prescribe erythromycin and vancomycin with no medications or treatment being prescribed for the fungal/yeast infection. 80. The Defendants knew or should have knovm that the medications being prescribed for Mrs. Little would cause a fungal and/or yeast infection to fulminate. 81. Repeat blood, urine and/or other cultures were requested to evaluate Mrs. Little's condition. 82. Urine cultures reported on or about February 4, 1995, were positive for yeast, C.albicans, E.coli and/or other infectious organisms. 9 83. Moreover, blood cultures reported on or about February 5, 1995 were positive for gram-positive cocci (coagulase neg. staph.). 84. At the time, Mrs. Little had a high fever and she was receiving broad spectrum antibiotics and steroid therapy. 85. It was not until approximately February 5, 1995, that Diflucan 4 was ordered. However, this was insufficient and inadequate for her condition. 86. By this time, Mrs. Little had a fulminating fungal infection. 87. Repeat blood cultures obtained on or about: February 9, 1995 were also positive for gram-positive cocci (coagulase neg. staph) and. later cultures obtained on or about February 13, 1995 were positive for gram-negative bacilli (klebsiella and E.coli). 88. Moreover, repeat urine cultures obtained on or about February 6 and February 13, 1995, confirmed greater than 50,000 cfu/ml C.albicans and E.coli. 89. Throughout Mrs. Little's hospitalization, she received her nutritional support through a feeding tube. However, this was insufficient to support her nutritional needs. 90. Moreover, Mrs. Little's hematacrit and hemoglobin levels declined throughout her hospitalization. 91 Ultimately, Dr. Graf performed a diagnostic esophagogastroduodeno s copy on or about January 31, 1995 to evaluate Mrs. Little for the blood in her stool. 92. During the aforementioned procedure, Dr. Graf noted Mrs. Little to have a benign peptic ulcer. 93. However, Mrs. Little continued to experience; blood in her stool. 94. During the course of Mrs. Little's hospitalization, her bi-lateral pneumonia and pulmonary condition began to improve. 95. She was able to be weaned partially from the ventilator, although she remained weak. 10 96. On or about February 6, 1995, Defendant Kantor discontinued the Flagyl, vancomycin, Haldol and he thereafter prescribed Ativan. 97. Ultimately a tracheostomy procedure was performed on or about February 7, 1995. 98. The Little family was informed that given Mrs. Little's improvement, the tracheostomy would most likely be removed in a few days. 99. During the course of this hospitalization, Mrs. Little experienced persistent abdominal pain and decreasing hematacrit. 100. Ultimately, an EDG was performed on or about February 13, 1995, which revealed an ulceration in the bottom of her stomach. 101. The surgical pathology report noted fibropurulent debris in the esophagus which was noted to be consistent with herpes virus infection. 102. Moreover, a possible yeast infection was noted. 103. Although Mrs. Little was receiving antibiotic; therapy, the medications that were ordered were inappropriate for the type of infection(s) Mrs. Little was suffering from, nor were her medications properly monitored. 104. Moreover, during Mrs. Little's hospitalization, her theophylline levels were not properly monitored. 105. The physicians involved in Mrs. Little's care knew or should have known that numerous medications she was taking would interfere; with her theophylline levels and/or the effectiveness of the other medications she was taking. 106. However, this was not taken into consideration when treating Mrs. Little, nor were any theophylline levels drawn after February 5, 1995. 107. However, Mrs. Little was doing relatively well at this point in her hospitalization, although still suffering from an infection and a fulminating fungal infection. 11 108. The fungal infection because of the lack of appropriate treatment developed into a fungal sepsis. 109. On or about February 14, 1995, Mrs. Little remained on the ventilator in the ICU. However, she was alert and able to visit with her family. 110. In the early afternoon on or about February 14, 1995, she was visiting with her family and she was awake, alert and oriented. 112. Shortly after her family left the hospital, Mrs. Little developed a problem with her tracheostomy, a problem which was not timely discovered or corrected. 113. Due to the substandard management of Mrs. Little's infection and/or fungal infection, the tissue around Mrs. Little tracheostomy became necrotic and/or eroded. 114. Due to the negligence of the agents, apparent agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital, including the previously named individuals, Mrs. Little was deprived of oxygen for a significant period of time. 115. The agents, apparent agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital failed to adequately evaluate and monitor Mrs. Little and in so doing caused her to be deprived of oxygen for an extended period of time. 116. Ultimately, Mrs. Little suffered a cardiac event and brain damage due to the deprivation of oxygen. 117. Mrs. Little developed a cerebral anoxia due to a blockage, dislodging, and/or maintenance of her tracheostomy. 118. Following this event, resuscitative measures were not instituted immediately. 119. Mrs. Little was allowed to remain oxygen deprived for a significant period of time which ultimately led to her death. 120. An EEG was performed which showed no cerebral function. This was confirmed with a second EEG. 12 121. Ultimately, Mrs. Little died of the aforementioned events on or about February 16, 1995. 122. The injury and death of Mrs. Little was the direct and proximate result of the negligence of all of the named Defendants, their agents, apparent agents, servants and/or employees and a claim is made therefor. 123. The substandard care as alleged herein and provided by the Defendants increased the risk of harm to Mrs. Little. 124. The substandard care as alleged herein and provided by the aforementioned Defendants decreased Mrs. Little's chances of surviving. 125. Plaintiff, Paul Little, individually and as the Executor of the Estate of Dolores Little, deceased, brings this action on behalf of the Estate of Dolores Little under and by virtue of the Act of 1976, July 9, P.L. 586, No. 142, Section 2, 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 8302. 126. Plaintiff, Paul Little, individually and as the Executor of the Estate of Dolores Little, deceased, brings this action for the wrongful death of Dolores Little, deceased, on behalf of all persons entitled to recover damages under and by virtue of the Act of 1976, July 9, P.L. 586, No. 142, Section 2, 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 8301. 127. Defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital, Sporting; Hill Family Health Center, Richard Reh, M.D., Valentine Osborn, M.D., Internists of Central Pennsylvania, Ltd., Michael Gluck, M.D., Lynne Britton, M.D., Richard Schreiber, M.D., James Tyndall, M.D., Peter Brier, M.D., Ira Packman, M.D., Robert J. Kantor, M.D., Stephen Davis, M.D., Charles Inners, M.D. and Inners Davis Associates, are jointly and severally liable to the Estate of Dolores Little, deceased, for the damages as set forth herein. 128. Plaintiff Paul Little, individually and as the Executor of the Estate of Dolores Little, deceased, claims on behalf of said Estate the damages suffered by said Estate by reason of the death of the decedent, for the pain and suffering the decedent underwent prior to her death, for the loss of earnings and earning power for the decedent's 13 life expectancy, for the loss of pleasures and enjoyment of her life, and for all other damages sustained by reason of the death of the decedent. 129. Decedent, Dolores Little, did not bring an action for her injuries during her lifetime. 130. The following are the names of all persons entitled by law to recover damages for such wrongful death and their relationship to the decedent: a. Paul Little (Husband) b. Cheryl Little Brantner (Daughter) C. Gregory S. Little (Son) d. Karen L. Little (Daughter) 131. At the time of her death, Dolores Little was 53 years of age, having been born on August 8, 1941. 132. As a result of Dolores Little's wrongful death, Plaintiff Paul Little has suffered a pecuniary loss and in the future will be deprived of decedent's companionship, support, guidance, comfort and services and a claim is made therefor, as well as a claim for any other damages which are recoverable under and by virtue of the Act of 1976, July 9, P.L. 586, No. 142, Section 2, 42 Pa.C.S.A. Section 8301. 133. As a result of the decedent Dolores Little's wrongful death, Plaintiff Paul Little has incurred medical, funeral, burial and related expenses and a claim is made therefor. COUNTI Paul Little, Ind. & as Executor of Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased v. Richard Reh, M.D. 134. Paragraphs 1 through 133 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 14 135. Defendant Richard Reh, M.D. is liable to the Plaintiff for injuries and damages alleged herein which were directly and proximately caused by the Defendant's negligence with respect to Dolores Little, Deceased by: a. Failing to properly examine, monitor, evaluate and treat Mrs. Little from January 9, 1995 through January 24, 1995; b. Failing to properly diagnose and treat Mrs. Little's pulmonary condition, pneumonia and/or fungal infection in a timely fashion; C. Failing to make the diagnosis of pneumonia at any time before January 24, 1995 and order the treatment and/or medications necessary to treat the same appropriately; d. Failing to hospitalize Mrs. Little for treatment of her condition in a timely fashion; e. Failing to recommend, order or refer Mrs. Little to a pulmonologist for evaluation, monitoring and/or treatment of her pulmonary condition in a timely fashion; f. Failing to obtain a pulmonary consult in a timely fashion; g. Failing to recommend, order or obtain an infectious disease consult in a timely fashion; h. Allowing Mrs. Little's condition to deteriorate to such a point that she became septic with severe pneumonia and respiratory fa:Jure; i. Misdiagnosing Mrs. Little's condition despite the signs and symptoms she was experiencing; j. Failing to order a chest x-ray or othex diagnostic studies to further evaluate Mrs. Little's pulmonary status; k. Failing to order pulmonary function studies to determine Mrs. Little's 02 levels, her P02 levels and her PCo2 levels; 15 1. Failing to provide the correct treatment for Mrs. Little from January 9, 1995 through January 24, 1995; M. Failing to prevent the evolution and/or worsening of Mrs. Little's condition; n. Inappropriately prescribing ineffective and/or contraindicated antibiotic therapy for Mrs. Little; o. Inappropriately prescribing ineffective and/or contraindicated anti- fungal medications for Mrs. Little; P. Permitting Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal, and/or viral infection(s) to progress with inappropriate and contraindicated treatment; q. Prescribing insufficient, ineffective, and/or inappropriate anti- bacterial and/or anti-fungal therapy from January 9, 1995 through January 24, 1995; r. Failing to minimize the risk and/or prevent a worsening of Mrs. Little's condition through appropriate treatment of her bacterial, fungal and/or pulmonary infection; S. Permitting Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal, and/or pulmonary infection to progress to a severe and septic state; and t. Failing to hospitalize Mrs. Little for the necessary treatment when it was evident that her condition was not improving. 136. Defendant Reh is liable to the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages as alleged herein as set forth in paragraphs 116 through 133 above, which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. WHEREFORE, Paul Little, individually and as Executor of the Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased, demands judgment against Defendant Richard Reh, M.D. for damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. 16 COUNT II Paul Little, Ind. & as Executor of Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased v. Valentine Osborn, M.D. 137. Paragraphs 1 through 133 are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 138. Defendant Valentine Osborn, M.D. is liable to the Plaintiff for injuries and damages alleged herein which were directly and proximately caused by the Defendant's negligence with respect to Dolores Little, Deceased by: a. Failing to properly examine, monitor;, evaluate and treat Mrs. Little from January 9, 1995 through January 24, 1995; b. Failing to properly diagnose and treat Mrs. Little's pulmonary condition, pneumonia and/or fungal infection in a timely fashion; C. Failing to make the diagnosis of pneumonia at any time before January 24, 1995 and order the treatment and/ornmedications necessary to treat the same appropriately; d. Failing to hospitalize Mrs. Little for treatment of her condition in a timely fashion; e. Failing to recommend, order or refer Mrs. Little to a pulmonologist for evaluation, monitoring and/or treatment of her pulmonary condition in a timely fashion; f. Failing to obtain a pulmonary consult in a timely fashion; g. Failing to recommend, order or obtain an infectious disease consult in a timely fashion; h. Allowing Mrs. Little's condition to deteriorate to such a point that she became septic with severe pneumonia and respiratory failure; i. Misdiagnosing Mrs. Little's condition despite the signs and symptoms she was experiencing; 17 j. Failing to order a chest x-ray or other diagnostic studies to further evaluate Mrs. Little's pulmonary status; k. Failing to order pulmonary function studies to determine Mrs. Little's 02 levels, her P02 levels and her PCo2 levels; 1. Failing to provide the correct treatment for Mrs. Little from January 9, 1995 through January 24, 1995; M. Failing to prevent the evolution and/or worsening of Mrs. Little's condition; n. Inappropriately prescribing ineffective and/or contraindicated antibiotic therapy for Mrs. Little; o. Inappropriately prescribing ineffective and/or contraindicated anti- fungal medications for Mrs. Little; P. Permitting Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal, and/or viral infection(s) to progress with inappropriate and contraindicated treatment; q. Prescribing insufficient, ineffective, and/or inappropriate anti- bacterial and/or anti-fungal therapy from January 9, 1995 through January 24, 1995; r. Failing to minimize the risk and/or prevent a worsening of Mrs. Little's condition through appropriate treatment of her bacterial, fungal and/or pulmonary infection; S. Permitting Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal, and/or pulmonary infection to progress to a severe and septic state; and t. Failing to hospitalize Mrs. Little for the necessary treatment when it was evident that her condition was not improving. 139. Defendant Osborn is liable to the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages as alleged herein as set forth in paragraphs 116 through 133 above, which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 18 WHEREFORE, Paul Little, individually and as Executor of the Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased, demands judgment against Defendant Valentine Osborn, M.D. for damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. CnYTNT TTT Paul Little, Ind. & as Executor of Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased v. Sporting Hill Family Health Center 140. Paragraphs 1 through 133 and Count I and II of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 141. At all relevant times herein, Defendants Reh, Osborn, all physicians, interns, residents, nursing staff, medical staff and office staff were acting as the agents, apparent agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant Sporting Hill Family Health Center and were acting within the scope of their employment when providing professional medical services to the Plaintiffs decedent. 142. Defendant Sporting Hill Family Health Center, acting through its agents, apparent agents, servants and/or employees is liable to the Plaintiff for injuries and damages alleged herein which were directly and proximately caused by the acts set forth in paragraphs 135a through 135t above and paragraphs 138a through 138t above, which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 143. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligence, the Plaintiff has sustained injuries and damages as set forth in paragraphs 116 through 133 above, which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. WHEREFORE, Paul Little, individually and as Executor of the Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased, demands judgment against Defendant ,)porting Hill Family Health Center for damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. 19 COUNT IV Paul Little, Ind. & as Executor of Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased v. Holy Spirit Hospital 144. Paragraphs 1 through 133 and Count I through III of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 145. At all relevant times herein, Defendants Reh, Osborn, all physicians, interns, residents, nursing staff, medical staff and office staff and all of the members and employees of Sporting Hill Family Health Center who provided care and treatment to Mrs. Little were acting as the agents, apparent agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital and were acting within the scope of their employment when providing professional medical services to the Plaintiffs decedent. 146. Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital, acting through its agents, apparent agents, servants and/or employees is liable to the Plaintiff for injuries and damages alleged herein which were directly and proximately caused by its negligence with respect to the Plaintiffs decedent by: a. Failing to properly examine, monitor, evaluate and treat Mrs. Little from January 9, 1995 through January 24, 1995; b. Failing to properly diagnose and treat Mrs. Little's pulmonary condition, pneumonia and/or fungal infection in a timely fashion; C. Failing to make the diagnosis of pneumonia at any time before January 24, 1995 and order the treatment and/or medications necessary to treat the same appropriately; d. Failing to hospitalize Mrs. Little for treatment of her condition in a timely fashion; e. Failing to recommend, order or refer Mrs. Little to a pulmonologist for evaluation, monitoring and/or treatment of her pulmonary condition in a timely fashion; 20 f. Failing to obtain a pulmonary consult in a timely fashion; g. Failing to recommend, order or obtain an infectious disease consult in a timely fashion; h. Allowing Mrs. Little's condition to deteriorate to such a point that she became septic with severe pneumonia and respiratory failure; i. Misdiagnosing Mrs. Little's condition despite the signs and symptoms she was experiencing; j. Failing to order a chest x-ray or other diagnostic studies to further evaluate Mrs. Little's pulmonary status; k. Failing to order pulmonary function studies to determine Mrs. Little's 02 levels, her P02 levels and her PCo2 levels; 1. Failing to provide the correct treatment for Mrs. Little from January 9, 1995 through January 24, 1995; in. Failing to prevent the evolution and/or worsening of Mrs. Little's condition; n. Inappropriately prescribing ineffective and/or contraindicated antibiotic therapy for Mrs. Little; o. Inappropriately prescribing ineffective and/or contraindicated anti- fungal medications for Mrs. Little; P. Permitting Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal, and/or viral infection(s) to progress with inappropriate and contraindicated treatment; q. Prescribing insufficient, ineffective, and/or inappropriate anti- bacterial and/or anti-fungal therapy from January 9, 1995 through January 24, 1995; r. Failing to minimize the risk and/or prevent a worsening of Mrs. Little's condition through appropriate treatment of her bacterial, fungal and/or pulmonary infection; 21 S. Permitting Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal, and/or pulmonary infection to progress to a severe and septic state; and t. Failing to hospitalize Mrs. Little for the necessary treatment when it was evident that her condition was not improving. 147. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's negligence the Plaintiff has sustained injuries and damages as set forth in paragraphs 116 through 133 above, which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. WHEREFORE, Paul Little, individually and as Executor of the Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased, demands judgment against Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital for damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT V Paul Little, Ind. & as Executor of Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased v. Michael Gluck, M.D. 148. Paragraphs 1 through 133 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 149. Defendant Michael Gluck, M.D. is liable to the Plaintiff for injuries and damages as alleged herein which were directly and proximately caused by his negligence with respect to Dolores Little, decedent, by: a. Failing to properly examine, monitor, evaluate and treat Mrs. Little during her hospitalization from January 24, 1995 through February 16, 1995; b. Failing to properly and timely diagnose and treat Mrs. Little's fungal infection despite the fact that Mrs. Little advised of its existence and despite the results of various cultures ordered and obtained throughout :her hospitalization; C. Failing to properly diagnose and treat Mrs. Little's pulmonary condition during her hospitalization; 22 d. Failing to continue and/or prescribe anti-fungal medications at the time of Mrs. Little's admission; e. Failing to order or prescribe anti-fungal medications in a timely fashion; f. Failing to obtain an infectious disease consultation in a timely fashion; g. Failing to provide timely and appropriate treatment for Mrs. Little's pulmonary condition and/or her fungal condition; h. Failing to prevent the evolution of Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal and/or viral infection with the appropriate treatment; i. Failing to timely prescribe the appropriate treatment for Mrs. Little's fungal infection/sepsis; j. Allowing Mrs. Little's condition to progress to a septic state; k. Inappropriately prescribing ineffective and contraindicated antibiotic therapy for Mrs. Little's infection(s); 1. Permitting Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal and/or viral infections to progress with the use of ineffective, inappropriate and contraindicated treatment; M. Failing to minimize the risk and/or prevent Mrs. Little's fungal superinfection; n. Permitting Mrs. Little's fungal infection to progress to a fungal septicemia; o. Failing to properly monitor Mrs. Little to ensure that she was receiving therapeutic levels of the medications being prescribed; P. Failing to properly monitor Mrs. Little's theophylline levels throughout her hospitalization; q. Failing to order or obtain theophylline levels at any time after February 5, 1995; 23 r. Failing to recommend, order, prescribe and/or monitor Mrs. Little to ensure that she was receiving therapeutic doses of the appropriate medications for her fungal, bacterial and/or viral infection; S. Failing to properly monitor and maintain Mrs. Little's pulmonary support; t. Failing to properly monitor and maintain Mrs. Little's tracheostomy; U. Failing to recognize the erosion that existed around Mrs. Little's tracheostomy site and instituting measures to correct the same in a timely fashion; V. Failing to ensure that the tracheostomy did not dislodge; W. Allowing Mrs. Little to become oxygen deprived which ultimately led to brain damage and her death; X. Failing to recognize the significance and respond appropriately to the signs and symptoms Mrs. Little was exhibiting throughout her hospitalization which included but were not limited to an elevated temperatw-e, elevated wbc's, decreased hematacrit and hemoglobin, hemocult positive stool specimens, etc. Y. Failing to recognize and treat Mrs. Little's gastrointestinal bleed in a timely fashion; Z. Failing to provide the appropriate nutritional support to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization; aa. Failing to prescribe and administer the appropriate antibiotic treatment to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization; bb. Failing to prescribe and administer the appropriate anti-fungal therapy to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization in a timely i:ashion; cc. Failing to provide the appropriate monitoring of and maintenance to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization to prevent the event which occurred on or about February 14, 1995. 24 150. Defendant Gluck is liable to the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages as set forth in paragraphs 116 through 133 above which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. WHEREFORE, Paul Little, individually and as Executor of the Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased, demands judgment against Defendant Michael Gluck, M.D. for damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. C'nTTNT VT Paul Little, Ind. & as Executor of Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased v. James Tyndall, M.D. 151. Paragraphs 1 through 133 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 152. Defendant Tyndall, M.D. is liable to the Plaintiff for injuries and damages as alleged herein which were directly and proximately caused by his negligence with respect to Dolores Little, decedent by: a. Failing to properly examine, monitor, evaluate and treat Mrs. Little during her hospitalization from January 24, 1995 through February 16, 1995; b. Failing to properly and timely diagnose and treat Mrs. Little's fungal infection despite the fact that Mrs. Little advised of its existence and despite the results of various cultures ordered and obtained throughout her hospitalization; C. Failing to properly diagnose and treat Mrs. Little's pulmonary condition during her hospitalization; d. Failing to continue and/or prescribe anti-fungal medications at the time of Mrs. Little's admission; e. Failing to order or prescribe anti-Ringal medications in a timely fashion; 25 f. Failing to obtain an infectious disease consultation in a timely fashion; 9. Failing to provide timely and appropriate treatment for Mrs. Little's pulmonary condition and/or her fungal condition; h. Failing to prevent the evolution of Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal and/or viral infection with the appropriate treatment; i. Failing to timely prescribe the appropriate treatment for Mrs. Little's fungal infection/sepsis; j. Allowing Mrs. Little's condition to progress to a septic state; k. Inappropriately prescribing ineffective and contraindicated antibiotic therapy for Mrs. Little's infection(s); 1. Permitting Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal and/or viral infections to progress with the use of ineffective, inappropriate and contraindicated treatment; M. Failing to minimize the risk and/or prevent Mrs. Little's fungal superinfection; n. Permitting Mrs. Little's fungal infection to progress to a fungal septicemia; o. Failing to properly monitor Mrs. Little to ensure that she was receiving therapeutic levels of the medications being prescribed; P. Failing to properly monitor Mrs. Little's theophylline levels throughout her hospitalization; q. Failing to order or obtain theophylline levels at any time after February 5, 1995; r. Failing to recommend, order, prescribe and/or, monitor Mrs. Little to ensure that she was receiving therapeutic doses of the appropriate medications for her fungal, bacterial and/or viral infection; 26 S. Failing to properly monitor and maintain Mrs. Little's pulmonary support; t. Failing to properly monitor and maintain Mrs. Little's tracheostomy; U. Failing to recognize the erosion that existed around Mrs. Little's tracheostomy site and instituting measures to correct the szane in a timely fashion; V. Failing to ensure that the tracheostory did not dislodge; W. Allowing Mrs. Little to become oxygen deprived which ultimately led to brain damage and her death; X. Failing to recognize the significance and respond appropriately to the signs and symptoms Mrs. Little was exhibiting throughout her hospitalization which included but were not limited to an elevated temperature, elevated wbc's, decreased hematacrit and hemoglobin, hemocult positive stool specimens, etc. Y. Failing to recognize and treat Mrs. Little's gastrointestinal bleed in a timely fashion; Z. Failing to provide the appropriate nutritional support to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization; aa. Failing to prescribe and administer the appropriate antibiotic treatment to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization; bb. Failing to prescribe and administer the appropriate anti-fungal therapy to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization in a timely fashion; CC. Failing to provide the appropriate monitoring of and maintenance to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization to prevent the event which occurred on or about February 14, 1995. 153. Defendant Tyndall is liable to the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages as set forth in paragraphs 116 through 133 above which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 27 WHEREFORE, Paul Little, individually and as Executor of the Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased, demands judgment against Defendant James Tyndall, M.D. for damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT VII Paul Little, Ind. & as Executor of Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased v. Peter Brier, M.D. 154. Paragraphs 1 through 133 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 155. Defendant Peter Brier, M.D. is liable to the Plaintiff for injuries and damages as alleged herein which were directly and proximately caused by his negligence with respect to Dolores Little, decedent by: a. Failing to properly examine, monitor, evaluate and treat Mrs. Little during her hospitalization from January 24, 1995 through February 16, 1995; b. - Failing to properly and timely diagnose and treat Mrs. Little's fungal infection despite the fact that Mrs. Little advised of its existence and despite the results of various cultures ordered and obtained throughout her hospitalization; C. Failing to properly diagnose and treat Mrs. Little's pulmonary condition during her hospitalization; d. Failing to continue and/or prescribe anti-fungal medications at the time of Mrs. Little's admission; e. Failing to order or prescribe anti-fungal medications in a timely fashion; f. Failing to obtain an infectious disease consultation in a timely fashion; g. Failing to provide timely and appropriate treatment for Mrs. Little's pulmonary condition and/or her fungal condition; 28 h. Failing to prevent the evolution of Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal and/or viral infection with the appropriate treatment; i. Failing to timely prescribe the appropriate treatment for Mrs. Little's fungal infection/sepsis; j. Allowing Mrs. Little's condition to progress to a septic state; k. Inappropriately prescribing ineffective and contraindicated antibiotic therapy for Mrs. Little's infection(s); 1. Permitting Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal and/or viral infections to progress with the use of ineffective, inappropriate and contraindicated treatment; M. Failing to minimize the risk and/or prevent Mrs. Little's fungal superinfection; n. Permitting Mrs. Little's fungal infection to progress to a fungal septicemia; o. Failing to properly monitor Mrs. Little to ensure that she was receiving therapeutic levels of the medications being prescribed; p. Failing to properly monitor Mrs. Little's theophylline levels throughout her hospitalization; q. Failing to order or obtain theophylline levels at any time after February 5, 1995; r. Failing to recommend, order, prescribe and/or monitor Mrs. Little to ensure that she was receiving therapeutic doses of the appropriate medications for her fungal, bacterial and/or viral infection; S. Failing to properly monitor and maintain Mrs. Little's pulmonary support; t. Failing to properly monitor and maintain Mrs. Little's tracheostomy; 29 U. Failing to recognize the erosion that existed around Mrs. Little's tracheostomy site and instituting measures to correct the same in a timely fashion; V. Failing to ensure that the tracheostomy did not dislodge; W. Allowing Mrs. Little to become oxygen deprived which ultimately led to brain damage and her death; X. Failing to recognize the significance; and respond appropriately to the signs and symptoms Mrs. Little was exhibiting throughout her hospitalization which included but were not limited to an elevated temperature, elevated wbc's, decreased hematacrit and hemoglobin, hemocult positive stool specimens, etc. Y. Failing to recognize and treat Mrs. L,ittle's gastrointestinal bleed in a timely fashion; Z. Failing to provide the appropriate nutritional support to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization; aa. Failing to prescribe and administer the appropriate antibiotic treatment to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization; bb. Failing to prescribe and administer the appropriate anti-fungal therapy to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization in a timely fashion; cc. Failing to provide the appropriate monitoring of and maintenance to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization to prevent the event which occurred on or about February 14, 1995. 156. Defendant Brier is liable to the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages as set forth in paragraphs 116 through 133 above which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. WHEREFORE, Paul Little, individually and as Executor of the Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased, demands judgment against Defendant Peter Brier, M.D. for damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. 30 d" 1-%T TIkTT X TTTT Paul Little, Ind. & as Executor of Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased v. L. Lynne Britton, M.D. 157. Paragraphs 1 through 133 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 158. Defendant L. Lynne Britton, M.D. is liable to the Plaintiff for injuries and damages as alleged herein which were directly and proximately caused by his negligence with respect to Dolores Little, decedent by: a. Failing to properly examine, monitor, evaluate and treat Mrs. Little during her hospitalization from January 24, 1995 through February 16, 1995; b. Failing to properly and timely diagnose and treat Mrs. Little's fungal infection despite the fact that Mrs. Little advised of its existence and despite the results of various cultures ordered and obtained throughout her hospitalization; C. Failing to properly diagnose and treat Mrs. Little's pulmonary condition during her hospitalization; d. Failing to continue and/or prescribe anti-fungal medications at the time of Mrs. Little's admission; e. Failing to order or prescribe anti-fimgal medications in a timely fashion; f. Failing to obtain an infectious disease consultation in a timely fashion; g. Failing to provide timely and appropriate treatment for Mrs. Little's pulmonary condition and/or her fungal condition; h. Failing to prevent the evolution of Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal and/or viral infection with the appropriate treatment; i. Failing to timely prescribe the appropriate treatment for Mrs. Little's fungal infection/sepsis; 31 j. Allowing Mrs. Little's condition to progress to a septic state; k. Inappropriately prescribing ineffective and contraindicated antibiotic therapy for Mrs. Little's infection(s); 1. Permitting Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal and/or viral infections to progress with the use of ineffective, inappropriate and contraindicated treatment; M. Failing to minimize the risk and/or prevent Mrs. Little's fungal superinfection; n. Permitting Mrs. Little's fungal infection to progress to a fungal septicemia; o. Failing to properly monitor Mrs. Little to ensure that she, was receiving therapeutic levels of the medications being prescribed; P. Failing to properly monitor Mrs. Little's theophylline levels throughout her hospitalization; q. Failing to order or obtain theophy cline levels at any time after February 5, 1995; r. Failing to recommend, order, prescribe and/or monitor Mrs. Little to ensure that she was receiving therapeutic doses of the appropriate medications for her fungal, bacterial and/or viral infection; S. Failing to properly monitor and maintain Mrs. Little's pulmonary support; t. Failing to properly monitor and maintain Mrs. Little's tracheostomy; U. Failing to recognize the erosion that existed around Mrs. Little's tracheostomy site and instituting measures to correct the same in a timely fashion; V. Failing to ensure that the tracheostomy did not dislodge; W. Allowing Mrs. Little to become oxygen deprived which ultimately led to brain damage and her death; 32 X. Failing to recognize the significance and respond appropriately to the signs and symptoms Mrs. Little was exhibiting throughout her hospitalization which included but were not limited to an elevated temperature, elevated wbc's, decreased hematacrit and hemoglobin, hemocult positive stool specimens, etc. Y- Failing to recognize and treat Mrs. Little's gastrointestinal bleed in a timely fashion; Z. Failing to provide the appropriate nutritional support to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization; aa. Failing to prescribe and administer the appropriate antibiotic treatment to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization; bb. Failing to prescribe and administer the appropriate anti-fungal therapy to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization in a timely :Fashion; CC. Failing to provide the appropriate monitoring of and maintenance to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization to prevent the event which occurred on or about February 14, 1995. 159. Defendant Britton is liable to the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages as set forth in paragraphs 116 through 133 above which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. WHEREFORE, Paul Little, individually and as Executor of the Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased, demands judgment against L. Lynne Britton, M.D. for damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT IX Paul Little, Ind. & as Executor of Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased v. Robert Schreiber, M.D. 160. Paragraphs 1 through 133 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 33 161. Defendant Robert Schreiber, M.D. is liable to the Plaintiff for injuries and damages as alleged herein which were directly and proximately caused by his negligence with respect to Dolores Little, decedent by: a. Failing to properly examine, monitor, evaluate and treat Mrs. Little during her hospitalization from January 24, 1995 through February 16, 1995; b. Failing to properly and timely diagnose and treat Mrs. Little's fungal infection despite the fact that Mrs. Little advised of its existence and despite the results of various cultures ordered and obtained throughout her hospitalization; C. Failing to properly diagnose and treat Mrs. Little's pulmonary condition during her hospitalization; d. Failing to continue and/or prescribe anti-fungal medications at the time of Mrs. Little's admission; e. Failing to order or prescribe anti-fiingal medications in a timely fashion; f. Failing to obtain an infectious disease consultation in a timely fashion; g. Failing to provide timely and appropriate treatment for Mrs. Little's pulmonary condition and/or her fungal condition; h. Failing to prevent the evolution of Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal and/or viral infection with the appropriate treatment; i. Failing to timely prescribe the appropriate treatment for Mrs. Little's fungal infection/sepsis; j. Allowing Mrs. Little's condition to progress to a septic state; k. Inappropriately prescribing ineffective and contraindicated antibiotic therapy for Mrs. Little's infection(s); 1. Permitting Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal and/or viral infections to progress with the use of ineffective, inappropriate and contraindicated treatment; 34 M. Failing to minimize the risk and/or prevent Mrs. Little's fungal superinfection; n. Permitting Mrs. Little's fungal infection to progress to a fungal septicemia; o. Failing to properly monitor Mrs. Little to ensure that she was receiving therapeutic levels of the medications being prescribed; P. Failing to properly monitor Mrs. Little's theophylline levels throughout her hospitalization; q. Failing to order or obtain theophyl.line levels at any time after February 5, 1995; r. Failing to recommend, order, prescribe and/or monitor Mrs. Little to ensure that she was receiving therapeutic doses of the appropriate medications for her fungal, bacterial and/or viral infection; S. Failing to properly monitor and maintain Mrs. Little's pulmonary support; t. Failing to properly monitor and maintain Mrs. Little's tracheostomy; U. Failing to recognize the erosion that existed around Mrs. Little's tracheostomy site and instituting measures to correct the same in a timely fashion; V. Failing to ensure that the tracheostomy did not dislodge; W. Allowing Mrs. Little to become oxygen deprived which ultimately led to brain damage and her death; X. Failing to recognize the significance and respond appropriately to the signs and symptoms Mrs. Little was exhibiting throughout her hospitalization which included but were not limited to an elevated temperature, elevated wbc's, decreased hematacrit and hemoglobin, hemocult positive stool specimens, etc. 35 Y. Failing to recognize and treat Mrs. L,ittle's gastrointestinal bleed in a timely fashion; Z. Failing to provide the appropriate nutritional support to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization; aa. Failing to prescribe and administer the appropriate antibiotic treatment to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization; bb. Failing to prescribe and administer the appropriate anti-fungal therapy to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization in a timely fashion; cc. Failing to provide the appropriate monitoring of and maintenance to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization to prevent the event which occurred on or about February 14, 1995. 162. Defendant Schreiber is liable to the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages as set forth in paragraphs 116 through 133 above which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. WHEREFORE, Paul Little, individually and as Executor of the Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased, demands judgment against Defendant Robert Schreiber, M.D. for damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT X Paul Little, Ind. & as Executor of Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased v. Ira Packman, M.D. 163. Paragraphs 1 through 133 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 164. Defendant Ira Packman, M.D. is liable to the Plaintiff for injuries and damages as alleged herein which were directly and proximately caused by his negligence with respect to Dolores Little, decedent by: 36 a. Failing to properly examine, monitor, evaluate and treat Mrs. Little during her hospitalization from January 24, 1995 through February 16, 1995; b. Failing to properly and timely diagnose and treat Mrs. Little's fungal infection despite the fact that Mrs. Little advised of its existence and despite the results of various cultures ordered and obtained throughout her hospitalization; C. Failing to properly diagnose and 1:reat Mrs. Little's pulmonary condition during her hospitalization; d. Failing to continue and/or prescribe anti-fungal medications at the time of Mrs. Little's admission; e. Failing to order or prescribe anti-fimgal medications in a timely fashion; f. Failing to obtain an infectious disease consultation in a timely fashion; g. Failing to provide timely and appropriate treatment for Mrs. Little's pulmonary condition and/or her fungal condition; h. Failing to prevent the evolution of Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal and/or viral infection with the appropriate treatment; i. Failing to timely prescribe the appropriate treatment for Mrs. Little's fungal infection/sepsis; j. Allowing Mrs. Little's condition to progress to a septic state; k. Inappropriately prescribing ineffective and contraindicated antibiotic therapy for Mrs. Little's infection(s); 1. Permitting Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal and/or viral infections to progress with the use of ineffective, inappropriate and contraindicated treatment; M. Failing to minimize the risk and/or prevent Mrs. Little's fungal superinfection; 37 n. Permitting Mrs. Little's fungal infection to progress to a fungal septicemia; o. Failing to properly monitor Mrs. Little to ensure that she was receiving therapeutic levels of the medications being prescribed; P. Failing to properly monitor Mrs. Little's theophylline levels throughout her hospitalization; q. Failing to order or obtain theophylline levels at any time after February 5, 1995; r. Failing to recommend, order, prescribe and/or monitor Mrs. Little to ensure that she was receiving therapeutic doses of the appropriate medications for her fungal, bacterial and/or viral infection; S. Failing to properly monitor and maintain Mrs. Little's pulmonary support; t. Failing to properly monitor and maintain Mrs. Little's tracheostomy; U. Failing to recognize the erosion that existed around Mrs. Little's tracheostomy site and instituting measures to correct the same in a timely fashion; V. Failing to ensure that the tracheostory did not dislodge; W. Allowing Mrs. Little to become oxygen deprived which ultimately led to brain damage and her death; X. Failing to recognize the significance and respond appropriately to the signs and symptoms Mrs. Little was exhibiting throughout her hospitalization which included but were not limited to an elevated temperature, elevated wbc's, decreased hematacrit and hemoglobin, hemocult positive stool specimens, etc. Y- Failing to recognize and treat Mrs. Little's gastrointestinal bleed in a timely fashion; 38 Z. Failing to provide the appropriate nutritional support to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization; aa. Failing to prescribe and administer the appropriate antibiotic treatment to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization; bb. Failing to prescribe and administer the appropriate anti-fungal therapy to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization in a timely fashion; CC. Failing to provide the appropriate monitoring of and maintenance to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization to prevent the event which occurred on or about February 14, 1995. 165. Defendant Packman is liable to the Plaintif' for the injuries and damages as set forth in paragraphs 116 through 133 above which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. WHEREFORE, Paul Little, individually and as Executor of the Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased, demands judgment against Defendant Ira. Packman, M.D. for damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT XI Paul Little, Ind. & as Executor of Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased v. Stephen Davis, M.D. 166. Paragraphs 1 through 133 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 167. Defendant Stephen Davis, M.D. is liable to the Plaintiff for injuries and damages as alleged herein which were directly and proximately caused by his negligence with respect to Dolores Little, decedent by: a. Failing to properly examine, monitor, evaluate and treat Mrs. Little during her hospitalization from January 24, 1995 through February 16, 1995; 39 b. Failing to properly and timely diagnose and treat Mrs. Little's fungal infection despite the fact that Mrs. Little advised of its existence and despite the results of various cultures ordered and obtained throughout her hospitalization; C. Failing to properly diagnose and treat Mrs. Little's pulmonary condition during her hospitalization; d. Failing to continue and/or prescribe anti-fungal medications at the time of Mrs. Little's admission; e. Failing to order or prescribe anti-fungal medications in a timely fashion; f. Failing to obtain an infectious disease consultation in a timely fashion; g. Failing to provide timely and appropriate treatment for Mrs. Little's pulmonary condition and/or her fungal condition; h. Failing to prevent the evolution of Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal and/or viral infection with the appropriate treatment; i. Failing to timely prescribe the appropriate treatment for Mrs. Little's fungal infection/sepsis; j. Allowing Mrs. Little's condition to progress to a septic state; k. Inappropriately prescribing ineffective and contraindicated antibiotic therapy for Mrs. Little's infection(s); 1. Permitting Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal and/or viral infections to progress with the use of ineffective, inappropriate and contraindicated treatment; in. Failing to minimize the risk and/or prevent Mrs. Little's fungal superinfection; n. Permitting Mrs. Little's fungal infection to progress to a fungal septicemia; 40 o. Failing to properly monitor Mrs. Little to ensure that she was receiving therapeutic levels of the medications being prescribed; P. Failing to properly monitor Mrs. Little's theophylline levels throughout her hospitalization; q. Failing to order or obtain theophylline levels at any time after February 5, 1995; r. Failing to recommend, order, prescribe and/or monitor Mrs. Little to ensure that she was receiving therapeutic doses of the appropriate medications for her fungal, bacterial and/or viral infection; S. Failing to properly monitor and maintain Mrs. Little's pulmonary support; t. Failing to properly monitor and maintain Mrs. Little's tracheostomy; U. Failing to recognize the erosion that existed around Mrs. Little's tracheostomy site and instituting measures to correct the same in a timely fashion; V. Failing to ensure that the tracheostomy did not dislodge; W. Allowing Mrs. Little to become oxygen deprived which ultimately led to brain damage and her death; X. Failing to recognize the significance; and respond appropriately to the signs and symptoms Mrs. Little was exhibiting throughout her hospitalization which included but were not limited to an elevated temperature, elevated wbc's, decreased hematacrit and hemoglobin, hemocult positive stool specimens, etc. Y. Failing to recognize and treat Mrs. Little's gastrointestinal bleed in a timely fashion; Z. Failing to provide the appropriate nutritional support to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization; 41 aa. Failing to prescribe and administer the appropriate antibiotic treatment to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization; bb. Failing to prescribe and administer the appropriate anti-fungal therapy to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization in a timely fashion; cc. Failing to provide the appropriate monitoring of and maintenance to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization to prevent the event which occurred on or about February 14, 1995. 168. Defendant Davis is liable to the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages as set forth in paragraphs 116 through 133 above which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. WHEREFORE, Paul Little, individually and as Executor of the Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased, demands judgment against Defendant Stephen Davis, M.D. for damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT XII Paul Little, Ind. & as Executor of Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased v. Charles Inners, M.D. 169. Paragraphs 1 through 133 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 170. Defendant Charles Inners, M.D. is liable to the Plaintiff for injuries and damages as alleged herein which were directly and proximately caused by his negligence with respect to Dolores Little, decedent by: a. Failing to properly examine, monitor, evaluate and treat Mrs. Little during her hospitalization from January 24, 1995 through February 16, 1995; b. Failing to properly and timely diagnose and treat Mrs. Little's fungal infection despite the fact that Mrs. Little advised of its existence and despite the results of various cultures ordered and obtained throughout her hospitalization; 42 C. Failing to properly diagnose and rreat Mrs. Little's pulmonary condition during her hospitalization; d. Failing to continue and/or prescribe anti-fungal medications at the time of Mrs. Little's admission; e. Failing to order or prescribe anti-fungal medications in a timely fashion; f. Failing to obtain an infectious disease consultation in a timely fashion; g. Failing to provide timely and appropriate treatment for Mrs. Little's pulmonary condition and/or her fungal condition; h. Failing to prevent the evolution of Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal and/or viral infection with the appropriate treatment; i. Failing to timely prescribe the appropriate treatment for Mrs. Little's fungal infection/sepsis; j. Allowing Mrs. Little's condition to progress to a septic state; k. Inappropriately prescribing ineffective and contraindicated antibiotic therapy for Mrs. Little's infection(s); 1. Permitting Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal and/or viral infections to progress with the use of ineffective, inappropriate and contraindicated treatment; M. Failing to minimize the risk and/or prevent Mrs. Little's fungal superinfection; n. Permitting Mrs. Little's fungal infection to progress to a fungal septicemia; o. Failing to properly monitor Mrs. Little to ensure that she was receiving therapeutic levels of the medications being prescribed; P. Failing to properly monitor Mrs. Little's theophylline levels throughout her hospitalization; 43 q. Failing to order or obtain theophylline levels at any time after February 5, 1995; r. Failing to recommend, order, prescribe and/or monitor Mrs. Little to ensure that she was receiving therapeutic doses of the appropriate medications for her fungal, bacterial and/or viral infection; S. Failing to properly monitor and maintain Mrs. Little's pulmonary support; t. Failing to properly monitor and maintain Mrs. Little's tracheostomy; U. Failing to recognize the erosion that existed around Mrs. Little's tracheostomy site and instituting measures to correct the same in a timely fashion; V. Failing to ensure that the tracheostomy did not dislodge; W. Allowing Mrs. Little to become oxygen deprived which ultimately led to brain damage and her death; X. Failing to recognize the significance and respond appropriately to the signs and symptoms Mrs. Little was exhibiting throughout her hospitalization which included but were not limited to an elevated temperature, elevated wbc's, decreased hematacrit and hemoglobin, hemocult positive stool specimens, etc. Y. Failing to recognize and treat Mrs. L,ittle's gastrointestinal bleed in a timely fashion; Z. Failing to provide the appropriate nutritional support to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization; aa. Failing to prescribe and administer the appropriate antibiotic treatment to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization; bb. Failing to prescribe and administer the appropriate anti-fungal therapy to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization in a timely :fashion; 44 cc. Failing to provide the appropriate monitoring of and maintenance to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization to prevent the event which occurred on or about February 14, 1995. 171. Defendant Inners is liable to the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages as set forth in paragraphs 116 through 133 above which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. WHEREFORE, Paul Little, individually and as Executor of the Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased, demands judgment against Defendant Charles Inners, M.D. for damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT XIII Paul Little, Ind. & as Executor of Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased v. Internists of Central Pennsylvania, Ltd. 172. Paragraphs 1 through 133 and Counts V through X of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 173. Defendant Internists of Central Pennsylvania, Ltd., through the acts of its agents, apparent agents, servants and/or employees is liable to the Plaintiff for injuries and damages as alleged herein which were directly and proximately caused by the negligence of its agents, apparent agents, servants and/or employees with respect to Dolores Little, decedent by: a. Failing to properly examine, monitor, evaluate and treat Mrs. Little during her hospitalization from January 24, 1995 through February 16, 1995; b. Failing to properly and timely diagnose and treat Mrs. Little's fungal infection despite the fact that Mrs. Little advised of its existence and despite the results of various cultures ordered and obtained throughout tier hospitalization; C. Failing to properly diagnose and treat Mrs. Little's pulmonary condition during her hospitalization; 45 d. Failing to continue and/or prescribe anti-fungal medications at the time of Mrs. Little's admission; e. Failing to order or prescribe anti-fiingal medications in a timely fashion; f. Failing to obtain an infectious disease consultation in a timely fashion; g. Failing to provide timely and appropriate treatment for Mrs. Little's pulmonary condition and/or her fungal condition; h. Failing to prevent the evolution of Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal and/or viral infection with the appropriate treatment; i. Failing to timely prescribe the appropriate treatment for Mrs. Little's fungal infection/sepsis; j. Allowing Mrs. Little's condition to progress to a septic state; k. Inappropriately prescribing ineffective and contraindicated antibiotic therapy for Mrs. Little's infection(s); 1. Permitting Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal and/or viral infections to progress with the use of ineffective, inappropriate and contraindicated treatment; in. Failing to minimize the risk and/or prevent Mrs. Little's fungal superinfection; n. Permitting Mrs. Little's fungal infection to progress to a fungal septicemia; o. Failing to properly monitor Mrs. Little to ensure that she was receiving therapeutic levels of the medications being prescribed; p. Failing to properly monitor Mrs. Little's theophylline levels throughout her hospitalization; q. Failing to order or obtain theophylline levels at any time after February 5, 1995; 46 r. Failing to recommend, order, prescribe and/or monitor Mrs. Little to ensure that she was receiving therapeutic doses of the appropriate medications for her fungal, bacterial and/or viral infection; S. Failing to properly monitor and maintain Mrs. Little's pulmonary support; t. Failing to properly monitor and maintain Mrs. Little's tracheostomy; U. Failing to recognize the erosion that existed around Mrs. Little's tracheostomy site and instituting measures to correct the same in a timely fashion; V. Failing to ensure that the tracheostomy did not dislodge; W. Allowing Mrs. Little to become oxygen deprived which ultimately led to brain damage and her death; X. Failing to recognize the significance and respond appropriately to the signs and symptoms Mrs. Little was exhibiting throughout her hospitalization which included but were not limited to an elevated temperature, elevated wbc's, decreased hematacrit and hemoglobin, hemocult positive stool specimens, etc. Y. Failing to recognize and treat Mrs. Little's gastrointestinal bleed in a timely fashion; Z. Failing to provide the appropriate nutritional support to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization; aa. Failing to prescribe and administer the appropriate antibiotic treatment to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization; bb. Failing to prescribe and administer the appropriate anti-fungal therapy to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization in a timely fashion; cc. Failing to provide the appropriate monitoring of and maintenance to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization to prevent the event which occurred on or about February 14, 1995. 47 174. Defendant Internists of Central Pennsylvania, Ltd. is liable to the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages as set forth in paragraphs 116 through 133 above which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. WHEREFORE, Paul Little, individually and as Executor of the Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased, demands judgment against Defendant Internists of Central Pennsylvania, Ltd. for damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdictional emount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT XIV Paul Little, Ind. & as Executor of Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased v. Inners Davis Associates 175. Paragraphs 1 through 133 and Counts XI and XII of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 176. Defendant Inners Davis Associates, through the acts of its agents, apparent agents, servants and/or employees is liable to the Plaintiff for injuries and damages as alleged herein which were directly and proximately caused by the negligence of its agents, apparent agents, servants and/or employees with respect to Dolores Little, decedent by: a. Failing to properly examine, monitor., evaluate and treat Mrs. Little during her hospitalization from January 24, 1995 through February 16, 1995; b. Failing to properly and timely diagnose and treat Mrs. Little's fungal infection despite the fact that Mrs. Little advised of' its existence and despite the results of various cultures ordered and obtained throughout her hospitalization; C. Failing to properly diagnose and treat Mrs. Little's pulmonary condition during her hospitalization; d. Failing to continue and/or prescribe anti-fungal medications at the time of Mrs. Little's admission; 48 e. Failing to order or prescribe anti-fungal medications in a timely fashion; f. Failing to obtain an infectious disease consultation in a timely fashion; g. Failing to provide timely and appropriate treatment for Mrs. Little's pulmonary condition and/or her fungal condition; h. Failing to prevent the evolution of Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal and/or viral infection with the appropriate treatment; i. Failing to timely prescribe the appropriate treatment for Mrs. Little's fungal infection/sepsis; j. Allowing Mrs. Little's condition to progress to a septic state; k. Inappropriately prescribing ineffective and contraindicated antibiotic therapy for Mrs. Little's infection(s); 1. Permitting Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal and/or viral infections to progress with the use of ineffective, inappropriate and contraindicated treatment; in. Failing to minimize the risk and/or prevent Mrs. Little's fungal superinfection; n. Permitting Mrs. Little's fungal infection to progress to a fungal septicemia; o. Failing to properly monitor Mrs. Little to ensure that she was receiving therapeutic levels of the medications being prescribed; P. Failing to properly monitor Mrs. Little's theophylline levels throughout her hospitalization; q. Failing to order or obtain theophylline levels at any time after February 5, 1995; 49 r. Failing to recommend, order, prescribe and/or monitor Mrs. Little to ensure that she was receiving therapeutic doses of the appropriate medications for her fungal, bacterial and/or viral infection; S. Failing to properly monitor and maintain Mrs. Little's pulmonary support; t. Failing to properly monitor and maintain Mrs. Little's tracheostomy; U. Failing to recognize the erosion that existed around Mrs. Little's tracheostomy site and instituting measures to correct the same in a timely fashion; V. Failing to ensure that the tracheostom.y did not dislodge; W. Allowing Mrs. Little to become oxygen deprived which ultimately led to brain damage and her death; X. Failing to recognize the significance and respond appropriately to the signs and symptoms Mrs. Little was exhibiting throughout her hospitalization which included but were not limited to an elevated temperature, elevated wbc's, decreased hematacrit and hemoglobin, hemocult positive stool specimens, etc. Y. Failing to recognize and treat Mrs. Little's gastrointestinal bleed in a timely fashion; Z. Failing to provide the appropriate nutritional support to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization; aa. Failing to prescribe and administer the appropriate antibiotic treatment to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization; bb. Failing to prescribe and administer the appropriate anti-fungal therapy to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization in a timely fashion; cc. Failing to provide the appropriate monitoring of and maintenance to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization to prevent the event which occurred on or about February 14, 1995. 50 177. Defendant Inners Davis Associates is liable to the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages as set forth in paragraphs 116 through 133 above which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. WHEREFORE, Paul Little, individually and as Executor of the Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased, demands judgment against Defendant Inners Davis Associates for damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT XV Paul Little, Ind. & as Executor of Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased v. Holy Spirit Hospital 178. Paragraphs 1 through 133 and Counts I through XVI of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 179. Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital through the actions of its agents, apparent agents, servants and/or employees is liable to the Plaintiff for injuries and damages as alleged herein which were directly and proximately caused by the negligence of its agents, apparent agents, servants and/or employees with respect to Dolores Little, decedent by: a. Failing to properly examine, monitor, evaluate and treat Mrs. Little during her hospitalization from January 24, 1995 through February 16, 1995; b. Failing to properly and timely diagnose and treat Mrs. Little's fungal infection despite the fact that Mrs. Little advised of its existence and despite the results of various cultures ordered and obtained throughout her hospitalization; C. Failing to properly diagnose and treat Mrs. Little's pulmonary condition during her hospitalization; d. Failing to continue and/or prescribe anti-fungal medications at the time of Mrs. Little's admission; 51 e. Failing to order or prescribe anti-ftingal medications in a timely fashion; f. Failing to obtain an infectious disease consultation in a timely fashion; g. Failing to provide timely and appropriate treatment for Mrs. Little's pulmonary condition and/or her fungal condition; h. Failing to prevent the evolution of Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal and/or viral infection with the appropriate treatment; i. Failing to timely prescribe the appropriate treatment for Mrs. Little's fungal infection/sepsis; j. Allowing Mrs. Little's condition to progress to a septic state; k. Inappropriately prescribing ineffective and contraindicated antibiotic therapy for Mrs. Little's infection(s); 1. Permitting Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal and/or viral infections to progress with the use of ineffective, inappropriate and contraindicated treatment; M. Failing to minimize the risk and/or prevent Mrs. Little's fungal superinfection; n. Permitting Mrs. Little's fungal infection to progress to a fungal septicemia; o. Failing to properly monitor Mrs. Little to ensure that she was receiving therapeutic levels of the medications being prescribed; P. Failing to properly monitor Mrs. Little's theophylline levels throughout her hospitalization; q. Failing to order or obtain theophylline levels at any time after February 5, 1995; 52 r. Failing to recommend, order, prescribe and/or monitor Mrs. Little to ensure that she was receiving therapeutic doses of the appropriate medications for her fungal, bacterial and/or viral infection; S. Failing to properly monitor and maintain Mrs. Little's pulmonary support; t. Failing to properly monitor and maintain Mrs. Little's tracheostomy; U. Failing to recognize the erosion that existed around Mrs. Little's tracheostomy site and instituting measures to correct the same in a timely fashion; V. Failing to ensure that the tracheostomy did not dislodge; W. Allowing Mrs. Little to become oxygen deprived which ultimately led to brain damage and her death; X. Failing to recognize the significance; and respond appropriately to the signs and symptoms Mrs. Little was exhibiting throughout her hospitalization which included but were not limited to an elevated temperature, elevated wbc's, decreased hematacrit and hemoglobin, hemocult positive stool specimens, etc. Y_ Failing to recognize and treat Mrs. L ittle's gastrointestinal bleed in a timely fashion; Z. Failing to provide the appropriate nutritional support to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization; aa. Failing to prescribe and administer the appropriate antibiotic treatment to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization; bb. Failing to prescribe and administer the appropriate anti-fungal therapy to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization in a timely fashion; cc. Failing to provide the appropriate monitoring of and maintenance to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization to prevent the event which occurred on or about February 14, 1995. 53 180. Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital is liable to the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages as set forth in paragraphs 116 through 133 above which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. WHEREFORE, Paul Little, individually and as Executor of the Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased, demands judgment against Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital for damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT XVI Paul Little, Ind. & as Executor of Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased v. Robert Kantor, M.D. 181. Paragraphs 1 through 133 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 182. Defendant Robert Kantor, M.D. is liable to the Plaintiff for injuries and damages as alleged herein which were directly and proximately caused by his negligence with respect to Dolores Little, decedent by: a. Failing to properly examine, monitor; evaluate and treat Mrs. Little during her hospitalization from January 24, 1995 through February 16, 1995; b. Failing to properly and timely diagnose and treat Mrs. Little's fungal infection despite the fact that Mrs. Little advised of its existence and despite the results of various cultures ordered and obtained throughout her hospitalization; C. Failing to properly diagnose and treat Mrs. Little's pulmonary condition during her hospitalization; d. Failing to continue and/or prescribe anti-fungal medications at the time of Mrs. Little's admission; e. Failing to order or prescribe anti-fungal medications in a timely fashion; 54 f. Failing to obtain an infectious disease consultation in a timely fashion; g. Failing to provide timely and appropriate treatment for Mrs. Little's pulmonary condition and/or her fungal condition; h. Failing to prevent the evolution of Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal and/or viral infection with the appropriate treatment; i. Failing to timely prescribe the appropriate treatment for Mrs. Little's fungal infection/sepsis; j. Allowing Mrs. Little's condition to progress to a septic state; k. Inappropriately prescribing ineffective and contraindicated antibiotic therapy for Mrs. Little's infection(s); 1. Permitting Mrs. Little's bacterial, fungal and/or viral infections to progress with the use of ineffective, inappropriate and contraindicated treatment; in. Failing to minimize the risk and/or prevent Mrs. Little's fungal superinfection; n. Permitting Mrs. Little's fungal infection to progress to a fungal septicemia; o. Failing to properly monitor Mrs. Little to ensure that she was receiving therapeutic levels of the medications being prescribed; P. Failing to properly monitor Mrs. Little's theophylline levels throughout her hospitalization; q. Failing to order or obtain theophylline levels at any time after February 5, 1995; r. Failing to recommend, order, prescribe and/or monitor Mrs. Little to ensure that she was receiving therapeutic doses of the appropriate medications for her fungal, bacterial and/or viral infection; 55 S. Failing to properly monitor and maintain Mrs. Little's pulmonary support; t. Failing to properly monitor and maintain Mrs. Little's tracheostomy; U. Failing to recognize the erosion that existed around Mrs. Little's tracheostomy site and instituting measures to correct the same in a timely fashion; V. Failing to ensure that the tracheostomy did not dislodge; W. Allowing Mrs. Little to become oxygen deprived which ultimately led to brain damage and her death; X. Failing to recognize the significance; and respond appropriately to the signs and symptoms Mrs. Little was exhibiting throughout her hospitalization which included but were not limited to an elevated temperature, elevated wbc's, decreased hematacrit and hemoglobin, hemocult positive stool specirr ens, etc. Y. Failing to recognize and treat Mrs. Little's gastrointestinal bleed in a timely fashion; Z. Failing to provide the appropriate nutritional support to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization; aa. Failing to prescribe and administer the appropriate antibiotic treatment to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization; bb. Failing to prescribe and administer the appropriate anti-fungal therapy to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization in a timely fashion; cc. Failing to provide the appropriate monitoring of and maintenance to Mrs. Little during her hospitalization to prevent the event which occurred on or about February 14, 1995. 183. Defendant Robert Kantor, M.D. is liable to the Plaintiff for the injuries and damages as set forth in paragraphs 116 through 133 above which are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 56 WHEREFORE, Paul Little, individually and as Executor of the Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased, demands judgment against Defendant Robert Kantor, M.D. for damages in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. R. J. MARZELLA, ESQUIR73 & ASSOCIATES, P.C. R in . Marz I a, Esquire I.D. No. 66856 3515 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 234-7828 Counsel for Plaintiff / el Dated: - -' 57 VERIFICATION I Paul Little, Individually and as Executor of the Estate of Dolores Little, Plaintiff, do hereby swear and affirm that the facts and matters set forth in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. We understand that the statements made therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: -?uW-- Paul Little Exhibit B 3tq? PAUL LITTLE, individually and as the Executor of the Estate of DOLORES LITTLE, Deceased, Plaintiff v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA, LTD., MICHAEL GLUCK, M.D., L. LYNNE BRITTON, M.D., RICHARD SCHREIBER, M.D., JAMES TYNDALL, M.D., PETER BRIER, M.D., IRA PECKMAN, M.D., ROBERT KANTOR, M.D., STEPHEN DAVIS, M.D., CHARLES INNERS, M.D., and INNERS DAVIS ASSOCIATES, Defendants :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL AC'T'ION - LAW Docket No. 97-99 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE BY PROTHONOTARY OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 140. 236 You are hereby notified that Judgment has been entered in the above-captioned matter pursuant to the June 17, 2002 Order of The Honorable Edgar B. Bayley, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto. Date: JU.C)r_24 Curt Long, Prothono Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas 31 H1 D PAUL LITTLE, individually and as the executor of the estate of DOLORES LITTLE, deceased, PLAINTIFF V. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, SPORTING HILL FAMILY HEALTH CENTER, INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA, LTD., MICHAEL GLUCK, M.D., L. LYNNE BRITTON, M.D., RICHARD SCHREIBER, M.D., : JAMES TYNDALL, M.D., PETER BRIER, M.D., IRA PACKMAN, M.D., ROBERT KANTOR, M.D., STEPHEN DAVIS, M.D., CHARLES INNERS, M.D.,: and INNERS DAVIS ASSOCIATES, DEFENDANTS : 97-0099 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA E day of June„ 2002, the motion of all the above- l r-l named defendants for summary judgment, IS GRANTED WITH PREJUDICE. By the Court, Edgar B. Bayley, J / Paul Little, Pro se 509 Valley Street Marysville, PA 17053 Robert A. McDermott, Esquire For Defendants Internists of Central Pennsylvania, Ltd., Michael L. Gluck, M.D., ` L. Lynne Britton, M.D., James A. Tyndall, M.D., Peter M. Brier, M.D., Richard Schreiber, M.D. and Ira J. Packman, M.D. Michael C. Mongiello, Esquire For Defendant Robert J. Kantor, M.D. Craig A. Stone, Esquire For Defendants Holy Spirit Hospital and Sporting Hill Family Health Center Robert B. Mulhern, Jr., Esquire For Stephen Davis, M.D., Charles Inners, M.D. and Inners-Davis Associates saa CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that true and corrE!ct copies of the foregoing NOTICE BY PROTHONOTARY OF ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. NO. 236 executed by the Prothonotary on June 28, 2002 were served upon all counsel of record this 1st day of July, 2002, by depositing said copy in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, first class delivery, and addressed as follows: ALSO VIA CERTIFIED MAIL #7001 1140 0001 0021 9076 Paul Little 509 Valley Street Marysville, PA 17053 Robert B. Mulhern, Jr., Esq. Swartz, Campbell & Detweiler 1601 Market Street, 3rth Floor Philadelphia, PA 191.03 B. Craig Black, Esquire McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Craig A. Stone, Esquire Mette, Evans & Woodside 3401 North Front Street P. 0. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 FOULKROD ELLIS PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION By: Donna V. Sturr, Paralegal CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that, on January 6, 2005, I caused copies of the: foregoing to be served on the following by first class mail: Albert P. Massey, Jr., Esquire Lentz, Cantor & Massey, Ltd.. 460 East King Road Malvern, PA 19355 Philip M. Bricknell r-.7 7 0 C. ;fl "n nl f 'Z tii y C-) =i -? co `, TO: PLAINTIFFS INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA, LTD., MICHAEL L. GLUCK, L. LYNNE BRITTON, RICHARD SCHREIBER, JAMES A. TYNDALL, PETER M. BRIER, and IRA J. PACKMAN, Plaintiffs V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA R. J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., and ROBIN J. MARZELLA, Defendants 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 VAINST YOU. n CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. 04-1933 - CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS R. J. MARZELLA. ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES. P.C.. AND ROBIN J. MARZELLA TO THE COMPLAINT Defendants, R. J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C., and Robin J. Marzella, (collectively, "Defendants") by their undersigned counsel, hereby file this answer to the complaint and, in support thereof, aver the following: 1-9. Admitted. 10. Denied. After a reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph and therefore the same are specifically denied. Strict proof thereof, if relevant, LE1-1TZ. CANTO 8 MASSEY . D. R is hereby demanded. LT 460 E. KING ROAD MALVERN. PA 19355-3049 11. Admitted. 12. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 13. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 14. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 15. Admitted. 16. Admitted. 17. Denied as stated. After a reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph regarding and/or concerning the involvement, lack of involvement, and/or extent of any involvement or lack of involvement of Dr. Packman in any treatment and/or care of Dolores Little. Any and all facts concerning the involvement, lack of involvement, and/or extent of any involvement or lack of involvement of Dr. Packman in any treatment and/or care of Dolores Little is entirely within the exclusive knowledge and/or control of Plaintiffs herein. Strict proof thereof, if relevant, is hereby demanded. 18-21. Admitted. 22. Denied as stated. To the best of Defendants' knowledge, information, and NTZ. CANTOR MASSEY. LTD. E. KING ROAD rE.RN. PA 19355-3049 belief, it is admitted that the medical records of Dolores Little were obtained by the law firm of Angino & Rover sometime during calendar year 1995. The remaining allegations contained in this paragraph attempt to characterize the content of a written documents, 2 namely the medical records of Dolores Little from Holy Spirit Hospital, and any mischaracterizations thereof are specifically denied. 23. Denied as stated. It is admitted that on January 9, 1997, Defendants, on the behalf of Paul Little, in his individual capacity and as Executor of the Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased, filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County Pennsylvania, at docket no. 97-99, styled Paul Little, individually and as the Executor of the Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased v. Holy Spirit Hospital, Sporting Hill Family Health Center, Richard Reh. M.D., Internists of Central Pennsylvania, Ltd.. Michael Gluck. M.D. L. Lynne Britton, M.D., Richard Schreiber, M.D., James Tyndall, M.D., Peter Brier, M.D. Ira Packman, M.D., Robert Kantor, M.D., Stephen Davis, M.D., Charles Inners. M.D., and Inners Davis Associates (hereinafter, the "Underlying Litigation"). As to the date when the medical records of Dolores Little were received;, Defendants hereby incorporate by reference their response to paragraph no. 22, above, as if fully set forth at length herein. 24. Admitted. 25. Denied. To the contrary, the medical records of Dolores Little were reviewed by a medical professional at the request of Ms. Mahady-Smith. With regard to the allegation contained in this paragraph regarding whether the medical records were "throughly review[ed]," this allegation constitutes a conclusion of law to which no further response is required. 26. Admitted. 27. Denied as stated. From time to time, Defendant Marzella consulted with a ENTZ, CANTOR B MASSEY.. LTD. 30 E. RING ROAD ,LVL'W. PA 19355-3049 variety of medical experts regarding and/or concerning the circumstances surrounding the death of Dolores Little. Defendant Marzella has no present recollection whether any one 3 of which was an infectious disease specialist. 28. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. Answering further, to the extent that an answer may be required, any inference that there was any obligation on the part of Defendants to have obtained such an opinion before filing suit is specifically denied. Strict proof thereof, if relevant, is hereby demanded. 29. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. Answering further, to the extent that an answer may be required, any inference that Defendants had any obligation to engage a medical expert as alleged in this paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint is specifically denied. Strict proof thereof, if relevant, is hereby demanded. 30. Denied as stated. The allegations contained in this paragraph attempt to characterize the content of a written document, namely the complaint filed in the Underlying Action, and any mischaracterization thereof is specifically denied. 31. Denied as stated. The allegations contained in this paragraph attempt to characterize the content of a written document, namely the complaint filed in the Underlying Action, and any mischaracterization thereof is specifically denied. 32. Denied as stated. The allegations contained in this paragraph attempt to characterize the content of a written document, namely the complaint filed in the Underlying Action, and any mischaracterization thereof is specifically denied. 33. Denied as stated. The allegations contained in this paragraph attempt to NTZ. CANTOR MASSEY. LTD. ) E. KING ROAD /EBN. PA 19355-3049 characterize the content of written documents, namely the medical records of Dolores Little and court documents filed in the Underlying Action, and any mischaracterizations thereof 4 are specifically denied. The remaining allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. Answering further, to the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that the medical records of Dolores Little clearly show that her fungal infection was identified, treated, and cured. Strict proof thereof, if relevant, is hereby demanded. Further, to the contrary, the manner and cause of death of Dolores Little indicate that the infection may have been a contributory factor in the death of Dolores Little. 34. Denied as stated. The allegations contained in this paragraph attempt to characterize the content of a written document, namely the complaint filed in the Underlying Action, and any mischaracterization thereof is specifically denied. 35. Denied as stated. The allegations contained in this paragraph attempt to characterize the content of a written document, namely the complaint filed in the Underlying Action, and any mischaracterization thereof is specifically denied. 36. Denied as stated. The allegations contained in this paragraph attempt to characterize the content of a written document, namely the complaint filed in the Underlying Action, and any mischaracterization thereof is specifically denied. The remaining allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 37. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Dr. Packman was named as a defendant in the Underlying Action. Defendants hereby incorporated by reference their response to paragraph no. 17, above, as if fully set forth at length herein. 38. Denied. It is specifically denied that the allegations contained in the LENTZ. CANTOR 8 MASSEY. LTD. 460 E. KING ROAD MALVERN. PA 19355-3049 complaint filed in the Underlying Action at paragraphs nos. 31 - 35 thereof were incorrect. 5 Strict proof thereof, if relevant, is hereby demanded. The remaining allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 39. Admitted. 40. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. Answering further, to the extent that an answer may be required, any inference that Defendant Marzella had actual and/or constructive knowledge that Dolores Little's medical records allegedly did not support the allegation that Drs. Gluck, Britton, Schreiber, Tyndall, Brier, and Packman had been negligent in the treatment of Dolores Little is specifically denied. Strict proof thereof, if relevant, is hereby demanded. 41. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. Answering further, to the extent that an answer may be required, any inference that Defendant Marzella had actual and/or constructive knowledge that there was no alleged factual or legal basis for the assertion that Drs. Gluck, Britton, Schreiber, Tyndall, Brier, and Packman had breached their professional duty to Dolores Little and that her worsening condition and death were allegedly in no way the result of any act or omission Drs. Gluck, Britton, Schreiber, Tyndall, Brier, and Packman is specifically denied Strict proof thereof, if relevant, is hereby demanded. 42. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions LENTZ. CANTOR 8 MASSEY. LTD. 460 EKING ROAD MALVERN. PA 19355-3049 of law to which no further response is required. Answering further, to the extent that an answer may be required, any inference that Defendant Marzella had actual and/or constructive knowledge based on Dolores Little's medical records that Drs. Gluck, Britton, 6 Schreiber, Tyndall, Brier, and Packman allegedly had not failed properly to examine, treat, or monitor Dolores Little from January 24 to February 16, 1995, is specifically denied. Strict proof thereof, if relevant, is hereby demanded. 43. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. Answering further, to the extent that an answer may be required, any inference that Defendant Marzella had actual and/or constructive knowledge that Drs. Gluck, Britton, Schreiber, Tyndall, Brier, and Packman had allegedly correctly treated Dolores Little's gastrointestinal bleeding and allegedly properly monitored her nutritional support, the treatment of her pulmonary conditions, and the maintenance of her tracheotomy and yet allegedly continued to maintain that Drs. Gluck, Britton, Schreiber, Tyndall, Brier, and Packman and Internists of Central Pennsylvania, Ltd. ("ICP") had been negligent with respect to those matters is specifically denied. Strict proof thereof, if relevant, is hereby demanded. 44. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. Answering further, to the extent that an answer may be required, any inference that Defendant Marzella had actual and/or constructive knowledge that Drs. Gluck, Britton, Schreiber, Tyndall, Brier, and Packman and ICP had allegedly not breached their duty of can; to Dolores Little and that Drs. Gluck, Britton, Schreiber, Tyndall, Brier, and Packman had allegedly provided exemplary care to Dolores Little is specifically denied. Strict proof thereof, if relevant, is hereby demanded. Further, to the extent that the allegations contained in this paragraph attempt to characterize the content of Dolores Little's medical records, any mischaracterization LENTZ, CANTOR thereof is specifically denied. 8 MASSEY, LTD. 460 E, KING ROAD 7 MANFRN. PA 19355-3049 45. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. Answering further, to the extent that an answer may be required, any inference that Defendants had any obligation to engage a medical expert and/or professional and/or receive an opinion from a medical expert and/or professional regarding the duty of professional care as is alleged in this paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint is specifically denied. Strict proof thereof, if relevant, is hereby demanded. 46. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 47. Admitted. 48. Admitted. 49. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. Answering further, to the extent that an answer may be required, any inference thatthe Defendants or either of them acted willfully, outrageously, oppressively, maliciously, and/or with reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs is specifically denied. Strict proof thereof, if relevant, is hereby demanded. 50. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 51. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 52. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions LENTZ. CANTOR 8 MASSEY, LTD. 460 E. KING ROAD MALVERN. PA 19355-3049 of law to which no further response is required. 8 53. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required, Answering further, to the extent that an answer may be required, the circumstances surrounding the death of Dolores Little indicated the strong probability and/or possibility that her care had been mismanaged and/or fell below the applicable standard of care. Further, to the extent that the allegations contained in this paragraph attempt to characterize the medical records of Dolores Little, any mischaracterization thereof is specifically denied. 54. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 55. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. COUNTI Internists of Central Pennsylvania vs. Robin J. Marzella and R J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates. P.C. (Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings, 42 Pa.C.S. 48351, et seq.) 56. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference their responses to paragraphs nos. 1 through 55, above, as if fully set forth at length herein. 57. Denied as stated. The allegations contained in this paragraph attempt to characterize the content of a written document, namely the complaint filed in the Underlying Action, and specifically paragraphs nos. 13 and 14 of the complaint filed in the Underlying Action, and any mischaracterizations thereof are specifically denied. 58. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions LENTZ. CANTOR 8 MASSEY, LTD. 460 E. KING ROAD AALVEN. PA *355-3049 of law to which no further response is required. Answering further, to the extent that an 9 answer may be required, strict proof thereof, if relevant, is hereby demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendants Robin J. IVlarzella and R, J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C., demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff Internists of Central Pennsylvania, Ltd., in no amount, plus costs of suit. COUNT II Michael L. Gluck vs. Robin J. Marzella and R.J. Marzella. Esquire & Associates. P.C. (Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings, 2 Pa.C.S. §8351, et sea.) 59. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference their responses to paragraphs nos. 1 through 58, above, as if fully set forth at length herein. 60. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. Answering further, to the extent that an answer may be required, any inference that Plaintiff Gluck or any of the named Plaintiffs herein are entitled to and/or that any of the actions, inactions, conduct, and/or omissions alleged herein would support a claim(s) for punitive damages is specifically denied. Further, any inference that the allegations contained in the complaint filed in the Underlying Action were in any way allegedly defamatory is specifically denied. Strict proof thereof, if relevant, is hereby demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendants Robin J. Marzella and R. J. Marzella, Esquire & LENTZ. CANTOR 8 MASSEY, LTD. 460 E. KING ROAD MALVERN. PA 19355-3049 Associates, P.C., demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff Michael L. Gluck in no amount, plus costs of suit. 10 COUNT III L. Lynne Britton vs. Robin J. Marzella and IR.J. Marzella. Esquire & Associates P.C. (Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings. 42 Pa.C.S. §8351, et seg.) 61. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference their responses to paragraphs nos. 1 through 60, above, as if fully set forth at length herein. 62. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. Answering further, to the extent that an answer may be required, any inference that Plaintiff Britton or any of the named Plaintiffs herein are entitled to and/or that any of the actions, inactions, conduct, and/or omissions alleged herein would support a claim(s) for punitive damages is specifically denied. Further, any inference that the allegations contained in the complaint filed in the Underlying Action were in any way allegedly defamatory is specifically denied. Strict proof thereof, if relevant, is hereby demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendants Robin J. Marzella and R. J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C., demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff L. Lynne Britton in no amount, plus costs of suit. COUNT IV Richard Schreiber vs. Robin J. Marzella and R.J. Marzella. Esquire & Associates P.C. (Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings 42 Pa.C.S. §8351 et seg.) 63. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference their responses to paragraphs LENTZ. CANTOR 8 MASSEY, LTD. 460 E. KING ROAD MALVERN. PA 19355-3049 nos. 1 through 62, above, as if fully set forth at length herein. 11 64. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. Answering further, to the extent that an answer may be required, any inference that Plaintiff Schreiber or any of the named Plaintiffs herein are entitled to and/or that any of the actions, inactions, conduct, and/or omissions alleged herein would support a claim(s) for punitive damages is specifically denied. Further, any inference that the allegations contained in the complaint filed in the Underlying Action were in any way allegedly defamatory is specifically denied. Strict proof thereof, if relevant, is hereby demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendants Robin J. Marzella and R. J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C., demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff Richard Schreiber in no amount, plus costs of suit. COUNT V James A. Tyndall vs. Robin J. Marzella and R.J. Marzella. Esquire & Associates. P.C. (Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings. 42 Pa.C.S. §8351, et seq.) 65. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference their responses to paragraphs nos. 1 through 64, above, as if fully set forth at length herein. 66. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions LENTZ. CANTOR 8 MASSEY, LTI). 460 E. KING ROAD MALVERN. PA 19355-3049 of law to which no further response is required. Answering further, to the extent that an answer may be required, any inference that Plaintiff Tyndall or any of the named Plaintiffs herein are entitled to and/or that any of the actions, inactions, conduct, and/or omissions alleged herein would support a claim(s) for punitive damages is specifically denied. Further, any inference that the allegations contained un the complaint filed in the Underlying 12 Action were in any way allegedly defamatory is specifically denied. Strict proof thereof, if relevant, is hereby demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendants Robin J. Marzella and R. J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C., demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff James A. Tyndall in no amount, plus costs of suit. COUNT WI Peter M. Brier vs. Robin J. Marzella and R.J. Marzella. Esquire & Associates. P.C. (Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings 42 Pa.C.S. §8351, et seg.) 67. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference their responses to paragraphs nos. 1 through 66, above, as if fully set forth at length herein. 68. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. Answering further, to the extent that an answer may be required, any inference that Plaintiff Brier or any of the named Plaintiffs herein are entitled to and/or that any of the actions, inactions, conduct, and/or omissions alleged herein would support a claim(s) for punitive damages is specifically denied. Further, any inference thatthe allegations contained in the complaint filed in the Underlying Action were in any way allegedly defamatory is specifically denied. Strict proof thereof, if relevant, is hereby demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendants Robin J. Marzella and R. J. Marzella, Esquire & LENTZ. CANTOR 8 MASSEY. LTD. 460 E. KING ROAD MALVERN. PA 19355-3049 Associates, P.C., demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff Peter M. Brier in no amount, plus costs of suit. 13 COUNT VII Ira J. Packman vs. Robin J. Marzella and R.J. Marzella. Esquire & Associates. P.C. (Wrongful Use of Civil Proceedings, 42 Pa.C.S. 48351, et seq.) 69. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference their responses to paragraphs nos. 1 through 68, above, as if fully set forth at length herein. 70. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no further response is required. Answering further, to the extent that an answer may be required, any inference that Plaintiff Gluck or any of the named Plaintiffs herein are entitled to and/or that any of the actions, inactions, conduct, and/or omissions alleged herein would support a claim(s) for punitive damages is specifically denied. Further, any inference thatthe allegations contained in the complaintfiled in the Underlying Action were in any way allegedly defamatory is specifically denied. Strict proof thereof, if relevant, is hereby demanded. WHEREFORE, Defendants Robin J. Marzella and R. J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C., demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff Ira J. Packman in no amount, plus costs of suit. NEW MATTER 71. Defendants hereby incorporate by reference their responses to paragraphs nos. 1 through 70, above, as if fully set forth at length herein. 72. The death certificate for Dolores Little indicates that the immediate cause of death was respiratory failure with "complications." 73. Defendants believe and therefore aver that two (2) days before Dolores LENTZ. CANTOR & MASSEY. LTD. 460 E. KING ROAD MALVERN, PA 19355-3049 Little's death, her tracheotomy dislodged allowing air to enter her body causing severe 14 tissue expansion and extensive brain damage. 74. Defendants believe and therefore aver thatthe dislodging of the tracheotomy could have been caused by, was caused by, was contributed to, and/or was the result of improper and/or deficient care and/or treatment given to and/or received by Dolores Little and/or by a fungal infection which had developed at the site of the tracheotomy. 75. The circumstances surrounding the death of Dolores Little gave Defendants reasonable cause to believe that her death could have been caused, in part, and/or totally, by reason of the failure of one or more of her hea0thcare providers to provide care and/or treatment consistent with the applicable standard of care required of such professionals under the circumstances. 76. At or about the time Defendants filed the complaint in the Underlying Action, the statute of limitations on any claim(s) of negligence regarding the care and/or treatment by and/or given to Dolores Little was about to expire, which expiration would have barred any claim(s) that Paul Little, individually, and/or as the Executor of the Estate of Dolores Little, Deceased, and/or the Little family had or may have had by reason of and/or as a result of the medical care, treatment, and/or malpractice given to, received by, and/or perpetrated on Dolores Little by one or more of the named defendants in the Underlying Action. 77. At all times material to the Underlying Action, Defendants acted in good faith LENTZ. CANTOR 8 MASSEY, LTD. 160 E KING ROAD WVFAN. PA 19355.3049 and with the reasonable belief that the existence of malpractice and/or negligence and/or a deviation from the applicable standard of care by one or more of the named defendants in the Underlying Action could and/or would be established. 15 78. The amount of time from the initiation of the Underlying Action and the eventual time that summary judgment was entered in Plaintiffs' favor in the Underlying Action was caused by, in whole or in part, one or more of the Plaintiffs, the insurer of the Plaintiffs and/or counsel for the Plaintiffs and/or persons and/or entities over which the Defendants had no control and/or no authority, right, and/or ability to control and any such delay was not caused by and/or attributable to Defendants. 79. One or more insurers of the defendants named in the Underlying Action went bankrupt during the course of the litigation which caused extensive delay and which was not caused by, attributable to, and/or under the control of Defendants and/or any person (s) and/or entity(ies) over whom Defendants had control and/or the authority, right, and/or ability to control. 80. Throughout the course of the of Underlying Action, Defendants acted diligently to discover through discovery, the production of documents, and depositions of various of the named defendants, the specific conduct which Defendants herein believed contributed to, caused, and/or was a factor in the death of Dolores Little and which failed to meet and/or fell below the applicable standard of care. 81. Defendants' withdrawal from the Little litigation in the fall of 2001 was ethical, timely and proper under the circumstances. 82. Plaintiffs'Complaint fails to set forth any claim(s) or cause(s) of action against the Defendants or any of them upon which relief may be granted. 83. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim(s) against Defendants or any of LENrZ. CANTOR 8 MASSEY. LTD. 460 E. KING ROAD MALVERN, PA 19355-3049 them for wrongful use of civil proceedings. 84. Plaintiffs' claims in the Complaint against the Defendants are barred as a 16 matter of law. 85. Plaintiffs' claims in the Complaint against the Defendants are barred in whole, or in part, by the doctrine of laches, 86. Plaintiffs' claims in the Complaint againstthe Defendants are barred in whole, or in part, by the doctrine(s) of waiver and/or estoppel and/or consent. 87. Plaintiffs' claims in the Complaint against the Defendants are barred in whole, or in part, by the doctrine of justification. 88. Plaintiffs' claims in the Complaint againstthe Defendants are barred in whole, or in part, by the doctrine(s) of privilege, absolute privilege, and/or immunity. 89. Plaintiffs' claims in the Complaint againstthe Defendants are barred in whole, or in part, by the applicable statute(s) of limitations. 90. Plaintiffs' damages and/or losses, if any, were caused in whole, or in part, by Plaintiffs themselves, jointly and/or severally, andlor were the result of Plaintiffs' actions, inactions, conduct, and/or omissions, and/or were the result of actions, inactions, conduct, and/or omissions of other person(s) and/or entity(ies) over which Defendants had no control and/or no authority, right, and/or ability to control. 91. Plaintiffs' claims in the Complaint againstthe Defendants are barred in whole, or in part, by the economic loss doctrine. 92. Plaintiffs' claims in the Complaint against the Defendants are barred in whole, or in part, by the Plaintiffs' failure to mitigate their damages and/or losses. 93. Plaintiffs' claims in the Complaint against the Defendants are barred in whole, LENTZ, CANTOR 8 MASSEY. LrD. 460 E. KING ROAD MALVERN, PA 19355-3049 or in part, by the doctrine(s) of contributory and/or comparative negligence. 94. Plaintiffs have failed to suffer and/or incur any damages and/or losses as a 17 matter of law. 95. Plaintiffs cannot and will not be able to prove any actual damage(s) and/or loss(es) as a result of any actions, inactions, conduct, and/or omissions, real and/or alleged, of the Defendants. 96. There was no termination in favor of Plaintiffs in the Underlying Action. 97. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim(s) against Defendants or any of them for punitive damages. 98. The alleged actions, inactions, conduct, and/or omissions of the Defendants as alleged in the Complaint filed herein do not amount to "outrageous." 99. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim(s) against Defendants or any of them for punitive damages as a matter of law. 100. Plaintiffs are not entitled to punitive damages. 101. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim(s) against Defendants or any of them for emotional distress. 102. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim(s) against Defendants or any of them as a matter of law for emotional distress. 103. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to allege any actual physical injury suffered and/or sustained by Plaintiffs or any of them. 104. The allegations contained in the complaint filed in the Underlying Action are not defamatory. 105. The allegations contained in the complaint filed in the Underlying Action are LENTZ. CANTOR H MASSEY,, LTD. 460 E. KING ROAD MALVERN. PA 19 3 55-30 49 not defamatory as a matter of law. 106. Plaintiffs have failed to join an indispensable party(ies) in the above- 18 captioned matter. 107. Asa result of Plaintiffs failure to join an indispensable party(ies) in the above- captioned matter, this Honorable Court is without subject matter jurisdiction. 108. The alleged actions, inactions, conduct, and/or omissions of the Defendants as alleged in the Complaint filed herein do not amount to gross negligence. 109. The alleged actions, inactions, conduct and/or omissions of the Defendants as alleged in the Complaint filed herein do not amount to acting without probable cause. 110. Plaintiffs cannot and will not be able to establish that the Defendants acted in a grossly negligent manner. 111. Plaintiffs cannot and will not be able to establish that Defendants acted in a grossly negligent manner as a matter of law. 112. Plaintiffs cannot and will not be able to establish that Defendants acted without probable cause. 113. The alleged actions, inactions, conduct, and/or omissions of the Defendants as alleged in the Complaint filed herein do not amount to Defendants intending to merely harass or maliciously injure the Plaintiffs or any one of them. 114. Plaintiffs cannot and will not be able to show and/or prove that the Defendants intended to merely harass and/or maliciously injure Plaintiffs or any one of them in connection with the filing, continuation, and/or pursuit of the Underlying Action. 115. At all times material to the instant matter and the Underlying Action, Defendants acted properly, with probable cause, and so as to secure proper discovery and/or the adjudication of the claim(s) contained in the complaint filed in the Underlying LENTZ. CANTOR Action. 8 MASSEY. LrD. 460 E. KING ROAD MALMN. PA 19355 3049 19 116, Plaintiffs cannot and will not be able to prove and/or show that they are entitled to punitive damages. 117. Plaintiffs cannot and will not be able to prove and/or show that they suffered any emotional distress as a result of any alleged action, inactions, conduct, and/or omissions of the Defendants. WHEREFORE, Defendants Robin J. Marzella and R. J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C., demand judgment in their favor and against Plaintiff James A. Tyndall in no amount, plus costs of suit. EY, LTD. :.ENTZ. CANTOR B MASSEY. LTD. 160 E. KING ROAD ALVERN, PA 19355-3049 Date: February 11, 2005 BY: 20 Albert P. Masse, Jr., Esq ire Attorney for Defen R.J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C. and Robin J. Marzella VERIFICATION I, Robin J. Marzella, Esquire, hereby verify that the facts set forth In the LENTZ. CANTOR 8 MASSEY. LTD. 460 E KING ROAD MALVERN, PA 19355-3049 Answer and New Matter of R. J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C., and Robin Marzella to the Complaint of Internists of Central Pennsylvania, et al., are true a correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This Verification is me subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification authorities. Date: February ?-, 2005 Esquire .... ?{ ' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that true and correct copies of all papers contained in the answer with new matter of Defendants R.J. Marzella Esquire & Associates, P.C., and Robin J. Marzella to the Complaint were served this 11`h clay of February, 2005, by first-class mail, postage prepaid, upon: Phillip M. Bricknell, Esquire Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, LLP Payne Shoemaker Building 240 North Third Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 LENTZ, CANTOR & MASSEY, LTD. Albert P.Mas J'; squire Attorney for De dants, R.J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C. and Robin J. Marzella Atty. I.D. # 04851 460 East King Road Malvern, PA 19355 (610) 722 - 5800 LENTZ. CANTOR 8 MASSEY. LTD. 460 E. KING ROAD MALVERN, PA 19355-3049 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA, LTD., MICHAEL L. GLUCK, L. LYNNE BRITTON, RICHARD SCHREIBER, JAMES A. TYNDALL, PETER M. BRIER, and IRA J. PACKMAN Civil Action - Law Docket No. 04-1933 - CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiffs, V. R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. and ROBIN J MARZELLA Defendants. PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER 71. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-70 of their complaint. 72. Plaintiffs are without sufficient information to admit or deny Defendants allegations and, so, they are denied. 73. Plaintiffs are without sufficient information to admit or deny Defendants' allegations regarding their beliefs and, so, they are denied. Furthermore, Plaintiffs deny that Dolores Little's tracheotomy dislodged. To the contrary, the tracheotomy did not become dislodged. 74. Plaintiffs are without sufficient information to admit or deny Defendants' allegations regarding their beliefs and, so, they are denied. Furthermore, Plaintiffs deny that Dolores Little received deficient care or treatment. To the contrary, Dolores Little did not receive deficient care or treatment. Plaintiffs also deny that a fungal infection had developed at HA-155059 v 1 the site of the tracheotomy. To the contrary, Dolores Little's fungal infection was diagnosed, treated, and cured. 75. Denied. Plaintiffs are without sufficient information to admit or deny Defendants' allegations regarding their beliefs and, so, they are denied. Furthermore, Defendants did not have reasonable cause to believe Dolores Little received care inconsistent with "the applicable standard of care." To the contrary, Dolores Little received exemplary care from the Plaintiffs. 76. It is denied that the Defendants lacked adequate time in which to prepare the complaint in the Underlying Action. To the contrary, instead of serving a writ of summons, Defendants initiated the Underlying Action with a lengthy complaint containing dozens of paragraphs of allegations against each of the Plaintiffs. 77. It is denied that Defendants acted with good faith and reasonable belief in the Underlying Action. To the contrary, the record of Dolores Little's treatment contains no evidence of any deficiencies in the care provided by the Plaintiffs to Dolores Little. It was not good faith nor was it reasonable to maintain the Underlying Action against the Plaintiffs based on the Plaintiffs' treatment of Dolores Little. 78. It is denied that Plaintiffs were responsible for the length of time during which the Defendants maintained the Underlying Action. To the contrary, Defendants maintained the Underlying Action against the Plaintiffs for years despite the absence of evidence against them and without obtaining expert support. Plaintiffs merely defended themselves against Defendants' frivolous lawsuit. 79. While it is admitted that the Plaintiffs' insurer went bankrupt, Plaintiffs are without sufficient information to admit or deny Defendants' allegations regarding the insurers of the other defendants in the Underlying Action and, so, they are denied. Furthermore, it is denied that the bankruptcy of any of the insurers caused extensive delay in the litigation of the Underlying Action. To the contrary, it was the Defendants who maintained the frivolous Underlying Action against the Plaintiffs for years. -2- 80. It is denied that the Defendants acted diligently discover support for their position in the Underlying Action. To the contrary, Defendants did not act diligently to discover the circumstances relating to the medical treatment the Plaintiffs provided to Dolores Little. Furthermore, Plaintiffs are without sufficient information to admit or deny Defendants' allegations regarding their beliefs and, so, they are denied. 81. It is denied that Defendants' withdrawal from the Underlying Action was ethical, timely, and proper. To the contrary, Defendants' initiation and maintenance of the Underlying Action was grossly negligent, unreasonable, and frivolous; consequently, Defendants' withdrawal was untimely. Plaintiffs are without sufficient information to admit or deny Defendants' allegations that their withdrawal was ethical and proper under the circumstances and, so, they are denied. 82. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 83. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 84. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 85. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 86. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. -3- 87. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 88. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 89. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 90. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 91. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 92. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 93. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 94. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 95. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. -4- 96. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 97. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 98. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 99. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 100. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 101. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 102. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 103. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 104. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. -5- 105. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 106. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 107. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 108. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 109. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 110. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 111. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 112. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 113. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. -6- 114, The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 115. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 116. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. 117. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required. To the extent the allegations may be deemed to include factual assertions, they are denied. March 3, 2005 David R. Fine Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 66742 Philip M. Bricknell Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 88330 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP 240 North Third Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507 (717) 231-4500 Counsel for Plaintiffs 7- FROM na!o2!oa 18:18 FAX EaraQx FAX NO. Aug. 02 1999 07:29AM P1 t?,ltiFICATTON Thereby certify that the statements contained in the attached reply to new rnatter filed in this matter are true acrd correct to the best of my knowledge, or information and belief As a shazeholder of Internists of Central Perinsylvania Ltd, I am authorized to offer this -verification. I understand that this certification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa -C.& § 4404, relating to unswom falsifications to authorities. March 3, 2005 `Michael L. ucl:, M.?"- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that, on March 3, 2005, I caused copies of the foregoing to be served on the following by first class mail: Albert P. Massey, Jr., Esquire Lentz, Cantor & Massey, Ltd. 460 East King Road Malvern, PA 19355 r Philip M. Bricl 11 3 r.^ Ti ?. _ ? -! f f („ 1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL Civil Action - Law PENNSYLVANIA, LTD., et al., Docket No. 04-1933 - CIVIL Plaintiffs, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED V. R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., et al., Defendants. PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVER RESPONSES Plaintiffs move this Court for an order compelling full and complete discovery responses, without objection, from Defendants and assert the following: On or about April 30, 2004, Plaintiffs served Defendants with a writ of summons. 2. On or about May 12, 2004, Plaintiffs served Defendants with pre-complaint discovery in the form of interrogatories and requests for the production of documents. 3. Defendants objected to Plaintiffs' pre-complaint discovery on or about May 24, 2004. 4. Defendants did not provide any responses to any of Plaintiffs' pre-complaint discovery requests. On or about January 6, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against Defendants alleging wrongful use of civil proceedings. 6. On February 25, 2005, counsel for Defendants informed Plaintiffs that Defendants no longer asserted objections to Plaintiffs' discovery requests. A copy of the correspondence confirming this understanding is attached to this motion. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4006(a)(2) requires interrogatories to be fully and completely unless objected to within 30 days after the service of the interrogatories. 8. Defendants have yet to produce responses to Plaintiffs' interrogatories despite having Plaintiffs' discovery requests since May 12, 2004, and despite having indicated on February 25, 2005, that they no longer had objections to the interrogatories. Counsel for the parties orally agreed that Defendants would produce responses to Plaintiffs' interrogatories on April 6, 2005, when Plaintiffs' counsel reviewed Defendants' files. 10. Defendants failed to produce responses to Plaintiffs' interrogatories at the April 6, 2005 file review. 11. Instead, on April 6, 2005, Defendants' counsel requested additional time in which to respond to Plaintiffs' interrogatories. Counsel for the parties orally agreed to a short extension of the time in which Defendants could respond to Plaintiffs' interrogatories. 12. On April 14, 2005, Plaintiffs' counsel, considering the April 6 extension over, called Defendants' counsel and again requested responses to Plaintiffs' interrogatories. 13. Plaintiffs have not received responses to their interrogatories as of the date of filing this motion. 14. Because Pa.R.C.P. 4006 requires that objections be served within 30 days after service of interrogatories, Plaintiffs request that the Court consider any objections waived and direct that Defendants provide full and complete responses. -2- WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter an order compelling Defendants to provide responses to the outstanding discovery requests within ten (10) days or risk further sanctions. April 18, 2005 David R. Fine Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 66742 Philip M. Bricknell Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 88330 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP 240 North Third Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507 (717) 231-4500 Counsel for Plaintiffs -3- LAW OFFICES LENTZ, CANTOR & MASSEY, LTD. ALBERT P. MASSEY, JR. ANDREW H. DOHAN SEAN A. O'NEILL ROBERT C_ F. WILL50N WENDY W. MCLEAN SCOTT E. YAW HEATHER BURNS POZNIAK ANGELA MONTGOMERY-BUDD 460 E. KING ROAD MALVERN, PA 19355-3049 610-722-5800 OF COVN$EL: ROBERT W LENTZ RICHARD L. CANTOR CHRISTOPHER J. CLARK FAX: 610-647-5476 or 610-647-6714 WEB: www.len2zlaw.com February 25, 2005 Phillip M. Bricknell, Esquire Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, LLP Payne Shoemaker Building 240 North Third Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Re: Internists of Central Pennsylvania, et al. v. Robin J Marzella et al CCP, Cumberland County, No. 04-1933 Dear Phillip: Enclosed are Interrogatories addressed to your clients as well as Requests for Production of Documents. With respect to your discovery of the Marzella files, I am not sure we finally resolved my concern that documents you discover from Marzella's files will end up in the hands of the press. I am confident, however, that we will be able to resolve any such issues. As pointed out in your correspondence, any objection I would have had to pre- Complaint discovery no longer applies. Si ere , Alb P. Massey, Jr. APM:Ibf enclosure cc: Robin J. Marzella, Esquire (w/encl.) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that, on April 18, 2005, I caused copies of the foregoing to be served on the following by first class mail: Albert P. Massey, Jr., Esquire Lentz, Cantor & Massey, Ltd. 460 East King Road Malvern, PA 19355 Philip M. Bricknell INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF PENNSYLVANIA, LTD., et al CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., et. al, Defendants NO. 04-1933 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 21s` day of April, 2005, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion To Compel Discovery Responses, a Rule is hereby issued upon Defendants to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. RULE RETURNABLE within 20 days of service. David R. Fine, Esq. Philip M. Bricknell, Esq. 240 North Third Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507 Attorneys for Plaintiffs ,/Albert P. Massey, Jr., Esq. Lentz, Cantor & Massey, Ltd. 460 East King Road Malvern, PA 19355 Attorney for Defendants L? :rc BY THE COURT, r?.. i ? ?. ?> > ? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL Civil Action - Law PENNSYLVANIA, LTD., et al., Docket No. 04-1933 - CIVIL Plaintiffs, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED V. R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., et al., Defendants. PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO WITHDRAW MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES Plaintiffs move this Court for an order withdrawing their motion to compel full and complete discovery responses, without objection, from Defendants and assert the following: On or about April 18, 2005, Plaintiffs filed and served Defendants with a motion to compel discovery responses to interrogatories. 2. On or about April 28, 2005, Plaintiffs received Defendants' discovery in the form of responses to interrogatories. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter an order withdrawing motion to compel discovery. 28, 2005 David R. Fine Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 66742 Philip M. Bricknell Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 88330 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP 240 North Third Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507 (717) 231-4500 Counsel for Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that, on April 28, 2005, I caused copies of the foregoing to be served on the following by first class mail: Albert P. Massey, Jr., Esquire Lentz, Cantor & Massey, Ltd. 460 East King Road Malvern, PA 19355 Philip M. Bricknell ?M1 (.? ?t C. -T: { 1 :- ' : c : ? rV ?. ( 1 -[? (?') !??) 4? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL Civil Action - Law PENNSYLVANIA, LTD., et al., Docket No. 04-1933 - CIVIL Plaintiffs, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED V. R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., et al., Defendants. PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO WITHDRAW MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RESPONSES Plaintiffs move this Court for an order withdrawing their motion to compel full and discovery responses, without objection, from Defendants and assert the following: On or about April 18, 2005, Plaintiffs filed and served Defendants with a motion compel discovery responses to interrogatories. On or about April 28, 2005, Plaintiffs received Defendants' discovery in the form to interrogatories. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter an order withdrawing motion to compel discovery. 28, 2005 David R. Fine Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 66742 Philip M. Bricknell Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 88330 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP 240 North Third Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507 (717) 231-4500 Counsel for Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that, on April 28, 2005, I caused copies of the foregoing to be served on the following by first class mail: Albert P. Massey, Jr., Esquire Lentz, Cantor & Massey, Ltd. 460 East King Road Malvern, PA 19355 Philip M. Bricknell ?, ' ?, c> u -?, a , -,: .s ... , ?_ _ .;.,, ,?_:, rti ;r- ?' i? ? `,; r? _ •? ` w RECEIVED MAY 042005 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL Civil Action - Law PENNSYLVANIA, LTD., et al., Docket No. 04-1933 - CIVIL Plaintiffs, V. R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., et al., Defendants. ORDER JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AND NOW, this -4t day of jVj j 2005, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' motion withdraw motion to compel discovery responses, it is ordered that the motion is granted. n rA fc\. )C/ ? 0 HA-157748v] 11 f,,j 17 J, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL Civil Action - Law PENNSYLVANIA, LTD., et at., Docket No. 04-1933 - CIVIL Plaintiffs, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED V. R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., et al., Defendants. As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Plaintiffs certify that: (1) a notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served, (2) a copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to this certificate, (3) no objection to the subpoena has been received, and (4) the subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. Date: August 5, 2005 L--. David R. Fine Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 66742 Philip M. Bricknell Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 88330 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP 240 North Third Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 231-4500 (717) 231-4501 (facsimile) Counsel for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL Civil Action - Law PENNSYLVANIA, LTD., et al., Docket No. 04-1933 - CIVIL Plaintiffs, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., et al., Defendants. TO: Albert P. Massey, Jr., Esquire Lentz, Cantor & Massey, Ltd. 460 East King Road Malvern, PA 19355 Plaintiffs intend to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection is made, the subpoena may be served. Date; July 12, 2005 David R. Fine Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 66742 Philip M. Bricknell Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 88330 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP 240 North Third Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 231-4500 (717) 231-4501 (facsimile) Counsel for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on the following by first- class U.S. Mail on July 12, 2005. Albert P. Massey, Jr., Esq. Lentz, Cantor & Massey, Ltd. 460 East King Road Malvern, PA 19355 Philip M.13ricknell IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL Civil Action - Law PENNSYLVANIA, LTD., et al., Docket No. 04-1933 - CIVIL Plaintiffs, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED V. R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., et al., Defendants. SUBPOENAS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Richard C. Angino, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: documents and correspondence relating to the dispute between Paul Little and the Internists of Central Pennsylvania, captioned as Paul Little v. Holy Spirit Hospital; Sporting Hill Family Health Center; Richard Reh, MD.; Valentine Osborn, M.D.; Internists of Central Pennsylvania, Ltd.; Michael Gluck, M.D.; L. Lynne Britton, M.D.; Richard Schreiber, M.D.; James Tyndall, MD.; Peter Brier, M. D.; Ira Packman, M. D.; Robert Kantor, M. D.; Stephen Davis, M. D.; Charles Inners, M. D.; and Inners Davis Associates, Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Docket No. 97-99. at the offices of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham, LLP, 240 North Third Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. This subpoena was issued at the request of the following persons: David R. Fine Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 66742 Philip A Bricknell Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 88330 17 North Second Street, 18th Floor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 231-4500 (717) 231-4501 (telecopier) Counsel for Plaintiffs BY THE COURT: DATE BY ?., ;:> „ i i ' (. ? 7 .' I ?- /': ?.?1 1 ?(?l r. _ hi j 1`ii :?i ?:? .. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL Civil Action - Law PENNSYLVANIA, LTD., et al., Docket No. 04-1933 - CIVIL Plaintiffs, V. R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., et al., Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF ADDRESS CHANGE TO: THE PROTHONOTARY AND ALL COUNSEL Please take note that the office address for plaintiffs' counsel will change effective August 20, 2005. After that date, please address all correspondence to David R. Fine Philip M. Bricknell Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP 17 North Second Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507. The telephone numbers and e-mail addresses remain as they were. April 28, 2005 Respectfully submitted, David R. Fine Pa. Supreme Ct. o. 66742 Philip M. Bricknell Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 88330 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP 240 North Third Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507 (717) 231-4500 Counsel for Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that, on August 16, 2005, I caused a copy of the foregoing to be served on the following by first class mail: Albert P. Massey, Jr., Esquire Lentz, Cantor & Massey, Ltd. 460 East King Road Malvern, PA 19355 o O ? t_. .? ,:r 9° n? v ? ? ?[ ? _ ? rte fi . ? ? -.,_? a ?c_. , .c IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL Civil Action - Law PENNSYLVANIA, LTD., et al., Docket No. 04-1933 - CIVIL Plaintiffs, ]FURY TRIAL DEMANDED V. R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., et al., Defendants. As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Plaintiffs certify that: (1) a notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to the Defendants, (2) a copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to this certificate, (3) the Defendants have waived their right to object to the subpoena, and (4) the subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. Date: August 30, 2005 David R. Fine Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 66742 Philip M. Bricknell Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 88330 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP 17 North Second Street, 18`h Floor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 231-4500 (717) 231-4501 (facsimile) Counsel for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA, LTD., et al., Plaintiffs, v. R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCLATES, P.C., et al., Defendants. Civil Action - Law Docket No. 04-1933 - CIVIL, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TO: Albert P. Massey, Jr., Esquire Lentz, Cantor & Massey, Ltd. 460 East King Road Malvern, PA 19355 Plaintiffs intend to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection is made, the subpoena may be served. Date: August 24, 2005 David R. Fine Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 66742 Philip M. Bricknell Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 88330 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP 17 North Second Street, 18th Floor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 231-4500 (717) 231-4501 (facsimile) Counsel for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL Civil Action - Law PENNSYLVANIA, LTD., et al., Docket No. 04-1933 - CIVIL Plaintiffs, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED V. R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., et al., Defendants. SUBPOENAS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Thomas J. Williams, Esquire Marston Deardorff Williams & Otto, P.C. Ten East High Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: documents and correspondence relating to the disp ate between Paul Little and the Internists of Central Pennsylvania, captioned as Paul Little v. Holy Spirit Hospital; Sporting Hill Family Health Center; Richard Reh, M.D.; Valentine Osborn, M.D.; Internists of Central Pennsylvania, Ltd.; Michael Gluck, M.D.; L. Lynne Britton, M.D.; Richard Schreiber, M.D.; James Tyndall, M.D.; Peter Brier, M.D.; Ira Packman, M.D.; Robert Kantor, M.D.; Stephen Davis, M.D.; Charles Inners, M.D.; and Inners Davis Associates, Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Docket No. 97-99. at the offices of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham, LLP, 17 North Second Street, 18`h Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17101. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. This subpoena was issued at the request of the following persons: David R. Fine Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 66742 Philip M. Bricknell Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 88330 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP 17 North Second Street, 18`h Floor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 231-4500 (717) 231-4501 (telecopier) Counsel for Plaintiffs BY THE COURT: DATE BY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on the following by first- class U.S. Mail on August 24, 2005. Albert P. Massey, Jr., Esq. Lentz, Cantor & Massey, Ltd. 460 East King Road Malvern, PA 14355 Philip M. Bricknell CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that, on August 30, 2005,1 caused copies of the foregoing to be served on the following by first class mail: Albert P. Massey, Jr., Esquire Lentz, Cantor & Massey, Ltd. 460 East King Road Malvern, PA 19355 7 Philip M. Bricknell C7 0 ?? C) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL Civil Action - Law PENNSYLVANIA, LTD., et al., Docket No. 04-1933 - CIVIL Plaintiffs, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED V. R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., et al., Defendants. A As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Plaintiffs certify that: (1) a notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to the Defendants, (2) a copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to this certificate, (3) no objection to the subpoena has been filed, and (4) the subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. Date: October-. J, 2006 David R. Fine Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 66742 Philip M. Bricknell Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 88330 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP 17 North Second Street, 18th Floor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 231-4500 (717) 231-4501 (facsimile) Counsel for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA, LTD., et al., Plaintiffs, V. R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., et al., Defendants. Civil Action - Law Docket No. 04-1933 - CIVIL, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DUCE TO: Albert P. Massey, Jr., Esquire Lentz, Cantor & Massey, Ltd. 460 East King Road Malvern, PA 19355 ANT TO RULE 4009.21 Plaintiffs intend to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection is made, the subpoena may be served. Date: September 27, 2006 I , David R. Fine Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 66742 Philip M. Bricknell Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 88330 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP 17 North Second Street, 18`h Floor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 231-4500 (717) 231-4501 (facsimile) Counsel for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL Civil Action - Law PENNSYLVANIA, LTD., et al., Docket No. 04-1933 - CIVIL Plaintiffs, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED V. R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., et al., Defendants. SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: B. Craig Black, Esquire McKissock & Hoffinan, P.C. 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Copies of billing statements for services provided by McKissock & Hoffman relating to the dispute between Paul Little and the Internists of Central Pennsylvania, captioned as Paul Little v. Holy Spirit Hospital; Sporting Hill Family Health Center, Richard Reh, M.D.; Valentine Osborn, M.D.; Internists of Central Pennsylvania, Ltd.; Michael Gluck, M.D.; L. Lynne Britton, M.D.; Richard Schreiber, M.D.; James Tyndall, M.D.; Peter Brier, M.D.; Ira Packman, M.D.; Robert Kantor, M.D.; Stephen Davis, M.D.; Charles Inners, M.D.; and Inners Davis Associates, Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Docket No. 97-99. at the offices of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham, LLP, 17 North Second Street, 18th Floor, Harrisburg, PA 17101. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. This subpoena was issued at the request of the following persons: David R. Fine Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 66742 Philip M. Bricknell Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 88330 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham LLP 17 North Second Street, 18th Floor Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 (717) 231-4500 (717) 231-4501 (telecopier) Counsel for Plaintiffs BY THE COURT: DATE BY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on the following by first- class U.S. Mail on September 27, 2006. Albert P. Massey, Jr., Esq. Lentz, Cantor & Massey, Ltd. 460 East King Road Malvern, PA 19355 Philip M. Bricknell CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served on the following by first- class U.S. Mail on October 24, 2006. Albert P. Massey, Jr., Esq. Lentz, Cantor & Massey, Ltd. 460 East King Road Malvern, PA 19355 Philip M. Bric ell ? <? O --,z _.:,. -r? =: z a _ 4=' -i f? ?? t? _- .F- j?? i - .?+ -i ; . -.?": .. _ ?"i t: ?? r _?? '? ,? ?=G ? ? THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL Civil Action - Law PENNSYLVANIA, LTD., et al., Docket No. 04-1933 - CIVIL Plaintiffs, V. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., et al., Defendants. OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA TO ANN SMITH PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Plaintiffs object to the proposed subpoena that is attached to these objections for the following reasons: Production of the documents sought would cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, and burden to Ira Packman. 2. The information contained in the documents sought is highly confidential and personal in nature not only regarding Dr. Packman but also for other individuals not involved in this litigation. 3. The information sought is not the subject of a qualified protective order as required by federal law. 4. Ms. Smith has no documents regarding Richard Schreiber. February 26, 2007 David R. Fine Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 66742 Philip M. Bricknell Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 88330 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis, LLP 17 N. 2°d Street, 18th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 231-4500 Counsel for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL CIVIL ACTION - LAW PENNSYLVANIA, LTD., et al., Plaintiffs DOCKET NO. 04-1933 - CIVIL V. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., et al., Defendants SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Ann. W. Smith, M.S., LPC, LMFT 4309 Linglestown Road Suite 105E Harrisburg, PA 17112 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: See Exhibit "1" hereto. at the offices of Lentz, Cantor & Massey, Ltd., 460 East King Road, Malvern, PA 19355. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produced things LENTZ. CANTOR 8 MASSEY, LTD. 460 E. KING ROAD RALVERK PA 19355-3049 requested by this subpoena, togetherwith the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. This subpoena was issued at the request of the following person(s): Albert P. Massey, Jr., Esquire PA Supreme Court I.D. No. 04851 Lentz, Cantor & Massey, Ltd. 460 East King Road Malvern, PA 19355 (610) 722-5800 (610) 647-6714 (fax) Counsel for Defendants LENTZ, CANTOR 8 MASSEY, LTD. 460 E. KING ROAD MALVERN, PA 19355-3049 DATE: Seal of the Court BY THE COURT: BY: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA, LTD; MICHAEL L. GLUCK; L. LYNNE BRITTON; RICHARD SCHREIBER; JAMES A. TYNDALL; PETER M. BRIER; AND IRA J. PACKMAN Plaintiffs, VS. R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., and ROBIN J. MARZELLA Defendants No. 04-1933 - CIVIL EXHIBIT "1" TO SUBPOENA TO ANN W. SMITH, M.S., LPC, LMFT DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS The following definitions and instructions are applicable to and incorporated by reference into each request as set forth below: 1. The term "person," as used herein, means any natural person, partnership, corporation, or other business entity and all present and former officers, directors, agents, employees, attorneys, and others acting or purporting to act on behalf of such natural person, partnership, corporation, or other business entity. 2. The terms "you" and "your," as used herein, mean the person(s) and/or deponent(s) responding hereto, his, her, its, and/or their employees, agents, officers, and/or representatives and any other person(s) acting or authorized to act on his, her, its, and/or their behalf(s). LENTZ. CANTOR 8 MASSEY. LTD. 460 E. KING ROAD MALVERN. PA 19355-3049 3. The terms "and" and "or," as used herein, shall be construed conjunctively or disjunctively, as required, to include within the scope of each request any information that might be excluded by the opposite construction. 4. The term "document," as used herein, means the original and all copies of any written, printed, typed, or other graphic matter of any kind or nature, including any and all electronically stored, created, and/or exhibited matter, and any other tangible thing in your possession, custody or control, wherever and/or however located. Any copy containing thereon or having thereto any alterations,.notes, comments, or other material not included in the originals or copies referred to in the preceding sentence shall be deemed a separate document within the foregoing definition. The term "documents" includes, but is not limited to: (a) All contracts, agreements, letters, letter agreements, representations, warranties, certificates, and opinions; (b) All letters or other forms of correspondence or communication, including envelopes and notes, facsimiles and other messages, including reports, notes, notations, and memoranda of/or relating to telephone conversations or conferences; (c) All memoranda, reports, test results, statements or reports, notes, scripts, transcripts, tabulations, studies, analyses, evaluations, projections, work papers, corporate records or copies thereof, expressions or statements of policy, lists, comparisons, questionnaires, surveys, charts, graphs, summaries, extracts, statistical statements or records, compilations and opinions or reports of consultants; (d) All desk calendars, appointment books, and diaries; (e) All minutes, records, or transcripts of meetings and conferences, and list of persons attending meetings or conferences; (f) All reports and summaries of interviews and negotiations; LENTZ. CANTOR 8 MAMEY. LTD. 460 E KING ROAD MALVERN. PA 19355-3049 (g) All books, articles, press releases, magazines, newspapers, booklets, brochures, pamphlets, circulars, bulletins, notices, instructions, and manuals; (h) All motions pictures and photographs (whether developed or undeveloped), smart cards and/or memory sticks, tape recordings (video and audio included), microfilms, phonographs, tapes, high-8s, DVDs, DVCs, DVC-pro, beta, beta s and/or beta sp, whether analog and/or digital formats, XD-Cam, or other records, punch cards, magnetic tapes, discs, data cells, drums, print-outs, and other data and/or electronic compilations and/or formats from which information can be obtained, generated, and/or stored; and (i) Drafts of any document, revisions of drafts of any document, and original or preliminary notes. 5. The term "communications," as used herein, means all statements, admissions, denials, inquiries, discussions, conversations, negotiations, agreements, contracts, understandings, meetings, telephone conversations, letters, correspondence, notes, telegrams, telexes, advertisements, or any other form of written or verbal intercourse. 6. The term "relate(s) to," as used herein, means constitute(s), refer(s) to, reflect(s), concerns(s), pertain(s) to or in any way logically or factually connect(s) with the matter described in each request for production. 7. In construing these requests, the singular shall include the plural, the plural shall include the singular, and masculine, feminine or neuter pronoun(s) shall not exclude the other genders. 8. The term "Plaintiffs" means, collectively, the named plaintiffs in this action, Internists of Central Pennsylvania, Ltd., Michael L. Gluck, L. LENf'Z. CANTOR 8 MASSEY, LTD. 460 E KING ROAD MALVERN, PA 19355-3049 Lynne Britton, Richard Schreiber, James A. Tyndall, Peter M. Brier, and Ira J. Packman, his, her, its, and/or their employees, agents, officers, and/or representatives, and/or any other person(s) acting or authorized to act on his, her, its, and/or their behalf(s). 9. The term "Defendants" means, collectively, the named defendants in this action, R.J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C., and Robin J. Marzella, Esquire. 10. Unless set forth otherwise in a particular request, the time frame encompassed by the requests is from 1995 to the present. LENTZ, CANTOR 8 MA5SEY, LTD. 460 E. KING ROAD MALVERN, PA 19355-3049 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1. Any and all Communications, correspondence, notes, memoranda, progress reports, recommendations, prescriptions, treatment notes, records, records of treatment, recommendations of treatment, diagnoses, and/or other documents (whether typed, handwritten, electronically recorded, or otherwise) reflecting, referring to, regarding, concerning, and/or evidencing any and all discussions, treatment and/or care of, diagnosis, and/or professional consultations and/or advice to and/or with Ira J. Packman, M.D., regarding and/or in any way relating to the mental, psychological, and/or physiological condition(s), status, stability, disease(s), defect(s), disability(ies), and/or health of Dr. Packman from the first and/or initial visit, consultation, and/or treatment of and/or for the same through the most recent treatment and/or consultation. 2. Any and all communications, correspondence, notes, memoranda, progress reports, recommendations, prescriptions, treatment notes, records, records of treatment, recommendations of treatment, diagnoses, and/or other documents (whether typed, handwritten, electronically recorded, or otherwise) reflecting, referring to, regarding, concerning, and/or evidencing any and all discussions, treatment and/or care of, diagnosis, and/or professional consultations and/or advice to and/or with Richard Schreiber, M.D., regarding and/or in any way relating to the mental, psychological, and/or physiological condition(s), status, stability, disease(s), defect(s), disability(ies), and/or health of Dr. Schreiber from the first and/or initial visit, consultation, and/or treatment of and/or for the same through the most recent treatment and/or consultation. LENTZ. CANTOR a MASSEY. LTD. 460 R KING ROAD 4ALVERN. PA 19355-3049 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that true and correct copies of all papers contained in the Notice of Intent to Serve a Subpoena to Produce Documents and Things for Discovery Pursuant to Rule 4009.21 were served this 17 m day of January, 2007, by first-class mail, postage prepaid, upon: David R. Fine, Esquire Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham, LLP 17 North Second Street, 18'hFloor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507 LENW, C SSEY, LTD. Albert R. Massey, Jr., PA Supreme Court I.t 460 East King Road Malvern, PA 19355 (610) 722 - 5800 Counsel for Defendants LENTZ. CANTOR 8 MASSEY. LTD. 460 E KING ROAD MALVERN. PA 19355-3049 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that, on February 26, 2007, I caused copies of the foregoing to be served on the following by first class mail: Albert P. Massey, Jr., Esquire Lentz, Cantor & Massey, Ltd. 460 East King Road Malvern, PA 19355 hilip M. Bricknell 2 C1 I 4 ? r, . p n co n THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL Civil Action - Law PENNSYLVANIA, LTD., et al., Docket No. 04-1933 - CIVIL Plaintiffs, V. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., et al., Defendants. OBJECTIONS TO SUBPOENA TO DAVID RODGERS PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Plaintiffs object to the proposed subpoena that is attached to these objections for the following reasons: 1. Production of the documents sought would cause unreasonable annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, and burden to Plaintiff Richard Schreiber. 2. The information sought is not the subject of a qualified protective order as required by federal law. 3. Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, physicians may not release information of a party without written consent from that party. 4. Dr. Schreiber does not give his consent to the release of this information. February 26, 2007 David R. Fine Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 66742 Philip M. Bricknell Pa. Supreme Ct. No. 88330 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates Ellis, LLP 17 N. 2"d Street, 18th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 231-4500 Counsel for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL CIVIL ACTION - LAW PENNSYLVANIA, LTD., et al., Plaintiffs DOCKET NO. 04-1933 - CIVIL V. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., et al., Defendants SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: David A. Rogers, Ph.D. 6100 Old Jonestown Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: See Exhibit "1" hereto. at the offices of Lentz, Cantor & Massey, Ltd., 460 East King Road, Malvern, PA 19355. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produced things -ENTZ. CANTOR 8 MAZEY. LTD. l60 E KING ROAD [AWFA'K PA 19355-3049 requested by this subpoena, togetherwith the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. This subpoena was issued at the request of the following person(s): Albert P. Massey, Jr., Esquire PA Supreme Court I.D. No. 04851 Lentz, Cantor & Massey, Ltd. 460 East King Road Malvern, PA 19355 (610) 722-5800 (610) 647-6714 (fax) Counsel for Defendants BY THE COURT: DATE: BY: Seal of the Court LENTZ. CANTOR 8 MASSEY. LTD. 460 E KING ROAD MALVERN, PA 19355-3049 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL No.: 04-1933 - CIVIL PENNSYLVANIA, LTD; MICHAEL L. GLUCK; L. LYNNE BRITTON; RICHARD SCHREIBER; JAMES A. TYNDALL; PETER M. BRIER; AND IRA J. PACKMAN Plaintiffs, VS. R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C., and ROBIN J. MARZELLA Defendants EXHIBIT "1" TO SUBPOENA TO DAVID A. ROGER, Ph.D. DEFINITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS The following definitions and instructions are applicable to and incorporated by reference into each request as set forth below: 1. The term "person," as used herein, means any natural person, partnership, corporation, or other business entity and all present and former officers, directors, agents, employees, attorneys, and others acting or purporting to act on behalf of such natural person, partnership, corporation, or other business entity. 2. The terms "you" and "your," as used herein, mean the person(s) and/or deponent(s) responding hereto, his, her, its, and/or their employees, agents, officers, and/or representatives and any other person(s) acting or authorized to act on his, her, its, and/or their behalf(s). 3. The terms "and" and "or," as used herein, shall be construed conjunctively LENTZ. CANTOR & MASSEY. LTD. or disjunctively, as required, to include within the scope of each request any 460 E. KING ROAD MALVERN, PA 19355-3049 information that might be excluded by the opposite construction. 4. The term "document," as used herein, means the original and all copies of any written, printed, typed, or other graphic matter of any kind or nature, including any and all electronically stored, created, and/or exhibited matter, and any other tangible thing in your possession, custody or control, wherever and/or however located. Any copy containing thereon or having thereto any alterations, notes, comments, or other material not included in the originals or copies referred to in the preceding sentence shall be deemed a separate document within the foregoing definition. The term "documents" includes, but is not limited to: (a) All contracts, agreements, letters, letter agreements, representations, warranties, certificates, and opinions; (b) All letters orotherforms of correspondence or communication, including envelopes and notes, facsimiles and other messages, including reports, notes, notations, and memoranda of/or relating to telephone conversations or conferences; (c) All memoranda, reports, test results, statements or reports, notes, scripts, transcripts, tabulations, studies, analyses, evaluations, projections, work papers, corporate records or copies thereof, expressions or statements of policy, lists, comparisons, questionnaires, surveys, charts, graphs, summaries, extracts, statistical statements or records, compilations and opinions or reports of consultants; (d) All desk calendars, appointment books, and diaries; (e) All minutes, records, or transcripts of meetings and conferences, and list of persons attending meetings or conferences; (f) All reports and summaries of interviews and negotiations; LENTZ. CANTOR 8 MA55EY. LTD. 460 1= KING ROAD MALVERN. PA 19355-3049 (g) All books, articles, press releases, magazines, newspapers, booklets, brochures, pamphlets, circulars, bulletins, notices, instructions, and manuals; (h) All motions pictures and photographs (whether developed or undeveloped), smart cards and/or memory sticks, tape recordings (video and audio included), microfilms, phonographs, tapes, high-8s, DVDs, DVCs, DVC-pro, beta, beta s and/or beta sp, whether analog and/or digital formats, XD-Cam, orotherrecords, punch cards, magnetictapes, discs, data cells, drums, print-outs, and other data and/or electronic compilations and/or formats from which information can be obtained, generated, and/or stored; and (i) Drafts of any document, revisions of drafts of any document, and original or preliminary notes. 5. The term "communications," as used herein, means all statements, admissions, denials, inquiries, discussions, conversations, negotiations, agreements, contracts, understandings, meetings, telephone conversations, letters, correspondence, notes, telegrams, telexes, advertisements, or any other form of written or verbal intercourse. 6. The term "relate(s) to," as used herein, means constitute(s), refer(s) to, reflect(s), concerns(s), pertain(s) to or in any way logically or factually connect(s) with the matter described in each request for production. 7. In construing these requests, the singular shall include the plural, the plural shall include the singular, and masculine, feminine or neuter pronoun(s) shall not exclude the other genders. 8. The term "Plaintiffs" means, collectively, the named plaintiffs in this action, Internists of Central Pennsylvania, Ltd., Michael L. Gluck, L. Lynne Britton, Richard Schreiber, James A. Tyndall, Peter M. Brier, LENTZ. CANTOR 8 MASSEY, LTD. 460 E. KING ROAD MALVERN. PA 19355-3049 and Ira J. Packman, his, her, its, and/or their employees, agents, officers, and/or representatives, and/or any other person(s) acting or authorized to act on his, her, its, and/or their behalf(s). 9. The term "Defendants" means, collectively, the named defendants in this action, R.J. Marzella, Esquire & Associates, P.C., and Robin J. Marzella, Esquire. 10. Unless set forth otherwise in a particular request, the time frame encompassed by the requests is from 1995 to the present. LENTZ. CANTOR 8 MASSEY. LTD. 160 E: KING ROAD MLVEM PA 19355-3049 REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1. Any and all communications, correspondence, notes, memoranda, progress reports, recommendations, prescriptions, treatment notes, records, records of treatment, recommendations of treatment, diagnoses, and/or other documents (whether typed, handwritten, electronically recorded, or otherwise) reflecting, referring to, regarding, concerning, and/or evidencing any and all discussions, treatment and/or care of, diagnosis, and/or professional consultations and/or advice to and/or with Richard Schreiber, M.D., regarding and/or in any way relating to the mental, psychological, and/or physiological condition(s), status, stability, disease(s), defect(s), disability(ies), and/or health of Dr. Schreiber from the first and/or initial visit, consultation, and/or treatment of and/or for the same through the most recent treatment and/or consultation. LENTZ. CANTOR 8 MASSEY. LTD. 460 I^ KING ROAD MALVERN. PA 19355-3049 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that true and correct copies of all papers contained in the Notice of Intent to Serve a Subpoena to Produce Documents and Things for Discovery Pursuant to Rule 4009.21 were served this 17 ' day of January, 2007, by first-class mail, postage prepaid, upon: David R. Fine, Esquire Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Nicholson Graham, LLP 17 North Second Street, 18' Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101-1507 LENTZICPMORAAjk$SEY, LTD. BY: Albert P. Massey, Jr., u' e PA Supreme Court I.D . 04851 460 East King Road Malvern, PA 19355 (610) 722 - 5800 Counsel for Defendants :ENTZ. CANTOR 6 MASSEY. LTD. 160 E KING ROAD 1AWUN. PA 19355-3049 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that, on February 26, 2007, I caused copies of the foregoing to be served on the following by first class mail: Albert P. Massey, Jr., Esquire Lentz, Cantor & Massey, Ltd. 460 East King Road Malvern, PA 19355 Philip M. Bricknell 2 N co +' ._... ,.ern I 1.0. PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL (Mast be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Please list the following case: ® for JURY trial at the next term of civil court. ? for trial without a jury. CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) (check one) ® Civil Action - Law (See attachedccaption) Appeal from arbitration (other) (Plaintiff) VS. The trial list will be called on January 8, 2008 and Trials commence on February 4, 2008 (Defendant) Pretrials willbe held onJ a n u a r y 16, 2008 VS. (Briefs are due S days before pretrials No. 04-1933-CIVIL Term Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this praecipe: David R. Fine, Esq.; Philip M. Bricknell, Esq. Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: Albert P. Massey, Esq. This case is ready for trial. Date: '?'bece*- ' Z007 Signed: J - • 101,.. T1?-------? Philip M. Bricknell Print Name: Attorney for. I C P, Ltd. , et al. a IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL Civil Action - Law PENNSYLVANIA, LTD., MICHAEL L. GLUCK, L. LYNNE BRITTON, Docket No. 04-1933 - CIVIL RICHARD SCHREIBER, JAMES A. TYNDALL, PETER M. BRIER, and ; IRA J. PACKMAN Harrisview Professional Center JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 108 Lowther Street Lemoyne, PA 17043, Plaintiffs, v. R.J. MARZELLA, ESQUIRE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. and ROBIN J. MARZELLA 3515 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110, Defendants. 8 4 56 © M OO