The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About09-1910 MOLLY J. RESSLER, Administrator IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and Executrix of the Estate of CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DAVID M. RESSLER, Decedent, and Individually, - • Plaintiff NO.: V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES LIABILITY ACTION and ROBIN MILLER, M.D., 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 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 LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE Cumberland County Bar Association 32 S. Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar accio n dentro de los proximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificacion de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar accio n como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamacion o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYAA LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE Cumberland County Bar Association 32 S. Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 MOLLY J. RESSLER, Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of DAVID M. RESSLER, Decedent, and Individually, Plaintiff V. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES and ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.: O 9- / 916 &?W, CIVIL ACTION - LAW MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Molly J. Ressler, Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of David M. Ressler, Decedent, and Individually, by and through her attorney, Leslie M. Fields, Esquire, Costopoulos, Foster & Fields, and respectfully represents as follows in support of this Complaint: The Parties 1. Plaintiff, Molly J. Ressler, an adult individual residing at 1009 Trindle Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013, is the Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of David M. Ressler, Decedent, her husband, having been granted Letters of Administration by the Register of Wills of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania on October 13, 2008. 2. Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., a corporation organized and operating under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, provides health r . -1- r care services and has its primary corporate office located at 503 North 21 st Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011. Defendantowns and operates the Holy Spirit Hospital located at the same address. 3. Defendant, Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, is an inpatient psychiatric unit located within Holy Spirit Hospital and owned and operated by Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., with its primary place of business located at 503 North 21St Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011. 4. Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D., is a psychiatrist at Holy Spirit Hospital and Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, and at all relevant times herein, was an employee, servant and/or actual or ostensible agent of Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc. and Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services. Background Averments 5. At all relevant times, Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, was undergoing medical and psychiatric treatment and care at the Defendant, Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, located within Holy Spirit Hospital of Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., by employees, agents and/or actual or ostensible servants of Defendants, including Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D. 6. Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, had a history of mental illness, including major depression (recurrent, severe without psychotic features), polysubstance abuse and partner relational problems, all of which were known to -2- 1 1 1 1 Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and Robin Miller, M.D. 7. On August 2, 2008, Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, was presented to the emergency room of Holy Spirit Hospital of Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., for an attempted suicide following an overdose of Wellbutrin tablets. 8. Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, was admitted to Holy Spirit Hospital on August 2, 2008 and transferred to the 8th floor of the hospital for medical and psychiatric observation as a result of his Wellbutrin overdose. 9. On August 4, 2008, Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, was committed to Defendant, Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, under the order of a Section 302 commitment and was under the treatment and care of Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D. 10. Plaintiffs decedent, David M. Ressler, continued with psychiatric and medical treatment and care at Defendant, Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, at Holy Spirit Hospital under the psychiatric and medical treatment and care of Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D., until August 7, 2008 when he signed a 72-hour notice, informing them of his desire to leave. 11. As a result, an additional Section 302 commitment was filed and a Section 303 commitment hearing for involuntary hospitalization occurred in the morning of August 7, 2008 at approximately 11 a.m. -3- 12. At 1 p.m. on August 7, 2008 it was reported that Plaintiffs decedent, David M. Ressler, was explained his rights in regard to his pending involuntary commitment hearing. 13. One-half hour later, at 1:30 p.m. on August 7, 2008, Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, was found in his room hanging by his belt and shoe strings from the window casement. CPR and ACLS treatment were started by Holy Spirit Hospital personnel but it was not successful. Mr. Ressler was pronounced dead at 2:05 p.m. on August 7, 2008. 14. Twenty-one (21) hours after Mr. Ressler had been pronounced dead, a member of the Holy Spirit Hospital's utilization staff called "Jill" at Highmark to inform her that he had been "assigned to Fran Charney." Dutv of Care of Defendants Holy Spirit Health System Inc Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and Robin Miller M.D. 15. Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and Robin Miller, M.D., owed Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, the duty of care to protect him from self-harm, including from suicide. 16. Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and Robin Miller, M.D., owed Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, the duty of care to treat him with respectful individualized treatment, to assess his psychiatric and medical problems and needs, to plan for his care, to attend to and -4- consult other health care professionals who could respond to those problems and needs, and to organize a responsible plan for treatment following discharge that would help stabilize his condition and safeguard his future psychiatric and medical welfare. 17. Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and Robin Miller, M.D., owed Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, the duty of care to secure personal items from him that are known and commonly-used instruments of suicide, such as his belt and shoe laces. 18. Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and Robin Miller, M.D., owed Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, the duty of care to have in place window frames with "breakaway hardware" in his room to prevent him from successfully hanging himself. 19. Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and Robin Miller, M.D., owed Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, the duty of care to place him under Level I or Level II supervision and monitoring because he was an extremely high risk for suicide. Count 1 - Plaintiff v. Defendant Holy Spirit Health System Inc Gross Negligence 20. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 19 above are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. -5- . . 21. At the aforesaid time and place, the injuries and death of Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, were caused by the grossly negligent breach of duty of care and the gross negligence of Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., by and through its employees, servants and/or agents, in that it: a) failed to protect Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, from self-harm, including from suicide, by failing to understand that a highly suicidal person who had just been committed against his will was at extreme risk for a repeat attempt, especially when the means to commit suicide, i.e., the belt, the shoe laces and the non-breakaway window frame, were immediately available; b) failed to protect Mr. Ressler from himself despite overwhelming evidence that he was acutely suicidal and that his involuntary commitment would increase his suicidal behaviors; C) failed to stabilize his psychiatric and medical conditions; d) failed to safeguard the environment in which Mr. Ressler was being treated; e) failed to responsibly supervise his medication regimen; f) failed to adequately monitor and appreciate the side-effects associated with his medical conditions; g) failed to ensure that Mr. Ressler did not have access to -6- personal items such as his belt and shoe laces, which are known instruments of suicide, because the hospital psychiatrist and staff knew that he was at serious risk of suicide, he had been admitted because of a failed attempt to commit suicide by overdose, and they were alarmed enough about his suicide potential that they apprised him of a pending involuntary commitment less than two (2) hours before he in fact committed suicide; h) failed to have "breakaway" hardware on the window frames of the rooms in its psychiatric unit that would "give way" under an individual's weight to prevent or minimize any injury to one trying to hang oneself, such as Mr. Ressler, because the Defendants and their staff knew that in inpatient settings, suicidal individuals most commonly complete suicides via hanging and yet Mr. Ressler was permitted the means to hang himself in an acutely provocative situation that increased his suicide risk pending involuntary commitment; 1) failed to separate Mr. Ressler from the means to hang himself (i.e., belt and shoe laces) and failed to have "breakaway" devices on the window frames in the rooms of its psychiatric unit in order to prevent the most common form of inpatient suicide - hanging - which failures were not ordinary or routine carelessness or negligence but rather flagrant -7- and gross deviations from the usual, standard and customary care of an inpatient psychiatric staff and a hospital with an inpatient psychiatric unit; and j) failed to place Mr. Ressler under Level I or Level II supervision and monitoring (he was on Level III when he committed suicide) where he could be more closely monitored at a time of severe suicidal risk given that he had been admitted for suicidal behavior, had been suicidal on the psychiatric unit, and was judged an imminent danger to himself as testified to in writing by the staff at his involuntary commitment hearing not two (2) hours before his suicide. 22. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., as set forth above, Plaintiff's decedent, Mr. Ressler, suffered the injuries ultimately causing his death. 23. The gross negligence and gross breach of duty of care of Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., were substantial factors in causing the injuries and death of Plaintiff's decedent, Mr. Ressler. Count 2 - Plaintiff v. Defendant Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services: Gross Negligence 24. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 23 above are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. -8- 25. At the aforesaid time and place, the injuries and death of Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, were caused by the grossly negligent breach of duty of care and the gross negligence of Defendant, Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, by and through its employees, servants and/or agents, in that it: a) failed to protect Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, from self-harm, including from suicide, by failing to understand that a highly suicidal person who had just been committed against his will was at extreme risk for a repeat attempt, especially when the means to commit suicide, i.e., the belt, the shoe laces and the non-breakaway window frame, were immediately available; b) failed to protect Mr. Ressler from himself despite overwhelming evidence that he was acutely suicidal and that his involuntary commitment would increase his suicidal behaviors; C) failed to stabilize his psychiatric and medical conditions; d) failed to safeguard the environment in which Mr. Ressler was being treated; e) failed to responsibly supervise his medication regimen; f) failed to adequately monitor and appreciate the side-effects associated with his medical conditions; g) failed to ensure that Mr. Ressler did not have access to -9- personal items such as his belt and shoe laces, which are known instruments of suicide because the hospital psychiatrist and staff knew that he was at serious risk of suicide, he had been admitted because of a failed attempt to commit suicide by overdose, and they were alarmed enough about his suicide potential that they apprised him of a pending involuntary commitment less than two (2) hours before he in fact committed suicide; h) failed to have "breakaway" hardware on the window frames of the rooms in its psychiatric unit that would "give way" under an individual's weight to prevent or minimize any injury to one trying to hang oneself, such as Mr. Ressler, because the Defendants and their staff knew that in inpatient settings, suicidal individuals most commonly complete suicides via hanging and yet Mr. Ressler was permitted the means to hang himself in an acutely provocative situation that increased his suicide risk pending involuntary commitment; 1) failed to separate Mr. Ressler from the means to hang himself (i.e., belt and shoe laces) and failed to have "breakaway" devices on the window frames in the rooms of its psychiatric unit in order to prevent the most common form of inpatient suicide - hanging - which failures were not ordinary or routine carelessness or negligence but rather flagrant -10- and gross deviations from the usual, standard and customary care of an inpatient psychiatric staff and a hospital with an inpatient psychiatric unit; and j) failed to place Mr. Ressler under Level I or Level II supervision and monitoring (he was on Level III when he committed suicide) where he could be more closely monitored at a time of severe suicidal risk given that he had been admitted for suicidal behavior, had been suicidal on the psychiatric unit, and was judged an imminent danger to himself as testified to in writing by the staff at his involuntary commitment hearing not two (2) hours before his suicide. 26. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant, Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, as set forth above, Plaintiffs decedent, Mr. Ressler, suffered the injuries ultimately causing his death. 27. The gross negligence and gross breach of duty of care of Defendant, Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, were substantial factors in causing the injuries and death of Plaintiff's decedent, Mr. Ressler. Count 3 - Plaintiff v. Defendant Robin Miller M.D.: Gross Negligence 28. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 27 above are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. -11- 29. At the aforesaid time and place, the injuries and death of Plaintiff's { 1 decedent, David M. Ressler, were caused by the grossly negligent breach of duty of care and the gross negligence of Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D., in that she: a) failed to protect Plaintiffs decedent, David M. Ressler, from self-harm, including from suicide, by failing to understand that a highly suicidal person who had just been committed against his will was at extreme risk for a repeat attempt, especially when the means to commit suicide, i.e., the belt, the shoe laces and the non-breakaway window frame, were immediately available; b) failed to protect Mr. Ressler from himself despite overwhelming evidence that he was acutely suicidal and that his involuntary commitment would increase his suicidal behaviors; C) failed to stabilize his psychiatric and medical conditions; d) failed to safeguard the environment in which Mr. Ressler was being treated; e) failed to responsibly supervise his medication regimen; f) failed to adequately monitor and appreciate the side-effects associated with his medical conditions; g) failed to ensure that Mr. Ressler did not have access to personal items such as his belt and shoe laces, which are known -12- instruments of suicide, because she and the staff knew that he was at serious risk of suicide, he had been admitted because of a failed attempt to commit suicide by overdose, and theywere alarmed enough about his suicide potential that they apprised him of a pending involuntary commitment less than two (2) hours before he in fact committed suicide; h) failed to have "breakaway" hardware on the window frames of the rooms in its psychiatric unit that would "give way" under an individual's weight to prevent or minimize any injury to one trying to hang oneself, such as Mr. Ressler, because she and the staff knew that in inpatient settings, suicidal individuals most commonly complete suicides via hanging and yet Mr. Ressler was permitted the means to hang himself in an acutely provocative situation that increased his suicide risk pending involuntary commitment; 1) failed to separate Mr. Ressler from the means to hang himself (i.e., belt and shoe laces) and failed to have "breakaway" devices on the window frames in the rooms of its psychiatric unit in order to prevent the most common form of inpatient suicide - hanging - which failures were not ordinary or routine carelessness or negligence but rather flagrant and gross deviations from the usual, standard and customary care of an inpatient psychiatric staff and a hospital with an inpatient psychiatric unit; -13- f ? j) failed to place Mr. Ressler under Level I or Level II supervision and monitoring (he was on Level I I I when he committed suicide) where he could be more closely monitored at a time of severe suicidal risk given that he had been admitted for suicidal behavior, had been suicidal on the psychiatric unit, and was judged an imminent danger to himself as testified to in writing by her and the staff at his involuntary commitment hearing not two (2) hours before his suicide; k) on August 5, 2008 discontinued Mr. Ressler's cardiac diet despite the lack of change in his cardiac status and despite a blood sugar that was significantly elevated; 1) on August 5, 2008 continued Mr. Ressler's Zyprexa 5 mg at night despite lack of documentation that supported a need for an atypical antipsychotic with significant metabolic side-effects in someone who was already metabolically comprised by obesity, hyperlipidemia (taking Pravacol) and unstable blood sugars and who was already taking medication to decrease his blood pressure; and m) on August 5, 2008 added Trazodone 100 mg at night at a time when Mr. Ressler was already sleeping and had been "obtunded" less than 48 hours earlier and had been documented by the staff to have slept through the night of August 4, 2008 to the morning of August 5, -14- . 2008. 30. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D., as set forth above, Plaintiff's decedent, Mr. Ressler, suffered the injuries ultimately causing his death. 31. The gross negligence and gross breach of duty of care of Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D., were substantial factors in causing the injuries and death of Plaintiff's decedent, Mr. Ressler. Count 4 - Plaintiff v. Defendant Holy Spirit Health System Inc Vicarious Liability 32. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 31 above are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 33. At all relevant times herein, the actual or ostensible agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., including but not limited to Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D., were acting within the scope of their employment or agency with Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., in rendering grossly negligent medical and psychiatric care and treatment to Plaintiffs decedent, Mr. Ressler, and in grossly breaching the duty of care, as averred in detail above. 34. Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., is vicariously liable for the gross negligence and gross breach of duty of care of its actual or ostensible agents, servants and/or employees, including but not limited to Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D., -15- ' , . I I . I who rendered grossly negligent medical and psychiatric care and treatment to Plaintiff's decedent, Mr. Ressler, and who grossly breached the duty of care, as averred in detail above. 35. The gross negligence of the actual or ostensible agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., including but not limited to Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D., and their gross breach of the duty of care, which is imputed to Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., were substantial factors in causing the injuries and death to Plaintiffs decedent, Mr. Ressler, as averred more fully herein. 36. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid gross negligence and gross breach of duty of care which are imputed to Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., the Plaintiffs decedent, Mr. Ressler, sustained the injuries and death as alleged more fully herein. Count 5 - Plaintiff v. Defendant Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services: Vicarious Liability 37. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 36 above are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 38. At all relevant times herein, the actual or ostensible agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant, Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, including but not limited to Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D., were acting within the scope of their -16- employment or agency with Defendant, Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, in rendering grossly negligent medical and psychiatric care and treatment to Plaintiff's decedent, Mr. Ressler, and in grossly breaching the duty of care, as averred in detail above. 39. Defendant, Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, is vicariously liable for the gross negligence and gross breach of duty of care of its actual or ostensible agents, servants and/or employees, including but not limited to Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D., who rendered grossly negligent medical and psychiatric care and treatment to Plaintiffs decedent, Mr. Ressler, and who grossly breached the duty of care, as averred in detail above. 40. The gross negligence of the actual or ostensible agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant, Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, including but not limited to Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D., and their gross breach of the duty of care, which is imputed to Defendant, Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, were substantial factors in causing the injuries and death to Plaintiff's decedent, Mr. Ressler, as averred more fully herein. 41. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid gross negligence and gross breach of duty of care which are imputed to Defendant, Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, the Plaintiff's decedent, Mr. Ressler, sustained the injuries and death as alleged more fully herein. -17- , I , ¦ f 4 4 . WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION 42. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 41 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 43. This civil action is brought pursuantto the Pennsylvania Wrongful Death Act at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8301 et seq. and Pa.R.C.P. § 2201 et seq. 44. As a direct and proximate result of the gross negligence and gross breach of duty of care of the Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and Robin Miller, M.D., Plaintiffs decedent, David M. Ressler, died on August 7, 2008. 45. Plaintiffs decedent, David M. Ressler, did not bring any other action during his lifetime and no other action for the death of said decedent has been commenced against the Defendants or any other parties. 46. Plaintiffs decedent, David M. Ressler, is survived by the following statutory beneficiaries: Molly J. Ressler, his wife, who resides at 1009 Trindle Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, PA 17013; Matthew D. Ressler, his son, who resides at 31 Hillcrest Drive, San Rafael, California 94901, and Megan Ressler-Bhacia, his daughter, who resides at 804 Bradley Court, Mt. Laurel, New Jersey 08054. 47. This civil action is brought to recover, on behalf of the aforesaid statutory beneficiaries, all damages lawfully available under the Pennsylvania Wrongful Death Act. -18- M 1 f 48. As a direct and proximate result of the death of Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, which was caused by the Defendants as averred above, the aforesaid statutory beneficiaries have suffered pecuniary losses, and have incurred medical, nursing and hospital bills, funeral and burial expenses, and the costs of the administration of the estate. 49. As a further direct and proximate result of the death of Plaintiffs decedent, David M. Ressler, which was caused by the Defendants as averred above, the aforesaid statutory beneficiaries have suffered the loss of Mr. Ressler's probable earnings and maintenance that they would have received from him during the remainder of his natural life. 50. As a further direct and proximate result of the death of Plaintiffs decedent, David M. Ressler, which was caused by the Defendants as averred above, the aforesaid statutory beneficiaries have suffered the lost value of household services, society and comfort that Mr. Ressler would have given to his family had he lived. 51. As a further direct and proximate result of the death of Plaintiffs decedent, David M. Ressler, which was caused by the Defendants as averred above, the aforesaid statutory beneficiaries have suffered the loss of the contributions Mr. Ressler would have made to the family for the purchase of items such as shelter, food, clothing, medical care, education, entertainment, gifts and -19- recreation had he lived. 52. As a further direct and proximate result of the death of Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, which was caused by the Defendants as averred above, Molly J. Ressler, the Wife-statutory beneficiary. has suffered the loss of consortium, society, services, companionship, guidance, solace, support, protection and comfort that she would have received from her husband for the remainder of his natural life. 53. As a further direct and proximate result of the death of Plaintiffs decedent, David M. Ressler, which was caused by the Defendants as averred above, Matthew D. Ressler and Megan Ressler-Bhacia, the Children-statutory beneficiaries, have suffered the loss of their father's care, training, education, society, services, companionship, guidance, solace, support, protection, comfort, tutelage and moral upbringing that they would have received from him for the remainder of his natural life. SURVIVAL ACTION 54. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 53 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth herein. 55. Plaintiff, Molly J. Ressler, in her capacity as the Executrix of the Estate of David M. Ressler, decedent, brings this civil action pursuant to the Pennsylvania Survival Act at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8302 et seq. -20- 1) ? $ U 56. This civil action is brought to recover on behalf of the Estate of David M. Ressler, decedent, all damages lawfully available under the Pennsylvania Survival Act. 57. As a direct and proximate result of the gross negligence and gross breach of duty of care of the Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and Robin Miller, M.D., Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, died on August 7, 2008. 58. As a further direct and proximate result of the gross negligence and gross breach of duty of care of the Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and Robin Miller, M.D., the Plaintiffs decedent, David M. Ressler, was caused to suffer great physical and mental pain and suffering, emotional shock and distress, mental anguish, discomfort, inconvenience, fright, trauma, terror and the loss of life's pleasures prior to his death, especially from and during the time of the act of hanging and the waiting for death until the death itself. 59. Plaintiff, Molly J. Ressler, claims on behalf of the Estate of David M. Ressler, decedent, damages for the great physical and mental pain and suffering, emotional shock and distress, mental anguish, discomfort, inconvenience, fright, trauma, terror and the loss of life's pleasures suffered by Mr. Ressler prior to his death, especially from and during the time of the act of hanging and the waiting for death until the death itself. -21- 60. As a further direct and proximate result of the gross negligence and gross breach of duty of care of the Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and Robin Miller, M.D., the Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, was caused to suffer the loss of his future earnings capacity less the estimated cost of his personal maintenance from the date of death through his estimated working life span. 61. Plaintiff, Molly J. Ressler, claims on behalf of the Estate of David M. Ressler, decedent, damages for the loss of Mr. Ressler's future earnings capacity less the estimated cost of his personal maintenance from the date of death through his estimated working life span. 62. Asa further direct and proximate result of the gross negligence and gross breach of duty of care of the Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and Robin Miller, M.D., the Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, was caused to suffer the loss of his retirement income and Social Security income. 63. Plaintiff, Molly J. Ressler, claims on behalf of the Estate of David M. Ressler, decedent, damages for the loss of his retirement income and Social Security income. -22- t d, • , •. ? I ,, 4 0 V Conclusion WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Molly J. Ressler, Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of David M. Ressler, decedent, and Individually, based on the foregoing allegations, hereby demands judgment against all Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and Robin Miller, M.D., jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits together with interest, costs and expenses as provided by law. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Leslie M )Fields, Esquire Attorney I.D. No.: 29411 COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS 831 Market Street, P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0222 Phone: (717) 761-2121 Fax: (717) 761-4031 Web: www.Costopoulos.com Attorney for Plaintiff DATED: '-4%? ?AC 2009 -23- VERIFICATION I, Plaintiff, Molly J. Ressler, Individually and as Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of David M. Ressler, Decedent, do hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties at 18 Pa.S.C. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. BY: A?aA Molly J. es er, Individually and as Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of David M. Ressler, Decedent DATED: 3 a o ? r• ? V f? v` F Q ? c? " tl i'TI Sheriffs Office of Cumberland County R Thomas Kline ?Ojj' 01 C st?t?Grrl ?4 Edward L schorpp Sheriff ' Solicitor Ronny R Anderson Jody S Smith Chief Deputy nrr .v ' ` ```''rr Civil Process Sergeant SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 04/03/2009 04:40 PM - Shawn Harrison, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on April 3, 2009 at 1640 hours, he served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Holy Spirit Health System, by making known unto Kay Tipton, Legal Coordinator, c/o Ris Management, 210 Senate Avenue, 3rd Floor, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011, its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. 04/03/2009 04:40 PM - Shawn Harrison, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on April 3, 2009 at 1640 hours, he served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, by making known unto Kay Tipton, Legal Coordinator, c/o Risk Management, 210 Senate Avenue, 3rd Floor, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011, its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correc copy of the same. 04/03/2009 04:40 PM - Shawn Harrison, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on April 3, 2009 at 1640 hours, he served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Robin Miller, M.D., by making known unto Kay Tipton, Legal Coordinator, C/o Risk Management, 210 Senate Avenue, 3rd Floor, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011, its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. SHERIFF COST: $73.92 April 06, 2009 Docket No. 2009-1910 Molly J. Ressler, Administrator V Holy Spirit, et, al, SO ANSWERS, ? y R ;TKMAS K I E, SHERIFF Sheriff OF THE c wr,"'; ?'n OTARY 2009 APP -7 PM 3:150 E'• `i;?Y MOLLY J. RESSLER, Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of DAVID M. RESSLER, Decedent, and Individually, Plaintiff V. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH ;SERVICES and ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.: 09-1910 CIVIL ACTION - LAW MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Certificate of Merit as to Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services Name of Defendant I, Leslie M. Fields, Esquire , certify that: Attorney or Party [x ] an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or 'exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; AND/OR [x ] the claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to he undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; OR [ ] expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. Date: April 9, 2009 she M. Fields, Esquire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Leslie M. Fields, Esquire, hereby certify that on this 10th day of April 2009,a true and correct copy of the foregoing Certificate of Merit was served upon all counsel of record by: Hand Delivery X First Class Mail, Postage Pre-Paid Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested Fax Transmission Overnight bail at the following address(es) and/or number(s): Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire, DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Counsel for Defendants COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS F Leslie SDI. Fields, Esquire OF THE Pz'- OTAPY 2009 APR 14 PH 1- 05 .-V r Y l MOLLY J. RESSLER, Administrator IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and Executrix of the Estate of CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DAVID M. RESSLER, Decedent, and Individually, Plaintiff NO.: 09-1910 V. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH CIVIL ACTION - LAW SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL BEHAVIORAL HEALTH !SERVICES LIABILITY ACTION and ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Certificate of Merit as to ROBIN MILLER, M.D. Name of Defendant I, Leslie M. Fields, Esquire , certify that: Attorney or Party [x ] an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned! that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or'exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject df the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; AND/OR [x ] the claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to he undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; OR [ ] expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. Date: April 9, 2009 eslie M. Fields, squire +w CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE, I, Leslie M. Fields, Esquire, hereby certify that on this 10th day of April 2009, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Certificate of Merit was served upon all counsel of record by: Hand Delivery X First Class Mail, Postage Pre-Paid Certified M411, Return Receipt Requested Fax Transmission Overnight Mail at the following address(es) and/or number(s): Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Counsel for Defendants COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS Leslie . Fields, Esquire OF Ti-,;-.- P4477Ce,-;'"-N`-)TARY 2009 APR 114 PH 1: 04- cum, 434008 DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS BY Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 78565 HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D. Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)7314800 (Tele) (717)7314803 ax MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR IN THE COURT OF CO ON PLEAS AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF OF CUMBERLAND CO TY, DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND PENNSYLVANIA INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiffs NO. 09-1910 V. MEDICAL HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants JURY TRIM, ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of the undersigned as counsel for HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SER MILLER, M.D., in the above-captioned matter. Date: April 13, 2009 Respectfully submitted, DICKIE, MC CAMEY & C] By:_ Thorrias M. Chairs, E3 Supreme Court I.D. W 1200 Camp Hill Bypa Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 7314800 Attorne,i) %r Defendar 1 ',E ACTION r HOLY SPIRIT AND ROBIN .1- 11 lire 565 Suite 205 700 P.C. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, April 13, 2009, I, Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire, hereby a true and correct copy of the foregoing ENTRY OF APPEARANCE record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First-Class Mail Leslie M. Fields, Esquire COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS 831 Market Street P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0222 (Counsel for Plaintiff) u y??r'ovs? ? 1 ? - . Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire that I did serve all counsel of prepaid, at Camp r FILEt}-t f'--i=tfj'Lc OF T H c P, T H ON APY 2009 APR 15 PPS 3* 0 2 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY RESSLER Vs. NO. 091910 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, ET CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena(s) for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 THOMAS M CHAIRS, ESQUIRE certifies that: 1. A Notice of Intent to Serve the Subpoena(s) with a copy of the subpoena(s) attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena(s) is sought to be served, 2. A copy of the Notice of Intent, including the proposed subpoena(s) is attached to this certificate, 3. No objection to the subpoena(s) has been received, and 4. The subpoena(s) which will be served is identical to the subpoena(s) which is attached to the Notice of Intent to Serve the Subpoena(s). Date: 11/11/09 a «: ~1 THOMAS M CHAIRS, ESQUIRE 1200 CAMP HILL BYPASS SUITE 205 CAMP HILL, PA 17011 717-731-4800 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT INQUIRIES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO: MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS, INC. 4940 DISSTON STREET PHILADELPHIA PA 19135 (215) 335-4907 By: Christine Knight MLR File #: M368531 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY RESSLER Vs. No. 091910 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, ET TO: LESLIE FIELDS, ESQ (PLAINTIFF) NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 DEFENDANT intends to serve a subpoena(s) identical to the one(s) 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: 10/21/09 THOMAS M CHAIRS, ESQUIRE 1200 CAMP HILL BYPASS SUITE 205 CAMP HILL, PA 17011 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT INQIIIRIES SHOIILD BE ADDRESSED TO: MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS, INC. 4940 DISSTON STREET PHII,p,DELPHIA, PA 1913 5 (215) 335-4907 By: Christine Knight Enc(s) Copy of subpoena(s) Counsel return card File #: M368531 COI~~DNWFALTH OF FII~IIVSYLVANIA COi]Ial'Y OF RESSLER ' Vs . File No. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, ET 091910 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCLJhIENTS OR THINGSBILLING REQIIESTED FOR DISOOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 DR TJIAUW LING TAN, HERSHEY MED CTR, 500 UNIVERSITY DR TO: HERSHEY nn ~~n~3 (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following doa.rnents or thin s: SEE t~T -- at MEDICAL LEGAL RI•;PRODUCTIONS, (~s~)940 DISSTON ST. , PHILA. , PA You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested ti~ this subpoena, together wit'i the certificate of carpliance, to the party making thi_ request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reaonabl~ cost of preoaring 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 ~thi~ subpoena may seek a court orde~- cxr~pe 11 i ng you to carp 1 y with i t . THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE RECiUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: Nom: THOMAS M CHAIRS, ESQ AL~RESS: - S~2g~C~g uTT T BYPASS 17011 TELEPHONE: SUPREhE OOURT I D# 215 - 3 3 5- 3 212 ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANT M368531-O1 DATE : (J~ tom.. , ~ 1 ,~1 ~ 9 Seal of the Court BY THE COURT: Prothonotary/C erk, Civil Oivis.ion _ ~ i Deputy (Eff. 7/97) ADDENDUM T'O S UBPOENA RESSLER Vs. No. 091910 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, ET CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: DR TJIAUW LING TAN **SEE ATTACHED ADDENDUM** PERTAINING TO: NAME: DAVID RESSLER ADDRESS: DATE OF BSSAN. XXXXX5251 MEDICAL BILLING REQUESTED CERTIFIED PHOTOCOPIES WILL BE ACCEPTED IN LIEU OF YOUR PERSONAL APPEARANCE. RECORD CUSTODIAN -COMPLETE AND RETURN [ ] RECORDS ARE ATTACH eDb SREo~' y knowledge tlinf ormat on and of records that, to t belief all documents or things above mentioned have been produced. [ ] NO DOCUMENTS AVAILAB~Eno recobd of rtheyfollowinghdocumentsahave has been made and been located (CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX): ( ) RECORDS ( ) PATIENT BILLING ( ) X_RAYS ( ) RECORDS / XRAYS have been destroyed Date Aut orized signature for DR TJIAUW LING TAN CUMBERLAND M368531-01 * * * SIGN AND RETURN THIS PAGE * * * DR TJIAWU LING TAN Any and all copies of medical records regarding David Ressler from before 8/7/08 to present. Including, but not limited to, all correspondence, psychiatric records, psychiatric admissions, medical consultations, medical records, medical exam reports, medical billing and radiology reports. ppry~~DNWEALTH OF PII~IIdSYLV~A t~0i]A?1'Y OF RESSLER Vs. File No. 091910 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, ET SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCt~1ENTS ~ TH 1 NOS TEEING REQIIESTED FOR DISOOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 PA COUNSELING SERVICES, 1 GREYSTONE RD, CARLISLE PA 17013 TO: (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after servic9e of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the f o 11 ow i ng documents SEE 1 nA9 T at _ _ ----- MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODIICTIONS,(~s~~40 DISSTON ST., PHILA., PA You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested h~ this subpoena, together with the certificate of carpliance, to the party making thi_ request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the rea,onabl~ 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 1,20) days after its service, the party serving thi, ~~ubpoena may seek a court orde~~ cx~~pe 11 i ng you to carte 1 y with i t . THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSiJED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOf_LOWING PERSON: NAB: THOMAS M CHAIRS, ESQ AC)ORESS: - , ~ g g C,~4g urr.r. BYPASS 7011 TELEPHONE: SUPREhE COURT I D# 215 - 3 3 5- 3 212 ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANT M368531-02 DATE : ~ ~.~ _ ~. CJU Seal of the BY THE COURT: Prothonotary/C erk, Civil Division '1 Ce. Deputy (Eff. T/97) ADDENDUM TO S UBPOENA RESSLER Vs. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, ET No. 091910 CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR : PA COUNSELING SERVICES **SEE ATTACHED ADDENDUM** PERTAINING TO: NAME: DAVID RESSLER ADDRESS: DATE OF BIRTH: 01/01/55 SSAN: XXXXX5251 MEDICAL BILLING REQUESTED CERTIFIED PHOTOCOPIES WILL BE ACCEPTED IN LIEU OF YOUR PERSONAL APPEARANCE. RECORD CUSTODIAN -COMPLETE AND RETURN [ ] RECORDS ARE ATTACHED HERETO: I hereby certify as custodian of records that, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief all documents or things above mentioned have been produced. [ ] NO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE: I hereby certify that a thorough search has been made and that no record of the following documents have been located (CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX): ( ) RECORDS ( ) PATIENT BILLING ( ) X-RAYS ( ) RECORDS / XRAYS have been destroyed Date Aut orize signature or PA COUNSELING SERVICES CUMBERLAND M36$531-02 * * * SIGN AND RETURN THiS PAGE * * PA COUNSELING SERVICES Any and all copies of medical records regarding David Ressler from before 8!7/08 to present. Including, but not limited to, all correspondence, psychiatric records, psychiatric admissions, medical consultations, medical records, medical exam reports, medical billing and radiology reports. COrq~~DNWEALTH OF PIIaISYLVANIA COUIai'Y OF RESSLER Vs. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, ET File No. 091910 MEDICAL BILLING REQIIESTED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCL~IENTS OR TH I NC3S FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 MASLAND ASSOCS, 220 WILSON ST STE 109, CARLISLE PA 17013 TO: (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after servicce of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the f o 11 ow i ng doaments SEE, nAT at _ _ -- MEDICAL LEGAL REPR0DIICTI0NS,(~T~,~sS,940 DISSTON ST., PHI A., You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requester! h~ th i s subpoena, together wi t!i the certificate of tarn 1 i ante, to the party making th i +request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the rea,onablr. 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 thi: s~ubpoerta may seek a court orde~~ rxxipe 11 i ng you to carp 1 y with i t . THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE RE(1UEST OF THE F0LLC7~NING PERSON: NAB; THOMAS M CHAIRS, ESQ ADDRESS:- ~ 12~p TAMP HILL BYPASS 17011 TELEPHONE' _ SUPREhE COURT I D S 215 - 3 3 5- 3 212 ATTORNEY FOR: M368531-03 DEFENDANT DATE : V,G~, 02 ~ „1- ~ y Seal of the Court BY TFE COURT: Isl C„~Y,~ ,~ ~~..a - ~T Prothonotary/C1 k, Civil Division _ ~ ~ ~ , Q~ u , Deputy (Eff. 7/97) ADDENDUM TO S UBPOENA RESSLER Vs. No. 091910 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, ET CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR : MASLAND ASSOCS **SEE ATTACHED ADDENDUM** PERTAINING TO: NAME: DAVID RESSLER ADDRESS: DATE OF BSSAN~ XXXXX5251 MEDICAL BILLING REQUESTED TIFIED PHOTOCOPIES WILL BE ACCEPTED IN LIEU OF YOUR PERSONAL APPEARANCE. CER D CUSTODIAN -COMPLETE AND RETURN RECOR as custodian of [ ] RECORDS ARE ATTACHED HERETO: I knowledge tlinformation and records that, to the best of my roduced. belief all documents or things above mentioned have been p [ ] NO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLEno recobd ofrtheyfollowinghdo~umentsahave has been made and that been located (CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX): ( ) RECORDS ( ) PATIENT BILLING ( ) X_RAYS ( ) RECORDS / XRAYS have been destroyed Authorize signature or Date Mp,SLAND ASSOCS CUMBERLAND M368531-03 * * * SIGN AND RETURN THIS PAGE * * * MASLAND ASSOCIATES Any and all copies of medical records regarding David Ressler from before 8/7/08 to present. Including, but not limited to, all correspondence, psychiatric records, psychiatric admissions, medical consultations, medical records, medical exam reports, medical billing and radiology reports. r~~DNWFALTH OF FIIaTSYLVANIA COUBTi7 OF RESSLER Vs . File No. 091910 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, ET MEDICAL BILLING REQUESTED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCL~IENTS OR THINGS FOR DiSOOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 GAUDENZIA, 6 STATE RD, MECHADtICSBURG PA 17050-7957 T0: (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following docurents SEE1nA~ at - ----- MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS,(~~~sS~40 DISSTON ST., -. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested ~~ this subpoena, together wit! the certificate of compliance, to the party making thi_ request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the rea,onabl~ cost of preoaring the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the doctments or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court orde~- crnpe 11 i ng you to cortp 1 y with i t . THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE RECiUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: N,q~; THOMAS M CHAIRS, ESQ A[)pRE$S: _ i 2 n,0 CAMP HTLL BYPASS 17011 TELEPHONE' SUPREh~ OOURT I D# 215 - 3 3 5- 3 212 ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANT M368531-04 DATE : C~,L.ef ~ d-(2, e ~Y Seal of the Court BY T1~ OOURT: Prothonotary/C1 k, Civil Division ~ ~ Deputy (Eff. 7/97) ADDENDUM T'O S UBPOENA RESSLER Vs. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, ET CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR : GAUDENZIA **SEE ATTACHED ADDENDUM** PERTAINING TO: NAME: DAVID RESSLER ADDRESS: DATE OF BSSAN. XXXXX5251 No. 091910 MEDICAL BILLING REQUESTED CERTIFIED PHOTOCOPIES WILL BE ACCEPTED IN LIEU OF YOUR PERSONAL APPEARANCE. RECORD Cl1STODIAN -COMPLETE AND RETURN [ ] RECORDS ARE ATToACH eDb s~o~•' Y knowledge tlinformation and of records that, t roduced. belief all documents or things above mentioned have been p [ ] NO DOCUMENTS AVaILABtEno recobd ofrtheyfollowinghdo~umentsahave has been made an been located (CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX): ( ) RECORDS ( ) PATIENT BILLING ( ) X_RAYS ( ) RECORDS / XRAYS have been destroyed Date Aut orize signature for GAUDENZIA CUMBERLAND M368531-04 * * * SIGN AND RETURN THIS PAGE * * * GAUDENZIA Any and all copies of records from all locations regarding David Ressler from before 8/7/08 to present. Including, but not limited to, all correspondence, psychiatric records, psychiatric admissions, medical consultations, medical records, medical exam reports, medical billing and radiology reports. ooMC~NwFALTH of ,vANSA OOU[Ji'Y OF RESSLER Vs . File No. 091910 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, ET MEDICAL BILLING REQIIESTED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCIJhIENTS OR THINGS FOR DISOOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, 4331 N FEDERAL HWY STE 2, FT LAUDERDALE FL 33308 TO: {Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce .the fo 11 ow i ng documents or~ng~tr -- at gar------ MEDICAL LEGAL (gddress) . ~ •' You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested h~ this subpoena , together w i t!~ the certificate of cc~np 1 i ance , to the party making th i request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the rea.onabl~ 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 1,20) days after its service, the party serving ~thi~ subpoena may seek a court order ccrtpe 11 i ng you to carte 1 y with i t . THIS SUBPOENA WAS I SSl1ED AT THE RE(~IJEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON THOMAS M CHAIRS, ESQ NAP'S ADDRESS: 1200 CAMP HILL BYPASS ["8MP HTT,L, PA 17011 TELEPHONE: ~ ~~,~ SUPREP'E OOURT I D # _ _ ATTORNEY FOR: M368531-05 DEFENDANT DATE : ~ ~~- ~G ~c~ r Seal of the Court BY TI-~ COURT : s a. ~,~: .c-t - T Prothonotary/C1 k, Civil Divis.ior. Depu Y (Eff. 7/97) ADDENDUM T'O S UBPOENA RESSLER Vs. No. 091910 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, ET CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR : RECOVERY SOLUTIONS **SEE ATTACHED ADDENDUM** PERTAINING TO: NAME: DAVID RESSLER ADDRESS: DATE OF BSSAN- XXXXX5251 MEDICAL BILLING REQUESTED CERTIFIED PHOTOCOPIES WILL BE ACCEPTED IN LIEU OF YOUR PERSONAL ApPE~tANCE. RECORD CUSTODIAN -COMPLETE AND RETURN [ ] RECORDS ARE ATTACH eDb s~o~' y knowledge tlinformat on and of records that, to th belief all documents or things above mentioned have been produced. [ ] NO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE: I hereby certify that a thorough search has been made anECKhTHEnAPPROPRIATE BOX}following documents have been located (CH ( ) RECORDS '°'~~ ( ) PATIENT BILLING `~,. ( ) X_RAYS `"-.( ) RECORDS / XRAYS have been destroyed Date Authorize signature or RECOVERY SOLUTIONS CUMBERLAND M368531-05 * * * SIGN AND RETURN THIS PAGE * * * RECOVERY SOLUTIONS Any and all copies of records from all locations regarding David Ressler from before 8/7/08 to present. Including, but not limited to, all correspondence, psychiatric records, psychiatric admissions, medical consultations, medical records, medical exam reports, medical billing and radiology reports. C.O)~DNWFALTH OF FP1a1SYLVANlA COUIJl'Y OF QJI~lBERI+~II+ID RESSLER Vs ~ File No. 091910 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, ET MEDICAL BILLING REQIIESTBD SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOC~JrIENTS OR THINGS FOR DISOOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 WHITE DEER RUN, 2001 N FRONT ST, BLDG 1 STE 212 TO: HARRISBURG PA 17102 {Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20} days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following doc~.ments n T A1'~iT r A Tn~~~,~rn~r °f ~ gL~~I'z~~r~ -- at _ .. •~ MEDICAL LEGAL R ~`-~-'"-- (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested ~~ this subpoena, together wit~1 the certificate of compliance, to the party making thi: 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 (201 days after its service, the party serving thi, subpoena may seek a court orde>- cxxipe 11 i ng you to comp 1 y with i t . THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAh~: THOMAS M CHAIRS, ESQ ADDRESS: 1200 CAMP HILL BYPASS CAMP H7~T~, PA 17011 TELEPHONE: r .,„.,„ SUPREhE GbURT f D # ATTORNEY FOR: M368531-06 DEFENDANT DATE : _ Qe~,~_~ ~ ,~1,- .-~ r n Seai of the Court BY THE COURT: `S/ ~Pr thonotary/C erk, Civil Division / / n~ _ ~~-'rl [ ~ 1 Y~ 1 ,~ Deputy (Eff. 7/97) ADDENDUM T'O S UBPOENA RESSLER Vs. No. 091910 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, ET CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR : WHITE DEER RUN **SEE ATTACHED ADDENDUM** PERTAINING TO: NAME: DAVID RESSLER ADDRESS: DATE OF BSSAN. gXXXX5251 MEDICAL BILLING REQUESTED CERTIFIED PHOTOCOPIES WILL BE ACCEPTED IN LIEU OF YOUR PERSONAL APPEARANCE. RECORD CUSTODIAN -COMPLETE AND RETURN [ ] RECORDS ARE AT~oCH eDb s~o~• my hknowledge tlinformat on and of records that, belief all documents or things above mentioned have been produce . [ ] NO DOCUMENTS AVaILABtEno recobd of rtheyfollowinghdocumentsahave has been made an been located (CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX): ( ) RECORDS ( ) PATIENT BILLING ( ) X-RAYS ( ) RECORDS / XRAYS have been destroyed ;t-. Date Aut orize signature or WHITE DEER RUN _ CUMBERLAND M368531-06 * * * SIGN AND RETURN THiS PAGE ~ ~` ~` WHITE DEER RUN Any and all copies of records from all locations regarding David Ressler from before 8/7/08 to present. Including, but not limited to, all correspondence, psychiatric records, psychiatric admissions, medical consultations, medical records, medical exam reports, medical billing and radiology reports. COI~~DNWEAI.yTH OF PII~IlJSYLVANIP- COiJN'i'Y OF RESSLER Vs . File No. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, ET SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCLlh1ENTS OR THINGS FOR DISOOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 HEAI,THSOUTH, 1170 HARRISBURG PK, CARLISLE PA 17013 TO; ATTN: PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT (Name of Person or Entity) 091910 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the f o 11 ow i n9 documents o~ng~er n ~• T n rn~~rnI Tn~ _ - -._-__ vzrr~vT~~ at ~------ MEDICAL LEGAL ~' (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requester! ~y this subpoena, together wit! the certificate of car~pliance, to the party making thi_ request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the rea.onabl~ cost of preparing the copies or p:^oducing 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 ~thi~ subpoena may seek a court orde~~ ocrrpe 11 i ng you to carte 1 y with i t . THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE RE(iUEST OF THE FOI..LOWlNG PERSON: THOMAS M CHAIRS, ESQ NAPE ' ADDRESS: 1200 CAMP HILL BYPASS CAMP HILL. PA 17011 TELEPHONE : -~ -, ~ ~ ~, , -~ SUPREME OOURT I D # _ _ ATTORNEY FOR: M368531-07 DEFENDANT DATE: ~ ~~. ~~'/ Seal of the Court BY THE COURT: Prothonotary/C1 k, Civil Division - Deputy (Eff. 1/97) ADDENDUM TO S UBPOENA RESSLER Vs. No. 091910 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, ET CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR : HEALTHSOUTH ANY AND p,I,L COAIES OF EMPLOYMENT RECORDS FROM ALL LOCATIONS REGARDING DAVID RESSLERFROM BEFORE 8/7/08 TO PRESENT. INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ALL CORRESPONDENCE, MEMORANDUMS, PERSONNEL FILE DOCUMENTS AND MEDICAL RECORDS. PERTAINING TO: NAME: DAVID RESSLER ADDRESS: DATE OF BIRTH: 01/01/55 SSAN: XXXXX5251 CERTIFIED PHOTOCOPIES WILL BE ACCEPTED IN LIEU OF YOUR PERSONAL APPEARANCE. RECORD CUSTODIAN -COMPLETE AND RETURN [ ] RECORDS ARE ATTACHED HERETO: I hereby certify as custodian of records that, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief all documents or things above mentioned have been produced. [ ] h~ Dbeen made and ~tEno recobd of rtheyfollowinghdo~umentsahave been located (CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX): ( ) RECORDS ( ) PATIENT BILLING ( ) X-RAYS ( ) RECORDS / XRAYS have been destroyed Date Aut orized signature or HEALTHSOUTH CUMBERLAND M368531-07 * * * SIGN AND RETURN THIS PAGE * * * {='1 mt,. inn ~ r l' ~~. .. S i _. 6' i ,.J ~ i . .. J i .. ... .. IN 'SHE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY RESSLER VS . NO. 091910 ~ ,.,,, o HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, ET ~=• ~ -_;.-+ - CERTIFICATE ~ = `' ' ~ - ~''_ ; , ~ c~ PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA ~ - ~ _ ~, PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 _ ~ . _ .. _, n ~ c As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena(s) for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 THOMAS M CHAIRS, ESQUIRE certifies that: 1. A Notice of Intent to Serve the Subpoena(s) with a copy of the subpoena(s) attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena(s) is sought to be served, 2. A copy of the Notice of Intent, including the proposed subpoena(s) is attached to this certificate, 3. No objection to the subpoena(s) has been received, and 4. The subpoena(s) which will be served is identical to the subpoena(s) which is attached to the Natice of Intent to Serve the Subpoena(s). Date: 06/14/10 THOMAS M CHAIRS, ESQUIRE 1200 CAMP HILL BYPASS SUITE 205 CAMP HILL, PA 17011 717-731-4800 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT INQUIRIES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO: MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS, INC. 4940 DISSTON STREET PHILADELPHIA PA 19135 (215) 335-4907 By: Christine Knight MLR File #: M375021 ILV THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY ~ D RESSLER Vs. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, ET No. 091910 TO: LESLIE FIELDS, ESQ (PLAINTIFF) NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 DEFENDANT intends to serve a subpoena(s) identical to the one(s) 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: 05/21/10 THOMAS M CHAIRS, ESQUIRE 1200 CAMP HILL BYPASS SUITE 205 CAMP HILL, PA 17011 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT INQIIIRIES SHOIILD BE ADDRESSED TO: MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS, INC. 4940 DISSTON STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19135 (215) 335-4907 By: Christine Knight Enc (s) : Copy of subpoena (s ) Counsel return card File #: M375021 t . RESSLER Vs. CplT~NWFALTH OF pPi~II~LSYLVANIA COONIR OF . File No. 091910 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, ET MEDICAL BILLING REQIIESTED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCI~ENTS OR THINGS FOR DISOOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 JANET EISENBISE, 4701 DEVONSHIRE RD, HARRISBURG PA 17109 TO: (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents orsin~~ +_ at _ MEDICAL LEGAL RSPROD ~-_-- (Address) ~ ~~ You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested h~ this subpoena. together wit! the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the rea.onable 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 (201 days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court orde-• crnpe I l i ng you to carip l y with i t. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE RE(~IJEST OF THE FOLLOW I PK3 PERSON N~„~, THOMAS M CHAIRS, ESQ ADDRESS: 1200 CAMP HILL BYPASS ~,p,M,p NTT T., PA 17011 TELEPHONE; = 3~~-~- SUPREhE OOURT lD # ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANT M375021-:11 DATE: ~ _ Sea o ~ thg Court BY TFE COURT: ~f ~ _ Prot tary/Clerk, Civil Division ty (Eff. 7/97) RESSLER Vs. ADDENDUM TO S UBPOENA HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, ET No. 091910 CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: JANET EISENBISE ALL COPIES OF MEDICAL RECORDS FROM BEFORE 8/7/08 TO PRESENT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ALL CORRESPONDENCE, PSYCHIATRIC RECORDS, PSYCHIATRIC ADMISSIONS, MEDICAL CONSULTATIONS, MEDICAL RECORDS, MEDICAL EXAM REPORTS, MEDICAL BILLING, RADIOLOGY REPORTS. PERTAINING TO: NAME: DAVID RESSLER ADDRESS: DATE OF BIRTH: 01/01/55 SSAN: XXXXX5251 MEDICAL BILLING REQUESTED CERTIFIED PHOTOCOPIES WILL BE ACCEPTED IN LIEU OF YOUR PERSONAL APPEARANCE. RECORD CUSTODIAN -COMPLETE AND RETURN [ ) RECORD'S ARE ATTACHED HERETO: I hereby certify as custodian of records that, to the best of :ry Y.nowledge, infor:natien and belief all documents or things above mentioned have been produced. [ ] NO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE: I hereby certify that a thorough search has been made and that no record of the following documents have been located (CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX}: ( ) RECORDS ( ) PATIENT BILLING ( ) X-RAYS ( ) RECORDS / XRAYS have been destroyed Date Aut orize signature or JANET EISENBISE CUMBERLAND M375021-O1 * * * S1GN AND RETURN THIS PAGE * * ~ OOHMJNWFALTH OF PFI~IIJSYLVANrA ' QOO1Ji'Y OF RESSLER . Vs . File No. 091910 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, ET MEDICAL BILLING REQIIESTED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCtJhENTS OR THINGS FOR DISOOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 MARWORTH, PO BOX 36 LILY LAKE RD, WAVERLY PA 18471-7736 T0: (Name of Person or Entity Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or~ng~rr~~~~~_~n~~mT ~ __ at MEDICAL • • • • ~------ (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested ~~ this subpoena, together wit! the certificate of canpliance, to the party making thi; request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the rea.onabl~ 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 orde~~ cxxipe 11 i ng you to comp 1 y with i t . THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE RE(1lJEST OF THE FOLLOkVINO PERSON: NAB: THOMAS M CHAIRS, ESQ ADDRESS: 1200 CAMP HILL BYPASS CAMP HILL ~ PA 17011 TELEPHONE : °~3 5 ~1~ SUPREA'E OOURT l D # ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANT M375021-02 DATE : ~~ ~ _ Seal~~e Court BY THE CURT: Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Division Deputy (Eff. 7/97) MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR: AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA N0.09-1910 v. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVORIAL HEALTH SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS BEFORE HESS, P.J., AND MASLAND, J. ORDER AND NOW, this z 2'J day of July, 2010, it is ordered and directed that: The preliminary objections of Defendants to strike Plaintiff's allegations concerning punitive damages are DENIED. ~ Leslie M. Fields, Esquire For the Plaintiffs V Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire For the Defendants :rlm CpP; cs wta~ ~Cd 7 ~a a~~ ~ `"; .J v c... ra r~ -4 a .. ;_r __, BY THE COURT, MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR: AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff v. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVORIAL HEALTH SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA N0.09-1910 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS BEFORE HESS, P.J., AND MASLAND, J. HESS, P.J., July ll', 2010. OPINION AND ORDER The defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health and Robin Miller, M.D., have filed preliminary objections to the plaintiff's amended complaint. (Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, filed April 26, 2010). The amended complaint alleges medical malpractice pursuant to the Mental Health Procedures Act, 50 P.S. §7101, et seq., and more specifically gross negligence in failing to protect plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, from self-harm including suicide. The amended complaint has been preliminarily objected to by Defendants in the form of a motion to strike Plaintiffs claim for punitive damages and all references Defendants' alleged outrageous and recklessly indifferent conduct, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(2). STATEMENT OF FACTS The allegations of Plaintiffs amended complaint may be summarized as follows. Plaintiffs decedent, David M. Ressler, had a history of serious mental illness, including major depression, polysubstance abuse and partner relational issues. (Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, paza. 6). On or about August 2, 2008, Plainitff s decedent was transported to the emergency room department of Holy Spirit Hospital for emergency treatment following an attempted suicide where he took an overdose of Wellbutrin tablets. (Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, para. 7). Later that same day, he was transferred to the 8th floor of the hospital for medical and psychiatric observation. (Plaintiff s Amended Complaint, para. 8). Two days later, he was transferred to the caze of Defendant Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, where he was under the treatment and supervision of Defendant Robin Miller, M.D. (Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, paza 9). On August 7, 2008, Plaintiff's decedent signed a 72-hour notice informing Defendants of his desire to leave their caze. (Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, paza. 10). A commitment application was completed, and at 1:00 p.m. that same day he was informed of his rights in regazd to a pending involuntary commitment. (Plaintiff s Amended Complaint, pazas. 11-12). At approximately 1:30 p.m. on August 7, 2008, Plaintiff's decedent was discovered in his room, deceased as a result of having hung himself by his belt and shoe strings. (Plaintiff s Amended Complaint, para. 13). He was pronounced dead at 2:05 p.m. after resuscitation efforts failed to revive him. Id. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavorial Health Services and Robin Miller, M.D., owed Plainiff s decedent duties of caze to protect him from self-harm, to treat him with respectful individualized treatment, to assess his psychiatric and medical problems and needs, to plan for care, and to safeguard his future psychiatric and medical welfare. (Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, pazas. 16-17). Furthermore, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants owed Plaintiff s decedent the duty of caze to secure personal items from him that aze known and commonly-used instruments of suicide, and to remove from his room decorative features and protuberances that could be used for hanging. (Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, pazas. 18-19). Finally Plaintiff alleges that Defendants owed Plaintiff s decedent a duty of care to 2 place him under adequate supervision and monitoring, especially because there existed a high risk of suicide. (Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, para. 19). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to protect Plaintiff s decedent from self-harm by "failing to understand" that he was at extreme risk for a repeated suicide attempt. (Plaintiff s Amended Complaint, para. 21(a)). Plaintiff alleges this so because Defendants knew that Plaintiff's decedent had very recently attempted to commit suicide, and still did not remove his belt, shoe laces, and decorative features or protuberances that could be used for hanging from the room in which they placed him. (Plaintiff s Amended Complaint, para. 21(a)). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants' failure to protect Plaintiffs decedent from himself, failure to stabilize his psychiatric and medical conditions, to safeguard his environment, and to remove the items and ability for Plaintiffs decedent to hang himself was not ordinary or routine carelessness or negligence, but rather a flagrant and gross deviation from the usual standard of care of an inpatient psychiatric setting. Plaintiff also alleges that Plaintiff s decedent was not placed under adequate supervision and monitoring. (Plaintiff s Amended Complaint, para. 21 (b)-(h)). Plaintiff also alleged that some of the Defendants' policies were either outdated or had little or no validity in clinical practice. (Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, para. 21 (i)-(k)). Defendants' care and treatment of Plaintiff s decedent was characterized in the complaint as negligent, grossly negligent, outrageous and recklessly indifferent to the rights and interests of Plaintiff's decedent. (Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, paras. 21, 24, 26, 29, 31, 34, 36, 40, 42, 46, 49, 53, 56, 69). A claim for punitive damages was included in the pleading. (Plaintiff s Amended Complaint, ad damnum clause). Defendants have filed preliminary objections with regard to this claim. 3 The standazd of review for preliminary objections is well settled in this Commonwealth. Preliminary objections aze properly granted only when "based on the facts pleaded, it is cleaz and free from doubt that the complainant will be unable to prove facts legally sufficient to establish a right to relief." Mazur v. Trinity Area School Dist., 599 Pa. 232, 240-41, 961 A.2d 96, 101 (2008) (internal citations omitted). Furthermore, "[fJor the purpose of evaluating the legal sufficiency of the challenged pleading, the court must accept as true all well-pleaded, material, and relevant facts alleged in the complaint and every inference that is fairly deducible from those facts." Mazur v. Trinity Area School Dist., 599 Pa. at 241. The appellate court will only reverse a trial court's ruling on a preliminary objection when "there has been an error of law or abuse of discretion." Excavation Technologies, Inc. v. Columbia Gas Co. of Pa., 2007 Pa. Super. 327, ¶ 5, 936 A.2d 111, 113. The Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act was enacted to "ensure a fair legal process and reasonable compensation for persons injured" due to medical malpractice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 40 P.S. § 1303.502. That statute also controls punitive damages in medical malpractice cases. Under § 505 of the MCARE, punitive damages may be awazded "for conduct that is the result of the health caze provider's willful or wanton conduct or reckless indifference to the rights of others. A showing of gross negligence is insufficient to support an award of punitive damages." 40 P.S. § 1303.505 (a), (b). Prior to the enactment of the MCARE Act, courts in Pennsylvania had adopted the language of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908 as the governing law of punitive damages in medical malpractices cases. Feld v. Merriam, 506 Pa. 383, 485 A.2d 742 (1984). The language of the MCARE closely follows that of § 908 with respect to punitive damages. See Scampone v. Grave Healthcare Co., 2010 Pa. Super. ¶ 75, _ A.2d _, _ (2010) ("This 4 language tracks the test for punitive damages discussed in the case law."). Section 908 provides as follows: (1) Punitive damages aze damages, other than compensatory or nominal damages, awazded against a person to punish him for his outrageous conduct and to deter him and others like him from similaz conduct in the future. (2) Punitive damages may be awazded for conduct that is outrageous, because of the defendant's evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others. In assessing punitive damages, the trier of fact can properly consider the character of the defendant's act, the nature and extent of the harm to the plaintiff that the defendant caused or intended to cause and the wealth of the defendant. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908. The Honorable Judge Oler has summarized the use of § 908(2) as follows: With respect to punitive damages, Pennsylvania has adopted the following language from the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 908(2) (1965): `Punitive damages may be awarded for conduct that is outrageous, because of the defendant's evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others.' Martin v. Johns-Mansville Corp., 508 Pa. 154, 169, 494 A.2d 1088, 1096 (1985). An actor displays `a reckless indifference to the rights of others' if the `actor knows, or has reason to know, ... of facts which create a high degree of risk of physical harm to another, and deliberately proceeds to act, or fail to act, in conscious disregazd of, or indifference to, that risk.' Id. at 1097 (quoting RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 500 cmt. a. (1965)). `Punitive damages may not be awarded for misconduct which constitutes ordinary negligence such as inadvertence, mistake and errors of judgment.' Id. at 1097 (citing RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 908 cmt. b. (1965)). Facts supporting a claim of outrageous conduct must be found in plaintiffs complaint. Smith v. Brown, 283 Pa. Super. 116, 120, 423 A.2d 743, 745 (1980). Garrity et vir v. Macaluso et al., 51 Cumb. 7, 9 (2001)(Judge Oler)(citing Townsend-Ensor v. Entwistle, No. 98-5606 Civil Term, slip. Op. at 4-5 (June 17, 1999)(Judge Hess)). Punitive damages aze an "`extreme remedy,' available in only the most exceptional matters." Phillips v. Cricket Lighters, 584 Pa. 179, 188, 883 A.2d 439, 445 (2005). They are intended to "deter and punish" the type of behavior which indicates a reckless indifference to the rights of others and an evil motive on the part of the wrongdoer. G.J.D. v. Johnson, 522 Pa. 169, 713 A.2d 1127, 1128 (1998)(internal citations omitted). A fact finder may award punitive 5 damages only when the conduct of a health care provider is outrageous: it may be conduct that is willful or wanton, or conduct that shows either an evil motive or displays a reckless indifference to the rights of others. 40 P.S. § 1303.505 (a), (b); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 908(2); Phillips v. Cricket Lighters, 584 Pa. at 188-89, see also Martin v. Johns-Mansville Corp., 508 Pa. at 169. The specific conduct of an actor must be examined to determine the motive with which the wrongdoer acted or failed to act. Feld v. Merriam, 506 Pa. 395. A court must look to "the act itself together with all the circumstances including the motive of the wrongdoers and the relations between the parties...." Id. (internal citations omitted). That act must be intentional, reckless, or malicious. Id. at 396. Furthermore, it is well settled that the factfinder "may not award punitive damages merely because a tort has been committed. Additional evidence must demonstrate willful, malicious, wanton, reckless or oppressive conduct." McClellan v. Health Maintenance Organization of Pa., 413 Pa.Super. 128, 144, 604 A.2d 1053, 1061 (1992) (citing Pittsburgh Outdoor Adv. Co. v. Ya. Manor Apts., Inc., 436 Pa. 350, 353, 260 A.2d 801, 803 (1970)). A wrongdoer acts recklessly when "his conduct creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to another and such risk is substantially greater than that which is necessary to make his conduct negligent." Scampone v. Grave Healthcare Co., 2010 Pa. Super. ¶ 74 (citing Phillips v. Cricket Lighters, 584 Pa. at 189). In addition, at the preliminary objection stage, to determine whether the wrongdoer acted with a reckless indifference to the rights of others, a court must analyze the following: [W]hether the complaint's allegations establish that the actor actually knew or had reason to know of facts which created a ~ high risk of physical harm to plaintiff. Further, the defendant must have proceeded to act in conscious disregard of or indifference to that risk.... If the defendant actually does not realize the high 6 degree of risk involved, even though a reasonable man in his position would, the mental state required for the imposition of punitive damages under Pennsylvania law is not present. If that mental state is present, a jury question on the issue of punitive damages exists. Field v. Philadelphia Elec. Co., 388 Pa. Super. 400, 425-26, 565 A.2d 1170, 1182 (1989) (emphasis added). With respect to punitive damages against a health care provider as a result of the acts of an agent, Pennsylvania has codified the requirements for a proper claim. Section 1303.505(c) provides as follows: (c) Vicarious liability.--Punitive damages shall not be awarded against a health care provider who is only vicariously liable for the actions of its agent that caused the injury unless it can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the party knew of and allowed the conduct by its agent that resulted in the award of punitive damages. 40 P.S. § 1303.505(c). In the present case, accepting all well-pleaded, material, and relevant facts alleged in Plaintiff s amended complaint as true, and taking every inference that is fairly deducible from those facts, Plaintiff has alleged sufficient information with respect to punitive damages to survive the preliminary objections filed by Defendants. See Mazur v. Trinity Area School Dist., 599 Pa. at 241. Plaintiff has made a series of averments that Defendants acted with a reckless indifference to Mr. Ressler's rights by committing him to a hospital room without removing his shoe laces and belt, that the Defendants failed to remove the dangerous protuberances from which he could hang himself, that Defendants placed him under insufficient supervision and monitoring, that certain policies and procedures of Defendants were either outdated or possessed little or no validity in clinical practice, and that Defendants acted, through all of this, with the knowledge that very recently Plaintiff's decedent had attempted to commit suicide. At this stage, it would be premature to conclude, based on the allegations in the complaint, and accepting them as true along with all inferences reasonable deducible therefrom, that Plaintiff will be totally 7 unable to prove facts legally sufficient to establish a right to relief. See Mazur v. Trinity Area School Dist., 599 Pa. at 240-41. With respect to the punitive damages sought against the Holy Spirit Defendants for the actions or inactions of its agents based on the principles of vicarious liability, Plaintiff has alleged that the Holy Spirit Defendants knew of the history of mental illness and depression of Plaintiff's decedent, knew of the alleged outrageous and recklessly indifferent conduct of Defendant Robin Miller, M.D., and knew of the outdated policies, regulations, or protocols. (Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, paras. 6, 40, 46, 49, 53). These allegations, taken as true, are sufficient, at this stage, to survive the prerequisites of 40 P.S. § 1303.505(c), which requires that a health care provider know of and allow the conduct of its agent that resulted in the award of punitive damages. ORDER AND NOW, this 2 t "r day of July, 2010, it is ordered and directed that: The preliminary objections of Defendants to strike Plaintiffs allegations concerning punitive damages are DENIED. BY THE COURT, ~/ Kevi A. Hess, P.J. 8 732255/ANS/Amended Complaint/Miller DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS BY: Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. ATTORNEY LD. N0.78565 , HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D. Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)731-4800 (Tele) 71 731-4803 (Fax MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND PENNSYLVANIA INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff N0.09-1910 ~ "~ . c v -r~ u' ~ ~ ~ MEDICAL MALPRACTICE O~ ~ ~. _~ co i„~ :: :! ~ ~~ HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., „~ k ,i _~ ,. ~~' ~ ~ , HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH ~ ~,. SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D., ~, ~ { Defendants _ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT. ROBIN MILLER. M D TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D. ("Answering Defendant"), by and through her counsel, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., to Answer Plaintiffs Amended Complaint as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments set forth in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint and therefore denies same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial. 2. The averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint are directed to another party and no response is required of Answering Defendant. In the alternative, to the extent a responsive pleading is deemed required, the allegations set forth in Paragraph 2 of the Plaintiff s Amended Complaint are denied generally. 732255/ANS/Amended Complaint/Miller 3. The averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are directed to another party and no response is required of Answering Defendants. In the alternative, to the extent a responsive pleading is deemed required, the allegations set forth in Paragraph 3 of the Plaintiff s Amended Complaint are denied generally. 4. Denied. Defendant Robin Miller, M.D. is a psychiatrist with staff privileges at the Holy Spirit Hospital that is employed by the Holy Spirit Hospital. It is specifically denied that Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D. is an agent, servant and/or employee of the Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and/or Holy Spirit Health System. 5.-14. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 15. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. To the extent that this paragraph contains averments of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 16. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. To the extent that this paragraph contains averments of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 17. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. To the extent that this paragraph contains averments of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 732255/ANS/Amended Complaint/Miller 18. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. To the extent that this paragraph contains averments of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 19. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time cause or contributed to the injuries as alleged. To the extent that this paragraph contains averments of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendant together with all allowable costs and attorney fees. Count 1-Plaintiff v. Defendant Holy Spirit Health System, Inc Gross Negligence 20. Answering Defendant hereby incorporates by reference hereto answers to paragraphs 1 - 19 as if fully set forth at length herein. 21(a-k) - 24. The allegations set forth in these paragraphs of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint refer to a party other than Answering Defendant, consequently no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that these paragraphs are deemed to contain facts which pertain to the Answering Defendant, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). By way of further response, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time cause or contributed to the injuries as alleged. 732255/ANS/Amended Complaint/Miller WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendant together with all allowable costs and attorney fees. Count II -Plaintiff v. Defendant Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services• Gross Negligence 25. Answering Defendant hereby incorporates by reference hereto answers to paragraphs 1 - 24 as if fully set forth at length herein. 26(a-k) -29. The allegations set forth in these paragraphs of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint refer to a party other than Answering Defendant, consequently no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that these paragraphs are deemed to contain facts which pertain to the Answering Defendant, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). By way of further response, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time cause or contributed to the injuries as alleged. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendant together with all allowable costs and attorney fees. Count III -Plaintiff v. Defendant, Robin Miller, M D Gross Negligence 30. Answering Defendant hereby incorporates by reference hereto answers to paragraphs 1 - 29 as if fully set forth at length herein. 31(a-o). Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph and corresponding sub- paragraphs of Plaintiff s Amended Complaint are denied as legal and medical conclusions to 732255/ANS/Amended Complaint/Miller which no responses are required and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. To the extent that this paragraph and corresponding sub-paragraphs of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint contain averments of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further response, Answering Defendant was not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 32. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of yet further response, Answering Defendant was not grossly negligent and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. At all relevant times, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause nor contribute to the injuries as alleged. 33. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of yet further response, Answering Defendant was not grossly negligent and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. At all relevant times, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause nor contribute to the injuries as alleged. 34. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, Answering Defendant's treatment and care was not grossly negligent, outrageous or recklessly indifferent. At all relevant times, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause nar contribute to the injuries as alleged. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendants together with all allowable costs and attorney fees. 732255/ANS/Amended Complaint/Miller Count IV -Plaintiff v. Defendant Holy Spirit Health System, Inc. Vicarious Liability 35. Answering Defendant hereby incorporates by reference hereto answers to paragraphs 1 - 34 as if fully set forth at length herein. 36.- 40. The allegations set forth in these paragraphs of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint refer to a party other than Answering Defendant, consequently no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that these paragraphs are deemed to contain facts which pertain to the Answering Defendant, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). By way of further response, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time cause or contributed to the injuries as alleged. Dr. Miller is a psychiatrist employed by Holy Spirit Hospital. The remaining general allegations of agency are incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. By way of yet further response, Answering Defendant's treatment and care was not grossly negligent, outrageous or recklessly indifferent. At all relevant times, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendant together with all allowable costs and attorney fees. Count V -Plaintiff v. Defendant Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services Vicarious Liability 41. Answering Defendant hereby incorporates by reference hereto answers to paragraphs 1 - 40 as if fully set forth at length herein. 732255/ANS/Amended Complaint/Miller 42. - 46. The allegations set forth in these paragraphs of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint refer to a party other than Answering Defendant, consequently no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that these paragraphs are deemed to contain facts which pertain to the Answering Defendant, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Byway of further response, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time cause or contributed to the injuries as alleged. Dr. Miller is a psychiatrist employed by Holy Spirit Hospital. The remaining general allegations of agency are incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. By way of yet further response, Answering Defendant's treatment and care was not grossly negligent, outrageous or recklessly indifferent. At all relevant times, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendant together with all allowable costs and attorney fees. Count VI -Plaintiff v. Defendant Holy Spirit Health System and Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services Corporate Nesli~ence 47. Answering Defendant hereby incorporates by reference hereto answers to paragraphs 1 - 46 as if fully set forth at length herein. 48. - 53. The allegations set forth in these paragraphs of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint refer to a party other than Answering Defendant, consequently no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that these paragraphs are deemed to contain facts which pertain to the Answering Defendant, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with 732255/ANS/Amended Complaint/Miller Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). By way of yet further response, Answering Defendant's treatment and care was not grossly negligent, outrageous or recklessly indifferent. At all relevant times, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause nor contribute to the injuries as alleged. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendant together with all allowable costs and attorney fees. WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION 54. Answering Defendant hereby incorporates by reference hereto answers to paragraphs 1 - 53 as if fully set forth at length herein. 55. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 55 of the Plaintiff s Amended Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 56. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 56 of the Plaintiff s Amended Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 57. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 57 of the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 732255lANS/Amended Complaint/Mi11er 58. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 58 of the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 59. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 59 of the Plaintiff s Amended Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 60. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 60 of the Plaintiff s Amended Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 61. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 61 of the Plaintiff s Amended Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 62. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 62 of the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 63. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 63 of the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is deemed to contain facts 732255/ANS/Amended Complaint/Miller to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 64. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 64 of the Plaintiff s Amended Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 65. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 65 of the Plaintiff s Amended Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendant together with all allowable costs and attorneys' fees. SURVIVAL ACTION 66. Answering Defendant hereby incorporates by reference hereto answers to paragraphs 1 - 65 as if fully set forth at length herein. 67. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, to the extent Paragraph 67 of the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 68. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, to the extent Paragraph 68 of the Amended Plaintiff's Complaint is 732255/ANS/Amended Complaint/Miller deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 69. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, to the extent Paragraph 69 of the Amended Plaintiffs Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 70. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, to the extent Paragraph 70 of the Plaintiff s Amended Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 71. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, to the extent Paragraph 71 of the Plaintiff s Amended Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 72. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, to the extent Paragraph 72 of the Plaintiff s Amended Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 73. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, to the extent Paragraph 73 of the Plaintiff s Amended Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 732255/ANS/Amended Complaint/Miller 74. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, to the extent Paragraph 74 of the Plaintiff s Amended Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 75. Denied as a conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, to the extent Paragraph 75 of the Plaintiff s Amended Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant denies that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendant together with all allowable costs and attorneys' fees. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of the Answering Defendant together with all allowable costs and attorneys' fees. NEW MATTER By way of further response, Answering Defendant, avers the following New Matter directed to Plaintiff: 76. Answering Defendant is immune from suit pursuant from the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act. 77. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference all applicable defenses and protections under the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act. 732255/ANS/Amended Complaint/Miller 78. The negligence of the Plaintiff and/or decedent bars and/or limits any claim the Plaintiff may have against Answering Defendant. 79. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 80. Plaintiff is responsible, in whole or in part, for the injuries alleged because Plaintiff s decedent voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risk of the activities, and therefore, all claims resulting there from are barred. 81. The general allegations of agency contained in Plaintiff s Amended Complaint are denied and incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. 82. Nothing Answering Defendant did or failed to do was the cause in fact or the proximate cause of any alleged injury or loss to Plaintiffs. 83. Plaintiffs claims may be barred by the doctrines of assumption of the risk and contributory negligence or reduced by comparative negligence. 84. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is barred or reduced by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, the relevant provisions of which are incorporated herein by reference as though same were more fully set forth at length herein. 85. At all times material hereto, Answering Defendant provided treatment in accordance with the applicable standard of medical care at the time and place of treatment. 86. Plaintiffs failed to mitigate any damages allegedly sustained. 87. Plaintiffs claims and/or request for damages herein are limited and/or precluded by the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. 88. Plaintiff s claims maybe barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 89. Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts sufficient to toll the applicable statute of limitations. 732255/ANS/Amended ComplaintlMiller 90. Plaintiffls cause of action may be barred by the equitable doctrine of laches. 91. To the extent that discovery and/or investigation may reveal, Plaintiffs have granted accord and satisfaction to a judgment thereby barring a subsequent suit against any other defendant for the same injuries. 92. In accordance with Pennsylvania law, including the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act, Plaintiffs shall have no right to recover any amount, which was paid by a collateral source of compensation or benefits. 93. Plaintiffs may have entered into a release which has the effect of discharging Answering Defendant from this matter. 94. Upon information and belief, certain of Plaintiff's bills for which Plaintiffs seek to recover in this action that were paid or are payable under accident and health insurance, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Worker's Compensation insurance, or other insurance. 95. Plaintiffs shall have no right to recover for any amount which was paid by a private, public, or gratuitous collateral source of compensation or benefits under such as instituted or amended by the Pennsylvania Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act. 96. Plaintiff s claims and/or request for damages is barred or limited by the provisions of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act, Act. No. 13, House Bill No. 1802, 2202 Pa. ALS 13; 2002, Pa. Laws 13; 2001 Pa. HB 1802, as amended. 97. By way of further answer, Answering Defendants specifically reserve the right to plead hereafter as further New Matter those additional affirmative defenses, including, without limitation, those set forth in Pa.R.Civ.P. 1030, that continuing investigation, discovery in 732255/ANS/Amended ComplaindMiller accordance with court rules, and the introduction of evidence at trial may render applicable to claims and causes of action declared upon Plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendant together with all allowable costs and attorneys' fees. Respectfully submitted, DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Date: September 8, 2010 By: ~ . `i~~~ ~ nrQ Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #78565 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 Attorney for Defendant, ROBIN MILLER, M.D. VERIFICATION I, Robin Miller, MD., hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Y understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: ~ f ~ j~ ~~ By: Robin Miller, .D. 732255/ANS/Amended Complaint/Miller CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 8th day of September, 2010, I, Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, ROBIN MILLER, M.D. TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First-Class Mail: Leslie M. Fields, Esquire COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS 831 Market Street P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0222 (Counsel for Plaintiff) ~1 • Ci ~~~ ~,t3 Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire i 725218/ANS/Amended Complaint/HSH DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire ATTORNEY I.D. N0.78565 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)731-4800 (Tele) (717)731-4803 (Fax) MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff v. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA - G ~; N0.09-1910 ~ "_' -'.', , MEDICAL MALPRACTICE A~01~=~ ~:~ -ca ~~ ~_ c JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ~i ~~ T~,.~ :1~ ~' ~ s=- 4 ~~ a ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH AND NOW, comes Defendants, HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. and HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, collectively hereinafter referred to as ("Answering Defendants"), by and through their counsel, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C, to Answer to Plaintiff s Amended Complaint as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments set forth in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and therefore denies same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial. 2. Denied. Holy Spirit Health System is an administrative entity that did not provide care or treatment to David Ressler. Holy Spirit Health System is a corporation organized and operating under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with an office located at 503 725218/ANS/Amended Complaint/HSH North 215` Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. Holy Spirit Hospital is a separate and distinct corporate entity governed by a separate and distinct Board of Directors. 3. 3. Denied. Behavioral Health Services is not a corporate entity. The entity that fulfills the corporate responsibilities of the Hospital located at 503 N. 2151 Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania is the Holy Spirit Hospital which is not party to this litigation. 4. Denied. Defendant Robin Miller, M.D. is a psychiatrist with staff privileges at the Holy Spirit Hospital who is employed by the Holy Spirit Hospital. It is specifically denied that Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D. is an agent, servant and/or employee of the Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and/or Holy Spirit Health System. 5.-14. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 15. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceed the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. To the extent that this paragraph contains averment of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 16. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceed the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. To the extent that this paragraph contains averment of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 17. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceed the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. To the extent that this paragraph contains averment of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 725218/ANS/Amended ComplaindHSH 18. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceed the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. To the extent that this paragraph contains averment of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 19. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceed the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. To the extent that this paragraph contains averment of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendants together with all allowable costs and attorney fees. Count 1-Plaintiff v. Defendant Holy Spirit Health System, Inc.: Gross Negligence 20. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate by reference hereto answers to paragraphs 1 - 19 as if fully set forth at length herein. 21(a-k). Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph and corresponding sub-paragraphs of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are denied as legal and medical conclusion to which no responses are required and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. To the extent that this paragraph and corresponding sub-paragraphs of Plaintiff s Amended Complaint contain averments of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further response, the general allegations of agency contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint are incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. By way of yet further response, Answering Defendants and its staff were not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, 725218/ANS/Amended Complaint/HSH healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 22. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of yet further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler were not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 23. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler were not grossly negligent, outrageous or reckless. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 24. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler were not grossly negligent, outrageous or reckless. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendants together with all allowable costs and attorney fees. Count II -Plaintiff v. Defendant Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services Gross Ne~li~ence 25. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate by reference hereto answers to paragraphs 1 - 24 as if fully set forth at length herein. 725218/ANS/Amended ComplaindHSH 26(a-k). Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph and corresponding sub-paragraphs was Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are denied as legal and medical conclusion to which no responses are required and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. To the extent that this paragraph and corresponding sub-paragraphs of Plaintiff s Amended Complaint contain averments of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further response, the general allegations of agency contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. By way of yet further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler were not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 27. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of yet further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler were not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 28. Byway of yet further response, Answering Defendants and its staff were not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 29. By way of further response, Answering Defendant and its staff were not grossly negligent, outrageous nor recklessly indifferent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 725218/ANS/Amended Complaint/HSH WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendants together with all allowable costs and attorney fees. Count III -Plaintiff v. Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D.: Gross Ne~li~ence 30. Answering Defendant hereby incorporate by reference hereto answers to paragraphs 1 - 29 as if fully set forth at length herein. 31(a-o). The allegations set forth in Paragraph 31(a-o) refer to a party other than Answering Defendant, consequently no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 31(a-o) are deemed to contain facts which pertain to the Answering Defendant, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 32. The allegations set forth in Paragraph 32 refer to a party other than Answering Defendant, consequently no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 32 are deemed to contain facts which pertain to the Answering Defendant, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 33. The allegations set forth in Paragraph 33 refer to a party other than Answering Defendant, consequently no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 33 are deemed to contain facts which pertain to the Answering Defendant, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 34. The allegations set forth in Paragraph 34 refer to a party other than Answering Defendant, consequently no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 725218/ANS/Amended Complaint/HSH 34 are deemed to contain facts which pertain to the Answering Defendant, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendants together with all allowable costs and attorney fees. Count IV -Plaintiff v. Defendant Holy Spirit Health System, Inc.: Vicarious Liability 35. Answering Defendant hereby incorporate by reference hereto answers to paragraphs 1 - 34 as if fully set forth at length herein. 36. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, Dr. Miller is a psychiatrist that at all times material hereto was employed by the Holy Spirit Hospital which is not a party to this litigation. The remaining general allegations of agency are incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. By way of yet further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler were not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 37. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, Dr. Miller is a psychiatrist that at all times material hereto was employed by the Holy Spirit Hospital which is not a party to this litigation. The remaining general allegations of agency are incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. By way of yet further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler were not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. 725218/ANS/Amended Complaint/HSH Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 38. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, Dr. Miller is a psychiatrist that at all times material hereto was employed by the Holy Spirit Hospital which is not a party to this litigation. The remaining general allegations of agency are incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. By way of yet further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler were not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 39. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, Dr. Miller is a psychiatrist that at all times material hereto was employed by the Holy Spirit Hospital which is not a party to this litigation. The remaining general allegations of agency are incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. Byway of yet further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler were not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 40. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, Dr. Miller is a psychiatrist that at all times material hereto was employed by the Holy Spirit Hospital which is not a party to this litigation. The remaining general allegations of agency are incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. Byway of yet further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler 725218/ANS/Amended Complaint/HSH were not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendants together with all allowable costs and attorney fees. Count V -Plaintiff v. Defendant Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services Vicarious Liability 41. Answering Defendants hereby incorporates by reference hereto answers to paragraphs 1 - 40 as if fully set forth at length. 42. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is necessary, Dr. Miller is a psychiatrist that at all times material hereto was employed by the Holy Spirit Hospital which is not a party to this litigation. The remaining general allegations of agency are incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. By way of yet further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler were not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 43. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is necessary, Dr. Miller is a psychiatrist that at all times material hereto was employed by the Holy Spirit Hospital which is not a party to this litigation. The remaining general allegations of agency are incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. By way of yet further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler were not grossly 725218/ANS/Amended ComplainUHSH negligent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 44. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is necessary, Dr. Miller is a psychiatrist that at all times material hereto was employed by the Holy Spirit Hospital which is not a party to this litigation. The remaining general allegations of agency are incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. By way of yet further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler were not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 45. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is necessary, Dr. Miller is a psychiatrist that at all times material hereto was employed by the Holy Spirit Hospital which is not a party to this litigation. The remaining general allegations of agency are incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. By way of yet further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler were not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 46. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is necessary, Dr. Miller is a psychiatrist that at all times material hereto was employed by the Holy Spirit Hospital which is not a party to this litigation. The remaining general allegations of agency are incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. By way of yet further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler were not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 725218/ANS/Amended Complaint/HSH WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendants together with all allowable costs and attorney fees. Count VI -Plaintiff v. Defendant Holy Spirit Health System and Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services Corporate Negligence 47. Answering Defendant hereby incorporate by reference hereto answers to paragraphs 1 - 46 as if fully set forth at length herein. 48. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent Paragraph 48 of the Plaintiff s Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). By way of further response, at all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 49(a-i). Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent Paragraph 49(a-i) of the Plaintiff s Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). By way of further response, at all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 50. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the alternative to the extent Paragraph 50 of the Plaintiff s Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in 725218/ANS/Amended Complaint/HSH accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). By way of further response, at all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 51. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the alternative to the extent Paragraph 51 of the Plaintiff s Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Byway of further response, at all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 52. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the alternative to the extent Paragraph 52 of the Plaintiff s Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Byway of further response, at all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 53. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the alternative to the extent Paragraph 53 of the Plaintiff s Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). By way of further response, at all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 725218/ANS/Amended Complaint/HSH WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION 54. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate by reference hereto answers to paragraphs 1 - 53 as if fully set forth at length herein. 55. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 55 of the Plaintiff s Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 56. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 56 of the Plaintiff s Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 57. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 57 of the Plaintiff s Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 58. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 58 of the Plaintiff s Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 59. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 59 of the Plaintiff s Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 725218/ANS/Amended Complaint/HSH 60. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 60 of the Plaintiffs Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 61. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 61 of the Plaintiff s Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 62. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 62 of the Plaintiff s Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 63. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 63 of the Plaintiff s Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 64. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 64 of the Plaintiff s Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is .deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 65. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 65 of the Plaintiff s Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a 725218/ANS/Amended Complaint/HSH responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendant together with all allowable costs and attorneys' fees. SURVIVAL ACTION 66. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate by reference hereto answers to paragraphs 1 - 65 as if fully set forth at length herein. 67. Denied as a conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. Byway of further response, to the extent Paragraph 67 of the Plaintiff' s Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 68. Denied as a conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, to the extent Paragraph 68 of the Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 69. Denied as a conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, to the extent Paragraph 69 of the Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 70. Denied as a conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, to the extent Paragraph 70 of the Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain 725218/ANS/Amended Complaint/HSH facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 71. Denied as a conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. Byway of further response, to the extent Paragraph 71 of the Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 72. Denied as a conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. Byway of further response, to the extent Paragraph 72 of the Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 73. Denied as a conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, to the extent Paragraph 73 of the Plaintiff s Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 74. Denied as a conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, to the extent Paragraph 74 of the Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 75. Denied as a conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, to the extent Paragraph 75 of the Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 725218/ANS/Amended Complaint/HSH WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendant together with all allowable costs and attorneys' fees. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of the Answering Defendant together with all allowable costs and attorneys' fees. NEW MATTER By way of further response, Answering Defendants, aver the following new matter directed to Plaintiffs: 76. The healthcare providers and Hospital that cared for Mr. Ressler at all times surrounding his relevant admission to the Holy Spirit Hospital are immune from suit pursuant from the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act. 77. Answering Defendants incorporates by reference all applicable defenses and protections under the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act. 78. The negligence of the Plaintiff and/or decedent bars and/or limits any claim the Plaintiff may have against healthcare provider and/or the Answering Defendants. 79. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 80. Plaintiffs are responsible, in whole or in part, for the injuries alleged because Plaintiffls decedent voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risk of the activities, and therefore, all claims resulting there from are barred. 725218/ANS/Amended Complaint/HSH 81. The general allegations of agency contained in Plaintiff s Amended Complaint are denied and incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. 82. Nothing Answering Defendants did or failed to do was the cause in fact or the proximate cause of any alleged injury or loss to Plaintiffs. 83. Plaintiffs claims may be barred by the doctrines of assumption of the risk and contributory negligence or reduced by comparative negligence. 84. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is barred or reduced by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, the relevant provisions of which are incorporated herein by reference as though same were more fully set forth at length herein. 85. At all times material hereto, Answering Defendants provided treatment in accordance with the applicable standard of medical care at the time and place of treatment. 86. Plaintiffs failed to mitigate any damages allegedly sustained. 87. Plaintiff s claims and/or request for damages herein are limited and/or precluded by the doctrines of resiudicata and/or collateral estoppel. 88. Plaintiff s claims may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 89. Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts sufficient to toll the applicable statute of limitations. 90. Plaintiff s cause of action may be barred by the equitable doctrine of laches. 91. To the extent that discovery and/or investigation may reveal, Plaintiffs have granted accord and satisfaction to a judgment thereby barring a subsequent suit against any other defendant for the same injuries. 725218/ANS/Amended Complaint/HSH 92. In accordance with Pennsylvania law, including the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act, Plaintiffs shall have no right to recover any amount, which was paid by a collateral source of compensation or benefits. 93. Plaintiffs may have entered into a release which has the effect of discharging Answering Defendants from this matter. 94. Upon information and belief, certain of Plaintiff s bills for which Plaintiffs seek to recover in this action that were paid or are payable under accident and health insurance, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Worker's Compensation insurance, or other insurance. 95. Plaintiffs shall have no right to recover for any amount which was paid by a private, public, or gratuitous collateral source of compensation or benefits under such as instituted or amended by the Pennsylvania Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act. 96. Plaintiff s claims and/or request for damages is barred or limited by the provisions of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act, Act. No. 13, House Bill No. 1802, 2202 Pa. ALS 13; 2002, Pa. Laws 13; 2001 Pa. HB 1802, as amended. 97. Byway of further answer, Answering Defendants specifically reserve the right to plead hereafter as further New Matter those additional affirmative defenses, including, without limitation, those set forth in Pa.R.Civ.P. 1030, that continuing investigation, discovery in accordance with court rules, and the introduction of evidence at trial may render applicable to claims and causes of action declared upon Plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint. 98. The entity that fulfills the corporate responsibilities of the Hospital located at 503 N. 21St Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania is the Holy Spirit Hospital which is 725218/ANS/Amended ComplaintlHSH not a party to this litigation. The Plaintiff failed to properly name a party to pursue a corporate negligence theory. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendant together with all allowable costs and attorneys' fees. Respectfully submitted, DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Date: September 8, 2010 By: ~ • ~_~~ f ~ Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #78565 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 Attorney for Defendants, HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. , HOL Y SPIRIT BEHA VIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M. D. VeriP(Ellen Feid) VERIFICATION I, Ellen Feidt, R.N., Risk Manager, hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer with New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa,C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. G `~ Date: C~' J~ 1 ~L1 By: llen Feidt, R.N., Risk Manager 725218/ANS/Amended Complaint/HSH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 8th day of September, 2010, I, Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS, HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. AND HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES TO AMENDED COMPLAINT upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First-Class Mail: Leslie M. Fields, Esquire COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS 831 Market Street P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0222 (Counsel for Plaintiff) `~-~/ I~ C~~.~. Ins Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire a COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS BY: Leslie M. Fields, Esquire ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 29411 831 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717)761-2121(Tele) (717)761-4031 (Fax) MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiffs, V. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-1910 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACPON, a _ i ,- -7 ' ; ' JURY TRIAL DEMANDED REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT ROBIN MILLER M.D AND NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Molly J. Ressler, Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of David M. Ressler, Decedent, and Individually, by and through her attorney, Leslie M. Fields, Esquire, Costopoulos, Foster & Fields, and replies as follows: 76. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 77. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 78. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 79. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 80. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 81. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 82. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 83. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 84. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 85. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 86 Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 87. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 88. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied.. 89. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 90. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 91. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 92. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 93. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 94. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 95. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 96. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 97. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS B----Leslie M. ields Es uire q L D. No. 411 831 Market Street/P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043 Phone: 717.761.2121 Fax: 717.761.4031 Web: Costopoulos.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF DATED: September 13, 2010 VERIFICATION I, Plaintiff, Molly J. Ressler, Individually and as Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of David M. Ressler, Decedent, do hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties at 18 Pa-S.C. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. BY: P,-V, r, , '6?' - Molly J. Ives er, Individually and as Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of David M. Ressler, Decedent DATED: C? . A3 . O CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Leslie M. Fields, Esquire, hereby certify that on this 13" day of September, 2010, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon all counsel of record by: Hand Delivery _ X _ First Class Mail, Postage Pre-Paid Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested Fax Transmission Overnight Mail at the following address(es) and/or number(s): Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Counsel figr Defendants COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS Leslie M. ields, Esquire t?p-- COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS BY: Leslie M. Fields, Esquire ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 29411 831 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717)761-2121(Tele) (717)761-4031(Fax) MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiffs, V. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-1910 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AEG ION_ --;i ?Tj ?:n C" M JURY TRIAL DEMANDED REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS, HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. AND HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Molly J. Ressler, Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of David M. Ressler, Decedent, and Individually, by and through her attorney, Leslie M. Fields, Esquire, Costopoulos, Foster & Fields, and replies as follows: 76. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 77. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 78. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 79. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 80. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 81. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 82. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 83. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 84. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 85. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 86 Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 87. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 88. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 89. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 90. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 91. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 92. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 93. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 94. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 95. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 96. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 97. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 98.. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS fr A? B ??-- y' Leslie M. Fi lds, Esquire I. D. No. z9411 831 Market Street/P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043 Phone: 717.761.2121 Fax: 717.761.4031 Web: Costopoulos.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF DATED: September 13, 2010 VERIFICATION 1, Plaintiff, Molly J. Ressler, Individually and as Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of David M. Ressler, Decedent, do hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties at 18 Pa.S.C. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. BY: 1' Molly J. f e , ler, Individually and as Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of David M. Ressler, Decedent DATED: 1 1? ?G CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Leslie M. Fields, Esquire, hereby certify that on this 13" day of September,_2010, a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon all counsel of record by: Hand Delivery _ X _ First Class Mail, Postage Pre-Paid Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested Fax Transmission Overnight Mail at the following address(es) and/or number(s): Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Counsel for Defendants COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS e-4 COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS BY: Leslie M. Fields, Esquire ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 29411 831 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717)761-2121(Tele) (717)761-4031 (Fax) ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND PENNSYLVANIA INDIVIDUALLY, NO. 09-1910 Plaintiffs, n ?, n MEDICAL MALPRACTICE A ION %? -± V. , r y Tl ii HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS, HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. AND HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Molly J. Ressler, Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of David M. Ressler, Decedent, and Individually, by and through her attorney, Leslie M. Fields, Esquire, Costopoulos, Foster & Fields, and replies as follows: 76. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 77. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. 78. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required and strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent that any averments of fact are present, they are denied. COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER 8~ FIELDS By: Leslie M. Fields, Esquire Attorney I.D. No.: 29411 831 Market StreetlP.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0222 Phone: 717.761.2121 Fax: 717.761.4031 Email: IfieldsCa~costopoulos.com 2~[QO~;T 27 ~~; ~. ~' MOLLY J. RESSLER, Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of DAVID M. RESSLER, Decedent, and Individually, Plaintiff v. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES and ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.: 09-1910 CIVIL ACTION -LAW MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS AND FOR A SANCTION ORDER PURSUANT TO Pa R C. P. § 4019 AND NOW COMES the Plaintiff, by and through her attorney, and respectfully represents as follows in support of this Motion. 1. This medical malpractice action was commenced by the filing of a complaint on March 25, 2009, arising out of the death by suicide of David Ressler while he was a patient at the psychiatric facility operated by defendants Holy Spirit Health System and Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and while under the care of defendant, Dr. Robin Miller. 2. Discovery has been undertaken by both parties. 3. On January 11, 2010, the undersigned requested dates for the depositions of two witnesses in the case, specifically Rhett Bennie and Ronald Howe, as set forth in a letter which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The defense did not supply available dates. 4. On May 3, 2010, the undersigned again requested dates for the depositions of the same two witnesses, as set forth in a letter which is attached hereto as Exhibit B. On June 17, 2010, Notices of Deposition were served for the depositions of Rhett Bennie and Ronald Howe, which were to be conducted on July 8, 2010, copies of which are attached as Exhibit C. 6. Six days before the deposition, on July 2, 2010, defense counsel informed the undersigned that he had not yet notified Mr. Howe of the deposition notice and that therefore, the witness would not be available for the deposition. The excuse given was that Mr. Howe had not been "located",asset forth the Email transmission, attached as Exhibit D. 7. On July 8, 2010, the deposition of Rhett Bennie was taken, after which, defense counsel confirmed that he would provide dates for the deposition of Mr. Howe, once he had contacted him. 8. Dates for the deposition of Mr. Howe and an additional fact witness, Steve Zug, whose involvement was clarified during the July 8, 2010 deposition, were repeatedly requested between July 8 and September 30, both telephonically and electronically, asset forth in Exhibit E. Again, the defense did not supply available dates. 9. On September 30, 2010, Notices of Deposition for Mr. Howe and Mr. Zug for depositions to be conducted on November 5, 2010 were served on defense counsel, copies of which are attached as Exhibit F. 10. On October 25, 2010, Plaintiff received, by electronic mail, a letter, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit G, in which defense counsel apparently is refusing to produce the witnesses for the scheduled depositions, as well as refusing to permit any further depositions in -2- this lawsuit. 11. It is believed and therefore averred that the defense in the case is willfully and repeatedly failing to comply with discovery and that it has induced the witnesses not to appear at the date and time of the scheduled depositions. 12. Despite the foregoing, the defense in the case has continually requested and received authorizations to be signed by the plaintiff in their ongoing discovery efforts continuing through the present time. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the defense be directed to produce the witnesses for deposition and that appropriate sanctions be ordered. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS ~- Ey: Leslie M. Fields, Esquire I. D. No. 29411 831 Market Street/P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043 Phone: 717.761.2121 Fax: 717.761.4031 Web: Costopoulos.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF DATED: October 26, 2010 -3- COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 831 MARKET STREET P.O. BOX 222 WILLIAM C. COSTOPOULOS LEMOYNE, PENNSYLVANIA 17043-0222 DAVID J. FOSTER LESLIE M. FIELDS GEORGE H. MATANGOS HEIDI F. EAKIN January 11, 2010 Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 TELEPHONE (717) 761-2121 FAX (717) 761- 4031 WWW.COSTOPOULOS.COM Re: Molly J. Ressler. Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of David M. Ressler, Decedent v. Holy Spirit Health System Inc., et al. C.C.P. Cumberland County No.: 09-1910 Dear Mr. Chairs: Enclosed please find the documents we received pursuant to Plaintiff's subpoena of the East Pennsboro Township Police Department. I am looking into obtaining the photographs taken by the police, and will provide you with copies, understanding that staff of the Behavioral Health unit had moved both Mr. Ressler's body and other items at the scene. By this letter, I am requesting that you please provide me with dates for the depositions of Ronald Howe, Jr. and Bennie Rhett. Also, we are again requesting that we be provided with copies of any materials received by you in response to the various subpoenas issued by your office in this case. We have not received any of those documents. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact lrie. Very truly yours, ~ .. ~_ Leslie .Fields LMF/jme Enclosure EXHIBIT a COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 831 MARKET STREET P.O. BOX 222 WILLIAM C. cosTOrouLOS LEMOYNE, PENNSYLVANIA 17043-0222 DAVID J. FOSTER LESLIE M. FIELDS GEORGE H. MATANGOS HEIDI F. EAHIN May 3, 2010 Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 COPY, TELEPHONE (717) 761-2121 FAX (717) 761- A031 W W W.COSTOPOULOS.COM Re: Molly J Ressler, Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of David M. Ressler. Decedent v. Holy Spirit Health System Inc., et al. C.C.P. Cumberland County No.: 09-1910 Dear Mr. Chairs: Enclosed please find the Plaintiff's answers to Defendants' preliminary objections. By this letter, I am again requesting that you please provide me with dates for the depositions of Ronald Howe, Jr. and Bennie Rhett. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, .i~ Leslie M. Fields LMF/jme Enclosure EXHIBIT COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 831 MARKET STREET P.O. BOX 222 WILLIAM C. COSTOPOULOS LEMOYNE, PENNSYLVANIA 17043-0222 DAVID J. FOSTER LESLIE M. FIELDS GEORGE H. MATANGOS HEIDI F. EAHIN June 17, 2010 Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 C~ o~ TELEPHONE (717) 761-2121 FAX (717) 761- 4031 W W W.COSTOPOULOS.COM Re: Molly J Ressler, Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of David M. Ressler. Decedent v. Holy Spirit Health System Inc., et al. C.C.P. Cumberland County No.: 09-1910 Dear Mr. Chairs: Enclosed please Notice(s) of Deposition(s) scheduling the depositions of Ronald Howe, Jr at 10:00 a.m. and lthett Bennie at 1:30 p.m., at your office on Thursday, July 8, 2010. I have scheduled the court reporter for these depositions. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, - -- c;..- `~ ~ Leslie M. elds LMF/jmk Enclosures EXHIBIT C. COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER 8~ FIELDS By: Leslie M. Fields, Esquire Attorney I.D. No.: 29411 831 Market Street/P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0222 Phone: 717.761.2121 Fax: 717.761,4031 Email: Ifields(a~costoaoulos.com MOLLY J. RESSLER, Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of DAVID M. RESSLER, Decedent, and Individually, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.: 09-7910 v. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH CIVIL ACTION -LAW SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES LIABILITY ACTION and ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO: Ronald Howe, Jr c/o Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4007.1 your deposition will be taken upon oral examination, for the purpose of discovery or for use at trial, or for both purposes, before a person authorized to render an oath, at the offices of Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania on Thursday July 8, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. on all matters not privileged which are relevant and material to the issues and subject matter involved in the above-captioned action and that the above-named is required to appear and at the aforesaid time and at the above address and to submit to examination under oath as a witness. ~, r _ __._.._-,~ .gy, s .~ ~eslie M. 'elds, Esquire COSTOP ULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS 831 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 761-2121 Dated: June 17, 2010 Attorney for P/ainfiff Page 1 of 1 leslie From: "Chairs, Tom" <TChairs@dmclaw.com> To: <Ifields@costopoulos.com> Cc: "layman, Aaron" <AJayman@dmclaw.com>; "Bistline, Nancy" <NBistline@dmclaw.com> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 10:47 AM Subject: Re: Attached Image -ressler Mr. Howe continues to be an employee of Holy Spirit. However he is a per need employee that has not taken assignments in the recent past. As soon as I connect with him I will make him understand the significance of cooperating with your request. We will have Mr. Bennie available next thursday and hopefully have an update on Mr. Howe at that time. ----- Original Message ----- From: leslie <lfields(a~costopoulos.com> To: Chairs, Tom Sent: Fri Ju102 09:21:36 2010 Subject: Fw: Attached Image -ressler Dear Mr. Chairs: Attached are the notices of deposition that were sent to you last month. As you know, we have been asking for dates for these depositions for about six months. I will appreciate an explanation of the problems you are having with locating Mr. Howe. Do you have a current address for him? Is he no longer an agent or employee of the hospital? Meanwhile, we will go forward with Mr. Bennie if you are still unable to locate Mr. Howe. Please advise. Leslie M. Fields, Esq. Costopoulos, Foster & Fields 831 Market Street P. O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 761-2121 ----- Original Message ----- From: <~matanaos(a~costonoulos.com> To: "lmf' <lfields(a,costopoulos.com> Sent: Friday, July 02, 2010 9:19 AM Subject: Attached Image No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg com Version: 8.5.439 /Virus Database: 271.1.1/2976 -Release Date: 07/01/10 18:35:00 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.ave.com Version: 8.5.439 /Virus Database: 271.1.1/2976 -Release Date: 07/01/10 18:35:00 EXHIBIT COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 831 MARKET STREET P.O. BOX 222 WILLIAM C. COSTOPOULOS LEMOYNE, PENNSYLVANIA 17043-0222 DAVID J. FOSTER LESLIE M. FIELDS GEORGE H. MATANGOS HEIDI F. EAHIN September 30, 2010 Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 TELEPHONE (717) 761-2121 FAX (717) 761- 4031 W W W.COSTOPOULOS.COM Re: Molly J Ressler, Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of David M. Ressler. Decedent v. Holy Spirit Health System Inc.. et al. C.C.P. Cumberland County No.: 09-1910 Dear Mr. Chairs: As you know, I have requested dates for depositions of certain witnesses from you on multiple occasions in the past to no avail. Therefore, I am scheduling them myself. Enclosed please find Notice(s) of Deposition(s) scheduling the depositions of Ronald Howe, Jr at 10:00 a.m. and Steve Zug at 11:30 a.m., in our office on Friday, November 5, 2010. Also, enclosed is another executed authorization which you requested. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, ` .,.~ ~°~ ,-~ .. .... Leslie M. Fields ~..--~ i f' LMF/jmk Enclosures EXHIBIT COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER 8~ FIELDS By: Leslie M. Fields, Esquire Attorney I.D. No.: 29411 831 Market Street/P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0222 Phone: 717.761.2121 Fax: 717.761.4031 Email: IfieldsCa~costopoulos.com MOLLY J. RESSLER, Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of DAVID M. RESSLER, Decedent, and Individually, Plaintiff v. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES and ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.: 09-1910 CIVIL ACTION -LAW MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION . IURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO: Steve Zugg c% Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4007.1 your deposition will be taken upon oral examination, for the purpose of discovery or for use at trial, or for both purposes, before a person authorized to render an oath, at the offices of Costopoulos, Foster & Fields, 831 Market Street, Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043, on Friday, November 5, 2010 at 11:30 a.m. on all matters not privileged which are relevant and material to the issues and subject matter involved in the above-captioned action and that the above-named is required to appear and BRING WITH YOU THE FOLLOWING: the "orientation checklist" provided to employees or staff prior to August of 2008 and any subsequent revisions/versions of an "orientation checklist ;and any notes, pictures, or other memorandum relating in any way to David and/or Mol/y Ressler at the aforesaid time and at the above address and to submit to examination under oath as a witness. EXHIBIT _ '~ - ' ~~~ `1,-~-•L~slie M. F~elds, Esquire COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS 831 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 761-2121 Dated: September 30, 2010 Attorney for Plaintiff -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Leslie M. Fields, Esquire, hereby certify that on this 30"' day of September 2010, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Deposition was served upon all counsel of record by: Hand Delivery X First Class Mail, Postage Pre-Paid Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested Fax Transmission Overnight Mai{ at the following address(es) andlor number(s): Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Counsel for Defendants COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS `~'Ce`s1ie M. Fi Ids, Esquire 3 -3- COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS By: Leslie M. Fields, Esquire Attorney I.D. No.: 29411 831 Market Street/P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0222 Phone: 717.761.2121 Fax: 717.761.4031 Email:lfields costopoulos.com MOLLY J. RESSLER, Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of DAVID M. RESSLER, Decedent, and Individually, Plaintiff v. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES and ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.: 09-1910 CIVIL ACTION -LAW MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION URY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF DEPOSITION TO: Ronald Howe, Jr c/o Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp H i I I, PA 17011 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4007.1 your deposition will be taken upon oral examination, for the purpose of discovery or for use at trial, or for both purposes, before a person authorized to render an oath, at the offices of Costopoulos, Foster & Fields, 837 Market Street, Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043, on Friday, November 5, 2010 at 10:00 a.m. on all matters not privileged which are relevant and material to the issues and subject matter involved in the above-captioned action and that the above-named is required to appear and BRING WITH YOU THE FOLLOWING: the "orientation checklists provided to employees or staff prior to August of 2008 and any subsequent revisions/versions of an "orientation checklist'; and any notes, pictures, or other memorandum relating in any way to David and/or Molly Ressler at the aforesaid time and at the above address and to submit to examination under oath as a witness. ---._r. ~...y' y Leslie M., Fields, Esquire COSTORbULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS 831 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 761-2121 Dated: September 30, 2010 Atforney for Plaintiff -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Leslie M. Fields, Esquire, hereby certify that on this 30~' day of September 2010, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Deposition was served upon all counsel of record by: Hand Delivery X First Class Mail, Postage Pre-Paid Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested Fax Transmission Overnight Mail at the following address(es) and/or number(s): Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp H i I I, PA 17011 Counsel for Defendants COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS __ ~. ._ .. _ ~ _. ~, ~` .--, ,(a i ~eslie M. F elds, Esquire -3- 775207 ~ - McCamey Thomas M. Chairs Attorney-at-Law Admitted in PA, MD October 25, 2010 Leslie M. Fields, Esquire Costopoulos, Foster & Fields 831 Market Street P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0222 RE: Ressler v. Holy Spirit Hospital, et ai. Docket No.: 09-1910 Our File No.: PC-188 (0029096.0316041) Dear Ms. Fields: Direct Dial: 717-731-4800 Direct Fax: 717-731-4803 tchairs@dmclaw.com I am in receipt of your Notice of Depositions for Mr. Howe and Mr. Zug. As we discussed over the phone you have yet to file a Complaint in the companion civil action. The two (2) lawsuits you have filed on behalf of the Estate of Mr. Ressler are unquestionably related. It is my position that you are seeking to circumvent the rules governing pre-Complaint discovery. You are holding open a lawsuit that has not been defined through the filing of a Complaint and simultaneously seeking discovery. It remains my position that you are not entitled to further depositions until you have either dismissed or moved forward with the filing of a Complaint in the companion lawsuit. Should you like to discuss this matter in greater detail, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, DICKiE CC & CHILCOTE, P.C. _. f,i /f'~ i Thk~ias M. C airs TMC/nlb 4){tK1E, McthMfl & CflIEC(1TE, P.[. I ATiORNfli AT tAW MAIN:711.731~4600 FAX: 717.131-1803 1200 (AAIP NIlL BYPASS, SUITE 205 I CAMP NIU, PA 17011.3700 I WWW.DMCtAW.COM EXHIBIT Pittsburgh I Herdsburg New k CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Leslie M. Fields, Esquire, hereby certify that on this 26`" day of October 2010, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion was served upon all counsel of record by: Hand Delivery X First Class Mail, Postage Pre-Paid Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested Fax Transmission Overnight Mail at the following address(es) and/or number(s): Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Counsel for Defendants COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS '/ "( Leslie M. Fields, Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire ATTORNEY I.D. N0.78565 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)731-4800 (Tele) MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiffs, v. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants. ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS HOLY SPIItIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIItIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA N0.09-1910 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION c ~~ -~ ': ~ ~ ~ 7 ~ , JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ~^=~, ~ -~ ' ~~+ . ~-, -~ -a ~a .-r -~, •~ r.- ~: AND NOW, come Defendants, by and through their counsel, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., and respond in opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion as follows: 1.-12. Denied. It is the Defendants' position that Plaintiffs are not entitled to further depositions until a complaint is filed in the companion action initiated by the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' Motion fails to disclose to this Court that a companion action was filed by Plaintiffs at Docket No. 10-4615 against Jenny Owens, M.D. on July 13, 2010. See, Exhibit "A." Dr. Owens was at all times material hereto, an employee of the Holy Spirit Hospital. The allegations against Dr. Owens are not known because Plaintiffs have yet to file a complaint in the companion action against Dr. Owens. The lawsuit against Dr. Owens has not been defined through the filing of a complaint and the Plaintiffs request for depositions is contrary to intended purpose of Pa.R.C.P. 1042.5, which prohibits any discovery, other than production of documents and things, until the plaintiff files a certificate of merit. Plaintiffs have not formally advised the Defendants of the specific allegations against Dr. Owens with the filing of a complaint. Plaintiffs have also not filed the requisite certificate of merit to certify that a licensed professional supplied a written statement that Dr. Owens's care fell outside acceptable professional standard in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1042.3. Plaintiffs should not be permitted to take discovery and advance the litigation process without filing a complaint and certificate of merit against Dr. Owens. It is a disadvantage and highly prejudicial to force the Defendants to defend against claims that have not been defined by the Plaintiffs. It is respectfully submitted that Plaintiffs should not be entitled to further depositions until Plaintiffs have either dismissed or moved forward with the filing of a complaint in the companion action. Plaintiffs' Motion also fails to comply with Cumberland County Local Rule 208.39(a)(9). Plaintiffs' Motion fails contain a paragraph indicating that the concurrence of opposing counsel of record was sought and the response of said counsel. Plaintiff was advised of the Defendants' position regarding further deposition by correspondence dated October 25, 2010. See, "B." Plaintiff did not contact opposing counsel in a good faith attempt to resolve this discovery dispute before filing their Motion on October 26, 2010. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully submit that Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel and request for Sanction be denied and that Plaintiffs be precluded from further depositions until Plaintiffs have either dismissed or moved forward with the filing of a complaint and certificate of merit in the companion action. 2 Respectfully submitted, DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Date: October 27, 2010 By: L7`-~ omas M. airs, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #78565 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 Attorney for Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and Robin Miller, M.D. 3 ~~~ ~~ 09/06/2008 19: 27 9193814396 JENNY Ok~EhIS Pl~GE 03; 03 MOLLY J. RESSLER, Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of DAVID M. RESSLER, Decedent, and Individually, Plaintiff v. JENNY OWENS, M.D. Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -- LAW fviEDICAL PROr=ESS10w~AL LtABIt_ITY ACTIOAt JURY TRIM- DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF SUMMONS AGAINST DEFENDANT JENNY OWENS M D TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please issue a writ of summons upon the above named defendant, Paul Lenarason, at the following address: Jenny Owens, M.D. 401 Providence Road Suite 140 Chapel Hiil, NC 27514 Thank you. TRUE COPY FROM RECORD In Teuimorty witaeot.l hero unto oet my hard and tho a~or said at Cariisla. Pa. TNs ~' .,.~- of ~~~_..~ ~l~ttcy ~. ~ ~~_.. . _ , -'z.. Leslie M.~Fieids, Esquire (. D. # 29411 COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER 8~ FIELDS 831 Market Street / P. O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Phone: (717) 761-2121 Attorney for Plaintiff Date: Juiy 13, 2010 ~CX~~~~ ~~szo~ t - McCamey Thomas M. Chairs Attorney-at-Law Admitted in PA, MD October 25, 2010 Leslie M. Fields, Esquire Costopoulos, Foster & Fields 831 Market Street P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0222 RE: Ressler v. Holy Spirit Hospital, et al. Docket No.: 09-1910 Our File No.: PC-188 (0029096.0316041) Dear Ms. Fields: Direct Dial: 717-731-4800 Direct Fax: 717-731-4803 tchairs@dmclaw.com I am in receipt of your Notice of Depositions for Mr. Howe and Mr. Zug. As we discussed over the phone you have yet to file a Complaint in the companion civil action. The two (2) lawsuits you have filed an behalf of the Estate of Mr. Ressler are unquestionably related. It is my position that you are seeking to circumvent the rules governing pre-Complaint discovery. You are holding open a lawsuit that has not been defined through the tiling of a Complaint and simultaneously seeking discovery. It remains my position that you are not entitled to further depositions until you have either dismissed or moved forward with the filing of a Complaint in the companion lawsuit. Should you like to discuss this matter in greater detail, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, DICKIE MI ~~I~ ~~ L Th~fias M. TMC/nlb & CHILCOTE, P.C. J; DItKIE, M~CAMEY & (HIiCOTE, P.i. i ATTORNEYS Ai lAW MAIN: 111-131-4800 FA%:111~131.4803 Pim6urgh I Marris6urg I Philadelphia I Washington, O.C. I Delaware 1200 CAMP Hlll BYPASS, SUITE 205 ~ (AMP HILL, PA 170113100 ~ WWW.DMCIAW.COM New leney I Nedh Carolina I Ohio I West Yirgiaia CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, October 27, 2010, I, Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First-Class Mail: Leslie M. Fields, Esquire COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS 831 Market Street P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0222 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Thom M. C rs, squire ~ l MOLLY J. RESSLER, Administrator-and Executrix of the Estate of DAVID M. RESSLER, Decedent, And Individually, Plaintiff V. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES and ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.2009 - 1910 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT ~7 ~ N o O "~7 ~, - o --~! ' -s f Ti t~ P t'i ~. _ ~~ ~ '~ ~ C~ ~ "` ' ~ i =~ ~ '~ ` C.J ~ ~~ ~ p..n . ~. -n ~ ~ ~ .,~ ~? ~ m -=-~ ca D -~' w ~ AND NOW, this 3~ day of NOVEMBER, 2010, a Rule is issued upon defendants to Show Cause why plaintiff s Motion to Compel Depositions and for Sanctions should not be granted. Rule returnable THURSDAY. DECEMBER 2, 2010, at 11:30 a.m. in Courtroom # 3 By the , Edward E. Guido, J. THOMAS M. CHAIRS, ESQUIRE SLIE M. FIELDS, ESQUIRE :sld rQS *n~.l /! 3`td 1~ MOLLY J. RESSLER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Administrator and CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Executrix of the Estate of : DAVID M. RESSLER, Decedent,: and Individually, Plaintiff v. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES and ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants NO. 2009-1910 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 2nd day of December 2010, the Defendant is directed to make Mr. Howe and Mr. Zug available for depositions at the call of the Plaintiff on or before January 15, 2011. Failure to do so shall result in sanctions. By Leslie M. Fields, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff _,--<omas M. Chairs, Esquire Attorney for Defendants srs ti-c ,,aA?L !?l a f rv Edward E. Guido, J. c c -n -0z rig ---4 .X-0 h w , ?C7 d 0 z0 3 XF3 D z ) -C co ;;0 855801 DICIQE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 78565 Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 717-7314800 (Tele) 888-811-7144 (Fax) MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiffs, ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-1910 V. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR SERVICE UPON DEFENDANTS. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM. INC.. HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH ajMm v 14-rLa tul" 1CVD11\ 1V1lA is r 1(, M.". TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please direct all future Notices and correspondence to the following address and the undersigned counsel. Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. Plaza 21, Suite 302 : r 425 N. 21St Street Z' rn iii Camp Hill, PA 17011 ca :-? --; Respectfully submitted, DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Date: February 9, 2011 By: ThomastM. airs, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #78565 Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire Supreme Court I. D. #85651 425 N. 21St Street, Suite 302 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 Attorney for Defendants, HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC, HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D. 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, February 9, 2011, I, Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First-Class Mail: Leslie M. Fields, Esquire COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS 831 Market Street P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0222 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Th m M. Chairs, Esquire MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff V. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff V. JENNY OWENS, M.D., Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-1910 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AC' OPI ' a t 77 nj G) a a. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ate, - > 1 -- C IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 10-4615 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED UNCONTESTED MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE CASES PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 213 AND NOW, comes the parties by and through their respective counsel and file this uncontested motion to consolidate cases and in support thereof aver as follows: These two cases both arise under the Mental Health Procedures Act, 50 P. S. § § 7107- 7116 and are related to medical and psychiatric care rendered at the Holy Spirit Hospital rendered in August 2008. These cases involve the death of the decedent while an inpatient at psychiatric ward at Holy Spirit Hospital. The cases involve a common question of law and fact and arise from the same transaction or occurrence. Ressler v. Holy Spirit Hospital, et al., No. 09-1910 ("Ressler 1") was initiated on March 26, 2009. Ressler v. Owens, No. 10-4615 ("Ressler 2") was initiated on July 13, 2010. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 213(a) reads: In actions pending in a county which involve a common question of law or fact or which arise from the same transaction or occurrence the Court on its own motion or on the motion of any party may order a joint hearing or trial on any matter at issue in the actions, may order the actions consolidated and make orders that avoid unnecessary costs or delay. All parties have agreed to consolidation of the above cases as evidenced by the Stipulation attached hereto as Exhibit "A". WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that case No. 10-4615 be consolidated with case No. 09-1910 and that all future matters in these cases be filed to Docket No. 09-1910. Respectfully submitted, DICKIE, MCCA HILCOTE, P.C. Date: April 27, 2011 By: Thoma irs, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #78565 425 N. 21 S` Street, Suite 302 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 Attorney for Defendants, HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SER VICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M. D. Stipulation.doc MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff V. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-1910 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 10-4615 V. JENNY OWENS, M.D., Defendant MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED STIPULATION OF COUNSEL TO CONSOLIDATE ACTIONS PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 213(a) AND NOW, come Plaintiff, by and through her counsel, Leslie Fields, Esquire and the Defendants, by and through their respective counsel, Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire and Marcelle M. Theis, Esquire and agree and stipulate as follows: 1. The above two (2) medical professional liability actions are pending in Cumberland County and involve a common question of law or fact and arise from the same transaction or occurrence. 2. The parties, by and through their counsel, agree and hereby stipulate to the consolidation of the above two (2) cases. 3. The cases shall be consolidated for all purposes including all pre-trial, trial, post- trial and appellate matters. 4. All future filings shall be docketed under case No. 09-1910 only. Respectfully submitted, DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Date: By; Marcelle M. Theis, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #49589 Two PPG Place, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-5402 (412) 281-7272 Attorney for Defendant, JENNY OWENS, M.D. 2 Respectfully submitted, Date: DICKIE, WCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Y• Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #78565 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 Attorney for Defendants, HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D. 3 Respectfully submitted, COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS J Date: t?? ZO Lesli . Fields, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #29411 831 Market St. Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 761-2121 Attorney for PLAINTIFF CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, April 27, 2011, I, Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First-Class Mail: Leslie M. Fields, Esquire COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS 831 Market Street P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0222 (Counsel for Plaintiff) i r MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff V. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-1910 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED rn Co IN THE COURT OF COMMOI E MF U MOLLY J. RESSLER ADMINISTRATOR _ rn AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, cn DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND PENNSYLVANIA- Mn-i INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff NO. 10-4615 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION V. JENNY OWENS, M.D., Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, this _60*111- day of 2011, upon consideration of the Uncontested Motion and Stipulation of Counsel which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" it is hereby ORDERED that the above actions are consolidated for all pre-trial, trial and post-trial purposes and that all future filings shall be docketed at case No. 09-1910. t-,"'-fhornos M. cho?rq, ?. Mareeoe M.-nieis, Leslie M .Fteld?s, Ej, BY THE &P" Maw --- --- --- -- DKb J. DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS BY: Marcelle M. Theis, Esquire JENNY OWENS, M.D. ATTORNEY I.D. No. 49589 Two PPG Place, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-5402 (412) 281-7272 MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND PENNSYLVANIA INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff NO. 09-1910 V. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff V. JENNY OWENS, M.D., Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-1910 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD -M co') « TO: Molly J. Ressler, Administrator Leslie M. Fields, Esquire < COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS MC) 831 Market Street P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0222 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO PLEAD TO THE WITHIN ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, JENNY OWENS, M.D. TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS PLEADING OR JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. Respectfully submitted, DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Date: By: Marcelle M. Theis, Esquire Supreme Court I. D. #49589 Two PPG Place, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-5401 (412) 281-7272 Attorney for Defendant, Jenny Owens, M.D. ANM to Complaint re Owens.doc DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: Marcelle M. Theis, Esquire ATTORNEY I.D. No. 49589 Two PPG Place, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-5402 (412) 281-7272 MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS JENNY OWENS, M.D. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-1910 V. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff V. JENNY OWENS, M.D., Defendant MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-1910 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ER WITH NEVI AND NOW, comes Defendant, Jenny Owens, M.D. ("Answering Defendant"), by and through her counsel, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., and answers Plaintiff's Complaint as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments set forth in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint and therefore denies same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial. 2. Denied. At all relevant times Answering Defendant was a psychiatrist with staff privileges at the Holy Spirit Hospital and was employed by the Holy Spirit Hospital. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant was an agent, servant and/or employee of the Holy Spirit Health System, Inc. and/or Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services. 3. Denied. Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and Holy Spirit Health System, Inc. did not provide care or treatment to David Ressler. The employees, servants and/or agents that provided care and treatment to David Ressler were employed by Holy Spirit Hospital which is not a party to this litigation. 4. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 5. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 6. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 7. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 8. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 9. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 10. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 11. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. To the extent that this paragraph contains averments of fact they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 12. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care and at no 2 time cause or contributed to the injuries as alleged. To the extent that this paragraph contains averments of fact they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 13. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time cause or contributed to the injuries as alleged. To the extent that this paragraph contains averments of fact they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 14. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time cause or contributed to the injuries as alleged. To the extent that this paragraph contains averments of fact they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 15. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time cause or contributed to the injuries as alleged. To the extent that this paragraph contains averments of fact they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 16. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, all healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. To the extent that this paragraph contains averments of fact they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 17(a.-o.) The allegations contained in this paragraph and corresponding subparagraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint are denied as legal and medical conclusion to which no responses are required and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. To the extent that this paragraph and corresponding subparagraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint contain averments of fact, 3 they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further response, Answering Defendant was not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. 18. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time cause or contributed to the injuries as alleged. To the extent that this paragraph contains averments of fact they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 19. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, Answering Defendant was not grossly negligent and at no time cause or contributed to the injuries as alleged. To the extent that this paragraph contains averments of fact they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 20. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, Answering Defendant was not outrageous and recklessly indifferent to the rights and interest of Mr. Ressler and at no time cause or contributed to the injuries as alleged. To the extent that this paragraph contains averments of fact they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION 21. Answering Defendant hereby incorporates by reference hereto answers to paragraphs 1 - 20 as if fully set forth at length herein. 22. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 23. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, Answering Defendant was not grossly negligent in her care and 4 treatment of Mr. Ressler. At all relevant times, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 24. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted only that a companion action was filed by Plaintiff at Docket No. 09-1910 and has now been consolidated. Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to truth or falsity of the remaining averments set forth in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint and therefore deny same and demand strict proof at the time of trial. 25. After reasonable investigation Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to truth or falsity of the remaining averments set forth in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint and therefore deny same and demand strict proof at the time of trial. 26. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant is liable for any damages. 27. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that this paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is required those allegations of fact are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 28. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that this paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is required those allegations of fact are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 5 29. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that this paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is required those allegations of fact are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 30. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that this paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is required those allegations of fact are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 31. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that this paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is required those allegations of fact are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 32. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that this paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is required those allegations of fact are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). SURVIVAL ACTION 33. Answering Defendant hereby incorporates by reference hereto answers to paragraphs 1 - 32 as if fully set forth at length herein. 34. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 35. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 36. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that this paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a 6 responsive pleading is required those allegations of fact are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 37. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that this paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is required those allegations of fact are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 38. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that this paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is required those allegations of fact are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 39. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that this paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is required those allegations of fact are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 40. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that this paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is required those allegations of fact are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 41. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that this paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is required those allegations of fact are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 7 42. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that this paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is required those allegations of fact are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendant together with all allowable costs and attorneys' fees. NEW MATTER By way of further response, Answering Defendant, avers the following New Matter directed to Plaintiff: 43. Answering Defendant is immune from suit pursuant from the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act. 44. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference all applicable defenses and protections under the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act. 45. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for the imposition of punitive damages in this case. 46. The negligence of the Plaintiff and/or decedent bars and/or limits any claim the Plaintiff may have against Answering Defendant. 47. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 48. Plaintiff is responsible, in whole or in part, for the injuries alleged because Plaintiff's decedent voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risk of the activities, and therefore, all claims resulting there from are barred. 8 49. The general allegations of agency contained in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are denied and incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. 50. Nothing Answering Defendant did or failed to do was the cause in fact or the proximate cause of any alleged injury or loss to Plaintiffs. 51. Plaintiff's claims may be barred by the doctrines of assumption of the risk and contributory negligence or reduced by comparative negligence. 52. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is barred or reduced by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, the relevant provisions of which are incorporated herein by reference as though same were more fully set forth at length herein. 53. At all times material hereto, Answering Defendant provided treatment in accordance with the applicable standard of medical care at the time and place of treatment. 54. Plaintiffs failed to mitigate any damages allegedly sustained. 55. Plaintiff's claims and/or request for damages herein are limited and/or precluded by the doctrines of res iudicata and/or collateral estoppel. 56. Plaintiff's claims may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 57. Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts sufficient to toll the applicable statute of limitation. 58. Plaintiff's cause of action may be barred by the equitable doctrine of laches. 59. To the extent that discovery and/or investigation may reveal, Plaintiffs have granted accord and satisfaction to a judgment thereby barring a subsequent suit against any other defendant for the same injuries. 9 60. In accordance with Pennsylvania law, including the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act, Plaintiffs shall have no right to recover any amount, which was paid by a collateral source of compensation or benefits. 61. Plaintiffs may have entered into a release which has the effect of discharging Answering Defendant from this matter. 62. Upon information and belief, certain of Plaintiff's bills for which Plaintiffs seek to recover in this action that were paid or are payable under accident and health insurance, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Worker's Compensation insurance, or other insurance.. 63. Plaintiffs shall have no right to recover for any amount which was paid by a private, public, or gratuitous collateral source of compensation or benefits under such as instituted or amended by the Pennsylvania Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act. 64. Plaintiff's claims and/or request for damages is barred or limited by the provisions of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act, Act. No. 13, House Bill No. 1802, 2202 Pa. ALS 13; 2002, Pa. Laws 13; 2001 Pa. HB 1802, as amended. 65. By way of further answer, Answering Defendants specifically reserve the right to plead hereafter as further New Matter those additional affirmative defenses, including, without limitation, those set forth in Pa.R.Civ.P. 1030, that continuing investigation, discovery in accordance with court rules, and the introduction of evidence at trial may render applicable to claims and causes of action declared upon Plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant denies that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendant together with all allowable costs and attorneys' fees. 10 Respectfully submitted, DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Date: By: Marcelle M. Theis, Esquire Supreme Court I. D. #49589 Two PPG Place, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-5401 (412) 281-7272 Attorney for Defendant, Jenny Owens, M.D. 11 r 0 '22/27' '- ' • Ve-iticattDn ln??iridu?ll-(}v;•_m; ..f u.. VERIFICATION I, Jenny Owens, M.D., hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer with New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. By: envy Owens, M.D. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ND AND NOW, this -aay of September, 2011, I, Marcelle M. Theis, Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First-Class Mail: Leslie M. Fields, Esquire COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS 831 Market Street P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0222 (Counsel for Plaintiff) 0 Marcelle M. Theis, Esquire s MOLLY J. RESSLER, and Executrix of the Estate of DAVID M. RESSLER, Decedent, and Individually, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.: 09-1910 ? V. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES and ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOLLY J. RESSLER, Administrator IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and Executrix of the Estate of CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DAVID M. RESSLER, Decedent, NO.: 10-4615 and Individually, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiff . MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL V. JENNY OWENS, M. D. LIABILITY ACTION Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOW this 7 day o 2012, upon consideration of PLAINTIFF'S FOURTH MOTION TO COMPEL, a Rule to Show Cause is hereby ISSUED upon the Defendants to show cause, if any they have, why the requested relief should not be granted. The Rule is returnable BY E COU : ey ? f77 . T1 "- 7- C pp --I Q D Cs J., :X j c -n ;.Y e Distribution: VThomas M. Chairs, Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21 st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-2223 -/Marcelle M. Theis, Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Two PPG Place, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-5402 Leslie M. Fields, Esquire 831 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 Co p l is was' It'd l?l?a rYi MOLLY J. RESSLER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Administrator and Executrix CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA of the Estate of DAVID M. RESSLER, Decedent, and Individually, Plaintiff V. NO. 09-1910 CIVIL TERM HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, CIVIL ACTION - LAW INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL: HEALTH SERVICES and ROBIN MILLER, M.D., MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL Defendants LIABILITY ACTION - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MOLLY J. RESSLER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Administrator and Executrix CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA of the Estate of DAVID M. RESSLER, Decedent, and Individually, Plaintiff v. NO. 10-4615 CIVIL TERM?!:-' ;tea JENNY OWENS, M.D., MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL r, Defendants LIABILITY ACTION ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 6th day of February, 2012, by agreement of the parties, the Defendant Holy Spirit Health Systems, Inc., et al., shall provide the requested documents dating back to 1998 to Plaintiff by close of business on February 13, 2012, or a sworn affidavit that the documents do not exist. We will have a hearing at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 6, 2012, to determine whether sanctions are in order. By the Court, Edward E. Guido, J. i/ Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire ? Marcelle M. Theis, Esquire Leslie M. Fields, Esquire srs e-5 ma . f-ed ?i??j MOLLY J. RESSLER, Administrator IN THE COURT OF COMMON AS and Executrix of the Estate of CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DAVID M. RESSLER, Decedent, and Individually, Plaintiff NO.: 09-1910 ? V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES LIABILITY ACTION and ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOLLY J. RESSLER, Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of DAVID M. RESSLER, Decedent, and Individually, Plaintiff V. JENNY OWENS, M. D. Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO.: 10-4615 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER OF COURT AND NOW this 9'*day of 1iwIt , 2012, upon consideration of PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE OF SANCTIONS HEARING, the motion is hereby GRANTED. Distribution: Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire ?DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21 st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-2223 C-) h) BY TH ; C= rn ?.. Cy) w r J. !{ j;. c,. 3 01 ?Marcelle M. Theis, Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Two PPG Place, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-5402 V Leslie M. Fields, Esquire 831 Market Street Lemoyne, PA 17043 (' p;e5 ma, /, -, o ( 31a///a 1206283 PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court, a ti- L - ±7 ..5 ..r < c_. rv -- 6,4 -? L ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF D2VIOLM. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND INDIVIDUALLY --c; 7-C rT, cr, (Plaintiff) VS. =. rv HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH S/ICES i AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D., I> w r?4 (Defendants)" No. 09-1910 - Civil AND MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND INDIVIDUALLY, (Plaintiff) vs. JENNY OWENS, M.D., (Defendant) No. 10-4615 - Civil 1. State matter to be argued: Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. 2. Identify counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiff: Leslie M. Fields Esquire 831 Market Street, PO Box 222, Lemoyne, PA 17043 (b) for defendant Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire and Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire, 425 N. 21St Street, Suite 302, Camp Hill, PA 17011 3. 1 will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: April 13, 2012 Sign?tu e Aaron S. Jayman Print your name Date: March 23, 2012 HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D. g y 75-/°1 CAS- Attorney for 1206283 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this the 23rd day of March 23, 2012, I, Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing document for Defendants upon all counsel of record or parties involved by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Leslie M. Fields, Esquire COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS 831 Market Street P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0222 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Marcelle M. Theis, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. Two PPG Place, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-5402 (Counsel for Jenny Owens, M.D.) Aaron j ay an, Esquire DICKIE, McCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 78565 BY: Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)7314800(Tele) (717)731-4803 (Fax) MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff Y. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff Y. JENNY OWENS, M.D., Defendant ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services And Robin Miller, M.D. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-1910 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE Aq@ON C) z-. C- -_ - X- __ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 10-4615 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED [ON FOR JUDGMENT ON THE TH AND NOW, come Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc. and Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, by and through their attorneys, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., and file this Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as follows: I . This action arises out of the August 7, 2008 suicide of David M. Ressler. Plaintiff, Molly J. Ressler, is the Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of David M. Ressler, her husband. (Amended Complaint, ¶ 1) See Exhibit "A." 2. On March 6, 2010 Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint against Holy Spirit Health System, Inc. (Health System) and Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services (Behavioral Health) asserting several causes of action, Gross Negligence (Count 1 Health System; Count 2 Behavioral Health), Vicarious Liability (Count 4 Health System; Count 5 Behavioral Health) and Corporate Negligence (Count 6 Health System and Behavioral Health). 3. The claims for Gross Negligence asserted against the Defendants are premised upon a breach of the duty of care through the actions of employees, servants and agents by failing to prevent Mr. Ressler from harming himself, stabilize his condition, safeguard his environment, remove certain items from his possession, eliminate certain features of his hospital room, supervise or monitor Mr. Ressler and having certain policies in place. (Amended Complaint, JI¶ 21, 26) 4. The claims for Vicarious Liability are also founded upon the acts of employees, servants and agents, specifically Robin Miller, M.D., acting in a grossly negligent manner with respect to the care provided to Mr. Ressler. (Amended Complaint, ¶¶ 36-38, 42-44) 5. Notice of the Corporate Negligence claims is attributed to Health System and Behavioral Health through their agents, servants and/or employees, including Dr. Miller. (Amended Complaint, ¶ 50) Such claims include the failure to maintain a safe environment for patient care, to formulate, adopt and enforce rules, regulations and polices regarding patient care, and to have competent physicians and staff to treat patients. (Amended Complaint, ¶ 49) 2 6. Health System and Behavioral Health filed an Answer and New Matter to the Amended Complaint on or about September 8, 2010. In that document, Health System and Behavioral Health admitted that Health System is an administrative entity that did not provide care or treatment to Mr. Ressler. See Exhibit "B." 7. Health System is a separate and distinct corporate entity, governed by a separate and distinct board of directors, from that of Holy Spirit Hospital (Hospital). (Answer and Mew Matter, ¶ 2) Defendants admitted that Behavioral Health is not a corporate entity and that the entity that fulfills the corporate responsibilities of the Hospital is the Hospital itself, which is not a party to this litigation. (Answer and New Matter, ¶ 3) 8. Health System and Behavioral Health pled that Dr. Miller was employed by the Hospital, not Health System or Behavioral Health, and had staff privileges at the Hospital. Dr. Miller is not the agent, servant or employee of Health System or Behavioral Health. (Answer and New Matter, ¶ 4) 9. In New Matter Defendants raised the defense that the Hospital itself is the entity that fulfilled corporate responsibilities of the Hospital, it is not a party to the litigation and that plaintiff failed to name the proper party. (Answer and New Matter, ¶ 98) 10. Holy Spirit Health System, Inc. and Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services have no duty to plaintiff as a matter of law. 11. Claims cannot be asserted against Holy Spirit Hospital as a matter of law. 12. Defendants incorporate their Brief in Support of this Motion. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc. and Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter and order dismissing them from this action with prejudice. 3 Respectfully submitted, Date: March 23, 2012 DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. By: f^ ThoWeourt airs, Esquire SupI.D. #78565 Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire Supreme Court I. D. #85651 425 N. 21s' Street, Suite 302 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 (888) 811-7144 (Counsel For Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services And Robin Miller, M. D.) 4 ?? ??? PC _ l1? Jll MOLLY J. RESSLER, Administrator IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and Executrix of the Estate of CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DAVID M. RESSLER, Decedent, and Individually, Plaintiff . NO.: 09-1910 V. n o t? CIVIL ACTION - LAW MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL- Q, LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED '- GJ j l? y HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES and ROBIN MILLER, M.D., 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 LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 800-990-9108 or 717-249-3166 MOLLY J. RESSLER, Administrator IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and Executrix of the Estate of CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DAVID M. RESSLER, Decedent, and Individually, Plaintiff NO.: 09-1910 V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES LIABILITY ACTION and ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Molly J. Ressler, Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of David M. Ressler, Decedent, and Individually, by and through her attorney, Leslie M. Fields, Esquire, Costopoulos, Foster & Fields, and respectfully represents as follows in support of this Amended Complaint: The Parties 1. Plaintiff, Molly J. Ressler, an adult individual residing at 1009 Trindle Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013, is the Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of David M. Ressler, Decedent, her husband, having been granted Letters of Administration by the Register of Wills of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania on October 13, 2008. 2. Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., a corporation organized and operating under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, provides health care services and has its primary corporate office located at 503 North 21" Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011. Defendant owns and operates the Holy Spirit Hospital located at the same address. 3. Defendant, Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, is an inpatient psychiatric unit located within Holy Spirit Hospital and owned and operated by Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., -1- with its primary place of business located at 503 North 215' Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011. 4. Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D., is a psychiatrist at Holy Spirit Hospital and Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, and at all relevant times herein, was an employee, servant and/or actual or ostensible agent of Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc. and Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services. Background Averments 5. At all relevant times, Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, was undergoing medical and psychiatric treatment and care at the Defendant, Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, located within Holy Spirit Hospital of Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., by employees, servants, and/or actual or ostensible agents of Defendants, including Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D. 6. Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, had a history of mental illness, including major depression (recurrent, severe without psychotic features), polysubstance abuse and partner relational problems, all of which were known to Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and Robin Miller, M.D. 7. On August 2, 2008, Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, was taken to the emergency room of Holy Spirit Hospital of Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., for an attempted suicide following an overdose of Wellbutrin tablets. 8. Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, was admitted to Holy Spirit Hospital on August 2, 2008 and transferred to the 8cn floor of the hospital for medical and psychiatric observation as a result of his Wellbutrin overdose. 9. On August 4, 2008, Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, was transferred to Defendant, Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and was under the treatment and care of Defendant, Robin -2- Miller, M.D. 1. 0. Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, continued with psychiatric and medical treatment and care at Defendant, Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, at Holy Spirit Hospital under the psychiatric and medical treatment and care of Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D., until August 7, 2008 when he signed a 72-hour notice informing them of'his desire to leave. 11. A commitment application was thereafter completed which indicated that "...there is a reasonable probability of suicide unless adequate treatment is afforded...." 12. At or about 1 p.m. on August 7, 2008, Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, was explained his rights in regard to his pending involuntary commitment. 13. Approximately one-half hour later, at 1:30 p.m. on August 7, 2008, Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, was found in his room, having hung himself by his belt and shoe strings. CPR and ACLS treatment by Holy Spirit Hospital personnel was unsuccessful and Mr. Ressler was pronounced dead at 2:05 p.m. on August 7, 2008. 14. Twenty-one (21) hours after Mr. Ressler had been pronounced dead, a member of the Holy Spirit Hospital's utilization staff called "Jill" at Highmark to inform her that Mr. Ressler had been "assigned to Fran Charney." Duty of Care of Defendants Holy Spirit Health System Inc Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and Robin Miller M.D. 15. Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and Robin Miller, M.D., owed Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, the duty of care to protect him from self-harm, including from suicide. 16. Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and Robin Miller, M.D., owed Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, the duty of care to treat him with -3- respectful individualized treatment, to assess his psychiatric and medical problems and needs, to plan for his care, to attend to and consult other health care professionals who could respond to those problems and needs, and to organize a responsible plan for treatment following discharge that would help stabilize his condition and safeguard his future psychiatric and medical welfare. 17. Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and Robin Miller, M.D., owed Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, the duty of care to secure personal items from him that are known and commonly-used instruments of suicide, such as his belt and shoe laces. 18. Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and Robin Miller, M.D., owed Plaintiffs decedent, David M. Ressler, the duty of care to remove from his room decorative features and protuberances that could be used for hanging. 19. Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and Robin Mi ller, M.D., owed Plaintiff s decedent, David M. Ressler, the duty of care to place him under adequate supervision and monitoring because he was an extremely high risk for suicide. Count 1 - Plaintiff v. Defendant Holy Spirit Health System Inc Gross Negligence 20. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 19 above are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 21. At the aforesaid time and place, the injuries and death of Plaintiffs decedent, David M. Ressler, were caused by the grossly negligent breach of duty of care and the gross negligence of Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., by and through its employees, servants and/or actual or ostensible agents, in that it: a) failed to protect Plaintiffs decedent, David M. Ressler, from self-harm, -4- including from suicide, by failing to understand that a highly suicidal person who was being committed against his will was at extreme risk for a repeat attempt, especially when the means to commit suicide, i.e., the belt, the shoe laces and the decorative features/protuberances that could be used for hanging, were immediately available; b) failed to protect Mr. Ressler from himself despite evidence that he was acutely suicidal and that his involuntary commitment would increase his suicidal behaviors; c) failed to stabilize his psychiatric and medical conditions; d) failed to safeguard the environment in which Mr. Ressler was being treated; e) failed to ensure that Mr. Ressler did not have access to personal items such as his belt and shoe laces, which are known instruments of suicide, because the hospital psychiatrist and staff knew that he was at serious risk of suicide, he had been admitted because of a failed attempt to commit suicide by overdose, and they were alarmed enough about his suicide potential that they apprised him of a pending involuntary commitment less than two (2) hours before he in fact committed suicide; f) failed to eliminate the decorative features and protuberances that could be used for hanging in the rooms of the psychiatric unit because the Defendants and their staff knew that in inpatient settings, suicidal individuals most commonly complete suicides via hanging and yet Mr. Ressler was permitted the means to hang himself in an acutely provocative situation that increased his suicide risk pending involuntary commitment; g) failed to separate Mr. Ressler from the means to hang himself (i.e., belt and shoe laces) and failed to eliminate the decorative features and protuberances that -5- could be used for hanging in the rooms of its psychiatric unit in order to prevent the most common form of inpatient suicide - hanging - which failures were not ordinary or routine carelessness or negligence but rather flagrant and gross deviations from the usual, standard and customary care of an inpatient psychiatric staff and a hospital with an inpatient psychiatric unit; h) failed to place Mr. Ressler under adequate supervision and monitoring (he was on Level III when he committed suicide) where he would be more closely monitored at a time of severe suicidal risk given that he had been admitted for suicidal behavior, had been suicidal on the psychiatric unit, and was judged an imminent danger to himself as attested to in writing by the staff not two (2) hours before his suicide; i) had in force Inpatient Unit Policy No. BIA-219 on "Privilege Levels" which fails to accord with contemporary standards of care because the policy makes a distinction in privilege levels based on apatient's willingness to "contract for safety," which is a policy that has little or no validity in clinical practice; J) had in force Inpatient Unit Policy No. BIA-219 on "Privilege Levels" which does not specify the frequencyofsafety observations with each level (Mr. Ressler was observed at 30 minute intervals), while contemporary standards use more frequent and/or constant observation with patients considered at high or near term suicide risk such as Mr. Ressler; and k) had in force Inpatient Unit Policy No. BIA-219 on "Privilege Levels" which fails to provide specific guidelines for critical safety actions, namely, the decision to remove belts and shoe laces from a potentially suicidal patient -- the policy -6- does not state what staff is privileged to make this decision and what basis is used for the decision but rather leaves it up to "staff discretion," which policy is vague and below the contemporary standards of care. 22. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., as set forth above, Plaintiff's decedent, Mr. Ressler, suffered the injuries ultimately causing his death. 23. The gross negligence and gross breach of duty of care of Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., were substantial factors in causing the injuries and death of Plaintiff's decedent, Mr. Ressler. 24. The conduct of Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System, as alleged above, in providing medical treatment and care for Plaintiff's decedent, Mr. Ressler, was outrageous and recklessly indifferent to the rights and interests of Plaintiff's decedent. Count 2 - Plaintiff v. Defendant Holv Spirit Behavioral Health Services: Gross Negligence 25. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 24 above are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 25. At the aforesaid time and place, the injuries and death of Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, were caused by the grossly negligent breach of duty of care and the gross negligence of Defendant, Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, by and through its employees, servants and/or actual or ostensible agents, in that it: a) failed to protect Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, from self-harm, including from suicide, by failing to understand that a highly suicidal person who had just been committed against his will was at extreme risk for a repeat attempt, -7- especially when the means to commit suicide, i.e., the belt, the shoe laces and the decorative features/protuberances that could be used for hanging, were immediately available; b) failed to protect Mr. Ressler from himself despite overwhelming evidence that he was acutely suicidal and that his pending involuntary commitment would increase his suicidal behaviors; c) failed to stabilize his psychiatric and medical conditions; d) failed to safeguard the environment in which Mr. Ressler was being treated; e) failed to ensure that Mr. Ressler did not have access to personal items such as his belt and shoe laces, which are known instruments of suicide because the hospital psychiatrist and staff knew that he was at serious risk of suicide, he had been admitted because of a failed attempt to commit suicide by overdose, and they were alarmed enough about his suicide potential that they apprised him of a pending involuntary commitment less than two (2) hours before he in fact committed suicide; f) failed to eliminate the decorative features or protuberances that could be used for hanging in the rooms in the psychiatric unit because the Defendants and their staff knew that in inpatient settings, suicidal individuals most commonly complete suicides via hanging and yet Mr. Ressler was permitted the means to hang himself in an acutely provocative situation that increased his suicide risk pending involuntary commitment; g) failed to separate Mr. Ressler from the means to hang himself (i.e., belt and shoe laces) and failed to eliminate the decorative features or protuberances that could be used for hanging in the rooms of its psychiatric unit in order to prevent the -8- most common form of inpatient suicide - hanging - which failures were not ordinary or routine carelessness or negligence but rather flagrant and gross deviations from the usual, standard and customary care of an inpatient psychiatric staff and a hospital with an inpatient psychiatric unit; h) failed to place Mr. Ressler under adequate supervision and monitoring (he was on Level III when he committed suicide) where he could be more closely monitored at a time of severe suicidal risk given that he had been admitted for suicidal behavior, had been suicidal on the psychiatric unit, and was judged an imminent danger to himself as attested to in writing by the staff in his pending involuntary commitment not two (2) hours before his suicide; i) had in force Inpatient Unit Policy No. 13IA-219 on "Privilege Levels" which fails to accord with contemporary standards of care because the policy makes a distinction in privilege levels based on a patient's willingness to "contract for safety," which is a policy that has little or no validity in clinical practice; j) had in force Inpatient Unit Policy No. BIA-219 on "Privilege Levels" which does not specify the frequency of safety observations with each level whereas contemporary standards use more frequent and/or constant observation with patients considered at high or near term suicide risk such as Mr. Ressler; and k) had in force Inpatient Unit Policy No. BIA-219 on "Privilege Levels" which fails to provide specific guidelines for critical safety actions, namely, the decision to remove belts and shoe laces from a potentially suicidal patient - the policy does not state what staff is privileged to make this decision and what basis is used for the decision but rather leaves it up to "staff discretion," which policy is vague and -9- below the contemporary standards of care. 27. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant, Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, as set forth above, Plaintiff's decedent, Mr. Ressler, suffered the injuries ultimately causing his death. 28. The gross negligence and gross breach of duty of care of Defendant, Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, were substantial factors in causing the injuries and death of Plaintiffs decedent, Mr. Ressler. 29. The conduct of Defendant, Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, as alleged above, in providing medical treatment and care for Plaintiffs decedent, Mr. Ressler, was outrageous and recklessly indifferent to the rights and interest of Plaintiffs decedent. Count 3 - Plaintiff v. Defendant Robin Miller M.D.: Gross Negligence 30. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 29 above are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 31. At the aforesaid time and place, the injuries and death of Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, were caused by the grossly negligent breach of duty of care and the gross negligence of Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D., in that she: a) failed to protect Plaintiffs decedent, David M. Ressler, from self-harm, including from suicide, by failing to understand that a highly suicidal person who had just been committed against his will was at extreme risk for a repeat attempt, especially when the means to commit suicide, i.e., the belt, the shoe laces and the decorative features/protuberances that could be used for hanging were inunediately available; -10- b) failed to protect Mr. Ressler from himself despite overwhelming evidence that he was acutely suicidal and that his involuntary commitment would increase his suicidal behaviors; c) failed to stabilize his psychiatric and medical conditions; d) failed to safeguard the environment in which Mr. Ressler was being treated; e) failed to ensure that Mr. Ressler did not have access to personal items such as his belt and shoe laces, which are known instruments of suicide, because she and the staff knew that he was at serious risk of suicide, he had been admitted because of a failed attempt to commit suicide by overdose, and they were alarmed enough about his suicide potential that they apprised him of a pending involuntary commitment less than two (2) hours before he in fact committed suicide; f) failed to eliminate the decorative features and protuberances that could be used for hanging in the rooms in the psychiatric unit because she and the staff knew that in inpatient settings, suicidal individuals most commonly complete suicides via hanging and yet Mr. Ressler was permitted the means to hang himself in an acutely provocative situation that increased his suicide risk pending involuntary commitment; g) failed to separate Mr. Ressler from the means to hang himself (i.e., belt and shoe laces) and failed to eliminate the decorative features and protuberances that could be used for hanging in the rooms of its psychiatric unit in order to prevent the most common form of inpatient suicide - hanging - which failures were not ordinary or routine carelessness or negligence but rather flagrant and gross deviations from the usual, standard and customary care of an inpatient psychiatric staff and a hospital with an inpatient psychiatric unit; h) failed to place Mr. Ressler under adequate supervision and monitoring (he was on Level III when he committed suicide) where he could be more closely monitored at a time of severe suicidal risk given that he had been admitted for suicidal behavior, had been suicidal on the psychiatric unit, and was judged an imminent danger to himself as attested to in writing by her and the staff in support of his involuntary commitment not two (2) hours before his suicide; i) failed to take the observations and recommendations of other physicians, nurses and clinical staff into account when two other physicians had placed Mr. Ressler under Level I safety observations; j) failed to document the basis for reducing Mr. Ressler's level from Level I to Level II (and then Level III) safety observations; k) failed to base a treatment and safety plan for Mr. Ressler on a comprehensive assessment of increased suicide risk which should have included the patient's ideation or expression of suicide wishes, a history of prior attempts, associated symptoms and diagnoses known to increase suicide risk, and the circumstances or stressors which increase risk; 1) wrongly decreased Mr. Ressler's safety observation from Level I (constant observation) to every half hour (Level II then III) in part based on the patient's denial of suicide ideation, which decrease was grossly below the standards of care; m) failed to write a medical order to increase Mr. Ressler's safety observations in the face of unrelenting danger and the lack of any evidence that the patient had improved from his emergency admission except in his physical recovery from his overdose; -12- n) failed to meet Hospital Policy No. BIA-219 on "Privilege Levels" which states in part; "Documentation: 1. Physician - Document daily the justification for privilege levels on the Physician's Progress note, as well as any changes made"; and o) failed to meet Hospital Policy No. BIA-219 which requires that the patient is minimally on Level II once initiation for involuntary commitment is applied for during the hospital stay. 32. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D., as set forth above, Plaintiff's decedent, Mr. Ressler, suffered the injuries ultimately causing his death. 33. The gross negligence and gross breach of duty of care of Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D., were substantial factors in causing the injuries and death of Plaintiff's decedent, Mr. Ressler. 34, The conduct of Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D., as alleged above, in providing medical treatment and care for Plaintiff's decedent, Mr. Ressler, was outrageous and recklessly indifferent to the rights and interest of Plaintiff's decedent. Count 4 - Plaintiff v. Defendant Hol S i it Health S stem Inc.: Vicarious Liability 35. The allegations set forth in paragraphs I through 34 above are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 36. At all relevant times herein, the actual or ostensible agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., including but not limited to Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D., were acting within the scope of their employment or agency with Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., in rendering grossly negligent medical and psychiatric care and treatment to Plaintiff's decedent, Mr. Ressler, and in grossly breaching the duty of care, as averred in detail above. 37. Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., is vicariously liable for the gross negligence -13- and gross breach of duty of care of its actual or ostensible agents, servants and/or employees, including but not limited to Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D., who rendered grossly negligent medical and psychiatric care and treatment to Plaintiff's decedent, Mr. Ressler, and who grossly breached the duty of care, as averred in detail above. 38. The gross negligence of the actual or ostensible agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., including but not limited to Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D., and their gross breach of the duty of care, which is imputed to Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., were substantial factors in causing the injuries and death to Plaintiffs decedent, Mr. Ressler, as averred more fully herein. 39. Asa direct and proximate result of the aforesaid gross negligence and gross breach of duty of care which are imputed to Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., the Plaintiffs decedent, Mr. Ressler, sustained the injuries and death as alleged more fully herein. 40. The conduct of Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D., as alleged above, in providing medical treatment and care for Plaintiffs decedent, Mr. Ressler, which is imputed to Defendant, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., was outrageous and recklessly indifferent to the rights and interests of Plaintiff's decedent. Count S - Plaintiff v. Defendant Hol S irit Behavioral Health Services: Vicarious Liability 41. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 40 above are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 42. At all relevant times herein, the actual or ostensible agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant, Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, including but not limited to Defendant., Robin Miller, M.D., were acting within the scope of their employment or -14- agencywith Defendant, Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, in rendering grossly negligent medical and psychiatric care and treatment to Plaintiff's decedent, Mr. Ressler, and in grossly breaching the duty of care, as averred in detail above. 43. Defendant, Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, is vicariously liable for the gross negligence and gross breach of duty of care of its actual or ostensible agents, servants and/or employees, including but not limited to Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D., who rendered grossly negligent medical and psychiatric care and treatment to Plaintiff's decedent, Mr. Ressler, and who grossly breached the duty of care, as averred in detail above. 44. The gross negligence ofthe actual or ostensible agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant, Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, including but not limited to Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D., and their gross breach of the duty of care, which is imputed to Defendant, Holy Spirit. Behavioral Health Services, were substantial factors in causing the injuries and death to Plaintiff's decedent, Mr. Ressler, as averred more fully herein. 45. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid gross negligence and gross breach of duty of care which are imputed to Defendant, Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, the Plaintiffs decedent, Mr. Ressler, sustained the injuries and death as alleged more fully herein. 46. The conduct of Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D., as alleged above, which is imputed to Defendant, Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, was outrageous and recklessly indifferent to the rights and interests of Plaintiffs decedent. Count 6: Plaintiff v. Defendants Hol S irit Health S stem Inc. and Holv Spirit Behavioral Health Services: Corporate 1Veeli ence 47. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 46 above are incorporated herein -15- as if set forth in full. 48. As the owners and operators of a hospital, Defendants Holy Spirit Health System, Inc. and Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, owed their patient, Plaintiff, David M. Ressler, a non-delegable duty to ensure his safety and well-being while under in-patient medical and psychiatric treatment and care at their facility. 49. Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc. and Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, were negligent in failing to uphold the proper hospital standard of care owed their patient, Plaintiff, David M. Ressler, in that they: a) failed to maintain a safe environment for patient care; b) failed to formulate, adopt and enforce adequate and proper rules, regulations, policies and protocols to ensure the safety of their psychiatric patients, particularly those who have exhibited suicidal tendencies and who have attempted suicide, such as Mr. Ressler, including the adoption and implementation of contemporary standards of care, including those for the adequate observation of patients and eliminating the "contracting for safety" policy; c) failed to formulate, adopt and enforce adequate and proper rules, regulations, policies and protocols that provide specific guidelines for critical safety actions to ensure the safety of their psychiatric patients, particularly those who have exhibited suicidal tendencies and who have attempted suicide, such as Mr. Ressler, including a specific policy on the removal of belts and shoe laces from potentially suicidal patients; d) failed to formulate, adopt and enforce adequate and proper rules, -16- regulations, policies and protocols to ensure the safety of their psychiatric patients, particularly those who have exhibited suicidal tendencies and who have attempted suicide, such as Mr. Ressler, including the adoption and implementation of contemporary standards for the testing and eliminating of those decorative features and protuberances that could be used for hanging in a patient's room; e) failed to select and retain only competent physicians and staff to treat their patients, including Mr. Ressler, unlike Defendant Dr. Robin Miller, who negligently treated Mr. Ressler as alleged more fully above, which averments are incorporated herein by reference; f) failed to properly and adequately oversee all persons practicing medicine within their walls, including Defendant Dr. Robin Miller, who negligently treated Mr. Ressler as alleged more fully above, which averments are incorporated herein by reference; g) failed to formulate, adopt and enforce adequate and proper rules, regulations, policies and protocols to ensure quality care for their patients, including Mr. Ressler, specifically by i) failing to require that their physicians, including Defendant Dr. Robin Miller, properly take into account the observations and opinions of other physicians and staff in the care and treatment of their patients, including Mr. Ressler; ii) failing to require that their physicians, including Defendant Dr. Robin Miller, properly assess the suicidal risks -17- of their patients, including Mr. Ressler, in a comprehensive fashion and to formulate a treatment based on that assessment; iii) failing to require that their physicians, including Defendant Dr. Robin Miller, order sufficient safety observations to guard against self-destructive acts; and iv) failing to require that their physicians, including Defendant Dr. Robin Miller, document the justification for reducing a patient's safety levels and thus failing to communicate these thoughts to the hospital's nurses and other staff as required by explicit hospital policy; h) failing to require their physicians and staff, including Defendant Dr. Robin Miller, to seek and obtain the advice and instruction of qualified medical and psychiatric specialists and/or their superiors during the treatment and care of Mr. Ressler; and i) failing to require their physicians and staff, including Defendant Dr. Robin Miller, to refer patients, including Mr. Ressler, to the necessary and qualified medical and psychiatric specialists and/or their superiors during the treatment and care of Mr. Ressler. 50. Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc. and Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, had actual and/or constructive notice of the negligence herein by and through their actual or ostensible agents, servants and/or employees, including Defendant Dr. Robin Miller. -18- 51. The corporate negligence of Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc. and Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, was a substantial factor in causing the injuries, death and damages sustained by Plaintiff, David M. Ressler, which are described in detail in this complaint and which averments are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 52. As a direct and proximate result of the corporate negligence of Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc. and Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, the Plaintiff, David M. Ressler, sustained the injuries, death and damages which are described in detail in this complaint and which averments are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full. 53. The conduct of Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and Robin Miller, M.D., in providing medical care and treatment for Plaintiffs decedent, Mr. Ressler, was outrageous and recklessly indifferent to the rights and interests of Plaintiff's decedent. WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION 54. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 53 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 55. This civil action is brought pursuant to the Pennsylvania Wrongful Death Act at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8301 et seq. and Pa.R.C.P. § 2201 et seq. 56. As a direct and proximate result of the gross negligence and gross breach of duty of care of the Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and Robin Miller, M.D., Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, died on August 7, -19- 2008. _`i 7. Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, did not bring any other action during his lifetime and no other action for the death of said decedent has been commenced against the Defendants or any other parties. 58. Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, is survived by the following statutory beneficiaries: Molly J. Ressler, his wife, who resides at 1009 Trindle Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, PA 17013; Matthew D. Ressler, his son, who resides at 31 Hillcrest Drive, San Rafael, California 94901, and Megan Ressler-Bhacia, his daughter, who resides at 804 Bradley Court, Mt. Laurel, New Jersey 08054. 59. This civil action is brought to recover, on behalf of the aforesaid statutory beneficiaries, all damages lawfully available under the Pennsylvania Wrongful Death Act. 60. As a direct and proximate result of the death of Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, which was caused by the Defendants as averred above, the aforesaid statutory beneficiaries have suffered pecuniary losses, and have incurred medical, nursing and hospital bills, funeral and burial expenses, and the costs of the administration of the estate. 61. As a further direct and proximate result of the death of Plaintiff's decedent, David M, Ressler, which was caused by the Defendants as averred above, the aforesaid statutory beneficiaries have suffered the loss of Mr. Ressler's probable earnings and maintenance that they would have received from him during the remainder ofhis natural life. 62. As a further direct and proximate result of the death of Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, which was caused by the Defendants as averred above, the aforesaid -20- statutory beneficiaries have suffered the lost value ofhousehold services, society and comfort that Mr. Ressler would have given to his family had he lived. 63. As a further direct and proximate result of the death of Plaintiffs decedent, David M. Ressler, which was caused by the Defendants as averred above, the aforesaid statutory beneficiaries have suffered the loss of the contributions Mr. Ressler would have made to the family for the purchase of items such as shelter, food, clothing, medical care, education, entertainment, gifts and recreation had he lived. 64. As a further direct and proximate result of the death of Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, which was caused by the Defendants as averred above, Molly J. Ressler, the Wife-statutory beneficiary has suffered incidental expenses and the loss of consortium, society, services, companionship, guidance, solace, support, protection and comfort that she would have received from her husband for the remainder of his natural life. 65. As a further direct and proximate result of the death of Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, which was caused by the Defendants as averred above, Matthew D. Ressler and Megan Ressler-Bhacia, the Children-statutory beneficiaries, have suffered the loss of their father's care, training, education, society, services, companionship, guidance, solace, support, protection, comfort, tutelage and moral upbringing that they would have received from him for the remainder of his natural life. SURVIVAL ACTION 66. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 65 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. -21- 67. Plaintiff, Molly J. Ressler, in her capacity as the Executrix of the Estate of David M. Ressler, decedent, brings this civil action pursuant to the Pennsylvania Survival Act at 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8302 etseq. 68. This civil action is brought to recover on behalf of the Estate of David M. Ressler, decedent, all damages lawfully available under the Pennsylvania Survival Act. 69. As a direct and proximate result of the gross negligence and gross breach of duty of care of the Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and Robin Miller, M.D., Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, died on August 7, 2008. 70. As a further direct and proximate result of the gross negligence and gross breach of duty of care of the Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and Robin Miller, M.D., the Plaintiff's decedent, David M. Ressler, was caused to suffer great physical and mental pain and suffering, emotional shock and distress, mental anguish, discomfort, inconvenience, fright, trauma, terror and the loss of life's pleasures prior to his death, including from and during the time of the act of hanging and the waiting for death until the death itself. 71. Plaintiff, Molly J. Ressler, claims on behalf of the Estate of David M. Ressler, decedent, damages for the great physical and mental pain and suffering, emotional shock and distress, mental anguish, discomfort, inconvenience, fright, trauma, terror and the loss of life's pleasures suffered by Mr. Ressler prior to his death, including from and during the time of the act of hanging and the waiting for death until the death itself. -22- '72. Asa further direct and proximate result of the gross negligence and gross breach of duty of care of the Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and Robin Miller, M.D., the Plaintiffs decedent, David M. Ressler, was caused to suffer the loss of his future earnings capacity less the estimated cost of his personal maintenance from the date of death through his estimated working life span. 73. Plaintiff, Molly J. Ressler, claims on behalf of the Estate of David M. Ressler, decedent, damages for the loss of Mr. Ressler's future earnings capacity less the estimated cost of his personal maintenance from the date of death through his estimated working life span. 74. Asa further direct and proximate result of the gross negligence and gross breach of duty of care of the Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and Robin Miller, M.D., the Plaintiffs decedent, David M. Ressler, was caused to suffer the loss of his retirement income and Social Security income. 75. Plaintiff, Molly J. Ressler, claims on behalf of the Estate of David M. Ressler, decedent, damages for the loss of his retirement income and Social Security income. Conc- luslon WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, MollyJ. Ressler, Administrator and Executrix ofthe Estate of David M. Ressler, decedent, and Individually, based on the foregoing allegations, hereby demands judgment against all Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and Robin Miller, M.D., jointly and severally, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits, including punitive damages, together with -23- interest, costs and expenses as provided by law. Dated:-i?&W 2 2-o,,o RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: C:?: eslie M Ids, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 29411 COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS 831 Market Street, P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, Pennsylvania 17043-0222 Phone: (717) 761-2121 Fax: (717) 761-4031 Web: w Cs to com Attorney for Plaintiff VERIFICATION I, Plaintiff, Molly J. Ressler, Individually and as Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of David M. Ressler, Decedent, do hereby verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties at 18 Pa.S.C. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. BY: Molly J. Res er, dividually and as Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of David M. Ressler, Decedent DATED:_? `0 EXHIBIT "B" ??? ??? 725218/ANS/Amended Complaint/11SH (jlk DICKIE, NICCANIEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS BY: Thomas N1. Chairs, Esquire HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 78565 HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH 1200 Camp Mill Bypass, Suite 205 SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, NI.D. Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)731-4800 (Tele) (717)731-4803 Fax MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND PENNSYLVANIA INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff NO. 09-1910 V. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE A&IO' Z _r! Z r_ S "L7 HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., - `x' =i HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D., mac? w ._?m Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED -±?i ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS, HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. AND HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Defendants, HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. and HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES, collectively hereinafter referred to as ("Answering Defendants"), by and through their counsel, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. to Answer to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the averments set forth in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and therefore denies same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial. 2. Denied. Holy Spirit Health System is an administrative entity that did not provide care or treatment to David Ressler. Holy Spirit Health System is a corporation organized and J? ?I operating under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with an office located at 503 725218/ANS/ Amended Complaint/HSH North 21" Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. Holy Spirit Hospital is a separate and distinct corporate entity governed by a separate and distinct Board of Directors. 3. 3. Denied. Behavioral Health Services is not a corporate entity. The entity that fulfills the corporate responsibilities of the Hospital located at 503 N. 21" Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania is the Holy Spirit Hospital which is not party to this litigation. 4. Denied. Defendant Robin Miller, M.D. is a psychiatrist with staff privileges at the Holy Spirit Hospital who is employed by the Holy Spirit Hospital. It is specifically denied that Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D. is an agent, servant and/or employee of the Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services and/or Holy Spirit Health System. 5.-14. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 15. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceed the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. To the extent that this paragraph contains averment of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 16. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceed the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. To the extent that this paragraph contains averment of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 17. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceed the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. To the extent that this paragraph contains averment of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 7252MANS/Amended Complaint/fISH U 13. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceed the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. To the extent that this paragraph contains averment of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). 19. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceed the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. To the extent that this paragraph contains averment of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendants together with all allowable costs and attorney fees. Count 1 - Plaintiff v. Defendant Holy Spirit Health System, Inc Gross NeElipzence 20. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate by reference hereto answers to paragraphs I - 19 as if fully set forth at length herein. 21(a-k). Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph and corresponding sub-paragraphs of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint are denied as legal and medical conclusion to which no responses are required and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. To the extent that this paragraph and corresponding sub-paragraphs of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint contain averments of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further response, the general allegations of agency contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint are incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. By way of yet further response, Answering Defendants and its staff were not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, 72521KANS/Amended Complaint/11SH I healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 22. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of yet further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler were not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 23. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler were not grossly negligent, outrageous or reckless. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 24. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler were not grossly negligent, outrageous or reckless. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendants together with all allowable costs and attorney tees. Count II - Plaintiff v_. Defendant Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services Gross Negligence 25. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate by reference hereto answers to paragraphs 1 - 24 as if fully set forth at length herein. 725218/ANS/Amended Complaint'HSH t 11 i= 26(a-k). Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph and corresponding sub-paragraphs was Plaintiffs Amended Complaint are denied as legal and medical conclusion to which no responses are required and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. To the extent that this paragraph and corresponding sub-paragraphs of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint contain averments of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further response, the general allegations of agency contained in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. By way of yet further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler were not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 27. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of yet further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler were not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 28. By way of yet further response, Answering Defendants and its staff were not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 29. By way of further response, Answering Defendant and its staff were not grossly negligent, outrageous nor recklessly indifferent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 725213/ANS/Amended Complaint'HSH t? ffl 4 WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendants together with all allowable costs and attorney fees. Count III - Plaintiff v. Defendant, Robin Miller, M.D.: Gross Negligence 30. Answering Defendant hereby incorporate by reference hereto answers to paragraphs I - 29 as if fully set forth at length herein. 31(a-o). The allegations set forth in Paragraph 31(a-o) refer to a party other than Answering Defendant, consequently no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 31(a-o) are deemed to contain facts which pertain to the Answering Defendant, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 32. The allegations set forth in Paragraph 32 refer to a party other than Answering Defendant, consequently no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 32 are deemed to contain facts which pertain to the Answering Defendant, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 33. The allegations set forth in Paragraph 33 refer to a party other than Answering Defendant, consequently no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 33 are deemed to contain facts which pertain to the Answering Defendant, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 34. The allegations set forth in Paragraph 34 refer to a party other than Answering Defendant, consequently no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 725218/ANS/Amended Complaint/HSH J 34 are deemed to contain facts which pertain to the Answering Defendant, those allegations of' fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendants together with all allowable costs and attorney fees. Count IV - Plaintiff v. Defendant Holy Spirit Health System, Inc Vicarious Liability 35. Answering Defendant hereby incorporate by reference hereto answers to paragraphs 1 - 34 as if fully set forth at length herein. 36. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, Dr. Miller is a psychiatrist that at all times material hereto was employed by the Holy Spirit Hospital which is not a party to this litigation. The remaining general allegations of agency are incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. By way of yet further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler were not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 37. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, Dr. Miller is a psychiatrist that at all times material hereto was employed by the Holy Spirit Hospital which is not a party to this litigation. 'T'ile remaining general allegations of agency are incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. By way of yet further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler were not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. 725218;'ANS Amended ComplainvtlSI-I U Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 38. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, Dr. Miller is a psychiatrist that at all times material hereto was employed by the Holy Spirit Hospital which is not a party to this litigation. The remaining general allegations of agency are incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. By way of yet further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler were not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 39. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, Dr. Miller is a psychiatrist that at all times material hereto was employed by the Holy Spirit Hospital which is not a party to this litigation. The remaining general allegations of agency are incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. By way of yet further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler were not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 40. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, Dr. Miller is a psychiatrist that at all times material hereto was employed by the Holy Spirit Hospital which is not a party to this litigation. The remaining general allegations of agency are incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. By way of yet further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler 72521311ANS/Amended Complaint/HSH E 11 were not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendants together with all allowable costs and attorney fees. Count V - Plaintiff v. Defendant Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services Vicarious Liability 41. Answering Defendants hereby incorporates by reference hereto answers to paragraphs 1 - 40 as if fully set forth at length. 42. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is necessary, Dr. Miller is a psychiatrist that at all times material hereto was employed by the Holy Spirit Hospital which is not a party to this litigation. The remaining general allegations of agency are incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. By way of yet further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler were not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 43. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is necessary, Dr. Miller is a psychiatrist that at all times material hereto was employed by the Holy Spirit Hospital which is not a party to this litigation. The remaining general allegations of agency are incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. By way of yet further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler were not grossly 725218 ANS/Amended ComplainbHSH 1 11 negligent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 44. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is necessary, Dr. Miller is a psychiatrist that at all times material hereto was employed by the Holy Spirit Hospital which is not a party to this litigation. The remaining general allegations of agency are incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. By way of yet further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler were not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 45. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is necessary, Dr. Miller is a psychiatrist that at all times material hereto was employed by the Holy Spirit Hospital which is not a party to this litigation. The remaining general allegations of agency are incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. By way of yet further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler were not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 46. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response is necessary, Dr. Miller is a psychiatrist that at all times material hereto was employed by the Holy Spirit Hospital which is not a party to this litigation. The remaining general allegations of agency are incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. By way of yet further response, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler were not grossly negligent. At all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 725218/ANS/Amended ComplainbHSH WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendants together with all allowable costs and attorney fees. Count VI - Plaintiff v. Defendant Holy Spirit Health System and Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services Corporate Negligence 47. Answering Defendant hereby incorporate by reference hereto answers to paragraphs 1 - 46 as if fully set forth at length herein. 48. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent Paragraph 48 of the Plaintiffs Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). By way of further response, at all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 49(a-i). Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent Paragraph 49(a-i) of the Plaintiffs Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). By way of further response, at all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 50. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the alternative to the extent Paragraph 50 of the Plaintiffs Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in 725218iANS!Amended ComplainvHSH ?; "Ak accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). By way of further response, at all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 51. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the alternative to the extent Paragraph 51 of the Plaintiffs Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). By way of further response, at all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 52. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the alternative to the extent Paragraph 52 of the Plaintiffs Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). By way of further response, at all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 53. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. In the alternative to the extent Paragraph 53 of the Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). By way of further response, at all relevant times, the healthcare providers that cared for Mr. Ressler met or exceeded the standard of care and did not cause or contribute to the injuries as alleged. 72 218/ANS'Amendc:d ComplamuHSH ;_ I W, 11 WRONGFUL DEATH ACTION 54. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate by reference hereto answers to paragraphs I - 53 as if fully set forth at length herein. 55. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 55 of the Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 56. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 56 of the Plaintiffs Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 57. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 57 of the Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 58. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 58 of the Plaintiffs Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 59. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 59 of the Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 725218 ANS,,Amende.d Complaint/HSH x Aft 13 60. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 60 of the Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 61. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 61 of the Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 62. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 62 of the Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 63. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 63 of the Plaintiffs Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 64. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 64 of the Plaintiffs Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 65. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. In the alternative to the extent that Paragraph 65 of the Plaintiffs Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a 725218/ANS; Amended Complaint HSEi responsive pleading is deemed required, those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendant together with all allowable costs and attorneys' fees. SURVIVAL ACTION 66. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate by reference hereto answers to paragraphs 1 - 65 as if fully set forth at length herein. 67. Denied as a conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, to the extent Paragraph 67 of the Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 68. Denied as a conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, to the extent Paragraph 68 of the Plaintiffs Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 69. Denied as a conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, to the extent Paragraph 69 of the Plaintiffs Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(c). 70. Denied as a conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, to the extent Paragraph 70 of the Plaintiffs Complaint is deemed to contain 725218;ANS-Amended Complaint/HSI-I i; facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 71. Denied as a conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, to the extent Paragraph 71 of the Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 72. Denied as a conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, to the extent Paragraph 72 of the Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 73. Denied as a conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, to the extent Paragraph 73 of the Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure I029(e). 74. Denied as a conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, to the extent Paragraph 74 of the Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 75. Denied as a conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, to the extent Paragraph 75 of the Plaintiff's Complaint is deemed to contain facts to which a responsive pleading is deemed required those allegations of fact are denied generally in accord with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 725218/ANS/Amended ComplaintvttSH WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendant together with all allowable costs and attorneys' fees. CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of the Answering Defendant together with all allowable costs and attorneys' fees. NEW MATTER By way of further response, Answering Defendants, aver the following new matter directed to Plaintiffs: 76. The healthcare providers and Hospital that cared for Mr. Ressler at all times surrounding his relevant admission to the Holy Spirit Hospital are immune from suit pursuant from the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act. 77. Answering Defendants incorporates by reference all applicable defenses and protections under the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act. 78. The negligence of the Plaintiff and/or decedent bars and/or limits any claim the Plaintiff may have against healthcare provider and/or the Answering Defendants. 79, Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 80. Plaintiffs are responsible, in whole or in part, for the injuries alleged because Plaintiffs decedent voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risk of the activities, and therefore, all claims resulting there from are barred. 7252 MANS/ Amended ComplaintAISH t,4 81. The general allegations of agency contained in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are denied and incapable of further response and strict proof is demanded. 82. Nothing Answering Defendants did or failed to do was the cause in fact or the proximate cause of any alleged injury or loss to Plaintiffs. 83. Plaintiffs claims may be barred by the doctrines of assumption of the risk and contributory negligence or reduced by comparative negligence. 84. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is barred or reduced by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, the relevant provisions of which are incorporated herein by reference as though same were more fully set forth at length herein. 85. At all times material hereto, Answering Defendants provided treatment in accordance with the applicable standard of medical care at the time and place of treatment. 86. Plaintiffs failed to mitigate any damages allegedly sustained. 87. Plaintiff's claims and/or request for damages herein are limited and/or precluded by the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. 88. Plaintiffs claims may be barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 89. Plaintiffs have failed to plead facts sufficient to toll the applicable statute of limitations. 90. Plaintiff's cause of action may be barred by the equitable doctrine of laches. 91. To the extent that discovery and/or investigation may reveal, Plaintiffs have granted accord and satisfaction to a judgment thereby barring a subsequent suit against any other defendant for the same injuries. 725218/ANS'Ainended Complaint/HSH Ift 92. In accordance with Pennsylvania law, including the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act, Plaintiffs shall have no right to recover any amount, which was paid by a collateral source of compensation or benefits. 93. Plaintiffs may have entered into a release which has the effect of discharging Answering Defendants from this matter. 94. Upon information and belief, certain of Plaintiffs bills for which Plaintiffs seek to recover in this action that were paid or are payable under accident and health insurance, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Worker's Compensation insurance, or other insurance. 95. Plaintiffs shall have no right to recover for any amount which was paid by a private, public, or gratuitous collateral source of compensation or benefits under such as instituted or amended by the Pennsylvania Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act. 96. Plaintiffs claims and/or request for damages is barred or limited by the provisions of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act, Act. No. 13, House Bill No. 1802, 2202 Pa. ALS 13; 2002, Pa. Laws 13; 2001 Pa. HB 1802, as amended. 97. By way of further answer, Answering Defendants specifically reserve the right to plead hereafter as further New Matter those additional affirmative defenses, including, without limitation, those set forth in Pa.R.Civ.P. 1030, that continuing investigation, discovery in accordance with court rules, and the introduction of evidence at trial may render applicable to claims and causes of action declared upon Plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint. 98. The entity that fulfills the corporate responsibilities of the Hospital located at 503 N. 2 1s' Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania is the Holy Spirit Hospital which is 72521KANS/:upended ComplainvHSH 191 4 not a party to this litigation. The Plaintiff failed to properly name a party to pursue a corporate negligence theory. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants deny that Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in favor of Answering Defendant together with all allowable costs and attorneys' fees. Respectfully submitted, DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Date: September 8, 2010 By: -W • C /PR "Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #78565 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 1701 1-3700 (717) 731-4800 Attornev.16r DeJerrdants, HOLY SPIRIT flE,4LTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHA VIOR,4L HEAL 771 SCR VICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M. D. Verif(Ellen Feid) r. VERIFICATION I, Ellen Feidt, R.N., Risk Manager, hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer with New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 i Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. ; Date: ,?y "f I-7 691o By: Ellen Feidt, R.N., Risk Manager 725218/ANS/Amend&d ComplainV'HSH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 8th day of September, 2010, 1, "Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS, HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC. AND HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES TO AMENDED COMPLAINT upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First-Class Mail: Leslie M. Fields, Esquire COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS 831 Market Street P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0222 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, March 23, 2012, I, Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First-Class Mail: Leslie M. Fields, Esquire COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS 831 Market Street P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0222 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Marcelle M. Theis, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. Two PPG Place, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-5402 (Counsel for Jenny Owens, M.D.) i Thoxfia h 'rs, Esquire 5 l MOLLY J. RESSLER, Administrator IN THE COURT OF COMMON AS and Executrix of the Estate of CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DAVID M. RESSLER, Decedent, : and Individually, Plaintiff NO.: 09-1910 CIVIL ACTION - LAW ' - HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES LIABILITY ACTION and ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOLLY J. RESSLER, Administrator IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS and Executrix of the Estate of CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DAVID M. RESSLER, Decedent, NO.: 10-4615 and Individually, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiff : V. MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL JENNY OWENS, M. D. LIABILITY ACTION Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS OF DEFENDANTS HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM INC. AND HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL SERVICES AND NOW comes the Plaintiff, Molly J. Ressler, by and through her attorney, Leslie M. Fields, Esquire, COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS, and respectfully requests that Your Honorable Court deny and dismiss the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings of Defendants Holy Spirit Health System, Inc. and Holy Spirit Behavioral Services for the reasons set forth in the brief being filed together with this answer as well as the following supporting exhibits which are attached: A. Articles of Incorporation of Defendant Holy Spirit Health System, Inc. and Articles/Certificate of Merger; B. Website of Defendant Holy Spirit Health System, Inc. (excerpts); and C. Deposition of Rhett Bennie, HSHS acute care coordinator (excerpts). RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Leslie/M. Fields, Esquire COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS 831 Market Street/P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043 Phone: 717.761.2121 Fax: 717.761.4031 Web: Costopoulos.com ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF DATED: April ? ° , 2012. 2 Certificate of Service I, Leslie M. Fields, Esquire, attorney for Plaintiff, do hereby that a true and correct copy of this ANSWER was served on counsel for the Moving Defendants by placing same in the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, on the below date and addressed as follows: Thomas Chairs, Esquire 425 North 21St Street/Suite 302 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 DATED: April 4 , 2012. f?... B L?- -- Leslie 4. Fields, Esquire 3 Microfilm Number Entity Number' j f loC??? The name of the corporation is: Holy Spirit Health System _ ARTICLES OF INCOW'ORATIOWDOMESTIC NONPROFIT CORPORATION QSCB:15-5306 (Rev 90) In compliance with the requirements of 15 Pa.C.S. § 5306 (relating to articles of incorporation), the undersigned, desiring to incorporate a nonprofit corporation, hereby state(s) that: 3. 4. 5. 6. i. 9. The (a) address of this corporation's initial registered office in this Commonwealth or (b) name of its commercial registered office provider and the county of venue is. (a) 503 North 21 Street Camp Hill PA 17011 Cumberland Number and Street city state Zip County (b) c/o:_ Name of Commercial Registered Office Provider County For a corporation represented by a commercial registered office provider, the county in (b) shall be deemed the county in which the corporation is located for venue and official publication purposes. The corporation is incorporated under Nonprofit Corporation Law of 1988 for the following purpose or purposes: Qxclusively for religious, charitable Vdy ational and scientific purposes (s ached sheet) _ The corporation does not contemplate pecuniary gain or profit, incidental or otherwise. The corporation is organized upon a nonstock basis. The corporation's sole member shall be Sisters of Christian Charity Health Care Corporation. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxy,X, xxxxxxxxxxx .>=X)oo:xx.X xXXXXXXX XXXX?:XXXXXXXXXyJQKxXXXXXXxXXXxXXXXXXXXX.Y. xYJCxXXXXXXXXXX7(XXXXYXxxx)oc KxxxxxxxXxxxxxx)c xxX3(X The name and address, including street and number, if any, of each incorporator is: Name DEC 2919c, Filed with the Department of State on jq/- V/" - q Secre / r. Address der Marv Edward Spot. S.C.fi„ 350 Ser fdsville R,gad. Mendam. N.J. 07945-U800 ester Romaing Niemeyer. S.C.C.. 503 North 21"` Std CCanjA 1. PA '(T0'11--2288 The specified effective date;, if any, is: month day year !?[.? "huff ,, ; ?:: 3 A 0?9990L93 ' . 10. Additional provisions of the articles, if any, attach an 8 Yx 11 sheet. IN TESTIMONY. WHEREOF, the Incorporato*;s) has (have) signed these Articles of Incorporation this day of f• P. . Yrl?.'. `L , 1999. Sister Mary Edward Spohrer, S.C.C. Sister maine Niameyer, S.C. 128109.1 2 00M4 -1294 CONTINUATION OF ORIGINAL ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION FOR HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM. 3. including, without lime, ig the generality of the foregoing, to: A. Assist, support, promote and further all benevolent charitable, educational, scientific, health and religious works of the Sisters of Christian Charity Health Care Corporation and other corporate entities controlled, directly or indirectly, by the Sisters of Christian Charity Health Care Corporation, including supporting and carrying out the charitable health care mission Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity, Comfort Care of Holy Spirit, Inc., West Shore Advanced Life Support Services, Inc. and Spirit Physician Services, Inc. B. Implement the philosophy and ethical and religious principles of the Roman Catholic Church. C. Receive, manage and distribute gifts, bequests and devises on behalf of all religious, charitable, educational and health care activities sponsored by the Sisters of Christian Charity Health Care Corporation or its affiliates. D. Organize, participate in and facilitate, directly or indirectly, health care ventures formed or sponsored by the Corporation or its affiliates. E. Do any and all acts that are necessary, proper, useful, incidental or advantageous to the above stated purposes in conformity with the traditions, teaching and Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church. 10. This Corporation is organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable and educationai purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, including, for such purposes, the making of distributions to organizations that qualify as exempt organizations under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue ;ode of 1986. 11. No part of the net earnings of the corporation shall inure to the benefit of or be distributable to any contributor, director, trustee, officer or other private individual or person, except that the corporation shall be authorized and empowered to pay reasonable compensation for services rendered and to make payments and distributions in furtherance of the Section 501(c)(3) pUl':loses set forth in the preceding paragraph. No substantial part of the activities of the corporation shall be the carrying on of propaganda or otherwise attempting to influence legislation, except to the ex`nnt permitted by Section 501(h) of the In.emal Revenue Code of 1986, and the corporation, :,i,all not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distribution of statements), any political campaign on behalf or in apposition to any candidate for public office. All property and assets of this corporation are irrevocably dedicated to religious, charitable and educational and scientific purposes meeting the requirements for exemption provided by Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 12. Notwithstanding any provision of these articles of Incorporation, -the corporation shall not carry on any activities not permitted to be carried on (a) by a corporation exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 11986 or (b) by a corporation, contributions to which are deductible under Section 170(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 13. Upon the dissolution, winding up, or abandonment of the corporation, the Member of the corporation shall, after payment or provision for payment of all debts and liabilities of this corporation, dispose of all assets of the corporation to such organization or organizations organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable or educational purposes which shall at that time have established tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as the Member of the corporation shall determine in conformity with the Canon Law of the Roman Catholic Church. 14. All references to sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall mean and refer to those sections as they now exist, or as they may hereafter be amended, supplemented or revised, or the corresponding provisions of any future United States Internal Revenue Law. JRD:103917 Entity #: 163387 Date Filed: 06/07/2011 Carol Aichele Secretary of the Commonwealth PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF STATE CORPORATION BUREAU Articles/Certificate of Merger (15 PLC.S.) Domestic Business Corporation (11926) Domestic Nonprofit Corporation (§ 5926) n Limited Partnership (18547) Nam Jerry K Duffle, Esquire Addrao 301 Market Street, P.O. Box 109 city state zip Code Lemoyne, PA 17043-0109 Fee: $150 plus SO additional for each Party in additional to two Document will be returned to the name and address you enter to the left C Commonwealth of Pennsylvania ARTICLES OF MERGER-NONPROFIT 9 Page(s) r In compliance with the requirements of the applicable provisions (relating to articles of merger or consolidation), the undersigned, desiring to effect a maw, hereby starve that 1. The name of the corporation/limited partnership surviving the merger is: Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity Check and complete one of the followbW.L:.l The surviving oorporatioa/limited parhnaship is a domestic business/nonprofit corporatimftntied partnership and the (a) address of its ourreat registered office in this Commonweahh or (b) name of its commercial registered office provider and the county of venue is (the Department is hereby authorized to correct the fbUowing information to conform to the records of the Department): (a) Number and street City State Zip County North 21st Street, Camp Hill, PA 17011 Cumberland (b) Name of Commercial Registered Office Provides County c% IIThe surviving co poration/limited partnersbip is a qualified foreign business/nonprofit corporation /limited partnership incorporated/foamed under the laws of and the (a) address of its =rent registered office in this Commonwealth or (b) name of Its commercial registered office provider and the 00WAy of venue is (the Department is hereby authorized to correct the following information to conform to the records of the Department): (a) Number and Street city state Zip County (b) Name of commercial Registered office Provider county c1o One surviving corporation/limited partnership is a nonquaiified foreign busine ss/rronprofit corporation/limdted partnership incorporated/formed under the laws of and the address of its principal office under the laws of such domiciliary jurisdiction is: Number and Suet City State Zip PA BUT. OF STATE JUN 0 72011 pA DEPT: OF STATE JUN 19 2011 DSCB:15-1976/592618547-2 3. The name and the address of the registered office in this Commonwealth or name of its couunerraal registered office provider and the cotmty of venue of each other domestic businessluouprofit owpmdWnA mited partnership and qualified foreign business/nonprofit coMorationlImitod partnership which is a party to the plan of merger are as follows: Name Registered Office Address Commercial Registered Office Provider Cc" Canfort Care of Holy Spirit, Irn. N. 21st Street, Carno Hill, PA 17011 Cumber Holy Spirit Health System, 503 N. 21st Street, Camp Hill, PA 17011 Cumber 4. Check and if appropriate complete, over of the f flawing.• The plan of merger shall be effective upon filing these Ardcie3/Ccr0c= of Merger in the Department of State. L] The plan of merger shall be effective on: at Date Hour and nd 5. The manner in which the plan of merger was adopted by each domestic corpomtion/lirnited partnership is as follows: Name Meaner of Adoption See attached sheet 6. Strike out this paragraph if no foreign col poratior?limited partnership is a parry to the merger. ?Fltlp{1tClltl? itipl?pllilC?C 7. Check and # Wropriate complete. one of the following. M The plan of merger is set forth in full in P.xhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof: ?? Pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S.11901118547(b) (relating to omission of certain provisions from filed plans) the provisions, if any, of the plan of merger that amend or constitute the operative provisions of the Articles of Incorporation/Certificate of Limited Partnership of the surviving corporatiodtimited partnership as m effect subsequent to the effective date of the plan are set forth in fall In Exhibit A attached hereto and made a party hereof. The full text of the plan of merger is on file at the principal place of business of the surviving cotpmatioullimlted partnership, the address of which is. 503 North 21st Street, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2288 Cumberland Number and street city State Zip County DSCB:15-1926/5926/8547-3 IN TESTBAONY WHEMP, the uadai0med coepor.n(fnnited partnership has caused these ArticlesCmdficak of Merger to be signed by a duly authorized officer thereof this 3Ro dayof 7u4 G 2.e 1l Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity Name of Corporsdaw united Pwterahip Signatxu?e Presideat and Chief Executive Officer Title Comfort Care of Holy S'Idt, Inc, Name .of Caporstiao/Limited Pa?tnesto &Kkk& pmwe Interim president Title Response to: 5. The manner in which the plan of merger was adopted by each domestic corporatiorulimited partnership is as follows: Comfort Care of Holy Spirit, Inc. Adopted by action of the members pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S. § 5905 Holy Spirit Health System Adopted by action of the members pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S. § 5905 Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity Adopted by action of the members pursuant to 15 Pa.C.S. § 5905 :421028 r SUMMARY OF THE PLAN AND AGREEMENT OF REORGANIZATION BY MERGER OF COMFORT CARE OF HOLY SPIRIT, INC. WITH AND INTO HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY The Plan and Agreement of Reorganization (`Plan and Agreement') is by and between Comfort Care of Holy Spirit, Inc., a domestic nonprofit corporation, duly licensed as a home health agency in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with its principal office at 503 North 21st Street, Camp Hill (East Pennsboro Township), Cumberland County, Pennsylvania ("Comfort Care'), and Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity, a domestic nonprofit corporation, with its registered office at 503 North 21st Street, Camp Hill (East Pennsboro Township), Cumberland County, Pennsylvania ("Holy Spirit Hospital'j. Holy Spirit Hospital would be the surviving corporation. The relevant business terms and conditions of the Plan and Agreement are as follows: 1. Effective Date. The proposed Effective Date of the merger will be 12:00 a.m. (midnight) (prevailing time), April 1, 2011, contingent upon (i) the receipt of all necessary licensure and reimbursement approvals from the Pennsylvania Department of Health and the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and (ii) the approvals of the Board of Directors, Holy Spirit Hospital, Board of Directors, Comfort Care, Board of Directors, Holy Spirit Health System and Board of Trustees, Sisters of Christian Charity Health Care Corporation. 2. Current Officers and Directors/Comfort Care. The current officers and directors of Comfort Care will resign immediately prior to the Effective Date of the merger. 3. Current Officers and Directors/Holy Spirit Hospital. The current officers and directors of Holy Spirit Hospital will remain. 4. Existing Debts/Accounts Receivable. As of the Effective Date, Holy Spirit Hospital will assume the existing debts of Comfort Care 432852 4 and will also own (subject to collection) Comfort Care's accounts receivable. 5. Real Estate. Comfort Care owns one (1) improved parcel of real estate situate in the Borough of Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. There is no mortgage or other encumbrance pertaining to said real estate. Said real estate, as a result of the merger, shall be transferred to and be owned by Holy Spirit Hospital (as the surviving corporation). 432852 S 3/27/12 atim KMT I IEAI_TI I SYSTEM Tens of thousands of patients walk through our doors everyyear. They come seeking our compassion and care, trusting in our knowledge and expertise, and counting on our unrivaled devotion to making people well. Holy Spirit is a comprehensive health system. We are continually expanding our services, embracing medical advances and investing in leading edge technology. And, we are bringing our care to you and your communities through conveniently located family health and diagnostic centers, as well as specialized physician practices. But beyond technologyand highly skilled professionals, healing requires comfort, understanding and a special sensitMtyto your physical, emotional, mental and spiritual needs. This is what you'll find when you come to Holy Spirit. That is our promise to you. CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE Cancer Care Emergency Services Heart Care Imaging Services Surgical Services Women's Services Wound Healing & Hyperbarics Holy Spirit News Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania (OIP) v open an office in the Holy Spirit Carlisle Ce 1211 Forge Road, Carlisle, on April 1.... Holy Spirit Health System will host a free pr for individuals interested in learning more < strokes. Cynthia Swartz, MS, RN, ACNS-BC The 5th annual National Healthcare Decisi Day is April 16. This day was designated t awareness to advance directives and living Holy Spirit Health Syster www.hsh.org Holy Spirit Hospital & Healthcare - Cancer, Urgent Care, Emergency, Health in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 1/1 3/27112 IRIT 1 f?1L't`4 t eygTEM Services Medical Behavioral Health Cancer Care Diabetes Services Emergency Services Gastrointestinal Services Heart Care Hospitalist Program Maternal Assistance Program Maternity Nutrition Services Occupational Health Palliative Care Pharmacy Services Physical Therapy Research & Clinical Trials Speech Therapy Substance Abuse Travel Health Services Women's Services Wound Healing & Hyperbarics Surgical Diagnostic Community Doctor Referrals Behavioral Health, Holy Spirit Hospital and Health System Behavioral Health Crisis Intervention The Center's Crisis Intervention Service staffcan assist individuals and professional service agencies in Cumberland and Perrycounties by assessing and stabilizing people in crisis situations. such as those with suicidal or homicidal thoughts, gestures and attempts; psychotic persons; and those showing signs of serious self-neglect. Crisis Intervention also offers a Mobile Crisis Intervention Service. These staffcan provide face-to- face contact with an individual who maybe unwilling or unable to visit a crisis office. To reach Crisis Intervention Services, call 717-763.2222. Back to Top Inpatient Holy Spirit Hospital's 12-bed extended acute care unit (EAC) is designated for patients who need extended inpatient mental health treatment. Our care and treatment philosophy focuses on holistic, restorative and individualized care. In addition, this model provides those in need of extensive treatment with a collaborative, enriching and healing environment that focuses on acquiring and practicing skills. Our extended acute care unit operates in partnership with the State Office of Mental Health and Substance Abuse and receives necessary support and funding from Cumberland/Perry, Franklin/Fulton, Dauphin, and York/Adams counties. Holy Spirit Hospital also has a 19-bed short-term crisis stabilization unit and offers crisis intervention services, case management services, outpatient programs, and partial hospitalization programs. Back to Top Services for Teens The Center also staffs Teenline, a program that can help a parent trying to deal with a troubled teen or provide a Central Pennsylvania teen with somewhere to turn. Our Teenline services are designed specificallyto aid young people and their families, as well as other groups and individuals who are involved with teenagers, such as teachers and church leaders. www.hsh.org/behavioral-health/ 1 /3 Holy Spirit's Behavioral Health Center, staffed byqualified mental health and co-occurring diagnoses professionals, strengthens the community in many ways. 327112 Behavioral Health, Holy Spirit Hospital and Health System Teenline 24-hour telephone helpiine: 717-763-2345 or 800-722-5385 Behavioral health services Outpatient mental health and drug and alcohol services, including individual, group and familytherapy Psychiatric evaluations Educational workshops, presentations and training on mental health topics Grief counseling for individuals and families. Back to Top Services for Women With dedicated female psychiatrists and certified nurse practitioners, we are uniquely positioned to meetthe needs ofwomen. Holy Spirit's Behavioral Health Center offers a Women's Behavioral Health program that helps women with emotional and/or psychological problems during pregnancy, after giving birth, and as they try to balance family and work com mitments. We offer services for those in every stage of life. including our geriatric group program with focused attention an the needs of senior women. From gender-specific issues, such as perinatal and postnatal depression and menopausal-related concerns, to anxiety and post-traumatic stress due to semai or physical abuse, our behavioral services can playa vital role in the health and well-being of women and their fern ifies. Programs include group and individual therapyand marital and family therapy. ABehavioral Health Center psychiatrist follows the progress of each patient. The Center also offers a free supportgroup for pregnantwomen and new mothers with babies less than one year old. "Mom's Place" is for women who feel alone, afraid, overwhelmed, sad or worried. And the Capital Region Maternal Assistance Program (MAP) is designed especiallyfor pregnant women who have a substance abuse problem, including nicotine (see next section). For more information on any support group, program or service, please call 717-763-2200. Come improve your life. Back to Top Maternal Assistance Program The Maternal Assistance Program (MAP) provides help for pregnant women and new mothers addicted to drugs, alcohol and/or tobacco who live Cumberland, Dauphin, Lebanon and Perrycounties. The program's goal is to help mothers have healthybabies byovercoming addictions and gaining control of their lives. For more information about NAP, call 717-763-3008 or 800-773-0280. Back to Top Services for Seniors Our Senior Adult Treatment Program, provided through our Behavioral Health Center, helps older people deal with emotional and/or psychological www.hsh.org/behavioral-health/ 2/3 Services for teens and their families include: 3/27/12' Behavioral Health, Holy Spirit Hospital and Health System problems associated with aging. Group and individual therapy, marital and familytherapy, and psychiatric evaluation are offered in a supportive and welcoming environment. The Senior Adult Treatment Program emphasizes socialiang with peers, focusing on a sense of purpose, setting goals and managing stress. Call 717-763-2219 for details. Back to Top Services for People of Al Ages The Behavioral Health Center offers short-term acute inpatient treatment. extended acute care treatment, partial hospitalization and outpatient psychiatric programs to restore health and wellness to people of all ages. The Center provides outpatient counseling and therapyfor individuals, couples, families and groups. The Center also offers a Women's Behavioral Health Program that helps women with perinatal and emotional and/or psychological problems. The Center offers a free support group for pregnant women and new mothers with babies less than 1 year old. In addition, the Center provides a Senior Behavioral Health Program that helps older adults with emotional, transitional and/or psychological problems. Holy Spirit's Behavioral Health Center expanded services into the Dillsburg area byoffering psychiatric and counseling services with a strong emphasis on familyand women's services at the new Dillsburg Center, 126 W. Church Street. For general information about Behavioral Health services, call 717-763-2219. For questions regarding our special programs and services, contact the following numbers: Child and Adolescent Services - 717-763-2228 Crisis/Mobile Crisis Intervention Services - 717-763-2222 Co-Occurring Diagnoses Services (substance abuse and psychiatric problems) - 717-763-2228 Outpatient Mental Health Services - 717--763-2228 Senior Behavioral Health Services - 717-763-2228 Teenline Adolescent Services (24-Hour Helpline) - 717-763-2345 or 800- 722-5385 Women's Behavioral Health Services - 717-763-2228 Back to Top Holy Spirit Health Syster www.hsh.org/behavioral-health/ 3/3 31,27/12 WOLY 9-M T I lEA1Tl I SYSTEM Health Professionals Physicians Nurses Healthcare Education Library Services Provider Verification Physicians Physicians This is a remarkable period in the history of Holy Spirit Health System, Our outpatient network continues to grow, bringing our "spirit of caring" closer to our patients, while increasing opportunities for our physicians to touch lives in important and meaningful ways. We are continually adding services focused on treating the particular health issues affecting our neighbors, issues such as cancer, diabetes and wound care. Meanwhile, we are adding doctors to our family health centers, our specialized areas of care and our hospitalist program, while equipping our staff with the latest clinical tools and upgrading many areas of the hospital, including orthopedics and post-surgical care. But most importantly, we work collaboratively with our constituent groups in achieving this progress. Ours is a system that allows physicians to have a real voice and to be as involved and engaged as they choose to be. Physician opportunities are posted here. If you are interested in joining our Medical Staff, please contact our Medical Staff Coordinator at (717) 763-2181. If you wish to appiyfor a position at one of our Family Health Centers, please contact our Human Resources Manager for an employment application packet at (717) 972-4484, our Medical Staff Coordinator for a credentialing application packet at (717) 763-2181, and our Insurance Coordinator at (717) 972-4872 for information about malpractice insurance. Thank you for your interest in the Holy Spirit Health System. www.hsh.org/physicians/ 1/2 3/,27/12` Physicians 80? i, - J Torchis ?nie'• Mea*-aE rart+? Holy Spirit Health Syster vwvw.hsh.org/physicians/ 2/2 3/27/12 Psychiatric Moonlighter (Flex/Per Diem) Category PHYSICIAN Location Camp Hill, PA Psychiatric Moonlighter (Flex/Per Diem) Work Status Full Time Under the clinical supervision of the Medical Director provides psychiatric services to patients hospitalized on the Inpatient Units. Specific clinical duties: Provide attending psychiatric services to inpatients on the adult psychiatric units. careers.hsh.org/recruittservlet/com.lawson. ijob.RequisitionDetails?regid=4740 1/1 1 312112 0414OLY }iEALTi t SYSTEM Contact Us How to Contact Holy Spirit Hospital There are several ways to reach us. You can contact us by e-mail at GuestRelations@hsh.org. If you prefer to use regular mail, the hospital and health system's mailing address is Holy Spirit Hospital & Health System, 503 North 21st Street, Camp Hill, PA 17011. Also, we welcome your feedback. To offer comments or provide suggestions on how we can improve our organization, contact GuestRelations@hsh.org. Following is a list of the numbers for all the key services in our health system. (The area code for each one is 717.) If you don't know the name of the department you are looking for, please call the main switchboard at 717- 763-2100. Holy Spirit Hospital & Health System 503 N 21 st St. Camp Hill, PA 17011 763-2100 Patient Information 763-2190 Behavioral Health Center 763-2219 The Birthplace 763-2388 Blood Donor Center 763-2194 Cardiac Rehab 972-4558 Cardiac Rehab Carlisle 243-0056 Childbirth Classes 763-2356 Crisis Intervention 763-2222 or 1-866-350-4357 Endoscopy Center 975-3270 www.hsh.org/contact-us/ 1 /3 Career Opportunities Holy Spirit Health System Central PA OjHm SPIRIT Careers Our Advantage Apply Online Scholarships Careers Want a Job in the Health Care Profession? Join the Holy Spirit Health Care Team! We are a leading employer in Central Pennsylvania with first-Gass compensation, comprehensive benefits and a caring. state-of-the-art working environment. Holy Spirit Health System truly is one of the area's preferred employers: We are often named one of Pemnsylvania's Best Plamc s to Work, most recently in 2011. We believe that exceptional employees, a supportive environment, sRate-of the- art care, and well-defined goals are the keys to nurturing staff and patient satisfaction. We, attribute our success to our employees. Every employee makes a difference - and our employees make us what we are, l'o apply to join our dedicated team, click here to view our career opportunities online today. Once you select your desired position, complete an employment application. Review it thoroughly to ensure accuracy VVe recornmend that you meet all the qualifications and requirements of the position before you apply, as we only consider candidates who meet all requirements.'Then submit it online! Current employees of Holy Spirit. Health System may complete (lie Employee Transfer Form available on our Intranet. Please check back often as this list is routinely updated. Thank you for your interest in a career with Holy Spirit Health Syslem. ,6 2011 Holy Spirit Health System http://www.hsh.org/careers/ Page 1 of 1 Holy Spirit Health System 503 N 21st St. Clamp Hill, PA 17011 - I'll 11-11i 3/26/2012 #I ` Holy Spirit Health System - President, Spirit Physician Services Witt/Kieffer Witt;/Kieffer is the preenrinent executive search firin that identifies outstanding leadership solutions for organizations c mrrnitted to improving the quality of life. SEARCH Page 1 of 1 qo Holy Spirit Health System - President, Spirit Physician Services RMUTIff MW Camp Hill, PA Job Description Health Cure Positions;,:, Holy Spirit Health System (HSHS), a preeminent healthcare organization serving ft greater Harrisburg, Pennsylvania area, seeks a dynamic and experienced group practice administrator as President, Spirit Physician Services (SPSI). This is an outstanding R; iii<>ns in PA>- % leadership opportunity for a dynamic physician practice executive to assume a senior leadership position newly established to manage SPSI's recent - as well as projected - growth. Spirit Physician Services, Inc., (SPSI) a subsidiary of HSHS, is comprised of 80 employed physicians, including 12 specialists and subspecialists, serving patients at 20 locations throughout the greater Harrisburg region. Recruiting physicians to competitively ADVANCED SEARCH meet patient demand is a key focus for HSHS and SPSI is growing rapidly to meet this demand. Over the next 18 months, SPSI is expected to increase to 115 employed physicians and 32 sites. In addition to SPSI, HSHS includes a 316-bed acute care community hospital, Holy Spirit Hospital, an extensive network of outpatient diagnostic centers, a full spectrum behavioral health program and a licensed Home Health agency. The SPSI President is a key position for HSHS and will be responsible for providing operational and strategic oversight of the employed muitispeciaity group practice. Reporting to the Senior Vice President/Chief Operating Officer, the new President will work closely with the HSHS Chief Executive Officer and other members of Holy Spirit Hospital's executive team to ensure the financial viability of the System and other hospital-related practices. We seek candidates who possess a minimum of five years of experience managing multiple site physician practices, ideally gained within healthcare system physician group practices with a sizable employed physician base. Multi-specialty group practice experience is preferred. A master's degree in health administration or other related field is preferred. Although an M.D. or D.O. degree is not required, a physician leader who meets the experience and other leadership criteria is strongly encouraged to apply. Candidates must have demonstrated knowledge of the business aspects of group practice management along with exceptional communication and interpersonal skills. The successful candidate will have a collaborative leadership style and will be viewed as a trusted, consultative and balanced advocate by all parties throughout the Holy Spirit Health System. Nominations, inquiries, and resumes should be directed in confidence, preferably via email: PresSPSIAWttkieffer. corn Confidential inquiries concerning this search may be directed to the Wtt/Kieffer consultants assisting with this recruitment, Claudia Teschky at 630-990-1370 or John K. Thornburgh at 412-209-2666. Holy Spirit Health System is an equal opportunity employer. Click here to View Detailed job Description Consultants Claudia M. Teschkv John K. Thombumh G tt E11.4M: Site Mao • Copynght C) 2010 WiittiKieffer • All rights reserved, http://www.wittkieffer.comlpositionlholy-spirit-health-systemlpresident-spirit-physician-se... 3/26/2012 Holy Spirit Hospital & Healthcare - Cancer, Urgent Care, Emergency, Health in Harrisbur... Page 1 of 1 IW-OLYS RT "--,N Lai 'Tens of thousands of patients walk through our doors every year. They wine seeking our compassion and care, trusting in our knowledge and expertise, and counting on our unrivaled devotion to making people well. Holy Spirit is a comprehensive health system. We are continually expanding our services, embracing medical advances and investing in leading edge technology. And, we, are bringing our care to you and your communities through conveniently located family health and diagnostic centers, as well as specialized physician practices. But beyond technology and highly skilled professionals. healing requires comfort, understanding and a special sensitivity to your physical, emotional, mental and spiritual needs. This is what you'll find when you come to Holy Spirit. That is our promise to you. ,' 2011 Holy Spirit Health System http://www.hsh.org/ CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE Cancer Care Emergency Services Heart Care Imaging Services Surgical Services Women's Services Wound Healing & Hyperbarics Holy Spirit Ne Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania (OIP) will open an office in the Holy Spirit Carlisle Center, 1211 Forge Road, Cadisle, on April i._ Holy Spirit Health System will host a free program for individuals interested in learning more about strokes, Cynthia Swartz, MS, RN, ACNS-BC, The 5th annual National Healthcare Decisions Day is April 16. This day was designated to bring awareness to advance directives and living... Holy Spirit Health System 503 N 21st St. Camp I- lilt, PA 17011 - -1 1-11 3/26/2012 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MOLLY J. RESSLER, Administrator and Executrix of the Estate of DAVID M. RESSLER, Decedent, and Individually, Plaintiff v. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SYSTEMS, and ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants : Medical malpractice : Action No. 09-1910 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED oral Deposition of RHETT A. BENNIE DATE: Thursday, July 8, 2010 TIME: 1:30 p.m. PLACE: 210 Senate Avenue camp Hill, Pennsylvania TAKEN BY: Plaintiff APEX REPORTING SERVICE By: Sharon L. Dougherty P. 0. Box 6265 Harrisburg, PA 17112-0265 717.545.3553 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A instead of nodding. Q Correct. what is your full name, sir? A Rhett Allen Bennie. Q what is your job title? A Acute care coordinator. Q who are you employed by? A Holy spirit Hospital. Q what is the relationship of Holy Spirit Hospital to Holy Spi rit Behavioral Health services? A The Behavioral Health services are a department within the hospital system. Q Are you an employee or under the direction of Holy spirit Behavioral Health services? A Correct. Q How long have you held that employment? A I have been employed by the hospital itself 26 years. .• Q So what year did you start? A 1983. so it will soon be 27. Q How long have you been involved in the behavioral health aspect of Holy Spirit? A For most of those 26 years I have been involved in some area or department within the Behavioral Health Services. APEX Reporting Service 1_ r 1 6 1 In response to Ms. Fields' questions, you 2 indicated that you are employed by the hospital for ... 3 THE WITNESS: Twenty-six years. 4 MR. CHAIRS: But then you also indicated that you 5 are employed by Behavioral Health Services. 6 THE WITNESS: They are the same. If I mislead 7 you, I apologize. It's the same. 8 MR. CHAIRS: It certainly wasn't misleading. 9 I just wanted to make the record clear. You are employed by 10 the hospital. 11 THE WITNESS: Employed by the hospital and worked 12 for the Department of Behavioral Health. 13 BY MS. FIELDS: 14 Q Now, the Behavioral Health unit which was caring 15 for Mr. Ressler, is that a part of Holy Spirit Hospital? 16 A Correct. 17 Q when was it started? 18 A 1972 is when the building was first built. 19 I think 1973 is when it actually started taking patients. 20 Q what was your role in the creation or inception 21 of that unit, if any? 22 A None. 23 Q what psychiatric services were available to 24 patients at Holy.spirit prior to the Behavioral Health unit 25 being created? APEX Reporting Service 1322937 DICKIE, McCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS, Holy Spirit BY: Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 78565 Services And Robin Miller, M.D. BY: Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)731-4800 (Tele) (717)731-4803 (Fax) MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-1910 ? V. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION c'j C r-O 'an ?.. I? _ y - -0= N _ HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., z ? r? HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D., ,?- C:) Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED > C.-) ZX MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR IN THE COURT OF COMMONML 9,,kS AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, --- u' DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff PENNSYLVANIA NO. 10-4615 V. JENNY OWENS, M.D., Defendant MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED UNCONTESTED MOTION TO DISMISS ROBIN MILLER, M.D. AND JENNY OWENS, M.D. ONLY AND NOW, come Defendants, Robin Miller, M.D. and Jenny Owens, M.D. by and through their counsel, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. and files the within Uncontested Motion to Dismiss and in support thereof aver as follows: Plaintiff initiated this civil action sounding in medical malpractice against Robin Miller, M.D., Jenny Owens, M.D. and The Holy Spirit Health System. 2. After completion of discovery, counsel for all parties of record stipulate and agree that Robin Miller, M.D. and Jenny Owens, M.D. should be dismissed from this case. A true and correct copy of the Stipulation to Dismiss executed by counsel for all parties of record is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". WHEREFORE, Robin Miller, M.D. and Jenny Owens, M.D. request this Court enter an Order approving of the dismissal of Robin Miller, M.D. and Jenny Owens, M.D. from this case and direct the Prothonotary to remove Robin Miller, M.D. and Jenny Owens, M.D. from the caption of this case. Respectfully submitted, DICKIE, MCCAN)N)II $z IHILCOTE, P.C. Date: July 19, 2012 By: Th as W.Wh , Esquire Su pYeme Court I.D. #78565 425 N. 21St Street, Suite 302 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 (888) 811-7144 (Counsel for Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, and Robin Hiller, M. D.) 2 EXHIBIT "A" 1250817 DICKIE, McCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 78565 BY: Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)731-4800 (Tele) (717)7314803 (Fax) MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS, Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services And Robin Miller, M.D. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-1910 V. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff V. JENNY OWENS, M.D., Defendant MEDICAL: MALPRACTICE ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 10-4615 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED STIPULATION TO DISMISS ROBIN MILLER, M.D. AND JENNY OWENS, M.D. ONLY It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between counsel for all parties of record that Robin Miller, M.D. and Jenny Owens, M.D. are voluntarily dismissed from this case pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 229. COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS Date r 20 L B . eslie Fields, Esquire Supre e Court I.D. #29411 831 Market St. Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 761-2121 Attorney for Plaintiff Date:/ r DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Y Tho 4M. Chairs, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #78565 425 N. 21S` Street, Suite 302 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 (888) 811-7144 (Counsel for Holy Spirit Health System, Inc., Holy Spirit Behavioral Health Services, and Robin Miller, M.D.) DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Date: 17 ?- By: W Marcelle M. Theis, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #49589 Two PPG Place, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-5402 412-281-7272 (Counsel Jenny Owens, MD) 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, July 19, 2012, 1, Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First-Class Mail: Leslie M. Fields, Esquire COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0222 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Marcelle M. Theis, Esquire DICKIE MCCAMEY Two PPG Place, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-5402 (Counsel for Jenny Owens, M.D.) MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff V. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA , / rnw . c _- NO. 09-1910 e - _ r ms t;t3R? ? ?..MEDICAL MALPRACTICITIN'JN .'„ ?'C-t C Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ****************************************************************************** MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff V. JENNY OWENS, M.D., Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 10-4615 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW this day of , 2012, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that Defendants, Robin Miller, D. and Jenny Owens, M.D. are hereby dismissed with prejudice in accord with the Stipulation of Counsel. The Prothonotary is directed to delete from the caption of this case Robin Miller, M.D. and Jenny Owens, M.D. BY E COU T: J. Leslie M. Fields, Esquire COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS P.O. Box 222 Lemoyne, PA 17043-0222 Marcelle M. Theis, Esquire DICKIE MCCAMEY Two PPG Place, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-5402 Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire DICKIE MCCAMEY 425 N. 21" Street, Suite 302 Camp Hill, PA 17011 4es w a l ed * i 1349042 MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID' M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff V. HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., HOLY SPIRIT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH SERVICES AND ROBIN MILLER, M.D., Defendants MOLLY J. RESSLER, ADMINISTRATOR AND EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DAVID! M. RESSLER, DECEDENT AND INDIVIDUALLY, Plaintiff V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MEDICAL MALPRACTICE 0111• t? JURY TRIAL DEMANDED -may IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 10-4615 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION JENNY OWENS, M.D., Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO SETTLE, DISCONTINUE AND END TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the above-referenced matter discontinued and ended. Respectfully submitted, COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS r.._ ? Date "2 Leslie . Fields, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #29411 831 Market St. Lemoyne, PA 17043 (717) 761-2121 Attorney_for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Leslie M. Fields, Esquire, hereby certify that on this 21" day of Au ust, 2012, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Settle, Discontinue and End was served upon all counsel of record by: Hand Delivery X First Class Mail, Postage Pre-Paid Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested Fax Transmission Overnight Mail at the following address(es) and/or number(s): Thomas 1M. Chairs, Esquire DICKIE MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 215` Street Camp Dill, PA 17011-2223 COSTOPOULOS, FOSTER & FIELDS r? ?`? Leslie M. fields, Esquire