Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-4813R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: Robin J. Marzella, Esquire Pennsylvania Supreme Court I.D. No. 66856 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 2347828 Facsimile: (717) 2346883 Attorney for Barbara Christensen IN THE COURT OF CQMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUN , PENNSYLVANIA BARBARA CHRISTENSEN, PLAINTIFF, DOCKET NO. Oq - 48 r 3 i CIVIL ACTION V. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, CHARLES AUSTIN, M.D., AND QUANTUM IMAGING & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES INC. DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please issue Writ of Summons in the above-captioned action. 3 Writ of Summons shall be issued an are ) Attorney ( X ) Sheriff Robin I. Marzella, Esquire 3513 North Front Street a of Attorney Harrisburg, PA 17110 _ (717) 2347828 Supreme Co rt ID . 66856 Names/Address/Telephone No. Date: -7 14 q of Attorney CAF THE 5 TARy 2009 JUL 20 Pm 1: 10 4 78.5o pa w-r-r/ cr-* 113(, P-r* aa81 i OR - Lf 8(3 atvit lem TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS: YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED I PLAINTIFF HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Date: 7 ao a.oo9 /7- V?44 othonotary by Deputy ( ) Check here if reverse is used for additional l,41y /U6se*tAl 1 )0,3 NaaT,k /,.t- S cC a OArlf A P. 1-7011 CQ u q tifia ? .1 N? ?9 ? ^?1 ? z q . ?0 ?.- o lv f?,ne r ?ew?F3bcrr? , `??? C.,,A, A7 k,'. t. V , A -0, w T' 7339 4e,w,'she-ve-y, 6`. 1733q Sheriffs Office of Cumberland County R Thomas Kline FILED Sheriff On[ i k iU? v Tl jlr k,int ..,` ;Ft TA (") 7 OF Ronny R Anderson ?ut?tn ??tm?rft? 4f? Chief Deputy ? d9 JU 23 P1 .3? Jody S Smith C? 1' Civil Process Sergeant ta,? roc= = rr ?:RiFr Edward L Schorpp Solicitor Barbara Christensen vs. Holy Sprit Hospital Case Number 2009-4813 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 07123/2009 R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law states that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: Quantum Imaging & Theraputic: Assoc., Inc., but was unable to locate them in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of York County, PA to serve the within Writ of Summons according to law. 07/23/2009 R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law states that he made a diligent search and inquiry for the within named defendant, to wit: Charles Austin, MD, but was unable to locate him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the Sheriff of York County, PA to serve the within Writ of Summons according to law. 07/27/2009 R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on July 27, 2009 this Writ of Summons upon defendant Quantum Imaging & Therrapeutic Associates, Inc. is returned not served per request from attorney Tyler Storch. 07/27/2009 R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on July 27, 2009 this Writ of Summons upon defendant Charles Austin, M.D. is returned not served per request from attorney Tyler Storch. 07/28/2009 01:38 PM - Jason Vioral, Corporal, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on July 24, 2009 at 1338 hours, he served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Holy Spirit Hospital, by making known unto Kay Tipton, legal coordinator at 503 N. 21st Street 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: $73.94 SO ANSWERS, July 27, 2009 R THOMAS KLINE, SHERIFF Dep y neriff 7 i CRAIG A. STONE, ESQUIRE I.D. No. 15907 MICHAEL C. MONGIELLO, ESQUIRE I.D. No. 87532 Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3502 Attorney for Defendants Quantum Imaging & Therapeutic Associates, Inc. and Charles Austin, M.D. BARBARA CHRISTENSEN IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Plaintiff ; CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, CHARLES NO: 09-4813 CIVIL AUSTIN, M.D. and QUANTUM IMAGING: & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of the undersigned as counsel for Defendants, Charles Austin, M.D. and Quantum Imaging & Therapeutic Associates, Inc., in the above-captioned case. BY: CR)kft S' N1 ESQUIRE I.D. N 15907 MICHAEL C. MONGIELLO, ESQUIRE I.D. NO.: 87532 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3531 1 .. `V CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Sarah Doerfler, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance, on all counsel of record by placing the same in the United States mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the date set forth below, and addressed as follows: Robin J. Marzella, Esquire R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. 5313 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney far Plaintiff Dated: I/) o 05/514871.71 Jae????-? Doerfler OF 2 jUI 30 P 2* 5 fir ?' vr?i Sf?y CRAIG A. STONE, ESQUIRE I.D. No. 15907 MICHAEL C. MONGIELLO, ESQUIRE I.D. No. 87532 Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3502 Attorney for Defendants Quantum Imaging & Therapeutic Associates, Inc. and Charles Austin, M.D. BARBARA CHRISTENSEN Plaintiff V. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, CHARLES AUSTIN, M.D. and QUANTUM IMAGING: & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO: 09-4813 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PRAECIPE FOR A RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly issue a Rule directing Plaintiff, Barbara Christensen, to file a Complaint in the above-referenced matter within twenty (20) days of service thereof or risk a judgment of non >1 TOS- MARSALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLWV" & QQOGQIN Dated: 11 lK \dA By: iI?1?C' )g`>oo, Esquire s ill Road, Suite B 4 00 ru l*fi Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3500 BARBARA CHRISTENSEN Plaintiff V. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, CHARLES AUSTIN, M.D. and QUANTUM IMAGING: & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO: 09-4813 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants RULE AND NOW, this day of %Ju , 2009, upon consideration of the foregoing Praecipe, Plaintiff is hereby ordered to file her Complaint within twenty (20) days hereof or suffer judgment of non pros. BY THE PROTHONOTARY: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE FOR A RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT has been served upon the following known counsel and parties of record this P Q -( - day of July 2009, via United States First-Class Mail, postage prepaid: Robin J. Marzella, Esquire R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. 5313 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 4, ?" ? 0-,b ' - - Sarah Doerfler 05/514874.v1 OF THE f'. ? ?''?'?TARY 2009 t)L 3, 0 F L: 3 a DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. I ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT BY: Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 78565 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)7314800 (Tele) (717)7314803 (Fax) BARBARA CHRISTENSEN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff PENNSYLVANIA V. HOLY SPIRIT >MOSPITAL. CHTARLE'S AUSTIN, M.D. AND QUANTUM IMAGING & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants NO. 09-4813 0.111 ACTION' - _WED AL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire and Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire as counsel for Defendant, HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, Date: July 31, 2009 DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. I mas, ti?. Chairs, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #78565 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 Attorney for Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, July 31, 2009, I, Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing ENTRY OF APPEARANCE upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First-Class Mail: Robin J. Marzella, Esquire R.J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Charles B. Austin, M.D. QUANTUM IMAGING & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC. 629-D Lowther Road Lewisberry, PA 17339 i Thomas . 8: 14 0 2[l E, 9 feu " - , i ?"i vul-28-9P 15:59 From-MDVIRG 717-651-9630 T-266 P 0041004 F-760 R_ I- MWELLA, & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: Robin J. Marzella, Esquire Pennsylvania Supreme Court I.D. No. 66856 3513 North Front Street Hanisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717),234-7828 Facsimile: (717) 234-6883 Attorney for Barbara Chri BARBARA CHRISrENSEN, V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA. C)1 'tf?f 3 DOCKET NO. 09-481 CIVIL PLAINTIFF, CIVIL ACTION HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, CHARLES Aus-nN, M.D., AND QUANTUM IMAGING & THERAPEUTIC AssoaA7Es Mc. DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE 1, Craig Stone, hereby accept service of the Writ of Summons on QUANTUM IMAGING & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC. and CHARLGES and I certify that I am authorized to do so. I -1 1-nIm Date) Craig Stoiie,Ttg6 r Marshall, Dennehey, Coleman & Goggin 4240 Crurns Mill Ro: Harrisburg, PA 1711; r of V, M.D. , Suite B 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Tyler J. Storch, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record this 10' day of August, 2009, by depositing said copy in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, first class delivery, and addressed as follows: Michael C. Mongiello, Esq. Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: 74V STORCH, LAw CLERK i - 1 :"P 2C 3i`!iS 12 'PIi12 3D R. 1. MARZELLA & A~ BY: Zachary D. Camp Pennsylvania Supren 3513 North Front St Harrisburg, PA 1711 Telephone: (717) Facsimile: (717) ZCampbell@RJmarz )CIATES, P.C. X11, Esquire Court I.D. No. 93177 7828 Attorney for Barbara Christensen 1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BARBARA CHRISTENSEN, V. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, CHARLES AUSTIN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING & TI ASSOCIATES INC. . DOCKET N0.09-4813 PLAINTIFF, CIVIL ACTION r' ~„~ ~ '-; ~ ~ t r C_°~ ~ ;'il ~ • -- ~ _ MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ~~- ~, `~ `^' AND ' = - ~° ,~ iERAPEUTIC - ~"° ~, ,f DEFENDANTS • JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ~ ~ .. ~ la CERTIFICATE 01~ MERIT AS TO UNKNOWN AGENTS OF QUANTUM IMAGING & THE EUT1C ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR VICARIOUS LIABILITY I, Zachary D. hereby, certify that: ^ an appropria~ undersigned exercised or is the subject and that suet AND/OR bell, Esquire, attorney for Plaintiff, Barbara Christensen, licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the hat there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge xhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; 1 the claim that the defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is also based olely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom the defendant is r~ an appropriate undersigned t exercised or e practice or we professional s harm. OR D expert testim~ ~ponsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the at there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge bited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable dards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution cif the claim against this defendant. Respectfully submitted, R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. i~ By: ~ Zachary mpbell, Esquire Attar dentification No. 93177 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 234-7828 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Barbara Christensen Dated: 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ryan David hereby certii;,~ that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record this 16~' day of July, 2010, by depositing said copy in the Uni~ed States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, first class delivery, and ed as follows: Thomas Chairs, Esq. Aaron Jayman, Esq. Dickie McCamey 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 Michael C. Mongiello, Esq. larshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 R.J. MARZEUA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: -' RYAN AVID, LAW CLERK . , ,.,. DEFENDANTS N C c., -~ ~ DOCKET N0.09-4813 z~, ~ ~ ` r-, , ~-- c°~ ~_' _ -_- -n ~ rz CIVIL ACTION _ - `~ .~;;,. ~-- '.". i" _ m ,~~: ; s • ~"'rl MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ~". ~'" ' ~~`: y l.. ~ .~ ._{ • ~ . ~r ;} =a~ ~ c JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE Olf MERIT AS TO UNKNOWN AGENTS OF HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL FOR VICARIOUS LIABILITY R.J. MARZELLA & A! BY: Zachary D. Caml Pennsylvania Suprer. 3513 North Front St Harrisburg, PA 1711 Telephone: (717) Facsimile: (717) BARBARA CHRISTENSEN, V. 1CIATES, P.C. ~Il, Esquire Court 1.D. No. 93177 7828 Attorney for Barbara Christensen IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PLAINTIFF, HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, CHARLES AUSTIN, M.D., AND QUANTUM IMAGING Hi T ERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES INC. I, Zachary D. hereby, certify that: ^ an appropria undersigned exercised or is the subject and that suct AND/OR I, Esquire, attorney for Plaintiff, Barbara Christensen, licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the hat there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge xhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; 1 C~' the claim that the defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is also based olely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom the defendant is esponsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and an appropriat licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned hat there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or xhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice or w rk that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional harm. OR ^ expert testis and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution cif the claim against this defendant. Respectfully submitted, R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. By: Dated: T ~ `t ~,?of ~ Zacha ampbell, Esquire Attorney Identification No. 93177 3513- _ orth Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 234-7828 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Barbara Christensen 2 ~' . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ryan David hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record this 16th day of July, 2010, by depositing said copy in the Unified States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, first class delivery, and addressed as follows: Thomas Chairs, Esq. Aaron Jayman, Esq. Dickie McCamey 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 Michael C. Mongiello, Esq. I1, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 R.J. MAttzELIA & ASSOCw~s, P.C. RY AVID, LA ~, R.J. MARZELLA & A' BY: Zachary D. Caml Pennsylvania Supren 3513 North Front St Harrisburg, PA 1711 Telephone: (717) Facsimile: (717) ZCampbell@RJmarz ICIATES, P.C. X11, Esquire Court I.D. No. 93177 7828 Attorney for Barbara Christensen IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ~ c. ,n _~; BARBARA CHRISTENSEN "~ ~ - ~ ~ ~_- '' DOCKET N0.09-4813 - `_,. PLAINTIFF, CIVIL ACTION ~' ° <`a V. ~' _ ,~ rR ~~~ ; r- - HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ~ ~. CHARLES AUSTIN, M.D. AND 4' QUANTUM IMAGING & ERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES INC. . DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF ME IT AS TO QUANTUM IMAGING & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR VICARIOUS LIABILITY I, Zachary D. hereby, certify that: ^ an appropria undersigned exercised or is the subjec and that sucl AND/OR bell, Esquire, attorney for Plaintiff, Barbara Christensen, e licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the hat there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge xhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; 1 ~, C~' the claim tha the defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is also based olely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom the defendant is esponsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and an appropria a licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned hat there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or xhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice or w rk that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional harm. and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the OR expert testim ny of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution f the claim against this defendant. Respectfully submitted, R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. By: . Zacha Campbell, Esquire A y Identification No. 93177 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (7l 7) 234-7828 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Barbara Christensen Dated: 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ryan David hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record this 16~' day of July, 2010, by depositing said copy in the Uni~ed States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, first class delivery, and addressed as follows: Thomas Chairs, Esq. Aaron Jayman, Esq. Dickie McCamey 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 Michael C. Mongiello, Esq. Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 R.J. MARZELIA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: _ ~~ RYAN D ID, LAW CL RK ~. R. 1. MARZELLA & A! BY: Zachary D. Caml Pennsylvania Suprer 3513 North Front St Harrisburg, PA 1711 Telephone: (717) Facsimile: (717) ZCampbell@RJmarz V. Attorney for Barbara Christensen IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BARBARA CHRISTENSEN, )CIATES, P.C. X11, Esquire Court I.D. No. 93177 7828 PLAINTIFF, HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, CHARLES AUSTIN, M.D., AND QUANTUM IMAGING i3t T ERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES INC. DEFENDANTS DOCKET N0.09-4813 CIVIL ACTION MEDICAL MALPRACTICE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ~..~ r N v - -n ~. ~ ~ ---1 ,- _, ',~- -, ,_ -_ ~. __ ~„, =~i ) f t ~ ~' ~~ CERTIFICATE OF ~viER1T AS TO HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL FOR VICARIOUS LIABILITY I, Zachary D. hereby, certify that: Esquire, attorney for Plaintiff, Barbara Christensen, an appropriat licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned hat there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or xhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject f the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; AND/OR l the claim tha the defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is also based olely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom the defendant is an appropri~ undersigned exercised or practice or v professional harm. OR responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and e licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the :hat there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, irk that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable tandards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the expert testim~ny of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution off the claim against this defendant. Respectfully submitted, R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. By: cha .Campbell, Esquire A rn Identification No. 93177 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 234-7828 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Barbara Christensen Dated: 7! 1`'~ 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Ryan Davi document was said copy in the class delivery, and hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing upon counsel of record this 16~' day of July, 2010, by depositing 'd States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, first ressed as follows: Thomas Chairs, Esq. Aaron Jayman, Esq. Dickie McCamey 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 Michael C. Mongiello, Esq. Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 R.J. MARZELIA & ASSOCW7ES, P.C. BY: ~ ~- RYAN VID, LAW CLERK ~. R.J. MARZELLA & rL' BY: Zachary D. Caml Pennsylvania Suprer, 3513 North Front St Harrisburg, PA 1711 Telephone: (717) Facsimile: (717) ZCampbell@RJmarz )CIATES, P.C. X11, Esquire Court 1.D. No. 93177 7828 a.com Attorney for Barbara Christensen IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BARBARA CHRISTENSEN, ~ ~ DOCI~T NO. 09-4813 . c',; ~ -~, PLAINTIFF, CIVIL ACTION ~ r `' ! ' ~ `~~ ~~ i t"3 -•r ~ ~: : ; ~ HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE . , .- -.-,,, -s•~ , '-1 ~~ ,'i ~ , ;-~ CHARLES AUSTIN, M.D., AND (^~ ~=~ •=- =s QUANTUM IMAGING & T ERAPEUTIC ~~ ~''' ~. ASSOCIATES INC. DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CER IFICATE OF MERIT AS TO CHARLES AUSTIN, M.D. I.~ an appropriat licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned t at there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised ore hibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject f the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such onduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; I, Zachary D. ampbell, Esquire, attorney for Plaintiff, Barbara Christensen, hereby, certify that: AND/OR harm. OR the claim tha the defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is also based olely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom the defendant is esponsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and an appropria a licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned hat there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or xhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice or w rk that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional andards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the expert testim~ prosecution o my of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for Fthe claim against this defendant. Respectfully submitted, R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. By: 7Lach~L~mpbell, Esquire `A~torne Identification No. 93177 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (7l 7) 234-7828 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Barbara Christensen Dated: 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Ryan David, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was serve upon counsel of record this 16"' day of July, 2010, by depositing said copy in the Uni ed States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, first class delivery, and ad ressed as follows: Thomas Chairs, Esq. Aaron Jayman, Esq. Dickie McCamey 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 Michael C. Mongiello, Esq. hall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17l l2 R.J. MARZELIA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: RY DAVID, LAW LERK ,•. Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3502 Attorney for Defendants Quantum Imaging & Therapeutic Associates, Inc. and Charles Austin, M.D. CRAIG A. STONE, ESQUIRE •-" Y;"~r ~:- , _ -~ 'ti~v LD. No. 15907 MICHAEL C. MONGIELLO, ESQUIRE ~i~ ~ O J. L 2 2 =~; ; I f I.D. No. 87532 Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin Gvhti ~_:. .., '~~~i~' ~_ ~ , . 4200 Crams Mill Road Suite B f'y "` " BARBARA CHRISTENSEN IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Plaintiff CNIL ACTION -LAW v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, CHARLES NO: 09-4813 CIVIL AUSTIN, M.D. and QUANTUM IMAGING: & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PRAECIPE TO FILE STIPULATION OF COUNSEL TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST DEFENDANTS CHARLES AUSTIN, M.D. AND QUANTUM IMAGING & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC. TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly file of record the attached Stipulation of Counsel to Dismiss Plaintiffs Claims for Punitive Damages Against Defendants Charles Austin, M.D. and Quantum Imaging & Therapeutic Associates, Inc. Respectfully submitted, WARNER, Dated: ~' ~ 11\~ MichaelV(x o,`Esquire 4200 Crams r ad, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3500 r CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on all counsel of record by placing the same in the United States mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the date set forth below, and addressed as follows: Robin J. Marzella, Esquire R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Dated: ~'~0 I,0 OS/620524.v1 Aaron Jayman, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote 1200 Camp Hill $ypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 Sarah Kuhn RJMARZELLA Fax: 7172346883 Jul 12 2010 17:15 CRAIG A. STONE, ESQI7IRE I.D. No. 15907 1vHCHA,EL C.1VlONGIELLO, ESQLDtE • I.D. No. 87532 IvtarshaA, Dennehey, Warnar, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crams Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 . (717) 651-3502 ,Attorney for .Defendants Quantum Imaging ~c Therapeutic Associates, Inc. and Charles ,Austin, M.D. P. ~?~ 010 l'~1~7 ~r~ ~~S BARBARA CHRISTENSEN IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNT'S', PA Plaintiff - CIVIL ACTION ~ LAW v. : . HOLX SPIRIT HQSPITAL, CHARLES NO: 0~-4813 CIVIL AUSTIN, M.D. and QUANTUM IMAGING: & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC. Defendants rUR'X TRIAL DEMANDED STII'ULATION QF CQUNSEX• ,TO DISMISS PLAIN'i`IFF''S CLAIMS FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES AGAINST DE +'N'DA1~TS, CHA)~tX.ES AUS'T'IN, M.D. AN'D ,QUANTUM IMAGING 8r TSERAPEUTZC ASSOCXA-TES, INC. AND NOW comes Plaintiff, Bazbaza Christensen, by and thzough hex counsel, Zachary D.. Campbell, Esquire; and Defcndants, Charles 13. A,ustiz~, M.D. and Quaiatum Zxnagiz~g & 'therapeutic Associates, P.C., b'y and thmugh'their cou.~asel; Michael C. Mongiella, Esquire; and hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. Counsel executing this Stipulation hereby zepzese~at aicad warzant that they are authorized to do so by their respective clients and their representatives and insuzezs, if any_ 2. Plaintiffs claims for punitive damages against Defendants, Charles ,A,ustixz, ivS_D. and Quantuzri Imaging & Therapeutic Associates, P.C. are dismissed from Plaintiffs Coxr~plai.rat, with prejudice. RJMARZELLA Fax: 7172346883 Jul 12 2010 17:15 P.rlr: 3. This Stipulation inay be executed in counterparts and shall be considered eE'fective when executed on behalf of all parties. 4. Facsimile oar photocopy reproductioaa of signatures shall have the effect of ~miginal sigxlature5. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, by their counsel, have caused this Stipulation to be executed and intend to be legally bound thereby. min J. M~~~quire R.J. Marz a & Associates, P.C. 3513 North Fro><tt Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Coggin 4200 Crams Mill Road, Suite B . Harrisburg, PA 17112 DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT BY: Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL ATTORNEY I.D. N0.78565 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)731-4800 (Tele) 71 731-4803 Fax BARBARA CHRISTENSEN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff OF CUMBERLAND COUNT a =- PENNSYLVANIA ~~ ~ '' - :~ v. .T. >. [T,r_. ~ , N0.09-4813 _ ~ ,.~? -_: t..-: = ._.e ~ _ ~' CIVIL ACTION -MEDICAL ~r *!: ~ '~a HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, CHARLES ~ ~~ AUSTIN, M.D. AND QUANTUM IMAGING & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO FLEAD TO: Barbara Christensen c/o Robin J. Marzell, Esquire Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire R.J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, F.C. 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO PLEAD TO THE WITHIN ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF THE DATE OF SERVICE OF TI-IIS PLEADING OR JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. Respectfully submitted, DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Date: July 26, 2010 By: ~ ln.t~ 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, Holy Spirit Hospital 641040 DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire ATTORNEY I.D. N0.78565 BY: Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire ATTORNEY LD. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)731-4800 (Tele) (717)731-4803 (Fax) BARBARA CHRISTENSEN, Plaintiff ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, CHARLES AUSTIN, M.D. AND QUANTUM IMAGING & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants NO. 09-4813 CIVIL ACTION -MEDICAL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER FILED ON BEHAL_ F OF DEFENDANT. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "Answering Defendant"), by and through its counsel, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. and files the within Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of this paragraph of Plaintiff s Complaint and, therefore, the averments are denied. 2. Admitted. 3. The averments of this paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint are not directed toward Answering Defendant and, therefore, no response is required. 4. Denied. It is specifically denied that Dr. Austin was an agent, apparent agent, ostensible agent, servant, and/or employee of Answering Defendant. To the contrary, Dr. Austin was an independent practitioner with staff privileges at Answering Defendant. 5. The averments of this paragraph of Plaintiff s Complaint are not directed toward Answering Defendant and, therefore, no response is required. 6. The averments of this paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint are not directed toward Answering Defendant and, therefore, no response is required. 7.-17. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029 (e). By way of further response, Plaintiff s condition and course of treatment are set forth in the medical records which are in writing and speak for themselves. Answering Defendant denied Plaintiff s allegations to the extent that they are contradicted or supplemented by the relevant medical records and/or the deposition testimony and expert reports submitted on behalf of Answering Defendant in this case. 18. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029 (e). By way of further response, Plaintiff s condition and course of treatment are set forth in the medical records which are in writing and speak for themselves. Answering Defendant denied Plaintiff's allegations to the extent that they are contradicted or supplemented by the relevant medical records and/or the deposition testimony and expert reports submitted on behalf of Answering Defendant in this case. Additionally, it is specifically denied that Dr. Austin is an agent, apparent agent, servant and/or employee of Answering Defendant. To the contrary, Dr. Austin was an independent practitioner with staff privileges at Answering Defendant. 19.-35. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029 (e). By way of further response, Plaintiff's condition and course of treatment are set forth in the medical records which 2 are in writing and speak for themselves. Answering Defendant denied Plaintiff s allegations to the extent that they are contradicted or supplemented by the relevant medical records and/or the deposition testimony and expert reports submitted on behalf of Answering Defendant in this case. 36. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029 (e). By way of further response, Plaintiffs condition and course of treatment are set forth in the medical records which are in writing and speak for themselves. Answering Defendant denied Plaintiffs allegations to the extent that they are contradicted or supplemented by the relevant medical records and/or the deposition testimony and expert reports submitted on behalf of Answering Defendant in this case. Additionally, it is specifically denied that Dr. Austin is an agent, apparent agent, servant and/or employee of Answering Defendant. To the contrary, Dr. Austin was an independent practitioner with staff privileges at Answering Defendant. 37.-65. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029 (e). By way of further response, Plaintiff s condition and course of treatment are set forth in the medical records which are in writing and speak for themselves. Answering Defendant denied Plaintiff s allegations to the extent that they are contradicted or supplemented by the relevant medical records and/or the deposition testimony and expert reports submitted on behalf of Answering Defendant in this case. 64. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the allegations are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.1029(e). By way of further response, Answering Defendant was not negligent. At all relevant times, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care. 3 65. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the allegations are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.1029(e). By way of further response, Answering Defendant was not negligent. At all relevant times, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care. 66. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the allegations are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.1029(e). By way of further response, Answering Defendant was not negligent. At all relevant times, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care. 67. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the allegations are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.1029(e). By way of further response, Answering Defendant was not negligent. At all relevant times, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care. 68. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the allegations are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.1029(e). By way of further response, Answering Defendant was not negligent. At all relevant times, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care. 69. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, the allegations are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.1029(e). By way of further response, Answering Defendant was not negligent. At all relevant times, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care. COUNTI NEGLIGENCE BARBARA CHRISTENSEN V. CHARLES AUSTIN, M.D. 4 70.-72. These allegations are directed to a party other than Answering Defendant. Therefore no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, these allegations are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff and requests that Plaintiff s Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. COUNT II VICARIOUS LIABILITY BARBARA CHRISTENSEN V. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL 73. Answering Defendant hereby incorporates by reference here to answers to paragraphs 1 through 72 as if fully set forth at length. 74a.-r. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph and corresponding subparagraphs of Plaintiff s Complaint recite medical and legal conclusions to which no response is required. It is averred, however, that Answering Defendant was not negligent and did not cause or contribute to any injury or damage to Plaintiff. By way of further response, Answering Defendant is not vicariously liable for the actions and/or inactions of Dr. Austin. At all relevant times, Dr. Austin was an independent practitioner with staff privileges at Answering Defendant. The remaining allegations are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 75. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph and corresponding subparagraphs of Plaintiff s Complaint recite medical and legal conclusions to which no response is required. It is averred, however, that Answering Defendant was not negligent and did not cause or contribute to any injury or damage to Plaintiff. By way of further response, Answering Defendant is not vicariously liable for the actions and/or inactions of Dr. Austin. At all relevant times, Dr. Austin 5 was an independent practitioner with staff privileges at Answering Defendant. The remaining allegations are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff and requests that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. The claim for punitive damages set forth in Plaintiff's ad damnum clause has been dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Stipulation of Counsel attached hereto as Exhibit "A." COUNT III VICARIOUS LIABILITY BARBARA CHRISTENSEN V. QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC. 76.-78. These allegations are directed to a party other than Answering Defendant. Therefore no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, these allegations are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff and requests that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. NEW MATTER 79. It is specifically denied that Charles Austin, M.D. was an employee, agent, ostensible agent, servant or otherwise of Holy Spirit Hospital. 80. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant can be held vicariously liable for the actions and/or inactions of Charles Austin, M.D. 81. To the extent that the evidence reveals that Plaintiff failed to follow medical advice, failed to treat properly, or otherwise failed to mitigate her damages, Answering Defendant pleads the defense of the failure to mitigate. 6 82. To the extent that the evidence reveals that Plaintiff failed to file this action in a timely manner, Answering Defendant pleads the defense of the statute of limitations. 83. To the extent that the evidence reveals that the Plaintiff had apre-existing condition that caused or contributed to her injuries, Answering Defendant pleads the existence of apre-existing condition as a defense. 84. If at the time of trial it is established that Answering Defendant accepted less than full payment for certain of Plaintiff s medical expenses or otherwise forgave certain of those expenses, then Answering Defendant pleads any such set-off as an affirmative defense. 85. Answering Defendant raises the acts and/or omissions of third parties over whom Answering Defendant had neither the right nor duty to control as a complete and/or partial bar to Plaintiffs' claims. 86. To the extent that the evidence reveals that Plaintiff lacked the capacity to sue at the time this action was commenced, or at any time relevant hereto, Answering Defendant pleads the lack of capacity to sue as an affirmative defense. 87. To the extent that it is determined that Plaintiff is or was engaged in other litigations or proceedings pertaining to the injuries alleged in this Complaint, Answering Defendant pleads the defenses of accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, estoppel, and release. 88. At all times relevant hereto, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injures as alleged. 89. Nothing Answering Defendant did or failed to do was the cause or the proximate cause of any alleged injury or loss to Plaintiff. 7 90. 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. 91. By way of further answer, Answering Defendant 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 Plaintiff in the Complaint. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital denies that they were in any way liable to the Plaintiff and demands that judgment be entered against the Plaintiff and in favor of Answering Defendant. Answering Defendant further requests an award of appropriate costs and fees. Respectfully submitted, DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Date: July 26, 2010 By: ~~ ~ ~' 'Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #78565 Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire Supreme Court I. D. #85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 Attorney for Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital 8 VeiiScation -Freidt/Cluistcnsen VERIFICATION I, Ellen Feidt, R.N., Risk Management Department, Holy Spirit Hospital, hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL Ellen Feidt, R.N. Risk Manager . - 4f.'. ~4ti, t ~ .. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, July 26, 2010, I, Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER FILED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT, HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL TO PLAINTIFF'S 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 Robin J. Marzell, Esquire Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Michael C. Mongiello, Esquire Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Charles B. Austin, M.D. and Quantum Imaging & Therapeutic Associates, Inc.) l ti~ Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire ~- .~ (~ILEt - ~:- = ~v CRAIG A. STONE, ESQUIRE ,;- TI~ ;" ~ ~ ~ ,' LD. No. 15907 MICHAEL C. MONGIELLO, ESQUIRE 2Q (fl ,~':L C ~ ~`~ `' ~' l5 LD. No. 87532 Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin CLF,~~_ `~~!`~' 'r 4200 Cnims Mill Road, Suite $ ~ _: ~~~~`~'~ ~.w~ ~'' Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3502 Attorney for Defendants Quantum Imaging & Therapeutic Associates, Inc. and Charles Austin, M.D. BARBARA CHRISTENSEN Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CNIL ACTION -LAW HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, CHARLES NO: 09-4813 CIVIL AUSTIN, M.D. and QUANTUM IMAGING: & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Bazbaza Christensen c/o Robin J. Marzella, Esquire R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. 3513. North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 You aze hereby notified to plead to the enclosed Preliminary Objections within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment maybe filed against you. WARNER, $Y: MICHI~EL\CLl~~t7N~CiIELLO, ESQ. 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 °~ ~ ~'~~ (717) 651-3500 Dated: R CRAIG A. STONE, ESQUIRE I.D. No. 15907 MICHAEL C. MONGIELLO, ESQUIRE I.D. No. 87532 Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3502 Attorney for Defendants Quantum Imaging & Therapeutic Associates, Inc. and Charles Austin, M.D. BARBARA CHRISTENSEN IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION -LAW v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, CHARLES NO: 09-4813 CIVIL AUSTIN, M.D. and QUANTUM IMAGING: & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANTS. CHARLES AUSTIN. M.D. AND QUANTUM IMAGING & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES. INC AND NOW come Defendants, Charles Austin, M.D. ("Dr. Austin") and Quantum Imaging & Therapeutic Associates, Inc.("QITA") (collectively hereinafter referred to as "objecting Defendants"), by and through their counsel, Mazshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, and preliminarily object to Plaintiffs Complaint as follows: 1. This is a medical professional liability action in which Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Austin negligently failed to recognize a disc fragment during interpretation of a July 25, 2007 MRI study of Plaintiffs lumbaz spine, resulting in permanent disability. A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". A. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM THAT QITA IS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE CONDUCT OF UNIDENTIFIED AGENTS, SERVANTS AND EMPLOYEES SHOULD BE DISMISSED FROM PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AS VIOLATIVE OF THE IDENTITY REQUIREMENT IlVIPOSED UNDER PENNSYLVANIA LAWS OF AGENCY 2. Plaintiff pleads as follows in her Complaint: 6. At all relevant times herein, Defendant Austin and all physicians, interns, residents, medical support staff, and office. staff involved in Dr Christensen's care were the agents apparent agents ostensible agents servants, and/or employees of Defendant OITA and were acting within the course and scope of their employment when providing professional medical services to Dr. Christensen. See Exhibit "A", p. 2 (emphasis supplied). 3. Plaintiff then avers in her Complaint that QITA is vicariously liable for the conduct of such unidentified agents, apparent agents, servants and employees, who were allegedly negligent in several respects. Id. at Count III, pp. 15 -17. 4. Plaintiffs allegations in this regard are in contravention of Pennsylvania pleading practices and constitute an attempt to circumvent the Certificate of Merit requirements. See Supporting Brief. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Charles Austin, M.D. and Quantum Imaging & Therapeutic Associates, Inc. respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter the attached Order. B. PARAGRAPHS 71 AND 77(h) AND (r) OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FACTUAL SPECIFICITY REQUIREMENT OF PA.R.C.P. NO. 1029(a) AS INTERPRETED BY CONNOR V. ALLEGHENY GEN. HOSP., 461 A.2D 600 (Pa. 1993) 5. At paragraph 71 and 77 of her Complaint, Plaintiff avers that Dr. Austin was negligent as follows, resulting in vicarious liability for QITA: (h) failing to properly diagnose Dr. Christensen's condition; and (r) failing to recommend, order or perform additional diagnostic studies to further evaluate the underlying cause of Dr. Christensen's pain[.] See Exhibit "A", pp. I 1-12 and 16-17 (emphasis supplied). 6. These allegations aze improperly broad in violation of Pennsylvania law. See Supporting Brief. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Charles Austin, M.D. and Quantum Imaging & Therapeutic Associates, Inc. respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter the attached Order. C. PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS THAT DR. AUSTIN SHOULD HAVE ORDERED ADDITIONAL RADIOLOGY/DIAGNOSTIC STUDIES SHOULD B$ STRICKEN FROM THE COMPLAINT AS VIOLATIVE OF THE SELF- REFERRAL PROHIBITION SET FORTH IN THE STARK ACT, 42 U.S.C. §1395nn 7. In her Complaint, at pazagraphs 71 and 77, Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Austin was negligent resulting in vicarious liability for his employer QITA see Exhibit "A", ¶¶ 5-6) in the following particulars: (j) failing to order and/or recommend a repeat MRI after Julv 25.2007; (p) failing to recommend, order or obtain additional films or studies to follow- up on the suspicious azea present on the July 25 2007 MR.I; [and] (r) failing to recommend, order or perform additional diagnostic studies to further evaluate the underlvinl~ cause of Dr Christensen's pain[.] See Exhibit "A", pp. 11-12 and 16-17 (emphasis supplied). 8. Said allegations aze in contravention of the Stazk Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn, which is an "Anti-Kickback" statute. See Supporting Brief. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Chazles Austin, M.D. and Quantum Imaging & Therapeutic Associates, Inc. respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter the attached Order. D. PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATION THAT DR. AUSTIN SHOULD HAVE ORDERED SURGERY TO REMOVE PLAINTIFF'S DISC FRAGMENT SHOULD BE STRICKEN FROM THE COMPLAINT AS IMPERTINENT MATTER BECAUSE SUCH IS A MATTER OF SURGICAL JUDGMENT, A DUTY OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF A RADIOLOGIST'S PRACTICE 9. At paragraphs 71 and 77 of Plaintiffs Complaint, Plaintiff avers that Dr. Austin was negligent, giving rise to vicarious liability for QITA, as follows: (d) faiiin~ to order and/or recommend the appropriate treatment such as a sursical urocedure to remove the disc/bone fragment from Dr Christensen's back[.] See Exhibit "A", pp. 11 and 16 (emphasis supplied). 10. This averment is wholly impertinent to Plaintiffs case of radiological negligence against Dr. Austin, as a radiologist obviously cannot order surgery. See Supporting Brief. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Charles Austin, M.D. and Quantum Imaging & Therapeutic Associates, Inc. respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter the attached Order. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN BY: ~~0\~~ CRAI A , ESQ ~, LD. NO.: 15907 MICHAEL C. MONGIELLO, ESQUIRE I.D. NO.: 87532 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3500 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on all counsel of record by placing the same in the United States mail at Harrisburg,. Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the date set forth below, and addressed as follows: Robin J. Marzella, Esquire R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Dated: ~ 2-~ I ( a Aaron Jayman, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 up~~ Sarah Kuhn OS/614218.v1 R.J. MAR,ZELtA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. ~ ^ BY: Robin J. Marzella, Esquire Pennsylvania Supreme Court I.D. No. 66856 . 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 171'10 Telephone: (717) 234-7828 Attorney for Facsimile: (717) 234-6883 Barbara Christensen I1V THE COURT OF CpMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BARBARA CHRISTENSEN, PIgtNTIFF, v. DOCKET N0.09-4813 CN(t. ACTIQN HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, CI+ARLES AvmN, M.D., AND QUANTUM IMAGING 8t THERAPEUTIC ASSOCUTES INC. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLNNT 1. Barbara Christensen, Plaintiff, is an adult-individual who, at all relevant times hereto, resided at 73 Sharon Road, Enola, Pennsylvania 17025. 2. Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity is anon-profit organization (hereinafter "Defendant HSH") under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which maintained a registered address for service at 503 North 21" Street, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011. 3. Charles Austin, M.D. (hereinafter "Defendant Austin") is an adult- individual who was licensed to practice medicine in the state of Pennsylvania and at all t relevant times hereto, maintained a principal place of business at G29-D Lowther Road, Lewisberry, Pennsylvania 17339. 4. At all times hereto, Defendant Austin was an agent, apparent agent, ostensible agent, servant, and/or employee of Defendant Moly Spirit. 5. Quantum Imaging & Therapeutic Associates, Inc. is a professional corporation (hereinafter "pefendant Q1TA"), incorporated under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which maintained an address For service at 629-D Lowther Road, Lewisberry, Pennsylvania 17339. 6. At all relevant times herein, Defendant Austin and all physicians, interns, residents, medical support staff, and offiice staff involved in Dr. Christensen's care were the agents, apparent agents, ostensible agents, servants, and/or employees of Defendant QITA and were acting within the course and- scope of their employment when providing professional medical services to Dr. Christensen. 7. On or about July 4, 2007, Dr. Christensen was at a holiday pirnic and was playing with her dog. 8. Dr. Christensen's dog ran into a creek and she was forced to go into the creek to assist the dog. 9. While attempting to brace herself against the current of the creek, Dr. Christensen twisted her back. 10. Dr. Christensen had never suffered pain in her back prior to this incident, and she immediately felt excruciationg pain. 11. As the afternoon went by, Dr. Christensen's pain increased, and she was forced to leave the picnic early. 12. Over the next several days, tl~e pain did not subside and in fact became worse. 3. By approximately July 12, 2007, Dr. Christensen felt pain shooting down in her leg and decided to contact her family doctor. 14. pn,july 23, 2007, Dr. Christensen presented to Cumberland Family Practice and was examined by Dr. Lisa Davis, who prescribed Tylenol 3 and Percvicet For pain.' l S. Dr. Davis advised Dr. Christensen that if the pain did not improve in two or three days, ordering an MRI and/or.x-ray would be appropriate. 16. Dr. Davis' office records from the July 23, 2007 desribe Dr. Christensen in a great deal of physical distress. The office notes regarding Dr. Christensen's condition upon entering the office state "...She can barely walk...veryuncomfortable- appearing female, difficulty getting on and off of the exam table as well as lying back...significant low back and Left leg pain...1 suspect it may be disc issues..." 17. Because the pain did not subside, on July 25, 2007, Dr. Christensen had an MRI of the lumbar spine performed at Holy Spirit Hospital.. 18. The MRI was performed and/or interpreted by Defendant Austin and/or an agent, apparent agent, servant and/or employee of Defendant Holy Spirit and/or Defendant Quantum Imaging. The radiologist reported that Dr. Christensen had "L4- L5, small annular tear along the right posterolateral margin of the disc...left lateral disc herniation at L3-L4....right lateral disc herniation at L4-LS lying adjacent to the L4 nerve root...right lateral disc herniation at L5-S1..." Defendant noted no other abnormalities. 3 19. On July 26, 2007, after receiving the MRI report, Dr. Lisa Davis telephoned Dr. Christensen to discuss the results. 20. Dr. Davis advised Dr. Christiensen that an epidural injection was the next step in the hopes of providing some relief to Dr. Christensen. 21. On July 28, 2007, Dr. Christensen received an epidural injection at Susquehanna Pain Management. She was also given Percocet and Flexeril in an attempt to alleviate her considerable pain. 22. After the epidural injection, Dr. Christensen did not gain any relief from her pain. At times, she was forced to lie on the floor in agony. 23. On or around August 6, 2007, Dr. Christensen telephoned Cumberland Family Practice to explain that the injection did not alleviate her symptoms. 24. Dr. Davis provided her with a refill prescription of pain medication. 25. Over the coming weeks, Dr. Christensen continued to treat with Cumberland Family Practice. She was repeatedly prescribed Percocet, although it did little to relieve her pain. 26. Dr. Christensen also underwent a second injection in her spine in attempt to alleviate the pain. 27. On or about August 28, 2007, pr. Christensen was in unbearable pain, and she contacted her family physician, and she was advised to make an appointment with an orthopedic surgeon. 28. Dr. Christensen contacted Dr. William Beutler's practice, the Pennsylvania Spine Institute and an appointment was scheduled for September 7, 2007. 4 29. On September 7, 2007, Dr. Christensen presented to Dr. William Beutler of the Pennsylvania Spine Institute. Dr. Christensen brought the July 24, 2007 MRI films with her to the appointment. 30. Upon reviewing Dr. Christensen's MRI from July 25, 2007, Dr. Beutler concluded that the MRI revealed, "...disc protrusion at L3-4 toward the left....some right sided disc protrusions at L4-5 and L5-St ..." and inexplicably and most worrisome, "a fragment ofdisc just medial to the L3 pedicle." 31. Dr. Beutler then determined that surgery was necessary to repair the abnormalities, especially the disc fragment. 32. Dr. Beutler noticed that the finding of the disc fragment was conspicuously missing on the MRI report prepared by Defendant August and/or an agent, apparent agent, servant and/or employee of Defendant Holy Spirit and/or Defendant Quantum Imaging. 33. Dr. Beutler was obviously concerned about this mistake and attempted to contact Defendant Austin's office. 34. At the time, Defendant Austin was not in but Dr. Beutler spoke with Dr. Gilroy, a partner of Defendant Austin, in the radiology department at Holy Spirit Hospital. 35. Dr. Beutler and Dr. Gilroy reviewed the films together over the telephone and Dr. Gilroy concurred that the films revealed a disc fragment impinging on the nerves in Dr. Christensen's spine. 5 36. This Fragment was not identified by Dr. Austin ancVor an agent, apparent agent, servant and/or employee of Defendant Holy Spirit and/or Defendant Quantum Imaging during the original interpretation of the films back on or about July 25, 2007. 37. In addition to confirming his findings of the MRI from the previous visit, Dr. Beutler also notes that the MRI revealed "a disc rupture at L3-L4 as the etiology of the extruded fragment." 38. During the visit, treatment options were discussed between Dr. Beutler and Dr. Christensen, and it was decided that surgery was the most appropriate course of action in hopes of preventing further nerve damage. 39. Dr. Beutler sent Dr. Christensen for an EMG on or about September 14, 2007 at Penn Rehabilitation Associates. 40. The EMG revealed nerve damage and evidence of acute left L2-L3 radiculopathy. 41. On September 18, 2007, Dr. Christensen presented to Dr. Beutler for a follow-up examination. 4Z. On September 20, 2007, Dr. Beutler, assisted by Walter Peppelman, DO and Adam Walt, MD, performed a left L2, L3, and L4 laminectomy, medial facetectomies, foraminotomies, and diskectomy. 43. The Operative Report indicated that, "...there was a very large fragment of disc located just superior to the exiting L3 nerve root just medial to the L3 pedicle and just above it...Forminotomy was completed and a large fragment of the disc rupture was removed. This was also sent to pathology for examination." Dr. Christensen appeared to tolerate the procedure well. 6 44. On October 5, 2007, Dr. Christensen presented to Dr. Beutler for a postoperative exam. There was a marked improvement in her pain level, although Dr. Christensen was still experiencing pain radiating down her left thigh. 45. On October 26, 2007, Dr. Christensen presented to Cumberland Family Practice, very distraught over the pain and events of the preceding months. 46. Dr. Davis diagnosed Dr. Christensen with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and prescribed her Citalopram (20mg) to be taken twice a day. Dr. Christensen also received a physical therapy referral, with the hope that it may help to alleviate some of her pain. 47. On November 7, 2007, Dr. Christensen presented to The Hetrick Center for a physical therapy evaluation. 48. On November ]4, 2007, Dr. Christensen presented to the Fredricksen Outpatient Center for physical therapy. 49. On November 20, 2007, Dr. Christensen.had another follow-up with Dr. Beutler. Her recovery continued to be slow and atrophy in her left quadriceps was present. 50. On December ]4, 2007, Dr. Christensen was discharged from Fredricksen Outpatient Center after having two sessions of physical therapy with instructions to follow up with pr. Tocks in order to observe muscle regeneration and increased muscle strength, which will occur at a very slow rate. S]. On February 8, 2008, Dr. Christensen presented to Dr. Beutler once again. Dr. Beutler noted, "Dr. Christensen still has pain. Pain will radiate mostly toward 7 her left buttock and upper thigh....She does indeed have atrophy of the left quadriceps musculature..." 52. On May 9, 2008, Dr. Christensen returned to Dr. Beutler for another follow up, and she complained of increased pain somewhat. 53. Dr. Beutler noted the continued atrophy in her !eft quadriceps, which he attributed to the L3 radiculopatliy. 54. In discussing various treatment options, Dr. Beutler referred Dr. Christensen to Prism Rehabilitation Medicine group for treatment in attempt to help with the atrophy. 55. Dr. Christensen decided not to meet with a physician immediately at PRISM and instead opted to continue with various therapy modalities coupled with rest. 56. pn or about January 14, 2009, Dr. Christensen was evaluated at PRISM. 57. Another EMG was performed and was interpreted as abnormal. 58. Dr. Christensen was started on a pain management program and she was prescribed medictions. 59. On June 26, 2009, Dr. Christensen met with Dr. Beutler for afollow-up visit, and Dr. Beutler thought that she sprained her ankle and this could be a result on the way Dr. Christensen is forced to walk andlor limp. 60. Dr. Christensen still had atrophy of the left quadriceps. 61. Dr. Beutler specifically told Dr. Christensen that a delay in diagnosis of her condition would increase the risk of permanent nerve compression andlor damage and he wrote in his record that day that, "it is known that the sooner that one 8 intervenes with a nerve compression, it appears that the results would be more favorable." 62. Dr. Christensen continues to suffer from pain in her back and lower extremity and will likely have to live with this pain for the rest of her life. 63. Dr. Christensen has suffered atrophy in her left extremity because the bone fragment was not properly identified by Defendant Austin, delaying immediate surgical intervention. 64. Dr. Christensen has significant atrophy to her left extremity and is forced to walk with a limp. 65. Dr. Christensen also has noticeable muscle mass loss and is forced wear a brace. 64. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' negligence, Dr. Christensen has been forced to incur liability for medical treatment, medicines, hospitalizations, rehabilitation and similar miscellaneous expenses in an effort to restore her health and because of the nature of said injuries, Dr. Christensen is advised and therefore avers that she will be forced to incur similar medical expenses in the future and a claim is made therefor. 65. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants 'negligence, Dr. Christensen has undergone and will in the future undergo great physical and mental/emotional pain and suffering, great inconvenience in carrying out her daily activities, a loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment and a claim is made therefor. 9 66. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' negligence,. Dr. Christensen has been and in the Future will be subject to great humiliation, embarrassment, and disfigurement and a claim is made therefor. 67. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' negligence, Dr. Christensen has sustained and will continue to sustain a loss of past and future earnings, a loss of earning power, and a toss of earning capacity and a claim is made therefor. 68. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' negligence, pr. Christensen has suffered physical injury including but not limited to the atrophy of the muscles in her left leg and a claim is made therefor. 69. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants' negligence, Dr. Christensen has suffered from the physical and emotional pain and suffering related to additional hospitalizations, physician office visits, rehabilitation, physical therapy, additional medications, and the atrophy of the muscles in her left leg and a claim is made therefor. CO NTi NE~UGENCE BARBARA CHRISTENSEN v. CHARLES AUSTIN, M.D. 70. Paragraphs 1 through 67 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth at length. 71. Defendant, Charles Austin, M.D. is jointly and severally liable to Dr. Christensen for the injuries and damages alleged herein which were directly and 10 proximately caused by Defendant Austin's negligence with respect to Barbara Christensen, by: (a) Failing to properly interpret the MRI performed on Dr. Christensen on or about July 25, 2007; (b) failing to properly investigate the cause of Dr. Christensen's pain; (c) failing to recognize the disclbone fragment on the MRI performed on or about July 25, 2p07; (d) failing to order and/or recommend the appropriate treatment such as a surgical procedure to remove the disc/bone fragment from Dr. Christensen's back; (e) failing to properly report the findings contained on the MRI film obtained on or about July 25, 2007; (f) failing to timely diagnose Dr. Christensen's need for immediate and/or urgent treatment and/or care to address the disc/bone fragment's impinging on Dr. Christensen's nerves and compromising her overall health; (g) failing to recommend immediate removal of the disdbone fragment to prevent nerve damage; (h) failing to properly diagnose Dr. Christensen's condition; (i) failing to timely and appropriately diagnose the disdbone fragment in Dr. Christensen's spine; (j} failing to order and/or recommend a repeat MRI after July 25, 2007; 11 (k) failing to personally review the MRl study obtained of Dr. Christensen's spine on July 25, 2007; (1) failing to report appropriately the findings that existed on the July 25, 2007 MRI study; (m) failing to timely and properly communicate with Dr. Christensen or her treating physician regarding the discJbone fragment in her spine; (n) failing to timely and properly communicate with Dr. Christensen's physician regarding the disc/bone fragment; (o) delaying the proper diagnosis and treatment of Dr. Christensen's condition, which increased the risk of nerve damage; (p) failing to recommend, order or obtain additional films or studies to follow-up on the suspicious area present on the July 25, 2007 MRI, (q) failing to recognize that the films from July 25, 2007 were suboptimal and ordering repeat studies to be performed; (r) failing to recommend, order or perform additional diagnostic studies to further evaluate the underlying cause of Dr. Christensen's pain; 72. Defendant Austin is liable to Dr. Christensen for the injuries and damages alleged herein as set forth in paragraphs 62 through 67 above, which are incorporated herein by reference as if set at length. WHEREFORE, Dr. Christensen, demands judgment against Defendant Austin, for compensatory and punitive damages in an amount in excess of FtFnr THOUSnND DOLURS, (550,000.00), exclusive of interest and Costs in an excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. 12 ouNT u VICARIOUS LIABILITY BARBAR/1 CHRiSTENSEN v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSFITAL 73. Paragraphs ]through 67 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth at length. 74. Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, is jointly and severally liable to Dr. Christensen for the injuries and damages alleged herein which were directly and proximately caused by Defendant HSH's negligence with respect to Barbara Christensen, by: (a) failing to properly interpret the MRl performed on Dr. Christensen on or about July 25, 2007; (b) failing to properly investigate the cause of Dr. Christensen's pain; (c) failing to recognize the disc/bone fragment on the MRI performed on or about July 25, 2007; (d) failing to order and/or recommend the appropriate treatment such as a surgical procedure to remove the discJbone fragment from Dr. Christensen's back; (e) failing to properly report the findings contained on the MRl film obtained on or about July 25, 2007; ]3 (f) failing to timely diagnose Dr. Christensen's need for immediate and/or urgent treatment and/or care to address the disc/bone fragment's impinging on Dr, Christensen's nerves and compromising her overall health; (g) failing to recommend immediate removal of the disc/bone fragment to prevent nerve damage; (h) failing to properly diagnose Dr. Christensen's condition; (i) failing to timely and appropriately diagnose the disUbone fragment in Dr. Christensen's spine; (j) failing to order and/or recommend a repeat MRl after July 25, 2007; (k) failing to personally review the MRl study obtained of Dr. Christensen's spine on July 25, 2007; (I} failing to report appropriately the findings that existed on the July 25, 2007 MRI study; (m) failing to timely and properly communicate with Dr. Christensen or her treating physician regarding the disc/bone fragment in her spine; (n) failing to timely and properly communicate with Dr. Christensen's physician regarding the disc/bone fragment; (o) delaying the proper diagnosis and treatment of Dr. Christensen's condition, which increased the risk of nerve damage; (p) failing to recommend, order or obtain additional films or studies to follow-up on the suspicious area present on the July 25, 2007 MRI, 14 (q} failing to recognize that the films From July 25, 2007 were suboptimal and ordering repeat studies to be performed; (r) failing to recommend, order or perform additional diagnostic studies to further evaluate the underlying cause of Dr. Christensen's pain; 75. Defendant HSH is liable to Dr. Christensen. for the injuries and damages alleged herein as set forth in paragraphs 62 through 67 above, which are incorporated herein by reference as if set at length. WHEREFORE, Dr. Christensen, demands judgment against Defendant HSH, for compensatory and punitive damages in an amount in excess of FtF1Y THOUSAND DO~.t,~-RS, ($50,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs in an excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. OUNT 111 VICARIOUS I.IABILI'I'Y BARBARA CHRISTENSEN v. QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCWTES, INC. 76. Paragraphs 1 through 67 are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth at length. 77. Defendant QITA is jointly and severally liable to Dr. Christensen for the injuries and damages alleged herein which were directly and proximately caused by Defendant QITA's negligence with respect to Barbara Christensen,. by: (a) failing to properly interpret the MRI performed on Dr. Christensen on or about July 25, 2007; (b) failing to properly investigate the cause of Dr. Christensen's pain; 15 (c) failing to recognize the disdbone fragment on the MRI performed on or about July 25, 2007; (d) Failing to order and/or recommend the appropriate treatment such as a surgical procedure to remove the disc/bone fragment from Dr. Christensen's back; (e) failing to properly report the findings contained on the MRl film obtained on or abo~it July 25, 2007; (~ failing to timely diagnose Dr. Christensen's need for immediate and/or urgent treatment and/or care to address the discJbone fragment's impinging on Dr. Christensen's nerves and compromising her overall health; (g) failing to recommend immediate removal of the disc/bone fragment to prevent nerve damage; (h) failing to properly diagnose Dr. Christensen's condition; (i) failing to timely and appropriately diagnose the disUbone fragment in Dr. Christensen's spine; (j) failing to order and/or recommend a repeat MRl after July 25, 2007; (k) failing to personally review the MRt study obtained of Dr. Christensen's spine on July 25, 2007; (I) failing to report appropriately the findings that existed on the July 25, 2007 fvlRl study; . (m) failing to timely and property coimmunicate with Dr. Christensen or her treating physician regarding the disc/bone fragment in her spine; 16 (n) failing to timely and properly communicate with Dr. Christensen's physician regarding the disc/bone fragment; (o) delaying the proper diagnosis and treatment of Qr. Christensen's condition, which increased the risk of nerve damage; (p) failing to recommend, order or obtain additional films or studies to follow-up on the suspicious area present on the July 2S, 2007 MRI, (q) failing to recognize that the films from July 25, 2007 were suboptimal and ordering repeat studies to be performed; (r) failing to recommend, order or perform additional diagnostic studies to further evaluate the underlying cause of Dr. Christensen's pain; 78. Defendant QITA is liable to Dr. Christensen for the injuries and damages alleged herein as set forth in paragraphs 62 through 67 above, which are incorporated herein by reference as if set at length. WhIEREFORE Dr. Christensen, demands judgment against Defendant QITA, for compensatory and punitive damages in an amount in excess of FtFtir THOUSAND DOLLARS, ($50.000.00), exclusive of interest and costs in an.excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. Dated: ~ ~~ 2010 Respectfully submitted, R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. By: Robin , Esqu' Attorney Identification No. 66856 17 V~RIFICJ-TION I, Barbara Christensen, do hereby swear and afi'irm that the facts and matters set forth in the Foregoing document are true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements made therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~~ 1 ~-- ~~ Dated L B istens CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Ryan David, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record this 19~' day of May, 2010, by depositing said copy in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, first ~ class delivery, and addressed as follows: Thomas Chairs, Esq. Aaron Jayman, Esq. Dickie McCamey 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 Michael C.lvlongiello, Esq. Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Coggin 4200 Crums Mill Road Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 R. J. MARZEw- & AssociA?ES, P.C. BY: -~ Y DAVID, I;AW R.J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: Zachary D. Campbell, Esquire Pennsylvania Supreme Court 1.D. No. 93177 Attorneys for 3513 North Front Street Barbara Christensen Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 2347828 Facsimile: (717) 234-6883 ZCampbell@RJmarzella.com 1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA `a ,_-' BARBARA CHRISTENSEN, ~-~ `~ DOCI~T N0.09-4813 '~'' _y ~ £ ~~ ~ ; i ~? PLwNTIFF, CML ACTION ~ ~ ' , v. ~ _ W `'`' ' _ HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE _ ~ r ~~ CHARLES AUSTIN, M.D., AND _~ ~ r. QUANTUM IMAGING & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES INC. , DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL'S NEW MATTER 79. This response contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, it is specifically denied that Charles Austin, M.D. was not an employee, agent, ostensible agent, servant, or otherwise of Holy Spirit Hospital. 80. This response contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendants cannot be held vicariously liable for the actions and/or inactions of Charles Austin, M.D. l 8l . This response contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, it is specifically denied that evidence will reveal that Plaintiff failed to follow medical advice, failed to treat properly, or otherwise failed to mitigate her damages. It is further specifically denied that Defendants are entitled to plead the defense of failure to mitigate. 82. This response contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, it is specifically denied that evidence will reveal that Plaintiff failed to file this action in a timely manner and Answering Defendants are entitled to raise and/or plead the defense of statute of limitations. 83. This response contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response maybe required, it is specifically denied that evidence will reveal that the Plaintiff had apre-existing condition that caused or contributed to her injuries and it is denied that Answering Defendants are entitled to raise and/or plead the existence of apre-existing condition as a defense. 84. This response contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, it is specifically denied that at the time of trial Defendants will establish that they accepted less than full payment for certain of Plaintiff's medical expenses and/or certain expenses were othen~vise forgiven. It is also specifically denied, that Answering Defendants are entitled to raise and/or plead any such set off as an affirmative defense. 85. This response contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, it is specifically denied that 2 Answering Defendants are entitled to raise and/or plead as a complete and/or partial bar to Plaintifi~'s claims, that Answering Defendant had neither the right nor duty to control the acts and/or omissions of third parties. It is further specifically denied that Answering Defendant did not have the right and/or duty to control the acts and/or omissions of third parties. 86. This response contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff lacked the capacity to sue at the time of the commencement of this action, or at any time relevant hereto. 87. This response contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff is or was engaged in other litigations or proceedings pertaining to her injuries alleged in her Complaint, and it is denied that Defendants are entitled to raise and/or plead the defenses of accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, estoppel, and release. 88. This response contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, it is specifically denied that at all time relevant hereto, Answering Defendants met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. 89. This response contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, it is specifically denied that nothing the Answering Defendants did or failed to do was the cause or the proximate cause of any alleged injury or loss to Plaintiff. 3 90. This response contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, it is specifically denied that Plaintiffs claims and/or request for damages is barred or limited by the provisions or the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act, Act. No. 13, House Bill No. 1802, 2203 Pa. ALS 13, 2002, Pa. Laws 13, 2001 Pa. HB 1802 as amended. 9l . This response contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendants can specifically reserve the right to plead hereafter as further New Matter those additional affirmative defenses, including, without limitation, those set forth in Pa.R.C.P. 1030, that continuing investigation, discovery in accordance with the court rules, and the introduction of evidence at trial may render applicable to claims and causes of action declared upon Plaintiff in the Complaint. By way of further response, the applicable laws and/or rules and/or precedent in Pennsylvania, specifically prohibit the aforementioned and bar Answering Defendant from asserting further affirmative defenses not contained in their Answer and New Matter. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Barbara Christensen, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the Moving Defendants and that Plaintiff be awarded appropriate costs, fees, and damages. 4 Respectfully submitted, R..1. Marzella & Associates, P.C. By: Za hary ampbell, Esquire Atto ~ entification No. 93177 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA l7l l0 (717) 234-7828 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Barbara Christensen Dated: ? 2~/2e~a 5 .. ~, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Tyler Storch, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing !i document was served upon counsel of record this 29t~ day of July, 2010, by depositing said copy in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, first class delivery, and addressed as follows: Thomas Chairs, Esq. Aaron Jayman, Esq. Dickie McCamey 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 Michael C. Mongiello, Esq. Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: TYLE H, AW CLERK r? I _ `t 14 = R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 20p J? I : S BY: Robin J. Marzella, Esquire Z I ,; , b r Pennsylvania Supreme Court I.D. No. 66856 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 2347828 Facsimile: (717) 234-6883 Attorney for Barbara Christensen IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BARBARA CHRISTENSEN, PLAINTIFF, DOCKET NO. 09-4813 CIVIL ACTION V. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CHARLES AUSTIN, M.D., AND QUANTUM IMAGING & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES INC. DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS CHARLES AUSTIN, M.D. AND QUANTUM IMAGING & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Barbara Christensen, by and through her attorneys, R .J. Marzella & Associates, P.C., brings this instant Response in Opposition to Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs Complaint and avers the following: The allegation herein states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. A. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM THAT QITA IS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE CONDUCT OF UNIDENTIFIED AGENTS, SERVANTS AND EMPLOYEES SHOULD BEI,DISMISSED FROM PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AS VIOLATIVE OF THE IDENTITY REQUIREMENT IMPOSED UNDER PENNSYLVANIA LAWS OF AGENCY. 2. No response is required for the allegation stated herein. Plaintiffs Complaint speaks for itself. 3. The allegation herein states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. Plaintiffs Complaint speaks for itself. 4. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs allegations are in contravention of Pennsylvania pleading practices and constitute an attempt to circumvent the Certificate of Merit requirements. By way of further response, Plaintiffs Complaint clearly satisfies the well-established law governing agency pleading under Rule 1019(a). Plaintiff has clearly set forth the specific names of those individuals at issue. Plaintiff also adequately describes the facts and conduct at issue in specific detail allowing the Defendant to ascertain the identities of these unidentified individuals better than the Plaintiff. Preparing for those potential and currently anonymous individuals bears the same burden on the Plaintiff as it would fbr the Defendants. Furthermore, requiring Plaintiff to name every possible individual at this early stage of litigation without the benefit of discovery would unduly prejudice the Plaintiff without relieving any added burden from the Defendant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Barbara Christensen, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Defendants' Preliminary Objection to strike PlaintifFs claims against the Defendant for being vicariously liable for the conduct of unidentified agents, servants and employees. B. PARAGRAPHS 71 AND 77(h) AND (r) OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FATUAL SPECIFICITY REQUIREMENT OF PA.R.C.P. NO. 1029(a) AS INTERPRETED BY CON OR V. ALLEGHENY GEN. HOSP., 461 A.21) 600 (Pa. 1993) 2 S. The allegation herein states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. Plaintiffs Complaint speaks for itself. 6. Denied. It is specifically denied that the allegations within Paragraphs 71 and 77(h) and (r) of Plaintiffs Complaint are improperly broad and in violation of Pennsylvania law. By way of further response, Plaintiffs' allegations regarding Defendants' negligence and agency are based not only on the portion of allegations in these paragraphs, but on the allegations set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint, as a whole. Individual paragraphs should not be singled out from the complaint to review their specificity. The court must review the allegedly insufficient paragraph in light of the remainder of the complaint. Simon v. Community General OsteoRathic hospital, 108 Dauph. 218 (1988). The Complaint, when viewed as a whole, puts the Defendants on notice of Plaintiffs' legal theories and the specific facts in support thereof. To require any further specificity at this early stage of litigation and before discovery has begun, would defeat the intent of Pennsylvania's fact pleading requirement and unduly prejudice the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Barbara Christensen, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Defendants' Preliminary Objection to strike subparagraphs 71 (h) and (r) and 77 (h) and (r) from Plaintiffs Complaint. C. PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS THAT DR. AUSTIN SHOULD HAVE ORDERED ADDITIONAL RADIOLOGY/DIAGNOSTIC STUDIES SHOULD BE STRI?KEN FROM THE COMPLAINT AS VIOLATIVE OF THE SELF-REFERRAL PROHIBITION SET FORTH IN THE STARK ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn 7. The allegation herein states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 3 8. Denied. It is specifically denied that paragraphs 71 and 77 of Plaintiffs Complaint are in contravention of the Stark Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn. By way of further response, the Stark Act is not applicable in this matter. Furthermore, the Defendants clearly satisfy one or more of the exceptions under the Stark Act, including but not limited to, the "in-office ancillary services" exemption under the act. Sep Supporting Brief. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Barbara Christensen, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Defendants' Preliminary Objection to strike sub-paragraphs 71 6), (p) and (r) and 77 6), (p) and (r) from Plaintiffs Complaint. D. PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS THAT DR. AUSTIN SHOULD HAVE ORDRED SURGERY TO REMOVE PLAINTIFF'S DISC FRAGMENT SHOULD BE STRICKEN FROM THE COMPLAINT AS IMPERTINENT MATTER BECAUSE SUCH IS A MATTER OF SURGICAL JUDGMENT, A DUTY OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF A RADIOLOGIST'S PRACTICE. 9. The allegation herein states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. Plaintiffs Complaints speaks for itself. 10. Denied. it is specifically denied that subparagraphs 71 (d) and 77 (d) of Plaintiffs Complaint are wholly impertinent to Plaintiffs case of radiological negligence against Dr. Austin. By way of further response, the negligence of Dr. Austin prevented and/or delayed the determination that the most appropriate treatment to relieve the severe pain in Plaintiff's back would be a surgical procedure and not other forms of pain management. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Barbara Christensen, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Defendant's Preliminary Objection to strike sub-paragraphs 71 (d) and 77 (d) from Plaintiffs Complaint. 4 W R. J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. By: 4 chary mpbell, Esquire A dentification No. 93177 Dated: rL 1Z.0 IA _'OO"( ? • 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Ryan David, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record this 13' day of August, 2010, by depositing said copy in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, first class delivery, and addressed as follows: Thomas Chairs, Esq. Aaron Jayman, Esq. Dickie McCamey 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 Michael C. Mongiello, Esq. Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 R. J. MARZEUA & AssoclAns, P.C. BY: RY DAVID, LAW CLERK R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: Robin J. Marzella, Esquire Pennsylvania Supreme Court I.D. No. 66856 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 2347828 Facsimile: (717) 2346883 hJ r~ ~~ r-- ....~ ~~_- h =~ CD {_ Attorney for ~ =-' Barbara Christensen -~ ~~: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BARBARA CHRISTENSEN, PLAINTIFF, v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, CHARLES AUSTIN, M.D., AND QUANTUM IMAGING & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES INC. DEFENDANTS DOCKET N0.09-4813 CIVIL ACTION MEDICAL MALPRACTICE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS CHARLES AUSTIN, M.D. AND QUANTUM IMAGING & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Barbara Christensen, by and through her attorneys, R J. Marzella & Associates, P.C., brings this instant Response in Opposition to Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs Complaint and avers the following: 1. The allegation herein states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. A. PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM THAT QITA IS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE CONDUCT OF UNIDENTIFIED AGENTS, SERVANTS AND EMPLOYEES SHOULD BE DISMISSED FROM PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AS VIOLATIVE OF THE IDENTITY REQUIREMENT IMPOSED UNDER PENNSYLVANIA LAWS OF AGENCY. ~.~ -~ 1 2. No response is required for the allegation stated herein. Plaintiffs Complaint speaks for itself. 3. The allegation herein states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. Plaintiffs Complaint speaks for itself. 4. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs allegations are in contravention of Pennsylvania pleading practices and constitute an attempt to circumvent the Certificate of Merit requirements. By way of further response, Plaintiffs Complaint clearly satisfies the well-established law governing agency pleading under Rule 1019(a). Plaintiff has dearly set forth the specific names of those individuals at issue. Plaintiff also adequately describes the facts and conduct at issue in specific detail allowing the Defendant to ascertain the identities of these unidentified individuals better than the Plaintiff. Preparing for those potential and currently anonymous individuals bears the same burden on the Plaintiff as it would for the Defendants. Furthermore, requiring Plaintiff to name every possible individual at this early stage of litigation without the benefit of discovery would unduly prejudice the Plaintiffwithout relieving any added burden from the Defendant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Barbara Christensen, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Defendants' Preliminary Objection to strike Plaintiffs claims against the Defendant for being vicariously liable for the conduct of unidentified agents, servants and employees. B. PARAGRAPHS 71 AND 77(h) AND (r) OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FATUAL SPECIFICITY REQUIREMENT OF PA.R.C.P. NO. 1029(a) AS INTERPRETED BY CONNOR V. ALLEGHENY GEN. HOSP., 461 A.2D 600 (Pa. 1993) 2 5. The allegation herein states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. Plaintiffs Complaint speaks for itself. 6. Denied. It is specifically denied that the allegations within Paragraphs 71 and 77(h) and (r) of Plaintiffs Complaint are improperly broad and in violation of Pennsylvania law. Byway of further response, Plaintiffs' allegations regarding Defendants' negligence and agency are based not only on the portion of allegations in these paragraphs, but on the allegations set forth in Plaintiffs' Complaint as a whole. Individual paragraphs should not be singled out from the complaint to review their specificity. The court must review the allegedly insufficient paragraph in light of the remainder of the complaint. Simon v. Community General Osteopathic Hospital, 108 Dauph. 218 (1988). The Complaint, when viewed as a whole, puts the Defendants on notice of Plaintiffs' legal theories and the specific facts in support thereof. To require any further specificity at this early stage of litigation and before discovery has begun, would defeat the intent of Pennsylvania's fact pleading requirement and unduly prejudice the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Barbara Christensen, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Defendants' Preliminary Objection to strike subparagraphs 71 (h) and (r) and 77 (h) and (r) from Plaintiffs Complaint. C. PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS THAT DR. AUSTIN SHOULD HAVE ORDERED ADDITIONAL RADIOLOGY/DIAGNOSTIC STUDIES SHOULD BE STRICKEN FROM THE COMPLAINT AS VIOLATIVE OF THE SELF-REFERRAL PROHIBITION SET FORTH IN THE STARK ACT, 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn 7. The allegation herein states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. 3 8. Denied. tt is specifically denied that paragraphs 71 and 77 of Plaintiffs Complaint are in contravention of the Stark Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395nn. Byway of further response, the Stark Act is not applicable in this matter. Furthermore, the Defendants clearly satisfy one or more of the exceptions under the Stark Act, including but not limited to, the "in-office ancillary services" exemption under the act. See Supporting Brief. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Barbara Christensen, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Defendants' Preliminary Objection to strike sub-paragraphs 71 (j), (p) and (r) and 77 (j), (p) and (r) from Plaintiffs Complaint. D. PLAINTIFF'S ALLEGATIONS THAT DR. AUSTIN SHOULD HAVE ORDRED SURGERY TO REMOVE PLAINTIFF'S DISC FRAGMENT SHOULD BE STRICI~N FROM THE COMPLAINT AS IMPERTINENT MATTER BECAUSE SUCH IS A MATTER OF SURGICAL JUDGMENT, A DUTY OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF A RADIOLOGIST'S PRACTICE. 9. The allegation herein states a conclusion of law to which no response is required. Plaintiffs Complaints speaks for itself. 10. Denied. It is specifically denied that subparagraphs 71 (d) and 77 (d) of Plaintiffs Complaint are wholly impertinent to Plaintiffs case of radiological negligence against Dr. Austin. Byway of further response, the negligence of Dr. Austin prevented and/or delayed the determination that the most appropriate treatment to relieve the severe pain in Plaintiffs back would be a surgical procedure and not other forms of pain management. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Barbara Christensen, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Defendant's Preliminary Objection to strike sub-paragraphs 71 (d) and 77 (d) from Plaintiffs Complaint. 4 R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. By: achary mpbell, Esquire Attorney Identification No. 93177 Dated: ld ?.,CIO CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Ryan David, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record this 10~' day of August, 2010, by depositing said copy in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, first class delivery, and addressed as follows: Thomas Chairs, Esq. Aaron Jayman, Esq. Dickie McCamey 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 Michael C. Mongiello, Esq. Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17l 12 R.J. MARZELIA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. L BY: RY DAVID, LAW CLERK CA/AL PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within matter for the next. ,Z Argument Court.) o -------- -- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CAPTION OF CASE S? (entire caption must be stated in full) Barbara Christiansen vs. Holy Spirit Hospital, Charles Austin, M.D. and Quantum Imaging & Therapeutic Associates, Inc. 'b W W No. 09-4813 Civil Term 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiffs motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Preliminary objections to Plaintiffs Complaint of Def. C. Austin M.D. and Quantum Imaging 2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiffs: Zachary Campbell, Esquire, 3513 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Name and Address) Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire, 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205, Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (b) for defendants: Michael C. Mongiello, Esquire, 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B, Harrisburg, PA 17112 (Name and Address) 1 1 will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: October 6, 2010 (WAu• 0- ?OI Yl?r? Signature Michael C. Mongiello, Esquire Print your name Charles Austin M.D. & Quantum Imaging Date: August 17, 2010 Attorney for INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Original and two copies of all briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) before argument. 2. The moving party shall file and serve their brief 12 days prior to argument. 3. The responding party shall file their brief 5 days prior to argument. 4. If argument is continued new briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) after the case is relisted. BARBARA CHRISTENSEN, Plaintiff vs. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, CHARLES AUSTIN, M.D., and QUANTUM IMAGING & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA r, CIVIL ACTION - LAW c "TJ -? r--.1 `= o C" -^i NO. 09-4813 CIVIL Z a' ? a r `n `ma' = . ? r - . N G7 < ? • Z. Its. _ -*i xc) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED z" .? o IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS CHARLES AUSTIN M.D. AND QUANTUM IMAGING & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC., TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE HESS, P.J. ORDER AND NOW, this L 10 day of December, 2011, the preliminary objections of the defendants are OVERRULED, the Court being satisfied that: 1. At this early stage of the proceedings, the defendant is in a better position than the plaintiff to identify its agents, servants and employees for whose actions Quantum Imaging is vicariously liable; 2. Certificates of merit are not required to be filed with respect to the agents, servants and employees of a party defendant; 3. Paragraphs 71 and 77 of the complaint are pled with sufficient specificity; 4. The ordering of follow-up testing by defendant Austin would not violate the Stark Act, 42 U.S.C. 135nn; and ...f 10 5. The plaintiff concedes that defendant Austin could not have ordered surgery but could have recommended it. ./ Zachary D. Campbell, Esquire For the Plaintiff Craig A. Stone, Esquire For Defendants Austin and Quantum Imaging /baron Jayman, Esquire For Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital :rlm P ::?Wj BY THE COURT, .I FILED-OFFIC OF THE PROTHONO ARY 2010 DEC 30 AFB11:45 R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: Zachary D. Campbell, Esquire Pennsylvania Supreme Court I.D. No. 93177 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 2347828 Facsimile: (717) 234-6883 CUMBERLAND COI HTY PE-IOi,SYLVAN! Attorneys for Barbara Christensen IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BARBARA CHRISTENSEN, DOCKET NO. 09-4813 PLAINTIFF, CIVIL ACTION V. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, CHARLES AUSTIN, M.D., AND QUANTUM IMAGING & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES INC. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE DEFENDANTS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAW/ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Kindly withdrawal my appearance on behalf of the Plaintiff in the above- captioned matter. By: acha . Campbell, Esquire Atto dentification No. 93177 Dated: 12 : fy . , Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of the Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter. R. J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. Robin el squire Attorney Identification No. 66856 rjmarzella@rjmarzella.com Dated: /2 "191.1_10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Ryan David, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record this 22"d day of December, 2010, by depositing said copy in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, first class delivery, and addressed as follows: Thomas Chairs, Esq. Aaron Jayman, Esq. Dickie McCamey 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 Michael C. Mongiello, Esq. Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: RY DAVID, LAW CLERK 855747 DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT BY: Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 78565 Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 717-7314800 (Tele) 888-811-7144 ax BARBARA CHRISTENSEN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, CHARLES AUSTIN, M.D. AND QUANTUM IMAGING & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants NO. 094813 CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR SERVICE UPON DEFENDANT HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please direct all future Notices and correspondence to the following address and the undersigned counsel.' Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. r rTl n Plaza 21, Suite 302 `??> rte`; BCD 425 N. 21St Street'` -v a Camp Hill, PA 17011 =aM -?`° Respectfully submitted, DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHCOTE, P.C. t ` Date: February 9, 2011 By:- Thonias M. Chairs, tsquire 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 888) 811-7144 Attorney for Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital a 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: Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire R.J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Robin J. Marzell, Esquire R.J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Michael C. Mongiello, Esquire MARSHALL DENNEHEY 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Charles B. Austin, M.D. and Quantum Imaging & Therapeutic Associates, Inc.) Thomas M/ Chairs, Esquire r? I? J • CRAIG A. STONE, ESQUIRE OF THE?ROTHQNQTA I.D. No. 15907 R MICHAEL C. MONGIELLO, ESQUIRE 2011 JUN 23 AN It I.D. No. 87532 : It [y Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin CUMBERLAND CQUNTY 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B PENNSYLVANIA Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3502 Attorney fc)r Defendants Quantum Imaging & Therapeutic Associates, Inc. and Charles Austin, M.D. BARBARA CHRISTENSEN IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Plaintiff V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, CHARLES NO: 09-4813 CIVIL AUSTIN, M.D. and QUANTUM IMAGING: & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC. . Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS CHARLES AUSTIN M.D. AND QUANTUM IMAGING & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC AND NOW come the Defendants, Charles Austin, M.D., hereinafter referred to as "Dr. Austin", and Quantum Imaging & Therapeutic Associates, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "Quantum", by and through their attorneys, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin who answer Plaintiffs Complaint, with New Matter, as follows: 1. Admitted, according to Defendants' records. 2. The corresponding paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint refers to the identity, agency, acts and/or omissions of a Defendant other than Answering Defendants. Accordingly, Answering Defendants have been advised that no answer is required of them. If an answer is deemed required, the averments are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 3. Admitted. 4. Denied as stated. It is specifically denied that Dr. Austin was an agent, apparent agent, ostensible agent, servant or employee of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital. Rather, at all times material to Plaintiffs Complaint, Dr. Austin was an employee of Quantum. 5. Admitted. 6. The averments of paragraph 4 are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth. By way of further answer, after a reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the identity of "all physicians, interns, residents, medical support staff and office staff involved" in Plaintiffs care and are unable to admit or deny whether such persons were the agents, apparent agents, ostensible agents, servants and/or employees of Quantum acting within the scope of their employment. Accordingly, the averments are denied and strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 7. -- 17. After a reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the averments of the corresponding paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint, the same are therefore denied and strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 18. Denied as stated and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). It is denied that Dr. Austin performed an MRI. It is admitted that Dr. Austin interpreted an MRI performed by others at Holy Spirit Hospital on or about July 25, 2007. A copy of Dr. Austin's report is attached hereto, made a part hereof and marked as Exhibit A. 19. -- 35. Denied for reasons set forth in paragraph 7. 36. Denied as stated and pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further answer, the averments of paragraph 18 are incorporated by reference. 37. - 62. Denied for reasons set forth in paragraph 7. 2 r1 ?J • 63. Denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e) and paragraph 18. By way of further answer, at all times material to Plaintiffs Complaint, Dr. Austin met the applicable medical legal standard of care and was not negligent. 64. - 69. Denied for reasons set forth in paragraphs 7, 18 and 63. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE BARBARA CHRISTENSEN V. CHARLES AUSTIN. M .D. 70. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 69 of this Answer with New Matter are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth. 71. Denied for reasons set forth in paragraph 63. 72. Denied for reasons set forth in paragraphs 7, 18 and 63. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with cost to her. COUNT II - VICARIOUS LIABILITY BARBARA CHRISTENSEN V. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL 73. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 72 of this Answer with New Matter are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth. 74. -- 75. Denied for reasons set forth in paragraph 2. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with cost to her. COUNT III - VICARIOUS LIABILITY BARBARA CHRISTENSEN V. QUANTUM IMAGING & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES. INC. 76. The averments of paragraphs 1 through 75 of this Answer with New Matter are incorporated by reference as though fully set forth. 3 9 0 77. - 78. Denied for reasons set forth in paragraphs 71 and 72. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed with cost to her. NEW MATTER 79. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate all averments of this Answer with New Matter as if fully set forth. 80. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Answering Defendants. 81. At no time relevant hereto were Answering Defendants, their agents, servants, employees or otherwise acting on or behalf of any other Defendant in this action or any other natural person, partnership, corporation or other legal entity. 82. At no time relevant hereto was any other natural person, partnership, corporation or other legal entity acting or serving as an agent, servant, employee or otherwise for or on behalf of Answering Defendants. 83. At all time relevant hereto, Answering Defendants complied with the applicable standard of care. 84. Answering Defendants believe and therefore aver that evidence accumulated through discovery and provided at trial may establish Plaintiff assumed the risk of harm and/or was contributorily or comparatively negligent, and in order to protect the record, Answering Defendants hereby plead assumption of the risk and contributory or comparative negligence as affirmative defenses. 85. Answering Defendants are entitled to relief and contribution in accordance with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 P.S. § 7102 as amended by Senate Bill 1089, effective August 14, 2002. 4 0 0 86. In the event that it is determined that Answering Defendants were negligent with regard to any of the allegations contained in, and with respect to Plaintiffs Complaint, said allegations being specifically denied, said negligence, if any, was superseded by the intervening negligent acts of other person, parties and/or organizations other than Answering Defendant and over whom Answering Defendants had no control, right, responsibility and, therefore, Answering Defendants are not liable. 87. Any acts or omissions of Answering Defendants alleged to constitute negligence were not substantial causes, factual causes, or factors contributing to the injuries and damages alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint. 88. Plaintiffs injuries and losses, if any, were not caused by the conduct or negligence of Answering Defendants but rather were caused by pre-existing medical conditions and/or causes beyond the control of Answering Defendants, and Plaintiff may not recover against them. 89. Plaintiffs claims are barred by operation of the applicable statute of limitations, including 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5524 and 40 P.S. § 1301.605. 90. All claims that might have been asserted by Plaintiff including claims for medical expenses are barred by operation of the applicable statute of limitations. 91. Plaintiff s claims are limited and barred by Section 103, 602 and 606 of the Health Care Services Malpractice Act of 1974, 40 P.S. § 1301, et M., as amended. 92. Plaintiffs claims are limited and barred by the provisions of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Errors (MCARE) Act, 40 P. S. § 1303.101, et SeMc . 93. The damages alleged by Plaintiff did not result from acts or omissions of Answering Defendants, their agents, servants or employees, but, rather, from acts or omissions of persons and/or entities over whom Answering Defendants had no right of control. 5 94. Pa. R.C.P. 238 is unconstitutional on its face and as may be applied in this case. 95. Plaintiffs claims, the existence of which is specifically denied by Answering Defendants, may be reduced and/or limited by any collateral source of compensation and/or benefit in accordance with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Moorhead v. Crozer Chester Medical Center. 96. Answering Defendants demand trial by jury on all issues. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand judgment in their favor and against all other parties, including interest, costs and fees, and other relief deemed appropriate by this Court. , WARNER ;, BY: CRAIG A-49-TON , ESQUIRE I.D. NO.: 15907 MICHAEL C. M GIELLO, ESQUIRE I.D. NO.: 87532 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3500 6 , L ?, -r Holy Spirit Hospital Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 (717) 763-2600 PATIENT: CHRISTENSEN, BARBARA J DICTATION DATE: 07/2512007 08:12PM MR#: 510694 TRANSCRIPTION DATE: 07/25/2007 08:1VM SOC SEC: 165-64-7138 ORD DR: GILLIS, CRNP ADM DATE: PT TYPE: ARRIVAL DATE: DOB: 12/31/196612:OOAM HOSP SERVICE: LOCATION: ACC#: 3162216 EXAMINATION: MRI SPINE LUMBAR WO CONTRAST - 07/25/2007 COMMENTS: Exam: MR lumbar spine without contrast History: Low back, left groin and left knee pain Results: Plain radiographs did not accompany the patient. For the purposes of this dictation, it is presumed that 5 nimrib-bearing lumbar type vertebra are present. If further therapy is planned, comparison with plain radiographs is needed. There is desiccation of the L3-L4 through L5-S1 discs. No osseous abnormaes are identified. The conv? is unremarkable in position. No abnormalities are evident proximal to 1-3-1-4. At L3-1-4, there is subtle left lateral disc herniation which does not however impinge upon the L3 nerve rout within the foramen on sagittal images 2 and 3. 1-4-1-5, there is a small annular tear along the right posterolateral margin of the disc. There is shallow right I(?teral disc herniation lying adjacent to the L4 nerve root within the foramen on saglttai images 9 and 10. At L5-S1, there is shallow right lateral disc herniation without impingement on the 1-5 nerve root within thel foramen on sagittal image 9 and axial Image 2. There is no evidence of spinal stenosis. CONCLUSION: Impression: There is subtle left lateral disc herniation at 1-3-1-4 without nerve root impingement. CONFIDENTIAL: This report contains private patient information. If you have received this report In error, please cad 717-872-4941 Knmediatety. Coniidentiality Disclaimer. The inlibmiation contained In this wmmunication may be cmftentkd. Is intended for the use of the redl*' r?arnad above, and may be legatly MMked. N the reader of this message is not IH6 intended recipient, you are hereby rwtiRed that any dissemination,: I5 bu lcn, ar copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication in error, please reseed this comp cation to the sander and delete the orlgfnal message and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank You. Imaging Services Consultation Page 1 Holy Spirit Hospital Department of Radiology and Diagnostic Imaging Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 (717) 763-2600 PATIENT: CHRISTENSEN, BARBARA J DICTATION DATE: 07/25/2007 08:12PM MR#: 510694 TRANSCRIPTION DATE: 07/25/2007 08:1212M SOC SEC: 165-64-7138 ORD DR: GILLIS, CRNP ADM DATE: PT TYPE: ARRIVAL DATE: DOB: 12131/1966 12:OOAM HOSP SERVICE: LOCATION: ACC#: 3162216 There is shallow right lateral disc herniation at 1-4-1-5 lying adjacent to the L4 nerve root within the foramen. There is subtle right lateral disc herniation at L5-S1 without nerve root impingement. DICTATED BY: CHARLES AUSTIN / PSC DATE/TIME: 07125/2007 08:12PM TRANSCRIBED DATE/TIME: 07125/2007 08:12PM DATE OF EXAM: 07125/2007 07:45PM SIGNED BY: CHARLES AUSTIN DATE/TIME: 07/25/2007 08:12PM CONFIDENTIAL: This report contains private patient Information. If you have received this report in error, please call 717-972-49411 f nmedlately. Contidentiatity Disclaimer: The information oontained in this communication may be confider d, Is intended for the use of the Mdpk 1 named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message Is not the Intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dieernination,.i Natribudon. or copying of this communication, or any of its contents. is strictly prohibited. If you received this communication In error, please reseed this comhlunication to the sender and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank You. Imaging Services Consultation Page 2 • VERIFICATION • Charles Austin, M.D., hereby states that he is authorized to make this Verification, and verifies that the statements made in the foregoing Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff(s) Complaint are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 PA. C.S. §4904 relating to the unworn falsification to authorities. rn ` CHARLES AUSTIN, M.D. Dated: f 05/672054.0 1 VERIFICATION I, Amy Redding, hereby states thats she is authorized to make this Verification, and verifies that the statements made in the foregoing Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff(s) Complaint are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements herein made are subject to the penalties of 18 PA. C.S. §4904 relating to the unsworn falsification to authorities. y R ding Human Resources Manr Dated: O-A 11 05/674134.vl CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing on all counsel of record by placing the same in the United States mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the date set forth below, and addressed as follows: Robin J. Marzella, Esquire R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Dated: (0 1 d a 111 Aaron Jayman, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 Sarah Kuhn 05/672052.v l 7 I°C"trI'C Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 234-7828 Facsimile: (717) 234-6883 ZCampbell@RJmarzella.com i R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. AM 9: 29 BY: Robin J. Marzella, Esquire ("Ut'BERLAND Pennsylvania Supreme Court I.D. No. 66856 Attorneys for PENNSYLVQ ?J(A NIA COUNTY 3513 North Front Street Barbara Christensen LV IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BARBARA CHRISTENSEN, DOCKET NO. 09-4813 PLAINTIFF, CIVIL ACTION V. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, CHARLES AUSTIN, M.D., AND QUANTUM IMAGING & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES INC. DEFENDANTS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS CHARLES AUSTIN, M.D. AND QUANTUM IMAGING & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC. 79. This paragraph contains a statement to which no response is required. 80. The allegations herein state a conclusion of law to which no response is necessary. To the extent that an answer may be required, it is specifically denied that Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 81. Denied. It is specifically denied that at no time relevant hereto that Answering Defendants, its agents, servants, employees or other otherwise were not acting on behalf of any other Defendant in this action or any other natural person, partnership, corporation or other legal entity. I 82. Denied. It is specifically denied that at no time relevant hereto that any other natural person, partnership, corporation or other legal entity acting or serving as an agent, servant, employee or otherwise for or on behalf of Answering Defendants. 83. Denied. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendants complied with the standard of care. 84. This paragraph contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, it is specifically denied that evidence accumulated through discovery and provided at trial may establish Plaintiff was contributorily or comparatively negligent. 85. This paragraph contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that a response is required, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendants are entitled to relief and contribution in accordance with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 P.S. § 7102 as amended by Senate bill 1089, effective August 14, 2002. 86. Denied. It is specifically denied that if it is determined that Answering Defendants were negligent with regard to any of the allegations contained in, and with respect to Plaintiff's Complaint, said negligence, if any, was superseded by the intervening negligent acts of other persons, parties, and/or organizations other than Answering Defendants and over whom Answering Defendants had no control, right, responsibility and, therefore, Answering Defendants is not liable. 87. Denied. It is specifically denied that the acts or omissions of Answering Defendants alleged to constitute negligence were not substantial causes, factual causes, or factors contributing to the injuries and damages alleged in Plaintiff's Complaint. 2 88. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff's injuries and losses were not caused by the conduct or negligence of Answering Defendants but rather were caused by pre-existing medical conditions and/or causes beyond the control of Answering Defendants, and Plaintiff may not recover against them. 89. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations, including 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 5524 and 40 P.S. § 1301.605. 90. Denied. It is specifically denied that all claim that might have been asserted by Plaintiff including claims for medical expenses are barred by operation of the applicable statute of limitations. 91. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs claims are limited and barred by Section 103, 602 and 606 of the Health Care Services Malpractice Act of 1974, 40 P.S. § 1301, et seq., as amended. 92. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff s claims are limited and barred by the provisions of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Errors (MCARE) Act, 40 P. S. § 1303.101, et seq. 93. Denied. It is specifically denied that damages alleged by Plaintiff did not result from acts or omissions of Answering Defendants, their agents, servants or employees, but, rather, from acts or omissions of person and/or entities over whom Answering Defendants had no right of control. 94. No response is required to this paragraph as it is an averment of law. 3 95. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff s claims may be reduced and/or limited by any collateral source or compensation and/or benefit in accordance with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Moorhead v. Crozer Chester Medical Center. 96. This paragraph contains a statement to which no response is required. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Barbara Christensen, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter judgment in her favor and against the Moving Defendants and that Plaintiff be awarded appropriate costs, fees, and damages. Respectfully submitted, R. JAf*rzKa & Associates, P.C. Kobbin J. lla, Esquire Attorney I ification No. 66856 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 234-7828 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Barbara Christensen Dated: 1 4 . 1089617 DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT BY: Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 78565 Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 717-731-4800 (Tele) G ~ .,..i 888-811-7144 Fax BARBARA CHRISTENSEN, IN THE COURT OF COMMO ~ E ..L,~ Plaintiff OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,= tni- ~ PENNSYLVANIA -a° V. CD-rt NO. 09-4813 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, CHARLES CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL -z. AUSTIN, M.D. AND QUANTUM IMAGING & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED UNCONTESTED MOTION TO DISMISS AND NOW, comes Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, by and through its counsel, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. and files the within Uncontested Motion to Dismiss and in support thereof avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff initiated this civil action sounding in medical malpractice against the Holy Spirit Hospital and other individually named Defendants. 2. After completion of discovery, counsel for all parties of record stipulate and agree that the Holy Spirit Hospital should be dismissed from this case. A true and conect cupy of the Stipulation to Dismiss executed by counsel for all parties of record is attached hereto as Exhibit «A„ WHEREFORE, the Holy Spirit Hospital requests the Court enter an Order approving of the dismissal of the Holy Spirit Hospital from this case and directing the Prothonotary to remove Holy Spirit Hospital from the caption of this case. EXHIBIT "A" I ' BARBARA CHRISTENSEN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff 4F CUMBERLAND COUNTY , PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 09-4813 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, CHARLES CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL AUSTIN, M.D. AND QUANTUM IMAGING & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants NRY TRIAL DEMANDED STIPULATION TO DISMIS3 H4LY SPIRIT HOSPITAL ONLY AND NOW comes counsel for all parties of record and hereby stipulate and agree that Holy Spirit Hospital is voluntarily dismissed from this case pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 229. R.J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BRobin J. 2~0 la, Esquire (Counsel YtTPlaintiff) MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Craig A. Stone, Esquire (Counsel for Charles B. Austin, M.D. and Quantum Imaging & Therapeutic Associates, Inc.) , BARBARA CHRISTENSEN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 09-4813 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, CHARLES CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL AUSTIN, M.D. AND QUANTUM IMAGING & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUFI1I.ATI(3i1T TU' DI~,1MSS HQLY MQMTAL Or„L NY ' AND NOW comes counsel for all parties of record and hereby stipulate and agree that Holy Spirit Hospital is voluntarily dismissed from this case pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 229. R.J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. By: Robin J. Mazzella, Esquire (Counsel for Plaintif) MARS DENNEHEY WARNER COLE GGIN By: Craig A t , tuire (Counsel r 1 s B. Austin, M.D. and Quantum maging & Therapeutic Associates, Inc.) ~ DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. ~ By: Thomas M. hairs, Esquire (Counsel for Holy Spirit Hospital) Respectfully submitted, DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CH[LCOTE, P.C. Date: November 7, 2011 By: ~f Tho s M. Cha'rs, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #78565 425 N. 21S` Street, Suite 302 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 Attorney for Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, November 7, 2011, I, Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing UNCONTESTED MOTION TO DISMISS 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: Bv First-Class Mail: Robin J. Marzella, Esquire Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire R.J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiffl Michael C. Mongiello, Esquire MARSHALL DENNEHEY 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B ~ Hamsburg, PA 17110 ~ (Counsel for Charles B. Austin, M.D. and Quantum Imaging & Therapeutic Associates, Inc.) Tho s M. Chairs, Esquire H BARBARA CHRISTENSEN, Plaintiff V. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, CHARLES AUSTIN, M.D. AND QUANTUM IMAGING & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-4813 G -0 3 -- -t rnuo MM x - i CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL == -r 2* r ? co ?c? JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ?' rv ?- ORDER w ? AND NOW this _ /S` day of Alivd-. , 2011, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that Defendant. Holy Spirit Hospital, only are hereby dismissed with prejudice in accordance with the attached Stipulation of All Counsel agreeing to the dismissal of less than all Defendants. The Prothonotary is ordered to delete from the caption the name of the dismissed Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital. BY THE COURT: Distribution list: Robin J. Marzella, Esquire Charles W. Marsar, Jr., Esquire R.J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiff) C Michael C. Mongiello, Esquire MARSHALL DENNEHF,Y 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Charles B. Austin, M.D. Imaging & Therapeutic Associates, Inc.) oP'??;,?e(d I I I I S 1 l?lf,? and Quantum Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. 425 N. 21 s` Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Holy Spirit Hospital) s R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: Robin J. Marzella, Esquire Pennsylvania Supreme Court I.D. No. 66856 = J Email: rmarzella@rjmarzella.com 3513 North Front Street 'o4c>ae?r jfi, Harrisburg, PA 17110 `B'ark i*eji r( Telephone: (717) 234-7828 Facsimile: (717) 234-6883 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA BARBARA CHRISTENSEN, PLAINTIFF, DOCKET NO. 09-4813 CIVIL ACTION V. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, CHARLES AUSTIN, M.D., AND QUANTUM IMAGING & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES INC. DEFENDANTS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AMENDED ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION FOR A STATUS CONFERENCE This is a case wherein Barbara Christensen, Plaintiff, alleges that Defendants breeched the appropriate standard of care, by failing to properly interpret an MRI done on Dr. Christensen back which resulted in the delay and surgical treatment needed for the disc/bone fragrnent impinging on Dr. Christensen's nerves and compromising her overall health; 2. Plaintiff, Barbara Christensen, commenced a civil action by filing a Preacipe for Writ of Summons on or about July 20, 2009, in the Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas. 3. This case involves one (1) Defendant, expert witnesses and lay witnesses. 4. Due to the complex nature of the case, Plaintiff's Counsel would like to establish discovery deadlines and a trial date. 5. Additional discovery must be conducted to adequately prepare this case I for trial. 6. However, Plaintiffs Counsel has been unable to secure available dates for depositions from Defendants' Counsel. 7. Court intervention would greatly assist the forward movement of this case. 8. In order to expedite litigation and facilitate a timely conclusion to this case, Plaintiff requests a scheduling conference for the purpose of setting deadlines for completion of discovery. 9. Defense Counsel was contacted on March 14, 2012 whereby a concurrence for this Administrative Application was obtained. 10. Prior to this Administrative Application, a judge has not made a ruling regarding the same or related matters contained herein. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to schedule a Status Conference. Dated: ! - /G' 4 Respectfully requested, R. J. MarzeJla-&-.associates, P.C. By: R765irrrJ- arze quire Attorney Identification No. 66856 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 234-7828 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Barbara Christensen Page 1 of 2 Jacqulyn Harris From: Perkins, Tricia [tperkins@ccpa.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2012 8:22 AM To: MarzellaLawFirm Subject: Failure to Comply with Local Rule 208.3 RE: 2nd Notice of Failure to Comply with Cumberland County Local 'Rule 208.3(x) Administrative Application for a Status Conference (2009-4813) Barbara Christensen v. Holy Spirit Hospital, Charles Austin, M.D., and Quantum Imaging & Therapeutic Associates, Inc. Dear Ms. Marzella, Please note that due to your failure to comply with Cumberland County Local Rule 208.3(a)(2) and/or Rule. 208.3(a)(9), your motion will be held in the Court Administrator's Office until an amendment containing the missing information is filed in the Prothonotary's Office. If after two notices no amendment has been filed, your motion will be sent back to the Prothonotary's office and placed in the file and no further action will be taken. Rule 208.3(a). Motions. (2) The motion shall state whether or not a Judge has ruled upon any other issue in the same or related matter, and, if so, shall specify the judge and the issue. (9) All motions and petitions shall contain a paragraph indicating that the concurrence of any opposing counsel of record was sought and the response of said counsel; provided, that this requirement shall not apply to preliminary objections, motions for judgment on the pleadings, motions for summary judgment, petitions to open or strike judgments, and motions for post-trial relief. Please note that you do not need to file an additional proposed order or provide additional envelopes for service. Your amendment will be attached to the original motion. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter. Sincerely, Trish Perkins Administrative Coordinator Lr¢>/i ??a,?rira /71 ?2s?0--6201 The information in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this message is neither the intended recipient, nor an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, then you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, unauthorized use, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting it from your computer. Thank you, 4/10/2012. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, jacqulyn R. Harris, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Amended Administrative Application for a Status Conference for was served upon counsel of record this 10`h day of April, 2012, by depositing said copy in the United States Mail at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, first class delivery, and addressed as follows: Thomas Chairs, Esq. Aaron Jayman, Esq. Dickie McCamey 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Suite 205 Cramp Hill, PA 17011-3700 Craig Stone, Esq. Michael C. Mongiello, Esq. Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 R. J. MARZELLA & ASSOCIATES, P.C. BY: .JAC ULYN H [S LAW CLERK i MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN « 4 r '«U E r"F Craig A. Stone, Esquire 13 Noy 2 1 I.D. No. 15907 SJ>� P Michael C. Mongiello, Esquire f 18 RL�tj3 C I.D. No. 87532 L V4. 100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 651-3500 Attorney for Defendants, Quantum Imaging & Therapeutic Associates, Inc. and Charles Austin, M.D. BARBARA CHRISTENSEN IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION—LAW V. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, CHARLES NO: 09-4813 CIVIL AUSTIN, M.D. and QUANTUM IMAGING: & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC. . JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PRAECIPE FOR CHANGE OF ADDRESS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please note the change of address of counsel for Defendants, Quantum Imaging & Therapeutic Associates, Inc. and Charles Austin, M.D. from 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B, Harrisburg, PA 17112 to: Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 MARSH #EHEY, WARNER COLEM BY: Date: November 19, 2013 Craig A. St ne Esquire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served upon the following known counsel and parties of record this 191h day of November, 2013, via United States First-Class Mail, postage prepaid: Robin J. Marzella, Esquire R.J. Marzella& Associates, P.C. 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 MARSHA , HEY, WARNER COLEMA IN BY: Crai A. tone 05/1134126.v 1 MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN Craig A. Stone, Esquire I.D. No. 15907 Michael C. Mongiello, Esquire I.D. No. 87532 100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 651-3500 Attorney for Defendants, Quantum Imaging & Therapeutic Associates, Inc. and Charles Austin, M.D. BARBARA CHRISTENSEN IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Plaintiff v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, CHARLES . AUSTIN, M.D. and QUANTUM IMAGING: & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC. . Defendants CIVIL ACTION — LAW NO: 09-4813 CIVIL JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE OF DEFENDANTS, CHARLES AUSTIN, M.D. AND QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC. AND NOW come Defendants, Charles Austin, M.D. ("Dr. Austin") and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, Inc. (collectively hereinafter referred to as "Moving Defendants"), by and through their counsel, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, and move this Honorable Court for a status conference as follows: 1. Plaintiff commenced this medical professional negligence action by filing a Praecipe for Writ of Summons almost five (5) years ago, on July 20, 2009. 2. In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Dr. Austin negligently failed to diagnose a disc fragment upon interpreting an MRI of her lumbar spine almost seven (7) years ago, on July 25, 2007, resulting in permanent disability. 3. Plaintiffs claims against co -Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, have been voluntarily dismissed by Stipulation of Counsel. 4. After moving forward through the discovery process at a reasonable pace, this matter has been languishing for approximately one and one-half (1 '/2) years, since late 2012. 5. In an effort to move this matter forward without involving this Honorable Court, the undersigned counsel for Moving Defendants corresponded with Plaintiffs counsel on April 22, 2014, therein proposing deadlines for the exchange of expert reports and the filing of dispositive motions, followed by a trial listing. A true and correct copy of said correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 6. Plaintiffs counsel, however, has not agreed to nor otherwise substantively responded to the proposed deadlines despite the passage of almost one (1) month, and multiple follow ups. 7. To avoid further delay of this already protracted litigation, Moving Defendants now move this Honorable Court for a status conference for the purpose of establishing reasonable deadlines as to remaining pre-trial procedures and hopefully an advance priority trial listing. 8. A status conference at this time will ensure that this matter proceeds to resolution in timely fashion. 9. Pursuant to Local Rule 208.2(d), concurrence in the instant Motion has been sought from Plaintiffs counsel, without response as of the time of filing. 10. Pursuant to Local Rule 208.3(a)(2), upon information and belief, no Judge has been previously assigned to this matter. WHEREFORE, Moving Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court enter the attached Order. MARSHALL, COLEMAN BY: �nG� Craig . ' t. Esquire PA I., I . $ 07 Michael r o giello, Esquire PA I.D. No. 8 532 100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 651-3704 Facsimile: (717) 651-3707 HEY, WARNER IN CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served upon the following known counsel and parties of record this 15th day of May, 2014, via United States First -Class Mail, postage prepaid: Robin J. Marzella, Esquire R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 MARSHA COLEMA BY: 05/1222258.vI Mi EY, WARNER ello, Esquire EXHIBIT "A" MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN ATTORNEYS -AT- LAW WWW.MARSHALLDENNEHEY.COM A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201 • Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 651-3500 • Fax (717) 651-3707 Direct Dial: 717-651-3502 Email: castone@mdwcg.com April 22, 2014 Robin J. Marzella, Esquire R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 RE: Barbara Christensen v. Charles Austin, M.D. And Quantum Imaging & Therapeutic Associates, Inc. Cumberland County CCP No: 09-4813 Our File No: 01012-00217 Dear Robin: PENNSYLVANIA Bethlehem Doylestown Erie Harrisburg King of Prussia Philadelphia Pittsburgh Scranton NEW JERSEY Cherry Hill Roseland DELAWARE Wilmington OHIO Cleveland FLORIDA' Ft. Lauderdale Jacksonville Orlando Tampa NEW YORK Long Island New York City As I am sure is the case with you, I am getting pressure from my client to move this matter forward. that it appears that we are headed for trial, I suggest the following case management schedule: In 1. Discovery — concluded; 2. Plaintiffs expert reports shall be due by July 1, 2014; 3. Defense experts reports shall be due by October 1, 2014; 4. All dispositive motions shall be filed by October 15, 2014; 5. All responses to dispositive motions shall be filed by October 30, 2014; and 6. This case is to be placed on the next available trial list after November 1, 2014. I have provided a second copy of this letter which I ask that you sign and return confirming your consent to this procedure. Robin J. Marzella, Esquire April 22, 2014 Page 2 I look forward to hearing from you. CAS/cwb 05/1211288.v 1 Date: Very truly ours © if Craig A. Stone Robin J. Marzella, Esquire BARBARA CHRISTENSEN IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION — LAW v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, CHARLES NO: 09-4813 CIVIL AUSTIN, M.D. and QUANTUM IMAGING: & THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC. : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants AND NOW, this %9 day of ORDER 2014, upon consideration of the Motion for Status Conference of Defendants, Charles Austin, M.D. and Quantum Imaging & Therapeutic Associates, Inc., it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said Motion is GRANTED. A status conference will be held in the Chambers of the undersigned Judge on ,2014, at //"CrO Ij ribution List: obin J. Marzella, Esquire R.J. Marzella & Associates, P.C. 3513 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 ichael C. Mongiello, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201 Camp Hill, PA 17011 05/1222277.v1 C.310, f')/Lw s//'se a.m. /. r. BARBARA CHRISTENSEN, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION—LAW NO. 09-4813 CIVIL `- HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, c? CHARLES AUSTIN, M.D., and QUANTUM IMAGING & _. THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, INC., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED r > m Defendants �y{ IN RE: STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER AND NOW, this Z- day of June, 2014, following status conference held in Chambers, by agreement, it is ordered and directed that: 1. discovery in this case shall be completed by August 31, 2014; 2. the plaintiff expert reports shall be forthcoming on or before October 31, 2014; 3. defense expert reports shall be due on or before January 31, 2015; 4. any and all dispositive motions in this case must be filed on or before February 28, 2015, with responses thereto being due on or before March 15, 2015; and 5. thereafter,either counsel may list the case for trial during the June term of 2015. BY THE COURT, Kevi . Hess, P. J. / Kari Mellinger, Esquire For the Plaintiff /Craig A. Stone, Esquire For Defendants Austin and Quantum Imaging cc �Ii'4/ Y