Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-6542ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Joseph M. Melillo Attorney ID# : 26211 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: jmelillo@angino-rovner.com WILLIAM F. MCALLISTER, Jr. and MARGARET L. MCALLISTER, his wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. Oq -(v54a Civi a -Fem V. CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL ANTHONY GUARRACINO, D.O., R. LIABILITY ACTION SCOTT RANKIN, M.D. and CARLISLE HMA, LLC, t/d/b/a CARLISLE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant NOTICE TO DEFEND You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA Telephone number- 717- 249-3166 AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se persentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar acci6n dentro de los pr6ximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificaci6n de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Sete advierte de que si usted falla de tomar acci6n como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamaci6n o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Used puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para used. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA Telephone number- 717- 249-3166 ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Joseph M. Melillo Attorney ID# : 26211 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: jmelillo@angino-rovner.com WILLIAM F. MCALLISTER, Jr. and MARGARET L. MCALLISTER, his wife, Plaintiffs V. ANTHONY GUARRACINO, D.O., R. SCOTT RANKIN, M.D. and CARLISLE HMA, LLC, t/d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT 1. The Plaintiffs, William F. McAllister, Jr. and Margaret L. McAllister are husband and wife and adult residents of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Carlisle HMA, LLC. t/d/b/a Carlisle Regional Medical Center is a corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which delivers health care services in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. A professional liability action is asserted against this Defendant and a Certificate of Merit is filed herewith. 3. The Defendant, Anthony Guarracino, D.O. is a physician licensed to practice medicine under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, who at all relevant times acted as the employee, agent, or apparent agent for Defendant Carlisle HMA, LLC, t/d/b/a Carlisle Regional Medical Center (hereinafter "Carlisle Regional Medical Center"). A professional liability action is asserted against this Defendant and a Certificate of Merit is filed herewith. 4. The Defendant, R. Scott Rankin, M.D. is a physician licensed to practice medicine under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, who at all relevant times acted as the employee, agent, or apparent agent for Defendant Carlisle Regional Medical Center. A professional liability action is asserted against this Defendant and a Certificate of Merit is filed herewith. 5. On or about October 16, 2008 at approximately 11:15 a.m., William McAllister developed the sudden onset of right-sided weakness, right-sided facial droop, and difficulty speaking while at home. 6. Mrs. McAllister called 911 and the Cumberland Good Will Fire Rescue EMS unit responded and evaluated Mr. McAllister at 11:47 a.m. 7. The paramedic noted that Mr. McAllister had the aforementioned symptoms when evaluating him. 8. The right-sided facial droop, speech problems, and right-sided weakness subsided by the time the ambulance arrived at the hospital. 9. Mr. McAllister was transported to the Carlisle Regional Medical Center Emergency Department and evaluated by the triage nurse at approximately 12:21 p.m. 10. The Defendant, Dr. Guarracino, evaluated Mr. McAllister at 12:35 p.m., noting the complaints of moderate right upper extremity weakness, right facial droop, and change of speech about one hour prior to arrival, with the symptoms lasting about thirty minutes. 11. Dr. Guarracino also noted Mr. McAllister's past medical history of six vessel bypass surgery, three coronary stents, heart attack, and placement of pacemaker with defibrillator. 12. Dr. Guarracino also noted a family history of stroke. 13. A CT scan was ordered by Dr. Guarracino, which he noted was negative. The reviewing radiologist noted no acute findings, but did identify abnormal findings that represented old or chronic problems. 14. Dr. Guarracino diagnosed Mr. McAllister as suffering from a transient ischemic attack and discharged him with instructions to follow up with Dr. Chad Jumper, continue taking aspirin, have an ultra sound the following day, and return if symptoms recurred. 15. Mr. McAllister's symptoms recurred at about 1700, two hours after he was discharged. 16. When Mr. McAllister's symptoms recurred, Mrs. McAllister called the hospital and was told by staff that he should return to the Emergency Room. 17. Mrs. McAllister drove him back to the Carlisle Regional Medical Center Emergency Department and they arrived between 1730 and 1800 hours on October 16. 18. When they arrived at the Emergency Department, Mrs. McAllister assisted her husband into the Emergency Department waiting area, requesting a wheelchair for him. 19. Mrs. McAllister placed him in the wheelchair and the McAllisters were told to stay in the waiting area until the triage nurse was available to see Mr. McAllister. 20. Mrs. McAllister reminded the receptionist that Mr. McAllister had been there earlier with an apparent stroke, and the receptionist responded that Mr. McAllister had to wait until the triage nurse was available. 21. After about fifteen to twenty minutes, Mr. McAllister was taken to the triage area, briefly assessed, and placed in a bed in the ER area. 22. Mr. McAllister's vital signs were first recorded at 1800 hours, but there was no documentation that Mr. McAllister received any medical care or attention until approximately 1928 hours. 23. Mr. McAllister was next evaluated by a nurse at approximately 1928 hours and the nurse noted in the initial assessment that the chief complaint was a suspected CVA or TIA. 24. Mr. McAllister's condition was assigned a priority 2 severity level. 25. A nurse wrote in the progress notes that Mr. McAllister was evaluated by the emergency physician, Defendant R. Scott Rankin, at 2010 hours. 26. Dr. Rankin noted that Mr. McAllister had recurrence of symptoms at 1700 hours. 27. Dr. Rankin discussed the timing of symptom recurrence and return to the hospital with Mr. and Mrs. McAllister. 28. Dr. Rankin noted that Mr. McAllister was experiencing weakness in the right arm, in the leg, and face, and also had difficulty with speech. 29. Dr. Rankin noted Mr. McAllister's past cardiovascular medical history. 30. Because of Mr. McAllister's pronounced neurological weakness, Dr. Rankin consulted Dr. David Gill, the on-call neurologist at Hershey Medical Center, then ordered a CT scan of the head with intravenous contrast, and a CT angiogram of the neck with intravenous contract. 31. The CT scan of the head was interpreted by the radiologist as showing no acute intracranial abnormality. 32. The CT angiogram of the neck was interpreted by the radiologist as showing high grade stenosis of the left internal carotid artery, prominent stenosis of the right internal carotid artery, and occluded right vertebral artery with reconstitution from collateral flow. 33. According to the records, Dr. Gill recommend medical management of the stroke. Emergent vascular surgical or endovascular interventions were not recommended by that time. 34. Dr. Rankin's assessment was that Mr. McAllister had critical stenosis of the left internal carotid artery, left hemispheric cerebral vascular accident, and ischemic stroke. 35. Dr. Rankin contacted Dr. Chintu Charma, the on-call hospitalist. 36. Dr. Charma evaluated Mr. McAllister in the emergency department at approximately 0015 hours on October 17, 2008, and indicated in his admission note that there were no criteria for thrombolysis with tissue plasminogen activator due to the time that had elapsed since the onset of the stroke symptoms. 37. Dr. Charma admitted Mr. McAllister to the critical care unit and anti-platelet therapy with Aggrenox was initiated.. 38. Mr. McAllister was also seen in consultation by Dr. Mohammed Ismail, a neurologist and Dr. Joseph Campbell, a vascular surgeon. 39. Medical management was continued and emergent vascular surgical or endovascular interventions were not recommended at that time. 40. A CT scan of the head without intravenous contrast was performed on October 18, 2008 and interpreted by the radiologist as showing internal development of sub acute left frontoparietal infarction since the 10/16/08 examinations. 41. With medical management, Mr. McAllister's condition stabilized, although he continued to experience weakness of the right arm, leg, and face, as well as speech difficulty. 42. Mr. McAllister was transferred to an acute rehabilitation unit for continuing care on October 22, 2008. 43. Mr. McAllister continues to suffer from the consequences of his stroke to this day, and it is believed and thereafter averred that as a result of the stroke, he has suffered permanent neurological injury. 44. As a result of the negligence of Defendants, as described below, Plaintiff, William McAllister, has been forced to incur liability for medical treatment, medications, hospitalizations, and similar miscellaneous expenses in an effort to return himself to health, and claim is made therefor to the extent allowed by law. 45. Because of the negligence of Defendants, Plaintiff, William McAllister, may be forced to incur similar expenses in the future, and claim is made therefor to the extent allowed by law. 46. As a result of the negligence of Defendants, William McAllister may in the future suffer a loss of earnings and earning capacity, and claim is made therefor. 47. As a result of the negligence of Defendants, William McAllister has undergone and may in the future undergo great physical and mental suffering, great inconvenience in carrying out his daily activities, loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, and claim is made therefor. 48. As a result of the negligence of Defendants, William McAllister has been and in the future may be subject to great humiliation and embarrassment, and claim is made therefor. 49. As a direct result of the negligence of the Defendants, William McAllister has suffered compensable loss, and claim is made therefor. COUNTI William F. McAllister v. Anthony Guarracino, D.O. and Carlisle Regional Medical Center 50. Paragraphs 1 through 49 above are incorporated herein by reference. 51. All of Plaintiffs' damages are the direct and proximate result of the negligence of Dr. Guarracino, acting within the course and scope of his employment, agency, or apparent agency for Defendant, Carlisle Regional Medical Center, in that he: a. failed to rapidly evaluate and identify potentially treatable causes of Mr. McAllister's neurological symptoms, stratify his stroke risk, and initiate appropriate stroke prevention therapy; b. failed to properly assess Mr. McAllister's risk for recurrence of his transient ischemic attack symptoms in the hours following his initial evaluation; C. discharged rather than admitted Mr. McAllister to the hospital. Treatment within the hospital would have permitted continuing observation and rapid treatment of medical symptoms and conditions as they presented; d. failed to insure that vascular imaging studies of the carotid arteries were promptly performed; e. failed to admit Mr. McAllister to the hospital to facilitate early deployment of thrombolytic therapy and/or other medical management if neurological symptoms recurred; f. failed to obtain neurological and surgical consultation for Mr. McAllister prior to his discharge from the Emergency Room; g. failed to admit Mr. McAllister to the hospital to properly obtain neurological and vascular surgical consultation. 52. Had Dr. Guarracino acted within the standard of care, Mr. McAllister could have been afforded prompt medical, surgical or endovascular intervention, including revascularization of the diseased stenotic artery, before a catastrophic stroke occurred. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdiction amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT II William F. McAllister v. R. Scott Rankin, M.D. and Carlisle Regional Medical Center 53. Paragraphs 1 through 52 above are incorporated herein by reference. 54. All of Plaintiffs' damages, are also the direct and proximate result of the negligence of Dr. Rankin, acting within the course and scope of his employment, agency, or apparent agency for Defendant, Carlisle Regional Medical Center in that he: a. failed to promptly evaluate William McAllister after his presentation to the emergency room for the second time on October 16, 2008; b. failed to timely apprise himself, after Mr. McAllister presented to the emergency room at about 17:30, of Mr. McAllister's history and presenting symptomatology, and thereby learn prior to 2010 hours that Mr. McAllister had suffered recurrence of the neurological symptoms he experience earlier that day, and required emergency care. C. failed to obtain prompt surgical and neurological consultation for Mr. McAllister after he returned to the emergency department; d. failed to order a STAT CT scan of the head to rule out hemorrhage after Mr. McAllister appeared at the emergency room; and e. failed to treat Mr. McAllister with intravenous thrombolytic therapy with tissue plasminogen activator despite the fact that Mr. McAllister had presented to the emergency room within the time frame during which thrombolytic therapy is considered indicated and beneficial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdiction amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT III William F. McAllister v. Carlisle Regional Medical Center 55. Paragraphs 1 through 54 above are incorporated herein by reference. 56. All of Plaintiffs' damages as herein before related are also the direct and proximate result of the negligence of the employees, agents, and apparent agents of Defendant Carlisle Regional Medical Center, including the triage nurse, charge nurse, other nursing staff and emergency room physicians responsible for Mr. McAllister's case on October 16, 2008, all acting within the scope of employment, agency, or apparent agency for Defendant Carlisle Regional Medical Center, after he returned to the Medical Center at approximately 1730 hours, in that these agents and employees: a. failed to triage Mr. McAllister in a timely fashion; b. failed to assign him to an emergency class of patients requiring immediate treatment; C. failed to adequately communicate to emergency room physicians at the earliest opportunity that Mr. McAllister had returned with symptoms of a stroke; d. failing to adequately disseminate information to all relevant providers so that a physician ultimately in charge of Mr. McAllister's care had timely notice that Mr. McAllister was experiencing a medical emergency demanding immediate attention; e. failure to provide treatment as itemized in paragraph 54 above. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdiction amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT IV Margaret L. McAllister v. Anthony Guarracino, D.O., R. Scott Rankin, M.D. and Carlisle Regional Medical Center 57. Paragraphs 1 through 56 above are incorporated herein by reference. 58. Defendants owed a duty of care to William McAllister. 59. As a result of Defendants' negligence, Mr. McAllister suffered severe and permanent injuries. 60. As a result of her husband's injuries, Mrs. McAllister has suffered and may in the future suffer a loss of the care, custody, companionship, consortium, society, and company of her husband, and a claim is made therefor. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants in an amount in excess of $50,000 (Fifty Thousand) Dollars exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. Respectfully submitted, ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. 0-.,-.,( q17 91?/" Yo . Melillo, Esquire rney I.D. No. 26211 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 Attorney for Plaintiff Date: er,?,?,?? 1? n10 0 ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Joseph M. Melillo Attorney ID# : 26211 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: jmelillo@angino-rovner.com WILLIAM F. MCALLISTER, Jr. and MARGARET L. MCALLISTER, his wife, Plaintiffs v. ANTHONY GUARRACINO, D.O., R. SCOTT RANKIN, M.D. and CARLISLE HMA, LLC, t/d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Certificate of Merit as to Anthony Guarracino, D.O. I, Joseph M. Mellillo, certify that: ( X ) an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; AND/OR ( ) the claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; OR ( ) expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. Date: -02 ?l ,0 0"""4 IZZW Q_)Z? oseph M. Melillo ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Joseph M. Melillo Attorney ID# : 26211 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: jmelillo@angino-rovner.com WILLIAM F. MCALLISTER, Jr. and MARGARET L. MCALLISTER, his wife, Plaintiffs V. ANTHONY GUARRACINO, D.O., R. SCOTT RANKIN, M.D. and CARLISLE HMA, LLC, t/d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Certificate of Merit as to R. Scott Rankin, M.D. I, Joseph M. Mellillo, certify that: ( X ) an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; AND/OR ( ) the claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; OR ( ) expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. Date: L_e h M. Melillo ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Joseph M. Melillo Attorney ID# : 26211 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: jmelillo@angino-rovner.com WILLIAM F. MCALLISTER, Jr. and MARGARET L. MCALLISTER, his wife, Plaintiffs V. ANTHONY GUARR.ACINO, D.O., R. SCOTT RANKIN, M.D. and CARLISLE HMA, LLC, t/d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Certificate of Merit as to Carlisle HMA, LLC, t/d/b/a Carlisle Regional Medical Center I, Joseph M. Mellillo, certify that: (-t) an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; AND/OR ( X ) the claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; OR ( ) expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. Date: d v C S ?' r Aseph M. Melillo T ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Joseph M. Melillo Attorney ID# : 26211 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: jmelillo@angino-rovner.com WILLIAM F. MCALLISTER, Jr. and MARGARET L. MCALLISTER, his wife, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. V. ANTHONY GUARRACINO, D.O., R. SCOTT RANKIN, M.D. and CARLISLE HMA, LLC, t/d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S INITIAL INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO DEFENDANT TO: Anthony Guarracino, D.O., R. Scott Rankin, M.D. Carlisle Regional Medical Center Plaintiffs, through their attorney, hereby propounds the following Interrogatories to Defendant, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4006 to be answered within thirty (30) days from service thereof. These Interrogatories shall be deemed to be continuing Interrogatories. If between the time of your answers to said Interrogatories and the time of the trial for this case you or anyone acting on your behalf learns the identity and whereabouts of any other witnesses not identified in your said answers, or if you obtain or become aware of additional requested information not supplied in your answers, you shall promptly furnish the same to plaintiffs' attorney by supplemental answers. ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Date: ,5" ,ej ,?6e S L w? 9-1," J p . Melillo Attorney I.D. No. 26211 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 Attorney for Plaintiffs 411210 INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS These Interrogatories shall be deemed to be continuing Interrogatories. If, between the time of your answer to said Interrogatories and the time of the trial of this case, you or anyone acting on your behalf, learn of any further information not contained in your answers, you shall promptly furnish the additional information to Plaintiffs' attorney by supplemental answer. The following instructions and definitions form an integral part of these Interrogatories and the Interrogatories are to be read in accordance with these instructions and definitions. For the purpose of these Interrogatories, "you" or "your" refers to the Defendants and their files and all other persons, agents or representatives of the Defendant and their files. "You" shall further include all persons on whose behalf defendants prosecuted this action and all persons who will benefit or be legally bound by the results of this action. Your answer to the Interrogatories shall reflect and contain the knowledge of all of the above persons. Reference to Plaintiff and/or Defendant shall be interpreted as singular or plural, depending on the particular circumstances of each case. The term "description" or "describe" as used herein shall mean that the defendants shall set forth the name and address of the author or originator, dates, title or subject matter, the present. custodians of the original and of any copies and the last known address of each custodian. "Document" shall mean any written, printed, typed or other graphic matter of any kind, whether handwritten, typed or printed, whether distributed or undistributed. It shall include without limitation letters, memoranda, articles, studies, notebooks, diaries and notes, as well as all mechanical and electronic sound recordings or transcripts thereof in the possession or control of the defendants or known by them to exist. It shall also mean all copies of documents by whatever means made. Answer each Interrogatory in the space following the Interrogatory. Supplemental sheets may be attached for answers which require additional space. 411210 2 INTERROGATORIES For each individual Defendant physician, state by whom you were employed while working at the Carlisle Regional Medical Center on October 16, 2008. ANSWER: 2. Provide the name of each and every physician responsible for Mr. McAllister's care from the time he returned to the Carlisle Regional Medical Center's Emergency Room at approximately 5:30 p.m. on October 16, 2008, until he was admitted to the hospital. ANSWER: 411210 VERIFICATION I, WILLIAM F. MCALLISTER, JR. Plaintiff, have read the foregoing Complaint and do hereby swear or affirm that the facts set forth in the foregoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that this Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. W' n s William F. McAllister, Jr. Date: -') 3 6 7 Date: ? -'? 3 - O 9 VERIFICATION I, MARGARET L. MCALLISTER, Plaintiff, have read the foregoing Complaint and do hereby swear or affirm that the facts set forth in the foregoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information arid-belief. I understand that this Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. t;?.2Z (r>7 gKid, Date: 7 -') 3 _U et L. McAllister Date: -.'? 3 0 7 0 ir 40M? 199 SEP 30 PM It 13 . so Pp ATM er. Boa toa R'? 0231 ay to Sheriffs Office of Cumberland County R Thomas Kline Sheriff Ronny R Anderson Chief Deputy Jody S Smith Civil Process Sergeant Edward L Schorpp Solicitor William F. McAllister, Jr. vs. R. Scott Rankin, MD RLED-0,,TICE -AC Tvj: 2 ?! Case Number 2009-6542 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 10/05/2009 02:00 PM - Robert Bitner, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on October 5 2009 at 1400 hours, he served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: R. Scott Rankin, MD, by making known unto Linda Banks, Rise Management Director of Performance at 361 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. 10/05/2009 02:00 PM - Robert Bitner, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on October 5 2009 at 1400 hours, he served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Carlisle Regional Mecial Center, by making known unto Linda Banks, Rise Management Director of Performance at 361 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. 10/05/2009 02:00 PM - Robert Bitner, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on October 5 2009 at 1400 hours, he served a true copy of the within Complaint and Notice, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Anthony Guarracino, DO, by making known unto Linda Banks, Rise Management Director of Performance at 361 Alexander Spring Road Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. SHERIFF COST: $64.94 SO ANSWE S, W lot October 06, 2009 R THOMAS KLINE, SHERIFF Deput Sheriff BY: ANDREW H. BRIGGS E-MAIL: abriggs@postschell.com I.D. # 53072 BY: BRADLEY N. SPROUT E-MAIL: bsprout@postschell.com I.D. # POST & SCHELL, P.C. 1857 WILLIAM PENN WAY P.O. BOX 10248 LANCASTER, PA 17605-0248 PHONE: 717-391-4454 WILLIAM F. MCALLISTER, JR and MARGARET L. MCALLISTER, his wife Plaintiffs vs. ANTHONY GUARRACINO, D.O., R. SCOTT RANKIN, M.D. and CARLISLE HMA, LLC, t/d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER Defendants ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CARLISLE HMA, LLC T/D/B/A CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-6542 CIVIL ACTION -- MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE/JURY TRIAL DEMAND TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant, Carlisle HMA, LLC t/d/b/a Carlisle Regional Medical Center in the above-captioned matter. Also, please enter at this time my demand for a trial by twelve jurors. Dated: October 14, 2009 POST & SCHELL, P.C. By: Andrew H. Briggs, Esquire Bradley N. Sprout, Esquire Attorneys for Defendant Carlisle HMA, LLC t/d/b/a Carlisle Regional Medical Center CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, ANDREW H. BRIGGS, ESQUIRE, attorney for Defendant, CARLISLE HMA, LLC T/DB/A CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER hereby state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document(s), sent by first-class mail, postage prepaid on the date set forth below, was served upon the following individual(s): Joseph M. Melillo, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Dated: POST & SCHELL, P.C. By: A- q 6(<z ?4 '-) Andrew H. Briggs, Esqu re Attorney for Defendant Carlisle HMA, LLC t/d/b/a Carlisle Regional Medical Center -2- RED- OF THE F67, r11?? 2009 OCT 16 AfN 8: 29 4 f MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN By: Frederic Roller Identification No. 65513 1845 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 575-2770 Attorney for: Defendants, Anthony Guarrancino, D.O. and R. Scott Rankin, D.O. WILLIAM F. MCALLISTER, JR. and COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MARGARET L. MCALLISTER, his wife CUMBERLAND COUNTY v. : CIVIL ACTION -MEDICAL ANTHONY GUARRANCINO, D.O. and PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION R. SCOTT RANKIN, D.O. and CARLISLE HMA, LLC t/d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER NO. 09-6542 - CNIL TERM ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of defendants, Anthony Guarrancino, D.O. and R. Scott Rankin, D.O., with regard to the above-captioned matter. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN sy FREDERIC ROLLER Attorney for Defendants, Anthony Guarrancino, D.O. and R. Scott Rankin, D.O. DATE: November 9. 2009 ~'v tS! lY~i 1 Yi~l i'.v' ~;~;'',;~; _ ~ ~ . ~~S;ti. ., ~-~.;, ~~-~IGE OF TNT ; ~f ~„~~ ~,,,,r .; ~ ;... BY: ANDREW H. BRIGGS E-MAIL: abriggs@postschell.com LD. # 53072 BY: BRADLEY N. SPROUT E-MAIL: bsprout@postschell.com I.D. # 203182 POST &SCHELL, P.C. 1857 WILLIAM PENN WAY P.O. BOX 10248 LANCASTER, PA 17605-0248 PHONE: 717-291-4532 WILLIAM F. MCALLISTER, JR. and MARGARET L. MCALLISTER, his wife Plaintiffs vs. ANTHONY GUARRACINO, D.O., R. SCOTT RANKIN, M.D. and CARLISLE HMA, LLC, t/d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER Defendants 2 010 J~~~~ 13 1';'~1 1 25 ' Vl.~v ~ ~ IJi' d~~ ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CARLISLE HMA, LLC, T/D/B/A CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA N0.09-6542 CIVIL ACTION -- MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: .William and Margaret McAllister c/o Joseph M. Melillo, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1799 You are hereby notified to plead to the within New Matter within twenty (20) days of service thereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. POST &SCHELL, P.C. Dated: l ~ l a f l0 By: Andrew H. Briggs Bradley N. Sp , Attorneys Fo efer Carlisle HMA, LLC t TO THE PLAINTIFFS YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO PLEAD TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF SERVICE THEREOF OR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU ANDREW H. BRIGGS ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT BY: ANDREW H. BRIGGS E-MAIL: abriggs@postschell.com I.D. # 53072 BY: BRADLEY N. SPROUT E-MAIL: bsprout@postschell.com I.D. # 203182 POST & SCHELL, P.C. 1857 WILLIAM PENN WAY P.O. BOX 10248 LANCASTER, PA 17605-0248 PHONE: 717-391-4454 WILLIAM F. MCALLISTER, JR. and MARGARET L. MCALLISTER, his wife ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CARLISLE HMA, LLC, T/DB/A CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs vs. ANTHONY GUARRACINO, D.O., R. SCOTT RANKIN, M.D. and CARLISLE HMA, LLC, t/d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER N0.09-6542 CIVIL ACTION -- MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT CARLISLE HMA, LLC, T/DB/A CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT Defendant Carlisle HMA, LLC, t/d/b/a Carlisle Regional Medical Center (hereinafter "Answering Defendant"), by and through its counsel, Post & Schell, P.C., hereby answers Plaintiffs' Complaint in accordance with the numbered paragraphs thereof: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without the 'I knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in the corresponding paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint and, therefore, said allegations are denied and strict proof is demanded at trial, if relevant. 2. Admitted in part and denied in part. Answering Defendant admits that Carlisle HMA, Inc. is a limited liability company, organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which operates ahospital -located at 361 Alexander Springs Road, Carlisle, Pennsylvania -under the fictitious name Carlisle Regional Medical Center. Furthermore, Answering Defendant admits that Plaintiffs' Complaint states that Plaintiffs are asserting a professional liability action against Answering Defendant. However, Answering Defendant denies, as improper legal conclusions, all implications of breach of duty, causation, consequential injury, and/or entitlement to damages arising from this allegation and demands strict proof at trial, if relevant. 3. Admitted in part and denied in part. Answering Defendant admits, upon information and belief, that Dr. Anthony Guarracino is a physician licensed to practice medicine under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. However, Answering Defendant denies that Dr. Guarracino was an employee, agent, or apparent agent of Answering Defendant at any time relevant hereto; rather, Dr. Guarracino was a physician with staff privileges at Carlisle Regional Medical Center. Finally, Answering Defendant admits that Plaintiffs' Complaint states that Plaintiffs are asserting a professional liability action against Dr. Guarracino; however, Answering Defendant denies, as improper legal conclusions, all implications of breach of duty, causation, consequential injury, and/or entitlement to damages arising from this allegation and demands strict proof at trial, if relevant. 4. Admitted in part and denied in part. Answering Defendant admits, upon information and belief, that Dr. R. Scott Rankin is a physician licensed to practice medicine under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. However, Answering Defendant denies that Dr. Rankin was an employee, agent, or apparent agent of Answering Defendant at any time -2- relevant hereto; rather, Dr. Rankin was a physician with staff privileges at Carlisle Regional Medical Center. Finally, Answering Defendant admits that Plaintiffs' Complaint states that Plaintiffs are asserting a professional liability action against Dr. Rankin; however, Answering Defendant denies, as improper legal conclusions, all implications of breach of duty, causation, consequential injury, and/or entitlement to damages arising from this allegation and demands strict proof at trial, if relevant. 5. - 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs' Complaint and, therefore, said allegations are denied and strict proof is demanded at trial, if relevant. 9. Admitted in part and denied in part. Answering Defendant admits that Mr. McAllister presented to the Emergency Department of Carlisle Regional Medical Center for medical care and treatment on October 16, 2008. However, Answering Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 10. - 14. Denied. The allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in the corresponding paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint and, therefore, said allegations are denied and strict proof is demanded at trial, if relevant. 16. Denied. The allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). -3- 17. Admitted in part and denied in part. Answering Defendant admits that Mr. McAllister presented to the Emergency Department of Carlisle Regional Medical Center for medical care and treatment for a second time on October 16, 2008. However, Answering Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 18. - 35. Denied. The allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 36. - 37. Admitted in part and denied in part. Answering Defendant admits that Mr. McAllister was admitted to Carlisle Regional Medical Center. However, Answering Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 38. - 42. Denied. The allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 43. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without the knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in the corresponding paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint and, therefore, said allegations are denied and strict proof is demanded at trial, if relevant. 44. - 49. Denied. The factual allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Furthermore, these paragraphs contain conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading and, thus, said conclusions of law are denied and strict proof is demanded at trial, if relevant. Specifically, Answering Defendant denies all -4- allegations and implications of breach of duty, causation, consequential injury, and/or entitlement to damages. COUNTI William F. McAllister v. Anthony Guarracino. D.O. and Carlisle Regional Medical Center 50. The responses contained in paragraphs 1 through 49 of Answering Defendants Answer are incorporated herein by reference. 51(a) - (g). Denied. The factual allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Proceduef 1029(e). Furthermore, Answering Defendant denies that Dr. Guarracino was an employee agent, or apparent agent of Answering Defendant; rather, Dr. Guarracino was a physician witl staff privileges at Carlisle Regional Medical Center. Finally, these paragraphs contain conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsivf pleading and, thus, said conclusions of law are denied and strict proof is demanded at trial, is relevant. Specifically, Answering Defendant denies all allegations and implications of breach o: duty, causation, consequential injury, and/or entitlement to damages. 52. Denied. The factual allegations contained in the corresponding paragraph o~ Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e) Furthermore, this paragraph contains conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules o1 Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading and, thus, said conclusions of law are denied anc strict proof is demanded at trial, if relevant. Specifically, Answering Defendant denies al allegations and implications of breach of duty, causation, consequential injury, and/o~ entitlement to damages. -5- WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and that Answering Defendant be reimbursed for all costs and expenses incurred in defending this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees. COUNT II William F. McAllister v. R. Scott Rankin. M.D. and Carlisle Regional Medical Center 53. The responses contained in paragraphs 1 through 52 of Answering Defendant's Answer are incorporated herein by reference. 54(a) - (e). Denied. The factual allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Furthermore, Answering Defendant denies that Dr. Rankin was an employee, agent, or apparent agent of Answering Defendant; rather, Dr. Rankin was a physician with staff privileges at Carlisle Regional Medical Center. Finally, these paragraphs contain conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading and, thus, said conclusions of law are denied and strict proof is demanded at trial, if relevant. Specifically, Answering Defendant denies all allegations and implications of breach of duty, causation, consequential injury, and/or entitlement to damages. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and that Answering Defendant be reimbursed for all costs and expenses incurred in defending this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees. COUNT III William F. McAllister v. Carlisle Regional Medical Center 55. The responses contained in paragraphs 1 through 54 of Answering Defendant's Answer are incorporated herein by reference. -6- 56(a) - (e). Denied. The factual allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Furthermore, as Plaintiffs have failed to identify the specific nursing staff and emergency room physicians, or their actions, with sufficient specificity, Answering Defendant is unable to admit Plaintiffs' allegations regarding the employment or agency of these individuals and, therefore, said allegations are denied. Finally, these paragraphs contain conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading and, thus, said conclusions of law are denied and strict proof is demanded at trial, if relevant. Specifically, Answering Defendant denies all allegations and implications of breach of duty, causation, consequential injury, and/or entitlement to damages. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and that Answering Defendant be reimbursed for all costs and expenses incurred in defending this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees. COUNT IV Margaret L. McAllister v. Anthony Guarracino, D.O., R. Scott Rankin, M.D and Carlisle Regional Medical Center 57. The responses contained in paragraphs 1 through 56 of Answering Defendant's Answer are incorporated herein by reference. 58. Denied. This paragraph contains conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading and, thus, said conclusions of law are denied and strict proof is demanded at trial, if relevant. Specifically, Answering Defendant denies all allegations and implications of breach of duty, causation, consequential injury, and/or entitlement to damages. 59. - 60. Denied. The factual allegations contained in the corresponding paragraphs; of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). -7- Furthermore, these paragraphs contain conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading and, thus, said conclusions of law are denied and strict proof is demanded at trial, if relevant. Specifically, Answering Defendant denies all allegations and implications of breach of duty, causation, consequential injury, and/or entitlement to damages. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and that Answering Defendant be reimbursed for all costs and expenses incurred in defending this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees. NEW MATTER 61. The responses contained in paragraphs 1 through 60 of Answering Defendant's Answer are incorporated herein by reference. 62. The Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause upon which relief may be granted. 63. Answering Defendant was not negligent. 64. Any acts or omissions of Answering Defendant alleged to constitute negligence were not substantial causes or factors of the subject incident and/or did not result in the injuries and/or losses alleged by the Plaintiffs. 65. The incidents and/or damages described in Plaintiffs' Complaint may have been caused or contributed to by the Plaintiffs. 66. If Plaintiffs sustained the injuries alleged, proof of which is specifically demanded, said injuries may have been the result of the negligent or careless acts and/or omissions of Plaintiffs and/or other persons and/or entities over whom Answering Defendant exercised no control. 67. The negligent acts or omissions of other individuals and/or entities may have constituted intervening or superseding causes of the damages and/or injuries alleged to have been -8- sustained by Plaintiffs. Furthermore, Answering Defendant had no control over such acts or omissions, and such acts or omissions were not due to or caused by default, lack of care, negligence or breach of any duty of Answering Defendant. 68. The incident, injuries and/or damages sustained by the Plaintiffs were not proximately caused by Answering Defendant. 69. The Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the Doctrine of the Assumption of Risk. 70. The Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the Doctrine of Contributory Negligence. 71. The Plaintiffs' claims may be barred or reduced by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 7102 et. seq., the relevant portions of which are incorporated herein by reference as though same were more fully set forth at length herein. 72. At all times material hereto, Answering Defendant provided treatment in accordance with the applicable standards of medical care at the time and place of treatment. 73. The Plaintiffs failed to mitigate any damages allegedly sustained. 74. The Plaintiffs' claims and/or requests for damages are barred, limited and/or precluded by the Doctrines of Res Judicata and/or Collateral Estoppel. 75. The Plaintiffs' claims and/or requests for damages are barred or limited by the provisions of the Health Care Service Malpractice Act of 1975, 40 P.S. § 1301 et. seq., as amended. 76. Pa. R.C.P. 238 should be deemed unconstitutional as a violation of the Due ~ Process and the Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as Article I, Sections 1 and 11 and Article 5, Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. In accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 238, Answering Defendant is not -9- required to pay delay damages during those time periods in which Plaintiffs' conduct delayed the trial. Moreover, delay damages may be further reduced in accordance with Pennsylvania law. 77. The Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the Doctrine of Release. 78. The Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. 79. The Plaintiffs' claims may be barred in whole or in part by the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act and/or the Health Care Services Malpractice Act. 80. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to set forth sufficient facts to support a claim of recklessness with regard to Answering Defendant. 81. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to set forth sufficient facts to warrant the imposition of !, punitive and/or exemplary damages. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant respectfully requests that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and that Answering Defendant be reimbursed for all costs and expenses incurred in defending this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees. Dated: ~ j i a/ ~ o Respectfully submitted, POST & SCHELL, P.C. By: Andrew H. B ' s, Esquire Bradley N. out, Esquire Attorneys or Defendant Carlisle HMA, LLC, t/d/b/a Carlisle Regional Medical Center -10- McAllister v. Guarracino, et al. No. 49-6542 Civil VERIFICATION I HEREBY VERIFY that the statements made by the Defendant, CARLISLE HMA,, LLC, t/d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, which are contained in the within document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements contained herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. I certify that I am a duly authorized representative of Carlisle HMA, LLC, t/d/b/a Carlisle Regional Medical Center, and, as such, am authorized to make this Verification on its behalf. CARLISLE HMA, LLC, T/DB/A CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER Dated: George Laughman Title: Director of Risk Management CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, BRADLEY N. SPROUT, ESQUIRE, attorney for Defendant, CARLISLE HMA, LLC, 'I t/dlb/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, hereby state that a true and correct copy I~ of the foregoing document(s), sent by first-class mail, postage prepaid on the date set forth below, was served upon the following individual(s): Joseph M. Melillo, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Frederic Roller, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 1845 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 POST & SCHELL, P.C. By: Dated: ~ f 121 / I Q Bradley N. S t, Esqu' Attorney f efendant Carlisle HMA, LLC t/d/b/a Carlisle Regional Medical Center 7 tl '~, fi !! . ~',! ~ ~ CI~iY . `fli - F~f: i ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Richard A.Sadlock Attorney ID# : 47281 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (7]7)238-6791 FAX (7l7) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: rsadlock@angino-rovner.com WILLIAM F. MCALLISTER, Jr. and IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MARGARET L. MCALLISTER, his wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA Plaintiffs NO. 09-6542 v. ANTHONY GUARRACINO, D.O., R. SCOTT RANKIN, M.D. and CARLISLE HMA, LLC, t/d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant CIVIL ACTION -MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS ANTHONY GUARRACINO, D.O., AND R. SCOTT RANKIN, M.D. AND NOW come William F. McAllister, Jr., and Margaret L. McAllister, his wife, Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, Angino & Rovner, P.C., by Richard A. Sadlock, Esquire, and reply to the New Matter of Defendants Guarracino and Rankin as follows: 61. Defendants' averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. Plaintiffs incorporate their Complaint herein by reference. 430370 62. Defendants' averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiffs are the result of the negligent conduct of Defendants Anthony Guarracino, D.O., and R. Scott Rankin, M.D. 63. Defendants' averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, Plaintiffs' Complaint was filed well within the applicable statute of limitations. 64. Defendants' averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, Defendants' averment lacks the specificity required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, all of Plaintiffs' injuries and damages were caused solely and directly as a result of the negligence, carelessness, wantonness and recklessness of the instant Defendants. 65. Defendants' averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, Plaintiffs' Complaint does state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. 66. Defendants' averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, Plaintiff was not negligent in any way. Therefore, the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act does not apply to the instant action. Further, all of Plaintiffs' injuries and damages are recoverable in the instant action and are in no way reduced. 430370 2 67. Defendants' averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, Plaintiff did not assume the risk of his injuries. Further, as previously stated herein, Plaintiff was not negligent or careless. All of Plaintiffs' injuries and damages are recoverable in the instant action. 68. Defendants' averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, at all times applicable hereto, all treatment and care provided by the instant Defendants failed to meet the standard of care set forth in the medical community. 69. Defendants' averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, there is no release applicable to the instant action. 70. Defendants' averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, at all times applicable hereto, the instant Defendants failed to provide proper and appropriate care and treatment to Plaintiff. 71. Defendants' averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, Defendants' averment lacks the specificity required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Further, all of Plaintiffs' injuries and damages were caused solely and directly as a result of the negligence, carelessness, wantonness and recklessness of the instant Defendants. 430370 3 72. Defendants' averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, there were no intervening or superseding causes. All of Plaintiffs' injuries and damages are recoverable in the instant action and were caused solely and directly as a result of the negligence, carelessness, wantonness, and recklessness of the instant Defendants. 73. Defendants' averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, the Healthcare Services Malpractice Act in no way offsets or reduces the compensation to which Plaintiffs are entitled in the instant action. 74. Defendants' averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent the averment may be deemed factual, it is hereby specifically denied. By way of amplification, Defendants' negligence was in fact the proximate cause of the damages sustained by Plaintiffs. Further, all of Plaintiffs' injuries and damages were caused as a result of the negligence, carelessness, wantonness and recklessness of the instant Defendants. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Defendants' Answer and New Matter and enter judgment in their favor against the Defendants. Respectfully submitted, ANGINO & ROVNER. P.C. A. SadlocJs~squire Date: January , 2010 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 Counsel for Plaintiffs 430370 4 VERIFICATION I, Richard A. Sadlock, Esquire, counsel for the Plaintiffs, am authorized to make this verification on behalf of said Plaintiffs, and the facts set forth in the foregoing Reply to New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I understand that this Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~~~ Date: January , 2010 278165-1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ~ ~~y of January 2010, I, Kathy A. Toney, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., hereby certify that a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Reply to New Matter was sent to the following counsel of record by placing same in the first class, United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Andrew H. Briggs Post & Schell, P.C. 1857 William Penn Way P.O. Box 10248 Lancaster, PA 17605 Counsel for Carlisle Regional Medical Center Frederic Roller, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 1845 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-4797 Counsel for R. Scott Rankin, M.D. and Anthony Guarrancino, D.O. Kathy A. ney 430370 5 _ dLE(CD-O?? r MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN 20 11 FE 14 Pty 2= 2?U By: Frederic Roller Identification No. 65513 CUMBEkLAQ COUS 1845 Walnut Street Attorney for: Philadelphia, PA 19103 Anthony Guarracino, D.O. (215) 575-2770 and R. Scott Rankin, D.O. WILLIAM F. MCALLISTER, JR. and COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MARGARET L. MCALLISTER, his wife CUMBERLAND COUNTY V. CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL ANTHONY GUARRACINO and PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION R. SCOTT RANKIN, D.O. and CARLISLE HMA, LLC t/d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER NO. 09-6542 - CIVIL TERM STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF R. SCOTT RANKIN, D.O. It is hereby agreed by and between the undersigned counsel on behalf of their respective clients that R. Scott Rankin, D.O. is hereby dismissed from the above matter with prejudice. ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. By r /f A:SADLOCK Attorney for Plaintiffs, William F. McAllister, Jr. and Margaret L. McAllister MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN By FREDERIC ROLLER Attorney for Defendants, Anthony Guarracino, D.O. and R. Scott Rankin, D.O. POST & SCHELL, P.C. By '491 , '?-( A ANDREW H. B GS Attorney for Defendant, Carlisle Regional Medical Center fief "?f &/) 411Y 1'1Z ly /0 WILLIAM F. MCALLISTER, JR MARGARET L. MCALLISTER, HIS WIFE, Plaintiffs V. ANTHONY GUARRACINO, D.O., R. SCOTT RANKIN, M.D. AND CARLISLE HMA, LLC, t/d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-6542 CIVIL ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 20th day of June, 2011, upon consideration of the letter from counsel for Plaintiffs dated June 17, 2011, relating that the matter is being submitted for binding arbitration for resolution, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DIRECTED that the Status Conference scheduled for Friday June 24, 2011, is CANCELLED as being moot. By the Court, Richard Sadlock, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Andrew Briggs, Esquire Frederic Roller, Esquire bas M. L. Ebert, Jr., ao II <ol b? J. ??tayt o x011 JUN V&n r, sf vam I a, WILLIAM F. MCALLISTER, JR. and MARGARET L. MCALLISTER, his wife Plaintiffs vs. ANTHONY GUARRACINO, D.O., R. SCOTT RANKIN, M.D. and CARLISLE HMA, LLC, t/d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER Defendants ORDER IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-6542 n C) CIVIL ACTION --MEDICAL z? - rn- ? PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY fION) °p -- ?c r = JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ?+ 3 v AND NOW, this 2 day of 2011, upon consideration of the Motion to Discontinue as to less than all Defendants and to Amend Caption of Defendant Carlisle HMA, LLC t/d/b/a Carlisle Regional Medical Center it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said Motion is GRANTED. The above captioned action is discontinued as to Defendant Carlisle HMA, LLC t/d/b/a Carlisle Regional Medical Center pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 229. It is further ORDERED that the caption be amended as follows: WILLIAM F. MCALLISTER, JR. and MARGARET L. MCALLISTER, his wife Plaintiffs vs. ANTHONY GUARRACINO, D.O. and R. SCOTT RANKIN, M.D. Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 09-6542 CIVIL ACTION -- MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED BY THE COURT: J. Distribution List: "Richard Sadlock, Esquire, Angino & Rovner, 4503 North Front St., Harrisburg, PA 17110, Counsel for Plaintiffs Frederic Roller, Esquire, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, 1845 Walnut St-, Philadelphia, PA 19103-0856, Counsel for Defendants Anthony Guarracino, D. 0. and R. Scott Rankin, M.D. Andrew H. Briggs, Esquire, Post & Schell, P.C., 1857 William Penn Way, Lancaster, PA 17605-0248, Counsel for Carlisle HMA, LLC t/d/b/a Carlisle Regional Medical Centers u? ,14E ?' ?GTf-10?OTA6? y 2112 ,JAN 19 Am !! ? 20 CUMBER SYLVAI COUNTY PENN ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Richard A. Sadlock Attorney ID# : 47281 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: rsadlock@angino-rovner.com WILLIAM F. MCALLISTER, Jr. and MARGARET L. MCALLISTER, his wife, Plaintiffs V. ANTHONY GUARRACINO, D.O., R. SCOTT RANKIN, M.D. and CARLISLE HMA, LLC, t/d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA NO. 09-6542 CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE AND SATISFY TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the above-captioned action discontinued and satisfied, with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, ANGINO & B.: V1gE$,)P- Date: January 18, 2012 R)ehard A. Sadlo squire 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 Counsel for Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 18th day of January, 2012, I, Angela Horchler, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Discontinue, Settle, and Satisfy was sent to the following counsel of record by placing same in the first class, United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Frederic Roller, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 1845 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-4797 Counsel for Anthony Guarrancino, D.O. i Angela Horchler