Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-6738SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson f~~l_E("-(~~'~x, Sheriff ,~' ~'o : ~~:,ri~ ~a~,~~„Tr .~ ~~~.~tr of ~uuiGrr~,i~ ,.~,~,~ t ~.~ ~ `t Jody S Smith ~~' Chief Deputy ~~ "' ~ ~'~~ t° '2 ~i~i E ~ I' .,, ~ `. Richard W Stewart ``?~, ;~, ;'~_,r":, k ~;€~E~~ ~~~~ Solicitor ~~~t,~~F~-,< <~~~~ ,,~.E ~'~~r~l rrr t.~Ir^t Shari Lynn Williams vs. Dennis Burton, MD (et al.) SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE Case Number 2010-6738 10/28/2010 09;59 AM -Shawn Gutshall, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on October 28, 2010 at 0959 hours, he served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Carlisle HMA, Inc. d/b/a Carlisle Regional Medical Center, by making known unto Amanda Bitner, Human Resource Information Specialist for Carlisle HMA, Inc. at 361 Alexander Spring Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17015 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. A G HALL, DE 10/28/2010 09:59 AM -Shawn Gutshall, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on October 28, 2010 at 0959 hours, he served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Carlisle HMA, LLC d/b/a Carlisle Regional Medical Center, by making known unto Amanda Bitner, Human Resource Information Specialist for Carlisle HMA, LLC at 361 Alexander Spring Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17015 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. AW U ALL, DEPUTY 10/28/2010 09:59 AM -Shawn Gutshall, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on October 28, 2010 at 0959 hours, he served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Kinetic Imaging, Inc., by making known unto Amanda Bitner, Human Resource Information Specialist for Kinetic Imaging, Inc. at 361 Alexander Spring Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17015 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the same. A GUT ALL, EPUTY 10/28/2010 10:37 AM -William Cline, Corporal, who being duly sworn according to law, states that on October 28, 2010 at 1037 hours, he served a true copy of the within Writ of Summons, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Dennis Burton, MD, by making known unto Jenny Ward, Housekeeper for Dennis Burton, MD at 4 Appian Drive, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17015 its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and correct copy of the sam I M CLINE, DEPUTY !o Count}Suite Sher~ft_ 7eleosaft, l+u.. SHERIFF COST: $$7.24 October 29, 2010 SO ANSWERS, RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF (c) Gou~VySuite Shen. Telaaeoti. Inc. HENRY & BEAVER LLP By: Wiley P. Parker, Esquire Identification No. 20653 Amy B. Leonard, Esquire Identification No. 93526 937 Willow Street P.O. Box 1140 Lebanon, PA 17042-1140 (717) 274-3644 Attorneys for Dennis Burton, M.D. & Kinetic Imaging, Inc. OF THELP 6THONOTARY 2010 NOV 23 PM 12:29 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA ORIGINAL SHARI LYNN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION DENNIS BURTON , M.D.; KINETIC : IMAGING, INC.; CARLISLE HMA, INC. : d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL: CENTER; CARLISLE HMA, L.L.C. d/b/a: CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants NO.: 10-6738 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearances of Wiley P. Parker, Esquire, and Amy B. Leonard, Esquire, of the law firm of Henry & Beaver LLP, whose address is 937 Willow Street, P.O. Box 1140, Lebanon, Pennsylvania 17042-1140, as attorneys for Dennis Burton, M.D. & Kinetic Imaging, Inc., the Defendants in the above-captioned matter. Dated: HENRY & BEAVER LLP By: _ °-4_ WILEY P. PARKER, Esquire I.D. #20653 937 Willow Street P.O. Box 1140 Lebanon, PA 17042-1140 (717) 274-3644 Attorney for Defendants Dennis Burton, M.D. & Kinetic Imaging, Inc HENRY & BEAVER LLP By P.O. Box 1140 Lebanon, PA 17042-1140 (717) 274-3644 Attorney for Defendants Dennis Burton, M.D. & Kinetic Imaging, Inc CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Wiley P. Parker, of the firm of Henry & Beaver LLP, do hereby certify that I served a certified true and correct copy of the within Entry of Appearance upon the following person(s) on November,2L2010 in the manner specified below: Name Daryl E. Christopher, Esquire ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Evan Black, Esquire & Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Craig A. Stone, Esquire MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER COLEMAN AND GOGGIN 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Date: NovPmb' 22, 2010 Manner of Service U.S. First Class Mail U.S. First Class Mail U.S. First Class Mail WILEY P. PAR ER WED"OFFICE , OE.THE PROTHONOTARY 2010 NOV 23 PH 12: 29 CU?NS 140 CTY tQ EN HENRY & BEAVER LLP By: Wiley P. Parker, Esquire Identification No. 20653 Amy B. Leonard, Esquire Identification No. 93526 937 Willow Street P.O. Box 1140 Lebanon, PA 17042-1140 (717) 274-3644 Attorneys for Dennis Burton, M.D. & Kinetic Imaging, Inc. SHARI LYNN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff V. ORIGINAL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION DENNIS BURTON , M.D.; KINETIC : IMAGING, INC.; CARLISLE HMA, INC. : d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL: CENTER; CARLISLE HMA, L.L.C. d/b/a: CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants NO.: 10-6738 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO: THE PROTHONOTARY: Enter a Rule upon the Plaintiff to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days after service of the Rule, or judgment of non pros will be entered. WILEY P. PARKER, Esquire I.D. #20653 Attorney for Defendants Dennis Burton, M.D. & Kinetic Imaging, Inc TO THE PLAINTIFF: You are ruled to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days after service hereof or suffer judgment of non pros. P -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Wiley P. Parker, of the firm of Henry & Beaver LLP, do hereby certify that I served a certified true and correct copy of the within Rule to File Complaint upon the following person(s) on November 22 , 2010 in the manner specified below: Name Daryl E. Christopher, Esquire ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Manner of Service U.S. First Class Mail Evan Black, Esquire & Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Craig A. Stone, Esquire MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER COLEMAN AND GOGGIN 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Date: 40MUf 22a 2010 U.S. First Class Mail U.S. First Class Mail WI . PA THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP Evan Black, Esquire Attorney I.D. 17884 Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire Attorney I.D. 78735 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 441-7051 Attorneys for Defendant Carlisle HMA, Inc. d/b/a Carlisle Regional Medical Center; Carlisle HMA, L.L.C. d/b/a Carlisle Regional Medical Center SHARI WILLIAMS, Plaintiff V. DENNIS BURTON, M.D.; KINETIC IMAGING, INC.; CARLISLE HMA, INC. d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; CARLISLE HMA, L.L.C.; d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants FILED-OFFICE OF THE PROTHONOTA Y 2GID DEC -9 AM 11. 38 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA NO. 10-W-3,R 073F CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 12 JURORS WITH ALTERNATES PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE To the Prothonotary: Kindly enter the appearance of Evan Black, Esquire and Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire on behalf of the Defendant, CARLISLE HMA, INC. d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; CARLISLE HMA, L.L.C.; d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, relative to the above-captioned action. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP Date: By: Evan Black, Esquire Attorney I.D. 17884 Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire Attorney I.D. 78735 Attorneys for CARLISLE HMA, INC. d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; CARLISLE HMA, L.L.C.; d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Joan L. Wolfe, employee of the law firm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document was sent to the following counsel of record by placing a copy of same by First Class in the United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania addressed as follows: Daryl Christopher, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Wiley Parker, Esquire Henry & Beaver, LLP 937 Willow Street P.O. Box 1140 Lebanon, PA 17042-1140 Craig A. Stone, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP Date: /'`- 11 - l v Jo . Wolfe F11 EO'G"-F1CE OF Tf tic ?R0 i d 0 N 0TARY 2J10 J,4 C NTY ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Daryl E. Christopher, Esquire Attorney ID# : 91895 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Phone: (717) 238-6791 Fax: (717) 238-5610 SHARI LYNN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff V. Attorneys for Plaintiff: DENNIS BURTON, M.D.; KINETIC IMAGING, INC.; CARLISLE HMA, INC. d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; CARLISLE HMA, L.L.C. d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION NO. 10-6738 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 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. 448174 ORIGINAL 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 17013 (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. Se le 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 17013 (717) 249-3166 448174 ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Daryl E. Christopher, Esquire Attorney ID# : 91895 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Phone: (717) 238-6791 Fax: (717) 238-5610 SHARI LYNN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff V. Attorneys for Plaintiff: DENNIS BURTON, M.D.; KINETIC IMAGING, INC.; CARLISLE HMA, INC. d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; CARLISLE HMA, L.L.C. d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION NO. 10-6738 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT Parties 1. Plaintiff Shari Lynn Williams is an adult individual and a citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, who resides in Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Ms. Williams is temporarily living in Pittsburgh to receive medical treatment. 2. Defendant Dennis Burton, M.D., is a physician specializing in radiology and is licensed to practice medicine in Pennsylvania. In 2008, Defendant Burton maintained offices in and regularly conducted business in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff is asserting a 448174 professional liability claim against Defendant Burton. A Certificate of Merit is filed herewith, Exhibit A. 3. Defendant Kinetic Imaging, Inc., is a professional corporation created under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which at all relevant times employed Defendant Dennis Burton, M.D., who was acting within the course and scope of his employment for Defendant Kinetic Imaging, Inc. Plaintiff is asserting a professional liability claim against Defendant Kinetic Imaging. A Certificate of Merit is filed herewith, Exhibit B. 4. It is believed, and therefore averred, that Kinetic Imaging, Inc., maintains offices in and regularly conducts business in Cumberland County. 5. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Kinetic Imaging, Inc., had a contract with Carlisle Regional Medical Center under which Kinetic Imaging, Inc., provided radiology services to patients of Carlisle Regional Medical Center. 6. Patients of Carlisle Regional Medical Center did not choose their own radiologists but were automatically supplied with a radiologist from Kinetic Imaging, Inc. 7. Defendant Carlisle HMA, Inc., d/b/a Carlisle Regional Medical Center, is a medical institution providing comprehensive medical services and created under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. At all relevant times Defendant Dennis Burton, M.D. was an apparent and/or ostensible agent of Defendant Carlisle Regional Medical Center and was acting within the course and scope of his agency for Defendant CRMC. Plaintiff is asserting a professional liability claim against Defendant CRMC. A Certificate of Merit is filed herewith, Exhibit C. 8. Defendant Carlisle HMA, L.L.C., d/b/a Carlisle Regional Medical Center, is a medical institution providing comprehensive medical services and created under the laws of the 452656 2 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. At all relevant times Defendant Dennis Burton, M.D. was an apparent and/or ostensible agent of Defendant Carlisle Regional Medical Center who was acting within the course and scope of his agency for Defendant CRMC. Plaintiff is asserting a professional liability claim against Defendant CRMC. A Certificate of Merit is filed herewith, Exhibit D. 9. On or around June 19, 2009, Carlisle HMA, Inc. became Carlisle HMA, L.L.C. 10. Carlisle HMA, L.L.C. assumed all of the liabilities of Carlisle HMA, Inc. 11. Carlisle HMA, Inc. and Carlisle HMA, L.L.C. are collectively referred to as CRMC or Carlisle Regional Medical Center in this Complaint. 12. Defendant CRMC maintains offices in and regularly conducts business in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Facts 13. Defendant Burton is a radiologist who is board certified by the American Board of Radiology. 14. According to the American Board of Radiology, "The mission of The American Board of Radiology is to serve patients, the public, and the medical profession by certifying that its diplomates have acquired, demonstrated, and maintained a requisite standard of knowledge, skill, and understanding essential to the practice of diagnostic radiology, radiation oncology, and radiologic physics." 15. The issues in the present case involve diagnostic radiology. 16. Diagnostic radiology is the branch of radiology concerned with the use of various imaging technologies to aid in the diagnosis of injuries and diseases. 452656 3 17. As a board-certified radiologist, Dr. Burton held himself out to the general public and to other medical providers as an individual who had acquired, demonstrated, and maintained skill and understanding essential to the practice of diagnostic radiology. As a board-certified radiologist, he claimed to be skilled at reading CT scans. 18. As a radiologist, Dr. Burton is responsible for detecting and communicating to the ordering physicians any and all abnormalities on the scans he reads. 19. Any abnormality that poses a risk to health must be noted in the radiology report. 20. When reading a scan, radiologists must take sufficient time to ensure that they have looked at every part of the scan and for everything that the scan shows. 21. Timely reading of radiology scans and timely communication of the findings to the ordering physicians is an essential part of providing quality care to patients. 22. When a radiologist is not present at CRMC, as was the case when Ms. Williams' October 29, 2008, CT scan was performed, a radiology scan is initially read via teleradiology to increase the speed with which the findings are relayed to the ordering physicians. 23. To improve the accuracy of diagnostic radiology services provided to patients at CRMC, a local radiologist reviews all scans that were initially read the night before via teleradiology. 24. Like the teleradiologist who performed the initial read, the local radiologist is responsible for detecting and communicating to the ordering physician any abnormalities shown on the scan. 25. To increase the likelihood of finding a significant abnormality, a radiologist should compare a scan to prior scans of the same patient, if available. 452656 4 26. In early 2004, Plaintiff Shari Williams suffered a CVA. During the work-up following the stroke, Ms. Williams was diagnosed with Wegener's Granulomatosis, a disease which causes inflammation of the blood vessels. 27. At that time, she was also suspected of having antiphospholipid syndrome; however, it does not appear that a definitive diagnosis was ever made. Antiphospholipid syndrome increases the likelihood that a patient will suffer from blood clots and diseases caused by blood clots. 28. On September 20, 2008, Ms. Williams presented to the emergency department of Defendant CRMC with severe abdominal pain. 29. Ms. Williams was admitted to the hospital and given a 4-day work-up. Among the differential diagnoses was GI vasculitis related to her Wegener's Granulomatosis. 30. As part of her work-up, Ms. Williams was given a CT scan on September 20, 2008, at 5:57 p.m. This scan was read as normal. 31. Although it was read as normal, the September 20, 2008, CT scan actually showed some evidence of reduced blood flow in Ms. Williams' superior mesenteric artery and reduced perfusion to her small intestine. 32. Ms. Williams was discharged from CRMC with a diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome on September 24, 2008. The reduced blood flow in her superior mesenteric artery went undetected. 33. Ms. Williams next presented to the CRMC emergency department on October 12, 2008, complaining of epigastric pain that had started the day before. She was vomiting and having loose stools. 452656 5 34. Ms. Williams was not admitted to the hospital. Blood work and an EKG were performed. Ms. Williams was treated with a GI cocktail and was sent home. 35. Ms. Williams next presented to the CRMC emergency department on October 24, 2008, with midline epigastric pain and nausea. She was treated in the emergency department with a GI cocktail and was sent home. 36. Ms. Williams next presented to the CRMC emergency department via ambulance on October 29, 2008, with abdominal pain. 37. Ms. Williams was admitted to the emergency department at 2:59 a.m. 38. At 4:21 a.m. Ms. Williams was taken for an abdominal CT scan. 39. The scan was electronically sent to US Teleradiology for an initial read. 40. At 4:53 a.m. the abdominal CT scan was read as normal by teleradiology. 41. At 10:20 a.m. the teleradiology report was called into Defendant CRMC. The report indicated no significant abnormalities. 42. Defendant Burton later performed the in-house final read of the CT scan. 43. The subject CT scan was read as normal by Defendant Burton, who created his report at 1:07 p.m. on October 29, 2008. At the time, Dr. Burton was acting within the course and scope of his employment with Defendant Kinetic Imaging, Inc., and within the course and scope of his apparent and ostensible agency with Defendant CRMC. 44. During the entire time that she had been in the hospital, Ms. Williams was not on any anticoagulation therapy other than baby aspirin. 45. A surgical consult at the time indicated "Given the fact that the CAT scan done today did not show any remarkable abnormalities, I am reluctant to subject her to the risks of surgical intervention." 452656 6 46. Unfortunately, the CT scan from October 29, 2008, was not a normal scan. The scan showed a blood clot in Ms. Williams' superior mesenteric artery, loss of blood supply in Ms. Williams' small bowel, and fecalization of her small bowel. 47. A thorough comparison to the September 20, 2008, scan would have revealed significant changes in Ms. Williams' superior mesenteric artery, blood flow, and small bowel from the prior scan and should have alerted doctors that Ms. Williams was suffering from a progressive condition that had begun more than a month earlier. 48. The reduced blood flow in Ms. Williams' superior mesenteric artery and intestines should have been treated as a medical and surgical emergency to preserve her intestines; however, her life-threatening condition went undetected. 49. At 9:10 a.m. on October 30, 2008, approximately 30 hours after her initial CT scan, a STAT CT with contrast was ordered. 50. This CT showed an occlusion of Ms. Williams' superior mesenteric artery. It also showed that she had developed ascites and a small bowel ileus since the day before. 51. Comparison of the October 29, 2008, scan and the October 30, 2008, scan showed that Ms. Williams' intestines were in much worse condition on October 30th than they had been on October 29tH 52. Ms. Williams was started on heparin therapy and underwent surgery for severe mesenteric artery thrombosis. 53. The surgeon operating on October 30, 2008, stated in his operative report: The bowel had a horrific odor to it and the cecum was clearly dead. The line of Toldt was incised and freeing the right colon from the retroperitoneal structures, the proximal 3 feet of small bowel were possibly viable. The most proximal foot of small bowel appeared to be pink. The next 2 feet were of questionable viability. All the other small bowel was completely necrotic along with the cecum and part of the right colon. 452656 7 54. The surgeon removed Ms. Williams' right colon and all but about three feet of her small intestine. He then removed the clot from Ms. Williams' superior mesenteric artery. 55. The following day, the surgeon performed a second look procedure, removed all but 18 inches of small bowel, and also removed a portion of Ms. Williams' transverse colon. He then performed an anastomosis between the remaining portions of her large and small intestines. 56. Because of her short bowel, Ms. Williams was started on total parenteral nutrition (TPN), meaning that all of her nutrition was being delivered through a central venous catheter because she could no longer absorb nutrition through her intestines. 57. On November 6`h, Ms. Williams developed tachycardia, hypotension, and worsening abdominal pain. 58. Another surgery was performed. At that time, a large amount of enteric contents was found in her abdominal cavity, suggestive of a bowel leak from the anastomosis. 59. The surgeon disconnected the anastomosis, removed more of Ms. Williams' transverse colon, and created two stomas, one for her small intestine and one for her large intestine. Creation of the stomas resulted in a loss of several more inches of small intestine and about six more inches of left colon. 60. The surgeon placed a left internal jugular Hickman catheter to allow for long-term TPN. 61. Following her discharge from Defendant CRMC on November 21, 2008, Ms. Williams has had a very difficult postoperative course. She has lived and treated at multiple facilities including, but not limited to, Select Care LTAC, Chambersburg Manorcare, Carlisle Manorcare, Chambersburg Hospital, CRMC, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and HealthSouth. 452656 8 62. She has had serious medical complications including, but not limited to, multiple surgical procedures, hematomas, infections, GERD, pneumonia, respiratory distress requiring a tracheotomy, and short gut syndrome requiring long-term TPN. 63. She has been unable to care for herself and has required assistance with all activities of daily living. 64. Ms. Williams has been unable to work since October 29, 2008. 65. Ms. Williams has been on the bowel transplant list. 66. Ms. Williams recently had an anastomosis of the remnants of her small and large intestines in an attempt to avoid a bowel transplant. She remains in the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. 67. Ms. Williams' bowel infarction on October 30, 2008, the medical and surgical complications that resulted from it, and all of her subsequent medical care could have been prevented if her treating doctors had been informed about the clot developing in her superior mesenteric artery, which was clearly visible on the CT scan performed on October 29, 2008. 68. The failure to accurately read Ms. Williams' October 29, 2008, CT scan, the failure to accurately and thoroughly compare it to her September 20, 2008, scan, and the failure to immediately notify the ordering physician of the blood clot developing in her superior mesenteric artery were breaches of the accepted standard of care for radiologists. COUNTI SHARI LYNN WILLIAMS v. DENNIS BURTON. M.D. 69. All of the allegations made in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 452656 9 70. All of Ms. Williams' damages were the result of the negligent, careless, and substandard care provided to her by Defendant Dennis Burton, M.D., on October 29, 2008, which increased the risk that Ms. Williams would suffer a bowel infarction or would suffer from the death of her intestines as a result of a bowel infarction in that he: a. failed to properly read her October 29, 2008, CT scan to detect a developing blood clot in her superior mesenteric artery; b. failed to timely communicate to Ms. Williams' physician who ordered the October 29, 2008, CT scan that she was developing a blood clot in her superior mesenteric artery; c. failed to properly review Ms. Williams' October 29, 2008, CT scan thoroughly enough to ensure that he had reviewed each portion of the scan and that he had discovered each significant abnormality on the scan; d. failed to properly communicate with Ms. Williams' other treating physicians regarding her symptoms; e. failed to properly consider reduced blood flow through her superior mesenteric artery as part of the differential diagnosis for her abdominal pain; and f. failed to properly or accurately compare Ms. Williams' October 29, 2008, CT scan to her September 20, 2008, CT scan and to report the significant differences of the scans to her ordering physician. 71. As a result of the injuries suffered by Ms. Williams, she has incurred work loss and a permanent diminution of her earning capacity, and claims are made therefor. 452656 10 72. As a result of the injuries suffered by Ms. Williams, she has sustained loss of life's pleasures, and a claim is made therefor. 73. As a result of the injuries suffered by Ms. Williams, she has been forced to endure pain, suffering, and humiliation, and claims are made therefor. 74. As a result of the injuries suffered by Ms. Williams, she has suffered from permanent disfigurement, and a claim is made therefor. 75. As a result of the injuries suffered by Ms. Williams, she has been forced to incur medical expenses and will continue to incur medical expenses for the rest of her life in an attempt to improve her condition, and a claim is made therefor. 76. As a result of the injuries suffered by Ms. Williams, she has been unable to live independently, has been forced to incur, and will continue to incur, expenses for assistive devices and aides to assist with her activities of daily living, and claims are made therefor. 77. Plaintiff Shari Williams is 44 years of age having been born on August 15, 1966. 78. Plaintiff Shari Williams' injuries are of a permanent nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Shari Lynn Williams, demands judgment against Defendant Burton in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000), exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT II SHARI LYNN WILLIAMS v. KINETIC IMAGING. INC. 79. All of the allegations made in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 452656 11 80. All of Ms. Williams' damages were the result of the negligent, careless, and substandard care provided to her by Defendant Kinetic Imaging, Inc., through its agent Dennis Burton, M.D., which increased the risk that Ms. Williams would suffer a bowel infarction or would suffer from the death of her intestines as a result of a bowel infarction. 81. At all relevant times, Defendant Burton was an employee, apparent or ostensible employee, agent, apparent or ostensible agent, and servant of Defendant Kinetic Imaging. Defendant Kinetic Imaging is responsible for Defendant Burton's negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior and is vicariously liable for his negligence. 82. As a result of the injuries suffered by Ms. Williams, she has incurred work loss and a permanent diminution of her earning capacity, and claims are made therefor. 83. As a result of the injuries suffered by Ms. Williams, she has sustained loss of life's pleasures, and a claim is made therefor. 84. As a result of the injuries suffered by Ms. Williams, she has been forced to endure pain, suffering, and humiliation, and claims are made therefor. 85. As a result of the injuries suffered by Ms. Williams, she has suffered from permanent disfigurement, and a claim is made therefor. 86. As a result of the injuries suffered by Ms. Williams, she has been forced to incur medical expenses and will continue to incur medical expenses for the rest of her life in an attempt to improve her condition, and a claim is made therefor. 87. As a result of the injuries suffered by Ms. Williams, she has been unable to live independently, has been forced to incur, and will continue to incur, expenses for assistive devices and aides to assist with her activities of daily living, and claims are made therefor. 88. Plaintiff Shari Williams is 44 years of age having been born on August 15, 1966. 452656 12 89. Plaintiff Shari Williams' injuries are of a permanent nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Shari Lynn Williams, demands judgment against Defendant Kinetic Imaging, Inc., in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000), exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT III SHARI LYNN WILLIAMS v. CARLISLE HMA, INC. d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER 90. All of the allegations made in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 91. All of Ms. Williams' damages were the result of the negligent, careless, and substandard care provided to her by Defendant Carlisle HMA, Inc. d/b/a Carlisle Regional Medical Center, through its agent Dennis Burton, M.D. which increased the risk that Ms: Williams would suffer a bowel infarction or would suffer from the death of her intestines as a result of a bowel infarction. 92. At all relevant times, Defendant Burton was an agent, apparent or ostensible, of Defendant Carlisle HMA, Inc. d/b/a Carlisle Regional Medical Center. Defendant Carlisle HMA, Inc. d/b/a Carlisle Regional Medical Center, is responsible for their negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior, and is vicariously liable for their negligence. 93. As a result of the injuries suffered by Ms. Williams, she has incurred work loss and a permanent diminution of her earning capacity, and claims are made therefor. 94. As a result of the injuries suffered by Ms. Williams, she has sustained loss of life's pleasures, and a claim is made therefor. 452656 13 95. As a result of the injuries suffered by Ms. Williams, she has been forced to endure pain, suffering, and humiliation, and claims are made therefor. 96. As a result of the injuries suffered by Ms. Williams, she has suffered from permanent disfigurement, and a claim is made therefor. 97. As a result of the injuries suffered by Ms. Williams, she has been forced to incur medical expenses will continue to incur medical expenses for the rest of her life in an attempt to improve her condition, and a claim is made therefor. 98. As a result of the injuries suffered by Ms. Williams, she has been unable to live independently, has been forced to incur, and will continue to incur, expenses for assistive devices and aides to assist with her activities of daily living, and claims are made therefor. 99. Plaintiff Shari Williams is 44 years of age having been born on August 15, 1966. 100. Plaintiff Shari Williams' injuries are of a permanent nature. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Shari Lynn Williams, demands judgment against Defendant CRMC in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000), exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT IV SHARI LYNN WILLIAMS v. CARLISLE HMA. L.L.C. d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER 101. All of the allegations made in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 102. All of Ms. Williams' damages were the result of the negligent, careless, and substandard care provided to her by Defendant Carlisle HMA, L.L.C. d/b/a Carlisle Regional Medical Center, through its agent Dennis Burton, M.D., which increased the risk that Ms. 452656 14 Williams would suffer a bowel infarction or would suffer from the death of her intestines as a result of a bowel infarction. 103. At all relevant times, Defendants Burton was an agent, apparent or ostensible, of Defendant Carlisle HMA, L.L.C. d/b/a Carlisle Regional Medical Center. Defendant Carlisle HMA, L.L.C. d/b/a Carlisle Regional Medical Center, is responsible for his negligence under the doctrine of respondeat superior, and is vicariously liable for their negligence. 104. As a result of the injuries suffered by Ms. Williams, she has incurred work loss and a permanent diminution of her earning capacity, and claims are made therefor. 105. As a result of the injuries suffered by Ms. Williams, she has sustained loss of life's pleasures, and a claim is made therefor. 106. As a result of the injuries suffered by Ms. Williams, she has been forced to endure pain, suffering, and humiliation, and claims are made therefor. 107. As a result of the injuries suffered by Ms. Williams, she has suffered from permanent disfigurement, and a claim is made therefor. 108. As a result of the injuries suffered by Ms. Williams, she has been forced to incur medical expenses and will continue to incur medical expenses for the rest of her life in an attempt to improve her condition, and a claim is made therefor. 109. As a result of the injuries suffered by Ms. Williams, she has been unable to live independently, has been forced to incur, and will continue to incur, expenses for assistive devices and aides to assist with her activities of daily living, and claims are made therefor. 110. Plaintiff Shari Williams is 44 years of age having been born on August 15, 1966. 111. Plaintiff Shari Williams' injuries are of a permanent nature. 452656 15 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Shari Lynn Williams, demands judgment against Defendant CRMC in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000), exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. Date: P-11116 Respectfully submitted, ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Daryl . C istopher, Esquire PA I.D. No. 91895 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 dchristopher@angino-rovner.com Counsel for Plaintiff 452656 16 VERIFICATION I, Shari Lynn Williams, Plaintiff, hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing COMPLAINT are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. WITNESS: ? / o v m Shari Lynn Williams Date: ?/ ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Daryl E. Christopher, Esquire Attorney ID# : 91895 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Phone: (717) 238-6791 Fax: (717) 238-5610 SHARI LYNN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff V. Attorneys for Plaintiff: DENNIS BURTON, M.D.; KINETIC IMAGING, INC.; CARLISLE HMA, INC. d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; CARLISLE HMA, L.L.C. d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION NO. 10-6738 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS TO DENNIS BURTON, M.D. Date: I, Daryl E. Christopher, 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. 0/g110 Daryl hrlstopher, Esquire EXHIBIT A 448174 ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Daryl E. Christopher, Esquire Attorney ID# : 91895 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Phone: (717) 238-6791 Fax: (717) 238-5610 SHARI LYNN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff V. Attorneys for Plaintiff: DENNIS BURTON, M.D.; KINETIC IMAGING, INC.; CARLISLE HMA, INC. d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; CARLISLE HMA, L.L.C. d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION NO. 10-6738 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS TO KINETIC IMAGING, INC. I, Daryl E. Christopher, certify that: ( ) an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; 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: ?? lJ Daryl . C stopher, Esquire EXHIBIT B 448174 ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Daryl E. Christopher, Esquire Attorney ID# : 91895 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Phone: (717) 238-6791 Fax: (717)238-5610 SHARI LYNN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff V. Attorneys for Plaintiff: DENNIS BURTON, M.D.; KINETIC IMAGING, INC.; CARLISLE HMA, INC. d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; CARLISLE HMA, L.L.C. d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION NO. 10-6738 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS TO CARLISLE HMA, INC. d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER I, Daryl E. Christopher, certify that: ( ) an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; 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: 0/11//o D 1 E. C istopher, Esquire ?'Y EXHIBIT C 448174 ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Daryl E. Christopher, Esquire Attorney ID# : 91895 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Phone: (717) 238-6791 Fax: (717) 238-5610 SHARI LYNN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff V. DENNIS BURTON, M.D.; KINETIC IMAGING, INC.; CARLISLE HMA, INC. d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; CARLISLE HMA, L.L.C. d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; Defendants Attorneys for Plaintiff: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION NO. 10-6738 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS TO CARLISLE HMA, L.L.C. d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER I, Daryl E. Christopher, certify that: ( ) an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; 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: l G1 ? - Dary E. istopher, Esquire EXHIBIT D 448174 16 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary T. Geraets, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of the COMPLAINT upon all counsel of record via postage prepaid first class United States mail addressed as follows: Evan Black, Esquire Stephanie Hersperger, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 N. Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 Attorney for Defendants Carlisle HMA, Inc. d/b/a Carlisle Regional Medical Center and Carlisle HMA, LLC d/b/a Carlisle Regional Medical Center Wiley P. Parker Esquire Amy B. Leonard, Esquire Henry & Beaver, LLP 937 Willow Street P.O. Box 1140 Lebanon, PA 17042-1140 Attorney for Defendants Dennis Burton, M.D. and Kinetic Imaging, Inc. (? 14 t aA (C?b? iary. raet$ Ge $ Dated: ' ) -? -- ? 0 453474 . P IF!. ED - 0r- IQE rc:r „ 10 i 110110 ARY t s !°'.? a -5 PfQ HENRY & BEAVER LLP By: Wiley P. Parker Identification No. 20653 937 Willow Street P.O. Box 1140 Lebanon, PA 17042-1140 (717) 274-3644 SHARI LYNN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff V. DENNIS BURTON, M.D.; KINETIC IMAGING, INC.; CARLISLE HMA, INC. : d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL: CENTER; CARLISLE HMA, L.L.C. d/b/a: CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants C? 111 F "I I, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION NO. 10-6738 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED to plead to the New Matter set forth herein, and to defend the action. You have twenty (20) days in which to file a responsive pleading. Failure to respond waives proper defenses or objections. HENRY & BEAVER LLP B WILEY P. P RKE I. D. # 20653 937 Willow Street P.O. Box 1140 Lebanon, PA 17042-1140 (717) 274-3644 Attorney for Dennis Burton, M.D. and Kinetic Imaging, Inc HENRY & BEAVER LLP By: Wiley P. Parker, Esquire Identification No. 20653 Amy B. Leonard, Esquire Identification No. 93526 937 Willow Street P.O. Box 1140 Lebanon, PA 17042-1140 (717) 274-3644 Attorneys for Dennis Burton, M.D. & Kinetic Imaging, Inc. SHARI LYNN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff V. DENNIS BURTON, M.D.; KINETIC IMAGING, INC.; CARLISLE HMA, INC. : d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL: CENTER; CARLISLE HMA, L.L.C. d/b/a: CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION NO. 10-6738 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS DENNIS BURTON. M.D. AND KINETIC IMAGING. INC. TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1. Admitted on information and belief. 2. It is admitted that Defendant Dennis Burton, M.D. is a physician specializing in radiology who is licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and that he maintains offices and regularly conducts business in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. It is admitted that Plaintiff is asserting a professional liability claim against Defendant Burton and that a Certificate of Merit is filed with Plaintiff's Complaint, however it is denied that Plaintiffs claim is meritorious. 3. It is admitted that Defendant Kinetic Imaging, Inc. is a professional corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and that Kinetic Imaging, Inc. has employed Dennis Burton, M.D., who has from time to time acted within the course and scope of his employment by said Defendant. It is admitted that Plaintiff is asserting a professional liability claim against Defendant Kinetic Imaging and that a Certificate of Merit was filed with Plaintiffs Complaint, however it is denied that Plaintiffs Complaint is meritorious 4. Admitted. 5. Denied as stated. To the contrary, Defendant Kinetic Imaging, Inc. provided no radiology services to patients of Carlisle Regional Medical Center. Pursuant to the Pennsylvania Medical Practice Act only licensed physicians are entitled to provide radiology services to patients within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. To the contrary, Kinetic Imaging, Inc. had a contract with Carlisle Regional Medical Center pursuant to which licensed physicians employed by Kinetic Imaging, Inc. provided radiology services to patients of Carlisle Regional Medical Center. 6. - 12. These allegations are directed against a Defendant other than Answering Defendant and, as such, no responsive pleading is required. 13. It is admitted that Dr. Burton is a radiologist who is board certified by the American Board of Radiology. 14. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of such averment in that the American Board 2 of Radiology is not a party to the instant litigation and after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are not in a position to determine the mission of said entity. 15. It is admitted, based upon a review of Plaintiff's Complaint, that certain of the issues in the present case involve diagnostic radiology. 16. Admitted. 17. Admitted. By way of further response, it is denied that Answering Defendant, Dr. Burton, held himself out to the public as holding any special level of skill and understanding relating to the practice of diagnostic radiology beyond that which would be exercised by a diagnostic radiologist of standard and accepted skills. 18. Denied as stated in that said allegation establishes a standard of perfection. To the contrary, as a radiologist, Defendant Dr. Burton is responsible for reviewing studies in accordance with the standard of care and, under appropriate circumstances, communicating his interpretation to the ordering physician as well as, under certain circumstances, other physicians involved in the patient's care. 19. Denied as stated, in that again Plaintiff attempts to set up a standard of perfection. To the contrary, it is incumbent upon the radiologist to interpret a study in accordance with the appropriate standard of care and to note such abnormalities as are detected in a written radiology report. 20. Denied as stated, in that again, Plaintiff attempts to establish a standard of perfection. To the contrary, radiologists are under an obligation to review a study in accordance with the standard of care, particularly with regard to the extent and thoroughness of said review. 3 21. Denied as stated, in that Answering Defendant has no ability to assess what Plaintiff means by its allegations relating to timely reading and timely communication. To the contrary, diagnostic radiologists are under an obligation to review and communicate with regard to the results of their evaluation in accordance with the appropriate standard of care in providing quality care to patients. 22.Admitted on information and belief. 23.Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that at CRMC a local radiologist reviews all scans that were initially read the night before via teleradiology and prepares a report of such interpretation. As to the purpose of said review, Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of such averment in that the means of proof are solely within the control of other parties to the instant litigation. 24. Denied as stated. To the contrary, the local radiologist's standard is not one of perfection as asserted by Plaintiff, but to the contrary said local radiologist is responsible for reviewing such study within the appropriate standard of care and communicating such findings as he makes to the ordering physician. 25. Denied as stated. To the contrary, there are multiple reasons why a radiologist should attempt to compare a scan to a prior scan of the same patient, if available, and such attempt at reviewing a prior scan is in accordance with the standard of care. 26. - 29. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of such averments in that the means 4 of proof are solely within the control of other parties to the instant litigation, and, as such, strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if relevant. 30. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that on September 20, 2008 Plaintiff underwent a CT of the abdomen and pelvis with contrast, which was interpreted by Defendant Christopher Ladd, M.D. The interpretation of said study was not "normal" as asserted by Plaintiff but is set forth in a written report which is part of the Plaintiffs medical records, and, as a written document, speaks for itself. 31. Denied as stated. To the contrary, said CT scan does not show clinically significant reduced blood flow to Plaintiffs superior mesenteric artery and/or clinically significant reduced perfusion to her small intestine. 32. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the Plaintiffs discharge diagnosis on September 24, 2008. It is denied that Plaintiff suffered from clinically significant reduced blood flow to her superior mesenteric artery to the extent observable on Plaintiffs CT of September 20, 2008. 33. - 37. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of such averments in that the means of proof are solely within the control of other parties to the instant litigation, and, as such, strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if relevant. 38. Admitted. 39. - 41. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of such averment in that the means 5 of proof are solely within the control of other parties to the instant litigation, and, as such, strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if relevant. 42. Admitted. 43. Denied as stated. Although the CT scan was interpreted Defendant Dr. Burton on October 29, 2008, and while doing so he acting within the course and scope of his employment with Defendant, Kinetic Imaging, Inc., the interpretation thereof is more fully set forth in a certain written report, which, in its entirety, is within Plaintiff's medical records, and as a written document speaks for itself. It is denied that Answering Defendant Dennis Burton, M.D. was acting within the scope of agency with Defendant CRMC. 44. - 45. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of such averments in that the means of proof are solely within the control of other parties to the instant litigation, and, as such, strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if relevant. 46. Denied as stated. To the contrary, a review of said CT of the abdomen and pelvis with contrast in accordance with the standard of care does not result in the interpretation asserted in Plaintiffs Complaint. 47. Denied as stated. To the contrary, an appropriate comparison to the September 20, 2008 scan in accordance with the appropriate standard of care does not result in the interpretation asserted by Plaintiff in her Complaint. 48. Denied as stated. To the contrary, it is denied that Plaintiffs assertions would have been proper deductions from an appropriate interpretation of the Plaintiffs CT of 6 the abdomen and pelvis with contrast on October 29, 2008. The balance of said allegation is denied as a conclusion of law. 49. It is admitted that at 9:10 a.m. on October 30, 2008 a stat CT with contrast was ordered. The amount of time which elapsed between that study and the prior study is an arithmetic calculation. 50. - 51. Denied as stated. To the contrary, the interpretation of the CT arteriorogram of the abdomen and pelvis with contrast performed on October 30, 2008 is a written document and a part of Plaintiff's medical records, which, in its entirety, speaks for itself. 52. - 66. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of such averments in that the means of proof are solely within the control of other parties to the instant litigation, and, as such, strict proof thereof is demanded at trial if relevant. 67. This allegation is denied as a conclusion of law and in accordance with the provisions of Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and as a conclusion of law. 68. This allegation is denied as a conclusion of law and in accordance with the provisions of Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and as a conclusion of law. COUNTI SHARI LYNN WILLIAMS v. DENNIS BURTON. M.D. 69. The responses set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 68 above are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 7 70. It is specifically denied that Defendant Dennis Burton, M.D. was negligent, careless, and/or provided substandard care to Plaintiff on October 29, 2008, and it is further specifically denied that Defendant Dennis Burton, M.D. provided any care to Plaintiff on October 29, 2008 and/or that any action or inaction on his part resulted in any loss injury or damage to Plaintiff: a. - f. These allegations are denied in accordance with the provisions of Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 71. - 78. These allegations are denied in accordance with the provisions of Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. By way of further response, after reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of such averments in that the means of proof are solely within the control of other parties to the instant litigation, and, as such, strict proof thereof is demanded at trial if relevant. By way of additional response, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff has suffered any loss, injury, or damage by reason of any action or inaction on the part of Answering Defendant Dennis Burton, M.D. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed. COUNT II SHERY LYNN WILLIAMS v. KINETIC IMAGING. INC. 79. The responses set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 78 above are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 80. It is specifically denied that any care provided to Plaintiff by Defendant Dennis Burton, M.D., agent of Defendant Kinetic Imaging, Inc. was negligent, careless, or 8 substandard, or that Plaintiff has suffered any loss injury or damage by reason of any action or inaction on the part of Answering Defendant. 81. It is admitted that Defendant Burton was an employee, apparent or ostensible employee, apparent or ostensible agent, and servant of Kinetic Imaging, Inc. and that under the doctrine of respondeat superior, Defendant Kinetic Imaging could be held vicariously liable for his negligence, however it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant Dennis Burton, M.D. was negligent in any regard, as is set forth above. 82. - 89. These allegations are denied in accordance with the provisions of Rule 1029(e) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and further as conclusions of law. After reasonable investigation, Answer Defendant Dennis Burton, M.D. is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of such averment in that the means of proof are solely within the control of an adverse party, namely Plaintiff and as such, strict proof there of is demanded at trial. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff has suffered any loss, injury, or damage by reason of any action or inaction on the part of Answering Defendant Dennis Burton, M.D. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant demands that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed. COUNT III SHARI LYNN WILLIMAS v. CARLISLE HMA. INC. d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER 90. - 100. These allegations are directed against a Defendant other than Answering Defendants and as such, no responsive pleading is required. 9 COUNT IV SHARI LYNN WILLIMAS v. CARLISLE HMA. L.L.C. d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER 101. - 111. These allegations are directed against a Defendant other than Answering Defendants and, as such, no responsive pleading is required. NEW MATTER 112. The responses set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 111 above are incorporated herein by reference as though fully set forth. 113. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 114. At all times material hereto, Answering Defendants provided full, complete, proper and reasonable evaluation and interpretation of Plaintiffs radiological studies in accordance with the applicable standard of care. 115. No conduct on the part of Answering Defendants was a substantial factor or factual cause of any harm alleged by Plaintiff. 116. Plaintiff may not have properly mitigated damages. 117. Plaintiffs alleged losses, injury, or damage, if any, may be the result of natural or unknown causes, and not the result of any action or inaction on the part of Answering Defendants. 118. In the event that Plaintiff suffered any loss, injury, or damage as alleged in her Complaint, the damages may have been caused by the conduct of others whom Answering Defendants had no right, duty, or ability to control. 10 119. Plaintiff's alleged loss, injury, or damage, if any, may be the result of Plaintiffs disease process and not the result of any action or inaction on the part of Answering Defendants. 120. Plaintiffs claims and/or request for damages may be barred or limited pursuant to the provisions of the Health Care Services Malpractice Act of 1975 (40.P.S. § 1301.1-1 et seq., as amended). 121. Plaintiffs claims and request for damages may be barred in whole or in part or limited by the provisions of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act (40 P.S. §1303.1 et seq.). 122. Answering Defendants may be entitled to assert and incorporate herein by reference any and all defenses contained in the Federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act (P.L. 99 - 660). 123. Plaintiff's claims may be barred in whole or in part pursuant to the legal doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel, to the extent that they apply to this action. 124. Answering Defendants believe and therefor aver that Plaintiffs Complaint may be limited or barred pursuant to the legal theories of contributory and/or comparative negligence on Plaintiffs part. 125. Plaintiff may have executed a release which defeats her entitlement to assert her cause of action, and as such, this action may be barred by the legal theories of release and/or accord and satisfaction. 11 WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants Dennis Burton, M.D. and Kinetic Imaging, Inc. demand that judgment be entered in their favor and against Plaintiff and that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed, with prejudice. HENRY & BEAVER LLP By: -5 WILEY P. PARKER I.D. # 20653 937 Willow Street P.O. Box 1140 Lebanon, PA 17042-1140 (717) 274-3644 Attorney for Defendants Dennis Burton, M.D. and Kinetic Imaging, Inc. 12 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in this Answer and New Matter of Defendants Dennis Burton, M.D. and Kinetic Imaging, Inc. to Plaintiffs Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ennis Burton, M. . VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in this Answer and New Matter of Defendants Dennis Burton, M.D. and Kinetic Imaging, Inc. to Plaintiff's Complaint are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Kl l? By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Wiley P. Parker, of the firm of Henry & Beaver LLP, do hereby certify that I served a certified true and correct copy of the within Answer and New Matter of Defendants Dennis Burton, M.D. and Kinetic Imaging, Inc. to Plaintiff's Complaint upon the following person(s) on January4 , 2011 in the manner specified below: Name Daryl E. Christopher, Esquire ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Manner of Service U.S. First Class Mail Evan Black, Esquire & Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Craig A. Stone, Esquire MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER COLEMAN AND GOGGIN 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Date: January I/ , 2011 U.S. First Class Mail U.S. First Class Mail WILEY P. PARKER pFILED-uF FIC E 2- R y 4111 FE?-2 N1 12 : 7 CUi''8ER L '1=' f istT .. ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Daryl E. Christopher, Esquire Attorney ID# : 91895 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Phone: (717) 238-6791 Fax: (717) 238-5610 SHARI LYNN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff V. Attorneys for Plaintiff: KINETIC IMAGING, INC.; CARLISLE HMA, INC. d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; CARLISLE HMA, L.L.C. d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; EUGENE SCOTT PRETORIUS, M.D.; and US TELERADIOLOGY, L.L.C., Defendants AND SHARI LYNN WILLIAMS, Plaintiff V. DENNIS BURTON, M.D.; KINETIC IMAGING, INC.; CARLISLE HMA, INC. d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER; and CARLISLE HMA, L.L.C. d/b/a CARLISLE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION NO. 10-6270 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION NO. 10-6738 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, this 2hd day of gf 2011, upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion to Consolidate Actions, I IS HEREBY ORDERED 460270 AND DECREED that the above-captioned actions are consolidated under docket no. 10-6270 and that all further pleadings shall be filed under docket no. 10-6270. BY THE COURT: 4- J. Distribution: ,j Daryl E. Christopher, Esquire, Angino & Rovner, P.C., 4503 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110; Counsel for Plaintiffs Evan Black, Esquire, Stephanie Hersperger, Esquire, Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, 305 North Front Street, P.O. Box 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108; Counsel for Defendants Carlisle HMA, Inc. d/b/a Carlisle Regional Medical Center and Carlisle HMA, LLC d/b/a Carlisle Regional Medical Center Craig Stone, Esquire, Marshall, Dennehey, et al., 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B, Harrisburg, PA 17112; Counsel for Defendants Eugene Scott Pretorius, M.D. and US Teleradiology, LLC ? Wiley P. Parker Esquire, Amy B. Leonard, Esquire, Henry & Beaver, LLP, 937 Willow Street, P.O. Box 1140, Lebanon, PA 17042-1140; Counsel for Defendants Christopher Ladd, M.D. and Kinetic Imaging, Inc. MIej Coy 41 Do 460270