Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-0187 DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL NO. O~ - If? O~u'~l'7-~ HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P, STEWART, M.D, BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIVLlAN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PRAECIPE FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please issue a Writ of Summons and fOlward copies of the same to the Sheriff of Cumberland County for selVice upon the Defendants. SelVice may be obtained on the Defendants at the following addresses: QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D, BARBARA K. KUNKLE, M.D., and BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D" at 3508 Trindle Road, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, 17011. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL at 503 North 21st Street, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, 17011. Dated: ,1(0 ( 0 z.- WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANTS: YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT mE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFFS H~VE COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. G ..I /? ~ ) J2 ~ rothonotary Date:~J:::JA.)u ';}n y 14, Jl}-).;l..." by ~.4rn. 17 ~p ryr/?//A')(.... ( Deputy ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ht ........ ~ B ~ ~ ?v r--.J () ---{) I (;; 0- f:; ~~ ,<"- 8 0 t~ N "'n $: '- -0 OJ :;r.::. ~ 9 '4! C;:'; :z , ..::.;...~-"j ,t"'n 65r;: .j;:.-' c;,l ~Z ," ') CJ <C -U " '-:-'-"T1 )> -6. :) ,0",: ZC. ;~~i;:r=; -(,") w >c: ?=1 ~ N ...-l~ ::0 -.I -< THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: Evan Black. Esquire Identification No. 17884 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17/08 (717) 441-7051 Attorney for Defendants George S. Durisek, M.D., Richard P. Stewart, M.D., Barbara K. Kunkel, M.D., and Bertrand B. Giulian, M.D., and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURlSEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIULlAN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly issue a Rule upon the Plaintiffs to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days after service hereof or suffer entry of judgment non pros. [:~~'~LLP EVAN BLACK, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendants Durisek, Stewart, Kunkel, Giulian, and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates TO: Doris E. Rosi and Joseph Rosi, by and through their attorney, Archie V. Diveglia, Esquire Diveglia & Kaylor, P.C. Two Lincoln Way West New Oxford, PA 17350 A Rule is hereby issued upon you to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days after service hereof or suffer the entry of judgment non pros. Date: J'd-Ou..Efl-'--1 ;;2t; ;;<<:)0 ~ Curtis Long, Prothonotary -4 (') Cl (') C N ." ~ <- .-, iBcO ". ~~i fQ rn :% "- :J) N ....,rn ~~~ <.J1 '''? '~~~C) c -0 ~L :r~ ~M :x 1-'___-' ~"..; C) .;-tTl ~~ r:- ~ .. :z: => 3J =< Cl -< THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: Evan Black. Esquire Identification No. 17884 305 North Front Street P. 0. Box 999 Harrisburg, P A 17108 (717) 441-7051 Attorney for Defendants George S. Durisek, MD., Richard P. Stewart, MD., Barbara K. Kunkel, MD., Bertrand B. Giulian, MD., and Quantum 1maging and Therapeutic Associates DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Term GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD p, STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIULlAN, M.D., CIVIL ACTION - LAW QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter our appearance on behalf of Defendants George S. Durisek, M.D., Richard P. Stewart, M.D., Barbara K. Kunkel, M.D., Bertrand B. Giulian, M.D., Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates in the above-captioned matter. qJ{,&~LLP EVAN BL CK, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendants Durisek, Stewart, Kunkel, Giulian, and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kathy L. Sitler, an employee of the law offices of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following persons via United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, as follows: Archie V. Diveglia, Esquire Diveglia & Kaylor, P.C. Two Lincoln Way West New Oxford, PA 17350 Holy Spirit Hospital c/o Craig A. Stone, Esquire Mette, Evans & Woodside 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 Date: 9~ ;)1, 000~ ~ ~ -:Jctllj( KATHY L SITLER . e 0 0 N -n ;;: L- ' . ~ ""CO 5: ~~;:.q S2rn :r' N ~'~ ti5.r;:: U1 2~'j :-',:::1 ( -u ~ 1'- l ! ::x 6:rJ --::,,0 )>g r- orn -"-i ~ :::> ~ 0 SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2002-00187 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ROSI DORIS E ET AL VS HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL ET AL BRYAN WARD , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL was served upon the , at 1047:00 HOURS, on the 17th day of January ,2002 at 503 NORTH 21ST STREET DEFENDANT CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to GWYN BINNER, ADMIN SEC a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 18.00 10.35 ,00 10.00 .00 38.35 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this ;N ~ day of 0-<A.N< ''''1 .JOO,J.., A.D. ~....Q~~ rothonotary , So Answers: r'~~ R. Thomas Kline 01/18/2002 DIVEGLIA & KAYLOR By: ~_ W_J Deput19 Sheriff SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2002-00187 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ROSI DORIS E ET AL VS HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL ET AL BRYAN WARD , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon DURISEK GEORGE S MD the DEFENDANT , at 1152:00 HOURS, on the 17th day of January ,2002 at 3508 TRINDLE ROAD CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to MARIANNE HOOVER, MED SEC a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 6.00 8.97 .00 10.00 .00 24.97 So Answers: r~~ R. Thomas Kline 01/18/2002 DEVEGLIA & Sworn and Subscribed to before By: ;J~~ heriff 7fi-~':: of AD Q.~ rothonotary . ~ SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2002-00187 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ROSI DORIS E ET AL VS HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL ET AL BRYAN WARD , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon STEWART RICHARD P MD the DEFENDANT CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to MARIANNE HOOVER, MED SEC a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 6.00 .00 .00 10.00 .00 16.00 So Answers: r~~ R. Thomas Kline 01/18/2002 DIVEGLIA & KAYLOR Sworn and Subscribed to before By: 2y Wer,/(&- J me this ,,2<1 ~ day of QAW A') ;)uv;L A.D. Cl'f.-- Q h..,I1:., ~-J P othonotary , SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2002-00187 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ROSI DORIS E ET AL VS HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL ET AL BRYAN WARD , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon KUNKEL BARBARA K MD the DEFENDANT , at 1152:00 HOURS, on the 17th day of January ,2002 at 3508 TRINDLE ROAD CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to MARIANNE HOOVER, MED SEC a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 6.00 .00 .00 10.00 .00 16.00 So Answers: r~~ R. Thomas Kline 01/18/2002 DIVEGLIA & Sworn and Subscribed to before By: KAYLOR K W~J Deputy Sh~& <<> me this .N v day of ~ ;Jo-o;L A.D. ~ (2 )YLI/,., ~v rothonotary , SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2002-00187 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ROSI DORIS E ET AL VS HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL ET AL BRYAN WARD , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon GIULIAN BERTRAND B MD the DEFENDANT , at 1152:00 HOURS, on the 17th day of January , 2002 at 3508 TRINDLE ROAD CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to MARIANNE HOOVER, MED SEC a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge So Answers: 6.00 .00 .00 10.00 .00 16.00 r~--'<=~~ R. Thomas Kline 01/18/2002 DIVEGLIA & KAYLOR Sworn and Subscribed to before By: /~ ?J ~ J Deputy "ijreriff me this J'I'f:: day of ~"d'."" ,#0).- A.D. Ck 1-.- () )1A I ~;.. :> -' rothonotary ,ViM SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2002-00187 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND ROSI DORIS E ET AL VS HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL ET AL BRYAN WARD , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES the DEFENDANT CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to MARIANNE HOOVER, MED SEC a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 6.00 .00 .00 10.00 .00 16.00 So Answers: ~ r-~rl"~.f~ R. Thomas Kline 01/18/2002 DIVEGLIA & Sworn and Subscribed to before By: Nrv-/ me this ).'1 ~ day of ~ <. "'J 7IJJ:J.., A.D. Cl~L-- a ~.flJJ.< A~ othonotary DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D.; RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D.; BARBARA K. KUNKLE, M.D.; BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D.; QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, Defendants TO: Archie V. Diveglia, Esquire 2 Lincoln Way West New Oxford, P A 17350 Counsel for Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : No. 02-187 Civil Term : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED RULE A RULE is hereby issued upon the Plaintiffs Doris E. Rosi and Joseph Rosi, to file a Complaint against Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital, within twenty (20) days after service hereof, or suffer a judgment of non pros. DATED: k.b~1 1.", ;l()(,;J.-..... k_ . PROTHONOTARY ~ DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs : No. 02-187 Civil Term v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D.; RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D.; BARBARA K. KUNKLE, M.D.; BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D.; QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: PLEASE ISSUE a Rule upon the Plaintiffs to file a Complaint against Holy Spirit Hospital within twenty (20) days after service thereof, or suffer judgment of non pros as provided in Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1037(a). OODSIDE, P.c. By: Craig A. Stllm ,Esquire ID #15907 ; 3401 North'Fr nt Street Harrisburg, 17110 717-232-500 Attorneys for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital Date: 2 -5-cf2-- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ~y of February, 2002, I, hereby certify that I am serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the persons and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules for Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage prepaid, as follows: Archie V. Diveglia, Esquire 2 Lincoln Way West New Oxford, PA 17350 George S. Durisek, M.D. Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Assoc. 3508 Trindle Road Camp Hill, P A 170 II Barbara K. Kunkle, M.D. Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Assoc. 3508 Trindle Road Camp Hill, P A 170II :285839 .1 Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Assoc. 3508 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Richard B. Stewart, M.D. Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Assoc. 3508 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 170II Bertrand B. Giulian, M.D. Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Assoc. 3508 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 170II ME squire >- a> >- (1"~ "" f- f:~::: z c.~ => (-) _. <( u"'" (J~ c:.- --; :::.. ,. ',.0 (./) I 'z 1:2 C:.-; ULW L....' i) n.. lL " I c"'.J ~'J , -, .~ _oJ U : DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : No. 02-187 Civil Term v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D.; RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D.; BARBARA K. KUNKLE, M.D.; BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D.; QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Please enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital, only, in the above-captioned action. Craig A. Ston , ID #15907 3401 North F Harrisburg, P 717-232-5000 Attorneys for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital By: Date: 2..g-t..5'7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 9h day of February, 2002, I, hereby certify that I am serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the persons and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules for Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage prepaid, as follows: Archie V. Diveglia, Esquire 2 Lincoln Way West New Oxford, PA 17350 George S. Durisek, M.D. Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Assoc. 3508 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 170II Barbara K. Kunkle, M.D. Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Assoc. 3508 Trindle Road Camp Hill, P A 170 II :285837 .1 Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Assoc. 3508 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 1701I Richard B. Stewart, M.D. Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Assoc. 3508 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 170II Bertrand B. Giulian, M.D. Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Assoc. 3508 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 170II ME OODSIDE 2 (') S .,]Ci~ n1r:' ~r ~~~' d:?\. j :i:2 3 , ".. ~ C" ,'V --1 ~&q C~::LJ I G) -OJ _..:.. i;? N GO {. ~) :;::~ :iJ -< ~ DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 02-187 CIVIL TERM HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P, STEWART, M.D, BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Courthouse 2 Liberty A venue Carlisle, PA 17013-3387 Telephone: (717) 249-3166 DIVEGLIA & KAYLOR, p,c. ~ . Dated: (:)~ 1'2 I 108.. Archie V. Diveglia, Esqu" e Attorney ID #17140 Two Lincoln Way West New Oxford, PA 171350 (717) 624-2500 Attorney for Plaintiff . v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 02-187 CIVIL TERM DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P, STEW ART, M.D, BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants COMPLAINT AND NOW, this 21st day of February, 2002 comes the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, Diveglia & Kaylor, P. C., and in support of their complaint aver as follows: I. The Plaintiffs are Doris E. Rosi and Joseph Rosi, husband and wife, adult individuals, who reside at 929 Emily Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17055. 2. The Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, is a health care facility organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and has a business address of 503 North 21st Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. 3. The Defendant, George S. Durisek, M. D., is an adult individual and a physician who was licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on or about March 2, 1998. The Defendant's current business address is 3508 Trindle Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. 1 4. The Defendant, Richard P. Stewart, M. D., is an adult individual and a physician who was licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on or about February 28, 1997. The Defendant's current address is 225 East Lauer Lane, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. 5. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital either employed directly, individually or collectively, Richard P. Stewart, M.D., George Durisek, M.D., Holy Spirit Radiology Association and A. Z. Ritzman to perform mammography at its hospital and on its behalf, or, alternatively, if any or all of the above-named were employed as independent contractors, then, the Holy Spirit Hospital was an ostensible agent in that these individuals and entities by use of the facilities, and letterhead of the hospital, among other matters, held themselves out to the patients involved as being part of the Holy Spirit Hospital. 6. The Defendant, Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates is the successor to A. Z. Ritzman and Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, and is a health care facility organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and has a business address of 3508 Trindle Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. 7. In March of 1998, the Defendant George S. Durisek, M.D., was an employee/partner/shareholder of Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to the A. Z. Ritzman and Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, or an employee/partner/shareholder of either the Defendant A. Z. Ritzman, Holy Spirit Hospital Radiology Associates and/or Holy Spirit Hospital and at all times hereinafter mentioned, he was acting within the scope of his employment and/or agency with the Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, 2 successor to A. Z. Ritzman and Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, and/or the Holy Spirit Hospital, Holy Spirit Hospital Radiology Associates or A. Z. Ritzman. 8. In February of 1997, the Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D., was an employee/partner/shareholder of Quantum hnaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to the A. Z. Ritzman and Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, or an employee/partner/shareholder of either the Defendant A. Z. Ritzman, Holy Spirit Hospital Radiology Associates, and/or Holy Spirit Hospital and at all times hereinafter mentioned, he was acting within the scope of his employment and/or agency with the Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to A. Z. Ritzman and Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, and/or the Holy Spirit Hospital, Holy Spirit Hospital Radiology Associates or A. Z. Ritzman.. 9. The Plaintiff, Doris E. Rosi, presented herself to the Holy Spirit Hospital for mammograms on February 28, 1997 and March 2, 1998. 10. The mammogram of February 28, 1997 was interpreted by Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D. 11. The mammogram of March 2, 1998 was interpreted by Defendant George Durisek, M. D. 12. The mammogram films taken on February 28, 1997 of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's right breast indicate increasing density compared to previous mammograms and some nodular features to that area on the MLO view. 13. Despite the clear findings shown in the mammogram films of February 28, 1997, the Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M. D., noted, incorrectly, as his conclusion to his interpretation: 3 "No evidence for malignancy. The focal lesion seen previously in the upper posterior right breast is no larger and probably smaller than it was previously. Its appearance is characteristic of an intramammary lymph node. No further follow-up is needed for this finding. I would simply recommend mammography at yearly intervals according to the guidelines of the American Cancer Society." 14. Despite the fact that the mammography films of February 28, 1997 did, in fact, indicate a right subareolar area with increasing density compared to previous mammograms, and some nodular features to the area in the MLO view, the Defendant, Richard P. Stewart, M.D., did not further investigate these findings or recommend further investigation, but merely recommended that Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi have yearly mammograms as a follow-up. 15. A report was prepared by Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M. D., and forwarded to Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's family doctor and Plaintiff was sent a letter from the Holy Spirit Hospital indicating her mammogram showed no evidence of cancer. 16. Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, in compliance with Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D.'s recommendation, and her family doctor's recommendation, presented herself for a mammogram in March of 1998. 17. In March of 1998, the Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi scheduled her yearly mammogram examination through her family doctor, who provided a prescription for the mammogram. 18. Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi presented herself to the Holy Spirit Hospital for a mammogram on March 2, 1998. The mammogram was interpreted by Defendant George S. Durisek, M. D. The mammogram film of March 2, 1998 of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's right breast indicated a persistent prominence of the subareolar ducts with striking asymmetry. 4 19. Despite the clear findings shown in the marmnogram film, the Defendant George S. Durisek, M. D., noted, incorrectly, in his conclusion of his interpretation that the findings were: "Persisting asymmetrical breast parenchymal tissues have not shown interval change compared with previous studies. There are no specific new or changing abnormalities to indicate a malignancy." 20. Despite the fact that the mammogram films indicated a persistent prominence of the subareolar ducts with striking asymmetry as compared to prior mammograms, Defendant George S. Durisek, M. D., failed to order or recommend, any further work-up, or make any recommendation as to how soon the marmnogram films should be repeated. 21. A report was prepared by Defendant George S. Durisek, M. D. and was forwarded to Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's family doctor by Defendant George S. Durisek, M. D. and forwarded to Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's family doctor and Plaintiff was sent a letter from the Holy Spirit Hospital indicating her mammogram showed no evidence of cancer. 22. Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi had a marmnogram of January 6, 2000, which also incorrectly reported an absence of suspicious fmdings. However, in March 2000, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi discovered a lump in her right breast, and for the first time became aware of the possibility that the prior mammograms heretofore mentioned were incorrect in their interpretation statements that they revealed no evidence of cancer. 23. Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi related that she noted an asymmetry in her right breast in an office visit with her family doctor of July 2000. 5 24. Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's family doctor, discovered a large fmnness/lump approximately 2-cm wide and 3-cm long in Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's right breast. 25. Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's family doctor promptly ordered additional diagnostic testing including an ultrasound and biopsies which revealed infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the breast. 26. As a result Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi underwent a modified radical mastectomy and chemotherapy in September of 2000 because her primary tumor was larger than average with unfavorable receptor status. 27. Following the chemotherapy treatment, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi has been placed Tamoxifen. 28. As a result of the operative procedure and the chemotherapy, and the medication, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi has incurred out-of-pocket expenses for medical treatment and related expenses. 29. As a result of the operative procedure, the chemotherapy, and the Tamoxifen medication, Plaintiff Joseph Rosi has and will continue to suffer the loss of his wife's companionship, services consortium. 30. The surgical procedure of the modified radical mastectomy, the chemotherapy and the Tamoxifen that were required as a result of the spreading of the cancer were caused by the misdiagnosis of: (a) the Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D. which was formed, in his fmdings of the February 28, 1997 mammogram films; and (b) the Defendant George S. Durisek, M.D., which was formed, in his findings of the March 2, 1998 mammogram films; 6 31. As a result of the negligent misdiagnoses which will be more fully set forth hereafter, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi has incurred a loss of her right breast, an increased risk of hamI and loss of chance of cure. 32. Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi has suffered extreme mental distress, emotional turmoil, fright, disfigurement, and depression, as a result of the misdiagnosis and prescribed treatment of her breast cancer. 33. Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi has suffered great pain as a result of the surgical procedure which she otherwise would not have incurred had the Defendants made proper diagnoses. 34. Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi has incurred severe adverse symptomatology as a result of undergoing chemotherapy that included, among other things, loss of all her body hair, depletion of red and white blood cells, increase risk of severe infections, weakness, fatigue, nausea, and general malaise. 35. As a result of the disability incurred by Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and may be incurred in the future, she has suffered loss of life's pleasures, curtailment of her normal routine household and family activities, and fatigue and may in the future suffer the same. COUNT I DORIS E. ROSI v. RICHARD P. STEW ART, M. D. 36. Paragraphs I through 35 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 7 37. The above said losses, surgeries, chemotherapy and Tamoxifen therapy are the result of the negligence of Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D., whose negligence consisted of the following: (a) He failed to follow the applicable standard of care in examining and interpreting the mammograms that he had taken of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi in February of 1997. This failure resulted in the misdiagnosis of the condition of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and was a substantial factor in delaying appropriate treatment of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and this delay in obtaining appropriate treatment, in turn, substantially increased the extent of the operative procedure and follow-up treatment, as well as reducing her life expectancy and chance for survival. (b) He failed to fully and appropriately examine prior mammograms and order sonography and additional views of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi to properly compare them. This failure resulted in the misdiagnosis of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's condition because proper comparison with the prior films would have revealed that the subareolar area had increasing density compared to previous mammograms and that there were some nodular features to this area on the MLO view not previously present. The standard of care required that such a comparison be made and that when it is made, it is made in a careful and prudent manner. The standard of care required that these suspicious areas have spot films, preferably with magnification and possible sonography. The statement by Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D., that there was no evidence for malignancy and that the focal lesions seen previously were no larger and probably smaller than was seen previously either represents a patently false statement by Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M. D., or gross negligence on his part in comparing the two films. In either event, Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D., has failed to follow the applicable standards of care and his failure was a substantial causal factor in the delay of proper diagnosis and treatment of the Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and thereby was a substantial factor in requiring the Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi to have an extensive surgery, chemotherapy, Tamoxifen therapy, and reduced life expectancy and chance of survival. (c) He failed to follow the applicable standard of care by failing to do a further work-up with a spot film and/or sonography to determine whether or not the right subareolar areas increased density with some nodular features, was a real lesion. His failure resulted in the misdiagnosis of the condition of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi as "negative" 8 , instead for carcinoma which is a life-threatening disease. This failure was a substantial factor in delaying appropriate treatment of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and this delay in obtaining appropriate treatment, in turn, substantially increased the extent of the operative procedure and follow- up treatment, as well as reducing her life expectancy and chance of survival. (d) He failed to follow the applicable standard of care in that he speculated that the comparison he made to the September 30, 1993 study revealed no significant interval change. He failed to fully and properly compare all of the films available to him including the films of September 23, 1996. This failure to appreciate the significance of the clear findings shown in the mammograms of the increasing density of the right subareolar area with nodular features, was a substantial factor in delaying appropriate treatment to Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and this delay in obtaining appropriate treatment, in turn, substantially increased the extent of the operative procedure and follow-up treatment, as well as reducing her life expectancy and chance of survival. (e) Despite finding of increasing density at the right subareolar area with some modular features, he failed to recommend further investigation despite the fact that further investigation was required to be within the standard of care. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, demands judgement against the Defendant, Richard P. Stewart, M.D., for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. COUNT II DORIS E. ROSI v. GEORGE S. DURISEK, M. D. 38. Paragraphs I through 35 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 39. The above said losses, surgeries, chemotherapy and Tamoxifen therapy are the result of the negligence of Defendant George S. Durisek, M.D., whose negligence consisted of the following: 9 . (a) He failed to follow the applicable standard of care in examining and interpreting the mammogram study taken of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi in March of 1998. This failure resulted in the misdiagnosis of the condition of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and was a substantial factor in delaying appropriate treatment of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and this delay in obtaining appropriate treatment, in turn, substantially increased the extent of the operative procedure and follow-up treatment, as well as reducing her life expectancy and chance for survival. (b) He failed to fully and appropriately examine prior mammograms with the films of March of 1998 and to properly compare them. This failure resulted in the misdiagnosis of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's condition because proper comparison with the prior films would have revealed that the asymmetrical density, the persistent prominence of the subareolar duct with striking asymmetry, could not be interpreted as "negative." The standard of care requires that such a comparison be made and that when it is made, it is made in a careful and prudent manner. The statement by Defendant George S. Durisek, M. D., that there were no specific, new or changing abnormalities to indicate a malignancy, is either patently false, or gross negligence on his part in comparing all prior films and the film before him of March of 1998. In either event, Defendant George S. Durisek, M.D., has failed to follow the applicable standards of care and his failure was a substantial causal factor in the delay of proper diagnosis and treatment of the Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and thereby was a substantial factor in requiring the Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi to have an extensive surgery, chemotherapy, Tamoxifen therapy and reduced life expectancy and chance of survival. (c) He failed to follow the applicable standard of care by failing to do a further work-up including spot films and a biopsy, or even sonography, to detennine whether or not the persistent prominence of the subareolar ducts with striking asymmetry was a real lesion. His failure resulted in the misdiagnosis of the condition of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi as "benign" instead for carcinoma which is a life-threatening disease. This failure was a substantial factor in delaying appropriate treatment of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and this delay in obtaining appropriate treatment, in turn, substantially increased the extent of the operative procedure and follow- up treatment, as well as reducing her life expectancy and chance of survival. (d) He failed to follow the applicable standard of care in that he speculated that the asymmetrical breast parenchyma density which is most prominent in the subareolar and medial aspect of the right breast had 10 . not changed and, in fact, was benign. This failure to appreciate the significance of the clear findings shown in the manunogram films of the persistent prominence of the subareolar ducts with striking asymmetry was a substantial factor in delaying appropriate treatment to Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and this delay in obtaining appropriate treatment, in turn, substantially increased the extent of the operative procedure and follow- up treatment, as well as reducing her life expectancy and chance of survival. (e) He failed to follow the applicable standard of care by failing to recommend a further work-up including spot films and a biopsy, or even sonography, to determine whether or not the persistent prominence of the subareolar ducts with striking asymmetry was a real lesion. His failure resulted in the misdiagnosis of the condition of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi as "benign" instead for carcinoma which is a life-threatening disease. This failure was a substantial factor in delaying appropriate treatment of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and this delay in obtaining appropriate treatment, in turn, substantially increased the extent of the operative procedure and follow-up treatment, as well as reducing her life expectancy and chance of survival. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, demands judgement against the Defendant, George S. Durisek, M. D., for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. COUNT III DORIS E. ROSI v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL 40. Paragraphs I through 39 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 41. The damages, expenses and losses of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi were caused by the negligence of the Holy Spirit Hospital, under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior and ostensible agency. 11 . . WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, demands judgement against the Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. COUNT IV DORIS E. ROSI v. HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES 42. Paragraphs 1 through 39 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 43. It is currently unknown whether either or both of the named physicians at the time of the interpretations of the mammograms of February 28, 1997 or March 2, 1998 were employees/agents or servants of Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, but if it is determined that either or both were so employed, then Holy Spirit Radiology Associates are liable for the negligence set forth against either or both under the doctrine of Resoondeat Suoerior. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, demands judgement against the Defendant, Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. COUNT V DORIS E. ROSI v. A. Z. RITZMAN 44. Paragraphs 1 through 39 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 45. It is currently unknown whether either or both of the named physicians at the time of the interpretations of the mammograms of February 28, 1997 or March 2, 1998 were employees/agents or servants of A. Z. Ritzman, but if it is determined that either or both were 12 . . so employed, then A. Z. Ritzman is liable for the negligence set forth against either or both under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, demands judgement against the Defendant, A. Z. Ritzman, for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. COUNT VI DORIS E. ROSI v. QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A. Z. RITZMAN AND HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES 46. Paragraphs I through 45 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 47. The damages, expenses and losses of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi were caused by the negligence of the Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, Successor to A. Z. Ritzman and Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, demands judgement against the Defendant, Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, Successor to A. Z. Ritzman and Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. COUNT VII JOSEPH ROSI v. RICHARD P. STEW ART, M. D. 48. Paragraphs 1 through 37 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 49. By the reason of the aforesaid negligence of the Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M. D., the Plaintiff Joseph Rosi has been deprived of the assistance, society, services, and consortium of his wife, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, all of which has been a loss to him. 13 ... . WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Joseph Rosi demands judgment against the Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M. D., for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. COUNT VIll JOSEPH ROSI v. GEORGE S. DURISEK, M. D. 50. Paragraphs I through 39 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 51. By the reason of the aforesaid negligence of the Defendant George S. Durisek, M.D., the Plaintiff Joseph Rosi has been deprived of the assistance, society, services, and consortium of his wife, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, all of which has been a loss to him. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Joseph Rosi demands judgment against the Defendant George S. Durisek, M.D., for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. COUNT IX JOSEPH ROSI v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL 52. Paragraphs 1 through 41 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 53. By the reason of the aforesaid negligence of the Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital, the Plaintiff Joseph Rosi has been deprived of the assistance, society, services, and consortium of his wife, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, all of which has been a loss to him. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Joseph Rosi demands judgment against the Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital, for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. 14 . . COUNT X JOSEPH ROSI v. HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES 54. Paragraphs 1 through 43 are incOlporated herein and made part hereof. 55. By the reason of the aforesaid negligence of the Defendant Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, the Plaintiff Joseph Rosi has been deprived of the assistance, society, services, and consortium of his wife, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, all of which has been a loss to him. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Joseph Rosi demands judgment against the Defendant Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. COUNT XI JOSEPH ROSI v. A. Z. RITZMAN 56. Paragraphs 1 through 45 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 57. By the reason of the aforesaid negligence of the Defendant A. Z. Ritzman, the Plaintiff Joseph Rosi has been deprived of the assistance, society, services, and consortium of his wife, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, all of which has been a loss to him. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Joseph Rosi demands judgment against the Defendant A. Z. Ritzman, for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. 15 ., - COUNT XII JOSEPH ROSI v. QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A. Z. RITZMAN AND HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES 58. Paragraphs 1 through 47 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 59. By the reason of the aforesaid negligence of the Defendant Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, Successor to A. Z. Ritzman and Holy Spirit Radiology Associates the Plaintiff Joseph Rosi has been deprived of the assistance, society, services, and consortium of his wife, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, all of which has been a loss to him. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Joseph Rosi demands judgment against the Defendant Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, Successor to A. Z. Ritzman and Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. Respectfully Submitted, DIVEGLIA & KAYLOR, P.c. Dated: ro. /.Q.I I o;;;t By: t....... Archie V. Diveglia, Esquire Attorney I.D. #17140 Two Lincoln Way West New Oxford, PA 17350 (717) 624-2500 Attorney for Plaintiff 16 """ r .. VERIFICATION The foregoing complaint is based upon information which has been gathered by our counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit. We have read the complaint and to the extent that it is based upon information which we have given to our counsel, it is true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content is that of counsel, we have relied upon counsel in making this verification. This statement and verification are made subject to the penalties of Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if we make knowingly false averments, we may be subject to criminal penalties. ~~.~> Doris E. Rosi Q~hQtO~ CJ Joseph Rosi .., ,. If"". CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 21st day of February, 2002, I, Janet C. Naclerio, for DIVEGLIA & KAYLOR, P.c., hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing COMPLAINT served via first class mail, postage pre-paid, and addressed to the following: Caig A. Stone, Esquire Mette, Evans & Woodside 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 Evan Black, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 North Front Street Sixth Floor P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 DIVEGLIA & KAYLOR, P.c. c ~(1~ or 00- CT .;;.. ..' . v, u: c:": , ,~ I~'- .<"': , .-'.,~ '. )-.,.." ..~.".. C,.' C_, , L ,j ..' :: r.-~) i ,..:.- >~ <1? ~..... '_.J .') u ~ ~ ~~. ~ ~&. ~ ~~ ~ @-1 d~d) o t .) DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA v. NO. 02-187 CIVIL TERM HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURlSEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D. BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL RADIOLOGY: ASSOCIATES, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, this _ day of ,2002, in consideration of the Preliminary Objections of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. No. 1028, said Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint are SUSTAINED such that: . Count III of Plaintiffs' Complaint is stricken due to its insufficient specificity. J. :287932_ DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA v. NO. 02-187 CIVIL TERM HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURlSEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D. BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL RADIOLOGY : ASSOCIATES, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Doris E. Rosi and Joseph Rosi, Plaintiffs c/o Archie V. Diveglia, Esquire Two Lincoln Way West New Oxford, PA 17350 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the Preliminary Objections of Holy Spirit Hospital to Plaintiffs' Complaint within twenty (20) days from service hereof or ajudgment may be entered against you. METrE, EVANS & WOODSIDE By: Ka/-Ah;;0 B. V:it^~ CRAIG A. STON ,ESQUIRE Supreme Court LD. #15907 KATHLEEN D. YANINEK, ESQUIRE Supreme Court LD. #73445 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717) 232-5000 Attorneys for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital DATED: February 28, 2002 DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA v. NO. 02-187 CIVIL TERM HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D. BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL RADIOLOGY: ASSOCIATES, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants. JURYT~DEMANDED PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital, by and through its attorneys, Mette, Evans & Woodside, hereby files the following Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028 and avers as follows: 1. A true and correct copy of the Complaint is marked as Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 2. Doris E. Rosi ["Mrs. Rosi"] and Joseph Rosi ["Mr. Rosi"] have commenced a medical malpractice action against Holy Spirit Hospital; George S. Durisek, M.D. ["Dr. Durisek"]; Richard P. Stewart ["Dr. Stewart"]; Barbara K. Kunkel, M.D. ["Dr. Kunkel"]; Bertrand B. Giulian ["Dr. Giulian"]; Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, ["Quantum"] successor to A. Z. Ritzman and Holy Spirit Radiology Associates ["Holy Spirit Radiology"] by filing a Praecipe for Writ of Summons on or about January 14, 2002. 3. A Complaint was served on February 21, 2002. 4. The preliminary objections of Holy Spirit Hospital are directed to all or part of the allegations contained in Count III of the Complaint. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF A MOTION TO STRIKE FOR INSUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY OF A PLEADING PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. NO. 1028(a)(3) 5. Paragraphs 1 through 4 above are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 6. In Count III of the Complaint, Plaintiffs plead as follows: *** 41. The damages, expenses, and losses of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi were caused by the negligence of the Holy Spirit Hospital, under the doctrine of ResDondeat SUDenor and ostensible agency. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, demands judgment against the Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. See Exhibit "A," Count III. 7. It has been held that a complaint must not only give the defendants notice of what plaintiff's claim is and the grounds upon which it rests, but also must formulate the issues by summarizing those facts essential to support the claim. Baker v. Ranl!"OS, 229 Pa. Super 333, 324 A.2d 498 (1974). 2 8. In the very least, a complainant must allege facts which: 1. IdentifY the agent by narne or appropriate description 2. Set forth the agent's authority, and how the tortious acts of that agent fall within the scope of that authority. Alumni Association. et al. v. Sullivan, 369 Pa. Super 596, 535 A.2d 1095 (1987). 9. Although Plaintiffs incorporate into Count III previous paragraphs of the Complaint, including paragraph 5 (which alleges that certain Defendants were employed by Holy Spirit Hospital or, in the alternative were allegedly the ostensible agents of Holy Spirit Hospital), Plaintiffs still fail to identify or specifY which alleged Defendants and/or whether any other individuals were allegedly employees, agents and/or ostensible agents of Holy Spirit Hospital so as to allegedly render the hospital liable under respondeat superior and/or ostensible agency. 10. Without further facts to substantiate the identity of the alleged employees, agents or ostensible agents of Holy Spirit Hospital and/or who allegedly committed the negligent acts, Holy Spirit Hospital is without notice as to what the Plaintiffs' claims are and the grounds upon which they are based. 11. Also, as Count III is currently pleaded, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital cannot determine whether Plaintiff is alleging that any individuals besides the named Defendants were negligent and were allegedly employees, agents or 3 ostensible agents of Holy Spirit Hospital so as to allegedly render the hospital liable under respondeat superior and/or ostensible agency. WHEREFORE, Holy Spirit Hospital respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order striking Count III of Plaintiffs' Complaint due to its insufficient specificity. In the alternative, Plaintiffs should be directed to file a more specific pleading. METrE, EVANS & WOODSIDE By: ~!1JRM/v ~ ~ CRAIG A. STONE, SQ RE Sup. Ct. J.D. #15907 KATHLEEN DOYLE YANINEK, ESQUIRE Sup. Ct. J.D. #73445 3401 North Front Street P.O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717) 232-5000 Attorneys for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital DATED: February 28, 2002 4 Exhibit A , " DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 02-187 CIVIL TERM HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P, STEW ART, M.D, BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, o s:; "'t.l ,f:~~' n\r' CIVIL ACTION - LAW z '" >:[ C/C,) -< r- < I> ~" JURY TRIAL DEMANDED; i~ );> ./ ~ "'~ _4 -< C'j r.........) -. '~i" '~:r) 00 '-' C"...) ~'1 en ~,::~ 5) --..: Defendants NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served by entering a written appearance personally or by attomey and filing in writing with the Coutt your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Coutt 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 OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Courthouse 2 Liberty A venue Carlisle, PA 17013-3387 Telephone: (717) 249-3166 Dated: {) ~ /3j.l / 0 '&... DIVEGLIA & KAYLOR, P.C. /ii' i" ~ By: ~\.?) .' "\ Archie V. Diveglia, Esquire Attorney 10 #17140 Two Lincoln Way West New Oxford, PA 171350 (717) 624-2500 Attorney for Plaintiff v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 02-187 CIVIL TERM DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P, STEW ART, M.D, BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants COMPLAINT AND NOW, this 21st day of February, 2002 comes the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, Diveglia & Kaylor, P. C., and in support of their complaint aver as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs are Doris E. Rosi and Joseph Rosi, husband and wife, adult individuals, who reside at 929 Emily Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17055. 2. The Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, is a health care facility organized under the laws of the Conunonwealth of Pennsylvania and has a business address of 503 North 21st Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. 3. The Defendant, George S. Durisek, M. D., is an adult individual and a physician who was licensed to practice medicine in the Conunonwealth of Pennsylvania on or about March 2, 1998. The Defendant's current business address is 3508 Trindle Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. 1 4. The Defendant, Richard P. Stewart, M. D., is an adult individual and a physician who was licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on or about February 28, 1997. The Defendant's current address is 225 East Lauer Lane, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. 5. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital either employed directly, individually or collectively, Richard P. Stewart, M.D., George Durisek, M.D., Holy Spirit Radiology Association and A. Z. Ritzman to perform mammography at its hospital and on its behalf, or, alternatively, if any or all of the above-named were employed as independent contractors, then, the Holy Spirit Hospital was an ostensible agent in that these. individuals and entities by use of the facilities, and letterhead of the hospital, among other matters, held themselves out to the patients involved as being part of the Holy Spirit HospitaL 6. The Defendant, Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates is the successor to A. Z. Ritzman and Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, and is a health care facility organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and has a business address of 3508 Trindle Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. 7. In March of 1998, the Defendant George S. Durisek, M.D., was an employee/partner/shareholder of Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to the A. Z. Ritzman and Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, or an employee/partner/shareholder of either the Defendant A. Z. Ritzman, Holy Spirit Hospital Radiology Associates and/or Holy Spirit Hospital and at all times hereinafter mentioned, he was acting within the scope of his employment and/or agency with the Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, 2 successor to A. Z. Ritzman and Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, and/or the Holy Spirit Hospital, Holy Spirit Hospital Radiology Associates or A. Z. Ritzman. 8. In February of 1997, the Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D., was an employee/partner/shareholder of Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to the A. Z. Ritzman and Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, or an employee/partner/shareholder of either the Defendant A. Z. Ritzman, Holy Spirit Hospital Radiology Associates, and/or Holy Spirit Hospital and at all times hereinafter mentioned, he was acting within the scope of his employment and/or agency with the Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to A. Z. Ritzman and Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, and/or the Holy Spirit Hospital, Holy Spirit Hospital Radiology Associates or A. Z. Ritzman.. 9. The Plaintiff, Doris E. Rosi, presented herself to the Holy Spirit Hospital for manunograms on February 28, 1997 and March 2, 1998. 10. The mammogram of February 28, 1997 was interpreted by Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D. 11. The manunogram of March 2, 1998 was interpreted by Defendant George Durisek, M. D. 12. The manunogram films taken on February 28, 1997 of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's right breast indicate increasing density compared to previous manunograms and some nodular features to that area on the MLO view. 13. Despite the clear fmdings shown in the manunogram films of February 28, 1997, the Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M. D., noted, incorrectly, as his conclusion to his interpretation: 3 "No evidence for malignancy. The focal lesion seen previously in the upper posterior right breast is no larger and probably smaller than it was previously. Its appearance is characteristic of an intramanunary lymph node. No further follow-up is needed for this fmding. I would simply recommend mammography at yearly intervals according to the guidelines of the American Cancer Society." 14. Despite the fact that the mammography films of February 28, 1997 did, in fact, indicate a right subareolar area with increasing density compared to previous mammograms, and some nodular features to the area in the MLO view, the Defendant, Richard P. Stewart, M.D., did not further investigate these fmdings or recommend further investigation, but merely recommended that Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi have yearly mammograms as a follow-up. 15. A report was prepared by Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M. D., and forwarded to Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's family doctor and Plaintiff was sent a letter from the Holy Spirit Hospital indicating her mammogram showed no evidence of cancer. 16. Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, in compliance with Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D.'s recommendation, and her family doctor's recommendation, presented herself for a mammogram in March of 1998. 17. In March of 1998, the Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi scheduled her yearly mammogram examination through her family doctor, who provided a prescription for the mammogram. 18. Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi presented herself to the Holy Spirit Hospital for a mammogram on March 2, 1998. The mammogram was interpreted by Defendant George S. Durisek, M. D. The mammogram film of March 2, 1998 of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's right breast indicated a persistent prominence of the subareolar ducts with striking asymmetry. 4 19. Despite the clear fmdings shown in the mammogram film, the Defendant George S. Dutisek, M. D., noted, incorrectly, in his conclusion of his interpretation that the fmdings were: "Persisting asynunetrical breast parenchymal tissues have not shown interval change compared with previous studies. There are no specific new or changing abnormalities to indicate a malignancy." 20. Despite the fact that the mammogram films indicated a persistent prominence of the subareolar ducts with striking asynunetry as compared to prior mammograms, Defendant George S. Dutisek, M. D., failed to order or recommend, any further work-up, or make any recommendation as to how soon the mammogram films should be repeated. 21. A report was prepared by Defendant George S. Dutisek, M. D. and was forwarded to Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's family doctor by Defendant George S. Dutisek, M. D. and forwarded to Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's family doctor and Plaintiff was sent a letter from the Holy Spirit Hospital indicating her mammogram showed no evidence of cancer. 22. Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi had a mammogram of January 6, 2000, which also incorrectly reported an absence of suspicious fmdings. However, in March 2000, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi discovered a lump in her right breast, and for the first time became aware of the possibility that the prior mammograms heretofore mentioned were incorrect in their interpretation statements that they revealed no evidence of cancer. 23. Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi related that she noted an asynunetry in her right breast in an office visit with her family doctor of July 2000. 5 24. Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's family doctor, discovered a large finnness/lurnp approximately 2-cm wide and 3-cm long in Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's right breast. 25. Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's family doctor promptly ordered additional diagnostic testing including an ultrasound and biopsies which revealed infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the breast. 26. As a result Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi underwent a modified radical mastectomy and chemotherapy in September of 2000 because her primary tumor was larger than average with unfavorable receptor status. 27. Following the chemotherapy treatment, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi has been placed Tamoxifen. 28. As a result of the operative procedure and the chemotherapy, and the medication, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi has incurred out-of-pocket expenses for medical treatment and related expenses. 29. As a result of the operative procedure, the chemotherapy, and the Tamoxifen medication, Plaintiff Joseph Rosi has and will continue to suffer the loss of his wife's companionship, services consortium. 30. The surgical procedure of the modified radical mastectomy, the chemotherapy and the Tamoxifen that were required as a result of the spreading of the cancer were caused by the misdiagnosis of: (a) the Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D. which was formed, in his findings of the February 28, 1997 mammogram fIlms; and (b) the Defendant George S. Durisek, M.D., which was formed, in his fmdings of the March 2, 1998 mammogram films; 6 31. As a result of the negligent misdiagnoses which will be more fully set forth hereafter, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi has incurred a loss of her right breast, an increased risk of harm and loss of chance of cure. 32. Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi has suffered extreme mental distress, emotional turmoil, fright, disfigurement, and depression, as a result of the misdiagnosis and prescribed treatment of her breast cancer. 33. Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi has suffered great pain as a result of the surgical procedure which she otherwise would not have incurred had the Defendants made proper diagnoses. 34. Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi has incurred severe adverse symptomatology as a result of undergoing chemotherapy that included, among other things, loss of all her body hair, depletion of red and white blood cells, increase risk of severe infections, weakness, fatigue, nausea, and general malaise. 35. As a result of the disability incurred by Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and may be incurred in the future, she has suffered loss of life's pleasures, curtailment of her normal routine household and family activities, and fatigue and may in the future suffer the same. COUNT I DORIS E. ROSI v. RICHARD P. STEWART, M. D. 36. Paragraphs 1 through 35 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 7 37. The above said losses, surgeries, chemotherapy and Tamoxifen therapy are the result of the negligence of Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D., whose negligence consisted of the following: (a) He failed to follow the applicable standard of care in examining and interpreting the mammograms that he had taken of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi in February of 1997. This failure resulted in the misdiagnosis of the condition of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and was a substantial factor in delaying appropriate treatment of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and this delay in obtaining appropriate treatment, in turn, substantially increased the extent of the operative procedure and follow-up treatment, as well as reducing her life expectancy and chance for survival. (b) He failed to fully and appropriately examine prior mammograms and order sonography and additional views of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi to properly compare them. This failure resulted in the misdiagnosis of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's condition because proper comparison with the prior fIlms would have revealed that the subareolar area had increasing density compared to previous mammograms and that there were some nodular features to this area on the MLO view not previously present. The standard of care required that such a comparison be made and that when it is made, it is made in a careful and prudent manner. The standard of care required that these suspicious areas have spot films, preferably with magnification and possible sonography. The statement by Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D., that there was no evidence for malignancy and that the focal lesions seen previously were no larger and probably smaller than was seen previously either represents a patently false statement by Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M. D., or gross negligence on his part in comparing the two films. In either event, Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D., has failed to follow the applicable standards of care and his failure was a substantial causal factor in the delay of proper diagnosis and treatment of the Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and thereby was a substantial factor in requiring the Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi to have an extensive surgery, chemotherapy, Tamoxifen therapy, and reduced life expectancy and chance of survival. (c) He failed to follow the applicable standard of care by failing to do a further work-up with a spot film and/or sonography to determine whether or not the right subareolar areas increased density with some nodular features, was a real lesion. His failure resulted in the misdiagnosis of the condition of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi as "negative" 8 instead for carcinoma which is a life-threatening disease. This failure was a substantial factor in delaying appropriate treatment of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and this delay in obtaining appropriate treatment, in turn, substantially increased the extent of the operative procedure and follow- up treatment, as well as reducing her life expectancy and chance of survival. (d) He failed to follow the applicable standard of care in that he speculated that the comparison he made to the September 30, 1993 study revealed no significant interval change. He failed to fully and properly compare all of the films available to him including the films of September 23, 1996. This failure to appreciate the significance of the clear fmdings shown in the manunograms of the increasing density of the right subareolar area with nodular features, was a substantial factor in delaying appropriate treatment to Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and this delay in obtaining appropriate treatment, in turn, substantially increased the extent of the operative procedure and follow-up treatment, as well as reducing her life expectancy and chance of survival. (e) Despite fmding of increasing density at the right subareolar area with some modular features, he failed to recommend further investigation despite the fact that further investigation was required to be within the standard of care. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, demands judgement against the Defendant, Richard P. Stewart, M.D., for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. COUNT II DORIS E. ROSI v. GEORGE S. DURISEK, M. D. 38. Paragraphs I through 35 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 39. The above said losses, surgeries, chemotherapy and TanlOxifen therapy are the result of the negligence of Defendant George S. Durisek, M.D., whose negligence consisted of the following: 9 (a) He failed to follow the applicable standard of care in examining and interpreting the mammogram study taken of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi in March of 1998. This failure resulted in the misdiagnosis of the condition of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and was a substantial factor in delaying appropriate treatment of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and this delay in obtaining appropriate treatment, in turn, substantially increased the extent of the operative procedure and follow-up treatment, as well as reducing her life expectancy and chance for survival. (b) He failed to fully and appropriately examine prior mammograms with the fIlms of March of 1998 and to properly compare them. This failure resulted in the misdiagnosis of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's condition because proper comparison with the prior fIlms would have revealed that the asymmetrical density, the persistent prominence of the subareolar duct with striking asymmetry, could not be interpreted as "negative." The standard of care requires that such a comparison be made and that when it is made, it is made in a careful and prudent manner. The statement by Defendant George S. Durisek, M. D., that there were no specifIc, new or changing abnormalities to indicate a malignancy, is either patently false, or gross negligence on his part in comparing all prior fIlms and the film before him of March of 1998. In either event, Defendant George S. Durisek, M.D., has failed to follow the applicable standards of care and his failure was a substantial causal factor in the delay of proper diagnosis and treatment of the Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and thereby was a substantial factor in requiring the Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi to have an extensive surgery, chemotherapy, Tamoxifen therapy and reduced life expectancy and chance of survival. (c) He failed to follow the applicable standard of care by failing to do a further work-up including spot fIlms and a biopsy, or even sonography, to determine whether or not the persistent prominence of the subareolar ducts with striking asymmetry was a real lesion. His failure resulted in the misdiagnosis of the condition of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi as "benign" instead for carcinoma which is a life-threatening disease. This failure was a substantial factor in delaying appropriate treatment of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and this delay in obtaining appropriate treatment, in turn, substantially increased the extent of the operative procedure and follow- up treatment, as well as reducing her life expectancy and chance of survival. (d) He failed to follow the applicable standard of care in that he speculated that the asymmetrical breast parenchyma density which is most prominent in the subareolar and medial aspect of the right breast had 10 not changed and, in fact, was benign. This failure to appreciate the significance of the clear fmdings shown in the mammogram fIlms of the persistent prominence of the subareolar ducts with striking asymmetry was a substantial factor in delaying appropriate treatment to Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and this delay in obtaining appropriate treatment, in turn, substantially increased the extent of the operative procedure and follow- up treatment, as well as reducing her life expectancy and chance of survival. (e) He failed to follow the applicable standard of care by failing to recommend a further work-up including spot films and a biopsy, or even sonography, to determine whether or not the persistent prominence of the subareolar ducts with striking asymmetry was a real lesion. His failure resulted in the misdiagnosis of the condition of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi as "benign" instead for carcinoma which is a life-threatening disease. This failure was a substantial factor in delaying appropriate treatment of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and this delay in obtaining appropriate treatment, in turn, substantially increased the extent of the operative procedure and follow-up treatment, as well as reducing her life expectancy and chance of survival. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, demands judgement against the Defendant, George S. Durisek, M. D., for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. COUNT 1lI DORIS E. ROSI v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL 40. Paragraphs 1 through 39 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 41. The damages, expenses and losses of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi were caused by the negligence of the Holy Spirit Hospital, under the doctrine of Resoondeat Suoerior and ostensible agency. 11 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, demands judgement against the Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. COUNT IV DORIS E. ROSI v. HOLY SPffiIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES 42. Paragraphs I through 39 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 43. It is currently unknown whether either or both of the named physicians at the time of the interpretations of the mammograms of February 28, 1997 or March 2, 1998 were employees/agents or servants of Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, but if it is determined that either or both were so employed, then Holy Spirit Radiology Associates are liable for the negligence set fqrth against either or both under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff .Doris E. Rosi, demands judgement against the Defendant, Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. COUNT V DORIS E. ROSI v. A. Z. RITZMAN 44. Paragraphs I through 39 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 45. It is currently unknown whether either or both of the named physicians at the time of the interpretations of the mammograms of February 28, 1997 or March 2, 1998 were employees/agents or servants of A. Z. Ritzman, but if it is determined that either or both were 12 so employed, then A. Z. Ritzman is liable for the negligence set forth against either or both under the doctrine of Resvondeat Suverior. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, demands judgement against the Defendant, A. Z. Ritzman, for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. COUNT VI DORIS E. ROSI v. QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A. Z. RITZMAN AND HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES 46. Paragraphs 1 through 45 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 47. The damages, expenses and losses of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi were caused by the negligence of the Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, Successor to A. Z. Ritzman and Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, under the doctrine of Resvondeat Suverior. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, demands judgement against the Defendant, Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, Successor to A. Z. Ritzman and Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. COUNT VII JOSEPH ROSI v. RICHARD P. STEW ART, M. D. 48. Paragraphs 1 through 37 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 49. By the reason of the aforesaid negligence of the Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M. D., the Plaintiff Joseph Rosi has been deprived of the, assistance, society, services, and consortiurn of his wife, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, ail of which has been a loss to him. 13 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Joseph Rosi demands judgment against the Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M. D., for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. COUNT vm JOSEPH ROSI v. GEORGE S. DURISEK, M. D. 50. Paragraphs 1 through 39 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 51. By the reason of the aforesaid negligence of the Defendant George S. Durisek, M.D., the Plaintiff Joseph Rosi has been deprived of the assistance, society, services, and consortiurn of his wife, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, all of which has been a loss to him. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Joseph Rosi demands judgment against the Defendant George S. Durisek, M.D., for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. COUNT IX JOSEPH ROSI v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL 52. Paragraphs I through 41 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 53. By the reason of the aforesaid negligence of the Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital, the Plaintiff Joseph Rosi has been deprived of the assistance, society, services, and consortium of his wife, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, all of which has been a loss to him. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Joseph Rosi demands judgment against the Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital, for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. 14 COUNT X JOSEPH ROSI v. HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES 54. Paragraphs 1 through 43 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 55. By the reason of the aforesaid negligence of the Defendant Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, the Plaintiff Joseph Rosi has been deprived of the assistance, society, services, and consortium of his wife, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, all of which has been a loss to hinI. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Joseph Rosi demands judgment against the Defendant Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. COUNT XI JOSEPH ROSI v. A. Z. RITZMAN 56. Paragraphs 1 through 45 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 57. By the reason of the aforesaid negligence of the Defendant A. Z. Ritzman, the Plaintiff Joseph Rosi has been deprived of the assistance, society, services, and consortium of his wife, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, all of which has been a loss to hinI. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Joseph Rosi demands judgment against the Defendant A. Z. Ritzman, for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. 15 r . COUNT xn JOSEPH ROSI v. QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A. Z. RITZMAN AND HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES 58. Paragraphs 1 througlI 47 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 59. By the reason of the aforesaid negligence of the Defendant Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, Successor to A. Z. Ritzman and Holy Spirit Radiology Associates the Plaintiff Joseph Rosi has been deprived of the assistance, society, services, and consortium of his wife, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, all of which has been a loss to him. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Joseph Rosi demands judgment against the Defendant Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, Successor to A. Z. Ritzman and Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. Respectfully Submitted, DlVEGLlA & KAYLOR, P.c. , Dated: C) Q. / c;J. I / c.9 'Q, By: ~IJ '~~8~ Archie V. Diveglia, Esquire . Attorney 1.D. #17140 Two Lincoln Way West New Oxford, PA 17350 (717) 624-2500 Attorney for Plaintiff 16 . VERIFICATION The foregoing complaint is based upon information which has been gathered by our counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit. We have read the complaint and to the extent that it is based upon information which we have given to our counsel, it is true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content is that of counsel, we have relied upon counsel in making this verification. This statement and verification are made subject to the penalties of Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if we make knowingly false averments, we may be subject to criminal penalties. ~;;'~J Doris E. Rosi (j- &:"1.A {}, Q,pi Joseph Rosi . . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 21st day of February, 2002, I, Janet C. Naclerio, for DIVEGLIA & KAYLOR, P.C., hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing COMPLAINT served via first class mail, postage pre-paid, and addressed to the following: Caig A. Stone, Esquire Mette, Evans & Woodside 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 Evan Black, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 North Front Street Sixth Floor P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 DIVEGLIA & KAYLOR, P.e. . J~O'S~~~ Diveglia & Kaylor, P.e. . . . , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage prepaid, as follows: Archie V. Diveglia, Esquire Two Lincoln Way West New Oxford, PA 17350 [Attorney for Plaintiffs] Evan Black, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer PO Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 MEITE, EVANS & WOODSIDE By: koJf~ ~JttlAJ~~ CRAIG A. STO , QUIRE Supreme Court I.D. #15907 KATHLEEN DOYLE YANINEK, ESQUIRE Supreme Court LD. #73445 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 (717) 232-5000 Attorneys for Holy Spirit Hospital DATED: February 28, 2002 :>- - t ~ G: c: ~'1-:: ~~ C' l~ r:" (,), -y- u:;,: Cl- >. ~] .:J J i~fu r- I <'- ~!:z c..;:: LUuJ ..,,'..:. CUD.. ::.: ..>::- Hf::. ,". ("'.1 :::;) '~ (:)" <:) U THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: Evan Black, Esquire Identification No. 17884 305 North Front Street p, 0. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 441-7051 Attorney for Defendants George S. Durisek, MD" Richard P. Stewart, MD., Barbara K. Kunkel, MD" Bertrand B. Giulian, MD., and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to A. Z. Ritzman Associates DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, : DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Term GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIULlAN, M.D., CIVIL ACTION - LAW QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter our appearance on behalf of Defendant Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to A. Z. Ritzman in the above-captioned matter. T~MAS & HAFER, IU EY AN BLACK, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendants Durisek, Stewart, Kunkel, Giulian, and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kathy L. Sitler, an employee of the law offices of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following persons via United States mail, fIrst class, postage prepaid, as follows: Archie V. Diveglia, Esquire Diveglia & Kaylor, P.C. Two Lincoln Way West New Oxford, PA 17350 Craig A. Stone, Esquire Mette, Evans & Woodside 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 Date: ~ 7, ;;)00';;; ~ >f~ KATHY~ITLER ,,~~""~- ._...~"r...':';;" o C ?.. "1)6::, m~' - Z:::r: ;~r.;~ (J" r~- ,: ,-"-~' ~::c~ ~(-, Pc: z :< ,,,., "-"~';' o r" :Jt: :r:.. ;":1 I ('Xl () -h ~ 1k~ ---j';""J :;~~ ~') -,,-'1, <~~.~ ~jrn :;;! :0 -< ..., f)? :n (J:) .".,~.~~~... ~- THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: Evan Black, Esquire Identification No. 17884 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 441-7051 Attorney for Defendants George S. Durisek, MD., Richard p, Stewart, MD" Barbara K Kunkel, MD" and Bertrand B. Giulian, MD., and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, : DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Term GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GlULlAN, M.D., CIVIL ACTION - LAW QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD To: Doris E. Rosi and Joseph Rosi, by and through their attorney, Archie DiVeglia, Esquire Diveglia & Kaylor, P.C. Two Lincoln Way West New Oxford, P A 17350 You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days of service hereof or the relief requested may be entered against you. THOMAS, THOMA .& HAFER, LLP EVAN BLACK, ESQUI Attorney for Defendants Durisek, Kunkel, Giulian and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to A. Z. Ritzman THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: Evan Black, Esquire Identification No. 17884 305 North Front Street P 0. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 441-7051 Attorney for Defendants George S. Durisek, MD., Richard p, Stewart. MD., Barbara K. Kunkel. MD., and Bertrand B. Giulian, MD., and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, Successor to A.Z Ritzman DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Term GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIULlAN, M.D., CIVIL ACTION - LAW QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOL Y SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AND NOW come the Defendants, by and through their counsel, and aver the following answer to the Complaint: I. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint. Proof is demanded thereof. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint. Proof is demanded thereof. 3. Admitted. For further answer, the business office of Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates is in Lewisberry, Pennsylvania. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied. It is denied that Richard P. Stewart, M.D., George S. Durisek, M.D., Holy Spirit Radiology Association and A.Z. Ritzman were employed directly, individually, or collectively by Holy Spirit Hospital. For further answer, it is denied that Holy Spirit Hospital was an ostensible agent of any of the above-referenced Defendants. The remaining allegations of the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint are denied in accordance with Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029(e) and as conclusions of law. For further answer, Dr. Stewart and Dr. Durisek were independent contractors providing radiologic inteIpretive services at Holy Spirit Hospital and at no time held themselves out as employees, agents or ostensible agents of Holy Spirit Hospital. For additional answer, the entity Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, also referred to in the Complaint as Holy Spirit Radiology Association, at all times relevant was a fictitious name for administrative purposes only. 6. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, Inc., is the successor to A. Z. Ritzman. It is denied that Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, Inc., is a successor to Holy Spirit Radiology Associates for the reasons indicated in Paragraph 5 above. Upon information and belief, Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, Inc., succeeded A. Z. Ritzman on or about January I, 1997. For 2 '. additional answer, it is denied that either Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, Inc., or A. Z. Ritzman or Holy Spirit Radiology Associates were either individual or collectively a health care facility. 7, Admitted in part and denied in part. At the time indicated in the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint, George S. Durisek, M.D., was an employee and stockholder of Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates and was not a partner. For further answer, at no time indicated in the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint was Dr. Durisek an employee, partner, or shareholder of Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, A. Z. Ritzman, Holy Spirit Hospital Radiology Associates, and/or Holy Spirit Hospital. At no time relevant to the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint did Dr. Durisek act as an employee or agent of A. Z. Ritzman, Holy Spirit Radiology Associates and/or Holy Spirit Hospital, Holy Spirit Radiology Associates or A.Z. Ritzman. For further answer, Paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Complaint are hereby incorporated by reference. 8. Admitted in part and denied in part. At the time indicated in the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint, Richard P. Stewart, M.D., was an employee and stockholder of Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates and was not a partner. For further answer, at no time indicated in the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint was Dr. Stewart an employee, partner, or shareholder of Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, A. Z. Ritzman, Holy Spirit Hospital Radiology Associates and/or Holy Spirit Hospital. At no time relevant to the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint did Dr. Stewart act as an employee or agent of A. Z. Ritzman or Holy Spirit Radiology Associates and/or Holy Spirit Hospital, or Holy Spirit Hospital Radiology Associates or A. Z. Ritzman. 3 '. 9. Admitted in part and denied in part. To the extent that the allegations made in the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint are substantiated in the pertinent medical records of the Plaintiff, admitted only that such information is recorded therein. To the extent that the allegations in the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint are not substantiated or are contradicted in the pertinent medical records of the Plaintiff, denied for the reasons indicated in Paragraph I above, which is hereby incorporated by reference in full. 10. Admitted in part and denied in part. To the extent that the allegations made in the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint are substantiated in the pertinent medical records of the Plaintiff, admitted only that such information is recorded therein. To the extent that the allegations in the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint are not substantiated or are contradicted in the pertinent medical records of the Plaintiff, denied for the reasons indicated in Paragraph 1 above, which is hereby incorporated by reference in full. II. Admitted in part and denied in part. To the extent that the allegations made in the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint are substantiated in the pertinent medical records of the Plaintiff, admitted only that such information is recorded therein. To the extent that the allegations in the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint are not substantiated or are contradicted in the pertinent medical records of the Plaintiff, denied for the reasons indicated in Paragraph 1 above, which is hereby incorporated by reference in full. 12. Denied in that the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint does not require a response in accordance with Pa. R. Civ. P. I029(e). To the extent that an answer is deemed required, denied for reasons indicated in Paragraph I above, which is hereby incorporated in full by reference. 4 '. 13. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the report with dictation date 2/27/97 and transcription date 2/28/1997 states in part the quotation in the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint. It is denied that the quotation found in the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint is the complete finding from the report. The report further states in part that a negative mammogram does not exclude malignancy. The remaining allegations of the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint are denied as conclusion of law and in accordance with Pa. R. Civ. P. I029(e). 14. Denied for the reasons indicated In Paragraphs I, 9, 12 and 13 above, incorporated by reference in full herein. 15. Admitted in part and denied in part for the reasons indicated in Paragraph 9 above, incorporated by reference in full herein. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint. Proof is demanded thereof. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint. Proof is demanded thereof. 18. Admitted in part and denied in part. To the extent that the allegations made in the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint are substantiated in the pertinent medical records of the Plaintiff pertaining to the date of the mammogram, the location of the mammogram, the study and the person interpreting the mammogram, admitted only that such information is 5 recorded therein. The remaining allegations of the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint are denied for the reasons indicated in Paragraph I and pursuant to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029(e). 19. Admitted in part and denied in part, It is admitted that the report with dictation date 3/2/98 and transcription date 3/3/98 contain in part the information quoted in the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint. However, the quotation lifted from the report is incomplete and does not reflect the entire contents of the report. To the extent the quotation in the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint is a fragment of the entire report, the allegations of the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint are denied as incomplete. The remaining allegations of the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint are denied for the reasons stated in Paragraphs I and 12 above, incorporated by reference in full herein and are also denied as a conclusion oflaw. 20. Denied for reasons indicated in Paragraph I above and as a conclusion oflaw. 21. Admitted in part and denied in part. To the extent that the allegations made in the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint are substantiated in the pertinent medical records of the Plaintiff, admitted only that such information is recorded therein. To the extent that the allegations in the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint are not substantiated or are contradicted in the pertinent medical records of the Plaintiff, denied for the reasons indicated in Paragraph I above, which is hereby incorporated by reference in full. 22. Admitted in part and denied in part. To the extent that the allegations made in the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint are substantiated in the pertinent medical records of the Plaintiff, admitted only that such information is recorded therein. To the extent that the allegations in the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint are not substantiated or are 6 contradicted in the pertinent medical records of the Plaintiff, denied for the reasons indicated in Paragraph I above, which is hereby incorporated by reference in full. For further answer, the remaining allegations of the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint are denied in accordance with Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029 (e) and as a conclusion of law. 23. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint. Proof is demanded thereof. 24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint. Proof is demanded thereof. 25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint. Proof is demanded thereof. 26. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint. Proof is demanded thereof. 27. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint. Proof is demanded thereof. 28. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint. Proof is demanded thereof. 7 29. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint. Proof is demanded thereof. 30. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of the corresponding Paragraph of the Complaint. Proof is demanded thereof. For further answer, denied as a conclusion of law. At all relevant times, Dr. Stewart and Dr. Durisek appropriately provided radiologic services in keeping with the standard of care and at no time were negligent. 31. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint. Proof is demanded thereof. For further answer, denied as a conclusion oflaw. 32. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint. Proof is demanded thereof. For further answer, denied as a conclusion oflaw. 33. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint. Proof is demanded thereof. For further answer, denied as a conclusion oflaw. 34. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of the 8 corresponding paragraph of the Complaint. Proof is demanded thereof. For further answer, denied as a conclusion oflaw. 35. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint. Proof is demanded thereof. For further answer, denied as a conclusion oflaw. COUNT I ROSI V. STEWART, M.D. 36. The incorporated paragraphs are denied for the reasons indicated above. 37. Denied as a conclusion of law. It is denied that at any time relevant to the allegations of the Complaint that Richard P. Stewart, M.D., was negligent or careless, as alleged. At all relevant times, Dr. Stewart provided radiologic services in keeping with the appropriate standard of care. Allegations of negligence based on subparagraphs (a) through (e) are specifically denied as conclusions oflaw. WHEREFORE, Richard P. Stewart, M.D., denies any and all liability to any party to the within litigation, demands that the case be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be entered in his favor. COUNT II ROSI V. DURISEK, M.D. 38. The incorporated paragraphs are denied for the reasons indicated above. 9 '. 39, Denied as a conclusion of law. It is denied that at any time relevant to the allegations of the Complaint that George S. Durisek, M.D., was negligent or careless, as alleged. At all relevant times, Dr. Durisek provided radiologic services in keeping with the appropriate standard of care. Allegations of negligence based on subparagraphs (a) through (e) are specifically denied as conclusions oflaw. WHEREFORE, George S. Durisek, M.D., denies any and all liability to any party to the within litigation, demands that the case be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be entered in his favor. COUNT III ROSI V. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL 40. The incorporated paragraphs are denied for the reasons indicated above. 41. Denied as a conclusion of law. For further answer, the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint is not addressed to the Answering Defendants and is deemed denied in accordance with Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029 (e). WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants deny any and all liability to any party to the within litigation, demand that the case be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be entered in their favor. COUNT IV ROSI V. HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES 42. The incorporated paragraphs are denied for the reasons indicating above. 10 43. Denied as a conclusion of law. For further answer, the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint is not addressed to the Answering Defendant and is deemed denied in accordance with Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029 (e). It is further denied that at any time the Answering Defendants were the employees/agents or servants of Holy Spirit Radiology Associates. For further answer, the corresponding answer of the Complaint is denied as a conclusion oflaw. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants deny any and all liability to any party to the within litigation, demand that the case be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be entered in their favor. COUNT V ROSI V. A. Z. RITZMAN 44. The incorporated paragraphs are denied for the reasons indicated above. 45. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint. Proof is demanded thereof. For further answer, denied as a conclusion oflaw. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants deny any and all liability to any party to the within litigation, demand that the case be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be entered in their favor. COUNT VI ROSI V. QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN AND HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES 46. The incorporated paragraphs are denied for the reasons indicated above. 11 47. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint. Proof is demanded thereof. For further answer, denied as a conclusion oflaw. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants deny any and all liability to any party to the within litigation, demand that the case be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be entered in their favor. COUNT VII ROSI V. STEWART, M.D. 48. The incorporated paragraphs are denied for the reasons indicated above. 49. Denied. At no time relevant to the Complaint was Richard P. Stewart, M.D., negligent. The corresponding paragraph of the Complaint is denied as a conclusion oflaw. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants deny any and all liability to any party to the within litigation, demand that the case be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be entered in their favor. COUNT VIII ROSI V. DURISEK, M.D. 50. The incorporated paragraphs are denied for the reasons indicated above. 51. Denied. At no time relevant to the Complaint was George S. Durisek, M.D. negligent. The corresponding paragraph of the Complaint is denied as a conclusion of law. 12 WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants deny any and all liability to any party to the within litigation, demand that the case be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be entered in their favor. COUNT IX ROSI V. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL 52. The incorporated paragraphs are denied for the reasons indicated above. 53. Denied as a conclusion of law. For further answer, the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint is not addressed to the Answering Defendants and is denied in accordance with Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029 (e). WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants deny any and all liability to any party to the within litigation, demand that the case be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be entered in their favor. COUNT X ROSI V. HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES 54. The incorporated paragraphs are denied for the reasons indicated above. 55. Denied as a conclusion of law. For further answer, the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint is not addressed to the Answering Defendant and is deemed denied in accordance with Pa. R. Civ. P. 1029 (e). WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants deny any and all liability to any party to the within litigation, demand that the case be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be entered in their favor. 13 COUNT XI ROSI V. A. Z. RITZMAN 56. The incorporated paragraphs are denied for the reasons indicated above. 57. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint. Proof is demanded thereof. For further answer, denied as a conclusion oflaw. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants deny any and all liability to any party to the within litigation, demand that the case be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be entered in their favor. COUNT XII ROSI V. QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN AND HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES. 58. The incorporated paragraphs are denied for the reasons indicated above. 59. Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Answering Defendants are without knowledge of information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint. Proof is demanded thereof. For further answer, denied as a conclusion oflaw. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants deny any and all liability to any party to the within litigation, demand that the case be dismissed with prejudice and that judgment be entered in their favor. 14 NEW MATTER ADDRESSED TO PLAINTIFFS 60. The Answering Defendants incorporate by reference Paragraphs I through 59, above, as though the same were set forth herein at length. 61. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 62. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations 42 Pa. C.S.A. 95524. 63. The Answering Defendants at no time relevant to the within cause of action were negligent or careless. 64. Any acts or omissions of the Answering Defendants alleged to constitute negligence and/or carelessness and/or malpractice were not the substantial causes or factors of the subject incident and/or did not result in any incident or injuries alleged by Plaintiffs. 65. Plaintiff assumed the risk of medical treatment rendered. 66. Plaintiffs' claims are barred, limited or reduced by the Pennsylvania Comparative Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. 97102. 67. If the Plaintiffs sustained injuries or damages or alleged, said allegations being specifically denied, said injuries were caused by Plaintiffs' failure to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances and, therefore, Plaintiffs' claims are barred or reduced by the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa. C.S.A. 9]102. 68. If Plaintiffs suffered injuries as alleged, such allegations being specifically denied, Plaintiffs' injuries were caused by persons, entities, occurrences, instrumentalities or events unrelated to and not under the control of the Answering Defendants. 15 69. The Answering Defendants are entitled to and assert all defenses on limitations and damages which are available to them under the Health Care Services Malpractice Act, 40 Pa. C.SA 91301.1.01. et seq. 70. The Answering Defendants at all times material hereto, acted III a careful, reasonable, and prudent manner consistent with the required standard of care. 71. The Answering Defendants are entitled to and incorporate herein by reference the defenses contained in the Federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act, P.L. 99-660. 72. The injuries and/or damages alleged to have been sustained by the Plaintiffs were not proximately caused by the Answering Defendants. 73. Any care and/or treatment which may have been provided by the Answering Defendants was at all times, reasonable, proper, appropriate and conformed to the standard of care. 74. Pa. R. Civ. P. 238 for delay damages is inapplicable under the facts of the present case and is unconstitutional and in violation of the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 75. Plaintiffs, or either one of them, may have entered into a release, discharging the Answering Defendants from any liability whatsoever in this matter. 76. Plaintiffs' claims, the existence of which is specifically denied by the Answering Defendants, may be reduced and/or limited by any collateral source of compensation and/or benefit in accordance with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision in Moorhead v. Crozer Chester Medical Center. 16 77. At no time relevant hereto were the Answering Defendants the agents, servants, employees or otherwise acting for or on behalf of any other Defendant in this action. 78. At all times relevant hereto, the Answering Defendants acted within and followed the precepts of a school of thought followed by a considerable number of qualified and well respected specialists in the field and, accordingly, their professional conduct was fully commensurate with the applicable standard of care. Evidence at trial may establish two or more schools of thought applicable to the issues presented in this case. 79. Under the Pennsylvania Medical Practice Act of 1985,63 P.S. S422.10, et seq., only a natural person may be licensed to practice medicine and surgery. At no time hereto was Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates and/or A. Z. Ritzman and/or Holy Spirit Radiology Associates either a natural person or licensed to practice medicine and, therefore, did not in fact have a right to supervise, direct, or control the manner in which the Answering Defendants provided professional services to the Plaintiff. 80. In the event that it is determined that the Answering Defendants were negligent with regard to any of the allegations contained in and with respect to the Plaintiffs' Complaint, said allegations being specifically denied, discovery may establish that said negligence was superseded by the intervening negligent acts of other persons, parties and/or organizations other than the Answering Defendants and over whom said Answering Defendants had no control, right of control, or responsibility and, therefore, Answering Defendants are not liable. 81. To the extent that the evidence may show that other persons, partnerships, corporations, or other legal entities caused or contributed to the injuries or the pre-existing 17 condition of the Plaintiff, then the conduct of the Answering Defendants was not the legal cause of such conditions or injuries. WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendant denies any and all liability to any party whatsoever, demands that the case be dismissed with prejudice, and that judgment be entered in his favor. Respectfully submitted, S & HAFER, LLP EVAN BLA , SQUIRE Attorney for Defendants 18 VERIFICATION I, Richard P. Stewart, M.D., do hereby swear and affirm that the facts and matters set forth in the foregoing Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements made herein are made subject to the penalties of Pa. C.S. ~4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: ~tJ'~)n'6 . ;{~ P. Stewart, M.D. VERIFICATION I, George S. Durisek, M.D., do hereby swear and affirm that the facts and matters set forth in the foregoing Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements made herein are made subject to the penalties of Pa. C.S. ~4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: ~~~ VERIFICATION I, Karl Gross, Practice Administrator, on behalf of Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, do hereby swear and affirm that the facts and matters set forth in the foregoing Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the statements made herein are made subject to the penalties of Pa. C. S. ~4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ~7~ 3--%'-~~ Date: Karl Gross, Practice Administrator Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Assoc. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Kathy L. Sitler, an employee of the law offices of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following persons via United States mail, fIrst class, postage prepaid, as follows: Archie V. Diveglia, Esquire Diveglia & Kaylor, P.C. Two Lincoln Way West New Oxford, PA 17350 Craig A. Stone, Esquire Mette, Evans & Woodside 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17IIO-0950 Date: ~ (8, c;}J0;1 .~~ KATHY . SITLER 0' 0~ i3~::: "-)~3 )- <';0 J .<_ rj~1 ~_(.~ CL :5 u c; 0\ ,~ :';1- c.. C) CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 IN THE MATTER OF: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DORIS ROSI TERM, -VS- CASE NO: 02-187 CIVIL DURISEK, M.D., ET AL As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 MCS on behalf of EVAN BLACK, ESQ. certifies that (1) A notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served, (2) A copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to this certificate, (3) No objection to the subpoena has been received, and (4) The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. DATE: 03/19/2002 ~~_ on beh lf 'iJ!&1i , Attorney for DEFENDAN DEll-323345 86219-LOl COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND IN THE MATTER OF: COURT OF COHHON PLEAS DORIS ROSI TERM, -VS- CASE NO: 02-187 CIVIL DURISEK, M.D., ET AL NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL PA MARY SIMKONDS, M.D. MEDICAL RECORDS & BILLING MEDICAL RECORDS & BILLING TO: CRAIG STONE, ESQUIRE ARCHIE V. DIVEGLlA, ESQ. KeS on behalf of EVAN BLACK, ESQ. intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If the twenty day notice period is waived or if no objection is made, then the subpoena may be served. Complete copies of any reproduced records may be ordered at your expense by completing the attached counsel card and returning same to KeS or by contacting our local MCS office. DATE: 02/26/2002 MCS on behalf of EVAN BLACK, ESQ. Attorney for DEFENDANT CC: EVAN BLACK, ESQ. - 212-20091 Any questions regarding this matter, contact THE MCS GROUP INC. 1601 HARKET STREET #800 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 246-0900 DE02-179340 86219-C02 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLA..'-:D DORIS ROSI VS File So. 07-187 CTVIL DURISEK, MD., ET AL SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOQJMEI.,.S OR THI~GS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUA.."" TO RULE 4009.22 TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL PA (S..m. o( P."on or bt:iry) ,,'ithin rw.~'I::O) days ohn se,,'i<e of tltis subpOl!n.. you .... ordne'll by the COlIn to produce th. followins docum.nts or things: ~'FF. A'T''T'ArHFTI .. MCS GROUP INC. 1601 MARKET ST., #800, PHILA,PA 19103 lAd_" You may dein'" or maill.sible copi.. of the documents or produce thinp NCl"ested by tltis subpoena. log.th.r with tho ,."irou.. 0; ,ompli."... to the pony ",&king this roquest Of the oddnu lUted above. You tUI... the riSh! to s.ok. in od\'...c.. tho ,.uonobl. cost of preparing the copi" or producing the tl\inp -!ht. [[ you fail to ;r.'oduc. the documents or tltinp requit.d by tltis subpoe.... wit!-.m twenty (:!Il) c!.~.s oh.t itsso.\';,.. tho pany ""'inS tlUs subpoena moy seek a coun order compelling you to co"'ply with i'_ THIS St"BPOE!\fA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: SAME: EVAN BLACK, ESO. ADDRESS: 305 NORTH FRONT ST _ _ PO RX qqq HARRISBURG, PA 17108 TELEPHOS!: 215-246-0900 Sl:PREME COURT ID I: AlTOR..'\EY FOR: DEFENDANT DATE: '"J:;,~t? {.l;;.n, , ( , q d..fx:J d-.. , Seal of the Court (~ff i /90 EXPIANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL PA P.O.BOX 107 110 LOWfHER ST. LEMOYNE, PA 17043 RE: 86219 DORIS ROSI INCLUDING NOTES, STUDIES, lABS, REPORTS, INCOMING & OUTGOING CORRESPO- NDENCE, ETC. FOR ALL INPATlENT/OUTPATlENT/ER/ CLINIC OR OFFICE VISIT. Any and all records, correspondence, files and memorandums, handwritten notes, billing and payment records, relating to any examination, consultation, care or treatment. Dates Requested: up to and including the present. Subject: DORIS ROSI 929 EMILY DRIVE, MECHANICBERG, PA 17055 Social Security #: 236-48-9645 Date of Birth: 12-23-1934 SUIO-357976 86219-LOl CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 IN THE MATTER OF: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DORIS ROSI TERM, -VS- CASE NO: 02-187 CIVIL DURISEK, M.D., ET AL As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 MCS on behalf of EVAN BLACK, ESQ. certifies that (1) A notice of intent to serve th~ subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served, (2) A copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to this certificate, (3) No objection to the subpoena has been received, and (4) The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. MCS on behalf of DATE: 03/19/2002 EVAN BLACK, ESQ. Attorney for DEFENDANT DEll-317298 86219-L02 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND IN THE MATTER OF: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS DORIS ROSI TERM, -VS- CASE NO: 02-187 CIVIL DURISEK. M.D., ET AL NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 INTERNISTS OF CENTRAL PA MARY SIMMONDS. H.D. MEDICAL RECORDS & BILLING MEDICAL RECORDS & BILLING TO: ARCHIE V. DlVEGLIA. ESQ. CRAIG STONE. ESQUIRE HCS on behalf of EVAN BLACK. ESQ. intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If the twenty day notice period is waived or if no objection is made. t~en the subpoena may be served. Complete copies of any reproduced records may be ordered at your expense by completing the attached counsel card and returning same to HCS or by contacting our local HCS office. DATE: 02/26/2002 HCS on behalf of EVAN BLACK. ESQ. Attorney for DEFENDANT CC: EVAN BLACK. ESQ. - 212-20091 Any questions regarding this matter. contact THE HCS GROUP INC. 1601 HARKET STREET #800 PHILADELPHIA. PA 19103 (215) 246-0900 DE02-179339 86219-COl COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERt.~"'D DORIS ROSI VS File So. O?-187 CIVIL DURISEK, MD., ET AL SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMEI."TS OR THI~GS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUA..I\"T TO RULE 4009.22 TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR:MARY SIMMONDS, MD (SAm' o( P~on or =11::1.,., Within rwt~. 1::0) dlYs liter servi.. of Utis subpoeN. you ue orderK by me....." to produce the followins docu."enll 0' things: ~FF A1"T'Ar.HFn It MCS GROUP INC. 1601 MARKET ST., #800, PHILA,PA 19103 fAd_.1 You mlY dein'" 0. mail ItSible copies of the documents 0. produce thinp NCI"ested by thi. subpoena. tosotho. with Iho <OrTifiulO ai <olllpli&rlct. to the pvty makinl this '''lUllt It the Iddr8tl lbted above. You hi... the risht to ...1<. in Idunct. tht :'tuonlble cost of p.eparinlthe copi.. or p.odudnl the tl\inp -IiIL If ~'ou fail to ,,"oduct the document. or thinp rtqui.ed by this subpoena. wirr.m lWen~ (:!Ill c:!1~'S lilt, its ''''';<0. rht PUT)' ..."in5 this ....poenl mlY snk I court order compellinl you to comply with iL THIS SLllPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: :\AME: EVAN BLACK, ESO. .'DORESS: 305 NORTH FRONT ST _. PO BX gqq HARRISBURG, PA 17108 TEtEPHO:\:: 215-246-0900 Sl,;PREME COUIlT 10 I: ....rrOR....EY FOR: DEFENDANT DATE: ~(f2L..< ';:1./, 'I /9 ,),odo-... ( B Seal of the Court (Eff. i /97) EXPIANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: MARY SIMMONDS, M.D. 50 N. 12 TH STREET LEMOYNE, PA 17043 RE: 86219 DORIS ROSI INCLUDING NOTES, STUDIES, LABS, REPORTS, INCOMING & OUTGOING CORRESPO- NDENCE, ETC. FOR ALL INPATlENT/OUTPATIENT/ER CLINIC OR OFFICE VISIT. Any and all recc:ds, correspondence, files and memorandums, handwritten notes, billing and payment records, relating to any examination, consultation, care or treatment. Dates Requested: up to and including the present. Subject: DORIS ROSI 929 EMILY DRIVE, MECHANICBERG, PA 17055 Social Security #: 236-48-9645 Date or Birth: 12-23-1934 SUIO-357978 86219-L02 ">- -.1) ?: (( ..:t ~, -:-~ \;:.; N ~..:) :< \..d , ..} <:2 - (-, ~_:.I~. o.'^ L~' -~-, ../'"; " . .__J c~ >- ;') Ci ,- / C" ":;. t:i: , C i ',.1....1 "j , , ~.l- :'li- :"5 ,. ('''-I , . , (,) " ~ . . ,- DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, PlaintltTs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. v. CML NO. 02-187 CIVIL TERM HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P, STEWART, M.D, BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D. QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, CML ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS AND NOW on this If day of April, 2002, comes the plaintiffs by their counsel who filed the following Reply To New Matter of the Defendants as follows: 60-81. Denied. The allegations set forth in these paragraphs are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. Respectfully Submitted, DIVEGLIA & KAYLOR, P.c. By: Archie . Diveglia, Esq Attorney I.D. #17140 Two Lincoln Way Wes New Oxford, PA 1735 (717) 624-2500 Dated: <f~ 1-0 "-- Attorney for Plaintiff ,- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this J.!.. day of April, 2002, 1, Rachel A. Matulewicz, for Diveglia & Kaylor, P.C., hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing REPLY TO NEW MATTER was served by first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid and addressed to the following: Evan Black, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 North Front Street Sixth Floor P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Craig A. Stone, Esquire Mette, Evans & Woodside 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 DIVEGLIA & KAYLOR, P.c. e;r~p:7 ij), /~ Rachel A. Matulewicz, Legal Secretary for Diveglia & Kaylor, P.c. ~:.> "';,j C; 'v' , ,'-) , r.'. i:J,~ oQ. ".'.. ::.) o . . .' THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: Evan Black, Esquire Identification No. 17884 305 North Front Street P. 0. Box 999 Harrisburg, P A 17108 (717) 441-7051 Attorney for Defendants George S. Durisek, MD., Richard P. Stewart, MD., Barbara K Kunkel, MD., and Bertrand B. Giulian, MD., and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, Successor to A. Z Ritzman DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA v. HOL Y SPIRIT HOSPITAL, : DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Term GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D., : CIVIL ACTION - LAW QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DISCONTINUANCE AS TO DEFENDANTS BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., and BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D. PURSUANT TO Pa. R.C.P. 229(b) It is hereby stipulated by and among all parties and their counsel that Defendant's Barbara K. Kunkel, M.D. and Bertran B. Giulian, M.D., only, are her dismissed from the ARC E DIVEGLIA Attorney for Plaintiffs within action with prejudice. . " 'J,. ) ", ~ J:"iij:,'.i,d;;i,lli';:i;l~b;:Ut:ili "r:,~rj::;:~.j,W ':,t , a EVANB CK Attorney for Defendants Durisek, Stewart, Kunkel, Giulian, and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, Successor to A. Z. Ritzman '. ,. ~ 0 0 ~ ~ rv ""' ,,~-4 ""OtIJ -0 R~2} mr;-l ;0 ZI! ~~li'n 7S ".0 (p ;: ~. ')J... j:$ r~'; ~,~~ ~ti ..- .,) -u ~o :::: z 0 --"..0 .~- rn --0 ~"? 2 )>'C -;7 ::> ?o ~ '0 -< ':'~i1i!~-:~~~~~;: ,;:ri~ APR 1 5 2002..) THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: Evan Black, Esquire Identification No. 17884 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 441-7051 Attorney for Defendants George S. Durisek, M.D., Richard P. Stewart, M.D., Barbara K. Kunkel, M.D., and Bertrand B. Giulian, M.D., and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, : DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Term GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D., : CIVIL ACTION - LAW QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER OF DISCONTINUANCE AS TO DEFENDANTS BARBARA K. KUNKEL. M.D, and BERTRAND B. GIULIAN. M.D, PURSUANT TO PA, R.C,P. 229(b) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED that pursuant to the Stipulation of Discontinuance as to Defendants Barbara K. Kunkel, M.D. and Bertrand B. Giulian, M.D. pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 229(b), attached hereto as Exhibit "A," Dr. Knnkel and Dr. Giulian only are hereby dismissed with prejudice from the within litigation. ~,./ I'" ~()~ BY THE COURT: J. .. <. 'Pi~ l- fJp tFt ~~ , '<I\N\fl\lASNN3d ~. ,\1Nr\08 Q~~n1Jjt!\^1r\~ Zs t6 \<\~ L\ 1:ld~ 20 ^tN10~~Otl"~Gdt~}hi dO ""':I-""n,'\:I j...J; ~"y .J~' 1 .."' - -- .' THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: Evan Black, Esquire Identification No. 17884 305 North Front Street P. 0. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 441-7051 Attorney for Defendants George S. Durisek, MD., Richard P. Stewart, MD., Barbara K. Kunkel, MD., and Bertrand B. Giulian, MD., and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, Successor to A. Z. Ritzman : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, : DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Term GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D., : CIVIL ACTION - LAW QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DISCONTINUANCE AS TO DEFENDANTS BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., and BERTRAND B. GlULIAN, M.D. PURSUANT TO Pa. R.C.P. 229(b) It is hereby stipulated by and among all parties and their counsel that Defendant's within action with prejudice. dismissed from the Barbara K. Kunkel, M.D. and Bertran B. Giulian, M.D., only, are her ARC E DIVEGLlA Attorney for Plaintiffs L -' . , EVANB CK Attorney for Defendants Durisek, Stewart, Kunkel, Giulian, and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, Successor to A. Z. Ritzman .' t ~ 'f' ~ ~ (") 0 ~ s;;;: N -< ""' .... .. "OW .~ ?v ;:? " R~;U ~ Cflr;'l ;0 .c; ~ Z:IJ -c-lf~n .... 8 f zs; e .... co ..: -:0 f=Sf::: 2,:~(~) ::<:: .,) -u '1.= :f, >- =: ZO ~;Jo );"0 c..) t::3rn 'C ~ ::> .~ r :0 '0 -< ... t ;;f;ll:'dn..dUlijiilllifi~_,-__ PORR & DEVINE, LLC By: Unda Parr Sweeney, Esquire Attorney J.D. No. 34811 116 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 390-3020 Attorney for Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D. DORIES E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA v. NO. 02-187 CML TERM HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISKE, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., : BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D.,BERTRAND B. GUlLIAN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES CML ACTION- LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of Unda Parr Sweeney, Esquire, on behalf of Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D. PORR & DEVINE, LLC Dated: 1)d3J6t.- By ~q:.dA1HIA% Attorney for Defendant U Richard P. Stewart, M.D. ..' -. ... CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this date I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to be served upon the individual named below by first class mail. Archie V. Diveglia, Esquire Diveglia & Kaylor, P.C. Two lincoln Way West New Oxford, PA 17135 Craig A. Stone, Esquire Mette, Evans & Woodside 3401 North Front Street P.O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 PORR & DEVINE, LLC Date: 1f2bfO~ { I By: n a Porr Sweeney, Es uire Attorney for Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D. - . .-."" 8 0 0 N -n s:: ;DO ._, -oC1.:1 -0 ~~~ nlP' ;0 Z:::C~ N ZC::. ~~f' - '_~.J. (~) r::.c,,' ""0 ~ -T, ~ ';~~ "';::.. ... ....,.. ZC ...0 ~ )>e: -.'1 Z -J:"" ~ :1J (w -< THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: Evan Black, Esquire Identification No. 17884 305 North Front Street P. 0. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 441-7051 Attorney for Defendants George S. Durisek, MD., Richard P. Stewart, MD., Barbara K. Kunkel, MD., and Bertrand B. Giullan, MD., and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIULlAN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, : DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Term : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D. Respectfully submitted, fer, LLP Evan Black, Esquire " 0 0 0 c: N "Tf <" ".. "1:JU5 '"0 ',-r: nln~ ~ Z;r,: , :z: ~~ N ',-)fn (/)r..~ .r;;-- :Q~' ~6 ::~ ...> " :::C=H ~C) ::i:: s:?o :i>o ~ orn C ~ c,,) ~ -< ~,~d",",~_.," DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D.; RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D.; BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D.; BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D.; QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA NO. 02-187 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Archie Diveglia, Esquire 2 Lincoln Way West New Oxford, PA 17350 Counsel for Plaintiff You are hereby notified to plead to the within document within twenty (20) days after service hereof, or a default judgment may be entered against you. By: Datefv 14--02-- MET E, iEV & W ODSIDE Craig A. tone, , ID #15907 i 3401 North Font treet Harrisburg, P I IIO-0950 717-232-5000 Attorneys for Holy Spirit Hospital DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND CO., PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 02-187 CIVIL TERM HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D.; RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D.; BARBARA K. KUNKEL, MD.; BERTRAND B. GlULIAN, M.D.; QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants ANSWER WI1H NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT, AS AMENDED BY STIPUlATION AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, hereinafter referred to as "Hospital", by and through its attorneys, Mette, Evans & Woodside, PC, who respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint, as amended by Stipulation, with new matter, as follows: I. After reasonable investigation, Hospital is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of the corresponding paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint, the same is therefore denied, and strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted, according to Hospital's records. 4. Admitted, according to Hospital's records. 5. Denied. It is specifically denied that Hospital employed, directly, individually or collectively, Richard P. Stewart, M.D. (hereinafter referred to as "Dr. Stewart"), George Durisek, M.D. (hereinafter referred to as "Dr. Durisek"), Holy Spirit Radiology Associates and/or A.Z. Ritzman for any reason at any time material to Plaintiffs' Complaint. Rather, it is averred that Dr. Stewart and Dr. Durisek were independent contractors who were not subject to control by Hospital in connection with the manner in which they provided professional interpretive services to Plaintiffs. By way of further answer, it is denied that the Co-defendants were "employed as independent contractors." The remaining averments of paragraph 5 are conclusions ofIaw to which no answer is required. If an answer is deemed required, the same are denied in conformance with Pennsylvania RuIe of Civil Procedure 1029(e). It is specifically denied that Hospital was an ostensible agent of any Co-defendant. 6. The averment of the corresponding paragraph of Plaintiffs , Complaint concerns the identity, agency and/or activities of a Defendant other than Hospital. As such, Hospital has been advised that it is not required to provide an answer. If an answer is required, the dame are denied in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 7. Denied for reasons set forth in paragraphs 3 and 5. 8. Denied for reasons set forth in paragraphs 4 and 5. 9. Admitted, according to Hospital's records. 10. Admitted, according to Hospital's records. 11. Admitted, according to Hospital's records. 12. Denied in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Dr. Stewart's report ofPebruary 28, 1997 is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth. 2 13. Denied in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure I029(e). Dr. Stewart's report ofPebruary 28, 1997 is incorporated by reference as iffully set forth. 14. Denied in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure I029(e). Dr. Stewart's report ofPebruary 28, 1997 is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth. 15. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, Hospital's letter to Mrs. Rosi is incorporated by reference. 16. Denied as stated. The averments of paragraph 9 are incorporated by reference. 17. Denied for reasons set forth in paragraph I. 18. Denied in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure I029(e). The averments of paragraph 9 are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth. Dr. Durisek's report of March 2, 1998 is further incorporated as though fully set forth. 19. Denied in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure I029(e). Dr. Durisek's report of March 2, 1998 is incorporated by reference from Hospital's records. 20. Denied in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure I029(e). Dr. Durisek's report of March 2, 1998 is incorporated by reference from Hospital's records. 21. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, Hospital's letter to Mrs. Rosi is incorporated by reference. 22. Denied in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure I029(e). The report of the interpretation of the January 6, 2000 mammogram is incorporated by reference. 23-29. Denied for reasons set forth in paragraph I. 30. Denied in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure I029(e). 3 . . 3 I -35. The averments of negligence are denied in conformance with Pennsylvania RuIe of Civil Procedure 1029(e). The allegations of damages are denied for reasons set forth in paragraph I. COUNT I DORIS E. ROSI v. RICHARD P. STEWART, MD. 36. The averments of paragraphs I through 35 are incorporated by reference as iffu11y set forth. 37. Denied for reasons set forth in paragraphs 5 and 6. WHEREFORE, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital demands that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed with costs to them. COUNT II DORIS E. ROSI v. GEORGE S. DURISEK, MD. 38. The averments of paragraphs I through 37 are incorporated by reference as iffully set forth. 39. Denied for reasons set forth in paragraphs 5 and 6. WHEREFORE, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital demands that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed with costs to them. COUNT ill DORIS E. ROSI v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL 40. The averments of paragraphs I through 39 are incorporated by reference as iffu11y set forth. 4 41. (As amended by Stipulation.) The averments of the corresponding paragraph of Plaintiffs' Complaint are conclusions oflaw to which no answer is required. If an answer is deemed required, the averments of paragraphs 5 and 6 are incorporated by reference. If an answer is deemed required, the same are denied in conformance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital demands that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed with costs to them. COUNT IV DORIS E. ROSI v. HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES 42. The averments of paragraphs I through 41 are incorporated by reference as iffuIly set forth. 43. Denied for reasons set forth in paragraphs 5 and 6. WHEREFORE, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital demands that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed with costs to them. COUNT V DORIS E. ROSI v. A.Z. RITZMAN 44. The averments of paragraphs I through43 are incorporated by reference as iffuIly set forth. 45. Denied for reasons set forth in paragraph 5 and 6. WHEREFORE, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital demands that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed with costs to them. 5 COUNT VI DORIS E. ROSI v. QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN AND HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES 46. The averments of paragraphs I through 45 are incOIporated by reference as iffully set forth. 47. Denied for reasons set forth in paragraphs 5 and 6. WHEREFORE, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital demands that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed with costs to them. COUNT VII JOSEPH ROSI v. RICHARD P. SI'EWART, MD. 48. The averments of paragraphs I through 47 are incOIporated by reference as iffully set forth. 49. Denied for reasons set forth in paragraphs 5 and 6. WHEREFORE, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital demands that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed with costs to them. COUNT VIII JOSEPH ROSI v. GEORGE S. DURlSEK, M.D. 50. The averments of paragraphs I through 49 are incorporated by reference as iffully set forth. 51. Denied for reasons set forth in paragraphs 5 and 6. 6 WHEREFORE, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital demands that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed with costs to them. COUNT IX JOSEPH ROSI v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL 52. The averments of paragraphs I through 51 are incorporated by reference as iffully set forth. 53. Denied in accordance with Pennsylvania RuIe of Civil Procedure 1029( e) and for reasons set forth in paragraph 41. WHEREFORE, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital demands that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed with costs to them. COUNT X JOSEPH ROSI v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL RADIOLOGISfS 54. The averments of paragraphs I through 53 are incorporated by reference as iffully set forth. 55. Denied for reasons set forth in paragraphs 5 and 6. WHEREFORE, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital demands that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed with costs to them. COUNT IX DORIS E. ROSI v. A.Z. RITZMAN 56. The averments of paragraphs I through 55 are incorporated by reference as iffu11y set forth. 7 57. Denied for reasons set forth in paragraphs 5 and 6. WHEREFORE, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital demands that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed with costs to them. COUNTXll JOSEPH ROSI v. QUANrUM IMAGING AND TIlERAPEUTICASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN AND HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES 58. The averments of paragraphs I through 57 are incorporated by reference as iffully set forth. 59. Denied for reasons set forth in paragraphs 5 and 6. NEW MATTER 1. The facts set forth in the foregoing Answers to Plaintiffs' Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 2. Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Answering Defendants. 3. At no time relevant hereto were Answering Defendant, their agents, servants, employees or otherwise acting for or on behalf of any other Defendant in this action or any other natural person, partnership, corporation or other legal entity. 4. At no time relevant hereto was any other natural person, partnership, corporation or other legal entity acting or serving as an agent, servant, employee or otherwise for or on behalf of Answering Defendant. 5. At all times relevant hereto, Answering Defendant complied with the applicable standard of care. 8 6. At all times relevant hereto, Answering Defendant acted within and followed the precepts of a respected school of thought and, accordingly, all professional conduct was fully commensurate with the applicable standard of care. Evidence at trial may establish two or more schools of thought applicable to the issues presented in this case. 7. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by operation of the applicable statute oflimitations, including 42Pa.C.S.A. ~5524 and 40 P.S. ~I301.605. 8. Plaintiffs' claims are limited and barred by Sections 103, 602 and 606 of the Health Care Services Malpractice Act ofI974, 40 P.S. ~I301 et sea, as amended. 9. Hospital did not render any medical, interpretive or surgical professional services to Plaintiff. Hospital is not and carmot be vicariously liable for the conduct of the Co- defendants. Under the Pennsylvania Medical Practices Act of 1985,63 P.S. ~442.1O, et sea, only an individual person may be licensed as a medical doctor or surgeon, and Hospital did not have the right to supervise, direct or control the manner in which Co-defendants provided services to Plaintiff. 10. The damages alleged by Plaintiffs did not result from acts or omissions of Answering Defendant, its agents, servants or employees, but rather, from acts or omissions of other persons and/or entities over whom Answering Defendant had no control or right of control. II. Pa.R.C.P. 238 is unconstitutional on its face and as it may be applied. 12. Plaintiffs are not seeking an award of punitive damages against Answering Defendant. 9 13. Answering Defendant demands trial by jury on all issues. Craig . 0 ID #15907 3401 North Front PO Box 5950 Harrisburg, P A 171 10-0950 717-232-5000 Attorneys for Holy Spirit Hospital By: 10 VERIFICATION I, Pranchesca J. Charney, RN, do depose and state that I am the Director of Risk Management for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital, and as such am authorized and competent to verifY the foregoing document, and that I have read the same and determined that the facts contained therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. ~ 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: 'lIS/OJ- dM~~a~A Pranchesca J. Charn ,RN Director of Risk Management Holy Spirit Hospital :275902 _1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the persons and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with first-class postage, prepaid, as follows: Archie V. Diveglia, Esquire Diveglia & Kaylor, PC 2 Lincoln Way West New Oxford, P A 17350 Evan Black, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer PO Box 999 Harrisburg, PAl 7I 08-0999 ME , EVANS & WOODSIDE By: Craig . Datk2.+vL.- :291098 _1 12 >- s: t.,';- ,-" U,'\:. ~, ) -- ~~,-: (~l r', [:'" I lL o <::> ?,~ / i~3;'_. ('..J "'"", CJ... ::J ',- (/) >: '7 ':;C.G '.::]C.._ '':5 o 1.('") "-1 (:~::. (L ~.;.:;: ('J C) DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. v. CIVIL NO. 02-187 CML TERM HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P, STEWART, M.D, BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D. QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, CML ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL f.... AND NOW on this 'Z-q day of April, 2002, comes the plaintiffs by and through their attorneys Diveglia & Kaylor, P. C. who file the following Reply To New Matter: 1-11. Denied. The allegations set forth in the New Matter of the Defendant in these paragraphs are denied as conclusions of law to which no further response is required. 12-13. Admitted. Respectfully Submitted, DlVEGLIA & KAYLOR, P.C. Dated: t{- z..<j -d 7.- By: /i. Archie V. Diveglia, Esqui e Attorney LD. #17140 L Two Lincoln Way West / New Oxford, PA 17350 (717) 624-2500 Attorney for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ~day of April, 2002, I, Rachel A. Matulewicz, for Diveglia & Kaylor, P.C., hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing REPLY TO NEW MATTER was served by first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid and addressed to the following: Craig A. Stone, Esquire Mette, Evans & Woodside 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 Evan Black, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 North Front Street Sixth Floor P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Linda Porr Sweeney, Esquire Porr & Devine, LLC 116 East King Street Lancaster, P A 17602 DIVEGLIA & KAYLOR, P.C. ~dZ#0~~- Rachel A. Matulewicz, gal Secr ry for Diveglia & Kaylor, P.C. o c: v~ mrn 2'::n 63!\~ -<...:::::- ~l) J-~ ) zC 'i'OO --c ~ <:::> N ::J: :t... -< , t- n 4'1 --j ~T; -r-; , ~"'lm --"',-.., ::::i~5 .=-i ;t:i "C~~. ) C5rn '~'l 5:J -< -0 ::J' ,~" (]) Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Term : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Defendant certifies that: (1) A notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the Subpoenas attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served; (2) A copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed Subpoenas, are attached to this certificate; (3) More than twenty (20) days have passed and Plaintiffs counsel has not filed objections to the Subpoenas to be served; and (4) The Subpoenas which will be served are identical to the Subpoenas which are attached to the Notice of Intent to serve the Subpoenas. moMAS, moMAS & HAFER LLP Date: May 22, 2002 By: E'~~ Attorney for Defendant Durisek :166020.1 Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURlSEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D., UANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, : DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Term : CNIL ACTION - LAW Defendants Defendants intend to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection is made, the subpoena will be served. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER llP Date: bit I DO- By: (5 Yl..A &de 6PJ Evan Black, Esquire Attorney for Defendants :166013.1 , . Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, : DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Term : CIVll- ACTION - LAW Defendants SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: John Calaitges, M.D. Vascular Associates, PC 800 Poplar Church Road Camp Hill,PA 17011 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all records including notes. studies, labs. bills. reports. incoming and outgoing correspondence. films. etc for all inpatient. outpatient. ERa clinic or office visits regarding Doris E. Rosi, DOB: 12/23/34. SSN: 236-48-9645 at: Thomas Thomas & Hafer LLP. 305N FrontSt PO Box 999 Harrisbur~ PA ]7108-0999. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. TInS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT TIIE REQUEST OF TIIE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Evan Black, Esquire ADDRESS: P.O. Box 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 TELEPHONE: (717)441-705] SUPREMECOURTID#: 17884 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendants :166008.1 DATE:J.- 30- 0.1. Seal of the Court Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, v. HOLY SPIRlTHOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURlSEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GillLIAN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO AZ. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, : DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Term : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSlJANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania 875 Poplar Church Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all records including notes. studies. labs. bills. reports. incoming and outgoing correl\Ponc:lence. films, etc for all inpatient, outpatient. ER. clinic or office visits regarding Doris E. Rosi. DOB: 12/23/34. SSN: 236-48-9645 at: Thomas Thomas & Hafer. LLP. 305 N Front St PO. Box 999 Harrisburi PA 17108-0999. . You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF 1HE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Evan Black, Esquire ADDRESS: P.O. Box 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 TELEPHONE: (717) 441-7051 SUPREME COURT ID#: 17884 ATTORNEY FOR: Derenrumts :166008.2 DATE:Jf. - bO - 0 ~ Seal of the Court , . DORlS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RlCHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GruLIAN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND TIffiRAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, : DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Term : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Susquehanna Breast Care Center 550 N. 12th Street Lemoyne, P A 17043 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all records including notes. studies. labs. bills, rellorts. :;~ming and outgoing correl\pond;;ce. films. etc for aU inpatient. outpatient, ER. clinic or office , is regarding Doris E. Rosi. DOH: 12/23/34. SSN: 236-48-9645 at: Thomas Thomas & Hafer LLP. 305 N FrontSt P.D Box 999 Harrisbur~ PA 17108-0999. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Evan Black, Esquire ADDRESS: P.O. Box 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 TELEPHONE: (717)441-7051 SUPREME COURT ID#: 17884 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendants :166008.1 DATE: 4 - 30 - OJ.. Seal of the Court , , CERTIF1CATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following persons via United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, as follows: Archie V. Diveglia, Esquire Diveglia & Kaylor, P.C. Two Lincoln Way West New Oxford, PA 17350 Craig A. Stone, Esquire Mette, Evans & Woodside 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 Date: 51 \ 'Od- J1) i ell - () . ;tnlt '8/\ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Vicki A. Bolinger, an employee of the law offices of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following persons via United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, as follows: Archie V. Diveglia, Esquire Diveglia & Kaylor, P.c. Two Lincoln Way West New Oxford, P A 17350 Craig A. Stone, Esquire Mette, Evans & Woodside 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, P A 17110-0950 Linda Porr-Sweeney, Esquire 116 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 Date: 5 ( dc;lf tJd- l~cL Q ;Eb~ VICKI A. BOLINGER () C 1:.10":; SR ::~~', 2~ t, en. -' ~: j; ~-~ Zl._,~ '-i-; ( " .- ~; ~ ., C) I"',) ~ >;.:"" .< (J -'Tl r-->~ 0') en '::'J (:l -"')'"i {") ~2:~ ." ( ) (jITI "--I ?o -< :;::) N ....J DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, : DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Term GEORGE S. DURlSEK, M.D., RICHARDP. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D" BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D" CIVIL ACTION - LAW QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, Defendants As a prerequisite to service of subpoenas for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Defendants, George S. Durisek, M.D., Barbara K. Kunkel, M.D" Bertrand B. Giulian, M.D. and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to A.Z. Ritzman certifies that: (1) a Notice of Intent to serve the Subpoenas with a copy of the Subpoenas attached thereto was mailed to each party on March 31, 2003; (2) a copy of the Notice of Intent, including the proposed Subpoenas, is attached to this certificate; (3) opposing counsel waived the twenty (20)-day notice period via fax on April 7, 2003; and (4) the Subpoenas which will be served are identical to the Subpoenas which are attached to the Notice of Intent to serve the Subpoenas. Date: APri~+fOO3 By: THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER LLP ~-C~l'\ Evan Black, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, George S. Durisek, M,D., Barbara K. Kunkel, M.D., Bertrand B. Giulian, M,D. and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to A.Z. Ritzman CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Miriam L. Hogan, an employee of the law offices of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following persons via United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, as follows: Archie V. Diveglia, Esquire Diveglia & Kaylor, P.c. Two Lincoln Way West New Oxford, P A 17350 Craig A. Stone, Esquire Mette, Evans & Woodside 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 Linda Porr-Sweeney, Esquire 116 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 Date: it 1:1't / ~ 3 ~~ .2. HoO~.,..J Miriam L. Hogan Paralegal THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: Evan Black, Esquire Identificatian No.. 17884 305 North Frant Street P. 0. Bax 999 Harrisburg, P A 17108 (717) 441-7051 Attarney far Defendants Gearge S. Durisek, MD. and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successar to. A. Z. Ritzman Assaciates DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D., UANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, : DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Term : CNIL ACTION - LAW Defendants NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENAS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Defendants, George S. Durisek, M.D., Richard P. Stewart, M.D., Barbara K. Kunkel, M.D., Bertrand B. Giulian, M.D. and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to A. Z. Ritzman Associates intend to serve subpoenas identical to the ones that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoenas. If no objection is made, the subpoenas will be served. Date: 0/. 2. t13 By: :166013.2 THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER LLP ~ Evan Black, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, George S. Durisek, M.D. and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to A. Z. Ritzman Associates DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COJ'vllvl0N PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PEJ\TNSYL V A1\TIA v. HOL Y SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING A1\Tl) THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Tem1 CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUl\1ENTS OR TIDNGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Andrews & Patel Associates 3912 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all records includin2 notes. studies. labs. bills. reports. incomin2 and out2oin2 correspondence. fIlms. etc for all inpatient. outpatient. ER. clinic or office visits re2ardin2 Doris E. Rosi. DOB: 12/23/34. SSN: 236-48-9645 at: Thomas. Thomas & Hafer. LLP. 305 N. Front St.. P.O. Box 999. Harrisburg. PA 17108-0999. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things requi':"ed by this subpoena, within t\venty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Evan Black, Esquire ADDRESS: P.O. Box 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 TELEPHONE: (717) 441-7051 SUPREME COURT ID#: 17884 A TTOR.NEY FOR: Defendants Durisek, Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to A. Z. Ritzman Associates BY THE COURT: DATE: Seal of the Court Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Di,'ision :166008.5 Deputy DORlS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNS)L V ANIA v. HOLY SPlRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, MD., RlCHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOL Y SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Tenn CNIL ACTION - LAW Defendants SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR TIDNGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Herbert Parnes, M.D. Crumay Parnes Associates, Inc. 104 Erford Road Camp Hill, P A 17011 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Anv and all records includine: notes, studies. labs. bills, reports. in co mine: and oute:oine: correspondence, films, etc for all inpatient, outpatient. ER. clinic or office visits ree:ardine: Doris E. Rosi, DOB: 12/23/34, SSN: 236-48-9645 at: Thomas. Thomas & Hafer. LLP. 305 N. Front St.. P.O. Box 999. Harrisburg. PA 17108-0999. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may se:ek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Evan Black, Esquire ADDRESS: P.O. Box 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 TELEPHONE: (717) 441-7051 SUPREME COURT ID#: 17884 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendants Durisek, Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to A. Z. Ritzman Associates BY THE COURT: DATE: Seal of the Court Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Division : 166008.4 Deputy DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIULV\N, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Tenn CIVrr. ACTION - LA W Defendants SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR TffiNGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Pinnacle Health at Polyclinic Hospital 2601 N. Third Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all records includinl! notes. studies. labs. bills. reports. incominl! and outl!oinl! correspondence. films. etc for all inpatient. outpatient. ER. clinic or office visits rel!ardinl! Doris E. Rosi. DOB: 12/23/34. SSN: 236-48-9645 at: Thomas. Thomas & Hafer. LLP. 305 N. Front St., P.O. Box 999, Harrisburg. FA 17108-0999. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things requ:tred by this subpoena, within t\venty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Evan Black, Esquire ADDRESS: P.O. Box 999, Hanisburg, PA 17108-0999 TELEPHONE: (717) 441-7051 SUPREME COURT ID#: 17884 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendants Durisek, Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to A. Z. Ritzman Associates BY THE COURT: DATE: Seal of the Court Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Division : 166008.6 Deputy DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUM:BERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURlSEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D" BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOL Y SPIRIT R.A.DIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THL~GS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Pinnacle Health at Harrisburg Hospital 111 S. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Anv and all records includinl! notes, studies, labs, bills. reports, incomilll! and out!!oin!! correspondence, films, etc for. all inpatient, outpatient, ER. clinic or office visits re!!ardinl! Doris E. Rosi. DOB: 12/23/34, SSN: 236-48-9645 at: Thomas, Thomas & Hafer. LLP, 305 N. Front St., P.O. Box 999, Harrisburg. PA 17108-0999. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Evan Black, Esquire ADDRESS: P.O. Box 999, Harrisburg, P A 17108-0999 TELEPHOl\.T[: (717) 441- 7051 SUPREME COURT ID#: 17884 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendants Durisek, Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to A. Z. Ritzman Associates BY THE COURT: DATE: Seal of the Court Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Division :166008.7 Deputy DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUA.~T TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Comfort Care of Holy Spirit P. O. Box 309 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Anv and all records includin2 notes, studies, labs, bills, reports. incomin2 and outeoin2 correspondence. orders. ete for care rendered re2ardin2 Doris E. Rosi, DOB: 12/23/34. SSN: 236-48-9645 at: Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP. 305 N. Front St., P.O. Box 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above, You have the right to seek in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Evan Black, Esquire ADDRESS: P.O. Box 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 TELEPHONE: (717)441-7051 SUPREME COURT ID#: 17884 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendants Durisek, Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to A. Z. Ritzman Associates BY THE COURT: DATE: Seal of the Court Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Division :166008.8 Deputy CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this :3 F:/ day oft'~J-1n.{L, 2003, I, Kathy J. Kuhn, a paralegal in , l the law firm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer LLP, hereby certify that I sent a true and correct copy of the foregoing document by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the following: Archie V. Diveglia, Esquire Diveglia & Kaylor, P.C. Two Lincoln Way West New Oxford, PA 17350 Craig A. Stone, Esquire Mette, Evans & Woodside 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 Linda Porr-Sweeney, Esquire Porr & Devine, LLC 116 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 / L/ /, .. ....,/; n . / }1athy J. / I . I n . -.","'-.. '--'----,~ o ~;; 2~1 ~{fE !:.::: l_) :?:Z' c.:::) c:Ll -;pc 2, =< C) 0) .~") ~1"" ~- ~'1 7'":J ~.) U1 , l' t:J ~~! '--"' "---I ~ ~ ~""O .....l--- '.f! ~o THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: Evan Btack, Esquire Identification No. 17884 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 441-7051 Attorney for Defendants George S. Durisek, M.D., Richard P. Stewart, M.D., Barbara K. Kunkel, M.D., and Bertrand B. Giutian, M.D., and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNlY, PENNSYLVANIA v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIUUAN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defenda nts JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERttFICATE OF SERVICE I, Jessica R. Miller, an employee of the law offices of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, do hereby certify that I served a copy of the foregoing Defendants' Answers to Plaintiff's First Request for Production of Documents, by depositing the same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, as follows: Archie V. Diveglia, Esquire Diveglia & Kaylor, P.C. Two Lincoln Way West New Oxford, PA 173S0 Craig A. Stone, Esquire Mette Evans & Woodside 3401 North Front Street P.O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 Linda Porr Sweeney, Esquire Porr & Devine, LLC 1850 William Penn Way Lancaster, PA 17601 Date:~ ,~t~ J~Ss' R. Miller r~C c~;: ,~., :D~: (") f~ ,', r,. :) N ,...., = = ...- L ~ o ." :t n'~ -oITl :00 0(.1 :."";:1.2 ?jiJ ~':"C) C~rn ,::' ~~:: ~~-~ - w -, =-:;~ ~ THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: Evan Black, Esquire Identification No. 17884 By: Stephanie L. Hersperger Identification No. 78735 305 North Front Street P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (717) 237.7100 Attorney for Defendants George S. Durisek, M.D., Barbara K. Kunkel, M.D., and Bertrand B. Giulian, M.D., and Quantum Imaging and Therapeuti(: Associates DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, : DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Term GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC : CIVIL ACTION - LAW ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOTION FOR STATUS CONFERENCE AND NOW come Defendants, George S. Durisek, M.D. and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates ("Moving Defendants"), by and through their counsel, Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, and hereby request this Honorable Court to schedule a Status Conference in order to establish deadlines and otherwise aid in bringing the instant case to resolution, and in support for said request, aver as follows: 1. The Complaint in this medical malpractice case was filed on or about February 22, 2002. A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Complaint is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A". See Exhibit "A". 2. In their Complaint, Plaintiffs aver that DI9fendants were negligent in failing to properly interpret various mammograms of Doris RIJsi and that same led to a delay in diagnosing breast cancer. See Exhibit "An. 3. Moving Defendants' Answer with New Matter was filed on or about March 18,2002. 4. The parties have exchanged and answered written discovery, including Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. 5. The parties have completed numerous depositions including those of the Defendant physicians and of Plaintiffs. The only remaining depositions that Moving Defendants still seek is of various family members of Plaintiffs, including Patricia Gale, Tyler Gale, Curtis Gale, and possibly, Rodney Rosi. 6. Recently, Co-Defendant, Dr. Stewart, hals filed a request pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1042.28 for Plaintiffs to serve their expert reports. 7. In order to facilitate the completion of discovery and the exchange of expert reports in an orderly and timely manner, Defendants request a Status Conference with this Court in order to schedule dates certain for discovery and expert reports. 8. Specifically, Defendants would request cleadlines as to the following: (1) for Plaintiffs to produce expert reports and/or identify experts; (2) for Defendants to produce expert reports and/or identify experts ancl (3) for any discovery to be completed. WHEREFORE, Defendants, George S. Durisek, M.D. and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, respectfully request that this Honorable Court schedule a Status Conference for the purpose of establishing a discovery deadline, a deadline for exchange of expert reports, a deadline for dispositive motions, a pretrial conference date and a trial date. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: A~!(~??d .:2- JU..~ IY- Evan BI ck, Esquire Stephanie L. Hersperger, Esquire Attorney for Defendants George S. Durisek, M.D. and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates Date: August 27,2004 DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 02-187 CIVIL TERM HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURlSEK, M.D., RICHARD P, STEW ART, M.D, BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GlULIAN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, CIVIL ACTION - LAW c; [ ",~ (" ""TJ cD <,-' JURY TRIAL DEMANDED-: ~ ~~~ r.....) Defendants ::~~ <~-) -' 7 ::'3 -, :,") :,,'1 Ul NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Cornplaint and Notice are served by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Courthouse 2 Liberty A venue Carlisle, PA 17013-3387 Telephone: (717) 249-3166 Dated: (!)i;l/$l-J / oS DIVEGLIA & KAYLOR, P.c. By: ()2l01 -- lA. Archie V. Diveglia, Esquire ( Attorney ill #17140 Two Lincoln Way West New Oxford, PA 171350 (717) 624-2500 Attorney for Plaintiff DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 02-187 CIVIL TERM HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURlSEK, M.D., RICHARD P, STEWART, M.D, BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GlULIAN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants COMPLAINT AND NOW, this 21st day of February, 2002 comes the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, Diveglia & Kaylor, P. C., and in support of their complaint aver as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs are Doris E. Rosi and Joseph Rosi, husband and wife, adult individuals, who reside at 929 Emily Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17055. 2. The Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, is a health care facility organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and has a business address of 503 North 21st Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. 3. The Defendant, George S. Durisek, M. D., is an adult individual and a physician who was licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on or about March 2, 1998. The Defendant's current business address is 3508 Trindle Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. 1 4. The Defendant, Richard P. Stewart, M. D., is an adult individual and a physician who was licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on or about February 28, 1997. The Defendant's current address is 225 East Lauer Lane, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. 5. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital either employed directly, individually or collectively, Richard P. Stewart, M.D., George Durisek, M.D., Holy Spirit Radiology Association and A. Z. Ritzman to perform mammography at its hospital and on its behalf, or, alternatively, if any or all of the above-named were employed as independent contractors, then, the Holy Spirit Hospital was an ostensible agent in that these individuals and entities by use of the facilities, and letterhead of the hospital, among other matters, held themselves out to the patients involved as being part of the Holy Spirit Hospital. 6. The Defendant, Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates is the successor to A. Z. Ritzman and Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, and is a health care facility organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and has a business address of 3508 Trindle Road, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17011. 7. In March of 1998, the Defendant George S. Durisek, M.D., was an employee/partner/shareholder of Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to the A. Z. Ritzman and Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, or an employee/partner/shareholder of either the Defendant A. Z. Ritzman, Holy Spirit Hospital Radiology Associates and/or Holy Spirit Hospital and at all times hereinafter mentioned, he was acting within the scope of his employment and/or agency with the Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, 2 successor to A. Z. Ritzman and Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, and/or the Holy Spirit Hospital, Holy Spirit Hospital Radiology Associates or A. Z. Ritzman. 8. In February of 1997, the Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D., was an employee/partner/shareholder of Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to the A. Z. Ritzman and Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, or an employee/partner/shareholder of either the Defendant A. Z. Ritzman, Holy Spirit Hospital Radiology Associates, and/or Holy Spirit Hospital and at all times hereinafter mentioned, he was acting within the scope of his employment and/or agency with the Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to A. Z. Ritzman and Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, and/or the Holy Spirit Hospital, Holy Spirit Hospital Radiology Associates or A. Z. Ritzman.. 9. The Plaintiff, Doris E. Rosi, presented herself to the Holy Spirit Hospital for mammograms on February 28, 1997 and March 2, 1998. 10. The mammogram of February 28, 1997 was interpreted by Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D. 11. The mammogram of March 2, 1998 was interpreted by Defendant George Durisek, M. D. 12. The mammogram films taken on February 28, 1997 of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's right breast indicate increasing density compared to previous mammograms and some nodular features to that area on the MLO view. 13. Despite the clear findings shown in the mammogram films of February 28, 1997, the Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M. D., noted, incorrectly, as his conclusion to his interpretation: 3 "No evidence for malignancy. The focal lesion seen previously in the upper posterior right breast is no larger and probably smaller than it was previously. Its appearance is characteristic of an intramammary lymph node. No further follow-up is needed for this fmding. I would simply recommend mammography at yearly intervals according to the guidelines of the American Cancer Society." 14. Despite the fact that the mammography films of February 28, 1997 did, in fact, indicate a right subareolar area with increasing density compared to previous mammograms, and sorne nodular features to the area in the MLO view, the Defendant, Richard P. Stewart, M.D., did not further investigate these fmdings or recommend further investigation, but merely recommended that Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi have yearly mammograms as a follow-up. 15. A report was prepared by Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M. D., and forwarded to Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's family doctor and Plaintiff was sent a letter from the Holy Spirit Hospital indicating her mammogram showed no evidence of cancer. 16. Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, in compliance with Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D.'s recommendation, and her family doctor's recommendation, presented herself for a mammogram in March of 1998. 17. In March of 1998, the Plaintiff Doris E. Ros! scheduled her yearly mammogram examination through her family doctor, who provided a prescription for the mammogram. 18. Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi presented herself to the Holy Spirit Hospital for a mammogram on March 2, 1998. The mammogram was interpreted by Defendant George S. Durisek, M. D. The rnammogram film of March 2, 1998 of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's right breast indicated a persistent prominence of the subareolar ducts with striking asymmetry. 4 19. Despite the clear fmdings shown in the mammogram film, the Defendant George S. Durisek, M. D., noted, incorrectly, in his conclusion of his interpretation that the fmdings were: "Persisting asymmetrical breast parenchyma.l tissues have not shown interval change compared with previous studies. There are no specific new or changing abnormalities to indicate a malignancy." 20. Despite the fact that the mammogram films indicated a persistent prominence of the subareolar ducts with striking asymmetry as compared to prior mammograms, Defendant George S. Durisek, M. D., failed to order or recommend, any further work-up, or make any recommendation as to how soon the mammogram films should be repeated. 21. A report was prepared by Defendant George S. Durisek, M. D. and was forwarded to Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's family doctor by Defendant George S. Durisek, M. D. and forwarded to Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's family doctor and Plaintiff was sent a letter from the Holy Spirit Hospital indicating her mammogram showed no evidence of cancer. 22. Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi had a mammogram of January 6, 2000, which also incorrectly reported an absence of suspicious findings. However, in March 2000, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi discovered a lump in her right breast, and for the first time became aware of the possibility that the prior mammograms heretofore mentioned were incorrect in their interpretation statements that they revealed no evidence of cancer. 23. Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi related that she noted an asymmetry in her right breast in an office visit with her family doctor of July 2000. 5 24. Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's family doctor, discovered a large firmness/lump approximately 2-cm wide and 3-cm long in Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's right breast. 25. Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's family doctor promptly ordered additional diagnostic testing including an ultrasound and biopsies which revealed infiltrating ductal carcinoma of the breast. 26. As a result Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi underwent a modified radical mastectorny and chemotherapy in September of 2000 because her primary tumor was larger than average with unfavorable receptor status. 27. Following the chemotherapy treatment, Plail1tiff Doris E. Rosi has been placed Tamoxifen. 28. As a result of the operative procedure and tile chemotherapy, and the medication, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi has incurred out-of-pocket expenses for medical treatment and related expenses. 29. As a result of the operative procedure, the chemotherapy, and the Tamoxifen medication, Plaintiff Joseph Rosi has and will continue to suffer the loss of his wife's companionship, services consortium. 30. The surgical procedure of the modified radical mastectomy, the chemotherapy and the Tamoxifen that were required as a result of the spreading of the cancer were caused by the misdiagnosis of: (a) the Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D. whieh was formed, in his fmdings of the February 28, 1997 mammogram films; and (b) the Defendant George S. Durisek, M.D., which was formed, in his findings of the March 2, 1998 mammogram films; 6 31. As a result of the negligent misdiagnoses which will be more fully set forth hereafter, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi has incurred a loss of her right breast, an increased risk of harm and loss of chance of cure. 32. Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi has suffered extreme: mental distress, emotional turmoil, fright, disfigurement, and depression, as a result of the misdiagnosis and prescribed treatment of her breast cancer. 33. Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi has suffered great pain as a result of the sUlgical procedure which she otherwise would not have incurred had the Defendants made proper diagnoses. 34. Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi has incurred severe adverse symptomatology as a result of undergoing chemotherapy that included, among other things, loss of all her body hair, depletion of red and white blood cells, increase risk of severe infections, weakness, fatigue, nausea, and general malaise. 35. As a result of the disability incurred by Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and may be incurred in the future, she has suffered loss of life's pleasUles, curtailment of her normal routine household and family activities, and fatigue and may in the future suffer the same. COUNT I DORIS E. ROSI v. RICHARD P. STEWART, M. D. 36. Paragraphs I through 35 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 7 37. The above said losses, surgeries, chemotherapy and Tamoxifen therapy are the result of the negligence of Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D., whose negligence consisted of the following: (a) He failed to follow the applicable standard of care in examining and interpreting the mammograms that he had taken of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi in February of 1997. This failure resulted in the misdiagnosis of the condition of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and was a substantial factor in delaying appropriate treatment of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and this delay in obtaining appropriate treatment, in turn, substantially increased the extent of the operative procedure and follow-up treatment, as well as reducing her life expectancy and chance for survival. (b) He failed to fully and appropriately examine prior mammograms and order sonography and additional views of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi to properly compare them. This failure resulted in the misdiagnosis of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's condition because proper comparison with the prior films would have revealed that the subareolar area had increasing density compared to previous mammograms and that there were some nodular features to this area on the MLO view not previously present. The standard of care required that su<~h a comparison be rnade and that when it is made, it is made in a careful and prudent manner. The standard of care required that these suspicious areas have spot films, preferably with magnification and possible sonography. The statement by Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D., that there was no evidence for malignancy and that the focal lesions seen previously were no larger and probably smaller than was seen previously either represents a patently false statement by Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M. D., or gross negligence on his part in comparing the two films. In either event, Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D., has failed to follow the applicable standards of care and his failure was a substantial causal factor in the delay of proper diagnosis and treatment of the Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and thereby was a substantial factor in requiring the Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi to have an extensive surgery, chemotherapy, Tamoxifen therapy, and reduced life expectancy and chance of survival. (c) He failed to follow the applicable starldard of care by failing to do a further work-up with a spot film and/or sonography to determine whether or not the right subareolar areas increased density with some nodular features, was a real lesion. His failure resulted in the misdiagnosis of the condition of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi as "negative" 8 instead for carcinoma which is a li~e-threatening disease. This failure was a substantial factor in delaying appropriate treatment of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and this delay in obtaining appropriate treatment, in turn, substantially increased the extent of the operative procedure and follow- up treatment, as well as reducing her life expectancy and chance of survival. (d) He failed to follow the applicable standard of care in that he speculated that the comparison he made to the September 30, 1993 study revealed no significant interval change. He failed to fully and properly compare all of the films available to him including the films of September 23, 1996. This failure to appreciate the significance of the clear fmdings shown in the mammograms of the increasing density of the right subareolar area with nodular features, was a substantial factor in delaying appropriate treatment to Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and this delay in obtaining appropriate treatment, in turn, substantially increased the extent of the operative procedure and follow-up treatment, as well as reducing her life expectancy and chance of survival. (e) Despite finding of increasing density at the right subareolar area with some modular features, he failed to recommend further investigation despite the fact that further investigation was required to be within the standard of care. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, demands judgement against the Defendant, Richard P. Stewart, M.D., for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. COUNT II DORIS E. ROSI v. GEORGE S. DURISEK, M. D. 38. Paragraphs 1 through 35 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 39. The above said losses, surgeries, chemotherapy and Tamoxifen therapy are the result of the negligence of Defendant George S. Durisek, M.D., whose negligence consisted of the following: 9 (a) He failed to follow the applicable standard of care in examining and interpreting the manunogram study taken of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi in March of 1998. This failure resulte:d in the misdiagnosis of the condition of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and was a substantial factor in delaying appropriate treatment of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and this delay in obtaining appropriate treatment, in turn, substantially increased the extent of the operative procedure and follow-up treatment, as well as reducing her life expectancy and chance for survival. (b) He failed to fully and appropriately examine prior manunograms with the films of March of 1998 and to properly compare them. This failure resulted in the misdiagnosis of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi's condition because proper comparison with the prior films would have revealed that the asymmetrical density, the persistent prominence of the subareolar duct with striking asymmetry, could not be interpreted as "negative." The standard of care requires that such a comparison be made and that when it is made, it is made in a careful and prudent manner. The statement by Defendant George S. Durisek, M. D., that there were no specific, new or changing abnormalities to indicate a malignancy, is either patently false, or gross negligence on his part in comparing all prior films and the film before him of March of 1998. In either event, Defendant George S. Durisek, M.D., has failed to follow the applicable standards of care and his failure was a substantial causal factor in the delay of proper diagnosis and treatment of the Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and thereby was a substantial factor in requiring the Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi to have an extensive surgery, chemotherapy, Tamoxifen therapy and reduced life expectancy and chance of survival. (c) He failed to follow the applicable standard of care by failing to do a further work-up including spot films and a biopsy, or even sonography, to determine whether or not the persistent prominence of the subareolar ducts with striking asymmetry was a real lesion. His failure resulted in the misdiagnosis of the condition of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi as "benign" instead for carcinoma which is a life-threatening disease. This failure was a substantial factor in delaying appropriate treatment of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and this delay in obtairting appropriate treatment, in turn, substantially increased the extent of tlle operative procedure and follow- up treatment, as well as reducing her life expectancy and chance of survival. (d) He failed to follow the applicable standard of care in that he speculated that the asymmetrical breast parenchyma density which is most prominent in the subareolar and medial aspect of the right breast had 10 not changed and, in fact, was benign. This failure to appreciate the significance of the clear findings shown in the mammogram films of the persistent prominence of the subareolar ducts with striking asymmetry was a substantial factor in delaying appropriate treatment to Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi and this delay in obtaining appropriate treatment, in turn, substantially increased the extent of the operative procedure and follow- up treatment, as well as reducing her life expectancy and chance of survival. (e) He failed to follow the applicable standard of care by failing to recommend a further work-up including spot films and a biopsy, or even sonography, to determine whether or not the persistent prominence of the subareolar ducts with striking asymmetry was a real lesion. His failure resulted in the misdiagnosis of the condition of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi as "benign" instead for carcinoma which is a life-threatening disease. This failure was a substantial factor in delaying appropriate treatment of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi ,md this delay in obtaining appropriate treatment, in turn, substantially increased the extent of the operative procedure and follow-up tr<eatment, as well as reducing her life expectancy and chance of survival. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, demands judgement against the Defendant, George S. Durisek, M. D., for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. COUNT III DORIS E. ROSI v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL 40. Paragraphs I through 39 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 41. The damages, expenses and losses of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi were caused by the negligence of the Holy Spirit Hospital, under the doctrine of ResDondeat SUDerior and ostensible agency. 11 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, demands judgement against the Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. COUNT IV DORIS E. ROSI v. HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES 42. Paragraphs 1 through 39 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 43. It is currently unknown whether either or both of the named physicians at the time of the interpretations of the mammograms of February 28, 1997 or March 2, 1998 were employees/agents or servants of Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, but if it is determined that either or both were so employed, then Holy Spirit Radiology Associates are liable for the negligence set forth against either or both under the doctrine of ReslJondeat SUlJerior. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, demands judgement against the Defendant, Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. COUNT V DORIS E. ROSI v. A. Z. RITZMAN 44. Paragraphs 1 through 39 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 45. It is currently unknown whether either or both of the named physicians at the time of the interpretations of the mammograms of February 28, 1997 or March 2, 1998 were employees/agents or servants of A. Z. Ritzman, but if it is determined that either or both were 12 so employed, then A. Z. Ritzrnan is liable for the negligence set forth against either or both under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, demands judgement against the Defendant, A. Z. Ritzman, for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. COUNT VI DORIS E. ROSI v. QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A. Z. RITZMAN AND HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES 46. Paragraphs 1 through 45 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 47. The damages, expenses and losses of Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi were caused by the negligence of the Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, Successor to A. Z. Ritzman and Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, demands judgement against the Defendant, Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, Successor to A. Z. Ritzman and Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. COUNT VII JOSEPH ROSI v. RICHARD P. STEWART, M. D. 48. Paragraphs I through 37 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 49. By the reason of the aforesaid negligence of the Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M. D., the Plaintiff Joseph Rosi has been deprived of the assistance, society, services, and consortium of his wife, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, all of which has been a loss to him. 13 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Joseph Rosi demands judgment against the Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M. D., for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. COUNT vm JOSEPH ROSI v. GEORGE S. DURISEK, M. D. 50. Paragraphs 1 through 39 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 51. By the reason of the aforesaid negligence of the Defendant George S. Durisek, M.D., the Plaintiff Joseph Rosi has been deprived of the assistance, society, services, and consortium of his wife, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, all of which has been a loss to him. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Joseph Rosi demands judgment against the Defendant George S. Durisek, M.D., for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. COUNT IX JOSEPH ROSI v. HOLY SPffiIT HOSPITAL 52. Paragraphs 1 through 41 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 53. By the reason of the aforesaid negligence of the Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital, the Plaintiff Joseph Rosi has been deprived of the assistance, society, services, and consortium of his wife, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, all of which has been a loss to him. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Joseph Rosi demands judgment against the Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital, for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. 14 COUNT X JOSEPH ROSI v. HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES 54. Paragraphs 1 through 43 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 55. By the reason of the aforesaid negligence of the Defendant Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, the Plaintiff Joseph Rosi has been deprived of the assistance, society, services, and consortium of his wife, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, all of which has been a loss to him. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Joseph Rosi demands judgment against the Defendant Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. COUNT XI JOSEPH ROSI v. A. Z. RITZMAN 56. Paragraphs 1 through 45 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 57. By the reason of the aforesaid negligence of the Defendant A. Z. Ritzman, the Plaintiff Joseph Rosi has been deprived of the assistance, society, services, and consortium of his wife, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, all of which has been a loss to him. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Joseph Rosi demands judgment against the Defendant A. Z. Ritzman, for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. 15 COUNT XII JOSEPH ROSI v. QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A. Z. RITZMAN AND HOLY SPIRIT RADIOl[.OGY ASSOCIATES 58. Paragraphs 1 through 47 are incorporated herein and made part hereof. 59. By the reason of the aforesaid negligence of the Defendant Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, Successor to A. Z. Ritzman and Holy Spirit Radiology Associates the Plaintiff Joseph Rosi has been deprived of the assistanl~e, society, services, and consortium of his wife, Plaintiff Doris E. Rosi, all of which has been a loss to him. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Joseph Rosi demands judgment against the Defendant Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, Successor to A. Z. Ritzman and Holy Spirit Radiology Associates, for a sum in excess of $35,000.00. Respectfully Submitted, DIVEGLIA & KAYLOR, P.C. Dated: (I) Dt 10l.. I / (7 R- By: GAA'l ~u......--). ~. k Archie V. Diveglia, Esquire .~ Attorney J.D. #17140 Two Lincoln Way West New Oxford, PA 17350 (717) 624-2500 Attorney for Plaintiff 16 VERIFICATION The foregoing complaint is based upon information which has been gathered by our counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit. We have read the cornplaint and to the extent that it is based upon information which we have given to our counsel, it is true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content is that of counsel, we have relied upon counsel in making this verification. This statement and verification are made subject to the penalties of Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities, which provides that if we make knowingly false averments, we may be subject to criminal penalties. 1~~ ;! ;f~ Doris E. Rosi Jf!ilh at Q~' o 10' ph Rosi , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 21st day of February, 2002, I, Janet C. Naclerio, for DlVEGLIA & KAYLOR, P.c., hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing COMPLAINT served via first class mail, postage pre-paid, and addressed to the following: Caig A. Stone, Esquire Mette, Evans & Woodside 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 Evan Black, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 North Front Street Sixth Floor P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 DIVEGLIA & KAYLOR, P.c. ~/t~ se~t~~o~ Diveglia & Kaylor, P.C. - . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ~ And now, this :21 ,day of August, 2004, I, Ashleigh E. Anglemeyer, Legal Secretary, an employee of the law offices of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, do hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following persons via United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, as follows: Archie V. Diveglia, Esquire Diveglia & Kaylor, P.C. Two Lincoln Way West New Oxford, PA 17350 Craig Stone, EsquirE~ MARSHALL, DENNEHIEY, WARNER, COLEMAN AND GOGGIN 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Linda Porr-Sweeney, Esquire Porr & Devine, LLC 116 East King Street Lancaster, PA 1760:2 O[)hluQV\~~ Ashlei!~h VAnglem er . . (") ...., c = !f: = ,- ~- ";,:,"" ~:Il c= t:;~j (. LeJ -n~ = :ot C) ~'TJ =-t~', ;,J;,.-d ::/: ' J -'- ~,~ -,:,.(") ry (-:';'0 ~l :,~~~~ -< !', ,J) ..(.I -< $EP 0 1 2004 -( v DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, . Plaintiffs : IN THE COUfH OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, : DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Term GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D.. BERTRAND B. GIUL\AN, M.D., : CIVIL ACTION - LAW QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, Defendants : JURY TRIJI,L DEMANDED AND NOW, this , QJ1.) ORDER day of ~ffirJ1Ju/)) I ,2004, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion for a Status Conference, and any re~sponse thereto, it is hereby ORDERED and DECREED that said Motion is GRANTED and a conference is scheduled before the Honorable r( CO A! ,q. J-/ e-S S on the, ~O -ri day of JrI7fr"d'" . 2oo'!- at 'i: ffV ~p.m.;o Court"'''" No. L. Cu"'bertaod County Court of Common Pleas. BY THE COURT: / 19* J. ~~ !\,() 00...0 VltI.JV.^\~V\SN;\Jjc1 I 'NI'~" ; 'r Co" ""-'I'n" l\.Ll it.!.., ,," ';~ ,.-',:-!: I' J LO :B WV L - d3S ~OOl "~JI"'I"O""O""d' ;:)'1' JO ^1j,.U" hi C ,>,1.1. ~ 3Ji:!.:!O-a:rU:1 DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW 02-187 CIVIL HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESS TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: STATUS CONFERENCE ORDER Ib AND NOW, this day of October, 2004, following conference with counsel in chambers, the following scheduling order is entered: 1. With the exception of expert reports, all other discovery shall be concluded in this matter on or before November 30, 2004. 2. The plaintiffs' expert reports shall be forthcoming on or before February 1,2005. 3. Defense expert reports shall be forthcoming OIl or before May 1, 2005. 4. All reply expert reports shall be forthcoming on or before June 15, 2005. Thereafter, the onus shall be upon counsel to list !the matter for a trial in the September term of 2005 and counsel shall be deemed attlched for the purpose of the trial of . - Vl\!V/\lASNN3cl I ",,,~,-,, ,', """.-\'""" 1\JJ'<i iLl,,' r . ':"d\i IJ ZS:ll!W I-IJO~OOZ ^::.JV.LC~\JH"tOHd 3H1 :10 3:::-;1 J:l0-<l:]l1:::! this case during the week of September 19, 2005. BY THE COURT, ~chie V. Diveglia, Esquire For the Plaintiffs -~~_ 4;1 Keviy Hess, J. / VCraig A. Stone, Esquire Avan Black, Esquire .,..-stephanie Hersperger, Esquire ~inda Porr-Sweeney, Esquire For the Defendants ) Court Administrator :r\m PORR & DEVINE, LLC By: Linda Porr Sweeney, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 34811 116 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 390-3020 Attorney for Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D. DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA v. NO. 02-187 CIVIL TERM HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D.,BERTRAND B. GUlLIAN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES SUCCESSOR TO AZ. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES CIVIL ACTION- LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR CHANGE OF ADDRESS Kindly record our change of address as follows effective March 1, 2005. Porr & Devine, LLC 115 East King Street Lancaster, P A 17602 PORR & DEVINE, P.C. By~k,o Linda Porr Sweeney I Attorney for Defendants Richard P. Stewart, M.D. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this date I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to be served upon the individuals named below by first class mail. Archie V. Diveglia, Esquire Diveglia & Kaylor, P.C. Two Lincoln Way West New Oxford, P A 17350 Counsel for Plaintiffs Craig A. Stone, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4220 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 Counsel for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital Evan Black, Esquire Daniel L. Grill, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Counselfor Defendants, George S. Durisek, MD., Barbara K. Kunkel, MD., Bertrand B. Giulian, MD., and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, Successor to A.Z. Ritzman PORR & DEVINE, LLC Date: February 10,2005 ~. , ) , By: '-4 inda Porr Sweeney, Esqu' e Attorney for Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D. ',' --."1 L.J r.) :- (i - ------ THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER, LLP By: Evan Black, Esquire Identification No. 17884 305 North Front Street P. 0. Box 999 Harrisburg. PA 17108 (717) 441-7051 Attorney for Defendants George S. Durisek, M.D. and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to A. Z. Ritzman Associates DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, : DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Term : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF SUBPOENAS DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 40lW,22 As a prerequisite to service of subpoenas for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Defendants, George S. Durisek, M.D. and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to A. Z. Ritzman Associates certifie that: (I) a Notice of Intent to serve the Subpoenas with a copy of the Subpoenas attached thereto was mailed to each party on March 14,2005; (2) a copy of the Notice of Intent, including the proposed Subpoenas, is attached to this certificate; (3) the Subpoenas which will be served are identical to the Subpoenas which are attached to the Notice ofIntent to serve the Subpoenas. Date: It-O< THO~>_THOMA By: ..~.. Evan lack, Esquire Attorney forDefendants,George S. Durisek, M.D. and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to A. Z. Ritzman Associates THOMAS, THaMAS & HAFER, LLP By: Evan Black, Esquire Identification No. 17884 305 North Front Street P. 0. Box 999 Harrisburg, P A 17108 (717) 441-7051 Attorney for Defendants George S. Durisek, MD. and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to A. Z. Ritzman Associates DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, : DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Term : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants Defendants, George S. Durisek, M.D. and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to A. Z. Ritzman Associates intend to serve subpoenas identical to the ones that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoenas. If no objection is made, the subpoenas will be served. Date: : 166013.5 3,[~p(f? By: THOMAS, THOMAS & AFER, LLP J Evan Blac~ Attorney for Defendants, George S. Durisek, MD. and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to A. Z. Ritzman Associates Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURlSEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCLATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, : DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Term CNlL ACTION - LAW Defendants SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Lisa K. Torp, M.D. Susqehanna Surgeons, M.D. WormIeysburg, PA 17043-1016 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Anv and aU records from Mav 21. 2003 to the present inc1udinl! notes, studies,labs, bills, reDorts. incominl! and outl!oinl! corresDondence, fIlms, etc for aU inpatient. outpatient, ER. clinic or office visits rel!ardinl! Doris E. Rosi, DOB: 12/23/34, SSN: 236-48-9645 at: Thomas. Thomas & Hafer. LLP. 305 N. Front St.. P.O. Box 999. Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoenalnay seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. TIllS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Evan Black, Esquire ADDRESS: P.O. Box 999, Harrisburg, P A 17108-0999 TELEPHONE: (717) 441-7051 SUPREME COURT ID#: 17884 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendants Durisek, Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to A. Z. Ritzman Associates 166008.16 DATE: fYl;jNi ;(~ Seal of the Court <- Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYL V ANlA DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, MD., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, MD., BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEurIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, : DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Term CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUlHEl'nS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Colleen C. Foos, M.D. 9 Flowers Drive Mechanicsburg, P A 17050-1701 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Anv and all records from June 17. 2003 to the Dresent inc1udine notes, studies. labs, bills, reports, !ncomine and outeo!ne corresDondence, rums, etc for all inDatient, outpatient, ER. clinic or office visits rel!ardine Doris E. Ros!, DOB: 12/23/34, SSN: 236-48-9645 at: Thomas, Thomas & Hafer. LLP, 305 N. Front St.. P.O. Box 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Evan Black, Esquire ADDRESS: P.O. Box 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 TELEPHONE: (717) 441-7051 SUPREME COURT ID#: 17884 ATTORNEY FOIt: Defendants Durisek, Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to A. Z. Ritzman Associates 166008.18 DATE: fY2;:Jad... "J :J 6d$ Seal of the Court Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYL V ANlA DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO AZ. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, : DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Term : CIVlL ACTION - LAW Defendants SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Custodian of Records Mary A. Simmonds, M.D. 50 N,12th Street Lemoyne, PA 17043-1440 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Anv and all records from December 12. 2003 to nresent includinl! notes. studies. labs. bills. reports. incominl! and ontl!oinl! correspondence. f'Ilms. etc for all inpatient. outpatient. ER. clinic or office visits rel!ardinl! Doris E. Rosi. DOB: 12/23/34. SSN: 236-48-9645 at: Thomas. Thomas & Hafer. LLP. 305 N. Front St.. P.O. Box 999. Harrisburg. PA 17108-0999. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Evan Black, Esquire ADDRESS: P.O. Box 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 TELEPHONE: (717) 441-7051 SUPREME COURT ID#: 17884 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendants Durisek, Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to A. Z. Ritzman Associates 166008.19 DATE: (Y/;Jf),i =< J/Y\5" Seal of the Court I Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYL VANIA DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, MD., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, MD., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCL\TES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, : DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Term CNIL ACTION - LAW Defendants SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Dr. James A. Tyndall Internists of Central P A 108 Lowther Street Lemoyne, P A 17043-2045 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Anv and all records from June 2. 2003 to the Dresent includinl! notes, studies. labs. bills. reDorts. incominl! and outl!oinl! corresDondence. films. etc for all inDatient, oumatient, ER, clinic or office visits rel!ardinl! Doris E. Rosi. DOB: 12/23/34, SSN: 236-48-9645 at: Thomas. Thomas & Hafer. LLP. 305 N. Front St.. P.O. Box 999. Harrisburg. PA 17108-0999. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Evan Black, Esquire ADDRESS: P.O. Box 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 TELEPHONE: (717)441-7051 SUPREME COURT ID#: 17884 ATTORNEY FOR: Defendants Durisek, Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, succeSsor to A. Z. Ritzman Associates 166008.20 DATE: (fl;.J.nc.L. ") .::J ~ Seal of the Court I ""--- Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, : DOCKET NO. 02-187 Civil Term : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Custodian of Records Andrews & Patel Associates 3912 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Anv and all records from December 12. 2003 to oresent inciudine: notes. studies. labs. bills. reoorts. incominl! aud outl!oinl! corresoondence. fIlms. etc for aU inoatient. outoatient. ER. clinic or office visits rel!ardine: Doris E. Rosi. DaB: 12/23/34. SSN: 236-48-9645 at: Thomas. Thomas & Hafer. LLP. 305 N. Front St.. P.O. Box 999. Harrisburg. PA 17108-0999. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or thiogs required by this subpoena, within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. TIDS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Evan Black, Esquire ADDRESS: P.O. Box 999, Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999 TELEPHONE: (717) 441-7051 SUPREME COURT ID#: 17884 A TIORNEY FOR; Defendants Durisek, Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, successor to A. Z. Ritzman Associates 166008.21 DATE: (fl';;i/J( i ), 200..S Seal of the Court I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE , I fA^-- Il. .J AND NOW, this ---1:1- day Of~, 2005, I, Terry A. Fuller, a paralegal in the law finn of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer LLP, hereby certify that I sent a true and correct copy of the foregoing document by placing a copy of the same in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, to the following: Archie V. Diveglia, Esquire DIVEGLIA & KAYLOR, P.c. Two Lincoln Way West 119 Locust Street New Oxford, PA 17350 Craig A. Stone, Esquire MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEM.A...1\[ AND GOGGIN 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, P A 1711 0 Linda Porr-Sweeney, Esquire PORR & DEVINE, LLC 116 East King Street Lancaster, P A 17602 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Terry A. Fuller an employee of the law offices of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP, do hereby certify that I served a copy of the foregoing document by depositing the same in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, as follows: Archie V. Diveglia, Esquire Diveglia & Kaylor, P.C. Two Lincoln Way West New Oxford, P A 17350 Craig A. Stone, Esquire Mette Evans & Woodside 3401 North Front Street P.O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 Linda Porr Sweeney, Esquire Porr & Devine, LLC 1850 William Penn Way Lancaster, P A 17601 ~"'.-.., .'>-/., 233847.7 r-' Q ....., ,...,":) "-:1 (:.,.." ~: ~U o -n --I f{~ ;n r~'" <~ (.) ";', ~.) ~') ;.''''::.to '.';:1 ,. '":q .'<, -a ....,.~ -- ~~: f''> --'- -------- DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs CIVIL ACTION - LAW vs. 02-187 CIVIL HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIULlAN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESS TO A.Z. RITZMAN and : HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants ORDER AND NOW, this 1'$ · day of August, 2005, on relation of counsel that the parties have reached a tentative settlement, this case is stricken from the list of cases to be tried during the week of September 19,2005. The matter to be relisted, if necessary, by the parties. BY THE COURT, ~aig A. Stone, Esquire ~van Black, Esquire .)1nda Porr-Sweeney, Esquire For the Defendants -l 44- ~chie V. Diveglia, Esquire For the Plaintiffs Vl,\'\\{i'\"ll~ C~\\\\',,~':~d 1 \ ~ 'I';:~'~:: ,,:,'-rl~' ::"'~;'J.l.~\(\ fUr-.: <".~' ' .,'<,!_:.,'~ J "1 Ii 'S \Ad g \ <jlilJ ~Ufil j.,tNl-O\:/Jrli.()Jd 3\-\1. :10 :(J\~~~,O~,o:n\:\ ,'.c-'"'' .,. v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. CIVIL NO. 02-187 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D. QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, Defendants PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please discontinue the above captioned matter. All claims are satisfied in full. Respectfully Submitted, Date: 9-8-<< By: Archie V. Diveglia, squire Attorney 1.0. #17140 / Two Lincoln Way West "'- New Oxford, PA 17350 (717) 624-2500 Attorney for Plaintiff DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI, Plaintiffs v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D., BERTRAND B. GIULIAN, M.D. QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES, SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. CIVIL NO. 02-187 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Archie V. Diveglia, hereby certify the PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE was served by first class mail, postage pre-paid and addressed to the following: Craig A. Stone, Esquire Mette, Evans & Woodside 3401 North Front Street P. O. Box 5950 Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950 Evan Black, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, LLP 305 North Front Street Sixth Floor P. O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Date: 9 ~() -oj Linda Porr Sweeney, Esquire Porr & Devine, LLC 116 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 By: Archie V. Diveglia, E,s uire Attorney I.D. #171 Two Lincoln Way e t New Oxford, PA 1 0 (717) 624-2500 Attorney for Plaintiffs o <;~: r-' c:? >;.',:::.:1 .;.;1 (,I" ...-;", -<.' -- fV C) -(\ ...-\ -J: -t"'. \'11C:, -0\,-'-; J'-"' ?,\(~/ , ,~ " I_~ -~~\}, , ~-:\ -:;..,.. .....-.. r:> '0:" ~- '-,) 'n -:2. . PORR & DEVINE, LLC By: Linda Porr Sweeney, Esquire Attorney LD. No. 34811 115 East King Street, Suite 300 Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 390-3020 Attorney for Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D. DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA v. NO. 02-187 CIVIL TERM HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEWART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D.,BERTRAND B. GUILIAN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES CIVIL ACTION- LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Pursuant to the attached Stipulation by all counsel of record, please mark all claims against the Defendant, Richard P. Stewart, M.D., as voluntarily discontinued with prejudice pursuant to Pa. R.c.P. 229. PORR & DEVINE, P.c. Date: IO/JI/"- By: 'it. -It~ <P... .J...~ 1 Linda Porr Sweeney Attorney for Defendants Richard P. Stewart, M.D. )- . PORR & DEVINE, LLC By: Linda Porr Sweeney, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 34811 115 East King Street, Suite 300 Lancaster, P A 17602 (717) 390-3020 Attorney for Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D. DORIS E. ROSI and JOSEPH ROSI COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA v. NO. 02-187 CIVIL TERM HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, GEORGE S. DURISEK, M.D., RICHARD P. STEW ART, M.D., BARBARA K. KUNKEL, M.D.,BERTRAND B. GUILIAN, M.D., QUANTUM IMAGING AND THERAPEUTIC ASSOCIATES SUCCESSOR TO A.Z. RITZMAN and HOLY SPIRIT RADIOLOGY ASSOCIATES CIVIL ACTION- LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED STIPULATION OF COUNSEL PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 229 Upon stipulation of counsel, the Defendant, Richard P. Stewart, M.D., is hereby dismissed with prejudice from the above-captioned lawsuit. It is understood and agreed that this dismissal will not affect any rights the Plaintiffs may have as against the other remaining Defendants. This stipulation may be signed in counterparts. DIVEGLlA & KAYLOR, P.C. ..- --., ~ui Archie V. Diveglia, Esquire Two Lincoln Way West New Oxford, P A 17350 Attorney for Plaintiffs, Doris E. Rosi and Joseph Rosi MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN Craig A. Stone, Esquire 4220 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 Attorney for Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital PORR & DEVINE, LLC ~. ~~ 6>...-. Linda Porr Sweeney, Esquire 115 East King Street, Suite 300 Lancaster, P A 17602 Attorney for Defendant, Richard Stewart, M.D. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER Evan Black, Esquire 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Attorney for Defendant, George S. Durisek, M.D., Barbara K. Kunkel, M.D., Bertrand B. Giulian, M.D., and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, Successor to A.Z. Ritzman DlVEGLIA & KAYLOR, P.C. Archie V. Diveglia, Esquire Two Lincoln Way West New Oxford, P A 17350 Attomey for Plaintiffs, Doris E. Rosi and Joseph Rosi Crai , squire 4220 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, P A 17112 Attorney for Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital PORR & DEVINE, LLC Linda POIT Sweeney, Esquire 115 East King Street, Suite 300 Lancaster, P A 17602 Attorney for Defendant, Richard Stewart, M.D. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER Evan Black, Esquire 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, P A 17108 Attorney for Defendant, George S. Durisek, M.D., Barbara K. Kunkel, M.D., Bertrand B. Giulian, M.D., and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, Successor to A.l. Ritzman DIVEGLIA & KAYLOR, P.c. Archie V. Diveglia, Esquire Two Lincoln Way West New Oxford, PA 17350 Attorney for Plaintiffs, Doris E. Rosi and Joseph Rosi MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN Craig A Stone, Esquire 4220 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 Attorney for Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital PORR & DEVINE, LLC Linda Porr Sweeney, Esquire 115 East King Street, Suite 300 Lancaster, PA 17602 Attorney for Defendant, Richard Stewart, M.D. THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER Evan Blac ,Esquire 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PAl 71 08 Attorney for Defendant, George S. Durisek, M.D., Barbara K. Kunkel, M.D., Bertrand B. Giulian, M.D., and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, Successor to AZ. Ritzman CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this date I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing document to be served upon the individuals named below by first class maiL Archie V. Diveglia, Esquire Diveglia & Kaylor, P.c. Two Lincoln Way West New Oxford, P A 17350 Counsel for Plaintiffs Craig A. Stone, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4220 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, P A 17112 Counselfor Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital Evan Black, Esquire Daniel L. Grill, Esquire Thomas, Thomas & Hafer 305 North Front Street P.O. Box 999 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Counselfor Defendants, George S. Durisek, MD., Barbara K Kunkel, MD., Bertrand B. Giulian. MD., and Quantum Imaging and Therapeutic Associates, Successor to A.2. Ritzman PORR & DEVINE, LLC By: ~.A1l_6l.. --'~1l1~ Linda Porr Sweeney, Esquire Attorney for Defendant Richard P. Stewart, M.D. Date: October 31, 2005 (:) -kl. ~ U( ......, t () = ~ \) c = <0> ~.~ ::z:: :r::!J \) "1:.:"-" ''--"' 0 P"11 n'fTj f! .Z'-Y.\ ...;: .......... ..0 "7'- ~:jO U-r~; C"" L ~ ~ -........- ~:j~~ rl. , G w ~ ~. -U (~:'D 0- :e Zl,,-,' :x ~2:M .J:: $' , C": r:-:> 0 -~ ~ -;.- )0, -I-- :.:::)" <..:J ::0 --.J.... -' -< '-, 0"