The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About12-5650 ~ r.a C r.~ ~ ~ Q a -+C ~ N ---1+~ ~;3 ~C ~ ~C"? ~ i.~ ....,E ~_t. s c~ ~ - : Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire ID # 58805 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 1'011 Telephone - (717) 975-9446 Fax - (717) 975-2309 m A orney for Plaintiff JOAN WESTON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON .,LEAS Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA HOLY SPIRIT H SPITAL :CIVIL ACTION -LAW OF THE SISTER OF CHRISTIAN CH ~tITY, individually and doing business as HOLY SPIRIT H $PITAL, and GARY FRANCIS l~ATOOL, Defendants :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO DEFEND You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney, and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set fiorth against you. You are war~hed that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be''sntered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Comnplaint or for any claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD T KE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YIOU DO NOT HAVE OR KNO A LAWYER, THEN YOU SHOULD GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FO TH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP: CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 ~~d 3 . ~ sad NOTICIA Le han degnandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expue~tas en las paginas signuientes, usted tiene vienta (20) dlias de plazo al partir de al f ~ha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escritaj o en persona a por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o skis objectiones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no sle fefiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede una Orden contra usted sin previo aviso iv notificacion y por cualquier queja o akuvui que es pedido en la petition de demal~da. Usted puedo parder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes Para vested. LLEVE ESTA D~MANDA A UN ABODAGO IMMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI 'NO TIENE EL DIMERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICI'O, VAYA EN PERS~IVA O LLAME POR TELEPONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE EMCUENTR~# ESCRITA ABAJO PARR AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSSGUTA AS11~5TENCIA LEGAL: CU~VIBERLAND COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 Respec ull Submitted: Date: _ I ~ - ~ L _ Darr I C. Dethlefs, Esquire I . D. # 58805 Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 Telephone: (717) 975-9446 DDethlefsCa~aol.com _ _ _ _ _ Tr, _ _ _ _ _ _ Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire ID # 58805 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 1'011 Telephone - (717) 975-946 Fax - (717) 975-2309 Qpe~~ ~ ' Attorney for Plaintiff JOAN WESTON,~ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAN'JA v. No. HOLY SPIRIT H SPITAL :CIVIL ACTION -LAW OF THE SISTER OF CHRISTIAN CH ~tITY, individually and oing business as HOLY SPIRIT H fiPITAL, and GARY FRANCIS,~ATOOL, Defendants :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOWT comes, Plaintiff, Joan Weston, through her attorneys, the Dethlefs- Pykosh Law Grhup, LLC, by Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire, who respectfully and in support of her clams avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff is Joan Weston with an address at 2835 Sunset Drive, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011. 2. Defendalht, Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity, individually and doing business as Holy Spirit Hospital, is a legal entity which offers medical and hospital services to the public. At all pertinent times hereto, it has been 1 T, organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, with a principal place of business located at 503 North 21St Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011. (Hereinafter sometimes referred to simply asp "Holy Spirit") 3. Defendant, Gary Francis Fatool, is an adult individual currently residing at 715 Seven Points Road, Sunbury, Northumberland County, Pennsylvania 17801. (Hereinafter sometimes referred to simply as "Fatool") 4. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Gary Francis Fatool, was a registered nurse emlployed by Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital. 5. Plaintiff w'ras admitted to Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, on November 12, 2010 for treatment of kidney stones. 6. Surgery tp correct Plaintiff s ailment was performed on November 12, 2010. 7. After the surgery, at approximately 2:OOpm, local prevailing time, Plaintiff was placed in room 618, with another patient, J.M., already present as a roommate. 8. In order to cope with the substantial pain she was enduring, Plaintiff was placed on pain medication and given morphine shots, as needed. COUNT I -BATTERY /SEXUAL ASSAULT Joan Weston v. Gary Francis Fatool 9. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 8 of the Complaint herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 10. At approlximately 7:OOpm on November 12, 2010, a new nurse came into Plaintiffs hospital room, which she shared with another individual, J.M., and introduced himself as Defendant, Gary Francis Fatool. 2 _ _ _ - ~ 11. During the aforementioned 7:OOpm shift change, Plaintiff's sister and brother-in- law were visiting Plaintiff. 12. At the initial introduction, Defendant, Fatool, asked Plaintiff if she and the gentleman present, whom he didn't know was the Plaintiffs brother-in-law, were manned. 13. Defendant, Fatool, proceeded to ask both Plaintiff and her roommate, J.M., if they were married. 14. Plaintiff responded that she was separated and that her sister responded that she was rraarried to the gentlemen to which Defendant, Fatool, was referring. 15.One of the first things that Defendant, Fatool, did after the introduction was to uncover I~laintiffs feet, pull off her socks and feel both of her feet. 16. Defendant touched Plaintiffs feet for over one minute before stopping. 17. Defendant, Fatool, did not check Plaintiffs roommate's feet. 18. At approocimately 10:OOpm, Defendant, Fatool, came into Plaintiffs room to check on her and Plaintiff communicated to Defendant that she was still in pain but that she hated the morphine because it made her hands and feet fall asleep. 19. At this same time, Defendant, Fatool, offered to rub Plaintiffs feet, an offer which Pl~iintiff declined. 20. Defendant persisted and rubbed Plaintiffs feet despite Plaintiff's declining of the offer fo do the same. 21. Defenda~ht assured Plaintiff that it was part of his job and rubbed Plaintiff's feet for approiximately twenty (20) minutes. 3 22. As Defendant was leaving, he went to grab Plaintiff s roommate's feet and was told not to touch her feet. 23. At approximately 5:OOam on November 13, 2010, Defendant, Fatool, reentered Plaintiffs room. 24. At this time, Plaintiff was given another shot of medication directly from Defendant, Fatool. 25. Defendant, Fatool, then asked Plaintiff if her feet were tingling. Plaintiff answered in the affirmative and Defendant again offered to rub Plaintiff's feet. 26. Plaintiff algain declined Defendant, Fatool's, offer and told him that it was not necessary. 27. Plaintiff vW!as heavily medicated and was unable to stop Defendant, Fatool, who proceeded to remove Plaintiffs socks and rub Plaintiff's feet. 28. Defendant, Fatool, pulled up a chair and pulled the dividing curtain between Plaintiff wind her roommate. 29. Plaintiff could feel Defendant, Fatool, breathing on her feet. 30. Plaintiff Was lying on her back and felt her feet being kissed and her toes being sucked on and licked. 31. Plaintiff (poked down to her feet and saw the Defendant sucking and licking her toes. 32. Plaintiff blelieves this lasted for 20 to 30 minutes. 33. Upon information and belief a methodical thumping sound was heard coming from Defendant, Fatool, during the aforementioned occurrence. 4 _ _ 34. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that the methodical thumping was Defendant, Fatool, masturbating. As a result of the conduct, Defendant, Fatool was named as a defendant in a criminal complaint. A copy of which is attached hereto asp exhibit "A". 35. Upon IeaNring, Defendant, Fatool, told Plaintiff that she had beautiful feet and said "thank you very much." 36. Plaintiff did not consent to Defendant, Fatool's, herein described physical contact. 37. Plaintiffs roommate, J.M., confirmed Plaintiffs allegations when interviewed by Detective Sgt. Cotton of the East Pennsboro Township Police Department. 38. Defendant, Fatool's, aforementioned contact with Plaintiff was offensive, and constituted a battery of the person of Plaintiff, Joan Weston. 39. Defendant, Fatool's, intentions were completely self-serving and of the worst kind of indentions imaginable. 40. Defendant, Fatool, acted with willful and wanton disregard for Plaintiff's privacy and person when he commenced the actions identified more specifically above. 41. The battery described in this Count I caused the Plaintiff severe embarrassment and mental anguish for which a claim is made therefore. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Joan Weston, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgrnent in her favor and against Defendant, Gary Francis Fatool, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limit and order that Defendant, Fatool, pay all costs, fees' and attorneys' fees that Plaintiff has been caused to expend or will be caused to expendd' throughout the pendency of this matter. Furthermore, Defendant, 5 _ _ Fatool's, intentions were of the worst kind imaginable and consequently, Plaintiff respectfully requests that punitive damages be levied against Defendant, Fatool, in this matter. Count II ' .BATTERY -ADMINISTERING OF DRUGS FOR PURPOSE OF P 'S'TING PLAINTIFF IN A PHYSICAL STATE WHERE SHE CO LD NOT RESIST A SEXUAL ASSAULT OR BATTERY Joan Weston v. Gsrv Francis Fatool 42. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 41 of the Complaint herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 43. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant Fatool administered the narcotic/drug at 5:00 a.m. for the purposes of placing Plaintiff in a state of not being ably to object and not for the purposes of Plaintiff's medical pain. 44.The act bf administering a narcotic and/or drug to render Plaintiff unable to resist a sj~xual assault constitutes a battery. 45.As a result of the battery, Plaintiff suffered severe embarrassment and mental anguish fior which a claim is made therefore. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Joan Weston, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor and against Defendant, Gary Francis Fatool, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limit and order that Defendant, Fatool, pay all costs, fees and attorneys' fees that Plaintiff has been caused to expend or will be caused to expenq throughout the pendency of this matter. Furthermore, Defendant, Fatool's, intentions were of the worst kind imaginable and consequently, Plaintiff respectfully requests that punitive damages be levied against Defendant, Fatool, in this matter. 6 Count III -NEGLIGENCE Joan Weston v. Garv Francis Fatool 46. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 45 of the Complaint herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 47. Defendant, Fatool's, actions as described herein deviated from the acceptable standard$ of nursing care, and therefore constituted negligence. 48. Defendart , Fatool's actions deviated from accepted standards in the nursing scope of practice, and therefore constituted negligence. 49. Because consent for the contact was not given by Plaintiff, Defendant, Fatool's, actions dleviated from the actions of reasonable and prudent nurse, and therefore constituted negligence. 50.As a reshult of the negligence of Defendant, Fatool, Plaintiff suffered severe embarra~i3ment and mental anguish for which a claim is made therefore. WHEREFOF~E, Plaintiff, Joan Weston, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgri~ent in her favor and against Defendant, Gary Francis Fatool, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limit and order that Defendant, Fataol, pay all costs, fees and attorneys' fees that Plaintiff has been caused to expand or will be caused to expend throughout the pendency of this matter. Furthermore., Defendant, Fatool's, intentions were of the worst kind imaginable and consequently, Plaintiff respectfully requ~~ts that punitive damages be levied against Defendant, Fatool, in this matter. Count IV -NEGLIGENCE PER SE 51. Plaintiff (hereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 50 of the Complaint herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 7 r~T _ . 52. Pennsylvania Nurse Practice Act Section 21.18 b-9 provides that a Registered Nurse may not engage in conduct defined as a sexual violation or sexual improprieily in a professional relationship. 53. The Pennsylvania Nurse Practice Act also provides that a Registered Nurse shall safeguard the patient's dignity and the patient's right to privacy. 54. The actions described in this Complaint violate the provisions of the Pennsylvaania Nurse Practice Act as described in paragraph 52 and 53 of this Complaint, and therefore these actions of Defendant, Fatoal, constitute Negligende Per Se. 55.As a resiult of the negligence of Defendant, Fatool, Plaintiff suffered severe embarra~~ment and mental anguish for which a claim is made therefore. WHEREFOF~E, Plaintiff, Joan Weston, respectfully requests that thi's Honorable Court enter judgrl~ent in her favor and against Defendant, Gary Francis Fatool, in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limit and order that Defendant, Fatool, pay all costs, fees and attorneys' fees that Plaintiff has been caused to expend or will be caused to expend throughout the pendency of this matter. Furthermore, Defendant, Fatool's, intentions were of the worst kind imaginable and consequently, Plaintiff respectfully requests that punitive damages be levied against Defendant, Fatool, in this matter. Count V -NEGLIGENCE Joan Weston v. Holy Spirit Hospital 56. Plaintiff Inereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 55 of the Complaint herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 8 rr, 57. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Fatool, was employed by Defendant, Holy Spirit. 58. When Plaintiff arrived at Defendant, Holy Spirit, and was admitted to the hospital, pefendant, Holy Spirit, owed plaintiff a duty of care. 59.This duty of care required that Defendant, Holy Spirit, exercise reasonable care to protecti Plaintiff from physical harm, and place her in a safe environment. 60. At all times material hereto, Plaintiff was heavily medicated with narcotic pain killers, acid other medications. 61. During Plaintiffs hospitalization and considering her condition as described above, Plaintiff was unable to aid and protect herself. 62. Defendant, Holy Spirit, owed a duty to Plaintiff to protect her from bodily harm. 63. Defenda~rt, Holy Spirit, owed a duty to Plaintiff to secure Plaintiffs safety. 64. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Holy Spirit, breached the aforementioned duties owed to Plaintiff by employing, or continuing to employ Defendant, Fatool, when it knew or should have known of Defendant's propensity to participate in acts similar to those described above. 65. Upon inf~irmation and belief, Defendant, Holy Spirit's, conduct was in reckless disregard for Plaintiffs safety in that Defendant, Holy Spirit, employed and continued to employ Defendant, Fatool, when it knew or should have known of his propdnsity to commit acts as described in this Complaint. 66. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Holy Spirit, knew or should have known o~ facts which would lead a reasonable person to realize that employing, 9 i~ or continuing to employ Defendant, Fatool, created an unreasonable risk of physical harm to Plaintiff and others. 67. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Holy Spirit, was negligent in the hiring and/or retention of Defendant, Fatool. 68. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant, Holy Spirit, had knowledge of Defendant, Fatool's, propensity to engage in this type of behavior. 69. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant, Fatool, admitted to a prior incident during the criminal investigation. 70. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant, Holy Spirit, knew of Defendant, Fatool's prior incident, and therefore his propensity to commit acts as described in this Complaint. 71. Defendant, Holy Spirit, owed a duty to Plaintiff not to hire or retain a nurse who had prevu!ously been involved in incident(s) which would lead a reasonable person td conclude that Defendant, Fatool, may have a propensity to commit acts as described in this Complaint. 72. Defendant, Holy Spirit, owed a duty to Plaintiff not to hire or retain an individual whom it knew or should have known had a propensity to participate in acts similar to!those of Defendant, Fatool, described above. 73.The occurrence of the aforementioned battery and all of the resultant injuries to Plaintiff, Moan Weston, are the direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness of the Defendant, Holy Spirit, in not having 10 i~' _ - _ _ in place procedures and checks and balances to prevent nurses from sexual assaulting patients. 74. Defendant, Holy Spirit, breached the duty of care owed to Plaintiff as described herein. ~s a result of this breach of this duty of care, the Plaintiff suffered severe eimbarrassment and mental anguish for which a claim is made therefore. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Joan Weston, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgrrl~ent in her favor in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limit and order th~# Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, pay all costs, fees and attorneys' fees that Plaintiff has been caused to expend or will be caused to expend throughout the pendency of this matter. Furthermore, Defendant, Holy Spirit's, created an unreasonable risk that rises far above that of simple negligence and consequently, Plaintiff respectfully requests that punitive damages be levied against Defendant, Holy Spirit, in this matter. Count!VI - RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (VICARIOUS LIABILITY) Joan Weston v. Holy Sairit Hosaital 75. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 74 of the Complaint herein by reference as if fully set forth at length. 76. At all times material hereto, Defendant, Fatool, was employed by Defendant, Holy Spirit. 77. The Defendant, Gary Fatool, represented that he was Defendant, Holy Spirit's, agent directly to Plaintiff through his employment as a nurse. 78.The battemy suffered by Plaintiff was caused by Defendant, Fatool, while in the employ arhd under the supervision of Defendant, Holy Spirit. 11 i, 79. The occurrence of the aforementioned battery and all of the resultant injuries to Plaintiff, Joan Weston, are the direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness of the Defendant, Holy Spirit, in breaching those duties which Defendant, Holy Spirit, owed to Plaintiff, which are more particularly identified in Count V -Negligence, above. 80. The occurrence of the aforementioned battery and all of the resultant injuries to Plaintiff, ,Joan Weston, are the direct and proximate result of the negligence, carelessness, and/or recklessness of the Defendant, Holy Spirit, in not having in place procedures and checks and balances to prevent nurses from sexual assaulting patients. 81.As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant, Holy Spirit's, negligence, Plaintiff, Joan Weston, suffered severe embarrassment and mental anguish for which a cN~aim is made therefore. 12 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Joan Weston, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in her favor in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limit and order that Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, pay all costs, fees and attorneys' fees that Plaintiff has been caused to expend or will be caused to expend throughout the pendency of this matter. Furthermore, Defendant, Holy Spirit's, created an unreasonable risk that rises far above that of simple negligence and consequently, Plaintiff respectfully requests that punitive damages be levied against Defendant, Holy Spirit, in this matter. Respectf Ily ubmitted: Date: ~ ~ I " ~ Z Darr ethlefs, Esquire I.D. # 58805 Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 Telephone: (717) 975-9446 DDethlefsCa~aol.com 13 _ - _ _ _ _ _ rn~ From: EAST PENNSBORO POLICE 717 732 3980 03!31/2011 14:17 #242 P.001/006 - COMMONWEALTH OF POLICE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT PENNSYLVANIA COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF: Cumberland VS. Magisterial District Number: 09-1-03 MDJ: Hon. Richard S. Dougherty DEFENDANT: (NAME and ADDRESS): Address: 98 South Enola Drive, Suite #1 Gary Francis fatoot - Enola, PA 17025 First Name MidcfreName Last Name Gen. 715 Seven Points Road Telephone: (717) 728.2805 Sunbury, PA 17801 NCIC:Extradltton Code'typR ? 1-Felony Full ? 4-Feony No Ext. ? B-Misdemeanor Limited ? E-Misdemeanor Pendtng ? 2-Felony Ltd. ? 5-Feony Pend. ®C-Misdemeanor Surrounding States ? Distance: ? 3-Felony Surrounding States ? A-Misdemeanor Full ? D-Misdemeanor No Extradition ' DEFENDANT<ID~NTIFIC7~1)ON~1iFOi<MIA'~101i . Docket Number Date fled OTN/LlveScan Number ComplainUk?cidaM Ntanber SID Regtteat Lab SanrlcesT 2010110357 ? YES ®No GENDER ppB ppg Add'1 DOB Co-Defertdanl(sj ? Male First Nam Midd{e Name Last Name Gen. ? Female ~A RAGE White Asian Blade Native American Urvtnawn ETHNICITY H' nic Non-Hi epic Unknown HAIR COLOR GRY (Gray) ? RED (Red/AUbn.) ? SDY (Sandy) ? BLU (Slue) ? PLE (Purple) ? BRO (Brown) BLK (Blade) ? ONG (Orange) ? WHI (White) ®XXX (UnkJBald) ?GRN {Green} ?PNK (Pink) BLN (Blonde /Strawberry) EYE COLOR BLK (Blade) ? BLU (Blue) I~ BRO (Brown) ?GRN (Green) ?GRY (Gray) HAZ (Hazel) ? MAR (Maroon) ?PNK (Pink) ? MUL (Mutticoloreei) ? XXx (lkdrrawn) Driver Lfceiae State PA Lirbnse Number Ex 'ras: ~ YYE11;iHT pbs.) PNA ? YES 181 N4 DNA Location 2QQ FBI Number 61N1t tYumber Ft HEIGiFI'r #n. DsfendtLTltF~pa~r(Med YES ®NO 71" DEFENDMtT; YEMICt=~::N1E0RMAT10N State I~>Y¢mM Registration Cotmn'I Veh. School Oth. NCIC Veh. Code Reg. Plata # ? SNck~ (MwYyj Ind. ? Veh. ? same VIN Year Make Model ~yie color as Def. Office of the attorney for the commonwealth ? Approved ? Disapproved because: attorney fort monwealth ay require at t corn nt, arrest warrant a vtt, or a approved y t e attorney or t e mmortweal poor to filing. See Pa.R-Crim.P_ 507). (Noma o the attorney for the mmonwea ) nature of the apomey for the Commonwealth) (Date) I, Det. Sgt. Michael Cotton 1606 (Name of the Affiani) (PSPlMPOETC -Assigned AH1ant ID Number 8 Badge # of East Pennsboro Towleship Police Dept PA0210300 (identify Department or Agency Re resented and Political Subdivision) (Police Agency ORI Number) do hereby state: (check appj~opriate box) 1. ~ I accuse the above narrled defendant who fives at the address set forth above ? I accuse the defendant nthose name is unknown to me but who is described as ? I accuse the defendant lflVhose name and popular designation or nickname are unknown to me and whom I have therefore designated as {lohn Doe or Jane Doe with violating the penal lapws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at 101 Haly Spirit Hospital, room 618, Camp Hill ir7 East Pennsboro Township tom" s, n in Cumberland Countiy21 on or about appx. 0500 hours on 11/13/2010 Coun Code AOPC 412A -Rev. 07/10 Pe l of r,3::' F .flv _ _ m From:EA5~ PENNS80R0 POLICE 717 732 3980 03!31!2011 14:17 #242 P.0021006 POLICE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT Docket Numtter: tote Filed: OTN1LiveScart Number CtNrtpleinUtneidertt Number 2010110357 Defendant Nemt3 First: Middle: Las[: Gery Francis Fatoot The acts committed by the accused are described below with each Act of Assembly or statute violated, if appropriate. When there is more than one offen, each offense should be numbered chronologica!!y. (Set forth s E?fs/summery of the to sutiielent to advise the defendant of the nature of dte oftsnss(s) chsrysd. A cltstlon to the stattds(s) violated, without more, Is not suMident. In a case, you must cite the spseiAc sscUortts) and subssclton(s) at tlw slahMis) or ordinance(s) diepedMy violated. The ape of tIN vfclGn at the time of the msY be included it known. In addition, social aacurfty rwmbers and flrrancfal Information (e.p. PINs) should not ne listed. N the ider?titY of ~ accou t must be established, fiat ardy the leaf tour dlpits. 204 PA.Code ~ 213.1- 213.7.) inchoate ? Attempt ? SoUcitstion ? Conspiracy Ottent36 18 901 A 18 902 A 18903 ® 1 3126 (ax1 } A Crimes Cod 1 M2 C-Misdemea 170 Lead? Offense! Section Subsection PA Statute Ak CouMS Grade NCIC Otlensa Code UCRMBRS Code PennflOT Daa m ? Salary Zone Q Work Zone {t; to Nutn_ Statute Description (include rifle name of statute or ordinance): INDEC ASSAULT 10 CONSENT Acts of the accused associated with this Offense: PACC 3126(a}1 Indecent'Assault M2 IN THAT, on or about sagd date, THE DEFENDANT did have irtdecent contact with the complainant and/or did taus the complainant to have ilhdecent contact with the person, and/or intentionally caused the complainant to come into contact with seminal t`fuid urine or feces for the u ose of arous' sexual desire in the rsan or the inchoate ? Attempt ~ Solicitation ? Conspiracy Offense 1B901A 18902A 18903 ® 1 3126 (ax1) A Crimes C e 1 M2 C-Misdemea 170 Lead? ONerwreN Section Subsection PA Statute Counts Grade IiCIC Offense Code U RMtBRS Code i'ennDt~' patty A4Gde~m if tSumbi:r ? Safety Zone ? Work Zone Statute Description (include tlhe name of statute or ordinance}: [NDEC ASSAULT i0 CONSENT Acts of the accused associatt~d with this Offense: complainant, namely, Joafh Weston, without the consent of the complainant, in violation of Section 3126(ax1) of the PA Crimes Code. (tttlisd-2nd) Inchoate ? Attempt ? Shccitatfon ? Gonspiracy ptt@1ts0 18 907 A 18 902 A 18903 ? 2 2709 (ax3) A Crimes C e 1 summ 26 Lead? Oftensetl Section Subsection PA Statute a Cour><s Grade NCIC Ofknae Code UCRMIBR5 Code PennDOT Acddedt (it_t~pplkab~) tJlurit~ ? Safety Zone ? Work Zone Statute Description (include the name of statute or ordinance): HARASSMENTiACT TO ANNOY Acts of the accused associate4i with this Offense: PACC 2709(a)(3} Harassment -Summary !N THAT, on or about said!, date, THE DEFENDANT, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person, namely, Joan Weston, did engage ill a course of conduct or repeatedly committed acts, namely the defendant sucked an r lick h f W stop whi i nno uch h r rson a whi h ed no AOPC 412A Rev. 07/ 1D Page _ of _ _ T _ From:EAST PENNSBORO POLICE 717 732 3980 0313112011 14:18 #242 P.003l006 POLfCE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT Docket Numt~er: Dade Filed: OTWLiveScan Number CompMintrlncitknt Number 2010110357 First: Mitjd?e: Last: Detendant Name Gary Francis Fatooi The acts committed by the accused are described below with each Act of Assembly or statute violated, if appropriate. W hen there is more than one offen ,each offense should be numbered chronologically. (Set forth a brladaummary of the lac srrfflclent to sdviae the defendant of the nature of tiro offense(s) charged. A dtWon to the e<epiM(a) violated, without more, is rrot atArictent. In a w you must dte the specific aeotlon(a) and sue..~(a) ~ ~ atNute(s) or ordhceinca(s) albgsdty vtoleted. The age of the vkMim et tiro time of the o rtes may be }nduded If known. !n additk?n, social security numbers end Mtsnelal Informetbn (e.g. PtNe) should rxri be listed. K die IderdNy of an nxounl', must be eatabltahed, list only the faat four digits. 2M PA.Code g5 213.1 - 2t3.T.) {t7C1}pat8 ? Attempt ? Solicftatlon ? Conspiracy affBtlSe 18901 A 18902A 1891)3 ? 2 2709 (ax3) _ A Crimes C 1 summ 26 Lead? OfleneeM Sedbn Subsection PA Stahrte db Counts Grade NCIC Offense Code UCRMISRS Code PennD47 Dale t ? Safety Zone ? wotk Zone if kti~t~ ` Wider Statute Description (include t name of Statute or ordinance): HARASSMENT/AC S TO ANNOY Acts of the accused associat with this Offense: legitimate purpose, in viol Lion of Section 2709(aK3) of the PA Crimes Code. Inchogtfs ? Attempt ? Soittitation ? Conapiracy f~811sB ' 78 901 A 18 902A 18903 ? _ _ _ Lead? ~Offenaea Sectbr+ Subsecton PA Statute ids Counts Grade ItCIC OMensa Code t1CWN~RS Gode ~~'t ? Safety Zone ? WorkZone Statute Description (include tN,e name of statute or ordinance): Acts of the accused associated with this Offense: inchoerte ? Attempt ? SoUcMatbn ? Conspiracy l 01fet1ge 18 901 A t 8 902 A 1B 903 Lead? OflenseM Section Subsection PA Statute a Counta drade NCtC Onense Code UCftMIBRS Code PennDO'T-OIKa ? Safety Zone ? Work Zone If. Ypble Ntjmbei Statute Description (include the name of statute or ordinance): Acts of the accused associated with this Offense: AOPC 412A Rev. 07/ 10 Page _ of _ _ _ _ - From:EAST PENNSBORO POLICE 717 732 3980 03!31/2011 14:18 #242 P.004l006 POLICE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT Docket Number. Date!Piled: OTWLiveScan Number ComplafntAncidsnt Number 2010110357 First: Middle: Last: Gary Francis Fatool 2. I ask that a warrant of arrest or a summons be issued and that the defendant be required to answer the charges 1 have made. 3. I verify that the facts set forth in this complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge or information and belief. This verification is made subject to the penalties of Section 4904 of the Crimes Code (18 Pa.C.S. § 4904) relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 4. This complaint consists of the preceding page(s) numbered _ through The acts committed by the a 'CUSed, as listed and hereafter, were against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and were co trary to the Act(s) of the Assembiy, or in violation of the statutes cited. (Before a warrant of arrest an be issued, an affidavit of probable cause must be completed, sworn to before the issuing authority, and alts ed.) (Date) {Signature of Anfani) AND NOW, on this date I certify that the complaint has been properly completed and verified. An affidavit of probable cause mtNst be completed before a warrant can be issued. {Magisterial District Court Number) {Issuing Authority) _ l-.l`„_ _ _ __.r...~. AOPC 412A -Rev. 07/ 10 Page _ of _ _ From:EAST PENNSBORO POLICE 717 732 3980 0313112011 14:18 #242 P.0051006 POLICE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT Docket Number: Date Filed: OTN/LiveScan Number ComplalntMrcldOnt Number 2010110357 First: Middle: Last: Detandant Name' Gary Francis Fatool AFFIDAVIT of PROBABLE CAUSE On 11/16/2010 your affiant met with the victim, Joan Weston, at the East Pennsboro Township Police Department to discussithis case. The victim wished to report that she was recently a patient at the Holy Spirit Hospital in Camp Hili, East Pennsboro Township, and she was assaulted by a nurse during her care. The victim said that sh6 was admitted to the Holy Spirit Hospital on 1 111 2/201 0 for treatment of kidney stones. She hail corrective surgery and she was placed in room 618 to recover. This morn was shared by the victim af11d another patient, The victim was taken to her room around 1330 to 1400 hours on 11/1$/2010. McCreary was already in the room at this time The victim said she was scheduled for an overnight stay. She informed me that she had been able to get out of her bed and!,visit the rest room several times but she was in substantial pain and taking pain medication. The victim said that around 1900 hours, a new nurse came into the room to introduce himself. This nurse wads later identified as the defendant, Gary Fatool. Weston said that her sister and brother-in-law were visiting her at this shift change. The victim advised that the defendant irrtroduced himself a ~ ,asked both M~ and Weston if they were married. The victim said she was separated and M said she was married. The victim told your af1G'ant that one of the first things the defendant did after introducing himself was to uncoveq her feet, pull aft her socks and feel both feet. The victim did not know why the defendant was toudhing her feet but said she assumed it was to check for a pulse. The defendant touched the victim's feat for over one minute before stopping. The victim said that Fatool did not check M~ feet. Around 2200/2300 hours the defendant came into the victim's room to check on her. Since the victim was stf~t in pain, she ret:eived a morphine drip to ease the pain. The victim remembered telling the defendant that she hated the morphine because it made her hands and feet fall asleep. The defendant offered to rub the victirrif~s feet and the victim told him it was not necessary. The victim said she did not know what to telll the defendant as he was her nurse and trained in givir~ treatment to the patients. The defendant said it was okay and part of his job and proceeded to rub the victim's feet 1, . BE~IG DULY SW RN ACCORDING TO THE LAW, DEPOSE AND SAY THAT THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE FOREGOING AFFIDA~IT ARE TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, INFORMAtION AND BELIEF. {Signature of Attlarrt) Sworn to me and subscribed before me this day of Date ,Magisterial District Judge My commission expires first Monday of January, E: ~I_ ___...,r__..__... AOPC 411C -Rev. 07/10 Page 1 of _ _ _ r__. _ _ _ T ~ _ From:EAST PENNSBORO POLICE 717 732 3980 03!3112011 14:18 #242 P.006I006 POLICE CRIMINAL COMPLAINT AFFIDAVIT CONTINUATION PAGE Docket Number: Date Filed: OTNlLiveScan Number ComplalnUlncident Number 2010110357 First: Middle: Last: Detend~nt Ga Francis Fatool AFFIDAVIT of PROBABLE CAUSE CONTINUATION for about 20 minutes. ,A~s the defendant was leaving the room, he went to grab the feet of M~ and she told him not tcb touch her feet. At about 0500 hours, the defendant came into the room to check on the victim and M~ The victim was given moreiof the morphine drip for her pain. The defendant asked the victim if her feet were tingling again anttl the victim said they were. The defendant again offered to rub the victim's feet. The victim said slhe told him it was not necessary but the defendant said it was part of his job and proceeded to tike off her socks and rub her feet. The victim said the defendant pulled up a chair, pulled the dividing curtain between herself and her roommate and proceeded to rub her feet. The victim told your af~iant that she could feel his breath on her fast. The victim was laying back and she said she felt bier feet being kissed and her toes being sucked on. She said she looked down at her feat and she saMr the defendant sucking and licking her toes.The defendant said she did not stop the defendant anc~' that this lasted for about 20 to 30 minutes. The victim said that when the defendant was done, he said 'thank you very much' and that she had beautiful fast. Your affiant interviewed ,~M~ She said she was the roommate of the victim. M~ confirmed that the defendant held the victim's feet at 1900 hours and rubbed them around 2300 hours. M~ said she wad awake when the defendant came in around 0500 hours and again rubbed the victim's feet. M said the defendant pulled the dividing curtain somewhat and sat at the victim's feet. McCrea ,said she could see the defendant's back and she heard the defendant tell the victim that she had beautiful feet and that her feet wars pretty. M~said she heard muffled noises coming from the defendant like he had something in his mouth. ~ said she also heard a methodical thumping and coming from the defert,~ant. A~estimated the foot rubbing lasted about 30 minutes and ~urhen the defendant left he yard little to Mind did not offer her any care. s, M~also told your affront that she was bedridden for most of the night and the defendant never checked her pedal circwlation. On 12/0&2010 your affpant interviewed the defendant regarding this case. The defendant admitted that he gave the victim tgwo foot massages. He also said that he was very close to her feet and this would explain why she'~elt his breath on them. The defendant denied kissing or sucking on her feeUtoes. He said that h>e routinely gives foot massages to many patients and the he "likes fast". Fatool was asked why the did not checkthe pedal pulse in M~ as she was bedridden. He said that he did however M denies this. Based on the above accounts your affiant is asking that the court approve said charges to be sent via summons to the defendant so that he may answer the allegations set forth. (SlAnature of Attiant) AOPC 432C -Rev. 07/10 Page__ of _ VERIFICATIOPI I hereby veirify that the statements of fact made in the foregoing documents are true and correct tp, the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I unde~~rstand that any false statements therein are subject to the criminal penalties contained in 18 Pa C. S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: vl-~)~` ~ ~ Joan stop _ _ r IAT - - ~~Lt~'~~~_1{:~. r_k~~,. i Ir TAE ARa1'N~Nt}T~$;, i 2x42 SEP 12 AM 9' CUM Et~WS L~ ANA T`f P Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire ID #58805 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 Telephone - (717) 975-9446 Fax - (717) 975-2309 m JOAN WESTON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON LEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. No.: 2012-CV - ~6 ~ V ~G • ~r~ HOLY SPIRIT H SPITAL CIVIL ACTION -LAW OF THE SISTER OF . CHRISTIAN CH ITY, individually and ofng business as HOLY SPIRIT HCPITAL, and GARY FRANCIS ~ATOOL, Defendants Certificate of Merit as to Joan Weston I, Darrell C. Dethl~fs, certify that: ® an approprfiate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised mr exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such bonduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; (See attached Exhibit «A„~ _ , _ - r,, AND/OR ® the claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and an approprilate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice or ~rork that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable profession~~l standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; (Seep attached Exhibit "A") OR ? expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. Date: < < " I Z Darrell C. D s, Attorney for Joan Weston Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire I.D. # 58805 Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 Telephone: (717) 975-9446 DDethlefs(a~aol.com _ _ - Certificate of Merit by Qualified Expert I, Tiffany Kintzler, RN, CLNC, am a licensed nurse and am clinically active in my field. I have worked in a hospital setting and am familiar. with the standards of care that a Registered Nurse is responsible and accountable for while providing quality patient care. I have reviewed the Police Criminal Complaint which was filed by the plaintiff Joan Weston on November 16, 2010. Based upon my review and a reasonable understanding of the facts of this case, it is my opinion that the defendant, Gary Francis Fatool deviated from the acceptable standards of nursing care. The actions performed by Mr. Fatool on November 12th and 13th 2010 were unacceptable and not included in the nursing scope of practice. Consent was not given by Ms. Weston, and Mr. Fatool's actions were not what a reasonable and prudent nurse would do in said situation. According to the Pennsylvania Nurse Practice Act Section 21.18 b-9 a Registered Nurse may not engage in conduct defined as a sexual violation or sexual impropriety in the course of a professional relationship. Section a-4 also states that a Registered Nurse shall safeguard the patient's dignity and the right to privacy. Mr. Fatool's actions were in direct violation of the Pennsylvania Nurse Practice Act, and he showed no respect for his patient's dignity and right to privacy. Mr. Fatool put his own needs before his patient's safety and welfare. Ms. Weston clearly communicated to Mr. Fatool that his actions were not necessary. Furthermore, it is my opinion that Mr. Fatool took advantage of his patient as he knew she was under the influence of pain medication. Ms. Weston's ability to give consent would have been impaired, and thus consent cannot be given. Mr. Fatool's physical contact with Ms. Weston was inappropriate and offensive. It is also my opinion that Holy Spirit Hospital was negligent in hiring, supervising, and retaining Mr. Fatool as a hospital employee. Holy Spirit Hospital had an independent duty to ensure that: policies and procedures were in place to hire appropriate and qualified nursing staff. They breached these duties by either failing to have the proper policies and procedures in place or by _ 1 _ EXHIBIT _ _ _ _ failing to do a complete and thorough background check on employees they are intending to hire. Holy Spirit hospital was negligent in hiring an individual who would participate in the acts described. Holy Spirit Hospital was responsible to provide Ms. Weston with a safe environment while under their care and protect her from physical harm. Holy Spirit was negligent and violated standards of care by not providing a safe environment for patient recovery. The battery that Ms. Weston endured was a direct result of Holy Spirit Hospital's negligence and deviation from standards of care. According to Holy Spirit Hospital's Nursing Philosophy which can be found at hsh.org -the Pennsylvania Nurse Practice Act is part of the cornerstone of their nursing practice and patient care. Holy Spirit Hospital has violated their own philosophy by hiring an individual who would not comply with the standards listed in the third paragraph above in the Pennsylvania Nurse Practice Act. -Z- Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire ID# 58805 DETHLEFS-PYKOSH LAW GROUP, LLC 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 PH#: (717) 975-9446 DDethlefs@aol.com JOAN WESTON V. Plaintiff HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, individually and doing business as HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL Defendants i? OPT I 1 P? Ii: 3Q `Jt°SCEFLANO COUNT;' "EN4SYZ.VANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NO. 12-5650 NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 4009.21 Plaintiff, Joan Weston, 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 no objection is made the subpoena may be service. Date: (G (() " I z-- Darrell•e.-Dethlefs, Esquire ID# 58805 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff JOAN WESTON , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, individually and doing business as NO. 12-5650 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL Defendants SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 4009.21 TO: Cumberland County District Attorneys Office 1 Courthouse Sq. Rm. 202 Carlisle, PA 17013 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the Court to produce the following documents or things: 1. Any and all correspondence to and from Gary Francis Fatool; 2. Any and all correspondence to and from Joan Weston; 3. Any and all criminal Complaints, interview reports, interview notes, charging documents and/or any other documents related to Gary Francis Fatool; 4. Any and all criminal Complaints, interview reports, interview notes charging documents and/or any other documents related to Joan Weston; 5. Any and all plea transcripts, court transcripts, ARD documents, or the like, related to Gary Francis Fatool or Joan Weston. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by the subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed below. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you failed to produce the documents or things required by the subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. The subpoena was issued at the request of the following person. Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire ID# 58805 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff Date: Seal of the court BY THE COURT: Prothonotary, Civil Division Deputy JOAN WESTON , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, individually and doing business as HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL Defendants NO. 12-5650 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice Of Intent To Serve A Subpoena pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4009.21, was hereby served by depositing the same within the custody of United States Postal Service, First Class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: William J. AQuilino, Esq., The Perry Law Firm, LLC 305 Linden Street Scranton, PA 18503 Attorney for Defendant Gary Francis Fatool Thomas Chairs, Esq., Dickie, McCarney & Chilcote Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21 sc Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-2223 Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters Of Christian Charity, individually and doing business as Holy Spirit Hospital Submited, Date: (0 _ (0- t & Darrel! `E?Dethlefs, Esquire ID# 58805 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire ID# 58805 DETHLEFS-PYKOSH LAW GROUP, LLC 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 PH#: (717) 975-9446 DDethlefs@aol.com r FYIL I-Cji r ?srl: OCT AND Cpl T 1m t~ 4SYLVANIA JOAN WESTON IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, individually and doing business as NO. 12-5650 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL Defendants NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 4009.21 Plaintiff, Joan Weston, 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 no objection is made the subpoena may be service. Date: lc/-' ?? r L Darrel ethlefs, Esquire ID# 58805 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff JOAN WESTON , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, individually and doing business as NO. 12-5650 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL Defendants SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 4009.21 TO: East Pennsboro Township Police Department 98 S. Enola Drive Enola, PA 17025 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the Court to produce the following documents or things: 1. Any and all correspondence to and from Gary Francis Fatool; 2. Any and all correspondence to and from Joan Weston; 3. Any and all criminal Complaints, interview reports, interview notes, charging documents and/or any other documents related to Gary Francis Fatool; 4. Any and all criminal Complaints, interview reports, interview notes charging documents and/or any other documents related to Joan Weston; 5. Any and all plea transcripts, court transcripts, ARD documents, or the like, related to Gary Francis Fatool or Joan Weston. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by the subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed below. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you failed to produce the documents or things required by the subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. The subpoena was issued at the request of the following person. Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire ID# 58805 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff Date: Seal of the court BY THE COURT: Prothonotary, Civil Division Deputy JOAN WESTON V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, individually and doing business as HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL Defendants NO. 12-5650 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice Of Intent To Serve A Subpoena pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4009.21, was hereby served by depositing the same within the custody of United States Postal Service, First Class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: William J. AQuilino, Esq., The Perry Law Firm, LLC 305 Linden Street Scranton, PA 18503 Attorney for Defendant Gary Francis Fatool Thomas Chairs, Esq., Dickie, McCarney & Chilcote Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21St Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-2223 Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters Of Christian Charity, individually and doing business as Holy Spirit Hospital Respect 1 Submited, Date: Z' Darr ethlefs, Esquire ID# 58805 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire ID# 58805 DETHLEFS-PYKOSH LAW GROUP, LLC 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 PH#: (717) 975-9446 DDethlefs@aol.com COUNTY Efil!i5 YLVAN1,A JOAN WESTON , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, individually and doing business as NO. 12-5650 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL Defendants NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 4009.21 Plaintiff, Joan Weston, 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 no objection is made the subpoena may be service. n Date: 10- IC)-( Z- Darroll'C" Dethlefs, Esquire ID# 58805 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff JOAN WESTON , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, individually and doing business as NO. 12-5650 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL Defendants SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 4009.21 TO: PA Department of State, State Board of Nursing PO BOX 2649 Harrisburg, PA 17105-2649 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the Court to produce the following documents or things: 1. Any and all records pertaining to the licensing of Gary Francis Fatool and any and all investigatory records and any and all records pertaining to disciplinary actions. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by the subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed below. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you failed to produce the documents or things required by the subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. The subpoena was issued at the request of the following person. Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire ID# 58805 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff Date: Seal of the court BY THE COURT: Prothonotary, Civil Division Deputy JOAN WESTON , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, individually and doing business as NO. 12-5650 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice Of Intent To Serve A Subpoena pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4009.21, was hereby served by depositing the same within the custody of United States Postal Service, First Class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: William J. AQuilino, Esq., The Perry Law Firm, LLC 305 Linden Street Scranton, PA 18503 Attorney for Defendant Gary Francis Fatool Thomas Chairs, Esq., Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21St Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-2223 Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters Of Christian Charity, individually and doing business as Holy Spirit Hospital Respect 11 Submited, Date: L Darr . Dethlefs, Esquire ID# 58805 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire ID# 58805 DETHLEFS-PYKOSH LAW GROUP, LLC 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 PH#: (717) 975-9446 DDethlefs@aol.com JOAN WESTON V. Plaintiff HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, individually and doing business as HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL Defendants +r ' ,Cl lFn?, ?'=?r L?r?? r0 ?7A At;D .' '?"NS YL A f©A"QT Y IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NO. 12-5650 NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 4009.21 Plaintiff, Joan Weston, 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 o objection is made the subpoena may be service. f l Date: T C- (G' ( Z Darrbll?. Dethlefs, Esquire ID# 58805 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff JOAN WESTON , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, individually and doing business as NO. 12-5650 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL Defendants SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 4009.21 TO: Geisinger Medical Center 100 North Academy Avenue Danville, PA 17822 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the Court to produce the following documents or things: 1. Any and all correspondence to and from or in regard to Gary Francis Fatool; 2. Any and all documents related to the employment of Gary Francis Fatool. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by the subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed below. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you failed to produce the documents or things required by the subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. The subpoena was issued at the request of the following person. Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire ID# 58805 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff Date: Seal of the court BY THE COURT: Prothonotary, Civil Division Deputy JOAN WESTON IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, individually and doing business as NO. 12-5650 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice Of Intent To Serve A Subpoena pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4009.21, was hereby served by depositing the same within the custody of United States Postal Service, First Class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: William J. AQuilino, Esq., The Perry Law Firm, LLC 305 Linden Street Scranton, PA 18503 Attorney for Defendant Gary Francis Fatool Date: Thomas Chairs, Esq., Dickie, McCarney & Chilcote Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21St Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-2223 Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters Of Christian Charity, individually and doing business as Holy Spirit Hospital Respe ly Submited, Dd6elf C. Dethlefs, Esquire ID# 58805 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff JOAN WESTON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANI A Plaintiff C's t= r."3 NO.12-5650 V. cn r-- -? ? - HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS y OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, individually and • c r_ ?c ? c Doing business as, HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED C-) and GARY FRANCIS FATOOL, i _ - Defendants PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS FILED BY DEFENDANT, HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Joan Weston, by and through her counsel, the Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC, and responds to the Preliminary Objections of the Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 5 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. Should the Court determine that a response is required, the Plaintiff denies that her vicarious liability claims and requests for punitive damages against the Hospital should be dismissed. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTION NO. I 6. Paragraphs 1 through 5 set forth above are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 7. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 7 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. By way of further response, the Plaintiff alleges in Paragraphs 23 and 24 of the Complaint that the Defendant, Gary Fatool, entered her room at approximately 5 a.m. on November 13, 2010 and administered medication, which act of administering the narcotic and/or drug put the Plaintiff in a condition that rendered her unable to resist the sexual assault. (See Paragraphs 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the Complaint) Administering medication is within the scope of Defendant Fatool's employment. 8. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 8 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. 9. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 9 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. 10. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 10 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. 11. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 11 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. By way of further response, the Complaint at Paragraphs 22, 23 and 24 states that Defendant Fatool's actions included the administering of medication which put the Plaintiff in a condition that prevented her from resisting the sexual assault of Defendant Fatool. The administering of medication is not outside the scope of his employment. 12. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 12 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. 13. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 13 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. 14. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 14 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Joan Weston, respectfully requests that this Court dismiss Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital's, Preliminary Objection No. I. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT. HOLY SPIRIT HOPSITAL'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION NO. II 15. The responses contained in Paragraphs 1 through 14 as set forth above are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 16. Admitted. 17. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 17 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. 18. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 18 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. 19. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 19 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. 20. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 20 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. 21. Admitted in part and Denied in part. Plaintiff admits that in her Complaint she pled that Holy Spirit Hospital, "knew or should have know of Fatool's propensity to participate in acts similar to those described above"; "employed and continued to employ Fatool when it knew or should have known of his propensity to commit acts as described in the Complaint"; "knew or should have known of facts which would lead a reasonable person to realize that employing or continuing to employ Fatool created unreasonable risk of physical harm to Plaintiff and others". (Complaint at Paragraphs 64 through 66) By way of further response, the allegation that these were the only facts pled regarding Holy Spirit Hospital's knowledge of Fatool's prior acts is denied. In Paragraph 69 of the Complaint, the Plaintiff states, "69. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant, Fatool, admitted to a prior incident during the criminal investigation." At Paragraph 70, the Plaintiff states, "70. Plaintiff believes and therefore avers that Defendant, Holy Spirit, knew of Defendant, Fatool's, prior incident, and therefore his propensity to commit acts as described in this Complaint." Therefore, Plaintiff sets forth facts stating how Defendant, Holy Spirit, knew of Defendant Fatool's propensity and how the Hospital was negligent in continuing to employ him. 22. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 22 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. 23. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 23 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. By way of further response, Plaintiff pled in Paragraph 69 that Defendant Fatool admitted to a prior incident during the criminal investigation and Plaintiff, in Paragraph 70, stated that Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital knew of Defendant Fatool's prior incident. 24. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 24 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. Defendant, in its Preliminary Objections, failed to state that the Complaint at Paragraph 69 states that Defendant Fatool admitted to a prior incident during a criminal investigation and at Paragraph 70 stated that Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital knew of the prior incident. 25. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 25 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Joan Weston, respectfully requests that Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital's, Preliminary Objection No. 11 be dismissed. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION NO. III 26. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Response are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 27. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 27 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. 28. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 28 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. 29. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 29 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. By way of further response, the Plaintiff, Joan Weston, pled in Paragraph 69 that Defendant Fatool had committed a prior incident and in Paragraph 70 of the Complaint, she pled that Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, knew of the prior incident. Therefore, Plaintiff, Joan Weston, pled that health care provider knew of and allowed the conduct of its agent. 30. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 30 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. By way of further response, the Plaintiff pled in Paragraph 69 that Defendant Fatool admitted to a prior incident and pled in Paragraph 70 that Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, knew of the prior incident and, despite this, did not dismiss Defendant Fatool. 31. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 31 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. By way of further response, the Complaint certainly contains a factual basis for a jury to conclude that Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, acted outrageously in this case. A fair reading of the Complaint states that Defendant, Gary Fatool, committed a sexual assault on the Plaintiff, Joan Weston; that Defendant, Gary Fatool, had committed a similar prior incident; that Defendant, Gary Fatool's, employer, Holy Spirit Hospital, knew of the prior incident; and, that Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, continued to employ Defendant, Gary Fatool, despite this knowledge; and, that subsequent to this knowledge and continued employment that Defendant, Gary Fatool, committed a similar act on the Plaintiff, Joan Weston. 32. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 32 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Joan Weston, respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital's, Preliminary Objection No. III. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTION NO. IV DEFENDA T' MOTION TO STRIKE IMPROPER CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES 33. Paragraphs 1 through 32 of this Response as set forth above are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 34. Admitted. 35. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 35 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. However, in light of Cumberland County Court's decision in Herre Bros., Inc. v. Biser. 60 Cumb. 208 (2011), the Plaintiff agrees to withdraw any claim for attorney's fees without prejudice as it relates to Defendant's conduct with respect to the above-captioned litigation. 36. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 36 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. By way of further response, the Plaintiff agrees to withdraw its claim for attorney's fees without prejudice pursuant to the Cumberland County decision in Herre Bros., Inc. v. Biser, 60 Cumb. 208 (2011) 37. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 37 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. By way of further response, the Plaintiff agrees to withdraw its claim for attorney's fees without prejudice pursuant to the Cumberland County decision in Herre Bros., Inc. v. Biser, 60 Cumb. 208 (2011) 38. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 38 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. By way of further response, in Herre Bros., Inc. v. Biser, 60 Cumb. 208 (2011), the Cumberland County Court held that when attorney's fees are pled that the proper remedy is to sustain the Preliminary Objection without prejudice. Therefore, the Plaintiff will agree to withdraw her claim for attorney's fees without prejudice. 39. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 39 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. By way of further response, the Superior Court on September 28, 2012 filed an Opinion in the Smith v. Rohrbaugh, 2012 PA Super 208; (2012), filed an Opinion wherein the Superior Court stated that, "It is a general rule in our judicial system, stemming from the Statute of Gloucester, 6 Edw. 1, c. 1 (1275) that costs inherent in a law suit are awarded to and should be recoverable by the prevailing party". De Fulvio v. HOW, 239 Pa. Super. 66, 362 A.2d 1098, 1099 (1976) In the Smith case, the Court held that the Plaintiff was entitled to the record costs incurred, which record costs included filing fees, transcript costs and witness fees. In Smith, the Superior Court directed that the Trial Court enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff in the amount of the record costs incurred by the Plaintiff, Smith. 40. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 40 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. As held by the Superior Court in the Smith case filed on September 28, 2012, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover record costs of litigation as damages. Therefore, Defendant's Preliminary Objection to strike the claim for costs should be dismissed. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Joan Weston, respectfully requests that the Court deny the Defendant's request to strike costs as damages and further requests that the Court only sustain the preliminary objection to attorney's fee without prejudice. Respectf y bmitted: Date: (J ((, - I Darrel . ethlefs, Esquire I. D. # 58805 Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 Telephone: (717) 975-9446 DDethlefs@aol.com JOAN WESTON, Plaintiff V. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, individually and Doing business as, HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, and GARY FRANCIS FATOOL, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 12-5650 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire, hereby certify that on the 16th day of October , 2012, 1 served a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Response to Preliminary Objections of Defendant, Gary Francis Fatool, via first-class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following counsel of record: William J. Aquilino, Esquire The Perry Law Firm, L.L.C. 305 Linden Street Scranton, PA 18503 Attorney for Defendant, Gary Francis Fatool Thomas Chairs, Esquire Dickie, McCarney & Chilcote Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21St Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-2223 Attorney for Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters Of Christian Charity, individually, and doing business as Holy Spirit Hospital iC, ?- IZ Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire L D. # 58805 Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 Telephone: (717) 975-9446 DDethlefs@aol.com JOAN WESTON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff NO. 12-5650 V. .5: HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS ?`, OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, individually and -C ..' f cn a Doing business as, HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED - r > <^? and GARY FRANCIS FATOOL, ? ?U Q Defendants . PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT, GARY FRANCIS FATOOL The Plaintiff, Joan Weston, by and through her counsel, the Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC, hereby respond to the Preliminary Objections of Defendant, Gary Fatool, as follows: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. By way of further response, Plaintiff, Joan Weston, claims that said touching by Defendant, Gary Francis Fatool, rose to the level of a sexual assault. 4. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 4 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. If the Court determines that a response was required, the Plaintiff, Joan Weston, denies that the Complaint contains allegations that are not founded in Pennsylvania jurisprudence. 5. No response required. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO FIRST PRELIMINARY OBJECTION REQUESTING THAT COURT STRIKE IMPROPER CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES 6. Responding Plaintiff incorporates herein the responses contained in Paragraphs 1 through 5 as if fully set forth. 7. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 7 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. 8. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 8 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. 9. Admitted. 10. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 10 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. 11. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 11 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. 12. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 12 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. 13. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 13 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. 14. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 14 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. By way of further response, on September 28, 2012, the Superior Court in the case Smith v. Rohrbaugh, 2012 PA Super 208 (2012), filed an Opinion wherein the Superior Court stated that, "It is a general rule in our judicial system, stemming from the Statute of Gloucester, 6 Edw. 1, c. 1(1275) that costs inherent in a law suit are awarded to and should be recoverable by the prevailing party". De Fulvio v. Holst, 239 Pa. Super. 66, 362 A.2d 1098, 1099 (1976) In the Smith case, the Court held that the Plaintiff was entitled to the record costs incurred, which record costs included filing fees, transcript costs and witness fees. In Smith, the Superior Court directed that the Trial Court enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff in the amount of the record costs incurred by the Plaintiff, Smith. 15. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 15 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. By way of further response, the Superior Court held in the Smith case in an Opinion filed on September 28, 2012 that the prevailing Plaintiff is entitled to record costs. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Joan Weston, respectfully requests that this Court deny Defendant's Preliminary Objection Number 1 in the nature of a Motion to Strike. PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO SECOND PRELIMINARY OBJECTION REQUESTING DISMISSAL OF CLAIM FOR "NEGLIGENCE PER SE" 16. Responding Plaintiff incorporates herein the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 15 of this Response as if fully set forth at length. 17. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 17 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. 18. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 18 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. 19. Admitted. 20. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 20 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. 21. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 21 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. 22. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 22 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. 23. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 23 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. 24. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 24 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. By way of further response, the Plaintiff has alleged that the violation of the Statute of the Pennsylvania Nurse Practice Act was the proximate cause of her injury. 25. Denied. The averment contained in Paragraph 25 states a conclusion of law to which a response is not required. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Joan Weston, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Defendant, Gary Fatool's, second preliminary objection. Respectf ly ubmitted: Date: I Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire I.D. # 58805 Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 Telephone: (717) 975-9446 DDethlefs@aol.com •. . JOAN WESTON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff NO. 12-5650 V. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, individually and Doing business as, HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED and GARY FRANCIS FATOOL, Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire, hereby certify that on the 16th day of October . 2012, 1 served a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Response to Preliminary Objections of Defendant, Gary Francis Fatool, via first-class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following counsel of record: William J. Aquilino, Esquire The Perry Law Firm, L.L.C. 305 Linden Street Scranton, PA 18503 Attorney for Defendant, Gary Francis Fatool Thomas Chairs, Esquire Dickie, McCarney & Chilcote Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21St Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-2223 Attorney for Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters Of Christian Charity, individually, and doing business as Holy Spirit Hospital Date: G " c C- - L Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire I. D. # 58805 Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 Telephone: (717) 975-9446 DDethlefs@aol.com THE PERRY LA-W FIRM, L.L.C. BY: MARK T. PERRY, ESQUIRE WILLIAM J. AQUILINO, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NUMBER: 64296 72743 s, ,,,.tggFir~ .~., yy ~!,~ F/ ~Y ,~;, , tOCI22 AMtt:4$ ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT' GARY FRANCIS FATO ~~~-~ ~"~1 305 LINDEN STREET SCRANTON, PA 18503 (5701344-6323 JOAN WESTON, IN 'THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBI=BLAND COQ "NTY Plaintiff, vs. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, Individually and doing business as HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL. CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants, No. 12-5650 OBJECTION OF DEFENDANT, GARY FRANCIS FATOOL TO PROPOSED SUBPOENA TO GEISINGER MEDICAL CENTER The Defendant, Gary Frances Fatool, by and through its counsel, The Perry Law Firm, LLC, objects to the Proposed Subpoena to Geisinger Medical Center attached hereto as Exhibit "A," as follows: 1. The records requested by the Proposed Subpoena are beyond the scope of permissible discovery as circumscribed by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil of Procedure 4003.1; 2. The Proposed Subpoena violates the Penn ylvaiua Peer Review Protection Act, 63 Pa.C.S.A. §425.1 et seq., the MCare Act, the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Act, and related state and federal statutes. esp fully submitted: By: ~---.._._ . AQIJILINO, ESQCiIRE ~~~ 6 ~'" ~~ Darrell L. Dethle~fs. Esq~ii-e iD~ 58805 DETIILEFS-PYKOSH L,AW GROliP, LLC i 32 ~~Iarb:e, Street ~:am}; Hill, i';~ 1?O1 1 PH =: ~"?i~ ~i-9446 DDeti~fefs,a aol.com JOAN `~'ESTO_V Plaintiff HOLY SPLRIT HOSIITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, individually and doing business as HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FA TOOL Defendants IN THE COURT OF COA'iMON PLF:~~w CUMBERLAND COUNTY PEn~NSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -- LAW TURY TRIAL DEMANDED NO. 12-5650 NOTIC}~ OF INTL,NT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 4009.21 Plaintiff, .loan Weston, intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached tc this notice. You have twenty (20) da}'s from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. if no objection is made the subpoena may be service. j~ Date: ~ ~ ' ' ~'~~ ! ~- Darr~ll~'Dethlefs, Esquire. ID# 58805 2132 Iv9arket .Street Camp Hill, PA 17(77 1 Attorney for Plaintiff DEFENDANTS ~ EXHIBIT ~ f~' JOAN V1'ESTON Plaintiff ~. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OE CHRISTIAN CHARITY, indi~°idually and doing business as HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GAR]' FRANCIS FATOOL Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NO. 12-~6'.i0 ~IJBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOUR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 4009.21 TO: Geisinger Medical Center 1 C~~O North Academy Avenue l )anville. P~, ] 7822 \~%ithin ttiventy (20;1 days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by t1~,~e Court to produce the following documents or things: "~P.v and al] rorrespondezlce to and from or in regard to Vary Francis Fatool: ~'~ny and all documents related to the employment of Gary Francis Fatooi. You may deliver or mail legible capies of the documents or produce things requestf~d by she subpoena, together with the cei~ificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed below. You have the right to seek ir.~ advance the reasonable cost o~~ preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If ~~t7u failed to produce the documents or things required by the subpoena within t«~ent~> (20 ~~ days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court older compelling you to comply with it. "hhe subp~~ena was issued at the request of the following person. ;~an~ell C. Dethlefs, Esquire 'i:) ~80~ ;132 Market Street t 'arnp Hill., PA 17011 "attorney for Plaintiff BY THE MliRT: Prothonotary. Ci,~~i] Division Date . _ _ _ Sep=.1 of the court Deputy JOAN WESTON v. Plaintiff HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE S15TERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, individually and doing business as HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS T'ATOOL Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLV"ANIA CIVIL ACTION - LA~V JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NO. 12-560 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I r~~~reby certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice Of Intent To Serve A Subpoena pursuant to Pa. R.C,P. 4009.21, was hereb}~ ser~~ed by depositing the same within the custody o.~ United States Postal Service, First Class, postage prepaid. addressed as fo1lo~~s: V~-i' l iam J. AQuilino, Esq., T:~c:. Perry Law Firm, LLC X04 Linden Street Sc7,anton, PA 1803 Attorney for Defendant Gary Francis Fatool Date: Th~~~mas Chairs, Esq., Dickie~, McCarney & Chilcote Plaza 21, Suits 302 42 ~ ~lorth 21'r Street Camp Hill, PA 1 70 1 1-2223 Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters Of Christian Charity, individually and doing business as I3oly Spirit Hospital Respe~tf ly Submited, D 1`r~C. Dethlefs, Esquire ID# 5880 2132 Market Street Damp Hil], PA 17~J1 l Attorney for Plaintiff _ a_i..r ~I ' v ~~~; act 2z AM r ~ _ ~ ~FITY THE PERRY LAW FIRM, L.L.C. BY: MARK T. PERRY, ESQUIRE WILLIAM J. AQUILINO, ESQUIRE AT'CORNEYS FOR DEFENDAN'T' GARY FRANCIS FATOOL ATTORNEY ID NUMBER: 64296 72743 305 LINDEN STREET SCRr~NTON, PA 1850:3 (5701344-6323 JOAN WESTON, IN 'THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CLTMBF;RLAND COUNTY Plaintiff, vs. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, Individually and doing business as HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL, CIVIL ACTION - LA~~' JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants, No. 12-5650 OBJECTION OF DEFENDANT, GARY FRANCIS F ATOOL, TO PROPOSED SUBPOENA TO PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF STATE, STATE BOARD OF NURSING The Defendant, Gary Frances Fatool, by and through his counsel, The Perry Law Firm, LLC, objects to the Proposed Subpoena to the Pennsylvania Department of State, State Board of Nursing, attached. hereto as Exhibit "A," as follows: The records requested by the Proposed Subpoena are beyond the scope cah permissible discovery as circumscribed by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil of Procedure 40113.1; 2. The Proposed Subpoena violates the Pennsylvania Peer Review Protection Act, 63 Pa.C S.A. §425.1 et seq., the MCare Act, the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Act, and related state and federal statutes. 3. The Proposed Subpoena violates the statutes and regulations related to the Nursing Act, and related statutes. 11 ub:mitted: By: LL AM J. A~-UILINO, ES~)UIRE Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire 1Dr ssos DETi~LEFS-Pl'KOSH LAW CROUP, LLC 132 Market. Street Camp Hill, PA 1701 1 'E=_~: (71T~ ~>~~-9446 DDethlefs a-aol.con~ JOAN ~'I"STON v. Plaintiff HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THF, SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, individually and doing business as HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAa CUMBERLAND COUN7['Y PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL AC"TION ~- LAW JtiRY TRIAL DEMANDED NO. 12-5650 NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA 'TO PRODUCE DOCL~MF:NTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO PA. R..C.P. 4009.21 plaintiff, Joan Weston, intends to serve a subpoena. identical to the one that is attacli~:~d to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in v~,~hich to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to t~~e subpoena. If no objection is made: the ~>ubpoena may be service. ~ 1 - --. -~~~ ~~ late _ -' ` „_`-_ r Darr it .Dethlefs, Esquire 1D~ 58805 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, pA 17011 Attorney fo~~~ Plaintiff DEFENDANTS ~ EXHIBIT 1 i !r JOAN WESTON IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DE1lIANDED HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, indi~~idually and doing business as NO. 12-5650 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FR=~NCIS FATOOL Defendants SUBPOENA TC- PRODUCE DOCU'_VIENTS OR'I'HINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO PA. R.C.P. 4009.21 "I'G: PA Department of State, State Board of Nursing PC=~ BOX ?649 Harrisburg, I'A 17105-?649 Within tti~enty (20) days after service of this subpoena_ you are ordered by the Court to produce the follo~~ing documents or things: l . Any and all records pertaining to the licensing of Gary Francis Fatoof and any and all investigatory records and any and al! records pertaining to disciplinary actions. You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by the sub ~oena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the panty mak7ng t;F1is request at the address listed be-low. You have the right to peek in advanc~:~ the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you failed to produce the documents or things required b}~~ the subpoena within iw~nty (2O) da~~s after its service, the party serving this subpoena i~~ay seek a court order compelling youu to comply with it. The. subpoena was issued at the request of the following, person. i)arrell C. Dethlefs; Esquire lD~ JR~OJ _: l ~2 h![arket Street t_'amp Hill„ PA 1701 1 ~~ttornev for Plaintiff Dater deal of the cor,rt BZ' THE COURT: Prothonotary, Civil Division Deputy JOAN VVESTON Plaintiff ~. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, individually' and doing business as HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYL`JANIA CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NO. 12-565fI CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice Of Intent To Serve A Subpoena pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 4009.21, was hereby ser~~ed by depositing the sar~~.e within the custody of United States Postal Service, First Class, postage prepaid. addressed ~~s follows: V~%iiliam J. AQuilino, Esq., The Perry Law Firm, LLC 305 Linden Street Scranton, PA ~I8503 Attorney for Defendant Gary Francis Fatooi Thomas Chairs, Esq., Dicicie, McCarney & Chileote Pla~,a 21, Suite 302 =l2 5 North Z I'` Street Cai~np I IiIL P:'~. 1 701 1-2223 Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital oI' the Sisters Of Christian Charity, individually and doing business as Hoiy Spirit Hospital Respect~}~ll ~ Submited, TJate: ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _-I-' __------- -- ' Dame . Dethlefs, Esquire ID# X8805 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 170] 1 Attorney for Plaintiff THE PERRY LAW FIRM, L.L.C. BY: MARK T. PERRY, ESQUIRE WILLIAM J. AQUILINO, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NUMBER: 64296 72743 A Krr ocr 22 ~n ~ ~ : 4 s ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT GARY FRANCIS FAT ~~~~ ~' ~ ~r~ 305 LINDEN STREET SCRANTON, PA 18503 (570)344-6323 JOAN WESTON. 1N THE COURT' OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COT [NTY Plaintiff, vs. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, Individually and doing business as HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL,, CIVIL ACTION - LA~~' JURY TR][AL DEMANI)El;) Defendants, No. 12-5650 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, William J. Aquilino, Esquire, hereby certify that on the 19th day of October, 2012, I served a true and correct copy of the Objection to Proposed Subpoena to Geisinger .Medical Center and Objection to Proposed Subpoena to Pennsylvania Departnnent of State, State Board of Nursing, via first-class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following counsel of record Thomas Chairs, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote Plaza 21, Suite 302 42~~ North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-2223 Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charityy Individually and doing business as Holy Spirit Hospital Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC 2132 Market Street Camp Hill. PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff ,~H P RR~' L,AW FIRM, L.L.C. By: -1--- WI I J. AQUILINO, ESQUIRE U~' rNE PRO ~ FICA arvo~ARy 7oi ~~~ _9 Py 3~ S4 ~~MB~'R~AK© PENNSY~V~~ QNTY JOAN WESTON, : IN TIIE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plsintitl/Petitioner : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA w. No.: 12-5650 HOLY 5PIItIT HOSPITAL :CIVIL ACTION -LAW OF THE TEIIS OF C~~TIAN CHARITY, Iad~vld~ snd doing business as HOLY SPI1~tIT HOSPITAL, and GARY FRANCIS FATOOL, . Defendants :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED v. , PENNLIVE, LLC, . Respondent . PETITION TO COMPEL THE DISCLOSURE OF THE NAME ANDJOR IP ADDRESS OF AN INDIViI?UAL IDENTIFYING HIMSELF AS DEFENDANT GARY FIIANCIS FATOOL 1. Plaintiff/Petitioner, Joan Weston, (hereinafter "Petitioner") is an adult individual residing at 2835 Sunset Drive, Camp Hill, PA 17011. 2. Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity, individually and doing business as Holy Spirit Hospital (herein after Holy Spirit Hospital), is a legal entity which offers medical and hospital services to the public with a principal place of business located at 503 North 21 ~ Street, Camp Hill, PA 17011. 3. Defendant, Gary Francis Fatool, (hereinafter "Fatool"), is an adult individual residing at 715 Seven Points Road, Sunbury, PA 17801. 4. Defendant/Respondent PennLive, LLC, (hereinafter "Respondent") is a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Company or similaz entity organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and having an address located at 2405 Pazk Drive, Suite 201, Harrisburg, PA 17110 in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 5. At all times relevant hereto, Respondent owned, managed, maintained, controlled and hosted a website at pennlive.com on which individuals can post messages and comments in different forums regarding a wide variety of topics and subjects. 6. At all times relevant hereto, Petitioner was and is the victim of an assault which occurred at Holy Spirit Hospital by Fatool, an employee of said hospital. 7. A civil action was filed by Petitioner in this matter on September 12, 2012. 8. On or about November 4, 2012, Respondent published an article regazding the incident involving Fatool at Holy Spirit Hospital. 9. On more than one occasion, an individual using the screen name "gary" posted comments to the aforementioned article. 10. Said comments by "gary" indicated that he was the accused in the assault against Petitioner while she was a patient at Holy Spirit Hospital. 11. Most notably, in the posting dated November 5, 2012, "gary" posted the following: I am the subject of the article about the nurses reporting `crimes' where you said Sen Vance was flabbergasted and Freed (who should know the specifics of the case) reported me to the nursing board. To be short, the `assult' was an agreed upon foot massage, the second one that was requested. The woman was 46. I wasn't charged until 6 months or so after the incident was reported. There was no crime until the detective made it one, immediately offering me the ARD grogram (a moneymaker for the State). I was told by counsel to take the program and not fight it. I wish I could do different now, like fight it, but I can't. Now my livelihood is in jeopardy because of an overzealous reporter and jump the gun oi~ices without hearing both sides. Thanks, Gary A copy of said Comment is attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 12. Petitioner believes the statements made by the individual known as "gary" are pertinent to the civil action against Holy Spirit Hospital and Fatool. 13. Petitioner believes that the information identifying "gary" may not be maintained during the time necessary to issue a subpoena to a third party in this matter. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully requests this Honorable Court to issue an Order compelling Respondent, PennLive, LLC to disclose the name and IP address of the individual posting on its pennlive.com website as "gary." Respect y Submitted, ~~~~ Darrell thlefs, Esquire ID # 58805 Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 975-9446 Attorney for Petitioner E~-HI~'~ "A" 1 Hour Ago (http:/ /pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/ 201'2) 11 Jregistered_nurses_convicted_of.ht -11-05/1352126059-17-493.htm1) R eP~ 9orY (http:/ /connect.pennlive.com/ userJjim_jones_7/index.htm{} I am subject of the article about nurses reporting 'crimes' where you said Sen Vance was flabbergasted and Freed (who should know the specifics of the case) reported me to the nursing board. To be short, the 'assult' was an agreed upon foot massage, the second one that was requested. the woman was 46. i wasnt charged until 6 months or so after the incident was reported. there was no crime until the detective made it one, immediately offering me the ARD program (a moneymaker for the State). I was told by counsel to take the program and not fight it. i wish i could do different now, like fight it, but i can't. Now my livelihood is in jeapordy because of an overzealous reporter and jump the gun offices without hearing both sides. Thanks, Gary pem~ (http://pennlive.com/) 1 Hour Ago (http:/ /pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/ 11/registered_nurses_convicted_of.ht -il-05/1352125561-617-957.htm1) Reidy poppyseed (http: / /connect.penn{ive.com/user/ poppyseed/index.html } Best of luck to you! My best friend is an RN--no arrests in her past--who tells me what she has to go through sometimes. Nurses are dedicated to their profession, and they get very little respect. It's sad. ~L°~' (http://pennlive com/) 1 Hour Ago (http: / /pennlive.com/midstate) i ndex.ssf/ 2012/ 11 /registered_nurses_convi -11-05/ 1352128260-978-608.html) Reply httn:/1~~-~~w.helulli~'e.ClN11~1111f1ti1:11P~lllllP~' ccih(ll~il I/r~~~~ic~.>i.,.I „~~~..,, ..,..,. ,,. _ 1 .~~~~,.-.~ "'c'-~~~'-' __ m . , ~~_ r.. _ __ _ .,. _ __ __.. _ _.___ ~: _ in gary (http:/ /connect.pennlive.com/user/jim_jones_7/index.html) the 'assult' was a foot massage. peon - (htEp://pennlive.com/) ' 2 Hours Ago (http://pennlive.com f midstate/index.ssfJ2012/11/registered_nurses_convicted_of.ht -11-05/ 1352123840-420-417.htm1) R e fly ctsdresident (http: / /connect.penntive.com J user/ctsdresident/index.htmt) ]ust what we need, more paranoia spread around about people who have done nothing. Just like all of the clearances and checks have not prevented child abuse with those who teach school, this is not going to prevent anything at all to prevent any sort of criminal activity. Those security checks are going to create another layer of unfunded and mandated bureaucracy in an already overburdened system. Now, I will be the first to say that I want to know that I am getting the best care from the best qualified person but what is going to prevent criminal activity is appropriate supervision and monitoring as well as peer interaction. No amount of "clearances" are going to prevent things from happening. So, those pompous Representatives and Senators in Harrisburg, you need to wake up and stop "thumping your chest" as to what "you plan to do" to stop this. What you can do is to insure that those people in charge of hospitals and medical facilities have the tools and ability to monitor their employees, work with patients and not chase paper work, and be active in the operation of their facilities. (http.:/ /connect.pennlive.com/user/nooverreact/index.ht ml)nooverreact and (http: / /connect.penntive.com/user/poppyseed/ index.html )poppyseed like this. ~~~'~' (http://pennlive.com/) Re~IY illh):~~\~V\V\~%.penllllVC.COIII~lllldslate~Illilex.ssi~2012~i l~l'~H1S~Prr'.f~ nnr~rc rruivi~~t,~,I ..f I,~,,,1 i ~ ~: ~~~~~i ~ JOAN WESTON, Plaintiff/Petitioner v. HOLY 3PIItIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, Ind~u~ly aid doing business as HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, and GARY FRANCIS FATOOL, Defendants v. PENNLIVE, LLC, Respondent IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No.: 12-5650 CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, the undersigned hereby certify that on this date, a true a correct copy of the forgoing Petition to Compel the Disclosure of the Name and/or IP Address of an Individual indentifying Himself as Defendant Gary Francis Fatool was served by United States first class mail upon the following: William J. Aquillino, Esq. 305 Linden Street Scranton, PA 18503 Attorney for Defendant Fatool PennLive, LLC 2405 Park Drive Suite 201 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Date: ` l " ~ " ~ Z Thomas Chairs, Esq. Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 N. 21 sc Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital Darrell ethlefs JOAN WESTON, , Plaintiff . v. , HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, individually and Doing business as, HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, and GARY FRANCIS FATOOL, , Defendants , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 12-5650 - '=~' ---- _- --~ -_ , .. ~- , r-.. p.......~ ~~5 .~ i .- a, - ~ 4d __ a , - . -., = ~ , t -: F ~ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ~a ~ ~ - ;~,, c; `` ~ , .~ .- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire, hereby certify that on the 14th day of November , 2012, I served on the counsel of record listed below the PlaintifYs Interrogatories Propounded upon Defendant, Gary Francis Fatool; the Plaintiff's Request for Production of Documents Propounded upon Defendant, Gary Francis Fatool; the Plaintiff s Request for Production of Documents Propounded upon Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital; and, the PlaintifYs Interrogatories Propounded upon Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, via UPS, overnight mail, upon the following counsel of record: William J. Aquilino, Esquire The Perry Law Firm, L.L.C. 305 Linden Street Scranton, PA 18503 Attorney for Defendant, Gary Francis Fatool Date: ~ (~- ~ ~~ ~- I L Thomas Chairs, Esquire Dickie, McCarney & Chilcote Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21St Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-2223 Attorney for Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Ch ity, individually, and d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital Darrell C!'9etlSlefs, Esquire I.D. # 58805 Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 Telephone: (717) 975-9446 DDethlefs(«~aol.com THE PERRY LAW FIRM, L.L.C. BY: MARK T. PERRY, ESQUIRE WILLIAM J. AQUILINO, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NUMBER: 64296 72743 1 ~~ ~~~ ~ ~j -,J r-_ .~ ~_; I r" ~ -. _ ~= -~ .. ~~ ~. :. ., ~, ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT GARY FRANCIS FATOOL 305 LINDEN STREET SCRANTON, PA 18503 (5701344-6323 JOAN WESTON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBF,RLAND COUNTY Plaintiff, : vs. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, Individually and doing business as HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL, CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants, No. 12-5650 INITIAL OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT GARY FRANCIS FATOOL TO FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS OF PLAINTIFF The Defendant, Gary Frances Fatool, by and through his counsel, The Perry Law Firm, LLC, hereby lies Initial Objections to the "Plaintiff, Joan Weston, First Request for Production of Documents Propounded Upon Defendant, Gary Francis Fatool" as follows: Defendant, Gary Francis Fatool, preserves all objections, common law privileges, and statutory privileges and remedies to the aforementioned discovery requests. Defendant objects to the "instructions" and "definitions" appended to Plaintiffs discovery requests to the extent that they violate the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, would require duties beyond those provided by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, or are otherwise inconsistent with or in conflict with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Act, the Pennsylvania Peer Review Protection Act, the Nursing Practice Act and any and all other state and federal statutes and privileges protecting such information. 4. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Act, the Pennsylvania Peer Review Protection Act, the Nursing Practice Act and any and all other state and federal statutes and privileges protecting such information. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Act, the Pennsylvania Peer Review Protection Act, the Nursing Practice Act and any and all other state and federal statutes and privileges protecting such information. 6. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Act, the Pennsylvania Peer Review Protection Act, the Nursing Practice Act and any and all other state and federal statutes and privileges protecting such information. 9. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Act, the Pennsylvania Peer Review Protection Act, the Nursing Practice Act and any and all other state and federal statutes and privileges protecting such information. 10. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Act, the Pennsylvania Peer Review Protection Act, the Nursing Practice Act and any and all other state and federal statutes and privileges protecting such information. 11. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the Pennsylvania Patient Safety A.et, the Pennsylvania Peer Review Protection Act, the Nursing Practice Act and any and all other state and federal statutes and privileges protecting such information. 12. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Act, the Pennsylvania Peer Review Protection Act, the Nursing Practice Act and any and all other state and federal statutes and privileges protecting such information. ] 3. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Act, the Pennsylvania Peer Review Protection Act, the Nursing Practice Act and any and all other state and federal statutes and privileges protecting such information. 15. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Act, the Pennsylvania Peer Review Protection Act, the Nursing Practice Act and any and all other state and federal statutes and privileges protecting such information. 16. Defendant objects to this request for production to the extent that it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Act, the Pennsylvania Peer Review Protection Act, the Nursing Practice Act and any and all other state and federal statutes and privileges protecting such information. submitted: By: AQUILINO, ESQUIRE -.] ..l .. (- . .__. r=; ~ r i ~=_~ i _ _ ~J ::. n ;r ~ aka ,- _ ~ -- „,-> - ' - •t! rtii ~~:; ; -1 t~~ ~.; 3 THE PERRY LAW FIRM, L.L.C. BY: MARK T. PERRY, ESQUIRE WILLIAM J. AQUILINO, ESQUIRE ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT GARY FRANCIS FATOOL ATTORNEY ID NUMBER: 64296 72743 305 LINDEN STREET SCRANTON, PA 18503 (5701344-6323 JOAN WESTON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff, vs. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, Individually and doing business as HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL, CIVIL ACTION -LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants, No. 12-5650 INITIAL OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT GARY FRANCIS FATOOL TO FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES OF PLAINTIFF The Defendant, Gary Frances Fatool, by and through his counsel, The Perry Law Firm, LLC, hereby files Initial Objections to the "Plaintiffs, Joan Weston, First Set of Interrogatories Propounded Upon Defendant, Gary Francis Fatool" as follows: Defendant, Gary Francis Fatool, preserves all objections, common law privileges, and statutory privileges and remedies to the aforementioned discovery requests. Defendant objects to the "instructions" and "definitions" appended to Plaintiff s discovery requests to the extent that they violate the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, would require duties beyond those provided by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, or are otherwise inconsistent with or in conflict with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. lc. Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it requests information that is not discoverable, and not admissible, is beyond the scope of permissible discovery as circumscribed by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil of Procedure, and is not admissible nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible information. lf. Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it requests information that is not discoverable, and not admissible, is beyond the scope of permissible discovery as circumscribed by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil of Procedure, and is not admissible nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible information. 7. Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it requests information that is not discoverable, and not admissible, is beyond the scope of permissible discovery as circumscribed by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil of Procedure, and is not admissible nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible information. 9. Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it requests information beyond the scope of permissible discovery as circumscribed by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4003.5. By way of further answer, this interrogatory requests an investigation that is expensive, burdensome, and in bad faith, all in violation of Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 4012. 15. Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the Pennsylvania Peer Review Protection Act, the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Act, the Nursing Practice Act and any and all other state and federal statutes and privileges protecting such information. 17. Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the Pennsylvania Peer Review Protection Act, the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Act, the Nursing Practice Act and any and all other state and federal statutes and privileges protecting such information. 18. Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it requests information protected by the attorney-client privilege, the Pennsylvania Peer Review Protection Act, the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Act, the Nursing Practice Act and any and all other state and federal statutes and privileges protecting such information. 25. Objection. Defendant objects to this interrogatory to the extent that it requests information that is not discoverable, and not admissible, is beyond the scope of permissible discovery as circumscribed by the Pennsylvania R_~~les of (_'ivil of Procedure. and is not admissible nor likely to lead to the discovery of admissible information. submitted: By: UILINO, ESQUIRE THE PERRY LAW FIRM, L.L.C. BY: MARK T. PERRY, ESQUIRE WILLIAM J. AQUILINO, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY ID NUMBER: 64296 72743 " ^..} L,,..sl ~:. ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDA~r; ~ ~ ~ `.~~ GARY FRANCIS FATOOL ~ ~ ;w _ `. ='~ ~ `: ..~._~- r~ _ ;.~7 y _ c ~ ~ - ~) ~' 305 LINDEN STREET -~- ,. ' •`:} SCRANTON, PA 18503 `'~'~ X5701344-6323 '`~' JOAN WESTON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff, vs. CIVIL ACTION -LAW HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, Individually and doing business as HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL, Defendants, No. 12-5650 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, William J. Aquilino, Esquire, hereby certify that on the 26th day of November, 2012, I served a true and correct copy of the Initial Objections of Defendant, Gary Francis Fatool, to First Request for Production of Documents of Plaintiff and Initial Objections of Defendant, Gary Francis Fatool, to First Set of Interrogatories of Plaintiff, via first-class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following counsel of record: Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff Thomas Chairs, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21St Street Camp Hill, PA 1 ?011-2223 Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity, Individually and doing business as Holy Spirit Hospital LAW FIRM, L.L.C. By: AQUILINO, ESQUIRE THE PERRY LAW FIRM, L.L.C. -� - M W =,:;o -<BY: MARK T.PERRY,ESQUIRE ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT cnr— r") WILLIAM J.AQUILINO,ESQUIRE GARY FRANCIS FATOOL C= a- tr; T1 ATTORNEY ID NUMBER: 64296 = 72743 305 LINDEN STREET -•- SCRANTON,PA 18503 (570)344-6323 JOAN WESTON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff, VS. CIVIL ACTION- LAW HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, Individually and doing business as HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL, Defendants, No. 12-5650 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, William J. Aquilino, Esquire,hereby certify that on the 16th day of May, 2013, I served a true and correct copy of Defendant's Supplemental Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents Regarding Medical Care Providers, Directed to Plaintiff, via first-class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following counsel of record: Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire Thomas Chairs, Esquire Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC Dickie, McCamey& Chilcote 2132 Market Street Plaza 21, Suite 302 Camp Hill,PA 17011 425 North 21 S` Street Attorney for Plaintiff Camp Hill,.PA 17011-2223 Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity, Individually and doing business as Holy Spirit Hospital ZJ. LAW FIRM, L.L.C. 1 By: QU ILINO,ESQUIRE JOAN WESTON, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE . : SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, : individually and doing business as HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, and GARY : FRANCIS FATOOL, : — SGSO Defendants : NO. 12-9+65 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS BEFORE HESS, P.J. and PECK, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 12th day of June, 2013, upon consideration of the preliminary objections of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital to Plaintiff's complaint, the preliminary objections of Defendant Fatool to Plaintiff's complaint, and after oral argument, it is hereby ordered that: Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's preliminary objection (1) to Plaintiff's claim of vicarious liability is SUSTAINED; (2) to Plaintiff's negligence cause of action is OVERRULED; (3) to Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages is OVERRULED; and, (4) to Plaintiff's improper claims for damages is SUSTAINED. Defendant Fatool's preliminary objection to Plaintiff's negligence per se cause of action is OVERRULED; and to Plaintiff's improper claims for damages is SUSTAINED. BY THE COURT, / istyle �L. Peck, J. ✓Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esq. 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 -v Y Attorney for Plaintiff ` ' - ' w a -�-Ci -off C: CO L t ' . r JThomas M. Chairs, Esq. q Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 N. 21St Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital William J. Aquilino, Esq. 305 Linden Street Scranton, PA 18503 Attorney for Defendant Fatool COF CeS /i2/i3 JOAN WESTON, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE : SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, : individually and doing business as HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, and GARY : FRANCIS FATOOL, : /2-SLS15 Defendants : NO. 12-0165 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS BEFORE HESS, P.J. and PECK, J. OPINION and ORDER OF COURT Peck, J., June 12, 2013. Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of the Christian Charity, individually and doing business as, Holy Spirit Hospital ("Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital") has raised the following preliminary objections to the complaint of Joan Weston ("Plaintiff"): (1) a demurrer to Plaintiff's claim of vicarious liability; (2) a demurrer to Plaintiff's negligence cause of action; (3) a motion to strike Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages; and, (4) a motion to strike improper claims for damages.' Gary Francis Fatool ("Defendant Fatool") has raised the following preliminary objections to Plaintiff's complaint: (1) a motion to dismiss the claim for negligence per se; and, (2) a motion to strike improper claims for damages.2 For the reasons hereinafter set forth, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's preliminary objections: (1) to Plaintiff's claims of vicarious liability and improper claims for damages will be sustained; and (2) to Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages and to the negligence cause of action will be overruled. Additionally, for the reasons hereinafter set 1 Compl., Sept. 12, 2012; Prelim. Objs.to Pl.'s Compl. filed by Def.,Holy Spirit Hosp. of the Sisters of the Christian Charity, indiv. and d.b.a.,Holy Spirit Hosp., Oct. 4,2012, (hereinafter"Prelim. Objs. of Def. Holy Spirit Hosp."). 2 Compl., Sept. 12, 2012; Prelim. Objs. of Def., Gary Francis Fatool,to Pl.'s Compl., Oct. 5, 2012 (hereinafter"Prelim. Objs. of Def. Fatool"). forth, Defendant Fatool's preliminary objections: (1) to Plaintiffs negligence per se cause of action will be overruled; and (2) sustain Defendant Fatool's preliminary objections to Plaintiff's improper claims for damages will be sustained. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Plaintiff's complaint was filed on September 12, 2012.3 Thereafter Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital and Defendant Fatool filed preliminary objections to Plaintiff's complaint.4 Briefs were filed by all parties and, on December 21, 2012, this Court heard oral argument regarding the issues raised.5 The preliminary objections of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital and Defendant Fatool are now before this Court. STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff has averred the following facts in her complaint: On November 12, 2010, Plaintiff was admitted to Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's facility for the treatment of kidney stones.6 Surgery was performed that same day to correct Plaintiff's ailment. After the surgery, at approximately 2:00 p.m., Plaintiff was placed in a room with J.M., another patient.8 Plaintiff was placed on pain medication and given morphine shots as needed to cope with the pain.9 Defendant Fatool was a registered nurse employed by Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital.10 At approximately 7:00 p.m., Defendant Fatool entered Plaintiffs room and 3 Compl., Sept. 12,2012. 4 Prelim. Objs. of Def. Holy Spirit Hosp.; Prelim. Objs. of Def. Fatool. 5 Br. in Supp. of Prelim. Objs. to Pl.'s Compl. filed by Def., Holy Spirit Hosp. of the Sisters of the Christian Charity, indiv. and d.b.a., Holy Spirit Hosp., Dec. 10, 2012; Br. of Def., Gary Francis Fatool, in Supp. of Prelim. Objs. to Compl.; Pl., Joan Weston's, Br. in Opp. to the Prelim. Objs. filed by Def. Gary Francis Fatool, Dec. 12, 2012; Pl., Joan Weston's, Br. in Opp. to the Prelim. Objs. filed by Def., Holy Spirit Hosp.,Dec. 12, 2012. 6 Compl. at¶5. 7 Compl. at¶6. 8 Compl. at¶7. 9 Compl. at¶8. 10 Compl. at¶4. 2 introduced himself." During his initial introduction, Defendant Fatool asked Plaintiff whether she was married.12 Plaintiff responded that she was separated.13 Defendant Fatool then uncovered Plaintiff's feet, pulled off her socks, and touched her feet for over a minute.14 Defendant Fatool did not check J.M.'s feet.15 At approximately 10:00 p.m., Defendant Fatool entered Plaintiff's room to check on her and Plaintiff communicated that she was still in pain but hated the morphine because it made her hands and feet fall asleep.16 Defendant Fatool then offered to rub Plaintiff's feet but Plaintiff declined.' Defendant Fatool persisted and rubbed Plaintiff's feet despite Plaintiff's decline of his offer.18 Defendant Fatool assured Plaintiff that it was part of his job and rubbed Plaintiff's feet for approximately twenty minutes.19 As Defendant Fatool was leaving the room, he attempted to grab J.M.'s feet but was told not to touch her feet.20 At approximately 5:00 a.m. the next day, Defendant Fatool reentered Plaintiff's room and administered a shot of medication to Plaintiff.21 Defendant Fatool asked Plaintiff if her feet were tingling.22 She responded in the affirmative and Defendant Fatool again offered to rub Plaintiff's feet.23 Plaintiff declined the offer and told " Compl. at¶ 10. 12 Compl. at¶ 12. 13 Compl. at¶ 14. 14 Compl. at¶¶ 15-16. 15 Compl. at¶ 17. 16 Compl. at■ 18. 17 Compl. at¶ 19. 18 Compl. at¶20. 19 Compl. at¶21. 20 Compl. at¶22. 21 Compl. at¶¶23-24. 22 Compl. at 1125. 23 Compl. at if 25. 3 Defendant Fatool that it was not necessary.24 Defendant Fatool proceeded to remove Plaintiff's socks and rub her feet.25 Plaintiff was heavily medicated and unable to stop Defendant Fatoo1.26 Defendant Fatool pulled up a chair and pulled the dividing curtain between Plaintiff and J.M.27 Plaintiff was lying on her back and could feel Defendant Fatool breathing on her feet, and kissing, sucking, and licking her toes.28 Plaintiff looked down and saw Defendant Fatool sucking and licking her toes.29 Plaintiff believes that this behavior lasted for 20 to 30 minutes.3o During this time, a methodical thumping sound was heard coming from Defendant Fatoo1.31 Plaintiff believes that this sound was Defendant Fatool masturbating.32 Upon leaving the room, Defendant Fatool told Plaintiff that she had beautiful feet and said, "thank you very much."33 As a result of this conduct, criminal charges were brought against Defendant Fatoo1.34 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital was aware of a prior similar incident by Defendant Fatool and, therefore, his propensity to commit acts as described above.35 Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital nevertheless continued to employ Defendant Fatool as a nurse.36 24 Compl. at¶26. 25 Compl. at¶27. 26 Compl. at¶27. 27 Compl. at¶28. 28 Compl. at¶¶29-30. 29 Compl. at¶31. 30 Compl. at¶32. 3' Compl. at¶33. 32 Compl. at¶34. 33 Compl. at¶35. 34 Compl. at¶34. 35 Compl. at$1168, 70. 36 Compl. at¶¶64-65. 4 DISCUSSION General preliminary objections standard of review When considering the appropriateness of a ruling on preliminary objections, the court must accept as true all well-plead material facts set forth in the complaint along with all reasonably deducible inferences from those facts. Schuylkill Navy v. Langbord, 728 A.2d 964, 968 (Pa. Super. 1999). Such an inquiry assesses the legal sufficiency of the complaint. Id. In reviewing the complaint, "only well pleaded material facts are admitted, and not conclusions of law." McKeeman v. Corestates Bank, N.A., 751 A.2d 655, 658 (Pa. Super. 2000). Preliminary objections will be sustained only if they are clear and free of doubt. Wheeler v. Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 905 A.2d 504, 505 (Pa. Super. 2006). Any doubt should be resolved against the objecting party. Koken v. Steinberg, 825 A.2d 723, 726 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). The court must be able to say with certainty that upon the facts averred, the law will not permit recovery. Schuylkill Navy, 728 A.2d at 968. A trial court's decision regarding preliminary objections will be reversed only where there has been an error of law or abuse of discretion. Cooper v. Frankford Health Care Sys., Inc., 960 A.2d 134, 144 (Pa. Super. 2008). Demurrer standard of review A demurrer, under Pa.R.C.P. Rule 1028(a)(4), is an assertion that a complaint does not set forth a cause of action or a claim on which relief can be granted. Lerner v. Lerner, 954 A.2d 1229, 1234 (Pa. Super. 2008). In ruling on a demurrer, the court may consider only matters that arise out of the complaint itself; it cannot supply a fact missing in the complaint. Hess v. Fox Rothschild, LLP, 925 A.2d 798, 805 (Pa. Super. 2007). In evaluating a demurrer, all material facts set forth in the complaint and all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom must be admitted as true. Id. at 806. The question presented by a demurrer is whether, based on the facts averred, the law says with certainty that the contested pleading is legally insufficient and no recovery is possible. Schuylkill Navy, 728 A.2d at 968. If there is any doubt as to whether a demurrer should be sustained, the doubt should be resolved in favor of overruling it. Lerner, 954 A.2d at 5 • 1234. Therefore, a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer may be properly granted only where the contested pleading is legally insufficient. Hess, 925 A.2d at 805. Vicarious liability claim against Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital asserts that the actions of Defendant Fatool were outside the scope of his employment and, therefore, the Plaintiff's claim for vicarious liability should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. This Court agrees. An employer is vicariously liable if an employee commits a wrongful act during the course of and within the scope of employment. Brezenski v. World Truck Transfer, Inc., 755 A.2d 36, 39 (Pa. Super. 2000). This liability may extend to intentional or criminal acts committed by the employee. Id. It is not done within the scope of employment, however, if the act is done for personal reasons, or in an outrageous manner. Id. The conduct of an employee is considered `within the scope of employment' for purposes of vicarious liability if: (1) it is of a kind and nature that the employee is employed to perform; (2) it occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits; (3) it is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the employer; and (4) if force is intentionally used by the employee against another, the use of force is not unexpected by the employer. Costa v. Roxborough Mem'l Hosp., 708 A.2d 490, 493 (Pa. Super. 1998). Pennsylvania courts "have held that an assault committed by an employee upon another for personal reasons or in an outrageous manner is not actuated by an intent to perform the business of the employer and, as such, is not within the scope of employment." Id. at 493. In the present case, Defendant Fatool's conduct was not of the kind and nature which he was employed to perform. Though his conduct did occur within the authorized time and space limits, it was not actuated for the purpose of serving his employer. Rather, his actions were initiated for apparently unseemly personal gratification. The facts averred will not permit recovery on the theory that Defendant Fatool was acting within the scope of his employment, and, therefore Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's preliminary objection to the claim for vicarious liability is sustained. 6 Negligent hiring and retention claim against Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital also asserts that Plaintiff's claim for negligent hiring and retention should be dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. This Court disagrees. "It has long been the law in this Commonwealth that an employer may be liable in negligence if it knew or should have know[n] that an employee was dangerous, careless or incompetent and such employment might create a situation where the employee's conduct would harm a third person." Brezenski, 755 A.2d at 39-40 (citing Dempsey v. Walso Bureau, Inc., 246 A.2d 418 (Pa. 1968)). "[A]n employer may be held negligent for the failure to exercise reasonable care in determining employee's propensity for violence in an employment situation where violence would harm a third person," and "[i]n these situations the victim must establish that the employer breached a duty to protect others against a risk of harm." Id. at 42. In the present case, Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital was aware of a prior similar incident by Defendant Fatool and, therefore, his propensity to commit harmful acts toward patients. Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital continued to employ Defendant Fatool as a nurse after they learned of Defendant Fatool's first injurious incident. Defendant Fatool's continued employment created the present situation in which his conduct harmed Plaintiff. This Court, accepting as true all well-plead material facts set forth in Plaintiff's complaint, along with reasonably deductible inferences from those facts, finds Plaintiff's negligent hiring and retention claim is legally sufficient. Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's preliminary objection, therefore, is overruled with respect to the negligent hiring and retention claim. Punitive damages claim against Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital asserts that Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages is inappropriate and should be stricken. This Court disagrees. "Our case law makes it clear that punitive damages are an `extreme remedy' available in only the most exceptional matters." Phillips v. Cricket Lighters, 883 A.2d 439, 445 (Pa. 2005). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated that "[p]unitive damages may be awarded for 7 conduct that is outrageous, because of the defendant's evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others." SHV Coals Inc. v. Continental Grain Co., 587 A.2d 702, 704 (Pa. 1991) (citing REST 2d TORTS § 908(2)). "The state of mind of the actor is vital." Feld v. Merriam, 485 A.2d 742, 748 (Pa. 1984). Under Pennsylvania law, the only type of reckless conduct sufficient to create a jury question on the issue of punitive damages arises where the defendant "knows, or has reason to know, ... of facts which create a high degree of risk of physical harm to another, and deliberately proceeds to act, or to fail to act, in conscious disregard of, or indifference to, that risk." SHV Coal, Inc., 587 A.2d at 704-705, (citing REST 2d TORTS § 500 Comment (a)). "The determination of whether a person's actions arise to outrageous conduct lies within the sound discretion of the fact-finder." Id. at 705. In the present case, Plaintiff has pled facts sufficient to find that Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital is liable for the negligent hiring and retention of Defendant Fatool. Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital was aware of a prior incident by Defendant Fatool and, therefore, his propensity to commit harmful acts toward patients. This averment establishes the facts known to Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital which created a high degree of risk of physical harm to another. Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital continued to employ Defendant Fatool as a nurse despite their knowledge of Defendant Fatool's actions. Plaintiff has alleged Defendant Fatool's continued employment created the present situation in which his conduct harmed Plaintiff. The conduct averred by Plaintiff in her complaint is sufficient to create a jury question on the issue of punitive damages. Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's preliminary objections are therefore overruled. Negligence per se claim against Defendant Fatool Defendant Fatool asserts that Plaintiff's claim for negligence per se should be dismissed for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. This Court disagrees. Plaintiff has alleged that Defendant Fatool's actions constitute negligence per se because his conduct violated the Pennsylvania Nurse Practice Act, 49 Pa.Code § 21.18(b)(9). The standards of nursing conduct states that, "[a] registered nurse may not 8 [e]ngage in conduct defined as a sexual violation or sexual impropriety in the course of a professional relationship." 49 Pa.Code § 21.18 (b)(9). A sexual violation is defined to include the offenses of: (iv) [t]ouching breasts, genitals, or any other body part for any purpose other than appropriate examination or treatment, or using prolonged or improper examination techniques, or after the patient has refused or withdrawn consent. (v) ... masturbating while a patient is present. *** (vii) [u]sing or causing the use of anesthesia or any other drug affecting consciousness for the purpose of engaging in conduct that would constitute a sexual impropriety or sexual violation. 49 Pa. Code § 21.1 (v), (vii). The Pennsylvania Nurse Practice Act further provides that "[a] registered nurse shall ... [s]afeguard the patient's dignity" and "the right to privacy." 49 Pa.Code § 21.18 (a)(4). "Negligence per se applies when an individual violates an applicable statute, regulation or ordinance designed to prevent a public harm." Sodders v. Fry, 32 A.3d 882, 887 (Pa. Commw. 2011). "[I]t is well settled that there must be a direct connection between the harm meant to be prevented by the statute, and the injury complained of." Gravlin v. Fredavid Builders & Developers, 677 A.2d 1235, 1238-39 (Pa. Super. 1996). Negligence per se functions to establish both duty and the required breach of duty. Cabiroy v. Scipione, 767 A.2d 1078, 1079 (Pa. Super. 2001). "A violation of a statute may be negligence per se and liability may be grounded on such negligence but the plaintiff cannot recover unless such negligence is the proximate and efficient cause of the injury in question." Id. "The Plaintiff still bears the burden of establishing causation." Id. The purpose of the Pennsylvania Nurse Practice Act is to "insure safe nursing services for the citizens of this Commonwealth" and "[t]o assure safe standards of nursing practice ... through the regulation of the practice of nursing in this Commonwealth." 49 Pa. Code § 21.3(2). The complaint pleads sufficient facts to establish that Defendant Fatool, by administering a shot of medication to Plaintiff, touching Plaintiffs feet without her consent for a purpose other than appropriate 9 examination, kissing, sucking and licking her toes, and then masturbating, engaged in conduct defined as a sexual violation under the Pennsylvania Nurse Practice Act. It is clear from the complaint that a direct connection exists between the harm meant to be prevented by the Pennsylvania Nurse Practice Act, and the injury complained of by Plaintiff. Defendant Fatool's preliminary objection, therefore, is overruled with respect to the negligence per se claim. Improper claim for damages against Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital and Defendant Fatool Plaintiff has agreed to withdraw her claim for attorney's fees without prejudice. Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital and Defendant Fatool have moved this Court to dismiss Plaintiff's claim with prejudice. "[P]arties are generally not entitled to an award of counsel fees from an adverse party in the absence of express statutory authorization, a clear agreement between the parties, or the application of a clear exception." James Corp. v. North Allegheny School Dist., 938 A.2d 474, 490 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). Plaintiff cites no statute, agreement or recognized exception authorizing an award of attorney's fees in this matter. Accordingly, this Court sustains Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital and Defendant Fatool's preliminary objections and strikes all demands for attorney's fees from the complaint with prejudice. Accordingly, the following order is entered: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 12th day of June, 2013, upon consideration of the preliminary objections of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital to Plaintiff's complaint, the preliminary objections of Defendant Fatool to Plaintiff's complaint, and after oral argument, it is hereby ordered that: Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's preliminary objection (1) to Plaintiff's claim of vicarious liability is SUSTAINED; (2) to Plaintiff's negligence cause of action is OVERRULED; (3) to Plaintiff's claim for punitive damages is OVERRULED; and, (4) to Plaintiff's improper claims for damages is SUSTAINED. Defendant Fatool's preliminary objection to Plaintiff's negligence per se cause of action • 10 a is OVERRULED; and to Plaintiff's improper claims for damages is SUSTAINED. BY THE COURT, s/Christylee L. Peck Christylee L. Peck, J. Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esq. 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Plaintiff Thomas M. Chairs, Esq. Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 N. 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital William J. Aquilino, Esq. 305 Linden Street Scranton, PA 18503 Attorney for Defendant Fatool 11 THE PERRY LAW FIRM, L.L.C. BY: MARK T.PERRY,ESQUIRE ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT WILLIAM J.AQUILINO,ESQUIRE GARY FRANCIS FATOOL ATTORNEY ID NUMBER: 64296 72743 305 LINDEN STREET SCRANTON,PA 18503 (570)344-6323 JOAN WESTON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff, vs. CIVIL ACTION- LAW HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, Individually and doing business as HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL, Defendants, No. 12-5650 NOTICE TO PLEAD YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED AND REQUIRED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. ag. E-P L M FIR ,L.L.C. B . LINO J z ZZ --r r. CD )> THE PERRY LAW FIRM,L.L.C. BY: MARK T.PERRY,ESQUIRE ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT WILLIAM J.AQUILINO,ESQUIRE GARY FRANCIS FATOOL ATTORNEY ID NUMBER: 64296 72743 305 LINDEN STREET SCRANTON,PA 18503 (570)344-6323 JOAN WESTON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff, VS. CIVIL ACTION - LAW HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, Individually and doing business as HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL, Defendants, No. 12-5650 ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, GARY FATOOL, TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT The Defendant,Gary Fatool, by and through his counsel, The Perry Law Firm, L.L.C., hereby responds to Plaintiff's Complaint as follows: 1. Denied. Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to confirm the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph. The same are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter as is permitted by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 2. Denied. Answering Defendant is without sufficient information to confirm the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph. The same are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter as is permitted by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 6. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 7. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 8. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. COUNT I—BATTERY/SEXUAL ASSAULT Joan Weston v. Gary Francis Fatool 9. Answering Defendant incorporates herein his responses to paragraphs 1-8 as if more fully set forth at length. 10. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 11. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 12. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 13. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 14. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 15. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 16. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 17. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 18. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 19. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 20. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 21. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 22. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 23. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 24. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 25. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 26. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. i 27. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 28. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 29. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 30. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 31. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 32. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 33. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 34. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 35. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 36. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 37. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 38. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent that the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, they are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 39. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 40. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent that the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual,they are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 41. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent that the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, they are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Gary Fatool, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against all others on the causes of action alleged. COUNT II -BATTERY-ADMINISTERING OF DRUGS FOR PURPOSE OF PUTTING PLAINTIFF IN A PHYSICAL STATE WHERE SHE COULD NOT RESIST A SEXUAL ASSAULT OR BATTERY Joan Weston v. Gary Francis Fatool 42. Answering Defendant incorporates herein his responses to paragraphs 1-41 as if more fully set forth at length. 43. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 44. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent that the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual,they are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 45. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent that the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual,they are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 1 WHEREFORE, Defendant, Gary Fatool, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against all others on the causes of action alleged. COUNT III -NEGLIGENCE Joan Weston v. Gary Francis Fatool 46. Answering Defendant incorporates herein his responses to paragraphs 1-45 as if more fully set forth at length. 47. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The same are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 48. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The same are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 49. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The same are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 50. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The same are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Gary Fatool, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against all others on the causes of action alleged. COUNT IV-NEGLIGENCE PER SE 51. Answering Defendant incorporates herein his responses to paragraphs 1-50 as if more fully set forth at length. 52. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent that the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, they are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 53. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent that the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual,they are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 54. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The same are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 55. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The same are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Gary Fatool, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against all others on the causes of action alleged. COUNT V-NEGLIGENCE Joan Weston v. Holy Spirit Hospital 56. Answering Defendant incorporates herein his responses to paragraphs 1-55 as if more fully set forth at length. 57. Admitted. 58. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The same are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 59. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The same are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 60. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 61. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph are generally denied as permitted by Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 62. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The same are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 63. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The same are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 64. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The same are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 65. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The same are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 66. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The same are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 67. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The same are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 68. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The same are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 69. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The same are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 70. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The same are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 71. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The same are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 72. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The same are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 73. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The same are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. 74. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. The same are therefore denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Gary Fatool, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against all others on the causes of action alleged. COUNT VI - RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (VICARIOUS LIABILITY) Joan Weston v. Holy Spirit Hospital . 75. Answering Defendant incorporates herein his responses to paragraphs 1-74 as if more fully set forth at length. 76. This Count has been dismissed by Order of Court and therefore no response is i required. i 77. This Count has been dismissed by Order of Court and therefore no response is required. i 78. This Count has been dismissed by Order of Court and therefore no response is required. 79. This Count has been dismissed by Order of Court and therefore no response is required. 80. This Count has been dismissed by Order of Court and therefore no response is required. 81. This Count has been dismissed by Order of Court and therefore no response is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Gary Fatool, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter judgment in his favor and against all others on the causes of action alleged. NEW MATTER 82. Answering Defendant incorporates herein his responses to paragraphs 1-81 as if more fully set forth at length. 83. The Complaint must be dismissed because the Court lacks appropriate subject matter and/or personal jurisdiction over the answering Defendant. 84. All'care and treatment rendered to Plaintiff, Joan Weston, by answering Defendant was appropriate, reasonable and within the required standard of care. 85. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 86. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant, Gary Francis Fatool, and his agents, servants and employees were competent and qualified. 87. To the extent that the evidence may show that other persons, partnerships, corporations, or other legal entitles caused or contributed to the injuries and/or exacerbation of the pre-existing conditions of Plaintiff, Sherry Fitzgerald, as alleged,then the conduct of answering Defendant was not the proximate cause of such conditions or injuries. 88. Whatever injuries and damages, if any, sustained by Plaintiff as averred in the Complaint were caused in whole or in part by persons or entities over whom answering Defendant had no duty to supervise or control; therefore, answering Defendant is not liable and Plaintiff may not recover against them. 89. Plaintiffs injuries and losses, if any, were not caused by the conduct or negligence of answering Defendant, but rather were caused by medical conditions and causes beyond the control of answering Defendant; therefore, Plaintiff may not recover against them. 90. Any acts or omissions of answering Defendant alleged to constitute negligence were not substantial contributing factors to the injuries and damages as alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint. 91. The acts or omissions of others, and not answering Defendant, constituted intervening and/oi superseding causes of the injuries and/or damages alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiff, and answering Defendant, cannot,therefore,pursuant to Pennsylvania law, be held liable for the alleged injuries to Plaintiff. i i 92. The sole responsibility for any damages sustained by Plaintiff rests with the Plaintiff or third parties over which answering Defendant had no control, duty to control or reason to control. 93. Insofar as answering Defendant elected a treatment modality which is recognized as proper but may differ from another appropriate treatment modality, then said answering Defendant raises the "two schools of thought" defense. 94. Plaintiffs allegations are vague and insufficiently pleaded under Pennsylvania law. 95. Plaintiffs claims are barred and/or limited by the Health Care Services Malpractice Act,Act of October 15, 1975, P.L. 390,No. 111, § 101, et seq., as amended 40 P.S. § 1301.101, et seq. 96. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. 97. If there is a judicial determination that the application of Rule 238 in the within action is constitutional, such possibility being specifically denied, then liability for any damages imposed under said Rule shall exclude the period of time the Plaintiff failed to convey a reasonable settlement demand, delayed in responding to any of Defendant's discovery requests, violated any of the discovery rules, or caused the delay of the trial. 98. The collateral source rule does not apply such that if the Plaintiff should be awarded any money damages, such possibility being specifically denied,then the amount of said damages must be reduced by the total amount of any and all payments that the Plaintiff received from any and all collateral sources for any injuries and/or damages that the Plaintiff allegedly suffered in this matter. 99. If the Plaintiff should be awarded any money damages, such possibility being specifically denied, then the amount of said damages must be reduced by the total amount of any and all medical expenses charged but not actually paid by or on behalf of the Plaintiff; that is, any amount recovered by the Plaintiff must be reduced by the sum of any and all medical expenses "written-off"by any health care provider. 100. Plaintiffs claims may be barred, in part and/or in total,by the theories of collateral estoppel, res judicata and/or release. 101. Plaintiffs claims are barred and/or limited by the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act of 2002. Respectfully submitted: T �ERRY LAW FIRM,L.L.C. By: 4A ' AQET LINO, ESQUIRE:H�endant Gary Francis Fatool Date: July 18, 2013 305 Linden Street Scranton, PA 18503 (570)344-6323 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA SS COUNTY OF LUZERNE 1,WILLIAM J. AQUILINO,ESQUIRE being duly sworn according to law,depose and say that the following is true and correct under penalty of perjury: I The undersigned is counsel for Defendant, GARY FRANCIS FATOOL. 2. The undersigned has sufficient knowledge, information and belief to sign this Verification. 3. As;to matters not stated upon counsel's knowledge, the source of counsel's information is as attorney for Defendant, and he is duly authorized to transmit the same. 4. An appropriate Verification from Defendant, Gary Francis Fatool, will be filed forthwith. y: J. AQUILINO,ESQUIRE . N .. M THE PERRY LAW FIRM, L.L.C. BY: MARK.T.PERRY,ESQUIRE ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT WILLIAM J.AQUILINO,ESQUIRE GARY FRANCIS FATOOL ATTORNEY ID NUMBER: 64296 72743 305 LINDEN STREET SCRANTON,PA 18503 (570)344-6323 JOAN WESTON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff, VS. CIVIL ACTION -LAW HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, Individually and doing business as HOLY - SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL, � Defendants, No. 12-5650 z° —_ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE , I, William J. Aquilino, Esquire,hereby certify that on the 18th day of July, 2013, I served a true and correct copy of Notice to Plead to New Matter, Answer and New Matter, and Attorney Verification, via first-class mail,postage prepaid,upon the following counsel of record: Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire Thomas Chairs, Esquire Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC Dickie, McCamey& Chilcote 2132 Market Street Plaza 21, Suite 302 Camp Hill, PA 17011 425 North 21s' Street Attorney for Plaintiff Camp Hill, PA 17011-2223 Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity, Individually and doing business as Holy Spirit Hospital HE AW FIRM,L.L.C. B : A O UILINO, ESQUIRE Darrell C.Dethlefs,Esquire IN 58805 DETHLEFS-PYKOSH LAW GROUP,LLC 411 2132 Market Street r Camp Hill,PA 17011 U�IBERL JOAN WESTON IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION-LAW HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, Individually and doing business as NO. 12-5650 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL Defendants RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S,GARY FRANCIS FATOOL,OBJECTION TO PROPOSED SUBPOENA TO PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF STATE, STATE BOARD OF NURSING AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Joan Weston, and files the following Response to Defendant's Objection to Plaintiffs Proposed Subpoena to the Pennsylvania Department of State, State Board of Nursing. The Rules of Civil Procedure allow the production of documents from a person not a party to the action upon written notice to every other party at least twenty (20) days before the date of service. Pa.R.C.P. § 4009.21. As a result, Defendant's Objection to the Proposed Subpoena should be denied. 1. DENIED. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly allow "[a] party to obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action." Pa.R.C.P. § 4003.1(a). The documents requested in Plaintiff s Subpoena to the Department of State and State board of Nursing are not privileged communications and therefore are within the scope of discovery pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. § 4003.1. Furthermore, the documents requested are relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action as required by Pa.R.C.P. § 4003, as they relate to the Plaintiffs claim, which is that she was injured by the sexual assault of Defendant nurse Fatool. 2. DENIED. Plaintiffs Proposed Subpoena does not violate the Pennsylvania Peer Review Protection Act, 63 Pa.C.S.A. § 425.1 et seq., the MCare Act, the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Act, and related state and federal statutes. By way of further response, § 4 of the Peer Review Protection Act states that "[r]ecords otherwise available from original sources are not to be construed as immune from discovery merely because they were presented during peer review proceedings." ONeill v. McKeesport Hospital, 1987 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 96. As a result, all documents requested in this matter otherwise obtainable from original sources are not immunized from discovery. Additionally, the documents requested by Plaintiff are admissible under the MCare Act and the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Act, pursuant to § 31 l(a) of the Ware Act as; "fa]ny documents, materials, records or information that would otherwise be available from original sources shall not be construed as immune from discovery or use in any civil or administrative action or proceeding merely because they were presented to the patient safety committee or governing board of a medical facility." As a result, all documents requested in this matter otherwise obtainable from original sources are not immunized from discovery. 3. DENIED. The Proposed Subpoena does not violate the statutes and regulations related to the Nursing Act, as the act governs the internal structure of the practice of professional nursing and therefore is not applicable to the discovery issue pending before this Court. Additionally, Defendant's Preliminary Objections on the Negligence Per Se Count have been overruled by this Court. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court Deny Defendant's Objection to Plaintiff's Proposed Subpoena to Pennsylvania Department of State, State Nursing Board. Respect bmitted, DarreCC43ethlefs, Esquire ID# 58805 DETHLEFS-PYKOSH LAW GROUP,LLC 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 975-9446 Facsimile: (717) 975-2309 Email: ddethlefs @dplglaw.com ddethlefs @aol.com JOAN WESTON , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION-LAW HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, Individually and doing business as NO. 12-5650 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Response to Defendant's Objection to Plaintiff's Proposed Subpoena to the Pennsylvania Department of State and the State Board of Nursing, was hereby served by depositing the same within the custody of United States Postal Service, First Class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: William J. Aquilino, Esq., The Perry Law Firm, LLC 305 Linden Street Scranton, PA 18503 Attorney for Defendant Gary Francis Fatool Thomas Chairs, Esq., Dickie,McCarney&Chilcote Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21 s' Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-2223 Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity, individually and doing business as Holy Spirit Ho i al Respectfully S Darrell C. efs, Esquire ID# 58805 DETHLEFS-PYKOSH LAW GROUP,LLC 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 975-9446 Facsimile: (717) 975-2309 Email: ddethlefs @dplglaw.com ddethlefs @aol.com Darrell C.Dethlefs, Esquire t, t0 Tl1 .,' IN 58805 ;� DETHLEFS-PYKOSH LAW GROUP,LLC 22 M 1: 28 2132 Market Street Camp Hill,PA 17011 CUt'113)E L,4,tiD CQ PH#(717)-975-9446 �'EMYS y j '�!��OLJ 1 DDethlefs @aol.com JOAN WESTON IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA V. . CIVIL ACTION-LAW HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, Individually and doing business as NO. 12-5650 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL Defendants RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S, GARY FRANCIS FATOOL, OBJECTION TO PROPOSED SUBPOENA TO GEISINGER MEDICAL CENTER AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Joan Weston, and files the following Response to Defendant's Objection to Plaintiff s Proposed Subpoena to Geisinger Medical Center. The Rules of Civil Procedure allow the production of documents from a person not a party to the action upon written notice to every other party at least twenty (20) days before the date of service. Pa.R.C.P. § 4009.21. As a result, Defendant's Objection to the Proposed Subpoena should be denied. 1. DENIED. The Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure explicitly allow "[a] party to obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action." Pa.R.C.P. § 4003.1(a). The documents requested in Plaintiff s Subpoena to Geisinger Medical Center are not privileged communications and therefore are within the scope of discovery pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. § 4003.1. Furthermore, the documents requested are relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action as required by Pa.R.C.P. § 4003, as they relate to the Plaintiff's claim which is that she was injured by the sexual assault of Defendant nurse Fatool. 2. DENIED. Plaintiff's Proposed Subpoena does not violate the Pennsylvania Peer Review Protection Act, 63 Pa.C.S.A. § 425.1 et seq., the MCare Act, the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Act, and related state and federal statutes. By way of further response, § 4 of the Peer Review Protection Act states that "[r]ecords otherwise available from original sources are not to be construed as immune from discovery merely because they were presented during peer review proceedings." O'Neill v. McKeesport Hospital, 1987 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 96. As a result, all documents requested in this matter otherwise obtainable from original sources are not immunized from discovery. Additionally, the documents requested by Plaintiff are admissible under the MCare Act and the Pennsylvania Patient Safety Act, pursuant to § 311(a) of the MCare Act as; "[a]ny documents, materials, records or information that would otherwise be available from original sources shall not be construed as immune from discovery or use in any civil or administrative action or proceeding merely because they were presented to the patient safety committee or governing board of a medical facility." As a result, all documents requested in this matter otherwise obtainable from original sources are not immunized from discovery. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court Deny Defendant's Objection to Plaintiff's Proposed Subpoena t Geisinger Medical Center. Respect ly e , Darre . Dethlefs, Esquire ID# 58805 DETHLEFS-PYKOSH LAW GROUP,LLC 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 975-9446 Facsimile: (717) 975-2309 Email: ddethlefs @dplglaw.com ddethlefs @aol.com JOAN WESTON , IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION-LAW HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, Individually and doing business as NO. 12-5650 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Response to Defendant's Objection to Plaintiffs Proposed Subpoena to Geisinger Medical Center, was hereby served by depositing the same within the custody of United States Postal Service, First Class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: William J. Aquilino, Esq., The Perry Law Firm, LLC 305 Linden Street Scranton, PA 18503 Attorney for Defendant Gary Francis Fatool Thomas Chairs,Esq., Dickie, McCarney& Chilcote Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21" Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-2223 Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity, individually and doing business as Holy Spi70spited,al Respect I1 Darre4VDethlefs, Esquire ID# 58805 DETHLEFS-PYKOSH LAW GROUP,LLC 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 975-9446 Facsimile: (717) 975-2309 Email: ddethlefs @dplglaw.com ddethlefs@aol.com s +L 2013 JUL 24 AM 11: 5'2 CJI B'DRLAND C0UiU 'r`1` PENNSYLVANIA Darrell C.Dethlefs,Esquire ID#58805 2132 Market Street Camp Hill,Pennsylvania 17011 Telephone—(717)975-9446 Fax—(717)975-2309 DDethlefsaaol.corn Attorney for Plaintiff JOAN WESTON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA V. No.: 12-5650 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL CIVIL ACTION-LAW OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, individually and doing business as HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL,and GARY FRANCIS FATOOL, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT FATOOL AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Joan Weston, by her attorney, Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire, and replies to the New Matter of the Defendant Fatool as follows: 82. The Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 81 of the Complaint as if fully set forth at length. 83. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies the Court lacks appropriate subject matter and/or personal jurisdiction over the answering Defendant. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 84. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies that the care and treatment rendered to Plaintiff, Joan Weston, by answering Defendant was appropriate, reasonable and within the required standard of care. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 85. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies that Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a cause of action on which relief can be granted. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 86. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies that all times relevant hereto Defendant, Gary Francis Fatool, and his agents, service and employees were competent and qualified. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 87. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies that the conduct of the answering Defendant was not the proximate Cause of such conditions or injuries. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 88. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To'the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies that the injuries and damages sustained by the t Plaintiff as averred to in the Complaint were caused in whole by persons or entities over whom answering Defendant had no duty to supervise or control and, therefore, denies that Defendant is not liable and that Plaintiff may not recover. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 89. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response; is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies that Plaintiff's injuries and losses were not caused by conduct and/or negligence of the answering Defendant, but rather, were caused by medical conditions or causes beyond the control of the answering Defendant and that therefore, Plaintiff cannot recover against answering Defendant. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 90. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual,the Plaintiff denies that any acts or omissions of answering Defendant alleged to constitute negligence were not substantial contributing factors to the injuries and damages as alleged in the Plaintiff's Complaint. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 91. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies the acts or omissions of others and not the answering Defendant constituted intervening and/or superseding causes of the injuries and/or damages alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiff, and that answering Defendant cannot, therefore, pursuant to Pennsylvania law, be held liable for the'alleged injuries to the Plaintiff. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 92. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies that responsibility for any damages sustained by i 4 the Plaintiff rests with the Plaintiff or third parties over which answering Defendant had no control, duty to control or reason to control. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 93. Denied, The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response, is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual,the Plaintiff denies that Defendant Fatool elected a treatment modality which was recognized as proper but may differ from another appropriate treatment modality. By way of further response, Plaintiff denies that sucking on Plaintiff's feet and masterbating constitute proper but a different appropriate treatment modality. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 94. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies that Plaintiff's allegations are vague and insufficiently pleaded under Pennsylvania law. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 95. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies that Plaintiff's claims are barred or limited by the Health Care Services Malpractice Act. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 96. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies that Plaintiff s claims are barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 97. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response. is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies that if there is a judicial determination that in the application of Rule 238 liability for any damages imposed under said Rule 238 shall exclude the period of time the Plaintiff,failed to convey a reasonable settlement demand, delayed in responding to any of Defendant's discovery requests and violated any of the discovery rules, or caused delay of the trial. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 98. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to i which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies that the amount of said damages must be reduced by the total amount of any and all payments the Plaintiff received any and all collateral sources for any injuries or damages that Plaintiff allegedly suffered in this matter. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 99. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 110. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies that Plaintiff's claims may be barred, in part or whole,by the theories of collateral estoppel, res judicata and/or release. Strict proof thereof is demanded t at time of trial. 101. Denied. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies that Plaintiff's claims are barred and/or limited by r the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act of 2002. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. Respectfully itted, Darrell 4C. Detlhlefs, Esquire ID# 58805 DETHLEFS-PYKOSH LAW GROUP,LLC 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 1.7011 Telephone: (717) 975-9446 Facsimile: (717) 975-2309 email: ddethlefsgdpllglaw com ddethlefsgaol com J • VERIFICATION I hereby verify that the statements of fact made in the foregoing documents are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements therein are subject to the criminal penalties contained in 18 Pa C. S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: Joan eston w G JOAN WESTON, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff : NO. 12-5650 V. ' HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, individually and doing business as, : CIVIL ACTION-LAW HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED and GARY FRANCIS FATOOL, Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Darrell C. Dethlefs,Esquire, hereby certify that on the��jAkl,day of July , 2013, 1 served a true and correct copy of the Plaintiff's Reply to New Matter via first-class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following counsel of record: t William J.Aquilino,Esquire Thomas Chairs,Esquire The Perry Law Firm,L.L.C. Dickie,McCarney&Chilcote 305 Linden Street Plaza 21, Suite 302 Scranton, PA 18503 425 North 21" Street Attorney for Defendant, Camp Hill,PA 17011-2223 Gary Francis Fatool Attorney for Defendant,Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of C istian Charity, individually, and dlb/a Holy Spiri spital Date: Darrell C.Dethlefs,Esquire I.D.#58805 ' DETHLEFS-PYKOSH LAW GROUP,LLC i 21.32 Market Street Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 Telephone: (717)975-9446 ` Facsimile: (717)975-2309 Email: ddethlefs@dpiglaw.com ddethlefs@aol.com f I DICKIE,MCCAMEY&CHILCOTE,P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR: DEFENDANT BY: Thomas M.Chairs,Esquire HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF ATTORNEY I.D.NO. 7856S CHRISTIAN CHARITY,INDIVIDUALLY AND BY:Aaron S.jayman,Esquire DOING BUSINESS AS HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL ATTORNEY I.D.NO.85651 Plaza 21,Suite 302 425 North 21st Street Camp Hill,PA 17011 717-731-4800 (Tele) 889-811-7144 Fax JOAN WESTON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, NO. 12-5650 V. CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL 14OLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS C- J' OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY,individually and rte,a) --r-- doing business as, HOLY SPIRIT C, HOSPITAL,and GARY FRANCIS FATOOL, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED -<> CD Defendants. NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Joan Weston c/o Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire 2132 Market Street .Camp Hill, PA 17011 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO PLEAD TO THE WITHIN ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS PLEADING OR JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. Respectfully Submitted, DICKIE, MCCAMEY& CHILCOTE, P.C. Date; Au��ust 14 2.013 BY f, Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 78565 Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 85651 Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-2223 717-731-4800 Attorney for Defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity, individually and; doing business as Holy Spirit Hospital 1740641.doc DICKIE,MCCAMEY&CHILCOTE,P.C. ATTORNEYS FOR: DEFENDANT BY:Thomas M.Chairs,Esquire HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF ATTORNEY I.D.NO.78565 CHRISTIAN CHARITY,INDIVIDUALLY AND BY:Aaron S.Jayman,Esquire DOING BUSINESS AS HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL ATTORNEY I.D.NO.85651 Plaza 21,Suite 302 425 North 21st Street Camp Hill,PA 17011 717-731-4800 (Tele) 888-811-7144 Fax JOAN WESTON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, NO. 12-5650 V. CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY,individually and doing business as, HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL,and GARY FRANCIS FATOOL, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants. ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS AS HOLY SPRIT HOSPITAL TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital of the.Sisters of Christian Charity, individually and doing business as Holy Spirit Hospital, (hereinafter referred to "Answering Defendant") by and through its counsel, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. and files the within Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff s Complaint as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to enable it to admit or deny the truth of the allegations contained herein and the same are denjed and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Answering Defendant isa non-profit hospital with a principal place of business located at 503 North 21st Street, , Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17011. The remaining allegations are denied as conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 3. The allegations contained in this paragraph are directed to a party other than Answering Defendant and, as such, no response is required. 4. It is admitted that Defendant Fatool was a registered nurse employed by Answering Defendant during the times referenced in Plaintiff s Complaint. 5. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 6. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 7. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 8. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). COUNT I BATTERY I SEXUAL ASSAULT JOAN WESTON V.GARY FRANCIS FATOOL 9.41. These paragraphs do not pertain to Answering Defendant and,as such, no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary,the allegations are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response,to the extent that these paragraphs contain averments of fact,they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against Plaintiff. 2 COUNT 11 1 1 , 1 11, BATTERY f ADMINISTERING OF DRUGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PUTTING PLAINTIFF IN A PHYSICAL STATE WHERE SHE COULD NOT RESIST A SEXUAL ASSAULT OR BATTERY JOAN WESTON V. GARY FRANCIS FATOOL 42.-45. These paragraphs do not pertain to Answering Defendant and,as such,no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary,the allegations are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response,to these paragraphs contain averments of fact,they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against Plaintiff. COUNT III NEGLIGENCE JOAN WESTON V.GARY FRANCIS FATOOL 46.-50.These paragraphs do not pertain to Answering Defendant and,as such, no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary,the allegations are denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response,to these paragraphs contain averments of fact,they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE,Answering Defendant respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against Plaintiff. 3 —COUNT IV NEGLIGENCE PER SE JOAN WESTON V. GARY FRANCIS FATOOL 51.-55. These paragraphs do not pertain to Answering Defendant and,as such, no response is required. To the extent that a response is Ideemed necessary,th.e allegations are denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, to these paragraphs contain averments of fact,they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against Plaintiff. COUNT V NEGLIGENCE LQAN WESTON V. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL 56. Answering Defendant incorporates by reference each and every preceding paragraph as though the same are set forth at length herein. 57. It is admitted that Defendant Fatool was a registered nurse employed by Answering Defendant during the times referenced in Plaintiffs Complaint. 58. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, at all relevant times,Answering Defendant acted appropriately and reasonably and complied with all applitable standards of care. 4 59. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, at all relevant times,Answering Defendant acted appropriately and reasonably and complied with all applicable standards of care. 60. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 61. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 62, Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, at all relevant times,Answering Defendant acted appropriately and reasonably and complied with all applicable standards of care. 63. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, at all relevant times,Answering Defendant acted appropriately and reasonably and complied with all applicable standards of care. 64. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time trial. By way of further response, at all relevant times, Answering Defendant acted appropriately and reasonably and complied with all applicable standards of care. Additionally, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant knew or should have known of Defendant Fatool's alleged propensity to participate in acts similar to those described in Plaintiffs Complaint. 65. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time trial. By way of further response,I at all relevant times, Answering Defendant acted appropriately and reasonably and complied with all applicable standards of care. Additionally, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant's conduct was in reckless disregard for Plaintiffs safety. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant knew or should have known of Defendant Fatool's alleged propensity to participate in acts similar to those described in Plaintiffs Complaint. 66. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time trial. By way of further response, at all relevant times, Answering Defendant acted appropriately and reasonably and complied with all applicable standards of care. Additionally, It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant knew or should have known of facts that employing or continuing to employee Defendant Fatool created an alleged unreasonable risk of physical harm to Plaintiff and others. 67. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further response, at all relevant times,Answering Defendant acted appropriately and reasonably and complied with all applicable standards of care in the hiring and/or retention of Defendant Fatool. 68. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant had knowledge of Defendant Fatool's alleged propensity to engage in the type of behavior alleged in Plaintiffs Complaint. 69. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. To the extent this paragraph contains averments of fact, they are-denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant knew or had reason to know that Defendant. Fatool allegedly admitted to a prior incident during the.criminal investigation. 6 70. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. To the extent this paragraph contains averments of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant knew or had reason to know that Defendant Fatool allegedly admitted to a prior incident during the criminal investigation. It is also specifically denied that Answering Defendant knew of Defendant Fatool's alleged propensity to commit acts as described in the Complaint. 71. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time trial. By way of further response, at all relevant times, Answering Defendant acted appropriately and reasonably and complied with all applicable standards of care. Additionally, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant knew or should have known that Defendant Fatool's may have an alleged propensity to participate in acts similar to those described in Plaintiffs Complaint. 72. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time trial. By way of further response, at all relevant times, Answering Defendant acted appropriately and reasonably and complied with all applicable standards of care. Additionally, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant knew or should have known that Defendant Fatool's had an alleged propensity to participate in acts similar to those described in Plaintiffs Complaint. 73. Denied as conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. To the extent that this paragraph contains averments of fact,they are denied generally pursuant to PaRP.C. 1029(e). By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant was negligent, 7 careless and/or reckless in not having.;in place procedures and checks and balances to prevent nurses from sexually assaulting patients. At all relevant times, Answering Defendant acted appropriately and reasonably and complied with all applicable standards of care. 74. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. To the extent that this paragraph contains averments of fact,they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further response, Answering Defendant acted appropriately and reasonably and complied with all applicable standards of care. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against Plaintiff. COUNT VI RESPONDEA T SUPERIOR(VICARIOUS LIABILITY) JOAN WESTON V HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL 75.-81.This Count and paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint have been dismissed by Court Order dated June 12, 2013. Therefore no response is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant respectfully requests that judgment be entered in its favor and against Plaintiff. -NEW MATTER 82. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 83. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which punitive damages may be awarded. 8 84. Plaintiff is responsible in whole in or in part, for the injuries alleged because Plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risk of the activities, and therefore, all claims resulting therefrom are barred. 85. Nothing Answering Defendant did or failed to do was the cause in fact or the proximate cause of any alleged injury or loss to Plaintiff. 86. Plaintiffs Complaint is barred or reduced by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, the relevant provisions of which are incorporated herein by referenced, as though same were more fully set forth at length herein. 87. At all times material hereto, Answering Defendant provided treatment in accordance with the applicable standard of medical care at the time and place of treatment. 88. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate any damages allegedly sustained. 89. Plaintiffs claims and/or request for damages herein are limited and/or precluded by the doctrines of resJudicata and/or collateral estoppel, 90. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 91. Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to toll the applicable statute of limitations. 92. Plaintiffs cause of action may be barred by the equitable doctrine of laches. 93. To the extent that discovery and/or investigation may reveal, Plaintiff has granted accord and satisfaction to a judgment thereby barring a subsequent suit against any other defendant for the same injuries. 9 94. In accordance with Pennsylvania law, including the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act, Plaintiff shall have no right to recover any amount, which was paid by a collateral source of compensation or benefits. 95. Plaintiff may have entered into a release which has the effect of discharging Answering Defendant from this matter. 96. Plaintiff shall have no right to recover for any amount which was paid by a private, public, or gratuitous collateral source of compensation or benefits under such as instituted or amended by the Pennsylvania Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act. 97. Plaintiffs claims and/or request for damages is barred or limited by the provisions of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act, Act. No. 13, House Bill No. 1802, 2202 Pa. ALS 13; 2002, Pa. Laws 13; 2001 Pa. HB 1802, as amended. 98. In the event that it is judicially determined that Plaintiff sustained injuries and damages as alleged, all of which are specifically denied, then the injuries or damages were proximately caused by the intervening and superseding acts of other parties or third persons over whom Answering Defendant had no control or right of control and for whose actions Answering Defendant is not liable. 99. Answering Defendant acted at all times in good faith and breached no duty to the Plaintiff. 100. The alleged negligence.of Answering Defendants, same being specifically and unequivocally denied, was the not proximate cause of the alle I ged accident and injuries to the Plaintiff,if any. 10 101. The alleged accident and injuries to the Plaintiff, if any, were proximately caused by parties other than Answering Defendant over which Answering Defendant had no control or right to control. 102. The harm sustained by Plaintiff, if any, was not foreseeable by Answering Defendant. 103. Answering Defendant exercised reasonable care to protect Plaintiff from physical harm and placed her in a safe environment. 106. By way of further answer, Answering Defendant specifically reserves the right to plead hereafter as further New Matter those additional affirmative defenses, including, without limitation, those set forth in Pa.R.Civ.P. 1030, that continuing investigation, discovery in accordance with court rules, and the introduction of evidence at trial may render applicable to claims and causes of action declared upon Plaintiff in the Complaint. 11 Respectfully Submitted, DICKIE, MCCAMEY& CHILCOTE, P.C. Date:August 14, 2013 By: JAr Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 78565 Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 85651 Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-2223 717-731-4800 Attorney for Defendants, Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity, individually and doing business as Holy Spirit Hospital 12 HBO Verification Genenl VERIFICATION i L Ellen Feidt, R.N., Director, Risk Management, hereby verify that the facts set i forth in the foregoing Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. .§4904,relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Ellen Feidt,R.N.,Director,Risk Management Holy Spirit Hospital r 'i t i i j 9 i t rr i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, August 14, 2013, I, Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, INDIVIDUALLY AND DOING BUSINESS AS HOLY SPRIT HOSPITAL TO 'PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First-Class Mail: Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (Counsel for Plaintiff) William J. Aquilino, Esquire 305 Linden Street, Suite 3 Scranton, PA 18503 (Counsel for Gary Francis Fatool) Aaron S.Jaym 4 , E uire Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire ID# 58805 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 PH# (717)-975-9446 DDethlefs @aol.com Attorney for Plaintiff JOAN WESTON IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION-LAW HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED rr SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, c Individually and,doing business as NO. 12-5650 a s HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; G'J GARY FRANCIS FATOOL Cor- N 'C=' Defendants e Ton =E °r REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Joan Weston, by her attorney, Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire, and replies to the New Matter of Holy Spirit Hospital as follows: 82. The Plaintiff incorporates Paragraphs 1 through 81 of the Complaint as if fully set forth at length. 83. DENIED. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies Plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which punitive damages may be awarded. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 84. DENIED. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies that Plaintiff voluntarily or knowingly assumed the risk of the activities. Plaintiff, therefore, is not responsible in whole, or in part, for the injuries alleged. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 85. DENIED. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies that the conduct of the answering Defendant was not the proximate cause of such conditions or injuries. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 86. DENIED. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies that Plaintiff's complaint is barred or reduced by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 87. DENIED. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies the answering Defendant provided treatment in accordance with the applicable standards of medical care at the time and place of treatment. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 88. DENIED. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies that responsibility for any damages sustained by the Plaintiff rests with the Plaintiff or third parties. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 89. DENIED. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies that Plaintiff's claims may be barred, in part or whole, by theories of collateral estoppel or res judicata. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 90. DENIED. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies that Plaintiffs claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 91. DENIED. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies that Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to toll the applicable statute of limitations. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 92. DENIED. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies that Plaintiff's cause of action may be barred by the equitable doctrine of laches. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 93. DENIED. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies granting accord and satisfaction to a judgment thereby barring a subsequent suit against any other defendant for the same injuries. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 94. DENIED. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies that Plaintiff shall have no right to recover any amount, which was paid by a collateral source of compensation or benefits,pursuant to Pennsylvania Law. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 95. DENIED. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies that Plaintiff may have entered into a release which has the effect of discharging answering Defendant from this matter. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 96. DENIED. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies that Plaintiff has no right to recover any amount which was paid by a private, public, or gratuitous collateral source of compensation or benefits under such as instituted or amended by the Pennsylvania Medical Care Availability and Reduction Error Act. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 97. DENIED. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies that Plaintiff's claims and/or request for damages is barred by the provisions of the Medical Availability and Reduction of Error Act of 2002. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 98. DENIED. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially deemed to be factual, the Plaintiff denies that Plaintiff's injuries and losses were not caused by conduct and/or negligence of the answering Defendant, but rather, by intervening and superseding acts of other parties or third persons over whom answering Defendant had no control or right of control over. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 99. DENIED. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies that Defendant at all times acted in good faith and breached no duty to Plaintiff. 100. DENIED. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies the negligence of answering Defendant was not the proximate cause of the accident and injuries to the Plaintiff. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 101. DENIED. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies the accident and injuries to the Plaintiff, were proximately caused by parties other than answering Defendant over which answering Defendant had no control or right over. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 102. DENIED. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies the harm sustained by plaintiff was not foreseeable by answering Defendant. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. 103. DENIED. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at the trial of this matter. To the extent the allegations contained in this paragraph are judicially determined to be factual, the Plaintiff denies answering Defendant exercised reasonable care to protect Plaintiff from physical harm and placed her in a safe environment. 104. DENIED. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no response is required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Strict proof thereof is demanded at time of trial. Respectfully S mi ted, Date: � Darrell C. lefs, Esquire ID# 58805 DETHLEFS-PYKOSH LAW GROUP, LLC 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717) 975-9446 Facsimile: (717) 975-2309 Email: ddethlefs @dplglaw.com ddethlefs @aol.com Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire ID#58805 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 PH#(717)-975-9446 DDethlefs @aol.com Attorney for Plaintiff JOAN WESTON IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION-LAW HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, Individually and doing business as NO. 12-5650 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Response to Defendant's Objection to Plaintiff's Proposed Subpoena to Geisinger Medical Center, was hereby served by depositing the same within the custody of United States Postal Service, First Class, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: William J. Aquilino, Esq., The Perry Law Firm, LLC 305 Linden Street Scranton, PA 18503 Attorney for Defendant Gary Francis Fatool Thomas Chairs, Esq., Dickie, McCarney&Chilcote Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21"Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-2223 Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity,individually and doing business as Holy Spirit Hospi Respec ully Subm* , -21 3 Darrel C ethlefs, Esquire ID#58805 DETHLEFS-PYKOSH LAW GROUP,LLC 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: (717)975-9446 Facsimile: (717)975-2309 Email: ddethlefs @dplglaw.com ddethlefs @aol.com FILED T , *�' 2013 AUG 29 ?M 2. 42 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Darrell C. Dethlefs I.D. No. 58805 DETHLEFS-PYKOSH LAW GROUP, LLC Attorney for Plaintiff 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 i (717) 975-9446 JOAN WESTON IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 12-5650 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE CIVIL ACTION — LAW SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Individually and doing business as HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL Defendants NOTICE OF DEPOSITION UPON ORAL EXAMINATION TO: Thomas Chairs, Esquire William J. Aquilino, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote The Perry Law Firm, LLC Plaza 21, .Suite 302 305 Linden Street 425 North 21St Street Scranton, PA 18503 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney for Defendant Attorney for Defendant Gary Francis Fatool Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity, Individually and doing business as Holy Spirit Hospital Date of Notice: August 29, 2013 Please take notice that Plaintiff will conduct the deposition upon oral examination of Detective Michael Cotton of the East Pennsboro Police Department and Jan McCreary at the Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC, 2132 Market Street, Camp Hill, PA 17011, on November 26, 2013 beginning at 8:30 a.m. The deposition will be transcribed. You are invited to attend. Respectfull Submitted, Darrellit. Dethlefs, Esquire Attorney for Plaintiff Darrell C. Dethlefs I.D. No. 58805 DETHLEFS-PYKOSH LAW GROUP, LLC Attorney for Plaintiff 2132 Market Street Camp Hill; Pennsylvania 17011 (717) 975-9446 JOAN WESTON IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Plaintiff PENNSYLVANIA V. : NO. 12-5650 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE CIVIL ACTION — LAW SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Individually and doing business as HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that on this date, a true a correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Deposition Upon Oral Examination was served by first class mail upon the following: Thomas Chairs, Esquire William J. Aquilino, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote The Perry Law Firm, LLC Plaza 21, Suite 302 305 Linden Street 425 North 21St Street Scranton, PA 18503 Camp Hill, PA 17011 Attorney'for Defendant Gary Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Francis Fatool Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity, Individually and doing business as Holy Spirit Hospital Date. Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire .x. CD C) rn W N . M FA THE PERRY LAW FIRM, L.L.C. r1 BY: MARK T. PERRY,ESQUIRE ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT CD \C. WILLIAM J.AQUILINO,ESQUIRE GARY FRANCIS FATOOL ATTORNEY ID NUMBER: 64296 ;> 72743 h 305 LINDEN STREET SCRANTON,PA 18503 (570)344-6323 JOAN WESTON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff, vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, Individually and doing business as HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL, Defendants, No. 12-5650 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, William J. Aquilino, Esquire, hereby certify that on the 3rd day of September, 2013; I served a true and correct copy of the Notice of Deposition Duces Tecum to Plaintiff, via first- class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following counsel of record: Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire Thomas Chairs, Esquire Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC Dickie, McCamey& Chilcote 2132 Market Street Plaza 21, Suite 302 Camp Hill, PA 17011 425 North 21 st Street Attorney for Plaintiff Camp Hill, PA 17011-2223 Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity, Individually and doing business as Holy Spirit Hospital =PLAW FIRM,L.L.C. By: ILINO, ESQUIRE THE PERRY LAW FIRM, L.L.C. TA j1 BY: MARK T.PERRY,ESQUIRE ATTORNEYS FRANCIS D PENDANT JAI,'-2 p11 � � WILLIAM J.AQUILINO,ESQUIRE GARY F 4,UP,j{)� L ATTORNEY ID NUMBER: 64296 PENS Y�-�� t AST 72743 305 LINDEN STREET SCRANTON,PA 18503 (570)344-6323 JOAN WESTON, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS • OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff, • vs. • CIVIL ACTION - LAW HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, • Individually and doing business as HOLY : SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS FATOOL, • • Defendants, • No. 12-5650 WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE Kindly withdraw my appearance on behalf of Defendant, Gary Francis Fatool, in the above-captioned matter. T . r ' ' LAW FIRM,L.L.C. By: I W1IA. 0, ESQUIRE C. C) , THE PERRY LAW FIRM, L.L.C. rn t— Fr :. . =s.,, ^ t BY: MARK T.PERRY,ESQUIRE ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT=r- '4-* I'LL c: TIMOTHY J.HOLLAND GARY FRANCIS FATOOL ..mot?? r _,` , r- =c-,-, <c' -a r, , ATTORNEY ID NUMBER: 64296 ›'(--) v-�,. 27290 ar, C 6`", 305 LINDEN STREET �-t w SCRANTON,PA 18503 ..< (570)344-6323 JOAN WESTON, • IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff, : • vs. . • CIVIL ACTION - LAW HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, : Individually and doing business as HOLY : SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS . FATOOL, : • Defendants, • No. 12-5650 PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant, Gary Francis Fatool, in the above- captioned matter. THE PERRY LAW FIRM, L.L.C. _ By: i . v TIMOTHY J. '`l LAND THE PERRY LAW FIRM, L.L.C. ,,ff®® i ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDAN Z BY: MARK T.PERRY,ESQUIRE GARY FRANCIS E 1k �� ,. 43 TIMOTHY J.HOLLAND P�.NNsYN DClLINr f ATTORNEY ID NUMBER: 64296 96 305 LINDEN STREET SCRANTON,PA 18503 (570)344-6323 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS • JOAN WESTON, OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiff, • • vs. • • • CIVIL ACTION - LAW HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, : Individually and doing business as HOLY : SPIRIT HOSPITAL; GARY FRANCIS : FATOOL, • Defendants, • No. 12-5650 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy J. Holland, hereby certify that on the 30th day of December 2013, I served a true and correct copy of a Withdrawal of Appearance for William J. Aquilino, Esquire, of The Perry Law Firm, LLC, together with my Praecipe for Entry of Appearance on behalf of Defendant, Gary Francis Fatool, via first-class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following counsel of record: Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire Thomas Chairs, Esquire Dethlefs-Pykosh Law Group, LLC Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote 2132 Market Street Plaza 21, Suite 302 Camp Hill. PA 17011 425 North 21st Street Attorney for Plaintiff Camp Hill, PA 17011-2223 Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity, Individually and doing business as Holy Spirit Hospital THE PERRY L W F RM, .L.C. By: j il" TIMOTHY\ . OLLAND JOAN WESTON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff, NO. 12-5650 v. CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL' c _ HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS -o3 Mira OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY, individually and ;m rri rn doing business as,HOLY SPIRIT u' ►v ;' HOSPITAL,and GARY FRANCIS FATOOL, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED .. Defendants. F c.. PRAECIPE TO SETTLE. DISCONTINUE AND END y % • TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the above captioned matter discontinued and ended. Respectfu ubmitted, Date: ) 16\ H Y iW�" Darrell ' ethlefs, Esquire 2132 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Tele: (717) 975-9446 Attorney for Plaintiff,Joan Weston rs, Esquire