Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
14-2831
R t. Supreme Cou -.,fTennsylvania COuf, :ol-Co:mmor 'Pleas For Prothonotary Use Only: Civll Cover�Sh�et Docket No: M e r:; County 01-0 The information collected on this form is used solely.for court administration purposes. This form does not supplement or replace the filing and service ofpleadings or other papers os required by late or rules of court. Commencement of Action: S xi Complaint El Writ of Summons El Petition E] Transfer from Another Jurisdiction E] Declaration of Taking E C Lead Plaintiffs Name: Lead Defendant's Name: T GLENN B. STONER MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, II, M.D. Are money damages requested? D Yes No Dollar Amount Requested: E]within arbitration limits I (] (check one) outside arbitration limits O N Is this a Class Action Suit? Yes ED No Is this an MDJAppeal? El Yes [F] No A Name of Plaintiff/Appellant's Attorney: RICHARD C. ANGINO, ESQUIRE OF ANGINO & LUTZ, P.C. Check here if you have no attorney(are a Self-Represented [Pro Se] Litigant) Nature of the Case: Place an "X"to the left of the ONE case category that most accurately describes your PRIMARY CASE. If you are making more than one type of claim, check the one that you consider most important. TORT(do not include Mass Tort) CONTRACT (do not include dudgments) CIVIL APPEALS Intentional El Buyer Plaintiff Administrative Agencies 0 Malicious Prosecution Debt Collection: Credit Card Board of Assessment Motor Vehicle Debt Collection: Other Board of Elections 0 Nuisance Q Dept.of Transportation Q Premises Liability El Statutory Appeal: Other S Product Liability(does not include Employment Dispute: E mass tort) Q Slander/Libel/Defamation Discrimination C El Other: ❑ Employment Dispute: Other M Zoning Board T El Other: I 0 Other: O MASS TORT 0 Asbestos N ; Tobacco Toxic Tort-DES E] Toxic Tort-Implant REAL PROPERTY MISCELLANEOUS E] Toxic Waste Ejectment 0 Common Law/Statutory Arbitration B Q Other: 0 Eminent Domain/Condemnation Declaratory Judgment El Ground Rent Q Mandamus Q Landlord/Tenant Dispute ❑ Non-Domestic Relations El Mortgage Foreclosure: Residential Restraining Order PROFESSIONAL LIABLITY [:1 Mortgage Foreclosure: Commercial ❑ Quo Warra[1to Dental E] Partition ❑ Replevin Q Legal Ci Quiet Title El Other: Medical C_i Other: E] Other Professional: Updated 1/1/2011 ' THP ii'FT11 PRO1�� 9 J. CU�16' ERLAND CO ANGINO&LUTZ,P.C. PE"stf 'T`1' Richard C.Angino,Esquire Y f f Attorney ID#: 07140 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg,PA 17110-1708 (717)238-6791 FAX(717).238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-MAIL:rca@anpinolutz.com Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS STONER, Husband and Wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs NO. tq ��3 / Cli►�l V. CIVIL ACTION—LAW MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI; M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM-I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants NOTICE TO DEFEND You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you.must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff: You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. S `73/�s 1 YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH.INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA Telephone number- 717- 249-3166 AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se persentan mds adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar accion dentro de los pr6ximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificaci6n de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a , las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar accion como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamaci6n o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Used puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para used. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE 1NFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA Telephone number- 717- 249-3166 551700 2 ANGINO&LUTZ,P.C. Richard C.Angino,Esquire, Attorney ID#: 07140 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg,PA 17110-1708 (717)238-6791 FAX(717)238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-MAIL:rca@anginolutz.com Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS STONER, Husband and Wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs / NO. V. CIVIL ACTION—LAW MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED INDUSTRIAL ANDSPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION'HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT;HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM-I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants i COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiffs, Glenn and Barbara Stoner are married adult individuals who reside in New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. individually and d/b/a Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. d/b/a Physicians of Rehabilitation Industrial and Spine (hereinafter 1 r � "Defendant Lupinacci"), is a physician who specializes in physiatry. Defendant Lupinacci is licensed to practice medicine in Pennsylvania. At the time of the events stated herein, Defendant Lupinacci maintained offices in and regularly practiced medicine in Cumberland County. Plaintiff is asserting; a medical professional liability claim against Defendant Lupinacci. A Certificate of Merit for this defendant is attached as Exhibit A. 3. Defendant HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg (hereinafter "HealthSouth Rehab"), is a licensed healthcare facility providing inpatient rehabilitation services in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff is asserting a medical professional liability claim against this Defendant. A Certificate of Merit for this Defendant is attached as Exhibit B. 4. At all relevant times, Defendant HealthSouth Rehab employed Defendant Lupinacci who was acting within the course and scope of his agency and employment for Defendant HealthSouth Rehab. 5. Defendant Rupen G. Modi, D.O. (hereinafter "Defendant Modi") is currently, and was at all times relevant to this Complaint, a physician licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, specializing in emergency medicine. He is an employee, agent, and/or ostensible agent of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital, Defendant EmCare Medical Services of Pennsylvania, P.C., and/or Defendant New Jersey/Pennsylvania Em-I Medical Services, P.C., all of whom were doing business in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania at the time of events referenced in this Complaint. Plaintiff is asserting a professional liability claim against Defendant Modi. A Certificate of Merit is attached as Exhibit C. 6. Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital (hereinafter "Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital") is a licensed healthcare facility 551700 2 1 / providing a full range of medical services in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff is asserting.a professional liability claim against Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital. A Certificate of Merit is attached as Exhibit D. 7. At all relevant times, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital employed Defendant Modi who was acting within the course and scope of his agency and employment for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital. 8. Defendant EmCare Medical Services of Pennsylvania, P.C. (hereinafter "Defendant EmCare") or New Jersey/Pennsylvania Em-I Medical Services, P.C. (hereinafter "Defendant Em-1 Medical Services") are professional corporations created under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and/or New Jersey, which upon information and belief, provides management and physician staffing services for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's Emergency Department. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant EmCare and/or Defendant Em-1 Medical Services employed Defendant Modi. Plaintiff is asserting a professional liability claim against Defendant EmCare and/or Defendant Em-1 Medical Services. A Certificate of Merit is attached as Exhibit E. 9. The facts and occurrences hereinafter related took place on or about May 11, 2012 through May 17, 2012. 10. Plaintiff Glenn Stoner was 77 years old when on May 8, 2012, he was admitted to Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital, with right leg weakness and gait instability due to a Spinal AVM. 11. Prior to and at the time of his admission, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner had a mechanical heart valve and was on Coumadin daily. i 551700 3 12. Plaintiff Glenn Stoner underwent a planned Neurosurgical intervention to correct this AVM on May 8,;2012. 13. Givens Plaintiff Glenn Stoner's history of AVR, he was postoperatively resumed on Coumadin with a target INR of 2.5-3.5 14. In conjunction to Coumadin, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner was also placed on Lovenox until a therapeutic INR was achieved. 15. Plaintiff Glenn Stoner's anticoagulation regimen was to be started post- operatively at the direction of his Neurosurgeon and Cardiologist, and he was given Lovenox on May 10, 2012. 16. On May 11, 2012, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner was transferred to Defendant HealthSouth Rehab and was placed back on Coumadin by Dr. Timothy Walsh of Moffitt Heart i and Vascular, alongwith the Lovenox he was already taking daily. i 17. Defendant HealthSouth Rehab's dictated consultation stated, "He is being bridged with Lovenox until his Coumadin becomes therapeutic. The orders came from the hospital. WE i will make sure that!we put the appropriate range in the chart along with discontinuing the i Lovenox once his INR is therapeutic." 18. On May 11, 2012 Plaintiff Glenn Stoner's INR value was 1.2. 19. On May 11, 2012, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner is noted to have incontinence of bowel, i and decreased sensory and strength in the right leg. r 20. On the morning of May 12, 2012, Mr. Stoner was given a dose of Lovenox 80 mg SQ at 6am per the orders. The INR value later the day is noted to be 1.6 and Mr. Stoner is given Coumadin 5 mg at 9pm. 551700 4 i 21 . On May 12, 2012, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner "still had some back pain", and began asking for Percocet for back pain through the next three days. 22. On the morning of May 13, 2012, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner was again given Lovenox 80 mg SQ. 23. On May 13, 2012, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner's INR value was 1.7. 24. Later that day, (although dated 5/12 2:30pm but noted at 5/13/12 at 1530pm by the nursing staff), an order was written to increase Lovenox l mg/kg sub Q q 12 hours D/C when INR> 2.5. 25. This new dose is higher than what was written on the preadmission assessment and the transfer records from Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital. The order in the MAR for the Lovenox is noted to be Lovenox 1 mg/kg sub Q D/C when INR> 2.5. 26. This order was noted by nursing to start on May 14, 2012.. Later that evening, Mr. Stoner was given Coumadin 7.5 mg per the order for an INR value on that of 1.7. 27. On May 14, 2012, Defendant Lupinacci evaluated Mr. Stoner and noted no new complaints. He was participating well in therapy. 28. On May 14, 2012, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner was given Lovenox 80 mg SQ at 6am and 6pm per the order. This is the first day Mr. Stoner was receiving Lovenox SQ twice in one day. 29. The INR value on May 14, 2012, was noted to be 2.0 and Plaintiff Glenn Stoner was given Coumadin 7.5mg in the evening. 30. On the morning of May 15, 2012, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner was given Lovenox 120 mg SQ at 6am. This was higher than the previous dose. 551700 5 • 31. Plaintiff Glenn Stoner had an INR value of 2.4 on May 15, 2012, and was given Coumadin 7.5 on that evening. 32. On the night of May 15, 2012, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner received Percocet for back pain. 33. On May 15, 2012, team conference noted to check INR which had been increasing throughout the past three days. I 34. Defendant Lupinacci noted Plaintiff Glenn Stoner had no new complaints. He i continues on Lovenox and Coumadin. He has buckling on the right wit11 decreased dorsiflexion. i Foot not clearing. Labs reviewed. 35. On the morning of May 16, 2012, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner was again given the higher dose of Lovenox at 120 mg SQ at 6am with orders noted in MAR to discontinue Lovenox when INR above 2.5 x 48 hours. 1 36. During the day on May 16, 2012, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner continued to require Percocet for his pain and with increased frequency as noted on the MAR. 37. Plaintiff Glenn Stoner's INR value later that day was 2.6. I 38. Though intended for May 16, 2012, the order for Coumadin that day was written as 5115 3:05 pm Co. ma din 6 mg tonight. He was in fact given the Coumadin 6mg on the evening of May 16, 2'012. 39. Plaintiff Glenn Stoner continued to require Percocet for pain relief overnight. I 40. On the morning of May 17, 2012, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner was given Lovenox 1.20 i mg SQ at 6am. Thisl was as written in the MAR with orders to discontinue Lovenox when INR is above 2.5 x 48 hours. 1 41. Plaintilff Glenn Stoner's INR on May 17, 2012, was 3.9. I I i 55»00 6 i 42. Later that morning and only several hours after receiving Lovenox 120 mg SQ and despite having a therapeutic INR of 2.6 the previous day and 3.9 currently, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner was noted to have 10/10 back pain by 9:30 am. 43. By 10:40 am, Defendant Lupinacci noted that Plaintiff Glenn Stoner had increased lower extremity weakness, numbness, and decreased function on the right greater than the left. 44. Plaintiff Glenn Stoner was also noted by Defendant Lupinacci to have bladder incontinence and that these changes were a dramatic change over the past several hours. 45. The decision was made to transfer Plaintiff Glenn Stoner back to Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital for a MRI of this thoracic-lumbar spine and neurosurgical evaluation. 46. Mr. Stoner arrived in the Emergency Room at Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital by 1205pm and was seen by Defendant Modi the Emergency Physician. 47. At 1300, Plaintiff Stoner had lab work completed which resulted in his INR being recognized as 4.2. 48. An MRI was ordered at 1315. 49. Plaintiff Stoner was in the MRI at 1415. 50. Plaintiff Stoner was returned to the ED at 1515. 51. A subsequent MRI demonstrated intradural hematoma from T6-T10. 52. At 1955, Dr. Sumas was called by Defendant Modi, and came to evaluate Plaintiff Glenn Stoner at 2100. 53. At 2043, Dr. Timothy Walsh evaluated Plaintiff Glenn Stoner and wrote "recommendations for FFP" to reverse the coagulopathy and that the patient will go "to OR tonight by Dr. Maria Elaina Sumas". 551700 7 54. At 2156, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner,was taken to the OR for T6-8 laminectomies and evacuation of intradural hematoma by Dr. Powers. 55. Even with his rescue surgery, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner now suffers paraplegia, chronic lower extremity neurologic deficits and bladder/bowel incontinence and permanent decline in his functionality. 56. Plaintiff Glenn Stoner has substantial significant permanent injuries as the result of Defendants and their agents negligence and failure to conform within the standards of hospitals, rehabilitation hospitals and errors and omissions of nurses, physiatrists, emergency room physicians, radiologists and/or other individual health care providers. COUNT I—NEGLIGENCE GLENN B. STONER V. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI M.D INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI M.D. P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION,INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C. 57. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 58. Defendant Lupinacci was negligent and careless in his substandard medical treatment of Plaintiff Glenn Stoner as follows: (a) Failure to continuously and properly monitor Plaintiff Glenn Stoner from his first:arrival at Defendant HealthSouth Rehab; (b) Failure to properly dose and monitor medications, including but not limited to Lovenox and Coumadin, as administered to Plaintiff Glenn Stoner; (c) Failure to properly dose and monitor the effects of medications such as Lovenox and Coumadin; (d) Failure to more cautiously monitor Plaintiff Glenn Stoner when he developed leg buckling on May 15, 2012; (e) Failure to properly monitor Plaintiff Glenn Stoner's increasing INR levels; 551700 8 (f) Failure to follow-up with unclear orders to discontinue Lovenox 2 days after INR was therapeutic in a patient recently having undergone extensive spinal surgery and without such orders from the transferring facility; (g) Failure to recognize Plaintiff Glenn Stoner was being re-anticoagulated post- operatively beyond the safe therapeutic window; and (h) Failure to recognize Plaintiff Glenn Stoner's several days of back pain and progressive lower extremity weakness and numbness along with urinary retention and stool incontinence, which are signs of over-anticoagulation. 59. Defendant Lupinacci's negligence, as stated above, caused Mr. Stoner to suffer a intradural hematoma from T6-T10. 60. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has been forced to incur and will in the future incur expenses for medical treatment, medications, and similar expenses, and claims are made therefor. 61 . As a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has suffered lost earnings and earning capacity and a per diminution of his future earning capacity, and claims are made therefor. 62. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has suffered from and will in the future suffer from pain, suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, and loss of the ability to enjoy life's pleasures, and claims are made therefor. 63. As 'a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has suffered from a permanent disfigurement of his body, and claim is made therefor. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Glenn B. Stoner demands judgment against Defendant Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D.: individually and d/b/a Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. d/b/a Physicians of Rehabilitation, Industrial and Spine Medicine, P.C., in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any amount requiring compulsory arbitration. 551700 9 +i COUNT II—VICARIOUS LIABILITY GLENN B. STONER V. HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG 64. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 65. All of Mr. Stoner's damages are the result of the negligent, careless, and substandard care provided to him by Defendant Lupinacci as stated above and/or other employees of Defendant HealthSouth Rehab that may be developed through discovery. 66. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Lupinacci was an agent, servant, employee, and/or ostensible agent of Defendant HealthSouth Rehab acting within the course and scope of his employment or agency. 67. Defendant HealthSouth Rehab is vicariously responsible for the negligence of Defendant Lupinacci as stated herein and possibly other employees as may be developed through discovery. 68. As stated above, Dr. Lupinacci's negligence, for which Defendant HealthSouth Rehab is responsible, caused Mr. Stoner to suffer a intradural hematoma from T6-T1.0 resulting in paraplegia, chronic lower extremity neurologic deficits and bladder/bowel incontinence and permanent decline in his functionality. 69. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has been forced to incur and will in the future incur expenses for medical treatment, medications, and similar expenses, and claims are made therefor. 70. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has a Medicare lien at this time (amount to be determined). 551700 10 71 . As a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has suffered from and will in the future suffer from pain, suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, and loss of the ability to enjoy life's pleasures, and claims are made therefor. 72. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has suffered from a permanent disfigurement of his body, and claim is made therefor. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Glenn B. Stoner demands judgment against Defendant HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest.and costs, and in excess of any amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT III—NEGLIGENCE GLENN B STONER V. RUPEN G. MODI, D.O. 73. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 74. Defendant Modi was negligent and careless in his substandard medical treatment of Plaintiff Glenn Stoner as follows: (a) Failure to administer a rectal exam to check for perianal sensation and rectal tone' and no reflexes, and no actual quantified evaluation of Plaintiff Glenn Stoner's exact strength and sensation; (b) Failure to communicate with the radiologist, who read the May 17, 2012, MRI report, to confirm the radiologist made someone aware of this neurosurgical emergency and at what time; (c) Failure to immediately bring the Neurosurgeon on call to the bedside for immediate neurosurgical decision on next strategy for care; and (d) Failure to immediately reverse the anticoagulation by using Vitamin K and FFP. 551700 1 1 75. Defendant Modi's negligence, as stated above, caused Mr. Stoner to suffer delay to evacuation of the culprit spinal hematoma. 76. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has been forced to incur and will in the future incur expenses for medical treatment, medications, and similar expenses, and claims are made therefor. 77. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has suffered lost earnings and earning capacity and a permanent diminution of his future earning capacity, and claims are made therefor. 78. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has suffered from and will in the future suffer from pain, suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, and loss of the ability to enjoy life's pleasures, and claims are made therefor. 79. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has suffered from a permanent disfigurement of his body, and claim is made therefor. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Glenn B. Stoner demands judgment against Defendant Rupen G. Modi, D.O., in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT IV—VICARIOUS LIABILITY GLENN B. STONER V. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY d/b/a HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL 80, All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 81. All of Mr. Stoner's damages are the result of the negligent, careless, and substandard care provided to him by Defendant Modi as stated above and other employees 551700 12 including the radiologist, Dr. Richard P. Moser, III, M:D.; and other Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital employees and agents as may be developed through discovery. 82. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Modi was an agent, servant, employee, and/or ostensible agent of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital acting within the course and scope of his employment or agency. 83. Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital is vicariously responsible for the negligence of Defendant Modi as stated herein and the radiologist, Dr. Richard P. Moser, III, M.D., and other Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital employees and agents as may be developed through discovery. 84. As stated above, Dr. Modi's negligence, for which Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital is responsible, caused Mr. Stoner to suffer delay to evacuation of the culprit spinal hematoma resulting in chronic lower extremity neurologic deficits and bladder/bowel incontinence and permanent decline in his functionality. 85. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has been forced to incur and will in the future incur expenses for medical treatment, medications, and similar expenses, and claims are made therefor. 86. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has a Medicare lien at this time (amount to be determined). 87. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has suffered from and will in the future suffer from pain, suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, and loss of the ability to enjoy life's pleasures, and claims are made therefor. 88. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has suffered from a permanent disfigurement of his body, and claim is made therefor. 551700 13 n WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Glenn B. Stoner demands judgment against Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT V—VICARIOUS LIABILITY GLENN B. STONER V. EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM-I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C. 89. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 90. It is believed and therefore averred that at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Modi was acting within the course and scope of his employment, agency, and/or ostensible agency with Defendant EmCare or Defendant EM-I Medical Services. 91. Defendant EmCare or Defendant EM-I Medical Services is vicariously liable for Defendant Modi's conduct, which is negligent in precisely the same manner as set forth in Count III, incorporated herein by reference. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Glenn B. Stoner demands judgment against Defendant EmCare Medical Services of Pennsylvania, P.C. or Defendant New Jersey/Pennsylvania EM-1 Medical Services, P.C. in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any amount requiring compulsory arbitration. 551700 14 COUNT VI—LOSS OF CONSORTIUM BARBARAIS. STONER V.MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI,M.D_INDIVIDUALLY AND DB`/A MICHAEL•F. LUPINACCI, M.D:, P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF .REHABILITATION,INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE,.P:C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC_ D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION,HOSPITAL.OF MECHANTCSBURG; .RUPEN G. MODh, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN"CHARITY_DB/A.HOLY_SPIRIT.HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES:OF..PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA.EM=I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C.' 92. All prior paragraphs incorporated herein by reference. 93. As a result of the injury to her husband, Glenn Stoner, as stated above, Barbara Stoner has been deprived of the care,custody, society, consortium, services, and companionship of her husband, Glenn Stoner, all of which losses are to her detriment, and claims are made therefor. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Barbara S. Stoner demands judgment against all Defendants in an amount in excess;of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any amount requiring compulsory arbitration. AN LUTZ, P.C. and C. Angino. squire I.D. No. 0714' i 503 N. Front 't et Harrisburg, 'A 17110 (717) 238 67� rca@an in lutz.com Attor y or Plaintiffs Date: May , '2014 551700 15 M VERIFICATION We, Glenn B. Stoner and Barbara S. Stoner, have read the foregoing COMPLAINT and do hereby swear or affirm that the facts set forth in the foregoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that this Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904,relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. WITNESS: zxl� LbGlenn B. Stoner Dated: WITNESS: -Aa(A � � Barbara S. Stoner Dated: 551700 i ANGINO&LUTZ,P.C. Richard C.Angino,Esquire Attorney ID#: 07140 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg,PA 17110-1708 (717)238-6791 FAX(717)238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E M.aa.•rcana angino'lutz com Attorneys for Mai-iflk, GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Husband and Wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. NO. MICHAEL F.LUPINACCI,M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI,M.D.,P.C. CIVIL ACTION—LAW D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE,P.C.; MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG,LLC D/B/A JURY TRIAL DEMANDED HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG;RUPEN G.MODI,D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL;AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA,P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM-I MEDICAL SERVICES,P.C., Defendants Certificate of Merit as to Michael F.Lupinacci,M.D. Individually and d/b/a Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D.,P.C. d/b/a Physicians of Rehabilitation,Industrial and Spine Medicine, P.C. I, Richard C. Angino, Esquire, certify that: ( X ) an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; AND/OR ( ) the claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated fi•om an acceptable professional standard and an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; OR ( ) expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnne,c. for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. ' Date: May 12014 Rich#d C. Angin 'squire Exhibit A 551700 M ANGINO&LUTZ,P.C. Richard C.Angino,Esquire Attorney ID#: 07140 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg,PA 17110-1708 (717)238-6791 FAX(717)238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-MAIL: rca@anyinolutz.com Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Husband and Wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. NO. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY. AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI,M.D.,P.C. CIVIL ACTION—LAW D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE,P.C.; MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION HEA.LTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG,LLC D/B/A JURY TRIAL DEMANDED HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG.;RUPEN G.MODI,D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL;AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA,P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM-I MEDICAL SERVICES,P.C., Defendants Certificate of Merit as to HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg 1, Richard C. Angino,Esquire,certify that: ( ) an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; AND/OR ( X ) the claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed:professionals in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing abourihe harm; OR ( ) expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professio s unnecessary for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. Date: May , 2014 C. Angino squire Exhibit B 551700 ANGINO&LUTZ,P.C. Richard C.Angino,Esquire Attorney ID#: 07140 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg,PA 17110-1708 (717)238-6791 FAX(717)238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-MAIL:rcap_anginolutz com Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Husband and Wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. NO. MICHAEL F.LUPINACCI,M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F.LUPINACCI,M.D.,P.C. CIVIL ACTION—LAW D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF."REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE,P.C.; MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG LLC D/B/A JURY TRIAL DEMANDED HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITAT.ION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG;RUPEN G.MODI,D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL;AND E.MCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA,P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM-1 MEDICAL SERVICES,P.C., Defendants Certificate of Merit as to Rupen G. Modi,D.O. I, Richard C. Angino,Esquire, certify that: ( X ) an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or,work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; AND/OR ( ) the claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed }professionals in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint; fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; OR ( ) expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional ' necessary for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. Date: May ' 2. 014 Ric rd C. giho, Esquire O i Exhibit C 551700 ANGINO&LUTZ,P.C. Richard C.Angino,Esquire . Attorney ID#: 07140 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg,PA 17110-1708- (717)238-6791 7110-1708•(717)238-6791 FAX(717)238-561.0 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-MAIL:rca(a_ang_inolutz corn Attorneys for Plainti ff(s) GLENN B. STONER and`BARBARA S. STONER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Husband and Wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. NO. MICHAEL F.LUPINACCI,M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI,M.D.,P.C. CIVIL ACTION—LAW D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF;REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE,P.C.; MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG LLC D/B/A JURY TRIAL DEMANDED HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG RUPEN G.MODI,D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL;AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA,P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM-I MEDICAL SERVICES,P.C., Defendants Certificate of Merit as to Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital I, Richard C. Angino, Esquire, certify that: ( ) an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such:conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; AND/OR ( X ) the claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned thatthere is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable!professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; OR ( ) expert testimony of an appropriate licensed przard ' s uiin ary for pro utio l of the claim against this defendant. Date: May , 2014 An , Esquire Exhibit D 551700 iLM it 41 ANGINO&LUTZ,P.C. Richard C.Angino,Esquire. Attorney ID#: 07140 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg,PA 17110-1708. (717)238-6791 FAX(717)238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-MAIL:rcananginolutz corn Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) GLENN B. STONER and:BARBARA S. STONIER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Husband and Wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. NO. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI,M.D.,P.C. CIVIL ACTION— LAW D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF:REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE,P.C.; MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG;LLC D/B/A JURY TRIAL DEMANDED HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG;R'UPEN G.MODI,D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA,P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM-1 MEDICAL SERVICES,P.C., Defendants Certificate of Merit as to EmCare Medical Services of Pennsylvania,P.C. or New Jersey/Pennsylvania EM-I Medical Services,P.C. I, Richard C. Angino,Esquire, certify that: ( ) an appropriaie licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment,_ practice or;work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such:conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; AND/OR ( X ) the claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that.there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable'professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; OR ( ) expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. f Date: May 52 014 Ric rd .Angino,E Exhibit E 551700 SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson ILc ?i` itl Sheriff r t. 5 v! Jody S Smith Chief Deputy Richard W Stewart Solicitor fl!tt HAY 28 PM 2: 54 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Glenn B Stoner (et al.) vs. Case Number Michael F Lupinacci, M.D. (et al.) 2014 -2831 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 05/09/2014 Sheriff Ronny R Anderson, being duly sworn according to law, states he made diligent search and inquiry for the within named Defendant to wit: New Jersey/ Pennsylvania EM -I Medical Services, PC, but was unable to locate the Defendant in the Sheriffs bailiwick. The Sheriff therefore deputizes the Sheriff of Dauphin, Pennsylvania to serve the within Complaint & Notice according to law. 05/09/2014 Sheriff Ronny R Anderson, being duly sworn according to law, states he made diligent search and inquiry for the within named Defendant to wit: EmCare Medical Services of Pennsylvania, P.C., but was unable to locate the Defendant in the Sheriffs bailiwick. The Sheriff therefore deputizes the Sheriff of Dauphin, Pennsylvania to serve the within Complaint & Notice according to law. 05/09/2014 Sheriff Ronny R Anderson, being duly sworn according to law, states he made diligent search and inquiry for the within named Defendant to wit: HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC, but was unable to locate the Defendant in the Sheriffs bailiwick. The Sheriff therefore deputizes the Sheriff of Dauphin, Pennsylvania to serve the within Complaint & Notice according to law. 05/13/2014 01:06 PM - The requested Compliant & Notice, Plaintiffs Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents served by the Sheriff of Dauphin County upon Karen Dyer, Customer Service Specialist, who accepted for EmCare Medical Services of Pennsylvania, P.C., at c/o Corporation Service Company, 2595 Interstate Drive, Suite 103, Harrisburg, PA 17110. Jack Lotwick, Sheriff, Return of Service attached to and made part of the within record. 05/13/2014 01:06 PM - The requested Compliant & Notice, Plaintiffs Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents served by the Sheriff of Dauphin County upon Karen Dyer, Customer Service Specialist, who accepted for New Jersey/ Pennsylvania EM -I Medical Services, PC, at c/o Corporation Service Company, 2595 Interstate Drive, Suite 103, Harrisburg, PA 17110. Jack Lotwick, Sheriff, Return of Service attached to and made part of the within record. 05/15/2014 01:06 PM - The requested Compliant & Notice, Plaintiffs Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents served by the Sheriff of Dauphin County upon Karen Dyer, Customer Service Specialist, who accepted for HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC, at c/o Corporation Service Company, 116 Pine Street, Suite #320, Harrisburg, PA 17101. Jack Lotwick, Sheriff, Return of Service attached to and made part of the within record. 05/15/2014 03:31 PM - Deputy Ronald Hoover, being duly sworn according to law, served the requested Compliant & Notice, Plaintiffs Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents by handing a true copy to a person representing themselves to be Brett McChesney (Quality Risk Director), who accepted as "Adult Person in Charge" for HealthSouth Rehabilitation of Mechanicsburg at 175 Lancaster Blvd., Lower Allen Township, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. RONALD HOOVER, DEP 05/20/2014 11:35 AM - Deputy Jeff Kolodzi, being duly sworn according to law, served the requested Compliant & Notice, Plaintiffs Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents by handing a true copy to a person representing themselves to be Karrie Hemperly, Medical co ordinator, who accepted as "Adult Person in Charge" for Michael F Lupinacci, M.D. at 175 Lancaster Boulevard, Lower Allen, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. JEFF XOL. DZI, DEPUTY 05/20/2014 02:20 PM - Deputy Tim Black, being duly sworn according to law, served the requested Compliant & Notice, Plaintiffs Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents by handing a true copy to a person representing themselves to be Kay Tipton, Risk Management, who accepted as "Adult Person in Charge" for Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity Inc. d /b /a at 503 N. 21st Street, East Pennsboro Township, Camp Hill, PA 17011. TIM BLACK, EPUTY 05/20/2014 02:20 PM - Deputy Tim Black, being duly sworn according to law, served the requested Compliant & Notice, Plaintiffs Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents by "personally" handing a true copy to a person representing themselves to be the Defendant, to wit: Rupen Modi at 210 Senate Ave., Camp Hill Borough, Camp Hill, PA 17011. TIM LA K, DEPUTY SHERIFF COST: $173.04 SO ANSWERS, �Q� May 21, 2014 RONNY R ANDERSON, SHERIFF er. (10 Shelley Ruhl Real Estate Deputy Matthew. L. Owens Solicitor Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Dauphin Dauphin County 101 Market Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 -2079 ph: (717) 780 -6590 fax: (717) 255 -2889 Jack Lotwick Sheriff Jack Duignan Chief Deputy Michael W. Rinehart Assistant Chief Deputy GLENN B. STONER AND BARBARA S. STONER, H/W VS EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. Sheriffs Return No. 2014 -T -1528 OTHER COUNTY NO. 2014 -2831 And now: MAY 15, 2014 at 1:00:00 PM served the within COMPLAINT, INTERROGATORIES REQUEST FOR PROD OF DOC upon HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC, ET AL by personally handing to SABRA DUDDING * 1 true attested copy of the original COMPLAINT, INTERROGATORIES REQUEST FOR PROD OF DOC and making known to him /her the contents thereof at C/O CT CORP, 116 PINE STREET, SUITE 320 HARRISBURG PA 17101 * CORPORATE OPERATIONS MANAGER Sworn and subscribed to before me this 16TH day of May, 2014 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NOTARIAL SEAL Karen M. Hoffman, Notary Public City of Harrisburg, Dauphin County My Commission Expires January 8, 2018 So Answers, Sheriff of By .. Depu - . heriff Der1 : J FRUHWIRTH Sheriffs Costs: $96.75 5/12/2014 Shelley Ruhl Real Estate Deputy Matthew L. Owens Solicitor Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Dauphin ftcrt f Dauphin County 101 Market Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 -2079 ph: (717) 780 -6590 fax: (717) 255 -2889 Jack Lotwick Sheriff Jack Duignan Chief Deputy Michael W. Rinehart Assistant Chief Deputy GLENN B. STONER AND BARBARA S. STONER, H/W VS EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF • PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. Sheriffs Return No. 2014 -T -1528 OTHER COUNTY NO. 2014 -2831 And now: MAY 13, 2014 at 1:06:00 PM served the within COMPLAINT, INTERROGATORIES REQUEST FOR PROD OF DOC upon EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. by personally handing to KAREN DYER * 1 true attested copy of the original COMPLAINT, INTERROGATORIES REQUEST FOR PROD OF DOC and making known to him/her the contents thereof at C/O CSC, 2595 INTERSTATE DRIVE, SUITE 103 HARRISBURG PA 17110 * CUSTOMER SERVICE SPECIALIST Sworn and subscribed to before me this 16TH day of May, 2014 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NOTARIAL SEAL Karen M. Hoffman, Notary Public City of Harrisburg, Dauphin County My Commission Expires January 8, 2018 So Answers, e/Aef/c____ Sheriff of By Deputy Sheriff Deputy: W CONWAY Sheriffs Costs: $96.75 5/12/2014 Shelley Ruhl Real Estate Deputy Matthew L. Owens Solicitor Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Dauphin of ,N!t .111111 Dauphin County 101 Market Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 -2079 ph: (717) 780 -6590 fax: (717) 255 -2889 Jack Lotwick Sheriff Jack Duignan Chief Deputy Michael W. Rinehart Assistant Chief Deputy GLENN B. STONER AND BARBARA S. STONER, H/W VS EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. Sheriffs Return No. 2014 -T -1528 OTHER COUNTY NO. 2014 -2831 And now: MAY 13, 2014 at 1:06:00 PM served the within COMPLAINT, INTERROGATORIES REQUEST FOR PROD OF DOC upon NEW JERSEY / PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C. by personally handing to KAREN DYER * 1 true attested copy of the original COMPLAINT, INTERROGATORIES REQUEST FOR PROD OF DOC and making known to him /her the contents thereof at C/O CSC, 2595 INTERSTATE DRIVE, SUITE 103 HARRISBURG PA 17110 * CUSTOMER SERVICE SPECIALIST Sworn and subscribed to before me this 16TH day of May, 2014 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA NOTARIAL SEAL Karen M. Hoffman, Notary Public City of Harrisburg, Dauphin County My Commission Expires January 8, 2018 So Answers, PAL_ Sheriff of D By De • ty Sheriff Deputy: W CONWAY Sheriffs Costs: $96.75 5/12/2014 _ L 3 NUJ, CI CLI -;HERLI ,D COUNTY PENINSYL'wANIA SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. By: James A. Doherty, Jr., Esquire, I.D.#23829 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 Telephone: (570) 346-7651 Attorney for Defendants Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. and Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs v. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -1 MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION — LAW MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL BY 12 DEMANDED NO. 14-2831 CIVIL TERM PRAECIPE FOR APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of the Defendants Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. and Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. only in the above -captioned case. SCANLON, HOWLE) & DOHERTY, P.C. By: James'!Dohert•, r. 27W, oming Avenue non, PA 18503 (570) 346-7651 Attorney for Defendants Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. and Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. 6F ricE ) . ° IH NO TA.? , ?op, pm C 018E. I 0 PENuAN0CUNT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBE RIXIsIDICOUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, V. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSB,URG; RUPEN G. MODI, DO.!; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OP THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants. CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 14-2831 PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE Filed on Behalf of: HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg Counsel for Record for These Parties: Patrick L. Mechas Esquire PA I.D. No. 61362 Kira M. Rivera, Esquire PA I.D. No. 313632 BURNS WHITE Firm I.D. No. 828 Four Northshore Center 106 Isabella Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212 (412) 995-3000 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED By: Respectfully submitted, WHITE s9 Patrick L. Mechas CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the within Praecipe for Entry of Appearance was served upon all counsel of record via first class mail, postage prepaid, this 30th day of May 2014. Richard C. Angino, Esquire Angino & Lutz, P.C. 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Patrick L. Mechas, Esquire IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants. CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 14-2831 PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE To: Prothonotary: Kindly enter the appearances of Patrick L. Mechas, and Kira M. Rivera as counsel of record for Defendant, HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg. Cfr/Fi PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in triplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: (List the within matter for the next C) r� Argument Court.) June 27, 2014 c, a -- _: CAPTION OF CASE m� c i - (entire caption must be stated in full) --r- 23 7., i > 0-, oma' Glenn and Barbara Stoner r --73G vs. cD ry Holy Spirit Hospital, et. al.- � No. 2831 2014 Term 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiffs motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint 2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiffs: Richard Angino, Esquire (Name and Address) 4503 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110 (b) for defendants: Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire / Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire (Name and Address) 425 North 21st Street, Camp Hill, PA 17011 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: June 27, 2014 Date: 6/3/2014 Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire Sign Pn— . rLi me Hoy • irit Hospital, et. al. Attorney for INSTRUCTIONS: 1. Original and two copies of all briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) before argument. 2. The moving party shall file and serve their brief 14 days prior to argument. 3. The responding party shall file their brief 7 days prior to argument. 4. If argument is continued new briefs must be filed with the COURT ADMINISTRATOR (not the Prothonotary) after the case is relisted. h1.'c/'`d.�/ 1 cs #a6I.Z x-306'7'7‘ Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. Physicians of Rehabilitation, Industrial and Spine Medicine, P. C. 175 Lancaster Boulevard P.O. Box 2028 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC 175 Lancaster Blvd Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Rupen G. Modi, D.O. c/o Steven D. Costello, Esquire Post & Schell, P.C. 1245 South Cedar Crest Boulevard Suite 300 Allentown, PA 18103 EmCare Medical Services of Pennsylvania, P. C. c/o Steven D. Costello, Esquire Post & Schell, P.C. 1245 South Cedar Crest Boulevard Suite 300 Allentown, PA 18103 ANGINO & LUTZ, P.C. Richard C. Angino, Esquire Attorney ID#: 07140; 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-MAIL: rca@anginolutz.com GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, V. Plaintiffs MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF;MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants THE P'r O F ua~1 r ZOI1i JUN 1 1 PH 2: 3 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) 1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 14-2831. CIVIL ACTION — LAW MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT HOLY SPIRT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW come the Plaintiffs, Glenn B. Stoner and Barbara S. Stoner, by and through their counsel, Angino & Lutz, P.C., and hereby file a response to Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity D/B/A Holy Spirit Hospital's Preliminary Objections as follows: 1 1-6. Admitted. 7. Plaintiffs at the present time suspect but are unable from the medical records produced that there may be "employees" or "agents" of the Holy Spirit Hospital whose actions failed to conform with the reasonable standard of care and contributed to the over - anticoagulation of Mr. Stoner, but until Plaintiffs have engaged in some limited discovery, the "employees" or "agents" cannot be identified nor can their negligent actions be referenced. 8. No response required as to allegations or conclusions of law, but Plaintiffs do not disagree with the general principal stated. 9. Admitted. And that is the reason the Plaintiffs have framed their Complaint in the manner that they have. 11-14. Admitted. 15. No response is necessary. See response to No. 8 above. 16. No response is necessary. See response to No. 8 above. 17. Plaintiffs' Complaint was fashioned as it was because Plaintiffs suspect that Dr. Moser and other individuals from the Holy Spirit Hospital may have been involved in the over- anticoagulation of Mr. Stoner, but for the records their names and actions are unknown. 18. The averments of the Complaint speak for themselves and Plaintiffs need not respond to conclusions of fact and/or law. 19. Plaintiffs' Statement of Merit and Certificate of Merit are based upon Plaintiffs' experts suggestion that there may be other "agents" or "employees" of Holy Spirit Hospital who were involved in the over -anticoagulation of Mr. Stoner, but their names and actions are not apparent from the Holy Spirit records provided. 20. See response to No. 19 above which is incorporated herein. 21. See response to No. 19 above which is incorporated herein. 22. Presumably Holy Spirit Hospital is in a better position than Plaintiffs to know what Dr. Moser did or did not do with regard to the over -anticoagulation of Mr. Stoner. Following reasonable discovery, Plaintiffs will be in a position to know whether Dr. Moser was complicit in the over -anticoagulation of Mr. Stoner. 23. Until Plaintiffs are afforded a reasonable time to engage in reasonable discovery, the Court should not dismiss an alleged vicarious liability claims as to Dr. Moser. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Glenn B. Stoner and Barbara S. Stoner, hereby request Your Honorable Court to deny Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint until Plaintiffs are afforded a reasonable time to participate in reasonable discovery. Date: June 11, 2014 Respectfully submitted, ANjjpLUTZ, P.C. ' icard C. Angino(, squire PA LD. No: 07140 4503 N,./front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (74,7) 238-6791 rca@aanginolutz.com A/tt6rey for Plaintiff /// 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 11`h day of June, 2014, I, Lisa A. Giknis, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Response to Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's Preliminary Objections was sent to the following counsel of record by placing same in the first class, United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 1.7011-2223 (Counsel for Defendants Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital) Patrick L. Mechas, Esquire BURNS WHITE, LLC Four North Shore. Center 106 Isabella Street Pittsburgh, PA 1;5212 (Counsel for Defendants HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg) Steven D. Costello, Esquire POST & SCHELL, P.C. 1245 S. Cedar Crest Blvd., Ste. 300 Allentown, PA 1',8103 (Counsel for Defendants Rupen G. Modi, D. O. and EmCare Medical Services of Pennsylvania, P. C.) James A. Dohertiy, Jr. Esquire 321 Spruce Street Scranton, PA 18503 (Counsel for Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., Ind. and d/b/a Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C., d/b/a Physicians of Rehabilitation, Industrial and Spine Medicine, P.C. Giknis, Legal Secretary l BY: STEVEN D. COSTELLO E-MAIL: scostello@postschell.com I.D. # 37288 BY: AMY L. BLACKMORE E-MAIL: ablackmore@postschell.com ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS, I.D. # 209584 RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; EMCARE POST& SCHELL, P.C. MEDICAL SERVICES OF 1245 S. CEDAR CREST BOULEVARD PENNSYLVANIA, PC OR NEW SUITE 300 JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM-1 ALLENTOWN, PA 18103 MEDICAL SERVICES, PC PHONE: 610-774-0322 GLENN B. STONER AND BARBARA S. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS STONER, HUSBAND AND WIFE V. CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs NO. 14-2831 VS. CIVIL ACTION -- MEDICAL MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, MD PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, MD, PC D/B/A PHYSICIANS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, PC; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN r G. MOD1, DO; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITYM Co D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND rl (7-- � EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF rQ © ;a PENNSYLVANIA, PC OR NEWs�—o -4.�"-, JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM-I MEDICAL C-, _ SERVICES, PC =C' C_- Defendants Defendants -< ENTRY OF APPEARANCE/JURY TRIAL DEMAND TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter our appearance on behalf of Defendants, Rupen G. Modi, D.O., EMCare Medical Services of Pennsylvania, P.C. or New Jersey/Pennsylvania EM-I Medical Services, P.C., in the above-captioned matter. Also, please enter at this time our demand for a trial by twelve jurors. POST & SCHELL, P.C. to ( By: Dated: 10,�ql-ll U" Steven V C'ost-el*,lEsquire Attorneys For Defendants, Rupen G. Modi, D.O., EMCare Medical Services of Pennsylvania, PC or New Jersey/Pennsylvania EM-I Medical Services, PC Amy L. Illackmore, Esquire Attorneys For Defendants, Rupen G. Modi, D.O., EMCare Medical Services of Pennsylvania, PC or New Jersey/Pennsylvania EM-I Medical Services, PC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, AMY L. BLACKMORE, ESQUIRE, attorney for Defendants, RUPEN G. MODI, D.O., EMCare Medical Services of Pennsylvania, PC or New Jersey/Pennsylvania EM-I Medical Services, PC hereby state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance/Demand for Jury Trial, was sent by first-class mail, postage prepaid on the date set forth below, was served upon the following individual(s): Richard Angino, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Dickie,McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21 st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Patrick L. Mechas, Esquire Burns White, LLC Four North Shore Center 106 Isabella Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212 James A. Doherty, Esquire 321 Spruce Street Scranton, PA 18503 POST & SCHELL, P.C. By: Dated: �Q Amy L. ackmore, Esquire Attorney For Defendants, Rupen G. Modi, D.O., EMCare Medical Services of Pennsylvania, PC or New Jersey/Pennsylvania EM-I Medical Services, PC ti, L 1 HE PRO t h Ci 0 .i 2u14 JUN 27 P1; 1:1;7 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants. CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 14-2831 PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS Filed on Behalf of: HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg Counsel for Record for These Parties: Patrick L. Mechas Esquire PA I.D. No. 61362 BURNS WHITE Firm I.D. No. 828 Four Northshore Center 106 Isabella Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212 (412) 995-3000 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants. CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 14-2831 DEFENDANT HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Defendant, HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, by and through its counsel, Burns White LLC and files within DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT as follows: 1. Plaintiffs initiated this medical professional negligence action with the filing of a Complaint on May 8, 2014. Exhibit A. 2. According to Plaintiffs' Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that several physicians and institutional providers were negligent in their care and treatment of Plaintiff, Glenn B. Stoner in May 2012. See generally Exhibit A. 3. Generally, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants over -anticoagulated Mr. Stoner causing an intradural hematoma from T6 -T10. Mr. Stoner was subsequently taken to the OR for T6-8 laminectomies and evacuation of intradural hematoma. Plaintiffs allege that despite the surgery, Mr. Stoner now suffers paraplegia, chronic lower extremity neurologic defects, bladder/bowel incontinence, and permanent decline in his functionality. Exhibit A. ¶¶ 9-56. 4. Defendant, HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg (hereinafter "HealthSouth Hospital"), now timely files the following preliminary objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO STRIKE AGENCY ALLEGATIONS FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE ANY MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF THOS E CLAIMS IN VIOLATION OF PA.R.C.P. 1019(a) & 1028(a)(3) 5. Paragraphs 1 through 4 set forth above are incorporated herein by reference. 6. Plaintiffs contend that HealthSouth Hospital is vicariously responsible for the negligence of Defendant Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. Exhibit A, ¶ 67. 7. In addition to Defendant Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., the Complaint contends that Plaintiffs' damages are the result of the negligence, careless, and sub -standard care provided Plaintiff -husband by unnamed and unidentified individuals whom are alleged to be employees and agents of HealthSouth Hospital. Exhibit A, ¶¶ 56, 65, 67. 3 8. Plaintiffs do not attempt to identify, name, or describe any of these alleged "employees" or "agents" of HealthSouth Hospital. 9. Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require that the "material facts on which a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary format," and preliminary objections are permitted if there is "insufficient specificity in a pleading." Pa.R,C.P. 1019(a) & 1028(a)(3). 10. Plaintiff must plead, at a minimum, facts that (1) identify the agent by name or appropriate description and (2) set forth the agents' authority and how the tortious acts of agent either fell within the scope of the authority, or if unauthorized, were ratified by the principle. Alumni Association v. Sullivan, 535 A.2d 1095, 605 n. 2 (Pa. Super. 1977); accord Richtlin v. Edmison, 813 A.2d 862, 870 (Pa. Super. 2002) 11. Plaintiffs' failure to specifically plead their negligence allegations could permit Plaintiffs to later amplify the complaint to allege any act or omission by these unnamed alleged employees and agents of HealthSouth Hospital. WHEREFORE, Defendant, HealthSouth Hospital, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter the attached Order dismissing all references to the unnamed and unidentified individuals alleged to be the employers and agents of HealthSouth Hospital. Respectfully Submitted, BURNS WHITE LLC Date: By: Patrick L. Mechas Esquire PA I.D. No. 61362 BURNS WHITE Firm I.D. No. 828 4 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants. CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 14-2831 ORDER AND NOW, this day of 2014, upon consideration of Defendant, HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, and any response thereto, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. All references to the unnamed and unidentified individuals alleged to be the employees and agents of HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital are DISMISSED. BY THE COURT: From:HEALTHS0UTH MECHANICS8URG ANGINO & LUTZ, P.C. Richard C. AnaIno, Esquire Attorney IDN: 07140 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1701 (717) 238.6791 FAX (717) 233.5610 Attorneys for Plaintiffs) 717 697 6524 05/1512014 15:47 #238 P.002/024 V:LED-OFT1 Cr.. TIII 1'ROTHOHO TAR'; 2014 HAY —e PH 3: 52 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs V. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF IvIECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABTLTTATION HOSPITAL OF MECIHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW .IERSEY/T'ENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 012-3 G,/-At�,. CIVIL ACTION — LAW MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Y. cg TO DEFEND You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney. and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. Pa,,lin nap i1152ott 14011 ret(WWII agtkihtnnu TRUE COPY FROM RECORD 1mony whereof I here unto set my hand - I�rGeld C.0 at Carlisle, Pa. Ini n • 1A ' 1 20 .LL_ Ate/ .h( Ili From:HEALTHSOUTH MECHANICSBURG 717 697 6524 05/15/2014 15:47 #238 P.003/024 YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT FIRING A LAWYER. IP YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL ' SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE, Cumberland County Har Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA Telephone number- 717.249.3166 OAP USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se persentan mds adelante en las siguientes pagines, dobe tomar accibn dentro de los proximes veinte (20) dies despuds de la notificacian de esta Demands y Aviso radicando pdrsonalrnante o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por esarito sus defenses de, y objecciones a , las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falls de tomer acciOn comp se describe anteriormente, el naso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo par cualquicr surra de dinero reclamada en la demands o eualquier otra reelamacibn o remedio solicitedo por el deinandante puede ser dietedo en contra suya per la Corte sin mds aviso adicional. Used puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para used, USTED DEBL LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMBNTE. SI USED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAMB 0 VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OPICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CL -RCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USED NO PUEDE PAOAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOl3RE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERV1CIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO 0 BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUAL1FICAN. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA Telephone number- 717- 249-3166 ssI700 2 Pala 3121,ttCVM&IWO/di tPMIaMMI03041 tMI e) From:HEALTHSOUTH MECHANICSBURG ANGINO dt LUTZ, P.C. Rloherd C. Angino, Esquire Attorney JAR: 07t40 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110.1708 (717) 238.6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attomeys fbr P1n1ntiii(s) 717 697 6524 05/15/2014 15:47 #238 P.004/024 GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS STONER, Husband and Wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaint' V. MICHAEL F. LUPTNACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPI3N G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARB MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., NO. CIVIL ACTION — LAW Defendants COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiffs, Glenn and Barbara Stoner are married adult individuals who reside in New Cumberland, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. individually and d/b/a Michael F. Lupinaccl, M.D., P.C. d/b/a Physicians of Rehabilitation Industrial and Spine (hereinafter 1 r•i•4 /116 ANO SIISNCu a,+bl Ptl (Ural CMfyhintnN From:HEALTNSOUTH MECHANICSBURG 717 697 6524 05/15/2014 15:47 #238 P,005/024 "Defendant Lupinacci"), is a physician who specializes in physiatry. Defendant Lupinacci is licensed to practice medicine in Pennsylvania. At the time of the events stated herein, Defendant Lupinacci maintained offices in and regularly practiced medicine in Cumberland County, Plaintiff is asserting a medical professional liability claim against Defendant Lupinacei. A Certificate of Merit for this defendant is attached as Exhibit A. 3. Defendant HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg (hereinafter "HealthSouth Rehab"), is a licensed healthcare facility providing inpatient rehabilitation services in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff is asserting a medical professional liability claim against this Defendant. A Certificate of Merit for this Defendant is attached as Exhibit B. 4. At all relevant times, Defendant HealthSouth Rehab employed Defendant Lupinacci who was acting within the course and scope of his agency and employment for Defendant HealthSouth Rehab, 5. Defendant Rupen 0. Modi, D.O. (hereinafter "Defendant Modi") is currently, and was at all times relevant to this Complaint, a physician licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, specializing in emergency medicine. He is an employee, agent, and/or ostensible agent of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital, Defendant EmCare Medical Services of Pennsylvania, P,C., and/or Defendant New Jersey/Pennsylvania Em -i Medical Services, P.C., all of whom were doing business in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania at the time bf events referenced in this Complaint. Plaintiff is asserting a professional liability claim against Defendant Modi. A Certi.feate of Merit is attached as Exhibit C. 6. Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital (hereinafter "Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital") is a licensed healthcare facility 551700 Pogo MI, nwosnt i42.141rwIG,uaOi lMttme1 2 From:HEALTHSOUTH MECHANICSBURG 717 697 6524 05/15/2014 15:48 #238 P,006/024 providing a full range of medical services in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff is asserting a professional liability claim against Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital. A Certificate of Merit is attached as Exhibit D. 7. At all relevant times, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital employed Defendant Modi who was acting within the course and scope of his agency and employment for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital. 8, Defendant EmCare Medical Services of Pennsylvania, P.C. (hereinafter "Defendant EmCare") or New Jersey/Pennsylvania Em•I Medical Services, P.C. (hereinafter "Defendant Em -I Medical Services") are professional corporations created under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and/or New Jersey, which upon information and belief, provides management and physician staffing services for Defendant Holy •Spirit Hospital's Emergency Department. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant EmCare and/or Defendant Em -I Medical Services employed Defendant Modi, PIaintiff is asserting a professional liability claim against Defendant EmCare and/or Defendant Em -I Medical Services. A Certificate of Merit is attached as Exhibit E. 9. The facts and occurrences hereinafter related took place on or about May 11, 2012 through May 17, 2012. 10. Plaintiff Glenn Stoner was 77 years old when on May 8, 2012, he was admitted to Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital, with right leg weakness and gait instability due to a Spinal AVM. 11. Prior to and at the time of his admission, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner had a mechanical heart valve and was on Coumadin daily. 351700 rap O1x4 hcvo ely:1)u b11A1 PN Phial 041 111,11014 Froft:HEALTHSCUTH MECHANICSBURG 717 697 0524 05/15/2014 15:48 #238 P.007/024 12. Plaintiff Glenn Stoner underwent a planned Neurosurgical intervention to correct this AVM on May 8, 2012. 13. Given Plaintiff Glenn Stoner's history of AVR, he was postoperatively resumed on Coumadin with a target TNR of 2.5-3.5 14. In conjunction to Coumadin, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner was also placed on Lovenox until a therapeutic INR was achieved. 15, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner's anticoagulation regimen was to be started post- operatively at the direction of his Neurosurgeon and Cardiologist, and he was given Lovenox on May 10, 2012. 16. On May 11, 2012, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner was transferred to Defendant HealthSouth Rehab and was placed back on Coumadin by Dr. Timothy Walsh of Moffitt Heart and Vascular, along with the Lovenox he was already taking daily. 17. Defendant HealthSouth Rehab's dictated consultation stated, "He is being bridged with Lovenox until his Cournedin becomes therapeutic. The orders came from the hospital. WE will make sure that we put the appropriate range in the chart along with discontinuing the Lovenox once his INR is therapeutic." 18. On May 11, 2012 Plaintiff Glenn Stoner's 1NR value was 1.2. 19. On May 1l, 2012, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner is noted to have incontinence of bowel, and decreased sensory and strength in the right leg. 20. On the morning of May 12, 2012, Mr. Stoner was given a dose of Lovenox 80 mg SQ at Gam per the orders. The INR value later the day is noted to be 1.6 and Mr. Stoner is given Coumadin 5 mg at 9pm. 53»00 map fiLmop y11 4 24*44 24441 PMMental GayngM7hns$ 4 From:HEALTHSOUTH MECHANICSBURG 717 897 6524 05/15/2014 15:48 #238 P.008/024 21. On May 12, 2012, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner "still had some back pain", and began asking for Percocet for back pain through the next three days. 22. On the morning of May 13, 2012, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner was again given Lovenox 80 mg SQ. 23. On May 13, 2012, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner's INR value was 1.7. 24. Later that day, (although dated 5/12 2:30pm but noted at 5/13/12 at 1530pm by the nursing staff), an order was written to increase Lovenox 1 mg/kg sub Q q12 hours D/C when INR. > 2.5. 25. This new dose is higher than what was written on the preadmission assessment and the transfer records from Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital. The order in the MAR for the Lovenox is noted to be Lovenox 1 mg/kg sub Q D/C when INR > 2.5. 26. This order was noted by nursing to start on May 14, 2012. Later that evening, Mr. Stoner was given Coumadin 7.5 mg per the order for an 1NR value on that of 1.7, 27. On May 14, 2012, Defendant Lupinacci evaluated Mr. Stoner and noted no new complaints. He was participating well in therapy. 28. On May 14, 2012, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner was given Lovenox 80 mg SQ at 6am and 6pm per the order. This is the first day Mr. Stoner was receiving Lovenox SQ twice in one day. 29. The INR value on May 14, 2012, was noted to be 2,0 and Plaintiff Glenn Stoner was given Coumadin 7.5mg in the evening. 30. On the morning of May 15, 2012, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner was given Lovenox 120 mg SQ at Gam. This was higher than the previous dose. Piny UN. ANO Or160201/ TM is PM 160414 O.,dI,M 1Mnj From:HEALTHSOUTH MECHANICSBURG 717 697 6524 05/15/2014 15:49 #238 P.009/024 31. Plaintiff Glenn Stoner had an INR value of 2.4 on May 15, 2012, and was given Coumadin 7.5 on that evening. 3 2. On the night of May 15, 2012, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner received Percocet for back pain. 3 3. On. May 15, 2012, team conference noted to check INR which had been increasing throughout the past three days. 34. Defendant Lupinacci noted Plaintiff Glenn Stoner had no new complaints. He continues on Lovenox and Coumadin. He has buckling on the right with decreased dorsitlexion. Foot not clearing. Labs reviewed. 35. On the morning of May 16, 2012, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner was again given the higher dose of Lovenox at 120 mg SQ at 6am with orders noted in MAR to discontinue Lovenox when INR above 2,5 x 48 hours, 3 6. During the day on May 16, 2012, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner continued to require Percocet for his pain and with increased frequonay as noted on the MAR. 3 7, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner's INR value later that day was 2,6. 3 8. Though intended for May 16, 2012, the order for Coumadin that day was written as 5/15 3:05 pm Coumadin 6 mg tonight. He was in fact given the Coumadin 6mg on the evening of May 16, 2012. 3 9. Plaintiff Glenn Stoner continued to require Percooet for pain relief overnight. 40. On the morning of May 17, 2012, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner was given Lovenox 120 mg SQ at 6am. This was as written in the MAR with orders to discontinue Lovenox when 1NR is above 2.5 x 48 hours. 41. Plaintiff Glenn Stoner's INR on May 17, 2012, was 3.9. Pip 0121. RCN 9t4 U Lpi01 PM (GnaN D.NpM Y1e� From:HEALTHSOUTH MECHANICSBURG 717 697 6524 0511512014 15:49 #238 P.0101024 42. Later that morning and only several hours after receiving Lovenox 120 nig SQ and despite having a therapeutics INR of 2.6 the previous day and 3,9 currently, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner was noted to have 10110 back pain by 9:30 am. 43. Ey 10:40 arn, Defendant Lupinacci noted that Plaintiff Glenn Stoner had increased lower extremity weakness, numbness, and decreased function on the right greater than the left. 44. Plaintiff Glenn Stoner was also noted by Defendant Lupinacci to have bladder incontinence and that these changes were a dramatic change over the past several hours. 45. The decision was made to transfer Plaintiff Glenn Stoner back to Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital for a MRI of this thoracic-lumbar spine and neurosurgical evaluation. 46. Mr. Stoner arrived in. the Emergency Room at Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital by 1205pm and was seen by Defendant Modi the Emergency Physician. 47. At 1300, Plaintiff Stoner had lab work completed which resulted in his INR being recognized as 4.2. 48. An MRI was ordered at 1315. 49. Plaintiff Stoner was in the MRI at 1415. 5 0. Plaintiff Stoner was returned to the ED at 1515. 51. A subsequent M111 demonstrated intradural hematoma from T6 -T10, 52. At 1955, Dr. Sumas was called by Defendant Modi, and came to evaluate Plaintiff Glenn Stoner at 2100. 53, At 2043, Dr. Timothy Walsh evaluated Plaintiff Glenn Stoner and wrote "recommendations for PFP" to reverse the coagulopathy and that the patient will go "to OR tonight by Dr. Maria Maine. Sumas". 551700 7 P■p11►21,neva S11520117A4 4PM{cuo■IDa4t,lti6■■1 From:HEALTHSOUTH MECHANICSBURG 717 697 6524 05/15/2014 15:49 #238 P.011/024 54. At 2156, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner was taken to the OR for T6-3 laminectomies and evacuation of intradural hematoma by Dr. Powers. 55. Even with his rescue surgery, Plaintiff Glenn Stoner now suffers paraplegia, chronic lower extremity neurologic deficits and bladder/bowel incontinence and permanent decline in his functionality. 56. Plaintiff Glenn Stoner has substantial significant permanent injuries as the result of Defendants and their agents negligence and failure to conform within the standards of hospitals, rehabilitation hospitals and errors and omissions of nurses, physiatrists, emergency room physicians, radiologists and/or other individual health care providers. COUNT I NEGLIGENCE GLENN E. STONER V. MICHAEJ jCCL M.D INDIVIDUALLY ANa D/B/A MICHAEL F. LCJPINACCL M.D.IP.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION,.]ND11STB,XALAND SPINE. DICINE, P.C., 57. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 58. Defendant Lupirtacci was negligent and careless in his substandard medical treatment of Plaintiff Glenn Stoner as follows: (a) Failure to continuously and properly monitor Plaintiff Glenn Stoner from his first arrival at Defendant HealthSouth. Rehab; (b) Failure to properly dose and monitor medications, including but not limited to Lovenox and Coumadin, as administered to Plaintiff Glenn Stoner; (c) Failure to properly dose and monitor the effects of medications such as Lovenox and Coumadin; (d) Failure to more cautiously monitor Plaintiff Glenn Stoner when he developed leg buckling on May 15, 2012; (e) Failure to properly monitor Plaintiff Glenn Stoner's increasing 114R levels; S51700 8 Pe,� 11/71.11010 &MOM LUl1 PM PMrM Oa,dpMilna r 11. Froa:HFALTHSOUTH MECHANICSBURG a. 717 697 8524 05/1512014 15:49 #238 P.012/024 (t) Failure to follow-up with unclear orders to discontinue Lovenox 2 days after INR was therapeutic in a patient recently having undergone extensive spinal surgery and without such orders from the transferring facility; (g) Failure to recognize Plaintiff Glenn Stoner was being re -anticoagulated post- operatively beyond the safe therapeutic window; and (h) Failure to recognize Plaintiff Glenn Stoner's several days of back pain and progressive lower extremity weakness and numbness along with urinary retention and stool incontinence, which are signs of over -anticoagulation. 5 9. Defendant Lupinacci's negligence, as stated above, caused Mr. Stoner to suffer a intradural hematoma from T6 -T10. 60. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has been forced to incur and will in the future incur expenses for medical treatment, medications, and similar expenses, and claims are made therefor. 61. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has suffered lost earnings and earning capacity and a periminent diminution of his filature earning capacity, and claims are made therefor. 62. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has suffered from and will in the future suffer from pain, suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, and loss of the ability to enjoy life's pleasures, and claims are made therefor. 63. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has suffered from a permanent disfigurement of his body, and claim is made therefor. WT3EREFORB, Plaintiff Glenn B. Stoner demands judgment against Defendant Michael F. Lupinacci, IVI.D. individually and d/b/a Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. d/b/a Physicians of Rehabilitation, Industrial and Spine Medicine, P.C., in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any amount requiring compulsory arbitration. 351?00 From:HEALTHSOUTH MECHANICSBURG 717 697 6524 05/15/2014 15:49 #238 P.013/024 COUNT II—VICARIOUS LIABILITY GLENN 13, STONER'V. ALTHSOUTH REHABILITATXON YiQSrXTAX, OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG 64. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 65. All of Mr. Stoner's damages are the result of the negligent, careless, and substandard care provided to him by Defendant Lupinacci as stated above and/or other employees of Defendant HealthSouth Rehab that may be developed through discovery. 66. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Lupinacci was an agent, servant, employee, and/or ostensible agent of Defendant HealthSouth Rehab acting within the course and scope of his employment or agency. 67. Defendant HealthSouth Rehab is vicariously responsible for the negligence of Defendant Lupinacci as stated herein and possibly other employees as may be developed through discovery, 68. As stated above, Dr, Lupinacci'a negligence, for which Defendant HealthSouth Rehab is responsible, caused Mr. Stoner to suffer a intradural hematoma from T6 -T10 resulting in paraplegia, chronic lower extremity neurologic deficits and bladder/bowel incontinence and permanent decline in his functionality. 69. As a result of his injurles, Mr. Stoner has been forced to incur and will in the future incur expenses for medical treatment, medications, and similar expenses, and claims are made therefor. 70, As a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has a Medicare lien at this time (amount to be determined). 551700 10 Ng. 171H,MYOSRJR01/2.U41 PM Ku O.lI ttT?miI From:HEALTHSOUTH MECHANICSBURG 717 097 6524 05/15/2014 15:50 #238 P.014/024 71. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has suffered from and will in the future suffer front pain, suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, and loss of the ability to enjoy life's pleasures, and claims are made therefor. 72. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has suffered front a permanent disfigurement of his body, and claim is made therefor. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Glenn B. Stoner demands judgment against Defendant HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any amount requiring compulsory arbitration, COUNT Et—NEGLIGENCE GLENN B. STONER V. RUPEN G. MODLD.O. 73. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference, 74. Defendant Modi was negligent and careless in his substandard medical treatment of Plaintiff Glenn Stoner as follows: (a) Failure to administer a rectal exam to check for perianal sensation and rectal tone, and no reflexes, and no actual quantified evaluation of Plaintiff Glenn Stoner's exact strength and sensation; (b) Failure to communicate with the radiologist, who read the May 17, 2012, MIU report, to confirm the radiologist made someone aware of this neurosurgical emergency and at what time; (c) Failure to immediately bring the Neurosurgeon on call to the bedside for immediate neurosurgical decision on next strategy for care; and (d) Failure to immediately reverse the anticoagulation by using Vitamin K and FFP. 55170 Ns /114.11CYD511Van1214461 PNKuuM0hyugiu' i 11 Frcm:HEALTHSOl1TH MECHANICSBURG 717 697 6524 05/15/2014 15:50 #238 P.015/024. 75. Defendant Modi's negligence, as stated above, caused Mr. Stoner to suffer delay to evacuation of the culprit spinal hematoma. 76. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has been forced to incur and will in the future incur expenses for medical treatment, medications, and similar expenses. and claims are made therefor. 77. As a result of his injuries. Mr. Stoner has suffered lost earnings and earning capacity and a permanent diminution of his future earning capacity, and claims are made therefor. 7 8. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has suffered from and will in the nature suffer from pain, suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, and loss of the ability to enjoy life's pleasures, and claims are made therefor. 79. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has suffered fi.om a permanent disfigurement of his body, and claim is made therefor. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Glenn B. Stoner demands judgment against Defendant Rupen G. Modi, A.O., in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any amount requiring compulsory arbitration. couNT IV VICARIOUS LABILITY GLENN B. STQNER V. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL 01? THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY d/b/a HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL $ 0. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 8 1. All of Mr. Stoner's damages are the result of the negligent, careless, and substandard care provided to him by Defendant Modi as stated above and other employees 551700 S.,II/ bloMVO iiIUDIJLIIAIPr) 0011,517,n.I 12 Froc HEALTHS0l1TH MECHANICSBURG 717 697 6524 .05/15/2014 15:50 #238 P.016/024 including the radiologist, Dr. Richard P. Moser, III, M.D., and other Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital employees and agents as may be developed through discovery, 82. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Modi was an agent, servant, employee, and/or ostensible agent of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital acting within the course and scope of his employment or agency. 83. Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital is vicariously responsible for the negligence of Defendant Modi as stated herein and the radiologist, Dr. Richard P. Moser, Ill, M.D., and other Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital employees and agents as may be developed through discovery. 84, As stated above, Dr. Modi's negligence, for which Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital is responsible, caused Mr. Stoner to suffer delay to evacuation of the culprit spinal hematoma resulting in chronic lower extremity neurologic defioits and bladder/bowel incontinence and permanent decline in his ibnctionality. 85. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has been forced to incur and will in the future incur expenses for medical treatment, medications, and similar expenses, and claims are made therefor, 86. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has a Medicare lien at this time (amount to be determined). 87. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has suffered iiom and will in the future suffer from pain, suffering, humiliation, embarrassment, and loss of the ability to enjoy life's pleasures, and claims are made therefor. 88. As a result of his injuries, Mr. Stoner has suffered from a permanent disfigurement of his body, and claim is made therefor. 551700 r.,.uI21.AewWtf 1lraea+rxle..w,o.rG,Mmmi 13 Froa:HEALTHSOUTH MECHANICSBURG 717 897 8524 05/15/2014 15:51 #238 P.017/024 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Glenn B. Stoner demands judgment against Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital in an amount in excess of 7rifly Thousand ($50,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT V—VICARIOUS LIABILITY GLENN B. STONER V. EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF jP NNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C. 89. All prior paragraphs are incorporated herein by reference. 90. It is believed and therefore averred that at all times relevant hereto, Defendant Modi was acting within the course and scope of his employment, agency, and/or ostensible agency with Defendant ErnCare or Defendant EM -I Medical Services. 91. Defendant EmCere or Defendant EM -I Medical Services is vibariously liable For Defendant Modi's conduct, which is negligent in precisely the same manner as sct forth in Count ITJ, incorporated herein by reference. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Glenn B. Stoner demands judgment against Defendant EmCare Medical 'Services of Pennsylvania, P.C. or Defendant New Jersey/Pennsylvania EM -I Medical Services, P.C. in en amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any amount requiring compulsory arbitration. 5517o0 14 Pegg u/N.ncvosns fl4LawraK►.uuasp*m.•I Froa:HEALTHSOUTH MECHANICSBURG 717 097 6524 05/1512014 15:51 #238 P.018/024 COUNT VI—LOSS Op' CONSOItTXTJM B 5_, STONER V. MICHAEL F. LUPINi CCI, M.D INDIVIDUALLY AND ,D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCL M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF MHABILITATION,ENDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE. P.C.: IffAI,TBSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHA)SBURG, LLC D/B/A. ITEALTHSOUTA REWILITATXON HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG: RYJPEN G, MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS 4F CHRISTIAN I cHARAY D B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW )1ERSEY/PENNSYLVANTA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICE'S, P,C. 92. All prior paragraphs incorporated, herein by reference. 93. As a result of the injury to her husband, Glenn Stoner, as stated above, Barbara Stoner has been deprived of the care, custody, society, consortium, services, and companionship of her husband, Glenn Stoner, all of which losses are to her detriment, and claims are made therefor. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Barbara S. Stoner demands judgment against all Defendants in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any amount requiring compulsory arbitration. ANC},Ihi' LUTZ, P.C. Date: May 1'1' , 2014 ssi7aa 15 rale lf,ncw50/ouatmloraMemel o+rckMMttmd hard C. Angina squire I.D. No. 071,00 x'503 N. Front, St . ct Harrisburg, A 71 10 (717) 23 77' rca@an inplutz.com Attorriy,for Plaintiffs Fran:HEALTHSOUTH MECHANICSBURG 717 697 8524 05/1512014 15:51 #238 P.0191024 VERIFICATION We, 41enn B. Stoner and Barbara S. Stoner, have read the foregoing COMPLAINT and do hereby swear or affirm that the facts set forth in the foregoing are true and correct to the best of my 1u owledge, information and belief. J. understand that this Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: 5(1)arz Dated:Ok1 551700 Pipe II/ 24, REVD 1140 14 L44II nl rwunl 0glI1 I I}Mi Glenn B. Stoner iele406e„ Barbara S. Stoner From:HEALTHSOUTH MECHANICSBURG ANGiNO & .UTZ, P.C. Richard C. Angina, 'Esquire Attorney MO: 07140 4503 North Front Street Harrbburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238.6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attomays fbr PlaIntl i(3) In GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Witb, PlaIntlfit V. MICHAEL, F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCi, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OP REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A IIEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OP MECHANICSBURG; RUPBN G. MODI, 0,0,; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM.I MEDICAL SERVICES, P,C., 717 697 6524 05/15/2014 15:51 #238 P.020/024 h!% 11rprouainIN) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. CIVIL ACTION — LAW MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRJA1. DEMANDED Certificate of Merit as to Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. Individually and d/b/a Michael F. Lupinneci, IVI.D.,P.C. d/b/a Physicians of Rehabilitation, Industrial and Spine Medicine, P.C. I, Richard C. Angino, Esquire, certify that: ( X ) an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that Is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; AND/OR { ) the claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely aim allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals In the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such oonduat was a cause in bringing about the harm OR ( ) expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professionals unneressar for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. Date: May , 2014 Exhibit A. 551740 rape ?Dr:l,IOU Mall SUAII'MPare Oi 1, I Mw4 ich d C. Anginut`Esquire Fron:HEALTHSOUTH MECHANICSBURG ANCINO & LUTZ, P.C. Richard C. Angino, Esquire Attorney MC 07140 .4503 North Front Stmt Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717)238.4791 PAX (7l7) 238-3810 Attorneys fbr Plaintiffs) 717 697 6524 05/15/2014 15;52 #238 P421/024 GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Husband and Wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. NO. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P,C. CIVIL ACTION — LAW D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION FIEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OP MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A JURY TRIAL DEMANDED HI3ALTH$OUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P,C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Certificate of Merit as to HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth, Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg I, Richard C. Angino, Esquire, certify that: ( ) an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exorcised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduot was a cause in bringing about the harm; AND/OR ( X ) the claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations Utat other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from en acceptable professional standard and an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice or work that Is the subject of the complaint, fall outside aoceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about 'the harm; OR ( ) expert testimony of an appropriate licensed profession claim against this defendant. Date: May T , 2014 Exhibi 551100 rigs 2un,lCV MUM.' UM lPr1C....ibrylf,alb..t s unnecessary for hrosecutimn of the d C. Angie,, + quire t From:HEALTHSOUTH MECHANICSBURG 717 697 6524 05115/2014 15:52 #238 P.022/024 ANGINO & LUTZ, P.C. Richard C. Angina, Esquire Attorney IDA; 07140 4503 North Front Street Earrieburs, PA 17110.1708 (717) 338-6791 FAX (717) 238-3610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) GLENN 13. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiff/3 u V, MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, PCC.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL Of MECHANICSBURG; RUMEN G. MOD1, A.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OA THE SISTERS Of CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW .IERSgy/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. CIVIL ACTION — LAW MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Certificate of Merit as to Rupen G. Mod i, D.O. I, Richard C. Angina, Esquire, certify that: ( X ) an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; AND/OR ( ) the claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely ort allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there Is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; OR ( ) expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professiona necessary for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. Date: May, t ,2014 551700 tip t!/?A, It0/0MRON 1y191 ran plow ti lit% t Ricgino, Esquire Exhibit C From:HEALTHSOUTH MECHANICSBURG ANGINO & LUTZ, P.C. Richard C. Angino, Esquire Attorney ID#; 07140 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717)238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys kr Plainuil(s 717 697 6524 05/15/2014 15:52 #238 P.023/024 GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S, STONER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Husband and With, CUMBER .AND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. NO, MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M,D., P.C. CIVIL ACTION -- LAW D/B/A PHYSICIANS OP REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION HEALTHSOUTN REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/13/A JURY TRIAL DEMANDED HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN 0. MOD', DA.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND FMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA FSM -1 MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants Certificate of Merit as to Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christinn Charily d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital I, Richard C. Angino, Esquire, certify that: ( ) an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the oars, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that Is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; AND/OR ( X ) the claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; OR. ( ) expert testimony of' an appropriate licensed profess' al is unneces ry for prosecrition of the claim against this defendant, fr Date: May I , 2014 and C. Ailio, Esquire Exhibit D 551700 rp,23/2.p4mensxu24I 4PNKemal0rolgin Frola:HEALTKSOUTH MECHANICSBURG ANCINO & LUTZ, P.C. Richard C, Anglo°, Esquire Attorney IDN: 07140 4503 North Front Street Horrisburi PA 171104708 (717) 238.6791 F'AX (717) 238.5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) R Mart : mama ' • corn GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA 3, Husband end Wife, 717 697 6524 05/15/2014 15:53 #238 P.024/024 TONER, Plaintiffs V. MICHAEL P. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OP IEHABILITATIOAI, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A NEAI.TUSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, A.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -1 MEDICAL SERVICES, A.C., Defendants tornoys for Plnintifli'sl IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. CIVIL ACTION — LAW MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Certificate of Merit as to EmCare Medical Services of Pennsylvania, P.C. or New Jersey/Pernsylvania EM -I Medical Services, P.C. 1, Richard C. Angino, Esquire, certify that: ( ) an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; AND/OR ( X ) the claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about die harm; OR ( ) expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. r .. Date: May v 1" . 2014 Exhibit 551700 Pipe 21114.MVO SI SQ011Ltrfl,PM ICmn.lM,Q,M7 PIM ngino, uire *4 SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. By: James A. Doherty, Jr., Esquire, I,D.#23829 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 Telephone: (570) 346-7651 FILED -OFFICE OF THE PROTHOTNOAk.f 2014 JUL, -3 1)11 I: 31$ CUNBERLAND COUNTY A c PENNSYlt.t.Voh ae F. _n14/fAor Defendantsc Michael M.D. and MLuPinac I .LupinacZ.: m1v1 P.C. F GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs v. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -1 MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants IN THE COURT OE COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION — LAW MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL BY 12 DEMANDED NO. 14-2831 CIVIL TERM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents were duly served upon all counsel of record by mailing the same to them at their respective addresses of record by United States First Class Mail on the l day of July, 2014 as follows: Richard C. Angino, Esquire Angino & Lutz, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Patrick L. Mechas, Esquire Kira M. Rivera, Esquire Burns White Four Northshore Center 106 Isabella Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Steven D. Costello, Esquire Post & Schell, P.C. 1245 South Cedar Crest Boulevard Suite 300 Allentown, PA 18103 Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire • Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 SCANLON, HO LEY & DOHERTY, P.C. By: 2 James : o y, Jr. 217-, mg Avenue , PA 18503 (570) 46-7651 Attorney for Defendants Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. and Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Kindly list the within matter for the next argument court date. GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants. OF NEW EM -I CASE NO. 14-2831 1. State matter to be argued: Defendant's, HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, Preliminary Objections to L 75 Cavta 'pd yam} 3Ggv9g strike Plaintiff's agency allegations for failure to provide any material facts in support of those claims in violation of Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a) & 1028(a)(3). 2. Identify all counsel who will argue cases: (a) For Plaintiffs: (b) For Defendants: Richard C. Angino, Esquire Angino & Lutz, P.C. 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Patrick L. Mechas Esquire BURNS WHITE Four Northshore Center 106 Isabella Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212 (Counsel for HealthSouth) 3. Patrick L. Mechas, Esquire, will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. The argument court date is August 15, 2014. Date: Respec lly Submitted, By: Gt Patrick L. Mechas Esquire PA I.D. No. 61362 BURNS WHITE Firm I.D. No. 828 Four Northshore Center 106 Isabella Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212 (412) 995-3000 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the within Praecipe for Listing Case for Argument was served upon all counsel of record via first class mail, postage prepaid, this /.6ift day of 2014. Richard C. Angino, Esquire Angino & Lutz, P.C. 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Dickie McCamey & Chilcote Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (Counsel for Co -Defendant Holy Spirit) James A. Doherty, Jr. Scanlon, Howley & Doherty, P.C. 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503) (Counsel for Co -Defendant Dr. Lupinacci) Steven D. Costello, Esquire Post & Schell, P.C. 1245 S. Cedar Crest Boulevard Suite 300 Allentown, PA 18103 (Counsel for Counsel for Dr. Modi and EmCare Patrick L. Mechas, Esquire SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. By: James A. Doherty, Jr., Esquire, I.D.#23829 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 Telephone: (570) 346-7651 Cl j! ' C II PEN SfYL A ' r y ! 1Its Attorney for Defendants Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. and Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs v. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -1 MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants TO THE WITHIN -NAMED PARTIES: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA NOTICE CIVIL ACTION — LAW MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL BY 12 DEMANDED NO. 14-2831 CIVIL TERM You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. Scanlon, Howley & Doherty, P.C. ames A. Doherty, Jr. 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 (570) 346-7651 Attorneys for the Defendants Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. and Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. By: James A. Doherty, Jr., Esquire, I.D.#23829 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 Telephone: (570) 346-7651 Attorney for Defendants Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. and Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs v. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -1 MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants IN THE COURT OF: COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION — LAW MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL BY 12 DEMANDED NO. 14-2831 CIVIL TERM DEFENDANTS MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. AND MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C.'S ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO THE PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT NOW COME, the Defendants, Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. individually and D/B/A Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. by and through their counsel Scanlon, Howley & Doherty, P.C. and make Answer to the Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows: 1 1. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial. 2. Admitted and denied. It is admitted that the Answering Defendant, Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., is a physician who specializes in physiatry and who maintains an appropriate address in Cumberland County. It is admitted that Dr. Lupinacci's professional corporation is Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. It is denied as to all other allegations, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 3. Denied. The said averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. 4. Admitted and denied. It is admitted that the Answering Defendant, Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., was always acting within his professional specialty of physiatry. It is denied as to all other allegations as they call for a conclusion of law for which discovery will determine. 5. Denied. The said averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. 6. Denied. The said averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. 7. Denied. The said averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. 8. Denied. The said averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. 2 9. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 10. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 11. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 12. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 13. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 14. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 15. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 3 16. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 17. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 18. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 19. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 20. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 21. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 22. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 4 23. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 24. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 25. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 26. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 27. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 28. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 29. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 5 30. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e).• 31. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 32. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial.pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 33. Denied. The Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the said averment, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 34. Denied and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 35. Denied and Civil Procedure 1029(e). 36. Denied and Civil Procedure 1029(e). 37. Denied and Civil Procedure 1029(e). strict proof is demanded at trial strict proof is demanded at trial strict proof is demanded at trial 6 pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of 38. Denied and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 39. Denied and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 40. Denied and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 41. Denied and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 42. Denied and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 43. Denied and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 44. Denied and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 45. Denied and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 46. Denied and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 47. Denied and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 7 48. Denied and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 49. Denied and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 50. Denied and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 51. Denied and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 52. Denied and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 53. Denied and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 54. Denied and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 55. Denied and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 56. Denied and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). COUNT I 57. The Answering Defendants incorporate their Answers to Paragraphs 1 through 56 inclusive as if the same were fully set forth below. 8 58. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants were negligent or careless in any manner as alleged in Paragraph 58 (a -h) inclusive, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 59. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants were negligent or careless or that the Plaintiff suffered any of the injuries as alleged, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 60. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants were negligent or careless or that the Plaintiff suffered any of the injuries as alleged, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 61. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants were negligent or careless or that the Plaintiff suffered any of the injuries as alleged, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 62. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants were negligent or careless or that the Plaintiff suffered any of the injuries as alleged, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 63. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants were negligent or careless or that the Plaintiff suffered any of the injuries as alleged, and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendants request that the Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed. 9 COUNT II 64. The Answering Defendants incorporate their Answers to Paragraphs 1 through 63 inclusive as if the same were fully set forth below. 65. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants were negligent, careless, or reckless in any fashion; and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). All other allegations are denied. 66. Denied. The said averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. If said response was required, discovery will make the determination of same. 67. Denied. The said averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants and, therefore; no response is required. If said response was required, discovery will make the determination of same. For further response, the Answering Defendants deny being negligent in any fashion. 68. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants were negligent or that the Plaintiff suffered any of the harm as alleged; and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 69. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants were negligent or that the Plaintiff suffered any of the harm as alleged; and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 10 70. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants were negligent o careless or that the Plaintiff suffered any of the harm as alleged; and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 71. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants were negligent or careless or that the Plaintiff suffered any of the harm as alleged; and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). 72. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Answering Defendants were negligent or careless or that the Plaintiff suffered any of the harm as alleged; and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendants request that the Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed. COUNT III 73. The answering Defendants incorporate their Answers to paragraphs 1 through 72 inclusive as if the same were fully set forth below: 74. The said averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. 75. The said averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. 76. The said averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. 11 77. The said averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. 78. The said averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. 79. The said averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendants request that the Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed. COUNT IV 80. The answering Defendants incorporate their Answers to paragraphs 1 through 79 inclusive as if the same were fully set forth below: 81. The said averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. 82. The said averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. 83. The said averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. 84. The said averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. 85. The said averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. 12 86. The said averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. 87. The said averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. 88. The said averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendants request that the Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed. COUNT V 89. The answering Defendants incorporate their Answers to paragraphs 1 through 88 inclusive as if the same were fully set forth below: 90. The said averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. 91. The said averment is directed to a Defendant other than the Answering Defendants and, therefore, no response is required. WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendants request that the Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed. COUNT VI 92. The answering Defendants incorporate their Answers to paragraphs 1 through 91 inclusive as if the same were fully set forth below: 13 93. Denied and strict proof is demanded at trial pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1029(e). WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendants request that the Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed. NEW MATTER DEMURRER 94. By way of New Matter and in defense of the above -captioned matter, the within Answering Defendants demur to Plaintiffs' Complaint and request that the same be dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted by this Court. LACK OF NEGLIGENCE 95. By way of New Matter and in defense of the above -captioned matter, the within Answering Defendants aver that there was no negligence on their part in the care and treatment rendered to the Plaintiff by Answering Defendants, Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. Individually and D/B/A Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. or in the alternative in the event it is judicially determined that there was negligence on the part of the within Answering Defendants, the same was not a proximate or substantial factor for any injury alleged by Plaintiff. 14 APPROPRIATE MEDICAL STANDARD 96. By way of New Matter and in defense of the above -captioned matter, the within Answering Defendants aver that the actions and treatment rendered by the Answering Defendants in the course of providing care and treatment to the Plaintiff were within the standard of care. ' CONSENT AND ASSUMPTION OF RISK 97. By way of New Matter and in defense of the above -captioned matter, the within named Answering Defendants aver that Plaintiffs' claims are limited and/or barred because the Plaintiff knowingly consented to medical treatments provided by the within named Answering Defendants and all normal and acceptable risks of such medical procedures were fully explained to the Plaintiff prior to rendering any such medical care. HEALTH CARE SERVICES MALPRACTICE ACT AND M -CARE 98. By way of New Matter and in defense of the above -captioned matter, the within Answering Defendants herewith incorporates by reference all applicable defenses provided under the Health Care Services Malpractice Act, 40 P.S. Section 1301.101, et seq. and the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act (M -Care) as fully as though same were herein set forth at length. 99. By way of New Matter and in defense of the above -captioned matter, any award given to the Plaintiffs shall be offset by any public collateral source of compensation or benefits to Section 602 of the Healthcare Services Malpractice Act. 15 100. By way of New Matter and in defense of the above -captioned matter, Section 606 of the Healthcare Services Malpractice Act provides that in the absence of a special contract in writing, a healthcare provider is neither a warrantor nor guarantor of a cure, and such provision bars the claims of Plaintiffs in this case. 101. By way of New Matter and in defense of the above -captioned matter, Plaintiffs' claims are barred as there was no contract between Plaintiff sand Answering Defendants regarding the care and treatment provided by said Answering Defendants. CAUSATION 102. By way of New Matter and in defense of the above -captioned matter, the within Answering Defendants aver that if Plaintiff sustained any injury, same was not due or caused by any act or failure to act on the part of Answering Defendants in treating the Plaintiff but rather was caused by Plaintiff's own conduct in failing to follow medical advice and/or said problems were pre-existing and/or caused by other individuals and not the within Answering Defendants. INTERVENING/SUPERSEDING CAUSE 103. By way of New Matter and in defense of the above -captioned matter, the within Defendants aver that the acts or omissions of others, whose identity can only be determined through the course of discovery, and not the Answering Defendants constitute an intervening and/or superseding cause of the injuries and/or damages alleged to have been sustained by the Plaintiff; and Answering Defendanst, therefore, cannot be held liable for the alleged injuries to the Plaintiff pursuant to Pennsylvania Law. 16 COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE 104. By way of New Matter and in defense of the above -captioned matter, Plaintiffs' claims may be barred or the amounts recoverable therefrom reduced by operation of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 42 Pa..C.S.A. §7201 et seq. TWO SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT 105. By way of New Matter and in defense of the above -captioned action, the within Answering Defendants aver that insofar as Answering Defendants elect a treatment modality which is recognized as proper but may differ from another appropriate treatment modality, that said Answering Defendants raise the "Two Schools of Thought" defense. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 106. By way of New Matter and in defense of the above -captioned action, the within Answering Defendants aver that the Plaintiffs' claims are time-barred by failing to institute suit within the applicable Statute of Limitations. RULE 238 DAMAGES 107. By way of New Matter and in defense of the above -captioned action, 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 Plaintiffs failed to convene a reasonable settlement demand, delayed in responding to any of the Answering Defendants' discovery requests, violated any of the discovery rules, or caused the delay of trial. 17 REDUCTION OF MEDICAL EXPENSES 108. By way of New Matter and in defense of the above -captioned action, the within Answering Defendants aver that if the Plaintiffs 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, i.e. any amount recovered by the Plaintiffs must be reduced by the sum of any and all medical expenses written off by a healthcare provider pursuant to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's recent ruling in Moorehead vs. Crozer Chester MedicalCenter, 200 Pa. Lexus 2992 (Pa. December 22, 2000). COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL, RES JUDICATA AND/OR RELEASE 109. By way of New Matter and in defense of the above -captioned action, the within Answering Defendants aver that the Plaintiffs' claims are limited and/or barred in part or in total by the theories of collateral estoppel, res judicata and/or release to the extent that same apply to this action. CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE 110. By way of New Matter and in defense of the above -captioned matter, the Answering Defendants aver that Plaintiffs' claims are limited and/or barred by their contributory negligence in that they failed to follow appropriate medical advice at all times relevant hereto thereby contributing to and/or causing some, if not all, of the conditions complained of by the Plaintiffs. 18 i' STANDARD OF CARE 111. By way of New Matter and in defense of the above -captioned matter, the Answering Defendants aver that they acted reasonably and within the standard of care. COLLATERAL SOURCE RULE 112. By way of New Matter and in defense of the above -captioned action, the Answering Defendants aver that the collateral source rule does not apply in that if the Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs received from any and all collateral sources for any injuries and/or damages that the Plaintiffs allegedly suffered in this matter. MENTAL HEALTH PROCEDURES ACT 113. By way of New Matter and in defense of the above -captioned matter, the within Answering Defendants incorporate by reference all applicable defenses of Immunity from civil and criminal liability provided under the Mental Health Procedures Act, 50 P.S. §7114, et seq., as though the same were herein set forth at length. THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE ACT 114. By way of New Matter and in defense of the above -captioned action, the within Answering Defendants aver that any claim made by Plaintiff for future medical expenses are reduced and/or precluded under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. § 18001 et seq. (2010). 19 WHEREFORE, the Answering Defendants request that the Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed. SCANLON _HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. B J.mes A. Doherty, Jr. 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 (570) 346-7651 Attorney for Defendants Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. and Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. VERIFICATION I, Michael Lupinacci, M.D., verify that I have read the foregoing Answer and New Matter to the Plaintiffs' Complaint and that insofar as it is based on information within my own knowledge, it is true and correct. Insofar as it is based upon the expertise of counsel, I have relied on counsel in making this Verification. The language contained in the foregoing document is that of counsel, and not my own. I understand that this Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 pertaining to unsworn falsification to authorities. Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. Date: VERIFICATION � i/fQcCi 11,I, etc'7 / / , of the Defendant, Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C., verify that I have read the foregoing Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint, and that insofar as it is based on information within my own knowledge, it is true and correct. Insofar as it is based upon the expertise of counsel, I have relied on counsel in making this Verification. The language contained in the foregoing document is that of counsel, and not my own. I understand that this Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. Section 4904 pertaining to unsworn falsification to authorities. Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. By: Title: %(!( 0 Date: 7/ // iE PRO THON AR 2014 JUL 10 nti : i 6 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. By: James A. Doherty, Jr., Esquire, I.D.#23829 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 Telephone: (570) 346-7651 Attorney for Defendants Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. and Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs v. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -1 MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION — LAW MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL BY 12 DEMANDED NO. 14-2831 CIVIL TERM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of Defendants Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. and Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C.'s Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint was duly served upon all counsel of record by emailing the same to them on the 8th day of July, 2014 as follows: Richard C. Angino, Esquire rca@anginolutz.com Patrick L. Mechas, Esquire Kira M. Rivera, Esquire plmechas@bumswhite.com burnswhite.com kmrivera@burnswhite.com Steven D. Costello, Esquire scostello@postschell.com Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire tchairs@dmclaw.com ajayman@dmclaw.com SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. 2 J. es A. Doherty, Jr. 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 (570) 346-7651 Attorney for Defendants Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. and Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. ANGINO & LUTZ, P.C. Richard C. Angino, Esquire Attorney ID#: 07140 Jonathan E. Danko, Esquire Attorney ID#: 314653 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E Mau : rca@anginolutz.com jdanko(a,anginolutz.com JUL 16 RI 6:50 j pE oft LAND LVA IA GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs V. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants 554356 Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 14-2831 CIVIL ACTION — LAW MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF _MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW come the Plaintiffs, Glenn B. Stoner and Barbara S. Stoner, by and through their counsel, Angino & Lutz, P.C., and hereby file a response to Defendant HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC D/B/A HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg's Preliminary Objections as follows: 1-7. Admitted. 8. Plaintiffs at the present time suspect, but are unable from the medical records produced, that there may be "employees" or "agents" of HealthSouth Hospital whose actions failed to conform with the reasonable standard of care and contributed to the over - anticoagulation of Mr. Stoner, but until Plaintiffs have engaged in some limited discovery, the "employees" or "agents" cannot be identified nor can their negligent actions be referenced. 9-10. No response required as to allegations or conclusions of law, but Plaintiffs do not disagree with the general principal stated. 11. Admitted. And that is the reason the Plaintiffs have framed their Complaint in the manner that they have. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, Glenn B. Stoner and Barbara S. Stoner, hereby request Your Honorable Court to deny Defendant HealthSouth Hospital's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint until Plaintiffs are afforded a reasonable time to participate in reasonable discovery. 554356 Respectfully submitted, A ihard Angino, Esquire PA I.D o. 07140 Jonat ► . E. Danko, Esquire PA . ► No. 314653 451 . Front Street Hr isburg, PA 17110 7) 238-6791 a@anginolutz.com jdanko@anginolutz.com Attorney for Plaintiff Date: July 15, 2014 554356 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 16th day of July, 2014, I, Gwen Baughman, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Lutz, P.C., hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT was sent to the following counsel of record by placing same in the first class, United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-2223 (Counsel for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital) Patrick L. Mechas, Esquire Kira M. Rivera, Esquire BURNS WHITE, LLC Four North Shore Center 106 Isabella Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212 (Counsel for Defendant HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg) James A. Doherty, Jr., Esquire SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 (Counsel for Defendants Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. and Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C.) Steven D. Costello, Esquire Amy L. Blackmore, Esquire POST & SCHELL, P.C. 1245 S. Cedar Crest Coulevard, Suite 300 Allentown, PA 18103 (Counsel for Defendants Rupen G. Modi, D.O., EMCare Medical Services of Pennsylvania, P.C. or New Jersey/Pennsylvania EM -I Medical Services, P 554356 #17. ARGUMENT — JUNE 27, 2014 GLENN B. STONER and : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF BARBARA S. STONER, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs V. MICHAEL LUPINACCI, : NO. 2014 — 2831 CIVIL M.D. IND. & d/b/a MICHAEL LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. d/b/a PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL & SPINE : MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTH : SOUTH REHABILITATION: HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC : d/b/a HEALTHSOUTH : REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL : CIVIL ACTION - LAW OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY d/b/a HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, & EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PA P.C. OR NEW JERSEY/PA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS BEFORE GUIDO, EBERT, PECK, JJ. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 14TH day of JULY, 2014, after review Defendants' Preliminary Objections as well as the brief filed in support thereof and having heard argument thereon,1 the ' Plaintiff's counsel did not file a brief in opposition to Defendants' Preliminary Objections. Consequently pursuant to local rules of court he was precluded for participating in oral argument. Preliminary Objections are GRANTED in part. We are satisfied that Plaintiff's failure to file a separate certificate of merit against Richard P. Moser, III, M.D. requires that all claims of vicarious liability against Holy Spirit Hospital with respect to Dr. Moser's conduct must be, and they are hereby, DISMISSED.2 In all other respects the Preliminary Objections are DENIED. By the Court, Edward E. Guido, J. /Richard C. Angino, Esquire 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, Pa. 17110 Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21st Street Camp Hill, Pa. 17011 trick L. Mechas, Esquire 106 Isabella Street Pittsburgh, Pa. 15212 ,Steven D. Costello, Esquire 1245 S. Cedar Crest Blvd., Suite 300 Allentown, Pa. 18103 James A. Doherty, Jr., Esquire 321 Spruce Street Scranton, Pa. 18503 Court Administrator LEI 2 See Rule 1042.3 (a) (2) and the Note thereto. r J y 1 U GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., IND. AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC, D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA P.C. OR NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 14-2831 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO PLEAD TO THE WITHIN ANSWER WIT NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS PLEADING OR JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. Date: July 29. 2014 Respectfully Submitted, . DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. By: Aaron y n, Esquire Attorney I. . 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 D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL 2177745.doc DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 78565 BY: Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 85651 Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 717-7314800 (Tele) 888-811-7144 (Fax) ATTORNEY FOR: HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., IND. AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS. OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC, D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA P.C. OR NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 14-2831 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FILED ON BEHALF OF HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL AND NOW, comes Defendant, HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL ("Answering Defendant"), by and through its counsel, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. and files the within Answer with New Matter as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations set forth in this paragraph and demand strict proof thereof at the time of trial. 2. This paragraph does not pertain to Answering Defendant and no further response is required. 3. This paragraph does not pertain to Answering Defendant and no further response is required. 4. This paragraph does not pertain to Answering Defendant and no further response is required. 5. This paragraph does not pertain to Answering Defendant and no further response is required. To the extent a response is deemed necessary, it is specifically denied that Defendant Rupen G. Modi, D.O. was an employee, agent and/or ostensible agent of Answering Defendant. To the contrary, at all relevant times, Defendant Rupen G. Modi., D.O. was an independent practitioner with staff privileges at the Hospital. 6. It is admitted that Answering Defendant is a non-profit hospital located in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. It is further admitted that Plaintiff is asserting a professional liability claim against Answering Defendant. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs' professional liability claim against Answering Defendant has any merit whatsoever. At all relevant times, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. The 2 remaining allegations are denied as conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof demanded at the time of trial. 7. Denied. Answering Defendant did not employ Defendant Rupen G. Modi, D.O. To the contrary, at all relevant times, Rupen G. Modi, D.O. was an independent practitioner with staff privileges at the Hospital. 8. This paragraph does not pertain to Answering Defendant and no further response is required. If a response is deemed necessary, Answering Defendant did not employ Defendant Rupen G. Modi, D.O. At all relevant times, Defendant Rupen G. Modi, D.O. was an independent practitioner with staff privileges at the Hospital. It is admitted, upon information and belief, that Defendant EMCare and/or Defendant, Em -I Medical Services, P.C., employed Defendant Rupen G. Modi, D.O. The remaining allegations are denied as conclusion of law with strict proof thereof demanded at the time of trial. 9.-56. Denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) and/or as legal and medical conclusions to which no responses are required and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE GLENN B. STONER V. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI. M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI. M.D. P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE PC. 57.-63. These paragraphs do not pertain to Answering Defendant and no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, these paragraphs are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) and/or as medical and legal conclusions. 3 WHEREFORE, Defendant, HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs with all allowable cost and counsel fees. COUNT II - VICARIOUS LIABILITY GLENN B. STONER V. HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG. LLC D/B/A HEALTH SOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG 64.-72. These paragraphs do not pertain to Answering Defendant and no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, these paragraphs are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) and/or as medical and legal conclusions. WHEREFORE, Defendant, HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs with all allowable cost and counsel fees. COUNT III - NEGLIGENCE GLENN B. STONER V. RUPEN G. MODI. D.O. 73.-79. These paragraphs do not pertain to Answering Defendant and no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, these paragraphs are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) and/or as medical and legal conclusions. WHEREFORE, Defendant, HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs with all allowable cost and counsel fees. 4 COUNT IV - VICARIOUS LIABILITY GLENN B. STONER V. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL 80. Paragraphs 1 through 79 set forth above are incorporated herein by reference as set forth fully herein. 81. Denied as conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Defendant Modi was an employee, agent, servant and/or ostensible agent of Answering Defendant. To the contrary, at all relevant times Defendant Modi was an independent practitioner with staff privileges at the Hospital. All agency claims with respect to radiologist, Dr. Richard P. Moser, III, M.D. have been dismissed by Court order dated July 14, 2014. The remaining general allegations of agency are specifically denied and are incapable of further response and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 82. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, it specifically denied that Defendant Modi was an agent, servant, employee and/or ostensible agent of Answering Defendant acting within the course and scope of his employment or agency. At all relevant times, Defendant Modi was and independent practitioner with staff privileges at the Hospital. 83. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, all agency claims with respect to radiologist Dr. Richard P. Moser, III, M.D. have been 5 dismissed by Court order dated July 14, 2014. The general allegations of agency contained in this paragraph are specifically denied and are incapable of further response and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 84. Denied as a conclusion of law to which 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 was not negligent. At all relevant times, Answering Defendant met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. 85. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 86. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 87. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 88. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs with all allowable cost and counsel fees. COUNT V - VICARIOUS LIABILITY GLENN B. STONER V. EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA. P.C. OR NEW JERSEY / PENNSYLVANIA EM -1 MEDICAL SERVICES. P.C. 6 89.-91. These paragraphs do not pertain to Answering Defendant and no response is required. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary, these paragraphs are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) and/or as medical and legal conclusions. WHEREFORE, Defendant, HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs with all allowable cost and counsel fees. COUNT VI - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM BARBARA S. STONER V. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI. M.D.. IND. AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI. M.D.. P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION. INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE. P.C.: HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG. LLC. D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG: RUPEN G. MODI. D.O.: HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL: AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA P.C. OR NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES. P.C. 92. Paragraphs 1 through 91 set forth above are incorporated herein by reference as set forth fully herein. 93. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs with all allowable cost and counsel fees. NEW MATTER By way of further answer, Answering Defendant avers the following New Matter directed to Plaintiff: 94. The general allegations of agency contained in Plaintiffs Complaint are incapable of further response and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time trial. 7 95. It is specifically denied that Defendant Modi was an agent, servant, ostensible agent and/or employee of Answering Defendant. To the contrary, at all relevant times, Defendant Modi was an independent practitioner with staff privileges at the hospital. 96. It specifically denied that Answering Defendant can be held vicariously/ostensibly liable for the actions and/or inactions of Defendant Modi. 97. All agency claims with respect to radiologist, Dr. Richard P. Moser, III, M.D. have been dismissed by Court order dated July 14, 2014. 98. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 99. Plaintiff is responsible, in whole 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. 100. 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. 101. Plaintiff' claims may be barred by the doctrines of assumption of the risk and contributory negligence or reduced by comparative negligence. 102. Plaintiff's 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. 103. 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. 104. Plaintiff has failed to mitigate any damages allegedly sustained. 8 105. Plaintiffs claims and/or request for damages herein are limited and/or precluded by the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. 106. Plaintiffs claims are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 107. Plaintiff has failed to plead facts sufficient to toll the applicable statute of limitations. 108. Plaintiffs cause of action may be barred by the equitable doctrine of laches. 109. Plaintiffs cause of action is subject to, and barred by the "Two Schools of Thought" Doctrine. 110. 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. 111. 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. 112. Plaintiff may have entered into a release which has the effect of discharging Answering Defendant from this matter. 113. Upon information and belief, certain of Plaintiffs bills for which Plaintiff seeks to recover in this action that were paid or are payable under accident and health insurance, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Worker's Compensation insurance, or other insurance. 114. 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 9 instituted or amended by the Pennsylvania Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act. 115. 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. 116. 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 Plaintiffs in the Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendant, HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiffs with all allowable cost and counsel fees. 10 Date: July 29, 2014 Respectfully Submitted, DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. By: Thom.s1 .'rs, Esquire Attorne . R o. 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 D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL 11 HIIG Verification General VERIFICATION I, Ellen Feidt, R.N., Director, Risk Management, hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Ellen Feidt, R.N., Director, Risk Management CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, July 29, 2014, I, Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT FILED ON BEHALF OF HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL 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: Richard Angino, Esquire ANGINO & LUTZ, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Patrick L. Mechas, Esquire BURNS WHITE LLC Four Northshore Center 106 Isabella St. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 (Counsel for HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg) Amy L. Blackmore, Esquire POST & SCHELL, P.C. - ALLENTOWN, PA 1245 South Cedar Crest Boulevard Suite 300 Allentown, PA 18103 (Counsel for Rupen G. Modi, MD and EMCare Medical Services of PA, PC, or NJ/PA EM -I Medical Services, PC) Aaron S. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA ) CIVIL DIVISION S. STONER, Husband and Wife, ) CASE NO. 14-2831 c� `C-= _ Plaintiffs, ) o-- Cn 'tom' V. ) „. C, c'... 7 ) ..-4.):7r, d -IA PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW rC' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS 'c2..�:? -,; ( MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P:C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants. Filed on Behalf of: HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg Counsel for Record for These Parties: Patrick L. Mechas Esquire PA I.D. No. 61362 BURNS WHITE Firm I.D. No. 828 Four Northshore Center 106 Isabella Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212 (412) 995-3000 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants. CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 14-2831 PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO: Prothonotary: Kindly withdraw the Preliminary Objections filed on behalf of Defendant, HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, on June 25, 2014, in the above -captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, BURNS WHITE LLC BY: Patrick L. Mechas, Esquire Attorney for Defendant HealthSouth. Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that this 4th day of August, 2014, a true and correct copy of the within PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT were filed on behalf of HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg and have been served via first class mail to all counsel of record. Richard C. Angino, Esquire Angino & Lutz, P.C. 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Dickie McCamey & Chilcote Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (Counsel for Co -Defendant Holy Spirit) James A. Doherty, Jr. Scanlon, Howley & Doherty, P.C. 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503) (Counsel for Co -Defendant Dr. Lupinacci) Steven D. Costello, Esquire Post & Schell, P.C. 1245 S. Cedar Crest Boulevard Suite 30.0 . Allentown, PA 18103 (Counsel for Counsel for Dr. Modi and EmCare) BURNS BY: Patrick L. Mechas, Esquire Attorney for Defendant HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg ANCINO & LUTZ, P.C. Richard C. Angino, Esquire Attorney ID#: 07140 Jonathan E. Danko, Esquire Attorney lD#: 314653 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717)238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E -Matt: rca@anginolutz.com jdanko@anginolutz.com FILED -OF ICF UF HE PROTHONOT, J 2a114 AUG 13 PM 3: 03 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Attorneys for Plaintiffs GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs V. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF. CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 14-2831 CIVIL ACTION — LAW MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 1 PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT, HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY AND NOW, comes the Plaintiffs, Glenn B. Stoner and Barbara S. Stoner, by and through their attorneys, Angino & Lutz, P.C., and files their Reply to New Matter of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity, stating as follows: NEW MATTER Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in their Complaint as if stated in full herein. 94-96. Denied. These paragraphs are denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent it is deemed to contain averments of fact, the same are specifically denied. 97. Admitted. 98-115. Denied. These paragraphs are denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent it is deemed to contain averments of fact, the same are specifically denied. 116. Denied. To the extent this paragraph implies that Defendant Holy Spirit may, at any time during the proceedings, plead additional New Matter, the same is strictly denied. In pleading additional New Matter, Defendant Holy Spirit must comply with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rules, and all other rules of court. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Glenn B. Stoner and Barbara S. Stoner demand judgement against Defendants Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. individually and D/B/A Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. D/B/A Physicians of Rehabilitation, Industrial and Spine Medicine, P.C.,; Healthsouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC D/B/A Healthsouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg; Rupen G. Modi, D.O.; Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of 2 Christian Charity D/B/A Holy Spirit Hospital; and EMCare Medical Services of Pennsylvania, P.C. or New Jersey/Pennsylvania EM -I Medical Services, P.C. for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $50,000, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. Date: August 13, 2014 3 Respectfully submitted, ANGINO & LUTZ, P.C. R.ehard C. Angin•,f squire PI.D. No. 0y4 Jonathan 4Da o, Esquire PA I.D. o. 3).4653 4503 . Fro Street H. isbur. PA 17110 -6791 ginolutz.com o@anginolutz.com ttorneys for Plaintiff 717) rca@ jd. I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 13th day of August 2014, I, Lisa A. Giknis , an employee of the law firm of Angino & Lutz, P.C., hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Reply to New Matter of Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity was sent to the following counsel of record by placing same in the first class, United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-2223 (Counsel for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital) Patrick L. Mechas, Esquire Kira M. Rivera, Esquire BURNS WHITE, LLC Four North Shore Center 106 Isabella Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212 (Counsel for Defendant HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg) James A. Doherty, Jr., Esquire SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 (Counsel for Defendants Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. and Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C.) Steven D. Costello, Esquire Amy L. Blackmore, Esquire POST & SCHELL, P.C. 1245 S. Cedar Crest Boulevard, Suite 300 Allentown, PA 18103 (Counsel for Defendants Rupen G. Modi, D.O., EMCare Medical Services of Pennsylvania, P.C. or New Jersey/Pennsylvania EM -I Medical Services, P.C. , Li a A. Giknis, Legal Secretary 4 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants. OF NEW EM -I CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 14-2831 Notice of Service Filed on Behalf of: C-, HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg Counsel for Record for These Parties: Patrick L. Mechas Esquire PA I.D. No. 61362 Tara B. Rodrigues, Esquire PA I.D. No. 203705 BURNS WHITE Firm I.D. No. 828 Four Northshore Center 106 Isabella Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212 (412) 995-3000 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED `-r IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants. CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 14-2831 NOTICE OF SERVICE OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFFS TO: Prothonotary of Cumberland County, PA I hereby certify that on the /ate day of ``� , 2014, Defendant, HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, Llse d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg served Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents and Authorizations for the Release of Records upon Plaintiffs by mailing the same to their counsel of record as follows: .4 Richard C. Angino, Esquire Angino & Lutz, P.C. 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Dickie McCamey & Chilcote Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (Counsel for Co -Defendant Holy Spirit) James A. Doherty, Jr. Scanlon, Howley & Doherty, P.C. 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503) (Counsel for Co -Defendant Dr. Lupinacci) Steven D. Costello, Esquire Post & Schell, P.C. 1245 S. Cedar Crest Boulevard Suite 300 Allentown, PA 18103 (Counsel for Counsel for Dr. Modi and EmCare) BURNS WHITE LLC BY Patrick L. has, Esquire Tara B. R i s • gues, Esquire Attorneys for Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 5�ss= CIVIL DIVISION GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants. CASE NO. 14-2831 ANSWER AND NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO RULE 1030 OF THE PA.R.C.P. Filed on Behalf of: HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg Counsel for Record for These Parties: Patrick L. Mechas Esquire PA I.D. No. 61362 BURNS WHITE Firm I.D. No. 828 Four Northshore Center 106 Isabella Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212 (412) 995-3000 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Plaintiffs You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Answer and New Matter within twenty (20) days from the date of service hereof or a judgment may be entered against you. BURNS WHITE LLC Patrick L. Mechas, Esquire Attorneys for Defendant HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg 2 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants. CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 14-2831 ANSWER AND NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO RULE 1030 OF THE PA.R.C.P. AND NOW, come Defendant, HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg (hereinafter "HealthSouth"), by and through their attorneys, Burns White LLC and Patrick L. Mechas, Esquire, and files the within Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint pursuant to Rule 1030 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure and respectfully submit as follows: 3 ANSWER 1. As to the averments contained in paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs' Complaint, this Defendant, after reasonable investigation, is unable to ascertain the truth or falsity thereof. Accordingly, all said averments are specifically denied in their entirety and strict proof of same is demanded at time of trial. 2. The averments contained in paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to a party to this lawsuit other than this Defendant and, therefore, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that an answer may be deemed necessary, this Defendant, after reasonable investigation, is unable to ascertain the truth or falsity of averments contained in paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. Accordingly, all said averments are specifically denied in their entirety and strict proof of same is demanded at time of trial. 3. To the extent that averments contained in paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that an answer may be deemed necessary, the averments contained in paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted in part. It is admitted that Defendant, HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC is a limited liability company existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principle place of business located in Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, PA. It is further admitted at all times material and relevant hereto, Defendant, HealthSouth owned and operated a rehabilitation hospital located at 175 Lancaster Boulevard, commonly referred to as HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital Mechanicsburg during the period of Plaintiff's admission from May 11, 2012 through May 17, 2012. As to the remaining averments contained in paragraph 3 of Plaintiffs' Complaint, this Defendant, after reasonable investigation, is unable to ascertain the truth or falsity thereof. Accordingly, all said 4 averments are specifically denied in their entirety and strict proof of same demanded at time of trial. 4. To the extent that averments contained in paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to parties to this lawsuit other than this Defendant, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that averments contained in paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that averments contained in paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to this Defendant and an answer may be deemed necessary, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety. It is specifically denied that, at times material and relevant hereto, Co -Defendant, Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., stood as an agent, servant and/or employee, ostensible or otherwise, of this Defendant. To the contrary, at no time material and/or relevant hereto, did Defendant, Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., stand as an agent, servant and/or employee, ostensible or otherwise, of this Defendant. 5-8. The averments contained in paragraphs 5 through 8 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to parties to this lawsuit other than this Defendant and, therefore, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that an answer may be deemed necessary, this Defendant, after reasonable investigation, is unable to ascertain the truth or falsity of averments contained in paragraphs 5 through 8 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. Accordingly, all said averments are specifically denied in their entirety and strict proof of same is demanded at time of trial. 9. The averments set forth in paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. 5 10-15. The averments set forth in paragraphs 10 through 15 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiffs medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraphs 10 through 15 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Further, after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraphs 10 through 15 of Plaintiffs' Complaint relating to Plaintiff's medical condition and treatment at Holy Spirit Hospital beyond what is contained in Plaintiffs HealthSouth records. The same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. 16. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to parties to this lawsuit other than this Defendant, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that an answer may be deemed necessary, the averments set forth in paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff, Glenn Stoner, was admitted to HealthSouth on May 11, 2012. The remaining averments set forth in paragraph 16 are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiffs medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. 17. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to parties to this lawsuit other than this Defendant, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that an answer may be deemed necessary, the averments set forth in paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff - 6 husband's medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiff -husband's medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of same is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence of this Defendant. Said averment is specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 18. The averments set forth in paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence of this Defendant. Said averment is specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 19. The averments set forth in paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their 7 entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence of this Defendant. Said averment is specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 20. The averments set forth in paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiffs medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence of this Defendant. Said averment is specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 21. The averments set forth in paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiffs medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff suffered the injuries and/or 8 damages complained of as a result of the negligence of this Defendant. Said averment is specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 22. The averments set forth in paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiffs medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence of this Defendant. Said averment is specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 23. The averments set forth in paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence of this Defendant. Said averment is specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To 9 the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 24. The averments set forth in paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence of this Defendant. Said averment is specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 25. The averments set forth in paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiffs medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiffs medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Further, after reasonable investigation, this Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs' Complaint relating to Plaintiff's medical condition and treatment at Holy Spirit Hospital beyond what is contained in Plaintiffs HealthSouth records. The same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff 10 suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence of Defendant. Said averment is specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non-negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 26. The averments set forth in paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiffs medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence of this Defendant. Said averment is specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non-negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 27. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to parties to this lawsuit other than this Defendant no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that an answer may be deemed necessary, the averments set forth in paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff- husband's medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiff-husband's medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs' 11 Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff -husband suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence of this Defendant. Said averment is specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 28. The averments set forth in paragraph, 28 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 28 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence of this Defendant. Said averment is specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 29. The averments set forth in paragraph 29 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 29 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 29 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence of this Defendant. Said averment is 12 specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 30. The averments set forth in paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence of this Defendant. Said averment is specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 31. The averments set forth in paragraph 31 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 31 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiffs medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 31 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence of this Defendant. Said averment is specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non -negligent 13 and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 32. The averments set forth in paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiffs medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence of this Defendant. Said averment is specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 33. The averments set forth in paragraph 33 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 33 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 33 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence of this Defendant. Said averment is specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 14 34. To the extent that the averments set forth in paragraph 34 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to parties to this lawsuit other than this Defendant, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that an answer may be deemed necessary, the averments set forth in paragraph 34 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff -husband's medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 34 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiff -husband's medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 34 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff -husband suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence of this Defendant. Said averment is specifically. denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 35. The averments set forth in paragraph 35 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 35 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 35 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence of this Defendant. Said averment is specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, Defendant acted in a non -negligent and 15 prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 36. The averments set forth in paragraph 36 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 36 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 36 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence of this Defendant. Said averment is specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 37. The averments set forth in paragraph 37 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 37 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 37 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence of this Defendant. Said averment is specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 16 38. The averments set forth in paragraph 38 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 38 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 38 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence of this Defendant. Said averment is specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non-negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 39. The averments set forth in paragraph 39 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 39 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 39 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence of this Defendant. Said averment is specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non-negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 40. The averments set forth in paragraph 40 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent 17 that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 40 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiffs medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 40 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence of this Defendant. Said averment is specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 41. The averments set forth in paragraph 41 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 41 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 41 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence of this Defendant. Said averment is specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 42. The averments set forth in paragraph 42 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent that any of the averments set forth in paragraph 42 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiff's medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their 18 entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 42 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence of this Defendant. Said averment is specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 43. To the extent that the averments set forth in paragraph 43 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to parties to this lawsuit other than this Defendant, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that an answer may be deemed necessary, the averments set forth in paragraph 43 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff -husband's medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 43 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff -husband suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence of this Defendant. Said averment is specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 44. To the extent that the averments set forth in paragraph 44 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to parties to this lawsuit other than this Defendant, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that an answer may be deemed necessary, averments set forth in paragraph 44 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff -husband's medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict 19 proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 44 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff -husband suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence of this Defendant. Said averment is specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 45. To the extent that the averments set forth in paragraph 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to parties to this lawsuit other than this Defendant, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that an answer may be deemed necessary, the averments set forth in paragraph 45 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff -husband' s medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 43 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff -husband suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence of this Defendant. Said averment is specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 46-54. To the extent that the averments set forth in paragraphs 46 through 54 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to parties to this lawsuit other than this Defendant, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that an answer may be deemed necessary, the averments set forth in paragraphs 46 through 54 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are admitted insofar as they are consistent with Plaintiff -husband's medical and/or HealthSouth records. To the extent that any 20 of the averments set forth in paragraphs 46 through 54 of Plaintiffs' Complaint deviate from Plaintiffs medical and/or HealthSouth records, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety, and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. Further, after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments set forth in paragraphs 46 through 54 of Plaintiffs' Complaint relating to Plaintiff's medical condition and treatment at Holy Spirit Hospital beyond what is contained in Plaintiffs HealthSouth records. The same are therefore denied and strict proof is demanded at the time of trial. Moreover, implicit in paragraphs 46 through 54 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiff suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence of this Defendant. Said averment is specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 55. To the extent that the averments set forth in paragraph 55 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to parties to this lawsuit other than this Defendant, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that averments contained in paragraph 55 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to this Defendant, and an answer may be deemed necessary, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff -husband sustained the injuries and/or damages complained of as result of the negligence and/or carelessness of this Defendant. To the contrary, this Defendant at all times material and relevant hereto acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 56. To the extent that the averments set forth in paragraph 56 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to parties to this lawsuit other than this Defendant, no responsive pleading is required. 21 To the extent that averments contained in paragraph 56 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to this Defendant, and an answer may be deemed necessary, said averments are specifically denied in their entirety. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff -husband sustained the injuries and/or damages complained of as result of the negligence and/or carelessness of this Defendant. To the contrary, this Defendant at all times material and relevant hereto acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. COUNT -I — NEGLIGENCE Glenn B. Stoner and Barbara S. Stoner, Husband and Wife v. Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. Individually and d/b/a Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. d/b/a Physicians of Rehabilitation, Industrial and Spine Medicine, P.0 57. Paragraph 57 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is a paragraph of incorporation to which no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, this Defendant hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 56 of its Answer and New Matter as if same were set forth fully at length herein. 58-63. To the extent that averments contained in paragraphs 58 through 63 and all subparagraphs thereto of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to parties to this lawsuit other than this Defendant, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that averments contained in paragraphs 58 through 63 and all subparagraphs thereto of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that an answer may be deemed necessary, this Defendant, after reasonable investigation, is unable to ascertain the truth or falsity of the averments contained in paragraphs 58 through 63 and all subparagraphs thereto of Plaintiffs' Complaint. Accordingly, all averments are specifically denied in their entirety and strict proof of same is demanded at time of trial 22 WHEREFORE, Defendant, HealthSouth, denies that it is liable to Plaintiffs and respectfully requests this honorable court dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. COUNT II — VICARIOUS LIABILITY Glenn B. Stoner and Barbara S. Stoner, Husband and Wife v. Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. Individually and d/b/a Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. d/b/a Physicians of Rehabilitation, Industrial and Spine Medicine, P.C.; HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC, d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg; Rupen G. Modi, D.O.; Holy Spirit Hospital of The Sisters Of Christian Charity d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital; and Emcare Medical Services Of Pennsylvania, P.C. Or New Jersey/Pennsylvania Em -I Medical Services, P.C. 64. Paragraph 64 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is a paragraph of incorporation to which no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, this Defendant hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 63 of their Answer and New Matter as if same were set forth fully at length herein. 65. To the extent that the averments set forth in paragraph 65 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to parties to this lawsuit other than this Defendant, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that the averments contained in paragraph 65 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to this Defendant and an answer may be deemed necessary, all said averments are specifically denied in their entirety. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs sustained the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence and/or carelessness of this Defendant. To the contrary, this Defendant, at times material and relevant hereto, acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. Further, it is specifically denied that at all times material and relevant hereto that Co -Defendant, Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., stood as an agent, servant and/or employee, ostensible or otherwise, of this Defendant. To the contrary, at no time material and/or relevant hereto, did Co -Defendant, Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., stand as an agent, servant and/or 23 employee, ostensible or otherwise, of this Defendant. Further, this Defendant cannot admit or deny conduct or employment and/or agency relationships of any alleged agents, servants or employees who have not been identified in Plaintiffs' Paragraph 65. 66. To the extent that the averments set forth in paragraph 66 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to parties to this lawsuit other than this Defendant, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that the averments contained in paragraph 66 of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that the averments set forth in paragraph 66 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to this Defendant and an answer may be deemed necessary, the averments are specifically denied in their entirety. It is specifically denied that, at times material and relevant hereto, Co-Defendant, Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., stood as an agent, servant and/or employee, ostensible or otherwise, of this Defendant. To the contrary, at no time material and/or relevant hereto, did Co-Defendant, Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., stand as an agent, servant and/or employee, ostensible or otherwise, of this Defendant. Further, this Defendant cannot admit or deny conduct or employment and/or agency relationships of any alleged agents, servants or employees who have not been identified in Plaintiffs' Paragraph 66. Moreover, implicit in paragraph 66 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is the averment that Plaintiffs suffered the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence and/or recklessness of this Defendant. Said averment is specifically denied in its entirety and strict proof of the same is demanded at the time of trial. To the contrary, at all times material and relevant hereto, this Defendant acted in a non-negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 67. To the extent that the averments set forth in paragraph 67 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to parties to this lawsuit other than this Defendant, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that the averments contained in paragraph 67 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to 24 s this Defendant, and ari answer may be deemed necessary, all said averments are specifically denied in their entirety. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs sustained the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence and/or recklessness of this Defendant. To the contrary, this Defendant, at times material and relevant hereto, acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. It is further specifically denied that at all times material and relevant hereto, that Co -Defendant, Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., stood as an agent, servant and/or employee, ostensible or otherwise, of this Defendant. To the contrary, at no time material and/or relevant hereto, did Co -Defendant, Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., stand as an agent, servant and/or employee, ostensible or otherwise, of this Defendant. Further, this Defendant cannot admit or deny conduct or employment and/or agency relationships of any alleged agents, servants or employees who have not been identified in Plaintiffs' Paragraph 67. 68. To the extent that the averments set forth in paragraph 68 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to parties to this lawsuit other than this Defendant, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that the averments set forth in paragraph 68 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to this Defendant and an answer may be deemed necessary, all said averments are specifically denied in their entirety. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs sustained the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence and/or carelessness of this Defendant. To the contrary, this Defendant, at times material and relevant hereto, acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. It is further specifically denied that at all times material and relevant hereto, that Co -Defendant, Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., stood as an agent, servant and/or employee, ostensible or otherwise, of this Defendant. To the contrary, at no time material and/or 25 relevant hereto, did Co -Defendant, Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., stand as an agent, servant and/or employee, ostensible or otherwise, of this Defendant. 69. To the extent that the averments set forth in paragraph 69 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to parties to this lawsuit other than this Defendant, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that the averments set forth in paragraph 69 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to this Defendant and an answer may be deemed necessary, all said averments are specifically denied in their entirety. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs sustained the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence and/or carelessness of this Defendant. To the contrary, this Defendant, at times material and relevant hereto, acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 70. To the extent that the averments set forth in paragraph 70 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to parties to this lawsuit other than this Defendant, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that the averments set forth in paragraph 70 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to this Defendant and an answer may be deemed necessary, all said averments are specifically denied in their entirety. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs sustained the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence and/or carelessness of this Defendant. To the contrary, this Defendant, at times material and relevant hereto, acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 71. To the extent that the averments set forth in paragraph 71 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to parties to this lawsuit other than this Defendant, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that the averments set forth in paragraph 71 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to this Defendant and an answer may be deemed necessary, all said averments are specifically denied in 26 their entirety. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs sustained the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence and/or carelessness of this Defendant. To the contrary, this Defendant, at times material and relevant hereto, acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 72. To the extent that the averments set forth in paragraph 72 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to parties to this lawsuit other than this Defendant, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that the averments set forth in paragraph 72 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to this Defendant and an answer may be deemed necessary, all said averments are specifically denied in their entirety. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs sustained the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence and/or carelessness of this Defendant. To the contrary, this Defendant, at times material and relevant hereto, acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. WHEREFORE, Defendant, HealthSouth, denies that it is liable to Plaintiffs and respectfully requests this honorable court dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. COUNT III - NEGLIGENCE Glenn B. Stoner v. Rupen G. Modi, D.O. 73. Paragraph 73 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is a paragraph of incorporation to which no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, this Defendant hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 72 of their Answer and New Matter as if same were set forth fully at length herein. 27 74-79. To the extent that averments contained in paragraphs 74 through 79 and all subparagraphs thereto of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to parties to this lawsuit other than this Defendant, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that the averments contained in paragraphs 74 through 79 and all subparagraphs thereto of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that the averments contained in paragraphs 74 through 79 and all subparagraphs thereto of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to this Defendant and an answer may be deemed necessary, this Defendant, after reasonable investigation, is unable to ascertain the truth or falsity of the averments contained in paragraphs 74 through 79 and all subparagraphs thereto of Plaintiffs' Complaint. Accordingly, all averments are specifically denied in their entirety and strict proof of same is demanded at time of trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant, HealthSouth, denies that it is liable to Plaintiffs and respectfully requests this honorable court dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. COUNT IV — VICARIOUS LIABILITY Glenn B. Stoner v. Holy Spirit Hospital of The Sisters Of Christian Charity d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital 80. Paragraph 80 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is a paragraph of incorporation to which no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, this Defendant hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 79 of their Answer and New Matter as if same were set forth fully at length herein. 81-88. To the extent that averments contained in paragraphs 81 through 88 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to parties to this lawsuit other than this Defendant, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that averments contained in paragraphs 81 through 88 of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that 28 an answer may be deemed necessary, this Defendant, after reasonable investigation, is unable to ascertain the truth or falsity of the averments contained in paragraphs 81 through 88 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. Accordingly, all said averments are specifically denied in their entirety and strict proof of same is demanded at time of trial WHEREFORE, Defendant, HealthSouth, denies that it is liable to Plaintiffs and respectfully requests this honorable court dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. COUNT V — VICARIOUS LIABILITY Glenn B. Stoner v. Emcare Medical Services Of Pennsylvania, P.C. Or New Jersey/Pennsylvania Em -I Medical Services, P.C. 89. Paragraph 89 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is a paragraph of incorporation to which no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, this Defendant hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 88 of their Answer and New Matter as if same were set forth fully at length herein. 90-91. To the extent that averments contained in paragraphs 90 through 91 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to parties to this lawsuit other than this Defendant, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that averments contained in paragraphs 90 through 91 of Plaintiffs' Complaint constitute conclusions of law, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that an answer may be deemed necessary, this Defendant, after reasonable investigation, is unable to ascertain the truth or falsity of the averments contained in paragraphs 90 through 91 of Plaintiffs' Complaint. Accordingly, all said averments are specifically denied in their entirety and strict proof of same is demanded at time of trial WHEREFORE, Defendant, HealthSouth, denies that it is liable to Plaintiffs and respectfully requests this honorable court dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. 29 I COUNT VI — LOSS OF CONSORTIUM Glenn B. Stoner and Barbara S. Stoner, Husband and Wife v. Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. Individually and d/b/a Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. d/b/a Physicians of Rehabilitation, Industrial and Spine Medicine, P.C.; HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC, d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg; Rupen G. Modi, D.O.; Holy Spirit Hospital of The Sisters Of Christian Charity d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital; and Emcare Medical Services Of Pennsylvania, P.C. Or New Jersey/Pennsylvania Em -I Medical Services, P.C. 92. Paragraph 92 of Plaintiffs' Complaint is a paragraph of incorporation to which no response is required. To the extent that a response may be required, this Defendant hereby incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 91 of their Answer and New Matter as if same were set forth fully at length herein. 93. To the extent that the averments set forth in paragraph 93 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to parties to this lawsuit other than this Defendant, no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that the averments set forth in paragraph 93 of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to this Defendant and an answer may be deemed necessary, all said averments are specifically denied in their entirety. It is specifically denied that Plaintiffs sustained the injuries and/or damages complained of as a result of the negligence and/or carelessness of this Defendant. To the contrary, this Defendant, at times material and relevant hereto, acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. WHEREFORE, Defendant, HealthSouth, denies that it is liable to Plaintiffs and respectfully requests this honorable court dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. 1030 By way of further response to the entirety of Plaintiffs' Complaint, Defendant submits the following New Matter pursuant to Rule 1030 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure: 30 1. This Defendant hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 93 of its Answer as though the same were fully set forth herein. 2. Defendant hereby pleads Plaintiffs' failure to set forth a cause of action upon which relief may be granted as a complete bar to the entirety of Plaintiffs' Complaint. 3. Defendant hereby plead that any and all statutes of limitation serve as a complete bar to the entirety of Plaintiffs' claims. 4. Defendant hereby pleads that Plaintiffs' claims against Defendant are barred in their entirety based upon Plaintiffs having given informed consent to all risks attendant to care and/or treatment provided to Plaintiffs during Plaintiff -husband's admission to HealthSouth. 5. Defendant hereby pleads that Plaintiffs were fully informed of the known risks and/or complications attendant to the care and/or treatment provided to Plaintiff -husband during his admission to HealthSouth. 6. Defendant hereby pleads that any and all damages and/or injuries complained of by Plaintiffs are the result of Plaintiff -husband' s pre-existing conditions. 7. Defendant contends, without admitting any liability whatsoever, that if it is determined that Plaintiffs sustained any damages and/or injuries, then the same were not proximately caused by this Defendant's actions and/or failure to act, but were proximately caused solely by the actions and/or failure to act of others not under this Defendant's control. 8. Defendant contends, without admitting any liability whatsoever, that any alleged acts or omissions on the part of this Defendant was superseded by the acts and/or omissions of others, all of which were independent, intervening, and supervening causes of any alleged injury, damage, and/or loss to Plaintiffs. 9. Defendant contends that any injuries, losses, and/or damages allegedly sustained by Decedent were caused and/or contributed to by the negligence, carelessness, and/or 31 recklessness of other individuals or entities for whom this Defendant is neither liable nor responsible. 10. Defendant hereby pleads that, if during the course of discovery or trial it is demonstrated that Plaintiff -husband failed to exercise reasonable care for his own well-being through his failure to properly follow treatment recommended by healthcare professionals, or should it be demonstrated that Plaintiff -husband unreasonably refused treatment which would more likely than not have resulted in improvement in his condition, then Plaintiffs are barred from recovery to the extent of such unreasonable failure to mitigate. 11. Defendant hereby pleads that, at all times material and relevant hereto, it acted in a non -negligent and prudent manner and neither caused nor contributed to the injuries and/or damages of which Plaintiffs now complain. 12. Defendant hereby pleads that the care and/or treatment provided to Plaintiffs during his residency period was in accordance with, and under the direction of, one or more physicians who were responsible for the management of Plaintiff -husband's total healthcare. 13. Defendant hereby pleads that, if it should be demonstrated that Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of medical special damages, which entitlement is expressly denied, then such an award must be limited by MCARE and to those amounts paid to and accepted by the provider's who rendered healthcare to Plaintiff -husband, in full satisfaction of their respective medical/treatment invoices. 14. Defendant hereby incorporates the provisions and defenses of the Health Care Services Facilities Act, the Health Care Services Malpractice Act, the Older Adults Protective Services Act and the MCARE Act to the extent that they are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the action. 32 15. Defendant hereby pleads, that to the extent established through discovery, this Defendant hereby pleads the Doctrine of Comparative and/or Contributory Negligence as a complete and/or partial bar to the entirety of Plaintiffs' claims. 16. Defendant pleads as a defense to Plaintiffs' claims the doctrines of waiver, release and estoppels to the extent that discovery reveals said defenses to all or some of Plaintiffs' claims. 17. To the extent established through discovery, this Defendant hereby pleads that Plaintiffs' assumption of a known risk serves as a complete bar to the entirety of Plaintiffs' claims. WHEREFORE, Defendant, HealthSouth, denies that it is liable to Plaintiffs and respectfully requests this honorable court dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint. Respectfully submitted, BURNS WHITE LLC BY: Patrick L. Mechas, Esquire Attorneys for Defendant HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg 33 VERIFICATION I, Brett McChesney, Director of Quality Assurance and Risk Management of HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, Defendant herein, do hereby verify that the averments contained in the within ANSWER AND NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO RULE 1030 OF THE Pa.R.C.P. are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that the averments of the facts set forth in the within document are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: r --/V—// 34 Brett cChesney Director of Qua i Managemen and Risk CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the within ANSWER AND NEW MATTER PURSUANT TO RULE 1030 OF THE PA. R.C.P. has been served upon all counsel of record by United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid, this 1 2014, addressed as follows: Richard C. Angino, Esquire Angino & Lutz, P.C. 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Dickie McCamey & Chilcote Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (Counsel for Co -Defendant Holy Spirit) James A. Doherty, Jr. Scanlon, Howley & Doherty, P.C. 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503) (Counsel for Co -Defendant Dr. Lupinacci) Steven D. Costello, Esquire Post & Schell, P.C. 1245 S. Cedar Crest Boulevard Suite 300 Allentown, PA 18103 (Counsel for Counsel for Dr. Modi and EmCare) BURNS SHITE LLC BY: 35 day of August, Patrick L. Mechas, Esquire Attorneys for Defendant HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, By: James A. Doherty, Jr., Esquire, LD 2 17 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 Telephone: (570) 346-7651 Hill AUG 18 PH 2:23 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PEP.C. NN A �Ly b ney for Defendants #23829 Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. and Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs v. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA; P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -1 MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION — LAW MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL BY 12 DEMANDED NO. 14-2831 CIVIL TERM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of Defendants Michael F. I upinacci, M.D. and Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C.'s Request for Production of Documents, Set II was duly served upon all counsel of record by emailing the same to them on the 14th day • f August, 2014 as follows: Patrick L. Mechas, Esquire plinechasabumswhite.corn Richard C. Angino, Esquire rca@anginolutz.com Steven D. Costello, Esquire scostello@postschell.com Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Aaron S. hyman, Esquire tchairs@dinclaw.com ajayman(iNmclaw.com SCANLON, DOHERTY, P; c1- 2 A rorney for Defendants hael F. Lupinacci, M.D. and Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants. CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 14-2831 Notice of Service Filed on Behalf of: HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg Counsel for Record for These Parties: Patrick L. Mechas Esquire PA I.D. No. 61362 Tara B. Rodrigues, Esquire PA I.D. No. 203705 BURNS WHITE Firm I.D. No. 828 Four Northshore Center 106 Isabella Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212 (412) 995-3000 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants. CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 14-2831 NOTICE OF SERVICE OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFFS TO: Prothonotary of Cumberland County, PA I hereby certify that on the 2c day of'�, , 2014, Defendant, HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LL d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg served Responses to Set II Requests For Production of Documents on behalf of Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. Individually and d/b/a Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. d/b/a Physicians of Rehabilitation, Industrial and Spine Medicine, P.C. upon all counsel of record, via first class mail, as follows: P Richard C. Angino, Esquire Angino & Lutz, P.C. 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Dickie McCamey & Chilcote Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (Counsel for Co -Defendant Holy Spirit) James A. Doherty, Jr. Scanlon, Howley & Doherty, P.C. 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 (Counsel for Co -Defendant Dr. Lupinacci) Steven D. Costello, Esquire Post & Schell, P.C. 1245 S. Cedar Crest Boulevard Suite 300 Allentown, PA 18103 (Counsel for Counsel for Dr. Modi and EmCare) BURNS WHITE LLC BY: Patrick L. Mechas, Esquire Tara B. Rodrigues, Esquire Attorneys for Defendant ANGINO & LUTZ, P.C. Richard C. Angino, Esquire Attorney ID#: 07140 Jonathan E. Danko, Esquire Attorney ID#: 314653 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) 1 -MAIL: rca(anginolutz.com jcianko(ciAnginOlutz,com iC i N TA • MR PM 3: 1Q CUMBERL L. A D COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs V. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT .HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 14-2831 CIVIL ACTION — LAW MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 555964 1 PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW .MATTER OF DEFENDANT, HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG AND NOW, comes the Plaintiffs, Glenn B. Stoner and Barbara S. Stoner, by and through their attorneys, Angino & Lutz, P.C., and files their Reply to New Matter of Defendant HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, stating as follows: NEW MATTER Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in their Complaint as if stated in full herein. 1. No response required 2-13. Denied. These paragraphs are denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent it isdeemed to contain averments of fact, the same are specifically denied. 14. No response required. 15-17. Denied. These paragraphs are denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent it is deemed to contain averments of fact, the same are specifically denied. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Glenn B. Stoner and Barbara S. Stoner demand judgement against Defendants Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. individually and D/B/A Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. D/B/A Physicians of Rehabilitation, Industrial and Spine Medicine,. P.C.,; Healthsouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC D/B/A Healthsouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg; Rupen G. Modi, D.O.; Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity D/B/A Holy Spirit Hospital; and. EMCare Medical Services of Pennsylvania, P.C. or New Jersey/Pennsylvania EM -1 Medical Medical Services, P.C. for compensatory damages in an 555964 2 amount in excess of $50,000, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. Date: August 22, 2.014 Respectfully submitted, ANGINO U Z, P.C. / Richar' C. , ngino, Esquire PAo. 07140 Jo an E. Danko, Esquire .D. No. 314653 503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 rca@anginolutz.com jdanko@anginolutz.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 555964 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 221(1 August''2014, I, Lisa A. Giknis , an employee of the law firm of Angino & Lutz, P.C., hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Reply to New Matter of Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity was sent to the following counsel of record by placing same in the first class, United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-2223 (Counsel for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital) Patrick L. Mechas, Esquire Kira M. Rivera, Esquire BURNS WHITE, LLC Four North Shore Center 106 Isabella Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212 (Counsel for Defendant HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg) James A. Doherty, Jr., Esquire SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. 2.17 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 (Counsel for Defendants Michael F. Lupinacci, MD. and Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C.) Steven D. Costello, Esquire Amy L. Blackmore, Esquire POST & SCHELL, P.C. 1245 S. Cedar Crest Boulevard; Suite 300 Allentown, PA 18103 (Counsel for Defendants Ripen G. Madi, D.O., EMCare Medical Services of Pennsylvania, P.0 or New Jersey/Pennsylvania EM -I Medical Services, P.C. A. Giknis, Legal Secretary 555964 4 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants. CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 14-2831 Notice of Service Filed on Behalf of: -17 1110.0•11. • • HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg Counsel for Record for These Parties: Patrick L. Mechas Esquire PA I.D. No. 61362 Tara B. Rodrigues, Esquire PA LD. No. 203705 BURNS WHITE Firm I.D. No. 828 Four Northshore Center 106 Isabella Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212 (412) 995-3000 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED '11 rrl , m c). r • f :Xk IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants. CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 14-2831 NOTICE OF SERVICE OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFFS TO: Prothonotary of Cumberland County, PA 1, I hereby certify that on the day of 6- LeA. , 2014, Defendant, HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg served Answers, Objections and Responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents upon all counsel of record, via first class mail, as follows: Richard C. Angino, Esquire Angino & Lutz, P.C. 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Dickie McCamey & Chilcote Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (Counsel for Co -Defendant Holy Spirit) James A. Doherty, Jr. Scanlon, Howley & Doherty, P.C. 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 (Counsel for Co -Defendant Dr. Lupinacci) Steven D. Costello, Esquire Post & Schell, P.C. 1245 S. Cedar Crest Boulevard Suite 300 Allentown, PA 18103 (Counsel for Counsel for Dr. Modi and EmCare) BURNS WHITE LLC BY: Patrick L. Mechas, Esquire Tara B. Rodrigues, Esquire Attorneys for Defendant TO THE PLAINTIFFS YGJ ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO PLEAD TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF SERVICE THEREOF ORA DEFAULT JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU STEVEN D. COSTELLO ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT BY: STEVEN D. COSTELLO E-MAIL: scostello@postschell.com I.D. # 37288 BY: AMY L. BLACKMORE E-MAIL: ablackmore@postschell.com I.D. # 209584 POST & SCHELL, P.C. 1245 S. CEDAR CREST BOULEVARD SUITE 300 ALLENTOWN, PA 18103 PHONE: 610-774-0322 GLENN B. STONER AND BARBARA S. STONER, HUSBAND AND WIFE V. Plaintiffs vs. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, MD INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, MD, PC D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, PC; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, DO; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, PC OR NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, PC Defendants F'!7 DF HE`PRO THR Y 2014 OCT 17 P 112: 314 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT RUPEN G. MODI, D.O., EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, PC AND NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, PC IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 14-2831 CIVIL ACTION -- MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS RUPEN G. MODI, D.O., EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, PC AND NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, PC TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT Defendant, Rupen G. Modi, D.O., EmCare Medical Services of Pennsylvania, P.C. and New Jersey/Pennsylvania EM -I Medical Services, P.C. (collectively, the "Defendants"), by and through their counsel, Post & Schell, P.C., hereby Answer Plaintiffs' Complaint in accordance with the numbered paragraphs thereof. 1. Admitted, upon information and belief. 2. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph. 3. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph. 4. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without sufficient information or knowledge to admit or deny the allegations of this paragraph. 5. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is only admitted that Dr. Modi is a physician licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is also admitted that Dr. Modi is an employee of New Jersey/Pennsylvania EM -I Medical Services, P.C. To the extent Plaintiffs allege that Dr. Modi owed them a heightened duty of care by virtue of their allegation that Dr. Modi "specializ[es] in emergency medicine," those allegations are specifically denied. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. 6. Denied as stated. It is only admitted that, upon information and belief, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital is a licensed healthcare facility. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. 7. Denied. It is specifically denied that Dr. Modi was an employee of Holy Spirit Hospital during the relevant time period. 8. Admitted in part. It is only admitted that New Jersey/Pennsylvania EM -I Medical Services, P.C. is a professional corporation created under the laws of Pennsylvania. EmCare Medical Services of Pennsylvania, P.C. has dissolved. It is also admitted that Dr. Modi is an employee of New Jersey/Pennsylvania EM -I Medical Services, P.C. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. 9. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 10. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 11. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 12. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 13. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 14. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 15. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 16. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 17. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 18. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 19. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 20. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 21. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 22. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 23. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 24. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 25. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 26. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 27. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 28. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 29. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 30. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 31. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 32. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 33. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 34. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 35. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 36. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 37. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 38. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 39. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 40. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 41. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 42. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 43. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 44. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 45. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 46. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 47. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 48. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 49. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 50. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 51, Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 52. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 53. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 54. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 55. Denied pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e). Moreover, it is denied that the corresponding allegations constitute an accurate and/or complete representation of the medical care/events and/or medical records. Strict proof is therefore demanded at the time of trial. 56. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. To the extent the allegations of this paragraph WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and that Answering Defendants be reimbursed for all costs and expenses incurred in defending this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees. COUNT I. Glenn B. Stoner v. Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. 57. The responses contained in paragraphs 1 through 56 of Answering Defendants' Answer are incorporated herein by reference. 58. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph, inclusive of all subparts, constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. By way of further response, the allegations of this paragraph are directed at a Defendant other than Answering Defendants. Accordingly, no response is required. 59. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. By way of further response, the allegations of this paragraph are directed at a Defendant other than Answering Defendants. Accordingly, no response is required. 60. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. By way of further response, the allegations of this paragraph are directed at a Defendant other than Answering Defendants. Accordingly, no response is required. 61. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. By way of further response, the allegations of this paragraph are directed at a Defendant other than Answering Defendants. Accordingly, no response is required. 62. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. By way of further response, the allegations of this paragraph are directed at a Defendant other than Answering Defendants. Accordingly, no response is required. 63. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. By way of further response, the allegations of this paragraph are directed at a Defendant other than Answering Defendants. Accordingly, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and that Answering Defendants be reimbursed for all costs and expenses incurred in defending this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees. COUNT II. Glenn B. Stoner v. Healthsouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a Healthsouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg 64. The responses contained in paragraphs 1 through 63 of Answering Defendants' Answer are incorporated herein by reference. 65. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. By way of further response, the allegations of this paragraph are directed at a Defendant other than Answering Defendants. Accordingly, no response is required. 66. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. By way of further response, the allegations of this paragraph are directed at a Defendant other than Answering Defendants. Accordingly, no response is required. 67. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. By way of further response, the allegations of this paragraph are directed at a Defendant other than Answering Defendants. Accordingly, no response is required. 68. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. By way of further response, the allegations of this paragraph are directed at a Defendant other than Answering Defendants. Accordingly, no response is required. 69. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. By way of further response, the allegations of this paragraph are directed at a Defendant other than Answering Defendants. Accordingly, no response is required. 70. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. By way of further response, the allegations of this paragraph are directed at a Defendant other than Answering Defendants. Accordingly, no response is required. 71. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. By way of further response, the allegations of this paragraph are directed at a Defendant other than Answering Defendants. Accordingly, no response is required. 72. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. By way of further response, the allegations of this paragraph are directed at a Defendant other than Answering Defendants. Accordingly, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and that Answering Defendants be reimbursed for all costs and expenses incurred in defending this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees. COUNT HI. Glenn B. Stoner, M.D. v. Rupen Modi, D.O. 73. The responses contained in paragraphs I through 72 of Answering Defendants' Answer are incorporated herein by reference. 74. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph, inclusive of all subparts, constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. 75. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. 76. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. 77. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. 78. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. 79. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and that Answering Defendants be reimbursed for all costs and expenses incurred in defending this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees. COUNT IV. Glenn B. Stoner v. Holy Spirit Hospital 80. The responses contained in paragraphs 1 through 79 of Answering Defendants' Answer are incorporated herein by reference. 81. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. By way of further response, the allegations of this paragraph are directed at a Defendant other than Answering Defendants. Accordingly, no response is required. 82. Denied. It is specifically denied that Dr. Modi was an employee of Holy Spirit Hospital. 83. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. By way of further response, the allegations of this paragraph are directed at a Defendant other than Answering Defendants. Accordingly, no response is required. 84. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. By way of further response, the allegations of this paragraph are directed at a Defendant other than Answering Defendants. Accordingly, no response is required. 85. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. By way of further response, the allegations of this paragraph are directed at a Defendant other than Answering Defendants. Accordingly, no response is required. 86. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. By way of further response, the allegations of this paragraph are directed at a Defendant other than Answering Defendants. Accordingly, no response is required. 87. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. By way of further response, the allegations of this paragraph are directed at a Defendant other than Answering Defendants. Accordingly, no response is required. 88. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. By way of further response, the allegations of this paragraph are directed at a Defendant other than Answering Defendants. Accordingly, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and that Answering Defendants be reimbursed for all costs and expenses incurred in defending this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees. COUNT V. Glenn B. Stoner v. EmCare Medical Services of Pennsylvania, P.C. or New Jersey/Pennsylvania EM -I Medical Services, P.C. 89. The responses contained in paragraphs 1 through 88 of Answering Defendants' Answer are incorporated herein by reference. 90. Denied as stated. It is only admitted that at all relevant times, Dr. Modi was an employee of New Jersey/Pennsylvania EM -I Medical Services, P.C. The remaining allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. 91. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and that Answering Defendants be reimbursed for all costs and expenses incurred in defending this action, including reasonable attorneysfees. COUNT VI. Barbara S. Stoner v. All Defendants 92. The responses contained in paragraphs 1 through 91 of Answering Defendants' Answer are incorporated herein by reference. 93. Denied. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no response. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and that Answering Defendants be reimbursed for all costs and expenses incurred in defending this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees. NEW MATTER 94. The responses contained in paragraphs 1 through 93 of Answering Defendants' Answer are incorporated herein by reference. 95. The Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause upon which relief may be granted. 96. The Answering Defendants were not negligent. 97. Any acts or omissions of Answering Defendants alleged to constitute negligence were not substantial causes or factors of the subject incident and/or did not result in the injuries and/or losses alleged by the Plaintiffs. 98. The incidents and/or damages described in Plaintiffs' Complaint may have been caused or contributed to by the Plaintiffs. 99. If Plaintiffs sustained the injuries alleged, proof of which is specifically demanded, said injuries may have been the result of the negligent or careless acts and/or omissions of Plaintiffs and/or other persons and/or entities over whom Answering Defendants exercised no control. 100. The negligent acts or omissions of other individuals and/or entities may have constituted intervening superseding causes of the damages and/or injuries alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiffs. Furthermore, Answering Defendants had no control over such acts or omissions and such acts or omissions were not due to or caused by default, lack of care, negligence or breach of any duty of Answering Defendants. 101. The incident, injuries and/or damages sustained by the Plaintiffs were not proximately caused by Answering Defendants. 102. The Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the Doctrine of the Assumption of Risk. 103. The Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the Doctrine of Contributory Negligence. 104. The Plaintiffs' claims may be barred or reduced by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa.C.S.A. §7102 et. seq., the relevant portions of which are incorporated herein by reference as though same were more fully set forth at length herein. 105. At all times material hereto, Answering Defendants provided treatment in accordance with the applicable standards of medical care at the time and place of treatment. 106. The Plaintiffs failed to mitigate any damages allegedly sustained. 107. The Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrine of intervening/superseding causes. 108. The Plaintiffs' claims and/or request for damages is barred or limited and/or precluded by the Doctrines of Res Judicata and/or Collateral Estoppel. 109. The Plaintiffs' claims and/or request for damages is barred or limited by the provisions of the Health Care Service Malpractice Act of 1975, 40 P.S. 1301 et. seq., as amended. 110. Pa.R.C.P. 238 should be deemed unconstitutional, as a violation of the Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as Article I, Sections 1 and 11 and Article 5, Section 10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution. In accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 238, defendant is not required to pay delay damages during those time periods in which plaintiffs conduct delayed the trial. Moreover, delay damages may be further reduced in accordance with Pennsylvania law. 111. The Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the Doctrine of Release. 112. The Plaintiffs' claims may be barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations. 113. The Plaintiffs' claims may be barred in whole or in part by the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act and/or the Health Care Services Malpractice Act. 114. Answering Defendants was not corporately negligent. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request that Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed in its entirety and that Answering Defendants be reimbursed for all costs and expenses incurred in defending this action, including reasonable attorneys' fees. POST & SCHELL, P.C. By: Dated: October 15, 2014 Steven D. Amy L. B ostello, Esquire ackmore, Esquire VERIFICATION I, AMY L. BLACKMORE, ESQUIRE, hereby state that I am an attorney for defendants, RUPEN G. MODI, D.O., EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, PC AND NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, PC, in this action and verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint, are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S., §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. POST & SCHELL, P.C. Dated: /6/ /$ By: kAhefe Amy L. ac ore, squire Attorney For Defendants RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, PC AND NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, PC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, AMY L. BLACKMORE, ESQUIRE, attorney for Defendants, RUPEN G. MODI, D.O., EMCare Medical Services of Pennsylvania, PC or New Jersey/Pennsylvania EM -I Medical Services, PC, hereby state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint, was sent by first-class mail, postage prepaid on the date set forth below, was served upon the following individual(s): Richard Angino, Esquire Angina & Rayner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Patrick L. Mechas, Esquire Burns White, LLC Four North Shore Center 106 Isabella Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212 James A. Doherty, Esquire 321 Spruce Street Scranton, PA 18503 POST & SCHELL, P.C. By: Dated: October 15, 2014 illAtr0 Amy L. BI kmore, Esquire Attorney For Defendants, Rupen G. Modi, D.O., EMCare Medical Services of Pennsylvania, PC or New Jersey/Pennsylvania EM -I Medical Services, PC ANGINO & LUTZ, P.C. Richard C. Angino, Esquire Attorney ID#: 07140 Jonathan E. Danko, Esquire Attorney ID#: 314653 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-MAIL: rca@anginolutz.com jdanko@anRinolutz.com FH.ED-OFFICE ;::E -PRO THONO 2L14 OCT 31 Pt; 1: 53 CO113' ; A ND u LIN !S 1 V4 NIA GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs V. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants Attorneys for Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO, 14-2831 CIVIL ACTION — LAW MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ' 558611 1 PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS, RUPEN G. MODI, D.O. EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, PC AND NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, PC AND NOW, comes the Plaintiffs, Glenn B. Stoner and Barbara S. Stoner, by and through their attorneys, Angina & Lutz, P.C., and file their Reply to New Matter of Defendants, Rupen G. Modi, D.O., Emcare Medical Services Of Pennsylvania, PC And New Jersey/Pennsylvania Em -I Medical Services, PC, stating as follows: NEW MATTER Plaintiffs incorporate herein by reference the allegations set forth in their Complaint as if stated in full herein. 94. No response required. 95-114. Denied. These paragraphs are denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent it is deemed to contain averments of fact, the same are specifically denied. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Glenn B. Stoner and Barbara S. Stoner demand judgement against Defendants Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. individually and D/B/A Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. D/B/A Physicians of Rehabilitation, Industrial and Spine Medicine, P.C.; Healthsouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC D/B/A Healthsouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg; Rupen G. Modi, D.O.; Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity D/B/A Holy Spirit Hospital; and EMCare Medical Services of Pennsylvania, P.C. or New Jersey/Pennsylvania EM -I Medical Services, P.C. for compensatory damages in an amount in excess of $50,000, exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. 558611 2 Date: OctoberO, , 2014 Respectfully submitted, ANGINO gino, Esquire . 07140 E. Danko, Esquire . No. 314653 3 N. Front Street arrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 rca@anginolutz.com jdanko@anginolutz.com Attorneys for Plaintiff 558611 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this (day of October 2014, I, Lisa A. Giknis , an employee of the law firm of Angino & Lutz, P.C., hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Reply to New Matter of Defendants, Rupen G. Modi, D.O., Emcare Medical Services Of Pennsylvania, PC And New Jersey/Pennsylvania Em -I Medical Services, PC, was sent to the following counsel of record by placing same in the first class, United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-2223 (Counsel for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital) Patrick L. Mechas, Esquire Kira M. Rivera, Esquire BURNS WHITE, LLC Four North Shore Center 106 Isabella Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212 (Counsel for Defendant HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg) James A. Doherty, Jr., Esquire SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 (Counsel for Defendants Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. and Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C.) Steven D. Costello, Esquire Amy L. Blackmore, Esquire POST & SCHELL, P.C. 1245 S. Cedar Crest Boulevard, Suite 300 Allentown, PA 18103 (Counsel for Defendants Rupen G. Modi, D.O., EMCare Medical Services of Pennsylvania, P.C. or New Jersey/Pennsylvania EM -I Medical Services, P.C. Lid A. Giknis, Legal Secretary 558611 4 "as) y r.7 BY: STEVEN D. COSTELLO E-MAIL: scostello@postschell.com 1.D. # 37288 BY: AMY L. BLACKMORE E-MAIL: ablackmore@postschell.com 1.D. # 209584 POST & SCHELL, P.C. 1245 S. CEDAR CREST BOULEVARD SUITE 300 ALLENTOWN, PA 18103 PHONE: 610-774-0322 GLENN B. STONER AND BARBARA S. STONER, HUSBAND AND WIFE V. Plaintiffs vs. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, MD INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, MD, PC D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, PC; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, DO; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, PC OR NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, PC Defendants OF T1=E Y o � 10E i;OTAR 20/41.'OJ /0 PI'I 2: 3/ G U PO 'f�S Ni) COUNTY ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT RUPEN G. MODI, D.O. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 14-2831 CIVIL ACTION -- MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO SUBSTITUTE VERIFICATION TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly substitute the attached Verification of Defendant, Rupen G. Modi, D.O. for that of counsel filed with the Answer to Plaintiffs Complaint with New Matter. Dated: 11/7/2014 POST & SCHELL, P.C. By: Steven D. ostello, Esquire Amy L. Blackmore, Esquire Attorneys For Defendant Rupen G. Modi, D.O. 10/25/?014 09:03 7179724295 qu ED PAGE 01/03 VERIFICATION I HEREBY VERIFY that the statements made by Defendant, Rupen G. Modi, DO., in the foregoing Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief I understand that any false statements contained herein axe subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S., §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: By: /i Rupen G. Modi, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, AMY L. BLACKMORE, ESQUIRE, attorney for Defendant, RUPEN G. MODI, D.O. hereby state that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document(s), sent by first-class mail, postage prepaid on the date set forth below, was served upon the following individual(s): Richard Angina, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 James A. Doherty, Esquire Scanlon, Howley & Scanlon 1000 Bank Towers 321 Spruce Street Scranton, PA 18503 Patrick L. Mechas, Esquire Burns White Four Northshore Center 106 Isabella Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212 POST & SCHELL, P.C. B Dated: 10/30/2014 ceAmVamyT.ore, Esquire Attorney For Defendant Rupen G. Modi, D.O. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C.D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MOM D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF. CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICALSERVICESOF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants. CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 14-2831 ;rn Notice of Service 7,3 (Jr,. c") Filed on Behalf of: HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC dfb/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg Counsel for Record for These Parties: Patrick L. Mechas Esquire PA I.D. No. 61362 Tara B. Rodrigues, Esquire PA I.D. No. 203705 BURNS WHITE Firm I.D. No. 828 JourNorthshoreCenter 106 Isabella Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212 (412) 995-3000 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA. S. STONER, Husband and Wife, CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 14-2831 Plaintiffs ,v. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS. OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants. NOTICE OF SERVICE OF INTERROGATORIES AND REQUESTS FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO PLAINTIFFS TO: Prothonotary of Cumberland County, PA I hereby certify that on the \ day of November 2014, Defendant, HealthSouth Rehabilitation. Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg served Answers to Co -Defendant Lupinacci's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents upon all counsel of record by mailing the same via first class mail as follows Richard C. Angino, Esquire Angino & Lutz, P.C. 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Dickie McCamey & Chilcote Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (Counsel for Co -Defendant Holy Spirit) James A. Doherty, Jr. Scanlon, Howley & Doherty, P.C. 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503) (Counsel for Co -Defendant Dr. Lupinacci) Steven D. Costello, Esquire Post & Schell, P.C. 1245 S. Cedar Crest Boulevard Suite 300 Allentown, PA 18103 (Counsel for Counsel for Dr. Modi and Em Care) BURNS WHITE LLC Patrick L. Mech s, squire Tara B. Rodrigues, Esquire ANGINO & LUTZ, P.C. Richard C. Angino, Esquire Attorney ID#: 07140 Jonathan E. Danko, Esquire Attorney ID#: 314653 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-MAIL: rca@anginolutz.com jdankonanginolutz.com 2 UYL X2=09 • f`t Rl_ A tf D COUNT'Y Attorneys for Plaintiffs GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs V. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 14-2831 CIVIL ACTION — LAW MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY ANSWERS AND NOW comes the Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, Angino & Lutz, P.C., and files this Motion to Compel Discovery and in support thereof avers: 1 1. Plaintiffs began this lawsuit by filing a Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas, Cumberland County, Docket No. 14-2831, on or around May 8, 2014. 2. All parties were served the Complaint on or around May 20, 2014, by the Sheriff of Cumberland County. 3. On or around May 20, 2014, the Sheriff of Cumberland County served, with the Complaint, Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents - Set I on all Defendants. 4. Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital (hereinafter "Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital") has still not responded to any of Plaintiffs' outstanding discovery. 5. Defendant Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. Individually and d/b/a Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. d/b/a Physicians of Rehabilitation, Industrial and Spine Medicine, P.C. (hereinafter "Defendant Dr. Lupinacci") has still not responded to any of Plaintiffs' outstanding discovery. 6. Defense counsel for Holy Spirit Hospital entered their appearance on or around May 23, 2014. 7. Defense counsel for Dr. Lupinacci entered his appearance on or around May 29, 2014. 8. On July 1, 2014, Plaintiffs' counsel received Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents from Defendant Dr. Lupinacci. 9. Plaintiffs' counsel has not received any discovery requests from Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital. 2 10. On July 3, 2014, Plaintiffs' counsel sent an email to all Defendants requesting the status of their outstanding discovery responses, email attached as Exhibit A. No response was received from Defendants Holy Spirit Hospital nor Dr. Lupinacci. 11. On July 29, 2014, Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital filed their Answers with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint. 13. • Defendant Dr. Lupinacci has not filed Answers with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint. 12. On August 13, 2014, Plaintiffs' counsel filed their Reply to New Matter of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital. 13. On September 8, 2014, Plaintiffs' counsel sent all defense counsel a letter requesting the status of their outstanding discovery responses and requesting potential dates to schedule depositions, letter attached as Exhibit B. No response was received from Defendants Holy Spirit Hospital nor Dr. Lupinacci. 14. Plaintiffs responded to Defendant Dr. Lupinacci's Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents on November 3, 2014. 15. Plaintiffs then again attempted to resolve this conflict, via correspondence, on November 5, 2014, letter attached as Exhibit C. Plaintiff received no meaningful response to this request either. 16. Plaintiffs cannot move forward with this case and with depositions without receiving Answers to Complaint from Defendant Dr. Lupinacci and responses to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents from Defendants Holy Spirit Hospital and Dr. Lupinacci. 3 17. Plaintiffs respectfully request that Defendant Dr. Lupinacci be required to provide full and complete Answers to Plaintiffs' Complaint, and that Defendants Holy Spirit Hospital and Dr. Lupinacci be required to provide full and complete answers to Plaintiffs' ,Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents. 18. Defendants have had more than ample time to respond to Plaintiffs' discovery requests, yet Defendants have failed to comply with the discovery as required by Pa.R.C.P. 4005 and 4006. 19. Pa.R.C.P. 4019 provides that upon motion of a party, the Court can make an appropriate order when a party "fails to make discovery." Pa.R.C.P 4019(a)(viii). 20. Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital is represented by Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire and Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., Plaza 21, Suite 302, 425 North 21st Street, Camp Hill, PA 17011-2223. 21. Defendant Dr. Lupinacci and his practice are represented by James A. Doherty, Jr., Esquire, Scanlon, Howley & Doherty, P.C., 217 Wyoming Avenue, Scranton, PA 18503. 22. Plaintiffs are represented by Richard C. Angino, Esquire, Angino & Lutz, P.C., 4503 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708. 23. Plaintiffs sent a draft copy of this Motion to Defendants Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital and Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. Individually and d/b/a Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. d/b/a Physicians of Rehabilitation, Industrial and Spine Medicine, P.C., via email, on November 21, 2014. Defendants Dr. Lupinacci and Holy Spirit Hospital did not respond to Plaintiffs' email. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Honorable Court issue an Order directing Defendants Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity d/b/a Holy Spirit 4 Hospital and Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. Individually and d/b/a Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. d/b/a Physicians Of Rehabilitation, Industrial and Spine Medicine, P.C., to provide full and complete answers to Plaintiffs' Complaint, Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents — Set I so that Plaintiffs can move forward with this case. Respectfully submitted, ANGINO & LUTZ, P.C. Date: December 5 , 2014 5 Richard C. Angino, Esquire PA I.D. No. 07140 Jonathan E. Danko, Esquire PA I.D. No. 314653 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 rca@nginolutz.com jdanko@anginolutz.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs Martie Manno From: Martie Manno Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 9:42 AM To: Costello, Steven (scostello@postschell.com); jdoherty@shdlaw.com; ajayman@dmclaw.com; plmechas@burnswhite.com Cc: ablackmore@postschell.com; kmrivera@burnswhite.com; _RCA Group Subject: Stoner v. HealthSouth, et al. Dear Counsel: I note that your clients' responses to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents are overdue. These discovery requests were served on May 20, 2014. In an effort to keep this case moving, I would like to have your answers on or before July 14, 2014, so that I will not be forced to file a Motion to Compel. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. If you have any questions, please feel free to call at your convenience. Sent on behalf of: / Awed e dingino, s?u.ite Angino & Lutz, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791, Ext. 3036 rca@anginolutz.com www.anginolutz.com i NJINO & LUT2' P. RICHARD C. ANGINO RCA@Q ANGINOLUTZ.COM Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-2223 Patrick L. Mechas, Esquire BURNS WHITE, LLC Four North Shore Center 106 Isabella Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212 DAVID L. LUTZ DLUTZ@ANGINOLUTZ.COM September 8, 2014 Steven D. Costello, Esquire POST & SCHELL, P.C. 1245 S. Cedar Crest Blvd., Ste. 300 Allentown, PA 18103 James A. Doherty, Jr. Esquire 321 Spruce Street Scranton, PA 18503 Re: Glenn B. Stoner, et al. v. Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., et al. Dear Counsel: Your responses to Plaintiffs' discovery requests were due on or before June 19, 2014, with the exception of HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg which an extension has been granted until September 10, 2014. Please respond in two weeks or we will file a Motion to Compel. Additionally, we need to proceed with the parties' depositions. I am agreeable to holding Dr. Modi's and Dr. Lupinacci's depositions, preferably in late November or early December, at the latest. Please advise me of your clients availability as soon as possible. We will also be able to schedule Plaintiffs' depositions in late November or early December as well. Your prompt response would be appreciated. Thank you. RCA/mam 556508 Very t ulyyaurs, f ichardi`C4Arigino 4503 NORTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PA 1711$'1799 PHONE. (717) 238-6791 FAx. (717) 238-5610 W W W.ANGINOLUTZ.COM 0110011111112mtaix c At Aill1111111111111111111111111"11111 AN 6-INO & LITT4P. RICHARD C. ANGINO RCA@ANGINOLUTZ.COM Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-2223 James A. Doherty, Jr. Esquire SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 DAVID L. LUTZ DLUTZ@ANGINOLUTZ.COM November 5, 2014 Steven D. Costello, Esquire POST & SCHELL, P.C. 1245 S. Cedar Crest Blvd., Ste. 300 Allentown, PA 18103 Re: Glenn B. Stoner, et al. v. Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., et al. Dear Counsel: Defendants' responses to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents directed to Defendants, were due on or before June 19, 2014. Please respond in 10 days or we will file a Motion to Compel. At this stage, we need to proceed promptly with Dr. Lupinacci and Dr. Modi's depositions. My office has already requested dates of your availability multiple times, without response. As soon as possible, please provide dates that you are available for Dr. Lupinacci and Dr. Modi's depositions in December or early January, at the latest. If you wish to schedule Plaintiffs' depositions at the same time, I •am amenable. We have already responded to Defendants discovery requests, and by December or early January, depositions should be nearly complete. Therefore, I propose the following case -management deadlines: • All fact discovery commenced in time to be completed by February 2, 2015; • Reports from retained experts due: o from Plaintiff: March 2, 2015; and o from Defendants: April 2, 2015; • Plaintiff's rebuttal report due: May 1, 2015; • All potentially dispositive motions filed by June 1, 2015; and • Case to be listed for Fall 2015 trial term. 4503 NORTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17110-1799 PHONE, (717) 238-6791 FAX. (717) 238-5610 WWW.ANGINOLUTZ.COM 558930 November 5, 2014 Page 2 I suggest that after depositions, we discuss possible early resolution of this case. This matter appears to involve a clear case of liability. Do you anticipate that you will defend this case on the basis of liability? I look forward to hearing from you regarding your outstanding discovery responses, dates of availability for depositions, our proposed case -management deadlines, and your anticipated theory of defense. RCA/mam Very truly yours, R'ch`ard C. Angido. • cc: Patrick L. Mechas, Esquire and Kira M. Rivera, Esquire 558930 AND NOW, this CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE day of December, 2014, I, Martie A. Maldonado, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Lutz, P.C., hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY ANSWERS was sent to the following counsel of record by placing same in the first class, United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21S` Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-2223 (Counsellor Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital) Patrick L. Mechas, Esquire Kira. M. Rivera, Esquire BURNS WHITE, LLC Four North Shore Center 106 Isabella Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212 (Counsellor Defendant HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg) James A. Doherty, Jr., Esquire SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 (Counsel for Defendants Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. Individually and d/b/a Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. d/b/a Physicians of Rehabilitation, Industrial and Spine Medicine, P.C.) Steven D. Costello, Esquire Amy L. Blackmore, Esquire POST & SCHELL, P.C. 1245 S. Cedar Crest Coulevard, Suite 300 Allentown, PA 18103 (Counsel for Defendants Rupen G. Modi, D.O., EMCare Medical Services of Pennsylvania, P.C. or New Jersey/Pennsylvania EM -I Medical Services, P.C. artie A. Maldonado 'aralegal 8 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, a', PENNSYLVANIA GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants. CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 14-2831 SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT (RULE 1012(B)(2)(iii)) Filed on Behalf of: HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg Counsel for Record for These Parties: Patrick L. Mechas Esquire PA I.D. No. 61362 Tara B. Rodrigues, Esquire PA I.D. No. 203705 BURNS WHITE Firm I.D. No. 828 Four Northshore Center 106 Isabella Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212 (412) 995-3000 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants. CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 14-2831 SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT (RULE 1012(B)(2)(iii)) To: Prothonotary: Enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant, HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg. I hereby certify that this change is not intended to, nor will it, delay this proceeding to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Papers may be served at the address set forth below: By: Respectfully submitted, BURNS WHITE Tara B. Rodrigues, Esquire PA I.D. No. 203705 BURNS WHITE Firm I.D. No. 828 Four Northshore Center 106 Isabella Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212 (412) 995-3000 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the within SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL WITHOUT LEAVE OF COURT (RULE 1012(B)(2)(iii)) was served upon all counsel of record via first class mail, postage prepaid, this 10th day of December, 2014 addressed as follows: Richard C. Angino, Esquire Angino & Lutz, P.C. 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) James A. Doherty, Jr. Scanlon, Howley & Doherty, P.C. 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503) (Counsel for Co -Defendant Dr. Lupinacci) Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Dickie McCamey & Chilcote Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (Counsel for Co -Defendant Holy Spirit) Steven D. Costello, Esquire Post & Schell, P.C. 1245 S. Cedar Crest Boulevard Suite 300 Allentown, PA 18103 (Counsel for Counsel for Dr. Modi and EmCare) Tara B. Rodrigues, uire 2384730.doc DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 78565 BY: Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire 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) ATTORNEY FOR: HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. STONER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., IND. AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC, D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA P.C. OR NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 14-2831 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED • -r RESPONSE OF HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY ANSWERS AND NOW, comes Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital of The Sisters Of Christian Charity D/B/A Holy Spirit Hospital, by and through their counsel, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. and answers Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel as follows: 1-23. Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel should be denied as moot as full and complete responses were produced on December 18, 2014. Respectfully Submitted, DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Date: December 18, 2014 By: 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 D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, December 18, 2014, I, Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing RESPONSE OF HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY ANSWERS 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: Richard Angino, Esquire ANGINO & LUTZ, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Patrick L. Mechas, Esquire BURNS WHITE LLC Four Northshore Center 106 Isabella St. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 (Counsel for HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg) Steven Costello, Esquire POST & SCHELL, P.C. - ALLENTOWN, PA 1245 South Cedar Crest Boulevard Suite 300 Allentown, PA 18103 (Counsel for Rupen G. Modi, MD and EMCare Medical Services of PA, PC, or NJ/PA EM -I Medical Services, PC) James A. Doherty, Jr., Esquire SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, PC 217 Wyoming Ave Scranton, PA 18503 (Counsel for Defendants Michael F. Lupinacci, MD individually and d/b/a/ Michael F. Lupinacci, MD, PC d/b/a Physicians of Rehabilitation, Industrial and Spine Medicine, PC) l Thomas . Chairs, Esquire • . 4 GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S., STONER, Husband and Wife, PLAINTIFFS V. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, P.C.; : HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL: OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL: OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, : D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A : HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE : MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, : P.C. OR NEW JERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM -I : MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., DEFENDANTS : 14-2831 CIVIL TERM RDER OF COURT AND NOW, this O?/2 day of December, 2014, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery Responses, and Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital's response thereto, which indicates that "full' and complete responses were produced on December 18, 2014," we defer further action for fourteen (14) days. In the absence of a request from Plaintiffs for further action by the court, the motion will be deemed dismissed as moot. By the Court, Albert H. Masland, J. 14-2831 CIVIL TERM (chard C. Angino, Esquire For Plaintiffs t<Jomas M. Chairs, Esquire For Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity d/b/a Holy Spirit Hospital rimes A. Doherty, Jr., Esquire For Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. Individually and d/b/a Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. d/b/a Physicians of Rehabilitation, Industrial and Spine Medicine, P.C. Patrick L. Mechas, Esquire Kira M. Rivera, Esquire For HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, LLC d/b/a HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg ,/Steven D. Costello, Esquire Amy L. Blackmore, Esquire For Rupen G. Modi, D.O., EMCARE Medical Services of Pennsylvania, P.C. or New Jersey/Pennsylvania EM -I Medical Services, P.C. sal C IIs f Z i tid...) /ajaafiy -2- SCANLON,HOWLEY&DOHERTY,P.C. Attorneys for Defendants By: James A.Doherty,Jr.,Esquire,I.D.#23829 Michael F. Lupinacci,M.D. and Kevin C. Hayes,Esquire, I.D.#202486 Michael F. Lupinacci,M.D.,P.C. 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton,PA 18503 Telephone: (570)346-7651 GLENN B. STONER and BARBARA S. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS STONER, Husband and Wife, OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Plaintiffs PENNSYLVANIA V. MICHAEL F. LUPINACCI, M.D. INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A MICHAEL CIVIL ACTION—LAW F. LUPINACCI, M.D., P.C. D/B/A PHYSICIANS OF REHABILITATION, MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL INDUSTRIAL AND SPINE MEDICINE, LIABILITY ACTION P.C.; HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG, LLC JURY TRIAL BY 12 DEMANDED D/B/A HEALTHSOUTH REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF MECHANICSBURG; RUPEN G. MODI, D.O.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY D/B/A HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; AND EMCARE MEDICAL SERVICES OF PENNSYLVANIA, P.C. or NEW .iERSEY/PENNSYLVANIA EM-1 MEDICAL SERVICES, P.C., Defendants NO. 14-2831 CIVIL TERM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE THIS IS TO CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of Defendants Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. and Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C.'s Answers and Objections to Plaintiffs' Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents were duly served upon all counsel of record by United States First Class Mail on the 5h day of January, 2015, as follows: Richard C. Angino, Esquire Angino & Lutz, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Patrick L. Mechas, Esquire Burns White Four Northshore Center 106 Isabella Street Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Steven D. Costello, Esquire Post& Schell, P.C. 1245 South Cedar Crest Boulevard Suite 300 Allentown, PA 18103 Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21" Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 SCANLON, HOWLEY & DOHERTY, P.C. . B / v e., Y 6 James A. Doherty, Jr. Kevin C. Hayes 217 Wyoming Avenue Scranton, PA 18503 (570) 346-7651 Attorneys for Defendants Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D. and Michael F. Lupinacci, M.D., P.C. - 2 -