Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-5540IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GREAT SENECA FINANCIAL CORP.. NO L S-J S4UCIVIL P.O. BOX 1651 ROCKVILLE, MD 20849-1651 Plaintiff VS. BRAD VASEY Defendant(s) Mr./Ms. Clerk: PRAECIPE FOR JUDGMENT Please enter Judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant(s), BRAD VASEY and pursuant to the District Justice Transcript. ( X ) Amount due $ 2415.25 Less credits $ TOTAL $ 2415.25 , plus interest and costs ( X ) I certify that the foregoing assessment of damages is for specified amounts alleged to be due in the complaint and is calculable as a sum certain from the complaint. ( X ) Pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 237 (Notice of Praecipe for final judgment or decree), I certify that a copy of this praecipe has been mailed to each other party who has appeared in the action or to his/her Attorney of Record. DATE: n 01 Signature: Amy F. Doyle x/87062 / Daniel F.-Wolfson #20617 Philip C. Warhol' #86341 / Andrew C. Spears //87737 David R. Gallowa #87326 / Tonilyn M. Chippie /87852 Ronald M. Abramson //94266 / Ronald S. Canter //94000 Bruce H. Cherkis x/18837 WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, L.L.P. / Counsel for Plaintiff Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection 4660 Trindle Road, 3rd Floor, Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 303-6700 NOW, ( J oZS 20AS, JUDGMENT I ENTERED AS /DOVE. Protho o ary Cler ivi Division By: Deputy PRAEDJ/PANOJ W&A FILE NO. 131303295 ?, ?'. ;. ?.; -. _ COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF: CQMBERLAND 09-2-01 MDJ Name Hon. PAULA P. CORREAL Add`ess_ 1 COURTHOUSE SQUARE CARLISLE, PA TH,phen (717 ) 240-6564 17013-0000 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF : NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT PLAINTIFF: CIVIL CASE NAME and ADDRESS rGREAT SENECA FINANCIAL CORP. 267 EAST MARKET ST %NOLPOFF & ABRAMSON,L.L.P LYORK, PA 17403 J vs. DEFENDANT: NAME aid ADDRESS FVASEY, BRAD 925 FOREST CT CARLISLE, PA 17013 L ANDREW C. SPEARS 4660 TRINDLE ROAD APT/STE 3 FL Docket No.: CV-0000149-05 WOLPOFF&ABRAMSON, L . L . P . Date Filed: 4/11/05 CAMP HILL, PA 17011 _v THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT: Judgment FOR PLAINTIFF ® Judgment was entered for: (Name) c+RrtaT axuxr+A FI11A10('TAT CORP ® Judgment was entered against: (Name) VASLYt SRAn in the amount of $ 2 _ 415 _ 2Fi. on: ?. Defendants are jointly and severally liable. R, i! E Damages will be assessed on: El This case dismissed without prejudice. E Amount of Judgment Subject to Attachment/42 Pa.C.S. § 8127 $ Portion of Judgment for physical damages arising out of residential lease $ (Date of Judgment) f;11?/ng (Date & Time) Amount of Judgment $ 2,331.25 Judgment Costs $ 84.00 Interest on Judgment $ .00 Attorney Fees $ .00 Total $ 2,415.25 Post Judgment Credits $ Post Judgment Costs $ Certified Judgment Total -- $ ---------- ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE - OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION, YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES, IF THE JUDGEMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COME FROM THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND NO FURTHER PROCESS MAY BE ISSUED BY THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE. UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. 6/33/05 Date Magisterial"District Judge I certify that this is a tr andc ect co y of the of proc din s containing the judgment. 6/13/05 Dat Magisterial District Judge My commission expires first Monday of January, 2006 . SEAL; AOPC 315-05 DATE PRINTED: 6/28/05 11:52:12 AM l 3 I ?O ?? qcj ?, 0? ?.. ?? ? ? ?' ? 5 ?c 9.? ? ,r ?? C? ?- ?-, ?> `? ?. ,; ?? _, -_ ,, ?, ,.?. _ q\T y I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GREAT SENECA FINANCIAL CORP., No. OS-5 Sys>CIVIL P.O. BOX 1651 ROCKVILLE, MD 20849-1651 Plaintiff Vs. BRAD VASEY Defendant(s) CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF RESIDENCE PA. R.C.P. 236 I, hereby certify that the precise residence of Plaintiff is: GREAT SENECA FINANCIAL CORP., A MARYLAND CORPORATION, ASSIGNEE OF FORWARD PROPERTIES, ASSIGNEE OF DIRECT MERCHANTS BANK, N.A. P.O. BOX 1651 ROCKVILLE, MD 20849-1651 and certify that the last known address of the within Defendant(s) is: BRAD VASEY 925 FOREST CT CARLISLE PA 17013 Amy F. boyle 11 x//87062 / Daniel F. Wolfson x/20617 Philip C. Warh lic #86341 / Andrew C. Spears #87737 David R. GalloGay #87326 / Tonilyn M. Chippie #87852 Ronald M. Abramson 094266 / Ronald S. Canter /94000 Bruce H. Cherkis #18837 WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, L.L.P. / Counsel for Plaintiff Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection 4660 Trindle Road, 3rd Floor, Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 303-6700 PCRES/PANOJ W&A FILE NO. 131303295 r_ ' , } e ?._.i UUY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GREAT SENECA FINANCIAL CORP., No.L 5-.!?/UCIVIL P.O. BOX 1651 ROCKVILLE, MD 20849-1651 Plaintiff Vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW BRAD VASEY Defendant(s) AFFIDAVIT OF NON-MILITARY SERVICE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND The undersigned counsel, being duly sworn according to law, depose and say that I am the Attorney for the Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter, and that to the best of my knowledge, information and belief Defendant, BRAD VASEY , above-named, is over 21 years of age; is last known to reside at 925 FOREST CT CARLISLE PA 17013 County of CUMBERLAND , Pennsylvania; is not in the military service of the United States or its Allies, or otherwise within the provisions of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act and its Amendments. COMMONWEALTH OF PHNNSyf4',, gin Amy F. Doyle ` #87062 / Daniel F. Wolfson #2U617 Notana!Seaf Philip C. War lic x/86341 / Andrew C. Spears x/87737 Dina A.Sweitzet,No!aryP01ic David R. Gall way x/87326 / Tonilyn M. Chippie x/87852 HamPdenTwp,Ct,rr edandCoun4, Ronald M. Abramson x/94266 / Ronald S. Canter #94000 My Commission Ezp+res Apr 16, 2008 Bruce H. Cherkis x/18837 WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, L.L.P. / Counsel for Plaintiff Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection 4660 Trindle Road, 3rd Floor, Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 303-6700 SWORN and SUBSCRIBED to before me this / G day of 2005. Notary Public PNMAFF/PANOS W&A FILE NO. 131303295 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GREAT SENECA FINANCIAL CORP., NO. GS-S S'-( CIVIL P.O. BOX 1651 ROCKVILLE, MD 20849-1651 Plaintiff vs. BRAD VASEY 925 FOREST CT CARLISLE PA 17013 Defendant(s) CIVIL ACTION - LAW NOTICE OF ORDER, DECREE OR JUDGMENT TO: BRAD VASEY 925 FOREST CT CARLISLE PA 17013 You are hereby notified that the following ORDER, DECREE or JUDGMENT has been entered against you on in accordance with the provisions of Pa. R.C.P. 236. ( ) Decree Nisi in Equity ( ) Final Decree in Equity ( ) Judgment of ( ) Confession ( ) Verdict ( ) Default ( ) Non-suit ( ) Non-pros ( ) Arbitration Award ( ) Judgment is in the amount of $ plus costs. ( X ) District Justice transcript of judgment in civil action in the amount of $ 2415.25 , plus costs. ( ) If not satisfied within sixty (60) days, your motor vehicle operator's license will be suspended by the Pennsyl vania Department of Transportation. By: Pr hono ta If you have any questions regarding this Notice, please contact the - - filing party. /I , _ If Amy F. Doyle //87062 / Daniel F. Wolfson #20617 Philip C. Warh is #86341 / Andrew C. Spears //87737 David R. Gallo ay x/87326 / Tonilyn M. Chippie #87852 Ronald M. Abramson //94266 / Ronald S. Canter #94000 Bruce H. Cherkis x/18837 WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, L.L.P. / Counsel for Plaintiff Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection 4660 Trindle Road, 3rd Floor, Camp Hill, PA 17011 / (717) 303-6700 (This Notice is given in accordance with Pa. R.C.P. 236.) DJNTC/PANOJ W&A FILE NO. 131303295 7334 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GREAT SENECA FINANCIAL CORP., NO. 2005-5540 A MARYLAND CORPORATION, Plaintiff VS. CIVIL ACTION-LAW BRAD VASEY 634 HERITAGE CT . MECHANICSBURG PA 17050 Defendant (s) INTERROGATORIES TO GARNISHEE IN AID OF EXECUTION TO: PURSUANT TO RULE 3114 OF THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, THE FOLLOWING INTERROGATORIES HAVE BEEN SERVED UPON YOUR INSTITUTION. GARNISHEE IS HEREBY REQUIRED TO ANSWER EACH OF THE FOLLOWING INTERROGATORIES SEPARATELY AND FULLY. PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING INTERROGATORIES TO ASSIST THE CREDITOR'S EFFORTS TO SATISFY THE LAWFUL OBLIGATION OF THE ABOVE REFERENCED DEBTOR(S). IMPORTANT NOTICES AND INSTRUCTIONS TO GARNISHEE A. You are required to file answers to the following Interrogatories within twenty (20) days after service upon you. Failure to do so may result in judgment against you. B. The term "Defendant(s)" means the individual(s) or entity against whom the Writ of Execution was issued. C. "You" means the main office and all branch offices, representatives, employees, and agents of your organization. D. By service of the Writ of Execution upon you, all property of the Defendant(s) subject to attachment which is in your possession, custody or control is attached, including all property of the Defendant(s) which comes into your possession thereafter. E. These Interrogatories are considered to be continuing and therefore should be modified or supplemented as you receive further or additional information. F. Where exact information cannot be furnished, estimated information is to be supplied. When an estimate is to be used, it should be identified as such, and an explanation should be given as to the basis on which the estimate is made, and the reason the exact information cannot be furnished. G. Where knowledge or information in possession of a party is requested, such request includes knowledge of the party's agents, representatives, and attorneys. SSA/ 178 62 2431 ORALEX/PAWRIT W&A FILE NO. 131303295 7332 PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES TO GARNISHEE DEFENDANT(S) - BRAD VASEY 634 HERITAGE CT MECHANICSBURG PA 17050 SS# 178 62 2431 1. DEPOSITORY ACCOUNTS: At the time you were served or at any subsequent time, state whether or not the Defendant(s) maintains any checking, savings, lines of credit, certificate of deposit's or other depository accounts with your institution. If so, state the identification numbers of those accounts and the amount or amounts the Defendant(s) has in each account. If the Defendant(s) maintains any of these jointly with any other person, or persons, give their name and address. Defendant had account 626427744 with a balance of $2.89 at time served. The account is held individually. 1A. DIRECT DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS: Are any of the accounts you have listed above direct deposit accounts? If yes, please state the identification numbers of those accounts. No 2. SAFE DEPOSIT BOXES: At the time you were served or at any subsequent time, state whether or not the Defendant(s) maintains any safe deposit box o boxes. If so, include the identification number or other designation of the box or boxes. Include a full description of the contents and also the amoun of cash among those contents. If the Defendant(s) maintains any of these jointly with any other person or persons, give their full name and address. No 3. PERSONAL PROPERTY: At the time you were served or at any subsequent time, state whether or not Defendant(s) owns any personal property that was in your possession and/or control. If so, include a full description of all personal property giving full value and present location. State also whether or not there are any encumbrances or liens holders, the present balance of the encumbrance. State where and when the encumbrances or liens was recorded. If the Defendant(s) owns any personal property jointly with any person or persons, give names and address. See answer to question 1. 4. OTHER ASSETS: At the time you were served or at any subsequent time, did you know of the existence of any other asset(s) of the Defendant(s) whict are not disclosed in the preceding Interrogatories. If so, please set forth all details concerning those asset(s). See answer to question 1. ORALE2/PAWRIT W&A FILE NO. 131303295 7333 5. PROPERTY: At the time you were served or at any subsequent time, was there in your possession, custody, or control or in the joining possession, custody, or control of yourself and one or more other persons any property of any nature owned solely or in part by any Defendant(s)? If so, please describe for each Defendant(s) each item of property including its value. See answer to question 1. 6. REAL PROPERTY: At the time you were served or at any subsequent time, did you hold legal, or equitable title to any property of any nature owned solely or in part by the Defendant(s) or in which and Defendant(s) held or claimed any interest? If so, describe for each Defendant(s) each item of property including its value and the interest held by the Defendant(s). See answer to question 1. 7. PROPERTY HELD AS A FIDUCIARY: At the time you were served or at any subsequent time, did you hold as a fiduciary any property in which any Defendant(s) had an interest? If so, please describe for each Defendant(s) the nature of the property including its value and the interest of Defendant(s). No 8. TRANSFER OF PROPERTY: At any time before or after you were served, di( any Defendant(s) transfer or deliver any property to you or to any person or place pursuant to your direction or consent. If so, for each Defendant(s) describe the property transferred or delivered including the dates of delivery or transfer and state the consideration paid. Defendant made deposits into the above referenced account in the ordinary course prior to service, none of which were at 1 direction of Commerce Bank. 9. FEES OUTSTANDING TO GARNISHEE: Are there any attorneys fees or processing fees charged by you against the Defendant(s) or account(s) of the Defendant(s) for the completion of this Answer. If yes, outline the exact amount of any fees due and owing to the garnishee or the attorney for the garnishee for the preparation of the Answer.,. No 3801 Amy F. Doyle #87062 / Daniel F. Wolfson #20617 Philip C. Warholic x/86341 / Andrew C. Spears #87737 David R. Galloway #87326 / Tonilyn M. Chippie x/87852 Ronald M. Abramson #94266 / Ronald S. Canter #94000 merce Bank Bruce H. Cherkis #18837 Paxton Street WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, L.L.P. / Counsel for Plaintiff urg, PA 17111 Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection .-6 1 34 -41 4660 Trindle Road, (717) 303-6700 3rd Flo or, Camp Hill, PA 17 011 Date V Date. ORALE3/PAWRIT W&A FILE NO. 131303295 the f r ^-> .? L?? .J _ _ r-? '-? ? : F y i. ?? ^'f`t ?? _? ..? ? ?? VILLARI, BRANDES & KLINE, P.C. By: Paul D. Brandes, Esquire Theresa L. Giannone, Esquire Sasha L. Azar, Esquire Attorney I.D. #59769, #77148 and #94587 8 Tower Bridge, Suite 400 161 Washington Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 (610) 729-2900 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION ESTER J. LYKES and WILTON K. LYKES, h/w Plaintiffs, Vs. JAMES A. YATES, M.D., et al. Defendants, Docket No.: 05-5869 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS, HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM AND HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE SISTERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHARITY TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, through their attorneys, Villari, Brandes & Kline, P.C., file this Response in Opposition to the Preliminary Objections of Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System and Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of the Christian Charity to Plaintiffs' Complaint, and in support thereof, assert the following: 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. By way of further answer, Defendants agreed to provide Plaintiffs with an extension to July 31, 2006, to file an Amended Complaint. An extension was agreed upon, in part, to allow the Court time to consider the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and concomitant request for an amendment of the June 7 Order vis-a-vis defendant Plastic Surgery Center. See Exhibit "A." 6. Denied as stated. By way of further response, Count III of the Amended Complaint speaks for itself A true and correct copy of the Amended Complaint is attached as Exhibit "B." 7. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, it is denied that the "graveman" of Plaintiffs' claims only focus on the Defendant Dr. Yates' performance of the surgery and his follow up care. Plaintiffs also allege negligence on the part of Dr. Yates and the defendant Hospital (through its physicians and nurses) for causing and or failing to diagnose or treat Plaintiffs' pre- and post-operative anemia and post-operative infection. Plaintiffs also allege negligence on the part of Nurse Wolfersberger for her improper post-operative nursing care. In addition, Plaintiffs allege that Ms. Lykes had an infection shortly after leaving the defendant Hospital. Paragraphs 23 through 35 of the Amended Complaint describe the fluctuating vital signs and lab results of Ms. Lykes immediately prior to discharge, including an increase in her temperature to 101.4 degrees and a low blood count. Given the fact that defendant Hospital knew that Ms. Lykes was anemic (Complaint ¶ 23), that her vital signs and blood count were abnormal shortly after surgery (Complaint ¶¶ 25-33), and that she likely developed an infection prior to and/or shortly after being discharged (Complaint ¶ 35), there are ample allegations against the hospital to withstand its preliminary objections. 8. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, Count III of the Amended Complaint speaks for itself Plaintiffs assert traditional tort claims against moving defendant in Count III (e.g., negligent hiring, negligent supervision etc.), vicarious liability claims, and corporate negligence claims. 9. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Notwithstanding, Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleges that the defendant Hospital failed to satisfy each of the four non-delegable duties enunciated in Thompson v. Nason Hospital, 527 Pa. 330, 591 A.2d. 703 (Pa. 1991). 10. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Notwithstanding, Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint satisfies each three of the requirements to make out a prima facie case of corporate negligence enunciated in Welsh v. Bugle 548 Pa. 504, 698 A.2d 581, 586 (1997). Moreover, plaintiff asserts numerous traditional negligence claims (e.g., negligent hiring, negligent supervision etc.), and vicarious liability claims in Count III. 11. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, defendant Hospital was on constructive notice of the breaches being committed by its agents, servants and/or employees. Defendant Hospital knew that Ms. Lykes was anemic (Complaint ¶ 23), that her vital signs and blood count were abnormal shortly after surgery (Complaint ¶¶ 25-33), and that she likely developed an infection prior to and/or shortly after being discharged (Complaint ¶ 35). Accordingly, the hospital, at a minimum, had constructive notice of Ms. Lykes' condition. Constructive notice "must be imposed when the failure to receive actual notice is caused by the absence of supervision." Whittington v. Episcopal Hospital, 768 A.2d 1144, 1154 (Pa. Super. 2001). Paragraphs 67 (a) through (s) of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint allege systematic negligence on the part of the Hospital in failing to "timely, properly and/or adequately supervise" and in failing to "timely, properly and/or adequately monitor" its agents, servants and/or employees. Such negligence puts the Hospital on constructive notice, wherein the Hospital's failure to be notified of the negligence of its employees was caused by the complained of absence of supervision. 12. Denied as stated. By way of further answer, Paragraphs 67 (a) through (r) of the Amended Complaint speak for themselves. 13. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs have provided sufficient facts in Paragraphs 1 through 67 of the Complaint to support their claims of negligence against moving Defendants. Notwithstanding, the law of this Commonwealth is clear: "it is not the function of the complaint to be an all inclusive narrative of events underlying the claim. A plaintiff need only plead [the] material facts necessary to sustain a recovery which at the same time enables the defendant to defend." General State Authority v. Lawrie & Green, 24 Pa. Cmwlth. 407, 412, 356 A.2d 851, 854 (1976). The pleadings must achieve the purpose of informing the opposing party of the claims which she will need to defend. Commonwealth Dept of Transp v Shipley Humble Oil Co., 29 Pa. Commw. 171, 173, 370 A.2d 438,439 (1977). Accordingly, a Motion to Strike a pleading is not appropriate when the entire Complaint adequately informs the defendant of the issues that must be answered at trial. See Paz v Commonwealth Dept of Corrections, 135 Pa.Cmwlth. 162, 171, 580 A.2d 452, 456 (1990) citing Goodrich-Amram 2d, Section 1017(b). Notwithstanding, for the above-stated reasons, and as will be set forth more fully in Plaintiffs' Brief, Defendants narrow reading of the factual allegations in the Complaint do not support their preliminary objections, and accordingly, Defendants' objections should be overruled. 14. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs have provided sufficient facts in Paragraphs 1 through 67 to support its claims of negligence against moving Defendants. Notwithstanding, for the reasons that will be set forth more fully in Plaintiffs' Brief, Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleges the moving Defendants failed to monitor, oversee and/or supervise its employees and/or agents with regard to the post-operative care provided to Plaintiff Ms. Lykes. Given the fact that defendant Hospital knew that Ms. Lykes was anemic (Complaint ¶ 23), that her vital signs and blood count were abnormal shortly after surgery (Complaint ¶¶ 25-33), and that she likely developed an infection prior to and/or shortly after being discharged (Complaint ¶ 35), there are ample allegations against the hospital to withstand its preliminary objections. For example, had the hospital had various policies and procedures in place to monitor the Plaintiff as her vital signs changed (as a result of infection), then she may have been monitored more closely and/or provided with different discharge instructions by the defendant Hospital. Instead, it appears that Ms. Lykes only received Tylenol to reduce her fever (Complaint ¶ 27). 15. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, and as will be set forth more fully in Plaintiffs' Brief, Plaintiffs have provided sufficient facts in Paragraphs 1 through 67 to support their claims of negligence against moving Defendants. It is denied that Plaintiffs' allegations regarding Defendants' failure to formulate, adopt, review, revise and enforce adequate rules, policies, and procedures are conclusory. 16. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs have provided sufficient facts in Paragraphs 1 through 67 to support their claims of negligence against moving Defendants. Notwithstanding, for the reasons that will be set forth more fully in Plaintiffs' Brief, it is denied that the policies and procedures Plaintiffs claim are required "would force the hospital to practice medicine." Plaintiffs are not claiming the hospital was required, for example, to itself diagnose patients suffering from post-operative wound infections, but rather that it was obligated to promulgate, or enforce (through its staff) policies and procedures pertaining to diagnosis and treatment of patients suffering from post-operative wound infections. It is disingenuous for defendants to argue that enforcing or promulgating these types of policies and procedures would force them to practice medicine when the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals requires these very types of policies and procedures to be in place for a hospital to receive accreditation. 17. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, and for reasons that will be set forth more fully in Plaintiffs' Brief, it is denied that Plaintiffs' allegations are simple, plain and boilerplate. Defendant apparently view the subparts of paragraph 67 of the Amended Complaint in a vacuum without considering all of the preceding factual allegations and allegations of negligence against other parties. However, all averments of a Complaint must be considered together and evaluated in light of the entire nature of the case. Pincus v. Wolf, 2 D. & C. 2d 389 (1954); see also Goodrich-Amram 2d, Section 1017(b). Furthermore, a preliminary objection on the grounds of insufficient specificity should be denied where the objecting party may be presumed to have at least as much information as does the pleader. See, e.g., Paz v. Commonwealth Dept. of Corrections, 580 A.2d 452 (1990). In malpractice cases, our Courts have held that a Plaintiff has absolutely no obligation to specifically plead matters on which the objecting parties have, or should have, better knowledge than the pleader. Phila. Cty. Intermediate Unit No. 26 v Dept of Education, 60 Pa. Cmwlth. 546, 432 A.2d 1121 (1981). In the instant case, the Amended Complaint is sufficiently specific to notify moving Defendants of the claims against them and to allow them an opportunity to prepare a defense. If moving Defendants deny they were involved in certain aspects of Plaintiffs' care, they may Answer the Complaint with such denials. 18. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, as noted in paragraph 17 of this Response, and as more fully set forth in Plaintiffs' Brief, the moving Defendants should not view the allegations of the Complaint in a vacuum. Paragraphs 1 through 67 of the Complaint, when read as a whole, provide ample specific facts that support the Plaintiffs' claims against moving Defendants. 19. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. Notwithstanding, although Defendants call their preliminary objection a demurrer, Defendants seem to only object to the specificity of the Plaintiffs' corporate negligence allegations. Thus, legal precedent regarding demurrers is not dispositive. However, to the extent this Court determines Defendants' preliminary objection is a demurrer, it should be noted that Callsen v. Temple University Hospital, 539 Pa. 377, 652 A.2d 824 (Pa. 1995), cited by Defendants, is a published dissenting opinion from Justice Montemuro. That dissenting opinion provides that a demurrer is granted only when the court finds "with certainty that no recovery is permitted" after drawing all reasonable inferences from the allegations of the complaint. Id. at 380. Given the detailed factual allegations provided in Paragraphs 1 through 67 of the Amended Complaint, this Court may easily conclude that Plaintiffs state a claim of corporate negligence against moving Defendants. Furthermore, the allegations of the Plaintiffs Amended Complaint are stated in concise and summary form. The law in this Commonwealth is clear: "it is not the function of the Complaint to be an all-inclusive narrative of events underlying the claim. A plaintiff need only plead the material facts necessary to sustain a recovery, which at the same time, enables the defendant to defend." General State Authority v. Lawrie & Green, 24 Pa. Cmwlth. 407, 356 A.2d 851 (1976). Accordingly, the pleading should define the issues and give notice to the opposing party of a claim against which he or she will be required to defend. Com., Dept. of Transp. v. Shipley Humble Oil Co., 29 Pa. Commw. 171, 173, 370 A.2d 438, 439 (1977). Plaintiff s Amended Complaint is sufficient to apprise the Defendants of the Plaintiffs theories of liability against them, and therefore, Defendants' objection should be overruled. 20. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, as set forth in Paragraph 19 above and as set forth more fully in Plaintiffs' Brief, the Complaint sets forth sufficient detailed facts and states a claim of corporate negligence. Accordingly, Defendants' objections should be overruled. 21. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, and as set forth more fully in Plaintiffs' Brief, the court in Edwards v. Brandywine Hospital, 438 Pa. Super.673, 683, 652 A.2d 1382, 1387 (Pa.Super. 1995), recognized that "a hospital's corporate negligence will be measured against what a reasonable hospital under similar circumstances should have done." More importantly, the Edwards court noted that corporate liability exists under Thompson "where a hospital knows that one of its staff physicians is incompetent but lets that physician practice medicine anyway." Id. at 683. 22. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, the Pennsylvania Superior Court evaluated the cumulative nature of a hospital staffs' deviations from the standard of care in determining whether or not the defendant hospital breached the Thompson duty to oversee persons practicing medicine within its walls. Whittington, 768 A.2d at 1154. Given the cumulative nature of the Defendants' personnel's failure to diagnose and treat Mrs. Lykes' anemia, both pre- and post-operatively, there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the Defendants breached the third Thompson duty. See id. at 1154. 23. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. By way of further answer, defendant Hospital was on constructive notice of the breaches being committed by its agents, servants and/or employees. Constructive notice "must be imposed when the failure to receive actual notice is caused by the absence of supervision." Whittington, 768 A.2d at 1154. Paragraphs 67 (a) through (s) of Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint allege systematic negligence on the part of the Hospital in failing to "timely, properly and/or adequately supervise" and in failing to "timely, properly and/or adequately monitor" its agents, servants and/or employees. Such negligence puts the Hospital on constructive notice, wherein the Hospital's failure to be notified of the negligence of its employees was caused by the complained of absence of supervision. 24. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no response is required. By way of further answer, for the reasons set forth herein and as will be set forth more fully in the Plaintiffs' Brief, Defendants have not demonstrated that the law says with certainty that no claim for direct liability can be maintained against Holy Spirit Health System and Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity, and therefore, Defendants' preliminary objection should be overruled. 25. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs agreed to remove "recklessness" language from the Complaint with regard to the moving defendant only, and inadvertently included same in the Amended Complaint. 26. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs agreed to remove "recklessness" language from the Complaint with regard to the moving defendant only, and inadvertently included same in the Amended Complaint. 27. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs agreed to remove "recklessness" language from the Complaint with regard to the moving defendant only, and inadvertently included same in the Amended Complaint. 28. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs agreed to remove "recklessness" language from the Complaint with regard to the moving defendant only, and inadvertently included same in the Amended Complaint. 29. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs agreed to remove "recklessness" language from the Complaint with regard to the moving defendant only, and inadvertently included same in the Amended Complaint. 30. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs agreed to remove "recklessness" language from the Complaint with regard to the moving defendant only, and inadvertently included same in the Amended Complaint. 31. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs agreed to remove "recklessness" language from the Complaint with regard to the moving defendant only, and inadvertently included same in the Amended Complaint. 32. Denied as a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs agreed to remove "recklessness" language from the Complaint with regard to the moving defendant only, and inadvertently included same in the Amended Complaint. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully requests that this Honorable Court overrule the Defendants' Preliminary Objections to the Complaint. Respectfully submitted, VILLARI, BRANDES & KLINE By; ? -0? --oz 4heresa1. Giannone, Esquire Sasha L. Azar, Esquire - Atto;feys-fc Pramtiff VILLARI, BRANDES & KLINE, P.C. By: Peter M. Villari, Esquire Paul D. Brandes, Esquire Theresa L. Giannone, Esquire Sasha L. Azar, Esquire Attorney I.D. #26875, #59769, #77148 & # 94587 8 Tower Bridge, Suite 400 161 Washington Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 (610) 729-2900 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION ESTER J. LYKES and Docket No.: 05-5869 WILTON K. LYKES, h/w 21 Ringneck Drive Harrisburg, PA 17112 Plaintiffs, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED vs. JAMES A. YATES, M.D. c/o Plastic Surgery Center, Ltd. Grandview Corporate Place 205 Grandview Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 -and- SAUNDRA WOLFERSBERGER, R.N. c/o Plastic Surgery Center, Ltd. Grandview Corporate Place 205 Grandview Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 -and- PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER, LTD. Grandview Corporate Place 205 Grandview Avenue Camp Hill, PA 17011 -and- HOLY SPIRIT HEALTH SYSTEM, individually and/or doing business as : Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of : Christian Charity and/or doing business as Holy Spirit Hospital 503 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 -and- HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL OF THE : SISTERS OF CHRISTIAN CHARITY individually and/or doing business as : Holy Spirit Hospital 503 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Defendants. CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I, Sasha L. Azar, Esquire attorney for Plaintiffs, hereby state that on the 6th day of September, 2006, I did forward a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs' Response in Opposition to the Preliminary Objections of Defendants, Holy Spirit Health System and Holy Spirit Hospital of the Sisters of Christian Charity, to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint via postage paid first class mail on the following counsel of record: Leigh A. J. Ellis, Esquire Cindy N. Ellis, Esquire Foulkrod Ellis, P.C. 2010 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Thomas Chairs, Esquire Frank Marshall, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. Two PPG Place, Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222-5402 VILLARL BRANDES & KLINE, P.C. 7331 E . PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION (MONEY JUDGMENT) P.R.C.P. 3101 to 3149 GREAT SENECA FINANCIAL CORP., A MARYLAND CORPORATION, ASSIGNEE OF FORWARD PROPERTIES, ASSIGNEE OF DIRECT MERCHANTS BANK, N.A. P.O. BOX 1651 ROCKVILLE, MD 20849-1651 Plaintiff VS. BRAD VASEY 634 HERITAGE CT MECHANICSBURG PA 17050 Defendant (s) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JUDGMENT NO. 2005-5540 PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF EXECUTION (MONEY JUDGMENT) To the Prothonotary: PLEASE ISSUE WRIT OF EXECUTION IN THE ABOVE MATTER. (1) Directed to the Sheriff of CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Pennsylvania; (2) against, BRAD VASEY 634 HERITAGE CT MECHANICSBURG PA 17050 Defendant(s); (3) and against, COMMERCE BANK 20 NOBLE BLVD CARLISLE PA 17013-4119 Garnishee(s); (4) and index this writ (a) against, BRAD VASEY Defendant (s) and (b) against, COMMERCE BANK Garnishee(s), as a lis pendens against the real property of the Defendant(s) in the name of the Garnishee(s) as follows: (Specifically describe property) *** GARNISH ONLY *** You are directed to attach the property of the Defendant(s) not levied upon in the possession of COMMERCE BANK 20 NOBLE BLVD CARLISLE PA 17013-4119 Garnishee(s) All accounts including but not limited to all savings, checking and other accounts, certificates of deposit, notes receivables, collateral, pledges, documents of title, securities, coupons and safe deposit boxes. Amount due Interest from 06/13/2005 At an interest rate of 6% per year Dated: il'? 100 LL/4/ $ 2415.25 To Be Determined Total $ 2415.25 Plus costs & interest Amy F. Doyle " #87062 / Daniel F. Wolfson #20617 Philip C. Warholic #86341 / Andrew C. Spears #87737 David R. Galloway #87326 / Tonilyn M. Chippie #87852 Ronald M. Abramson #94266 / Ronald S. Canter #94000 Bruce H. Cherkis #18837 WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, L.L.P. / Counsel for Plaintiff Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection 4660 Trindle Road, 3rd Floor, Camp Hill, PA 17011 / (717) 303-6700 ATT1/PAWRIT W&A FILE NO. 131303295 4Q4 . col ? cG ? ,tea ti xV 1 c-, Q -rt C WRIT OF EXECUTION and/or ATTACHMENT '0 • , . COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA) COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND) NO 05-5540 Civil CIVIL ACTION - LAW TO THE SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: To satisfy the debt, interest and costs due GREAT SENECA FINANCIAL CORP., A MARYLAND CORPORATION, ASSIGNEE OF FORWARD PROPERTIES, ASSIGNEE OF DIRECT MERCHANTS BANK, N.A., Plaintiff (s) From BRAD VASEY, 634 HERITAGE CT., MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (1) You are directed to levy upon the property of the defendant (s)and to sell . (2) You are also directed to attach the property of the defendant(s) not levied upon in the possession of COMMERCE BANK, 20 NOBLE BLVD, CARLISLE, PA 17103-4119 -- ALL ACCOUNTS INCLUDING BUT LIMITED TO ALL SAVINGS, CHECKING AND OTHER ACCOUNTS, CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT, NOTES RECEIVABLES, COLLATERAL, PLEDGES, DOCUMENTS OF TITLE, SECURITIES, COUPONS AND SAFE DEPOSIT BOXES. GARNISHEE(S) as follows: and to notify the garnishee(s) that: (a) an attachment has been issued; (b) the garnishee(s) is enjoined from paying any debt to or for the account of the defendant (s) and from delivering any property of the defendant (s) or otherwise disposing thereof, (3) If property of the defendant(s) not levied upon an subject to attachment is found in the possession of anyone other than a named garnishee, you are directed to notify him/her that he/she has been added as a garnishee and is enjoined as above stated. Amount Due $2415.25 L.L. $.50 Interest FROM 6/13/05 AT AN INTEREST RATE OF 6% PER YEAR Atty's Comm % Atty Paid $37.25 Plaintiff Paid Date: AUGUST 16, 2006 Due Prothy $1.00 Other Costs CURTIS R ONG Prothonotary (Seal) By: Deputy REQUESTING PARTY: Name TONILYN M. CHIPPIE, ESQUIRE Address: WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, L.L.P. 4660 TRINDLE ROAD, 3" FLOOR CAMP HILL, PA 17011 Attorney for: PLAINTIFF Telephone: 717-303-6700 Supreme Court ID No. 87852 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA GREAT SENECA FINANCIAL CORP Plaintiff NO. 2005-5540 VS. BRAD VASEY Defendant(s) VS. COMMERCE BANK Garnishee(s) CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE TO DISSOLVE GARNISHMENT To the Prothonotary: Please release the Lis Pendes on a Judgment filed against COMMERCE BANK, garnishee in the above -entitled case and mark the Judgment against the garnishee as withdrawn. Dated: /it Respectfully Submitted, Lk ? 4"k- Amy F. Doyle #870#2 Daniel F. Wolfson 420617 Philip C. Warholic #86341 Andrew C. Spears #87737 David R. Galloway #87326 Tonilyn M. Chippie #87852 Ronald M. Abramson #94266 Ronald S. Canter #94000 Bruce H. Cherkis #18837 WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, LLP Attorneys in the Practice of Debt Collection 4660 Trindle Rd., 3`d Floor Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 303-6700 W&A File No. 131303295 C zoa W 'b ? SHERIFF'S RETURN - GARNISHEE CASE NO: 2005-05540 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSLYVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND GREAT SENECA FINANCIAL CORP VS VASEY BRAD And now J. M. ICKES Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County of Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, at 0016:29 Hours, on the 21st day of August , 2006, attached as herein commanded all goods, chattels, rights, debts, credits, and moneys of the within named DEFENDANT , VASEY BRAD in the hands, possession, or control of the within named Garnishee COMMERCE BANK 20 NOBLE BLVD CARLISLE, PA 17013 Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, by handing to AMANDA WILLIAMS (MANAGER) , personally three copies of interogatories together with 3 true and attested copies of the within WRIT OF EXECUTION and made the contents there of known to Her Sheriff's Costs: So answers: Docketing .00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 R. Thomas Kline, Surcharge .00 Sheriff of Cumberland County .00 00 08/22/2006 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this day of By Deputy Sheriff A.D WRIT OF EXECUTION and/or ATTACHMENT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA) COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND) NO 05-5540 Civil CIVIL ACTION - LAW TO THE SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: To satisfy the debt, interest and costs due GREAT SENECA FINANCIAL CORP., A MARYLAND CORPORATION, ASSIGNEE OF FORWARD PROPERTIES, ASSIGNEE OF DIRECT MERCHANTS BANK, N.A., Plaintiff (s) From BRAD VASEY, 634 HERITAGE CT., MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 (1) You are directed to levy upon the property of the defendant (s)and to sell . (2) You are also directed to attach the property of the defendant(s) not levied upon in the possession of COMMERCE BANK, 20 NOBLE BLVD, CARLISLE, PA 17103-4119 -- ALL ACCOUNTS INCLUDING BUT LIMITED TO ALL SAVINGS, CHECKING AND OTHER ACCOUNTS, CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT, NOTES RECEIVABLES, COLLATERAL, PLEDGES, DOCUMENTS OF TITLE, SECURITIES, COUPONS AND SAFE DEPOSIT BOXES. GARNISHEE(S) as follows: and to notify the garnishee(s) that: (a) an attachment has been issued; (b) the garnishee(s) is enjoined from paying any debt to or for the account of the defendant (s) and from delivering any property of the defendant (s) or otherwise disposing thereof; (3) If property of the defendant(s) not levied upon an subject to attachment is found in the possession of anyone other than a named garnishee, you are directed to notify him/her that he/she has been added as a garnishee and is enjoined as above stated. Amount Due $2415.25 L.L. $.50 Interest FROM 6113105 AT AN INTEREST RATE OF 6% PER YEAR Atty's Comm % Atty Paid $37.25 Plaintiff Paid Date: AUGUST 16, 2006 (Seal) Due Prothy $1.00 Other Costs L/1 CURTIS R. LONG Prothonotary By: Deputy REQUESTING PARTY: Name TONILYN M. CHIPPIE, ESQUIRE Address: WOLPOFF & ABRAMSON, L.L.P. 4660 TRINDLE ROAD, 3RD FLOOR CAMP HILL, PA 17011 Attorney for: PLAINTIFF Telephone: 717-303-6700 Supreme Court ID No. 87852 R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, states this Writ is returned ABANDONED, no action taken in six months. Sheriff's Costs: Advance Costs: 150.00 Sheriff's Costs 85.36 Docketing 18.00 64.64 Poundage 1.68 Advertising Law Library .50 Prothonotary 1.00 Refunded to Atty on 04/27/07 Mileage 4.40 Misc. Surcharge 30.00 Levy 20.00 Post Pone Sale Certified Mail Postage .78 Garnishee 9.00 TOTAL 85.36 ? ?`.2it/O ?'`- So Answers; V-N rThomas Kline Sheriff / By 1 o ? :? ? 8 ? ?t?a goat ? 1 '4) f0 tiB4$u