The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06-3851 c Richard R. Gan, Esq 17 ?W..t South Street Carlisle, Pa 17013 717241-4300 I.D. 68721 Attorneys for Plaintiff fATHY MORRISON IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PA, Plaintiff No. Of... 3l? 6'1 c.....J:J Iv- v. DAVID C. BAKER, M.D., CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO: David C. Baker, M.D. 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 wamed that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and ajudgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Amended Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. Document #: 234262.1 . YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Lawyer Referral Service 32 South Bedford Street Carlilse, P A 17013 249-2663 NOTICA USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siquientes paginas, debe tomar accion dentro de los proximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificacion de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente 0 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 Ie 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 0 cualquier otra reclamacion or remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero 0 propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEV AR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO 0 NO PUEDE PAGARLE A UNO, LLAME 0 VA Y A A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA PARA A VERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE ENCONTRAR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Lawyer Referral Service 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, P A 17013 Document #: 211330.1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA ~A THY MORRISON, Action at Law Civil Division PLAINTIFF V File No: Of.. 315 J ~ -r:... DAVID C. BAKER, MD Jury Trial Demanded COmPLAINT" I. Plaintiff Kathy Morrison is an individual residing at 1077 Ivey Road, Apt C Graham, NC 27253. 2. Defendant is David C. Baker, MD whose primary place of business is 19 Brookwood Avenue, Suite 104, Carlisle, Pa 17013. Defendant is a licensed Physician in the State of Pennsylvania and holds himself out to be a specialist in the area of orthopedic surgery. 3. The jurisdiction of this Court is based upon the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil procedure. 4. At all times relevant hereto, the acts or omissions complained of in this complaint were committed by agents, servants, or employees of defendant acting within the course and scope of their agency and employment with the defendant 5. On or about May, 2001, plaintiff had a total right knee replacement performed by the defendant. 6. Beginning on or about May 15,2001 and continuing through July 7, 2004, Plaintiff experienced continually pain and suffering as a result of this knee replacement. 7. As a result of the continuing pain and suffering, the Plaintiff was required to have the same knee replaced on July 7, 2004 by Dr. Boal at Holy Spirit Hospital .' 8, Plaintiffleamed on July 7, 2004 that the knee replacement that had been previously done by doctor Baker was the wrong sized knee and the cause of the pain and suffering that she endured for three years prior to having the knee replaced once again. 9, Plaintiff's injuries, as hereinafter set forth, were directly and proximately caused by the carelessness, negligence, and battery of defendant, its agents, servants, workmen, and/or employees, and included but were not limited to the following: medical malpractice resulting from the placement of the wrong sized knee in the Plaintiffs leg; severe and constant back and leg pain and weakness, severe depression and mental distress for a period of three years prior to the replacement of the knee for a second time.. 10, The carelessness and negligence of defendant, acting by and through its agents, servants, workmen, and/or employees, consisted of the following: (a) Failure to conform to the requisite standard of reasonable medical care and skill under the circumstances, and at the time, with respect to plaintiff; (b) Failure to provide and render reasonable medical care to plaintiff under the circumstances; (c) Failure to perform surgery on plaintiff in a proper, reasonable, and safe manner; (d) Failure to properly select, train, and supervise its agents, servants, workmen, or employees to assure plaintiff reasonable treatment and care under the circumstances; (e) Failure to diagnose and treat plaintiff appropriately and expeditiously; (f) Failure to utilize appropriate and requisite laboratory, hospital, and consulting facilities in treating plaintiff; (g) Negligence as a matter oflaw; and (i) Such other acts and/or omissions constituting carelessness, negligence, and malpractice as may become evident during the course of discovery or at the trial of this action. II. As a direct result of the aforementioned injuries, plaintiff suffered for three years until yet another knee was replaced, endured great physical pain and mental anguish, to her great detriment and loss. 12, As a further result of the aforementioned injuries, plaintiff has suffered a marked loss of earnings and depreciation of his earning capacity, and will continue , to suffer such loss and depreciation for an indefinite time in the future, to her great detriment and loss. 13. As a further result of the aforernentioned injuries, plaintiff has been unable to attend to and perform her usual and daily duties, occupations, avocations, and labors, and will continue to be so disabled for an indefinite time in the future, to her great detriment and loss. WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands a judgment against defendant in an amount in excess of$ 35,000.00. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE 14. Plaintiffs repeat and realign each and every allegation in paragraphs" I " through" 13" with the same force and effect as though fully set forth herein. 15. Defendant, his agents, servants or employees represented themselves to be competent to perform or render all professional work, labor, services, treatments and tests that were to be rendered to Plaintiff. 16. Defendant, his agents, servants or employees represented that they had the skill, knowledge and ability generally possessed by persons specializing in such type of treatment and practicing their profession in the performance of tests and all diagnosis, preoperative, operative and postoperative procedures. 17. On or about May 200, Plaintiff employed Defendant to perform a total knee replacement. 18. On the above date, Defendant examined and undertook medical care of the Plaintiff. 19. During the course of Plaintiffs treatment by Defendant, Defendant placed the wrong sized replacement knee in the body of Plaintiff 20. Defendant, his agents, servants or employees carelessly and negligently failed to diagnose Plaintiffs injury and complaints properly and failed to place the correct knee in her body. 21. The wrong knee remained within Plaintiff' without the knowledge or consent of Plaintiff, and without any negligence or lack of care on her part. 22. That in rendering services to Plaintiff, Defendant violated this duty to her and were negligent in among other things, in carelessly, negligently, wrongfully and improperly failing to examine Plaintiff during and after the surgical procedure; in failing to properly diagnose the proper course of treatment for her post-surgical injury she complained of immediately after waking up from anesthesia. 23. That as a result of the violation of duty, negligence, wrongful acts or omissions of the Defendant in the scope of their authority, Plaintiff became sick, sore, lame and disabled and further sustained severe, serious and permanent injuries. 24. That Defendants' negligence was the proximate and foreseeable cause ofPlaintifi's Injury. 25. That the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor is applicable in this action in that at all times hereinafter mentioned, Plaintiff was under the medical supervision of the Defendant and the injury must have been caused by an agency or instrumentality in the operating room which was within exclusive control of Defendant. 26. Plaintiff was under general anesthesia and could not have contributed to the injury, and evidence of cause of injury is more readily available to Defendant than to Plaintiff. 27. If Defendants had used reasonable care in the performance of their treatment, Plaintiff would not have sustained serious and permanent injury. 28. That Plaintiff was free from contributory negligence. 29. By reason of the carelessness and negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff for a period from May, 2001, to July 7, 2004, was allowed to and did remain in ignorance of the carelessness and negligence of Defendant. Plaintiff suffered a painful surgical procedure in attempts to have the correct knee placed in her body. 30. By reason of the wrongful, negligent and careless acts of the defendant in failing surgically implant the correct sized knee, the plaintiff was rendered sick, sore and disabled and was caused great pain, inconvenience, mental and physical agony, suffered and still suffers and will continue to suffer great physical pain, inconvenience, mental and physical agony, and has suffered and sustained serious and permanent injuries. 31. By reason of the foregoing, Plaintiff was obliged to and did spend sums of money in endeavoring to cure and regain her health. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the defendant in a sum in excess of $35,000 with costs and attorney fess assessed against the Defendant. .' ~~ c-- ~~-- Richard R. Gan Dated: Gan Law Group Richard R. Gan, Esq. 17 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-241-4300 1.0.68721 7 h/ob . t\ '1 i}1 t- ~ f\ ~ - \' f ~~ J' \" f~ - \J o<J _ <::> ("' 0. ..4, ..(:> ~ , ~ .. lr, 9\ ~ o C', \;~l .-\ -c .-(\ "2"c~ ~ \ "-.), ~, ..."'-, " -,:':" -~ .' .--_C" -;::2. ..,-,,,, .. .. ~L IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYL VANIA CATHY MORRISON, PLAINTIFF V DAVID C. BAKER, MD DISCONTINUANCE Action at Law Civil Division File No: 063851 Civil Term Jury Trial Demanded Now comes the Plaintiff, Cathy Morrison, by her attorneys, Gan Law Group and advises the court; 1. That pursuant to Rule 229 of the PRCP, notice is given that Plaintiff in the above matter files this Discontinuance in regard to the above stated action as to all defendants. 2. That the court enter the attached order terminating this matter at its earliest convenience. ~ (--- ,..D, Richard R. Gan Dated: Gan Law Group Richard R. Gan, Esq. 17 West South Street Carlisle, P A 17013 717-241-4300 I.D.68721 e~7' / C1 ~-. --'""'i\"\' ~'(" ~r ~ /fh .~~~\~~ YCq '3.. I ~ q, ~ ~~~ (;'> "':<i\\:{ ~ cy;,{. UJ ':{..~ ..0 '~..~ -:%- c;:? f9 ~ ';J, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CATHY MORRISON, Action at Law Civil Division PLAINTIFF V File No: 063851 Civil Term DAVID C. BAKER, MD Jury Trial Demanded ORDER After reviewing the attached DISCONTINUANCE and the court being otherwise fully advised in the premises, IT IS ORDERED THAT the above stated matter, entitled Cathy Morrison v David C. Baker. MD , bearing file no 06-3851 is dismissed with prejudice as to all Defendants. Honorable Dated: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CATHY MORRISON, Action at Law Civil Division PLAINTIFF V File No: 063851 Civil Term DAVID C. BAKER, MD Jury Trial Demanded ORDER After reviewing the attached DISCONTINUANCE and the court being otherwise fully advised in the premises, IT IS ORDERED THAT the above stated matter, entitled Cathy Morrison v David C. Baker. MD , bearing file no 06-3851 is dismissed with prejudice as to all Defendants. Honorable Dated: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA 3 RECEIVED U' SEP 0 6 2006 BY: " r ... ''-,a CATHY MORRISON, Action at Law Civil Division PLAINTIFF v File No: 063851 Civil Term DAVID C. BAKER, MD Jury Trial Demanded ORDER After reviewing the attached DISCONTINUANCE and the court being otherwise fully advised in the premises, IT IS ORDERED THAT the above stated matter, entitled Cathy Morrison v David C. Baker. MD , bearing file no 06-3851 is dismissed with prejudice as to all Defendants. '1L~~~~, \~J lDbb Honorable Dated: ~ ~\j ?\" o no: r ~ -.1 n i ;.) " ~. .. .... IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA CATHY MORRISON, Action at Law Civil Division PLAINTIFF V File No: 063851 Civil Term DAVID C. BAKER, MD Jury Trial Demanded DISCONTINUANCE Now comes the Plaintiff, Cathy Morrison, by her attorneys, Gan Law Group and advises the court; 1. That pursuant to Rule 229 of the PRCP, notice is given that Plaintiff in the above matter files this Discontinuance in regard to the above stated action as to all defendants. 2. That the court enter the attached order terminating this matter at its earliest convenience. ~L '-J.~L -C-i- 8~~ / Richard R. Gan Dated: Gan Law Group Richard R. Gan, Esq. 17 West South Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717-241-4300 J.D. 68721 o ~;; ~ ,:-;;:> o~ \"') ..P .....0 > r:-? (::') ...p