The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-5461IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT Plaintiff, VS. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants CIVIL DIVISION No. Or- JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS IN CIVIL ACTION Filed on behalf of Plaintiff Counsel of Record for This Party: Robert A. Cohen Pa. I.D. #00467 BEHREND&ERNSBERGER 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite300 Pi~sburgh, PA15222 (412) 391-2515 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, VS. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS IN CIVIL ACTION TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly issue a Writ of Summons in Civil Action in the above captioned case against Defendants Robert F. Hall, II, M.D., Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital. Robert A. Cohen Pa. I.D. #00467 BEHREND & ERNSBERGER 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 391-2515 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, VS. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants No. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TO THE SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please make service of the attached Writ of Summons in Civil Action upon Defendant Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. at the following address: Carlisle Hospital 246 Parker Street P.O. Box 310 Carlisle, PA 17013 Robert A. Cohen IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, VS. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants No. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TO THE SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please make service of the attached Writ of Summons in Civil Action upon Defendant Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. at the following address: Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. c/o Carlisle Hospital 246 Parker Street P.O. Box 310 Carlisle, PA 17013 Robe~ A. Cohen IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA C1VIL DIVISION KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, VS. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants No. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED TO THE SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please make service of the attached Writ of Summons in Civil Action upon Defendant Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. at the following address: Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. c/o Carlisle Hospital 246 Parker Street P.O. Box 310 Carlisle, PA 17013 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KI~Tr VS. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation 246 Parker Street P.O.Box 310 Carlisle, PA 17013 Court of Common Ple~ No ...... _0_ 1_: _5_4_6_ ! _ _C_i_¥ _i_l_ _T_~ _r~_ .......... 19 .... In ..... -C-i-v-i- -1- -A-c- -t i-°-n- - -- - -L-a-w- .................. Robert F. Hall, II, M.D., Johnson G. Coyle, M.D,, and Carlisle Hospital, To - - h- -66~fa%-£6fi ........................... You are hereby notified that Karen Klett and Gregory Klett the Plaintiff has commenced an acfon in __C__iy_i_l_._A__c_t_i_o_n___-___L~._w ................................. against you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may be entered against you. (SEAL) Date _ _ -~R%~-r- - -K9:- -2- 9PA ..... 19 .... Prothonotary LAURALEE B. BAKER, ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I.D. NO. 58874 MAR~OLIS EDELSTEIN Post Office Box 932 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-0932 Telephone= [717] 975-8114 Fax: [717] 975-8124 E-Mail= lbaker~margolisedelstein.com Attorney for Defendant= ROBERT F. ~ALL, II, M.D. KAREN KLETT AND GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, vs. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :CIVIL ACTION - LAW : :NO. 5461 CIVIL TERM 2001 CARLISLE HOSPITAL, A CORPORATION,: Defendants. :JURY TRIAL DEMAA!DED PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please issue Rule upon Plaintiffs to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days from service hereof or suffer judgment non pros. Respectfully submitted, Date: MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN BY:~~LE~ ~. BAKERTESQUIRE PA. Attorney I.D. No. 58874 Attorney for Defendant, ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. P. O. Box 932 Harrisburg, PA 17108-0932 (717) 975-8114 RULE TO THE PLAINTIFFS: YOU are hereby ordered and directed to file your Complaint against the Defendant in the above-captioned matter within twenty (20) days of service of this Rule against you or suffer judgment non pros. Prothonot ary~ LAURALEE B. BAKER, ESQUIRE Pa. Supreane Court I.D. No. 58874 ~RGOLIS EDELSTEIN Post Office Box 932 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-0932 Telephone: [717] 975-8114 Fax: [717] 975-8124 E-Mail: lbaker®margolisedelstein.com Attorney for Defendants ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. KAREN KLETT AiqD GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, VS. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :CIVIL ACTION - LAW : :NO. 5461 CIVIL TERM 2001 CARLISLE HOSPITAL, A CORPORATION,: Defendants. :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANC~ TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant, Hall, M.D., in the above-captioned matter. Robert F. Respectfully submitted, MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN Date: ~U~ALEE B. BAKER, ESQUIRE PA-?. Attorney I.D. No. 58874 Attorney for Defendant, ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. P. O. Box 932 Harrisburg, PA (717) 975-8114 17108-0932 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing ENTRY OF APPEARANCE on all interested parties by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, Penn~lvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the/~/day of ~/~ , 2001, and addressed as follows: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue - Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Risk Manager Carlisle Hospital 246 Parker Street P. O. Box 310 Carlisle, PA 17013 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN ~c .~. ~n LAW OFFICES BARI. EY, SENFT & COHEN, LLC 126 EAST KING STREET - LANGASTER, PENNSYLVANIA 17602-2893 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaimiffs : No. 01-5461 V. ~ : ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of Barley, Snyder, Senti & Cohen, LLC, by Kendra D. McGuire, Esquire and Stephanie Carfley, Esquire on behalf of Defendant Carlisle Hospital. Please serve all papers at 126 East King Street, Lancaster, PA 17602. Date: BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COI-JEN, LLC Kandra D. Mc-CJ~i-~e, ~-s~tui~ ( f Stephanie Carfl~'ff, Esquire %~ [ Attorneys for Defendant x4 Carlisle Hospital 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2832 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 50919 Court I.D. No. 79136 1023612.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe has been served this ~ ~day of October, 2001, by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Emsberger 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 BARLEY, SNYDER, Kendra'~D. McGuire, Stephanie Carfley, E Attorneys for Defenc Carlisle Hospital 2'squire uire It 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2832 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 50919 Court I.D. No. 79136 LAW OFFICES BARLEY, SNYDER, ~ ~ COHEN, LLC 126 EAST KING STREET - LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA 17602-2893 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation, Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )/ ) ) No. 01-5461 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter a Rule upon the Plaintiffs in the above-captioned matter to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days of the Rule or suffer a judgment of non pros. Date: Io]2.3[ol BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, LLC Kendra D. McGuir}~-Esquire Stephanie Carfley,~squire ~ Attorneys for Defef~tants, Carlisle Hospital anil Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 50919 Court I.D. No. 79136 AND NOW, this,?~t'~tay of~ 2001, a Rule has been entered upon the Plaintiffs as above directed. /3. -- Prothonotary '- 10.22.01/SC/1024009.1 LAW OFFICES BARLEY, ENFT & COHEN, LLC 126 EAST KING STREET - LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA. 17602-2893 1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation, Defendants No. 01-5461 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of Barley, Snyder, Senft & Cohen, LLC, by Kendra D. McGuire, Esquire and Stephanie Carfley, Esquire on behalf of Defendant Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. Please serve all papers at 126 East King Street, Lancaster, PA 17602. Date: 'l~endra b. McG'uire, Esquire Stephanie Carfley, Esquire Attorneys for Defendants Carlisle Hospital and Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2832 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 50919 Court I.D. No. 79136 ..... ~ 1024093.1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a tree and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe has been served this ~'~ffay of October, 2001, by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Emsberger 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 BARLEY, SNYDER, SENF]~/& COHEN, LLC Kendra D. McGuire, Esquire Stephanie Carfley, Esquire Attorneys for Defendants Carlisle Hospital and Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2832 (717) 299-5201 Court I.D. No. 50919 Court I.D. No. 79136 LAUP~LEE B. BAKER, ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I.D. No. 5887% MARaOLIS EDELSTEIN Post Office Box 932 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108-0932 Telephone= [717] 975-8114 Fax= [717] 975-8124 E-Mail: lbaker®margolisedelstein.com Attorney for Defendant= EOBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. KAREN KLETT A. ND GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, vs. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :CIVIL ACTION - LAW : :NO. 5461 CIVIL TERM 2001 CARLISLE HOSPITAL, A CORPORATION,: Defendants. :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED P RA E C I P E TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: Kindly file of record the attached Certificate of Service of the Rule to File Complaint which was entered by the Prothonotary reflected in the on October 18, 2001, and served on the date attached Certificate of Service. Respectfully submitted, ~ALEE B. BAKER, ESQUIRE PA Attorney I.D. #58874 Attorneys for Defendant, ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. P. O. Box 932 Harrisburg, PA (717) 975-8114 17108-0932 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT on all interested parties by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, Pen)~;lvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the ~..~day of ~~ , 2001, and addressed as follow~: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue - Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Risk Manager Carlisle Hospital 246 Parker Street P. O. Box 310 Carlisle, PA 17013 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN Ann E. Nelson, Secretary CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE TO FILE OF RECORD THE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF THE RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT on all interested parties by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, Pe~lvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the .~day of ~'~~-(~ , 2001, and addressed as follows: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Risk Manager Carlisle Hospital 246 Parker Street P. O. Box 310 Carlisle, PA 17013 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN ~'Ann E. Nelson, ~ecretary LAW OFFICES BARLEY, SNYDER.~ S~ENFT & COHEN, LLC I26 EAST KING STREET - LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA 17602-2893 IN THE COURT OF COMMON ~LEA~ ur CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation, Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )/ ) ) No. 01-5461 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA : : SS: COUNTY OF LANCASTER : STEPHANIE CARFLEY, ESQUIRE, being duly affirmed according to law, deposes and says that a true,and correct copy of a Rule to File Complaint has been served thiS,,~5r of October, 2001, postage prepaid, upon: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Emsberger, P.C. Union Bank Building, 3rd Floor 306 Fourth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Sworn to and subscribed before me this~_b4~ay of October, 2001, Notary }u'blic / : 10.25.011SCI1024009.1 BARLE~-q)ER, S~NFT & COHEN, LLC Kendra D. Mc(¥ire, Esqui~ (7 Stephanie Carfll~', Esquire Attorneys for Defendants Carlisle Hospital and Johnson 13. Coyle, M.D. 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2893 Court I.D. No. 50919 : Court I.D. No. 79136 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, VS. Plaimiffs, ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants No. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF SERVICE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please take notice that on the 5th day of December, 2001, Plaintiffs' counsel served Answers to Interrogatories upon counsel for Defendants. Robert A. Cohen Pa. I.D. #01M67 BEHREND & ERNSBERGER 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 391-2515 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing NOTICE OF SERVICE was mailed to the following counsel of record, by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, this 5th day of December, 2001. Lauralee B. Baker, Esquire Margolis Edelstein P.O. Box 932 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Kendra D. McGuire, Esquire Stephenie Carfley, Esquire Barley, Snyder, Senft & Cohen 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 Robert A. Cohen MICHAEL M. RADOWSKI, ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I.D. NO. 32646 HARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 9510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 Telephone= [717] 975-8114 Fax: [717] 975-8124 E-Mail: mbadowski~margolisedelstein.com Attorney for Defendant: ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. KAREN KLETTAND GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, VS. ROBERT F. FALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :CIVIL ACTION - LAW : :NO. 5461 CIVIL TERM 2001 CARLISLE HOSPITAL, A CORPORATION,: Defendants. :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANC~ TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant, Hall, M.D., in the above-captioned matter. Robert F. Date: Respectfully submitted, / MICHAEL BA~DOWSKI Attorney for Defendant, ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. P. O. Box 932 Harrisburg, PA (717) 975-8114 17108-0932 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE the the United States mail at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, postage prepaid, on the ;I.Q~ day of ~/~.i~ addressed as follows: I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and correct copy of foregoing on all interested parties by placing the same in first-class 2001, and Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue Suite Pittsburgh, PA 15222 300 Kendra McGuire, Esquire BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, 126 E. King Street P.O. Box 83126 Lancaster, PA 17602 LLC MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN - 2 - (D MICHAEL M. ~ADOWSKI, ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I.D. No. 32646 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 Telephone: [717] 975-8114 Fax: [717] 975-8124 Attorney for Defendant: ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. E-Mail: mbadowski@margolisedelstein.com KAREN KLETT AND GREGORY KLETT, :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs, VS. : :NO. 5461 CIVIL TERM 2001 ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., : JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and : CARLISLE HOSPITAL, A CORPORATION,: Defendants. :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :CIVIL ACTION - LAW TO favor PRAECIPE TO ENTER ~gD~MENT NON PROS THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: Kindly enter judgment non pros against Plaintiff and in of Defendant, Robert F. Hall, II, M.D., for Plaintiff's failure to timely file a Complaint pursuant to the Notice and served in accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil w~ i~ a t t a~g_~ ~e Procedure 237.1(a) (2), a copy of reto. Dated: //~ Attorneys for Defendants, ROBERT F. issued PHILADELPHIA OFFICE THE CURTIS CENTER FOURTH FLOOR INDEPENDENCE SQUARE WEST PHILADELPHIA. PA 19106-3304 215-922-1100 FAX 215-922-1772 PITTSBURGH OFFICE 1500 GRANT BUILDING PITTSEURGH, PA 15219-2203 412-281-4256 FAX 412-642-2380 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW POST OFFICE BOX 932 HARRISBURG, PA 171084)932 STREET ADDRESS: 3510 TRINDLE ROAD CAMp HILL, PA 17011 7t7.975-61 t4 FAX 717-975-8t24 WRITER: PAMELA R. SHAFER, PARALEGAL DIRECT E-MAIL: pshafer@margolisedelstein,com November 19, Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue - Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 2001 DELAWARE COUNTY OFFICE 216 SOUTH ORANGE STREET MEDIA, PA 19063 610-565-8311 FAX 610-665-8318 NEW JERSEY OFFICE P.O. BOX 2222 216 HADDON AVENUE WESTMONT, NJ 08108-2886 856-858-7200 FAX 856-858-1017 SCRANTON OFFICE THE OPPENHEIM SUILDING 406 LACKAWANNA AVENUE SUITE 3C SCRANTON, PA 18503 570-342-4231 FAX 570-342-4841 Re: Klett v. Hall, et al. Qur File NO. 57300.4-0120 Dear Mr. Cohen: Enclosed please find our Notice of Intent to Enter Judgement Non Pros Pursuant to PA. R. CIV. p. 237.1(a) (2). We are serving this Notice as a formality due to the fact that counsel have agreed to give Plaintiffs a 60 day extension of time to file a Complaint. In accordance with the agreement between counsel, Plaintiffs have until January 7, 2002 to file a Complaint. prs Enclosures Very truly yours, Pamela R. Shafer, Paralegal cc: Kendra McGuire, Esquire (w/encl.) MICHAEL M. BADOWSKI, ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I.D. No. $2646 MARaOLIS RDELSTEIN 3510 Trindle Road Camp ~i11, Pennsylvania 17011 Telephone: [717] 975-8114 Fax: [717] 975-8124 E-Mail: mbadowski~rgolisedelstein.com Attorney for Defendant= ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. KAREN KLETT AND GREGORY KLETT, :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs, VS. : NO. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., : JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D. , and : CARLISLE HOSPITAL, A CORPORATION,: Defendants. :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ~E O E E NON O : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :CIVIL ACTION - LAW 5461 CIVIL TERM 2001 TO: PURSUANT TO PA. R. CIV, p. 237.1(a) (2) KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT c/o Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue - Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Date of Notice: November 14, 2001 Date: YOU ARE IN DEFAULT BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO FILE A COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE. UNLESS YOU ACT WITHIN TEN DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE, A JLrDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU WITHOUT A HEARING AND YOU MAy LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO SUE THE DEFENDANT AND THEREBY LOSE PROPERTY OR OTHER IMPORTANT RIGHTS. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS NOTICE TO A LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR C/LNNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE FOLLOWING OFFICE TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP: Lawyer Referral Service //~..~ 9/ Pa. Sup. Ct. I.D. #32646 Attorney for Defendant, ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. CERTIFICATE OF SERVIC~ I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and Correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE TO FILE OF RECORD THE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF THE RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT on all interested parties by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the ~day of --~~ , 2001, and addressed as follows: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue - Suite Pittsburgh, PA 15222 300 Kendra McGuire, Esquire BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, 126 E. King Street P.O. Box 83126 Lancaster, PA 17602 LLC MARGOLI S EDELSTEIN BY"~-~ ~Paralegal Pamela R. P' ~ERTIFICATE OF I HEREBY CERTIFY that I served a true and Correct copy of the foregoing PRAEcIPE TO FILE OF RECORD THE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF THE RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT on all interested parties by placing the same in the United States mail at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, first-class postage prepaid, on the ~ day of ~~~ __, 2002, and addressed as follows: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue Suite Pittsburgh, PA 15222 3OO Kendra McGuire, Esquire BARLEY, SNYDER, SENFT & COHEN, 126 E. King Street P.O. Box 83126 Lancaster, PA 17602 LLC MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN Pamela R. Shaft, Paralega[ JAN-l~-2002 12:51P FROM: - T0:4123912762 P:2/5 IN 'rile COURT ()F COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNT'¥, PENNSYLVANIA KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT Plaintiff, ROBERT F. ItALL, Il, M.D., JOI-INSON O. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISI.E HOSPITAL, a corlx)ration Delkndmlt~ You arc r~quired to plead to thc cimlo.~d Complaint, within twenty (20) days of thc dat© of servico hcn.x)t: CWILDMSION No, 5z[61 Civil Term 2001 JI.IRY~N DED COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION Filed on behalf of Plaintiff Counsel of Retx~rd for Ibis Party: Robert A, Cohen Pa, I.D. #00467 BEI:ffiEND & ERNSBERGER 306 Fourth Avemw, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 391-2515 Robert A. Cohen JAN-15-2002 09:5gA FROM: TO: 412~912762 IN THE COURI OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLE'I '1', Plaintiff-s, ROBERT F. HALL, II, M,D., JOHNSON G. COYI,E, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation CIVIL DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 5461 Civil T~'m 2001 ,~q~.Y TRIAI, DEMANDED =COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION First Count Karen Klett vs. Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. I. Ka_ren KIeR [hercinaller "Plaintiff'] and Lff~gory Klett are wife and huzbaad, respectively, and ar~ residents of Portage, Cambria County, Pennsylvalfia. 2. Defendant Johnson (3, Coyle M.D. [hereJna..,~er "Dr. Coyle"] is a medical doctor duly authorized and licensed to practice medicine in Ctmlberland County, Pennsylvania, with offices located 246 Parker Street, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 17013. Dr. Coyle is engaged in the practice of emergency medkine. 3. Defendant Robert F. Hall, M.D. [hereinafter "Dr. I-Lall"] is n medical doctor duly authoriv~l and fieensed to practice medicine in Cumberland County, Petmsylvania, with offices located 246 Parker Street, Carlisle, Pennaylvania, 17013. Dr. Hall is engaged in the lm. tctice of radiology. JAN-l~-200~ 12:51P FROM: TO:412Jg127~2 4. At all titans material to this action, Dr. Ilall and Dr, Coyle wow cmploycd by Carlislo Hospital, and as suck acl~d a.s agcnts, servants, or employees of Carlisle llospital, acting in and about the business of thc Carlisle Hosl~itat, and in furtherance thereof. 5. Defendant Carlisle Hospital [hereinafter "the Hospital"] is a private hospital thdlity for the care of sick and injured people, with ils prhlcipal place of busincs,~ and hospital facilities lo~at~l at 246 Parker Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pcansylvania, 17013. 6. At thc tirae of the negligence and wrongful acts herein coraplalncd of, the Hospital enSaged, agreed, undertook, and held it,~ll'out to the Plaintiflk and to thc general public, as being ready, willing and able to provide appropriate hospital care for patients received by the Ilos, pital for hospital care and treatment, including eraergency tmstment and radiologieal procedures. The Hospital ~rther undcrtook, agreecL and held itself out to provide all reasonably nemssary and fit and proper pcmonnel, facilities and surroundings, and agreed and held i[,glf om to the Plaintiffs, mid to the general public, as providing an adequate nuraber of reasonably competent 'administrators, physician.s, radiologists, and other health cam professionals adr. quat¢ to meet the requireraents of providing PrO0er emergency and radiological treatnmnt. 7. On or about June 7, 1997, Plalntiffwas employed by Glen Moore Transport a.s a mast-to-coast tractor-trailer operator. At approximately 9:00 P.M. on that date, Plainti'[l'w~ operating a Freight Linc tractor-trailer condo in New Mexico on US 40 We~ i.e., toward California; the husband Plaintiff, Gregory I(let~ was 8,,;lee~p in thc bunk. 2 ~AN-~$-2002 12:Si~ F~OM: TO: ~12~12782 P:4~5 When Plaimifl's rig cntercd a construction area appwxirnalely 60 to 70 miles East of Jamestown, New Mexico, another vehicle attempted to l~.ss Plaintiff's trach)r-tmiler on the let. Plaintiffther~upon signaled her inteation to make a fight mm as soon as thc vehicles would have left the construction at'ca, and thc other vehicle w~m bclfind her. Jtlst before the end of the constructitm at,a, Plaintilt began to move toward the fighL but thc other vehicle b~gaa to p~-~s htr oil thc riEhL knocking over s~mc construction cones in the coarse of so doing. The othgr vehicle then d/sappoared t¥om view, and while P~alntift' was ',~U.¢mpt/ng to shiR gears, she turned her head far To the right, to look R~r the other vehicle, and then she turned her head back sharply to the left. However, b~cat~c she had to turn her head fat to th~ right, and then back far to the left, while attempting to shift gears at the same time, she over-extended her neck and felt a sudden "pop" and /mmedialely felt severe and exczuciating pa/n. She pulled over, stoplx~d, sncl ,~ayed near the a~idont acen¢ for a l~riod oft/me, and then continued on to Jamestown, wher~ there was a ~ruck atop, Aller sitting at thc truck stop for the maxlmura allowed of Pla/ntiff cont/nued with her load to its destination, althou~ thc husband Plaintilf, Grego~T L. KletL did most of'the driving,, ~. l~'ollowing the Callforaia delivery, 'although Plaintiffwas in ~vcic po. in, the Klett team ~ook on a toad in Califonfia which they d¢llvered in Florida. Aga/n, Plaintiff Gr~goly IClett did most of thc driving tm this trip. After a 12 hour ~ay in Flor/da, PlaintLfftelephoned her place of employraent, told them ~hat she was in great pain and g~j. ng s/.ckcr, and had to come home. She returned to ~e offices of Glen JAN-l~5-2002 10:00A FROM: TO: 412~912762 Mnom Transport in Carlisle, and was immediately sc, t to thc Carlisle Hospital EalCrgency Room for appmpriatt~ care and trcatnlclll. 9. Pl',dntift'arrived at Carlisle Hospital approximately 12:30 P.M. to 1:00 P.M. on June 12, 1997, where she was examined and ~'~d by Dr. Coyle. Dr Coyle referred Plainliff for X-Rays, which were taken of'the neck and cm-vical spine under the direction ol'.Dr. Hall, wire provided a radiology report, which report diagnosed no sig~fificant abnormalities. Dr. CoyIe reviewed the X-Ray report and pefforracd an ex~nination, atteml)ted to move Plaintiff's arms, although such movements were llmit~l, particularly w/th the right arm, and attempte, d to move Plaintiff's head on and about he: neck Again, such raovemcnts were limited and causad severe pain. Dr. Coyle told Plaintiff that she had saffered a :~eparated shoulder and a pulled muscle which he descr/bcd as a brachial ~lexus injury. Dr. Coyle told Plalntiff'thet h¢ would give her an .lection, and relerred her to a elfi/x~practor for further car~ and treatment, lie also gave Plaintiffs prescrip&m, Cyclobclg/aprine, and told her where to have the prescription tilled. Iff During the following couple ofyear~, Plahaifl'altempted to continue to work, off and on, under the imprcsslon that she had suffered from the injury which Dr. Coyle had do$cribcd to her and nothing more .~ous. How~wer, over the course of time, she began to cxpcricoce more scarerc pain and othe: sYmptomatology, including numbness ht the fingertips of the fight hand, severe pain in the arm, first going u!~ to the elbow, and tl~n all the way up to the-shoulder, stabb/~g pains in the back of the neck and up to thc hc~[, and ~cvcre pain in thc ~e, ck and right shoulder, together with severe 4 JAN-15-2002 10:00A FROM: T0:4123912760 P:6~16 headaches. As a result, Plalntif~ c}iiropractor ~o[d her tha~ her cundition was deteriorating and that she required mcdlcal c~re and attcntioa. She wa.~ referred to Ciceton L. Opida, M.D,, a ncurologist in Altoona, Pennsylvania, with principal complaints of severe pai~L numbness, and liafitatlon of'motion in the right uppex sad lower extremity, and through further diagnostic tcstlngo care, and treatmenL Dr Opida rmqde thc correct diagnosis, i.e., a ~vem hcrtfiat.-~d ~ervical disc at C4 and/or a disc extrusion at C$-6. Thereafter Dr. Opida ordet~ various studies which diagno~d nn~ confirmed tile above findirlgs and were performed on and sh~rtly after September 2 I, ] 999, and Dr. Opida infbrmed Plaintiff of the results shortly there, alter. 1 i. .As a result of Dr. Opida' s e×amination, evaluation, and tasting. Plaintiff learned for thc first time that she had suffered serious injude,s to her intcrvcrtcbra[ discs in the accident of June 7, 1997, and flint Dr. Coyla and Dr. Hall h',ul failed properly to diagnose and treat tho~ injuries and misdiagno~d h~r coaditioa. 12. Dr. Coylc, ,in thc agcnl, servant, or employee of thc itospital, was rcokle.~, careless, and ncgligant in the fbllowing parfi~ttlar m.w, ects: a. In thi]ing to take a fl~orough and complete Mstory, a~ a basis roi' smiting a correct diagnosis; rmlmg to pcrfoml a thorough and complete cxaraination and evalualion; c. In view of the patient's history, complaints, and symptomatology, in failing to call in fbr consultation an orthopedic surgeon, ncuro.~urt/eoa, or neurologist; JAN-15-2002 10:00A FROM: TO:41239127G2 P:T/1G d. In failing to order appropriate diagnostic testa, including but not necessarily limit -~1 to a CAT scan and/or an MRI of the neck and cervical spine; e. In Ih/ling to order thc patient's admission tn the hospital, for further examinat/on, evaluation, and testing; In failing U, diagnose the ruptured and/or herniated cervical intervertcbral discs at C4-5 and/or C5-6; g. l~y diagnoaing Plaintiff's condition as consisting ora bmehial plexus injury rather than ~verc injuries to cervical intervortcrbral discs, di~ spaces, and surrounding soft tissues, such a.q nerve roots, muscles, nerves, etc.; h. In releasing Plaint;ifil-om th~ Hospital with a prescription and instructions to s~¢ a ohiropractur, rather than referring h,r for immediate a'ld appropriate follow-up care and treatment; and i. in the above respects, in fkiling to exen:ise that degree 0fcare due and owing the Plaintiffuudcr th~ circumslanes$. ! 3. Plahltiff¢lalms damages arising from D~t~ndants' 'failure promptly and properly to diagnose her condition, which diagnosis would have lead to prompt and proper treatment, which would have lead to a rea-mnably normal and cOmplete recovery. Instead, P 'laintiff's condition was caused to worsen eonsld~rably over time, so that when her injuries were £mally correctly diagnosed, as set forth alx~ve, and proper treatment was instituted, it was too late to prevent and reverse many of the adverse consequences of 6 JAN-IS-2002 i0:00A FROM: T0:4123912762 P:8xi6 their diagnostic and lrealmant f011ucc, which considerably aggravated and exaeo'bated her condition and made it im~ssible to achieve a significant core, although ~bseqt,,ent surgery considerably alleviated Plaintiff's condition. The negligence and wrongful of Dr. Coyle, jointly and/or severally and concurrently or consecutively with the t~ligeuce and wrollgfu~ a~ts of Dr. I'tall and thc Ht).~ptj~,l, Were a direct and proxivaatc cause of the injurics and damage sustained by Piaintiffherein. 14. Following file Correct diagnosis of PiaintLtl's condition by Dr. Opida, Plaintiff saw other physicians and eventually came under thc care of Williara C. Welch, M.D.. Department of Nourologiaal Surgery, Univcaxily of Pittsburgh. Plaintiff was adraitted to UPMC Presbyterian on February 14, 2000, and Dr. Welch lm'tbmled a C$-6 anterior surgical di~ectomy with non-instrumental fi~sinn. 15. As a direct and proximate result of the negllgeneg and wrongful acts of D~felldaata, a.R set fbrth above, and hcrehmfter, Plalnfi_ffha$ bo~a and will hereal~er b¢ required to suffer and andur¢ severe pain of body and re{ad. She has been dibbled, and her disability will continue into th~ future. She suffered the a~rmath o£severe injuries to her neck and cervical spine, which eventually were diagnosed and appropriately treated, via surgery, but only after cor~idcrable da~nage had been done because of the delay in diagnosis and rendering appropriate treatment. As a ~sult. her health, strmgth, and vitality have beca aild will hereafter be adversely affected. H~r activities have and will berea~r be considerably limited and restricted. She was required to lose earnings and h0r oarnin8 power has been dcsh'oycd, Size suffers fi.ova s~vcr¢ ~ di$comibrt, disabilily, numbness, limitations of motion and fun~tioll, and other 7 JANT15-2002 12:52P FROM: TO:412Jgl~762 P:Sx5 mamt~stations of her neck and c~rvical spine injuries and thc considerable delay in providing 0.ppropriat¢ tream~ent. She is unable to run. Shc has Steal difl~culty in lifting her rigl~t leg. liar right hand and right arm £~1 weak, h~vy, almost numb. She is unable to ra~ l~¢r right 'arm above her shoulder. She is unable ~o pJip objects firmly with her right hand, or open ja~, etc. She suffers from coust~mt headaches, severe stabbing pains in neck fron~ sitting, and limitation of motion in the nook. She has difficulty in dressin8 hcrself, lifting arid carrying objects, and is unubie to lift moro than 5 l~ands. She has becn and will hereafter be deprived of the ordinary pleasures of liti:. WHEREFORE, ?laintifl'demands judgment against Dr. Coylc in an amount in excess of th, he arbi~tion limRs of thc Court of Commun Plea,~ ol'Cumberland County, Pcnnsylva~ia. Seeoud Count GreRory Klett vs. Jo#u~on G, Coyle~ M.D. ! 6. Thc husband Plainti~ Gregory Klett, incorporates by rcfere~cc Paragraphs 1 through ! $ of thc First Count as though the said Paragraphs were fully ~t forth herein. ! 7. Thc husbaml Plaintiff, Oregory Kl~,tt, has been ',md will hcrcaRcr Ix: required to spend large sums of money for hospitalizations, medical care and attcntiun, surgery, nursings, drugs, and the use of appliances and other treatment modalitics, for thc gum and treatment ol'his wife. I~ addition, ~he husband Pl~tinfiffhas lost a~l will bercal'~cr lose the services, society, and consortium of his wife. JAN-l,5-2002 10:01A FROM: TO:412391S?6~ P:lO/1G WI [F. aREFORE, tho husband PlaintJffdenlands judgment ngains! Dr. Coylc in an amount m excess of thc ~rb]tration limtt~ of thc Court of Common Pleas of Cumbcrlund County, Pcnn~lvania, [Note: Counts III and IV, Plaintiffs vs. Robert 17. tIall, II, M.D., a.nl any Panigraphs incorporating thor Counts, are preser~tly cxclude..__~d tix~m this case bocausc thc rcccnl entry ofa judbm~ent of non pws in favor of Dr. l-Tall. Tho~ Counts will ix: cllia:tively pleaded it' and only if Ihut judgment or nou pros is opened by tiffs Honorable Court.] [1'bird Countl LKaren IOctt vs. Rob~r~ F. Hall, I1, M.D.] 18. Phirttiffineorporate,q by reference Paragrap~ 1 through 9 and 11 tl~rough 13 of the Fh'st Count as though th-. ,~d Paregraphs were f'ally vt fbrth herein, 19. Dr. Hall, was reckless, careless, and negligent in thc lbllowing particular rCS~cts: a, In failiug t° receive a afficlent and adequate history of the mt~ent and her condition upon presentation to the Emergency Room, such as would require cervical spine and neck X-Rays that would havc divined /he severe disc injuries which Plaintiffhad sustained in aa aeeldent several days befbre; b. In the alternative, in failing properly to interpret the X-Rays, which did show the severe disc injuries, but instead in n~orting that the X-Ray films showed no such injuric$; 9 JAN-~5-2002 10:01A FROM: TO:4125912?G2 c. In failing to suggest and take additional films and studics appmprlatc to thc condition of the patient, such ms MRTs and CAT scan film~, that would have discloscd Plaintiff's disc injurics and would thereby have Icad to a correct diagnosis and consequent appropria/c and prompt care and tl'catm~mh and d. In thc above respccls, in l~iling to exercise flint dcgrcc o£carc duc and owing to PlaintilT under'thc circumstances. WHEREFORE, PJaintiffdcmands judgment against Dr. thll in an amount in cxccss of the arbitration limits oft. he Court of Cormuon Plca~ ol'Cumberland County, Pcnnsylvania. [Gregory I/lee vs. Robert F. Rail, Il, M.D.J 20. 'l'h¢ bus 'band Plaintiff; Gregory Klein, incorporates by referenc~ Paragraphs 1 through 11 and 13 through 15 of the First Count, Paragraph 19 of thc Sccond Count, and Paragraph 17 of thc Third Count as though the .said Paragraphs were fully sci fi)rrb hcrcin. WH~RI~i-'ORE, lilt husband Plainlill'demands judgment against ~. H~I ~ ~ ~o~ ~ ~ of~e ~bi~tion limi~ of~c Co~ of Co--on p ........ C~W, Pct~lvm~. 10 JAN-IS-2002 10:0IA FROM: TO:4123912TG2 P:12'16 Fifth Count Karen Klelt vs. Cnrlisle lIospitsl 21. P~cor~ra~s by mfercu~ P~lm I fl~h ] 1 mid 13 thn)ugh 15 of ~ F~t Co~t ~ ~o~ ~e ~d P~p~ we~ Mly ~t fo~ 22. At ~[ t~s matcri~ to figs ~tio~ ~c Ei~c~y ~om of~ Hospi~ ~ o~ o~mted, con. lied, ~d m~ ~ ~e Hospi~ ~ a ~o~ b~ch or d~cnt thee Dr, Coylc, who ~o~ ~m~gen~ R~m ~ces ~ the Hospi~l, in so doing ~ a~ing ~ ~l or ~ployee of~e Hospi~l acgng on behalf'of · e Hospi~l ~d ~thin the co~ ~d s~pe of~s au~ofiiy ~d ~ ~d ~m ~ ~s~ess of the Ho~i~l ~d ~ ~he~ce the~f: 23. ~e Hospial is li~le as pdnci~ for the negligent ~ ~d o~ssio~ of ~. Coyle, ~o at &~ tim~ of&e events vompl~ of w~ ~ti~ ~ ag~t or cmploy~ of the Hospi~, ~ ath~d, and the I'lo~i~l is lhc~thtc ~d ~ ~ rcs~iblc for · ~ negligent acCs ~d omissions on thc p~ of Dr. Coyl~ ~ s~ fo~ ~ ~e T~ Co~t of this ~mpl~nt. 24. Th~ Hospi~ ~ow or sho~d ~w ~o~ ~t ~, Coyle ~s unfit ~d ~d cxpc~i~ nc~ss~ to ~e ~e ~ ~ ~t of Pl~fl~ 2~. ~e Hospi~ is liablc as pt~ci~ for the ncgli~nt ~ts ~d omlss~ms o1' Dr. Coylc. who at &c t~c oftl~ cve~ compla[n~ ofw~ ~ng ~ ~t or ~ploy~ of~ Hospi~, ~ aforesaid, ~d ~ Hospi~ is ~li~ h~und hy ~d ~s~nsiblc for ll JAN-i~-2002 10:01A FROM: T0:4103912762 P:13x16 thc negligent acts and oafissions on thc part of Dr. Coyle a.s .set {hrth in the First Counl of' this Compiler. 26. At all times material to this action, the Radiolog3, Department o£thc Hospital was owned, openaed, contmlleA, and maintained by thc Hospital ~s a section, branch or d~partmmlt th~ret~l: Dr. Hall, who p~rformcd X-ray stt~lics a thc Hospital, in so doing was acting as agant or employco of thc Hospital acting on behalf of the Hospital and within thc., course mid scope of their employment or authority and in and about the baslness orthc Hospital and in fiirtheranc~ thereof. 27. Thc Hospital is liable as principal fi~r the neglilp:nt acts and omissioas of Dr. Hall, who at thc thne of the events complained of was acting as agvnt or employee of thc Hospital, as aforesaid, and the Hospital is thereihrc bound by and responsible for thc ncgllgcnt acts and omissions on the part of Dr. Hall as sci forth in the Third Counl of this Complaint. 28. The Hospital knew or should havo known that Dr. Hall was unfit and unqualified because of lack of proper trdlnlng, competence, qualifications, experience, and cxpcn'isc necessary to und~lake tho car~ and treatment of l~lainfiff, 29, The Hospital is liable as prinoipal for thc negligent acts and I~nissions o£ Dr, Hall, who at the time of the events ¢omplalncd of was acting :is agent or employee of the Hospital, ',ts afin'g.~Iaid, alld thc Hospita! is therefore bound by and responsible for thc negligent acts and omissions on tho pm of Dr, Hall as set tbrth in the Third Count of thls Complaint. JAN-~5-2002 10:02A FROM: TO:4123912760 P:14~16 30. The llospit',d i~ liable as u corporate entity, because the llospltal has a duty to ~lcct and t~atin only competent physicians, t~ oversee all persons who practiced medicine within its wails as to pat/ent care and testing, and to formulate, adopt, and enfi~rcc ad~luate rules and policies to ensure quality care/'or tho patients. The Hospital is, i'urthor, liable as a corporate entity because of the brcaohcs of duty owed ti) PlaJntl/'fon thc part of Dr. Coyle and Dr. Hall, who w~re agcilts, servers, or employees of the Hospital, as aforasa/d, as set forth ab~ve more spcc//]¢ally in I~revious Count~ or'this Compla/nt. These resp~mslbilit/cs gave rise to ~ nondelegable duty which thc Hospital, as a colporate entity, owc~/to the Pla/ntiffand which it breached by fa/lhlg to uphold thc proper standard of car~ owed to its pat/ent, as ~ tbrth above. 31. The Hospital is l/able as a cot'pome entity~ bccausc thc Hospital has a duty to select and retain only competent physicians, to oversee alt persons who pract/cad mediclnc within its walls as to patient cure and testing, and ~o formulate, adopt, and enforce adequate rules and Policies to ensure q ~uality carc for the potientq. The Hospital is, thrthcr, liable as a corporate entily becamqc of thc breaches of duty owed to ?I',tlnti~on the part of Dr. Coylo ,nd Dr. Hall, who were agents, servants or employees ol'thc Hospita/, a~ ~orcsaid, as set ~orth above more s~ccifically in previous Counts of this (-k~mplaint. Those responsibilities gave dsc to a llortdelegable duty which thc Hospital, ~.~ a corporate entity, owed to the Pla/nfl tTand which it bre~chcd by fhillng to uphold the proper standard of care owed to its patient, as set forth above. 13 P:15~16 WIIEREFORE, Plahxtiffdcmands judgment against Carlisle Hospital in aa amount in excess of the arbitration limits of the Court of Conm~on Pleas of Cumberland Coumy, Pennsylvania. Sixth Coun~ Gregory Klear vs. Carlisle Hospital 32. Thc husband PlainfifT~ Cke~ory Klctt, incorporates by rcfcrence Puragraphs I through 15 of the First Count, Paragraph 17 of thc Second Count, and Paragraph~ 22 through 31 as though thc ~id Paragraphs were fully ~t forth hervin. WHEREFORE, the husb',md Plalntiffdemnnds judgment against Carlisle Hospital hi an amount in excess of thc arbitration limits of'the Coart of Common Picas of Cumberland County, Pcmnsylvsnin. Robert ^. Cohen Pa. I.D. ~00467 BEliP. END& ERNSRERGER 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) .~91-2515 VERIFICATION I, KAREN KLETT, state that the statements made in the foregoing COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION are tree and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This statement and verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unswom falsification, to authorities which provides that, if I make knowingly false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. DATE: Kareh Klett · , JAN~lS-~002 10:02A FROM: T0:412~912762 P:16~16 .CERTIFICATE OF SERVI.CE I hereby ceCdt'y that a true and correct copy of thc £or~goiag COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION w' . · ' - - az totaled to thc tol owing counsel of record, by First Claz~ Mail, pos-rage prepaid, this l,Sth__ day of January, 2002. Lauralcc B. Baker, Esquire Margolis Edelsteit~ P.O. Box 932 liarfisburg, PA 17108 Kcndm D. M~Guire, Esquire Stcpheai¢ Cattily, Esquire Barley, Snyder, S~nft & Coh~ 126 East King Street Lanca.st~r, PA 17602 Robert A. Cohen IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, VS. Plaintiffs, ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants No. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PETITION TO OPEN JUDGMENT OF NON PROS AND NOW come Karen J. Klett [hereinafter "Plaintiff'] and Gregory L. Klett, by Robert A. Cohen and Behrend & Ernsberger, their attorneys, and respectfully pray that this Honorable Court issue a Rule to Show Cause why a Judgment of Non Pros in favor of Robert F. Hall, II, M.D., should not be opened, and in support thereof, aver the following: 1. Plaintiffs brought this action to recover for injuries sustained by the wife Plaintiff on or about June 7, 1997, while operating a tractor trailer. Several days later, Glen Moore Transport, her employer, sent her to the Emergency Room at Carlisle Hospital for evaluation, care, and treatment. The Hospital failed to diagnose at least one protruding, mptored, or herniated disc, as a result of which proper treatment was not timely instituted, and corrective measures were not taken until her injuries were correctly diagnosed a couple of years later. and service of the 10 Day Notice until the extension of time had expired, which deferral would have been within the letter and the spirit of the 10 Day Notice requirement. 6. On January 9, 2002, after receiving the 10 Day Notice from counsel for Dr. Coyle and the Hospital, Plaintiffs' counsel, assuming that Dr. Hall's attorneys would abide by the same time frame as that arranged with Dr. Coyle and the Hospital, contacted Dr. Hall's attorneys to let them know that a Complaint would be filed timely within 10 days fi'om the deadline set by the attorneys for Dr. Coyle and the Hospital. Later that day, Plaintiffs' counsel received a Notice that a Judgment of Non Pros had already been entered, only one day after the expiration of the deadline, i.e., on January 8, 2002, and counsel for Dr. Hail so informed Plaintiffs' attorney. 7. Previously, the attorneys for Dr. Hall had served Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on Plaintiffs' counsel. That discovery was responded to in timely fashion, and the attorneys for Dr. Hall had the benefits thereof. 8. Dr. Hall's attorneys did not contact Plaintiffs' counsel by telephone or otherwise prior to entering the Judgment of Non Pros only one day after the agreed extension had expired, but simply went ahead and entered the Non Pros. 9. Plaintiffs' attorney immediately requested of Dr. Hall's attorney that the Judgment of Non Pros be voluntarily opened, so that a Complaint could be prepared and filed against ail Defendants. Dr. Hall's counsel took the matter under advisement and subsequently responded by letter dated January 15, 2002, which was not received by the undersigned until January 19, 2002, that Dr. Hall's carrier refused to open the Judgment of Non Pros, primarily because this case is likely to be submitted to the CAT Fund as a 3 Section 605 matter, by virtue of the age of the alleged incident. A copy of the letter from Michael Badowski, Esquire to Plaintiffs' counsel dated January 15, 2002 is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 10. Although a Non Pros had been entered in favor of Dr. Hall, and in order to protect Plaintiffs fi'om the possible entry ora Non Pros on the part of remaining Defendants, Plaintiffs' counsel filed the Complaint against Defendants within the time frame established with counsel for Dr. Coyte and the Hospital, including averments against Dr. Hall which are stated to be appropriately set forth if and only if the Judgment of Non Pros entered in favor of Dr. Hall and against the Plaintiffs, is opened by this Honorable Court. 11. Plaintiffs have attempted to comply with arrangements made with defense counsel and the Rules of Procedure and Rules of Court by responding in timely fashion, although they missed the deadline set by the attorneys for Dr. Hall by approximately 2 days. The presence of Dr. Hall in the lawsuit is desirable in order to establish the negligence, if any, on the part of all potential parties Defendant, in the appropriate degree, and leaving Dr. Hall out of the case would create a void which could have an unfavorable impact upon this litigation. 12. On January 23, 2002, Plaintiffs' counsel was contacted by the attorneys representing Dr. Coyle and the Hospital and informed that in due course they would be replaced in the case, and requested a 45 day extension of time within which to plead to the Complaint. Plaintiffs' counsel readily granted that extension. A true copy of the confirming letter of 1/28/02 from Kendra D. McGuire, Esquire, is attached hereto as 4 Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. c/o Carlisle Hospital 246 Parker Street P.O. Box 310 Carlisle, PA 17013 RE: Karen Klett Dear Dr. Hall: BEHREND & ERNSBERGER, l .C. AT'FORNEYS AT I.AW September 14, 2001 Karen Klett has retained us to investigate the merits of a possible claim against you arising from alleged improper care and treatment of an injury to Karen Klett. Because of time limitations, we are instituting suit by the filing ora Summons. This will give us an opportunity to explore the merits of the case. A copy &the Praecipe tbr Writ of Summons in Civil Action is enclosed. If we find that our case review discloses no professional negligence on your part, or no serious consequences of professional negligence, we will voluntarily drop the case. If our review discloses that you performed improper procedures or failed to take necessary remedial action, causing serious damage to Karen Klett, we will prepare a Complaint accordingly. Please turn this letter, and the Summons that will be served upon you by the SheriWs Office of Cumberland County, over to your liability insurance carrier. RAC:sjh Sincerely, Robert A. Cohen PHILADELPHIA OFFICE THE CURTIS CENTER FOURTH FLOOR INDEPENDENCE SQUARE WEST PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-3304 215-922-1100 FAX 215-022-1772 PITTSBURGH OFFICE 1500 GRANT BUILDING PITTSBURGH, PA 15219-2203 412-281-4256 FAX 417 642-2380 WRITER: MICHAEL M BADOWSKt' DIRECT E-MAlL: mbadowski@margolisedelstein.com MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW POST OFFICE BOX 932 HARRISBURG, PA 17108-0932 STREET ADDRESS: 3510 TRINDLE ROAD CAMP HILL. PA 17011 717-975-0t t4 FAX 7t7-975-8124 January 15, 2002 DELAWARE COUNTY OFFICE 216 SOUTH ORANGE STREET MEDIA, PA 19063 610-565-0311 FAX 610-565-8318 NEW JERSEY OFFICE P.O BOX 2222 218 HADDON AVENUE WESTMONT, NJ 08108-2885 856-058-7200 FAX 856-858-1017 SCRANTON OFFICE THE OPPENHEIM BUILDING 409 LACKAWANNA AVENUE SUITE 3C SCRANTON, PA 18503 570-342 4231 FAX 570-342 4841 Robert A. Cohen, Esquire BEHREND & ERNSBERGER 306 Fourth Avenue - Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Re: Klett v. Hall, et al. Our File No. 57300.4-Q120 Dear Mr. Cohen: I broached with Dr. Hall's carrier your request that we voluntarily lift the non pros entered in this case. As I had mentioned to you, in view of the fact that this case is likely to be submitted to the Cat Fund as a Section 605 matter, the carrier feels that it is not at liberty to g~r~nt~our reque~d. Ver~/trul~ vgurs, / !?/! " ,,,, Mibhael M. Badowski MMB/na *Certified as a Civil Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy A Pennsylvania Supreme Coud Accredited Agency 126 East King Street Lancasten PA 17602-289~ (717) 299-5201 Fax (717) 291-4660 KENDRA D. McGt/IRE Direct Dial Number: (717) 399-1525 E-mail: kmcguire@barley.com Ir&tiding Berwyn tlanove* (2hambe~sburg January 28, 2002 Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Emsberger Suite 300 306 Fourth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Re: Klett v. Carlisle Hospital, et al. Dear Mr. Cohen: This will serve to confirm our telephone conversation of Wednesday, January 23, 2002. You were kind enough to grant an extension of 45 days in which to respond to the Complaint. Additionally, this will confirm that we anticipate new counsel entering his o1' her appearance on behalf of the Hospital in this matter based on the date of incident as contained in the Complaint. Thank you for granting this courtesy. Very truly yours, Kendra D. McGtfire KDM:kat/1048223.1 VERIFICATION I, KAREN KLETT, state that the statements made in the foregoing PETITION TO OPEN JUDGMENT OF NON PROS are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This statement and verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unswom falsification, to authorities which provides that, ifI make knowingly false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a tree and correct copy of the foregoing PETITION TO OPEN JUDGMENT OF NON PROS was served upon the following counsel of record by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, this 14 day of February, 2002: Lauralee B. Baker, Esquire Margolis Edelstein P.O. Box 932 Harrisburg, PA 17108 Kendra D. McGuire, Esquire Stephenie Carfley, Esquire Barley, Snyder, Senft & Cohen 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 Robert A. Cohen KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT Plaintiffs ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION NO. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Please enter the appearance of Hartman, Osborne & Joyce, P.C. on behalf of Defendant Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. in regard to the above-captioned action. Respectfully submitted, HARTMAN, OSBORNE & JOYCE, P.C. Dated: c~ ~j/~,>~ By:_ Supreme Court I.D. #21902 126-128 Walnut Street Hmxisburg, PA 17101 717-232-3046 Attorneys for Defendant Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. MICHAEL M. BADOWSKI, ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I.D. NO. 32646 MAR~OLIS EDELSTEIN 3510 Trindle Road Can~ Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 Telephone: Fax: E-Mai 1: [717] 975-8114 [717] 975-8124 mbadowski~margolisedelstein.com Attorney for Defendant: ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. KAREN KLETT AND GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, vs. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., : JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and : CARLISLE HOSPITAL, A CORPORATION,: Defendants. :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :CIVIL ACTION - LAW : :NO. 5461 CIVIL TERM 2001 PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA: Kindly withdraw my appearance on behalf of Defendant, ROBERT F. HALL, M.D., in the above-captioned matter. Date: By. . ADOWSKI Attorney for Defendant, ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. I, Jack M. Haman, Esquire, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, first-class postage prepaid, as follows: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Emsberger 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (Counsel to Plaintiffs) Kendra McGuire, Esquire Barley, Snyder, Senft & Cohen 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (Counsel to Defendants Carlisle Hospital and Johnson G. Coyle, M.D.) Michael Badowski, Esquire Margolis Edelstein 3510 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 HARTMAN, OSBORNE & JOYCE, P.C. Dated: By:._ 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 717-232-3046 ~/~'~Z------- Attorney for Defendant Robert F. Hall, M.D. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW 1052997.1 KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. JOHNSON G. COY[E, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation, Defendants No. 01-5461 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw the appearance of Barley, Snyder, Senff & Cohen, LLC, by Kendra D. McGuire, Esquire and Stephanie Carfley, Esquire on behalf of Defendant Carlisle Hospital. Please serve all papers at 126 East King Street, Lancaster, PA 17602. Date: BARLEY, s~ryDER, SENFT. ~gCOHEN, LLC BY: e~n~a D~., ~Esquire Attorneys for Defendant Carlisle Hospital 126 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602-2832 (717)299-5201 Court I.D. No. 50919 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPTIAL, a corporation, Defendants CIVIL DIVISION NO. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ENTRY OF APPEARANCF Please enter my appearance on behalf of Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital, in the above-captioned action. Date: February 25, 2002 Respectfully submitted, McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. BY:B~s~.~ Attorney I.D. No. 36818 Edwin A.D. Schwartz Attorney i.D. No. 75902 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-3400 CERTIFICATE OF SERVlCF I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Emsberger 306 Fourth Avenue Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Lauralee B. Baker, Esquire Margolis Edelstein P.O. Box 932 Harrisburg, PA 17108 (Counsel for Robert F. Hall, II, M.D.) McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. B. Craig Black, E~luire Supreme Court I.D. No. 36818 Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. No. 75902 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-3400 Attorneys for Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital Date: February 25, 2002 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, VS. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AMENDED PETITION TO OPEN JUDGMENT OF NON PROS AND NOW come Karen J. Klett [hereinafter "Plaintiff"] and Gregou L. Klett, by Robert A. Cohen and Behrend & Emsberger, their attorneys, and respectfully pray that this Honorable Court issue a Rule to Show Cause why a Judgment of Non Pros in favor of Robert F. Hall, II, M.D., should not be opened, and in support thereof, aver the following: 1. As set forth in the following paragraphs of this Amended Petition, Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. [hereinafter "Defendant"] through his counsel entered a Judgment of Non Pros on January 8, 2002, one day after an agreed extension had expired but within the rune parameters for an extension sought and agreed upon with the other Defendants, Dr. Coyle and Carlisle Hospital. When Plaintiffs' counsel, the undersigned, contacted Dr. Hall's attorney on January 9, 2002, to make sure that Dr. Hall would be willing to allow the filing of the Complaint within that time limit, Plaintiffs' counsel was informed that a Judgment of Non Pros had been entered the day before, i.e., on January 8, 2002, and Plaintiffs' counsel immediately asked defense counsel whether or not he would agree to open the Judgment of Non Pros so that an appropriate Stipulation could be presented. Plaintiffs' counsel assumed that such a Stipulation would demonstrate prompt action to open the Judgment of Non Pros and would be reasonable in view of the 10 day requirements of Rule 237.3. However, defense counsel did not respond until he sent a letter dated January 15, 2002, attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 2. Plaintiffs brought this action to recover for injuries sustained by the wife Plaintiff on or about June 7, 1997, while she was operating a tractor trailer. Several days later, Glen Moore Transport, her employer, sent her to the Emergency Room at Carlisle Hospital for evaluation, care, and treatment. The Hospital failed to diagnose at least one protruding, ruptured, or herniated disc, as a result of which proper treatment was not timely instituted, and corrective measures were not taken until her injuries were correctly diagnosed a couple of years later. A true copy of Plaintiffs' Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 3. This lawsuit was instituted by the filing of a Summons, because the Statute of Limitations was about to expire and Plaintiffs' counsel had not completed his review of the medical facts in order to verify that the case was meritorious against the proposed Defendants. That situation was explained to the Defendants by letters dated September 14, 2001; the letter to Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. so informing him is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". 2 4. Subsequent to the filing of the Summons and service thereof upon Defendants, counsel entered an Appearance on behalf of ail Defendants, and defense counsel shortly thereafter served a Notice to Plead upon the undersigned, attorneys for Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' counsel thereupon contacted defense counsel and requested an extension of time within which to plead, stating that Plaintiff has recently submitted to physicai examinations and testing, and that those results would be required in order for Plaintiffs' counsel to determine that the case was meritorious against any or ail of the Defendants. Defense counsel then granted extensions, both expiring at approximately the same time, although the extension granted by Dr. Hall's counsel expired on January 7, 2002, and the extension granted by counsel for the Hospital and Dr. Coyle expired a few days later. 5. However Dr. Hail's counsel, simultaneously with granting the extension, aiso served the 10 Day Notice upon Plaintiffs' attorney, rather than deferring the filing and service of the 10 Day Notice until the extension of time had expired, in accordance with Rule 237.1, providing that Plaintiffs should have an additional 10 days within which to file their Complaint following the expiration of the agreed extension. Plaintiffs' Complaint was filed within that additional 10 days, but Defendant Dr. Hail was able to enter his Judgment of Non Pros before that additional extension time had expired rather than commencing thereafter, by including that 10 day requirement within the agreed extension, in violation of Rule 237.1. 6. On January 9, 2002, after receiving the 10 Day Notice from counsel for Dr. Coyle and the Hospital, Plaintiffs' counsel, assuming that Dr. Hall' s attorneys would 3 abide by the same time frame as that arranged with Dr. Coyle and the Hospital, contacted Dr. Hail's attorneys to let them know that a Complaint would be filed timely within 10 days from the deadline set by the attorneys for Dr. Coyle and the Hospital. Later that day, Plaintiffs' counsel received a Notice that a Judgment of Non Pros had aiready been entered, only one day after the expiration of the deadline, i.e., on January 8, 2002, and counsel for Dr. Hail so informed Plaintiffs' attorney. 7. Previously, the attorneys for Dr. Hail had served Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on Plaintiffs' counsel. That discovery was responded to in timely fashion, and the attorneys for Dr. Hall had the benefits thereof. 8. Dr. Hail' s attorneys did not contact Plaintiffs' counsel by telephone or otherwise prior to entering the Judgment of Non Pros only one day at, er the agreed extension had expired, but simply went ahead and entered the Non Pros. 9. Plaintiffs' attorney immediately requested of Dr. Hail's attorney that the Judgment of Non Pros be voluntarily opened, so that a Complaint could be prepared and filed against ail Defendants. Dr. Hail's counsel took the matter under advisement and subsequently responded by letter dated January 15, 2002, which was not received by the undersigned until January 19, 2002, that Dr. Hail's carrier refused to open the Judgment of Non Pros, primarily because this case is likely to be submitted to the CAT Fund as a Section 605 matter, by virtue of the age of the alleged incident. A copy of the letter from Michael Badowski, Esquire to Plaintiffs' counsel dated January 15, 2002 is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". Attorney Badowski has now been replaced by Jack M. Hartman, Esquire, Hartman, Osborne & Joyce; see letter of 2/19/02 from Attorney Hartman, attached hereto as Exhibit "D". 10. Although a Non Pros had been entered in favor of Dr. Hall, and in order to protect Plaintiffs from the possible entry of a Non Pros on the part of remaining Defendants, Plaintiffs' counsel filed the Complaint against Defendants within the time frame established with counsel for Dr. Coyle and the Hospital, including averments against Dr. Hail which are stated to be appropriately set forth if and only if the Judgment of Non Pros entered in favor of Dr. Hail and against the Plaintiffs, is opened by this Honorable Court. A tree copy of the Complaint filed against Dr. Coyle and the Hospital, and against Dr. Hall if the Judgment of Non Pros is opened, is attached hereto as Exhibit "B", as required by Rule 237.3(a). 11. Plaintiffs have attempted to comply with arrangements made with defense counsel and the Rules of Procedure and Rules of Court by responding in timely fashion, although they missed the deadline set by the attorneys for Dr. Hall by approximately 2 days. The presence of Dr. Hall in the lawsuit is desirable in order to establish the negligence, if any, on the part of ail potentiai parties Defendant, in the appropriate degree, and leaving Dr. Hail out of the case would create a void which could have an unfavorable impact upon this litigation. 12. On January 23, 2002, Plaintiffs' counsel was contacted by the attorneys representing Dr. Coyle and the Hospital and informed that in due course they would be replaced in the case, and requested a 45 day extension of time within which to plead to the Complaint. Plaintiffs' counsel readily granted that extension. A tree copy of the confirming letter of 1/28/02 from Kendra D. McGuire, Esquire, is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". The reason for the replacement is, as stated by Dr. Hail's attomeys, this 5 case will be submitted to the CAT Fund, as a Section 605 case, and hence counsel may be replaced and further defense activity will be deferred. Since that contention is admitted by Dr. Hall's counsel, as a reason why they would not agree to open the Judgment of Non Pros, the same would hold true of Dr. Hall's carder, which similarly will be replaced by the CAT Fund, and hence there is no possibility of any prejudice to Dr. Hall by opening this Judgment of Non Pros. New counsel for Dr. Coyle and the Hospital have now entered an Appearance; see Exhibit "E" attached hereto; the undersigned has granted them an additional 30 days within which to respond. 14. Plaintiffs believe, and therefore aver, that they have acted timely under the circumstances, although Plaintiffs' counsel sought an agreement to open rather than filing the Petition directly with the Court, but acted immediately in so doing; that Plaintiffs' counsel has supplied a reasonable explanation or legitimate excuse for the delay; and that Plaintiffs have set forth a reasonable cause of action by virtue of the Complaint which is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Honorable Court issue a Rule to Show Cause why this Judgment should not be opened and Plaintiffs be permitted to include in the lawsuit their claims against Dr. Hall. Respectfully submitted: ~.. ~ Robert A. Cohen Pa. I.D. #00467 BEHREND & ERNSBERGER 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 391-2515 PHILADELPHIA OFFICE THE CURTIS CENTER FOURTH FLOOR INDEPENDENCE SQUARE WEST PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106-3304 215-922-1100 FAX 215-922-1772 PITTSBURGH OFFICE 1500 GRANT BUILDING PITTSBURGH, PA 15219-9203 412-281.4256 FAX 4'[2.042-2380 WRITER: MICHAEL M, 0ADOWSKI* DIRECT E-MAIL: mbadowski@margolisedelstein.com MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN ATTORNEYS AT LAW POST OFFICE BOX 932 HARRISBURG, PA 17108-0932 STREET ADDRESS: 35t0 TRINDLE ROAD CAMP HILL, PA 17011 FAX 717-975.0~24 January 15, 2002 DELAWARE COUNTY OFFICE 216 SOUTH ORANGE STREET MEDIA, PA 19063 610-56,%8311 FAX 610-565-8318 NEW JERSEY OFFICE P.O. BOX 2222 216 HADDON AVENUE WESTMONT, NJ 08108-2886 856-858-7200 FAX 856-856-1017 SCRANTON OFFICE THE OPPENHEIM BUILDING 409 LACKAWANNA AVENUE SUITE 3C SCRANTON, PA 18503 570-342-4231 FAX 570-342-4841 Robert A. Cohen, Esquire BEHREND & ERNSBERGER 306 Fourth Avenue - Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Re: Klett v. Hall, et al. Our File No. 57300.4-0120 Dear Mr. Cohen: I broached with Dr. Hall's carrier your request that we voluntarily lift the non pros entered in this case. As I had mentioned to you, in view of the fact that this case is likely to be submitted to the Can Fund as a Secti~on 605 matter, the carrier feels that it is not a~ liberty to g~nt your request. VepY/trull/ y2oUrs, , ,'/ /7," ," , / / x ,/,, / /, MiChael M. Badowski MMB/na EXHIBIT "A" *Certified as a Civil Trial Advocate by the National Board of Trial Advocacy A Pennsylvania Supreme Court Accredited Agency IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT Plaintiff, VS. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants NOTICE TO PLEAD: You are required to plead to the enclosed Complaint within twenty (20) days of the date of service hereof. CIVIL DIVISION No. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION Filed on behalf of Plaimiff Counsel of Record for This Party: Robert A. Cohen Pa. I.D. #00467 BEHREND & ERNSBERGER 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 391-2515 Robert A. Cohen EXHIBIT "B" a Judgment of Non Pros had been entered the day before, i.e., on January 8, 2002, and Plaintiffs' counsel immediately asked defense counsel whether or not he would agree to open the Judgment of Non Pros so that an appropriate Stipulation could be presented. Plaintiffs' counsel assumed that such a Stipulation would demonstrate prompt action to open the Judgment of Non Pros and would be reasonable in view of the 10 day requirements of Rule 237.3. However, defense counsel did not respond until he sent a letter dated January 15, 2002, attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 2. Plaintiffs brought this action to recover for injuries sustained by the wife Plaintiff on or about June 7, 1997, while she was operating a tractor trailer. Several days later, Glen Moore Transport, her employer, sent her to the Emergency Room at Carlisle Hospital for evaluation, care, and treatment. The Hospital failed to diagnose at least one protruding, raptured, or herniated disc, as a result of which proper treatment was not timely instituted, and corrective measures were not taken until her injuries were correctly diagnosed a couple of years later. A true copy of Plaintiffs' Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". 3. This lawsuit was instituted by the filing of a Summons, because the Statute of Limitations was about to expire and Plaintiffs' counsel had not completed his review of the medical facts in order to verify that the case was meritorious against the proposed Defendants. That situation was explained to the Defendants by letters dated September 14, 2001; the letter to Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. so informing him is attached hereto as Exhibit "C". 2 When Plaintiff's rig entered a construction area approximately 60 to 70 miles East of Jamestown, New Mexico, another vehicle attempted to pass Plaintiff's Ixactor-trailer on the left. Plaintiff thereupon signaled her intention to make a right turn as soon as the vehicles would have left the construction area, and the other vehicle went behind her. Just before the end of the construction area, Plaintiff began to move toward the right, but the other vehicle began to pass her on the right, knocking over some construction cones in the course of so doing. The other vehicle then disappeared from view, and while Plaintiff was attempting to shift gears, she turned her head far to the right, to look for the other vehicle, and then she turned her head back sharply to the left. However, because she had to mm her head far to the fight, and then back far to the left, while attempting to shift gears at the same time, she over-extended her neck and felt a sudden "pop" and immediately felt severe and excruciating pain. She pulled over, stopped, and stayed near the accident scene for a period of time, and then continued on to Jamestown, where there was a truck stop. After sitting at the truck stop for the maximum allowed of 5 hours, Plaintiff continued with her load to its destination, although the husband Plaintiff, Gregory L. Klett, did most of the driving. 8. Following the California delivery, although Plaintiff was in severe pain, the Klett team took on a load in California which they delivered in Florida. Again, Plaintiff Gregory Klett did most of the driving on this trip. After a 12 hour stay in Florida, Plaintiff telephoned her place of employment, told them that she was in great~ pain and getting sicker, and had to come home. She returned to the offices of Glen Moore Transport in Carlisle, and was immediately sent to the Carlisle Hospital Emergency Room for appropriate care and treatment. 9. Plaintiff arrived at Carlisle Hospital approximately 12:30 P.M. to 1:00 P.M. on June 12, 1997, where she was examined and treated by Dr. Coyle. Dr Coyle referred Plaintiff for X-Rays, which were taken of the neck and cervical spine under the direction of Dr. Hall, who provided a radiology report, which report diagnosed no significant abnormalities. Dr. Coyle reviewed the X-Ray report and performed an examination, attempted to move Plaintiff's arms, although such movements were limited, particularly with the right arm, and attempted to move Plaimiff's head on and about her neck. Again, such movements were limited and caused severe pain. Dr. Coyle told Plaintiff that she had suffered a separated shoulder and a pulled muscle which he described as a brachial plexus injury. Dr. Coyle told Plaintiffthat he would give her an injection, and referred her to a chiropractor for further care and treatment. He also gave Plaintiff a prescription, Cyclobenzaprine, and told her where to have the prescription filled. 10. During the following couple of years, Plaintiff attempted to continue to work, off and on, under the impression that she had suffered bom the injury which Dr. Coyle had described to her and nothing more serious. However, over the course of time, she began to experience more severe pain and other symptomatology, including numbness in the fingertips of the right hand, severe pain in the man, first going up to the elbow, and then all the way up to the shoulder, stabbing pains in the back of the neck and up to the head, and severe pain in the neck and right shoulder, together with severe 4 headaches. As a result, Plaintiff's chiropractor told her that her condition was deteriorating and that she required medical care and attention. She was referred to Cicemn L. Opida, M.D., a neurologist in Altoona, Pennsylvania, with principal complaints of severe pain, numbness, and limitation of motion in the fight upper and lower extremity, and through further diagnostic testing, care, and treatment, Dr. Opida made the correct diagnosis, i.e., a severe herniated cervical disc at C4 and/or a disc extrusion at C5-6. Thereafter Dr. Opida ordered various studies which diagnosed and confirmed the above findings and were performed on and shortly after September 21, 1999, and Dr. Opida informed Plaintiff of the results shortly thereafter. 11. As a result of Dr. Opida' s examination, evaluation, and testing, Plaintiff leamed for the first time that she had suffered serious injuries to her intervertebral discs in the accident of June 7, 1997, and that Dr. Coyle and Dr. Hall had failed properly to diagnose and treat those injuries and misdiagnosed her condition. 12. Dr. Coyle, as the agent, servant, or employee of the Hospital, was reckless, careless, and negligent in the following particular respects: a. In failing to take a thorough and complete history, as a basis for making a correct diagnosis; b. In failing to perform a thorough and complete examination and evaluation; c. In view of the patient's history, complaints, and symptomatology, in failing to call in for consultation an orthopedic surgeo.n, neurosurgeon, or neurologist; 5 d. In falling to order appropriate diagnostic tests, including but not necessarily limited to a CAT scan and/or an MRI of the neck and cervical spine; e. In falling to order the patient's admission to the hospital, for further examination, evaluation, and testing; f. In failing to diagnose the mpturcd and/or herniated cervical intervertebral discs at C4-5 and/or C5-6; g. By diagnosing Plaintiff's condition as consisting ofa brachial plexus injury rather than severe injuries to cervical interverterbral discs, disc spaces, and surrounding soft tissues, such as nerve roots, muscles, nerves, etc.; h. In releasing Plaintiff from the Hospital with a prescription and instructions to see a chiropractor, rather than referring her for immediate and appropriate follow-up care and treatment; and i. In the above respects, in falling to exercise that degree of care due and owing the Plaintiff under the circumstances. 13. Plaintiff claims damages arising from Defendants' failure promptly and properly to diagnose her condition, which diagnosis would have lead to prompt and proper treatment, which would have lead to a reasonably normal and complete recovery. Instead, Plaintiff's condition was caused to worsen considerably over time, so that when her injuries were finally correctly diagnosed, as set forth above, and proper treatment was instituted, it was too late to prevent and reverse many of the adverse consequences of 6 their diagnostic and treatmem failure, which considerably aggravated and exacerbated her condition and made it impossible to achieve a significant cure, although subsequent surgery considerably alleviated Plaintiff's condition. The negligence and wrongful acts of Dr. Coyle, jointly and/or severally and concurrently or consecutively with the negligence and wrongful acts of Dr. Hall and the Hosptital, were a direct and proximate cause of the injuries and damage sustained by Plaintiff herein. 14. Following the correct diagnosis of Plaintiff's condition by Dr. Opida, Plaintiff saw other physicians and eventually came under the care of William C. Welch, M.D., Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Pittsburgh. Plaintiff was admitted to UPMC Presbyterian on February 14, 2000, and Dr. Welch performed a C5-6 anterior surgical discectomy with non-instrumental fusion. 15. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence and wrongful acts of Defendants, as set forth above, and hereinafter, Plaintiffhas been and will hereafter be required to suffer and endure severe pain of body and mind. She has been disabled, and her disability will continue into the future. She suffered the aftermath of severe injuries to her neck and cervical spine, which eventually were diagnosed and appropriately treated, via surgery, but only after considerable damage had been done because of the delay in diagnosis and rendering appropriate treatment. As a result, her health, strength, and vitality have been and will hereafter be adversely affected. Her activities have been and will hereafter be considerably limited and restricted. She was required to lose earnings and her earning power has been destroyed. She suffers from severe pain, discomfort, disability, numbness, limitations of motion and function, and other 7 manifestations of her neck and cervical spine injuries and the considerable delay in providing appropriate treatment. She is unable to run. She has great difficulty in lifting her right leg. Her right hand and right arm feel weak, heavy, almost numb. She is unable to raise her right ann above her shoulder. She is unable to grip objects firmly with her right hand, or open jars, etc. She suffers from constant headaches, severe stabbing pains in neck fi'om sitting, and limitation of motion in the neck. She has difficulty in dressing herself, lifting and carrying objects, and is unable to lift more than 5 pounds. She has been and will hereafter be deprived of the ordinary pleasures of life. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Dr. Coyle in an amount in excess of the arbitration limits of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Second Count Gregory Klett vs. Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. 16. The husband Plaintiff, Gregory Klett, incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the First Count as though the said Paragraphs were fully set forth herein. 17. The husband Plaintiff, Gregory Klett, has been and will hereafter be required to spend large sums of money for hospitalizations, medical care and attention, surgery, nursings, drags, and the use of appliances and other treatment modalities, for the care and treatment of his wife. In addition, the husband Plaintiffhas lost and will hereaRer lose the services, society, and consortium of his wife. 8 WHEREFORE, the husband Plaintiffdemands judgment against Dr. Coyle in an mount in excess of the arbitration limits of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. [Note: Counts ~I and IV, Plaintiffs vs. Robert F. Hall, II, M.D., and any Paragraphs incorporating those Counts, are presently .excluded from this case because of the recent entry of a judgment of non pros in favor of Dr. Hall. Those Counts will be effectively pleaded if and only if that judgment or non pros is opened by this Honorable Court.] [Third Count] [Karen Klett vs. Robert F. Hall, II, M.D.] 18. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 9 and 11 through 13 of the First Count as though the said Paragraphs were fully set forth herein. 19. Dr. Hall, was reckless, careless, and negligent in the following particular respects: a. In failing to receive a sufficient and adequate history of the patient and her condition upon presentation to the Emergency Room, such as would require cervical spine and neck X-Rays that would have disclosed the severe disc injuries which Plaintiffhad sustained in an accident several days before; b. In the alternative, in failing properly to interpret the X-Rays, which did show the severe disc injuries, but instead in reporting that the X-Ray films showed no such injuries; c. In failing to suggest and take additional films and studies appropriate to the condition of the patient, such as MRIs and CAT scan films, that would have disclosed Plaintiff's disc injuries and would thereby have lead to a correc~ diagnosis and consequem appropriate and prompt care and treatment; and d. In the above respects, in failing to exercise that degree of care due and owing to PlaJntiffunder the circumstances. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Dr. Hall in an amount in excess of the arbitration limits of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. [Fourth Count] [Gregory Klett vs. Robert F. Hall, II, M.D.] 20. The husband Plaintiff, Gregory Klett, incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 11 and 13 through 15 of the First Count, Paragraph 19 of the Second Count, and Paragraph 17 of the Third Count as though the said Paragraphs were fully set forth herein. WHEREFORE, the husband Plaintiff demands judgment against Dr. Hall in an amount in excess of the arbitration limits of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvanim 10 Fifth Count Knren Klett vs. Carlisle Hospital 21. Plaintiff incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 11 and 13 through 15 of the First Count as though the said Paragraphs were fully set forth herein. 22. At all tunes material to this action, the Emergency Room of the Hospital was owned, operated, controlled, and maintained by the Hospital as a section, branch or department thereof. Dr. Coyle, who performed Emergency Room services at the Hospital, in so doing was acting as agent or employee of the Hospital acting on behalf of the Hospital and within the course and scope of his authority and in and about the business of the Hospital and in furtherance thereof. 23. The Hospital is liable as principal for the negligent acts and omissions of Dr. Coyle, who at the time of the events complained of was acting as agent or employee of the Hospital, as aforesaid, and the Hospital is therefore bound by and responsible for the negligent acts and omissions on the part of Dr. Coyle as set forth in the Third Count of this Complaint. 24. The Hospital knew or should have known that Dr. Coyle was unfit and unqualified because of lack of proper training, competence, qualifications, experience, and expertise necessary to undertake the care and treatment of Plaintiff. 25. The Hospital is liable as principal for the negligent acts and omissions of Dr. Coyle, who at the time of the events complained of was acting as agem or employee of the Hospital, as aforesaid, and the Hospital is therefore bound by and responsible for 11 the negligent acts and omissions on the part of Dr. Coyle as set forth in the First Count of this Complaint. 26. At all times material to this action, the Radiology Department of the Hospital was owned, operated, controlled, and maintained by the Hospital as a section, branch or department thereof. Dr. Hall, who performed X-ray studies at the Hospital, in so doing was acting as agent or employee of the Hospital acting on behalf of the Hospital and within the course and scope of their employment or authority and in and about the business of the Hospital and in furtherance thereof. 27. The Hospital is liable as principal for the negligent acts and omissions of Dr. Hall, who at the time of the events complained of was acting as agent or employee of the Hospital, as aforesaid, and the Hospital is therefore bound by and responsible for the negligent acts and omissions on the part of Dr. Hall as set forth in the Third Count of this Complaint. 28. The Hospital knew or should have known that Dr. Hall was unfit and unqualified because of lack of proper training, competence, qualifications, experience, and expertise necessary to undertake the care and treatment of Plaintiff. 29. The Hospital is liable as principal for the negligent acts and omissions of Dr. Hall, who at the time of the events complained of was acting as agent or employee of the Hospital, as aforesaid, and the Hospital is therefore bound by and responsible for the negligent acts and omissions on the part of Dr. Hall as set forth in the Third Count of this Complaint. 12 30. The Hospital is liable as a corporate entity, because the Hospital has a duty to select and retain only competent physicians, to oversee ail persons who practiced medicine within its wails as to patient care and testing, and to formulate, adopt, and enforce adequate roles and policies to ensure quality care for the patients. The Hospital is, further, liable as a corporate entity because of the breaches of duty owed to Plaintiff on the part of Dr. Coyle and Dr. Hail, who were agents, servants, or employees of the Hospital, as aforesaid, as set forth above more specificaily in previous Counts of this Complaint. These responsibilities gave rise to a nondelegable duty which the Hospital, as a corporate entity, owed to the Plaintiffand which it breached by failing to uphold the proper standard of care owed to its patient, as set forth above. 31. The Hospital is liable as a corporate entity, because the Hospital has a duty to select and retain only competent physicians, to oversee ail persons who practiced medicine within its walls as to patient care and testing, and to formulate, adopt, and enforce adequate roles and policies to ensure quality care for the patients. The Hospital is, further, liable as a corporate entity because of the breaches of duty owed to Plaintiff on the part of Dr. Coyle and Dr. Hall, who were agents, servants or employees of the Hospital, as aforesaid, as set forth above more specificaily in previous Counts of this Complaint. These responsibilities gave rise to a nondelegable duty which the Hospital, as a corporate emity, owed to the Plaintiff and which it breached by failing to uphold the proper standard of care owed to its patient, as set forth above. 13 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Carlisle Hospital in an amount in excess of the arbitration limits of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Sixth Count Gregory Klett vs. Carlisle Hospital 32. The husband Plaintiff, Gregory Klett, incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 15 of the First Count, Paragraph 17 of the Second Count, and Paragraphs 22 through 31 as though the said Paragraphs were fully set forth herein. WHEREFORE, the husband Plaintiff demands judgment against Carlisle Hospital in an amount in excess of the arbitration limits of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Robert A. Cohen Pm I.D. #00467 BEHREND & ERNSBERGER 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412)391-2515 13EHU, END& ERNSBERGER, I .C. ATTORNEYS AT I,AW September 14, 2001 Robert F. Ilall, 11, M.D. cio Carlisle Hospital 246 Parker Street ]~.(). Box 3]0 ('~rlisle. PA 17013 RE: Karen Klett I)ear Dr. Ilall: Karen Klett has retained us to investigate the merits of a possible claim against arising from alleged improper care and treatment of an injuD' to Karen Klett. Because of time limitations, we are instituting suit by the filing of a Summons. This will give us an opportunity to explore the merits of the case. A copy of the Praecipe Writ of Summons in Civil Action is enclosed. If we find that our case review discloses no professional negligence on your part, or no serious consequences of professional negligence, we will voluntarily drop the case. Il' our review discloses that you performed improper procedures or failed to take necessary remedial action, causing serious damage to Karen Klett. we will prepare a Complaint accordingly. Please turn this letter, and the Summons that will be served upon you by the Sheriffs Office of Cumberland County, over to your liability insurance carrier. RAC:~jh Sincerely, Robert A. Cohen EXHIBIT "C" HARTMAN, OSBORNE & JOYCE, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 126-128 WALNUT STREET, HARRISBURG, PA 17101 · TELEPHONE (717) 232-3046 · FACSIMILE (717) 232-3538 JACK M. [tARTMAN MELINDA S. JOYCE KEVIN E. OSBORNE DREW P. GANNON AMY C. FOERSTER CINDY L. NICNOLSON WRITER'S EXTENSION: 109 WRITER'S E-MAIL ADDRESS: February 19, 2002 Curt I,ong, Prothonotary Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square Carlisle, PA 17013 Re: Karen Klett v. Robert F. Hall, II, M.D., et al. Cumberland County Docket No. 5461 [)ear Mr. Long: Enclosed for filing please find an original and one (1) copy each of a Withdrawal of Appearance and an Entry of Appearance on behalf of Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. iu rcgard to the above-referenced matter. Please time stamp the copies and return them to me in the enclosed self-addressed stamped envelope. Should you have any questions regarding the same, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, JMH:cks Enclosures. cc: ~l~rt A. Cohen, Esquire (w/enc.) Michael Badowski, Esquire (w/enc.) Kendra McGuire, Esquire (w/enc.) Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. (w/enc.) Kristin Twilley (CAT Fund File #031967-A)(w/o enc.) EXHIBIT "D' FEB-~5-0~ MON 09:59 AM MCKISSOCK HOFFMAN FAX:?i7540B434 PAGE Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Emsberger 306 Fourth Avenue Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 McKIsSOCK & HOFFMAN ATY{)RNEY,'~ AT LAW 2040 I,INOLESTOWN ROAD February 25, 2002 Via Facsimile (412) 391-2762 And U.S. First Class Mail Re: K!ett, et ux., v. Hall, et al~ CCP (Cumberland) 5461 Civil Term 2001 Our File: 241-399 Dear Mr. Cohen: Please accept my thanks in your generous extension of time in speaking with me regarding the above referenced matter. As you will recall, I introduced myself as the attorney who will be continuing with the defense of Dr. Johnson Coyle and the Cadisle Hospital. I am forwarding my Entry of Appearance to the Cumberland County Prothonotary today. You will receive a copy of the filing. I recently received this file from former counsel and contacted you regarding a possible extension of time by which I must respond to the Complaint. You gratiously offered to extend the time for which a response to the Complaint must be filed to end of March 2002. If this is not your understanding as to our earlier telephone conference, please contact as soon as possible so that we may avoid any future confusion in this regard, Thank you for your courtesy in this matter. Sincerely, _ Edwin A.~ McKIssock & Hoffman, P.C. EXHIBIT "E' , VERIFICATION I, KAREN KLETT, state that the statements made in the foregoing AMENDED PETITION TO OPEN JUDGMENT OF NON PROS are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This statemem and verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unswom falsification, to authorities which provides that, ifI make knowingly false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. DATE: ,~ -~ '7- ~ & CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing AMENDED PETITION TO OPEN JUDGMENT OF NON PROS was mailed to the following counsel ofrecont, by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, this 27th day of February, 2002. Jack M Hartman, Esquire Hartman, Osborne & Joyee 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire McKissoek & Hoffman 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Robert A. Cohen IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DMSION KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, VS. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ~/~04 ZOOZ ORDER OF COURT ANDNOW, this &.' day& t% ,O~e,t .2002. upon consideration of the foregoing Petition, it is hereby ORDERED that (1) A Rule is issued upon the Respondent to show cause why the Petitioner is not entitled to the relief requested; (2) of this date; (3) (4) (5) 4 The Respondem shall file an Answer to the Petition within ,~o days The Petition shall be decided under Pa.R.C.P. No. 206.7; Depositions shall be completed within ¥5'~ days of this date; Argument shall be held on ~fJqrt.,t~ ~0; ,:,?Ora &, in Courtroom of the ~g.g~~_County Courthouse; ag~L O~ ] [ "{'FO ~'/90. (6) Notice of the entry of this Order shall be provided to all parties by the Petitioner. BY THE COURT: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs V. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPTIAL, a corporation, Defendants ' CIVIL DIVISION NO. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO: Karen & Gregory Klett, Plaintiffs cio Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed Preliminary Objections within 20 days from service hereof or judgment may be entered against you. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS JOHNSON G. COYLE~ M.D. AND CARLISLE HOSPITAl TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D., and Carlisle Hospital, by and through their counsel, McKissock & Hoffman, P.C., hereby file the following Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint and as such, aver as follows: 1. Plaintiffs, Karen and Gregory Klett have commenced an action against Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. (hereinafter "Dr. Coyle"); Robert F. Hall, M.D. (hereinafter "Dr. Hall"); and Carlisle Hospital (hereinafter "Hospital") setting forth various allegations of professional negligence, vicarious liability and corporate liability. 2. The Preliminary Objections of Dr. Coyle and Hospital are directed to the allegations contained in Counts I, II, V and VI of Plaintiffs' Complaint PRELIMINARY OBJECTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE FOR INSUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY OF PLEADING PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 1028{a){3) 3. Paragraphs 1 and 2 hereinabove are incorporated by reference as if more fully set forth. 4. Under Pennsylvania law, "The material facts upon which a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form" Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a). 5. Count I of Plaintiffs' Complaint seeks to set forth a claim of negligence against Dr. Coyle for his alleged failure to properly care for and treat Plaintiff, Karen Klett. Plaintiffs further aver that said actions or inactions of Dr. Coyle resulted in the alleged injuries sustained by Plaintiffs. 6. In paragraph 12(i) of Plaintiffs' Complaint, Plaintiffs allege "Dr. Coyle, as the agent, servant, or employee of the Hospital, was reckless, careless, and negligent in the following particular respects: ... (i) in the above respects, in failing to exercise that degree of care due and owing the Plaintiff under the circumstances." 7. The allegation set forth in paragraph 12(i) of Plaintiffs' Complaint does not contain the factual specificity required by Pennsylvania law, nor is it supported by factual allegations elsewhere within the Complaint. See: Conner v. Alleqheny Hospital, 501 Pa. 306, 461 A.2d 600 (1983). Absent a clear and concise pleading of the specific and relevant facts upon which Plaintiffs' assert their claims against Dr. Coyle, and without a clear and concise statement of the precise conduct by which Dr. Coyle is alleged to incur liability, Dr. Coyle cannot provide a knowing and intelligent response to Plaintiffs' Complaint and is prejudiced thereby. This same prejudice is shared by Cadisle Hospital. 8. Count V of Plaintiffs' Complaint seeks to set forth a claim of vicarious liability against Hospital due to the alleged acts and/or omissions of Dr. Coyle in his alleged failure to propedy care for and treat Plaintiff, Karen Klett. 9. In paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs' Complaint, Plaintiffs allege "The Hospital knew or should have known that Dr. Coyie was unfit and unqualified because of lack of proper training, competence, qualifications, experience, and expertise necessary to undertake the care and treatment of Plaintiff." 10. Plaintiffs' Complaint is void of any factual averments which address (either expressly or by inference) the training, competence, qualifications, experience, and expertise of Dr. Coyle. 11. Absent any specific factual averments regarding Plaintiffs' basis for asserting that Dr. Coyle somehow lacked proper training, competence, qualifications, experience, and expertise necessary to undertake the care and treatment of Plaintiff, Defendants cannot provide a knowing and intelligent response to Plaintiffs' allegation. 12. Notwithstanding the fact that paragraphs 30 and 31 are identical (and one should be stricken as being redundant) Plaintiffs allege a breach of duty by the Hospital in "tailing to uphold the proper standard of care owed to its patient, as set forth above." 13. However, despite the Plaintiffs' qualification of the alleged breach as being "set forth above", a review of the Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to reveal any factual allegations which support a breach of the Hospital's "nondelegable" duty. 14. Absent any factual allegations in support of the alleged breach of the Hospital's "nondelegable" duty, Plaintiffs' claims in this respect must be dismissed for lacking the requisite specificity. 15. Dr. Coyle and Hospital are prejudiced in that Plaintiffs' failure to specifically and concisely set forth all material facts upon which they assert their various claims, effectively precludes Dr. Coyle and Hospital from preparing an intelligent and responsive defense thereto. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court strike paragraphs 12(i); 24, 30 and 31 of Plaintiffs' Complaint for insufficient specificity, or in the alternative, Plaintiffs should be directed to file a more specific pleading in conformity with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a). PRELIMINARY OBJECTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM FOR WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED (DEMURRER) PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 1028(a)~3). 16. Paragraphs 1 and 15 hereinabove are incorporated by reference as if more fully set forth. 17. Plaintiffs appear to be attempting to set for a claim for corporate liability against defendant Hospital. See Plaintiffs' Complaint, Count V, paragraphs 30-31. 18. These paragraphs merely recite boilerplate language as identified by the Court in Thompson v. Nason Hospital, 527 Pa. 330, 591 A.2d 703 (1991). 19. There are no facts set forth in the Complaint which would support a cause of action for corporate liability against Defendant Hospital. 20. Inasmuch as the alleged claim for corporate negligence, as set forth in paragraphs 30 and 31, is unsupported by the facts as pled in the Complaint, Plaintiffs' claims for corporate negligence must be dismissed. Furthermore, due to the derivative nature of the claims as set forth in Count VI of Plaintiffs' Complaint for Plaintiff, Gregory Klett's alleged loss of consortium, such claim must also fail. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Johnson G. Coyie, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court stdke paragraphs 30 and 31 of Plaintiffs' Complaint for failing to state a claim for which relief may be granted and further award Defendants all such other relief as is proper and just. II1~ PRELIMINARY OBJECTION AND MOTION TO STRIKF 21. Paragraphs 1 and 20 hereinabove are incorporated by reference as if more fully set forth. 22. A review of Plaintiffs' Complaint reveals that paragraphs 23 and 25 are identical with the exception that paragraph 23 references Count III of the Complaint and paragraph 25 references Count I. 23. While it is acknowledged that Count I of Plaintiffs' Complaint refers to allegations pertaining to Dr. Coyle, Count III of Plaintiffs' Complaint refers to allegations of Dr. Hall. Notwithstanding the fact that Count III refers to the alleged acts and/or omissions of Dr. Hall, paragraph 25 specifically references Dr. Coyle as the individual whose acts are alleged to impose liability upon Hospital. 24. Notwithstanding the Plaintiffs' reference to different Counts in paragraphs 23 and 25, both paragraphs allege liability of Hospital due to the acts and/or omissions of Dr. Coyle. 25. Paragraphs 23 and 25 are inconsistent with one another and as such, one of the paragraphs should be stricken. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital, respectfully requests that this Honorable Court strike paragraph 23 or 25 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and further award Defendants all such other relief as is proper and just. McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. B. Craig Black, E~dr~ Supreme Court I.D. No. 36818 Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. No. 75902 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-3400 Attorneys for Defendants, Johnson G. Coyie, M.D. and Cadisle Hospital Date: ~_~'/~ z.- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICF I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing Preliminary Objections upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Jack M. Hartman, Esquire Hartman, Osborne & Joyce 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (Counsel for Robert F. Hall, II, M.D.) McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. BY:B~ Supreme Court I.D. No. 36818 Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. No. 75902 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-3400 Attorneys for Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital Date: KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT Plaintiffs Vo ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION NO. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AND NOW comes, Defendant, Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. (hereinafter "Dr. Hall"), by and through his attorneys, Hartman, Osborne & Joyce, P.C., and files this Answer to the Petition to Open Judgment of Non Pros of Plaintiffs as follows: 1. The Judgment of Non Pros was pursued by prior counsel to Dr. Hall and was granted on January 8, 2002. 2. On February 1, 2002, Plaintiff filed a Petition to Open Judgment of Non Pros. 3. Prior counsel for Dr. Hall drafted an Answer to Plaintiffs' Petition to Open Judgment of Non Pros. 4. Undersigned counsel assumed representation of Dr. Hall by filing an Entry of Appearance on February 20, 2002. Prior counsel withdrew his appearance on February 20, 2002. 5. On or about February 27, 2002, Plaintiff filed an Amended Petition to Open Judgment of Non Pros with essentially the same averments as those found in the original Petition and appropriately addressed by previous counsel's drafted Answer. 6. Accordingly, Dr. Hall hereby incorporates by reference prior counsel's Answer to Plaintiffs' Petition to Open Judgment of Non Pros as if set forth in it entirety herein with the understanding that there may be inconsistency in the numbering of paragraphs. Prior counsel's Answer to Plaintiffs' Petition to Open Judgment of Non Pros is attached hereto. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Robert F. Hall, II, M.D., respectfully requests that this Honorable Court deny Plaintiffs' Petition to Open Judgment Non Pros. Respectfully submitted, HARTMAN, OSBORNE & JOYCE, P.C. Dated: Jack M. Hartman, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #21902 Cindy L. Nicholson, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #83823 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 717-232-3046 Attorneys for Defendant Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. MIC~IAEL M. BADOWSKI, ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I.D. No. 32646 SHAUN J. MUMFORD, ESQUIRE Pa. Supreme Court I.D. No. 84176 MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 3510 Trindle Road Car~) Hill, Pennsylvania 17011 Telephone: [717] 975-8114 Fax: [717] 975-8124 E-Mail: mbadowski~margolisedelstein.com Attorneys for Defendant: ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. KAREN KLETT AND GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, VS. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :CIVIL ACTION - LAW : :NO. 5461 CIVIL TERM 2001 CARLISLE HOSPITAL, A CORPORATION,: Defendants. :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT, ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., TO PLAINTIFFS' PETITION TO OPEN JUDGMENT OF NON PROS AND NOW, comes Defendant, Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. (hereinafter ~Dr. Hall"), by and through his counsel, Margolis Edelstein, and files this Answer to the Petition to Open Judgment of Non Pros of Plaintiffs, Karen and Gregory Klett (hereinafter ~Plaintiffs"), averring the following in support thereof 1. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that wife-Plaintiff presented to the Emergency Room at Carlisle Hospital on June 12, 1997, where she was evaluated by Johnson G. Coyle, M.D., for work-related injuries. As part of the evaluation, x-rays of wife-Plaintiff's cervical spine were taken, which were read by Dr. Hall. Dr. Hall interpreted the x-ray film as showing reversal of well as Uno significant abnormalities", but noted a slight the normal curvature of the mid-cervical spine, as some minimal narrowing of the interspace at C5-C6. The remainder of the averments contained Plaintiffs' petition are denied. 2. Admitted. Complaint on January 16, in this paragraph of It is admitted that Plaintiffs filed a 2002, which sets forth claims against Dr. Hall, Dr. Coyle and Carlisle Hospital. However, Plaintiffs' Complaint was filed eight days following the filing of Dr. Hall's Praecipe to Enter Judgment Non Pros, which was granted by this Honorable Court on the same day. 3. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the instant matter was initiated by way of the filing of a Praecipe for Writ of Summons on September 19, 2001. The remainder of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs' petition are denied. 4. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that counsel for Dr. Hall entered their appearance on October 18, 2001, following service of the Writ of Summons upon Dr. Hall. It is also admitted that a Praecipe for Rule to File Complaint was filed on October 18, 2001, such Rule being served on Plaintiffs on October 23, 2001. It is further admitted that Plaintiffs' counsel, by way of letter dated, October 30, 2001, requested a sixty day extension to file a Complaint, which was granted by counsel for Dr. Hall, extending the deadline for Plaintiffs to file a Complaint to January 7, 2002. The remainder of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs' petition are 2 denied. 5. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that on November 19, 2001, counsel for Dr. Hall served and filed a Notice of Intent to Enter Judgment Non Pros, simply as a formality in that, as mentioned above, counsel for Dr. Hall had granted Plaintiffs until January 7, 2002, to file a Complaint. The remainder of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs' petition are denied. 6. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that counsel for Dr. Hall filed a Praecipe to Enter Judgment Non Pros on January 8, 2002, after Plaintiffs failed to file a Complaint within the extension of time granted by Dr. Hall. It is also admitted that this Honorable Court entered a Judgment Non Pros, in favor of Dr. Hall, on the same day. The remainder of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs' petition are denied. 7. Admitted. 8. Denied. Counsel for Dr. Hall contacted Plaintiffs' counsel regarding the Judgment Non Pros by sending Plaintiffs a Notice of Intent to Enter Judgment Non Pros, on November 19, 2001, as required by law, and by informing Plaintiffs' counsel that an extension to file a Complaint was being granted until January 7, 2002. Since Plaintiffs failed to file a Complaint by January 7, 2002, and had been provided with legal notice that Dr. Hall intended to Enter a Judgment Non Pros if a Complaint was not filed by January 7, 2002, this Honorable Court correctly ordered a Judgment Non Pros in favor of Dr. Hall on January 8, 2002. 9. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs' counsel requested that counsel for Dr. Hall voluntarily open the Judgment Non Pros, such request being denied by letter dated January 15, 2002. As stated in the January 15, 2002, letter, Dr. Hall's medical liability carrier, PMSLIC, did not feel it was at liberty to grant Plaintiffs' request to voluntarily open the Judgment Non Pros, because the case would likely be submitted to the CAT Fund as a Section 605 matter due to the facts of the case. The remainder of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs' petition are denied. 10. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiffs filed a Complaint on January 16, 2002. Prior to Counts III and IV of Plaintiffs' Complaint, which make claims against Dr. Hall, Plaintiffs have inserted a note acknowledging that any claims against Dr. Hall are excluded from the case due to the Judgment Non Pros in favor of Dr. Hall, and therefore, such claims are effectively pleaded only if the Judgment Non Pros is opened. The remainder of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs' petition are denied. 11. Denied. Plaintiffs filed a Complaint nine (9) after the sixty (60) day extension granted by Dr. Hall had days passed, and therefore, Judgment Non Pros was appropriately entered in favor of Dr. Hall. The remainder of the averments contained in this paragraph of Plaintiffs' petition are denied. 12. Denied. Dr. Hall is without knowledge or information sufficient averment. 13. Denied. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Robert F. respectfully requests that this Honorable Petition to Open Judgment Non Pros. to form a basis as to the truth of this Hall, II, M.D., Court deny Plaintiffs' MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN Date: MICHAEL M. BADOWSKI Pa. Sup. Ct. I.D. #32646 SHAUN J. MUMFORD Pa. Sup. Ct. I.D. #84176 Attorneys for Defendant, ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D. I, Cindy L. Nicholson, Esquire, hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing document upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, fnost-class postage prepaid, as follows: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Emsberger 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (Counsel to Plaintiffs) Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire McKissock & Hoffman 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 HARTMAN, OSBORNE & JOYCE, P.C. By: ~ Cindy L. Nicholson, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #83823 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 717-232-3046 Dated: 3/o~;/0 :~ Attorney for Defendant Robert F. Hall, M.D. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DWISION KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, VS. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants No. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' ANSWER TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D. AND CARLISLE HOSPITAL TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW come Plaintiffs, Karen Klett and Gregory Klett, by Robert A. Cohen and Behrend & Ernsberger, their attorneys, and Answer the Preliminary Objections of Defendants Johnson G. Coylc, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital to Plaintiffs' Complaint, as follows: 1. The allegations of Paragraph 1 of thc Objections are admitted, insofar as Paragraph 1 briefly summarizes the gravamen of various counts of the Complaint. 2. The allegations of Paragraph 2 of the Objections are admitted. I. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE FOR INSUFFICIENT SPECIFICITY OF PLEADING PURSUANT TO PA.R,C.P. 1028(a)(3). 3. The allegations of Paragraph 3 of the Objections require no response, since they simply incorporate Paragraph 1 and 2. 4. The allegations of Paragraph 4 of the Objections require no response, because Paragraph 4 simply sets forth a conclusion of law. By way of further answer, the Paragraph is admitted, and has been complied with by Plaintiffs' Complaint. 5. The allegations of Paragraph 5 of the Objections are admitted, as constituting a brief summarization of Count I. 6. The allegations of Paragraph 6 of the Objections are admitted, as quoting Paragraph 120) of the Complaint. 7. The allegations of Paragraph 7 of the Objections are denied. On the contrary, 12(i) is specific, is supported by factual allegations elsewhere within the Complaint, and does not fall within the purview of the Conner v. Allegheny Hospital case, 501 Pa. 306, 461 A.2d 600 0983). A close reading of 12(i), in the light of Defendants' Objections, discloses that Defendants do not comprehend 12(i), which refers specifically to subparagraphs 12(a) through 12(h) and states that, in violating those specific subparagraphs, Defendants have breached their duty of care to the Plaintiff. Paragraph 12(i) does not assert anything new or general, but simply asserts that the standard of care, as set forth in 12(a) through 12(h), was breached, thereby causing injury and damage to the Plaintiffs. 8. The allegations of Paragraph 8 of the Objections are admitted. 2 9. The allegations of Paragraph 9 of the Objections are admitted. 10. The allegations of Paragraph 10 of the Objections are denied. Dr. Coyle is addressing issues of testimony rather than averments. These issues will be addressed during the discovery process, which will demonstrate factually whether or not the pleaded "deficiencies" exist. 11. The allegations of Paragraph 11 of the Objections are denied. Dr. Coyle is addressing issues of testimony rather than averments. These issues will be addressed during the discovery process, which will demonstrate factually whether or not the pleaded "deficiencies" exist. 12. The allegations of Paragraph 12 of the Objections are admitted, as describing a Paragraph of the Complaint. Plaintiff further admits that, if Paragraphs 30 and 31 are redundant, one of those Paragraphs should be stricken, such duplication constituting a typographical error for which Plaintiffs' counsel apologizes. 13. The allegations of Paragraph 13 of the Objections are denied. The "nondelegable duty" is to provide professionally competent agents and employees and to properly supervise their work, in accordance with appropriate hospital standards and policies. All of these issues have been properly pleaded and await development via the discovery process. 14. The allegations of Paragraph 14 of the Objections are denied. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs incorporate their Answer to Paragraph 13. 15. The allegations of Paragraph 15 of the Objections are denied. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs incorporate their Answer to Paragraph 13. 3 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs' respectfully request that Count I of Defendants' Preliminary Objections should be dismissed. II. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE FOR FAILING TO STATE A CLAIM FOR WHICH RELIEF MAY BE GRANTED (DEMURRER) PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3). 16. The allegations of Paragraph 16 of the Objections require no response, since Paragraph 16 simply incorporates previous Paragraphs, to which Plaintiffs have already responded. 17. The allegations of Paragraph 17 of the Objections are admitted. 18. The allegations of Paragraph 18 of the Objections are admitted in part and denied in part. The language which Defendants characterize as "boilerplate", pursuant to Thompson v. Nason Hospital, 527 Pa. 330, 591 A.2d 703 (1991) refers to averments of fact in this Klett case which describe subject matter which falls within the purview of the doctrine of corporate liability. Since Plaintiffs' Complaint, herein, meets the requirements of the Thompson case, those averments should be permitted to stand. 19. The allegations of Paragraph 19 of the Objections are denied. On the contraw, pertinent averments are set forth in Count V of the Complaint, wherein Plaintiffs assert their claim for breaches of the doctrine of corporate liability. 20. The allegations of Paragraph 20 of the Objections are denied. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs incorporate herein their answer to previous paragraphs of Defendants' Objections. 4 WHEREFORE, Count II of Defendants' Preliminary Objections should be dismissed. III. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS ANI) MOTION TO STRIKE 21. The allegations of Paragraph 21 of the Objections require no response, since Paragraph 21 simply incorporates previous Paragraphs, to which Plaintiffs have already responded. 22. The allegations of Paragraph 22 of the Objections are admitted. 23. The allegations of Paragraph 23 of the Objections are admitted. Plaintiffs intend to claim hospital liability because of the negligent and wrongful acts of both Dr. Coyle and Dr. Hall. The intent was to set forth those negligent actions against each of these doctors in separate counts, giving rise to liability on the part of the Hospital because of the negligent and wrongful acts of both. If that intent is not clearly effectuated by the Complaint, because of one or more typographical errors, Plaintiffs request leave to correct their Complaint by striking Paragraph 23, which is redundant and incorrect. Paragraph 25 correctly references Dr. Coyle in Count I, whereas the averments of Hospital liability arising from the negligent and wrongful acts of Dr. Hall are set forth in Paragraph 27. Therefore Paragraph 23 is incorrect, surplusage, and should be stricken. 24. The allegations of Paragraph 24 of the Objections are admitted. By way of fiLrther answer, Plaintiffs incorporate herein their answer to Paragraph 23 of the Objections. 25. The allegations of Paragraph 25 of the Objections are admitted. As set forth in answer to Paragraph 23, Paragraph 23 of the Complaint should be stricken. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs concur that Paragraph 23 of the Complaint should be stricken. Respectfully submitted: Robert A. Cohen Pa. I.D. #00467 BEHREND & ERNSBERGER 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 391-2515 6 VERIFICATION I, KAREN KLETT, state that the statements made in the foregoing ANSWER TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D. AND CARLISLE HOSPITAL TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT are tree and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This statement and verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unswom falsification, to authorities which provides that, if I make knowingly false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, VS. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants No. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PROPOSED ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this day of _, 2002, it is hereby ORDERED that Paragraph 23 and Pmmgmph 31 of the Complaint be stricken, as redundant. In all other respects, the Preliminary Objections of Dr. Coyle and Carlisle Hospital are hereby DISMISSED. BY THECOURT: Jo CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing ANSWER TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D. AND CARLISLE HOSPITAL TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT was mailed to the following counsel of record, by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, this 4th day of April, 2002. Jack M Haman, Esquire Hartman, Osborne & Joyce 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire McKissock & Hoffinan 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 3O2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Robert A. Cohen IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL DIVISION KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, VS. Plaintiffs, ROBERT F. HALL, H, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW PETITION TO OPEN JUDGMENT OF NON PRO~ Plaimiffs hereby withdraw their Petition to Open the Judgment of Non Pros filed on behalf of Robert F. Hall, II, M.D., with prejudice to the Plaintiffs. Respectfully submitted: Robert A. Cohen Pa. I.D. #00467 BEHREND & ERNSBERGER 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 391-2515 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW PETITION TO OPEN JUDGMENT OF NON PROS was mailed to the following counsel of record, by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, this 20th day of May, 2002. Jack M Hartman, Esquire Hartman, Osborne & Joyce 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire McKissock & Hoffman 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Robert A. Cohen o PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court. CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, (Plaintiff) VS. ROBERT F. HALL, Il, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D. and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation, (Defendant) No. 5461 Civil Term 2001 State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Preliminary Objections of Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital Identify counsel who will argue case: (a) for plaintiff.' Robert A. Cohen Address: Behrend & Emsberger, Union Bank Building, #300, 306 Fourth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (b) for defendant: Jack M Hashnan, Esquire Address: Hartman, Osborne & Joyce, 126-128 Walnut Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101 Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire Address: McKissock & Hoffman, 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 302, Harrisburg, PA 17110 I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument Argument Court Date: Dated: Attorney for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a tree and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT was mailed to the following counsel of record, by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, this 28th day of May, 2002. Jack M Hartman, Esquire Hartman, Osborne & Joyce 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire McKissock & Hoffman 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Robert A. Cohen 22. Karen Klett and Gregory Klett V Robert F. Hall, II, M.D., Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital, a Corporation : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 01-5461 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, July 24, 2002, by agreement of counsel, the above-captioned matter is continued from the July 24, 2002 Argument Court list. Counsel is directed to relist the case when ready. /~obert A. Cohen, Esquire For the Plaintiff ~M. Hartman, Esquire /t~dwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire For the Defendant Court Administrator By the Court, ld PRAEClPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court. CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, (Plaintiff) VS. ROBERT F. HALL, H, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D. and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation, (Defendant) No. 5461 Civil Term 2001 State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Preliminary Objections of Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital Identify counsel who will argue case: (a) for plaintiff: Robert A. Cohen Address: Behrend & Emsberger, Union Bank Building, #300, 306 Fourth Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (b) for defendant: Jack M Hartman, Esquire Address: Hmt~nan, Osborne & Joyce, 126-128 Walnut Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101 Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire Address: McKissock & Hoffinan, 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 302, Harrisburg, PA 17110 I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument Argument Court Date: August 28, 2002 Dated: August 6, 2002 / "--"~--~'--'"' '-"' '-"-~ ",. Attorney for Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a tree and correct copy of the foregoing PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT was mailed to the following counsel of record, by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, this 6th day of August, 2002. Jack M Hartman, Esquire Hartman, Osborne & Joyce 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire McKissock & Hoffinan 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Robert A. Cohen KAREN KLETT AND GREGORY KLETT, PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF · CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON : G. COYLE, M.D. AND CARLISLE HOSPITAL, A CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS . 01-5461 CIVIL TERM IN RE: pRFI IMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D. AND CARLISLE HOSPITAL TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE BAYLEY, J. AND HESS, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~~ day of September, 2002, IT IS ORDERED: (1) Paragraph 23 of plaintiffs' complaint, IS STRICKEN. (2) All other preliminary objections of defendants Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital to plaintiffs' complaint, ARE DISMISSED. By Robert A. Cohen, Esquire For Plaintiffs Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire For Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital Jack M. Hartman, Esquire For Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. :saa IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPTIAL, a corporation, Defendants CIVIL DIVISION NO. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD To: Karen & Gregory Klett, Plaintiffs c/o Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed Answer and New Matter pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1030 within 20 days from service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. DEFENDANTS~ JOHNSON G. COYLE~ M.D. AND CARLISLE HOSPITAL'S~ ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital (hereinafter referred to as "Answering Defendants"), by and through its counsel, McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. and respectfully files the foregoing Answer and New Matter in response to Plaintiffs' Complaint and as such, provides as follows: FIRST COUNT Karen Klett v. Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. 1. Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the averments contained in Paragraph 1 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and as such, strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 2. Admitted in part, denied part. It is admitted that Defendant, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D., is a medical doctor duly authorized and licensed to practice medicine in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The remaining averments of Paragraph 2 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, Dr. Coyle no longer is actually engaged in the practice of emergency medicine. 3. To the extent that the averments contained in Paragraph 3 refers to individuals other than Answering Defendants and as such, no response is provided. 4. To the extent that the averments contained in Paragraph 4 refers to individuals other than Answering Defendants, no response is provided. The averments contained in Paragraph 4 as they relate Answering Defendants are conclusions of law to which no response is required. If it is later judicially determined that a response is required, the averments contained in Paragraph 4 as they relate to Answering Defendants are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 5. Admitted. By way of further response, Carlisle Hospital is now known as Carlisle Health Services Corporation and the Carlisle Area Health and Wellness Foundation no longer operates a health care facility. 6. The averments contained in Paragraph 6 represent conclusions of law to which no response is required. If it is later judicially determined the averments contained in Paragraph 6 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, at all times relevant hereto, Carlisle Hospital provided care and treatment to Plaintiff, Karen Klett, in conformance with the applicable standard of care charged to hospitals in the Commonwealth. 7. Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the factual averments set forth in Paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and as such, these averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 8. Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the factual averments set forth in Paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and as such, these averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 9. To the extent the averments contained in Paragraph 9 are consistent with the medical records maintained in the ordinary course of business by Carlisle Hospital, such averments are admitted. To the extent the averments contained in Paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are inconsistent with the medical records maintained in the ordinary course of business by Carlisle Hospital, such averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response, any and all actions of Defendant, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D., relative to his care and treatment of Plaintiff, Karen Klett, were in compliance with the standard of care charged to emergency room physicians acting in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 10. Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the factual averments set forth in Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and as such, these averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 11. Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the factual averments set forth in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and as such, these averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response to the extent the averments contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs' Complaint represent conclusions of law, no response is required. If it is later judicially determined that any portions of the averments contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs' Complaint require a response, such portions of the averments contained in Paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 12(a-i). The averments contained in Paragraph 12, and all subparagraphs thereunder, represent conclusions of law to which no response is required. If it is later judicially determined that a response is so required, the averments contained in Paragraph 12, and all subparagraphs thereunder, are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 13. The averments contained in Paragraph 13 represent conclusions of law to which no response is required. If it is later judicially determined that a response is so required, the averments contained in Paragraph 13 are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 14. Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the averments contained in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and as such, the averments contained in Paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 15. The averments contained in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs' Complaint represent conclusions of law to which no response is required. If it is later judicially determined that a response is so required, the averments contained in Paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice and further grant Defendants all such further relief as is proper and just. SECOND COUNT Gregory Klett v. Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. 16. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 15 as set forth above as if more fully set forth herein. 17. Answering Defendants are without sufficient information to admit or deny the averments contained in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and as such, these averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. By way of further response to the extent any averments or inferences garnered therefrom as set forth in Paragraph 17 of Plaintiffs' Complaint represent conclusions of law, no response is required. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice and further grant Defendants all such further relief as is proper and just. THIRD COUNT/FOURTH COUNT Karen Klett v. Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. Gregory Klett v. Robert F. Hall, II, M.D. 18-20. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 18 through 20, inclusive, of Plaintiffs' Complaint refer to individuals other than Answering Defendants and as such, now response is required. FIFTH COUNT Karen Klett v. Carlisle Hospital 21. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate by reference Paragraphs 1 through 20 as set forth above as if more fully set forth herein. 22. The averments contained in Paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs' Complaint represent conclusions of law to which no response is required. If it is later judicially determined that a response is so required, the averments contained in Paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 23. Paragraph 23 has been stricken by Order of Court dated September 4, 2002 and as such, no response is required. 24. The averments contained in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs' Complaint represent conclusions of law to which no response is required. If it is later judicially determined that a response is so required, the averments contained in Paragraph 24 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 25. The averments contained in Paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs' Complaint represent conclusions of law to which no response is required. If it is later judicially determined that a response is so required, the averments contained in Paragraph 25 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 26-29. The averments contained in Paragraphs 26 through 29, inclusive, address actions of individuals other than Answering Defendants and as such, no response is required. To the extent a response is required, all such averments are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 30. To the extent the averments contained in Paragraph 30 refer to actions and/or omissions of individuals other than Answering Defendants, no response is provided. By way of further response, the averments contained in Paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as they pertain to Answering Defendants represent conclusions of law to which no response is required. If it is later judicially determined that response is so required, the averments contained in Paragraph 30 as they pertain to Answering Defendants are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. 31. To the extent the averments contained in Paragraph 31 refer to actions and/or omissions of individuals other than Answering Defendants, no response is provided. By way of further response, the averments contained in Paragraph 31 of Plaintiffs' Complaint as they pertain to Answering Defendants represent conclusions of law to which no response is required. If it is later judicially determined that response is so required, the averments contained in Paragraph 31 as they pertain to Answering Defendants are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice and further grant Defendants all such further relief as is proper and just. SIXTH COUNT Gregory Klett v. Carlisle Hospital 32. Answering Defendants hereby incorporate by reference Paragraphs I through 31 as set forth above as if more fully set forth herein. 33. The averment contained in Paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs' Complaint represents an incorporation clause to which no response is required. If it is later judicially determined that a response is required, all averments contained in Paragraph 32 of Plaintiffs' Complaint together with the incorporated references therein, are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court enter judgment in their favor and dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint with prejudice and further grant Defendants all such further relief as is proper and just. NEW MATTER 34. Paragraphs 1 through 33, inclusive, of Answering Defendants' Answers are incorporated herein as if more fully set forth at length. 35. To the extent that future discovery may implicate, Plaintiffs' claims are barred, in whole or in part, by the applicable statute of limitations. 36. Plaintiffs' injuries and losses, if any, were caused in whole or in part by persons or events outside the control of Answering Defendants. 37. Plaintiffs' injuries and losses, if any, were caused in whole or in part by persons not a party to the within action. 38. Plaintiffs' injuries and losses, if any, were sustained as a result of natural and unknown causes and not related to any actions or omissions of Answering Defendants. 39. At all times relevant hereto, Answering Defendants rendered care in an appropriate manner, within the standard of care applicable thereto and in compliance with all statutes, rules, regulations, protocols and/or procedures applicable thereto. 40. Any acts and/or omissions of Answering Defendants were and are not the proximate cause or a substantial factor giving rise to Plaintiffs' injuries and/or damages. 41. To the extent that Answering Defendants elected a treatment modality which is recognized as proper but may differ from other appropriate treatment modalities, Answering Defendants hereby invoke the two schools of thought doctrine. 42. Plaintiffs' may have entered into a release agreement with other individuals or entities which has the effect of discharging any and all liability of Answering Defendants. 43. Plaintiffs' have failed to state a claim against Answering Defendants upon which relief may be granted. 44. All claims and causes of action pleaded against Answering Defendants are barred by the Plaintiffs' knowing and voluntary informed consent to the care in question. 45. Plaintiffs' claims, if any, are barred and/or limited by the doctrines of comparative and/or contributory negligence. 46. To the extent that subsequent discovery may implicate, Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited because of the conduct of Plaintiff, Karen Klett, under the doctrine of assumption of risk. 47. Plaintiffs' injuries and damages, if any, are barred or limited due to the Plaintiffs' failure to exercise due care and/or follow instructions. 48. Plaintiff's injuries and damages, if any, (the existence of which are expressly denied) are the result of supervening and intervening events over which Answering Defendants had no control or no right of control 49. If there is a judicial determination at Pa.R.C.P. 238 is constitutional, with said constitutionality being expressly challenged as in violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Article I, § 1, 6, 11, 25; and Article V, §10(c) of the Pennsylvania Constitution, then any and all liability for interest imposed by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure should be suspended during any such period of time that Plaintiffs: (a)failed to convey to Answering Defendants a settlement figure; (b)delayed in responding to any Interrogatories as properly served; (c) delayed in responding to any Requests for Production of Documents and/or things as properly served; (d) delayed in producing Plaintiffs for deposition following proper service of Notice of Deposition upon Plaintiffs and/or their counsel; (e)delayed in producing Plaintiffs four physical examination upon proper notice; or (f) delayed in any other manner relating to discovery requests properly made by Answering Defendants. 50. Inasmuch as the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 1032, provides that a party waives all defenses not presented by way of new matter, Answering Defendants, upon advice of counsel hereby asserts all affirmative defenses as set forth in Pa.R.C.P. 1030 with those defenses to include, in addition to the defenses as already enumerated above, of assumption of risk, consent, contributory negligence, discharge and bankruptcy, estoppel, failure of consideration, fair comment, illegality, immunity from suit, impossibility of performance, justification, latches, license, payment, privilege, release, statute of limitations, truth and waiver, with all these said affirmative defenses being subject to demonstration during discovery process and proof thereof, if relevant, at the time of trial. Respectfully submitted, Edwin A.D. Sch~art~b,,Fasq'uire Supreme Ct. I.D. #75902 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-3400 Date: Jo_/~/.~o ~_ Attorneys for Defendants, Johnson G. Coyie, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital 00T-~9-2002 ~ED 10:13 AH CAHNF ~/84/2~2 ~3;45 717243~850 FRX NO. 7179609992 P, 02 I. L~rry R. Fo~ailrn~n, hereby v~,lll~ ~t ~e ~$ in Defe~n~ ~s~m en~ N~ ~Uer ~ PMin~' ~mp~nt ~ ~e and ~ ~ ~e ~t ~ my InformS, kn~ge end b~ief. I u~e~ ~t ~ s~ am made subJ~ to ~e ~ne[~ ~ P~C.S. 0CT-09-02 WED 10:08 AM FROM:7179609992 TO:MCKIS~OCK HOFFMAN PAGE 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing Defendants Answers and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Date: McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. By: ~e Supreme Ct. I.D. #75902 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-3400 Attorneys for Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital IN THE COURT Of COMMON PLEASE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVAN IA KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPTIAL, a corporation, Defendants CIVIL DIVISION NO. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO ATTACH VERIFICATION To the Prothonotary: Please attach the enclosed Verification to the Answer and Matter of Defendants previously filed in the above-referenced matter. Respectfully submitted, Edwin A.D~ Sc~Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. #75902 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-3400 Date: o ~~_..,~___ Attorneys for Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital VERIFICATION I, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D., hereby verifies that the statements in Defendants Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are true and correct to the best of my information, knowledge and belief. I understand that the statements are made subject to the penalties of PA.C.S. Section 4904, relating to the unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Attach Verification upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. Edwin A.D. Schw<~.,_E_squire Supreme Ct. i.D. #75'902 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-3400 Attorneys for Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA C1VIL DIVISION KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs, VS. ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPITAL, a corporation Defendants No. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D. AND CARLISLE HOSPITAl, AND NOW come Plaintiffs, Karen Klett and Gregory Klett, by Robert A. Cohen and Behrend & Ernsberger, their attorneys, and Reply to the New Matter of Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital as follows: 1. Plaintiff are informed and believe that they m~ed make no response to Paragraph 34 of the New Matter, since that Paragraph simply incorporates Paragraphs of the Answer. 2. The allegations of Paragraph 35 of the New Matter are denied. On the contrary, Plaintiffs' claims are not barred, in whole or in pan, by the applicable Statute of Limitations. 3. The allegations of Paragraph 36 of the New Matter are denied. On the contrary, Plaintiff's injuries and losses were caused by evenls within the control of answering Defendants, and Plaintiffs claim herein those losses which were caused by the negligence and wrongful acts of the answering Defendants. By way of further answer, Plaintiff incorporate pertinent paragraphs of the Complaint as though the said paragraphs are set forth herein in full. 4. The allegations of Paragraph 37 of the New iMatter are denied. On the contrary, Plaintiff's injuries and losses were not caused by events within the control of persons not a party to the this action, and Plaintiffs claim h{xein those losses which were caused by the negligence and wrongful acts of the answering Defendants. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs incorporate pertinent paragraphs of the Complaint as though the said paragraphs were are set forth herein in full. 5. The allegations of Paragraph 38 of the New Matter are denied. On the contrary, Plaintiffs' losses were sustained as a result of negligent acts and/or omissions of answering Defendants, and not as a result of natural and unknown causes, and Plaintiffs' claim compensation therefor. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs incorporate pertinent paragraphs of the Complaint as though the said paragraphs are set forth herein in full. 6. The allegations of Paragraph 39 of the New Matter are denied. The said Paragraph 39 is a response rather than an affirmative defense. Nevertheless, Plaintiffs claim herein those injuries and losses resulting from negligent act and/or omissions on the part of the answering Defendants which constitute a deviation from proper standards of care. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs incorporate pertinent paragraphs of the Complaint as though the said paragraphs are set forth hereint in full. 7. The allegations of Paragraph 40 of the New lvlatter are denied. On the contrary, Paragraph 40 is simply a response and not an affirmative defense. By way of further answer, the negligence and wrongful acts of the answering Defendants were and are the proximate cause or a substantial factor of the injuries and damages claimed by Plaintiffs, and compensation is requested therefor. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs incorporate pertinent paragraphs of the Complaint as though~ the said paragraphs are set forth herein in full. 8. The allegations of Paragraph 41 of the New Matter are denied. On the contrary, the two schools of thought doctrine is not applicable to the facts in this case. Plaintiffs claim herein injuries and damages not arising front a recognized mode of treatment but arising from negligent deviations from proper standards of professional practice. 9. The allegations of Paragraph 42 of the New Matter are denied. On the contrary, Plaintiffs have entered into no release agreement whatsoever and hence no document has the effect of discharging any or all liability of answering Defendants, who remain liable for their negligent and wrongful acts. 10. The allegations of Paragraph 43 of the New Matter are denied. On the contrary, Plaintiffs have stated a claim upon which relief may be granted. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs incorporate pertinent paragraphs of the Complaint as though the said paragraphs are set forth herein in full. 3 11. The allegations of Paragraph 44 of the New lvlatter are denied. On the contrary, Plaintiff did not knowingly and voluntarily consent to negligent and improper care, and the doctrine of infomted consent is not applicable to the facts in this case. 12. The allegations of Paragraph 45 of the New Matter are denied. On the contrary, Plaintiff was neither comparatively nor contributorily negligent in any degree whatsoever. 13. The allegations of Paragraph 46 of the New Matter are denied. On the contrary, Plaintiff did not assume any risk of injury whatsoever. 14. The allegations of Paragraph 47 of the New Matter are denied. On the contrary, Plaintiff exercised due care and followed the instructions of her treating physicians. 15. The allegations of Paragraph 48 of the New Matter are denied. Plaintiff's injuries and damages are the result of the negligence and wrongful acts of the answering Defendants, and not the result of supervening and/or intervening events over which the answering Defendants had no control or no fight of control. By way of further answer, Plaintiffs incorporate pertinent paragraphs of the Complaint as though the said paragraphs are set forth herein in full. 16. The allegations of Paragraph 49 of the New Matter are denied. Plaintiffs have attempted to respond to discovery requests expeditiously, and no actions or inactions on the part of the Plaintiffs have served to unduly delay this litigation. Therefore Plaintiffs should suffer no penalties by withholding the applicability of Rule 238 when the time comes to compute delay damages. 17. The allegations of Paragraph 50 of the New Matter are denied. On the contrary, none of the defenses raised in Paragraph 50 are applicable to the facts in the WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment aga'mst Defendants as prayed for in Plaintiffs' Complaint. Robert A. Cohen Pa. I.D. #00467 306 FOurth Awenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (412) 391-251:5 VERIFICATION I, KAREN KLETT, state that the statements made in the foregoing REPLY TO NEW MATTER axe true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This statement and verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unswom falsification, to anthorifies which provides that, if I make knowingly false averments, I may be subject to criminal penalties. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the fbregoing REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D. AND CARLISLE HOSPITAL was mailed to the following counsel of record, by First Class Mail, postage prepaid, this 6th day of November, 2002. Jack M Hartman, Esquire Hartman, Osborne & Joyce 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire McKissock & Hoffman 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Robert A. Cohen McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. By: Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire I.D. 75902 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-3400 Attorneys for Defendants, JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPTIAL IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPTIAL, Defendants CIVIL DIVISION NO. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL IDEMANDED DEFENDANTS JOHNSON G. COYLE~ M.D. and CARLISLE HOSPTIAL'$ MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY AND NOW, come Defendants Johnson G. Coyle, M.D., and Carlisle Hospital, by and through their attorneys, McKissock & Hoffman, P.C., and file the foregoing Motion to Compel Discovery in the above-referenced matter, and as such, provides as follows: 1. On or about September 21, 2001, Plaintiffs Karen and Gregory Klett commenced an action against Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. (hereinafter "Dr. Coyle"); Robert F. Hall, M.D. (hereinafter "Dr. Hall"); and Carlisle Hospital (hereinafter "Hospital"). On or about January 16, 2002, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against above Defendants setting forth various allegations of professional negligence, vicarious liability and corporate liability. 2. On March 12, 2002, Defendants Coyle and Hospital filed Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Complaint. 3. Following the Order of the Honorable Edgar B. Bayley dated September 4, 2002, Defendants Coyle and Hospital filed their Answer and New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint on October 11, 2002. 4. On or about November 6, 2002, Plaintiffs filed a Reply to New Matter thereby closing the pleadings in this case. 5. On or about July 16, 2002 Plaintiffs were sen/ed with: Defendant Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiffs (hereinafter "Interrogatories"); and Defendant Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital First Set of Request Addressed to Plaintiffs (hereinafter "Request for Documents"). True and correct copies of Defendants' Interrogatories and Request for Documents ar,9 attached hereto and made part hereof respectively as Exhibits "A" and "B". 6. Plaintiffs' failed to respond to Defendants' Interrogatories and Request for Documents within the time frame set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 7. On or about November 19, 2002 counsel for Defendants Coyle and Hospital forwarded correspondence to Plaintiffs' counsel seeking the status of the Plaintiffs' response to the outstanding discovery. A true and correct copy of defense counsel's November 19, 2002 correspondence is attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "C". 8. In light of the continued failure of the Plaintiffs to provide any response Defendants' Interrogatories and Request for Documents, Defendant's counsel forwarded another correspondence to Plaintiff's counsel on or about December 17, 2002 seeking information as to when the outstanding discovery would be responded to by Plaintiff. A true and correct copy of defense counsel's December 17, 2002 correspondence is attached hereto and made a part hereof as "Exhibit D". 9. To date, Plaintiffs have failed to provide an]/ responses to the outstanding discovery as identified above. Defendants' counsel has tried in vain to obtain answers to the outstanding discovery, but all such efforts have been ignored by Plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, Defendants Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital respectfully requests this Honorable Court enter an Order compelling Plaintiffs to provide full and complete responses to the outstanding discovery within (20) days following the issuance of the Order and further grant Defendants all such further relief as is just and proper including, but not limited to, the time and costs associated with the filing of the instant Motion to Compel. Date: ,/~//'0'//~ ~.. Respectfully submitted, McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. --Edwin A.D. ~chwa. tlir~-Esquire Supreme Ct. I.D. ff75902 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17'110 (717) 540-3400 Attorneys for Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, Carlisle Hospital M.D. and Exhibit A IN THE COURT Of COMMON PLEASE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs Vo ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPTIAL, a corporation, Defendants CIVIL DIVISION NO. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT, JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D AND CARLISLE HOSPITAL FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO PLAINTIFFS TO: Karen Klett, and Gregory Klett c/o Robert Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Emsberger 306 Fourth Avenue Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 You are required to answer the following Interrogatories under oath pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. These Interrogatories are continuing in character so as to require you to file supplemental answers if you obtain further or different information pdor to trial. Where the words "incident" or "occurrence" am used, they refer to the events which took place as alleged in the Complaint. 1. DEFINITIONS 1. As used in these Interrogatories, the words and terms set forth below shall be defined as follows: (a) "Describe" and "specify", and/or "state" shall mean to set forth fully and unambiguously, using technical terms or words of art, if necessary, each and every fact relevant to the answer called for by the Interrogatory which the answering party or those agents, employees or representatives to have knowledge. (b) "Identify" when referring to an individual means to state: (i) his name or her name; (ii) title or job classification at the time of the events referred to in the Interrogatory answer; (iii) present address, if known, and/or the last known address and current or last known employer. (c) "Identify" when referring to a document means to: (i) state the type of document (e.g., letter, journal, record, memorandum); its date; title, and identifying number, if any; general subject matter; and its present location; (ii) state each person who prepared it, each person for whom it was prepared, the known address of each person who presently has custody of the odginal copies thereof. (d) "Document" shall mean the odginal of any nonidentical copy of any written, pdnted, typed, photographed or other graphic or recorded matter of any kind or nature prepared or received, by or in possession, custody or control of the answering party, their agents, servants, employees or other representative. (e) "You" or "your" shall mean to include the answering party, and each of the said party's representatives, and where appropriate the directors, agents, officers and employees and all other persons acting for or on behalf of the answering party. 2 (f) "Persons" and/or "individual" shall mean any individual, partnership, firm, corporation, trust, governmental agency or other entities; and also, relevant, individual representing such "person". II. INSTRUCTIONS: A. These Interrogatories are deemed continuing and any information secured after the filing of answers hereto shall be filed of record as s. upplemental answers. B. To the extent that they are not otherwise identified in the course of answering these Interrogatories, identify with respect to each Interrogatory all documents upon which you rely in answering said Interrogatories. 3 Please state Plaintiffs Karen Klett (a) Full name; and Gregory Klett (b) home and business address, if applicable (c) date and place of birth; (d) occupations; (e) social security numbers. 4 o If, in the course of the alleged occurrence, Plaintiff, Karen Klett, was attended by physicians other than the Defendant propounding these interrogatories, please state: (a) what treatment was performed by propounding Defendant; (b) what treatment was performed by other physicians; (c) the date of propounding Defendant's first attendance upon Plaintiff; (d) the date of propounding Defendant's last attendance upon Plaintiff; (e) the dates of each treatment by each such other physician, and; 5 (f) each date of treatment by other physicians, identifying each such other physician. 6 If you contend that the propounding Defendants' refusal at any time to see, examine, or treat Plaintiff caused or contributed to cause the alleged occurrence, please state: (a) the date and time of the refusal; (b) any reasons given by the propounding Defendants for refusal, and; (c) whether the propounding Defendants referred Plaintiff to another physician, hospital or other health care professional. 7 Please describe in detail any advice and propounding Defendants to Plaintiffs including: instructions given by the (a) the date and time of such advice and/or instruction; (b) the substance of the advice and instru~ions, and; (c) all action taken as a result of the advice and instructions. 8 o State the name and address of Plaintiff Karen Klett's family physician prior to and subsequent to the time of the treatment, surgery or examination upon which this action is based. 9 Please state the nature, address and dates of treatment for all physicians and health care proViders who have examined or evaluated Plaintiff since the date of the accident which this action is based. 10 Subsequent to the treatment, surgery, or examination referred to in the Complaint, had Plaintiff ever suffered any injuries, illnesses or diseases? state: (a) a description of the injuries or diseases Plaintiff suffered; If so, (b) the date and place of any accident, if such an injury or disease was caused by an accident; and (c) the names and addresses of all hospitals, doctors or allied health practitioners who rendered treatment or examination because of any such injuries or diseases. 11 o Itemize the damages you claim which adse out of this incident for: (a) medical and hospital expenses; (b) miscellaneous expenses including, but not limited to, blood, transportation, wheelchair, nursing care, therapy, special academic expenses etc.; (c) lost earnings and the number of workdays lost; (d) loss of future eamings; (e) other future losses, specifying the nature and extent of such losses; 12 State the name and address of each person who (a) was a witness to the treatment, surgery or examination through sight or hearing and/or (b) has knowledge of facts conceming the happening of the treatment, surgery or examination or conditions or circumstances at the time of the treatment, surgery or examination, excepting those persons who acquired such knowledge during the course of this litigation. 13 10. With respect to each person identified in the immediately preceding interrogatory, state that person's exact location and activity at the time of the treatment, surgery or examination. 14 11. Have you, or anyone acting on your behalf, obtained from any person, party or entity, a statement concerning this action or its subject matter?. If so, state:, (a) the name and address of each such person; (b) when, where, by whom and to whon~, each such statement was made and whether it was reduced to writing or otherwise recorded; (c) the name and address of any person(s) who has custody of any such statement that was reduced to wdting or otherwise recorded; and (d) kindly attach hereto any and all such statements identified above. 15 12. Have you given a statement concerning this action or its subject matte~ If so, state: (a) the name and address of each person to whom a statement was given; (b) when and where each statement was given; (c) kindly attach hereto any and all such statements identified above. 16 13. Have you or anyone acting on your behalf, conducted any investigation of the treatment, surgery or examination which is the subject of this action? If so, state: (a) the name, address and employer of all persons who conducted any investigations; (b) the date of the investigation; (c) the dates of any reports of any investigations and the identity of the person in possession thereof; and (d) kindly attach hereto all investigation reports identified above. 17 14. State the name, address and occupation of each person whom you intend to call as expert witnesses at trial and state the subject matter upon which each such person is expected to testify, and the grounds upon which such opinions are based. 18 15. With respect to each person identified in the immediately preceding interrogatory, have the expert state the substance of the facts and opinions .to which the expert is expected to testify and summarize the grounds for each such opinion. 19 16. With resPect to each person identified in Interrogatory #14, state: (a) if the expert is employed and/or self-employed and the nature of employment thereof; (b) identify all documents submitted to the expert and all products and/or locales and/or materials inspected by the expert; and (c) set forth the qualifications of each expert, listing the schools attended, years of attendance, degrees received, experience in any particular field of specialization or expertise, all publications authored, including the title of the work, title of the publication in which it appeared and the date of publication. In lieu of answering this sub-part you may attach a copy of the experts curriculum vitae, if such curriculum vitae is cumulative of the information requested herein. 20 17. If in answer to Interrogatory #14 you attach a copy of a report, does the expert have any additional opinions or knowledge not contained in said report? If so, state: (a) The facts and opinions not contained in the report; and (b) A summary of the grounds for each opinion. 21 18. Please identify by author, title, date and publisher any article, text, portion of text, treatise, paper or speech, or any other source of information which your expert(s) relied upon when expressing the opinions contained in his/her report. 22 19. Please identify by author, title, date and publisher any article, text or portion of text, treatise, paper or speech, or any other source of information which supports the opinions and/or conclusions contained in your expert(s) report. 23 20. Please identify by author, title, date and publisher any article, text, portion of text, treatise, paper or speech, or any other source which your expert(s) consider'to be authoritative in determining the applicable standard of care for the allegations of negligence as set forth in paragraph 12 (a-i) of Plaintiffs' Complaint. 24 21. State the specific facts known to you or anyone acting on your behalf upon which you base each claim of negligence or malpractice as asserted against propounding Defendants in this action. 25 22. Do you intend to use any book, magazine, document or other wdting at trial in this case. If so, descdbe the wdting in detail as to author, publisher, copyright date and page number, and give the name and address of any known present custodian of said writing. 26 23. Were the injuries alleged in this action caused in whole or in part by sickness, disease, abnormality or injury other than the injuries you claim resulted from the treatment, surgery,, or examination upon which this action is based? If so, state: (a) specifically, the nature of each such sickness, disease, abnormality or injury and how each affected Plaintiff; (b) are there any medical, hospital, x-my or other reports which indicate the nature of each such sickness, disease, abnormality or injury and how each affected Plaintiff; and (c) if so, where and when each such report was made and the name and address of the person making each such report, as well as the identity of the person in possession thereof. 27 24. If you contend that proPounding Defendant is legally responsible for the injudes and/or damages sustained as the result of the treatment, surgery or examination which is the subject of this action, state: (a) each such contention as to each named defendant; (b) all facts which you believe support each contention; (c) the identity of all person with knowledge of the facts stated above; (d) the identity of all witnesses whom you intend to call in support of such contention; and (e) the identity of all documents which support each such contention. 28 25. Do you contend that the treatment, surgery or the examination which is the subject of this action violated any Statute, Code or other Standard. If so, state: (a) specifically, the Statute, Code or Standard which you contend was violated; (b) specifically, the nature of, and manner in which such Statute, Code or Standard was violated; and (c) specifically, the identity of all persons, parties or entities whose conduct was in violation of such Statute, Code or Standard. 29 26. Identify each person that you expect to call as a witness at tdal in this matter and provide a concise statement of the nature of the testimony for which each witness will be called. 30 27. Identify all exhibits which you intend to utilize at trial of this matter. 31 28. Are you alleging that you are entitled to damages for any medical expenses arising out of the care and treatment that was rendered by the Defendant(s) and/or any other medical care providers in this section? If so, kindly enter the names of the medical care providers who rendered these services in Column A of the accompanying chart. Kindly enter the total amount of charges for each medical care provider in Column B of the accompanying chart. Please attach copies of all medical bills/invoices for the treatment rendered due to the injuries alleged in the Complaint and reflecting the amounts claimed in Column B. 32 29. Did the Plaintiff possess medical insurance (e.g. accident and health insurance, Blue CrosS and Blue Shield, Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare or Medicaid...) which paid any portion of PlaintifFs alleged medical expenses? If so, please state the name of the insurer(s), the address(es), and the policy number(s) for the medical insurance which paid any portion of Plaintiff's alleged medical expenses. o Please enter the total amount of the medical expenses for each provider that was paid by PlaintifFs insurance carder in Column C of the accompanying chart. Please attach copies of any receipts showing amounts paid by PlaintifFs medical insurer and reflecting the amounts paid in Column C. 33 30. Were any of Plaintiff's medical expenses "written off" or forgiven or otherwise not owed by reason of a contrect or agreement between the medical provider and Plaintiff's medical insurer, as a compromise of a bill between the medical provider and the Plaintiff or for any other reason? Please enter, in Column D of the accompanying chart, the amount of the medical expenses that were "wdtten off" or forgiven or otherwise not owed by reason of a contrect between the health care provider and Plaintiff's medical insurer, as a compromise of a bill between the medical care previder and the Plaintiff or for any other reason. 34 31. Were or are any of Plaintiff's medical expenses personally owed or owing by Plaintiff or his or her representatives, and, therefore, not paid by Plaintiff's insurance carrier and/or written off, forgiven or otherwise not owed with respect to any medical care provided by Defendant(s) and/or any other medical care providers who provided care for which Plaintiff is claiming damages? Please enter, in Column E of the accompanying chart, the amount of the medical expenses personally that were or are personally owed by Plaintiff or his or her representatives, and, therefore, not paid by Plaintiff's insurance carder and/or wdtten off, forgiven or otherwise not owed with respect to any medical care provided by Defendant(s) and/or any other medical care providers who provided care for which Plaintiff is claiming dama. ges. 35 TO DEFENDANT GREGORY KLETT 32. Please provide in detail the loss of services, society and consortium as alleged in Paragraph 17 of Count 2 of Plaintiffs' Complaint and the dates of such loss. 36 Date: Respectfully submitted, McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. By: ~~ Edwin A.D. ~e I.D. #75902 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-3400 36 A B C D E Medical care Total medical Amount of .r Amounts Amounts paid/owed provider charge for medical "written off", by Plaintiff or his/her each medical charges paid forgiven or representatives care provider by Plaintiff's otherwise not personally (i.e. not insurance owed paid by insurance and not wdtten off) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a'i;opy of the foregoing Interrogatories upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Emsberger 306 Fourth Avenue Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Jack M. Hartman, Esquire Hartman, Osbome& Joyce 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (Counsel for Robert F. Hall, II, M.D.) McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. B. Craig Black, ~ Supreme Court I.D. No. 36818 Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. No. 75902 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-3400 Attorneys for Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital Exhibit B IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEASE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs Vo ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPTIAL, a corporation, Defendants CIVIL DIVISION NO. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS, JOHNSON G. COYLE AND CARLISLE HOSPITAL'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ADDRESSED TO PLAINTIFFS, - SET 1 TO: Karen Klett, and Gregory Klett c/o Robert Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4009, Defendants hereby requests that Plaintiffs produce and permit Defendants and/or their counsel to inspect and copy, within 30 days after service hereof, at the office of McKISSOCK & HOFFMAN, P.C., 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 302, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17110, the documents requested herein. DEFINITIONS I. As used herein the words "Plaintiffs" and/or "Plaintiffs'" refers to Plaintiffs, their agents, representatives, attorneys, etc. II. All references in this Request for Production of Documents to "document" will include the plural and shall mean, without limitation unless otherwise indicated, the odginal and each copy of each and any writing, evidence of indebtness, memorandum, letter, correspondence, telegram, note, minute, contract, agreement, inter or intra-office communication, bulletin, circular, procedure, pamphlet, photograph, study, notice, summary, invoice, diagram, plan, drawing, diary, record or note of telephone conversation, chart, schedule, entry, print, representation, record, compilation of data, report of tangible item or thing of written, readable, graphic, audible, or visual material, of any kind or character, whether handwritten, typed, xeroxed, photostated, printed, duplicated, reproduced, recorded, photographed, copied, microfilmed, microcarded, or transcribed by any means, or otherwise subject to translation into useable form, including, without limitation, each intedm as well final draft and each revision which is in the possession or subject to the control of you or your present or former agents, employees or representatives, including counsel and including any related corporations. (a) (b) (c) (d) document; (e) III. Whenever in this Request for Production of Documents there is a request to identify a document, state: the type of document (e.g. letter, report, memorandum, etc.); set forth its date; identity the signer or signers and the addressee or addressees; set forth the title, heading or other designation, numerical or otherwise, of the identify the person (or, if widely distributed, set forth the organization or classes of persons) to whom the document was sent; and (f) set forth the present and/or last known locations of the document(s) and of each copy thereof having notations or marking unique to such copying. INSTRUCTIONS I. In answering these Requests for Production of Documents, you shall furnish all information available to you at the time of answering, including information in the possession of your agents, and shall supplement your answers in accordance with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. II. If you claim, in your answers to these Requests for Production of Documents that any requested fact, document, or other information is "Privileged" and not subject to any discovery, you shall so state and, in addition, state every fact supporting your claim that such fact, document or other information is "privileged" and with respect to any document, you shall identify the document by stating the date and subject matter of the document, the name of the person who prepared the document and the name of the person for whom the document was intended. THE DOCUMENTS REQUESTED ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Any and all statements, memoranda or writings (signed or unsigned) of any and all witnesses including any and all statements, memoranda, writings of the Plaintiffs and/or Defendants. For purposes of this Request for Production, "statement" means a written statement signed or unsigned or stenographic, mechanical, electrical or other recording, or transcription thereof, which is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement by the person making it, contemporaneously recorded. 2. All photographs taken, or diagrams prepared, of Any matter which is the subject of this litigation, or of any subject involved therein. 3. Any and all documents containing the names, home and business addresses of all individuals contacted as potential witnesses. 4. Any and all documents which, in any way, chronicled or reported on any meeting concerning the allegations in Plaintiffs' Complaint. 5. Any and all reports, statements, memoranda, testimony or photographs identified in your answers to Interrogatories previously or hereafter served. 6. Any and all investigations, reports, test results, drawings, sketches, maps, summaries of records or exhibits intended to be offered at tdal in the above pending action. 7. The current Curriculum Vitae for each expert identified in your answers to Interrogatories. 8. All documents prepared by each expert identified in your answers to Interrogatories, together with all correspondence between expert and Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs' agent, attorney or anyone acting on Plaintiffs' behalf. 9. Any and all reports of any laboratory investigations, reconstructive study, scientific tests, research or other studies made by each such expert or other person retained by him/her. 10. Any and all objects or materials examined by your'expert(s). 11. All medical records, hospital records, physician's reports, X-ray records and all other records which relate in any manner whatsoever to the injuries and damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff, as well as treatment of any similar disease, abnormality or condition prior to or subsequent to the treatment which is the subject of this action. 12. Any and all bills, invoices, canceled checks or receipts relating directly or indirectly to thos® damages described by Plaintiffs in the Complaint and alleged to be resulting from the cause of action referred to in the Plaintiffs' Complaint. 13. Copies of any and all federal, state and local tax returns pertaining to Plaintiffs, Karen Klett and Gregory Klett for the pedod commencing three years pdor to the date of the incident referred to in the Complaint to the present. 14. All supporting documentation for answering party(ies) claim for damages and/or relief in this case. 15. Any and all documents identified in your Answers to Interrogatories served previously, simultaneously herewith, or hereafter served. 16. Copies of any and all Exhibits which you intend to introduce at the trial of this matter, whether during the liability or damage phase. Respectfully submitted, McKISSOCK & HOFFMAN Attorney I.D. No. 75902 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-3400 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing Request fOr Production of Documents upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Emsberger 306 Fourth Avenue Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Jack M. Hartman, Esquire Hartman, Osborne & Joyce 126-128 Walnut Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (Counsel for Robert F. Hall, II, M.D.) McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. BY:B. Craig ~ Supreme Court I.D. No. 36818 Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. No. 75902 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-3400 Attomeys for Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Cadisle Hospital Exhibit C STEPHANIE Pt. GRAYBILL PAP. ALEGAL Direct Dial 717/540-3400 Ext 35 _CKISSOCK & HOFFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2040 LINGLESTOWN ROAD SUITE 302 HARRISBURG, PA 17110 PHONE: (717) 540-3400 FAX: (717) 540-3434 W3k'W.MCg. HOF.COM November 19, 2002 Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Emsberger 306 Fourth Avenue Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Re: Klett, et ux., v. Hall, et al. CCP (Cumberland) 5461 Civil Term 2001 Our File: 241-399 1700 MARKET STREET SUITE 3000 PHILADLEPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 246-2100 FAX: (215) 246-2144 16 NORTH FRANKLIN STREET SUITE 300 DOYLESTOWN, PA 1890 I (215) FAX: (215) 345-4503 25 CHESTNUT STREET SUITE 108 HADDONFIELD, NJ 08133 (8~) 429-7200 FAX: (8~6) 429-0099 105 E. EVANS STREET, SUITE D P.O. BOX 3086 WEST CHESTER, PA 19381 (610) 738-8850 FAX: (610) 738-9121 Dear Mr. Cohen, As you may recall we served Defendant, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D and Carlisle Hospital's First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Request for Production of Documents directed to Plaintiff on July 16, 2002. To date, we have not responses or objections to the above. I would appreciate if you would contact me and inform me as to when we may expect to receive the same. Thank you for your attention and cooperation to this matter. /sg Sincerely, Stephanie Graybill, Paralegal For Edwin A.D. Schwartz, Esquire McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. Exhibit D EDWIN A. D. SCHWARTZ Direct Dial 717/540-3400 Ext 24 cschwarm~mckhot~com MCKISSOCK & HOFFMAN A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2040 LINGLESTOWN ROAD SUITE 302 HARRISBURG, PA 17110 PHONE: (717) 540-3400 FAX: (717) 540-3434 WWW.~F.COM December 17, 2002 Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Emsberger 306 Fourth Avenue Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Re: Klett, et ux., v. Coyle, et al. CCP (Cumberland) 5461 Civil Term 2001 Our File: 241-399 1700 MARKET STREET SUITE 3000 PHILADLEPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 246-2100 FAX: (215) 246-2144 16 NORTH FRANK.LiN STREET SUITE 300 DOYLE~TOWN, PA 18901 (215) 3454501 FAX: (215) 345-4503 - 25 CHESTNUT STREET SUITE 108 HADDONFXELD, NJ 08133 (8.~) 429.7200 FAX: (856) 429-0099 105 E. EVANS STREET, SUITE D P.O. BOX 3086 WEST CHESTER, PA 19381 (610) 738-885O FAX: (610) 738-9121 Dear Mr. Cohen, As you may recall I served Defendant, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D and Cadisle Hospital's First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Request for Production of Documents directed to Plaintiff on July 16, 2002. Approximately 4 months later, I sent a correspondence to you dated November 19, 2002 inquiring as to when I may expect to receive your clients' responses to the previously served discovery. To date, I have not received your clients' responses or objections to outstanding discovery. I would appreciate if you would contact me and inform me as to when I may expect to receive the same. I wish to avoid having to file a motion to compel discovery in this matter but given the lack of any response from your clients, it appears that such a motion may be necessary. Thank you for your attention and cooperation to this matter. EAS/sg Sincerely, Edwin A.D. Sch~~uire McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day serving a copy of the foregoing Defendants' Motion to Compel Discovery upon the person(s) and in the manner indicated below, which service satisfies the requirements of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of same in the United States Mail, first-class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Behrend & Ernsberger 306 Fourth Avenue Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Date: By: McKissock & Hoffman, P.C. Edwin A.D. S Supreme Ct. I.D. #75902 2040 Linglestown Road Suite 302 Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 540-3400 Attorneys for Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital JAN 0 6 2003 ' IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs Vo ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPTIAL, Defendants CIVIL DIVISION NO. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~'~ day of </~--'~'? _ 2003, upon consideration of Defendants, Johnson G. Coyle, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital's Motion to Compel Discovery, it is hereby ORDERED that (1) (2) (3) A Rule is issued upon Plaintiffs to show cause why Defendants are not entitled to the relief as requested: Plaintiffs shall file an Answer to the Motion within ~-~ days of,~s-~ete~. J'~..u,,c.,... Notice of entry of this Order shall be provided to all parties by counsel for Defendants. BY THE COURT: Jo IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA KAREN KLETT and GREGORY KLETT, Plaintiffs ROBERT F. HALL, II, M.D., JOHNSON G. COYLE, M.D., and CARLISLE HOSPTIAL, Defendants CIVIL DIVISION NO. 5461 Civil Term 2001 JURY TRIAL IDEMANDED PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please marktheabovereferenced matterasdiscontinued withprejudice. Yurthermore, please mark all judgments as~:~satisfied. BEHREND & ERNSBERGER Date: Robert A. Cohen, Esquire Attorney I.D. # 00467 306 Fourth Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15:222 (412) 391-2515 Attorneys for Plaintiff