Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-2688THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CiVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE FOR.WRIT OF SUMMONS TO: CUMBERLAND COUNTY PROTHONOTARY Kindly issue writs of Summons in this matter as set forth below: WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 YORK HOSPITAL, INC 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 Vicki Piontek, Esquire Bar I.D. No. 83559 Attorney for Plaintiff 1738 E, 3rd Street Williamsport, PA 17701 570-594-2199 Date Commonwealth of Pennsylvania County of Cumberland WRIT OF SUMMONS THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S. GEORGE ST. YORK, PA 17405 YORK HOSPITAL, INC. 1001 S. GEORGE ST. YORK, PA, 17405, Defendant Court of Common Pleas No. 02-2688 CIVIL TERM In CivilAction-Law To WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS AND YORK HOSPITAL, INC. You are hereby notified that THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, the Plaintiff has / have commenced an action in Civil Action-Law against you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may be entered against you. (SEAL) Date JUNE 3, 2002 CURTIS R. LONG Prothonotary ATTORNEY Name: VICKI PIONTEK, ESQUIRE Address: 1738 E, 3RD STREET THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW r4o. 0:2- 2 ,2Z PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE WRIT OF SUMMONS TO: CUMBERLAND COUNTY PROTHONOTARY Kindly re-issue writs of Summons in this matter as set forth below: WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 YORK HOSPITAL, INC 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 Vieki Piontek, Esquire Bar I.D. No. 83559 Attorney for Plaintiff 1738 E, 3rd Street Williamsport, PA 17701 570-594-2199 Date WILLIAMSPORT, PA 17701 Attorney for: Plaintiff Telephone: 570-594-2199 Supreme Court ID No. 83559 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE Plaintiff WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 02-2688 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of Stevens & Lee on behalf of Defendants, Wellspan Health Systems and York Hospital, Inc., in the above action. Serve all papers at 25 North Queen Street, Suite 602, P.O. Box 1594, Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17608-1594. Notice by copy hereof is given to all counsel of record. Dated: ~/go~/~ STEVENS & LEE /J/an~s W. Saxton, Esquire (_A~omey ID#36815 Todd R. Bartos, Esquire Attorney ID#84279 25 North Queen Street, Suite 602 P.O. Box 1594 Lancaster, PA 17608-1594 (717) 399-6639 Attorneys for Defendants Wellspan Health Systems and York Hospital, Inc. SL1 285273vl/00000.000 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I I-IEREBY qERTIFY_that a tr~e and correct copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance was served thisbe_ day of ~ 2002, by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Vicki Piontek, Esquire 1738 East 3ra Street Williamsport, PA 17701 STEVENS & LEE By: ,~-~.- ~'"" / C~'~/ ] J e V. Smo Esquire ,~tdmey II)//36815 Todd R. Bartos, Esquire Attorney ID#84279 25 North Queen Street, Suite 602 P.O. Box 1594 Lancaster, PA 17608-1594 (717) 399-6639 Attorneys for Defendant Wellspan Health Systems and York Hospital, Inc. SL1 285273vl/00000.000 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE Plaimiff V. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS and . YORK HOSPITAL, INC. · De£endams . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 02-2688 PRAECI~E TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter a Rule upon Plaintiff, ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE in the above- captioned matter to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days of the Rule or suffer a judgment of non pros· STEVENS & LEE ~n~ W. Saxton, Esquire (~ftomey ID#36815 Todd R. Bartos, Esquke Attorney ID#36815 25 North Queen Street, Suite 602 P.O. Box 1594 Lancaster, PA 17608-1594 (717) 399-6639 Attorneys for Defendants Wellspan Health Systems and York Hospital, Inc. SL1 256386vl/00000.000 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE Plaintiff V. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW : No. 02-2688 RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND NOW, this ~t'l'~'xiay of ~ 2002, aRule has been entered upon Plaintiffto file a Complaint within twenty (20) days of the Rule or suffer a judgment of non pros. SL1 286386vl/00000.000 SHERIFF'S RETURN CASE NO: 2002-02688 p COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND STROBLE ROBERT N THE ESTATE O~ VS WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS ET AL - OUT OF COUNTY R. Thomas Kline duly sworn according to law, and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS but was unable to locate Them deputized the sheriff of YORK serve the within WRIT OF SUMMONS Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being says, that he made a diligent search and to wit: He therefore Pennsylvania, in his bailiwick. County, to On ~ugust 21st , 2002 this office was in receipt of the attached return from YORK Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 Dep York County 21.46 .00 58.46 08/21/2002 VICKI PIONTEK SO answers~-- J' .J- m. Thomas Kline - ~ Sheriff of Cumberlan~County Sworn and subscribed to before me this ~ ~ day of~ A.D. ProthonotAr~ YORKTOWNE BUSINESS FOMRS · (717) 225-0363 · FAX (717) 225-0367 COUNTY OF YORK OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF PROCESS RECEIPT and AFFIDAVIT OF RETURN 28 EAST MARKET ST., YORK, PA 17401 SHERIFF SERVICE SERVICE CALl. (717) 771-9601 1. PLAiNTIFF/S/ EEttate of Robe~ct ,-,]-,3,-, 2 COURTNUMBER AT. Str .... 3. DEFENDANT/S/ J~ 02-2688 civil 4. TYPE OF WRIT OR COMPLAINT ~ Wellspan Health Systems et al SERVE ~/' ~ I Writ of tmmons ~ ~ Wellspan ~eal~" ~%P~mT~°N' ETC' TO SERVE OR DESCR~PT,ON CE PR~R SOLD a' % 1001 S. ~Orge Street York, PA 17405 CODE) 7 INO~CATE SERVICE: ~ PERSONAL ~ PERSON IN CHARGE ~ DEPUI;ZE ~ RI AIL ~ 1ST CLASS NOW Au~st 1 ~ ~L AIL .... UlSTCLASSMAIL ~POSTED ~OTHER York ~~ ~ UNTY, PA/~-~%eby deputJze the sheriff of INSTRUCTIONS SE TYPE ONLY LINE I THRU 12 NOT DETACH ANY COPIES COUNT~ t? execute this Walt a~d.:~m~ke return the. re. ef.a~cording to law. This deputization being made at the request ~ of the pla~nbff ~ 8. SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR OTHER INFORMATION THAT WILL ASSIST IN EXPEDITING SERVICE: Cumberland OUT OF COUNTY CUMBERLAND ADVANCED FEE PAID BY SHERIFF NOTE: ONLY APPLICABLE ON WRIT OF EXECUTION. N B WAIVER OF WATCHMAN Any depub/sheriff lev in u ~ without a watchman, in custody of whomever is found iD ~o~s~ssion after now in er - Y g pon or attaching any pro ett un ' Y gp SOhO evyora~tachment, witho ' ' P y derw hnwntmayleavesame ut I~abdlty on the part of such deputy or the sheriff to any plaintiff herein for any loss, destruction, or removal of 8ny property before shedffs sale thereof. 9. TYPE NAME and ADDRESS of ATTORNEY / ORIGINATOR and S~GNATURE VICKI PIONTEK 1738 E 3rd St. WILLIAMSPORT, PA 17701 12. SEND NOTICE OF SERVICE COPY TO NAME AND ADDRESS BELOW; (This area must be cOmpleted if notice is to be mailed) CUMBERLAND CO. SHERIFF ~ S._~PA_CE BELOW FOR USE OF THE S ERIFF -- DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE 13. I acknowledge receipt of the wdt - - - H -- RECEIVED - 15 Ex imtion/H or complaint as indicated above. J~. AHRENS p earing Date .t,PoE SHBR,FF'SOFF,CE T i 17. ~1 IherebycerdfyandretumaNOTFOUNDbecauselamunabletolocatetheindivfdual, company etc nameabove {Seeremarksbelow) 7 .00 41. AFFIRMED and s.ubscribed to before me this 19 1, WHITE - Issuing Authority B PINK - Attorney 3, CANARY - Sheriffs Office 4 BLUE Sheriffs Office RECE VED SEP 19 2002 9:23PM PIR2ZR RMD RSSOCIRTES, P. 570-271-10~1 p.2 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs. - WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS : 1001 S GEORGE ST : YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, D~fendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CI¥IL ACTION - LAW No.02-2688 NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COL'RT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CLAIMS SET FORTH INTHE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AbatER THE COMPLAINT AND NOTICE ARE SERVED BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OK BY ATTORNEY AND FILING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT Il: YOU FALL TO DO SO THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT YOU AND A ~LrDGlv[ENT _MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY THE COURT WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR ANY MONEY CLAIMED IN THE COUNTERCLAIMT OR FOR ANY OTHER CLAIM OR RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT, YOU MAY LOSE MONEY OR PROPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS IMPORTANT TO YOU. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ON-E, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP/ PA BAR ASSOCIATION P,O. BOX 186 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17018 800-692-7375 SEP 19 2002 9:23PM PIAZZA AMD ASSOCIATES, P. S?0-271-I011 p.3 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. : STROBLE, : Plaintiff : Vs. : WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW Nc. 02-2688 COMPLAINT 2. 3. 4, 5. Plaintiff is the Estate of Robert N. Stroble. Defendan~s are Well,pan Health Systems, and York Hospital, ks:, bo~ with a principal place of business at 1001 South Oeorge Street, York, PA 1741;,5. Defendants are e~gaged in a joint business venture or a comaLwn l~aaiae~ pta'pose, and act in corn:eh provi&ng health ca~e sen,~es tc citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. On or about June 5, 2002, Defendants were negligent in the dispensing of pharmaceutical products, to ~he Decedent in the Estate ofRobe~-t N Stoble. Dei~ndastt's negligence caused the wrongful death of Decedent. ~tt Decedeat'a Estate bring~ thus action under42 Pa~C.$. § 8301. Defendant~' nogliger~e caused the Decedent pain and suffering prior to his death, and Defendan~ arc liable to Decedem's Esl,axe under 42 Pa.C.S. § ~3~2, survival action. Vieki Piontek, Esquire" Bar I.D. No. 83559 Attorney for Plaintiff P.O. Box 173 Meehanicsbarg, PA 17055 717-571-4394 Date SEP 19 2002 9:23PM PIRZZR RMD RSSOCIRTES, P. S?0-271-1011 p.4 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. : STROBLE, : Plaintiff : Vs. : .. : WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, Defendant IN TH~ COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUIVIBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No.02-2688 VERIFICATION I, Attorney Vicki Piontek, Esquire, attorney for the above captioned estate, affirm that the s'tat~menn in the attached COMPLAINT are true ~xt accurate ¢o th~, b¢~t of my knowledge, uadcrstanding and b~licf I am aware of the penalties of 18 Pa, C.S. Section 4904 relating to unswom fzlsiflcation to authoriti~. T~e Executor of the estate is unavailable to the time constraints in this particular matter. Plaintiff will provide a VERIFICATION from the Executor of the F.~tate at the earliest possible time. Vicki Piontck, Esquire ' ' Bar I.D. No. 83559 Attorney £or Plaintiff' P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-571-4394 SEP 19 2002 9:24PM PIR~ZR RND ASSOCIATES, P. ~70-271-1011 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. : STROBLE, : Plainliff : Vs, : : ; WELl.SPAN }LEALTH SYSTEMS : 1001 S GEORGE ST : YORK, PA 17405 : and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON P! ,EAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: PENNSYLVANIA CML ACTION - LAW No.02-2688 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Attorney Vicki Piontek, Esquire, attorney for the above captioned estate, affn'm that on the 20tI: day of September 2002, I SERVED BY First Class U.S. Mail, po~tage pre-paid, ~ true and correct copy of the attached COMPLAINT upon rh~ Defendants' attorney at thc following address: Stevens and Lee, P.C. 25 North Queen Street, Suite 602 Lancaster, PA 176043 Also By Fax to Defendant: 7; %39~-7726 Bar I.D. No. 83559 Anorn~' for Plainlfff P.O. Box 173 Mochanicsburg, PA 17055 71%5714394 PRAECI~E FOR I,ISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERI,AND COUNTY: Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) The Estate of Robert N. Stroble (Plaintiff) VS. Wellspan Health Systems and York Hospital, Inc. (Defendants) No. 2688 Civil Term 2002 1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiffs motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs Complaint 2. Identify counsel who will argue case: (a) for plaintiff: Vicki Piontek, Esquire Address: P.O. Box 173, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (b) for defendant: Maggie M. Finkelstein, Esquire Address: Stevens & Lee, 25 North Queen Street, Suite 602, P.O. Box 1594, Lancaster, PA 17603 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. Argument Court Date: October 23, 2002 ey for Defen~dants DATED: ~/~0/0 c~ 09/30/02/SL1 297096vl/41411.088 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE Plaintiff Vo WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 02-2688 NOTICE TO PI,EtD TO: Vicki Piontek P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed preliminary objections within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against yOU. Date: 2002 STEVENS & LEE By Ja~ W. Saxton, EsqUire Attorney I.D. No. 36815 Maggie M. Finkelstein, EsqUire Attorney I.D. No. 86305 25 North Queen Street Suite 602 P.O. Box 1594 Lancaster, PA 17608-1594 (717) 399-6639 Attorneys for Defendants 09/30/02/SL1 296364vl/41411.088 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE : : Plaintiff V. .' WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS and YORK HOSPITAL, 1NC. ' Defendants ' IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 02-2688 DEFENDANTS WEIJ.~qPAN I~I~.ALTH SYSTEMS AND YORK HOSPITAL',,; PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINT~'F'$ COM/,LAIN~ Defendants WellSpan Health and York Hospital, by and through their attorneys, Stevens & Lee, a professional corporation, file the within preliminary objections against Plaintiff and state as follows: Stroble. 1. This is a medical malpractice action brought by the Estate of Robert N. 2. This action was initiated by the filing of a praecipe for Writ of Summons dated June 3, 2002. Thereat~er, a Rule to File Complaint was filed on August 23, 2002. 3. Plaintifffiled the Complaint on September 20, 2002. A true and correct copy of the Complaint is annexed hereto for the convenience of the court as Exhibit "A." 4. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that Defendants negligently dispensed pharmaceutical products to Robert N. Stroble, now deceased. See Complaint at ¶ 4. 5. However, the Complaint does not even assert the barest minimum of allegations necessary to sustain a negligence cause of action against Defendants· 6. Plaintiff's Complaint impermissibly alleges a claim of negligence against Wellspan and York Hospital, both corporate entities, for the negligent provision of pharmaceutical products· SL1 295907vl/41411.OSg 7. Plaintiff's Complaint purports to set forth claims for wrongful death and survival. Id__~. at 5 and 5.~ 8. However, a decedent's estate is not the proper Plaintiff in a wrongful death claim. 9. Further, the allegations in this Complaint fail to comply with Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1019(a) and 1020(a). L PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN THE NATURE OF A DEMURRER 10. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(4) permits the filing of Preliminary Objections when the complaint fails to set forth a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. 11. It is impossible for either Defendant to discern the exact nature of the claims being asserted against it because the Complaint is so lacking in any factual foundation or legal clarity. 12. Paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs Complaint recites a general averment that "Defendants were negligent in the dispensing of pharmaceutical products, to the Decedent in the Estate of Robert N. Stoble [sic]." 13. Plaintiff fails to plead the requisite elements of negligence and fails to supply factual support. 14. Negligence requires Plaintiff's Complaint to allege a duty recognized by law, a breach of that duty, a causal connection between the conduct and the injury, and actual damages. See Kelly v. St. MaryHosp., 778 A.2d 1224 (Pa. Super. 2001). Plaintiff complaint contains two paragraphs identified with the number 5. SLI 295907vl/41411.088 15. Nowhere in her Complaint does Plaintiff set forth an applicable standard of care, or exactly how such standard was breached. 16. Similarly, neither Defendant knows how it was allegedly negligent except for Plaintiffs broad assertion that "Defendants were negligent in the dispensing of pharmaceutical products." See Complaint at ¶ 4. 17. Wellspan is a non-profit, tax-exempt corporation. 18. Wellspan does not own a health care facility. 19. Wellspan does not employ physicians, phzu-macists, or any other health care providers. 20. Furthern]ore, Wellspan does not dispense pha~-maceutical products or provide any other health care services whatsoever. 21. Similarly, York Hospital, as a corporate entity, does not dispense pharmaceutical products, fill prescriptions, or provide any other health care services whatsoever. 22. Therefore, Plaintiffs Complaint against Wellspan and York Hospital fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 23. Accordingly, the negligence claim against each Defendant should be dismissed. 24. Additionally, an estate is not a proper party to a wrongful death action. See Pa. R. Civ. Proc. 2202(a), (b). 25. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2202(a) provides that "an action for wrongful death shall be brought only by the personal representative of the decedent for the benefit of those persons entitled by law to recover damages for such wrongfi~l death." SL1 295907vl/41411.088 26. Accordingly, the Estate of Robert lq. Stroble is not a proper Plaintiff to the alleged wrongful death claim. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant its Preliminary Objection in the nature ora Demurrer and dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. H. PRELIMIN~CTION IN THE NATURE OF A MOTION T STRIKE · /OR FOR A MORE SPECIFIC PLF~ADINC 27. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(2) permits the filing of Preliminary Objections when the Complaint fails to conform to the rules of court. 28. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a) states that: "The material facts on which a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form." As set forth below Plaintiff's Complaint fails to meet the requisite pleading requirements and therefore should be stricken. 29. In Paragraph 4, Plaintiffs Complaint sets forth a blanket allegation of negligence by Defendants. 30. In reviewing the Complaint as a whole, there are no averments to support or clarify any of these conclusory statements. 31. Accordingly, the allegation in Paragraphs 4 constitutes improper pleading pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a) in that these allegations are merely broad, factually unsupported and conclusory allegations. See Connor v. ~41legheny General Hosp., 501 Pa. 306, 311 n.3,461 A.2d 600, 602 n.3 (1983). 32. Paragraphs 4 must be stricken because it contains conclusory language that acts to impermissibly extend the statute of limitations indefinitely. SLI 295907vl/41411.088 33. Both Defendants are unable to respond to or prepare a defense to the overly broad, conclusory and otherwise deficient allegations to Plaintiffs Complaint as stated, and Defendants are thereby prejudiced. 34. Those allegations prejudice Defendants Wellspan and York Hospital in that, if allowed to remain in the Complaint, there will be no running of the statute of limitations and Plaintiff will be free to introduce, at any time, a new claim of negligence. WHEREFORE, WellSpan and York Hospital respectfully request this Honorable Court to grant the defendants' Preliminary Objection and strike Paragraph 4 from the Complaint or direct PlaintitTto file a more specific pleading which specifically sets forth the exact manner in which Plaintiff believes Defendants Wellspan and York Hospital have been negligent or be precluded from pursuing any claims based on any facts other than those specifically pled in the Complaint. Ill_ PRELIM]NARY OB CTION IN THE NATURE OF A MOTION T S FOR _.IMPROPER PI,gADING PRACTI~, 35. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(aX2) permits the filing of Preliminary Objections when the complaint fails to conform to the rules of Court. 36. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1020(a), each cause of action must be set forth in a separate count containing a separate demand for relief. 37. Plalntifffalls to identify any counts. 38. Additionally, Plaintiff fails to allege any demand for relief. 39. Such pleading is therefore improper pursuant to Rule 1020(a). SL1 295907vl/41411.Og8 WHEREFORE, WellSpan and York Hospital respectfully request this Honorable Court to grant the defendants' Preliminary Objection and direct Plaintiffto file an amended complaint that conforms to Pennsylvania's pleading practice. Dated: ~/~0 2002 STEVENS & LEE ! ' By ~mS ey. Saxton, Esquire I.D. No. 36815 Maggie M. Finkelstein, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 86305 P.O. Box 1594 Lancaster, PA 17608-1594 (717) 399-6639 SLi 295907vl/41411.088 Exhibit A THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No.02-2688 NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER THE COMPLAINT AND NOTICE ARE SERVED BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT YOU AND A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY THE COURT WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR ANY MONEY CLAIMED IN THE COUNTERCLAIMT OR FOR ANY OTHER CLAIM OR RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT. YOU MAY LOSE MONEY OR PROPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS IMPORTANT TO YOU. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP/ PA BAR ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 186 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17018 800-692-7375 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, 1NC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 02-2688 COMPLAINT Plaintiff is the Estate of Robert N. Stroble. Defendants are Wellspan Health Systems, and York Hospital, Inc, both with a principal place of business at 1001 South George Street, York, PA 17405. Defendants are engaged in a joint business venture or a common business purpose, and act in concert providing health care services to citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. On or about June 5, 2002, Defendants were negligent in the dispensing of pharmaceutical products, to the Decedent in the Estate of Robert N. Stoble. Defendant's negligence caused the wrongful death of Decedent, and Decedent's Estate brings this action under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8301. efendants negligence caused the Decedent pain and suffering prior to his death, and Defendants are liable to Decedent's Estate under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8302, survival action. Vicki Piontek, Esquire Bar I.D. No. 83559 Attorney for Plaintiff P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-571-4394 Date THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, 1NC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No.02-2688 VERIFICATION I, Attorney Vicki Piontek, Esquire, attorney for the above captioned estate, affirm that the statements in the attached COMPLAINT are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, understanding and belief. I am aware of the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. The Executor of the estate is unavailable to the time constraints in this particular matter. Plaintiff will provide a VERIFICATION from the Executor of the Estate at the earliest possible time. Vicki Piontek, Esquire Bar I.D. No. 83559 Attorney for Plaintiff P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-571-4394 Date THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No.02-2688 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Attorney Vicki Piontek, Esquire, attorney for the above captioned estate, affirm that on the 20tl~ day of September 2002, I SERVED BY First Class U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, a tree and correct copy of the attached COMPLAINT upon the Defendants' attorney at the following address: Stevens and Lee, P.C. 25 North Queen Street, Suite 602 Lancaster, PA 176043 Also By Fax to Defendant: 717-394-7726 Vicki Piontek, Esquire Date Bar I.D. No. 83559 Attorney for Plaintiff P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-571-4394 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants Wellspan Health.~ystems and York, Hospital's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs Complaint was served this,..~ff'~ day of~ 2002, by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Vicki Piontek, Esquire P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 STEVENS & LEE ~omey ~36815 Maggie M. Fi~el~ei% Esqu~e A~omey ~g86305 25 No~h Qu~n Strew, Suite 602 P.O. Box 1594 ~nca~er, PA 17608-1594 (7 7) ARomeys for Defenders Wellspan He~th Systems ~d York Hospit~, ~c. 09/30/02/8L1 ~97173v2/41411.088 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE V. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW · 02-2688 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTION Before HOFFER, P.J., OLER, J. and GUIDO, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, November 18, 2002, the preliminary objection of the defendants is sustained as to the lack of specificity of the complaint· Plaintiff will be given twenty (20) days from the date of the order to file a proper complaint. /'Vicki Piontek, Esquire PO Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 For the Plaintiff James W. Saxton, Esquire Maggie M. Finkelstein, Esquire Stevens & Lee 25 North Queen Street, Ste. 602 PO Box 1594 Lancaster, PA 17608-6639 For the Defendants THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION .- LAW No.02-2688 NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER THE COMPLAINT AND NOTICE ARE SERVED BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT YOU AND A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY THE COURT WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR ANY MONEY CLAIMED IN THE COUNTERCLAiMT OR FOR ANY OTHER CLAIM OR RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT. YOU MAY LOSE MONEY OR PROPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS IMPORTANT TO YOU. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP/ PA BAR ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 186 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17018 800-692-7375 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION- LAW No. 02-2688 COMPLAINT 1. Haintiff is the Estate of Robert N. Stroble. 2. Defendants are Wellspan Health Systems, and York Hospital, Inc, both with a principal place of business at 1001 South George Street, York, PA 17405. Defendants are engaged in a joint business venture or a co~nmon business purpose, and act in concert providing health care services to citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 4. On or about June 5, 2002, Defendants were negligent in the dispensing of pharmaceutical products, to the Decedent in the Estate of Robert N. Stoble. More specifically, on or about 5/31/01, the Decedent, Robert N. Stroble obtianed refill of prescription for Klonopin, generic name Clonazepan for 30 tablets at the Wellspan Pharmacy for 30 tablets. 6. There were approximately 7 refills allowed for this prescription. 7. Lip to 5/31/02, the Defendant had not used the medication for a 5-6 month period. 8. On or about 6/1/01, Decedent went to the emergency room at the York County Hospital and obtained another prescription for Klonopin, this time fore 63 tablets. 9. The original prescription was held by Middletown Pharmacy. 10. On or about 5/31/01 and 6/1/02, the original prescription held by Wellspan Pharmacy was on the verge of expiration. 11. The length of the prescription and pending expiration date would have been communicated by the Middletown Pharmacy to Wellspan (T)efendant), and such pending expiration date created foreseability of immanent 'harm tot he Decedent, and should have sent up a red flag to defendant that Decendent was trying to get drugs l~om an old prescription. 12. Defendant had a duty to reasonably investigate the facts before dispensing the amount of drugs that were dispensed to Decedent, and should not have dispensed said drugs. 13. Defendant failed to act reasonably under the circumstances, and such negligence caused the death of Decedent. 5. Defendant's negligence caused the wrongful death of Decedent, and Decedent' s Estate brings this action under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8301. 14. Defendants' negligence caused the Decedent pain and suffering prior to his death, and Defendants are liable to Decedent's Estate under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8302, survival action. 15. Damages may be preliminarily calculated in the amount of One Million Dollars, $1,000.000. Wherefore, The Estate prays for relief in the amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000.000), and for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Vicki Piontek, Esquire Bar I.D. bio. 83559 Attorney for Plaintiff P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-571-4394 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No.02-2688 VERIFICATION I, Attorney Vicki Piontelq Esquire, attomoy for the above captioned estate, affirm that the statements in the attached COMPLAINT are role and accurate to ltm best of my knowledge, understanding and beliff.. I am a~at~ oftl~ penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Se~ion ~1904 te~lating to umwom falsif~ation to authorities. Th~ Executor of the es*ate is unavailable to the time constraints in this patticalar malter. Plaintiffwiil provid~ a VERIFICATION from the Executor of the Estate at the earliest possible time. Vicki Piontek, Esquire Bar LD. No_ 83559 Attorney for Plaintiff P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-571-4394 Date THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 174O5, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION- LAW No.02-2688 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Attorney Vicki Piontek, Esquire, attorney for the above captioned estate, affirm that on the 26~ day of Deeemlmr, 2002, I SERVED BY First Class U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, a tree and correct copy of the attached COMPLAINT upon the Defendants' attorney at the following address: Stevens and Lee, P.C. 25 North Queen Street, Suite 602 Lancaster, PA 176043 Also By Fax - 717-394-7726 Vieki Piontok, Esquire Bar I_D. No. 83559 Attomey for Plaintiff P.O. Box 173 M~hanicstmr~ PA t 7055 717-5714394 Date 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 full) The Estate of Robert N. Stroble (Plaintiff) VS. Wellspan Health Systems and York Hospital, Inc. (Defendants) No. 2688 Civil Term 2002 State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's demurrer to complaint, etc.): Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs Complaint 2. Identify counsel who will argue case: (a) for plaintiff: Vickie Piontek, Esquire Address: P.O. Box 173, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (b) for defendant: Maggie M. Finkelstein, Esquire Address: Stevens & Lee, 25 North Queen Street, Suite 602, P.O. Box 1594, Lancaster, PA 17603 I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. Argument Court Date: February 12, 2003. ~ome~' for Defendants 01/13/03/SL1 321531vl/41411.088 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE · Plaintiff . V. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS and ' YORK HOSPITAL, INC. ' : Defendants ' IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 02-2688 NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Vickie Piontek P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 You are hereby notified to file a written response to the enclosed preliminary objections within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a judgment may be entered against yOU. ,2003 STEVENS & LEE J~m~. S~& Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 36815 Marie M. Fi~elstei~ Esqu~e Attorney I.D. No. 86305 25 No~h Queen Stre~ Suite 602 P.O. Box 1594 Lan~ster, PA 17608-1594 (717) 399-6639 Attorneys for Defendants SL1 321502vl/41411.088 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE · Plaintiff . V. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS and ' YORK HOSPITAL, INC. ' : Defendants ' .' IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 02-2688 DEFENDANTS WELl,SPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS AND YORK HOSPITAL,~· PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendants WeilSpan Health and York Hospital, by and through their attorneys, Stevens & Lee, a professional corporation, file the within preliminary objections against Plaintiff and state as follows: 1. This is a medical malpractice action brought by the Estate of Robert N. Stroble. 2. This action was initiated by the filing ofa praecipe for Writ of Summons dated June 3, 2002. Thereai~er, a Rule to File Complaint was filed on August 23, 2002. 3. Plaintifffiled a Complaint on September 20, 2002. (A true and correct copy of the Complaint is annexed hereto for the convenience of the court as Exhibit "A.") 4. Defendants filed preliminary objections on October 2, 2002, in the nature of a demurrer and alternatively, a motion to strike or for a more specific pleading. 5. This Honorable Court heard oral argument on the preliminary objections on October 23, 2002, at which time Plaintiffs counsel failed to appear for argument. In addition, no opposition brief was filed. SLI 321502vl/41411.08g ] 6. On November 18, 2002, this Honorable Court issued an Order granting Defendants' preliminary objections for a more specific pleading and granted Plaintiff20 days to file a proper complaint. 7. On or about December 17, 2002, Defendants served upon Plaintiff a Notice of Intention to File a Praecipe for Entry of Judgment of Non Pros for failure to file a complaint, as directed by the court. 8. On or about December 26, 2002, Defendants received an Amended Complaint. (A true and correct copy of the Amended Complaint is annexed hereto for the convenience of the court as Exhibit "B."). 9. In Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, Plaintiff again alleges that on or about June 5, 2002, the Defendants were negligent in the dispensing of pharmaceutical products to Robert N. Stroble. 10. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, however, continues to be legally insufficient. 11. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint fails to adequately allege a claim of negligence against Wellspan Health Systems and York Hospital, both corporate entities, for the negligent provision of pharmaceutical products. 12. Plaintiff's Amended Complaint purports to set forth claims for wrongful death and survival. (Pl's Am. Compl. at 5(a)l and 14). 13. However, a decedent's estate is not the proper Plaintiff in a wrongful death claim or a survival action. Plainti~s Amended Complaint contains two paragraphs identified with the number 5. For the sake of clarity, the second paragraph identified by the number 5, will hereinafter be referred to as 5(a). SLI 321502vl/4141 l.Ogg 2 14. Further, the allegations in the Amended Complaint fail to comply with Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1019(a), 1020(a), and 1021Co). L PRELIMINARY OBJE TION IN THE NATURE OF A DEMURRER 15. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(4) permits the filing of Preliminary Objections when a complaint fails to set forth a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. 16. To properly allege a claim of negligence, Plaintiff must allege in a complaint (1) a duty recognized by law, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) a causal connection between the conduct and the injury, and (4) actual damages..See Kelly v. St. Mary Hosp, 778 A.2d 1224, 1226 (Pa. Super. 2001). 17. In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that on or about June 5, 2002, Defendants were negligent in dispensing pharmaceutical products to Robert N. Stroble (see ¶ 4), that a "pending expiration date created foreseability [sic] of immanent [sic] harm tot he [sic] Decedent" (..see ¶ 11), that "Defendant failed to act reasonably under the circumstances, and such negligence caused the death of Decedent" (see ¶ 13), and that Defendant's negligence caused the Decedent pain and suffering prior to his death and caused his death (see ¶ 5 (a) & ¶ 14). 18. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint fails to set forth a causal connection between the conduct of Defendants and the injury to Robert N. Stroble, now deceased. 19. Additionally, neither WellSpan Health Systems nor York Hospital, Inc. can independently act to dispense pharmaceutical products as alleged by Plaintiff. 20. Wellspan is a non-profit, tax-exempt corporation. 21. Weilspan does not own a health care facility. SLI 321502vi/41411.088 3 providers. 22. Weilspan does not employ physicians, pharmacists, or any other health care 23. Furthermore, Wellspan does not dispense pharmaceutical products or provide any other health care services whatsoever. 24. Similarly, York Hospital, as a corporate entity, does not dispense pharmaceutical products, fill prescriptions, or provide any other health care services whatsoever. 25. Therefore, Plaintiffs Amended Complaint against Welispan and York Hospital fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 26. Accordingly, the negligence claim against each Defendant should be dismissed. 27. Additionally, an estate is not a proper plaintiff to a wrongful death action, see Pa. R. Civ. Proc. 2202(a), (b), or to a survival action. D'Orazio v. Locust L~ke Village, Inc., 267 Pa. Super. 124, 127, 406 A.2d 550, 551-52 (1979) (noting the long-standing rule that a survival action must be initiated by or against the personal representative of an estate) (citation omitted). 28. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2202(a) provides that "an action for wrongful death shall be brought only by the personal representative of the decedent for the benefit of those persons entitled by law to recover damages for such wrongful death." 29. Accordingly, the Estate of Robert N. Stroble is not a proper Plaintiffto the alleged wrongful death claim or the survival claim. WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant its Preliminary Objection in the nature of a Demurrer and dismiss Plaintiffs Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. SLI 321502vl/41411;088 4 ..IL PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN THE NATURE OF A MOTION TO STRIKs: .AND/OR FOR A MORE SPECIFIC PLF~ADINC 30. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(2) permits the filing of Preliminary Objections when the Complaint fails to conform to the rules of court. 31. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a) states that: "The material facts on which a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form." As set forth below, Plaintiffs Amended Complaint fails to meet the requisite pleading requirements and therefore should be stricken. 32. Paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, and 5 (a) of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint set forth blanket allegations of negligence against an unspecified Defendant. 33. The allegations do not identi~ the specific defendant referenced, but merely sets forth conclusory statements that the unidentified "Defendant" performed some act or omission. WellSpan Health Systems and York Hospital, Inc. have no idea ifPlaintiffis claiming that Defendant WellSpan Health Systems or York Hospital, Inc. acted or failed to act as alleged in Paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, and 5 (a) of the Amended Complaint..See Connor v. Allegheny ~, 501 Pa. 306, 311 n.3,461 A.2d 600, 602 n.3 (1983). 34. Accordingly, the allegations in Paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, and 5 (a) of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint constitute improper pleading pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a) in that these allegations are merely broad, factually unsupported and conclusory allegations. See Connor v. Allegheny General Hosp~, 501 Pa. 306, 311 n.3, 461 A.2d 600, 602 n.3 (1983). WHEREFORE, WellSpan Health Systems and York Hospital, Inc. respectfully request this Honorable Court grant the defendants' Preliminary Objection and strike Paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, and 5(a) from the Amended Complaint or direct Plaintiffto file a more specific SLI 321502vi/41411.Ogg 5 pleading which specifically sets forth the exact manner in which Plaintiff believes each Defendant, WellSpan Health Systems and York Hospital, Inc., have been negligent or be precluded from pursuing any claims based on any facts other than those specifically pled in the Amended Complaint. .HI. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN Ti~F~ NATURE OF A MOTION TO STRi~ ~: AND/OR FOR A MORE SPECIFIC PLF~ADINC 35. Paragraphs 4, 12, and 13 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint must be stricken because they contain conclusory, boiler-plate language that set forth general allegations of negligence without setting forth the specific acts or omissions alleged. 36. The language in paragraphs 4, 12, and 13 acts to impermissibly extend the statute of limitations indefinitely. 37. Both Defendants are unable to respond to or prepare a defense to such overly broad, conclusory and otherwise deficient allegations in Plaintiffs Amended Complaint as stated, and WellSpan Health Systems and York Hospital, Inc. are thereby prejudiced. 38. Those allegations prejudice Defendants WellSpan Health Systems and York Hospital, Inc. in that, if allowed to remain in the Amended Complaint, there will be no running oftbe statute of limitations and Plaintiffwill be free to introduce, at any time, a new claim of negligence. 39. Accordingly, Paragraphs 4, 12, and 13 the Amended Complaint should be stricken as insufficient or Plaintiff should be directed to file a more specific pleading which clearly identifies the exact manner in which Plaintiff believes Defendants WellSpan Health Systems and York Hospital, Inc. have been negligent or be precluded from pursuing such claims. WHEREFORE, WellSpan Health Systems and York Hospital, Inc. respectfully request this Honorable Court grant the defendants' Preliminary Objection and strike Paragraphs SLI 321502vl/4141 l.Ogg 6 4, 12, and 13 from the Amended Complaint or direct Plaintiffto file a more specific pleading which specifically sets forth the exact acts of alleged negligence or be precluded from pursuing any claims based on any facts other than specifically pled in the Amended Complaint. IV. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN ~ NATURE OF A MOTION TO STRIK ~: FOR IMPROPER PLEADING PRACTICF~ 40. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(aX2) permits the filing of Preliminary Objections when the complaint fails to conform to the rules of Court. 41. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1020(a), each cause of action must be set forth in a separate count containing a separate demand for relief. 42. Plaintiff fails to identify any counts. 43. Such pleading is therefore improper pursuant to Rule 1020(a). WHEREFORE, WellSpan Health Systems and York Hospital, Inc. respectfully request this Honorable Court grant the defendants' Preliminary Objection and direct Plaintiffto file an amended complaint that conforms to Pennsylvania's pleading practice. V. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN THE NATURE OF A MOTION TO STRIK ~; ..FOR IMPROPER PLEADING PRACTICE 44. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1028(a)(2) permits the filing of Preliminary Objections when the complaint fails to conform to the rules of Court. 45. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1021(b), any pleading demanding relief for unliquidated damages cannot claim a specific sum. 46. In Paragraph 15 and in the WHEREFORE Clause of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has alleged damages in the amount of $1,000, 000.00. SLI 321502vl/41411.088 7 47. Pursuant to Rule 1021(b), such pleading is improper pleading practice and Paragraph 15 and the WHEREFORE Clause of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint should be stricken. WHEREFORE, WeilSpan Health Systems and York Hospital, Inc. respectfully request this Honorable Court grant the defendants' Preliminary Objection and strike Paragraph 15 and the WHEREFORE Clause in Plaintiffs Amended Complaint for failure to conform with Pennsylvania's pleading practice. Datedc~~/~, 2003 STEVENS & LEE / es W. ~ax~0n, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 36815 Maggie M. Finkelstein, Esquire Attorney InD. No. 86305 P.O. Box 1.594 Lancaster, PA 17608-1594 SLI 321502vl/41411.088 8 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CWIL ACTION - LAW No.02-2688 NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER THE COMPLAINT AND NOTICE ARE SERVED BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT YOU AND A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY THE COURT WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR ANY MONEY CLAIMED IN THE COUNTERCLAIMT OR FOR ANY OTHER CLAIM OR RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT. YOU MAY LOSE MONEY OR PROPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS IMPORTANT TO YOU. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP/ PA BAR ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 186 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17018 800-692-7375 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 02-2688 COMPLAINT Plaintiff is the Estate of Robert N. Stroble. Defendants are Wellspan Health Systems, and York Hospital, Inc, both with a principal place of business at 1001 South George Street, York, PA 17405. Defendants are engaged in a joint business venture or a common business purpose, and act in concert providing health care services to citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. On or about June 5, 2002, Defendants were negligent in the dispensing of pharmaceutical products, to the Decedent in the Estate of Robert N. Stoble. efendant s neghgence caused the wrongful death of Decedent, and Decedent's Estate brings this action under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8301. Defendants' negligence caused the Decedent pain and suffering prior to his death, and Defendants are liable to Decedent's Estate under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8302, survival action. Vicki Piontek, Esquire Date Bar I.D. No. 83559 Attorney for Plaintiff P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-571-4394 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, iNC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, Defendant iN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No.02-2688 VERIFICATION I, Attorney Vicki Piontek, Esquire, attorney for the above captioned estate, affirm that the statemems in the attached COMPLAINT are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, understanding and belief. I am aware of the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. The Executor of the estate is unavailable to the time constraints in this particular matter. Plaintiff will provide a VERIFICATION from the Executor of the Estate at the earliest possible time. Vicki Piontek, Esquire Bar I.D. No. 83559 Attorney for Plaintiff P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-571-4394 ~)ate THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No.02-2688 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Attorney Vicki Piontek, Esquire, attorney for the above captioned estate, affirm that on the 20th day of September 2002, I SERVED BY First Class U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, a true and correct copy of the attached COMPLAINT upon the Defendants' attorney at the following address: Stevens and Lee, P.C. 25 North Queen Street, Suite 602 Lancaster, PA 176043 Also By Fax to Defendant: 717-394-7726 Vicki Piontek, Esquire Bar I.D. No. 83559 Attorney for Plaintiff P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-571-4394 Date THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No.02-2688 NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER THE COMPLAINT ANT) NOTICE ARE SERVED BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT YOU AND A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY THE COURT WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR ANY MONEY CLAIMED IN THE COUNTERCLAIMT OR FOR ANY OTHER CLAIM OR RELIEF REQb"ESTED BY THE DEFENDANT. YOU MAY LOSE MONEY OR PROPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS IMPORTANT TO YOU. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP/ PA BAR ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 186 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17018 800-692-7375 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 02-2688 COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff'is the Estate of Robert N. Stroble. Defendants are Wellspan Health Systems, and York Hospital, Inc, both with a principal place of business at 1001 South George Street:, York, PA 17405. Defendants are engaged in a joint business venture or a common business purpose, and act in concert providing health care services to citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. On or about June 5, 2002, Defendants were negligent in the dispensing of pharmaceutical products, to the Decedent in the Estate of Robert N. Stoble. More specifically, on or about 5/31/01, the Decedent, Robert N. Stroble obtianed refill of prescription for Klonopin, genetic name Clonazepan for 30 tablets at the Wellspan Phamaacy for 30 tablets. 6. There were approximately 7 refills allowed for this prescription. 7. Up to 5/31/02, the Defendant had not used the medication for a 5-6 month period. 8. On or about 6/1/01, Decedent went to the emergency room at the York County Hospital and obtained another prescription for Klonopin, this time fore 63 tablets. 9. The original prescription was held by Middletown Phamaacy. 10. On or about 5/31/01 and 6/1/02, the original prescription held by Wellspan Pharmacy was on the verge of expiration. 11. The length of the prescription and pending expiration date would have been communicated by the Middletown Pharmacy to Wellspan (Defendant), and such pending expiration date created foreseability of immanent harm tot he Decedent, and should have sent up a red flag to defendant that Decendent was trying to get drugs from an old prescription. 12. Defendant had a duty to reasonably investigate the facts before dispensing the amount of drags that were dispensed to Decedent, and should not have dispensed said drags. 13. Defendant failed to act reasonably under the circumstances, and such negligence caused the death of Decedent. 5. Defendant's negligence caused the wrongful death of Decedent, and Decedent's Estate brings this action under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8301. 14. Defendants' negligence caused the Decedent pain and suffering prior to his death, and Defendants are liable to Decedent's Estate under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8302, survival action. 15. Damages may be preliminarily calculated in the amount of One Million Dollars, $1,000.000. Wherefore, The Estate prays for relief in the amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000.000), and for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Vicki Piontek, Esquire: Bar I.D. No. 83559 Attomey for Plaintiff P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-571-4394 Date 1Z/Z~/OZ 1Z:SBpm P. THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COIMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No.02-2688 VER/HCATION I, Attorney Vicki Piontek, Esquire, attorney for the above captioned estate, affirm that the statements in the attached COMPLAINrF are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, understanding and belief. I mn aware of the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. The Executor of the estate is unavailable to the time constraints in this particular matter. Plaintiff will provide a VERIFICATION from the Executor of the Estate at the earliest possible time. Vicki Piontek, Esquire Date Bar I.D. No. 83559 Attomey for Plaintiff P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-571-4394 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 100I S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No.02-2688 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Attorney Vicki Piontek, Esquire, attorney for the above captioned estate, affirm that on the 26th day of December, 2002, I SERVED BY First Class U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, a true and correct copy of the attached COMPLAINT upon the Defendants' attomey at the following address: Stevens and Lee, P.C. 25 North Queen Street, Suite 602 Lancaster, PA 176043 Also By Fax' 717-394-7726 Vicki Piontek, Esquire Bar I.D. No. 83559 Attorney for Plaintiff P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-571-4394 Date CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a tree and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants WellSpan Health Systems Health and York Hospital, Inc.'s Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint was served this/~/~ day of,~.~tn,zz~, 2003, by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Vickie Piontek, Esquire P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 STEVENS & LEE Ja~s~. Saxtor~Esquire Attorney ID #36815 Maggie M. Finkelstein, Esquire Attorney ID #86305 25 North Queen Street, Suite 602 P.O. Box 1594 Lancaster, PA 17608-1594 (717) 399-6639 Attorneys for Defendants Wellspan Health Systems and York Hospital, Inc. SL1 321502vl/4141 l.Ogg THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE Plaintiff Vo WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : CIVIL ACTION LAW : : No. 02-2688 . DEFENDANTS WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS AND YORK HOSPITAL, INC.'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1023.1-.4 AGAINST PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEI~ AND NOW Defendants WellSpan Health Systems and York Hospital, Inc., by and through their counsel, Stevens & Lee, file this Motion seeking sanctions against Plaintiffs counsel, Vicki Piontek, for violation of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1023.1 (c). 1. This Motion for Sanctions is filed pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1023.1-.4. 2. Further, this Motion is filed after written notification and demand to Plaintiffs counsel to withdraw or correct her original Complaint and before any entry of final judgment. (Pa. R.Civ. P. 1023.2 (a) - (c)). 3. On June 3, 2002, Plaintiff filed a Writ of Summons. 4. On August 23, 2002, a Rule to File a Complaint was issued. 5. On September 20, 2002, Plaintiff filed a Complaint, apparently alleging a medical malpractice action against WellSpan Health Systems and York Hospital, Inc. ("Defendants"). (A true and correct copy of the Complaint is annexed hereto for the convenience of the Court as Exhibit "A."). 6. Plaintiffs counsel is Vicki Piontek, whose mailing address is P.O. Box 173, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055. 1 SL1 322448vl/41411.088 7. Ms. Piontek signed the Complaint and signed the verification to the Complaint, which stated that due time constraints, the executor of the estate was unavailable to sign the verification, but that a verification signed by the executor would be submitted "at the earliest possible time." No such verification was ever provided. 8. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1023.1 provides as follows: The signature of an attorney or pro se party constitutes a certificate that the signatory has read the pleading, motion, or other paper. By signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating such a document the attorney or pro se party certifies that, to the best of that person's knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, (1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation, (2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law, (3) the factual allegations have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, or is likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) the denials of factual allegations are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief. Pa. R.C.P. 1023.1 (c)(1)-(4) (emphasis added). 9. By way of letter dated September 24, 2002, Defendants gave Plaintiffs counsel written notice and demand and explained that they believed that the September 20, 2002, Complaint violated Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1023.1 (c) in that Plaintiffs counsel failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the facts of the allegations in the Complaint. The letter included a demand that Plaintiffs counsel withdraw or correct the Complaint within 28 2 SL1 322448vl/41411.088 days as required by 1023.2(b). (A true and correct copy of the September 24, 2002, letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "B."). 10. Plaintiff never withdrew or corrected the September 20, 2002, Complaint. 11. By way of further background, Defendants filed Preliminary Objections on October 2, 2002, in the nature of a demurrer and alternatively, as a motion to strike or for a more specific pleading. 12. This Honorable Court heard oral argument on the Preliminary Objections on October 23, 2002, at which time Plaintiff failed to appear. Plaintiff also never filed any opposition to the Preliminary Objections. 13. On November 18, 2002, this Honorable Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Preliminary Objections for a more specific pleading and granted Plaintiff 20 days to file a proper Complaint. 14. On or about December 17, 2002, Defendants served upon Plaintiff a Notice of Intention to File a Praecipe for Entry of Judgment of Non Pros for failure to file a proper complaint, as directed by the Court. 15. On or about December 26, 2002, Defendants received an Amended Complaint from Plaintift~s counsel, Ms. Piontek. (A true and correct copy of the Amended Complaint is annexed hereto for the convenience of the court as Exhibit "C."). 16. Ms. Piontek signed the Amended Complaint and again signed the verification to the Complaint, which stated that due to time constraints, the executor of the estate was unavailable to sign it, but that a signed verification by the executor would be provided "at the earliest possible time." To date, no verification signed by the executor of the estate has been received. 3 SLI322448vl/41411.088 17. On January 15, 2002, Defendants filed Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint. 18. Rule 1023.1 requires some prefiling inquiry into the facts and law. (See Explanatory Comments to Rule 1023.1). 19. By reviewing the September 20, 2002, Complaint, it is clear that Plaintiffs counsel did not conduct an adequate inquiry into the facts and circumstances underlying the claimed negligence. 20. Further, Defendants contend that (1) the action was brought to harass or to cause unnecessary delay and needless increase in the cost of litigation; (2) the claims as alleged in the original Complaint are not warranted by existing law; and (3) the factual allegations in Plaintif£s September 20, 2002, Complaint lack evidentiary support. See Pa. R.Civ. P. 1023.1 (c). 21. Plaintiff's Complaint consisted of six paragraphs,~ without any counts or a demand for relief. 22. Paragraphs 1 through 3 identified the parties to the action. 23. In paragraphs 5 and 5(a), the Complaint allegedly set forth claims for wrongful death and survival. 24. Paragraph 4 summarily and in a conclusory fashion stated that "[o]n or about June 5, 2002, Defendants were negligent in the dispensing of pharmaceutical products, to the Decedent in the Estate of Robert N. Stroble." (See Pl.'s Compl. at ¶ 4). Plaintiff's Complaint failed to allege any further facts underlying the claim of negligence. 1 While the total number of paragraphs in Plaintiffs Complaint are 6, it consisted of paragraphs actually numbered from one to five, with an additional paragraph also identified with a number 5. For sake of clarity, the second paragraph identified with the number 5 will be hereinafter referred to as paragraph 5(a). 4 SLI 322448vl/41411.088 25. Additionally, while Plaintiffs Complaint alleges that negligence occurred on or about June 5, 2002, the Writ of Summons in this case was filed on June 3, 2002, two days before any alleged negligence occurred. While originally believed thought to be an error, it was not corrected in Plaintiffs Amended Complaint. 26. The Amended Complaint provides further support that Plaintiff's counsel failed to adequately conduct an inquiry into the facts underlying the claimed negligence. While having an opportunity to further adduce the relevant facts, Plaintiffs counsel failed to do so. 27. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint contains the same 6 paragraphs from the original Complaint, and it includes an additional 10 paragraphs, one of which alleges money damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00, and two of which summarily allege negligence by a "Defendant." The Amended Complaint again fails to allege claims in the form of counts. 28. The remaining paragraphs of the Amended Complaint include confusing factual allegations: (1) on May 3 I, 2001, Mr. Stroble obtained a refill for Klonopin from WellSpan Pharmacy; (2) on June 1, 2001, decedent obtained a prescription for Klonopin from the York County Hospital emergency department; (3) up to May 31, 2002, the "Defendant" [sic] had not used Klonopin from 5-6 months; and (4) on May 31, 2001, and on June 1, 2002, the WellSpan Pharmacy prescription was "on the verge of expiration." 29. First, none of these alleged facts were contained in the original Complaint. 30. Second, the Amended Complaint is confusing, is wrought with spelling errors and mistakes, and continues to fail to contain facts which a reasonable investigation would have produced. The minimal facts as alleged in the Amended Complaint fail to connect any claimed negligence to the Defendants. 31. By signing the original Complaint, Ms. Piontek has certified that she has read it. Pa. R.Civ. P. 1023.1(c). 5 SLI 322448vl/41411.088 32. By signing, filing, and submitting the original Complaint, Ms. Piontek has certified that, to the best of her knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, the Complaint was not presented for an improper purpose, the claims are warranted by law, and that the factual allegations have evidentiary support. 33. The inquiry required under Rule 1023.1 is one of reasonableness at the time the pleading was submitted. (Explanatory Comment to Pa. R.Civ. P. 1023.1). 34. In determining reasonableness, the court might consider: (1) the time available for the signer of the document to investigate; (2) whether the signer had to rely on information from the client; (3) whether the document was based on a plausible view of the law; and (4) whether the signer depended on forwarding counsel or another member of the bar. (Explanatory Comment to Pa. R.Civ. P. 1023.1.). 35. Plaintiffs Complaint filed on September 20, 2002, was not filed after a reasonable inquiry into the facts, and therefore, violates Rule 1023.1 (c). 36. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1023.1.4 allows this Honorable Court to impose sanctions on Plaintiffs counsel for violations of 1023.1. (Pa. R.Civ. P. 1023.1(d)). 37. The type of sanction to be imposed under a 1023 motion is left to the sound discretion of the Court. (Explanatory Comment to Pa. R. Civ. P. ! 023.1.). 38. In determining the appropriate sanctions, the Court may consider: (1) whether the conduct of Plaintiff's counsel was willful or negligent; (2) whether her conduct was part of a pattern of activity or an isolated event; (3) that her conduct "infected the entire pleading[;]" (4) whether she has engaged in similar conduct in related litigation; (5) whether the conduct was intended to injure; (6) the affect her conduct had on the expense of and time expended in this litigation; (7) that she is trained in the law; (8) the amount that would be needed 6 SL1 322448vl/41411.088 to deter her from repeating this conduct in this case in the future; and (9) the amount needed to deter others from engaging in similar conduct. (Explanatory Comment to Pa. R.C.P. 1023.1). 39. Ms. Piontek is an attorney, admitted to practice in the state of Pennsylvania, Attorney ID #83559. 40. The failure of PlaintifPs counsel to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the facts underlying the claims of the Complaint was negligent. 41. Such failure is further evidenced by the Amended Complaint, see supra. 42. Her conduct affected the entire Complaint (which contained no counts). 43. Because of the conduct of PlaintitTs counsel, Defendants have incurred unnecessary legal expenses and costs that they otherwise would not have incurred and Defendants seek recovery of those costs. 44. Similarly, because of the conduct of Plaintiffs counsel, Defendants also have incurred fees in preparing and supporting this motion for sanctions for which it seeks recovery of those expenses and attorney's fees. 45. The Court may impose the following sanctions, although not exclusive: (1) A non-monetary order such as striking the entire document or a portion of it; (2) Order Plaintiffs counsel to pay a penalty to the court; or (3) Award the prevailing party reasonable expenses and attorney fees incurred as a result of presenting or imposing the motion for sanctions. (Pa. R.Civ. P. 1023.4). 46. Defendants also seek any other sanction that the Court would deem appropriate to deter future similar conduct by the Plaintiffs counsel and others. (Pa. R. Civ. P. 1023.4(a)(1)). 7 S],i 322448vl/41411.088 WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court grant its Motion and enter such relief as it this Court deems appropriate. Dated: t/,z,7 ,2003 STEVENS & LEE By 7~. S ax~'~,, 1~, squire rAttorney I.D. No. 36815 Maggie M. Finkelstein, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 86305 P.O. Box 1594 Lancaster, PA 17608-1594 (717) 399-6639 Attorneys for Defendants 8 SI,1 322448vl/41411.(188 VERIFICATION I, JAMES W. SAXTON, ESQUIRE, being duly affirmed according to law, depose and say that the facts set forth in the foregoing statements are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. {}4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: January 27, 2003 9 01/27/03/SL1 322448vl/41411.088 Exhibit A THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, 1NC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No.02-2688 NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER THE COMPLAINT AND NOTICE ARE SERVED BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT YOU AND A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY THE COURT WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR ANY MONEY CLAIMED IN THE COUNTERCLAIMT OR FOR ANY OTHER CLAIM OR RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT. YOU MAY LOSE MONEY OR PROPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS IMPORTANT TO YOU. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP/ PA BAR ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX 186 HARRISBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17018 800-692-7375 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 02-2688 : COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff is the Estate of Robert N. Stroble. Defendants are Wellspan Health Systems, and York Hospital, Inc, both with a principal place of business at 1001 South George Street, York, PA 17405. 3. Defendants are engaged in a joint business venture or a common business purpose, and act in concert providing health care services to citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 4. On or about June 5, 2002, Defendants were negligent in the dispensing of pharmaceutical products, the Decedent in the Estate of Robert N. Stoble. to Defendant's negligence caused the wrongful action under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8301. death of Decedent, and Decedent's Estate brings this efendants neghgence caused the Decedent pain and suffering prior to his death, and Defendants are liable to Decedent's Estate under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8302, survival action. Vicki Piontek, Esquire Bar I.D. No. 83559 Attorney for Plaintiff P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-571-4394 Date THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. : 1001 S GEORGE ST : YORK, PA 17405, : Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No.02-2688 VERIFICATION I, Attorney Vicki Piontek, Esquire, attorney for the above captioned estate, affirm that the statements in the attached COMPLAINT are tree and accurate to the best of my knowledge, understanding and belief. I am aware of the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. The Executor of the estate is unavailable to the time constraints in this particular matter. Plaintiff will provide a VERIFICATION from the Executor of the Estate at the earliest possible time. Vicki Piontek, Esquire Bar I.D. No. 83559 Attorney for Plaintiff P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-571-4394 Date THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No.02-2688 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Attorney Vicki Piontek, Esquire, attorney for the above captioned estate, affirm that on the 20th day of September 2002, I SERVED BY First Class U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, a true and correct copy of the attached COMPLAINT upon the Defendants' attorney at the following address: Stevens and Lee, P.C. 25 North Queen Street, Suite 602 Lancaster, PA 176043 Also By Fax to Defendant: 717-394-7726 // Vicki Piontek, Esquire Date Bar I.D. No. 83559 Attorney for Plaintiff P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-571-4394 Exhibit B STEVENS & LEE A PROFE~IONA~ CORPORATION 25 North Queen Street Suite 602 Lancaster, PA 17603 (717) 291-1031 Fax (717) 394-7726 www. stevenslee, corn Direct Dial: (717) 399-6639 Email: lws@stevenslee, corn Direct Fax: (610) 236-4181 September 24, 2002 Vicki Piontek, Esquire P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Re: The Estate of Robert N Stroble v. York Hospital, et al. Dear Vicki: I have reviewed your Complaint and would like to direct your attention to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1023.1. It provides that by signing the Complaint in the above-referenced case, you have certified, "to the best of [your] knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances," that (l.) the complaint "is not being presented for any proper purpose," (2.) "the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law," and (3.) "the factual allegations have evidentiary support." Pursuant to Rules 1023.1 and 1023.2, we are notifying you of our belief that your Complaint, filed September 20, 2002, violates this Rule, under the above-referenced sections. Accordingly, you have 28 days to either withdraw or correct the Complaint. If you fail to do so, · Cherry Hill · Harrisburg * Lancaster * L~high Valley * Philadelphia · Reading · Scranton · Valley Forge · Wilkes-Barre · Wilmington SL1 295550vl/41411.OSS STEVENS & LEE *~ PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Vicki Piontek, Esquire September 24, 2002 Page 2 we intend to file a motion for sanctions. JWS:Iel CG; Very truly yours, STEVENS & LEE Joan Lovenbury, Associate Risk Manager, Wellspan Health SLI 295550vl/41411.088 Exhibit C THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, 1-NC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COLrNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No.02-2688 NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CLAIMS SET FORTH 1N THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER THE COMPLAINT AND NOIICE ARE SERVED BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT YOU AND A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY THE COURT WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR ANY MONEY CLAIMED IN THE COUNTERCLAIMT OR FOR ANY OTHER CLAIM OR RELIEF REQU~ESTED BY THE DEFENDANT. YOU MAY LOSE MONEY OR PROPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS IMPORTANT TO YOU. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP/ PA BAR ASSOCIATION P.O. BOX ! 86 HARR/SBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17018 800-692-7375 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, 1NC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, Defendant 1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CiVIL ACTION - LAW No. 02-2688 COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff is the Estate of Robert N. Stroble. 2. Defendants are Wellspan Health Systems, and York Hospital, Inc, both with a principal place of business at 1001 South George Street, York, PA 17405. Defendants are engaged in a joint business venture or a common business purpose, and act in concert providing health care services to citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. On or about June 5, 2002, Defendants were negligent in the dispensing of pharmaceutical products, to the Decedent in the Estate of Robert N. Stoble. More specifically, on or about 5/31/01, the Decedent, Robert N. Stroble obtianed refill of prescription for Klonopin, generic name Clonazepan for 30 tablets at the Wellspan Pharmacy for 30 tablets. There were approximately 7 refills allowed for this prescription. Up to 5/31/02, the Defendant had not used the medication for a 5-6 month period. On or about 6/1/01, Decedent went to the emergency room at the York County Hospital and obtained another prescription for Klonopin, this time fore 63 tablets. 9. The original prescription was held by Middletown Pharmacy. 10. On or about 5/31/01 and 6/1/02, the original prescription held by Wellspan Pharmacy was on the verge of expiration. 11. The length of the prescription and pending expiration date would have been communicated by the Middletown Pharmacy to Wellspan (Defendant), and such pending expiration date created foreseability of immanent harm tot he Decedent, and should have sent up a red flag to defendant that Decendent was trying to get drugs from an old prescription. 12. Defendant had a duty to reasonably investigate the facts before dispensing the amount of drugs that were dispensed to Decedent, and should not have dispensed said drugs. 13. Defendant failed to act reasonably under the circumstances, and such negligence caused the death of Decedent. 5. Defendant's negligence caused the wrongful death of Decedent, and Decedent's Estate brings this action under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8301. 14. Defendants' negligence caused the Decedent pain and suffering pr/or to his death, and Defendants are liable to Decedent's Estate under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8302, survival action. 15. Damages may be preliminarily calculated in the amount of One Million Dollars, $1,000.000. Wherefore, The Estate prays for relief in the mount of One Million Dollars ($1,000.000), and for such other relief as the Court deems just and proper. Vicki Piontek, Esquire Bar I.D. No. 83559 Attorney for Plaintiff P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-571-4394 Date THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs, WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, 1NC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, Defendant IN THE COURT OF CO~VhMON PLEAS OF CL'MBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No.02-2688 VERIFICATION I, Attorney Vicki Piontek, Esquire, attorney for the above captioned estate, affirm that the statements in the attached COMPLAFNT are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge, understanding and belief. I mn aware of the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. The Executor of the estate is unavailable to the time constraints in this particular matter. Plaintiffwill provide a VERIFICATION from the Executor of the Estate at the earliest possible time. Vicki Piontek, Esquire Date Bar I.D. No. 83559 Attorney for Plaintiff P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-571-4394 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No.02-2688 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Attorney Vicki Piontek, Esquire, attorney for the above captioned estate, affirm that on the 26th day of December, 2002, I SERVED BY First Class U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, a true and correct copy of the attached COMPLAINT upon the Defendants' attorney at the following address: Stevens and Lee, P.C. 25 North Queen Street, Suite 602 Lancaster, PA 176043 Also By Fax: 717-394-7726 Vicki Piontek, Esquire Bar I,D. No. 83559 Attorney for Plaintiff P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-571-4394 Date CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants WellSpan Health Systems Health and York Hospital, Inc.'s Brief in Support of Their Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint was served this c~?~ day of-~'a ~l ~,)/, 2003, by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Vicki Piontek, Esquire P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 STEVENS & LEE A~tto~. Sa:~n, Esquire mey ID #36815 Maggie M. Finkelstein, Esquire Attorney ID #86305 25 North Queen Street, Suite 602 P.O. Box 1594 Lancaster, PA 17608-1594 (717) 399-6639 Attorneys for Defendants Wellspan Health Systems and York Hospital, Inc. SL1 322448vl/41411.088 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No.02-2688 PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS' WELLSAPN HEALTH SYSTEMS AND YORK HOSPITAL, INC'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1023.1-4 AGAINST PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL 1. This Motion for Sanctions is filed pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1023.1(c). Answer: States legal conclusions. No response required. 2. Further, this Motion is filed after written notification and demand to Plaintiff's counsel to withdraw or correct her original Complaint and before any entry of final judgment. (Pa. R. Civ. P 1023.2(a)-(c)). 3. On June 3, 2002, Plaintiff filed a writ of summons. Answer: Admitted. 4. On August 23, 2002, a Rule to file a complaint was issued. Answer: Admitted. o On September 20, 2002, Plaintiff filed a complaint, apparently alleging a medical malpractice action against WellSpan Health Systems and York Hospital, Inc. ("Defendants'). (A true and correct copy of the Complaint is annexes hereto for the convenience of the Court as Exhibit "A."). Answer: Admitted. 6. Plaintiff's counsel is Vicki Piontek, whose mailing address is P.O. Box 173, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. Answer: Admitted. ° Ms. Piontek signed the Complaint and signed the verification to the Complaint, which stated that due to time constraints, the executor of the estate was unavailable to sign the verification, but that a verification signed by the executor would be submitted "at the earliest possible time." No such verification was ever provided. Answer: Admitted. 8. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1023.1 provides as follows: The signature of an attorney or pro se party constitutes a certificate that the signatory has read the pleading, motion, or other paper. By signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating such a document, the attorney or pro se party certifies that to the best of that person's knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, (1) It is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation. (2) The claims, defenses, and other legal contentions therein are warranted by existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for the extension, modification or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law. (3) The factual allegations have evidentiary supportor, if specifically so identified, or is likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; and (4) The denials of factual allegations are warranted on the evidence or, if specifically so identified, are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief. Answer: By way of letter dated September 24, 2002, Defendants gave Plaintiff's counsel written notice and demand and explained that they believed the September 20, 2002 Complaint violated Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1023.1 (c) in that Plaintiff's counsel failed to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the facts of the allegations in the Complaint. The letter included a demand that Plaintiff's counsel withdraw or correct the Complaint within 28 days as required by 1023.2(b). (A true and correct copyof the September 24, 2002, letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "B."). Answer: Admitted. 10. Plaintiff never withdrew or corrected the September 20, 2002 Complaint. Answer: Admitted. 11. By way of further background, Defendants filed Preliminary Objections on October 2, 2002, in the nature of a demurer and alternatively, as a motion to strike or for a more specific pleading. Answer: Admitted. 12. This Honorable Court heard oral argument on the Preliminary Obj etions on October 23, 2002, at which time Plaintiff failed to appear. Plaintiff also never filed any opposition to the Preliminary Objections. Answer: Admitted in part. It is admitted that the oral argument was heard at such time by this Honorable Court. Due to military service obligations, and other mitigating factors, Plaintiff's attorney did not properly file a brief nor was she able to appear in person for the oral argument. 13. On or about November 18, 2002, this Honorable Court issued an Order granting Defendants' Preliminary Objections for a more specific pleading and granted Plaintiff 20 days to file a proper complaint. Answer: Admitted. 14. On or about December 17, 2002, Defendants served upon Plaintiff a Notice of Intention to File a Pracipe for Entry of Judgrnent of Non Pros for failure to file a proper complaint, as directed by the Court. Answer: Admitted. 15. On or about December 26, 2002, Defendants received an amended Complaint from PlaintifFs counsel, Ms. Piontek. (A true and correct copy of the Amended Complaint is annexed hereto for the convenience of the court as Exhibit "C"). Answer: Admitted. 16. Ms. Piontek signed the Amended Complaint and again signed the verification to the Complaint, which stated that due to time constraints, the executor of the estate was unavailable to sign it, but that a signed verification by the executor would be provided "at the earliest possible time." To date, no verification signed by the executor has been received. Answer: Admitted. 17. On January 15, 2003, Defendants filed preliminary objections to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Answer: Admitted. 18. Rule 1023.1 requires some preliminary inquiry into the facts and la,v, (See Explanatory Comments to Rule 1023.1 Answer: Admitted. 19. By reviewing the September 20, 2002, Complaint, it is clear that Plaintiff's counsel did not conduct an adequate inquiry into the facts and circumstances underlying the claimed negligence. Answer: Denied. Attorney Piontek did investigate the facts in detail before filing the complaint. Any negligence, if any, would have been limited to the drafting of the pleading in not conforming to the rules of civil procedure and local court rules. 20. Further, Defendants contend that (1) the action was brought to harass or to cause unnecessary delay and needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) the claims as alleged in the original Complaint are not warranted by existing law; and (3) the factual allegations in the Plaintiff's September 20, 2002 Complaint lack evidentiary support.. See PA. R.Civ. P. 1023.1(c). Answer: Denied. The action was brought for a proper purpose. 21. Plaintiff's Complaint consisted of six paragraphs, without any counts or a demand for relief. Answer: Admitted. 22. Paragraphs 1 through 3 identified the parties to the action. Answer: Admitted. 23. In Paragraphs 5 and 5(a), the Complaint allegedly set forth claims for wrongful death and survival. Answer: Admitted. 24. Paragraph 4 summarily and in a conclusory fashion stated that "on or about June 5, 2002, Defendants were negligent in the dispensing of pharmaceutical products, to the Decedent in the Estate of Robert N. Stroble." See Pl.'s Compl. At paragraph 4. Plaintiff's Complaint failed to allege any further facts underlying the claim of negligence. Answer: Admitted. 25. Additionally, While Plaintiff's Compalitn alleges that negligence occurred on or about June 5, 2002, the Writ of Summons in this case was filed on June 3, 2002, two days before any alleged negligence occurred. While originally believed thought to be an error, it was not corrected in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Answer: Admitted. 26. The Amended Complaint provides further support that Plaintiff's counsel failed to adequately conduct an inquiry into the facts underlying the claimed negligence. While having an opportunity to further adduce the relevant facts, PlaintiW s counsel failed to do so. 27. Plaintiff's amended Complaint contains the same 6 paragraphs from the original Complaint, and it includes an additional 10 paragraphs, one of which alleges money damages in the amount of $1,000,000.00, and two of which summarily allege negligence by a "Defendant." The Complaint fails to allege claims in the from of counts. Answer: Admitted. 28. The remaining paragraphs of the Amended Complaint include confusing factual allegations: (1) on May 31, 2002, Mr. Stroble obtained a refill for Klonopin fron WellSpan Pharmacy; (2) on Jene 1, 2002, decedent obtained a prescription for Klonopin from the York County Hospital emergency department; (3) up to May 31, 2002, the "Defendant" [Sic} had not used Klonopin fron 506 months; and (4) on May 31, 2001, and on June 1, 2002, the WellSpan Pharmacy prescription was "on the verge of expiration." Answer: Admitted. 29. First, none of the alleged facts were contained in the original Complaint. Answer: Admitted. 30. Second, the Amended Complaint is confusing, is wrought with spelling errors an mistakes, and continues to fail to contain facts which a reasonable investigation would have produced. The minimal facts alleged in the Amended Complaint fail to connect any claimed negligence to the Defendants. Answer: Admitted in part and denied in part. The pleading is not perfect, but one can determine the nature of the cause of action by reading the complaint. 31. By signing the amended Complaint, Ms. Piontek has certified that she has read it, PA. R. Civ. P. 1023.1 (c). Answer: Admitted. 32. By Signing, filing, and submitting the original Complaint, Ms. Piontek has certified that, to the best of her knowledge, information and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances, the Complaint was not presented for an improper purpose, the claims are warranted by law, and that the factual allegations have evidentiary support. Answer: Admitted. 33. The inquiry required under Rule 1023.1 is one of reasonableness at the time the pleading was submitted. (Explanatory Comment to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1023.1). Answer: Admitted. 34. In determining reasonableness, the court might consider: (1) the time available for the signer of the document to investigate; (2) whether the signer had to rely on information from the client; (3) whether the document was based on a plausible view of the law; and (4) whether the signer depended on forwarding counsel or another member of the bar. (Explanitory Comment to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1023.1). Answer: Admitted. 35. Plaintiff's Complaint filed on September 20, 2002, was not filed after a reasonable inquiry into the facts, and therefore, violates Rule 1023.1 (c). Answer: Denied. Plaintiff's Complaint filed on September 20, 2002, was filed after a reasonable inquiry into the facts. 36. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1023.14 allows this Honorable Court to impose sanctions on Plaintiff's counsel for violations of 1023.1 (PA R> Civ. P. 1023.1(d)). Answer: Admitted. 37. The type of sanctions to be imposed under a 1023 motion is left tot he sound discretion of the Court. (Explanatory Comment to Pa.R.Civ.P. 1023.1 .). Answer: Admitted. 38. In determining the appropriate sanctions, the Court may consider: (1) whether the conduct of the Plaintiffs Counsel was willful or negligent; (2) whether her conduct was part of a pattern of activity or an isolated event; (3) that her conduct "infected the entire pleading" (4) whether she has engaged in similar conduct in related litigation; (5) whether the conduct was intended to injure; (6) ehe effect her conduct has on the expense of and time expended in this litigation; (7) that she is trained in the law; (8) the amount that would be needed to deter her from this conduct in this case in the future; and (9) the amount needed to deter others from engaging in similar conduct. (Explanatory Comment to PA. R.C.P. 1023.1 .). Answer: Admitted. 39. Ms. Piontek is an attorney, admitted to practice in the state of Pennsylvania, Attorney ID No 83559. Answer: Admitted. 40. The Failure of Plaintiff's counsel to conduct a reasonable inquiry into the facts underlying the claims of the Complaint was negligent. Answer: Denied. Plaintiff's Complaint filed on September 20, 2002, was filed after a reasonable inquiry into the facts. 41. Such failure is further evidenced by the Amended Complaint, see supra. Answer: Denied. Plaintiff's Complaint filed on September 20, 2002, was filed after a reasonable inquiry into the facts. 42. He conduct affected the entire Complaint (which contained no counts). Answer: Denied. The pleading can be amended. 43. Because of the conduct of Plaintiff's Counsel, Defendants have incurred unnecessary legal expenses and costs that they otherwise would not have incurred, and Defendants seek recovery of those costs. Answer: Denied. Plaintiff's Complaint filed on September 20, 2002, was filed after a reasonable inquiry into the facts. 44. Similarily, because of the conduct of Plaintiff's counsel Defendants also have incun'ed fees in preparing and supporting this motion for sanctions for which is seeks recovery of those expenses and attorney's fees. Answer: Denied. Plaintiff's Complaint filed on September 20, 2002, was filed after a reasonable inquiry into the facts. 45. The Court may impose the following sanctions, although not exclusive: (1) a non- monetary order such as striking the entire document or a portion of it; (2) Order Plaintiff's counsel t pay a penalty to the court; or (3) Award the prevailing party reasonable expenses and attorney fees incurred as a result of presenting or imposing the motion for sanctions (Pa. R.Civ. P. 1023.4). Answer: Admitted. 46. Defendants also seek any other sanctions that the Court would deem appropriate to deter future similar conduct by the Plaintiff's counsel and others ()PA. R. Civ. P. 1023.4(a)(1).). No response required Vicki Piontek, Esquire Bar I.D. No. 83559 Attorney for Plaintiff P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-571-4394 Date THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff Vs. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405 and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. 1001 S GEORGE ST YORK, PA 17405, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No.02-2688 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Attomey Vicki Piontek, Esquire, attorney for the above captioned estate, affirm that on the 25th day of February, 2003, I served by First Class U.S. Mail, postage pre-paid, a true and correct copy of the attached PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS' WELLSAPN HEALTH SYSTEMS AND YORK HOSPITAL, INC'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1023.1-4 AGAINST PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL upon the Defendants' attorney at the following address: Stevens and Lee, P.C. 25 North Queen Street, Suite 602 Lancaster, PA 176043 Vicki Piontek, Esquire Bar I.D. No. 83559 Attorney for Plaintiff P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-571-4394 2-' Date THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE Plaintiff Vo WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. Defendants FEB 11 2003 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 02-2688 RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY RELIEF REQUESTED UNDER DEFENDANTS' MOTION FQR_ SANCTI~)NS SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED AND NOW, this of ~, 2003, upon consideration of Defendants' Motion for Sanctions under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1023.1-.4, a Rule is granted upon Plaintiff's counsel, Vicki Piontek, Esquire, to show cause why sanctions should Rule returnable , , BY THE COURT: SLI 327420vl/41411.088 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE Plaintiff WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 02-2688 PRAECIPE TO MAKE THE RULE ABSOLUTE Please assign Defendant WellSpan He~th Systems mad York Hospital, Inc.'s Motion for Sanctions filed pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedurel 1023.1-.4 to the Honorable George E. Hoffer for consideration and disposition. Date: ~?~//~ ,2003 STEVENS & LEE J~ne/g~V~-S~n, l~squir~ Attorney I3-). No. 36815 Maggie M. Finkelstein, E~quire Attorney I.D. No. 86305 25 North Queen Street Suite 602 P.O. Box 15;94 Lancaster, PA 17608-15~4 (717) 399-6639 Attorneys for Det~ndants Wellspan Health Systems and york Hospital, Inc. SLI 342011vl/41411.088 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a tree and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants WellSpan Health Systems Health and York Hospital, Inc.'s Praecipe to Mak, served this ~ day of &~7 , 2003, by first class mail, postage prepai following: Rule Absolute was 1, upon the Vicki Piontek, Esquire P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Date: ,2003 STEVENS & LEE Sa on,' squirl &ttbmey I.D. No. 36815 Maggie M. Finkelstein, [ ;squire Attorney I.D. No. 86305 25 North Queen Street I Suite 602 P.O. Box 1594 Lancaster, PA 17608-1594 (717) 399-6639 Attorneys for Defendants ~ Wellspan Health Systems and York Hospital, Inc. SLI 342011vl/41411.088 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE Plaintiff V. WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 02-2688 PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE CLAIMS PURSUANT TO PA.R.C.P. 229 TO THEPROTHONOTARY: Pursuant to the stipulation signed by all counsel of record, attached hereto as Exhibit A, Defendants WellSpan Health Systems and York Hospital, Inc. respectfully request that all claims against them be marked as voluntarily discontinued with prejudice pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 229. STEVENS & LEE Date: o5-/01/~3 BY: Jari~s~. Saxton, ~squire At,ney I.D. No. ~6805 Maggie M. Finkelstein Attorney I.D. N'o. 86315 25 North Queen Street, Suite 602 P.O. Box 1594 Lancaster, PA 17608-1594 (717) 291-1031 Attorneys for Defendants WellSpan Health Systems and York Hospital, Inc. SLI 349184vl/41411.088 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE Plaintiff WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 02-2688 STIPULATION OF COUNSEL It is hereby stipulated and agreed by all counsel of record that all claims against defendants York Hospital, Inc. and WellSpan Health Systems are voluntarily discontinued with prejudice pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 229. Date: 9~,~'/ ~) ,2003 ~//~9~ /~ Date: r/fl-.~ / ,2003 Vicki Piontek, Esquire Counsel for Plaintiff //ff~s W. Saxto[, E'~q[fire t~Attomey I.D. # 36805 25 North Queen Street Suite 602 P.O. Box 1594 Lancaster, PA 17608-1594 (717) 399-6639 Attorneys for Defendants Wellspan Health Systems and York Hospital, Inc. 04/21/03/SL1 346380vl/41411.088 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on this date, I served a certified true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Discontinue and Discontinuance Certificate upon the following counsel of record, by depositing the same in the United States mail addressed as follows: Cory D. Piontek, Esquire Vicki Piontek, Esquire 116 W. Green Street P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Date: , ~'"/~/03 By: Ja~ ~.-Saxton, gsquire SLI 349184vl/41411.088 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE Plaintiff WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 02-2688 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT Before HOFFER~ P.J. and OLER~ J. ORDER OF COURT ANDNOW, this I?t(~ day of defendants Wellspan Health Systems and ,2003, upon consideration of Inc.'s Preliminary York Hospital, Objections by way of demurrer and motions to strike and/or for a more specific pleading to plaintiff's Amended Complaint, it is hereby ORDERED that the defendants' objections numbered I, II, III, IV and V are SUSTAINED. Plaintiff is directed to file a proper complaint, in accordance with this opinion, within twenty (20) days of receipt of this order. By the Court, Vicki Piontek, Esquire PO Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 For the Plaintiff Maggie M. Finkelstein, Esquire Stevens & Lee 25 North Queen Street Suite 602, PO Box 1594 Lancaster, PA 17608-1594 For the Defendants ~ 10 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE Plaintiff WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS and YORK HOSPITAL, INC. Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW No. 02-2688 CIVIL TERM IN RE: DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT Before HOFFER~ P.J. and OLER~ J. Hoffer, P.J.: Before the Court are the preliminary objections of the defendants, Wellspan Health Systems ("Wellspan") and York Hospital, Inc., to the Amended Complaint of the plaintiff, the Estate of Robert N. Stroble. Specifically, the defendants have filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer and, alternatively, a motion to strike or for a more specific pleading, and a motion to strike for improper pleading practice. FACTUAL PLEADINGS This wrongful death and survival action was initiated by a praecipe for a Writ of Summons, filed on June 3, 2002. On August 23, 2002, a Rule to File Complaint was issued. The plaintiff filed a Complaint on September 20, 2002. On October 2, 2002, the defendants filed Preliminary Objections in the nature of a demurrer and, alternatively, a motion to strike or for a more specific pleading. The Court heard oral argument on the Preliminary Objections on October 23, 2002. PlaintifFs counsel did not appear for argument, nor did she file a Brief in Opposition. On November 18, 2002, the Court issued an Order granting the defendants' Preliminary Objection for a more specific pleading and granted the plaintiff twenty (20) days to file a proper complaint. On or about December 17, 2002, the defendants served upon the plaintiff a Notice of Intention to File a Praecipe for Entry of Judgment of Non Pros for failure to file a complaint. The plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on December 26, 2002. The plaintiff alleges that on June 5, 2002,4 the defendants negligently provided pharmaceutical products to Robert N. Stroble, now deceased. More specifically, the plaintiff alleges that Stroble had a prescription for Klonopin refilled on May 31, 2001, at the Wellspan Pharmacy. The original prescription was held by Middletown Pharmacy, and had authorized approximately seven refills. On June 1,2001, Stroble received another prescription for the same medication at the York County Hospital Emergency Department. The plaintiff avers that on May 31,2001, and June 1, "2002" [sic], the Wellspan prescription was "on the verge of expiration," and that Stroble did not use the medication for the five to six months prior to May 31, "2002" [sic]. Pursuant to these averments, the plaintiff set forth claims for wrongful death and survival. ~ The date June 5, 2002, is two days after the plaintiff filed the praecipe for a Writ of Summons (filed June 3, 2002). While the plaintiff did not correct this error in the Amended Complaint (filed December 26, 2002), the Court understands this date to be June 5, 2001. 2 I. Defendants' Preliminary Objection in the Nature of a Demurrer The defendants seek a demurrer on several counts. In the understanding that the plaintiff has brought actions for wrongful death and survival under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8301 and Pa.C.S. § 8302, respectively, the defendants positively assert that the Estate of Robert N. Stroble is not a proper plaintiff in wrongful death and survival actions. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 2202, within a six month period after the death of a decedent, "an action for wrongful death shall be brought only by the personal representative of the decedent for the benefit of those persons entitled by law to recover damages for such wrongful death." Pa. R. Civ. P. 2202(a), (b). In the case that a wrongful death action is not brought within six months after the death of a decedent, an "action may be brought by the personal representative or by any person entitled by law to recover damages in such action as trustee ad Iitem on behalf of all persons entitled to share in the damages." Pa. R. Civ. P. 2202(b). A personal representative is "the executor or administrator of the estate of a decedent duly qualified by law to bring actions within this Commonwealth." Pa. R. Civ. P. 2201. In addition, the Estate of Robert N. Stroble is not the proper plaintiff in a survival claim.2 The caption of this action names the plaintiff as "The Estate of Robert N. Stroble" only. 2 See D'Orazio v. Locust Lake Villaqe, Inc., 267 Pa. Super. 124, 127 406 A.2d 550, 551-51 (1979) (holding that an estate is not the proper plaintiff in a survival action). 3 Further, plaintiff's counsel signed the Amended Complaint and the verification to the Amended Complaint, both dated December 26, 2002. The verification stated that, due to time constraints, the executor of the estate was unavailable to sign it, but that a signed verification by the executor would be provided "at the earliest possible time." To date, no verification signed by the executor of the estate has been filed. Accordingly, the Court orders the plaintiff to file an amended complaint pursuant to Pa. C.S. §8301 and Pa. C.S. § 8302 to include the executor or administrator of the estate as the named plaintiff in this action. In addition, the Court orders the verification be signed by such executor or administrator. In regards to the defendants' objection in the nature of a demurrer which states that the plaintiff has not properly alleged a claim of negligence, the Court again orders the plaintiff to amend the complaint. The amended complaint should contain all proper elements to a claim of negligence. 3 3 To properly assert a claim of negligence, in the plaintiff's complaint she must allege a duty recognized by law, a breach of that duty, a causal connection between the conduct of the defendant and the injury to the plaintiff, and actual damages. See Kelly v. St. Mary Hosp., 778 A.2d 1224, 1226 (Pa. Super 2001). 4 II. Defendants' Preliminary Objection in the Nature of a Motion to Strike and/or for a More Specific Pleading Relating to Paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, 5(a) of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint The defendants seek a motion to strike and/or for a more specific pleading based on allegations contained in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, and 5(a)4 of the plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Specifically, the defendants claim the above- referenced paragraphs set forth blanket allegations of negligence against an unspecified defendant. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a), "[t]he material facts on which a cause of action or defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form." Pa. R. Civ. P. 1019(a). Specifically, "[p]leadings serve the function of defining issues and giving notice to the opposing party of what the pleader intends to prove at trial so that the opposition may, in turn, prepare to meet such proof with its own evidence." Laursen v. General Hosp. of Monroe County, 259 Pa. Super. 150, 160,393 A.2d 761,766 (1981) (citations omitted). Further, in a complaint set forth against a professional defendant such as a health care provider, the standard of pleading is higher. "[W]hen the professional skills of the individuals who have devoted years of training, acquiring a reputation in developing a practice, are called into question then clearly more care should be exacted in allegations against these persons than in more common vehicular 4 The plaintiff's Amended Complaint contains two paragraphs numbered 5. The Court accepts Defendants' characterization of the second paragraph numbered 5 as 5(a). 5 situations." Mikula v. Harrisburg Polyclinic Hosp., 58 Pa. D. & C.2d 125, 131 (Dauphin County) (1972). Paragraphs 12, 13, and 5(a) of the plaintiff's Amended Complaint do set forth blanket allegations against an unspecified "Defendant.''5 These paragraphs fail to identify the specific party. Also, these paragraphs merely provide broad and conclusory allegations against such unspecified party or parties. In order to enable each defendant to properly respond to or prepare a defense to the allegations contained in the above-referenced paragraphs, the Court orders the plaintiff to amend the complaint to provide a more specific pleading. III. Defendants' Preliminary Objection in the Nature of a Motion to Strike and/or for a More Specific Pleading Relating to Paragraphs 4, 12, 13 The defendants filed a motion to strike and/or for a more specific pleading based on allegations contained in paragraphs 4, 12, and 13, of the plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Specifically, the defendants claim the above-referenced paragraphs contain conclusory, boilerplate language that act to impermissibly extend the statute of limitations.6 5 Paragraph 12 states, "[d]efendant had a duty to reasonably investigate the facts before dispensing the amount of drugs that were dispensed to Decedent, and should not have dispensed said drugs." PI. Amend. Compl. ¶ 12. Paragraph 13 states, "[d]efendant failed to act reasonably under the circumstances, and such negligence caused the death of Decedent." Id. at ¶ 13. Paragraph 5(a) states, "[d]efendant's negligence caused the wrongful death of Decedent, and Decedent's Estate brings this action under42 Pa. C.S. § 8301 ."Id. at ¶ 5(a). 6 In this objection, the defendants also restate their objection to paragraphs in the Amended Complaint based on the assertion that the paragraphs are merely broad, factually unsupported and conclusory. See discussion supra Part II. 6 The Court in Connor v. Allegheny General Hospital addressed this issue regarding the running of the statute of limitations where the original complaint contained a general averment of negligence. Connor v. AIleqheny General Hosp., 501 Pa. 306, 481 A.2d 600 (1983). In Connor, the hospital claimed that a proposed amendment to the plaintiff's complaint (after the statute of limitations had run) would impermissibly extend the statute of limitations because the amendment would relate back to the original filing date, thereby prejudicing the adverse party. Id__~. at 309, 461 A.2d at 602. The Superior Court had affirmed the trial court's denial of the motion for leave to amend on the reasoning that the amendment would introduce a new cause of action and thus extend the statute of limitations. Id~ at 310,461 A.2d at 602. This extension, the court stated, would constitute "resulting prejudice" to the adverse party. Id__~. The Supreme Court reversed the ruling by determining that the proposed amendment would not change the cause of action, but merely amplify that which was already averred, thus deeming the running of the statute of limitations irrelevant. Id~ In light of the decision in Connor, in the present case the Court finds that the defendants may not be prejudiced by an amended complaint containing more specific pleadings. Therefore, in reference to paragraphs 4, 12, and 13, the Court orders the plaintiff to amend the complaint to provide a more specific pleading. 7 IV. Defendants' Preliminary Objection in the Nature of a Motion to Strike for Improper Pleading Practice Relating to Pa. R. Civ. P. 1020(a) The defendants filed a motion to strike based on Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1020(a), which states that each cause of action must be set forth in a separate count containing a separate demand for relief. Pa. R. Civ. P. 1020(a). The plaintiffs Amended Complaint alleges wrongful death and survival actions under 42 Pa. C.S. § 8301 and 42 Pa. C.S. § 8302, respectively, but fails to set forth these allegations in separate counts containing demands for relief.? Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1020(a), the Court orders the plaintiff to file a pleading in conformity with that rule. V. Defendants' Preliminary Objection in the Nature of a Motion to Strike for Improper Pleading Practice The defendants filed a motion to strike based on Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1021 (b), which states "[a]ny pleading demanding relief for unliquidated damages shall not claim any specific sum." Pa. R. Civ. P. 1021(b). Paragraph 15 of the plaintiff's Amended Complaint alleges, "[d]amages may be preliminarily calculated in the amount of One Million Dollars, $1,000,000." PI. Amend. Cmpl. ¶ 15. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1021(b), this specific claim cannot be included in the plaintiff's Amended 7 See supra note 5, at 6. Paragraph 14 of the Amended Complaint states, "Defendants' negligence caused the Decedent pain and suffering prior to his death, and Defendants are liable to Decedent's Estate under 42 Pa. C.S. § 8302, survival action." PI. Amend. Cmpl. ¶ 14. 8 Complaint, and therefore should be stricken. The defendants' final preliminary objection is sustained. James W. Saxton, Esquire Maggie M. Finkelstein, Esquire Stevens & Lee 25 North Queen Street Suite 602 P.O. Box 1594 Lancaster, PA 17608-1594 For the Defendants Vicki Piontek, Esquire P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 For the Plaintiff 9 THE ESTATE OF ROBERT N. STROBLE, Plaintiff, Vo WELLSPAN HEALTH SYSTEMS and YORK HOSPITAL, INC., Defendants. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION LAW No. 02-2688 PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SANCTIONS BROUGHT PURSUANT TO PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1023.1 Kindly wathdraw Defendants WellSpan Health Systems and York Hospital, Inc. s Motion for Sanctions brought pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1023.1 filed on January 28, 2003. Date: (~/.~ q ,2003 ¢- / STEVENS & LEE By: 9~--- J ~om?~ SJ~xto~l, Esquire y I.D. No. 36815 Maggie M. Finkelstein, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 86305 25 North Queen Street Suite 602 P.O. Box 1594 Lancaster, PA 17608-1594 (717) 399-6639 Attorneys for Defendants Wellspan Health Systems and York Hospital, Inc. SLI 362100vl/41411.088 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Pmecipe to Withdraw Defendants' Motion for Sanctions Brought Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule Of Civil Procedure 1023.1 was served this a~ ~day of 0"trnat~ , 2003, by first class mail, postage prepaid, upon the following: Cory Piontek, Esquire Vicki Piontek, Esquire P.O. Box 173 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 (Counsel for Plaintiff) Date: STEVENS & LEE .// . w.p axt;n, Esduire VAttomey KD. No. 36815 Maggie M. Finkelstein, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 86305 25 North Queen Street Suite 602 P.O. Box 1594 Lancaster, PA 17608-1594 (717) 399-6639 Attorneys for Defendants Wellspan Health Systems and York Hospital, Inc.