HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-03482
~
.
-7
2
(..
<-8
fl
J
Cl)
00
:t
CV)
I
~~
-j
ALl CE H. GORMAN,
1'1 aill t.i [f
I
I'N TilE coum' OF COlmON PLEAS
CUMbER/,AND CO/lN7'Y, l>ENNSYLVJlNIA
.
.
I
V.
.
.
NO, 'lit .',1/ llJ. (I (L' ~ ( .,Jc,
JOlIN lIANCOCK MCl7'UAI, L11-'E
INSClRJlNct: COM I)AN Y ,
Dolendant
,
,
.
.
,'IVIl, !\("I'ION .. /,AN
dum' 'I'Jlllll, DJ-:MANVED
.
.
NOTICE
rou UIIVB m:8N :Jl1JW .IN (:()[1jl'l'. J[ Yl'\1 wit,1t tr" dat'und Q'llllnflt
t.he claillls snt forth in the fullo\4111C) p"llOO, l"l\l "IUllt Lak,) ar:Uon wit.hin
twenty (20) dnys u ftor lhh, Campla int. ,!lId Nc.o\.!CI! 1\r,. aerv.'Il, ;,y enterinlJ
a wr.lttlln appearnnoB pornollally 01' by aU'>r1H,Y 1111.1 tilln,/ in writing
with the COUl:t YI)ur de((I!1F.wo ai' objections tD the l~LlIlmu [let forth
Duuinot you. YOII urn \/arnod that if you fa \1 to do SL1 lho CllSll ~1ay
proceed without you (lnd a judgment milY be l'ntlJr'Jd illJalnst yc..u by the
('tlurt without further notke for iln~' lnont.y clllimud in tho complaint or
lor <HIY other ala 1m or reliof roqu'JElted by the Plaint Iff. You may loso
money or proport~' or other dlJhta important to you.
YOU SIIOUr.o TAKE TillS PAPER 1'0 YOUR LAHYER NI' ONCE. IF yOU DO
NOT Il/\VE A LAWYEH OR CANNOT AffORD ONE, GO '1'0 OR TF.LEPIIONE THE OF'FICE
SC'f FOR1'1I BEl.OW TO FIND aU'f WIIERE YOU CAN GE'r LEGAL HELP.
Court Administrator
Cumberland County courtho\\sn, 4th floor
One Courthouse Square
Carllale, PA 170!1-)387
(717) 240-6200
NOTICIA
La hall domDlldauo a ust(IU 011 III curto. 8i IIsled quiero
dofendsruo de outua domnnduo oxpunstns en InA pnginaa uiguiontea, usted
tlane vionte (2U) diiw de plazo 01 pnrtlr' dB l.a !ndH'l do 1n dum.\I1dll Y Ia
notit1chdon. \Jntod del,e plGc,untar Ulli\ 'I/'J\",oncin nscritn 0 on 1'.1!'nlJna
o pur abogado r Drchlval: Ojl in cortl! en f.,' lIIil (l[lI.:rl La (lUll (lu"on;;ill1 0 aua
r.1bjoct iemou n Ius dU!liIl1tlaG cncontr" Ill! !;\l i'l'rI;onn, St.".\I'; [",ojr) :lue c I
uoted no Be \luf1"1'1,lo, );: "L'rto Lamora nil'd .1",; Y pl.I(H.lL 'iI,\ 1,lr un.) ')1'111_11
;:ontr., listed sin pn'\I\" ,',viao (I nntHh'd,!ion y (!ll; c\),'llqult'L" '1",<).\ .)
alivio qua efJ fH;dlth) /ill lit petlcjutI de ddi:llldll. r;.1b"l plH.la rord,,)'
dinaro (", ill\S p1'op.lI':1arl<-:. () oITU!> d,;,rpchor: ir"l-HJrlo!i."l ",I'" LlI1\c':1.
L1,i.:vr 1::11A ilL'NllIlIJA A UN /ll1ulW.;o JlIl1EDJNJMll'II'l'I:. HI 1m I'H'hE
AH(.tlllJ)() \) SI NO 'J'JFNE: r:I, OltlE\V', SUf'[CIEIITl: 1m PAGM! '(',\1, m;/lliTCTfJ, V.WA
1':N I'EIW01'lA I) LI,MW i'OR 'l'ELEl'otlO ^ LA one] tI^ ClJYI\ Dllli"CC'lON
::11:: I-:NCUF.NTRA E~lt~Rl'l'^ AlJ/\,J(1 PARA AVFIW;lIAH DoNIJE fiE PllI:llE COIlIlEGUI H
il!J.1/JI'ENCrA I,EGAI"
Court Admlnlf:Lrn\','r
Cumber] nnll county courthoullo, 4th Flc'n!"
Ona CourthOllEo Hqlliln'
('111'11010, Pl, 1'/013-):1:1'1
(717) ;lo\O-(,:IOO
I'
!i
"1\'r!i'~." ,,~:"!'''''''.t.. ''''. ':'. ;~7""1'\l'rr" ....'~m~f~..~tnI'IIMlJ.:_M~1
,\'. J. ;' f , " "; .,' !,J ,,\~ ' . .'~, ~f\~m~~!~.{''''.,.,~/.rq".._Jt'~~~1.1'r''I'~'14'.t:il '
~ ,i,III,~_L:!i,,,J,IJ<,l... .L ......_........'dvoL. ,;...,{.1__..............._.." ..._~ 'dO.. n._'_ .....1.... ..I... -,.. . .
I'
Ii
II
It
II
Ii
"
il
Ii
II
Ii
I
d
:1
II
"
,
jj
II
II
'I
I,
,
!
II
I!
,
I:
'I
II
H. Exce8Aivo daytime slcepinouo;
t. lnilblllty to cOlwonlrnh11 ill"ld
J. Bavore drow~lnouD.
10. lis u direct ilnd jlrcxhmtn 1'(,UlIlt of the phyaic!al lind/or
mantal irnpa1.rmcnto onumerated in pllrilgr'ljlh ~ above, Plaintiff became,
and remains, unable to porform nIl tho csucntiul rluties uf her regular
position liD a saloo ropresentative.
11. PI~intlCf timuly requosted payment of /Ill benefits
nee riled in accordance wi th tho John Ilancock OirJabi) lty Contract or Plan,
12. On 01" nbout .lune 28, ]99J, Plaintiff was notified by
Helon l'earco, nlEabi lity Clilim EXilmJ ner oC .John Hancock Mutual Life
Insurance Company, thot short tnI'm disability benofits Were not payable
beyond Dectllllbor 27/ Jun. ^ true und '.'Ol'n.t1t c','PV tiC lho nOl:i<;o of. Juno
28, 199J is attachod hc,t"otn i1fl Exhil.d L "II."
13. Plnlntiff l'lmoly req"llrH.12d 11 rovlClI uf tho JUlie, 20, 199J
dncir.lon danyinq I'll1inlifC bLnl2f1tl> In :'l'(!nnlilnr.:c witll \:10 Jolin /lo"i/1COl:1:
II
I
I:
,i
I'
II
II
i
,
DiOl!bi11ty Cc;ntI"1H:t' or Plan,
14. On 01' lltlClUt :JillllIUl'y 1], 1!J'J4, PlnintiJ f W1S r,,,Ufiet! by ,
Loretta F. Janlls, llenefits "Ih\lynt r.lt .Tohll lIilllc't1l'K Mutunl Life Insllrnnce
Company, thnt ,In EHInA .I\ppp.ill CommIttee deuided to upho ld the Cia im
Office deoislon dnnyin'.l l'lnintiff berlllfitu due 10 Plllintitf In
i\CClllrdnnoo wi lh tho John 1I<1l1oou)<. IJle.llJJ Ii ty C"'lIt r,lct or 1'1/11\. A true
- 1 -
I'
/i
II
:,
II
II
I
und correot copy of the notice of Janunry II, 1994 io attached horeto as
Exhibit "8."
U. On or about February 17, 1994, Plaintiff received lIotice
from [.orettll ~', Janus reaffirming t.he decision denying Plaintiff's
disability olaim. A true and cOlTeot copy of the lIotice of February 17,
1994 is attached hereto ae Exhibit "e."
11
I
I'
!I
II
.1
II
Ii
1G. 'I'he notice of February 1'1, 1994 referenced in paragraph
19 above furthor notHied Plaintiff that the denial of disability
benefits by the ERIHA Appeal Committea rapreeented a final decision and
that there "'aEl no furthel" appeal proccl!1'; by \i!l1ch Plaintif( could
attempt to appeal the decioioll of the ImlllA Appoal Committee.
17. 'rhe above mentIoned docis10nl; dl1n\'jll(J pI.lintiff 1:1.3
t'lghta arid benefits dUll undm' tho nl~ovf\ l\ltJlltinne<l disability plnn wera
atlJitnu:y, illegal, capricious, ullrellsOnitblo, diacriminnt:ol'y, and not
made in good faith, and vIolate the Empluyee Retirement Income Decurity
Act.
10. 'rile lIbove menU on(1(\ dad siona lire not supportod by
Gubutllntilll evidence and arise from an errOnf.!OUB application of federal
law.
19. As a ~lrect and proximate rosult of tho actions,
1'1<1 Int il't hilll hmm caused to incur attorney I /;I fece in an amount not now
known to Vlaintiff.
- 4 -
,
Ii
II
II
il
11
'I
II
L
Ii
"
II
I
II
I
,
I
I
II
~
II
:/
~~....IiU.,,:
20. As a direct nnd proximnto rasult of tho notions,
Plaintiff hUB suatainud Jnmugcs in an amount not now known to Plaintiff
hut on information iind ballllf, f,lu<.:h rld",1I90/l will Uppl'oximaLa the umnunt
of bl.lnofits due to Pl..untlff in t.lOf.mpJ:lllOl1 with t:lhl ,John lI11n':ot:k
Dianbllity Contract ot' P.1an fOI" ollr.;h Inrmth ~llnce (I<:,tol,cl' 1, 1!J9:!; and
Plaintiff will continue to nustuin ul~11"1 Jdmnges D~l;h month until tho
benefits are paid.
WHEREFORE, I'lalnt i fC, ALIce \01. oonMI\N, rll!\pocttully
requosts that this Ifonornble COU1"t entol' judgmunt ngalnlJt Defendant,
JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSUIUlIlCE COMPANY, as follows:
1\. ordering Dofendant, JOHN ILANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE
INSURANCB COMPANY, to pay to Plaintiff all benefits
dUQ PlaintIff under the .10hn Hancock oisabili ty
Contract or Plan retroaotive to Octobur I, 1992/
n. Awarding Plaintiff il monoy judgmont for all
suma duo and owing!
!!
1:
'I
o. AWltnlJl\f) Plnint.itf pru- Jwhjmont intOJ:llst from
October 1, Jyq~, until dutu of Judamont;
O. AwnrdlnlJ 1'1 JinUr!" f1ttol'nr'~"a f,'ea, (Court
OOGts and all olh"r tu,'1S0mdlJn n'!ILtJ incurred!
- !l -
"milt' lt~"r'T:r'
pr I. ,,'of
~ ,- . .
I
I.
Ii
[1
,
i
B. arnntinq l'lallltift: ll\luh othor and (urt.her
relIef as thio \Ionol'ablu COlll.t m!'lY deem just and
pl'opor.
Ruapactfully submittad,
SMIGEL, ANDERSON & SACKS
--7
~
"F, Esquiro--
Front street
I'A 17110-1223
401
Attorney~' or Plaintiff
I'
I
I
~
.,. G -
,
~~< .'. ........-. [;..~ ~,
VERIFICATION
I, AtICB H. GORMAN, verify that thu stat.uments contained in
the foregoing Complaint ore true and eOl"roet to the best of my
knowlodge, information ond boliof. I undorstand that talee statemonts
thoroin are mode subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 54904, relating
to unsworn falsifioatlon to authorities.
I
Ii
II
I
;1
II
I:
:1
II
",...~ &' t
eeL. ,:.u.....
h' ,H J
- Z. .\.L d<lnr.<l--,(
ALIOE H. GORMAN
.........-......
.hl'.rIIIIIlUjdlI r,lll'
1'1),,1 Olhee nUl III
1l\J~lon. Md'>!oJt.hu:'l'lh III II I
IOII)~n 074f.
J;~!~f.1:.~ICCC(
lmelt.. t'. Jolnu,
IhHll'ltIl Ar\.1I~!.1
Ih.lflt:lil DfUIGIl & ComIt1UM,1L,Hj~
January 11, 19U4
Ms. A1 j ce GOL11l0n
6347 Gtophen'a croasing
Mechnnioaburg, PA 11056
Rei ERISA ^PP'l(ll - Accidl1nt & sickll0611 nl3lHI!itn
DOur IoIs. GormUlll
1 am wr i t1n9 to ouvine you ilO to tho Ol1tOOlroo of t.ho
ERIfJA Appun10 caromi t too lnce:U ng rOljilrd In<.J your M;cidt1l1t
and Sicknoao claim.
The Comrnittoc 'a rl'vicw of thn medicJl Infct::!'.Jtion in
yout. file 1'ind!3 nothlnrJ Lo (,lil1trodh~t the Claim Office
detormination i.:lwt y"u nr, IOlleJor m,.'ot t.he dofild,tioll of
total dilHlllU it)' under the Plan. 'llw ;11.11111 JI,!!lcocl<
Di s(lbil1, ty Plon, as it l'olat'Hl to YOUI" c;l.] 1m, de fincs
"totally disilblml", 11(; ",. .only l1uch full incnp:\l!ity aD
determinoJ by till) CompallY, ilnd which ill dUe tu a
physical or IIIlJntill imp,-d,mcnt which ktll"pr.l you from
doing all tho eOAontlnl dutioB of your occupation". In
addition, tho Plnn alao ut.ntos that "~lAU of timo due
to any of the following &11011 not hI..! cunai~orod total
disability within the mUJninl) of t.hlo l1ovornlju.. .ony
physical or nlfwtal condition which .1annot be v"rJ ried
by tho une of clinical or lilborutCll'Y dingnoutic
tochniques".
'I'he EIUSA cornl1littal~ Cnl'r,l\\lly l'l..!v1lJ\~ed your fHt'! and
haD conclud()~ that thera in no nvi<lenCI\ to Bubatnntinte
I!l continuing c1.11m 01 total t.l1t1dVil1tj' Jml
:)uotificnti.on fOl,' paymelll 01' dilJObility b!?nefIt!1 after
,TUlHl 20, 1'.J~l]. 111 f,1Ct, y',lIlt" I j Ie imlicc.ltcB vory
1 ittlo objoctivQ lIiedici' i, dOLml1ll'l1tiltiou in'Jludinlj
objective to:lt 1:fl:lulL:1 · r :lustily pllyml'ut Df diflnhll ity
bene1'its at 1\11 'l'1rln'J ll)fl:l. The cO:i\ml.ttc" how nuted
yuUt r'l"ObJemilL,,: rulaUoll'llI:p \~\th thl1 l\'jP,lcy HiltlIV]l'r.
1'llO o1guncy WhClI'I' you \/01"1' p,,"'i.Oltf11j 'JL'plo'/u\} ,:J;.JFLd 011
r"Jcl~mb(lI: 4. 19"~ 1111<1 ""ll1 If),'li''''' 1'''''''''.1[.1. J>3 110 101'1101' ill
'1 nliJnnc.1'"rioJ f.',1I ,,\<, 1 1,.)' \-.1\h ~Ii,! I.'.." 1,1I1,/. Tho COJ:'lilttull
.
d,
.Altlt1ItIl~uc." PlJU!
IIlIIUlII," U'" 111
11':0100, Mum' ",<\11 Q2111
(~17)6n.ft7,:n
l_uP.hnt"
Urll&(IIIMal/U
n"tlM OtrJt,tIl' t:")PIlIIUIIII'~llutl'
}:I;'.<<(;n~
/", 'II'~"''-'''''' .~
\-
lle.lll.'\lnry l"/, lYY4
John w. FrOllll1lGr, Eaq\lir,
Omiqol, Anduraon , BAoka
Att:ornoYD lit LaW
2Y17 North Front stroot:
llarrhburq, PA 17110-1:12J
Jlsl AHoe M. Gor.mnn
ERISA Appalll
Dllal:' Hr, l'rOlnlUQt"1
'1'hiu 1rI in l'Otl!JQI100 to your tolophClnEl llIC11flell]O ot
yeIlI:Ql:'l\ay.
111i1. GOl11wm '. olll1m for !;JBneUtll (Irb~ll1 \1ncl<n' tho John
llanoook l(utUl11 Lite Inl1Urlll108 Company 1::1nploya8 \lloUal:'.
1'1an O"l;lIblJshad by' John Hancnck pl:f'r.\JIITlt tr.l tho
Employeo notircl1lont Incc!:',!) Socurity Act or 1!l'14
(ERISA). UnLler P.RH\i\, d~'ciDionB r;Qlating to clnlml7 tor
hOllel:I.l:1I aX'a U1",de by rufurllllcliI t;o th!J PllIll docullIent.
'l'hll John II111100ck D,i.l.lobll1t:y nllr., IIfiI ~t relutllu to ~lll.
GOl'lllan'o claim, clurillllll "toLally diuablt:dll, illll ". "only
llucl1 full J.nc1lpaolc.y av Llotor1l11n(ld by tho {.'oal.HIn~'1 And
which 10 ,tu~ to A physic"l or l1l~n\;~l i;n~iJinl~mt whioh
keepB you trom doill9 Ill::' the IlI1ElNI\.lal dutl\Ju oC your
Occuplltionll. III IltJllitloll. tho r'l.m (tluo ll\;a.tell t11,ll;
hLoBB ot ti~o due tu nny of th~ tollo~in1 IhA11 not: be
c,mBidlll:ud tot111 d:'tlLIlJility within the lIl11'llninl1 ot till.
covllx'allo.. .l1nr phYlllcul or lllulltal COllrjit.1on which
cannot be vor tied by tho UBI! ut cliniclll or laDo%at:ory
dhgnoatio t.!ohnl.qu&lll". 'rId.. moanl hill' dbability l1IU8t
ba ouoh that flha iB UMble to do hel' Q\/nlob.
No. Gonnan 'e appoal ....no rl,\V lcWOd by t1l0 I::IUl!A APPQllllJ
COl1llllittuo, '1'11. cOllunitt"o fUJI'Qud with thl~ initial
detet'ldnllUOfl of t.he Cl1\l.1lI Office. '1'1111 npp.al
upX'u"llnh the final docblon and COl1tinH~ that
bllflllL'itll wflre llluperly terlllinnted anll no turthor
bellllCits Ilro pllYtlbl.. athr JUlI. 20, 1993. Th. Coltlpuny
. I
, II
:1
II
II
I'
I,
il
II
I
i
I
,I
I'
'I
II
Ii
\1
Ii
I
:1
il
;1
'I
!I
"
,
!I
"
!I
II
!I
I'
'I
I,
II
II
II
II
I:
I!
Ii
,I
,
Ii
I
Ii
,
AI,ICE M, GOmlAN;
VI a inti f(
rN 'filE L'OIJ/I'r Of CONMON l'/,EAB
('UMlII;'Rl,AN/J COUN~'\'; PENNSYINANIA
I
I
I
v,
,
,
liD, .14/12 L'lviJ 1!I:J4
JOHN HANCOCK /oil/I'll/II, 1H'f,'
INSURANCE COMPANY,
DalaI/eli/lit
I
I
I
(,1\'.1 I, AcTION - I,AN
,11Jf<Y ~'IHA1, IJl-:NANm:o
CERTIFICATE OF SEHVICE
[, ,1oll/l I~, Prllllllllur, Ell(IUI ru I li..rl1by unl'L I j y thllt u tru,' .Hld
corroct. copy of tho C'nr'plil!n\'. and Rf>IJUHlt !01 Pt'Lldl!l~tJ(j1i uf ()ocllml1nt!; in
lho abovtJ lJlIpljllllf~d mattlJl" wau fll'r'/ed upon UIe IJclf!lldunt PI' clnti! j"d
rull c)n ,TUIW 30th, 1994 LInd wau l"l'c[dvnd by Lho Dafl1nd.lnt on July 6th,
1994 as f'V Idenl.,cd by l;1ll' ilttachnd return rl1CO J pI:,
SMIGEL, ANDERSUN &. SACKS
~'ront stroot:
in 10-1221
Attornoyo for Pluintiff
) \f ,l "11 I .I. j. 1 '" I ' ,
" Jjf I I \~ ~ \ I " . I tf' j 11 ., \
i, ' I
. .,
,
il
.QDRTUtQl1'lfLQl.Jlf1UVIQD
I, lJonl11d M. Lewis Ill, 1';oquJro, Ullo of thu llttorneya for
defandant, John Huncock MUtU,11 Li fu InsUt'i\nco Compilny I hereby
Dottify that I have served thu foregoing papor Upon counsel of
record this date by depositing a true and corroct COP}' of the
same in the United Stutes mai], first-cIHLs postage prepaid,
addressed as followSI
John W. Frommer, Esquire
Smigel, Andorson & Sacks
2917 North Front Street
Harrisburg, P1\ 17110-1223
ImF.l'ER I lmol.), ALT.P.t1 " IU\IIAL
1>atudl Auqust _'i__, 1994
) //
{ , . " ( . ,. i'
lIy ~b;\'6;~~:~;~~1S ~1t-.-
I.
<~ ,
".';JI~~i:l'l~..<'rlol"I-V<rt.). .~ ..~.'.: ,~"c :.;,..".,....'...
I ,I'. 1!/i ,../\ ;, , '. J' . , ~ . j
'. '. d. ", I 'Jc' ", ,'. f'
. '-, \,." ;'
. '. '." . " . , " ,t ~ Iii ' .' .!
-.,. ,....,......., - ": "". f .,;",_,
lfiil';.;, '
2. The complaint constitutes tho initial ploading fletting
fot'th a claim for reUer Upon which the action or proceed.Lng J.s
based,
3. Plaintiff's claim is based upaH tho allegation that she
has been denied benefits due unller an employoe benefits program
provided to her as an employee or Hancock.
4. As alleged in the complaint, the ornployae benefit plan
upon which plaintiff's olaim is based is an omployee welfare
benefit plan subject to the provisions of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (~ERISA~)/ 29 U.s.C. 11132.
5. Under 28 U.s.C. 11331/ this Court has jurisdiotion over
all Claims arising under the constitution, laws or treaties of
the United States.
6. Under ERISA, 29 U,S.C. !1132(A) (l)(b), this Court has
juriSdiction OVer actions to reCOVer benefits or to enforce
rights undor the ter~s of an employee benefit plan.
7, The above-described aotion ia on~ ~hich may be remoVed
to this Court pursuant ta th~ provisions 01' 28 f).S.C. H441, in
that it is a civil action brought in a atate court of which
action tho district courts of tho United statan hava, or may
have, o~iq!nal juriodiotion.
~2~
"
,-.,
('Illlllllllnllcnllh Ilf I'ennlyll'unlu
('Ilunly III ('ulllhcrlund
} II:
I. I.ilwrenr.e E. Welker .I'rllthllnlllary
Ilf thc ('Ilurt Ilf ('Ilmllllln l'leal in and fllr said
Cllunly. dll herehy certify Ihalthe fureglling II u
lull. Irnc and currecl copy Ilfthe whllle recllrd Ilf Ihe
cnsc therein stnled. wherein
CaRe No. 205 HDO 1996
Barbara Millikan
Plainllff. and
Holy Spirit lIoRpitnl ilnrl
C1rAntivipw Hllrg~ry r~nh~rJ J.hi
I>efcndanl _. al the same remalnl Ilf record
hel'ore Ihe laid ('Ilurt al Nil. 95-3482 Ilf
Civil Term. A.D. 19_.
hlllC hereunlo set lilY hand and IIffixcd thc leal Ilf IlIld ('Ilurt
day Ilf March A. n.. 19.2L-.
~{~I1&'I~ t )Vdh-\.,
f~JA..Jt#..iI. ~14.-I~ 1""lh"",,I")
I. Harold E. f1heelv Prcsidenl Judge Ilf Ihe Ninth
Judlclall>lllrlcl. cllmpllled Illlhe CIlUllly Ilf ('llll1hcrlalld. dll certily Ihal Lawrence E. Welker.
Prothonotary . hI' Whllll1 Ihe annexcd record. cerllficate alld
alleltalillll wcre lIlade ulld Nlvell.llnd Whll, in hi, Illln prllpcr handwrilillg.lhereunlll ,uh,crihed hi, nall1e
und amled Ihc hculllf Ihe ('llurlllfl'IlIllIllUul'lrll' '" IlIid ('Ilunly. wus,allhe limellhudlllllg.llnd nllw I,
Prnthllnlllury In und lor luid ('uunll' Ilf CI Buh" rland In
Ihe l'1l1ll 11I11 nwclI II h III I'Cnllll'll'unill, dull' ellnulll,siulled 1I1ll14Ulllified luallllfwhll5c acts al luch full faith
und credil arc IIlld llughllU he gil'en as wcll in ('Ilurh Ilf judiclllurc II' elsewherc. and Ihalthe laid recllrd.
cCrlilklllc und ulle5lulillnlHe iu due lorlllllllllw IlIll~l1l1 e hI' Ihe prnpcr_"fficcr.\, '. "
(- l.. l<.
. (. L t L '_ _.. .... ,-i.... L .'
In n;SlIMONY WIlI'Rl'OF. I
Ihls Nineteent 1
I'u'\i!h'nt . ud~c
('Illlllllllnwealth III I'cuusl II auiu
('IlUUll' III ('UlllhCtlllUd
I ss:
I. ...._.._.[,ilwrel1r.e.J;~ll\~L .._..____, Prnlhllnulary uf thc ('ourt of ('ommun Plea, in
ulllIIllI Ihc luid ('lluIlIl'. dll \'Crtily Ihill Ihc Illlulllllhlc lIarold E. Sheely
hI' IIhllllllhc IIIIcglllng 1I111'st1l1i1lU II liS IllI11k IIIllI II hll hilS Ihercuntllluhscrihed hil name, Will. allhe lime
"'lllllking Ihell'lll. IInd 'Iill is I',c'uknl Judgc III lh!'l'llllrt of ('llnUllllnl'lelll. Orphan' ('Ilurl and ('Ilurtllf
l)lIl1rter S"llill", Illlhe 1"'1I1'e inlllu' fill luid ('Illlllll', dilly ('llnllllllsioncd und 4ualllied; to all whOle acll
us 1111'11 Inlllllllh IIl1d l'IcdilUlI' unllIlughlIII he gilrll, as well Inl'IlUrll Ilf judicature III elsewhere.
IN liS IIMONY WlllllIlll, I hllse hmUlIl1l
\l'1 Ill\' hUlIllulld 1I1111"lllhe "'lrl "I '"ill ('111111 Ihi>
PJlII dlll'lIl fo1iln:lt "'1, 1~1J(1
'I . 1.' 7'1 'I
.' .."'\ '1 ;i...t':,H~'.L.. ~. "n"~ll~\'{.. _
/Jl' ttt," 4/tCl. )j./tat4 ,J"'a;:'h''''''''"1
.
oa
01.1
~
j j ! II I ~
-
j
- - Q '"
-
J J /lIi
e 1
III 'g
/lIi
S ~ III
E ""
'"
> .., f 'B
N E: [E
CIO !
~ "" u i
M
I ~
III )
C7\ 1 ~ j ~
ci ci
"L- iZ
....,
'-It
f""'\
'.
IN TUE COURT OF CONNON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. tfS-. illS) (.lt~L1oTt'l->>V
Civil Actlon . 0<) Law
( ) Equttu
~\
IWU3I1R1\ MlLJ,IKJlN,
56 lIellam Dr! ve
el>bchanicsburg, I'll
"
1I0LY SPIIIIT IIOSPl1'lIL,
503 North 21st Street
Carrp IIi 11, I'll 17011
17055
TRUE COpy FHQM nECORO
In TBStlmony wherool, I h(Jrll unto set my hand
and the &eal 01 said C at Car1I~, , '- '
J~ da q 'LLo-L-, ,\9 )
sry PlalnlUf(8) &
Addre88(e8)
versu8
and
GHANDVIEW SUHGEHY CENl'Ell, LTD.,
a Pennsylvania limited partnership, t/d/b/a
Grandview Surgery and Laser Center,
205 Grandview Avenue
Camp Hill, I'll 17011
Defendant(8) &
Addre88(88)
fRAECIPE FOB \l(RIT OF SUI:lHOltli
. .
Tq THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID 'COURT:
, ,
Plell88laaUl writ of GUmrmn81n the llboYO-alpltoned aclton.
2 Wr1l 0' Surrmons thall bel8800d Md , tornou (x) Shenff
. .'-.--..-,.
, Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire
Waqner Duildinq - Suite 20S
. . )55 North 21 st Street
'Camp Hill, PA170l1 ".
....:.(717) 975-9446 ' , ,
NomeiAddrmlTelephonlt No.
o',AltcrneU . " :,. "
Signature of Attomeu
Supreme CourllD No.
58805
,
..
Dale:
June 28, 1995
'.' ;'
~
TO TH~ AIlQVE-Nt\HED DEFENDANT(S):
, "
YOU ARE NOTIFIED TtiAT TIlE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF(S) HASIflAVE COHHE~CED AN
ACTI~NAOAINSTYOU... . .' .J6'U~'l~ljC<,. l' )/{li~~
',.1' \', ,\
. i'l')' , . Prothonollll'1/
,I f' ..
(\,,, ' . C I, 1
Dale: ,f"'" ,~8, (ytf5 by (( :VI, ( I,... It
) I::' "
1(, {ift t j
Depulu
,
:,'i/r/h
,-
,....',. "Ij I'.,
.
.
'!.Jld)t:II..I\",'," ""JlLl"',"'''\'''.''
""'-I j.. '.' +1,., l "
.IHIHU'lf~ \l ..' 1,''- '\' \;., -'I'.'; 'I,
.
.
. .
\
ii:
\
,
u
; ,"
." =
. ~ ~ to
~ ~ ~ ~
I f I
~
G::
(,~ '\
.."'!
I!'
~t
i ,
'-',
I'
.,)
t,L.
....
Ul
~
,...
v.
IN TItB COURT OP COMMON PLBAS
CUMDBRLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANJA
NO. 96-]482 CIVIL TBRM
BARBARA MILLIKAN,
Plaintiff
UOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL and
GRANDVIBW SURGBRY CBNTBR,
INC.,
Defendanto
JURY TRIAL DBMANDBD
CIVIl. ACTION - (.AW
COMPlJ\lN'1'
AND NOW, comee the Plaintiff, Barbara Millikan, by and through
her attorney, Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire, fileo the following
complaint against Holy Spirit Hoopital as follows:
1. The Plaintiff, Barbara Millikan, io an adult individual
presently residing at 56 Hellam Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055.
2. The Defendant, Holy spirit Hospital, is a I'ennoylvanill
Hospital with a place of business located at 50] North 210t Street,
Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
]. On or about June 28, 1993, the Plaintiff, Ilarbara
Millikan, went to the Grandview Surgery Center Inc. in Camp IIi II,
Pennsylvania for a pre-admission lab teat to be done in connection
with her nose eurgery which wae to preformed by Dr, Ilurt on Cohn.
4. On June 28, 1993, the Grandview Surgery Conler drew blood
and forwarded the blood to the Holy Bplrlt lIoflpHal for teat.1ng.
5. On or about July 1, 1993, lhe Plaint if f, Ilarhara
Millikan, had Burgery done hy In, Ilu II on I'ohn, M,Il,
6. On or about July 8, 1 \llll, I he Plaintiff, OuiJa ra
Millikan, IJlIW Dr, Burton Cohn fnr It pOOl llulgery vi lllt.
~
I"".
7. During the post-ourgery visit, Dr. Cohn received a call
from the Holy Spirit Hospital lab which lab informed Dr. Cohn that
the Plaintiff's lab results Lested positive for antibodies known to
react with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus type 1 and type 2.
B. On or about July B, 1993, the Plaintiff was also informed
that a confirming Western Blot Test that was done by the Holy
Spirit Hospital's lab confirmed the presence of antibodieo to the
Human ImmunOdeficiency Virus.
9. Over the next couple of weeks, the Plaintiff, Barbara
Millikan, her husband, and her daughter were given a series of
blood tests to confirm the presence of entibodies to the Human
Immunodeficiency Virus.
10. All tests taken subsequent to July 8, 1993 came back
negative for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus.
11. Between June 2B, 199] and July 8, 199], the Holy Spirit
Hospital mixed up the Plaintiff's blood with the blood work of
someone else and which mix up resulted in the Holy Spirit Hospital
lab reporting that the Plaintiff was positive for the Human
Immunodeficiency Virue when in fact she was not.
12. The lab work of the Holy Spirit Hospital and the
oubsequent communication of the results of the lab work indicating
the Plaintiff, Barbara Millikan was positive for Human
Immunodeficiency Virus and the injuries suffered by the Plaintiff
resulting therefrom were caused directly and proximately by the
~
r-..
negligence of the Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, generally and
more specifically set forth below:
a. In mixing up the blood work of the Plaintiff,
Barbara Millikan with the blood work from oomeone
else who was HIV positive;
b. In failing to put into place appropriate procedures
to prevent the mixing up of blood specimens in the
lab area;
c. In testing the blood of someone else and reporting
that it was the blood of the Plaintiff, Barbara
Millikan.
13. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the
Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, the Plaintiff, Barbara Millikan,
has sustained severe and permanent injuries including humiliation,
embarrassment, mental anguish and mental distress, and a claim is
made therefore.
14. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, Holy
Spirit Hospital, the Plaintiff, Barbara Millikan, has and probably
will in the future suffer a loss of life's pleasures and a claim is
made therefore.
15. As a result of the negligence of the Dsfendant, Holy
spirit Hospital, the Plaintiff, Barbara Millikan, was required to
undergo additional testing and medical treatment which testing and
medical treatment caused the Plaintiff to incur medical billa for
which a claim is made.
~
,...
WHBRBPORB, the Plaintiff, Barbara Millikan claims damages trom
the Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, in an amount ot excess thirty-
thousand dollars ($]0,000.00) and demands trial by jury.
By:
Dabed:
/1. ~l~l1t;
Darrell C. Dethlets, Esquire
Attorney IDH58805
Wagner Building - Suite 205
355 North 21st Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717)975-9446
,
~... .
exhibit A
~
~
.'I""I.llh.......I"'~'. I'''' 111l"'Il' @
t"'\
f""
v.
IN TIm COURT OP COMMON PLBAS
CUMBBRLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA
NO. 95-3482 CIVIL TERM
BARDARA MILLIKAN,
Plaintiff
HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL and
GRANDVIBW SURGBRY CBNTBR,
INC.,
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DBMANDBD
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Barbara Millikan, by and through
her attorney, Darrell C. Dethlefs, Esquire, files the following
complaint against Holy Spirit uospital as follows: '
1. The Plaintiff, Barbara Millikan, is an adult individual
presently residing at 56 Hellam Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055.
2. The Defendant, Holy Spirit Hoopital, is a Pennsylvania
Hospital with a place of business located at 503 North 21st Street,
Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3. On or about June 28, 199], the Plaintiff, Barbara
,
Millikan, went to the G.~nduiew Surgery Center Inc. in Camp Hill,
Pennsylvania for a pre-admission lab test to be done in connection
with her nose surgery which was to preformed by Dr. Burton Cohn.
4. On June 28, 1993, the Grandview Surgery Center drew blood
and forwarded the blood to the Holy Spirit Hoopital for testing.
5. On or about July 1, 1993, the Plaintiff, Barbara
Millikan, had surgery done by Dr. Burton Cohn, M.D.
6. On or about July 8, 1993, the Plaintiff, Barbara
Millikan, saw Dr. Burton Cohn for a post-surgery visit.
~
,....
7. During the post-surgery vioit, Dr. Cohn received a call
from the Holy Spirit Hospital lab which lab informed Dr. Cohn that
the Plaintiff's lab results tested positive for antibodies known to
react with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus type 1 and type 2.
B. On or about July B, 199], the Plaintiff was also informed
that a confirming Western Blot Test that was done by the Holy
Spirit Hospital's lab confirmed the presence of antibodies to the
Human Immunodeficiency Virus.
9. Over the next couple of weeks, the Plaintiff, Barbara
Millikan, her husband, and her daughter were given a series of
blood tests to confirm the presence of antibodies to the Human
Immunodeficiency Virus.
10. All tests taken subsequent to July B, 1993 came back
negative for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus.
11. Between June 2B, 1993 and July B, 1993, the Holy Spirit
Hospital mixed up the Plaintiff1s blood with the blood work of
.-
someone else and which mix up resulted in the Holy Spirit Hospital
lab reporting that the Plaintiff was positive for the Human
ImmunOdeficiency Virus when in fact she wao not.
12. The lab work of the Holy Spirit Hospital and the
subsequent communication of the results of the lab work indicating
the Plaintiff, Barbara Mill ikan was positive for Human
Immunodeficiency Virus and the injuries suffered by the Plaintiff
resulting therefrom were caused directly and proximately by the
~
~
negligence of the Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, generally and
more specifically set forth belowl
a, In mixing up the blood work of the Plaintiff I
Barbara Millikan with the blood work from someone
else who was HIV positive)
b. In failing to put into place appropriate procedures
to prevent the mixing up of blood specimens in the
lab area;
c. In testing the blood of someone else and reporting
that it was the blood of the Plaintiff, Barbara
Millikan.
1]. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the
Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, the Plaintiff, Barbara Millikan,
has sustained severe and permanent injuries including humiliation,
embarrassment, mental anguish and mental distress, and a claim is
made therefore.
.-
14. As a result of the negligence of the Defendant, Holy
Spirit Hospital, the Plaintiff, Barbara Millikan, has and probably
will in the future suffer a loss of life's pleasures and a claim is
made therefore.
15. As a reaul t of the negl igence of the Defendant, Holy
Spirit Hoopital, tho Plaintiff, Barbara Millikan, was required to
undergo additional tooting and medical treatment which tilting and
medIcal treatment caused the Plaintitf to incur medical bUh for
which a claim is made.
"
I~ N 1;
.Jt
.. "i
- .. .to
Ij'''J
.,;, ~: ( ri'
p
~'~ c\.oO n~
Co 0 ~.t.~]
fiE: C'J y.
i - ..,
[EI+' c.;. 11~
r: It; lIJ
, l.5 Ln d
u,
~
'-
N ~
.:r &
.. ~ t .:..
- t.} ~~!
e.~ ~- (.J':tS
.'- ~J,
fi LI.. ;:lj':l
!;) ~~~ t ,.:;
I~ N ,~Ji'.
lf~: t., ~~
If)
-;.: to.
.'
II. I.'
C.1 0\
-..J
'-.
"
~
,...,
.
BARBARA MILLIKAN,
PLAINTIFF
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNlY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL,
DEFENDANT
95.3482 CIVIL TERM
~ELY, P.J. ANQ BAYLEY. J.
~
AND NOW, this 0,'" day of February, 1996, IT IS ORDERED:
(1) The demurrer to plaintiff's cause of action for negligent Infllotlon of
emotional distress, IS GRANTED.
(2) Plaintiff shall file an amended oomplalnt setting forth the costs associated
with her cause of action for negligent performance of an undertaking to render
services.
,/7/?
, /
, //1
1
Darrell C. Dethlefs, esquire
For Plaintiff
._ (' ~"" ~J:ltt ~/" "',. ,
C'IJ ~.i).
Jayson R. Wolfgang, Esquire
For Defendant
:8aa
32.
~
fII\
BARBARA MILLIKAN,
PLAINTIFF
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL,
DEFENDANT
95-3482 CIVIL TERM
~EELY. P,J. AND BAYLEY. J,
BAYLEY. J., February 9,1996:--
Plaintiff, Barbara Millikan, flied a complaint against defendant, Holy Spirit
Hospital. Plaintiff alleges that her blood was drawn in a pre-admission procedure for
surgery on her nose. The blood was sent to the Holy Spirit Hospital laboratory.
During a post-surgery visit with her physician on July 8, 1993, the physician received
a telephone call from an employee of the Holy Spirit Hospital laboratory Informing him
that the laboratory results of plaintiff's blood "tested positive for antibodies known to
react with the Human Immunodeficiency Virus [HIV] type 1 and type 2," The
physician Informed plaintiff of the report. On the same day plaintiff was Informed of a
second test, a Western Blot test, performed by the Holy Spirit laboratory on her blood
confirming the presence of antibodies of the AIDS virus, Over the next couple of
weeks, plaintiff and her husband and daughter were given a series of blood tests that
came back negative for the AIDS virus, The results of the blood test and second
confirming test reported to plaintiff from the Holy Spirit laboratory on July 8, 1993,
were actually fur tests performed on the blood of a person other than plaintiff, Plaintiff
avers that Holy Spirit Hospital was negligent In testing the blood of someone else,
.
~
("f\
95.3482 CIVIL TERM
and then reporting the results of those tests to plaintiff, She seeks damages for
"severe, permanent Injuries Including humiliation, embarrassment, mental anguish and
mental distress," and "loss of life's pleasures." Plaintiff also avers that she "was
required to undergo additional testing and medical treatment which testing and
medical treatment caused [her] to Incur medical bills for which a claim Is made,"
Defendant flied a demurrer to plaintiff's complaint which was briefed and
argued on January 31, 1996, A demurrer Is to be granted only where, as a matter of
law, there can be no recovery on the facts alleged. Wurth v. City of Philadelphia,
136 Pa, Commw, 629 (1990), In Lubowltz v. Albert Einstein Medical Center, 424
Pa. Super. 468 (1993), the facts were:
In August 1985, appellants participated In the Hospital's In vitro
fertilization program, An egg was removed from Robyn Lubowltz and
was placed with a sample of her husband's sperm Into a placental
I.rum provided by an anonymous donor, The embryo was then
Implanted, and Robyn Lubowltz became pregnant; she later suffered a
mllcarrlage which Is unrelated to this action,
On or about November 18, 1985, Dr. Freedman Informed the
appellants that the Hospital had performed an enzyme linked
Immunosorbent assay ("ELISA") test of the donated placental blood
which had been used In their in vitro fertilization procedure, The blood
had tested poslllve for the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
("AIDS") antibody, HTLV.IIL After receiving this Information, appellant
Robyn Lubowltz allegedly experienced msntal distress and various
physical allmenls, Including recurrent nausea, vomiting and diarrhea.
The Hospllalthen conducted additional blood tests on the
placental donor and appellant. An ELISA test of appellant's blood was
returned negative for the AIDS antibody on November 23, 1985, The
HOlpltal allo lent blood samples from appellant and the placental donor
to Washington, D,C" so Ihat another AIDS lest, the Western Blot
analysis, could be performed, On January 29, 1986, the placental
.2.
~
f"'I
95.3482 CIVIL TERM
donor's blood tested negative for the AIDS antibody, and on February 7,
1986, appellant's blood also tasted negative. (Footnote omitted).
The trial court granted the Medical Center's motion for summary Judgment on
plaintiff's causes of action alleging negligent Infliction of emotional distress and
negligent performance of an undertaking to render services, The Superior Court of
Pennsylvania affirmed, concluding:
It Is undisputed that appellants have never tested positive for the
AIDS antibody. Moreover, although Robyn Lubowltz alleges that she
suffered physical manifestations of emotional distress, the actual InJury at
Issue Is the "fear of AIDS." Whether such fear Is a compensable Injury Is
an Issue of first Impression In this Commonwealth, However, we are
guided by decisions which Involve similar "risk of contracllng disease"
claims, See, e.g., QUavlo Y. Flbreboard Corp., 421 Pa,Super. 284, 617
A,2d 1296 (1992); Altlere Y. Flbreboard Corp., 421 Pa,Super. 297, 617
A.2d 1302 (1992); Marlnarl Y. Asbestos Corp" 417 Pa,Super. 440, 612
A.2d 1021 (1992).
In QUaYlo, the plaintiff filed an action against numerous
manufacturers of asbestos producls to recover for Injuries allegedly
sustained as a result of workplace exposure to asbestos, Id. at 266, 617
A,2d at 1297. Ottavlo sought damages for pleural thickening and a fear
of developing future diseases, Including cancer, allegedly caused by
exposure to asbestos, Id. An en bane panel of this court held that
"Qttavlo was entitled to recover compensation only for that disease, If
any, which existed at the time of trial. He could not recover In an action
for asymptomatic pleural thickening monetary damages for the risk of a
future disease such as cancer." Id. at 296,617 A.2d at 1302,
Likewise, the most that Robyn Lubowltz could aver In this case
was that she "has a rational basis to believe she was exposed to the
AIDS virus" because of Ihe positive results of the Inlllal test performed on
the placental donor's blood, Appellants' Brief at 14, This simply Is not
enough. As In QUaYlo, Robyn Lubowltz cannot recover, In her
asymptomatic state, monetary damages for a risk or fear of developing
AIDS In the future,
.3.
.~:j
~
I".
95-3482 CIVIL TERM
We realize that there are factual questions with respect to the
appellees' negligence and Robyn Lubowltz' actual physical harm.
Nonetheless, these factual Issues are Irrelevant under the circumstances
of this case, where appellant's symptoms were not caused by the AIDS
virus Itself, Because there Is no legally cognizable Injury, there can be
no recovery lor Ihe alleged negligence, (Footnotes omitted),
In Griffin v. American Red Croll, 1994 U.S, Dlsl. LEXIS 16838 (E.D, Pa,
November 24, 1994), plaintiff donated blood at the American Red Cross In
anticipation 01 her upcoming hysterectomy. A representative 01 the Red Cross
contacted plaintiff's surgeon a few weeks later and stated that plaintiff's blood had
tested positive lor HIV, The surgeon Inlormed plalnllff 01 the test, but took another
blood sample which, within 24 hours, tested HIV-negatlve. Plaintiff Instituted suit
against the Red Cross lor negllgentlnlllctlon 01 emotional distress, Citing Lubowltz v.
Albert Einstein Medical Center, supra, the District Court concluded that
Pennsylvania law does not recognize a cause of action for negligent Inlllctlon of
emotional distress based on a "fear 01 AIDS." Noting that this court Is not bound by
the decision of the District Court, plaintiff herein distinguishes Lubowltz by arguing In
her brlel that "she had no fear of contacting AIDS through a possible exposure as did
the plaintiff In Lubowltz;" rather she "was told unequivocally that she had AIDS, not
that she was at a greater risk or might develop this dreaded disease at some
uncertain time In the future,'" That Is a distinction without a legal difference because,
as the District Court slated In Griffin, where plaintiff was told that her blood tested
1, What plaintiff means Is that she was told unequivocally that she had the HIV
virus, not AIDS,
-4-
30
,"'""
1"'\
95-3462 CIVIL TERM
positive lor HIV: "The most [she) could allege was a 'rational basis to believe' that
there was an exposure to the AIDS virus," Plaintiff here, as In Griffin and Lubowltz,
cannot and does not allege that her symptoms are caused by the AIDS virus, Rather,
her symptoms were caused by a mistaken bellelthat she had HIV, which was
corrected when subsequent tests 01 her blood showed that she was not HIV-Inlected.
Plaintiff's claimed symptoms do not arise out 01 exposure to the disease Itsell;
therelore, we agree with the District Court, that under Pennsylvania law as set forth by
the Superior Court, a lear 01 having HIV and 01 developing AIDS In the luture, Is not a
compensable Injury, We are bound by LUbowltz,2 lIthe law Is to change In
Pennsylvania, It must bs pronounced by the Supreme Court 01 Pennsylvania, Plaintiff
has not stated a cause 01 action lor negligentlnlllctlon 01 emotional dlstress,3
2, Plaintiff notes some cases In other jurisdictions, In Marchlca v. Long
Island R.R. Co., 31 F.3d 1197 (2nd Clr, 1994), a FELA case, plalnlllllncurred a
puncture wound Irom a hypodermic needle hidden in a pile 01 reluse he was clearing
out. Although never testing positive lor HIV, he was allowed to recover on a claim lor
emotional distress without proving actual exposure or reasonable medical probability
of later developing the virus, See also, Castro v. New York Life Insurance Co., 566
N.Y.S,2d 695 (1991), In Faya v. Almaraz, 620 A,2d 327 (Md, 1993), the Court 01
Appeals 01 Maryland allowed a case to proceed In which the plaintiff claimed that her
surgeon, who was Inlected with the AIDS virus, had a legal duty to Inform her 01 that
condition belore operating on her, and, laillng that, her lear 01 having contacted the
AIDS virus from the Inlected surgeon constituted a legally compensable Injury even
though she had not shown HIV-posltlve status, The Court made a review 01 cases In
various jurisdictions that have differed on the question 01 recovery 01 damages lor the
lear 01 AIDS and attendant physical consequences absent an HIV-posltlve test.
3, Plaintiff has also lailed to plead sufficient physical manllestatlons sufficient
to constitute the physical harm necessary to sustain a cause 01 action lor negligent
Inlllctlon 01 emollonal distress, Armstrong v. Paoli Memorial Hospital, 430 Pa,
Super, 36 (1993); Houston v. Texaco, Inc., 371 Pa. Super, 399 (19B8),
-5-
,-
...,.
-to
<::1 V) ..J
'" I/'}
I' \'; -' .J r-.
I .. rt ~ (l,.
lpl .,., , 14
I
I ...... "I
I
I' 0
, 'l:JI
1" 1 t) 'tl
I 0 d
r Ol
, "I
b;.
I
I t , d
. .
.
.. ,
.
'-'
.
.
Ill/IF
.
PYS5l0
1995-0]482 ~ILLIKAN
Cumberland County
cr"il Case
BARBARA \' S) HOLY
Prothonotary'o OffIce Page
Inquiry 7"""
SPIRIT HOSPITAL E'. ,IL
1
. .
Reference No..1 Filed........1 6/28/19~~
ca~e Type.....1 WRIT OF SUMMONS Time..!. ... ..1 0/00/21
Ju gmeflt '!' . . . 1 .00 Execut on Date 00
Ju ge Ass gnedl BAYLEY EDGAR B Sat/Dis/Gotd. 0/00/00 0
Jur~ Trial....
Iji9 er Court 1
i er Court 2
....................................................... ........................
General Index Attorney Info
MILLIKAN BARBARA PLAINTIFF DETHLEFS DARRELL C
56 HELLAM DRIVE
MECHANICSBURG PA 17055
HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL
503 NORTH 21ST STREET
CAMP HILL PA 17011
GRANDVIEW SURGERY CENTER LTD
205 GRANDVIEW AVENUE
CAMP ifILL PA 17011
GRANDVIEW SURGERY AND LASER
CENTER
205 GRANDVIEW AVENUE
CAMP HILL PA 17011
DEFENDANT
STONE CRAIG A
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT
................................................................................
· Date Entries ·
................................................................................
8~~n~~~
08/07/95
09/12/95
lH~Z~~~
12120195
02/09/96
PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS IN CIVIL ACTION-WRIT OF SUMMONS ISSUED
SHERIFF'S RETURN (SERVED DEFENDANTS 6/]0195)
SHERIFF'S COSTS $36.40 PO ATTY
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FOR HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL BY CRAIG A STONE ESO
PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT BY CRAIG A STONE ESO AND RULE
TO FILE COMPLAINT BY JANE H SPARLING PROTHONOTARY DEPUTY
COMPLAINT
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT BY JAYSON R WOLFGANG ESO
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANT HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL TO THE
COMPLAINT
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT - DATED 2/9/96 - IN RE PRELIMINARY
OBJECTIONS TO COMPLAINT - DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S CUASE OF ACTION
FOR NEGLIGF.NT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS IS GRANTED - BY
EDGAR B BAYLEY J - COPIES MAILED 2/9/96
................................................................................
· Escrow Information ·
· Fees & Debits Bea Bal Pvmts/Ad-l End Bal ·
................................,...............,...............................
WRIT OF SUMMONS
TAX ON WRIT
SETTLEMENT
JCP FEE
35.00
.50
5.00
5.00
35.00
.50
5.00
5.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
45.50 45.50 .00
................................................................................
· End of Case Information .
................................................................................
, -.
" ,
IIII e
, ,
I" i
I
I "
[ !
I ,~
L f !i
; , I ~
\' . ,
I " I , )
y
\,J
.
.
'/~ /1'.
"