HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-04184
'i
,
:1
"
'I
"
",
"
,
, '
I'
I'
"
"
,
;;
,"
, '
.
.
.. 8
Q) III
i fU
III j..~
III
.Ill .. C .... . c
J 8,.\11 . IQ'~ 0'. ~
....8 Qj t:lo &lCJ....~
. III . Q) r-
~t: :E Q .S ll.Q)~
IllCC . lol
...t Q) Iol ..... :. III .....
,,. ~ ~ Q) .c .... J III enllliCll ~II
~ c ....',. ..:l c~ .c:~
,,. CC /0 - I'OOCIol ,,. ....ll.CI\
CJ CC j....,,. ~ c C r-
. ....t:lo ,,. c i 0 .", co,
... .c: . CIl > Q) t en I "'I
CD ~ . . ,,. ':> lolCD
...t III U CJ >- CJ .. :1M .1
... '0 I .~ . ..a N i!
I OCll.Q ..:liZIIl
... .,...,.. Iol CC ,,.- I
Cl\ lol~ Ill.... i....~~~ . I
....~ !8i el,
1'0'" 8=1Il1llr- . I
Ii 0.:' CC Iii /0 "'CC- ....1
I
-
-,
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
In The Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
No. 94-4184 Civil Term
Writ of Summons and Request for
Production of Documents
patricia A. Haverstock and
William E. Haverstock
VS
Howard C. Beane, M.D., Beane & Kost
P.C. t/d/b/a Beane & Associates and
Holy Spirit Hospital
Michael Barrick, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to
law, says that on July 29,1994 at 11:50 o'clock A.M., E.D.S.T.. he served a
true copy of the within Writ of Summons and Request for Production of
Documents, in the above entitled action, upon the within named defendant, to
wit: Howard C.Beane, M.D., Beane & Kost P.C. t/d/b/a Beane & Associates, by
making ~nown unto Mary Barber, Office Manager and adult in charge at time of
service"at 645 12th Street, Lemoyne, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. its
contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and
attested copy of the same,
Michael Barrick, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to
law, says that on July 29, 1994 at 12:15 o'clock P.M., E.D.S.T.. he served a
true copy of the within Writ of Summons and Request for Production of
Documents, in the above entitled action. upon the within named defendants. to
wit: Holy Spirit Hospital, by making known unto Ursula Swartz.
Administrations Secretary, at North 21st Street, Camp Hill. Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania, its contents and at the same time handing to her
personally the said true and attested copy of the same.
Sheriff's
DOCketing
Service
Surcharge
Costs:
22.00
16.80
6.00
44.80
Pd. by Atty.
8-02-94
So Answers: ~~
~O~/ _ "~~..('
1 R. ~;~;;: d~IJjZff~
BY"'-~,~~,_
D put~'- 7", ?""",-'
BY~ ~ ~(~
". eputy She ff ")
Sworn and Subscribed to Before Me
This
(J~ Pay of ~I' d'
A.D.~.. C:, 1kJ~...... AJl~ry'
Pr t onotary "
1994.
CBR'I'U.lCATB.""OF_8BBYICB
I certify thBt I Bm this day serving B copy of the
foregoing document upon the persons and in the mBnner indicated
below, which service satisfies the requirements of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, by depositing a copy of
SBme in the United States Mail, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, with
first-clBSS postage, prepaid, as follows:
Dawn L. Jennings, Esquire
Angino & Rovner, P.C.
4503 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Howard C. Beane, M.D.
BeBne & Kost, P.C. t/d/b/a
Beane & Associates
645 12th Street
Lemoyne, PA 17043
METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
By:
i L._ SP J,~~/- .J"
'Craig A. Ston~, E~uire
Sup. ct. I. D. '15907
3401 North Front Street
P. O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA 17110-0950
(717) 232-5000
Attorneys for Defendant
Holy Spirit Hospital
DATE: Y Iv 1'1 'I
LCAS1l531
;11;.
.
=-=
Q~
...
C)
~
11
"
~r.:
~.~"l
I.d..."\.".I'
~I.~"l
~.~ ~~ ,..'),-~.
;) I ",r ~. '
, ..t,_1
'r.
;;- J.
, .,j"
"s>)
. -':)
u..;':'
'"
'I,,:-rT-"
It.,I<lII'I'''''',
1.;'\'......;.., ,"
,"
I',.
" .,
"
" .{ ,1.,'1 II' ,~" ~,,:
,"
',1:)1'
.
-':1"
'-)'j'
J
w ~
01
L~ ~
~ j Z
.
. ( "
: : j I ,
~
~ ~ d
~ ~
~ g . a:
i 1 ~
~
. (
I
.
,
v.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 94-4184
PATRICIA A. HAVERSTOCK and
WILLIAM E. HAVERSTOCK1
Plaint ffs
HOWARD C. BEANE, M.D.;
BEANE & KOST P.C. t/d/b/a
BEANE & ASSOCIATES, and
HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL,
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend aqainst
the claims set forth in the followinq paqes, you must take action
within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served,
by enterinq a written appearance personally or by attorney and
filinq in writinq with the Court your defenses or objections to the
claims set forth aqainst you. You are warned that if you fail to
do so the case may proceed without you and a judqment may be
entered aqainst you by the Court without further notice for any
money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief
requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or
other riqhts 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.
Court Administrator, 4th Fl.
Cumberland County Courthouse
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
240-6200
v.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 94-4184
PATRICIA A. HAVERSTOCK and
WILLIAM E. HAVERSTOCK1
Plaint ffs
HOWARD C. BEANE, M.D.;
BEANE & KOST P.C. t/d/b/a
BEANE & ASSOCIATES, and
HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL,
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
1. Plaintiffs patricia A. Haverstock and William E.
Haverstock are adult individuals residing in Camp Hill, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania.
2. Defendant Howard C. Beane, M.D. (hereinafter Defendant
Beane) is an adult individual licensed to practice medicine in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and who at all times relevant herein
was a urologist in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3. Defendant Beane & Kost P.C. t/d/b/a Beane and Associates
(hereinafter Beane & Associates) is a professional medical
corporation with offices and facilities in Camp Hill, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania.
4. At all relevant times herein, Defendant Beane was acting
as the agent, apparent agent, servant, apparent servant, employee
and/or apparent employee of Defendant Beane & Kost, P.C. t/d/b/a
Beane & Associates and was acting within the scope of his
employment.
5. At all relevant times herein, the medical staff, nursing
523B5/MMP
staff, and physicians that provided care to Plaintiff Patricia A.
Haverstock were acting as ths agents, apparent agents, servants,
apparent servants, employees and/or apparent employees of Defendant
Beane & Kost, P.C. t/d/b/a/ Beane & Associates and were acting with
the scope of their employment.
6. Defendant Holy spirit Hospital is a corporate medical
institution with offices and facilities in Camp Hill, Cumberland
county, pennsylvania.
7. At all relevant times herein, Defendant Beane was acting
as the agent, apparent agent, servant, apparent servant, employee
and/or apparent employee of Defendant Holy spirit Hospital and was
acting within the scope of his employment.
8. At all relevant times herein, the medical staff, nursing
staff, hospital staff, physicians, physical therapists and all
other ancillary hospital personnel that provided care to Plaintiff
Patricia A. Haverstock in 1992 were acting as the agents, apparent
agents, servants, apparent servants, employees and/or apparent
employees of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital and were acting with
the scope of their employment.
9. On or around July 10, 1992, Patricia A. Haverstock, a 55
year old woman was admitted to Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital with
urinary incontinence.
10. On or around July 10, 1992, Patricia Haverstock underwent
a stamey urethropexy surgical procedure performed by Defendant
Beane.
11. Defendant Beane performed the above surgical procedure
using *2-0 prolene sutures.
12. On or around July 11, 1992, the day after the surgery,
Mrs. Haverstock complained to the nurse on duty at Defendant Holy
Spirit Hospital and to Defendant Beane of the pain she was
experiencing in the right groin region.
13. On or around July 11, 1992, neither Defendant Holy spirit
Hospital nor Defendant Beane took any action to explore and/or
diagnose the source of pain nor provided any treatment to Mrs.
Haverstock for her pain.
14. On July 14, 1992, Patricia A. Haverstock was released
from Holy Spirit Hospital.
15. Mrs. Haverstock continued to experience pain in her right
groin region which she indicated to Defendant Beane during
subsequent appointments.
16. On or around August 29, 1992, Defendant Beane indicated
to Mrs. Haverstock during her appointment at his office that the
pain was due to adhesions.
17. Defendant Beane did not take any other measures on or
around August, 1992 to explore the source of the pain or to treat
the pain.
18. Patricia Haverstock continued to experience pain in her
right pubic and groin region. On or around September, 1992, a lump
began to form in her right pubic and groin region.
19. On or around september 23, 1992, Patricia Haverstock
again contacted Defendant Beane at Defendant Beane & Associates
regarding the lump and pain.
20. Defendant Beane and Beane & Associates office notes
document Patricia Haverstock's call on or around september 23, 1992
and her complaints of swelling in her groin.
21. On or around September 29, 1992, Defendant Beane &
Associates' office notes document that Patricia Haverstock was seen
in Defendant's office complaining of lumps in or around her right
groin pubic region.
22. On or around september 29, 1992, Defendant Beane did not
examine or diagnose patricia Haverstock as to the cause of the lump
or the source of the pain.
23. Defendant Beane did not prescribe any medication and did
not provide any treatment for the lump and pain during the above
office visit.
24. On or around october, 1992, Patricia Haverstock began to
experience drainage from the area of the lump in or around her
right public area and groin region. Patricia Haverstock contacted
Defendant Beane regarding drainage. No one responded to this call.
25. On or around November 5, 1992, the lump in Mrs.
Haverstock's right pubic and groin region developed an open wound
approximately an inch in diameter which was infected and draining.
26. On or around November 5, 1992, Defendant Beane &
Associates' office notes document that Mrs. Haverstock was seen by
Or. Beane. De fondant Beane prescribed Neosporin cream, an over-
the-counter drug to treat this infection.
27. Mrs. Haverstock continued to experience great pain as
well as drainage from the open wound that had developed in her
right pubic and groin region.
28. Approximately six months after surgery, patricia
Haverstock's urinary incontinence reoccurred.
29. Defendant Beane's office notes document on or around July
28, 1993 a small amount of leakage in the right incision area.
Defendant Beane did not take any measures at that time to treat
this area.
30. On November 21, 1993, Mrs. Haverstock again phoned in due
to the soreness and pain she was experiencing in her right groin
region. However, again, neither Defendant Beane nor Defendant
Beane & Associates took any measures to diagnose or treat the
source of the pain.
31. On April 14, 1994, Patricia Haverstock saw her OB/GYN,
who diagnosed her as suffering from a draining wound on the right
side of her pubic region after her bladder surgery. At that time,
he referred her to a general surgeon.
32. On or around April, 1994, Patricia Haverstock's urinary
incontinence worsened.
33. On April 19, 1994, Patricia Haverstock saw a general
surgeon regarding the pain and lumps on her right pubic region.
After careful examination, the surgeon diagnosed a small, four
millimeter pustula and an immediately inferior sinus tract with a
blue piece of suture protruding.
34. On or around April 19, 1994, the surgeon excised an eight
millimeter length of 0 prolene suture from the lower sinus tract.
At that time, he performed an incision and drainage of the pustule.
35. On or around July 11, 1994 an exploration of the right
groin and excision of foreign body of the right groin was performed
at polyclinic Medical Center.
During this procedure, a large
bluish knot of prolene was excised. Additionally, eight millimeter
of two to three millimeter internal diameter of plastic material
was excised.
COUNT I
PATRICIA HAVERSTOCK AND WILLIAM E.
HAVERSTOCK V. HOWARD C. BEANE. M.D.
36. Paragraphs 1 through 35 are incorporated herein by
reference.
37. Defendant Beane is liable to Plaintiff for the injuries
which were directly and proximally caused by Defendant's negligence
in:
(a) performing the stamey urethropexy on July 10, 1992,
but failing to secure the sutures;
(b) performing the stamey urethropexy on July 10, 1992,
in such a manner that the sutures became loose, lodging in
Plaintiff's right groin and pubic region causing an abscess;
(c) performing a stamey urethropexy in such a manner
that the sutures loosened and detached, lodging in Plaintiffs'
right pubic and groin region forming an infected open wound;
(d) failing to perform the stamey urethropexy so that
the sutures would remain intact and in position;
(e) using the wrong type and/or size of suture necessary
to perform a stamey Urethropexy;
(f) failing to perform any post operative diagnostic
testing to determine the competency of the bladder and placement of
the sutures;
(g) failing to diagnose the foreign body found within
the right groin and pubic region;
(h) failing to diagnose the purulent drainage from the
right groin region;
(i) failing to examine Plaintiff's right groin region
for any possible foreign body;
(j) failing to examine Mrs. Haverstock's right groin
region for any continuous purulent drainage despite the knowledge
of such drainage;
(k) failing to determine the origin of Plaintiff's
complaints of pain and drainage in the right groin region prior to
April, 1994;
(1) failing to explore the right groin region to
determine the presence of any foreign bodies prior to April, 1994;
(m) failing to explore the right groin region to
determine the source of any infection prior to April, 1994;
(n) failing to prescribe any antibiotic treatment to
treat the infection in the right groin and pubic region;
(0) failing to recognize the chronic drainage of
Plaintiff's right groin;
(p) failing to remove the foreign bodies of Plaintiff's
right groin region;
(q) failing to recognize the significance of Plaintiff's
pain, drainage and open wound of the right groin and pubic region;
(r) recognizing the patient had an infection prior to
April 14, 1994 but failing to take steps to determine where the
infection was located, the nature of the infection or prevent the
spread or continued growth of the infection.
COUNT II
PATRICIA HAVERSTOCK AND WILLIAM E.
HAVERSTOCK V. BEAN & KOST tLQLP./a BEANE & ASSOCIATES
38. Paragraphs 1 through 35 and Count I are incorporated
herein by reference.
39. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Howard C. Beane,
M.D. and all medical personnel including physicians and nurse that
provided care to Plaintiff Patricia Haverstock were acting as
agents, apparent agents, servants, apparent servants, employees
and/or apparent employees of Defendant Beane & Kost, P.C. t/d/b/a
Beane & Associates and were acting in the scope of employment.
40. Defendant Beane & Kost, P.C. t/d/b/a Beane & Associates
acting through its agent, apparent agents, servants, apparent
servants, employees and/or apparent employees is liable to the
Plaintiffs for injuries alleged herein which were directly and
proximally caused by the De fendant' s negl igence by the acts set
forth in paragraphs (a) through (r) above and incorporated herein
by reference.
COUNT II I
PATRICIA HAVERSTOCK AND WILLIAM E._
HAVERSTOCK V. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL
41. paragraphs 1 through 35 and Count I are incorporated
herein by reference.
42. At all relevant times herein, Defendant Howard C. Beane,
M.D., all emergency room staff, all nursing staff, all medical
personnel, all hospital personnel, radiologist, all physical
therapists and any other ancillary hospital staff who provided care
to Plaintiff Patricia A. Haverstock in 1992 were the agents,
apparent agents, servants apparent servants, employees and/or
apparent employees of Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital and were
acting in the scope of their employment.
43. Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital acting through its agents,
apparent agents, servllnts and/or employees including Defendant
Howard C. Beane, M.D. and all emergency room staff, all nursing
staff, all hospital personnel, radiologist, and any other ancillary
hospital staff is liable to the Plaintiff for damages as alleged
herein were directly and proximally caused by its negligence in:
(a) failing to insure that Mrs. Haverstock recElived
appropriate medical treatment while a patient at Defendant Holy
spirit Hospital when they knew or should have known that
substandard treatment could cause other medical problems;
(b) performing the stamey urethropexy on July 10, 1992,
but failing to secure the sutures;
(c) performing the stamey urethropexy on July 10, 1992,
in such a manner that the sutures became loose, lOdging in
Plaintiff's right groin and pubic region causing an abscess;
(d) performing a stamey urethropexy in such a manner
that the sutures loosened and detached, lodging in Plaintiffs'
right pubic and groin region forming an infected open wound;
ee) failing to perform the stamey urethropexy so that
the sutures would remain intact and in position;
ef) using the wrong type and/or size of suture necessary
to perform a stamey Urethropexy;
(g) failing to perform any post operative diagnostic
testing to determine the competency of the bladder and placement of
the sutures;
(h) failing to recognize plaintiff's pain in her right
pubic and qroin region, the source of that pain, and the nature of
her pain;
(i) failing to report and notify the treating physicians
of the existence of Plaintiff's complaints of pain.
CLAIM I
PATRICIA A. HAVERSTOCK V. HOWARD C. BEANE, M.D.;
BEANE & KOST P.C. t/d/b/a, BEANE & ASSOCIATES, and
HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL
44. Paragraphs one through and Counts I, II, and III are
incorporated herein by reference.
45. As a direct result of Defendant's negligence, Patricia
Haverstock underwent two additional surgical procedures and a claim
is made therefor.
46. As a direct result of Defendant's negligence, Patricia
Haverstock suffered significant injuries and claim is made
therefor.
47. As a direct result of the Defendant's negligence,
Plaintiff patricia Haverstock has incurred, and in the future may
incur, medical expenses and a claim is made therefor.
48. As a direct result of the Defendant's negligence,
Plaintiff patricia Haverstock has undergone mental and physical
pain and SUffering, great inconvenience in carrying out her daily
activities, and a loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment and a
(
r'
~
I
claim i. made therefor.
49. As a direct result of this incident, Plaintiff Patricia
Haverstock is permanently scarred causing her considerable
emotional injury and a claim is made therefor.
50. As a direct result of this incident, Plaintiff patricia
Haverstock suffered a loss of earnings an a claim is made therefor.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant in
an amount in excess of Ten Thousand ($10,000) Dollars, exclusive of
interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount
requiring compulsory arbitration.
CLAIM I I
WILLIAM E. HAVERSTOCK V. HOWARD C. BEANE, M.D.;
BEANE & KOST P.C. t/d/b/a, BEANE & ASSOCIATES, and
HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL
I 51.
Complaint
I
I length.
'j
52.
paragraphs 1 through 35 and Counts I, II, III of this
are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at
Defendants are jointly and severally liable to william
Haverstock for damages as set forth herein.
53. By reason of the aforesaid injuries sustainod by his
wife, Plaintiff, William Haverstock has been, and in the future may
be, deprived of the assistance, companionship, consortium, and
society of his wifo, and a claim is made therefor.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant in
5. The averments of Paragraph 3 are incorporated by
reference as though fully set forth.
6. Admitted.
7. It is denied that Or. Beane was acting as the agent,
apparent agent, servant, apparent servant, employee and/or
apparent employee of Defendant Hospital at any time material to
Plaintiffs' Complaint. Rather, at all times material to
Plaintiffs' Complaint, Dr. Beane acted as an independent
contractor and staff physician who was not subject to control
by Holy Spirit Hospital concerning specific operative
techniques and/or the choice and use of specific surgical
supplies and materials.
8. It is admitted that plaintiff was treated by persons
who were agents, servants and employees, actual or ostensible,
of Holy Spirit Hospital, through and including July 1~, 1992.
In that the alleged agents, servants and employees, actual
and/or ostensible, are not identified by name in the averments
of the corresponding Paragraph, after reasonable investigation,
Defendant Hospital is without information or knowledge
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of
the corresponding Paragraph, the same are therefore denied and
- 2 -
strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at time of trial. The
averments of the preceding Paragraph are incorporated by
reference as though fully set forth.
9. It is admitted that Or. Beane admitted Mrs. Haverstock
to Defendant Hospital on July 10, 1992 with admitting diagnoses
of urinary stress and incontinence and nicotine addiction.
Defendant Hospital's records are incorporated by reference as
though fully set forth.
lO. It is admitted that on October 10, 1992, Dr. Beane
performed a Stamey urethropexy on Mrs. Haverstock at Holy
Spirit Hospital.
ll. According to the operative report, '2-0 prolene
sutures as well as other suture materials were used in the
course of the surgical procedure.
12. The averments of Paragraph 12 are denied in accordance
with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e) and as though
an Appearance were entered. The averments of portions of
Paragraph 12 are for answer by Dr. Beane and not Defendant
Hospital. The applicable nursing care notes from Defendant
Hospital's records are incorporated by reference.
- 3 -
13. Denied. Rather, according to the Defendant Hospital's
records, Mrs. Haverstock received Tylenol at 9:45 a.m. and
8:00 p.m. on July 11, 1992 in response to complaints of pelvic
pain. The Tylenol had been ordered, as needed, by Dr. Beane.
The balance of the averments of Paragraph 13 are denied in
accordance with Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1029(e)
and as though an Appearance were entered.
14. It is admitted that Mrs. Haverstock was discharged
from Holy Spirit Hospital by Or. Beane on July 14, 1992.
15.-35.
After reasonable investigation, Defendant
Hospital is without information or knowledge sufficient to form
a belief as to the truth of the averments of Paragraphs 15
through 35, inclusive, of Plaintiffs' Complaint, the same are
therefore denied and strict proof, if relevant, is demanded at
time of trial.
COUN'l'J
Patricia Haverstock awlWillial1tE....lIaYel'lltnl!Ir v.
lIowanlC..JJeau.e.M.D..
36. The averments of Paragraphs 1 through 35 of this
Answer with New Matter are incorporated herein by reference as
though fully set forth.
- 4 -
VERIFICATION
I, TENLEY WILLIAMSON, an authorized representative of Holy
Spirit Hospital, hereby acknowledge that I have read the
foregoing document and that the facts stated therein are true
and correct to the best of my knOWledge, information and belief.
I understand that any false statements herein are made
subject to penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. S4904, relating to unsworn
falsification to authorities.
HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL
/1 /'.
JAI'.& ~UI<C; d/M -'f-)
TENLEY LLIAMSON
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR - RISK MANAGEMENT
DATED:
\\\\4\ q~
, .
v.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERI~D COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 94-4184
PATRICIA A. HAVERSTOCK and
WILLIAM E. HAVERSTOCK,
plaintiffs
HOWARD C. BEANE, M.D.,
BEANE' KOST P.C. t/d/b/a
BEANE , ASSOCIATES, and
HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL,
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE TO NEW MATTER OF
DEFENDANT. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL
1. The allegations herein state a conclusion of law to which
no response i. necessary.
To the extent that a respon.e b
necessary, Plaintiffs specifically deny that the claims are barred
by a statute of limitation.
2. The allegations herein state a conclusion of law to which
no response is necessary.
To the extent that a response i.
necessary, Plaintiffs specifically deny that the Complaint fait. to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Defendant,
Holy Spirit Hospital.
3. The allegations herein state a conclusion of law to which
no response is necessary.
To the extent that a response is
necessary, Plaintiffs specifically deny that the damages did not
result from the acts or omissions of the agents, servants, or
employees of Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital.
4. The allegations herein state a conclusion of law to which
no response is necessary.
To the extent that a response ill
necessary, Plaintiffs specifically deny that the answering
. .
AND NOW, thi.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
\,:11 c2ay of
I)" ,
, 1994 I, J...i. K.
Wahh, an .mploy.. of An4jJino , Rovner, P.C., do hereby c.rtify that
I have ..rv.c2 a true anc2 correct copy or the PLAINTIFFS' RESPONSE
TO NEW MATTER OF DEFNDANT HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL in the unitec2 State.
mail, po.tag. prepaic2 at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, ac2c2r....c2 a.
follow.1
Leigh Ellis, Esquire
1850 William Penn Way
Suite 209
P.O. Box 10696
Lancaster, PA 17605-0696
Craig A. Stone, Esquire
METTE, EVANS , WOODSIDE
3401 North Front street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA. 17110
-;'-// " ( /
'- ./."..1>-1, .(j fL_kt.:J{ '-
Jessie K. Walsh
3
,I
I,
~ i::....
..
::r; ,:;1..:
~"" '" .,
N '.' '.
""', ,.. .
".
-
-
Ln
~ '...
., ,
<::l i."....;
therefore denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if
relevant.
s. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph five (5)
of the Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania
Rules of civil Procedure require no responsive pleading, are
therefore denied, and str ict proof thereof is demanded at tr ia l, if
relevant.
6. The allegations of paragraph four (4) are not applicable
to answering Defendants.
7. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph seven (7)
of the Complaint are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania
Rules of civil Procedure require no responsive pleading, are
therefore denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial, if
relevant.
8. The allegations of paragraph eight (B) are not applicable
to answering Defendants.
9. It is admitted that Mrs. Haverstock was admitted to Holy
Spirit Hospital on July 10, 1992 with an admitting diagnosis of
urinary stress incontinence and nicotine addiction. Further, it is
admitted that at the time Mrs. Haverstock was fifty-five years old.
By way of further answer, plaintiff I s medical records are in
writing and speak for themselves and are incorporated herein by
reference.
10. Admitted.
11. It is admitted that during the operative procedure, #2
prolene sutures were used. It is further admitted that other
2
lJuture materials were also used as set forth in the operative
report which is in writing and speaks for itself.
12. Denied as stated. Mrs. Haverstock's medical condition is
documented in writing in the medical records which speak for
themselves and no further response is required. To the extent the
averments differ from those recorded in the medical records than
they are denied as stated and strict proof thereof is demanded at
trial.
13. Denied. The plaintiffs are referred to defendant
Hospital'S records which indicate which treatment was provided to
Mrs. Haverstock. To the extent this averment applies that Dr.
Beane acted improperly or was in anyway negligent it is
specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded.
14. Admitted.
15. Denied as stated. Mrs. Haverstock's condi.tion as
reported to Or. Beane is documented in writing in his medical
records which speak for themselves and no further response is
required.
16. Denied as stated. It is admitted that there was an
office visit on August 27, 1992. Plaintiffs are referred to Dr.
Beane's office records which speak for themselves and no further
response is required.
17. Denied as stated. Mrs. Haverstock's condition as
reported to Or. Beane is documented in wI'iting in his medical
records which speak for themselves and no further response is
required. To the extent this averment appl ies that Dr. Beane acted
3
improperly or was in anyway negligent it is specifically denied sl,d
strict proof thereof is demanded.
lB. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the averments in paragraph eighteen (lB), and
therefore, demand strict proof thereof at trial, if relevant.
19. Denied as stated. It is admitted that on september 23,
1992 Mrs. Haverstock telephoned Dr. Beane's office. At that time,
Mrs. Haverstock complained of swelling in her groin.
20. Admitted.
21. Dr. Beane's office's notes are in writing which speak for
themselves and no further response is required.
22-23. Or. Beane did not examine or treat Mrs. Haverstock
on the September 29, 1992 visit, rather, Or. Kachel examined Mrs.
Haverstock. Further, the office notes from that visit are in
writing and speak for themselves.
24. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the averments .in paragraph twenty-four (24), and
therefore, demand strict proof thereof at trial, if relevant.
25. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the averments in paragraph twenty-five (25), and
therefore, demand strict proof thereof at trial, if relevant.
4
26. Denied as stated. Or. Beane's office notes are in
writing which speak for themselves and no further rosponse i.
required.
27. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the averments in paragraph twenty-seven (27), and
therefore, demand strict proof thereof at trial, if relevant.
2B. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the averments in paragraph twenty-eight (2B), and
therefore, demand strict proof thereof at trial, if relevant.
29. Denied as stated. Or. Beane's office notes are in
writing which speak for themselves and no further response is
required. To the extent this averment implies that Or. Beane was
negligent, it is specifically denied.
30. Denied as stated. It is admitted that there was a
telephone conversation on November 21, 1993. It is specifically
denied that Or. Beane failed to take appropriate measures or was in
anyway negligent.
31. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the averments in paragraph thirty-one (31), and
therefore, demand strict proof thereof at trial, if relevant.
32. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
5
thu truth of the averments in paragraph thirty-two (32), and
therefore, demand strict proof thereof at trial, if relevant.
33. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the averments in paragraph thirty-three (33), and
therefore, demand strict proof thereof at trial, if relevant.
34. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the averments in paragraph thirty-four (34), and
therefore, demand strict proof thereof at trial, if relevant.
35. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth of the averments in paragraph thirty-five (35), and
therefore, demand strict proof thereof at trial, if relevant.
COt1N'l' I
36. Defendants, Howard C. Beane, M.D. and Beane & Kost, P.C.,
incorporate harein by reference the averments contained in
paragraphs one (1) through thirty-five (35) of the foregoing Answer
as if fully set forth herein.
37 a-r. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant,
Howard C. Beane, M.D. was negligent and careless in his care and
treatment of plaintiff. To the contrary, Defendant, Howard C.
Beane, M.D. was at no time negligent and tended to the plaintiff
competently in accordance with accepted standards of care
consistent with the standards of the medical profession within the
communi ty. Moreover, the allegations contained in paragraph
6
thirty-seven (37), subparagraphs (a-r) are conclusions of law to
which the Pennsylvania Rules of civil Procedure require no
responsive pleading, are therefore denied, and strict proof is
demanded at trial, if relevant. Additionally, all allegations of
causation and consequential injury are specifically denied as
improper legal oonclusions and strict proof is demanded at trial.
with respect to plaintiff's allegations of injury, after reasonable
investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments in
paragraph thirty-seven (37), subparagraphs (a-r) and therefore,
demand strict proof thereof at trial, if relevant.
COUNT II
38. Defendants, Howard C. Beane, M.D. and Beane & Kost, P.c.,
incorporate herein by reference the averments contained in
paragraphs one (1) through thirty-seven (37) of the foregoing
Answer as if fully set forth herein.
39. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph thirty-
nine (39) of the complaint are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure require no responsive
pleading, are therefore denied, and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial, if relevant.
40. Denied. The allegations contained in paragraph forty
(40) of the Complaint are conclusions of law to which the
Pennsylvania Rules of civil Procedure require no responsive
pleading, are therefore denied, and strict proof thereof is
demanded at trial, if relevant.
7
COUNT .Ill
41. Defendants, Howard C. Beane, M.D. and Beane & Kost, P.c.,
incorporate herein by reference the averments contained in
paragraphs one (1) through forty (40) of the foregoing Answer as if
fully set forth herein.
42-43. The allegations of paragraphs forty-two (42) and
forty-three (43) are not applicable to answering Defendants.
CLAIM I
44. Defendants, Howard C. Beane, M.D. and Beane & Kost, P.C.,
incorporate herein by reference the averments Gontained in
paragraphs one (1) through forty-three (43) of the foregoing Answer
as if fully set forth herein.
45-50. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants,
Howard C. Beane, M.D. and Beane & Kost, P.C., were negligent. To
the contrary, Defendant, Howard C. Beane, M.D. was at no time
negligent and tended to the plaintiff competently in accordance
with accepted standards of care: consistent with the standards of
the medical profession within the community. Moreover, the
allegations contained in paragraphs forty-five (45) through fifty
(50) are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of
Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading, are therefore
denied, and strict proof is demanded at trial, if relevant.
Additionally, all allegations of causation and consequential injury
are specifically denied as improper legal conclusions and strict
proof is demanded at trial. with respect to plaintiff's
allegations of injury, after reasonable investigation, Defendants
B
are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the avermonts in paragraphs forty-five (45) through
fifty (50) and therefore, demand strict proof thereof at trial, if
relevant.
WHERE.'ORE, Defendants, Howard C. Beane, M.D. and Beane & Kost,
P.C., respectfully request that this Court grant judgment in their
favor and against the Plaintiffs on the Complaint, together with
costs, expenses and attorney's fees.
CLAIM II
51. Defendants, Howard C. Beane, M.D. and Beane & Kost, P.c.,
incorporate herein by referenco the averments contained in
paragraphs one (1) through fifty (50) of the foregoing Answer as if
fully set forth herein.
52-53. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendants,
Howard C. Beane, M.D. and Beane & Kost, P.C., were negligent. To
the contrary, Defendant, Howard C. Beane, M.D. was at no time
negligent and tended to the plaintiff competently in accordance
with accepted standards of care consistent with the standards of
the medical profession within the community. Moreover, the
allegations contained in paragraphs fifty-two (52) and fifty-three
(53) are conclusions of law to which the Pennsylvania Rules of
Civil Procedure require no responsive pleading, are therefore
denied, and strict proof is demanded at trial, if relevant.
Additionally, all allegations of causation and consequential injury
are specifically denied as improper legal conclusions and strict
proof is demanded at trial. with respect to plaintiff's
9
.
allegations of injury, after reasonable investigation, Defendants
are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the averments in paragraphs fifty-two (52) and
fifty-three (53) and therefore, demand strict proof thereof at
trial, if relevant.
Nil" MATTIlR
54. Defendants, Howard C. Beane, M.D. and Beane & Kost, P.c.,
incorporate herein by reference the averments contained in
paragraphs one (1) through fifty-three (53) of the foregoing Answer
as if fully set forth herein.
55. The Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.
56. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part by the
doctrines of contributory/comparative negligence and assumption of
risk.
57. Plaintiffs have not sustained any injuries cognizable
under Pennsylvania law as a consequence of answering Defendants
alleged action.
58. Plaintiffs' claims are barred in whole or in part because
Plaintiff's alleged injuries, if any, were not caused by the
actions of Defendants, Howard C. Beane, M.D. and Beane & Kost, P.C.
59. Plaintiffs' claims are barred because the Plaintiffs have
sustained no injuries in fact.
60. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable statute
of limitations.
10
Detendants alleged action. Furthermore, plaintitts have sustained
injuries recoqnized under Pennsylvania Law as a result of the
actions of answerinq Detendants.
158. The allegation herein states a conclusion of law to which
no response is necessary. To the extent that a response ia
nece.sary, Plaintiffs specifically deny that their claims are
barred in whole or in part because Plaintitts' alleged injuries
were not caused by the action ot Defendants, Howard C. Beane, M.D.
and Beane and Kost, P.C.
159. The allegation herein state. a conclusion of law to which
no response is necessary. To the extent that a response is
necessary, Plaintiffs specitically deny that her claims are barred
because she sustained no injuries. In tact, the Complaint
sutticiently sets out the injuries sustained by Plaintitt..
60. The allegation herein states a conclusion of law to which
no response is necessary. To the extent that a response is
necessary, Plaintifts specifically deny that her claims are barred
by the applicable statute of limitations.
61. The allegation herein states a conclusion of law to which
no response is necessary. To the extent that a respon.e i.
necessary, Plaintiffs specitically deny that they have not alleged
tacts sufficient to support their allegations of neqligence.
Furthermore, Detendants tailed to tile timely preliminary
2
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
\t'I' I \
AND NOW, this ' day of "I J'
, 19915 I, Je..ie It.
Wal.h, an employee of Angino , Rovner, P.c., do hereby certify that
I have .erved a true and correct copy of Plaintiff.' An.wer to New
Matter of Defendant. Howard C. Beane, M.D. and Beane' !to.t, P.C.
in the United Stat.. mail, po.tag. pr.paid at Harri.burq,
P.nn.ylvania, addr....d a. follow.:
Leiqh Ellie, Esquire
1850 William Penn Way
Suite 209
P.O. Box 10696
Lanca.ter, PA 17605-0696
Craiq A. Stone, Esquir.
METTE, EVANS , WOODSIDE
3401 North Front Street
P.O. Box 5950
Harrisburg, PA. 17110
) I . "
/ td,k t) ( ~/"..J'~i{ "-
J...i. It. Wal.h
.
.
~1 r Y ') f' l(Jnr~ .I
I ,I ,_n "J..'u"'.....
PATRICIA A. HAVERSTOCK and
WILLIAM I. HAVERSTOCK,
plaintiff.
I IN THI COURT or COMMON PLIAS
I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
I
I CIVIL ACTION - LAW
I NO. 94-4184
I
I
I
I
I
I JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
v.
HOWARD C. BEANE, M.D.;
BIAN! . KOST P.C. t/d/b/a
BIAN! . ASSOCIATES, and
HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL,
Defendant.
ORDER
Con.iderinq the foregoing Motion to Withdraw a. Coun.el of
Record for the Plaintiff., Patricia A. Haverstock and William I.
Haver.tock.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Dawn L. Jenning., Esquire and the
law fin of Angino , Rovner, P.C. are granted leave of Court to
withdraw a. counsel of record for the Plaintiff., Patricia A.
Haver.took and William E. Haverstock.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs, Patricia A. Haver.took
and William E. Haver.tock, are granted 90 day. to retain new
coun.el and have that attorney enter an appearance on their behalf
in thia action.
J.
...
PATRICIA A. HAVERSTOCK and
WILLIAM I. HAVERSTOCK,
plaintiff.
IN THI COURT or COMMON PLIAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 114-4184
v.
HOWARD C. BBANE, N.D.,
BlANE , KOST P.C. t/d/b/a
BlANE , ASSOCIATES, and
HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL,
Detendant.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
MOTION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL OF RECORD
AND NOW into Court come. Dawn L. Jenning., Esquire and the law
tirm ot Anqino , Rovner, P.C. and respecttully move. tor an order
qrantinq leave to withdraw .s counsel of record on behalt ot the
Plaintiff., Patricia A. Haverstock and William E. Haverstock,
Counsel has corresponded with Plaintitts about hirinq a new
attorney.
Undersiqned counsel there tore respect tully request. that this
Honorable Court grant leave to withdraw as counsel ot record tor
Plaiiltiffs in this action and to turther qrant Plaintitts an
additional 90 days to retain new counsel and have their new
attorney enter an appearance on hi. behalt.
2
"
~ ~:>'.
-
:r.:
<>-
C)
q
M
I.. ..;
~~ J ','
l~. ;") ,~,
:,
"
c:::I
l , ~
t.'
.,
",.,t
...
,'l"
..,. ".0 t" "9
lit: .....
-, -' ........
I.. .. l . -oil
c. I': ~:
HJ. " .....
Ef . ~ ,I ~
....; '1
.jr.
~1: . - . ,'"
I
LJ':' I' C' ,Ii,','
. ')1)...
'I ....-
" r- ,J ,J
() ':1'. ~
'tt
~ r
:t1.","",,:. "1-\',\":"'H ~ 'I)\'Ol'.lnl'luH:'
,......fr,.l.nd.'lfJ Ar Lr.\'t'
HAI1"m!ln'Jll'~ PIHIN,iYL.y,INIA 1-/110(1')'1'"1
... O. IIUi( !~9!10
1Vi~\H l\ ;j 1~1~~)f...-
~
L!
~ ~ ~ :
" () .
U II!
I ~ I ·
rl
.~,../ '." '.
{
I.
~. I
.
1
.i
IJ
;- r- ~
~f Q ~'..
.. .~~~,.
e:~?: ...:r I..)";':
f.-I ~,~.: "...).?
-? ...... ~~.J ;?j
'"
~') t- o"~ ~:-.
',,' It?
)11 N ..1..;,
0-'"
Eel.l! 00: <l~
0..
r..." ...~ D
!'!. CXl a
u C7I
'.,
6; ,.... ::..
_"t 1:-:
~..; ..',.
.. "'J.,eJO
IIJ~~ ,'oJ )..,
t);~,.. "ll:: :.)~F
/I: "' ~ I=:J
't'r ;..>-
'1'("' '3\ !IJ)
6'" I ,: I C;;
'1': 'i15
0.:'1. :t! II L
~ ",Jr:<.-
r~ "'ie
~ ex) r:_)
en c)
~
PORR , ASSOCIATES, P.C.
BY: Daniel L. Grill
Identification No. ~S339
1850 William Penn Way
suite 209
P.O. Box 10696
Lancaster, PA 17605-0696
(717) 390-3020
60,224
Attorneys for Defendants:
Howard C. Beane, M.D. and
Beane & Kost, P.C.
PATRICIA A. HAVERSTOCK and
WILLIAM E. HAVERSTOCK
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
v.
HOWARD C. BEANE, M.D.
and
BEANE & KOST, P.C. t/d/b/a
BEANE & ASSOCIATES
No. 94-4184
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
AM.NDBD NBW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT OF DEFBNDANTS
HOWARD C. BEANE. M.D. AND BEANE' ASSOCIATES
Defendants, Howard C. Beane, M. D. and Beane & Associates,
hereby amend their New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint (or Amended
complaint) to include the following averments:
1. Defendants were insured under a policy issued by
Physicians Insurance Company (PIC).
2. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania entered an Order
of Liquidation with a finding of insolvency against PIC effective
January 21, 199B.
3. As a result of the Liquidation order, the provisions of
40 P.S. S 991.1817 (a) apply to the plaintiffs' claim.
This
provision provides, in relevant part, that:
Any person having a claim under an insurance
policy shall be required to exhaust first his
right under such policy. For purposes of this
section, a claim under an insurance policy
shall include a claim under any kind of
insurance, whether it is first-party or third-
party claim, and shall include, without
(),
PORR , ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Daniel L. Grill, Esquire
1.0. No. 65339
1850 William Penn Way
P. O. Box 10696
Lance.ter, PA 17605-0696
(717) 390-3020
PATRICIA A. HAVERSTOCK and
WILLIAM E. HAVERSTOCK
Attorneys for Defendants
Howard C. Beane, M.D.
and Beane' Kost, P.C.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
v.
HOWARD C. BrANE, M.D. and
BEANE' KOST, P.C., t/d/b/a
BEANE , ASSOCIATES
No. 94-4184
IIOTtOIl TO COIIPlL OJ' DIlJ'llNDANT8 HOWARD C. BIANIl, lI.n.' MID
DIANI . lOST. P.C. tJ4JbJa BIlANI . ASSOCIATlla; ,~
r. ".j
The Defendants, Howard C. Beane, M.D. and Beane ~ !Cost,;'
, )
"
"
"
'..)
,', :' J
P.C., t/d/b/a Beane & Associates, by and through their, ~tto~#leYar\
. F r"..J il'r1
Porr , Associates, p.e., hereby file the present Motion~~o ~pmp'~l
~.... (..v ......
Plaintiffs to Answer Defendants' discovery requests, and in
support thereof allege the following:
1. The Plaintiffs instituted this medical malpractice
action by filing a Praecipe for Writ of Summons on July 27, 1994
2. On August 11, 1994, the Defendants served Plaintiffs'
counsel with discovery requests including Interrogatories - Set 1
and Set 2, and Request for Production of Documents - Set 1 and
Set 2.
3. The Defendants ruled the Plaintiffs to file a Complaint
on August 12, 1994.
4. The Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against the moving
Defendants on October 31, 1994.
5. On May 30, 1995, counsel for Plaintiffs filed a Motion
to Withdraw as counsel of record. A Rule was issued on that date
by Judge J. Wesley Oler, Jr.,
6. No objections were lodged to the Motion to withdraw as
counsel of record, and Plaintiffs' counsel was granted leave to
withdraw on September 1, 1995.
7. The Plaintiffs have failed to supply answers to
Defendants' discovery within thirty days of service of same, in
violation of Pa.R.e.p. Nos. 4006 and 4009.
8. The Plaintiffs did not file objections to Defendants'
discovery requests within thirty days after service of same.
9. To date, th~ Plaintiffs have failed to respond in any
way to Defendants' discovery requests.
10. The information requested in Defendants' discovery is
either in the possession of the Plaintiffs, or the source thereof
is under their control.
11. The Defendants are prejudiced by the Plaintiffs'
failure to answer their legitimate discovery requests since it is
impossible to prepare a defense without this information.
WHEREFORE, the Defendants, Howard C. Beane, M.D. and Beane &
Kost, P.C., t/d/b/a Beane & Associates, respectfully request that
this Court order the Plaintiffs to serve full and complete
answers to Defendants' Interrogatories - Set 1 and 2 and Request
-2-
'[;: Q ?=
." er;
~;':: .. o-~.~
~~''''J (>" ,",~, "I"r
f' ,.,. '-J.~
I, - . . ~ r):'i'
)!:' lJ.. " 'i
[;" m ' J;~l
fl'" ('>/ 'I,)
j'
l.'....IJ f;j 'i ~,:
,., IltLJ
Vl "}<J,;
~j m Z1
0'
.,