HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-05664
s
~
<..!)
.Jl
I
\
,
\
- '
d'
1)
tt
~ \
!
j
::(
-.9
"
l.()
,
-:r
0-'
TWILA S. SCHOFFSTALL and
DANIEL E, SCHOFFSTALL,
plaintift.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
THOMAS J. GREEN, M.o"
Detendant No. 94-5664 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: CONTINUANCE
AND NOW, this 22nd day ot October, 1997, upon
consideration ot an oral motion made on behalt of Defendant at
the pre-trial conference in this case held on october 22, 1997,
because of a conflict in counsel's scheduling and upon
representation of Plaintifts' counsel that he does not object to
the requested continuance, trial in this matter is continued to
the February 1998 term of court. The Prothonotary is directed
to list this case for that term ot court, and the Court
Administrator is requested to give priority to the sCheduling of
the case tor trial, This case is stricken from the November
1997 trial term list.
By the Court,
J
THOMAS A. LANG, ESQUIRE
For the Plaintiffs
PETER J. CURRY, ESQUIRE
For the Defendant
.
cV\l-U'_~ ...,.. ~ >: ....4
I. I}," tell LI'T
Court Administrator
ll<t
..
TWlLA S. SCHOFFSTALL and
DANIEL E. SCHOFFSTALL,
Plaintiffs
115
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
THOMAS J. GREEN, M.D"
Defendant
: No. 94-5664 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE
A pre-trial conference was held in the chambers
of Judge Oler on Wednesday, October 22, 1997. Present on behalf
of the Plaintiffs was Thomas A. Lang, Esquire. Present on
behalf of the Defendant was Peter J. Curry, Esquire. It is
noted that Defendant Carlisle Hospital has been dismissed from
the case,
This is a professional medical negligence action
arising out of the Defendant's alleged failure to diagnose a
fractured heel in the process of diagnosing a fractured ankle,
and allegedly negligent treatment with respect to both injuries.
The allegedly injured Plaintiff is Twila S. Schoffstall;
Plaintiff Daniel E. Schoffstall sues for loss of consortium.
The defense in the case is an absense of negligence.
This will be a jury trial in which, pursuant to
an agreement of counsel, each side will have four peremptory
challenges, for a total of eight. The estimated duration of
trial is three to four days,
Defendant has requested at the pre-trial
conference that this case be continued to the next term of court
because of a conflict in counsel's schedule, and the Plaintiffe
.
have indicated that they do not object to the continuance. 8y
separate Order of Court the Defendant's request for a
continuance will be granted, the Prothonotary will be directed
to list this ca.e for trial during the February 1998 term of
cou~t, and the Courc Administrator will be requested to give
pr.iority to the .che~uling of the case for trial (because this
is the second continuance) .
Plaintiffs' counsel has advised that he will be
furnishing a supplemental report of Dr. Stuart 0, Miller to
Defendant's counsel on the issues of current treatment,
prognosis and future medical needs.
Negotiations with respect to settlement are
ongoing in this case.
By the Court,
THOMAS A. LANG, ESQUIRE
PETERS , WASILEFSKI
2931 North Front street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
For the Plaintiffs
PETER J. CURRY, ESQUIRE
THOMAS, THOMAS , HAFER
305 North Front Street
P.O. Bos 999
Harrisburg, PA 17108
For the Defendant
,
CO p_'-L-'~ ......". c:. J
1"/2'1\'l1 LICI
Court Administrator
lkt
< ,
,.
.
.'-
{:;
, .~
fH' ~
:',';'
"
" <C. .,
( r-
r~ J
,
~:;)
~_..
~ . .
I
....... .....
TWILA S. SCHOfFSTALL and
DANIEL E. SCHOPFSTALL,
plaintiff.
#300LER
IN THE COURT or COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
,
THOMAS J. GREEN, M.D.,
Detendant No. 94-5664 CIVIL TERM
IN RE: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
A pretrial conterence was held in the chambers of
of Judge Oler on Wednesday, August 27, 1997. Present on behalf
of the Plaintiffs was Thomas A. Lang, Esquire, Present on
behalf ot the Defendant was Peter J. curry, Esquire. It is
noted that Defendant Carlisle Hospital has been dismissed from
the case.
This is a professional medical negligence action
arising out of Defendant's alleged failure to diagnosis a
fractured heel in the process of diagnosing a fractured ankle.
and allegedly negligent treatment with respect to both injuries.
The allegedly injured Plaintiff is Twila S. Schoffstall;
Plaintiff Daniel E. Schoffstall sues for loss of consortium.
The defense in the case is an absence of negligence.
This will be a jury trial in which, pucsuant to
an agreement of counsel, each side will have four peremptory
challenges, for a total of eight. The estimated duration of the
trial is three to four days.
Defendant has requested at the pretrial
-. "
."- ''1:')
r.,; '-
<, " j
,.'
UI ~..~ r'-' ,
.. , ..'.,.
"
,,'
t'"
( ':") -
C,; -
LL I
ll. C''''-. -
h , .. , I
V; '.-
f, r-
U .J
(..""! (..J
, ,
"
,\
'- c::') ';,"'.
i:r; " I.:,:
",
, - f,":; 7.-J .-..
Il " l
, . ,
I,:,' ....-
\J;. .,-,<, '1
{ I
ILl-
ll:J " .. " ,
[' l, , .c
c..'l
" ,... ~:-j
c' c' U
r i
~ ~
1 -:r-
6: :;,.. ]. '3.. -.t co
(~ - "') ,~
... .- :t
IE ..... 0 0 ~ -
.... '1
<n : ~/~' '~~ \J1 0 1t "Jl
<::> .
... . " 0 lfl !f. 8 'lL
0") " .> :r
....., " 'iT- f#
- :.'
0 ~;, .:'1
=
2~ 2
~~,EI
~J.i!
~ 'If
Hill
lL <l
. .
' . . . . .
. .
. ,
,..'
. -.
TWlLA S, SCHOFFSTALL and
and DANIEL E. SCHOFFSTALL,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
THOMAS J. GREEN, M.D. and
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendants
NO: ..tf9L/ - 5lo.~tf. C~ T€rl'1
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS
TO: PROTHONOTARY
Kindly issue a Writ of Summons against Thomas J. Green,
M.D. and Carlisle Hospital.
Date:/~ 3/11'11
PETERS & WASILEFSKI
BY:~
THOMAS A, LANG,
Attorney I. , #5
2931 Nort Fro Street
HarriSburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-7555
Attorney for Plaintiffs
..
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland
Twila S. Schoffstall and
Daniel E. Schoffstall
Court 01 Conunon Pleas
VL
No. _2~:,-!!li9LC;;MJ.._Tem_____m__m_ KIl___
In __C;;~yj.)"_~~UQD.. JAw________________________
Thomas J. Green, M.D.
220 Wilson Street, Suite 104
Carlisle PA 17013
Carlisle Hospital
246 Parker street
Carlisle PA 17013
and
To _ _J.~_.J,__Ck~nd~I.Q.._;m:l_ca:disJ.e.Hospital
You are hereby notified that
.________________________________~~!~_?_~_~~_~~!~l_~,__~~D~({~jSl~l_______________________
the Plaintiffs have commenced an action in __C;iY.ll..1<lll'--____________________________________. ----
agairut you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may be enlered apiNt you.
(SEAL)
Lawrence E. Welker
._-----------------p~~~~~~-----------_.._.._.
Dale ___qg!=~r_}_:r;:(L____________ I!1lL
By __u~'l..~E~_}:.:.~_\~?:..:.0.~eS___
Deputy
J ,
I ,
I
.. I I
~ ] ] ! I
..... I
g:Q ~ ~ I
... 33 I ~i I
. , .S
:;l c I
,
> ~~ I I lJI .... I
lJIJ!l I
," j " ."Glr; If
u ~! - .~l
fa J:;l ~
... .....1 lfl "':g
>D ~
>D UI ~ ~ cn~ 1<
'" ,,.; . <, <~ B~ I
., Ql ;.11 I
I Ul ..... I
... ~j !~ ! ~""'r~ I
a> .~l I
ul I
.....M .... I
~ ,&a> ....
N .... I
I
, I
"
;,;
-
......
~~::
:r:: \,.: ',.
c..,.... f.) "" .~.
c.:) . -, "I
.;;r
'.-:,:.,...
- .
N
,of
. .F
n, .If
r--. , ., ~i ':.~
.J;.''''
-
-
.,.
::.0::
.-
?,~"
2 ~ 0
U)j,=1
IL. ,..
~l.ji
~ j I R
;!Iil
\ill:
~ ~
I
"'
TWILA S. SCHOFFSTALL and
DANIEL E. SCHOFFSTALL,
Plaintiffs
IN 'I'HE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COL~Y, PENNNA.
v.
NO: 94-566.4
THOMAS J. GREEN, M.D., and
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICB
To: Defendant, Thomas J. Green, M,D.,
and his attorney,
Peter J. Curry, Esquire
Thomas, Thomas & Hafer
305 North Front Street
Sixth Floor
P,O. Box 999
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Defendant, Carlisle Hospital,
and its attorney,
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
Marshall & Farrell
1323 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COt'RT, If you wish to defend
against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take
action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint is 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 Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested
by the Plaintiff. 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 HELP.
CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE
Court Administrator
Cumberland County Courthouse
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 240-6200
TWILA S. SCHOFFSTALL and
DANIEL E. SCHOFFSTALL,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNNA.
v.
NO: 94-56654
THOMAS J. GREEN, M.D., and
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendants
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
AND NOW, come Plaintiffs, Twila S, Schoffstall and Daniel
E. Schoffstall, by and through their attorneys, Peters &
Wasilefski, and file this Complaint against Defendants, Thomas J.
Green, M.D. and Carlisle Hospital, based upon the following:
1. Plaintiff, Twila S. Schoffstall ("Mrs. Schoffstall),
is an adult individual residing at 581 Shumberger Lane, Boiling
Springs, CUmberland County, Pennsylvania 17057.
2. Plaintiff, Daniel E. Schoffstall ("Mr. Schoffstall"),
is an adult individual residing at 581 Shumberger Lane, Boiling
Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17057.
3, Defendant, Thomas J. Green, M.D, ("Dr, Green"), is an
adult individual licensed to practice medicine in the Commo~wealth
of Pennsylvania and currently maintains an office located at 220
Wilson Street, Suite 104, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
17013,
3. Defendant, Carlisle Hospital, is a corporate hospital
licensed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which currently
maintains a facility located at 246 Parker Street, Carlisle,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013-0310.
4. On or about October 7, 1992, Mrs, Schoffstall fell
off of a ladder while at home and immediately experienced pain and
swelling in her right leg as well as an inability to move and/or
walk.
5. Mrs. Schoffstall was transported to the Carlisle
Hospital and was admitted to the hospital on October 7, 1992 under
the services of Dr. Green who became her attending physician.
6. Dr. Green examined Mrs, Schoffstall in the Emergency
Room of the Carlisle Hospitai and ordered x-rays of Mrs.
Schoffstall's right ankle,
7, Based upon the x-rays and his examination of Mrs.
Schoffstall, Dr. Green diagnosed Mrs. Schoffstall's condition as a
bimalleolar fracture of the right ankle.
S. The x-ray report of the Carlisle Hos:pital dated
October 7, 1992 states in the "Impression" section as follows:
Unstable ankle fracture as described. probable calcaneal
fracture, as well, Additional views of the calcaneus are
necessary to confirm this possibility. Although a report
from a previous radiograph of the ankle is available for
review, films have been discarded.
9. Prior to her discharge on October 8, 1992, Dr. Green
never ordered any additional x-rays to further investigate the
"probable calcaneal fracture".
10. On October 7, 1992, Dr Green performed a closed
reduction, applied a cast, and admitted Mrs. Schoffstall for
overnight observation.
11. While in the Carlisle Hospital, Mrs, Schoffstall
experienced severe pain and was given Morphine to help combat the
pain. Due ~o an adverse reaction to the Morphine, Mrs, Schoffstall
was then given Tylenol number 4,
12. At the time of discharge, Dr. Green prescribed
Tylenol number 3 with Codeine which Mrs. Schoffstall was to take
every three hours as needed to combat her pain.
2
13. Mrs. Schoffstall was next seen by Dr. Green in hiD
office on October 13, 1992 at which time Dr. Green felt that the
follow-up x-rays were "quite satisfActory",
14. At the time of Mrs, Schoffstall's appointment with
Dr. Green on November 2, 1992, a walking cast was applied and she
was instructed to begin walking on the right ankle.
15, At the time of Mrs, Schoffstall's appointment with
Dr, Green on November 30, 1992, Dr, Green noted that there was no
x-ray evidence of healing, but he decided that she should go ahead
with a rehabilitation program,
16, Dr. Green agaJ.n saw Mrs. Schoffstall on December 28,
1992, but at that time no x-rays were ordered.
17. Mrs. Schoffstall's next appointment with Dr. Green
was on February 8, 1993 w,\ich was four months post-injury and two
months and one week after the last x-rays were ordered by Dr.
Green.
18. At the time of the February 8, 1993 appointment, Dr.
Green noted that Mrs. Schoffstall had a valgus deformity of the
right ankle and marked stiffness in a fixed valgus position of the
subtalar joint, Dr. Green also noted at that appointment that Mrs,
Schoffstall had broadening and shortening of the os calcis. Dr.
Green also noted at the time of that appointment that Mrs.
Schoffstall had plantar flexion to 20 or 30 degrees from full
plantar flexion as compared to the left side. In his office note
from that appointment, Dr. Green indicated, in part, the following:
Looking at her clinically and at her roentgenograms it
now becomes apparent to me for the first time that she
has a comminuted os calcis fracture to go along with her
ankle fracture which still shows delayed union.
3
19. As a result of the careless and negligent manner in
which Defendants provided sub-standard medical care and treatment
to Mrs. Schoffstall, she is left with a rather pronounced valgus
deformity of her right ankle, with corresponding pain, discomfort,
swelling, tenderness, instability and related symptoms.
20. As a result of the careless and negligent manner in
which the Defendants provided sub-standard medical care and
treatment to Mrs. Schoffstall, she suffers from poor weight bearing
stability, an altered posture, poor balance, a significant limp,
difficulty with transfers, pronounced atrophy of her ankle and foot
muscles, arthritis, and related symptoms.
21, As a result of the careless and negligent manner in
which Defendants provided sub-standard medical care and treatment
to Mrs. Schoffstall, she experienced a prolonged and/or incomplete
healing of her condition, and a corresponding reduced ability or
total inability to engage in pre-injury activities such as extended
walking, walking on inclines, climbing stairs, walking on uneven
terrain, volleyball, bicycling, hiking and most yard work.
22. As a result of the careless and negligent manner in
which the Defendants provided sub-standard care and treatment to
Mrs, Schoffstall, she suffers from lumber pain, discomfort,
tenderness, and related symptoms, as well as limited range of
motion in her lumbar area,
23. As a result of the careless and negligent manner in
which the Defendants provided sub-standard medical care and
treatment to Mrs. Schoffstall, the symptoms which she experiences
disturbs her ability to sleep at night.
24. As a result of the careless and negligent manner in
4
which the Defendants provided sub-standard medical care and
treatment to Mrs, Schoffstall, the disfigurement from which she
suffers also causes significant embarrassment and humiliation.
25, As a result of the careless and negligent manner in
which the Defendants provided sub-standard medical care and
treatment to Mrs. Schoffstall, she suffers from pain, discomfort
and disability due to significant muscle strain involving the
gluteals, quadriceps and plantar flexors.
26, As a result of the careless and negligent manner in
which the Defendants provided sub-standard medical care and
treatment to Mrs. Schoffstall, she suffered a malunion of the
bimalleolar fracture and of the calcaneus with disruption of the
subtalar joint.
27. As a result of the careless and negligent manner in
which the Defendants provided sub-standard medical care and
treatment to Mrs, Schoffstall, she has incurred medical bills and
expenses, and will continue to incur such expenses in the future
and claim is hereby made therefor.
28. As a result of the careless and negligent manner in
which Defendants provided sub-standard medical care and treatment
to Mrs. Schoffstall, she has suffered a loss of wages and a future
loss of earning capacity and claim is hereby made therefor.
29. As a result of the careless and negligent manner in
which the Defendants provided sub-standard medical care and
treatment to Mrs. Schoffstall, she has undergone and continues to
undergo medical care and treatment, and will have to undergo future
medical care and treatment with related bills and expenses, and
claim is hereby made therefor.
5
30. As a result of the careless and negligent manner in
which the Defendants provided sub-standard medical care and
treatment to Mrs. Schoffstall, she has undergone, and in the future
will continue to undergo mental and physical pain and suffering,
inconvenience, disfigurement, embarrassment, humiliation, reduced
01' total inability to carry out her daily activities and loss of
life's pleasures and enjoyment, and claim is hereby made therefor.
COUNT I
JNILA S. SCHOFFSTALL V. THOMAS J. OREEN. M,D,
31. Paragraphs 1 through 30 above are incorporated
herein by reference thereto as though set forth at length.
32. Defendant, Dr. Green was careless and negligent in
his treatment of Mrs. Schoffstall in the following respects:
(a) failing to obtain adequate x-rays on October 7,
1992 to adequately and properly evaluate Mrs.
Schoffstall's condition;
(b) failing to assure that optimal x-rays were
adequately and properly obtained;
(c) failing to adequately review the x-rays taken
on October 7, 1992;
(d) failing to observe, recognize and/or diagnose
the calcaneal fracture on October 7, 1992;
(e) failing to observe, recognize and/or diagnase
the calcaneal fracture until February 8, 1993;
(f) in failing to order and/or obtain additional x-
rays of the calcaneus on or about October 7, 1992 to
confirm the calcaneal fracture;
(g) in inappropriately deciding to perform only a
6
closed reduction with the applicaticn of a cast;
(h) in failing to properly perform the closed
reduction;
(i) in failing to perform an open reduction of the
fractures;
(j) in failing to utilize internal fixation with
orthopedic appliances and related hardware;
(k) in failing to perform the surgery that was
required considering the nature and extent of the
fractures;
(1) in failing to order and/or obtain any x-rays
from the date of the November 30, 1992 office visit until
the date of the February 8, 1993 office visit;
(m) in ordering and/or permitting weight bearing on
the right foot and ankle too soon;
(n) in failing to provide treatment within the
generally accepted medical standards required under the
circumstances then and there existing;
(0) in failing to adequately evaluate, examine and
care and treat for Mrs. Schoffstall as required under the
facts and circumstances then and there existing;
(p) in failing to possess adequate knowledge, training
and/or experience to properly treat Mrs. Schoffstall's
condition;
(q) in failing to timely obtain appropriate
consultations and/or opinions of other physicians to
assist in the care and treatment of Mrs. Schoffstall's
condition;
7
(r) in failing to observe, recognize and/or timely
diagnose the valgus deformity in Mrs. Schoffst;all's right
ankle;
(s) in failing to properly treat and care for the
valgus deformity after it was first observed, recognized
and/or diagnosed;
(t) in failing to order proper and appropriate
physical therapy; and
(u) in failing to diagnose and treat the calcaneal
fracture.
33. The careless and negligent manner in which the
Defendants provided sub-standard medical care and treatment to Mrs.
Schoffstall caused and/or contributed to the various medical
problems, physical signs and symptoms and disability as set forth
above.
34. The careless and negligent manner in which the
Defendants provided sub-standard medical care and treatment to Mrs,
Schoffstall caused and/or increased the risk that Mrs, Schoffstall
would suffer permanent injuries and disabilities.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Twila S. Schoffstall demands that
judgment be entered in her favor and against Defendant, Thomas J.
Green, M,D. in an amount in excess of $20,000.00, exclusive of
interest and costs, and/or in excess of any jurisdictional amount
requiring compulsory arbitration.
COUNT II
DANIEL E. SCHOPP'STALL V. THOMAS J. GREEN. I1JL.
35, Paragraphs 1 through 34 above are incorporated
herein by reference thereto as though set forth at length.
8
36. As a result of the careless and negligent manner in
which Defendants provided sub-standard medical care and treatment
to Mrs. Schoffstall, Mr. Schoffstall has suffered and continues to
suffer the loss of the services, society, companionship and
consortium of his wife, Twila S, Schoffstall.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Daniel E, Schoffstall demands that
judgment be entered in his favor and against Defendant, Thomas J.
Green, M,D., in an amount in excess of $20,000.00, exclusive of
interest and costs, and/or in excess of any jurisdictional amount
requiring compulsory arbitration.
COUNT III
TWILA S. SCHOFFSTALL V. CARLISLB HOSPITAL
37. Paragraphs 1 through 36 above are incorporated
herein by reference thereto, as though set forth at length,
38. Carlisle Hospital owed a nondelegable duty directly
to Mrs, schoffstall to insure her safety and well-being while a
patient at Carlisle Hospital.
37. Carlisle Hospital failed to uphold the proper
standard of care owed to Mrs, Schoffstall in the following
particulars:
(a) failing to properly select and retain competent
physicians to provide care and treatment to patients
including Mrs. Schoffstall as previously set forth
herein;
(b) in failing to oversee the physicians, including
Thomas J. Green, M.D, and other healthcare providers
practicing medicine within Carlisle Hospital, so as to
insure the rendering of good medical care to patients,
9
including Twila S. Schoffstall as previously set forth
herein; and
(c) failing to properly formulate, adopt and
enforce adequate rules and policies to insure quality
care for their patients, including the care and treatment
administered to Mrs. Schoffstall as previously set forth
herein,
40, Carlisle Hospital, through its administration,
agents, servants and/or employees, had actual or constructive
notice of procedures and/or negligent medical
administered to Mrs. Schoffstall.
treatment
41, The carelessness and negligence of Carlisle Hospital
either caused or increased the risk that Mrs. Schoffstall would
suffer permanent injuries and disabilities as set forth herein,
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Twila S. Schoffstall demands that
judgment be entered in her favor and against Defendant, Carlisle
Hospital, in an amount in excess of $20,000.00, exclusive of
interest and costs, and/or in excess of any jurisdictional amount
requiring compulsory arbitration.
COUNT IV
DANIEL E. SCHOPPSTALL V. CARLISLE HOSPITAL
42. Paragraphs 1 through 41 above are incorporated
herein by reference thereto as though set forth at length.
43, As a result of the careless and negligent manner in
which the Defendants provided sub-standnrd medical care and
tredtment to Mrs. Schoffstall, Mr, Schoffstall has suffered and
continues to suf fer the loss of the services, society,
cQmpanionship and consortium of his wife, Twila S. Schoffstall.
10
VBRIPICATIOJ{
I hereby affirm that the following facts are correct:
I am one of the Plaintiffs in the foregoing action; the
attached Complaint is based upon information which I have furnished
to my counsel and information which has been gathered by my counsel
in the preparation of the lawsuit. The language of the Complaint
is that of counsel and not of me. I hava read the Complaint and to
the extent that the same is based upon information which I have
given to my counsel. it is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content
of the Complaint is that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in
making this Verification. I hereby acknowledge that the facts set
forth in the aforesaid Complaint is made subject to the penalties
of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
~:l~ :~\)~g~J~
Dan el E. Schoffstall
Date:
\\ - ,~,q \\-
CKRTIPICATB OP SBRvrCB
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the
foregoing, COMPLAINT, has been duly served upon all counsel of
record and parties of interest by depositing the same in the United
Pennsylvania, on this
class, postage
I &;/1- day of
prepaid,
AJ1U'
in
Harrisburg,
, 1994, and
States mail, first
addressed as follows:
Peter J. CUrry, Esquire
Thomas, Thomas & Hafer
305 North Front Street
Sixth Floor
P.O. Box 999
Harrisburg, PA 17108
Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire
Marshall & Farrell
1323 North Front Street
Harrisburg, FA 17102
~~ /2. fv;~
Secretary
i
4
,
I
,
II
,I
COMMONWEALTH or PENNSYLVAN[A:
COUNTY OF CUM8ERLAND
In The Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
No. 94-5664 Civil Term
Writ of Summons
Twila S. Schoffstall and
Daniel E, Schoffstall
~,
-rA"........ G'..!I.'-
c..:IA/fJ1tI.. }J..;,:i"{
Robert L. Fink, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to
law, says that on October OS, 1994 at 11:10 o'clock A.M., E.D.S.T., he served
a true copy of the within Writ of Summons, in the above entitled action,
upon the within named defendant, to wit: Thomas J, Green, M.D., by making
known unto Gerry Stouffer, adult in charge at time of service, at 220 Wilson
Street, Carlisle, Cumberland County. pennsylvania, its contents and at the
same time handing to her personally the said true and attested copy of the
same.
Robert L. Fink, Deputy Sheriff. who being duly sworn according to
law, says that on October 05, 1994 at 11:05 o'clock A.M., E.D.S.T., he served
a true copy of the within Writ of Summons, in the above entitled action,
upon the within named defendant, to wit: Carlisle Hospital, by making known
unto Mark Harmon, Risk Manager and adult in charge, at 246 Parker Street,
Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, its contents and at the same
time handing to him personally the said true and attested copy of the same.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing
Service
Surcharge
So Answers:
18.00
5.60
4.00
27.60 Pd. by Atty.
10-07-94
,
R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff
By~:5fr7'~~
epu y Sheriff
Sworn and Subscribed to Before Me
This /3 g- Day of (}d;;l...~
1994. A. D. ('L.1L~ c.. Hi...({.,,,, ,tg,..r.-
~~honotary ,
-::r
<'.n
"
.....
(t")
,,..,
-
,.
~.):
u
~ ~
J...5
;.:j::l~
folOllZ
Illlii~
~~~
~~~
~~~
...l"'<.:l
...loo::
<z:J
..."'~
.....-
lIl"'o::
Ill-~
< =
~
.' J
.. "
f;
.'
-
.
AND NOW, this 17th day of October, 1994, I, Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire, hereby
certify that I served a tnle and correct copy of the foregoing ENTRY OF APPEARANCE upon
all counsel of record by depcsiting a copy of same in the United States mail, regular delivery,
postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows:
Thomas A. Lang, Esquire
PETERS &. W ASILEFSKI
2931 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(Counsel for Plaintiffs)
THOMAS, THOMAS &. HAFER
30S North Front Street
P.O. Box 999
Harrisburg, PA 17108
(Counsel for Dr. Green)
-00
~
-c:r
en
,".,
~. ,
.. .~ ~
~-
.,
c.)
~ ~
~ ...
~ ... '"
~ 0
~ 6
~ OIl ~
"'a ~ . ~
z .
0 . oj
t~ 0 ~
. ~
ci '"
'"
~= . ii
J a:
c
0 z
...
,.
..
,
..,
r
..
..
,.-t,
....
-
.
TBONAa, TBOJQ8 , HAJ'1Ul
BY: Peter J, curry, Esquire
Identification No, 16622
BY: Margaret A. Sheaffer, Esquire
Identification No. 55802
2305 North Front Street
P.O. Box 999
Harrisburg, PA 17108
(717) 255-7637/7607
Attorneys for Defendant Thomas J. Green, M.D.
TWILA SCHOFFSTALL
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v.
No. 5664 CIVIL 1994
THOMAS J. GREEN, M.D and
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Defendants
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE
TO: THE PROTHONOTARY
Please enter my appearance on behalf of Thomas J. Green, M.D.,
Defendant in the above-referenced matter.
Thank you.
,.THOMAS,
,~
BY:
er J. re
I.D. No.
305 Nor street
PO Box 99
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0999
(717) 255-7637
Date: October 24, 1994
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
THOMAS J. GREEN. M.D.
-:r
en
~
.. .
.
~ J
lit
1,1
~
...,
c:;.~
~~
~ ~ ~ ~
= ... ~ 5 ~
E! Q ~ " ,,'
~ j~ ~ !
a ~ ~ ~
E! ...
~
,
. "
....
,
i1
..
~
.:
~
-
.
THOXAB, THOJIAB , 3AJ'IlR
BY: Peter J. Curry, Esquire
Identification No. 16622
2305 North Front Street
P.O. Box 999
Harrisburq, PA 17108
(717) 255-7637
Attorney. for Defendant Thoma. J. Green, M.D.
TWILA SCHOFFSTALL
Pla1ntitf
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
No. 5664 CIVIL 1994
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
v.
THOMAS J. GREEN, H.D and
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendants
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPIl FOR RULli TO FILII COMPLAINT
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please enter a Rule upon the Plaintiff, in the above-captioned
action, to file a Complaint within twenty (20) days of service of
the Rule or suffer a jUdgment of non pros pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.
1037.
Date:."-"! (J/t:jcl
B
street
17108-0999
AND NOW, this r:JsI^ day of (~idt:jl/j
, 1994, a
Rule has been entered upon Plaintiff to file a Complaint in the
above-captioned matter within twenty (20) days of service of the
Rule or suffer a jUdgment of non pros pursuant to Pa.R,C.P, 1037.
~. #I;,~tl- k! ,~/~ Dr/~1
P othon tary
,
.
..
.
CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICE
I, Peter J. Curry, Esquire, do hereby certify that I served the within
PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE A COMPLAINT by depositing a copy of the same In the
United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Thomas A. Lang, Esquire
PETERS & WASILEFSKI
2931 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Francis Marshall, Jr., Esquire
MARSHALL & FARRELL
1323 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER
Q t~~'
"'eter '. urry /J ~/'(;
305 N rtfi Front Street
P. O. Box 999
Harrisburg, PA 17108
1.0. No. 16622
Attorneys for Defendant Green
DATED: d'tfa;. tJ'/
-r-
ei,
:1":':.
..:.~-
'"'
w
-::,-
("~.
'-'
'...J
C.l
~
~ ~ ~ ~
;__~i~
~ II ~ I'
I" ~ ~ ~
~
. .
. .
THOMAS, THOMAS & HAFER
BY: Peter J. Curry, Esqulro
IDENTIFICATION NO.: 16622
305 North Front 9u",
P. O. Boa 899
Harrl.burg. PA 11108
11111 255-7831
Altornay 10' Defendant Green
TWILA S. SCHOFFSTALL and
DANIEL E. SCHOFFSTALL,
Plaintiffs
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
,
,
v.
: SI..f...L/
: No. 94-56654
,
,
THOMAS J. GREEN, M.D. and
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
,
,
Defendants
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ANSWER OF THE DEFENDANT.
THOMAS J. GREEN, M.D., TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT
AND NOW comes the Defendant, Thomas J. Green, M.D., through his
attorneys, Thomas, Thomas & Hafer, to answer Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows:
1 . 3. The averments contained In Paragraphs 1 through 3 of Plaintiffs'
Complaint are admitted.
4 - 18. The averments contained In Paragraphs 4 through 18 of
Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied generally pursuant to and in accordance with Pa.
R. C.P. No. 1029(e) and proof thereof Is demanded at the time of trial.
19 - 30. The averments contained In Paragraphs 19 through 30 of
Plaintiffs' Complaint set forth conclusIons as opposed to statements of fact and no
response is required. Nevertheless, said averments are denied and proof thereof Is
demanded at the time of trial.
COUNTJ
31. Paragraphs 1 through 30 of this Answer to PlaIntIffs' ComplaInt are
Incorporated herein by reference as If set forth at length.
32. The averments contained In Paragraph 32 of PlaIntiffs' ComplaInt
set forth conclusions as opposed to statements of fact and no response Is required.
Nevertheless, said averments are denied and proof thereof Is demanded at the time
of trial. Furthermore, the responding Defendant believes and therefore avers that at
all times relevant hereto he acted in accordance with applicable standards of medical
and orthopedic care,
33.34. The averments contained In Paragraphs 33 and 34 of Plaintiffs'
Complaint set forth conclusions as opposed to statements of fact and no response Is
required. Nevertheless, said averments are denied and proof thereof Is demanded at
the time of trial.
WHEREFORE, the responding Defendant demands judgment In his favor
and against Plaintiffs.
COUNT /I
35. Paragraphs 1 through 34 of this Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint are
Incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length.
36. The averments contained in Paragraph 36 of Plaintiffs' Complaint
set forth conclusions as opposed to statements of fact and no response Is required.
Nevertheless, saId averments are denIed and proof thereof Is demanded at the tIme
of trIal,
WHEREFORE, the responding Defendant demands judgment In his favor
and against Plaintiffs.
COUNT /II
37. Paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint are
incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length.
38 - 41. The averments contained in Paragraphs 38 through 41 of
Plaintiffs' Complaint do not pertain to the responding Defendants and no answer Is
required, However, to the extent that said Paragraphs are intended to Implicitly or
explicitly aver negligence, incompetence, or wrongdoing of any kInd on the part of
Dr. Green, said averments are specifically denied and proof thereof is demanded at the
time of trial.
WHEREFORE, the responding Defendant demands judgment In hIs favor
and against Plaintiffs,
COUNT IV
42. Paragraphs 1 through 41 of this Answer to Plaintiffs' ComplaInt are
incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length.
43. The averments contained in Paragraph 43 of Plaintiffs' ComplaInt
do not pertain to the responding Defendant and no answer is required, However, to
the extent that the averments In said Paragraph are directed, In any way at Dr, Green,
said averments are denied and proof thereof Is demanded at the time of trial.
WHEREFORE, the responding Defendant demands judgment In his favor
and against Plaintiffs,
305 orth Front Street
p, O. Box 999
Harrisburg, PA 17108
1.0, No. 16622
DA TED: I /Ju. It( qv
Attorneys for Defendant Green
VERIFICA TION
I, Thomas J, Green. M.O.. have read the foregoing ANSWER TO
PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT and hereby affirm that it is true and correct to tho best of
my personal knowledge, or information and belief. This Verification and statement Is
made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C,S. ~4094 relating to unsworn falsification
to authorities: I verify that all the statements made in the foregoing are true and
correct and that false statements may subject me to the penalties of 18 Pa.C,S.
!4904.
DA TED:
CERTIFICA TE OF SERVICE
I, Peter J. Curry, Esquire, do hereby certify that I served the within
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT by depositing a copy of the same In the
United States Mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed to:
Thomas A. Lang, Esquire
PETERS & WASILEFSKI
2931 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Francis Marshall, Jr., Esquire
MARSHALL & FARRELL
1323 North Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17102
DATED: / ~ 19t?V
Ln
!;fll :-
-
~ ~. 4
",'"
,
."
...
~.J . I
-
~. ,_.
.~;;
-') .
,
.... .
i2 !
~ = i ~
-t'
en ..!
~ I J g
: q JI
ffi i - ',.
~ I
,
0. . ' .
. ,I L:
,;
~,)
.
.
. .
TWILA S. SCHOFFSTALL and
DANIEL E. SCHOFFSTALL,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
v.
~w
NO: 94-56654
THOMAS J. GREEN, M.D., and
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFF'S RBPLY TO NEW MATTBR
OF DBFBNDANT. CARLISLE HOSPITAL
AND NOW, comes Plaintiffs, by and through their
attorneys, Peters & Wasilefski, and file the following Reply to
the New Matter of Defendant, Carlisle Hospital:
44. Denied. Plaintiffs specifically deny the
allegations set forth in Paragraph 44. Plaintiffs are advised by
counsel and therefore aver that said allegations state
conclusions of law to which no response is required under the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a
response may be required, it is specifically denied that
Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. To the c~ntrary. Plaintiffs have stated proper and
legally recognizable claims upon which relief may be granted.
45. Denied. Plaintiffs specifically deny the
allegations set forth in Paragraph 45. Plaintiffs are advised by
counsel and therefore aver that said allegations state
conclusions of law to which no response is required under the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a
response may be required. it is specifically denied that
Plaintiffs' claims are barred and/or limited in any manner
whatsoever by the applicable statute of limitations.
46. Denied. Plaintiffs specifically deny the
allegations set forth in Paragraph 46. Plaintiffs are advised by
counsel and therefore aver that said allegations state
conclusions of law to which no response is required under the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a
response may be required, it is specifically denied that
discovery will show that the Plaintiff was negligent or that her
negligence exceeded the negligence of Carlisle Hospital, or that
her recovery is in any way barred and/or limited by operation of
the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. To the contrary,
Plaintiff was not negligent in any manner whatsoever with regard
to the facts and circumstances set forth in Plaintiffs'
Complaint.
48. Denied. Plaintiffs specifically deny the
allegations set forth in Paragraph 48. Plaintiffs are advised by
counsel and therefore aver that said allegations state
conclusions of law to which no response is required under the
Pennsylvania Rules of civil Procedure. To the extent that a
response may be required, it is specifically denied that
discovery will show that the plaintiff voluntarily assumed a
known risk or that her claims are barred or limited to any extent
whatsoever by operation of the doctrine of assumption of risk.
To the contrary, Plaintiff voluntarily assumed no known risks.
nor are any of her claims barred and/or limited in any manner
whatsoever.
49. Denied. Plaintiffs specifically deny the
2
allegations set forth in Paragraph 49. Plaintiffs are advised by
counsel and therefore aver that said allegations state
conclusions of law to which no response is required under the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a
response may be required it is specifically denied that
Plaintiff's injuries were sustained as a result of natural or
unknown causes and not the result of any action or inaction on
behalf of Carlisle Hospital. To the contrary, Plaintiffs restate
their allegations as contained in their Complaint with regard to
the negligence of Carlisle Hospital by reference thereto as
though set forth herein at length.
50. Denied. Plaintiffs specifically deny the
allegations set forth in Paragraph 50. Plaintiffs are advised by
counsel and therefore aver that said allegations state
conclusions of law to which no respunse is required under the
Pennsylvania Rules of civil Procedure. To the extent that a
response may be required, it is specifically denied that
Defendant, Carlisle Hospital provided full, complete. proper,
reasonable and adequate medical care and treatment in accordance
with the applicable standard of care. To the contrary,
Plaintiffs restate the allegations of their Complaint against
Carlisle Hospital by reference thereto as though set forth herein
at length.
51. Denied. Plaintiffs specifically deny the
allegations set forth in Paragraph 51. Plaintiffs are advised by
counsel and therefore aver that said allegations state
3
conclusions of law to which no response is required under the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a
response may be required, it is specifically denied that no
conduct on the part of Carlisle Hospital was a substantial factor
in causing or contributing to any harm which the Plaintiff
suffered. To the contrary, Plaintiffs restate the allegations of
their Complaint against Carlisle Hospital by reference thereto as
though set forth herein at length.
52. Denied. Plaintiffs specifically deny the
allegations set forth in Paragraph 52. Plaintiffs are advised by
counsel and therefore aver that said allegations state
conclusions of law to which no response is required under the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a
response may be required, it is specifically denied that the
damages which Plaintiff Buffered were caused by the conduct of
others over whom Carlisle Hospital had no control or right to
control. To the contrary, Plaintiffs restate the allegations of
their Complaint against Carlisle Hospital by reference thereto as
though set forth herein at length.
53. Denied. Plaintiffs specifically deny the
allegations set forth in Paragraph 53. Plaintiffs are advised by
counsel and therefore aver that said allegations state
conclusions of law to which no response is required under the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a
response may be required, Plaintiffs restate the allegQcions o~
their Complaint against Carlisle Hospital by reference thereto as
4
though set forth herein at length.
54. Denied. Plaintiffs specifically deny the
allegations set forth in Paragraph 54. Plaintiffs are advised by
counsel and therefore aver that said allegations state
conclusions of law to which no response is required under the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a
response may be required, it is specifically denied that either
Dr. Green or any agents, servants and/or employees of Carlisle
Hospital, or any person for whom it is or may be vicariously
liable elected a treatment modality which is recognized as
proper, but which merely differs from another appropriate
treatment modality. To the contrary, Plaintiffs incorporate the
allegations of their Complaint against Dr. Green and Carlisle
Hospital by reference thereto as though set forth herein at
length. It is specifically denied that the "two schools of
thought" doctrine has any applicability whatsoever to the facts
and circumstances of the Plaintiffs' Complaint.
55. Denied. Plaintiffs specifically deny the
allegations set forth in Paragraph 55. Plaintiffs are advised by
counsel and therefore aver that said allegations state
conclusions of law to which no response is required under the
Pennsylvania Rules of civil Procedure. To the extent that a
response may be required, it is specifically denied that Carlisle
Hospital took all reasonable and necessary steps to make a proper
and appropriate diagnosis or that the error in diagnosis was
reasonable and a legally justifiable error. To the contrary,
5
Carlisle Hospital failed to take all reasonable and necessary
steps to make a proper and appropriate diagnosis, and/or to
insure that those under its control or duty of control made a
proper and appropriate diagnosis. By way of further response,
the error in diagnosis was not reasonable nor was it a legally
justifiable error.
56. Denied. Plaintiffs specifically deny the
allegations set forth in Paragraph 56. Plaintiffs are advised by
counsel and therefore aver that said allegations state
conclusions of law to which no response is required under the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. To the extent that a
response may be required, it is specifically denied that with
regard to the incident in question Mrs. Schoffstall was a private
patient of Defendant Green prior to her hospitalization at the
Carlisle Hospital. To the contrary, with regard to the incident
in question, the Plaintiff was a patient at the Carlisle Hospital
and her attending and treating physician was Dr. Green.
57. Denied. Plaintiffs specifically deny the
allegations set forth in Paragraph 57. After reasonable
investigation, Plaintiffs are without knowledge or information,
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of whether Dr. Green
also has offices or other facilities at Carlisle Hospital.
58. Denied Plaintiffs specifically deny the
allegations set forth in Paragraph 58. After reasonable
investigation, Plaintiffs are without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations
6
~
concerning the billing practices of Defendants Dr. Green and the
Carlisle Hospital and the same are therefore deemed denied and
strict proof thereof is demanded.
59. Denied. Plaintiffs specifically deny the
allegations set forth in Paragraph 59. It is specifically denied
that Defendant, Dr. Green "arranged" for the patient's
hospitalization at the carlisle Hospital. To the contrary,
Plaintiff was seen in the emergency room of the Carlisle
Hospital, was subsequently admitted and Dr. Green became her
treating physician.
60. Denied as stated. During her hospitalization at
the Carlisle Hospital, it was recommended to the Plaintiff that
she follow up in her medical care and treatment with Dr.. Green,
who had been treating her at the Carlisle Hospital.
61. Denied. Plaintiffs specifically deny the
allegations set forth in Paragraph 61. It is specifically denied
that the Plaintiff looked solely to Defendant Green for her care.
To the contrary, as a patient at the Carlisle Hospital, Plaintiff
also looked to Carlisle Hospital to provide her with proper and
adequate medical care and treatment, which she did not receive.
62. Denied. Plaintiffs specifically deny the
allegations set forth in Paragraph 62. Plaintiffs are advised by
counsel and therefore aver that said allegations state
conclusions of law to which no response is required under the
Pennsylvania Rules of civil P~ocedure. To the extent that a
response may be required, it is specifically denied that Dr.
7
Green is not an actual or apparent agent of the Carlisle
Hospital.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand that judgment be entered
in their favor and against Carlisle Hospital.
Respectfully submitted,
PETERS & WASILEFSKI
By:
L /~I /f'fj
Date: (J 1 I
Attorney for Plaintiffs
8
VBRII'ICATION
I hereby affirm that the following facts are correct:
I am a Plaintiff in the foregoing action; the attached
Reply to New Matter is based upon information which I have
furnished to my counsel and information which has been gathered by
my counsel in the preparation of the lawsuit. The language of the
Reply is that of counsel and not of me. r have read the Reply and
t~ the extent that the same is based upon information which I have
given to my counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the content
of the Reply is that of counsel, r have I'elied upon counsel in
making this Verification. I hereby acknowledge that the facts set
forth in the aforesaid Reply is made subject to the penalties of 18
Pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
:r~si:t~
Date: I-~ -CJ5
.n
en
"
".J
'.'...)
""'
.,
-,
I
I
I
I
.I
l
.
u
~ ~
,j~!::
..J <
'" 2:
IlIl :t.
IlIl :::;
iz :>-
<,.,~
"-..z
"'i:i
~~0
..J"'",
o :J
"':z;::Q
<~!a
....., '"
... - '"
'" <
IlIl =
<
~
.
\
.,
.
'-.+---
".J........" I"
M"':.',:'.',~,,,..,,.,; .:::' ,
""........
Answer\lchotfstall\meg
TWILA SCHOPF STALL,
plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
va.
: No. 94-5664
.
.
THOMAS J. GREEN, M.D., and
CARLISLE HOSPITAL,
Defendants
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
:
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE TO PLEAD
TO: Plaintiff Twila Schoffstall
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO PLEAD TO THE WITHIN NEW MA'l'TER
WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS PLEADING OR
JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU.
Dated:
Il-/1-vjql(
J '
. Marshall, Jr., Eaqu re
I.D. 27594
West - suite 304
Market street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717)731-4800
(Attorney for Defendant Carlisle
Hospital
Answer\schoffstall\meg
Procedure. In the alternative, waiving none of the foregoing,
paragraphs 19 through 30 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint are generally
denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof demanded at
the time of trial if deemed material. In the alternative, and by
way of further response, to the extent paragraphs 19 through 30 of
the Plaintiffs' Complaint implies ostensible agency relationship
between Carlisle Hospital and any independent contractor physician,
such allegations are specifically and unequivocally denied with
strict proof thereof demanded at the time of trial if deemed
material. By way of further response, at all times material
hereto, Answering Defendant provided full, complete, proper,
reasonable and adequate medical care and treatment in accord with
the applicable standard of care. By way of further response,
Answering Defendant hereby incorporates by reference as if fully
set forth herein its New Matter which appears below.
COUNT I
TWILA S. SCHOFFSTALL v. THOMAS J. GREEN. M.D.
31. - 34. Paragraphs 31 through 34 of Plaintiffs' Complaint
refer to a party other than Answering Defendant; consequently, no
response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil
Procedure. In the alternative, waiving all the foregoing, these
paragraphs are generally denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) with
strict proof demanded at the time of trial if deemed material.
2
I
Answer\schoffstall\meg
COtTN'l' II
DANI8L B. SCHOFFSTALL v. THOMAS J. OR88M. M.D,
35. - 36. Paragraphs 35 through 36 of Plaintiffs' Complaint
refer to a party other than Answering Defendant; consequently, no
response is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of civil
Procedure. In the al~ernative, waiving all the foregoing, these
paragraphs are generally denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) with
strict proof demanded at the time of trial if deemed material.
COUNT III
TWILA S. SCHOFFSTALL v. CARLISLE HOSPITAL
37. Answering Defendant Carlisle Hospital hereby incorporates
its Answers to Paragraphs 1 through 36 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint
hereinabove as though set forth at length.
38. - 41. (Including repeat Paragraph 37 [sic]) Denied.
Paragraphs 38 through 41 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint contains
conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required
under the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. In the
alternative, waiving non of the foregoing, the aforementioned
allegations against Answering DeZendant Carlisle Hospital are
denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof thereof
demanded at the time of trial, if deemed material. By way of
further response, at all times material hereto, Answer Defendant
Carlisle Hospital provided full, complete, proper, reasonable and
adequate medical care and treatment in accordance with the
applicable standard of care. By way of further response, to the
3
Answer\schoffstall\meg
extent Paragraphs 38 through 41 of ths plaintiffs' complaint by an
ostensible agency relationship between Carlisle Hospital and any
indllpendent oontractor physician, such allegations are specifically
and unequivocally denied with strict proof thereof demanded at the
time of trial if deemed material. By way of further response, to
the extent the aforementioned paragraphs, especially Paragraph 40,
of Plaintiffs' Complaint pertain to unknown and unnamed "agents,
servants and/or employees" of Answering Defendant, which Plaintiff
fails to specify by name such agents, servants and employees, such
allegations are further denied since after reasonable
investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity
of the averments contained in this paragraph and, therefore, denies
the same and demands strict proof thereof at time of trial, if
deemed material. By way of further response, Answering Defendant
hereby incorporates by reference as if fully set forth herein its
New Matter which appears below.
COUNT IV
DANIEL E. SCHOFFSTALL v. CARLISLE HOSPITAL
42. 43. Denied. Paragraphs 42 through 43 of the
Plaintiffs' Complaint contain conclusions of law to which no
responsive pleading is required under the Pennsylvania Rules of
Civil Procedure. In the alternative, waiving non of the foregoing,
the aforementioned allegations against Answering Defendant Carlisle
Hospital are denied pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e) with strict proof
4
Answer\schoffstall\meg
thereof demandad at the time of trial, if deemed material. By way
of further response, at all times material hereto, Answer Defendant
Carlisle Hospital provided full, complete, proper, reasonable and
adequate medical care and treatment in accordance with the
applicable standard of care. By way of further response, to the
extent Paragraphs 42 through 43 of the Plaintiffs' Complaint imply
ostensible agency relationship between Carlisle Hospital and any
independent contractor physician, such allegations are specifically
and unequivocally denied with strict proof thereof demanded at the
time of trial if deemed material. By way of further response, to
the extent the aforementioned paragraphs, pertain to unknown and
unnamed "agents, servants and/or employees" of Answering Defendant,
which Plaintiff fails to specify by name such agents, servants and
employees such allegations are further denied since after
reasonable investigation, Answering Defendant is without knowledge
or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or
falsity of the averments contained in this paragraph and,
therefore, denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at time
of trial, if deemed material. By way of further response,
Answering Defendant hereby incorporates by reference as if fully
set fOI'th herein its New Matter which appears below.
WHEREFORE, Answering Defendant Carlisle Hospital respectfully
requests that this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint
and enter judgment in favor of Defendant Carlisle Hospital,
together with all allowable costs and attorney's fees.
5
Answer\schoffstall\meg
NO MATTER
44. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.
45. Plaintiff's clAims are barred and/or limited by the
applicable statute of Limitations.
46. It is believed, and therefore averred, that the discovery
will show that the Plaintiff was negligent and that her negligence
exceeded the negligence, if any, of the Answering Defendant,
thereby barring her recovery by operation of the Pennsylvania
Comparative Negligence Act.
47. It is believed, and therefore averred, that discovery
will show that the Plaintiff was negligent and that by virtue of
her negligence, her claims may be limited by the operation of the
Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act.
48. It is believed, and therefore averred, that discovery
will show that the Plaintiff voluntarily assumed a known risk
thereby barring recovery by the operation of the Doctrine of
Assumption of Risk.
49. Plaintiff's injuries, if any, were sustained as a result
of natural or unknown causes and not as the result of any action or
inaction on behalf of the Answering Defendant.
50. At all times material hereto, Answering Defendant
provided full, complete, proper, reasonable and adequate medical
care and treatment in accordance with the applicable standard of
6
Answer\schotfstall\meg
care.
51. No conduct on the part of the Answering Detendant was a
substantial factor in causing or contributing to any harm which the
Plaintiff may have sutfered.
52. It Plaintitf suftered any damage, the damages were caused
by the conduct ot others over whom the Defendant had no control or
right to control.
53. All physicians rendering medical care or treatment to the
Plaintiff were independent contractors in relationship to the
Answer Defendant Hospital and were not the agents, ostensible
agents, servants or employees ot the Answering Defendant.
54. Insotar as any agent, servant or employee of the
Defendant Carlisle Hospital, or any person for whom it is or may be
vicariously liable, elected a treatment modality which is recognized
as proper but may differ from another appropriate treatment
modality, then said Defendant raises the "two schools ot thought"
deftlnse.
55. To the extent it was requl.red to do so, the Answering
Defendant took all reasonable and necessary steps to make a proper
and appro.':,.;.ate diagnosis and to the extent it may be determined
that the diagnosis was in error, the Answering Defendant asserts
that the error in diagnosis was a reasonable and legally
justifiable error.
56. It is believed and therefore averred that Mrs.
Schoffstall was a private patient of Defendant Green prior to her
7
)o;l
_OJ
.~
!
~
, ~'
! - ~
Answer\schoffstall\meg
hospitalization at the Carlisle Hospital.
57. It is believed and therefore averred that Defendant Green
has offices at a location separate and distinct from the grounds of
the hospital.
58. It is believed and therefore averred that Defendant Green
billed the Plaintiffs for professional services in a manner which
was separate and distinct from any fees generated by the Carlisle
Hospital.
59. It is believed and therefore averred that Defendant Green
arranged for the patient's hospitalization at the Carlisle
Hospital.
60. FOllowing her hospitalization at the Carlisle Hospital,
the Plaintiffs continued to seek medical treatment from Defendant
Green at his private offices.
61. At all times material hereto, the Plaintiff looked to
Defendant Green for her care.
62. Defendant Green is not an actual or apparent agent of the
Carlisle Hospital. Answering Defendant specifically denies each
and every averment of Plaintiffs Complaint not specifically
admitted above.
8
Answer\schoffstall\meg
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
d.
AND NOW, this zzr day ot December, 1994, I, Francis E.
Marshall, Jr., Esquire, hereby certity that I did serve a true and
correct copy ot the toregoing ANSWER WITH NEW HATTER upon all
counsel ot record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same
in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania,
addressed as tollows:
BY rir.t-Cla.. Mai11
Thomas A. Lang, Esquire
Peters , Wasiletski
2931 North Front street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(Attorney for plaintiffs)
Peter J. Curry, Esquire
Thomas, Thomas , Hafer
305 North front street, sixth Floor
P.O. Box 999
Harrisburg, PA 17108
(Attorney for Detendant Thomas J. Green, M.D.)
Marshall, Jr., re
ttorne I.D. No. 27594
West - suite 304
3 Market Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Attorney for Defendant Carlisle
Hospital
,
..
1W1LA SCHOFFSTALL,
Plaintiff
IN 'mE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
CUMBERLAND COUN1Y. PENNSYLVANIA
VI.
"'0. 9+5664
'mOMAS J. GREEN. M.D.. and
CARUSLE HOSPITAl.,
Defendants
CML AcnON - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORDER
AND NOW THIS ~tl.day of -IV O\J(..... ~u ~ . 1996. upon consideration of
Defendant Carlisle Hospital's Motion for Approval of Stipulation. it is HEREBY ORDERED that
the Motion Is granted. Carlisle Hospital is dismissed from the above-captioned matter with
prejudice. The caption of the case shall be amended to reflect the same. The matter shall
continue without prejudice or effect hereby. against the remaining Defendant. Thomas J. Green.
M.D.
BY 'mE COURT:
-d. tJJ""t.a OirJ~'
. ,.
'.-- ~::. :r .:":, ;.1
. . ,/"r'11
)...1
91 :','
1- c.'
__ "'.J14..;0
}'.._ " ,,;lj
::~: ~_'}J.;;-ij
lWllA SCHOFF5fAll.
Plaintiff
IN 1lIE COURT OP COMMON PLl!AS.
CUMBERLAND COUNN. PENNSYLVANIA
VI.
No. 9+5664
moMAS J. GREEN. M.D., and
CARUSLE HOSPITAL,
Defendants
CML AcnON . lAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ManON FOR AJlPROVAL OF STIPUlATION
AND NOW COMES Defendant Carlisle Hospital by and through its attorneys. Marshall.
Farrell, Ricci, Smith & Haddick. P.c.. and in support of their Motion for Approval of Stipulation aven
as follows:
(1) The instant case is a medical negligence action.
(2) Counsel for all parties have agreed to the dismissal of Defendant Carlisle Hospital
(See Stipulation of Counsel attached hereto as Exhibit" A'').
(3) Counsel for Defendant Hospital respectfully requests this Court to issue all Order
dismissing Carlisle Hospital with prejudice from the above.captioned matter.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Court dismiss Carlisle Hospital with
prejudice.
Respectfully submitted,
MARSHAU, FARRELL, RICa, SMI11I
It HADDIC<, P.c.
/' ,
/' /
Fran~E.-~arWlI. 'Jr.
Attorneyl.D. No. 27594
20 South 36th Street
Camp Hill. PA 17011
(7l7)73H800
Anorney for Defendant Carlisle Hospital
1W1LA SCHOFFSTALL,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OP COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVMlI~
vs.
No. 94-5664
THOMAS J. GREEN, M.D., and
CARUSLE HOSPITAL,
Defendants
CIVIL A<:r10N . LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
STIPULATION OF COUNSEL
FOR VOLUNTARY DISCONTINUANCE
It is hereby agreed by and between counsel for all parties to the above matter that
Plaintiffs may voluntarily discontinue the above action, with prejudice, against
Defendant Carlisle Hospital. The matter shall continue, without prejudice or effect
hereby, against the remaining Defendant, Thomas J. Green, M.D. Counsel for Carlisle
Hospital agrees to provide reasonable assistance to counsel for the remaining panies in
t:'XI..frn~.". "
~ . ~I t r..
attempting to secure the appearance of appropriate deslgnee(s) of Carll,le Hospital, who
may be subpoenaed to testify in a deposition or a trlalln connection with the Plaintiffs
care.
Respectfully submitted
Dated: LI,l/'~
~ '
~
Thomas A. Lang, Esquire
Attorney 1.0. No. 52
Peters & Wasllefs
2931 Nonh Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Attorney for Plaintiffs
,/'-
--
Dated:.13 /Jc.l9 ~
('
Peter J. esquire
Attorn .D.No. 16622
Tho is, Thomas & Hafer
305 Nonh Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17108.{)999
Attorney for Defendant,
Thomas J. Green, M.D.
Dated: a r (~/?f;
gJ,11JIICATE OF ~~"'(Jg
AND NOW, this
day of December, 1995, I, Prancls E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire.
hereby centfy that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing STIPULATION upon,
all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same In the U.S. maIl.
postage prepaid, at Camp HllI, PennsylvanIa, addressed as follows:
BY First-Class Mail:
Thomas A. Lang, Esquire
Anorney J.D. No. 52670
Peters & Wasllefski
2931 Nonh From Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Peter J. Cuny, Esquire
Anorney 1.0. No. 16622
Thomas, Thomas & Hafer
305 NOM Front Street
Harrisburg. PA 17108-0999
- ----.-
/,'/"~' .)---_:-;'
/..< )
(/:::..~ /
Fran~ E.~,.-fr.
CER11FICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this .3L day of October, 1996, I, Francis E. Manhall, Jr., Esquire. hereby certify
that I did selVe a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion for Approval of Stipulation upon all
counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, at
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows:
Bv Flrst.Qass Maih
Thomas A. Lang, Esquire
P:ters & Wasilefski
2931 North Front Street
Harrisburg. PA 17110
Peter J. Curry, Esquire
Thomas, Thomas 8< Hafer
305 North front Street, Sixth Floor
P.O. Box 999
Harrisburg, PA l7108
__;r/')' ..
/' .
~. / ,
Fran . E.-Marshall, .
Attorne hIk~4
20 South 36th Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717)731-4800
Attorney for Defendant Carlisle Hospital
.<J..
..sl.,
"",
-
coo
.1
~
t:"'
fa
'- >-
fr; c
"- t:::
.-
~0 ..3 -' :;;
)~
p::Q c..: ,)~
~I '-1~
, ,
L-i -.-. '.~ 9;!
e::' ",. . ..:<,
';~O
. ~ _'.!o..
.., "
(...I ,,, '..:)
0.' (.J
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR TRIAL
(Must be typewritten and submil1ed in duplicate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
for trial without a jury.
.
;'1 ..:J ,<")
{' -.J II
'"
"
~) I n
, .
I 'r'
(_J '0"; ,"j
;:., .;,S
_~......u.::~.........,~l
. -; .'.'
#' ; 1- ~ . ) ,; l{
r:;
Please list the following case:
(Check one)
x) lor JURY trial at the nelltterm of civil court.
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated In full)
(check one)
~:J
,,,
.,.!
.J
.;
Twila S. Schoffstall and
Daniel E. Schoffstall
Assumpsit
(X) Trespass
Trespass (Motor Vehicle)
(Plaintiff)
(other)
vs.
Thomas J. Green, M.D.
The trial IIstwlll be called on 10-14-97
(Defendant)
and
Trials commsnce on 11-10-97
Pretrials will be held on 10-22-97
(Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials.)
vs.
(The party listing this case lor trial shall provide
forthwith a copy of the praecipe to all counssl,
pursuant to local Rule 214.1.)
No.
q4
Civil
~fifi4
.19__
Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party whO flies this praecipe:
Thomas A. Lang, Esquire
Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known:
Peter J. Curry, Esauire - For Defendant.
Thomas J. Green, M.D.
. --,.-- _..-
This case is ready for lrial.
Signed~ A,..L
Print Name: Th~ A.. ~~~, Esquire
/'
Plaintiffs
A ltorney for:
Dale: ~I)j ~? rif'/-2
.
..
t
.
t
.
--._~,,-
.....,~_,. ,...,. . .i~- "''t-t",''c-,,'\r'~'''''':':; ,..~...-.,.;... ...w_
_"_'_' ...0-,". ,..~-'"'..-,~ .__"OL-T"-'~~'
,
.
\
, '
-
;1
.'
.
~ .
()
PETERS 8t WASIL.EFSKI
AnClftNllv. AND COI......em.OI'e AT LAW
ae31 NOfItTM trlltONT 8nq;.-r
H~. P~Y\.VM,.. '7110
T...- (7.71 238'7151515
..
.
..i..J:;;;'<<:_';";l!j'H.~~W'r;,.'i..il..~~WU:';N.ii.""---
.'
".
.
1
.'
~
---...
TWILA S. SCHOFFSTALL and
DANIEL E. SCHOFFSTALL,
Plaintiffs
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA
NO.: 94-5664
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
THOMASJ. GREEN, M.D., and
Defendant
JURY TRIAL DEMANED
PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly mark the above-captioned action settled, discontinued, and dismissed with
prejudice.
PETERS & W ASILEFSKI
By:
THOMAS. NG.
Attc y 1.0. #52
31 North From Street
Harrisburg. P A 17110
(717) 238-7555
Dateh 5jlf1J>
Attorney for Plaimiffs
~:\
jio
~.
-
(
-
~ ~
t-.
:1'
't"
,
~
>- Cl (,;
ct; c"': .".
~~ ~.c!
U.l0 ( ).:;
(',..- -):..[.
.:-( I .~..
t11:ji. u_ <-!~
9,-> ..a ". ;f)
Q~;. I I ~:-:
I:;.':
__I, -." ;..lIJi
("- \. ;:1:
L"~L ~~ l C-
,-- ::l
'L co
Cl 0' U
. '"
4.
TWILA S. SCHOFFSTALL AND
DANIEL E. SCHOFFSTALL
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V
THOMAS J. GREEN, M.D.
: NO. 94-5664 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, January 7, 1998, counsel having failed to call the above case
for trial, the case Is stricken from the February 2, 1998 trial list. Counsel may relist the
case for trial when ready.
By the Court,
Thomas A. Lang, Esq.
For the Plaintiff
Me" \....d. eel\, \t:!:,
\- \:)-'18'
Peter J. Curry, Esq.
For the Defendant
Court Administrator
:br
>- U') 1;;
0:; c
-L
, . N :;-~~
~,,~)
.J('. ~ 0;_
f'.. ,,- ..~, :'j
~;.
f..; ",.J ~'': {j;
f'" l~.
Wi' - .....-,.
- I ... :.d(D
C-U. _.
,. - a.:': O"Iu..
.'.
r-- -, ...
u.. CO '5
u CI' U