AND ch i CIVIL DIVISION Roma" JOHN WESTERFIELD and PATRICIA WESTERFIELD. his wife, Plaintiffs, CASE NO: vii $1 -r-3 3 'ft VS MARVIN L. SPONAUGLE, M.D.. FLORIDA DETOX, INC. and HELEN ELLIS - HOSPITAL FOUNDATION. Defendants. I MARVIN L. SPONAUGLE, MD. AND FLORIQA QE JVLELR Alfl) DEFENSES TO THE I I Defendants. MARVIN L. SPONAUGLE, MD. and FLORIDA DETOX, by and through their undersigned attomey, answer the Plaintiffs' Complaint as foitaws: 1. Admitted that the Plaintiffs are alleging damages in excess of $15,000.00. Otherwise, denied. Paragraph 2 does not pertain exclusively to these Defendants andis 2. therefore, denied. To the extent Paragraph 2 pertains to these Defendants, it is denied. 3. Paragraph 3 does not pertain exclusively to these Defendants and is therefore, denied. To the extent Paragraph 3 pertains to these Defendants. it is denied. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied. 6. Denied. 7. Without knowledge and therefore, denied. 8. Paragraph 8 does not pertain exclusively to these Defendants and is therefore, denied. To the extent Paragraph 8 pertains to these Defendants. it is denied. 9. Without knowledge and therefore, denied. COLE, SCOTT Ir. HSSANE. P.A. smoeeporr -surrs 750 -- KENNEDY souuavnno - Iprzoaum 5:-so-3 - (613)289~9300 - (313) 2862990 FAX - . -anal. 4% CASE 10. To the extent Paragraph 10 does not pertain to th - - - denied. Paragraph 10 is admitted as to these endant8' 't 11. It is admitted that on or about June 3, 2004, John Westerfield presented to Helen Ellis Memorial Hospital in order to undergo inpatient anesthesia assisted detoxification. Otherwise, denied. 12. Without knowledge and therefore, denied. 13. Without knowledge and therefore, denied. 14. Denied. a) Denied. b) Denied. c) Denied. d) Denied. e) Denied. f) Denied. g) Denied. 15. Denied. 16. As phrased, denied. 17. Denied. 18. It is admitted that the medical treatment provided to dohn Westerfield. on June 3, 20-04 was provided on the premises of Helen EHIS Memorial Hospital. Otherwise, denied. 19. Denied. a) Denied. b) Denied. c) Denied. d) Denied. e) Denied. 26. Denied. a) Denied. b) Denied. c) Denied. -2- coma, soon 8: KISSANE, P.A. 750 - 5231 WEST KENNEDY BOULEVARD - FLORIDA 33509 - (313) 239.9300 - (813) 236-2990 CASE 5-Cl-1 5 21. it is admitted that on June 5. 2004, a nu cm Westerfield as "medically stable for aemiffd John 22. It is admitted that on June 6, 2004, John Westerfield Sponaugle. Otherwise, denied. was assessed by Dr' 23. Denied. 24- Denied- 25. it is admitted that John Westerfield became unresponsive and lost consciousness on July 7, 2004 and was transported by emergency rescue vehicle to the emergency department of Helen Ellis Memorial Hospital. denied. 26. it is admitted that while a patient in the emergency department of Helen Ellis Memorial Hospital on June 7, 2004, John Westerfield was given IV Dilantin. 27- Denied. 28- Denied- COUNT I IJABILITY OF DEFENDANT DR. SPONAUGLE 29- The Ddendants reallege and reaver their responses to paragraphs 1 through 28 above as iffuiiy set forth herein. 30- 31 Denied. a} Denied. b) Denied. c} Denied- e) f) g) Denied. h) Denied- 3 5} it) Denied. Denied- -3- r.lL 3) mm as - 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. CASE Denied. I Denied. NT II I I FENDANT FLORIDA DETOX The Defendants reallege and reavertheir responses to paragraphs 1 through 33 above as if fully set forth herein. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. Denied. a) Denied. b) Denied. c) Denied. d) Denied. e) Denied. f) Denied. g) Denied. h) Denied. i) Denied. j) Denied. I) Denied. Denied. Denied. UNT Q|3gg]j u??Ll??uCE QF DEFENDANT, 1-151,53 MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Paragraph 42 does not pertain to these Defendants and is therefore, denied. To the extent any of the allegations in paragraph 42 pertains to these Defendants. they are denied. .4. COLE. SCOTT 8: HSSANE. PA. SIJDGENIRT - sums. 750- 5201 KENNEDY aouusvann -- TAMPA. FLORIDA 33603 - (313) mom - (81.3) :~$6~29m F-AX CASE NOJ07-000815-CI-15 iI - TMEA, 33609 .l .92:-agraen. 43 does. net to these Defendants and is therefore denied 773 'Fe an'! 0* the allegations in paragraph 4:3 pertains to mess they are 44 dam not pertain to these Defendants and is therefore, denied. extent of me aiiegations in paragraph 44 pertains to these 45- dog not pertain to these Defendants and is therefore. denied. eamnt any of the aiiegations in paragraph 45 pertains to these as 45(3) does not pertain to these Defendants and is To the extent any of the allegations in paragraph 45:13; aerate to these Defendants, they are denied. Pain 45:33) does not pertain to these Defendants and is therefore, To the extent any of the allegations in paragraph perats to these Defendants, they are denied. ~11: 45{c} does not pertain to these Defendants and is therabre. denied. To the extent any of the allegations in paragraph to Defendants, they are denied. 45 does not pertain tothese Defendants and is therefore, denied. exmtt any of the aiiegations in paragraph 46 pertains to these does notpertain tothese Defendants and is therefore, denied. Ts at afry of the atiegations in paragraph 47 pertains to these COUNT IV VIIARKJUS LIABILITY OF DEFENDANT, ELLIS EORIAL (Apparent Agency) 4 dues mtpertain tothese Defendants and is therefore, denied. it is i any of due aflegations in paragraph 48 pertains to these 4Q dea mtpertain to these Defendants and is therefore, denied. Te. are its my of fine allegations in paragraph 49 pertains to these -5- DRE, PJL - (813) 239-9300 - (313) zaszsvoo FAX ettrneaponr . surre varDefendants. they are Defendants. they are denied. Defendants. they are denied. Paragraph 54 does not pertain to these Defendants and is therefore. denied. Totheextentanyeftheallegations in paragraphs-tpertainstothese Defendants. they are denied. Paragraph 55 does not pertain to these Defendants and is therefore. denied- To the extent any of the allegations in paragraph 55 pertains to arm Defendants, they are denied. Paragraph 56 does not pertain to these Defendants and istherefore. To the extent any of the allegations in paragraph 56 pertains to these Defendants. they are denied. Paragraph 57 does not pertain to these Defendants and is therefore, To the extent any of the allegations in paragraph 57 pertains to ma Defendants, they are denied. Paragraph 58 does not pertain to these Defendants and is therefore. denied. To the extent any of the allegations in paragraph 58 pertains to these Defendants. they are denied. Paragraph 59 does not pertain to these Defendants and denied. To the extent any of the allegations in paragraph 59 permins to thme Defendants. they are denied. Paragraph 60 does not pertain to these Defendants and istherefore. denied. To the extent any of the allegations in paragraph 6:0 to mesa Defendants, they are denied. -6- COLE. SCOTT as ILA. west' ttemramr BOULEVARD . TAHPA. FLORIDA was . mean>> -- (us trauma FAX .. .. -I. . 62 B3, 65. B6. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. sum an-x ml an . . mxulatmi 31 pertains Us Inn! mug. Dcfundarm -and as than unmml any is! that an lfihturlaiiwlfi, lfWI.l"? :2 - mu mutual pcmulntalhauaDeftmdal1u . . any 9? cm in paraofuoh 32 Wm" lhny am dmfilfld QQHJIIJ YIGARIDUI - Ml - (Joint Vontunv) Tho Bafcndants mallow and ruvar their respofisefi t? Pa'a9"a"m 'mam 62 an if fully not form horoln. Danlucll Denied. Donlod. Donled. Denied. Wllhout knowledge and therefore, denied. Denied. Domed. Denied. Donled. E1mAmnm1M_D.9mm The Plaintiffs' damages must be diminished by the percentage attributed to the Plaintiff: or Co-Defendants. The lPlaintifis' ism. I5 to their pomantago of responsibility for the Plaintiffs' on tha hauls of jolnl and several liability. .7. seem an P.A. mumsmw - TAMPA, _FLonIm_\ 3-3609 - (31375?econd Affirrnafivg Defense The conduct or negligence of John \_Nesterfield caused or contributed to the incident and such conduct or negligence was the sole proximate cause, and/or independent intervening cause of the alleged incident and alleged injuries and damages. Third Affirmative Defenense Any injury, disability or damage to John Westerfield is the result of a pre- existing medical condition, and the unforeseeable and unpredictable sequelia thereto, or was caused by a subsequent injury or injuries. act, or disease process and was not caused or aggravated by any alleged acts of negligence or statutory violations by the Defendants. Fourth Affirmative Defense To the extent the Plaintiffs' allegations in the Complaint against Helen Ellis Memorial Hospital foundation, Inc. are proven to be true. the Defendants seek to have the damages claimed by the Plaintiffs apportioned according to its respective degree of comparative fault. Fifth Affirmative Defense The Defendants are entitled to an apportionment of damages and distribution of comparative fault in accordance with the provisions of Florida Statutes Section 768.81. Sixth Affirmative Defense The Defendants are entitled to a set-off for any and all collateral source payments received by the Plaintiffs for any claim damages in conjunction with this matter and accordance with Florida Statute Section 768.76. Seventh Affirmative Defense The Defendants affirmatively assert that the care and treatment rendered to John Westerfield by these Defendants was not causative of any injury now complained of by the Plaintiffs in this matter. a -3- COLE, scorr KISSA-NE, P.A. mHmR-w-fiE?w-5 - - zoawasrxannaovaoumvrmo .- 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. CASE NO .107-0006'! 5--Cl--1 5 gigngh Aflirmative Defense The Defendants affirmatively assert that the damages as claimed by the Plaintiffs in conjunction with this matter, were a result of the actions of other healthcare providers, entities, and individuals who are not named in this matter. These individuals may formulate the basis for a Fabre defense in this cause of action, and their identity will be disclosed at or before the time at the pre-trial conference in accordance of the provisions and legal precedent that exists in the State of Florida regarding Fabre/Messmer Affirmative Defenses. Ninth Affirmative Defense The Defendants are entitled to a set-off for any_ and all settlements, payments, verdicts, or replacement income provided in association with any damages claimed by the Plaintiffs in conjunction with this action. Tenth Affirmative Defense The Defendants affirmatively assert that they did not act jointly with Helen Ellis Memorial Hospital Foundation, and no joint venture existed in this matter. Eleventh Affirmative Defense Any non-economic damages awarded by the jury against these Defendants are limited by the provisions of Section 766.118 of the Florida Statutes. Twelfth Affirmaiive Defensfi The Defendants affirmatively assert that they are entitled to periodic payment for future damages as defined in Section 766.201 of the Florida Statutes. Thirteenth Affirmative Defense The Defendants affirmatively assert that the subject action is barred because of the Plaintiffs' failure to timely and fully comply in good faith with all conditions precedent, required for the filing of a medical malpractice action as set forth in Section 766.106 of the Florida Statutes. COLE, SCOTT KISSANE, BRIDG . EPORT CENTER SUITE 750 - 5201 WEST KENNEDY BOULEVARD - TAMPA, FLORIDA 33609 - (813) 289-9300 - (813) 286-2900 FAX TIFI ATE OF SE I WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy hereof has been furnished to: G. Bruce Hill, Esq.. Hill, Adams, Hall et al. P.0. box 1090, Winter Haven, FL 32790-1090 and Keith M. Carter, Esq., Morgan 8. Morgan, P.A., 101 East Kennedy Blvd., Suite 1790, Tampa, FL 33602 this -day of February, 2007. COLE, SCOTT 8 KISSANE, P.A. Attomeys for Def'endant(s) Bridgeport Center, Suite 750 5201 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 Telephone: (813) 864-9305 Facsimile: (813) 286-2900 ER VITSKY FB 0183903 :90? and Affirmative Defensesmpd 2 -10- 8: PA. TB @433 . RIDG. -