Susan Robinson vs Donna Desantis and East Valley Family Physicians

robinson_vs_desantis_east_valley_family_physicians

1

0501-wa

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

MICHAEL K. JERNES Clerk of the Superior Court

BY RUBERT HILL; Deputy

Date 08/27/2002 Time 02:27 Pfl J. Gregory Osborne (8.3. No. 006422) Damflpflm my fimmfi TOLMAN & OSBORNE, P . c. —-——- {3931511 WSW—01656.3 .4.– 1920 E. Southern Avenue, Suite 104 cmfi_mufimflfim1 m1 $300 Tempe, Arizona 85282 —————_—_—~_—m~__~i. ‘l__ (480) 897—1020 TUTHL 914011111 mm

fiaeip- r ‘r Attorneys for Plaintiffs Tfimmm£wmo

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA

MARICOPA COUNTY

CV2002-016663

STEVE AND SUSAN ROBINSON, Case NO. CV

husband and wife, Plaintiffs,

)

)

)

)

)

VS. ) COMPLAINT )

DONNA M. DESANTIS, M.D. and‘ ) JOHN DOE DESANTIS, wife and ) husband; EAST VALLEY FAMILY ) PHYSICIANS,P.L.C., an Arizona ) Corporation; JOHN AND JANE DOES ) I-V; BLACK AND WHITE CORPORA— ) TIONS VI—X; ABC PARTNERSHIPS ) XIvXV, ) )

)

)

(Tort: Non—Motor Vehicle; Medical Malpractice)

Defendants.

_____________————————————-—-—

For their complaint, plaintiffs allege as follows:

1. Plaintiffs are residents of Maricopa County,

Arizona.

2. Defendants Donna M. DeSantis, M.D. and John Doe DeSantis are now, and at all times material hereto were, residents of Maricopa County, Arizona; the true name of John Doe DeSantis is not presently known to plaintiffs but plaintiffs will seek leave of court to amend their complaint to reflect the true name at such

time as it becomes known. At all times material hereto defendantp—a

nomadic.”th

NNNNNNNHHF‘V—IHHF‘HD—lp—J mmhwmwommwmmhwrur—o

Donna M. DeSantis, M.D. acted on behalf of and in furtherance of

her marital community. 3. East Valley Family Physicians, P.L.C. is an.Arizona

Corporation and licensed health care provider. At all times

material hereto, Dr. DeSantis was acting as the agent, servant and/or employee of East Valley Family Physicians, P.L.C.

4. Defendants John Does I—X, Jane Does 17X, Black Corporations I—X, and White Partnerships I—X are the officers,

and/or employees of defendants and their

directors, agents

spouses, who at all times material hereto acted within the course and scope of their employment and/or agency relationship with

defendants and on behalf of and in furtherance of their respective

marital communities; the true names and identities of these defendants are not presently known to plaintiffs, but plaintiffs will seek leave of court to amend their complaint to reflect the true names, together with the appropriate allegations concerning

the conduct of each defendant as it relates to their respective

negligence in rendering health care individually or collectively

as a principal, agent, employee, administrator, manager or director of defendants. 5. At all times material hereto, defendants held

themselves out to the public, and particularly to plaintiff Susan

Robinson, to be health care providers capable of treating

injuries, illnesses and conditions, including those of plaintiff

Susan Robinson, by and through their employees and agents

including the individual and corporate defendants; as such,

-2-1

0501-th

(I)

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 I7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

defendants represented to the public and to plaintiffs that they were possessed of and exercised that degree of learning, skill, care, knowledge and diligence required of health care providers of

their respective specialties in the State of Arizona.

6. All acts complained of herein occurred in Maricopa County, Arizona. 7. The amount in controversy exceeds the ‘minimum

amount required for jurisdiction in this Court.

8. During 2001, plaintiff Susan Robinson presented

herself to defendants for examination, diagnosis and treatment of

her complaints.

9. Defendants, including their agents and servants,

were negligent in consulting on, examining, diagnosing and treating plaintiff Susan Robinson.during the above—mentioned times in that they failed to exercise the degree of care and skill

ordinarily exercised by competent physicians, health care

providers, and medical supplier/consultants in similar cases under

similar circumstances.

10. As a direct and proximate result of said

negligence, plaintiff Susan Robinson sustained. permanent and

grievous physical injuries to his person which have caused her pain and substantial discomfort and which will continue in the future to cause pain and discomfort.

11. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence plaintiff Robinson has required the

of defendants, ‘Susan

attendance of physicians and will require further medical care and

_3_LOCDNO‘U‘J-‘bWNH

NNNNNNNI—‘HHHI—‘r—IO—‘Hr—IH mmhwmwowmwmmewmwo

attention in the future; the cost of such future medical care and treatment is not presently known or ascertainable but will be proven at the trial of this matter.

12. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of defendants, and the injuries suffered thereby, plaintiff Susan Robinson has undergone and will continue to undergo severe physical and mental pain and suffering.

13. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of defendants, and the injuries suffered thereby, plaintiff Susan Robinson has suffered a loss of earnings.

14. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of defendants, and each of them, and the injuries suffered by his wife, Susan Robinson, plaintiff Steve Robinson has been deprived

of the care, comfort, consortium and advice of his wife and is

entitled to damages therefore. WHEREFORE, for judgment against

plaintiffs pray

defendants as follows:

1. For reasonable damages for medical expenses incurred by plaintiff Susan Robinson as of the date of the Complaint, plus an amount to be determined as and for the reasonable future medical expenses to be incurred by plaintiff Susan Robinson.

2. For reasonable damages as and for the past and future physical and mental pain and suffering, and embarrassment

caused by the injury sustained by plaintiff Susan Robinson.

3. For reasonable damages for lost wages and loss of

earning capacity sustained by plaintiff Susan Robinson.

-4-0‘01th

\1

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24 25

26

4. For reasonable loss of consortium damages to Steve

Robinson for the loss of care, comfort, consortium and advice of

Susan Robinson. 5. For plaintiffs“ costs incurred and expended in this

lawsuit.

6. For such other and further relief as this Court may

deem just and appropriate.

. Gr ry Osborne 920 Southern, Suite 104 Temp , Arizona 85282

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Timothy Baker vs Mindy Baker Maricopa County Family Court

timothy_baker_vs_mindy_baker_maricopa

,—

Thomas J. Griggs (LD. No.006690)

LAW OFFICES Killian, Nicholas, Fischer,

Wirken, Cook & Pew, P.L.C.

SUITE 200 40 NORTH CENTER STREET no. BOX 1467 MESA, ARIZONA 85211 (602) 461-4600

Attomeysfor Petitioner

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA

In re the marriage of TIMOTHY P. BAKER

Petitioner, PETITION FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE With Children)

and

MINDY K. BAKER

Respondent.

Petitioner, TIMOTHY P. BAKER, by his undersigned attorneys, for his Petition

for Dissolution of Marriage, alleges as follows:

I That the petitioner’s true name is TIMOTHY P. BAKER, that petitioner’s birthdate is June 6, 1963, that petitioner’s address is 11625 South Appaloosa, Phoenix, Arizona 85044; that petitioner’s occupation is medical doctor; that the respondent’s true name is MINDY K. BAKER, that respondent’s birthdate is September 20, 1963, that respondent’s address is 3935 East Park Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85044; that Respondent is presently

unemployed, but is employable. Respondent is not pregnant at this time.

WIOSQ 01II That the petitioner and respondent have been domiciled in the State of Arizona for period of ninety (90) days prior to the filing of this Petition. III That the petitioner and respondent were married on or about the 11th day of June, 1983 in Phoenix, Arizona, and ever since that time have been and now are husband and wife. IV That the marriage between the petitioner and respondent is irretrievably broken and there is no reasonable prospect of reconciliation. V That the conciliation provisions ofA.R.S. § 25-38109 either do not apply or have been met. VI That there have been born as issue of this marriage two children, both of whom are minors, namely: GARRETT R. date of birth October 19, 1991; and EMILY S. date of birth April 30 1993; and within the last five years have lived with both Petitioner and Respondent at the 11625 South Appaloosa, Phoenix, Arizona address and prior to that at 4831 East Boston Street, Chandler, Arizona 85226. That there shall be a sole custody order issued in this case with Respondent/Wife as the custodial parent for the parties’ minor children. Petitioner has not participated as a party, witness, or in any other capacity, in any other litigation, concerning the custody of the minor children in this or any other State, has no information of any custody proceedings concerning the minor children pending in a court of this or any other state, and knows of no person not a party to these proceedings who has physical custody of the minor children or claims to have

custody or visitation rights with respect to the minor children.

00105620] ‘2’In

VII That the Petitioner is an able-bodied man currently employed and capable of paying a reasonable amount as and for child support both pendente lite and permanently; that the petitioner lacks sufficient funds and property to provide for these matters and is

unable to support herself and the minor children of the parties. Therefore, Petitioner

alleges that he has committed to the Respondent that he should also pay Spousal

maintenance. VIII

That there are no written agreements between the parties as to support, custody and visitation of the children and maintenance of either spouse. The parties have had

discussions which Petitioner believes will result in written agreements.

IX That the parties hereto have acquired community, joint and common property, and

joint, common and community debt. There should be an equitable division of joint,

common and community property and debt. X

That each party shall be. responsible to pay his or her own attorneys fees and costs

incurred in this matter. WHEREFORE, the petitioner requests as follows: 1. That the Court order a Decree of Dissolution of Marriage, dissolving the

marriage existing between the parties and that the parties be restored to the status of

single persons; 2. That there be a sole custody order issued in this case with regard to the

custody of the minor children with Respondent/Wife being the custodial parent in this

case, subject to guideline access for the Father as a minimum;

ODWSGZDI3. That the Petitioner be ordered and required to pay to the petitioner a reasonable amount to be determined by the Court as and for child support for the benefit of the parties’ minor children;

4. That Petitioner shall pay to the Respondent spousal maintenance to be allocated in this matter;

5. That the Court fix its order equitably ordering the payment and discharge of the community obligations of the parties;

6. That the Court fix its order equitably dividing the property acquired by the parties during their marriage;

7. That the Court affirm to the parties their sole and separate property, if any;

8. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper in

the law.

9. That each party be responsible to pay his or her attorneys fees and costs

incurred in this matter.

DATED this [2: day of . , 1994.

KILLIAN, NICHOLAS, FISCHER, WIRKEN, COOK & FEW, P.L.C.

Attorneys For Petitioner

omosazm ’4’STATE OF ARIZONA ) County of Maricopa SS-

TIMOTHY P. BAKER, being first duly sworn upon his oath, deposes and says that he is the Petitioner in the foregoing Petition for Dissolution of Marriage; that he has read the foregoing instrument and knows the contents thereof; that the facts alleged therein are

true except those alleged upon information and belief and as to those, he believes them to be true. % . B R

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this [,2 day of

m m, [M 1 , 1994, by TIMOTHY P. BAKER.

N0 Pu lc

\DOO_-JO\Ui-I>UJN

yap—d n—c

My Commission Expires:

1012521qu

0010562131 ‘5‘

Barbara Stindham vs Thomas Hopkins

barbara_stidham_vs_thomas_hopkins

‘ MICHAEL K. JEANES Clerk of the Superior Court BY Helissa fatten, fiamty Date WW2013 Time 14:15:54

mediation fittflmt ‘E-i”‘“ CREE? MOE-G93??? fine”— Michael L. York, #015362 {Riflwfi’Lm Brian M. Torba, #028295 – mm – 1 WATTEL & YORK 30am 2 2175 North Alma School Road, #BlO? Chandler, Arizona 85224 3 (480) 222-2020; Fax (480) 899-2741 Email: ME-Maricepa@wattelandyork.com 4 Allorlieysfor Plaintiff 5 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA 6 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA‘

7 BARBARA STtDHUM, No

‘cv2013-092799

COMPLAINT

8 _ Plaintiff, 9 VS.

10 LAURENEASHLEY HOPKINS, a Minor, by and through her next friend, SUSAN

H HOPKINS; LAUREN ASHLEY HOPKINS, individually; SUSAN HOPKINS and

12 THOMAS HOPKINS, husband and wife; DOES l—XX and BLACK & WHITE

13 CORPORATIONS I—V,

Tort/ Motor Vehicle

2l75 Nonh Alma School Rood, Suite B-lO7

Wonel & York

14 Defendants.

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

15′ Plaintiff alleges as follows:

16 I.

17 . . . . . The events giving rise to the cause of action set forth herein occurred Within the County of

18 . . . . . . . . . Maricopa, State of Arizona, that this Court has Jurisdiction over the sub] ect matter and the parties

19 . . . . to this litigation.

20 I].

A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W Chandler, Arizona 85224

WATTEL&YORK

21 Thai Defendant, LAUREN ASHLEY HOPKINS, upon information and belief, at all times

22 , relevant hereto, was a minor.

23 Ill.

24 That Defendants, SUSAN HOPKINS and THOMAS HOPKINS, upon information and

25 belifif, was at all times relevant hereto married and was acting on behalf of and for the benefit of said

26217 5 North Alma School Road, Suite B~l07

Wottei & York

A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W Chandler, Arizona 85224

WATTEL&YORK

10 ll T2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24

25

26

Defendants’ marital community. IV.

That Defendants, SUSAN HOPKINS and THOMAS HOPKLNS, upon information and belief, are the parents of the minor, LAUREN ASHLEY HOPKINS, and thus are responsible for her actions.

V.

The “Doe” Defendants l-XX are each fictitious names to designate unknown parties who may have in some manner contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries and damages and are liable therefore. The true names for said Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff at this time and leave of Court is sought to amend this Complaint to include their true names after they are discovered.

VI.

The “BLACK & WHITE CORPORATIONS” Defendants l—V are each fictitious names to designate unknown companies and/or corporations and/or partnerships who may have in some manner contributed to Plaintiff’s injuries and damages and are liable therefore. The true names for said Defendants are unknovm to the Plaintiff at this time and leave of Court is sought to amend this Cemplaint to include their true names after they are discovered.

VII.

That on or about May 29, 2012 at or near south Priest Drive and West Grove Parkway in Tempe, Arizona, Defendant, LAUREN ASHLEY HOPKINS, operated and/or maintained a vehicle in a negligent manner and with reckless disregard of the rights and feelings of the Plaintiff, thereby causing damage to the Plaintiff.

VIII. Defendants, SUSAN HOPKINS and THOMAS HOPKINS, negligently entrusted a vehicle

to their minor child.

IX. Upon information and belief, Defendants SUSAN HOPKINS and THOMAS HOPKINS,2175 North Almc: School Road, Suite 8-107

Wottel & York

A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W Chondler,Arizono 85224

WATTEL&YORK

provided the vehicle involved in the subject coliision for general use by members of the family

including Defendant LAUREN ASHLEY HOPKINS. Therefore, Defendants SUSAN HOPKINS and

2 . . THOMAS HOPKINS are vicariously liable for any harm that is caused by or related to the use of 3 . . . the vehicle under the F amily Purpose Doctrine. 4 X. 5 . That as a result of Defendants conduct as stated ab0ve, Plaintiff, BARBARA STEDHUM, 6 sustained permanent personal injuries, which have caused pain, suffering and inconvenience; has 7 incurred expenses for medical care which will continue; and has suffered a loss of earnings, which 8 will continue. Plaintiff asks leave to amend as necessary to conform to the proof regarding the exact 9 amount of said past and future losses. 10 XI. 11 . . . . . . . . . Damages herein exceed the minimum Jurisdictional limits of the Court. 12 XII. 1 3 That Defendant, LAUREN ASHLEY HOPKINS, may now be an adult and therefore subject M to suit individually. 1 5

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, BARBARA STIDHUM, prays for judgment against the

16 Defendants, as follows:

17 1. For such sums as and for general damages as may be fair and just.

1 8 2. For those special damages incurred to date, plus those future special damages proved at

19 . ~ the time of trial.

20 3. For costs of suit herein; and,

21 4. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

22 . . DATED this id day ofMarch, 201

23 24 25

26