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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *