ESTATE OF JEFFREY H. WARE v. HOSPITAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA et al

Filing 87

ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 1. PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO WITHDRAW COUNTS I AND II AND TO REMAND COUNTS III, IV, V, AND VI TO THE PHILADELPHIA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ECF NO. 78, IS DENIED. 2. DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE PRICE-ANDERSON PLA AND ON ALL FEDERAL ISSUES IN COUNTS THREE AND FOUR, ECF NO. 82, IS GRANTED. 3. DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS OF MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE, COUNTS 3, 4 AND 5, ECF NO. 81, IS GRANTED.4. DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DETERMINE THE DUTY OWED T O DR. WARE IN THE PRICE-ANDERSON PUBLIC LIABILITY ACTION, ECF NO. 72, IS DENIED AS MOOT. 5. DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DETERMINE THE CAUSATION TEST IN A PRICE-ANDERSON PLA, ECF NO. 80, IS DENIED AS MOOT. 6. DEFENDANTS JOINT MOTION FOR ORDER COMPELLING PLAI NTIFF TO PRODUCE EXPERT REPORTS OR BE PRECLUDED AND FOR MODIFICATION OF AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER, ECF NO. 73, IS DENIED AS MOOT. 7. DEFENDANTS JOINT MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING PLAINTIFF TO PRODUCE ANSWERS TO CONTENTION INTERROGATORIES SERVED ON S EPTEMBER 28, 2015, DAVID WARE AND JEAN BOYER FOR DEPOSITIONS AND SIGNED VERIFICATIONS FOR RELEASE OF IRS AND SOCIAL SECURITY RECORDS, ECF NO. 74, IS DENIED AS MOOT. 8. DEFENDANTS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ECF NO. 85, IS STRICKEN. 9. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF ALL DEFENDANTS AND AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF. 10. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO CLOSE THIS CASE.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 9/8/2016. 9/8/2016 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(lbs, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA __________________________________________ ESTATE OF JEFFREY H. WARE by Barbara Boyer, individually, on behalf of wrongful death beneficiaries and as administratrix of the Estate of Jeffrey H. Ware, : : : : : Plaintiff, : : v. : : HOSPITAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF : PENNSYLVANIA; : UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA; : PERELMAN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE : UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA; : TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF : PENNSYLVANIA; : ANN R. KENNEDY, D.S.C.; : GARY KAO, M.D.; : MICHELLE ALONSO-BASANTA, M.D.; : NATIONAL SPACE BIOMEDICAL : RESEARCH INSTITUTE; and : CENTER FOR ACUTE RADIATION : RESEARCH, : : Defendants. : __________________________________________ No. 2:14-cv-00014 JUDGMENT And now, this 8th day of September, 2016, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion issued this day, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Withdraw Counts I and II and to Remand Counts III, IV, V, and VI to the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, ECF No. 78, is DENIED. 2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment on the Price-Anderson PLA and on All Federal Issues in Counts Three and Four, ECF No. 82, is GRANTED. 3. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s Claims of Medical Negligence, Counts 3, 4 and 5, ECF No. 81, is GRANTED. 1 4. Defendants’ Motion to Determine the Duty Owed to Dr. Ware in the PriceAnderson Public Liability Action, ECF No. 72, is DENIED as moot. 5. Defendants’ Motion to Determine the Causation Test in a Price-Anderson PLA, ECF No. 80, is DENIED as moot. 6. Defendants’ Joint Motion for Order Compelling Plaintiff to Produce Expert Reports or be Precluded and for Modification of Amended Scheduling Order, ECF No. 73, is DENIED as moot. 7. Defendants’ Joint Motion for an Order Compelling Plaintiff to Produce Answers to Contention Interrogatories Served on September 28, 2015, David Ware and Jean Boyer for Depositions and Signed Verifications for Release of IRS and Social Security Records, ECF No. 74, is DENIED as moot. 8. Defendants’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, ECF No. 85, is STRICKEN. 9. JUDGMENT IS ENTERED in favor of all Defendants and against the Plaintiff. 10. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. BY THE COURT: /s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.____________ JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR. United States District Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?