2023 CV 000345 An 5171220

Case 2023CV000345 Document 33 Filed 05-15-2023 Page 1 of 25
FILED
05-15-2023
Clerk of Circuit Court
Outagamie County
2023CV000345
STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT OUTAGAMIE COUNTY

______________________________________________________________________________
SCOTT SCHARA, individually, and as the

Administrator of the Estate of Grace Schara,
Case No. 23-CV-345
Plaintiff,
Case Code 30105, 30104,
30103, 30701
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

SERVICES,
Involuntary Plaintiff,
vs.
ASCENSION HEALTH, et al.,
Defendants.
______________________________________________________________________________
ASCENSION HEALTH, HOLLEE MCINNIS, RN, AND ALISON BARKHOLTZ, RN’S

ANSWER TO THE COMPLAINT
______________________________________________________________________________
NOW COME the Defendants, Ascension Health, Hollee McInnis, RN, and Alison
Barkholtz, RN, by their Attorneys, Otjen Law Firm, S.C., and as and for an Answer to the
Plaintiff’s Complaint admit, deny, and affirmatively allege as follows:
INTRODUCTION
In answer to the section of the Complaint entitled “Introduction,” deny each and every
allegation contained therein.
1. In answer to ¶ 1 of the Complaint, admit that the Complaint purports to advance the
claims described. As to any and all specific allegations against any party contained in ¶ 1 of the
Complaint, deny each and every said allegation.
1
4. In answer to ¶ 4 of the Complaint, deny each and every allegation contained therein.
THE PARTIES, VENUE, AND JURISDICTION
5. In answer to ¶ 5 of the Complaint, deny knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to
the truth or falsity of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny and put the Plaintiff to
his strict proof thereon.
6. In answer to ¶ 6 of the Complaint, deny that Ascension Health directly provides
health care services. Deny that Ascension Health employs any Defendant or any member of the
hospital staff involved in the care of Grace Schara. Deny that Ascension Health played any role
relative to any of the allegations of this lawsuit. Deny that Ascension Health is a proper party to
this lawsuit. As to any and all further allegations contained in ¶ 6, deny knowledge sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny and
put the Plaintiff to his strict proof thereon.
7. In answer to ¶ 7 of the Complaint, state affirmatively that ¶ 7 of the Complaint is
directed to an individual other than these answering Defendants, and therefore no answer is
required from these answering Defendants. To the extent that an answer is required, deny
knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained therein
and therefore deny and put the Plaintiff to his strict proof thereon.
2
10. In answer to ¶ 10 of the Complaint, state affirmatively that ¶ 10 of the Complaint
is directed to an individual other than these answering Defendants, and therefore no answer is
is directed to an individual other than these answering Defendants, and therefore no answer is
12. In answer to ¶ 12 of the Complaint, admit that Hollee McInnis, RN is, and at all
relevant times was, a licensed and skilled registered nurse. Deny that Hollee McInnis, RN is a
proper party to the instant lawsuit. Deny that Hollee McInnis, RN may be held independently
3
liable on any of the claims asserted in the Complaint. As to any and all further allegations
contained in ¶ 12, deny knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the
allegations contained therein and therefore deny and put the Plaintiff to his strict proof thereon.
13. In answer to ¶ 13 of the Complaint, admit that Alison Barkholtz, RN is, and at all
relevant times was, a licensed and skilled registered nurse. Deny that Alison Barkholtz, RN is a
proper party to the instant lawsuit. Deny that Alison Barkholtz, RN may be held independently
liable on any of the claims asserted in the Complaint. As to any and all further allegations
14. In answer to ¶ 14 of the Complaint, admit that the Complaint refers to certain parties
to the instant lawsuit as the “professional defendants.” Deny that Hollee McInnis, RN and Alison
Barkholtz, RN are properly named as defendants in the instant lawsuit. As to any and all specific
allegations asserted in the Complaint as to any of these answering Defendants, deny any and all
such allegations contained in ¶ 14 of the Complaint or elsewhere in the Complaint.
is directed to an entity other than these answering Defendants, and therefore no answer is required
from these answering Defendants. To the extent that an answer is required, deny knowledge
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained therein and therefore
deny and put the Plaintiff to his strict proof thereon.
is directed to an entity other than these answering Defendants, and therefore no answer is required
from these answering Defendants. To the extent that an answer is required, deny knowledge
4
17. In answer to ¶ 17 of the Complaint, deny that § 801.50 Wis. Stats. is the proper
venue statute applicable to a medical malpractice action in Wisconsin. As to any and all further
allegations contained in ¶ 17, deny knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity
of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny and put the Plaintiff to his strict proof
thereon.
advances a legal conclusion to which no answer is necessary. To the extent that an answer is
deemed necessary to ¶ 18, deny that the cited statute, § 801.01(1) stands for the proposition for
which it is cited in ¶ 18. As to any and all further allegations set forth in ¶ 18, deny knowledge
FACTS
19. In answer to ¶ 19 of the Complaint, deny knowledge sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny and put the Plaintiff
to his strict proof thereon.
5
25. In answer to ¶ 25 of the Complaint, admit that Grace Schara was at one point
admitted to Ascension St. Elizabeth Hospital. As to any and all further allegations contained in ¶
25, deny knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained
therein and therefore deny and put the Plaintiff to his strict proof thereon.
26. In answer to ¶ 26 of the Complaint, affirmatively state that Grace Schara’s medical
records speak for themselves. As to any and all further specific allegations contained in ¶ 26, deny
28. In answer to ¶ 28 of the Complaint, deny each and every allegation contained
therein.
6
records speak for themselves. As to any and all further specific allegations contained in ¶ 29 of
the Complaint, deny knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations
contained therein and therefore deny and put the Plaintiff to his strict proof thereon.
30. In answer to ¶ 30 of the Complaint, admit that Grace Schara was at one point in
time an inpatient at St. Elizabeth Hospital. As to any and all further allegations contained in ¶ 30,
deny knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained
7
therein.
36. In answer to ¶ 36 of the Complaint, state affirmatively that Grace Schara’s medical
records speak for themselves. Deny that Grace Schara ever became “oversedated” from Precedex
or any other medication. As to any and all further allegations contained in ¶ 36, deny knowledge
37. In answer to ¶ 37 of the complaint, affirmatively state that Grace Schara’s medical
39. In answer to ¶ 39 of the Complaint, admit that Alison Barkholtz, RN had an
encounter with plaintiff Scott Schara in October of 2021. Deny that Alison Barkholtz, RN had
plaintiff “removed from the hospital by armed guard.” As to any and all further allegations
contained in ¶ 39, deny each and every said allegation.
40. In answer to ¶ 40 of the Complaint, deny that Scott Schara was “removed” from the
hospital. Further deny that Grace Schara was ever “without family present or advocacy for about
8
30 hours” or any period of time. As to any and all further allegations contained in ¶ 40, deny
41. In answer to ¶ 41 of the Complaint, deny each and every allegation contained in ¶
41 to the extent that said allegations are advanced against any of these answering Defendants.
Deny that Scott Schara was ever “removed” from the hospital. As to any other further allegation
42. In answer to ¶ 42 of the Complaint, deny that Scott Schara was ever “removed”
from the hospital. As to any and all further allegations contained in ¶ 42, deny knowledge
9
48. In answer to ¶ 48 of the Complaint, deny that hospital staff ever “violated” any
“agreement” with any Plaintiff or any party. As to any and all further allegations contained in ¶
48 of the complaint, deny knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the
49. In answer to ¶ 49 of the Complaint, deny that the hospital ever “violated” any
“agreement” with the Plaintiff or any party. Further deny that Grace Schara was “without family
present or advocacy” for any period of time. As to any further allegations contained in ¶ 49, deny
therein.
10
11
58. In answer to ¶ 58 of the Complaint, deny that any policy and procedure of
Ascension Health or St. Elizabeth Hospital establishes the applicable standard of care under
Wisconsin law. As to any and all further allegations contained in ¶ 58, deny each and every said
allegation.
records speak for themselves. As to any and all specific allegations contained in ¶ 59, deny
62. In answer to ¶ 62 of the Complaint, deny each and every allegation set forth therein.
12
66. In answer to ¶ 66 of the Complaint, deny that the hospital’s nursing staff ever
refused to assist Grace Schara or any other patient at any time. Affirmatively state that Grace
Schara’s medical records speak for themselves. As to any and all specific allegations contained in
¶ 66, deny knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained
therein.
therein.
therein.
therein.
13
therein.
74. In answer to ¶ 74 of the Complaint, admit that Grace Schara passed away. As to
any and all further allegations contained in ¶ 74 of the Complaint, deny each and every allegation.
76. In answer to ¶ 76 of the Complaint, deny each and every allegation advanced in ¶
76 or any subsection of ¶ 76 to the extent that such allegations are asserted against any of these
answering Defendants. As to any and all further allegations contained in ¶ 76 or any of its subparts,
deny knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the allegations contained
CLAIM I: WRONGFUL DEATH

As to all Defendants
78. In answer to ¶ 78 of the Complaint, these answering Defendants reallege and
incorporate herein each and every answer to ¶¶ 1-77 of the Complaint, above, as if set forth fully
herein.
14
79. In answer to ¶ 79 of the Complaint, admit that the Plaintiff purports to bring claims
under § 895.04 Wis. Stats. Deny that the allegations contained in ¶ 79 state a claim under 895.04
or otherwise as a matter of law. Deny that the Plaintiff has any viable claim against any defendant
in this lawsuit under § 895.04 Wis. Stats.
therein.
therein, and affirmatively allege that ¶ 81 fails to state a claim for relief as a matter of law.
82. In answer to ¶ 82 of the Complaint, deny each and every allegation contained in
¶ 82 of the Complaint and in any subpart of paragraph 82 of the Complaint, and affirmatively
allege that ¶ 82 fails to state a claim for relief as a matter of law.
CLAIM II – MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

incorporate herein each and every answer set forth in ¶¶ 1-82, above, as if set forth fully herein.
84. In answer to ¶ 84 of the Complaint, deny that Ascension Health employed any
individual who rendered care to Grace Schara at any material time. Further deny that Ascension
Health played any role related to any of the allegations set forth in the Complaint, and therefore
deny that Ascension Health is a proper party to this lawsuit. Deny each and every specific
allegation contained in ¶ 84.
85. In answer to ¶ 85 of the Complaint, affirmatively state that ¶ 85 sets forth legal
conclusions to which no answer is necessary. To the extent that an answer is necessary in response
to ¶ 85 of the Complaint, deny that Ascension Health played any role related to any of the
15
allegations set forth in the Complaint, and therefore deny that Ascension Health is a proper party
to this lawsuit. Deny each and every specific allegation contained in ¶ 85.
86. In answer to ¶ 86 of the Complaint, deny that Ascension Health played any role
related to any of the allegations set forth in the Complaint, and therefore deny that Ascension
Health is a proper party to this lawsuit. Deny each and every specific allegation contained therein.
87. In answer to ¶ 87 of the Complaint, affirmatively state that ¶ 87 sets forth a legal
conclusion to which no answer is necessary. To the extent that an answer is deemed necessary to
¶ 87, deny that Ascension Health employed any individual who rendered care to Grace Schara at
any relevant time, and further deny that Ascension Health played any role related to any of the
allegations set forth in the Complaint, and therefore deny that Ascension Health is a proper party
to this lawsuit. Affirmatively state that ¶ 87 sets forth an improper standard of care. Deny each
and every specific allegation contained in ¶ 87.
individual who rendered care to Grace Schara at any relevant time, and further deny that Ascension
16
allegation made in ¶ 90.
allegation made in ¶ 91.
CLAIM III – MEDICAL BATTERY

As to the Professional Defendants
incorporate herein each and every answer to ¶¶ 1-92 of the Complaint, set forth above, as if set
forth fully herein.
conclusion to which no answer is necessary. To the extent that an answer is deemed necessary to
¶ 93, deny that Wisconsin law recognizes the term “medical battery,” and therefore deny the
allegations of ¶ 93, as alleged, and affirmatively state that ¶ 93 sets forth an incomplete statement
of the law. As to any and all specific allegations contained in ¶ 93, deny each and every such
allegation.
conclusion to which no answer is necessary. Assert further that § 448.30, together with interpreting
caselaw, speaks for itself. To the extent that an answer is deemed necessary to ¶ 94, deny that any
17
of these answering Defendants have or had at any relevant time any duty under § 448.30 Wis.
Stats. As to any other further allegations contained in ¶ 94 of the Complaint, deny knowledge
conclusion to which no answer is necessary. Assert further that § 448.30, together with interpreting
caselaw, speaks for itself. To the extent that an answer is deemed necessary to ¶ 94, deny that any
of these answering Defendants have or had at any relevant time any duty under § 448.30 Wis.
Stats. As to any other further allegations contained in ¶ 95 of the Complaint, deny knowledge
96. In answer to ¶ 96 of the Complaint, deny that any of these answering Defendants
have or had at any relevant time any duty to obtain informed consent from or on behalf of any
person. As to any and all further allegations contained in ¶ 96 of the Complaint, deny each and
every allegation contained therein.
97. In answer to ¶ 97 of the Complaint, deny that any of these Answering Defendants
have or had at any relevant time any duty to obtain informed consent. As to any further allegations
contained in ¶ 97 of the Complaint, deny knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or
falsity of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny and put the Plaintiff to his strict
proof thereon.
have or had at any relevant time any duty to obtain informed consent. As to any and all further
allegations contained in ¶ 98, deny each and every allegation set forth therein.
18
have or had at any relevant time any duty to obtain informed consent at any time. As to any and
all further allegations contained in ¶ 98, deny each and every allegation set forth therein.
CLAIM IV – NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTION DISTRESS

incorporate herein each and every answer to ¶¶ 1-99, above, as if set forth fully herein.
101. In answer to ¶ 101 of the Complaint, affirmatively assert that ¶ 101 sets forth a legal
conclusion to which no response is necessary. Affirmatively state that ¶ 101 asserts an incomplete
or incorrect statement of law. To the extent that a response is deemed necessary to ¶ 101, deny
therein.
104. In answer to ¶ 104 of the Complaint, deny that any of the “professional defendants”
was negligent at any time. As to any and all further allegations contained in ¶ 104, deny knowledge
105. In answer to ¶ 105 of the Complaint, deny that Plaintiff suffered injury as a result
of any alleged act or omission of any of these answering Defendants. As to any further allegation
19
106. In answer to ¶ 106 of the Complaint, deny that Plaintiff suffered any compensable
injury as a result of any alleged act or omission of any of these answering Defendants. As to any
further allegation contained in ¶ 106, deny knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or
falsity of the allegations contained therein and therefore deny and put the Plaintiff to his strict
proof thereon.
CLAIM V – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
incorporate herein the answers to ¶¶ 1-106, above, as if set forth fully herein.
108. In answer to ¶ 108 of the Complaint, admit that the Plaintiff purports to seek a
declaratory judgment in this lawsuit. Deny that the Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory judgment
under § 806.04 Stats., or otherwise, under the circumstances and allegations of the Complaint.
therein.
therein.
111. In answer to ¶ 111 of the Complaint, deny that the Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory
judgment under the circumstances and allegations of the Complaint. As to any and all further
allegations contained in ¶ 111, deny each and very said allegation.
20
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
Pursuant to the Wisconsin statutes which obligate Defendants to preserve affirmative
defenses, these answering Defendants allege, upon information and belief, as follows:
1. As and for a separate and affirmative defense, these answering Defendants allege,
that the liability of Defendants is limited pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 893, 895 and 655, and other
related statutes, and by caselaw interpreting said statutes.
2. As and for a separate and affirmative defense, these answering Defendants allege
that any damages for which these answering defendants may be held responsible are limited by
Wis. Stat. § 893.55, Chapter 655 of the Wis. Stats., and other related statutes, and by caselaw
interpreting said statutes.
upon information and belief, that Plaintiff has failed to join all parties necessary to a complete
adjudication of this matter, including but not limited to the decedent, the decedent’s Estate, and all
parties making payment for medical expenses incurred herein.
4. Subrogated/involuntary Plaintiffs are governed by Wis. Stats. §803.03 and are
liable for costs as set forth in Wis. Stats. §814.04 if these answering Defendants prevail regardless
of whether the providers participate in trial.
5. As and for a separate and affirmative defense, these answering defendants allege
that the injuries and damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff were caused by third-parties over
whom these answering Defendants had no duty to anticipate or right to control.
21
6. Any and all injuries or damages sustained by Plaintiffs may be a direct and
proximate result of the negligence and/or decisions made by Plaintiffs.
that the injuries and damages, if any, sustained by the Plaintiff, were a result of one or more
superseding, intervening acts or omissions.
that the injuries and damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff may have been caused by a naturally
progressing disease, a pre-existing condition, or a superseding or intervening cause, that is beyond
the control of, and unrelated to, the acts, omissions or conduct of these answering Defendants.
upon information and belief, that Plaintiffs may have failed to mitigate their damages.
10. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief for wrongful death arising out of the
death of Grace Schara, including but not limited to any claim for loss of society and companionship
under the Wisconsin wrongful death statute.
11. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for recovery of punitive damages, as punitive
damages are not permitted under Wisconsin law in medical malpractice actions.
12. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for informed consent/medical battery against
these answering Defendants, as nurses and hospitals have no duty to obtain a patient’s medical
informed consent under Wisconsin law.
13. The claims in this case are subject to the exceptions to informed consent set forth
in Wis. Stat. §448.30.
14. Plaintiff has failed to state a valid claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress
under Wisconsin law.
22
15. Plaintiff has failed to state a valid claim for declaratory judgment.
16. Named defendants Hollee McInnis, RN and Alison Barkholtz, RN have been
improperly named as party defendants in the Complaint in this lawsuit, which is based upon
allegations of medical malpractice, and both McInnis and Barkholtz should be dismissed from the
action, as neither can be held personally liable on claims arising out of allegations of medical
malpractice.
17. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for relief against Ascension Health, as it is not a
proper party to this lawsuit; it does not provide health care services; it does not employ health care
providers nor did it employ anyone who rendered care to Grace Schara at any time material,
including but not limited to any of the Defendants in this action; and Ascension Health has
insufficient contacts with the state of Wisconsin to confer subject matter jurisdiction upon the
Court.
18. The summons is defective and therefore, the Court may lack personal jurisdiction
over these answering Defendants at this time.
19. This Court may lack jurisdiction over the allegations of the Complaint as asserted
against one or more of these answering Defendants on the basis that service of process was not
properly accomplished upon each of these answering Defendants as set forth and required under
the Wisconsin statutes.
20. One or more of the Plaintiffs’ claims may be barred by the applicable statute of
limitations.
21. Any liability of these answering Defendants is subject to, or may be barred entirely
or in part by, common law immunity or immunity imposed by statute or caselaw, including but
23
not limited to, The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, and/or similar
federal or state laws.
22. The Wisconsin Supreme Court has determined statutory non-economic damage
caps applicable to medical malpractice actions to be constitutional.
23. The plaintiffs cannot recover medical expenses that have been paid for by
individuals, parties or entities that are not a party to this suit.
24. To the extent that the Complaint asserts allegations of intentional conduct under
one or more of Plaintiffs’ causes of action, Plaintiff has not stated a claim upon which relief may
be granted on a claim of negligence.
25. These answering Defendants reallege and incorporate as if fully set forth herein all
affirmative defenses asserted or that subsequently may be asserted by any co-defendant in this
action, to the extent that such affirmative defenses are not raised herein, and are not inconsistent
with the answer and affirmative defenses of these answering Defendants.
26. These answering Defendants hereby assert each and every affirmative defense
permitted under the Wisconsin statutes to the extent applicable, and these answering Defendants
further reserve the right to add and assert any additional specific affirmative defenses to the extent
that such become known or applicable as discovery proceeds in this lawsuit.
27. These answering Defendants also join any motion to dismiss filed by any other
Defendant to this lawsuit, to the extent that such motion is not inconsistent with the answer and
affirmative defenses, above, filed by these answering Defendants.
24
Dated this 15th day of May, 2023.
OTJEN LAW FIRM, S.C.

Attorneys for Ascension Health, Hollee
McInnis, RN & Alison Barkholtz, RN
s/ Jason J. Franckowiak
Jason J. Franckowiak, SBN 1030873
PO ADDRESS:
20935 Swenson Drive, Suite 310
Waukesha, WI 53186
Phone: 262-777-2222
Fax: 262-777-2201
jfranckowiak@otjen.com
25

2023 CV 000345 An 5171220

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2023 CV 000345 An 5171220

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2023CV000345 Document 33 Filed 05-15-2023 Page 1 of 25

STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT OUTAGAMIE COUNTY

SCOTT SCHARA, individually, and as the

WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH

ASCENSION HEALTH, et al.,

ASCENSION HEALTH, HOLLEE MCINNIS, RN, AND ALISON BARKHOLTZ, RN’S

Plaintiff’s Complaint admit, deny, and affirmatively allege as follows:

allegation contained therein.

Complaint, deny each and every said allegation.

Complaint, deny each and every said allegation.

Complaint, deny each and every said allegation.

THE PARTIES, VENUE, AND JURISDICTION

5. In answer to ¶ 5 of the Complaint, deny knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to

his strict proof thereon.

6. In answer to ¶ 6 of the Complaint, deny that Ascension Health directly provides

put the Plaintiff to his strict proof thereon.

7. In answer to ¶ 7 of the Complaint, state affirmatively that ¶ 7 of the Complaint is

8. In answer to ¶ 8 of the Complaint, state affirmatively that ¶ 8 of the Complaint is

9. In answer to ¶ 9 of the Complaint, state affirmatively that ¶ 9 of the Complaint is

10. In answer to ¶ 10 of the Complaint, state affirmatively that ¶ 10 of the Complaint

11. In answer to ¶ 11 of the Complaint, state affirmatively that ¶ 11 of the Complaint

such allegations contained in ¶ 14 of the Complaint or elsewhere in the Complaint.

15. In answer to ¶ 15 of the Complaint, state affirmatively that ¶ 15 of the Complaint

deny and put the Plaintiff to his strict proof thereon.

16. In answer to ¶ 16 of the Complaint, state affirmatively that ¶ 16 of the Complaint

deny and put the Plaintiff to his strict proof thereon.

18. In answer to ¶ 18 of the Complaint, state affirmatively that ¶ 18 of the Complaint

deny and put the Plaintiff to his strict proof thereon.

19. In answer to ¶ 19 of the Complaint, deny knowledge sufficient to form a belief as

to his strict proof thereon.

20. In answer to ¶ 20 of the Complaint, deny knowledge sufficient to form a belief as

to his strict proof thereon.

21. In answer to ¶ 21 of the Complaint, deny knowledge sufficient to form a belief as

to his strict proof thereon.

22. In answer to ¶ 22 of the Complaint, deny knowledge sufficient to form a belief as

to his strict proof thereon.

23. In answer to ¶ 23 of the Complaint, deny knowledge sufficient to form a belief as

to his strict proof thereon.

24. In answer to ¶ 24 of the Complaint, deny knowledge sufficient to form a belief as

to his strict proof thereon.

deny and put the Plaintiff to his strict proof thereon.

39. In answer to ¶ 39 of the Complaint, admit that Alison Barkholtz, RN had an

contained in ¶ 39, deny each and every said allegation.

deny and put the Plaintiff to his strict proof thereon.

43. In answer to ¶ 43 of the Complaint, deny knowledge sufficient to form a belief as

to his strict proof thereon.

44. In answer to ¶ 44 of the Complaint, deny knowledge sufficient to form a belief as

to his strict proof thereon.

45. In answer to ¶ 45 of the Complaint, deny knowledge sufficient to form a belief as

to his strict proof thereon.

46. In answer to ¶ 46 of the Complaint, deny knowledge sufficient to form a belief as

to his strict proof thereon.

47. In answer to ¶ 47 of the Complaint, deny knowledge sufficient to form a belief as

to his strict proof thereon.

64. In answer to ¶ 64 of the Complaint, deny knowledge sufficient to form a belief as

to his strict proof thereon.

71. In answer to ¶ 71 of the Complaint, deny knowledge sufficient to form a belief as

to his strict proof thereon.

73. In answer to ¶ 73 of the Complaint, deny knowledge sufficient to form a belief as

to his strict proof thereon.

75. In answer to ¶ 75 of the Complaint, deny knowledge sufficient to form a belief as

to his strict proof thereon.