Preview
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 00-185CA
HELEN SUE HUNT and JOHN HUNT,
ne
eo
Plaintiffs,
=
uy
-VSs-
ro pw
MARK S. TRACY, D.P.M.; MARK S. TRACY, D.
PAMELA J. HUMPEL, D. P. M. a
P. M., PL. AL;
and MATTHEW J. FINEMAN, D. P. M., P. A,
Defendants.
ANSWER
COMES NOW, the Defendants, PAMELA J. HUMPEL, D. P M. and
MATTHEW J. FINEMAN, D. Pp. OM., Pp. AL, by and through the parties’
undersigned attorney, and hereby Answers the Complaint heretofore
filed by the Plaintiffs, HELEN SUE HUNT and JOHN HUNT, as follows:
Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only.
Denied.
Without knowledge
Without knowledge
Without knowledge
6. Without knowledge
Denied.
Denied. Charlotte County Clerk
1065491 Date : 03/03/00 - 16:31:13 id: 54
9.
HA l In iYj
Without knowledge.
Case#: 00000185CA Pa les: 0004
10 Without knowledge.
11. Without knowledge
12 Without knowledge
13 Without knowledge
14. Without knowledge
15. Denied.
16. Responded to the same as hereinabove.
17. Without knowledge.
18 Without knowledge
19 Without knowledge
20 Without knowledge
21. Without knowledge
22. Without knowledge
23. Without knowledge
24. Without knowledge
25. Without knowledge
26. Responded to the same as hereinabove.
27 Without knowledge.
28 Responded to the same as hereinabove.
29 Denied.
30 Denied
31. Denied
32. Denied
33 Denied
34 Responded to the same as hereinabove.
35. Denied.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
As the Defendants’ First Affirmative Defense, the Defendants
would state that the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff, HELEN SUE
HUNT, if any, resulted from the inexorable process of human disease
and/or malady, and not from the intervention of these Defendants.
As the Defendants’ Second Affirmative Defense, the Defendants
would state that if liability is determined by the trier of fact,
and damages are awarded to compensate the Plaintiffs for losses
sustained, then in that event, the Defendants should be entitled to
have the award reduced by the amounts paid to the Plaintiffs from
all collateral sources available to the Plaintiffs.
As the Defendants’ Third Affirmative Defense, the Defendants,
would state that the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff, HELEN SUE
HUNT, if any, were the direct and proximate result of the
carelessness and negligence of the Plaintiff, HELEN SUE HUNT, or
other third parties, either named or unnamed, or in the
alternative, were partially the direct and proximate result of the
carelessness and negligence of the Plaintiff and said other third
parties. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ claim is either barred or
must be reduced in accordance thereof. Furthermore, pursuant to
current case law, these Defendants reserve the right to name any
other co-defendants in this proceeding as a potential Fabre tort
feasor in the event any such co-defendant is either dismissed from
this proceeding, or in the alternative, enters into any type of
settlement agreement with the Plaintiffs; such reservations should
not be construed at this juncture to constitute an allegation of
negligence on the part of any other co-defendant.
As the Defendants’ Fourth Affirmative Defense, the Defendants
would state that the Plaintiffs’ Complaint is violative of Chapter
766, Florida Statutes and accordingly should be stricken as a
matter of law. S.
>
}
ae
Lyle ‘Ln, g D yn os
William S. Jondssen, Esq.
Post Office Bo: 366
Indian Rocks Beach, Florida 33785
727/586-1484
00002648
Bar #174149
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
has been furnished to the below named individuals via U. s Mail,
this 28th day of February, 2000
Robert G. Lyons, Esq.
2033 Main Street, Suite 600
Sarasota, Florida 34237
Norman M. Waas, Esq.
113 Almeria Avenue
Coral Gables, Florida 33134 ’ €
a
f, /
(Lean Ver Pa -
wifliam Ss. JonaSsen, Esq.
Preview
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR CHARLOTTE COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION CASE NO. 00-185CA HELEN SUE HUNT and JOHN HUNT, ne eo Plaintiffs, = uy -VSs- ro pw MARK S. TRACY, D.P.M.; MARK S. TRACY, D. PAMELA J. HUMPEL, D. P. M. a P. M., PL. AL; and MATTHEW J. FINEMAN, D. P. M., P. A, Defendants. ANSWER COMES NOW, the Defendants, PAMELA J. HUMPEL, D. P M. and MATTHEW J. FINEMAN, D. Pp. OM., Pp. AL, by and through the parties’ undersigned attorney, and hereby Answers the Complaint heretofore filed by the Plaintiffs, HELEN SUE HUNT and JOHN HUNT, as follows: Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only. Denied. Without knowledge Without knowledge Without knowledge 6. Without knowledge Denied. Denied. Charlotte County Clerk 1065491 Date : 03/03/00 - 16:31:13 id: 54 9. HA l In iYj Without knowledge. Case#: 00000185CA Pa les: 0004 10 Without knowledge. 11. Without knowledge 12 Without knowledge 13 Without knowledge 14. Without knowledge 15. Denied. 16. Responded to the same as hereinabove. 17. Without knowledge. 18 Without knowledge 19 Without knowledge 20 Without knowledge 21. Without knowledge 22. Without knowledge 23. Without knowledge 24. Without knowledge 25. Without knowledge 26. Responded to the same as hereinabove. 27 Without knowledge. 28 Responded to the same as hereinabove. 29 Denied. 30 Denied 31. Denied 32. Denied 33 Denied 34 Responded to the same as hereinabove. 35. Denied. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES As the Defendants’ First Affirmative Defense, the Defendants would state that the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff, HELEN SUE HUNT, if any, resulted from the inexorable process of human disease and/or malady, and not from the intervention of these Defendants. As the Defendants’ Second Affirmative Defense, the Defendants would state that if liability is determined by the trier of fact, and damages are awarded to compensate the Plaintiffs for losses sustained, then in that event, the Defendants should be entitled to have the award reduced by the amounts paid to the Plaintiffs from all collateral sources available to the Plaintiffs. As the Defendants’ Third Affirmative Defense, the Defendants, would state that the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff, HELEN SUE HUNT, if any, were the direct and proximate result of the carelessness and negligence of the Plaintiff, HELEN SUE HUNT, or other third parties, either named or unnamed, or in the alternative, were partially the direct and proximate result of the carelessness and negligence of the Plaintiff and said other third parties. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ claim is either barred or must be reduced in accordance thereof. Furthermore, pursuant to current case law, these Defendants reserve the right to name any other co-defendants in this proceeding as a potential Fabre tort feasor in the event any such co-defendant is either dismissed from this proceeding, or in the alternative, enters into any type of settlement agreement with the Plaintiffs; such reservations should not be construed at this juncture to constitute an allegation of negligence on the part of any other co-defendant. As the Defendants’ Fourth Affirmative Defense, the Defendants would state that the Plaintiffs’ Complaint is violative of Chapter 766, Florida Statutes and accordingly should be stricken as a matter of law. S. > } ae Lyle ‘Ln, g D yn os William S. Jondssen, Esq. Post Office Bo: 366 Indian Rocks Beach, Florida 33785 727/586-1484 00002648 Bar #174149 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to the below named individuals via U. s Mail, this 28th day of February, 2000 Robert G. Lyons, Esq. 2033 Main Street, Suite 600 Sarasota, Florida 34237 Norman M. Waas, Esq. 113 Almeria Avenue Coral Gables, Florida 33134 ’ € a f, / (Lean Ver Pa - wifliam Ss. JonaSsen, Esq.