Gachot v. Lotke

Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas

Gachot v. Lotke

3 Pa. D. & C.3d 253, 1977 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 266

CourtPennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County

DecidedNovember 28, 1977

Docketno. 5640

StatusPublished

This text of 3 Pa. D. & C.3d 253 (Gachot v. Lotke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gachot v. Lotke, 3 Pa. D. & C.3d 253, 1977 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 266 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

GREENBERG, J.,

This case is again before us on plaintiffs’ objections to a third set of interrogatories.

On November 10, 1977, we denied defendant, Paul A. Lotke’s motion for a more complete answer [254]*254to an interrogatory which asked plaintiffs to state in full the facts forming the basis for plaintiffs’ allegation that this defendant was guilty of wilful, wanton and reckless misconduct. We did this because we felt that plaintiffs’ answer sufficiently answered that question.

Plaintiffs’ answer, however, did refer to defendant’s failure to follow elementary medical principles; to defendant’s ignoring certain classic signs and symptoms; to defendant’s prescribing certain antibiotics; to defendant’s failure to properly observe the patient; to defendant’s failure to advise plaintiff of certain risks; to defendant’s failure to provide necessary consultations and to defendant’s failure to recommend appropriate tests. Now defendant seeks to ascertain the principles, the signs and symptoms, the antibiotics, etc., etc., to which plaintiff refers in his answer.

It seems to us that this is proper and is in no way an indication of bad faith or harassment. Certainly plaintiff would have to show this at the trial so that it is not something he would otherwise not be required to do. In addition, it is this type of information which provides the basis for a proper settlement of the case and while there is no assurance that the case will settle if it is provided, it is certain that it will not settle if it is not provided.

For these reasons we believe that the third set of interrogatories is proper and should be answered.

ORDER

And now, November 28, 1977, plaintiffs’ objections to defendant Paul A. Lotke’s third set of interrogatories (26 to 32 inclusive) are overruled and plaintiffs shall file answers to same within 30 days of the date of this order.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GREENBERG, J.,

This case is again before us on plaintiffs’ objections to a third set of interrogatories.

On November 10, 1977, we denied defendant, Paul A. Lotke’s motion for a more complete answer [254]*254to an interrogatory which asked plaintiffs to state in full the facts forming the basis for plaintiffs’ allegation that this defendant was guilty of wilful, wanton and reckless misconduct. We did this because we felt that plaintiffs’ answer sufficiently answered that question.

Plaintiffs’ answer, however, did refer to defendant’s failure to follow elementary medical principles; to defendant’s ignoring certain classic signs and symptoms; to defendant’s prescribing certain antibiotics; to defendant’s failure to properly observe the patient; to defendant’s failure to advise plaintiff of certain risks; to defendant’s failure to provide necessary consultations and to defendant’s failure to recommend appropriate tests. Now defendant seeks to ascertain the principles, the signs and symptoms, the antibiotics, etc., etc., to which plaintiff refers in his answer.

It seems to us that this is proper and is in no way an indication of bad faith or harassment. Certainly plaintiff would have to show this at the trial so that it is not something he would otherwise not be required to do. In addition, it is this type of information which provides the basis for a proper settlement of the case and while there is no assurance that the case will settle if it is provided, it is certain that it will not settle if it is not provided.

For these reasons we believe that the third set of interrogatories is proper and should be answered.

ORDER

And now, November 28, 1977, plaintiffs’ objections to defendant Paul A. Lotke’s third set of interrogatories (26 to 32 inclusive) are overruled and plaintiffs shall file answers to same within 30 days of the date of this order.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 Pa. D. & C.3d 253, 1977 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gachot-v-lotke-pactcomplphilad-1977.