Preview
To: 19097088586 Page: 03 of 18 2021-05-14 21 235150 GMT From: Walker Mann
\r \r
1 WALKER & MANN LLP F i 'u. E D
Jeffrey A. Walker, StareBar No. 179734 FORNIA
sng-mgs 89$; gggfikggm
2 iwalkemilwglkcrrgann.com ’s/{N BERNARmNo DISTRICT
Laura .L. Hummasti, State Bar No. 302715
3 Lmumasti @walkcrmann.00m MAY 1 4 202]
10832 Laurel Street, Suite 204
4 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
5
Telephone: (909) 989-3200
Facsimile: (909) 697-2182
BYMAé—fl IQ-
v
ELYZABETH GOMEZ-
i};
/ _'\
EPU
6 Attorneys for Defendant
JEFFREY KLEMPEN, D.().
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
10
11 JOSEPH .KEARNS, Individually, and as Case No.: CIVDS 1935220
Successor~in~lnterest to VICTORIA. JEAN
12
13
MCINTOSH,
Plaintiffs,
Assigned for A11 Purposes to:
Hon. Judge Khymberli S. Apaloo
Dept: SZS
X
<
I I
l4 v.
DEFENDANT JEFFREY KLEMPEN, D.0.'S
H‘I-DESERT MEDICAL CENTER; JEFFREY
ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST >"
15 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES g“)
KLEM'PEN, D.O.; ELDENE A. SMITH, M.D.; FOR WRONGFUL DEATH AND DEMAND ~-
16 DANIEL HEINS, a Nominal Defendant; FOR JURY TRIAL
KRISTINA HEINS, a Nominal Defendant;
l7 JESSIEMCINTOSH, a Nominal Defendant;
CURTIS MCINTOSH, a Nominal Defendant;
l8 and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of
them,
l9
Defendants. Complaint Filed: 11/22/2019
20 Trial Date: 3/ 1 4/2022
21 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR REgECTIVE COUNSEL 0F RECORD:
22 Defendant, JEFFREY KLEMPEN, D.O., answering plaintiff's First Amended Complaint,
‘
23 hereby admits, denies, and alleges as foilows:
24 1. Admits that defendant, Jeffrey Klempen, D.O. was, at the times mentioned in. the First
25 Amended Complaint, an emergency medicine physician licensed 10 practice medicine in the County
26 of‘San Bernardino, State of California.
27 2. Under the provisions of Code ofCiviI Procedure Section 43 I .30(d). defendant denies,
28 generally and specifically, each allegation of the First Amended Complaint; defendant further denies
l
DEFENDANT JEFFREY KLEMPEN, D.O.’S ANSWER TO PLAlNTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT
FOR DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL DEATH AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
' “057 § M)8. 008
To: 19097088586 Page: 04 of 18 2021-05-14 21:35:50 GMT From: Wa ker Mann
\v V
that plaintiff and/or piain'tiff‘s decedent have.
sustained damages resulting from any wrongful act or
omission of defendant or any of their agents or employees.
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
3. 'Plaintifi’s decedent, VICTORIA JEAN MCINTOSH, at all relevant times, knew 0r
I should have known that she was submitting herselfto medical treatment which, because
0f her existing
1condition, rendered her susceptible to potential complication
0r injury, and that by submitting herself
:to such medical treatment, she freely and expressly assume
d all risks involved. “i‘heret-‘orc, plaintiff is
‘
barred from any rccbvew against defendant.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
4. Plaintifl’s decedent was fully informed 0f the risks and benefits associated with. the
medical care and treatment performed by defendant and. expressly and/or impliedly assumed each and
every risk associated with undergoing or refusing t0 undergo said
l
treatment.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
5. Any injury, loss, or damage purportedly sustained, ifat all, by plaintiffand/or plaintiff‘s
decedent, was directly and proximately caused and contributed to by risks which were fully and.
lactually known to plaintiff and/or plaintiff‘s decedent, who fully and actually appreciated the nature
and scope of the hazards created thereby, and said plaintiff and/or plaintiff’s decedent vnlumarily
= L
assumed said risks and the potential consequences thereof.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
6. The incident described in plaintiff‘s First Amended Complaint, as well as the injuries.
losses, and damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff and/or plaintiff’s decedent, were proximately
caused by intervening and superseding causes and
forces beyond the control of this answering
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
7. All events relevant to the allegations of the First Amend
ed Complaint were proximately
caused and contributed to by the legal fault of plaintiff
and/or plaintiff’s decedent and; if there is any
")
DEFENDANT JEFFREY KLEMPEN, D.O.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
FOR DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL DEATH AND DEMAND FOR. JURY
|4|US7 30084108 TRIAL
Preview
To: 19097088586 Page: 03 of 18 2021-05-14 21 235150 GMT From: Walker Mann \r \r 1 WALKER & MANN LLP F i 'u. E D Jeffrey A. Walker, StareBar No. 179734 FORNIA sng-mgs 89$; gggfikggm 2 iwalkemilwglkcrrgann.com ’s/{N BERNARmNo DISTRICT Laura .L. Hummasti, State Bar No. 302715 3 Lmumasti @walkcrmann.00m MAY 1 4 202] 10832 Laurel Street, Suite 204 4 Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 5 Telephone: (909) 989-3200 Facsimile: (909) 697-2182 BYMAé—fl IQ- v ELYZABETH GOMEZ- i}; / _'\ EPU 6 Attorneys for Defendant JEFFREY KLEMPEN, D.(). 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 10 11 JOSEPH .KEARNS, Individually, and as Case No.: CIVDS 1935220 Successor~in~lnterest to VICTORIA. JEAN 12 13 MCINTOSH, Plaintiffs, Assigned for A11 Purposes to: Hon. Judge Khymberli S. Apaloo Dept: SZS X < I I l4 v. DEFENDANT JEFFREY KLEMPEN, D.0.'S H‘I-DESERT MEDICAL CENTER; JEFFREY ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST >" 15 AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES g“) KLEM'PEN, D.O.; ELDENE A. SMITH, M.D.; FOR WRONGFUL DEATH AND DEMAND ~- 16 DANIEL HEINS, a Nominal Defendant; FOR JURY TRIAL KRISTINA HEINS, a Nominal Defendant; l7 JESSIEMCINTOSH, a Nominal Defendant; CURTIS MCINTOSH, a Nominal Defendant; l8 and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, l9 Defendants. Complaint Filed: 11/22/2019 20 Trial Date: 3/ 1 4/2022 21 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR REgECTIVE COUNSEL 0F RECORD: 22 Defendant, JEFFREY KLEMPEN, D.O., answering plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, ‘ 23 hereby admits, denies, and alleges as foilows: 24 1. Admits that defendant, Jeffrey Klempen, D.O. was, at the times mentioned in. the First 25 Amended Complaint, an emergency medicine physician licensed 10 practice medicine in the County 26 of‘San Bernardino, State of California. 27 2. Under the provisions of Code ofCiviI Procedure Section 43 I .30(d). defendant denies, 28 generally and specifically, each allegation of the First Amended Complaint; defendant further denies l DEFENDANT JEFFREY KLEMPEN, D.O.’S ANSWER TO PLAlNTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL DEATH AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ' “057 § M)8. 008 To: 19097088586 Page: 04 of 18 2021-05-14 21:35:50 GMT From: Wa ker Mann \v V that plaintiff and/or piain'tiff‘s decedent have. sustained damages resulting from any wrongful act or omission of defendant or any of their agents or employees. FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 3. 'Plaintifi’s decedent, VICTORIA JEAN MCINTOSH, at all relevant times, knew 0r I should have known that she was submitting herselfto medical treatment which, because 0f her existing 1condition, rendered her susceptible to potential complication 0r injury, and that by submitting herself :to such medical treatment, she freely and expressly assume d all risks involved. “i‘heret-‘orc, plaintiff is ‘ barred from any rccbvew against defendant. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 4. Plaintifl’s decedent was fully informed 0f the risks and benefits associated with. the medical care and treatment performed by defendant and. expressly and/or impliedly assumed each and every risk associated with undergoing or refusing t0 undergo said l treatment. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 5. Any injury, loss, or damage purportedly sustained, ifat all, by plaintiffand/or plaintiff‘s decedent, was directly and proximately caused and contributed to by risks which were fully and. lactually known to plaintiff and/or plaintiff‘s decedent, who fully and actually appreciated the nature and scope of the hazards created thereby, and said plaintiff and/or plaintiff’s decedent vnlumarily = L assumed said risks and the potential consequences thereof. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 6. The incident described in plaintiff‘s First Amended Complaint, as well as the injuries. losses, and damages allegedly sustained by plaintiff and/or plaintiff’s decedent, were proximately caused by intervening and superseding causes and forces beyond the control of this answering FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE 7. All events relevant to the allegations of the First Amend ed Complaint were proximately caused and contributed to by the legal fault of plaintiff and/or plaintiff’s decedent and; if there is any ") DEFENDANT JEFFREY KLEMPEN, D.O.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR WRONGFUL DEATH AND DEMAND FOR. JURY |4|US7 30084108 TRIAL