Answer: RAYMOND KAY, ADM. OF ESTATE OF MARY KAY, DEC'D. vs. EMERGENCY PROFESSIONALS OF OHIO, INC., ET AL.

						
                                
Preview
                                NAILAH K. BYRD
                                  CUYAHOGA COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS
                                                  1200 Ontario Street
                                                 Cleveland, Ohio 44113




                                            Court of Common Pleas


                                                  ANSWER OF...
                                               January 25, 2024 11:14


                                          By: MICHAEL F. LYON 0006749

                                              Confirmation Nbr. 3070406



  RAYMOND KAY, ADM. OF ESTATE OF MARY KAY,                               CV 23 990355
  DECD.

          vs.
                                                                Judge: NANCY A. FUERST
  EMERGENCY PROFESSIONALS OF OHIO, INC., ET
  AL.




                                                   Pages Filed: 1




Electronically Filed 01/25/2024 11:14/ ANSWERS / CV 23 990355 / Confirmation Nbr. 3070406 / BATCH
                                        COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
                                        CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO

      RAYMOND KAY, ADMINISTRATOR                               Case No.: CV 23 990355
      OF THE ESTATE OF
      MARY KAY, DECEASED                                       Judge Nancy A. Fuerst
                                Plaintiff
      vs.                                                     AMENDED ANSWER OF
                                                              DEFENDANT, EMERGENCY
      EMERGENCY PROFESSIONALS                                 PROFESSIONALS OF OHIO, INC.
      OF OHIO, INC., et al.
                               Defendant
             Now comes Defendant, Emergency Professionals of Ohio, Inc., by and through
     counsel, and hereby amends its Answer to Plaintiff’s Complaint, relative to Paragraph 4
     of its original Answer and states as follows:
                                                FIRST DEFENSE
             1.       Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
                                              SECOND DEFENSE
             2.      The First Defense is incorporated herein by reference as if fully rewritten.
             3.       Defendant denies for want of knowledge Paragraph 1 of Plaintiff’s
     Complaint.
             4.       Defendant admits Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
             5.      Defendant denies Paragraph 4 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
             6.      Defendant denies for want of knowledge Paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of Plaintiff’s
     Complaint.
             7.       Defendant admits Paragraph 8 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
             8.       Defendant deny for want of knowledge Paragraph 9 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
             9.       Defendant admit Paragraph 10 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
             10.     Defendant denies Paragraph 11 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
             11.     Defendant admits Paragraph 12 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
             12.     Defendant denies Paragraph 13 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
             13.     Defendant admits Paragraph 14 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
             14.     Defendant denies Paragraph 15 of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
             15.      Defendant denies for want of knowledge Paragraphs 16 through 22,
     inclusive of Plaintiff’s Complaint.
Electronically Filed 01/25/2024 11:14 / ANSWERS / CV 23 990355 / Confirmation Nbr. 3070406 / BATCH