Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order Dated December 7, 1977

     [||ab5e1d88-4cb5-4805-8fc2-2f0d768772fa||] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

BERNICE TERRY, et atl., 

Plaintiffs 

VS. No. H 76-373 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 
et al., 

N
t
 

N
e
?
 

N
m
 

N
a
t
h
 

n
t
?
 

N
g
?
 

a
?
 

“
g
p
?
 

n
g
?
 

p
t
?
 

Defendants 

RICHARD GORDON HATCHER, eft al., 

Plaintiffs 

VS. No. H 77-154 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC. , 
et al., 

Defendants 

N
s
?
 

N
a
t
?
 

N
a
a
 

N
a
t
l
 

m
t
?
 
N
g
 

“
g
t
?
 
“
e
t
 

u
e
 

“
m
e
s
?
 

AFPIDAVIT OF SERVICE 
  

Edward J. Hussey, first being duly sworn upon his oath, 
alleges and says: 

1. That he is one of the attorneys for the defendant, 
Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc. 

2. That on-the 20th day of December, 1977, he served 
copies of the following, to-wit: 

Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Order 
Dated December 7, 1977 

upon the following named attorneys of record in this matter, 
to-wit: 

Julian B. Allen 
Attorney at Law 
2009 Broadway 
Gary, Indiana 

Beth J. Lief 
Attorney at Law 
Suite 2030 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019 

 



. * 

  

Rebecca L. Ross, Esq. 
Department of Justice 
10th and Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 
washington, D. CC. 

Marvin G. Garvin and Edward L. Koven 
Regional Attorney and General Attorney 
Department of Health, Education and Welfare 
300 South Wacker Drive, 18th Floor 
Chicago, Illinois 

Fred W. Grady 
Assistant United States Attorney 
United States District Court 
Northern District of Indiana 
Federal Building, 507 State Street 
Hammond, Indiana 46325 

Marilyn G. Rose 
Christine B. Hickman 
1751 N Street, N.W. 
Washington, D. C. 20036 “ 

Theodore Sendak 

Attorney General 
State House 
Indianapolis, Indiana 46320 

Anthony DeBonis 

720 West Chicago Avenue 
East Chicago, Indiana 

by depositing the same in the United States Mail, postage 
prepaid, and addressed to each of the above-named individuals. 

3. Further affiant sayeth not. 

  

EDWARD J. HUSSEY 

Subscribed and sworn to before me, a Notary Public, 
this 20th day of December, 1577 

\ a e WAR Pe 

‘Shirley, Smat, Notary Public 

L/ 

  

My Commission Expires: 

March 2, 1981 

 



  

IN THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

BERNICE TERRY, et al., 

Plaintiffs 

No. B 76-373 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 

at al., : 
V
a
t
”
 

N
t
”
 

N
t
?
 

N
a
 

“
w
i
 

“
u
i
t
 

“
u
i
t
?
 

“
w
t
”
 

“
u
u
?
 

Defendants 

RICHARD GORDON HATCHER, et al., 

Plaintiffs : 

No. RH 77-154 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., 

et al., 

Defendants 

N
e
?
 

N
u
n
 

N
a
 

a
i
t
 

Sa
at
? 

w
i
 

®
 

u
i
?
 
“
u
t
 

“
e
t
 

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 

OF THE COURT'S ORDER DATED DECEMBER 7, 1977 
  

  

Comes now the defendants, Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc. and 

Denis EB. Ribordy, by counsel, and move the Court to reconsider its 

Order of December 7, 1977 granting plaintiffs' Motion for a ninety 

day continuance of trial date and bifurcation in this matter. In 

support of its Motion, defendants state as follows: 

l. That the defendants incorporate herein the Affidavit of 

Bruce E. Sayers, attached to defendants response to plaintiffs' Motion 

for continuance, filed 'in this Court on October 13, 1977 ha attached 

hereto is a copy of the same marked "Exhibit A" for reference. 

ES Ee en de A BBS BD BO 

 



4 PS 

  

2. That as 1s disclosed by Mr. Sayers' Affidavit, a ninety 

day delay in the commencement of the patidtng project, which is 

‘the subject matter of this suit, will cost Methodist Hospital of 

Gary, Inc. in excess of Two Hundred Thousand ($200,000.00) Dollars. 

The buildings in question are essentially non-revenue generating 

facilities. Because of the fixed amount of the loan guarantees 

and the limited financial resources available to this not-for-profit 

institution, a delay in the commencement of this project would not 

only cause the project cost to escalate to the detriment of Methodist 

Hospital, but may in fact, cause the cost of these buildings to 

escalate to the point where the projects are no 1oliddy financially 

feasible for the hospital. Each day of delay increases the likelihood 

of that consequence. 

3. That, as is demonstrated by the attached Affidavit of William 

B. Davis, continued delays in the resolution of this matter are 

not only causing extreme financial hardship for the hospital, but 

in addition, are detrimentally affecting the morale of the employees 

and staff of the hospital. Because there are a be of other 

health care facilities in this area which represent alternative 

employment for the employees and staff of the hospital and which 

are not involved in this litigation, the hospital faces a genuine 

dilemma concerning the continued employment of key employees and 

continued utilization by the staff of the postal; 

4. That in each of their Motions for continuance of the trial 

date and Memorandums in support thereof, the plaintiffs have listed 

as a salient factor calling for such continuance, the inability 

of plaintiffs to complete discovery prior to a December 5, 1977, 

or January 9, 1978, trial date. As was expressed in defendants’ 

Motion in opposition to each Motion for continuance, the plaintiffs 

herein have been delinquent in beginning discovery and dilatorius 

ca     

 



  

® 2 

in the discovery process to the point of delay. They have created 

a crisis and asked the Court to extricate them from a very demanding 

discovery schedule. Now that the Court has relieved the plaintiffs 

of the press of the discovery schedule being utilized to prepare 

for the January 8, 1978, trial date, the plaintiffs have again delayed 

depositions which had been set during the weeks of December 12 and 

18, 1977. | 

5. In its Order of December 2. 1977, the Court specifically 

incorporated a certain stipulation entered into between the parties 

to this suit. That stipulation was entered into by defendant, Methodist 

Hospital, under the express condition that by entering into the 

stipulation, the defendant Hothottet Hospital, was agreeing to 

a continuance of the trial date from December 5, 1977, until January 9, 

1978. We are now informed by the Court that because of this stipu- 

lation, the Court is continuing trial until March 13, 1978. While 

the stipulation in question does purport to alleviate the hospital's 

problem concerning Section 1122 Certification, the stipulation does 

not alleviate the other damages incurred and to be incurred by the 

hospital through the continued delay in this matter. 

6. That defendants assert that an exercise of the Court's dis- 

cretion to bifurcate trial of violation in this matter from any pro- 

ceedings to formulate the remedy in this matter, was designed to alleviate 

the pressure of discovery on the plaintiffs and defendant, Department 

of Health, Education and Welfare. The defendants assert that because 

plaintiffs essentially allege that the defendants have failed to complete- 

ly satisfy their lawful duties, proof of any violation will have to show 

the extent to which the duties remain unfulfilled. Similarly a proper 

 



  

remedy in this case would be to order the defendants to fulfill any 

such duties which have not heretofore been satisfied. Thus proof of 

violation and proof of a remedy would fit hand-in-glove. This being 

the case, however, defendants recognize that it is within the Court's 

discretion to 80 blifurcate this matter. However, such bifurcation 

designed to simplify and expedite trial of violation should not be 

coupled with a further continuance in this matter. 

WHEREFORE, defendants, Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc. and 

Denis E. Ribordy, pray the Court to exercise its plenary powers to 

reconsider its own Order of December 7, 1977 and set trial in this 

matter on January 9, 1978 as was previously indicated. 

Respectfully submitted, 

HODGES, DAVIS, GRUENBERG COMPTON & SAYERS 
— 

Y 

  

Lo rey 
BY Aw a foo Ty 

Bruce E. Sayers / 
5525 Broadway { 
Gary, Indiana 
Phone: 3581-2557 

 



  

IN THB 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA 

HAMMOND DIVISION 

BERNICE TERRY, et al., ) 

Plaintiffs ) 

) 
VS. ) No. H 76-373 = 

METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., ) 

et al., ) 
) 

Defendants ) 

RICHARD GORDON HATCHER, et al., ) 

Plaintiffs ) 

| ) 
ys. ) No. H 77-154 

) 
METHODIST HOSPITAL OF GARY, INC., ) 

et al., ) 
) 

Defendants ) 

AFFIDAVIT OF BRUCE E, SAYERS 
  

BRUCE. E. SAYERS, first being sworn upon his oath, alle es 

and says: 

1. That I am one of the attorneys for the defendants, 

Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc. and Denis E. Ribordy, in 

the above-captioned matter. 

2. That I received the Department of Health, 

Education and Welfare's Motion for Reconsideration of the 

December 5, 1977, Trial Date and plaintiffs Notion for Con- 

tinuance of Trial for Ninety Days and have examined same. 

3. That upon learning of said motions for continuance 

I called the architectural firm of Schmidt, Garden & Erikson, 

architects for defendant, Methodist Hospital of Gary, iInc., 

to inquire as to an approximation of additional costs which 

would be incurred by the defendant should further delay 

ba cxperienced prior to the commencement of construction 

 



  

- 

of the building project which is the subject matter of this 

lawsuit. IX was advised by the architects that the hospital 

could expect costs to increase on the order of approximately 

9 co
 to 10% per annum on the total cost of the project. The 

building program is an $8.3 million dollar proposal and 

at the rate of 10% per year the cost of Methodist Hospital 

of Gary, Inc.'s project will increase in annual increments 

in excess of $830,000.00. Accordingly, a ninety day delay 

can be expected to cost Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc. 

in excess of $200,000.00. 

4. That the $8.3 million dollar projected cost for 

the building program was A /cost projection made by the hospital's 

above-mentioned architects in anticipation of a project 

commencement Ants of mid-1977. While the hospital has. been 

able to make certain minor adjustments in the.project to 

minimize cost increases to date such a okcoaliine cannot 

be expected to contain cost increases over a significant 

length of time. 

5. : That I have reviewed the motion of the Department 

of Health, wAusation and Welfare for reconsideration of 

the trial date and have noted that She Dab rtRens of Health, 

Education and Welfare is purportedly offering to the defendant, 

Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc. a stipulation for extension 

of Section 1122 certification on Methodist Hospital of Gary, 

Inc.'s current building program. As Of this date I have 

not received a copy of such proposed stipulation or been 

advised of its contents nor have 1 been made Familiar with 

— 

 



. 

- 4: - 

ne 

the reaction of the various Indiana state agencies whose 

  

responsibility it is to implement the Section 1122 review, 

approval and certification process, particularly their willing— 

ness to join in any such continuance. 

re ol 
BRUCE E. bs 
  

STATE OF INDIANA 

N
n
?
 

S
a
?
 

- 
9p)

 

COUNTY OF LAKE 

BRUCE E. SAYERS, being first duly sworn upon his oath, 

states that he has read the above and foregoing Affidavit 

and that the contents thereof are true and correct to the 

best of his knowledge. : : 2 : Tay 

Lal - 
BRUCE E. SAYERS f 
  

Subscribed and sworn to before me, a NOtary Public, 

this | P aay of October, 1977. ty 

Fi Zz Fotacy wer eh 
  

My Commission Expires: 

= Br 
  

     



® * 

AFFIDAVIT 

  

  

Comes now William B. Davis, and being first duly sworn upon his oath and 

says as follows: 

1. That he is one of the attorneys for the defendant, Methodist Hospital 

of Gary, Inc. 

2. That he is a member of the Board of Directors of the defendant, 

Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc., and is a member of the Liaison Committee 

of said Board of Directors with the Medical Staff of said Hospital. 

3. That there are numerous doctors nurses, and health care professionals 

associated with Methodist Hospital at this time. 

4. That it is the observation of this affiant that doctors, nurses, and 

professional staff provide medical services at hospitals which are able to 

meet their needs and in a derivative sense the patients of each hospital 

by acquiring the lastest equipment and most up to date facilities. 

5. That the doctors, nurses, and professional staff associated with 

Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc., are vitally aware of the first continuance 

and upon hearing of a second continuance will react adversely to Methodist 

Hospital of Gary, Inc. and hence to the Gary SOT LY; 

6. That a second continuance of this action may jeopardize medical care 

in the Gary community as doctors, nurses, and health care professionals 

associated with Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc. may decide that the 

provision of health care at the Methodist Hospital facilities is in 

jeopardy due to the extended nature of this litigation and may likewise 

decide that their future will be better served at other medical institutions 

free of such litigation. 

7. That for the same reason this affiant believes that the Methodist 

Hospital of Gary, Inc. will encounter greater difficulty in attracting 

physicians, nurses, and health care professionals to its hospital facilities 

and particularly, attracting residents too, for its Family Practice Residency. 

"Exhibit B" 

 



od » 

  

8. The trial of this cause commencing on January 9, 1978 is in the best 

interests of Methodist Hospital of Gary, Inc. and in the derivative sense 

is in the best interests of providing quality health care to the class 

of the plaintiffs residing in Gary. 

9. Further affiant sayeth not. 

MKD XX A— 
"William B. Davis 
  

  

2 / 
Subscripsd and sworn to before me a Notary Public, this_ Jil day 

Hots 
of ny 1877, 
  

  

My Commission Expires: 

i [||ab5e1d88-4cb5-4805-8fc2-2f0d768772fa||]