HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-05641
'1,
,I
'I ',Ii'
"
"l1
I
,
,
'rl ,I
,
,
',I,
.
"
", j
,I!
',1
"
i,,' ;_'11,
!! '
,
"
,I" r
ti
\
'II
"
I'"
F I l( .-;,
,- -I r
-I-/Irl ,I .-\
',-:','/1-', "I I
l,tl'
Ii!" ,.,1.
'11
"
I,
'I
"
lP
"
il}!;
,
'\
,I
,i
-I,
"
'I
,',
'fl
I.'
I
,
I"
,
,"I)"; ",i,i'r
,"
I,
I
d'
! I"
I
',1
,
"
,
I ~ I I
I, (,
ill
"
,',\ t
..d J
j!', ,"I' I
!J_'I
J! ii, j,
,
!
11'
"
"
" , L
" I
"
,oj]
r
i 1',1
"
I'
"
i-hi
"I"! II
111,1"j
"
~ i, I
il',o I
I", :'/,
II'
,
, ~ J
,
,
,
jl' I If
,
)1,': 11
"
"
II -j
I,Jn
,i'
"
,II.
,-I'liri-:/!
,
,
II
)
,t!
,,' i'
1,'./"1-/'
,I, ,
I' ,:1 ;,1
I
r
t- "
,
,:I,'i;'
-'1-
I
I,_','!""
/",11,'
" t'
'I
"
,
li!f -1'-
,If '! 1"_ 'I"
.-,\_' II,,' I
,;/,: -, 1'1
',"I.
"
,} 'I)'
'" \1
, '
I,
','
II'
'I
II
~
)
~
\)
~
,I
Ii
,
I'
1--'/11:
", ,
,,,
"
,
, ;ll,l'"
"
I':" 'II
'iL
,
, "
ii,
,/
II'
'I'
'I'J
!I'
,
"
" ,.'
1',1J
1-:[
I
I'
"
"
I
"
"i,llil' ,'1
'I, "
I '~I, I '
;,1
'-'1'
, ,
"
"
"
,
I!
II.,'
I ,-I./;
,
" ,
illl'l
1.11
I_I id"1
!'I-I
",'; II I,
l,'l,
,il
_I")fll
j ,",1,1
j " "
;1,
"
,
: IJ;;
\"
,
,,'
ii,
,
,; "
'" :'1'1'
, ,
"
II
"
'"
,
"
,
~ I .
,I
I
"
"id, ,)' j-
I -I I;
e
"
"
"
I'"
"
"
If) ,
1\
;,1\
"
"
,
'I',
I.;
,
,
'ii
:'
:1'
I
"
I
,
I'
,
'I'.
,
"
(
'\.
.~
"
"
'I' ,1
,
"1
,
,-I,
I'
"
"
.,
"j
,
,
~-
.~
,
"
"
1-"
it
I
"
"
......
.
...
.:)
.~
,I
"
"
,I
"
I
, ,
,j' I ;11 q
,
, I
"i'l,j
,
"
,
11','
\
,
',,11)'
,
" ,
1
~
0'
"
i'
,
,
"I
, "
,,'J,!
\'
"
"
'II,
"
"
'Ii ,;t
, '
"
i,r
"
,)11 "
",-I",
'Ii
[I
lrl
i"
-!)i\I~~_)'1 ,
Ir,-.,',I:'--II,II'
,1,/;,11;1
,I ,lll')"
"
,
'I
'.'
\II'
',I'
, ,
,
li;
"
{j
,
"
I"
"
I,
I,
,,'
I,'"
; ~ I,;
'li'l
.1:"
,~ I, t ,
",j
;1
I,
,
,Ii I'!'"
":'l ;1,
I;i
:/'
"
,111
'''-i I
'It)
1:,1;
!"-
,i-';
'II'
, :!!
,
:/
1'1.
'I
'1'1
,'! '
" II
'11'
il-,I
I,
:'" 1,,:,).1,"
i' I -Int.,-,
1.':,1,' "
"
I, ,Ij
,\
"
II;,
"
,_ If--
,"
'- . "
,d'
:\'1'/:
-11_,
"
l'i1,'!.1 (!
, ,/,
I' 'I'-!,'
\i\J,'t 'j-,!
_1,,-,,1
,,,,},,,. -1"\[ I
, j:L'jI,
I'-\.' -I,
I, \1.1\),,:-
., 'Il' f'
,/ ",;
H
.,
:;
"\
,! I
i'i'
'I,
, -,--;
l'l,.h
n:' "1'/
r' I
;~) I-j
;J ]j:)r-;J !1'
'1\ 1" :,:,
11' ,
,
'1,1 ,.
ill,1
'I" ;
,
,
;'11
, ,
'I'!
,
f!
)I_J
II, 'I F ;'!~
,11
'I,! 11,-1 ::'t_
!-,j!
"
I' 1,11
'I-}";;" ,
';('-j'
" ,-"
',1.1.
II ,f
II
,,}
I"
"
,,',iI
,-",
,
:1,'1
..
11,1
.,
,
"
" H
,
oi,'",
;'Ij
,
1_,r)1
1'111,
:\11 II
"
,__'I
",1 H';
1 , d"
:'\; i "'I "1;
~ /; fJ
-I'
;'i ..,I,
",
,,'
.,
,
,ii/ "I'
;1
','
'l!
i[,'I'
I'
.,
! I,
'FI' ',I
'I
" ,-,',
,
,1.1,
'i
"
"
!
,I
, , ~
,;!'\
,/
1\ ,\1.1
l'llli_
,
'I.i
1',:',,'1 I
I,"
,11_1
. il!
"
,
"
:~ I)
,
"
Illi ,I
i(
.,
1,-
"~I
"
I'
, "
'I', ,
"II" /1
, (',I
,'"
;1
'I'
'\ j "
"
,_t'
..I'
;:i'
"
,
l\ i
;1
, ,
.,
.,J
I'I:!,
1,I,i"
11'!:P
I'
.,
1,''-1
,Ilj I.tl)'ll I
1'_1'\ ill
IJ-', "t!,
, ;1,'1'/'1'1
'(11 '
I';'
" Ill,
"
1':.
,
'1'1,
,
".,
I :' \! \, / ',: ~-~ I
lj I' I
'i,
,'1,'1,
,
'i-
,
"
"
J''1'
'I,
'I,
I ' ~ i
,
r,
,I) I,
f !,
,I'
, "
II'!
"
,
"
,
"
"
, "
I,ll
"i
,
,t,
,
,-I, _I,
"
,
-'1
"
,
,',
,
I,'
"
il.
"
,
I
"
,1 ,I
I )Ii:
(
q;1
'"
"
")
,/
, ,
,_'Id"
i"
I'
"
),1' ;1
1.1 I
-;'1''1
, '
1,/11
"
,:'
"1
\'.1
"
II:
,
"
"
,
"1,',.
"
,
,
Jf .\'11'1
"
, ,
,"
,,'
"
,
;) ,
II'}I
,;i
",'
,,'
"
,
11,1
q "
"
,
I,i
'I,
"
,
,
"
,
"1',
:,,'
f)' ;,111
,
'!i
"
"
i'l
,
, '
'i\
i)'
d ,J'l. '
"
I
I';
,
J\ll
I'
,
,
,
"
I,_J'O!, "~,
,
,
,'- I
". ,
n-i{l-'j
, ,j
_!-) ,
I,jll
"It
,
" ,I ~I i'
,1_!Ii!
,;
-" 'I
i
.'11.
"
,
'I
'ill
,',');',\;
;1'1 '
"i)/I-_I_
, 'j ,!
I' III i,'
"!i";1
"
",It
,,'
I
;1 il
,I,i, "
,
I,ll
,,,/}
'II "
,I'
I!II'
" ,
" '
ri
"
~,
!;,I'l
'1-'1
, '
.,
"
,.:
"
"
"
",
, '
"
I.
,
!
'i'
I'
./
"
,
,
I,
I'
'I_i,
, ,
1":1,
'I
"
,
,
.,
:,1\
j' 1'1
"
;,
i
'II
, '
\
,1
"
,"
"
p,
,
"
",
"
'I
"
,I;
"
,
,
"
"
, ,
,
,
11,,1,
011,
,..
I,
"
"
~
,',
,
<\
:.'
, "
,
'"
,
"
,.,
"
,
'"
, '
nFI~ 2'J ' 'JG IJlI.tO
SfY'IJEL L, I'Y'iPE6
1761"lilol
I\OIl~IW .I, IlEAUPI\Y, .lP.., I IN 'rlflll C~UP'll' 01" OOMHON
. I'h1ntlU l'LJlMI Ot' Il1.Ul'HIN COUN'l'Y.
I UNNlIV1N HI"
VII, I
CIVIL ActrION ~ LAW
. HILI.,ER 011"1, IlUROfJay, IHO., I
and MICII+lI;I, 1', REEDY. I NO, '~nJl.II.1993
Defendantl ,
-
.-
I N lUll
I
!
I
I
I
XN 1'1I1! qJUR1' OF COHHOH
Pl.r:Afl o~ DAUPIUN COUN'l'Y,
PENNBYLv,ANa
CIVIL ACTION ~ EQUITY
NO, &~~3 EQUITY
HII,J,l':R 01\,\1.. SURGERY. IHO.
AND NOW thlas
OJDJlI..m',JlOW:
dl\Y ot
_' 1996, upon
. cUlloldcro,tion of tho att60hed l'llti1:1oll for Injunotion, a hearing is
horetJy Ilc:'hndulerl hlltoro the IIndonll\)nod, to oommenoo nt
I
o'clock'
_,IP., on tho
day of _
_, 1996, in Cour~ Rco~
or the Dauphin county Court 1I0Ullll in Hllrrhbu1'9, PonnBy1vanh,
LAwrence F, Cl~rk. J~., Judge
1
1:V"I~ ;!IJ I IJfI L) II U]
GnMut:L L, ~II)t[j
l'/,j f\l'l
I,
I
IHlUlltll u[;~llllllr Ol'II1 BUl'yory, Ino" l1ursuAnt to the torllll of II con.ont
,
PUUrUQ hu~wu"n thorn datud 1 MAroh 1996,
,
4, ,Un or a~out ~O Marah 1996, R"APOndont Dtonqr, d08ori~ing
hftrlloU: a~ nn UIOI)loyoll of tHUor onl1 6l1rQury, Inc" IInd acting on boh.U
at thllt l;onlorntion, OQlll\uatm\ 1I Illnllhuun Plootln\l with tndlvidulIh
eQlllloyod by 'I'imothy l'urcllrpio, 1>,1).6" ond 1lr1/ln I<lOn/) , P.I),fl. At that.
IlltlllhlltJl) I~uotin\l, Mil. rJtonll~' mudu thl! tullu\.dn'il lItntomentll or alailll8 to
thollo employonul
A, 1'hl\t potitionnl' Beaudry had been "(bund 'ilullty" of ~B
"collnt6 of embezzloment" from Hlllor Orlll Burbery.
; R, That Petitionnr Beaudry Willi havtn9 0 rONantio and
6uxu~1 "Cfllir wlth one of hiu 11611iutontll IInd that he hlld boen
conduct.in<;J that nUair for JIll 1011\1 t1ml1."
c. Thllt potitioner Beaudry hftd oU6Bulued ft pregnont
omployee ot Millur OrRl Surgery whon ha wae *n a "r4ge" and was
being criminally prosecutod tor thllt BBBoult,
5, Allot tho statcment6 made by Hn, Btonet ot the lunnheon
moeting were fol6e, untrue, ond deeply ombnrr06oing and dumBging to
Patition~r aoaudry,
6. l'etitionor Beaudry bolievc6 that Btoller haB aonduoted 0 &el'iQ~ I
of llimill1r mootinga with mOl11bCrll of tho BtaHs ofnllmerOIlB dont1lits who
haVA, in tho ~nBt, rotarrod plltiento to Potitioner BeaUdry or to Hiller
Oral Bllr~ery, Inc., and that the meeting with Dr, IPoroorpio's utatt wsa
I
only Olle ~ot Bueh meetingll.
"I. i Petitional' BOllUdl'Y balievAs tllot tho 11Urposfl of these meeting;
and the q16i~B and statementll modo hy Roso Stoner at theue ~eating8, is
I
to dotom, nnd injuro Beaudry in the ayos of the parBons attending those
"I'll :I'J IIJ(, 1J1151J
Gln.JliL L, f"V'/lJtG
I '?ll 1"0l1
pnt1ont.a ~o Or. Paeudry end will
I
O..oudry'. 'prOfs..!onal IIIrviuu.
I
8, ,ROllI!
.
t.hDt luoh paraona will dlaoauraOI dent lat. rroM ref"rrln9
,
dlauDurago p.tiln~1 fro~ IOlking Dr.
Nlllot.SnVI 8,0
,
And dqre~~tory Itotemallts about Dr. Beaudry within the 'OOPI of her
empluyment by HilLer Orel SUr9ory, Ino., end, ~etltionpr Deaudry
heUQv8l, I pUl"lIUDot to in.tl"ulltionu Vivan hor by ft.,pondenl Reedy.
IL iPetitioner Beaudry 1rJ lufhrinr;r, anti w111 continull to aute.r'l
,irreperable harm fro~ th" tolBo and defllMetory BtatllMulltl mDdo agelnBt
t
him by Rale atonal",
I
,involved In the dental profel.Son, or ft~p~oyeti bY denti.tl, that har.
B tOller oOl1.l1uoted tho lunohRull /lI011t inv Ind ""dn tile 'd...,
I
It thOle Itatoments are mDde to othQr pnuplQ
will bu 9~qat and permanent to PetitSoner Doeudl"Y.
WIIEIl~FOllB, Petitioner preYI thiB Court t.ll immodi..tely take the
tollowioO aotionl
1\. Order all Rupondentl to clleu any end all hlse and
defn~Btor, statuments ahout Petit10ner 8eeud~y and ~emberB of
,
his tfautHy or surt, and
B. Order end diraot Miller Oral surge~y, Ino" and the
other Rospondents, and all agents and other persons under their
con~rol or direction, to oeeso all meetings ~ith referring
physioians and dentiatB or theil" atefts tOl" purpoBol of
encouraq1no referrals to Hiller O~al 8urgnry/ Inu" Ol" Dr.
,
Randy or diBcoureging referl"als to nr, Peaudty end his
I
prnotiool end
I
,c. Or~er and direQt all Rllspondftnts to disoloee all
persons ~'th whom any of the. have mot and d'SOUlIsed Patltloner
I
Bee~dry llv~r the paet Bix months and to produoe their
-. --.-.-..----'.------...--...
KlRKPATIUCK & LOCK) lAIrI' J.J.1'
l'A\'NI'.~lIlli'AlAl(lfIlIlIJII,IlINII
I~q N'}II'I1I T1lnllJ ~'IIIVI' I'
IIANllliIlUllll. l'I'NN~\'I.vANlA 11101.110'
T1'IJI'IIClNI' ''''I/lHI'~'
l'ACliIMII,I' ,,,')/IHIQI
ANP"'W II. CUN.
1'/17111I Alii
dlntoli.illlOftl
VIA HAND DIlL/VRRY
May 2, 1996
The Honorable Lawrence F, Clark, Jr.
Dauphin County Court of Common Pleas
Front and Market Slreeta
Harrisburg, PA 17101
Rt>1 Miller Oral Surllllry, Inc.
No, 4230.S-1993
No, 5233 Equity
Dear Judge Clark:
[ am In receipt 01' the Petition for Injunction and your order scheduling the malleI' for
conference/hearing tomorrow at 9:00 a,m.
[ am not In a position to respond 10 the merlta of the factual allegations, and Ihls I~ not
the place to do 50. I do want to bring 3 few matters to the attention of the Court, however, in
anticipation of the conference/hearing.
First, although the petition refers to Rose Stoner os a respondent, she is not 0 party to
these proceedings, and [ do not represent her, She 15 represented by her own counsel and, of
course, [ have not spoken to her, 1 understand, however, thot she disputes the characterizations
of her conduct.
Second, the propriety of the relief requesled In the pelltlon Is highly questionable,
particularly In Ole context of a preliminary Injunction, and would engender further protracted
disputes. For example, an order to cease false and defamatory statements begs the question
whether the statements are, In fact, false and defnmatory.
Third, Dr. Reedy has complaints about Dr, Deaudry and his agents spreading false and
defamatory statements about him and Dr. Rajcbel. (See, e,g., attached leller.) If Dr. Deaudry
wants to pursue damages based on his allegations, we arc amenable to treating such as a
"reserved claim," provided Dr, Reedy Illay assert his similar allegations as a "reselved claim."
".. ,.. """'" ,,,.,, "".to ..., II \,111\ 1111'1 ~1I1 'u, II "lUll"', I."
~
,
, ,
.""'1.1.1. I" ~".'Il.
"hU' IJHm'.
I:lAMlIl':I, J., AI'IIII';H
",l""IJI'~IIY ",T I,",W
nYn ~'lIIrll Iw.,.nll ."'rUl
.',1), >>OX UI'I
,.'IN')Y~II, l'IIH~.v,.v^HI", ",).1"
23 MIlY 1996
CO~y
,,.I.,..'llItU,,
'u" ,.tj'IIUII
,..
1,.,I,rtHotU
.~
IIlld Regulw' MlIlI
JJhll J. Fritz, CPA
Shelidllnlllld Fritz
3905 NOlth Fl'onl Sll'ccl
HArrisburll, P A 171 LO
RE: MlJIer OrAl SurBclY
Dew' Juck:
Andrew Cllnc and I JlIcl ellrlier Ihls wcck slid we are working 1311 clJmplellng Ihe
VlIrlous IASks rcqulrcd of both our clients ullder Ole Conscnt Decree. Wellrc IIIl1king slow
progress, but prollrcss nonclheless,
I write 10 IIddress SOIllC 1Il01lCl'S 10 you which Andrew Alld I hllvc 1101 becII Able 10
resolve or which require your IIclioll. They ore:
J. We do 1101 kllow If Ihe lellcr of 1I011l1coll01l WAS SCllttO Ihe
Ilallellts. We kllow you hod workcd up II leller hul wc do 1101 know if II WIIS
sentllnd, ifil wos, whllt respollse has beell received.
/'
2, I nced to kllow if you hove recelvcd, 115 yet, Ihe infol1nolioll oboUI
Rose Stoller's schedule und Ihe list of denllll stuffs she cnlled UpOII. Judge
Clork dlrecled lhntlhnl informntlon wns 10 be provided 10 you 50 Ihot we
couLd conlAclthose people discreelly to sce if she nlllde Ihe same typer of
sllllemellls 10 Ihemlhlll shc made 10 the pcople Identified in my petilioll,
3. (lIced 10 know whcn Dr. Reedy will deposllthe $24,000.00 wW,
Vemon TholllllS for Ihe illStnllnlion of Ihc computer syslelll at Dr,
Belludry's office. 1 wns under Ihe imprcsslon, from some 1I1illlls Ihol Dr,
Reedy had sllid earlier, lhnllhc deposil would be modc immcdiotely ollce
we allreed upon 0 numucl'. My client docs not hllve the funds to inslAlllhc
cOlllpuler And cunnol emcicnlly opel'llle bis pl'llcLicc wilhoul ii, so thai
malleI' hAS become ul'gcnt.
7~'
"
r
,
t'-;'_
'.
I' I
Mr, John J, Fritz
2
23 MAY 1996
"
The Consel!l Decree IlUlhorlzcs you to el'hmd the monthly "stlll1.Up" pnYlllel!ls frum Or,
Reedy 10 Or, BeAudry for Ihe 1lI01llh of Junc, Dr, 13elludlY hfls 1I0t beell Ablc 10 coml,lelc
his hilling 10 nny of the Insurl\nce COlli ponies 10 dnle. 1115 elrO.1S Inlhlll rllg"n! hllvl! beell
grently hnmpe.cd hy the obsence of R cOlllpulcr s> stem, II syslem which he expeclcd 10
have Ul) llnd runnlnll velY shortly uncI' 11\1: C'Jllscnt Decrce wns cnlerc:d. lie hilS hireel
some addltlonol sinO' And hilS Ihem worklnlloll billing 1II111\111111y, butlhey hove not becn
nble to submit blils which hllve l:lenlll'llled IIny IlIlYlllcnls 10 dIlle, Accordingly, he
absolutely requll'l:s 0 (JIIymenl for June If he Is 10 contlnuc thc opernllon of his prllctlcc,
Please Lool' into Ulese IIII1Uel'G lInd Ilct bnck to llle liS soon os you con, Yom'
contlllued cooperntlon Is nppreciated.
Sincerely.
Snmuel L. Andes
rq
cc: Andrew H. Cllnc~ ESllulrc
"
II'
'I I,
KIRKPATRICK & LOCIUIART LloP
-,,---~_.,._-
I'AYI'/V..tiIIOI'~I~KfK KUlt.Illl'/lI
1401'/011'111 '1'111111I HIIIWI'
II~KllliIlUII<I.I'~l'/l'/bYI,V^N'^ 11101,1101
'I'nVI'III)I'/V tilt) III .4IIl0
l'i\I:!i'MII,1' 17111111,4101
AHIIIIlIW II. CI.IHI
(117,1)1""4
.Iinlllleil.,*"
lune 4, 1996
Mr. lohn I, Pritz, Ir" CPA
3905 North Pront Strect
Harrisburg, PA 17110
ItCI Mlller Orlll Surllery, Inc.
Dear lack:
Last week you IIsked thllt I follow-up on SAm Andes' request for Rose Stoner's
appoIntment book, I then spoke with Dr. l~eedy who indlcBled thllt he 41d not hove posscsslon
of IIny such book or slll1l1l1r document. Further, Dr. Belludry's IIsslstllnt, Kelly VlollI, has sued
Mrs. Stoner over the slime Issues being pursued by Dr. nelludry, Mrs. Stoner Is represented
by sepllrate counsel, and therefore, we lire not ill II position 10 respond further to !hIs inquiry,
Perhaps SlIlll and I could develop 0. set 0f Interrogatories thllt our cHenls could address
with !he Infollllllllon !hey hllve, but given the Violll lawsuit, I question whether this is II
worthwhile el(erclse,
~
ee: SlIIUucl L, Andel, Esq,
, i
"
~':
.... . ".... ,
JUN-05-1 ~% IlIJ,;)
fHiRIDflH l'. 1:1~IT21 P,C,
P,13;1
II.. 8H.RIDAH . "RITZ, P.c.
,. CERtiFIED PUElUC ACCOUNTANTG
~QOIl N. I'ronl 61,
HArtlilblIV, 1110 17 110
1717\lllJ4.11Il111l
F.~: 1717 1lt\4.4IrlO
June 5, 111915
Samu.l L, Ande., isquir~
515 North 12tn Str..t
Lemoyne, PA 17043
Andrew U, Cline, Esquire
240 North Third Street
Harrisburg, ~A 17101
'J'IlANSMITTID vn. 'AX I ('7171 71ll- 14:S Il
TRANSMITTED VIA FAXI {7171 231-(801
REI Injunction Matters
C111ntlemenl
I .poke to Judge Clark regarding the meeting in h111 ehamben at
which I ~as present and his co~nents to all parties in court on
p;r:iday, May 3, ap.eificlllly, these matters refer to 11.018/ her
appointment book, and what each pal."ty may have diueminated or ..id
to othex' third partiu in a det.rimental manner,
Judge Clark Ipe(lifically n3nforcnd my recollection and my notes
that any follow-up was to be bued on a "quid-pro-quo" buie,
Accordingly, Mr, cline lihould forward Roee'lI appointment book to me
along with any other information rogarding aCltiviti8/1 of any
employees of MOS or of Dr, Relldy which may have b88l\ or had a
detrimental effect on Dr, Beaudry,
Likewise I Mr, 1\ndu should forward to me IlimiJ.ar informat ion
regarding the activities of Dr., Beaudry, hiB staff, or others who
may have made statements on hilil behalf detrl.mental to MOS or
Dr, Reedy,
I will e~pect that you can work this matter out between you alii to
what will be turned OVer to me,
Very truly yours,
Sheridan & Frita, P,C,
SYI
I
J
JJ1" d eh
eel Honorable Lawrence F, Clark
...nTN P a7
,
John J, Frlt~, Jr" CPA
2
1 7 July 1 996
lIuombhl tho blllo thoy pion to oUPI11lt (or, perhopll, hllVO Illrelldy
oUPI1lI11lldl end got that Information to Dr, l3eoLJdry'o office 110 that he
clIn review thallO blllo.
2, If.lHltnlllJJLEJDnJ~i11JllIl15, Fronkly, I thought this
Information hod boon pravldod. I wllllaal( Into Iho moiler ond try to
got you a lIet of tho eo putlontli within tho no~t fow dUYli.
3, P..lJ11J>hlILTrLlIl5fllJ:. lundorolrllld thlli hnli be on
accompllohod and Dr. OonudrY'li lundli oluno longor within tho MOB
pension. Thero lli sOl11e quor,tlon IlIi 10 tho nm[)lJl1t 111<11 woo
trBn~forrod to him which wu will 1001< Into. If thoro 15 u problom with
that, It will bo roleed 05 ono of Olll "Ilosorvnd Clull11e".
4, 5.1.Q~li..c;jjcll/J.\llltQJ>. Dr, Beoudry novor locntad hie
.:ertlflcotos In MOS. He elgnod unci I hovo IlIed dlructly with the Court
an affidavit to thot effect. I bollovo that entlsfleli tho requlromanto of
the Consent Docroo.
6. W!mp.utllc. Sovornl wool<o ngo you odvloed 1110 thnt you
wern holding the funds which woro 1<) be paid to Dr. Beeudry to
purchaBu coml1utor oqulplllont In nccordonco wllh tho Consont Docroo,
but thnt you would not roloolic Ih05U unlll cortoln billing rocords had
been provldod ond tho ponelon funde hod boon tronsforrod. I ballovo
those two Itoms hovo now boon satlsflod und tlwt YOll con roloaso tho
funda YOll nro holding. If you oro stili holding tho funds, plonao ralooao
them or lot mo know If thoro lli uny fUrlhor J1roblol11 with tho reloaao.
6. E.llrlillullllLEJJll~, My diolll hos omployod liovornl poople
who woro previously omployod by MOS nnd hOG roquosted coplaa of
their porsonnol fllos from MOS. To doto, thoso fllos hovo not boen
provided, Cortolnly, OG tho formor stockholdor, offlcor, cnd oven
dlroctor of MaS, Dr. Booudry is ontitlod to thctlnformctlon.
Moroovor, tho omployooa In quosllon (Kolly Viola, Shcron Myors, Van
Shan, Julio Fink, Jorry Groaky, ond Dr. Booudry himself) doalro that
theoo porsonnol rocords bo dollvorod to Dr. Booudry. Plecao havo MaS
delivor tho J1orsonnol fllos to Dr. Booudry. MaS cort~lnly may rotnln
coplos but, alnco tho pooplo oro no long or employod by thom, thoso
flies aholJld bo dollverod to Dr, Boeudry,
...
,.
. " "
.
AUlJ lJ l~~6
R.. SHSRIDAN & FRITZ, P.C.
-,. CERTIt:IF.O PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
aoo~ N. Fill'" 61.
Herrilbul'g, PA 17 110
(717) ~3~'06a6
FG~: \717\ ~3~.4670
/l,U\1lJlt 15, 1996
samuel L, Andes, E~qlJire
5~5 NQrt~ l~th street
P,O, BOl( 1611
Lemayne, PA 17043
Dear Sam I
I am t'upanding ta yaur July 17 letten regarding your status
repart and the appraisal request,
1, 8illinq Infot'matian. Or, Beaudry has had lOver flOur manths tQ
get this data tagether ~ince the cans ant decree wa~ signed,
not ta mention what he cauld have had readily available by
that date, given the fact that hE! claimed he WAl!l nat seeing
many patients, ete, fie has fought thia praceu tQath and
nail, in my apinian,
With regar.d ta seeing the billings, I will remind Dr. Reedy af
this requirement.
2,
Treatment Plan Patientlj" Again, Or. Beaudry haa had mare than
enaugh time ta prav~de :his data but failed ta da sa, At thia
late date, quite frank:'/, I will have t',a cQnsider ather alter-
natives aa ta the l:eliaoility af any s~ch Hst. I am open ta
suggeationa on thi~ ma:ter from you and Mr. Cline.
3 ,
S;:omoutera, Theae funda were released priar ta June 15 even
thaugh the requ~ate4 billing informatian was not provided,
4,
~eraannel File~, I da nat eancut' that peraonnel f ilea shauld
e delivered ta Or, ~eaudry aa they are the praperty af MOS.
I f Or. Beaudry ia seeking apecific information, please have
him requeat the apeciEic infarmatian in writing through you,
""
"I
Cl
P)
EI?~alll:'
>~~I;t'"
IIW)
\ UI'!~LI '
I ""F~."~
,;~~'~
I
I ~_~U
I
;
..
~
II I I ifIll I
j~ld I I
, t
,.- I ~~~
Ifln ,
iJlh
, , ,
I !
~
II! . II! I
J' e f ~
j 1 ~ ~M ' hilJh
~ ~ ImJ ' I
, ,
, '
,
, . I
. , I
I
, I
.
i!:O'd
d9tl!O OO-to-er~ .
I
>,.
lr,
[;;
~~l' "
It.
")1,
, "
'I
lq'
\, "
I"
"
'.
fl'
" I
, ,I ",
" ,I
,
I ,
" , I " ,
" , 'I
, " I I'
I I' I
I " )1' " I I, I ,
;, I
1111 ,
I
, ,
,
,
"
,
'I
""
l,.;
,f"t
..-
.d
'..
".-
1'-'",t
1)I,rJ
11,,1."1
Ill'
'II"I;~
.,'il/l
;/'1'
,'".)
10.. 'II
'.,
"
.,,
("1
,.,:.;
, "
11.\
',.'
I'
'I
I
I I !J
,
"
"
(),. \~
~~~
~
~
"
',I
';
" I
,I,
.,
)'11
I
,
I,
, ,
\. ~
~ ~ e;.
~ ,... .4
....... ~...::,.
~~~
I"
"
"
!II
"
I,'
"
I,
"
," "
Ii I
"
~I~I 0. r I
~ ,
~, ~ \D
~.li f
r ~ J VI
J z:
~~j 0
tl 1-1
I - 0.
~$
i .' ~
i
i
,
,
'II
I'
"
I 'I I,
I,
'.r I
I' '
"
I
,
,II
,I
"
.',
"
. ,
.
/:llmlH l"F' '6 Illi;'rUHN . OUT OF COUNTY
':A::iIi: NOI 19%.O!jlj,IJ l'
,.'OMMclNWl>l\lirU OF I'IENNIl'iLVI\NI^1
CQI)NTY OF C MUBHLAND
!~.!f8~JD.lll..IWBI;;Wl'
---
VS,
!!'I'ONIiJR Il,ollm
,_a, Thom/l" Kl ine
to law, says, that he made
named defendant, to Witl
, sheriff, who being duly sworn according
a diligent search and inquiry for the within
sTONSR ROSIiJ
--
-
...--
but was unable to looate
deputized the sheriff of
to serve the within WRIT
He I:'
PI\Ul?HIN
OF SUMMONS
in hil9
bailiwick,
County,
HlI therefore
Pennsylvania,
On November 4th, 1999
the attached return from
-'
this office was in
County,
receipt of
Pennsylvallia,
, .
DI\\l PH Il'I
Sheriff's COStSI
Docketing
Out of County
Surcharge
Pep, DaOphin Co
18,00
~;8~
29.25
$~~,~b SI\MUE~ ANDES
11/04/1999
.,~. ~
k. ~
Sworn and subscribed to before me
this J..!!:._ day ofl.J/ln..L~
19 _r.J.!L, 1\, D ,
c_~ Mb~g~~~,
,
,
'.
~-"'-"-'
t) 'llll'i1lll': 'j" lilT'
'.Id(fil{:' '~ l f1' cl'
""'11,),.",,111/11' 1 ,IJ'I~ II".'",
I I j, ~ I f ,I " ,., I'.' I' t t; ~
')'1 [11'!' ~~
I" "I I, J
~II ~Il) I
RECEIVED
, ,
"
"
"
,
"
, ,
"
',/,
"
,
!
,
" ,
, , " ,
,
, ,
, ,
"
"
II i ,
! I
" , ,
" , ,
" 'I ,I "
"
il (
,
i , ,
, ,
,
" !il
, 1 "
, , ,
" il
,
"
,
" , ,
ill ,
" ,
" ,
,
., I'
'II
, ,
" ''I ,
\1 I; ,
,
p ,
;1' , ,
, "
,
I ',' ,
, ,
,
i , 'I
'I
I
Ii
Ii
;1
!/
I:
II
I
Im'll':I~'I''', "m^Ul>I~Y, "'~"
1'1111111111'
VII,
IN '1'111': COUI~T ()It' COMMON
1'1.Io:AH (W CUMIII':I~'.AN')
COUNTY,I'J':NNHYI.V^NI^
CIVIl. ACTION. I.^W
1mi'll': S'J'ONlJ;I~,
NO, %"fi(l'~ 1 CIVIl. 'I}:I~M
lJr.fllndlllll
iI
I
I
I
QOM~l1IT
I AND NOW nllllllllllUl IILllIVll'"'lI1111l'd PLIIIIIIHT, by hlllll!.lOI'UCY. Samul!ll"
Ii ^ncltlll, find llllllu!lIlIw lilllowlllR COlllp11l11l1 III I hllllllllllllt':
J~Ill! Plllillfll'rlwl'l'lu Iii l~olll't'1 ,I. Ilr'lIudl'Y. ./t'" 1111 lIc1ullltllllvlclulIl who
I'clildl!lIlll CUIllIll'I'lllnd COli Ill,\', I'l'llIlliylvlIllllI.
'2. The Lkfl!lllllllll IU!I'l'l1l11i Hm/l! SIOlll!I', IIlllldull hlllivldulIL whulil! hlRI
I\(ldl'l!1i1i Iwown 10 I he Pllllul ill' Iii CIII'l! of MiIIl!1' 01'1I1 SUt'gcI'Y III "00 NlIllollwfdc
Drivc III f Illl'rilihlll'g. Dnuplahl COli Illy. PIlll 11 liyl VII 1I III.
3, AI VlIl'loLlS OCCII/iiollli ill FdH'lIllI'Y, Mlll'l:h, IInd April of ll)l)(, , fllld (ltlrhupli ,
Oil oU1l'1' dllll!R nol yct knowlI to Plllhlllff, lJdcnclfllltllllldc lhe followhlg
SllIlclllcntli IIllCIlII Plllillllff:
A. Thfll 1'111111111'1' hue! lwell collvkllld UI' "'illllld guilty" of twcllly-
dghl (28) coulllli of "l'IIt!H'i'.i'.h! IlWII I " frolll hili Pl'l'lil'lIt or pllRI
l!ll\ploYI!I'.
fl. Thill Plnilltfffwflli hflVlllg flll Impropcl' liexunllllld rollHlIllk
flffllil' with Ollt! uf hill fllilillilllnce nlld tlmt /IlH!h illlpropcl' flffnil' hnd
CUlIlIl1llt!d fur "II IUlIg I hili'."
TRUE copy FROM RECOR~ :
In ,.lh.llNIY ~=~~:- '\.
"".......- Q ~ ~ ?l./\cA1-:
-"_~1:-~ ~ t : ~ " -J .-1 JJr'-J.
,
I,
,. ..,
'~
I.
,
C, Thill PllIlnlln' hill! phYHic'lIlly IIHHIIUIlI!d 11 JlI'l!JVlIlIll fl!llllllt!
wllIH! hi! Willi In 11 "l'l1W'l/l1ld ""'IH III Ihe! Jll'Ol'I!IlIl11f LwlllH erlllllnlllly
Pl'IIHI!(:ult'd rot' IhlllllllHlIlIl1.
1'IIII1Itllf hdlt!VCH thllllJl!fl!lIc1l1llllll/lllt: unwl' llnd 1I11l111111' I:Ilull!/IIt!lIIH lIhoul
PllIflltllflll which Illll! lIt:culied hilll OrIllIHt:llllducl, clfllhtllWIII,y, flnd ct'hllllllll
1l!'llvlt It'll.
4, All of I ht! 1Il/lhmH'lIlH t:!Il'duhoVI! \Wl't! fnlHt! IIllhl! lime nncl plll!'l! 1I11llle
llllcl \VI;'l't' l<lIown to Ikrl!ndllnllll Ill' fnlHl' wlll'n 1lI/1l1e,
n, All of tilt! Illnh!1Il1!1I11l died nhoVl' Wlln' puhliHllt!d 10 lhll'd Jlul'lll!lI,
h\l'lucllllH 1Il1!llIhel'lIUf till! cI(!lIlul hUllhwHIII'ullllllUlIlt,y III which PlulnLln' WOl'kl'd
llllhl' lillle lIw Hlntl!lIll!lIls \WI'I' /IIndl',
(,. All of lhc HlnlC:lIH!lItll dleclllhuve Wl!l't! IIlllcle by DelclHllmL with II1(!
inh!lIt1oll of InJurinu IIIllI hHl'lIIhlU 1'11I1nlll.,. hy (1fllcrediLIng hllll in Lhe Jll'Ofl!Bl:llolllIl
cOfllmulIity in which he wor(<ed flllCl fmlll which he I'ccdved bllldnell/ll'derrnl/l,
7, TIll! /ltlllt!Jl1C!nIR dh:d IIhove, 1111 IlIl1dc hy [)l!fclldnlll, wcre dc:fll.lllnLCII'Y III
thllllhcy wcrc flllsc, they phlCI'd I'lninlll'fln II hnclliuhL nnd IlcCURccl him of
cOlllluilling n c:rillle 01' II /I(!I'II!/I of crillll!Il, nnd fUt'lhcr Icncll!d to InJut'y Plnlntlff
filllllldnliy IIncl, In fncl, didlllJurl' I'llIllltlO'l1l1f1l1dfllly,
CO!llf.r.J~ DE~^MATION
The nvel'll\(!ntll /ll!! out ill PlIl'Ilgl'llphH l Lhrough 7 nhovc lU'e hu:or(lornlt!d
herdn hy rCfl!l'lmCl!,
Ii, ()l!fcndllllt dcfnllwd Pluilllirr lIncl hflR clluRcd Plnintlfl' pcrRonnl, finnndlll,
nnr.l olhl't' hlll'lll, Induding her public' IlCCuRlltlon of criminnl conducl hy Plnintlff,
which conlllitutC!R defnllllltiOIl "pcr se,"
9, Ddendan1. hy her cOllduct, 11IlllinJurecl Plninllff in nn fUI10UllI In (~XCI!RIl
of the limits for nrbill'llllon hdot'f: Ihls Court.
WHIUFOU, 111111111111' (h'lIl11l1d!l Jud,~III1'1I1 IIMIIIII!lI Ill'l'1!1Il11l1l1 III IIIl
II III UlI III Itl (!)(['I'IlIlUI' $;.W,IlOO,IlO, plllH 1IIIl'I'l'HI 1I11(lollll'l dl'llIy('t1 t1I1IllIlW!!l, "lllll
('111111101' Hllll.
~9t1NrJI -INVASION or .,RIYAqy
10, 'I'lw IIVCl'lIIl'lIt!llil'1 Olll III pllrngl'llphH I IhJ'OlIMh 7 IH~l'dllllhllV(! III'(~
hWlll'pol'llt(!d IWI'l'ill hv 1'l~ft>J'l'IIl'I',
II, 'I'll till' 1')lIt'llt 1I11.\' HI IItl'll11'1I1 'I III lid I' lIy IJdl'lldlllllllholll Pllllllliff wl're
h'l'hllklllly or HullI'illlllllllll.\' I I'llI', 01' II'UI'hlllll)' lklllil, Iho!ll' Mlllh'lIll'lllH h!IIt1I'd III
l'l!vl'lll Inforlllllt!ollllllolll Plllilllill \"hich hI' hlld II righl to kel'p HCt:l'd 1I1lt! )ldVlllc
IIntllllHo IHld I Ill' dkclor pllldllM 1'llIlllllIlllI II lillMI! lIghl. 10 11I1'lIt1Il'I'H or I Ill'
)luhlic,
12, I>dt'lldrllll, hy IIl'I' ['olulucl , hllH 11I1'11IOllllly 111)(1 improperly illVlltlt't1
PllIlIIlllfH privllcy,
1:1, UdClIdll II I , hy lwl' ['ontlllct., 1111'1 inJul'cd 1'1111111111 ill flJllIlIIlIlInlln
I!X['I'HIi of IIIl' II III it Ii of nrhilrnlioll hdim! Ihili COlll't.
WHEREFORE, I'Inilllll1 dl'lIH1IHIIi Jlldglllt'lIt IIgllillHl Ddcndlllll in llJl
II III Oll II I Il1l'xt:clili of $25,000,00, plllli illtl'reHlllntl otlwl' ddllycd t1l1lllllg(~R, plllli
cORls of HlIll.
\ I .
(_..~:....l..~.U:. ~~:I;' I,) ')
Sanl~cl L. ^ndeR .
Mllll'lWY for Plllil1lill'
SlIprenw COllrt lD II 17225
5'25 North 12'" SIJ'(~d
1.(!lIlOYIIC, P^ 17043
(717) 7(,1-5361
..,
"
r
tl
~
"
>!
"
,
I
Ii
"
" "
, .
, ' .
,
, "
"
! .. ! '!
... '"
~ '" " "
, III
~r I "~I
"I ~ i I .i\i
m~ . " . ,
... ,
.~ ~ " II . ,
~ ,
~ ,
m , ' ,
,
"
;J
'I
I
, '" "
,
,
,II
I I
,,' , .
I I' 'I
" il . ,
I .
Ii'
I!
' . . I
" I
, " I I, "
,
~ ' I "
,
" ,
" tI' II "
, . " ,
)1, , , ,
" "
1,'1
",
1)
,- ; I',' ii' I', ~
,0'".,.,....". i:
r, . di" )1
, '~_\, I ,I !' ,I ' . "
,I,;" , I I) ,
" 'II
)'
'I
') '/
,
;1 :
i_'I'
I
,
I'U
'"
I'.I(
, ~ if I
\ 1'-./ . n' I (i,
1"I! 'i
'.'1
I'
'I
\./
! '
,',
Ili.
"
,
,
I, ,\I!
<<'
,
, I "
'I , , Jri
, r' \" , ,
I,
,
III
"
"
"
" ,
"
,
,
.',
"
,
I,
,j\,
,
,
, '
,
,
,
'I
'I'
, '
,
I'
'I
,
,
.. i j .~ {I
"
, ;
,,' " "
, (.-', "
',i',,1I , "
I ,
" ,
, , ,
J'I I, , 'I
I ,
"''11 , , ,
" "
il'!l] , , "
,
.' 'I
I"
, I,ll " , i.
,\1' , 'I
" , ,q 'I' ,
, I
, " ,
" i , "
II';: 1:\
; , , I
'/' ,
., , .
.
, , , ; ! "
I' , "
,r, , I'
" ,
I ,i' , " , ,
,
I
q'
/
l: ,I
,
'",
'I
"
"
1'.;
,j'
Ii I
II'
"
)1 I'
!i"
'i,'
,..i',:
",'JIlII
'{
I,
,/
"
!,'
1/
','
i";,
~! ,~. ',t( f',
:1 I
, \,1
.,' .\/'
II,
!. ,.\
,"
\'
,,,
,I
.:
"
,
,1,It lilt,
I' I'
, ,
,
I','
"
ii,
)>1 I,
I'!I
I'
I
, ,
,;,'
,'II
!)
,
, I
, ,II
III
!
,'I
,
I,
;'
"
,
"
'11:'
I "
,
I ,
jl. ',',
.,'
" "I "
"
, i'j "
I J! , !' 1)1:1
I " I, ;1',
I", I ,
-Ii
,
,',
"
, , , I, "
" " ,
I , "
II! "
"
'Ii
, ,f,
,
, '
-1,1
'I'
It
i,"f;'
,
,
, ."
'"
I' ,Ii,
11,,11 I
1'1 ;1,
"
ROBERT J. Bli:AUDRY, JR.,
Plaintiff
VS,
IN THE couln Ol~ COMMON
I'LI!:AS OF CUMl:lEI~J..AND
COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVil, ACTION.. LAW
ROSE STONER,
NO, 9(j..5641 CIVIL. TEI~M
Derllndant
Q,gMp.MMIT
AND NOW come!! the IIbove-nllllwd PlnlntflT, by hili nttol'l1ey, Samuel L,
Andes, and mf.!{eS the following COlllplalnt In thlli lIlatter:
1. Th(~ Plalntlffhel'e1n Itll~obel't d, Benlldl'Y, .II'" lUl ndult Indlvidun.l who
resides In CUlIIberlnnd County, Penn!!ylvllnln,
2, The Defendllllt herein Is HOBC Stoner, an ndult Indlvldlllll whoBC IRst
address known to the Plaintiff Is cnrc of MILhtr Oral Surgcl'y at 400 Nationwide
Dl'ive in 1"lurri!!burg, Dlluphin County, PcnnsylvlUlia,
3. At various occlIsions in Fcbl'ulu'y, March, and AprIL of 1996, aud pcrhaps
on other dates not yet known to Plaintiff, Defendaut made the following
statements about Plaint.ifT:
A. That Plaintiff had been convicted or "found guILty" of twenty-
eight (281 counts of "embezzlement" from his present or past
employer,
8, That PlnJnUff was havIng an Improper sexual and romantic
affair with one or his assistance find that such Improper affair had
continued for "a long time,"
C, That PlnlntllT hlld phYlllcnlly IlIIMulted lll)l'egnllnt female
wh(m he wAllin n "rage" and wlIllln thcl 1l"OCeltll of being cl'imlnally
,
p,'ol'leculed fOl' th/ll IHISlIUIL
PhuntllT beUevelllhllt ndcndllnt nlllde othe,' /lnd slmllllr stlllements ..bout
PlrunllfT In which she flCClIKed him of mlllCollduct, dllill0111!sty, And criminal
flctlvltles,
4, All of the IltntCl1ll"llts dh!d nbovc wCl'e flllKe /ltthc tlUll! nnd placc made
and werc known to IJefelldunt to bl! fnhll! wht!n IIlnde,
.'5, All of the Ktatcments dtcd IIboVI! wCl'e pubUshc!d to third parties,
Including membcrs of Ihc dentlll buslncss comlllunity III which Plnintlfi' worked
Ht the tlmc thc stutl~IllCntfi wel'c mude,
6, All of the Ktutclllcnts cited nbovc wel'l! mudc by LJcfenchmt with thc
Intcntlon of injuring And hArming P(nlntHr by discrediting him In the profcsslonul
community in which hc worlu!d nnd from which hc rcceived business rcfcl'rals,
7, The statements citcd nbovc, us made by Dcfendnnt, wCl'e defamlltory In
that they were false, thcy plAced PlAintiff In H blld light Hnd accused him of
committing A crimc or A scrles of crimcs, fUld further tended to injury Plaintiff
finlll1cially and, in fact, did Injlll'e Plllintiff finlllldnlly,
COU~T I - DEFAMATIOf{
The AVCl'mcntK sct out in PnrngmphB 1 through 7 above Hre Incol'pomted
herein by refcl'l!l1ce,
8, Defendant. dcfamcd Plnintlff nnd hHS cuused Plaintiff personal, financial,
and other harm, including her public Ilccusotion of criminal conduct by Plaintiff,
which constitutcs dcfamlltlon "pCI' sc,"
9, Defendanl, by her conduct, hus injured PlnintilT in un umount in cxccss
of the limits for arbitl'Htion bcfore! this Court.
, ,
WHllUCrou, PllIlnlln' dl!IlIUlldll,ludgnwnt nglllnHt Dcflmdnnt In un
IUIl()Unt III eXCI!lltt of $~5,000,(jO, plullln\l'n!tlt und othl~1' dduYI!d dumngtla, pilla
COlltti of /lull.
Q9QliT.JL:::J"Y!\~~Ori.Q'_'p...mv ACY
10, TIll! UVl~rlllCI1IIl tll!1 1Il11 III Jllll'IIgl'llpll/i 1 Ihrough ., herein nbovtl nre
illcorpol'lltc!d lwrdn hy rl'fen~nl.'l!,
11. To lilt! l!xh!1I1 lIUY tllnll'lIll!lItri 1I11Hk hy Ddendnnl nhout PIlllntlff Wt~n~
tedmknlly or riuhtillllllllllly tnw, or true III nllY lkwH, \J\llrie rilntt!lIll!ntti tended 10
revl!nl InfoJ'/lIutloll lIhoul Plllhtlff which he hnd II right It, 1(l'I!P riccrl!t Illld prlvnll.'
nnd nhill hnd till! dff.!ct of pllldllg Pln,inlill' ill n fn\r,l' IIgh t 10 IllCJllIJ(~l'ri of t.hl~
public,
1~, Ddt'ndnnt, hy Iwr conduct, hllri tortllOllrily 1I1lt! hnprOpl!rLy Invluled
Pluintlfl'B prlVlICY,
13, DefendlUlt, by hl!r condllct, hUB il1,111n~d Pla[ntill' Inull IlInOullt in
CXCl~/iS of the Lim its of nrhi trntion bdore thiB COllrl.
WHEREFORE, Plnlntill' dl!ll1f1ndli Judgment ngninst Defendant In an
amount in cxcess of $25,000,00, plus lnteretlt and other delayed damages, plus
costs of suit.
.,
eL I" Andes
Attol'l1ey for Plnintiff
Supreme Court ID 1# 17225
525 North 12'11 Street
Lemoync, PA 17043
(7171761-5361
J.m.1 J, W.lt, Esquire
Allornoy Id, #00331
106 Norlll Front Stroot, Sullo 210
Horrl.burg, PA 17101
1111LZIH.lI~
ROllE1H J, HEAl/DRY. m"
Jllllh'tlll'
:IN TilE COlJRT OF COMMON IIL.l3AS
I CUMBERLAND COUNTY, I'ENNSYI.VANIA
I
I No, lJ6.~MI
IlOSE STONEll,
: CIVIL ACTION. LA W
Pul~lIdllnl
^NSWI~1l '1'0 COMI'J.AIN't:
AND NOW, com~sthc P~lcndnlll, Ros~ SloneI', by and Ihroullh hcr coulIscl, JUIIlCS, J,
West, Esquire, and Answcrs Ihe Complulnl nl~d Inthc ulmvc casc Inlbc 'l1110wlnll1ll1lllnerl
I, Admlllcd,
2, Admhh:d, Thc Delcndunt's nnmc Is Rosc Stoner, Ills unknown whllllhe
Pllllnlll1's knowledge wus conccrnlng Rosc Stoncr's IU81 knuwn nddrcss,
3. Ills ndl1l\tlcd thutthe Dcfcndlllll WU8 usked vurlous '1uesll'lIlH durlnl! February,
Mal'ch and April of 1996 concernlnl! Ihe conducloflhe Plalntin: Robert J, Ikuudry, Jr" and she
would lI1ake rcspunscs IOlhosc sJ1ccil1c qucsllun8, Thc rcsponscs she Illude werc believed 10 be
true and were mnde Inl!ood lilith, Thc sJ1cdl1c sul'pul'lll!rnphsofpurugrnph 3 would be
responded 10 us tiJllows:
u, The Dclcndulll. Rosc Stuner, believed thutlhe Plnintifl', Robert J, 13euudry,
Jr" had lakenllloney lInd hud becn rcqulred 10 return Ihutmoney, II wus ulso bclieved by Rose
Stoner Ihat a Court delerllllllullon hud bccn rcuched thullhc lukinl! of money by Ihe Plolntlff,
tho CWlC of KIillY Vlllla v. IWSII folllll)ur lit Onuphln COUIIIY No, 20~ L S 1996 which WOII .olllce!
with 11 ",lcl18c bel".. IIKIlCUlod b)' I1H pllrtl1l8'
lu.pccU\llly Submlttlld,
! II
,
'I ,
Plltedl Mil)' 25,2000
; I
: i'
I '
I'
r I'
" ,
I
,
"
"
'-!
I'
!;
"
, '
I I
'I
I
1,1'
"
"
:)
Ill' II
II
I
i I
'I I
"
, .
I ,
II
J,_i il
. I
II 'I
i,li
II'
'1
, I
, ,
I I,
"
'I
,.
,
I
Irclllcll~UUs cxpcnsc, IIIconwnlcllc~ un~ II'IlUnUllhul ~hu wuul,IIlUI huw Nuni:rc~ hlllllhc
1IIII&IIIIun prueec,lc~ III 1I1hHcly Iilshlull whllc Nhc \VIIH U resl~clll'lf PCllllsylvunlllllH dlllthc IIhow
ellc~ rchlle~ III 1!!1I1IlJIIIII 1>1Iuphlll ('uUIllY,
H, III ;1~JillolI hllhc IIcluul prcJudlcc clled uhuW,lhc I'lulllllll'hus Hunilre~ ulllhc
prcsulI1l'd prejudices lhul UI'INC IhUllthe lilllure hludvullce II eUNC Inlllllely IiINhlUll, See SllIlldllr~
PCllnsylvunl1111l'lletlcc 2"J ~]'l:Hll,
,/, Thc rdutlulINhlp or Ill', lIeuudlY. Ihe PllllllllrfllllhlN CIlK",III1~ MilicI' Orlll
Sur!!cry, Ille, hUN heUlIullutul'ilJlIK 'lIle ~illlIg rlKe hllllueh IItlgJlII'l/l11l holh t'u1l1hcrlulId lIn~
DlIUphl1l ('lIUllllcs, IhlKe SIOllel' Is 110 IllOl'e lhlll1U KhOl'llenll elllpluyee or MIlicI' Urul SUI'!!cr)',
Ine, WhllllOW J1l1dK herKelreJlu~htup III 111'1 Illlddle orthlK IIllgll1111lllllld IK helll!! virllllllly hcld
hosluge 10 Ihe ICl!uIIllUchIIlUII'lIls \hll\lIre llccurrlll~ Illvolvlll~ Ihe 11t1l!lllUS lill'lllcr "WllerH "I'
MIlicI' Ornl Surl!eI'Y, IIIC,
10, In order \0 show the 11t1~luuK /1Illllre or the Illl'lllcr oWllers or MIlicI' 01'1I1 Surger)',
IlIe, wc hllw IIHlIcheJ heretll Judge SheeleY'K I lcclKllllllI1 MIKcellullelluK No, 'l6.164uc'luI1I11Il!
Dr, Beuudry of hllrnsmlelll hnsed llllthc Khovllll! or II pl'el!1l1l1l1 empl"yee dUI'IIl!! II scullle
llccurrlll!! Ul MilicI' Oral Surgery, 1111;,: U COllsellll>ecree ISKucd hy Judl!C Clurk llll Murch I, 1'/96
cuvcrlll!! the IiJl'lhel' llpef'llllllllS llf MilicI' Oml SUI'l!ery, IIlC,: Judl!e UPSill'S Adjudlclllloll relulllIg
III 1111 e'lulty decree III relllove 1I11lreclor llr Miller Ornl Surgery, IlIe,; Judge DllWllllg'K 19'/]
Declsloll deulllll! Wllh urhllrutlollllrlhe dlKputes IIrlsllll:! llUl or Miller Ornl Sur!!ery, IIlC,: JurJl!~'
Klclnfelter's Declslul1 dell II II!! with the IIrhilrulllr'K uWllrd (Allllehed lIerelu ilK ExhlhltK E IhroUl!h
I reKpcellvcly), This Is lllll)' u sl1lull portlunllf the eXlellslvc IItl!!lIllllIlIIlVolvlll!! Miller 01'111
Sur!!ery, Ille, 1I11d lis prllldpllls,
i
.
,',
I!
"
II!
f."
i,
,
,
,
,
,
!)
I:
, ,
"
,
"
J J II
, ,,'
"
,
"
" I, ,
II'
, "
,
" " >1
,
I " ,
",
,
li " , "
~
h I, "
I I , "
~ ;11 II ,
~ ,
"
r "
" "
"
Ii! "
I " , "
, \ " , i
,
, ,
1:11111111111 i1/1d l:OIl/lly I'I0thll/l'II.IIIY'Ii 01' I nil
CivIl (''''Ill 11I'IlIlry
I~)'lfi ll'ili41 11I':AllIlllV 11011I':Il'I' (VII) H'I'ONI:1l IIlHiI':
I'YW,lll
1'/1')0
1
110 fUI'tI/I<:tI Nt)" 1
CUIIII 'l'y\HI"", 1 WIlI'1' 'IV HIII~MONIi
'11I'1~1I\1J1I "."" I ,1l11
,Ill' <I At1I11<lnodl
lJf.ll ')lIU" Il, /1<:, 1
.., . .. CIIIlU COllllllulIl./I .- - ,_. -.-..-.
!' 11 ud I , , I , , , . ,
l' I1lQ, I I' I I' , . I
~""(uClll. xn llntll
'f/:'(j '1'1' /11""
II 1011(1. DII~L1'
'J lor Crt ,I
IJ lor crt' , I
10/14/ A92~
0/00}o611o
Q/OO/OOOO
................................................................................
lJollu/:1I1 Indoll i\tlo/:'noy Into
MDr~S SAMU~I, (,
I'LMN'I'II"I'
lJl':l"l~NP^N'l'
ImM)~HY 110Imll'I'
'1'0 ,; I 1l0fi ,;
~n,r. "II OIIM, SUIIO!':IIY
400 A'I'lONWUm n uvr;
IIA/lI11l:lllUHO "A 11101
...........................................u....................................
· IJllto 1':nl./:1ol1 ·
.................................................................................
] 0/14/1996
11/04/1996
10/10/199~
10/10/1999
11/04/1999
4/0712000
~R~E~I~E-F6R-W~I~ ~F-s0M~ON~I~~TC'~T~Vi\C~I~N:W~I~ ~,..S~M~0~s-riB0E~
------------,-------------.--------------.---------------------~._----
SIlEIUFF'/l llE'l'URN nl,ED
Litigant, 1 STONER ROS~
~ERVhO 1 10/21(.96 Di\UJ1IIIN CO
I.ollta. . ,.1 $50.2.1 J1d By 1 SAMUEl, /\NOES 11/04/1996
------,.-..-. --. _.._----------------------------------~---------------
COMPLA 1 N'I'
-----_.._-----_._.,--------_.,------------------~--------------.-.----.-
J1LAIN'I'IFF'H ou,n;c'I'ION '1'0 I'URGJi: CAB~;
-..---------....-----.---.-------.-----..-------------------.------------
SIlFlllF"B llETURN FILED
LII'IGM'I' 1 13Ei\UllRV ROll E 11'1' J JR
SERVED I 10/27/99 NOT FOUND DAUPHIN CO
COS'I'6 t $64,25 SAMUf;L /\NOES 11/04/99
.....-----.,-.----..---------------------------.-------------------------
I~R~I":l~E _'I'? I!E~N~'I'~'I'~ ~O~P~i\l,~'~'I'D~N~a~UE~ ~ ~N~E~ ~S9 _ _ _ _ _ .. ..
...........................,....................................................
. Ellcrow In(o/:'lI1at1on ·
. Fooa " Doblts Doa Bal Pvmts/Ad1 End Bal ·
................................,.......*,......~._.............................
WR I 'I' OF SUMMONS
'l'AX ON WRIT
6ET'l'LEMEN'1'
JCJ1 FEE:
,)5.00 35,00
38 ,!i8
5: 5,0
5. 0 5,00
----------.._-------~----
45,50 45,50
,00
,08
,0
,00
------------
.00
................................................................................
· End of Callu Information ·
................................................................................
TRUE COpy FROM RECORD
In Tesllm~ny whQrrnl. I tlere unto I\IJt my hand
~nd tho ~I of !\aId Court at Catilshl, Pa.
Thl~day ~~".t .; ~.
. I. 1U.I " 0 -', LO~~
Prolhonotarf
"
, ,
,
'1 i
,
1 III
'i
ii' ,
I
"
" ,I
"
!: ,I "
, ,
I,
)
)
,
)
I
I ~ ~ '
Rmm STONJi;R, I NO, 1)6.56<1 I CI~IL '!'r'mM,(
1](lfcl1dul1l I CHl(f' ~ '
6. " .
r1MrfTll'Jl"B OBJEc.r.'Q1iJ':9_r.!!-RG!!.L~AfJE ~~.'..;. ,:\;'
~ ~ ~f ',;<1
AND NOW conws the uhovl'-nunwd PluJntlrr, rllld OlJJI'CtS to the ~~, 111 < :'d ,,?,l
nnd purge of this CBse for the filllowlng reusons; S! ~ ~i
....
I, Plaintiff Intends to proceed wllh tlH~ CIlse and hilS rccl:nlly OIl'd a ComplllJnl
to stale his c1r1tm In dctllll.
IWLml~T II, I.lI!:IWPI~Y, JI~"
Plllhllln'
IN TIll!: C;OUr~T ai" COMMON
PL.I!:AS OF CUMm~IU.ANn
COUNTY, P~;NNSYI.VANIA
VB,
CIVil. ACI'JON . LAW
2, Plalnllll hus nol prou:l:dl'd with the ((ll;e emileI' Iwcause he wu.s Itlvolvl~d In
IItlgnllol1 with Ihe I.kfi~lIdnnt's '~ll1ployer which he hopes would re~ilJlvl: the IIlsue5 mlscd
In this ClISI:. The litigation IwtWl'l'l1 Plaintlll Hnd l)l'!"elJdllnt's employer, MilicI' Oml
Surgery, Inc" hns not yel hl'en rt'solved hut ii, Is now clear that lillgnUon will not resolve
01' dl:termine the claims between PlaintilT and UcCendnnl.
3, If PllIlntif/'s lIctioll Is disllJissed he will suller slgnincunt prejudice IJeCllUSe he
will hnve no olher mellJlS of remedy rill' his loss,
WHEREFORE, Plnlntlff, by his nllorney, Sallluel L, Andes, objects to the
dismissal 01' purge of this Ctlse tlnd usl<s IIHlIII be allowed to conllnuc,
&)
--0-.-- ._..~ _
1nnntlt! [., And!:s
Allol'lley for !,Iaintiff
Supreme Court II) II 17225
525 North 12'1' Slrl:et
J.cmoynl', PA 17(H3
('1171 ?C1l - 5:lCl I
It{M-~1
,!
ROSIl STONER,
Defendant
IN THE COURT or COMMON PLEAS
llAUPHlN COUNTY, PflNNBYLVANlA
No, ;ZO;Zl S 1996
CIVI~ ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DflMANDflD
KIlLLY VIOLAI
Pla1nt1H,
v,
C.oHR.LA.1Jir
1. Plaintiff Kelly Viola (Mil, ViC)la) 111 an adult individual
resident in York county, Pennllylvania,
;Z, Defendant Rose stoner (Ms, Stoner) 1& an adult: indiv idual who
111 elllployod I)" a full-time bash in Dauphin county, PAIHHlyl vania by
Hiller Oral Surgery, 11'10, (MOS) at 400 Nationwide Dr:ive,
Harr:isburg, PA 17110,
3, From 1985 until Febr:uar:y 1,1996, Ms, Viola was an employee of
MOS, wor:king as a surgioal B881stant under: the supervision of
Robert J, Beaudry, Jr:" D. M. D, (Dr, Beaudry), an oral sur:geon also
employed by MOS until February 1, 1996,
4, Since February 1, 199G, Hs, Viola hIlS been employed as a
surgioal assistant by Beaudry Oral Surgery, 1na" under: the
supervision of Dr. Beaudry.
5, Ms, stoner: ar:r:anged a luncheon meeting on Maroh 2B, 1996 with
var:ious staff employees of Percarpio Keane and Aosociates, a
prOfessional
dental office which maintains offices
in
Mechanicsburg, Cumberland county, Pennsylvania,
6, Present at this luncheon meeting wore Wanda Blair., Sandra
Wenger, Mindy Lafferty, and Angela Burd (Per:car:pio Keane staff),
1
,..
.
all atlff employees of Pe~ol~pio Keane and Asaooiltoa,
7, At th1a IIIlel:1ng, Hs, Stoner told the Peroarpio Keane staff
that Dr, Beaudry had been having an affair for a long time with his
au 1a tant .
8, 'he Perearpio Keane ataff underBtood Dr. Beaudry'a aSBiBtant
to be HII. Viola,
9, U~on information and belief, Hs, Stoner has arranged similar
lunoheon meetings for staff of other dllntal oHieell in the
Ilarr1aburg uea,
10, Upon inforlllatiuJl ahd l,,,.l1d, at. uauh uf thellG meetinga, HB,
stoner told thou Btaff members in attendantoe that Dr, Beaudry had
been having an affair for a long time with hiB surgical aBllistant.
11, Each staff employee of other dental offices underBtood Dr,
Beaudry'B asailltant to be HB, Viola,
12, Hs, Viola has been married to DBrrell Viola Binoe April 1992,
13, Dr, Beaudry haB been married to Bus an Beaudry since prior to
1985,
14, These communications alleged adultery,
15. These communications were defamatory,
16, These defamatory communications alleging that Dr, BeaUdry had
been having an affair for a long time with Hs, Viola were false,
17, HB, Stoner pUbliBhed theBe defamatory falsehoods of HB, Viola
to the staffs of Percarpio Keane and other dental offices with whom
she arranged luncheon meetings,
18, Hs, Stoner aoted in ncklellB disregard as to the falsity of
2
the detlMatlon at HI, Vlola.
19. HI, stoner acted wlth evl1 lntent 1n defamlng HI, Vlo1a,
20, P1'lor to the pubUoaUon of thls detamlUon, HI, Vlola enjoyed
a good rOpl!t&l:1on in the dental OOIQPlunity ln the Hlrrllburll area,
21, All reBult of thlll r.1efanlll:1on, HII, Vl01a Buffered harm to her
reputation,
22, AI I result of thh defamation, dental ofUces ln the
Harrisburg area were deterred frolll dealing with HI, Viola,
23, AI a result of thl1 defamatlon, HB. Viola SUffered ell\otionll
dlltroBB ,
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Kelly Vlo1a respectfully pr~YI this Honorable
Court to order Pefendant ROBe Stoner to pay to the Pldnt1ff
damages I includlng punitive damkgDl, in an amount ln excels of tho
jurisdiotional amount requiring arbitratlon referral by looal rule
and ordor any other reUef II the court deems appropriatlil, together
with allowabl. attorney feoD, interest, and costs,
Respectfully submitted,
f1~~~
Thomas Blaokburn
PA Supreme Ccurt 10 N 59383
Attorney for Plaintiff
P,O, Box 62
Hew Cumberland, PA 17070
(717) 763-4777
3
I
11;
It\
I
I,
!i
!I
Ii
, , I
,
II:)
I' I
'I :'!
,
I I , >l
"
, I
, ,
1'1 I'"~
I , I
I , ,
1'\ I'
)1 ,i
I , "
, " "
'I
"
;1
" , ,
"
I, , "
:1
" ,
"
e ,
, "
I ,
I Ii
'Iii
, II
:
& ,
I " , II: r
" ,
" "
~ , ,
"
~, " " "
,
I I , , , ,)
,
Ij' , I
I ,
"ORMM"H"' AHP '()J1'OmA" ItK"JIIAfUI
THXIi I\OR~JlMJl"T ANI> OJlNflM" l{fl~,flMUl ill entered into by Ilnd
between
i, I
,
i ;1
)1\11
, .1
"
;'1
i.
IlOBI BTON,m ("Mil, Btonllr")
Bnd
KllJ,J.Y VIO"A ("Mil. Vioh")
WH\!lRJlAB, MIS, Stoner hBI! been and ourrent! y remai nlS employed by
MiUer Oral Suroery, 100, ("MOS"); and
WH\!lRJlAB, Ma, Viola WBB previoullly employed by MOSI and
IfflF,REAB, Mil. Viola ilS prC!llSently employed by Robert J, Beaudry,
D.M.D., a former IShareholder and direotor of MOSI and
WHElREAB, in the OOllrllO oLher employml1nt with MOB, MIS, Stoner
arranged and attendod one or more lunoheonlS with staff mamberlS of
various dental praotioelS in the Harrisburg areal and
miERJlAS, vBrioulI dinputes hBve arisen between Mil. Stoner and
MIS, Viola regarding dillculllSions held during theso lunoheonll; and
WHEREAS, lIome of tholSe dillputell havo r,oBultlild in lC!lgal
procQQdinOIl betweun Mil, Viola and MIS, Stoner; and
WHEREAS, during the courlle of Mil. Viola'lI employment with MOS,
various dillputell arolle concerning that employment; and
WHERflAS, lIome of those dillputell between Mil. V101a and MOB have
lead to legal proceedings between them; and
WHEREAS, Mil, V101a and MOS have amicably rosolved the legal
proceed1ngll between thom; and
WHJ::REAS, the amicablo rellolution of tho dillPutell between Mil,
,
I'"
Viola and NOS included all partial conllideration for the mutual
- 1 -
I'romllloR tho rolo/1/$o by M/$. Viola of ollllm/$ ogolnRl M/$. lltonor I
NOW, 'l'IUlIlfWorlfl, In conRldorntlol1 of tho lIIutunl oOVenantR
IlOlltllinod horoln nlld Intondlng lo uo lO\Jolly uOlllld herobY, tho
portiell lIyrao OR follow/$I
1. Mil. lltonor and MR. Vloln ograo that It 11$ in thair rospootive
und mutulIl IntlJraat/$ to and dlal)utos uotwoan them.
2. Mil. VlolD and t~a. Stonor oareu thDt no monatorv oonllldoution
will bo \lold by oithor of tholn to tho othOl..
3. Mil. Vlolo and M/$. Stonor ooknowladl1o that, In oxchange for Mil.
Vlola'lI execution of this ^graomont and Ganaral RalooBe, Mil. Viola
III also receiving voluoble oonsideration froln MOll os part of her
omioablo relloluUon Qf tI i IIpll~nf' '" j ~ h fl4l1R
4. III oonsideration of tho promillea, covanants, ond release by
Mil. Viola, Mil. Btoner, on behalf of horl5olf nnd her agentll,
ottornoYll, holrll, and aSlllyns, Irrevocably and unconditionally
releBlIolI, ramitR, acquits, Bnd dlschargas Ms. Viola, her agents,
attorneYlI, heirs, and allslgns from any and all claims, known or
unknown, whether called clalmll, demandll, causolI of action,
obligations, damogoll, or l1abllit lea or Is ing frum any and all
ball is, howevar called.
5. In conlll.dorotion of tho promlllell, covenanta, and releaae by
Mil. Stoner and In cona Ideratlon of the cons Idera tion po Id to her by
MOB in amicable rellol.utlon of her. disputes with MOll, Mil. Viola, on
behalf of herBelf and her ngentll, attorl1oYB, l1alrl5, and aBsIgnll,
Irrevocably and ul1cond1tlonally raleasos, remits, acqu!t15, and
dlllOhatlJell Mil. Stonllr, hor agonts, attornoys, holrs, and alllllgnll
- 2 -
from any and all olallllll, known or unknown, whothor ullllod ololms,
domandll, caURIlS at Rotion, obl1l}ationa, damage", Ol.' l1nbllHIlllI
arillinl} from ony and all bllRh, however oollod.
6. 'rho llarUaR heroto ogrlle that tho OXOLluUon llf thill AlJreomont
and Oonerol Releaso ia in oompromiso llnd finol Rattlement betwoon
the part 10s of all d1s1Jutod I1\llttllrs, oonsUtutoll full Blltlllfaotlotl
of all claims Inoda or which could be 11\0do, LInd dOIlR not 111 any woy
odmit liability or wrongdoing by any party.
7. The partlea hereto will exocuto lInd f lla any and oIl
appropriate Instruments to dlllcontinuo, withdraw, and and with
prejudloe pending lalla I. pro<loodlngs against oaoh othar, thoir
officers, dlr<lctors, omployoos, agents, and at.toNlitYII.
B. The parUes hllroto Intond this Agl'"Ollmont and General. Releaso
tu be lego 11 y bind ing upon rind Inure to the bonef It 0 f eaoh of tholll
and thoir respective heirs and assignll.
9. This document 1s the complote agreement betwoen tho partloll,
and there ar.e no wr.it ten or orlll underll tand 1ngs , prolnisell or
alJreementR directly or Indirectly related to this Allreoment and
Goneral ReleBso that are not inoorpor.atod herein in full.
10. Ms. Viola and Mil. Stoner oach state that she hall llorllfully
read the within and foregoing Agreement and General Releoso, thllt
sha hBS sought the advice of an attorney prior to oxecutlon of thh
Agreoment. and General Relealle, that she hod the opportunity to have
any attorney explain to her tho terms of the forogolng, that Rhe
executes this document knowingly Ilnd voluntarily os her own free
act and deed, and that this document wall freely negotiated Bnd
- 3 -
elltorod Into without fraud, duroaa or coeroion.
11. 'l'hirJ Agreemont shall 1>0 and remll!n In utCoot dellplte Bny
alloged brollch of thi/:l AIlroomont or tho dlaooverv or oxistonoe of
any now or nddltlonal tRot or allY fout dltfuronl frolll that whil.lh
Me. Stoner or Ma.
Viola now /(nowa or bol1ovol:I
to bo
,
trLlo.
Notw!th/ltandlng tho forogolllg. nothIng In thin Agrooment ond
General Ilelolllle Rholl bo conlltruod 0/:1 or oonstHute a ralea8Q of
MIS. ViolB'n or Ma. stonor'll rlghta to onforco the termll of thill
Agreement ond Gonoul lIaloaso, or to lIeok rel1of, Inoluding, but
not Limited to, sny damagos, for liny hreach of this Agroement Ilnd
General lie lellll 0 .
IN WITNEBB WIlER~OF, and Intondlng to bo legally bound, eaoh of
the porties hel'oto hae oaulled thi/:l Agreement and Oeneral Releose to
be executed ond 11011111 affixod os of the datell indioated.
WITNESS I
A lA~t'L .,~' - I
{f-~L~__._.~.-.,--_.~_._..._._~..,. ----'
/ .
KeTiAf~fi,~l./L L.._________.-.
Ds te .- -//7/9-7- __. ,_~.___._~.._
/)
....(f,.:~_..... .S.t't~._.__..
Rose Stoner
Date .. L./'I'f',~L7d_
~ 4 ~
\
.
"-'9~
II. violat$.on of the termll of th1l pear... Ihall be treated u
,
oontempt ot! oourt, and in addit:l.on to any other unotion or remedy
the Cout:t may impolle, the OOllrt may award Ilttorneys feell and oost.
againlt the violating party.
c. All nc.ltioell, oommuniostions, I9tC. roquired hereul1dllr
shall be lIerved on Clounllel for the pllrti8ll, the speoial Hallter, and
the Court.
P. When a period of time pruoribed or a llowed herein is
leal than eleven (11) days, intermediate Saturdaya, sundays, and
legal holidaYG shall be excluded in thl computation.
EE. WI'l," mGAR/) 1'0 'l'UB IUfcoMS OF PM'IBH'l'S OF HILLBR
ORAL SURGSRlI', Inc., WB HBRB1Jf OMBR !.ND DERRCT AS
FOLUMSr
A. Within fourteen (14) days t;lf thl date of thh peoree, the
Spacial Malltor appointed hereinbelow lIhall lIend II letter to
selocted patientll troated by Hiller Oral surgery, Inc., within the
past two (2) years, notifying thorn ot tho disollsociation ot Ors.
Beaudry and Raedy, advising them that they have the exclusive right
to ohoollQ which dootor will treat them in the future, and aSking
that they lIign an onclosed authorization directing whioh doctor
"
shall retain their records. The notice shall lIpecifically ident1fy
the location at which each of the doctors will proctioe aftar the
date of the notice.
13. The patients' authorhations will be mailed by the
patients directly to the special Master, who shall notifY each
- 2 -
dOQto~ or the patients who have ohosan e.oh or them (that is, eaoh
,
doctor will qet a list of the patients who have chosen him and a
ooPY of their authori~etion., and a list of the patienta who have
ohosen the other dootor). The partia. shall within five (B) days
deliver the oriqinal ohart and all originel mediQal reoords for
eaQh patient who has responded to the dootor designated by that
patient. Thereafter, neither party will contllot, direotly, or
indireotly, a patient who has desiqnated the other a. their doctor
by ex.outing and returning the authorizotion provided for herein.
~. ThA Rpecial Mallter shall notifY, at eeoh DOQtor'.
expense, eny patient seleoted by either Dootor who he he. treated
within the past seven (7) yearll that has not been inoluded in the
!Dailing oontemplated by lIubparaqraph 1\ hereOf, of the
c1isasElClciation of the doctors and of their oontinuing praotice
looal:ions. Miller oral surgery, Inc., shall provide to the Special
Master I with in fourteen (14) days of the date of th is ordor, a list
of the patients treated by Or. Boaudry within the prior seven (7)
yearll. Eaoh Doctor will be responsible for the cost of
establiShing addrellsell tor patientll on the list to the extent that
this informatiol' cannot be retrieved from the corporation's
computer database. Such notice shall be accompanied by atl
authorization, approved by the Speoial Master, with which ;lny
patient may designate either doctor to be that patiQnt's doctor,
and retain that patient's medica l recordll. The SpQciol Master
shall promptly notity the doctorll ot the patients that have
~ J -
rellponded 1:.0 the notioG, lSnd thl! pl1rl:.1es shall wi\:hin rive (ll) day"
delivel:' the orlqinel ohllrt and oIl or1qinal InOdlOlSl recol:ds to...
such pati8nt~ ~o tho dootor dosiCjllllted by tho patientB.
P. Ar.ter t.he Spec in I Mastel' 110t i t J.os ,uloh doc\:or in
aoccrdanoe with subpM.aCjl'aph U hQ~'eor, ollch dOIJtor will BulJlTlit a
lis\: ot the patJ.ents thnt he haa treated within the pnat two (2)
yoars who designated the othwr doctor to retain thoir rooords and
of whosl! rl1cordl1 that doctor wants copies. such a list will be
deemed a request to reCl1iVll photocopios of that patient'a rooordlJ
and radiographn and whichClver dootor has thet patililnt'lI rocords in
the possession will photoc:opy the records and provide them and the
radiographs to the other doctor promptly upon rOl';eipt ot that
request.
E. Except as provided heroin, nolther doc\:or, and 110 doctor,
dentist, employee, agent, or representative of either doctor or of
Miller Oral surgery, Inc., sholl make solicltetion calls or
initiate othor contacts with patients of the other doctor (exoopt
through newspaper, telephone yellow pages, and other media
advortising) for a period of one (1) yoar after the date of this
Decree without the prior. consent of the special Mastor,'
F. All patient files that are not transferred aa provided
above shall remain in the custody of the party currently in
possession, and shall be maintained in accordance with state Dental
Boarj regulations; provided, however, that within thirty (30) daYB
of receipt of a written request from a patient or a patient's legal.
- 4 -
9Uatd1an 1t the patient 1. a minot, an exaat oopy ot the patient's
written dllntal reoord, alonljJ with oopies ot ):adioljJt'lIphB, it
t'equeBted, shall be fu~nished to the patient or the requestinq
party.
'l'hfl reoordB shall otherwillu be reaRonably available to
either party on requellt.
1'10 reoords /:lhall be delltroyad or
otharwisa disposed or without notioe to Or. ~eQdy alld Or. Beaudry
and each of the doctorll shall be entitled to rotain any of those
records they chose.
III.
1'11'1'11 REGAR9---'1'e---'l'PBLEPIIONB OPEM'l'ED al:' HILLER
ORAL SURGERl:', INC., WE IIERBBl:' ORDBR AND DIREC'.!' lIS
FOLUMSI
A.
All the telephone numberll used by Miller Oral 6urqery,
Inc., will bo "pooled" lnto one main nunlber so that any party
callinq any of those numpers will be dir.ected to the "nlain" number.
Tholle numbers will not be published or advertJ,sad after the date of
thill Decree.
B. The "maJ,n" number will be I1nflwered by a "split referral"
system Which will offer the caller three options:
1. Contact with Or. Beaudry or his staff. at his
West shore offlce at 3600 Old Gettysburg Road
in Camp Hill, Pennsylvaniar or
"
2. Contact with Or. Reedy, Dr. Rajchel, Or.
Brothers or their staff at their East Shore
office at 400 Nationwide Drive, Hal."risburq,
Pennsylvanior or
3. If the patient eXpt'esses no choice, the system
will alternate referrals directing them to
each of the physician numbers.
- 5 -
The .pl1t t'etDt'ul .y.tam will be opeuted by Sell Atlantic rot' one
yeat' ft'om the datil ot the Deot'lle. It Bell Atlantic do.. not of tel;'
8uch a service, the parties will seleot a commercial oompany that
doe. and neither party will have any contact directly with that
oommercial oompany but will only have oontaot throu'ilh the speoial
Muster.
c. Eaoh doctor will obtain an ent:1rely new number tor hi.
811parate of rica. Dr. Baaudry will on the date of this Deoree oease
answer!nq telephone oalls with referonoe to Miller oral SUl:'qery and
any variant thereof.
D. Dr. Carl Brothers shall determine, in oonsultation with
the Special Master, how his oaUs lIhaU be directed. The speoial.
Kaster shall arrange a split referral to inolude inlltructions as to
whioh ottioe a patient shculd CIlU it they wish to conteot Or.
~rotherl$ .
IV.
WI'!.'H REGARD TO NOTICE AND MJIIBR'l'ISING REGARDING THE
BRBAJWP OF DM. BEAUDRY AND RBBDY, WB HBREBY ORDBR
AND DIRECT AS FOLUMS:
1\.
The parties, by their counsel, will prepare 8 notice to
be mailed to aU referring dentists an" physicians and submit that,
.'
toqether with a lit;t of the prospective reoipients, to the Special
Master. Once the Special Master hes approved the torm and oontent
of the notioe, it will be promptly moiled to such reterrin'il
dentillts by the Specie.t Master.
- 6 -
...
B. Both partie., bV their counlel, will prepare notioe. to
.
be hlued to thlll public in the form of neWllpapar advertL.ement. and
they will ba BUbmitted to the speoLal Mastar tor approval. once
approved, they can be run Ln the newspaper. Those notices will
contain the new telephone numbers (required by Par"qraph III. C.)
for ellch party.
C. Eaoh party shall have the opportunity to review, and the
speoial Halter mUllt approve, telephone listinqs, both white paqe.
and vel low paqea, uQed by the other for the upcomtnq year.
D. Miller Oral surqery, Ino., and any dootor employed by
Hiller oral surqery shall not, direotly or indirectly, open, ot'
operate, a West Shore offioe that is within 10 milee of 3600 Old
Glllttysburq Road, Camp HLll, for a period of one (1) year aftlllr the
date of thil Decroe.
E. Dr. Beaudry lIhall not, diroctly or indireot-ly, open, or
operate an East Shore offLce that is within two (2) miles of 400
Nationwide Drive, Harrisburg, for a period ot one (1) year after
the date of this Decree.
V. WI'l'U REGARD 'l'O 2'IIE FINlINCIAL RECORDS OF HII;.LER ORAL
SURGERY, INC., AND 'l'UE PARTIHS, WB HEREBY ORDER AND
DIRECT AS FOLLOWS:
A. This item includes (1) aU corporate and tinanoial
reoords of Miller Oral surqery, Susquehanna Volley ASllociates, and
Chesapeako Health Resources, inclUding co~puter records, bank
records, tax records, and the like, as well as all patient billinq
- 7 -
t.dol:ds, computel." veuions and otherwise (but not l,ncludin9
,
attol."ney-cUlnt l."Gcords ....lat:1n9 the Utiqatl.on amon9 HUh)." Oul
SU)."91l."Y, Ino., Dl.". \leedy, and Or. Beaudry) and (:I) all the talC
records or Or. Reedy lInd 01:. BeaUdry and all ot;her records relatin9
to thair rendering or oral lIurgel'y and rolated services.
B. All or such recordll rol." rivo (lil vean priol." to the date
or this Deoree will be depollited with the spacial Master who will
ret,.S.n them and oontrol acoolls or tholle records to either party.
It shall be the responllibility or the party with pOr.lussion,
oustody, or control or any l\.lch t'Dcord to produce it \oIl,thout
rurther requost or direction, and the parties expressly aoknowledqe
and aqree that faUure to provide lIuch recol:ds to the Speoial
M8lIt.er is violation or this Oeoree and iD puniBhable 8B contempt or
oourt and as rurther pl:ovided herein.
c. Each party and their reprellentativeB, inclUding but not
limited to, counllel, accountants, and the like, shall have acoess
to these records, under the supervillion or the special Master to
the extent reallonable and necessary to implement the tel:'llls and
~bligetionB or this Decree. It is the intent ot this provision,
end the parties exprellllly agree, that the records shall"be used to
implement this Decree and shall not be disseminated or used ror any
othor purpose.
- 8' ...
VI. "'%'111 IUlClNUJ ro '1'1111 COHPU'1'BR SfS'1'BH OPIIIWSD 81'
Hlr.LlIR ORM. SURGIfRV, INc., WIf 1I1E1Uf/JV ORDltR AND
OIMC'I' ItB fOLLOWS,
A. HLlln oral surgery, Inc., will pay Vernon Thom"s or his
company to in.tall aompa~able oomputer syatemll, at an equivalent
coat, at thu East Shore Rnd Wellt Shore offices.
B. Although the syatemll will be oompa...able, they will not be
linked and will havo entirely lIeparate reco...ds and one will not be
acoe.sible to the othe....
C. The new computer aYlltem desoribed in lIubpnragraph A at
the West Shore officl1 will be t...anstl1rrod to O~. Beaudry as part ot
his ahare ot the assets ot the corporation and his share will be
credited tor the cost ot the ~omputer lIyatem.
VII.
WI DIRRC'l' '1'HM' 'l'UB FOLLOWING IN'l'BRIH PAYHEN'l'S BB
HADB Bf HILLBR ORAL SURGSRf, INe., TO DR. BRADDR1',
Miller Oral surgery, Inc., will upon entr.y of this Decree
A.
issue payment to Dr. Beaudry in t.ho amount of Thl1~ty Thousand
Dollars ($30,000) to de tray his initial "start up" costs tor
malpr~ctice insuranoe and medical supplies.
e. Commenainq March 1, 1996, Miller Oral surCiJery, J:nc., will
pay to Or. Beaudry the sum ot Thirty"eight Thousand Five Hundred
Dollars ($38,1500) pllr month tor a period of three consecutive
months. Paymentll aha 11 be made on the fi rst day of each month.
The term of thelle monthly payments may be extended by this court
upon the ~eoommendation of the Special Master,
- 9 -
0, Payment. made to P~. a.aud~y pu~.uant to the aboVe two
,
itelllt will be aredited ar,rain.t the lIIoniea he is due tor the
tranllter ot the oorporate _sllets oontemplated by this Bettlement.
D. Hiller oral BUl."qery, Ino., sholl pay Dr. Beaudry, within
tUteen (19) daYll ot this D8creo his salary ot Twenty Thoul8nd
Dollarll ($20,000) tar tho month ot Jllnuary and shall pay within
thirty (30) days ot thill Decree hill lI8lary ot 'l'Wenty Thousand
Dollars ($20,000) tor the month ot February.
E. Miller oral 8urqery, Ino., lIhall immediately pay to Dr.
a.audry, trom tunds it previously plaoed in ollcrow, the net amount
Hiller Oral Surqet.'y, Inc., caloulates to be due und.r the jUd'iJlDent.
entered in the procoedinqs at Docket No. 4;230-8-1993. Both pa~tie.
shall then satiety any judgments el,terod at Docket NQ. 4230-5-1993.
The Batilltaction ot tholle judgments, however, lIhall not diBoharqe
any rEllllaining chims betwoen the parties which are not alrlllady
bar~ed by the doctrinoll of rel!1 :JUdicata or collateral estoppel, and
shall not discharge Ilny clailllll either party has as to the amount
paid and the calculation of any credits aqoinst that amount used to
arrive at the tunds placed in ellcrow Dnd dollverod pursuant to this
paragraph, and oIL suoh unbarred claimll are r8Berved in" acoordance
with the other provilllons ot this DeClree.
- 10 -
VIII.
"'I'J'U MGIWJ ~'O lULLING ~OR OR. 1JRMDRY'S
811RVIC1!lS MN1JEMn PRIOR TO 'J'IIB OATS ,0" TlfIS
DBCRR1I AN1J ON D1!I1IA1Jr or HILLHR OltAL BURGIIRY,
IHC., WII IIEREIJY ORTlER ANO OIllHC"J' AIi roL~S I
1\. Eaoh party will conduol: 0 dililjJQnt sellrch tor all
appointment book15 ond si9n-1n uhQots tor tho Wost Shoro oftio.
after Juno 1, 1995, until the date of. this Dacroo and shall.
promptly provide copios of those documonts to the other party.
After Pro Beaudry hall those calandar bookll and lIiqn-in sheets, h.
will prepare a list of the pationtll he treated after June 1, 19915,
and prov1de a copy of that list both to the Special Mallter and to
Dr. Reedy.
B. Upon receipt of Dr. Beaudry's list of patientll, Pro Reedy
will provide to tho Spaoial Master, tor review and inllpection by
Dr. Beaudry, all reoords not already in Dr. Buaudry's possession,
inoludinq finonpial, traatment, and other records, for the patients
on Dr. Beaudry's list, so that Dr. BeaUdry can prepare t.he billing
information necellsary for those patients to be billed properly.
C. Dr. Beoudry will work up and submit yallo.... sheeta Bnd
surgical reports to Miller Oral surgery's adminilltrative offioe
within fitteen (15) days of receipt of records described in the
.'
previous paragraph, subject to axtension ot time qranted by the
special Mallter for good cause.
P. Miller Oral surgery, Inc., will provide full information
about all servicell rendered by Dr. Beaudry tor which Miller Oral
surgery, Inc., has billed any party, under its Ilame, the name of
- 11 -
eit.her Dra. BlIItudl:Y 01: RIIDdy, or any ot.hol: nome sinue June 1, 19915.
,
Thot aooountinr;r will be pl:ovidod to 01:. BlIlIudry within t.hirt.y (30)
days of tho date of this Decrlll!.
E. MUler Oral Sur.ljJery, Ino., will promptly bill tor all
wor.k done by Dr. Beoudry whioh wall not proviously bi110d and will
provide copieD of thoDe billll and a full aooountinq to thl! Special
Hallter of the amounts billed and lator oollQotod.
F. Within t1fteen (lIS) days of the datil of thiB Decree, Dr.
Reedy, Dr. Beaudry and Dr. Rajchel lIha11 submit to the specbl
Huter a oomplete list of thllir treatment~plllnnlld patients as of
the date of this Oecree. The parties shall submit with the list
all notes with I:ellpect to the treotment plan and any other
information necesllary to determine the enticipated fees from the
treatment plan.
G. Within three (3) daya of the date of thiB Decree, Dr.
Beaudry will submit to the business office of Miller Oral Surgel:'Y,
Inc., any check II and oash in his possesllion, custody, or control
thot he oollected for servioea rendered to patients of Miller Oral
SurljJery, Inc.
H. Dr. Beaudry may at his election retain' accountll
receivable u of the date of thill Decree with respect to any of his
patients, and his distributive share of the corporate assets shall
be oredited for the amount of such accounts.
I. All parties will cooperate with the Special MI\ster to
implement this provision regarding the billing.
- 12 -
All such items shell be return$d or otherwise aooounted for in the
final distribution ot assets.
c. or. Besudry ~hall im~odiately and irrevooably endors. in
blank alld depoBit with the Court all ot hils oertifioatos of stock
in Miller Oral surqery, Ino. The Court will hold tholle items in
ellorow ponding the oonolusion of all actions oontomplated by this
Decree.
D. Or. Baaudry will immediately tender his unoonditioniSl
rellignation all an otticer and/or employee or Miller orel Surgery,
and ho will oQntiy.m in writing that h$ is no longer a shareholder
ot Millur Oral surgery. In addition, he will within ten (10) daYlI
commence arrangements to withdraw or transter his pension acoount
as promptly as pOIllBible in acoordBnce with the pension plan and the
law. 'rho Spociol Moster will monitor compliance with the
arrangements to withdraw or trans tel' the pension acoount.
x.
1'11'1'/1 REGARD TO TilE LONG TERM DIVISION OF HILLBR
ORAL SURGERY, INC., AND SUSQUEHANNA VALLBf
ASSOCIATES, WB IlEREBY ORDER AND DIRECT AS FOLUMSt
All ot the assetll ot Hi ller Oral surgery, Inc., including
A.
the name "Miller Oral surgery, Inc.," and any variants of that name
,
used by the oorporation, and Susquehanna Valley Associates, shall
bo appraised. Each side lIhall select tho appraiser(s) they ohoose
to use and submit tho identity and credentials ot that appraiser to
the Special Master for approval.
- 14 -
.-...It.
Xlr.
riB RlICOGNrtlB 'l,"^,l' 'l'/IERB ARB REHJUNlNG ISSUBf1,
PR1lS/.fN'.VL'I OO'1'SIDB '1'I/B SCOPE OF TillS L:f'1'lC'M'ION AND
ORDBR ANfJ fJlR1lC'l' 'l'1/A'l' '1'/lSY DB PlSPOSB/) OF, II' M'
ALl. l'OSSrnr.B, IN 'l'I/B FOLUMlNG WAYt
Ors. Beaudry ~nd Reody and Millor Oral surgery, Inc. are
1\.
parties to an action initiated against Dr, Reedy and Miller oral
Surqll!ry, Inc., by I(ally Viola. The parties will uuu the.tr best
efforts to neqotiate a settlement ot that claim.
B. Drll. Beaudry and Reedy and Miller oral sur'iJery, Ino., are
parties to an aotion ourrently pending betore the Court of Common
Pleas of Cumblilr~and CUUJlty, Pennllylvllnia, co uocket No. 5 EqUity
1993. Thlil claimu railled in that calle shall be tranllferrod to this
Court and will be resolved in the manner Bet forth in Paragraph XI
of this Decree.
c. Drs. Beaudry and Reedy llnd Miller Oral Surgery, Inc., ara
partiell to a dispute about the distribution of funds received trom
litiqati,on with a tormer member ot Miller Oral Surgery, Ino., Which
f,unds are beinq held in escrow by Heath Allen, ElIq., or hill firm.
The parties will use their best efforts to resolvo any disputell or
questions regardillg the distribut.ion of those fund a so that they
can be distributed to all claimants as promptly as possible. If
"
their efforts are unlluccessful they may refer this matter to the
special Mastel:'.
D. 1\11 other claims between Dl:'s. Beaudry and Reedy, or
between either 01:' them and the corporation, will pe resolved in the
- 17 -
mannar "at:. fot'th in Parll\Jraph XI of this order, unless suoh olaims
involvlI third pal':tiell not lIubjeot to this Deoree.
E. When the Court enters itll Hnal order dividinq the asaetll
ot Miller Oral surqery, Ino., and decidinq the "Rellerved Claims,"
there will bo no remoining cll11mll between the parties and they will,
.ither e~chanqe written releases or the court will disoharqe any
olaims then e~istinq between the parties, provid$d, however, that
Buoh releases or dillchargel!l will not extinquiah third party olaims
against Miller Oral surgery, Ino., Or. Reedy or Dr. Beaudry or
claims among them arIsing from third-party claims.
XIII.
WB I1BREBY APPOIN1' JOlIN J. !I'RITZ, JR.,
CERTIFIED PUBI,IC ACCOUNTANT, AS ^ SPECIAL
HASTER '1'0 REPRESENT TillS COURT IN TilE
IHPLEHEN'1'M'lON OF TIlB TERHS 0;" TillS ORDER.
WITI1 REGARD TO illS APpOINTHENT, WE ORDER AND
DIRECT AS FOLLCMS:
A. John J. Fritz, Jr., CPA, is hereby appointed special
Maillet' to implement the above. All parties to these prooeedings
and 811 employees of Dr. Baaudry, Dr. Raedy, Miller Oral Surgery,
Ino., and Susquehanna Valley Associates, if any, are direoted to
comply promptly and qompletely with the instructions of Mr. Fritz,
the 1I8me as if those instructions came directly from the Court.
B. Miller oral Surgery, Inc., shall immediately deposit a
retainer with Mr. Fritz in the amount of Ten Thousand Dollars
($10,000) and replenish that retainer on a monthly basis as billed
by Mr. Fritz so that there is always at least Ten Thousand Dollar.s
($10,000) on deposit with his firm.
- 18 -'
","1 f/ 'I.
f
I'
"
. ,
'I
'I
>J
I",
I
,
IN llE: APPLICATION 1'01l.. REMOVAL.
OF 1l0UElrr J. llEAUDlW, m, l).M.!),
FROM TIlE OFFICE OF D1RI.!CTOIl.. OF
MILLER ORAL SUIUJElW, INe
IN THl! COURT OF COMMON JILBAS
DAUPlllN COUNTY, l'gNNSYLVANIA.
MIClIAEL T. ltEEDY, PDS,
Pellllo/ler
NO 3968 S 1993
~
The 11I0ln problel1\ here Is to determine who Is the gentleman and who 15 the
degenerate.
This proceeding In equity broughl on a pelitlon nled by Dr. Mkhnc\ T. Reedy
(herelnanel' "Reedy") pursuant to the Business Corporation Lnw, 15 I'n C.S !i 1 726(c), seeks to
hllve this Court rel1\ove Dr Rob~rt J. Beaudry (hereinaHer "Ilenudry") rromlhe OOke of Director
of Miller Oral Surgery, Inc. (hereinllller "Corporlltlon" or "Miller Oral Surgery"). The law
provides that the CourtmllY remove a director for (I) tj-lludulenl or dishonesl ncts, (2) gros5
abuse or authority or (3) IIny other proper cause
The seeds of dillicully were implanted 1I11110S1 inl/nediately with the creation orthe
relationship between the parties. Iteedy and 13calldlY arc the ollly two directors of Miller Oral
Surgery, a Pennsylvanial'rolcssional Corporation engrlged In the business or providing services
relnted to oral surger y to r.he public Since 1989, Reedy and Uenudry hnve each been 50 percent
shareholders. In 1990 n shardlOlders' ngreement was negotlaled and executed which provided for
cOl11pensnl.lon and guidelines (or mnnagemenl Particularly pe/linent hereto are the following:
The Shnreholder shall devote such time as necessary each week to meet
the needs of, nnd responsibilities to, patients, the Shareholder's scheduled
hours, and the needs of the COlllpany's prnctlce lIe will perform no oral
surgical work or related eOorls for his own benefit or lor the benefit of any
other pllrtnershlp or company not connected with the Company through
cOlllmon ownership, if thaI work qr ellort competes wilh Ihe business of the
Company The bll~iness orlhe Company i~ dl'fined a~ the praclice orm,,1
'.
lurgcry and relatcd clTolts with tho followlllggeographlc 01'1105: 30 I1IlIel
l'rolllthe State Capitol Building orlhrrisburg, l)clIlnsylvlnlo and/or twellty
(20) 1111101 frolll any olllee of tho COlllpany.
(a) The Current Shareholders agree tllBtlll1medlately upon Iho
execution of this agreement by the Current Shareholders, and so
Icng os this Agreement renllllns In ellcct, the Current Shareholders
will vote their shares to r:kct Directors of the Company in
IIccordance Wllh paragfllph (Il)
(b) Each Current Shareholder agrees to vote all of the sllllres of
COl1lmon Stock held by hll11 (including any C0l111110n Stock In
respect of which he hils been granted 0 proxy) atony meellng
ol'lhe Shareholders of the Company cllllcd for the purpose of
electing Directors, and shall sign any consent of stockholders
presented for such purposc, to elect III II poslllon on the Doard
ofDIrectol'5 of the Company the other Current Shareholder or
his nominee. . .
If this COUlt should grnntthe I'l:liefrequested Reedy would be the sole director of
Miller 01'01 Surgery.
The litigation between the dentists has indeed been vexatious. In October of 1992
a prior suit was brought In Dauphin County dealing Wilh removal of records. A later Arbitration
action pertained to time devoted by J3eaudry to practice at MIlicI' Oral Surgery, vacation
schedules, expense accounts and the Incurring of expenses on behalf of MilicI' Oral Surgery; a
counterclaim was flied, an award Issued and conllrmed by the Dauphin County Court. and a
petition to vacate was denied. A third action in 1993 in Cumberland County, stillllending, raises
several mailers Identical to the Instant proceedings.
Needless to say, procedural questions have been advanced. 1n!sr Btii, the
respondent contends Reedy has failed to demonstrate he has a need for drastic Injunctive relief
and that he does not have an adequate legal remedy. Then, and perhaps more slgnlllcant. It is
urged that the petitioner improperly cOl11menced these proceedings wilh a petition and rule instead
of a complain\. Beaudry had liIed prr:lil11inary objections Rnd no disposition had been made. Pa
2
I""
, .
/
/ .". orc'""'''''''~ '007 ,,,. "",'" ." ,,",," '" b. "'""'''''''' by . "''''P'''''' " wd' or
IUII\lllOIlS alld the Superlol' Court In fJ9~l,nk_Y,J'lJlIIQIIWllh:.M1l1llJ\UIUYfJ\II~d;:.I1J1l11JlIIY, 289 }la,
Super, 4J8, 4J3 A:Zd 11115 (19111) reCllf.!nl7.ed Ihls requirement lIowever,lt must be noted the
Pell/1sylvanlll Iluilnesi Corp<lI'Iltlon Lllw reAds In pili I, "Upon nllj)li~lIllgn of Any shareholder or
dlreclor, the COlilllllllY remove nom olllee IIny dlreClOrl . . " I.llslly, ills IIrflued IhBtlhe
petllloner lillled 10 comply with Ihe rer'lulrelllelllS 1<11' derlvllllve IICllolli iel forlh ill Pennsylvania
Rule or Civil JlrocedUl'll 1506(a) Inthlltlhll Corpol'llllonmllde no Illlempt to remove Ilelludry as a
dlreclor; wllh Iwo directors/shareholders II wOllld be 1111 Impossibility l<lI' the Corpol'llllonlO so
aCI.
Aside fi'olllthe plrJcedure, Ihe COlllI, aOer six (6) sessions, Bnd hearing l1fieell (15)
witnesses on behalr of Reedy (with IIpproxlnllllely 100 exhlbit.s) and nine (9) witnesses called by
lleoudry (with approxlmBlely so exhibits) mllke! Ihe following
fJ N J) J N G S.QEJ.oD..O:
I. Reedy Bnd lJeaudry are ellch 50 percent Shnreholdersln Miller Oral Surgery. 1\
ProressionBI Corporalion engaged in onll surgery
2. MIlicI' 01'111 SurgelY hilS olliee! on bOlh the Easl Shore In Harrisburg (Dauphin
Counly) Bnd Ihe WeSI Shore in ClIl11p Ilill (Cumberland Counly)
3, lJeBudry's omce practice is primarily on the Wesl Shore; Rced)~s omce practice Is
primarily onlhe East Shore
4. A Shareholders' Agrel~ment WIIS execuled In Jnnunry 1991. According to Ihe Ihen
corporBte counsd both Reedy IInd BealJdry were concerned IhBlthe olher not be given unilateral
IThls prexeedlllll II'IIS SOlllellhll1 ulli<III" The pelllloll IIlId rille I\'ere bll,ed olllhe pllor Iiligrllioll wllh Ihe
plnlnlllTlp<:lilioller n"el1ll1l1 he II'n, elltilled 10 hAl'e Ihe derel1dnl1l/re'pondelll remol'ed IlIulledinllr.y ns II
COl1sequellce or Ihe prel'IOIIS holdlllgs The ""Illergelll)'" helllll1g I\'IIS scheduled ror NOl'ell1Ucr K, 1993
Prell miliAry obJectiolls I\'ele filed 011 NOl'emhel I, 1')93 nlld nll1el1Ged prelllllll1nry ObJecliolls 011 tlOl'emUel 3,1993.
The 311S11el 10 Iile IIIle IllIh lieI\' mllller IIIIS filed N<l\elllhcr K, 1')').1, Ihe dilY or Ihe "ell1ell\CI1')" hell II 111\ The
COlin comideled Ihe IIlgl1ll1el1l5 Al1d decided 10 proceed \l'llh Ihe henrlllll
.'
. .
control over Miller Oral Sursel)' _nd that provisions lJlllnserled In the _Hrelllnonlto provenlllno
fromtakJflg action wlthoullho consllnt ofthe olhor,
5. Thll parties reJeclod a CIBusllthBt would hllve requlrcd caeh Shareholder to dovolll
his time exclusively to Miller Oral SurgeI)'.
6. The Bgreement ensured IhlltlJolh Reedy ond lIeaudry would be directors.
7. Inllntlclplltlon of any clolm, dlspule or conlroversy, the agreement provided for
arbitration before the American Atbltrlllion A6soclatlon ond Ihe decision of tho arbltrator(_) wa_
to be final and binding
U There was and Is II strong division ofloyaltles among O85ocllltes and cmployees
between the Eut :shore ana West Shore omces ofMlIIl!r Oral Surgery; thosc on lhll ElIst SharI!
lire parllnn to Reedy; those on the West Shore to Belludry.
9. The daY-lo.day management of Miller Orlll Surgery, personnel maller, schedules,
and vacation lime havl! becnthe responsibility of Reedy.
10. Eight (8) employces, ineludlnglwo (2) doctors, (Or. 10seph Hayduk, rellred from
the Wcst Shore OOlce and Dr. JelTrey RaJchel), the lluslnm Manager (James Thomas), the Nurse
Anesthetist (Donald Savidge), and a Managemcnt Anoclatc (Eloyce Spong). have either been
subject to andlor have wltncued abusive, threatening IInd dlsJ1Jpting conduct on the part of
Bcaudry.
11. The conduct of Bcaudry Involved profanity, cxcesslvc drinkIng of alcohol at stalT
partlcs, touching of female cmployees, and on one occasion urinating In front of a female
employee.
12. In buslncss mailers, Beaudry hilS refused to cooperate In reviewing dellnquenl
accounts and to submit nccessary hospital records for billlflH purposes. There has been an
estrangcmcnt bctwccn thc Buslncss Managcr, lames Thomas, and l3eaudry causing dlmculty in
performancc of duties rclalinglo buslncss practiccs.
4
I'.
/
/
"
13, Subslantlal problems IIIWll o~currnd by n:asoll oflhe deslra by lJeaudry 10 perform
profeulonal sllrvl~llllndeplllldlllllly of MlIIllr Oral Surgllry. lJeaudry was permllled such 1I11llvlly
under Ihe Shareholdcrl' ^greemelll (Rnd 80 advised by Ihen Corporllle COlllllel) leh did I\l)I
compele with or reduce In~ol1lll frolll MilicI' 01'01 SlIrgery,
1.1. lIeaudry maintained anllnlity known as C/\I:sapeakelleallh Resources, and Ihll
IlIcome 10 lleaudry plll'5onally for selvlces perlormed Independently of MIlicI' Oral Surgory wu In
1110st situations directed to sold enlhy,
IS, l3eaudry had 0 profeulonol arrangoment with Or, Steven Waugh In Lancaster and
whh Dr, David Dmke In Challlbenburg. These urrangements wore the source of ~onlinlJrJus
dlsagreellleJils bel ween the ponies hereto and the Initial reason for the current dispute. Beaudry
claimed the Shareholders' Agreement permllled his work outside ccrtoln geographic boundaries.
I~eedy contended thRt Beaudry was dlvertlnB accounts of patients who were or could be served by
Miller Oral Surgery to obtain personal Income.
16, Disagreement arose In connection whh II defective dental producl manufactured by
Vitek, lnc Legal claims by patients agninsl Vitek and a related company, E. l. Dupont de
Nalllours. were encouraged by lleaudry. ratlenls were referred to David Knauer. Esquire, for
legal actions The allorney paid for medical reports frolll MilicI' Oral Surgery. Seven (7) che~ks
ut $150 each were sent to and received and deposited to thll account of Chesapcakc Hcalth
Rcsources. Reedy asscrts II was a dishonest oct. I3caudry explains It was a mlstakc and rccllncd
by transferring personal fees Irom him to Miller Oral Clinic In excess of the amount depositcd to
Chesapeake. Reedy counters thatth.: fee was not received In IUIi because It e)(cwled the Blue
Shield allowance and further Ueaudry was enlltled to one-halfofany amount paid to the
corporation
17 1>1' Waugh and Dr. Drnke acknowledged their division of work with Beaudry and
c)(perleilccd disputes and Ihreotened Iitrgation by rca50n of their denlings with Reedy.
~
//
/"-
I 8, The f()nn~r lellal eoun~el for the corporlllloll WIU foeed with obslllcles by Reedy III
glvlnll advleClto and Ilelllnl! cooperation frofll him and said ellomey's represenlallon oflhe 111111
WRB tellnhlated by Ileedy.
19. lleaudry Will pllld 1I COJl5Ulllng fee by TI.Mesh, an OUI.O'~Male manulacturer of
denlilloppllances. Reedy clllllenl!5 the fee received represented IIn OI1lLlUnl overchnrllcd 10 MJller
Oml Surllery patients 101' "l:lIMOfll" condylllr prolthesls; Ihe limo laple betweenlho order and
sending or lhe device, according 10 Reedy, wLluld not be luniclenllo Cllslomlle a producl.
20, Kelly Viola, an employee working with BeaudlY, c10lmed ovel11me pay which WaS
refused Inhlnlly by Ihe Corpol'Atlon through Reedy; II WIIS evenlually paid afier a comploll1l was
l1Ied with Ihe SIOle Labor JJepal'lmenl Viola was employed atlhe West Shore Olllce.
21. Kelly Vlolllllnd a rOl'l1lCr employee allhe Wesl Shore Oniee, Lorle Pagano, have
",ode seKual hlll'AssmenlllccuSllliOl1s IlgllinslReedy No proofwos ollcred In Court.
22. Four (4) employees III WeSI Shore, Jill Obercosh, Michelle Tlday, Shllron Myers
ond Susan Egolf, were never Ihrclltened by llelludry. Obercash and Tlday never SIIW Beoudry
harass or lhreolen olher employees allhe West Shore Ol1ke Myers ond Egolfreellhrealened by
Reedy
23. All employmenlllgreemenl signed by Dr. Jemey Rojchel with MIlicI' Oral Surgery
gronts an option to Rajchello become IIn equal shardlOlder of MIlicI' Oral SurgelY on certoln
dates ot cerlaln "huy In" prices The first oplion period during which he con "buy In" Is Jonuory I
through January 10, 1995 and the price Is $1 million. Upon eKercise of the ~ption, Rojchel will be
allied wilh Reedy as he has expressed Ilnunl'avorable relationship with 13eaudry.
24 Reedy made disparaging eonllllenls about Oeaudry 10 Palricla Krieger, a nurse 01
the Polyclinic Hospilal
25 There is no wrillcn policy al Miller Oral Surgery rcgarding whal fees a doclor
must chargc for consulling work, and fccs arc charged pursuant 10 each doclo,,'s discretion.
{j
r-.........
.I "
I
,
/
26. Lcgal fllCI and cxpcnlclln excclS of $80,000 have ueclllncurred uy Miller Oral
Clinic hI connecllon whh Ihc various IYI,el of IIllgallon directed aBalnlllleaudry, and addition. I
olllountslolallng Illorlllhnn $70,000 11l!Ve been billed.
Thesll I1ndlngl are nOllnlended fo be cOlllprehenslve The)' repl'elenllhll bestlld~
COUrt could cull fromlhe volullllnoul and thorny reque6ll from bOlh partlel (120 propoled
I1ndlngs fromlhe pelllloner and 305 from the respondent) but the mere rechol oCthe bulc facts
IlIAnllcstthll exacting predicament In making a fall' decision The lawsuhsln hoth Dauphin and
Cumberland Countle5, together with the arbitration actlol15, have alreod)' been noted.
It Is true, as respondent polnt5 out, the rellefsoughl by Reedy Is extraordinary. To
oblalnlcllcfin dIll nlllure of an inJuncllon, one mo~l demollltrale thllllhe rights and equity ofa
pelhloner lire dear end free from doubl, Qmnmillm1Jtru.Jnc v J)'AgosUnQ, 356 Pa. Super.
286, 514 A. 2d 6 I 4 (1986). In IIddlllon, where one 15 attemptlnll to prove fraud, there mUst be
"clear and convincing" proof. This 5tandard hll5 nor beenlllct However, the petitioner IIrgues
Ihat the Business Corporallon Law 10 remove 0 dh'eclor requires the same burden os In most c:lvll
Cllses, proof by 0 prepondel'llnce of evidence. lIere the legislation provides broadly Ihat a dlreclor
1110Y be removed for "any. . . proper cause'" Certainly. even A cursolY examination oflhe
evidence reveals misconduct and a failure to furnish undivided faithfulness to the Corporation.
In M.nr.km1lz.~Jl.rlsm1lL, 336 I'a. 145,8 A 2d 46 (1939), Ihe leading and
probably the sole appellate case In Pennsylvania on the relllovAI of 0 director, the evidence
prescnted In large port misconduct Involving harassment eO'ccllng a demoralizing influence on the
omce force of the subject company; there were no alll!gAtions of fraud or dishonesty. M.ilrJs.oy.J1z
Illa)' be disllnguished The defendant was peculiar in his behavior and failed 10 perform duties os a
corporate secretary; further and most Important, there wer~ live (5) directors and the minority
shareholder was given the right of representation olllhc board or directors durlllg Ihe time when
the defendant was barred from re-election Inlhe inslallt p'o~eedlllg Reedy's relief would have
./
,-
,
".
tha Ilotontlal for 'trlpplns Jloaudry of tho proloctlcfl .O'orded to him II a director of atwo-lI1an
corporallon, Navorthololl ~brkovllz doos 110flstltute precedent for the Court', authority to
romovo a director from office for a period prescribed by tho Courti here pursu811tto 15 Po. C,S.A.
~ 1726(0).
This Court recognl7..e8 that many of the accusations not Included In the Findings
mode by Rer.dy were not supported ond fleedy himself Is not entirely lomb.llke or free from
Imperfecllon. But relief cannot be barred because some chthm are supposllltlons _ It would
approach IIn overkill - "slay them 011, 'he fallhMond the sinful, the Lord will know His own." It
Is the buslnm of a Court of Equity to rellledy what Is proaently an Impracticable state of affairs,
short of 0 dissolution oflhe corporotlon.
CONCLUSIONS OF LA ~
I. 'I'he Inslant pellllon was properly llIed In accordance with the Buslneu
Corporation Law ("BCl.") and In conformance with all applicable legal requlremcmts.
2. The Shareholders' Agreement between the parties did not divest this Court oftts
authority under the BCL to remove 0 director of a corporation for misconduct
3. Dr. Robert J. Beaudry has abused his authority by huaulng, threatening and
Intlmidotlng employees of Miller Oral Surgery, and such acllvlty constitutes a propor cause for
removal os 0 director pursuant 10 the BCL.
4. The removal of Dr. Beaudry as 0 director of the Miller Oral Surgery will not
prejudice the other rlghls he enjoys under the Shareholders' Agreement and will not give Dr.
Reedy free reign In the management of Ihe Corporotlon.
The Court Issues the following:
R
.
"
DJ.C.IWliW
ANO NOW, Juno..(f.1994, upon pellllon of Michael T. Reody, 0,0,8.,lho
Court dlrecl. lhal Robert J. Beaudry, Jr., O,M.!)., be removed II a Director orMlllor Or.1
Surgery, Inc, for 11 period or one (I) year beglllnhlij AugusI I, 1994,
This Order Is subJect 10 these condltloll~:
I, During the said one-year period, the salary and compensation paid by MJllor Orlll
Surgery to Or, Belludry shall be the BBIllC as thaI paid to Or Reedy,
2. Vllclltlon alld work schedules accorded to Dr, Beaudry shllll be menllally the
.Ilmc as forthe year 1993,
3, In the eventthnt Dr.JeOrey l{alchel exerclse5 his option to "buy III" as on equal
shllreholder of MlIIer Oral Surgery, the payment shall be held In 11 separate account alld no
distribution shllll be made frolll such account for Ihe duration of Or. Beaudry's removal without
Court approval.
If no excertlons have been med within twenty (20) days Ilfter the entering of this
Decree, a Final Decree upon praecipe will be entered
The Prothonotary Is directed to enter this proceeding In the equity docket ond
Inform oil pmlcs.
Distribution:
Andrew H Cline, Esq., KIRKI'A'rRICK & LOCKIIART, 240 North Third St, Jibg., VA 17101
Jack M. Stover, Esq.. ECKERT SEAMANS CIIEIUN & MELLOTT, One South Morket Squorc
Bldg, 213 Market St., 1>013.1248, IIbg, I>A 17108
I)
,
.'
IN RI!: AJlIll.lCA.'l'lON FOR I~BMOV AI..
011 RonUln J nBAUOIlY, m" I),M.O,
If ROM TIlE Ol'fllCB OF OIIlI!CTO/l OF
MIl.l.Ell OML SU/lOWl Y, INC.
MICHAEl.T, /lEEDY, 00.5"
Petitioner
IN "HE COURT 011 COMMON Pl.EAS
OAUI'HIN COUNTY, PIINNSYJ.,VANlA
NO, 3968 S 1993
m:CRE~ ~ISI
AND NOW, JunllJ:.!. 1994, upon petition of Michael T, Reedy, 0,1),8" Ihe
Court dlreetlthatRobcrt J. Beaudry, Jr" J.),M,O" be removed BIll Director or MIliaI' 01'11
Surgery, Inc, for 11 period or one (I) yell I' beginning August I. 1994,
This Order II subJect to thele condltlonl:
I, During rhe said one-year period, the &Blary and compensation pllld by MUleI' Oral
Surgery to Dr, Beaudry shall be the same as that paid to Dr, Reedy,
2. Vllcatlon and work schedules accorded 10 Dr. Belludry shall be euenlllllly Ihe
sallle as fOrlhe year 1993.
3. In the eventlhal Dr. Jenrey llaJchelexerclses his Qptlonto "buy In" as an equal
shareholder of Miller Oral Surgery_ the payment shall be held In 0 separate account and no
distribution shall be /11ode fro/11 such account for the duration of Or, Beaudry's removal without
Court approval
Ifno exceptions hove beenllled within twenty (20) days aner the entering ofthll
Decree, a Final Decree upon praecipe will be entered,
The Prothonotary Is dlrect...d to enter this proceeding In the equity docket and
inform all parties.
10
I!
i: "
1'1
I]
, , Ii
, " 'I
I, , , ,
,
"
i
" Ii
"
, , .,
oj
" )1 1\;
"
" , ,
I "
Ii Ii
,
I I
! ,
.,
,
I , " " r
"
, !
!
'i "
)1:.' " "
, :1
t1i'l , Ii)
" iI i
'&--"
i , 11
,
" ,
. ,
il I !
~ , I
I
H
t " , " I
.~ I I
I
I, il I
,/ ! I I
,
I , ,
, I I ., ,
II ,
I
., 1'1 " I
" " ;1
I ,
, ,
. IlAlJI'IIIH l\lUt/l'I' 1UJ1~1~1~ IllllllUph . 1199111
( bl'..ll , 1I1"'1~111 M4 lJlhlhl' "'"'
IIqudl)' will ulIl~ b" lI.hl. IU Ih. "'"'~I,.1I1111 (IIr Olio h.l( II( 'h. .....n! Ih. n'
al h.OWIII ~O" of 'h. .nlll~. Olllh. lllh.r hllld, .hut,ld nr, lleoly he /!IIld.
pl'ohlbllbl hUIII pUllullIU Ih. cl"1IIIII Ih. n'/IIe uf 'h. OllllOl'IIJulI, h. r C- cho.
facea a lIIu~h mur. ,m'Jl/dld'l IClull. ^I I Ihll.huld.r Ind .llrccILll, h. On
l'rUuld he cllllppoJ flulII.1l1111c1l1s'h. c1.lrlllO( Ih. OlI]IOIJllolIllI.lIrt.C1
~rlijl~Wr conl11lvcllllunof hi. flduclll)' I.llIllllllhlll wllh Ih. 011]101111011. 1'11l.lIy, .Ullln
IImtl,
It~l, . tI,. OlI]IOIJllon, Ilr. Il.udy 'lId nr, 1I",odl)' were 111111" III Ih. limit (
5harehol'!.r', ^SI""III.III, 'Illetd III II blll'lIllIlI , .lId tI,. cl.llI,. a"crud
11111,. pelllloll f.1I wllhllllhc WII" of Ih. 11~1i1.IlUII "ruvialoll, W.ICC tIl.n n
no need IIlllrlll h1l111 Or. Il.ud~ Ih. 11I.1111. of Il,. OOI]IOI.lc IIl1n., Lcl uf
tI,ll.
him cnler Il,. '.11I11'. (ull~ rllh<Al. deLen
^",=on!IIIS'Y, w. .nl., 'h. (1I11w11lUI Pial
OlllJUll have tl
"NO NOW, 'hll 91h dlY of ~1Irc:h, 1993, l'I,'ntllT pqudl)"l MOllon UI.
(ur 5lay u( Mbll11lllon ,. d.nl<Al. ..he
0 .UUIO
InUIlI
Ii'.cwart v. U/'IJlhcrly ,1,1,1 UlblH1)' I'Iln Ille ria
lluur.M - ComjU'nl lor 4.<1...101')' Jud,m'.' - Moll.. I... Jud,.,.." .n Ill, rlshll
/lIt*dl~ -l'roMMoo, ",!ulliI1lOlbl".ton 1.0 be _hen '" llot """"',. 0Iurd1 e,) f h.. nt
-.... pollq, been
l. The C.QIi" l:n!oj ~I" lIWWilllll", Jlld,melll on UM p1ndll'tp litIS "I.ml_ tile pi
· :r.r.oJlIl lot 'I...",,}' Jud1m.nll"'luqtJn, . 01,,,..,...11.. .. . ._ 0( .... !hit . otlllY
""""ion ""lUll'", .,blll'lol1 '" t.. "'.mb", 0 U.. Mrnoonlll! Olutd1 " ..II aM ",14 0( Chun
.. DOnlll/}' 10 ,.,hll. poll')'. dant'llI
2. An .,ttlttncnl '0 allblllh dlt,MU LQ "blll.lion willi Ilbllrawn 60 be aclCll;Uld 'Nm pollC)' .
Ih. M....nlll! I'Imlly ur Ll,u..h.. II 1>1..11", Illd ,.. ...lra. polll'" polley or "... TIle I
MOllon tor JudSlllelll on Ih. pludlngs. C.I'" I)IU, Co" No, "B2.5 5 denomu
~ 1992, Mallon BllInLr.d. t Ifl.. ott
,
N." J. i/oi'll", for SI.wnll I Ctnad4.
G,ore. C lI~m", l"nCJl".r, for O.fendalll 1111I,pu
llllilcon
lletore O<lwllng, TUlJleon and Klelnt.lter, II. noncon"
DowUHO, J., March 17, 1993 - PlahlllfT IkYtrly J, SLeWoIt, I member TIIC)'I
at lhe Mellnonlre ':.Illll~ of Chulches, chose 110110 "un:hue commer. Illere we
.lllll1Iul1lnce lome.' h.r obligations und.r Ihe l'ennsylvanl. MOlllr Ve. were elo
,':' . hl.le I'lfllllclallte:ipul1llbllhy u.w, bUI I1IU\er dccldexJ to jolll Ill. llrotherly , C' wealUW
"Id I.I.blllly Plan fromlhe u.nCJlSI.r Mennollllc Conference, which 'I ment, I
recoanlud IS. self-Insurer by PenllOm. Whell Ihe/alned, Ms, Sl.eWIIl'I forhunll
Illlned an asreem.nl In which .he c.ons.nLr.d III I reao ullon of lilY dllpule .. .nlsh
~.
~-........-
'".' .
"
"
"
,
, I,
I
.,
I
J,
Ii
I,
(
('
11'6 . Novombor 1996 ArguIllonl Courl
ROBERT J, BEAUOIW, JR"
I'ollllonur
y,
IN 'rHI! COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
DAUPHIN COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO, 4~GO S 100G
CIVIL ACTION, LAW
MILLER ORAL 6UROERY, INC,
and MICHAEL T, REI!DY,
Rospondonla
BEFORE LIP611T, TURGEON' AND KLEINFEL'rER, JJ,
.QEJJ'jJ.Qtj
Tho quostll1n baloro us lodoy I~ wholhor nn nrbllrolor'a award ('award'), Which anjolns 0 dlrvotor
of a corporallon frolll 1110klngl11onagol11onl doelslolla Wllhoulll1o conson! 01 Iho only olhor dlroclor 01
Iho compony, con be Il1Iplol11onlOO Inllghl 01 0 sullsoquonl courl ordor Ihol rOlnovos Iho loll or party frolll
his dlroctorshlp '0" 0 porlod 01 ono year. This Issuo orlsos from Iho pollllon of Robort J. I:looudry, Jr, 10
anlorco tho arbllmlor's award, which Ihls cOIJII onlorcd oO/lJdgl1lOI1I 011 Mny 26, 1094. Tho rospondC!lnls
111 this coso oro Millar Oral 6urgOlY, Inc. ('MOS') and Mlchool T. Haody.
Tho pr050nl dlsputo 15 yel unotllQr sl<lrl11lsh In Iho ongoing b.11Uo belwoun /1ellllonor Beaudry and
Iho rU5pondonls, Allhough 1110 buckground 01 Ihls COEO 10 woll known, 0 brlof rovlow of tho two actions
thnl bring us horo loday 15 nocussory. 011 Jnl1lJnry I, 1091 Booudry and Roody oxoculOO a
5horoholdors' ogro0l110111 ('ogrJol1lont') thai cOl1lolnOO, .InJi! JllJo, lerl11s 10 govum 5ho'OhollJars' rlghls
and Illonogol11onl 01 Iho dolly oporollons 01 tho corpornllon.' Booudry and Roedy, aa filly- porcenl
5horoholdor5, woro 10 SOIVO 05 dlreclors 01 1110 corportlOI1 whllo Roedy conllnued BO prealdonl. Tha
'JUdgo Turgaon rocused horso" 'rol11 portlelr-ollng In Ihls dod510n.
'Socllon 13 01 Iho ogrnomol1l 510105 Iho following:
.MwL\nomonl
Tho day 10 day monogomonl of Iho business of Iho Company sholl bo r.onducled by Ihe
off/cora of Iha Company, subjoCllo Iho oyorslghl and conlrol of Iho Board of Directors
oporntlng by volo of 0 molorlly (51 %) of Ihl) Dlreclors. In no ovonl, howevor, sholl eny or
Iho mallor5 addrossed by Ihls Agrclllllont be SLJIJ61anllvoly chongl)d, modllled, olllonded or
rovokOO oxcopl by tho alflrmollvo volo 01 all Sharehofders
.0,
(
(
tlJtallollohlp bolwooI' BOAUdlY IIl1d nOlllly dolmlotnloo Iho lollowll1ll YOllt, Al1d III Oaoolllbot 1002 RQody,
pUtouonllo fltovl61uI1o Il1lho OOtOOI1IOIII, /II1lI1 0 uOl11nl1d willi tho Al11otlelll1 Alblltnllol1 Aoooclnlloll 10 go
10 arbllrnllol'. UoolJrJl'Y oouOhllll1ll1llJl1cllol1lo oloy Iho olblllOllol1 procoodll1Oo, bul hlo roquoal woo
donlod.1 011 60pl0l11bor 23, 1093, 101l0wll1U lour dOY6 01 1I0Ilthl(j0, Iho IIlbllrnlot loowld on owatd. In
Oelobot 1003 Uooud,y IlIod 0 polllloll wllh Ihl5 coull 10 cOl1l1rllllllo ownrd, 05 fltovldod lot ulldot 60011011
734201 Iho Judlclol Cooo (4~ PU.C.SA 57342). noody polillonll<J Iho eouttlo vacolo or modify tho
oWlltd. Ao l/1dleoled abow, Ihl5 COllll 0101110<1 1300udry'0 pOllllon ond o/1l1/ttJd Iho nrbllrnlot'o owatd 00 tI
ludOlllont 0/1 Mny 20,1004. Tho 5IJpOllor COUll olllrl11od Iho OIdor on FollllJUry 17, 1005.
1/1lho 1110011111110, on Oelobot 0, 1003, tho 6111110 dl'Y on which ho lIIed a pollllonlo voeolo or
modify Iho 011>1Irntor'6 oword, Roedy lIIod 011 oppllenllol1 wllh 11115 eourllo IllWO 1300udry tOl11ovod aa a
dltoclor In tho eorflorollol1.' Allor ol~ dOY5 01 h"otlno~ Iho courl onlorod 0 doctoo nlol on Juno 29, 1004
which dlroclod Ihot Booudry bo roulOIIt!<1 llrun Qrlleu lor II porl()lJ 'JI U/10 your. Uonudry lIIod 0~eopllon5
10 Iho docroo, and Iho court donlod Iholll. A IInal docroo woo loouod on 6oplol11bor 12, 1004. Whllo Iho
ducroo woo on oppool, 0 olny of 110 onforcol11onl W05 UlUnto<l. Howovllr, on AUOU51 20, 1005 Roody IlIed
an olllorooncy Oppllc3110n lor tollel wllh tho olJpotlor court, roquoollno Ihntlho 5Ioy flO vocalod ond Ihol
Bonudry bo Ill1lnodlolc~y tOl11oved Irol11 tho dlroclorohlp. Tile oppllcntlon W05 orontod on Soptel11bqr e,
1005. On Octobor 11 Iho eppellalo courl olllllnod 1110 Ilnal docree 0111115 court Booudry 1135 0 roquoot
boloro tl10 Ponnoylvanla Gupromu Coull to hOlJr on opfltlal of Ihe "lwor COUrt'5 doclolon
On Auouol 22, 1995 Boaudry fIIllIi 1110 curronl patlllon to r.1110rco tho court'o prier ordor
conllrmlno Iho arbllrotlon aword ond onlerlng It DO ludgl11onl. 111 hlo potlllon Bonudry clol1115 lhat by
unllolorolly ll1okl110 cortoll11110n000l110nl and omploymont docl~loI15, Roedy violated Pornoroph 3(7) of
'~~t:Y...YJlJ1m, 113 Oauph. 1 (1093).
'Tho appllcotlon W05 modo pUr5uol11to Section 1725(c) 0111',0 Buoll1050 Corporotlon Law, which otalos
In portll1ont port:
(c) Romoval by tho court..' Upon appllcallol1 of any 0l1arel10ldor or dlroclor, Iho court may
rOll1ovo fro In offlco ony dlroctor 111 coso of lraudulonl or dl5honost acls. or orooo abuso 01
authorlly or dl5crotlon with rolr.ronoo to the corporotlol1, or for any othor proper couoo, ond
ll1ay bar from olllco any dlreclor 00 romoved for 0 period proocrlbed by lho court.
2
(
(
Iho arbllrolor'o award and Porogroph n, ollhu COUlt ordor onlorll1g Iho ownrd aoludglllonl. PAragraph
n, 0111100:
n, Or, Roady oholl bo and 10 horoby onlolnlJd IromuIldo/tnklng uny ocllon rololln(jle
Millar Oral Gurgory, Inc., Including but nOlllmllO(llo, o~pondlng any corllorolo lunda or
dloposlng or any corpo/lo rooowcns, hiring, IIrlno or olhorwlso ollo/Ing Iho slnluo 01 any
amployoo, oOlob/lshlng any schadulo 01 elfleo hours or onlollng Inlo ony conlracl or
obllgollon lor Millar Oral Surgory, Inc. wllhoutl1r51 obtolnlno Ihu eoncurroncu 01 Or,
Booudry.
Thlo paragraph 10 virtually Idonllcallo tho porogroph Inlho llwnrd.' UoaudfY Ihuo roq\Joslolho court 10
onrorco Ihls porogl'Oph 01 Iho award 10 provonl r~oOOy IrOln making unllolorol doclslorlO rogardln" tho
oporollon of MOS.
Roody lIIed 0 chollongo 10 Beoudry'o pelltlon In no on5wor. Tho luu" WAS orguod boloro on on
bono court In Novolnbor 1995. Par Iho following roo sons, 1'101'1111 dOilY Beoudry'o pollllon.
Wo bogln our ORBlyslo by oddrosslng oorfotlm Iho orgumonls pooOO by Boaudry In oupport of hlo
pollllon. According 10 Booudry, RoOOy Is barrOO by Iho doelrlno 01 W judlcoto from chollonglng Ihe
orbllrolor'o oword. Undor Ihol doclrlno on adjudication Is borrod whonlllo shown Ihol on Idonllcal couoo
or acllon woo prooonlOO 01 0 prior od/udlcallon, lhol 0 IInnljudglnonl woo rondorad on Iho morllo In Iho
IIrsl ocllon, Ihollho IlIImo portlos portlclpolod In Iho oorllor procoedlng, and Ihol 'Iho prooont portloo
actuolly hod IIn opportunlly 10 oppoor and OBSOrt Iholr Ilghls.' J:jolmlQ 'I. RO~kwoll MonufoQ.\.UJ.1nlLC.g.,
389 Po. 21, 29.31,131 A.2d 622, 626, cort. denlOO 355 U.S. 665,78 S.Ct. 146, H.Ed. 115 (1957),
Booudry orguos Ihotlho doclrlno 10 appUcab/o horo bocouso ho 600ks 10 onrorco 0 judglnont, nomoly Iho
arbllralor's award, which or060 from IIl1gollon rogardlng RoDdy's lock of AUlhorlty to e~orcloo unlloleral
control ovor Iho monogomonl of MOS. Tho matter was ad/udlcalDd wllh Ihe IlIImo portloo and
'Porograph 3(7) In Ihe oword otalos:
(7) Dr. Roady oholl be en/olnod flam undertoklng any aellon relollng 10 Ihe Corparallon,
Including bul nol IImlled 10, e~PQndlng corporolo lunds or disposing or ony corporale
resources, hiring, firing or olhoM/oe olteri"g tho stalus 01 any employae, 05lob/lohlng any
schedule or office hours or enlerlng Inlo a"y conlract or obllgallon for the Corparallon
wlthoul flrol obtaining Ihe concurrence of RESPONDENT.
3
("
pll)Qoodod 10 0 IInollO/lomonl, OUllnolhol plOooodlno, ho polnls OUI, Hoody hod '/ull and 'air
oppollunlly 10 11I10010 Iho laeuo' 0' his oUlhorlly 10 11l0ko unllololOl doolslons roooldlnolho molloll
Indlcolod In POlllOIOph a(7) 01 Iho owold and POloOloph II. 01 Iho COUll older, ThuG, ho concludol, Iho
10m oval oldor ca/lIlol modlly Iho ludomont.
Thll oloumonlls nol POlluoslvo, Tho doclllno ol/.9Jl !udJllJ1JJI doos nol apply horo bocoulo
Ihoso 010 nolldonllcol oollonl, In Iho pllol coso Iho laeuo Involvod Iho Inlorprotollr,ln 0' Iho
shoroho/dorl' oorolll11onl 8S II pOllolnod 10 cO/loln ololl11s modo by both Roady ond Booudry rogordlng
Iholr conduct, As Ihls COUll polnlod oul hllho Opinion and Final Docroo ron'ovlno Booudry, howover,
'Iho quosllor, 01 any mlscQnduct (on Iho fJlJll 01 Boaudryl JllIlIJIJ...&ll1lIftllIl.llnt;os Wero nol bo'ore Iho
orbltrolor,' (El11phosls oddod), In conlrosl, Iho pronollt aello'1, 0 pollllonlo onlorco Iho olbllrollon
oword, l11usloddross Iho 'oonsoquollcos' 01 Boaudry's 'mlsconduol,'I,o" his romoval, 10 Iho
onlorcolnonl or Iho aword,
Moroovor, wo IInd It dlslngonous 10 orguo Ihallho ordor 10 lomovo Boaudry should hovo no
boorlng on Iho IInol/udglnonl confirming Iho olbllrolor's award, Boaudry OUppOlls 11110 conlonllon by
polnllng 10 0 comment 10 SocII on 1 01 tho Roslolomenl of Judgmonls which Indlcaloo Ihallho moltors
IIlIgolod through Ilnalludgmonl, 'ollhouOh , , , or/onooUs, ollhor on Iho low or on Iho facts,' cannot be
rollllgolod, From Ihlo prlnclplo, Booudry roo sons Ihal 'II , , , 0 Iudomonlls Qnlllrod basad rJpon orror,'
Ihon 'subsequonl/udlclol ocllons' do '1101 pormll 0 reconsldarallon or modlflcallon or 0 IInol and binding
judgment.
Wo dloogroo, Tho order romovlng Boaudry 00 0 dlroclor Is 0 facllhal was obviously unovellablo
10 tho arbllralor whon ho mod II his award. Thai circumstance cannol be compo rod 10 on orror 0' low or
foci mode allho lime oludgmonl was rondorod, As 0 subsoquent devolopmonl, tho ordor removing
Boaudry may bo odjudlcalod In 0 lalor ocllon bocauso II was nol on Issuo In Ihe oorilor arbltrallon
IIlIgallon,
In this regard, Baaudry's own argumont shown Ihotlho coull took Inlo conslderallon lho
arbitration award al his romovol hoarlng. Beaudry contonds lhallho order lor his romovol, coming oller
"
(
Iho IIwllrd, WOII I1l1vor IlIlolldod 10 1IIIIII1go olllho mlJllrolo/', dotolll1ll1ollol1 To lIuppmtlhlll cOl1lol1l1on
ho clloo Ihlll court'lI C0/l1/1101111101lho hoa/II1D. Holollll1U 10 Hoody'o appool 01 Iho a,lJllralor'a award ond
hili oppUcollol1 10 hovo Boaudry rornovod lIo/l1lhu dlroetmllhlp, Iho eourlolalod 1111 eollcom oboul 'lIorno
1I110rllcllol1 bolWOOl1lhollo IWo IIlluallol1o,' 1 ho cou,t Il1dlcatlld Iholll did 1101 'wol1llo CO,"II up wllh
1I0mo rull110 Ihol would bllllllhllr COl1lrory or dupUcnlll1D whal hOIl bool1 argulld boloro all orbllrallon
aPPQol pOlloi,'
BOQudry arguolllhollho court IIUbllOqUOI,lIy ol1l1urod Ihatll, doclolol1lo rO/l1ovo Booudry r,o,"
Ihe dlroelorohlp would 1101 reducQ Iho olloel 01 Iho 1,lIbllrolor'o owold by makll1g 1110 followll1g concluolon
01 law In Ihll Adludlcollon IInd auortlol1ll1lho 111101 docroo;
4. Tho romovol 01 Or, Boaudry all 0 dlroclor 01 Mlllor Oral SurOllry will nol proludloo Iha
olhor rig hi II ho anloys undor tho Share hold 011' Agroornont Bnd will notlllvo Or, Roedy
'reo rolgn In tho manogomonl or tho corporaUon,
Pllrllgraph 4 01 Iho Adjudlcnllon,
Tho Sharoholdorll' Agroornonl 1I11111ncludoll prolocllonll lor ooch or Iho two IIhoroholdora
rogordlou 01 changosln manogomont, Thaoo proloellonll are oppllcablo to Or, Booudry
evon allor hili removal all dlroclor,
Ordor ond Final Docroo, Boaudry conlllruOII Ih0511 parogrophll all Indlcnlll1g Iho cOUrt'5 Intonllon 10
prosorvo the orbllrallon award IInd IUdgmont, He 0110 OrgUOII thallho lIuporlor court, In upholding tho
deCillion 10 rllmovo him 'rom Iho dlroCIOl5hlp, mak06 II cloar Ihallho detormlnallon was nollnlended 10
,"odlly or IImlllho olloct 01 Iho arbllrolor'lI award,
Wo do not Und thatlnlorprolallon In tho court'~ opinion or adludlcallon. The court c1oar1y IIhowB
o concern 'or Booudry'B rlghlo aB 0 ohoraholder In Iho abovo paragrophs. Tho court made a simIlar
obsorvallon In tho Opinion and Final Docroo whon II respondOO 10 Beoudry'a argumol1lthat his removal
would allow Reooy 10 'ullllzo Iho 511uollon to nullify elllhe rlghlll of 0 fifty porconl shareholder Bnd drive
Boaudry Oul of Mlllor Oral Surgery.' Tho court concludod Ihot 'lolelually II would belrnpoulble 'or such
on occompllllhmenlln view of Iho IImllOO limo frame lor Iho removel and Ihe condlllons prescribed.'
~
('
(
(Opinion and Final Oacloo I). EOlllol, hllho IuJjudlcollon, tho COUll O.pIOUed lie OWOIOIIOU Ihol
Boaudry'l rOl1lovol could rllBullln 'alrllmlng BooudlY 01 tho plOlocllon ollolded 10 him 01 0 dlroulor 01 a
\Wo.mln corporollon,' (Adludlcollon 0). Novortholoal, II1110do no o.I~lcll dlrocllvo 10 proloul hla
authorlly In Ihal poalllun. Wo IInd thotlho Inlonl 01 tho dacroo woa 10 romovo Booudry Iromlho
dlrautor8hlp and prolecl hll Ihareholdore' Ilghla allho IRma limo.
Finally, Boaudry emphoal1oa Ihol ho looka ollly tho onlorcomQnl 01 Pordgraph 3(7) 01 Iho
award,. or Poragrogh n. 01 tho court order, J1/lUA. Thle provlalun, ho ovorl, 'e1darly on/olnl Ready from
laking any acllon relollllg to Iho corporolloll and la nolllmltad 111 any woy by hll alolua, or Boaudry'a
alnlua, De a dlroulor.' Aucordlllgly, Bqoudry arguae, Implamolllallon 01 Ihlo plIragraph would nol connlcl
with his ramoval Irom Ihe dlraclorshlp.
Thll argumont has no mertt. Paragraph 3(7) 01 tho Iword cannol bo viewed In Isolallon. Nor
call Paragraph n. of tho court order. Each 01 Ih050 plIrogrdpha la pracedad by poragrapha conlalnlng
the IIndlng Ihal Ready vlolatad Socllun 1301 Iho ahoroholdere' agroamanl' (Parographa 3(6) of Ihe
sward ond I. 01 Iho ordor). Poragropha 3(6) end m. 01 Iho award and ordor roapocllvoly dlmcl Roady 10
comply wllh Secllon 13 by obtaining 'Iho ogroomnnl of Dr. Boaudry bolore any ocllon con ba takon by,
through or on bohall of Ihe corporallon.'. Aa ahuwn abovo, Socllon 13 deal a Wllh tho 'day 10 day
managomonl 01 Iho bualneso 01 the COl1lpllny.' ThaI socII on &t8100 Ihat Iho orrlcora 01 Ihe corporallon
aro 10 conductthooo dolly allolrs, 'oubloct to tho ovoralghl of 0 malorlly (51%) 01 Iho Olroclors.' The
'day 10 day monagol1lonl 01 tho bualnuoo' 10 doaerlbad moro apoolllcally In Iho subaoquont porograph
(I.e., Parograph 3(7) or n.). Thorll, ROedy, 00 tho olllcar of tho eorporollon, 10 Inalrueled 10 obtain
Beaudry's conaont boloro undortaklng such acllonu os 'e.pondlng corporota fundo or dlapoalng of
corporalo rooourcou, hiring, IIllng or olholWlso oltorlng the slolua of any amployoa.' Conaequently,
.Seo Footnote 4.
'Soo Footnote 1.
'Paragraph m. of the court ordor, dated May 26, 1994. Paragraph :1(6) of Iha arbltralor's award gives
almost an Idanlleal dlractlve.
6
. ..,."....-
'...
.
(
(
(
Paragraphs a(lI) 01 Iho award and /11. Irllho courl ordor UNO os 0 gonorol dlracllvo Whllo Iho
subseqlJont porographs o~p1aln In mora daloltlho arbltrolor's Inlomrolallon and appllcallOIl 01 It..
,harehold.",' agroomollt,
Thla '01110 IOquallca II, paragrophs Is lound In Poragrophs h" I" and I. 01 Iho court ordor and
Paragraph, a(l), (2), and (a) 01 tho aword, In Iholo paragrophl Reedy II 'oulld to hove vlolaled aoollon
2(b) 0' Ihe ,hareholdora' agreemant (Paragraphl h, and (1)), Ho la 011)011100 'rolll OilY 'urther vlolallona
01 that aeollollln Ihe aubsoquont parogtoph (Poragraphs I, end (2)), end 0 1I10ro dolaltoo oxplanalton
. regardIng Ihe meana by whloh I"l Is to comply wllh Secllon 2(b) la provldOO 111 eooh 01 tho third
paragraphs, Accordlllgly, We may Ylew Parographll" m" and II, 01 the ordar Gild a(G), (0), and (7) 0'
tha aWlud as providing lor Beaudry'. rlghl. a. a dlroctor under the shoreholdoro' ogreemant, Thus,
contrary 10 Booudry's argument, granllng hla polltlon to onlQrce Iho prior ordor ont! judgmont, whl'Jh
arolo 'rom Ihe arbllrator's oward, would proaenl a conlllcl wllh Ihll court's sublequent ordor removIng
Bo~udry Irom Ihe dlreclorshlp.
In challenging Ihe pollllon, Roedy contend a Ihollho doclrlne 0' collolerol OIloppol applIes In Ihll
C860. 81mllor 10 Iha doclrlne 01 I.U ludlcela, Ihll doclrlno procludea Iha rellllgollon 0' certain mllllera
oller Ihey have boen lully odjudlcaled ond reoched fino! ludgment, .Bll.D judlcalo, however, Is
dlsllnguIshed Irom collalorol estoppol becauae Iho lormer stolos Ihot 0 lolor causa 0' acllon la identical
with a lormor acllon while the laltor doctrine Indlcales thol on Idenllcal Issuo Is bolng rollllgoled, The
court In Malone v. Welt Mortborouoh Townshlo Board ul SUDONlsoa, 1 ~5 Po. Cmwlth, ~lIlI, 472-3, aoa
. A.2d 708, 711 (1092), provldos guldonco In this rogord;
'Reajudlcalo' relera 10 two dlallnctlogal prfndplos, "ochnlcal' or 'atrlcl reajudlcala.'
Irequenlly called clolm precluRlon or 'broad ros judicata,' Irequenlly called collaleral
ea'oppel or Issue preclusion. (CltoUon omllled).
.........
" ,
The concept 01 Issuo preclusion 'Ioroclosoa rollllgallon In a laler aellon, 01 an II sue of
lael or law which was actually IIt1gnted and which was nocessary \0 Ihe orIginal
judgment.' (Citation omitted).
~
, I
7
(
('
In this COSO, whllo tho locls do nol SUppOtllho hwocollon 01 /.9J lIlllJCJllo. wo IInd AoOOy'. orgumont
per.UllaNO thollho doclllnn 01 collolornl o.loppol OI)I~loo.
In I>OhlY oskOOto dolormlno wholhor tho orbllrollon owold ond l'ldomolll sho~ld s~por.OOell
sub.oquonl courl ordor romovlng Booudry Irom Iho poolllon whoroby ho could oMoralso tho rights
IndlcelOO by tho owold, wo conlrontlho Idonllcollnuo consldorlld by Iho COUll whon II ordered his
rOl11ovol. In Iho Opinion and Flnol OOCIOO Iho 1l0Ullmado Iho following rosponso to Boaudry's oMcepllon
10 tho doorao nisi:
Socond, Ills orguOOlhallho Oaeroa Nisi Is bolng "sOO by Or. nalldy os anlmpropor
collal"rolollock on an orbllrallon oword conflrmOO by Ihls COUll. Ills IIIIId Ihollho onlr
procOOurall11olhod 01 rovorslng 0 cOll1ll1onlow arbllrollon award I. Ihroullh Iho IIlIng 0
a pallllon wllh tho court 10 vocolo Iho oword. In roollly Iho Doc roo Nisi may suspand
cortoln 1110na(lOm0l11 rlghls for a IImlled porlod bUllho 06sol1l101 rlOhls 10 IIIIlory, vacallon
and work schodulos rotnolnlnloct. 111 OilY ovanl. Iho 6haroholdors' Agroomont bolwoon
tha portios did not dlvo611hls Cour1 01116 outhorlly ul1dor Iho Busll10ss Corpora lion Low,
III Po.C.6. 51720(clll> rOll1ovo a dlroctor or a corporallol1 lor ml6conducl. 1I111ay
lurthor 1>0 notod 11101 tho quosllol1 of any mlscol1ducl Ol1d 116 cOl1so'1uoncos woro not
bororo tho arbitrator. Tho COUlt mdor upholdl110 Iho arbllrullon award moroly afllrrnOO
tho orbllralor's ownrd 06 1I1111110rprOloll011 01 tho 6horoholdoru' AOllI0ll10nl but II would
not govoll1 any approprlolo rOll1ody undvr Iho BU61n066 Corpora lion Low. Tho
cot/ocllvo ocllol1 60ughl two 16 II dlsllncl ond 60pllralo rodros6.
Basically, Inthl6 oMcopllon, Beaudry p06OOlho IS6uo or wholher tho olfecl of Iho aword and IUdgm"nt
procllldod Iho court's aUlhorlty 10 romove him Irom Iho dlreClorshlp and Iheroby 6uspend 'cortaln
management rlghls' tho I wero dOGcrlbOOln tho award.
The co"rt r050lved Ihe IS5UO when II dolermlned Ihel ~ho 6hatoholdors' Agroemont batweon Iho
partin did not dlvesllhl5 Court ollis eUlhorlly under tho Buslnos5 Corporotlon Low.' Tho court
essentially lound Ihat Iho ool1lor ludlclel ordor hod no elloct on Its own dolormlnotlon 10 order BOBudry's
romoval: "Tho Court Ordor upholdlno Iho arbllrallon award murely oflilmed Iho arbitrator's award as an
Intorprolatlon of tho 6hllraholdors' Agreoment but II would 1101 Qovqrn.Jjr,v aopromlAliJomedv under
Buslnoss Comoratlon Low. (Emphosls addod). Thus, tho court lound Ihollts order to remove Baaudry
Irom tho directorship and divest him of 'cartaln manogemenl rlghls' suporsedOOtho arbllratlon award
and judgment.
8
(
(
Wllh w[Jord 10 Iho olllQr olo/11ol1ls loqulrll<.llo lonch II IIl1dll1l1 01 collolorol osloPIlOI, wo 114n say
lhol, allhou[Jh Booudry hos ruquoslud our SUPIO/11U cOlllllo ruvluw Iho cnsu, Ihmo hus buon '0 IInal
lud[Jll1onl onlho l1IoIlIs.' In nddlllon, Booudry, o[Jall1sl whomlhu plao 01 collulorol osloppolls ouortoo,
was 0 party In tho pllol IIII[Jallon, IInd ha hod 'a filII al1d fair oPPoltlmlly IQ IIl1uolo tho Issuo In Iho pllnr
IllocoOOln[J.' ~J.Y_DtfJllPll.ulllh v. Zonh~.IUlLAllJiJJIJIl91l1, m Po. ~~. 64.6, 669 Md BOO, OOt
(1909). I1l11usl also 1>0 shown, howovor, Ihol 'Iho dolull11hlOlIolI Il1lho pIlar procoOOII1[J WOS ouonllollo
tho l"dglT1onl.' .!.d,
Wo IInd I.hollho dolor/11lnollon 01 wholhllr Iho urbllrollolluword nnd /ud[Jl1Ionl procludOO tho
court's oulhorlty 10 rOIl1OVO BOBudry wos 'ossonllol'lo Iho IInallud\1ll1unl. Boaudry's oxcopllon
obviously nocossll41OO a rosolullon 10 Ihls quosllon boforo h.sulll[J lho '111111 docroo. In oddlllon, Iho
Bvldonco ahows Ihaltho Issue noodOO 10 ba rosolvad 11l1I[Jhl ollho concurront procoodln[Js InlllotOO by
I>olh portlos. As nolOO abovo, Ihu court IndlcolOO thulll wos cOllcornod aboulll1oklllg 0 ruling thet
would bo 'conlrary' or 'dupllcallng' any doclslons 01 Ull arbllralloll panol. Thus, tho court domonslratoo
Iho nood 10 dollnoato Iha olfe<:l, II any, 'ha arbllralloll award alld /ud[Jll1onl would have on lis own
dadslon In tho romoval a<:lIon. Consaquanlly, Boaudry Is collulorolly ostopped Irom raising tho luue 0'
whelhor the poragraph III tho arbilrallon award ond ludomenl soiling lorth his management rights Is
onlorcoable glvon the fa<:llhatlho court hos ordorad his removulllom Ihe poslllon wherein ho Is
aulhorlzod to exerdse Ihose rights.
Wo also condude thaI, os 0 sUbsequont/udlclul order which connl<:ls wilh an eel1ler IUdgmant,
Iho docroe removing him Irom Ihe dlreclorshlp, 010110 wllh Ihu consequoncos 01 Ihe ramoval, mu~1
nocessarlly lake precadance elVer Ihe prior ludgmolll. 'When In two acllons Inconslslenlllnolludgments
oro renderOO, II Is Iho lalor, nolthe eel1lor, ludgmontlhalls accordOO conclusive offoclln 0 third BCtlon
undor Ihe rules or res/udl<:ola.' Rostalement (Second) of...Lullw.JW1lA 516, Thus, Beaudry's pallllon will
be denlod.
9
",'
,
"
IIWI J, Well, F.lqulre
15 Nonh Front Srrcel, Sullo 210
lI1hbuTa, PA 17101
,
,
"
!;
I'lj !I
,
,
"
!
II
,1
'i,
" 'I, ,I
I'
'I 'I 'i~'
, " , "I'
.1 " q,,' .
'I " ,
I
" 'i
.1' ;1
, , "
," ,
, ,
" ,
, :1
'I , ,
ill'
"
, , ,
il'J,
" I , "
, , "
"
, ,
" ,
" I!
,I .1
I
" .,
,
" , ,i
i~l
I,'
ii'
'11
..
. ..............
...
It
f
\. "
"
" 'd'
"
'111
.,
i "
"
it
I iI," ii"
........J....;_1~...1...___1__
.,
I
Jlllnca J, WOII, F.lqulro
105 North Front Streot, Sullo 210
HlliTllbura. P A 1710'
"
].Ii
i ."
Ii! , 'I "
" ,
1
" 1
I
1 'I I' , it 'i\
, I ,
I , .1,1 , ,
., I"
.'1
i'
-1,1
., )'
. .
1'1
0,:11111.,'
I' ;1
"
J L,)
'I
. '
,
,
J I
,
,
i'1, ,
II;
,
'.
',II "
','
)1"
" ,.
., "
';1\
,
)'1,'
'I
,
'I,
,,'I
"
;'1'
'il';
~,', .
.,
,
;1'1' d'
,
., 'I
,,':-/
l' -I
"II'" II
',II
I,'.'
jll'i
"
"
I, "
II
.'
',\: I
I I,
I I.
1<
I,
,
,
,1'1
(\ I H'
',I "I!\,.I'I
,
"
I,
, p
I,.!,I ':
"
I.,'
"
,.'
.,
'I
, '
11\
'Ill
I
,
('I'I
" ,
, I
.1',
:'II
"
.Il
11 ",,", ,1\1 ,',1'
, ",' "ll..'/:d, 'r,
'! ,\, .) '}~\ti<j,.j-,~
i' ':rdi'i'H/rl';~';j'''-;t!\~}O';-{."
;11;, '''''.'t':.I!,'\''''I,l_i
'1.1--I'!i'l ,til._j' 'I I
,,"",1. , I)t; I,
'I' " ,il;1 1';\'
"
('
,
I
'i
I,'
(
.1
i-. .~ ~~
I
I':
1'1
"
'I
1,\
, '
,
"
'.'ll',I;
I,'
",/
, \/011,
ii, .
I !ill
Iii
,.
Ii
"
",
,.
"
"
'I
\ I'
I'i'. ,I
'i,1 'J' I
lil',,;J!li
, Ii I'll
,
.,
, I
1111
I
"
,.'
,
,
., .r'
"
"
.
-t ..,.........
.....
II, .,
~I
~J"
)""
~111 , ., ,
~~l..I~_lJ
..
,
I
,
,
,11:1
\
!,j
jfl'
1,1
. 'lr"r' .Iii
IIl1LII' WilL., __ i _ \l.~lJ
"
,
:i
/
111
I.
, "./ "
, I"
, 'I ,I l'
I' II" I I
, r, '
....;_..~........~I.Jl.
./
,
,
',1
"
,
,
I)
;.."..~,,_.'"
J "'~..,....".
Illes }, Wesl, Esquire
'5 North Front Slreel, Sulle 210
mlburg, PA 17101
"
[ , Slmluul L, Andes, Esquire
"
" 525 North Twelfth Sneel
, 'i
Lemoyne, PA 17043
,\ I, ,
,
, 1i
, I) , ,
d ,
" I.
,
,
"
!II
[ ,
II
II, I" 1,.11;"
1- Inl
.1
-
-."........---'
I'! '
,
:',
,
,.
r .''r""'"',
I
I
i,fiil
/ '
"
Ir "r~-t'"':"7""~~' "1 y,
;/-,',1 I
,
Iii
'I
,J
" '
I) 't!',dl
,r1\'
',,'I Ii
,
Ii"
"
I
ii,
'J,';',
,
"
I
\11'
I:
t,
III
.,
"
"
,
,I
,',
,
,
"
I.l
, ./
1'; ,I
,
.,
I
I
'\
_I'll
If!
,1:1
,
"
1(",
"
,I' ,
,
,
,
1"1
\
! '
'J
, I,il!,
",
,
.,
..
f'
II:
I,llil
I'
,
"
,{r
;-il'
:\
,
,
,
, , ,
'L " f'
I" "
" , Ii ,.
/ ,I, " ,iI
,
, "
,
" , ,
[,
Iii
;\
,
"
\
I
I
I
I
i
1.1,
I
./
,_'J
/0,
, '
,
"
I:,
'\11
"
~
\
I'
I'.
1\1
..
"
, "
"
,~ i
.
,.
~.. q' ,""
.....',.....
il
"
..'
'''I.~ ....., I" 1__.
"""'I~'
."
-'
ROBERT J, B&AUOAY, JR"
Pllllntlff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND
COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION. LAW
NO. 96.15641
VB,
,
,
,
)
I
I
)
ROSE STONER,
Defendllnt
NOTICE
TO DEFENDANT NAMED HEREIN I
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN RESPONSl:! TO THE NEW MATTER
WITHIN TWENTY (201 DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED
AGAINST YOU,
L(~~
Samuel l, Andes
Attorney tor Plaintiff
Supreme Court 10 II 17225
6215 North 12'" Street
Lemoyne, Ps 17043
17171761-6361
, I
, '
\
VB,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON
PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND
COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ROBERT J, BEAUDRY, JR"
Plaintiff
ROSE STONER,
Defendont
NO, 90-6041
ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOn JUDGEMENT OF NON PROS
AND NOW comos tho above-nol11ad PIC/lntllf, by his uttOrl1oy, SUl11uel L. Andes, and
maklts tho following Answor to Defendont'a Motion:
1 - :i, Admittod, Tho ovormonts selljlJlln the footnoto, however, ere dunled, A
oertlfled copy of the Complolnt, with ollnecessory notices ottached, wos properly served
upon the Defendant at her rllsldonco In Florida, dosplto tho Defandanr's attempts to oonceal
her whoreabouts,
4, Denied, The litigation betwoan Plaintiff and Michael J, Roady Gnd MIliaI' Ornl
Surgery which has boon pandlng bofore tho Court of COl11mon PlUGS of Dauphin County,
, Pannsylvanla, since 1995 Involved all claims botween Beaudry end Miller Orel Surgery, The
1 olalm against Roae Stoner, which Is the subJeot of thio octlon, wos originally brought against
I!
': har In har capacity os an euthorl1.ed Ill11ployee of Miller Oral Surgory, end was presonted to
.i
il
Ii tho Court of Common Plees of Dauphin County In the litigation botweon Beaudry, Reody,
:i and Miller Oral Surgery beforll that Court. However, both Miller 01'01 Surgery and Michael
I'
I' J, Reedy expressly denied that Roso Stoner ectod within her capoclty os on omployef;l of
II
I, Miller Oral Surgery and, as 0 result, the Court of Coml11on Pleas of Dauphin County took no
Ii Dation against f~nslj Stoner In that mallar and Indicated It would toke no such action, Only
Ii after that tl'anaplred did Beaudry understand thet he would have to pursue thla action
,I against Rose Stoner, By that time, Rosfl Stoner had moved from Pennsylvania and Beaudry
I'
II wall not able to locate her, Beaudry has proceeded promptly with his claim once he located
,I
il har Ilnd became aware of her status as an omployae or former employaa of Miller Oral
Surgery.
,I 6, Pllllntlff doee not know the terme of Stoner'8 employment by Miller Oral Surgery
I or the olroumatenoel In which she left, beoeu8e thllt Informetlon Is within the oontrol of
I
Stoner Ind other pllrtles whose Int!trest8 Ire lIdverse to Plolntlff ond so Plaintiff denies thoso
8totements end demands proof thereof ot ony heorlng, By woy of furlher IInSWer, Beaudry
state a that R08e Btoner oonoeallld her whereabouts at 011 tlme8 efter 1997,
6, Donled, The ootlon de80rlbed In Paragraph 6 of Stoner'l Motion lIon aotlon
between other partie I ond Beaudry was not Involved In thot octlon ot eny time, Moreover,
the defamatory statements mode by Sloner against Beaudry go fer beyond the dafamatory
" statements Ms, Viola olalms Sloner msde agalnsl her, There Is nothing In the litigation
I between Viole and Stoner that hal any affeot on this oase.
,I 7, Denied, Stonor has suffared no prejudice and dOllS not desorlbll any preJudloa In
her motion, Moroover, Stoner oould hove avoided any suoh prejudloe lit any time simply by
,I filing a Rule dlraoted to Beaudry to file a complaint In support of his olelm or by oommenclng
dlsoovery In the action, The foct thol Stoner movlJd to Florldllls nol a basis to dismiss this
claim, slncl) she was well awara of Ihls action prior to her mova and, Ihereby, assumed the
I Inconvenience to her ettempts to defend this action by such move,
8, Denied, Stoner has suffered no prejudice, actuel or presumed.
9, Denied esstated. It Is admitted that Beaudry, Mlcheel J, Raedy, and Miller Oral
Surgery hove been Involved In extensive litigation In this Court and the Court of Common
Pleas of Dauphin County bllt It Is denied that such litigation hes any bearing on this action,
To the oontrary, Miller Oral Surgary has asserted, In the litigation with Beaudry, that
, Stoner's actions In defaming Beaudry and attempting to Interfere with his professional
" practice, were actions Stoner took wlt.hout the knowledge, consent, or authority of Miller
), Oral Surgery end that, as a result, neither Miller Oral Surgery or Mlchaal J, Reedy are
responslbla for her oonduct, This aotlon came about because of Stoner's unlawful,
defamatory, and Improper oonduct for which Baaudry Is entitled to recovary.
10, To the extent thet the statements In Paragraph lOaf Stoner's Motions oontaln
, any averments of fact, the same are denied and Beaudry Inoorporates herein, by reference,
I
'I
I
,
r
the overmentl made In the foregoing peragrllphs of this Anlwer. By wsy of further Inswer,
Aeaudry Illlltes thllt Stoner'l motive In making the Itetements set out In Perogrlph 10 and
attaohlng nopllll of extraneous a"d unrelated document I II limply to prlljudloe thlll Court,
11, Denied. Stoner II guilty 01 unlewlul, defemetory, end Improper oonduot and
BlJlIudry Ie entitled to reoovery lor her tortuous aotlons. Btondr will not be praludlolld by
the deley In prooeedlng with this oaso and oould heve avoided eny luch prejudloe et eny
I time by pursuing this DatIon horself, There Is no basis, In low or In foot, to dlsmlllll
BlJlIudry's action without trial,
WHEREFORE, Booudry moves this oourt to deny Delendant Stoner', motion ond to
either entllr ludnment III his fovor on acoount 01 Delsndant's Isllurll to onswer his oomplalnt.
or to allow this matter to proceed through pleedlng, dlsoovery. and trlol,
NEW MATTER
By wey of further enswer, Plslntlflsubmlts the following New Matteri
12, Defendant's Motion for Non Pros Is contrary to the law and the Rules of Court
,
II and there Is no legal authority for such Motion at this stage of theBe proceedings,
i, 13, Defendant's Motion falls to state a ceuse for whloh thlo oourt oan grant relief,
,I
, 14, Defendant's Motion In this matter III untimely and Is barrad as suoh,
I'
I~ 16, The dalay In this matter was ceusad by Btoner's own conduct, Inoludlng her
II
II dlsappearanoe from Pennsylvania end her conceelment of her wheresbouts,
!I 16, Btoner hed avaIlable to her, at 011 times, the meens to proseouto this clslm and
I; foiled to do so. As a result, her actIon Is now barred by tho doctrine of estoppel snd waiver,
II
I
I
I
~~.~
Bam , Andes
Attorney for Plaintiff
Supreme Court ID 1/ 17226
526 North 12'" Street
Lemoyne. PA 17043
(7171761.6361
ROBERT BEAUDRY,
PlalnUff
:IN THE COURT OF COMMON PI.EAS OF
:CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
,
,
:CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ROSE STONER,
Defendant
,
,
:NO, 96.6641 CIVIL TERM
~I
HOFFER, P.J.I
~Jhe Caso
The plaintiff, Or, Robert J, Beaudry, Jr" commenced this action on October
14, 1996, by Ollng Q Praecipe for Writ of Summons, This Writ of Summons was
Isslled and then served on defendant, Rose Stoner, on October 21, 1996, and
service was docketed on November 4, 1996. For a period of thl'ee (3) years, no
activity occurred In the case until October 16, 1999, when plaintiff med an
objection to the purge of the case and a Complaint.' The Complaint contains two
(2) counts alle91ng defamation and Invasion of privacy, Plaintiff contends that on
various occasions In February, March, and April of 1996, and perhaps on other
dates, defendant made the following statements about plaintiff:
1, That plaintiff had beon convicted or "found guilty" of twenty-eight (28)
counts of "embez<!lement" from his present or past employer.
, A copy of the Complaint was left at defendant's Florida residence on May 6,
2000. This copy did not have a Notice to Plead attached to It as required by Rule
1026 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure,
, ........
'-
2. That plalnllff was having an Improper sexual and romanllc affair with
one of his assistance (slol and that ouoh Improper affair had
oonllnued for "a long time,"
3, That plaintiff had physically assaulted a pregnant female when he
was In a "raga" and WBS In the process of being criminally
prosecuted for that assoull,2
Allegedly, these events occurred whon plaintiff waG a principle In Miller
Oral Surgery, Inc, and defendant was IiIn employee of the corporation, At a
hearing, In front of this Court, on August 7, ,WOO, Rose Stoner testified that she
was a receptionist for Miller Oral Surgery, Inc, and worked In this oapaclty from
the Fall of 1995 through February 1999, In February 1999, she gave the
company her resignation, Defendant testified that she wanted to leave
Pennsylvania because of an abusive marriage sltuallon, where her husband had
physically abused her, Prior to moving, she left a forwarding Post Office Box
number In Orlando, Florida with the United States Post Office, Defendant
subsequently found employment In Orlando, where she works as a house mother
at a home for distressed children known as the "House of Hope," She earns a net
salary, atler taxes, of approximately $690,00 every other week.
Additionally, there Is an extensive history of lIt1gatlclI1lnvolvlng Miller Oral
Surgary, Inc, and the two principles therein, plaintiff and Dr, Michael T, Reedy, In
2 See Plaintiff's Complaint, flied October 18, 1999.
2
the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin Counly and In the Court of Common
Pleae of Cumberland County,3
With respect to the Issue of non pros 1/1 this case, defendant must meetlhe
standard set forth In James 6l!
~ and consistently reiterated and applied In subsequent cases, 432 Pa,
129,247 A.2d 687 (1968); 1lllJl1ll.6.2~, 661 Pa, 360,710 A.2d
1098 (1998).
!.hE! 61andard rQC.~
A motion for a judgment of non pros Is the channel by which a litigant
asserts his or her common law right to a reasonably prompt conclusion to a case,
Courts have found that a motion for nO/1 pros rests on public polley which
Implicates both the plalnllff and the defendant. If a case Is dismissed due to the
negligence of counsel, the plaintiff Is left without a meaningful remedy.
Conversely, a defendant may have problems defending a case where an
Inordinate amount of time has passed, Ef}
ranee Co, of
3 See Mallon of the defendant, Rose Stoner, for Judgm<mt of Non Pros, exhibits
E through I, These exhibits contain an Order of the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County; ~Qral SurQerv, I.n~1 docketed at4230-S-
1993 In the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County; In Re: Miller Oral.
$uroerv, Inc" docketed at 5233 EQUITY In the Court of Common Pleas of
Dauphin County; In Re: Application for Removal of Robert J. Beaudry, Jr..
QMJ)" from the Office of Director of Miller Oral Suroerv, Inc., docketed at 3966
S 19931n the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County: and Bealldrv~
Reedy, 113 Dauph. 1 (1993).
3
tlm:tl:l...8mWiQJl, 529 Pe, 350, 354, 603 A,2d 1006, 1008 (1992) (overruled on
other grounds),
To dismiss e CBse for Inacllvlty following e defendant's mollon for non pros,
a three (3) prong test must be aallafled, According to ~~rs Co,. and
~, the lasl slates Ihal there must be a lack of due diligence on Ihe parI of
the plaintiff In failing to proceed with reasonable promptitude, Ihe plalnllff must
have no compelling reason for Iho delay, and the delay musl cauae actual
prejudice to Ihe defendant. James 6r.Q!JJms CQ, 432 Pa, 129, 247 A,2d 567
(1966); JJagID.!i, 551 Po, 360,710 A.2d 1090 (1998),'1
Qillgence Elemenl
According 10 PennsylvElnla law, Ills Ihe plalnllff and nolthe defendant who
bears Ihe risk of failing 10 acl wllhln a reasonable lime to move a case along,
eel c v Souderloll SclJQQ.1. 419 Pa, Super, 201, 209, 616 A.2d 95,
99 (1992). The law does nol stale wllh precision how long a delay by Ihe plaintiff
In proceeding wllh litigation amounts to the absence of due diligence, Manaon v,
~atlonal Bank, 366 Pa, 211, 77 A2d 399 (1961), However, a delay as long
4 Jacobs Is the leading case regarding the standard that must be met to show
non pros, The standard, as originally stated In James Bras, Co, was modified in
1992 In E.lliJllPJQJ.ng. Inc. v. Insurance C~th Amerl,gg, 629 Pa. 360,603
A,2d 1006 (1992), when the Court held that the the element of prejudice could be
presumed when there had been a delay of activity by Ihe plaintiff for over two
years.1Q., at 1009. However, the Court In Jacobs overruled this presumption of
preJudice, and reenacted the J2.r.!:J1ls Bros, Co, test as Ihe applicable standard,
requiring a case by case showing of prejudice to the defendant. Jacobs, 551 Pa
360,366, 710A.2d 1098,1101(1998),
4
-,
or longer than the applicable porlod of IImllatlons Is generally considered
sumolent to warrant a judgment of non pros If the other prongs of the test ore
mel. Kennedv v, Iil.IlJ.Ii!ln Co., 237 Pa,Super, 66, 346 A,2d 343, 346 (1975)
(where a delay of five and one-half years In bringing a tort action justified a
judgment of non pros),
It Is clear that plaintiff has shown a lack of due diligence by failing to
proceed with reasonable promptitude, On March 1, 1996, Judge Clark In
Dauphin County entered a consent decree aimed at sorting out and resolving the
numelous matters raised Involving Dr. Reedy, plaintiff, and Miller Oral Surgery,
Inc. Pursuant to the terms of this consent decree, In April of 1996, plaintiff
Initiated a proceeding In Dauphin County seeking Injunctive relief based on the
allegation that defendant defamed him, Ultimately, It was agreed between the
parties that these grievances would be treated as reserve claims under Judge
Clark's previously entered consent decree, Correspondence was exchenged
among the parties and abruplly ended In August 1996, From Au~ust 1996 until
October 18, 1999, this reserve claim had not been raised nor pursued, During
this time, plaintiff had the ability to resolve the Issues In front of judge Clark In
Dauphin County end failed to do so,
Each case must be examined on Its merits and non-docket activity may be
considered when deciding whether the case should be terminated for Inacllvlty,
~,551 Pa, 369, 371, 710 A2d 1106, 1109 (1996), However,
due diligence and precluding the entry of non pros requires more than merely
5
nllng a certlncate of active status and payln(l the nominal flllnQ fee, tl.LLQJ1es v,
EJnJs...EIn.Is.~, 716 A,2d 316, 319 (Pa,Super, 1996), In the present
CBse, this Is essentially what plalnurf did when OIlng Ihe ObJeotlon to Purge Case
on Ootober 16, 1999, Plalnllff has been glvEln several opportunities 10 pursue
this claim; howevel', he has not taken advantage of these opportunities and has
allowsd the docket to become Inactive, Plaintiffs lack of due diligence Is olearly
represented In the lack of docket activity In thla case,Q
The question of granting non pros due to the failure of the plaintiff to
prosecute hill or her action within a reasonable time rests within the discretion of
the trial court.
~.1J!m, 425 Pa, 112,113,226
A.2d 732, 733 (1967). ~~, ~, 362 Pa,Super, 432, 524 A.2d
954 (1967) (holding that the trial court did not abuse lis dlacretlon In granting an
entry of non pros), In determining what constllules a compelling reason for
delay, a trial court should focus on whether the events lhat allegedly Impeded
Q In a recent decision, the Pennsylvania Supremo Court held that a plaintiff did
show due diligence when the plaintiff flied a Notice of Appeal from an arbitrator's
non-binding decision, Romstead v, E;lf Alochern North America, 1~777 A.2d
1160 (Pa,Super. 2001). The Court held that In Jurisdictions where the court
automatically lists cases for trial, nelthor party has any responsibility to take
additional action to bring the case tu trial, and that the delay in activity is In
actuality. the fault of the Court. !9.... at1162-1163, This Is different from the
pl'esent case, because In this case, the plaintiff failed to further pursue the action
by serving the defendant with a complaint until October of 1999, more than three
(3) years after the Writ of Summons was Issued, Thus, the delay was brought on
by the plaintiff, for the Court was never In control of the progress of the case,
(I
progress were beyond the plaintiff's control.
692 A,2d 155, 156 (Po,Super, 1997) (overruled on other grounds) (citing
-
, 451 Pa,Super,
385, 394-396, 679 A,2d 1275, 1280 (11396), appeal denied, 548 Pa, 637, 694
A.2d 622 (1997)),
In the case sub judlao, the only reason plaintiff gives Is as follows:
"Plaintiff has not proceeded with the coso earlier because he was
Involved In IIl1gallon with the Defendant's employer which he hopes
[sic) would resolve the Issues ralsod In this COBO. The IIl1gallon
between Plalnllff and Defendant's employer, Miller Oral Surgery,
Inc" has not yet been resolved but It Is now cleor that IIl1gallon will
not resolve or determine the claims between Plalnllff and
Defendant. ,,6
This statel11el)t Is Inaccurate because defendant had leflthe employ of Miller Oral
Surgery, Inc, several months prior to the plalnllffs ObJecllon to Purge Case being
filed. Moreover, [at the hearing of August 7, 2002) the testimony of Andrew H,
Cline, Esquire, as well as defendant's exhibits admitted Into the record, reflect
that plaintiff had the ability to proceed with the case, and did not. And although
the courts have stated that significant non-docket acllvlty might be enough to
show a compelling reason for delay, plalnllff In this case did not have a sufficient
amount of non-docket acllvlty to Jusllfy such an Inactive docket.?
G See Plaintiff's Objection to Purge Case, flied October 16,1999,
1
"According to Marino, the combination of acllvllles and circumstances may
Jusllfy a delay In docket Inacllvlty, though an acllvlty or circumstance alone would
be Insufficient to salvage a case from dismissal for non pros, In Marino, there
was significant non-docket acllvlty: the death of tho appellants' first attorn~y;
7
We conclude that plalnllff lacl<ed due diligence In fallln9 to proceed with
reoaonable promplltude and 1I10t no compelling rentlon existed for the deloy, Wo
muat next determine wl1lltl1er defondont wos prejudlc€ld by events which
ocourred during tl10 deloy In prosocullng the coso,
/:.r.9l1HU!illJ;J91UmJ!
Prejudice can be establltll1ed by 1110 doalll or abtlence of 0 moterlal
witness, J!!~, 551 Pa, 350,359,710 A.2d 1090, 1103 (1998), Prejudice also
Includes any substantial diminution of a party's ability to properly prosentlts cose
at trial brought about by tile plaintiff's delay, 8nWlmJll.fu!JJ1S aDd Trust Co, ot
ponnsv~!t~_Jqdd and Hooven, 274 Po,Super, 2fifi.-289, 41R-A2d
408,410 (1980),
It Is well.sellled that witnesses' memories can dim over time and cause
prejudice to a defendant. Illibol v, Del2will.!L.I.nJSl.LCo,. 384 Pa, 85, 89, 119 A.2d
518 (1956), Jacobs, 651 Pa, at 357, 710 A.2d at 1102 (recognizing thai
defendants could also ba prejudb~d by the loss of memories, the disappearance
of witnesses, and tile loss or destruction of documents), In the present case, a
review of the record depicts that memories were becoming dim at the time of the
-_._------.-._---...-~_.._.._---------..._-------------
substitution of his partner; depo'Sllion of all the partlos; replacement of the second
attorney; delay In the releasa of th€l file; various lellers soliciting and
communicating a settlement demand; and a telephone discussion of certlrylng
the case ready for trial." Gohel y, MmJtgomerv Towmllill, 40 Po, D. & C,4th 449
(Pa,Coll1m,PI. 1999) (9!J.n.gMarlno v, Ha.9sllliill, 551 Pa, at376, 710 A.2d at
1110,) In the present case, plaintiff only cites to one non-docket activity, the
pending litigation, which, even were It a legitimate non-docket activity, Is not
sufficient to show a compelling reason to delay,
8
\
hearing In AUQust 2000, It Is evident that defendant has been preJudlcsd
bl\loause her memory <lonoernlng events ocourrlng In 1995 and 1996 has
understandably dimmed due to the passage of time, ~, !MI., ~
416 A,2d 406 (1980) (upholding entry of non pros on ground that memories of
available witnesses were dimmed and perhaps extinct), ~~
~, 40 Pa, 0, & C.4th at 455 (holding that defendant's memory loss dUl9to
the appellant's dolay goes to show actuel prejudice to the defendant),
Witnesses may be difficult or Imposslblo to locate, We know that at least one
witness, Jim Thomas, who wall a former Miller Oral Surgery Office Manager, has
disappeared and his whereabouts are unknown, ~,!Uh UL. (holding that
because defendant relied on more than just memory loss, Including the
unavailability or death of witnesses, there waD actual prejudice to defendant),
~, 551 Pa, 360,710 A.2d 1104 (1996) (affirming the trial court's
finding that defendant was prejudiced by the death of a witness),
Because this cas a Is all about words, and the memory of the defendant
and her ability to recall the alleged statements, memory loss Is a significant Issue
and must hold great weight when looking to see If there Is preJudice. Because
such memory loss does exist, and because there are other circumstances that
9
will cause prejudice to the defendant, lIuch as an Inability to locate or retrieve
wltnellses, defendant has shown actual prejudloe,s
QmJ&Y!IiJM
The granllng of non pros Is based on the equitable principle of laches, au
~, 551 Pa, 350, 710 A,2d 1096, (HI96); W ~ ~rs Co, v.
D~, 423 Pa, 129, 247 A.2d 567 (1966),
Laches arises when a defendant's poslllon or rights ara so prejudiced by the
length of lime and Inaxcusable delay, plus aUendant facts and circumstances,
that an Injusllce would occur If a plalnllff was permitted to assert a claim against
the defendant. ~~, 426 Pa, 360, 359, 231 A,2d 125, 130 (1967),
quollng, ~~, 390 Pa, 261. 269-270, 135 A.2d 363, 387 (1957), (cited In
~, 551 Pa, 350, 356,710 A,2d 1098, 1102 (1998)), Such harm or prejudice
to the adversary Is the very basis upon which a claim of laches Is founded,
~,551 Pa, 350,357,710 A,2d 1102 (1998). A party who seeks the relief
provided by the entry of a judgment of non pros must do 50 with clean hands,
S Defendant has also been prejudiced because she no longer has access
to the financial resources to pursue the defense of this malter, Prior to her
resignation at Miller Oral Surgery, Inc., the company had paid for her legal
expenses, She Is now separated from her husband, v,'orklng at low wages for a
charitable organization, and subsisting In Florida by liquidating her IRA's and
borrowing money from her father who Is a minister at a church In Chambersburg.
Because of he/' Income level, she cannot afford to travel to Pennsylvania from
Florida to defend this lawsuit. She has started a new Job In Florida and taking
time off to participate In this litigation threatens her ability to hold that position,
Furthermore, defendant Is terrified to be In Pennsylvania because of her
estranged husband's threats to kill her.
10