The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01-6142SCOTT STANKO and LISA STANKO, Plaintiff CASEY J. WILLIAMS, Defendant :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : :NO. 01- /.,,l~& : :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a wdtten appearance personally or by attorney and filing in wdting with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint of for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other dghts important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 SCOTT STANKO and LISA STANKO, Plaintiff CASEY J. WILLIAMS, Defendant :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA :NO. 01- ~/q& : : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT 1. Scott Stanko is an adult and the husband of Lisa Stanko plaintiff herein who resides at 1330 Zimmerman Road, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 17013-9246. 2. Lisa Stanko is an adult and the wife of Scott Stanko plaintiff herein who resides at 1330 Zimmerman Road, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, 17013-9246. 3. Casey J. Williams, an adult and defendant herein, who at all times relevant to this complaint was a licensed dentist practicing dentistry at 200 West First Street, P.O. Box 87, Boiling Springs, Pennsylvania, 17007. 4. Mr. Scott Stanko's employer contracted with Mailer Handlers' Benefit Plan to provide dental insurance for the plaintiffs. 5. Lisa Stanko sought the medical assistance of Dr. Williams and entered into a physician-patient relationship on or about July 30, 1998. 6. On or about July 30, 1998, Mrs. Lisa Stanko was advised by Dr. Williams of the need to place a "crown" on teeth 19 and 20. 7. Billing statements from Casey J. Williams' office for August 31, 1998, and September 14, 1998, indicate two charges for Lisa Stanko described as "crown/porcelain/ceramic" and two charges described as "crown build-up." 8. On August 11, 1998, Dr. Casey J. Williams performed work described as "insert crown/bridge/**" for teeth 19 and 20. 9. Dr. Casey represented to the Stankos that he would install crowns upon Lisa's teeth #19 and #20. 10. A Decen,ber 14, 1998, statement from Dr. Williams indicates Lisa Stanko had a scheduled appointment for Monday, January 4, 1999, at 11 a.m. for crown build- up. 11. Dr. Casey J. Williams or employees of Dr. Williams submitted bills to Mail Handlers' Benefit Plan at the direction and approval of Dr. Williams regarding the purported crown dental work performed by Dr. Williams upon Lisa Stanko's teeth #19 and fy20. 12. Payment was made to Dr. Williams on behalf of Lisa Stanko by Mail Handlem Benefit Plan in ~ approximate amount of $327.50 for installation of crowns upon teeth #19 and #20. 13. Payment was made by the Stankos to Dr. Casey J. Williams in the approximate amount of $1,142.50 for installation of crowns upon teeth #19 and #20 for Lisa Stanko. 14. On or about December 2000, Mr. and Mrs. Stanko discovered for the first time that Mm. Stanko's teeth #19 and fy20 did not have crowns on them. Mrs. Stanko discovered that teeth 19 and 20 had on-lays inserted, not 15~ crowTts. 16. 17. 18. Teeth #19 and ir20 had substantial cavities beneath the on-lays. The on-lays must be removed to eliminate painflJI cavities. Dr. Williams or an agent of Dr. Williams misrepresented to both Mail Handlers' Benefit Plan and Mrs. Stanko that Mrs. Stanko would be receiving crowns on teeth #19 and ~20. 19. Dr. Casey J. Williams knowingly and intentionally installed a less expensive on-lay onto Mrs. Stanko's teeth #19 and #20 while charging both the insurance corr,)any and the plaintiffs for the more expensive, non-existent crown work. COUNTI 20. Paragraphs 1 through 19 are incorporated herein. 21. Dr. Williams represented to Lisa Stanko that the treatment that she was receiving on Teeth #19 and #20 were "crowns" when Dr. Williams knew the treatment was a less expensive and inferior "onlay". 22. Dr. Williams participated in "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" in violation of 73 P.S. Section 201-2 (4) (v). Wherafora, the plaintiffs request that this honorable court award actual damages, treble damages pursuant to 73 P.S. Sections 201-3 and 201-9.2, attorney fees and costs and expenses. COUNT II 23. Paragraphs 1 through 19 ara incorporated herein. 24. Dr. Williams represented to both Lisa Stanko and Mail Handlers Benefit Plan that the treatment that Lisa Stanko was receiving for teeth #19 and #20 were "crowns" when Dr. Williams knew the treatment was an "on-lay". 25. Dr. Williams participated in "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" in violation of 73 P.S. Section 201-2 (4) (vii). Wherefore, the plaintiffs request that this honorable court award actual damages, treble damages pursuant to 73 P.S. Sections 201-3 and 201-9.2, attorney fees and costs and expenses. COUNT III 26. Paragraphs 1 through 19 ara incorporated herein. 27. Dr. Williams advertised to both Lisa Stanko and Mail Handlers Benefit Plan that the traatment that Lisa Stanko was raceiving for teeth #19 and #20 wera "crowns" when Dr. Williams knew the traatment that he provided was an "on-lay". 28. Dr. Williams performed "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" in violation of 73 P.S. Section 201-2 (4) (ix). Wherefora, the plaintiffs raquest that this honorable court award actual damages, trable damages pursuant to 73 P.S. Sections 201-3 and 201-9.2, attorney fees and costs and expenses. COUNT IV 29. Paragraphs 1 through 19 ara incorporated herain. 30. Dr. Williams fraudulently raprasented to both Mail Handlers Benefit Plan and Lisa Stanko that teeth #19 and #20 of Lisa Stanko wera to be traated with "crowns" when Dr. Williams knew that he would substitute an onlay for the crowns while accepting payment from both Mail Handlers and Lisa Stanko for "crowns". 31. Dr. Williams performed "unfair or deceptive acts or practices" in violation of 73 P.S. Section 201-2 (4) (xxi). Wherefora the Plaintiffs raquest that this honorable court award actual damages, trable damages pursuant to 73 P.S. Sections 201-3 and 201-9.2, attorney fees and costs and expenses. COUNT V 32. Paragraphs 1 through 19 are incorporated herein. 33. Dr. Casey J. Williams' recklessly or negligently substituted placement of On-lays for crown on top of previous cavities of Lisa Stanko's teeth #19 and #20 or in the alternative, the on-lays were defective or the on-lays were improperly applied by Dr. Williams to Lisa Stanko's teeth #19 and #20. 34. As a result of Dr. Williams' misapplication of on-lays onto teeth #19 and #20, as a result of Dr. Williams reckless and negligent placement of on-lays on top of pre-existing cavities, substantial deterioration of the teeth occurred at Lisa Stanko's #19 and #20 teeth causing substantial pain and suffering to the plaintiff. 35. Dr. Williams' application of the on-lays onto teeth #19 and #20 of Lisa Stanko was negligent or reckless. WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs request that this Court award the plaintiffs a sum of $15,000 or whatever sum is deemed to be fair and just; the plaintiffs also request that they be awarded attorney fees and costs and expenses for this trial. Date 'C~al~n R. Waltz, Es~u~.~eJ Turo Law Offices ~ 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 245-9688 Attorney for Plaintiff VERIFICATION vedfy that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct. understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Date SCOTT STANKO VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct. understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. {}4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date ~L~SA STANK-O - - SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2001-06142 P COMMONWEALTH OF pENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND STANKO SCOTT ET AL VS WILLIAMS CASEY J DOUGLAS DONSEN , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon WILLIAMS CASEY J the DEFENDANT , at 0925:00 HOURS, on the 30th day of October , 2001 at 200 WEST FIRST ST BOILING SPRINGS, PA 17007 by handing to MELINDA FOLTZ, RECEPTIONIST a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 3.90 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 31.90 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this q~ day of ~ ~/ A.D. '' Prothonotary So Answers: R. Thomas Kline i0/3i/200i TURO LAW OFFICES ~r~eputy Sherz \ ~05_A~LIA?SMO\CORR\93966~RYM~6076\50000 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SCOTT STANKO AND LISA STANKO, Plaintiffs CASEY J. WILLIAMS, Defendant NO. 01-6142 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of the Defendant, Casey J. Williams, in the above-referenced matter. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, (..~..~aron M. O Donnell, Esquir[ [/D. # 79457 fi200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B 'Harrisburg, PA 17112 Phone: (7t7) 651-3503 Attorney for Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA SCOTT STANKO AND LISA STANKO, Plaintiffs CASEY J. WILLIAMS, Defendant : NO. 01-6142 CIVIL TERM : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ~[,[~_L ~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, [~ an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this_;~ day of April, 2001, served a copy of the foregoing document via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid as follows: Galen R. Waltz, Esquire TURO LAW OFFICES 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 \05_AkLIAB~SMO\CORR\95006UMFX06076\00136 SCOTT STANKO AND LISA STANKO, Plaintiffs CASEY J. WILLIAMS, Defendant 1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-6142 - CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Plaintiffs, Scott Stanko and Lisa Stanko c/o Galen R. Waltz, Esquire TURO LAW OFFICES 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may be filed against you. DATE: Respectfully submitted, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN _.----~"ON M. O DONNELL, ESQUIRE fl.D. No. 79457 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3503 Attorney for Defendant, Casey J. Williams SCOTT STANKO and LISA STANKO Plaintiffs V. CASEY J. WILLIAMS, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED : : NO. 01-6142 Civil Term ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT. CASEY J. WILLIAMS. D.M.D. The Defendant, Casey J. Williams, D.M.D., by and through his counsel, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN AND GOGGIN, hereby makes Answer and asserts New Matter defenses to the Plaintiffs' Complaint and in support thereof states the following: 1. Admitted upon information and belief. 2. Admitted upon information and belief. 3. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Casey J. Williams, is an adult individual and a Doctor of Dental Medicine, licensed to practice in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is admitted that Dr. Williams' former professional practice was located at 200 West First Street, Boiling Springs, Pa. It is denied that Dr. Williams currently maintains his professional offices at that location. To the contrary, Dr. Williams' professional practice is located at 210 Forge Road, Boiling Springs, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, 17007. 4. Denied. The allegations of paragraph 4 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied pursuant to the provisions of Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 5. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff, Lisa Stanko, first presented to Dr. Williams on July 30, 1998, with complaints necessitating immediate dental attention. The remaining allegations of paragraph 5 are denied pursuant to the provisions of Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 6. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that on or about July 30, 1998, Dr. Williams advised Plaintiff, Lisa Stanko, that she would require medical dental attention in the nature of a tooth build-up at teeth numbers 19 and 20. That service was, in fact, performed on that date. As part of the treatment, Dr. Williams further advised Plaintiff, Lisa Stanko, that she would need a type of crown placed over each tooth at the next office visit. Plaintiff, Lisa Stanko's semantical distinction between "crown" and "on-lay" is one without significant difference. The remaining allegations are therefore denied pursuant to the provisions of Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 7. Denied. The allegations of paragraph 7 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied pursuant to the provisions of Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). By way of further response, the "billing statements" speak for themselves. 8. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Dr. Williams performed a procedure during which on-lays, or partial crowns, were placed on teeth numbers 19 and 20. The remaining allegations of paragraph 8 are denied pursuant to the provisions of Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 9. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Dr. Williams advised Plaintiff, Mrs. Stanko, that crowns, or on-lays, would be placed upon teeth numbers 19 and 20. The difference between "crown" and "on-lay", as represented by Plaintiff in paragraph 9 of her complaint, is de minimis. The remaining allegations of paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied pursuant to the provisions of Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 10. Denied. The statement referred to in Plaintiffs' Complaint speaks for itself. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied pursuant to the provisions of Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 11. Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that Dr. Williams, or members of his office staff, assisted Plaintiff, Lisa Stanko, in completing an insurance form seeking payment for the dental work performed on her teeth, #19 and #20. The remaining allegations of paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied pursuant to the provisions of Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 12. Admitted. 13. Admitted. 14. Denied. The allegations of paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied pursuant to the provisions of Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 15. Denied. It is specifically denied that there is a significant difference between "crowns", as that term is used by Plaintiffs, and "on-lays". Moreover, Dr. Williams did not charge Plaintiff, Lisa Stanko, more or less of a fee for a "crown" or an "on-lay" placed on her teeth numbers 19 and 20. The remaining allegations of paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 16.-19. Denied. The allegations of paragraph 16-19 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied pursuant to the provisions of Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). COUNT I 20. The answering Defendant, Casey J. Williams, incorporates herein by reference his responses to paragraphs 1-19 above as fully as if the same were herein set forth at length. 21. Denied. It is specifically denied that there is a significant difference between "crown" and "on-lay", in form and quality. Moreover, there is no difference in price. The remaining allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 22. Denied. It is specifically denied that Dr. Williams' recommendations, representations, care, treatment and charges for services rendered to Plaintiff, Lisa Stanko, was in any manner whatsoever deceptive, or unfair. Strict proof thereof is demanded trial. By way of further answer, the remaining allegations are denied pursuant to the provisions of Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, the answering Defendant, Casey J. Williams, D.M.D., requests this Court to dismiss Count I of Plaintiffs' Complaint and to enter judgment in his favor, and against the Plaintiffs, Lisa Stanko and her husband, Scott Stanko. COUNT II 23. The answering Defendant, Casey J. Williams, D.M.D., incorporates herein by reference his responses to paragraphs 1-22 above as fully as if the same were herein set forth at length. 24. Denied. It is specifically denied that Dr. Williams made any misrepresentations to Plaintiff, Lisa Stanko, of any nature whatsoever. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. The remaining allegations are denied pursuant to the provisions of Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 25. Denied. It is specifically denied that Dr. Williams's recommendations, representations, treatment, care and charges for services rendered to Plaintiff, Lisa Stanko, were unfair or deceptive. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. The remaining allegations are denied pursuant to the provisions of Pa. RC.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, the answering Defendant, Casey J. Williams, D.M.D., requests this Court to dismiss Count II of Plaintiffs' Complaint and to enter judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiffs, Lisa and Scott Stanko. COUNT III 26. The answering Defendant, Casey J. Williams, D.M.D., incorporates herein by reference his responses to paragraphs 1-25 above as fully as if the same were herein set forth at length. 27. Denied. It is specifically denied that Dr. Williams advertised to Lisa Stanko, or to "Mail Handlers Benefit Plan" that the on-lays that he placed upon her teeth numbers 19 and 20. Strict proof is demand at trial. The remaining allegations are denied pursuant to the provisions of Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 28. Denied. It is specifically denied that any of the recommendations, representations, treatment, care and charges for services rendered to Plaintiff, Lisa Stanko, were "unfair" or "deceptive". Strict proof is demanded at trial. The remaining allegations are denied pursuant to the provisions of Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, th~ answering Defendant, Casey J. Williams, D.M.D., requests this Court to dismiss Count III of Plaintiffs' Complaint and to enter judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiffs, Lisa and Scott Stanko. COUNT IV 29. The answering Defendant, Casey $. Williams, D.M.D., incorporates herein by reference his responses to paragraphs 1-28 above as fully as if the same were herein set forth at length. 30. Denied. It is specifically denied that any of the care, treatment, representations, recommendations, or charges for services rendered to the Plaintiff, Lisa Stanko, were fraudulent. To the contrary, all times material to the period of time that Plaintiff, Lisa Stanko, was a patient of Dr. Williams, his care and treatment was exemplary, and performed in her best interests. At no time had Dr. Williams overcharged for treatment, charged for treatment not performed, or misrepresented to her, or to anyone else, that the treatment rendered was anything more or less than what he said it was. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, the allegations of paragraph 30 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied pursuant to the provisions of Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 31. Denied. It is specifically denied that Dr. Williams' recommendations, representations, treatment, care and charges for services rendered to Plaintiff, Lisa Stanko, were "deceptive" or "unfair". Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, the remaining allegations of paragraph 31 of Plaintiffs' Complaint are denied pursuant to the provisions of Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, the answering Defendant, Casey J. Williams, D.M.D., requests this Court to dismiss Count IV of Plaintiffs' Complaint and to enter judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiffs, Lisa and Scott Stanko. COUNT V 32. The answering Defendant, Casey J. Williams, D.M.D., incorporates herein by reference his responses to Paragraphs 1-31 above as fully as if the same were herein set forth at length. 33. Denied. It is specifically denied that the on-lays placed upon Plaintiff, Lisa Stanko's teeth numbers 19 and 20 were defective in any manner. It is further specifically denied that the on-lays were placed over cavities. It is further specifically denied that Dr. Williams' care and treatment of Plaintiff, Lisa Stanko, was in negligent or reckless in any manner whatsoever. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. The remaining allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 34. Denied. It is specifically denied that Dr. Williams' misapplied on-lays on Plaintiff's teeth numbers 19 and 20. If is further specifically denied that the care and treatment rendered by Dr. Williams was reckless, or negligent, or that he applied on-lays to teeth with cavities. Strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. The remaining allegations are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 35. Denied. The allegations of paragraph 35 are denied pursuant to the provisions of Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). WHEREFORE, the answering Defendant, Casey J. Williams, D.M.D., requests this Court to dismiss Count V of Plaintiffs' Complaint and to enter judgment in his favor and against the Plaintiffs, Lisa and Scott Stanko. 36. Plaintiff, Lisa Stanko, has failed to state a claim or cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 37. All care and treatment rendered to Plaintiff by Dr. Williams was appropriate, reasonable and within the applicable standard of care. 38. the Risk. 39. Some or all of Plaintiff's claims may be barred by the Doctrine of Assumption of Defendant, Casey J. Williams, D.M.D, avers that the evidence accumulated through discovery and provided at trial may establish that Plaintiff was contributorily negligent, and in order to protect the record, Answering Defendant, Casey J. Williams, D.M.D., hereby pleads contributory and comparative negligence as affirmative defenses. 40. Defendant, Casey J. Williams, is entitled to contribution in accordance with the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, 42 P.S. §7102. 41 In the event that it is determined that Defendant, Casey J. Williams, D.M.D., was negligent with regard to any of the allegations contained in and with respect to PlaintifFs Complaint, said allegations being specifically denied, then such negligence was supemeded by the intervening negligent acts of other persons, parties and/or organizations other than the Answering Defendant and over whom the Answering Defendant had neither control nor right to control and/or responsibility and, therefore, Answering Defendant, Casey J. Williams, D.M.D, is not liable in this action. 42. At all time relevant hereto, Dr. Casey J. Williams was a competent and qualified physician acting in compliance with the applicable standard of care. 43. To the extent that the evidence may show that other persons, partnerships, corporations or other legal entities caused or contributed to the injuries or exacerbation of any pre-existing condition of the Plaintiff, then the conduct of Answering Defendant, Casey J. Williams, D.M.D., was not the legal cause of any such conditions and/or injuries. 44. Any acts or omissions of Answering Defendant alleged to constitute negligence or were not substantial factors contributing to the injuries and/or damages described by Plaintiff in her Complaint. 45. Whatever injuries and/or damages, if any, were sustained by Plaintiff as averred in her Complaint, then the same were caused in whole or in part by persons or entities over whom Answering Defendant had no duty to supervise or control and accordingly, Defendant is not liable and Plaintiff may not recover against it. 46. Plaintiffs injuries and/or losses, if any, were not caused by the conduct or negligence of the Answering Defendant but rather, may have been, or were caused by pre- existing medical conditions and causes beyond the control of the Answering Defendant and, accordingly, Plaintiff may not recover against it. 47. The acts or omissions of others and not Answering Defendant constituted intervening and/or supervening causes of the injuries and/or damages alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiff and the Answering Defendant cannot, therefore, pursuant to Pennsylvania Law, be held liable for the injuries alleged by Plaintiff. 48. All or some of Lisa Stanko's claims may be or are barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Scott Stanko has failed to state a claim or cause of action upon which relief can be 49. granted. 50. To the extent the pleadings suggest that Mailer Handler's Benefit Plan is a plaintiff, or has an interest in the outcome of this case, Defendant asserts that Mailer Handler's Benefit Plan has failed to state a claim or cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 51. Defendant raises all defenses available under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices Act, 73 P.S. §201-1, et seq. 52. Defendant raises all defenses applicable and available under Pa. R.C.P. 1030. 53. Plaintiff has failed to comply with the provisions of Pa. R.C.P. 1019(h) and (i). MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN /~~os M. o DONN~LL, ESQUI~ /??00. ,Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 I.D. No. 79457 (717) 651-3503 Attorney for Defendant Casey J. Williams D.M.D. 10 VERIFICATION I, CASEY J. WILLIAMS, D.M.D., hereby certify that I am the Defendant in the foregoing action; that I have reviewed the Answer with New Matter before signing this Verification; that the facts set forth therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I further certify that I make this Verification pursuant to the penalties set forth in 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904 relating to unswom falsification to authorities. eC'~. '~Villi~'ns D.I~.D. '-~ - DATED: ffS~d.-~'~. 11 SCOTT STANKO AND LISA STANKO, : Plaintiffs : : CASEY J. WILLIAMS, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-6142 - CIVIL TERM : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Joanne M. Parr, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this ~ day of May, 2002, served a copy of the foregoing document via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid as follows: Galen R. Waltz, Esquire TURO LAW OFFICES 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 Jo~Mi Parr SCOTT STANKO and LISA STANKO, Plaintiff CASEY J. WILLIAMS, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 01-6142 CIVIL TERM JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER TO NEW MATTER 36. This is a legal conclusion; therefore, no answer is required. 37. Denied and proof of matters averred are demanded at a hearing in this matter. 38. This is a legal conclusion; therefore, no response is required. 39. This is a legal conclusion; therefore, no answer is required. 40. This is a legal conclusion; therefore, no answer is required. 41. This is a legal conclusion; therefore, no answer is required. 42. Denied and proof of matters averred are demanded at a hearing in this matter. 43. This is a legal conclusion; therefore, no answer is required. 44. This is a legal conclusion; therefore, no answer is required. 45. This is a legal conclusion; therefore, no answer is required. 46. This is a legal conclusion; therefore, no answer is required. 47. This is a legal conclusion; therefore, no answer is required. 48. Denied; furthermore, this is a legal conclusion and therefore, no answer is required. 49. This is a legal conclusion; therefore, no answer is required. 50. This is a legal conclusion; therefore, no answer is required. 51. This is a legal conclusion; therefore, no answer is required. 52. This is a legal conclusion; therefore, no answer is required. 53. This is a legal conclusion; therefore, no answer is required. Date Respectfully submitted, "(~al~n R. Waltz, Turo Law Offices 28 South Pitt Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 245-9688 Attorney for Plaintiff VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to New Matter are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date ~l/S/[ ST-AN KO VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to New Matter are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date SCOTT STANKO CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the Complaint upon Sharon M. O'Donnell, by depositing same in the United States Mail, first class, postage pre-paid, Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, on the .~,-~-~J' day of r'~ ,2002, from Carlisle, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Sharon M. O'Donnell 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 TURO LAW OFFICES Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 245-9688 Attorney for Plaintiff SCOTT STANKo and LISA STANK'o, Plaintiff CASEy j. WILLIAMs, Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF : CUMSERLAND COUNTy, PENNSYLVANIA : NO. 01-6142 CIVIL TERM : TO THE PROTHONOTARy: Please settle, Withdraw and discontinue the above-captioned matter on behalf of the Plaintiff. Da~e~ Respectfully Submitted TURO LAW OFFICES Cad/s/e, PA 17013 (717) 245-9688 Attorney for Plaintiff