Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-1716i ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Daryl E. Christopher, Esquire Attorney ID# : 91895 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg. P.A 17110-1708 Phone: (717) 238-6791 Fax: (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff: E-mail: dchristopher(i?,an.pino-rovner.com Carol Stathas CAROL ANN STATHAS, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. ERIC SELVEY, O.D., and EMPIRE VISION CENTER, INC. d/b/a TOTAL VISION CARE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION NO. 08 - 171(p Civil IerM. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO DEFEND 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 written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing 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 judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se persentan mds adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar acci6n dentro de los pr6ximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificaci6n de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a , las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar acci6n como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamaci6n o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mds aviso adicional. Used puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para used. LISTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER 1NFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 357036 ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Daryl E. Christopher, Esquire Attorney ID# : 91895 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg. Pfd 17110-1708 Phone: (717) 238-6791 Fax: (717) 238-5610 E-mail: cichristo hencr?an ino-rovner.com Attorneys for Plaintiff: Carol Stathas CAROL ANN STATHAS, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. ERIC SELVEY, O.D., and EMPIRE VISION CENTER. INC. d/b/a TOTAL VISION CARE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION NO. 4$- /'7/G GcarU ??.c r•t JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff Carol Ann Stathas is an adult individual and a citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who resides at 15 Conway Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant Eric Selvey, O.D., is an optometrist licensed to practice optometry in Pennsylvania who regularly practices at Total Vision Care located at 3401 Hartzdale Drive, Suite 103, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff is asserting a professional liability claim against this defendant. A Certificate of Merit is filed herewith. 3. Defendant Empire Vision Center, Inc., (hereinafter Total Vision Care) is a New York foreign corporation qualified to do business in Pennsylvania and that regularly does business in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania as Total Vision Care. Plaintiff Carol A. Stathas is asserting a professional liability action against this defendant. A Certificate of Merit is filed herewith. 4. At all times relevant to this action Defendant Dr. Selvey was the employee, agent, servant, ostensible agent, or apparent agent of Defendant Total Vision Care and was acting within the scope of his agency, apparent agency, ostensible agency, and employment. 5. On August 1, 2003, Plaintiff Carol Ann Stathas treated with Defendant Dr. Selvey at Total Vision Care. 6. At that time, Plaintiff Carol Ann Stathas indicated that her last eye examination had been three years earlier. 7. Defendant Dr. Selvey did not perform a dilated fundus examination on Ms. Stathas' eyes. 8. Following the examination, Dr. Selvey did not follow up with Ms. Stathas to ensure that she underwent a dilated fundus examination. 9. Ms. Stathas next treated with Defendant Dr. Selvey at Total Vision Care on March 24, 2006. 10. She had not undergone an eye examination since her visit to Total Vision Care in 2003. 11. Defendant Dr. Selvey did have or should have had access to Ms. Stathas' records from her last examination at Total Vision Care and did know or should have known that her retinas had not been examined under dilation for at least five years. 376013 2 12. Dr. Selvey did not perform a dilated fundus examination on Ms. Stathas' eyes on March 24, 2006. 13. Ms. Stathas returned on March 28, 2006, complaining of vision problems. 14. Ms. Stathas was treated by Dr. Selvey; however, Dr. Selvey did not perform a dilated fundus examination on March 28, 2006. 15. Ms. Stathas returned on April 11, 2006, complaining of vision problems. 16. Ms. Stathas was treated by Dr. Selvey; however, Dr. Selvey did not perform a dilated fundus examination on April 11, 2006. 17. Ms. Stathas returned on April 20, 2006, complaining of vision problems. 18. Ms. Stathas was treated by Dr. Selvey; however, Dr. Selvey did not perform a dilated fundus examination on April 20, 2006. 19. Ms. Stathas returned on May 3, 2006, complaining of vision problems. 20. At that time, Ms. Stathas complained of blank spots in the field of vision of her right eye when wearing her contacts. 21. Ms. Stathas was treated by Dr. Selvey; however, Dr. Selvey did not perform a dilated fundus examination on May 3, 2006. 22. Ms. Stathas returned on May 5, 2006, complaining of vision problems. 23. Ms. Stathas was treated by Dr. Selvey; however, Dr. Selvey did not perform a dilated fundus examination on May 5, 2006. 376013 3 24. On May 8, 2006, Ms. Stathas treated at Hartzell Eye MDs. At that time, Ms. Stathas complained of seeing specks and blurring in her right eye. Ms. Stathas had been experiencing the symptoms for seven to ten days. 25. The treating doctor performed a dilated fundus examination and found a giant retinal tear with retinal detachment in Ms. Stathas' right eye. 26. Ms. Stathas was immediately referred to Hershey Medical Center for emergency surgery. 27. Ms. Stathas was treated at Hershey Medical Center on May 8, 2006. 28. The retinal exam at Hershey Medical Center revealed a superior retinal detachment with a large horseshoe tear supratemporally and several smaller tears. It also revealed lattice degeneration in the right eye. 29. The examination of Ms. Stathas' left eye revealed temporal lattice degeneration. 30. While the left lattice degeneration was treated with indirect laser retinopexy, Ms. Stathas' right retinal detachment and tear had to be treated with a scleral buckle. 31. Following the surgery, Ms. Stathas' right eye was swollen, painful, and sensitive to light. 32. On May 30, 2006, Ms. Stathas reported double vision when her right eye was open. 33. On June 20, 2006, Ms. Stathas was experiencing increased pain in her right eye and increased photophobia. 376013 4 34. On July 12, 2006, Ms. Stathas was unable to open her right eye unless she used her hand to pry it open. 35. On July 31, 2006, Ms. Stathas reported increased pain and swelling around her right eye and increased photophobia in her right eye. 36. The scleral buckle was removed at Hershey Medical Center on August 1, 2006; however, Ms. Stathas continued to experience photophobia, double vision, and trouble opening her right eye. 37. On September 14, 2006, Ms. Stathas was seen at Johns Hopkins. At that time, she was still experiencing double vision and difficulty opening her right eye. 38. Ms. Stathas was diagnosed with protective ptosis due to her double vision. 39. Ms. Stathas remained off of work from May 8, 2006, to February 2007 due to problems with her right eye. 40. Ms. Stathas continues to experience double vision, and now requires a prism in her right lens of her glasses to reduce her double vision. 41. Ms. Stathas is no longer able to wear contact lenses to correct her vision, as she had done for over 20 years prior to this incident. 42. It is believed, and therefore averred, that Ms. Stathas will continue to experience double vision for the remainder of her natural life. 43. Dr. Selvey's failure to timely diagnose Ms. Stathas' retinal detachment and lattice degeneration increased the risk that she would suffer from retinal detachment and retinal tears, increased the risk that she would suffer from severe retinal detachment and retinal tears requiring 376013 5 an invasive scleral buckle procedure, and increased the risk that she would suffer complications from corrective surgery including: double vision, pain, swelling, infection, ptosis, photophobia, eye strain and dry eyes. 44. As a result of Dr. Selvey's failure to timely diagnose her right retinal detachment and lattice degeneration, Plaintiff Carol Stathas did suffer a severe right retinal detachment and retinal tear requiring a scleral buckle procedure which left her with double vision, pain, swelling, infection, ptosis, photophobia, eye strain and dry eyes. COUNTI CAROL ANN STATHAS v. ERIC SELVEY O.D. 45. Paragraphs 1 through 44 of Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 46. All of Plaintiff Carol Ann Stathas' damages are a direct and proximate result of the negligent, careless, and substandard care provided to her by Defendant Eric Selvey, O.D. which caused or increased the risk of Plaintiff's injuries as stated above in that he: (a) failed to timely diagnose the lattice degeneration in Ms. Stathas' right eye; (b) failed to timely diagnose the retinal detachment in Ms. Stathas' right eye; (c) failed to timely diagnose the retinal tears in Ms. Stathas' right eye; (d) failed to perform a dilated tundus examination on Ms. Stathas' right eye during any of the numerous times she treated with him in March, April, and May of 2006; (e) failed to perform a dilated fundus examination on Ms. Stathas' right eye on August 1, 2003; 376013 6 (f) failed to follow up with Ms. Stathas following her August 1, 2003, examination to ensure that she underwent a dilated fundus examination; and (g) failed to properly investigate Ms. Stathas' complaints of blank spots in the field of vision in her right eye. 47. As a result of the injuries she sustained, Plaintiff Carol Stathas was forced to incur liability for medical treatment, medications, corrective prism lenses, and similar miscellaneous expenses in an effort to restore herself to health, and a claim is made therefor. 48. Because of the nature of her injuries, Plaintiff Carol Stathas may be forced to incur similar expenses in the future, and a claim is made therefor. 49. As a result of the her injuries, Plaintiff Carol Stathas has undergone and in the future will undergo physical and mental suffering, inconvenience in carrying out her daily activities, loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, disfigurement, pain, and humiliation, and a claim is made therefor. 50. Plaintiff Carol Stathas continues to be plagued by persistent double vision and limitation and, therefore, avers that her injuries may be of a permanent nature causing residual problems for the remainder of her life, and a claim is made therefor. 51. As a result of the aforementioned injuries, Plaintiff Carol Stathas has suffered work loss, loss of opportunity, and a permanent diminution of her earning capacity and power, and a claim is made therefor. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Carol Stathas demands judgment against Defendant Eric Selvey, O.D. in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. 376013 7 COUNT II CAROL ANN STATHAS v. EMPIRE VISION CENTER INC. d/b/a TOTAL VISION CARE 52. Paragraphs 1 through 51 of Plaintiff's Complaint are incorporated herein by reference. 53. All of Plaintiff Carol Ann Stathas' damages are a direct and proximate result of the negligent, careless, and substandard care provided to her by Defendant Eric Selvey, O.D. which caused or increased the risk of Plaintiff's injuries as stated above. 54. Defendant Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care is vicariously liable for the negligent and careless acts of its agent and employee, Eric Selvey, O.D., as stated above. 55. As a result of the injuries she sustained, Plaintiff Carol Ann Stathas was forced to incur liability for medical treatment, medications, corrective prism lenses, and similar miscellaneous expenses in an effort to restore herself to health, and a claim is made therefor. 56. Because of the nature of her injuries, Plaintiff Carol Ann Stathas may be forced to incur similar expenses in the future, and a claim is made therefor. 57. As a result of the her injuries, Plaintiff Carol Ann Stathas has undergone and in the future will undergo physical and mental suffering, inconvenience in carrying out her daily activities, loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, disfigurement, pain, and humiliation, and a claim is made therefor. 58. Plaintiff Carol Ann Stathas continues to be plagued by persistent double vision and limitation and, therefore, avers that her injuries may be of a permanent nature causing residual problems for the remainder of her life, and a claim is made therefor. 376013 8 59. As a result of the aforementioned 'injuries, Plaintiff Carol Ann Stathas has suffered work loss, loss of opportunity, and a permanent diminution of her earning capacity and power, and a claim is made therefor. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Carol Ann Stathas demands judgment against Defendant Empire Vision Center, Inc, d/b/a Total Vision Care in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. Respectfully submitted, ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Daryl E. hristopher, Esquire I.D. No. 91895 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: March 13, 2008 376013 9 ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Daryl E. Christopher, Esquire Attorney 1D# : 91895 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Phone: (717) 238-6791 Fax: (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff: E-mail: dchristopherra angino-rovner.coin Carol Stathas CAROL ANN STATHAS, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. ERIC SELVEY, O.D., and EMPIRE VISION CENTER, INC. d/b/a TOTAL VISION CARE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION NO. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS TO ERIC SELVEY O.D. I, Daryl E. Christopher, certify that: ( X ) an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; AND/OR ( ) the claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm, OR ( ) expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. Date: March 13, 2008 Daryl E. &rilsher, Esquire 357036 ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Daryl E. Christopher, Esquire Attorney ID# : 91895 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Phone: (717) 238-6791 Fax: (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff: E-mail dchristo her(ri!anaino-rovner.com Carol Stathas CAROL ANN STATHAS, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. ERIC SELVEY, O.D., and EMPIRE VISION CENTER, INC. d/b/a TOTAL VISION CARE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION NO. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS TO EMPIRE VISION CENTER INC. d/b/a TOTAL VISION CARE I, Daryl E. Christopher, certify that: ( ) an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; AND/OR ( X ) the claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; OR ( ) expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. Date: March 13, 2008 Daryl E. Christopher, Esquire 357036 VERIFICATION I, Carol Ann Stathas, Plaintiff, have read the foregoing and do hereby swear or affirm that the facts set forth in the foregoing PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that this Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn fal i iCation 4atmhorniti es. witness Carol Ann Stathas Dated: 376400 (r) N rifi,.. r•_ `t SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2008-01716 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND STATHAS CAROL ANN VS SELVEY ERIC 0 D ET AL TIMOTHY REITZ Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE CRT,ZTRY RRTC OD was served upon DEFENDANT , at 1501:00 HOURS, on the 26th day of March at 3401 HARTZDALE DRIVE SUITE 103 CAMP HILL, PA 17011 MICHELLE GEORGE by handing to ADULT IN CHARGE 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 12.32 Postage .58 Surcharge 10.00 `?b3( + L? ? 40. .00 00 Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day of the 2008 So Answers: 0 R. Thomas Kline 03/27/2008 ANGINO & ROVNER By: % r D uty She iff A.D. CASE NO: 2008-01716 P SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND STATHAS CAROL ANN VS SELVEY ERIC 0 D ET AL TIMOTHY REITZ , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon EMPIRE VISION CENTER INC D/B/A TOTAL VISION CARE the DEFENDANT , at 1501:00 HOURS, on the 26th day of March , 2008 at 3401 HARTZDALE DRIVE CAMP HILL, PA 17011 MICHELLE GEORGE SUITE 103 by handing to ADULT IN CHARGE 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 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 16.00- Sworn and Subscibed to before me this day of So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 03/27/2008 ANGINO & ROVNER By : Depu he TYf A. D. WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP BY: Charles T. Roessing Identification No(s). 23980 One Westlakes 1235 Westlakes Drive, Suite 310 Berwyn, PA 19312-2416 610.240.4710 roessingc@whiteandwilliams.com Attorneys for Defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D., and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care CAROL ANN STATHAS Plaintiff, V. ERIC SELVEY, O.D., and EMPIRE VISION CENTER, INC. d/b/a TOTAL VISION CARE Defendant. CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 08-1716 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D., and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care, in the within action. WHITE Dated: ? 1 p (0/( BY: S LLP Lnaries_r. xoessing Attorneys for Defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D., and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care PHLDMS 1 4185724v.1 _- °r Co CD '? WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP BY: Charles T. Roessing Identification No(s). 23980 One Westlakes 1235 Westlakes Drive, Suite 310 Berwyn, PA 19312-2416 610.240.4710 roessingc@whiteandwilliams.com Plaintiff, CAROL ANN STATHAS V. ERIC SELVEY, O.D., and EMPIRE VISION CENTER, INC. d/b/a TOTAL VISION CARE Attorneys for Defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D., and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS • NO. 08-1716 Defendant. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D., and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care hereby demand a Jury Trial, said Jury to consist of twelve (12) persons. Dated: 1- i BY: WHITE AND WLIAAMS LLP Charles T. Roessing Attorneys for Defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D., and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care PHLDMS 1 4185724v.1 r 1 WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP BY: Charles T. Roessing Identification No(s). 23980 One Westlakes 1235 Westlakes Drive, Suite 310 Berwyn, PA 19312-2416 610.240.4710 roessingc@whiteandwilliams.com Attorneys for Defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D., and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care CAROL ANN STATHAS Plaintiff, V. ERIC SELVEY, O.D., and EMPIRE VISION CENTER, INC. d/b/a TOTAL VISION CARE Defendant. CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 08-1716 . You are hereby notified to file a written response to th enclosed New Matter within twenty (20) ys from service hereof or a judgment be ent ed against you. Charles T. Roessing, Esquire Attorney for Defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D., and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT Defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D. and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care hereby appears by and through their attorneys, White and Williams LLP, hereby responds to plaintiff's Complaint as follows: 1. Admitted in part. It is admitted that Carol Ann Stathas is an adult individual. Answering defendants have no information concerning the citizenship of the plaintiff or residency of the plaintiff. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. PHLDMS 1 4617695v.1 4. Admitted. It is admitted that Dr. Selvey was employed by Total Vision Care and was acting within the course of scope of his employment. 5. Admitted. 6 through 8. Denied. Plaintiff's statements concerning the medical treatment rendered are conclusory, incomplete and misleading and are therefore denied. A complete summary of the medical treatment rendered is contained within the medical records which are too voluminous to attach as an exhibit to this pleading but which are in the possession of all parties. 9. Admitted. 10 through 23. Denied. Plaintiff's statements concerning the medical treatment rendered are conclusory, incomplete and misleading and are therefore denied. A more complete summary of the medical treatment is contained within the medical records which are too voluminous to attach as an exhibit to this pleading but which are in the possession of all parties. 24 through 39. Denied. After reasonable investigation answering defendants are without sufficient information to form a belief with regard to the allegations concerning subsequent medical attention and, therefore, all such allegations are denied and strict proof is demanded. 40 through 42. Denied. All allegations of injury, loss and/or damage are expressly denied. It is further denied that there is any causal relationship between any injury, loss and/or damage alleged by plaintiff and any conduct on the part of answering defendants. 43 through 44. Denied. All allegations of negligence, carelessness, causation and injury as alleged herein are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). COUNTI CAROL ANN STATHAS v. ERIC SELVEY, O.D. 45. Answering defendants hereby incorporate by reference the responses to paragraph 1 through 44 above as if fully set forth herein at length. -2- PHLDMS 1 4617695v. I 46. Denied. All allegations of negligence, carelessness, causation and injury as alleged herein are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 47 through 51. Denied. All allegations of injury, loss and/or damage alleged by plaintiff are denied. It is further denied that there is any causal relationship between any injury, loss and/or damage alleged by plaintiff and any conduct on the part of answering defendants. COUNT II CAROL ANN STATHAS v. EMPIRE VISION CENTER, INC. d/b/a TOTAL VISION CARE 52. Answering defendants hereby incorporate by reference the responses to paragraphs 1 through 51 above as if fully set forth herein at length. 53. Denied. All allegations of negligence, carelessness, causation and injury as alleged herein are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 54 through 59. Denied. All allegations of injury, loss and/or damage alleged by plaintiff are denied. It is further denied that there is any causal relationship between any injury, loss and/or damage alleged by plaintiff and any conduct on the part of answering defendant. NEW MATTER 60. The nature, origin, causation, amount and extent of injuries, damage and losses claimed are at issue and defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D. and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care, demand proof of same of plaintiff as required by law. 61. The injuries and/or damages as alleged in plaintiff's Complaint are not the result of negligent conduct on the part of Eric Selvey, O.D. and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care. 62. Plaintiff s Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. -3- PHLDMS 1 4617695v.1 63. Defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D. and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care, are not responsible for persons, events, circumstances or conditions reasonably beyond their control. 64. Plaintiff's Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 65. Plaintiff's Complaint sets forth claims against defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D. and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care, some or all of which may be barred by the conduct of plaintiff. To this extent, plaintiff's claims may be barred by the doctrine of comparative negligence. 66. Any and all treatment and care provided by defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D. and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care, to plaintiff, Carol Ann Stathas, was in accordance with the standard of care set forth in the medical community. 67. Plaintiff's claims are or may be limited by the terms of any release which plaintiff may have signed. 68. At all times material hereto, defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D. and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care, provided proper and appropriate care and treatment to plaintiff, Carol Ann Stathas. 69. Any injuries alleged and/or suffered by plaintiff was the result of negligent and/or careless acts and/or omissions by persons and/or entities over whom defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D. and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care, have no control or right to control. 70. Negligent acts and/or omissions of other individuals may have constituted superseding causes of damages and/or injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff. 71. Plaintiff's cause of action is barred and/or limited by the applicable sections of the MCARE Act. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D. and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care, denies that they are liable to plaintiff for any sum and demands judgment in -4- PHLDMS 14617695v. I its favor and against plaintiff together with reasonable attorneys fees and the costs of defending this action. WHITjAND ILLIAMS LLP I BY: Charles T. Roessing Attorneys for Defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D., and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care Dated: 0 N d 1 -5- PHLDMS 1 4617695v.1 VERIFICATION This is to verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer With New Matter of Defendants to Plaintiff's Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. This statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Sec. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: 2 3 C7 PHLDMS 1 4617695v.1 VERIFICATION Tom Rosa states that he is the Senior Vice President, authorized to make this verification on behalf of Defendant, Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care. He has reviewed the foregoing Answer With New Matter of Defendants to Plaintiff's Complaint and the Answer with New Matter is based on information furnished to counsel, and/or information which has been gathered by counsel in the course of this lawsuit. The language is that of counsel and not of signer. The signer verifies that he has read the Answer and New Matter and that it is true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents are that of counsel, signer has relied upon counsel in taking this Verification. This Verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Sec. 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. I Ah+ Tom Rosa Senior Vice President Date: +/ 9- PHLDMS 1 4646322v.1 ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Daryl E. Christopher, Esquire Attorney ID# : 91895 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Phone: (717) 238-6791 Fax: (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff- E-mail: dchristooher &aneino-rovner com Carol Stathas CAROL ANN STATHAS, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. ERIC SELVEY, O.D., and EMPIRE VISION CENTER, INC. d/b/a TOTAL VISION CARE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION NO. 08-1716 Civil Term JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER AND NOW comes Carol Ann Stathas, Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys, Angino & Rovner, P.C., by Daryl E. Christopher, Esquire, and replies to the New Matter of Defendants as follows: 60. This Paragraph contains a conclusion of law and summaries of responses to prior Paragraphs. It contains no new facts to which a response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the allegations in this Paragraph are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. 61. Denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, Plaintiff's Complaint is incorporated herein by reference. 62. Denied. Plaintiff's Complaint was filed well within the two year statute of limitations. 395444 63. Denied. This Paragraph contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the allegations in this Paragraph are specifically denied. 64. Denied. Defendants state a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed required, the allegations in this Paragraph are specifically denied. 65. Denied. Defendants state a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent a response is deemed to contain averments of fact, they are specifically denied. By way of further answer, Plaintiff Carol Ann Stathas acted as a reasonable and prudent person at all times relevant to the present action. 66. Denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, Plaintiff's Complaint is incorporated herein by reference. 67. Denied. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff Carol Ann Stathas ever knowingly signed a release for any of the claims made in this case. 68. Denied, and strict proof thereof is dernanded. By way of firther answer, Plaintiff's Complaint is incorporated herein by reference. 69. Denied. It is specifically denied that any of Plaintiff Carol Ann Stathas' injuries were caused by or contributed to by any individuals other than the Defendants or those over whom the Defendants exercised control, and strict proof thereof is demanded at trial. 70. Denied. This Paragraph contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. By way of further answer, see Plaintiff s response to Paragraph 69, above. 395444 2 71. Denied. This Paragraph contains a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that this Paragraph is deemed to contain averments of fact, they are specifically denied and strict proof thereof is demanded. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request this Honorable Court to dismiss Defendants' Answer and New Matter and enter judgment in their favor against the Defendants. Respectfully submitted, ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Daryl . Lnsto Esquire I.D. No. 91895 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 Date: October 20, 2008 Counsel for Plaintiff 395444 3 VERIFICATION I, Carol Ann Stathas, Plaintiff hereby verify that the facts set forth in Plaintiff's Answer to Defendants' New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. WITNESS: Date: 1 /` /03 395515 CAROL ANN STATHAS CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 20`h day of October, 2008, I, Kathy A. Toney, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., hereby certify that a true and correct copy of PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER was sent to the following counsel of record by placing same in the first class, United States mail, postage prepaid, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Charles T. Roessing, Esquire White and Williams, LLP One Westlakes 1235 Westlakes Drive, Suite 310 Berwyn, PA 19312-2416 Kath4A.T 395 444 4 cI t ...? F F3 ^j F iT . • .% WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP BY: Charles T. Roessing Identification No. 23980 One Westlakes 1235 Westlakes Drive, Suite 310 Berwyn, PA 19312-2416 610.251.0466 Attorneys for Defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D. and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care CAROL ANN STATHAS Plaintiff, V. ERIC SELVEY, O.D., and EMPIRE VISION CENTER, INC. d/b/a TOTAL VISION CARE Defendants. CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 08-1716 WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw my appearance on behalf of Defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D. and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care, in the within action. WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP BY: C es T. Roessing Attorneys for Defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D. and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care Dated: 5575220v.1 , . -r V. WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP BY: Charles T. Roessing Identification No. 23980 One Westlakes 1235 Westlakes Drive, Suite 310 Berwyn, PA 19312-2416 610.251.0466 Attorneys for Defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D. and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care CAROL ANN STATHAS Plaintiff, ERIC SELVEY, O.D., and EMPIRE VISION CENTER, INC. d/b/a TOTAL VISION CARE I, Charles T. Roessing, attorney for defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D. and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care, hereby certify that on CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 08-1716 Defendants. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2009,1 caused a true and correct copy of my Withdrawal of Appearance to be served upon the party below named by first class mail, postage prepaid: Daryl E. Christopher, Esquire Angino & Rovner, PC 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Dated: WHITE BY: LLP CharF6s T. Roessing Attorneys for Defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D. and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care 5575220v.1 2009 UC T 16 Al 8: 28 z WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP BY: Rosemary R. Schnall Identification No(s). 73455 One Westlakes 1235 Westlakes Drive, Suite 310 Berwyn, PA 19312-2416 610.240.4711 schnallr@whiteandwilliams.com CAROL ANN STATHAS Plaintiff, V. ERIC SELVEY, O.D. and EMPIRE VISION CENTER, INC. d/b/a TOTAL VISION CARE Attorneys for Defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D. and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS NO. 2008-1716 Defendants ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D. and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care, in the within action. Dated: October 12, 2009 WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP BY: --Ie Rosem ry R. Schnall Attorneys for Defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D. and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care 5587890v.1 WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP BY: Rosemary R. Schnall Identification No(s). 73455 One Westlakes 1235 Westlakes Drive, Suite 310 Berwyn, PA 19312-2416 610.240.4711 schnallr@whiteandwilliams.com CAROL ANN STATHAS Attorneys for Defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D. and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, V. NO. 2008-1716 ERIC SELVEY, O.D. and EMPIRE VISION CENTER, INC. d/b/a TOTAL VISION CARE Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Rosemary Schnall, attorney for defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D. and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care, hereby certify that on October 12, 2009, I caused a true and correct copy of the attached Entry of Appearance to be served upon the party below named by first class mail, postage prepaid: Daryl E. Christopher, Esquire Angino & Rovner, PC 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 WHITE AND WILLIAMS I.LP BY: Rosema . R. Schnall Attorneys for Defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D. and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care Dated: October 12, 2009 5587890v.1 OF THE 2009 00 T 1 G A1'1 0: e3 Cyst F!° a-C'~F'!~~' C~ i F~~ F'~J-i~l~`C1~C3Tt~.~~r 2~~ ~~T ! ~ ~'~~ ! ~ ! t7 ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Daryl E. Christopher, Esquire Attorney ID# :91895 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Phone: (717) 238-6791 Fax: (717) 238-5610 CAROL ANN STATHAS, Plaintiff v. Attorneys for Plaintiff: ERIC SELVEY, O.D., and EMPIRE VISION CENTER, INC. d/b/a TOTAL VISION CARE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION NO.08-1716 Civil Term JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A STATUS CONFERENCE AND NOW come the Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys, Angino & Rovner, P.C., and respectfully requests Your Honorable Court to schedule a Status Conference in the above-captioned action in order to resolve outstanding discovery disputes, establish deadlines for discovery and expert reports, and to set a trial date. 1. This action was begun via Complaint filed on or around Mazch 14, 2008. 2. The Sheriff served the Complaint on or azound Mazch 26, 2008, against Defendants Eric Selvey and Empire Vision Center, Inc., d/b/a Total Vision Caze. 3. On or around April 18, 2008, Chazles Roessing, Esquire, from White and Williams, entered his appeazance. 4. The parties conducted paper discovery. .,.,,, ORIGINAL 5. Defendants took the deposition of Plaintiff Carol Ann Stathas and Plaintiff took the deposition of Defendant Eric Selvey, O.D. 6. On or around May 17, 2010, Plaintiff sent out Requests for Admission to Defendant Selvey, attached as Exhibit A. Dr. Selvey filed answers and objections to Plaintiff s Requests for Admission on or around June 28, 2010, attached as Exhibit B. 7. On or around July 8, 2010, Plaintiff requested more complete answers to the Requests for Admissions. A copy of the July 8, 2010, letter is attached as Exhibit C. 8. Defendant Selvey has not provided updated answers to Plaintiff's Requests for Admissions and challenges the need to do so. 9. Plaintiffs' counsel believes it is in all parties' interest to have the Court set a date for the close of discovery, to resolve outstanding discovery issues regarding the Plaintiff's Requests for Admission, to set dates for expert report deadlines, and to obtain a timely schedule for listing this case for trial. 10. On October 12, 2010, Plaintiff s counsel contacted defense counsel by a-mail regarding the present Motion and defense counsel does concur with the filing of this Motion for a Status Conference. 11. Plaintiff is represented by Daryl E. Christopher, Esquire, of Angino & Rovner, P.C., 4503 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110; phone: 717-238-6791. 12. Defendants are represented by Rosemary B. Schnall, Esquire, of White and Williams, LLP, One Westlakes, 1235 Westlakes Drive, Suite 310, Berwyn, PA, 19312-2416; phone: 610-240- 4711. 13. No Judge has previously had significant involvement with this case. 451573 2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Your Honorable Court schedule a Status Conference for the purposes of resolving discovery disputes and setting case management deadlines. Respectfully submitted, ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. ._ r„ =.-.._. Daryl .Christopher, Esquire PA I.D. No. 91895 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 dchri stopher@angino-rovner. com Counsel for Plaintiffs Date: /~//~/~(} 451573 3 CERTIFICATE OF CONCURRENCE/NON-CONCURRENCE PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 208.2(d) On October 12, 2010, I contacted defense counsel seeking concurrence with Plaintiff's Motion for a Status Conference. Defense counsel does concur in the Motion. Respectfully submitted, Date: ~U/~~~b ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. L/ ~ Daryl E. opher, Esquire PA I.D. No. 91895 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 dchristopher@angino-rovner.com Counsel for Plaintiff 451573 ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Daryl E. Christopher, Esquire Attorney lD# : 91895 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Phone: (717) 238-6791 Fax: (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff: E-mail: dchristonher(a.aneino-rovner.com Cazol Stathas CAROL ANN STATHAS, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. ERIC SELVEY, O.D., and EMPIRE VISION CENTER, INC. d/b/a TOTAL VISION CARE, Defendants CIVIL ACTION -MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION N0.08-1716 Civil Term JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS PURSUANT TO Pa.RC.P. 4014 AND INTERROGATORIES DIRECTED TO DEFENDANT SELVEY TO: Eric Selvey, O.D., Defendant c/o Rosemary R. Schnall, Esquire White and Williams, LLP One Westlakes 1235 Westlakes Drive Suite 310 Berwyn, PA 19312-2416 Counsel for Defendants Please take notice that you are hereby required, pursuant to Rule 4014 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 36), to serve upon the undersigned within thirty (30) days from service, your response to the admission(s) requested herein. 439884 1 ~~h;~~~ Individuals with myopia of four or more diopters are at an increased risk of developing holes, tears, stretching, and thinning within the peripheral portions of their retinas. ANSWER: YES or NO If your answer is anything but an unqualified admission, please provide a complete explanation of the reason for your denial, partial denial, or qualification. 2. Rhegmatogenous retina detachment, such as that suffered by Plaintiff Carol Ann Stathas in her right eye, is a detachment of the retina that begins with the peripheral retina and then moves in towards the center of the retina. ANSWER: YES or NO If your answer is anything but an unqualified admission, please provide a complete explanation of the reason for your denial, partial denial, or qualification. 3. At the time you treated Plaintiff Carol Ann Stathas on March 24, 2006, the standard of care required that you perform a dilated fundus exam, either at that visit or in the near future, because she was over 40 years old, highly myopic, a contact lens wearer, and had not had a dilated fizndus exam in over two years. ANSWER: YES or NO If your answer is anything but an unqualified admission, please provide a complete explanation of the reason for your denial, partial denial, or qualification. 439884 2 4. You did not perform a dilated fundus exam on Plaintiff Carol Ann Stathas during any of the six times that you treated her in March, April, and May of 2006. ANSWER: YES or NO If your answer is anything but an unqualified admission, please provide a complete explanation of the reason for your denial, partial denial, or qualification. 5. On March 24, 2006, you performed anon-dilated fundus examination of Plaintiff Carol Ann Stathas' eyes. At that time, she did not have any holes, tears, stretching, thinning, or detachment of her retina in the portion of her right eye that you were able to visualize. ANSWER: YES or NO If your answer is anything but an unqualified admission, please provide a complete explanation of the reason for your denial, partial denial, or qualification. 439884 6. You have no explanation for why you did not perform a dilated fundus examination on Plaintiff Carol Ann Stathas during at least one of the six times that you saw her in March, April, and May of 2006. ANSWER: YES or NO If your answer is anything but an unqualified admission, please provide a complete explanation of the reason for your denial, partial denial, or qualification. 7. You were not able to visualize the peripheral retina in Plaintiff Carol Ann Stathas' right eye during the non-dilated fiindus examination you performed on March 24, 2006. ANSWER: YES or NO If your answer is anything but an unqualified admission, please provide a complete explanation of the reason for your denial, partial denial, or qualification. 8. On May 3, 2006, Plaintiff Carol Ann Stathas complained to you about seeing black spots in her right eye. 'This was a new complaint that she had not previously expressed to you. ANSWER: YES or NO 439884 4 If your answer is anything but an unqualified admission, please provide a complete explanation of the reason for your denial, partial denial, or qualification. 9. The black spots that Plaintiff Carol Ann Stathas began seeing around May 3, 2006, in her right eye were caused by her detaching retina. ANSWER: YES or NO If your answer is anything but an unqualified admission, please provide a complete explanation of the reason for your denial, partial denial, or qualification. 10. Despite her complaints of black spots in her right eye, you did not perform any fiuidus examination, whether dilated or non-dilated, on Plaintiff Carol Ann Stathas on May 3, 2006, or on her return visit of May 5, 2006. ANSWER: YES or NO If your answer is anything but an unqualified admission, please provide a complete explanation of the reason for your denial, partial denial, or qualification. 439884 5 1 1. At the time Plaintiff Carol Ann Stathas' right retina detachment was found on May 8, 2006, she had a large retina detachment extending from 9:00 clockwise to 1:30, and extending posteriorly into her macula. She also had a large horseshoe tear supratemporally with several smaller retinal breaks. ANSWER: YES or NO If your answer is anything but an unqualified admission, please provide a complete explanation of the reason for your denial, partial denial, or qualification. 12. The condition of Plaintiff Carol Ann Stathas' right retina was significantly worse on May 8, 2006, than it had been on March 24, 2006. ANSWER: YES or NO If your answer is anything but an unqualified admission, please provide a complete explanation of the reason for your denial, partial denial, or qualification. 13. Your failure to perform a dilated fiandus examination on Plaintiff Carol Ann Stathas during any of the four times that you treated her in March and April of 2006 decreased the likelihood that problems with her peripheral retina, such as lattice degeneration, holes, thinning, stretching, and tears, would be diagnosed before they led to a retina detachment. ANSWER: YES or NO 439884 6 If your answer is anything but an unqualified admission, please provide a complete explanation of the reason for your denial, partial denial, or qualification. 14. Your failure to perform a dilated fiandus examination on Plaintiff Carol Ann Stathas during either of the two times that you treated her in May of 2006 decreased the likelihood that her detaching retina would be diagnosed while it was still small enough to be treated without a scleral buckle. ANSWER: YES or NO If your answer is anything but an unqualified admission, please provide a complete explanation of the reason for your denial, partial denial, or qualification. Respectfully submitted, ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Date: May ~, 2010 Daryl E. Christopher, Esquir PA I.D. No. 91895 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 dchri stopher@angino-ro vner. com Counsel for Plaintiff 439884 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this ~~ of May, 2010, I, Kathy A. Toney, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., hereby certify that a true and correct copy of PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS was sent to the following counsel of record by placing same in the first class, United States mail, postage prepaid, certified mail -return receipt requested, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Rosemary B. Schnall, Esquire White and Williams, LLP One Westlakes 1235 Westlakes Drive, Suite 310 Berwyn, PA 19312-2416 Kathy A. oney 439884 g WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP BY: Rosemary R. Schnall Identification No(s). 73455 One Westlakes 1235 Westlakes Drive, Suite 310 Berwyn, PA 19312-2416 610.240.4711 schnallr@whiteandwilliams.com CAROL ANN STATHAS Attorneys for Defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D. and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care • CUMBERLAND COUNTY • COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff, v. • N0.2008-1716 ERIC SELVEY, O.D. and EMPIRE VISION CENTER, INC. d/bla TOTAL VISION CARE Defendants. ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS OF ERIC SELVEY, O. D. TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION 1. It is admitted as a general principle that within the field of optometry, individuals with myopia of four or more diopters can have an increased risk of developing holes, tears, stretching, and thinning within the peripheral portions of the retinas as compared to people who do not have that level of myopia. 2. Objection. The statement about which Plaintiff seeks an admission is one that calls for an expert opinion of an ophthalmologist/retinal specialist. Dr. Selvey is an optometrist; he did not make the diagnosis referred to in this paragraph of Plaintiff's Requests for Admission. 3. Objection. Defendant objects to the form because as of March 24, 2006, the "standard of care" for optometrists did not "require" that exams (such as a dilated fundus exam) be performed without thought and consideration to the particulars of the patient's situation and symptomology. Dr. Selvey incorporates by reference his deposition testimony about this topic, ~a,b.~3 6493731 v. i ~' about which Plaintiff had the full and complete opportunity to question him previously in this case. 4. It is admitted that Dr. Selvey did not perform a dilated fundus exam on Ms. Stathas for the reasons set forth in his deposition. 5. It is admitted that when Dr. Selvey examined Ms. Stathas on March 24, 2006, there were no retinal tears, holes, stretching thinning, or detachment of the retina in the right eye in the portion of Ms. Stathas' right eye that was visualized by Dr. Selvey. 6. Denied. Dr. Selvey incorporates by reference his deposition testimony regarding this topic. 7. Dr. Selvey incorporates by reference his deposition testimony about this topic and admits the statement in this paragraph. Further, Dr. Selvey's records reflect the results of that examination. 8. Denied. Plaintiff s characterization of her complaint to Dr. Selvey on May 3, 2006 is incomplete and misleading. On May 3, 2006, Ms. Stathas reported that she noticed black spots in the front of her right eye when wearing contact lenses. It is admitted that Ms. Stathas had not reported that she noticed black spots in the front of her right eye when wearing contact lenses prior to May 3, 2006. 9. Objection to the form of the statement because it assumes that Plaintiff had a "detaching" retina as of May 3, 2006; that point has not been proven, and like all other issues, Plaintiff bears the burden of proof. By way of further objection, the statement about which Plaintiff seeks an admission is one that calls for the expert opinion of an ophthalmologist/retinal specialist on causation; Dr. Selvey is an optometrist. -2- 6493731 v.1 r 10. Objection. The statement about which Plaintiff seeks an admission is argumentative and fails to include pertinent facts. By way of further objection, this request improperly assumes that Ms. Stathas complained of black spots in her right eye on May 5, 2006. Dr. Selvey did not perform a fundus exam on Ms. Stathas on May 3 or May 5, 2006 for the reasons set forth above and for the reasons set forth in his deposition. 11. Objection. Dr. Selvey last saw Ms. Stathas on May 5, 2006 and therefore he cannot admit or deny any statements about what may have happened (or conditions that may have existed) thereafter. 12. Objection to the form of the statement because Plaintiff does not define her use of the phrase "significantly worse." Further, as above, Dr. Selvey objects because he last saw Ms. Stathas on May 5, 2006, and therefore he cannot admit or deny any statements about what may have happened (or conditions that may have existed) thereafter. 13. Objection to the form of the statement because this request improperly assumes that Ms. Stathas had problems with her peripheral retina, such as holes, thinning, stretching and tears in March and April of 2006. Further, part of the statement about which Plaintiff seeks an admission calls for an expert opinion of an ophthalmologist/retinal specialist. 14. Objection to the form of the statement because it assumes that Plaintiff had a "detaching" retina when Dr. Selvey saw her in May, 2006; that point has not been proven, and like all other issues, Plaintiff bears the burden of proof. Further, part of the statement about which Plaintiff seeks an admission calls for an expert opinion of an ophthalmologist/retinal -3- 6493731v.1 ~• specialist.. WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP Dated: 6493731 v.l ~n Ro emary R. S ~ Attorneys for Defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D. and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care -4- WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP BY: Rosemary R. Schnall Identification No(s). 73455 One Westlakes 1235 Westlakes Drive, Suite 310 Berwyn, PA 19312-2416 610.240.4711 schnallr@whiteandwilliams.com Attorneys for Defendants, Eric Selvey, D.O. and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care CAROL ANN STATHAS Plaintiff; v. ERIC SELVEY, D.O. and EMPIRE VISION CENTER, INC. d/b/a TOTAL VISION CARE Defendants. • CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS • N0.2008-1716 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Rosemary R. Schnall, Esquire, attorney for Defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D. and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care, hereby certify that on 3urie 25, 2010, I caused a true and correct copy of Defendants, Eric Selvey, D.O. and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care's Answers And Objections Of Eric Selvey, O. D. To Plaintiff's Requests For Admission to be served upon the parties below named by Email and First Class Mail, postage prepaid: Daryl E. Christopher, Esquire Angino & Rovner, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA ]7110-1708 WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP BY: Ro emary R. S Y~ Attorneys for Defendants, Eric Selvey, O.D. and Empire Vision Center, Inc. d/b/a Total Vision Care 6493731 v.l VER~FIC,ATIO~T This is to verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answers and Objections to Plaintiff's Reciuest for Admissions are true attd correct tv the best of my knowledge, infarm,ation and belief. This statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa, C.S. Sec. 4904 relating to unswvrn falsification tv authorities. Date: ~1 ~-'~~~` l 7.~[~7 6501841 v.,l angino-rovner 4$03 NORTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17110-1799 PHONE: (717) 238-6791 FAX: (717) 238-5610 www.angi no-rovner.com E-mall: DCHRISTOPHER@ANGINO.ROVNER.COM July 8, 2010 Rosemary R. Schnall, Esquire White and Williams, LLP One Westlakes 1235 Westlakes Drive, Suite 310 Berwyn, PA 19312-2416 RE: Stathas v. Selvey, et al. Civil Action No. 08-1716 (Comb.) Dear Rosemary: RICHARD C. ANGINO NEiL J. ROVNER DAVID L. LUTZ MICHAEL E. KOSIK RICHARD A.SADLOCK LISA M. B. WOODBURN DARYL E. CHRISTOPHER I am in receipt of your response to our Request for Admissions sent to Dr. Selvey. Please provide me with either an .admission or a denial for Request No. 3 and if your answer is anything other than unqualified admission, please state the reasons why. Your objection to this Request is improper because this Request clearly falls within the scope of Dr. Selvey's practice and the care he provided to Ms. Stathas. If Dr. Selvey has a specific reason that the standard of care did not require a dilated fundus examination of Ms. Stathas, he needs to state it. Please provide a reference to the specific testimony by page and line number to which you are referring in your response to Request No. 6. With regard to Request No. 7, please either admit or deny this Request for Admission and if your response is anything other than an unqualified admission, state the reasons why. If you are incorporated deposition testimony, please give the specific page and line numbers which you are referencing. Please provide an admission or denial to Request No. 10 and if your response is anything other than an unqualified admission, state the reasons why. Again, if you are incorporating deposition testimony, state the specific page and line numbers of Dr. Selvey's deposition that you are incorporating. Please provide me your updated responses within the next two weeks or I will have to file a Motion for a Discovery Conference. Should you wish to attempt to resolve this case, we remain willing to negotiate; however, as I mentioned in the past, we are not going to attend a mediation without an offer. very truly yours, ~~. Daryl E. Christopher DEC:mtg 444126 ~~~~~~ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary T. Creraets, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of the PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR A STATUS CONFERENCE upon all counsel of record via postage prepaid first class United States mail addressed as follows: Rosemary B. Schnall, Esquire White and Williams, LLP One Westlakes 1235 Westlakes Drive, Suite 310 Berwyn, PA 19312-2416 Attorney for Defendants 1 .._ Mary T. eraets Dated: ~ ~ `~' ~ 451573 J ACT 2 0 2010 CAROL ANN STATHAS, Plaintiff v. ERIC SELVEY, O.D., and EMPIRE VISION CENTER, INC. d/b/a TOTAL VISION CARE, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION -MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION NO. 08-1716 Civil Term JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER SCHEDULING A STATUS CONFERENCE AND NOW, this a5~- day of ~(3tT~G~' 2010, upon consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion for a Status Conference, it is hereby ORDERED that a statu onference is scheduled for the ~ day of , 201 ~ at ~ ; a D o'clock ~/ ~) in courtroom number o2 of the umberland County Courthouse. BY THE COURT, -~~~~~ D' ibution to: Daryl E. Christopher, Esquire, Angino & Rovner, P.C., 4503 N. Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110; Cou sel for Plaintiffs osemary B. Schnall, Esquire, White and Williams, LLP, One Westlakes, 1235 Westlakes Drive, Suite 310, Berwyn, PA 19312-2416 w 'as~~rv `_____ 451573 c o 0 -'" -~3 ~, -+ ~ ~~ ° r ~ cr~f'"' D N cn ~Dq o ~ _ < z s ° Z," o ~z ~ .°~~ .~ ~ cn ?> mo - t ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Daryl E. Christopher, Esquire Attorney ID# : 91895 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 Phone: (717) 238-6791 Fax: (717) 238-5610 CAROL ANN STATHAS, Plaintiff v. 17'??St`.?,?.rt u, ERIC SELVEY, O.D., and EMPIRE VISION CENTER, INC. d/b/a TOTAL VISION CARE, Defendants To the Prothonotary of Cumberland County: Attorneys for Plaintiff: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION NO. 08-1716 Civil Term JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE Please mark the above-captioned action settled, satisfied, and discontinued. Respectfully submitted, Date: 111/7/16 379381 ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Dary . Christopher, Esquire PA I.D. No. 91895 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 dchristopher@angino-rovner.com Counsel for Plaintiff ORIGINAL CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mary T. Geraets, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of the PRAECIPE upon all counsel of record via postage prepaid first class United States mail addressed as follows: Rosemary B. Schnall, Esquire White and Williams, LLP One Westlakes 1235 Westlakes Drive, Suite 310 Berwyn, PA 19312-2416 Attorney for Defendants ary Geraets Dated: 11! \? -?0 379381