Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-1421 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. (YI- dU 2004 Civil Action (Xl Law ( l Equity LINDA K. CRAMER 3808 Crooked Hill Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D. 3456 TrindIe Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 STANLEY CRAMER 3808 Crooked Hill Road Harrisburg, PA 17110 Plaintiffs & Addresses PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE Defendant & Address PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please issue a Writ of Summons in the above-captioned action. X A Writ of Summons shall be issued and forwarded to ( ) Attorney (X) Sheriff. Terry S. Hyman, Esq. Schmidt, Ronca & Kramer, P.C. 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 Date: O~.5~~ .<(~ ~4re 0; Attorney Supreme Court J.D. No. 36807 WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT: YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. Date: ~(): ..lIOf ~~ '1 By: Deputy ;-.:} ,- , <"~ .\ -..: .c- ~\..; r. t,-- (--, f' (G) <; \J~ c" >- -, ~ '" ""'" .. --" ~, , . ~, V\ ~ v v '"" v t:) " Cd -' ""~-~.~,,,.-- SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2004-01421 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND CRAMER LINDA K ET AL VS NIKLAUS RONALD W DMD CPL. MICHAEL BARRICK Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon NIKLAUS RONALD W DMD the DEFENDANT , at 1519:00 HOURS, on the 5th day of April , 2004 at 3456 TRINDLE ROAD CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to RONALD W NIKLAUS a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge 18.00 10.35 .00 10.00 .00 38.35 So Answers: jp~::;l:::"",:~ ~ Thomas Kline Sworn and Subscribed to before "'" me this /~ ~ day of Q~ 2.0-0Y A.D. / 'J. '. 0 ih.Jj-LV ~ ~thonotary , LINDA K. CRAMER and STANLEY CRAMER, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D., Defendant : NO. 04-14212004 PRAECIPE FOR A RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly issue a Rule directing Plaintiff to file a Complaint in the above-referenced matter within twenty (20) days of service thereof or risk a judgment of!~on pros. EHEY, WARNER, GIN DATE: 'f(2't ( 01 Attorneys for the Defendant LINDA K. CRAMER and STANLEY CRAMER, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D., Defendant : NO. 04-1421 2004 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICI~ I, Angela Zilla, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this 2"'H"day of May, 2004, I served a copy of the foregoing document via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid as follows: Terry S. Hyman, Esquire SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C. 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 Ang~~~ o C" ,-- :2 "'" = = .s:- o .1 --{ :r:~ rn -~-! ,- -Om t3? -"1Q I-r, r"') :r"~ ~:::-~C) l~jln .:::-1 :ti -< - ;'';.1"'" --< c" -0 3: N N LINDA K. CRAMER and STANLEY CRAMER, Plaintiffs v. RONALD W. N1KLAUS, D.M.D" Defendant AND NOW, this.? I 5+ day of : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : NO, 04-14212004 RULE fYL'd.j ,2004, upon consideration of the foregoing Praecipe, Plaintiffs are hereby ordered to file their Complaint within twenty (20) days hereof or suffer judgment of non pros. BY THE PROTHONOTARY: _~J< ~ "'" <=> 0 = .., -"- ~J: ..., ::c -< (Tlf-~ -om 1'..1 .'CC,l ;':ll. :j~-!~ \,) [~~ --Ii (~ :-TI .--! ).-". '" ~n N -<..: LINDA K. CRAMER and STANLEY CRAMER, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION- LAW v. : NO. 04-1421 2004 RONALD W, NIKLAUS, D.M.D., Defendant ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of Defendant, Ronald W. Niklaus, D.M.D. in the above captioned case. DATE: t{t' ( O'f MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN BY: III J .r.;- '~. wens, EsqUlre LD. No. 76080 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg" P A 17112 (717) 651-3501 Attorneys for the Defendant - LINDA K. CRAMER and STANLEY CRAMER, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. : NO. 04-1421 2004 RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D., Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE; I, Angela Zilla, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this~day of May, 2004, I served a copy of the foregoing document via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid as follows: Terry S. Hyman, Esquire SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C. 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 _~~'L?t.~ Angela Z' a "-,' / C o c c: "':', -~ ....., (":0 c.::) ~- o .1 :~f-j hip: -arTl -:uCJ ()(\ --1..:",- 2~f~ -'...: 1'-' -;:) ,- 1'-' (,)1 ~.;J "'< LINDA K. CRAMER and her husband, Stanley Cramer, IN THE COUlRT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAJlID COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. No. 04-1421-2004 RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D., CIVIL ACTIOlrf _ LAW PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOT ICE 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 a 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 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 2 Liberty Avenue, Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tamar acci6n dentro de 108 pr6ximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificaci6n de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente 0 por media 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 Ie advierte de que si usted falIa de tomar acci6n como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un falIo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda 0 cualquier otra reclamaci6n 0 remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero 0 propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDlATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME 0 VAYA A LA SIGUlENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUlR UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO 0 BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue, Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 249-3166 LINDA K. CRAMER and her husband, Stanley Cramer, Plain tiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. No. 04-142ll-2004 RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D., Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE JURY TRIAl. DEMANDED COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff Linda K. Cramer and her husband, Stanley Cramer are adults residing in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant Ronald W. Niklaus, D.M.D., is a licensed professional holding himself out as both a dentist and a "doctor of integrative medicine". Defendant Niklaus holds himself out as having special expertise in virtually free dentistry, advanced diagnosis and treatment, crown and bridge work, snoring and sleep apnea, headache, pain, and TMJ, and non-surgical gum therapy. 3. In the course of treating Linda K. Cramer, Dr. Niklaus also offered opinions and articles involving the causal connection between tooth decay, and other dental problems, and cancer. 4. This is a claim for professional liability. 5. Based upon recommendations of Dr. RobeI1: Atkins, Plaintiff Linda K. Cramer sought to have all of the fillings in her mouth which contained mercury removed and replaced with non-metallic fillings. 6. Based on Dr. Niklaus' representation as an expert in "mercury-free dentistry", Mrs. Cramer placed the removal and restoration of her existing fillings in Dr. Niklaus' hands. 7. The process of removing fillings and replacing them is a part of basic general dentistry. 8. Linda K. Cramer was 55-years-old whfm she began treatment with Defendant Niklaus. At that point, she had multiple fillings in her mouth, many of which had lasted decades, without significant problems or symptoms. 9. At the time Defendant Niklaus began treating, gave a history of only mild dental pain and her teeth only being sensitive to cold drinks. 10. From January 2002 until May 2002, Defendant Niklaus removed and replaced Plaintiffs fillings on a continuing basis. 11. Defendant Niklaus charged Plaintiff over $6,500 for this work. 12. During the process of replacing the fillings, Dr. Niklaus claimed to have examined the teeth and removed the tooth decay under the flxisting filling prior to putting in the new fillings. 13. Dr. Niklaus assured Plaintiff that any problems she had post tooth reconstruction was normal or related to underlying dental problems. 14. On October 8, 2002, Linda K. Cramer reportf:d to a new dentist in obvious pam. At the time, she described her dental pain as being 9 to 10 on a scale of 10. The pain was observable. 15. In addition to the tooth pain, Mrs. Cramer fOlmd she could not fully open her mouth. She could not enjoy eating and could only eat soft foods because of the sensitivity and pain. 16. Plaintiff gave a history of her pain starting in July 2002. 17. Her treating dentist examined and x-rayed Plaintiffs mouth on October 2, 2002 just five months after Dr. Niklaus had completed the removal of Mrs. Cramer's long existing fillings, supposedly cleaned out the underlying decay, and put in brand new filings. 18. On examination, Plaintiffs new treating dentist found multiple areas of the fillings installed by Niklaus were unbonded to the wall of tooth, allowing them to leak. 19. Additionally, areas of fresh decay were found on virtually every tooth where Niklaus had removed and replaced a filing. 20. Over the next six months, Plaintiff had to n:place all of the fillings which Dr. Niklaus had replaced only five months earlier. Some of the fillings put in by Niklaus actually fell out of Plaintiffs mouth. Substantial decay ,existed in all fourteen of the fillings requiring multiple surface restorations. 21. In addition, three teeth had to be extracted. 22. In addition, one tooth had to be extracted because of gross decay and a pin placement that went through the wall of the tooth and entered into the periodontal ligament causing chronic inflammation and bone loss. 23. Of all of the fillings put in my Dr. Niklaus, only one was properly bonded, sealed and retentive. All others were not sealed, exquisitely sensitive, and had recurrent decay. 24. As a direct result of the negligence alleged herein, Linda K. Cramer who had paid Niklaus over $6,500 to replace the fillings only four months earlier which, had to spend another $6,500 to re-remove, then re-clean the decay, then re-apply the filling applied by Defendant Niklaus. 25. In addition, Mrs. Cramer underwent considerable pain, suffering, and loss of life's pleasures because of the pain, decay, restriction in opening, exquisite sensitivity and other problems caused by Niklaus' substandard workmanship in basic dentistry. 26. As a direct result of the recurrent decay and deterioration directly related to the inadequate restorations performed by Defendant Niklaus, Plaintiff Linda K. Cramer is at significantly higher risk of losing other teeth which will require implants or crowns which would otherwise not have been necessary. 27. The treatment needed to restore Plaintiff to her "pre-Niklaus" condition will involve substantial additional treatment and expenditures of money. 28. As a direct result of the negligence of Defendant Niklaus as alleged herein, Plaintiff Linda K. Cramer has suffered the following injuries: a) Past and future medical and related costs; b) Past and future pain and suffering; c) Loss of income; d) Diminution of earning capacity; and e) All non economic damages recoverable at law. 29. As a direct result to the injury to his wife, Plaintiff Stanley Cramer has suffered a loss of companionship, advice, and consortium. 30. The damages alleged herein were directly and proximally caused by the negligence of Defendant Niklaus in: a) failing to use the standard and recognized techniques for the removal and restoration of the fillings in Plaintiff's teeth; b) failing to use standard and recognized technique when removing existing fillings from Plaintiff's mouth; c) failing to remove or use reasonabl,~ care in removing underlying tooth decay after removal and befom installing new fillings; d) installing fillings which were not bonded to the teeth; e) installing fillings in manner which resulted in the fillings leaking within a few months following application; f) failing to utilize the minimal acceptable techniques necessary to remove Plaintiffs fillings, remove underlying decay, then replace fillings in Plaintiffs teeth in a fashion which prevent recurrent decay underneath the fillings from mcurring within five months of his work on Linda K. Cramer's teeth; g) failing to utilize proper diagnostic techniques to determine the extent of the decay underlying Plaintiffs fillings and removing all of the decay; h) failing to detect or observe inadequalte bonding, sealing, leaks, and retentiveness of the fillings he had placed in Plaintiffs mouth during her follow up treatment; i) failing to notice the presence of nl~w and obvious tooth decay while follow up on patient's treatmenlt; j) removing and restoring Plaintiffs cavities in a way which resulted in fourteen teeth developing extensive tooth decay within five months oftreatment; k) failing to advise Plaintiff of any preGautions necessary to prevent the Plaintiff from developing problems with bonding, leaking, sealing or excessive tooth decay within five months of his putting in her fillings; 1) selecting filling materials which w(:re unsuitable for Plaintiffs teeth; m) placing a restoration which resulted in a pin actually protruding through the surface of the patient's tooth into the periodontal ligament; and n) failing to do basic restoration in a manner which would work, be permanent, and not result in excessiv,~ tooth decay within a short period of completion of the restoration. 31. Defendant is also liable under the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor in that absent the negligence by a dentist, a patient cannot, and will not; develop tooth decay and lack of bonding and leaks in fourteen (14) fillings within five months of the fillings being removed and new fillings being put in. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs' Linda K. Cramer and Stanley Cramer demand judgment against Defendant Ronald W. Niklaus, D.M.D. for compensatory damages in the amount in excess of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars $25,000 Dollars exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdictional mnount requiring compulsory arbitration. Respectfully submitted, SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C. squire 101 Date: C7c:./~OY' VERIFICATION BASED UPON PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND INFORMATION SUPP:LIED BY COUNSEL We, Linda K. Cramer and Stanford Cramer, hereby verify that we are the Plaintiffs in the foregoing action and that the attached Complaint is based upon the information which has been gathered by our counsel in preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the Complaint is that of counsel and is not ours. We have read the Complaint, and to the extent itls based upon information which we have given to counsel, is true and correct to the best of our knowledge, information" and belief. To the extent that the contents of the Complaint are that of counsel, we have relied upon counsel in making this Verification. We understand that intentional false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. S 4904 relating to unsworn falsifications made to authorities. d...". k ~ Linda K. Cramer y~~ Cramer Date: /, -/5-0,/ SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C. BY: TERRY S. HYMAN, ESQUIRE J.D. # 36807 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 thvmanlalsrklaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) LINDA K. CRAMER, and her husband, Stanley Cramer IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. No. 04-1421.2004 RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D., CIVIL ACTION - LAW PROFESSIO~rAL NEGLIGENCE Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS TO RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D. I, Terry S. Hyman, Esq., counsel for the Plaintiffs, 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 exercises or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside the acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the hann. ~7 17101 Date: 6 If 7/0 y- { CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 17th day of June 2004, I, Janice S. Smith, an employee of SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.e., do hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the COMPLAINT in the United States mail via certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylv,mia, addressed as follows: Mr. Matthew L. Owens Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Ste. B Harrisburg, PA 17112 Attorney for Ronald W. Niklaus, DMD ~'4~ , ' fl "" => ,;;;::;:I ~- s- ~-.~ o "T1 --{ ff,:rJ r-- -ur"n -:::;':;0 (J 1. :.rJS_~ ~::~~q ::"\ ',~ .,J -< C:J " :1{ r-:7 c:> LINDA K. CRAMER and STANLEY CRAMER, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. : NO. 04-14212004 RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D., Defendant NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Linda K. Cramer Stanley Cramer c/o Terry S. Hyman, Esquire SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C. 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed Answe:r with New Matter and New Matter Complaint within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may be filed against you. BY: EY, WARNER, J.D. No. 71 80 4200 Crun s Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3501 DATE: 8(1IJ( (J~ Attorneys for Defendant LINDA K. CRAMER and STANLEY CRAMER, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. NO. 04-1421 2004 RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D., Defendant ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER AND NOW comes Defendant Ronald W. Niklaus, D.M.D. by and through the undersigned counsel who responds to Plaintiffs' Complaint as follows: 1. Denied. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitt,~d that the Plaintiff is presenting a claim for professional liability. It is denied that the claim has merit. 5. Denied. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 5, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 5 is further denied as the same contains conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proofthereofrequired at trial. 6. Denied. Paragraph 6 is denied in that the same wntains conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 7. Denied. Paragraph 7 is denied in that the same contains conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 8. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Linda Cramer was 55 years old when she began her treatment with Defendant Niklaus. It is further admitted that she had multiple fillings in her mouth. It is denied that many Ofthl: fillings lasted decades without significant problems or symptoms. To the contrary, there were: many problems associated with the fillings and/or the general condition of her teeth, gums, jaw and mouth. 9. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the Plaintiff completed a pre-treatment form which indicated, among many other items imd/or responses, that the Plaintiff had a history of mild dental pain and had teeth sensitive to cold drinks. It is denied that these were the only problems associated with Plaintiffs mouth, jaw, teeth, gums and/or other areas associated with oral hygiene and care. This paragraph is furth(:r denied in that the same references a document which speaks for itself. 10. Admitted. 11. Admitted. 12. Admitted. 13. Denied. Paragraph 13 is denied in that the sam(: contains conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proofthereof required at trial. To the extent that a more specific answer is n:quired, it is specifically denied that Dr. Niklaus assured the Plaintiff that any problems she had with post tooth reconstruction was normal or related to underlying dental problems. 14. Denied. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 14, and then:fore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 14 is further denied as the same contains conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 15. Denied. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 15, and themfore, the same are denied with strict proofthereofrequired at trial. Paragraph 15 is further denied as the same contains conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 16. Denied. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 16, and therrefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 16 is further denied as the same contains conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 17. Denied. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth ofthe allegations contained in Paragraph 17, and therrefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 17 is further denied as the same contains conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proofthereofrequired at trial. 18. Denied. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 18, and therrefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 18 is further denied as the same contains conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 19. Denied. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 19, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 19 is further denied as the same contains conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 20. Denied. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 20, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 20 is further denied as the same contains conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therelure, the same are denied with strict proofthereofrequired at trial. 21. Denied. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 21, and then:fore, the same are denied with strict proof thereofrequired at trial. Paragraph 21 is further denied as the same contains conclusions of law to which no response is required, and there1ure, the same are denied with strict proofthereofrequired at trial. 22. Denied. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 22, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 22 is further denied as the same contains conclusions of law to which no response is required, and there1ore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 23. Denied. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 23, and themfore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 23 is further denied as the same contains conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 24. Denied. Responding Defendant lacks knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in Paragraph 24, and then~fore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. Paragraph 24 is further denied as the same contains conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 25. Denied. Paragraph 25 is further denied as the same contains conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same are derried with strict proof thereof required at trial. 26. Denied. Paragraph 26 is further denied as the S'illIle contains conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 27. Denied. Paragraph 27 is further denied as the S'illIle contains conclusions oflaw to which no response is required, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 28. (a) - (e) Denied. Paragraph 28 (a) - (e) is further denied as the same contains conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proofthereof required at trial. 29. Denied. Paragraph 29 is further denied as the same contains conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 30. (a) - (n) Denied. Paragraph 30 (a) - (n) is further denied as the same contains conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. 31. Denied. Paragraph 31 is further denied as the same contains conclusions of law to which no response is required, and therefore, the same are denied with strict proof thereof required at trial. WHEREFORE, Defendant Ronald W. Niklaus, D.M.D. demands judgment in his favor and against Plaintiff together with such other costs and fees this Honorable Court deems appropriate. NEW MATTER 32. The Complaint of the Plaintiffs in whole or in part fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 33. The Complaint ofthe Plaintiffs is barred by the statute oflimitations. 34. The Complaint ofthe Plaintiffs may be barred by the doctrines ofres judicata and collateral estoppel. 35. The Complaint of the Plaintiffs may be barred by the doctrine ofrelease and all release defenses are pled. 36. If the Plaintiff suffered any damages, which is denied by Defendant, Ronald W. Niklaus, D.M.D., then those claimed damages were caused by the intervening and superceding acts of others over whom answering defendant exercised no control and had no duty to control. .. . 37. If the Plaintiff suffered any claimed damages, which is denied by the Defendant, Ronald W. Niklaus, D.M.D., then those claimed damages were caused by the acts and/or omissions of others over whom answering Defendant exercised no control and had no duty to control. 38. If the Plaintiff suffered any claimed damages which is denied by Defendant, Ronald W. Niklaus, D.M.D., then those damages were the result of her natural disease process and not as a result of any act or omission on the part ofDefend:mt, Ronald W. Niklaus, D.M.D. 39. No act or omission by Defendant, Ronald W. Niklaus, D.M.D., was the proximate cause or substantial factor in any claimed damages by the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Ronald W. Niklaus, D.M.D., respectfully requests that judgment be entered in his favor and that the Complaint of Plaintiffs, Linda Cramer and Stanley Cramer be dismissed with prejudice, together with costs of suit, counsel fees, and such other and further relief this Court may deem proper under the circumstan'~es. BY: 6080 4200 C IS Mill Road Harrisburg,PA 17112 (717) 651-3501 DATE: f({~( fJ'/ Attomeys for the Defendant VERIFICATION Matthew L. Owens, Attorney for Defendant, Ronald W. Niklaus, D.M.D., verifies that the facts set forth in the Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint are true to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. Ifthe above statements are not true, the deponent is subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 94904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATE: 4'/ 1i 0 'f - . . LINDA K. CRAMER and STANLEY CRAMER, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. : NO. 04-1421 2004 RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D., Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Angela Zilla, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this 3\ ~ Ir day of August, 2004, I served a copy of the foregoing document via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid as follows: Terry S. Hyman, Esquire SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C. 209 State Street Harrisburg, P A 171 0 1 ~ Angel~~ -, ,'-, r. !' ~ c) ,. :-:;:: t-) ('-- j "'" <::;;J C::::I .s:- U) rr1 -0 I ~ :r~ m~ r- -om 69 ____10 -:r:T (-).1 ;ZC) om -. ~ -< -v ::it: "'" CJ (J"I LINDA K. CRAMER and her husband, Stanley Cramer, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff No. 04_1421-2004 v. Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D., 32. _ 39. The allegations herein attempt to raise affirmative defenses without stating the material PLAINTIFFS' ANSWER TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT RONALD W. NIKLAUS. D.M.D. facts upon which they are based, and are insufficient as matter oflaw to raise the affirmative defenses asserted. To the extent the allegations are not conclusions oflaw, they are denied pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). Respectfully submitted, SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, PC cJ~0:'y ~--' l-- e . nan, Esquire .' 07 209 State Street Harrisburg,PA 17101 7171232-6300 ATTORNEY AFFIDAVIT I, Terry S. Hyman, Esquire, being duly sworn according to law, deposes, and states that I am counsel for Plaintiff, that I am authorized to make this Affidavit on behalf of said Plaintiff and that the facts set forth in the foregoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Date: ?/0cy6y CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this/AA da~ert~~..-2004, I, Janice S. Smith, an employee of SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C., do hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the PLAINTIFFS' ANSWER TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D. in the United States mail via certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Mr. Matthew L. Owens Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Ste. B Harrisburg, P A 17112 Attomey for Ronald W. Niklaus, DMD . /' ./ t /'_(/ ~C~ ~ " ("') "'" 0 = ~- = '11 'c,",' .s:- UO .-{ rl-, fh ::! -U r- -n fTl -;:',,-~ c;:; .j:- ',~(j .. -r, :n... ',' -n :.1';:: ';,-:;~ ('''~l -c,rTI CO ~_I -l ~l'-'" ".::..., C') .^' -<. ~: SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C. BY: TERRY S. HYMAN, ESQUIRE J.D. # 36807 209 State Street Harrisburg,PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 thvmanlalsrkIaw.com LINDA K. CRAMER, and STANLEY CRAMER, 4, Attorneys for PIaintiff(s) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. No. 04-1421-2004 RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D., CML ACTI()N - LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL. DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO AMEND CAPTION To the Prothonotary: Please amend the caption in the above-referenced action due to a misspelling in Plaintiff's name. The amended caption should read as foHows; LINDA K. CRAMER, and her husband, STANFORD CRAMER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiffs v. No. 04-1421-~~004 RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D., CML ACTIO!.\I - LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Respectfully submitted, SC~KRAMF.R. P.C. Terry . Hyman, E uire ID#3 7 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17019 717/232-6300 Counsel for Plaintiffs CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this cR~y ~~004'~JaniCe S. Smith, an employee of SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C., do hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the PRAECIPE TO AMEND CAPTION in lhe United States mail via certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, P,ennsylvania, addressed as follows: Matthew L. Owens Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Ste. B Harrisburg, P A 17112 Attorney for Ronald W. Niklaus, DMD ~ '? (/) rt1 -0 rv ~ 2 -.? s.. '"Q ,9 13) \ ,,~~, ~_.- -" ;2:(;, co,;: ,(:, C(.::I '-<': 2>0 z.. "",<": rL~ 7- :=1 '- q, -. :k~ l"'1~ :gt;' Db :'t..1'~ (::>:!-' E,R. "-' .~ -0 :% r:-? cJ' ...0 LINDA K. CRAMER and STANLEY CRAMER, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. : NO. 04-1421 2004 RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D., Defendant PRAECIPE TO SUBSTITUTE VERIFICATION TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly substitute the attached Verification of Ronald W. Niklaus, D.M.D. in the above- referenced matter for that of the undersigned to be attached to the Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint filed in this matter. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN B~ MAT E . OWENS, ESQUIRE J.D. No. 76080 4200 Crums Mill Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3501 DATE: fjl'~7 ()j Attorneys for the Defendant ') AUG-31-84 TUE 17:83 DR.RONALD NIKLB~S 717+7373353++ P.81 VERIFICATION The lmdersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing Defendant's AnSWEll" with New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint are based upon infOffilation which has been furnished to counsel by me and infoffilation which has been gathered by counsel ,in the preparation of the defense of this lawsuit. The language of the Defendant's Answer with New MattEll" to Plaintiff's Complaint is that of counsel and not my own. I have read the Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint, and to the extent that it is based upon information which r have given to counsel, it is true and COITeCt to the best of my knowledge, infoffilation and belief. To the extent that the contents of the Defendant's Answer with New MattEll" to Plaintiff's Complaint are that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this venfication. The undersigned also understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. .- a.~~. ~ Ronald W. Niklaus, D.M.D. DATE: 'i} 2,.Y/ 6'1 I I LINDA K. CRAMER and STANLEY CRAMER, Plaintiffs ; IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D., Defendant : NO. 04-14212004 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Angela Zilla, an employee of Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, do hereby certify that on this 2'3rkay of September, 2004, I served a copy of the foregoing document via First Class United States mail, postage prepaid as follows: Terry S. Hyman, Esquire SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.e. 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 [;,; Jc Z! IL- Angela . a ~ (') ~ ~ c: s. (/') .-1 ~l"<1 l"'1 ffi::n , ,rn z,:;:C\ -0 -o~ ~~< N :D J .....l 0 ::e-t \:2C: ~ - -i1 ~Q Qc, 5u - ts'" c- - -. :Z :po :2 !', 3! .s:> " SEP 27 2004 V O.~ LINDA K. CRAMER, and STANLEY CRAMER, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. No. 04-14:U-2004 RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D., CML ACTION - LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER It is hereby ORDERED the caption in the above-captioned action be amended to read as follows: LINDA K. CRAMER, and her husband, STANFORD CRAMER, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. No. 04-1421-2004 RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D., CML ACTION - LAW Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED cr J ~ f Jb Ji , " 'v'lN\ti\lASi\ltJ3d I "'~~r -,'" '~'-,r""no i\J.l'~l 1\._1,) " ::',';i :h:,t;f~i 82 :2 lid 62 d3S ~OOZ AWlONOH108d 3H1 :10 301:J:l0-03ll:l MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN BY: Michael D. Pipa, Esquire Identification No. 53624 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PAl 7112 Email: mpipa@mdwcg.com (717) 651-3500 Attorneys for Defelldant, Ronald W. Niklaus, D.MD. LINDA K. CRAMER and STANLEY CRAMER, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CNIL ACTION - LAW v. : NO. 04-1421 2004 RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D., Defendant PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of Defendant, Ronald W. Niklaus, D.M.D. only in the above referenced matter. Respectfully Submitted, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMM' & GOGGIN DATE:~.'1o:& ~oof BY: ~ MICHAEL D. PIPA, E IRE PA J.D. NO.: 53624 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717) 651-3515 Attorneys for Defendant, Ronald W. Niklaus, D.MD. PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF All>>pEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw the appearance of the undersigned on behalf of Defendant, Ronald W. Niklaus, D.M.D, only in the above referenced matter. Respectfully submi1ted, MARSHALL COLEMAN DIRE t,Ronald W Niklaus, By: MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN BY: Michael D. Pipa, Esquire Identification No. 53624 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PAl 7112 (717) 651-3500 LINDA K. CRAMER and STANLEY CRAMER, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CNIL ACTION - LAW v. : NO. 04-1421 2004 RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D., Defendant CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served upon all parties listed below a true and correct copy of Entry of Appearance and Withdrawal of Appearance in the above-captioned matter this date by regular mail. Terry S. Hyman, Esquire SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.e. 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER COLEMAN AND GOGGIN DATE: ~, d9, dt>ai BY:~' MICHAELD. PIPA, E Attorneys for Defendant, Ronald W. Niklaus, D.MD. () ,....., c = ~ ;,~ - = <:J, '- :r!." > ~;~ i" z .n----, I r- -om ~f W 5? -U --10 -7" \. :::I -r, ~~::. ::r:: <.::) :0 -;7 (I ~ F')? 5rn ....:. -~ j;! -< - ... :-":J N .-< SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C. BY: TERRY S. HYMAN, ESQUIRE LD. # 36807 209 State Street Harrisburg,PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 thvrnammsrklaw.com LINDA K. CRAMER and her husband, STANFORD CRAMER, Attorneys for PlaintifI(s) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAIM'D COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. No. 04-1421.-2004 RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D., CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendant JURY TRIAl. DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' PETITION FOR SCHEDULI~rG CONFERENCE AND NOW, Plaintiffs' Linda K. Cramer and her husband Stanford Cramer hereby petition this Honorable Court to hold a Scheduling Conference in the above-captioned matter for the following reasons: AND NOW, Helen E. Marte, Executrix of the Estate of Frank J. Marte, and Helen E. Marte, Individually by her attorneys, Schmidt, Ronca & Kramer, P.C., hereby petition Your Honorable Court to schedule a Status Conference in the above-captioned case for the following reasons: 1. This dental malpractice case involves allegations of Defendant doing such poor work when replacing every filing in Plaintiffs mouth, that Plaintiff had to have every one the filings done by Defendant removed and replaced within 6 months after Defendant finished his restorations. 2. The standard of care will be in dispute requiring both parties to retain expert witnesses. 3. Plaintiff has concluded depositions of the Defendant, and expects, at most to depose one or two other fact witness to complete factual discovery. 4. Defense Counsel has further discovery to conduct, but concurs In holding a Scheduling Conference to set deadlines for remaining discovery, and to fix the trial date. 5. Plaintiff, with the concurrence of Defense Counsel, respectfully requests the Court hold a Scheduling Conference to set a date for the completion of fact discovery, production of the parties' expert reports, and to also set a date or term for trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays Your Honorable Court will grant its Petition and set a date for a Scheduling Conference as soon as feasible for the Court. Respectfully submitted, Date: UJjor;,lo5 SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C. ~~~~q. -- ID # 368<W 209 State Street Harrisburg,. PA 17101 717/232-6:300 . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this Wi day Of~~ 2005, JI, Janice S. Smith, an employee of SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C., do hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the PLAINTIFFS' PETITION FOR SCHEDULING CONFERENCE in the United States mail via certified mail, retum receipt requested, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Michael Pipa, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Wamer, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Ste. B Harrisburg, PA 17112 Attorney for Ronald W. Niklaus, DMD LJ' k{~ , ("') ~~ -:JU" rnf I -:1' ., , c) --<. r:~;:~ . ~- ?:-; ( ,J:C~' >-c: ;;...:; =< ..., = = c.n <-- c.= r ~ ~.." rnp ~~ (.~~~.fJ; -r:.-J) (~O ::~-:. rl.i S ~ -0 =r.: rs; w ;f.- 17' ^y SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C. BY: TERRY S. HYMAN, ESQUIRE 1.D. # 36807 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 thvrnanlalsrklaw.com LINDA K. CRAMER and her husband, STANFORD CRAMER, REUJiED JUL 12 2O()'j~ Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff v. : No. 04-1421-2004 RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D., CIVIL ACTIrON - LAW Defendant JURY TRIA][. DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW, this ----13l:L day of _I u h , 2005, a Scheduling Conference has been scheduled for ~ 30 ,2005at 1:jt) o'c!oe5\/p.M i~tVJ- , BY THE COURT: ~fafl , J. I~ ~CljV/~g, ~ I./fd-J 4.41. ~ ~, 1./)~OS . Q-.. ~ ~-tJS' A.-</ Vi)<j'v'lYV,S',\:f J,":1d ll~'n~~ r" -',' '-"',""n" I\.U ,i i(,),! - ,".j' 'V~) ..; o I :~ Wd '11 lnrsooz AlNIONOH10::Jd 3HJ. ~O 3QI:J30--0311~ LINDA K. CRAMER and her husband, STANFORD CRAMER, Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v 04-1421 CIVIL TERM CIVIL ACTION - LAW RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D.,: Defendant JURY TRIAL DEMANDED IN RE: SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 30th day of August, 2005, upon consideration of Plaintiffs' Petition for Scheduling Conference, and following a conference held in the chambers of the undersigned judge on this date, at which Plaintiffs were represented by Terry S. Hyman, Esquire, and Defendant was represented by Michael D. Pipa, Esquire, and pursuant to an agreement of counsel, it is ordered and directed as follows: I. Factual discovery in this matter shall be completed within 6 months of the date of this order; 2. Within 30 days thereafter, Plaintiffs shall supply to Defendant's counsel a copy of their expert's report; 3. Within 30 days thereafter, Defendant shall supply to Plaintiffs' counsel a copy of Defendant's expert report; 4. Within 30 days thereafter, Plaintiffs shall supply to Defendant's counsel a copy of any rebuttal expert report; and 5. Counsel are attached for the civil trial term to occur in June 2006. By the Court, \~ ~~ a J. >: o:~ <1, ~ uJ~';' ~~1~ ;:)~" " <> 0& u.J ..-dtU u...-r: F w_ o " N M ,;, .- 0: p.1 U:, ~ "', <-.J '."1 (1... =-~5 () Terry S. Hyman, Esquire 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 For Plaintiffs Michael D. Pipa, Esquire 4200 Crums Mill Road Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 For Defendant Court Administrator :mae LINDA K. CRAMER and STANLEY CRAMER, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. : NO. 04-1421 2004 RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D., Defendant CERTIFICATE PREREOUlSITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoenas for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Defendant, Ronald W. Niklaus, D.M.D. certifies thaI: (1) A notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty (20) days prior to the date on which the Subpoena is sought to be served; (2) A copy of the Notice of Intent, including the proposed Subpoena, is attached to this Certificate; (3) The attomey for Linda Cramer and Stanley Cramer agreed to waive the required twenty (20) day period before service of the Subpoena; and (4) The subpoena which will be served is identical to the Subpoena which is attached to the Notice ofIntent to Serve the Subpoena. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER COLEMAN & N " By: DATED: fljl%S- I I eoffrey S. McInroy, Esq ire Sup. Ct. LD. #87876 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg,PA 17112 (717) 651-3500 Attorneys for Defendant, Ronald W. Niklaus, D.M.D. , .. MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN BY: Michael A. Pipa, Esquire Identification No. 53624 Geoffrey S. McInroy, Esquire Identification No. 87876 4200 Crums Mill Road, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17112 Email: moipa@mdwcg.com Email: gmcinroy@mdwcg.com Ph: (717) 651-3500 Fax: (717) 651-9630 Attorneys for Defendant, Ronald w: Niklaus, D.MD. LINDA K. CRAMER and STANLEY CRAMER, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. : NO. 04-14212004 RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D., Defendant DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. RULE 4009.21 TO: Terry S. Hyman, Esquire SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C. 209 State Street Harrisburg, P A 17101 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) ,- Defendant, Ronald W. Niklaus, D.M.D., intends to serve a Subpoena identical to the one attached to this Notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve on the undersigned an objection to the Subpoena. Ifno objection is made, the Subpoena may then be served. Respectfully Submitted, MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN l DATE:November _,2005 BY: MICHAEL D. PIPA, E GEOFFREY S. Mc , SQUIRE Attorneys for Defendant, Ronald W. NikIaus, D.M.D. \05 _A \LlAB\GM1\LLPG\201610\TKC\04240\OO146 2 .. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND LINDA K. CRAMER and STANLEY CRAMER, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiffs File No. 04-14212004 v. RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D., Defendant SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Robert Kramer. D.M.D.. Ethics Committee Chairman for the Harrisburg Area Dental Society. 4002 Linglestown Road. Harrisburg. P A 17110 (Narne of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: All records of the Harrisburg Area Dental Society Ethics Committee from 1996 through. 1999. and any and all information related to Ronald W. Niklaus. D.M.D. at Marshall. Dennehey. Warner. Coleman & Goggin. 4200 Crums Mill Road. Suite B. Harrisburg. P A 17112 (Address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of tbe documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You bave the right to seek, in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the thiugs sought. If you fail to produce the documents or thiugs required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: Michael D. Pipa. Esquire ADDRESS: Marshall. Dennehev. Warner. Coleman & GOggin. 4200 Crums Mill Road. Suite B. Harrisburg. PA 17112 TELEPHONE: (717) 651-3515 SUPREME COURT ill # 15907 AITORNEY FOR: .- Defendant. Ronald W. Niklaus. D.M.D. Date: , lib). ).j d()O-S Seal of the Court I ': . Deputy LINDA K. CRAMER and STANLEY CRAMER, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. : NO. 04-1421 2004 RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D., Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO Pa.R.C.P. RULE 4009.21 has been served upon the following known counsel of record this I day of November, 2005, via United States First-Class Mail, postage prepaid: Terry S. Hyman, Esquire SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C. 209 State Street Harrisburg, P A 17101 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER COLEMAN AND GOGGIN BY: CHAEL D. PIPA, GEOFFREY S. Mc OY, UIRE Attorneys for Defendant, Ronald W. Niklaus, D.M.D. 105_ A ILlABIGMl\LLPG120 161 01TKC\042401OO146 LINDA K. CRAMER and STANLEY CRAMER, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. : NO. 04-1421 2004 RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D., Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 has been served upon the following known counsel ofrecord this /0 day of November, 2005, via United States First-Class Mail, postage prepaid: Terry S. Hyman, Esquire SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C. 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) MARSHALL,DENNEHEY, WARNER COLEMAN AND GOG o Attorney for Defenda Niklaus, D.M.D. . ---- BY: \05 _A \LIAB\GMI\LLPG\203456\TKC\04240\00146 (j c f""-::! ,...- ~ .::;:':'} "" C::'. - .:;::-- -;" ..._ c....} x: :::J ~1'1 ;; ;' SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C. BY: TERRY S. HYMAN, ESQUIRE J.D. # 36807 209 State Street Harrisburg, PA 1710 1 (717) 232-6300 thvman(aJ,srklaw.com LINDA K. CRAMER and her husband, STANFORD CRAMER, Plaintiff v. RONALD W. NIKLAUS, D.M.D., Defendant Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA No. 04-1421-2004 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO SETTLE. DISCONTINUE AND END TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the above-captioned action settled, discontinued and ended with prejudice. Date: o/P?;/op Respectfully submitted, SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.C. --~ ,/- ~ By: Ter q:- J. . # 3 7 2 ate Street Harrisburg, PA 17101 (717) 232-6300 Attorney for Plaintiff(s) ,,' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, thi~ay of ~ 2006, I, Janice S. Harmon, an employee of SCHMIDT, RONCA & KRAMER, P.c., do hereby certify that I have served a true and correct copy of the PRAECIPE TO SETTLE, DISCONTIUE AND END in the United States mail via certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Michael Pipa, Esquire Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin 4200 Crums Mill Road, Ste. B Harrisburg, P A 17112 Attorney for Ronald W. Niklaus, DMD ~-/~/L/ .~~ viP (J c t:~ ~~.~~ (,' .- ~~ :""y) :;::J ~..) '--J -.., (t.) o --J