Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-3699MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. BY: SCOTT W. MORGAN, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 36721 120 SOUTH STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101-1210 (717) 236-7959 EDWARD KARSEN, JR. 962 Cold Spring Road Fayetteville, PA 17222, v. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. Plaintiff NO. 04 - A?? ei.?C'- CIVIL ACTION - LAW DR. MICHAEL DENNING 9435 Molly Pitcher Highway Shippensburg, PA 17257, Defendant NOTIC 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 OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Court Administrator Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square, 4th Floor Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 697-0371 AVISO Le ban demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en law paginas siguientes, usted tiene veinte (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Hace falta asentar una comparencia escrita o en persona o con un abogado y entregar a la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, is corte tomara medidas y puede continuer is demanda en contra suya sin previo aviso o notificacion. Ademas, la corte puede decodor a favor del demandante y requiere que usted cumpla con todas law provisiones de esta demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades u otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE F.STA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE ELDINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICO, VAYA EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Court Administrator Cumberland County Courthouse One Courthouse Square, 4th Floor Carlisle, PA 17013 (717) 697-0371 MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. BY: SCOTT W. MORGAN, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 36721 120 SOUTH STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101-1210 (717) 236-7959 EDWARD KARSEN, 7R. 962 Cold Spring Road Fayetteville, PA 17222, v„ ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. Plaintiff NO. C>4 - .31644 tvtt CIVIL ACTION - LAW DR. MICHAEL DENNING 9435 Molly Pitcher Highway Shippensburg, PA 17257, Defendant COMPLAINT Plaintiff, by and through his attorneys, Morgan & Wilken, P.C., hereby complains against Defendant and avers as follows: 1. Plaintiff is an adult individual residing at the above address. 2. Defendant is a licensed doctor of dental medicine with an office located at the above address. 3. Plaintiff is asserting a professional liability claim against the Defendant. 4. In or about 1988, Plaintiff came under the care of Defendant for dental care. 5. Plaintiff then treated with and had regular visits with Defendant for dental care. 6. Plaintiff began complaining to Defendant of teeth sensitivity in or about 1998 and he also had gum bleeding. 7. In response to Plaintiff's symptoms, Defendant performed a root canal treatment on or about January 21, 2002 on one of Plaintiff's teeth. 8. Plaintiff's symptoms persisted and on October 3, 2002, Defendant diagnosed a cracked tooth, which he treated with a band. 9. At no time did Defendant order a full mouth series of x-rays or perform complete depth probings. 10. After October 3, 2002, Plaintiff came under the care of a periodontist, who diagnosed moderate to severe adult periodontal disease. 11. Thereafter, Plaintiff underwent comprehensive treatment including periodontal scaling, root planing, osseous flap surgery and antibiotic therapy. 12. As a result of the negligence of Defendant, Plaintiff suffered and may continue to suffer from mouth pain, bone and tooth loss, tooth mobility, past and future needs of surgery and prosthetic care. 13. As a further result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff suffered further injuries and damages, including but not limited to, pain and suffering, mental anguish and emotional distress, injuries to his nerves, bones, teeth, soft tissue, joints and fascia, and other body parts and systems, which are or may be continuing in nature. 14. As a further result of Defendant's negligence, Plaintiff has been and may continue to be forced to expend sums of money for dental/medical care and treatment, rehabilitation, testing and care, which are or may be continuing in nature. 4 15. As a further result of Defendant's misconduct, Plaintiff has in the past and may in the future be prevented from attending his usual and daily activities , vocation and avocations and has and will continue to lose life's pleasures. 16. Plaintiff's injuries and damages aforesaid were caused by the negligence of Defendant, to wit: A. Failure to perform a comprehensive documentation of dental and periodontal changes; B. Failure to perform appropriate and regular radiographs; C. Failure to provide Plaintiff with alternative treatments; D. Failure to make a timely periodontal diagnosis; E. Failure to detect periodontal disease; F. Failure to properly respond to symptoms of teeth sensitivity and gum bleeding; G. Failure to take panoramic or full mouth x-rays; H. Failure to properly perform depth probings; 1. Failure to properly measure and record pockets; J. Improperly prescribing and performing root canal treatment; K. Improperly diagnosing a cracked tooth; L. Failure to maintain full periodontal charting; M. Failure to recognize the significance of Plaintiff's diabetes in the diagnosis and treatment of Plaintiff's dental and periodontal complaints; N. Performing an unnecessary root canal treatment; 5 O. Allowing Plaintiff to suffer severe bone loss; P. Failure to diagnose and/or detect Plaintiff's increasing periodontal disease; Q. Failing to perform appropriate tests and examinations to detect the existence of Plaintiff's periodontal condition and the increasing nature of Plaintiff's periodontal disease; R. Failing to properly and thoroughly maintain dental records on Plaintiff; S. Failing to properly examine Plaintiff on his visits, particularly with respect to probing depths and pockets; T. Failing to properly evaluate Plaintiff's bone levels. 17. Defendant's negligence caused and/or increased the risk of causing Plaintiff to suffer the injuries and damages aforesaid. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant in an amount in excess of $25,000.00, exclusive of interest, costs and delay damages. MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. By S org n, Esq ire Attorneys for Plai i DATED; 6 VERIFICATION Edward Karsen, Jr. states that he is Plaintiff in this matter, and that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. He understands that the statements in said pleading are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Edward Karsen, Jr. ? ? ?I f" ° tr V r l ? rn_ c o ro ) co m ? t^) T MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. BY: SCOTT W. MORGAN, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 36721 120 SOUTH STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101-1210 (717) 236-7959 EDWARD KARSEN, 7R. 962 Cold Spring Road Fayetteville, PA 17222, v. Plaintiff DR. MICHAEL DENNING 9435 Molly Pitcher Highway Shippensburg, PA 17257, Defendant ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. Oq - 360 9q (2 iviL'-? CIVIL ACTION - LAW CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS TO DR, MICHAEL DENNING I, Scott W. Morgan, Esquire, 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 is a cause in bringing about the harm. MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. B ?- Y Ott W. Mor n, Es uire DATE: 7/z 4 ?° y Attorneys for Pla f ?' a O - ?.: ? ? r-? s ? r{ _ ? ' -.5 E : '..: - l '"i?r- N 'U?? ?_ ( 7 ?.;: _ ? ? MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. BY: SCOTT W. MORGAN, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 36721 120 SOUTH STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101-1210 (717) 236-7959 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EDWARD KARSEN, JR. 962 Cold Spring Road Fayetteville, PA 17222, Plaintiff V. DR. MICHAEL DENNING 9435 Molly Pitcher Highway Shippensburg, PA 17257, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 2004-03699 CIVIL ACTION - LAW PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAIN T TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly reinstate the Complaint in the above-captioned matter and return to the undersigned. MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. B r Y DATE: August 18, 2004 colt ]? r i, Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiff, Edward Karsen, Jr. ?7 ,._. ...- s , ,-' - -????;7 ,- ;,: r?.; .. ., , ? ,. :., Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire FARRELL & Ricci, PC 4423 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-230-9201 EDWARD KARSEN, JR., IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA VS. : NO. 04-3699 DR. MICHAEL DENNING, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Please enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant Dr. Michael Denning in the above-captioned action. Date: 7 /'7 e Respectfully submitted, FARRELL & RICCI, P.C. ;Jds'eph A. Ric ' Esquire Attorney I.D. . PA49803 4423 Nor rout Street Itm-r-isburg, PA 17110 (717) 230-9201 Counsel for Defendant Dr. Michael Denning CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this / day o, 2004, I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon all counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, regular delivery, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Scott W. Morgan, Esquire MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. 120 South Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1210 FARRELL & Ricci, P.C. CIN-140/CIN-140 Karsen Entry Appearance.doc c. o I T7 .? CJ SHERIFF'S RETURN - OUT OF COUNTY CASE NO: 2004-03699 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND KARSEN EDWARD JR VS DENNING MICHAEL DR R. Thomas Kline , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff who being duly sworn according to law, says, that he made a diligent search and and inquiry for the within named DEFENDANT to wit: DENNING MICHAEL DR but was unable to locate Him in his bailiwick. He therefore deputized the sheriff of FRANKLIN County, Pennsylvania, to serve the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE On November 30th , 2004 , this office was in receipt of the attached return from FRANKLIN Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Out of County 9.00 Surcharge 10.00 Dep Franklin Cc 37.80 .00 74.80 11/30/2004 MORGAN & WILKEN So answers: R. Thomas Kline Sheriff of Cumberland County Sworn and subscribed to before me this day of x1xi _ a2dfnJ A. D. L / _ X71 a Q ?- Prothonotary In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania Fdward Karsen Jr. vs. Dr. Michael Denning No. 04-3699 civil Now, August 4, 2004 , I, SHERIFF OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA, do hereby deputize the Sheriff of Franklin County to execute this Writ, this deputation being made at the request and risk of the Plaintiff. y ? - rr Sheriff of Cumberland County, PA Affidavit of Service Now, 20at o'clock within upon at M. served the by handing to a and made known to copy of the original So answers, the contents thereof. Sheriff of COSTS Sworn and subscribed before SERVICE _ me this _ day of , 20` MILEAGE _ AFFIDAVIT County, PA CASE NO: 2004-00202 T SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF FRANKLIN EDWARD KARSEN JR VS DR. MICHAEL DENNING D CAMPBELL in 1 ?OU ?1?? Deputy Sheriff of FRANKLIN County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT was served upon DR. MICHAEL DENNING the DEFENDANT , at 0015:41 Hour, on the 19th day of August , 2004 at FRANKLIN CO SHERIFF'S OFFICE 157 LINCOLN WAY EAST CHAMBERESBURG, PA 17201 by handing to DR MICHAEL DENNING a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge So Answers: .00 00 KARLA D CAMPBELL . .00 .00 By ?C1C<n r cs CCUX X .00 Deputy S erif .00 08/20/2004 MORGAN & WILKEN ao Sworn and Subscribed to before me this -day of &00 ?ilG A.D. Notary , _ pp a d'Ur oa W N tans] Se l ? ') b C;rfy, Notary Public Z Franklin County w ,^ O t., pns Ian. 29,2007 t 9 F a?F r Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire FARRELL & Ricci, PC 4423 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-230-9201 EDWARD KARSEN, JR., Plaintiff vs. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04-3699 DR. MICHAEL DENNING, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Plaintiff Edward Karsen, Jr. c/o: Scott W. Morgan, Esquire MORGAN & WILEEN, P.C. 120 South Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1210 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO PLEAD TO THE WITHIN ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS PLEADING OR JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. Dated: FARRELL & RICCI, P.C. eph A. 'cci, Esquire Identification o. PA49803 Farrell & Ricci .C. 442 ront Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 230-9201 Counsel for Defendant Michael Denning, D.D.S. EDWARD KARSEN, JR., Plaintiff vs. DR. MICHAEL DENNING, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04-3699 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT DR. MICHAEL DENNING'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER AND NOW comes Defendant Michael Denning, D.D.S., by and through his attorneys Farrell & Ricci, P.C. by Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire, and responds to the Plaintiffs Complaint as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without information sufficient to admit or deny the truth or falsity of the said averments and accordingly denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff is asserting a professional liability claim. It is denied that the Plaintiff has properly stated a claim against Defendant. To the contrary, at all times material hereto, Defendant Denning provided proper and appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. 4. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R.C.P. 1029(e). 5. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa. R. C.P. 1029(e). 2 6. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 7. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa.R. C. P. 1029(e). 8. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 9. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 10. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 11. Denied. The averments contained in this paragraph are denied in conformity with Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). 12. Denied. To the extent this paragraph is an averment of alleged proximate causation, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. To the extent this paragraph is an averment of the Plaintiffs alleged damages, it is denied since after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without information sufficient to admit or deny the truth or falsity of the said averments and accordingly denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. 13. Denied. To the extent this paragraph is an averment of alleged proximate causation, it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are specifically 3 and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. To the extent this paragraph is an averment of the Plaintiff's alleged damages, it is denied since after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without information sufficient to admit or deny the truth or falsity of the said averments and accordingly denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. 14. Denied. To the extent this paragraph is an averment of alleged proximate causation it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. To the extent this paragraph is an averment of the Plaintiffs alleged damages, it is denied since after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without information sufficient to admit or deny the truth or falsity of the said averments and accordingly denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. 15. Denied. To the extent this paragraph is an averment of alleged proximate causation it is denied as a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. To the extent this paragraph is an averment of the Plaintiffs alleged damages, it is denied since after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without information sufficient to admit or deny the truth or falsity of the said averments and accordingly denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. 4 16. Denied. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that "Plaintiffs injuries and damages aforesaid were caused by the negligence of Defendant." To the contrary, at all times material hereto the Defendant provided proper and appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. By way of further answer, it is more particularly denied that: a. Denied. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiffs injuries and damages were caused by "failure to perform a comprehensive documentation of dental and peridontal changes." To the contrary, at all times material hereto, the Defendant provided proper and appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. b. Denied. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiff's injuries and damages were caused by "failure to perform appropriate and regular radiographs." To the contrary, at all times material hereto, the Defendant provided and appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. c. Denied. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiffs injuries and damages were caused by "failure to provide Plaintiff with alternative treatments." To the contrary, at all times material hereto, the Defendant provided and appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. d. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiffs injuries and damages were caused by "failure to make a timely peridontal diagnosis." To the contrary, at all times material hereto, the Defendant provided and appropriate 5 care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. e. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiffs injuries and damages were caused by "failure to detect peridontal disease." To the contrary, at all times material hereto, the Defendant provided and appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. f. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiffs injuries and damages were caused by "failure to properly respond to symptoms of teeth sensitivity and gum bleeding." To the contrary, at all times material hereto, the Defendant provided and appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. g. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiffs injuries and damages were caused by "failure to take panoramic or full mouth x-rays." To the contrary, at all times material hereto, the Defendant provided and appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. h. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiffs injuries and damages were caused by "failure to properly perform depth probings." To the contrary, at all times material hereto, the Defendant provided and appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. i. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiffs injuries and damages were caused by "failure to properly measure and record pockets." To the contrary, at all times material hereto, the Defendant provided and appropriate 6 care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. j. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiffs injuries and damages were caused by "improperly prescribing and performing root canal treatment." To the contrary, at all times material hereto, the Defendant provided and appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. k. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiffs injuries and damages were caused by "improperly diagnosing a cracked tooth." To the contrary, at all times material hereto, the Defendant provided and appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. 1. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiffs injuries and damages were caused by "failure to maintain full periodontal charting." To the contrary, at all times material hereto, the Defendant provided and appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. in. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiffs injuries and damages were caused by "failure to recognize the significance of Plaintiffs diabetes in the diagnosis and treatment of Plaintiffs dental and periodontal complaints." To the contrary, at all times material hereto, the Defendant provided and appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. 7 n. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiffs injuries and damages were caused by "performing an unnecessary root canal treatment." To the contrary, at all times material hereto, the Defendant provided and appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. o. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiffs injuries and damages were caused by "allowing Plaintiff to suffer severe bone loss." To the contrary, at all times material hereto, the Defendant provided and appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. p. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiffs injuries and damages were caused by "failure to diagnose and/or detect Plaintiffs increaing periodontal disease." To the contrary, at all times material hereto, the Defendant provided and appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. q. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiffs injuries and damages were caused by "failing to perform appropriate tests and examinations to detect the existence of Plaintiffs periodontal condtion and the increasing nature of Plaintiffs periodontal disease." To the contrary, at all times material hereto, the Defendant provided and appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. r. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiffs injuries and damages were caused by "failing to properly and thoroughly maintain dental records on Plaintiff." To the contrary, at all times material hereto, the Defendant 8 provided and appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. s. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiffs injuries and damages were caused by "failing to properly examine Plaintiff on his visits, particularly with respect to probing depths and pockets." To the contrary, at all times material hereto, the Defendant provided and appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. t. It is specifically and unequivocally denied that the Plaintiffs injuries and damages were caused by "failing to properly evaluate Plaintiffs bone levels." To the contrary, at all times material hereto, the Defendant provided and appropriate care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. 17. Denied. To the extent this paragraph is an averment of proximate causation, it is a conclusion of law to which no affirmative response is required. To the extent an affirmative response may be required, said averments are specifically and unequivocally denied and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial if deemed material. By way of further answer, to the extent this paragraph is a statement of Plaintiffs alleged damages, it is denied since after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without information sufficient to admit or deny the truth or falsity of the said averments and accordingly denies the same and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial if deemed material. 9 WHEREFORE, Defendant Michael Denning, D.D.S respectfully requests that judgment be entered in his favor and against the Plaintiff and that Defendant be awarded appropriate costs and fees. NEW MATTER 18. Defendant incorporates by reference his responses to Plaintiffs Complaint as if set forth herein at length. 19. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 20. Plaintiffs claim is barred and/or limited by the applicable Statute of Limitations. 21. It is believed, and therefore averred, that the discovery will show that the Plaintiff was negligent and that his negligence exceeded the negligence, if any, of the Defendant, thereby barring his recovery by operation of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 22. It is believed, and therefore averred, that discovery will show that the Plaintiff was negligent and that by virtue of his negligence, his claims may be limited by the operation of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 23. It is believed, and therefore averred, that discovery will show that the Plaintiff voluntarily assumed a known risk thereby barring recovery by the operation of the Doctrine of Assumption of Risk. 24. Plaintiffs injuries, if any, were sustained as a result of natural or unknown causes and not as the result of any action or inaction on behalf of the Defendant. 25. At all times material hereto, Defendant provided full, complete, proper, reasonable and adequate medical care and treatment in accordance with the applicable standard of care. 10 26. No conduct on the part of the Defendant was a substantial factor in causing or contributing to any harm which the Plaintiff may have suffered. 27. If Plaintiff suffered any damage, the damages were caused by the conduct of others over whom the Defendant had no control or right to control. 28. All claims and causes of action pleaded against the Defendant are barred by Plaintiffs knowing and voluntary informed consent to the care in question. 29. To the extent it was required to do so, the Defendant took all reasonable and necessary steps to make a proper and appropriate diagnosis and to the extent it may be determined that that diagnosis was in error, the Defendant asserts that the error in diagnosis was a reasonable and legally justifiable error. 30. Insofar as the Defendant elected a treatment modality which is recognized as proper but may differ from another appropriate treatment modality, then said Answering Defendant raises the "two schools of thought" defense. 31. Defendant incorporates by reference all the defenses available to him as set forth in the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act, 40 P.S. §1303.101 et seq. WHEREFORE, Defendant Michael Denning, D.D.S. respectfully requests that judgment be entered in his favor and against the Plaintiff Respectfully submitted, FARRELL & RICCI, P.C. 3-oseph A. Rig Attorney I.D. 4423 North F -FI'a Ttft PAPA 17110 (717) 230-9201 Date: ?ay?aS Counsel for Defendant Michael Denning, D.D.S. 11 VERIFICATION I hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: / 2 ' bar 1 J 1) Y. Michael Denning, D.D.S. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this day of 2005, I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon all counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, regular delivery, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Scott W. Morgan, Esquire MORGAN& WILKEN, P.C. 120 South Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1210 FARRELL & Ricci, P.C. CIN-140/Karsen Answer.doc s>? T v% t N MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. BY: SCOTT W. MORGAN, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 36721 120 SOUTH STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101-1210 (717) 236-7959 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EDWARD KARSEN, JR. Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. V. DR. MICHAEL DENNING Defendant NO. 2004-03699 CIVIL ACTION - LAW PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO NEW MATTER Plaintiff, through his attorneys Morgan & Wilken, P.C., hereby responds to New Matter of Defendant, and avers as follows: 18.- 31. The allegations herein are denied as conclusions of law to which no answer is required; however, without waiver of same, Plaintiff denies that he was at any time negligent or acted in any way improperly and, to the contrary, he acted with due care and prudence at all times material hereto. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that New Matter be dismissed and judgment entered in his favor. MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. By S dc". Morgan Esquire DATED: March 14, 2005 Attorneys for aintiff, Edward Karsen, Jr. VERIFICATION Scott W. Morgan, Esquire states that he is counsel of record for Plaintiff in the within action, is authorized to take this Verification on his behalf, and that the statements made in the foregoing Reply to New Matter are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. He understands that the statements in said pleading are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ?-S tt W. or an, Esquire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott W. Morgan, Esquire, hereby certify that service of a true and correct copy of the within Reply to New Matter was made on this I q day of March, 2005, to the persons below named, by First Class United States Mail, postage prepaid. Joseph Ricci, Esquire FARRELL & RICCI, P.C. 4423 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. Scott W. org , Esquire 120 South et Harrisburg, PA 17101-1210 (717) 236-7959 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Edward Karsen, Jr. r EDWARD KARSEN, JR., : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff = CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. : NO. 04.3699 DR. MICHAEL DENNING, Defendants : CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF SAID COURT: Kindly enter the appearance of Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. , by Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire, on behalf of Defendant, Dr. Michael Denning. Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. Date: /b (' b'seph A. Ric ' Esquire Attorney I.D. No PA49803 ,225 Market Stre t, Suite 304 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 (717) 233-6633 Counsel for Defendant Dr. Michael Denning CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1- 2006, I hereby certify that I served a true AND NOW, this r/44` day of.;' '(15 ^, t k: Y and correct copy of the foregoing document upon all counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, regular delivery, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows= Scott W. Morgan, Esquire MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. 120 South Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1210 ?J -., ..., c? -r, .-1 ?} C.. c?? , . ` .? tC: "' 40, Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire FARRELL & Ricci, PC 4423 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 717-230-9201 EDWARD KARSEN, JR., Plaintiff vs. DR. MICHAEL DENNING, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04-3699 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE TO: THE PROTHONOTARY Kindly withdraw the appearance of Farrell & Ricci, P.C., by Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire, on behalf of Defendant, Dr. Michael Denning. FARRELL & RICCI, P.C. Date: d l ©(? Joseph A. RIL4 Esquire Attorney I.D. . PA49803 4423 NortyFi nt Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 230-9201 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this l-1 day o L)6-4-0 j-1 , 2006, I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon all counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, regular delivery, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Scott W. Morgan, Esquire MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. 120 South Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1210 i r. ,? C ., 'il ? ? i ... _ _i.' i ' ?, ?; .;_ .. - CN ?' 't } 4( ? MORGAN & WIIXEN, P.C. BY: SCOTT W. MORGAN, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 36721 120 SOUTH STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101-1210 (717) 236-7959 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EDWARD KARSEN, JR. Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. V. DR. MICHAEL DENNING Defendant NO. 2004-03699 CIVIL ACTION - LAW RULE TO SHOW CAUSE A Rule is hereby issued upon Defendant to show cause why Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery should not be granted. jr:, Rule returnable within twenty (20) days,hereof. BY THE COURT: J. ve "? Plaintiff Defendant ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 2004-03699 CIVIL ACTION - LAW MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 1. On October 14, 2005, Plaintiff served Defendant with Requests for Production MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. BY; SCOTT W. MORGAN, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 36721 120 SOUTH STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101-1210 (717) 236-7959 EDWARD KARSEN, JR. V. DR. MICHAEL DENNING and Interrogatories for answering in this alleged dental malpractice action. 2. Thirty days passed and no answers or objections were served. 3. On April 4, 2006, counsel for Plaintiff requested that Defendant provide the requests to discovery responses as soon as possible. 4. On April 20, 2006, counsel for Plaintiff again requested that Defendant respond to the outstanding discovery within fourteen days to avoid the filing of a Motion. 5. Defendant has still not responded in any way to the discovery and Plaintiff is being prejudiced in his ability to further advance his action against the Defendant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this court enter the attached Order compelling Defendant to fully and completely answer all interrogatories and Requests for Production. MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. By S Mo a Esquire DATED: June 29, 2006 Attorneys for intiff, Edward Karsen, Jr. I.D. No. 36721 VERIFICATION Scott W. Morgan, Esquire states that he is counsel of record for Plaintiff in the within action, is authorized to take this Verification on his behalf, and that the statements made in the foregoing Motion to Compel Discovery are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. He understands that the statements in said pleading are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C. S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. t W. org n, Esquire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott W. Morgan, Esquire, hereby certify that service of a true and correct copy of the within Motion to Compel Discovery and proposed Order was made on this 3a t?' day of June, 2006, to the persons below named, by First Class United States Mail, postage prepaid. Joseph Ricci, Esquire FARRELL & RICCI, P.C. 4423 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. n SC. Morg , E quire I.D. No. 36721 120 South Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1210 (717) 236-7959 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Edward Karsen, Jr. MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. BY: SCOTT W. MORGAN, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 36721 120 SOUTH STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101-1210 (717) 236-7959 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EDWARD KARSEN, JR. Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 2004-03699 CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. DR. MICHAEL DENNING Defendant SECOND MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY 1. On October 14, 2005, Plaintiff served Defendant with Requests for Production and Interrogatories for answering in this dental malpractice action. 2. When no responses were forthcoming, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery on June 30, 2006 and a Rule to Show Cause was issued by Judge Kevin Hess. Plaintiff served the Rule to Show Cause on July 7, 2006 to Defendant. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is the Rule to Show Cause. 3. On July 12, 2006, Defendant provided what purported to be Answers to Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents; however, those responses, specifically Interrogatories 1, 9, 25 and 34, and Production Request 9, are incomplete and they have not been supplemented, despite repeated requests. Defendant's Answers to Interrogatories and Requests for Production are attached hereto as Exhibits B and C. respectively. Plaintiffs Interrogatories are attached as Exhibit D and Request for Production as Exhibit E. 4. In answer to Interrogatory 1, Defendant stated "See curriculum vitae to be provided." However, the curriculum vitae has not been provided despite numerous requests. 5. In answer to Interrogatory 9, which requests identification of dental medical textbooks in the Defendant's office between 1995 and 2004, the Defendant replied "To be provided." Defendant has not identified nor provided any other information in response to this interrogatory, despite repeated requests. 6. Defendant objected to Interrogatories 25 and 34; however, since the objections were not served within thirty (30) days of service of the Interrogatories pursuant to Rule 4006, the objections should be waived and Plaintiff requests this Court to dismiss the objections and direct that the Interrogatories to be answered. Moreover, Interrogatories 25 and 34 are not objectionable as they request discoverable information. Interrogatory 25 requests that Defendant acknowledge whether he has ever been involved in a professional malpractice suit, and Interrogatory 34 requests identification of other litigation in which Defendant's expert witnesses have provided reports, counsel or testimony. 7. In addition, Plaintiffs Request for Production #9 requests the production of all x-rays or other diagnostic studies which, in this case, include bite wings, full mouth radiographs and panoramic radiographs. Plaintiff has offered to pay for copies of these items but Defendant, nonetheless, has not produced them nor responded to this Request. (Defendant's Response document ends at no. 8) These radiographs are of critical importance to Plaintiff s case and need to be provided at the earliest opportunity. 8. The requested discovery is important to the advance of Plaintiff s case. The Defendant is hindering the advancement of the litigation by failing to fully and completely respond to Plaintiffs discovery requests. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests this court enter the attached Order compelling Defendant to fully and completely answer Interrogatories 1, 9, 25 and 34, and Requests for Production number 9. MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. By Cott . Morghn, Esquir DATED: October 25, 2006 At orneys for Plaintiff, dward Karsen, Jr. I.D. No. 36721 VERIFICATION Scott W. Morgan, Esquire states that he is counsel of record for Plaintiff in the within action, is authorized to take this Verification on his behalf, and that the statements made in the foregoing Second Motion to Compel Discovery are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. He understands that the statements in said pleading are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Cott W. rg ,Esquire MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. BY: SCOTT W. MORGAN, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 36721 120 SOUTH STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101-1210 (717) 236-7959 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EDWARD KARSEN, JR. Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. V. DR. MICHAEL DENNING Defendant NO. 2004-03699 CIVIL ACTION -LAW RULE TO SHOW CAUSE A Rule is hereby issued upon Defendant to show cause why Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery should not be granted. Rule returnable within twenty (20) daysAhereof. TRUE COPS' FROM RECMD In Testlrro v N'!'hereo, t hece unto set itby hand en ne seal 105-raiddIC-oulIT at Car-,s6e, Pa. . PP rot ry PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT A BY THE COURT: t It EDWARD KARSEN, JR., Plaintiff VS. DR. MICHAEL DENNING, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04-3699 : CIVIL ACTION - LAW : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT'S ANSWERS TO PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES 1. See curriculum vitae to be provided. 2. No. 3. No. 4. No. 5. Yes. 6. (a) Plaintiff was non-compliant in his regard to his dental hygiene regimen. (b) See dental records attached as Exhibit "A' to Plaintiff s Request for Production of Documents. 7. Not applicable. 8. None. 9. To be provided. 10. PDA Journal, ADA Journal and ASDC Journal. 11. See curriculum vitae to be provided 12. See curriculum vitae to be provided. 13. None. 14. Not applicable. PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT 15. At all times material hereto, I provided proper and appropriate dental care within the standard of care required for treatment of patients such as the Plaintiff. See dental records. 16. (a) Plaintiff, Edward Karsen, Defendant, Michael Denning (b) Plaintiff, Edward Karsen, Defendant, Michael Denning (c) See medical records. 17. No statements have been given to my knowledge. 18. See dental records attached to Defendant's Response to Request for Production of Documents. 19. No. 20. No. 21. Not applicable. 22. See dental records. 23. Yes: (a) Cincinnati Insurance Company P. O. Box 145496 Cincinnati, OH 45250-5496 (b) Michael Denning (c) Professional liability (d) $1,000,000.00 (e) None are applicable at this time. 24. No. 25. Objection. This interrogatory and its subparts is overbroad and seeks information not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible information since it is not limited in time or scope nor is it limited to issues similar to those in the case at bar. 26. The only investigation that has been conducted has been conducted by counsel. Investigation is ongoing and is protected as the work product of counsel. 27. Not applicable. 28. No determination has been made in regard to whom will be called as non expert witnesses. Once its determination, this answer will be supplemented in conformity with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 29. No determination has been made in regard to what exhibits will be introduced at the time of trial. Once a determination is made, this answer will be supplemented in conformity with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 30. No determination has been made in regard to any books, magazines or other writings to be used at trial. When such a determination is made, this answer will be supplemented in conformity with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 31. No determination has been made in regard to any use of any admissions of the party at trial. When such a determination is made, this answer will be supplemented in conformity with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 32. No determination has been made in regard to whom will be called as an expert witness at the time of trial. When such a determination is made, this answer will be supplemented in conformity with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 33. No determination has been made in regard to whom will be called as an expert witness at the time of trial. When such a determination is made, this answer will be supplemented in conformity with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 34. Objection. This information is beyond the permissible scope of discovery as defined by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 35. No. DATED: ( 7 Respectfully submitted, Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. Joseph A. ' cci, Esquire Attorney I.D. o. 49803 ark et Btpbet, Suite 304 P. O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 (717) 233-6633 VERIFICATION I hereby verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing document are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. DATED: ?'?-D x ..? S r Dr. Michael Denning CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this day of Axk --, 2006, I hereby certify that I served a true 0 V and correct copy of the foregoing document upon all counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, regular delivery, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Scott W. Morgan, Esquire MORGAN & WI=N, P.C. 120 South Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1210 EDWARD KARSEN, JR., Plaintiff vs. DR. MICHAEL DENNING, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04-3699 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1. None. 2. No determination has been made in regard to whom will be called as an expert witness at the time of trial. When such determination is made, this Answer will be supplemented in conformity with Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. None. 4. None. 5. No documents exist which do not comprise a work product of counsel or reflect opinions of value, merit or strategy. 6. See documents attached as Exhibits to Plaintiffs Interrogatories. 7. No determination has been made in regard to which documents will be relied upon at the time of trial. When such determination is made, this Answer will be supplemented in conformity with the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. PLAINTIFFS EXHIBIT..:. C 8. See medical records attached hereto as Exhibit "A". The x-rays will be produced upon receipt of reasonable copying fees. Respectfully submitted Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C. Joseph A6treet Esquire Att orney o. 49803 , Suite 304 P. O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108-1245 DATED: 71/_1x=- (717) 233-6633 Plaintiff Defendant ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 2004-03699 : CIVIL ACTION -LAW PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES ADDRESSED TO DEFENDANTS Plaintiff, by his attorneys, Morgan & Wilken, P.C., hereby propounds the MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. BY: SCOTT W. MORGAN, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 36721 120 SOUTH STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101-1210 (717) 236-7959 EDWARD KARSEN, JR. V. DR. MICHAEL DENNING following Interrogatories to be answered by Defendants under oath and pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 4005. These Interrogatories are continuing and require further answer and supplementation from now until the end of trial, pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4007.4, without further notice. These Interrogatories are addressed to you as a party to this action and your Answers shall be based upon the information known to you, your attorneys, agent and representatives. PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT INTERROGATORIES 1. State your name and address (both professional and residential), date of birth, social security number, schools attended and degrees or certificates awarded. (You may attach a current curriculum vitae in response hereto.) 2. Were you associated, or in partnership, with any other health care provider at the time of the occurrence complained of in this action? -2- 3. Have you ever had a health care provider license suspended, revoked or terminated in any state or country? 4. Have you ever had any staff privilege revoked, suspended or curtailed at any health care facility? 5. Did plaintiff, at any time, disregard any instructions or advice given by defendant or any other health care provider? -3- 6. If so, state: (a) What instructions or advice was disregarded; (b) Date and time they were disregarded. -4- 7. If lack of informed consent is pleaded in the complaint, then, with respect to any conversation of which you are aware in which the nature of, alternative to, and/or risks of the procedure in question were discussed with the plaintiff/patient, set forth the following: (a) The date(s) of each conversation; (b) The substance of each conversation; (c) The identity of each party to the conversation; (d) The identity of each witness to the conversation, and (e) Whether there were any documents relating to the nature of, alternative to, and/or risk of the procedure presented to the plaintiff/patient. (DCSI 504) -5- 8. Identify all publications, including but not limited to papers, journal articles, letters to the editor, textbooks, symposiums, etc., which you authored or contributed to, including the title of the work, the name of the periodical or book in which it was printed, the pages you wrote and the date of its printing. (DCSI 509) 9. State the author, title, and year of publication of every textbook in dental medicine which you had in your office from 1995 through 2004. (DCSI 510) -6- 10. Set forth the name of each professional journal you subscribed to in from 1995 through 2004. (DCSI 511) 11. Identify each office, clinic, or other location relating to your practice or in which you otherwise worked subsequent to your dental school graduation and set forth the inclusive dates you maintained or otherwise worked at each such locations. (DCSI 512) -7- 12. Identify all hospitals with which you were affiliated prior to 2005 and, with respect to each such hospital, set forth your position(s) and responsibilities. (DCSI 513) 13. Identify any association or partnership with any other medical or dental practitioner at any time during your treatment of plaintiff. (DCSI 514) -8- 14. If you ever consulted with any other health care practitioner in connection with the care and treatment of the plaintiff/patient, set forth: (a) The date(s) of the consultation; (b) The identity of the practitioner; (c) The subject matter of the consultation; (d) Action taken as a result of the consultation; and (e) The identity of any documents relating to the consultation. (DCSI515) -9- 15. State with particularity the factual basis for each claim or defense you are asserting in this case. (DCSI 104) 16. Identify each person who (a) Was a witness to the incident through sight or hearing and/or; (b) Has knowledge of facts concerning the happening of the incident or conditions or circumstances at the scene of the incident prior to, at the time of, or after the incident. -10- (c) With respect to each person so identified, state that person's exact location and activity at the time of the incident. (DCSI105) 17. If you know of anyone that has given any statement (as defined by the Rules of Civil Procedure) concerning this action or its subject matter, state: (a) The identity of such person; (b) When, where, by whom, and to whom each statement was made, and whether it was reduced to writing or otherwise recorded; and (c) The identity of any person who has custody of any such statement that was reduced to writing or otherwise recorded. (DCSI 106) -11- 18. Identify documents (except reports or experts subject to Pa. R.C.P. No. 4003.5) which describe the incident or the cause thereof. (DCSI 107) 19. Did you ever change any diagnosis you made of plaintiff's condition? If so, for each change, state: (a) A description of it; (b) The date and time you made it; (c) The reason you made the change, indicating each fact on which the change in diagnosis was based. -12- 20. Did you ever advise plaintiff to seek additional medical help? 21. If so, for each occasion you so advised plaintiff, state: (a) The date and place; (b) A description of the reason that prompted you to give plaintiff such advice. 22. In general, how did plaintiff's dental conditions respond to your treatment? -13- 23. At the time of the occurrences complained of in this action, was there a policy of insurance covering you against claims arising out of malpractice? If so, please state: (a) The name and address of the insurer; (b) The named insured under each policy and the policy number; (c) The types and effective dates of each policy; (d) The amount of coverage provided per person, per occurrence and in the aggregate for each policy; (e) Each exclusion under the policies applicable to any claim thereunder. -14- 24. Have you ever been an expert witness in a dental medicine malpractice suit? If so, please state: (a) The names of the parties to the suit; (b) A description of the suit involved; (c) The name of the party for whom you gave evidence; (d) The name of the court in which the suit was filed; (e) The name of the attorney representing the party for whom you gave evidence. 25. Have you ever been a defendant in a professional malpractice suit? If so, please state: (a) The names of the parties to the suit; (b) A description of the suit involved; -15- (c) Court, term and number. 26. Have you or anyone on your behalf conducted any investigation into the subject matter of this action? If so, identify the investigation, date of investigation and any written material relative thereto. 27. If you, or someone not an expert subject to Pa.R.C.P. 4003.5, conducted any investigations of the incident, identify: (a) Each person, and the employer of each person, who conducted any investigation(s); and (b) All notes, reports or other documents prepared during or as a result of the investigation(s) and the persons who have custody thereof. (DCSI 111) -16- 28. Identify each person you intend to call as a non-expert witness at the trial of this case, and for each person identified state your relationship with the witness an the substance of the facts to which the witness is expected to testify. (DCSI 112) 29. Identify all exhibits that you intend to use at the trial of this matter and state whether they will be used during the liability or damages portions of the trial. (DCSI 114) -17- 30. If you intend to use any book, magazine, or other such writing at trial, state: (a) The name of the writing; (b) The author of the writing; (c) The publisher of the writing; (d) The date of publication of the writing; and (e) The identity of the custodian of the writing. (DCSI 115) 31. If you intend to use any admissions of a party at trial, identify such admissions. -18- 32. Identify each expert you intend to call as a witness at the trial of this matter, and for each expert state: (a) The subject matter about which the expert is expected to testify; and (b) The substance of the facts and opinions to which the expert is expected to testify and a summary of the grounds for each opinion.) You may file as your answer to this interrogatory the report of the expert or have the interrogatory answered by your expert.) (DCSI 113) -19- 33. Set forth the qualifications of each person identified in interrogatory #32 above, including but not limited to: (a) Schools that each has attended, including years of attendance and degrees received; (b) The experience in the particular fields, including names and addresses of employers and years of employment, and; (c) A list of all publications authored by each such person, including the title of the work, the name of the printing. (If the persons listed in this answer have or will print, mimeograph or otherwise reproduce a list of their qualif- ications, you may attach a copy of same in lieu of answering this interrogatory.) -20- 34. With respect to each person you expect to call as an expert witness at the time of trial, provide the caption, jurisdiction, court term and number and the person for whom each expert witness has consulted with , provided a written opinion for and/or testified on behalf of in regard to other litigation. -21- 35. State whether any additions, corrections, alterations or changes were ever made to any of Plaintiff's charts, records, bills or insurance forms. If so, indicate: (a) When it was made; (b) The exact nature thereof; (c) The circumstances therefore; (d) The name and address and position of the party making it. MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. By Scott W. Morgan, Esquire Attorneys for Plaintiff DATED: -22- w I 1 0 MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. BY: SCOTT W. MORGAN, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 36721 120 SOUTH STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101-1210 (717) 236-7959 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EDWARD KARSEN, JR. V. DR. MICHAEL DENNING Plaintiff Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 2004-03699 : CIVIL. ACTION - LAW PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS DIRECTED TO DEFENDANT Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 4009, Plaintiff requests that Defendant produce the following documents for inspection in the offices of Morgan & Wilken, P.C., 120 South Street, Harrisburg, PA, 17101, within thirty (30) days. 1. Each staternent or transcript of interviews of a party or witness in this matter 2. All reports, summaries or other writings prepared by any person who is expected to testify as an expert witness at trial and the curriculum vitae of each expert 3. All investigation materials and documents related to this action which do not include work product, attorney's mental impressions and conclusions, and which are otherwise discoverable under the Rules of Civil Procedure. 4. All photographs, films, drawings, sketches or other reproductions of any thing, place or person or other subjects relevant to the litigation. 5. All documents prepared by you, your insurer, representative, agent or anyone on your behalf during the investigation of the subject matter of this action. I- 6. Copies of any and all documents identified in answers to interrogatories. 7. All documents which you intend to rely upon or introduce at trial. 8. All medical bills, records or documents of any nature relevant to this action. 9. All x-rays or other diagnostic studies relevant to this action. MORGAN & WTLKEN, P. C. Sce . Mor Yan Esq uire Attorneys for ntiff DATED: October 14, 2005 F , , • CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Scott W. Morgan, Esquire, hereby certify that service of a true and correct copy of the within Second Motion to Compel Discovery and proposed Order was made on this Z6" day of October, 2006, to the persons below named, by First Class United States Mail, postage prepaid. Joseph Ricci, Esquire LAVERY, FAHERTY, YOUNG & PATTERSON P. O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108 MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. 4 Sc W. rga Esquire I.D. No. 36721 120 South Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1210 (717) 236-7959 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Edward Karsen, Jr. ? ? c ? ?_ ? ? r ? ?? ?' ?- ? Via. i ..- c:. ? :-??-, .. ???. NOV 012006 1?r MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. BY: SCOTT W. MORGAN, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 36721 120 SOUTH STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101-1210 (717) 236-7959 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EDWARD KARSEN, JR. Plaintiff V. DR. MICHAEL DENNING Defendant : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 2004-03699 CIVIL ACTION - LAW RULE TO SHOW CAUSE A Rule is hereby issued upon Defendant to show cause why Plaintiff's Second Motion to Compel Discovery should not be granted. Rule returnable within twenty (20) days of service. 1/,4-- Z, ZG4-0 BY THE COURT: Z- S007 ? _ r x li'_t y MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. BY: SCOTT W. MORGAN, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 36721 BY: MELISSA MERRITTS RIVERA, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 70303 120 SOUTH STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101-1210 (717) 236-7959 EDWARD KARSEN, JR. Plaintiff V. ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 2004-03699 DR. MICHAEL DENNING : CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendant MOTION TO MAKE RULE ABSOLUTE 1. On or about October 26, 2006, counsel for Plaintiff filed a Second Motion to Compel Discovery of Defendant. 2. On November 2, 2006, Honorable Kevin Hess issued a Rule to Show Cause on said Motion. 3. The Rule was sent to Joseph Ricci, Esquire, counsel for Defendant, by regular U. S. First Class mail on November 16, 2006. 4. Defendant has failed to serve sufficient Answers to written Interrogatories and Responses to Requests for Production. In fact, Defendant has failed to respond in any way to Your Honor's November 2, 2006 Rule to Show Cause. 5. Counsel requests that the Rule be made absolute, and an Order issued directing Defendant to provide full and complete Answers to Interrogatories 1, 9, 25 and 34, and Production Request 9, to Morgan & Wilken, P. C., counsel of record for Plaintiff, or suffer sanctions upon application to the court. WHEREFORE, counsel requests that the Order be issued directing defense counsel to provide full and complete discovery of the aforementioned to counsel for Plaintiff. MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. DATED: February j, 2007 By Melis a Merritt; Rivera, squire I.D. No.: 70303 Scott W. Morgan, Esquire I.D. No.: 36721 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Edward Karsen VERIFICATION Melissa Merritts Rivera, Esquire states that he is counsel of record for Plaintiff in the within action, is authorized to take this Verification on his behalf, and that the statements made in the foregoing Motion to Make Rule Absolute are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. He understands that the statements in said pleading are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Meli sa Merritt vera, Esquire CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Melissa Merritts Rivera, Esquire, hereby certify that service of a true and correct copy of the within Motion to Make Rule Absolute was made on this day of February, 2007, to the persons below named, by First Class United States Mail, postage prepaid. Joseph Ricci, Esquire LAVERY, FAHERTY, YOUNG & PATTERSON P. O. Box 1245 Harrisburg, PA 17108 York, PA 17402-3737 MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. Mel' sa Merritt; Over l, quire 120 South Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1210 (717) 236-7959 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Edward Karsen U' liZ 3? e MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. BY: SCOTT W. MORGAN, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 36721 BY: MELISSA MERRITTS RIVERA, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 70303 120 SOUTH STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101-1210 (717) 236-7959 MAR O l Z007,?,, ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF EDWARD KARSEN, JR. Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. NO. 2004-03699 CIVIL ACTION - LAW V. DR. MICHAEL DENNING Defendant ORDER AND NOW, this :!?O' day of ena*CA , 2007, Plaintiff's Motion to Make Rule Absolute is GRANTED and Defendant is hereby directed to provide full and complete responses to Interrogatories 1, 9, 25 and 34, and Requests for Production number 9, within twenty (20) days of t?e-e of this Order, or suffer sanctions upon application to the court. o? BY THE COURT: >-,' N Lul L - . Joseph A. Ricci, Esquire LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH A. RICCI P.O. BOX 516 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 EDWARD KARSEN, JR., Plaintiff VS. DR. MICHAEL DENNING, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 04-3699 CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE / ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHNOTARY: Kindly withdraw the appearance of Lavery, Faherty, Young & Patterson, P.C., by Joseph A. Ricci, Esq. on behalf of Defendant, Dr. Michael Denning, in the above-captioned matter. Kindly enter the appearance the Law Offices of Joseph A. Ricci, by Joseph A. Ricci, Esq. on behalf of Defendant, Dr. Michael Denning, in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH A. RICCI Date: t.) 2, d'o-seph A. cci, Esquire ?Rk Attorney I.D. o. PA49803 O. BOX 516 rg, PA 17055 Counsel for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this day of 2007, I hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing docume pon all counsel of record by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail, regular delivery, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Scott W. Morgan, Esquire MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. 120 South Street Harrisburg, PA 17101-1210 LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH A. RICCI E? = 0 < cr i MORGAN & WILKEN, P.C. BY: SCOTT W. MORGAN, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 36721 BY: MELISSA MERRITTS RIVERA, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO. 70303 120 SOUTH STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101-1210 (717) 236-7959 EDWARD KARSEN, JR. v. Plaintiff ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. : NO. 2004-03699 DR. MICHAEL DENNING : CIVIL ACTION -LAW Defendant PRAECIPE OF DISCONTINUANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly mark the above matter settled, discontinued and ended, upon payment of your costs only. MORGAN & WILKEN, PC Cott Morgan - r` ? r7 4s7 f?lP.-- ?.??f jm