The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-7485FILED-OF 11111 trig r' fOTOIOT,?E;`;' ?01 # SEP 30 PM 1: 57 "UMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Michael E. Kosik, Esquire Attorney ID# : 36513 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) HAROLD IMBER, Plaintiff V. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION ROBERT L. MYERS, DMD, MBA t/d/b/a WOOD & MYERS ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C. AND/OR WOOD, MYERS & HARTMAN ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C., Defendant NO. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS To the Prothonotary of Cumberland County: Please issue a Writ of Summons against the below Defendant and forward same to the Sheriff for Service: 1. Robert L. Myers, DMD, MBA t/d/b/a Wood & Myers Oral and Maxillofacial Sur?ery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. at 207 S. 32° Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvam ER, P.C. Michael E. irosik PA I.D. No. 36513 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 mkosik@angino-rovner.com sy,? 0 d /'t Attorney for Plaintiff ClG#¢-s'f- 96 481495 lVo / /"-- 7 eli",r o-': ? fi4 (? WRIT OF SUMMONS TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT: YOU ARE NOTIFIED THAT THE ABOVE-NAMED PLAINTIFF HAS COMMENCED AN ACTION AGAINST YOU. I C-if r d ? r A ILe Protho tary Date: S 3T !? by . Deputy Q Check here if reverse is issued for additional information 481495 -01-rIC 5- E° i iv? t r'OTH0N0TA,i It 2011 OCT 14 AM If: 22 CUMBERLAND COUNT'S PENNSYLVANIA NAULTY, SCARICAMAZZA & McDEVITT, LLC. BY: GARY V. GITTLEMAN, ESQUIRE THOMAS A. McCORMACK, ESQUIRE Identification Number: 12504/78468 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard 7550 One Penn Center ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT Philadelphia, PA 19103 Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., MBA t/d/b/a (215) 568-5116 Wood & Myers Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. HAROLD IMBER COURT OF COMMON PLEAS V. ROBERT L. MYERS, D.M.D., MBA t/d/b//a Wood & Myers Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 11-7485 Civil Term ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant, ROBERT L. MYERS, D.M.D., MBA, in the above-captioned matter. NAULTY, SV CAIVIAZZA & Jj,6PEVITT, LLC. BY: /-? Y" _./1/ GARY V. GI 7M??7obert QUIRE THMAS AK, ESQUIRE Attoneys fo De L. Myers, D.M.D., MBA t/d/b/a Wood & Myers Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. Hr PRO THONOTA3+ i 2011 OCT 114 AM 11: 23 ` CUMBERLAND COUNT'" NAULTY SCARICAMAZZA & McDEVITT, LLC. PENNSYLVANIA BY: GARY V. GITTLEMAN, ES UIRE THOMAS A. McCORMACK ES IRE Identification Number: 12504 78468 1617 John F. Kennedy Bo evard ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 775o One Penn Center Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., MBA t/d/b/a Philadelphia, PA 19103 Wood & Myers Oral and Maxillofacial (215) 568-5116 Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. HAROLD IMBER COURT OF COMMON PLEAS V. CUMBERLAND COUNTY ROBERT L. MYERS, D.M.D., MBA t/d/bf a Wood & Myers Oral and Maxilllofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood Myers & Hartman Oral and NO. 11-7485 Civil Term Maxilfofacial Surgery, P.C. PRAECIPE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO THE OFFICE OF THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter a Rule upon Plaintiffs to file a Compyr?t6ithin twenty (,2?) ys hereof or suffer the entry of a Judgment of Non Pros. / // ?/// z XARYV- GI LE NSQUIRE OMAS . Mc RMACK, ESQUIRE Attorneys f r D end ant, Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., MBA t/d/b/a Wood Myers Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND NOW, this )7' day of DdMK , 2011, a Rule is hereby granted upon Plaintiffs to file a Complaint herein within twenty (2o) days after service hereof or suffer the entry of a Judgment of Non Pros. PR ONOTARY D11 OCT 9' 4 AM 11.2 C1111BERLAND CDUNT?,' NAULTY, SCARICAMAZZA & McDEVITT, LLC. PENNSYLVANIA BY: GARY V. GITTLEMAN, ESQUIRE THOMAS A. McCORMACK, ESQUIRE Identification Number: 12504/78468 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 750 One Penn Center Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., MBA t/d/b/a Philadelphia, PA 19103 Wood & Myers Oral and Maxillofacial (215) 568-5116 Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. HAROLD IMBER V. 1 ROBERT L. MYERS, D.M.D., MBA t/d/b a Wood & Myers Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 11-7485 Civil Term DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Defendant, ROBERT L. MYERS, D.M.D., MBA, hereby demands twelve jurors for the trial in the above-captioned matter. NAULTY , LLC. CjARY V. GITT E , ESQUIRE ,THOMAS A. 246CORMACK, ESQUIRE Attorneys for e ndant, Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., MBA t/d/b/a Wood yers Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. 4e rY?; ?`? r 'xjl; III N6V„1??,a a -,n L i NAULTY, SCARICAMAZZA & McDEVITT, LLC. BY: GARY V. GITTLEMAN, ESQUIRE THOMAS A. McCORMACK, ESQUIRE Identification Number: 12504/78468 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard 750 One Penn Center Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 568-5116 HAROLD S. IMBER vs I ROBERT L. MYERS, DMD, MBA t/d/b/a WOOD & MYERS ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C. AND/OR WOOD, MYERS & HARTMAN ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C. ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., M.B.A. t/d/b/a Wood & Myers Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 11-7485 DEFENDANTS, ROBERT L. MYERS, DMD, MBA t/d/b/a WOOD & MYERS ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C. AND/OR WOOD, MYERS & HARTMAN ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C.'S, PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT DEFENDANTS, Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., M.B.A. and Wood & Myers Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. (hereinafter referred to as "Myers, P.C."), by and through their attorneys, Naulty, Scaricamazza & McDevitt, LLC., file these Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint, and in support thereof, state and aver the following: On or about September 30, 2011, Plaintiff initiated this cause of action by way of Praecipe for Writ of Summons. !I 2. On or about November 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging claims of professional negligence against Defendants, Dr. Myers and Myers, P.C. His claims are related to the surgical removal of his lower left wisdom tooth (tooth no. 17) on October 1, 2009. A true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 3. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that, as a result of the extraction of his tooth no. 17 by Dr. Myers, he developed an infection in his lower jaw which he alleges went undiagnosed and untreated by Defendants. Refer to Exhibit "A". 4. Defendants object to paragraph 20d of Plaintiff's Complaint as it sets forth non- specific facts and open ended claims of negligence against them in this matter. Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(3) 5. Defendants also preliminarily object to Paragraph 20, and its sub-paragraphs to the extent that it alleges claims of direct professional negligence/corporate negligence against Defendant, Myers, P.C., which is a corporate entity and is neither a doctor, dentist, hospital or an HMO. Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(4). A. Preliminary Objections Due to Insufficient Specificity In Pleadings Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(3) - Non-Specific Claims of Nealiaence 6. Defendants incorporate by reference the averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 5 above as though fully set forth herein at length. 7. In Paragraph 20, and its sub-paragraphs, Plaintiff has set forth his allegations of negligence against Defendants, Dr. Myers and Myers, P.C. Refer to Exhibit "A". 8. In Paragraph 20d of his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were negligent and careless for the following: "d. failing to properly diagnose and treat Plaintiff Harold S. Imber." Refer to Exhibit "A". 9. Rule 1028(a)(3) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure permits any party to file preliminary objections to any pleading on the basis of the insufficient specificity of the allegations contained therein. Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(3). -- 2 -- 10. Rule 1019 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedures provides that: (a) The material facts on which a cause of action is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form... (f) Averments of time, place and items of special damages shall be specifically stated. Pa. R.C.P. 1019(a); 1019(f). 11. In applying Pa. R.C.P. 1019(a), the courts have held that "[u]nder the Commonwealth's fact-pleading regime, any complaint must state facts in which the complainant reasonably believes, and under which a good faith argument may reasonably be made that Pennsylvania law provides... relief." McNeil v. Jordan, 894 A.2d 1260, 1276 (Pa. 2006)(emphasis added). 12. In other words, "the pleader must define the issues; every act of performance essential to that end must be set forth in the complaint." Santiago v. Pa. Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 418 Pa. Super. 178, 613 A.2d 1235, 1238 (Pa. Super. 1992)(emphasis added). 13. In Paragraph 20d, Plaintiff has alleged non-specific claims of alleged failure to "diagnose" and "treat" which is inconsistent with the principles established by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Connor v. Allegheny General Hospital, 501 Pa. 306, 461 A.2d 600 (1982) 14. Such open ended allegations do not comport with prior holdings by the courts of this Commonwealth as demonstrated by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania's rationale in Finegold v. Hill, 521 A.2d 33 (Pa. Super. 1987) as follows: "Blind suspicions and unsupported accusations do not state a cause of action pursuant to any theory of tort recovery. Even our present liberalized system of pleading requires that the material facts upon which a cause of action is premised to be plead with sufficient specificity so as to set forth the prima facie claim of the tort or torts alleged." Id., at 38 (emphasis added). 15. Moreover, if this non-specific, open ended language is not stricken, Plaintiff could amplify or change his original cause of action either at trial or at a point in time past the tolling of the Statue of Limitations all to the prejudice of Defendants. t ? -3- i 16. As Plaintiff has failed to set forth specific facts and allegations in Paragraph 20d, this sub-paragraph should be stricken and dismissed from the Complaint. B. Preliminary Objections Due to Legally Insufficient Claims In Pleadings Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) - Claims of Direct Negligence and/or Corporate Negligence Against Myers, PC 17. Defendants incorporate by reference the averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 16 above as though fully set forth herein at length. 18. Rule 1028(a)(4) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure permits any party to file preliminary objections to any pleading on the basis of the legal insufficiency of the pleadings contained therein. Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(4). 19. In Paragraph 20 of Plaintiff's Complaint, and its sub-paragraphs, Plaintiff claims that both Dr. Myers and Myers, P.C. were "negligent and careless" in the dental treatment provided to him. Refer to Exhibit "A". 20. At Paragraph 20 of Plaintiff's Complaint, and its sub-paragraphs, Plaintiff purports to set forth claims of direct professional negligence and/or corporate negligence against Defendant, Myers, P.C.' Refer to Exhibit "A". 21. These are allegations against Myers, P.C. beyond mere claims of vicarious liability for the alleged acts of its agent, Dr. Myers. Refer to Exhibit "A". 22. Defendant, Myers, P.C., is a corporate entity enacted for the purpose of administering oral & maxillofacial surgical treatment. 23. Defendant, Myers, P.C., is neither a hospital nor an HMO. 24. Defendant, Myers, P.C., through its doctors and staff, does not provide total and/or overall health care for its patients. 25. Defendant, Myers, P.C., is not a licensed physician or dentist, nor did it or could it render care of any kind to Plaintiff. 1 Plaintiff has failed to set forth separate counts against each defendant in accordance with Pa. R.C. P. 1020(a). As a result, his Complaint can be read as alleging direct claims of negligence against both Dr. Myers and Myers, P.C. in the identified paragraphs. -- 4 -- • 26. Defendant, Myers, P.C., as a corporate entity, could not "remove a tooth" or "diagnose and treat an infection"as alleged by Plaintiff in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint. Refer to Exhibit "A". 27. In addition, to the extent the claims against Myers, P.C., alleged in Paragraph 20, are claims of corporate negligence, it is averred that such claims would also be legally insufficient. 28. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania initially only recognized the doctrine of Corporate Negligence as solely applying to hospitals. Thompson v. Nason Hospital, 527 Pa. 330, 591 A.2d 703 (1991). In Thompson, the Supreme Court set forth four general areas of corporate liability against hospitals: (1) A duty to use reasonable care in the maintenance of safe and adequate facilities and equipment; (2) A duty to select and retain only competent physicians; (3) A duty to oversee all persons who practice medicine within its walls as to patient care; (4) A duty to formulate, adopt and enforce adequate rules and policies to ensure quality care for patients. Thompson v. Nason Hospital, supra. at 707; See also: Shannon v. McNulty, Pa.Super. , 718 A.2d 828 (1998). 29. The appellate courts of Pennsylvania have only extended the doctrine of corporate negligence as being applicable to HMO's. Shannon v. McNulty, Pa.Super. , 718 A.2d 828 (1998) 30. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has specifically stated that the doctrine of corporate negligence does not extend to individual doctors, individual practices or practice groups where they are not involved in the "total health care" of the patients. Sutherland v. Monongahela Valley Hosp., 856 A.2d 55, 61-62 (Pa. Super. 2004) (emphasis added). 31. There have also been a number of persuasive Common Pleas Court and Federal District Court decisions determining that corporate negligence claims are not applicable to individual doctors or individual corporate practice groups. Rarrick v. Silbert, 78 Pa. DA.C.4th 129 (Lackawanna 2005) (preliminary objections granted and corporate negligence claims against a psychiatric healthcare -- 5 -- center were dismissed); Dowhouer v. Judson, 45 Pa. D.&C.4th 172 (Dauphin 2000)(preliminary objections granted and corporate negligence claims against a cardiovascular surgical group were dismissed); Dibble v. Penn State Geisinger Clinic, 1999 WL 1442421, 42 Pa. D.&C.4th 225 (Lackawanna 1999) (preliminary objections granted and corporate negligence claims against a medical clinic were dismissed); Milan v. American Vision Center, 34 F.Supp.2d 279, 281-282 (E.D.Pa. 1998)(where the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, applying Pennsylvania law, held that corporate negligence claims did not apply to an optometrist's office). 32. As a result, it is averred that the allegations of direct negligence and/or corporate negligence directed against Defendant, Myers, P.C., are improper and should be stricken and dismissed with prejudice. 33. It is averred that Plaintiffs claims against Defendant, Myers, P.C., should be limited to claims of agency/respondeat superior for the alleged claims against its agent, Dr. Myers, as set forth in Plaintiffs Complaint. WHEREFORE, for all of the above listed reasons, Defendants, Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., M.B.A. and Wood & Myers Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. respectfully request this Honorable Court to sustain these Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint and enter the accompanying proposed Order. Respectfully submitted, NAU ARICAMAZZA & McDEVITT, LLC. By: GARY V. GITTLEMAN, E UIRE THOMAS A. McCORMACK, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Defendants, Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., M.B.A. and Wood & Myers Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. -- 6 -- NAULTY, SCARICAMAZZA & McDEVITT, LLC. BY: GARY V. GITTLEMAN, ESQUIRE THOMAS A. McCORMACK, ESQUIRE Identification Number: 12504178468 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard 750 One Penn Center Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 568-5116 HAROLD S. IMBER I vs ROBERT L. MYERS, DMD, MBA t/d/b/a WOOD & MYERS ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C. AND/OR WOOD, MYERS & HARTMAN ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C. ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., M.B.A. t/d/b/a Wood & Myers Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 11-7485 DEFENDANTS, ROBERT L. MYERS, DMD, MBA t/d/b/a WOOD & MYERS ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C. AND/OR WOOD, MYERS & HARTMAN ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C.'S, BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT 1. MATTER BEFORE THE COURT: Defendants, Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., M.B.A. and Wood & Myers Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. (hereinafter referred to as "Myers, P.C."), have filed the foregoing preliminary objections to Plaintiff's Complaint in this matter. s II. STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS INVOLVED: Should Defendants' preliminary objections to Plaintiff's Complaint be granted? Suggested Response: Yes. This includes the following preliminary objections by Defendants: 1) Objections to non-specific claims of negligence in Paragraph 20d of Plaintiff's Complaint; 2) Objections to inappropriate direct professional negligence/corporate negligence claims against Defendant, Myers, P.C., which is neither a hospital, an HMO or a facility responsible for the "total health care" of its patients, beyond claims of vicarious liability for the alleged actions of its agent, Dr. Myers. III. FACTUAL SUMMARY On or about September 30, 2011, Plaintiff initiated this cause of action by way of Praecipe for Writ of Summons. On or about November 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging claims of professional negligence against Defendants, Dr. Myers and Myers, P.C. His claims are related to the surgical removal of his lower left wisdom tooth (tooth no. 17) on October 1, 2009. Refer to Exhibit "A". Specifically, Plaintiff claims that, as a result of the extraction of his tooth no. 17 by Dr. Myers, he developed an infection in his lower jaw which he alleges went undiagnosed and untreated by Defendants. Refer to Exhibit "A". Defendants object to paragraph 20d of Plaintiff's Complaint as it sets forth non-specific facts and open ended claims of negligence against them in this matter. Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(3) Defendants also preliminarily object to Paragraph 20, and its sub-paragraphs to the extent that it alleges claims of direct professional negligence/corporate negligence against Defendant, Myers, P.C., which is a corporate entity and is neither a doctor nor a dentist capable of providing treatment to a patient itself. Further, it is neither a hospital, an HMO or a medical facility responsible for the "total health care" of its patients. Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(4). -- 2 -- 46 IV. LEGAL ARGUMENT A. Preliminary Objections Due to Insufficient Specificity In Pleadings Pursuant to Pa R.C.P. 1028(x)((3) - Non-Specific/Open Ended Claims of Negligence Rule 1028(a)(3) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure permits any party to file preliminary objections to any pleading on the basis of the insufficient specificity of the allegations contained therein. Pennsylvania is a fact pleading Commonwealth and Rule 1019 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedures provides that: (a) The material facts on which a cause of action is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form... (f) Averments of time, place and items of special damages shall be specifically stated. Pa. R.C.P. 1019(a); 1019 (f) (emphasis added). In applying Pa. R.C.P. 1019(a), the courts have held that "[u]nder the Commonwealth's fact-pleading regime, any complaint must state facts in which the complainant reasonably believes, and under which a good faith argument may reasonably be made that Pennsylvania law provides... relief." McNeil v. Jordan, 894 A.2d 1260, 1276 (Pa. 2006)(emphasis added). In other words, "the pleader must define the issues; every act of performance essential to that end must be set forth in the complaint." Santiago v. Pa. Nat'l Mut. Cas. Ins. Co., 418 Pa. Super. 178, 613 A.2d 1235, 1238 (Pa. Super. 1992)(emphasis added). Rule 1019 has been consistently interpreted by the Courts of Pennsylvania to mean that a Complaint must fully inform each Defendant of the specific nature and extent of the Plaintiff's claim against him so that each Defendant is placed on notice of what the Plaintiff intends to prove at time of trial so that each Defendant may prepare to meet such proof with his own evidence. Weiss vs. Equibank, 313 Pa. Super 446, 460 A.2d 271 (1983). The requirement of specificity has long been applied within the context of medical malpractice litigation. See: Brauw vs. Weaver, 63 York 13 (1954); Miller vs. Perrige, 71 D. & C. 2d 476 (1973); Dyer vs. Kopf, 31 Northumb. 125 (1959) and Gray vs. Oech, 49 D. & C. 2d 358 (1970). -- 3 -- Complaints that simply plead vague and general allegations have consistently been found to be insufficient under the laws of Pennsylvania. The potential for prejudice to a defendant where a plaintiff elects to plead mere boilerplate, vague and general terms was amply contemplated in the case of Connor vs. Allegheny General Hospital, 501 Pa. 306, 461 A.2d 600 (1982). Connor illustrates the Court's concern regarding the apparent harm which non-specific allegations present to a defendant in a medical malpractice action. In footnote #3, of the Connor opinion, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania stated that a defendant could file preliminary objections in the nature of a request for a more specific pleading and/or a motion to strike the "catch-all" allegations in the plaintiff's amended complaint. The Connor Court implied that if a defendant does not respond to the general allegations of negligence in the plaintiff's amended complaint by way of preliminary objections, thereby narrowing the claims brought, he will waive his right to do so at a later stage in the proceedings. Id. at 461 A.2d 603, FN 3. Since the Connor decision, other courts have required a more specific pleading whenever plaintiffs include allegations that defendant were "otherwise negligent" or allegations that defendant's negligence may be ascertained "through discovery". See e.g., Farmer v. Rhoads, 43 D&C 3rd 393, (Pa. C.P Chester Co. 1986); Kitzmiller v. Riverton Consolidated Water Co., 38 Cumb. L.J. 33, 34 (Pa. C.P. Cumberland Co. 1988) (striking "otherwise failing to exercise due care under the circumstances"); Simon v. Community General Osteopathic Hospital, 108 Dauph. Co. R. 218, 219 (Pa. C.P. Dauphin Co. 1988) (phrases "otherwise negligent" and "including but not limited to" stricken); South Pymatuning v. Bell of Pa., 23 Mer. Co.. U. 270, 271-72 (Pa. C.C.P., Mercer Co. 1988) ("otherwise negligent" and other negligent acts as may be disclosed through future discovery" held impermissibly vague). A review of Plaintiff's Complaint for this matter indicates that he has alleged improper non-specific, open ended claims of negligence against Defendants. Specifically, in Paragraph 20 of the Complaint, and its sub-paragraphs, Plaintiff has set forth the factual allegations of negligence alleged against both Defendants. In Paragraph 20d of his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were negligent and careless for the following: -- 4 -- "d. failing to properly diagnose and treat Plaintiff Harold S. Imber." Refer to Exhibit "A". This sub-paragraph does not state specific facts as to how Defendants allegedly failed to "properly diagnose" and/or "treat" Plaintiff. By including this non-specific, open ended and catch all allegation in his Complaint, Plaintiff is inferring that there are other claims of negligence to be alleged against Defendants beyond what he has included in his initial pleading. Such open ended allegations do not comport with prior holdings by the courts of this Commonwealth as demonstrated by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania's rationale in Finegold v. Hill, 521 A.2d 33 (Pa. Super. 1987) as follows: "Blind suspicions and unsupported accusations do not state a cause of action pursuant to any theory of tort recovery. Even our present liberalized system of pleading requires that the material facts upon which a cause of action is premised to be plead with sufficient specificity so as to set forth the prima facie claim of the tort or torts alleged." Id., at 38. Even a fair review of the Complaint indicates that Plaintiff has simply provided an improper open ended, "catch all" allegation in Paragraph 20d which lacks the appropriate specificity to properly inform Defendants of the specific factual basis for the claims against them. As a result, Defendants are prejudiced in their ability to respond to said claims and/or prepare a defense to same at trial. Moreover, if this non-specific, open ended language is not stricken, Plaintiff could amplify or change his original cause of action, either at trial or at a point in time past the tolling of the Statue of Limitations, all to the prejudice of Defendants. As such, Paragraph 20d should be stricken and dismissed from Plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice. -- 5 -- B. Preliminary Objections Due to Legally Insufficient Claims In Pleadings Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(4) - Claims of Direct Professional Nealiaence and/or Coroorate Nealiaence Aqainst Mvers. P.C. Rule 1028(a)(4) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure permits any party to file preliminary objections to any pleading on the basis of the legal insufficiency of the pleadings contained therein. Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(4). In Paragraph 20 of Plaintiff's Complaint, and its sub-paragraphs, Plaintiff claims that both Dr. Myers and Myers, P.C. were "negligent and careless" in the dental treatment provided to him. Refer to Exhibit "A". Thorough the allegations set forth at Paragraph 20 of the Complaint, and its sub-paragraphs, Plaintiff purports to set forth claims of direct professional negligence and/or corporate negligence against Defendant, Myers, P.C. Specifically, Plaintiff's allege that Myers, P.C., a corporate entity, "failed" to perform certain acts in treating him. Refer to Exhibit "A". These are claims against Defendant, Myers, P.C., beyond mere claims of vicarious liability for the alleged acts of its agent, Dr. Myers. Refer to Exhibit "A". Defendant, Myers, P.C., is not a licensed physician or dentist. Nor did it or could it render care of any kind itself to Plaintiff. Instead it is a business entity and could not "perform tooth extraction", "diagnose" or "treat" Plaintiff as suggested paragraph 20 of the Complaint. Direct negligence claims against a medical corporate entity are also referred to as claims of Corporate Negligence. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania initially only recognized the doctrine of Corporate Negligence as applying solely to hospitals. Thompson v. Nason Hospital, 527 Pa. 330, 591 A.2d 703 (1991). In Thompson, the Supreme Court set forth four general areas of corporate liability against hospitals: (1) A duty to use reasonable care in the maintenance of safe and adequate facilities and equipment; (2) A duty to select and retain only competent physicians; (3) A duty to oversee all persons who practice medicine within its walls as to patient care; (4) A duty to formulate, adopt and enforce adequate rules and policies to ensure quality care for patients. Thompson v. Nason Hospital, supra. at 707; See also: Shannon v. McNulty, Pa.Super. -- 6 -- 718 A.2d 828 (1998)(where the Superior Court of Pennsylvania only extended the doctrine of corporate negligence to apply to HMO's). "Because the duty to uphold the proper standard of care runs directly from the hospital to the patient, an injured party need not rely on the negligence of a third-party, such as a doctor or nurse, to establish a cause of action in corporate negligence. Moser v. Heistand, 545, Pa. 554, 558, 681 A.2d 1322, 1325 (1996)(emphasis added). Corporate negligence is based on the negligent acts of the institution and not an individual. A cause of action for corporate negligence arises from the policies, actions or inaction of the institution itself rather than the specific acts of individual hospital employees. Id. Thus, under this theory, a corporate entity is held directly liable, as opposed to vicariously liable, for its own negligent acts. The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has not extended the doctrine of corporate negligence to physician practices. Sutherland v. Monongahela Valley Hosp., 856 A.2d 55, 61- 62 (Pa. Super. 2004). In Sutherland, the Superior Court stated the following: Dr. Alioto argues that the principles espoused in Thompson should be extended beyond hospitals to physician's offices ...We note that the policy considerations underlying the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's creation of the theory of corporate liability for hospitals are not present in the situation of a physician's office. In Thompson, the Supreme Court recognized that "the corporate hospital of today has assumed the role of a comprehensive health center with responsibility for arranging and coordinating the total health care of its patients." Id. at 706. The same cannot be said for a physician's practice group. Accordingly, we decline Dr. Alioto's invitation to extend the negligence principles contemplated by Thompson to the case sub judice. Id. (emphasis added). The Superior Court has continued to consistently hold that this doctrine only applies to corporate entities that are responsible for the coordination of the total health care of its patients. See: Hyrcza v. West Penn Allegheny Health Sys., 978 A.2d 961 (Pa. Super. 2009) (extended the doctrine to a medical professional corporation because it was totally responsible for the coordination of care of patients within a rehabilitation unit at a medical center); Scampone v. Grane Healthcare Co., 11 A.3d 967, P71 (Pa. Super. 2010)(extended the doctrine to a nursing home because the home was responsible for its -- 7 -- patients' overall health care analogous to a hospital). In the present matter, Plaintiff's claims of direct or corporate negligence against Myers, P.C. must fail as it is an entity that only provides oral surgical treatment. It is neither a hospital nor an HMO. As a result, it cannot be considered a practice that is responsible for the "total health care" of its patients as it would not even be responsible for the total medical or dental health care of its patients. As such, it is not analogous to a hospital or "total health care facility" as described by the appellate courts in Sutherland, Hyrcza or Scampone. There have also been a number of persuasive Common Pleas Court and Federal District Court decisions determining that such a claim is not applicable to such entities. Rarrick v. Silbert, 78 Pa. D.&.C.4th 129 (Lackawanna 2005) (preliminary objections granted and corporate negligence claims against a psychiatric healthcare center were dismissed); Dowhouer v. Judson, 45 Pa. D.&C.4th 172 (Dauphin 2000)(preliminary objections granted and corporate negligence claims against a cardiovascular surgical group were dismissed); Dibble v. Penn State Geisinger Clinic, 1999 WL 1442421, 42 Pa. D.&C.4th 225 (Lackawanna1999) (preliminary objections granted and corporate negligence claims against a medical clinic were dismissed); Milan v. American Vision Center, 34 F.Supp.2d 279, 281-282 (E.D.Pa. 1998)(where the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, applying Pennsylvania law, held that corporate negligence claims did not apply to an optometrist's office). In Dowhouer, the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County sustained preliminary objections regarding a claim of corporate negligence against a corporate physician practice using the following rationale: "...defendants' preliminary objection regarding corporate negligence is granted. CSI is a physician practice group devoted exclusively to the practice of cardiovascular surgery. Each of plaintiff's claims, alleging corporate negligence, attempts to impose a corporate negligence-type duty upon CSI. In doing so, plaintiffs are attempting to extend the doctrine of corporate negligence to include specialty physician practices. As stated above, the basis for the creation of such a doctrine was due to the corporate entity's role in the delivery of total health care to the patient. A physician's group which is solely devoted to the practice of cardiovascular surgery does not deliver total health care to its patients. Therefore, this court finds that a specialty physicians' practice like CSI is not the type of corporate entity for which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court intended to be created in Thompson." -- 8 -- Id. at 181 (emphasis added). For all of these reasons, it is clear that Plaintiff's legally insufficient claims of direct negligence and corporate negligence against Myers, P.C., must be dismissed with prejudice. Further, It is averred that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant, Myers, P.C., should be limited to claims of age ncy/res pond eat superior for the alleged claims against its agent, Dr. Myers, as set forth in Plaintiff's Complaint. V. CONCLUSION For all of the above listed reasons, Defendants, Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., M.B.A. and Wood & Myers Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C.'s, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to sustain their foregoing Preliminary Objections and enter the accompanying proposed Order. Respectfully submitted, NAUJa SCARICAMAZZA & McDEVITT, LLC. By: GARY V. GITTLEMAN, ESQUIRE THOMAS A. McCORMACK, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Defendants, Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., M.B.A. and Wood & Myers Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. -- 9 -- VERIFICATION Thomas A. McCormack, Esquire, attorney for Defendants in this action, hereby verifies that the statements made in the foregoing Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. GARY V. GITTLEMAN, ESQUIRE THOMAS A. McCORMACK, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Defendants, Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., M.B.A. and Wood & Myers Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. Dated: 1 I f NAULTY, SCARICAMAZZA & McDEVITT, LLC. BY: GARY V. GITTLEMAN, ESQUIRE THOMAS A. McCORMACK, ESQUIRE Identification Number: 12504/78468 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard 750 One Penn Center Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 568-5116 HAROLD S. IMBER ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., M.B.A. t/d/b/a Wood & Myers Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY vs ROBERT L. MYERS, DMD, MBA t/d/b/a WOOD & MYERS ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C. AND/OR WOOD, MYERS & HARTMAN ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C. NO. 11-7485 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the within Defendants, Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., M.B.A. and Wood & Myers Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C.'s, Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint, with attached supporting Brief and Proposed Order, was made this date to all below listed parties, by way of by first class mail, postage prepaid. Michael E. Kosik, Esquire ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 NA?dQ SCARICAMAZZA & McDEVITT, LLC By: L GARY V. GITTLEMAN, ESQUIRE THOMAS A. McCORMACK, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Defendants, Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., M.B.A. and Wood & Myers Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral & Dated Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. : ?? ?? ?l OF THE 'PE OTHONOTARY ZOii NOY -3 PM 2: 46 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Michael E. Kosik, Esquire Attorney ID# : 36513 4503 Borth Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FA,\ (717) 235-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: mkosik@angino-rovner.com HAROLD S.IMBER, Plaintiff V. ROBERT L. MYERS, DMD, MBA t/d/b/a WOOD & MYERS ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C. AND/OR WOOD, MYERS & HARTMAN ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C., Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION NO. 11-7485 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO DEFEND You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a. written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA Telephone number- 717- 249-3166 482928 F(HIBIT MEOW HAROLD S. IMBER, I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION ROBERT L. MYERS, DMD, MBA t/d/b/a WOOD & MYERS ORAL AND NO. 11-7485 MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C. AND/OR WOOD, MYERS & HARTMAN ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant NOTICIA Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas sugnuientes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Usted debe presentar una apariencia escrita o en persona o por abogado y archivar en la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeeiones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede entrar una orden contra usted sin previo aviso o notificacion y por cualquier queja o alivio que es pedido en la pelicion de demanda. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades o otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO IMMEDIATEMENTE. SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFICIENTE DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO, VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME POR TELEPFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEQUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA Telephone number- 717- 249-3166 482928 ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Michael E. Kosik, Esquire Attorney 1D# : 36513 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: mkosik@angino-rovner.com HAROLD S.IMBER, Plaintiff V. ROBERT L. MYERS, DMD, MBA t/d/b/a WOOD & MYERS ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C. AND/OR WOOD, MYERS & HARTMAN ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C., Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION NO. 11-7485 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff Harold S. Imber is an adult individual and citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, who resides at 124 North 11 "' Street, Reading, Berks County, Pennsylvania 17901. 2. Defendant Robert L. Myers, DMD, MBA, is an adult individual who is licensed to practice dentistry in Pennsylvania and maintains an office at 207 South 32"d Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff is asserting a professional liability claim against Defendant Myers. A Certificate of Merit is filed herewith, Exhibit A. 3. Defendant Wood & Myers Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C., is a professional corporation created 482928 under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and which maintains an office at 207 South 32°d Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. At all relevant times Defendant Wood & Myers Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C., employed Defendant Robert L. Myers, DMD, MBA, who was acting within the course and scope of his employment when providing treatment to Plaintiff Harold S. Imber. 5. Plaintiff Harold S. Imber was referred to the Defendant by his family dentist for evaluation and possible removal of his left lower molar, tooth 18. 6. Plaintiff Harold S. Imber was evaluated by Defendant Myers on September 16, 2009, at which time x-rays were performed and a recommendation to remove not only tooth 18 but also tooth 17 (wisdom tooth) was made. 7. Plaintiff Harold S. Imber at that time questioned Defendant Myers about the medical need to remove tooth 17 since it had not been mentioned by his family dentist and Plaintiff had never experienced problems with tooth 17 to his knowledge to which Defendant Myers said that "wisdom teeth always win." 8. On October 1, 2009, Plaintiff Harold S. Imber went to the office of Defendant Myers at which time a procedure was performed under anesthesia whereby Defendant Myers extracted teeth 17 and 18 while performing simultaneous bone grafting in site 18 . 9. On October 5, 2009, Plaintiff Harold S. Imber called the office of Defendant Myers and stated his face and neck are black and blue, that he was also having swelling at the surgery site/biting area, and he was advised to continue using Vicodin and Ibuprofen and use a soft tooth brush with Periogard on the surgical site. 482928 10. On October 15, 2009, Plaintiff Harold S. Imber returned to see Defendant Myers, for a post-operative visit during which he explained he had pain at the extraction site and discharge and foul taste was noted at the surgery site for which he was restarted on Clindamycin and told to irrigate the area and continued to use Periogard and to follow up on December 30, 2009. 11. On October 27, 2009, Plaintiff Harold S. Imber was forced to return to Defendant Myers' office early due to continued pain and numbness at the extraction site which was now extending to the teeth in front of the extraction site; no further treatment was provided and to follow up on December 30, 2009. 12. On November 11, 2009, Plaintiff Harold S. Imber was forced to return again early to Defendant Myers' office before his scheduled return visit because of continued drainage, foul taste and pain at the extraction site. 13. On November 11, 2009, some of the drainage was removed and it was recommended that Plaintiff Harold S. Imber return to the office on November 13, 2009, for a procedure to clean and debride the extraction site. 14. On November 13, 2009, Defendant Myers performed a debridement and biopsy under anesthesia on the extraction site of tooth 17 of Plaintiff Harold S. Imber. 15. Plaintiff Harold S. Imber was continued on Clindamycin and provided with Vicodin. 16. The result of the biopsy from the extraction site of tooth 17 was granulation tissue with vascular congestion, hemorrhage, and marked acute inflammation negative for tumor. 17. Plaintiff Harold S. Imber was seen on November 20, 2009, for a post-operative exam during which time Plaintiff Harold S. Imber continued to experience severe pain in the 482928 w , extraction area and increased numbness of the lower lip and chin at which time bruising and discoloration were noted in the area, however, no further treatment was recommended except to return on December 30, 2009. 18. On November 30, 2009, Plaintiff Harold S_ Imber again returned to Defendant Myers office complaining that the left side of his face was swollen, very numb, painful, and he had a foul taste in his mouth, for which he was again given Clindamycin. 19. On November 30, 2009, Keflex was additionally prescribed for long term use because Defendant Myers suspected osteomyelitis. 20. Defendant Myers and Defendant Wood & Myers Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C., who holds himself out to be a specialist in the field of dentistry, was negligent and careless in his substandard dental treatment of Harold S. Imber as follows: a. removing tooth 17 in a person of Plaintiff Harold S. Imber's age, which was asymptomatic and did not impact on the extraction of tooth 18; b. failing to appropriately treat Plaintiff Harold S. Imber for the infection which developed at the extraction site; C. failing to appropriately diagnose and treat the infection which developed at the extraction site; and d. failing to properly diagnose and treat Plaintiff Harold S. Imber 21. Plaintiff Harold S. Imber decided to obtain a second opinion because of the continuing problems and worsening of his condition when it was discovered he had an extensive infection in his jaw from which he developed osteomyelitis and ultimately a broken jaw. 22. Plaintiff Harold S. Imber never returned to Defendant Myers but promptly obtain treatment with a new dentist. 482928 23. As a result of the injuries caused by Defendants Defendant Wood & Myers Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C., Plaintiff Harold S. Imber developed a severe infection at the extraction site resulting in osteomyelitis in his jaw, a fractured gum cavity, misalignment of his teeth requiring further treatment, and claim is made therefor. 24. As a result of the injuries suffered by Plaintiff Harold S. Imber, he has been forced to incur pain, suffering, humiliation, and loss of life's pleasures, and claim is made therefor. 25. As a result of the injuries suffered by Plaintiff Harold S. Imber, he has been forced to incur medical expenses, and will continue to incur medical expenses in an amount unknown at this time, in and about an attempt to improve his condition, and claim is made therefor. 26. Plaintiff Harold S. Imber' injuries are of a permanent nature. 27. As a result of his injuries, Plaintiff Harold S. Imber may in the future experience pain, suffering, humiliation, disfigurement, loss of life's pleasures and enjoyment, limitation, and mental anguish, and claims are made therefor. 28. Plaintiff Harold S. Imber continues to be plagued by persistent pain and limitation and, therefore avers that his injuries may be of a permanent nature, causing residual problems for the remainder of his lifetime and claim is made therefor. 29. As a direct :result of his injuries, Plaintiff Harold S. Imber has and will sustain substantial amounts of medical bills and/or dental in an attempt to correct the condition. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Harold S. Imber demands judgment against Defendant Robert L. Myers, DMD, MBA, and Wood & Myers Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, 482928 Myers & Hartman Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C., in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50,000.00) Dollars exclusive of interest and costs and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. AN ER, P.C. Michael E. Kosik, Esquire I.D. No. 36513 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 Counsel for Plaintiff 482928 VERIFICATION I, HAROLD IMBER, do swear and affirm that the facts set forth in the foregoing COMPLAINT are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that this verification is made subject to'the penalties of the Rules of Civil Procedure relating to unworn falsification to authorities. WI S. W of HAROLD IMBER Dated: 4: .2 0 / 203648 s' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Michelle M. Milojevich, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of PLAINTIFF'S upon all counsel of record via postage prepaid first class United States mail addressed as follows: Gary V. Gittleman, Esquire Thomas M. McCormack, Esquire Naulty, Scaiicamazza &. McDevitt, LLC One Penn Center at Suburban Station, Suite 750 1617 John F. Kennedy Bivd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 568-5116 Michelle M. Miloievich Dated: / ' ?- • ? f 492928 I tCETARY off 0 fit; `(i-1c 01K0N II i k1A -S V;I 11148 Cr?It?dE ?SY ? Alil A NAULTY, SCARICAMAZZA & MCDEVITT, LLC. BY: GARY V. GITTLEMAN, ESQUIRE THOMAS A. McCORMACK, ESQUIRE Identification Number: 12504/78468 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard 750 One Penn Center Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 568-5116 HAROLD S. IMBER vs ROBERT L. MYERS, DMD, MBA t/d/b/a WOOD & MYERS ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C. AND/OR WOOD, MYERS & HARTMAN ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C. To the herein parties you are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed Answer to Amended Complaint with New Matter within twenty (20) days of service thereof or a default judgment may be fee?,?el?against you. r Attorney for Defendis ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., M.B.A. Vd/b/a Wood & Myers Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 11-7485 DEFENDANTS, ROBERT L. MYERS, DMD, MBA Vd/b/a WOOD & MYERS ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C. AND/OR WOOD, MYERS & HARTMAN ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C.'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH NEW MATTER 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants, Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., M.B.A. and Wood & Myers Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. ("Myers, P.C."), are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, demand strict proof of all allegations at time of trial. 2. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, is a dentist and oral & maxillofacial surgeon licensed to practice dentistry under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a practice located at 207 South 32nd Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. It is further admitted that Plaintiff has set forth claims of professional liability against Dr. Myers in his Amended Complaint related to treatment rendered to the area of his teeth nos. 17 and 18 from September 16, 2009 through November 30, 2009. All other allegations set forth in paragraph 2 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are denied as conclusions of law. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, was negligent and/or careless in any treatment or care rendered to Plaintiff. 3. Admitted in part. Denied in part. It is admitted that Answering Defendant, Myers, P.C.,is a corporate entity organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with a principle place of business located at 207 South 32nd Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. It is further admitted that Plaintiff has attached as Exhibit "B" a Certificate of Merit filed in relation to Myers, P.C. All other allegations set forth in paragraph 3 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are denied as conclusions of law. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant's agent, Dr. Myers, was negligent and/or careless in any treatment or care rendered to Plaintiff. 4. Denied. As Plaintiff has failed to identify what times she considers to be "relevant", all allegations set forth in paragraph 4 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are denied and strict proof of these allegations is demanded at time of trial. All allegations set forth in paragraph 4 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are also denied as conclusions of law. By way of further response, Answering Defendants concede that Dr. Myers was acting as an agent of Myers, P.C. in regard to the treatment -- 2 -- rendered to the area of Plaintiffs teeth nos. 17 and 18 from September 16, 2009 through November 30, 2009 for which Plaintiff has alleged claims of professional negligence as described in the Amended Complaint for this matter. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, was negligent and/or careless in any treatment or care rendered to Plaintiff. 5. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, demand strict proof of all allegations at time of trial. By way of further response, to the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 5 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint purport to be restatements of Plaintiff's dental/medical records, Answering Defendants aver that these records speak for themselves. The allegations set forth in paragraph 5 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are also denied as conclusions of law. 6. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, demand strict proof of all allegations at time of trial. By way of further response, to the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 6 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint purport to be restatements of Plaintiff's dental/medical records, Answering Defendants aver that these records speak for themselves. The allegations set forth in paragraph 6 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are also denied as conclusions of law. 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, demand strict proof of all allegations at time of trial. By way of further response, Answering Defendant does not recall making the statement alleged in this paragraph. In addition, to the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint purport to be restatements of Plaintiffs dental/medical records, Answering Defendants aver that these records speak for themselves. The allegations set forth in paragraph 7 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are also denied as conclusions of law. --3 -- 8. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, demand strict proof of all allegations at time of trial. By way of further response, to the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 8 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint purport to be restatements of Plaintiffs dental/medical records, Answering Defendants aver that these records speak for themselves. The allegations set forth in paragraph 8 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint are also denied as conclusions of law. 9. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, demand strict proof of all allegations at time of trial. By way of further response, to the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint purport to be restatements of Plaintiffs dental/medical records, Answering Defendants aver that these records speak for themselves. The allegations set forth in paragraph 9 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint are also denied as conclusions of law. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, demand strict proof of all allegations at time of trial. By way of further response, to the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint purport to be restatements of Plaintiff's dental/medical records, Answering Defendants aver that these records speak for themselves. The allegations set forth in paragraph 10 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint are also denied as conclusions of law. 11. Denied. Answering Defendants have been advised and therefore aver that the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Nevertheless, said allegations are denied and strict proof of all said allegations is demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, was negligent and/or careless in any treatment or care rendered to Plaintiff. To the contrary, Answering -- 4 -- Defendant, Dr. Myers, acted in a reasonable and prudent manner and within the standard of care in the dental/medical community in any treatment and/or providing of information to Plaintiff and Answering Defendant caused no injury, disability or increased risk of harm to Plaintiff. By way of further response, to the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 11 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint purportto be restatements of Plaintiff's dental/medical records, Answering Defendants aver that these records speak for themselves. 12. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, demand strict proof of all allegations at time of trial. By way of further response, to the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 12 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint purport to be restatements of Plaintiffs dental/medical records, Answering Defendants aver that these records speak for themselves. The allegations set forth in paragraph 12 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are also denied as conclusions of law. 13. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, demand strict proof of all allegations at time of trial. By way of further response, to the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint purport to be restatements of Plaintiff's dental/medical records, Answering Defendants aver that these records speak for themselves. The allegations set forth in paragraph 13 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint are also denied as conclusions of law. 14. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, demand strict proof of all allegations at time of trial. By way of further response, to the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint purport to be restatements of Plaintiffs dental/medical records, Answering Defendants aver that these records speak for themselves. The allegations set forth in paragraph 14 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint are also denied as conclusions of law. --5-- ry 15. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, demand strict proof of all allegations at time of trial. By way of further response, to the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint purport to be restatements of Plaintiffs dental/medical records, Answering Defendants aver that these records speak for themselves. The allegations set forth in paragraph 15 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint are also denied as conclusions of law. 16. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, demand strict proof of all allegations at time of trial. By way of further response, to the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint purport to be restatements of Plaintiff's dental/medical records, Answering Defendants aver that these records speak for themselves. The allegations set forth in paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint are also denied as conclusions of law. 17. Denied. Answering Defendants have been advised and therefore aver that the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Nevertheless, said allegations are denied and strict proof of all said allegations is demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, was negligent and/or careless in any treatment or care rendered to Plaintiff. To the contrary, Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, acted in a reasonable and prudent manner and within the standard of care in the dental/medical community in any treatment and/or providing of information to Plaintiff and Answering Defendant caused no injury, disability or increased risk of harm to Plaintiff. By way of further response, to the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 17 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint purportto be restatements of Plaintiff's dental/medical records, Answering Defendants aver that these records speak for themselves. -- 6 -- 18. Denied. Answering Defendants have been advised and therefore aver that the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Nevertheless, said allegations are denied and strict proof of all said allegations is demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, was negligent and/or careless in any treatment or care rendered to Plaintiff. To the contrary, Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, acted in a reasonable and prudent manner and within the standard of care in the dental/medical community in any treatment and/or providing of information to Plaintiff and Answering Defendant caused no injury, disability or increased risk of harm to Plaintiff. By way of further response, to the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 18 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint purport to be restatements of Plaintiff s dental/medical records, Answering Defendants aver that these records speak for themselves. 19. Denied. Answering Defendants have been advised and therefore aver that the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Nevertheless, said allegations are denied and strict proof of all said allegations is demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, was negligent and/or careless in any treatment or care rendered to Plaintiff. To the contrary, Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, acted in a reasonable and prudent manner and within the standard of care in the dental/medical community in any treatment and/or providing of information to Plaintiff and Answering Defendant caused no injury, disability or increased risk of harm to Plaintiff. By way of further response, to the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 19 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint purportto be restatements of Plaintiffs dental/medical records, Answering Defendants aver that these records speak for themselves. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, demand strict proof of all allegations at time of trial. By way of further response, to the extent that the -- 7 -- allegations contained in paragraph 20 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint purport to be restatements of Plaintiff's dental/medical records, Answering Defendants aver that these records speak for themselves. The allegations set forth in paragraph 20 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint are also denied as conclusions of law. Further, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, was negligent and/or careless in any treatment or care rendered to Plaintiff. To the contrary, Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, acted in a reasonable and prudent manner and within the standard of care in the dental/medical community in any treatment and/or providing of information to Plaintiff and Answering Defendant caused no injury, disability or increased risk of harm to Plaintiff. 21. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments and, therefore, demand strict proof of all allegations at time of trial. By way of further response, to the extent that the allegations contained in paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint purport to be restatements of Plaintiffs dental/medical records, Answering Defendants aver that these records speak for themselves. The allegations set forth in paragraph 21 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint are also denied as conclusions of law. Further, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, was negligent and/or careless in any treatment or care rendered to Plaintiff. To the contrary, Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, acted in a reasonable and prudent manner and within the standard of care in the dental/medical community in any treatment and/or providing of information to Plaintiff and Answering Defendant caused no injury, disability or increased risk of harm to Plaintiff. 22. Denied. Answering Defendants have been advised and therefore aver that the allegations contained in paragraph 22 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Nevertheless, said allegations are denied and strict proof of all said allegations is demanded at time of trial. Byway of further response, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, was negligent and/or careless in any treatment or care rendered to Plaintiff. To the contrary, Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, acted in a reasonable and prudent manner and within the standard of care in the dental/medical community in any treatment and/or providing of information to Plaintiff and -- 8 -- Answering Defendant caused no injury, disability or increased risk of harm to Plaintiff. 23. Denied. Answering Defendants have been advised and therefore aver that the allegations contained in paragraph 23 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Nevertheless, said allegations are denied and strict proof of all said allegations is demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, was negligent and/or careless in any treatment or care rendered to Plaintiff. To the contrary, Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, acted in a reasonable and prudent manner and within the standard of care in the dental/medical community in any treatment and/or providing of information to Plaintiff and Answering Defendant caused no injury, disability or increased risk of harm to Plaintiff. 24. Denied. Answering Defendants have been advised and therefore aver that the allegations contained in paragraph 24 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Nevertheless, said allegations are denied and strict proof of all said allegations is demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, was negligent and/or careless in any treatment or care rendered to Plaintiff. To the contrary, Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, acted in a reasonable and prudent manner and within the standard of care in the dental/medical community in any treatment and/or providing of information to Plaintiff and Answering Defendant caused no injury, disability or increased risk of harm to Plaintiff. 25. Denied. Answering Defendants have been advised and therefore aver that the allegations contained in paragraph 25 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Nevertheless, said allegations are denied and strict proof of all said allegations is demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, was negligent and/or careless in any treatment or care rendered to Plaintiff. To the contrary, Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, acted in a reasonable and prudent manner and within the standard of care in the dental/medical community in any treatment and/or providing of information to Plaintiff and -- 9 -- Answering Defendant caused no injury, disability or increased risk of harm to Plaintiff. 26. Denied. Answering Defendants have been advised and therefore aver that the allegations contained in paragraph 26 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Nevertheless, said allegations are denied and strict proof of all said allegations is demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, was negligent and/or careless in any treatment or care rendered to Plaintiff. To the contrary, Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, acted in a reasonable and prudent manner and within the standard of care in the dental/medical community in any treatment and/or providing of information to Plaintiff and Answering Defendant caused no injury, disability or increased risk of harm to Plaintiff. 27. Denied. Answering Defendants have been advised and therefore aver that the allegations contained in paragraph 27 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Nevertheless, said allegations are denied and strict proof of all said allegations is demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, was negligent and/or careless in any treatment or care rendered to Plaintiff. To the contrary, Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, acted in a reasonable and prudent manner and within the standard of care in the dentallmedical community in any treatment and/or providing of information to Plaintiff and Answering Defendant caused no injury, disability or increased risk of harm to Plaintiff. 28. Denied. Answering Defendants have been advised and therefore aver that the allegations contained in paragraph 28 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Nevertheless, said allegations are denied and strict proof of all said allegations is demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, was negligent and/or careless in any treatment or care rendered to Plaintiff. To the contrary, Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, acted in a reasonable and prudent manner and within the standard of care in the dental/medical community in any treatment and/or providing of information to Plaintiff and -- 10 -- Answering Defendant caused no injury, disability or increased risk of harm to Plaintiff. COUNTI HAROLD S. IMBER v. ROBERT L. MYERS, D.M.D.. MBA 29. By way of answer, Answering Defendants adopt and incorporate their answers to the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 28 as though the same were set forth herein at length. 30. Denied. Answering Defendants have been advised and therefore aver that the allegations contained in paragraph 30, including sub-paragraphs a-d, of Plaintiff'sAmended Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Nevertheless, said allegations are denied and strict proof of all said allegations is demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, was negligent and/or careless in any treatment or care rendered to Plaintiff. To the contrary, Answering Defendants aver that Dr. Myers acted in a reasonable and prudent manner and within the standard of care in the dental/medical community in any treatment and/or providing of information to Plaintiff and Answering Defendants aver that Dr. Myers caused no injury, disability or increased risk of harm to Plaintiff. 31. Denied. Answering Defendants have been advised and therefore aver that the allegations contained in paragraph 31 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Nevertheless, said allegations are denied and strict proof of all said allegations is demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, was negligent and/or careless in any treatment or care rendered to Plaintiff. To the contrary, Answering Defendants aver that Dr. Myers acted in a reasonable and prudent manner and within the standard of care in the dental/medical community in any treatment and/or providing of information to Plaintiff and Answering Defendants aver that Dr. Myers caused no injury, disability or increased risk of harm to Plaintiff. -- 11 -- WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand judgment that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint De dismissed as of record. COUNT II HAROLD S. IMBER v. WOOD & MYERS ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C. AND/OR WOOD, MYERS & HARTMAN ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C. 32. By way of answer, Answering Defendants adopt and incorporate their answers to the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 31 as though the same were set forth herein at length. 33. Denied. Answering Defendants have been advised and therefore aver that the allegations contained in paragraph 33 of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required pursuant to the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Nevertheless, said allegations are denied and strict proof of all said allegations is demanded at time of trial. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, was negligent and/or careless in any treatment or care rendered to Plaintiff. To the contrary, Answering Defendants aver that Dr. Myers acted in a reasonable and prudent manner and within the standard of care in the dental/medical community in any treatment and/or providing of information to Plaintiff and Answering Defendants aver that Dr. Myers caused no injury, disability or increased risk of harm to Plaintiff. 34. Denied. As Plaintiff has failed to identify what times she considers to be "relevant", all allegations set forth in paragraph 34 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint are denied and strict proof of these allegations is demanded at time of trial. All allegations set forth in paragraph 34 of Plaintiffs Amended Complaint are also denied as conclusions of law. By way of further response, Answering Defendants concede that Dr. Myers was acting as an agent of Myers, P.C. in regard to the treatment rendered to the area of Plaintiffs teeth nos. 17 and 18 from September 16, 2009 through November 30, 2009 for which Plaintiff has alleged claims of professional negligence as described in the Amended Complaint for this matter. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers, was negligent and/or careless in any treatment or care rendered to Plaintiff. To the contrary, Answering Defendants aver that Dr. Myers acted in a reasonable and prudent manner and within the standard -- 12 -- of care in the dental/medical community in any treatment and/or providing of information to Plaintiff and Answering Defendants aver that Dr. Myers caused no injury, disability or increased risk of harm to Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants demand judgment that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be dismissed as of record. NEW MATTER 35. At all times material herein, there existed the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 36. Plaintiff's claims are barred by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 37. Plaintiffs alleged injuries and damages were caused and contributed to in full or in part by the negligence and carelessness of persons, parties and/or organizations other than Answering Defendants, over whom Answering Defendants had no control, right of control or responsibility. 38. Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages were caused by the intervening negligence of a third person or persons, which was the superseding cause of Plaintiff's alleged injuries and damages, and therefore Answering Defendants are not liable to Plaintiff or any other party. 39. Answering Defendants, either individually, or by and through an alleged agent, servant or employee, did not engage in negligent, careless or reckless conduct of any type. 40. There was no willful or outrageous conduct byAnswering Defendants, either individually, or by and through an alleged agent, ostensible agent, servant or employee. 41. There was no action or inaction by or on behalf of Answering Defendants, which produced any injuries or damages to Plaintiff. 42. Any alleged dental/medical treatment rendered to Plaintiff byAnswering Defendants was proper in all respects, and in accordance with standard dental/medical practice. 43. Plaintiff shall have no right to recover for any amount which was paid by a public collateral source of compensation or benefits under such as instituted by the Pennsylvania Health and Care Services Malpractice Act. -- 13 -- 44. To the extent that all of the claims and causes of actions pleaded against Answering Defendants in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in this action are barred by the running of the applicable statute of limitations, Answering Defendants plead this affirmative defense. 45. Plaintiff's claims are barred and/or limited by the discovery rule. 46. All of the claims and causes of action pleaded against Answering Defendants in Plaintiff's Complaint are barred in whole or in part by Plaintiff's assumption of the risk of the occurrence of the incidents and injuries alleged in Plaintiffs Amended Complaint. 47. Insofar, as Plaintiff has plead any claim or cause of action against Answering Defendants for failing to effect a cure of any particular result of treatment, this claim and/or cause of action is wholly barred by the absence of special contract in writing, without which a healthcare provider is neither a warrantor nor a guarantor of a cure. 48. By way of further defense, Answering Defendants specifically reserve the right to plead hereafter as further New Matter those additional affirmative defenses, including without limitation those set forth in Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure 1030, that continuing investigations and discovery pursuantto the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, and the introduction of evidence that trial may render applicable to the claims and causes of action declared upon by Plaintiff in his Amended Complaint. 49. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted against Answering Defendants. There is no act or omission of Answering Defendants alleged in Plaintiffs Amended Complaint. 50. There is no cause or relationship between the alleged acts or omissions of Answering Defendants and any alleged damages, losses or alleged increased risk of harm claimed by Plaintiff herein. 51. Insofar as the injuries claimed herein may have been the subject of previous litigation, Answering Defendants plead the affirmative defense of collateral estoppel and release. -- 14 -- 52. Answering Defendants are entitled to all the benefits and protection of the Pennsylvania Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (Mcare) Act, 40 P.S. §1303.101 et seq., which are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth at length herein. 53. Plaintiffs claims and/or requests for damages are barred or limited by the provisions of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (Mcare) Act, 40 P.S. §1303.101 et seq. 54. Plaintiff shall have no right to recover for any amount which was paid by a private, public or gratuitous collateral source of compensation or benefits under such as instituted or amended by the Pennsylvania Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (Mcare) Act, 40 P. S. §1303.101 et seq. 55. Plaintiff gave his consent and informed consent to all surgeries and medical/dental treatment provided by Answering Defendant, Robert Myers, D.M.D., MBA as is indicated by the consent forms signed by Plaintiff. 56. Any alleged undisclosed information was not a substantial factor in Plaintiffs decision to undergo any surgical procedures and treatment performed by Answering Defendant, Dr. Myers. 57. A professional corporation orbusiness entity cannot be held eitherdirectly orvicariously liable for any claim of alleged lack of informed consent or battery. 58. Plaintiff bears the burden of lien confirmation and resolution in this matter with any such liens to be the responsibility of the plaintiff. 59. Plaintiff bears the responsibility to advise the CMS of plaintiffs claim and is responsible for any liens advised thereof. 60. Plaintiff is responsible for all liens, and resolution of same, pursuant to the Medicare, Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, Extension Act of 2007. -- 15 -- WHEREFORE, Answering Defendants, Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., M.B.A. and Wood & Myers Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral & Maxillofaciai Surgery, P.C., demand judgment that Plaintiffs Amended Complaint be dismissed as of record. Respectfully submitted, NAU TY SCARICAMAZZA & MCDEVITT, LLC BY: GARY V. GITTL N, ESQUIRE THOMAS A. MCCORMACK ESQUIRE Attorneys for Defendants, Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., M.B.A. and Wood & Myers Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. -- 16 -- VERIFICATION Thomas A. McCormack, Esquire, attorney for a Defendant in this action, hereby verifies that the statements made in the foregoing Defendant's Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint with New Matter are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein made are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 1 614, A, ? GARY V. GITTLEMAN, ESQUIRE THOMAS A. McCORMACK, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Defendants, Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., M.B.A. and Wood & Myers Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. Dated: I k 114 NAULTY, SCARICAMAZZA & McDEVITT, LLC. BY: GARY V. GITTLEMAN, ESQUIRE THOMAS A. McCORMACK, ESQUIRE Identification Number: 12504178468 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard 750 One Penn Center Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 568-5116 HAROLD S. IMBER ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., M.B.A. t/d/b/a Wood & Myers Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY vs ROBERT L. MYERS, DMD, MBA t/d/b/a WOOD & MYERS ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C. AND/OR WOOD, MYERS & HARTMAN ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C. NO. 11-7485 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the within Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint with New Matter was made this date, to all parties named below by first class mail, postage prepaid. Michael E. Kosik, Esquire ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 NA? SCCAnRICAMAZZA & McDEVITT, LLC By: / `?- GARY V. GITTLEMAN, ESQUIRE THOMAS A. McCORMACK, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Defendants, Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., M.B.A. and Wood & Myers Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. Dated: 1/411a 111 NAULTY, SCARICAMAZZA & McDEVITT, LLC. BY: GARY V. GITTLEMAN, ESQUIRE THOMAS A. McCORMACK, ESQUIRE Identification Number: 12504/78468 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard 750 One Penn Center Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 568-5116 HAROLD S. IMBER vs ROBERT L. MYERS, DMD, MBA t/d/b/a WOOD & MYERS ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C. AND/OR WOOD, MYERS & HARTMAN ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C. R -,O.-QFFICE OF THE7MTHONOTARY 2312 JAN 17 AM tt: 20 CUMBERLAND COUNTY ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., M.B.A., et al. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO. 11-7485 PRAECIPE TO SUBSTITUTE VERIFICATION TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly substitute the attached Verification of Defendant, Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., MBA, for the attorney's Verification filed with the Defendants, Robert L. Myers, DMD, MBA t/d/b/a Wood & Myers Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C.'s Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint with New Matter filed on January 6, 2012. NAULTY, SCARICAMAZZA & McDEVITT, LLC t? BY: Dated: 1 12/lx GARY V. GITTLEMAN, ESQUIRE THOMAS A. McCORMACK, ESQUIRE Attorney for Defendants, Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., M.B.A. t/d/b/a Wood & Myers Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. VERIFICATION ROBERT L. MYERS, D.M.D., M.B.A., hereby states that he is a defendant in this cause of action, and verifies that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint with New Matter are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. Section 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. ROBERT L. MYER , D.M.D., .B.A. DATE: '? '?-- . e NAULTY, SCARICAMAZZA & McDEVITT, LLC. BY: GARY V. GITTLEMAN, ESQUIRE THOMAS A. McCORMACK, ESQUIRE Identification Number: 12504/78468 1617 John F. Kennedy Boulevard 750 One Penn Center Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 568-5116 HAROLD S. IMBER ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS, Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., M.B.A., et al. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY vs ROBERT L. MYERS, DMD, MBA t/d/b/a WOOD & MYERS ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C. AND/OR WOOD, MYERS & HARTMAN ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C. NO. 11-7485 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the within Praecipe to Substitute Verification was made this date, to all parties named below by first class mail, postage prepaid. Michael E. Kosik, Esquire ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 NAULT, SCARICAMAZZA & McDEVITT, LLC By: f GARY V. GITTLEMAN, ESQUIRE THOMAS A. McCORMACK, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Defendants, Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., M.B.A. and Wood & Myers Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral & Dated: Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. ? I a ? ? v/ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA HAROLD S. IMBER NO. 11-7485 I VS c G ` ROBERT L. MYERS, DMD, MBA t/d/b/a m - r WOOD & MYERS ORAL AND I =6 z 0 ` MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C. I N y' ..' Cif ) ..t O AND/OR WOOD, MYERS & HARTMAN ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C. 2 = ,3 ORDER AND NOW, this H day of A??, 2012, upon consideration of the within Motion of Naulty, Scaricamazza & McDevitt, LLC, on behalf of Defendants, Robert L. Myers, D.M.D., M.B.A. and Wood & Myers Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C. and/or Wood, Myers & Hartman Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C., it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants' Motion is GRANTED and Plaintiff, Harold S. Imber, is ORDERED to produce his full, complete and verified answers to any and all Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents directed to him by Defendants within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order or, upon further Motion, will be subject to such sanctions as the Court might impose. BY THE COURT: J. McLel CC` kos.%.4 Ilrbo A#11 CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 ,,r IN THE MATTER OF: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HAROLD S. IMBER TERM, CUMBERLAND -vs- CASE NO: 11-7485 ROBERT L. MYERS,DMD,MBA C=_ r-q CD -TJ f As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things prrsuant a -_? to Rule 4009.22 r-?Z?-?° -.? V ?TT > C-) C7 MCS on behalf of THOMAS MCCORMACK, ESQ. (:D < certifies that (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 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) No objection to the subpoena has been received, and (4) The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. DATE: 02/03/2012 MCS on behalf of THOMAS MCCORMACK, ESQ. Attorney for DEFENDANT MKIAH@NAULTY.COM MCS # 35571-LO1 DE11 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND HAROLD S. IMBER vs. ROBERT L. MYERS,DMD,MBA File No. _ 11-7485 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Custodian of Records for DR. ARTHUR A. RAVITZ (Name 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: **** SEE ATTACHED RTDF.R **** at The MC Group. Inc 1601 Market Street„ Suite 800, Philadelphia PA 19103 You may deliver or mail legible copies of the 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 have the right to seek, in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things 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: THOMAS MCCORMACK. ES ADDRESS: 1617 JFK BIND. TELEPHONE: (15) 246-0900 SUPREME COURT ID #: ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant BY THE?C'Q kiT: I Division EB 0 3 2012 Date: 10 r Deputy Seal of the Court ?CC^7, A, EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: DR. ARTHUR A. KRAVITZ 890 POPLAR CHURCH ROAD CAMP HILL, PA 17011 RE: MCS # 35571-L01 HAROLD IMBER 124 N. 11TH STREET READING, PA 19601 Social Security #: XXX-XX-2224 Date of Birth: 06-04-1939 Please provide entire medical, billing, and diagnostic file, including but not limited to any and all records, correspondence to and from the consulting and treating physicians. Include all files, memoranda, handwritten records and notes, history and physical reports. Supply all medication and prescription records, medical billing and payment information. Provide all diagnostic films and tests, including CAT scans, CT scans, EEG's EKG's, EMG's, MRI's, and x-rays and all corresponding reports or inventories. This should contain all records in your possession, all archived records, or records in storage. Including any and all items as may be stored in a computer database or otherwise in electronic form. INCLUDING PATHOLOGY RECORDS & PHOTOGRAPHS Prior approval is required for fees in excess of $150.00 for hospitals, $100.00 for all other providers. MCS # 35571-LO1 SU10 CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 IN THE MATTER OF: HAROLD S. IMBER -VS- ROBERT L. MYERS,DMD,MBA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TERM, CUMBERLAND CASE NO: 11-7485 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 MCS on behalf of THOMAS MCCORMACK, ESQ. certifies that (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 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) No objection to the subpoena has been received, and (4) The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. MCS on behalf of DATE: 02/03/2012 THOMAS MCCORMACK, ESQ. Attorney for DEFENDANT MKIAH@NAULTY.COM MCS # 35571-L02 DE11 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND HAROLD S. IMBER vs. ROBERT L. MYERS,DMD,MBA File No. 11-7485 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Custodian of Records for ENDODONTICS ASSOC. (Name 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: * * * * SEE ATTACHED RIDER * * * * at The MCS Group. Inc.. 1601 Market Street Suite 800, Philadelphia. PA 19103 You may deliver or mail legible copies of the 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 have the right to seek, in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things 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: THOMAS MCCORMACK. ESO ADDRESS: 1617 JFK BLVD. SUITE 750 PHILADELPHIA. PA 1 103 TELEPHONE: (215) 246-0900 SUPREME COURT ID #: ATTORNEY FOR.: Defendant FEB 03 2012 )n Date: Ld/ Deputy Seal of the Court 35571-02 EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: ENDODONTICS ASSOC. 395 ST. JOHN'S CHURCH RD CAMP HILL, PA 17011 RE: MCS # 35571-LO2 HAROLD IMBER 124 N. 11TH STREET READING, PA 19601 Social Security #: XXX-XX-2224 Date of Birth: 06-04.1939 Please provide entire medical, billing, and diagnostic file, including but not limited to any and all records, correspondence to and from the consulting and treating physicians. Include all files, memoranda, handwritten records and notes, history and physical reports. Supply all medication and prescription records, medical billing and payment information. Provide all diagnostic films and tests, including CAT scans, CT scans, EEG's EKG's, EEG's, MRI's, and x-rays and all corresponding reports or inventories. This should contain all records in your possession, all archived records, or records in storage. Including any and all items as may be stored in a computer database or otherwise in electronic form. INLCUDING PATHOLOGY RECORDS & PHOTOGRAPHS Prior approval is required for fees in excess of $150.00 for hospitals, $100.00 for all other providers. MCS # 35571-LO2 SU10 CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 IN THE MATTER OF: HAROLD S. IMBER -VS- ROBERT L. MYERS,DMD,MBA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TERM, CUMBERLAND CASE NO: 11-7485 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 MCS on behalf of THOMAS MCCORMACK, E certifies that (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 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) No objection to the subpoena has been received, and (4) The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. MCS on behalf of DATE: 02/03/2012 THOMAS MCCORMACK, ESQ. Attorney for DEFENDANT MKIAH@NAULTY.COM MCS # 35571-L03 DE11 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND HAROLD S. IMBER File No. 11-7485 vs. ROBERT L. MYERS,DMD,MBA SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Custodian of Records for PATHOLOGY ASSOC./CENTRAL PA-PC (Name 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: **** SEE ATTACHED RIDER **** at The MCS Groun. Inc.. 1601 Market Street. Suite 800. Philadelphia- PA 19103 You may deliver or mail legible copies of the 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 have the right to seek, in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things 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: THOMAS MCCORMACK. ES ADDRESS: 1617 .IFK BLVD. TELEPHONE: (215) 246-0900 SUPREME COURT ID #: ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant BY Division FEB 03 2012 Date: Deputy Seal of the Court EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: PATHOLOGY ASSOC./CENTRAL PA,PC 100 S. 2ND STREET HARRISBURG, PA 171058700 RE: MCS # 35571-LO3 HAROLD IMBER 124 N. 11TH STREET READING, PA 19601 Social Security #: XXX-XX-2224 Date of Birth: 06-04-1939 Please provide entire medical, billing, and diagnostic file, including but not limited to any and all records, correspondence to and from the consulting and treating physicians. Include all files, memoranda, handwritten records and notes, history and physical reports. Supply all medication and prescription records, medical billing and payment information. Provide all diagnostic films and tests, including CAT scans, CT scans, EEG's EKG's, EMG's, MRI's, and x-rays and all corresponding reports or inventories. This should contain all records in your possession, all archived records, or records in storage. Including any and all items as may be stored in a computer database or otherwise in electronic form. INCLUDING PHOTOGRAPHS & PATHOLOGY RECORDS Prior approval is required for fees in excess of $150.00 for hospitals, $100.00 for all other providers. MCS # 35571-L03 SU10 CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 IN THE MATTER OF: HAROLD S. IMBER COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TERM, CUMBERLAND -VS- ROBERT L. MYERS,DMD,MBA CASE NO: 11-7485 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 MCS on behalf of THOMAS MCCORMACK, ESQ. _ certifies that (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 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) No objection to the subpoena has been received, and (4) The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. MCS on behalf of DATE: 02/03/2012 THOMAS MCCORMACK, ESQ. Attorney for DEFENDANT MKIAH@NAULTY.COM MCS # 35571-LO4 DE11 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND HAROLD S. IMBER File No. 11-7485 VS. ROBERT L. MYERS,DMD,MBA SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Custodian of Records for DR LEE CARASCO (Name 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: **** SEE ATTACHED RIDER **** - at The MCS Group Inc 1601 Market Street- Suite 800• biladelphia PA 19103 You may deliver or mail legible copies of the 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 have the right to seek, in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things 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: THOMAS MCCORMACK, ESO. ADDRESS: 1617 3FK BLVD. SUITE. 750 PHILADELPHIA_ PA 19103 TELEPHONE: (215)_ 245-0900 SUPREME COURT ID #: ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant FEB 03 2012 Date: Seal of the Court BY T URT: Pro onotary/Cl rk, Civil Division Deputy 2Cf'71 AA EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: DR. LEE CARASCO PENN MEDICINE AT RADNOR 250 KING OF PRUSSIA RADNOR, PA 19087 RE: MCS # 35571-L04 HAROLD IMBER 124 N. 11TH STREET READING, PA 19601 Social Security #: XXX-XX-2224 Date of Birth: 06-04-1939 Please provide entire medical, billing, and diagnostic file, including but not limited to any and all records, correspondence to and from the consulting and treating physicians. Include all files, memoranda, handwritten records and notes, history and physical reports. Supply all medication and prescription records, medical billing and payment information. Provide all diagnostic films and tests, including CAT scans, CT scans, EEG's EKG's, EMG's, MRI's, and x-rays and all corresponding reports or inventories. This should contain all records in your possession, all archived records, or records in storage. Including any and all items as may be stored in a computer database or otherwise in electronic form. INCLUDING PHOTOGRAPHS & PATHOLOGY RECORDS Prior approval is required for fees in excess of $150.00 for hospitals, $100.00 for all other providers. MCS # 35571-L04 SU10 CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 IN THE MATTER OF: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HAROLD S. IMBER TERM, CUMBERLAND -VS- ROBERT L. MYERS,DMD,MBA CASE NO: 11-7485 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 MCS on behalf of THOMAS MCCORMACK, ESQ. _ certifies that (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 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) No objection to the subpoena has been received, and (4) The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. MCS on behalf of DATE: 02/03/2012 THOMAS MCCORMACK, ESQ. Attorney for DEFENDANT MKIAH@NAULTY.COM MCS # 35571-L05 DE11 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND HAROLD S. IMBER VS. ROBERT L. MYERS,DMD,MBA File No. 11-7485 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Custodian of Records for ORAL. & MAXII.L.OFACIAL SURGERY (Name 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: _ **** SEE ATTACHED RIDER **** at _ She MCS Group. Inc.. 1601 Market Street. Suite 800. Philadelphia. PA 19103 You may deliver or mail legible copies of the 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 have the right to seek, in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things 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: THOMAS MCCORMACK, ES ADDRESS: 1617 JFK BLVD. TELEPHONE: (15) 246-0900 SUPREME COURT ID #: ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant FEB 03 2012 Date: /d 1-26/,12- y Seal of the Court BY H O RT: notary/Cler , Civil Division Deputy 35571-05 EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY C/O UNIV. OF PENN HOSP. 3400 SPRUCE STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA 19104 RE: MCS # 35571-L05 HAROLD IMBER 124 N. 11TH STREET READING, PA 19601 Social Security #: XXX-XX-2224 Date of Birth: 06-04-1939 Please provide entire medical, billing, and diagnostic file, including but not limited to any and all records, correspondence to and from the consulting and treating physicians. Include all files, memoranda, handwritten records and notes, history and physical reports. Supply all medication and prescription records, medical billing and payment information. Provide all diagnostic 'films and tests, including CAT scans, CT scans, EEG's EKG's, EMG's, MRI`s, and x-rays and all corresponding reports or inventories. This should contain all records in your possession, all archived records, or records in storage. Including any and all items as may be stored in a computer database or otherwise in electronic form. INCLUDING PATHOLOGY RECORDS & PHOTOGRAPHS Prior approval is required for fees in excess of $150.00 for hospitals, $100.00 for all other providers. MCS # 35571-L05 SUM 1 t 1- ??,' ? l l ? i?1 NO f r i. TP, 5 rL ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C. Michael E. Kosik, Esquire Attorney 1D# : 36513 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110-1708 (717) 238-6791 FAX (717) 238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail: mkosik(a)angino-rovner.com HAROLD S.IMBER, Plaintiff V. ROBERT L. MYERS, DMD, MBA t/d/b/a WOOD & MYERS ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C. AND/OR WOOD, MYERS & HARTMAN ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY. P.C., Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION NO. 11-7485 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER AND NOW comes Plaintiff Harold S. Imber, by and through his attorneys, Angino & Rovner, P.C., and hereby replies to the New Matter of Defendants as follows: 35. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 36. Denied. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a further response may be deemed proper, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff Harold Imber was negligent in any manner upon the cause of action stated in the 489200 Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint is for negligence in the performance of professional services by Defendant Dr. Robert L. Myers. At all times Plaintiff Harold Imber followed the advice of Dr. Myers until it became apparent that his condition was worsening and he sought a second opinion. At no point did Plaintiff Harold Imber fail to follow the advice of Dr. Myers while he was under his care. Therefore, it is denied that Plaintiff is in any way comparatively negligent or that his claim is barred by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act. 37. Denied. This averment is a conclusory allegation unsupported by any factual statements, and therefore, no further response is required. To the extent that a further response may be deemed proper, it is specifically denied that Plaintiffs injuries or damages were caused or contributed to by any unidentified persons, parties, organizations over whom answering Defendant had no control, right of control, or responsibility. To the contrary, at all times Plaintiff's injuries and damages were caused by the negligence of the Defendant as set forth in Plaintiffs Amended Complaint. 38. Denied. This averment is a conclusory allegation unsupported by any factual statements, and therefore, no further response is required. To the extent that a further response is deemed proper, it is specifically denied that Plaintiffs injuries and damages were caused by the intervening negligence of an unidentified third party. To the contrary, Plaintiffs injuries and damages were caused by the negligence of the Defendant as set forth in Plaintiffs Amended Complaint. 39. Denied. It is specifically denied that Defendant Myers, either individually or through an agent, servant, or employee, did not engage in negligent, careless or reckless conduct. 489200 To the contrary, Plaintiff maintains that Defendant Myers was negligent, careless, and reckless as set forth in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. 40. Admitted. Plaintiffs Amended Complaint does not allege any willful or outrageous conduct by Defendant Myers. 41. Denied. It is denied that there was no action or inaction on behalf of Defendant Myers which caused or produced Plaintiffs injuries and damages. To the contrary, Plaintiff maintains that Defendant was negligent in removing an otherwise healthy wisdom tooth and failing to properly treat an infection once it developed, as more specifically set forth in his Amended Complaint. 42. Denied. It is specifically denied that the dental treatment provided by Defendant Myers was proper in all respects and in accordance with standard dental/medical practice. To the contrary, it is averred that Defendant's conduct in removing a healthy wisdom tooth in Plaintiff Harold Imber was improper and below the standard of care as was Defendant's treatment of Plaintiff once an infection developed, as more specifically set forth in Plaintiffs Amended Complaint. 43. Denied. It is specifically denied that any of Plaintiffs medical bills were paid by a public collateral source. Plaintiff maintains his medical and dental bills are recoverable in his claim against Defendant Myers. 44. Denied. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a further response is required, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff Harold Imber's claims are barred by the running of the applicable statute of limitations. Plaintiff Harold Imber's cause of action arose as a result of the Defendant's negligent and substandard conduct based upon the removal of his healthy wisdom tooth on October 1, 2009. Plaintiff filed 489200 a Writ of Summons against the Defendant on September 30, 2011, with service being made by the sheriff's office on October 3, 2011 within the time period permitted under the Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, Plaintiff maintains that his cause of action was properly filed within the two- year anniversary of the Defendant's negligence and substandard conduct as required by 42 Pa.C.S.A. §5524 which provides for a two-year statute of limitations in professional negligence claims. 45. Denied. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the contrary, to the extent that a further response may be deemed proper, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff Harold Imber's claim is barred or limited by the discovery rule. Plaintiff Harold Imber's cause of action arose as a result of the Defendant's negligent and substandard conduct based upon the removal of his healthy wisdom tooth on October 1, 2009. Plaintiff filed a Writ of Summons against the Defendant on Friday, September 30, 2011, with service being made by the sheriff's office on October 3, 2011, within the time period permitted under the Rules of Civil Procedure. Thus, Plaintiff maintains that his cause of action was properly filed within the two-year anniversary of the Defendant's negligence and substandard conduct as required by 42 Pa.C.S.A. §5524 which provides for a two-year statute of limitations in professional negligence claims. 46. Denied. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a further response may be deemed proper, it is specifically denied that assumption of the risk is recognized as a viable defense to a professional negligence claim. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff Harold Imber was aware of the negligence or risks involved in the removal of his wisdom tooth, and to the contrary, Plaintiff had been assured the removal of the tooth was proper by Defendant Myers. Further, Plaintiff 489200 Harold Imber was not aware of the risks associated with removal of the tooth and did not knowingly and consciously accept the risk of injuries which occurred as a result of the Defendant's negligent and substandard care. 47. Denied. This averment is a mixed conclusion of fact and law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a further response may be deemed proper, Plaintiff Harold Imber has not asserted a claim against Defendants for "failing to effect a cure." Plaintiff Harold Imber maintains that Defendant Dr. Myers was negligent and provided substandard care by recommending, and then removing, an otherwise healthy wisdom tooth in a gentleman of Plaintiff's age, and then failing to properly treat an infection which developed, resulting in his developing osteomyelitis and suffering consequences as a result of that disease process, as set forth more fully in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. 48. Denied. Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1032 provides that a party waives all defenses and objections which are not presented either by Preliminary Objection, Answer or Reply, except defenses which are specifically identified in Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030(b). Plaintiff specifically denies the Defendant's attempted preservation of the right to raise additional affirmative defenses in the future. Defendant's failure to raise any affirmative defenses at this time and place Plaintiff Harold Imber on notice of those defenses results is a waiver of those defenses, and the Defendant is precluded from raising any defenses other than those that are specifically preserved in Pa.R.C.P. 1030(b). 49. Denied. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a further response may be deemed proper, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or that Plaintiff has failed to allege any act or omission on the part of the Defendant in his Amended Complaint. To 489200 the contrary, Plaintiff Harold Imber. has specifically set forth a cause of action for negligence and substandard care by Defendant Myers in removing a healthy tooth in someone of Plaintiffs age and then failing to properly treat-the infection which developed as a.result of his negligent and substandard care resulting in the Plaintiff developing osteomyelitis and significant consequences of that disease. 50. . Denied. This averment is a mixed conclusion of fact and law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a further response may be deemed proper, it is specifically denied that there is no factual cause or relationship between the Defendant's negligence and substandard care as set forth in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint and Plaintiff's damages, losses, and the increased harm resulting to Plaintiff Harold Imber. To the contrary, Plaintiff Harold Imber maintains that there is a direct factual cause and relationship between the allegations of negligence and substandard care committed by Defendant Meyers and Plaintiff's resulting injuries and damages. 51. Denied. This averment is a mixed conclusion of fact and law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a further response may be deemed proper, it is specifically denied that the claim being asserted by Plaintiff Harold Imber against Defendant Meyers as a result of his negligence and substandard care on and after October 1, 2009, was the subject of previous litigation. It is specifically denied that collateral estoppel or release are affirmative defenses to this claim. 52. Denied. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent to which a further response may be appropriate, Plaintiff maintains that Pa.R.C.P. 1019 requires that the material facts upon which a defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form. Defendant's attempted incorporation of the Mcare Act without 489200 identifying which provisions or facts support the alleged defense does not place Plaintiff on notice which, if any, defense is being raised. Therefore, the attempted incorporation is meaningless and the defenses are waived. 53. Denied. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent to which a further response may be appropriate, Plaintiff maintains that Pa.R.C.P. 1019 requires that the material facts upon which a defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary fonn. Defendant's attempted incorporation of the Mcare Act without identifying which provisions or facts support the alleged defense does not place Plaintiff on notice which, if any, defense is being raised. Therefore, the attempted incorporation is meaningless and the defenses are waived. 54. Denied. This averment is a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent to which a further response may be appropriate, Plaintiff maintains that Pa.R.C.P. 1019 requires that the material facts upon which a defense is based shall be stated in a concise and summary form. Plaintiff Harold Imber has not received any private, public, or gratuitous collateral source compensation or benefits. 55. Denied. This averment is a mixed conclusion of fact and law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a further response may be deemed proper, it is specifically denied that Plaintiff Harold lmber gave his informed consent to the dental malpractice and substandard care provided by Defendant Myers. Plaintiff has not asserted a claim for informed consent but a claim grounded in battery and negligence. To the contrary, Plaintiff Harold Imber specifically and directly questioned the need for the removal of his healthy wisdom tooth, but was assured by Defendant Myers of the need to remove the tooth and the wisdom for doing so. Plaintiff Harold Imber relied upon the recommendations of Defendant 489200 Myers and maintains that it was the substandard care and negligence of Defendant Myers which was not disclosed to him which resulted in his injuries, as well as Defendant Myers substandard and negligent treatment of him after he developed an infection resulting in him developing osteomyelitis. 56. Denied. This averment is a mixed conclusion of fact and law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a further response may be deemed proper, it is specifically denied that any information requested by Defendant Myers was not disclosed by Plaintiff Harold Imber. To the contrary, Plaintiff Harold Imber maintains that it was the recommendation and decision of Defendant Myers to remove his otherwise healthy wisdom tooth and his failure to properly treat his infection which was a direct factual cause of Plaintiffs injuries and damages. 57. Denied. Plaintiff Harold Imber is not asserting a claim for direct liability against the professional corporation. Plaintiff is permitted and is asserting a claim for vicarious liability for battery and negligence. 58. Denied. This averment is a mixed conclusion of fact and law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a further response may be deemed proper, Plaintiff Harold Imber maintains that to the extent that he has pled and seeks to recover for dental/medical bills incurred as a result of Defendant Myers' negligent and substandard treatment, Plaintiff Harold Imber has been, and will be, responsible for those medical bills and will reimburse any entity which asserts a valid claim against recovery of those medical bills. 59. Denied. This averment is a mixed conclusion of fact and law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a further response may be deemed proper, Plaintiff Harold Imber maintains that to the extent that he has pled and seek to recover for his 489200 dental/medical bills, incurred as a result of Defendant Myers' negligent and substandard treatment, Plaintiff Harold Imber has been, and will be, responsible for those medical bills and will reimburse any entity which asserts a valid claim against recovery of those medical bills. By way of further response, Medicare has not, and will not, pay any of Plaintiff Harold Imber's dental/medical bills. 60. Denied. This averment is a mixed conclusion of fact and law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a further response may be deemed proper, Plaintiff Harold Imber maintains that to the extent that he has pled and seeks to recover for his dental/medical bills, none of those bills have been paid by Medicare., Medicaid, State, Children's' Health Insurance Program, SCRIP. Plaintiff Harold Imber maintains that to the extent that he has pled and seeks to recover for his dental/medical bills incurred as a result of Defendant Myers' negligent and substandard treatment, Plaintiff Harold Imber will be responsible for those medical bills and reimbursement of any entity which asserts a valid claim against recovery of those medical bills. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Defendants' Answer and New Matter and enter judgment in his favor against the Defendant. ANVNO a-WVWR. P.C. Michael E. Kosik, Esquire I.D. No. 36513 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 Counsel for Plaintiff 489200 FROM !ANGINO AND ROVNER FAX NO. :717 238 5610 Mar. 20 2012 11:47AM P2/2 VF,RIFTCATTON I, HAROLD IMBER, do swear and affirm that the facts set forth in PLAINTIFF'S RFPT.Y TO DF..FFNDANTS' NEW MAl°TER are true and correct to the best of my lulowledge, information rand belief. T understand that this verification is made subject to the penalties of the Rulcs of Civil Procedure relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. HAROLD TMBER Dated: 0 0 ^ p, 203649 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Michelle M. Milojevich, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of PLAINT'IFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER upon all counsel of record via postage prepaid first class United States mail addressed as follows: Gary V. Gittleman, Esquire Thomas M. McCormack, Esquire Naulty, Scaricamazza & McDevitt, LLC One Penn Center at Suburban Station, Suite 750 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Mich lle . Milojevich Dated: 3/28/12 489200 y , CSRTIFICATS PRSRSQIIISITS TO SSRVICS OF A SIIBPOBNA PURSIIANT TO RIILS 4009.22 4s~+`` .~~ , ~.. f. ~:, IN THE MATTER OF: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HAROLD S. IMBER TERM, CUMBERLAND r,-- - VS - CASE NO : 11- 7;9-$ 5 ~^-,~? + { £. _ - --'~ ROBERT L . MYERS , DMD ,MBA ' ~- ~ "'"~ CT ~ °r~ 6- r ~ ~;-r^. ~- r ~ d;~ ~ As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things ~i~uant -~ to Rule 4009.22 ~~ ~" ~' 1- --- y C') ~A.. .~... ~ 7 ....~ L'~C-~B ~. ._-4 -.-- -_~ MCS on behalf of THOMAS MCCORMACK, ESQ. certifies that (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 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) No objection to the subpoena has been received, and (4) The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. DATE: 09/10/2012 MCS on behalf of THOMAS MCCORMACK, ESQ. Attorney for DEFENDANT MKIAHf~NAULTY . COM MCS # 35571-L07 DE11 ., COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND IN THE MATTER OF: HAROLD S. IMBER -VS- ROBERT L. MYERS,DMD,MBA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TERM, CASE NO: 11-7485 NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SIIHPOENA TO PRODIICE DOCIIl~ENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PIIRSIIANT TO RIILE 4009.21 [ Note: see enclosed list of locations ] TO: MICHAEL E. KOSIK, ESQ., PLAINTIFF COUNSEL MCS on behalf of THOMAS MCCORMACK, ESQ. intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If the twenty day notice period is waived or if no objection is made, then the subpoena may be served. Complete copies of any reproduced records may be ordered at your expense by completing the attached counsel card and returning same to MCS or by contacting our local MCS office. DATE: 08/17/2012 CC: THOMAS MCCORMACK, ESQ. - 2130-00259 MICHAEL E. KOSIK, ESQ. L/O ANGINO & ROUNER 4503 NORTH FRONT ST. ANGINO & ROVER HARRISBURG, PA 17110 MCS on behalf of THOMAS MCCORMACK, ESQ. Attorney for DEFENDANT THE MCS GROUP INC. 1601 MARKET STREET #800 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 246-0900 MCS # 35571-CO1 DE02 »> LOCATION LIST «< PAGE: 1 LOCATION NAME RECORDS REQUESTED BERKS GENERAL MEDICAL GROUP DR. BERNARD AVELLA DR. JOHN PENTA READING NECK & SPINE CENTER BERKSHIRE ORTHOPEDIC ASSOC. BERKS ENDOCRINOLOGY GARY GINSBERG, M.D. CRUMAY PARNES ASSOCIATES, INC. MEDICAL, MEDICAL, MEDICAL, MEDICAL, MEDICAL, MEDICAL, MEDICAL, MEDICAL, BILLING, BILLING, BILLING, BILLING, BILLING, BILLING, BILLING, BILLING, AND X-RAY(S) AND X-RAY(S) AND X-RAY(S) AND X-RAY(S) AND X-RAY(S) AND X-RAY(S) AND X-RAY(S) AND X-RAY(S) MCS # 35571-CO1 DE02 COMMONWEALTH dF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND HAROLD S. IMBER File No. 11-7485 vs. . ROBERT L. MYERS,DMD,MBA SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Custodian of Records for BERKS GENERAL MEDICAL GROUP (Name 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: **** SEE ATTACHED RIDER **** at The MCS Groy» Inc 1601 Market Street Spite 800 Philadelr is PA 1910 You may deliver or mail legible copies of the 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 have the right to seek, in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things 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: .THOMAS MCCORMACK ES ADDRESS: .1617 JFK BLVD_ TELEPHONE:,,,( I Sl 246-0900 SUPREME COURT ID #: ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant BY THE COURT: Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Division O ~O 1Z DeP~' Date: Seal of the Court 35571-07 EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS T0: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: BERKS GENERAL MEDICAL GROUP 600 MUSEUM ROAD READING, PA 19611 RE: MCS # 35571-L07 HAROLD It~ER 124 N. 11TH STREET READING, PA 19601 Social Security #: XXX-XX-2224 Date of Birth: 06-04-1939 Please provide entire medical, billing and diagnostic file, including b ut not limited to any and all records, correspondence to and from the consultin g and treating physicians. Including all files, memoranda, handwritten records and notes, history and physical reports. Supply all medication and prescriptio n records, medical billing and payment information. Provide all diagnostic fil ms and tests, including CAT scans, CT scans. EEGs, EKGs, EMGs, MRIs and x-rays and all corresponding reports or inventories. This should contain all records in your possession, all archived records, or records in storage. Including any and all items as may be stored in a computer database or otherwise in electrons c form. Prior a proval is required for fees in excess of $150.00 for hospitals, $100.00 for all other providers. MCS # 35571-L07 SU10 CSRTIFICATS PRSRSQIIISITS TO SSRVICS OF A SUHPOSNA PURSIIANT TO RIILS 4009.22 IN THE MATTER OF: HAROLD S. IMBER ROBERT L. MYERS,D] As a prerequisite to Rule 4009.22 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TERM, CUMBERLAND -VS- CASE NO: 11-7485 '9D, MBA to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant MCS on behalf of THOMAS MCCORMACK, ESQ. certifies that (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 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) No objection to the subpoena has been received, and (4) The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. DATE: 09/10/2012 MCS on behalf of THOMAS MCCORMACK, ESQ. Attorney for DEFENDANT MKIAH(4NAULTY . COM MCS # 35571-L08 DE11 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND HAROLD S. IMBER vs. TO: ROBERT L. MYERS,DMD,MBA File No. 11-7485 Custodian of Records for DR BE NARD AV ...A (Name 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: **** SEE ATTACHED RID R **** at T'he MCS Croup Inc 1601 M rket Street Suite S00 Philadelp~, PA 19103 You may deliver or mail legible copies of the 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 have the right to seek, in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things 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: THOMAS MCCORMACK, ESO. ADDRESS: ,,.~ 617 JFK BLVD. SUITE 750 PHILADELPHIA PA 19103 TELEPHONE: , j, 15) 24b-0900 SUPREME COURT ID #: ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant G~ IZ~ Date: v Seal of the Court BY THE COURT: ~ i Prothonotary/Clerk, Civii Division Deputy 35571.nR EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS T0: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: DR. BERNARD AVELLA 2913 WINDMILL ROAD #7 SINKING SPRINGS, PA 19608 RE: MCS # 35571-L08 HAROLD II~ER 124 N. 11TH STREET READING, PA 19601 Social Security #: XXX-XX-2224 Date of Birth: 06-04-1939 Please provide entire medical, billing and diagnostic file, including b ut not limited to any and all records, correspondence to and from the consultin g and treating physicians. Including all files, memoranda, handwritten records and notes, history and physical reports. Supply all medication and prescriptio n records, medical billing and payment information. Provide all diagnostic fil ms and tests, including CAT scans, CT scans, EEGs, EKGs, EMGs, MRIs and x-rays and all corresponding reports or inventories. This should contain all records in your possession, all archived records, or records in storage. Including any and all items as may be stored in a computer database or otherwise in electrons c form. Prior approval is required for fees in excess of $150.00 for hospi , $100.00 for all other providers. MCS # 35571-L08 SU10 CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 IN THE MATTER OF: HAROLD S. IMBER ROBERT L. MYERS,D] As a prerequisite to Rule 4009.22 COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TERM, CUMBERLAND -VS- CASE NO: 11-7485 !SID, MBA to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant MCS on behalf of THOMAS MCCORMACK, ESQ. certifies that (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 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) No objection to the subpoena has been received, and (4) The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. DATE: 09/10/2012 MCS on behalf of THOMAS MCCORMACK, ESQ. Attorney for DEFENDANT MKIAHt~NAULTY.COM MCS # 35571-L09 DE11 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND HAROLD S. IMBER File No. 11-7485 vs. ROBERT L. MYERS,DMD,MBA SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Custodian of Records for DR. JOHN PENTA (Name 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: **** SEE ATTACHED RIDER **** at The MCS (iroun. Inc.. 1601 Marrket Street. cite 800_ Phila~el,~hia PA 19103 You may deliver or mail legible copies of the 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 have the right to seek, in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things 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: THOMAS MCCORMACK_ ESO. ADDRESS: 1617 JFK BLVD. SUITE 750 1'H I.AD PH A. PA 1 103 TELEPHONE: (2 1 51 246-0900 SUPREME COURT ID #: ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant BY THE COURT: Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Division / / n Deputy Date: / v~- Seal of the Court 35571-09 EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS T0: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: DR. JOHN PENTA 301 S. 7TH STREET STE. 305 WEST READING, PA 19611 RE: MCS # 35571-L09 HAROLD IMBER 124 N. 11TH STREET READING, PA 19601 Social Security #: XXX-XX-2224 Date of Birth: 06-04-1939 Please provide entire medical, billing and diagnostic file from 09-01-2006 to the present, including b ut not limited to any and all records, correspondence to and from the consultin g and treating physicians. Including all files, memoranda, handwritten records and notes, history and physical reports. Supply all medication and prescriptio n records, medical billing and payment information. Provide all diagnostic fil ms and tests, including CAT scans, CT scans, EEGs, EKGs, EMGs, MRIs and x-rays and all corresponding reports or inventories. This should contain all records in your possession, all archived records, or records in storage. Including any and all items as may be stored in a computer database or otherwise in electrons c form. Prior approval is required for fees in excess of $150.00 for hospitals, $100.00 for all other providers. MCS # 35571-L09 SU10 C$RTIFICATB PRLRBQUISITP! TO SBRVICS OF A SUBP0~1A PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 IN THE MATTER OF: HAROLD S. IMBER -VS- ROBERT L. MYERS,DMD,MBA COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TERM, CUMBERLAND CASE NO: 11-7485 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 MCS on behalf of THOMAS MCCORMACK, ESQ. certifies that (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 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) No objection to the subpoena has been received, and (4) The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. DATE: 09/10/2012 MCS on behalf of ~~i~.~~-ate' + . ' ~~~~~~~ / THOMAS MCCORMACK, ESQ. Attorney for DEFENDANT MKIAH®NAULTY.COM MCS # 35571-L10 DE11 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND HAROLD S. IMBER File No. 11-7485 vs. ROBERT L. MYERS,DMD,MBA TO: Custodian of Records for READING NECK & SPINE CENTER (Name 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: **** SEE ATTACHED RIDER **** at The MCS GroaRInc.. 1601 Market Stree~$ Fitt a 80Q~Philadeiphia PA 19103 You may deliver or mail legible copies of the 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 have the right to seek, in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things 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 FERSON: NAME: THOMAS MCCORMACK. ES ADDRESS: 1617 .IFK _BLVD. TELEPHONE: (~) 246-0900 SUFREME COURT ID #: ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant BY THE COURT: ~~~ ~~D.~ ~: Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Division _ ~~P OZp1~ O / Deputy Date: Seal of the Court Z G C'71 i n EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS T0: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: READING NECK & SPINE CENTER 1270 BROADCASTING ROAD READING, PA 19610 RE: MCS # 35571-L10 HAROLD IMBER 124 N. 11TH STREET READING, PA 19601 Social Security #: XXX-XX-2224 Date of Birth: 06-04-1939 Please provide entire medical, billing and diagnostic file from 09-01-2006 to the present, including b ut not limited to any and all records, correspondence to and from the consultin g and treating physicians. Including all files, memoranda, handwritten records and notes, history and physical reports. Supply all medication and prescriptio n records, medical billing and payment information. Provide all diagnostic fil ms and tests, including CAT scans, CT scans, EEGs, EKGs, EMGs, MRIs and x-rays and all corresponding reports or inventories. This should contain all records in your possession, all archived records, or records in storage. Including any and all items as may be stored in a computer database or otherwise in electroni c form. Prior aFproval is required for fees in excess of $150.0(! for hospitals, $100.00 for all other providers. MCS # 35571-L10 SU10 CBRTIFICATB PR$RBQUISITB TO SSRVICB OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 IN THE MATTER OF: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HAROLD S. IMBER TERM, CUMBERLAND -VS- CASE NO: 11-7485 ROBERT L. MYERS,DMD,MBA As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 MCS on behalf of THOMAS MCCORMACK, ESQ. certifies that (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 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) No objection to the subpoena has been received, and (4) The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. DATE: 09f10/2012 MCS on behalf of ~--w~ ~A- ~ yh,c THOMAS MCCORMACK, ESQ. Attorney for DEFENDANT MKIAHt~DNAULTY . COM MCS # 35571-L11 DE11 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND HAROLD S, IMBER vs. ROBERT L. MYERS,DMD,MBA File No. l 1-7485 SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4044.22 TO: Custodian of Records for BERKSHIRE ORTHOPEDIC ASSOC (Name 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: **** SEE ATTACHED RIDER **** at The MCS C.roun Inc 1601 Market Street Suite 800 Philadelphi - PA 19103 You may deliver or mail legible copies of the 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 have the right to seek, in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things 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: THOMAS MCCORMACK. ES ADDRESS: 1617 JFK BLVD. TELEPHONE: _115,) 246-0900 SUPREME COURT ID #: ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant BY THE COURT: 1 Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Division S 1 2~1 ~7 f f ~ Deputy Date: v 7 Seal of the Court 2SS71_11 EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS T0: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: BERKSHIRE ORTHOPEDIC ASSOC. 2201 RIDGEWOOD ROAD SUITE 250 WYOMISSING, PA 19610 RE: MCS # 35571-L11 HAROLD Ih~ER 124 N. 11TH STREET READING, PA 19601 Social Security #: XXX-XX-2224 Date of Birth: 06-04-1939 Please provide entire medical, billing and diagnostic file from 09-O1-2006 to the present, including b ut not limited to any and all records, correspondence to and from the consultin g and treating physicians. Including all files, memoranda, handwritten records and notes, history and physical reports. Supply all medication and prescriptio n records, medical billing and payment information. Provide all diagnostic fil ms and tests, including CAT scans, CT scans, EEGs, EKGs, EMGs, MRIs and x-rays and all corresponding reports or inventories. This should contain all records in your possession, all archived records, or records in storage. Including any and all items as may be stored in a computer database or otherwise in electrons c form. Prior a proval is required for fees in excess of $150.00 for hospitals, $100.00 for all other providers. MCS # 35571-L11 SU10 2013 APR 23 Ali 11+ 14 BERLAND A1.�1A��COUNTY ANGINO&ROVNER,P.C. Michael E.Kosik,Esquire Attorney ID# : 36513 4503 North Front Street Harrisburg,PA 17110-1708 (717)238-6791 FAX(717)238-5610 Attorneys for Plaintiff(s) E-mail:mkosik @angino-rovner.com HAROLD S. IMBER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION — MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION ROBERT L. MYERS, DMD, MBA t/d/b/a WOOD & MYERS ORAL AND NO. 11-7485 MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C. AND/OR WOOD, MYERS & HARTMAN ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, P.C., JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendant PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the above-captioned action as settled, satisfied, and discontinued. AN . ER;P.C. Michael E.Kosik,Esquire I.D.No. 36513 4503 N. Front Street Harrisburg,PA 17110 (717) 238-6791 Counsel for Plaintiff 523679 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Michelle M. Milojevich, an employee of the,law firm of Angino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of PRAECIPE upon all counsel of record via postage prepaid first class United States mail addressed as follows: Gary V. Gittleman,Esquire Thomas M. McCormack,Esquire Naulty, Scaricamazza&McDevitt,LLC One Penn Center at Suburban Station, Suite 750 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Michelle M. Milojevich Dated: 4/22/13 523679