Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-6581.i ?ji RICHARD P. GLUNK, M.D. Plaintiff JOYCE C. MCKEEVER Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. ? ? - u :s? e1i V'( ) 20 Civil Term 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 AN ATTORNEY AND FILLING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT YOU AND A JUDGEMENT 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 PF.OPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS IMPORTANT TO YOU. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO THE "TELEPHONE OR THE, OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 717-249-3166 a?xF?? ?o3.7S o_?? CK-# ?v?3 P THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION Richard P. Glunk, M.D., Pro Se 209 Spring Road Malvern, PA 19355 610-213-5566 Richard P. Glunk, M.D. Plaintiff Civil Action Law V. Term- Joyce McKeever No. 419 W. Keller Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3732 COMPLAINT-CIVIL ACTION INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT This action is the result of the deliberate violation of the Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA), 18 Pa. C.S.A. $9101, et seq. by Joyce McKeever. The legislature originally considered the violation of CHRIA such a severe action that there were criminal penalties. Joyce McKeever illegally obtained Investigative Information of the Attorney General and illegally disseminated the information, ignoring the fact that the Attorney General had never charged Dr. Glunk with any illegal activity. Joyce McKeever illegally allowed the CHRIA protected information to be part of her Final Order and Adjudication regarding Dr. Glunk. This is also a violation of CHRIA. Joyce McKeever illegally used CHRIA protected information and perverted the administrative process involving Dr. Glunk. Joyce McKeever's illegal process effectively shielded a board member and protected the Pennsylvania Medical Board at Dr. Glunk's expense. Joyce McKeever violated CHRIA and assisted a politically-connected family's nearly ten-year quest to revoke Plaintiff s medical license. Dr. Glunk will not rest until he clears his name. PARTIES Plaintiff, Richard P. Glunk, M.D.("Dr. Glunk"), is a citizen and resident of Chester County, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania residing therein at 209 Spring Road, Malvern, PA 19355. 2. Defendant, Joyce McKeever, is a hearing officer for the Department of State. She is a citizen and resident of Cumberland County, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania residing therein at 419 W. Keller St., Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3732. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. Jurisdiction is properly invoked in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. 4. Venue is properly situated in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County. OPERATIVE FACTS A. Dr. Glunk Is An Experienced Board Certified Aesthetic Plastic Surgeon. 5. Dr. Glunk graduated from The Medical College of Pennsylvania with a Medical Doctor degree in 1982. 2 6. Dr. Glunk was awarded a fellowship at the University of Rochester, Rochester, New York in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery-Hand Surgery. This fellowship ran from July 1985 through June 1987. 7. Dr. Glunk was awarded a fellowship at the Roswell Park Memorial Institute Buffalo, New York in Head and Neck Oncology. This fellowship ran from October 1986 through March 1987. 8. Dr. Glunk was selected by the Medical College of Pennsylvania to be an Associate Professor in the Division of Plastic Surgery, for the term 1987-88. 9. Dr. Glunk was Board Certified by the American Board of Plastic Surgery, Inc. on November 7, 1991. 10. Dr. Glunk is a member of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, The American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, the American Society of Laser Medicine and Surgery, the Ivy Society and the Pennsylvania Medical Society. 11. Dr. Glunk is and has been a reviewer for Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, the journal published by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Dr. Glunk has taught aesthetic plastic surgery courses nationally for the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Dr. Glunk has been an Instructional Course Evaluator for the cosmetic courses taught at the national meetings of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Dr. Glunk has also served on the national program committee for the American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 12. Dr. Glunk has been in private practice since 1988 and has treated over 10,000 patients in his career. 13. Dr. Glunk traveled to Haiti on a voluntary and self-funded medical 3 mission immediately after the earthquake in January, 2010. 14. Dr. Glunk was awarded the Global Citizenship Award for Leadership in Helping Haiti at a ceremony in Philadelphia's City Hall. 15. Dr. Glunk is one of the 492 members of Project C.A.R.E., a nationwide voluntary "effort to provide the best surgical and non-surgical care to our Wounded Warriors," in conjunction with the U.S. Navy. 16. Dr. Glunk is a member of the Board of Review for the Boy Scouts of America and a Merit Badge Counselor. COUNTI 17. Joyce McKeever acquired protected information regarding Dr. Glunk in violation of CHRIA. 18 Pa. C.S.A. $9101, et seq. 18. In her Final Order and Adjudication dated December 1, 2010, McKeever stated: "It is undisputed that Respondent by disclosing his actions to his attorney caused the entire matter to become the subject of investigations by the Attorney General... " 19. 18 Pa CSA $9106(d) states: Agencies receiving information protected by this section assume the same level of responsibility for the security of such information as the agency which was the source of the information. 20. Joyce McKeever disseminated protected information regarding Dr. Glunk violating CHRIA. 21. Joyce McKeever used protected information in her Final Order and Adjudication violating CHRIA. 22. Joyce McKeever violated 18 Pa CSA $9124 by using protected 4 information in issuing her Final Order and Adjudication that resulted in the suspension of Plaintiff's medical License. 23. Joyce McKeever made incorrect judgments regarding the truthfulness of Solomon Isaacson's testimony after illegally acquiring protected information regarding Dr. Glunk violating CHRIA. 24. Joyce McKeever failed to ask Dr. Glunk questions about the reason for Dr. Glunk's political contribution to Bob Brady and made incorrect conclusions due to influence of protected information violating CHRIA. 25. Joyce McKeever made incorrect judgments regarding testimony by Barbera and Isaacson that resulted from their joint consultation with counsel while they were under investigation by the Inspector General due to the influence of protected information violating CHRIA. 26. Joyce McKeever accepted the sudden recusal of the entire medical board that occurred as a result of unscheduled consideration of a motion instituted by a public member of the medical board who had connections to a politically-connected family that had been trying to have Dr. Glunk's medical license revoked for nearly ten years due to the influence of protected information violating CHRIA. 27. Joyce McKeever ignored the inconsistencies in Barbera's testimony. Barbera testified that he told Dr. Glunk that he could not discuss the medical board matter but then allegedly discussed it and told him that Isaacson was a board member. McKeever also ignored the fact that Dr. Glunk would have to have been clairvoyant(it is undisputed that Isaacson and Dr. Glunk did not speak to each other again) to know that the Brady check was being returned without first being told that fact by Barbera. This was due to the influence of protected information violating CHRIA. 28. Joyce McKeever felt that Dr. Glunk's wife's testimony was credible yet ignored the testimony stating that no alleged check to the synagogue was ever returned nor was there any evidence that the alleged check ever existed. This was due to the influence of protected information violating CHRIA. 29. Joyce McKeever ignored the fact that Isaacson was in the process of contradicting his earlier testimony on cross examination and allowed him to be excused during the cross examination to leave the hearing room to review his rehearsed false testimony. This was due to the influence of protected information violating CHRIA. 30. Joyce McKeever was presented with a motion to dismiss the case because the Order to Show Cause charged Dr. Glunk with a law that had been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. McKeever claimed that this motion regarding the fact that the Commonwealth had never given Dr. Glunk notice of the charges against him prior to the hearing did not constitute a claim that Dr. Glunk was prejudiced. This was due to the influence of protected information violating CHRIA. 31. Joyce McKeever felt that her morals could be substituted for the morals of any medical professional even though she was not a medical professional nor had the input of a medical professional. This was due to the influence of protected information violating CHRIA. 32. Joyce McKeever ignored the fact that Isaacson alleged he solicited a bribe but was investigated by the Inspector General and Attorney General and never charged. Isaacson effectively redirected all attention from him to Dr. Glunk alleging a check that never existed. This was due to the influence of protected information violating CHRIA. 6 33. Joyce McKeever did not allow Bart Blatstein's testimony that would have discredited Isaacson's testimony. This was due to the influence of protected information violating CHRIA. 34.Joyce McKeever was permitted to ask Dr. Glunk any question she wished during the hearing. Joyce McKeever failed to ask Dr. Glunk what he believed was the reason for Isaacson not giving the check to Brady. Dr. Glunk did not realize that McKeever would be interested in the theory that the rabbi was trying to convert the Brady check to help pay the large judgment owed by Isaacson as a result of lawsuit and only returned it because he could not cash the check and did not want Brady to know that he had withheld the check. This was due to the influence of protected information violating CHRIA. 34. Joyce McKeever ignored all facts discrediting the rabbi, a medical board member, to protect the reputation of the board. This was due to the influence of protected information violating CHRIA. 35. Joyce McKeever admits in her Final Order and Adjudication that the first time the Commonwealth charged Plaintiff under Section 41(8) of the MPA and 49 Pa. Code $ 16.61(b)(2) was in the Commonwealth's POST-hearing brief violating Dr. Glunk's due process rights. This was due to the influence of protected information violating CHRIA. 36. Joyce McKeever failed to ask Dr. Glunk any question about Dr. Glunk's attempt to meet and talk to Brady. Dr. Glunk was never made aware that this was important to McKeever until her Final Order. Despite the fact that McKeever felt it was important, McKeever allowed Dr. Glunk to be denied the chance to provide testimony. 7 This was due to the influence of protected information violating CHRIA. 37. Joyce McKeever admitted that she was an unequal substitute for the medical board. McKeever by herself destroyed Dr. Glunk's life and medical practice and ensured that he would never be able to present any further evidence of his innocence. This was due to the influence of protected information violating CHRIA. 38.Joyce McKeever's violation of CHRIA resulted in the media disseminating stories injuring Dr. Glunk's personal and business reputation. The injured reputation has affected him financially. 39.Joyce McKeever's violation of CHRIA resulted in legal fees attempting to uncover and undo her actions. 40. Joyce McKeever's violation of CHRIA resulted in the automatic relinquishment of hospital privileges. 41. Joyce McKeever's violation of CHRIA resulted in inquiries from other states in which Plaintiff was licensed. 42. Joyce McKeever's violation of CHRIA resulted in inquiries from societies in which Plaintiff was a member. 43. Joyce McKeever's violation of CHRIA resulted in loss of contracts with health insurance companies and the loss of patients they insured. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Dr. Glunk demands judgment against the Defendants in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars($50,000.00). Plaintiff demands judgment for actual and real damages as well as attorney's fees and costs of litigation.. Date: October 22, 2012 J1 4js r° -j/A Zl O By: Richard P. Glunk, M.D. Plaintiff, Pro SE 209 Spring Road Malvern, Pa 19355 610-213-5566 9 CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE This is to certify, that in this case, complete copies of all papers contained in Glunk v. McKeever. have been sent to the Sheriff for service upon the following persons: Joyce McKeever 419 W. Keller Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3732 f- -6/ij /1' -') Richard P. Glunk, M.D., PRO S 209 Spring Road Malvern, PA 19355 610-213-5566 10 SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny RAnderson r~~-t~i.j-QP( f~ (i~ ! NE Pt~ Sheriff Q7kOt~0 i~''t? ~' ~~tv of `utt+~irp~ Jody S Smith t Chi f D ~g,~~ .~ 4 ,,, 7012 tdOV -9 Ali 8.35 ~ - y epu e . r~-~- ~~ Richard W Stewart ~I~M~ER~~~~~ ~~~ ' so-icitor ~~~ ~~F=,~r ~ ~~~:RIFF PENI4S Y~.VANIt~ Richard P. Glunk, MD Case Number vs. 2012-6581 Joyce McKeever SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 11/05/2012 07:57 PM -Deputy Dennis Fry, being duly sworn according to law, served the requested Complaint & Notice by "personally" handing a true copy to a person representing themselves to be the Defendant, to wit: Joyce McKeever at 419 W. Keller Street, Mechanicsburg Borough, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. „„- -- DE IS FRY, D . SHERIFF COST: $38.45 November 07, 2012 SO ANSWERS, RON R ANDERSON, SHERIFF ~cj CountyS'uite Sh~Nff, Taleosofit, Inc. .- .3 _ a.~1 _.~ ~ _:. THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNT~'~` ~ ' NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA -~ ~,, - CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION • ` ~ ~' ~ • ~~ Richard P. Glunk, M.D., Pro Se _ - = ~~ ~ . -.-~ .- ~~ ~=, 209 Spring Road ~ - Malvern, PA 19355 - 610-213-5566 Richard P. Glunk, M.D. Plaintiff Civil Action Law v. Term- Joyce McKeever No. 12-6581 419 W. Keller Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3732 To: Joyce McKeever 419 W. Keller Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3732 (Defendant) Date of Notice: November 29, 2012 IMPORTANT NOTICE YOU ARE IN DEFAULT BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAILED TO ENTER A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILE IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. UNLESS YOU ACT WITHIN TEN DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS NOTICE, A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU WITHOUT A HEARING AND YOU MAY LOSE YOUR PROPERTY OR OTHER IMPORTANT RIGHTS. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 32 SOUTH BEDFORD STREET CARLISLE, PA 17013 1-800-990-9108 717-249-3166 ~~ ~~~~~ Richard P. Glunk, M.D. Pro Se 209 Spring Road Malvern, Pa 19355 610-213-5566 THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION Richard P. Glunk, M.D., Pro Se 209 Spring Road Malvern, PA 19355 610-213-5566 Richard P. Glunk, M.D. Plaintiff Civil Action Law v. Term- Joyce McKeever No. 12-6581 419 W. Keller Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3732 CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE This is to certify, that in this case, complete copies of all papers contained in Glunk v. McKeever. have been sent by first class mail to the following persons: Joyce McKeever 419 W. Keller Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3732 Richard P. Glunk, M. D., PRO SE 209 Spring Road Malvern, PA 19355 610-213-5566 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA Richard P. Glunk, Plaintiff No.2012-cv-6581 ` U) r•, .; V. Joyce D. McKeever, _ Defendant DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT AND NOW this day of March, 2013 comes the Defendant, Joyce C. McKeever, by and through her attorney of record, Senior Deputy Attorney General Timothy P. Keating and submits the following preliminary objections to Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint. 1. Plaintiff, acting pro se, filed his initial Complaint alleging that the Defendant(a hearing examiner at an administrative proceeding which suspended Plaintiff's medical license for trying to bribe a Medical Board member by giving$10,000 to the Board member's charity)violated the Criminal History Record Information Act ("CHRIA") by improperly allowing protected CHRIA information to be included in the Final Adjudication and Order suspending Plaintiffs medical license. 2. Following the filing of Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's first Complaint, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in December 2012,making the same allegations. 3. After preliminary objections were filed to Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint in January 2013, repeating the same allegations in his previous two complaints. 4. After Preliminary Objections were filed to Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has now filed a Third Amended Complaint, repeating the allegations in his previous three complaints. 5. Plaintiff s Third Amended Complaint(making it his fourth complaint that he has filed), which has the exact same factual allegations as those in his previous three complaints, still does not state any viable course of action under CHRIA. 6. Plaintiff s latest complaint alleges(again)that the Defendant improperly used protected CHRIA information concerning Plaintiff which Defendant improperly disseminated by using it in the Final Order and Decree in suspend Plaintiff s medical license. 7. The paragraph in the Final Order and Decree which Plaintiff claims contained protected CHRIA information reads as follows: The hearing examiner has identified certain mitigating factors in the record. The charges against Respondent involved only one member of a Board composed of eleven members. The evidence shows that Respondent attempted to confer a monetary benefit on the board member by financial contributions or support to a political campaign and a synagogue that the board member was in charge of. One can only conclude that the Respondent intended by doing so have the Board member regard him favorably and to have that regard have an impact if and when the Board adjudicated the underlying disciplinary action in this matter. It is difficult to conjure a medical board composed of a six member medical doctor majority deferring to a public member in a standard of care case. It is undisputed that Respondent by disclosing his actions to his attorney caused the entire matter to become the subject of investigations by the Attorney General and the Department of State. Also, Rabbi Issacson testified that at the meeting, which lasted fifteen to twenty-five minutes, Respondent did not press him to discuss his case or the Medical Board. Thus, Respondent's conduct, contrary to embodying vileness and baseness, reflect an inept, quixotic naivete, albeit also conduct that significantly departs from his duties and responsibilities as a physician in this Commonwealth. 8. This verbiage does not violate CHRIA because it does not act to release any protected 2 information concerning Plaintiff s criminal record history. 9. CHRIA primarily relates to the access and dissemination of criminal history records focusing on individuals seeking expungement of their criminal history records. 10. Under CHRIA"Criminal history record information" is"Information collected by criminal justice agencies concerning individuals, and arising from the initiation of a criminal proceeding, consisting of identifiable descriptions, dates and notations of arrests, indictments, information or other formal criminal charges and any dispositions arising therefrom. The term does not include intelligence information, investigative information or treatment information, including medical and psychological information, or information and records specified in section 9104 (relating to scope)." 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 9102. 11. CHRIA creates three categories of information and establishes different rules for the dissemination of this information (the first covers court dockets, police blotters, and press releases, the second is criminal history record information, and third consists of investigative, intelligence, and treatment information — See In re Pittsburgh Citizen Police Review Bd., 2010 WL 5775100(Allegheny Ct. Com. Pl)). I. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS DEMURRER—Pa. R. C. P. 1028(4) 12. The language contained in the adjudication by the Defendant does not, as a matter of law, violate CHRIA because it does not contain or disseminate any "criminal record information" concerning Plaintiff. 13. Assuming that all of the factual allegations contained in Plaintiff's Third Amended 3 Complaint are true, and all reasonable inferences raised therefrom,the Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (fourth overall complaint), as a matter of law, does not support any viable cause of action from which Plaintiff may recover. 14. It is abundantly clear that what Plaintiff is actually trying to do in this action is trying to impermissibly launch a collateral attach on the administrative decision to revoke his license. 15. Plaintiff has now filed four complaints(one original and three amended complaints) against the Defendant all of them alleging the exact same thing, and none of them containing sufficient allegations to state a cause of action for which relief can be obtained. 16. Given that this is now the fourth time that Plaintiff has filed a complaint without stating any viable cause of action, it is clear that Plaintiff is unable to file any complaint containing sufficient factual allegations to support any viable cause of action under CHRIA, and therefore, he should not be permitted to file a fifth or subsequent complaint. WHEREFORE the Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint should be granted, judgment be entered in Defendant's favor, and the matter dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, KATHLEEN G. KANE Attorney General By: TIMOT ATING Office of Attorney General Senior Deputy Attorney General 15*Floor, Strawberry Square Attorney ID 44874 Harrisburg,PA 17120 Phone: (717) 705-8580 GREGORY R.NEUHAUSER Fax: (717) 7724526 Chief Deputy Attorney General tkeatinzi**ttorne zcneral.eov Chief,Civil Litigation Section Date: c5 I(c� l t3 Counsel for Defendant I 4 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA Richard P. Glunk, Plaintiff No.2012-cv-6581 V. Joyce D. McKeever, Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy P. Keating, Senior Deputy Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of Attorney General, hereby certify that on March 19, 2013, I caused to be served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document titled Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint to the following: VIA US MAIL: Richard P. Glunk 209 Spring Road Malvern, PA 19355 Pro Se Plaintiff By: _ TIMOT . KEATING Senior Deputy Attorney General THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION Richard P. Glunk, M.D., Pro Se 209 Spring Road Malvern, PA 19355 610-213-5566 Richard P. Glunk, M.D. c DU. _ Plaintiff Civil Action Law C0 1- I V. Term- r Joyce McKeever No.12-6581 419 W. Keller Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3732 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS This case concerns illegal and other ex parte communications of Joyce McKeever. The Department of State of Pennsylvania is attempting to cover-up the corruption of multiple members of the Pennsylvania Board of Medicine, prosecutors for the Board, and the hearing examiner working for the Board, Joyce McKeever. Dr. Glunk has offered to settle this case for just clearing the record of his medical license. Dr. Glunk just wants to clear his name. Richard P. Glunk, M.D. operated on a wealthy, politically-connected patient in 2001. The patient tragically died as a result of fat embolism syndrome, an unpredictable and unpreventable medical condition that results in death in approximately 20% of cases. The patient was the niece of the law partner of the former Speaker of the House. The death was investigated by the Department of State at the request of the family and the Speaker of the House. After approximately three years of investigation, the investigator found that Dr. Glunk had done nothing wrong and recommended that the case be closed. One of the prosecutors for the Pennsylvania Board of Medicine worked closely with the family and their lawyer. After the investigator recommended that the case be closed and Dr. Glunk's lawyer was told the case was closed, the prosecutor who has admitted that he was no longer"involved in the prosecution of Dr. Glunk in any manner" continued to work with the politically-connected family and their trial lawyer to obtain information for their civil malpractice case and other activities. After Dr. Glunk refused the politically-connected family's demand to leave the state or "else," additional prosecutors for the Pennsylvania Board of Medicine worked closely with the politically-connected family and filed an Order to Show Cause against Dr. Glunk. Dr. Glunk was found innocent of all medical practice issues by the chief hearing examiner and unanimously by the Pennsylvania Board of Medicine except for the Chairman who abstained(and members who had recused themselves). After 8 years and over a million dollars of taxpayers' money had been spent, the politically-connected family had failed to achieve the revocation of Dr. Glunk's license. Dr. Glunk had been unsuccessfully trying for years to obtain political help to investigate the corruption of the Department of State. Dr. Glunk was told he needed the help of the Democrats in Pennsylvania because the Democrats were in charge. Dr. Glunk was recommended to attend a fund-raiser for Bob Brady because he was in a position to investigate the corruption of the state of Pennsylvania. The Governor's Rabbi was involved in most of the political fund raising for the Democratic party in the Philadelphia area. Dr. Glunk was told that Bob Brady gave personal time to all donors of$5000. Dr. Glunk 2- was asked to donate $5000 in 2006 and 2007, because of the legal limits. Dr. Glunk went to what he was told was a fund raiser for Bob Brady. Upon arrival, the Governor's rabbi asked Dr. Glunk for the Brady political contribution and then told him he had arrived on the wrong night and Bob Brady was not present. The Rabbi then bragged that he was so important to the Governor that he had been appointed to the Pennsylvania Board of Medicine. Dr. Glunk asked the Rabbi if it was OK for Dr. Glunk to attend the fundraiser because he may have a case before the medical board. The Rabbi told him it was OK as long as he did not discuss anything about the case with the Rabbi. The next day Dr. Glunk was concerned that the fundraiser was a scam and called the friend who had first told him about the fundraiser. Dr. Glunk also sought legal advice on whether he had been scammed. Dr. Glunk later found out that it was a scam and that the Rabbi had never given the check to Bob Brady and the Rabbi may have been trying to use the funds to pay off a recent large judgment against the Rabbi. The Rabbi was investigated by the Inspector General and during the investigation claimed that Dr. Glunk had sent a check to the synagogue. This effectively shifted the investigation away from the rabbi and to Dr. Glunk. After Dr. Glunk had won his case with the Pennsylvania Board of Medicine, the prosecutors that had worked closely with the politically-connected family asked for reconsideration based on Dr. Glunk giving the Rabbi the Brady check and the alleged check to the synagogue. The Rabbi had recused himself and had never been involved in any aspect of the case in which Dr. Glunk was found to be innocent. The reconsideration was denied. The Chairman of the Medical Board, who had abstained, met with the lead prosecutor 3 behind closed doors. The Pennsylvania Medical Board member asked the lead prosecutor to prosecute Dr. Glunk again. This constituted an unconstitutional comingling as described in the "Lyness" case. Because the prosecutor and the Pennsylvania board member knew what they were doing was unconstitutional, the prosecutor covered up the actions of the Pennsylvania Medical Board member by asking the two prosecutors that had been involved in the first case but were not part of the closed door discussion to prosecute Dr. Glunk. At the request of the politically-connected family and their lawyer, the prosecution was initiated and timed to create negative publicity during Dr. Glunk's bankruptcy trial. The prosecutors concocted a scenario they believed would appear to substantiate the alleged synagogue check(The rabbi that could not describe the check or even knew who signed the alleged check is the only person who claims to have seen the ficticious check). This included coaching the rabbi and another Department of State board member's testimony as well as selectively asking Dr.Glunk's wife questions about the Brady contribution. The prosecutors had improper access to confidential statements of Dr. Glunk's wife obtained under intimidating circumstances and knew she would testify attempting to distance herself from the contribution to Brady. During the Rabbi's cross examination,the Rabbi could not describe the alleged synagogue check and did not even know who signed it. His rehearsed story that had been prepared by the prosecutors was falling apart under cross-examination. The Rabbi asked to be excused in the middle of cross-examination and Joyce McKeever permitted it. The Rabbi left the hearing room and was seen reviewing what were probably notes and then returned to finish his cross examination. Dr. Glunk had been charged with a law that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had ruled Ii unconstitutional. After the hearing had been completed and Dr. Glunk's attorney requested that the case be thrown out due to the fact that the charge was unconstitutional, Joyce McKeever substituted another charge. McKeever's Final Order even included language written directly and/or indirectly by the trial lawyer representing the politically-connected family that had been trying for approximately ten years to have Dr. Glunk's license revoked. Dr. Glunk had a due process right to have the hearing officer's decision reviewed by the Pennsylvania Medical Board. It would have been the first opportunity for a physician to be involved in the licensing issue. After the hearing had been completed and on the same day the the Department of State's post-hearing brief(containing language written directly and/or indirectly by the trial lawyer representing the politically-connected family) was filed, a public member of the Pennsylvania Medical Board with connections to the politically-connected family and their trial lawyer made an unscheduled and unannounced motion to recuse the entire Pennsylvania Medical Board, allowing Joyce McKeever to be the sole person deciding if Dr. Glunk's license should be suspended, despite the fact that the Attorney General had found no evidence of a check after years of investigation and the only person who claimed to have seen the check did not know who even signed it. The extent of Joyce McKeever's ex parte communications requires discovery to be delineated. Dr. Glunk has been trying to obtain public information. The Pennsylvania Board of Medicine has not permitted Dr. Glunk to depose the prosecutor that had worked closely with the politically-connected family and their trial lawyer despite the fact that Department of State prosecutor admitted he continued to obtain evidence for their civil trial when he was no longer involved in the prosecution"in any manner." Dr. Glunk's requests for records to prove Joyce McKeever's and the Pennsylvania Medical Board's corruption have been blocked by a Department of State employee signing a false notarized affidavit, a Department of State lawyer withholding evidence from Commonwealth Court, and the Department of State attempting to quash Dr. Glunk's appeal of his deemed denial of requested public records. The Pennsylvania Medical Board and their lawyer has refused to investigate unconstitutional and possibly illegal actions of former board members. Joyce McKeever has admitted that she communicated with and relied on the Prothonotary's office for her adjudication. When Dr. Glunk requested the file from the Prothonotary's office, the Prothonotary admitted there was something unusual with the file and files were actually missing. Joyce McKeever also admits using the writings of other attorneys for her Final Order. The CHRIA violation may have occurred as a result of incorporating this material. The incorporation of the material from the lawyer of the politically-connected family may have also occurred as a result of incorporating this material. Dr. Glunk requested the Attorney General's office to investigate the CHRIA violations as they are required to by law. After Dr. Glunk persisted, the case was transferred to the member of the Attorney General's office that may have been the source of the CHRIA protected material. Dr. Glunk's subsequent phone calls have not been returned. Dr. Glunk must be allowed to depose Joyce McKeever regarding her illegal ex parte communications and obtain discovery regarding her corrupt activity to prove her CHRIA violations. 1. Denied as stated. Dr. Glunk was never accused of bribery. Dr. Glunk was accused of attempting to influence the Governor's rabbi with a constitutionally-protected $5000 political contribution to a candidate that was in the position to investigate corruption in the Pennsylvania Department of State. While the Governor's rabbi was being investigated, he alleged an 6 additional $5000 check to the Governor's Synagogue. This effectively diverted attention away from the Governor's rabbi to Dr. Glunk. When Dr. Glunk's lawyer cross-examined the rabbi, he could not describe the check and admitted he did know even know who signed it. 2. Denied. The Complaint speaks for itself. 3. Denied. The Complaint speaks for itself. 4. Denied. The Complaint speaks for itself. 5. Denied. The extent of Joyce McKeever's CHRIA violation can only be determined by discovery. 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 9106(c) and (d)prohibit dissemination of CHRIA protected information. 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 9124 (c)permits the hearing officer to use the CHRIA information under only two specific situations: (1) Where the applicant has been convicted of a felony. (2) Where the applicant has been convicted of a misdemeanor which relates to the trade, occupation or profession for which the license, certificate, registration or permit is sought. Dr. Glunk has never been convicted of either. PA RCP 4001 states: (c) Subject to the provisions of this chapter, any party may take the testimony of any person, including a party, by deposition upon oral examination or written interrogatories for the purpose of discovery, or for preparation of pleadings, or for preparation or trial of a case, or for use at a hearing upon petition, motion or rule, or for any combination of the foregoing purposes. PA RCP 4001 states: (d) Subject to the provisions of this chapter, any party may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods: deposition upon oral examination(Rule 4007.1) or written interrogatories(Rule 4004); written interrogatories to a party(Rule 4005); production of documents and things and entry for inspection and other purpose(Rule 4009)... Dr. Glunk must be allowed to depose Joyce McKeever and amend his complaint. 6. Denied. The Complaint speaks for itself. 7. Denied. The paragraph proves Joyce McKeever had ex parte communications because 7 the paragraph includes information that was not provided during any aspect of Dr. Glunk's case. The paragraph implies that CHRIA protected information exists and that Joyce McKeever was made aware of it through ex parte communications. The paragraph also disseminates the existence of CHRIA protected information. These are all violations of CHRIA. The extent of the ex parte communications and CHRIA violation can only be determined through discovery. 8. Denied. The paragraph proves Joyce McKeever had ex parte communications because the paragraph includes information that was not provided during any aspect of Dr. Glunk's case. The paragraph implies that CHRIA protected information exists and that Joyce McKeever was made aware of it through ex parte communications. The paragraph also disseminates the existence of CHRIA protected information. These are all violations of CHRIA. The extent of the ex parte communications and CHRIA violation can only be determined through discovery. 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 9124 permits Joyce McKeever to use CHRIA information in only very specific circumstances. None of the circumstances were present in Dr. Glunk's case. 9. Denied. CHRIA allows for limited use of CHRIA protected information in very particular circumstances. None of these applied in Dr. Glunk's case: 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 9124. Use of records by licensing agencies. (a) State agencies.--Except as provided by this chapter, a board, commission or department of the Commonwealth, when determining eligibility for licensing, certification, registration or permission to engage in a trade, profession or occupation, may consider convictions of the applicant of crimes but the convictions shall not preclude the issuance of a license, certificate, registration or permit. (b) Prohibited use of information.--The following information shall not be used in consideration of an application for a license, certificate, registration or permit: (1) Records of arrest if there is no conviction of a crime based on the arrest. (2) Convictions which have been annulled or expunged. (3) Convictions of a summary offense. (4) Convictions for which the individual has received a pardon from the Governor. (5) Convictions which do not relate to the applicant's suitability for the license, certificate, registration or permit. (c) State action authorized.--Boards, commissions or departments of the Commonwealth authorized to license, certify, register or permit the practice of trades, occupations or professions may refuse to grant or renew, or may suspend or revoke any license, certificate, registration or permit for the following causes: (1) Where the applicant has been convicted of a felony. (2) Where the applicant has been 9 convicted of a misdemeanor which relates to the trade, occupation or profession for which the license, certificate, registration or permit is sought. (d) Notice.--The board, commission or department shall notify the individual in writing of the reasons for a decision which prohibits the applicant from practicing the trade, occupation or profession if such decision is based in whole or part on conviction of any crime. (Dec. 14, 1979, P.L.556, No.127, eff. imd.) 10. Admitted. 11. Denied as stated. See 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 9101, et seq. 12. Denied. The statement is the result of ex parte communications by Joyce McKeever. The statement implies that CHRIA protected information exists. The existence of CHRIA protected information is protected. This is dissemination of CHRIA protected information. The extent of Joyce McKeever's CHRIA violation must be determined through discovery. Dr. Glunk must be allowed to depose Joyce McKeever and amend his complaint. 13. Denied. The statement is the result of ex parte communications by Joyce McKeever. The statement implies that CURIA protected information exists. The existence of CHRIA protected information is protected. This is dissemination of CHRIA protected information. The extent of Joyce McKeever's CHRIA violation must be determined through discovery. Dr. Glunk must be allowed to depose Joyce McKeever and amend his complaint. 18 Pa.C.S.A. §9181, et seq. delineates the Sanctions for Joyce McKeever's violation. Violation of CHRIA was originally considered a crime and had criminal sanctions. Dr. Glunk would settle this matter for just having his medical license and named cleared. 14. Denied. This action is strictly related to Joyce McKeever's CHRIA violations. If the only remedy available to Dr. Glunk for Joyce McKeever's violations is the sanctions delineated in 18 Pa.C.S.A. §9181, et seq., Dr. Glunk will have to settle for that. The material regarding the corrupt process that led up to the CHRIA violations is provided for the Honorable Court to understand the circumstances that created the opportunity for Joyce McKeever to violate 9 CHRIA. 15. Denied. Joyce McKeever violated CHRIA, 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 9101, et seq, resulting in the civil suit and possible sanctions, 18 Pa.C.S.A. §9181, et seq.. Dr. Glunk will obtain discovery to delineate the extent of Joyce McKeever's violations. 16. Denied. Joyce McKeever violated CHRIA, 18 Pa. C.S.A. § 9101, et seq, resulting in the civil suit and possible sanctions, 18 Pa.C.S.A. §9181, et seq.. Dr. Glunk will obtain discovery to delineate the extent of Joyce McKeever's violations. Dr. Glunk should then be allowed to amend the complaint to cure any deficiencies. WHEREFORE,the Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint should be overruled. Plaintiff should be allowed to proceed with discovery and/or amend the complaint. Date: April 6, 2013 `�� �, A,,, Richard P. Glunk, M.D., Pro Se 209 Spring Road Malvern, PA 19355 610-213-5566 10 THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL TRIAL DIVISION Richard P. Glunk, M.D., Pro Se 209 Spring Road Malvern, PA 19355 610-213-5566 Richard P. Glunk, M.D. ; Plaintiff Civil Action Law V• Term- Joyce McKeever No.12-6581 419 W. Keller Street Mechanicsburg, PA 17055-3732 ; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Richard P. Glunk, have served a true and correct copy of PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS By US Mail on: Timothy P. Keating Office of Attorney General 15th Floor, Strawberry Square Harrisburg,PA 17120 Date: April 6, 2013 2 11 �- �^� A- Richard P. Glunk, MI)