The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About13-1379 DAVID C. DICKSON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. DOCKET NO. 3 V0 ROBERT HUNT, l7 G Defendant CIVIL ACTION—LAW AND EQUITY RULE TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE Upon consideration of the verified Complaint in this matter and the Petition of Plaintiff for a Preliminary Injunction, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant show cause before this Court on the CP 07 day of 21� ir a ' 2013 at /0:✓ a.m./O.*. in Courtroom Cumberland County Courthouse, One Courthouse Square, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, why a Preliminary Injunction providing the relief sought in the accompanying Petition should not be entered; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall cause a copy of this Rule, along with a copy of the Complaint and the aforesaid Petition and accompanying papers to be served upon Defendant at least five (5) days before the day of the hearing. BY E C RT: J. Distribution: Craig A. Diehl, Esquire, CPA, 3464 Trindle Road, Camp Hill, PA 17011 Robert Hunt, I Camelot Lane, Wrightsville, PA 17368 Ile, DAVID C. DICKSON, IN THE COURT OF C&AMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA . ,/ E V. DOCKET NO. .may' / f.7' dot` Y.*eL ROBERT HUNT, Defendant : CIVIL ACTION—LAW AND EQUITY '1 AWTOOM CAj,JSE WIiY PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SHOULD NOT ISSUE Upon consideration of the verified Complaint in this matter and the Petition of Plaintiff 1a, for a Preliminary Injunction, IT IS ORDERED that Defendant show cause before this Cdr on the 0,741-day d of ! • .2013 at /0.3D a.m./Ah. in Courtroom . Cumberland County Courthouse, One Courthouse Square, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013, or as soon thereafter as f counsel can be heard, why a Preliminary Injunction providing the relief sought in the accompanying Petition should not be entered; and f IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall cause a copy of this Rule, along with a copy of the Complaint and the aforesaid Petition and accompanying papers to be served upon Defendant at least five(5)days before the day of the hearing. BY C RT: J. Distribution: V Craig A. Diehl,Esquire,CPA, 3464 Trindle Road,Camp Hill,PA 17011 3 w Y V Robert Hunt, 1 Camelot Lane, Wrightsville,PA 17368 A DAVID C. DICKSON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. DOCKET NO. 2013-01379 ROBERT HUNT, Defendant CIVIL ACTION-LAW AND EQUITY PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL AND SUBSTITUTE NEW COUNSEL '-- = ..V Dc e c, TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly docket the withdraw of the undersigned as counsel for Plain04[)Md c') Dickson. Respectfully submitted, ' LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG A. DIEHL Date: i By: xJ , &_ ' (4CraiggEiehl, tsquire Attorney I.D. No. 52801 3464 Trindle Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Tel: (717) 763-7613 Fax: (717) 763-8293 Kindly enter the appearance of Michael L. Bangs, Esquire as counsel for Plaintiff, David C. Dickson. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG A. DIEHL Date: 3 a� 3 By: Michael L. Bangs, Es -ire Attorney I.D. No. 429 South 18th Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Tel: (717) 730-7310 DAVID C. DICKSON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. DOCKET NO. 2013-01379 ROBERT HUNT, Defendant CIVIL ACTION—LAW AND EQUITY AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE AND NOW, the 21St day of March, 2013, the undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Rule to Show Cause Why Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue was served upon the opposing party's receptionist Kay by way of personal hand-delivery at 2:Q5 C:: _ p.m. addressed as follows: ; rn x rTi- Robert Hunt " ry T -<> N b c/o CRA Collections, Inc. 1150 Lancaster Boulevard, Suite 210 >C�-) Mechanicsburg, PA 17055P Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG A. DIEHL n C �Date: By: eremy . anawalt DAVID C. DICKSON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA V. DOCKET NO. 2013-01379 ROBERT HUNT, Defendant CIVIL ACTION—LAW AND EQUITY AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE AND NOW,the 10 day of March, 2013,the undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Complaint,Petition for Preliminary Injunctive Relief, and Affidavit of Plaintiff was served upon the opposing party's receptionist Sarah by way of personal hand- delivery at 4:43 p.m. addressed as follows: Robert Hunt c/o CRA Collections, Inc. 00r- 1150 Lancaster Boulevard, Suite 210 -<> Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 Respectfully submitted, 4 LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG A. DIEHL Date: 03 )a,) 15 By: eremy A. Hanawalt DAVID C.DICKSON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff DOCKET NO. 13-1379 Civil V. ROBERT HUNT, CIVIL ACTION—LAW AND EQUITY Defendant PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant, Robert Hunt in connection with the above matter. LAW OFFICES OF BARRY F. PENN, P.C. By: ISARRV F. PENN, ESQUIRE Attorney I.D. No. 32427 Two Penn Center Plaza 1500 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1850 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Tel: (215) 568-3400 Fax: (215) 567-1998 Date: 3 ti S'. ;-013 ;-Q- r..: LAW OFFICES OF BARRY F. PENN, P.C. By: Barry F. Penn, Esquire Identification No. : 32427 r.r 1500 JFK Blvd. , Suite 1850 �' Philadelphia, PA 19102 (2 15) 568-3400 ., (215) 567-1998 (FAX) bfpennesq @gmail . com Attorney for Respondent/Defendant, Robert Hunt DAVID C. DICKSON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff DOCKET NO. 13-1379 Civil V. ROBERT HUNT, CIVIL ACTION-LAW AND EQUITY Defendant RESPONSE OF DEFENDANT, ROBERT HUNT, TO PLAINTIFF' S PETITION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Respondent/Defendant ("Respondent", "Defendant"or "Hunt") , by and through his attorney, Barry F. Penn, Esquire, hereby states the following in response to Plaintiff' s Petition for Injunctive Relief filed on March 14, 2013 : 1 . Denied. Petitioner ("Plaintiff" or "Hunt") is not a fifty percent (50 . 0%) owner of CRA Collections, Inc. ("CRA") and has never been a shareholder of CRA. Petitioner never paid the consideration required for a 50% interest and never agreed to the terms of the proposed transfer of stock (Petitioner was to accept 1 50% responsibility for all corporate obligations, but refused to do so) . The share were never fully executed and Petitioner was notified on March 7, 2013 that the transfer had been rescinded due to the conduct of Petitioner more fully described herein. The final straw in the "relationship" between Petitioner and Respondent occurred on March 10, 2013 as detailed below. The Petitioner and his wife, Deirdre Artfitch Dickson, have engaged in improper and illegal conduct harmful to CPA and to Respondent, Robert Hunt. This outrageous conduct by Petitioner and his wife, includes but is not limited to illegal hacking into Respondent' s personal email account, removing corporate files and personal tax returns of Respondent, deleting corporate/business emails, obtaining personal photographs of Respondent and his girlfriend and reading confidential attorney emails between Respondent and his personal attorney handling Respondent' s pending divorce action. Petitioner and his wife also stole medical equipment and supplies valued between $7, 000-$10, 000 . However, the most outrageous and unlawful acts of Petitioner and his wife occurred took place on March 10, 2013 when they broke into and burglarized the offices of CPA around midnight . Although Petitioner attempted to hide his identity from surveillance cameras, he and his wife were clearly shown as the individuals who broke into CRA' s office. During the unlawful entry, Petitioner and his wife removed Respondent' s tax returns, the CRA corporate 2 kit and a number of client files. See Affidavit of Robert Hunt attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2 . Admitted only that the Petition and copy of verified Complaint were served upon Respondent. 3. Denied as stated. It is only admitted that Petitioner filed a verified Complaint which allegations in said Complaint are specifically denied. , 4 . Denied. It is specifically denied that a Preliminary Injunction Order is necessary and that Petitioner will suffer immediate and irreparable harm which cannot be compensated by damages, for the following reasons: a) Petitioner and his wife have engaged in a pattern of illegal activity under state and Federal laws; b) Respondent has not dissipated corporate assets; on the contrary Petitioner and his wife, have used without authorization CRA' s corporate credit cards for personal expenses; C) Petitioner and his wife hacked into Respondent' s email account; d) Petitioner and his wife removed client files during their burglary of CRA' s offices; e) Petitioner and his wife have engaged in harmful conduct towards Respondent and CRA; f) Petitioner and his wife have improperly used CRA' s credit card; and 3 LAW OFFICES OF BARRY F. PENN, P.C. By: Barry F. Penn, Esquire Identification No. : 32427 1500 JFK Blvd. , Suite 1850 Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 568-3400 (215) 567-1998 (FAX) bfpennesq @gmail . com Attorney for Respondent/Defendant, Robert Hunt DAVID C. DICKSON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff DOCKET NO. 13-1379 Civil V. . ROBERT HUNT, CIVIL ACTION—LAW AND EQUITY Defendant MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT' S OPPOSITION THE PETITION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF I. STATEMENT OF FACTS The Petitioner/ Plaintiff, David C. Dickson ("Dickson" or "Petitioner") brings this disgruntled former employee lawsuit against his former boss, Respondent, Robert Hunt . Hunt is, and has always been, the sole shareholder, sole director, and President of CRA Collections, Inc. ("CRA") since its founding in 5 2006. CRA is a licensed, bonded and insured collection agency in at least 31 states. Under the licensing laws in eight of these states', collection businesses are required to be bonded. Simply stated, convicted felons and/or former bankrupt debtors cannot own licensed collection businesses because of the bonding requirement and bonds will not be issued to convicted felons and/or bankrupt debtors. See, attached Bond Application, marked as Exhibit B. Dickson, on the other hand, is a convicted felon who lost his Chiropractic License in 2001 as a result of pleading guilty to Heath Care Fraud in Maryland Federal Court . Thereafter, Dickson filed Bankruptcy under Chapter 11 in an attempt to discharge his alimony obligations to his former spouse. See, attached documentation from the Pennsylvania State Board of Chiropractic (Exhibit C) and Federal Bankruptcy decision, Third Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 03-3709 filed March 8, 2005) (Exhibit D) . Dickson nonetheless was a longtime friend of Hunt since the time he treated Hunt as his chiropractor following an automobile accident in the early 1990' s . Dickson began working for CRA as a relationship manager and business rainmaker in approximately 2006 . Dickson was a non- shareholder of CRA, but was given the title of CEO on his business card to help impress potential business clients . Dickson had no contract with CRA and was an at-will employee. Hunt hired Dickson initially because of their friendship, but ' See, e. g. , Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Utah, New York and Tennessee. 6 also because Hunt believed that Dickson' s healthcare background as a chiropractor might help CRA land medical collection accounts. Dickson was fired by Hunt in two stages (on March 8, 2013 and March 11, 2013) , after Dickson and his wife, Deirdre Dickson ("Deirdre") , were discovered for a second time, (a) hacking into Hunt' s personal email account, (b) changing the passwords to Hunt' s personal and corporate email accounts, (c) deleting many of Hunt' s personal and corporate emails and files, (d) reading and copying Hunt' s private divorce communications with his matrimonial attorney, and then possibly circulating those emails to Hunt' s wife, (e) copying and possibly circulating private emails and naked photographs of Hunt' s fiance and after they were observed burglarizing CRA' s headquarters on the evening of March 10, 2013 into the early morning of March 11, 2013. Hunt initially learned about Dickson and Deirdre' s unauthorized computer intrusions in September, 2012 from Kevin Levrone, a mutual friend. At that time, however, the extent of the hacking was not clear. In late February, 2013, however, the full extent of the hacking became clear and Dickson was fired shortly thereafter. In November, 2012 Deirdre and Dickson confided in Kevin Levrone that the two of them had been hacking into Hunt' s computer and that they had looked at personal emails and naked photographs of Hunt and his fiance which were stored on Hunt' s personal email account . When confronted, both Dickson and Deirdre admitted to hacking activities in late November 2012, but they did not admit to the extent of those activities-- instead assigning "business 7 explanations" to their actions . Both Dickson and Deirdre promised to stop the hacking immediately, and Dickson assured Hunt that he had only "skimmed" through emails . Hunt told Dickson at that time that the "skimming" description was "bulls--t" and that he knew Dickson looked at naked pictures of Hunt' s fiance that were intended only for Hunt . Dickson apologized and promised not to do it again. Hunt did not know what to do. He was torn between a longstanding friendship with Dickson and his anger at Dickson having crossed Hunt' s personal boundaries . Moreover, knowing Dickson' s past, Hunt began to believe that Dickson would use the photographs to blackmail him. He decided to give Dickson a second chance. Around this time, CRA and Hunt were having financial difficulties. Hunt was involved in a contested divorce with his long estranged wife. There was a growing corporate debt at CRA of approximately $250, 000 . 00 all of which was personally guaranteed by Hunt. There was also a lawsuit brought in Cumberland County by the Rite-Aid Corporation against CRA, which although frivolous, sought over $1, 500, 000 . 00 for disputed collection remittances. A combination of the litigation costs, the CRA $250, 000 . 00 corporate debt, and the pendency of the Rite Aid claim caused Hunt to seek out bankruptcy advice from an attorney. Dickson suggested that Hunt speak with his friend and attorney, Craig Diehl to discuss debt restructuring at CRA and the possible filing of corporate and personal bankruptcies for both CRA and Hunt . Hunt first met with Attorney, Diehl at Diehl' s office in Camp Hill on October 10, 2011 . 8 During this conversation, Hunt explained that CRA has approximately $250, 000 . 00 in corporate debts which were personally guaranteed by Hunt. Hunt also spoke with Diehl about the Rite-Aid litigation. Diehl explained that any bankruptcy only by CRA, would not extinguish Hunt' s personal liability since Hunt was a personal guarantor. Diehl recommended a series of work out alternatives: (a) the filing of simultaneous personal and corporate bankruptcies, (b) a debt work out plan at the conclusion of the Rite Aid case (if CRA could hold on that long) , and/or (c) a corporate restructuring of CRA which would involve taking on an investor who would receive half of CRA' s stock in exchange for the investor becoming a joint personal guarantor of CRA' s debt . Diehl provided Hunt with a questionnaire seeking an itemization of all of Hunt' s personal and corporate debts and requested that Hunt return to a second meeting with the completed questionnaire and his personal tax returns for the past year. Dickson insisted on being present at this initial October 10, 2011 meeting and expressed interest in becoming an owner and investor. Afterwards, Dickson was not involved further. Dickson specifically inquired of Diehl at the first meeting in words or substance as to how he could "get on the ownership of CPA without tax implications. " Subsequent meetings took place alone between Hunt and Diehl regarding these options regarding the possible timing of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing for Hunt and CRA. On one such occasion, Hunt' s litigation attorney in the Rite Aid matter, Geoffrey B. Gompers, Esquire, participated in a 9 telephone conference with Diehl and Hunt that lasted over one hour. Diehl advised Hunt that bankruptcies should be a last resort, especially since the Rite-Aid case had become dormant for several months . Instead, Diehl recommended that Hunt pursue the investor/guarantor/partner idea. Dickson and Hunt then discussed this notion verbally and confirmed communications and negotiations by email . These emails laid out the parameters of the negotiations of the proposed stock transaction. Unfortunately, as will be explained below, these emails recently were discovered to have been deleted by Dickson and/or his wife as part of their renewed hacking. In late 2012, financial conditions were worsening at CRA. The Rite Aid litigation began to heat up with a new deposition that occurred in November, 2012 . CRA' s line of credit with American Express was substantially reduced. Hunt fell behind on his mortgage payments because there was not enough money in CRA to pay him a full salary. A second of Hunt' s property was in foreclosure. Hunt began to aggressively pursue having Dickson invest in CRA as a guarantor. Hunt and Dickson negotiated with the help of CRA' s accountant, Dawn James-Serra and Hunt instructed CRA' s accountant tender shares to Dickson with the proviso that Dickson first pay $500 . 00 for the shares and that he become a personal obligor of CRA. Dickson refused to sign the shares at that time and he refused to pay the $500 . 00 . He also refused to become a personal obligor of CRA. Instead, he announced that he would not sign anything until the Rite Aid litigation ended. 10 Importantly, at that time the stock transaction had not occurred. Dickson made clear that didn' t want to assume his ownership/surety interest in CRA until the Rite-Aid litigation concluded. This was reflected in the emails deleted from Hunt' s account in February. These negotiations, however, were personally witnessed in part by the company' s accountant, Dawn James Serra. Second, Dickson was a convicted felon, and as such, issues arose as to his ability to become bonded-- thus making him ineligible for an ownership interest in CPA. For these reasons, Dickson never signed and returned proposed Stock Certificates mailed in early December, 2012 with the requisite $500 . 00 payment and agreement to assume personal debts of CRA. Instead, he announced in November that he was moving to Florida and that they should keep talking. He announced that he would not be working any longer from CRA' s office in Mechanicsburg. Instead, he said that he would do his "work" from Florida. Dickson nonetheless demanded that that Hunt continue to pay him $12, 000 . 00/month salary. Hunt began to believe that Dickson had copies of the naked pictures of Hunt and his fiance and began feeling extorted. From late November, 2012 until March 10, 2013, Dickson did not come to work at CRA. He continued to pay Dickson, however, to keep peace until his divorce settled down, especially since Hunt did not want the naked photographs circulated. However, all of that changed in late February when Hunt discovered that records, files and equipment were missing from CRA and his personal email accounts. In late February, 2013, Hunt discovered that Dickson' s 11 hacking was ongoing, and had never ceased. At that time, Hunt learned the full extent of the hacking activities . Missing were corporate and personal files concerning Hunt' s divorce proceedings, the naked photographs of Hunt and his fiance, personal emails between Hunt and his attorney, and numerous business files. All of this was occurring at an extremely sensitive time in Hunt' s divorce proceedings . Especially of concern were three items . First, Hunt knew that the naked photographs of Hunt and Hunt' s fiance alone would derail settlement discussions in the divorce if Dickson sent them to Hunt' s estranged wife or to her attorney. Second, there were missing emails from Hunt to his matrimonial lawyer containing confidential settlement authority that Hunt had given for settlement . Third, and most importantly for purposes of this litigation, was the striking deletion of all negotiations regarding the ongoing proposed stock transfer discussions between Dickson and Hunt. Moreover, Hunt learned that Deirdre and Dickson had logged into another of his email accounts (Life Force MD) and erased the entire email file and that she had stolen without permission $7, 000. 00 to $10, 000 . 00 of medical equipment and supplies. Hunt confronted Dickson and his wife and they again acknowledged their hacking activities . As a result, Hunt forwarded an email to Dickson dated March 8, 2013 which stated (see attached Exhibit E) : The draft certificate forms and draft minutes that I sent you on December 7, 2012 are incorrect. My previous offer was never accepted and that offer is 12 hereby rescinded. Please return the draft certificates and minutes immediately. They are null and void. Given our recent discussions, we need to further discuss this situation to see if we can come up with proper documentation that reflects any agreement reached, if one is eventually reached. Rob Hunt Following receipt of this email, Dickson and his wife, who were in Florida, charged two plane tickets to a corporate credit card guaranteed by Hunt personally and flew from Florida to Washington D.C. at the cost of nearly $850 . 00 . At that time they also charged $1300 . 00 to the company' s credit card for Best Buy without authorization. On March 10, 2013 at 11 :45 p.m. , the final straw occurred. Dickson and his wife, Deirdre, were witnessed burglarizing CRA' s offices. At that time the two were witnessed stealing personal and corporate documents including (a) Hunt' s personal tax returns, (b) Hunt' s personal divorce file, (c) the CRA corporate kit and incorporation documents and (d) a number of client files . Criminal charges were immediately filed with the Upper Allen Police Department, Officer Chad D. McClure, against both Dickson and his wife for the burglary. Hunt understands that arrest warrants may presently be outstanding against both Dickson and his wife. Moreover, on March 11, 2012, Hunt sent Dickson the following email (see attached Exhibit F) : Dear Mr. Dickson—You are hereby advised that you are terminated forthwith with cause from all employment with CRA Collections, Inc. You are instructed to 13 return all company equipment and property immediately. Very truly yours, Rob Hunt, President and Sole Director. On March 14, 2013 the within Petition and Complaint were filed by the Diehl Firm seeking injunctive relief. As a matter of law, such relief should not be granted. II. LEGAL ARGUMENT The law is well settled as to the requirements for the issuance of a prohibitory injunction. A petitioner a seeking preliminary injunction must establish every one of the following prerequisites: `First, a party seeking a preliminary injunction must show that an injunction is necessary to prevent immediate and irreparable harm that cannot be adequately compensated by damages. Second, the party must show that greater injury would result from refusing an injunction than from granting it, and, concomitantly, that issuance of an injunction will not substantially harm other interested parties in the proceedings. Third, the party must show that a preliminary injunction will properly restore the parties to their status as it existed immediately prior to the alleged wrongful conduct. Fourth, the party seeking an injunction must that the activity it seeks to restrain is actionable, that the right to relief is clear and that the wrong is manifest, or, in other words, must show that it is likely to prevail on the merits. Fifth, the party must show that the injunction it seeks is 14 reasonably suited to abate the offending activity. Sixth and finally, the party seeking an injunction must show that a preliminary injunction will not adversely the public interest. "The York Group, Inc. v. Yorktowne Caskets, Inc. , 924 A. 2d 1234, 1241 (Pa. Super. 2007) (dispute over distributors rights pertaining to caskets) citing Summit Towne Center, Inc. v. Shoe Show of Rocky Mt. , Inc. , 828 A. 2d 995, 1001 (Pa. 2003) . See also, Warehime v. Warehime, 860 A. 41 (Pa. 2004) (a family shareholder corporate dispute [over the Hanover Foods Company] with litigation spanning a decade with multiple appeals) ; Perrotto Builders, LTD v. Reading School District and Restoration East, LLC, 2010 Pa. Cmwlth. Unpub. LEXIS 499 (July 14, 2010) (contract dispute involving termination of same) ;Red Oak Water Transfer, NE, LLC v. Countrywide Energy Services, LLC, 2012 Pa. D. & C. , Dec. LEXIS 236 (July 16, 2012) (discussing the applicable standard in the context of non- competition and non-solicitation agreements found to be unenforceable) . It is clear that even prior to the taking of testimony and introducing evidence that the Petitioner will not be entitled to the injunctive relief he is seeking. Besides coming into this Court with unclean hands (actively participating the burglarizing of the CRA offices and engaging in illegal computer hacking proscribed by our Federal statutes) , Petitioner' s right to relief, at best, is very remote. [Note that by the time of this hearing scheduled for March 27, 2013, it is likely that arrest warrants for Petitioner and his wife may have been issued regarding their burglary on March 10, 2013 of CRA' s office. ] In addition, even if 15 Petitioner has a valid which is absolutely denied, his remedy is not injunctive relief but money damages for any supposedly lost income, lost wages, etc. Those damages are quantifiable and if Petitioner had a meritorious claim, easily provable and recoverable. The issuance of an injunction, instead of preserving the status quo, would only further damage Respondent and possibly completely ruin the corporation, CRA, which had formerly employed Mr. Dickson. The opposing Affidavit of Robert Hunt, setting forth the factual circumstances surrounding this employee dispute is sufficient now without further testimony or evidence to deny, as a matter of law, Petitioner' s request for injunctive relief. Finally, if this Court should entertain Plaintiff' s Petition for Injunctive Relief and grant relief, it is requested that Petitioner be required to post a significant bond concerning the circumstances of this dispute. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF BARRY F. PENN, P.C. By: Barr . P nn, Esquire Attorney I . D. No. 32427 1500 JFK Blvd. Ste. 1850 Phila. PA 19102 215-568-3400; FAX: 215-567-1998 Attorney for Respondent, Robert Hunt 16 VERIFICATION I, Barry F. Penn, Esquire, attorney for the Respondent/Defendant herein, being duly sworn according to law, deposes that the facts/information set forth in the foregoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements made therein are mad subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C. S. S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. LAW OFFICES OF BARRY F. PENN, P.C. By: Barr F. nn, Esquire Attorney I . D. No. 32427 1500 JFK Blvd. Ste. 1850 Phila. PA 19102 215-568-3400; FAX: 215-567-1998 Attorney for Robert Hunt 17 g) Petitioner and his wife are not entitled, as a matter of law, to equitable relief. 5 . Petitioner has a remedy at law (unlikely to recover based upon the dubious merits of Petitioner' s claims. Warehime v. Warehime, 860 A. 41 (Pa. 2004) . 6. Respondent would suffer appreciable harm if the Petition is granted because the "status quo" Petitioner is seeking to restore is one in which Petitioner would be permitted to continue with his illegal activities. 7 . Petitioner, a convicted felon, suspended from the practice of chiropractic when he pled guilty to Health Care Fraud in 2001, is the person who should be restrained from causing further damage to Respondent and CRA. Petitioner' s conduct is actionable, his rights are not clear and Petitioner is not likely at all to succeed on the merits of his claim. WHEREFORE, Respondent respectfully prays this Honorable Court to enter an Order in the form attached denying Petitioner' s request for injunctive relief. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF BARRY F. PENN, P.C. By: Barry F. OPenn, Esquire Attorney I . D. No. 32427 1500 JFK Blvd. Ste. 1850 Phila. PA 19102 215-568-3400; FAX: 215-567-1998 Attorney for Respondent, Robert Hunt 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this 25th day of March, 2013, the undersigned does certify that a true and copy of Respondent' s Answer/Response and Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiff' s Petition for Injunctive Relief were sent by facsimile transmission and/or via email to the named attorney for Plaintiff. Michael L. Bangs, Esquire 429 S . 18th Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717 ) 730-7374 `BarrJ F. Penn, Esquire 18 LAW OFFICES OF BARRY F.PENN,P.C. By: Barry F. Penn,Esquire Identification No.: 32427 1500 JFK Blvd. Philadelphia,PA 19102 (215)568-3400 (215)567-1998(FAX) bfpennesq @gmail.com ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT DAVID C. DICKSON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff DOCKET NO. 13-1379 Civil V. ROBERT HUNT, CIVIL ACTION—LAW AND EQUITY Defendant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: SS. COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT HUNT ROBERT HUNT BEING FIRST DULY SWORN ACCORDING TO LAW, DEPOSES AND SAYS AS FOLLOWS: 1 . The Plaintiff, David C. Dickson ("Dickson") brings this disgruntled former employee lawsuit against his former boss, Robert Hunt. Hunt is, and has always been, the sole shareholder, sole director, and President of CRA Collections, Inc. ("CRA") since its founding in 2006. 2 . CRA is a licensed, bonded and insured collection agency in 31 states. EF 3 . Under the licensing laws in eight of these states', collection businesses are required to be bonded. 4 . Simply stated, convicted felons and/or former bankrupt debtors cannot own licensed collection businesses because of the bonding requirement and bonds will not be issued to convicted felons and/or bankrupt debtors. See, attached Bond Application. 5 . Dickson, on the other hand, is a convicted felon who lost his Chiropractic License in 2001 as a result of pleading guilty to Heath Care Fraud in Maryland Federal Court. 6 . Thereinafter, Dickson filed Bankruptcy under Chapter 11 in an attempt to discharge his alimony obligations to his former spouse. 7 . Dickson nonetheless was a longtime friend of Hunt since the time he treated Hunt as his chiropractor following an automobile accident in the early 1990' s. 8 . Dickson began working for CRA as a relationship manager and business rainmaker in approximately 2006. Dickson was a non-shareholder of CRA, but was given the title of CEO on his business card to help impress potential business clients . 9. Dickson had no contract with CRA and was an at-will employee. 10 . Hunt hired Dickson initially because of their ' See, e. g. , Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Utah, New York and Tennessee. friendship, but also because Hunt believed that Dickson' s healthcare background as a chiropractor might help CRA land medical collection accounts . 11 . Dickson was fired by Hunt in two stages (on March 8, 2013 and March 11, 2013) , after Dickson and his wife, Deirdre Dickson ("Deirdre") , were discovered for a second time, (a) hacking into Hunt' s personal email account, (b) changing the passwords to Hunt' s personal and corporate email accounts, (c) deleting many of Hunt' s personal and corporate emails and files, (d) reading and copying Hunt' s private divorce communications with his matrimonial attorney, and then possibly circulating those emails to Hunt' s wife, (e) copying and possibly circulating private emails and naked photographs of Hunt' s fiance and after they were observed burglarizing CRA' s headquarters on the evening of March 10, 2013 . 12 . Hunt initially learned about Dickson and Deirdre' s unauthorized computer intrusions in September, 2012 from Kevin Levrone, a mutual friend. 13 . At that time, however, the extent of the hacking was not clear. In late February, 2013, however, the full extent of the hacking became clear and Dickson was fired shortly thereafter. 14 . In November, 2012, Deirdre and Dickson confided in Kevin Levrone that the two of them were hacking into Hunt' s computer and that they had looked at personal emails and naked photographs of Hunt and his fiance which were stored on Hunt' s personal email account. 15. When confronted, both Dickson and Deirdre admitted to hacking activities in late November 2012 , but they did not admit to the extent of those activities-- instead assigning "business explanations" to their actions . 16 . Both Dickson and Deirdre promised to stop the hacking immediately, and Dickson assured Hunt that he had only "skimmed" through emails . 17 . Hunt told Dickson at that time that the "skimming" description was "bullshit" and that he knew Dickson looked at naked pictures of Hunt' s fiance that were intended only for Hunt. 18 . Dickson apologized and promised not to do it again. Hunt did not know what to do. 19 . He was torn between a longstanding friendship with Dickson and his anger at Dickson having crossed Hunt' s personal boundaries . 20 . Moreover, knowing Dickson' s past, Hunt began to believe that Dickson would use the photographs to blackmail him. He decided to give Dickson a second chance. 21 . Around this time, CRA and Hunt were having financial difficulties. 22 . Hunt was involved in a contested divorce with his long estranged wife. 23 . There was a growing corporate debt at CRA of approximately $250, 000. 00 all of which was personally guaranteed by Hunt. 24 . There was also a lawsuit brought in Cumberland County by the Rite-Aid Corporation against CRA, which although frivolous, sought over $1,500, 000 . 00 for disputed collection remittances. 25 . A combination of the litigation costs, the CRA $250, 000. 00 corporate debt, and the pendency of the Rite Aid claim caused Hunt to seek out bankruptcy advice from an attorney. 26 . Dickson suggested that Hunt speak with his friend and attorney, Craig Diehl to discuss debt restructuring at CRA and the possible filing of corporate and personal bankruptcies for both CRA and Hunt. 27 . Hunt first met with Attorney, Diehl at Diehl' s office in Camp Hill on October 10, 2011 . 28 . During this conversation, Hunt explained that CRA has approximately $250, 000. 00 in corporate debts which were personally guaranteed by Hunt. 29. Hunt also spoke with Diehl about the Rite-Aid litigation. 30. Diehl explained that any bankruptcy only by CRA, would not extinguish Hunt' s personal liability since Hunt was a personal guarantor. 31 . Diehl recommended a series of work out alternatives: (a) the filing of simultaneous personal and corporate bankruptcies, (b) a debt work out plan at the conclusion of the Rite Aid case (if CRA could hold on that long) , and/or (c) a corporate restructuring of CRA which would involve taking on an investor who would receive half of CRA' s stock in exchange for the investor becoming a joint personal guarantor of CRA' s debt. 32 . Diehl provided Hunt with a questionnaire seeking an itemization of all of Hunt' s personal and corporate debts and requested that Hunt return to a second meeting with the completed questionnaire and his personal tax returns for the past year. 33 . Dickson insisted on being present at this initial October 10, 2011 meeting and expressed interest in becoming an owner and investor. 34 . Afterwards, Dickson was not involved further. Dickson specifically inquired of Diehl at the first meeting in words or substance as to how he could "get on the ownership of CRA without tax implications. " 35 . Subsequent meetings took place alone between Hunt and Diehl regarding these options regarding the possible timing of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing for Hunt and CRA. 36 . On one such occasion, Hunt' s litigation attorney in the Rite Aid matter, Geoffrey Gompers, participated in a telephone conference with Diehl and Hunt that lasted over one hour. 37 . Diehl advised Hunt that bankruptcies should be a last resort, especially since the Rite-Aid case had become dormant for several months. 38 . Instead, Diehl recommended that Hunt pursue the investor/guarantor/partner idea. 39 . Dickson and Hunt then discussed this notion verbally and confirmed communications and negotiations by email. 40 . These emails laid out the parameters of the negotiations of the proposed stock transaction. 41 . Unfortunately, as will be explained below, these emails recently were discovered to have been deleted by Dickson and/or his wife as part of their renewed hacking. 42 . In late 2012 , financial conditions were worsening at CRA. The Rite Aid litigation began to heat up with a new deposition that occurred in November, 2012 . 43 . CRA' s line of credit with American Express was substantially reduced. 44 . Hunt fell behind on his mortgage payments because there was not enough money in CRA to pay him a full salary. 45 . A second of Hunt' s property was in foreclosure. 46 . Hunt began to aggressively pursue having Dickson invest in CRA as a guarantor. 47 . Hunt and Dickson negotiated with the help of CRA' s accountant, Dawn James-Serra and Hunt instructed CRA' s accountant tender shares to Dickson with the proviso that Dickson first pay $500. 00 for the shares and that he become a personal obligor of CRA. 48 . Dickson refused to sign the shares at that time and he refused to pay the $500. 00 . 49 . He also refused to become a personal obligor of CRA. 50 . Instead, he announced that he would not sign anything until the Rite Aid litigation ended. 51 . Importantly, at that time the stock transaction had not occurred. 52 . Dickson made clear that didn' t want to assume his ownership/surety interest in CRA until the Rite-Aid litigation concluded. 53 . This was reflected in the emails deleted from Hunt' s account in February. 54 . These negotiations, however, were personally witnessed in part by the company' s accountant, Dawn James Serra. Second, Dickson was a convicted felon, and as such, issues arose as to his ability to become bonded-- thus making him ineligible for an ownership interest in CRA. 55 . For these reasons, Dickson never signed and returned proposed Stock Certificates mailed in early December, 2012 with the requisite $500 . 00 payment and agreement to assume personal debts of CRA. 56 . Instead, he announced in November that he was moving to Florida and that they should keep talking. 57 . He announced that he would not be working any longer from CRA' s office in Mechanicsburg. 58 . Instead, he said that he would do his "work" from Florida. 59. Dickson nonetheless demanded that that Hunt continue to pay him $12 , 000. 00/month salary. 60 . Hunt began to believe that Dickson had copies of the naked pictures of Hunt and his fiance and began feeling extorted. 61 . From late November, 2012 until March 10, 2013, Dickson did not come to work at CRA. 62 . He continued to pay Dickson, however, to keep peace until his divorce settled down, especially since Hunt did not want the naked photographs circulated. 63 . However, all of that changed in late February when Hunt discovered that records, files and equipment were missing from CRA and his personal email accounts. 64 . In late February, 2013, Hunt discovered that Dickson' s hacking was ongoing, and had never ceased. 65 . At that time, Hunt learned the full extent of the hacking activities. 66 . Missing were corporate and personal files concerning Hunt' s divorce proceedings, the naked photographs of Hunt and his fiance, personal emails between Hunt and his attorney, and numerous business files. 67 . All of this was occurring at an extremely sensitive time in Hunt' s divorce proceedings. 68 . Especially of concern were three items . 69 . First, Hunt knew that the naked photographs of Hunt and Hunt' s fiance alone would derail settlement discussions in the divorce if Dickson sent them to Hunt' s estranged wife or to her attorney. 70 . Second, there were missing emails from Hunt to his matrimonial lawyer containing confidential settlement authority that Hunt had given for settlement. 71 . Third, and most importantly for purposes of this litigation, was the striking deletion of all negotiations regarding the ongoing proposed stock transfer discussions between Dickson and Hunt. 72 . Moreover, Hunt learned that Deirdre and Dickson had logged into another of his email accounts (Life Force MD) and erased the entire email file and that she had stolen without permission $7,000 . 00 to $10, 000 . 00 of medical equipment and supplies . 73 . Hunt confronted Dickson and his wife and they again acknowledged their hacking activities . 74 . As a result, Hunt forwarded an email to Dickson on March 7, 2013 which stated: The draft certificate forms and draft minutes that I sent you on December 7, 2012 are incorrect. My previous offer was never accepted and that offer is hereby rescinded. Please return the draft certificates and minutes immediately. They are null and void. Given our recent discussions, we need to further discuss this situation to see if we can come up with proper documentation that reflects any agreement reached, if one is eventually reached. Rob Hunt 75 . Following receipt of this email, Dickson and his wife, who were in Florida, charged two plane tickets to a corporate credit card guaranteed by Hunt personally and flew from Florida to Washington D.C. at the cost of nearly $850 . 00 . 76 . At that time they also charged $1300 . 00 to the company' s credit card for Best Buy without authorization. 77 . At fifteen minutes before midnight, on March 10, 2013 at 11 : 45, the final straw occurred. 78 . Dickson and his wife, Deirdre, were witnessed burglarizing CRA' s offices. 79 . At that time the two were witnessed stealing personal and corporate documents including (a) Hunt' s personal tax returns, (b) Hunt' s personal divorce file, (c) the CPA corporate kit and incorporation documents and (d) a number of client files . 80 . Criminal charges were immediately filed with the Upper Allen Police Department, Officer Chad D. McClure, against both Dickson and his wife for the burglary. 81 . Hunt understands that arrest warrants may presently be outstanding against both Dickson and his wife. 82 . Moreover, on March 11, 2012 , Hunt sent Dickson the following email: Dear Mr. Dickson—You are hereby advised that you are terminated forthwith with cause from all employment with CRA Collections, Inc . You are instructed to return all company equipment and property immediately. Very truly yours, Rob Hunt, President and Sole Director. 83 . On March 14, 2013 the within Motion and Complaint were filed by the Diehl Firm seeking an injunction. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT: RO ERT HUNT SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS/DAY OF )2,94 ,6013 OTARY PUB cOMWMWFALTH OF P NOTARIAL SEAL JANE HARPER, Pubk TRAVFLERS Agency Name Code Producer Name Bond Express—GENERAL SURETY APPLICATION (Specific applications are required for Motor Vehicle Dealer Bonds,Mortgage Broker Bonds,and Lost Instrument Bonds.) This application must be fully completed,as well as signed,witnessed,and dated by the Applicant and all other Indemnitors. THIS IS A LEGAL DOCUMENT-PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT LEGIBLY. Bond No. Applicant's Name in full(As it should appear on the bond) Phone: ❑Sole Ownership❑Corporation Fax Email:E ❑Partnership ❑LLC Em Business Address(StreetAddress,City,State and Zip Code) Social Security Number Type of Bond Required Amount of Bond Applicant's Current Occupation Business License Number Number of years under current ownership Years experience Market value of primary residence Balance of mortgage 1 $ $ Has application for this bond been declined by another company?❑Yes El No Currently bonded? []Yes ❑No If yes,which surety and why? If yes,give name of surety and reason for change. Has the Applicant or anyone involved professionally or personally: d.Ever had their license suspended,revoked or denied,or been subject to any a.Had any lawsuits or judgments against them? ❑Yes ❑No legal/administrative proceedings resulting in disciplinary action? ❑Yes ❑No b.Ever failed in business or declared bankruptcy? ❑ Yes ❑ No e.Ever been party to a surety bond claim? ❑Yes ❑No c.Ever been convicted of a crime? ❑Yes ❑No (If any answers are yes,please provide details on a separate page.) Obligee Name and Address GIVE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON EACH OWNER OR STOCKHOLDER Name Social Security Number Percent Ownership Address City State Zip Telephone 1 Name Social Security Number Percent Ownership Address City State Zip Telephone COMPLETE FOR PROBATE/COURT BONDS *PLEASE PROVIDE COPIES OFALL APPLICABLE COURT DOCUMENTS INCLUDING WILLS,PETITIONS,COURT ORDERS,TRUSTS,ETC. Name of Applicant's relationship to Is the Applicant indebted to Does the Applicant share ❑Deceased Date of Death: Deceased/Minor/Incompetent: the estate or trust? in the estate? ❑Minor DOB/Age: ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑Yes ❑ No ❑Incompetent* DOB/Age: Date Appointed: %? PPo If yes,please explain. Ifyes,what *Describe condition of ward: Applicant's qualifications for handling estate: List liabilities of estate or trust: List assets of estate or trust: Name and Address of Attorney: Bonds: Stocks: Real Estate: Cash: Other: Area of expertise: 3 Does the estate include an ongoing business? ❑ Yes ❑ No Will the attorney remain involved throughout the duration of this estate? If yes,please provide a description. ❑ Yes ❑ No Is this bond required on the demand of an interested person other than the court? Are guardianship funds to he used for support of the minor/incompetent? ❑ Yes ❑No If yes,who? ❑Yes ❑No If yes,please provide copies of monthly expenditures and income. Does the presiding court require an annual accounting be filed? ❑ Yes ❑No Is there a will or trust? ❑ Yes ❑ No If so,please provide a copy. List all heirs and the percentage they share in the estate: Are there any disputes among the heirs? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes,please provide details. Submission Checklist: ❑ Wills&Codicils ❑ Court ❑ Attorney or Applicant Resume COMPLETE FOR PUBLIC OFFICIAL BONDS *We will consider all public official bonds$50,000 and under except:special bond issues and bonds for tax collectors,treasurers&their subordinates,and deputies who collect money. Please contact us for guidance on these exceptions.) Has the Applicant experienced any public official losses in the last five years? ❑Yes [:]No If yes,please provide details. Official Title of Applicant Term of office in years Start Date: 1:1 Elected [I Appointed End Date: 4 Has the Applicant previously occupied this position? El Yes F]No If yes,during what period? Does the Applicant currently have E&O or Liability Insurance? ❑Yes ❑No If so,please provide the following information.Company: Limit: Policy number: AGENT'S RECOMMENDATION Describe the length and nature of your relationship with the Applicant: 5 Do you recommend the Applicant for this bond? ❑ Yes ❑ No Why? INDEMNITY AGREEMENT The undersigned Applicant and Indemnitor(s),all hereinafter referred to as"Indemnitors,"hereby certify that the declarations made and answers given are the truth without reservation, and are made for the purpose of inducing TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY OF AMERICA, ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, any of their present or future direct or indirect parent companies, any of the respective present or future direct or indirect affiliates or subsidiaries of such companies and parent companies,and/or any of the aforementioned entities'successors or assigns,hereinafter referred to,individually and/or collectively,as"Company,"to furnish a certain bond or undertaking applied for and any renewal and increase of the same or of any bond or undertaking of similar nature given in substitution or renewal thereof(all comprehended in the word"Bond"as herein used). Indemnitors agree that Company may decline the Bond applied for or may cancel or terminate same without incurring liability whatsoever to Indemnitors. In consideration of Company executing said Bond or the forbearance of cancellation of said Bond,Indemnitors do undertake and agree as follows: Indemnitors will pay all premiums, as they fall due, until Company has been provided with competent legal evidence that the Bond has been duly discharged. Indemnitors will at all times indemnify and exonerate Company from and against any and all loss,cost and expense of whatever kind which it may incur or sustain as a result of or in connection with the furnishing of the Bond and/or the enforcement of this Agreement,including unpaid premiums,interest,court costs and counsel fees, and any expense incurred or sustained by reason of making any investigation.To this end Indemnitors promise:a)to promptly reimburse Company for all sums paid and b)to deposit with Company on demand an amount sufficient to discharge any claim made against the Company on the Bond. This sum may be used by Company to pay such claim or be held by Company as collateral security against loss or cost on the Bond. Indemnitors hereby expressly authorize Company to access credit records and to make such pertinent inquiries as may be necessary from third party sources for underwriting purposes,claim purposes and/or debt collection. To the extent required by law,Company will,upon request,provide notice whether or not a consumer report has been requested by Company,and if so,the name and address of the consumer reporting agency furnishing the report. Regardless of the date of signature(s),this Agreement is effective as of the date of execution of the Bond and is continuous until Company is satisfactorily discharged from liability pursuant to the terms and conditions contained herein. An Indemnitor may terminate participation in this Agreement with respect to future renewals or substitution bonds or undertakings by providing written notice to Company of such intent to terminate. Such notice shall be addressed to Travelers Bond&Financial Products, Attention: Senior Vice President Commercial Surety, One Tower Square, Hartford, Connecticut 06183 and shall become effective sixty (60)days after Company's receipt of the same. Termination hereunder shall not relieve the terminating Indemnitor(s)from liability with respect to any renewals or substitution bonds or undertakings issued,or for which Company has obligated itself to issue,before the effective date of termination. Attention:Any person who knowingly and with intent to defraud a surety company or any other person files an application for a surety bond containing any materially false information,or conceals,for the purpose of misleading,information concerning any fact material thereto, commits a fraudulent act and may be subject to civil and/or criminal penalties. 6 Signed this day of CORPORATE INDEMNITY Name of Applicant: Social Security NumberiTax I.D.: X _ X Witness Sign Here Applicant Sign Here Print Name If Applicant is an Entity,Print Name and Title of Signatory INDIVIDUAL/ADDITIONAL INDEMNITORS MUST SIGN BELOW Name of Indemnitor: Social Security Number/hax I.D.: X X Witness Sign Here Indemnitor Sign Here Print Name If Indemnitor is an Entity,Print Name and Title of Signatory Name of Indemnitor: Social Security Number/Tax I.D.: X X Witness Sign Here Indemnitor Sign Here Print Name If Indemnitor is an Entity,Print Name and Title of Signatory S-6190(5/07) All applications are available online via the Bond Forms Library at wwiv.travelersbond.com TRAVELERS IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING COMPENSATION DISCLOSURE For information about how Travelers compensates independent agents, brokers, or other insurance producers, please visit this website:www.travelers.com/w3c/legal/Producer_Compensation_Disclosure.html If you prefer, you can call the following toll-free number: 1-866-904-8348. Or you can write to us at Travelers, Enterprise Development, One Tower Square, Hartford, CT 06183. ILT-1037 Ed.01-09 Printed in U.S.A. Page 1 of 1 ©2009 The Travelers Companies, Inc.All Rights Reserved P E N N S Y L V A N i A iF STATE BOARD OF CHIRO RACTIC i 17-783-7155 Fall 2041 I ate.pa.us E a.us Board Members s Thomas R. Butler, D.C., Chairman Bellefonte, Centre County Jonathan W.McCullough, D.C., Secretary Langhorne, Bucks County S.Evon Barvinchack, D.C. Greencastle, Franklin County Carole Kutz Lee ion Schuylkill Haven, Schuylkill County Dennis G.Ridenour,D.C. Hollidaysburg, Blair County Nancy J. Semmel Schnecksville, Lehigh County ,I, r I John K.Slavek,D.C. I I I Telford, Montgomery County llp flu ail I e i ns David Sumner Bureau of Consumer Protection } Office of Attorney General, Harrisburg F rlll 1 + Albert Masland, Commissioner j Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs Board Staff: Alicia Miller,Esq. Counsel '. I" 'ili'h is I III �i III Ill ivania Phil Zarone, Esq. Prosecutor Deborah Smith dy fth Administrator 44 it mow+" sex 2 -------- License PA Dear Professional Licensee: I welcome the opportunity to communicate with you through this newsletter and the Department of State website. Our website serves as a valuable resource for the general public,as well as the regulated community licensed by the 27 professional licensing boards and commissions. Our mission,and the responsibility of each licensing board and commission,is to protect public health,safety and welfare. At the same time,we are doing our part to make state government more accessible and more responsive to the public and the regulated community. To that end,I invite continued dialogue and open communication with each board and commission to further the effective regulation of its licensed community. In response to Governor Ridgeis challenge to all state agencies to improve productivity and customer service through technology,the Department of Stateis,Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs on July 18 launched a state-of-the art licensing system that provides consumers with access to information on nearly I million business,health and real estate professionals licensed in Pennsylva- nia. License PA allows consumers, employers and licensed professionals to verify the licensure status of professionals and business regulated by the department 27 professional licensing boards and commissions. Later this year,the system will be expanded to provide Pennsylvania licensees with the ability to start the application process and to renew existing licenses. For more information or to continue to keep informed about our availability of new features,please visit our website at www.dos.state.pa.us. We also look forward to continuing to work with you toward our mutual goals of protecting the health, safety and welfare of all Pennsylvanians. Sincerely, AO- 4�7 Kim Pizzingrilli Secretary of the Commonwealth A MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIRMAN Thomas R.Butler,D.C. The Pennsylvania State Board of Chiropractic publishes this newsletter periodically as a service to its licensees. The newsletteris purpose is to address issues of interest for all licensees. Please read this publication. It contains information important to your license and practice. Included are various articles and a section on disciplinary actions recently taken by the Board. Discipline often results from a doctor not being familiar with or adhering to the Chiropractic Practice Act and the Board regulations. In an effort to protect consumers and have licensees better informed,the Board would like to encourage all doctors to review the laws and regulations that govern the practice of chiropractic. You may get copies of these materials from the Chiropractic Board Office or find them on our website at www.dos.state.M.us. The Department of State is making frequent improvements to the website. Check in regularly to find valuable information. Please remember that all State Board of Chiropractic meetings are open to the public. We welcome any and all interested guests. If you have a specific interest or a question that you wish to bring before the Board,please contact the Board Office in writing with your subject in order to make an appointment. The State Board of Chiropractic is dedicated to serving the citizens of Pennsylvania in the pursuit of public health and safety. Please do not hesitate to share in that responsibility and contact us if we may be of any assistance. 3 Regional versus National Standards of ChiroRractjc Practice By Jonathan W. McCullough, DC, DABCT, DABCO, DACR, DACRB In a perfect world,national standards for the practice of chiropractic would be ideal. State practice acts,as they reflect regional standards of care,would become uniform. However,the difficulty in projecting national standards onto regional standards of practice is that current legislation regulating chiropractic practice varies widely from state to state. No greater disparity can be appreciated than to consider the Chiropractic Practice Acts of Washington and Oregon. Although geographically neighbors,their practice acts are dramatically different. Oregon allows chiropractic physicians to perform minor surgical procedures while Washington State allows chiropractors to use few commonly available physical medicine modalities. As a result,treatment for the same diagnosis may vary greatly between jurisdictions. Another example of the difficulty in applying a national standard of chiropractic is the variation in access to technology. In some areas, an MRI examination may not be available,unlike most urban regions in which high technology imaging is commonly available. While national standards could be more convenient,they may be more restrictive and less sensitive to regional modes of practice. For example,the guidelines agreed to by the chiropractic communities in three Pennsylvania counties might not be possible if national standards were in place. Because musculoskeletal injuries vary greatly,the practice of chiropractic requires voluminous guidelines. To complicate the equation further,pain is a highly subjective phenomena. Often times,there is little clinical correlation between diagnostic imaging impressions and poor interrator reliability between many orthopedic tests. Regional standards may be a better solution. In Pennsylvania,at least one professional association has adopted a peer review document which shows promise as a regional guideline. However,it cannot be applied to the entire chiropractic community. National and regional guidelines both embrace a imedically necessaryi threshold. Daily detailed chart entries should include either the Subjective Objective Assessment Procedure or Palpation Asymmetry Range Tissue Tone Texture format(e.g.S.O.A.P.or P.A.R.T.). All charts should reflect the following: 1. Care is consistent with the diagnosis. 2. Document loss of functioning or any functional limitations. 3. Alleviate or mitigate the patientis condition. 4. Assist the patient in returning to normal activities of daily Iiving and achieving maximum functional capacity. 5. Establish the relation of the therapy to the treatment goals in the treatment plan. b. Is in accordance with current standards of good medical and chiropractic practice. 7. Prevents the natural progression or worsening of the patientis condition. 8. Prevents the progression of permanent disability. 9. Is consistent with the patientis present symptoms and signs of injury or illness. In summation,Chiropractic Medicine is specific to the state in which it is practiced. Current national guidelines are not standards of care, however,they can give helpful insight. To quote The Guidelines for Quality Assurance and Practice Parameters,page IV,iThe ultimate judgement regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the practitioner in light of the individual circumstances presented by each patient) Report of Public Members By Carole Lee and Nancy Semmel As consumer representatives on the State Board of Chiropractic,we would like to report the issues we have dealt with while serving on the Board that we find most important to the protection of the public. I. Practicing chiropractors have a duty to protect their patients from any sexual misconduct.An effective deterrent to any sexual misconduct is to have a third party present during all examinations. 2. Chiropractors must maintain a current license in order to ensure proper patient care. The public is best served if chiropractors post their licenses for all to see. I 3. In order to provide accurate diagnosis and patient care,chiropractors must be free from alcohol and drug addiction. For any practitioner that has a problem in this area,the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs can provide assistance through the Professional Health Monitoring Program. The PHMP phone number is 1-800-554-3428. 4. Chiropractors must discuss all treatment and fee options with their patients before commencing treatment. 5. The public expects chiropractors to employ a professional staff to maintain a friendly and courteous environment. CONTINUING CHIROPRACTIC EDUCATION Section 507 of the Chiropractic Act and the Board regulations sections 5.71 to 5.78 provide the details of the continuing education requirement for renewal of a license to practice chiropractic in Pennsylvania. It is imperative that every chiropractor practicing in the Commonwealth be familiar with these requirements.Copies of both the Chiropractic Act and the Board regulations are available by contacting the Department of State, Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs,State Board of Chiropractic,P.O.Box 2649,Harrisburg,Pa. 17105-2649 or they can be found on our website at In order to renew a license,a chiropractor must complete twenty-four hours of continuing chiropractic education within the preceding two-year period. Continuing education credit is only given for programs approved by the State Board of Chiropractic. Approved programs are focused on advancements and new developments in the practice of chiropractic that build upon the original knowledge required to receive a license to practice chiropractic. Practice building or office management courses cannot be applied to satisfy any part of the 24 hour requirement. Because of the wide variety and number of courses available,a practitioner must always verify that the program has been approved by the Board of Examiners. This can be done by calling or writing the sponsor of the course and have them verify the approval. Ask for the approval number of the program and the exact location and date that the program is being presented. Although the same program"being taught"^different locations,"u,possible uthat all have not been approved. The Board must emphasize that it is the/icenseeis responsibility to ensure that ucourse sponsor has received ' Pennsylvania State Board of Chiropractic number before the licensee commits to attending ucourse. 11inthe |iceomcefs duty to secure evidence of completion of the program from the program sponsor. Course apummoru should provide course completion forms to licensees upon completion of the program. Licensees must retain attendance certificates for u minimum of four years. The forms provide proof of attendance io case wfm Board audit of the Uocuoecb continuing education. On the biennial renewal form,a licensee must sign a statement attesting that hemr she attended 24 hours of approved,continuing chiropractic education during the previous biennial renewal period, Waivers n, exceptions to continuing education requirements may be requested io writing with the Board in cases of emergency,illness or undue hardship. The Board may require the licensee to make a personal appearance in front of the Board before making u determination ou the waiver. }f the Board finds probable cause that the licensee is uuuh\o to practice with reasonable skill and safety to patients because of the same condition for which he or she is granted a waiver, the Board may,after notice and hearing,suspend or revoke the license orplace restrictions on the license limiting the scope of the |iceumcnispractice. The penalties for failing to meet the continuing education requirements for a biennial registration period are quite specific. The practitioner will have his license o\uasfioduo unregistered and will bc prohibited from practicing chiropractic until the xoutuonG education requirements are satisfied and the Uocommm has renewed his registration in accordance with the provisions listed iu the Professional and Vocational Standards ofthe Pennsylvania code. Further disciplinary action may result from the failure to complete the 24 hour requirement during the biennial registration period. Sexual Harassment B«Dr. EvoDBarVinchack The doctor nf Chiropractic has a moral and legal obligation to prevent sexual harassment of the doctoris employees or patients. Accord- ing mdbvguidcUnemioxundhyd,e mcxu�6urae�n�uma�6�cJb�,p6yaicu|orvcr6a| . Sexual advances are unlawful when: submission is either an explicit or implicit condition of employment;submission or rejection is used as u basis for an employment decision; such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an iudivi6umJis,*m6c performance;or the advances create an intimidating,hostile,or offensive work environment. Sexual advances,innuendoes,or suggestions between doctor and patient are improper. lomido or outside the nfDue,such conduct is grounds for malpractice,civil,and criminal litigation. Professional license revocation may result if the doctor is found guilty of sexual harassment ionr out of his offimrwith employees orpatients. Doctor Be Alert By Dennis Ridenour, D.C. Todayis complex practice environment contracts with companies and organiza- ing a particular activity,to a full suspen- presents new challenges almost every day. tions that do business in a less than ethi- sion ofyour license losing all privileges to The pressures can hit you from all sides cal manner. Unfortunately,for these doc- practice chiropractic in the whether you are in your first year ofprac- tors who lack business acumen,a naivett Commonwealth of'Pennsylvania until the tice,or have been in practice for thirty- ofthe state practice act is no excuse for State Board of'Chiropractic Examiners five years. A new practitioner has the violations committed. While the financial deems you fit to practice again. concerns of college loans,the choice of pressures of paying off loans are great, becoming an associate in an established donit let your zeal for!making a dollar! Doctors of chiropractic must understand practice or starting a new practice on his get in the way of your common sense and that fraud and misconduct in our profes- or her own. If the practitioner chooses good judgement. sion will not be tolerated. Belyingthetrust to start a new practice,start up costs are of your patients for monetary and per- another pressure to face. Conversely,a All too many times,a momentary lack of sonal gain are violations of the state laws doctor who has been in practice a num- ethical decision making can leave lasting of'Pennsylvania,as well as your own per- ber of'years may be feeling the financial repercussions on your professional ca- sonal code ofconduct,that may have se- pinch ofhealth maintenance organizations. reer. When the Board receives allega- rious and harsh implications. Nearly all Also,the established doctor may be look- tions ofunprofessional conduct by chiro- Doctors of'Chiropractic in Pennsylvania ing for ways to work fewer hours in the practic licensees such as negligence,mal- are hard working ethical practitioners who office while maintaining a healthy prac- practice, incompetence, fraud, sexual provide wonderful health care benefits to tice. misconduct, and substance abuse, the the citizens of Pennsylvania. Hundreds Bureau ofEnforcement and Investigation ofthousands ofPennsylvanians lead fuller, The scenarios described are a normal part will investigate the claims. Please be as- more productive lives as the result of chi- of life in a chiropractic practice. How- sured that the Board prides itself in pro- ropractic treatment. Doctors,let this be ever,the way individuals meet and solve viding fair and impartial treatment to all a warning: donit become one of those these challenges of'practice can vary tre- parties concerned. The Bureau of Pro- practitioners who strays from our code mendously. It has been my duty while fessional and Occupational Affairs has of conduct because it can lead to devas- serving on the State Board of'Chiroprac- strict procedures in place,which ensure tating,long term consequences. tic to hear cases,and then deliberate on that fair and unbiased decisions are ren- the sanctions that should be imposed on dered. The practicing chiropractors on l A Doctors of Chiropractic who have for- the State Board of Chiropractic add k gotten their legal and ethical obligations chiropractic clinical judgment,practice to their patients,the Commonwealth of expertise and years of practical experi- Pennsylvania,and most importantly them- ence to any hearing or proceeding to as- selves. sure a sense of fairness and balance. The Board has heard many cases offelony Many doctors of Chiropractic may not mail fraud brought before them for delib- be aware that when they are found guilty eration. How could a chiropractor be ofbreaking state laws it also impacts their charged with felony mail fraud you ask? professional license. The State Board of Simple,ifyou fraudulently bill insurance Chiropractic is notified when a profes- companies for services that you did not sional licensee is found guilty ofc ommit- render,using the United States Mail to Ling a crime and disciplinary proceedings send the insurance forms,mail fraud has may be commenced,resulting in a disci- been committed. Sadly,the Board has plinary sanction. The penalties could also seen cases ofyoung doctors just out range from a written reprimand against of college with large debt loads who sign your license which orders you to stop do- Disciplinary Process By Alicia S. Miller, Board Counsel Enforcement of the Chiropractic Practice Act is one of the most important duties of the State Board of Chiropractic. It is a duty not to be taken lightly because by disciplining licensees whose conduct fails to conform to the law,the Board is safe- guarding the public from unethical practitioners as well as the reputations of all those who practice chiropractic in an ethical and lawful manner. Unfortunately,the disciplinary process can be a long and arduous process for those involved. However, by following the course set for all disciplinary proceedings,those involved can be assured that their interests have been fully heard and all aspects of a given case shall be considered. The disciplinary process is initiated by the filing of a complaint with the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs (BPOA)complaints unit. Any person or organization,including members of the public,other licensees,or other government entities, may file a complaint against BPOA licensees. Upon receipt of all complaints,the complaints unit does an initial evaluation in order to determine if BPOA has jurisdiction. If an investigation is warranted,the complaint is referred to the Bureau of Enforcement and Investigation(BEI). During an investigation,BEI interviews relevant individuals,obtains documents and records and may conduct site visits. Upon completion of the investigation, a report is drafted and forwarded to a paralegal in the complaints unit for review. The paralegal analyzes the investigative report and refers the matter to a BPOA prosecuting attorney. The prosecuting attorney makes one of the following determinations: (1) formal disciplinary action is warranted; (2) the matter may be resolved informally;(3)there is insufficient evidence to file formal charges;or(4)there is no violation ofthe law or regulations. If there is no apparent violation or if the evidence is insufficient,the case is closed. A disciplinary matter is resolved informally most often with a warning letter. A licensee is informed that,although a violation of the law or regulations appears to have been found,formal action will not be initiated at the current time. The licensee is warned that a further violation of the same provision will result in formal disciplinary action. Resolutions of this type are reserved for minor violations of the law or regulations. If formal action is warranted,the prosecuting attorney prepares an Order to Show Cause setting forth allegations of violations of the law or regulations. The Order to Show Cause asks for a response from the individual cited,who is called the respon- dent. A hearing in the matter is scheduled if the respondent files an Answer to the Order to Show Cause and requests a hearing. If the respondent does not file an Answer, the prosecuting attorney will ask the appropriate board or the board- appointed hearing examiner to issue a final order based upon the uncontested allegations. Even after formal action has been initiated,a disciplinary matter may be settled in a less formal manner,without a hearing. The respondent and the prosecuting attorney can negotiate a consent agreement setting out an agreed upon penalty for the alleged misconduct. The consent agreement is then presented to the board for its review. If the board approves the consent agreement,a final order is issued and the matter is settled. If the consent agreement is rejected,or if the Respondent requests a hearing in the matter,a formal hearing will be held. If a formal hearing is held, both the Commonwealth and the respondent have the opportunity to present testimony and documentary evidence. The Commonwealth,represented by the prosecuting attorney,presents its case first. The respondent is given the opportunity to question each of the Commonwealthis witnesses at the completion of the prosecuting attorneyis direct examination. After all Commonwealth witnesses have been heard and the Commonwealthis documentary evidence has been presented,the respondent may present witnesses and evidence in support of his or her case. The Commonwealth also has the right to question the respondentis witnesses at the completion of the respondentis questions. After the hearing,the board or the hearing examiner will review the complete record in the case and come to a decision in the matter. A written decision will be issued,called an Adjudication and Order. If the hearing was held before a board,the board will issue a final Adjudication and Order in the case. If the hearing was held before a hearing examiner,the hearing examiner will prepare a proposed Adjudication and Order. If the board chooses not to review the proposed Adjudication and Order and if neither the Commonwealth nor the respondent file exceptions with the board to the hearing examineris findings,the pro- posed Adjudication and Order will become a final board order. If exceptions are filed or if the board chooses to review the proposed Adjudication and Order,the board may adopt the hearing examineris proposed Adjudication and Order as final or it may make changes if necessary for a fair outcome. The board then issues a final,written order. All final board orders may be appealed to the Commonwealth Court. 7 Disciplinary Actions � a6 ROBERT CLYDE WISE 11,license no. 1 Min DC-003188-L,of Lock Haven,Clinton County, Important Messages Regarding ' H Chiropratcic Advertising penalty to be paid in five consecutive monthly installments of$200 each and On April 20,1999,the Supreme Court of Pennsyl- was indefinitely suspended for no less vania issued a decision which has significant im- than one year, for being convicted of a pact on chiropractic advertising. The Court found "N felony and his addiction to drugs and al- that chiropractic adjunctive procedures are sub- d ` cohol. stantially different in scope from the full practice (1-25-01) of the profession of physical therapy and that chi- h 1 ropractors who advertise that they provide physi- � � r� � THOMASA.JODON,license no.DC- cal therapy would be misleading the public. The C 003369-L,of Uniontown,Fayette County, Court upheld the constitutionality of the provisions s was placed on probation for a period to of the Physical Therapy Practice Act which pro- m run concurrently upon his probation hibit individuals who are not licensed as physical based upon his convicition for conspiracy therapists,including chiropractors,from advertis- e" toeommitmailfraud.(1-29-01} ing that they perform physical therapy- The Su- "� preme Court did not restrict chiropractors from JOSEPH R.CALCAGNO,license no. advertising that the perform procedures to treat DC-002120-L, of New Kensington, misalign tints of the spine or articulations of the t� S Y Westmoreland County, was suspended nervous system,that they provide adjunctive pro- based upon his convictions of misde- cedures,or from advertising the particular physi- meanor drug offenses. The suspension cal modalities that chiropractors employ. The full was immediately stayed in favor of text ofthe decision,Commonwealth ofPennsyiva- �„ « Calcagno's participation in the Profes- nia Bureau of Professional and Occul2ational Af- sionalHealth Monitoring Program.(1-29- fairs v State Board of Physical Therpv et al., is & 01) available on the Pennsylvania Courts website at „ www.courts.state.pa.us. DAVID C.DICKSON III,license no-DC- 003225-L, of Timonium, Md, was sus- RICHARD K.BORLAND,license no.DC- pended and ordered to pay a$1,000 civil 001593-L, of Seneca, Venango County, was penalty for having pled guilty to one indefinitely suspended and ordered to pay a felony count of Health Care Fraud.(1-30- $3,000 civil penalty for violating the Chiroprac- 01) tic Act by touching a patient for no legitimate chiropractic purpose and engaging in sexual contact during the professional relationship. (7-27-00) APT 1 6 Ep 1 Et-e- iy�I$w kF �� ,' KEITH A.JONES,license no-bC-001483-L, u ? _ of Pittsburgh,Allegheny County,license was F _ _ revoked for violating the Chiropractic Act by 1�� >,� g �, committing mail fraud,(7-27-00) E " PAUL JOHN NEWHART, license no. DC- 005252-L,of Lancaster,Lancaster County,was reprimanded for practicing on a lapsed license. ; (7 28-00) ' t e s �� u�3r ��..:�, w•'�'��+�1 � -'- jZ9 i �6a '�Xlr�, .P � ^'' G� �:� �� t ra y.'a�Fg�� PAUL JEFFREY LIPKIN, license no. DC- IT� 003528-L,of Philadelphia,Philadelphia County, � . was suspended for 12 months and three years ' 1; probation and ordered to pay$1,000 civil pen- alty for pleading guilty to a felony offense.(I 1- y 16-00) � � ; s z�` t /., Attorney General Health Care Unit By David Sumner, Esquire, Consumer Protection Member The changing face of health care in America has left many people,Pennsylvanians included,feeling frustrated and angry over the belief they have nowhere to turn. Time after time,we hear stories of managed care entities denying or delaying life-saving treatment or delaying payment to doctors and hospitals for so long that the patient often pays out-of-pocket to keep bill collectors at bay. These practices will no longer be tolerated in Pennsylvania. Leading the nation in addressing the problem,Attorney General Mike Fisher has formed one of the first consumer Health Care Units in the United States. Operating within the Bureau of Consumer Protection,the Health Care Unit aims to protect the public from unfair health care practices and help shape Pennsylvaniais policies in favor of the consumer. The Health Care Unit helps Pennsylvanians secure the treatment they need. While the Health Care Unit investigates,mediates,and takes legal action on behalf of consumers against health care organizations that are involved in unfair and deceptive practices, it does not act as a personal attorney. However,complaints of deceptive practices may spur an investigation and possible legal action. If the Attorney General believes an investigation of a dispute is in the public interest,he will investigate the controversy. You may have patients that the Health Care Unit can help. If you see a case where a consumer is having a dispute with a health care organization,advise the consumer to file a complaint. There is no fee and the Health Care Unit may be able to assist in resolving the dispute. The Health Care Unit can be reached at 1-877-888-4877 or through Attorney General Mike Fisheris website,www.attomeygeneral.gov. 3 €��#�� ➢�`��ra��`�` T �a&�„�."�"i J�%��1 � ,,rr� g'i '�� y�a s r Sr�- � rE�l� � ''. t a PENNSYLVANIA I I� PRSRTSTD U.S. POSTAGE PAID �` x Harrisburg PA Permit No 918 Post Office Box 2649 Harrisburg,PA 17105-2649 NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 03-3709 IN RE: DAVID C. DICKSON, III, Debtor DAVID C. DICKSON, III, V. ELIZABETH J. TINDALL David C. Dickson, III, Appellant ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA (Dist. Court No. 4:03-CV-731) District Court Judge: Hon. John E. Jones, III Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) January 19, 2005 Before: ALITO, MCKEE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. (Opinion Filed: March 8, 2005) '3 £1 i� OPINION OF THE COURT PER CURIAM: As we write only for the parties involved, we will not restate the evidence below. We find the Appellant David Dickson's arguments to be without merit and affirm the District Court's order. David Dickson filed for Chapter I I bankruptcy in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, seeking to discharge an obligation to make monthly payments to his former wife, Elizabeth Tindall, in the amount of$1,900.00. The Bankruptcy Court, however, held that the payments were alimony and therefore non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(5)(B), and the District Court affirmed. In this appeal, Dickson argues that the payments were not in the nature of alimony. This inquiry turns on the parties' intent at the time of the agreement, and we review the Bankruptcy Court's finding for clear error. In Re: Gianakas, 917 F.2d 759, 761-62 (3d Cir. 1990). Before proceeding to his substantive argument, Dickson contends that the District Court committed legal error by not discounting Bankruptcy Court Judge Thomas's findings of fact on the grounds that Judge Thomas decided the case based on a transcript of a hearing conducted by Judge Woodside, who passed away before deciding the case. However, Dickson was given the opportunity to have the case reheard by Judge Thomas, but he consented to a decision on the record. Furthermore, Judge Thomas's decision did 2 not rest on any determination of witness credibility. Under these circumstances, there is no basis for giving the findings of the Bankruptcy Court less deference merely because, by mutual consent of the interested parties, the case was decided on the record. The question of whether Dickson's obligation to make monthly payments to Tindall is properly characterized as alimony depends on whether the parties intended to arrange for Tindall's support or intended a property settlement unrelated to support. See In Re: Gianakas, 917 F.2d at 762. "That intent can best be found by examining three principal factors": (1) the language and substance of the agreement in the context of surrounding circumstances, (2) the parties' financial circumstances at the time of the settlement, and (3) the function served by the obligation at the time of the divorce. Id. Here, the language creating the debt expressly states that the payments to Tindall constitute alimony. Dickson argues that this language was used solely because alimony payments are tax-deductible and that both parties actually intended for the payments to be a division of marital property. In support of this argument, Dickson cites the wording of the clause dividing marital property, which indicates that this division was only a "partial settlement." From this language, Dickson infers that the monthly payments labeled "alimony" constituted the remaining element of that division.' Although we appreciate Dickson's argument, we cannot say that the language in question forecloses the contrary 'Mr. Dickson's arguments based on settlement negotiations and other surrounding circumstances can not be considered on appeal because they rely on documents not in the record. See FED. R. APP. P. IO(b)(2). 3 reading adopted by the Bankruptcy Court. The parties' financial circumstances at the time of settlement support the finding that the payments were intended to allow Tindall to support herself. At the time, Tindall was unemployed and lacked a college degree whereas Dickson fully expected that his profitable practice would continue to provide him with ample income. Although the total value of the settlement is generous given that the marriage lasted only six years and the couple did not have any children, the Bankruptcy Court considered these facts in light of the couple's lifestyle during marriage. The conclusion that Tindall required the money to maintain that lifestyle was not clearly erroneous given her limited ability to earn money. Lastly, the function served by the payments at the time of the divorce suggests that the parties intended Tindall to use the money to support herself. Dickson acknowledges that the amount of each monthly payment corresponded to the mortgage payment on the marital home. Both the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court found that these payments allowed Tindall to pay the mortgage and remain in the marital home. Dickson's argument that the terms of the agreement did not require Tindall to use the payments to pay the mortgage does not require a finding that the money was not intended for Tindall's support. For the above reasons, we affirm the finding that the payments are in the nature of alimony and therefore non-dischargeable. 4 From: Rob Hunt [rhunt @cracollections.com] Sent: , Friday, March 08, 2013 6:23 PM To: 'David Dickson' Subject: Stock Certificates David, The draft certificate forms and draft minutes that I sent you on December 7, 2012 are incorrect. My previous offer was never accepted and that offer is hereby rescinded. Please return the draft certificates and minutes immediately. They are null and void. Given our recent discussions, we need to further discuss this situation to see if we can come up with proper documentation that reflects any agreement reached, if one is eventually reached. Rob Hunt Rob Hunt Revenue Collect President 1150 Lancaster Blvd Suite 210 Mechanicsburg, PA 17055 717-790-8733 Office 443-271-8595 Cell rhunt@)revenuecollect.com i ,r ..n From: rhunt;5 revenuecollect.com [mailto:rliunt�jreverir;c,culiect,com] Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 10:46 AM To: bfpenneftl; gmaii.com Subject: [FWD: Employment Termination] -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Employment Termination From: <rf)Li.tit@revenuecollect,corn> Date: Mon, March 11, 2013 6:49 pm To: ddicksora@revenuecollect,com Dear Mr. Dickson—You are hereby advised that you are terminated forthwith with cause from all employment with CRA Collections, Inc. You are instructed to return all company equipment and property immediately. Very truly yours, Rob Hunt, President and Sole Director. 1 of 1 3/22/2013 10:58 AM PLAINTIFF,DAVID C. DICKSON YOU . . ,_ ;'� .• : �i..,,,J lit.. ' ARE NOTIFIED TO FILE A WRITTEN , tU RESPONSE TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER and COUNTERCLAIM TO r 153; v � fS `l _ COMPLAINT WITHIN TWENTY (20) E YJ ( Lr Atit DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST U. arty F. enn,IE sq. LAW OFFICES OF BARRY F. PENN, P.C. By: Barry F. Penn, Esquire Identification No. : 32427 1500 JFK Blvd. , Suite 1850 Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 568-3400 (215) 567-1998 (FAX) bfpennesq @gmail. com Attorney for Respondent/Defendant, Robert Hunt DAVID C. DICKSON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff DOCKET NO. 13-1379 Civil V. ROBERT HUNT, CIVIL ACTION—LAW AND EQUITY Defendant ANSWER, NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM OF DEFENDANT, ROBERT HUNT, TO PLAINTIFF' S COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Defendant ("Defendant" or "Hunt") Robert Hunt, by and through his attorney, Barry F. Penn, Esquire, hereby states the following in response to Plaintiff' s Complaint for Injunctive Relief filed 1 on March 14, 2013: 1 . Admitted. 2 . Admitted 3 . Denied. Plaintiff ("Plaintiff" or "Hunt") is not a fifty percent (50 . 0%) owner of the corporation, CRA Collections, Inc. ("CRA) and has never been a shareholder of CRA. Petitioner never paid the consideration required for 50% interest and never agreed to the terms of the proposed transfer of stock (Petitioner was to have accepted 50% responsibility for all corporate obligations, but refused to do so) . In fact, Petitioner was notified on March 7, 2013 that the transfer had been rescinded due to the conduct of Petitioner more fully described herein. The final straw in the "relationship" between Petitioner and Respondent occurred on March 10, 2013 as detailed below. The Petitioner and his wife, Deirdre Artfitch Dickson, have engaged in improper and illegal conduct harmful to CRA and to Respondent, Robert Hunt. This outrageous conduct by Petitioner and his wife, includes but is not limited to illegal hacking into Respondent' s personal email account, removing corporate files, personal tax returns of Respondent, deleting corporate/business emails, obtaining personal photographs of Respondent and his girlfriend and reading confidential attorney emails between Respondent and his personal attorney handling Respondent' s pending divorce action. Petitioner and his wife also stolen medical 2 equipment and supplies valued between $7, 000-$10, 000 . However, the most outrageous and unlawful acts of Petitioner and his wife occurred took place on March 10, 2013 when they broke into offices of CRA. Although Petitioner attempted to hide his identity from surveillance cameras, he and his wife have been identified as the individuals who broke into CRA' s office. During the unlawful entry, Petitioner and his wife removed Respondent' s tax returns, the CRA corporate kit and a number of client files. See Affidavit of Robert Hunt attached hereto as Exhibit A. 4 . Denied. 5. Denied. It is absolutely denied that all employees and mutual relationships knew Plaintiff was an equal owner of the corporation, CRA Collections, Inc. ("CRA") . 6. Denied. Defendant lacks sufficient .information to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and is therefore deemed denied. 7 . Denied. Any changes to locks, passwords, etc. was done in an effort by Defendant and CRA to maintain the integrity and security of CRA after it was discovered that Plaintiff and his wife had illegally hacked into the personal email of Defendant and the corporate email account of CPA. 8 . Denied. Exhibit B is a letter from counsel for Plaintiff which speaks for itself. By way of further response, Defendant denies the statements and/or allegations contained in 3 Exhibit with strict proof thereof demanded at or before time of trial . 9 . Admitted only that Defendant sent the email to Plaintiff on March 11, 2013 after Plaintiff and his wife burglarized CRA' s offices on March 10, 2013, removed client files, corporate documents and corporate kit, personal divorce paperwork pertaining to Defendant, personal tax returns of Defendant for the past 3 years and company minutes along with not yet identified missing documents . 10 . Denied. Plaintiff has never been a director of the corporation with equal authority to act in the fashion Plaintiff and his wife have done. 11 . Denied. This is a conclusion of law to which no response is required and is deemed denied. By way of further response, Plaintiff does have a remedy at law if the claims of Plaintiff are deemed to be meritorious, which Defendant absolutely denies . 12 . Denied. This is a conclusion of law to which no response is required and is deemed denied. By way of further response, the issuance of an injunction would substantially harm Defendant, CRA and the other employees of CRA. 13 . Denied. This is a conclusion of law to which no response is required and is deemed denied. By way of further response, an injunction is not required to restore the parties to their status 4 as it existed immediately prior to the conduct alleged by Plaintiff especially when Plaintiff and his wife have been engaged in illegal conduct under state (burglary) and Federal laws (unlawful computer hacking) proscribed by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U. S.C. §§ 1030A (2) (C) and A(4) . 14 . Denied. This is a conclusion of law to which no response is required and is deemed denied. By way of further response, an injunction is not required to restore the parties to their status as it existed immediately prior to the conduct alleged by Plaintiff especially when Plaintiff and his wife have been engaged in illegal conduct under state (burglary) and Federal laws for unlawful computer hacking proscribed by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U. S.C. §§ 1030A(2) (C) and A(4) . Plaintiff' s right to the requested relief is absolutely unclear and is it very unlikely Plaintiff will prevail on the merits . 15 . Denied. This is a conclusion of law to which no response is required and is deemed denied. By way of further response, the requested relief is not reasonably suitable to abate the offending activities due to the fact that it is the Plaintiff and his wife, who are the offending parties engaged in unlawful and outrageous conduct harmful to Defendant and CRA. 16. Denied. This is a conclusion of law to which no response is required and is deemed denied. 17 . Denied. This is a conclusion of law to which no 5 response is required and is deemed denied. By way of further response, Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law for damages assuming Plaintiff has meritorious claims which Plaintiff prevails upon, all of which is specifically denied by Defendant. Finally, it is the Plaintiff who has breached fiduciary duties owed to Defendant and of course to CPA. At no time was Plaintiff a shareholder of CRA as Plaintiff incorrectly alleges . WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays this Honorable Court to enter an Order in the form attached denying Plaintiff' s request for injunctive relief. NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF' S COMPLAINT 1 . Defendant incorporates by reference the responses to the Plaintiff' s allegations in paragraphs 1-17 as though set forth at length herein. 2 . Plaintiff' s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 3 . Plaintiff' s Complaint and request for relief must be dismissed as a matter of .law due to Plaintiff' s unclean hands. 4 . Plaintiff' s Complaint and request for relief must be dismissed as a matter of law due to Plaintiff' s illegal conduct including, but not limited to burglary of CRA' s offices and illegal computer hacking of Defendant' s computer and emails. 5 . Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law in the event 6 Plaintiff prevails on his allegedly meritorious claims . 6. Injunctive relief is not required to restore the parties to the status quo. 7 . Plaintiff is not a shareholder of CRA entitled to the relief he is now seeking. 8 . Plaintiff has breached his fiduciary duty owed to Defendant, Robert Hunt and to CRA. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays this Honorable Court to dismiss Plaintiff' s Complaint with prejudice and enter judgment in favor of Defendant, Robert Hunt. COUNTERCLAIM OF ROBERT HUNT v. DAVID C. DICKSON Breach of Fiduciary Duty 1 . Defendant incorporates by reference the responses to Plaintiff' s allegations in paragraphs 1-1.7 of Plaintiff' s Complaint along with Defendant' s New Matter as though set forth at length herein. 2 . Plaintiff is not a fifty percent (50 . 0%) owner of the corporation, CRA Collections, Inc. ("CRA) and has never been a shareholder of CRA. Plaintiff never paid the consideration required for 50% interest and never agreed to the terms of the proposed transfer of stock (Petitioner was to accept 50% responsibility for all corporate obligations, but refused to do so) . In fact, Plaintiff was notified on March 7, 2013 that the 7 transfer had been rescinded due to the conduct of Plaintiff more fully described herein. The final straw in the "relationship" between Plaintiff and Defendant occurred on March 10, 2013 as detailed below. 3 . Plaintiff and his wife, Deirdre Artfitch Dickson, have engaged in improper and illegal conduct harmful to CRA and to Robert Hunt . This outrageous conduct by Plaintiff and his wife, includes but is not limited to illegal hacking into Defendant' s personal email account, removing corporate files, personal tax returns of Defendant, deleting corporate/business emails, obtaining personal photographs of Defendant and his girlfriend and reading confidential attorney emails between Defendant and his personal attorney handling Defendant' s pending divorce action. 4 . Plaintiff and his wife also stole medical equipment and supplies valued between $7, 000-$10, 000 . However, the most outrageous and unlawful acts of Plaintiff and his wife occurred took place on March 10, 2013 when they broke into offices of CRA. 5 . Although Plaintiff attempted to hide his identity from surveillance cameras, he and his wife have been identified as the individuals who broke into CRA' s office midnight, March 10, 2013. During the unlawful entry, Plaintiff and his wife removed Defendant' s tax returns, the CRA corporate kit and a number of client files . See Affidavit of Robert Hunt attached hereto as Exhibit A. 8 6. Plaintiff a convicted felon, suspended from the practice of chiropractic when he pled guilty to Health Care Fraud in 2001, is the person who should be restrained from causing further damage to Defendant and CRA. See Exhibit C attached hereto. 7 . Plaintiff has violated Federal laws including but not limited to unlawful computer hacking proscribed by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U. S.C. §§ 1030A(2) (C) and A(4) . 8 . Plaintiff owed a duty to his employer, CRA and to Robert Hunt, to act in the best interests of CRA and its sole shareholder and president, Defendant Robert Hunt. 9. Plaintiff with the assistance of his wife, has breached his fiduciary duty owed to CRA and Defendant by engaging in the conduct, described herein. 10 . Plaintiff has also removed medical equipment supplies of CRA valued between $7, 000-$10, 000 . 11 . Plaintiff and wife have also used without authorization corporate credit card to make purchases for personal use including the purchase of airline tickets as part of Plaintiff' s plan to damage Defendant and Defendant' s business, CRA. See Exhibit G attached hereto. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully prays this Honorable Court for judgment against Plaintiff in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand ($50, 000. 00) Dollars and any other such relief which Defendant is entitled to including but not limited to attorney' s 9 fees and costs. Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF BARRY F. PENN, P.C. By: Bar F.(/Pen-n, Esquire Attorney I . D. No. 32427 1500 JFK Blvd. Ste. 1850 Phila. PA 19102 215-568-3400; FAX: 215-567-1998 Attorney for Robert Hunt 10 VERIFICATION I, Barry F. Penn, Esquire, attorney for the Respondent/Defendant herein, being duly sworn according to law, deposes that the facts/information set forth in the foregoing are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements made therein are mad subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C. S.S.§4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. LAW OFFICES OF BARRY F. PENN, P.C. By: Bar y F. Penn, Esquire Attorney I . D. No. 32427 1500 JFK Blvd. Ste. 1850 Phila. PA 19102 215-568-3400; FAX: 215-567-1998 Attorney for Robert Hunt 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this 25th day of March, 2013, the undersigned does certify that a true and copy of Defendant' s Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim were sent by facsimile transmission and/or via email to the attorney for Plaintiff. Michael L. Bangs, Esquire 429 S. 18th Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 FAX: 717-730-7374 arr F. Penn, Esquire 1500 JFK Blvd. Ste. 1850 Phila. PA 19102 215-568-3400; FAX: 215-567-1998 Attorney for Robert Hunt 12 LAW OFFICES OF BARRY F. PENN, P.C. By: Barry F. Penn, Esquire Identification No.: 32427 1500 JFK Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215)568-3400 (215)567-1998(FAX) bfpennesq @gmail.com ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT DAVID C. DICKSON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff DOCKET NO. 13-1379 Civil V. ROBERT HUNT, CIVIL ACTION—LAW AND EQUITY Defendant COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: SS. COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT HUNT ROBERT HUNT BEING FIRST DULY SWORN ACCORDING TO LAW, DEPOSES AND SAYS AS FOLLOWS: 1 . The Plaintiff, David C. Dickson ("Dickson") brings this disgruntled former employee lawsuit against his former boss, Robert Hunt. Hunt is, and has always been, the sole shareholder, sole director, and President of CRA Collections, Inc. ("CRA") since its founding in 2006. 2 . CRA is a licensed, bonded and insured collection agency in 31 states. r 3 . Under the licensing laws in eight of these states, collection businesses are required to be bonded. 4 . Simply stated, convicted felons and/or former bankrupt debtors cannot own licensed collection businesses because of the bonding requirement and bonds will not be issued to convicted felons and/or bankrupt debtors . See, attached Bond Application. 5 . Dickson, on the other hand, is a convicted felon who lost his Chiropractic License in 2001 as a result of pleading guilty to Heath Care Fraud in Maryland Federal Court. 6 . Thereinafter, Dickson filed Bankruptcy under Chapter 11 in an attempt to discharge his alimony obligations to his former spouse. 7 . Dickson nonetheless was a longtime friend of Hunt since the time he treated Hunt as his chiropractor following an automobile accident in the early 1990' s. 8 . Dickson began working for CRA as a relationship manager and business rainmaker in approximately 2006 . Dickson was a non-shareholder of CRA, but was given the title of CEO on his business card to help impress potential business clients . 9 . Dickson had no contract with CRA and was an at-will employee. 10. Hunt hired Dickson initially because of their See, e.g- , Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Utah, New York and Tennessee. friendship, but also because Hunt believed that Dickson' s healthcare background as a chiropractor might help CRA land medical collection accounts . 11 . Dickson was fired by Hunt in two stages (on March 8, 2013 and March 1 1, 2013) , after Dickson and his wife, Deirdre Dickson ("Deirdre") , were discovered for a second time, (a) hacking into Hunt' s personal email account, (b) changing the passwords to Hunt' s personal and corporate email accounts, (c) deleting many of Hunt' s personal and corporate emails and files, (d) reading and copying Hunt' s private divorce communications with his matrimonial attorney, and then possibly circulating those emails to Hunt' s wife, (e) copying and possibly circulating private emails and naked photographs of Hunt' s fiance and after they were observed burglarizing CRA' s headquarters on the evening of March 10, 2013 . 12 . Hunt initially learned about Dickson and Deirdre' s unauthorized computer intrusions in September, 2012 from Kevin Levrone, a mutual friend. 13 . At that time, however, the extent of the hacking was not clear . In late February, 2013, however, the full extent of the hacking became clear and Dickson was fired shortly thereafter. 14 . In November, 2012, Deirdre and Dickson confided in Kevin Levrone that the two of them were hacking into Hunt' s computer and that they had looked at personal emails and naked photographs of Hunt and his fiance which were stored on Hunt' s personal email account . 15 . When confronted, both Dickson and Deirdre admitted to hacking activities in late November 2012 , but they did not admit to the extent of those activities-- instead assigning "business explanations" to their actions . 16 . Both Dickson and Deirdre promised to stop the hacking immediately, and Dickson assured Hunt that he had only "skimmed" through emails . 17 . Hunt told Dickson at that time that the "skimming" description was "bullshit" and that he knew Dickson looked at naked pictures of Hunt' s fiance that were intended only for Hunt. 18. Dickson apologized and promised not to do it again. Hunt did not know what to do. 19. He was torn between a longstanding friendship with Dickson and his anger at Dickson having crossed Hunt' s personal boundaries . 20. Moreover, knowing Dickson' s past, Hunt began to believe that Dickson would use the photographs to blackmail him. He decided to give Dickson a second chance. 21 . Around this time, CRA and Hunt were having financial difficulties . 22 . Hunt was involved in a contested divorce with his long estranged wife. 23 . There was a growing corporate debt at CRA of approximately $250, 000 . 00 all of which was personally guaranteed by Hunt. 24 . There was also a lawsuit brought in Cumberland County by the Rite-Aid Corporation against CRA, which although frivolous, sought over $1 , 500 , 000 . 00 for disputed collection remittances . 25. A combination of the litigation costs , the CRA $250, 000 . 00 corporate debt, and the pendency of the Rite Aid claim caused Hunt to seek out bankruptcy advice from an attorney. 26 . Dickson suggested that Hunt speak with his friend and attorney, Craig Diehl to discuss debt restructuring at CRA and the possible filing of corporate and personal bankruptcies for both CRA and Hunt. 27 . Hunt first met with Attorney, Diehl at Diehl' s office in Camp Hill on October 10, 2011 . 28 . During this conversation, Hunt explained that CRA has approximately $250, 000. 00 in corporate debts which were personally guaranteed by Hunt. 29. Hunt also spoke with Diehl about the Rite-Aid litigation. 30. Diehl explained that any bankruptcy only by CRA, would not extinguish Hunt' s personal liability since Hunt was a personal guarantor. 31 . Diehl recommended a series of work out alternatives: ( a) the filing of simultaneous personal and corporate bankruptcies , (b) a debt work out plan at the conclusion of the Rite Aid case (if CRA could hold on that long) , and/or (c) a corporate restructuring of CRA which would involve taking on an investor who would receive half of CRA' s stock in exchange for the investor becoming a joint personal guarantor of CRA' s debt . 32 . Diehl provided Hunt with a questionnaire seeking an itemization of all of Hunt' s personal and corporate debts and requested that Hunt return to a second meeting with the completed questionnaire and his personal tax returns for the past year. 33 . Dickson insisted on being present at this initial October 10, 2011 meeting and expressed interest in becoming an owner and investor. 34 . Afterwards, Dickson was not involved further. Dickson specifically inquired of Diehl at the first meeting in words or substance as to how he could "get on the ownership of CRA without tax implications . " 35 . Subsequent meetings took place alone between Hunt and Diehl regarding these options regarding the possible timing of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing for Hunt and CRA. 36 . On one such occasion, Hunt' s litigation attorney in the Rite Aid matter, Geoffrey Gompers, participated in a telephone conference with Diehl and Hunt that lasted over one hour. 37 . Diehl advised Hunt that bankruptcies should be a last resort, especially since the Rite-Aid case had become dormant for several months . 38 . Instead, Diehl recommended that Hunt pursue the investor/guarantor/partner idea. 39 . Dickson and Hunt then discussed this notion verbally and confirmed communications and negotiations by email . 40 . These emails laid out the parameters of the negotiations of the proposed stock transaction. 41 . Unfortunately, as will be explained below, these emails recently were discovered to have been deleted by Dickson and/or his wife as part of their renewed hacking. 42 . In late 2012 , financial conditions were worsening at CRA. The Rite Aid litigation began to heat up with a new deposition that occurred in November, 2012 . 43 . CRA' s line of credit with American Express was substantially reduced. 44 . Hunt fell behind on his mortgage payments because there was not enough money in CRA to pay him a full salary. 45 . A second of Hunt' s property was in foreclosure. 46 . Hunt began to aggressively pursue having Dickson invest in CRA as a guarantor. 47 . Hunt and Dickson negotiated with the help of CRA' s accountant, Dawn James-Serra and Hunt instructed CRA' s accountant tender shares to Dickson with the proviso that Dickson first pay $500 . 00 for the shares and that he become a personal obligor of CRA. 48 . Dickson refused to sign the shares at that time and he refused to pay the $500. 00 . 49 . He also refused to become a personal obligor of CRA. 50 . Instead, he announced that he would not sign anything until the Rite Aid litigation ended. 51 . Importantly, at that time the stock transaction had not occurred. 52 . Dickson made clear that didn' t want to assume his ownership/surety interest in CRA until the Rite-Aid litigation concluded. 53. This was reflected in the emails deleted from Hunt' s account in February. 54 . These negotiations, however, were personally witnessed in part by the company' s accountant, Dawn James Serra. Second, Dickson was a convicted felon, and as such, issues arose as to his ability to become bonded-- thus making him ineligible for an ownership interest in CRA. 55. For these reasons, Dickson never signed and returned proposed Stock Certificates mailed in early December, 2012 with the requisite $500 . 00 payment and agreement to assume personal debts of CRA. 56. Instead, he announced in November that he was moving to Florida and that they should keep talking. 57 . He announced that he would not be working any longer from CRA' s office in Mechanicsburg. 58 . Instead, he said that he would do his "work" from Florida. 59 . Dickson nonetheless demanded that that Hunt continue to pay him $12 , 000 . 00/month salary. 60 . Hunt began to believe that Dickson had copies of the naked pictures of Hunt and his fiance and began feeling extorted. 61 . From late November, 2012 until March 10, 2013 , Dickson did not come to work at CRA. 62 . He continued to pay Dickson, however, to keep peace until his divorce settled down, especially since Hunt did not want the naked photographs circulated. 63 . However, all of that changed in late February when Hunt discovered that records, files and equipment were missing from CRA and his personal email accounts . 64 . In late February, 2013, Hunt discovered that Dickson' s hacking was ongoing, and had never ceased. 65 . At that time, Hunt learned the full extent of the hacking activities . 66 . Missing were corporate and personal files concerning Hunt' s divorce proceedings, the naked photographs of Hunt and his fiance, personal emails between Hunt and his attorney, and numerous business files . 67 . All of this was occurring at an extremely sensitive time in Hunt' s divorce proceedings . 68 . Especially of concern were three items . 69 . First, Hunt knew that the naked photographs of Hunt and Hunt' s fiance alone would derail settlement discussions in the divorce if Dickson sent them to Hunt' s estranged wife or to her attorney. 70. Second, there were missing emails from Hunt to his matrimonial lawyer containing confidential settlement authority that Hunt had given for settlement. 71 . Third, and most importantly for purposes of this litigation, was the striking deletion of all negotiations regarding the ongoing proposed stock transfer discussions between Dickson and Hunt. 72 . Moreover, Hunt learned that Deirdre and Dickson had logged into another of his email accounts (Life Force MD) and erased the entire email file and that she had stolen without permission $7 , 000 . 00 to $10 , 000 . 00 of medical equipment and supplies . 73 . Hunt confronted Dickson and his wife and they again acknowledged their hacking activities . 74 . As a result, Hunt forwarded an email to Dickson on March 7 , 2013 which stated: The draft certificate forms and draft minutes that I sent you on December 7, 2012 are incorrect. My previous offer was never accepted and that offer is hereby rescinded. Please return the draft certificates and minutes immediately. They are null and void. Given our recent discussions, we need to further discuss this situation to see if we can come up with proper documentation that reflects any agreement reached, if one is eventually reached. Rob Hunt 75 . Following receipt of this email, Dickson and his wife, who were in Florida, charged two plane tickets to a corporate credit card guaranteed by Hunt personally and flew from Florida to Washington D.C. at the cost of nearly $850 . 00 . 76 . At that time they also charged $1300 . 00 to the company' s credit card for Best Buy without authorization. 77 . At fifteen minutes before midnight, on March 10 , 2013 at 11 : 45 , the final straw occurred. 78 . Dickson and his wife, Deirdre, were witnessed burglarizing CRA' s offices . 79 . At that time the two were witnessed stealing personal and corporate documents including (a) Hunt' s personal tax returns, (b) Hunt' s personal divorce file, (c) the CRA corporate kit and incorporation documents and (d) a number of client files . 80 . Criminal charges were immediately filed with the Upper Allen Police Department, Officer Chad D. McClure, against both Dickson and his wife for the burglary. 81 . Hunt understands that arrest warrants may presently be outstanding against both Dickson and his wife. 82 . Moreover, on March 11 , 2012, Hunt sent Dickson the following email: Dear Mr. Dickson—You are hereby advised that you are terminated forthwith with cause from all employment with CRA Collections, Inc. You are instructed to return all company equipment and property immediately. Very truly yours, Rob Hunt, President and Sole Director. 83 . On March 14 , 2013 the within Motion and Complaint were filed by the Diehl Firm seeking an injunction. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT: .f RO ERT HUNT SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME TMSZI DAY OF ��013 i OTARY PUB COMMONWEALTH OF PMNSYLVANA NOTARIAL SEAL JANET HARPER,Notary Putt C of ,Phila.county t�. P E N N S Y L V A N I A 17-783-7155 Fall 2001 ate.pa.us a.us Board Members k� wa t Thomas R. Butler, D.C., Chairman Bellefonte, Centre County Jonathan W. McCullough, D.C., Secretary Langhorne, Bucks County S. Evon Barvinchack, D.C. t ¢ Greencastle, Franklin County Carole Kutz Lee ion Schuylkill Haven, Schuylkill County Dennis G. Ridenour, D.C. r Hollidaysburg, Blair County t Nancy J. Semmel Schnecksville, Lehigh County John K.Slavek, D.C. Telford, Montgomery County nS David Sumner Bureau of Consumer Protection Office of Attorney General, Harrisburg r Albert Masland, Commissioner Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs z Board Staff: � h f 9 Alicia Miller,Esq. {{ Counsel 6 I'i hrania Phil Zarone, Esq. Prosecutor e� Deborah Smith it wealth Administrator License PA Dear Professional Licensee: I welcome the opportunity to communicate with you through this newsletter and the Department of State website. Our website serves as a valuable resource for the general public,as well as the regulated community licensed by the 27 professional licensing boards and commissions. Our mission,and the responsibility of each licensing board and commission,is to protect public health,safety and welfare. At the same time,we are doing our part to make state government more accessible and more responsive to the public and the regulated community. To that end,I invite continued dialogue and open communication with each board and commission to further the effective regulation of its licensed community. In response to Governor Ridgefs;challenge to all state agencies to improve productivity and customer service through technology,the Department of Stateis,Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs on July 18 launched a state-of-the art licensing system that provides consumers with access to information on nearly I million business,health and real estate professionals licensed in Pennsylva- nia. License PA allows consumers, employers and licensed professionals to verify the licensure status of professionals and business regulated by the department 27 professional licensing boards and commissions. Later this year,the system will be expanded to provide Pennsylvania licensees with the ability to start the application process and to renew existing licenses. For more information or to continue to keep informed about our availability of new features,please visit our website at www.dos.state.pa.us. We also look forward to continuing to work with you toward our mutual goals of protecting the health, safety and welfare of all Pennsylvanians. Sincerely, Kim Pizzingrilli Secretary of the Commonwealth A MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIRMAN Thomas R.Butler,D.C. The Pennsylvania State Board of Chiropractic publishes this newsletter periodically as a service to its licensees. The newsletteris purpose is to address issues of interest for all licensees. Please read this publication. It contains information important to your license and practice. Included are various articles and a section on disciplinary actions recently taken by the Board. Discipline often results from a doctor not being familiar with or adhering to the Chiropractic Practice Act and the Board regulations. In an effort to protect consumers and have licensees better informed, the Board would like to encourage all doctors to review the laws and regulations that govern the practice of chiropractic. You may get copies of these materials from the Chiropractic Board Office or find them on our website at wwwAos.statc.pa.us. The Department of State is making frequent improvements to the website. Check in regularly to find valuable information. Please remember that all State Board of Chiropractic meetings are open to the public. We welcome any and all interested guests. If you have a specific interest or a question that you wish to bring before the Board,please contact the Board Office in writing with your subject in order to make an appointment. The State Board of Chiropractic is dedicated to serving the citizens of Pennsylvania in the pursuit of public health and safety. Please do not hesitate to share in that responsibility and contact us if we may be of any assistance. it 3 Regional versus National Standards of Chiropractic Practice By Jonathan W. McCullough, DC, DABCT, DABCO, DACR, DACRB In a perfect world,national standards for the practice of chiropractic would be ideal. State practice acts,as they reflect regional standards of care,would become uniform. However,the difficulty in projecting national standards onto regional standards of practice is that current legislation regulating chiropractic practice varies widely from state to state. No greater disparity can be appreciated than to consider the Chiropractic Practice Acts of Washington and Oregon. Although geographically neighbors,their practice acts are dramatically different. Oregon allows chiropractic physicians to perform minor surgical procedures while Washington State allows chiropractors to use few commonly available physical medicine modalities. As a result,treatment for the same diagnosis may vary greatly between jurisdictions. Another example of the difficulty in applying a national standard of chiropractic is the variation in access to technology. In some areas, an MRI examination may not be available,unlike most urban regions in which high technology imaging is commonly available. While national standards could be more convenient,they may be more restrictive and less sensitive to regional modes of practice. For example, the guidelines agreed to by the chiropractic communities in three Pennsylvania counties might not be possible if national standards were in place. Because musculoskeletal injuries vary greatly,the practice of chiropractic requires voluminous guidelines. To complicate the equation further,pain is a highly subjective phenomena. Often times,there is little clinical correlation between diagnostic imaging impressions and poor interrator reliability between many orthopedic tests. Regional standards may be a better solution. In Pennsylvania,at least one professional association has adopted a peer review document which shows promise as a regional guideline. However,it cannot be applied to the entire chiropractic community. National and regional guidelines both embrace a imedically necessaryi threshold. Daily detailed chart entries should include either the Subjective Objective Assessment Procedure or Palpation Asymmetry Range Tissue Tone Texture format(e.g.S.O.A.P.or P.A.R.T.). All charts should reflect the following: I. Care is consistent with the diagnosis. 2. Document loss of functioning or any functional limitations. 3. Alleviate or mitigate the patientis condition. 4. Assist the patient in returning to normal activities of daily living and achieving maximum functional capacity. 5. Establish the relation of the therapy to the treatment goals in the treatment plan. 6. Is in accordance with current standards of good medical and chiropractic practice. 7. Prevents the natural progression or worsening of the patientis condition. 8. Prevents the progression of permanent disability. 9. Is consistent with the patientis present symptoms and signs of injury or illness. In summation,Chiropractic Medicine is specific to the state in which it is practiced. Current national guidelines are not standards of care, however,they can give helpful insight. To quote The Guidelines for Quali1y Assurance and Practice Parameters,page IV,iThe ultimate judgement regarding the propriety of any specific procedure must be made by the practitioner in light of the individual circumstances presented by each patient.i Report of Public Members By Carole Lee and Nancy Semmel As consumer representatives on the State Board of Chiropractic,we would like to report the issues we have dealt with while serving on the Board that we find most important to the protection of the public. I Practicing chiropractors have a duty to protect their patients from any sexual misconduct.An effective deterrent to any sexual misconduct is to have a third party present during all examinations, 2. Chiropractors must maintain a current license in order to ensure proper patient care. The public is best served if chiropractors post their licenses for all to see. 3. In order to provide accurate diagnosis and patient care,chiropractors must be free from alcohol and drug addiction. For any practitioner that has a problem in this area,the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs can provide assistance through the Professional Health Monitoring Program. The P14MP phone number is 1-800-554-3428. 4. Chiropractors must discuss all treatment and fee options with Their patients before commencing treatment. 5. The public expects chiropractors to employ a professional staff to maintain a friendly and courteous environment. ---- --- — - - —---- 4 CONTINUING CHIROPRACTIC EDUCATION By John Slavek, D.C., D.A.B.C.O. Section 507 of the Chiropractic Act and the Board regulations sections 5.71 to 5.78 provide the details of the continuing education requirement for renewal of a license to practice chiropractic in Pennsylvania. It is imperative that every chiropractor practicing in the Commonwealth be familiar with these requirements.Copies of both the Chiropractic Act and the Board regulations are available by contacting the Department of State, Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs, State Board of Chiropractic, P.O.Box 2649,Harrisburg, Pa. 17105-2649 or they can be found on our website at www.dos.state.paa.us. In order to renew a license,a chiropractor must complete twenty-four hours of continuing chiropractic education within the preceding two-year period. Continuing education credit is only given for programs approved by the State Board of Chiropractic. Approved programs are focused on advancements and new developments in the practice of chiropractic that build upon the original knowledge required to receive a license to practice chiropractic. Practice building or office management courses cannot be applied to satisfy any part of the 24 hour requirement. Because of the wide variety and number of courses available,a practitioner must always verify that the program has been approved by the Board of Examiners. This can be done by calling or writing the sponsor of the course and have them verify the approval. Ask for the approval number of the program and the exact location and date that the program is being presented. Although the same program is being taught at different locations,it is possible that all have not been approved. The Board must emphasize that it is the licenseeis responsibility to ensure that a course sponsor has received a Pennsylvania State Board of Chiropractic approval number before the licensee commits to attending a course. It is the licenseeis duty to secure evidence of completion of the program from the program sponsor. Course sponsors should provide course completion forms to licensees upon completion of the program. Licensees must retain attendance certificates for a minimum of four years. The forms provide proof of attendance in case of a Board audit of the licenseeis continuing education. On the biennial renewal form,a licensee must sign a statement attesting that he or she attended 24 hours of approved,continuing chiropractic education during the previous biennial renewal period. Waivers or exceptions to continuing education requirements may be requested in writing with the Board in cases of emergency,illness or undue hardship. The Board may require the licensee to make a personal appearance in front of the Board before making a determination on the waiver. if the Board finds probable cause that the licensee is unable to practice with reasonable skill and safety to patients because of the same condition for which he or she is granted a waiver, the Board may,after notice and hearing,suspend or revoke the license or place restrictions on the license limiting the scope of the licenseeis practice. The penalties for failing to meet the continuing education requirements for a biennial registration period are quite specific. The practitioner will have his license classified as unregistered and will be prohibited from practicing chiropractic until the continuing education requirements are satisfied and the licensee has renewed his registration in accordance with the provisions listed in the Professional and Vocational Standards of the Pennsylvania code. Further disciplinary action may result from the failure to complete the 24 hour requirement during the biennial registration period. Sexual Harassment By Dr. Evon Barvinchack The doctor of Chiropractic has a moral and legal obligation to prevent sexual harassment of the doctoris employees or patients. Accord- ing to the guidelines issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,sexual harassment may be either physical or verbal. Sexual advances are unlawful when: submission is either an explicit or implicit condition of employment;submission or rejection is used as a basis for an employment decision; such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individualis work performance;or the advances create an intimidating,hostile,or offensive work environment. Sexual advances, innuendoes,or suggestions between doctor and patient are improper. Inside or outside the office, such conduct is grounds for malpractice,civil,and criminal litigation. Professional license revocation may result if the doctor is found guilty of sexual harassment in or out of his office with employees or patients. Doctor Be Alert By Dennis Ridenour, D.C. Todayis complex practice environment contracts with companies and organiza- ing a particular activity,to a full suspen- presents new challenges almost every day. tions that do business in a less than ethi- sion ofyour license losing all privileges to The pressures can hit you from all sides cal manner. Unfortunately,for these doc- practice chiropractic in the whether you are in your first year of prac- tors who lack business acumen,a naive&- Commonwealth ofPennsylvania until the tice,or have been in practice for thirty- of the state practice act is no excuse for State Board of Chiropractic Examiners five years. A new practitioner has the violations committed. While the financial deems you fit to practice again. concerns of college loans,the choice of pressures of paying off loans are great, becoming an associate in an established donit let your zeal for imaking a dollari Doctors of chiropractic must understand practice or starting a new practice on his get in the way ofyour common sense and that fraud and misconduct in our profes- or her own. If the practitioner chooses goodjudgement. sion will not be tolerated. Belying the trust to start a new practice,start up costs are of your patients for monetary and per- another pressure to face. Conversely,a All too many times,a momentary lack of sonal gain are violations ofthe state laws doctor who has been in practice a num- ethical decision making can leave lasting ofPennsylvania,as well as your own per- ber of years may be feeling the financial repercussions on your professional ca- sonal code of conduct,that may have se- pinch ofhealth maintenance organizations. reer. When the Board receives allega- rious and harsh implications. Nearly all Also,the established doctor may be look- tions ofunprofessional conduct by chiro- Doctors of Chiropractic in Pennsylvania ing for ways to work fewer hours in the practic licensees such as negligence,mal- are hard working ethical practitioners who office while maintaining a healthy prac- practice, incompetence, fraud, sexual provide wonderful health care benefits to tice. misconduct, and substance abuse, the the citizens of Pennsylvania. Hundreds Bureau of Enforcement and Investigation ofthousands ofPennsylvanians lead fuller, The scenarios described are a normal part will investigate the claims. Please be as- more productive lives as the result of chi- of life in a chiropractic practice. How- sured that the Board prides itself in pro- ropractic treatment. Doctors,let this be ever,the way individuals meet and solve viding fair and impartial treatment to all a warning: donit become one of those these challenges of practice can vary tre- parties concerned. The Bureau of Pro- practitioners who strays from our code mendously. It has been my duty while fessional and Occupational Affairs has of conduct because it can lead to devas- serving on the State Board of Chiroprac- strict procedures in place,which ensure tating,long term consequences. tic to hear cases,and then deliberate on that fair and unbiased decisions are ren- the sanctions that should be imposed on dered. The practicing chiropractors on Doctors of Chiropractic who have for- the State Board of Chiropractic add gotten their legal and ethical obligations chiropractic clinical judgment,practice , to their patients,the Commonwealth of expertise and years of practical experi- Pennsylvania,and most importantly them- ence to any hearing or proceeding to as- ` selves. sure a sense of fairness and balance. F 01 eMUM',`M.iWp 1QttCE b ,.' T iw ilk he Board has heard many cases offelony Many doctors of Chiropractic may not €rQrn t6s,,;bid mail fraud brought before them for delib- be aware that when they are found guilty fact : - � with ,y in eration. How could a chiropractor be ofbreaking state laws it also imp actstheir a � �� a charged with felony mail fraud you ask? professional license. The State Board of cop ah a, Simple,ifyou fraudulently bill insurance Chiropractic is notified when a profes- csrtfta#e � r dp companies for services that you did not sional licensee is found guilty ofcommit- render,using the United States Mail to ting a crime and disciplinary proceedings ta' send the insurance forms,mail fraud has may be commenced,resulting in a disci- Poor � been committed. Sadly,the Board has plinary sanction. The penalties couldx also seen cases of young doctors just out range from a written reprimand against , op do- of college with large debt loads who sign your license which orders you to st -- ----- _.-- - --- ----- 6 Disciplinary Process By Alicia S. Miller, Board Counsel Enforcement of the Chiropractic Practice Act is one of the most important duties of the State Board of Chiropractic. It is a duty not to be taken lightly because by disciplining licensees whose conduct fails to conform to the law, the Board is safe- guarding the public from unethical practitioners as well as the reputations of all those who practice chiropractic in an ethical and lawful manner. Unfortunately,the disciplinary process can be a long and arduous process for those involved. However, by following the course set for all disciplinary proceedings,those involved can be assured that their interests have been fully heard and all aspects of a given case shall be considered. The disciplinary process is initiated by the filing of a complaint with the Bureau of Professional and Occupational Affairs (BPOA)complaints unit. Any person or organization,including members of the public,other licensees,or other government entities, may file a complaint against BPOA licensees. Upon receipt of all complaints, the complaints unit does an initial evaluation in order to determine if BPOA has jurisdiction. If an investigation is warranted,the complaint is referred to the Bureau of Enforcement and Investigation(BEI). During an investigation,BEI interviews relevant individuals,obtains documents and records and may conduct site visits. Upon completion of the investigation, a report is drafted and forwarded to a paralegal in the complaints unit for review. The paralegal analyzes the investigative report and refers the matter to a BPOA prosecuting attorney. The prosecuting attorney makes one of the following determinations: (1) formal disciplinary action is warranted; (2) the matter may be resolved informally;(3)there is insufficient evidence to file formal charges;or(4)there is no violation of the law or regulations. If there is no apparent violation or if the evidence is insufficient,the case is closed. A disciplinary matter is resolved informally most often with a warning letter. A licensee is informed that,although a violation of the law or regulations appears to have been found, formal action will not be initiated at the current time. The licensee is warned that a further violation of the same provision will result in formal disciplinary action. Resolutions of this type are reserved for minor violations of the law or regulations. If formal action is warranted,the prosecuting attorney prepares an Order to Show Cause setting forth allegations of violations of the law or regulations. The Order to Show Cause asks for a response from the individual cited,who is called the respon- dent. A hearing in the matter is scheduled if the respondent files an Answer to the Order to Show Cause and requests a hearing. If the respondent does not file an Answer, the prosecuting attorney will ask the appropriate board or the board- appointed hearing examiner to issue a final order based upon the uncontested allegations. Even after formal action has been initiated,a disciplinary matter may be settled in a less formal manner, without a hearing. The respondent and the prosecuting attorney can negotiate a consent agreement setting out an agreed upon penalty for the alleged misconduct. The consent agreement is then presented to the board for its review. If the board approves the consent agreement,a final order is issued and the matter is settled. If the consent agreement is rejected,or if the Respondent requests a hearing in the matter,a formal hearing will be held. If a formal hearing is held, both the Commonwealth and the respondent have the opportunity to present testimony and documentary evidence. The Commonwealth,represented by the prosecuting attorney,presents its case first. The respondent is given the opportunity to question each of the Commonwealthis witnesses at the completion of the prosecuting attorneyis direct examination. After all Commonwealth witnesses have been heard and the Commonwealthis documentary evidence has been presented,the respondent may present witnesses and evidence in support of his or her case. The Commonwealth also has the right to question the respondentis witnesses at the completion of the respondentis questions. After the hearing,the board or the hearing examiner will review the complete record in the case and come to a decision in the matter. A written decision will be issued,called an Adjudication and Order. If the hearing was held before a board,the board will issue a final Adjudication and Order in the case. If the hearing was held before a hearing examiner,the hearing examiner will prepare a proposed Adjudication and Order. If the board chooses not to review the proposed Adjudication and Order and if neither the Commonwealth nor the respondent file exceptions with the board to the hearing examineris findings,the pro- posed Adjudication and Order will become a final board order. If exceptions are filed or if the board chooses to review the proposed Adjudication and Order,the board may adopt the hearing examineris proposed Adjudication and Order as final or it may make changes if necessary for a fair outcome. The board then issues a final,written order. All final board orders may be appealed to the Commonwealth Court. Disciplinary Actions ROBERT CLYDE WISE 11,license no. DC-003188-L,of Lock Haven, Clinton Important Messages Regarding The foflow#rrg,ts �© County,was ordered to pay a$1,000 civil p g g g ford d p or�s±e� ?es Chiropratcic Advertising t Deiemb if penalty to be paid in five consecutive ' ken monthly installments of$200 each and On April 20,1999,the Supreme Court of Pennsyl- � � was indefinitely suspended for no less vania issued a decision which has significant im- the�er i;ieiatx frt s. lrceret '. than one year, for being convicted of a pact on chiropractic advertising. The Court found felony and his addiction to drugs and al- that chiropractic adjunctive procedures are sub- �arfs cohol. stantially different in scope from the full practice imposed for they. t _� (1-25-01) of the profession of physical therapy and that chi- ropractors who advertise that they provide physi- effktivedate€ e'alis�+rarcvrcefve THOMAS A.JODON,license no.DC- cal therapy would be misleading the public. The merrrae 003369-L,of Uniontown,Fayette County, Court upheld the constitutionality of the provisions Everyelffirt MOM m0,1V,,ens 1Mft` , was placed on probation for a period to of the Physical Therapy Practice Act which pro- fol3bs run concurrently upon his probation hibit individuals who are not licensed as physical based upon his convieition for conspiracy therapists,including chiropractors,from advertis- t r� verb -:fit_ to commit mail fraud.(1-29-0 1) ing that they perform physical therapy. The Su- e Court did not restrict chiropractors from 1is ;hevmabe JOSEPH R.CALCAGNO,license no. advertising that they perform procedures to treat } DC-002120-L, of New Kensington, misalignments of the spine or articulations of the Westmoreland County, was suspended nervous system,that they provide adjunctive pro- based upon his convictions of misde- cedures,or from advertising the particular physi- AN meanor drug offenses. The suspension cal modalities that chiropractors employ. The full y , was immediately stayed in favor of text of the decision,Commonwealth ofPenns,, lyva- �; , x Calcagno's participation in the Profes- nia.Bureau of Professional and Occupational Af- tl� � sional Health Monitoring Program.(1-29- fairs v.State Board of Physical Therapy et.al., is 01) available on the Pennsylvania Courts website at www.courts.state.pa.us. DAVID C.DICKSON IH,license no.DC- 003225-L, of Timonium, Md, was sus- RICHARD K. BORLAND,license no.DC- pended and ordered to pay a$1,000 civil 001593-L, of Seneca, Venango County, was penalty for having pled guilty to one indefinitely suspended and ordered to pay a felony count of Health Care Fraud.(1-30- $3,000 civil penalty for violating the Chiroprac- 01) tic Act by touching a patient for no legitimate chiropractic purpose and engaging in sexual contact during the professional relationship. (7-27-00) KEITH A.JONES,license no.DC-001483-L ' WN ,�, of Pittsburgh,Allegheny County, license was + 4A revoked for violating the Chiropractic Act by < � committing mail fraud.(7-27-00) 40, PAUL JOHN NEWHART, license no. DC- 005252-L,of Lancaster,Lancaster Coun ty,was ` ` , �. � reprimanded for practicing on a lapsed licensees ` MF 4, �? PAUL JEFFREY LIPKIN, license no. DC- 003528-L.of Philadelphia,Philadelphia Coun �� = was suspended for 12 months and three years probation and ordered to pay$1,000 civil pen- 1 � alty for pleading guilty to a felony offense.(I 1- ,:• ,•„- - _ � ' , 16-00) flO a, 5 x 8 Attorney General Health Care Unit By David Sumner, Esquire, Consumer Protection Member The changing face of health care in America has left many people,Pennsylvanians included,feeling frustrated and angry over the belief they have nowhere to turn. Time after time,we hear stories of managed care entities denying or delaying life-saving treatment or delaying payment to doctors and hospitals for so long that the patient often pays out-of-pocket to keep bill collectors at bay. These practices will no longer be tolerated in Pennsylvania. Leading the nation in addressing the problem,Attorney General Mike Fisher has formed one of the first consumer Health Care Units in the United States, Operating within the Bureau of Consumer Protection,the Health Care Unit aims to protect the public from unfair health care practices and help shape Pennsylvaniais policies in favor of the consumer. The Health Care Unit helps Pennsylvanians secure the treatment they need. While the Health Care Unit investigates,mediates,and takes legal action on behalf of Consumers against health care organizations that are involved in unfair and deceptive practices, it does not act as a personal attorney. However,complaints of deceptive practices may spur an investigation and possible legal action. If the Attorney General believes an investigation of a dispute is in the public interest,he will investigate the controversy. You may have patients that the Health Care Unit can help. If you see a case where a consumer is having a dispute with a health care organization,advise the consumer to file a complaint. There is no fee and the Health Care Unit may be able to assist in resolving the dispute. The Health Care Unit can be reached at 1-877-888-4877 or through Attorney General Mike Fisheris website,www.attomeygeneral-gov. .A 1 �A 'g $_7 PENNSYLVANIA PRSRT STD U.S. POSTAGE PAID CHIROPRACTICI Harrisburg PA Permit No 918 Post Office Box 2649 Harrisburg,PA 17105-2649 — - nupsaipnc.iuecs.a_vrve��as��erv�ceiaces;�...-r,, ; ��znie��_�saex*-,^cia... PI 'a!C Print Cancel £"Y 6 4"'-�5/fir/�/ l r�1k5n/� 4TH Trans Date Post Date Transaction Description Amount 03/10/13 03/10/13 'FINANCE CHARGE'PURCHASES$139.88 CASH ADVANCE$0.00 $139.88 02/28/13 02/28/13 AUTO-PAY-THANK YOU 5556206461 $-6,000.00 TOTAL XXXX XXXX XXXX 0164$6,000.00- 02/08/13 02/08/13 HESS 09397 PORT CHARLOTTFL $17.52 MCC:5542 MERCHANT ZIP:33948 02/09/13 02/09/13 EXXONMOBIL 97406714 SAINT PETERSBFL $59.83 MCC:5542 MERCHANTZIP:33702 02/13/13 02/13/13 EXXONMOBIL 97406714 SAINT PETERSBFL $57.96 MCC:5542 MERCHANT ZIP:33702 02/13113 02/13/13 GEO FOOD STORE INC BOWLING GREENFL $6.62 MCC:5542 MERCHANT ZIP:33834 02/15/13 02/15/13 EXXONMOBIL 97403174 PORT CHARLOTTFL $66.27 MCC:5542 MERCHANTZIP:33980 02/20/13 02/20/13 7-ELEVEN 33194 NORTH PORT FL $75.75 MCC:5542 MERCHANT ZJP:34287 02/21/13 02/21/13 CHARLOTTE COUNTY AIRPORT PUNTA GORDA FL $53.12 MCC:5983 MERCHANT AP:33982 02/24/13 02/24/13 CHEVRON 00302870 PUNTA GORDA FL $11.48 MCC:5542 MERCHANT ZIP:33982 02125/13 02/25/13 EXXONMOBIL 97403174 PORT CHARLOTTFL $71.69 MCC:5542 MERCHANT ZIP: 33980 02/26/13 02126/13 BEST BUY MHT 00005629 SARASOTA FL $1,380.27 MCC:5732 MERCHANT ZIP: 02/27/13 02/27/13 SEBRING,FLIGHT CENTER SEBRING,FL $28.56 MCC:5983 MERCHANT ZIP:33870 03106/13 03/06/13 SOFIE OF PINELLAS PUNTA GORDA FL $70.87 MCC:5542 MERCHANT ZIP:33950 03106/13 03/06/13 AMERICAN Al 0010641474966FT.MYERS FL $9.00 MCC:3001 MERCHANT ZIP: 03/06/13 DICKSON/DAVID 1 AA X XAA XAA 2 YY X XAA 3YYX 4YYX DAVID C DICKSON TOTAL XXXX XXXX XXXX 2077$1,908.94 02107/13 02/08113 ONE COMMUNICATIONS 781-3625700 MA $3,033.33 MCC:4814 MERCHANTZIP:01803 02/11/13 02111/13 KALL8 866-2221818 WA $9.26 1 of 3/18/2013 10:03 AM I Mp,.i I PIP-I Url,:",%;Vl!VC I Trans Date Post Date Transaction Description Amount MCC:4814 MERCHANT ZIP:98119 02/14/13 02/14/13 DAWN JAMES-SERRA AND ASS0410-769-8866 MID $1,',500.00 MCC:8931 MERCHANT ZIP:21204 02/14/13 02/14/13 7400 GOLDS GYM CAMP HILL CAMP HILL PA $63.75 MCC:7997 MERCHANT ZIP: 02120/13 02/20/13 OCEAN PRIDE LUTHERVILLE MD $97.65 MCC:5812 MERCHANT ZIP: 02/25113 02/25/13 MARRIOTT PALM BCH GARDENSWEST PALM BCHFL $685.98 MCC:3509 MERCHANT ZIP:33410 LODGING CHECK-IN DATE:02/21/13 03/02/13 03(02/13 SBARROS PA-TPK11313103 BEDFORD PA $18.06 MCC:5814 MERCHANT ZIP: 15522 03104/13 03104/13 HILTON HOTELS COLUMBUS COLUMBUS OH $533,49 MCC:3504 MERCHANT ZIP:43215 LODGING CHECK-IN DATE:03/01/13 ROBERT A HUNT TOTAL XXXX XXXX XXXX 1987$5,941.52 TOTAL*FINANCE CHARGE*PAID IN 2012$1272.42 2 of 2 311812013 10:03 AM 11upsaipnc.iures.curn0-US erv�ceifaces. �� ~��,-nie+�� csacx�noi2... PN C- Print Cancel =c >'. P /V EGA ��/9Ili RC i (} Trans Date Post Date Transaction Description Amount 0300/13 03/11/13 EXPEDIA*155368335355800-367-3476 NV $141.55 03/09/13 03/11/13 UNITED 0167212467790800-932-2732 TX $461.10 03/10/13 DIGKSON0AVID 1 UA FORT MYERS CLEVELAND 2 UA CLEVELAND WASHINGTON 3 US WASHINGTON CHARLOTTE 4 SU CHARLOTTE FORT MYERS 03/09/13 03/11/13 UNITED 0167212467791800-932-2732 TX $461.10 08!10/13 DICKSOWDEIRDRE 1 UA FORT MYERS CLEVELAND 2 UA CLEVELAND WASHINGTON 3 US WASHINGTON CHARLOTTE 4 SU CHARLOTTE FORT MYERS 03/11/13 03111/13 KALL8 866-2221818 WA $8.53 03112/13 03/12/13 ONE COMMUNICATIONS 781-3625700 MA $3,045.77 Transaction history may not include any charges pending. 1 of 1 3/18/2013 10:04 AM LAW OFFICES OF BARRY F.PENN,P.C. ,;f THE By: Barry F. Penn,Esquire Identification No.:32427 7013 MAR 27 AM 9: 31 1500 JFK Blvd.,Suite 1850 CUMBERLAND COUNITY Philadelphia,PA 19102 PENNSYLVANIA (215)568-3400 (215) 567-1998(FAX) bfpennesq@gtnail.com Attorney for Respondent/Defendant.Robert Hunt DAVID C.DICKSON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff DOCKET NO. 13-1379 Civil V. ROBERT HUNT, CIVIL ACTION—LAW AND EQUITY Defendant VRAE—CIFE TO ATTACH DEFENDANT'S VERIFICATION TO THE RWO ME OF DEFENDANT,ROBERT HUNT,TO PLAINTIFF'S PETITION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly attach the Verification of Defendant,Robert Hunt to the Response of Defendant, Robert Hunt,to Plaintiff's Petition for Preliminary Injunctive Relief in the above-referenced matter. LAW OFFICES OF BARRY F. PENN,P.C. BY: AM-7Y 0. PENN,ESQUIRE Dated: VERIFICATION ROBERT HUNT states that he is the defendant named within;that he is acquainted with the facts set forth in the foregoing Response of Defendant,Robert Hunt,to Plaintiff's Petition for Preliminary Injunctive Relief;that the same are true and correct to the best of his knowledge,information and belief;and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Dated. `3/'44/ ROBERT CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Barry F. Penn, attorney for Defendant do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Attach Defendant's Verification to the Response of Defendant, Robert Hunt to Plaintiff's Petition for Preliminary Injunctive Relief was served upon all counsel facsimile transmission and/or via email to the named attorney for Plaintiff. Michael L.Bangs,Esquire 429 S. 18"'Street Camp Hill,PA 17011 (717)730-7374 By: BARRY f. PENN,ESQUIRE Date: 7) ' Zx LAW OFFICES OF BARRY F.PENN,P.C. TN- PTA By: Barry F. Penn,Esquire Identification No.:32427 �3 27 0. .1 1500 JFK Blvd., Suite 1850 CUMSERI Philadelphia,PA 19102 PENNSYLVANIA (215) 568-3400 (215) 567-1998(FAX) bfpennesq@gtnail.com Attorney for Respondent/Defendant.Robert Hunt DAVID C.DICKSON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff DOCKET NO. 13-1379 Civil V. . ROBERT HUNT, CIVIL ACTION—LAW AND EQUITY Defendant PRAECIPE TO ATTACH DEFENDANT'S VERIFICATION TO ANL�VE&NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly attach the Verification of Defendant,Robert Hunt to the Answer,New Matter and Counterclaim to Plaintiff's Complaint for Preliminary Injunctive Relief to Plaintiffs Complaint in the above-referenced matter. LAW OFFICES OF BARRY F.PENN,P.C. BY: �---- ARRY . PENN,ESQUIRE Dated: VERIFICATION ROBERT HUNT states that he is the defendant named within; that he is acquainted with the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer,New Matter and Counterclaim of Defendant,Robert Hunt,to Plaintiffs Complaint for Preliminary Injunctive Relief;that the same are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, information and belief; and that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: ROBER CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Barry F. Penn, attorney for Defendant do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Praecipe to Attach Defendant's Verification to the Answer, New Matter and Counterclaim to Plaintiff's Complaint for Preliminary Injunctive Relief to Plaintiffs Complaint was served upon all counsel facsimile transmission and/or via email to the named attorney for Plaintiff. Michael L. Bangs,Esquire 429 S. 18'h Street Camp Hill,PA 17011 (717) 730-7374 By: A-S.,�- .W.'t BARRY . PENN,ESQUIRE Date: ��-� ?�U ) DAVID C. DICKSON, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 13-1379 CIVIL TERM ROBERT HUNT, Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW AND EQUITY ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 27th day of March, 2013 , after hearing, the request for preliminary injunction is DENIED. By the Court, 499* Edward E. Guido, J. Michael L. Bangs, Esquire _- Attorney for Plaintiff == `- ' -:=-r• rl Barry F. Penn, Esquire ��" 7D Attorney for Defendant �=� N w °fir -- �. —.i`-u, srs ry