Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout13-2719 Supreme Court, Court of�r,Cd' n g leas For Prothonotary Use Only: C1 il "Coyer Sheet Docket No: CUMBR LAN D?' County a �01 ., The hiforrnation collected on this form is used solely for court administration purposes. This form does not supplenurnt or� replace the filing and service ofpleadings or other papers as required by 1(1141 or- rules of court. Commencement of Action: S [9 Complaint ED Writ of Summons Petition Transfer from Another Jurisdiction El Declaration of Taking E C Lead Plaintiff's Name: Lead Defendant's Name: JANE DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, her Parent JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP I Are move dam a g es req uested? Yes Q No Dollar Amount Requested: within arbitration limits Y g 9 (check one) Doutside arbitration limits O N Is this a Class Action Suit? Yes No Is this an MDJAppeal? Yes 0 No A Name of Plaintiff /Appellant's Attorney: MICHAEL J. NAVITSKY and DUANE S. BARRICK ® Check , ere it'you have no attorney (area Self-Represented IVro Sel Litigant) Nature of the Case Place an "X" to the left of the ONE case category that most accurately describes your PRIMARY CASE. If you are making more than one type of claim, check the one that you consider most important. TORT (do not include Mass Tort) CONTRACT (do not include Judgments) CIVIL APPEALS El Intentional 0 Buyer Plaintiff Administrative Agencies n Malicious Prosecution n Debt Collection: Credit Card 0 Board of Assessment E] Motor Vehicle Q Debt Collection: Other E] Board of Elections E] Nuisance E] Dept. of Transportation Premises Liability El Statutory Appeal: Other S ® Product Liability (does not include E mass tort) El Employment Dispute: Slander /Libel/ Defamation Discrimination ® E t C El Other: Employment Dispute: Other E] Zoning Board Q Other: T I Other: O MASS TORT Q Asbestos N 0 Tobacco Q Toxic Tort - DES Toxic Tort - Implant REAL PROPERTY MISCELLANEOUS Q Toxic Waste Other: El Ejectment E] Common Law /Statutory Arbitration B er: El Eminent Domain /Condemnation Declaratory Judgment El Ground Rent Mandamus El Landlord/Tenant Dispute 0 Non - Domestic Relations Mortgage Foreclosure: Residential Restraining Order PROFESSIONAL LIABLITY ❑ Mortgage Foreclosure: Commercial Quo Warranto El Dental M Partition El Replevin n Legal M Quiet Title El Other: rl Medical Other: Other Professional: Updated 1/1/2011 i IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JANE DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, NO. _ a I o t v� her Parent and Natural Guardian Plaintiffs V. JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP, , PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING CIVIL ACTION — PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC., PENNSYLVANIA LIABILITY ACTION COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T/D/B /A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES - CARLISLE, and L -n PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING 3g n - 4 = SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, C T/D/B /A PENNSYLVANIA -- COUNSELING SERVICES - CARLISLE PSYCHIATRIC, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by an attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any money claimed in the Complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 1- 800 - 990 -9108 717 - 249 -3166 S 0 99os:pI T. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JANE DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, NO. her Parent and Natural Guardian Plaintiffs V. JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP, PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING CIVIL ACTION —PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC., PENNSYLVANIA LIABILITY ACTION COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T/D/B /A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES - CARLISLE, and PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T/D/B /A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES - CARLISLE PSYCHIATRIC, : Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO EN LA CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las quejas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, debe tomar acci6n dentro de veinte (20) dias a partir de la fecha en que recibib la demanda y el aviso. Usted debe presentar comparecencia escrita en persona o por abogado y presentar en la Corte por escrito sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en su contra. Se le avisa que si no se defiende, el caso puede proceder sin usted y la Corte puede decidir en su contra sin mas aviso o notificaci6n por cualquier dinero reclamado en la demanda o por cualquier otra queja o compensacibn reclamados por el Demandante. USTED PUEDE PERDER DINERO, O PROPIEDADES U OTROS DERECHOS IMPORTANTES PARA USTED. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE O NO CONOCE UN ABOGADO, VAYA O LLAME A LA OFICINA EN LA DIRECCION ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE OBTENER ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 1- 800 - 990 -9108 717 - 249 -3166 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JANE DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, NO. her Parent and Natural Guardian Plaintiffs V. JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP, PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING CIVIL ACTION — PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC., PENNSYLVANIA LIABILITY ACTION COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T/DB /A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES - CARLISLE, and PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T/DB /A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES - CARLISLE PSYCHIATRIC, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT Plaintiff Jane Doe, a minor, by John Doe, her parent and natural guardian, by and through their undersigned counsel, bring this Complaint and allege as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Jane Doe, is a minor individual who resides in Pennsylvania. 2. Plaintiff, John Doe, is an adult individual who resides in Pennsylvania and is the parent and natural guardian of minor, Jane Doe. 3. The names of Plaintiffs and of their family members is not plead in this Complaint in order to protect their identities. Plaintiff Jane Doe, a minor, was a victim of serial sexual abuse, as described more fully herein. Plaintiffs' last name and those of her family members are unique, and thus, if disclosed, would enable others to easily identify minor Plaintiff. 4. The identities of Plaintiffs and of all of her family members will be made known to counsel for Defendants by private, non - public communication. x 5. Defendant, Joseph Glogowski, LCP, was at all times relevant to this Complaint, a professional counselor licensed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to practice mental health counseling in Pennsylvania. 6. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendant Mr. Glogowski, held himself out to the public and to the Plaintiffs as a specialist in the field of mental health counseling and child sexual abuse counseling. 7. Plaintiffs are asserting a professional liability claim against Defendant Glogowski. 8. Defendant, Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc., is a Pennsylvania business corporation employing counselors and providing counseling services with offices and facilities in Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 9. Plaintiffs are asserting a professional liability claim against Defendant Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc., by virtue of the actions and/or inactions of its agents, apparent agents, ostensible agents, servants, staff, and /or employees, including Mr. Glogowski and his supervisors. 10. At this time, the identity of Mr. Glogowski's supervisors is unknown to Plaintiffs. The identity of the supervisors and staff is presently only known to Defendants. Plaintiffs have attempted to obtain the relevant records from Defendants to identify the above agents, employees and staff and have been informed by the staff of Defendant Pennsylvania Counseling Services that such records cannot be located. However, as will be further detailed below in this Complaint, it is Defendant Mr. Glogowski's sworn testimony that he discussed the relevant issues of this Complaint with "at least one or two supervisors that Igo over cases with me. And we would go over this case, and we would talk about it, and I would bring questions." Please see redacted excerpts from August 6 2003 Glogowski Hearing Testimony Transcript attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint. 2 11. At all relevant times herein, Defendant Glogowski and his supervisors, were acting as agents, apparent agents, ostensible agents, servants and/or employees of Defendant, Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc., and were working within the scope of their employment relationship with this Defendant and were furthering this Defendant's economic and financial interests. 12. Defendants, Pennsylvania Counseling Services- Carlisle and Pennsylvania Counseling Services- Carlisle Psychiatric are fictitious names owned by Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc. and Roy A. Smith. 13. Roy A. Smith is the founder and CEO of Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc. 14. At all relevant times herein, Defendant Glogowski and his supervisors at Pennsylvania Counseling Services- Carlisle and Pennsylvania Counseling Services- Carlisle Psychiatric, were acting as agents, apparent agents, ostensible agents, servants, staff, and/or employees of Defendants, Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc. and Roy A. Smith, and were working within the scope of their employment relationship with these Defendants and were furthering these Defendants' economic and financial interests. 15. Plaintiffs are asserting a professional liability claim against Defendants Pennsylvania Counseling Services- Carlisle and Pennsylvania Counseling Services- Carlisle Psychiatric, by virtue of the actions and/or inactions of their agents, apparent agents, ostensible agents, servants, staff, and /or employees, including Mr. Glogowski and his supervisors, at Pennsylvania Counseling Services - Carlisle and Pennsylvania Counseling Services - Carlisle Psychiatric. 16. Hereinafter, all corporate Defendants will be referred to as Defendant Pennsylvania Counseling Services pursuant to Pa. R.C.P 2177 and Pa. R.C.P. 2176. 3 17. On August 6, 2003, Defendant Mr. Glogowski provided sworn testimony at the custody hearing of John Doe and his former wife (K.H.). 18. Defendant, Mr. Glogowski, testified that K.H. and her husband, brought their stepson/son, J.H., to him for counseling in November 2001. 19. At that time, K.H. disclosed to Defendant Mr. Glogowski that she had witnessed finding 15 -year old J.H. with his 5 -year old stepsister, instant minor Plaintiff, Jane Doe, with her pants pulled down. 20. Defendant, Mr. Glogowski, testified that as a result of this sexual incident, he spoke with J.H., K.H., her husband, and instant minor Plaintiff Jane Doe. 21. Defendant, Mr. Glogowski, did not report this sexual abuse incident to any authorities. 22. Defendant, Mr. Glogowski's, failure to report the sexual abuse incident to any authorities was a deviation from the standard of care of a licensed professional counselor and was in violation of Pennsylvania law. 23. Defendant, Mr. Glogowski, testified that he merely went over the case with his supervisors at Defendant, Pennsylvania Counseling Services. 24. Moreover, Defendant, Mr. Glogowski's, supervisors at Defendant, Pennsylvania Counseling Services, did not report the sexual abuse incident to any authorities, nor did anyone at Defendant, Pennsylvania Counseling Services, report the sexual abuse incident to any authorities. 25. Defendant, Mr. Glogowski's misconduct was ratified by Defendant, Pennsylvania Counseling Services. 26. The failure of Defendant, Mr. Glogowski's supervisors and/or the staff at Defendant, Pennsylvania Counseling Services, to report this sexual abuse incident to the 4 1 authorities was a violation of Pennsylvania law and was a deviation from the appropriate standard of care of mental health professionals. 27. Defendant, Mr. Glogowski, testified that he and his supervisors at Defendant, Pennsylvania Counseling Services, concluded that the witnessed sexual incident between 15 -year old J.H. and 5 -year old instant minor Plaintiff, Jane Doe, was an "isolated incident" and passed it off as "an exploration." 28. Defendant, Mr. Glogowski, and his supervisors at Defendant, Pennsylvania Counseling Services, concluded that J.H. was "being intellectually slow, emotionally immature." 29. Defendant, Mr. Glogowski, further testified that J.H.'s witnessed sexual incident with 5 -year old instant minor Plaintiff, Jane Doe, was "inappropriate but an isolated incident." 30. Minor Plaintiff Jane Doe and her family relied on Defendants, Glogowski and Pennsylvania Counseling Services' assessments of J.H., their assessments of the sexual abuse incident of minor Jane Doe, their assessments of future risk of continued sexual abuse of minor Jane Doe by J.H., and that no reporting of the sexual abuse incident of minor Jane Doe to the appropriate authorities was necessary. 31. In March 2003, approximately one (1) year and four (4) months later, K.H. found J.H. (now 16 years old) pulling down the pants of instant minor Plaintiff Jane Doe (now 6 years old). 32. J.H. was again brought by Mrs. H. to Defendant, Mr. Glogowski, at Defendant, Pennsylvania Counseling Services, in Carlisle for counseling. 33. According to Defendant, Mr. Glogowski's, sworn testimony, he now "questioned him [J.H.] harder in terms of, you know, with what was going on and as things began to evolve I found that, in fact, this was not the -- that first time was not an isolated incident. This was, in fact, something had occurred a couple of times previously. Evidently stopped but then started 5 again, and it had been going on on some kind of a regular basis. At that time I informed both him and K.H. that I'm a mandated reporter and I needed to report this to Children & Youth, which I did." 34. The Pennsylvania State Police interviewed J.H. subsequent to notification of a crime by Perry County Children & Youth. 35. During the police interview, J.H. readily admitted to sexually abusing instant minor Plaintiff, Jane Doe, "probably once a week or, so" over the last year. 36. Perpetrator, J.H. further admitted that he had told instant minor Plaintiff, Jane Doe, that "she would get in trouble" if she told her mom and dad. 37. Licensed professional counselors have a duty to report suspected child abuse. 38. Their duty to report suspected child abuse is clear. 39. It is not up to the counselor or his or her supervisors to determine if such abuse actually occurred, or whether it will continue to occur. 40. A counselor's duty is to report any suspected abuse to the appropriate authorities. 41. . It is then up to the authorities to perform an investigation regarding the report of suspected abuse. 42. In this case, a sexual incident between a 15 -year old boy and a 5 -year old girl, residing in the same home, was witnessed by an adult (parent /stepparent), then brought to Defendant, Mr. Glogowski's attention at Defendant, Pennsylvania Counseling Services, as part of the perpetrator's counseling. 43. Additionally in this case, Defendant, Mr. Glogowski testified that as part of his counseling, he spent time talking with the 5 -year old female victim, instant minor Plaintiff, Jane Doe. Please see redacted excerpt from August 6 2003 Glogowski Hearing Testimony Transcript attached as Exhibit B to this Complaint. 6 44. According to the Child Protective Services law in effect at the time, J.H. and instant minor Plaintiff, Jane Doe, came before Defendant, Mr. Glogowski. 45. Pursuant to Child Protective Services law in effect at the time - persons who, in the course of their employment, occupation or practice of their profession, come into contact with children shall report or cause a report to be made in accordance with Section 6313 (relating to reporting procedure) when they have reasonable cause to suspect, on the basis of their medical, professional, or other training experience, that a child coming before them in their professional or official capacity is an abused child. 23 Pa. C.S.A. §6311 titled, Persons Required to Report Suspected Child Abuse. 46. Furthermore, pursuant to 55 Pa. Code §3490.4 (iii) titled, Persons Required to Report [Suspected Child Abuse] include: psychologists, social services worker, and mental health professional. 47. Pennsylvania's Child Protective Services law ( Pa. C.S.A. §6303 defines "perpetrator" as a person who has committed sexual abuse and is a parent of a child, a person responsible for the welfare of a child, an individual 14 years of age or older residing in the same home as a child or a paramour of a child's parent 48. When J.H. came before Defendant, Mr. Glogowski, at Defendant, Pennsylvania Counseling Services, he was a perpetrator of child abuse and should have been reported to the appropriate authorities. 49. Defendant, Mr. Glogowski, and his supervisors and staff at Defendant, Pennsylvania Counseling Services, failed to timely report J.H. to the appropriate authorities and were thus, grossly negligent. 7 50. Defendant, Mr. Glogowski, and his supervisors and staff at Defendant, Pennsylvania Counseling Services, failed to timely report J.H. to the appropriate authorities and were thus, negligent per se. 51. Pennsylvania's Child Protective Services (CPS) law defines "sexual abuse or exploitation" as the employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion of any child to engage in or assist any other person to engage in any sexually explicit conduct or any simulation of any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction, including photographing, videotaping, computer depicting or filming, of any sexually explicit conduct or the rape, sexual assault, and voluntary deviate sexual intercourse, aggravated indecent assault, molestation, incest, indecent exposure, prostitution, statutory sexual assault, or other form of sexual exploitation of children." 52. When J.H. and Jane Doe came before Defendant, Mr. Glogowski, at Defendant, Pennsylvania Counseling Services, sexual abuse had occurred and was not reported to any authorities. 53. Failure of Defendant, Mr. Glogowski, and his supervisors and staff at Defendant, Pennsylvania Counseling Services, to report the sexual abuse to the appropriate authorities was gross negligence. 54. Failure of Defendant, Mr. Glogowski, and his supervisors and staff at Defendant, Pennsylvania Counseling Services, to report the sexual abuse to the appropriate authorities was negligence per se. 55. Under the Child Protective Services law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the definition of "child abuse" includes, (ii) an act. . . by a perpetrator which causes non- accidental serious mental injury to or sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a child under 18 8 years of age; and (iii) any recent act, ... or series of such acts... by a perpetrator which creates an imminent risk of... sexual abuse or sexual exploitation of a child under 18 years of age. 56. Defendant, , Mr. Glogowski, and his supervisors and staff at Defendant, Pennsylvania Counseling Services, grossly deviated from acceptable professional counseling standards and Pennsylvania's child abuse requirements when they failed to report 5 -year old instant Plaintiff Jane Doe's suspected sexual abuse by her 15 -year old stepbrother, J.H., to the appropriate authorities. 57. Defendant Mr. Glogowski, and his supervisors and staff at Defendant Pennsylvania Counseling Services, had substantial reason to believe that there had been abuse pursuant to Pennsylvania Child Services law based on the eye witness account of the discovery of a sexual incident by their parent /stepparent, K.H.. 58. For Defendant Mr. Glogowski, and his supervisors at Defendant Pennsylvania Counseling Services, to conclude that such a witnessed sexual event was an "isolated incident" and thus, should not be reported to the appropriate authorities was gross negligence. 59. Professional counseling standards and Pennsylvania's child abuse reporting requirements make no exceptions or waivers for perceived "isolated incidents." 60. For licensed professional counselor, Defendant Mr. Glogowski, and his supervisors and staff at Defendant Pennsylvania Counseling Services, to label the witnessed sexual incident as an "isolated incident" without first reporting it to the appropriate authorities and without first allowing the appropriate authorities to perform an investigation was reckless, constituted gross negligence, demonstrated reckless indifference to minor Jane Doe's health and well- being, and was in conscious disregard of known sexual abuse risks to minor Plaintiff. 61. Moreover, professional counselors who have knowledge of a witnessed sexual incident between a 15 -year old stepbrother, assessed as being intellectually slow and emotionally 9 6 immature, and his 5 -year old stepsister, who resides in the same home, would have reasonable suspicion to believe that the young girl would be in imminent danger of further abuse. 62. For mental health professional, Defendant Mr. Glogowski and his supervisors and staff at Defendant Pennsylvania Counseling Services, not to possess reasonable suspicion of such imminent danger and act accordingly, by reporting the witnessed sexual incident to the appropriate authorities, was reckless and demonstrated gross negligence, reckless indifference and conscious disregard of known sexual abuse risks to minor Plaintiff. 63. Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the injuries caused to minor Plaintiff Jane Doe. 64. Due to the gross negligence, reckless indifference and conscious disregard of known sexual abuse risks by Defendants Mr. Glogowski and his supervisors and staff at Defendant Pennsylvania Counseling Services, in failing to report perpetrator J.H.'s sexual abuse of instant minor Plaintiff Jane Doe, the sexual abuse of minor Plaintiff was allowed to continue unabated for greater than one (1) year. For this, claim is made therefor. 65. As a subsequent mental health professional of instant minor Plaintiff Jane Doe has pointed out, "after it had been revealed that she [Jane Doe] had been molested by her stepbrother, J.H., in her mother's home, at that time she was reluctant to even admit to J.H. 's existence. She admitted later in the session that she does not like to talk about him because he does bad things." For this, claim is made therefor. 66. This subsequent mental health professional further recorded that Jane Doe had confided to her stepsister, C., that J.H. "had put his privates in her and on her" and that "Jane Doe told C. he [J.H.] did it almost every day." For this, claim is made therefor. 67. Defendants' gross negligence, reckless indifference, and conscious disregard of known sexual abuse risks allowed repeated sexual abuse by J.H. of instant minor Plaintiff Jane 10 Doe and caused her to suffer the following: a sense of being unsafe; sleep problems; nightmares; significant somatic complaints; bedwetting; separation anxieties; generalized anxiety; difficulty with concentration; and at times difficulty with schoolwork, and claim is made therefor. 68. Child sexual abuse has a serious impact on the victim that can be manifested in many pathological symptoms and behaviors in both the short term and long term following the abuse, and that symptoms and behaviors can range from mild to severe and may include anxiety, depression, guilt, fear, sexual dysfunction, withdraw, acting out, nightmares, other sleep problems, and bed wetting. All of which instant minor Plaintiff Jane Doe has suffered or has the increased risk of suffering in the future, and claim is made therefor. 69. As instant minor Plaintiff Jane Doe gets older, she is at risk for exhibiting inappropriate sexual behaviors, confusion about boundaries regarding sexual behavior, difficulties with romantic /dating relationships, depression, self - destructive behavior such as drug and alcohol abuse, anxiety attacks, situation specific anxiety disorders, insomnia, and to be re- victimized by rape or be involved in physically abusive relationships as an adult, and claim is made therefor. 70. Defendant Mr. Glogowski's and his supervisors' gross negligence, reckless indifference and conscious disregard of known sexual abuse risks has caused Jane Doe serious emotional /mental injuries, and has significantly increased the risk that Jane Doe will continue to suffer serious emotional/mental injuries in the future, and claim is made therefor. 71. Defendant Mr. Glogowski's, and his supervisors' gross negligence, reckless indifference and conscious disregard of known sexual abuse risks has caused Jane Doe to undergo and will continue to have her undergo mental health counseling, and claim is made therefor. 11 72. Defendant Mr. Glogowski's, and his supervisors' gross negligence, reckless indifference and conscious disregard of known sexual abuse risks has caused Jane Doe to suffer and continue to suffer great humiliation, mental anguish, and embarrassment, and claim is made therefor. 73. Defendant Mr. Glogowski's, and his supervisors' gross negligence, reckless indifference and conscious disregard of known sexual abuse risks has caused Jane Doe to suffer and continue to suffer medical and counseling expenses and claim is made therefor. 74. Defendant Mr. Glogowski's, and his supervisors' gross negligence, reckless indifference and conscious disregard of known sexual abuse risks has caused Jane Doe to suffer and continue to suffer pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, and loss of life's pleasures, and claim is made therefor. 75. Defendant Mr. Glogowski's, and his supervisors' gross negligence, reckless indifference and conscious disregard of known sexual abuse risks has caused Jane Doe loss of the ability to maintain and sustain family relationship, and claim is made therefor. 76. Defendant Mr. Glogowski's, and his supervisors' gross negligence, reckless indifference and conscious disregard of known sexual abuse risks will cause Jane Doe to suffer loss of wages and/or loss of earning capacity, and claim is made therefor. COUNT I — NEGLIGENCE /RECKLESSNESS JANE DOE, A MINOR, BY JOHN DOE, HER PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN V. JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP 77. Paragraphs 1 through 76 of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 78. Defendant, Joseph Glogowski, LCP, is liable to the Plaintiffs for all injuries and damages alleged herein, which were directly and proximately caused by his gross negligence, reckless indifference and conscious disregard of known sexual abuse risks in: 12 (a) Failing to report the sexual child abuse of minor Jane Doe to the appropriate authorities in 2001; (b) Failing to report the sexual child abuse of minor Jane Doe to the appropriate authorities in 2002; (c) Failing to report the sexual child abuse of minor Jane Doe to the appropriate authorities prior to March 2003; (d) Ignoring the eye witness testimony of Jane Doe's mother, K.H.; (e) Failing to properly and thoroughly question perpetrator, J.H., about his sexual abuse of minor Jane Doe; (f) Failing to properly and thoroughly question Jane Doe regarding her sexual abuse by perpetrator, J.H.; (g) Failing to properly and thoroughly discuss the facts of the sexual abuse incident and his discussions with Jane Doe, K.H., and J.H. with his supervisors at Pennsylvania Counseling Services in 2001, 2002 and 2003; (h) Failing to report the sexual abuse of minor Jane Doe to the appropriate authorities, prior to March of 2003, so they could perform an objective investigation; (i) Labeling the witnessed sexual abuse of minor Jane Doe as an "isolated incident" when, in fact, perpetrator, J.H. "had put his privates in her and on her ... almost every day" for over a year; 0) Informing Jane Doe's parents that the sexual abuse of minor Jane Doe was an isolated incident and no reporting to authorities was necessary; 13 (k) Failing to recognize that minor Jane Doe was a victim of chronic sexual child abuse by J.H.; (1) Failing to report J.H. to law enforcement, child welfare, and/or other public health authorities despite knowledge that he was a perpetrator who had raped or otherwise sexually assaulted and abused minor Jane Doe; (m) Failing to report J.H. to law enforcement, child welfare, and/or public health authorities despite having reason to know that he was a perpetrator who had raped or otherwise sexually assaulted and abused minor Jane Doe; (n) Failing to report J.H. to law enforcement, child welfare, and/or public health authorities despite actual knowledge of the significant risk of serious physical harm perpetrator J.H. posed to minor Jane Doe, since they resided in the same household and he was assessed by Defendants as being intellectually slow and emotionally immature; (o) Failing to timely report to law enforcement, child welfare, and/or public health authorities that perpetrator, J.H., had sexually abused minor Jane Doe and consciously disregarding the risks that he would do it again; (p) Failing to inform Jane Doe and her parents of the fact that J.H. was defined as a perpetrator, under the laws of Pennsylvania; (q) Failing to inform Jane Doe and her parents that perpetrator, J.H., had committed sexual child abuse of minor Jane Doe and that such 14 r q abuse must be reported to the appropriate law enforcement, child welfare, and/or public health authorities; (r) Failing to inform Jane Doe and her parents that since J.H. was assessed by them as being intellectually slow and emotionally immature, minor Jane Doe had significant risk of continued sexual abuse by perpetrator, J.H.; (s) Failing to timely and adequately inform Jane Doe and her parents of the dangers posed by allowing J.H. and minor Jane Doe to reside in the same home; (t) Representing to minor Jane Doe and her parents that the sexual abuse of Jane Doe was an "isolated incident "; (u) Failing to report perpetrator, J.H.'s sexual abuse of minor Jane Doe as required by Pennsylvania statutory law; (v) Violating 23 Pa. C.S.A. §6311; (w) Violating 23 Pa. C.S.A. §6313; (x) Violating 55 Pa. Code §3490.4 (iii); (y) Failing to define J.H. as a perpetrator and thus, violating 23 Pa. C.S.A. §6303; and (z) Failing to define J.H.'s sexual abuse of minor Jane Doe as statutory sexual abuse and thus, violating 23 Pa. C.S.A. §6303. 79. As a result of Defendant's gross negligence, reckless indifference, and conscious disregard of known risks, Plaintiff suffered the injuries described more fully in this Complaint. 80. As a result of Defendant's actions and inactions, as described above, which went beyond mere negligence or gross negligence and into the realm of behavior which was willful, 15 malicious or so careless as to indicate wanton disregard for the rights of minor, Jane Doe, Plaintiff was allowed to suffer chronic, repeated sexual abuse by perpetrator J.H.. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe, a minor, by John Doe, her Parent and Natural Guardian, demands judgment against Defendant Joseph Glogowski, LCP, for compensatory and punitive damages in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT II — VICARIOUS LIABILITY JANE DOE, A MINOR, BY JOHN DOE, HER PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN V. PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC., PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T /DB /A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES - CARLISLE, AND PENNSYVLANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. AND ROY A. SMITH, T /DB /A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES - CARLISLE PSYCHIATRIC 81. Paragraphs 1 through 76 and Count I of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 82. Hereinafter, all corporate Defendants will be referred to as Defendant Pennsylvania Counseling Services pursuant to Pa. R.C.P 2177 and Pa. R.C.P. 2176. 83. Plaintiffs believe and therefore aver that Defendant Pennsylvania Counseling Services is liable to Plaintiffs for injuries and damages caused herein by virtue of the gross negligence, reckless indifference, and conscious disregard of known risks of its agents, apparent agents, ostensible agents, servants, and/or employees, including Defendant Joseph Glogowski, and his supervisors with which he discussed Jane Doe, J.H., and K.H.. 84. Plaintiffs believe and aver that Defendant Joseph Glogowski, LCP was at all times herein held himself out as an agent, apparent agent, ostensible agent, servant, and/or employee of Defendant Pennsylvania Counseling Services, and was working within the scope of his employment with Defendant and was furthering its economic and financial interests. 16 85. Defendant Pennsylvania Counseling Services acting through Mr. Glogowski and his supervisors is liable to Plaintiffs for all injuries and damages alleged herein which were directly and proximately caused by the gross negligence, reckless indifference, and conscious disregard of known risks, of its agents and employees in: (a) Failing to report the sexual child abuse of minor Jane Doe to the appropriate authorities in 2001; (b) Failing to report the sexual child abuse of minor Jane Doe to the appropriate authorities in 2002; (c) Failing to report the sexual child abuse of minor Jane Doe to the appropriate authorities prior to March 2003; (d) Ignoring the eye witness testimony of Jane Doe's mother, K.H.; (e) Failing to properly and thoroughly question perpetrator, J.H., about his sexual abuse of minor Jane Doe; (f) Failing to properly and thoroughly question Jane Doe regarding her sexual abuse by perpetrator, J.H.; (g) Failing to properly and thoroughly discuss the facts of the sexual abuse incident and his discussions with Jane Doe, K.H., and J.H. with his supervisors at Pennsylvania Counseling Services in 2001, 2002 and 2003; (h) Failing to report the sexual abuse of minor Jane Doe to the appropriate authorities, prior to March of 2003, so they could perform an objective investigation; (i) Labeling the witnessed sexual abuse of minor Jane Doe as 17 an "isolated incident" when, in fact, perpetrator, J.H. "had put his privates in her and on her ... almost every day" for over a year; 0) Informing Jane Doe's parents that the sexual abuse of minor Jane Doe was an isolated incident and no reporting to authorities was necessary; (k) Failing to recognize that minor Jane Doe was a victim of chronic sexual child abuse by J.H.; (1) Failing to report J.H. to law enforcement, child welfare, and/or other public health authorities despite knowledge that he was a perpetrator who had raped or otherwise sexually assaulted and abused minor Jane Doe; (m) Failing to report J.H. to law enforcement, child welfare, and/or public health authorities despite having reason to know that he was a perpetrator who had raped or otherwise sexually assaulted and abused Jane Doe; (n) Failing to report J.H. to law enforcement, child welfare, and/or public health authorities despite actual knowledge of the significant risk of serious physical harm perpetrator J.H. posed to minor Jane Doe, since they resided in the same household and he was assessed by Defendants as being intellectually slow and emotionally immature; (o) Failing to timely report to law enforcement, child welfare, and/or public health authorities that perpetrator, J.H., had sexually abused minor Jane Doe and consciously disregarding the risks that he would do it again; 18 (p) Failing to inform Jane Doe and her parents of the fact that J.H. was defined as a perpetrator, under the laws of Pennsylvania; (q) Failing to inform Jane Doe and her parents that perpetrator, J.H., had committed sexual child abuse of minor Jane Doe and that such abuse must be reported to the appropriate law enforcement, child welfare, and/or public health authorities; (r) Failing to inform Jane Doe and her parents that since J.H. was assessed by them as being intellectually slow and emotionally immature, minor Jane Doe had significant risk of continued sexual abuse by perpetrator, J.H.; (s) Failing to timely and adequately inform Jane Doe and her parents of the dangers posed by allowing J.H. and minor Jane Doe to reside in the same home; (t) Representing to minor Jane Doe and her parents that the sexual abuse of Jane Doe was an "isolated incident "; (u) Failing to report perpetrator, J.H.'s, sexual abuse of minor Jane Doe as required by Pennsylvania statutory law; (v) Violating 23 Pa. C.S.A. §6311; (w) Violating 23 Pa. C.S.A. §6313; (x) Violating 55 Pa. Code §3490.4 (iii); (y) Violating 49 Pa. Code § 16.95, 28 Pa. Code § 115.29, and 42 Pa. C.S.A. §6155 regarding record retention and production; (z) Failing to define J.H. as a perpetrator and thus, violating 23 Pa. C.S.A. §6303; and 19 A (aa) Failing to define J.H.'s sexual abuse of minor Jane Doe as statutory sexual abuse and thus, violating 23 Pa. C.S.A. §6303. 86. As a result of Defendants' gross negligence, reckless indifference, and conscious disregard of known risks, Plaintiffs suffered the injuries described more fully in this Complaint. 87. As a result of Defendants' actions and inactions, as described above, which went beyond mere negligence or gross negligence and into the realm of behavior which was willful, malicious or so careless as to indicate wanton disregard for the rights of minor, Jane Doe, Plaintiff was allowed to suffer chronic, repeated sexual abuse by perpetrator J.H.. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe, a minor, by John Doe, her Parent and Natural Guardian, demands judgment against Defendant Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc., Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc. and Roy A. Smith, t /d/b /a Pennsylvania Counseling Services- Carlisle, and Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc. and Roy A. Smith, t /d/b /a Pennsylvania Counseling Services- Carlisle Psychiatric for compensatory and punitive damages in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. COUNT III — NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS JANE DOE, A MINOR, BY JOHN DOE, HER PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN V. JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP, PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC., PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T/D /B /A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES - CARLISLE, AND PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T /D /B /A PENNSYVLANIA COUNSELING SERVICES - CARLISLE PSYCHIATRIC 88. Paragraphs 1 through 76 and Counts I and II of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 89. Hereinafter, all corporate Defendants will be referred to as Defendant Pennsylvania Counseling Services pursuant to Pa. R.C.P 2177 and Pa. R.C.P. 2176. 20 90. Defendant Mr. Glogowski and the staff of Defendant Pennsylvania Counseling Services were grossly negligent, recklessly indifferent, and displayed conscious disregard for known risks of sexual abuse in their failure to disclose to minor Jane Doe and her parents that J.H. was a perpetrator who had sexually abused minor Jane Doe and had the tremendous propensity, due to his residing in the same home and their assessment of J.H. as being emotionally immature and intellectually slow, of continuing to sexually abuse minor Jane Doe. 91. Defendants carelessly, with gross negligence and reckless indifference, consciously disregarded known risks and failed to report perpetrator, J.H.'s, sexual abuse of minor Jane Doe to law enforcement, child welfare, and/or other governmental authorities pursuant to Pennsylvania statutory law. 92. Defendants failed to disclose to Jane Doe and her parents that J.H. was considered a perpetrator under Pennsylvania law who they knew, or had reason to know, had tremendous propensity to continue to sexually abuse minor Jane Doe and continue to subject her to mental and physical abuse, and danger from residing in the same home with him, and consciously disregarded such known risks. 93. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' gross negligence, carelessness, recklessness, and conscious disregard of known risks, minor Plaintiff Jane Doe was repeatedly sexually assaulted, raped, molested, and physically and mentally abused by perpetrator, J.H., as described in this Complaint. 94. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' gross negligence, carelessness, recklessness, and conscious disregard of known risks, minor Plaintiff Jane Doe suffered emotional distress, including severe mental distress and mental anguish and otherwise sustained injuries set forth elsewhere in this Complaint. 21 a 95. The mental anguish and emotional distress sustained by minor Plaintiff Jane Doe has been so severe as to require psychological counseling and has also been associated with physical symptoms as described elsewhere in this Complaint. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jane Doe, a minor, by John Doe, her Parent and Natural Guardian, demands judgment against Defendants Joseph Glogowski, LCP, Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc., Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc., and Roy A. Smith, t /d/b /a Pennsylvania Counseling Services- Carlisle, and Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc. and Roy A. Smith, t /d/b /a Pennsylvania Counseling Services- Carlisle Psychiatric for compensatory and punitive damages in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs, and in excess of any jurisdictional amount requiring compulsory arbitration. Respectfully submitted, NAVITSKY, OLSON & WISNESKI LLP 1 S Mich el J. Navitsky, Esquire I.D. No. 58803 Duane S. Barrick, Esquire I.D. No. 77400 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/541 -9205 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: May 13, 2013 22 u � ATTORNEY VERIFICATION I, Duane S. Barrick, counsel of record for the Plaintiff do hereby swear or affirm, pursuant to Pa. R.C.P 1024, that minor Plaintiff's parent and natural guardian has verified the foregoing Complaint subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. The names of minor Plaintiff and of her parent and natural guardian have been redacted from the preceding verification in order to protect minor Plaintiff's identity. Plaintiff was the victim of serial sexual abuse when she was a minor. Plaintiff's identity and the identity of her parent and natural guardian will be made known to counsel for the defendant by private, non - public communication. �5/io / Duane S. Barrick i y VERIFICATION I, as parent and natural guardian of . , a minor, make this verification subject to the penalties of 18. Pa. C.S.A. §4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. The attached Complaint is based upon information which I have furnished to my counsel and information which has been gathered by my counsel in preparation for the prosecution of this lawsuit. The language contained in the Complaint is that of counsel and not mine. I have read the Complaint and, to the extent it is based upon information which I have given to my counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. To the extent that the contents of the Complaint are that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this verification Date: /- Pariiift and Natural Guardian of. -, a minor �� 83 1 RECROSS - EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. MUMMAH: 3 Q Does ....� still live at home? 4 A Yes. .ter leaves for the military though in 5 October. 6 MR. MUMMAH: Nothing further. 7 THE COURT: All right. You may step down. Do 8 you have a short witness? 9 MR. GRIFFIE: I'm going to call Joe Glogowski. 10 THE COURT: Okay. 11 JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, called as a witness, having 12 been duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows: `13 THE COURT: You may be seated. 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. GRIFFIE: 16 Q Mr. Glogowski, please state your name and your 17 business address. 18 THE COURT: Spell your last name, too. 19 THE WITNESS: Okay. It's Joe Glogowski, 20 G- L- O= G- O- W- S -K -I. And.I'm at Pennsylvania Counseling 21 Services in Carlisle at One Graystone Road. 22 BY MR. GRIFFIE: 23 Q Mr. Glogowski, did you bring a copy of your 24 curriculum vitae with you today? . -)25 A Not with me. 86 1 exploration and inappropriate but an isolated incident and 2 that's what it appeared. There were numerous times I would 3 talk to m mom and question him in different ways about it 4 and also one of the things that I've done since I've been a 5 therapist is I always have at least one or two supervisors 6 that I go over cases with me. And we would go over this 7 case, and we would talk about it, and I would bring 8 questions 9 and -- 10 Q Basically thinking out loud? 11 A Exactly. 12 Q And the ultimate conclusion that you gave to Ms. 13 was.... 14 A It appears to be a single incident. At the same 15 time, you know, it's important to just keep an eye out. 16 And if anything should occur, give me a call. 17 Q This spring did you, in fact, receive a call? 18 A Yes, I did. 19 Q Did the wter bring �� into you again? 20 A Yes, they did. 21 Q What did you find in your initial meetings with 22 the family or with •nm� at that point? 23 A Well, mono and aw. was there. And I talked to 24 . w initially, and she had told me that once again she had J 25 seen with -- pulling her pants down. I then brought 1 87 1 ■ , e rr in, and I began to question him. And I questioned him 2 harder in terms of, you know, with what was going on and 3 has things began to evolve. I found out that, in fact, 4 this was not the -- that first time was not an isolated 5 incident. This was, in fact, something that had occurred a 6 couple times previously. Evidently stopped but then 7 started again, and it had been going on on some kind of a 8 regular basis. At that time, I informed both him and m 9 that I'm a mandated reporter, and I needed to report this 10 to Children & Youth in which I did. 11 Q Did you make any recommendation with respect to 12 remaining in the home? .13 A I suggest that mm mcall me that evening and said 14 what about gettingnwwww out of the home and I said, yes, 15 and which is, in fact, what they did. I also made the 16 recommendation for residential treatment. 17 Q Were you here to hear Melinda Eash's testimony 18 today? 19 A Pardon me? 20 Q Were you here to hear Melinda Eash's testimony? 21 A Yes. 22 Q Are you familiar with her? 23 A No. I'm familiar with Riegler & Shienvold. 24 Actually, I used to work with Elliot a long time ago but _ _)25 since deceased but I'm familiar with the practice. ��� r 85 1 ultimately through the counseling? What was your 2 recommendation regarding that issue? 3 A I became concerned when anything like that occurs 4 and so -- and also one of the things was . was extremely 5 upset and very protective of So I spent a lot of 6 time talking with % „ m ,. about the incident, talking with 7 wmmw , you know, with sw. , and I did have there f or 8 one short period of time. 9 Q Do you know how long a period of time you 10 counseled with �.? 11 A I can tell you in a second. I saw him February 12 14th of 2002, and the first therapy ended -- actually, I 13 saw w � on July 22nd of that year and then I met with 14 on September 19th of that year. 15 MS. RUDEBUSCH: Could I have a clarification? 16 When you say that year, do you mean . 1 THE WITNESS: 2002, yes. 18 BY MR. GRIFFIE: 19 Q In your meetings with the various family members, 20 did you come to a conclusion or a recommendation, for lack 21 of a better word, that you made to regarding 22 this sexual incident? 23 A It appeared at the time that it was an isolated 24 incident. being intellectually slow, emotionally ._)25 immature, it appeared to be more of kind of a -- an c IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS -a' m CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIAN -VI JANE DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, NO. t V r her Parent and Natural Guardian n = Plaintiffs 5c= w p'a V. CIVIL ACTION — PROFESIONAL JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP, LIABILITY ACTION PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC., PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T/D /B /A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES - CARLISLE, AND PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T /D /B /A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES - CARLISLE PSYCHIATRIC, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS TO PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. I, Duane S. Barrick, certify that: ❑ an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; AND /OR X the claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm OR ❑ expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. Respectfully submitted, NAVITSKY, OLSON & WISNESKI LLP J ' Mic el J. Navitsky, Esquire I.D. No. 58803 Duane S. Barrick, Esquire I.D. No. 77400 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/541 -9205 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: May 13, 2013 2 f = i r X iT � r IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS r- -�e �C CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA /�, a x JANE DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, vc CD her Parent and Natural Guardian Plaintiffs V. JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP, PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING CIVIL ACTION - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC., PENNSYLVANIA LIABILITY ACTION COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T /DB /A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES - CARLISLE, and PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T/D /B /A PENNSYLVANIA : COUNSELING SERVICES - CARLISLE PSYCHIATRIC, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS TO JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI LCP I, Duane S. Barrick, certify that: an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; AND /OR ❑ the claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm OR ❑ expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. Respectfully submitted, NAVITSKY, OLSON & WISNESKI LLP S Mich 1 J. Navitsky, Esquire I.D. No. 58803 Duane S. Barrick, Esquire I.D. No. 77400 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/541 -9205 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: May 13, 2013 2 1� C) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JANE DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, NO. , -/ "! �/ /�' her Parent and Natural Guardian -� Plaintiffs V. JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP, CIVIL ACTION - PROFESSIONAL PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING LIABILITY ACTION SERVICES, INC., PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T/D /B /A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES - CARLISLE, and PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T /D /B /A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES - CARLISLE PSYCHIATRIC, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS TO PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T /D /B /A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES - CARLISLE I, Duane S. Barrick, certify that: ❑ an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; AND /OR X the claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and an appropriate r. licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm OR ❑ expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. Respectfully submitted, NAVITSKY, OLSON & WISNESKI LLP S Mic 1 I Navitsky, Esquire I.D. No. 58803 Duane S. Barrick, Esquire I.D. No. 77400 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/541 -9205 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: May 13, 2013 2 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Mr CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JANE DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, NO. C her Parent and Natural Guardian Plaintiffs' V. JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP, CIVIL ACTION — PROFESSIONAL PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING LIABILITY ACTION SERVICES, INC., PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T /DB /A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES - CARLISLE, and PENNSYVLANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T /DB /A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES - CARLISLE PSYCHIATRIC, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS TO PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES INC and ROY A. SMITH, T /D /B /A PENNSYVLANIA COUNSELING SERVICES - CARLISLE PSYCHIATRIC I, Duane S. Barrick, certify that: ❑ an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; AND /OR X the claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and an appropriate �r licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm OR ❑ expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. Respectfully submitted, NAVITSKY, OLSON & WISNESKI LLP S M' hael I Navitsky, Esquire I.D. No. 58803 Duane S. Barrick, Esquire I.D. No. 77400 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/541 -9205 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: May 13, 2013 2 f F 1L 'D-OFF M Glenn R. Davis -a F TH E i 0 T 110 N 0 TAR gdavis @ldylaw.com Attorney ID #31040 2013 JUN -S AM {I ' 23 Andrew P. Dollman CUMBERLA140 COUNTY adollman@ldylaw.com PENNSYLVANIA Attorney ID#209466 Latsha Davis&McKenna,P.C. 1700 Bent Creek Boulevard,Suite 140 Attorneys for Defendants Mechanicsburg,PA 17050 Roy Smith and Pennsylvania Tele: (717) 620-2424;Fax: (717) 620-2444 Counseling Services, Inc. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JANE DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, her Parent and Natural Guardian, Plaintiffs, V. No. 13-2719 CIVIL ACTION - PROFESSIONAL JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP, LIABILITY ACTION PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC., PENNSLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T/D/B/A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES-CARLISLE, and PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T/D/B/A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES-CARLISLE PSYCHIATRIC, Defendants. PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of the undersigned attorneys on behalf of defendants Roy A. Smith, T/D/B/A Pennsylvania Counseling Services-Carlisle, 2563270 Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc. and Roy A. Smith, T/D/B/A Pennsylvania Counseling Services-Carlisle Psychiatric. Respectfully submitted, LATSHA DAVIS & MC(K�ENNA, P.C. Dated: ZO y 3 By: ''°Qj�o Glenn R. Davis Attorney I.D. No. 31040 1700 Bent Creek Boulevard,Suite 140 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Tel: (717) 620-2424; Fax: (717) 620-2444 Dated: �7 1 By: Andrew P. Dollman Attorney I.D. No. 209466 1700 Bent Creek Boulevard,Suite 140 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Tele: (717) 620-2424; Fax: (717) 620-2444 Attorneys for Defendants Roy A. Smith, T/D/B/A Pennsylvania Counseling Services-Carlisle, Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc. and Roy A. Smith,T/D/B/A Pennsylvania Counseling Services- Carlisle Psychiatric. .2 2563270 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYLVANIA JANE DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, her Parent and Natural Guardian, Plaintiffs, V. No. 13-2719 CIVIL ACTION -PROFESSIONAL JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP, LIABILITY ACTION PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC., PENNSLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH,T/D/B/A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES-CARLISLE, and PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T/D/B/A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES-CARLISLE PSYCHIATRIC, : Defendants. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this date a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Entry of Appearance was served via United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid upon the following: Michael J. Navitsky, Esq. Navitsky, Olson&Wisneski LLP 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Plaintiff Duane S. Barrick, Esq. Navitsky, Olson&Wisneski LLP 2040 Linglestown Road,Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: June 4, 2013 By:�--31 ancy A. Malone 3 2563270 SHERIFF'S OFFICE OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY Ronny R Anderson r 0_ Jr+`qtr Sheriff THE PRO THOU0 A-:,, Jody S Smith �� ��tx�,��«#, 2013 JUN 21 Chief Deputy ��' 1 Richard W Stewart CUMBERLAND COUNTY Solicitor PENNSYLVANIA Jane Doe, a Minor, by JOHN DOE, her parent and natural guardian Case Number vs. Joseph John Glogowski (et al.) 2013-2719 SHERIFF'S RETURN OF SERVICE 05/16/2013 Ronny R Anderson, Sheriff, being duly sworn according to law, states he made diligent search and inquiry for the within n_amed Defen ant to wit:1111111MNYMITSPRIRMOIninmrvitesieeor, but was in his bailiwick. The Sheriff therefore returns the within requested Complaint& Notice as"Not Found"at 1 Greystone Road, North Middleton Township, Carlisle, PA 17013. Defendant now works out of the Lebanon Office. 05/16/2013 Ronny R Anderson, Sheriff, being duly sworn according to law, states he made diligent search and inquiry for the within named-Defendant to wit: {' "-F" r am oun e4i.eg _.ei? -- -Mitl ihtrit-but_'y71c5"briabl rl a Defendant in his bailiwick. The Sheriff therefore returns the wi iii requested Complaint&NOtice as"Not Found"at 1 Greystone Road, North Middleton Township, Carlisle, PA 17013. Defendant now works out of the Lebanon Office. 05/16/2013 11:55 AM- Deputy William Cline, being duly sworn according to law, served the requested Complaint and Notice and Certificate of Merit by handing a true copy to a person representing themselves to be Casey Hamor,Administrative Assistant, who accepted as"Adult Person in Charge"for Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc. at 1 Greystone Road, North Middleton Township, Carlisle, PA 17013. -T 1/41-$15 oN CLINE, DEPUTY 05/17/2013 04:12 PM- Deputy Amanda Cobaugh, being duly sworn accord' g t• -w, served the requested Complaint and Notice and Certificate of Merit by"personally" h--•ing a true copy to a person representing themselv-s to be the Defendant, to wit: ey nve; ow i 1f-ani y FM; AMA DA COBAUGH, DEPU 05/28/2013 Sheriff Ronny R Anderson, being duly sworn according to law, states he made diligent search and inquiry for the within named Defendant to wit: Roy Smith t/d/b/a Pennsylvania Counseling Services-Carlisle, was digalto,to locate the Defendant in the Sheriffs bailiwick. The Sheriff therefore deputizes the Sheriff of Lebanon, Pennsylvania to serve the within Complaint& Notice according to law. 05/28/2013 Sheriff Ronny R Anderson, being duly sworn according to law, states he made diligent search and inquiry for the within named Defendant to wit: Roy Smith t/d/b/a Pennsylvania Counseling Services-Carlisle Psychiatric, but 1 7I at r.the Defendant in the Sheriffs bailiwick. The Sheriff therefore deputizes the Sheri o Lebanon, Pennsylvania to serve the within Complaint&Notice according to law. 06/04/2013 08:50 AM-The requested Complaint& Notice served by the Sheriff of Lebanon County upon 1,,, : fed Smitli Vd/bla Pennsylvania Counseling Services-Carlisle Psychic nc,y t 4,00 Is,-7th..Street, Lebanon, PA 1704A Michael J. DeLeo, Sheriff, Return of Service attached to and made part of the within record. 06/04/2013 08:50 AM-The requested Complaint& Notice served by the Sheriff of Lebanon County upon Ruth M. Davis, who accepted for Roy Smith t/d/b/a Pennsylvania Counseling Services-Carlisle, at 200 N. 7th Street, Lebanon, PA 17046. Michael J. DeLeo, Sheriff, Return of Service attached to and made part of the within record. SHERIFF COST: $94.54 SO ANSWERS, June 17, 2013 RONINY R ANDERSON, SHERIFF tc;i;cna^tvt;u:e i;he +;"'e'.soso`�. LIABILITY COMPLAINT No. 13-2719 Navitsky, Olson& Wisneski LLP Return to Cumberland County Duane S. Barrick, Esquire Jane Doe,a minor,by John Doe,her 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Parent and Natural Guardian Harrisburg,Pennsylvania 17110 1-800-818-9608 vs. Pennsylvania Counseling Services,Inc. General File No. 13-01670 and Roy A. Smith STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA } COUNTY OF LEBANON } SS: Brad Seyfert, Deputy Sheriff, being duly sworn according to law, deposes and says that he served the within LIABILITY COMPLAINT upon PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. AND ROY A. SMITH the within named DEFENDANTS, by handing two true and attested copies thereof, personally to RUTH M. DAVIS, she being the President, Chief Operating Officer and Person in Charge at time of service on June 4, 2013 at 8:50 A.M., at 200 N. 7th Street, Lebanon (Lebanon City), Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, and by making known to the defendant the contents of the same. Sworn to and subscribed before me SO ANSWERS, This 6th day of June, 2013 ha!,1 ��►1 �i• Notary Public DE' • . " COMMONWWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Notarial Seal By Authorization Of: o Debra Ann Johnson,Notary Public y 0t Lebanon,Lebanon County e Y vAVA s NOv.20,2015 ` S� zeideaek ;� N« ANtA ASS OAI18N C1F y04ARIE5 is SHERIFF SHERIFF'S COSTS IN ABOVE PROCEEDINGS Advanced Costs paid on 05/31/13 Check No. 14376 Amount $ 150.00 Costs Incurred: Amount $ 66.32 Amount of Refund: W 13 f f'3 Check No. (1 f1 2/f Amount $ 83.68 All Sheriffs Costs shall be due and payable when services are performed, and it shall be lawful for him to demand and receive from the party instituting the proceedings, or any party liable for the costs thereof, all unpaid sheriffs fees on the same before he shall be obligated by law to make return thereof. Sec. 2,Act of June 20, 1911, P.L. 1072 i. Ci4j A 20/3 OCT 16 P,t,1 1; 44 Glenn R. Davis `^Jt`+'BERLA gdavis@ldylaw.com r7 �(� ENNS YLVA°LINT Y Attorney ID#31040 A Andrew P. Dollman adollman @ldylaw.com Attorney ID#209466 Latsha Davis&McKenna,P.C. 1700 Bent Creek Boulevard,Suite 140 Attorneys for Defendants Mechanicsburg,PA 17050 Joseph Glogowski,LCP, Tele: (717)620-2424;Fax: (717)620-2411 Roy A.Smith,and Pennsylvania Counseling Services,Inc. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JANE DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, • her Parent and Natural Guardian, • Plaintiffs, • v. • No. 13-2719 • CIVIL ACTION - PROFESSIONAL JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP, LIABILITY ACTION PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC., PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T/D/B/A • PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING • SERVICES-CARLISLE, and • PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING • SERVICES, INC.and ROY A. SMITH, • T/D/B/A PENNSYLVANIA • COUNSELING SERVICES-CARLISLE : PSYCHIATRIC, Defendants. • PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of the undersigned attorneys on behalf of Defendants Joseph Glogowski, LCP and Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc. 315990v1 Respectfully submitted, LATSHA DAVIS & MCKENNA, P.C. Dated: October 14, 2013 By: R cJC) Glenn R. Davis Attorney I.D. No. 31040 1700 Bent Creek Boulevard, Suite 140 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Tel: (717) 620-2424; Fax: (717) 620-2444 Dated: October 14, 2013 By: Andrew P. Dollman Attorney I.D. No. 209466 1700 Bent Creek Boulevard, Suite 140 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Tele: (717) 620-2424; Fax: (717) 620-2444 2 315990v1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Glenn R. Davis, Esquire, hereby certify that on this date a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Entry of Appearance was served via United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid upon the following: Duane S. Barrick, Esq. Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: October 14, 2013 By: Glenn R. Davis 3 315990v1 OF THE PROTHONOTARY 2O1., i OV 19 PM 59 s ,s , �� Glenn R.Davis CUMBERLAND • gdavis@ldylaw.com PENNSYLVANIA Attorney ID#31040 Andrew P. Dollman adollman@ldylaw.com Attorney ID#209466 Latsha Davis&McKenna,P.C. 1700 Bent Creek Boulevard,Suite 140 Mechanicsburg,PA 17050 Tele: (717)620-2424;Fax: (717)620-2444 Attorneys for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JANE DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, : her Parent and Natural Guardian, Plaintiffs, v. No. 13-2719 • CIVIL ACTION - PROFESSIONAL JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP, • LIABILITY ACTION PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING . : SERVICES, INC., PENNSYLVANIA : COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and : ROY A. SMITH, T/D/B/A : PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES-CARLISLE, and • PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING • SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T/D/B/A PENNSYLVANIA : COUNSELING SERVICES-CARLISLE : PSYCHIATRIC, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants. DEFENDANTS JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC.; AND ROY A_ SMITH'S ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO , PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT f AND NOW, comes Defendants Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc. and Roy A. Smith, and in answer to the Complaint, state as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendant Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc. (hereinafter "PCS") and Defendant Roy A. Smith (hereinafter "Dr. Smith") and collectively with PCS ("Defendants") are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. 2. Denied. After, reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. 3. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, the averments are denied. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. 4. No responsive pleading is required of this paragraph. 5. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Joseph Glogowski was a counselor licensed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to practice mental health counseling. Without knowing what is meant by "all times relevant to this Complaint" the remaining averments of this paragraph are denied. 6. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant Glogowski provided services to the public in the field of mental health counseling. The remaining averments of this paragraph are denied. 7. Admitted. 2 8. Admitted. 9. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 10. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this.paragraph. By way of further answer, the alleged sworn testimony of Defendant Glogowski is excerpted and not placed within context. The total transcript speaks for itself. 11. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 12. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Pennsylvania Counseling Services-Carlisle and Pennsylvania Counseling Services-Carlisle Psychiatric are registered fictitious names. Those names belong to and are controlled by PCS. 13. Admitted. By way of further answer, any acts of Dr. Smith as they may pertain to Defendants were taken by him in his capacity as an employee of PCS and not as an individual. 14. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that an answer is deemed necessary, the averments of this paragraph are denied. Defendant Glogowski was an employee of PCS. At no time were any acts of Defendant Glogowski or his supervisors taken in a capacity as an agent, a parent agent, ostensible agent, servant, staff, and/or 3 employee of Dr. Smith. Without identifying the supervisors of Defendant Glogowski, Defendants are unable to further respond to the averments of this paragraph. 15. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of.further answer, Defendants Pennsylvania Counseling Services-Carlisle and Pennsylvania Counseling Services- Carlisle Psychiatric are not legal entities and therefore are not properly .named Defendants under the law. 16. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, there is only one corporate defendant, PCS, named in this matter. 17. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. 18. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. 19. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. 20. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. 4 21. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 22. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 23. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. 24. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, the averments are denied. By way of further answer, the possibility of sexual abuse was reported to the authorities as required by law. 25. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 26. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, the averments of the paragraph are denied. It is further denied that Defendant Glogowski had sufficient information or was a mandated reporter at the time inferred in this paragraph. 27. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. 5 28. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. 29. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. 30. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a responsive pleading is required, the averments are denied. K.H. was advised to carefully monitor all interactions between J.H. and Jane Doe. 31. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. 32. Admitted. It is admitted that J.H. was brought by K.H to counseling sessions with Defendant Glogowski at various times and dates. 33. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. By way of further answer, it is admitted that in one counseling session J.H. disclosed information which supported a report being made to Children and Youth and a report was immediately filed. 6 34. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. 35. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. . 36. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. 37. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 38. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 39. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to j. which no responsive pleading is required. 40. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. . 41. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. I 42. Denied. It is denied that a sexual incident between a 15 year old boy and five year old girl while residing in the same home, was witnessed by an adult and brought to the attention of Defendant Glogowski and/or PCS. 7 k 43. Denied. After reasonable investigation. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. 44. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 45. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 46. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 47. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 48. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 49. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, it is specifically denied that Defendants failed to timely report J.H. to the appropriate authorities and that they were thus, grossly negligent. 50. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, it is specifically denied that Defendants failed to timely report J.H. to the , appropriate authorities and that they were thus, negligent per se. 8 51. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 52. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, the averments of this paragraph are denied. 53. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 54. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 55. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 56. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required.. 57. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 58. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 59. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 60. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 9 61. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, the averments are denied. No PCS professional counselor had knowledge of a witnessed sexual incident or reasonable suspicion to believe that a young girl was in inherent danger. Strict proof at the time of trial is demanded. 62. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. By way of further answer, no PCS professional counselor had knowledge of a witnessed sexual incident. 63. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 64. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, after reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. 65. Denied. After reasonable. investigation. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. 66. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. 10 67. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 68. Denied. After reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. 69. Denied. After .reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph. 70.' Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, after reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and they are therefore denied. 71. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required; after reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and they are therefore denied. 72. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, after reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or 11 information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and they are therefore denied. 73. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, after reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and they are therefore denied. 74. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, after reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and they are therefore denied. 75. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, after reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and they are therefore denied. 76. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive-pleading is required, after reasonable investigation Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in this paragraph and they are therefore denied. 12 COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE/RECKLESSNESS JANE DOE, A MINOR, BY JOHN DOE, HER PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN V. JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP 77. The answers to paragraph 1-76 are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 78. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. (a)-(z) Denied. 79. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 80. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. WHEREFORE, Defendant Joe Glogowski requests judgment be entered in his favor, this matter be dismissed, and such other relief as determined to be appropriate by the Court. 13 COUNT II - VICARIOUS LIABILITY JANE DOE, A MINOR, BY JOHN DOE, HER PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN V. PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC., PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T/D/B/A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES-CARLISLE, AND PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. AND ROY A. SMITH,T/D/B/A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES-CARLISLE PSYCHIATRIC 81. The answers to paragraphs 1-76 and Count I of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 82. Denied. No responsive pleading is required to this paragraph. By way of further answer, by,the averment contained in this paragraph it is understood that there is no cause of action being brought against Dr. Roy.A. Smith in his individual capacity, but only rather in a corporate capacity as identified in this paragraph. 83. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 84. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 85. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. (a)-(aa) Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 86. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 14 .tti 87. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc., and Roy A. Smith, request judgment be entered in their favor, this matter be dismissed, and such other relief as determined to be appropriate by the Court. COUNT III - NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS JANE DOE, A MINOR, BY JOHN DOE, HER PARENT AND NATURAL GUARDIAN V. JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP, PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC., PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T/D/B/A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES-CARLISLE, AND PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. AND ROY A. SMITH, T/D/BJA PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES-CARLISLE PSYCHIATRIC 88. The answers to paragraphs 1-76 and Counts I and II of this Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth at length. 89. Denied. No responsive pleading is required to this paragraph. By way of further answer, by the averment contained in this paragraph it is understood that there is no cause of action being brought against Dr. Roy A. Smith in his individual capacity, but only rather in a corporate capacity as identified in this paragraph. 90. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 91. Denied. The.averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, it is denied that Defendants failed to properly report J.H.'s conduct to law 15 enforcement, child welfare, and/or other governmental authorities pursuant to Pennsylvania statutory law. 92. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, the averments of this paragraph are denied that Defendants failed to disclose that J.H. had disclosed acts on his part which would require reporting of such acts under Pennsylvania law. 93. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 94. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 95. Denied. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. WHEREFORE, Defendants Joseph Glogowski, LCP, Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc. and Roy A. Smith request this matter be dismissed and that the Court grant Defendants such other relief as appropriate under law. NEW MATTER 96. The allegations set forth above are incorporated herein. 97. Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action. 98. Plaintiffs' cause(s) of action, if any, is barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 16 99. Plaintiffs' cause(s) of action, if any, is barred by the doctrine of Laches. 100. Plaintiffs' claims are barred to the extent that they have failed to mitigate alleged damages. 101. Plaintiffs' have failed to state a cause of action to form punitive or exemplary damages. 102. Without admission of any liability, in the event that any Defendant is held responsible for any cost or other damages alleged in the Complaint, then Defendants' liability is a result of the negligent actions of other persons, including but not limited to, John Doe and/or his former spouse, K.H. 103. Defendants are not liable to Plaintiffs for a portion of damages and injuries proximately caused by the negligence of Plaintiff John Doe or others. 104. Plaintiffs' claims are barred, in whole or in part, because no actions of, or attribution to Defendants were the cause in fact, or in the alternative, proximate cause, of the damages alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint. 105. Plaintiff, John Doe's claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of Unclean Hands. 17 Respectfully submitted, LATSHA DAVIS & MCKENNA, P.C. Dated: November 18, 2013 By: Glenn R. Davis Attorney I.D. No. 31040 Andrew P. Dollman Attorney I.D. No. 209466 1700 Bent Creek Boulevard, Suite 140 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Tel: (717) 620-2424; Fax: (717) 620-2444 Attorneys for Defendants 18 327339v1 VERIFICATION I,Joseph Glogowski, hereby state that I am a Defendant in this matter, and the facts in the foregoing Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. 1 understand that the statements made herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Signed: (J �, Dated: November /8 2013 g • , Joseph?G'ogo . :k 338593v1 VERIFICATION I, Michelle Williams,hereby state that I am the Director of Risk Management for Pennsylvania Counseling Services,Inc.,a Defendant in this matter,and the facts in the foregoing Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs'Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,information and belief. I understand that the statements made herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A.Section 4904,relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Signed _.. _ Dated: November /4,2013 Michelle Williams Director of Risk Management 338593v1 2 • • CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Glenn R. Davis, Esquire, hereby certify that on this date a true and correct copy of the foregoing DEFENDANTS JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC., AND ROY A. SMITH'S ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT was served via United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid upon the following: Duane S. Barrick, Esq. Navitsky, Olson &Wisneski LLP 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: November 18, 2013 By: Glenn R. Davis 19 327339v1 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JANE DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, NO. 13-2719 Civil her Parent and Natural Guardian • T :). Plaintiffs 1,‘„, • v. • c:.) JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP, • y PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING • CIVIL ACTION—PROFESSIONAL} (.3 SERVICES, INC., PENNSYLVANIA • LIABILITY ACTION COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and • ROY A. SMITH, T/D/B/A • PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING • SERVICES-CARLISLE, and • PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, • T/D/B/A PENNSYLVANIA • COUNSELING SERVICES-CARLISLE • PSYCHIATRIC, • Defendants • JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Plaintiffs, JANE DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, her Parent and Natural Guardian, by and through their attorneys, Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP, to hereby enter the following Answer to the New Matter of Defendants, Joseph Glogowski, Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc., and Roy A. Smith, to Plaintiffs' Complaint: 96. This is an incorporation paragraph that requires no response. To the extent any response is deemed to be required, Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations in their Complaint as if set forth herein at length. 97. This allegation constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent any response is deemed to be required, said allegation is specifically denied. Plaintiffs have stated causes of action for negligence/recklessness, vicariously liability, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. 98. This allegation constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that any response is deemed to be required, said allegation is specifically denied. Plaintiffs have filed the action within the applicable statute of limitations. 99. This allegation constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that any response is deemed to be required, said allegation is specifically denied. The Doctrine of Laches is not applicable to the instant case. 100. This allegation constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that any response is deemed to be required, said allegation is specifically denied. Plaintiffs have in no way failed to mitigate their damages. 101. This allegation constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that any response is deemed to be required, said allegation is specifically denied. Due to the level of recklessness and misconduct in this case, punitive/exemplary damages are warranted. 102. This allegation constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent any response is deemed to be required, said allegation is specifically denied. No other persons committed negligence other than Defendants. 103. This allegation constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that any response is deemed to be required, said allegation is specifically denied. Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for all of the damages and injuries factually and proximately caused by their negligence. No other persons were negligent other than Defendants. 104. This allegation constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that any response is deemed to be required, said allegation is specifically denied. Defendants' actions and/or inactions factually and proximately caused Plaintiffs' injuries. 2 105. This allegation constitutes a conclusion of law to which no response is required. To the extent that any response is deemed to be required, said allegation is specifically denied. The Doctrine of Unclean Hands is not applicable to the instant case. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, JANE DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, her Parent and Natural Guardian, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Defendants' New Matter and enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs. Respectfully submitted, NAVITSKY, OLSON & WISNESKI LLP p � Mic . -1 J. Navitsky, Esqu'- I.D. No. 58803 Duane S. Barrick, Esquire I.D. No. 77400 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/541-9205 Counsel for Plaintiffs Date: November 26, 2013 3 AFFIDAVIT • COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : ss COUNTY OF DAUPHIN I, Duane S. Barrick, Esquire, being duly sworn according to law, depose and say that I am counsel for Plaintiffs and that I am authorized to make this Affidavit on behalf of said Plaintiffs, and that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer to New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief or, are true and correct based on the information obtained from the Plaintiff. S Date: ///;4/26/3 Duane S. Barrack Sworn to and subscribed before me this LaT11/) day of 1.■>ve.m�21- , 2013 VW.3 . -_ Notary Public •.• • , • .. 0 v My Commission eX ires: NOTARIAL*At Commlalon RAMA nu CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lois Stauffer, an employee of the law firm of Navitsky, Olson&Wisneski LLP,hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Reply to Defendants' New Matter served upon the following persons via first-class United States mail,postage prepaid on November 26,2013: Glenn R. Davis, Esquire Andrew P. Dollman, Esquire Latsha, Davis & McKenna, P.C. 1700 Bent Creek Boulevard Suite 140 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Counsel for Defendants Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc. and Roy A. Smith, t/d/b/a Pennsylvania Counseling Services—Carlisle and Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc. and Roy A. Smith, t/d/b/a Pennsylvania Counseling Services—Carlisle Psychiatric 6-kA) I. 'V •t Lois Stauffer it' c - t p COMMONIN THE COURT OF ,7 4 CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 3 2O Ci ,f(_ 1/ ., JANE DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, : NO. 13-2719 Civil �1 1 ND C her Parent and Natural Guardian : YLLVAION7 Plaintiffs : v. : JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP, • PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING : CIVIL ACTION—PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC., PENNSYLVANIA : LIABILITY ACTION COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and : ROY A. SMITH, T/D/B/A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING • SERVICES-CARLISLE, and • PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING • SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, : T/D/B/A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES-CARLISLE : PSYCHIATRIC, Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFFS' PETITION FOR SCHEDULING STATUS CONFERENCE AND NOW, Plaintiffs, JANE DOE, a minor by JOHN DOE, her Parent and Natural Guardian, by and their attorneys, Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP, file this Petition to Schedule a Status Conference in the above-captioned action and aver as follows: 1. Plaintiffs initiated suit in this action by way of Complaint on or about May 13, 2013. 2. Defendants were served with the Complaint in a timely manner. 3. On January 23, 2014 Plaintiffs served Defendants with discovery requests to which no answer has yet been received. 4. Plaintiffs believe it is in the best interest of all parties to have the Court set deadlines for the completion of all discovery, the exchange of expert reports, and also set a date or term for trial. I , ,• 5. Plaintiffs' counsel contacted counsel for Defendants via telephone on June 18, 2014 and Defendants' counsel concurs with this Petition to Schedule a Status Conference in this case. 6. Plaintiffs are represented by Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire of Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP, 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303, Harrisburg, PA 17110. 7. Defendants are represented by Glenn R. Davis, Esquire of Latsha, Davis & McKenna, P.C., 1700 Bent Creek Boulevard, Suite 140, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050. WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully request this Honorable Court to Schedule a Status Conference in this case. Respectfully submitted, NAVITSKY, OLSON & WISNESKI LLP edaAri7/. ,......s/ Tfriri Michael ky 40114ravits , ., ' Ire I.D. No. 8803 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 717/541-9205 Counsel for Plaintiffs Date: /9 oFd/ ' / s •1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Lois Stauffer, an employee of the law firm of Navitsky, Olson &Wisneski LLP, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Plaintiffs' Petition for Scheduling Status Conference was served upon the following persons via first-class United States mail, postage prepaid on June 19, 2014: Glenn R. Davis, Esquire Andrew P. Dollman, Esquire Latsha, Davis &McKenna, P.C. 1700 Bent Creek Boulevard Suite 140 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Counsel for Defendants Lois Stauffer IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JANE DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, • NO. 13-2719 Civil her Parent and Natural Guardian Plaintiffs . V. • JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP, PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING CIVIL ACTION—PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC., PENNSYLVANIA LIABILITY ACTION COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T/D/B/A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES-CARLISLE, and ren PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING • `—" _ SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, cor <T' u T/D/B/A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES-CARLISLE . PSYCHIATRIC, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER AND NOW,upon consideration of Plaintiff's Petition to Schedule a Status Conference and Defendants' concurrence for same. it is hereby Ordered that a Status Conference will be held in this matter on the o(y of iT"'lJ' , 2014, atOt ' 'clock ittt/pnr. The Conference will take place before The Honorable6644-4415 in — ^ s43 and counsel for all parties shall attend. BY THE J. CO 1'l-t 1)41.( G z.D►s n-H? in. IJu,lrki Wasty i IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JANE DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, her Parent and Natural Guardian, Plaintiffs, v. JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP, PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC., PENNSYLVANIA : COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and • ROY A. SMITH, T/ D/ B/ A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES -CARLISLE, and PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING : SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, : T/ D/ B/ A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES -CARLISLE PSYCHIATRIC, Defendants. No. 13-2719 CIVIL ACTION - PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 22nd day of JULY, 2014, after consultation with counsel it is hereby ordered and directed as follows: 1.) All discovery shall be completed by November 14, 2014. 2.) Plaintiff's expert reports shall be provided to Defendants by December 19, 2014. 3.) Defendants' expert reports shall be provided to Plaintiff by February 27, 2015. 4.) Any dispositive motion shall be filed by April 30, 2015. Thereafter any party may list the matter for trial. Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire Glenn R. Davis, Esquire 2", .i(� )1.1 Z./ly •J'1 By the Co Edward E. Guido, J. Glenn R. Davis gdavis@ldylaw.com Attorney ID #31040 Carlesha Green Halkias Attorney ID #200751 chakias@ldylaw.com Andrew P. Dollman adollman@ldylaw.com Attorney ID # 209466 Latsha Davis & McKenna, P.C. 1700 Bent Creek Boulevard, Suite 140 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Attorneys for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JANE DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, her Parent and Natural Guardian, Plaintiffs, v. JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP, PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC., PENNSLVANIA : COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and • ROY A. SMITH, T/ D/ B/ A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES -CARLISLE, and PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING : SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, : T/D/B/A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES -CARLISLE : PSYCHIATRIC, Defendants. No. 13-2719 CIVIL ACTION - PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter the appearance of the undersigned attorneys on behalf of defendants Roy A. Smith, T/ D/ B/ A Pennsylvania Counseling Services -Carlisle, 492861v1 Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc. and Roy A. Smith, T/D/B/A Pennsylvania Counseling Services -Carlisle Psychiatric. Dated: 492861v1 Respectfully submitte ( LAT. DAV KENNA, P.C. By: 2 arlesha Fee 'alkias Attorney I.D. No. 200751 1700 Bent Creek Boulevard, Suite 140 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Tel: (717) 620-2424; Fax: (717) 620-2444 Attorneys for Defendants Roy A. Smith, T/D/B/A Pennsylvania Counseling Services -Carlisle, Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc. and Roy A. Smith, T/D/B/A Pennsylvania Counseling Services - Carlisle Psychiatric. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JANE DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, her Parent and Natural Guardian, Plaintiffs, v. JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP, PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC., PENNSLVANIA : COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and : ROY A. SMITH, T/ D/ B/ A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES -CARLISLE, and PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING • SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, : T/ D/ B/ A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES -CARLISLE : PSYCHIATRIC, Defendants. No. 13-2719 CIVIL ACTION - PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this date a true and correct copy of the foregoing Praecipe for Entry of Appearance was served via United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid upon the following: Michael J. Navitsky, Esq. Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Plaintiff Duane S. Barrick, Esq. Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 1 0 Counsel for PI Date: October 24, 2014 3 492861v1 Allen Glenn R. Davis gdavis@ldylaw.com Attorney ID #31040 Andrew P. Dollman adollman@ldylaw.com Attorney ID # 209466 Carlesha G. Halkias Attorney ID #200751 Latsha Davis & McKenna, P.C. 1700 Bent Creek Boulevard, Suite 140 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Tele: (717) 620-2424; Fax: (717) 620-2444 F t LED - E (,•F KE PRO THOHOTA.F:'( nitt NOV 10 PM 2: CUMBERLAtIO COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA. Attorneys for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JANE DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, her Parent and Natural Guardian, Plaintiffs, V. JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP, PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC., PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T/D/B/ A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES -CARLISLE, and PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T/ D/ B/A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES -CARLISLE PSYCHIATRIC, No. 13-2719 CIVIL ACTION - PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION Defendants. MOTION TO EXTEND CASE DEADLINES AND NOW, come the Defendants, Joseph Glogowski, LCP, Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc., Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc. and Roy A. Smith, 496587v1 t/d/b/a Pennsylvania Counseling Services -Carlisle, and Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc. and Roy A. Smith, t/ d/b/ a Pennsylvania Counseling Services -Carlisle Psychiatric, by and through their attorneys, Latsha Davis & McKenna, P.C., and file the within Motion to Extend Case Deadlines, stating: 1 Plaintiffs commenced this action by filing a Complaint on or about May 14, 2013. 2. Defendants filed and Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs' Complaint on or about November 18, 2013. 3 On July 21, 2014, the parties participated in a status conference with the Honorable Edward E. Guido. 4. On July 22, 2014, Judge Guido entered an. Order of Court setting forth certain case deadlines, including a discovery deadline, deadlines for the parties respective expert reports, and dispositive motions. 5. Based on the progress of the case to date, the parties require an extension of the case deadlines in order to give all parties an opportunity to fully litigate the matters in dispute. 6. The Honorable Edward E. Guido has had prior involvement in this case. 7. Counsel for Defendants has conferred with counsel for Plaintiffs, and counsel. for Plaintiffs, Michael Navitsky, concurs in this Motion. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Joseph Glogowski, LCP, Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc., Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc. and Roy A. Smith, t/ d/b/ a Pennsylvania Counseling Services -Carlisle, and Pennsylvania Counseling Services, Inc. 2 496587v1 and Roy A. Smith, t/d/b/a Pennsylvania Counseling Services -Carlisle Psychiatric, respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant Defendants' Motion to Extend Case Deadlines and execute the Order hereto. Respectfully submitted, LATSHA DAVIS & MCKENNA, P.C. i"�' Dated: November 6, 2014 By: Glenn R. Davis Attorney I.D. No. 31040 Andrew P. Dollman Attorney I.D. No. 209466 Carlesha G. Halkias Attorney. I.D. No. 200751 1700 Bent Creek Boulevard, Suite 140 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Tel: (717) 620-2424; Fax: (717) 620-2444 Attorneys for Defendants 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Angela D. Horchler, hereby certify that on this date a true and correct copy of the foregoing Defendants' Motion to Extend Case Deadlines was served via United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid upon the following: Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: November 6, 2014 By: 4 496587v1 ngela D. Horc e IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JANE DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, her Parent and Natural Guardian, Plaintiffs, V. JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP, PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC., PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T/D/B/ A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES -CARLISLE, and PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, Tit B/ A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES -CARLISLE P5YCHIATRIC, Defendants. No. 13-2719 CIVIL ACTION - PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION • ORDER AND NOW, this I day of November, 2014; for and in consideration of Defendants' Motion to Extend Case Deadlines, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED and directed as follows: 1. All discovery shall be completed by March 13, 2015; 2. Plaintiffs' expert reports shall be provided to Defendants by April 10-„2015; 3. Defendants' expert reports shall be provided to Plaintiffs by June 12, 2015; and 4. Any dispositive motions shall be filed by August 14, 2015. Thereafter, any party may list the matter for trial. Copl.cs frbadScL 4.14,7(1 122. x401--1-ky ft -J4;1 ui 1117 It/ rY1 496587v1 Edward E. Guido, J Glenn R. Davis, Esquire gdavis@Idylaw.com Attorney ID #31040 Andrew P. Dollman, Esquire adollman@ldylaw.com Attorney ID # 209466 Latsha Davis & McKenna, P.C. 1700 Bent Creek Boulevard, Suite 140 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Tele: (717) 620-2424; Fax: (717) 620-2444 Attorneys for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JANE DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, her Parent and Natural Guardian, Plaintiffs, v. JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP, PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC., PENNSYLVANIA : COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and : ROY A. SMITH, T/ D/ B/ A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES -CARLISLE, and PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING : SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, : T/ D/ B/ A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES -CARLISLE : PSYCHIATRIC, Defendants. No. 13-2719 CIVIL ACTION - PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22, Defendants certifies that (1) a notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty (20) days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served; 504558v1 (2) a copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to this certificate; (3) no objection to the subpoena has been received for Perry County Children & Youth Services; and (4) the subpoena which will be served on Perry County Children & Youth Services is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. Respectfully submitted, LATSHA DAVIS & MCKENNA, P.C. Dated: December 4, 2014 By: 504558v1 Glenn R. Davis Attorney I.D. No. 31040 Andrew P. Dollman Attorney LD. No. 209466 1700 Bent Creek Boulevard, Suite 140 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Tel: (717) 620-2424; Fax: (717) 620-2444 Attorneys for Defendants Glenn R. Davis gdavis@ldylaw.com Attorney ID #31040 Andrew P. Dollman adollman@ldylaw.com Attorney ID # 209466 Latsha Davis & McKenna, P.C. 1700 Bent Creek Boulevard, Suite 140 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Tele: (717) 620-2424; Fax: (717) 620-2444 Attorneys for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JANE DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, her Parent and Natural Guardian, Plaintiffs, v. JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP, PENNSYLVANIA COUNSSELING SERVICES, INC., PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T/D/B/A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES -CARLISLE, and PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T/ D/ B/ A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES -CARLISLE PSYCHIATRIC, Defendants. • • • No. 13-2719 CIVIL ACTION - PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE SUBPOENAS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Defendants Joe Glowski, LCP, et. al. intends to serve seven (7) subpoenas identical to the ones attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file 492109v1 of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If no objection is made, the subpoena may be served. Respectfully submitted, LATSHA DAVIS & McKENNA, P.C. Glenn R. Davis, Esquire Attorney ID No. 31040 Andrew P. Dollman, Esquire Attorney ID No. 209466 1700 I3ent Creek Blvd, Suite 140 Mechanicsburg, Pa 17050 717-620-2424 gdavis@Idylaw.com adollman@Idylaw.com Counsel for Defendants Date: 10112A )1 49210'av1 Certificate of Service The undersigned hereby certifies that on this date a true and correct copy of the Notice of Intent to Serve Subpoenas to Produce Documents and Things Pursuant to Rule 4009.21 was sent by regular first class mail and email as follows: Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski, LLP 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303. Harrisburg, Pa 17110 mnavitsky.@nowllp.com By:Jain n Ai Jut_ Jann Allen Date: October 23, 2014 Glenn R. Davis gdavisOldylaw.com Attorney ID #31040 Andrew P. Dollman adoIlmanOldylaw.com Attorney ID # 209466 Latsha Davis & McKenna, P.C. 1700 Bent Creek Boulevard, Suite 140 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Tele: (717) 620-2424; Fax: (717) 620-2444 Attorneys for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JANE DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, her Parent and Natural Guardian, Plaintiffs, v. No. 13-2719 CIVIL ACTION - PROFESSIONAL JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP, LIABILITY ACTION PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC., PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T/D/ IV A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES -CARLISLE, and PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T/D/B/A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES -CARLISLE : PSYCHIATRIC, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants, SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Tri -Care, C/O Defense Health Agency, 7700 Arlington Blvd, Suite 5101, Falls Church, VA 22042-5101 (Name of Person or Entity) 492255v1 Within twenty (20) days after service. of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all health care bills for provider services for Michala Spigelmeyer from January 2001.through present. Michala Spigelmeyer's Social Security number is 196-76-6931. Her date of birth is October 6, 1996. She has resided at the following addresses: 213 Hickory Ridge Road, Newport, PA 17071 1255 Erly Road, Newport, PA 17074 131 N. Front Street, Newport PA 17047 321 N Lincoln Street, Duncannon PA 17020 at: Latsha, Davis & McKenna, 1700 Bent Creek Blvd, Suite 140, Mechanicsburg, Pa 17050; Attention Glenn R. Davis, Esquire (address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the addresslisted. above, You have the right to seek, in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: Glenn. R. Davis, Esquire (ID# 31040) Latsha Davis & McKenna, P.C. 1700 Bent Creek Blvd,Suite 140 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 620-2424 Attorney for Joseph Glogowski, et. aI. DATE: (seal of the Court) Prothonotary Deputy 492255v1 Glenn R. Davis gdavis®ldylaw.com Attorney ID #31040 Andrew P. Dollman adollman@ldylaw.com Attorney ID # 209466 Latsha Davis & McKenna, P.C. 1700 Bent Creek Boulevard, Suite 140 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Tele: (717) 620-2424; Fax: (717) 620-2444 Attorneys for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JANE DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, her Parent and Natural Guardian, Plaintiffs, v. JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP, PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC., PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T/ D/ B/A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES -CARLISLE, and PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICFS, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T/D/B/ A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES -CARLISLE PSYCHIATRIC, Defendants. • • • No. 13-2719 CIVIL ACTION - PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Newport Counseling Center, LLC, 38 North Second Street, Newport, PA 17074 (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all documents and data produced and/or related to the 492194v1 evaluation and/or treatment of Michaia Spigelmeyer including but not limited to treatment notes appointments and billing history. at: Latsha, Davis & McKenna, 1700 Bent Creek Blvd, Suite 140, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050; Attention Glenn R. Davis,, Esquire (address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek, in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. if you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF TIlE FOLLOWING PERSON; Gl.enn. R. Davis, Esquire (ID# 31040) Latsha Davis & -McKenna, RC, 1700 Bent Creel Blvd, Suite 140 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 620-2424 Attorney for Joseph Glogowski, et. al. DATE: (seal of the Court) Prothonotary Deputy Glenn R Davis gdavis@ldylaw.com Attorney ID #31040 Andrew P. Dollman adollman@ldylaw.com Attorney II) # 209466 Latsha Davis & McKenna, P.C. 1700 Bent Creek Boulevard, Suite 140 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Tele: (717) 620-2424; Fax (717) 620-2444 Attorneys for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JANE DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, her Parent and Natural Guardian, Plaintiffs, V. JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP, PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC., PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T/D/B/A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES -CARLISLE, and PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T/D/B/A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES -CARLISLE PSYCHIATRIC, Defendants. No. 13-2719 CIVIL ALT ION - PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Dr. Mary White, Holy Spirit Hospital, 503 N. 21st Street Camp Hill' , PA 17011 (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all documents and data produced and/or related to the 492182v1 evaluation and/or treatment of Michala Spigelmeyer including but not limited to treatment notes, appointments and billing history. at Latsha, Davis &McKenna, 1700 Bent Creek Blvd, Suite 140, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050; Attention Glenn R. Davis, Esquire (address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek, in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA. WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: Glenn R. Davis, Esquire (ID# 31040) Latsha 'Davis & McKenna, P.C. 1700 Bent Creek Blvd, Suite 140 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 620-2424 Attorney for Joseph Glogowski, et. al. DATE: (seal of the Court) Prothonotary Deputy Glenn R. Davis gdavis@ldylaw.com Attorney ID #31040 Andrew P. DoIlman adollman@ldylaw.com Attorney ID # 209466 Latsha Davis & McKenna, P.C. 1700 Bent Creek Boulevard, Suite 140 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Tele: (717) 620-2424; Fax: (717) 620-2444 Attorneys for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JANE DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, her Parent and Natural Guardian, Plaintiffs, v. • No. 13-2719 • CIVIL ACTION - PROFESSIONAL JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP, LIABILITY ACTION PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC., PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and • ROY A. SMITH, T/D/B/A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES -CARLISLE, and PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING • SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, • T/ D/B/A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES -CARLISLE : PSYCHIATRIC, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Defendants, SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Laurel Life Counseling Services, 217 S. Carlisle Street, PO Box 718, New Bloomfield, PA 17068 (Name of Person or Entity) 492169v1 Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all documents and data produced and/or related to the evaluation and/or treatment of Michala Spigelmeyer including but not limited to treatment notes, appointments and billing history at Latsha, Davis & McKenna, 1700 Bent Creek Blvd, Suite 140, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050; Attention Glenn R. Davis, Esquire (address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek, in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: Glenn R. Davis, Esquire (ID# 31040) Latsha Davis & McKenna, P.C. 1700 Bent Creek Blvd, Suite 140 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 620-2424 Attorney for Joseph Glogowski, et. al. DATE: (seal of the Court) Prothonotary Deputy 492169v1 Glenn R Davis gdavis@Idylaw.com Attorney ID #31040 Andrew P. Dollman adollman@ldylaw.com Attorney ID # 209466 Lataha Davis & McKenna, P.C. 1700 Bent Creek Boulevard, Suite 140 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 Tele: (717) 620-2424; Fax: (717) 620-2444 Attorneys for Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JANE DOE, a minor, by JOHN DOE, her Parent and Natural Guardian, Plaintiffs, v. JOSEPH GLOGOWSKI, LCP, PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC., PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and • ROY A. SMITH, T/.D/B/A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES -CARLISLE, and PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES, INC. and ROY A. SMITH, T/ D/ B/A PENNSYLVANIA COUNSELING SERVICES -CARLISLE : PSYCHIATRIC, Defendants. No. 13-2719 CIVIL ACTION - PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Riegler-Shienvold & Associates, 2151 Linglestown Road, Suite 200, Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: Any and all documents and data produced and/or related to the 492138v1 evaluation and/or treatment of Michala Spigelmeyer including but not limited to treatment notes, appointment and billing history at Latsha, Davis & McKenna, 1700 Bent Creek Blvd, Suite 140, Mechanicsburg, PA 17050; Attention Glenn R. Davis, Esquire (address) You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek, in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing thethirngs sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: Glenn R. Davis, Esquire (ID# 31040) Latsha Davis & McKenna, P.C. 1700 Bent Creek Blvd, Suite 140 Mechanicsburg, PA 17050 (717) 620-2424 Attorney for Joseph Glogowski, et, aL DATE: (seal of the Court) Prothonotary Deputy CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Angela D. Horchler, hereby certify that on this date a true and correct copy of the foregoing CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 was served via United States First Class Mail, postage prepaid upon the following: Michael J. Navitsky, Esquire Navitsky, Olson & Wisneski LLP 2040 Linglestown Road, Suite 303 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Plaintiff Date: December 4, 2014 By: 504558v1 n e1a D. Horchler