The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About14-0986 Supreme Court of_ Pennsylvania Cou " f C,om n Pleas For Prothonota Use On :1 it Covey eet ry y: �� Cumberla , v) Co Docket No: J h ST t t The information collected on this form is used solely for court administration puthoses. This form does not suppleinent or replace the filing and service of pleadings s or other papers as required by law or rules of court. Commencement of Action: S 0 Complaint El Writ of Summons El Petition ❑ Notice of Appeal ❑ Transfer from Another Jurisdiction ❑ Declaration of Taking E C Lead Plaintiff's Name: Lead Defendant's Name: T Michael Bennett Liberty Mutual Mid - Atlantic Insurance Company I ❑ Check here if you are a Self - Represented (Pro Se) .Litigant O Name of Plaintiff /Appellant Attorney: ANDR C. SPEAR ES Q U IR E N Are money damages requested? : ❑X Yes ❑ No Dollar Amount Requested: within arbitration limits A (Check one) X outside arbitration limits Is this a Class Action Suit? ❑ Yes 19 No I 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 ❑ Intentional ❑ Buyer Plaintiff Administrative Agencies ❑ Malicious Prosecution ❑ Debt Collection: Credit Card ❑ Board of Assessment ❑ Motor Vehicle ❑ Debt Collection: Other ❑ Board of Elections ❑ Nuisance ❑ Dept. of Transportation ❑ Premises Liability 11 Zoning Board S ❑ Product Liability (does not include ❑ Statutory Appeal: Other E mass tort) El Employment Dispute: ❑ Slander/Libel/ Defamation Discrimination C H Other: ❑ Employment Dispute: Other T PEER REVIEW Judicial Appeals ❑ MDJ - Landlord/Tenant I ❑ Other: ❑ MDJ - Money Judgment O MASS TORT ❑ Other: ❑ Asbestos N ❑ Tobacco ❑ Toxic Tort - DES ❑ Toxic Tort - Implant REAL PROPERTY MISCELLANEOUS ❑ Toxic Waste ❑ Ejectment ❑ Common Law /Statutory Arbitration B ❑ Other: ❑ Eminent Domain/Condemnation ❑ Declaratory Judgment ❑ Ground Rent ❑ Mandamus ❑ Landlord/Tenant Dispute ❑ Non - Domestic Relations ❑ Mortgage Foreclosure Restraining Order PROFESSIONAL LIABLITY ❑ Partition ❑ Quo Warranto ❑ Dental ❑ Quiet Title ❑ Replevin ❑ Legal ❑ Medical ❑ Other: ❑ Other: ❑ Other Professional: Pa. R. C.P. 205.5 212010 Ji 1 _ OF' 'lif: pi I'}iU�uQ 1 - Ar� r 201 FEE 2 0 Pri I: 3 I CUMBE�KANID CLIUNTY Andrew C. Spears, Esq. PENNSYLVANIA Attorney ID# 87737 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238 -2000 Attorney for Plaintiff Fax : (717) 233 -3029 E -mail: Spears @hhrlaw.com MICHAEL BENNETT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, P NNSYLVANIA Plaintiff - ' V. NO. H - 0 13LP IU CIVIL ACTION - LAW LIBERTY MUTUAL MID - ATLANTIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant 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 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, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. J CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE 32 South Bedford Street 103. a Carlisle, PA 17013 aw ? 717 - 249 -3166 3� J 3� SO �y(v Andrew C. Spears, Esq. Attorney ID# 87737 HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238 -2000 Attorney for Plaintiff Fax : (717) 233 -3029 E -mail: Spears @hhrlaw.com MICHAEL BENNETT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Plaintiff V. NO. CIVIL ACTION - LAW LIBERTY MUTUAL MID - ATLANTIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant AVISO LISTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO /A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar accion dentro de los proximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notificacion de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar accion como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamacion o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. LISTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI USTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME 0 VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI LISTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO 0 BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CUALIFICAN. CUMBERLAND COUNTY LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, PA 17013 717- 249 -3166 Andrew C. Spears (PA 87737) HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Ph. 717.238.2000 Fax 717.233.3029 spears @hhrlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL BENNETT, Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION — LAW V. NO. LIBERTY MUTUAL MID - ATLANTIC INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant COMPLAINT Plaintiff, Michael Bennett ( "Mr. Bennett "), by and through his attorneys, HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP, by Andrew C. Spears, Esq., makes this complaint against Defendant, Liberty Mutual Mid - Atlantic Insurance Company ( "Defendant "), and aver as follows: 1. Mr. Bennett is an adult individual currently residing at 218 South Sporting Hill Road, Apartment C, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant, upon information and belief, is an insurance company licensed to do business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its corporate headquarters in Boston, Massachusetts. Defendant regularly writes and sells insurance policies in Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 3. On or about June 16, 2011, Mr. Bennett was injured in a motor vehicle collision (the "Collision ") caused by a third -party tortfeasor, Joseph Tamanini. The Collision took place at the intersection of Carlisle Pike and Jeffrey Road in Hampden Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. At the time of the Collision, Mr. Bennett was the front seat passenger in a 2009 Lexus RX owned and operated by Rose Marie Neidig's ( "Ms. Neidig"). 5. At all times material hereto, Mr. Bennett, was not a named insured under any policy of motor vehicle insurance, nor did he reside with a relative who was insured under a motor vehicle insurance policy at the time of the Collision, thus he is entitled to first party benefits from the insurer of the motor vehicle he was occupying at the time of the Collision pursuant to 75 Pa. C.S.A. § 1713. 6. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the automobile insurance policy and in accordance with the MVFRL, Defendant was obligated to provide medical expense benefits to Mr. Bennett, for all reasonable and necessary medical treatment and rehabilitative services. 7. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the policy with Defendant, Ms. Neidig, paid premiums in order to obtain $10,000 in first -party medical - benefits, in excess of the statutory minimum required coverage of $5,000. 8. Mr. Bennett, as passenger in the vehicle involved in the accident, brings this action to enforce the terms of the aforementioned automobile policy. 2 9. As a direct and proximate result of the Collision, Mr. Bennett sustained numerous personal injuries including, but not limited to, injuries to his neck, back, and both knees. 10. As a further result of the Collision, Mr. Bennett has been compelled to receive and undergo medical attention and care and expend various sums of money and /or incur various expenses for which medical benefits are payable. Moreover, Mr. Bennett will be obligated to continue to expend and/or incur the same for an indefinite period of time in the future. 11. Following the Collision, Mr. Bennett sought reasonable and necessary medical treatment in the form of evaluation, examination, and treatment by orthopedic physicians. Mr. Bennett received the bulk of his treatment from Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania. 12. At all times material hereto, Mr. Bennett's primary treating physician was Dr. William W. DeMuth, M.D., of Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania. 13. Mr. Bennett wishes to continue receiving medical care and treatment for his Collision - related injuries. - 14. It is averred that all medical bills and treatment have been, and continue to be, fair, reasonable, and medically necessary, and that all treatment has been, and continues to be, related to the Collision. 15. Defendant, pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 1797(b)(1), contracted with a peer review organization ( "PRO ") for the alleged purpose of determining whether certain medical services were reasonable and necessary. The name and address of said PRO is: IMX Medical Management Services, Inc., 1700 Paoli Pike, Malvern, Chester County, Pennsylvania. 16. Pursuant to 31 Pa. Code § 69.52, providers' bills may be referred to a PRO, "only when circumstances or conditions relating to medical and rehabilitative services provided cause a prudent person, familiar with PRO procedures, standards, and practices, to believe it necessary 3 that a PRO determine the reasonableness and necessity of care." 31 Pa. Code § 69.52(a). 17. At all times material hereto, there were no circumstances or conditions relating to Mr. Bennett's medical care that would cause a prudent person to believe anything other than the fact that his care was medically reasonable and necessary. 18. Mr. Bennett believes and therefore avers that the only circumstance or condition that caused Defendant to submit this claim to a PRO was Ms. Neidig's $10,000.00 medical coverage limit and Defendant's resultant financial exposure. 19. Defendant allegedly, as a result of the PRO's January 6, 2014 report, has denied payment for treatment beyond November 4, 2013. 20. On or about January 6, 2014, the peer review physician, Dr. William H. Spellman, M.D., wrote an alleged peer review report letter for the PRO. Attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked Exhibit "A" is a copy of the aforementioned peer review report.. 21. Dr. Spellman concluded that treatment was reasonable and necessary only until November 4, 2013, since, according to his belief, by this time the injuries attributable to the Collision would have resolved and ongoing medical needs for Mr. Bennett are related to pre- existing cervical spine and knee degenerative changes and not effects of the Collision. See Exhibit A. 22. Dr. Spellman failed to provide adequate and relevant medical support for his opinion, and further did not take into account the particulars of Mr. Bennett's case, including the serious nature of his injury and the need for future medical treatment. Id. 23. In addition, Dr. Spellman, in his report, acknowledges that he did not have the opportunity to personally examine Mr. Bennett, and notably, did not review pre- accident medical reports when reaching his conclusion that a pre- existing condition is the causation of Mr. 4 Bennett's ailments existing after November 4, 2013. Id. 24. Because he failed to personally examine Mr. Bennett, Dr. Spellman, in fact, performed a records review based upon Mr. Bennett's previous medical treatment, which the Defendant alleges to be a "peer review." 25. Defendant improperly termed the records review a "peer review." 26. Defendant wrongfully obtained a records review of Mr. Bennett. 27. Defendant has the burden of proving to the trier of fact that a records review meets the requirements of 75 Pa.C.S. § 1797 and 31 Pa. Code § 69.52 to be legally deemed a peer review. See Judge Bratton's Trial Court Opinion in Herd Chiropractic Clinic, P.C. (Mitten) v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 124 Dauph. 180 (2010), rev'd on other grounds, 64 A.3d 1058 (Pa. 2013) 28. Defendant failed to comply with the following statute and regulations applicable to peer reviews and therefore cannot claim that the records review equates to a peer review: a. Defendant had no reasonable basis for referring Mr. Bennett's medical bills to a review organization because a prudent person would not believe it was necessary at the time to review Mr. Bennett's records because, among other reasons, the care was medically necessary. As such, Defendant's conduct violated 31 Pa. Code § 69.52(a). b. Without any established internal written guidelines, Defendant arbitrarily and unreasonably referred Mr. Bennett's medical bills to a peer review organization, thus violating 31 Pa. Code § 69.52(a). C. Defendant lacked sufficient understanding of the circumstances or 5 conditions relation to Mr. Bennett's medical care that would cause a prudent person to refer the bills under 31 Pa. Code § 69.52(a). d. Defendant knew or should have known that treatment required to address Mr. Bennett's accident - related injuries is reasonable and necessary, and therefore a prudent person would not have referred the review. e. The records review did not use national or regional norms as required by 31 Pa. Code § 69.53(e). f. No written criteria were provided to the reviewing doctor by the peer review organization. Pursuant to 31 Pa. Code § 69.53(e), if national or region norms do not exist, then the PRO shall establish written criteria to be used in conducting the peer review based upon typical patterns of practice on the PRO's geographic area. g. The review does not accurately represent all the relevant facts contained in Mr. Bennett's medical records, and therefore, Defendant's conclusion that medical treatment was not reasonable and necessary is invalid. Such action violates 75 Pa.C.S. § 1797. h. The review report ignores the medical necessity presented by all the relevant facts contained in Mr. Bennett's medical records, and therefore Defendant's conclusion that Mr. Bennett's treatment was not medically necessary is invalid. Said action violates 75 Pa.C.S. § 1797. 29. Defendant knowingly used the defective records review to deny payment to Mr. 6 Bennett for his reasonable and necessary medical treatment. 30. Defendant failed to comply with 75 Pa.C.S. § 1797 and 31 Pa. Code §§ 69.52 -53 when it used a records review that did not comply with the statutory requirements and MVFRL regulations as the basis to deny payment of Mr. Bennett's medical bills. 31. In itself, the records review has no legal effect and is a nullity, and therefore, Defendant is liable to Mr. Bennett for payment of bills, interest, costs of challenge, and attorneys pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 1797(b)(6) and 75 Pa.C.S. § 1797(b)(4). 32. Because Defendant's records review does not equate to a peer review, Defendant has refused to pay for Mr. Bennett's past or future medical bills without establishing the reasonableness or necessity of denying such payments, and therefore, Defendant has acted wantonly in denying Mr. Bennett's payments. Consequently, under 75 Pa.C.S. § 1797(b)(4), Defendant is liable for treble damages. 33. Defendant cannot avail itself of the protection from an award of attorney's fees granted by the Supreme Court in Herd Chiropractic, P.C. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. 64 A.3d 1058 (Pa. 2013). In Herd the Supreme Court held that Defendant State Farm conducted a peer review. Here, Defendant merely conducted a records review, and thus, Herd has no applicability. 34. Defendant's failure to follow the statute and regulations as described in this complaint demonstrates no reasonable foundation for denying Mr. Bennett's medical payments and therefore mandates an award of attorney's fees pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 1798 for the reasons stated above and as follows: a. Defendant knew from prior litigation and opinions of this Commonwealth, or should have known, that the review did not 7 contain references to national or regional norms as required by 31 Pa. Code § 69.53(e). b. Defendant knew from prior litigation and opinions of this Commonwealth, or should have known, that the peer review organization failed to provide the reviewing chiropractor with either national or regional norms or established writings as required by 31 Pa. Code § 69.53(e). C. Defendant knew from prior litigation and opinions of this Commonwealth that the reviewing doctor failed to use either national or regional norms and failed to use established writings from the peer review organization. d. Defendant may have further violated the review process, as shall be determined during discovery by holding Plaintiff's bills longer than 30 days without paying the bills. See 31 Pa. Code § 69.52(b). e. Defendant may have further violated the review process, as shall be determined during discovery by holding Plaintiff's bills longer than 30 days without paying interest on the overdue bills. See 31 Pa. Code § 69.52(b). 35. Defendant's breach of the prudent person standard set forth in 31 Pa. Code § 69.52(a) and use of records review, under § 69.53(e), demonstrate Defendant's willful intent to deny Mr. Bennett for care and medical treatment. Because Defendant acted in an unreasonable manner in denying payment of Mr. Bennett's medical bills, the medical bills are overdue pursuant to 75 Pa.C.S. § 1716. Hence, attorney fees are mandatory where 75 Pa.C.S. § 1716 is 8 violated. 36. From the commencement of treatment for Mr. Bennett, and at various times thereafter, the medical provider and Mr. Bennett's counsel have requested the Defendant pay the aforementioned medical bills as they have been accumulating. 37. Mr. Bennett's credit history has been, and will in the future be, adversely affected as long as Defendant continues to deny responsibility for payment of reasonable, necessary, and related medical bills. 38. Mr. Bennett's third -party personal injury claim has been, and will in the future be, adversely affected as long Defendant continues to deny responsibility for payment of reasonable and necessary medical bills. 39. Mr. Bennett has been required to hire the services of an attorney to collect the medical bills due because Defendant's course of conduct in this case has been unreasonable and without foundation. 40. Ms. Neidig purchased first -party medical Coverage from Defendant, and as such, Mr. Bennett, as a passenger in the vehicle of Ms. Neidig, justifiably expects coverage for necessary medical treatment that would assist him in recovering from injuries he sustained arising out of the maintenance or use of an automobile. 41. By withholding payments with no authority to do so, unnecessarily and improperly referring bills to a PRO, not adhering to the several temporal, procedural, and substantive requirements, as set forth in law, and acquiescing in the PRO's failure to do so, Defendant has undertaken a course of action that has been designed to unilaterally, and without justification, refuse claims for medical benefits, causing Mr. Bennett to become personally responsible for the remainder of his medical treatment arising out of the maintenance or use of a 9 motor vehicle, in contradiction to the terms of their contract, the MVFRL, the medical cost - containment regulations, and established case law of this Commonwealth. 42. The above - described actions constitute a breach of contract by Defendant. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Michael Bennett, demands judgment in his favor, directing Defendant, Liberty Mutual Mid - Atlantic Insurance Company, to pay all outstanding medical bills, interest of 12% on outstanding bills, treble damages in an amount in excess of the compulsory arbitration limits of Dauphin County, costs, all attorneys' fees, and whatsoever other relief that this Honorable Court deems just. Respectfully submitted, HANDLER, HENNING AND ROSENBERG, LLP Date: February 17, 2014 By: _ aR __ Andrew C. Spears 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Ph. 717.23 8.2000 Fax 717.233.3029 spears @hhrlaw.com Attorneys for plaintiff, Michael Bennett. 10 VERIFICATION The undersigned hereby verifies that the statements in the foregoing document are based upon information which has been furnished to counsel by me and information which has been gathered by counsel in the preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the document is of counsel and not my own. I have read the document and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. To the extent that the contents of the document are that of counsel, I have relied upon my counsel in making this Verification. The undersigned also understands that the statements made therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: �� L Michael Bennett I I, i William M. Spellman, M.D. Board - Certified in Orthopaedic Surgery 1700 Paoli Pike Malvern, PA 19355 (484) 329 -7000 Fax (484) 329 -7095 January 6, 2014 i; IMX Medical Management Services, Inc. 1700 Paoli Pike Malvern, PA 193.55 RE: MIKE BENNETT DATE OF INJURY: 06/16/2011 CLAIM #: 192664110003 Dear Sir or Madam: What follows is a Motor Vehicle Act 6 Peer Review concerning the care 'of William J. Polacheck, M.D. provided to Mike Bennett for treatment of an injury sustained on 6/16/2011. I The following records have been reviewed: 7 19_ll.toii 4,13 -- 1: Ortf�opedic�l nstituteof- PA;�Ortho. rnedical.noies_.-. /.. / . , /__ /_. _,- ....r.– ,.,, -. _ — . :_ ___ �_�_, •_ , `i 2. Pinnacle Health, ER note – 6/16/11. 3. Orthopedic Surgeons of Central PA - progress notes – 7/12/13. 4. Diagnostic, x -rays – 6/16/11 to 8/14/13. 5. Diagnostic, CT- 6/16/11. 6. Diagnostic, MRI – 8/17/13. i Summation of History: This patient was initially seen on 6/16%11 in the Emergency Room of Pinnacle Health of Harrisburg. He reported an increase in neck and back pain and right knee pain following a motor vehicle accident sustained earlier that day. On examination, he reported the neck was supple. The patient had vague discomfort upon palpation of the cervical spine as well as the paravertebral i musculature. It was reported that there were superficial abrasions of the left thigh and shin. There was a notable effusion in the right knee. There was no discomfort with manipulation of the patella. Negative posterior and anterior drawer tests were present. Following a physical examination and x -rays, the patient was discharged with the diagnosis of neck, back, and right knee pain status post" motor vehicle accident. The patient was seen at The Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylva on 7/19/11. The patient reported a history of osteoarthritis in his right knee, but he reported experiencing increasing pain since the motor vehicle accident. Examination of the knee demonstrated an obvious knee effusion with tenderness medially and laterally at the joint line. He had difficulty with range of motion, but it was full. The diagnosis was post- traumatic right knee pain with effusion.. The knee was injected with 2 cc of j Triamcinolone, a steroid preparation. Significant in the above note is the statement, "Mr. Bennett returns today and apparently was in a motor vehicle accident on 6/16." This is consistent with the patient having been treated for his knee prior to the motor vehicle accident. i EXHIBIT it Mike Bennett January 6, 2014 Page 2 The patient was next seen on 8/17/11. He reported ongoing pain in his knee as well as his neck and back. Following examination and assessment, it was the opinion of Dr. DeMuth, the treating physician at The Orthopedic Institute, as follows: "Post- traumatic neck and lower back pain with bilateral knee pain and early arthritis." The patient was encouraged to ambulate and was directed to return in one year for a re- evaluation. The patient was next seen by Dr. DeMuth on 11/9/11. His complaints continued as before. Examination shows limitation of range of motion of the neck and back. The patient is- reported to have arthritic issues with his knees chronically, left greater than right. The diagnosis was post- traumatic spinal pain and bilateral knee pain. The patient was recommended to return on an unspecified date and to take full oral anti - inflammatories as well as Valium for muscle spasm and Vicodin for pain. The patient was next seen by Dr. DeMuth on 3/12/12. The patient's primary complaint was his knees. Dr. DeMuth expressed the opinion that the arthritis in his knees was exacerbated by the above noted motor vehicle accident. His diagnosis was post- traumatic bilateral knee pain. 2 cc of Celestone (a steroidal anti - inflammatory and 6 cc of Lidocaine) was injected into the knee (side unspecified). The patient was given a prescription for Hydrocodone 75 mg and Tylenol 25 mg every 8 hours as needed for pain. He was, directed to return in four months. The patient was next seen on 7/11/12. Both knees were injected as before. The patient was prescribed with Vicodin 7.5, Celestone 35. The patient was directed to return in 12 weeks. The patient was next seen by Dr. DeMuth on 8/14/13. The patient continued to report neck, lower back, and bilateral knee pain. It was reported he takes an occasional narcotic medication to control his discomfort. He reports worsening of his neck and his knee degenerative changes. Dr. DeMuth's assessment was cervical radiculopathy with degenerative joint disease in the knees. He also observed on x -rays that his neck demonstrated a congenital effusion. Given his ongoing neck complaints, the patient was directed for an MRI scan and given pain medication at the low dose available. The patient was directed to return once his MRI was completed. The patient was next seen on 8/26/13. The patient reports pain in the right knee and his primary complaint at this time was cervical radiculopathy. Dr. DeMuth observes that the MRI demonstrates significant spinal stenosis at the C4 -5 level. Congenital effusion at C5 -6 was noted. Dr. DeMuth's assessment was cervical radiculopathy, DJD right knee. The patient was directed to one of Dr. DeMuth's associates for evaluation of his cervical spine. The right knee was injected with 2 cc of Celestone with 6 Lidocaine. Lidocaine is an anesthetic agent commonly used in association with steroid injections in the knee. On 9/26/13, the patient was seen by Dr. Fernandex at The Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania. He evaluated the patient's neck. His assessment was early cervical myelopathy, severe cervical stenosis, and cervical radiculopathy. Given the ongoing nature of the patient's symptoms and his imaging findings, an epidural steroid injection was recommended. This is an injection of a steroid preparation used for its anti - inflammatory properties into the tissues of the neck, placed on what is just outside the layer that forms a sheath for the nerves. The patient was next seen at The Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania by Dr. Thomas Skeehan on 10/9/13. It was observed the patient exhibited signs of myelopathy as well as radiculopathy. Radiculopathy is irritation of the nerve roots resulting in possible pain and weakness in the extremities. Myelopathy is pain dysfunction of the actual spinal cord. An epidural injection was again recommended. Mike Bennett January 6, 2014 Page 3 On 10/31/13, a cervical epidural injection was performed by Dr. Skeehan. That is the last visit under review. Discussion: Following this patient's initial treatment in the Emergency Room on 6/16/11 with complaints of neck, back, and right knee pain following a motor vehicle accident, the patient was seen multiple times by clinicians of The Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania. Initially, his most severe complaints were pain in both knees. It was reported the patient had a previous history of knee complaints secondary to degenerative arthritis, but no records are available concerning this. Periodically, the patient was treated with injections into either or both knees and a steroid preparation. Steroid preparations are commonly used to treat symptomatic degenerative arthritis of the knees. It is the opinion of this reviewer that the ongoing follow -up for this patient's knees provided by The Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania for the periodic injection of a steroid preparation into either or both knees was reasonable and necessary and consistent with the prevailing standards of orthopedic care or the diagnosis of pre- existing degenerative joint disease with subsequent evaluation following motor vehicle trauma. The patient was also seen for neck and back complaints with the neck complaints being most severe and becoming progressively worse with time. By 8/14/13, his neck pain had become progressively severe and the patient was directed for MRI imaging. He was seen in follow -up on 8/26/13 and spinal stenosis with congenital effusion at the level below was said to be demonstrated on the MRI. It is reasonable and appropriate for MRI imaging to be used with a progressive cervical spine condition. Following the assessment by Dr. Demuth at The Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania, the patient was directed to see Dr. Michael Hernandez, a spine specialist. Dr. Hernandez evaluated the patient and concluded that he had early cervical myelopathy (dysfunction of the spinal cord) in addition to a cervical radiculopathy (irritation of the cervical spine roots). He tried to address this condition with a minimally invasive procedure and the patient was directed for an epidural steroid injection, which was performed as noted above. Diagnostic Studies 6/16/11, CT Cervical Spine W/O Contrast: "Stiff neck. Bilateral tingling and numbness in the fingers." 8/17/13, MRI Cervical Spine Unenhanced: "Impression: Multilevel degenerative changes, detailed above. Moderate to severe spinal stenosis at C4 -05, with increased signal within the cord at that level, most consistent with myelomalacia given the mild cord atrophy. Multilevel severe neural foraminal stenosis. 1. Severe left neural formal stenosis at C3 -C4." This reviewer has been asked to address the following questions: 1. Is the treatment reasonable, necessary, and appropriate? It is the opinion of this reviewer that all treatment provided to Michael Bennett, including the multiple office visits, diagnostic studies, and ongoing injections of steroid into either or both knees, as well as the recommendation for epidural injection and performance of the epidural injection for cervical myelopathy with associated radiculopathy were reasonable and necessary and consistent with the prevailing standards of orthopedic care. 2. Are further treatment and /or diagnostic tests necessary? it Mike Bennett January 6, 2014 ,. Page 4 ;i i This patient may need continued injection therapy for his knees as well as his cervical spine. Generally I speaking, steroid injections are given every 24 months for the knees. Visco supplementation injections (lubrication shots) : are given every six months. Ultimately, the patient may need total knee arthroplasties. Should the patient not report significant improvement with his neck, surgical intervention (decompression /fusion) may be indicated. 1 The relevant question here is at what point are the symptoms related to the patient's pre- existing degenerative condition as opposed to the event of 6/16/2011. It is the opinion of this reviewer that given the last orthopedic visit was 11/4/13, which is almost 2 Yz years post the accident, by this time any changes attributable to the motor vehicle accident would have resolved and the ongoing need for this patient's symptoms are related to the pre- existing cervical spine and knee degenerative changes and not to the effects of the motor vehicle accident. i It should be appreciated there are no hard fast rules concerningthis and this reviewer has not had the opportunity of examining the patient and not had the - opportunity of seeing the pre- accident records. This conclusion is based on the general course of patients with these orthopedic conditions and a generalized consensus of peer- reviewed the literature.. . All of the above is within a reasonable degree of medical certainty. i If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. u References {Gold Standard) Koval, Kenneth J. MD, Orthopedic Knowledge Update, Series #7, American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, Rosemont, IL 2002. Fischgrund, Jeffery S. MD, Orthopedic Knowledge Update, Series #9, American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, Rosemont, IL 2008. Sincerely, i { William H. Spellman, M.D. ;i Diplomate American-Board of Orthopaedic Surgery I I WHS /mmn I i i I; I ' Er i \O I 0N0 Ti\ - "( 2.014 APR --3 AM 9: 5 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN BY: WILLIAM C. FOSTER, ESQUIRE HELGA P. SPENCER, ESQUIRE Identification Nos. 03511/314632 2000 Market Street, Suite 2300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 215 -575 -4551/ 215 -575 -3572 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO PLEAD TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS FROM SERVICE HEREOF OR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED A AINST YOU. W IAM C. FO ER, ESQU RE HELGA P. SPENCER, ESQUIRE ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT Attorneys for Defendant MICHAEL BENNETT Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL MID - ATLANTIC INSURANCE COMPANY Defendant. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY NO.2014 -986 ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER UNDER PA RCP 1030 Defendant, Liberty Mutual Mid - Atlantic Insurance Company, by and through its attorneys Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, hereby responds to the Complaint of Plaintiff, Michael Bennett, as follows: WHEREFORE, Defendant demand judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff, and respectfully requests this Honorable Court to dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint, with prejudice. 1. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth of the allegations contained in this paragraph. 1 2. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Liberty Mutual Mid - Atlantic Insurance Company is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with its principal place of business located at 175Berkeley Street, Boston, MA 02116 and that is authorized to issue policies of insurance in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 3. Denied as stated. It is admitted that, on or about June 16, 2011, Plaintiff Michael Bennett was a passenger in a vehicle being operated by Rose Neidig, which vehicle was involved in a motor vehicle accident with a vehicle being operated by Joseph Tamanini. It is further admitted that Ms. Neidig was found to be 95% liable for the accident. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth of the remaining factual allegations contained in this paragraph. 4. Admitted. 5. Denied as stated. It is admitted that The First Liberty Insurance Corporation ( "First Liberty ") issued policy number AO6- 281 - 738620 -80 0 6to named insured Rose M. Neidig, providing certain coverages during the Policy period July 13, 2010 to July 13, 2011. It is further admitted that the Policy provides, inter alia, First Party Medical ( "PIP ") benefits to the Plaintiff, subject to the terms, conditions, limitations and exclusions contained therein. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth of the remaining factual allegations contained in this paragraph. 6. It is admitted that the Policy provided PIP benefits subject to the Plaintiff, subject to the terms, conditions, limitations and exclusions contained in the Policy. The remaining allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 2 7. Denied as stated. It is admitted that the Policy provided, inter alia, PIP benefits in the amount $10,000.00 subject to the terms, conditions, limitations and exclusions contained in the Policy and it is admitted that certain premiums were paid for this coverage. The remaining allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 8. It is admitted that Plaintiff was a passenger in a vehicle insured under the Policy and it is admitted that this is an action for PIP benefits under that Policy. The remaining allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 9. It is admitted that Plaintiff sustained certain injuries in the motor vehicle accident of June 6, 2011. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth of the remaining factual allegations contained in this paragraph. 10. It is admitted that Plaintiff received certain medical care for the injuries allegedly sustained in the motor vehicle accident of June 6, 2011. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth of the remaining factual allegations contained in this paragraph. 11. It is admitted that Plaintiff received certain medical care for injuries allegedly sustained in the motor accident of June 6, 2011. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth of the remaining factual allegations contained in this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law that are denied. 3 12. It is admitted that Plaintiff received certain medical care at the Orthopedic Institute of Pennsylvania. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth of the remaining factual allegations contained in this paragraph. 13. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth of the factual allegations contained in this paragraph. 14. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law that are denied. 15. It is admitted that Defendant retained the services of Peer Review Organization ( "PRO "), IMX Medical Management services to conduct a peer review of the medical services rendered to the Plaintiff as a result of the motor vehicle accident of June 6, 2011. The remaining allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law for which no responsive pleading is required. 16. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law for which no responsive pleading is required. 17. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law that are denied. 18. It is admitted that Plaintiff so avers. It is denied that Plaintiffs claim was submitted to a PRO as result of the exposure for payment of PIP benefits under the Policy. It is averred, to the contrary, that Plaintiffs claim was submitted to the PRO procedure in accordance with the provision of the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law ( "MVFRL ") and that the referral was proper. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth of the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph. 4 19. It is admitted that Defendant retained the services of PRO to conduct a peer review of the medical services rendered to the Plaintiff as a result of the motor vehicle accident of June 6, 2011 and it is admitted that , pursuant to a the report dated January 4, 2014, which is a written document that speaks for itself, payment of certain services rendered to the Plaintiff were not made as a result of the report submitted by the medical service provider who conducted the Peer Review, as that treatment was deemed not reasonably or medically necessary. 20. It is admitted that Dr. William H. Spellman conducted a peer review of the Plaintiffs medical records and submitted a report dated January 6, 2014. It is further admitted that a copy of a document dated January 6, 2014 is attached to Plaintiffs Complaint as Exhibit 21. Denied as stated. The January 6, 2014 is a written document, the contents of which speak for themselves, and any characterizations of the language contained therein are denied as stated. 22. Denied as stated. The January 6, 2014 is a written document, the contents of which speak for themselves, and any characterizations of the language contained therein are denied as stated. 23. Denied as stated. The January 6, 2014 is a written document, the contents of which speak for themselves, and any characterizations of the language contained therein are denied as stated. 24. Denied. It is averred, to the contrary, that Defendant submitted Plaintiffs claims to a peer review and that the referral to the peer review was proper. 25. Denied. It is averred, to the contrary, that Defendant submitted Plaintiffs claims to a peer review and that the referral to the peer review was proper. 5 26. Denied. It is averred, to the contrary, that Defendant submitted Plaintiffs claims to a peer review and that the referral to the peer review was proper. 27. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law for which no responsive pleading is required. 28. Paragraphs 28 and 28(a) -(h), inclusive, constitute conclusions of law that are denied. 29. Denied. It is averred, to the contrary, that Defendant submitted Plaintiffs claims to a peer review and that the referral to the peer review was proper. 30. Denied. It is denied that Defendant conducted a records review. It is averred, to the contrary, that Plaintiffs claim was submitted to a PRO for a peer review and that the peer review as proper. The remaining allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law that are denied. 31. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law that are denied. 32. Denied. It is denied that Defendant conducted a records review. It is averred, to the contrary, that Plaintiffs claim was submitted to a PRO for a peer review and that the peer review as proper. The remaining allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law that are denied. 33. Denied. It is denied that Defendant conducted a records review. It is averred, to the contrary, that Plaintiffs claim was submitted to a PRO for a peer review and that the peer review as proper. The remaining allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law that are denied. 34. Paragraphs 34 and 34(a) -(e), inclusive. Denied. It is denied that Defendant conducted a records review. It is averred, to the contrary, that Plaintiffs claim was submitted to a 6 PRO for a peer review and that the peer review as proper. The remaining allegations of paragraphs 34 and 34(a) -(e) constitute conclusions of law that are denied. 35. The allegations contained in this paragraph constitute conclusions of law that are denied. 36. It is admitted that Plaintiff has requested payment of certain medical bills. It is denied that Plaintiff is entitled to payment of invoices for treatment rendered after August 17, 2012; as such treatment is neither reasonable nor necessary. 37. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth of the factual allegations contained in this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law that are denied. 38. The allegations of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law that are denied. 39. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth of the factual allegations contained in this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law that are denied. 40. It is admitted that the Policy, which was issued to Rose Marie Neidig, provided PIP benefits subject to the terms, conditions, limitations and exclusions contained in the Policy. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth of the remaining factual allegations contained in this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law for which no responsive pleading is required. 7 41. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief regarding the truth of the factual allegations contained in this paragraph. The remaining averments of this paragraph constitute conclusions of law that are denied. 42. It is denied that Defendant has acted in breach of the contract as alleged. It is averred, to the contrary, that Plaintiffs claim for PIP benefits was considered in view of the language contained in the Policy and the facts determined during the investigation of the claim and that the claim was handled properly. WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff, and requests that this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint, with prejudice. NEW MATTER UNDER PA R.C.P. 1030 Defendant hereby propounds the following New Matter to Plaintiffs pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030. 43. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a cause of action or a claim upon which relief can be granted against Liberty Mutual Mid - Atlantic Insurance Company. 44. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a cause of action or a claim upon which relief can be granted. 45. The Policy was written by the First Liberty Insurance Corporation, an entity that is separate and distinct from Liberty Mutual Mid - Atlantic Insurance Company and Plaintiff has no basis for his claims against Liberty Mutual Mid - Atlantic Insurance Company. 46. Plaintiffs claims are subject to all terms, conditions, limitations and exclusions set forth in the Policy at issue. 8 47. Plaintiffs PIP claim was considered in view of the language of the Policy and the facts determined during the investigation of the claim. The claim was handled in a proper manner at all times. 48. Plaintiffs Complaint fails to set forth a cause of action for treble damages. WHEREFORE, Defendant demands judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff, and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint, with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, Dated: V, 2 /% 9 MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN BY: WILLIAM C. FOSTER, ESQUIRE HELGA SPENCER, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Defendant VERIFICATION I, Rosa leen Murphy, hereby verify that I am a Claims Specialist Mand that I am authorized to make this Verification on behalf of Defendant. I hereby verify that the facts set forth in Defendant's Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint With New Matter pursuant to PA RCP 1030 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that this statement is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. A4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Dated: ROSALEEN MURPHY CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Helga P. Spencer, Esquire, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Answer with New Matter was served upon the following party via US Mail. Postage prepaid, on the below date: Andrew C. Spears HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Attorney for Plaintiff Dated: WO Y MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN HELGA P. SPEN ER, ESQUIRE Attorneys for Defendant 10 CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 IN THE MATTER OF: MICHAEL BENNETT -VS- LIBERTY MUTUAL MID ATLANTIC INSURANCE COMPANY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TERM, CUMBERLAND CASE NO: 2014-0986 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 MCS on behalf of WILLIAM FOSTER, ESQ. certifies that (1) A notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served, (2) A copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to this certificate, (3) No objection to the subpoena has been received, and (4) The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. DATE: 11/28/2014 beha WILLIAM Attorn R, E for DEFE 4 - ANT MCS # 56804-L01 DEll COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE MATTER OF: MICHAEL BENNETT COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND -VS- LIBERTY MUTUAL MID ATLANTIC INSURANCE COMPANY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS TERM, CASE NO: 2014-0986 NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 ORTHOPAEDIC INSTITUTE OF PA ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS OF PINNACLE HEALTH MEDICAL RECORDS & RADIOLOGY MEDICAL RECORDS & RADIOLOGY MEDICAL RECORDS & RADIOLOGY MECHANICSBURG FAMILY PRACTICE MEDICAL RECORDS TO: ANDREW C. SPEARS, ESQ., PLAINTIFF COUNSEL MCS on behalf of WILLIAM FOSTER, ESQ. intends to serve a subpoena identical to the one that is attached to this notice. You have twenty (20) days from the date listed below in which to file of record and serve upon the undersigned an objection to the subpoena. If the twenty day notice period is waived or if no objection is made, then the subpoena may be served. DATE: 11/07/2014 CC: WILLIAM FOSTER, ESQ. ANDREW C. SPEARS, ESQ. HANDLER, HENNING, ET AL 1300 LINGLESTOWN ROAD HARRISBURG, PA 17110 MCS on behalf of WILLIAM FOSTER, ESQ. Attorney for DEFENDANT THE MCS GROUP INC. 1601 MARKET STREET #800 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 (215) 246-0900 MCS # 56804•CO1 DE02 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MICHAEL BENNETT File No. 2014-0986 vs. LIBERTY MUTUAL MID ATLANTIC INSURANCECOMPANY : SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Custodian of Records for ORTHOPAEDIC INSTITUTE OF PA (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: **** SEE ATTACHED RIDER **** at The MCS Group Inc.. 1601 Market Street. Suite 800. Philadelphia. PA 19103 You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek, in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: WILLIAM FOSTER. ESO. ADDRESS: 2000 MARKET STREET SUITE 2300 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 TELEPHONE: (215) 246-0900 SUPREME COURT ID #: ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Date: NOV 2 8 2014 113, 1ct Seal of the Court BY THE COUR Pro'Thnotary lerk, Civil Division Deputy 56804-01 EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: ORTHOPAEDIC INSTITUTE OF PA 3399 TRINDLE ROAD 2ND FLOOR CAMP HILL, PA 17011 RE: MCS # 56804-L01 MICHAEL BENNETT 218 S. SPORTING HILL ROAD, APT. C MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 Social Security #: XXX -XX -8008 Date of Birth: 08-02-1962 Please provide entire medical and diagnostic film file, including but riot limited to any and all inpatient and outpatient records. ER records, physical therapy records, correspondence to and from the consulting and treating physicians. Include all files, memoranda'. handwritten records and, notes. emails, phone messages, history and physical reports. Including any and all laboratory & office/admission charts. Supply all medication and prescription records. Provide all diagnostic films and tests. including CAT scans, CT scans, EEG's EKG'S, EMG'S. MRI'S, and x --ray and all corresponding reports or inventories. This should contain all records in your possession, all office and admission charts, all archived records, or records in storage. Including any and all items as may be stored in a computer database or otherwise in electronic form. PLEASE PROVIDE FILM LNVENTORY BEFORE SENDING FILMS Prior approval is required for fees in excess of $150.00 for hospitals, $100.00 for all other providers. MCS # 56804-L01 SU10 CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 IN THE MATTER OF: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MICHAEL BENNETT TERM, CUMBERLAND -VS- CASE NO: 2014-0986 LIBERTY MUTUAL MID ATLANTIC INSURANCE COMPANY As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 MCS on behalf of WILLIAM FOSTER, ESQ. certifies that (1) A notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served, (2) A copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to this certificate, (3) No objection to the subpoena has been received, and (4) The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. DATE: 11/28/2014 MCS on behalf of WILLIAM FOSTER, ESQ. Attorney for DEFENDANT MCS # 56804-L02 DE11 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MICHAEL BENNETT File No. 2014-0986 vs. LIBERTY MUTUAL MID ATLANTIC INSURANCECOMPANY : SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Custodian of Records for ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS OF (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: **** SEE ATTACHED RIDER **** at The MCS Group. Inc.. 1601 Market Street, Suite 800, Philadelphia. PA L9103 You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek, in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: WILLIAM FOSTER, ESQ. ADDRESS: 2000 MARKET STREET SUITE 2300 PHILADELPHIA. PA 19103 TELEPHONE: (215) 246-0900 SUPREME COURT ID #: ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Date: NOV 2 8 2014 Seal of the Court BYTHE URT: / qv" Pro ono a /Cle Civil Division Deputy 56804-02 EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: ORTHOPAEDIC SURGEONS OF CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA, LTD 550 NORTH 12TH ST LEMOYNE. PA 17043 RE: MCS # 56804-L02 MICHAEL BENNETT 218 S. SPORTING HILL ROAD, APT, C MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 Spcial Security #: XXX -XX -8008 Date of Birth: 08-02-1962 Please provide entire medical and diagnostic film file, including but not limited to any and all inpatient and outpatient records, ER records, physical therapy records, corresponcence to and from the consulting and treating physicians. Include all files, memoranda'. handwritten records and notes, emails, phone messages. history and physical reports. Including any and all laboratory & office/admission charts. Supply all medication and prescription records. Provide all diagnostic films and tests, including CAT scans. CT scans, EEG's EKG'S, EMG'S, MRI'S, and x-ray and all corresponding reports or inventories. This should contain all records in your possession, all office and admission charts, all archived records, or records in storage. Including any and all items as may be stored in a computer database or otherwise in electronic form. PLEASE PROVIDE FILM INVENTORY BEFORE SENDING FILMS Prior approval is required for fees in excess of $150.00 for hospitals, $100.00 for all other providers. MCS # 56804-L02 SU10 CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 IN THE MATTER OF: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MICHAEL BENNETT TERM, CUMBERLAND -VS- CASE NO: 2014-0986 LIBERTY MUTUAL MID ATLANTIC INSURANCE COMPANY As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 MCS on behalf of WILLIAM FOSTER, ESQ. certifies that (1) A notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served, (2) A copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to this certificate, (3) No objection to the subpoena has been received, and (4) The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. DATE: 11/28/2014 MCS on behalf of WILLIAM FOSTER, ESQ. Attorney for DEFENDANT MCS # 56804-L03 DE11 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MICHAEL BENNETT File No. 2014-0986 vs. LIBERTY MUTUAL MID ATLANTIC INSURANCECOMPANY : SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Custodian of Records for PINNACLE HEALTH (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: **** SEE ATTACHED RIDER **** at The MCS Group. Inc.. 1601 Market Street. Suite 800._Philadelphia. PA 19103 You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek, in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: WILLIAM FOSTER, ESQ. ADDRESS: 2000 MARKET STREET SUITE 2300 PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 TELEPHONE: (215) 246-0900 SUPREME COURT ID #: ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant Date: Seal of the Court BY COURT: PJIA awaec A Al NT PO th otary/C k, Civil Division Deputy 56804-03 EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: PINNACLE HEALTH C/O HARRISBURG HOSPITAL 111 S. FRONT ST. HARRISBURG, PA 17101 RE: MCS # 56804-L03 MICHAEL BENNETT 218 S. SPORTING HILL ROAD, APT. C MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 Spcial Security #: XXX -XX -8008 Date of Birth: 08-02-1962 Please provide entire medical and diagnostic film file. including but not limited to any and all inpatient and outpatient records, ER records, physical therapy records, correspondence to and from the consulting and treating physicians. Include all files, memoranda, handwritten records and notes, emails, phone messages, history and physical reports. Including any and all laboratory & office/admission charts. Supply all medication and prescription records. Provide all diagnostic films and tests. including CAT scans. CT scans, EEG's EKG'S, [MG'S, MRI'S, and x-ray and all corresponding reports or inventories. This should contain all records in your possession, all office and admission charts, all archived records. or records in storage. Including any and all items as may be stored in a computer database or otherwise in electronic form. PLEASE PROVIDE FILM LNVENTORY BEFORE SENDING FILMS Prior approval is required for fees in excess of $150.00 for hospitals, $100.00 for all other providers. MCS # 56804-L03 SU10 CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 IN THE MATTER OF: COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MICHAEL BENNETT TERM, CUMBERLAND -VS- CASE NO: 2014-0986 LIBERTY MUTUAL MID ATLANTIC INSURANCE COMPANY As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 MCS on behalf of WILLIAM FOSTER, ESQ. certifies that (1) A notice of intent to serve the subpoena with a copy of the subpoena attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena is sought to be served, (2) A copy of the notice of intent, including the proposed subpoena, is attached to this certificate, (3) No objection to the subpoena has been received, and (4) The subpoena which will be served is identical to the subpoena which is attached to the notice of intent to serve the subpoena. DATE: 11/28/2014 MCS on behalf of WILLIAM FOSTER, ESQ. Attorney for DEFENDANT MCS # 56804-L05 DE11 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND MICHAEL BENNETT File No. 2014-0986 vs. LIBERTY MUTUAL MID ATLANTIC INSURANCECOMPANY : SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: Custodian of Records for MECHANICSBURG FAMILY PRACTICE (Name of Person or Entity) Within twenty (20) days after service of this subpoena, you are ordered by the court to produce the following documents or things: **** SEE ATTACHED RIDER **** at The MCS Group. Inc., 1601 Market Street, Suite 800, Philadelphia. PA 19103 You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek, in advance, the reasonable cost of preparing the copies or producing the things sought. If you fail to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena within twenty (20) days after its service, the party serving this subpoena may seek a court order compelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: WILLIAM FOSTER, ESQ. ADDRESS: 2000 MARKET STREET SUITE 2300 PHILADELPHIA. PA 19103 TELEPHONE: (215) 246-0900 SUPREME COURT ID #: ATTORNEY FOR: Defendant 0 BY T 1 COURT: .404111W tlironota Clerk, Civil Division 2 8O14 )/11/ Deputy Date: Seal of the Court 56804-05 EXPLANATION OF REQUIRED RECORDS TO: CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: MECHANICSBURG FAMILY PRACTICE 910 CENTURY RD SUITE 150 MECHANICSBURG. PA 17055 RE: MCS # 56804-L05 MICHAEL BENNETT 218 S. SPORTING HILL ROAD, APT. C MECHANICSBURG, PA 17050 Spcial Security #: XXX -XX -8008 Date of Birth: 08-02-1962 Please provide entire medical file, including but not limited to any and all inpatient and outpatient records, ER records, physical therapy records files. memoranda. handwritten notes,-emails, phone messages, history, physical reports. Laboratory & office/admission charts, and all prescriptions records. This should contain all records in your possession, all office and admission charts. all archived records, or records in storage. Including any and all items as -may be stored in a computer database or otherwise in electronic form. Prior approval is required for fees in excess of $150.00 for hospitals, $100.00 for all other providers. MCS # 56804-L05 SU10 MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN BY: HELGA P. SPENCER Atty. I.D. No. 314632 2000 Market Street -, Suite 2300 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 575-2600 Fax: (215) 575-0856 Attorneys for Defendant MICHAEL BENNETT, COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY ; a v. o NO. 2014-986(-) ps r-- LIBERTY MUTUAL MID -ATLANTIC ��'� INSURANCE COMPANY, c i Defendant'r WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE + 47 - TO. THE PROTHONOTARY: Please withdraw my appearance on behalf of Defendant, Liberty Mutual Mid -Atlantic Insurance Company, in connection with the above -captioned matter. Dated: aa11-1 MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEM AN & GOGGIN BY: (--)1 Helga P. :' ncer CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Helga P. Spencer certifies that on this 22nd day of December 2014, she caused a true and correct copy of the attached Withdrawal of Appearance to be served upon the following via First Class, U.S. mail: Andrew C. Spears HANDLER, HENNING & ROSENBERG, LLP 1300 Linglestown Road, Suite 2 Harrisburg, PA 17110 Helga P. S tT ncer