Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-3741IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AUPHIPKOUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA G2Y M V^f0"t- Joseph Sabadish 112 Market Street 8th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Plaintiff, v. NO. a60s-- 37Y/ c1v1 Harry V. Patchin, DMD 407 South 32nd Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 717-761-1300 and Patchin Family Dentistry 407 South 32nd Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Defendants PRAECIPE TO ISSUE WRIT OF SUMMONS - CIVIL ACTION To the Prothonotary: Kindly issue a Writ of Summons - Civil Action to Harry V. Patchin, DMD and Patchin Family Dentistry in the above-captioned matter. Dilworth Paxson, LLP Q Thomas B. York, Esqu r Pa. I.D. No. 32522 112 Market Street 8th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Dated: July 22, 2005 WRIT OF SUMMONS To the above named Defendants, Harry V. Patchin, DMD and Patchin Family Dentistry. You are notifed that the above named Plaintiff has commenced an action against you. Dated v aa, 0? 00 _ Q Prrothonotary, 224211 6, ` -, _ i? 5 0 'i? u? a .. .7 C.? C? .-t f? ly SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2005-03741 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SABADISH JOSEPH VS PATCHIN HARRY V DMD ET AL KENNETH GOSSERT Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS was served upon PATCHIN HARRY V DMD the DEFENDANT , at 0016:52 HOURS, on the 28th day of July , 2005 at 407 SOUTH 32ND STREET CAMP HILL. PA 17011 by handing to HARRY PATCHIN a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Affidavit Surcharge So Answers: 18.00 12.00 r 9vvaC . 10.00 R. Thomas Kline .00 40.00 07/29/2005 DILWORTH PAXSON Sworn and Subscribed to before By: me this >N day of ?_A.D. rot 0 ry SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2005-03741 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SABADISH JOSEPH VS PATCHIN HARRY V DMD ET AL KENNETH GOSSERT Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within WRIT OF SUMMONS PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY was served upon DEFENDANT the , at 0016:52 HOURS, on the 28th day of July , 2005 at 407 SOUTH 32ND STREET CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to HARRY PATCHIN a true and attested copy of WRIT OF SUMMONS together with and at the same time directing His attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 16.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this day of p A.D. Pr thonot ry So An 0-_ 'ABC R. Thomas Kline 07/29/2005 DILWORGH PAXSON By: ep ty S e ff ( ti DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: FRANCIS E. MARSHALL, JR. ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 27594 BY: AARON S. JAYMAN, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)731-4800 (Tele) (717)731-4803 (Fax) ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD AND PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY JOSEPH SABADISH, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD and PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, Defendants NO. 2005-3741 CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of Francis E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire and Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire on behalf of Defendants, Harry V. Patchin, DMD and Patchin Family Dentistry, in the above-captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, P.C. Date: January 9, 2006 By: ?' Fr is E. ars all, Jr., Esqua S rem Court I. D. #27594 00 CAmp Hill Bypass p Hill, PA 17011-3700 17)731-4800 Attorney for Defendants, Harry V. Patchin, DMD and Patchin Family Dentistry CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 9'" day of January, 2006, I, Francis E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance for Defendants, Harry V. Patchin, DMD and Patchin Family Dentistry upon all counsel of record or parties involved by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Thomas B. York, Esquire 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Dated: January 9, 2006 _, r.. i r r _r' ? ? Y f__. _ i "i"1 -,i ^,l _ C:: DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: FRANCIS E. MARSHALL, JR. ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 27594 BY: AARON S. JAYMAN, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)731-4800 (Tele) (717)731-4803(Fax) ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD AND PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY JOSEPH SABADISH, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD and PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, Defendants NO. 2005-3741 CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABIITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE FOR RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT/RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please issue a Rule on Plaintiff to file a Complaint in the above case within twenty (20) days after service of the Rule or suffer a judgment of non pros. Respectfully submitted, & CHILCOTE, P.C. Date: January 9, 2006 By: Francis E. ars all, Ji:, Esq'uire Supreme Cou . D. No. 27594 Aaron S Ja an, Esquire Suprem Curt I.D. No. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 Attorney for Defendants, Harry V. Patchin, DMD and Patchin Family Dentistry CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 9`h day of January, 2006, I, Francis E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon all counsel of record or parties involved by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Thomas B. York, Esquire 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) `?( ?' L? 1, ? _?? C? _ N? -?-- ? ?;? ?? r-? DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS BY: FRANCIS E. MARSHALL, JR. HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD AND PATCHIN ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 27594 FAMILY DENTISTRY BY: AARON S. JAYMAN, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)731-4800 (Tele) (717)731-4803 (Fax) JOSEPH SABADISH, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD and PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, Defendants NO. 2005-3741 CIVIL ACTION -MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND NOW, THIS 16 4kDAY OFJ,'9,c y 2006, A RULE IS HEREBY ISSUED AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF TO FILE A COMPLAINT WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF SERVICE OF THIS RULE OR SUFFER JUDGMENT OF NON PROS. 1-1 r6thonotary By Deputy DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: FRANCIS E. MARSHALL, JR. ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 27594 BY: AARON S. JAYMAN, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)731-4800 (Tele) (717)731-4803(Fax) ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD AND PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY JOSEPH SABADISH, V. Plaintiff HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD and PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-3741 CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 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, Counsel for Defendants certify 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 a Waiver of Twenty Day Notice was signed and is attached. Date: DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. By: Franc E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire Atty .D. #27594 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 Counsel for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this V? of ;(_ h , 2006, I, Francis E. Marshall, Jr., hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing Certificate Prerequisite to Service of a Subpoena upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows:. BY First-Class Mail: Thomas B. York, Esquire 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel to Plaintiffs) Marshall, Jr., Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: FRANCIS E. MARSHALL, JR. ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 27594 BY: AARON S. JAYMAN, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)7314800 (Tele) (717)731-4803(Fax) ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD AND PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY JOSEPH SABADISH, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 2005-3741 CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD and PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Defendants intend to serve a Subpoena identical to the Subpoena attached to this Notice, addressed to the following: Eric G. Unger, D.D.S., 161 Old Schoolhouse Lane, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. 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 no objection is made the subpoena may be served. DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Date: 1 1 (i< t By: Francis arshall, Jr., Esquire Atty . #27594 Suite 205 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 Counsel for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this _eday of, 2006, I, Francis E. Marshall, Jr., hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Intent to Serve a Subpoena to Produce Documents and Things for Discovery Pursuant to Rule 4009.21 upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First-Class Mail: Thomas B. York, Esquire 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel to Plaintiffs) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Joseph Sabadish, Plaintiff File No. 2005-4741 V. Harry V. Patchin, DMD and Patchin FAmily Dentistry, S U B P O E N A Defendants O: Eric G. Unger, D.D.S., 161 Old Schoolhouse Lane, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. You are ordered by the court to ccme to Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205, (Specify courtroom or other place) it Camp Hill Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, on it o'clock, 9:00 A. M., to testify on behalf of Defendants Ln the above case, and to remain until excused. ?. And bring with you the following: please see Attarhmant A If you fail to attend or to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, you may be subject to the sanctions authorized by Rule 234.5 of the Pennsylvania Rules Df Civil Procedure, including but not limited to costs, attorney fees and imprisonment. ISSUED BY A PARTY/COUNSEL IN COMPLIANCE WITH Pa.R.C.P. No. 234.2(a) ADDRESS: 1200 Camp gill R3cpasa Suit, 2853 TELEPHONE: (717) 731-4900 . SUPREME COURT ID# 27594 BY THE COURT: DATE: Seal of the Court Prothonotary, Civil Division Deputy OFFICIAL NOTE: This form of subpoena shall be used whenever a subpoena is issuable, including hearings in connection with depositions and before arbitrators, mlast-rs, commissioners, etc. in compliance with Pa. R. C. P. No. 234.1. If a subpoena for production of documents, records or things is desired, complete paragraph 2. ATTACHMENT A complete medical records chart including any and all handwritten and typed records, copies of correspondence to and from other providers, laboratory, radiology reports and other test reports, radiology film copies, including, but not limited to, all x-rays, MRI's and CT Scans, photographs and any/all other medical testing reports, and any other unspecified records the chart may contain from the first date of service to present. 01/25/2006 WED 15:06 FAX 7172366919 DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: FRANCIS E. MARSHALL, JR. ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 27594 BY: AARON S. JAYMAN, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)731-4800 (Tele) (717)731-4803 (Fax) SABADISH, V. Plaintiff HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD and PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, Defendants ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD AND PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-3741 CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED I hereby waive the required twenty day period of notice for the Notices of Intent to Serve Subpoenas regarding records of Joseph Sabadish to be subpoenaed by Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. Thomas s 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Plalntlff Date; _/ 2 G)6 ®002/002 ^ l' h1 G'J L- Gl ?Tl 'z3lF! ?- T N C7 ?l i7l 2.7 4 -G O DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: FRANCIS E. MARSHALL, JR. ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 27594 BY: AARON S. JAYMAN, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)731-4800 (Tele) (717)731-4803 (Fax) ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD AND PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY JOSEPH SABADISH, V. Plaintiff HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD and PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-3741 CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 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, Counsel for Defendants certify 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 a Waiver of Twenty Day Notice was signed and is attached. Date: / ' V (? (A DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. By: Fr E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire Att I.D. #27594 Suite 205 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 Counsel for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this (' of 2006, I, Francis E. Marshall, Jr., hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing Certificate Prerequisite to Service of a Subpoena upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First-Class Mail: Thomas B. York, Esquire 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel to Plaintiffs) Fr s E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: FRANCIS E. MARSHALL, JR. ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 27594 BY: AARON S. JAYMAN, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)731-4800 (Tele) (717)731-4803(Fax) JOSEPH SABADISH, V. Plaintiff HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD and PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, Defendants ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD AND PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-3741 CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Defendants intend to serve a Subpoena identical to the Subpoena attached to this Notice, addressed to the following: Craig M. Anzur, D.M.D., 220 Cumberland Parkway, Suite 1, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. 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 no objection is made the subpoena may be served. DICKIE, Date: I I /Ilk 0 By: & CHILCOTE, P.C. Francis Y'M shall, Jr., Esquire Atty L 7594 Suite 205 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 Counsel for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this day of J0 , 2006, I, Francis E. Marshall, Jr., hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Intent to Serve a Subpoena to Produce Documents and Things for Discovery Pursuant to Rule 4009.21 upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First-Class Mail: Thomas B. York, Esquire 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel to Plaintiffs) COMMONdEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CU48ERLAND Joseph Sabadish, Plaintiff V. Harry W. Patchin, DMD and Patchin Family Dentistry, Defendants File No. 2005-3741 S U B P O E N A ro: Craig M Anzur. DMD. 220 Cumberland Parkway Qnitc 1 Mech-l crburg, PA 17055 L. You are ordered by the court to came to Dickie. McCamey F Chi1cnte_ Pr. t2nn ramp Hi ii Bypass, Suite 205 at Camp Hill at (Specify courtroom or other place) Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, on o'clock, 9:00 Defendants in the above case, and to remain until excused. 2. And bring with you the following: Please see Attachment A. If you fail to attend or to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, you may be subject to the sanctions authorized by Rule 234.5 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to costs, attorney fees and imprisonment. ISSUED BY A PARTY/COUNSEL IN COMPLIANCE WITH Pa.R.C.P. No. 234.2(a) NAME: Francis E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire ADDRESS: 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011. TELEPHONE- (717) 731-4800 SUPREME COURT ID# 27594 BY THE COURF: DATE: Seal of the Court Prothonotary, Civil Division Deputy OFFICIAL NOTE: This form of subpoena shall be used whenever a subpoena is ?Issuable, including hearings in connection with depositions and before arbitrators, mastgrs, commissioners, etc. in compliance with Pa.R.C.P. No. 234.1. If a subpoena for production of documents, records or things is desired, complete paragraph 2. A.M., to testify on behalf of ATTACHMENT A 1. Any and all documents in your care, custody or control relating in any way to medical care provided to Joseph S. Sabadish, 1528 McCormick Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA, Social Security Number: 166-46-2747. 2. This request includes but is not limited to the following documents and/or materials: complete medical records chart including any and all handwritten including, but not limited to, all x-rays. MRI's and CT Scans, photographs and any/all other medical testing reports, and any other unspecified records the chart may contain from the first date of service to present. 01/25/2006 KED 15;06 FAX 7172366919 DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: FRANCIS E. MARSHALL, JR. ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 27594 BY: AARON S. JAYMAN, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)731-4800 (Tele) (717)731-4803 (Fax) ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD AND PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD and PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, Defendants NO. 2005-3741 CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED I hereby waive the required twenty day period of notice for the Notices of Intent to Serve Subpoenas regarding records of Joseph Sabadish to be subpoenaed by Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. Thomas B. 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Plafntlff Date: /2 2002/002 r? Q Vl DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: FRANCIS E. MARSHALL, JR. ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 27594 BY: AARON S. JAYMAN, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)731-4800 (Tele) (717)731-4803(Fax) JOSEPH SABADISH, Plaintiff ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD AND PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD and PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, Defendants NO. 2005-3741 CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 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, Counsel for Defendants certify 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 a Waiver of Twenty Day Notice was signed and is attached. Date: DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. By: Fran E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire Att ID. #27594 Suite 205 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 Counsel for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this, U/ of 1(1 , 2006, I, Francis E. Marshall, Jr., hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing Certificate Prerequisite to Service of a Subpoena upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First-Class Mail: Thomas B. York, Esquire 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel to Plaintiffs) Z// , Jr., Esquire DICIOE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: FRANCIS E. MARSHALL, JR. ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 27594 BY: AARON S. JAYMAN, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)7314800 (Tele) (717)7314803 (Fax) JOSEPH Plaintiff V. HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD and PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, Defendants ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD AND PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-3741 CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Defendants intend to serve a Subpoena identical to the Subpoena attached to this Notice, addressed to the following: Endodontics Associates, 1199 Colonial Road, Harrisburg, PA 17112. 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 no objection is made the subpoena may be served. DICKIE, Date: f Q l! By: Atty f.D,,427594 & CHILCOTE, P.C. Jr., 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 Counsel for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this JL day odow, 2006, I, Francis E. Marshall, Jr., hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Intent to Serve a Subpoena to Produce Documents and Things for Discovery Pursuant to Rule 4009.21 upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First-Class Mail: Thomas B. York, Esquire 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel to Plaintiffs) OO44DN9EAL`Di OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Joseph Sabadish, Plaintiff terry Patchin, DMD and Patchin FAmily Dentistry, Defendants N: Endodontics Associates, 1199 Colonial.Road, Harrisburg, PA 17112 • File No. 70n5-4741 S U B P O E N A L. You are ordered by the court to came to Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, PC, 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 at Camp Hill (Specify courtroom or other place) -, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, on o'clock, M., to testify on behalf of at Defendants. in the above case, and to remain until excused. 2. And bring with you the following: Please see Attachment A. If you fail to attend or to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, you may be subject to the sanctions authorized by Rule 234.5 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to costs, attorney fees and imprisonment. ISSUED BY A PARTY/COUNSEL IN COMPLIANCE WITH Pa.R.C.P. No. 234.2(a) NAME: Francis E. Marshall, Jr., Es ADDRESS: U00 Co., Hil Bypass, --?Suite 20 s . Camp Hill, PA 17011 TELEPHONE: (717) 741-4Rnn . SUPREME COURT ID# 27594 DATE: Seal of the Court BY THE COURT: Prothonotary, Civil Division Deputy OFFICIAL NOTE: This form of subpoena shall be used whenever a subpoena is issuable, including hearings in connection with depositions and before arbitrators, mastgrs, commissioners, etc. in compliance with Pa.R.C.P. No. 234.1. If a subpoena for production of documents, records or things is desired, complete paragraph 2. ATTACHMENT A 1. Any and all documents in your care, custody or control relating in any way to medical care provided to Joseph S. Sabadish, 1528 McCormick Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA, Social Security Number: 166-46-2747. 2. This request includes but is not limited to the following documents and/or materials: complete medical records chart including any and all handwritten and typed records copies of correspondence to and from other providers, laboratoryradiology, reports and other test reports radiology film copies including but not limited to, all x-rays, MRI's and CT Scans, photographs and any/all other medical testing reports, and any other unspecified records the chart may contain from the first date of service to present. 01/25/2005 WED 15:06 PAX 7172366919 DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: FRANCIS E. MARSHALL, JR. ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 27594 BY: AARON S. JAYMAN, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)7314800 (Tele) (717)731-4803 (Fax) ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD AND PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY SABADISH, V. Plaintiff HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD and PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-3741 CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED I hereby waive the required twenty day period of notice for the Notices of 2002/002 Intent to Serve Subpoenas regarding records of Joseph Sabadish to be subpoenaed by Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. Thomas B. York, Esqu' 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel far Flalntlff Date: 7 2 06 N M. f 4 ?) 1 < O DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: FRANCIS E. MARSHALL, JR. ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 27594 BY: AARON S. JAYMAN, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)731-4800 (Tele) (717)731-4803 (Fax) JOSEPH SABADISH, Plaintiff ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD AND PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD and PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, Defendants NO. 2005-3741 CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 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, Counsel for Defendants certify 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 a Waiver of Twenty Day Notice was signed and is attached. Date: ('-' (; C DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. By: Fr s E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire Ally I.D. #27594 Suite 205 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 Counsel for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this Hof, 2006, 1, Francis E. Marshall, Jr., hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing Certificate Prerequisite to Service of a Subpoena upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: BY First-Class Mail: Thomas B. York, Esquire 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg PA 17110 (Counsel to Plaintiffs) DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: FRANCIS E. MARSHALL, JR. ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 27594 BY: AARON S. JAYMAN, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)7314800 (Tele) (717)731-4803 (Fax) JOSEPH SABADISH, V. Plaintiff HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD and PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, Defendants ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD AND PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-3741 CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Defendants intend to serve a Subpoena identical to the Subpoena attached to this Notice, addressed to the following: Craig E. Lahar, D.M.D., Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, P.C., 220 Cumberland Parkway, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. 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 no objection is made the subpoena may be served. DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Date: By: llplt Franci Marshall, Jr., Atty . #27594 Suite 205 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 Counsel for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this P_ day of, 2006, I, Francis E. Marshall, Jr., hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Intent to Serve a Subpoena to Produce Documents and Things for Discovery Pursuant to Rule 4009.21 upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First-Class Mail: Thomas B. York, Esquire 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel to Plaintiffs) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNPY OF CUMBERLAND Joseph Sabadish, Plaintiff V. Harry V, Patchin, DMD and Patchin FAmily Dentistry, Defendants File No. Inn-;-Uhl S U B P O E N A [O: Craig E. Lahar, D.M.D., Oral & Macillofacial Surgery, P.C. 220 Cumberland Parkway, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. L. You are ordered by the court to come toDickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 (Specify courtroan or other place). at Camn H{11 , Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, on at o'clock, in the above case, and to remain until excused. 2. And bring with you the following: P1eaGe Gee Attarhmcnt A_ If you fail to attend or to produce the docianents or things required by this subpoena, you may be subject to the sanctions authorized by Rule 234.5 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to costs, attorney fees and imprisonment. ISSUED BY A PARTY/COUNSEL IN COMPLIANCE WITH Pa.R.C.P. No. 234.2(a) NAME:Francis E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire ADDRESS: 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 TELEPHONE: (717) 731-4800 SUPREME COURT ID# 27594 BY THE COURT; DATE: Seal of the Court M., to testify on behalf of Prothonotary, Civil Division Deputy OFFICIAL NOTE: This form of subpoena shall be used whenever a subpoena is issuable, including hearings in connection with depositions and before arbitrators, masters, commissioners, etc. in conpliance with Pa.R.C.P. No. 234.1. If a subpoena for production of dociurents, records or things is desired, c:acplete paragraph 2. ATTACHMENT A 1. Any and all documents in your care, custody or control relating in any way to medical care provided to Joseph S. Sabadish, 1528 McCormick Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA, Social Security Number: 166-46-2747. 2. This request includes but is not limited to the following documents and/or materials: complete medical records chart including any and all handwritten and typed records copies of correspondence to and from other providers laboratory, radiology reports and other test reports, radiology film copies, including but not limited to, all x-rays, MRI's and CT Scans, photographs and any/all other medical testing reports, and any other unspecified records the chart may contain from the first date of service to present. 01/25/2006 WED 15:06 FAX 7172366919 DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: FRANCIS E. MARSHALL, JR. ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 27594 BY: AARON S. JAYMAN, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)731-4800 (Tele) (717)731-4803 (Fax) ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD AND PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY ;EPH SABADISH, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiff OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. NO. 2005-3741 CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD and PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED I hereby waive the required twenty day period of notice for the Notices of Intent to Serve Subpoenas regarding records of Joseph Sabadish to be subpoenaed by Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. Thomas B. York, Esqu' 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for P[alntff Date: 2 IZO02/002 ? ? T C= c ^+ ?` ('" 'Ti '. 4.. _ . "i`ffi i.,. ;? N ?iC7 ?<.. '.? ..J 1.???f ? ?.=f??:r : ., ^ TJ _.... - r? : J '? , ? .C` ^? Q j' DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: FRANCIS E. MARSHALL, JR. ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 27594 BY: AARON S. JAYMAN, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)731-4800 (Tele) (717)731-4803 (Fax) JOSEPH SABADISH, V. Plaintiff HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD and PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, Defendants ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD AND PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-3741 CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 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, Counsel for Defendants certify 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 a Waiver of Twenty Day Notice was signed and is attached. Date: f(j U U' DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. j?/ By: h / Francis E. arshall, Jr., Esquire Arty I.D. #27594 Suite 205 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 Counsel for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this Y ? of 2006, I, Francis E. Marshall, Jr., hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing Certificate Prerequisite to Service of a Subpoena upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First-Class Mail: Thomas B. York, Esquire 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel to Plaintiffs) E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHH.COTE, P.C. BY: FRANCIS E. MARSHALL, JR. ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 27594 BY: AARON S. JAYMAN, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.A. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)7314800 (Tele) (717)7314803 (Fax) ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD AND PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY SABADISH, V. Plaintiff HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD and PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-3741 CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Defendants intend to serve a Subpoena identical to the Subpoena attached to this Notice, addressed to the following: Associated Otolaryngologists of Pennsylvania, Inc., 101 West Cherry Street, Palmyra, PA 17078. 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 no objection is made the subpoena may be served. DICKIE, Date: d// Atty W. #27594 & CHILCOTE, P.C. Jr., Esquire 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 Counsel for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2006, I, Francis E. Marshall, Jr., hereby certify that I AND NOW, this LI_ day of JLP did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Intent to Serve a Subpoena to Produce Documents and Things for Discovery Pursuant to Rule 4009.21 upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First-Class Mail: Thomas B. York, Esquire 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel to Plaintiffs) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND Joseph Sabadish, Plaintiff File No. 7005-4741 V. Harry v. Patchin, DMD and Patchin Family Dentistry, S U B P O E N A Defendants 10: Associated Otolaryngologists of Pennsylvania, Inc. 101 West Cherry Street, Palmyra, PA 17078. 1. You are ordered by the court to cone to Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 (Specify courtroom or other place) at Camp Hill Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, on at Defendants o'clock, 9:00 A.M., to testify on behalf of in the above case, and to remain until excused. 2. And bring with you the following: Please see Attachment A. If you fail to attend or to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, you may be subject to the sanctions authorized by Rule 234.5 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to costs, attorney fees and imprisonment. ISSUED BY A PARTY/COUNSEL IN COMPLIANCE WITH Pa.R.C.P. No. 234.2(a) ADDRESS: 1200 Camp Hill Bypass. Suite 205 Camp Hill. PA 17011 TELEPHONE: (717) 731-4800 SUPREME COURT ID# 27594 BY THE COURT: DATE: Prothonotary, Civil Division Seal of the Court Deputy OFFICIAL NOTE: This form of subpoena shall be used whenever a subpoena is issuable, including hearings in connection with depositions and before arbitrators, masters, commissioners, etc. in compliance with Pa.R.C.P. No. 234.1. If a subpoena for production of documents, records or things is desired, conplete paragraph 2. ATTACHMENT A 1. Any and all documents in your care, custody or control relating in any way to medical care provided to Joseph S. Sabadish, 1528 McCormick Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA, Social Security Number: 166-46-2747. 2. This request includes but is not limited to the following documents and/or materials: complete medical records chart including any and all handwritten and typed records copies of correspondence to and from other providers, laboratoryradiology, reports and other test reports radiology film copies, d including but not limited to, all x-rays MRI's and CT Scans, photographs an any/all other medical testing reports and any other unspecified records the chart may contain from the first date of service to present. 01125/2006 WED 15:06 FAX 7172366919 DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: FRANCIS E. MARSHALL, JR. ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 27594 BY: AARON S. JAYMAN, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)7314800 (Tele) (717)731-4803 (Fax) ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD AND PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY JOSEPH SABADISH, V. Plaintiff HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD and PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-3741 CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED I hereby waive the required twenty day period of notice for the Notices of intent to Serve Subpoenas regarding records of Joseph Sabadish to be subpoenaed by Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. Thomas B. York, Esqui 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel far Flalnt f ff Date: /2 006 ®002/002 n N n C cr n ' x ? f is . ? to i C?3 : ? DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: FRANCIS E. MARSHALL, JR. ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 27594 BY: AARON S. JAYMAN, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)731-4800 (Tele) (717)731-4803(Fax) JOSEPH SABADISH, V. Plaintiff HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD and PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, Defendants ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD AND PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-3741 CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 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, Counsel for Defendants certify 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 a Waiver of Twenty Day Notice was signed and is attached. Date: n 'hyk DICKIE, MCC EY & CHILCOTE, P.C. d - By: Fr s E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire Alt I.D. #27594 Suite 205 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 Counsel for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this .) i ' of )ai,'I , 2006, I, Francis E. Marshall, Jr., hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing Certificate Prerequisite to Service of a Subpoena upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First-Class Mail: Thomas B. York, Esquire 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel to Plaintiffs) r Fr is E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: FRANCIS E. MARSHALL, JR. ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 27594 BY: AARON S. JAYMAN, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)7314800 (Tele) (717)7314803 (Fax) JOSEPH SABADISH, Plaintiff V. HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD and PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, Defendants ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD AND PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-3741 CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.21 Defendants intend to serve a Subpoena identical to the Subpoena attached to this Notice, addressed to the following: Quantum Imaging Therapeutic Associates, 629-D Lowther Road, Lewisberry, PA 17339. 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 no objection is made the subpoena maybe served. DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Date: /11 By: Francis E. all, Jr., Atty I.D. Pk7594 Suite 205 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 Counsel for Defendants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 4 day of ct p 2006, I, Francis E. Marshall, Jr., hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Intent to Serve a Subpoena to Produce Documents and Things for Discovery Pursuant to Rule 4009.21 upon all counsel of record by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: By First-Class Mail: Thomas B. York, Esquire 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel to Plaintiffs) OCMNANWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CLM3ERLAND Joseph Sabadish, Plaintiff File No. 2005-3741 V. Harry V: Patchin, DND and Patchin Family Dentistry, S U B P O E N A Defendant lp. Quantum Imaging Therapeutic Associates, 629-D Lowther Road, Lewisberry, PA 17339 1. You are ordered by the court to come toDickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205, Camp Hill, PA 17011. (Specify courtroom or other place) at Camp-Hill- Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, on at Defendants o'clock, 9:00 A. M., to testify on behalf of in the above case, and to remain until excused. 2. And bring with you the following: Please see Attachment A If you fail to attend or to produce the documents or things required by this subpoena, you may be subject to the sanctions authorized by Rule 234.5 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to costs, attorney fees and imprisonment. ISSUED BY A PARTY/COUNSEL IN COMPLIANCE WITH Pa.R.C.P. No. 234.2(a) NAME: Francis E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire ADDRESS: 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 CAmp Hill, PA 17011 TELEPHONE: -(717) 731-4800 SUPREME COURT ID# 27594 BY THE COURT: DATE: Prothonotary, Civil Division Seal of the Court Deputy OFFICIAL NOTE: This form of subpoena shall be used whenever a subpoena is issuable, including hearings in connection with depositions and before arbitrators, masters, commissioners, etc. in compliance with Pa.R.C.P. No. 234.1. If a subpoena for production of documents, records or things is desired, complete paragraph 2. 01/25/2Q06 WED 15:06 FAX 7172366919 DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: FRANCIS E. MARSHALL, JR. ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 27594 BY: AARON S. JAYMAN, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)731-4800 (Tele) (717)731-4803 (Fax) JOSEPH SABADISH, Plaintiff V. ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD AND PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY IN THE COURT OF C( OF CUMBERLAND PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-3741 COUNTY, CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD and PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED I hereby waive the required twenty day period of notice for the Notices of Intent to Serve Subpoenas regarding records of Joseph Sabadish to be subpoenaed by Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. Thomas B. York, Bsqui 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Counsel for Plaintiff ®002/002 Date; _/2 g ? ?? ?'v q C .^._ r" ? n,;?-- ?'- -cis N ti. .7 ?j c; •; ? ?? , : ? rrm i ? e? N 4 t' t ? Thomas B. York, Esquire The York Legal Group, LLC 3511 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tel: (717) 236-9675 Fax: (717) 236-6919 Email: tyork(ci)yorkleealeroup.com Attorney for Plaintiff, Joseph Sabadish JOSEPH S. SABADISH, Plaintiff, V. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD CASE NO.: 2005-3741 And PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the forgoing 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. )'on 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 OR KNOW A LAWYER, THEN YOU SHOULD GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone No. (717) 249-3166 AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO EN LA CORTE. Si usted desea defenderso de las quejas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, debe tomar accion dentro de veinte (20) dias a partir de la fecha en que recibio la demanda y el aviso. Usted debe presentar comparecencia esrita en persona o por abogado y presentar en la Corte por escrito sus defensas o sus objectiones a las demandas en su contra. Se le avisa que si no se defiende, el caso puede porceder sin usted y la Corte puede decidir en su contra sin mas aviso o notificacion por cualquier dinero reclamado en la demanda o por cualquier otra queja o compensacion reclamados por el Demandante. USTED PUEDE PERDER DINERO, O PROPIERDADES 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 ESRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE OBTENER ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone No. (717) 249-3166 Thomas B. York, Esquire The York Legal Group, LLC 3511 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tel: (717) 236-9675 Fax: (717) 236-6919 Email: tyork(aworkleealgroup.com Attorney for Plaintiff, Joseph Sabadish JOSEPH S. SABADISH, Plaintiff, V. HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD And PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION : CASE NO.: 2005-3741 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Joseph S. Sabadish ("Plaintiff'), by and through his counsel, The York Legal Group, LLC, and files the within Complaint against Harry V. Patchin, D.M.D. and Patchin Family Dentistry, and in support thereof, avers as follows: Plaintiff, Joseph Sabadish, is a Pennsylvania resident with his principal place of residence at 1528 McCormick Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant Harry V. Patchin, D.M.D., (hereinafter referred to as "Patchin") is a licensed professional and is a Pennsylvania resident with an office and a principal place of business at 407 South 32"d Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff is asserting a professional liability claim against this Defendant. 3. Defendant Patchin Family Dentistry is believed and therefore averred to be a Pennsylvania limited liability company engaged in the practice of dentistry with its principal place of business located in 407 South 32"d Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. At all times relevant, Patchin was engaged in the practice of dentistry, and held himself out to be a competent and skillful practitioner of dentistry. 5. At all times relevant, Patchin was the owner, executive officer, agent, workman, servant and/or employee of Patchin Family Dentistry, acting in the course and scope of his employment and under the direction, supervision and control of Patchin Family Dentistry. 6. Beginning in 1988, the Plaintiff consulted the Defendants for the purpose of obtaining dental treatment and employed Defendants to render necessary dental care and treatment. From 1988 to 2003, the Plaintiff was a patient of the Defendants and received dental care from the Defendants. During the course of his dental care by the Defendants, Patchin was the attending dentist in charge of the Plaintiff's treatment and care. 9. During the course of his treatment by the Defendants over a period of approximately 15 years, the Plaintiff was lead to believe, and did believe, that he was being provided with adequate and comprehensive dental care, and that all his dental needs were being appropriately addressed. 10. The Plaintiff continued under the care of the Defendants until approximately August of 2003, relying upon the assurances and representations by Patchin that all was well in his treatment and in his dental care. It was not until sometime after July 24, 2003, after visiting Eric G. Unger, D.D.S., that the Plaintiff became aware for the first time that his dental care by Patchin may have been deficient. Thereafter, over time, the Plaintiff became aware of the serious inadequacy of the treatment rendered by the Defendants. 11. The Plaintiff learned from Dr. Unger and other treating health care professionals that his dental health had been severely compromised and the cosmetic appearance of his teeth had been destroyed. Among the things he learned, although not exclusively, was the following: a. He had severe periodontal disease. b. He had severe tooth decay, especially under improperly fitted crowns, and that crowns had been improperly re-cemented onto decayed teeth. C. He had improperly shaped and applied crowns, some of which fit so poorly as to promote tooth decay. d. He had improperly shaped and applied fillings, some of which exhibited leakage that further promoted decay. C. He had severely receding gums. f He had underlying bone loss due to his poor dental health. g. He had teeth that were so badly damaged that they required extraction and replacement. h. Other dental problems associated with poor dental care. 12. The Defendants had never advised the Plaintiff of these severe dental problems, never recommended a course of treatment to address these severe dental problems, and never took action to treat or otherwise address these severe dental problems. 13. The dental treatment and care of the Defendants was negligent, reckless, and otherwise improper. 14. The negligence and recklessness of the Defendants consisted of the following: a. Electing to re-cement crowns to the remaining portions of severely decayed teeth knowing that the crowns would not hold. b. Fashioning and applying crowns that were improperly shaped and poorly fitted which thereby encouraged tooth decay and periodontal disease. C. Fashioning and applying fillings that were improperly shaped and poorly fitted which thereby encouraged tooth decay and periodontal disease. d. Permitting substantial tooth decay without proper treatment. e. Permitting substantial tooth loss without proper treatment. Permitting substantial gum disease and loss without proper treatment. g. Permitting substantial bone loss without proper treatment. h. Concealing from the Plaintiff the serious health and dental problems that existed. Failing properly to diagnose, to recommend treatment, and to treat serious health and dental problems. Negligence and recklessness at law. k. Otherwise failing to use due care under the circumstances. 15. The Plaintiff impliedly contracted with the Defendants to provide dental treatment to him. 16. The Defendants had a contractual duty to treat the patient with diligence and skill. 17. The Defendants have breached that duty by failing to diligently treat the Plaintiff and in failing to use an adequate level of skill and care. 18. As a result of the negligence and recklessness of the Defendants, and their breach of contract, the Plaintiff was forced to obtain and endure extensive dental and surgical care which included, but is not limited to, the following: a. Bone grafts; b. Tooth implants; C. Crown replacements; d. Tooth extractions; e. Gum surgery; and f. Other dental procedures to save, restore, or replace his teeth Some further dental care and procedures remain necessary to complete his treatment. 19. As a result of the negligence and recklessness by the Defendants in treating the Plaintiff, and their breach of contract, as aforesaid, the Plaintiff suffered severe injuries, including, but not limited to, tooth decay, tooth loss, gum loss, bone loss, periodontal disease, and other related health problems, some or all of which his dentists and health care professionals advise are or may be permanent. 20. As a result of the tortuous misconduct of the Defendants, and their breach of contract, the Plaintiff has been obliged to expend various sums of money for medicines, surgeries, and dental treatment and care, in an effort to cure the ills and injuries which he suffered, and he will continue to be obliged to expend such sums for an indefinite time in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 21. As a further result of the tortuous misconduct of the Defendants, and their breach of contract, the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of leave time, which is essentially a loss of earnings, and will continue to suffer same for an indefinite time in the future, to his detriment and loss. 22. As a further result of the tortuous misconduct of the Defendants, and their breach of contract, the Plaintiff has been unable to attend to all of his usual daily duties, occupations and labors and will continue to be unable to attend to same for an indefinite time in the future, to his detriment and loss. 23. As a further result of the tortuous misconduct of the Defendants, and their breach of contract, the Plaintiff has been obliged to endure several physical pain, mental anguish, cosmetic disfigurement, embarrassment and humiliation, and will continue to suffer same for an indefinite time in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 24. The Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages for his medical expenses, loss of earnings, loss of ability to perform daily activities, damage to his appearance, pain and suffering, and inconvenience and embarrassment. 25. The Defendants conduct in causing, in failing to recognize and in failing to appropriately treat the serious dental problems experienced by the Plaintiff, and in concealing the severity of these problems from the Plaintiff, amounts to outrageous and willful conduct. The conduct of the Defendants evidences either a bad motive or reckless indifference to the interests of the Plaintiff. The Defendants knew their action, or inaction, created a risk to the Plaintiff that was so great as to make harm to the Plaintiff highly probably. 26. The Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages because of the outrageous conduct of the Defendants. WHEREFORE, Joseph S. Sabadish respectfully requests this Court render a judgment in his favor and against Harry V. Patchin and Patchin Family Dentistry, for compensatory damages in an amount exceeding the compulsory arbitration limit set by this Court, together with interest and costs, including expenses, for punitive damages, and for such further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. Respectfully submitted, THE YORK LEGAL GROUP, LLC Thomas B. York, Esqtnre/ PA I.D. No. 32522 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 236-9675 Fax: (717) 236-6919 Email: tyork@yorkle ag lgroup.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Date: March 17, 2006 7 I, Joseph S. Sabadish, hereby verify and confirm that I am authorized to sign this Verification in this action, and I further acknowledge that I have read the foregoing Complaint and that the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand also that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date: March 17, 2006 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Thomas B. York, hereby certify that on this 17`h day of March, 2006, I served a true and correct copy of Complaint via U.S. First Class Mail, upon the following: Francis E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 Thomas B. York -n 2 -? n fig ;n % -t ? 7 Thomas B. York, Esquire The York Legal Group, LLC 3511 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tel: (717) 236-9675 Fax: (717) 236-6919 Email: tvork(c?vorklegaleroup.com Attorney for Plaintiff, Joseph Sabadish JOSEPH S. SABADISH, Plaintiff, V. : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD CASE NO.: 2005-3741 And PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS TO HARRY V. PATCHIN, D.M.D. 1, Thomas B. York, 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 defendants in the treatment, practice of 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. Respectfully submitted, THE YORK LEGAL GROUP, LLC l V , j 7I'L Thomas B. York PA I.D. No. 32522 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 236-9675 Fax: (717) 236-6919 Email: t ork c?yorkle ag lgroup.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Date: March 17, 2006 r? ?_? ca} ?.- <. ? _, , . -r; J . ,_„ tier--, ' r','?s ;a - ?? ` _.' , -- ;: = `: - ? ,' .? ? ? i . c?5 =? `:'? DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: FRANCIS E. MARSHALL, JR. ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 27594 BY: AARON S. JAYMAN, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)731-4800(Tele) (717)731-4803(Fax) JOSEPH SABADISH, V. Plaintiff HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD and PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, Defendants ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD AND PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-3741 CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION TRIAL DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Joseph Sabadish c/o Thomas B. York, Esquire 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO PLEAD TO THE WITHIN PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS PLEADING OR JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. Respectfully submitted, Date: April fo , 2006 By: DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. rshldl, Jr., Esquire No. 27594 Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 AttornevforDefendants, Harry V. Patchin, DMD and Patchin Family Dentistry DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: FRANCIS E. MARSHALL, JR. ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 27594 BY: AARON S. JAYMAN, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)731-4800 (Tele) (717)731-4803(Fax) ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD AND PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY JOSEPH SABADISH, V. Plaintiff HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD and PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, 1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-3741 CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW, come Defendants, Harry V. Patchin, DMD ("Dr. Patchin") and Patchin Family Dentistry ("Family Dentistry"), by and through their counsel, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., and preliminarily object to Plaintiff's Complaint, as follows: 1. Plaintiff, Joseph S. Sabadish, commenced this action by way of Writ of Summons filed on or about July 22, 2005. 2. Plaintiffs Complaint was filed on or about March 17, 2006 Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff's Complaint. 3. Plaintiff's Complaint is deficient in many respects. 4. The underlying basis of Plaintiff's Complaint involves alleged dental negligence and breach of contract claims related to Plaintiff's dental care resulting in alleged tooth decay, tooth loss, gum loss, bone loss and periodontal disease. I. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN THE NATURE OF A DEMURRER TO THE ALLEGATIONS OF RECKLESS, OUTRAGEOUS WILLFUL AND WANTON CONDUCT AND THE CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES FOR FAILURE TO PLEAD ANY UNDERLYING FACTS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN SUCH CLAIMS 5. The Defendants hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 4 as if herein set forth at length. 6. Without pleading any underlying facts to support such claims, Plaintiff's Complaint baldly asserts that the Defendants' conduct was reckless, outrageous, willful and wanton. See $T 13, 25 and 26, Exhibit "A". 7. Under Pennsylvania law, punitive damages may only be awarded for conduct that is the result of a healthcare provider's willful or wanton or reckless indifference to the rights of others. 40 P.S. § 1303.505 (2002). As a result, punitive damages are only available in extremely limited circumstances in Pennsylvania. 8. Punitive damages may not be awarded for ordinary negligence, even gross negligence. Hutchison v. Luddy, 673 A.2d 826, 27 (Pa.Super. 2000). 9. As the Superior Court has stated: It is well settled that punitive damages will lie only in cases of outrageous behavior, where defendant's egregious conduct shows either an evil motive or reckless indifference to the rights of others. Punitive damages are appropriate when an individual's actions are of such an outrageous nature as to demonstrate intentional, willful, wanton, or reckless conduct. Slanno v. 7's Develonment Associates, Inc. 791 A.2d 409, 417 (Pa.Super. 2002) (quoting from Bannar v. Miller, 701 A.2d 232, 242 (Pa.Super. 1997)). 10, Also, as is the case here, where a complaint contains nothing but conclusory statements that the conduct of the defendants was willful, wanton, reckless, or outrageous without allegations of fact to support the same, the plaintiffs claim for punitive damages is 2 properly dismissed. Facts supporting a claim of outrageous conduct must be found in a plaintiffs complaint. Smith v. Brown, 423 A.2d 743, 745 (Pa.Super. 1980). 11. This Honorable Court has consistently dismissed punitive damage claims in much more serious medical malpractice actions than this simple alleged dental malpractice case for failure to plead material facts to support the proposition that a healthcare provider acted wilfully, wantonly, outrageously, with an evil motive or with reckless or conscious indifference to a plaintiffs well-being. See, Angeloff v. Armstrong, No. 2004-4743 (Ct. Com. Pl. Cumberland County, May 13, 2005); Garrity v. Macaluso, No. 01-1300 Civil Tenn, (Ct. Com. Pl. Cumberland County, July 31, 2001); Dorsey v. Pinker, No. 98-3107 Civil Term, (Ct. Com. Pl. Cumberland County, August 4, 1999); Townsend-Ensor v. Entwistle, No. 98-5606 Civil Term, (Ct. Com. Pl. Cumberland County, June 17,1999); Gordon v. Taggart, No. 97-6684 Civil Tenn, (Ct. Com. Pl. Cumberland County, July 2, 1998). 12. In the instant matter, Plaintiff has not plead material facts to support allegations of reckless, outrageous, willful or wanton conduct to support a claim for punitive damages. Rather, the underlying facts of Plaintiff's Complaint involve alleged negligent dental care resulting in residual dental problems. There are no facts plead to support claims of reckless, outrageous, willful or wanton conduct on the part of Dr. Patchin with respect to his dental care and treatment of Plaintiff. All that is plead is unsupported conclusory statements. The facts plead do, however, indicate that Plaintiff continuously treated with Dr. Patchin over a period of approximately 15 years without any concerns or complaints whatsoever. 13. As such, it is submitted that there is absolutely no basis for a claim of punitive damages against the Defendants, and such claim should be dismissed as a matter of law at this juncture. 3 WHEREFORE, Defendants, Harry V. Patchin, DMD and Patchin Family Dentistry, respectfully request that this Honorable Court strike all references to reckless, outrageous and willful and wanton conduct as well as the claim for punitive damages. II. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION IN THE NATURE OF A DEMURRER TO PLAINTIFF'S BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS WHICH IS NOT RECOGNIZED BY LAW 14. The Defendants hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 13 as if herein set forth at length. 15. In the Complaint, Plaintiff attempts to plead a cause of action against the Defendants for breach of contract related to the dental care provided to Plaintiff. See, ¶ 15-24. 16. However, 40 P.S. § 1303.105 of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction Error (MCARE) Act provides that, "[i] in the absence of a special contract in writing, a healthcare provider is neither a warrantor nor a guarantor of a cure." 17. "Cure" has been interpreted as "result." Flora v. Moses, 727 A.2d 596 (Pa.Super. 1999). 18. The Superior Court has consistently reiterated the importance of the requirement that such a contract be in writing to sustain a breach of contract cause of action. See, Flora v. Moses, 727 A.2d 596, 599 (Pa.Super. 1999); Edwards v. Germantown Hospital, 736 A.2d 612, 616 (Pa.Super. 1999); See also Doe v. Dyer-Goode, 566 A.2d 889 (Pa.Super. 1989); Grubb v. Albert Einstein Medical Center, 387 A.2d 480 (Pa.Super. 1978); and Snyder v. Boland, 119 Dauphin 81 (1999). 19. In the present case, Plaintiff's Complaint does not allege any facts that support the existence of written contract. 4 20. Any implied contractual claim also necessarily fails without the existence of a written contract. Brown v. Herman, 665 A.2d 504, 509 (Pa.Super. 1995). 21. Furthermore, Plaintiff's breach of contract claim is merely superfluous to Plaintiff's negligence cause of action and should be dismissed. Snyder v. Bolan d, supra., (citing Rubin by Rubin v. Hamot Medical Center, 478 A.2d 869 (Pa.Super. 1984)). 22. No recovery under a breach of contract theory is possible with respect to the Defendants because that theory has been specifically rejected by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania without the existence of a written contract which does not exist in this case. WHEREFORE, Defendants Harry V. Patchin, DMD and Patchin Family Dentistry, respectfully request that this Honorable Court strike Plaintiffs breach of contract claim for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. 111. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO VARIOUS PARAGRAPHS OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FACTUAL SPECIFICITY REQUIREMENT OF Pa.RC.P 1019(a) AS INTERPRETED BY CONNOR Y. ALLEGHENY GENERAL HOSPITAL, 461 A.2d 600 (Pa. 1983). 23. The Defendants hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 22 as if herein set forth at length. 24. The following paragraphs of Plaintiffs Complaint are objectionable in that they contain nothing more then "boilerplate" and "catch all" allegations of negligence that are not specific to this action and could be plead against any healthcare provider in any malpractice action: 11(h). Other dental problems associated with poor dental care; 140). Negligence and recklessness at law; and 14(k). Otherwise failing to use do care under the circumstances. 5 25. Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a) requires a plaintiff to state in the complaint, in concise and summary form, the material facts upon which a cause of action is based. The purpose of this rule is to require the pleader to disclose in the complaint the specific facts upon which the plaintiff's cause of action is based so that the plaintiff's proof may be confined to such actions, thus enabling the defendant to reasonable prepare his defense. Baker v. Raneos, 324 A.2d 498 (Pa.Super. 1974). 26. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in the case of Connor v. Allegheny General Hospital, supra., attaches great significance to the use of nebulous boilerplate language in the provisions of pleadings. The Connor decision places the onus on the defendant to preliminary object to such "catch all" language in order to properly prevent a plaintiff from introducing new theories of negligence and new causes of action beyond the statute of limitation. Connor, 461 A.2d at 603, n.3. 27. The above-quoted averments do not contain the "concise and material facts" required by Pa.R.C.P. 1019 or the factual specificity required by Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3). 28. Plaintiff uses such broad and generic terminology within paragraphs i l(h), 140) and 14(k), from which any number of interpretations could be derived, which would allow plaintiff to amend his Complaint to add new allegations of negligence at a later, well after the statute of limitations has run. 29. Defendants should not be required to anticipate every potential theory which Plaintiff might subsequently contend as within the scope of these generic paragraphs of the Complaint. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Harry V. Patchin, DMD and Patchin Family Dentistry, respectfully request that this Honorable Court strike paragraphs 11(h), 140) and 14(k) from the 6 Complaint as stated, or in the alternative, require Plaintiff to file a more specific pleading with respect to the aforesaid paragraphs pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3). IV. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO THE REFERENCES OF "INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO" AND ALL SIMILAR LANGUAGE FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE FACTUAL SPECIFICITY REOUIREMENT Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a) AS INTERPRETED BY CONNOR V. ALLEGHENY GENERAL HOSPITAL, 461 A.2d 600 (Pa. 1983). 30. The Defendants hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 29 as if herein set forth at length. 31. Paragraphs 11, 18 and 19 contain the language, "although not exclusively," "included, but not limited to," and "including, but not limited to" respectively, in reference to allegations of negligence against the Defendants. 32. This language is inappropriate under Connor, supra., as it affords Plaintiff the opportunity to introduce new theories of recovery at any time prior to the commencement of trial and after the expiration of the statute of limitations. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Harry V. Patchin, DMD and Patchin Family Dentistry, respectfully request that this Honorable Court strike the foregoing language from paragraphs 11, 18 and 19 from Plaintiff's Complaint. V. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO RULE 1028(a)(2) FOR FAILING TO SET FORTH SEPARATE COUNTS FOR EACH CAUSE OF ACTION THEREIN ALLEGED 33. The Defendants hereby incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 32 as if herein set forth at length. 34. Plaintiff alleges claims of negligence, breach of contract and punitive damages against the Defendants without stating those claims in separate counts. 35. Rule 1020(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows: 7 The plaintiff may state in the complaint more then one cause of action cognizable in a civil action against the same defendant. Each cause of action and any special damage related thereto shall be stated in a separate count containing a demand for relief. Pa.R.C.P. 1020(a)(emphasis added). 36. As forth above, Plaintiff's Complaint fails to conform to Pa.R.C.P. 1020(a) in that multiple causes of action have been set forth in the Complaint without any separate counts whatsoever. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Harry V. Patchin, DMD and Patchin Family Dentistry, respectfully request that this Honorable Court direct the Plaintiff to amend his Complaint to conform and comply with Rule 1020 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. Respectfully submitted, DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Date: April 6, 2006 By: FraryEis? rstb ll, Jr., Esquire Att e No.27594 Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 Attorney for Defendants, Harry V. Patchin, DMD and Patchin Family Dentistry 8 ?"-/ k; O,t A C V7 & T Thomas B. York, Esquire The York Legal Group, LLC 3511 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tel: (717) 236-9675 Fax: (717) 236-6919 Email: tyorkAyorklegaterouA.com Attorney for Plaintiff, Joseph Sabadish JOSEPH S. SABADISH, Plaintiff, V. HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD And PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION : CASE NO.: 2005-3741 NOTICE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the forgoing 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 OR KNOW A LAWYER, THEN YOU SHOULD GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone No. (717) 249-3166 AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO EN LA CORTE. Si usted desea defenderso de las quejas expuestas en las paginas siguientes, debe tomar accion dentro de veinte (20) dias a partir de la fecha en que recibio la demanda y el aviso. Usted debe presentar comparecencia esrita en persona o por abogado y presentar en la Corte por escrito sus defensas o sus objectiones a las demandas en su contra. Se le avisa que si no se defiende, el caso puede porceder sin usted y la Corte puede decidir en su contra sin mas aviso o notificacion por cualquier dinero reclamado en la demanda o por cualquier otra queja o compensacion reclamados por el Demandante. USTED PUEDE PERDER DINERO, O PROPIERDADES 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 ESRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE PUEDE OBTENER ASISTENCIA LEGAL. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone No. (717) 249-3166 Thomas B. York, Esquire The York Legal Group, LLC 3511 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tel: (717) 236-9675 Fax: (717) 236-6919 Email tvorkCavorklegalgroup.com Attorney for Plaintiff, Joseph Sabadish JOSEPH S. SABADISH, Plaintiff, V. HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD And : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION : CASE NO.: 2005-3741 PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes Plaintiff, Joseph S. Sabadish ("Plaintiff'), by and through his counsel, The York Legal Group, LLC, and files the within Complaint against Harry V. Patchin, D.M.D. and Patchin Family Dentistry, and in support thereof, avers as follows: Plaintiff, Joseph Sabadish, is a Pennsylvania resident with his principal place of residence at 1528 McCormick Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. Defendant Harry V. Patchin, D.M.D., (hereinafter referred to as "Patchin") is a licensed professional and is a Pennsylvania resident with an office and a principal place of business at 407 South 32"d Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. Plaintiff is asserting a professional liability claim against this Defendant. Defendant Patchin Family Dentistry is believed and therefore averred to be a Pennsylvania limited liability company engaged in the practice of dentistry with its principal place of business located in 407 South 32"d Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. At all times relevant, Patchin was engaged in the practice of dentistry, and held himself out to be a competent and skillful practitioner of dentistry. 5. At all times relevant, Patchin was the owner, executive officer, agent, workman, servant and/or employee of Patchin Family Dentistry, acting in the course and scope of his employment and under the direction, supervision and control of Patchin Family Dentistry. 6. Beginning in 1988, the Plaintiff consulted the Defendants for the purpose of obtaining dental treatment and employed Defendants to render necessary dental care and treatment. 7. From 1988 to 2003, the Plaintiff was a patient of the Defendants and received dental care from the Defendants. 8. During the course of his dental care by the Defendants, Patchin was the attending dentist in charge of the Plaintiffs treatment and care. During the course of his treatment by the Defendants over a period of approximately 15 years, the Plaintiff was lead to believe, and did believe, that he was being provided with adequate and comprehensive dental care, and that all his dental needs were being appropriately addressed. 10. The Plaintiff continued under the care of the Defendants until approximately August of 2003, relying upon the assurances and representations by Patchin that all was well in his treatment and in his dental care. It was not until sometime after July 24, 2003, after visiting Eric G. Unger, D.D.S., that the Plaintiff became aware for the first time that his dental care by Patchin may have been deficient. Thereafter, over 2 time, the Plaintiff became aware of the serious inadequacy of the treatment rendered by the Defendants. 11. The Plaintiff learned from Dr. Unger and other treating health care professionals that his dental health had been severely compromised and the cosmetic appearance of his teeth had been destroyed. Among the things he learned, although not exclusively, was the following: a. He had severe periodontal disease. b. He had severe tooth decay, especially under improperly fitted crowns, and that crowns had been improperly re-cemented onto decayed teeth. C. He had improperly shaped and applied crowns, some of which fit so poorly as to promote tooth decay. d. He had improperly shaped and applied fillings, some of which exhibited leakage that further promoted decay. e. He had severely receding gums. He had underlying bone loss due to his poor dental health. g. He had teeth that were so badly damaged that they required extraction and replacement. h. Other dental problems associated with poor dental care. 12. The Defendants had never advised the Plaintiff of these severe dental problems, never recommended a course of treatment to address these severe dental problems, and never took action to treat or otherwise address these severe dental problems. 13. The dental treatment and care of the Defendants was negligent, reckless, and otherwise improper. 14. The negligence and recklessness of the Defendants consisted of the following: a. Electing to re-cement crowns to the remaining portions of severely decayed teeth knowing that the crowns would not hold. Fashioning and applying crowns that were improperly shaped and poorly fitted which thereby encouraged tooth decay and periodontal disease. C. Fashioning and applying fillings that were improperly shaped and poorly fitted which thereby encouraged tooth decay and periodontal disease. d. Permitting substantial tooth decay without proper treatment. e. Permitting substantial tooth loss without proper treatment. f. Permitting substantial gum disease and loss without proper treatment. g. Permitting substantial bone loss without proper treatment. h. Concealing from the Plaintiff the serious health and dental problems that existed. Failing properly to diagnose, to recommend treatment, and to treat serious health and dental problems. Negligence and recklessness at law. k. Otherwise failing to use due care under the circumstances. 15. The Plaintiff impliedly contracted with the Defendants to provide dental treatment to him. 4 16. The Defendants had a contractual duty to treat the patient with diligence and skill. IT The Defendants have breached that duty by failing to diligently treat the Plaintiff and in failing to use an adequate level of skill and care. 18. As a result of the negligence and recklessness of the Defendants, and their breach of contract, the Plaintiff was forced to obtain and endure extensive dental and surgical care which included, but is not limited to, the following: a. Bone grafts; b. Tooth implants; C. Crown replacements; d. Tooth extractions; e. Gum surgery; and Other dental procedures to save, restore, or replace his teeth Some further dental care and procedures remain necessary to complete his treatment. 19. As a result of the negligence and recklessness by the Defendants in treating the Plaintiff, and their breach of contract, as aforesaid, the Plaintiff suffered severe injuries, including, but not limited to, tooth decay, tooth loss, gum loss, bone loss, periodontal disease, and other related health problems, some or all of which his dentists and health care professionals advise are or may be permanent. 20. As a result of the tortuous misconduct of the Defendants, and their breach of contract, the Plaintiff has been obliged to expend various sums of money for medicines, surgeries, and dental treatment and care, in an effort to cure the ills and injuries which he suffered, and he will continue to be obliged to expend such sums for an indefinite time in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 21. As a further result of the tortuous misconduct of the Defendants, and their breach of contract, the Plaintiff has suffered a loss of leave time, which is essentially a loss of earnings, and will continue to suffer same for an indefinite time in the future, to his detriment and loss. 22. As a further result of the tortuous misconduct of the Defendants, and their breach of contract, the Plaintiff has been unable to attend to all of his usual daily duties, occupations and labors and will continue to be unable to attend to same for an indefinite time in the future, to his detriment and loss. 23. As a further result of the tortuous misconduct of the Defendants, and their breach of contract, the Plaintiff has been obliged to endure several physical pain, mental anguish, cosmetic disfigurement, embarrassment and humiliation, and will continue to suffer same for an indefinite time in the future, to his great detriment and loss. 24. The Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages for his medical expenses, loss of earnings, loss of ability to perform daily activities, damage to his appearance, pain and suffering, and inconvenience and embarrassment. 25. The Defendants conduct in causing, in failing to recognize and in failing to appropriately treat the serious dental problems experienced by the Plaintiff, and in concealing the severity of these problems from the Plaintiff, amounts to outrageous and willful conduct. The conduct of the Defendants evidences either a bad motive or reckless indifference to the interests of the Plaintiff. The Defendants knew their action, or inaction, created a risk to the Plaintiff that was so great as to make harm to the Plaintiff highly probably. 26. The Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages because of the outrageous conduct of the Defendants. WHEREFORE, Joseph S. Sabadish respectfully requests this Court render a judgment in his favor and against Harry V. Patchin and Patchin Family Dentistry, for compensatory damages in an amount exceeding the compulsory arbitration limit set by this Court, together with interest and costs, including expenses, for punitive damages, and for such further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate. Respectfully submitted, THE YORK LEGAL GROUP, LLC Thomas B. York, Esquire/ PA I.D. No. 32522 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 236-9675 Fax: (717) 236-6919 Email: tyorkna yorklegalgroW.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Date: March 17, 2006 VERIFICATION 1, Joseph S. Sabadish, hereby verify and confirm that I am authorized to sign this Verification in this action, and I further acknowledge that I have read the foregoing Complaint and that the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand also that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date: March 17, 2006 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Thomas B. York, hereby certify that on this 17`h day of March, 2006, I served a true and correct copy of Complaint via U.S. First Class Mail, upon the following: Francis E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 Thomas B. York CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this 6th day of April, 2006, I, Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon all counsel of record or parties involved by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Thomas B. York, Esquire 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) 9 _ , ;-, _? ,.._, .. _. ty. PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT (Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate) TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY: Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court, JOSEPH SABADISH, VS. HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD and PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, (Plaintiff) (Defendants) 3141 013 No.2m=C -I-M State matter to be argued: Defendant's Preliminary Objections to Plaintiff's Complaint. 2. Identify counsel who will argue cases: (a) for plaintiff: Thomas B York Esquire 3511 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110 (b) for defendant Aaron S JaymanEsquire 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Suite 205, Camp Hill PA 17011 3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has been listed for argument. 4. Argument Court Date: May 17, 2006 Signa Aaron S. Javman Print your name Date: April 18, 2006 Harry V. Patchin, DMD, and Patchin Family Denistry Attorney for CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this _18th_day of April, 2006, I, Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing document for Defendants, Harry V. Patchin, DMD and Patchin Family Dentistry upon all counsel of record or parties involved by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Thomas B. York, Esquire 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) 4Aaron. 42AEZsquirc = ,1 Thomas B. York, Esquire The York Legal Group, LLC 3511 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tel: (717) 236-9675 Fax: (717) 236-6919 Email: tyork(cvyorkle a? leroup.com Atiorney for Plaintiff, Joseph Sabadish JOSEPH S. SABADISH, Plaintiff, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD And PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY CIVIL ACTION CASE NO.: 2005-3741 ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS' PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Joseph S. Sabadish, by his attorneys, The York Legal Group, LLC, and answers the Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs Complaint, and avers the following: 1-2. PARAGRAPH ONE (1) AND TWO (2) are ADMITTED. PARAGRAPH THREE (3) is DENIED. Not only are Defendants mistaken as to the alleged deficiencies, but, even if the Defendants were correct, the alleged deficiencies are mostly insignificant in the litigation of this case. It is a gross overstatement to claim the "Complaint is deficient in many respects." 4. PARAGRAPH FOUR (4) is DENIED as stated. The Defendants do not fully capture the essence of this case in their short summary of the issues. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has asserted only one claim which, as is supported by law, is a merging of tort and implied contract, and which would be more commonly referred to as a dental malpractice cause of action. There is no attempt to allege separate claims under the tort and under contract. The full character of the claim is described in the Complaint. 5. The Plaintiff herein incorporates by reference his responses to paragraphs one (1) through four (4) as though fully set forth in response to PARAGRAPH FIVE (5). PARAGRAPH SIX (6) is DENIED. Obviously, the Complaint does contain specific underlying facts to support his claim of reckless, outrageous and willful conduct,I as follows: a. "[T]he Plaintiff was lead to believe... that he was being provided with adequate and comprehensive dental care, and that all his dental needs were being appropriately addressed." Complaint at para. 9. (Later allegations in the Complaint show he was intentionally mislead in this regard.) b. "The Plaintiff continued under the care of the Defendants... relying upon the assurances and representations by Patchin that all was well in his treatment and in his dental care." Complaint at para. 10. (Again, later in the Complaint, the allegations show that these were misrepresentations.) C. "He [the Plaintiff] had severe tooth decay... and that the crowns had been improperly re-cemented onto decayed teeth." Complaint at para. I Lb. (The decay on these teeth, as will be established by photographs and expert testimony at trial, was so obvious that not just any dentist, but even any lay person, would immediately recognize the severe decay and would know not to repeatedly re-cement crowns on top of that decay.) ' The Defendants falsely claim the Plaintiff also pleads "wanton" conduct. To the contrary, "wanton" never appears in the Plaintiff's Complaint. Apparently these boilerplate preliminary objections were not tailored to the facts of this case. In fact, these preliminary objections are nearly devoid of any discussion of the specific facts alleged in the Complaint. d. "He [the Plaintiff) had severely receding gums." Complaint at para. I Le. (Again, the evidence will show that the severe loss of gums would have been easily observed by any treating dentist.) C. "He [the Plaintiff) had teeth that were so badly damaged that they required extraction and replacement." Complaint at para. I l.g. (Again, this poor condition would have been unmistakably obvious to any treating dentist.) f. "The Defendants had never advised the Plaintiff of these severe dental problems, never recommended a course of treatment to address these severe dental problems, and never took action to treat or otherwise address these severe dental problems." Complaint at para. 12. (To do nothing in the face of such obvious dental problems is far more than mere negligence or gross negligence.) g. "The negligence and recklessness of the Defendants consisted of the following:" "Electing to re-cement crowns to the remaining portions of severely decayed teeth knowing that the crowns would not hold." Complaint at para. 14.a. (emphasis added). (This allegation of knowledge of his deficient treatment goes far beyond mere negligence or gross negligence.) ii. "Permitting substantial tooth decay without proper treatment." Complaint at para. 14.d. (The use of the word "Permitting" is meant to show a knowing failure to treat a problem known to the Defendants.) iii. "Permitting substantial tooth loss without proper treatment." Complaint at para. 14.e. iv. "Permitting substantial gum disease and loss without proper treatment." Complaint at para. 14.f. "Permitting substantial bone loss without proper treatment." Complaint at para. 14.g. vi. "Concealing from the Plaintiff the serious health and dental problems that existed." Complaint at para. 14.h. (emphasis added). (The concealment of known disease processes is far more than mere negligence or gross negligence.) vii. "Failing properly to diagnose [obvious dental problems], to recommend treatment, and to treat serious health and dental problems." Complaint at para. 14.i. viii. "The Defendants conduct in causing.... and in failing to appropriately treat the serious [and, the evidence will show, obvious] dental problems experienced by the Plaintiff, and in concealing the severity of these problems from the Plaintiff, amounts to outrageous or reckless indifference to the interests of the Plaintiff." Complaint at para. 25. (Again, concealment goes beyond negligence as it is a purposeful act that Defendants knew would result in harm to the Plaintiff.) ix. "The Defendants knew their action, or inaction, created a risk to the Plaintiff that was so great as to make harm to the Plaintiff highly probabl[e]." Complaint at para. 25. (Again, this allegation of knowingly causing harm to Plaintiff goes beyond mere negligence or gross negligence.) In short, it is disingenuous, or erroneous, for the Defendants to claim that there are no "underlying facts to support such claims" or to claim that the Complaint "baldly asserts."2 7. PARAGRAPH SEVEN (7) IS ADMITTED in part and DENIED in part. It is ADMITTED that punitive damages can only be awarded in cases of outrageous, willful, or recklessly indifferent conduct, although this is just a brief and incomplete summary of the law. The Plaintiff DENIES the characterization that the award of punitive damages is "only available in extremely limited circumstances" (emphasis added). By way of further answer, the Plaintiff notes that he has pled outrageous, willful, and recklessly indifferent conduct by the Defendants. 8. PARAGRAPH EIGHT (8) IS DENIED to the extent that the cited case, Hutchinson v. Luddy, 763 A.2d 826 (Pa. Super. 2000), does not refer to gross negligence not supporting punitive damages. Hutchinson does state that "punitive damages may not be awarded for misconduct that constitutes ordinary negligence." 763 A.2d at 837. By way of further answer, the Plaintiff has pled facts establishing far more than ordinary negligence or gross negligence. 9. PARAGRAPH NINE (9) is ADMITTED. By way of further answer, the Complaint pleads facts that support a finding of outrageous behavior of the Defendants, as described above. 10. PARAGRAPH TEN (10) is ADMITTED in part and DENIED in part. The first sentence of this paragraph is DENIED, as the Defendants have incorrectly alleged that the Complaint "contains nothing but conclusory statements," have incorrectly alleged that the z The Court should expect, at a minimum, an intelligent discussion of the facts as alleged in the Complaint. Instead, the Defendants present only legal theories without proper application to the facts at hand. The Plaintiff is unfairly forced to laboriously respond to the boilerplate allegations that did not consider the specific facts contained in the Complaint. Complaint refers to "wanton" conduct,3 and have incorrectly claimed the Complaint is "without allegations of fact." The second sentence of this paragraph is ADMITTED. By way of further answer, the Complaint does contain facts supporting outrageous conduct by the Defendants, and the claim for punitive damages should not be dismissed. 11. PARAGRAPH ELEVEN (11) is DENIED for the following reasons: a. The test for punitive damages is the outrageous conduct of the Defendants, not the alleged severity of the injury. So Defendants are incorrect in alleging that "more serious medical malpractice actions" that have been dismissed somehow dictate dismissal in this case. b. The reference to this case as being "simple alleged dental malpractice" is a gross underestimation of the severity of the injuries to the Plaintiff and shows an insensitivity of the Defendants to the serious injuries they have caused. Experiencing the severe pain of extraction of teeth, dental implants, gum surgery, and bone implants,' among other procedures, is hardly a simple dental malpractice. C. The cases cited by the Defendants are clearly distinguishable (and arguably are not more serious malpractice), as described below: Angeloff v. Armstrong, No. 2004-4743 This case involves an allergic reaction to a shot where defendants allegedly knew of decedent's history of uncontrolled asthma, knew decedent had previously experienced allergic reactions to the shots, did not provide for continuous observation, did not have a physician present, and did not have proper resuscitative equipment. Ang_eloff at 2. That s Although "wanton" might be an appropriate characterization of Defendants' conduct, it is not a word used in the Complaint. 4 In fact, having an implant of cadaver bone, in and of itself, is hardly a matter to be taken so lightly by these Defendants. 6 case, however, did not allege, as in the present case, that there was an obviously observable disease process that the health care professional failed to address, that the health care professional knowingly improperly addressed the health care problem (such as re-cementing crowns over severely decayed surfaces), that the health care professional misled the Plaintiff as to his health and care, that the health care professional concealed the poor health condition from the Plaintiff, or that the health care professional knew he was creating a risk so great as to make harm to the Plaintiff highly probable. The conduct in Angeloff may have been only negligent, but the conduct in the present case is willful, outrageous, and recklessly indifferent. Garrity v. Macaluso, No. 01-1300 This case involved a failure to diagnose a tumor (acoustic neuroma) until an MRI was conducted. The tumor was successfully removed but there was some damage to her hearing. The existence of the tumor was not obvious, unlike the severe dental problems of the Plaintiff in the present case. The Defendants in the present case consciously disregarded the risk to the Plaintiff. Garrity does not refer to allegations of knowing failure to treat, improperly treating a known medical problem, misrepresenting the facts to the patient, concealing facts from the patient, or creating a risk so great to the patient as to make harm highly probably, as was alleged in the case of Joseph Sabadish. Dorsey v. Pinker, No. 98-3107 This case involved improper treatment of a bunion and the patient continued to suffer severe pain. The Court noted, unlike the present case, "no underlying facts have been pled which support an averment of a reckless state of mind on the part of Defendant." Dorsey at b. The allegations in the present case, as described above in paragraph 6, do supply sufficient underlying facts to support recklessness by the Defendants. Townsend-Ensor v. Entwistle, No. 98-5606 This case involves a surgical sponge being left in the patient's right breast. The Court found in Townsend, unlike the present case, that allegations of "outrageous, reckless, and wanton... are not supported by facts which allege that the defendant knew or had reason to know of circumstances that placed the plaintiff in grave danger of bodily harm." Townsend at 5. In the present case, the Plaintiff does plead facts that support the fact that Defendants knew of the risk they were creating by their action and inaction. Unlike a sponge that was negligently missed in Townsend, the Defendants in the present case had severe decay, receding gums, and bone loss right before their eyes and they failed to act, and even worse they misrepresented and concealed the poor health condition of the Plaintiff Gordon v. Taseert, No. 97-6684 This case involves the failure to timely diagnose breast cancer. The Court found that "the Plaintiffs have failed to suggest in their complaint that Defendant Taggert acted with an evil motive or deliberately proceed[ed] to act, or to fail to act, in conscious disregard of, or indifference to, [a] risk." Gordon at S. In contrast, the Complaint in the present case does establish obvious dental disease, known to the Defendants, unlike an unknown hidden cancer, which the Defendants failed to treat or improperly treated knowing the high degree of risk to the Plaintiff of physical harm. Consequently, the cases cited by the Defendants do not support a dismissal of the punitive damages claim in the present case. 12. PARAGRAPH TWELVE (12) is DENIED. The Plaintiff relies upon, and incorporates herein by reference as though fully set forth, the statements contained in paragraphs 6 through eleven (11) above. The Plaintiff also specifically DENIES that he has pled any facts that "indicate that Plaintiff continuously treated with Dr. Patchin over a period of approximately 15 years without any concerns or complaints whatsoever." 13. PARAGRAPH THIRTEEN (13) is DENIED. WHEREFORE, there is no basis to strike all references to reckless, outrageous and willful conduct, and there is no basis to strike the claim for punitive damages. 14. The Plaintiff herein incorporates by reference paragraphs one (1) through thirteen (13) above as though fully set forth in response to PARAGRAPH FOURTEEN (14). 15. PARAGRAPH FIFTEEN (15) is ADMITTED in part and DENIED in part. It is ADMITTED that the Plaintiff refers to an implied contract that has been breached by the Defendants. It is, however, DENIED that the Plaintiff intended to plead a separate cause of action under contract, as the contractual claim is essentially merged with the tort claim. As stated in West's Pennsylvania Forms, Civil Procedure, Part IV. Complaints, Chapter 14. Professional Negligence: In cases involving medical malpractice claims, there is generally no reason to plead separate causes of action in negligence and in contract. There is no difference in the statue of limitations when the plaintiff seeks damages for personal injuries. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5524(c). See also, Murray v. University of Pa. Hosp., 340 Pa. Super. 401, 405, 490 A.2d 839, 842 (1985) (finding a two-year statute of limitations applies to contract actions for personal injury). 9 Whether the cause of action is brought under a tort theory or a contract theory, both of which are applicable, the standard for recovery is the same so the intent was to bring a single claim.5 16. PARAGRAPH SIXTEEN (16) is DENIED as stated. The use of the word "however" falsely implies that this section of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act (MCARE) denies the right of the Plaintiff to assert a claim under the implied contract that existed between him and the Defendants. To the contrary, since the Plaintiff is not asserting a claim that the Defendants warranted or guaranteed a cure, MCARE has no applicability in this case. MCARE does not defeat the duty of a health care professional to provide treatment with due diligence and adequate skill, which is not guaranteeing a result. 17. PARAGRAPH SEVENTEEN (17) is irrelevant to the issues in this case as the Plaintiff has not claimed a guarantee of a cure or a specific result. 18. PARAGRAPH EIGHTEEN (18) is DENIED as stated. The false implication is that these cases apply to an implied contract requiring diligence and skill. To the contrary, these cases apply only to situations where a plaintiff seeks a guaranteed result. 19. PARAGRAPH NINETTEN (19) is ADMITTED. By way of further answer, the Plaintiff did not try to state a separate contractual claim from the tort claim. Also, the Plaintiff did not claim, and need not claim, that the Defendants guaranteed a particular result. 20. PARAGRAPH TWENTY (20) is DENIED. The Defendants misrepresent the holding in Brown v. Herman, 665 A.2d 504, 509 (Pa. Super. 1995). Brown does not say an implied contract claim fails without the existence of a written contract. Brown addressed the question of whether an implied contractual action survived a release executed by the plaintiff. Not only is that issue different than the issue in the present case, but the Court never even 5 If there was a written contract, which there was not in this case, the standard for liability might be different and might have warranted a separate count. 10 decided the issue. Instead, the Court noted "that appellants first raised this claim [that an implied contract action survived the release] in their statement of matters complained of on appeal [to the Superior Court] and it is not therefore properly before us " 665 A.2d at 509 (emphasis added). The Court does not even remotely imply that an implied contract requires a written contract, which is such an apparent contradiction that one cannot understand how Defendants could reach this conclusion from any case. 21. PARAGRAPH TWENTY-ONE (21) is DENIED as stated. The Plaintiff has not pled a separate cause of action under the implied contract, but rather has mentioned the implied contract as part of the overall dental malpractice claim. Consequently, there is no superfluous claim to be dismissed. 22. PARAGRAPH TWENTY-TWO (22) is DENIED. The Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference as though fully set forth the statements in paragraphs fifteen (15) through twenty-one (21) above. WHEREFORE, there is no basis, and certainly no need, to strike the references to an implied contract which help form the overall single claim for dental malpractice. 23. The Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference paragraphs one (1) through twenty- two (22) as though fully set forth in response to PARAGRAPH TWENTY-THREE (23). 24. PARAGRAPH TWENTY-FOUR (24) is DENIED. These paragraphs, when placed in context, do not amount to mere "boilerplate" or "catch all" allegations. For example: a. PARAGRAPH 1 I.h. referring to "other dental problems" follows seven (7) very specifically described dental problems, and merely serves to cover similar and related dental problems that cannot be exhaustively described in every detail in a reasonable Complaint, especially where discovery has not yet been conducted. There is 11 absolutely no effort to reserve the right to later state any new cause of action. Any further dental problems raised in this case would need to be similar to and related to those problems specifically stated. b. PARAGRAPH 14.j. referring to "negligence and recklessness at law" follows nine (9) very specific allegations of inappropriate conduct of the Defendants, and merely emphasizes that these examples constitute "negligence and recklessness at law." There is no effort, or need, to add to these specific examples. C. PARAGRAPH 141. referring to "otherwise failing to use due care" follows nine (9) specific examples of negligence and recklessness; and merely serves to cover similar and related acts of negligence and recklessness that cannot be exhaustively described in every detail in a reasonable Complaint, especially where discovery has not yet been conducted. There is absolutely no effort to reserve the right to later state any new cause of action. Any further examples of negligence or recklessness raised in this case would need to be similar to and related to the items specifically stated. The effort by the Defendants is premature, and perhaps unnecessary, as the Plaintiff has not sought any amendment to the Complaint. If an amendment is later sought, then the Court can judge the appropriateness of such an amendment in light of the other examples pled in the original Complaint. 25. PARAGRAPH TWENTY-FIVE (25) is ADMITTED. By way of further answer, the Complaint clearly complies with Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a) and with Baker v. Rangos, 324 A.2d 498 (Pa. Super. 1974). As stated in Baker: It [the Complaint] should formulate the issues by fully summarizing the material facts. "Material facts" are "ultimate facts," i.e., those facts essential to support the claim. Evidence from which such facts may be inferred not only need not but 12 should not be alleged.... Allegations will withstand challenge under 1019(a) if (1) they contain averments of all of the facts the plaintiff will eventually have to prove in order to recover... and (2) they are sufficiently specific so as to enable defendant to prepare his defense. 324 A.2d at 349-350. Any fair reading of the Complaint in the present case easily shows that Joseph Sabadish has pled all facts he needs to prove in order to recover and these facts are more than specific enough for the Defendants to prepare their defense. 26. PARAGRAPH TWENTY-SIX (26) is DENIED in that it fails to capture the full and true essence of Connor v. Allegheny General Hospital, 461 A.2d 600 (Pa. 1983). The Plaintiff specifically DENIES that he has used "nebulous boilerplate language" or that the "Connor decision places the onus on the defendant" to file preliminary objections in the circumstances of the present case. The significance of the Connor case is that where a "proposed amendment does not change the original cause of action, but rather merely amplifies it, the amendment would not result in any prejudice to appellee [defendant]" and should be granted. 461 A.2d at 602-603. Specification of other ways in which the defendant was negligent was an allowable amendment. 461 A.2d at 602. The general language used by the Plaintiff in the present case merely seeks to allow the Plaintiff to amplify the specific examples provided in the Complaint, and does not seek to change the original cause of action. So, in actuality, Connor supports the Complaint of Joseph Sabadish. The Court merely notes that "[i]f appellee did not know how it "otherwise fail[ed] to use due care and caution under the circumstances," it could have filed a preliminary objection in the nature of a request for a more specific pleading or it could have moved to strike that portion of appellants' complaint" (emphasis added). Connor does not state, as the Defendants falsely 13 imply, that such preliminary objections will always be sustained as to general allegations or that those general allegations will always be strickened. In fact, in the present case, any fair reading of the Complaint demonstrates that the Defendants are being given a fair understanding of how they failed to exercise due care and caution. As long as any proposed amendments "amplify one of the [specific] allegations of the original complaint," the amendment should be allowed. The Defendants seek to arbitrarily deny even reasonable amendments that amplify the specific allegations. In any case, even with the general allegations, the Defendants are protected because an amendment introducing a new cause of action will not be permitted after the statue of limitations has run. See Laursen v. General Hospital of Monroe County, 494 Pa. 238, 431 A.2d 237 (1981). The Plaintiff is not attempting to introduce any new cause of action after the statute of limitations has run.6 More than one case has found that more general language is permissible, at least until discovery is completed, because the defendant knows more about the facts than the plaintiff. Rita Solvibile Executrix of the Estate of Rose Halloway v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 1991 WL 1011069 (Pa. Com. PI.), 23 Phila. Co. Rptr. 124 (1991); Johnson v. Patel, 1993 WL 742806 (Pa. Com. Pl.), 19 Pa. D&C 4th 305. Discovery allows the Plaintiff to obtain these facts, "At the time the suit is filed, the defendants are in far more control of the information than the plaintiff. It is the hospital that controls all the records, and the physicians and hospital staff are far less likely to volunteer information to the plaintiff absent formal depositions." 23 Phila.Co.Rptr. at 126. "Therefore it may be appropriate to allow the plaintiff more time to present detailed reasons once the defendant is put on notice that there was an injury and they are being held responsible...." 23 Phila.Co.Rptr. at 126. "Therefore, if a Motion to Strike or for 6 If the Court should strike this general language, it should make clear that it will still permit amendments that amplify the other more specific allegations of the Complaint. 14 a More Specific Pleading is filed immediately after the complaint is filed, the Court may deny this motion without prejudice to allowing the defendants to refile after a reasonable period for discovery." 23 Phila.Co.Rptr. at 126 (emphasis added). (In Solvibile, the complaint included the language: "(a) failure to conform with the requisite standards of care under the circumstances ... and (d) failure to render reasonable care"). The Johnson Court held similarly to Solvibile. "[W]e find that the disputed paragraphs are sufficiently pleaded to allow the defendants to respond and to formulate a defense, particularly since further elucidation may be obtained through the process of discovery." 19 Pa.D.&C. 4`h at 309. (In Johnson some of the disputed general language included: "[a]ll defendants herein are responsible for and are bound by the acts and omissions of each defendant-physician and other health care providers who were or may have been acting under their control, duty to control or right of control"; the phrase "inter alia"; the phrase "agents, servants, or employee" and the general averments of negligence and lack of care). Similarly, this Court could wait until discovery has been reasonably conducted by the Plaintiff, and see if any amendments are even offered by the Plaintiff, before ruling on this motion to strike these more general allegations. 27. PARAGRAPH TWENTY-SEVEN (27) is DENIED in that these averments, when placed in proper context, do meet the requirements of Pa.R.C.P. 1019 and Pa.R.C.P. 1028(a)(3). 28. PARAGRAPH TWENTY-EIGHT (28) is DENIED in that Plaintiff will not be able to raise any new cause of action after the statute of limitations has run. 29. PARAGRAPH TWENTY-NINE (29) is DENIED in that all potential theories are identified in the Complaint and the general allegations merely seek a fair opportunity to amplify those theories, if necessary. 15 WHEREFORE, paragraphs l 1.h., 14J. and 14.k., should not be removed from the Complaint or, in the alternative, the Court should acknowledge the right of the Plaintiff to amplify his claims at a later date. 30. The Plaintiff herein incorporates herein by reference as though fully set forth paragraphs one (1) through twenty-nine (29) in response to PARAGRAPH THIRTY (30). 31. PARAGRAPH THIRTY-ONE (31) is ADMITTED. By way of further answer, these general statements are made only to allow later amplification of the specific allegations, if necessary. There is no attempt to state a new claim after the statue of limitations has run. 32. PARAGRAPH THIRTY-TWO (32) is DENIED. The Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the statements contained in paragraphs twenty-five (25) through twenty-nine (29) above as though fully set forth. WHEREFORE, the Court should not strike the referenced language or, in the alternative, the Court should acknowledge the right of the Plaintiff to later amplify the other more specific allegations of the Complaint. 33. The Plaintiff hereby incorporates herein by reference as though fully set forth paragraphs one (1) through thirty-two (32) in response to PARAGRAPH THIRTY-THREE (33). 34. PARAGRAPH THIRTY-FOUR (34) is DENIED in that it incorrectly implies an effort to pursue three different and distinct claims. To the contrary, the implied contractual claim and the tort claim are merged into a single general claim for dental malpractice. The request for punitive damages is not a separate claim that requires a separate count. The punitive damages are based upon the underlying claim for dental malpractice. 16 35. PARAGRAPH THIRTY-FIVE (35) is ADMITTED. By way of further answer, the Complaint fully complies with Pa.R.C.P. 1020(a) because there is only one count alleged for dental malpractice. 36. PARAGRAPH THIRTY-SIX (36) is DENIED. The causes of action under an implied contract and under tort are merged into a single count for dental malpractice. The request for punitive damages are "special damages," and are part of the demand for relief, that must be stated along with the underlying cause of action for dental malpractice in the same count. In fact, "[a] demand for punitive damages in a separate count with no cause of action stated in the count violates Pa.R.C.P. 1020(a)." Destefano & Associates v. Cohen, 2002 WL 1472340 (Pa. Com. Pl.). Destefano further states: Count VIII [that was for punitive damages] does incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs of the complaint. However, the appropriate method in seeking punitive damages is to request such damages in each separate count of the complaint in accordance with Pa.R.C.P. 1020(a). (emphasis added). As a result, the Plaintiff in the present case was correct in making a request for punitive damages within the same count as the dental malpractice claim. 17 WHEREFORE, the Court should refuse to order any amendment to the Complaint that would inappropriately force the Plaintiff to arbitrarily split his single dental malpractice claim into multiple counts. Respectfully submitted, THE YORK LEGAL GROUP, LLC Thomas B. York, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 32522 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 236-9675 Fax: (717) 236-6919 Email: tyorkna yorklegalgroup.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Date: April 26, 2006 18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1, Thomas B. York, hereby certify that on this 26"' day of April, 2006, 1 served a true and correct copy of Answer To Defendants' Preliminary Objections To Plaintiffs Complaint via U.S. First Class Mail, upon the following: Francis E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 33L/ ? Thomas B. York rk 19 A JOSEPH S. SABADISH, PLAINTIFF V. HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD, AND PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, DEFENDANTS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 05-3741 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE BAYLEY, J. AND GUIDO, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this C9 day of May, 2006, on relation by counsel for plaintiff that its complaint, although using some contract language, states a claim only based on a cause of action of medical negligence, IT IS ORDERED: (1) Paragraphs 11(h), 14(k) and 14(j), ARE STRICKEN. (2) The claim of plaintiff for punitive damages, IS STRICKEN. (3) All other preliminary objections of defendants to plaintiffs complaint, ARE DISMISSED. By the Court, d r ca M N 7 .x Z? J CL7 ?' .r.'. CJ Q 4 N I Thomas B. York, Esquire 3511 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 For Plaintiff Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 For Defendants :sal DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: FRANCIS E. MARSHALL, JR. ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 27594 BY: AARON S. JAYMAN, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)7314800 (Tele) (717)7314803 (Fax) ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD AND PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY SABADISH, V. Plaintiff HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD and PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, Defendants IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-3741 CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION DEMANDED NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Joseph Sabadish c/o Thomas B. York, Esquire 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO PLEAD TO THE WITHIN NEW MATTER WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THIS PLEADING OR JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. Date: June 1' , 2006 Respectfully submitted, DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. By: k&x= Fran, all, Jr., Esquire Supreme Court I. D. #27594 Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 Attorney for Defendants, Harry V. Patchin, DMD and Patchin Family Dentistry DICKIE, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. BY: FRANCIS E. MARSHALL, JR. ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 27594 BY: AARON S. JAYMAN, ESQUIRE ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717)7314800 (Tele) (717)7314803(Fax) Plaintiff JOSEPH V. ATTORNEY FOR: DEFENDANTS HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD AND PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY IN THE COURT Ur CUMMUIN rLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 2005-3741 CIVIL ACTION - MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY ACTION HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD and PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, Defendants DEMANDED DOENDANTS' ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER TO FLA "C AINT AND NOW, come Defendants, Harry V. Patchin, DMD ("Dr. Patchin"), and Patchin Family Dentistry, collectively hereinafter referred to as ("Answering Defendants'), by and through their counsel, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C., and file the within Answer with New Matter to Plaintiff s Complaint, and in support thereof, aver as follows: 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of these allegations and they are therefore deemed denied. 2. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Dr. Patchin is a licensed professional and is a Pennsylvania resident with an office and principle place of business at 407 South 32nd St., Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. It is also admitted that Plaintiff is asserting a professional liability claim against Dr. Patchin. It is specifically denied that Plaintiff's claim has any merit whatsoever. Furthermore, it is specifically denied that Dr. Patchin is anyway liable to Plaintiff. By way of further response, Dr. Patchin met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. 3. Denied as stated. Patchin Family Dentistry is a professional corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania with its principal place of business located at 407 South 32nd Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 4. Admitted. By way of further answer, at all relevant times, Dr. Patchin met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. 5. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Dr. Patchin was the owner and an employee of Patchin Family Dentistry. The remaining allegations of this paragraph are denied as conclusions of law to which no responses are required. 6. Admitted. By way of further response, Answering Defendants met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. 7. Admitted. By way of further response, Answering Defendants met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. 8. Admitted. 9. Denied as stated. Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to what Plaintiff was lead to believe and did believe during the course of his treatment by Dr. Patchin over a period of approximately 15 years. By way of further response, Answering Defendants provided Plaintiff with adequate and comprehensive dental care and all his dental needs were appropriately addressed. Furthermore, Answering 2 Defendants met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. 10. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff continued under the care of Answering Defendants until approximately August of 2003. Answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth or falsity of the remaining allegations and they are therefore deemed denied. By way of further response, Answering Defendants were not negligent. To the contrary, at all relevant times Answering Defendants met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. 11(a) - (g). Denied. This paragraph and corresponding subparagraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint contain medical and legal conclusions of law to which no responses are required. To the extent that this paragraph and corresponding subparagraphs contain averments of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). Furthermore, Answering Defendants were not negligent. To the contrary, Answering Defendants met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. 11(h). Stricken by Order of Court attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 12. Denied. This paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint contains medical and legal conclusions of law to which no responses are required. To the extent that this paragraph contains averments of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). Furthermore, Answering Defendants were not negligent. To the contrary, Answering Defendants met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. 13. Denied. This paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint contains legal conclusions of law to which no responses are required. It is specifically denied that the dental treatment and care of 3 Answering Defendants was negligent, reckless and otherwise improper. Answering Defendants met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. By way of further response, the claim of Plaintiff for punitive damages was stricken by Order of Court attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 14(a) - (i). Denied. This paragraph and corresponding subparagraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint contain medical and legal conclusions of law to which no responses are required. To the extent that this paragraph and corresponding subparagraphs contain averments of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). Furthermore, Answering Defendants were not negligent or reckless. To the contrary, Answering Defendants met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. The claim of Plaintiff for punitive damages was stricken by Order of Court attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 146) - (k). Stricken by Order of Court attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 15. Denied. This paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, Plaintiffs Complaint states a claim only based on a cause of action of alleged dental negligence per Order of Court attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 16. Denied. This paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, Plaintiff's Complaint states a claim only based on a cause of action of alleged dental negligence per Order of Court attached hereto as Exhibit "A." By way of further response, Answering Defendants met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. 17. Denied. This paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint is a conclusion of law to which no response is required. By way of further response, Plaintiff's Complaint states a claim only 4 based on a cause of action of alleged dental negligence per Order of Court attached hereto as Exhibit "A." By way of further response, Answering Defendants met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. 18(a) - (f). Denied. This paragraph and correspondence subparagraphs of Plaintiff's Complaint contain medical and legal conclusions of law to which no responses are required. To the extent that this paragraph and correspondence subparagraphs contain averments of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). Furthermore, Answering Defendants were not negligent or reckless. To the contrary Answering Defendants met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. By way of further response, the claim of Plaintiff for punitive damages was stricken by Order of Court attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 19. Denied. This paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint contains medical and legal conclusions of law to which no responses are required. By way of further response, Plaintiff's Complaint states a claim only based on a cause of action of alleged dental negligence per Order of Court attached hereto as Exhibit "A." To the extent that this paragraph and correspondence subparagraphs contain averments of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). Furthermore, Answering Defendants were not negligent or reckless. To the contrary Answering Defendants met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. By way of further response, the claim of Plaintiff for punitive damages was stricken by Order of Court attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 20. Denied. This paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint contains medical and legal conclusions of law to which no responses are required. By way of further response, Plaintiff's Complaint states a claim only based on a cause of action of dental negligence per Order of Court 5 attached hereto as Exhibit "A." To the extent that this paragraph and correspondence subparagraphs contain averments of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). Furthermore, Answering Defendants were not negligent or reckless. To the contrary Answering Defendants met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. By way of further response, the claim of Plaintiff for punitive damages was stricken by Order of Court attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 21. Denied. This paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint contains medical and legal conclusions of law to which no responses are required. By way of further response, Plaintiff's Complaint states a claim only based on a cause of action of dental negligence per Order of Court attached hereto as Exhibit "A." To the extent that this paragraph and correspondence subparagraphs contain averments of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). Furthermore, Answering Defendants were not negligent or reckless. To the contrary Answering Defendants met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. By way of further response, the claim of Plaintiff for punitive damages was stricken by Order of Court attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 22. Denied. This paragraph of Plaintiff's Complaint contains medical and legal conclusions of law to which no responses are required. By way of further response, Plaintiff's Complaint states a claim only based on a cause of action of dental negligence per Order of Court attached hereto as Exhibit "A." To the extent that this paragraph and correspondence subparagraphs contain averments of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). Furthermore, Answering Defendants were not negligent or reckless. To the contrary Answering Defendants met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed 6 to the injuries as alleged. By way of further response, the claim of Plaintiff for punitive damages was stricken by Order of Court attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 23. Denied. This paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint contains medical and legal conclusion of law to which no responses are required. By way of further response, Plaintiffs Complaint states a claim only based on a cause of action of dental negligence per Order of Court attached hereto as Exhibit "A." To the extent that this paragraph and correspondence subparagraphs contain averments of fact, they are denied generally pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1029(e). Furthermore, Answering Defendants were not negligent or reckless. To the contrary Answering Defendants met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. By way of further response, the claim of Plaintiff for punitive damages was stricken by Order of Court attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 24. Denied. This paragraph contains conclusions of law to which no responses are required. It is specifically denied that Answering Defendants are in any way liable to Plaintiff. 25. Denied. This paragraph of Plaintiffs Complaint contains conclusions of law to which no responses are required. By way of further response, it is specifically denied that Answering Defendants concealed the severity of any problems from Plaintiff. To the contrary, Answering Defendants met or exceeded the standard of care and at no time caused or contributed to the injuries as alleged. By way of further response, the claim of Plaintiff for punitive damages was stricken by Order of Court attached hereto as Exhibit "A." 26. Denied. The claim of Plaintiff for punitive damages was stricken by Order of Court attached hereto as Exhibit "A." Therefore, no response is required. 7 NEW MATTER By way of further answer, Defendants aver the following New Matter directed to Plaintiff. 27. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 28. Plaintiff is responsible, in whole or in part, for the injuries alleged because Plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risk of the activities, and therefore, all claims resulting therefrom are barred. 29. Nothing Answering Defendants did or failed to do was the cause in fact or the proximate cause of any alleged injury or loss to Plaintiff. 30. Plaintiffs claims may be barred by the doctrines of assumption of the risk and contributory negligence or reduced by comparative negligence. 31. Plaintiffs Complaint is barred or reduced by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, the relevant provisions of which are incorporated herein by referenced as though same were more fully set forth at length herein. 32. At all times material hereto, Answering Defendants provided treatment in accordance with the applicable standard of medical care at the time and place of treatment. 33. Plaintiff failed to mitigate any damages allegedly sustained. 34. Plaintiffs claims and/or request for damages herein are limited and/or precluded by the doctrines of res iudicata and/or collateral estoppel. 35. Plaintiff s claims are completely barred by the applicable statute of limitations. 36. Plaintiff s cause of action may be barred by the equitable doctrine of laches. 8 37. To the extent that discovery and/or investigation may reveal, Plaintiff has granted accord and satisfaction to a judgment thereby barring a subsequent suit against any other defendant for the same injuries. 38. In accordance with Pennsylvania law, including the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act, Plaintiff shall have no right to recover any amount, which was paid by a collateral source of compensation or benefits. 39. Plaintiff may have entered into a release which has the effect of discharging Answering Defendants from this matter. 40. Upon information and belief, certain of Plaintiff's bills for which Plaintiff seeks to recover in this action that were paid or are payable under accident and health insurance, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Worker's Compensation insurance, or other insurance. 41. Plaintiff shall have no right to recover for any amount which was paid by a private, public, or gratuitous collateral source of compensation or benefits under such as instituted or amended by the Pennsylvania Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act. 42. Plaintiff's claims and/or request for damages is barred or limited by the provisions of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act, Act. No. 13, House Bill No. 1802, 2202 Pa. ALS 13; 2002, Pa. Laws 13; 2001 Pa. HB 1802, as amended. 43. By way of further answer, Answering Defendants specifically reserve the right to plead hereafter as further New Matter those additional affirmative defenses, including, without limitation, those set forth in Pa.R.Civ.P. 1030, that continuing investigation, discovery in accordance with court rules, and the introduction of evidence at trial may render applicable to claims and causes of action declared upon Plaintiff in the Complaint. 9 44. Answering Defendants assert the "Two Schools of Thought" defense. WHEREFORE, Defendants, Harry V. Patchin, DMD and Patchin Family Dentistry deny that Plaintiff is entitled to the relief requested or any relief whatsoever and demands that judgment be entered in their favor and against the Plaintiff and that it be awarded appropriate costs and fees. Respectfully submitted, DIME, MCCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C. Date: June, 2006 By: ea?= Fr cis, shall, Jr., Esquire rim ourt I. D. 927594 Sup Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire Supreme Court I.D. #85651 1200 Camp Hill Bypass Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 (717) 731-4800 Attorney for Defendants, Harry V. Patchin, DMD and Patchin Family Dentistry 10 VERIFICATION I, Harry V. Patchin, DMD, hereby verify that the averments set forth in the preceding Answer with New Matter to Plaintiffs Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. § 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date: kl y & By: y? Harry V. Patchin, DMD, Individually and on behalf of Patchin Family Dentistry r-?4 k.) 6 ? ) -? A- JOSEPH S. SABADISH, PLAINTIFF V. HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD, AND PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, DEFENDANTS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA 05-3741 CIVIL TERM IN RE: PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF DEFENDANTS TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT BEFORE BAYLEY, J. AND GUIDO, J. ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this `3 day of May, 2006, on relation by counsel for plaintiff that its complaint, although using some contract language, states a claim only based on a cause of action of medical negligence, IT IS ORDERED: (1) Paragraphs 11(h), 14(k) and 140), ARE STRICKEN. (2) The claim of plaintiff for punitive damages, IS STRICKEN. (3) All other preliminary objections of defendants to plaintiffs complaint, ARE DISMISSED. By the Court, C -70 Thomas B. York, Esquire 3511 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 For Plaintiff Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 For Defendants sal CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this _ day of June, 2006, I, Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire, hereby certify that I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon all counsel of record or parties involved by depositing, or causing to be deposited, same in the U.S. mail, postage prepaid, at Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Thomas B. York, Esquire 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (Counsel for Plaintiffs) Aaro y Esquire 11 C'i ?? CJ .. 'tl ?_ c T C: (S i ?.• 'i _ . _.? l i'T (.) :,.{ _. f V jj Thomas B. York, Esquire The York Legal Group, LLC 3511 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tel: (717) 236-9675 Fax: (717) 236-6919 Email: tvork(aworklesaleroun.com Attorney for Plaintiff, Joseph Sabadish JOSEPH S. SABADISH, Plaintiff, V. HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD And PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA : CIVIL ACTION : CASE NO.: 2005-3741 PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Joseph S. Sabadish ("Sabadish"), by his attorneys, The York Legal Group, LLC, and files this Reply to Defendants' New Matter. ANSWERS TO NEW MATTER 27. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. REPLY: DENIED. 28. Plaintiff is responsible, in whole or in part, for the injuries alleged because Plaintiff voluntarily and knowingly assumed the risk of the activities, and therefore, all claims resulting therefrom are barred. REPLY: DENIED. By way of further reply, there is no basis in fact or in law to support any claim that the Plaintiff assumed the risk of the negligent conduct of the Defendants. 29. Nothing Answering Defendants did or failed to do was the cause in fact or the proximate cause of any alleged injury or loss to Plaintiff. REPLY: DENIED. 30. Plaintiff's claims may be barred by the doctrines of assumption of the risk and contributory negligence or reduced by comparative negligence. REPLY: DENIED. By way of further reply, there is no basis in fact or in law to support any claim that the Plaintiff assumed the risk or was negligent. 31. Plaintiff s claim may be barred or reduced by the provisions of the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act, the relevant provisions of which are incorporated herein by referenced as though same were more fully set forth at length herein. REPLY: DENIED. By way of further reply, there is no basis in fact or in law to support the claim that Plaintiff was negligent. 32. At all times material hereto, Answering Defendants provided treatment in accordance with the applicable standard of medical care at the time and place of treatment. REPLY: DENIED. 33. Plaintiff failed to mitigate any damages allegedly sustained. REPLY: DENIED. 34. Plaintiff's claims and/or request for damages herein are limited and/or precluded by the doctrines of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel. REPLY: DENIED. By way of further reply, this allegation is entirely frivolous as there is no basis for this claim. 35. Plaintiff's claims are completely barred by the applicable statute of limitations. REPLY: DENIED. 2 36. Plaintiff's cause of action may be barred by the equitable doctrine of ]aches. REPLY: DENIED. By way of further reply, this allegation is entirely frivolous as there is no basis for this claim. 37. To the extent that discovery and/or investigation may reveal, Plaintiff has granted accord and satisfaction to a judgment thereby barring a subsequent suit against any other defendant for the same injuries. REPLY: DENIED. By way of further reply, this allegation is entirely frivolous as there is no basis for this claim. 38. In accordance with Pennsylvania law, including the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act, Plaintiff shall have no right to recover any amount, which was paid by a collateral source of compensation benefits. REPLY: This allegation is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response may be deemed to be necessary, and since the Defendants do not identify the compensation benefits to which they are referring, this allegation is DENIED. 39. Plaintiff may have entered into a release which has the effect of discharging Answering Defendants from this matter. REPLY: DENIED. By way of further reply, this allegation is entirely frivolous as there is no basis for this claim. 40. Upon information and belief, certain of Plaintiffs bills for which Plaintiff seeks to recover in this action that were paid or are payable under accident and healthcare insurance, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, Worker's Compensation insurance, or other insurance. REPLY: This allegation appears to be incomplete and, therefore, the Plaintiff cannot respond thereto. If the intent was to merely allege that certain bills were paid by insurance, that allegation is ADMITTED. It is, however, specifically DENIED that any such bills were paid by accident insurance or by Worker's Compensation insurance. 41. Plaintiff shall have no right to recover for any amount which was paid by a private, public, or gratuitous collateral source of compensation or benefits under such as instituted or amended by the Pennsylvania Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act. REPLY: This allegation is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response may be deemed to be necessary, and since the Defendants do not identify the compensation benefits to which they are referring, this allegation is DENIED. 42. Plaintiff's claim and/or request for damages is barred or limited by the provisions of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act, Act. No. 13, House Bill No. 1802, 2202 Pa. Laws 13; 2001 Pa. HB 1802, as amended. REPLY: This allegation is a legal conclusion to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent a response may be deemed to be necessary, this allegation is DENIED. 43. By way of further answer, Answering Defendants specifically reserve the right to plead hereafter as further New Matter those additional affirmative defenses, including, without limitation, those set forth in Pa.R.Civ.P 1030, that continuing investigation, discovery in 4 accordance with court rules, and the introduction of evidence at trial may render applicable to claims and causes of action declared upon Plaintiff in the Complaint. REPLY: DENIED. 44. Answering Defendants assert the "Two Schools of Thought" defense. REPLY: DENIED. By way of further reply, there is no considerable group of medical experts who would approve the negligent care and treatment rendered by the Defendants. Medical and dental authority is not divided on the proper care that should have been rendered, and was not so rendered, to the Plaintiff by the Defendants. This alleged defense has no applicability to this case. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff requests judgment in his favor as described in the Complaint. Respectfully submitted, THE YORK LEGAL GROUP, LLC Thomas B. York, Esqui e Attorney I.D. No. 3252 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 236-9675 Fax: (717) 236-6919 Email: tyorkCa oy rkle ag lg_oup.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Date: July 5, 2006 VERIFICATION I, Joseph S. Sabadish, hereby verify and confirm that I am authorized to sign this Verification in this action, and I fiuther acknowledge that I have read the foregoing Reply to New Matter and that the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand also that any false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. § 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities. Date: Z 1 2006 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Thomas B. York, hereby certify that on this 5`h day of July, 2006, 1 served a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Answer To Defendants' New Matter via U.S. First Class Mail, upon the following: Francis E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire Aaron S. Jayman, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 Thomas B. York cr'i r "I co G IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY SABADISH Vs. PATCHIN, D.M.D., ET AL NO. 2005CV3741MM CERTIFICATE PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE OF A SUBPOENA PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 As a prerequisite to service of a subpoena(s) for documents and things pursuant to Rule 4009.22 FRANCIS E MARSHALL JR, ESQUIRE certifies that: 1. A Notice of Intent to Serve the Subpoena(s) with a copy of the subpoena(s) attached thereto was mailed or delivered to each party at least twenty days prior to the date on which the subpoena(s) is sought to be served, 2., A copy of the Notice of Intent, including the proposed subpoena(s) is attached to this certificate, 3. No objection to the subpoena(s) has been received, and 4. The subpoena(s) which will be served is identical to the subpoena(s) which is attached to the Notice of Intent to Serve the Subpoena(s). Date: 10/24/07 File #: M345245 FRANCIS E MARSHALL JR, ESQUIRE 1200 CAMP HILL BYPASS SUITE 205 CAMP HILL, PA 17011 717-731-4800 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT INQUIRIES SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO: MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS, INC. 4940 DISSTON STREET PHILADELPHIA PA 19135 (215) 335-3336 By: Christine Moisy SABADISH Vs. CONIKNWFALTH OF PERNMVANIA COONrY OF CONES U AND PATCHIN, D.M.D., ET AL Fi le No. J7wr 2005CVa&"MM MEDICAL BILLING REQUESTED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 DR CRAIG ANZUR, DMD, 220 CUMBERLAND PKWY STE 1, MECHANICSBURG PA 17055 TO: (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 %&4tTACHED ADDENDUM at MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS,oI iCess) 40 DISSTON ST., PHILA., ---? You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested b? this subpoena, together with the certificate of carp 1 i ance, to the party making th i 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 thin subpoena may seek a court ordei- ompe 11 i ng you to comp 1 y with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: FRANCIS E MARSHALL JR, ESQ ADDRESS : 1200 CAMP HILL BYPASS Ph. IP HILL, PA 17011 TELEPHONE: SUPREW COURT ID # 215-335-3212 ATTORNEY FOR: 27594 DEFENDANT M345245-01 DATE : 0 f a&A 9 Seal of tKe Court BY THE OOURT: C4"Itz.; /?- "Pwft4 - Prothonotary/C1 k, Civil Division -- Deputy (Eff . -1/97) ADDENDUM TO SUBPOENA SABADISH Vs. 3111 No. 2005CV3448MM PATCHIN, D.M.D., ET AL CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR : DR CRAIG ANZUR, DND ANY AND ALL COPIES OF MEDICAL BILLING RECORDS REGARDING JOSEPH SABADISH FROM THE FIRST DATE OF SERVICE TO PRESENT. PERTAINING TO: NAME: JOSEP SABADISH ADDRESS: DATE OF BIRTH: 01/25/54 SSAN: XXXXX2747 MEDICAL BILLING REQUESTED CERTIFIED PHOTOCOPIES WILL BE ACCEPTED IN LIEU OF YOUR PERSONAL APPEARANCE. RECORD CUSTODIAN - COMPLETE AND RETURN [ ] RECORDS ARE ATTACHED HERETO. I hereby certify as custodian of records that, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief all documents or things above mentioned have been produced. [ ] NO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE. I hereby certify that a thorough search has been made and that no record of the following documents have been located (CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX): ( ) RECORDS ( ) PATIENT BILLING ( ) X-RAYS ( ) RECORDS / XRAYS have been destroyed Date Authorized signature or DR CRAIG ANZUR, DMD CUMBERLAND M345245-01 * * * SIGN AND RETURN THIS PAGE * * * OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNry OF CUMBERLAND SA3ADISH t Vs. Fi Is No. PATCHIN, D.M.D., ET AL 37(// 2005CV3.G+SMM MEDICAL BILLING REQUESTED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR TH I MS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 ENDODONTICS ASSOCS, 1199 COLONIAL RD, HARRISBURG PA 17112 TO: (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 oxins$,;, at - --- MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS, (49ess) 40 DISSTON ST., PHILA., You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested b? this subpoena, together with the certificate of conpliance, to the party making thi: request. at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the rea.onable 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 thin subpoena may seek a court orde;- cm pe 11 i ng you to carte l y with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: FRANCIS E MARSHALL JR, ESQ ADDRESS: 1200 CAMP HILL BYPASS 17011 TELEPHONE: 212 SUPREME COURT I D # 215 - 3 3 5- 3 ATTORNEY FOR : 2 7 5 9 4 DEFENDANT M345245-02 DATE : C tt- _ ? U07 Seal of the Court BY THE COURT: s Prothonotary/Cl k, Civil Division r Deputy (Eff. 7/97) ADDENDUM TO SUBPOENA SABADISH Vs. 3791 I No. 2005CV34 448MM PATCHIN, D.M.D., ET AL CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: ENDODONTICS ASSOCS ANY AND ALL COPIES OF MEDICAL BILLING RECORDS REGARDING JOSEPH SABADISH FROM THE FIRST DATE OF SERVICE TO PRESENT. PERTAINING TO: NAME: JOSEP SABADISH ADDRESS: DATE OF BIRTH: 01/25/54 S SAN : XXXXX2 7 4 7 MEDICAL BILLING REQUESTED CERTIFIED PHOTOCOPIES WILL BE ACCEPTED IN LIEU OF YOUR PERSONAL APPEARANCE. RECORD CUSTODIAN - COMPLETE AND RETURN [ ] RECORDS ARE ATTACHED HERETO: I hereby certify as custodian of records that, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief all documents or things above mentioned have been produced. [ ] NO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE: I hereby certify. that a thorough search has been made and that no record of the following documents have been located (CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX): ( ) RECORDS ( ) PATIENT BILLING ( ) X-RAYS ( ) RECORDS / XRAYS have been destroyed Date CUMBERLAND M345245-02 Authorized signature or ENDODONTICS ASSOCS *** SIGN AND RETURN THIS PAGE *** SABADISH Vs. CO pNWFALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF C 1413EKAN D . PATCHIN, D.M.D., ET AL Fi le No. 3 ?y// 2005 Cv,;172 ?Il?I MEDICAL BILLING REQUESTED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 DR CRAIG LAHAR, C/O ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURG, 220 CUMBERLAND PKWY TO: MECHANICSBURG PA 17055 (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 sings;, at MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS,(al Ci5C You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested b? this subpoena, together with the certificate of compliance, to the party making thi-c request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the rea.onabl,- 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 thi, subpoena may seek a court ordei- cm pelting you to carp 1y with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: FRANCIS E MARSHALL JR, ESQ ADDRESS: 1700 C'AMU HILL BYPASS CMP 17011 TELEPHONE : SUPREME COURT I D -# 215-335-3212 ATTORNEY FOR : 2 7 5 9 4 DEFENDANT M345245-03 DATE :? Seal of the Court BY THE COURT: s Prothonotary/Clerk, Civil Division Deputy (Eff. 7/97) ADDENDUM SABADISH Vs. PATCHIN, D.M.D., ET AL 37y! No. 2005CV3948MM CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR : DR CRAIG LAHAR ANY AND ALL COPIES OF MEDICAL BILLING RECORDS REGARDING JOSEPH SABADISH FROM THE FIRST DATE OF SERVICE TO PRESENT. PERTAINING TO: NAME: JOSEP SABADISH ADDRESS: DATE OF BIRTH: 01/25/54 SSAN: XXXXX2747 MEDICAL BILLING REQUESTED CERTIFIED PHOTOCOPIES WILL BE ACCEPTED IN LIEU OF YOUR PERSONAL APPEARANCE. RECORD CUSTODIAN - COMPLETE AND RETURN [ ] RECORDS ARE ATTACHED HERETO. I hereby certify as custodian of records that, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief all documents or things above mentioned have been produced. [ ] NO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE. I hereby certify that a thorough search has been made and that no record of the following documents have been located (CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX): ( ) RECORDS ( ) PATIENT BILLING ( ) X-RAYS ( ) RECORDS / XRAYS have been destroyed Date Authorized signature or DR CRAIG LAHAR CUMBERLAND M345245-03 TO SUBPOENA * * * SIGN AND RETURN THIS PAGE * * * QOM LTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF SABADISH Vs. Fi le No. PATCHIN, D.M.D., ET AL 37V/ 2 0 0 5 CV34*6MM MEDICAL BILLING REQUESTED SUBPOENA To PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINOS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 NATIONAL DENTAL ADMIN, 1200 RTE 46, CLIFTON NJ 07013 TO: (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 1X4iTACHED ADDENDUM at _ ----- MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS,(Add I8C 940 DISSTON T., ress You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of ccmp1iance, to the party making thi= request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the rea,onablc- 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 thin subpoena may seek a court orde:- oampelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: FRANCIS E MARSHALL JR, ESQ ADDRESS: _ i r o n C"AM 2 HILL BYPASS 17011 TELEPHONE: SUPREME COURT ID 4 215-335-3212 ATTORNEY FOR : 2 7 5 9 4 DEFENDANT M345245-04 -e a-00 7 DATE :_ Seal of the Court BY THE OOURT: s _ Prothonotary/Cl Civil Division Deputy (Eff . 1/97) ADDENDUM TO SUBPOENA SABADISH Vs. 3 7511 No. 2 0 0 5 CV3.9 48MM PATCHIN, D.M.D., ET AL CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR : NATIONAL DENTAL ADMIN ANY AND ALL COPIES OF MEDICAL BILLING RECORDS REGARDING JOSEPH SABADISH FROM THE FIRST DATE OF SERVICE TO PRESENT. PERTAINING TO: NAME: JOSEP SABADISH ADDRESS: DATE OF BIRTH: 01/25/54 SSAN: XXXXX2747 MEDICAL BILLING REQUESTED CERTIFIED PHOTOCOPIES WILL BE ACCEPTED IN LIEU OF YOUR PERSONAL APPEARANCE. RECORD CUSTODIAN - COMPLETE AND RETURN [ ] RECORDS ARE ATTACHED HERETO: I hereby certify as custodian of records that, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief all documents or things above mentioned have been produced. [ ] NO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE. I hereby certify that a thorough search has been made and that no record of the following documents have been located (CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX): ( ) RECORDS ( ) PATIENT BILLING ( ) X-RAYS ( ) RECORDS / XRAYS have been destroyed Date Authorized signature or NATIONAL DENTAL ADMIN CUMBERLAND M345245-04 * * * SIGN AND RETURN THIS PAGE * * * OF PENNSYLVANIA COEWry OF CIA93ERLAM SABADISH Vs. File No. PATCHIN, D.M.D., ET AL 3 ?V7 2005CV38K4$MM MEDICAL BILLING REQUESTED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCLtENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 DR ERIC UNGER, DDS, 161 OLD SCHOOLHOUSE LN, MECHANICSBURG PA 17055 TO: (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 altng,, __ at MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS,(Address4940 DISST N ST., PHILA., PX-----' You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested b? this subpoena, together wi til the certificate of carp 1 i ance, to the party making this request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the rea,onabl,- 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 (120) days after its service, the party serving thin subpoena may seek a court orde:- ccmpelling you to comply with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: FRANCIS E MARSHALL JR, ESQ . ADDRESS: 1200 CAMP HILL BYPASS e P HILL, PA 17011 TELEPHONE: SUPREhE OOURT ID 215-335-3212 ATTORNEY FOR : 2 7 5 9 4 DEFENDANT M345245-05 DATE : a ay. 't . :: r 2" 2 Seal of the Court BY THE COURT: C"t?? P LIM4 - Prothonotary/C1 , Civil Division Deputy (Eff. 7/97) ADDENDUM TO SUBPOENA SABADISH Vs. 37W No. 2 0 0 5CV1946MM PATCHIN, D.M.D., ET AL CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR : DR ERIC UNGER, DDS ANY AND ALL COPIES OF MEDICAL BILLING RECORDS REGARDING JOSEPH SABADISH FROM THE FIRST DATE OF SERVICE TO PRESENT. PERTAINING TO: NAME: JOSEP SABADISH ADDRESS: DATE OF BIRTH: 01/25/54 SSAN: XXXXX2747 MEDICAL BILLING REQUESTED CERTIFIED PHOTOCOPIES WILL BE ACCEPTED IN LIEU OF YOUR PERSONAL APPEARANCE. RECORD CUSTODIAN - COMPLETE AND RETURN [ ] RECORDS ARE ATTACHED HERETO: I hereby certify as custodian of records that, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief all documents or things above mentioned have been produced. [ ] NO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE. I hereby certify that a thorough search has been made and that no record of the following documents have been located (CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX): ( ) RECORDS ( ) PATIENT BILLING ( ) X-RAYS ( ) RECORDS / XRAYS have been destroyed Date Authorized signature or DR ERIC UNGER, DDS CUMBERLAND M345245-05 * * * SIGN AND RETURN THIS PAGE * * * COMMKIMALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA SA3ADISH Vs. PATCHIN, D.M.D., ET AL Fi Is No. 39,11 2005CVMM MEDICAL BILLING REQUESTED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCIJ ENTS OR TH1NOS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 HOLY SPIRIT HOSP, 503 N 21ST ST, CAMP HILL PA 17011 TO: ATTN: BILLING DEPT (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 I ngg;, _ at MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS,(Addr, 4194 . , You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested b? this subpoena, together with the certificate of ccrmliance, to the party making thi request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonablc- 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 thin subpoena may seek a court order campe l l i ng you to camp 1 y with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: FRANCIS E MARSHALL JR, ESQ ADDRESS: 1200 CAMP HILL BYPASS HILL, 'P 17 011 ee.pooe TELEPHONE : - SUPREW COURT ID 215-335-3212 # ATTORNEY FOR : 2 7 5 9 4 DEFENDANT M345245-06 DATE : Off. S' a on 7 Seal of the Court couNry OF cUMBEEAND BY THE COURT: Prot tary/Cl k, Civi 1 Division Deputy (Eff. 1/97) ADDENDUM TO SUBPOENA SABADISH Vs. 3 7Y/ No. 2005CV3.6+8MM PATCHIN, D.M.D., ET AL CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR: HOLY SPIRIT HOSP ANY AND ALL COPIES OF MEDICAL BILLING RECORDS REGARDING JOSEPH SABADISH FROM THE FIRST DATE OF SERVICE TO PRESENT. PERTAINING TO: NAME: JOSEP SABADISH ADDRESS: DATE OF BIRTH: 01/25/54 SSAN: XXXXX2747 MEDICAL BILLING REQUESTED ALL FEES MUST BE APPROVED PRIOR TO RECORDS BEING FORWARDED. RECORD CUSTODIAN - COMPLETE AND RETURN [ ] RECORDS ARE ATTACHED HERETO. I hereby certify as custodian of records that, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief all documents or things above mentioned have been produced. [ ] NO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE. I hereby certify that a thorough search has been made and that no record of the following documents have been located (CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX): ( ) RECORDS ( ) PATIENT BILLING ( ) X-RAYS ( ) RECORDS / XRAYS have been destroyed Date Authorized signature or HOLY SPIRIT HOSP CUMBERLAND M345245-06 * * * SIGN AND RETURN THIS PAGE * * * OF PENNSYLVANIA SABADISH Vs. PATCHIN, D.M.D., ET AL COUNTY OF C UMBEPIAND 3 7 it/ F i le No. 2 0 0 5 CV3-A -&MM MEDICAL BILLING REQUESTED SUBPOENA TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS OR THINGS FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO RULE 4009.22 TO: (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 o§ingS;, at ASSOC OTOLARYNGOLOGISTS, 101 W CHERRY ST, PALMYRA PA 17078 MEDICAL LEGAL REPRODUCTIONS, , 40 DI ., PHILA., ----- (AI CAss You may deliver or mail legible copies of the documents or produce things requested by this subpoena, together with the certificate of campliance, to the party making thi-v request at the address listed above. You have the right to seek in advance the reasonablc- 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 thin subpoena may seek a court orde:- o mpe l l i ng you to catp l y with it. THIS SUBPOENA WAS ISSUED AT THE REQUEST OF THE FOLLOWING PERSON: NAME: FRANCIS E MARSHALL JR, ESQ ADDRESS: 1200 CAMP HILL BYPASS e'AMP HILL, PA 17011 TELEPHONE: SUPREME COURT ID # 215-335-3212 ATTORNEY FOR : 2 7 5 9 4 DEFENDANT M345245-07 DATE : 0 CWI._ e 11M 7 Seal of the Co t BY THE COURT: Prothonotary/Cler , Civil Division L Deputy (Eff. 7/97) J SABADISH Vs. PATCHIN, D.M.D., ET AL 3 ?y/ No. 2005CV3844M CUSTODIAN OF RECORDS FOR : ASSOC OTOLARYNGOLOGISTS ANY AND ALL COPIES OF MEDICAL BILLING RECORDS REGARDING JOSEPH SABADISH FROM THE FIRST DATE OF SERVICE TO PRESENT. PERTAINING TO: NAME: JOSEP SABADISH ADDRESS: DATE OF BIRTH: 01/25/54 SSAN: XXXXX2747 MEDICAL BILLING REQUESTED CERTIFIED PHOTOCOPIES WILL BE ACCEPTED IN LIEU OF YOUR PERSONAL APPEARANCE. RECORD CUSTODIAN - COMPLETE AND RETURN [ ] RECORDS ARE ATTACHED HERETO. I hereby certify as custodian of records that, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief all documents or things above mentioned have been produced. [ ] NO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE. I hereby certify that a thorough search has been made and that no record of the following documents have been located (CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX): ( ) RECORDS ( ) PATIENT BILLING ( ) X-RAYS ( ) RECORDS / XRAYS have been destroyed Date Authorized signature or ASSOC OTOLARYNGOLOGISTS CUMBERLAND M345245-07 ADDENDUM TO SUBPOENA * * * SIGN AND RETURN THIS PAGE * * * t 'r; r r' - C-17 -j t',? r 71 a } 110 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA JOSEPH S. SABADISH, Plaintiff, V. HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD and PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, Defendants. CIVIL ACTION CASE No.: 2005-3741 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter the appearance of Donald B. Zaycosky on behalf of the Plaintiff the above captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, Date: November 6, 2009 THE YORK LEGAL GROUP, LLC onald B. Zaycosky, squire Attorney I.D. No. 91821 Thomas B. York, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 32522 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 236-9675 Fax: (717) 236-6919 Email: tyorkA-)yorklegalgroup.com Attorneys for Joseph S. Sabadish Plaintiff I V.,01 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Donald B. Zaycosky, hereby certify that on this 6th day of November 2009, I served a true and correct copy of Entry of Appearance via U.S. First Class Mail, upon the following: Francis E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 L- 17- Donald B. ayco 2 FILE u- rl THE I )Try 2009 NOV 10 i";ri 6: i I r.?{?j ?elJ ?17:, r l4 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V JOSEPH S. SABADISH, , Plaintiff, V. , HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD and PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, Defendants. CIVIL ACTION CASE No.: 2005-3741 STATEMENT OF INTENTION TO PROCEED G c7 c 0 -n ? =-n ca rn U5 C:) - C) -n s- n ? ? o rrt -,? To the Court: Plaintiff, Joseph S. Sabadish intends to proceed with the above captioned matter. Respectfully submitted, Date: December jq_, 2010 THE YORK. LEGAL GROUP, LLC Donald B. Zaycosky, Esq i Attorney I.D. No. 91821 Thomas B. York, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 32522 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 (717) 236-9675 Fax: (717) 236-6919 Email: kork orkle al ou .com Attorneys for Joseph S S adish Plaintiff CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Donald B. Zaycosky, hereby certify that on this " day of December 2010,1 served a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs Statement of Intention to Proceed via U.S. (First Class Mail, upon the following: Francis E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011-3700 r, Donald B. Zaycosky 2 1138042 ok f^-('' (j FILED-0 ICE PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CAS' M&F?T?QN4TARY (Must be typewritten and submittAi1^hPatrr I' 23 TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUffBERLANO COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA Please list the following case: X for JURY trial at the next term of civil court. :1 for trial without a jury. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CAPTION OF CASE (entire caption must be stated in full) (check one) Joseph Sabadish, X Civil Action - Law (Plaintiff) ? Appeal from arbitration vs. (other) Harry V. Patchin, DMD and Patchin Family Dentistry, (Defendant) The trial list will be called on 3/27/2012 and Trials commence on April 23, 2012 Pretrials will be held on April 11, 2012 Briefs are due 5 days before pretrials No. 2005-3741- Civil Term Indicate the attorney who will try case for the party who files this Praecipe: Francis E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire - for Defendants 425 N. 21" Street, Suite 302, Camp Hill, PA 17011 Indicate trial counsel for other parties if known: Thomas B. York, Esquire & Donald B. Zaycosky, Esquire - for Plaintiff 3511 North Front Street, Harrisburg, PA 17110 --? This case is ready for trial. Date: January 10, 2012 Attorney for Defendants, Harry V Patchin Family Dentistry atchin, DMD and a11kE' sag. 75 0 Ckj# )yf ? 4 ?I WCA q'12 C9 1 JOSEPH SABADISH, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF Plaintiff CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA V. CIVIL ACTION - LAW HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD and PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY, Defendant 05-3741 CIVIL TERM IN RE: STRICKEN FROM TRIAL LIST ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 27th day of March, 2012, neither Plaintiff's counsel nor defense counsel having shown up for this case, the case is hereby stricken from the trial list. By the Court, Christyl e L. Peck, J. (Thomas B. York, Esquire Donald B. Zaycosky, Esquire 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 For the Plaintiff p-Francis E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire po 1200 Camp Hill Bypass, STE 205 Camp Hill, PA 17011 c--, For the Defendants =e-' c.? pcb P 312 q?jL Thomas B. York, Esquire The York Legal Group, LLC 3511 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tel: (717) 236-9675 Fax: (717) 236-6919 Email: tyorkLmyorklegalgroup.com Attorney for Plaintiff, Joseph Sabadish JOSEPH S. SABADISH, Plaintiff, V. HARRY V. PATCHIN, DMD And PATCHIN FAMILY DENTISTRY 2012 APR 10 AN 11: '42 CU14BERLAND COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, : PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION CASE NO.: 2005-3741 PRAECIPE TO SETTLE. DISCONTINUE AND END TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please mark the docket in the above-captioned matter as settled and discontinued with prejudice. Respectfully submitted, s Comas B. York Attorney I.D. No. 32522 Donald B. Zaycosky Attorney I.D. No.: 81821 THE YORK LEGAL GROUP, LLC 3511 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17110 Tel: (717) 236-9675 Fax: (717) 236-6919 Email: ?ork(u? o?galgroup.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Date: April 9, 2012 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Thomas B. York, hereby certify that on this 9th day of April 2012, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing document Praecipe to Settle, Discontinue and End via U.S. First Class Mail, upon the following: Francis E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. Plaza 21, Suite 302 425 North 21s' Street Camp Hill, PA 17011-2223 omas B. York i`