Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-6346KRISTIN D. SCOTT, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs JANIECE C. ANDREWS, M.D., FRIENDS ) FOR LIFE INTERNATIONAL, INC., and ) PRESCRIPTIONS FOR ENLIGHTENING ) PATHS, INC., ) Defendants ) CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. OS'_ L,3?l6 0-t'.1're NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS NAMED HEREIN: YOU HAVE BEEN SUED IN COURT. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND AGAINST THE CLAIMS SET FORTH IN THE FOLLOWING PAGES, YOU MUST TAKE ACTION WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS AFTER THIS COMPLAINT AND NOTICE ARE SERVED, BY ENTERING A WRITTEN APPEARANCE PERSONALLY OR BY ATTORNEY AND FILING IN WRITING WITH THE COURT YOUR DEFENSES OR OBJECTIONS TO THE CLAIMS SET FORTH AGAINST YOU. YOU ARE WARNED THAT IF YOU FAIL TO DO SO, THE CASE MAY PROCEED WITHOUT YOU, AND A JUDGMENT MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU BY THE COURT WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE FOR ANY MONEY CLAIMED IN THE COMPLAINT OR FOR ANY OTHER CLAIM OR RELIEF REQUESTED BY THE PLAINTIFF. YOU MAY LOSE MONEY OR PROPERTY OR OTHER RIGHTS IMPORTANT TO YOU. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. CUMBERLAND COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION 2 LIBERTY AVENUE CARLISLE, PENNSYLVANIA 17013 TELEPHONE: (717) 249-3166 KRISTIN D. SCOTT, ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON Plaintiff ) PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. ) JANIECE C. ANDREWS, M.D., FRIENDS ) CIV IL ACTION - LAW FOR LIFE INTERNATIONAL, INC., and ) PRESCRIPTIONS FOR ENLIGHTENING ) PATHS, INC., ) NO. OS- L3 yL ?/ ua Defendants ) COMPLAINT AND NOW comes the above-named Plaintiff, by her attorney, Samuel L. Andes, and makes the following Complaint against the Defendants in this matter: 1. The Plaintiff herein is Kristin D. Scott an adult individual who resides at 241 North 191h Street in Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. 2. The Defendant Janiece C. Andrews, M.D. is an adult individual who maintains an office for the conduct of her business, and who can be served at 890 Poplar Church Road, Suite 410 in Camp Hill, PA 17011. 3. The Defendant Friends for Life International, Inc. is, to Plaintiff's knowledge, a business corporation which maintains, or in the past maintains, an office for the operation of its business at 890 Poplar Church Road, Suite 410 in Camp Hill, PA 17011. Friends for Life International, Inc. is referred to hereinafter as "Corporation 1." 4. The Defendant Prescriptions for Enlightening Paths, Inc. is, to Plaintiff's knowledge, a business corporation which maintains, or in the past maintains, an office for the operation of its business at 890 Poplar Church Road, Suite 410 in Camp Hill, PA 17011. Enlightening Paths, Inc. is referred to hereinafter as "Corporation 2." 5. Plaintiff is, and was at all times relevant to this action, a counselor and therapist. 2 6. In November of 2003, Defendant Andrews arranged for Plaintiff to enter into a contact with Corporation 1 whereby Plaintiff would provide certain professional services, in the form of counseling and therapy to Corporation 1 in exchange for which Corporation 1 would provide office space, office and billing services, and other support services for Plaintiff in the operation of Plaintiff's professional practice. Pursuant to the agreement, Plaintiff was to receive 50% of all fees which Plaintiff charged to patients and were collected or received by the Defendants. A copy of the contract is attached hereto and marked as EXHIBIT A. 7. Sometime in early 2005, Corporation 1 ceased operation of its business and, after that time, Plaintiff continued to provide professional services, at the same location and under the same arrangements, and was paid for those services by Corporation 2. 8. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Andrews, to the best of Plaintiff's knowledge, owned Corporation 1 and Corporation 2. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Andrews operated and controlled Corporation 1 and Corporation 2 for her personal benefit. 9. At all times relevant to this action, Defendant Andrews commingled her business and professional operations and her funds with the operations and funds of Corporation 1 and Corporation 2. As a result, the two corporations became, essentially, the alter egos of Defendant Andrews and ceased to exist as separate or independent corporate entities. 10. Defendant Andrews, at all times relevant to this action, controlled the relationship between Plaintiff and the various Defendants and Defendant Andrews derived, directly or indirectly, all of the benefit of Plaintiff's performance of her duties for the Defendants. 11. Plaintiff well and truly performed her obligations under the various arrangements with each of the Defendants and performed her professional services as requested or instructed by the Defendants, particularly Defendant Andrews, and allowed the Defendants to bill for and receive payment for her professional services. 12. Defendant Andrews failed to honor the obligations of the Defendants under the arrangements she had made with Plaintiff. Specifically, Defendant Andrews failed to pay and remit to Plaintiff, or to cause the corporations under her control to pay and remit to Plaintiff, Plaintiff's full 50% share of the fees and income earned by Plaintiff for the patients and clients that she saw, counseled, and treated during the time that she was providing such services under the arrangements made with Defendant Andrews and the two corporations. 13. Defendants failed to pay and remit to Plaintiff the total sum of $12,651.48, which represents her one half share of the professional fees she generated by her professional services under the arrangements between Plaintiff and the Defendants. 14. By failing to pay and remit to Plaintiff her portion of the professional fees which she generated with her professional services, the Defendants breached the agreements they had with Plaintiff and caused her financial damage in the amount of $12,651.48. 15. Despite repeated requests and demands from Plaintiff, Defendants have failed and refused to pay to Plaintiff the sum they owe her, which is $12,651.48. COUNT I-CONTRACT 16. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 15 above are incorporated herein by reference. 17. By virtue of the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Andrews, and the other Defendants controlled by Andrews, the Defendants owe Plaintiff the sum of $12,651.48 plus interest after 30 September 2005. Despite repeated demands they have not paid that sum WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $12,651.48, plus interest after 30 September 2005, plus costs of suit. COUNT II - UNJUST ENRICHMENT 18. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 15 above are incorporated herein by reference. 4 19. In the event that this Court determines that an enforceable contract did not arise between Plaintiff and the Defendants, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Defendants on the theory of unjust enrichment, based upon the following facts: A. Plaintiff rendered valuable services to Defendants and their patients, which conferred a valuable benefit upon the Defendants. B. The Defendants knew, or had reason to know, that Plaintiff expected to be paid for the services that she rendered to the Defendants and their patients and for the benefit which she thereby conferred upon Defendants. C. Plaintiff rendered the services, and conferred the benefit, upon the Defendants for a period of several months, during which time Defendants were aware of Plaintiff's services and the benefits they received as a result. D. Defendants have failed and refused to pay Plaintiff the reasonable value of her services and of the benefits that she conferred upon Defendants. As a result of the facts set forth herein, Defendants would be unjustly enriched if they were permitted to retain the benefit of Plaintiff's efforts and labors without paying for them. 20. The reasonable value of Plaintiffs services and of the benefits she conferred upon Defendants by those services, is $12,651.48. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, in the amount of $12,651.48 plus interest after 30 September 2005, plus costs of suit. t. Samuel L. Andes Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Court ID # 17225 525 North 121h Street Lemoyne, Pa 17043 (717) 761-5361 I verify that the statements made in this document are true and correct. I understand that any false statements in this document are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 (unsworn falsification to authorities). Date: ?-- ? ?'t ?'t 1 v j^ _, 1\ ? ??..1 SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR r CASE NO: 2005-06346 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SCOTT KRISTIN D VS ANDREWS JANIECE C MD ET AL DAVID MCKINNEY Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE ANDREWS J DEFENDANT , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of was served upon C M D the at 1602 :00 HOURS, on the 21st day of December-, 2005 at 890 POPLAR CHURCH ROAD SUITE 41 CAMP 17011 LESLIE; WILLIAMS. OFFI by handing to MANAGER, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing 18.00 Service 14.40 Postage .37 Surcharge 10.00 .00 42.77 Sworn and Subscribed to before me this day of ( ?._. y LnJ A. D . P no ry So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 12/22/2005 SAMUEL ANDES By. 2 Deputy Sheriff ? SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2005-06346 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SCOTT KRISTIN VS ANDREWS JANIECE C MD ET AL DAVID MCKINNEY , Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon FRIENDS FOR LIFE INTERNATIONAL INC the DEFENDANT , at 1602:00 HOURS, on the 21st day of December-, 2005 at 890 POPLAR CHURCH ROAD SUITE 410 CAMP HILL, PA 17011 by handing to LESLIE; WILLIAMS, OFFICE MANAGER, ADULT IN CHARGE a true and attested copy of COMPLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her 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 vi9 A.D. Pro notyry So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 12/22/2005 SAMUEL ANDES By: Deputy Sheriff: SHERIFF'S RETURN - REGULAR CASE NO: 2005-06346 P COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND SCOTT KRISTIN D VS ANDREWS JANIECE C MD ET AL DAVID MCKINNEY Sheriff or Deputy Sheriff of Cumberland County,Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says, the within COMPLAINT & NOTICE was served upon PRESCRIPTIONS FOR ENLIGHTENING PATHS INC the DEFENDANT , at 1602:00 HOURS, on the 21st day of December-, 2005 at 890 POPLAR CHURCH SUITE 410 CAMP HILL, PA 17011 LESLIE WILLIAMS a true and attested copy of by handing to PLAINT & NOTICE together with and at the same time directing Her attention to the contents thereof. Sherif'f's Costs Docketing 6.00 Service .00 Affidavit .00 Surcharge 10.00 .00 16.00 Sworn and Subscribed to before me thLs I/'- day of So Answers: R. Thomas Kline 12/22/2005 SAMUEL ANDES By : Deputy ut Sheriff f ? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW\ KRISTIN D. SCOTT, Plaintiff, No. 05-6346 Civil Term VS. JANIECE C. ANDREWS, M.D., FRIENDS FOR LIFE INTERNATIONAL, INC., and PRESCRIPTIONS FOR ENLIGHTENING PATHS, INC., Defendants NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Kristin D. Scott c/o Samuel L. Andes, Esquire 525 North 12`x' Street P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, PA 17043 You are hereby notified to plead to the enclosed New Matter and Counterclaim within twenty (20) days from service hereof or a default judgment may be entered against you. Respectfully submitted, BLAKEY, YOST, BUPP & RAUSCH, LLP -::) r, A, &/" - - ? - - - - - By: L) - - onald B. Hoyt, s re Counsel for Defendants 17 East Market Street York, Pennsylvania 17401 Supreme Ct. I.D. #18061 (717) 845-3674 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW\ KRISTIN D. SCOTT, Plaintiff, No. 05-6346 Civil Term VS. JANIECE C. ANDREWS, M.D., FRIENDS FOR LIFE INTERNATIONAL, INC., and PRESCRIPTIONS FOR ENLIGHTENING PATHS, INC., Defendants DEFENDANTS' JANIECE C. ANDREWS, M.D., FRIENDS FOR LIFE INTERNATIONAL, INC. and PRESCRIPTIONS FOR ENLIGHTENING PATHS, INC. ANSWER TO COMPLAINT The allegations of this paragraph are denied. After reasonable investigation, Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of these averments. 2. The allegations of this paragraph are admitted. The allegations of this paragraph are admitted. On October 9, 2004, the medical practice of Janiece C. Andrews, M.D. became Prescriptions for Enlightening Paths, Inc. 4. The allegations of this paragraph are admitted. However, on October 9, 2004, the medical practice of Janiece C. Andrews, M.D. became under Prescriptions for Enlightening Paths, Inc. 5. The allegations of this paragraph are admitted. 6. The allegations of this paragraph are admitted. However, Plaintiff's activities started in September 2003. The Agreement was not finalized in writing until November 11, 2003. The contract speaks for itself. The allegations of this paragraph are denied as stated. Friends for Life International, Inc. continues to exist. However, on October 9, 2004, the medical practice of Janiece C. Andrews, M.D. became under Prescriptions for Enlightening Paths, Inc. The arrangement that Plaintiff had with Friends for Life International, Inc. continued under Prescriptions for Enlightening Paths, Inc. The allegations of this paragraph are denied. It is admitted that Prescriptions for Enlightening Paths, Inc. is one hundred (100%) percent owned by Janiece C. Andrews, M.D. 9. The allegations of this paragraph are denied. Friends for Life International, Inc. was and is a separate corporation. Prescriptions for Enlightening Paths, Inc. is the corporation and medical practice of Janiece C. Andrews, M.D, which is separate and distinct from Janiece C. Andrews, M.D. personally. 10. The allegations of this paragraph are denied as stated. It is unknown what is meant by "controlled the relationship". It is further denied Defendant Janiece C. Andrews, M.D. benefited from Plaintiff's performance. 11. The allegations of this paragraph are denied. Plaintiff, as will be set forth hereafter, did not perform her services properly and was terminated on July 11, 2005 with 60 days notice. 12. The allegations of this paragraph are denied. The contract between the parties was followed by Defendants. It was Plaintiff who did not follow the terms of the contract. 13. The allegations of this paragraph are denied. No fees are due the Plaintiff. 14. The allegations of this paragraph are denied. No fees are due the Plaintiff. 15. The allegations of this paragraph are denied. No fees are due the Plaintiff. COUNTI-CONTRACT 16. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 15 of this Answer are incorporated herein by reference. 17. The allegations of this paragraph are denied. No fees are due the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand judgment against the Plaintiff. COUNT I1-UNJUST ENRICHMENT 18. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 17 of this Answer are incorporated herein by reference. 19. The allegations of this paragraph are denied. Plaintiff did not perform valuable services and Plaintiff owes Defendants' Prescriptions for Enlightening Paths, Inc. and Janiece C. Andrews, M.D. funds, which are the subject of the Counterclaim. 20. The allegations of this paragraph are denied. WHEREFORE, Defendants request dismissal of the Complaint, with costs of suit. NEW MATTER and COUNTERCLAIM 21. Plaintiff, from her earliest dates at the office at 890 Poplar Church Road, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, demonstrated a proficiency in computer access to Blue Cross and Blue Shield billing procedures. Plaintiff was thus given substantial, and often sole, access to the Blue Cross/Blue Shield accounts. 22. Plaintiff's arrangements with Defendants was to submit a list of patients seen in the previous two (2) weeks, show the full amount submitted, the fifty (50%) percent due her, and demand and receive this fifty (50%) percent stated amount. 23. Plaintiff was regularly paid these full fifty (50%) percent payments despite the lack of payment by Blue Cross/Blue Shield, to which the contract required the methods of payment. And Plaintiff herself alone knew by virtue of her unrestricted access to the Blue Cross/Blue Shield system that many bills had not been paid by Blue Cross/Blue Shield to the corporation. 24. As a result, many patients' billings were not accepted by Blue Cross/Blue Shield for various reasons, and Plaintiff received her fifty (50%) percent when the corporation did not receive anything. Defendants estimate the shortfall of patients not receiving Blue Cross/Blue Shield at twenty (20%) percent. 25. Plaintiff received her full fifty (50%) percent from September 2003 to March 2005. 26. In March 2005, Defendant Janiece C. Andrews, M.D., realizing she was paying Plaintiff far more than was coming in, went to the proper method of administering payments under the contract, by waiting for the Blue Cross/Blue Shield funds to be paid before fifty (50%) percent was paid to Plaintiff. 27. After Plaintiff, complaining she needed additional funds to live on, and couldn't wait for the payments from Blue Cross/Blue Shield (despite this being the clear terms of the contract), Defendant Janiece C. Andrews, M.D. advanced funds to Plaintiff on account of what was to come in from Blue Cross/Blue Shield, provided there would be a full and fair accounting of all funds. Plaintiff agreed to this procedure, and accepted the advances on that condition. 28. Plaintiff attempted to do her own accounting and improperly removed copies of Blue Cross/Blue Shield Explanation of Benefits forms, which Plaintiff knew was a HIPPA violation. 29. Plaintiff also breached the contract by not providing her own malpractice insurance. Additionally, Plaintiff advised Defendant Janiece C. Andrews, M.D. of a graduate doctoral candidacy program at Temple University. Plaintiff requested Defendant Janiece C. Andrews, M.D. that demonstration of supervision hours was required to meet the experience requirements for licensure by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the American Psychological Doctoral Program. Defendant Janiece C. Andrews, M.D. agreed to provide Plaintiff with the supervision requested. After numerous requests by Defendant, Janiece C. Andrews, M.D. and assurances by Plaintiff that Plaintiff would provide the proper forms from Defendant Janiece C. Andrews, M.D. to fill out. Defendant Janiece C. Andrews, M.D. contacted the head of the American Psychological Association who advised that an M.D. psychiatrist could not provide the required supervision of a Ph.D. candidate. Postdoctoral candidate supervision is acceptable only if conducted by a licensed psychologist (PhD). By virtue of Plaintiff not being so licensed and the request by the Plaintiff for supervision to meet the experience requirement for licensure by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and doctoral degree program, Defendant Janiece C. Andrews, M.D. provided supervision and was required to provide $15,880.00 worth of professional services to Plaintiff, for which reimbursement is sought. 30. Plaintiff further breached the contract by not providing "professional and psychological services" in accordance with the accepted standard of care in at least four (4) instances. a. Plaintiff sent a suicidal and homicidal juvenile who came accompanied by his parents away to return in an hour while she intended to see another client. The procedure to have followed was to call the hospital crisis line at the emergency room, let them know that the child and family in crisis had come to consult with her and she was sending them over immediately for triage services. Then she should have told the family to immediately go to the emergency room. b. Plaintiff did not obtain proper clinical information from another suicidal juvenile who had been hospitalized and improperly admitted the juvenile to the practice. C. Plaintiff allowed a patient to abuse medications by post-dating the medication script for signature and when confronted, made up a story to attempt to cover her tracks. d. Plaintiff forgave patients their personal co-pays, which is a violation of the insurance agreement. e. Plaintiff failed to follow up on no-show patients when the insurance carrier paid for the visit. f. Plaintiff forged Defendant Janiece C. Andrews, M.D. signature on a FMCA form without consent. 31. With a 60-day period during which patients would be terminated therapeutically by Plaintiff, notice was given to her on July 11, 2005. She took all of her patients with her. Defendants were not informed of her new employer to be able to inform patients who were out of that loop where she had gone when they stopped in or called for her. 32. After the full and fair audit, it has been learned that Plaintiff received Twenty- Three Thousand Two Hundred Thirty-Nine and 22/100 ($23,239.22) Dollars more than she should, and which Defendants did not receive. 33. In addition, Plaintiff owes the sum of Eight Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety and 12/100 ($8,790.12) Dollars for non-collection of co-pays, co-insurance deductibles and payments not received from insurance providers not covered in ¶32. WHEREFORE, Defendants demand judgment against the Plaintiff in the amount of Forty-Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Nine and 34/100 ($47,909.34) Dollars. Respectfully submitted, BLAKEY, YOST, BUPP & BAUSCH, LLP Donald B. Hoyt, squire Counsel for Defendants 17 East Market Street York, Pennsylvania 17401 Supreme Ct. I.D. #18061 Telephone (717) 845-3674 VERIFICATION I verify that the information set forth in the foregoing New Matter and Counterclaim is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that any false statements contained herein are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Date: Janiece C, Andrews, M.D. i/ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I am this day causing a copy of the foregoing document to be served by First Class United States Mail, postage prepaid, on the following person: Samuel L. Andes, Esquire 525 North 12"' Street P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, PA 17043 BLAKEY, YOST, BUPP & BAUSCH, LLP Dated: 9 ?(p By: 4? ?0( ?1,6J Ileen S. one, Secretary to Donald B. Hoyt, Esquire Counsel for Defendants ( j "? .:. ? .? _T a) ?? •. (? ?? ^) ? ?? L'? ? KRISTIN D. SCOTT, Plaintiff IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA vs. JANIECE C. ANDREWS, M.D., FRIENDS FOR LIFE INTERNATIONAL, INC., and PRESCRIPTIONS FOR ENLIGHTENING CIVIL ACTION - LAW PATHS, INC., Defendants NO. 05-6346 Civil Term PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S NEW MATTER AND COUNTERCLAIM AND NOW comes the above-named Plaintiff by her attorney, Samuel L. Andes, and make the following Reply to the Defendants' New Matter and Counterclaim: 21. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Defendant is somewhat proficient with the computer but denied that she, alone, had access to accounts with Blue Cross or Blue Shield operated or maintained by the Defendants. To the contrary, the Defendant and their various employees and agents had superior access to and familiarity with those accounts than did Plaintiff. 22. Admitted, however, Plaintiff did not receive all of the payments to which she was due because certain co payments were omitted from the calculations of both parties. 23. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that Plaintiff was regularly paid 50% of the billings she submitted and is stated that such practice superceded, supplanted, and modified the terms of the original agreement between the parties. Plaintiff denies that she, alone, knew that many bills had not been paid by Blue Cross or Blue Shield or that she had "unrestricted access" to the Blue Cross or Blue Shield system. Plaintiff states that, to the contrary, the Defendants and their agents and employees had superior access to and familiarity with those billing and payment systems. 24. Denied. Plaintiff does not know what billings were or were not accepted or paid by the insurance company because that information remains under the control of the Defendants and Plaintiff demands proof of the averments set out in this Paragraph set out in trial. Plaintiff does not believe that Defendants' estimate of the "short fall" is accurate and demands proof of that shortfall, if any, at trial. 25. Denied. Plaintiff did not receive all of the payments to which she was entitled, specifically including certain portions of co payments that the Defendants received or billed and which were not paid to Plaintiff. 26. Denied as stated. Plaintiff admits that Defendants unilaterally changed the method of payment to Plaintiff but denies such change was a return to "the proper method of administering payments under the contract" or that Plaintiff had been paid "far more than was coming in." To the contrary, Plaintiff states that Defendant Andrews advised Plaintiff that there would be a change in the contractual arrangements between the parties as a result of which the advance payments to Plaintiff would be modified. Defendant Andrews advised Plaintiff that she would meet with Plaintiff to work out the details of future payment methods, but that meeting was never held. 27. Denied. Defendant Andrews advised Plaintiff that the Defendants wished to change the method of payment to Plaintiff and that they would temporarily reduce the payments to her while the parties worked out another method of payment. Defendants, however, never met with Plaintiff to work out the details of that payment and simply reduced her payments to the point where she could not continue to work without adequate compensation. 28. Admitted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff admits that she attempted to keep track of her billings and to calculate what she was owed by Defendants. It is denied that she improperly removed copies of records or forms from the Defendants and stated that she only photocopied certain documents to asset her in calculating what she was properly owed by the Defendants. The Defendants granted access to those records to Plaintiff and gave her permission to copy them as she deemed necessary. 29. Denied. The contract between the parties never required Plaintiff to provide her own malpractice insurance and she did not violate the contract. Plaintiff was never involved in a doctoral candidacy program at Temple University and never requested that Defendant Andrews supervise her or otherwise participate in such program. Plaintiff denies Defendant Andrews ever provided supervisory services for Plaintiff at Plaintiff's request or which Plaintiff agreed to pay or compensate Defendant Andrews. To the extent that Defendant Andrews provided any improper supervision or did any improper work, such failure was caused by Defendant Andrews herself by failing to investigate the requirements of such program. Plaintiff never agreed to compensate Defendant Andrews for supervision or other work done by Defendant Andrews as part of any educational or training program by Plaintiff. 30. Denied. Plaintiff well and truly performed her professional and other obligations under the arrangements between the parties. By way of further answer, Plaintiff states as follows: a. Plaintiff did not send a "suicidal and homicidal" juvenile away without proper care or supervision. The juvenile in question appeared, without appointment, at Defendants' offices and asked to see Plaintiff. Plaintiff, who was then engaged with another patient, did an assessment for the juvenile's safety and then asked the child and his parents, along with counselors who had accompanied the juvenile, to return in three quarters of an hour, after Plaintiff would have completed the work with her patient. The juvenile had previously been seen by other professionals who did not deem the matter an emergency and nothing that Plaintiff did was improper or placed the juvenile at any risk. b. Plaintiff did not fail to obtain full information and did not improperly admit another juvenile to the practice. The patient involved had been a patient of Plaintiff's for sometime and a hospital which had treated the patient called and scheduled an appointment for the patient to meet with Plaintiff without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent. Plaintiff met briefly with the patient, determined not to admit the patient to her practice, and referred the patient to another practice where that patient received help. c. Denied. Plaintiff did not allow a patient to abuse medications by post- dating the medical script and did not make up a story to "attempt to cover her tracks." d. Plaintiff did, on one occasion, wave a co payment from a patient. She did so, however, only with the knowledge of the Defendant. e. Plaintiff did not fail to "follow up on no-show patients" when an insurance company had paid for the patient's visit. It was not Plaintiff's responsibility to do such work, but rather it was the responsibility of the Defendants and their employees and staff. f. Denied. Plaintiff did not forge Defendant Andrews' signature. 31. Denied as stated. Plaintiff advised her patients of her leaving Defendants' offices and practice and advised them of her new location where virtually all of them continue under Plaintiff's care. Defendants knew Plaintiff's address and knew of her new professional relationship so it was not difficult for them to provide that information to anyone who inquired of Defendants. 32. Denied. Plaintiff is not aware of any audit that Defendants, or anyone on their behalf, ever completed. Defendants repeatedly promised to conclude an investigation and resolution of their billing problems with insurance companies and report the results to Plaintiff, but have not done so. Defendants also repeatedly promised Plaintiff they would pay Plaintiff additional funds they acknowledged were due to her, but have failed to do so. Information regarding such an audit is within the exclusive possession of the Defendants or their representatives and so Plaintiff denies the averments set out in this Paragraph regarding such audit and demands proof of those matters at trial. 33. Denied for the reasons set forth n the answer to Paragraph 32 above. Plaintiff is without information regarding any such items because all of that information is within the exclusive control of the Defendants and so Plaintiff demands proof of such matters at trial. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays this court to dismiss Defendants' Counterclaim and to enter judgment in Plaintiff's favor in accordance with her original complaint in this matter. Samuel L. Andes Attorney for Plaintiff Supreme Court ID # 17225 525 North 12" Street Lemoyne, Pa 17043 (717) 761-5361 I verify that the statements made in this document are true and correct. I understand that any false statements in this document are subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 (unworn falsification to authorities). Date: 't(5ID1o C1 1 ?: icy KRISTIN D. SCOTT, Plaintiff VS. JANIECE C. ANDREWS, M.D., FRIENDS FOR LIFE INTERNATIONAL, INC., and PRESCRIPTIONS FOR ENLIGHTENING PATHS, INC., Defendants PRAECIPE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 05-6346 CIVIL TERM Please mark the above-captioned matter "settled and discontinued" both as to the claims of the Plaintiff and the counterclaims of the Defendants. 1 L. An es Attorney for Plaintiff P.O. Box 168 Lemoyne, Pa 17043 (717) 761-5361 Donald B. Hoyt Attorney for Defendants 17 East Market Street York, PA 17401 Ph.9 C-B D ' '77 -4 CD .J.J