The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About94-00170 Q.. c. ~ c 'C ~ J \.. ~ .... {; QJ lJ.. - , ;i . .. DENISE FEEHRER and GREGORY FEEHRER, husband and wife, Plaintiffs . . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. . . . . . . . . v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW . . : DOW CORNING CORPORATION, DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION, JAMES A. YATES, M.D., F.A.C.S., PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER LTD., and HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, . . . . NO. /70 CU..d 19 <) 'f . . . . . . Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED NOTrCE YOU HAVE BEEN SUED rN COURT. If you wish to defend aqainst the claims set forth in the followinq paqes, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice are served, by enterinq a written appearance personally or by attorney and filinq in writinq with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth aqainst you. You are warned that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered aqainst 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 riqhts important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THrS PAPER '1'0 YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. rp YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFPORD ONE, GO '1'0 OR TELEPHONE THE OPFrCE SET PORTH BELOW TO FrND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LOCAL HELP. COURT ADMrNrSTRATOR Cumherlan4 County Courthouse, 4th Floor 1 Courthouse square carlisle, PA 17013-3387 (717) 240-6200 . . DENISE FEEHRER and GREGORY FEEHRER, husband and wife, Plaintiffs . . IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. . . : . . . . v. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW . . . . DOW CORNING CORPORATION, DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION, JAMES A. YATES, M.D., F.A.C.S., PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER LTD., HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, . . NO. /70 {!.WJ {911 . . : : . . . . Defendants : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED SHORT FORM COMPLAINT AND NOW, comes the Plaintiffs, DENISE FEEHRER and GREGORY FEEHRER, husband and wife, by their attorneys, SHELLER, LUDWIG & BADEY, and sets forth as follows: PLAINTIFFS 1. Plaintiff is DENISE FEEHRER, an adult woman, who resides at the following address: 4901 S.W. 114th Way Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33330 2. Plaintiff (husband) is GREGORY FEEHRER, an adult male, who resides at the above-captioned address and claims damages as a result of loss of consortium. I ,.~JJ...1.,:-;"~",, '. DBPBNDANT KANUPACTURERS AND RELATBD COMPANIBS 3. The followinq entities identified in Plaintiffs' Fourth Amended Master Complaint are named as Defendants and the alleqations with reqard to these entities in the Master Complaint are adopted by reference: Dow corninq Corporation 2201 W. Saltzburq street Auburn, Michiqan 48686 Dow corninq wriqht Corporation 5677 Airline Road P. O. Box 100 Arlinqton, Tennessee 38002 Dow corninq was the qel supplier for Mentor Corporation from 1984 to 1992. DEPBHDANT HBALTH CARE PROVIDERS 4. The followinq health care providers are named as Defendants: James A. Yates, M.D., F.A.C.S. Grandview Corporate Place 205 Grandview Camp Hill, PA 17011 PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER LTD. Grandview corporate Place 205 Grandview Camp Hill, PA 17011 Holy Spirit Hospital 503 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 CASB SPBCIPIC INFORMATION 5. Describe the specific implant products used in the Plaintiff's medical treatment, includinq the name of the 2 manufacturers, brand numbers, lot numbers, and catalog numbers, if known. Mentor corporation Cat No. 350-7275BC Lot No. 22796 CASB SPBCIPIC INFORMATION 6. To the extent reasonably known for each procedure in which an implant was either inserted or removed state the date of the surgery, the name and address of the surgeon, and the name and address of the hospital/clinic where the surgery was performed. Include any agency allegations regarding the health care providers that Plaintiff is making. Date of Surgery: April 11, 1988 Surgeon: James A. Yates, M.D., F.A.C.S. Grandview Corporate Place 205 Grandview Camp Hill, PA 17011 Hospital: Holy Spirit Hospital 503 N. 21st street Camp Hill, PA 17011-2288 INJURIBS 7. Have the implants been removed or ruptured? Yes X No 8. Is Plaintiff raising claims for damages from a disabling disease (as defined in Paragraph (3) of Case Management Order No.7) caused by the use of a silicone breast implant? If "yes," describe the disabling disease(s) that have developed. X Yes No 3 ! Inter AliA, a. Severe leg pain b. Rashes c. Nausea d. Weight loss e. Bladder irritability f. Lightheadedness g. Low grade fever h. Shortness of breath i. Chronic fatigue j. Chronic sore throat k. Dizziness 1. Breast pain m. Shoulder pain n. Numbness in legs and hands o. Photosensitivity p. Memory loss q. Ulcers in mouth r. Night sweats s. Body aches t. Difficulty swallowing u. Muscle weakness v. Headaches w. Dry mouth x. Easy bruisability y. Stomach problems z. Swollen lymph nodes (unde~ arms) aa. Irritable eyes (burning) bb. Bowel irritability cc. Dry vagina dd. Vaginal bleeding ee. Gynecological problems CAUSES OP ACTION 9. On the basis of the allegations in the Fourth Amended Master Complaint, Plaintiff(s) raise the following claims: X Yes No X Yes No X Yes No X Yes No Count I - Negligence Against Defenda~t Manufacturers Count III - Strict Product Liability Against Defendant Manufacturers Count IV - Breach of Implied Warranty Against Defendant Manufacturers Count V - Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation Against Defendant Manufacturers 4 X Yes Count VIII - Medical Negligence and Negligent Use of Defective Product Against Defendant Health Care Providers Count IX - Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation Against Defendant Health Care Providers Count X - Lack of informed Consent Against Defendant Health Care Providers Count XII - Loss of Consortium Against All Defendants No X Yes No X Yes No X Yes No X Yes Count XIII - outrageous Conduct No X ~es Dow Corning Corporation Dow corning Wright corporation James A. Yates, M.D., F.A.C.S. Plastic surgery Center LTD. Holy Spirit Hospital Count XIX - Violation of State Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law Against Defendant Manufacturers No CLAIMS AGAINST RELATED COMPANIES 10. As to those manufacturers and related companies that Plaintiff (s) have named as Defendants, Plaintiff(s) incorporate any claims for successor liability that are raised in the Fourth Amended Master Complaint and any amendments thereto. CORPORATE NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS 11. with permission of the Court, Plaintiff hereby raises corporate negligence claims against a Defendant hospital/clinic in a Short Form Complaint. See pp. 32-33 of this Court's September 7, 1993 Memorandum and Order of Court with respect to resolution of Defendants' Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Master Complaint. Defendants PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER LTD. and HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL failed to uphold the proper standard of care owed to the 5 .' Plaintiff and negligently failed to ensure Plaintiff's safety and well-being while at the hospital. Defendants PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER LTD. and HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL failed to use reasonable care in the maintenance of safe and adequate facilities and equipment and failed to select and retain only competent physicians. Moreover, Defendants PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER LTD. and HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL failed to formulate and adopt and enforce adequate rules and policies to ensure quality care for the Plaintiff and failed to oversee all persons who practice medicine within its walls. specifically, the Defendants PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER LTD. and HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, inter AliA, had no rules, procedures, and/or supervision in place to ensure that the Plaintiff received proper informed consent for the breast implant procedure(s). Defendants PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER LTD. and HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL failed to properly supervise, oversee and regulate the techniques used for storing, preparing, sterilizing, selecting, implanting, and operating with regard to breast implants. Defendant PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER LTD. and HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL negligently allowed Defendant YATES to implant in Plaintiff defective and dangerous products. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff(s) seek recovery from Defendants as follows; a. General and compensatory damages in an amount in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000), exclusive of interest and costs; 6 " ': b. Punitive damages as allowed by law; c. Costs of this litigation; and Such other and further damages and relief as this Court may deem appropriate. d. Respectfully submitted, SHELLER, LUDWIG & BADEY Bq,~(2~ Attorney at Law 1528 Walnut Street Third Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 790-7300 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 7 . VZ:I~AT~O:m:':E~ UPON PERSONAL KNOWLEDG I I N SUPPLIED BY COUNSEL I. DENISE FEEHRER, that I am the plaintiff in the foregoing action and that the attached Short Form complaint is based upon the information which has been gathered by my counsel in preparation of this lawsuit. The language of the Short Form Complaint is that of counsel and is not mine. I have read the Short Form complaint and to the extent that it is based upon information which I have given to my counsel, it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. To the extent that the contents of the Short Form complaint are that of counsel, I have relied upon counsel in making this Veri~ication. I understand that intentional false statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S. 54904 relating to unsworn falsifications made to authorities. DATED~" 4/r~ ////( /99'1 r." ~ ~ .... ~ J I" EJ Q '1 ~ ~ J ~ t ' ." :> ~ ~ ::z- ;,- .. \ -:r en ;>-... Jf - "'... ::c: ....1: ~ ...:h::i-J 0,%<""''7- t.l> :~r.tc...t, ~ ":> " :::: C. ~., en ':or . "I-i;,...., . ,-;!.r .r c-r> ~~ ~;~ - ,:.: :'f')' :z: ~::> ... ci ...,. -., " DENISE FEEHRER and GREGORY FEEHRER, husband and wife, Plaintiffs : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY , PENNSYLVANIA v. NO. 170 CIVIL 1994 DOW CORNING CORPORATION, DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION, JAMES A. YATES, M.D., F.A.C.S., PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER, LTD., and HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS. JAMES A. YATES. M.D.. F.A.C.S.. AND PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER. LTD.. TO PLAINTIFFS' SHORT FORM COMPLAINT AND NOW, come Defendants, James A. Yates, M.D., F.A.C.S., and Plastic Surgery Cenler, Lid., by and !hrough their attorneys, Post & Schell, P.C., and in support of !heir Answer to Plaintiffs' Short Form Complaint aver as follows: PLAINTIFFS 1. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendants are wi!hout knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of !he averments of !he corresponding paragraph of the Complaint, strict proof is demanded at trial, if relevant. 2. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendants are wi!hout knowledge or informalion sufficient 10 form a belief as to the truth of the averments of !he corresponding paragraph of Ihe Complaint, slriCl proof is demanded at trial, if relevant. ~ DEFENDANT MANUFACTURERS AND RELATED COMPANIES 3. The corresponding paragraph of the Complainl is not addressed to answering Defendants and requires no response. To !he exlent Ihat a response may be deemed required, however, denied for !he reasons indicated in Paragraph I, above. DEFENDANT HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS 4. Admitted. CASE SPECIFIC INFORMATION S. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendants are wi!hout knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to !he lrulh of !he averments of !he corresponding paragraph of !he Complaint, strict proof is demanded at trial, if relevant. CASE SPECIFIC INFORMATION 6. Admitted in part and denied in part. To the extent !hat the medical records of Plaintiff, Denise Feehrer, from Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, reflect the facts alleged in !he corresponding paragraph of !he Complaint, it is admitted only !hat such is recorded !herein. 2 ( .... .-...-", Otherwise, or to the extent that the medical records do not so reflect and/or contradict the allegations, denied for the reasons indicated in Paragraph I, above. INJURIES 7. Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficienl to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of the corresponding paragraph of the Complainl, stricl proof is demanded at trial, if relevant. 8(a) - (ee). Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint, striCl proof is demanded at trial, if relevant. For further response, answering Defendants object to Ihe use of "inter alia" language. CAUSES OF ACTION 9. Count I - The corresponding count of the Complaint is not addressed to answering Defendants and requires no response. To the extent that a response may be deemed required, however, denied for the reasons indicated in Paragraph I, above. 3 11 '. Count III - The corresponding count of the Complaint is not addressed to answering Defendants and requires no response. To !he extenl that a response may be deemed required, however, denied for !he reasons indicated in Paragraph I, above. Count IV - The corre5{lOnding counl of the Complaint is not addressed to answering Defendants and requires no response. To the exlent Ihal a response may be deemed required, however, denied for !he reasons indicated in Paragraph I, above. Count V - The corresponding count of the Complaint is not addressed to answering Defendants and requires no response. To the extent thai a response may be deemed required, however, denied for the reasons indicated in Paragraph I, above. Count VIII - Denied as staled. An allegations of negligence, carelessness, and causation are denied and strict proof is demanded at time of trial. Count IX - Denied as staled. An allegations of fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation are denied and stricl proof is demanded al time of trial. It is further denied !hat answeri Defendants made any misrepresentations to Plaintiffs, or that answering Defendants made any fraudulent or deceitful statements, or otherwise engaged in fraudulent or deceilful behavior, in any manner whatsoever, as alleged and strict proof is demanded. It is further asserted !hal Plaintiffs have failed to set forth specific facts which support a claim for fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation. 4 Count X - Denied as slated. All allegalions regarding lack of informed consent are denied and s!rict proof is demanded at !rial. Count XII - Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as 10 Ihe lruth of the averments of the corresponding paragraph of the Complaint, strict proof is demanded at trial, if relevant. Answering Defendants deny that any act or omission on their part or on the part oC their agents, servants, or employees caused or con!ributed to the injuries allegedly sustained by the Plaintiff. Count XIII - Denied as slated. Answering Defendants deny all allegations of wilful, wanton, outrageous, or reckless conduct. Strict proof is demanded at trial. Count XIX - The corresponding count of the Complaint is not addressed to answering Defendants and requires no response. To the extent that a response may be deemed required, however, denied Cor the reasons indicated in Paragraph I, above. CLAIMS AGAINST RELATED COMPANIFS 10. The corresponding paragraph of the Complaint is not addressed to answering DeCendants and requires no response. To the extent that a response may be deemed required, however, denied Cor the reasons indicated in Paragraph 1, above. 5 CORPORATE NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS 11. Denied as stated. The allegations contained in these paragraphs do not apply to Defendant, Dr. Vales. With respect to Defendant, Plaslic Surgery Center, Ltd., the allegations are denied as stated. For further response, Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to set forth a claim of corporate negligence as such a cause of action cannot lie against Defendant health care corporation. It is specifically denied that Defendant, Plastic Surgery Center, Ltd., failed to uphold the proper standard of care owed to the Plainliff and negligently failed to ensure Plainliffs safety and well.being while at the hospital. It is specifically denied that Defendant, Plastic Surgery Center, Ltd., failed to use reasonable care in Ihe maintenance of safe and adequate facilities and equipment and failed to selecl and retain only competenl physicians. It is specifically denied that Defendant, Plastic Surgery Center, Ltd., failed to formulate and adopt and enforce adequate rules and policies to ensure quality care for the Plaintiff and failed to oversee all persons who practice medicine within its walls. It is specifically denied that Defendant, Plastic Surgery Cenler, Ltd., had no rules, procedures, and/or supervision in place to ensure that the Plaintiff received proper informed consent for the breast implant procedure{s). It is specifically denied that Defendant, Plastic Surgery Center, Ltd., failed to properly supervise, oversee, and regulate the techniques used for sloring, repairing, sterilizing, selecting, implanting, and operating with regard to breast implants. Answering Defendants object to the 6 use of "inler alia" language as a violation of the Court's case management orders and applicable case law under this Commonwealth. NEW MATI'ER 12. Recovery of medical expenses paid by any third party, including an insurance carrier, is barred pursuanl to Section 602 of the Health Care Services Malpractice Act of 1975, as amended (Act of October IS, 1975, P.L. 390, no. 111 (40 P.S. U301.602)). 13. Plaintiffs' Complaint does not allege sufficient facts to support a claim for punitive damages. 14. Plaintiffs have failed to stale a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 15. Nothing done or omitted to be done by answering Defendants or their agents, servants, or employees was the proximate cause of any harm to Plaintiff. 16. Plaintifrs injuries, or some of them, were not proximately caused by implantation of the breast implants and/or their removal. 17. Plaintifrs injuries may have been caused by third persons or parties over whom answering Defendants exercised no control nor right of control. 18. Defendants incorporate by reference those affirmative defenses set forth in Case Management Order No.8. 7 19. If Plaintiff has in the past or does in the future, seltle some or all of her claims with third parties, the terms and provisions of the release of said claims is a bar to this action against answering Defendants. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS I. INJURIFS Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to specify which disabling disease, as defined, the Plaintiff has, in fact, suffered, and has prefaced a listing of Plaintifrs alleged disabling diseases with the term "inter alia" all of which was contrary to the intent of the Court's prior case management orders. II. CORPORATE NEGLIGENCE Plaintiffs' claim for corporate negligence against Defendant, Plastic Surgery Center, Ltd., is inappropriate. Corporate negligence lies only against a defendant hospital. Moreover, e use of the term "inter alia" within the context of the corporale negligence claims section is inappropriate and contrary to the intent of the Court's prior case management orders. 8 III. PUNITIVE DAMAGES Defendanls demur to Plainliffs' request for punitive damages. Plainliffs have failed to sel forth sufficienl facls upon which a claim can be premised. Respeclfully submilled, POST & SCHELL, P.C. By: /drL?/~;' EVAN BLACK, ESQUIRE KRISTEN L. BEECH, ESQUIRE 101 North Front Street Harrisburg, PA 1710l (717) 232-5931 J.D. No. 17884 J.D. No. 66491 Allomeys for Defendants, James A. Yates, M.D., F.A.C.S., and Plastic Surgery Center, Ltd. Date: ::/:;)f"9 d I 9 82114 VERIFICATION I, JAMES A. YATES, M.D., do hereby swear and affirm that the facts and matters set forth in the foregoing Answer to Plaintiffs' Short Form Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. The undersigned understands that the slatements made therein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 14904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. 0, DATE:";? /0 9 r:. / t -- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, SHERRY L. MOUERY, an employee of Ihe law firm of Post & Schell, P.C., do hereby certify thai on the date set forth below, I did serve a true and correct copy of the foregoing document upon the following persons at the following addresses indicated below by sending same In the Uniled States mail, first-class, postage prepaid: Jamie L. Sheller, Esquire Sheller, Ludwig & Badey 1528 Walnut Slreet Third Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Atlorney for Plainliffs Robert S. Forster, Jr., Esquire Krusen, Evans & Byrne Suile 1100 601 Walnut Streel Philadelphia, PA 19106 Atlorney for Defendants, Dow Corning Corporation and Dow Corning Wright Corporation Allan H. Starr, Esquire While & Williams Suile 1800 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-7301 Atlorney for Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital ~\\ Q)U~t*, ~rr.)n.uQ 1r HERRY L OUERY Date: 2>.<< 0- q~ ,,' a; . :s= ~ \D ~ ("oJ ~ !5 :s:: ~... ..... t-:"~':!. uJc.;:lc-r. c.>%U.d. \:.Oo;'? a. r:.~ -;: .? ~)d.lf\ ;:l.'~:-,~I~ ~\':~'i _, ..t.::I: "::> ....., o DENISE FEEHRER and GREGORY FEEHRER, husband and wife COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY WHITE AND WILLIAMS BY, ALLAN H. STARR, ESQUIRE NANCY L. SIEGEL, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO., 04975/40926 One Liberty Place - Suite 1800 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 664-6219/6223 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT, Holy Spirit Hospital vs. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, et al. NO., 170 Civil 1994 ANSWER, NEW MATTER AND PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL TO PLAINTIFFS' SHORT FORM COMPLAINT Answering defendant is without personal knowledge concerning the identity of plaintiffs except as may be set forth in the medical records; therefore, these allegations are denied and strict proof is demanded, if material. DEFENDANT MANUFACTURERS AND RELATED COMPANIES The allegations of this paragraph do not pertain to defendant and therefore no responsive pleading is required. DEFENDANT HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS Admitted that plaintiffs have so alleged. CASE SPECIFIC INFORMATION Answering defendant is unable to admit or deny the accuracy of the implant information including, but not limited to, the identify of the manufacturers, the dates of surgery and the identity of the physicians 20080261. NP5 since the medical records are not yet available for review by answering defendant and its counsel. Answering defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the claims regarding disabling diseases; therefore, these claims are denied and strict proof is demanded. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments concerning plaintiffs' alleged injuries; therefore, same are denied and strict proof is demanded. Answering defendant denies that any act or omission on its part or on the part of its agents, servants or employees caused or contributed to the injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiffs. CAUSE OF ACTION Count I - Not directed to answering defendant. Count III - Not directed to answering defendant. Count IV - Not directed to answering defendant. Count V - Not directed to answering defendant. Count VIII All allegations of negligence, carelessness and causation are denied and strict proof is demanded. Count IX - All allegations of negligence, carelessness and causation are denied and strict proof is demanded. It is further denied that answering defendant made any fraudulent or misleading statements as alleged and strict proof is demanded. Count X - Not directed to answering defendant. Count XII - Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the 20080267. WPS -2- 20080267. WP5 -3- truth of the averments concerning plaintiffs' alleged injuries; therefore, same are denied and strict proof is demanded. Answering defendant denies that any act or omission on its part or on the part of its agents, servants or employees caused or contributed to the injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiffs. Count XIII - Denied. After reasonable investigation, answering defendant is without sufficient information to form a belief as to the truth of the averments concerning plaintiffs' alleged injuries; therefore, same are denied and strict proof is demanded. Answering defendant denies all allegations of willful, wanton, outrageous or reckless conduct and strict proof thereof is demanded. It is further denied that any act or omission on its part or on the part of its agents, servants or employees caused or contributed to the injuries allegedly sustained by plaintiffs. Count XIX - Not directed to answering defendant. OTHER CLAIMS CORPORATE NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS It is specifically denied that answering defendant was negligent any manner including the alleged acts or omissions asserted by plain ~ herein. By way of further answer, it is asserted that said allegations are vague, lack specificity, are mere conclusions without factual basis, are mere recitations of portions of the Court's opinion in the case of Thompson v. Nason Hospital, 527 Pa. 330, 591 A.2d 703 (1991), and are contrary to the intent of Coordinating Court's prior Memorandum and Order dated September 7, 1993. Plaintiffs have not sought leave of Court, with supporting material factual basis, to assert a negligence. Therefore, answering defendant objections to these claims as set forth herein. ALTERNATIVE LIABILITY CLAIMS Not directed to answering defendant. WHEREPORE, defendant demands judgment against the plaintiffs together with costs of this action and reasonable attorney's fees. NEW MATTER 1. Recovery of medical expenses paid by any third party, including an insurance carrier, is barred pursuant to Section 602 of the Health Care Services Malpractice Act of 1975, as amended (Act of October 15, 1975, P.L. 390, No. 111 (40 P.S. Section 1301.602)). 2. Plaintiffs' Complaint does not allege sufficient facts to support a claim for punitive damages. Plaintiffs' Complaint, to the extent that it seeks punitive damages, violates defendant's =ights to procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and therefore fails to state a cause of action punitive damages can be awarded. Plaintiffs' Complaint, to that it seeks punitive damages, violates the defendant's rights to protection from "excessive fines" as provided in the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and violates defendant's rights to procedural and substantive due process as provided in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution claim for corporate asserts preliminary 20080261, WPS -4- and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and therefore fails to state a cause of action supporting the punitive damages claimed. 3. Plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. 4. Nothing done or omitted to be done by answering defendant or its agents, servants or employees was the proximate cause of any harm to plaintiffs. 5. Plaintiffs' injuries, or some of them, were not proximately caused by implantation of the breast implants. 6. Plaintiffs' injuries may have been caused by third persons or parties over whom answering defendant exercised no control nor right of control. 7. Defendant incorporates by reference these affirmative defenses set forth in Case Management Order No. a. a. If plaintiffs have in the past or do in the future, settle some or all of herltheir claims with third parties, the terms and provisions of the release of said claims is a bar to this action against answering defendant. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS I. INJURIES Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to specify which disabling diseases, as defined, the plaintiff-wife has, in fact, suffered, contrary to the intent of the Coordinating Court's prior Case Management Orders. IV. CORPORATE NEGLIGENCE 20080267,WPS -5- r'~~' . Plaintiff has not petitioned the Coordinating Court for leave to assert a claim for corporation negligence and plaintiffs' Complaint fails to set forth the requisite factual specificity sufficient to allow a claim for corporate negligence to be pursued and to give answering defendant notice of the basis for said claims in violation of the Coordinating Court's Order of September 7, 1993. WHITE AND WILLIAMS BY, '!b-(JtL,J;J NANCY L. SIEGEL, ESQUIRE Attorney for defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital :20080:26.,.NPS -6- t"..". VERIFICATION I, Marcua McAlicher, Representative of defendant in the foregoing matter, hereby verifies that the facts contained in the foregoing Answer to Complaint are true and correct to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned makes these statements subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. <-Yrl{ue~,"... ')1'1 ('CdeLL Marcua McAlicher DATED, ~ 1-, /9 y Feehrer v. Holy Spirit Hospital 200B022D.WP5 ~ - ::;,-:. " - = N, &n, :~ :~ '::. ~~ -1:.::'::' -" '. , '. r- "" .... ...... :', " ...(,." t.:~ DENISE FEEHRER and GREGORY FEEHRER, husband and wife Plaintiffs IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. DOW CORNING CORPORATION DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION: JAMES A. YATES, M.D., F.A.C.S.: PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER LTD., and HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL NO. 170 Civil 1994 Defendants. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED DEFENDANTS DOW CORNING CORPORATION AND DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION'S SHORT FORM ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFFS' SHORT FORM COMPLAINT Defendants, Dow Corning Corporation and Dow Corning Wright Corporation (collectively referred to as "Answering Defendants") by their attorneys Krusen Evans & Byrne respond to Plaintiffs' Court Approved Short Form Complaint as follows: GENERAL DENIAL Pursuant to Case Management Order No.8, paragraph 4(a), answering defendants deny all the factual allegations in plaintiffs' Complaint. SPECIPIC DENIALS Pursuant to Case Management Order No.8, paragraph 4(b), answering defendants respond: 1. Whether Dow Corning Wright Corporation is a partner, agent or servant of Dow Corning Corporation or is or may be subject to Dow Corning Corporation'S control, is a question of " law to which answering defendants need not respond. For the purposes of this pleading, answering defendants deny those claims as stated in the Fourth Amended Master Complaint. 2. Dow Corning Corporation admits that it designed, manufactured and sold silicone gel breast implants from 1964 until 1992. Following reasonable investigation, Dow Corning Corporation lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief whether it designed, manufactured, sold, possessed or controlled the implants used in the plaintiff'S care. Dow Corning Corporation therefore denies those allegations and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial. 3. Dow Corning Wright Corporation admits that it designed, manufactured and sold silicone gel breast implants from 1978 until 1992. Following reasonable investigation, Dow Corning Wright Corporation lacks knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief whether it designed, manufactured, sold, possessed or controlled the implants used in the plaintiff's care. Dow Corning Wright Corporation therefore denies those allegations and demands strict proof thereof at the time of trial. 4. Dow Corning Corporation admits that from time-to- time, it manufactured andlor sold raw materials to medical device manufacturers that may have been used by those entities to manufacture breast implants. After reasonable investigation, Dow Corning Corporation is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether any of its raw 2 , '. materials were used in the silicone breast implants allegedly used in plaintiff's medical care. 5. Dow Corning Wright Corporation denies that it manufactured and/or sold raw materials to other entities. On the contrary, Dow Corning Wright Corporation never sold raw materials to any other entity for use in manufacturing silicone breast implants or for any other purpose. 6. Answering defendants further deny that any of the other parties to this action were their partner, agent or servant or subject to answer defendants' control or right to control. On the contrary, all other parties were entirely independent of answering defendants. 7. To the extent that the Fourth Amended Master Complaint contains allegations that person(s) acting as agents, servants or employees of answering defendants made or failed to make any statements or representations or withheld information for or on behalf of answering defendants or either of them, following reasonable investigation, answering defendants lack knowledge or information sufficient to identify the person(s) alleged or the act(s) or omission(sl attributable to them. Answering defendants therefore deny the identities of those individuals and the acts or omissions attributable to them and demand strict proof thereof at the time of trial. Answering defendants further deny that those unidentified persons were agents, servants or employees of answering defendants as alleged. 3 NEW MATTER 8. The Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted. 9. Allor part of the injuries, damages, and/or losses (if any) sustained by the plaintiff were a direct, proximate, and sole result of such plaintiff'S physical and bodily condition on, prior to, and subsequent to events alleged in the Complaint, and such plaintiff is thus barred from any recovery in this action under the Doctrine of No Liability for an idiosyncratic reaction. 10. Allor part of the damages and injuries, and/or losses alleged by plaintiff were caused by the abuse and misuse by others of the implant product, which was not reasonably foreseeable, thereby barring plaintiff from any recovery from any defendant. 11. Allor part of the damages, injuries and/or losses alleged by plaintiff were caused by acts and conduct of other persons, which intervened between acts and conduct of defendants, and plaintiff'S alleged damages, injuries, and/or losses (if any) thereby barring any recovery from any defendant. In the alterna- tive, any damages which plaintiff might be entitled to recover against any defendant must be reduced to the extent that such damages are attributable to the intervening acts and/or omissions of persons other than defendants. 12. There exists no proximate causation between any alleged act, omission, breach of duty, or breach of warranty by 4 defendants and plaintiff's alleged damages and injuries, andlor losses, and all of plaintiff'S alleged damages, injuries and/or losses (if any) were the result of conduct of persons other than answering defendants. 13. All acts performed by defendants in the design, manufacture, and marketing of the silicone gel products were in conformity with the "state of the art" existing at the time of such design, manufacture, and marketing, and the result of or reliance upon substantial medical testing in the course of their development of their product and prior to placing the product on the market, and public policy should hold that liability not be imposed upon defendants pursuant to some or all of the causes of action pleaded herein for untold risks not known at the time of such design, manufacture, and marketing. 14. Upon information and belief, plaintiff failed to comply with the applicable provisions of State commercial law, failed to give reasonable notice to defendants of alleged breach or breaches of warranty, and therefore such plaintiff is barred from any recovery in this action. 15. Part of the damages claimed by plaintiff arising out of her alleged injuries are due to plaintiff'S failure to mitigate damages, and therefore may not be recovered by plaintiff in this action. 16. The complaint fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against defendants, which would 5 justify the imposition of punitive or exemplary damages under any applicable law. 17. The imposition of punitive or exemplary damages against defendants would violate defendants' constitutional rights under the Due Process clauses in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, the Exces- sive Fines clause in the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, the Double Jeopardy clause in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, similar provisions in applicable State Constitutions, andlor the common law and public policies of pertinent states, andlor applicable statutes and court rules, in the circumstances of this litiga- tion, including but not limited to: (a) imposition of such punitive damages by a jury which (1) is not provided standards of sufficient clarity for determining the appropriateness, and the appropriate size, of such a punitive damages aware, (2) is not adequately and clearly instructed on the limits on punitive damages imposed by the principles of deterrence and punishment, (3) is not expressly prohibited from awarding punitive damages, or determining the amount of an award thereof, in whole or in part, on the basis of invidiously discriminatory characteristics, including the corporate status, wealth, or state of residence of defendants, (4) is permitted to award punitive damages under a standard for determining liability for such damages which is vague and arbitrary and does not define with sufficient clarity the conduct or mental state which makes punitive damages permissible, and (5) is not subject to trial court and appellate judicial review for reasonableness and the furtherance of legitimate purposes on the basis of objective standards; b. imposition of such punitive damages, and deter- mination of the amount of an award thereof, where 6 applicable state law is impermissible vague, imprecise, or inconsistent; c. imposition of such punitive damages, and deter- mination of the amount of an award thereof, employing a burden of proof less than clear and convincing evidence; d. imposition of such punitive damages, and deter- mination of the amount of an award thereof, without bifurcating the trial and trying all punitive damages issues only if and after the liability of defendants has been found on the merits; e. imposition of such punitive damages, and deter- mination of the amount of an award thereof, under any state's law subject to no predetermined limit, such as a maximum multiple of compensatory damages or a maximum amount; andlor f. imposition of such punitive damages, and deter- mination of the amount of an award thereof, based on anything other than defendants' conduct in connection with the sale of the products alleged in this litigation, or in any other way subjecting defendants to impermissible multiple punishment for the same alleged wrong. 18." The product referred to in plaintiff's Complaint is a medical device and the Federal Government has totally or partially preempted the field of law applicable to such products, and said products were in compliance with applicable federal law. Therefore, plaintiff's causes of action fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in that, inter~, such claims for relief, if granted, would impede, impair, frustrate or burden the effectiveness of law regulating the field of such products and would violate the Supremacy Clause (Art. VI, ~ 2) of the United States Constitution. 19. Defendants hereby gives notice to the extent comment k of Section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts is 7 applicable to any of the allegations in plaintiff's Complaint, Defendants intend to rely upon same in defense of this action. 20. Upon information and belief, plaintiff had notice of the facts and circumstances alleged in the complaint prior to the filing of the complaint, but nevertheless refrained from commencing an action against Defendants, and such delay caused prejudice to Defendants and therefore such plaintiff is barred from relief under the equitable doctrine of laches, waiver and/or estoppel. 21. In the event that plaintiff alleges that answering defendants failed to warn of known or unknown risks inherent in the use of the product, these claims are governed by the "Learned Intermediary" rule or doctrine. 22. If plaintiff sustained any injuries or incurred any damages, the same were caused in whole or in part by the acts or omissions of persons other than Dow Corning Corporation or Dow Corning Wright Corporation, over whom these defendants had and have no control, or by the superseding interventions of causes outside of control of these defendants. 23. These defendants had no duty to warn about possible dangers (if any) in using their products which were not known at the time of manufacture and sale of the products. 24. After any alleged product left the possession and control of defendants, and without defendants' knowledge or approval, it was redesigned, modified, altered, incorporated into a finished product, or subjected to treatment which substantially 8 -t,.. ",'" " . ' , . . changed its character. The defect in any alleged product, as alleged in the complaint, resulted, if at all, from the redesign, modification, alteration, treatment or other change of the product after defendants relinquished possession and control over the product and not from any act or omission of defendants. 25. The incident or incidents of which plaintiff complains, and plaintiff'S injuries and damages, if any, were the result of an unavoidable accident as that term is defined and recognized by law. 26. The injuries or damages sustained by plaintiff, if any, can be attributed to several causes and accordingly should be apportioned among the various causes according to the respective contribution of each such cause to the harm sustained, if any. 27. Plaintiff does not suffer from any disabling disease(s). 28. The injuries or damages sustained by plaintiff, as alleged in the Complaint, involve the removal of andlor the rupture of the implant(s) only, and therefore plaintiff is not entitled to future damages for a disabling disease pursuant to Case Management Order No.7. 29. The Complaint fails to allege that plaintiff suffered any injuries due to the explanation or the rupture of the implant(s) or that plaintiff suffers from any disabling diseases, and therefore plaintiff has no cause of action against answering defendant. 9 ~, , ~ ,..,........-~... ,,- . . ' 30. Plaintiff's claim of breach of express warranty must fail because plaintiff failed to attach a copy of the written express warranty to the Complaint or plaintiff failed to plead the specifics of any oral warranty such as the name of the person who extended the warranty, the date it was extended and/or the specific terms of the warranty. 31. If answering defendant provided raw materials to a manufacturer of implants, then answering defendant cannot be liable to the plaintiff pursuant to strict liability concepts set forth in Restatement (Second) Torts ~402A because those silicone materials were changed or modified by others before they were used in the plaintiff's medical care. 32. If answering defendant provided raw materials to a manufacturer of implants, then answering defendant was not in privity with the plaintiff and extended no warranties either express or implied, to her regarding its silicone materials. 33. If answering defendant supplied the raw materials which have allegedly caused injury to the plaintiff (which causal connection the defendant has denied and continues to deny), that silicone was supplied, if at all, to a sophisticated user and therefore, the defendant cannot be held legally responsible for any lack of information or misinformation provided to plaintiff by others. 34. The raw materials which have allegedly caused injury to the plaintiff (which causal connection the defendant has denied and continues to deny), were supplied, if at all, by a 10 .-..- " bulk supplier, and, therefore, the defendant cannot be held legally responsible for any lack of information or misinformation provided to plaintiff by others. 35. Plaintiff fails to state a private cause of action for violation of the Consumer Protection Act because plaintiff is not a purchaser of silicone gel-filled breast implants as defined under the Act. 36. Defendants reserve the right, upon completion of their discovery and investigation, to file such additional defenses as may be appropriate. WHEREFORE, having fully answered, defendants Dow Corning Corporation and Dow Corning Wright Corporation pray that the Complaint against them be dismissed with prejudice at the cost of plaintiff(s), for their costs expended herein, and for any other relief to which defendants may be entitled. KRUSEN EVANS & BYRNE BY: obert S. Forste , Jr., Esq. Attorney 1.0. No. 17899 Yolanda Konopacka DeSipio, Esq. Attorney 1.0. No. 67271 Attorneys for Defendants Dow Corning Corporation Dow Corning Wright Corporation The Curtis Center, Suite 1100 601 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106-3393 Dated: March~, 1994 11 " v. . % r'I CAT r 0 N Eugene Jakubczak. hereby states that he is the Manager of ProfeBsional Relation. for Dow Corning Corporation and Dow cozoning wzoigbt CClI:poratJ.ul1 .:1nc1 1l!1 lIuthori~l!Id to S1.!:I1I this verification. and verifies that ho has read thA ~oregoing pleading; that r.he answers are no~ completoly based upon his own knowledge, but were prepared wi th the a".istailCEl clr:1.l ad.vice of otn4u'II and msy be eubjec:t to inadveL'I.~II~ errot' or oVersight I which he will corroct sl10uld he learn of any errl)t' or om1.liIIicn. that subject to th~ limitations set forth harein verifies that the anAwere are true and correct to the best of his knowledge, into~tion and be1il!lf; and he under8t~nds thllt th~ statem8nts in said answers are made subject to the pel~ltioA or 18 Pa. C.S.A. 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Sx:~L~ Manager of Professional Relations COW Corning corporation and Dow ~n~nina Wright Corporatic~ Dated: February 10. 1994 1 .' . VERIFICATION Robert S. Forster, Jr., Esquire, states that he is counsel for Dow Corning Corporation and Dow Corning Wright Corporation and that he is authorized to make this Verification, and verifies that the attached Verification is a true and correct copy of the Verification which was filed in the Short Form Answer in Toledo v. Dow Corninq Corooration and Dow Corninq Wriqht Corooration, in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, April Term, 1992, Civil Action No. 136, that the person who signed the Verification in Toledo v. Dow Corninq Corooration and Dow Corninq Wriqht Corooration is authorized to make the Verification on behalf of the above-named parties, that the person who signed the Verification in Toledo v. Dow Corninq Corooration and Dow Corninq Wriqht Corooration would also sign a Verification in this case, and that if an original Verification was filed it would be identical to the attached Verification. The undersigned understands that the statements in said Verification are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S.A. ~4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. obert S. Forste , Jr., E q. Yolanda Konopacka DeSipio, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants, Dow Corning Corporation and Dow Corning Wright Corporation Date: ~//9J' . . , CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned hereby certifies that he has, on this date, caused a true and correct copy of Defendants Dow Corning Corporation and Dow Corning Wright Corporation's Short Form Answer and New Matter to be served upon all parties of record or their counsel as shown below by first-class mail, postage pre- paid. Stephen L. Sheller, Esquire Jamie L. Sheller, Esquire Joan M. Roediger, Esquire Sheller, Ludwig & Badey 1528 Walnut Street 3rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Allan H. Starr, Esquire Nancy L. Siegel, Esquire Anna M. Schmidt, Esquire WHITE & WILLIAMS One Liberty Place Suite 1800 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103-7301 James A. Yates, M.D., F.A.C.S. Plastic Surgery Center Ltd. Grandview Corporate Place 205 Grandview Camp Hill, PA 17011 KRUSEN EVANS & BYRNE obert S. Forster, Jr., Esq. Yolanda Konopacka DeSipio, Esq. Attorneys for Dow Corning Corporation and Dow Corning Wright Corporation Date: March _I , 1994 ":2- ~ FE ~ In N ~,>- ....- ,,",,:-;j.., ~~..,,~~ L...'..J~ ~ :~; :: ? ,~ .' ,... -^.,~! ~l '.J:",'~ , ',JIll.) h ..z::.... ~";ti "::7- "'-l a: ::i:! 0- '" ~ 'tl I:l Z \U 0 I>l '" .0 .... ~~.. .., Ul 1-0 '" >- " " ::l < '" ~ w CI .", 'tl,c '" '" ~u~2 "'''' I:l 0 .... ~!!Ui! ~'" 'al . '" 0 ~ ~ set 0 1-0'" '" '" .... . "'.... "'~ 0 .... UJu3<i ! '" ~'" u > ~wCi ~ 0 "'Ill .... N ~~lL ~ ~ 0 1Il~ > U u :> ~ t:.J .0 W Z ~~ Z o Z 0 ~ ~~ .... 0 Z!? <:I N '" . ~ ClI Z ... ra;l- :r- I"l ;...... '" .... en w ~ l 1-0 . ~",.... 0 t;)~Ui "'.... "'0) u.... II: ' ~ ....U al 0 :.::Ul I<l Z~'tl :>: Z 0 ~"'I:l 0 .., '" I"lU\U I"l ClI . . , . .... \ MAP:: 1~19+ ., ~ Denise Feehrer and Gregory Feehrer, husband and wife VS Dow Corning Corporation, Dow Corning Wright Corporation, James A. Yates, M.D., F.A.C.S., Plastic Surgery Center Ltd., and Holy Spirit Hospital In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania No. 170 Civil Term 1994 Short, Form Complaint and Notice COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA: COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND David Rudy, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, says that on January 14, 1994 at 1:20 o'clock P.M., E.S.T., he served a true copy of the within Short Form Complaint and Notice, in the above entitled action, upon the within named defendant, to wit: James A. Yates, M.D., F.A.C.S., by making known unto Debra Yates, Office Manager, at 205 Grandview, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, its contents and at the same handing to her personally the said true and attested copy of the same. David Rudy, Deputy Sheriff, who heing duly sworn according to law, says that on January 14, 1994 at 1,20 o'clock P.M., E.S.T., he served a true copy of the within Short Form Complaint and Notice, in the above entitled action, upon the within named defendant. to wit: Plastic Surgery Center, LTD, by making known unto Debra Yates, Office Manager, at 205 Grandview, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and attested copy of the same. R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, says that he served the above Short Form Complaint and Notice in the following manner: The Sheriff mailed one of the within named defendant, to wit: Gregory G. Theiss, Esquire, Service Processor for Defendant, Dow Corning Corporation, a notice of the pendency of the action by certified mail, to his last known address at Managing Counsel, Litigation, Claims & Labor, Dow Corning Corporation, CO 1222, Midland, Michigan 48686-0995. This letter was mailed under the date of January 14, 1994. Letter was recieved by Gregory G. Theiss, Esquire on January 18, 1994 with return receipt card signed with an unreadable signature. Return receipt card is hereto attached. R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law. says that he served the above Short Form Complaint and Notice in the following manner' The Sheriff mailed one of the within named defendants, wit: Gregory G. Theiss, Esquire, Service Processor for Defendant, Dow Corning Wright Corporation, a notice of teh pendency of the action by certified mail, to his last known address at Managing Counsel, Litigation, CLaims & Labor, Dow Corning Wright Corporation, CO 1222, Midland, Michigan 486-0995. This letter was mailed under the date of January 14, 1994. Letter was received be Gregory G. Theiss, Esquire on January 18, 1994, with return receipt card signed with an unreadable signature. Return receipt card is hereto attached. David Rudy, Deputy Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law, says that on January 14, 1994 at 1:05 o'clock P.M., E.S.T., he served a true copy of the within Short Form Complaint and Notice. in the above entitled action, upon the within named defendant, to wit: Holy Spirit Hospital, by making known unto Marcia McAlicher, Risk Manager, at 503 North 21st Street, Camp Hill, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, its contents and at the same time handing to her personally the said true and attested copy of the same. Sheriff's Costs: Docketing Service Surcharge Certified Mail So Answers: 30.00 17.92 10.00 5.04 62.96 pd. by atty. 1-24 -94 r~::::',,",#,-~ .;~~~ R. ~mas Kline, Sheriff BY /J,'JtJ!~ Depu ty ri Sworn and Subscribed to Defore Me This ,n'!. Day of ( ., ,.... 'r " I 1994, A.D. Yt"'~ O)?~ r~thonotary lPa # -- \, 0,,\- " ... f SE DER' '.. . Campletl illms , ,nd/or 2 to, .dcUUonaI MMe", . CompLete Item. 3. .nd 4. & b. I ., Print 'I1M' ntme end Jdd,... on the 'I"'''" 01 tN. lorm 10 thlt WI cln Ii fltum thi. e.rd to you. (:. ). ! . An.ch thi. form to the front 01 the ",.rp6ecI. or on lhe b.ck II spec, dot. not PIUmlt. .s . Writ,"R.tumR_ptRequestecr'onthlmallpieclbtlowtht.nlclenumbt, 2. 0 Reatrlcted Delivery . The Return R~t wla Ihow to whom the .ntell w.. ctell....fId and lhe dl" I t g deHv.r~. Consult oltmllter for ee, I'" 3. Artlcl. Addre...d to: 4.. Artlcl. Number I i Gregory G. Theiss, Esq. P 336 209 231 I B Managing Counsel 4b. S.rvlc. Typ. , D Regl.ter.d D In.ured , en Litiga tion, Claims & Labor B C.rtlfl.d D COD I III Dow Corning Corp., CO 1222 DE.pre..M.1I D ReturnR.c.lpt lor I Midland, Michigan 48686-099 I Service Processor fo en I ".0 wl.h to rec.lv. the lollowlng .ervlc.. 1I0r .n ..tr. ,..1: 1. D Addr.....'. Addre.. ,d. i; ~I ]: i; =' ",' .& !I: 15: .... " 1 I , I I . l J :; 1 t I I I' Slgn.ture IAddr....~ 6. tur. IAg.nt! Ie w I' PS Form. . ~,..1911t~'''~''''.a.:aPO:lllll>-OU-7t. ...- ~Jtf: ~~~::.:-:.::'..Jl ' .' ' . '.. ,,' DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT , ... ~ SENDER: .. . Campl.t. itlm. 1 .nd/or 2 for additional ..~jc... I also wish to receive the !11 . Cpmpl". ill:ns 3. end 4e & b. following services liar an extra !Ii, I: . Print 'Iou, ntme end eddr... on lhe ,ever.. 01 t~. lorm 10 thlt we e.n fee): Jl , : ,fltum lhi. cerd to you, ~ ~ .. . Anach thi. form to the front 0' IhI rNIl1p1ece. or on the beck II 'PIC' 1. 0 Addressee's Address .. . :; does not permit. ~ : .c . Write "Rltum Receipt Requllted" on 1M rgllplecl below IM.nle" number 2. 0 Restricted Delivery ... ~ ,. The R.turn R.celpl wlll.how 10 whom thllnlele WII delivered 100 lhe dill S- '::, I 0 dlllVlr~, Consult oSlma.tar for fee. , ) 'i 3. Artlcl. Addre...d to: 4.. Artlcl. Number E ' I ; Gregory G. Theiss, Esquire P 336 209 230 a: j l Managing Counsel 4b. S.rvlc. Typ. f}." I 8 Litigation, Claims & Labor D R.gl.ter.d D In.ured "" Ill! Dow Corning Corp., CO 1222 III C.rtlfl.d D COD .&' i l:! Midland, Michigan 48686-099 DE.preIlM.i1 DR.turnR.colptlor ~: I 8 Service Processor for Defen an 11." of OoUvery .e' ~ Dow Cot'nin Wri ht Cor orat'on ",. A il; i ~. s~~r~l~}e~~i~!!~:";~~~ ..:. ~;, ;....,-,'......~-..l . :...irc:' a_Addressee'. AddresslOnly If reqUelted':- '..,;....~..'t>......., ....,.. :""""'~""'~' ..J~. ',..";~~..,~ I end fee Is paid) C, 19~.turo lIig;u ." ' ~ 1 f I !: I " " '.'\ [. II "l' 'I, I , I. '. I' I L' I 1 I, , r 7 . DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIPT !i o i ,;- PSf.orm Ii. ,~ - FEB" 3 19846)-.. WHITE AND WILLIAMS BY: ALLAN H. STARR 1.0. NO. 04975 ONE LIBERTY PLACE, SUITE 1800 1650 MARKET STREET PHILADELPHIA, PA. 19103 Attorneys for Defendant Jefferson Park Hospital ----------------------------------------------------------------- DENISE FEEHRER and GREGORY FEEHRER, husband and wife COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY . . . . VS. : DOW CORNING CORPORATION, DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION, JAMES A. YATES, M.D., F.A.C.S., PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER, LTD., and HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL . . NO. 170, CIVIL 1994 . . ORDER TO ENTER APPEARANCE TO THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR: Kindly enter our appearance on behalf of Defendant, Holy spirit Hospital, only in the above matter. WHITE AND WILLIAMS By: (}/1fl'M/t/~{I;: Allan H. Starr Attorneys for Defendant Holy spirit Hospital lo:..,~..) ....., >-,... ~.- .-:.... ~., .':...; ~I....,,:,. O:;'.t~;;:~ ~~~(;!:.. " >, ,~, ~~ 'i: ! :.~ UJ :l;~n.. .- -) 1-<:" '" -:r en - = O- N .... "-I => ..... ...... . POST & SCHELL, P.c. BY: EVAN BLACK, ESQUIRE IDENTIFICATION NO, 1788/1 101 NORTH FRONT STREET HARRISBURG, PA 17101 (717) 232.5931 ATTORNEY FOR James A. Ya tes, M. D., and Plastic Surgery Center, Ltd. DENISE FEF.HER and GREGORY FEEHER, husband ami wife COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANI v. TERM. CIVIL ACTION - LAW DOI~ CORNING, DOW CORNING I~RIGHT, JMIF.S A. YATES, 11.0., F.A.C.S., PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER, LTD., and HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL No. 170 Civil 1994 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO TilE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearance for the Defendant~ James A. Yates, M.D., F.A.C.S. and Plastic Surgery Center, Ltd., in the above case. EVAN BLACK, ESOUIRE Attorney for Defendants James A. Yates, M.n., F.A.C.S., and Plastic Surgery Center, Ltd. .' .\ r',~\ t 't., ~ ~'... ... I .. a; - ~~ :::. "",.., .,.J l.:' '~, :;. (;f:,o..~ ~~r('~.~1 '-1"<" .. . ....:-,." , ~- ....,1.... - ;"~ t-;'j .-t." '"' ~ (:) ... - - r- ::A ... --- .. 'I vs. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA. CIVIL ACTION LAW WHITE AND WILLIAMS BY: Allan H. Starr Identification NO. 04975 One Liberty Place suite 1800 1650 Market Street Philadelphia, Pa. 19103 (215) 864-6223 UENISE FEEHRER and GREGORY FEEHRER, husband and wife Attorneys For: HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL . . . . DOW CORNING CORPORATION, DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION, JAMES A. YATES, M.D., F.A.C.S., PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER, LTD., and HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL . . NO. 170 CIVIL 1994 BNTRY OP APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of defendant, Holy Spiri,t". ~ Hospital, only, in the above-captioned matter. BY: ALLAN H. STARR, Attorneys For HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL -=- ....., - X:, --'1:. ....' :;00' >-.... .c.... a( :-. ~,~~ ,. ~f ~~ :~ :~:" ~ -, -, 'n r- "... .v,.~ .,=r_ ~. ,. :::> t; '-' "'", OU ...... ~ MAR 2 4 1994 KRUSEN EVANS & BYRNE By: Robert S. Forster, Esquire Identification No.: 17899 Suite 1100, The Curtis Center Sixth and Walnut Streets Independence Square West Philadelphia, PA 19106 (215) 923-4400 IN THB COURT OF COMMON PLBAS OF CUMBBRLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA Denise Feehrer and Gregory Feehrer, w/h Plaintiffs Civil Action - Law v. ,> Dow COllning Dow Corning et al ~/l Corporation, Wright Corp., No. 170 Civil 1994 :'t Defendants Jury Trial Demanded ~,- - ~ - BNTRY OF APPBARANCB TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of the defendants, Dow Corning Corporation and Dow Corning Wright Corp., in the above captioned matter. KRUSEN EVANS and BYRNE Dated: 3/2/!q1 BY: 6; - ::z: <>- ~ an N ~... '"'>- ~z ....0::,..... 2zc';r ""ou~ U,.%Q> O-t-z-.l I ,.",,"'1">- >-.-")". -,'" u4U-XZ ~wLltZ ... :.:::U)UJ ..X"- ...=> 0'" ~ C'>ooI ... - ::0::' ,.",,,.,,''',,,..,,~..:i4,,,,''''.., ".' "1'""' GERMAN, GALLAGHER & MURTAGH By: Linda Port Sweeney, Esquire Identification No. 34811 40 East Grant Street Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602 7171293-8070 DENISE FEEHRER and GREGORY FEEHRER, : husband and wife, Plaintiffs, Attorney For Defendants, lames A. Yates, M.D., F.A.C.S. and Plastic Surgery Center, Ltd. CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS No.: 170 of 1994 vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW DOW CORNING CORPORATION, DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION, lAMES A. YATES, M.D. F.A.C.S., PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER, LTD., and HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, Defendants. ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly enter our appearance in the above-captloned matter on behalf of Defendants, James A. Yates, M.D., F.A.C.S., and Plastic Surgery Center, Ltd. GERMAN, GALLAGHER & MURTAGH Dated: May 2, 1994 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE We hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Entry of Appearance was served by first-class mail, postage prepaid, on the date set forth below, upon the following individuals: JAMIE L. SHELLER, ESQUIRE Sheller and Associates 1528 Walnut Street, Third Floor Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102 Attorney tor Plalntlffs, Denise and Gregory Feehrer ROBERT S. FORSTER, JR., ESQUIRE Krusten, Evans and Byrne The Curtis Center, Suite 11 00 6th and Walnut Streets Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 Attorney tor Defendants, Dow Corning Corporatlon and Dow Corning Wright Corporation Dated: May 2, 1994 q Q. :r: ~ li:tu1il ;:)w.....o :;;!;-.... oCU)~~ ffi!zlilil :I:~I!:!r::: (!)c:J~- jw~t:. (3S1:5 ~ a: w <:) .".. , . DENISE FEBHRER and GREGORY, FBEHRBR, husband and wife, CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs, No.: 170 of 1994 vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW DOW CORNING CORPORATION, DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION, JAMES A. YATES, M.D. F.A.C.S., PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER, LTD., and HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, Defendants. WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly withdraw my appearance on behalf of Defendants, James A. Yates, M.D. and Plastic Surgery Center, Ltd., in connection with the above-captioned matter. POST" SCHELL, P.C. Dated: Sff~ / , By: 101 North Front Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 ..,. " CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE We hereby certify that I true and correct copy of the foreaoing Withdrawal of Appearance was served by first-class mall, postage prepald, on the date set forth below, upon the following individuals: JAMIE L. SHRII RR., ESQUIRE Sheller and Associates 1528 Walnut Street, Third Floor Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102 Attorney for Plaintiffs, Denlse and Gregory Feehrer ROBERT S. FORSTER, JR., ESQUIRE Krusten, Evans and Byrne The CurtIs Center, Suite BOO 6th and Walnut Streets Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 Attorney for Defendants, Dow Corning Corporation and Dow Corning Wright Corporation EVAN BLACK, ESQUIRE Post & Schell, P.C. 101 North Front Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 Dated: May 13, 1994 -- ,.1, :'.~, ~- c..j Q. :r: Cl <( !i:tu~ :Jw,....o ::l;1!'_... oaCl)~m a: ~ ' w a: aCl~!: ~u.i~t:. <(i~ Cl z ~ a: w Cl - DENISE FERRHER and GREGORY FERRHER, plaintiffS v. HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, COW CORNING COW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION, JAMES A. YATES, M.D., F.A.C.S., PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER, LTD. AND HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, Defendants : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. . . . . . . . . . . . . NO. 94-CV-170 . . : CIVIL ACTION -- LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED . . PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please enter my appearances for the Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, in the above-captioned matter. DATED: February 24, 1995 MARSHALL & FARRELL, P.C. .,/~~, . I Francis/E. Marshall, Jr. 1.0. No'. 27594 1323 North Front street Harrisburg, PA 17102 (717)236-7300 CBRTXFXCATB OF SSRVXCB AND NOW, this 24th day of February 1995, I, Francis E. Harshall, Jr., Esquire, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the Praecipe for Entry of Appearance upon all parties of record by depositing a copy of same in the United states mail, regular delivery, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Jamie L. Sheller, Esquire SHELLER, LUDWIG & BADEY 1528 Walnut Street Third Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Robert S. Forster, Esquire KRUSEN, EVANS & BYRNE The curtis Center 601 Walnut Street suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19106-3393 Linda porr Sweeney, Esquire GERMAN, GALLAGHER & MURTAGH 40 East Grant Street Lancaster, PA 17602 ..' .- ~ Francis E./Harsh,ll, Jr., Esquire ( , \ ~ en - == <:L- ID .::r N r- '" "" w ...... ~- I~-:; l&../.,:"\.~!::f' ~ 3~~""~ \.... '"eC" ''": '.'. ..i"...., .__j4-' , " .. ~(.' u ~. - g . , 1;; !:: - . -e - "' ~ ~ Z :.: !": :.: \;, ::; ..: :- 0 '" ~ 7- e: Z o:d != ~ " ..: '" ~ 0 '" . 7. ,. - ..: ~ rr. - '" 01 - - '" :Il :; :.: ..: ~ Mu.\II.\1J A,. t,"'UIJ.I'C 1'"......"I,..'...""UI .....".1"'"...."1\.....".... (..,.....,...6 Robert S. Porster, Esquire Attorney I.D. No. 17899 ltRUSEN EVANS Go BYRNE The Curtis Center, Suite 1100 philadelphia, Pa. 19106 (215) 923 -4400 Attorney for Dow Corning Corporation DENISE FEEHRER and GREGORY FEEHRER, w/h Plaintiffs CUMBERLAND COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CIVIL ACTION - LAW v. DOW CORNING CORPORATION and DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION and JAMES A. YATES, M.C., F.A.C.S. and PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER, LTD. and HOLLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL Defendants NO. 170 CIVIL 1994 NOTICE OP PILING OP NOTICE OP REMOVAL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on ~~) ~ , 1995, Dow Corning Corporation filed a Notice of Removal in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, removing the claims identified in the Notice of Removal. A copy of the Notice of Removal is attached hereto and hereby served on you. RObet24~~1'f.quiro Attorney for Dow Corning Corporation Dated: !rY5ltts , UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA DENISE FEEHRER and GREGORY FEEHRER, w/h Plaintiffs v. CIVIL ACTION NO. DOW CORNING CORPORATION and DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION 1: · and · JAMES A. YATES, M.C., F.A.C.S. : and PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER, LTD. and HOLLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL Defendants cV-95-1277 1 " JOINT NOTICE OF REMOVAL CER ,', ,,,q'SIlURG, PA DEPUTY CLERK Dow Corning Corporation ("DCC") and The Dow Chemical Company ("Dow") (collectively the "Removing Defendants") remove this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C ~ 1452(a), and in support thereof, state as follows: 1. On May 15, 1995, DCC filed a Voluntary Petition for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Northern Division, thereby commencing case 1'10.95-20512 (the "DCC Bankruptcy Case"). 2. Denise Feehrer and Gregory Feehrer, w/h (the "Plaintiffs"), commenced a civil action (the "Civil Action"), filed before the DCC Bankruptcy Case, against the Removing Defendants and against certain other defendants (collectively, the "Other Defendants") in the COlut of Common PIl:)as of Certifiod f 0", tho record Data ~ I Mary E. D'Andrea, Clerk Percln\.'...-:'~~~'Y~ .i ~0:.;:( - Cumberland County, and assigned Case No. 170 Civil 1994. In the Civil Action, the Plaintiff asserts various personal injury claims against the Removing Defendants based on injuries allegedly caused by or arising out of silicone materials or silicone gel breast Implant products (collectively the "DCe Breast Implant Products") manufactured by DCC. The plaintiff seeks recovery (I) from DCC based on allegations, among others, that the DCC Breast Implant Products are defective, and (II) from Dow based upon allegations, among others, that Dow participated in the manufacturing, marketing or testing of the DCC Breast Implant Products or otherwise are liable for plaintiff's alleged Injuries. 3. This action may be removed to this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ~ 452(a) by reason of the fact that (i) the action is not exempt from removal, and Iii) the Court has jurisdiction over the action under 28 U.S.C. ~ 1334. All claims asserted are related to the DCC Bankruptcy Case, and the continued prosecution, outcome at trial or other resolution of the claims will have an effect on the administration of the DCC Bankruptcy Case. 4. This removal applies to all claims and causes of action asserted in the Civil Action and specifically Includes, but without limitation, claims against The Dow Chemical Company, even though those claims may presently have been dismissed or otherwise ruled upon in the state court. It is the intent of this notice that these claims are also removed to F ! t r federal court to remain part of this same action in the event that any prior rulings resolving these claims are vacated or reversed. 5. The Civil Action is pending within the district and division of this Court. 6. This Notice of Removal is timely flied under Rule 9027(a)(2). 7. Upon removal of this action, the proceedings with respect thereto are non-core. DCC does not consent to entry of a final order or judgment by the bankruptcy judge (to the extent that the bankruptcy court Is authorized to hear or determine such claims consistent with 28 U.S.C. ~ 157(b)(5)). 8. Copies of process and pleadings in the Civil Action are attached as Exhibit "A". KRUSEN, EVANS & BYRNE SWEENEY, SHEEHAN & SPENCER, P .C. By: tuJ;;-S ~#/t/.t(J I Walter S. Jenkins, Esquire Attorneys for The Dow Chemical Company By: v1 Robert S. Forster, r., Esquire Attorneys for Dow Corning Corp. Suite 11 00 The Curtis Center 601 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19106-3393 (215) 923-4400 1 51 5 Market Street, 19th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215) 563-9811 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT POR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OP PENNSYLVANIA DENISE FEEHRER and GREGORY FEEHRER, w/h Plaintiffs v. CIVIL ACTION NO. DOW CORNING CORPORATION and DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION and JAMES A. YATES, M.C., F.A.C.S. and PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER, LTD. and HOLLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL Defendants I"C\I - '\S - 161'1'1 SERVICE LIST Jamie L. Sheller, Esquire Leonard V. Fodera, Esquire SHELLER, LUDWIG & BADEY 1528 Walnut Street, 3rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Denise Peehrer Gregory peehrer Robert S. Forster, Jr., Esquire KRUSEN EVANS & BYRNE The CUrtis Center, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Dow Corning Corporation Dow Corning Wright James A. Yates, M.D., P.A.C.S. Grandview Corporate Place 205 Grandview Camp Hill, PA 17011 Plastic Surgery Center, LTD. Grandview Corporate Place 205 Grandview Camp Hill, PA 17011 Holy Spirit Hospital 503 North 21st Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 " ,;'~" ,.... Lr> en - >.... >- ~-.: ~..: ~ll ;~: ;.;~. ~ < ,-, ~';~ 1e '" :J" -"<"''', N - ..'.-, (~....:..: :>;--: ,";,) ~ '"", <.', c..3 :, = DENISE FEEHRER and GREGORY FEEHRER, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA. Plaintiffs v. NO: 170 Civll1994 HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, DOW CORNING, DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION, JAMES A. YATES, MD FACS, and PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER, : Defendants CIVIL ACTION - LAW JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PRAECIPE TO CHANGE ADDRESS TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Please note our name and address change as follows: MARSHALL, SMITH Be HADDICK P.C. 20 South 36th Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 (717) 731-4800 (717) 731-4803 Fax Respectfully Submitted: MARSHALL, SMITH & HADDICK P.C. Francis E. all, Jr., Esquire 1.0. No: 27594 Kerry Voss Smith, Esquire 1.0. No: 53145 20 South 36th Street Camp HllI, PA 17011 (717) 731-4800 Attorney for Defendants " , i " , , i 1>__ ~~ . Date: January ~ 1997 1 , ~ -J. (~~..-.~...,." ,'-., . . . . CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND NOW, this /0 day ot ~ 1997, I, Francis K. Marshall, Jr. Ksquire, hereby cenify that I served a true an~rrect CO;y of the foregoing document on all panies by depositing a copy of same In the United States mall, regular delivery, postage prepaid at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows: Jamie L. Sheller, Esquire SHELLER, LUDWIG & BADKY 1528 Walnut Street 3rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Robert S. Forster, Esquire KRUSEN, EVANS & BYRNK The Curtis Center, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Unda Porr Sweeney, Esquire GKRMAN, GALLAGHER & MURTAGH 40 East Grant Street Lancaster, PA 17602 Walter S. Jenkins, Esquire SWEENEY, SHEEHAN & SPENCER, P.C. 1515 Market Street, 19th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 ..... ..:I" . - t.. ..;; .. (.;; , .. ""~ U fi;-'\ (') ; ).- (1., ~, -'" r"'( ~. "]::1: ,.. u:: gr, ':\~ 0 l.:~~2 '. ui'-< ....1, .::,Z (J" ~. ....~ ".I. oJ J "Ct' "l}tt. -, .~ lI.. r- ;'j t;J en (~ ~ dA ~ J ~ g ~r)j~~ ..f lQ g ::i :J l:: C'l ;: = ~ rn c.. UlCl)O~ ~ t5 ~I U AU ~ o o III 1 S ... ;:: E . . " DENISE FEEHRER, GREGORY FEEHRER, PLAINTIFFS IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA v. CIVIL ACTION - LAW DOW CORNING CORP., DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORP., JAMES A. YATES, MD, FACS, PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER, LTD.,: AND HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL DEFENDANTS 94-170 CIVIL TERM ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this 30th day of October, 2001, in the case of Feehrer versus Dow Corning Corporation at No. 94-170 Civil Term, and it appearing that docket activity has occurred recently in the case, the case is stricken from the purge list and shall remain active. By the Court, Jamie L. Sheller, Esquire 1528 Walnut Street 3rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 For the Plaintiffs Robert S. Forster, Jr., Esquire 1600 Market St., STE 3600 6~ ~ Phila, PA 19103-4252 ,-- For Defendant Dow Corning, Dow Corning Wright Linda Porr Sweeney, Esquire Ellis & Porr, P.C. P.O. Box 10696 Lancaster, PA 17605-0696 For Defendant Yates, Plastic Surgery Francis E. Marshall, Jr., Esquire 20 S. 36th St. Camp Hill, PA 17011-4301 For Defendant Holy Spirit pcb /1_ .2,. Of 9-. \...,;'1 .r I)J~ .; t~, I r i' f , .~; .L "',., F I ;:r~..,~ ',' I ,'" {Jr" 'r ' ,:' ;;-:~Tf;J1Y 01 '.W'I19 Pi; 2: S8 CU1/..;r.-- .- ';J (V,! '\l1Y '.~;:;-ll/... .....\.JUl PEi'IJ~lSYLVANV\ DOW CORNING CORPORATION, DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION, JAMES A. YATES, M.D., F.A.C.S., PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER, LTD., and HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL No. 1994-00170 PORR & DEVINE, LLC By: Linda Parr Sweeney, Esquire Attorney 1.0. No. 34811 116 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 (717) 390-3020 Attorney for Defendants James A. Yates, M.D., F.A.C.S. and Plastic Surgery Center, Ltd. v. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PA CIVIL ACTION DENISE FEEHRER and GREGORY FEEHRER, husband and wife ORDER TO DISCONTINUE AND END TO THE PROTHONOTARY: Kindly mark that above-captioned matter discontinued and ended, upon payment of your costs only. SHELLER, LUDWIG & BADEY , / By: ~ Date: -=rb.3/()Lf ~. 0 >- tr; - ~'- '" -.' ,..::: 1J,15:_'l , -:: S;~~. tl- ~....~. .>- ~_t '_1_;::: " 9" l.O C :'~ a~1: ",: Il.fiJ_ ".1 ~UJ L1-_. ::-:;) " r- -., --.: 1.1. -'>" :'3 C-~_') 0 = (.) <--J II .,-- ~ c..o C) C) . a.. '\J.U-/Y6 tI ~ r- ('"".....kW-.-'<" e, 7Lu 9 IJ. 170 TERMED REMAND u.s. District Court USDC for the No~thern District of Alabama (Southern) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 95-CV-13600 Feehrer, et al v. Dow Corning, et al Assigned to: Chief Judge Sam C Pointer, Jr Demand: $0,000 Lead Docket: None Dkt # in PAM : is 1:95--01277 Dkt # in MDL : is 926 Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability Filed: 10/10/95 Nature of Suit: 365 Jurisdiction: Diversity DENISE FEEHRER plaintiff PIa's Liaison Counsl (205) 252-0423 fax [COR] HARE WYNN NEWELL & NEWTON Massey Building, Suite 800 290 21st Street, North Birmingham, AL 35203 (205) 328-5330 ,- .-' ..j " J , :, ,I GREGORY FEEHRER plaintiff 'n . ~ , ' . I ~ 'I ,,__J ',.'.) . :. '., ;-.-: . ~:-, v. DOW CORNING CORPORATION defendant Dft's Liaison Counsl (513) 977-8141 fax [COR] DINSMORE & SHOHL Chemed Center, Suite 1900 255 East 5th Street Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 977-8200 . .,,1 : ~ , --.:." ( ~:. DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION defendant PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER, LTD. defendant A TRUE con PERRY 11. MlI.'MfT9, C!.BIlK UNITED S'fATE:1 DISTRICT CUl}~ NO~)>~STRI~~~.'ft BY: ~7~ CLD1t JAMES A YATES, M.D., F.A.C.S. defendant Docket as of October 16, 1997 4:32 pm Page 1 ..s.. Proceedings include all events. TERMED 2:95cv13600 Feehrer, et al v. Dow Corning, et al REMAND t"'\ r- HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL defendant Docket as of October 16, 1997 4:32 pm Page 2 Proceedings include all events. TERMED 2:95cv13600 Feehrer, et al v. Dow Corning, et al REMAND ~ r--.. DENISE FEEHRER; GREGORY FEEHRER plaintiff v. DOW CORNING CORPORATION; DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION; JAMES A YATES, M.D., F.A.C.S.; PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER, LTD.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL defendant Docket as of October 16, 1997 4:32 pm Page 3 ~ ~ Proceedings include all events. TERMED 2:95cv13600 Feehrer, et al v. Dow Corning, et al 10/10/95 1 REMAND ORDER of JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTI-DISTRICT LITIGATION (CTO 74) dated 9/15/95, stay lifted 10/3/95 transferring 370 additional cases into this court for inclusion in MDL 926 filed [95-13318 - 95-13687]; certified copy of order w/transmittal letter requesting certified copy of docket entries mailed to transferror clerks (sh) [Entry date 10/13/95] Original court file and/or certified copy of docket entries from clerk of tranferror court received and filed (lm) [Entry date 11/17/95] 11/7/95 2 10/14/97 -- ORDER #39Aremanding case to state court Cumberland Co, PA; filed ( by Chief Judge Sam C. Pointer Jr ); cert cy docket sheet, order & orig record mailed to state ct; cm (kc) [Entry date 10/16/97] Docket as of October 16, 1997 4:32 pm Page 4 970:; f I, ~:: g: 02 Master File CV 92-P-I0000-;S. L.c_;, .;,~ { (;~L'RT ) (Applies to cases Iis~e . flI~.~~~c:X ". ;:"i\:;1~ T R"R\ . A \. ,1, II !J!Co, .- ie :tfi. ORDER No. 39A VV - q - - I '?>fP 0 D r:5' (Remanding Listed Cases to State Court) ocr.1 It 1997 cJI!-d-. ... ~ f""\ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF AL~BAMA Southern Division -., -- . ! In re: SIUCONE GEL BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION (MDL-926) ) ) ) Pursuant to Order No. 39. and after considering the responses of the panies (as discussed in Opinion No. 39A filed concurrently herewith), il is ORDERED as follows: 1. The cases listed in the appendix 10 this order will be remanded 10 Ihe indicaled state courts upon docketing and entry of orders previously signed in such cases and subject to the terms and conditions of this order. 2. The terms and conditions under which such remands are effected are as follows: (a) All claims against Dow Coming Corp. and Dow Coming Wright (including any crossclaims or third-party claims by defendanlS against Dow Coming Corp. or Dow Coming Wrighl) are, to !be extent not previously dismissed, severed and not remanded. Such claims are. however. administratively closed in this coun and dismissed without prejudice to Ihe institution and pursuit of such claims in the United Slates District and Bankruptcy Courts for the Eastern District of Michigan in accordance with procedures established in those courts. This coun retains jurisdiction to vacate such dismissals and reopen such claims against Dow Coming on written mOlion if filed within 30 days after reorganization proceedings of Dow Coming are dismissed or within 30 days after the Eastern District of Michigan delennines that reopening of such cases against Dow Coming is the procedure to be followed in liquidating such claims. (b) All claims by any party against The Dow Chemical Company, Inc. and Dow Holdings Inc. are, 10 the extent not previously dismissed or lransferred, severed and transferred to the United Slates District Coun for the Eastern District of Michigan, which will detennine whether any of such claims should be remanded (or allowed 10 proceed in slate coun as a consequence of federal coun abstention). (c) As explained in Order No. 30 and Order No. 30G, all claims against the following companies have been dismissed with prejudice: Bioplasty, Inc.; Bio-Manufacturing, Inc.: Cabot Medical Corporation: Coming. Inc.: Foamex ProduclS. Inc.; General Felt Industries, Inc.: Knoll International Holdings. Inc.; Reclicel Foam Corporation: Scotfoam Corporation: ScOIt Paper Company: Surgilek. Inc.; '21' Inlernational Holdings, Inc: '21' Foam Company, Inc.: and Uroplasty. Inc. (d) Any claims against Mentor Corporation: Mentor Polymer Technologies, Inc.: Mentor 0&0. Inc.; Menlor HIS, Inc.: Mentor Urology, Inc.; Mentor International. Inc.: and Teknar Corp. relating to breast implanlS implanted before June I. 1993. are dismissed with prejudice. ~ ,-..., (e) All claims ag4tnst General Electric Company have been dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Order No. 38. TIte plaintiffs in the listed remanded cases have, by not responding to the show cause directions contained in Order No. 39, disavowed any participation in any appeal with respect to Order No. 38. (0 Any claims against Union Carbide Corporation based on its 1990-1992 ownership of McGhan NuSil Corporation remanded to the indicated state couns. but may be pursued In state coun only upon demonstration that the plaintiffs. jf eligible. timely opted out of the original Global Senlement or the Revised Senlement Program provided by that defendant. All other claims against Union Carbide Corporation. as well as all claims against Union Carbide Chemicals and Plastics Company. Inc., have been dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Order No. 37, and the plaintiffs In the listed remanded cases have. by not responding to the show cause directions contained in Order No. 39, disavowed any panicipation in any appeal with respect to Order No. 37. (g) All claims against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Medical Engineering Corp., Baxter HeaJthcan: Corp., Baxter International Inc.. and Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co. ("3M"), and their subsidiaries are remanded to the indicated state couns. but may be pursued in state coun only upon demonstration that the plaintiffs. if eligible, timely opted out of the original Global Seulement or the Revised Settlement Program (OORSP") provided by those defendants. This coun expects plaintiffs to file in state coun. after remand. voluntary dismissals of claims against senling defendants that are precluded by the RSP and will retain jurisdiction to enforce by injunctive decree. if necessary, restrictions against pursuit of such claims. NOTE: THOSE CASES MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK (0) MERiT SPECIAL ATTENTION AS TO DEMONSTRATION OF OPTOUT. A SEARCH BY DEFENDANTS INDICATES THAT ONE OR MORE OF THE IMPLANT-PLAINTIFFS IN THESE CASES MAY NOT HAVE OPTED OUT. (h) All claims against Inamed Corp.. and McGhan Medical Corp. are remanded to the indicated state couns. but may be pursued in state coun only if those defendants default in payment of their obligations under the Revised Senlemenl Program or upon demonstration that the plaintiffs, if eligible. timely opted out of the original Global Senlement or the Revised Senlement Program provided by those defendants. (i) All claims against other defendants not described in paragraphs I (a) through \(h) above arc remanded to the indicated state couns. (j) Funher proceedings in state couns will be governed, in general and to the extent applicable. by the orders previously entered in MOL 926 and Master File No. CV 92-P-10OOO-S. (1) To the extent not inconsistenl with state law, the provisions of Order No. 30. Order No. 30F. and Order No. 30G will apply to such funher proceedings. except that paragraph 8 of that Order No. 30 and Order No. 13, imposing an assessment on recoveries for "common benefit. services and expenses, will not apply to recoveries by plaintiffs who exercised their Initial right to opt out of the Lilldsey class and whose state-coun case was removed to federal coun solely under the "related to bankruptcy" jurisdiction. (2) TIle deposition testimony of the members of the National Science Panel. appointed under Orders No 31 and 310, will, when taken. be admissible and usable in the state couns to the same extent as if taken before remand of the case to the state coun. 2 ,......, ~ (3) The telllporary injunction against cenain settlement discussions, previously entcml by this court. was vacated effective September 1. 1997. (4) Plaintiffs have previously been ordered to respond to questioMaires approved by this court. Remand courts should not permit plaintiffs to proceed further with the prosecution of claims until they have provided, upon request. defendants with responses to such questiolUlaires (or with the substantial equivalent through state-authorized discovery). (5) This court has previously transmitted to most of the state courts to which cases are being remanded a copy of Order No. 30 and the various orders listed in Appendix A to Order No. 30 with which the state courts should be made aware. The parties in the remanded cases are directed to ascenain from the state courts whether such courts have previously received such orders and, if not. to contact the Clerk of this court to obtain. for transmittal to the state courts. a "package" of such orders. Later orders of general interest would include Order No. 31. (National Science Panel), Order No. 36 (on-going studies). Order No. 37 (partial sununary judgment for Union Carbide). Order No. 38 (summary judgment for General Electric). These orders, including the stipulation regarding objections to documents and the appendices to that stipulation, can also be obtained through the Internet at www.fjc.gov/BREIMLIT/mdl926.hlm. (6) This court's file for most of these cases will not include pleadings. motions. etc. that were filed in state court before removal or in the federal transferor court before transfer to this court. The parties in the remanded cases should make arrangements with the Clerk of the federal transferor court for transmission of documents from those court's files that may be needed to complete the state court file. 3. This order will be filed in Master File CV 92-P-IOOOO-S and will be filed (without the appendix) in each of the listed cases. - This the ~ day of October. 1997. - ! V c . ",'.,. ~ ~- ...;;.- Chief Judge Serve: Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel Defendants' Liaison Counsel t. I.W!: C':t''! -. "L"''''''' ....v V '" .('3"'1;:1 ':" '. a.:.._. "E~ .... ._-~ - ...,.,. - l""~~f'Cl' CCVl\&. mnorED 5'rA'XE3 (. ,,-..- NOlO:~ DIS~P.!C'l: or h~AStlA_ aYa ){Ja~ -<<J~r:Jr"" 3 CV95-19414 PAE Z:95.06533 n'Z9Z~ CllHH.PL.CT. PHILAOELPHIA CO. ,..... FRIEOBERO CV95-19416 PAE Z:95-06535 n-0531 CllHH.PL.CT. PHILAOELPHIA co. ~A SMINK CV95-19417* PAE Z:95-06536 93-1591 CllHH.PL.CT. PHILAOELPHIA CO. PA OESOUSA CV95-19418 PAE Z:95-06537 n-0717 CllHH.PL.CT. PHILAOELPHIA co. PA CAMPBELL'BLAIR CV95-194Z0 PAE Z:95-06540 n-3748 CllHH.PL.CT. PHILAOELPHIA co. _.PA KITCHIN CV96-1ZZ9Z PAE Z:95-048Z0 n-1614 CllHH.PL.CT. PHILAOELPHIA CO. PA ROSSINI CV96-1ZZ93 PAE Z:95-048Z8 n-3919 CllHH.PL_CT. PHILADELPHIA CO. PA WILLARD CV96-1ZZ94 PAE Z:95-D4879 93-1371 CllHH.PL.CT. PHILADELPHIA CO. PA STEMOCK CV96-1Z477 PAE Z:95-D6Z87 93-D1B8 CllHH.PL.CT. PHILADELPHIA CO. PA GIOIOSO CV97-1DOZ6 PAE Z:95-061Z1 94-D663 CllHH.PL.CT. PHILADELPHIA CO. PA DONSKY CV95-193Z7* PAE Z:95.D5D76 94-3Z19 CllHH. PL. CT. PHILADELPHIS CO. PA CUSMANO- TROI LO CV95-11D56 PAM 1 :95-01136 95-3DB9 CllHH.PL.CT. CUMBERLAND CO. PA BELLAVIA CV95-136DO PAM 1:95-01Z77 170-CV-1994 CllHH.PL_CT. CUMBERLAND CO. PA FEEHRER CV95-13601 PAM 1:95-01Z78 95-14Z8 CllHH.PL_CT. CUMBERLAND CO_ PA KRAMER CV95-1360Z PAM 1:95-01Z80 94,3383 CllHH.PL.CT. CUMBERLAND CO. PA MORCH CV95-13603 PAM 1 :95-01Z81 94-6564 CllHH.PL.CT. CUMBERLAND CO_ PA POI/ERS CV95-13605* PAM 1:95-01Z85 94-1016 CllHH.PL.CT. CUMBERLAND CO. PA ZIMMERMAN CV96-10644* PAM 1:95-01Z79 3017-CIVIL-19n CllHH.PL.CT. CUMBERLAND CO. PA MCGEE CV96-10645* PAM 1:95-01Z8Z 373-1994 CllHH.PL.CT. CUMBERLAND CO. PA SEESE CV96-10646* PAM 1:95-01Z83 4106-1993 CllHH.PL.CT. CUMBERLAND CO. PA STONE CV95-13610* PAM I :95.01Z97 1846-5-1995 CllHH.PL.CT. DAUPHIN CO_ PA POIIERS CV95-1361Z PAM 1 :95-01303 1058-5-199Z CllHH.PL.CT. DAUPHIN CO. PA ZEIDERS CV96-10647 PAM ,:95'01Z86 ZI1Z-199Z CllHH.PL.CT.. DAUPHIN CO. PA CHUBB CV96-10648 PAM 1:95-01Z87 1191-1994 CllHH.PL.CT. DAUPHIN CO. PA DIMARIA-STALEY CV96-10649 PAM 1:95-D1Z9D 1218-1993 CllHH.PL.CT. DAUPHIN CO. PA GINTER CV96-10650 PAM 1:95-01Z91 705-1994 COMH.PL.CT. DAUPHIN CO. PA HARKLEROAD CV96-10651 PAM 1:95-01Z9Z 3996-199Z COMH.PL.CT. OAUPHIN CO. PA HOFFMAN CV96-1065Z PAM 1:95-01Z93 681-199Z CllHH.PL.CT. OAUPHIN CO. PA ISENBERG CV96-10653 PAM 1:95-01Z94 Z75-1994 CllHH.PL.CT. OAUPHIN CO. PA KAYlOR CV96-10654 PAM 1:95-01Z98 1190-1994 CllHH.PL.CT. DAUPHIN CO. PA PRINGLE CV96-10655 PAM 1:95-01300 1499-199Z CllHH.PL.CT. OAUPHIN CO. PA SWARTZ CV96-10656 PAM 1 :95-01301 4n4-1993 CllHH.PL.CT. OAUPHIN CO. PA IIOLF CV96-10657 PAM 1 :95-0130Z lZ9Z-1994 CllHH.PL.CT. OAUPHIN CO. PA YOUNG CV95-13630 PAM 3:95-01305 95-1305 COMH.PL.CT. LUZERNE CO. PA HOLOERMAN CV95-13608 PAM 1 :95-01295 315-5-1994 COMH.PL.CT. YORK CO_ PA LANOIS CV95-13613* PAM 1 :95-01306 94-SU-5326-01 CllHH.PL.CT. YORK CO. PA BALOWIN CV95-13622* PAM 1 :95-01317 94-SU-4299-01 CllHH.PL_CT. YORK CO. PA KUHN CV96-10658 PAM 1:95-01307 93-5316-01 COMH.PL.CT. YORK CO. PA CADEK CV96-10659 PAM 1 :95-01310 92-5482-01 CllHH.PL.CT. YORK CO. PA OICK CV95 - I Z020 SC 8:95-02495 94-CP-04-1057 COMH.PL.CT. ANDERSON CO. se CROMER CV95-12021 SC 8:95-02500 94-CP-04-1058 COMH.PL.CT. ANDERSON CO. SC TEAGUE CV95-12022 SC 8:95-02502 94-CP-04-1056 CllHH.PL.CT. ANOERSON CO. SC RHOlIES CV95-180Z3* SC 8:95-03077 92-CP-04-1191 COMH.PL.CT. ANDERSON CO. SC SMITH CV95-12019 SC 8:95-02492 94-CP-39'180 COMH.PL.CT. PICKENS CO. SC BOMAR CV95-13178 TNW 2:95-02416 62907-2TD CIR.CT. SHELBY CO. TN HENRY CV95-13180 TNW 2:95-02423 94-203 CIR.CT _ SHELBY CO. TN STEWART CV96-11754* TNW 2:96-02054 95-8047 CIR.CT. SHELBY CO. TN HUNT CV96-11755 TNW 2:96-02055 95-8044 CIR.CT. SHELBY CO. TN HILL CV96-11756* TNW 2:96-02061 95-8007 CIR.CT. SHELBY CO. TN ADELMAN CV96-11m* TNW 2:96-02082 95-8028 CIR.CT _ SHELBY CO. TN DEAN CV96-11778* TNW 2:96-02083 95-8029 CIR.CT. SHELBY CO. TN DICKSON CV96-11784 TNW Z:96-02089 95-8035 CIR.CT. SHELBY CO. TN FDIILER CV96-11788* TNW 2:96-02093 95-8039 CIR_CT _ SHELBY CO. TN HARRISON CV96-11BOO THW Z:96-02109 95-8054 CIR.CT. SHELBY CO. TN MENNE CV96-11814 TNW 2:96-02123 95-8060 CIR_CT_ SHELBY CO. TN SCHOGGEN CV96-11B21 TNW 2:96-02130 95-8075 CIR.CT. SHELBY CO_ TN WALKER CV96-118Z2* TNW 2:96-02131 95-8076 CIR.CT_ SHELBY CO. TN WHITE CV96-118Z3* TNW 2:96-02132 95-8077 CIR.CT. SHELBY CO. TN WHITEHORN CV95-10749 TXE 1:95-00305 D'141260 136TH DIST. JEFFERSON CO. TX SHORES CV95-14394 TXE 1:95-00597 D-147,322 136TH DIST. JEFFERSON CO. TX CARONA CV95-14432 TXE 1 :95-00641 D-146,560 136TH DIST. JEFFERSON CO. TX LOPEZ CV95-14359 TXE 1 :95-00562 E-147,482 172ND DIST. JEFFERSON CD. TX HOPSON CV95-14424 TXE 1:95-00633 E-147,459 172ND DIST. JEFFERSON CO. TX YATES CV95-14449 TXE 1:95-00659 E -146, 581 172ND DIST. JEFfERSON CO. TX KURTZ CV95-14461 TXE 1:95-00671 E-144,806 172ND DIST. JEFFERSON CO. TX SALLES CV95-14471* TXE 1:95-00681 E-147.769 172NO OIST. JEFFERSON CO_ TX HUCKABAY CV95-14420 TXE 1:95-00629 A-147,506 58TH DIST_ JEFFERSON CO. TX PUGH CV95-14444 TXE 1:95-0D654 A-147,531 58TH DIST. JEFFERSON CO. TX VICKERY CV95-14450 TXE 1 : 95 - 00660 A-146,58Z 58TH DIST. JEFFERSON CO. TX DAVIDSON CV95-14340 TXE 1:95-00543 B- 148,219 6DTH OIST. JEFFERSON CO. TX WATSON CV95-14499 TXE 1:95-00714 B-143,868 60TH DIST. JEFFERSON CO_ TX BRASHER CV95-145D5 TXE 1:95-00722 B-147,794 6DTH DIST. JEFFERSON CO_ TX PARISH CV95-10892 TXE 2:95-00075 17635 76TH DIST. MORRIS CO. TX ANDERSON CV95-14643* TXN 3:95-01756 94-02635 101ST DIST. DALLAS CO. TX HORTON CV95-10569 TXN 3:95-01143 93-5214'G 134TH DIST. DALLAS CO. TX ALIIORTH CV95-13197* TXN 3:95-01111 94-1199-A 14TH DIST. DALLAS CO. TX BAI LEY CV95-10575 TXN 3:95-01150 160TH OIST. DALLAS CO. TX BOllEN CV95-13193 TXN 3:95-01088 93-13318'H 160TH D I ST. OALLAS CO. TX AOAMS 1'"'\ I""" !f ..-. u.s. District Court Middle District of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 95-CV-1277 ~7He~/~ 1111 u: 50 U.S. DI' " U /L I/O, (j1:.I:"'~1 LCIUiI7OV'r- . '\L1'iJ,1t"f.:1 Feehrer, et al v. Dow Corning Corporat, Assigned to: Judge William W Caldwell Referred to: Magistrate J. Demand: $50,000 42041 Lead Docket: None Dkt # in MDL 926 : is :00- -00000 Dkt # in_ R lJ..'lillllS~,'!'.Qv,~13600- Cause: 28:1446pl Petition for Removal - Product Liability et al Filed: 08/08/95 Andrew Smyser Nature of Suit: 365 Jurisdiction: Federal Question DENISE FEEHRER plaintiff Jamie L. Sheller [COR LD NTC] Sheller, Ludwig & Badey 1528 Walnut St. 3rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102-2155 215 546-5510 Leonard Fodera [COR LD NTC] Sheller, Ludwig & Badey 1528 Walnut St. 3rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 (215f 546-5510 GREGORY FEEHRER, h/w plaintiff Jamie L. Sheller (See above) [COR LD NTC] Leonard Fodera (See above) [COR LD NTC] v. DOW CORNING CORPORATION defendant g~:'~; ~_I L/ Ifl)' "~rd Robert S. Forster, Jr. )J4)' l" '~H. r\'!/eJ;1 k i;~:e~~ ~~;~s & Byrne P~l I~:"j;:~~~( Curtis Center DepUly Clerk 601 Walnut St. Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19106-3393 215-923-4400 () Docket as of November 1, 1995 11:10 am Page 1 d ~ ,..., TERMED Proceedings include all events. 1:95cv1277 Feehrer, et al v. Dow Corning Corporat, et al DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION defendant JAMES A. YATES, M.D., F.A.C.S. defendant PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER, LTD. defendant HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL defendant HBG Robert S. Forster, Jr. (See above) [COR LD NTC] Linda porr Sweeney [COR LD NTC] German Gallagher & Murtagh, P.C. 40 E. Grant Street Lancaster, PA 17602 717-293-8070 Linda porr Sweeney (See above) [COR LD NTC] Docket as of November 1, 1995 11:10 am Page 2 1"'"'\ r" Proceedings include all events. 1:95cv1277 Feehrer, et al v. Dow Corning Corporat, et al TERMED HBG 8/8/95 JOINT NOTICE OF PETITION FOR REMOVAL filed by Dow Corning Corp. & Dow Chemical Corp. Copy of orig. cmp. from Cumberland County Common Pleas Court Case Number: ~70 Civil 1~4 attached as exhibit. Filing fee paid R#111 118351 $120.00. (j s) [Entry date 08/10/95] [Edit date 08/11/95] REMARK- Case file & copy of docket to MJ Smyser. Copy of docket & cmp. to MDL. (js) ORDER by Magistrate J. A. Smyser Case Management Conference set for 9:00 a.m. on 9/28/95 (cc: all counsel & Ct.) (jh) [Entry date 08/17/95] LETTER - dtd. 8/21/95 to Patricia Howard, Clerk on MDL from clerk enclosing docket entries, complt. & 2 orders entered in the ED of Michigan dtd. 8/10/95 and 8/11/95. (am) LETTER - dated 8/18/95 to Ct. from Atty. Forster o/b/o Dow Corning requesting general stay order pending decision of Judge Hood. (jh) [Entry date 08/28/95] ORDER by Judge Sylvia H. Rambo IT IS ORDERED that the time w/in which the parties to the cases which are the subject of the notices of removal may file their mtns, statements or other responses to the notices of removal is extended to 10 days, calculated in accordance with FRCP 6, after Judge Hood enters an order in response to Dow Corning Corp.'s mtn to transfer. It is further ordered that all proceedings in this Court in those cases subject to the notices of removal are stayed for the same time period following Judge Hood's order. (cc: all counsel & Ct.) (jh) [Entry date 08/28/95] Statement by plaintiff Denise Feehrer pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9027(e) in the Notice of Removal (ao) [Entry date 08/30/95] Demand for Trial by Jury by pltf(s) (ao) [Entry date 08/30/95] Remark: Docs #6 & #7 to Mag Judge Smyser (ao) ORDER by Magistrate J. A. Smyser IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the CMC scheduled for 9/28/95 is cancelled pursuant to Chief Judge Rambo's order of 8/24/95, to be rescheduled if appropriate after the anticipated Order of Judge Hood, Eastern District of Michigan. The parties shall file a status report on or before 9/28/95. (cc: all counsel & Ct.) (jh) [Entry date 08/31/95] STATEMENT - of defendants James A. Yates, M.D. and Plastic Surgery Center, Ltd., pursuant to BK Rule 9027(e) (3) and c of s. (jh) [Entry date 09/06/95] 1 8/11/95 8/15/95 2 8/23/95 3 8/24/95 4 8/24/95 5 8/28/95 6 8/28/95 7 8/30/95 8/30/95 8 9/1/95 9 Docket as of November 1, 1995 11:10 am Page 3 ~ ~ Proceedings include all events. 1:95cv1277 Feehrer, et al v. Dow Corning Corporat, et al TERMED HBG 9/19/95 10 10/18/95 11 10/23/95 12 10/23/95 13 10/31/95 14 STATEMENT of Holy Spirit Hospital pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9027 (e) (3); cis. (vg) [Entry date 09/20/95] NOTICE by defendant Dow Corning Corporation that the Prothonotary and all interested parties were served with the Notice of Removal and c of s. (jh) [Entry date 10/20/95] LETTER - from Walter Jenkins, Esquire o/b/o Dow Chemical to Court dated 10/4/95 re: The 9/29/95 ruling by MDL Panel states that Courts should not and may not rule on any pending mtns to remand or dismiss. Copy of MDL Panel Order attached. (jh) [Entry date 10/25/95] ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER by Judge Sylvia H. Rambo IT IS ORDERED THAT all mtns to transfer and/or to sever currently pending in Silicone Gel Breast Implant Cases filed in this district are stayed until further order of court. (cc: all counsel & Ct.) (jh) [Entry date 10/25/95] [Edit date 10/26/95] Certified copy of CTO #74 making this action part of MDL 926 in re: Silcone Breast Implant Product Liability Litigation. Case transferred to NO of AL under civil #95-P-13600. Cert copies of dkt entries only to NO of AL. Case terminated (Is) [Edit date 10/31/95] Docket as of November 1, 1995 11:10 am Page 4