HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-01016
/
"
/"/
!
.
":;}-
0-
cr
-a
c
.0
i.
c
~
~
A
<l)
a
(
b
t
r
.-
N
J
.'j'
f' .....;;.t;.:,.,
~
DICKIE, McCAMEY & CHILCOTE, P.C.
Francis E. Marshall. Jr., Esquire
1.0. No: 27594
Thomas M. Chairs, Esquire
1.0. No.: 78565
1200 Camp Hill Bypass, Suite 205
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 731-4800
Attomeys for Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
FAY H. ZIMMERMAN and
JAMES A. ZIMMERMAN, husband
and wife
: Civil Action Law
Plaintiffs,
: No: 1016 Civil 1994
21 INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS
et al COX-UPHOFF, DOW
CORNING CORPORATION
DOW CORNING WRIGHT
SCOTT PAPERj NATURAL Y SURGICAL:
SPECIALTIES, INC., AESTHETECH
CORPORATIONj BRISTOL MYERS : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
SQUIBB CO. flk/a! BRISTOL MEYERS
CO., THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC.,
COOPER SURGICAL, INC., SAMIR
SROUjl, M.D., PLASTIC SURGERY,
P.C.j HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITALj and
JANE/jOHN DOE
Defendants,
ORDER TO DISCONTINUE AND END
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly mark the above captioned matter discontinued and ended, upon payment
of your costs only.
SHELLER, LUDWI
r--_----
Jamie Shelle
A\tomey for the Plaintiff
Date:
&I .ia..
""i':!"!H'...."'~..,...,~.q.~"\r,."...ito<..i- ~"","'.,'..,-,.~., ,....,,..,,.. ,- .
,..-- ~ 'C.D CJ LI""")
m
XOi"';.~..,~..'
~IO/-ftb
t" '"
,ii1'~ -~,
~
r---
C' C1 CI'/. 101(.. ~ fA-.
(.~~Lt.J.,,--,(
u.s. District Court
USDC for the Northern District of Alabama (Southern)
TERMED REMAND
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 95-CV-13605
zimmerman v. Cooper
Assigned t9: Chief Judge Sam C pointer, Jr
Demand: $0,000
Lead Docket: None
Dkt # in PAM : is 1:95--01285
Dkt # in MDL : is 926
Filed: 10/10/95
Nature of Suit: 365
Jurisdiction: Diversity
Cause: 28:1332 Diversity-Product Liability
c; \r_, ~
, - .'hl
,
C"> !
I ) "
.,
., , 1
.. I
...' )
:._i
,
. , ,
.. I
, .. .
1 -' .~:.:
A TRUE copy
PERRY D. KAT'II g I ctEn!
UNITED !lTlI'i'i.. ! '" "'Her COUTr.l'
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAlffi
BY: "='7inWt~~6
Docket as of October 16, 1997 4:33 pm
Page 1
Proceedings include all events.
2:95cv13605 zimmerman v. Cooper
TERMED
.
-
~
(,
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 Ish)
[Entry date 10/13/95]
11/7/95 2
Original court file and/or certified copy of docket entries
from clerk of tranferror court received and filed (lm)
[Entry date 11/17/95]
10/14/97 --
ORDER #39Aremanding case to state court cumberland Co, PA;
filed I by Chief Judge Sam C. Pointer Jr ); cert cyof
docket sheet, order & orig record mailed to state ct; cm (kc)
[Entry date 10/16/97]
Docket as of October 16, 1997 4:33 pm
Page 2
'"'""I ("'\
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF AL~BAMA
Southern Division
-..
~- -
. :
S70:i 'If ~:;~: 02
Master File CV 92-P-IOoOO~. L,:_; ";'.,{,:';\~L'RT )'
f..D. ur r, -ilJJ1a1A , D.
(Applies to cases liste~~. l! :nd~ ~~, ~,
1!f;';l;.::lllA ,.
h '.'-
!1J J I " rc:, .. ~-"-';/
ORDERNo.39A vv. q j - ~ l3/p,05-S
(Remanding Listed Cases to State Court) ocr ,1 4 199/
In re: SILICONE 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 herewilh). il is ORDERED as follows:
'''-',:'";',
1. The cases lisled in the appendix 10 this order will be remanded to Ihe indicated slale couns upon
docketing and entry of orders previously signed in such cases and subjeclto the tenns and conditions of
this order.
2. The tenns and conditions under which such remands are effecled are as follows:
(a) All claims against Dow Coming Corp. and Dow Coming Wright (including any crossclaims
or third.party claims by defendants against Dow Coming Corp. or Dow Corning Wright) are. to tbe
extent not previously dismissed. severed and not remanded. Such claims are. however.
adminislratively closed in this coun and dismissed without prejudice 10 the institution and pursuit of
such claims in the United States District and Bankruptcy Couns for the Eastern District of Michigan
in accordance with procedures established in those couns. This coun retains jurisdiction to vacate
such dismissals and reopen such claims against Dow Coming on wrinen motion if filed within 30 days
after reorganization proceedings of Dow Coming are dismissed or within 30 days after the Eastern
District of Michigan determines that reopening of such cases against Dow Coming is the procedure
to be followed in liquida,ling such claims.
(b) All claims by any party againsl TIle Dow Chemical Company, Inc. and Dow Holdings Inc.
are. to the extent nOI previously dismissed or transferred, severed and transferred 10 the United Slates
District Coun for the Eastern District of Michigan. which will delermine whether any of such claims
should be remanded (or allowed to proceed in state 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.: Foarnex Products. Inc.: General Felt Industries. Inc.; Knoll
International Holdings. Inc.; Recticel Foam Corporation; Scotfoam Corporation; SCOll Paper
Company; Surgitek. Inc.; '21' International Holdings. Inc; '210 Foam Company. Inc.; and Uroplasty,
Inc.
(d) Any claims against Mentor Corporation: Mentor Polymer Technologies. Inc.; Mentor 0&0.
Inc.: Mentor HIS. Inc.: Mentor Urology. Inc.; Mentor International. Inc.; and Teknar Corp. relating
to breast implants implanted before June I. 1993. are dismissed with prejudice.
cJ/1d-
"""I
(e) All claims agamst General Electric Company have been dismissed with prejudice pursua11l
to Order No. 38. 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. 38.
r--
<0 Any claims against Union Carbide Corporation based on its 1990-1992 ownership of
McGhan NuSiI Corporation remanded to the indicated Slate couns. but may be pursued in Slate coun
only upon demonstration that the plaintiffs. if eligible. timely opted out of the original Global
Settlement or the Revised Selllement 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 Healthcare
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 Selllement or the
Revised Settlement Program ("RSP') provided by those defendants. This coun expects plaintiffs to
file in state coun. after remand. voluntary dismissals of claims against sellling 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 A ITENTION
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 againstlnamed 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 Settlement Program or upon demonstration that the plaintiffs. if eligible,
timely opted out of the original Global Selllement or the Revised Settlement Program provided by
those defendants.
(i) All claims against other defendants not described in paragraphs I(a) through I(h) above are
remanded to the indicated state couns.
0) Funher proceedings in state couns will be governed. in general and to the extent applicable.
by the orders previously entered in MDL 926 and Master File No. CV 92-P-I0000-S.
(1) To the extent not inconsistent 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 Lil/dsey class and whose state-coun case was removed to federal coun solely
under the "related to bankruptcy" jurisdiction.
(2) The deposition testimony of the members of the National Science Panel. appointed
under Orders No 31 and 31 D. 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 temporary injunction against cenain selllement discussions, previously entered by
Ihis coun. was vacated effeclive Seplember I. 1997.
I'"'"
(4) Plaintiffs have previously been ordered 10 respond to questionnaires approved by this
coun. Remand couns should nOl permit plaintiffs 10 proceed funher with the proseculion of
claims until they have provided. upon request. defendants with responses 10 such questionnaires
(or wilh the subslanlial equivalenlthrough slate-aulhorized discovery).
(5) This coun has previously Iransmiued to most of the state couns to which cases are
being remanded a copy of Order No. 30 and the various orders listed in Appendix A 10 Order No.
30 with which the Slate couns should be made aware. The panies in the remanded cases are
directed 10 ascenain from the slate couns whether such couns have previously received such
orders and. if not. 10 COnlactthe Clerk of this coun to oblain. for transmittal to the state coons.
a .package" of such orders. Laler orders of general interest would include Order No. 31-
(National Science Panel). Order No. 36 (on-going studies). Order No. 37 (panial summary
judgment for Union Carbide). Order No. 38 (summary judgment for General Electric). These
orders. including the stipulation regarding objeclions 10 documents and the appendices to that
stipulation. can also be obtained through the Internet at www.fjc.gov/BREIMLlT/mdI926.hbn.
(6) This coun's file for most of these cases will not include pleadings. motions. etc. that
were filed in state coun before removal or in the federal transferor coun before transfer to this
coun. The panies in the remanded cases should make arrangements with the Clerk of the federal
transferor coun for transmission of documents from those coun's files that may be needed to
complete the Slate coun file.
3. This order will be filed in Master File CV 92-P-lOOOO-S and will be filed (without the appendix)
in each of the lisled cases.
This the ~ ~ay of October. 1997.
, !
V c .,_' ,.,-r!--- !
~- --
Chief Judge ,/
Serve: Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel
Defendants' Liaison Counsel
.. r.."",r,oJ'
h .iRU- ,.... ,
- n,,?''''''
"~RRv ". :"..;,,\~1;)~:.. . -~..-..
.. g _.- . ~f"'" r -"fl ....C'-Jl'\l
1JN1'rED 5'r;\'!ES lIH:...',.\"''' v .,
NO~ PIS'rP~C'r UI:' l'.L1Im..m.
B11 ,l}(ltlJK, -<<J~~
3
" ,_"..~'n'
9N9~ r-
CV95-19414 PAE 2:95-06533 COHH.PL.CT. PHILADELPHIA CO. FRIEOBERG
CV95-19416 PAE 2:95-06535 92-053< COHH.PL.CT. PHfLADELPHfA CO. eA SMINK
CV95-19417* PAE 2:95,06536 93-1591 COHH.PL.CT. PHILADELPHIA CO. PA OESOUSA
CV95-19418 PAE 2:95-06537 92-0717 COHH.PL.CT. PHILAOELPHIA CO. PA CAMPBELL-BLAfR
CV95-19420 PAE 2:95,06540 92-3748 COHH.PL.CT. PHILADELPHIA CO. -.PA KITCHIN
CV96-12292 PAE 2:95-04820 92-1614 COHH.PL.CT. PHILAOELPHIA CO. PA ROSSINI
CV96-12293 PAE 2:95'04B28 92-3919 COHH.PL.CT. PHfLADELPHIA CO. PA ~fLLARO
CV96-12294 PAE 2:95-04879 93.1371 COHH.PL.CT. PHILADELPHfA CO. PA STEHOCK
CV96'124n PAE 2:95-06287 93-01B8 COHH.PL.CT. PHILADELPHIA CO. PA GIOIOSO
CV97'10026 PAE 2:95.06121 94-0663 COHH.PL.CT. PHILAOELPHIA CO. PA OONSKY
CV95-19327* PAE 2:95-05076 94-3219 COHH.PL.CT. PHILADELPHfS CO. PA CUSMANO-TROILO
CV95-11056 PAM 1:95'01136 95-30B9 COHH.PL.CT. CUHBERLANO CO. PA BELLAYIA
CV95-13600 PAM 1 :95'012n 170-CY'I994 COHH.PL.CT . CUHBERLAND CO. PA FEEHRER
CV95-13601 PAM 1:95-01278 95'1428 COHH.PL.CT. CUHBERLANO CO. PA KRAMER
CV95-13602 PAM 1 :95'012BO 94-3383 COHH.PL.CT. CUHBERLANO CO. PA HORCH
CV95-13603 PAM 1:95-01281 94-6564 COHH.PL.CT. CUHBERLANO CO. PA POIIERS
CV95-13605* PAM 1 :95-01285 94-1016 COHH.PL.CT. CUHBERLAND CO. PA ZIHHERMAN
CV96-10644* PAM 1 :95-01279 3017-CfYfL-I992 COHH.PL.CT. CUHBERLANO CO. PA HCGEE
CV96-10645* PAM 1:95-01282 373'1994 COHH.PL.CT. CUHBERLANO CO. PA SEESE
CV96-10646* PAM 1 :95'01283 4106.1993 COHH.PL.CT. CUHBERLANO CO. PA STONE
CV95-13610* PAM 1:95-01297 1846- 5-1995 COHH.PL.CT. OAUPHIN CO. PA POIIERS
CV95-13612 PAM 1 :95'01303 1058'5-1992 COHH.PL.CT. DAUPHIN CO. PA ZEIOERS
CV96-10647 PAM 1:95-01286 2112-1992 COHH.PL.CT '. DAUPHIN CO. PA CHUBB
CV96-10648 PAM 1 :95'01287 1191-1994 COHH.PL.CT. OAUPHIN CO. PA DIMARIA-STALEY
CV96-10649 PAM 1 :95-01290 1218-1993 COHH.PL.CT. DAUPHIN CO. PA GINTER
CV96-10650 PAM 1:95-01291 705-1994 COHH.PL.CT. DAUPHIN CO. PA HARKLEROAD
CV96-10651 PAM 1:95'01292 3996-1992 COHH.PL.CT. OAUPHIN CO. PA HOfFHAN
CV96-10652 PAM 1:95-01293 681-1992 COHH.PL.CT. OAUPHIN CO. PA ISENBERG
CV96-10653 PAM 1:95-01294 275-1994 COHH.PL.CT. OAUPHIN CO. PA KAYlOR
CV96-10654 PAH 1 :95'0129B 1190-1994 COHH.PL.CT. DAUPHIN CO. PA PRINGLE
CV96'10655 PAM 1 :95'01300 1499-1992 COHH.PL.CT. DAUPHIN CO. PA S~ARTZ
CV96-10656 PAM 1 :95'01301 4924-1993 COHH.PL.CT. OAUPHfN CO. PA \IOLF
CV96-10657 PAM 1 :95-01302 1292-1994 COHH.PL.CT. OAUPHIN CO. PA YOUNG
CV95-13630 PAM 3:95-01305 95-1305 COHH.PL.CT. LUZERNE CO. PA HOLOERMAN
CV95-13608 PAM 1 :95'01295 315-5-1994 COHH.PL.CT. YDIlK CO. PA LANOIS
CV95'13613* PAM 1:95-01306 94-SU-5326-01 COHH.PL.CT. YORK CO. PA BALO~IN
CV95-13622* PAM 1:95-01317 94-SU-4299-01 COHH.PL.CT. YDIlK CO. PA KUHN
CV96-10658 PAM 1 :95'01307 93-5316-01 COHH.PL.CT. YORK CO. PA CADEK
CV96-10659 PAM 1 :95-01310 92-5482'01 COHH.PL.CT. YORK CO. PA OICK
CV95-12G20 SC 8:95-02495 94'CP'04-1057 COHH.PL.CT. ANOERSON CO. SC CRONER
CV95-12021 SC 8:95'02500 94-CP'04-1058 COHH.PL.CT. ANOERSON CO. SC TEAGUE
CV95-12022 SC 8:95'02502 94-CP-04-1056 COHH.PL.CT. ANOERSON CO. SC RHOOES
CV95'18023* SC 8:95-030n 92-CP-04-1191 COHH.PL.CT. ANOERSON CO. SC SHITH
CV95-12019 SC B:95'02492 94-CP-39'180 COHH.PL.CT. PICKENS CO. SC BONAR
CV95-13178 TN~ 2:95-02416 62907-2TO CIR.CT. SHELBY CO. TN HENRY
CV95-131BO TN~ 2:95-02423 94-203 CIR.CT. SHELBY CO. TN STE~ART
CV96-11754* TN~ 2:96.02054 95-8047 CIR.CT. SHELBY CO. TN HUNT
CV96-11755 TN~ 2:96'02055 95.8044 CIR.CT. SHEL8Y CO. TN HILL
CV96-11756* TN~ 2:96-02061 95-8007 CIR.CT. SHELBY CO. TN AOELMAN
CV96-11m* TN~ 2:96-020B2 95-8028 CIR.CT. SHELBY CO. TN OEAN
CY96-11n8* TN~ 2:96'02083 95-8029 CfR.CT. SHELBY CO. TN DICKSON
CV96-11784 TN~ 2:96-02089 95-8035 CIR.CT. SHELBY CO. TN FOIILER
CV96'11788* TN~ 2:96'02093 95-8039 CIR.CT. SHELBY CO. TN HARRISON
CY96-11800 TN~ 2:96'02109 95 -8054 CIR.CT. SHEL8Y CO. TN HENNE
CV96-11814 TN~ 2:96-02123 95-8060 CIR.CT. SHELBY CO. TN SCHOGGEN
CV96-11821 TN~ 2:96'02130 95-8075 CIR.CT. SHELBY CO. TN ~ALKER
CV96-11822* TN~ 2:96'02131 95 -8076 CIR.CT. SHEL8Y Co. TN ~H ITE
CV96-11823* TN~ 2:96-02132 95-80n CIR.CT. SHEL8Y CO. TN ~HITEHORN
CV95-10749 TXE 1:95'00305 0-141260 136TH OIST. JEffERSON CO. TX SHDIlES
CV95-14394 TXE 1 :95-00597 0-147.322 136TH OIST. JEFFERSOH CO. TX CAROHA
CV95-14432 TXE 1:95-00641 0-146,560 136TH Of ST. JEFFERSON CO. TX LOPEZ
CV95-14359 TXE 1 :95'00562 E'147,482 172NO OIST. JEFFERSON CD. TX NOPSON
CV95-14424 TXE 1 :95'00633 E-147.459 172NO OIST. JEFFERSON CD. TX YATES
CY95-14449 TXE 1 :95-00659 E-146,581 172NO OIST. JEffERSON CO. TX KURTZ
CV95'14461 TXE 1 :95-00671 E-144.806 172NO OIST. JEFFERSON CD. TX SALLES
CY95-14471' TXE 1:95-00681 E-147.769 172NO OIST. JEFFERSON CO. TX HUCKABAY
CV95-14420 TXE 1 :95-00629 A-147,506 58TH OIST. JEffERSON CO. TX PUGH
CY95-14444 TXE 1 :95-00654 A-147.531 58TH Of ST. JEFFERSOH CO. TX YfCKERY
CV95-14450 TXE 1:95-00660 A-146.582 58TH Of ST. JEffERSON CO. TX OAYIOSON
CY95-14340 TXE 1 :95'00543 B-148.219 60TH OIST. JEffERSON CO. TX ~ATSON
CV95-14499 TXE 1:95'00714 B-143.868 60TH OIST. JEFFERSON CO. TX BRASHER
CV95-14505 TXE 1:95'00722 B-147,794 60TH OIST. JEFFERSON CO. TX PARISH
CY95-10892 TXE 2:95-00075 17635 76TH Of ST. HORRfS CO. TX ANOERSON
CV95-14643* TXH 3:95'01756 94-02635 101ST OIST. OALLAS CO. TX HORTON
CY95-10569 TXN 3:95'01143 93'5214-G 134TH OIST. OALLAS CO. TX AL\IORTH
CY95-13197* TXN 3:95-01111 94.1199'A 14TH OIST. DALLAS CO. TX 8AILEY
CY95-10575 IXN 3:95'01150 160TH OIST. OALLAS CO. TX 8011EN
CV95-13193 TXH 3:95'01088 93.13318'H 160TH OIST. OALLAS CD. lX AOAMS
/'
, \
hr;.":,~""
"'""
r-
STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP
By: S. Gordon Elkins
Daniel T. Fitch
Kimberly A. Hendrix
I.D. Nos. 02789/53717/76623
2600 One Commerce Square
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 564-8000
Attorneys for: Aeslhelech corp,. Bristol-
Myers Squibb Co.. The Cooper Companies.
Inc,. Cooper Surgical. Inc.. Natural Y
Surgical Special des. Inc.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
.....!= \0
:-tr; .....
P' ::J: :::0
0 ~..
0- ::tI rrJ
"'1'"
-, (")
>:G co [!J
r-r-
;1>_', -0 <:
--
w' - rrJ
>n ~ Cl
3:0
;1>C <::)
::J (,,)
-I
Fay H. Zimmennan and James E.
Zimmennan, w/h
Plaintiff(s)
CIVIL ACTION
No. 95-P-13605-S
v.
'21' International Holdings. Inc.,
et al.
Defendant
SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL
WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE
Please withdraw our appearance as attorneys for Defendants. Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company, Natural Y Surgical Specialties, Inc., Aesthetech Corporation, The Cooper
Companies, Inc. and Cooper Surgical. Inc.
Dated:
3/t,/fr-
.
Lh..( a /Ie /~ _
STRAD(.EY RONON STEVENS & YOUNG, LLP
By: S. Gordon Elkins
Daniel T. Fitch
Kimberly A. Hendrix
2600 One Commerce Square
Philadelphia. PA 19103
(215) 564-8000
">r -,
..~ ...::
.,
,.;
,.
~.
1'1
r-
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
Kindly enter our appearance on behalf of Defendants, Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company, Natural Y Surgical Specialties, Inc.. Aesthetech Corporation, The Cooper
Companies, Inc. and Cooper Surgical. Inc.
Mod;;:::]
By: Therese M. Keeley
Glenn P. Callahan
Barbara Gotthelf
Carolyn J. Campanella
I.D. Nos. 40813/48355/53832n0846
One Commerce Square
2005 Market Street. Suite 3250
Philadelphia. PA 19103
(215) 557-7700
Dated: 1- 5" -77
-2-
,(..~
...........,~.;I;i.
;~
t./
"1
I"'""'
CERTIPICATE OP SERVICE
I, Kimberly A. Hendrix, hereby certify that on
/Y)Cv1cJ, /2.- , 1997, I caused a copy of the foregoing
pleading to be served by United States first class mail, postage
pre-paid, upon counsel listed below:
Jamie L. Sheller, Esquire
Sheller, Ludwig & Badey
1528 Walnut Street
Third Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Robert M. Britton, Esquire
Post & Schell, P.C.
1800 JFK Blvd., 19th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Attorneys for Defendants,
'21' Inter'l Holdings,
Inc. and Scott Paper
Company
Cox-Uphoff International
a/k/a CUI Corporation
1160 Mark Avenue
Carpinteria, CA 93013
Allan H. Starr, Esquire
White and Williams
1800 One Liberty Place
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Attorneys for Defendant,
Holy Spirit Hospital
Robert S. Forster, Esquire
Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis
1600 Market Street
Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Attorneys for Defendants,
Dow Corning Corp. and Dow
Corning Wright Corp.
Samir Srouji, M.D.
3438 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Plastic Surgery P.C.
3438 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
~ tfL/k ~
Kimberly A. Hendrix
223181
Z1ll11lennan. Fay
.
~
"
.
"
"- ..:..:' .
u.s. District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania (Harrisburg)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 95-CV-1285
951t~'D ~BG ~
!ill/O: 50
U,S,III'"
1/,0. o?Pt.i LOUiIT
, h!!;lfot~
et al
Filed: 08/08/95
Zimmerman, et al v. Dow Corning Corporat,
Assigned to: Judge Sylvia H. Rambo
Demand: $50,000 42041
Lead Docket: None
9)n:o;o*~-ifty'Mr-t--ti!f""'''f95. cv'"'13 605"
Dkt # in MDL 926 : is :00- -00000
Cause: 28:1446pl Petition for Removal - Product Liability
Nature of Suit: 365
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
FAY H. ZIMMERMAN
plaintiff
Jamie L. Sheller
[COR LD NTCl
Sheller, Ludwig & Badey
1528 Walnut St.
3rd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102-2155
215 546-5510
John Paul Kopesky
[COR LD NTCl
Sheller, Ludwig & Badey
1528 Walnut St.
3rd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
(215) 546-5510
JAMES E. ZIMMERMAN, w/h
plaintiff
Jamie L. Sheller
(See above)
[COR LD NTCl
John Paul Kopesky
(See above)
[COR LD NTCl
v.
Ccn; 'i:" , ,", '....':ml
Dale ..Jlllt C{.S.---
petyt~;. ~~ ~ Ck~
Gordon S. Elkins Deputy Clerk
[COR LD NTCl
Stradley, Ronon, Stevens &
Young
2600 One Commerce Sq.
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7098
COOPER COMPANIES, INC., THE,
indiv. and as successors in
interest to Natural Y Surgical
Specialties, Inc. and
Aesthetech formerly known as
Coopervision, Inc.
defendant
Docket as of November 1, 1995 11:10 am
Page 1
~
,
I)
i'
........._ ,c c
rc
Proceedings include all events.
1:95cv1285 Zimmerman, et al v. Dow Corning Corporat, et al
AESTHETECH CORPORATION
defendant
DOW CORNING CORPORATION
defendant
CUI CORPORATION
defendant
DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION
defendant
BRISTOL-MEYERS SQUIBB CO.,
INC.
fka
Bristol Meyers Co., Inc.
defendant
21 INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS,
INC.
fka
Knoll International Holdings,
Inc.
fka
Foamex Products, Inc.
fka
Scot foam Corporation
fka
General Felt Industries, Inc.
fka
Eddy Acquisitions now
operating under the fictitious
name of Foamex, a Division of
KIHI
defendant
TERMED
HBG
Gordon S. Elkins
(See above)
[COR LD NTCl
Robert S. Forster, Jr.
[COR LD NTCl
Krusen, Evans & Byrne
Curtis Center
601 Walnut St.
Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19106-3393
215-923-4400
C. James Zeszutek
[COR LD NTCl
THORP, REED & ARMSTRONG
One Riverfront Center
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
412-394-2565
Robert S. Forster, Jr.
(See above)
[COR LD NTCl
Gordon S. Elkins
(See above)
[COR LD NTCl
Robert M. Britton
[COR LD NTCl
Post & Schell, P.C.
19th Floor
1800 JFK Boulevard
Phila, PA 19103
215-587-1051
Docket as of November 1, 1995 11:10 am
Page 2
. ..
'1
r'\
Proceedings include all events.
1:95cv1285 Zimmerman, et al v. Dow Corning Corporat, et al
TERMED
HBG
defendant
Gordon S. Elkins
(See above)
[COR LD NTC]
NATURAL Y SURGICAL SPECIALTIES,
INC.
SAMIR SROUJI, M.D.
defendant
PLASTIC SURGERY P.C.
defendant
HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL
defendant
JANE/JOHN DOE
defendant
Docket as of November 1, 1995 11:10 am
Page 3
~
r-
TERMED
Proceedings include all events.
1:95cv1285 Zimmerman, et al v. Dow corning Corporat, et al
8/8/95
1
8/14/95
8/23/95 2
8/24/95 3
8/24/95 4
8/29/95 5
8/29/95 6
8/29/95
10/18/95 7
10/23/95 8
10/23/95 9
HBG
JOINT NOTICE OF PETITION FOR REMOVAL filed by Dow Corning
Corp. & Dow Chemical. Copy of orig. cmp. from Cumbo Co. Cmn.
Pleas Court Case Number: #1016- civil-1994 attached. Filing
fee $120.00 paid. R#111 118351 - (js) [Entry date 08/10/95]
[Edit date 08/14/95]
REMARK- Copy of docket & cmp. to C.J. Rambo and MDL. Copy
of docket only to TJM. (js)
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 & 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 or 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 or.der in response to Dow Corning Corp.'s mtn
to transfer. It is further ordered that all proceedings in
this Court in thoses cases subject to the notices of
removal are stayed for the same time period following Judge
Hood's order. Case stayed (cc: all counsel & Ct.) (jh)
[Entry date 08/28/95]
Statement by plaintiff Fay H. Zimmerman pursuant to Federal
Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9027(e) in the Notice of
Removal (ao)
Demand for Trial by Jury by pltf (ao)
Remark: Docs #5 & #6 to Judge Rambo (ao)
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 the MOL
Panel states that Courts should not and may not rule on any
pending mtns to remand or dismiss. Copy of MOL 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. (CCI all counsel &
Ct.) (jh) [Entry date 10/25/95] [Edit date 10/26/95]
Docket as of November 1, 1995 11:10 am
Page 4
1.'$2li..1I'~"'"
, . . .
'1
I'""
Proceedings include all events.
1:95cv1285 Zimmerman, et al v. Dow Corning Corporat, et al
TERMED
HBG
10/31/95 10
Certified copy of CTO #74 making this action part of MOL
926 in re: Silcone Breast Implant Product Liability
Litigation. Case transferred to NO of AL under civil
#95-P-13605. Cert copies of dkt entries only to NO of AL.
Case terminated (Is)
Docket as of November 1, 1995 11:10 am
Page 5
GALLAGHER, REILLY AND LAC HAT, P.C.
BY: THOMAS F. REILLY, ESQUIRE
Attorney I.D. No. 25766
2000 Market Street
Suite 1300
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
(215) 299-3000
Attorney for Defendant,
Holy Spirit Hospital
FAY H. ZIMMERMAN and
JAMES E. ZIMMERMAN, h/w
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
NO.: 1016 Civil 1994
v.
HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, et al.
WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE
Kindly withdraw my appearance on behalf of defendant, HOLY SPIRIT
HOSPITAL in the above captioned case.
GALLAGHER, REILLY AND LACHAT, P.C.
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of the defendant, HOLY SPIRIT
HOSPITAL In the above captioned case.
WHITE AND WILLIAMS, LLP
Byk;4 A t:7/Z/ /
~4HY A. o,~l- E~QUlRE '::/ ./' r
Attorney for Defendant,
Holy Spirit Hospital
Attorney 1.0. No.32424
1800 One Liberty Place
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7395
(215) 864-7172
,..,...,
~ en ~~
..:J
0-- N
~g
C5 %: ~
It~ a.. ~I
gel N
a; ,
II: u~ :z
Ii: :=J
-, B
~. C7\
(J\
''''y'~.",
-'.,'
.~-.~.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
FAY H. ZIMMERMAN, et aI.,
CIVIL DIVISION
Plaintiffs,
No, 94-1016
v.
MEDICAL ENGINEERING
CORPORATION, et al..
ORDER OF COURT DISMISSING
MEDICAL ENGINEERING
CORPORATION
Defendants.
Filed on behalf of Defendant
Medical Engineering Corporation
Counsel of Record for this Party:
Therese M. Keelcy, Esq.
PA Idcntification No. 40813
McCARTER & ENGLISH
Onc Commerec Square, Suite 3600
2005 Market Strcct
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 557-7700
J'III: K2K27.01
\,,-,
"~,",..
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGIIENY COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
AS THE COORDINATING COURT FOR SILICONE IMPLANT LITIGATION
'\1cCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
By: Thercsc M. Kcclcy
I.D. No. 40813
Onc Commcrce Squarc
2005 Markct St.. Suite 3600
Philadelphia. PA 19103
(215) 557-7700
AlIomeys for Dcfendants
Medical Engincering Corporation
and related entities
BERNITA FORD,
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
PHILADELPHIA COUNTY
Plaintiff,
vs.
MARCH TERM. 1992
NO. 3653
DOW CORNING CORPORATION, et al.
Defcndants.
IN RE: SILICONE IMPLANT
LITIGATION
ORDER OF COURT DISMISSING DEFENDANT
MEDICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION
AND NOW, this 2G day of April
. 2001, this matter having comc
beforc the Coun upon the application of McCancr & English. LLP. allont~ys for defendant
MedIcal Engineering Corporation ("MEC"),' for consideration of the Petition for Lcavc to
I The Petition for leave to Discontinue and the Order of Coun D,smissing MEC includes.U entilies and
individuals identified in Eli/lib I! B whIch IS anached hereto and incorporaled herein.
-'
Discontinue Action against Medical Engineering Corporation as to
Settled Cases,
it appearing that MEC has advised this court that service has
been made by the manufacturing defendants, pursuant to Pa.R.C.P.
No. 440, on every party that may be affected by this order of court
with a notice advising the party to file legal papers setting forth
any opposition to the petition for Leave to Discontinue Action as
to the lawsuits described in this court order,
it appearing that plaintiffs' Steering Committee Counsel does
not oppose the entry of a court order dismissing with prejudice MEC
as a defendant or an additional defendant (1) in any pending
Pennsylvania state court lawsuits of any plaintiffs who did not opt
out of the federal settlement and (2) in any pending state court
lawsuits of any plaintiffs who opted out of the federal settlement
but SUbsequently settled their claims with MEC, and
it appearing that my office has not received legal papers from
any party opposing the entry of a court order dismissing with
prejudice all claims raised by any party against MEC,
it is ORDERED that:
1. All claims and crossclaims raised by any party against MEC
are dismissed with prejudice in any lawsuits described in this
court order.
2. The remaining co-defendants will be entitled to offer
evidence at trial of the settled defendant's liability in
accordance with the June 11, 1998 Order of the Coordinating Court
and will be entitled to a reduction of any judgment entered against
2
them, any reduction to be equal to MEC's proportionate share of
causal liability, if any, for"plaintiff's injuries as determined by
the factfinder at trial.
3. This Order of Court dismissing MEC will be the only
original order issued in these cases.
Copies of this Order of
Court Dismissing Defendant MEC shall be filed by MEC in each case
described in this court order and shall serve for purposes of
filing as identical to the original and should be accepted as if
the original in these cases.
BY THE COURT:
/Jjutb\) /'
WETTICK, J~
3
..... :.r:-- .
',:'-T.-'. -'-'i-~_~,
EXHIBIT "B"
List of MEC defendants:
Defendants and Released Panies are defined to mcan: BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB
COMPANY; BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB CANADA; BRlSTOL.MYERS SQUIBB
CANADA; INC., BRISTOL-MYERS COMPANY; CONVATEC; LlNVATEC
CORPORATION; COOPER SURGICAL. INC.; THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC.;
COOPERVISION.INC.; CV SUB 1987,INC.; AESTHETECH CORPORATION; MEDICAL
ENGINEERING CORPORATION; MEDICAL ENGINEERING CORPORATION d/b/a
SURGlTEK; INC., MEC SUBSIDIARY CORPORATION fIkIa SURGITEK, INC.;
SURGITEK.INC.; NATURAL Y SURGICAL SPECIALTIES, INC.; SIROD
CORPORATION; CVI MERGER CORPORATION; CBI MEDICAL, INC.; CABOT
MEDICAL CORPORATION; CBI MEDICAL, INC. nIkIa and/or aIkIa CBI MEDICAL
ELECTRONICS, INC.; ROBERT BISHOP; ROBERT J, HELBLING, MEC SUBSIDIARY.
CORPORATION; EDWARD WECK, INC.; EDWARD WECK & COMPANY,INC.;
JACQUELINE MARKHAM; HAROLD MARKHAM; LOTTIE MARKHAM; MARKHAM
MEDICAL INTERNATIONAL. INC.; MARKHAM SURGICAL SPECIALTIES;
MARKHAM MEDICAL ASSOCIATION; MARKIM RESOURCES, INC.; MARKIM
SURGICAL; POLY PLASTIC SILICONE PRODUCTS, INC.; REAL LAPPIERE; SUMMIT
MEDICAL CORPORATION; DERWOOD FARIES; VICKI GALATI; WILSHIRE FOAM
PRODUCTS; INC., WILSHIRE ADV ANCED MATERIALS, INC.; WILSHIRE
TECHNOLOGIES. INC.; ZIMMER INTERNATIONAL; AND ZfMMER, INC., together with
their subsidiaries, divisions, subdivisions, sister companies, affiliates, controlled corporations,
panners, pannerships, parent corporations, successor and predecessor corporations, officers, .'
directors, reprcscntatives, agents, servants, employees, and allomeys, and any and all other
persons, firms and/or corporation.
PIIJ lllOIOI
'_lW'
!iSf"'..a.-..,.. .
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned counsel hereby eerti fies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Order of Court Dismissing Medical Engineering Corporation was served via First Class United
States Mail, postage prepaid, this 14th day of June, 2001, on the following counsel of record:
SEE ATTACHED LIST
/,//
I
,
,
I
1'111: 82K2K,01
Fay H. Zimmerman and James E. Zimmerman, Wnl, v, '21' Intemational Holdings, Inc., et 01
MDL Northern District of Alabama No. 95-P-13605-S
Middle District of Pennsylvania No. I :95-CV -01285
Court of Common Pleas. Cumberland County, No. 1994-1016
Counsel List
Jamie L. Sheller, Esq.
Sheller, Ludwig & Badey
1528 Walnut Street, Third Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Robert S. Forster, Esq.
Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis
1600 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Dow Coming Corp. and Dow Coming Wright Corp.
Samir Srouji, M.D.
3438 Trindle Road
CampHiII,PA 17011
Plastic Surgery P.C.
3438 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, P A 17011
Robert M. Britton, Esq.
Post & Schell, P.C.
1800 JFK Blvd., 19th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
'21' Inter'1 Holdings, Inc. and Scott Paper Company
C, James Zeszutek, Esq.
Thorp, Reed & Armstong
One Riverfront Center
20 Stanwix Street
Pittsburgh, P A 15222
CUI Corporation
Allan H. Starr, Esq,
White & Williams, LLP
1800 One Liberty Place
1150 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Holy Spirit Hospital
1'11I: 35542.01
L .""
i1:~~V=-"
",t _"':...~
>- r--. ~ ~
;.~: c -
.- r'>i :-, ~
i'l~
".- .-~'" ~ ~~
-..l.. (~~~ ~
t .,..
c:. 'i .J 81 '"
':"':::2
:'J '- . I ~ II 'll
',~JCl.
-, ~-
1';'4 -=.> L; ~
\.._, .',:,> U ~
OJ CJ
I:.~
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
FAY H. ZIMMERMAN and
JAMES A. ZIMMERMAN, husband
and wife
: Civil Action Law
Plaintiffs,
: No: 1016 Civil 1994
21 INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS
et al COX-UPHOFF, DOW
CORNING CORPORATION
DOW CORNING WRIGHT
SCOTT PAPER; NATURAL Y SURGICAL
SPECIALTIES, INC., AESTHETECH :
CORPORATION; BRISTOL MYERS : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
SQUIBB CO. flklal BRISTOL MEYERS:
CO., THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC:,
COOPER SURGICAL, INC&AMIR
SROUJI, M.D., PLASTIC SURGERY,
P.C.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; and
JANEIJOHN DOE
Defendants,
PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE
Kindly enter the appearance of the undersigned as counsel for Defendants
Samir Srouji, M,D. and Plastic Surgery, P.C. in the above-captioned matter.
D1CKIEj\fcCAMEY, CHILCOTE, P.C.
Date: ~Ol
By:
Fr 'E. Marshall, Jr., Esqu' e
1323 North Front Street
Harrisburg. PA 17102
....
/1'!"r-:::. .
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 3 r~ day of November. 2003, I, Francis E. Marshall, Jr.. Esquire,
hereby certify that I did serve a true and corrcct copy of the foregoing , to all counsel of
record by depositing, or causing to be deposited. same in the U,S. mail, postage prepaid, at
Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, addressed as follows:
By First-Class Mall
Robert S. Forster, Jr., Esq.
McKissock and Hoffman, P.C.
1700 Market Street
Suite 3000
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Attorney for Defendants Dow Chemical
Robert M. Britton, Esq.
Post & Schell, P.C.
Four Penn Center
1600 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Attorney for Defendants Scot foam Corp..
Knoll International Holdings, Inc.,
21 International Holdings, Inc.,
General Felt Industries, and Scott Paper Co.
Stephen A. Sheller, Esq.
Jamie Sheller. Esquire
Sheller, Ludwig & Badey
1528 Walnut Street, 3r~ Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Attorney for Plaintiff
Kathy A. O'Neill, Esq.
White & Williams
1800 One Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company Philadelphia, PA 19103-7395
Attorney for Holy Spirit Hospital
Brian Apple, Esq.
1880 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
10th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Attorney for Defendant Holy Spirit Hospital
S. Gordon Elkins, Esq.
Donna M. Dever, Esq.
Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young
2600 One Commerce Square
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Attorney for Bristol-Meyers Squibb Co.,
Natural Y Surgical Specialties, Aesthetech
Corporation, The Cooper Companies and
Cooper Surgical, Inc.
C. James Zeszutek, Esq.
Thorpe, Reed & Armstrong
One Riverfront Center
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Attorney for Cox-Uphoff, AKA CUI Corp.
"
,
,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY , PENNSYLVANIA
FAY H. ZIMMERMAN and
JAMES A. ZIMMERMAN, husband
and wife
: Civil Action Law
Plaintiffs,
: No: 1016 Civil 1994
21 INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS
et al COX-UPHOFF, DOW
CORNING CORPORATION
DOW CORNING WRIGHT
SCOTT PAPER; NATURAL Y SURGICAL
SPECIALTIES, INC., AESTHETECH :
CORPORATION; BRISTOL MYERS : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
SQUIBB CO. f/klal BRISTOL MEYERS:
CO., THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC:,
COOPER SURGICAL, INC~MIR
SROUJI, M.D., PLASTIC SURGERY,
P.C.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; and
JANE/JOHN DOE
Defendants,
PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAWAL APPEARANCE
Please withdraw the appearance of the undersigned as counsel for Defendant,
Samir Srouji, M.D, and Plastic Surgery, P.C,. in the above-captioned matter.
Dated: /(1 k~;63
I
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER
.k<~~
~ alker, Esquire ....
Attorney I.D. No: 02417
20 East Court Street
Doylestown. PA 18901
~ 0 ~
j:5
,.. M :::J~
~_. 8~
'.
lL. f.~ :c
il;r. c.. :.~~
'1".' U"J
~ .
w'~. I .;JZ
'...1.1'
,-"Jl, ::.... :ilro
--' L: e ~u n..
1. - ;:;:
II. M a
0 0
f. ~~. 1iM.~~;'"
LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN E. APPEL, ESQUIRE
BY: BRIAN E. APPEL, ESQUIRE
1.0. No. 02819
1880 J.F.K, Boulevard, 10th Floor
Philadelphia. Pa. 19103
(215) 587-1616
Attorney for Holy Spirit Hospital
vs.
Court of Common Pleas
Cumberland County
Civil Action - Law
FAY H. ZIMMERMAN and
JAMES A. ZIMMERMAN (h/w)
21 International Holdings et al
Holy Spirit Hospital et. al.
NO: 1016 Civil 1994
PRAECIPE TO ENTER APPEARANCE
FOR HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendant HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL
In the above-captioned matter.
LAW OFFICE OF BRIAN E. APPEL, ESQUIRE
BY
..v~'L
Brian E. Appel, Es
r~~_.
~--~~~'~.
fi: Cl ~
~~ (~ Z
1"- C'J .:1~
UJ(:-~ "1_
t J~' ;:~: :J;O:
':.l
,.. ,..... )~
",
,',I
.,'-. A' 5~
.
r .:~ .'
-', ~. 5~
~ "
--. 2
tj_ C"'l :::>
() 0 U
~~r-'- .'---
WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP
By: Kothy A. O'Neill, Esquire
Identification No: 32424
1800 One Liberty Place
Philadelphia, PA 19103
215-864-7172
FAY H, ZIMMERMAN and
JAMES E. ZIMMERMAN,
Attomey for Defendant,
Holy Spirit Hospital
,
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
NO. 1016, CIVIL 1994
Plainti ffs,
v.
HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, et al..
Defendants,
WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly withdraw my appearance on behalf of Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital, in the
above captioned matter.
WHITE AND WILLIAMS LLP
rx>rS_PJJ 14416K7vJ
-.. 0 ;-
r.~~ C': ;:;;
~'"
I:.., N ::i
1.1.' ~ l~
C'. -)2';
rl-' .~-.. .~
, a.. ,;=i
. -. , , " .--
C". O(n
I;.) l;'':
~.., \ ::-c" Tim
.. ~~ L'a..,
, - ~
I:. M ::>
C) <::) U
21 INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC.
f/k/a Knoll International Holdings,
Inc. (f/k/a Foamex Products, Inc.
f/k/a Scot foam Corporation
f/k/a General Felt Industries, Inc.
f/k/a Eddy Acquisitions now
operating under the fictitious name
of Foamex, a Division of KIHI
1500 E. Second Street
Eddystone, PA 19022
(SEE ATTACHED LIST FOR ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS)
SHELLER. LUDWIG 8< BADEY
B~ Stephen A. Sheller/Jamie L. Sheller
IDENTIFICATION NO. 03270/55722 ATTORNEYFOR
152B WALNUT STREET
3RO FLOOR
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA lBl02
12151 54B.551D
FAY H. ZIMMERMAN ~n9
JAMES E. ZIMMERak~/w
1923 Rutland Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
v.
L--....t~
.~....,.
Plaintiffs
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
DIVISION
TERM,
No,
/J' I 199'1
101& L,VI'
BREAST IMPLANT - 2100
NOTICE
You hlv, betn .ued In courl. It you with to d,f.nd eglin.lthe
el.m. ... tanh k'l the following pag.., you mull t..... .enon
wl1hln tWflIt., (201 dl." .h., thi, complaint .nd notlct .,.
H",teI. by ent.,k\g I written .pp..,.ncI petton.ll., 0' by
,ttom.., and tiling In wrl1ing with the caun you. def'n... Of
obttcttonl to IhII elPn' H' forth agein.1 you. You .t. wltMd
that II you f,iI to do 10 the e... m.y PfocHd without you end .
tudamtnt may be ,nl.r,d 8Olln.. you by the court without
further notle. lor any mon.y cl.imed in the compl.lnl 0' fOf .ny
othe, dam 0' r.' r~'ltd by th, ptainlilt. You mly to..
money Of property or othe, ,tghtllmpon.nl to yOU.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE.
'F YOU 00 NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE.
GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO
FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
PHILADELPHIA BAR ASSOCIATION
LAWYER REFERRAL AND INFORMATION SERVICE
On. ReecUng Cent.'
Phlladttphil. Plnnaylv.nll 19101
rel.phone: 215.238.1101
AVISO
le haft dem.ndado I ulted In I, con,. 51 ulted quie"
detender.. d, ",.. dlm.nd.. I.pue,'" In '" pigin..
16gutentll. utled Uen. vIlntl 1201 dill d. ~ItO .. plrtl, de I,
f.che d, I, dlmllnd, y Ia nolJllcacfOn. Hee. r.lt. ..,nlll un.
complr..,ncl, ..crit. 0 en pellon. 0 con un .bogldo y ,"Heger
. I, cart, In 'orme .,critl IUI dele"... 0 IUI obj.don.. I ,..
demand.. In conlfl de au perlon.. St. Ivl.acto Que It UI'ad no
.. d"iendl, I, cart' 10m.,. medid,. y puede continue, "
demande In contra IUYI Iln previa .vilo 0 notlflc,clon.
Adem... I, cone puede decldir , I.vor del dem,nd.nll V
requi," que uSltel eumpla con tod.. I,. pfOVil6one1 d, "'1
demand.. Ulttd pulde perd,r dlnero 0 IUI ptOpledad.. U 01101
d,,,chollmportlntll p," utl,d.
LLEVE ESTA OEMANOA A UN ABOGAOO INMEDIATAMENTE.
51 NO TIENE ABOGADO 0 SI NO TIENE EL DINERD SUFICIENTE
DE PAGAR TAL SERVICIO. VAYA EN PERSONA 0 LLAME PaR
TELtFONO A LA OFICINA CUY A DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA
ESCR'TA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR OONOE SE PUEOE
CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL.
ASOCIACION DE L1CENCIADOS DE FILADELFIA
SERVICIO DE REFERENCIA E INFORMACION LEGAL
One Re.dlng Cente,
Flradell.a, PennsylvanIa 19107
"Ielooo: 21!t.238.1701
I
fosc,~~~
'&IOU'"
~,,'" <ff..,-
r" '~i,~",
. <$o..u._
COX-UPHOFF
a/k/a CUI Corporation
1160 Mark Avenue
Carpinteria, CA 93013
and
\
DOW CORNING CORPORATION
2200 West Salzburg street
Auburn, MI 48686
and
DOW CORNING WRIGHT
5677 Airline Road
P.O. Box 100
Arlington, TN 38002
and
SCOTT PAPER
Scott Plaza
Industrial Highway and Tinicum Road
Philadelphia, PA 19113
and
NATURAL Y SURGICAL SPECIALTIES, INC.
488 S. San Vincent Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90048
and
AESTHETECH CORPORATION
3003 Rollie Lakes
Paso Robles, CA 93446
and
BRISTOL MEYERS SQUIBB CO.
f/k/a Bristol-Meyers Co.
345 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10154
and
THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC.
individually and as successors in
interest to Natural Y Surgical
Specialties, Inc. and Aesthetech
Formerly known as Coopervision, Inc.
250 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10177
h', ,..~ .:.' .",r~.
and
COOPER SURGICAL, INC., a wholly
owned subsidiary of The Cooper
Companies, Inc.
17701 Cowen Avenue
P.O. Box 19587
Irvine, CA 92713
and
SAMIR SROUJI, M.D.
3438 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
and
PLASTIC SURGERY P.C.
3438 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
and
HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL
503 North 21st. Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
and
JANE/JOHN DOE
Additional Defendants
i
t
,~",."
COURT APPROVED SHORT FORM COMPLAINT
Plaintiff is Fay H. Zimmerman, an adult woman who resides
at the following address:
1923 Rutland Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Plaintiff (husband) is James E. Zimmerman, an adult male
who resides at the above-captioned address and claims damages as
a result of loss of consortium.
DEFENDANT MA~Q~ACTURERS AND RELATED COMPANIES
The following entities identified in Plaintiffs' Fourth
Amended Master Complaint are named as defendants and the
allegations with regard to these entities in paragraphs 2 through
68 of this Master Complaint are adopted by reference:
1 . The Cooper Companies
2. Aesthetech
3. CUI Corporation
4. Dow Corning Corpora tion
5. Dow Corning Wright
6. Bristol Meyers Squibb Company
7. Scot foam
8. Natural Y Surgical Specialties, Inc.
9. John/Jane Doe2
"'...;--~-.
Q~E~~Q~~~_H~~~~tl_f~R~_~EQY!Q~R~
The following health care providers are named as
defendants:
1. Samir Srouji, H.D., 3438 Trindle Road, camp Hill,
PA 17011.
2. Plastic Surgery P.C., 3438 Trindle Road, camp Hill,
PA 17011.
3. Holy Spirit Hospital, 503 North 21st street, Camp
Hill, PA 17011 (defendant, hospital).
CASE SPECIFIC INFORMATION
Describe the specific implant products used in the
plaintiff's medical treatment, including the name of the
manufacturers, brand numbers, lot numbers and catalogue numbers,
if known.
Natural Y, Heme, 350 cc.
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.
The implants were inserted on July 7, 1983 by Samir
srouji, H.D., 3438 Trindle Road, camp Hill, PA 17011 of Plastic
Surgery P.C., 3438 Trindle Road, camp Hill, PA 17011 at Holy Spirit
Hospital, 503 North 21st Street, Camp Hill, PA 17011.
At all times pertinent hereto, defendants Plastic
Surgery, P.C. and Holy Spirit Hospital acted through their agents,
i.....-''''~'''.....''
,..:/'"
:,,; ,
.-~._.....
X Count X - Lack of informed consent against
Yes No Defendant Health Care Providers
X -- Count XII - Loss of Consortium Against
- All Defendants
Yes No
X --- Count XIII - Outrageous Conduct
Yes No
1 . The Cooper Companies
2. Aesthetech
3. CUI Corporation
4. Dow Corning Corporation
5. Dow Corning Wright
6. Bristol Meyers Squibb Company
7. Scotfoam
8. Natural Y Surgical Specialties, Inc.
9. John/Jane Doe
10. Samir Srouji, M.D.
11 . Plastic Surgery P.C.
12. Holy Spirit Hospital
X Count XIX - Violation of State Unfair Trade
Yes No Practices and Consumer Protection Law Against
Defendant Manufacturers
CLAIMS AGAINST RELATED COMPANIES
As to those manufacturers and related companies that
plaintiff(sl have named as defendants, plaintiff(s) incorporate any
claims for successor liability and alter ego liability that are
raised in the Fourth Amended Master Complaint and any amendments
thereto.
OTHE!LfLAIM2
~XPRESS WARRAN!X-f~~IMS
If applicable, plaintiff(s) may include in a Short Form
Complaint on express warranty count. If the express warranty is
I
in writing, the writing shall be attached to the complaint. Any
..,.
:~."...
express warranty claims based on an oral warranty shall describe
the date on which the warranty was made, the person who made the
warranty, and the express terms of the warranty.
CORPORATE NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS
With permission of the Court, plaintiff(s] hereby raise
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.
Defendant Hospital failed to uphold the proper standard
of care owed to the plaintiff and negligently failed to ensure
plaintiff's safety and well-being while at the hospital. Defendant
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, defendant 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 defendant 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). Defendant 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 Hospital negligently allowed defendant
doctor(s) to implant in plaintiff defective and dangerous products.
i.
-2+"~~:i"+-..
ALTERNATIVE LIABILITY CLAIMS
With the permission of this Court or with the consent of
the defendant manufacturers, plaintiff(s] may raise a claim for
alternative liability based on section 433B(3) of the Restatement
(Second of Tortsl in a Short Form Complaint. See pp. 26-29 of this
Court's September 7, 1993 Memorandum and Order of Court with
respect to Defendants I Preliminary Objections to Plaintiffs' Second
Amended Master Complaint.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff(s] seek recovery from defendants as
follows:
(a) general and compensatory damages in an amount in
excess of $50,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs;
(b) punitive damages as allowed by law;
(c) costs of this litigation; and
(d) such other and further damages and relief as this
Court may deem appropriate.
SHELLER, LUDWIG & BADEQ ~
By ';/1 II' :; / :;;;'W
/ JAMIE L. SHELLER
Attorney for Plaintiff
f.'_".___".
VERIFICATION
I, Fay H. Zimmerman hereby verifies that she is the
plaintiff in the foregoing matter; that the facts set forth in the
foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of her
knowledge, information and belief; and that this Verification is
made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 54904 relating to
unsworn falsification to authorities.
Dated:
9--~,t.t IQ Iqq'f
'-hVj)/ ~~~-
FAY . ZIMMERMAN
servants, workpersons, and/or employees acting within the scope of
the course of their duties to aid plaintiff.
INJURIES
X
Yes
Have the Implants been removed or ruptured?
No
Is the 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.
Inter AliA, systemic lupus-like erythematosus
disease, alopecia, sleep disturbances, night sweats, granulomas,
chronic inflammatory response, breast infections, disfigurement,
impairment of the immune system, scar tissue capsulation, memory
loss, anxiety, loss of sleep, depression, psychological and
physiological sequel, silicone toxicity syndrome, silicone implant
disease, numbness, pain and deformities of the breast.
X
Yes
No
CAUSE OF ACTION
On the basis of the allegations in the Fourth Amended
Master Complaint, plaintiff(s) raise the following claims:
X
Yes
Count I - Negligence Against
Defendant Manufacturers
No
X
Yes
Count III - strict Product Liability
Against Defendant Manufacturers
No
X
Yes
Count IV - Breach of Implied Warranty
Against Defendant Manufacturers
Count V - Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation
Against Defendant Manufacturers
Count VIII - Medical Negligence and Negligent
Sale of Defective Product Against Defendant
Health Care Providers
No
X
Yes
No
X
Yes
No
X
Yes
Count IX - Fraud, Deceit and Misrepresentation
Against Defendant Health Care Providers
No
~~
~.
- <>
~ c<)
~ ~
~
- ~
1\. .
~ --.J
Q..
....
"X
-
.
.
""""
......
~
,"
:>:
~ ;:~~,~ S2 Q
~,', , 'l ') '\"J
,....0,
, ~ lO
~
"'-.'
~
~
~
'b
1"<'-:
~2
~
....
APR 0 4 199\
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
Fay H. Zimmerman and
James B. Zimmerman, w/h
Plaintiffs
Civil Action - Law
,.~.v .
Dow Corning Corporation,
Dow Corning Wright Corp.,
et al.-.
No. 1016 Civil 1994
Defendants
Jurv Trial Demanded
~
~
-
BNTRY OF APPEARANCE
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: rr/;:tdA 7-CJ; /qql/
BY:
l,....Jo/
,~~
a;
-
-:r
~~
"7.,
t-:::...
WClO;e
U~U..t
u:~O~
-..1-:.....
9q,.(4I\
:t~ -!.:r.
....,c.~.~
:!"'.O\U
...x.'XQ...
,. ::>
-""
<:>
::lC
c.-
r-
, ...
('I')
-
Jli
..'
-'
I'
i
'.'_...~..~..._, ._..~'_" ,._,...................-~__.j:4~_ ..___,.~_.__....._,_.......,"__,..:..."'>::..~..,....,:.'..t"'!P."r!:'~it~'~._~. . ~_~.
Ji'"r"
"8Jl'f.
, p,
I,
I.
I
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
FAY H. ZIMMERMAN and
JAMES E. ZIMMERMAN, h/w,
Plaintiffs,
v.
21 INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS,
INC. f/k/a Knoll International
Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a Foamex
Products, Inc. f/k/a Scot foam
Corporation f/k/a General Felt
Industries, Inc. f/k/a Eddy
Acquisitions now operating
under the fictitious name of
Foamex, a Division of KIHI;
COX-UPHOFF a/k/a CUI
Corporation; DOW CORNING
CORPORATION; DOW CORNING
WRIGHT; SCOTT PAPER; NATURAL Y
SURGICAL SPECIALTIES, INC.;
AESTHETECH CORPORATION;
BRISTOL MEYERS SQUIBB CO.
f/k/a Bristol-Meyers Co.; THE
COOPER COMPANIES, INC.
individually and as successors
in interest to Natural Y
Surgical Specialties, Inc. and
Aesthetech formerly known as
Coopervision, Inc.; COOPER
SURGICAL, INC., a wholly owned
subsidiary of The Cooper
Companies, Inc.; SAMIR SROUJI,
M.D.; PLASTIC SURGERY P.C.;
HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; and
JANE/JOHN DOE,
Defendants.
CIVIL DIVISION
No. 1016 Civil 1994
ANSWER, NEW MATTER AND
PRELrMINARY OBJECTIONS TO
PLAINTIPP'S SHORT PORM
COMPLAINT
~
Filed on Behalf of Defendant
CUI Corporation
Counsel of Record for this
Party:
C. James Zeszutek
Pa. I.D. No. 22071
Kimberly A. Brown
Pa. I.D. No. 56200
"\
THORP, REED & ARMSTRONG
Firm No. 282
One Riverfront Center
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
(412) 394-2565
Joseph M. Price
FAEGRE & BENSON
2200 Norwest Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
c.
i,,-.,
"l,~,~ .~~r --.
~".".
,., ... :-',:.', ">
.-- .',.. ~-~' .' - , --0:. '.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
FAY H. ZIMMERMAN and
JAMES E. ZIMMERMAN, h/w,
Plaintiff,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CIVIL DIVIS lOt..
v.
No. 1016 Civil 1994
21 INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC.,
et al.,
ANSWER, NEW MATTER AND PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS '1'0
PLAINTIFFS' SHORT FORM COMPLAINT
Defendant CUI Corporation ("CU!"), f/k/a Cox-Uphoff, by
and through its attorneys, C. James Zeszutek, Kimberly A. Brown
and Thorp, Reed & Armstrong, and Joseph M. Price and Faegre &
Benson, and in response to Plaintiffs I Short Form Complaint,
incorporates by reference CUI's Answer, New Matter and Preliminary
Objections filed in Evans v. Medical Enaineerina. et al., No. 92-
25555, Montgomery County, (hereinafter referred to as the "Evans
Answer"), as though fully set forth herein at length. Defendant
CUI further responds to Plaintiffs' Short Form Complaint as
follows:
PLAINTIFFS
After reasonable investigation, defendant CUI is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth or falsity of the averments in Plaintiffs' Complaint
._..-
10 ""'-
~~t\'-
.d_" ,.. _. \;.
regarding their citizenship and residency.
Accordingly, these
averments are denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the
time of trial.
DEFENDANT MANUFACTURERS AND RELATED COMPANIES
In response to Plaintiffs' allegations. defendant CUI
incorporates by reference its answers to the averments contained
in the Master Complaint which are incorporated by reference by
Plaintiffs; said answers are set forth in the Evans Answer.
DEFENDANT HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS
Plaintiffs' averments regarding Wife-Plaintiff's alleged
health care providers are not allegations to which a responsive
pleading is required. However, to the extent that a responsive
pleading is deemed to be required, after reasonable investigation,
defendant CUI is without knowledge or information sufficient to
form a belief as to the truth or falsity of these averments.
Accordingly, these averments are denied, and strict proof thereof
is demanded at the time of trial.
CASE SPECIFIC INFORMATION
After reasonable investigation, defendant CUI is without
knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth or falsity of Plaintiffs' averments.
Accordingly, these
2
--
.......--~""
1I133631
averments are denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the
time of trial.
INJURIES
After reasonable investigation, defendant CUI is without
knowledge or informatinn sufficient to form a belief as to the
truth or falsity of Plaintiffs' allegations regarding the removal
or rupture of the subject breast implants and Wife-Plaintiff I s
alleged claims of damages. Accordingly, these averments are
denied, and strict proof thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
CAUSE OP ACTION
In response to Plaintiffs I allegations, defendant CUI
incorporates by reference its answers to the averments contained
in the Master Complaint which are incorporated by reference by
Plaintiffs; said answers are set forth in the Evans Answer.
CLAIMS AGAINST RELATED COMPANIES
Defendant CUI responds as follows to the averments
contained in the Master Complaint which are incorporated by
reference by Plaintiffs:
3
,
In Count XVII of the Fourth Amended Master Complaint,
.
.133631
PreliminarY Ob1ections to Plaintiffs' Successor Liabilitv Claims
A. Preliminary Obj ection to Count XVII of
Plaintiffs' Pourth Amended Master Camclaint
Plaintiffs allege a cause of action for successor corporate
liability against unidentified successor defendants. Plaintiffs
allege that successor corporate liability is proper because certain
unidentified defendants either expressly or impliedly agreed to
assume any and all obligations of the selling manufacturer or
because the purchasing manufacturer acquired all or substantially
all of the manufacturing assets of the selling manufacturer and
undertook essentially the same manufacturing, selling and/or
distributing operations as the selling manufacturer.
Count XVII of the Master Complaint sets forth bare
conclusions of law without any factual averments to sustain the
allegations contained therein or to identify which manufacturers
should be liable under what theory and why the imposition of
successor liability is appropriate.
WHEREFORE, CUI requests that this Honorable Court dismiss
Count XVII of the Master Complaint in its entirety with prejudice.
'.
"
i
I
,
4
11133631
B. Preliminary Objection in the Nature of a
Demurrer Purspant to PA. R. CIV. P. 1028 (a) (4)
to Count XVII.
Under Pennsylvania law, a cause of action for successor
corporate liability is inappropriate unless a plaintiff's remedies
against a predecessor corporation are destroyed by the purchase of
the predecessor by the successor corporation.
Certain defendants labeled as successor defendants in
the Master Complaint cannot be held liable under the product line
exception, because the predecessor corporations are still viable,
and Plaintiffs have an adequate potential remedy against these
predecessors.
Furthermore, Plaintiffs' conclusory allegations in Count
XVII are totally devoid of any factual averments that would support
a cause of action for successor corporate liability under
Pennsylvania law as to any of the defendants.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot state a proper cause of
action for successor corporate liabHity against any of the
manufacturer defendants.
For the reasons stated above, CUI's demurrer to Count
XVII of Plaintiffs' Master Complaint must be sustained.
5
.. r"-<
....-..-.>
..~~
'-, . .. ,'- - ~ ,
." ,~ .
. ".....''''.... . -'~ :',
11133631
WHEREFORE, CUI requests that this Honorable Court dismiss
Count XVII of the Master Complaint in its entirety with prejudice.
C. Preliminary Objection in the Nature of a
Motion to Strike Count XVII Pursuant to PA. R.
CIV. P. 1028(al (21.
The averments of subsections A through B are incorporated
by reference as though fully set forth herein at length.
Count XVII of the Master Complaint should be stricken,
because it does not comply with Pa. R. Civ. P. 1019 (a), which
provides that "the material facts on which a cause of action or
defense is based shall be stated in concise and sununary form."
Nowhere in Count XVII do Plaintiffs identify which
manufacturer-defendants should be liable or liable under what
theory of successor corporate liability or the factual predicate
for the imposition of such liability.
Count XVII fails to put each defendant on notice of the
operative conduct which forms the basis of Plaintiffs' claims of
liabili ty.
As a result, Count XVII does not adequately inform the
individual manufacturer-defendants of the operative facts they are
required to defend.
6
.
11133631
WHEREFORE, CUI requests that Count XVII of the Master
Complaint be stricken.
D. Preliminary Objection in the Nature of a
Motion or a More Specific Pleading Pursuant to
PA. R. CIV. P. 1028(al (31 to Count XVII.
The averments of subsections A through C are incorporated
by reference as though fully and completely set forth herein.
In the alternative, Count XVII of Plaintiffs I Master
Complaint is so vague and indefinite that an adequate response
cannot be made thereto.
Furthermore, Count XVII of the Master
Complaint is prejudicial to CUI in that it does not define or
inform this defendant of the operative facts underlying the claims
being asserted against it.
WHEREFORE, CUI requests, in the alternative, that
Plaintiffs be directed to file a more specific pleading.
OTHER CLAIMS
EXPRESS WARRANTY CLAIMS
Plaintiffs I averments do not contain allegations to which
a responsive pleading is required.
7
\'" .;~:'f-i;:".,^,:";'~::""';",i
L:;::"~,,"
11133631
CORPORATE NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS
Plaintiffs' averments raising claims of corporate
negligence are directed to defendants other than defendant CUI.
Accordingly, no response from this defendant is required.
ALTERNATIVE LIABILITY CLAIMS
Plaintiffs' averments do not contain allegations to which
a responsive pleading is required.
WHEREFORE, defendant CUI demands judgment in its favor
and against Plaintiffs, all at Plaintiffs' cost.
NEW MATTER
1. The Complaint fails to state a claim or cause of
action against defendant CUI upon which relief can be granted.
2. All risks associated with the implantation of the
subject breast implants, allegedly manufactured by defendant CUI,
would have and should have been explained to Plaintiffs before the
surgical procedures described in the Complaint.
3. Defendant CUI believes and, therefore, avers that
Plaintiffs consented to the implantation of the subject breast
8
U33631
implants, allegedly manufactured by defendant CUI, with full
knowledge of any and all risks associated therewith.
4. Plaintiffs voluntarily and with full knowledge
assumed any and all risks associated with the implantation of the
subject breast implants, allegedly manufactured by CUI, and
therefore, the cause of action alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint
against CUI is barred by the applicable rules, laws and regulations
related thereto.
5. Any and all injuries sustained by Plaintiffs are the
result of the conduct of Plaintiffs or other parties over whom
defendant CUI had no control.
6. The damages alleged in Plaintiffs' Complaint, if
any, are limited by the applicable laws of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania regarding comparative and/or contributory negligence.
7. Al though defendant CUI denies the allegations of
Plaintiffs' Complaint as to the injuries and damages alleged, these
injuries and damages, if any, were caused by the unauthorized,
unintended or improper use of the product complained of and/or as
a result of the failure to exercise reasonable and ordinary care,
caution or vigilance over parties over whom CUI exercised no
control and for which CUI is not liable or responsible.
9
#'. ~.,~-~"
11133631
8. Any foreseeable and unreasonable risk to the
physical well-being of Wife-Plaintiff was a risk which CUI did not
create and could not reduce or eliminate.
9. CUI avers that any product designed, manufactured
and/or sold by it was not designed, manufactured and/or sold in a
defective condition.
10. If it is established at trial that any product
manufactured or sold by CUI was implanted in Wife-Plaintiff in a
defective condition, which is specifically denied, then CUI avers,
in the alternative, that the product has undergone and has been
subjected to a substantial change in the condition it was in when
it left the hands of CUI, either by way of subsequent handling,
abnormal use or other causes outside the control of CUI.
11. If it is determined at trial that Wife-Plaintiff was
the user of a product in a defective condition manufactured or sold
by CUI in substantially the same condition as it was in at the time
it left the custody of CUI, all of which has been previously denied
herein, CUI alternatively avers that any damages and/or injuries
that may be established at trial are not the proximate result of
any alleged defective condition of the product of CUI.
10
1l33S31
12. Any product designed, manufactured and/or sold by
CUI was designed, manufactured and/or sold in accordance with the
prevailing standards and customs of the state of the art in the
industry at that time.
13. Any product tested, manufactured and/or sold by CUI
was designed, tested, manufactured and/or sold in accordance with
and in compliance with all governmental statutes and regulations
applicable to medical device manufacturers and applicable to the
design, testing, manufacturing and sale of medical devices and
particularly with respect to silicone gel breast implants.
14. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the applicable
statute of limitations.
15. Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the doctrines of
laches, estoppel and waiver.
16. Liability, which CUI has previously denied herein,
is precluded on Plaintiffs' alleged causes of action because of the
doctrine set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, Section
402A, comment K.
17. The risks and complications attendant to the use of
the subject breast implants, if any, were well known by the medical
community, and defendant CUI is not required to provide warnings
11
-.-....--
~- '.\:: ~~.'j.~4-'.,~.'t.~ ,~:.,- ~.
r':=,____
11133631
or instructions with regard to those risks and complications.
Further, any cause of action based on any alleged failure of
defendants CUI to provide sufficient warnings to Plaintiffs is
barred by the learned intermediary doctrine.
18. To the extent that Wife-Plaintiff's breast implants
may be subject to governmental regulation, they are so regulated
by federal laws and statutes and the regulations of federal
agencies.
19. Plaintiffs I claims are preempted by the federal
governmental statutes, standards, and regulations applicable to
medical device manufacturers and applicable to the design, testing,
manufacturer, assembly, and sale of medical devices, and
particularly, to silicone gel breast implants.
20. To the extent that punitive or exemplary damages
are sought by Plaintiffs, such claim for damages is barred by the
Constitution of the Conunonwealth of Pennsylvania and the
Constitution of the United States.
21. Plaintiffs have failed to give CUI timely notice of
any claimed breaches of warranty or other alleged defects.
12
.
11133631
22. To the extent that Plaintiffs I expenses have been
paid by collateral sources, Defendant may be entitled to a setoff
of any damages under applicable laws.
23. Defendant CUI reserves the right to object to the
venue of this action.
24. The Complaint fails to state with sufficient
particularity the circumstances allegedly constituting fraud by
defendant CUI.
JURY DEMAND
CUI hereby demands a trial by jury.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: March~, 1994
THO ,REED & ARMSTRONG
One Riverfront Center
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
(412) 394-2565
Joseph M. Price
FAEGRE & BENSON
2200 Norwest Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Attorneys for Defendant
CUI Corporation
13
.
:..'-~~~;~m-tfi~';...-'
...
11133631
t
i,
1
VERIPICATION
The undersigned, KIMBERLY A. BROWN, verifies that she is
attorney of record for CUI Corporation; that officers of CUI
Corporation are outside the jurisdiction of this Court; that the
verification of said officers cannot be obtained within the time
she believes to be true and correct.
The verification of said
set for the filing of the Answer, New Matter and Preliminary
Obj ections to Plaintiffs I Short Form Complaint; that the facts
contained in the foregoing Answer, New Matter and Preliminary
Obj ections, of which she has personal knowledge, are true and
correct; and that those of which she has information from others
officer will be filed as soon as the sarne is available.
/~.~
RLY A. BROWN
.
..
.
1133631
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct
copy of the foregoing ANSWER, NEW MATTER AND PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
TO PLAINTIFFS'
SHORT FORM COMPLAINT was served by first class, U.S.
s~
prepaid, this ,~/ day of March, 1994, on the
mail, postage
following:
(SEE ATTACHED COUNSEL LIST)
~t:'.~
~. ",.~.'I{:~;'
'\:.\:' I'!.",!:. ''iT
. <...~".;r~, ft':;,;.. ,,1\ .
.v....,.~.__..., <,'"
. . 1.. ." -"
:.10 . -,... ',1 . ':'Ii"
-,."-~. "'J:_~ . . .~.
; iC .,..:"~""",~:.~',,~:" )~.~:~,:~' ',; ,
...t+'- ...<" ,#<, ~ }. -t-'~ ", 1."'- ..., ...,. :-. '
..., t,. '., ~, ,'. _;10 . ."". ',. .,- ,", . .." .' .. ,'. '..
;1 ,.".,t;.~.~r' .~";tl'~':;"',~"
. . .::-.~!..."'.;". ~.....,;~. . ."'f''':..:.~,,,...J.,.''"'!',.,.
ZrMMERMAN v. 21 INTBRNATIONAL HOLDINGS. INC.. et aI.
COUNSBL LIST
Plaintiff.:
D.fan~."t.. 21 XDt:ernat:iftft-1
&01"""'08. %Do.. Scott: Paner "~nv.
an" Sootto.- Coroorat:ion:
Jami. L. Sh.ll.r, Esq.
St.ph.n A. Sh.ll.r, Esq.
L.on.rd V. pod.r., Esq.
SHELLER, LUDWIG " BADEY
1528 W.lnut Str..t
3rd Ploor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Rob.rt M. Britton, Esq.
POST " SCHELL
1800 John P. Kenn.dy Blvd.
19th Ploor
phi1ad.lphia, PA 19103-7480
Phon..
Pax.
(215) 546-5510
t215) 546-0942
Phon..
Pax.
(215) 587-1031
(215) 587-1444
Deland...,t.. Daw CarninG CorooratiOD.
end Dew Cornina Wriaht. IDa.:
Defen"ants. S-.4r Srouii. _.D.. an"
P1astia Suraerv. P.C.:
Robert S. Porster, Jr., Esq.
KRUSBN, EVANS " BY1UlB
Suit. 1100, Th. Curtis C.nt.r
601 Walnut Str..t
Philad.1phia, PA 19106-3473
Samir Srouji, M.D.
Plastia Surg.ry, P.C.
3438 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Phon..
Pax.
(215) 923-4400
(215) 925-0218
D.f.......nt. Holy SDirit Bo...ital:
De,..ft".ftts. .atural Y Suraiaa1
Sneaialt::le.. :ma.. AeB~h.t:.ah
CorooratiOll. The Coooer "~enies.
IDa.. Coooer Suraiaal. IDa.. end
Bristo1-M8v8r8 Sau4hh a Co.:
Holy Spirit Hospital
S03 North 21st Str.et
Camp Hill, PA 17011
('........4ft.tino COUDs.1 for Bo...ita1
.n~ Pbv8iaian nef-nd.nt8:
S. Gordon Elkins, Esq.
Donna M. Dever, Esq.
STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS" YOUNG
2600 On. Comm.rce Square
Phi1ad.lphia, PA 19103-7098
Allan H. Starr, Esq.
WHITE AND WILLIAMS
On. Lib.rty Place, Suit. 1800
1650 Mark.t Str.et
Philad.lphia, PA 19103-7301
Phon.:
t215) 564-8013 tE1kins)
(215) 564-8141 tDever)
(215) 568-8120
Phon.:
Pax:
(215) 864-6223
(215) 864-7123
Pax.
(..
"",'
'~_..
-,;
s::-
a-
o
rt
C"')
-::r
"'..
......
~~..~
WI."'cr
~~o~
~:":~,..J
o:;...:~
~ ') '''~ ;":~ .:z:.
....J'. LIz,
"'t:.l~
::: :S:'-
+-':;3
~o
o
...
.:!:
~"",.i, """ ~,,'<",<~",'
FAY H. ZIMMERMAN and
JAMBS E. ZIMMERNA, h/w
v.
21 INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC. :
f/k/a Knoll International Holdings,:
Inc. (f/k/a Foamex products, Inc.
f/k/a Scot foam corporation
f/k/a General Felt Industries, Inc.:
f/k/a Eddy Acquisitions now
operating under the fictitious name:
of Foamex, a Division of KIHI
and
COX-UPHOFF
a/k/a CUI Corporation
and
DOW CORNING CORPORATION
and
DOW CORNING WRIGHT
and
SCOTT PAPER
and
NATURAL Y SURGICAL SPECIALTIES, INC:
and
AESTHETECH CORPORATION
and
BRISTOL MEYERS SQUIBB CO.
and
THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC.
individually and as successors in
interest to Natural Y Surgical
Specialties, Inc. and Aesthetech
Formerly known as Coopervision,
Inc.
and
COOPER SURGICAL, INC.,
a wholly owned subsidiary of
The Cooper Companies, Inc.
and
SAMIR SROUJI, M.D.
and
PLASTIC SURGERY, P.C.
and
HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL
and
JANE/JOHN DOE
Additional Defendants.
NO. 1016 Civil 1994
~,~~",.~i~~~~ '
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNA.
:
:
:
.
.
~PR ~ 2 26 rH'9~
r~ll[::'-afF'CE
OF TIlE P~vTHOI/OTMIY
CUHBEnL^kO COUI/TY
PENNSYlVAl/lt
DEFENOANTS 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
2
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 and/or 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
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
3
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(s) 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.
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.
4
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
defendants and plaintiff's alleged damages and injuries, and/or
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
5
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
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, and/or the common
law and public policies of pertinent states, and/or applicable
6
.
1
.
.
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
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; and/or
f. imposition of such punitive damages, and deter-
mination of the amount of an award thereof, based
7
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 alia, 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
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
8
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
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
9
!:~'Yi~ :i..-r-"'--_.,
~ . .'..... . - ~
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 and/or 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.
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
10
,f,.. ',". ",..,",~~.."..:
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
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.
11
WHBREFORE, 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
ert S. orste, Jr., Esq.
ttorney I.D. No. 17899
Yolanda Konopacka DeSipio, Esq.
Attorney I.D. 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:
rllauLJ oJ? , 1994
.
12
I..' ~,-_,
V B R I V I CAT ION
Eugene Jakubczak. hereby states chat he is the ~~nager
of professional Relations for Cow corning Corporation and Dow
Corning wz:ight Corporaclull Ilnd 1~ l'luthorizl!ld to sign this
verification. and verifies that ha has read thp. ~oreqoing
pleading: that r.he answers are noc completely based upon his own
knowledge, but were prepared with the assistance dlld advice of
otnez:a z.nd may be eubj eet; t;o il1adveL"l.tHlt: error or oversight,
which he will correct should he learn of any error or omission.
that subject to th~ limitations set forth herein verifies that
the anRwers are true and correct to the best of his knowledge,
infoz:mat;ion and belief; and he ul1derst~nds that: the statements in
said answers are mado subject to the penaltioR or 18 Pa. C,S.A.
4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
~~~C~k~
Manager of Professional
Relations
Dow Corning Corporation and
Dow ~n~nin~ Wright Corporation
Dated: February 10. t 994
- .
~,.~< h,-:T~'.-
-iA .
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 Cornina Corooration and Dow Cornina Wriaht Corcoration, in
the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, April Term, ~992, Civil
Action No. 136, that the person who signed the Verification in
Toledo v. Dow Cornina Corooration and Dow Cornina Wriaht
Corooration is authorized to make the Verification on behalf of
the above-narned parties, that the person who signed the
Verification in Toledo v. Dow Cornina Corcoration and Dow Cornina
Wriaht Corcoration 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., sq.
Yolanda Konopacka DeSipio, Esq.
Attorney for Defendants,
Dow Corning Corporation
Dow Corning Wright Corporation
Date:
7IltUc.IJ ~ 9
.
, 1994
,...
"... ".:;:",,-:
1,.!;H:f<",
..":otii.:' '-.. .
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
Sheller, Ludwig & Badey
1528 Walnut Street 3rd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Robert M. Britton, Esquire
POST & SCHELL, P.C.
19th Floor, 1800 JFK Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7480
C. James Zeszutek, Esquire
Kimberly A. Brown, Esquire
THORPE, REID & ARMSTRONG
1 Riverfront Center
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Gordon S. Elkins, Esquire
Donna M. Dever, Esquire
STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS &
YOUNG
2600 One Commerce Square
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7098
Samir Srouji, M.D.
Cosmetic Surgery Center
3438 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Plastic Surgery P.C.
3438 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Craig A. Stone, Esquire
Michael D. Pipa, Esquire
METTE, EVANS & WOODSIDE
P.O. Box 729
Harrisburg, PA 17108-0729
KRUSEN EVANS & BYRNE
Date:
~A' /, ~ ,1994
Robert S. For er, Jr., Esq.
Yolanda Konopacka DeSipio, Esq.
Attorneys for Dow Corning
Corporation and Dow Corning
Wright Corporation
APR 05 1994 .
0-
CIl CIl
W U
...... Z
<1l H III
.0\ 1:1 ..::r lr;O
0::0\ ~ ....l 0\ f!: ~ "
,",CO Ql 0 0\ >< z to
,... ::r: ...... ~l1Wo
o _
....... r-. 0
0:: ~ :;j ...... -=U'l-: 0
W . ..... << ..~ .
HO Z > , , !
"'US.
CIlZ 0 ..... ~Wii "
0:: ~ H . U .
.
0 . H...... >.! ~
tt.I .0 W ~
~1:1 . <<1l .0 o z 0
H > ~~ ...... lr;!!'~ ;;
.H N 0 .,-l:-
CIl WQl ...... CIJ ~ ;l
>- . H :l-l/l
H~ ::r: Z . . =J:
0::'-' H . 0 :.:
W<l; >- U Z
l:Q ~ ......Z
0 NH
0::
.
"
,
.
I"
.....,;...,;::.=':
WHITE AND WILLIAMS
BY: Allan H. Starr
Identification NO. 04975
One Liberty Place
suite 1800
1650 Market street
Philadelphia, Pa. 19103
(215) 864-6223
Attorneys For:
Holy Spirit Hospital
FAY H. ZIMMERMAN and JAMES E.
ZIMMERMAN, h/w
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
vs.
NO. 1016 - CIVIL 1994
21 INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC.,
ET AL.
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
"
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of defendant, Holy Spirit
Hospital, only, in the above-captioned matter.
WHITE AND WILLIAMS,
BY: tftH2
ALLAN H. STARR, ESQUIRE
Attorneys For Defendant,
Holy Spirit Hospital
2009E72l.WPS
;:,F:~;;[-e:''';>'_ .'~
~
5
~
""..
"'...
;!..c
~'c:"~~
.;;~o~
,"Xo>
"~"-z..J
" ;.~' ..i;-:
. ~".
, '.a:~
~) 0-' ILl :.e
r:::'W
...:.:s.:Q.,
,-'"
0'"'
-
-
-
-
""
....
-
POST & SCHELL, P.C.
BY: ROBERT M. BRITTON, ESQUIRE
ANDREW J. CONNOLLY, ESQUIRE
I.D. # 14082/60086
19TH FLOOR, 1800 J.F.K. BLVD.
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
(215) 587-1000
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT,
FAY H. ZIMMERMAN and JAMES
ZIMMERAN, w/h
v.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
.
.
.
.
DOW CORNING CORPORATION, et al
: No. 1016 CIVIL 1994
ENTRY OJ' APPBAlUINCB AND DEHAND FOR JURY TRIAL BY TWELVE JURORS
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
. Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of defendants, Scotfoam
corporation, Knoll International Holdings, Inc., '21' International
Holdings, Inc. General Felt Industries and Scott Paper Co., in the
above matter. Also, please enter at this time my demand for a
trial by twelve jurors.
/2k,lJ(.~ lit
ROBERT M. BRITTON, ESQUIRE.
ANDREW J. CONNOLLY, ESQUIRE
a;
.
a
U>
<:2
co
-
~:;
~?;...s
lU t."J. c', %:
(.):z; u.,
~oo>
.:..~~:.:;~
'J ~~~.~
,J~~~~
.t:~;
..::;;)
''''''u
'"
-
-
...
...
....
<--
'.
.
MAY 06 1994
cJ;v
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) 864.-6219/6223
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENOANT:
Holy Spirit Hospital
FAY H. ZIMMERMAN and
JAMES E. ZIMMERMAN, h/w
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
vs.
HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, et al.
NO. 1016 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 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 answering
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
200BOJSB.NPS
I c.,,.,
~'~_.
since the medical records are not yet available for review by answering
defendant and its counsel.
The allegations of agency and employment as contained herein are
denied and strict proof thereof is demanded for the reason that said
allegations are not specific enough to allow answering defendant to form
a belief as to the truth thereof. It is specifically denied that co-
defendant, Dr. Samir Srouji acted as the agent, servant or employee of
answering defendant and to the contrary, it is averred that Dr. Srouji
acted as an independent contractor and made independent medical judgments
in the care and treatment of the plaintiffs.
Answering defendant is without sufficient information to form a
belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding the removal/rupture
of the implants and 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.
:;l0080lSB.WPS
-2-
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
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.
:!:OOB0158.HPS
-3-
CLAIMS AGAINST RELATED COMPANIES
Not directed to answering defendant.
OTHER CLAIMS
CORPORATE NEGuIGENCE CLAIMS
It is specifically denied that answering defendant was negligent in
any manner including the alleged acts or omissions asserted by plaintiffs
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 claim for corporate
negligence. Therefore, answering defendant asserts preliminary
objections to these claims as set forth herein.
ALTERNATIVE uIABIuITY CLAIMS
Not directed to answering defendant.
WHEREFORE, 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)).
200B015B.NPS
-4 -
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 rights 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 upon which
punitive damages can be awarded. Plaintiffs' Complaint, to the extent
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
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 and/or their removal.
6. Plaintiffs' injuries may have been caused by third persons or
parties over whom answering defendant exercised no control nor right of
control.
200B03SB.NP5
-5-
7. Defendant incorporates by reference these affirmative defenses
set forth in Case Management Order No.8.
8. If plaintiffs have in the past or do in the future, settle some
or all of their claims with third parties, the terms and provisions of
the release of said claims is a bar to this action against answering
defendant.
PREuIMINARY OBJECTIONS
I . AGENCY
Plaintiffs' Complaint fails to set forth with specificity those
individuals alleged to be the agents, servants or employees of answering
defendant.
II. 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
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
200B03SB.MPS
-6-
"
defendant notice of the basis for said claims in violation of the
Coordinating Court's Order of September 7, 1993.
WHITB AND WILLIAMS
BY:
H S , ESQUIRE
N CY L. SEGEL, ESQUIRE
Attorney for defendant,
Holy Spirit Hospital
20080lS8.NP5
-7-
t..,...",,,,,,.~,c..C-._,._.."""-".">.' .-...~...1z..
.'
VERIFICATION
I, Marcia 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.
'-ylLu.-Lt-(L', n I ra.&AL
Marcia McAlicher
DATED:
~)(kl
zimmerman v. Holy Spirit Hospital
ci?;
.
;,..
..,,-
;......~.~
~'.{< ".,
,,~~~.~:.:
...:~~~'
I - .J
, ,':'~;:!
. .' ~ ,I ..
. ~::.;
" '.,/
(,;.'.\
~
""
-.
"-1
c..."
...
~
--
STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG
By: S. Gordon Elkins
Donna M. Dever
Cathleen M. Stryker
I.D. Nos. 02789/62381/69567
2600 One Commerce square
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7098
(215) 564-8000
FAY H. ZIMMERMAN and
JAMES E. ZIMMERMAN,
Attorneys for Defendants:
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company,
Natural Y Surgical Special-
ties, Inc., Aesthetech Corpor-
ation, The Cooper Companies,
Inc. and Cooper Surgical, Inc.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
plaintiffs,
v.
NO. 1016 Civil 1994
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY,
et a1.,
Defendants.
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please enter my appearance in the above-captioned
matter on behalf of Defendants, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company,
Natural Y surgical specialties, Inc., Aesthetech corporation, The
Cooper Companies, Inc. and Cooper Surgical, Inc. in the above-
captioned case.
(~~~
S. GOrdOn~kfn~' JJ
Donna M. Dever
Cathleen M. stryker
STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG
2600 One Commerce Square
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(215) 564-8013
-
Attorneys for Defendants,
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company,
Natural Y Surgical Specialties,
Inc., Aesthetech corporation, The
Cooper Companies, Inc. and Cooper
Surgical, Inc.
Date: May 10, 1994
1IIl7l
.,.
\
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, DONNA M. DEVER, hereby certify that on this May 10,
1994, I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing pleading
to be served by united states first class mail, postage pre-paid,
upon counsel below-listed:
Jamie L. Sheller
Sheller, Ludwig & Badey
1528 Walnut Street
Third Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Robert M. Britton, Esquire
Post & Schell, P.C.
1800 JFK Blvd., 19th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Attorneys for Dofendants,
'21' International
HOldings, Inc. and
Scott Paper Company
Robert S. Forster, Esquire
Krusen Evans & Byrne
The curtis Center, suite 1100
Independence Square West
6th and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Attorneys for Defendants,
Dow Corning Corp. and Dow
Corning Wright corp.
C. James Zeszutek, Esquire
Thorpe, Reed & Armstrong
One Riverfront Center
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Attorneys for Defendant,
Cox-Uphoff a/k/a CUI
Corp.
Holy Spirit Hospital
503 N. 21st Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
samir srouji, M.D.
3438 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Plastic surgery P.c.
3438 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
--------
(---\
11I373
L::..-",,-
~
a;
-
~>-
"'->.
..: -'-;
,~~y;~~;;
. :.-.
::0:
""'"
Cl
In
-
-
.tt.
<'-J
-
-
...
~
"~,~ '
-'
:"~)~.
,
"
~,-,-<
".; ,~. ',: (.'{
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER,
COLEMAN & GOGGIN
BY: JOSEPH WALKER, ESQUIRE
ATTY. I.D. NO. 02417
20 EAST COURT STREET
DOYLESTOWN PA 18901
(215-348-1611
Attorneys for Defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
FAY H. ZIMMERMAN AND JAMES A.
ZIMMERMAN, H/W
v.
NO. 1016 CIVIL 1994
21 INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC.,
et al.; COX-UPHOFF, DOW CORNING
CORPORATION; DOW CORNING WRIGHT;
SCOTT PAPER; NATURAL Y SURGICAL
SPECIALTIES, INC., AESTHETECH
CORPORATION; BRISTOL MEYERS
SQUIBB CO. f/k/a BRISTOL MEYERS
CO.; THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC.;
COOPER SURGICAL, INC.; SAMIR
SROUJI, M.D.; PLASTIC SURGERY,
P.C.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; and
JANE/JOHN DOE
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of Defendants, Samir
Srouji, M.D., and Plastic Surgery, P.C., in the above referenced
matter.
DENNEHEY, WARNER,
GOGGIN
ALK R, ESQUIRE
Attorney for Defendants
Samir Srouji, M.D., and
Plastic Surgery, P.C.
DATE:
'"1Aft~
:~_~f:tr;'."- .
. ~r1F~'~'.;.-.. <-
I
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER,
COLEMAN & GOGGIN
BY: JOSEPH A. WALKER, ESQUIRE
ATTY. I.D. NO.02417
20 EAST COURT STREET
DOYLESTOWN PA 18901
(215-348-1611
Attorneys for Defendants
Samir Srouji, M.D., and
Plastic Surgery, P.C.
IN THE COURT Oll' COMMON PLEAS
Oll' CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
FAY H. ZIMMERMAN AND JAMES A.
ZIMMERMAN, H/W
v.
NO. 1016 CIVIL 1994
I.
!I
I'
,I
II
'I
I
21 INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC.,
et al.; COX-UPHOFF, DOW CORNING
CORPORATION; DOW CORNING WRIGHT;
SCOTT PAPER; NATURAL Y SURGICAL
SPECIALTIES, INC., AESTHETECH
CORPORATION; BRISTOL MEYERS
SQUIBB CO. f/k/a BRISTOL MEYERS
CO.; THE COOPER COMPANIES. INC.;
COOPER SURGICAL, INC.; SAMIR
SROUJI, M.D.; PLASTIC SURGERY,
P.C.; HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL; and
JANE/JOHN DOE
P RAE C I P E
Defendants, Samir Srouji, M.D., and Plastic Surgery,
P.C., demand a trial by jury in the above-captioned matter.
MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER,
COLEMAN AND GOGGIN
I
I
II
I'
II
II
II
II
I
"
il
,
,
"
!
I,
I'
_____~4 tJ...6-<.
~ ~qE ALKER, ESQUIRE
Attorneys for Defendants,
Samir Srouji, M.D., and Plastic
Surgery, P.C.
DATE: July 7, 1994
.
MARSHALL. DENNEHEY. WARNER.
COLEMAN 0. GOGGIN
COUN..LLO.. AT L... . P.OC:TO.. IN AO.'."L""
a;
-
~~
.. '"
~- '""':J'"
u.l~) c.:.->i:
~.~t,,)~i
\~.~-:I::I
0'- .'f..,.
" -! ,0:\ tn
(';\.."-!'r;
.1 .~.. CG 'Z:-
~l.ij~U.1
.~ ,t.::;tG-
"",
"'''''
o
:s::
....
~
-
-
r-l
.a;
~
. 1;
rl i !
i c ~ c
Zoo -
~Z-\II Z
- -; II: C
~;~L;8~
z is O~MIIl
"'I.. lI:..z
.::a ....z
wI' 0_00
g .U:U.
J ~ ....0Z.
~ ii ~! ~
i = 0 Ii;
!C ~ N ~
:I . >
. 0
; 0
,
o
u
'".-
SHELLER, LUDWIG & BADEY
By: Jamie L. Sheller, Esquire
Identification No. 55722
1528 Walnut Street - Third Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
(215)546-5510
Attorney for Plaintiff
=======================================================================
FAY ZIMMERMAN &
JAMES ZIMMERMAN
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
v.
21' INTERNATIONAL, INC.
No. 1016 CIVIL 1994
.
.
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly reinstate the Complaint in the above-captioned matter
for an additional thirty (30) days.
(
LER, LUDWIG & BADE
~
't,"1A.t. ( .
IE L. SHELLER, ESQUIRE
BY:
..,.,
'"
..,
::>
<<
~c
~'-r.
IU tl ~-> ~I
~.x:t:...r
\.o.o.O~'l
;~ ~~~;~
, ~. 'i.
" l<.r.
I'.: ~
d .. .~
.J:a.
.-f?
0"
an
en
-
::c:
<>-
.....
....'
M
~--ci:\)
-.
Robert S. Forster, Esquire
Attorney 1.0. No. 17899
KRUSEN EVANS & BYRNE
The Curtis Center, Suite 1100
Philadelphle. Pa. 19106
(2151 923.4400
FAY H. ZIMMERMAN and
JAMES E. ZIMMERMAN, w/h
Plaintiffs
v.
THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC.
indlv. and as successors In interest
to Natural Y Surgical Specialties, Inc.
and Aesthetech formerly known as
Coopervision, Inc.
and
AESTHETECH CORPORATION
and
CUI CORPORATION
and
DOW CORNING CORPORATION
and
DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION
and
BRISTOL MEYERS SQUIBB CO., INC.
f/k/a Bristol Meyers Co., Inc.
and
21 INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC.
f/k/a KnoUlnternational Holdings, Inc.
f/k/a Foamex Products, Inc.
f/k/a Scotfoam Corporation
f/k/a General Felt Industries, Inc.
f/k/a Eddy Acquisitions now operating
under the fictitious name of Foamex, a
and
NATURAL Y SURGICAL SPECIALTIES, INC.
and
SAMIR SROUJI, M.D.
and
Attorney for Dow Corning
CorporatIon
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 1016 CIVIL 1994
PLASTIC SURGERY P.C.
and
HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL
and
JANE/JOHN DOE
Defendants
NOTICE OF FILING OF NOTICE OF 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.
Robert S. Forster, Jr., Esq e
Attorney for Dow Corning Corporation
Krusen Evans & Byrne
The Curtis Center
Suite 1100
Philadelphia, Pa. 19106
(215) 923-4400
Dated: frJflC/s
;'.' ..........:.L:'L.
I'
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FAY H. ZIMMERMAN and
JAMES E. ZIMMERMAN, w/h
PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
COURT OF COMMON
Plaintiffs
v.
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 1016 CIVIL 1994
THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC.
Indiv. and as successors In interest
to Natural Y Surgical Specialties, Inc.
and Aesthetech formerly known as
Coopervlslon, Inc.
and
AESTHETECH CORPORATION
and
CUI CORPORATION
and
DOW CORNING CORPORATION
and
DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION
and
BRISTOL MEYERS SQUIBB CO., INC.
f/k/a Bristol Meyers Co., Inc.
and
21 INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC.
f/k/a Knoll International Holdings, Inc.
f/k/a Foamex Products, Inc.
f/k/a Scotfoam Corporation
f/k/a General Felt Industries, Inc.
f/k/a Eddy Acquisitions now operating
under the fictitious name of Foamex, a
and
NATURAL Y SURGICAL SPECIALTIES, INC.
and
SAMIR SROUJI, M.D.
and
PLASTIC SURGERY P.C.
and
HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL
and
JANE/JOHN DOE
.
lICV-95-1285
~~;
f
DEPUTY CLERK
Defendants
JOINT NOTICE OF REMOVAL
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 sUp'port 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 no. 95-20512 (the "DCC Bankruptcy Case").
2. Fay H. Zimmerman and James E. Zimmerman, 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
Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas, and assigned Case No.
1016 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
2
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 1Il the action is not exempt from
removal, and (il) 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
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 filed 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
3
I"
authorized to hear or determine such claims consistent with 28 U,S.C.
! 157(bIl5J1.
8. Copies of process and pleadings in the Civil Action are attached as
Exhibit .. A .. .
KRUSEN, EVANS & BYRNE
BY' .1!..~{?1I.."i"
Attorneys for Dow Corning Corp.
SWEENEY, SHEEHAN & SPENCER, P.C.
By:
Walter S. Jen s, Esquire
Attorneys for The Dow Chemical
Company
Suite 1100 The Curtis Center
601 Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106.3393
(215) 923-4400
1515 Market Street, 19th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
(215) 563-9811
4
r.,....",.~~.,',.:, 'r"",".,.,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FAY H. ZIMMERMAN and
JAMES E. ZIMMERMAN, w/h
Plaintiffs
v.
THE COOPER COMPANIES, INC.
indiv. and as successors in interest
to Natural Y Surgical Specialties, Inc.
and Aesthetech formerly known as
Coopervision, Inc.
and
AESTHETECH CORPORATION
and
CUI CORPORATION
and
DOW CORNING CORPORATION
and
DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION
and
BRISTOL MEYERS SQUIBB CO., INC.
f/k/a Bristol Meyers Co., Inc.
and
21 INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC.
f/k/a Knoll International Holdings, Inc.:
f/k/a Foamex Products, Inc.
f/k/a Scot foam Corporation
f/k/a General Felt Industries, Inc.
f/k/a Eddy Acquisitions now operating
under the fictitious name of Foamex, a
and
NATURAL Y SURGICAL SPECIALTIES, INC.
and
SAMIR SROUJI, M.D.
and
PLASTIC SURGERY P.C.
amd
HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL
and
JANE/JOHN DOE
Defendants
Civil Action No.
I:C.V - qro --, a8S
SERVICE LIST
Jamie L. Sheller, Esquire
John P. Kopesky, Esquire
1528 Walnut Street, 3rd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Fay H. Zimmerman
James B. Zimmerman
Gordon S. Elkins, Esquire
STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG
2600 One Commerce Square
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7098
Cooper Companies
Aesthetech Corp.
Bristol Meyers Squibb Company
Natural Y Surgical Specialties, Inc.
C. James Zeszutek, Esquire
THORPE, REID & ARMSTRONG
One Riverfront Center
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
CUI Corporation
Robert S. Forster, Jr., Esquire
KRUSEN EVANS & BYRNE
The CUrtis Center, Suite 1100
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Dow Corning Corporation
Dow Corning Wright
Robert M. Brittoll, Esquire
POST & SCHELL, P.C.
19th Floor, 1800 JFK Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7480
Scott Paper Company
CScotfoam Corp., Poamax, L.P., International Holdings)
21 International Holdings, Inc.
Samir Srouji, M.D.
3438 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Plastic Surgery P.C.
3438 Trindle Road
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Holy Spirit Hospital
503 North 21st Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
!R
?!E
""
::r
N
;,..
",-
....-
~~i~~::~
{.~ ~~, -~, ~
'-
r .....::::..,..
. , ,
-
-
-
~
..
-' f..
-.~._-, ,""'-''''~'''-~''-''
GALLAGHER, REILLY AND LACHAT, P.C.
BY: THOMAS F. REILLY, ESQUIRE
Attorney I.D. No. 25766
2000 Market Street
Suite 1300
philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
(215) 299-3000
Attorney for Defendant,
Holy Spirit Hospital
v.
HOLY SPIRIT HOSPITAL, et al.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
NO.: 1016 Civil 1994
FAY H. ZIMMERMAN and
JAMES E. ZIMMERMAN, h/w
ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly enter my appearance on behalf of the Defendant, Holy
Spirit Hospital in the above captioned case.
GALLAGHER, REILLY & LACHAT,
rJZ--
P.C.
BY:
THOMAS F. REILLY, ESQUIRE
Attorney for Defendant
Date: "1-l3/t}(P
194018.1
..;.\
...:;> :-
'- a.
i::; (.:
j..:: .. ;:f
lUr? -
C.Y ) ~;
fE~' .::::; ~::J
2;' ;~
~..' .h tl)
LLlL~ c-..; .:~-.;:
.~
u:t.'. :::J h~J
:u..
r-= =) ~-,.
.'
l!.. '0 (3
0 en
."'~'-,....'..
'>,,~f'J ~ fiIItIIm ?t~.; \
WHITE AND WILLIAMS
BY: ALLAN H. STARR, ESQUIRE
NANCY L. SIEGBL, ESQUIRB
IDENTIFICATION NOS.: U4975/40926
One Liberty Place, Suite 18UU
1650 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7301
(215) 864-6219/6223
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT,
Holy Spirit Hospital
FAY H. ZIMMERMAN and
JAMES E. ZIMMERMAN, h/w
COURT OF COMMON PLEASE
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
v.
:
:
HOLY SPIRI~ HOSPITAL, et al.
NO.: 1016 Civil 1994
WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please withdraw the appearance of Allan H. Starr, Esquire of
White and Williams as attorney for Defendant, Holy Spirit Hospital only
in the above matter.
BY:
C({(tfA,lg./ltL,
Allan H. Starr, Esquire
DATE:
'?/t1/N
2UU9045C.WP5
, c>
'\;.r
-,- a.
~ ,.~
;" ,
,
'-:!(~ . ~-;:
(;2~. _' , 'Z
If: t.:-": ".; !i:
~\ .~
.-.. ;-0
l.ll:- N . .
,~'-
~L :=-' : ~7"
".Jla
r :=0, ..;~1C-
-
", .:> :.i
0 v" :.J
!
i
l
J