HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-04308
'-,\
-.
-~
i~
~ I
.':. I
.~
.
..,
.
tIJ
\J
'8'
~
~
r:n
"a
p;
.;-i
;0.
-,;",
>
"
:it;
"'~'O'
~~,~
"l
<
In
.- 'd
,fl\;"
.p,
"'-'.~
""'.,'
;;).-
, .-.
,0
.'
~
~
J
00
<J
~
I
-:t- '
~/
,
\o.e"o.~- : b iP
V'J' j.. .> I "', ;/l
-./e /, - ~ <:..
TRACING TECHNOLOGIES. INC.
675 Silver Spring Road
Hechanicsburg, PA 17055.
Plaintiff
IN TIlE COURT OF CO~lHON PLiAS OF
C\J~IBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 94-4308
CIVIL TERM 19
vs.
S. JAY HIRHANESH, H.D..
1823 Washington Boulevard
Easton. PA 18042
Jury Trial Demanded
RULE 1312-1. The Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators shall be substant~ally
in the following form:
PETIrrON FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS
TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:
ChArles E. Ganley, Esquire
PATTERSON. KIERSZ & GANLEY. P.C. , counsel for the plaintiff/~ in
the above action (or actions), respectfully represents that:
1. The above-captioned action (or actions) is (are) at issue.
2. The claim of the plaintiff in the action is $12,646.35
The counterclaim of the defendant in the action is 9,061.75
The following attorneys are
wise disqualified to sit as
Attorney for the Defendant
~nterested in the case(s) as counselor are other-
Edward H. Harker, Esquire.
arbitrators:
WRERErORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3)
arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted,
Respectfully submit:ed,
,~-~
ORDER OF COURT ~ha;ie; E. Gan1ey,~qUire
AND NOW. t:::J"U/lJ l.. d/..;r " 19~, in consideration of the
!orego1:lg petition. 'ocYl. mgfl(;'l:.III~~ESq., Sft-fJ),ul/ ~"
Esq., and KF.iJFr/P'j 1IU.~hJ. (' ,Esq.. 3re appointed arbitrators in the)
above-captioned action (or actions) as prayed for.
. ,,""!,:.,.\,-,~
.,' ,', ",' . n:'"";
"J7{::~n . 8(~
P. J.
~', . ~.',.
.j.'
" .
\, ~~. \,."
J
i:':..., _:.. ,.j.c.;:::'d
:;.",,--
'ff,
,
^,' ....;,..
,
flLFOomCE
('If Tl'" I r'~" .r Il~.~..,y
. ,., I "', I .J.".
. ,_" ,,\. ,',I
,,'.' ~i f,,>i
.;.,
SG HAY ;!2 rn 313."1
cut.'n,.;'i:l i'_1" ",,.-j f\,,~,l t~)>
PENNS'IL:!NW\.
''''5ee: ~~
\"
_-ir
.'0"......._'
'(3
"
CM-:B 3443
· fl:H .3l?1~L.f
"
,.-:,
..
~ ;-
"
L'
",'
"
>.:\
.
Ie:
).,
i--
.,
o
..
"
"
. 1'- ,
, '-, '. ~'
"'.. -j~
"
, ..
. ~
" .
, I
.
J ~'
"-
.
,
.
"'{!;:::fl":'
'<;--'1i~'j
'" "-,,lIJ
-;~
',n
\
1
.' "
'-'.
.
(
.' ,
, .
.';
-'
.
..~
"-~.,'" .'r;"'," -.-r:'-- .
. ;,.-.
'"""
",
:l';y~:t:.
-
-:~.,;'-,~
,
.,..
, !
......-
PAlTERS91'IJtISlERSZ. P.C.
AnORf'lM AT LAW
239-8 EAST MA.!f'lITR2ET
WAYNfSBORO. PA n:zn
-
IN TUB COURT or COMMON PLBAS or
CUMBBRLAlfI) COUNTY, PBHH8YLVlUfIA
TRACING TBCHHOLOGIB8, INC.
675 silver Spring Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055,
Plaintiff
v.
Civil Action - Law
No. 14- 436 ~ {}M-J.-J Vt~
8. JAY HIRMANB8U, H.D.
1823 Washington Boulevard
Easton, PA 18042
Defendant
.
.
PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS
TO: Lawrence E. Welker, prothonotary:
Please issue a Writ of Summons against the above-named
Defendant.
PATTERSON & KIERSZ, P.C.
Date: July 29, 1994
By _
arles E. Ganle , Esqu re
Attorney No. 518 4
239-B East Main Street
Waynesboro, PA 17268-1681
(717) 762-3170
Attorneys for Plaintiff
.--
a, Q
. V"J
~'0 ~
'"
A
~ ~ \)-.
~ ""
I' - "'"
rf)
~ ~~\i) 'It-
S
--
~
>-
",>-
.......
",,~:l':
un:;)""
i&:~8;;;
11.:Z: ...
Ol--~:.
. ,... ~_J
,OJ- '~...:>.
I,,~~(J)
, :I...;-::C
"~/~:i:
. _r.tt:'..;
_~..:c. IL.
~::>
df.."1
~
~
N
-
g
..,.
---
1"".
-
-""
-~
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland
Tracing Technologies, Inc.
675 Silver Srping Road
Mechanicsburg PA 17055
YL
Court oC Commoll PI_
No. __m_~~_:~_~9_~_E~~~}.__:_~:~__m 19____
III _______<:~ ~ ~L~:!!?_~__: _.~~~___________.
s. Jay Hirmanesh, H.D.
lB23 Washington Boulevarde
Easton PA 1B042
1:0 ____~:__~!:~__~~_~~_~~_':~~~__~:_~:_:___.___.
You are h....by notifi.d that
Tracing Technologies, Inc.
.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------.
the Plaintirr has commenced an action in __~~'!,1~..?.~;'__:___~_~~_~~__~~~!:.<<??__::___~!!.~___m_____.__
against you which you a... requi...d to deC.nd or a deCault judgm.nt may be ente...d against you,
(SEAL)
August 1, 94
Ilate ___________.__________________ 19____
.._._-"-'''.,-''-~~;;<----~._._-----_.-
By -}~--/Df;;PA"h~J---_--
94-430B Civil Term
No. _____________________ 19___
------------------------------------
Tracing Technologies, Inc.
w.
S. Jay Mirmanesh, M.D.
Summons in
Civil Action - Law
Pkn~ & ~, P.C.
By: OIarles E. Ganl.ey, Esq.
239-B E. Main St.
~ PA 1726B-1681
(717) 762-3170
--------------~~~--------------
Ii
.,
,
t
1
.,
.
~
_d<' .
. "V .-'-;'?
'. .Aifi'.;"Miii
,
..i
"
.
_.
.. .,
SHERIFF'S RETURN
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
In the Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvnaia
No. 94-430B Civil Term
Summons in Civil Action Law
Tracing Technologies, Inc.
VS
S. Jay Mirmanesh, M.D.
R. THOMAS KLINE, Sheriff, who being duly sworn according to law,
says, that he made diligent search and inquiry for the within named
defendant, to wit: S. Jay Mirmanesh, M.D.
but was unable to locate
him
in his bailiwick. He therefore
deputized the sheriff of Northampton
County, Pennsylvania,
to serve the within
Summons in Civil Action Law
On August 29. 1994
, this office was in receipt of
the attached return from
Northampton
County, Pennsylvania.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing
Out of County
Surcharge
Northampton County
this
It_,
I -
day of
'U! Z.r~
35.00 A n~;'~MAS KLINE, Sheriff
56.00 Pd. by tty. l' ~.
to bet!b-rlP-,t'lJ I
1
__J~it-~~t.c.-,
,
-
Sworn and subscribed
19 '1'/ ,A.D.
(~1L,--" C. 71ldCL,- ,~t'i .
Prothonotary
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
COUNTY or NORTDJ\IIPTllN
SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT
aBTUItN OI'8B1\\'1~
EASTON, PENNSYLVANIA 18042-7483
Case /I: C1 '1- '13 0 ~
TYPB OF SIRVICE:
Amended Complaint
Attachment Execution and Interrogatories
Attachment Execution, Interrogatories, Notice, Major Exemptions , Claim for Exemptions
Citation, preliminary Order and Petition
Compleint Against Additional Defendant
Complaint Joining Additional Defendant
Complaint in civil Action.
I ) Ejectment I
I ) Equity [
I ) Declaratory Judgement [
I ) Mandamus (
I J other.
I ] Complaint in Divorce
I ] Involuntary Terminetion of Parental Rights, etc.
I ] Joinder Complaint
I ] Mechanio's Lien
I ] Notice, Pro Se Preliminary Order , Petition for Temporary Order-Protection from Abuse
I ] Order of Court and Complaint for Custody
I ] Praecipe for and Writ of Revival
I ] Reissued Writ of Summono
I ] Subpoena
I 1 Summons in civil Action
I vNrit to Join /
IV1 Writ of. I~Summons
( ) Summons - Equity
[ ) Possession
Mortgage Foreclosure
Quiet Title
Reinstated
and Summons
Execution in Personal Property
Execution in Real Estate
6.
( ) Other.
Name of Individual:
Individually and ~rading As:
Date: ~ ._.}."'J
Loc.tion of servi e: 3
[v{ Borough of [] city of []
seJved in the following manner:
[~ Defendsnt personally served
[ ] Adult family member with whom said defendant resides. Relationship is
[ ] Adult in charge of defendant's residence.
[ I Manager/Clerk of place of lodging in which defendant resides.
I ) Agent or person in charge of defendant's office or usual place of business.
I ) and officer of said defendant company.
( ) Other.
[ J Not Found (complete "Unable to Locate" sect10n below)
Unable to locate:
hours
..$,
)?7..v.A1'\n/>" 11 A J,
...
Yn, /),
8/+1-
IS:'s 0
_ '&1;"( .
1..1 ) :J..te--J
Northampton county, penn.ylvenia
Coeplltlon of tM_ ...,t1<.ln II ..r,'htor~ ."J .... L. ,,-'t'~'~"1 ,-, ... '.''<0'''' '''-.'. rQ~"j.'
t. 10.......' ,,' tl:'P"l!,.cIlll '0 d.t'1I1hfl\'. r.,14..nC'. II'I,VClr boi.I"....
Cbeek of ttll ..noll Wu.n.t luu I I ,.. I IN,)
.. Che<:II 01 HI' 1<~llh'''r'."n c~'~"IY .,l....t; 1',"1'1 :,,~~ I ! ,..
e. "~Iot IU""fU to jGcI'ld.'."'Hnl'~ I.., h.",., .11'....'
:1'
t. o.t. l 'f....
" on.. TUl.,
l.0&Ul71ae.
l. Dat..n..1
1. t'a~. l 1'1."
I. D.t. l 1'~..'
~. Oat. l 1':....
J. ~.,.. l t,~..,_
J. on. l ':~..,
,. t.hl~"~. "a:l tQ d.I.~'I."t'. _ph)'.,. Dat. l 71_'
G. C~.:k ltlth ....!\nDt)~ f',1 4.1."Jln~'. Or.ntoc'. L1e.lI,. '114 ~I .flJ .4J.... eh.n".'
., tit'.. ~ ': .:0.'
S. o.t.' 'fl..,
.. on. ~ 1a.,
I IY.' I II-<>
1l"'t.4Jr...'
t, Ch&<:~.,J vHIt ..o.t Olt~". to ... if ,j,I.~,_1,~t 1:,. ~~.nl...1 I.Ud,.., .IJ,.."
l. Dot.eh"',l,
ft. C'I...'" 1".1'" '_" ~.,..,.... "..l."j.~.t I
). ....11,... '~""I.j' I I ,.." I : "';
J. II J.'. II... .H.....,___.__.~_
ACCEl',TANCE__OLSER'lr.CE
SO
(- ....../ /. .-L.
ANSWERS.a_-:>a1ll'it<0 .....tU-1>':'O Q'\l) I S-
DKPtft'T fUDUtIl"" \ \ IWlQ!
/'~_~ b~''r1'".-L
/;/
HlIKMII"P or tmMTJINO"I'(* c"fW1NTT
I:~'''U .. ,..~. ........
: r..'.I'"f ''''''It '.I'VI'. "I th. :.1.' "r'~." ., .....tIUIN.." the Ir~no 01 tllu d<>c....nt. 1'11" "'VI:'
~. ."'''I~.J ",. t-o...,a <>, t~.. tu!..1 d.h"J."U'l .".1 1 1I.I.t)' (.nll)' tll.t I .. ....~.""ru.1 t" d~ ....
....."._01.-..'''.....
,:"'.".1 ,._".'..""',,,,'
.....,
,"
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
.--.,
'''''!",.......
;jI""''''''''',,,''''''''''''
,..~~. .
COUNTY or NORTllAllP'1'ON
SH.ERIFF' S
., ..-
DEPARTMENT
aH~q~~n!:l~
EASTON, PBIIIISYLVl\NIA 18042-7483
Cas. # I 9 V - t./ 3 () ~
TYPB OF SBRVICBI
Amended Complaint
Attachment Execution and Interrogatoriea
Attachment Execution, Interrogatoriea, Notice, Hajor Exemptions , Claim for Exemption.
Citation, Preliminary Order and petition
Complaint Against Additional Defendant
Complaint Joining Additional Defendant
Complaint in civil Action.
I I Ejectment [
I J Equity [
I I Declaratory Judgement I
( I Handamus I
( I other.
Complaint in Divorce
Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, etc.
Joinder Complaint
Hechanic's Lien
Notice, Pro Se preliminarr Order , Petition for Temporary Order-Protecti?n from Abu.e
Order of Court and Compla nt for Custody
Praecipe for and Writ of Revival
Reiesued writ of Summons
Subpoene
I J Summone in civil Action
I L'Hrit to Join~
Iv] writ of. l\.o-f Summons
I J Summone - Equity
I I poaaeaaion
Hortgage Forecloeure
Quiet Title
Reinstated
and summons
Execution in Personal Property
Execution in Real Estate
( I Other.
Name of Individual:
Individually and ~rading As:
Date: 1\.-:).",
Looation of 8ervi e:
[vl Borough of [] city of []
Se~ved in the following manner:
[Y1 Defendant pereonally served
( I Adult family member with whom said defendant residee. Relationship is
[ ] Adult in charge of defendant's residence.
[ ] Hanager/Clerk of place of lodging in whi~ dAfAndant resides.
I ] Agent or person in charge of defendant's office or uaual place of business.
I J and officer of said defendant company.
I J Other.
I I Not Found (complete "Unable to Locate" section below)
Unable-to11ooate:
..5,
n~),I'l""''\.I A J,
~
nJ, /),
3~
Time:
I t,-.!:.-o
hours
u)~
Northampton county, pennaylvanl.
)
.-/
/
,-
./ '
-._~--(...
-
-
~OIIpht'on of thh I-.:\lon 11 ..,,4.to,>, In4 ..It boo C~'p:.h-J '.r _II r.t'un. "Il,{ ',,~nJ.'
r<.
t. ....abe, at tl:_rl'lonllldl, to d.(an4ut', uddlftCfI .n4,0. ""1111....
I. Oat. , fl'" J. D,ltl' Tu...
C:h..,kar th,,,nchWnunt U.U I J hi I I II"
to ('II-';:"DI thlllonhurton C'o~nt., ..hon t~t.lllt?
I 11..
! I'""
.. .. DUI , n",
4. DatI l Tae.
t. OU.' TLa..
W~r of Ut"ptl to loclt. It.lln,hllt It hu '"~"'" eJJu..,
1,1I1t..n...
).lIIt,'T1..'
,. IIU. l T1...
Llllt..t...,
"lIlt..TI."
l, IIU.. fl."
,. Ttl.pt>o".eIU rodtlllldlllt'._plo,.,. Olt.lfi...
Q, ('b.d. "'HIl '.""OOT tOJ dt'.n.bnt'l Opeutor'. LlO:.Il'. u.cS U Ill)' 144r... CI'IU"II
'.OI'I'TII..
I I 'f.. I I NO
__MJrl...
D. at_hod with 'ott 01111:. '0 I.' U dl,.ndlnt. 11I1 Chlll,td IIIllh" '''~r...'
I. OUI chlcked.
J. MJun ch"f.l~ I I ,.. I I w"
I, Othtr .U_." t.o lOCI'. d.l.nltln"
J. U )'.1, 11_ .ddu...
r --'"1 J -L I h...b'f e~".pt '.rvH. 01 tl'l.'II,,1l pr'>C.n II O\ltllllM on tll' h."lt DI tl'lU doeLW.Ilt.. TllIl ""'1".
ANSWERS,i-~;<'l..' ,lli.ta,) ~\'1)101l;) 1 S _ y' .......t..J on t.hlU 01 tilt Ulte.j d.'...ds"".' Ind 11'I...t:, ""Ur, 'hi' I" u'houud to d<t ....
.-'"/UKRlPF -.J T ·
:::/7.12.: b~'<L...-'
BRlDtI rP or MORTIINII"rOIII cemr;::,
so
AC.CE1!.TAN.CLQF-SnVICE
......,..............'"0....'
"'"~"" .. ....''"'.III~ ....,
un
".
.1....... ",!t.,..., .....10.
. . --- -- ----- - .
, (}u3' ~1. \9c)~
~ l~y Mirm~npqh M n f\.~~ vCv~
DEFENDANT ~::J..Ig, .~
g )g/~V SERVE UPON: S. Jay Mirmanesh, M.D. ~; . \ ~~~
10"36 L.~E OF WRIT OR COMPLAINT: Summons in Civil Action Law '6\r)lJ ~
~IIbWt LOCATION: 1B23 Washington Blvd., Easton, PA 1B042 \ {j
L~i:-JlT"" " .
I ~,,~ \II"
u..'). ,,/ 'l or'
f?/l ~PECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
.K<J t C
'rfl\l~~ II;}. f' 0
'1 \l~~~ fb.
, I hereby deputize the
execute and make a return
,. .:""
71 ,rrjllJ'1
,IJ;J(!. , I
COUNTY OF NORTHAMPTON v
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
NORTHAMPTON COUNTY COVERNMENT CENTEI
SEVENTH AND WASHINGTON STlEITS
EASTON, PfNNSYLVANIA 1804J
Phone (JIS) 559-3084
fAX (Z15) 559-17.5
C_;'j
"
."
ALFRED C, DIOMEDO
Sheriff
ORDER FOR SERVICE REQUEST
1. All information from the attorney must be filled-in before service can be made.
2. Prepare a separate Order for Service form for each defendant to be served by the Sheriff.
3. When completing "location" for service, be certain to have a valid addreu or directions.
Do not use Post Office Boxss or R,D. addresses. Provide the township, if applicable.
4. When a Deputy Sheritf levys or attaches property, he or she will leave the property
without a watchman snd in custody whomever is found in poseeeeion, after notifying the
pereon the property ie under a Sheriff'e levy. The Sheriff or Deputy is not liable in
any way for protecting property before the Sheriff's Sale.
S. Personal service will only be executed upon request, othsrwise ssrvice will be executed
in accordance with Rule 402 and Title 231, Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedures.
A'l"'l"ORNIY NAKE AND ADDRESS I
Charles Ganlev
A'1"l'CIRHEY I.D. HUKBERz
PRt~prRon & KiPTR7.. P.C.
TELEPHONE NUMBER' 1717 ) 7/i7-1170
?39R F.. M~in Str~~t
AIIlUHT ENCLOSED, S 35 . 00
W~yn~Rhnrn. PA 17?/iR
~n, August 02. 1994
DO<:I<ET N\JHIlER, 94-430B Civil Term
SHERIFF'S USE ONLY:
LAST DAY FOR SERVICE
Tr~~ing T~~hnnlngipq
PLAINTIFF
Tnt"".
VB.
FOR SHERIFF'S USE ONLY
Sheriff of Northampton
on the above and attached action
SERVICE:HAR92UOK
County, to
according to law.
rJJ6~~1~~--e
SHERIFF
.'
.. .-
... .. .
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland
oJ ~ ..
Dl:~''il,
OJ: '" " ,
..A. .
v.... \
&&.I"'~
Dl: 0 ,-
~~:E >- ..
oj! III ,
.."j~ ~'
;: ~ !ll -4-!
::l ~ III Vl'
-'- ...........! '
t-ii-:= "
:51 '
.
Tracing Technologies, Inc.
675 Silver srping Road
MechBnicsburg PA 17055
enurl 01 G~1I10l011 Ple:u
vs.
No.
94-430B civil Term
19____
~-_._---_._----------_.__._----_.----
S. Jay Mirmanesh, M.D.
lB23 Washing~on Boulevurde
Easton PA 18042
Civil Action - Law
III _____________________________________________
1'0 _ __ _~: _ _~ ~X _ _~~.:T_'!. ~_':~1:! _ !~:_I?: _: _ _ _n___
You are hereby notified lbal
Tracing Technologies, Inc.
.-------------------------------------------.----.------------------------------------------------
lbe Plaintirr h~s <ommeneed an a<tion in __~~~~l:':CJ_~!'__:__::_~~_~~__~5:~!__~~_:___~_~~______________
againsl you ...hi<h you are required to dele"d or a delaull judgm<nl m,y be enlered aga.in'l you,
(SEAL)
August 1, 94
Oale ______________________________ 19____
Lawrence E. Welker
.------------.-----P~i[-~~~Yt;y------------------
\. j.
\I)' -----'~:':=!::..--,t.:~----!lJ\:j..L~':-l. ._._n__
I Depuly .
I . .
'f
I
Cl
-
~ I
:l),
E-oI
,
.-II
,,.q
.> .
'.-i'
ul
cof
o.
Ml
""I
':'1
"'.
~
.. .~. ,.
, .
I
".i I
.~ I
\7 1
~\ I
\Jl'l 1
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
,
I
,
,
,
,
I
I
,
,
OFFI'.~~
PO'"
1..1
Auc Z
PI:::
U
I:
H
III
:l)
'.-i
C1
o
.-I
o
I:
.a
U
:l)
E-o
C1
I:
'.-i'
U
:0
I-<
E-o
"....'~ -. ~.
--
. ,: :':'~.r."
7 11'11:;\ .~:,
~
. .
';:/",
Cl
::;:
.a
III
:l)
I:
:0
e
I-<
'.-i
::;:
>.
10
..,
Ul
I
I
I
I
,
,
I
I
I
I
,
,
,
,
,
I
I
I
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
I
,
I
,
1
:
,
.a
~
~
c:IJ
,
,
,
,
I
:<1
101
0-1,
,
I I
,
1:'
01
'.-i I
.....1
u'
..::
I
.-I'
.rot I
>1
'.-i 1
U,
,
I
,
,
.
Z ~
, \D
~!~~
~c.i~~~
ij:~~
~..~i~
Pi ~ ,.,~
,
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
I
,
,
,
,
,
!~
'S
,~
I...:
,
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
I
I
,
,
,
I
:..
....
...1
in
;j
,',\
~
.',
;,',
'.;,
ro-
~..'
(t,
,=
_.
t.'
':
..f:
r
. "
:;c
..
r..,:
,1'
....~
.::
,,'
",i
.."
~
I:::J
~
!II
e
;J
'"
!Cr:
i!!...
~n:')...
~~8;,p
~~a~
.o:e~
t.;l't>:j.,.
~f1..Qo;~
-""..,.3r
""';::(Q"-J
t-....~'"
...'"
ac.>
.
\
PA1TERSO~ f, KII;RSZ. P.C.
.
AnORNEYS AT lAW
2J91JtA5T M^If'~5'Rf:ll
WAyI"tLSOORO,I'A 17268
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
TRACING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
675 Silver spring Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055,
Plaintiff
vs.
civil Action - Law
No. 94 - 4308 civil Term
S. JAY MIRMANESH, M.D.,
1823 Washington Boulevard
Easton, PA 18042
: Jury Trial Demanded
NOTICE
You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against
the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action
within twenty (20) days after this complaint and notice are
served, by entering a written appearance personally or by
attorney and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or
objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned
that if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a
judgment may be entered against you by the Court without further
notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other
claims or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may also lose
money or property or other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU
DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE
OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Lawyer Referral Service
Court Administrator
4th Floor, Cumberland County Courthouse
Carlisle, PA 17013
Telephone: (717) 240-6200
PATTERSON & KIERSZ, P.C.
. ~ , . ./
By ~..< -".:. c ;
Charles E. Ganley, Esquire
Attorney No. 51844
239-B East Main street
Waynesboro, PA 17268
(717) 762-3170
('
"~~0"'1
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
TRACING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
675 Silver Spring Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055,
Plaintiff
vs.
civil Action - Law
. No. 94 - 430B Civil Term
S. JAY MIRMANESH, M.D.,
1B23 Washington Boulevard
Easton, PA 18042
: Jury Trial Demanded
COMPLAINT
NOW comes the Plaintiff, Tracing Technologies, Inc., by and
through it's attorneys, Charles E. Ganley, Esquire and Patterson
& Kiersz, P.c., and states the following cause of action against
the Defendant:
1.
Plaintiff, Tracing Technologies, Inc., is a Pennsylvania
Corporation engaged in, inter alia, the providing of medical ser-
vices and is duly authorized to conduct business in the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania, with its principal place of business
located at 675 Silver Spring Road, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055.
2.
Defendant, S. Jay Mirmanesh, M.D., is a sui juris adult
individual with a last known residence of 1823 Washington
Boulevard, Easton, PA 1B042.
3.
The instant action was initially brought pursuant to a Writ
of Summons filed in Civil Action 94 - 4308 and issued on August
12, 1994. A copy of said Praecipe for Writ of Summons is labeled
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
4.
The Writ of Summons in the instant action was served by the
Sheriff's Department of Easton, Pennsylvania, County of Northamp-
ton, on August 23, 1994 by personal service upon the Defendant at
1823 Washington Boulevard, Easton, Pennsylvania 18042. A copy of
the Sheriff's Return for Deputized service from the Cumberland
County Sheriff's Office and the Sheriff's Department for the
County of Northampton are labeled Exhibit "B" attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
5.
On or about July, 1993, the Plaintiff entered into an
express oral contract with the Defendant, wherein the Plaintiff
agreed to provide medical services on behalf of the Defendant and
for third party patients, in exchange for the Defendant's promise
to pay the Plaintiff 70% for all medical services, including
pneumograms, with the Defendant receiving the remaining 30% of
said payment from third party carriers.
6.
At various times between August 9, 1993 and June 20, 1994,
the Plaintiff provided said services. ~ copy of Plaintiff's
accounts receivables as of September 12, 1994, marked Exhibit "c"
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
7.
Pursuant to said Agreement, Defendant was to provide payment
9.
and a copy of the Explanation of Benefits to the Plaintiff upon
Defendant's receipt of the same.
8.
All materials and services were furnished by the plaintiff
at the relevant times between the period of August 9, 1993 and
June 20, 1994.
Plaintiff has provided the Defendant with a written itemiza-
tion of work performed and amounts outstanding, which reflects an
outstanding balance to date of $12,646.35.
10.
Plaintiff has made repeated demands for payment upon
Defendant, however, the Defendant has, without cause, refused
and/or failed to pay any of the amount outstanding on this
account.
11.
Defendant's account reflects an outstanding amount of
$12,646.35 as of the date of this Complaint.
12.
Plaintiff's fees for services and materials furnished are
reasonable.
13.
Defendant has never challenged the reasonableness of said
costs nor provided any explanation for the failure to pay said
amount when owing.
14.
Defendant's failure to pay on this Contract constitutes a
material breach thereof.
15.
As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's material
breach, the Plaintiff has been damaged in the amount of
$12,646.35 plus court costs and interest from the date of filing
the Complaint.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that a judgment
be entered its favor and against the Defendant in the amount of
$12,646.35 plus interest and costs.
Respectfully submitted,
PATTERSON & KIERSZ, P.C.
.' .")-' ::/-<,.,.- :
.'/_-f- /-/ I
ChariesE. Ganley, Esquire
Attorney No. 51844
239-8 East Main Street
Waynesboro, PA 17268
(717) 762-3170
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
VBRII'ICATIOH
I, the undersigned, verify that I am an officer of the
plaintiff, Tracing Technologies, Inc., and that I am authorized
to make the following verification. I verify that the facts in
the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of
knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false state-
ments herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa, C.S.
Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to authorities.
Date: :;J./;S-/q~
liWJc.. C 1J1a/VI;t.;.11 ..1JtHJ~
Teresa C. Marriott-Gardner
President
Exhibit "A"
IN THB COUl\'t" OJ' COHHOH PLBAS OJ'
CUMBBRLAND COUNTY, PBNNSYLVANIA
TRACING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
675 Silver Spring Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055,
plaintiff
v.
S. JAY MIRMAHESH, M.D.
1823 Washington Boulevard
Easton, PA 18042
Defendant
Civil Action - Law
No.
PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS
,.
IF'
\S~>"~~'!" .
,,-,"l::-,
U~p_
TO: Lawrence E. Welker, prothonotary:
Please issue a writ of Summons against the above-named
Defendant.
Date: July 29, 1994
PATTERSON & KIERSZ, P.C.
By
Charles E. Ganley, Esquire
Attorney No. 51844
239-B East Main Street
Waynesboro, PA 17268-1681
(717) 762-3170
Attorneys for Plaintiff
,..
Exhibit "B"
1.
COUNTY or NORTIlAKPTON
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT
...
EASTON, PENNSYLVANIA 18042-7.83
RB'UlUf. ~"8!SRVICII
case #: C1 V - '/3 0 ~
TYPE 01' SERVICE I
I I Amended Compleint
I I Attechment Execution and Interrogatories
I I Attachment Execution, Interrogatories, Notice, HAjor Exemptione , Claim for Exemptions
I I Citation, PreliminAry Order And petition
I I ComplAint AgAinst Additional DefendAnt
I ) complAint Joining Additional Defendant
I I Compleint in civil Action.
I I Ejectment
[ I Equity
I ) DeclAratory Judgement
I I HandlUllue
I ) other.
complaint in Divorce
InvoluntAry Termination of PArental Rights, etc.
Joinder complaint
Hechanic 's Lien
Notice, Pro Se Preliminary Ordar , Pat it ion for Temporary Order-Protection from Abuae
Order of Court and Complaint for Custody
Praecipe for And writ of Revival
Reiaeued Writ of Summone
SubpoenA
I I Summone in civil Action
I vwrit to Join ."
[V1 Writ of. l~summone
I ] Summons - Equity
[ I possession
Mortgage Foreclosure
Quiet Title
Reinstated
and Summons
Execution in Personal Property
Execution in Real EetAte
2.
[ I Other.
Name ot Individual:
Individually and Trading As:
Date: ~I.+"'>
Lo~tion of servibe:
[~ Borough of [] city of []
se~ved in the following manner:
Ivf Defendant personally served
I I Adult family member with whom said defendant resides. Relationship is
[ ] Adult in charge of defendant's residence.
I I Hanager/Clerk of plAce of lodging in which defendant resides.
I ] Agent or person in chArge of defendant's office or ueuAl plAce of business.
I I and officer of said defendsnt company.
[ ] other.
I I Not Found (complete .Unable to Locate" sectlon below)
Unable to locate:
hours
s
~..Jn-\ft.....,,,,.8 .A j,
-'
)?J, /),
8~-
3.
4.
I!:>~-CJ
t-t~,
u ) ~.P~
s.
Northampton county, ,.nn.ylvania
6.
c:_,hUa.. or 1111, ..eu... it ..r..tnny tft4 .~H I" ~~.~:'~'1 ht .1l ""~I'" .,..~~ "".~J..
C, M\loUt' or '.t.pll~u <:Ill. u d.I.~:tut.. ,nld..ca _fIlI/or IN.u,..,,
ell_Ill or tlla h"ell tlunllt litU I I '" I 1 IU
CIINIIl or UI 1l0ltllupt:'1I CO\lllty ru.~... i!\,uu ~..~~ I I '.t
11I_1.1 ."..ple U locau ..f.....ut at tnt ,."..... .ur_...
\. I)I~' . 'fl."
J. 0."lTlatll
: ,,~
J. Ol~' . "...
., On.l'~"
'.o.,.'Ta"
" ~I~' . T'."
I. 01"&'l."
,. :O.t..T...,
,. ,.1_S"olI"_ cd1 to ll.hlldl"t.. "'~I)'UI DIU' Tl.el'
G. CII..-:~ ,~~" "l\1l001' lor lloroll,fnl" o,.utor" Lu.llu ,Ad 1111I)' '~I'" '''''''-1''
s. on.. T~"
I. :.~. . ':"a"
t,on.'TUl"
&. ,.~. . TlSO'
11_.........
II'" I I'"
ell....ad wUIl '"' aIU.. ,. "' U d.hp.~,," hi :/11",., ;'~"!l.. 144uII'
~ Ott.lr I~".ptl t. loll..to daf...:h!:':-.
I. on. doch" ,
" A.l.I;... :~.qu~ I I ,.. , 1"1
S. II ,....... .114....'
ACC.EP..'rANCE OF SERVICE
so
r ,.,.., I' ~ 1111110, ':..F~ 'IrOll... UlI I.,1l pr__.... ~..Uu""'" ""lr.",.f ,,'U ""__"1. tIIu ..~.,.
ANSWERS.w~W '".!Q.-1,':'O Q1Z1"1 5 _ y' un"" '" .."" of'" ,,,,., ........"..." I ....., .....Ir ,".. I u ......".."" "
t8PO'l'T SIDIJUP1' IT BADGIl - -'-"-;;-;'-;,:"".-., ,..''''''"1 .".. ....r'..... ...,._un .:r.'
;?~ C/~~
smau rr or MORnlN(lP'f"ON ~n
.,:a...... ...at
".
".
.--.--.-----
",...01" "t.t
'1.'''.' ,. a.1'i' ....10.
Exhibit "e"
......
.
/
Traelng TechnalaglU, Inc,
Aged reeelvabl"
s.ptember 12, 1994
......................................................................................................................
.e~;;,;;;;;i~m., Contact B,lanc. 0 - 30 31 .80 61 . 90 OVer 90 dayl Lut paym.nt
.. .................................................................................................................
-EASHij"'E;;'to"~ Hospital N.onatology 12,e45.35 0,00 0,00 0,00 12,6-46,35 6120194
Urnlt 5,000,00 0,00% 0,00% O,OO',i 100,00% 0,00
21S.25Q.4474 (OVer credl111mlt)
I Invole" Olta Ou.OIte p,O,' Amount Paid Belencl A9'
o Oheck' Oeta Chick Amount Non AIR Amt Ol$Caunt AIR Amount
. ......... ......... ......... .......................................................................
I 3985 618193 918193 595,00 .595,00 0,00 399
I 3965U 8Ill/93 9/8193 .257,50 257,50 0,00 399
I 3993 6/17/93 9118193 455,00 0,00 455,00 391
I 4028 919/93 1()/9fg3 122.00 .122,00 0,00 368
I 4034 9J20193 10120193 455,00 -455,00 0,00 357
I 4035 9/21/93 10/21/93 455,00 -455,00 0,00 358
I 4059 1017/93 11/8/93 595,00 0,00 595,00 340
I 4082 1018/93 l1n/93 455,00 .99.75 355.25 339
I 4103 1114/93 1214/93 455,00 0455,00 0,00 312
I 4111 1111519312115193 595,00 .595,00 0,00 301
I 4128 11129/93 12129193 455,00 .99,75 355,25 287
I 4152A 12/9193 1181D4 455,00 0,00 455,00 277
I 4153 12/9/93 118194 455,00 0,00 455,00 217
I 4154 12110193 119194 455,00 0,00 455,00 276
I 4165 12113193 1/12/94 455,00 -81,60 393,40 273
I 4157 12130193 1129/94 455,00 0,00 455,00 258
I 4175 211/94 313194 455,00 -81.60 3;3,40 223
I 128 215/94 3n194 556,00 0,00 565,00 219
I 129 2ISI94 3n194 656,00 0,00 655,00 219
I 130 2151i4 3n/94 455,00 0,00 465,00 219
I 147 2117/94 3119194 455,00 0,00 465,00 207
I 148 2/17/94 3119194 455,00 0,00 455,00 207
I 155 2125/94 3127194 455,00 0,00 455,00 199
I 187 2128194 3130194 455,00 0,00 455,00 198
I 168 2128/94 3130194 465,00 0,00 455,00 196
C 022894 2128194 0,00 0,00 -337,50 -337,50
I 171 314/94 413194 455,00 .22,40 432,60 192
C 200 3141114 .810,25 0,00 0,00 -810,25
C 209 3/9194 .391.25 0,00 0,00 .391.25
I 226 3/9/94 418194 .363,00 363,00 0,00 187
C 030994 3/9/94 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00
I 180 3/14/94 4113/94 455,00 0,00 455,00 182
I 187 3/24/94 4/23194 605,00 0,00 605,00 172
I 203 3131/94 4130/94 455,00 438,55 18,45 185
I 207 3/3111l4 4130/94 458,50 -458,50 0,00 165
I 208 3/31194 4130/94 455.00 0,00 455.00 165
I 209 3131194 4130194 455.00 0,00 455,00 185
I 242 4/14/94 5114/94 455,00 0,00 455,00 161
I 260 4/14/94 5114/94 455,00 0,00 455,00 151
C 4090 4/25/94 -642,60 0,00 -74,40 -717.00
I 290 5/11/94 6110194 455,00 0,00 455,00 124
~ ~~~8 511 1/94 6110194 455,00 0,00 455,00 124
C 4 6/20/94 -1,042,65 0,00 0,00 .1,042,65
,88 6120194 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
.
Tracing TechnologlH, no,
Aged Illcllivables
September 12, 1994
CuatomarNamel Contact
Balance
...................................................................................................................................
Grand Total
12,645,35
31.50
0,00
0.00%
51 . 90
0,00
0,00%
Over 90 daY' Latl Payment
12,546.35
100,00%
--;-~
~"ATLAW
an B fAIr MAlf'llrMt:tT
WAYhUnONO. PA l1aGI
....
-
PATTERSON & K1ERSZ, P.C.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 9TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
TRACING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
675 Silver sprinq Road
Mechanicsburq, PA 17055,
Plaintiff
vs.
Civil Action - Law
No. 94 - 4308 Civil Term
s. JAY MIRMANESH, M.D.,
1823 Washinqton Boulevard
Easton, PA 18042
Jury Trial Demanded
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, Charles E. Ganley, attorney for Plaintiff, do hereby cer-
tify that on February 24, 1995, I caused to be served a true copy
of the foreqoinq Complaint by placinq said Complaint in the
united states Mail, First Class, postaqe prepaid, addressed to
the followinq persons and/or orqanizations:
Ernest L. Alvino, Jr., Esquire
HOFFMAN, DIMUZIO & HOFFMAN
25-35 Hunter street
Woodbury, NJ 08096-7007
S. Jay Mirmanesh, M.D.
1823 Washinqton Boulevard
Easton, PA 18042
PATTERSON & KIERSZ, P.C.
Date: February 28, 1995
.' ~ ~;
"'" /'
Carles E. Gan ey, Esq.
Attorney No. 844
239-B East Main street
Waynesboro, PA 17268
(717) 762-3170
Attorney for Plaintiff
f
I
(
(
f
(
. ""-"-'''''''''\'''t~1<'''''~~~.1~''i;;ff '1T
"','.-
,''t',,,.
.k"
;"
HU Z 122,. PH '95
.', t
,
1
, FllEO'OFf'!OE
OF THE rllOT"ONOTA~Y
CUMBERLAND COUIITY
, PENNSYLVANIA
',"
".,'
t'
.,,'
)'
,;,;.
;,,-:
,",..
,,"J
'-;',}
-:'
"",'
;','
",
,
, . ....,!"~.;...io:~.,,-"~.,:th."'"j~$~-,~it'~'itr
I I "
. ' 1
,\
\,
.
" ".
,'"-
.
"
.'
.
.
'-
~
....,
en ,- .'
- "
,',
x: -"1; .,
0_
," .....''?
;;
N
"
t..n
'" c'
....
-..
rr:
w
:.:
rr:
<
J: ...
~ .,..;
. f II
~ t; . .:.
~g~~
<1=."1:
~ <0( . u
c 0
w
'l; ...
~!~
,
, '.
.
,
.
\
, .
/,
THAC J NO TECIlNOLOlll ~:S,
INC. .
IN TIlIi I 'Ol1I/T of cmlMoN PLI';AS O~'
CUMB~HLANU COUNTY, PIiNNSYLVANIA
Pll\intiff
VS.
Civil Action - Ll\w
No, ~4-t3UH Civil T~rm
S. JAY M1HMANESIl, M.D.
De fend'Hll
Jur\' I'rinl lI"lnllnded
No'rICK 'rOPL/!:!\1>
TO: Trl\cin~ Technolo~ies. Inc,
C/O Charles E. Ganlev, ES<lui 1'1'
PATTERSON ~ KI~I/SZ, P.C.
239-B East Main Street
Wavnesboro. PA 17268-1681
You are hereby notified to file a written response
to the enclosed Answer, New Matter. and Counter-Claim
within twentv (201 davs from service hereof or a
jud~ment may be entered
,.".~
ev for the Defendant
One "est lIi2h Street
CarlisII', PA 17013
(7171243-108:1
Supreme Court 10 06362
Date: t.::;_ c- 9')-
I'HA': J No; Tl':CIINUL'"; I to:S, IN":
675 Silver Spring Hood
Mechanicsburg. PA 11U65
Plaint i \'t':
IN 111)0; ,'Uti lIT 1'1' l't'~tNUN f'Lb\S UII
1.'1.I~IIlEHLANll CUlJNTI', I'I':NNS\'I,VANIA
Vs.
Civil Action - Low
No. H4-43UM Civil Term
S. JAY MIHMANESII. M,ll,
1M2:J Washin~ton Blvd.
Easton. PA IHU42
De fennan t :
Jurv Trial Demanned
ANSW1o:It
NEW MATTER ,and,CQUNTEltCLAI M
NOW COMES. the above captioned Defendant, bv his
attornev, Edward W, Harker. and answers the Plaintiff's
Complaint as follows:
I. Admitted in part I Denied in port. Plaintiff's
name. address and corporate authority are admitted.
It is
denied that Plaintiff provides "medical services" and
furthl'r dl'nil'd that Plaintiff is dulv lluthori7.l'd to
providl' such sl'rvicl's,
Dl'fl'ndant bl'lievl's thot at thl'
times rl'levant to thl' lllll'~l'd causl' of action Plaintiff
was not proPl'rlv Qual it'il'd or certified to PI'ovide those
services which Werl' the sub,iect 01' the agreement With
Defendant.
2. Admittpd, I1p!,padants current placl' 01' residence
is 3 Woodbrook Hoad, Voorhees, New Jersev and Defendant
maintains a phvsician's office at 4UUI-D Greentrel'
Executive Campus, Lincoln Drive I. Iloute 73. ~larlton. N,J.
:J, Admitted,
4, ArtmlLled,
5.
Plaintiff and U~fendant enter~d into an
Denied,
oral a"reem~nt on or about Julv lY93. upon the terms set
forth herein In para"raph 1H as new matter.
6, Denied. Defendant was informed bv a
representative or emplovee of Plaintiff that Plaintiff did
not perform the testin" servic~s as contracted but had
said teatin" performed bv third narti~s with whom the
Defendant had no relationship or contacts. The serVlces
performed were not consistent with PlaintIff's ohligation
under the parties a"reement.
In particular. Plaintiff
failed to provide home monitoring services as agreed and
represented,
The said Exhibit C is not a customarv
invoice and Defendant has no knowledgp of the manner in
which Bald document was prepared, or the basis of the data
therein as a result whereof Defendant demands proof of all
accounts. alle"ed services and sums claimed due at trial.
7, Denied. The a"reement between the parties was as
set forth in para"raph IH herein as new matter, At no
time did Defendant a"ree to provide copies of natients
insurance pavment explanations to Plaintiff,
H, Denied. Defendant incornorates his resnonse to
para"ranhs 6 and 7 herein,
Y.
Denied,
Defendant denies that the alLe"ed written
documentation is accnrate: denies that the services were
in accordance with the contract: and denies that the
alle"ed slim is due and owin",
all such claims nt tr'ial,
Defendant demands nroof of
1 II ,
Oenied.
Plaintiff hAM mAdp dpmAnd" for paVml"ntM:
howE'ver SAid deml\nd.. Wl'rt> "nd ArE' contrllrv to th.. Pllrl1(!"
a~reement nnd IInfollllltl."'1. lIE'fE'ndAnt hns diRPlltl'd
Plaintiff's demands nnd advisl'd Plnintiff of his dispute
both directly nnd throllllh cOlln"I."J,
11. Ilenied.
parnllrallhs 5, Ii,
Ill."fl."ndant incorporates his rl."sponsl' to
7, \I. And Ill, ThE' alJE'II1."d sum is not dill"
and owinll IInder the contract bE'tween the parties.
12. Denied. The allreement did not provide that
Plaintiff was to receive a "reasonable fee".
Plaintiff'
allreed to nCCE'pt a fee I."qllaJ to 7ll% of thl." third party
payment actuallv recE'ivl."d and slIch sums have in fact been
paid over to Plnintiff previollslv, Thl." Plnintiff's
charlll."s are not rl."asonable and exceed thl." slims nuthorized
for reimbursement bv MI."dicnid lind/or privatI." InslIl'ers.
13. Admitted in pnrt / Ol."nil."d in pnrt.
()I."fendnnt hns
not previously challenlled the "rensonnbleness" of
Plaintiff"s cost.. because the allreement did not cnl1 for
payment of a rensonable fee hilt onlv n share of third
party payments, To the extent that Plaintiff's costs
exceed such pnvments Ilefendant allelles that PlAintiff's
costs were IInreason"hle and further that payment of slIch
overcharlles were not contemplated bv the parties
allreement,
14, Oenied, This alleaAtioll iR A conclllsion of law,
11\' wav of further lln"WE'r lIl'fl'IHtant IIllellE''' thllt h,.
faithf'1I11v Pl"I'forml"d th" ,'nnt 1'1I('t hilt thAt 1'llIlnl-iff '"
s~~I(inll SUmB over I\nd I\hov~ thoBe r~qu ired bv the
allr~~m~nt.
16. Oeni~d. O~f~ndl\nt believes Plaintiff has r~ceived
the pavments to which it is entitled under the parties
allreement.
WIIEREFO/lE. Defendant !'equest.s that Plaintiff's Rction
be dismissed: that judllment be entered in favor of
Defendant: and that Def~ndl\nt. be I\warded reasonable
counsel rees and costs of litillation.
NEW MATTER
16. On O!' about Julv. 1993. Plaintiff. bv its
President. allent and employee Theresa C, Marriot - Gardner
contacted Defendant at his then place of employment.
Easton Hospital. and solicited Defendant 1'01' testinll
referrals.
17. Plaintiff's President represented to Defendant
that Plaintiff was a "full service" testinll facility
certified to perform pn~umollram tests Rnd to rel\d Rnd
score the test results. Rnd provide home monito!'inll. if
needed, to patients,
11:1. Plaintiff fUI'the!' 1'~pr"R"nted I hilI it- WIlS th"
custom of the industry and Plaintiff's exp"rienc" that
claims 1'01' t"stinll IInd jnt"I'p!',,1 nt ion hp s'lbm. 11('d und,,!' 1\
sinlll~ billinl! which Plaintiff would l'rolll'l'lv prepn!'e for
De fendnnt to Rubm iI,
,'.~
-
19. On 01' nbout .Jul\', IfI!!:!. based IIPon the Plnint.iff's
representations. Defendnnt and Plaintiff made and entered
into a verbal contrnct upon the hereinafter terms:
A, Defendant, as n dul\' authorized physician
with patients re<1uir'inll specific medlcnl
testinll and monitorlnll. would direct that
specific patients testlnll nnd monitorinll be
done and accomplished solely bv Plaintiff.
B. Plaintiff. ns a dlllv certified full service
testinll facilitv, was to perform the necessarY
testinll. score the results and submit the
testinll results to Defendant.
In addition.
Plaintiff nil reed that it would provide home
monitorinll of natients when requested bv
Defendnnt.
C. The testinl/, reportlnll nnd monltorlnl/ were to
be done bv Plnintiff In a manner consistent
with Medicaid nnd inslll'nnc.. rE'<1l1irem('nts and
Plaintiff was to submit. and did submit,
completed clnims forms, Plnintiff further
aI/reed that the actual payment/fee to Plaintiff
was to be 70% of the sum nuthol'ized and naid
bv the nati('nts insurer or Medicaid.
D. Def('ndant alll'eed thnt IIf> would. IInon r..ceillt of
Plaintiff's reslIlts and comnleted claims forms.
submit nnvment ""ClllpSts to the npnt'oprinte third
pnrt\'. Plnintiff nnd nerendnnt nllreed thnt
Defendant would retaIn as his fee JU% of
pavments received from the insllrer.
E. The parties a~reed thai no payment over and
above the proportIonate amount actually paid by
Medicaid 01' OlllPI' tnSllt'/IIK'e wOllld be dll(" to
Plaintiff either lrom Defendant or the patIent,
~O, On or about AtHlllst. l ~HL1. [JPf~ndE\nt bellntl
referri0l1 testinlt business to Plaintiff on the alor..said
basis.
~1. On or about latp lYHJ, or early
lYY4. Defendant determined that Plaintiff was not
certified or authorized to perform home monitorlnlt and
that such service was beinlt provided bv an unknown third
partv,
~~. On or abollt late IHY~i or early
lYY4. Plaintiff's President, Theresa C. Marriot-Gardner
advised Defendant that the Plaintiff was not certified or
authorized to perform home monltorinlt and admitted that
such service was nrovlded bv a third partv without
Defendant's knowledlte or approval,
~a. Ilefendant bel ipv"",, And I ',,'reforl' n\'et'8 that at the
times relevant to Plaintiff's caURe of action Plnlntiff
was not a licpnsed or cet't,fil:'d 1'1111 "er\'lcl:' teRtlnlt and
monltorinlt facility.
24. llurlnlt 1 YH:i And I HY4 lIef"ndnllt fOl'warned to
Plaintiff checks totalllnlt 14.JH7,25 for serylc"s
rendet'ed In accordnnc.. "',Ih Ihe "",n contract.
"
25. Del'endllnt hf'li('\'es IInd livers thllt Plllintil'l"s lllck
of certit'iclltion lI>I II full s('rvlreo file I litv llrev€'nteod
Plaintiff from blllln~ Medicllld or prlvllte insurers
directlv which in turn hllM rlluHl'd IInv 10RS 01' Jllck 01'
Pllvmeont which mav hllveo occurred to Plulntll'l'.
26. Plnintiff inrluced neI'PllIlllnI to enleol' lnlo the
nforeosairl a~reoement bv makin~ f'ulse and I'ruudulent
misrepreseontntions upon which Defeondnnl relierl.
AFF'I ltMi\TIVE _D.EF~Ns.!';$
FI!i\VD:
27, Defendant believes and avers that Plaintiff's
lIction on the contrnct is precluded and barred on the
~rounds of fraud, estoppel IInrl un.iust enrichment.
JJ.,I.LJ;:.9AI,.LT.YJ.
28. Defendant believes and nveors that Plaintiff's
lIction on the contrllct which requires Del'endllnt to
improperly submit lInd col leoct claims I'or PlAintiff' under
II sin~le billin~. is barred bv the doctrine of' illeounJitv.
IMfOSSIQILITV OF PERFORMANCE:
-. -
29. Del'endnnt believeos And nveors that Defeondant has
no authority, duty 01' capacity to lla\' PIAinti ff the sums
demanded to the eoxtent that payment is controllerl
exclusively bv third llllrtles AS to whom nefendnnt hilS no
lIuthorit\', Furtbeor. theo a~reed upon mL.thod of' Ruhmittin~
claims is impropeor and Ileol'€'nrlllnt ,,"nnot com""l ~I€'rli..aid
"
.~
or other insurers to perform or moke povment in the monner
intended bv the porties.
COUNTE/lCI,Al ~l
S. JAY MIRHANESII. H,D.
VS,
TRACING TECIINOLOGlES. INC.
1. Defendont Is on odult indlvlduol resldln2 at 3
Woodbrook Road. Vorhees. New Jersev.
2. Plaintiff Is 0 Pennsvlvania corporotlon with its
principal place of business at. 675 Silver Sprinl! 1I0nd.
Hechanicsbur2. Pl'nnsvlvnnin 17055,
3. Durin2 1993 Dl'fendont. a licensed pediotrician.
was employed at Easton 1I0spi tnl. EORton. P<'nnsvlvanio as
the heod of the neonatol02v department.
,I. On or' about Ju1v, 199:1. Plnintlrr. bv its
President, Thereso C. Harriot-Gardner, visited the
Defendant ot Eoston 1I0spit.al ond did s01 icit and request
that patients medical testin2 be referred to Plaintiff bv
Defendant.,
5, PIAintil'l', At thl' dAte And time nforesAld,
represented throu2h Its said al!ent that Plaintil'f wos A
certified full service t,'stilll! l'oellitv with authorit\'.
eXllertise. l'ncllilies nnd enuipment to perform 'md "wore
l1tIp.1I10Itrnm-.; Hud r'p.tntpd tp~t inl1 and IlI'OVld,.. hnlll(' monitor'ina
of pnt ient s,
6. Pllllnti 1'1' flll'lher r..pr......III..d thllt it WII.. "lIl1n"ed
In the te..tin" bll..tnesR nnd thllt It WII.. clIHtomnrv prnctlce
In snirl bllsiness, nnd Plnintiff's IIcl.unl ..xp..riPllce, thnt
the most efficient. cost effective nnd prop..r milliner 01'
securlllll prompt ME'rlicnirl nnd/ol' nthpl' inRIII'IIIICf' pnvmE'1I1
for testlnll IInd monitorinll WIIB 1'01' Plllintiff to prepnre
clnlms nnd I'ol'wnl'd th,'1II 1.0 Ih.. nh\,..icinll who woulrl ill turll
submit said clnim to the appropriatE' insurer.
7. Plnint! ff' rE'nrE'BE'III.E'd thnt it would be doinll 1111
tE'stinll and homE' monitorinll required bv DefE'ndnnt or his
patiE'nts itself',
8. Plnintif'f' rE'nrE's..ntpd And prnmisE'd thnt since
Plaintif'f' would do nIL the testinll nnd prE'pnre claim f'orms
1'01' the Def'endant there would be no arlministrat!ve or
clericnl cost to Def'endant beyond f'orwardinll the claims to
insurers.
9. Plaintiff"s nf'or..snid nllenl. nlso renresented that
if Def'endant allreE'd to ref'er natients f'or testinll nnd
monitorinll. Plaintiff would nE'I'fol'm IIJJ rl'<l1Iil'E'd servicE'S
as n full servicE' facilitv in rel.urn 1'01' navment E'<ll1nl to
70% of' the IImount received from either Medicnid or other
insurer IInd that no other pnvment would be due.
10. Def'E'ndant ndvised Pll1intiff thllt he WIIS not
personallv fnmiliar with the billinll nrotocol 1'01' testinll
and interpretation propoRed bv PLnintiff nnd thnl. h..
relied unon Plnintlff"s prior experience.
11, lInse-d upon thp "l'of"f1'SRirt t.,~'lt'('Sl'ntHt ions bv
Plaintiff. Plaintiff and D~f~ndant v~rbal1v contracted to
e",lalte in business upon the terms set forth in parallraph
18 of this Answer which averment is incorporated herein.
12. Defendant. under And pursuant to slIid allreement
did refer patients to Pll1intiff, and from AUllust 9, 1993
to on or about MIlY 9. 1994. Pll1intiff, 01' an AIl~nt of
Plaintiff. performed tests on patients so referred.
13. Defendant would not hllve entered into altreement
with Plaintiff but for the representations made bv
Plaintiff's allent.
14, Defendant would not. have referr~d pat.ients to
Plaintiff had Plaintiff not represented itself to be a
certified full service facilitv with home monitorinll
capacity,
15. Defendant interllret.ed the results of the tests
submitted by Plaintiff and. as altreed. submitted claim
forms completed by Plaintiff for both his services and
those of Plllintiff under a sinltle billinll code,
16. On or about the end of 1993 Defendant was Advised
bv Medicaid and other insurers thllt the billinll method
which Plaintiff proposed was unacceptable in that billinlts
for interpretation and testinll must be separate or. in the
alternative, submitted bv a full service facilitv,
17, As a direct result of the improper billinll method
adopted bv Plllintiff and the filet thllt Plllintiff Was not a
cel'tified full sOO'l'viee fncililv, the flll\'menl claims
submitted by Defenoant Wl"'(~ nol timl'l\' pnid nnd hllve In n
number of cases been refused and pnyment denied.
18. As a result. Defendant has not received payment
for interpretation services he rendered to those patients
tested by Plaintiff. In particular. Defendant has failed
to receive payments totallin~ $6,261.75.
19. In addition. Defendant has been compelled to
expend inordinate amounts of time and has incurred
additional secretarial nno Ildministr~tive expenses in
continuous and onlfoinlf efforts to reconcile. resubmit and
recover the claims previouslv submitted to insurers. The
total adoitional secretnrial and administrative expense
incurred to date is the sum of $2.8UU,OU,
20. Defendant believes that the forelfoinlf losses and
expenses. totallinlf $9,U61.75 to onte, were caused by and
are the result of the acts und conduct of the Plaintiff in
makinlf misrepresentations of mnterial facts upon which the
Defendant relied as follown:
A. Plaintiff falselv renresl'nted itself 10 be n
certified fulJ service tcstinlf facility,
Il, Plainti.ff faJ"ely "l'l1r'e..enled lhnt It was
authorized Rnd capRhle 01' performinll
home-monltorinlf,
C. PLaintiff falseLy rl'l1resenleo that it was the
custom 01' the industry to have physicians
suhmit loint clnims to Hpdknid nnd other'
insurers.
I'
D. Pllllntiff flllse!v I'Pll1'('"enl<,d Ihllt il hill!
authority and cnPllcitv to perform home-
monitorin~ of pntients.
E. Plaintiff falselv represented that it wns the
custom of the industry IInd nccpptnblp to submit
clllims for tpstinR lInd interpretlltion under n
sinRle bill in~.
WHEREFORE. Defpndnnt dpm'lIlds .ludRment a~ainst
Plaintiff In thp sum of $9,061.75 tORPther with the costs
and expensps of this action and further that in the event
that Plnintiff shall recover on it's cnuse of action that
such claim bp spt off to the extent of Defendnnt's claim.
Dnte:Lj, G, 9~
Edwnr W, ill 'ker, ESl\uil'p
Atto npv for the Defendllnt
One pst lIiRh Strppt
Carlisle, PA 17013
17171243-101:13
Supremp Court ID 06362
VEIUIILCA'I'LON
1. S. Jav Mirmanesh. M.D.. verify that the facts in
the fore2oin2 Answer with New Matter and Counter-Claim
are true and correct to the best of mv knowled2e.
information, and belief, 1 understand that false
statements herein are made subject to the penalties
of 1M Pa.C.S, Section 4904, relatin2 to unsworn
falsification to authorities.
Date: 'I1r;~J-
/ALJI-':~..~. (1II!f/~ltL_~
/ s. BV irm nesh, M,D. ~-~
~ . )
I;; ",~i< ~.J~".: ~-.'_""""~ -"
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
AND NOW, this 6th day of April, 1995, I, Edward W. Harker,
Esquire, hereby certify that I served a copy of the within
Answer, New Matter, and Counter-Claim along with a Notice to
plead, by first class mail, postage prepaid upon:
Charles E. Ganley, Esquire
PATTERSON & KIERSZ, P.C.
239-B East Main Street
Way..,boro. pa 11;~
Edwar W.
Atto ney for the Defendant
One est High Street
Carlisle, PA l70l3
(717)243-l0B3
PA Supreme Court I.D. 06362
PAlTERS ON & K1ERsZ. P.C.
""0""""" AT I,A,W
anD EAIT ,,",NeTREET
WAYNlSBORO.PAI72'1
. .
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 39TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
OF PENNSYLVANIA - FRANKLIN COUNTY BRANCH
TRACING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
675 Silver Spring Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055,
Plaintiff
: civil Action - Law
.
.
vs.
No. 94 - 4308 civil Term
S. JAY MIRMANESH, M.D.,
Defendant
Jury Trial Demanded
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
I, Charles E. Ganley, attorney for Plaintiff, do hereby
certify that on April 26, 1995, I caused to be served a true copy
of the foregoing Reply to New Matter and Answer to Counterclaim
by placing said document in the United States Mail, First Class,
postage prepaid, addressed to the following persons andlor
organizations:
Edward W. Harker, Esquire
One West High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
PATTERSON & KIERSZ, P.C.
Date: April 26, 1995
BY,/~ Z---~----,
Charles E. Gan ey, Esq.
Attorney No. 1844
239-B East Main Street
Waynesboro, PA 17268
(717) 762-3170
Attorney for Plaintiff
":~;
,:.i
: '," < <,~ ~:
,'~[ Ie: 'i.' i'.2 ~:
" ~~S,~;~
'~ Q ~
" , ',',> 'o::'.',: ": "i'!
.,,:,.:;,,;:,;:.:;;" ,:
.':;',": " ,,,..::' ': " ':,
',:.'i"')~"":" ~~~; '''f': '::
o Y ",
., ;; ,';;;~ ;': "
'i, ,'":::::,'::,;,,,
, ,',:,;:i '. i;:; ;di ,.:t}t:~;>~ ~;;/:' ,
:,:' ;~. ;~::::2:; , \,;,,' ,":,::~' ':.':, ',: :; ,:",":',:,>.'" '\: :::~ 'I';'
, " ,:. ",;i, "";: f;~;":s';::' . " ,if:::
" ',; ,., ,:;, ,.; '~;"'" :;:,: <, ',;-i:,,.'
,,' ,. " :'i'.,"':'; ,'"".: :':':.',i
. ';:\ ' if:;, ~~~':iY"/ ::.: ,~, ,," , ,," ::~;.::('::;:'::
, ,:' '?' " ,', ,,' " "',<: , f",' :/ ',' . ~,;, ;i~
~;L\"'"i,)j;';;' ;~,\j,:I,":; . ,:::'}j, >.,.,,:i::,:{.';:.,;:;.;' , ",:: ,::,},' "., ,. ' "'" >'1' ,"; .",' ',:
"'i1'\' . jf-.i.:4:if;~':, < ,--, ~'. ...~i.?~l"-,._ ',- :'......:. .~.._.i..., ",_ -.. ' . .' , ::"..x;:/..,""-'
. ,- --:. -ki"l' __~.~_ ." .;-' _ f,",.~.~.. ,',,' ',' : -: . .. -. -.: --:,: ,'-::-"'.:
" 1 · f . ':1
I
I
.
t
(
~
~
(,
",
,",-->,~-~-,--,~~,-",-,--,-,..,. .:---. .~-.-....'.". -".~,.,--" ..~ ,..."
..~~~__......_t',.",~2_~_"".!"...._-'_"....<1,,_i"'" "~ T .----_____..__.".....-____..'"
. "\.;,,n.
c
"
,
"
. ,..,', ,;, c _
, , ";-,: ',' ;'.... ,:,:..;,:"" , ',; ,>," ",'
.' ",:.':: "":':-" ".c:."",;;;,< 'c,}"'.':"',:,,,,,!,C''-',::''
.";.: ;', .. c; .:.c" J' " '~' ':: ,~c ;'i\/,:/,~: ,~,:'.::
. ':":,'<'?:;,:, , :'
i:'f';,,'," ;:" '",:' ",,'..
~.~, ,,' ,
','" ';;.A" 2 Iili fK"9S , ,,:,:'\:::':'1
",:! ,,' '.;' :;,.lft lr ' ,
" ':': ;:,:,:,,:,"';'LH- - . ' ' ,
;,",: tf.lHll~;~~UtlOc~Wtt . c,;,
~:j,::f,.~~~U~E~~S'l'~~Alm. ~ ::->:
,:>",.'" ",";''''':, ':1:,;:'; ~;J': ,~,;;:
,'; ;,:', " ;',' .
';::: , '
i,'..~c " ;',.. '" ;"
<~,;f ;,':<,
.' ',c, 0:: ~, :-:
:'~':;\:, .i'
"',
,:if " ~!i!l:;{;~'
'"" ",
,.',: cl' ,:
f:/T'
",'
"
~~-r..."
If
';1
So"~
::.'~:':1
,
:;~')
':' "",i}'~~;lt))lj,l;r~~,:{;
.. t " 'T ,1
- ,: l"'l !.:
9#' ',/ t ~
I
, i
\
, ")~
\J.!
" . i
t , ,;
, . ,
. .r .
,I" " ,
... ,
"
.
It.
. .
.
I
!'
" ,.::---
';- -....;. ,.
,
I I
l' ,"
,
~
.,.
en
-
::c:
0._
I"-
\n
N
-::r
<"oJ
""
...
<<
~>-
'" ,-
:; ~
'A-l r~. .J-:1
~:;~-;.
". r; '2 "
:; .:-
'r
I":r.
y ~:~:~
=>
~(.)
l
,
PA1TERSON f, KIERSZ. P.C.
ATTONNl-VSA1IAW
2J91H,AST MN51RI:tT
W^'t'NtsnoNO. VA 11268
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE 39TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
OF PENNSYLVANIA - FRANKLIN COUNTY BRANCH
TRACING TECHNOLOGIES, INC,
675 Silver Spring Road
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055,
Plaintiff
Civil Action - Law
vs.
No. 94 - 430B Civil Term
S. JAY MIRMANESH, M,D"
Defendant
Jury Trial Demanded
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER AND ANSWER
TO COUNTERCLAIM OF THE DEFENDANT. S. JAY MIRMANESH. M.D.
NOW comes the Plaintiff, Tracing Technologies, Inc., by and
through it's attorneys, Charles E. Ganley, Esquire and PATTERSON
& KIERSZ, P.C., and respectfully files the following Reply to the
Defendant's, S, Jay Mirmanesh's Answer and New Matter, and Answer
to Defendant's Counterclaim.
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER
16.
Denied as stated. It is admitted that the Plaintiff was
requested by the Defendant, Dr. Mirmanesh, through one Mark
Swanson of Homedco, to contact Dr, Mirmanesh regarding testing
referrals, It is denied that the Plaintiff "solicited" Defendant
for testing referrals.
17.
Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that
Plaintiff is and represented itself as a tes.ing facility
authorized to perform pneumogram tests and to read and score test
results. It is denied that Plaintiff ever represented that it
would provide home monitoring to patients. By way of further
answer, it is believed and therefore averred that the Defendant-
Mirmanesh contracted out with two home medical equipment
companies who provided home monitoring for the Defendant at the
same time the Plaintiff performing the pneumograms.
lB.
Denied as stated. Plaintiff customarily submitted its
billing through the hospital, Plaintiff initially prepared the
claim forms and submitted said forms to Defendant's Secretary,
Lisa, as Defendant had directed Lisa would then prepare the
billings for submission under his billing code and provider
number. The Plaintiff was thereafter informed by the Defendant's
agent, Lisa, in fact, that she had a computer program for such
billing and to merely submit the invoices SO she could prepare
the Claim on her computer.
19.
Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that on or
about July 19, 1993, the Defendant and Plaintiff entered into a
verbal contact; it is denied that said verbal contract was based
entirely upon Plaintiff's representations. Moreover, by way of
further answer:
A. Admitted in part; denied in part, It is admitted that
the Plaintiff agreed to provide testing services for the
Defendant; it is denied that Plaintiff ever agreed to do any
monitoring for the Defendant.
B. Denied as stated; Plaintiff never represented that it
was duly "certified" and, in fact, there is no such
"certification" process to qualify as a testing facility known to
the Plaintiff. By way of further response, the Plaintiff was
duly qualified to perform the necessary testing and score the
results and submit the testing results to the Defendant, which
was done. By way of further response, Plaintiff denies that it
ever agreed to provide home monitoring of patients when requested
by the Defendant, inasmuch as Plaintiff does not, and has never
represented itself as, a business which provides home monitoring
of patients.
C. Denied as stated. The Defendant avers that the
"testing, reporting and monitoring were to be done by Plaintiff
in a manner consistent with Medicaid and insurance requirements."
Such averment is denied. There exists no such "requirements";
Medicaid will pay only for hospital stays and, as averred by the
Plaintiff, the Plaintiff never agreed to monitoring. By way of
further response, Plaintiff was directed by an agent of the
Defendant to submit invoices so that the Defendant could submit
the billing under his provider number which was the Defendant's
proposal, not the Plaintiff's. The Plaintiff had requested
billing through the hospital which the Defendant rejected in lieu
of payment through his provider number, and billing of patients
through his office. By. way of further response, it is denied
that the Plaintiff agreed to the 70% of the Bum "authorized"; on
the contrary, the Defendant was to be paid 70% of the amount
billed and not the authorized amount; the Defendant was to bill
the deductible and co-pay, with the exception of those patients
on medical assistance and one billing agreement which Defendant
maintained with a Health Maintenance Organization.
D. Admitted in part, denied in part. The Defendant agreed
upon receipt of Plaintiff's test results and invoices that he
would submit payment request to the appropriate third party. It
is admitted that the Defendant was to retain a fee of 30% of
payments received from the insurer.
E. Denied as stated. The Agreement was not for the amount
actually paid but the amounts actually collected and Defendant
was to bill co-pays and deductibles to the patients as referred
to above.
20.
Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that on or
about August 19, 1993, Defendant began referring testing business
to the Plaintiff, it is denied that such referral was based "on
the aforesaid" basis for the reasons and denials expressed above
and incorporated herein by reference.
21.
Denied as stated. It is on information and belief and
therefore averred by the Plaintiff that the Defendant utilized
other third party home medical equipment companies, including
Homedco and Youngs Medical Equipment, during the time that
Plaintiff also had his contract with the Plaintiff to perform
pneumograms and testing. The Defendant was fully aware at all
times that the Plaintiff did not perform home monitoring.
22.
Denied as stated. It is specifically denied that any such
conversation took place. At no time did the Plaintiff ever
suggest or represent that it was certified or authorized to
perform home monitoring and, in fact, it is believed and
the~efore averred that the Defendant was engaged in contracts
with third parties to perform said home monitoring at the same
time the Plaintiff was performing the testing described above.
23.
Denied as stated. The Plaintiff believes and therefore
avers that no such licensing or certification requirements exist
for testing. On the contrary, Tracing Technologies is approved
by Medicare as an Independent Physiological Lab and is authorized
to perform the testing described above.
24.
Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that the
Defendant has forwarded Plaintiff checks totalling $4,387.25 for
services rendered. Defendant's averment at Paragraph 24 is
denied to the extent that Defendant is implying that it was "in
accordance with said contract" for the reasons previously
provided by Plaintiff and incorporated herein by reference.
25.
Denied as stated. Plaintiff is fully authorized to provide
the services and testing that it has provided for the Defendant.
Medicare/Medicaid does not pay for studies at home and, during
the course of the agreement, the Blue Cross/Blue Shield provider
also determined that at-home studies would not be paid and that
said studies would need to be commenced at the hospital. It is a
fact that the Defendant was, at all relevant times, aware of and
any losses sustained by the Plaintiff are as a direct result of
the Defendant's actions.
26.
Denied as stated. Paragraph 26 calls for a conclusion of
law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent
that it is deemed factual, it is specifically denied that the
Plaintiff induced Defendant to enter into the aforesaid agreement
"by making false and fraudulent misrepresentations upon which the
Defendant relied," inasmuch as Plaintiff is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
Defendant's assertion and, therefore, Defendant's averments at
Paragraph 26 are denied, and strict proof is demanded from the
Defendant at trial.
27.
Denied as stated. Paragraph 27 calls for a conclusion of
law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent
that it is deemed factual, it is denied that the Plaintiff's
action on the contract is precluded and barred on the grounds of
fraud, and unjust enrichment, inasmuch as the Plaintiff is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the Defendant's averment at Paragraph 27, the
same is therefore denied, and strict proof is demanded from the
Defendant at trial.
28.
Denied as stated. Paragraph 28 calls for a conclusion of
law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent
that it is deemed factual, it is denied that Plaintiff's action
on the contract would require the Defendant to improperly submit
and collect claims for Plaintiff under a single billing and is
barred by the doctrine of the illegality inasmuch as, after
reasonable investigation, the Plaintiff is without knowledge or
information sufficient to from a belief as to the truth of the
Defendant's averment at paragraph 28 and, therefore, strict proof
of the same is demanded of the Defendant at trial. By way of
further response, it was, in fact, the Plaintiff avers that it
was the Defendant's billing arrangement which caused Plaintiff to
submit it's bills in this manner.
29.
Denied as stated. Paragraph 29 calls for a conclusion of
law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent
that it is deemed factual, it is denied inasmuch as the Defendant
has controlled this billing arrangement and is required to pay
Plaintiff the sums that he has received as reimbursement from the
third party payees. The agreed method of submitting these
claims, if improper, is based upon the Defendant's wrongdoing
inasmuch as Defendant has made the arrangements for billing under
a single plan and was contrary to the Plaintiff's usual billing
through the hospital. This unusual arrangement was at the
request, control, and direction of the Defendant.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this
Honorable Court deny the Defendant's requested relief and enter a
judgment in favor of the Plaintiff and against Defendant,
together with costs of suit and other such relief as this
Honorable Court deems just and appropriate under the
circumstances.
PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEPENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM
1.
Admitted. Upon information and belief, Defendant's
Paragraph 1 of the Counterclaim is admitted as being Defendant's
current address.
2.
Admitted.
3.
Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that
during 1993 the Defendant was believed to be a licensed
pediatrician working out of Easton Hospital in Easton,
Pennsylvania, as the head of neonatology department; it is denied
that the Defendant was "employed" at Easton Hospital inasmuch as,
after reasonable investigation, Plaintiff is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the
Defendant's averment that he was "employed" at said hospital and,
therefore, the same is denied and strict proof is demanded from
the Defendant at trial.
4.
Denied as stated. On or about July 19, 1993, at the
request of the Defendant Mirmanesh through one Mark Swanson of
Homedco, the Plaintiff was directed to contact the Defendant
concerning medical testing of patients. It is denied that the
Plaintiff "solicited" such testing.
5.
Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that
Plaintiff was a full service testing facility with authority,
expertise, facilities and equipment to perform and score
pneumograms and related testing. It is denied that Plaintiff
ever represented that it was "certified" or represented that it
provided "home monitoring of patients".
6.
Denied as stated. Plaintiff did engage in the testing
business, but it was its customary billing practice to bill
through the hospital; it was at the Defendant's request that the
method of billing be made through his office, since Defendant
represented that his relationship with the hospital was more in
the nature of an independent contractor and, therefore, the
billing would need to be made through his office. By way of
further response, the Plaintiff never represented that it was in
the business of "monitoring" as alleged by the Defendant. By way
of further response, the Plaintiff was directed by an agent of
the Defendant to forward Plaintiff's invoices, in lieu of its
claims, and that the Defendant's office would prepare the claims
on their computer and submit the claim to the appropriate
insurer. Moreover, the Defendant agreed to provide Plaintiff
with copies of all Explanations of Benefits of payments made,
which he has failed to do.
7.
Admitted in part; denied in part. Plaintiff did represent
that it would be willing to do testing of the Defendant's
patients; it is specifically denied that Plaintiff ever
represented that it would engage in home monitoring.
8 .
Denied. At no time did the plaintiff represent and promise
that it would prepare all claim forms so that the Defendant would
incur no administrative or clerical costs beyond forwarding the
claim to the insurers and, the Defendant's averment is
specifically denied.
9 .
Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that the
Plaintiff agreed to do testing for the Defendant and that the
Plaintiff was to receive 70% of the amount billed and collected;
it is specifically denied that the Defendant agreed to perform
monitoring. By way of further response, it is denied that the
Plaintiff was merely to be paid the amount received, inasmuch as
the Defendant agreed that he would bill any co-payor deductibles
to patients, as well as the insurer.
10.
Denied. Plaintiff denies that Defendant ever advised the
Plaintiff that he was relying on Plaintiff's prior experience in
billing; to the contrary, the Plaintiff's normal course of
billing would be to work through the hospital. It was the
Defendant who set up the billing protocol and required billing to
be made through his office.
11.
Admitted in part, denied in part. It is admitted that the
Plaintiff and Defendant had a verbal contract as provided in
Plaintiff's Complaint, incorporated herein by reference. It is
specifically denied that the verbal contract was as described by
the Defendant. The Plaintiff reincorporates its answer to the
Defendant's Paragraph 18 and specifically denies the
representations alleged by the Defendant to the extent they are
inconsistent as provided for above.
12.
Admitted in part; denied in part. It is admitted that the
Defendant did refer patients to the Plaintiff and that the
Plaintiff performed tests on patients so referred; it is denied
that the Defendant referred Patients to Plaintiff "pursuant to
said agreement" as provided in the Defendant's Answer and
Counterclaim. Plaintiff hereby reincorporates its prior answers
and denies Defendant's allegations to the extent they are
inconsistent with Plaintiff's answers, responses and averments.
13.
Defendant's Paragraph 13 calls for a conclusion of law to
which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent it is
deemed factual, after reasonable investigation, the Plaintiff is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the averment contained in Defendant's
Counterclaim Paragraph 13 and therefore the same is denied and
strict proof is demanded from the Defendant at trial.
14.
Denied. The Plaintiff never represented itself to be
certified or to engage in home monitoring. By way of further
response, after reasonable investigation, the Plaintiff is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the remaining averments in Defendant's Counterclaim Paragraph
14, and, therefore, strict proof is demanded of the Defendant at
trial. By way of further response, the Defendant told the
plaintiff that he had chosen the Plaintiff because of its
superior scoring, testing, and turn-around time.
15.
Denied as stated. The billing was designed by the Defendant
as his billing protocol under a single billing code and was not
the recommended or customary billing engaged in by the Plaintiff.
16.
Denied as stated. After reasonable investigation, the
Plaintiff is without knowledge or information sufficient to form
a belief as to the truth of the Defendant's averment at Paragraph
16 of his Counterclaim, and the same is therefore specifically
denied and strict proof is demanded from the Defendant at trial.
17.
Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Plaintiff is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the Defendant's averment at Paragraph 17, the
same is therefore specifically denied and strict proof is
demanded from the Defendant at trial.
18.
Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Plaintiff is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of the Defendant's averment at Paragraph 18, the
same is therefore specifically denied and strict proof from the
Defendant is demanded at trial. By way of further response, the
Defendant has never provided any Explanation of Benefits to the
Plaintiff and is in control of all of the payment information.
19.
Denied. After reasonable investigation, the Plaintiff is
without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as
to the truth of Defendant's averment at Paragraph 19, the same is
therefore specifically denied and strict proof is demanded from
the Defendant at trial.
20.
Denied. Paragraph 20 calls for a conclusion of law to which
no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that it is
deemed factual, it is denied inasmuch as, after reasonable
investigation, the Plaintiff is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the Defendant's
averment at Paragraph 20 and strict proof is therefore demanded
from the Defendant at trial. Moreover, by way of further
response, the plaintiff specifically denies it has engaged in any
misrepresentations of material facts upon which the Defendant
relied.
A. Denied. At no time did the Plaintiff represent itself
to be "certified"; the Plaintiff is an authorized testing
facility and, to the best of its information and belief, there is
no certification process for a testing facility of its kind at
,.
the present.
B. Denied. Plaintiff denies that it ever represented that
it was authorized and capable of performing home monitoring; to
the contrary, the Defendant was well aware that the Plaintiff did
not perform home monitoring and, in fact, it is on information
and belief and therefore averred that the Defendant had contracts
with home medical equipment companies at that same time it
contracted with Plaintiff, who were engaged in the business of
home monitoring.
c. Denied. On the contrary, it was Plaintiff's customary
billing procedure to bill through the hospital; it was the
Defendant who suggested that the claims be made through his
billing code because of the "unique relationship" that he had
with Easton Hospital.
D. Denied. Plaintiff never represented that it had
authority and capacity to perform home monitoring of patients as
provided above and reincorporated herein. The Defendant was
fully aware of this fact and, in fact, it is on information and
belief and therefore averred that the Defendant had separately
entered into contracts with home medical equipment companies for
the purposes of home monitoring.
E. Denied. plaintiff never represented that it was custom
of said industry to bill in the manner described by Defendant
and, in fact, the Plaintiff's usual billing was through the
hospital; it was at the Defendant's insistence and instruction
that the billing be made through his office under a single
,.
billing, rather than through the hospital, due to the "unique
relationship" that the Defendant had with the Easton Hospital.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendant's
Counterclaim be dismissed and a judgment be entered in
Plaintiff's favor and against the Defendant, together with costs,
attorneys fees and any other such relief as this Honorable Court
deems appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
PATTERSON & KIERSZ, P.C.
. ~. .
By .0:::;:...- _ .J._ -----.
C ar es E. Oan e
Attorney No. 5~
239-B East Mafn
Waynesboro, PA
(717) 762-3170
re
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
VERIFICATION
I, the undersigned, verify that I am an officer the
Plaintiff, Tracing Technologies, Inc., and that I am authorized
to make the following verification. I verify that the facts in
the foregoing Plaintiff's Reply to New Matter and Answer to
Counterclaim of the Defendant are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge, information and belief. I understand that false
statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.
C.S. Section 4904, relating to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
Date: t-/ /:;0 /t; S-
, I
~'lf/.J(l- C I'Y(~;.# -.IJ~
Teresa C. Marr ott-Garaner
President
TRACING TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION. LAW
v.
NO: 94.4308 CIVIL TERM
S. JAY MIRMANESH, INC.,
Defendants
NOTICE OF HEARING OF BOARD OF ARBITRATORS
You are hereby notified that the Board of Arbitrators appointed by the Court in the above
captioned case will sit for the purpose of their appointment on Thursday, September 26, 1996 at
9:30 a.m., In the 2nd Floor Hearing Room of the Old Courthouse, Cumberland County, Carlisle,
Pennsylvania.
BOARD OF ARBITRATION
Date:
I b:ilq,
Rog~~EsZ!::::.'
Stephen J. Hogg, Esquire
Rebecca R. Hughes, Esquire
COPIES TO:
Court Administrator
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle. PA 17013
Charles E. Ganley. EsqUire
PATTERSON & KIERSZ, PoCo
239.8 East Main Street
Waynesboro. PA 17268
(Attorney lor Plaintiff)
Edward Wo Harker. Esquire
1 W. High Street
Carlisle. PA 17013
(Attorney lor Delendant)
TRACING TECHNOLOGIES, INC..
Plaintiff
v.
S. JAY MIRMANESH. INC..
Defendants
OATH
(.
"'....
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY. PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION. LAW
j
NO: 94.4308 CIVIL TERM
C-
-
We do solemnly swear (or affirm) that we will support, obey and delend the Constitution of the
United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that we will discharge the duties 01 our
office with fidelity.
,- -
, ..
~.! --
( " ;
t..:
IL
c . I
, -0 .,
c~, ,
t.?, . I.."
G:: : .'
-- 'J
t"
:. ~. '-
,. 0 :
( - o. ,
J
AWARD
We. the undersigned arbitrators. having been duly appointed and sworn (or affirmed), make the
following award:
lNot,,: "d.J/r..gf'S to, m4y .,. ,JWlJlllrd, "'f1Y M~II b. ~'~'Mr s,...,. J
~
Date of Hearing: Wed.o SeDtember 260 1996
Date of Award: -!Ll ~, Jq t
.
J-~ ',+U
c-<"",--H-.~"";"'" L..
~~
.,.t~~1.
NOTICE OF ENTRY OF AWARD
Now.the ~":U.-dayol ~<.J ,19lJ<".at 1/;4-'1- o'clock...tt...M.,theabove
award was entered upon the docket and notice thereof given by mail to the parties or their attorneys.
Arbitrators' compensation to be
paid upon appeal:
$ .::It.l>. Co
By:
.;t.,.,v.~ f.'.. "W'~
Prothono1my
~\-.:,t'1 u....O,,~
Deputy
'.~.:.."""'n">
.
~
........
..s
-!:!.
0-
'1
J
.--
r
~--
PA1TERSON. KIERSZ &. CANLEY, P.C.
AI10IlNllS AT LAW
lJf.'~
WAI'MSIOIO, rA ITHI
.
..
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
TRACING TECHNOLOGIES, INC. .
.
675 Silver spring Road .
.
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055,
Plaintiff .
.
. Civil Action - Law
.
v. .
.
.
.
S. JAY MIRMANESH, M.D.
1823 Washington Blvd. .
.
Easton, PA 18042 . No. 94 - 4308 civil Term
.
Defendant .
.
PRAECIPE TO DISCONTINUE
TO: Lawrence E. Welker, Prothonotary:
Please mark the above-captioned matter "settled and
discontinued," inasmuch as the Arbitrators' Award has been paid
by the Defendant.
PATTERSON, KIERSZ & GANLEY, P.C.
Date: December 4, 1996
B~. ....:-z--__ /~_.:--. -r - ,....--.-. -. "
Charles E. Gan~y, Esquire
Attorney No. 5 44
239-B East Mai Street
Waynesboro, PA 17268
(717) 762-3170
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
cc: Tracing Technologies, Inc.
Edward W. Harker, Esquire
~~:~",:. .
~: ".ft::k
~ .- -, - '"r'.' _:~.
:'1,;, -,,;. W~F' '-
,,,i'.-.' 0" ,-!f:('
:~:'-~),\{> - "- \"~"-;
;'-',<: .
~L:>
,_0"
'!\-~-.; '-
~,~' "
U" ~
..~:!~i.!.:.'
~,,~t:)f.'
.::f';:::,:! :-
.-;.",
l:r~:-'" .
.:'-,;~'$/'.'"
- , ~-'-'( :
,H,
"
~:.~ ~;
&:o.~ . ..
~~\:i:::~:;:'
.',' ".:
~;,:"- <." "
~,;c' .
f-
(> ,
. "',"
. - ~-,'
"r"
,t; ,..
'\,," .
~,
,
~. "
;~.f~l~l,,:'_ ,:
-';;;;"1:'
:\,",:'d,;\ ", AlED-QFFlCE "
,':,," ,:.' >:,. .OF WoE pp'o'lHONOTMY . ,':,
",;':"/(;'/.,>Jg' '..!; Pit 3144, ", ,< '
<~o: .:: ::..dd . ,. ';.""
,',' ,"'u~~ I~~.~UY:" "
ii.: '., ,.' ':;..',: rCl'.., ~'. '. ',"'.
:', : '. t,,~'~'; ,'; :", ':";" '
"r,,'.--'" ' : ,'.' "'., ,'.
,'!, ':- ' ;,'" ,',,:' ".' "
);::;;l!~:-;;.\ c~::':;',.- ',::;:'
:;,; ,/:,,'; ':i:,., i' ',;:'d',',
~;';' ".<,' ,'.:
;',,: ,,: ."i
i! .:'.J}:", "r\~, ,:,.-"~:'.,;..
"..., '''::" ,-,,::': :'-:;"~iX;',
,3;: :~(,' ' .:: :;:
.' :':' ,,-;,..:;"" u' ,.:'c',)-"': ':'; ,,":
", :,' ',," ",' , ',',,' ,,' ,.,.':' ::
',' ,,':': . ,.;:.::, "':';: :;~
, .;,::>~' ,,>, ~ 'u'
;"t ~'i'; ':' :.' -'. '""
::;:;\::;. ." f:
j,:o; '; ,',
:e.', ,{:,;'.,' ;:::::,i,'d '., ,.
2:~"; .o,.':/:,i,' ","
, .'.. .,,' .,,' : i;::~ iC".:: 5f '.:d'
':.: . ' , ,~ :" 'd ,': "':,:; ';)d; ", ',~,: ,:' ':~:',.:>':-:""~'i "'4::"':::~
",: ":d""::' ",,:,,:':"." ':'.;,:<;';;';"
"""',, , ;' .:"; ,:,,:;''-~'' ":"'" ::',,:':
, :',?:: li\ d.' ",' ":.'.': ',' .~'.:.': '. ',:,,:,',"}:'<:':,
"'i:: ",'..-, :'" "';:~,'" ',d.', ,;<.';;..
:.."u" ','. ;Lt" ;;':'" .:. ".: " .- ' ;;,:c'" '.,i..'--',,: :',<" '. :,:.::
. ,,"F (, "'';;'''''. " i'.>.: ',,:""'.;::':'. ;',...-:
.! :~: " 7::~:;,:!" ";i>' ;" ;",. .'"
:'!' ,'; ,~ ,'.' .::,<,}.,':,:'''' .',. ,"'.
:i: ii:;, :.,:,/'::'.'.: '. " ,:;';:;:.;;
';>: ,i':":,:';:::"-':: ,.,." ",' .:,;; " H ,: :,":
, ,;- ,"-' " ,";' "
. 1
"
"^"\:~","''''<-:--'.'<'' ""--''''''~''''"'-''
, c. ,,' -
.;,'. '-~""""'"'
.
,-..--,'- .". "...........
-.'. ,""..
:.
;'~:',
'.<':'\
'<',
:'::
, ,';
";
:":~':,
' ,',
. ,
.'
:.... ',,'
1:"
\,
'-.'.' ~~:;:':,:,~--,-~
.>;\
, " '."., " :",i .'r"
:: :,' ,:";,.'.,, ,'::;.' iC',,--:',; ..::" ,.-; ,,'
',;'" . ,'., ,i..,.'. ,;',
'c","
,
"
.1t
.
,:':
.'"
.'
):
\....
,
,
.
, '
I'
:;~1t
"
'J
"
!;
,
,
,
,
j.'\,
!l
;":;;, ) i
:;~),;~
~, .