HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-06813c
Q
• r
Q
fr•+
Vv
0
0
FINE, WYATT & CAREY, P.C.
BY: PATRICK C. CAREY, ESQUIRE.
Identification Number: 32961
425 Spruce St.
PO Box 590
Scranton PA 18501
(570) 343-1197
ZIAD B. AKARI,
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
IN THE. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Plaintiff
Vs.
PAUL S. ALLEN, D.M.D. and
CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA ORAL &
MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEONS,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants No. 94-6813
ORDER
NOW, this _ day of , 2002 it is hereby ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
(1) Based upon a review of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure, relevant precedent, the
filings of the parties and the record in the above captioned case, the Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by Defendants on July _, 2003, is hereby GRANTED.
(2) Judgment is entered in favor of Defendants, and against Plaintiff with respect to all claims
contained in Plaintiff's Complaint filed on
(3) The Prothonotary is directed to enter this Order and Opinion of record, and to mail a copy of
this Order and Opinion to all counsel of record pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 236.
By the Court:
P.J.
FINE, WYATT & CAREY, P.C.
BY: PATRICK C. CAREY, ESQUIRE
Identification Number: 32961
425 Spruce St.
PO Box 590
Scranton PA 18501
(570) 343-1197
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
ZIAD B. AKARI,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Plaintiff
Vs.
PAUL S. ALLEN, D.M.D. and
CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA ORAL &
MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEONS,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants No. 94-6813
CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA ORAL & MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEONS
AND NOW COME the Defendants, Paul S. Allen and Central Pennsylvania Oral &
Maxillofacial Surgeons, P.C., by and through their counsel, FINE, WYATT & CAREY, P.C.,
and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant their Motion for Summary Judgment
and in support of their Motion, the Defendants aver as follows:
On or about December 1, 1994, the Plaintiff, Ziad B. Akari commenced the
instant action by Writ of Summons and thereafter, on October 19, 1995, filed a Complaint
alleging that the within defendant, Dr. Paul S. Allen was negligent in the extraction of tooth # 17
on December 28, 1992.
2. Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that lie allegedly sustained an alleged lingual nerve
injury during the aforesaid surgical procedure.
3. Dr Allen and Pennsylvania Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons timely filed an
answer, alleging that in reality, Mr. Akari came to Dr. Allen's office in extremis, with swelling,
inflammation and an abscessed tooth # 17 that was serious and required immediate extraction
and treatment. Dr. Allen went to great length to explain to the patient, his diagnosis and the need
for immediate surgery. Dr. Allen also explained to the patient, that the surgery was not without
potential complications, including bleeding, infection and potential lingual nerve damage, given
the location of the tooth, the infection and the proximity of the lingual nerve. Mr. Akari, aware of
the risks, verbally instructed Dr. Allen to proceed. Dr. Allen performed the surgery appropriately
and within the Standard of Care.
4. On 12-21-94, the within defendants served Interrogatories upon the Plaintiff
requesting inter alia, expert reports. Plaintiff responded to said Interrogatory stating, "We have
not yet determined which witnesses we will call at trial (see Interrogatory 40 attached hereto as
Exhibit "A").
5. On March 11, 1999, Hubert Gilroy, then counsel for the Plaintiff, filed a Petition
to Withdraw as counsel for the Plaintiff wherein he alleged that " Petitioner had previously
advised Plaintiff that he would pursue this case as long as he felt that the case was appropiate and
that he would continue to evaluate the case as discovery proceeded ... but that information had
been received through discovery that warranted a request to withdraw, i.e. this case was without
merit and was subsequently allowed to withdraw.
6. To date, Plaintiff has produced no expert reports on the issues of Standard of Care
or Causation.
In fact, in January Of 2001, the within defendants served upon the Plaintiff,
Request for Admissions as follows, all of which have been admitted for Plaintiff's failure to
respond:
On 12/28/92, Ziad Akari presented to the office of Dr. Paul Allen on
referral from his dentist, Dr. Nasser. ADMITTED
2. Mr. Akari completed a patient's confidential personal history on 2/28/92
at Dr. Paul Allen's office indicating that the reason for his visit was "bad
tooth broken". A copy of said patient confidential personal history is
attached hereto as Exhibit A consisting of 2 pages. ADMITTED
3. Dr. Allen's office performed x-rays and Dr. Allen examined Mr. Akari
and found that tooth #17 had a hole in it on presentation and was infected
and had to be removed. Mr. Akari was in extreme pain at the time.
ADMITTED
4. An informed consent form was presented to Mr..Akari. The form is
attached as Exhibit B. The content of the form was explained to Mr.
Akari. ADMITTED
All the risks of the procedure for removal of tooth # 17 were explained to
Mr. Akari and Mr. Akari verbally agreed to proceed with the extraction of
tooth #17. ADMITTED
6. Part of what was explained to Mr. Akari was that part of the root of tooth
#17 had to remain in the socket after tooth #17 was removed in that
removal of the root might cause potential nerve damage. ADMITTED
7. Dr. Allen explained to Mr. Akari and Mr. Akari understood that tooth #17
had to be removed emergently in light of the infection and that removal of
the tooth might cause nerve damage which could be permanent or partial,
all of which was adequately explained to him to his satisfaction.
ADMITTED
8. Mr. Akari verbally agreed to proceed with extraction of tooth N17 on
12/28/92. ADMITTED
9. Plaintiff has not secured and is not able to produce an expert report on the
standard of care in this case. ADMITTED
10. Plaintiff is unable to produce an expert report on the issue of causation.
ADMITTED
8. In seeking to establish prima facie causation in a medical malpractice case, a
plaintiff must show that the negligence of a defendant either proximately caused the plaintiff's
harm or increased the risk of its occurrence. Watkins v. Hospital of University of Pennsylvania,
737 A.2d 263 (Pa. Super. 1999).
9. Plaintiff has taken no action to produce expert reports or to move this matter
forward and cannot show that Dr. Allen was negligent, nor a substantial factor in causing any
harm to the Plaintiff.
8. The Plaintiffs have failed to produce evidence of facts essential to the cause of
action.
10. The relevant pleadings are closed in this matter.
11. As is relevant to the instant motion, discovery has been completed in this matter.
12. As a matter of law, the Defendants are entitled to have summary judgment
granted in their favor.
IVIIEREFORE, the Defendants respectfully request that this Honorable Court grant their
motion and, accordingly, enter summary judgment in their favor pursuant to Rule 1035.2 of the
Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.
Respectfully submitted
FIN747TT & CAREY
Patrick C. Carey, -squire
425 Spruce Street (J
P.O. Box 590
Scranton, PA 18501-0590
Telephone: 570-343-1197
Attorneys for Defendants,
Dr. Paul S. Allen and Pennsylvania Oral and
Maxillofacial Surgeons
rT
s
FLPJ??S'tl`+Iv`J A
K
I
.
i I
1
i
FINE, WYATT & CAREY, P.C.
BY: PATRICK C. CAREY, ESQUIRE.
Identification Number: 32961
425 Spruce St.
PO Box 590
Scranton PA 18501
(570) 343-1197
MAD B. AKARI,
Plaintiff
va.
PAUL S. ALLEN, D.M.D. and
CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA ORAL &
MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEONS,
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
IN THE. COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants No. 94-6813
CERTIFICATF, OFSERVICE
1, Patrick C. Carey, Esquire, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of tite foregoing
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
THEREOF AND PRAECIPE FOR ORAL ARGUMENT FOR AUGUST 27, 2003, Pursuant to Rule 4009.21
by U.S. First Class Mail on the 281h day of July, 2003 upon the following:
Ziad Marl
4501 Sequoia Drive
Harrisburg, PA 17109
FINE, IVYATT & CAREY, P.C.
IJy. J?az,-,l
Patrick C. Carey, Esquire
Attorney for Defendants
To: Judge Hoffer
From: Alex Miller
Re: Akarl v. Allen, No. 94-6813
Date: December 29, 2003
Argument Court Date: August 27, 2003
Last Action:
November 2003: Phone call to Patrick Carey re: filing of Suggestion of
Death for Ziad Akari. He was told to file a Suggestion of Death with
Prothonotary, and send a copy to Judge Hoffer.
As of December 29, 2003, no Suggestion of Death has been filed.
Patrick Carey, Esq.
Fine, Wyatt & Carey
425 Spruce Street
P.O. Box 590
Scranton, PA 18501-0590
(717) 343-1197
RCP Rule 2355, Notice Of Death Of A Party. Substitution Of Personal Representative
•3381 Pa.R.C.P. No. 2355
PURDON'S PENNSYLVANIA
STATUTES AND
CONSOLIDATED STATUTES
ANNOTATED
PURDON'S PENNSYLVANIA
CONSOLIDATED STATUTES
ANNOTATED
PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE
SUBSTITUTION OF PARTIES
Current with amendments received
through June 30, 2003
Page I
the case law discussing whether the
commencement of an action by or
against a deceased person is a
nullity and therefore does not toll
the running of the statute of
limitations.
(b) The notice of death required by subdivision
(a) shall be substantially in the following form:
(CAPTION)
NOTICE OF DEATH
The death of , a parry to the above
action, during the pendency of this action is
noted upon the record.
Rule 2355. Notice Of Death Of A Party.
Substitution Of Personal
Representative
(a) If a named party dies after the
commencement of an action, the attorney of
record for the deceased party shall file a notice of
death with the prothonotary. The procedure to
substitute the personal representative of the
deceased party shall be in accordance with Rule
2352.
Attorney for the Deceased Party
Address
CREDIT(S)
AdopledApril2, 2003, eff cliveJune 1, 2003.
Note: Counsel for the
deceased party should file the
notice of death promptly upon
learning of the death of the parry
and serve a copy upon every other
party to the action.
See Section 3375 of the
Decedents, Estates and Fiduciaries
Code, 20 Pa.C.S. § 3375 which
provides that if a plaintiff dies and a
personal representative is not
appointed within one year after a
suggestion of the death, the court,
upon petition, shall abate the action
if the delay in taking out letters is
not reasonably explained.
This rule does not address
HISTORICAL NOTES
EXPLANATORY COMMENT
2003 Electronic Update
73te rules of civil procedure
previously made no mention of the death of
a party to an action. New Rule 2355 applies
when a named party dies after an action has
been commenced. The new rule alerts the
parties to the necessity of noting the death
upon the record and of substituting as a party
to the action the personal representative of
the deceased party. The rule provides a form
of Notice of Death which is to be filed with
the prothonotary. The rule also incorporates
the procedure of Ruic 2352 governing
substitution of a successor.
0 2003 West, a Thomson business. No claim to original U.S. Govt. works.
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT
(Must be typewritten and submitted in duplicate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY:
Please list the within matter for the next Argument Court.
CAPTION OF CASE
(entire caption must be stated in f,11)
Ziad B. Akari
V8.
Paul S. Allen, D.M.D. and
Central Pennsylvania Oral and
Maxillofacial Surgeons
(Plaintiff)
( Defendant )
No. 6813 Civil
19 44
1. State matter to be argued (i.e., plaintiff's motion for new trial, defendant's
demurrer to complaint, etc.):
2. Identify counsel who will argue case:
(a) for plaintiff:
Address:
(b) for defendant: Patrick C. Carey, Esquire
Address: PC Box 590
425 Spruce Street
Scranton, PA 18501-0590
3. I will notify all parties in writing within two days that this case has
been listed for argument.
4. Argument Court Orate:
August 27, 2003
Dated: July 28, 2003 Attorney for Defe:Tdants
ta.?(. .,?Yb?
i ?
i
.. I
FILED-OfFICE
rrt,(l IrITAAY
OF TI- IT
tf "z3
02 auc -k nfl ia: ??
PENNSYLVANIA
d
t,+
*z
M1
n?
?-
Y
L
.E ? 1 X14. r.
If
, _
j
tt J
Yy
r-
=s
F
s q
# J
?
d:i f
z
1 5
Page 1 of 1
Hoffer. George '
From: The Dons [hkd5®cornell.edu]
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 11:08 AM
To: Hoffer, George
Subject: Re:
Judge Hoffer:
Thank you for your message of January 16th. Unfortunately, I have nothing to add to what you stated In your
message.
Rule 2355 Is really directed towards moving a case along. I would Imagine that a defendant would not want to
move the case along except to have it dismissed. It would seem that time and the purge list will serve the
defendant,
I regret not being of more help.
Respectfully,
Harold
-- Original Message -----
From: HOffQr, GQgrgQ
To: 'hkdjr@ron,com'
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 11:12 AM
Harold, can you help me. I have a Motion for summary judgement in front of me. Plaintiff Is pro se. At
argument, defense ally said he thought plaintiff had died. While RCP 2355 deals with P's own atty dealing with
this, It doesn't seem to deal with defense atty. Is there something I should be telling defense ally to do??,
besides waiting for the purge list.
The information in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader
of this message Is neither the Intended recipient, nor an employee or agent responsible for delivering this
message to the Intended recipient, then you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
unauthorized use, or copying of this communication Is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this message and deleting It from your
computer. Thank you, Cumberland County.
1/23/2004
PYS511 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Page 2
1994-06813 AKARI ZIAD B ET AL (vs) ALLEN PAUL S ET AL
Reference No..: Filed........: 12/01/1994
Ca a Typpe..... : WRIT OF SUMMONS Time.. ...... 4:07
Judgment...: .00 Execution Date 0/00/0000
Judge Ass gned: OLER J WESLEY JR Jury Trial....
Disposed Desc.: Disposed Date. 0/00/0000
------------ Case Comments ------------- Higher Crt 1.:
Higher Crt 2.:
-------------------------------------------------------------------TED BY 7/21/2003 FORNTRASUMMARYPENNSYLVANIAJUDGMENT MAXITHELLODEFTSACIALPAUL
PATRICK C CAREY ESQ FOR DEFTS
-----------------------------------------------------------
04/2003 PRAECIPE-FOR-LISTING-CASE FOR ARGUMENT - BY PATRICK-C-CAREY-DEFTS- -
8/04/2003 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - DEFT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND
M$MORANDUM IN SUPPORT THEREOF AND PRAECIPE FOR ORAL ARGUMENT-FOR- -
8/27/03 - BY PATRICK C CAREY ESQ FOR DEFTS
- - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - -
* Escrow Information
* Fees & Debits Beck Bal Pymte/Ad End Bal
WRIT OF SUMMONS 35.00 35.00 .00
TAX ON WRIT .50 .50 .00
SETTLEMENT 5.00 5.00 .00
JCP FEE 5.00 5.00 .00
------------------------ ------------
45.50 45.50 100
* End of Case Information
PYS511 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office
r wa.s . •
Page
1994-06813 AKARI ZIAD B ET AL (vs) ALLEN PAUL S ET AL
Reference No..:
e.....:
Case Ty
WRIT OF SUMMONS Filed........;
Time..
io 12/01/1994
4:07
00/0000
p
e
U LE Execut
n Date
l
i
T 0/
Aes3gnec3c
dge
J Y JR
OLER J WES ....
a
r
Jury
DiSposed Date.
0/00/0000
D spored Desc.:
Cas e Comments ------- ------ Higher Crt 1.:
Higher Crt 2.:
General Index Attorney Info
AKARI ZIAD B PLAINTIFF PRO SE
8 ASH DRIVE
MECHANICSBURG PA 17055
AKARI ALECIA D PLAINTIFF GILROY HUBERT X
8 ASH DRIVE
MECHANICSBURG PA 17055
ALLEN PAUL S DEFENDANT CAREY PATRICK C
220 CUMBERLAND PARKWAY
SUITE 5
MECHANICSBURG PA 17055
CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA ORAL AND DEFENDANT CAREY PATRICK C
220ICUMBERILAND SURGEONS
SUITE 5
MECHANICSBURG PA 17055
* Date Entries
- - - - - - - - - - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
12/01/1994 PRAECIPE FOR WRIT OF SUMMONS IN CIVIL ACTION
WRIT OF SUMMONS ISSUED
-------------------------------------------------------------------
12/12/1994 SHERIFF'S RCOSTS ETURRN$(SER2ED DEFENDANTS 12/7/94) PD ATTY
--------------------------------------------------------- -
AUL S ALLEN-DMD - BY- PATRICK C-
OR PAUL-
12/23/1994 PRAECIPE- FOR-ENTRY-OF-APPEARANCE FOR-
CAREY ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
8/15/1995 PRAECIPE TO ENTER A RULE TO FILE A COMPLAINT BY PATRICK C CAREY ESQ
AND RULE BY REGINA K LEBO PROTHONOTARY DEPUTY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
10/19/1995 COMPLAINT - CIVIL ACTION HUBERT X GILROY ESQ FOR PLFF
---------------------------------------------- --------------------
1/17/1996 DEFENDANT'S ANSWER AND NEW MATTER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT
-------------------------------------------------- --------------
---------------------------------------------- 2/12/1996 PLAINTIFF'S-ANSWER-TO-DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER
---------------------
10/06/1997 MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
--------------------------/--/---------------------------------------
10/13/1997 ERISFISCOURT - SUED UPONTDEFENbANTS7RE- IN RE TURNABLMFOWZtTTHIN 20 DAYS OF DISCOVERY-
RULE
BY J WESLEY OLER JR J - COPIES MAILED 10/14/97
-------------------------------------------------------------------
11/12/1997 PRAECIPE TO WITHDRAW THE MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY BY HUBERT X
GILROY ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3/04/1999 PETITION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
-----------------------?--?- /-------------------------------------------COUNSE 3/12/1999 RULETISRIISSUEDDUPON PLAINTIFF RETURNAPBLFT20NDAYYSWFROMRSERVICE - BYL
J WESLEY OLER JR J - COPIES MAILED 3/12/99
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3/23/1999 PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE FOR ZIAD B AKARI BY HUBERT X
GILROY ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
3/23/1999 PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE FOR ZIAD B AKARI - PRO SE
-------------------------------------------------------------------
1/17/2001 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE - BY PATRICK C CAREY ESQ FOR DEFT
ZIAD B. AKARI, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v : NO. 94 - 6813
PAUL S. ALLEN, DMD and CENTRAL
PENNSYLVANIA ORAL 8r
MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEONS,
Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PRAECIPE
Please withdraw the appearance of Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire and the firm of Broujos 8t
Gilroy, P.C. on behalf of Plaintiff Ziad B. Akari. Also, in accordance with Mr. Akari's
statement below, please list Mr. Akari as proceeding pro se with the service of all further
documentation and pleadings to be served on Mr. Akari directly at his address listed
below.
31axI a/V
Date
Hubert X. Gilroy, Es
Broujos & Gilroy,
4 North Hanover So
Carlisle, PA 17013
I hereby agree to the withdraw of Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire and the law firm of Broujos 8r
Gilroy, P.C. as my legal counsel in the above case. Please list me as proceeding pro se
with service of all pleadings and documents to be made at my address set forth below.
1
Date
Ziad B. Akari
4581 Larch Drive
No. C57
Harrisburg, PA 17109
F1L 0.0fig E TpAY
9gNI?.R?3 P}1 x;59
, i
t
r j
r
ZIAD B. AXARI,
Plaintiff
v
PAUL S. ALLEN, D.M.D. &
CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA
ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL
SURGEONS,
Defendant
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
s IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
s CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
s JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
s
: NO. 94 - 6813
2
PRAECIPE
Please withdraw the Motion to Compel Discovery filed by Plaintiff
in the above case.
BROUJOS & GILROY, P.C.
By I/L'
au"W46 n. W iu71ij°Y"
Attorney f Plantiff
4 North H over Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
717 - 243-4574
FILED•071CE
OF TNT F"OTIiOMOTAAY
97 NO 12 PM I: 0 l
CUVl3ERUJW COUNTY
PENNSIIYANA
H, ,
,
h
BROUJOS & GILROY, P.C. MAR g , pp" "
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
.
4 NORM Ht%NOVSR STREET
CARVAM, P SYLVANIA 17013
717-2434574 766-1690
w=,
i
A?
ZIAD AKARI,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v : No. 94 - 6813
PAUL S. ALLEN, DMD and CENTRAL
PENNSYLVANIA ORAL &
MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEONS,
Defendants : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
COURT ORDER
AND NOW, this 1 i day of Vjj ?-,) &L7 , 1999, upon consideration of
the attached Petition, it is hereby directed that the Plaintiff Ziad B. Akari shall show cause
why Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire and the law firm of Broujos & Gilroy, P.C. shall not be
allowed to withdraw as legal counsel for the Plaintiff in the above case. This rule is
returnable twenty (20) days from service on the Plaintiff.
cc: Ziad B. Akari
4581 Larch Drive
No. C57
Harrisburg, PA 17109
Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire
Broujos & Gilroy, P.C.
4 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Patrick C. Carey, Esquire
Fine, Wyatt & Carey, P.C.
425 Spruce Street
P.O. Box 590
Scranton, PA 18501-0590
3h a q q.
BY THE COURT,
L: .i l':
1
ZIAD AKARI, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v : No. 94 - 6813
PAUL S. ALLEN, DMD and CENTRAL
PENNSYLVANIA ORAL &
MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEONS,
Defendants : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
PETITION TO WITHDRAW AS COUNSEL
Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire and the firm of Broulos & Gilroy, P.C. sets forth the following:
Petitioners are Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire and the law firm of Broulos & Gilroy, P.C.
2
Petitioners are attorneys of record for the Plaintiff in the above case.
3
Petitioners desire to withdraw as Plaintiff's legal counsel in the above case.
4
Petitioners had previously advised Plaintiff that Petitioners would pursue this case as long as
they felt the case was appropriate and that the Petitioners would continue to evaluate the
case as discovery proceeded.
5
Petitioners have received Information through discovery that merits a request to withdraw
as Plaintiff's attorney.
6
Petitioners advised Plaintiff that they intended to withdraw and asked Plaintiff to agree to
Petitioners withdraw. Plaintiff has failed to respond to Petitioner's letter on this Issue,
which was sent to Plaintiff on January 26, 1999.
7
Petitioners request your honorable Court to issue a rule to show cause on the Plaintiff
directing Plaintiff to show cause as to why Petitioners should not be authorized to
withdraw as legal counsel.
WHEREFORE, Petitioners request leave of court to withdraw as counsel for the Plaintiff.
Respectfully submitted,
1N
Broujos & Gilroy„ lr.C.
4 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-4574
FQ.fD-brf F
OF P" r;, ?1?Y., ")T/TiY
99 MV'R -4 Al 111: 28
cu%!:! : i Cr: U wy
ZIAD B. AKARI, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
Plaintiff
Vs.
PAUL S. ALLEN, D.M.D. and CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA ORAL &
MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEONS,
Defendants No. 94-6813
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Patrick C. Carey, Esquire, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the
foregoing DEFENDANT'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO SERVE A SUBPOENA DIRECTED TO DR.
THOMAS TURISSINI TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS FOR DISCOVERY Pursuant to
Rule 4009.21 by U.S. First Class Mail on the - FL day of January, 2001 upon the
following:
Ziad Akari
Dauphin County Correctional Facility
501 Mall Road
Harrisburg, PA 17111
FINE, WYATT & CAREY, P.C.
By: /""I J
11 /1 ALLA-,-
Pa ick C. Carey, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant,
?,
1..?'. ,?ii; ?'7
?i
Ip i
. d
?'
i
r
i
-?..? 1 f C
ZIAD B. AKARI, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY
VS.
PAUL S. ALLEN, DMD and
CENTRAL
PENNSYLVANIA ORAL &
MAXILLOFACIAL
SURGEONS,
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants : NO. 94-6813
TO: Ziad B. Akari
c/o Hubert X. Gilroy, Esquire
BROUJOS, GILROY & HOUSTON, P.C.
4 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO PLEAD TO THE ENCLOSED NEW MATTER
WITHIN TWENTY (20) DAYS OF SERVICE HEREOF OR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT MAY
BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU IN ACCORDANCE WITH PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE.
Respectfully submitted,
FINE, WAYTT & CAREY, P.C.
BY:_
PATRICK C. CAREY, ESQUIRE 61
Attorney for Defendants
425 Spruce Street
Post Office Box 590
Scranton, PA 18501-0590
TEL: (717) 343-1197
ZIAD B. AKARI,
Plaintiff
VS.
PAUL S. ALLEN, DMD and
CENTRAL
PENNSYLVANIA ORAL &
MAXILLOFACIAL
SURGEONS,
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY
: CIVIL ACTION - LAW
: JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants : NO. 94-6813
DEFENDANTS' ANSWER AND NEW MATTER
TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINI
AND NOW CONIES the defendants, Paul S. Allen, DMD and Central Pennsyl-
vania Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, by and through their attorneys, FINE, WYATT &
CAREY, P.C., and responds to plaintiff's Complaint and asserts the following by way of New
Matter:
1. Admitted.
2. Denied as stated. To the contrary, Dr. Paul S. Allen is an oral surgeon with a principal
place of business located at 4700 Uraon Deposit Road, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsyl-
vania.
3. Denied as stated. To the contrary, Central Pennsylvania Oral and Maxillofacial
Surgeons is a group of oral surgeons acting as a partnership with a principal place of business
located at 4700 Union Deposit Road, Harrisburg, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.
4. Admitted.
5. Denied as stated.
6. Denied as stated.
7-9. Denied. Following a reasonable investigation, the answering defendant is without
knowledge or information sufficient to warrant a belief with regard to the averments of
paragraphs 7 and 8 of plaintiff's Complaint and same are therefore deemed denied. Strict proof
thereof is demanded at the time of trial.
10. Denied in part and admitted in part. To the contrary, Paul S. Allen, is a partner and
principal in the group of Central Pennsylvania Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. The remaining
allegations of paragraph 10 of plaintiffs Complaint are admitted.
11. The within defendants' responses to paragraphs 1 through 10 of plaintiff s Complaint
are incorporated herein by reference as fully as though same were herein set forth at length.
12. Denied.
13. Admitted and in this case, Dr. Allen avers that he did as well.
14. Denied.
15. Denied.
-2-
WHEREFORE, the within defendant requests that plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed and
judgment be entered in his favor.
16. The within defendant's responses to paragraphs I through 15 of plaintiffs Complaint
are herewith incorporated by reference as fully as though same were herein set forth at length.
17. Denied as stated.
18 a-f. Denied.
WHEREFORE, the within defendant requests that plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed and
judgment be entered in his favor.
DEMURRER
19. The within defendants demur to plaintiffs Complaint and requests that same be
dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
LA 'K OF N E ../ .lsN( I
20. By way of New Matter and in defense of the above-captioned action, the within
-3-
defendants avers that there was no negligence on their part or in the alternative in the event it is
judicially determined that there was negligence on the part of the within defendants, same was not
a proximate cause or a substantial factor of any injury alleged by plaintiff.
APPROPI /ATFM£DICA/. STANDARD
21. By way of New Matter and in defense of the above-captioned action, the within
defendants aver that Dr, Allen acted within the standard of care of an oral surgeon similarly
situated and did explain to Mr. Akari the risks and hazards attendant to the surgical removal of
tooth number 17 which was badly infected and had to be removed.
ASSUMPTION OF RISK
22. Plaintiff's claims are limited and/or barred because plaintiff knowingly consented to
the medical treatments provided by the within defendants and all normal and acceptable risks of
such medical procedures as was fully explained to the plaintiff prior to rendering any such medical
care.
-4-
H rA/ w CARE. SERVICES MALPRACTICE ACT
23. By way of New Matter and in defense of the above-captioned action, the within
defendants herewith incorporate by reference all applicable defenses provided under the Health
Care Services Malpractice Act, 40 P.S. Section 1301.101 et seq as fully as though same were
herein set forth at length.
CAUSATION
24. By way of New Matter and in defense of the above-captioned action, the within
defendant avers that if plaintiff sustained any injury, same was not due or caused by any act or
failure to act on the part of the within defendant, but rather was caused by plaintiffs own conduct
in failing to follow appropriate medical advice and/or said problems were pre-existing and/or
caused by other individuals and not the within defendants.
CONTRIB(ITORYNEG .IGENCF.
25. By way of New Matter and in defense of the above-captioned action, the within
defendant avers that plaintiffs claims are limited and/or barred by his contributory negligence in
that he failed to follow appropriate medical advice at all times relevant hereto, thereby
contributing to and/or causing some, if not all of the conditions complained of by plaintiff.
-5-
26. The plaintiff, Ziad Akari, presented to Dr. Allen's office on 12/28/92 with a broken
and infected tooth number 17 which had to be removed. The risks and complication of surgery
were explained to Mr. Akari and he elected to proceed with the surgery and have the tooth
removed. Following surgery, he was specifically advised that a portion of the root was left in the
socket and not removed for fear of doing damage. He agreed that the root should be left in. Mr.
Akari elected to proceed with the surgery on 12/28/92 fully cognizant of the potential risks and
hazards associated therewith in light of his condition on presentation.
FAIL U F TO MITI .AT F D MA .F.S
27. By way of New Matter and in defense of the above-captioned action, the within
defendant avers that plaintiff failed to mitigate damages by promptly reporting and scheduling
appointments and in fact, never notified Dr. Allen of any potential problems with his tongue in
terms of a lingual nerve injury until almost 2 months following surgery.
-6-
r ;
WHEREFORE, the within defendant requests that plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed and
judgment be entered in his favor.
Respectfully submitted,
FINE, WYATT & CAREY, P.C.
BY:
PATRICK C. CAREY, ESQUIRE
Attorney for Defendants
425 Spruce Street
Post Office Box 590
Scranton, PA 18501-0590
TEL: (717) 343-1197
I;j5' /
VERIFICATION
I, DR. PAUL ALLEN, hereby verify that the statements contained in the fore-
going Answers and New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief. I understand that this Verification is made subject to
the provisions of 18 Pa. C.S.A. 44904 pertaining to unsworn falsification to
authorities.
DR. P L A E
DATE: / y /`/? /e
I, PATRICK C. CAREY, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy
of the foregoing Defendants' Answer and New Matter to Plaintiff's Complaint by First Class,
U.S. mail on the 10th day of January, 1996.
HUBERT X. GILROY, ESQUIRE
BROUJOS, GILROY & HOUSTON, P.C.
4 NORTH HANOVER STREET
CARLISLE, PA 17013
FINE, WYATT & CAREY, P.C.
BY:Q??
PATRICK C. CAREY, ESQUIRE
96 Jptt t1 PN 2j 05
Cl!<v!? N????? ??
z , "_
.-4 ,
4''-;
.::fi,:
?,?
_, ??
?_
?.:
;,r
<t;;,
.d'F
R
s ?..
?' = '; ??
e
} ?
??
r
?/
+
f ?_
r ? t ..
•
.-..n-i- ?..,..,
r. ._ .?.. ...? _j.,. ..i ._._...._...
,ir:. ?, t ..,
tom,
''?
SHERIFF'S RETURN
COKIONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA:
COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
Ziad B. Akari and
Alecia D. Akari
In The Court of Common Pleas of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania
No. 94-6813 Civil Term
Summons in Civil Action Law
VS
Paul S. Allen and Central Pennsylvania
Oral & Maxillofacial Surgeons
Leroy Hinaensteel II , SH61t88pt MDeputy Sheriff of
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, who being duly sworn according to law, says,
that he served the within Summons in CIvil Action Law
Paul S. Allen and Central Pennsylvania
i
upon oral & Maxillofacial Surgeons , the defendant, at 10:30 o'clock
A M. EST / EIS( on the 02 day of December 19 94 at
220 Cumberland Parkway Mechanicsburg , Cumberland County,
Pennsylvania, by handing to Tammi Horvath, Secretary and radult in charge
a true and attested copy of the Summons in CIvil Action Law
and at the same time directing her
the "Notice to Plead" endorsed thereon.
Sheriff's Costs:
Docketing 18.00
Service 6.72
Affidavit
Surcharge 4.00
28.72 Pd. by Atty.
12-07-94
Sworn and subscribed to before me
attention to the contents thereof and
So answers:
R. Thomas Kline, Sheriff
byu
-'-' Puty ShctrSff
this /? % day of / LLLAh
19 9'/ A.Dl.
/ >71
Prothonotary
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland
o3
°C 8 E a•?
W to
0
M r_
L
cc
ro
O + -
?w
Mad B. Akari and
Alecia D. Akari,
8 Ash Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
Court of Common Pleas
V&
No. _ 94_ 6813 Civil -Term __ ___ 19
Paul S. Allen and Central Pennsylvania
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons In ___ Civil -Action- law
------------------------------
220 Cumberland Parkway, Suite 5,
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
To Paul _S._ Allen and Central- Pennsylvania Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
--- -- - -- ----------
You are hereby notified that
Alec------ Ncari
--- - --- °- ---- ------Ziad D. Akari and
-----------------
tho Plaintiff hag commenced an action in ___CiYiLAg!?40_1,s3V ----------------------------------
against you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may be entered against you.
(SEAL)
tyrnce_r??_t?t?lker--------------
Prothonotary
December 1st 94
Date - ---- -- ------------- 19__ - BY
- -?GL - --- f- -! tr- r-+? }---°
Deputy
No..94 ^6813 Civil Tenn 19----
2iad B. Akari
Alecia D. Akari
Vt.
Paul S. Allen and Central Pennsylvania
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
Summons in
Civil Action Law
Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq.
Bioujos, Gilroy, Houston, P.C.
Four North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-243-4574
Attomry
E
A
1
I
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland
'Liad B. Akari and
Alecia D. Akari,
8 Ash Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
vs.
RG1
cc -?
V ? 5y.
W 77
;
r? M
0
ir , rC
LL - cS
>-m
,.
a?
?t
LU k
Court of Common Pleas
No. -94-6-813-Civil-Term _____________ 19
Paul S. Allen and Central Pennsylvania Civil Action Law
oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons In ---------------------------------------------
220 Ctsnberland Parkway, Suite 5,
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
To - Paul S. Allen and Central Pennsylvania oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
----
You are hereby notified that
--------------------------------
the Plaintiff hag commenced an action in ___GdY j AC_i'iQp-Jay ___________..----------------------
against you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may be entered against you.
(SEAL)
- l?aiotpnc?_li. _l?slke --------------------
Prothonotary
Date ... - Decenber-Ist ------------- 19-94_ By -- L4 iv-L- -U D1u_1?'C^n41?- r?x't-j-----
- -- --- Pty
S
u u
F o
00
I
v
m M a
A E
cz
' U
a:
6 4J
•
r N
x
o ?0
)
x a r
in
M
?I N
n
pper? r
,,
FINE, WYATT & CAREY, P.C.
BY: PATRICK C. CAREY, ESQUIRE
Identification Number: 32961
425 Spruce St.
PO Box 590
Scranton PA 18501
(570) 343-1197
ZIAD B. AKARI,
Vs.
Plaintiff
PAUL S. ALLEN, D.M.D. and
CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA ORAL &
MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEONS,
JU 12003
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants No. 94-6813
submitted by the Defendants, Dr. Paul S. Allen and Central Pennsylvania Oral and Maxillofacial
Surgeons Defendants respectfully submit this Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion.
1. BACKGROUND
On or about December I, 1994, the Plaintiff, Ziad B. Akari commenced the instant action
by Writ of Summons and thereafter, on October 19, 1995, filed a Complaint alleging that the
within defendant, Dr. Paul S. Allen was negligent in the extraction of tooth # 17 on December
28, 1992.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleged that he sustained an alleged lingual nerve injury during the
aforesaid surgical procedure. Dr Allen and Pennsylvania Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons timely
filed an answer, alleging that in reality, Mr. Akari came to Dr. Allen's office in extremis, with
1
This matter comes before the Court by way of a Motion for Summary Judgment
.
swelling, inflammation and an abscessed tooth # 17 that was serious and required immediate
extraction and treatment. Dr. Allen went to great length to explain to the patient, his diagnosis
and the need for immediate surgery. Dr. Allen also explained to the patient, that the surgery was
not without potential complications, including bleeding, infection and potential lingual nerve
damage, given the location of the tooth, the infection and the proximity of the lingual nerve. Mr.
Akari, aware of the risks, verbally instructed Dr. Allen to proceed. Dr. Allen performed the
surgery appropriately and within the Standard of Care.
On 12-21-94, the within defendants served Interrogatories upon the Plaintiff requesting
inter alia, expert reports. Plaintiff responded to said Interrogatory stating, "We have not yet
determined which witnesses we will call at trial (see Interrogatory 40 attached hereto as Exhibit
"A").
Thereafter and on March 11, 1999, Hubert Gilroy, then counsel for the Plaintiff, filed a
Petition to Withdraw as counsel for the Plaintiff wherein he alleged that " Petitioner had
previously advised Plaintiff that he would pursue this case as long as he felt that the case was
appropiate and that he would continue to evaluate the case as discovery proceeded ... but that
information had been received through discovery that warranted a request to withdraw, i.e. this
case was without merit and was subsequently allowed to withdraw.
To date, Plaintiff has produced no expert reports on the issues of Standard of Care or
Causation. In fact, in January Of 2001, the within defendants served upon the Plaintiff, Request
for Admissions as follows, all of which have been admitted for Plaintiffs failure to respond:
1. On 12/28/92, Ziad Akari presented to the office of Dr. Paul Allen on
referral from his dentist, Dr. Nasser. ADMITTED
2. Mr. Akari completed a patient's confidential personal history on 2/28/92
at Dr. Paul Allen's office indicating that the reason for his visit was "bad
tooth broken". A copy of said patient confidential personal history is
attached hereto as Exhibit A consisting of 2 pages. ADMITTED
Dr. Allen's office performed x-rays and Dr. Allen examined Mr. Akari
and found that tooth # 17 had a hole in it on presentation and was infected
and had to be removed. Mr. Akari was in extreme pain at the time.
ADMITTED
4. An informed consent form was presented to Mr. Akari. The form is
attached as Exhibit B. The content of the form was explained to Mr.
Akari. ADMITTED
All the risks of the procedure for removal of tooth # 17 were explained to
Mr. Akari and Mr. Akari verbally agreed to proceed with the extraction of
tooth # 17. ADMITTED
6. Part of what was explained to Mr. Akari was that part of the root of tooth
#17 had to remain in the socket after tooth #l7 was removed in that
removal of the root might cause potential nerve damage. ADMITTED
7. Dr. Allen explained to Mr. Akari and Mr. Akari understood that tooth #17
had to be removed emergently in light of the infection and that removal of
the tooth might cause nerve damage which could be permanent or partial,
all of which was adequately explained to him to his satisfaction.
ADMITTED
8. Mr. Akari verbally agreed to proceed with extraction of tooth #17 on
12/28/92. ADMITTED
9. Plaintiff has not secured and is not able to produce an expert report on the
standard of care in this case. ADMITTED
10. Plaintiff is unable to produce an expert report on the issue of causation.
ADMITTED
ll. QUESTION PRESENTED
WHETHER THE DEFENDANTS ARE ENTITLED TO THE ENTRY OF SUMMARY
JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO 1035.2 OF THE PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE WHERE THE PLAINTIFF HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE AN EXPERT
OPINION AS TO ANY ALLEGED BREACH OF THE STANDARD OF CARE, NOR THE.
CAUSE OF THE ALLEGED INJURY OF THE PLAINTIFF?
SUGGESTED ANSWER: In the affirmative.
III. DISCUSSION
Rule 1035.2 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure reads, in relevant part, as follows:
Auer the relevant pleadings are closed, but within such time as
not to unreasonably delay trial, any party may move for summary
judgment in whole or in part as a matter of law
(2) If, after the completion of discovery relevant to the
motion, including the production of expert reports, an
adverse party who will bear the burden of proof at trial
has failed to produce evidence of facts essential to the
cause of action or defense which in a jury would require
the issues to be submitted to a jury. Pa. R.C.P. 1035.2,
42 Pa. C.S.A.
As is well settled, the party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of proving
the non-existence of any genuine of issue of material fact. Kafando v. Erie Ceramic Arts Co.,
764 A.2d 59 (Pa. Super. 2000). Likewise equally as well-established is that the Court reviewing
the record on a summary judgment motion must view it in the light most favorable to the non-
movant, and all doubts as to the existence of genuine issues of material fact must be resolved
against the movant. White v. Owens-Coming Fiberglass Com, 668 A.2d 136 (Pa. Super. 1995).
.I
Mindful of these strict standards, the Defendants, nevertheless, contend that the Plaintiffs have
failed to produce evidence of facts essential to the cause of action, which would require the
issues to be submitted to a jury. Ila. R.C.P. 1035.2, 42 Pa. C.S.A.
In Mitzelfelt v. Camrin, 584 A.2d 888 (Pa. 1990), our Supreme Court set forth certain
standards relevant to the determination of legal issues arising out of a medical malpractice
setting. As is pertinent at present, the Court stated:
"In order to establish a prima facie case of malpractice, the
Plaintiff must establish (1) a duty owed by the physician to the
Patient; (2) a breach of duty from the physician to the patient;
(3) That the breach of duty was the proximate cause of, or a
Substantial factor in, bringing about the harm suffered by the
Patient; and, (4) damages suffered by the patient that were
a direct result of that harm." itzelfel , supra. at 891.
(Citations omitted.)
Further, the Court went on to state:
"A plaintiff is also required to present an expert witness who
will testify, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that
the acts of the physicians deviated from good and acceptable
medical standards, and that such deviation was the proximate
cause of the harm suffered." Id, at 892. (citation omitted.)
Even more succinctly stated, what the plaintiffs' expert must demonstrate in support of a
prima facie case of medical malpractice "is that the negligence of the defendant either
proximately caused the plaintiffs harm, or increased the risk of its occurrence. Watkins v.
Hospital of University of Pennsylvania, 737 A.2d 263, 267 (Pa. Super. 1999).
In the case at hand, Plaintiff has admitted that;
1. On 12/28/92, Ziad Akari presented to the office of Dr. Paul Allen on
referral from his dentist, Dr. Nasser.
2. Mr. And completed a patient's confidential personal history on 2/28/92
at Dr. Paul Allen's office indicating that the reason for his visit was "bad
tooth broken".
3. Dr. Allen's office performed x-rays and Dr. Allen examined Mr. Akari
and found that tooth # 17 had a hole in it on presentation and was infected
and had to be removed. Mr. Akari was in extreme pain at the time.
4. An informed consent form was presented to Mr. Akari. The form is
attached as Exhibit B. The content of the form was explained to Mr.
Akari.
5. All the risks of the procedure for removal of tooth # 17 were explained to
Mr. Akari and Mr. Akari verbally agreed to proceed with the extraction of
tooth #17.
6. Part of what was explained to Mr. Akari was that part of the root of tooth
#17 had to remain in the socket after tooth #17 was removed in that
removal of the root might cause potential nerve damage.
7. Dr. Allen explained to Mr. Akari and Mr. Akari understood that tooth #17
had to be removed emergently in light of the infection and that removal of
the tooth might cause nerve damage, which could be permanent, or partial,
all of which was adequately explained to him to his satisfaction.
8. Mr. Akari verbally agreed to proceed with extraction of tooth #17 on
12/28/92.
9. Plaintiff has not secured and is not able to produce an expert report on the
standard of care in this case.
10. Plaintiff is unable to produce an expert report on the issue of causation.
r
As such, Plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie nor that that Defendants' alleged
negligence either caused Mrs. Akari's harm or increased the risk of its occurrence, Mitzelfelt,
suarn.; Y(c?' . s Inra,. As a result, in accordance with Rule 1035.2 of the Pennsylvania Rules of
Civil Procedure, the Defendants respectfully request this Honorable Court to grant their motion
and summarily enter judgment in their favor in this matter.
Respectfully submitted
FINE, iVYATT & CAREY !A46??
Qtak
Patrick C. Carey, Esquire
425 Spruce Street
P.O. Box 590
Scranton, PA 18501-0590
Telephone; 570-343-1197
Attorneys for Defendants,
Dr. Paul Allen and Central Pennsylvania
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
ZIAD B. AKARI, s IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
:
V. s NO. 94 - 6913
PAUL S. ALLEN, DMD and
CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA ORAL AND s CIVIL ACTION LAW
MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEONS, s
Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER
AND NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Ziad B. Akari, by and through
his attorneys, BROUJOS, GILROY & HOUSTON, P.C., and responds to
the Defendants' New Matter:
19. DENIED. To the contrary, as a result of the Defendants'
intentional and negligent acts, as set forth in the Plaintiff's
Complaint, the Plaintiff has suffered considerable expenses, as
well as, pain, suffering, and distress.
20. DENIED, the negligent acts of the Defendants were the
proximate and the only cause of the Plaintiff's injuries.
21. DENIED. The Defendants failed to act within the standard
of care of a reasonable and similarly situated oral surgeon. The
Defendants' at no time explained to the Plaintiff the risks and
hazards attendant to the removal of tooth number 17; further,
tooth number 17, to the Plaintiff's knowledge, was not badly
infected, was not causing the Plaintiff any discomfort, and the
Plaintiff believed the extraction to be an elective one.
22. DENIED, the Plaintiff did not consent verbally nor
in writing. Further, the Plaintiff did not agree to assume the
risk of the injury that he sustained from the extraction.
23. DENIED, the Plaintiff avers that no proper defense
exists for the Defendants' actions.
24. DENIED. The actions of the Defendants' were the direct,
the proximate, and the only cause of the Plaintiff's injuries.
The Plaintiff followed, completely and totally, the Defendants'
post operative advice. The Plaintiff's problems were not
preexisting, nor were the problems caused by any other
individuals but the Defendants.
25. DENIED, the Plaintiff fully and completely followed the
medical advice relevant to the procedure at issue here.
26. DENIED. The Answers as set forth in Paragraphs 21 and
22 above are incorporated herein by reference thereto.
27. The Plaintiff DENIES that he failed to mitigate the
damages that the Defendants' caused. The Plaintiff was
unaware that the lingual nerve could be damaged as a result of
extracting tooth number 17. Further, the Plaintiff was unaware
that damage to the lingual nerve would result in the injuries
which the Plaintiff sustained to his tongue. Plaintiff was
unaware of the connection between the tongue problems that he was
experiencing and the extraction of tooth number 17. Plaintiff's
physician, Joseph Cincotta, M.D., expressed the possibility of
such connection about two months after the surgery in question;
upon which, Plaintiff did seek the appropriate medical care.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgement as requested in the
Complaint.
Respectfully Submitted,
Hubert x. ?itroy, squire
BROUJOS, GILROY HOUSTON, P.C.
4 North Hanove Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 1 - 4 74
,5
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are
true and correct. 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.
ZIAD B. AKARI
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
HUBERT X. GILROY, ESQUIRE, hereby certify that on the
I, day of February, 1996 I Berved a true and correct copy of
the foregoing PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DEFENDANTS' NEW MATTER by
First Class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid to:
Patrick C. Carey, Esquire
Fine, Wyatt & Carey
425 Spruce Street
P.O. Box 590
Scranton, PA 18501-0590
nunerc x. (iiir y, Esquire
BROUJOS, GIL Y & HOUSTON, P.C.
4 North Hano er Street
Carlisle, P 17013
-4 7,
all,
FILED-ORM
OF THE P13QTARY
96 FCB 12 PM 33 07
' CUMD9 fuvo COUVp'
,4 ? N?n?sn?FaaA
r Y+
y
8
ZIAD B. AKARI,
Plaintiff
V.
PAUL S. ALLEN, D.M.D.
G CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA
ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL
SURGEONS,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 94-6813 CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 1311 day of October, 1997, upon consideration
of Plaintiff's Motion to Compel Discovery, a Rule is hereby issued
upon Defendants to show cause why the relief requested should not
be granted.
RULE RETURNABLE within 20 days of service.
Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq.
4 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Attorney for Plaintiff
Patrick C. Carey, Esq.
425 Spruce Street
P.O. Box 590
Scranton, PA 18501-0590
Attorney for Defendants
:rc
0
"J
BY THE COURT,
BROUJOS &iGILROY, P. c.
-ATTORN[YB AT LAW
4 NORTH HANOVER KR[[T
CARLIBLE, PENNBYLVANIA 17013
17171212-4074 7N•NW
I
f
i t.;
1
yM'
I
• M ?
ZIAD B. AKARI, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff s OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
s PENNSYLVANIA
v :
s CIVIL ACTION LAW
PAUL S. ALLEN, D.M.D. & s
CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA s JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL s
SURGEONS, NO: 94 - 6813
Defendant s
O R D E R
AND NOW, this day of
, 1997, upon
consideration of the Plaintiff's Motion to Compel, the
Defendants, Paul S. Allen, D.M.D. & Central Pennsylvania Oral and
Maxillofacial Surgeons, are hereby ordered to provide their
answers to the Plaintiff's Interrogatories Propounded Upon The
Defendant, mailed on May 22, 1996, within twenty (20) days of
this Order.
In the alternative, the Defendants are ordered to show
cause, if they have such, why they should not answer the
Plaintiff's Interrogatories; this response shall be filed within
twenty (20) days of this Order.
BY THE COURT:
J.
ZIAD B. AKARI,
Plaintiff
s
v s
s
PAUL S. ALLEN, D.M.D. & s
CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA
ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL
SURGEONS,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NO: 94 - 6813
NOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
AND NOW, comes the Plaintiff, Ziad B. Akari, by and through
his attorneys, Broujoe & Gilroy, P.C., and he sets forth the
following Motion To Compel Discovery directed against the
Defendants, Paul S. Allen, D.M.D. and Central Pennsylvania Oral
and Maxillofacial Surgeons:
1
The Plaintiff filed his Praecipe to Issue a Writ of Summons
on December 1, 1994.
2
On December 21, 1994, Patrick C. Carey, Esquire, Fine, Wyatt
& Carey, P.C., 425 Spruce Street, P.O. Box 590, Scranton, PA
18501-0590, entered his appearance for the Defendants, Paul S.
Allen, D.M.D. and Central Pennsylvania Oral and Maxillofacial
Surgeons.
3
On October 19, 1995, the plaintiff filed his Complaint.
4
On January 10, 1996, the Defendants filed their Answer and
New Matter.
5
On February 12, 1996, the Plaintiff filed his Answer to the
Defendants' New Matter.
6
On May 22, 1996, the Plaintiff served upon the Defendants
PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED UPON THE DEFENDANT. A true
and correct copy of these Interrogatories, with Certificate of
Service, is attached hereto, incorporated herein by reference,
and designated as Exhibit "A".
7
Pa.R.C.P. 4006 requires that answers to Interrogatories be
filed within thirty (30) days from the date of service.
8
Answers to these Interrogatories have not, as yet, been
served upon the Plaintiff.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff, Ziad B. Akari, requests this
Honorable Court to compel the Defendants, Paul S. Allen, D.M.D.
and Central Pennsylvania oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, to file
answers to the interrogatories mailed to the Defendants on May
22, 1996, within twenty (20) days.
Submitted Bys
October U, 1997
Hubert X. G lroy squ re
Broujos, Gilroy Houston, P.C.
4 North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243 - 4574
ZIAD B. AKARI, s
Plaintiff :
s
v s
i
PAUL S. ALLEN, D.M.D. &
CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA i
ORAL AND MAXILLOPACIAL i
SURGEONS, s
Defendant :
s
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION LAW
NO: 94 - 6813
?OQA
PLAINTIFF'S
ES PROPOUNDED UPON THE DEFENDANT
TO: Paul S. Allen, D.M.D. &
Central Pennsylvania Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
c/o Patrick C. Carey, Esquire
Fine, Wyatt & Carey, P.C.
425 Spruce Street
P.O. Box 590
Scranton, PA 18501-0590
NOTICE TO RESPOND
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS of Pa. R.C.P. 4005 and 4006, as
amended, you are required to file the original, and serve a copy
on the undersigned, of your Answers and Objections, if any, in
writing and under oath, to the following Interrogatories, within
thirty (30) days after service of the Interrogatories. These
Interrogatories are continuing in character, so as to require you
to file supplemental answers if you obtain further or different
information before trial.
By Hubert X. ilroy, Esquire
Attorney/. or the Defendant
/ Broujos, Gilroy & Houston, P.C.
S4 North Hanover Street
Date: ((( Carlisle, PA 17013
717-243-9395
EXHIBIT
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
a) Where the name or identity of a person is requested, the
question refers to any individual, partnership, firm or
corporation and your answer should include the full name, home
address, and also business address, of known.
b) Unless otherwise indicated, these Interrogatories refer
to the time, place, and circumstances of the occurrences
mentioned, or alluded to, in the pleadings.
c) Where knowledge or information in the possession of a
party is requested, such request includes knowledge and
information of the party's agents, representatives, and, unless
privileged, his attorneys.
d) The pronoun "you" refers to the party to whom these
Interrogatories are addressed.
e) If you asserting any claim of privilege or immunity to a
particular interrogatory, you must identify the privilege or
immunity asserted and provide sufficient information to
substantiate the claim.
f) In lieu of identifying documents in response to these
Interrogatories, you may provide copies of such documents with
appropriate references to the corresponding interrogatories.
g) The answers shall be inserted in the space provided. If
there is insufficient space to answer an Interrogatory, the
remainder of the answer shall follow on a supplemental sheet.
INTERROGATORIES
1) State the
with the Plaintiff,
Interrogatories.
identity by name, address, and affiliation
of the individual answering these
2) State the names and addresses of all expert witnesses
whom you propose to call at trial, the subject matter on which
each is expected to testify, the substance of the facts and
opinions to which each is expected to testify to, the area of
expertise of such experts, and attach to your answers hereto
copies of all written reports, notes, or memoranda made for you,
or otherwise in your possession made by all such experts.
3
3) State the names and addresses of any non-expert
witnesses you plan to call at trial and the substance of the
facts and opinions to which each is expected to testify, and
attach to your answers hereto copies of all written reporter
notes, or memoranda made for you, or otherwise in your possession
made by all such persons.
4) List all exhibits which you expect to offer at trial.
5) List the names and addresses of any and all employees
who were involved in the treatment of Mr. 2iad Akari on December
28, 1992; explain what their responsibilities and duties were=
and list what functions each performed relative to the extraction
of Mr. Akari's mandibular left third molar.
6) Is your standard practice to provide the patient with a
consent form for his/her signature which outlines the risks
inherent in the procedure which he/she is about to undergo? If
not what procedure do you normally employ to acquire the
patient's consent?
7) Explain the method that you used, if any, to alert Mr.
Akari to the risks inherent with the extraction of his mandibular
left third molar. If this method was inconsistent with that which
you normally undertake to notify patients of the risks inherent
in the procedure that they are about to undergo, explain how it
differed and, further, why the method for informing Mr. Akari did
not conform to your standard practice.
8) Did you provide Mr. Akari with a consent form for his
signature which outlined the risks involved with the removal. of
his mandibular left third molar and, if so, why was it not
signed? If you did not provide the consent form to Mr. Akari, why
was it not provided to him?
6
9) List the names and addresses of any and all of your
employees who provided Mr. Akari with notice, either oral or
written, of the risks attendant to the procedure he was about to
undergo on the 28th of December, 1992.
10) List the names and addresses of any and all of your
employees who were witness to the notification of Mr. Akari of
the risks attendant to the procedure he was about to undergo on
the 28th of December, 1992.
7
11) Do you contend that the removal of Mr. Akari's
mandibular left third molar was absolutely necessary and, if so,
explain the conditions which caused you to come to this
conclusion. If the removal of this molar was not absolutely
necessary, was Mr. Akari informed that its removal was not
absolutely necessary and how was he so informed?
8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq., hereby certify that on the
day of May, 1996, I served a true and correct copy of
the foregoing:
PLAINTIFF'S INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED UPON THE DEFENDANT
upon the following individual by U.S. First Class Mail, postage
prepaid in Carlisle, PA:
Patrick C. Carey, Esquire
Fine, Wyatt & Carey, P.C.
425 Spruce Street
P.O. Box 590
Scranton, PA 18501 - 0590
B
Y ?g,
Hubert X. lroy, Esqu
Attorney for the Plain
4 North anover Street
Carli e, PA 17013
ZIAD B. AKARI, s IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff s OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY,
= PENNSYLVANIA
v :
s CIVIL ACTION LAW
PAUL S. ALLEN, D.M.D. & s
CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA s JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL
SURGEONS, s NO: 94 - 6813
Defendant s
s
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
X11, Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq., hereby certify that on the
I _ day of October, 1997, I caused to be filed, in the Office
of the Prothonotary of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, the
original and two true and correct copies of the foregoing MOTION
TO COMPEL DISCOVERY and proposed ORDER, and that I provided the
Prothonotary with a stamped envelope addressed to:
Patrick C. Carey, Esquire
Fine, Wyatt & Carey, P.C.
425 Spruce Street
P.O. Box 590
Scranton, PA 18501 - 0590
By ? v-` ej:
Hubert X. G roy, Esquire
Attorney f r the Plaintiff
4 North Ha over Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
,i
S?
{fir
} T
4 < 3d.
ryt
Q, ?r
til! :i Y? .
1 r:
?T
Z'TJ f!:
FILED-OFFICE
Cr THE I I. ? n TNOTAAY
97 c?^T -G H I., .52
CCUNTY
F'c.r l 11 `i:'1 ti
I?u p
+. r I
1
e4
t.
111
31 'r<
5.;
1 ", #t'
r x;
? z%
ZIAD B. AKARI, :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
s
v :NO. 94-6813
PAUL S. ALLEN, DMD AND CENTRAL:
PENNSYLVANIA ORAL AND :CIVIL ACTION LAW
MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEONS, s
Defendants :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE TO PLEAD
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 (20) days after this complaint and notice are served, by
entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing
in writing with the Court your defenses or objections to the claims
set forth against you. You are warned that if you fail to do so
the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered
against you by the Court without further notice for any money
claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested
by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights
important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAFM 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.
COURT ADMINISTRATOR
Cumberland County Courthouse
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 240-6200
ZIAD B. AKARI, :IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff :CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
v :NO. 94-6813
PAUL S. ALLEN, DMD AND CENTRAL:
PENNSYLVANIA ORAL AND :CIVIL ACTION LAW
MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEONS, s
Defendants :JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, Ziad B. Akari, by his attorneys Broujos, Gilroy &
Houston, P.C., sets forth the following:
1
Plaintiff, Ziad B. Akari, is an adult individual residing at 8 Ash
Drive, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
2
Defendant Dr. Paul S. Allen is a dentist with a principal office
located at 220 Cumberland Parkway, Suite 5, Mechanicsburg,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
3
Defendant Central Pennsylvania Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons is
a group of dentists acting as a partnership, professional
corporation or other business entity with principal offices located
at 220 Cumberland Parkway, Suite 5, Mechanicsburg, Cumberland
County, Pennsylvania.
4
On December 28, 1992, Defendant Dr. Paul S. Allen extracted from
Plaintiff the mandibular left third molar (tooth no. 17).
5
During the course of said tooth extraction or as a result of
infection caused by the anesthetic needle used during the
extraction or as a further result of post-operative infection in
connection with the tooth extraction, Plaintiff suffered a lingual
nerve injury.
6
The lingual nerve injury sustained by Plaintiff has caused the
following to the Plaintiff:
A. A parestesia in the distribution of the left lingual
nerve.
B. Glossodynia (burning mouth syndrome).
7
As a result of the medical condition as outlined in Paragraph 6
above, Plaintiff has undergone since December 1992 a great deal
of discomfort, pain, inconvenience, embarrassment, loss of life's
pleasures and other injuries.
8
As a further result of said lingual nerve injury, Plaintiff has
incurred medical/dental expenses to date of approximately $1,500
and has experienced various work loss in connection with said tooth
extraction and the various examinations in connection with
evaluation of his medical problems, which work loss to date is
approximately $1,200.
9
As a further result of said lingual nerve injury, Plaintiff may in
the future be required to undergo future dental treatment and incur
expenses for said treatment and also incur work loss.
10
At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Paul S. Allen was the
agent, servant, employee or principal in the medical group of
Defendant Central Pennsylvania Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons, and
was acting within the scope of such employment or realtionship and
with the permission and consent of Defendant Central Pennsylvania
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. Hereinafter, all Defendants
individually and/or collectively will be referred to as Defendant.
COUNT I - ASSAULT/BATTERY
11
Paragraphs 1 through 6 incorporated herein by reference thereto.
12
Defendant Allen failed to advise Plaintiff of the serious nature of
the proposed tooth extraction which was performed on the Plaintiff
and failed to advise Plaintiff either verbally or in writing of any
of the possible serious complications that may have been caused to
the Plaintiff as a result of said tooth extraction.
13
A dental practitioner of the same school practicing dentistry in
the same or similar communities under the same or similar
circumstances as that which occurred between the Plaintiff Akari
and Defendant Allen would have realized and would have disclosed to
Plaintiff Allen the risks incident to the proposed tooth
extraction.
14
Defendant Allen either negligently or intentionally did fail
to disclose to Plaintiff Akari, his patient, all the facts,
risks and alternatives which a reasonable person would deem
significant in making a decision to undergo the tooth extraction in
question.
15
As a result of said Defendant Allen's failure to obtain informed
consent to the surgical procedure from Plaintiff Akari, Defendant
Allen's actions in extracting the tooth in question constituted an
assault/battery upon the Plaintiff.
, Plaintiff requests judgment against Defendant Allen
in an amount exceeding $25,000 which amount exceeds the compulsory
arbitration limit under Cumberland County rules, along with costs
of suit.
COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE
16
Paragraph 1 through 11 are incorporated herein by reference
thereto.
17
The trauma caused to the left lingual nerve of the Plaintiff as a
result of the mentioned tooth extraction was a direct result of the
negligence of Defendant Allen, and through no fault of Plaintiff,
the Plaintiff suffered the mentioned injuries.
18
The Defendants were negligent in the following respects:
A. Failure to exercise the requisite degree of care and skill
ordinarily exercised in similar cases by other dentists and
oral surgeons;
B. Failure to conform to the requisite degree of care and skill
ordinarily possessed by other dentists and oral surgeons;
C. Failure to conform to the requisite standard of care under
the circumstances;
D. Failure to properly administer anesthesia to the Plaintiff
prior to the extraction of the tooth;
E. Failure to properly extract the tooth with the requisite
degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised in similar
cases by other dentists and oral surgeons;
F. Failure to properly care for Plaintiff and give Plaintiff
instructions with connection with post-operation care.
WHMEFORF, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant Allen in
an amount in excess of $25,000 which amount exceeds the
jurisdictional amount for compulsory arbitration in Cumberland
County, plus costs of suit.
Respectfully submitted,
uuuva .. n• vi I .....y..++-
HROUJOS, GII.ROY & HOUSTON, P. C.
4 North Hanove Street
Carliale, PA 17013
717-243-4574
I verify that the statements made in the foregoing document are
true and correct. 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.
ad B. A ar
"k
k]J,_ti
OCT 19 3 20 Ph '95
Iriih 1•t??t.
j
Y
• • 1
j ?
i
ZIAD B. AXARI and
ALECIA D. AXARI,
8 Ash Drive, Mechanicsburg,
Cumberland County, PA 17055
Plaintiffs
v
PAUL S. ALLEN and CENTRAL
PENNSYLVANIA ORAL and
MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEONS
220 Cumberland Parkway,
Suite 5, Mechanicsburg,
Cumberland County, PA 17055
Defendants,
:IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
:CUMBERLANn COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
t
s
s
:NO. 94- CAI C uA& T Lvn
s
t
t
s
s
t
:CIVIL ACTION - LAW
r
PRAECIPE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Please issue a Writ of Summons in favor of Ziad B. Akari and
Alecia D Akari as Plaintiffs and against Paul S. Allen and
Central Pennsylvania Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons as
Defendants.
BROUJOS, GILRO & HOUSTON, P.C.
4 North Hanov r Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 243-4574
!? Y!4 ?T t x?i
! _ ? ?9?
ap
?I oT PN 134
DEC I
t o
{! Of 7N` .'NON4TAfiY
oUNiY z?
cumbKLAOD c
VENNSYLVANII a?
;Y T . +l f!Y
fi ,• CC
11?? n?
000
x
t
5 . qo So..k
s
A4,55 ,50 edatt.? xk
t ?
6
} ?J
g v5 3
alA
g
3 i
r( 411
19 4'l LQ
.
l
f
e
, ..t ? i •.. rt
.
;
s,: e v e
c
{
ere .....-. .. ?.
om .. ?.. ? -
I
_ .t
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland
2-
It:
A
f,f
W
Ziad B. Akari and
Alecia D. Akari,
8 Ash Drive, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
W?
Court of Common Pleas
No. 94_6813 Civil Term __ Ig
Paul S. Allen and Central Pennsylvania Civil-Action-Law
oral and Maxiilofacial Surgeons In ____...........
oral
220 CUnberland Parkway, Suite 5,
Mechanicsburg, PA 17055
To ' l- ra S. Allen and Centl Pennsylvania oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
Pau- - -
You are hereby notified that
------------------- Ziad_B._ Akari and Alecia_D._ Akari---------------
the Plaintiff has commenced an action in --- ILAakoO_I&h'__________________________________
against you which you are required to defend or a default judgment may be entered against you.
(SEAL)
-----ka?rr4flce_Ft. r---------------------
Prothonotary
Date __ December 1st-------- ig_94 By ---- IAG?!_.?_1:1C*_?S'i??c't1?. rOw}----.
Deputy
No, _94-6813 Civil Term__ ---------------
Ziad B. Akari
Alecia D. Akari
vIL
Paul S. Allen and Central Pennsylvania
oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons
----------------
Summons in
Civil Action Law
------------------------------------
Hubert X. Gilroy, Esq.
Broujos, Gilroy, Houston, P.C.
Four North Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
717-243-4574
------------------------------------
Ammay
t
7 _. _.,.
! ai
M
ZIAD B. AKARI, IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
Plaintiff OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
VS, : CIVIL ACTION -- LAW
PAUL S. ALLEN, DMD and CENTRAL : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PENNSYLVANIA O RAL and MAXILLOFACIAL
SURGEONS,
.......
....... Defendants
..... .....
.....: .....
...
... NO. 94-6813
. ........ .. .
.:........:..:. ...
PRAECIPE TO ENTER A RULE TO FILE A COMPLAINT
TO: Clerk of Judicial Records
SIR:
Enter a Rule upon Plaintiff to file a Complaint in this action regard-
ing Common Pleas Court Number 94-6813 within twenty (20) days after service
of Rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pros.
Respectfully submitted,
FINE, WYATT b CAREY, P.C.
BY: a
PATRICK C. CAREY, ESQUIRE
Attorney for Defendant, Dr. Paul Allen
425 Spruce Street
Post Office Box 590
Scranton, PA 18501-0590
TEL: (717) 343-1197
RULE
AND NOW this 4??A day of 1995, a Rule is herewith entered
upon the plaintiff t'to file a Compla n wi him 20 days of the date of service
hereof or suffer a judgment of non pros. The date of service of this rule is
the date of mailing if service was by mail.
i
44
UOTUI L .J •cno??ia
? l?IGc/ .K
TY Tr_
Auc 15 3 3s PH '95
y!
f,, ?;, orflct:.
ii( t!i? ?'R^if10N71AhY
C'UMARLAO Coll, ry
r
., t I
ZIAD B. AKARI,
Plaintiff
v.
PAUL S. ALLEN, DMD and CENTRAL
PENNSYLVANIA ORAL and
MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEONS,
Defendants
s IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
s OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY
:
s
: CIVIL ACTION LAW
s
s
s JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
t
s No. 94-6813
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF APPEARANCE
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:
Kindly enter our appearance on behalf of the Defendant, PAUL S.
ALLEN, DMD, in the above captioned matter.
FINE, WYATT & CAREY, P.C.
?, e.?-IVs
BY:
Patrick C. Carey Esquire
IDN32961
Attorneys for Defendant
425 Spruce Street
Scranton, Pennsylvania 18503
(717) 343-1197
Dated; 12-ZI-9y
GEC ") i U ; Ii III
r
?l
JUL 2 12003
FINE, WYATT & CAREY, P.C.
BY: PATRICK C. CAREY, ESQUIRE
Identification Number: 32961
425 Spruce St.
PO Box 590
Scranton PA 18501
(570) 343-1197
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS
MAD B. AKARI,
Plaintiff
vs.
PAUL S. ALLEN, D.M.D. and
CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA ORAL &
MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEONS,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants No. 94-6813
CERTIFICATE OFSERVlCE
1, Patrick C. Carey, Esquire, hereby certify that I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
THEREOF AND PRAECIPE FOR ORAL ARGUMENT FOR AUGUST 27, 2003, Pursuant to Rule 4009.21
by U,S. First Class Mail on the 18'h day of July, 2003 upon the following:
Ziad Akari
4501 Sequoia Drive
Harrisburg, PA 17109
FINE, iVYA7T & CAREY, RC.
By:
Patrick C Carey, Esquire
Attorney for Defendants
Curtis R. Long
Prothonotary
Renee K. Simpson
Deputy Prothonotary
John E. Slike
Solicitor
office of tbe Vrotbonotarp
(Cumberfarlb Countp
"N - U313
CIVIL TERM
ORDER OF TERMINATION OF COURT CASES
AND NOW THIS 29TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2008 AFTER MAILING NOTICE OF
INTENTION TO PROCEED AND RECEIVING NO RESPONSE - THE ABOVE
CASE IS HEREBY TERMINATED WITH PREJUDICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH PA
R C P 230.2
BY THE COURT,
CURTIS R. LONG
PROTHONOTARY
One Courthouse Square • Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 • (717) 240-6195 • Fax (717) 240-6573