FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP By: Mark W. Tanner / Peter M. Newman

Transcription

1 FELDMAN SHEPHERD WOHLGELERNTER TANNER WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP By: Mark W. Tanner / Peter M. Newman Identification No.: / Attorneys for Plaintiffs 1845 Walnut Street, 21st Floor Philadelphia, PA (215) JOSEPHINE DIMAIO-CLEARY AND : JAMES E. CLEARY, JR. h/w : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS 101 Applewood Lane : PHILADELPHIA COUNTY Dublin, PA : Plaintiffs, : vs. : June Term, 2017 JAMIE RAY-LEONETTI : No Walnut Street, #4 : Philadelphia, PA : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED and : WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY, LLC : 1515 Market Street, Suite 1300 : Philadelphia, PA : and : CENTER FOR DISABILITY LAW AND : POLICY d/b/a PENNSYLVANIA CLIENT : ASSISTANCE PROGRAM : 1515 Market Street, Suite 1300 : Philadelphia, PA : and : DISABILITY RIGHTS PENNSYLVANIA : f/n/a DISABILITY RIGHTS NETWORK OF : PENNSYLVANIA : 1315 Walnut Street, #4 : Philadelphia, PA : Defendants. : : Filed and Attested by the Office of Judicial Records 15 JUN :09 pm M. BRYANT COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION 4L (PROFESSIONAL MALPRACTICE - LEGAL) 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 claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET AVISO Le han demandado a usted en la corte. Si usted quiere defenderse de estas demandas expuestas en las paginas siguien-tes, usted tiene viente (20) dias de plazo al partir de la fecha de la demanda y la notificacion. Hace falta asentar una comparesencia escrita o en persona o con un abogado y entregar a la corte en forma escrita sus defensas o sus objeciones a las demandas en contra de su persona. Sea avisado que si usted no se defiende, la corte tomara medidas y puede continuar la demanda en contra suya sin previo aviso o notificacion. Ademas, la corte puede decidir a favor del demandanre y requiere que usted cumpla con todas las provisiones de esta demande. Usted puede perder dinero o sus propiedades u otros derechos importantes para usted. LLEVE ESTA DEMANDA A UN ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE, SI NO TIENE ABOGADO O SI NO TIENE EL DINERO SUFFICIENTE DE PAGAR RAL SERVCIO, VAYA

2 LEGAL HELP. PHILADELPHIA BAR ASSOCIATION LAWYER REFERRAL AND INFORMATION SERVICE One Reading Center Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Telephone: TTY: EN PERSONA O LLAME POR TELEFONO A LA OFICINA CUYA DIRECCION SE ENCUENTRA ESCRITA ABAJO PARA AVERIGUAR DONDE SE PUEDE CONSEGUIR ASISTENCIA LEGAL. ASOCIACION DE LICENCIADOS DE FILADELFIA SERVICO DE REFERENCIA E INFORMACION LEGAL One Reading Center Filadelfia, Pennsylvania Telefone: TTY: I. THE PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Josephine DiMaio-Cleary (hereinafter Mrs. Cleary ) is an adult individual residing at 101 Applewood Lane, Dublin, PA Plaintiff James E. Cleary, Jr. (hereinafter Mr. Cleary ) is the husband of plaintiff Josephine DiMaio-Cleary and is an adult individual residing at 101 Applewood Lane, Dublin, PA Defendant Jamie Ray-Leonetti, (hereinafter Ms. Ray-Leonetti ) is a licensed attorney and at all relevant times was practicing law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at the following regular places of business: 1515 Market Street, Suite 1300, Philadelphia, PA and 1315 Walnut Street #4, Philadelphia, PA Defendant Williams Cuker Berezofsky, LLC, is a professional limited liability company which, at all relevant times, was and is presently a law firm with a regular place of business at 1515 Market Street, Suite 1300, Philadelphia, PA Defendant Center for Disability Law and Policy d/b/a Pennsylvania Client Assistance Program (hereinafter CDL ) is a Pennsylvania non-profit corporation with a regular place of business at 1515 Market Street, Suite 1300, Philadelphia, PA and a registered address with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2310, Philadelphia, PA

3 6. Defendant Disability Rights Pennsylvania f/n/a Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania (hereinafter DRP ) is a Pennsylvania non-profit corporation with a regular place of business at 1315 Walnut Street #4, Philadelphia, PA At relevant times hereto, and while committing legal malpractice, defendant Ms. Ray-Leonetti was an agent, servant, employee and/or ostensible agent of defendants Williams Cuker Berezofsky, LLC and/or CDL and/or DRP and was acting within the course and scope of her employment and/or agency for the same. 8. At relevant times hereto, Ms. Ray-Leonetti held herself out to the Clearys as working with and for Williams Cuker Berezofsky, LLC in a formal professional relationship. 9. Ms. Ray-Leonetti s curriculum vitae lists CDL as her employer during the relevant time. 10. At relevant times hereto, Ms. Ray-Leonetti worked at Williams Cuker Berezofsky, LLC and/or at CDL and/or at DRP, and reported to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania that she maintained professional liability insurance through CDL and later through DRP. 11. At relevant times hereto, Ms. Ray-Leonetti worked at DRP, communicated with Mrs. Cleary using her drnpa.org address, and identified herself in as an employee of DRP. 12. At relevant times hereto, Ms. Ray-Leonetti asked the Clearys to sign documents on the letterhead of Williams Cuker Berezofsky, LLC. 13. At all relevant times hereto, it was the Clearys reasonable belief that Williams Cuker Berezofsky, LLC employed Ms. Ray-Leonetti and that founding partner Gerald J. Williams, Esquire was supervising Ms. Ray-Leonetti. 3

4 14. At all relevant times hereto, Williams Cuker Berezofsky, LLC, was responsible for the legal representation provided by its employees, agents and/or ostensible agents, including Ms. Ray-Leonetti, and was responsible for oversight of these attorneys, employees, agents and/or ostensible agents. 15. At all relevant times hereto, CDL was responsible for the legal representation provided by its employees, agents and/or ostensible agents, including Ms. Ray-Leonetti, and CDL was responsible for oversight of these attorneys, employees, agents and/or ostensible agents. 16. At all relevant times hereto, DRP was responsible for the legal representation provided by its employees, agents and/or ostensible agents, including Ms. Ray-Leonetti, and DRP was responsible for oversight of these attorneys, employees, agents and/or ostensible agents. II. THE UNDERLYING MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE 17. On February 17, 2012, Mrs. Cleary underwent a hysterectomy at Doylestown Hospital under the care and direction of Carolyn Ianieri, D.O. 18. Doylestown Hospital, Dr. Ianieri, and her practice, Doylestown Women s Health Center (where Mrs. Cleary was also treated), are all located in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. 19. During and at the conclusion of the procedure Dr. Ianieri failed to remove the Koh cup and it was retained inside of Mrs. Cleary for almost (6) weeks post-surgery. 20. The retained object inside of Mrs. Cleary caused her to suffer from extreme pain, discomfort and bleeding for this period of time. 4

5 21. Dr. Ianieri and her partner, Tuan A. Le, M.D., failed to identify the retained object during two (2) follow-up appointments where Mrs. Cleary was complaining of severe and abnormal levels of post-surgical pain. 22. The follow-up appointments took place at Doylestown Women s Health Center. 23. Mrs. Cleary also called Doylestown Women s Health Center on multiple occasions complaining of extreme pain and bleeding. She was suffering from fevers at night. Nothing was done on these occasions to identify the source of her pain and the retained object. 24. The Koh cup was finally identified and removed on March 28, 2012, but not before Mrs. Cleary endured the extended pain and suffering. 25. The Koh cup was removed in office and not in the hospital. 26. This procedure was performed with the use of a tenaculum and without anesthesia. This caused Mrs. Cleary extreme pain, suffering and emotional trauma. 27. This was a very painful procedure and one in which Dr. Ianieri had difficulty removing the Koh cup leading to repeated attempts. 28. Dr. Ianieri also failed to obtain formal consent for this procedure. 29. Dr. Ianieri, Dr. Le, Doylestown Women s Health Center and Doylestown Hospital, along with their nurses and professional staff (collectively referred to herein as the medical care providers ), had a duty to provide medical care to Mrs. Cleary, including her hysterectomy and follow-up care, in accordance with the standard of care. 30. At all relevant times it was the standard of care for the medical care providers to remove the Koh cup as part of the hysterectomy procedure. 31. At all relevant times the standard of care required follow-up care that under the circumstances would have identified the retained Koh cup earlier for Mrs. Cleary, and if done properly reduced her pain, suffering and discomfort. 5

6 32. At all relevant times it was the standard of care to remove the Koh cup in a hospital setting and with anesthesia. 33. The medical care providers failed to adhere to the standard of care in their treatment of Mrs. Cleary. 34. The medical care providers failure to adhere to the standard of care in the treatment of Mrs. Cleary was a substantial factor in causing Mrs. Cleary the pain, suffering, emotional trauma and discomfort she endured. 35. The medical care providers failure to adhere to the standard of care in the treatment of Mrs. Cleary was a substantial factor in delaying Mrs. Cleary s recovery from her hysterectomy and was a substantial factor in causing the complications she suffered in her recovery. 36. The carelessness and negligence of the medical care providers increased the risk of harm to Mrs. Cleary and was a substantial factor in bringing about the injuries and damages suffered including her pain, suffering, discomfort, emotional anguish and prolonged recovery and debilitation. 37. As a direct and proximate result of the carelessness and negligence of the medical care providers, the Koh cup was retained inside of Mrs. Cleary and she suffered extreme pain, discomfort and prolonged recovery and debilitation. 38. As a direct and proximate result of the carelessness and negligence of the medical care providers, the Koh cup was retained inside of Mrs. Cleary for a prolonged period of time and she suffered extreme pain, discomfort and prolonged recovery and debilitation. 39. As a direct and proximate result of the carelessness and negligence of the medical care providers, the Koh cup was removed in office and without anesthesia, and she suffered extreme pain, discomfort, emotional anguish and prolonged recovery and debilitation. 6

7 III. FACTS 40. Mr. and Mrs. Cleary first met Jamie Ray-Leonetti, Esquire in 2008 at the offices of Williams Cuker Berezofsky, LLC, located at 1515 Market Street, Suite 1300, Philadelphia, PA The Clearys were meeting with Gerald J. Williams, Esquire, a founding partner of Williams Cuker Berezofsky, LLC and Mr. Williams asked Ms. Ray-Leonetti to join the meeting. The Clearys understood that Ms. Ray-Leonetti worked for Williams Cuker Berezofsky, LLC. Thereafter, Ms. Ray-Leonetti and Mr. Williams assisted Mrs. Cleary with a work injury matter. 41. In the spring of 2012, Mrs. Clearly contacted Ms. Ray-Leonetti to inquire as to whether Williams Cuker Berezofsky, LLC handled medical negligence cases. Ms. Ray-Leonetti responded in the affirmative. 42. In April of 2012, Ms. Ray-Leonetti arranged to meet Mr. and Mrs. Cleary at a restaurant near their home and advised the Clearys that she would handle the preliminary matters on behalf of Williams Cuker Berezofsky, LLC in the medical negligence case against Dr. Ianieri, her practice and Doylestown Hospital where the hysterectomy was performed. At that meeting, the Clearys signed a retainer agreement and medical authorizations on the letterhead of Williams Cuker Berezofsky, LLC. 43. At the April 2012 meeting, Ms. Ray-Leonetti represented to the plaintiffs that while she was handling the case, another attorney at Williams Cuker Berezofsky, LLC was also involved and Jerry Williams was supervising the handling of the case. 44. Ms. Ray-Leonetti asked Mrs. Cleary to sign an authorization for the release of her medical records. The authorization was on the letterhead of Williams Cuker Berezofsky, LLC, authorizing the release of health information to Williams Cuker Berezofsky, LLC. 7

8 45. Ms. Ray-Leonetti waited until February 15, 2014, on the eve of the two-year statute of limitations, to file a medical malpractice lawsuit on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Cleary. 46. The lawsuit was initiated by Writ of Summons in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, February Term 2014, No On the accompanying Civil Cover Sheet, Ms. Ray-Leonetti indicated that the amount in controversy was $50,000 or less and that the case should be placed in the Arbitration program. 47. The Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas listed the Clearys case for arbitration hearing on November 3, Ms. Ray-Leonetti did not consult with Mr. and Mrs. Cleary on the decision to file the case as an arbitration matter and did not explain the limits of the arbitration program to Mr. and Mrs. Cleary before filing the Writ. 49. Ms. Ray-Leonetti did not timely or properly serve the medical malpractice defendants with the Writ and never filed a Return of Service as required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. 50. Ms. Ray-Leonetti never filed a Complaint or certificates of merit. 51. Ms. Ray-Leonetti did not attend the arbitration scheduled for November 3, On November 17, 2014, Ms. Ray-Leonetti filed an Application for Continuance as discussed with Ms. Eagan at the Arbitration center on 11/3/14. The Arbitration Center granted that Application and rescheduled the arbitration for January 9, On January 5, 2015, Ms. Ray-Leonetti filed a second Application for Continuance, stating as the basis for that request that a complaint must be filed and served, and a discussion is necessary concerning possible venue change, and no counsel has entered appearance for Defendant Jefferson. The Arbitration Center granted that Application and rescheduled the arbitration for March 6,

9 54. Immediately prior to the scheduled arbitration on March 6, 2015, Ms. Ray- Leonetti misrepresented to the Clearys that the courts were closed due to bad weather, that the Clearys were not required to appear, and that the arbitration would be rescheduled. 55. On March 6, 2015, the Arbitration Center entered on the docket a Certification of Non-Appearance of Plaintiffs and transferred the case to a judge of the Court pursuant to Pa.R.C.P. 1303(b)(2) and Phila.Civ.R. 1303(a). 56. On March 6, 2015, the Honorable Idee C. Fox entered Judgment of Non Pros against Plaintiffs with no right to a trial de novo, for failing to appear and for failing to file a Complaint. 57. Thereafter Ms. Ray-Leonetti misrepresented to the Clearys that she had settled their case for $50, and that settlement funds would be forthcoming. Ms. Ray-Leonetti further misrepresented that $50, was the most the Clearys could recover for their claims. 58. Ms. Ray-Leonetti fraudulently concealed from the Clearys the fact that the Court had entered a Judgment of Non Pros. 59. Over the course of many months following the fabricated and fictitious settlement, Ms. Ray-Leonetti communicated with the Clearys by telephone and on dozens of occasions, during which she misrepresented to the Clearys that the settlement funds would arrive imminently, and continued fraudulently to conceal from the Clearys the truth about the status their medical malpractice case. 60. On March 7, 2016, Mrs. Cleary called Ms. Ray-Leonetti s office and spoke with Kelly Darr, Executive Director of DRP, who advised Mrs. Cleary that her medical malpractice case had not settled. Plaintiffs then retained a new attorney and learned for the first time that a Judgment of Non Pros had been entered against them in their medical malpractice case. 9

10 COUNT I PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE PLAINTIFFS v. JAMIE RAY-LEONETTI, ESQUIRE and WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY, LLC and CENTER FOR DISABILITY LAW AND POLICY d/b/a PENNSYLVANIA CLIENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM and DISABILITY RIGHTS PENNSYLVANIA f/n/a DISABILITY RIGHTS NETWORK OF PENNSYLVANIA 61. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the averments of Paragraphs 1 through 60 as if fully set forth at length. 62. Defendant, Jamie Ray-Leonetti, Esquire, was negligent, careless and breached the standard of care applicable to a legal professional in the following ways: a. By indicating to the Court that the amount in controversy in Plaintiffs underlying medical malpractice action was $50,000 or less and that the case should be placed in the arbitration program. b. By failing to consult with Mr. and Mrs. Cleary on the decision to file the case in the arbitration program. c. By failing to explain the limits of the arbitration program to Mr. and Mrs. Cleary before filing the Writ in the arbitration program. d. By failing to timely or properly serve the medical malpractice defendants with the Writ and failing to file a Return of Service as required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. e. By failing to file a Complaint in Plaintiffs medical malpractice action. f. By failing to file certificates of merit in Plaintiffs medical malpractice action. g. By advising Plaintiffs not to appear at the arbitration hearing on March 6, h. By allowing a Judgment of Non Pros to be entered against Plaintiffs. 10

11 63. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant s professional negligence, breach of duty, and failure to exercise the ordinary care, skill, and diligence of an attorney in the practice of law, Plaintiffs were deprived of compensation in their underlying medical malpractice action, which they would have received but for the negligence and carelessness of the Defendant. 64. Defendants, Williams Cuker Berezofsky, LLC and/or CDL and/or DRP are vicariously liable for the professional negligence of Jamie Ray-Leonetti, Esquire. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against the defendants, jointly and severally, for a sum in excess of jurisdictional limits for arbitration, plus interest and damages for prejudgment delay. COUNT II BREACH OF CONTRACT PLAINTIFFS v. JAMIE RAY-LEONETTI, ESQUIRE and WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY, LLC 65. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the averments of Paragraphs 1 through 64 as if fully set forth at length. 66. In April of 2012, Plaintiffs retained Defendants, Jamie Ray-Leonetti, Esquire and Williams Cuker Berezofsky, LLC, by oral and written agreement, to represent Plaintiffs in a claim for medical malpractice and said Defendants thereafter undertook and agreed to provide representation. 67. Upon entering into this agreement, Defendant, Jamie Ray-Leonetti, Esquire and Williams Cuker Berezofsky, LLC, became contractually obligated to render legal services in accordance with the applicable standard of care. 68. Defendants, Jamie Ray-Leonetti, Esquire and Williams Cuker Berezofsky, LLC, failed to provide representation in accordance with the standards of competence and reasonable skill in the legal profession and breached their contract with Plaintiffs in the following ways: 11

12 a. By indicating to the Court that the amount in controversy in Plaintiffs underlying medical malpractice action was $50,000 or less and that the case should be placed in the arbitration program. b. By failing to consult with Mr. and Mrs. Cleary on the decision to file the case in the arbitration program. c. By failing to explain the limits of the arbitration program to Mr. and Mrs. Cleary before filing the Writ in the arbitration program. d. By failing to timely or properly serve the medical malpractice defendants with the Writ and failing to file a Return of Service as required by the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure. e. By failing to file a Complaint in Plaintiffs medical malpractice action. f. By failing to file certificates of merit in Plaintiffs medical malpractice action. g. By advising Plaintiffs not to appear at the arbitration hearing on March 6, h. By allowing a Judgment of Non Pros to entered against Plaintiffs 69. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants breach of contract, Plaintiffs were deprived of compensation in their underlying medical malpractice action, which they would have received but for the breach of contract by the Defendants. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against the defendants, Jamie Ray-Leonetti, Esquire and Williams Cuker Berezofsky, LLC, jointly and severally, for a sum in excess of jurisdictional limits for arbitration, plus interest and damages for prejudgment delay. 12

13 COUNT III FRAUD & MISREPRESENTATION PLAINTIFFS v. JAMIE RAY-LEONETTI, ESQUIRE and WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY, LLC, and CENTER FOR DISABILITY LAW AND POLICY d/b/a PENNSYLVANIA CLIENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM and DISABILITY RIGHTS PENNSYLVANIA f/n/a DISABILITY RIGHTS NETWORK OF PENNSYLVANIA 70. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the averments of Paragraphs 1 through 69 as if fully set forth at length. 71. Defendant, Jamie Ray-Leonetti, Esquire, made material misrepresentations and intentionally false, outrageous and deceitful statements, by telephone and , to Plaintiffs regarding the status of their medical malpractice case, including: a. On March 6, 2015, Ms. Ray-Leonetti misrepresented to the Clearys that the courts were closed due to bad weather, that the Clearys were not required to appear in Court, and that the arbitration would be rescheduled; b. On numerous occasions in March of 2015 and thereafter, Ms. Ray-Leonetti misrepresented to the Clearys that their medical malpractice had been settled; c. On various occasions in April and May of 2015, Ms. Ray-Leonetti misrepresented to the Clearys that she was waiting for a release and a settlement check from the medical malpractice defendants. s from Ms. Ray-Leonetti to Mrs. Cleary include statements about fabricated meetings to get the paperwork issued and the check signed; d. On or about June 9, 2015, Ms. Ray-Leonetti ed Mrs. Cleary misrepresenting that she made calls to check on the status of the settlement paperwork; 13

14 e. On or about July 22, 2015, Ms. Ray-Leonetti drafted and sent a letter to the President of Archbishop Wood High School, where the Clearys son was a student, falsely assuring the school and the Clearys that funds would soon be available for overdue tuition payments. A similar letter was sent on or about September 23, 2015; f. On or about August 24 and September 23, 2015, Ms. Ray-Leonetti drafted and sent letters to Bucks County Community College in reference to tuition owed by the Clearys. The letters misrepresented that the Clearys were awaiting funds and that the tuition balance for James will be paid no later than the first week of October 2015 ; g. In August of 2015, Ms. Ray-Leonetti misrepresented to the Clearys that they would have the money to pay school tuition in a lump sum and encouraged the Clearys not to go on their normal month-to-month payment plan for their children s schools; h. In August 2015, Ms. Ray-Leonetti encouraged the Clearys to take a family vacation and put it on a credit card because their settlement money was coming and the Cleary s would be able to pay off their credit card in full; i. On or about September 23 through October 1, 2015, in a series of s, Ms. Ray-Leonetti fraudulently assured the Cleary s their settlement check would arrive by October 1, 2015; j. On or about October 5 through October 20, 2015, in a series of s, Ms. Ray-Leonetti fraudulently promised that the settlement check was on its way and would be delivered to the Clearys when it arrived; 14

15 k. On or about October 5 through October 20, 2015, Ms. Ray-Leonetti also reported to the Cleary s that she was calling the defense lawyers about the settlement check; l. On or about October 27, 2015, Ms. Ray-Leonetti misrepresented to Mrs. Cleary that the settlement check would arrive that day at the Cleary s home. Ms. Ray-Leonetti then misrepresented that the check may not arrive today, it could be tomorrow. m. On or about October 27-28, 2015, Mrs. Cleary advised Ms. Ray-Leonetti that her son s school was threatening to dismiss him if payment was not made and Ms. Ray-Leonetti responded that she would handle the school and requested contact information for the school (Archbishop Wood High School). Ms. Ray-Leonetti stated that she was contacting the school and then fraudulently advised the Clearys that she spoke to the school and that they need payment before the January semester starts which of course is no problem ; n. On or about October 28, 2015, Ms. Ray-Leonetti sent s to Mrs. Cleary in which she fraudulently misrepresented that she had removed our office as a middle man and requested that the carrier send directly to your home to speed things up. She promised a tracking number and a delivery time window. She also stated: if we don t receive it by the end of the week, my wrath will be unleashed and they don t want to see that. o. On or about November 12, 2015, Ms. Ray-Leonetti misrepresented in that the check would be delivered on November 16th. On the 16 th, Ms. Ray- Leonetti advised Mrs. Cleary that the check is not in her office, asked if it was sent directly to the Clearys, and stated that she has called them and wants to 15

16 talk about a back up plan. In reliance upon Ms. Ray-Leonetti s misrepresentations, Mr. Cleary waited at home for a check that did not arrive. Mrs. Cleary asked if a complaint could be filed against them and Ms. Ray- Leonetti responded that she was working on that now. p. On or about November 17, 2015, Ms. Ray-Leonetti told Mrs. Cleary that she would arrange for tuition payments to be made for her children while they await the fictitious settlement check. Ms. Ray-Leonetti then made a payment of $5, to Smart Tuition for Archbishop Wood and $2, to Bucks County Community College. q. On or about November 30 December 2, 2015, Ms. Ray-Leonetti fraudulently confirmed delivery of the settlement check to the Cleary s for December 2, In reliance upon Ms. Ray-Leonetti s misrepresentations, Mr. Cleary again waited at home for check that did not arrive. Mid-morning Ms. Ray-Leonetti advised that the fictitious check was not arriving but was sent this morning. She wrote later in the afternoon I have confirmation so the end should be in sight. r. On or about December 4, 2015, Ms. Ray-Leonetti ed Mrs. Cleary and fraudulently misrepresented that the check had been delivered but there is an issue with how it is payable so please call me to discuss. Don t worry it s not a major issue. In a subsequent phone call, Ms. Ray-Leonetti misrepresented to Mrs. Cleary that she had asked defendants for two checks - one to the firm and one to the Clearys - but that one check to the firm was sent. s. On or about December 9, 2015, Ms. Ray-Leonetti ed Mrs. Cleary and fraudulently misrepresented that the check is not totally clear yet, but we 16

17 hope to send it out this afternoon anyway. On the 10th, Mr. Cleary waited again for the check. On Friday the 11 th, Ms. Ray-Leonetti fraudulently misrepresented that a time cannot be confirmed for delivery and so they are suggesting that they set a time for Monday morning you should not have to wait for this to clear because it is certified. t. On or about December 10, 2015, Ms. Ray-Leonetti wrote to Mrs. Cleary that she had spoken to Bucks County Community College and that Mrs. Cleary s son James was allowed to register for classes. Ms. Ray-Leonetti provided an alleged confirmation number. Mrs. Cleary had previously advised Ms. Ray- Leonetti that James could not register even though the tuition payment had allegedly been arranged by Ms. Ray-Leonetti weeks before. u. On or about December 16, 2015, Ms. Ray-Leonetti wrote that there was an ETA on the settlement check. v. On or about December 17, 2015, Ms. Ray-Leonetti asked Mrs. Cleary to inquire with Archbishop Wood why our check to Wood has not been cashed. The Clearys confirmed that neither Archbishop Wood nor Smart Tuition had received a check. Ms. Ray-Leonetti falsely and fraudulently blamed Smart Tuition for not properly processing the tuition payment. w. On or about December 21, 2015, Ms. Ray-Leonetti advised the Clearys that she would have the settlement check delivered the next day. x. On December 22, 2015, Ms. Ray-Leonetti arranged for delivery of a check for $5, to the Clearys, as part of her ongoing fraudulent plan to conceal from the Clearys the truth about the status of their medical malpractice case. 17

18 Around this time, a check for $1, was also received by the Clearys via regular mail. y. On or about December 29, 2015, Ms. Ray-Leonetti sent additional s to the Clearys regarding her contact with Smart Tuition, blaming Smart Tuition staff and stating that she was advised the payment may have been cashed and applied to the wrong account and would have information within 5-7 days. z. On or about December 29, 2015, Ms. Ray-Leonetti arranged payment for the Clearys new kitchen appliances as part of her ongoing fraudulent plan to conceal from the Clearys the truth about the status of their medical malpractice case. aa. On or about January 4, 2016, Ms. Ray-Leonetti advised Mrs. Cleary that the check to Smart Tuition has been returned to her office and that it would go back out the same day. She also advised that she would provide information about the clearing of your remaining funds. bb. On or about January 5, 2016, Ms. Ray-Leonetti misrepresented to Mrs. Cleary that the last portion of the settlement check should clear that day and it would be sent by the end of the week. cc. On or about January 7-8, 2016, Ms. Ray-Leonetti sent another series of s to Bucks County Community College and Archbishop Wood. The s assured the schools that tuition payments would be made within the next two weeks because the Clearys were receiving funds that would cover the payments. dd. On or about January 8, 2016, Ms. Ray-Leonetti assured Mrs. Cleary that the balance of the settlement funds would be delivered on January 12th. 18

19 ee. On or about January 11, 2016, Ms. Ray-Leonetti confirmed that our driver will deliver the settlement check in the afternoon. ff. On or about January 12, 2016, Ms. Ray-Leonetti requested that Mrs. Cleary call her. She then misrepresented to Mrs. Cleary that she had requested additional funds to help offset some of your aggravation and that the funds had been approved. gg. On or about January 13, 2016, Ms. Ray-Leonetti told Mrs. Cleary that Friday the 15th was the most likely day for the settlement check to arrive at the Clearys home. hh. On or about January 14, 2016, Ms. Ray-Leonetti sent the Clearys a draft of a fictitious settlement statement setting forth a breakdown of the money they would receive. ii. On or about January 15, 2016, in the late afternoon, Mrs. Cleary asked Ms. Ray-Leonetti if the driver had left yet with their check. She responded that he had not. Ms. Ray-Leonetti then left to go on a cruise for a week. jj. On or about January 21, 2016, from her vacation, Ms. Ray-Leonetti advised Mrs. Cleary that she would ask her office to get the settlement check out that afternoon. kk. On or about January 26, 2016, Ms. Ray-Leonetti confirmed to Mrs. Cleary that she would personally deliver the settlement funds to Mr. Cleary at the Doylestown Septa railroad station the following day. ll. On or about January 27, 2016: Ms. Ray-Leonetti wrote to tell Mrs. Cleary that Mr. Cleary should not meet her at the station and we will discuss. 19

20 mm. On or about January 28, 2016, Ms. Ray-Leonetti ed Mrs. Cleary to let her know that we asked the post office and we estimate you will get the certified check Friday or Monday. nn. On or about February 2, 2016, Mrs. Cleary ed that the mail had come but no check had arrived. Ms. Ray-Leonetti responded that she did not want to put a stop payment on it until at least the following day in case it comes. She further stated that she had tracked the check which was out for delivery and that it was scanned at a Philadelphia post office last night. She said she also confirmed with her office that they should start a new check. oo. On or about February 4, 2016, Ms. Ray-Leonetti wrote to Mrs. Cleary that on the advice of her boss she made a test payment of $5.00 electronically to Smart Tuition for the Archbishop Wood tuition and that it went through so she was transmitting the remaining $5, the same way. pp. On or about February 5, 2016, Mrs. Cleary asked Ms. Ray-Leonetti whether the settlement funds could be transmitted electronically as this would be easiest and fastest. Ms. Ray-Leonetti responded that they were checking to see if it was possible and if it would be faster than me getting a paper check Monday. She confirmed it would definitely be ready Monday but would continue to explore the electronic transfer. qq. On or about February 16, 2016, Ms. Ray Leonetti advised Mr. Cleary that we are getting a paper check but it is unlikely they would receive it today. Ms. Ray-Leonetti also claimed to have checked on a direct deposit that had not gone through. She also stated she was continuing to work with Smart Tuition on the school payment. 20

21 rr. On or about February 16, 2016, Ms. Ray-Leonetti sent an to Bucks County Community College alerting the school that the Clearys would have settlement proceeds by the end of the following week at the latest. ss. On or about February 17, 2016, Ms. Ray-Leonetti told Mrs. Cleary that she did not have your new check yet, but I know it is in the works. Ms. Ray- Leonetti stated that she would personally deliver the check Thursday or Friday (18th or 19th) and was looking forward to it. As of the late afternoon Ms. Ray-Leonetti still did not have the check but hoped to get it tomorrow. tt. On or about February 18, 2016, Ms. Ray-Leonetti advised Mrs. Cleary that there was no check yet. She further advised that the person who needs to finish this for me is in an unscheduled, emergency meeting she said she does have this on her list to do asap. uu. On or about February 19, 2016, Mrs. Cleary asked Ms. Ray-Leonetti if they could take legal action against Smart Tuition since they had been trying to pay since the first week of December. Ms. Ray-Leonetti responded we will certainly have this on the agenda at our next legal meeting. vv. On or about February 22, 2016, Ms. Ray-Leonetti ed Mrs. Cleary with a breakdown of the two checks she was to receive one for $39, and one payable to Smart Tuition for $7, Ms. Ray-Leonetti continued to explain that she did not have the checks yet. She offered to meet Mr. Cleary the following day at Archbishop Wood with both checks. Mrs. Cleary sent an to Sister Maryanna at Archbishop Wood alerting her that Mr. Cleary would be delivering a $7, check for Smart Tuition the following day. 21

22 ww. On February 23, 2016, at 10:36 a.m., Ms. Ray-Leonetti advised Mrs. Cleary that she had not been picked up by her driver yet to deliver the check but would be by 11:30 a.m., although could be later because I noticed lots of traffic this morning and it is rainy. She also stated she spoke to Mr. Cleary and would call him when she was on the way. At 12:58 p.m. Ms. Ray- Leonetti asked Mrs. Cleary to call her because she got more info. xx. On February 23, 2016, Ms. Ray-Leonetti ed Sister Maryanna at Archbishop Wood and told her that she has advised the Clearys not to drop off the $7, check because the electronic payment was going through. She advised that her staff noticed the money out of our account earlier today. Mrs. Cleary was copied on the . yy. On or about February 24, 2016, Ms. Ray-Leonetti ed Mrs. Cleary with a confirmation number for the $5, payment to Smart Tuition. Sister Maryanna at Archbishop Wood also confirmed the payment. However, the payment was never made. Once it showed as posted in the system, Ms. Ray- Leonetti removed it before it could go through. zz. On or about February 24, 2016, Ms. Ray-Leonetti continued her s to Mrs. Cleary regarding the electronic transfer of settlement funds to the Clearys bank account. She stated the transfer had gone through but not yet pulled from the account and posted to the Cleary s. aaa. On or about February 24, 2016, Mrs. Cleary told Ms. Ray-Leonetti that if the funds do not clear by Friday (the 26 th ) then she and Mr. Cleary would pick up the checks. Ms. Ray-Leonetti offered to drop the checks off on Monday the 29th because she had to be at the Bucks County Intermediate Unit first 22

23 thing in the morning. Mrs. Cleary maintained that she wanted to pick up the checks Friday the 26th. bbb. On or about February 25, 2016, Ms. Ray-Leonetti confirmed the address where she would meet Mr. Cleary with the checks on Monday the 29th. She also stated she would continue to check with the bank through Monday morning to see if the electronic transfer had gone through. Ms. Ray-Leonetti never showed up on the 29 th. ccc. On or about February 29, 2016, Ms. Ray-Leonetti ed Mrs. Cleary to let her know the deposit pulled and she wanted Mrs. Cleary to check to see if she had the money. ddd. On or about March 1, 2016, Mr. Cleary was scheduled to take a 10:56 a.m. train into Center City to pick up the settlement check. Ms. Ray-Leonetti contacted Mrs. Cleary at 10:45 a.m. to tell her that she had to cancel because her Director, Kelly Darr, wanted to be in the office when the checks were picked up. eee. On or about March 1, 2016, Ms. Ray-Leonetti also ed that she would be in Bucks County with the checks that day and was leaving between 12-12:30 p.m. At 12:07 p.m. she ed Mrs. Cleary I am leaving in 5 minutes. She sent a series of subsequent s about traffic being bad and never showed up that day. fff. On or about March 2, 2016, Ms. Ray-Leonetti advised the Cleary s that she needed to reschedule and did not show the day before because her driver had an emergency call and had to turn around. 23

24 ggg. On or about March 2, 2016, Mrs. Cleary sent an to one of Ms. Ray- Leonetti s directors, Chava Kintisch, confirming an appointment for March 7, 2016 at 3 p.m. to pick up the checks in Center City. Mrs. Cleary advised that she has been promised the money on 20+ occasions and had not received it. hhh. On March 4, 2016, Ms. Ray-Leonetti confirmed with the Clearys the meeting scheduled for March 7, 2016 to pick up the settlement checks. iii. On or about March 4, 2016, Mrs. Cleary called Ms. Ray-Leonetti with one question: Did my case settle and is there really a settlement check? Ms. Ray-Leonetti replied yes. jjj. At the last minute, Ms. Ray-Leonetti canceled the March 7 th meeting, stating that she was in the emergency room with her husband. kkk. Ms. Ray-Leonetti told Mrs. Cleary that she was still welcome to meet with her director, Ms. Kelly Darr, at DRP, but to call first. Mrs. Cleary called Ms. Darr who advised that the case had not settled and that she did not know the source of the money previously distributed. lll. On or about March 9, 2016, as part of her ongoing fraudulent plan to conceal from the Clearys the truth about the status of their medical malpractice case, Ms. Ray-Leonetti misrepresented to the Clearys: I can continue to negotiate and I think there could be a good outcome. 72. The foregoing willful misrepresentations, outrageous lies and intentional nondisclosures of material fact were made by Ms. Ray-Leonetti with the intent to deceive the Clearys, to conceal from them the truth about the status of their medical negligence claims, to delay or avoid a claim by the Clearys for legal malpractice, and to induce their reliance. 24

25 73. The foregoing willful misrepresentations, outrageous lies and intentional nondisclosures of material fact were made by Ms. Ray-Leonetti with knowledge of their falsity and with the intent to mislead the Clearys to rely upon the misrepresentations and intentional nondisclosures. 74. Ms. Ray-Leonetti represented the Clearys at the time she made the forgoing misrepresentations and intentional non-disclosures of material fact, in violation of her duties of competent representation, honesty and fidelity. 75. The Clearys reasonably and justifiably relied to their detriment upon Ms. Ray- Leonetti s misrepresentations and non-disclosures of material fact and suffered financial losses as a result, including incurring credit card debt based on their expectation that settlement proceeds were forthcoming and spending money on a vacation based on their expectation that settlement proceeds were forthcoming. 76. As a further consequence of Ms. Ray-Leonetti s misrepresentations and nondisclosures of material fact, Mrs. Cleary lost vacation time from work and suffered impairment to her credit rating, hindering her ability to borrow money. 77. As a further consequence of Ms. Ray-Leonetti s misrepresentations and nondisclosures of material fact, the Clearys suffered emotional distress, with insomnia, headaches, nausea and other physical manifestations of this distress. 78. The foregoing willful misrepresentations, outrageous lies and intentional nondisclosures of material fact were made by Ms. Ray-Leonetti in her capacity as an agent, servant, employee or ostensible agent of defendants, Williams Cuker Berezofsky, LLC and/or CDL and/or DRP, who are vicariously liable for those frauds, deceits, concealments, misrepresentations, torts, negligences, malfeasances and misfeasances. 25

26 WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor and against Ms. Ray-Leonetti, Williams Cuker Berezofsky, LLC, CDL, and DRP, for compensatory and punitive damages in a sum in excess of jurisdictional limits for arbitration, plus interest and damages for prejudgment delay. FELDMAN, SHEPHERD, WOHLGELERNTER TANNER, WEINSTOCK & DODIG, LLP MARK W. TANNER PETER M. NEWMAN Attorneys for Plaintiffs 26

27 VERIFICATION I, James E. Cleary, Jr., having read the foregoing Complaint, verify that the language of the document is that of counsel based upon information furnished to and gathered by counsel and, to the extent the Complaint is based upon information provided to counsel by the undersigned, the facts are true and correct to the best of the undersigned s knowledge. information and belief. To the extent the facts were obtained by counsel from other sources, I have relied upon counsel in taking this verification. This verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. James E.

28 VERIFICATION I, Josephine DiMaio-Cleary, having read the foregoing Complaint, verify that the language of the document is that of counsel based upon information furnished to and gathered by counsel and, to the extent the Complaint is based upon information provided to counsel by the undersigned, the facts are true and correct to the best of the undersigned's knowledge, information and belief To the extent the facts were obtained by counsel from other sources, 1 have relied upon counsel in taking this verification. This verification is made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. )ii20:xld Josephifife DilV aio-cleary

29 JOSEPHINE DIMAIO-CLEARY AND : PHILADELPHIA COUNTY JAMES E. CLEARY, JR. h/w : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs, : vs. : June Term, 2017 JAMIE RAY-LEONETTI : No. and : WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY, LLC : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED and : CENTER FOR DISABILITY LAW AND : POLICY d/b/a PENNSYLVANIA CLIENT : ASSISTANCE PROGRAM : and : DISABILITY RIGHTS PENNSYLVANIA : f/n/a DISABILITY RIGHTS NETWORK OF : PENNSYLVANIA : Defendants. : : CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS TO DEFENDANT JAMIE RAY-LEONETTI, ESQUIRE I, Peter M. Newman, certify that: (Attorney or Party) an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the Complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; OR G the claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the Complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; OR G expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. PETER M. NEWMAN, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiffs

30 JOSEPHINE DIMAIO-CLEARY AND : PHILADELPHIA COUNTY JAMES E. CLEARY, JR. h/w : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs, : vs. : June Term, 2017 JAMIE RAY-LEONETTI : No. and : WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY, LLC : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED and : CENTER FOR DISABILITY LAW AND : POLICY d/b/a PENNSYLVANIA CLIENT : ASSISTANCE PROGRAM : and : DISABILITY RIGHTS PENNSYLVANIA : f/n/a DISABILITY RIGHTS NETWORK OF : PENNSYLVANIA : Defendants. : : CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS TO DEFENDANT WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY, LLC I, Peter M. Newman, certify that: (Attorney or Party) G an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the Complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; OR the claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the Complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; OR G expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. PETER M. NEWMAN, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiffs

31 JOSEPHINE DIMAIO-CLEARY AND : PHILADELPHIA COUNTY JAMES E. CLEARY, JR. h/w : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs, : vs. : June Term, 2017 JAMIE RAY-LEONETTI : No. and : WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY, LLC : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED and : CENTER FOR DISABILITY LAW AND : POLICY d/b/a PENNSYLVANIA CLIENT : ASSISTANCE PROGRAM : and : DISABILITY RIGHTS PENNSYLVANIA : f/n/a DISABILITY RIGHTS NETWORK OF : PENNSYLVANIA : Defendants. : : CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS TO DEFENDANT CENTER FOR DISABILITY LAW AND POLICY d/b/a PENNSYLVANIA CLIENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM I, Peter M. Newman, certify that: (Attorney or Party) G an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the Complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; OR the claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the Complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; OR G expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. PETER M. NEWMAN, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiffs

32 JOSEPHINE DIMAIO-CLEARY AND : PHILADELPHIA COUNTY JAMES E. CLEARY, JR. h/w : COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Plaintiffs, : vs. : June Term, 2017 JAMIE RAY-LEONETTI : No. and : WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY, LLC : JURY TRIAL DEMANDED and : CENTER FOR DISABILITY LAW AND : POLICY d/b/a PENNSYLVANIA CLIENT : ASSISTANCE PROGRAM : and : DISABILITY RIGHTS PENNSYLVANIA : f/n/a DISABILITY RIGHTS NETWORK OF : PENNSYLVANIA : Defendants. : : CERTIFICATE OF MERIT AS TO DEFENDANT DISABILITY RIGHTS PENNSYLVANIA f/n/a DISABILITY RIGHTS NETWORK OF PENNSYLVANIA I, Peter M. Newman, certify that: (Attorney or Party) G an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by this defendant in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the Complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; OR the claim that this defendant deviated from an acceptable professional standard is based solely on allegations that other licensed professionals for whom this defendant is responsible deviated from an acceptable professional standard and an appropriate licensed professional has supplied a written statement to the undersigned that there is a basis to conclude that the care, skill or knowledge exercised or exhibited by the other licensed professionals in the treatment, practice or work that is the subject of the Complaint, fell outside acceptable professional standards and that such conduct was a cause in bringing about the harm; OR G expert testimony of an appropriate licensed professional is unnecessary for prosecution of the claim against this defendant. PETER M. NEWMAN, ESQUIRE Attorney for Plaintiffs