LANCASTER – Counsel for a Philadelphia man argues that material alleging sexual assault committed upon the plaintiff by his chiropractor is not “scandalous and impertinent," but rather, necessary information needed to prove both the plaintiff’s case and the rationale for demanding punitive damages.
John Doe of Philadelphia first filed suit in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas on Feb. 9 versus Dr. William Vollmar, Stephen G. Diamantoni & Associates and Lancaster General Health, all of Lancaster.
According to the lawsuit, defendant Vollmar had a history of sexually assaulting and abusing his patients, including children, at various locations statewide over the past several decades.
In 2005, a patient reported to Lancaster General Health that Vollmar inappropriately touched her during an examination, but allegedly chose not to report the incident to law enforcement, the Pennsylvania Board of Medicine or anyone at Diamantoni & Associates – leading a series of other patients to also be abused.
“In the year 2017, plaintiff John Doe began treating with defendant Vollmar for various sport-related injuries. Plaintiff treated with Vollmar at Stephen G. Diamantoni & Associates’ Quarryville location, on several occasions between 2017 and March 2019,” the suit said.
“On each occasion when plaintiff received services at Diamantoni & Associates, defendant Vollmar was assigned to perform services on plaintiff. Plaintiff received services and/or treatment from Vollmar at Diamantoni & Associates after normal business hours.”
The suit continued that Vollmar’s co-defendants knew for well over 10 years that he had been and was continuing to sexually abuse his patients, and alleged that Diamantoni & Associates and its attorneys threatened those reporting the sexual assaults and abuse with defamation lawsuits.
After suffering an ankle injury in December 2018, the plaintiff received treatment from Vollmar for the proceeding three months. In addition, Vollmar is said to have exchanged text messages with the plaintiff and groomed him by asking him to accompany Vollmar to a sports medicine training session in New Jersey and treating him to dinner afterwards.
During a March 24, 2019 appointment, Vollmar allegedly began “rubbing, grabbing, squeezing, masturbating and/or twisting plaintiff’s penis”, causing him to freeze, paralyzed with shock – then asked the plaintiff if he would rub his back and when he did so, insinuated that he wanted him to proceed with further sexual activity.
When Vollmar nervously confronted plaintiff over his job security after what had just allegedly occurred, the plaintiff told him not to worry about it, while Vollmar made reference to a “happy ending.”
As a result of the interaction, the plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer great pain of mind and body, shock, emotional distress, physical manifestations of emotional distress, embarrassment, loss of self-esteem, disgrace, humiliation and loss of enjoyment in life, and has incurred/will continue to incur expenses for medical and psychological treatment, therapy and counseling.
“On April 24, 2019, defendant Vollmar was charged with indecent assault, as a result of his assault on plaintiff. He was concurrently charged with other sexual assault crimes, including corruption of minors, for assaults on multiple other victims,” per the suit.
“On Nov. 12, 2020, Vollmar pled no contest to numerous charges for sexually assaulting/abusing multiple other patients, including minors, and was sentenced to a minimum of nine and a half to 20 years in prison.”
Counsel for Diamantoni & Associates filed preliminary objections in the matter on March 8.
“Plaintiff’s complaint is factually and legally deficient because it (1) fails to conform to rule of law by failing to include a verification, as required by Pennsylvania law; (2) fails to state a claim for negligent misrepresentation, negligent failure to rescue and punitive damages; (3) includes insufficiently vague allegations; and (4) includes scandalous or impertinent matter,” per the objections, in part.
“Accordingly, defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court sustain its preliminary objections and dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, with prejudice. Alternatively, defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court dismiss portions of plaintiff’s complaint and strike all vague and scandalous or impertinent allegations from plaintiff’s complaint.”
According to defense counsel, that information relating to prior incidents of alleged assault is irrelevant and prejudicial.
“Plaintiff’s inclusion of such allegations amounts to an attempt to improperly introduce scandalous or impertinent matter and place at issue immaterial acts that are alleged to have occurred outside the relevant statute of limitations. These alleged facts are immaterial to the instance of alleged touching that occurred on March 24, 2019, which forms the underlying basis of this lawsuit,” according to the objections.
“Accordingly, because plaintiff’s inclusion of scandalous or impertinent matters cited within have no material bearing on the alleged duty owed by defendant, the alleged breach of that duty, causation, or the claimed injury suffered by plaintiff, these scandalous or impertinent matters should be stricken.”
UPDATE
Plaintiff counsel filed a response to the preliminary objections on March 29, claiming, among other things, that punitive damages are absolutely warranted in this case.
“Defendant William Vollmar sexually assaulted plaintiff – a patient in his and moving defendant’s care – while acting under the guise of treating him for injury; the ‘scandalous’ nature of the claim is brought on by defendants’ acts and/or failure to act themselves. This case involves conduct that does, and should, shock the conscience and does, in fact, implicate personal and sexual issues of an extremely sensitive nature. As such, based on the circumstances of this case, the facts that plaintiff is required to plead in his complaint are extremely relevant, material, wholly appropriate and necessary,” the response stated.
“Further, all of the averments listed by moving defendant as ‘scandalous and impertinent’ go directly to plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages for recklessly endangering the safety of individuals, including plaintiff, as well as form the basis and foundation of plaintiff’s claim that moving defendant violated their duty to warn plaintiff of the dangers of sexual abuse rampant throughout moving defendant’s employment of Vollmar. What defendant Diamantoni did and knew, or should have known, before, during, and after the sexual assault on plaintiff are material and relevant to understanding the claims of negligence and the breach of duty to warn plaintiff of the dangers of Vollmar specifically, but also of the potential harm of abuse that could occur at the hands of Vollmar, one of moving defendant’s employees, that moving defendant knew, or should have known, was occurring for years.”
For multiple counts of vicarious liability, negligence, negligent performance of undertaking to render services, negligent infliction of emotional distress, negligent misrepresentation and negligent failure to rescue, the plaintiff is seeking, jointly and severally, damages, interest, costs of suit, punitive damages and such other remedies as this Honorable Court deems equitable, just and proper.
The plaintiff is represented by Gaetano D’Andrea, Brian D. Kent and Jillian Roth of Laffey Bucci & Kent, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Carrie E. Evans, Richard L. Hackman and Stephen J. Fleury Jr. of Saxton & Stump in Lancaster and Malvern, plus Katherine B. Kravitz and Elizabeth L. Melamed of Barley Snyder, both in Lancaster.
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas case CI-21-00781
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com