LANCASTER – A Philadelphia man who alleged he was sexually assaulted by his chiropractor in Lancaster has recently settled his claims to that effect.
John Doe of Philadelphia first filed suit in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas on Feb. 9, 2021 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 alleges 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 next 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, 2021.
“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
On Dec. 3, 2021, Lancaster General Health filed its own answer to the complaint, where it denied the allegations and provided its own new matter.
“To the extent currently applicable or to the extent that it may later become applicable, answering defendant pleads the doctrine of laches to preserve this affirmative defense for the record. Answering defendant pleads the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations. Answering defendant raises any and all affirmative defenses of the Medical Care, Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act as a limit/bar to plaintiff’s claims,” the answer stated.
“To the extent currently applicable or to the extent that it may later become applicable, answering defendant pleads accord and satisfaction, and release, in order to preserve these affirmative defenses for the record. To the extent currently applicable or to the extent that it may later become applicable, answering defendant pleads res judicata and/or collateral estoppel, in order to preserve these affirmative defenses for the record.”
The plaintiff responded with a reply to said new matter on Dec. 22, 2021.
“It is specifically denied that the doctrine of laches is currently applicable and/or that it may later become applicable. It is specifically denied that the statute of limitations is currently applicable and/or that it may later become applicable. It is specifically denied that the Medical Care, Availability and Reduction Error (MCARE) Act, is currently applicable, that it may later become applicable, and/or that it limits and/or bars plaintiff’s claims in any way,” the plaintiff’s reply stated.
“It is specifically denied that the doctrine of accord and satisfaction, and release, is currently applicable and/or that it may later become applicable. It is specifically denied that the doctrine of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel is currently applicable and/or that it may later become applicable.”
On Sept. 7, plaintiff counsel indicated that the case had been settled. Terms of the settlement were not disclosed.
“Kindly mark the above-captioned matter as settled, discontinued and ended with prejudice, as this matter has been resolved,” the praecipe stated.
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 was represented by Gaetano D’Andrea, Brian D. Kent, Michael J. McFarland and Jillian Roth of Laffey Bucci & Kent, in Philadelphia.
The defendants were represented by Stephen J. Fleury Jr. of Saxton & Stump in Lancaster and Malvern, Katherine B. Kravitz and Elizabeth L. Melamed of Barley Snyder, both in Lancaster, Joe H. Tucker Jr. of Tucker Law Group in Philadelphia and Anthony T. Lucido of Johnson Duffie Stewart & Weidner in Lemoyne,
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas case CI-21-00781
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com