Case Document 2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 1 of 30 IN THE-CIRCUIT COURT FOR.BALTIMORE elm; MARYLAND MICHAEL S. JR. As Personal Representative and AdministratOr of the Estate of Michael Dajr, Sr. and on behalf Of all others similarly situated. P. Box 42;] . Glen Fork. WV 25 845 AND CHRISTI ANN JORDAN JARRETT -As_ Parsonal Representative and Administrator of the Estate of Junior McCoy Barr and on behalf of. all Others similarly situated 16403 Holly Crest Lane. Apt 2: I Huntersvilic, NC. 28078 Plhintiifs, JOHNS HOPKINS CORPORATION drive The Jo?hnsHopkins 2 Hospital! 600 IN, Wolfe" St; Balti?more.?MD 21205 9332: Joanne, 600 N. Wbl'fe St Administration 414 Baltimore 21205 AND- me. 2 Mali: The? Johns: Hopkins Hospital 600N. Wbifc's't. Baltimore; MD 2 1205 S2393 The Johns Hopkins Hospital JURY TRIAL DEMANDED. cuss ACTION COMPLAINT .. 5?43}? - -. Ca'se Document 2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 2 of 30 . Admin 400?- 609 Wolfe Sl. Baitimore, MD 21287 AND JOHNS HOPKINS IMAGING, LLC, ,601 N. Carolin: 111004210, . . Baltimgr?c, MD 21287 Serve: . Joanri? E. Pdlla?k, Esq. General-Counse'i BRB Suige 102 i Broadway MD 21205 AND. THE JOHNSHOPKINS UNIVERSITY d/b/a Johns, Hopkins. Hospitaf Charles 8; 34? St, Baitimoxe,'MD 21218 Serve: InterimGener?al- Counsel '1 13 Gariand Halt 3400 N, Baltimore, MD 2! 218 AND Johns Hopki'ns?ospital? Department of RaditsIOgy Wolf St. . Central 1'27 Baltimore?MD 21287 Defendants. Case Document 2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 3 of 30 COME NOWPIaimifTs, .on Behalf ofthe Estate 3- they each represent and 'on b?eha'If- of all-0mm similarly t'hcir'causevof acti'o? and state the following in support Ethereof: PARTIES '1 PlaimiffMicbael-S.-Day, Jr. is a resident of the-State of West Virginia, the 'sur'Viving son of Mfchagl S. Day, Sn, and the administrate: .of the Estateof-Michael Day. 'Sr. Plaintiff a r?Sidcnf offhc stats: of'NOrth C?am'?na. the surviving daughter. of Junior McCoy-Barr. and the administramr of the- Estate of 'Juniof?McCoy Barr. 3. Defendant Johns Hopkins Health SyStem CameratiOH is a-dbmesti; corporation. doiugiibusincss. inthe?Statc of maryland; 4. ?Dcfendant The Johns Hopkins HOSpita], Inc. is .a domestic corporation {icing business imhe State of'Maryland'. Dofendani Johns Hopkins a- domestic Ii'mited liability company dbin'gj b'Us'ineSs in'th?e State Of' Maryland. 6. Defendanthhe'Johns Hopkins University isia; domestic corporation doing'busineiss in thc'IState oF'Mary?landv 7. Defendant'Paul Wheeler, MD. is;radiologi9;t_ licen?'ed {a practice in the State Of Maryland and an actual and: apparent agent of each of the aforementioned '.D?f?ndauts.._ *mw-mll?l?lw-wiguw .- .- an. Case Document 2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 4 of 30 JURISDICTION 8-. Thisicl?im exceeds?the reqpired jurisdictional 9. This Court-has personaljuijisdictim overeach named-Defendant pursuant to Md. Code. Courts rind- Judicial onceedirigs 6-102 and $103,, 10. "Jennie lies?iri the Circuit-Court fdr'Baltimore City by virtue ofethe'faCt that the acts and Omissions Complained ofoecuucd in Baltimore'City. andDefe?ndamS'maintain their headhuattets-and prihcipal plates of business in Baltimore City; SUMMARY OF THE CASE 11.. Each ?Of the preceding paragiaphs?isineorporated, by reference-herein. 12'. Defendants Johns. Hopkins Health System Corporation; The Johns Hopkins HOSpitaL Ines. Johns Hopkins Imaging, The Johns, Hopkins University (collectively referred to? hereafter-as and Dr. Wheeler and? the Johns: Hopkins ?fBlack Lung Program? have engaged in a-pattem and practice with the intent to defraud at least. hundreds oftoxieally injuredcoal miners-of federally .eamed bene?ts. 1'35-Pneufnqedniosis: is Iag'enera'i term givenvto any '.1ung- disease caused by dusts that are bleathed fin: and then deposited deep in the. [rings ='causing, damage. usually coneidered an [occupational lung; disease, and" includes aSbestthis; silicosis andJCOa'l- workers? pneumoconips'is; (CWPL also. known as ?Bi?ackLung Disease." "1.4.1'n response to this occupational, and known-tabe-fatal diSease,_ the federal. government established, a "compensation pmgra'm under the Federal Coal Mine 4 Case Document 2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 5 of 30 Health and Safety Actoi? 1969.12; 901,~et seq. (hereinafter ?Blaek Lung Bene?ts'Aet" .0: 15.; est?blished, in part. a? bene?ts program -f0r?wo?rkers at coal mines Who contracted. Ceal'Worlcers,? [Pneumoconiosi's with stringent re?uirem'ents fer. determinations as to the" diagnosis of CWP. These coal miners often were seekingtota?l disability. ormay have been seeking bene?ts ?(Med for entirely. 16.Thjese' reqe'ifements dietate that when a chest-item)! was evaluated presence and ?lessi?catibnfof the ??ndings p?urs'uant?jto the Intemationai Labour Organimti'on (hereinafter classi?cation system. See: 20 CFR- 71 8. [02(6) Defendants established?the "Johns Hopkins Black Lung Program" (hereina?er the ?Black Lung Pregram?) to takepa'r't in the detemination'of the presence or absence .of in bene?t-seeking. coal miners 18. Defendants purposely .-.aud intentionally refused to abide by the stringent requirements of a .diSre'gard -for.'2'0 8. 102(6)? and the. 1.9. As a result of this refusal; the. to". identify- b?laek? iung disease in? hundredeof teal worker's, many of Which were denied bene?ts 'asa direct and'proximme'result dfthis refusal. Case Document_2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 6 of 30 '20.Asgsuiih, Plaintiffs? and members of the Chris they .seek to represent havef'heehj dgnied bene?t$ to which they wen-legally entitled as coal. the nii?edSta?tes ?of America, FACTS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS The Federal Black Bene?ts-Pro ram" and The '?B?Rwder" he ram preceding paragraphs isii'ncorporated by 22. is a. known occupational discasg'n'?hich afflicts coal miners due -;to chronic i'nhalaii on Of 0031 dust. 23. In the 1960's. it"becam'e apparent that co'al {hitters We're artist}; due 10 their chronig-exposuze 102cm! dust-.and ultimately the federal government took action in 1969. 24.. In 1973, the Black LungBenefiis. Act waspassed stating; Congress ?nds. and declares that mereware signi?cantgnumber of ?coal? miners liv?ing?mday who are-totally?isablqd dug axisj'n'gj on; in one ?or thereof the Nation?s coal anumber of survivorsofcqal were due?to? this disease:. and matsfewsmes" provide-bene?ts for?death-or disability due-go ,thisdiscase to;coal miners of their. surviving-dependents. It is, therefore, purpose of this :subchapt'cr coal miners who-are totaliy disabled .dueto pneumogoniosis and 10.111: Surviving dependents-of miners whose death was ?due? to such disease; and to ensurc that in the future adequate: bene?ts areptoVided to coal miners dependents in the evjent of their death or total disability} due. "to gpneumocohiosis. 3o 901., 25. Ultimately; coal mine operators are fliablefor the payment 'of hen; ?t?s?to. qualifying miners or?their survivor'shnd for of'ah excise-tax to the ?Black Lung Disabilitmist'Fuhd" for operation of-Lhe black iung bene?ts; ptogtain, See 30 6 Case Document 2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 7 of 30 U.S.C. 26. US, Code ?f95013 As such, coal m?i'ne- op'e?ra?mrs ac?t as.the disability-"insurer for the-?eal niiher employees. 26;:As Operatorshavem incentive tomeventzciaimams g'aini'n diSabili?tybene?ts underl't'he dete?nihdtidn of allowable. bene?ts is adversarial 'in-nature. however, as. operator's: wishi' IO. prevent nonvmerito'rimz's claimants, from gaining disability. bene?ts underitbe BLBA. 27?. By. 1978, it. became clear that theret?could bewide diSa'greemem 'betWeen medical professionals as to the absence of presence of-eVidenee? of CWP (in chest x-ray. . 28. At~that"time, speci?cally? it 19378:, the. Departmem and Human Services mus?). and the Department of Labor (hereinafter promulgated federal intent of creating a- uniform system of classi?cation ?of x-ray ?ndings as it pertains.th bene?ts under the . Black L?ug 'Behe?ts. Program. See 450mg, 37.01, er-se?qj. 329. The federel'fegulations demand that the lLOJntemation'al Classi?cation Sys't'em?be? used to? determine Whetheranx-ray presents, evidence: of pneumocoriiosis. see-?20 30. Critically.;the clagsi?cmion system is a- legal basis for-establishing the presence of; clinical or Medical CWP, which is a necessary elem ent of enlitlement" to ,begie?ts?; "31. This legal diagnosis of ?clinical pneumoconiosis" may :differ from 't'he sta?ndasds' used-by physicians in'the ?eld of: practice. 32.1118 National 'l?nstitute' ofSafety'and Health (hereinafter is.rcsponsible Tor the creatibn of the. "B?read'er" certi?eationprogramCase Document 2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 8 of 30 33.1119 B-reader-progiam, oettift'es radioIOgists who take. advanced training in tho reviewing of radidlogy for the; presence :of pneumoconi?osis pursuant to "the ILO system with the intent to train radiologists. in the application of the 3'4. This-review of chest to the. ILO classi?cation known as. "B-rsadih'g'" and thetadjowgist's who have obtained certi?cation toarev?iew X.- rays 83 35,-B-readets also 'agfee to a Code of Ethics promulgated by 8 reader program. The Code of- Ethics. states; inter alto; a. The B'Reader?s primagy commitrhent?is tose?rVe the welfare and-best. 'interes?tsof? patients, workers. and society by strivihgm classify as accurately: as'pdssib?lg 3 Readers shall respect of patients, other health. professionals, and. cli?nts; and shall medical: infOrmation and Other con?denoes within of?the law., 36; Finders of fact. such as District Directors and ALJ's reasonably believe that"B-' readers are reviewing radiology in. confonnance' with the 11.4.0, and the- i-Code oflEthi?c?s: 3?7. BLBA regulations actually de?ne a: "Ii-reader" as a ?physiCian {that} has demonstt'atcd ongoing pro?ciency in radiographs for radiographic quality and in the useof the 11:0 classi?cation fori'ntetpretittg?, chest 'radiographs for pneum ocorti'osis and other diseases?? 20 LIFER, 38.. Radiologists. who. take part?and pro?t through payments. for, perfonning. these note ?ndings Under the ILO Classi?cation system. When' .A. Case Document 2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 9 of 30 .40. gevafuati?n?g jthe presence Or'abseticesof pursuant to de?nition: of (3W8. tadiblogists are not pennitted to b?er'opinipns iha?t are-innon-confonnance to the ILC system. NIOSH demands that BI-readers who are reviewing fradiographie ?ndings that. ?might be" secOndaJ-y tb pneumoc_oniosis must still -be ciassi??ed .as exii'deuce of Se?e The Application of the ILO Radiographic Classi?cation System I 980) ("if the ?ndings. might be but other etielqgies are also to "be. considered.. the classi?cation for pneumocon'iso?sis. (Sectionsl'A through 301-311-0315 be of the ILO Imemational Qf-Pneumoconioses(52000} (i'No 'radiog'raphic features are pathogngmonic' of dust exposure. {Some v'mdiographic features that are unreIated- t?o inhaied-dest may mimic. those-caused by dust. ?Readers may differ. about (he interpretatiOn of such therefore, the study protoCol will usually require that. ail appearances described in. these Guidelines and seen on'the Standard radiographs are mibe' (emphasis added). 'In assessing. the radiologicak ?lms under't?'e' legaf de?nition of as defined by the ILO?classi?cation system and applied by. NIOSH, the role ?of ih?ehdioiogi'st is $01er to note speci?c radiographic ?ndings that the ILO ISyst?em de?nes astpos Siblc jpnenmoconiosis; the-radiologist may net disregard thosefmdings merely: because he believes there: arc-plausible explanatidnsrother .than. or ?pneumocon?iosis because all ?ndings that "mightbe'" CWP. are to be Classi?ed as CWP. Case Document 2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 10 of 30 41-. Fact??nders taSIted with weighing discrepahcies in opinions?.?jingiuding. Administrative Law Judge's and district benefits directors?wresutne that all- experts are 42. However, regulations demand that'thre'two or that: Xht'ay reports are in Conflict. in evaluating such X-rayreports-consideration must :the- radiio'l'ogj?cal~ quali?cations of the phygici?ans interpreting such? 20 (citing 20 43'. Therefcre?. acer'ti?ed BLmader who is followi'ttg MOSH Guide'iinesxin' applying?ih'e [Lotclassi?cati'on System is to be given more weigli't- than :a r'e'ad'e't (if law. .44. Since?2013'. it has; been gstim'atedm ?time?s that-there are as few as. 230. certi?ed?B- readers iti?the United State?s of America. I 45. Dr. Wheeler and several radialogists in the Johns Hopkins 13111:; R, Lung PrOgtam?- inciuding John .Sca'tarige, MD?arc certi?ed B?readgrs; having demanst?rated an understanding an abiliiy'to clasSify radiology under thetlLO diassi?'cation and passed reccni?cation exam even/"four, ycars in-order to. maintain?thci'r status as certi?edIB-maders. Determination of Benefits '46. Each is.incorporat?d by ir?fe?rehcg?: hercin. ofbenc?ts isbased upoh? the s?bmiss?ionof aE-claim?antto numgtpus potentialdiagnostic: mamasnbject tel-review by quali?ed, ultimate .10 Case Document 2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 11 of '30 det?nnina'?on by an administrative-113w judge .in the event a dispute as to it'he. presence of or disability. the to arises. '48. M651 commonly; a suffgring, coal miherWill- file his/her initial claim pro 512'. This initial claim is ?led withthe Qf?Ce." 491113? of Labor ?then funds certain: medical cxar?ns, most a clinicalzexam by an ihtemist:,or pulmonologisr. functiQn test. arterial blood gas study, and a chest x?ray interpreted according to therlLO Guid?lines as discussed and interpreted-by MOSH inzlhe? Study Syllabus forClas?i?cation of' Radiographs of Pneumoconiosis. 50..Thc coal? mining cof?pahy? also has; the right to obtain no more than two e?alamyinmims cf 'the miner by' its; ?insulting physicians and to. obtain {hat canibe used to dgfeat a. miner?s cl aim- for: bene?ts if the interpretations arena?ativ?e? for .pncumOconios.is; 51,. Neither-party Director?s ?ndings, then-{either party can?appea'l those ?nds to an Administratiw Law luage (hereina?er A?e; asubmissi?on' of a ?ndings of factia'nd conclusions of law by an ALJE'e'itlaer? party may then appeal to. the'Ben??t Review, Board. Thereafter,. results :can be appealed directly ?to thy; appropria?tc: l?gderal Circuit Court of Appeals and; to the. Supreme. 1h: Unitcc?l States. 53 -. This system ofr'eview?i's reliant on gm: application r?gulatibns by imose~physicianswho offer opihion?s.: .11 . . . Case Document 2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 12 of 30 54.. If physicians unilaterally detennineto?igmreifor ?motiifj? the law and-regulations, "then the. system .does not ?mction?justly. f?efendants? lntemr?e?tation of Chest'X?Rags 55. Each of thevpreceding paragraphs is incorpOrated by referenee'h'e'rein.- 5'65'Defendants. Johns prkins. through its Black Lung "Program. and. Defendant ?Dr. "Paul Wheeler consciously chose to diSIegardtheflaW. the] LO 'and the-?ndings therefrom in a. systematic effort to- limit the-awards of bene?ts. lawfully- earned'by eqahniners suffering from pneumocmiosis. :57. 20:13. the Center fer Public- Integrity began to publish a three-part expese on the manipulation-of the ;f?eder_?al black lung program in West Virginia. Paxttwo,,published on Oc'tnb'eg 30.. 2013, exposed thezm'anner-in wftich Defendant's-- admittedly refused? to abide. by the'lLO classi?cation system, owno'p'inions in an effort to minimize Zth'enum'ber' of coal miners who would qualify for fedcml bene?ts. the rcpo?rten Dr: Wheeien'and.'lohns Hopkina Dr; Wheeler admits that he does not ?us'e'th'e 'ILOclassi?cation system inperfdming Bicadsbeea?se in his View the. system has "some ?qnality Issues.? See (last visited October -1 8. 201.1 (5). '59; 'fhe' CPI'repon,. after interviewing. Dr, Wheeler; further explains: .Ifspots appear onthe X-ray. a reader is supposedsto mark their size and .shape, and then explain which-diseasesseem'more or less likely; :12 Case Document 2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 13 of 30 60. .611. 63 When hegreads XEmys?for coal-companies; hOWevet', Wheeler-doesn?t do this. If he 'sees' spots on the ?lm but thinks another disease is .'more'1ikely than black lung.hhe marks-the ?lmlas negative. Hez?typi?ca?lly describes the: abnormalities inztheoomments section, explaining why. they don'tr?m?this criteria for ?nding black lung; Inscase after case reviewed his comments were-almost identical.- Id. Defendant Dn'Wheelergalso admits that he has intentionally disregarded. 'the dne?to his beliefsastn what?the 121w Should be. ?than think it?s approp?aterfor somebody withsarcdid ito tie-paid; for [black lung] became-he has masses andnoduies do youthi'nk that?s appropri?ate2-l don't think?sogf? Id. Aern Wheeler stated itt?anzi'ntervi'ew with CPI: don?t 'c?are-abo at. the law. Id. These radiological abnOrmaJi?es. Wheeler'refujses to acknowledge as eyide'n'ce'of Black Lung DiseaSe, support the diagnosisfofCWP .on a chestxeray as a. matter law. however- ..Instead co?nSistent with the (LO: classi?cation. System, .or that ?might? be" CWP a?cCo'rdi'ng to the -ILO system; and: ,knowingty deviated from the system and suggest. other diagnoses fog, the 'bene?t?seeker. Most conu?r'gonly, Wheeter would ?nd that the sheet x~tays Weregconsiste'nt with -~tuberculosis or of which perm ittcd recoveey ofany'bene'?ts under-me Nagy-am. .In short, Du Wheeler and johns Hopkins Black, Lung Unit required. higher standards. than those imposed-by the {10. particularly that "the White spots-?that '13; Case Document 2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 14 of 30 65. 66. ,67. 68; '69. Showupvon ?lm must have a' particular shape. appear-in'a speci?c area? of the lung. and folipw a SpeCi?c pattem.? [21. By intentionally deviating from the [1.0 system, and substituting non-conforming sfandards for way and Dr. Wheeler Were successful in denying lawfully earned .fedetfal?bene'?tsio miners. .Avceording?to theCl?I? report, in at leaSt 280 easesin which Dr. convinced an Administrative Law Judgesto "deny bene?ts, spbsequen't :au?sti?eS .prOved Defendant? uitimateebxich?idns and Opinions and that the miner had black inngand?was deservingofbene?tsunderzthe program. Unfommately, these biopSies. or autopsies did not resultin full bene?ts, aw?a?rds under the Other. miners suffered ?loss in bene?ts due to deiays in .obtaining'those bene?ts. w?i?hshouldhavebeen earned harm-the readings-and unlawful interpretatio ns of Defendants. By de?ating from?ith?e feder?i law and regniations Defendants certi?ed and agreed to abideby, a systematic decimation of?eamed?fede'ta] bene?ts was created for ??o?al miners suffeifing? from or other which entitled him/her to federal bene?ts .un?er the 70'. In exchange for these opinions? Defendants both were paid by employey coal Companies, and thereby retainedi ?nancial bene?ts for deviating from the ILO mime legal. criteria for underme BLBA. 1.4; Casevlzl6-cv-03944-ELH Document2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 15 of 30 Michael Steven Day 71. Each-of-the pr'eCeding paragraphs is-incotpomtedby reference?hergiq, 72. Michael Steve Day. St. wasa c081, West Virginia for? 33 years primarily with-,Pgabody Energy Corporation. (?Peabody?); one 'va the nation?s Iaxjgest- coal. companies. 73; Mr. Day: ceased work in. 2004~jon the advice 'ofihis.treating pulmonoiogist and. filed a claimforfederal black?lu'ng Mm?isAMCaum.hisz?he? x-ray showed coal. workers? pneumoconiosis-and his puimon?ary tesuesults rcveakd moderafe impairment that was deteriOraling. . 74.111: initial cValua'tion by .a physician" by the of Labor con?imed that-Mn. Day Mdcompiicate'd pneumoconiosisand Was? 100% disabled. for mine. work due to coal. worker's" pneunmconiosis'.? Peabody relied on ?two negative x-ray: readings WEI. Wheeler. and. one, ?egati ye :x-Ij?ay 'reading by? another member :of the Johns . Hopkins Black. Lim'g Unit Scott).- 76. Dr. Wheeler?s n?gativ? reading of a-digit?al xray 'and'thesneg'ative'reading scan by a third member of ihe Johns Hopkins Black Lung was suf?cient to con?ne: thc?ALJ?hat Mtf; Day Was not enti?'ed to-bene?ts because he .did? not have complicated pneumoconiosis; ?71. Consequently, the denied his claim byjusti?abiy. relyingppon the ?ndingsand? repOrts of D?fcndants. ahdapplying-thc' lawand regulations to .those?ndings. 15' . - . Case Document 2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 16 of 30 78-. Dr. Wheeler. and the other twomembers of his Black Lung 'Un?it opined that Mr. Day may have radiOnghi'p.eyidenee oftuberculosis. Sig-o: Some other condition. but, nut blaek lungand they jfaiied toelas'sify' radidgra'phie "consistent with" er""might required by the NIOSH syllabus far. ClasSi?catiOn of Radio'graphs of Pneumoconiosis. The AdminiStrative'ELaw Judge-justifiably assumed that .the Johns Hopkins? Black Lung Unit Wereapplying the ILO?Guidelines that he. Could-rely on their reportsas the basis for issuing adenial (if bene?ts to My. 133% :80. In?the-CPI investigation, .an.independent.B-reader stated ?[ilf other physicians-are rcaghing different aboutxhis' cam-the! Mr; Deiy?sf?ndings are ,nptdust exposure. related; itgi?vesme sexism}; pauseand, concern abdutbias and the la?ck;of sc?icnti?? independence or credibility of- these observers.? 8L-Wh?en- Mr; Day died in 201.4, his-autopsy reveai'ed ?complicated coai workers? pneumoconiosiqmassive pulmonary ekt'ensiVe coal mine du?st lung disease? whiCh betcame the Basis for. an eventual award of federal black. limg bene?ts to Mr. Daypost'humously inausubsequent claim. 82,.As a result of Defendants" Willml: r??Jsal iofinterpr?eL'CHeSt x-r'ays intc?omplianc'e With the-1L0 c1a's?i?e?ation system, Mr; Day was denied and nevepre'covered certain bene?ts-?amed- under the BLBA. 15- . . um Case Document 2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 17 of 30 Junior McCox'Baff '83. 'Eachqu the preceding paragraphs is incbt?porated by reference herein. .84. Mr. Barr was a coarminer in. WestVirgihia for '33 years, primarily, with Eastern AssociatngCoal Company. 85. [1'1 198?), Mr. Barr fl leid? claim for'federal black 11mg behe?ts in his prOse' capacity. 86. Dr. Donald Rasmussen performed the e'xan?nation'authorized'by' DOL and fauna that Mr Barr's chest x-ray rescaledevidence of small opacifics {If/q) in all six lung zones-with a pro?l?silon?of which is Consistent. with 87. Dr. Rasmussen also. found that-"Mr. Barr?s-pulmonary studies indicated "at least moderate ?loss? of lun'gfunction? and Mr. Barr ?did?nqt?retaih the pulmonary capacity (d per'fonn very heavy-manual labor." that was patt?ofzhis?jtisual?coal?mine Wotk: 88. Based On .1he'se'f results, Dr. .~R.asmussen~ decal-mined that Mr. Barr?s 'cIinical pneumoconiosis Was ?a material don?tributing' cause of?his impaired fang functig'nj.? 8 9. Dr. .RaSm nss?en's ?ndings-were suf?cient tofqualify for federal black lung bene?ts: howeVex, Mr. Barr's 'x-rays Wete then?. interpreted as icompletelly negative? for pneumoconiosis by Wheeler and-Dr, Scatarige ftom the Black LungUnit. 90. Both-Dr. Wheelepand Dr. Seating: disregarded the. ILO 'classi?catioh Syst?m. and erroneously x-ray' ens-Completely ne?ga?ve?for '91. Dr; Wheeler said is very unlikely because 1) nodular in?ltrates are ,asymmetripal, periphaty'iungs and pleura; (3)23: probably mixed with 17 Case Document 2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 18 of 30 calci?ed granulb?mata, and he is quitc'young?? which are. reasons for~ IEx?iudhg,pneMOconiosis under the Dr..rScatatig? .said. (here were"?uo small. central-g round opaditie?s of Which is, smote set of Criteria than the-1L0,- system, .requite?; 93(The Distu'ct relied upon, the Drs. Wheeier and of bene?ts to?Mr. Barr. 94.1n .a subsequent claim. .Mr. Ban persisted and. ?hally was awarded: bene?ts in 2016:. However, the award did not include past bene?t-s .alr?a'dy' lost. 95; Mr; Day?s claims Sf'or federai? black ?lung benefits contained 3.10m} of. 24 .gcaray- except?for the readings by Dr. Wheeler, and Dr. Scatar'i'ge; thefwere; an positive for 96'. Subsequently, Mr. Barf?sautopsyislides were interpreted by font-pathologists, who all fbund' he had?alt? least" simple and possibly complicated CWP, .97; Thus, as g?result. ?f mic delay in ?r?ceivihg bene?tsxas a proximate result. of Defendants" interpret chest x-tays in -~com]iliancc with "the classi?cation- Mr. Ban" was. denileduand never?rccovcmd bene?ts earned under th? 81.31%, ?98. ML erpassed away on OCtobcr 23. 203-1. 18 Case Document 2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 19 of 30 ~99. this actionas a class actionpursuam to theMaryland Rules of .C ivil Procedure~2~231l?l 2-231 2-23 1, and 242310.!) tin behalf of "the-"class: THE CLASS ?Avll personsz'natimwideuwho made a claim under the, Black Lung 901, pt se'q., and whpse radiography wet-g. ?reviewed and were denied or lostbene?ts; under. the. Black Lung. Benefits Act. Excluded from the Class are of?cer's. members, and~ directors of Defendantst memberspf their immediate families and their legalrepr?sentativest heirs, successors, or assigns; arid {any?entity 'in? which Defendants have 'or? had a controlling interest. 1.00.. The. is believed to be. so numerous that jdindcr of .all members is: impracthable.. The exact?mimb'er Of- members of the Class is Aunkn?own to: Plaintiffs at this time and cah?JOIlly be aScerta?ined through appropriate discovery .. The proposed Class is believed that: the names and addresses Classv?can' be identi?ed .in bushess?'records maintained'by- Defendar'ir; :lOl'. Plaintiffs" claims Late typical :of the claims of the members of the Class-- because Plaintiffs? ?and all Class membets? .claims originate the-same practice-and procedure on the pan-off DefendantS?sahd Plaintiffs .ihttrests and-has suffered the-same injuries as each member of the Class. .19: Case Document 2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 20 of 30 1,02. "Plaintiffswill? fairly andadc?q'umely prm?c?t the interests of thes-m?mbers-of the? Class and have mined. counsel?expefienced and competent in class: action ?ti?gmiomPlaimiffs havejno, interests thatare 'contrgiy, to,or in don?ict- with the. membersof 'thg- Class that Plaintiffs Seeks to 'teprese nt. 103. A- 'claS?s action is superior to" ali other a'vailabie methods ?fe. fair and ef?cient adjudication of this: controversy, ?sincc joinder. of ?ll member's is impacticdbl?. Fu?hermore, as 1116 damdges suffered by: individual memb?rs of the? may be re'lativ?ly'sm?all; the ?expense?rand' burden of?individuallitigation may make ii" impracticable for {beamembcm of the Class to individually radress? the wrongs dbne ?to them. There shouldbe ?no dif?culgy ini the-management of?lhi?s' actibn as-iafciassactiom 104. Issues of law and-fact common .to jthe members .Of the Class predcmihate. of'vcr any quwi?ons that may affect only individual: members, in that-Defendant's have acted on? grounds generally. applicable to the entire Class. Among the issues ?of'l'awandfactvcomon'to the Class are: c. Def?zidants co?mmittcd "fraud in s?ubmiuin?g- their: ?ndingsaunder: the Johns Hopkins Black-Lung Program; d, whefher inicrfered with the occupational economic interests? of Plai?ti?ffg and membets ?of theClass: c. Whether.. ?D'cfendamts violated the. Racketeer In?uemed and Corrupt Organization's Act: 20 Case Document 2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 21 of 30 ?Whether Defendants negligently mismprescnted' facts to Plaintiffs and ?ndetsgoffaa: WhetherDefendams wete unjustly enriched: h; cngaggd'in-azschemcto dcp'r-ive Plaintiffs antimcmbers of ofca?medifedcral 'bcnefits; i. Whether Defendants fttil?d to apply the ILO. clasSi?cation. system in of studies-undgr the Whether the Plaintiffs: and the C1a$s are banned to penalties, jpunitive?damag?w, and/or injunctivc r?lief.. 1?05. Upon information gandbelic?tabsent a biass;action, Defendants? violations of the law will be ailoWed to proceed without a full, fair; judigi'aiiy remedy. 106. Plaintiffs reserves, the right to revise Ci'ass de?nitions and questions based upon'facts learned in diitcovery. 107. Each ofthe preceding-paragraphs:-is incorporated by refemnce. herein. 108. Defendantsmadc falSc to "the Plaintiffs,- members of th?g. Class, and'toi'the federal ?go?Vei-mnent and administrative law judges tasked with- deteanining'whether 'Plhin?ti?szand Ciass were-entitled to bene?ts under the BLBA, 109. These '21. Case Document 2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 22 of 30 110-. 111.- 112. .113. .6. That Defendants were chest. x-rays consistent with me and the rules: and regulations; That Plaintiffs and members of t?e Class did 'not?shave withBlack Lung Disease that entitled Plaintiffs and members 'o'flthe Ciass. benefitsunder ?That :Plainiiffs and members of the (Bass did hot, Have pneump?cepiosis Lung Disease;" ., That Plainti?s? and members of the Class' x-ray ?hdings- were ndt? Proximatcly caused'3byemploymem in 3031' minesfa's dag-mined. by federal, 111139 and regulations; Otherwise made false representations to Plaintiffs, .members-of-the Class, mid 'the ?relevant gove'frmnexjt eddies and indix'riduals- responsible. for .determi?iug whether?bene?ts were earned under the BL. BA. As.stated above, these false statements were known to. be false at time were known-to be madewit'h feekl'ess indifference for 2h;- mm, Defendant?s made 'thes?e~?false Statements fdr. the. purpOse.? of defrauding Plainti?'sjand members-of thetC-iass- as wellas unjustly en?ehing Defendants." Plaintiffs and ClaSs?reli?ed upon?thewrepzes?matiqns as they were required to. have their chest Mays andlor read by Defendants when "requested by the. ?reievant coal mineeompany. umber, Plaintiffs 'andmembe'rs-of the Claseindirealy relied upon these representations because Defendants made these 'false'stat'cments to administrative- -22~ Case Document 2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 23 of 30 law judgesgand the appropriate fact ?nders who relied upon? Defendant?s. false rcpresentations? in determining whether bene?ts should be awarded under the BLBA. 14. Plaintiffs; member-?s of the ClasS. and?the and the appropriate; fact ?nders had the right-to telyupon these false representations, as Defendants represented themselves ?as' the foremost authority/ion p?rfonning 3- reading under- the. and whose credentials alone warranted Serious the intentional disregard ofthe?law.. ll 5-. As proximate and fraud, Plaintiffs and merhb?ers-of the? Class suffened compensable. loss 'in the ofLa complete or partlal..d'enial3 of bene?ts?w'hich. can be quanti?ed based upon the length oftime. in which bene?ts were. not awarded. 1.16. Plaintiffs r?ly .upon, the doctrines o?actuziland apparent agency and mum: Iqq ui?tur' thre 'app'rOptiatc. 1 17,. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs seek anaamgessanwasle by law; including all economic. damages lost for Plaintiffs and members of the Class in an amount that excecds 575-300-511 the; aggregate. TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE 'wnit't .o CUPATIONAL ECONOMIC Cliti?nt II 1'18. Eachof the preceding paragraphs is incorporated by referenceherein. 23 Case Document 2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 24 of 30 1319. Defendants, mal'iciou?ly and; wrang?jiIIy in and members of the Classieeconomic.relationShip cut-was presentsas pan or Plai?tiffs? and the. occupatiqn. 1520. Defendants maliciously, w?rongfu?y, and unlawfully interfered in these economic, mlationships [by ?fraudulcntiyand wrong?illy claiming: a. ThatDefendams were ?Brewing" ?hes't'x-rays- consistent With th?eflLO' and the-reigyant federal rules and regulations; b. 'That-Plaimi?s of ?the-Class did not have ?ndings consistent -'with Black Lung Disea5? that cuiitled?Plaimiffs?and members of the Class to- bene?ts under the c. That ?Iaimi?"s. ana- members of the Class did. not have; .CWP, .pneumpconipsis or ?Black Lung Disease? or any other compensabie? injury. under the program; (I. That. Piaintiffs" and members: of .the ClaSs" x-?ray: ?ndings wgre not proximately in coin-mines: as federai' rules an'd're'gulatio?s; Otherwise made f?lsexepresematiOns t'o; Plaintiffs. member?s of'the Class,- and the .mlevant government bodies and individuals reSpOhsible. for d?terrninihg whethe?r?bene?ts we're calmed under the BLBA'that wron g?fully interfei??d with Plaintiffs?and .the Class Mgmbers? Occupatmnal ?cfconomi? mlh?onship, '24 Case Document 2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 25 of 30 UL Plaintiffs relyzupo?n?the doctrines?bflactuai and a?ppa?re?ntagency, and res fpsa quuitur "where appropriate-L- ,1 22. Plaintiffs seek alldettmges allowable by including all' economic damages lost for Plaintiffs-and'member's of the 01555 in an amount that exceeds; 3:73.000 in the aggregate. A .INELUENC AND ACT Count ll] 123., Each (if-the 'is'incorpotated by reference-herein? 1524. Defendants are 'in violation of the Racketeer In?uenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (hereinafter by engaging in mail fraud! obsuu?ting, justice. and ?nally victatitjg .fed?er?alml?es? and ?regalati'ons related'ito the ?112'5 .. Defendants engaged'in a scheme to defraud by means of fal'se or fraudulent, representatibn, used interstate. and intrastate mails to execute .scheme and in conhection withthes?he?me. to and members'of the Class; 126. Defendants received: copies qu'vRays. .fromeeoal? mining cgmpanies. and/or their representative llaw ?tm? v?ia .ihtetstate and'intrastate maile. 127.. Defendants then. further. used interstate. mails to return their opinions of? the chest x~rays t?ey received to coal mining companies and the. "companies? representative law ?lso to admini?Stmtive ?law the purpose of perpetuating a fraud and schemet'o cans'e economic injury toPtain?i?fs :and the lass}. 25 Case Document 2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 26 of 30 128. Defendantsm?re? paid; oftenzsi gni?cant- sums in excess .of?gt?andard xeray rcy?iveecs.. to" review thesezx-mys and?iproyidg these re ports. ;1 29-. Defendants" also. obstructed justice in' Violation of fed-emf law by endeavozing *cormp?y?to in?uence an of?cer'of the court or the due administration. o?ju?tice; i302 Defendant?s. obstructed justice by making efforts ?to influence District Directors,- and,AdminiStrativc Law Iu?dgesto, deny who" had, legally isu?ICICnt; signs .and Black Lung?Di'seaseIthat [would havezentitled those miners to fe?deml?bcne?'ts. 1.31.. Defendants are also: ?in Violationof RICO by refusing to? apply dl'assi?cation system as the rules-and regulationsrequire; and, as -r'equiredfby B- ma?icr?codepf?ethi?cs assessing ?Black Lung BLBA. 132. ,"As amsult?of'these acts- in? Violation of U.S.C. 196'] and: were. federal bene?ts which were legally carnal 133. Plaintiffsxihercfore. bring this action pursuant. to 18? 1964 for '_thems?lves~ and for Ihc? Class. 134. Plaintiffs xely. upon-the dmuincsofacml-and apparentag?n?y. and res Wu 'Ibq m?tur Where, appropriate. 1315'. Plai?ntii?fs'seek alldamages allowabic by law..including:a11 ?g'onomic: damages los't for Plaintiffs. andvmerribers of the treble? damages. attorneys? fees. and costs, in an amOunt.that exceeds $753100 in the aggregate; 1216 Case Document 2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 27 of 30 Chan! .136; Each ofihe by fefene'nee' herein. 137. Defendanismall times ?h'ad, actUaI. that Pla?imii?fsand' the??nde?rs 26f faCI within-the .BLBA system wouldreiy upon the opinions and statemc?tsihal Defendants were Loffering. Therefbre. Plaintiffs. Were foreseeable parties. ?tq "Defendants, and Defenda?ts" owed a? duty of care Defendants- 1-38. Defendants. negligently. asserted. false statements. to. Plaintiffs and .to the. ?ndets effect. jl,39._ ,At'gll times; Defendants intended that? {heir statements he 'acted upon both by Plainti??s?and By:the finders of fact .140, Defendants intended Plaintiffs. 10? believe jihat 1hey did not have compe n?sa?ble Black Lung Disease-and ?to stop seeking earned bene?ts. 141'. Defendants also intended for the?ndets of factitodetemiine that Plaintiffs did'not. have ?BiackgLuriggvisease and that bene?ts were 'not earned. 142. Defendant?s knew-at all- times that Plaintiffs and members/of the Class Would rely upon {he Statements; and {?at erroneous: statements: would cause ?1053 to Piaimi'ffs and, members of the Class.- 143_ Plaintiffs. memberst'of the Class, and the; ?nders of the! all justi?ably relied upon the statements of Defendant?s, believing'the law was beinngoliowed and mat Defendantsv'were ineohforma?nce with'the?JILO classi?cation system. ?27 Case Document 2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 28 of 30 1-44. and members of'the? Class suffered ,eompensablc loss. in the few of a? complete or partial denial of benefits which can be quanti?ed based upon the'l'ength oftime "in Which bene?ts wen-end: awarded. 145. 'Piein?fl?sreiy upon the-doet?nesef-aetual and apparent agency? and res fps-0? qu?z?ximf where appropriate. 1346., WHEREFORE. Plaintiffs Seekall aamag'es?ellewable by. law; including 811? damages lost for; Plaimi?s and members?of'me Class in an amoun?t?lthat exceeds $75,0005n'the aggregate. Cauntv 1'47. Each of incorporated by reference. herein. 148. Defendants- vwere confeaedwi'th bene?ts in. the, fpr'm of money. paid' by Plaintiffs and the, Class Members? employers to review theirchest .x-rast I49, Defendants had ?an appreciation and a: knowiedgc of: the. money they. were being paid-to perform these. exams. 1:50. Further. Defendants had an appxeCiat'ien' "and 'a'kno'wie'dge that-they were being asked to review Plaintiffs? and the. Class Members' chest xernys. fer the purpose of that bene?tswere ow'ed to Pla?izitiffs; 1.5.1} Defendants have accepted and reteined these bene?ts under? such Would make-it inequitabie Tor Defendants. 152. Plaintiffs rely-uponthe, doctrines of- ectualend apparent agency, and res (p50 (aquim?r where appropriate.- 28 Case Document 2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 29 of 30 153. individUally: and on. of'th't: Class ask :his. Court to chrbiSc' its-powers "i1i.equity.-and gto 'o'r'?ler' restitutionnoifzall funds received by Defendants for reading'andt?interpreting ches: xerays as part Of the MBA. and to return those- funds to Plaintiffs: and members of 'the Cl?ss who :haVe tech defrauged anddenied benefits in=?an amount in?exgiess of $75,000 154. WHEREFORE. Plaintiffs as indiyidual Personal, Representatiws- and Administrators-of their respemiv'e Estates seek the following relief on behalf themSelves and the?Classrtiiey seek to represent: a. Aniordjer certifyingihc, class'PlaintiffS seek-{Q represent pursuaxttitb Md, R. Civ; P. 2-231 and appointing Plaintiffs as. class ?rcpr?sbnMiVeahd their? attorney?s as Class Counsel; lb. Judgment in fin/0r of Plainti?'s and the Class on all issues raised-herein; c. Damag?s as allowable by law in" 939655 of $175,000. including; all compensatory damages, punitive damges.: attomgys";feesi treble damages. interest and costs; 41. Compelling Defgndants to. establish a program .01: fund {to :einibmirse: Plaintiffs and members. of'thc Class all Black Lung Bene?ts: lost due to dg'nials'or'deIaYS caused byA-Defendants' actions; .6. All ?Othe?r. relief that this- .Courtdee?ms fair and?jus't. 2-9 Case Document 2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 30 of 30 . . Date: Octobe'r28j, 2016' . stophcr T. NideL ESQ, - To be Admitted Pr?dHag?f Vice "1615 'N??w'Hampshirc Ave. NW 'WashingtomD?C 20009 (P) 202.558.2030 (F) 301739.63'81 335 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL on raised herein. jga?'than Nact?sq. RULE 14-313 CERTIFICATE This is .10 certify't?atl am- an'att?ome'y- licensed to pracgjice if}. the State of Maryland with; an Of?ce-in the Di'stric?t of Columbia. .130; Case Document 2-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 1 of 3 751' {45? Circuit Court for Baltimore City Elm Citychoumy 233"" CIVIL - CASE Plaintiff This Information Report must be completed and attached to the complainr?led with r/ze Clerk ofCourt unless your case is exempted from the requirement by the Chief Judge ofrhe Court aprpeals pursuant to Rule I A copy must be included for each defendant :0 be served. Dq?mdam: You musr?le an Information Repar! as required by Rule 2?323ch. THIS INFORMATION REPORT CANNOT BE ACCETED AS AN ANSWER OR RESPONSE. FORM FILED BY: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANT CASE NUMBER {Clerk to insert) CASE NAME: Michael 8. Day, I ct A Johns Hopkins HeaJth System Corp.. at al. Plaintiff Defendant JURY DEMAND. Yes No Anticipated length of trial: hours or 10 days RELATED CASE Yes 'No If yes, Case if known: Special Requirements? Interpreter (Please attach Form CC-DC-MI) ADA accommodation (Please attach Form com-049) NATURE OF ACTION DAM (CHECK ONE TORTS LABOR A. TORTS Motor Tort Werkers' Comp. Actual Damages DPrerniscs Liability Wrongful Discharge Under 37,500 Matrix; DAssmit Battery EC Usuoo $50,000 5 [j moat-u memo Other .550000 - $100,000 prom?); mmagc; DProfe ssional Malpractice CONTRACTS DOvcr 3100.000 3 100.000+ CI Wrongful Death [3 Insurance Wage boss Business Commercial Confessed Judgment 3 [:ILibeI Slander Clothe: False Arrest/Imprisonment REAL PROPERTY B. CONTRACTS C. NONMONETARY DNuisnnce BJudicial Sale DToxic Torts Condemnation Under 510.000 B?Declaratory Judgment .Fraud DLandlord Tenant [3 $10,000 - 320.000 Injunction DMaiicious Prosecution UOthcr Cl Over 520.0000 Dorm Cl Lead Paint OTHER D. EQUITY CI Asbestos Civil Rights Sec Addendum Dower DADA DOther ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION INFORMATION Is this case appropriate for em] to an ADR process undcr Md. Rule 17-101? (Check all that a ly) A. Mediation Yes No C. Settlement Conference DYes No B. Arbitration :1ch No D. Neutral Evaluation DYes No TRACK REQUEST the exception of Baltimom 0 unry and Baltimore ity, please ?ll in the estimated LENGTH OF TRIAL. THIS CASE WILL THEN BE TRACKED ACCORDINGLY. 112 day of trial or less 3 days of trial time 1 day of m'ai timc More than 3 days of trial time 2 days of trial time PLEASE SEE PAGE TWO AND THREE THIS FORM FOR INSTRUCTIONS PERTAINING TO THE BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY CASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND COM CIENCE MEDICAL CASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (ASTAR), AS WELL AS FILING YOUR COMPLAIN IN LTIMORE CITY, BALTIMORE COUN Date 9'3 . I ?9 Signature CC-DCM-OOZ (Rev. Page I of 3 Case Document 2-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 2 of 3 ?(yum 625mg? mrvagr"? 335? :quf?g asf'r f? ugualo?19323 imii. *2 ?1112150" ?Wanders-*3 For alljunltdiclians, UBusines: and Technology track designation under Md. Rule 16-205 is requested, attach a duplicate copy of complaint and check one tithe track: below. Expedited Standard Trial within 7 months Trial within 18 months of Filing of Filing EMERGENCY RELIEF REQUESTED Signature? It; . as. no?? FOR PURPOSES 0F POSSIBLE SPECIAL ASSIGNMENT TO AN ASTAR RESOURCE JUDGE under Md. Rule 16- 202. Please check the box below and attach a duplicate copy of) our complaint. Expedited Trial within 7 months of Filing Standard - Trial within 13 months of Filing IF YOU ARE FILING YOUR COMPLAINT IN BALTIMORE COUNTY, 0R PRINCE COUNTY PLEASE ILL OUT THE APPROPRIATE BOX BELOW. CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY (CHECK ONLY ONE) Expedited Trial 60 to 1:0 days from mice. Non-jury matters. Standard-Short Trial 2:0 days. 0 Standard Trial 360 days. [3 Lead Paint ml in: Birth Date of youngest plaintiff Asbestos Events and deadlines set by individual judge. Protracted Cases Complex cases designated by the Administrative Judge. CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE COUNTY Expedited Attachment Before Judgment. Declaratory Judgment (Simple). Administrative Appeals. District tin] Date-9O days) Court Appeals and Jury Trial Prayers. Guardianship. Injunction. Mandamus. Standard Condemnation. Confessed Judgments (Vacated). Comract. Employment Related Cases. qud and (Trial Date-240 days) Mi International Tort. Motor Ton. Other Personal Injury. Workers? Compensation Cases. Extended Standard Asbestos. bender Liability. Professional Malpractice. Serious Motor Tort or Personal Injury Cases n'nl Date-345 days) (medical expenses and wage loss of 3100.000. ?(part and out-of-statc witnesses (parties), and trial of ?ve or more days). State Insolvency. Complex Actions. Designated Toxic Tort. Major Construction Contracts. Major Product Liabilities. (Trial Date-450 days) Other Complex Cases. CC-DCM-002 (Rev. 03(2016) Pag620f3 Case Document 2-1 Filed 12/08/16 Page 3 of 3 CIRCUIT COURT FOR PRINCE COUNTY To assist the Court in determining the appropriate Track for this case, check one of the boxes below. This information is 1191 tan admission and may not be used for any purpose other than Track Assignment. Liability is conceded. 0 Liability is not conceded, but is not seriously in dispute Cl Liability is seriously in dispute. CIRCUIT COURT FOR PRINCE COUNTY ONLY Section D. Equity Cases Addendum 0 Accounting Adverse Possession . [3 Appointment of aTrustce Assumption of Jurisd'xztion Authorized Sale Breach of Covenant Constructive Trust Declaratory Judgment (Equity) Declaratory Relief (Equity) Dctinue [1 Disciplinary Action [1 Ejectment Equitable Relief Establishment of Trust Foreclosure Land Installment Lion Foreclosure Right of Redemption a Foreclosure Statement Condo Foreclosure of Deed Trust Foreclosure Mortgage Forfeiture of Prop! Personal Item Foreclosure of Currency or Vehicle [3 Fraudulent Conveyance E3 Inj unczive Relief (Equity) Mandamus (Equity): Mechanic's Lien Notice of Lis Pendens Part/ Sale in Lieu of Part Quiet Title Receiverships Removal of Trustee Set Aside Deed Speci?c Performance Speci?c Transaction Structured Settlement Trust CC-DCM-OOZ (Rev. 0322016) Page 3 of 3 Case Document 2-2 Filed 12/08/16 Page 1 of 1 53L ?~November 9, 2016 VIA Certi?ed Mail, Return Receipt 7016 0750 0000 1648 3642 Joanne Pollak. Esq. 600 N. Wolfe St. Administration 414 Baltimore, MD 21205 Re: Day, 2! a! v. Johns Hopkins Hospital, er (11. Dear Ms. Pollak: Jonathan 3 Nate, Esquire 5335 Wisconsin Ave., N.W. Suite 440 Washington, DC 20015 T: 202-478-9677 ion?nidellow.com imp Enclosed please ?nd a Complaint, Summons and Civil Information Report in Case Number 24-016?005784 OT in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for each of the following named De- fendants: l. Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation d/b/a The Johns Hopkins Hospital 2. The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Inc. d/b/a The Johns Hopkins Hospital 3. Johns HOpkins Imaging, LLC Please have your insurance or legal representative contact me as necessary. Sincerely. Jonathan B. Nace, Esq.