i MichaelSelig, MD, FACC, CFI-H •'• OPhMMiOiif .. -vo -irttA 

I 2816 0refieldRoad jAH 1» ^'^^^ 

Allentown, PA. 18104 • ' •-' "^ '^ ?:• 3 ilEARW^ DOCKEI^ 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Laura Ponto, Latonya Williams 

Complainants 

V. 

M & R Helicopters, LLC. 

Respondent 

Honorable Judge Ronnie Yoder 

Docket: 2010-1211 

RESPONDENTS REPLY TO COMPLAINANTS RESPONSE TO THE MOTIONS: 

DEPOSITION OF LATONYA WILLIAMS 

DEPOSITION OF CYNTHIA DOMINIK 

AND 

THE PRE-TRIAL CONFERNCE 

AT GALLAGHER REPORTING. ALLENTOWN. PA. 

AND NOW, comes respondent, MICHAEL B. SELIG, MD, FACC, principle 

for MR Helicopters, LLC, (MRH) (non-operational since 2007) whom avers and 

files the following Reply to Complainants Response to the above Motions: 

1. On December 1, 2010, respondent faxed and filed a Motion for 

Deposition of Latonya Williams to Ms Ponto, to take place in Allentown, PA. 

2. In complainants response doted December 20, 2010, complainant 

agreed to make available Ms Williams for Deposition and cited erred dates of 

-1 -
availability for the pre-trial deposition of "January 28, 2010, February 1-4, 2010, 

February 8-11, 2010 or February 15-17, 2010". 

3. In complainant's typical method of evading and circumventing the 

pleadings, as well as not responding to enumerated paragraphs, complainants 

have failed to confirm if the above dates they provided are still available. 

4. On December 21, 2010, respondent filed a motion to specifically 

request the deposition to be in the Allentown Location. 

5. On January 13, 2011, complainants served their response 13 days 

later. In that reply, Miami, Florida was mention as a suggested location, which 

also is unacceptable to the respondent. 

6. Complainants now state that to come to Allentown "would be a 

tremendous inconvenience and expense". 

7. It appears it was not a tremendous inconvenience and expense for 

Ms Williams to come to Allentown to initiate, find and impose this frivolous 

alleged civil penalty, pullina Dr Sella awov for hours from his private cardioloav 

practice, but now is an inconvenience to appear to substantiate and defend 

her positions. 

8. The complainants again evaded and circumvented the main reason 

for respondents request for the Allentown location, as stated in his letter of 

November 24, 2010, namely the respondents primary role in the Lehigh 

Community as a solo, private practice cardiologist (for the last 23 years) with 

hospital and outpatient responsibilities. To leave the area would pose undue 
hardship to his patients. It would not be proper or reasonable to burden or 

inconvenience neutral party patients and a physician for on alleged violation 

i 

fl that he did not initiate, was an innocent bystander to, has caused no harm, 

lacks legal merit and on very weak grounds. 

9. It would not be proper, reasonable, morally ethical gi^appropriate to 

compromise a physicians clinical responsibilities in his office or in the hospital in a 

manner that would delay, interrupt continuity of care or compromise patient 

care and potentially increase liabilities or risk to him or his patients in his role of 

providing emergent, acute and chronic public heath care services to the 

community. 

10. It would be most reasonable, proper and appropriate since the 

violation occurred in Allentown to have Ms Williams return for deposition to the 

place where her original investigation and initiation of action occurred, namely 

the Allentown; the originating jurisdiction. 

11. Respondent disagrees with Ms Pontos statement that the Allentown 

location was never discussed in the informal conference. 

12. As discussed in respondents letter to Judge Yoder, the time Ms Ponto 

mentioned that Philadelphia is only 1 hour and 15 minutes away, is incorrect, as it is 

closer to 2 hours at off hours, but can be several hours additional in hold up time 

during business hours due to the insurmountable traffic on the Schuylkill Expressway 

and in the downtown area. There is as well heavy air traffic and continuous delays 

in the Philadelphia Airport area as compared to the easy access to Allentown 
both in air and ground traffic. The costs would also be greater in the Philadelphia 

area. 

13. If the complainants are concerned with conserving govemment funds, 

the most effective effort is to dismiss this case now, before any further time or 

expenses are expended. 

14. Respondent agrees that there was only a pleading discussion in regard 

to the deposition, but mentioned during the informal conference concerning the 

hearing location. 

15. Ms Williams stated to the respondent that she "travels all over as part of 

her job" and also mentioned the reason she was delayed in some of the follow-up 

documentation, was she was traveling. 

16. The respondent hereby proposes the following; Assuming the prior 

suggested dates were meant to apply to 2011, using a time of 10 am, Ms William 

can chose the date most fitting to her schedule to appear at the Allentown 

location namely at: 

Gallagher Reporting and Video, LLC. 

1600 Lehigh Parkway East, Suit 1H 

Allentown, PA 18103 

Once the dote is selected that best suits her schedule for the pre-trial 

deposition, respondent will firm up the other details. 

12. Respondent agrees to cover the costs pertaining to the meeting 

room and court reporter directly with Gallagher Reporting. 

13. If Ms Dominik is unwilling to provide the prior requested statement of 
i 

truth, then this time and location can be utilized for her deposition as well. 

14. After the above is completed, a pre-trial conference can be held. 

WHEREFORE, the respondent prays that this Honorable Court will grant the 

depositions of Latonya Williams, Ms Dominik and the pretrial conference in 

Allentown, PA, the originating location and jurisdiction of the alleged violation. 

Respectfully Submitted, 

Michael B. Selig, MD, FACC. 

Date