«: » Michae l Selig , MD , FACC . CFI- H

281 6 0refieldRoa d Allentown , PA . 18104 

# CEIVE D JA N 

### 2 8 201 1 U.S . DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . ~ d r o 

# M i ^ 5 o Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Cynthi a Dominik , Laur a Ponto , Latony a William s Complainant s M & R Helicopters , LLC . Responden t V . Honorabl e Judg e Ronni e Yode r Federa l Docket . No : 2010-121 1 . . J

RESPONDENT'

S REPL YT O MOTIO N T

O DISMIS S TRUTH S O F ADMISSION S AN D NOW , come s respondent , MICHAE LB. SELIG , MD , FACC , CFI-H , principl e fo rM & R Helicopters , LLC , (MRH ) (non-operationa l sinc e 2007) who m avers an d file s th e followin g Repl yt o Complainant s Respons e t o th e Motio n t o Dismis s -Truth s o fAdmission . 1 . Complainant s alleg e tha t the yhav e responde d t o a vas t majorit yo f Respondent s allegations . 2 . Responden t allege s tha t complainant s hav e responde d t o wha t is convenien t fo rthe m t o answer , bu t hav e no t responde d t o man yitem s tha t ma ysho wth e complainant s i n ba d ligh t o rsho wmalfeasance . 1 -3 . Complainant s clai m the ydi d no tfil e a lat e respons e t o Respondent s

Motio n fo rJudgmen t t o Dismis s -Failur e t o Respon d o rMee tFilin g Deadlines . Thi s documen t wa s sen t t o complainant s o n Decembe r8 , 2010 . Acombine d respons e include d wit h a respons e t o Respondent s Motio n fo rJudgmen t t o Dismis s 4 . wa s receive d b ycertifie d mai l o n Decembe r23 , 2010,1 5 day s late . 5 . Responden t agree s complainan t di d fil e a respons e t o Respondent s Motio n fo rJudgmen t t o Dismiss - Failur e t o properl yrespon d o rmee t filin g deadline s o n th e deadlin e dat e o fJanuar y3 , 2010 . 6 . Th e Respondent s Motio n t o Quash , Strik e o rDismis s Complaint , wit h associate d brie fwa s faxe d t o M s Ponte s departmen t o n Novembe r29 , 2010 , sen t b ymai l o n Novembe r30 , 2010 . Th e du e dat e wa s Decembe r9 , 2010 . A n objectio n o rrespons e wa s no t receive d o rserve d unti l Decembe r13,2010 , exceedin g th e tim e allotte d unde r§ Rul e 13.218(d ) (Exhibit s previousl y presente d i n th e Respondent s Repl yt o Complainant s Respons e t o Judgmen t t o Dismiss , Faxe d 1-18-11) . 7 . O n Novembe r30 , 2010 , respondent s Motio n t o Strik e Allegatio n wa s faxe d an d sen t t o M s Ponto s departmen t t o whic h n o objectio n o ranswe rwa s receive d withi n th e 1 0 da ydeadlin e pursuan t t o § Rul e 13.218(d} . Alat e answe r wa s als o provide d i n th e collaborativ e correspondenc e receive d o n Decembe r 13,2010 . 8 . M s Pont o faile d t o presen t an yrequeste d evidenc e a s t o whe n th e

- 2respons e wa s actuall yreceive d i n he rrespons e t o thi s matter . Th e subjectiv e

draf t dat e indicate d o n th e documen t itsel fdoe s no t represen t a n actua l dat e o fservic e an d a signe d authorizatio n o freceipt . 8 . M s Domini k

fro m th e FA

Aenforcemen t divisio n o fth e chie fcounse l calle d respondent;persona l cel l phon e admittin a tha t th e complainant s coul d no t fil e response s withi n th e 1 0 da ydeadlin e period , woul d b e i n breac h o fthi s regulation , t o wi t sh e requeste d responden t argn tcomplginant s a continuance . 9 . Arevie wo fth e EIR als o shows inconsistencie s regardin g th e dat e o n th e documents , as wel l as th e dat e o fdocumen twa s actuall yreceived . Exhibi t on e shows a lette rdraf t dat e o fAugus t 14 , 200 9 an d a Certifie d mai l retur n receip t requeste d confirmatio n day s 5 day s later . Notwithstanding , thi s warrant s strict proo fo fth e repeatedl yrequeste d signe d certifie d retur n mai l receipt s validatin g bot h signatur e an d actua l serve d dates , instea d o fhearsay . 10 . Complainant s reference d §13.211(d)-Dat e ofService . Ther e ar e severa l method s listed . B

ydefinition , sinc e th e complainan t selecte d signator ydelivery confirmation , b ymean s o fsigne d retur n receipt , thi s represent s th e most accepted , reliabl e an d most objectiv e dat e o fservice . Complainant s wen t t o extr a taxpayer s expens e a t tripl e th e cos t t o clearlyvalidat e an d ensure th e tru e deliverydate , thi s supersede s othe rsubjectiv e method s tha t relie s o n hearsay . Base d o n th e abov e discrepancies , th e state d date s o n th e document s b yth e complainant s canno t b e truste d an d th e requeste d stric t proo fb e provided .11 . Concernin g th e possibl e "misplaced " 2 yea rstatu e o flimitations , a

simila rcas e scenari o appears . Dot e o fdraf t document s vs . confirme d date s o f service . Complainant s ave rth e allege d violatio n justsqueake d in , b yth e ski n o n thei rteet h b ya credible ? ON E DA Yan d therefor e valid . Th e requeste d proo fo f th e objectiv e dat e o fservic e has stil l bee n evade d an d faile d t o b e produced . 12 . Aviolatio n dat e o fJul y24,200 8 wa s sited , allege d servic e dat e o fJul y 23 , 2010 . Again , th e complainant s serve d th e respondent , requirin g respondent' s signatur e fo rdeliveryafte rth e 2 yea rperio d o n Jul y27,2010 , herei n afte rth e statu e o flimitations . 13 . I t appear s M s William s forgo t o rwa s unabl e t o complet e he rdu e diligenc e t o ascertai n tha t M rBake rwa s o n a monitorin g program , becaus e sh e just barel ygo t th e violatio n i n as i t was , withi n th e propose d 1 da ybefor e th e 2 yea rth e statu e o flimitations , i findee d tha t wil l prov e t o b e accurate . Sinc e sh e acte d unde rfals e fundamenta l premises , sh e shifte d th e caus e o factio n onc e sh e realize d M rBake rwa s alway s employe d b ylarg e companie s an d o n a program . 14 . Complainant s hav e faile d t o plea d t o specifi cnumbere d allegations . B

yfailur e t o addres s th e specifi cpleading s an d thereb yevadin g an d circumventin g respondent' s specifi callegations , complainant s hav e indubitabl yan d injuriousl ypropagate d redundan tan d iterat e pleading s fo ra cas e tha t appeare d voi d a b initio . Whil e the yma yhav e complie d wit h th e administrativ e la wcode , i t obviousl yhas bee n confusin g an d inadequat e i n thi s - 4 -cas e an d non-complian t wit h highe rcourt s o rFedera l cour t Rul e 10(b) , limitin g

eac h numbere d paragrap h t o on e circumstanc e t o "promot e clarity" . Complainant s referenc e t o § 13.208(c ) pertain s t o th e origina l complaint , no t th e natur e o fth e subsequen t pleadings . 15 . Complainan t refers t o § 13.208(f) , whil e n o suc h cod e exists . 16 . Judicia l Estoppel s as define d i n Black s Lega l dictionary : Estoppel s tha t prevent s a part yfro m contradictin g previou s declaration s mad e durin g th e sam e o reariie r proceedin g i fth e chang e i n positio n woul d adversel y affec t th e precedin g o rconstitut e a frau d o n th e court . 17 . Th e complainant s hav e admitte d t o formall yreleasin g th e prio rl A mechani cfoun d t o b e o n hi s ful l tim e employer s Drug/Alcoho l progra m b yMs William s lette ro fSeptembe r23 , 2010 , thereb ycomplainant s shoul d follo wsui t wit h lega l consistenc yb yreleasin g E d Bake rwh o wa s als o o n hi s ful l tim e employer s drug/alcoho l program , voidin g th e legitimac yo fth e complaint . Th e underiyin g circumstance s fo rth e 2 mechanic s ar e identical . 18 . Th e sol e an d primarypremis e fo rthi s violation , cleori ydocumente d i n Ms William s Inspecto rStatemen t lO P 9 record , wa s M s William s inabilit yt o validat e FA

Aapprove d dru g an d alcoho l testin g progra m informatio n fo rM r Baker . 19 . M s William s wa s give n evidenc e tha t M rBake rwa s o n a monitorin g progra m bu t selecte d no t t o pursu e primarysourc e verificatio n and/o r confirmatio n o fthes e fact s pursuan t t o §13.224 , fo rth e reaso n tha tsh e wa s i n a rus h t o ge t he rallege d civi l penalt yout , 1 da ybefor e th e statut e o flimitations . - 5 -20 . Onc e M s William s confirme d tha t M rBake rwa s alway s o n a

monitorin g progra m unde rhi s disclose d ful l tim e employer , sh e the n stiifte d tli e fundamenta l basi s an d caus e o factio n o fth e violatio n t o M rBake rno t bein g o n MRHs ow n companie s monitorin g program , despit e alread yreleasin g th e othe r Mechanic/I Afro m thos e regulations . 21 . I t becam e obviou s tha t th e revise d regulation s o fth e drug/alcohol s program s ne wdefinitio n o femploye rtha t wer e no t evident , disclosed , o reve n know n b ya prio rFA

ADrug/Alcotio l auditor , M R Vincen t Roots , durin g hi s audi t o rMR H i n Marc h 200 4 an d thereb ycoul d no t infor m responden t o fth e change . 22 . I t becam e obviou s tha t th e revise d regulation s o fth e drug/alcohol s program s ne wdefinitio n o femploye rtha t wer e no t evident , disclosed , o reve n know n b yMRHs FA

Aoperation s an d maintenanc e inspector s o rthi e Allentow n FSD O manager . 22 . Agai n anothe rexampl e o fho wcomplainant s chos e t o evad e an d circumven t thi s issu e completel ydespit e responden t repeatedl ypresentin g a lette rfro m M rRoots date d Apri l 2004 , afte rth e regulatio n chang e occurre d tha t n o on e kne wabout . 23 . That th e complainant s ar e tryin g t o hol d th e responden t liabl e fo r regulation s tha t eve n it s ow n FA

Aofficer s wer e no t awar e of , performe d safet y inspection s fo ryears t o promot e saf e operations . 24 . Tti e complainant s ar e therefor e tryin g t o hol d th e responden t t o a highe rstandar d tha n thei row n FA Aofficers .25 . This basi s alon e warrant s voidin g th e legitimac yo fth e complain t

an d demonstrate s maliciou s prosecution . 26 . There wer e i n addition , severa l factor s cloudin g th e clarit yan d ful l disclosur e o fthes e regulations , sinc e regulation s the ywer e no t cleari y contained , listed , spelle d ou t o ri n a forthrigh t manne reviden t withi n th e signe d of fcomplianc e statemen t an d operationa l specifications , thereb yhidden , conceale d an d encouragin g violation , rathe rtha n effectiv e complianc e i n th e spiri t o fsafety . 27 . Ther e wer e severa l matter s concernin g clearnes s an d interpretatio n o f th e languag e an d meanin g containe d withi n th e signe d offcomplianc e statemen t an d operationa l specifications , thereb yencouragin g violation , rathe r tha n effectiv e complianc e i n th e spiri t o fsafetyan d contraryt o standar d practice s i n Administratio n law .

I n Administrativ e La w"/ n th e inferpretatio n o fth e languag e o fregulafions , wher e doub t exist s as t o tt) e inten t o fth e meanin g o fth e languag e writte n an d enacte d b ya governin g body , th e languag e shal l b e interprete d i n favo ro fth e Partyan d agains t an yimplie d extensio n o fa restriction" . 25 . Complainant s hav e als o trie d t o hol d MR H liabl e fo rno t havin g M r Bake ro n its ow n companie s monitorin g program , durin g th e tim e whe n responden t recognize d i n goo d judgmen t t o withdra wal l operation s o fMR H an d i n accordanc e t o regulation s i n orde rt o no timpos e risk t o th e public . 7 -26 . Th e othe ranimadversio n is tha t th e violation s cite d b ycomplainant s

wer e conducte d b yinnocen t bystande rM rBaker , afte rMR H terminate d operation s an d wa s n o longe rperformin g flight s fo rhuma n facto rreason s affectin g th e singl e pilo t operato ri n goo d fait h an d i n complianc e with :

119.6 9 Managemen t Personne l Require d fo rOperation s Conducte d unde rPar

t 13 5 o fthi s Chapter , (a ) DR Helicopters , LL

C must hav e sufficien t qualifie d managemen t an d technica l personne l t o ensure th e safet yo fit

s operations . D

R Helicopters , LL

C must hav e qualifie d personne l servin g i n th e followin g o requivalen t positions : (1 ) Directo ro f Operations . (2) Chie fPilot . (3 ) Directo ro f Maintenance . Responden t wa s th e Directo ro fOperations , Chie fPilot an d th e Maintenanc e Schedule rdu e t o th e huma n factor s o fa litigiou s tragi cdivorce , suicid e risk

o fmino rchild , custod ybattle , tim e an d responsibilityrestraint s o fhi s cardiolog ypractice , responden t i n goo d judgmen t an d i n accordanc e t o th e abov e regulation , stoppe d operations . 4 . I n summary , i

s i t abundantl yclea rtha t th e conduc t b ycomplainant s represent s procedura l an d prosecutoria l overreaching . a . That th e complainant s ar e tryin g t o hol d th e responden tt o a highe r standar d tha n thei row n official s i n regar d t o regulation s tha t wer e no t eviden t o r known . b . Ther e ar e issue

s o fjudicia l estoppels , lega l inconsistencyan d procedura l defects . 8c . Tha t inappropriat e actio n ha s bee n take n agains ta smal l singl e pilo t

operatio n tha t ha s bee n operatin g i n th e re d fo ryear s an d ha d lon g stoppe d operatin g i n du e diligence , goo d judgmen t an d goo d faith , accordin g t o regulation s du e t o huma n factor s o fa tragi cdivorc e cas e scenari o i n orde rt o no t expos e th e publi ct o undu e risk . d . Rapidl yinitiate d th e appropriat e change s onc e responden t becam e awar e i n goo d faith , despit e no t performin g operation s fo ryear s prior . e . Tha t preciou s scarc e judicia l resource s ar e bein g squandere d o n a cas e tha t appear s frivolous , trivial , withou t merit , whil e representin g a n aggressiv e prosecutoria l pursui t tha t lack s prope rinitiative , perspectiv e o rgoo d judgment . f . Th e lega l pursui t is no t wort h th e cos t a t th e ta xpayer' s expens e o rfo r judicia l economy . g . Th e statu e o flimitation s wa s exceede d .

WHEREFORE , th e responden t pray s tha t thi s Honorabl e Cour t wil l gran t th e Motio n fo rjudgmen t t o dismis s thi s cas e i n effort s o fjudicia l economy . Respectfull ySubmitted , Michae l B . Selig , MD , FACC , CFI- H ^^ C Dat e

- 9& U.S . Departmen t o fTransportatkj n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 170 1 Columbi a Avenu e Colleg e Park , G A30337

Certifie d Mai l - Retur n Receip t Requeste d Augus t 14 , 200 9 Fil e Number : 2009SO95043 4 Dr . Michae l B . Seli g Presiden t M an d R Helicopter s LL C 204 5 Westgat e Driv e Bethlehem , P A1801 7 Dea rDr . Selig : O n Jul y2 1 an d 23 , 2009 , w e inspecte d M an d R Helicopter s LLC' s dru g an d alcoho l testin g program s t o determin e complianc e wit h 4 9 CF R part4 0 an d 1 4 CF R part 12 0 (formerl y1 4 CF R par t 121 , appendice s I an d J) . A s a resul t o fthi s inspection , th e followin g apparen t violation s wer e discovered : 1 . M an d R Helicopter s LL C di d no t determin e tha t Eugen e Mcintos h an d Edwar d Bake r(contractors ) wer e covere d unde ra FAA-mandate d dru g testin g progra m an d a n alcoho l misus e preventio n progra m prio rt o usin g thei rservices . 2 . M an d R Helicopter s LL C di d no t conduc t pre-employmen t dru g test s an d receiv e verifie d negativ e tes t result s prio rt o hirin g Eugen e Mcintos h an d Edwar d Bake rt o perfor m safety-sensitiv e functions . Thi s lette ri s t o infor m yo u tha t thes e matter s ar e unde rinvestigatio n b yth e FAA . Yo u maydiscus s thes e matter s wit h m e o rsubmi t a writte n statement , o rboth , withi n 1 0 day s o freceivin g thi s letter . Pleas e contac tm e a t(404 ) 305-617 5 i fyo u hav e question s abou t thes e matters . Awritte n statemen tshoul d includ e al l pertinen t fact s an d mitigatin g circumstance s tha t yo u believ e mayhav e a bearin g o n thes e matters . Sen d you rwritte n statemen t to : Attention : Latony a Williams , AAM-86 2 Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o fAerospac e Medicin e Dru g Abatemen t Divisio n 170 1 Columbi a Avenu e Colleg e Park , G A3033 7 KOUTIN O SYMBO L AAM-862 INITIALS/SI O LWilliam s 3AT E 08/14/200 9 KOt/TIN Q SVMaO L

SAT E ROUTIN G SYMBO L INITIALS/Si a

ROUTIN Q SYMBO L

http://www.faa.gov/about/office org/headquarter s offices/avs/offices/aam/dru g alcohol/ 

## FO R OFFICIA LUS

E ONLY " Publi cavailabilit yt o b e determine d unde r5 USC 55 2 CONCURRENCE S

ROUTIN Q SYMBO L

ROUTIN O SYMBO L

ROUTIN Q SYMBO L

ROUTIN G SYMBO L INITIAL&SI GSENDER : COMPLET E THI S SECTIO N

•Completa'item s 1,2 , an d 3 . Als o complet e ite m 4 I fRestricte d DeliveryI s desired . •Prin tyou rnam e an d addres s o n th e revers« { s o tha tw e ca n retur n th e car d t o you . •Attac h thi s car d t o th e bac k o fth e mallplece , o ro n th e fron ti fspac e permits . COMPLET E THI S SECTIO N O N DELIVER Y

1 . Articl e Addrssse d to : Dr . Michae l 8 . Seli g Presiden t M an d R Helicopter s LL C 204 5 Westgat e Drive Bethlehem , P A1801 7 3 . |St»vlce1Vp » -^•'-^=*-v.< ' j^lgertH M Ma

U •ExprMsMa J a Registerad D Return Receiptto rMeichandls a j a Insured Mal l Q C.0.0 . 4 . Restricte d Delivery? (Extr a ft^ a>t a 2 . Articl e Numtse r (Jtansia rfro m service label ) 7DD 7 14^ D DDD2 37S M TS5M_ P S For m 3811 , Pebruai y200 4 Domesti cReturn Receip t 10259S'«2-M-154 O i

UNITE D STATE S POSTA LSERVIC E First-Clas s Mai l Portage * Fee s Pai d I Permi tNo . G-l o

LiJ ' r^ \ c S •Sender : PJeas

e prin tyou rname , address , an d ZIP+ 4 i i federa lAviatio nAdministratio n Industr y Dru g &Alcoho lProgram s - •• 170 1 Columbi aAvenue• Colleg ePark , G

A3033 7 i n thi s bo x•

ATTN : AAM-862/Latonv aWilliams

'^''"""•''•"•f'i"»li.Kii.wi,Mii,lMiiiH„JiM„ /



## FO R OFFICIA LUS

E ONL Y Publi cavailabilit yt o b e defefmine d unde r5 USC 55 2

# Q li e r,«r.«,+«. . •Office o fAviatio n IVIedlcln e 80 0 Independenc e Ave. , S.W. U.S. Departmen t Washington . D.C . 2059 1 o fTransportatio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n AP R 2 200 4 Certified-Retur n Receip t Fil e Number : 2004EA91007 3 Dr. Michae l Selig , CE O M an d R Helicopter

s LL C 204 5 Westgat e Drive , Suite 10 1 Bethlehem , P

A1801 7 Dea rDr . Seli g On IViarc h 3 , 2004 , yo u were informe d thatth e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n (FAA ) was Investigatin g allege d violation s of4 9 CF R Par t4 0 an d 1 4 CF R Par

t 121 , Appendice s I an d J . Afte rreviewin g th e evidence compile d durin g th e inspectio n ofIV I an d R Helicopter

s LL C o n Februar y26 , 2004 an d th e documentatio n submitte d i n you rrespons e date d March 18 , 2004 , i t appear s thatM an d R Helicopter s LL C di d notcompl ywit h al l provision s o f th e Antidru g an d Alcoho l Misus e Preventio n Program s a s detaile d below : 1 . lUi an d R Helicopter s LLC' s specime n collectio n procedure s d o no t meettii e requirement s o f4 9 CF R Par t 40 . Specifically : M an d R Helicopter

s LLC' s collecto r(Denes e Miller/CH S 02 ) faile d to complete Ste p 1 ite m E , Test to Be Performed , o n th e Federa l Dru g Testin g Custodyan d Contro l Form . Corrective Action : Atth e inspectio n outbriefing , M an d R Helicopter s LL C agree d t o ensur

e th e collecto rwoul d complete Ste p 1 o n th e Federa l Dru g Testin g Custod yan d Contro l Form . I n th e respons e date d Marc h 18 , 2004 , M an d R Helicopter s LL C submitte d a copyo

fa n Erro r Correctio n Trainin g Checklistfro m Clinica l Laboratories , Inc . documentin g trainin g fo rDenese Miller . 2 . IV i an d R Helicopter s LLC' s breati i aicoiio ! testin g procedure s d o no t mee t th e requirement s o f4 9 CF R Par t 40 . Specifically : M an d R Helicopter

s LLC' s Breat h Alcoho l Technicia n (Denes e Miller/CH S 02 ) faile d t o complet e Ste p 1 ite m C , th e Designate d Employe rRepresentative , o n th e Departmen t o f Transportatio n Alcoho l Testin g Form . Corrective Action : At th e inspectio n outbriefing , M an d R Helicopter s LL C agree d to immediatel yensur

e that th e Breat h Alcoho l Technicia n woul d complete Ste p 1 o fth e Alcoho l Testin g Form . I n th e respons e date d March 18 , 2004 , M an d R Helicopter s LL C submitte d a cop yo fa n Erro rCorrectio n Trainin g Checklistfro m Clinica l Laboratories , Inc . documentin g trainin g fo rDenes e Miller . 

# 6^W

# ^ -3 . M an d R Helicopter s LL C faile d t o maintai n record s a s require d by49 CF R Par t 40 . Specifically : M an d R Helicopter

s LLC' s laborator

yfaile d transmi t th e employe rspecifi caggregate statistica l summar

yfo r2003 to th e employe ro n a semi-annua l basis . Corrective Action : At th e inspectio n outbriefing , M an d R Helicopter s LL C agree d to immediatel yensure th e la b wil l sen d statistica l summarie s fo r2003 . I n th e respons e date d Marc h 18 , 2004 , M an d R Helicopter s LL C submitte d a copie s o

faggregate statistica l summarie s fo r2003 fro m LabCorp . Thi s i s to confir m that yo u have satisfactoril ycorrecte d th e above issues . W e hav e give n consideratio n t o al l availabl e fact s an d conclude d thatthes e issue s d o no t warran tlega l enforcemen t action . I n lie u ofsuc h action , we are issuin g thi s letter , whic h wil l b e mad e a matte ro frecord . W e expec

tthat i n th e future M an d R Helicopter s LLC' s Antidru g an d Alcoho l Misus e Preventio n Program s wil l b e i n compliance wit h applicabl e regulations . Sincerely , Vincen tO . Roots Inspector , Compliance an d Enforcemen tMichae l Selig , MD , FACC , CFI- H * ^" ^ ^ ^ ^ *2.^\ \ 281 6 Orefiel d Roa d ]{^ ^ " - \^,^ucr^ Aller^tov^n , PA . 1810 4 ^ . OIM G D~^^ ^ U.S . DEPARTMEN TO F TRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O F HEARING S WASHINGTON , D.C . Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ^" ^ Com'?Ila?r^ints°''^' ' ^""'"^ ' Honorabl e Judg e Ronni e Yode r V . Docket : 2010-121 1 M & R Helicopters , LLC . Responden t

RESPONDENT

S REPL YTO COMPLAINANT S RESPONS E T O TH E MOTIO N TO HAV E TH E HEARIN G LOCATIO N A TTH E U S DISTRIC

TCOURT . ALLENTOWN . PA . AN D NOW , come s respondent , MICHAE LB . SELIG , MD , FACC , principl e fo rM R Helicopters , LLC , (MRH ) (non-operationa l sinc e 2007 ) whio m aver s an d file s th e followin g Repl yt o Complainant s Respons e t o th e Motio n fo rHearin g a t th e U.S . Distric t Court , Allentown , PA . 1 . O n Octobe r1 , 2010 , o n th e informa l hearin g wa s hel d wit h M s Pont o a t whic h tim e i t wa s discusse d a cour t locatio n fo ra futur e hearin g i n Allentown , PA , a t th e U S Distric t Court . 2 . I t i s respondent s positio n tha tth e mos t appropriat e an d reasonabl e

1 o f4hearin g locatio n is Allentown , sinc e tha t i s wher e th e violatio n wa s investigated , initiate d an d generate d b yM s Williams , requirin g 2 visit s (specificall yt o th e join t cardiology/ai rcharte roffice) , th e sit e o fth e allege d violatio n occurre d i n Allentow n whereb yi t woul d onl yfollo wsuit e tha tth e hearin g locatio n shoul d thereb yals o b e hel d i n th e Allentow n location , th e plac e o forigi n an d origina l jurisdiction . 3 . Complainant s no wstat e tha t t o com e t o Allentow n "woul d b e a tremendou s inconvenienc e an d expense" . 4 . I t appear s i t wa s no t a tremendou s inconvenienc e an d expens e t o com e t o Allentow n t o initiate , fin d an d impos e thi s frivolou s allege d civi l penaltv . pullin g D rSeli o awa vfo rhour s fro m hi s privat e cardiolog ypractice , bu tno wi s a n inconvenienc e t o appea rt o substantiat e an d defen d he rpositions . 5 . Th e complainant s hav e evade d an d circumvente d th e mai n reaso n fo rrespondents reques t fo rth e Allentow n location , whic h as state d i n respondent' s lette ro fNovembe r24 , 2010 , tha th e a solo , privat e practic e Lehig h Communit ycardiologis t (fo rth e last 2 3 years ) wit h hospita l an d outpatien t responsibilities . T o leav e th e are a woul d pos e undu e hardshi p t o hi s patients . I t woul d no t b e prope ro rreasonabl e t o burde n o rinconvenienc e neutra l part ypatient s an d a physicia n fo ra n allege d violatio n tha t h e di d no t initiate , ha s cause d n o harm , lack s lega l meri t an d o n verywea k grounds . 6 . I t woul d no t b e proper , reasonabl e o rmorall yo rethicall y appropriatel yt o compromis e a physician s clinicg l responsibilitie s i n hi s offic e o ri n 2 o f4th e hospita l i n a manne rtha t woul d delay , interrup tcontinuit yo fcar e o r

compromis e patien t car e an d potentiall yincreas e liabilitie s o rrisk t o hi m o rhi s patient s i n hi s rol e o fprovidin g emergent , acut e an d chroni cpubli cheat h car e service s t o th e community . 7 . I t woul d b e mos t appropriate , prope ran d reasonabl e tha t sinc e th e violatio n occurred , investigated , initiate d an d generate d b ycomin g t o th e Allentow n Location , requirin g 2 visit s (specificall yt o th e join t cardiology/ai r charte roffice ) the n i t woul d onl yfollo wsui t tha t hearin g thereb yb e hel d i n th e Allentow n location , wher e th e allege d violatio n occurre d an d th e locatio n o f th e originatin g jurisdiction . 8 . Responden t disagree s wit h M s Ponto s statemen t tha t th e Allentow n locatio n wa s neve rdiscusse d i n th e informa l conference . 9 . A s discusse d i n respondent s lette rt o Judg e Yoder , th e tim e Ms Pont o mentione d tha t Philadelphi a i s onl y1 hou ran d 1 5 minute s away , i s incorrect , as i t i

s close rt o 2 hour

s a t of fhours , bu t ca n b e severa l hour s additiona l i n hol d u p tim e durin g business hour

s du e t o th e insurmountabl e traffi co n th e Schuylkil l Expresswa y an d i n th e downtow n area . Ther e i s as wel l heav yai rtraffi can d continuou s delay s i n Philadelphi a airport are a as compare d t o th e eas yacces s t o Allentow n bot h i n ai ran d groun d traffic . Th e costs woul d als o b e greote ri n th e Philgdelphi g greg . 10 . I fth e comploingnt s gr e concerne d wit h conservin g governmen t funds , th e most effectiv e effort is t o dismiss thi s cos e now , befor e on yfurthe rtime , expense s o rpotentio l gppegi s squgnde reve n furthe rresources . 3 o f411 . Th e responden t hereb ypropose s th e following ; ossumin g th e prio r

suggeste d dote s wer e megn t t o oppl yt o 2011 , g t the : U S Distric t Cour t 50 4 Hgmilto n Stree t Allentown , PA . 1810 1 12 . Responden t woul d b e le d t o believ e tho t th e Honorobl e Judg e Yode r woul d nee d t o se t u p th e heorings , unles s otherwis e notified . WHEREFORE , th e responden t proy s thg t thi s Honorobl e Cour t wil l gron t th e Hegrin g locotio n i n Allentown , PA , th e originotin g locotio n on d jurisdictio n o fth e ollege d violotion . Respectfull ySubmitted , ^ Michoe l B . Selig , MD , FACC . y! ^ u Dgt e

4 o f4