Preview
Filing # 42032422 E-Filed 05/26/2016 03:45:58 PM
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR BRO WARD COUNTY,
FLORIDA
CASE NO.: CACE15-021427
ONE AND ONE, LLC d/b/a COMPLETE
REHAB AND MEDICAL CENTER OF
HOLLYWOOD, ORTHOPEDIC & SPINE
CENTER OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC
d/b/a NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES
OF SOUTH FLORIDA, ORTHOPEDIC &
SPINE CENTER OF SOUTH FLORIDA LLC,
and UNIVERSAL MEDIQUIP, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
TODD CASH ALOFS d/b/a THE ALOFS LAW
FIRM, TODD CASH ALOFS, P.A., KAPLAN &
SCONZO, P.A., and DAVID GUNTER,
Defendants,
And
KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A.,
Cross-Plaintiff,
vs.
DAVID GUNTER
Cross-Defendant.
DEFENDANTS, KAPLAN AND SCONZO, P.A.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT and
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES and CROSS-COMPLAINT AGAINST DAVID GUNTER
Page | of 14
*** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL HOWARD FORMAN, CLERK 5/26/2016 3:45:55 PM.****COMES NOW, the Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., by and through its undersigned
counsel, and hereby file this its Answer to the Second Amended Complaint filed in this action and
Affirmative Defenses and in support thereof state as follows:
1.
2.
10.
ll.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Denied.
Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied.
Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied.
Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied.
Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied.
Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied.
Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied.
Admitted that KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A. is a Florida corporation. Otherwise,
denied.
Admitted.
Denied.
Denied.
Admitted.
Admitted.
Admitted.
Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied.
Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied.
Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied.
Page 2 of 1419.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied.
Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied.
Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied.
Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied.
Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied.
Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied.
Admitted that the SLOOTSKY FIRM responded to discovery on behalf of GUNTER.
Otherwise denied.
Admitted that the Answers to Personal Injury Interrogatories served by the
SLOOTSKY FIRM dated February 25, 2010 are attached to the Second Amended
Complaint at Exhibit “H” and that Exhibit “H” speaks for itself. Otherwise denied.
Admitted that the Answers to Personal Injury Interrogatories served by the
SLOOTSKY FIRM dated February 25, 2010 are attached to the Second Amended
Complaint at Exhibit “H” and that Exhibit “H” speaks for itself. Otherwise denied.
Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied.
Denied.
Admitted that certain medical records and bills of GUNTER were provided to
KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A. Otherwise denied.
Admitted that GUNTER also retained THE ALOFS LAW FIRM as co-counsel with
reference to the underlying injury action and the Stipulation of Counsel is attached
as Exhibit “J.” Otherwise denied.
Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied.
Page 3 of 1432.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
Al.
42.
43,
44.
Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied.
Denied.
Denied.
Admitted as to the telephone conversation, unknown as therefore denied as to the
date of such conversation.
Denied.
Denied.
Denied.
Defendant is without personal knowledge as to why the defendants in the underlying
lawsuit settled the case, therefore denied.
Defendant cannot admit nor deny as the settlement in the underlying tort case was
confidential.
Admitted in part that certain proceeds from the settlement of the underlying tort case
were distributed on February 23, 2012. Otherwise denied.
Denied, as KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A. had no legal duty to pay Plaintiffs any sums.
Denied.
Denied.
COUNT I - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CLAIM BY ONE AND ONE, LLC
AGAINST DEFENDANT, THE ALOFS LAW FIRM
45 - 49. The allegations in Count I are not directed and not applicable to Defendant,
KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied.
Page 4 of 14COUNT II - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CLAIM BY ORTHOPEDIC & SPINE
CENTER OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC d/b/a NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES
AGAINST DEFENDANT, THE ALOFS LAW FIRM
50 - 54. The allegations in Count II are not directed and not applicable to Defendant,
KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied.
COUNT III - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CLAIM BY UNIVERSAL
MEDIQUIP, LLC AGAINST DEFENDANT, THE ALOFS LAW FIRM
55-59. The allegations in Count [II are not directed and not applicable to Defendant,
KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied.
COUNT IV - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CLAIM BY ONE AND ONE, LLC
AGAINST KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A.
60. Denied unless otherwise admitted herein.
61. Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied.
62. Denied.
63. Denied.
64. Denied.
COUNT V - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CLAIM BY ORTHOPEDIC SPINE
CENTER OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC d/b/a NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES
AGAINST KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A.
65. Denied unless otherwise admitted herein.
66. Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied.
67. Denied.
68. Denied.
69. Denied.
Page 5 of 14COUNT VI- TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CLAIM BY UNIVERSAL
MEDIQUIP, LLC AGAINST KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A.
70. Denied unless otherwise admitted herein.
71. Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied.
72. Denied.
73. Denied.
74. Denied.
COUNT VII - NEGLIGENCE CLAIM BY ONE AND ONE, LLC
AGAINST DEFENDANT, THE ALOFS LAW FIRM
75-78. The allegations in Count VII are not directed and not applicable to Defendant,
KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied.
COUNT VUI - NEGLIGENCE CLAIM BY ORTHOPEDIC & SPINE CENTER
OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC d/b/a NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES
AGAINST DEFENDANT, THE ALOFS LAW FIRM
79-82. The allegations in Count VII are not directed and not applicable to Defendant,
KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied.
COUNT IX - NEGLIGENCE CLAIM BY UNIVERSAL MEDIQUIP, LLC
AGAINST DEFENDANT, THE ALOFS LAW FIRM
83-86. The allegations in Count IX are not directed and not applicable to Defendant,
KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied.
COUNT X- NEGLIGENCE CLAIM BY ONE AND ONE, LLC
AGAINST KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A.
87. Denied unless otherwise admitted herein.
88. Denied.
Page 6 of 1489. Denied.
90. Denied.
COUNT XI- NEGLIGENCE CLAIM BY ORTHOPEDIC & SPINE CENTER OF
SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC d/b/a NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES
AGAINST KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A.
91. Denied unless otherwise admitted herein.
92. Denied.
93. Denied.
94. Denied.
COUNT XII- NEGLIGENCE CLAIM BY UNIVERSAL MEDIQUIP, LLC
AGAINST KAPLAN & SCONZO.
95. Denied unless otherwise admitted herein.
96. — Denied.
97. Denied.
98. Denied.
COUNT XII - BREACH OF CONTRACT BY ONE AND ONE, LLC
AGAINST DEFENDANT, GUNTER
99-101. The allegations in Count XIIare not directed and not applicable to Defendant,
KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied.
COUNT XIV - BREACH OF CONTRACT BY ORTHOPEDIC & SPINE CENTER OF
SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC d/b/a NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES
AGAINST DEFENDANT, GUNTER
102 - 104. The allegations in Count XIV are not directed and not applicable to
Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied.
Page 7 of 14COUNT XV - BREACH OF CONTRACT BY UNIVERSAL MEDIQUIP, LLC
AGAINST DEFENDANT, GUNTER
105-107. The allegations in Count XV are not directed and not applicable to Defendant,
KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied.
COUNT XVI - OPEN ACCOUNT BY ONE AND ONE, LLC
AGAINST DEFENDANT, GUNTER
108 - 109. The allegations in Count XVI are not directed and not applicable to
Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied.
COUNT XVII - OPEN ACCOUNT BY ORTHOPEDIC & SPINE CENTER OF
SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC d/b/a NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES
AGAINST DEFENDANT, GUNTER
110-111. The allegations in Count XVII are not directed and not applicable to
Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied.
COUNT XVIII - OPEN ACCOUNT BY ORTHOPEDIC & SPINE CENTER OF
SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC AGAINST DEFENDANT, GUNTER
112-113. The allegations in Count XVIII are not directed and not applicable to
Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied.
COUNT XIX - OPEN ACCOUNT BY UNIVERSAL MEDIQUIP, LLC
AGAINST DEFENDANT, GUNTER
114-115. The allegations in Count XIX are not directed and not applicable to
Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied.
COUNT XX - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CLAIM BY ONE AND ONE, LLC
AGAINST DEFENDANT, TODD CASH ALOFS, P.A.
116-119. The allegations in Count XX are not directed and not applicable to Defendant,
KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied.
Page 8 of 14COUNT XXI - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CLAIM BY ORTHOPEDIC & SPINE
CENTER OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC d/b/a NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES
AGAINST DEFENDANT, TODD CASH ALOFS, P.A.
120 - 123. The allegations in Count XXI are not directed and not applicable to
Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied.
COUNT XXII - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CLAIM BY
UNIVERSAL MEDIQUIP, LLC AGAINST DEFENDANT, TODD CASH ALOFS, P.A.
124 - 127. The allegations in Count XXII are not directed and not applicable to
Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied.
COUNT XXIII - NEGLIGENCE CLAIM BY ONE AND ONE, LLC
AGAINST DEFENDANT, TODD CASH ALOFS, P.A.
128 - 131. The allegations in Count XXIII are not directed and not applicable to
Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied.
COUNT XXIV - NEGLIGENCE CLAIM BY ORTHOPEDIC & SPINE
CENTER OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC d/b/a NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES
AGAINST DEFENDANT, TODD CASH ALOFS, P.A.
132 - 135. The allegations in Count XXIV are not directed and not applicable to
Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied.
COUNT XXV - NEGLIGENCE CLAIM BY UNIVERSAL
MEDIQUIP, LLC AGAINST DEFENDANT, TODD CASH ALOFS, P.A.
136 - 139. The allegations in Count XXV are not directed and not applicable to
Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied.
COUNT XXVI - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIM BY ONE AND ONE, LLC
AGAINST DEFENDANT, THE ALOFS LAW FIRM
140 - 144. The allegations in Count XXVI are not directed and not applicable to
Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied.
Page 9 of 14COUNT XXVIII - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIM BY ORTHOPEDIC &
SPINE CENTER OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC d/b/a NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES
AGAINST DEFENDANT, THE ALOFS LAW FIRM
145-149. The allegations in Count XX are not directed and not applicable to Defendant,
KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied.
COUNT XXVIII - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIM BY UNIVERSAL
MEDIQUIP, LLC AGAINST DEFENDANT, THE ALOFS LAW FIRM
150 - 154. The allegations in Count XXI are not directed and not applicable to
Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied.
COUNT XXIX - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIM BY ONE AND ONE, LLC
AGAINST DEFENDANT, TODD CASH ALOFS, P.A.
155 - 159. The allegations in Count XXIX are not directed and not applicable to
Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied.
COUNT XXX - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIM BY ORTHOPEDIC &
SPINE CENTER OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC d/b/a NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES
AGAINST DEFENDANT, TODD CASH ALOFS, P.A.
160-164. The allegations in Count XX are not directed and not applicable to Defendant,
KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied.
COUNT XXXI- BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIM BY UNIVERSAL
MEDIQUIP, LLC AGAINST DEFENDANT, TODD CASH ALOFS, P.A.
165 - 169. The allegations in Count XXXI are not directed and not applicable to
Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied.
COUNT XXXII - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIM BY ONE AND ONE, LLC
AGAINST DEFENDANT, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A.
170. Denied unless otherwise admitted herein.
171 (a-f). Denied.
Page 10 of 14172. Denied.
173. Denied.
174. Denied.
COUNT XXXII - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIM BY ORTHOPEDIC &
SPINE CENTER OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC d/b/a NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES
AGAINST DEFENDANT, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A.
175. Denied unless otherwise admitted herein.
176 (a-f). Denied.
177. Denied.
178. Denied.
179. Denied.
COUNT XXXIV - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIM BY UNIVERSAL
MEDIQUIP, LLC AGAINST DEFENDANT, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A.
180. Denied unless otherwise admitted herein.
181 (a-f). Denied.
182. Denied.
183. Denied.
184. Denied.
All further statements not specifically admitted herein are denied and Defendants demand
strict proof thereof.
Page 11 of 14AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
As Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A.’S, First Affirmative Defense, Defendant pleads
that Plaintiffs are comparatively negligent for any non-payment of any outstanding balances allegedly
due to Plaintiffs as Plaintiffs never provided Defendant with any “letters of protection” nor ever
contacted Defendant at any time about any agreement by Defendant, GUNTER, to pay any
outstanding balances to Plaintiffs, nor where Plaintiffs ever provided any assurances by Defendant,
KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., that it would pay any of Plaintiff's alleged outstanding medical bills.
As Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A.’S, Second Affirmative Defense, Defendant
pleads that Defendant had no legal duty to withhold any funds allegedly due for any balances
allegedly due to Plaintiffs for treatment allegedly provided to Defendant, GUNTER.
As Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A.’S, Third Affirmative Defense, Defendant pleads
that Plaintiffs had no contract or other agreement with Defendant which may arguably require
Defendant to withhold any funds allegedly due for any balances to Plaintiffs for treatment allegedly
provided to Defendant, GUNTER.
As Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A.’S, Fourth Affirmative Defense, Defendant states
that the Counts entitled “Negligence” fail to state causes of action and mix various causes of action
for “breach of contract” and “negligence” and are in violation of the Rules of Civil Procedure. All
such Counts are insufficiently plead and are insufficient as a matter of law. Plaintiffs’ Second
Amended Complaint fails to set forth the claims in a clear concise manner and is deliberately vague.
Due to such, it is impossible to ascertain the specific claims for relief sought and the basis for same.
As Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A.’S, Fifth Affirmative Defense, Defendantalleges
that Co-Defendant, DAVID GUNTER, was comparatively negligent in failing to inform Defendant,
Page 12 of 14KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., that he had signed letters of protection or other obligations to pay to
the Plaintiffs herein.
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
Defendants hereby demand jury trial on all issues so triable.
CROSS-COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT, DAVID GUNTER
1. This is an action for damages in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00).
2. The acts or omissions which give rise to this Cross-Complaint arose out of the same
transaction and occurrence as alleged in the Second Amended Complaint.
3. A Second Amended Complaint was filed on or about May 11,2016, alleging damages
arising as a result of Defendant/Cross-Defendant, DAVID GUNTER’S, alleged failure to pay
allegedly outstanding medical bills due to Plaintiffs. Said Second Amended Complaint, for purposes
of its allegations only, is incorporated by reference herein as though fully set forth herein.
4. As additional counts of said Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has alleged causes
of action against Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., for the failure to pay the
alleged outstanding medical bills due to Plaintiffs.
5. If Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., is held liable and
responsible to Plaintiffs for damages as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, it will
be solely due to the conduct of Cross-Defendant, DAVID GUNTER, as alleged herein for Cross-
Defendant, DAVID GUNTER’S, negligence, misrepresentation of certain facts, breach of fiduciary
duties, and breached contracts and/or agreements with Plaintiffs. Based upon such, Cross-
Defendant, DAVID GUNTER, was the proximate cause of any alleged damages and/or losses to
Plaintiffs and, therefore, Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., is entitled to be
Page 13 of 14indemnified by Cross-Defendant should such liability arise.
WHEREFORE, Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., demands judgment
for an order of this court that the Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., is entitled
to be fully indemnified by Cross-Defendant, DAVID GUNTER, for any and all judgments entered
against Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., as a result of this action.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to:
ANASTASIOS TOM SPYREDES , ESQUIRE, Spyredes Law Firm, P.A., Attorney for Plaintiffs,
(ServiceDocuments@spylaw.netand monica(@spylaw.net),4400 North Federal Highway, Suite 408,
Boca Raton, FL 33431, and SCOTT S. WARBURTON, ESQUIRE, Adams, Coogler, P.A.,
Attorneys for Defendants, Jupiter Outpatient Surgery Center and Jupiter Surgical Partner, Inc.)
(SWarburton@adamscoogler.com, chill@adamscoogler.com, bschultz@adamscoogler.com and.
wrivera(@adamscoogler.com), 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 1600, West Palm Beach, FL
33401, via Electronic Delivery this 26" day of May, 2016.
RICHARD K. SLINKMAN, ESQUIRE
SLINKMAN, SLINKMAN & WYNNE, P.A.
1015 W. Indiantown Road, Ste. 101A
Jupiter, FL 33458
Telephone: (561) 686-3400
Facsimile: (561) 686-5683
email: rich@sswlawfl.com
jenne@sswlawfl.com
Richard KO Hinkman
By SESE SERS EERE EES SEER EERE REE -EEEr
RICHARD K. SLINKMAN, ESQ.
Florida Bar No.: 0058297
Page 14 of 14
Preview
Filing # 42032422 E-Filed 05/26/2016 03:45:58 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BRO WARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: CACE15-021427 ONE AND ONE, LLC d/b/a COMPLETE REHAB AND MEDICAL CENTER OF HOLLYWOOD, ORTHOPEDIC & SPINE CENTER OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC d/b/a NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES OF SOUTH FLORIDA, ORTHOPEDIC & SPINE CENTER OF SOUTH FLORIDA LLC, and UNIVERSAL MEDIQUIP, LLC, Plaintiffs, vs. TODD CASH ALOFS d/b/a THE ALOFS LAW FIRM, TODD CASH ALOFS, P.A., KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and DAVID GUNTER, Defendants, And KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., Cross-Plaintiff, vs. DAVID GUNTER Cross-Defendant. DEFENDANTS, KAPLAN AND SCONZO, P.A.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT and AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES and CROSS-COMPLAINT AGAINST DAVID GUNTER Page | of 14 *** FILED: BROWARD COUNTY, FL HOWARD FORMAN, CLERK 5/26/2016 3:45:55 PM.****COMES NOW, the Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., by and through its undersigned counsel, and hereby file this its Answer to the Second Amended Complaint filed in this action and Affirmative Defenses and in support thereof state as follows: 1. 2. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. Denied. Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied. Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied. Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied. Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied. Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied. Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied. Admitted that KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A. is a Florida corporation. Otherwise, denied. Admitted. Denied. Denied. Admitted. Admitted. Admitted. Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied. Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied. Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied. Page 2 of 1419. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied. Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied. Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied. Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied. Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied. Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied. Admitted that the SLOOTSKY FIRM responded to discovery on behalf of GUNTER. Otherwise denied. Admitted that the Answers to Personal Injury Interrogatories served by the SLOOTSKY FIRM dated February 25, 2010 are attached to the Second Amended Complaint at Exhibit “H” and that Exhibit “H” speaks for itself. Otherwise denied. Admitted that the Answers to Personal Injury Interrogatories served by the SLOOTSKY FIRM dated February 25, 2010 are attached to the Second Amended Complaint at Exhibit “H” and that Exhibit “H” speaks for itself. Otherwise denied. Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied. Denied. Admitted that certain medical records and bills of GUNTER were provided to KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A. Otherwise denied. Admitted that GUNTER also retained THE ALOFS LAW FIRM as co-counsel with reference to the underlying injury action and the Stipulation of Counsel is attached as Exhibit “J.” Otherwise denied. Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied. Page 3 of 1432. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. Al. 42. 43, 44. Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied. Denied. Denied. Admitted as to the telephone conversation, unknown as therefore denied as to the date of such conversation. Denied. Denied. Denied. Defendant is without personal knowledge as to why the defendants in the underlying lawsuit settled the case, therefore denied. Defendant cannot admit nor deny as the settlement in the underlying tort case was confidential. Admitted in part that certain proceeds from the settlement of the underlying tort case were distributed on February 23, 2012. Otherwise denied. Denied, as KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A. had no legal duty to pay Plaintiffs any sums. Denied. Denied. COUNT I - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CLAIM BY ONE AND ONE, LLC AGAINST DEFENDANT, THE ALOFS LAW FIRM 45 - 49. The allegations in Count I are not directed and not applicable to Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied. Page 4 of 14COUNT II - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CLAIM BY ORTHOPEDIC & SPINE CENTER OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC d/b/a NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES AGAINST DEFENDANT, THE ALOFS LAW FIRM 50 - 54. The allegations in Count II are not directed and not applicable to Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied. COUNT III - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CLAIM BY UNIVERSAL MEDIQUIP, LLC AGAINST DEFENDANT, THE ALOFS LAW FIRM 55-59. The allegations in Count [II are not directed and not applicable to Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied. COUNT IV - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CLAIM BY ONE AND ONE, LLC AGAINST KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A. 60. Denied unless otherwise admitted herein. 61. Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied. 62. Denied. 63. Denied. 64. Denied. COUNT V - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CLAIM BY ORTHOPEDIC SPINE CENTER OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC d/b/a NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES AGAINST KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A. 65. Denied unless otherwise admitted herein. 66. Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied. 67. Denied. 68. Denied. 69. Denied. Page 5 of 14COUNT VI- TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CLAIM BY UNIVERSAL MEDIQUIP, LLC AGAINST KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A. 70. Denied unless otherwise admitted herein. 71. Defendant is without personal knowledge, therefore denied. 72. Denied. 73. Denied. 74. Denied. COUNT VII - NEGLIGENCE CLAIM BY ONE AND ONE, LLC AGAINST DEFENDANT, THE ALOFS LAW FIRM 75-78. The allegations in Count VII are not directed and not applicable to Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied. COUNT VUI - NEGLIGENCE CLAIM BY ORTHOPEDIC & SPINE CENTER OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC d/b/a NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES AGAINST DEFENDANT, THE ALOFS LAW FIRM 79-82. The allegations in Count VII are not directed and not applicable to Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied. COUNT IX - NEGLIGENCE CLAIM BY UNIVERSAL MEDIQUIP, LLC AGAINST DEFENDANT, THE ALOFS LAW FIRM 83-86. The allegations in Count IX are not directed and not applicable to Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied. COUNT X- NEGLIGENCE CLAIM BY ONE AND ONE, LLC AGAINST KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A. 87. Denied unless otherwise admitted herein. 88. Denied. Page 6 of 1489. Denied. 90. Denied. COUNT XI- NEGLIGENCE CLAIM BY ORTHOPEDIC & SPINE CENTER OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC d/b/a NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES AGAINST KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A. 91. Denied unless otherwise admitted herein. 92. Denied. 93. Denied. 94. Denied. COUNT XII- NEGLIGENCE CLAIM BY UNIVERSAL MEDIQUIP, LLC AGAINST KAPLAN & SCONZO. 95. Denied unless otherwise admitted herein. 96. — Denied. 97. Denied. 98. Denied. COUNT XII - BREACH OF CONTRACT BY ONE AND ONE, LLC AGAINST DEFENDANT, GUNTER 99-101. The allegations in Count XIIare not directed and not applicable to Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied. COUNT XIV - BREACH OF CONTRACT BY ORTHOPEDIC & SPINE CENTER OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC d/b/a NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES AGAINST DEFENDANT, GUNTER 102 - 104. The allegations in Count XIV are not directed and not applicable to Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied. Page 7 of 14COUNT XV - BREACH OF CONTRACT BY UNIVERSAL MEDIQUIP, LLC AGAINST DEFENDANT, GUNTER 105-107. The allegations in Count XV are not directed and not applicable to Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied. COUNT XVI - OPEN ACCOUNT BY ONE AND ONE, LLC AGAINST DEFENDANT, GUNTER 108 - 109. The allegations in Count XVI are not directed and not applicable to Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied. COUNT XVII - OPEN ACCOUNT BY ORTHOPEDIC & SPINE CENTER OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC d/b/a NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES AGAINST DEFENDANT, GUNTER 110-111. The allegations in Count XVII are not directed and not applicable to Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied. COUNT XVIII - OPEN ACCOUNT BY ORTHOPEDIC & SPINE CENTER OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC AGAINST DEFENDANT, GUNTER 112-113. The allegations in Count XVIII are not directed and not applicable to Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied. COUNT XIX - OPEN ACCOUNT BY UNIVERSAL MEDIQUIP, LLC AGAINST DEFENDANT, GUNTER 114-115. The allegations in Count XIX are not directed and not applicable to Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied. COUNT XX - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CLAIM BY ONE AND ONE, LLC AGAINST DEFENDANT, TODD CASH ALOFS, P.A. 116-119. The allegations in Count XX are not directed and not applicable to Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied. Page 8 of 14COUNT XXI - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CLAIM BY ORTHOPEDIC & SPINE CENTER OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC d/b/a NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES AGAINST DEFENDANT, TODD CASH ALOFS, P.A. 120 - 123. The allegations in Count XXI are not directed and not applicable to Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied. COUNT XXII - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE CLAIM BY UNIVERSAL MEDIQUIP, LLC AGAINST DEFENDANT, TODD CASH ALOFS, P.A. 124 - 127. The allegations in Count XXII are not directed and not applicable to Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied. COUNT XXIII - NEGLIGENCE CLAIM BY ONE AND ONE, LLC AGAINST DEFENDANT, TODD CASH ALOFS, P.A. 128 - 131. The allegations in Count XXIII are not directed and not applicable to Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied. COUNT XXIV - NEGLIGENCE CLAIM BY ORTHOPEDIC & SPINE CENTER OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC d/b/a NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES AGAINST DEFENDANT, TODD CASH ALOFS, P.A. 132 - 135. The allegations in Count XXIV are not directed and not applicable to Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied. COUNT XXV - NEGLIGENCE CLAIM BY UNIVERSAL MEDIQUIP, LLC AGAINST DEFENDANT, TODD CASH ALOFS, P.A. 136 - 139. The allegations in Count XXV are not directed and not applicable to Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied. COUNT XXVI - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIM BY ONE AND ONE, LLC AGAINST DEFENDANT, THE ALOFS LAW FIRM 140 - 144. The allegations in Count XXVI are not directed and not applicable to Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied. Page 9 of 14COUNT XXVIII - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIM BY ORTHOPEDIC & SPINE CENTER OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC d/b/a NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES AGAINST DEFENDANT, THE ALOFS LAW FIRM 145-149. The allegations in Count XX are not directed and not applicable to Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied. COUNT XXVIII - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIM BY UNIVERSAL MEDIQUIP, LLC AGAINST DEFENDANT, THE ALOFS LAW FIRM 150 - 154. The allegations in Count XXI are not directed and not applicable to Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied. COUNT XXIX - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIM BY ONE AND ONE, LLC AGAINST DEFENDANT, TODD CASH ALOFS, P.A. 155 - 159. The allegations in Count XXIX are not directed and not applicable to Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied. COUNT XXX - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIM BY ORTHOPEDIC & SPINE CENTER OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC d/b/a NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES AGAINST DEFENDANT, TODD CASH ALOFS, P.A. 160-164. The allegations in Count XX are not directed and not applicable to Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied. COUNT XXXI- BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIM BY UNIVERSAL MEDIQUIP, LLC AGAINST DEFENDANT, TODD CASH ALOFS, P.A. 165 - 169. The allegations in Count XXXI are not directed and not applicable to Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., and are therefore denied. COUNT XXXII - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIM BY ONE AND ONE, LLC AGAINST DEFENDANT, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A. 170. Denied unless otherwise admitted herein. 171 (a-f). Denied. Page 10 of 14172. Denied. 173. Denied. 174. Denied. COUNT XXXII - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIM BY ORTHOPEDIC & SPINE CENTER OF SOUTH FLORIDA, LLC d/b/a NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES AGAINST DEFENDANT, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A. 175. Denied unless otherwise admitted herein. 176 (a-f). Denied. 177. Denied. 178. Denied. 179. Denied. COUNT XXXIV - BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CLAIM BY UNIVERSAL MEDIQUIP, LLC AGAINST DEFENDANT, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A. 180. Denied unless otherwise admitted herein. 181 (a-f). Denied. 182. Denied. 183. Denied. 184. Denied. All further statements not specifically admitted herein are denied and Defendants demand strict proof thereof. Page 11 of 14AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES As Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A.’S, First Affirmative Defense, Defendant pleads that Plaintiffs are comparatively negligent for any non-payment of any outstanding balances allegedly due to Plaintiffs as Plaintiffs never provided Defendant with any “letters of protection” nor ever contacted Defendant at any time about any agreement by Defendant, GUNTER, to pay any outstanding balances to Plaintiffs, nor where Plaintiffs ever provided any assurances by Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., that it would pay any of Plaintiff's alleged outstanding medical bills. As Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A.’S, Second Affirmative Defense, Defendant pleads that Defendant had no legal duty to withhold any funds allegedly due for any balances allegedly due to Plaintiffs for treatment allegedly provided to Defendant, GUNTER. As Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A.’S, Third Affirmative Defense, Defendant pleads that Plaintiffs had no contract or other agreement with Defendant which may arguably require Defendant to withhold any funds allegedly due for any balances to Plaintiffs for treatment allegedly provided to Defendant, GUNTER. As Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A.’S, Fourth Affirmative Defense, Defendant states that the Counts entitled “Negligence” fail to state causes of action and mix various causes of action for “breach of contract” and “negligence” and are in violation of the Rules of Civil Procedure. All such Counts are insufficiently plead and are insufficient as a matter of law. Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint fails to set forth the claims in a clear concise manner and is deliberately vague. Due to such, it is impossible to ascertain the specific claims for relief sought and the basis for same. As Defendant, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A.’S, Fifth Affirmative Defense, Defendantalleges that Co-Defendant, DAVID GUNTER, was comparatively negligent in failing to inform Defendant, Page 12 of 14KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., that he had signed letters of protection or other obligations to pay to the Plaintiffs herein. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Defendants hereby demand jury trial on all issues so triable. CROSS-COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT, DAVID GUNTER 1. This is an action for damages in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00). 2. The acts or omissions which give rise to this Cross-Complaint arose out of the same transaction and occurrence as alleged in the Second Amended Complaint. 3. A Second Amended Complaint was filed on or about May 11,2016, alleging damages arising as a result of Defendant/Cross-Defendant, DAVID GUNTER’S, alleged failure to pay allegedly outstanding medical bills due to Plaintiffs. Said Second Amended Complaint, for purposes of its allegations only, is incorporated by reference herein as though fully set forth herein. 4. As additional counts of said Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff has alleged causes of action against Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., for the failure to pay the alleged outstanding medical bills due to Plaintiffs. 5. If Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., is held liable and responsible to Plaintiffs for damages as alleged in Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, it will be solely due to the conduct of Cross-Defendant, DAVID GUNTER, as alleged herein for Cross- Defendant, DAVID GUNTER’S, negligence, misrepresentation of certain facts, breach of fiduciary duties, and breached contracts and/or agreements with Plaintiffs. Based upon such, Cross- Defendant, DAVID GUNTER, was the proximate cause of any alleged damages and/or losses to Plaintiffs and, therefore, Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., is entitled to be Page 13 of 14indemnified by Cross-Defendant should such liability arise. WHEREFORE, Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., demands judgment for an order of this court that the Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., is entitled to be fully indemnified by Cross-Defendant, DAVID GUNTER, for any and all judgments entered against Defendant/Cross-Plaintiff, KAPLAN & SCONZO, P.A., as a result of this action. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to: ANASTASIOS TOM SPYREDES , ESQUIRE, Spyredes Law Firm, P.A., Attorney for Plaintiffs, (ServiceDocuments@spylaw.netand monica(@spylaw.net),4400 North Federal Highway, Suite 408, Boca Raton, FL 33431, and SCOTT S. WARBURTON, ESQUIRE, Adams, Coogler, P.A., Attorneys for Defendants, Jupiter Outpatient Surgery Center and Jupiter Surgical Partner, Inc.) (SWarburton@adamscoogler.com, chill@adamscoogler.com, bschultz@adamscoogler.com and. wrivera(@adamscoogler.com), 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd., Suite 1600, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, via Electronic Delivery this 26" day of May, 2016. RICHARD K. SLINKMAN, ESQUIRE SLINKMAN, SLINKMAN & WYNNE, P.A. 1015 W. Indiantown Road, Ste. 101A Jupiter, FL 33458 Telephone: (561) 686-3400 Facsimile: (561) 686-5683 email: rich@sswlawfl.com jenne@sswlawfl.com Richard KO Hinkman By SESE SERS EERE EES SEER EERE REE -EEEr RICHARD K. SLINKMAN, ESQ. Florida Bar No.: 0058297 Page 14 of 14