New Allegations Raised in Ongoing Pitt-Lundy Dispute
Scott E. Goldsmith, executive vice president and chief commercial officer of Titan, could not be reached for comment Jan. 3.
The second amended complaint further alleges that Lundy Law has engaged in a scheme "since at least 2006" in which it is paid by doctors and other health care providers for referrals, at a rate of up to $800 per patient.
"Because Lundy has become such an important source of patient referrals for doctors in the relevant legal services market due to his successful but false and misleading mass advertising, those doctors are willing to pay Lundy for his referrals, and many believe that their practices would not survive if they refused to make the payments, because competing doctors would make them instead," the second amended complaint alleges.
Counsel for the defendants, Robert C. Heim of Dechert in Philadelphia, said Jan. 3 that the second amended complaint "seems a bit desperate."
"To borrow from two overused but apt cliches, the judge has given Mr. Pitt every inch of rope and a third bite at the apple," Heim said, adding that his clients plan to move to dismiss the latest complaint.
Specifically addressing the doctor referral fee allegations, Heim called the claims "simply not true."
The Pitt firm alleged in its original complaint in May 2013 that Lundy Law entered into contracts that give the firm exclusive rights to advertise on the exteriors of SEPTA and BARTA—Berks Area Regional Transportation Authority—buses.
In its Jan. 2 complaint, the Pitt firm further alleges that Lundy Law has similar contracts with Delaware Area Rapid Transit and New Jersey Transit.
According to the original complaint, these contracts have foreclosed Pitt & Associates from renewing its own contracts for exterior bus advertisements, which are considered to be among "the most effective forms of advertising for legal services for small personal injury, Social Security disability and workers' compensation law firms to use in order to achieve name recognition."
"Specifically, when plaintiff Pitt Law attempted to renew its contract for the highly coveted advertisements on the exterior of SEPTA buses, it was informed that defendant Lundy's advertising contract with SEPTA prevented SEPTA from contracting with any other legal service providers for advertising anywhere on the exterior of buses, for at least one year, with unlimited one-year renewal options," the complaint alleged, adding that Pitt & Associates received the same response when it tried to renew its contract with BARTA.