1 COURT FILE NO. ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: CLARENCE RENAUD PLAINTIFF - AND - ZIMMER DENTAL MEDICAL INCORPORATED, BIOGENICS INC., MEDTRONIC OF CANADA LTD., MENTOR MEDICAL SYSTEMS (CANADA) INC., BIOHORIZON.COM INCORPORATED, LASSWELL MEDICAL CO. LTD., MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK USA INC., SPINALGRAFT TECHNOLOGIES LLC, REGENERATION TECHNOLOGIES INC., BIOMEDICAL TISSUE SERVICES LTD., MICHAEL MASTROMARINO AND JOSEPH NICELLI PROCEEDING UNDER THE CLASS PROCEEDINGS ACT, DEFENDANTS STATEMENT OF CLAIM TO THE DEFENDANTS A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the plaintiff. The claim made against you is set out in the following pages. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario lawyer acting for you must prepare a statement of defence in Form 18A prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, serve it on the plaintiff's lawyer or, where the plaintiff does not have a lawyer, serve it on the plaintiff, and file it, with proof of service, in this court office, WITHIN TWENTY DAYS after this statement of claim is served on you, if you are served in Ontario. If you are served in another province or territory of Canada or in the United States of America, the period for serving and filing your statement of defence is forty days. If you are served outside Canada and the United States of America, the period is sixty days.
2 2 Instead of serving and filing a statement of defence, you may serve and file a notice of intent to defend in Form 18B prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. This will entitle you to ten more days within which to serve and file your statement of defence. IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU. If you wish to defend this proceeding but are unable to pay legal fees, legal aid may be available to you by contacting the Legal Aid Office. DATE: ISSUED BY: REGISTRAR ADDRESS OF COURT OFFICE: 245 Windsor Avenue Windsor, Ontario N9A 1J2 TO: AND TO: AND TO: AND TO: Zimmer Dental Medical Incorporated 2323 Argentia Road Mississauga, Ontario L5N 5N3 Biogenics Inc Amber Street Markham, Ontario L3R 4Z3 Medtronic of Canada Ltd. 100 King Street West Suite 1600 First Canadian Place Toronto, Ontario M5X 1G5 Mentor Medical Systems (Canada) Inc Wentworth Street West Unit B2 Oshawa, Ontario L1J 8P7
3 3 AND TO: AND TO: AND TO: AND TO: AND TO: AND TO: AND TO: AND TO: BIOHORIZON.COM INCORPORATED St. Mary Ave. Winnipeg, MB R3C 4K5 Lasswell Medical CO. Ltd. 405 Industrial Drive Milton, Ontario L9T 5B1 Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA Inc. c/o CT Corporation System 75 Beattie Place Greenville, South Carolina SpinalGraft Technologies LLC c/o CT Corporation System 800 South Gay Street Suite 2021 Knoxville, Tennessee Regeneration Technologies Inc. The Prentice-Hall Corporation System Inc Centerville Road, Suite 400 Wilmington, Delaware Biomedical Tissue Services Ltd. c/o Michael Mastromarino 260 Columbia Avenue Suite #1 Fort Lee, New Jersey Michael Mastromarino 260 Columbia Avenue Suite #1 Fort Lee, New Jersey Joseph Nicelli 29 Clifton Avenue Suite #1 Fort Lee, New Jersey 07024
4 4 CLAIM 1. The Plaintiff claims, on his own behalf and on behalf of all class members: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) an order certifying this action as a class proceeding, appointing him as the representative Plaintiff and appointing his counsel as class counsel; a declaration that the Defendants owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff and the class members, and that the Defendants negligently breached that duty in respect of their research, testing, manufacturing, distributing, warning and recall of certain tissue and bone products, which had been improperly obtained and screened and which were distributed in Canada by the Defendants and/or sold to corporations, including Defendant corporations, which distributed them in Canada (and which are more fully described in paragraphs 30 and 31 and hereinafter referred to as the Recalled Tissue and Bone ), and that the Defendants are liable to the class for damages; an order requiring the Defendants to fund the cost of medical monitoring of all patients who received the Recalled Tissue and Bone; general damages in the amount of $100 million dollars; special damages in the amount of $100 million dollars, or such other amount as this Honourable Court may find appropriate; (f) punitive, aggravated and exemplary damages in the amount of $10 million dollars, or such other amount as this Honourable Court may find appropriate; (g) a reference or such other directions as may be necessary to determine issues not determined at the trial of the common issues;
5 5 (h) (i) (j) pre-judgment interest pursuant to the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C43, as amended; costs of this action on a substantial indemnity scale, plus G.S.T. ; and such further and other relief this Honourable Court may deem just. The Nature of the Action 2. This class action concerns the Defendants research, testing, manufacturing, distributing, warning and recall of tissue and bone products that were improperly obtained, screened and distributed in Canada by the Defendants and/or sold to corporations, including Defendant corporations, which distributed them in Canada for transplantation into human bodies. 3. On or about October 2005, Health Canada and the U.S.A. Food and Drug Administration advised the public of a voluntary recall of the above-noted tissue and bone products (the Recalled Tissue and Bone, which is more fully described at paragraphs 30 and 31 herein). The Recalled Tissue and Bone may not have met Health Canada donor eligibility requirements and may not have been screened for infectious diseases. 4. The Plaintiff and other class members received the Recalled Tissue and Bone during orthopaedic and dental procedures. As a result of fact that the Recalled Tissue and Bone may not have met donor eligibility requirements or been properly screened for infectious diseases, the Plaintiff and other
6 6 class members were required to undergo testing for infectious diseases, including testing for HIV, hepatitis and syphilis. Due to the dormant nature of some infectious diseases, the Plaintiff and other class members will require testing for the duration of their lives. The Parties 5. The Plaintiff, Clarence Renaud, ( Clarence ), resides in the City of Windsor, in the province of Ontario. On April 27, 2003, Clarence was a patient at Hotel Dieu Grace Hospital in Windsor, Ontario, at which time he underwent spinal column surgery. During his surgery and unknown to him, Clarence received the Recalled Tissue and Bone (which is more fully described at paragraphs 30 and 31). 6. The Defendant, Zimmer Dental Medical Incorporated, ( Zimmer ), is an Ontario corporation with its principal place of business located in Mississauga, Ontario. Zimmer carries on business as a researcher of joint replacement solutions for knee pain and hip pain and provides spine care solutions for acute and chronic back pain. Zimmer also manufactures and distributes a range of trauma, dental implant and orthopaedic surgical products. 7. The Defendant, Mentor Medical Systems (Canada) Inc., ( Mentor ), is a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business located in Oshawa, Ontario. Mentor carries on business as a distributor of medical products for urology, ophthalmology and plastic surgery.
7 7 8. The Defendant, BIOHORIZON.COM INCORPORATED ( BIOHORIZON ), is a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business located in Winnipeg, Manitoba. BIOHORIZON carries on business as a distributor of dental equipment and supplies and also manufactures dental implants and surgical instruments. 9. The Defendant, Biogenics Inc. ( Biogenics ), is an Ontario corporation with its principal place of business located in Markham, Ontario. Biogenics carries on business as a manufacturer and distributor of instruments for cryobiology, assisted reproduction and the life sciences. 10. The Defendant, Lasswell Medical CO. Ltd. ( Lasswell ), is an Ontario Corporation with its principal place of business located in Milton, Ontario. Lasswell carries on business as a manufacturer and distributor of surgical equipment and instruments. 11. The Defendant, Medtronic of Canada Ltd. ( Medtronic Canada ), is a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business located in Toronto, Ontario. Medtronic Canada carries on business as a manufacturer of implantable and therapeutic devices for chronic diseases. 12. The Defendant, Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. ( Medtronic USA ), is a Tennessee corporation with its principal place of business located in Memphis, Tennessee. Medtronic USA carries on business as a provider of a range of capabilities for neurological and spinal therapies.
8 8 13. The Defendant, SpinalGraft Technologies LLC ( SpinalGraft ), is a subsidiary of Medtronic USA. SpinalGraft is a Tennessee corporation with its principal place of business located in Memphis, Tennessee. SpinalGraft carries on business as a distributor of tissue, bones and organs. 14. The Defendant, Regeneration Technologies Inc. ( RTI ), is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Alachua, Florida. RTI carries on business as a processor of human tissue for allogenic grafts used in orthopaedic, oral, maxillofacial, urinary and cardiovascular surgeries. 15. The Defendant, Biomedical Tissue Services Ltd. ( BTS), is a New Jersey corporation with its principal places of business located in Brooklyn, New York and Fort Lee, New Jersey. BTS is a human tissue recovery firm dealing with human cells, tissue and cellular and tissue based products. 16. The Defendant, Michael Mastromarino ( Mastromarino ), is an individual who resides in Fort Lee, New Jersey. Mastromarino is a former New Jersey dentist and oral surgeon who opened BTS in conjunction with the Defendant, Joseph Nicelli ( Nicelli ), for the purpose of harvesting human cells, cellular and tissue based products. 17. The Defendant, Nicelli, is an individual who resides in Staten Island, New York. 18. The Plaintiff states that the Defendants, either directly or indirectly through their partners, affiliates, agents, or servants, held themselves out to the
9 9 public as businesses engaged in the sale, promotion, marketing, harvesting, testing, procurement, sterilization, preservation, evaluation, labelling, advertising and distribution of products from human tissues and bones for medical use and implantation in the human body to hospitals, physicians, and surgery centres across Canada. 19. At all material times, the Defendants promoted and marketed their products to health care providers and the general public with assurances of safety, fitness and merchantability. The Classes 20. This action is brought on behalf of the following classes of persons: Class 1 Members: All persons in Canada, who suffered damages as a result of receiving the Recalled Tissue and Bone, specifically tissue and bone which were improperly obtained, screened, researched, tested, manufactured, distributed and/or sold by the Defendants and which are more fully described at paragraphs 30 and 31. Class 2 Members: All persons, including executors, administrators, personal representatives, spouses and relatives who, by reason of a personal relationship to a Class 1 member, have a derivative claim for damages.
10 10 The Recalled Tissue and Bone 21. The Plaintiff states that in or around early 2000, the Defendant, Mastromarino, entered into a partnership with the Defendant, Nicelli, to open BTS for the purpose of harvesting human tissue, bone and organs from human corpses for resale to commercial human tissue, bone and organ processors and resellers. When human tissue, such as ligaments, tendons, heart valves, skin, or bone are removed from one human for preparation and transplantation into another, the tissue, bone, or organ is known as an allograft. The allograft is implanted into patients undergoing orthopaedic, dental, oral maxillofacial, urinary, and cardiovascular surgeries. 22. Shortly after opening BTS, Mastromarino and Nicelli, as well as their agents and employees, began harvesting tissue and bones from human bodies they improperly obtained from various funeral homes, and perhaps from local city morgues in cases where the bodies were unclaimed or unidentified. 23. The deceased individuals who BTS obtained from funeral homes and who were dissected by Mastomarino and/or his agents and employees never intended to be tissue donors or did not give their consent to have their tissue or bones removed with the correct authorization, and their families never authorized the use of their bodies for human tissue harvesting or later transplantation. 24. The Plaintiff states that BTS, Mastomarino, Nicelli and/or their agents or employees secretly dissected the bodies they obtained and prepared them
11 11 for burial or cremation without the knowledge of their family members. Such dissections included replacement of harvested bone and tissue with foreign objects, such as PVC piping and other objects, so that bodies would still appear normal for their pending visitations and funerals. 25. The Plaintiff further states that BTS, Mastromarino, Nicelli, and/or their agents or employees also altered the medical records, death certificates and even identities of the corpses to conceal the lifestyle and medical or disease histories of the corpses. Thus, they harvested and sold tissue or bone for implantation that came from persons who potentially suffered chronic infectious diseases such as syphilis, HIV-1, HIV-2, AIDS, or Hepatitis and who died from the diseases of cancer or heart disease. 26. Once removed, the human tissue or bones were sold by BTS to certain commercial tissue processing and allograft distribution companies, including RTI, Medtronic USA and SpinalGraft. The human tissue and bones were then sold by BTS, RTI, Medtronic USA and/or SpinalGraft to Zimmer, Biogenics, Medtronic Canada, Mentor, BIOHORIZON and Lasswell for processing and resale throughout Canada; the particulars of said transactions not being within the knowledge of the Plaintiff. In entering these business transactions, the Defendants knew or through due diligence should have known, that BTS improperly obtained and harvested the tissue and bones and as such, the Defendants both explicitly and implicitly encouraged such activities through their ongoing business relationship.
12 The Plaintiff further states that the Defendants knew of or failed to timely recognize or acknowledge the deficient procurement, testing, handling, screening, or consent of the donor and donor product, but nonetheless proceeded to permit the products to enter into the stream of commerce without taking further steps to ensure that the Recalled Tissue and Bone (more fully described at paragraphs 30 and 31) had been screened to ensure that they had not originated from persons who had died from or been infected with any of the diseases referred to in paragraphs 30 and 35 or any other infectious or other diseases. 28. On or about October 26, 2005, the U.S.A. Food and Drug Administration advised the public of a voluntary recall of human tissue for implantation of all tissue and bone product distributed by BTS. 29. On or about October 26, 2005, Health Canada issued a news release advising Canadians of the above-noted recall in the United States of America. Health Canada is a Department of the Federal Government of Canada charged with the responsibility for helping Canadians maintain and improve their health and in particular the creation and implementation of technical requirements regarding the safety of cells, tissues and organs for transplantation, as well as the safety requirements for human cells, tissues and organ transplantations. In conjunction with the news release, Health Canada sent a letter to the Canadian importers of the recalled products advising them to notify all users who received the Recalled Tissue and Bone (more fully described at paragraphs 30 and 31) and notified the chief
13 13 medical officers of Health for the provinces and territories for patient notification purposes. 30. Through its October 26, 2005 news release, Health Canada also advised that the Recalled Tissue and Bone consisted of tissues, including processed human bone, skin and tendons, that were recovered by BTS from tissue donors who may not have met Health Canada donor eligibility requirements and who may not have been properly screened for certain infectious diseases, including HIV-1 and 2 (the viruses that cause AIDS), hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), human T-cell lymphotropic virus (HTLV 1 and II) and syphilis. Health Canada estimated that approximately 300 tissue products originating from BTS were imported into Canada. 31. Health Canada in its October 26, 2005 news release, further advised that BTS sold products to a number of U.S. corporations that exported tissues to Canada and that these corporations had all issued voluntary recalls for all products produced using BTS tissues and bones. 32. On or about January 17, 2006, Clarence received a letter from Patricia Somers, Vice President Patient Services and Chief Nursing Executive from Hotel Dieu Grace Hospital, advising him of the voluntary recall noted above and of the fact that he received recalled tissue products during his April 2003 surgery. He was further advised that the recalled tissue products were recovered from donors who may not have met Health Canada donor eligibility requirements and who may not have been properly screened for
14 14 certain infectious diseases. Clarence also received a brief telephone call from Dr. Art Kidd, the Chief of staff at Hotel Dieu Grace Hospital, in which he confirmed the information set forth in the aforesaid letter from Ms. Somers. 33. Despite the fact that the Defendants were aware of the recall of the tissue products, the Plaintiff was not contacted or advised of a recall until approximately three months thereafter. 34. When the Plaintiff was eventually contacted by Hotel Dieu Grace Hospital, he was advised that he should immediately undergo testing for infectious diseases. Very shortly thereafter he was tested for HIV-1, HIV-2, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, Human T-cell Lymphotropic and syphilis. 35. HIV, Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C and Human T-cell Lymphotropic are potentially life threatening, incurable diseases. Syphilis can lead to sterility if left untreated. Each of the above-noted diseases carry the added stigma of being known as sexually transmitted diseases. 36. Although the Plaintiff is emotionally distraught and outraged by having the stolen and improperly processed tissue or bone in his body, the Plaintiff cannot have his allograft removed or replaced due to the inherent risk associated with further surgery. Duty of Care 37. The Defendants conduct fell below the reasonable standard of care expected of them under the circumstances. The Defendants owed a duty of
15 15 care to the Plaintiff and other class members to ensure that all tissue products sold by them were safe, free from diseases and reasonably fit for human implantation. 38. The Defendants placed the Recalled Tissue and Bone into the normal stream of commerce with the knowledge, intention and expectation that the products would be sold and ultimately transplanted into members of the public, including the Plaintiff. The Defendants did this without proper investigation into the origin of the products or without testing for the diseases listed in paragraphs 30 and 35 of this Statement of Claim. 39. The Plaintiff states that the Defendants, in acquiring tissue, bones and organs for making allografts are subject to their own internal procedures, based on industry standards, as well as the guidelines developed by Health Canada. 40. In or about January of 2003, Health Canada circulated a Directive entitled Technical Requirements to Address the Safety of Cells, Tissues and Organs for Transplantation (Directive) and Safety Requirements for Human Cells, Tissues and Organs for Transplantation (Guidance Document) to establishments and individuals involved in the handling and/or processing of human cells, tissues and organs for transplantation. The Directive described the technical requirements in respect of human cells, tissues and organs and was meant to advise the applicable establishments and individuals of the importance of adhering to standards of safety with respect to the
16 16 processing, distribution and importation of these products for transplantation. 41. The Defendants knew or ought to have known that the failure to take proper care in the distribution of the Recalled Tissue and Bone could cause serious injury, loss, and damage to members of the public, including the Plaintiff. 42. The Defendants knew or ought to have known that the standard of care applicable to their behaviour was particularly high since it was distributing tissue products intended to be implanted into humans. Breach of Sale of Goods Act 43. The Defendants entered into contracts of sale for valuable consideration. The contracts of sale contained express and implied conditions and warranties that the products sold were reasonable for human implanting, and/or were of merchantable quality and safe and free from harmful contaminants. The Plaintiff relies on the provisions of the Sale of Goods Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter S The Defendants products were not reasonably fit for the purpose intended. Allegations of Negligence 45. At all material times, the Defendants negligently procured, harvested, tested, screened, researched, evaluated, preserved, supplied, marketed, distributed, labelled, advertised, sold, warned or failed to warn of the dangers associated with the Recalled Tissue and Bone.
17 The Plaintiff states that his damages were caused by the negligence of the Defendants, particulars of which negligence include, but are not limited to the following: a) failing to adequately screen the Recalled Tissue and Bone; b) failing to adequately test the Recalled Tissue and Bone; c) failing to adequately research the origin of the Recalled Tissue and Bone; d) failing to adequately inspect the death certificates of the donors of the Recalled Tissue and Bone; e) failing to adequately inspect the donor consents in respect of the Recalled Tissue and Bone; f) failing to reject said Recalled Tissue and Bone when they knew or ought reasonably to have known that the information regarding the identities, health and cause of death of the donors thereof was inaccurate and/or incomplete; g) failing to conduct periodic reviews of testing procedures; h) failing to ensure compliance with donor eligibility requirements; i) failing to conduct laboratory testing of tissue and blood samples from the donor for potential infectious diseases; j) failing to use validated tissue preparation processes; k) failing to warn of the dangers associated with the subject donor tissue; and l) other allegations of negligence not presently within the knowledge of the Plaintiff. Negligent Misrepresentations 47. Further, the Defendants made numerous negligent misrepresentations to the general public, the Plaintiff and other class members and health care
18 18 providers, leading the health care providers, among others, to believe that the Recalled Tissue and Bone were safe, sterile, and uncontaminated, without any reasonable grounds for believing the representations to be true. 48. At all material times, the Defendants representations were made with the intent to induce the Plaintiff and other class members health care providers and the general public to rely on them. 49. The representations made by the Defendants were false. The Recalled Tissue and Bone were not safe and had dangerous and potentially lifethreatening effects and consequences. 50. At all material times, the Plaintiff and other class members were unaware of the falsity or misleading nature of the Defendants representations and acted in reliance on the truth of the representations and were justified in so doing. Had the Plaintiff, other class members and their healthcare providers known the truth, the Plaintiff and other class members would not have accepted the Recalled Tissue and Bone into their bodies and the health care providers would not have used the Recalled Tissue and Bone. Damages 51. As a direct result of the Defendants acts and omissions as aforesaid, the Plaintiff and other class members have suffered or shall in the future suffer severe personal injuries, and pain and suffering, including but not limited to severe emotional distress and harm.
19 Further, the Defendants acts and omissions constituted conduct that was negligent, intentional and caused the Plaintiff and other class member s severe emotional distress, given the nature of the harm caused and that potentially could be caused. Further and in the alternative, the Defendants wrongful acts were committed with reckless disregard for the Plaintiff and other class members. 53. The Plaintiff has suffered nervous shock, stress and anxiety since being informed of the risk of infection and the need for ongoing medical testing. Given that some of the potential infectious diseases may lay dormant for several years, the Plaintiff and other class members will be subject to repeated testing for the duration of their lives. 54. The Plaintiff and other class members will also suffer or will already have suffered special damages, losses and expenses, including medical, hospital and other expenses related to the diagnosis, treatment and monitoring of their health status, as well as financial or economic losses, including but not limited to obligations for medical services and expenses, present and future lost wages, and other damages not now known to the Plaintiff. Monitoring 55. As a result of the conduct of the Defendants as aforesaid, the Plaintiff has been exposed to the hazards of receiving human body parts through
20 20 transplant surgery which were, at a minimum, potentially infected with the diseases listed in paragraphs 30 and 35 of the Statement of Claim. 56. The Plaintiff s exposure to infection results from receiving potentially infectious transplant products during his surgery and was greater than normal since the transplanted parts were not tested for infectious diseases. 57. As a direct and proximate result of receiving the Recalled Tissue and Bone, the Plaintiff has a significant increased risk of contracting a serious latent disease. 58. Monitoring procedures exist that can provide early detection of diseases. The prescribed regime is different from that normally recommended in the absence of such exposure. The regime is reasonably necessary according to contemporary scientific principles. 59. The Plaintiff claims the benefit of a monitoring program, funded by the Defendants but administered at arm s length from the Defendants. Punitive, Aggravated and Exemplary Damages 60. The Defendants misled both the medical community and the public, including the Plaintiff, by making false representations about the safety of the tissue products and acting in an intentional manner with malice and wilful disregard for the safety of others. 61. At all material times, the Defendants knew or should have known that the
21 21 duties and responsibilities of a responsible manufacturer of improperly obtained and screened tissue products included the immediate notification of the Plaintiff and the other class members, and their heath care providers, of the dangers posed by the implantation of the Recalled Tissue and Bone, yet they took no steps to contact either the purchasers of their products or the Plaintiff or other class members. 62. The Plaintiff states that the Defendants, in their failure to research, test and warn the Plaintiff and other class members of the improperly obtained and screened products, exposed the Plaintiff and other class members to greatly increased risks of injury or death, preferring profit to patient safety. In so doing, the Defendants acted in a callous and high handed manner and their conduct merits a significant award of punitive, aggravated and exemplary damages. Damages of the Provincial Health Insurers 63. As a result of the use of improperly obtained and screened donor tissue, many class members will have to undergo continual testing for latent diseases. The provincial health insurers will be required to pay for additional medical treatment and monitoring costs. 64. The provincial health insurers have paid for the past insured services and will be required to pay for extensive and costly future insured services.
22 22 Relevant Statutes, Regulations and Guidelines 65. The Plaintiff pleads and relies upon the following: a) Sale of Goods Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.s.1; b) The Class Proceedings Act, S.O. 1992, c.s.1; c) The Negligence Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.n.1; d) Health Insurance Act, R.S.O c. H.6; e) The Food and Drugs Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-27, as amended and regulations made pursuant thereto; f) Family Law Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.f.3; and g) The Trustee Act, R.S.O. 1990, C.T.23 as amended. REAL AND SUBSTANTIAL CONNECTION WITH ONTARIO 66. The Plaintiff pleads that this action has a real and substantial connection with Ontario because, among other things: a) the Defendants carry on business in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada and/or sold or distributed the Recalled Tissue and Bone to corporations, including Defendant corporations, which carry on business in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada; b) the Defendants market their products in Ontario and/or elsewhere in Canada; c) the Plaintiff s damages were sustained in Ontario; and d) a substantial portion of members of the putative class reside in Ontario. Service of this Statement of Claim Outside of Ontario 67. This Statement of Claim may be served without court order outside Ontario, Canada, in that the proceeding against the Defendants consists of claims:
Court File No. ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: JEAN-FRANCOIS FARJON and REBECCA SOROKA -and- PLAINTIFFS DR. CHRISTIANE FARAZLI, and C. FARAZLI MEDICINE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION DEFENDANTS STATEMENT
(PRECEDENT STATEMENT OF CLAIM A ) Court File No. ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: ******************** Plaintiff and ******** corporation Defendant STATEMENT OF CLAIM TO THE DEFENDANT A LEGAL
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE In the matter of a Claim under the Class Proceedings Act,1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6 Court File No. 02-6522-CP B E T W E E N: PAUL MCARTHUR Plaintiff and CANADA POST CORPORATION,
Court File No.: ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: MICHAEL MOSEY Plaintiff - and - HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN IN RIGHT OF ONTARIO (ONTARIO MINISTRY OF LABOUR) Defendant STATEMENT OF CLAIM TO THE
Court File No.: ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: SE MT\.-, OMAS, MICHAEL DAYAL, DOUGLAS ROBINSON, and DIANA - (vo SCANLON ks - and - Plaintiffs RAL OF CANADA, ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES'
(PRECEDENT STATEMENT OF CLAIM B ) Court File No. ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N: Plaintiffs - and - Defendants STATEMENT OF CLAIM TO THE DEFENDANTS A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED
Filing # 22009228 Electronically Filed 12/29/2014 03:48:06 PM PENELOPE BELVOIR, as Executor de son Tort for the Pending Estate of Robert Belvoir, Deceased, vs. Plaintiff, ROPES COURSES, INC., FB ORLANDO
Client Service Agreement for Cord Blood Stem Cell Collection and Storage Each undersigned Legal Guardian, on their behalf and the behalf of their unborn child ("Child"), request under this Agreement, that
Case 3:14-cv-02361-P Document 1 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION JAMES MICHAEL CLINE, Plaintiff VS. Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-2361
Harvey C. Berger (SBN POPE & BERGER 0 West "C" Street, Suite 100 San Diego, California 1 Telephone: (1-1 Facsimile: (1 - Attorneys for Plaintiff PLAINTIFF SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND
William D. Marler Marler Clark LLP PS 01 Second Ave, Suite 00 Seattle, WA 1-0 Ph: IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE DOROTHY H. PEARCE, vs. Plaintiff,
CORNERSTONE A-SIDE MANAGEMENT LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE FORM THIS IS A CLAIMS MADE POLICY WITH DEFENSE EXPENSES INCLUDED IN THE LIMIT OF LIABILITY. PLEASE READ AND REVIEW THE POLICY CAREFULLY. In consideration
VACHON LAW FIRM Michael R. Vachon, Esq. (SBN ) 0 Via Del Campo, Suite San Diego, California Tel.: () -0 Fax: () - Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY CENTRAL
I Form 4.02A 2011 BETWEEN: SUPREME COURT OF NOVA SCOTIA Hfx.No ~~ ass: Court Administration - and- Halifax. N.S. DEPUY ORTHOPAEDICS, INC., DEPUY INTERNATIONAL LTD., DEPUY, INC., JOHNSON & JOHNSON SERVICES,
POMPELIO, FOREMAN & GRAY, L.L.C. 760 ROUTE 10 WEST, SUITE 203 WHIPPANY, NEW JERSEY 07981 PH: 973-240-7313 F: 973-240-7316 Attorneys for Plaintiff Henry Kent HENRY KENT, vs. Plaintiff, SMILES II RESTAURANT,
2006 WL 6142740 (Miss.Cir.) (Trial Pleading) Circuit Court of Mississippi. Lee County Charlene DUNN, Plaintiff, v. John A. MURPHY, Future Benefits, Inc. American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company,
[INSERT NAME], Plaintiff(s) vs. HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS CORPORATION, a New Jersey Corporation, d/b/a STRYKER ORTHOPAEDICS, JILL DOE MANUFACTURERS (1-10), JACK DOE WHOLESALERS (1-10), JAKE DOE SELLERS (1-10),
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE IN RE ASBESTOS LITIGATION: STEVEN P. SCHULTZ and KIMBERLY S. SCHULTZ, Plaintiffs, v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY; COTY, INC.; CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY (sued
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA BROWARD DIVISION NANCY PRITCHARD, v. Plaintiff, Case No.: KAPLAN HIGHER EDUCATION CORPORATION; KAPLAN HIGHER EDUCATION CORPORATION, as PLAN ADMINISTRATOR;
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI JANE DOE INDIVIDUALLY ) and on BEHALF OF ) THE CLASS OF PERSONS ) DESIGNATED BY 537.080, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) Case Number *************** vs. ) ) DEFENDANT
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 Please note: This sample document is redacted from an actual research and writing project we did for a customer some time ago. It reflects the law as of the date we completed it. Because
i4n 10/28/03 05:08 PM ET Master Complaint No. 12 . 10/28/03 c ASBESTOS DOCKET STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WAYNE *, Personal Representative of the Estate of *, Deceased, Plaintiff,
1Court file no: CV- SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE B E T W E E N : KIMBERLEY SPIROU Plaintiff - and - WARREN CHANT, BARBARA SEBBEN, KIMBERLY WINGER, CHRISTINE MITCHELL, PATRICIA VELLEAU, ROBERT TURNER AND THE
(PRECEDENT STATEMENT OF CLAIM C ) Court File No. ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: **************, *********** and ************* and Plaintiffs **********HOSPITAL, DR. *************, DR. **********,
1 0 1 MARC D. ADELMAN Attorney at Law State Bar No. Liberty Station Historic Decatur Road, Suite 00 San Diego, CA - (1) -0 Phone (1) -0 Fax Email: AdelmanMD@aol.com Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT
DISTRICT COURT, JEFFERSON COUNTY, COLORADO 100 Jefferson County Parkway Golden, CO 80401 (303) 271-6145 Plaintiffs: NORMAN NEWELL and LINDA NEWELL, v. Defendants: COURT USE ONLY APRIA HEALTHCARE, INC.;
Province of Alberta LIMITATIONS ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Current as of December 17, 2014 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s Printer 5 th Floor, Park Plaza
CLASSIC A-SIDE MANAGEMENT LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE FORM THIS IS A CLAIMS MADE POLICY WITH DEFENSE EXPENSES INCLUDED IN THE LIMIT OF LIABILITY. PLEASE READ AND REVIEW THE POLICY CAREFULLY. In consideration
MISCELLANEOUS PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE FORM THIS IS A CLAIMS MADE POLICY WITH DEFENSE EXPENSES INCLUDED IN THE LIMIT OF LIABILITY. PLEASE READ AND REVIEW THE POLICY CAREFULLY. In consideration
Products Liability: Putting a Product on the U.S. Market Natalia R. Medley Crowell & Moring LLP 14 November 2012 Overview Regulation of Products» Federal agencies» State laws Product Liability Lawsuits»
BEAZLEY ARMOUR SIDE A DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY INSURANCE POLICY In consideration of the payment of the premium, in reliance on all statements made in the application and subject to all of the provisions
WikiLeaks Document Release February 2, 2009 Congressional Research Service Report RS20519 ASBESTOS COMPENSATION ACT OF 2000 Henry Cohen, American Law Division Updated April 13, 2000 Abstract. This report
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL COMPANIES Page 1 This is a Supplemental Application which becomes part of the Lexington Miscellaneous Facilities Application. The Applicant represents that the statements and facts
Notice of Privacy Practices Introduction At Ohio Valley Medical Center and East Ohio Regional Hospital, we are committed to using and disclosing protected health information about you responsibly. This
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA No. L021060 Vancouver Registry Between: And: DOROTHY YOUNG SHELL CANADA LIMITED Brought under the Class Proceedings Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 50 Plaintiff Defendant
Case :-cv-00-loa Document Filed 0// Page of 0 Bradley Jardis, vs. Keith M. Knowlton, L.L.C. SBN 0 S. Rural Road, Suite 0, PMB# Tempe, Arizona -00 (0 -; FAX (0 - Keith M. Knowlton - SBN 0 Attorney for Plaintiff
Chapter 99B. Products Liability. 99B-1. Definitions. When used in this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires: (1) "Claimant" means a person or other entity asserting a claim and, if said claim
CANADIAN PRODUCT LIABILITY LAW Presented by Kevin Johnson Litigation Partner Lette LLP Canadian German Chamber of Industry and Commerce Inc. September 28, 2011 LETTE LLP 20 Queen Street West, Suite 3300,
FILED JUL AM : KING COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT CLERK E-FILED CASE NUMBER: --- KNT JUDITH JORGENSEN, vs. SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON KING COUNTY Plaintiff, JAMES WONG and TYRA WONG, husband and wife creating
Form: Plaintiff's original petition-wrongful Death [Name], PLAINTIFF vs. [Name], DEFENDANT [ IN THE [Type of Court] COURT [Court number] PLAINTIFF'S ORIGINAL PETITION 1. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN 1.1 Plaintiff
Number 31 of 2004 CIVIL LIABILITY AND COURTS ACT 2004 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS PART 1 Preliminary and General Section 1. Short title and commencement. 2. Interpretation. 3. Orders and regulations. 4. Service
National Stock Exchange, Inc. Waive-In Equity Trading Permit Holder Application Equity Trading Permit Holders ( ETP Holders ) of the National Stock Exchange, Inc. ( NSX ) in good standing as of May 30,
CHAPTER 43 ACTIONS OF DAMAGES FOR, OR ARISING FROM, PERSONAL INJURIES Application and interpretation of this Chapter 43.1.-(1) Subject to paragraph (4) and rule 43.1A (actions based on clinical negligence).
Fernando F. Chavez, Esq. SBN 0 CHAVEZ LAW GROUP 00 West Beverly Blvd., Montebello, Ca 00 Phone: () 00-0, Facsimile: (0) 1-01 E-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE
SURRANO LAW OFFICES Charles J. Surrano (00) John N. Wilborn (0) 0 North Central Avenue, Suite 00 Phoenix, Arizona 0 Phone: (0) - Attorneys for Plaintiffs AMANDA K. HORTON; and KEITH ALSTRIN, IN THE UNITED
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ORANGE -------------------------------------------------------------------------x In the Matter of the Claim of JEAN H. PIERRE, JR., AS NATURAL PARENT AND
Professional Liability PROGRAM OF SELF-INSURANCE Blanket Information Policy Statement for Physicians Surgeons Nursing Staff Teaching/Research Faculty & Staff Non-Physician Professional Staff Graduate Medical
LIMITATION OF CERTAIN ACTIONS ACT CHAPTER 7:09 Act 36 of 1997 Amended by 2 of 2000 Current Authorised Pages Pages Authorised (inclusive) by L.R.O. 1 18.. L.R.O. 2 Chap. 7:09 Limitation of Certain Actions
BRODIE & FLOCKHART MICHAEL A. BRODIE (State Bar No. 0) MONICA M. FLOCKHART (State Bar No. 1001) Chardonnay Irvine, California Telephone No. () - / Facsimile No. () 1- Attorneys for Plaintiffs, TAYLEE BLISCHKE,
The General terms and conditions and the following terms and conditions all apply to this section. Special definitions for this section Business activity Defence costs Malpractice Samaritan act You/your
Province of Alberta MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS ACT Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter M-22 Current as of April 1, 2015 Office Consolidation Published by Alberta Queen s Printer Alberta Queen s
Policy Wording Professional Indemnity Insurance Issued to Eligible Emergency Resource Providers by VMIA For the period date 30 June 2015 to 30 June 2016 Contents Professional Indemnity Policy... 3 Definitions...
Action No. IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA JUDICIAL CENTRE OF CALGARY BETWEEN: William Lloyd Murray, on behalf of himself and all of those members of a class having a claim against the Defendants
(SPACE BELOW FOR FILING STAMP ONLY) LAW FIRM OF KAISER, DEBIASO. ANDREW AND SWINDELLS SUMfTOMO TOWER NINTH FLOOR 444 WEST OCEAN BOULEVARD LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90802-4516 (310) 590-8471 ERIC C. DEMLER
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO JAMES JASPER CASE NO. 4972 State Route 276 Batavia, OH 45103 Judge And MINOR CHILDREN OF JAMES AND ELIZABETH JASPER 4972 State Route 276 Batavia, OH 45103 And
MEDICAL BENEFITS CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT NOTICE OF INTENT TO SUE Complete this form if you are a MEDICAL BENEFITS SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER seeking to exercise a BACK END LITIGATION OPTION. In addition to
NOTICE OF HEALTH INFORMATION PRIVACY PRACTICES (HIPAA) THIS NOTICE OF PRIVACY PRACTICES DESCRIBES HOW HEALTH INFORMATION ABOUT YOU MAY BE USED AND DISCLOSED AND HOW YOU CAN GET ACCESS TO THIS INFORMATION.
FILED IN MY OFFICE DISTRICT COURT CLERK 2/10/2012 9:16:03 AM GERI LYNN SANCHEZ STATE OF NEW MEXICO COUNTY OF VALENCIA THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT KAREN R. SALAZAR, Individually and as Personal Representative
,QWHUQDO5HYHQXH6HUYLFH Number: 200121031 Release Date: 5/25/2001 Index No.: 104.03-00 Department of the Treasury Washington, DC 20224 Person to Contact: Telephone Number: Refer Reply To: CC:ITA:1 PLR-122136-00
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 7 TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA BENJAMIN T. BROWN, Plaintiff, CASE NO. v. NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; A foreign corporation. Defendant.
RUTGERS THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY RUTGERS BIOMEDICAL HEALTH SCIENCES PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY PROGRAM OF SELF-INSURANCE Blanket Information Policy Statement for University: Physicians Surgeons Dentists
In consideration of payment of the premium and subject to the Declarations, limitations, conditions, provisions and other terms of this Policy, the Company and the Insureds agree as follows: I. INSURING
Note: This document contains FAR Part 15 including Amendment 15-4 published in the Federal Register on September 4, 1997. PART 15--ADMINISTRATIVE CLAIMS UNDER FEDERAL TORT CLAIMS ACT Subpart A--General
COMMERCIAL PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY COVERAGE FORM Various provisions in this policy restrict coverage. Read the entire policy carefully to determine rights, duties and what is and is not covered. Throughout
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA MIGUEL RUIZ, HUSAIN SALAH, MOHAMED ABDELWAHAM, ANDREW BRZEZINSKI, MARIO CLOTTER, HECTOR SANCHEZ, CLIFFORD LACON, and JIMMY SABGA, RICHARD HICKS Plaintiff,
THE QUEEN'S BENCH Winnipeg Centre BETWEEN: PHILIP ROGERS, DEBORAH MAY and STANLEY HRABARCHUK, plaintiffs, -and- MERCK FROSST CANADA LTD., MERCK FROSST CANADA & CO. AND MERCK & CO., INC., Proceeding under
Certificate of Insurance Creditor Insurance for CIBC Mortgages Page 1 of 14 Table of Contents Note: This is an important document. Please keep it in a safe place. Introduction...2 Your rights and responsibilities...
Certificate of Insurance Creditor Insurance for CIBC Personal Lines of Credit Page 1 of 11 Table of Contents Note: This is an important document. Please keep it in a safe place. Introduction...2 Your rights
Paul L. Hoffman, CSB #1 Michael D. Seplow, CSB # 0 K. Arianne Jordan, CSB # 1 SCHONBRUN DeSIMONE SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN LLP Ocean Front Walk Venice, California 01 Telephone: ( -01 Fax: ( -00 Gloria Allred,
WRONGFUL DEATH ACCOUNTABILITY ACT SEPTEMBER 2011 Contents 1 Definitions 2 Actions for Wrongful Death Scope 3 Action to be Prosecuted on Behalf of Decedent s Estate Time Limits 4 Types of Damages Recoverable
STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF DAKOTA DISTRICT COURT FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT CASE TYPE: Personal Injury ERIC GUSTAFSON and JENNIFER GUSTAFSON, Individually and as parents and natural guardians for CALLIE
2:11-cv-00891-ASB Date Filed 04/13/11 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION JAMMIE C. TYNDALL, individually and as personal
Tipp FM Legal Slot 29 th May 2012 Medical Negligence John M. Lynch, Principal Today I will discuss medical negligence following a number of recent high profile cases and inquests. Firstly, what is Medical
SEPARATION AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE This Separation Agreement and General Release ( this Agreement ) is made and entered into by and between ( Employee ) and ( the Agency ) (collectively, the Parties
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR JACKSON COT]NTY, MISSOURI AT INDEPENDENCE TAMMY BRYANT, Natural Mother of Kevin'Wahlers, Deceased, vs. Plaintiff ASRA, LLC dlbla 40 HIGHV/AY SINCLAIR Serve Registered Agent: Rizwan
VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF RICHMOND JOHN MARSHALL COURTS BUILDING ZONYA JONES, ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE ) INSURANCE COMPANY, ) Case No: SERVE: Lynn Dickerson
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT OF WESTERN DENTAL S NOTICE OF PRIVACY PRACTICE By signing this document, I acknowledge that I have received a copy of Western Dental s Joint Notice of Privacy Practices. Name
Document Page 1 of 16 Steven C. Tycksen, #3300 Chad Shattuck, #9345 TYCKSEN & SHATTUCK, L.C. 12401 South 450 East, Unit E1 Draper, Utah 84020 Telephone: 801-748-4081 Facsimile: 801-748-4087 email@example.com
NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT APPROVAL NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION Joseph Michael O Neill v. General Motors of Canada Limited Court File No. CV-10-40251500CP PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AS IT MAY
PLEASE NOTE This document, prepared by the Legislative Counsel Office, is an office consolidation of this Act, current to December 6, 2013. It is intended for information and reference purposes only. This
SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON, COUNTY OF KING MYSPINE, PS, a Washington professional services corporation; BODY RECOVERY CLINIC LLC, a Washington Limited Liability Company; and YAROSLAV KUTSY, Plaintiffs,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Between: And Richard v. British Columbia, 2014 BCSC 1290 William Joseph Richard and W.H.M. Date: 20140714 Docket: S024338 Registry: Vancouver Plaintiffs