IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH

Transcription

1 7/23/2015 1:22:59 PM 15CV IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH ANNA BELL, CASE NO. Plaintiff, COMPLAINT v. (Trial By Jury Requested FRED MEYER, INC.; THE KROGER CO.; JOHN DOE PHARMACIST; and JOHN DOE ARBITRATION EXEMPT PHARMACY TECH, (Prayer $680,000 Defendants. Oregon Law 2012, Ch. 48, sec. 2; ORS (l(c Fee: $ Plaintiff alleges: Plaintiff Anna Bell ("Plaintiff'' is a resident of Washington. I. 2. Defendants Fred Meyer, Inc. and The Kroger Co. are foreign corporations conducting regular, sustained, continuous, and ongoing business activity in Multnomah County, Oregon. It is assumed Fred Meyer, Inc. is a subsidiary of The Kroger Co. Upon information and belief, defendants John Doe Pharmacist and John Doe Pharmacy Tech ("Doe defendants" are citizens of Oregon. The true identities of the "Doe" party defendants are currently unknown. Discovery has not commenced. When the Doe Complaint - 1 Harris Law Firm, P.C. 165 SE 26th A venue

2 defendants' names are discovered, plaintiff will promptly ask leave to amend the pleadings 2 and proceedings in the action by substituting the true name pursuant to O.R.C.P. 20 H Upon information and belief, the Doe defendants were, at all times relevant herein, 5 employees and/or agents of defendants Fred Meyer, Inc. and The Kroger Co. and working at 6 Fred Meyer at 7555 SW Barbur Blvd, Portland, Oregon. The Doe defendants were employed 7 by Fred Meyer, Inc. and The Kroger Co. in the store's pharmacy department. Their duties 8 included, but were not limited to, receiving prescriptions written by medical doctors; 9 dispensing pharmaceutical medications to patients; counseling and advising patients relative 1 O to the dispensed pharmaceutical medications; and ensuring that each patient received the 11 particular medication prescribed for him/her by his/her physician At all times relevant and described herein, and in doing the acts described herein, the 14 Doe defendants were agents of and/or employees of defendants Fred Meyer, Inc. and The 15 Kroger Co. and were acting in that capacity on behalf defendants Fred Meyer, Inc. and The 16 Kroger Co. and within the course and scope their employment with defendants Fred Meyer, 17 Inc. and The Kroger Co. At all times, the Doe defendants acted with the full consent, 18 permission, and authority of defendants Fred Meyer, Inc. and The Kroger Co Fred Meyer, Inc. and The Kroger Co. are a retail grocery, pharmacy, jeweler and 21 clothing store located in Oregon. On or about July 26, 2015, plaintiff travelled to Fred Meyer 22 at 7555 SW Barbur Blvd to pick up a prescription. 23 II II 24 II II 25 Complaint - 2 Harris Law Firm, P.C. 165 SE 26d' A venue

3 7. 2 At the above-referenced time and place, plaintiff approached the pharmacy counter 3 and was assisted by either John Doe Pharmacist, John Doe Pharmacy Tech, or both. The Doe 4 defendant( s met the plaintiff and dispensed to the plaintiff a bottle containing a 5 pharmaceutical medication not prescribed for plaintiff. The medication provided by 6 defendants was Clomaprine. Plaintiff was prescribed Clomiphene by her doctor. No doctor 7 had prescribed for the plaintiff the medication which Fred Meyer, Inc. and The Kroger Co. 8 employees dispensed to the plaintiff After receiving the wrong pharmaceutical medication from defendants Fred Meyer, 11 Inc. and The Kroger Co., plaintiff began taking the medication Fred Meyer, Inc. and The Kroger Co. and its employees owed a duty to their 14 pharmacy customers, and in particular to the plaintiff, to exercise due care and to not create 15 foreseeable risks to a protected interest of its customers and plaintiff in particular and to 16 carefully dispense the correct medications By dispensing the improper and wrong medication to the plaintiff, defendants were 19 negligent in their acts by unreasonably creating foreseeable risks to a protected interest of the 20 kind of harm that plaintiff suffered, and by reason of their acts and omissions are liable for 21 negligence. 22 I II I 23 I II I 24 I II I 25 Complaint - 3 Harris Law Firm, P.C. 165 SE 26m A venue (

4 11. 2 As a direct, proximate, and foreseeable consequence of the defendants' negligence in 3 dispensing the wrong and improper medication to the plaintiff, the plaintiff took one dose of 4 the wrong prescription Plaintiffs ingestion of the wrong and improper medication dispensed by the 7 defendants caused severe bodily injuries to the plaintiff As a direct and proximate result of the injuries caused by defendants' negligence, 10 plaintiff was required to, and did, seek the services of ambulance companies, emergency 11 medical personnel, physicians, surgeons, and hospitals. Plaintiff estimates her economic 12 damages for medical services to be $30,000 including future medical damages and will seek 13 leave to amend this complaint to allege the exact amount of economic damages for medical 14 services according to discovery As a direct and proximate result of the injuries caused by defendants' 17 negligence, plaintiff did lose a grant to continue her research as part of her employment at 18 OHSU affecting her income. Plaintiff estimates her economic damages for loss of income for 19 this to be $150,000 and will seek leave to amend this complaint to allege the exact amount of 20 economic damages for loss of income As a direct and proximate result of the defendants' negligence, plaintiff suffered 23 bodily injury, severe pain, shock to her nervous system, sleeplessness, fear, nervousness, 24 nausea, balance issues, altered consciousness, trauma, inconvenience, disruption oflife 25 Complaint - 4 Harris Law Finn, P.C. l 65 SE 26th A venue

5 activities, and disability. Plaintiffs injuries also included the lost opportunity of her ability to 2 conceive a child while she underwent fertility treatments. These treatments were ordered to 3 be discontinued while plaintiff received medical treatment and have now significantly 4 impacted her ability to conceive a child. These injuries necessitated hospitalization and other 5 medical involvement. Plaintiffs past non-economic damages will be determined by the jury 6 and are valued in the amount of$500, including future non economic damages Fred Meyer, Inc. and The Kroger Co. are vicariously liable and responsible to the 9 plaintiff for the negligent acts and omissions of the Doe defendants, and for the damages and IO injuries caused by the Doe defendants. Such vicarious liability arises under Oregon law and 11 the doctrine of respondeat superior. 12 II II 13 II I I 14 //// 15 //// 16 //// 17 I II I 18 I II I 19 //// 20 //// 21 II II 22 I II I 23 I II I 24 II I I 25 Complaint ~ 5 Harris Law Firm, P.C. 165 SE 26th Avenue

6 WHEREFORE, reserving her right to amend this complaint, plaintiff prays judgment 2 against the defendants, and each of them, as follows: 3 4 s 6 (a (b (c (d For economic damages in the amount of$180,000; For non-economic damages in the amount of$500,00.00; For allowable costs and expenses; and For such other relief as this Honorable Court deems just and proper. 7 DATED this 22"d day of July HARRIS LAW FIRM, P.C M. Casey Gibbe s, OSB No SE 26th Av nue Hillsboro, Oregbn Telephone: Facsimile ( cgibbens@harrislawsite.com Attorney for Plaintiff Complaint - 6 Harris Law Firm, P.C. 165 SE 26th A venue