ROCKTNGHAM, S.S. STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE JOHN DOE v. EXETER HOSPITAL SUPERIOR COURT XXX JURY TRIAL COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR PANEL AND CLASS ACTION CERTIFICATION NOW COMES, Petitioner, John Doe, by and through counsel, McGrath Law Firm, PA, and hereby files this Complaint and Request for Panel and Class Action Certification, hi support thereof, we provide as follows: 1. Plaintiff John Doe is a resident of Rockingham County, New Hampshire and is 49 years old. 2. Additional Plaintiffs, as allowed by the Court, whom are similarly situated. 3. Defendant Exeter Hospital is a non-profit corporation, located at 5 Alumni Drive, Exeter, New Hampshire 03833 and is duly organized in accordance with the laws of the State of New Hampshire (hereinafter also referred to as the "Hospital"). GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 4. In August 2011, and at other times, Plaintiff was a patient at Exeter Hospital. He was administered a number of intravenous medical treatment procedures. He was treated in the cardiac unit and in other units. 5. In June 2012, he received a phone call from the Hospital informing him that it was discovered that there was a Hepatitis C outbreak hi the cardiac catheterization laboratory and cardiac
unit and that he was one of the people that may have been infected. The Hospital requested that he return for testing. 6. Plaintiff has been informed that the medical treatment professionals would like him to begin a regimen of complicated and expensive pharmaceutical treatment. 7. Since the phone call from Exeter Hospital, Plaintiff has suffered many bouts of sleeplessness, high stress, and pain and suffering. 8. The Hepatitis C infection is- a contagious liver -disease that is known to cause liver damage, liver failure, severe health risks, painful swelling, scar tissue, destruction of cells, death, and other damages. 9. Among other things, Hepatitis C is a lifelong illness that may require blood transfusions and an organ transplant. 10. The Cardiac Catheterization Laboratory, and its Hospital are required to provide proper maintenance, oversight, security and control of its laboratory, cardiac units and other units. The Hospital must maintain strict procedures to protect patients from infections and avoid transmission of infected blood. Upon information and belief, the security procedures, treatment requirements and oversight required did not take place here. 11. Upon information and belief, the infection was caused by a Hospital employee, agent or some other person, and should have and could been prevented by the Hospital, its supervisors, managers, employees and/or agents. COUNT I - PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE 12. Plaintiff John Doe restates and reincorporates by reference each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1-11 above.
13. Exeter Hospital was negligent in its care and treatment of John Doe in that they failed to care for and treat him in accordance with the standard of care and skill required of and ordinarily exercised by the average qualified physician, healthcare professional, Hospital supervisors, the Hospital and staff engaged in medical practice at a professional level. 14. The Hospital's negligence includes, but was not limited to, failing to maintain and properly administer safe intravenous treatment, monitor safe blood transmission samples, oversee the security and control of its laboratory and cardiac units- and other unitsv resulting in a Hepatitis G breakout that may have infected John Doe and other patients. 15. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of the Hospital, John Doe has suffered injuries and damages including but not limited to a possible Hepatitis C infection, pain and suffering, financial loss, and other damages which rendered him no longer able to engage hi his chosen profession, daily activities and enjoyment of life. 16. Plaintiff John Doe demands judgment against defendant Exeter Hospital on Count I of the within Complaint, in the amount that will justly compensate him for his damages, future loss, together with interest, costs and attorneys' fees of this action. COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE/INFORMED CONSENT 17. Plaintiff John Doe restates and reincorporates by reference each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1-16 above. 18. The Hospital had a duty to disclose in a reasonable manner all significant medical information that it possessed or reasonably should have possessed that is material to an intelligent decision by the patient whether to undergo a proposed procedure. 19. If the Hospital had provided the proper and adequate information, neither John Doe nor a reasonable person in similar circumstances would have undergone the procedure.
20. That the Hospital failed to explain any risk of Hepatitis C infection to John Doe. 21. That-the Defendant failed to act and/or omitted to act to prevent Plaintiff s suffered injury which would not have ordinarily occurred. An ordinary prudent professional within the healthcare industry would have taken the proper precautions to prevent, oversee, and make sure that John Doe and other patients were not affected by contamination of Hepatitis C infection that was directly caused by Defendant's agents, supervisors, servants, and employees. 22. Plaintiff John Doe demands judgment against defendant Exeter Hospital on Count n of Plaintiff s Complaint in the amount that will justly compensate him for his damages, together with interest, costs and attorneys' fees of this action. COUNT m - NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION 23. Plaintiff John Doe restates and reincorporates by reference each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1-22 above. 24. That the Defendant had an obligation and duty to investigate and hire professional and competent employees and to make sure they do not create any harm or risk to the patients of Exeter Hospital. 25. That Exeter Hospital failed to exercise due care and failed to supervise their employee(s) or agent(s). 26. Upon information and belief, as a result of the failure to supervise, the Hospital permitted an employee(s) or agent(s) to transmit a Hepatitis C infection to John Doe and other patients. 27. The employer failed to take reasonable protective measures to safeguard John Doe and other patients. As a risk of this failure to exercise reasonable care, the Hospital permitted a threatened harm to the patients.
28. The Hospital failed to monitor and test proper blood transmission supplies and was otherwise negligent in its supervision and of its employees. 29. The Defendant knew, or should have known, of the problematic employee or agent and the risk created. 30. That the Defendant failed to take proper effective remedial action, reasonably calculated to end the risk to the patients. The Defendant was negligent in hiring, training, supervising and investigating the misconduct of the employee. As a- direct and proximate result of the negligent supervision by the Defendant, the Plaintiff has been damaged within the jurisdictional of this Court. 31. Plaintiff requests that this matter be assigned to the Medical Malpractice Screening Panel for further consideration pursuant to RSA 519-B. 32. PLAINTIFF DEMANDS A TRIAL BY JURY ON ALL CLAIMS IN THIS ACTION. COUNT IV CLASS ACTION - REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION (ALL DEFENDANTS) 3 3. Plaintiff John Doe restates and reincorporates by reference each and every allegation stated in paragraphs 1-32 above. 34. Upon information and belief, there are approximately 20 or more persons comprising a class of persons with claims that are essentially identical in substance to this action. 3 5. John Doe and the other Plaintiffs construe a class of persons identified by Hepatitis C infection as a result of the acts and omissions of the Defendant. As a consequence of filing this action, and through discovery, the class is expected to increase in number pursuant to the required
notice, and as additional Plaintiffs who developed the Hepatitis C infection as a result of the Hospital's negligence, are identified during discovery. 36. The claims presented by the named Plaintiff is representative of claims which typify all of the potential members of the class. 37. To the extent there may be defenses to Plaintiff s claims, they are expected to be the same or similar for all members of the class. 38.. All issues of law and fact at issue are common-to the class and the individual members. The issues of law and equity are indistinguishable between them. 39. The Class Action is superior to all other means to adjudicate: (a) (b) the dispute, given the nature and form of the relief requested; issues with respect to the potential collection on judgment; and ( c) the inefficiency of adjudicating these common claims one by one. 40. Class Action is authorized pursuant to Superior Court Rule 27-A. 41. Wherefore, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendant for all damages Defendant has caused, including interest, cost, attorneys' fees and such other relief as the Court deems just, and pray this Court allow maintenance of the action on behalf of the named class and permit notice to the members of the class. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Honorable Court: A. Issue Orders of Notice and service copies for service upon Defendant; B. Certify this action as a "Class Action" pursuant to RS A 358-A: 10 and Superior Court Rule 27A and issue the required Notices of Class Action pursuant thereto;
C. Assign the within matter to the Medical Malpractice Screening Panel for further consideration pursuant to RSA 519-B; D. Schedule a hearing on this matter; and, E. Order such other and further relief as is just and proper. Dated: June 2012 Respectfully submitted, John Doe By His Attorneys McGrath Law Firm, P.A. 20 Montgomery Street Concord, NH 03301 Phone: (603)224^11 Fax: (603) 22