Case 0:17-cv WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2017 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.

Similar documents
Case 2:12-cv Document 1 Filed 06/08/12 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1

Case 2:17-cv Document 1 Filed 11/14/17 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA COMPLAINT

Case 2:17-cv AJS Document 1 Filed 10/19/17 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Case 2:12-cv JRG-RSP Document 1 Filed 08/02/12 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATHENS DIVISION

2:14-cv RMG Date Filed 02/25/14 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 3:10-cv B Document 1 Filed 09/10/10 Page 1 of 6 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION. ClassAction.

Case 3:17-cv Document 1 Filed 10/20/17 Page 1 of 40 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 4:18-cv JAS Document 1 Filed 03/01/18 Page 1 of 45 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Case 3:16-cv Document 1 Filed 09/09/16 Page 1 of 41 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY TRENTON DIVISION

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 11/12/16 Page 1 of 31 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON DIVISION

Case 3:16-cv Document 1 Filed 07/25/16 Page 1 of 39 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY TRENTON DIVISION

Case 2:18-cv Document 1 Filed 03/21/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DISTRICT OF MONTREAL Petitioner. and. And

vs Case 3:16-cv JPG-PMF Document 1 Filed 04/01/16 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #1 TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION

01-Jun-17. Vancouver. Court File No. VLC-S-S

Case 3:15-cv SMY-DGW Document 1 Filed 10/28/15 Page 1 of 46 Page ID #1

Case 2:15-cv Document 1 Filed 12/14/15 Page 1 of 49 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

3:18-cv MGL Date Filed 07/31/18 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA COLUMBIA DIVISION

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 1 of 33 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY CAMDEN DIVISION

FILED 2017 Aug-15 AM 11:59 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES WITH JURY DEMAND

Case 5:17-cv C Document 1 Filed 07/06/17 Page 1 of 33 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUBBOCK DIVISION

Case 4:18-cv Document 1 Filed 07/24/18 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION

Case 5:17-cv JLH Document 1 Filed 07/31/17 Page 1 of 39

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CC A CAUSE NO. STEVEN AKIN, IN COUNTY COURT

Jury Trial Demanded. Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Plaintiff,

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 10/05/17 Page 1 of 34 IN THE UNITES STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO. Case No.

Case 8:13-cv CJC-JPR Document 1 Filed 08/15/13 Page 1 of 29 Page ID #:1

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 08/09/18 Page 1 of 47 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 0:17-cv XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/13/2017 Page 1 of 12

Plaintiff, Deborah Fellner, by and through her counsel, Eichen Levinson & Crutchlow, LLP, hereby makes this claim against the Defendant as follows:

CAUSE NO. V. JUDICIAL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS. TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION NOW COMES SHERRY REYNOLDS, BRANDON REYNOLDS, KATY

Case 3:17-cv Document 1 Filed 06/02/17 Page 1 of 46 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 1:16-cv Document 1 Filed 08/23/16 Page 1 of 40 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 09/06/18 Page 1 of 49 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 1:10-cv LJO-SKO Document 1 Filed 07/20/10 Page 1 of 21

Case 4:17-cv CDL Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 3:15-cv EDL Document 1 Filed 12/09/15 Page 1 of 16

Case 3:16-cv SDD-EWD Document 1 05/10/16 Page 1 of 50 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

Case 9:16-cv KLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2016 Page 1 of 32

Case: 3:15-cv JJH Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/02/15 1 of 33. PageID #: 1 IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

C01:13-cv LEK-KSC Document 1 Filed 11/19/13 Page 1 of 12 PagelD 1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR AUTAUGA COUNTY, ALABAMA

Case 4:17-cv CDL Document 1 Filed 02/02/17 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

2:14-cv RMG Date Filed 02/25/14 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 19 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

Case: 3:11-cv TMR Doc #: 1 Filed: 11/07/11 Page: 1 of 13 PAGEID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

1:15-cv JMC Date Filed 04/06/15 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Case: 4:17-cv AGF Doc. #: 1 Filed: 04/11/17 Page: 1 of 21 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

I. DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

Case 7:18-cv Document 1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE GREENEVILLE DIVISION

Case 3:16-cv Document 1 Filed 05/03/16 Page 1 of 19 Page ID #1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Case 1:15-cv Document 1 Filed 07/28/15 Page 1 of 38 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Case 3:18-cv JSC Document 1 Filed 05/02/18 Page 1 of 11

Case 3:13-cv GPM-PMF Document 5 Filed 02/14/13 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GILES COUNTY, TENNESSEE

Case 1:14-cv RGS Document 1 Filed 08/01/14 Page 1 of 16

Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 1 Filed 11/05/15 Page 1 of 18

Case: 4:12-cv CAS Doc. #: 1-1 Filed: 09/28/12 Page: 1 of 22 PageID #: 10 INDEX OF EXHIBITS TO NOTICE OF REMOVAL

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 03/26/18 Page 1 of 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case 1:15-cv Document 1 Filed 07/24/15 Page 1 of 32

2:14-cv RMG Date Filed 12/23/14 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 26

CASE 0:15-cv JNE-FLN Document 1 Filed 07/25/15 Page 1 of 24 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Civil Action No.

Case 4:17-cv Document 1 Filed in TXSD on 02/01/17 Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS. Case No.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

vs. and MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THE BRINGING OF A CLASS ACTION AND TO ASCRIBE THE STATUS OF REPRESENTATIVE (Art C.C.P.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION. Defendants. )

Case 0:15-cv WJZ Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/30/2015 Page 1 of 9. Exhibit A

Case 1:13-cv Document 1 Filed 02/11/13 Page 1 of 49 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Case3:09-cv WHA Document48 Filed04/05/12 Page1 of 21

Case: 5:18-cv KKC Doc #: 1 Filed: 08/22/18 Page: 1 of 31 - Page ID#: 1

Case 4:16-cv LLP Document 1 Filed 12/23/16 Page 1 of 25 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION

Case 1:14-cv Document 1 Filed 06/05/14 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION. CASE NO: 1:15-cv RNS

For Preview Only - Please Do Not Copy

Case 3:17-cv Document 1 Filed 11/10/17 Page 1 of 54 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Case 2:14-cv NVW Document 1 Filed 10/17/14 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION

Case 2:16-cv Document 1 Filed 11/10/16 Page 1 of 18

Case3:05-cv WHA Document1 Filed02/14/05 Page1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Defendant.

Case 4:18-cv RGE-SBJ Document 1 Filed 02/20/18 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

Case 2:13-cv KOB Document 1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

2:15-cv RMG Date Filed 09/17/15 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA CHARLESTON DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS. v. Case No.:

Case 6:18-cv Document 1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

Case 6:19-cv ADA-JCM Document 1 Filed 01/22/19 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION

Transcription:

Case 0:17-cv-62012-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2017 Page 1 of 15 LATOYA DAWSON-WEBB, v. Plaintiff, DAVOL, INC. and C.R. BARD, INC., Defendants. / UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff, Latoya Dawson-Webb ("Dawson-Webb", by and through her undersigned attorney, hereby files this Complaint against Defendants, Davol, Inc. ("Davol", and C.R. Bard, Inc. ("Bard", and alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. This action arises from the from the sale and distribution of a defective product the Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch by Davol and Bard. In turn, the defective product was surgically implanted into the body of Dawson-Webb. As a result, Dawson-Webb has been injured and subjected to a substantial risk of injury. PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. Dawson-Webb is, and at the times material to this action, a resident of Broward County, Florida. 3. Davol was, and is, a wholly-owned foreign subsidiary of Bard, with its place of business in Cranston, Rhode Island. 1

Case 0:17-cv-62012-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2017 Page 2 of 15 4. Bard was, and is, a foreign corporation with its place of business in Murray Hill, New Jersey. 5. Davol and Bard designed, manufactured, tested, analyzed, distributed, recommended, merchandised, advertised, promoted, supplied and/or sold to distributors, physicians, hospitals and medical professionals hernia surgical repair products to be implanted surgically into patients throughout the United States of America, including the State of Florida, at all times relevant to the allegations contained in this Complaint. 6. This is an action authorized and instituted pursuant to: Florida's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Florida Statutes 501.211, et seq.; and the common law of the State of Florida. 7. The jurisdiction of this Court is predicated upon 28 U.S.C. 1332(a since the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between citizens of different states. 8. Venue is proper in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b(2 and (c, wherein: (a Dawson-Webb resides; (b Davol and Bard regularly conduct business and are involved in contractual relationships; and (c a substantial amount of the events that give rise to the claims in this lawsuit occurred. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 9. Davol and Bard are in the business of developing, manufacturing and marketing medical devices for hernia surgery, including, but not limited to, the product labeled the Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch. 10. The Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch presents and constitutes an unreasonable risk of danger and injury in the following respects: 2

Case 0:17-cv-62012-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2017 Page 3 of 15 a. The Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch may malfunction after being implanted. b. The Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch was not properly manufactured. c. The Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch was defectively designed. d. The Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer/patient would expect. e. The Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch was inadequate or insufficient to maintain its integrity during normal use after implantation in the consumer/patient. f. Additional defects as discovery and the evidence shall reveal. 11. At all times herein mentioned, Davol and Bard knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that the Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch was not properly manufactured, tested, inspected, packaged, labeled, distributed, marketed, examined, sold, supplied, prepared and/or provided with proper warnings; was not suitable for the purpose it was intended; and was unreasonably likely to injure the products' users. Davol and Bard's Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches are defective because the product possesses numerous defects, including, but not limited to, the potential for breakage; adhesion; bowel obstruction; malfunction of the memory recoil ring; migration; oxidation; folding over; crumpling; wadding up; hardening; separation; tearing; and splitting. As a result, Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches are subject to risk of resulting injury. 12. Davol and Bard did not timely or adequately apprise the public and physicians of the defects in the Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch, despite Davol and Bard's knowledge that the Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches had failed due to the described defects. Davol and Bard's concealment of a known defect from Dawson-Webb tolls the applicable statute of limitation. 3

Case 0:17-cv-62012-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2017 Page 4 of 15 13. Davol and Bard's conduct, as described in this Complaint, amounts to conduct purposely committed, which Davol and Bard must have realized was dangerous, heedless and reckless, without regard to the consequences or the rights and safety of Dawson-Webb. 14. As a direct and proximate cause of Davol and Bard's conduct and the Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch defect, Dawson-Webb has suffered injuries and will require continual monitoring and care. Accordingly, Dawson-Webb will incur future medical costs related to the Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch. 15. Specifically, on or about July 15, 2015, a surgeon, Fernando Bayron, MD, performed hernia repair surgery on Dawson-Webb at North Shore Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a Florida Medical Center, a campus of North Shore in Lauderdale Lakes, Florida. Bayron implanted a Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch, which was manufactured by Davol and Bard, into Dawson-Webb. 16. The Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch used on Dawson-Webb has caused reported complications in several patients in the State of Florida and other states. Further, the United States Food and Drug Administration ("FDA" has recalled other similar mesh products in 2005, 2006 and on other occasions for the continual failure and adverse health effects associated with the products. The recall and dangers associated with Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches were unknown to Dawson-Webb at the time of her July 15, 2015, surgery. 17. Following the July 15, 2015, surgery, Dawson-Webb experienced complications because of the technical failure of the Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch. For example, on or about July 18, 2015, Dawson-Webb complained of nausea, vomiting, an inability to make a bowel movement and other complications. Later, she drove to Florida Medical Center, whose medical staff evaluated that she had a large ventral hernia containing multiple loops of bowel. Dawson-Webb also was informed the Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch did not take and she would be required to undergo 4

Case 0:17-cv-62012-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2017 Page 5 of 15 another surgery. Dawson-Webb subsequently consulted with other surgeons, who confirmed Dawson-Webb needed to undergo: (a a second hernia surgery to reverse the complications; and (b plastic surgery to correct the damage to her abdomen. Dawson-Webb has likely suffered further adverse effects that have not been able to be diagnosed at present, but she will likely require significant treatment in the future, including additional surgeries to remove the Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch and treat future complications. 18. The Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch implanted in Dawson-Webb were designed, manufactured, sold and distributed by Davol and Bard, and were intended to be used by surgeons for hernia repair surgeries. Davol and Bard represented Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch to be appropriate and suitable products for such purposes. 19. As a direct and proximate result of Davol and Bard's defective design, manufacture, function and/or inadequate warnings regarding Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch, Dawson-Webb sustained, and will continue to sustain, injuries and damages due to the technical failure of the Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch. COUNT I FLORIDA'S UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT 20. Dawson-Webb re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-19, as if they were fully set forth herein. 21. Davol and Bard's actions violated Florida's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Florida Statutes 501.211, et seq.. 22. At all times relevant, Davol and Bard were engaged in the design, manufacturing, assembling, distributing, conveying and or/or selling of the Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch in their ordinary course of business. Davol and Bard designed, manufactured, assembled and sold the 5

Case 0:17-cv-62012-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2017 Page 6 of 15 devices to hospitals and physicians, knowing that they would be sold to patients who needed hernia repair surgery, including Dawson-Webb. 23. Davol and Bard had a statutory duty to refrain from unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the design, development, manufacture, promotion and sale of Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches. However, Davol and Bard engaged in unfair or deceptive acts that likely would mislead and, in fact, did mislead consumers, including Dawson-Webb. 24. Dawson-Webb is a consumer of the defective product and was injured by Davol and Bard s deceptive and unfair acts. 25. Had Davol and Bard not engaged in the deceptive conduct described above, Dawson-Webb would not have purchased and/or paid for Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch, would not have incurred related medical costs and would not continue to incur these costs. 26. Davol and Bard's representations and material omissions to patients, physicians and consumers, including, constituted unfair and deceptive acts or practices in violation of the consumer protection statues of one or more of the states, including Florida. 27. Davol and Bard engaged in wrongful conduct while at the same time obtaining, under false pretenses, substantial sums of money from Dawson-Webb for the Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch and/or for the costs or removing and/or replacing the Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch that Dawson-Webb would not have paid had Davol and Bard not engaged in unfair and deceptive conduct. 28. Dawson-Webb was injured by the cumulative and indivisible nature of Davol and Bard's conduct. The purpose of that conduct, directed at patients, physicians and consumers, was to create demand for and to sell Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches. Each aspect of Davol and Bard's conduct combined to artificially create sales of Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches. 6

Case 0:17-cv-62012-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2017 Page 7 of 15 29. As a direct and proximate result of Davol and Bard's wrongful conduct, Dawson- Webb has incurred, and will likely continue to incur, medical costs relating to the hernia repair product, including medical monitoring and/or other hospital costs, in an amount to be proven at trial. 30. As a direct and proximate result of Davol and Bard's wrongful conduct, Dawson- Webb is entitled to punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and costs of suit. COUNT II NEGLIGENCE 31. Dawson-Webb re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-19, as if they were fully set forth herein. 32. Davol and Bard were negligent to Dawson-Webb in several respects. 33. For example, Davol and Bard at all times mentioned had a duty under Florida law, as well as the law of other states, to properly manufacture, test, inspect, package, label, distribute, market, examine, maintain, supply, provide proper warnings and prepare for use of the Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch. 34. Davol and Bard, at all times mentioned, knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known that Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches were of such a nature that they were not properly manufactured, tested, inspected, packaged, labeled, distributed, marketed, examined, sold, supplied, prepared and/or provided with the proper warnings, and were unreasonably likely to injure users of Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches. 35. Davol and Bard so negligently and carelessly designed, manufactured, tested, failed to test, inspected, failed to inspect, packaged, labeled, distributed, recommended, displayed, sold, examined, failed to examine and supplied Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches, that they were dangerous and unsafe for the use and purpose for which they were intended. 7

Case 0:17-cv-62012-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2017 Page 8 of 15 36. Davol and Bard were aware of the probable consequences of the hernia repair products. Davol and Bard knew or should have known that Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches would cause serious injury; they failed to disclose the known or knowable risks associated with the Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches. Davol and Bard willfully and deliberately failed to avoid those consequences, and in doing so, Davol and Bard acted in conscious disregard for the safety of Dawson-Webb. 37. Davol and Bard owed a duty to Dawson-Webb to adequately warn Dawson-Webb and Dawson-Webb's treating physicians of the risks of failure, migration, oxidation, folding over, crumpling, wadding up, hardening, breakage, separation, tearing and splitting associated with the hernia repair product and the resulting harm and risk it would cause patients. 38. Davol and Bard breached their duty by failing to comply with state and federal regulations concerning the study, testing, design, development, manufacture, inspection, production, advertisement, marketing, promotion, distribution, properly reporting of adverse events to the FDA and/or sale of the Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch. 39. As a direct and proximate result of the duties breached, Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch was used in the Dawson-Webb's hernia repair surgery, resulting in Dawson-Webb's suffering pain and harm. 40. As a direct and proximate result of Davol and Bard's negligence, Dawson-Webb has suffered injuries and damages. 41. Davol and Bard conduct in continuing to market, sell and distribute the hernia repair products after obtaining knowledge that the devices were failing and not performing as represented and intended, showed complete indifference to or a conscious disregard for the safety of others 8

Case 0:17-cv-62012-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2017 Page 9 of 15 justifying an award of additional damages for aggravating circumstances in such a sum which will serve to deter Davol and Bard and others form similar conduct in the future. COUNT III STRICT LIABILITY 42. Dawson-Webb re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-19, as if they were fully set forth herein. 43. Davol and Bard are strictly liable to Dawson-Webb due to its actions or inactions. 44. Davol and Bard designed, manufactured, assembled, distributed, conveyed and/or sold Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches for hernia repair surgery. 45. Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches were defective because they failed to perform safely and effectively for the purpose they were originally designed. 46. At all times mentioned, the Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch implanted into Dawson- Webb was substantially in the same conditions as when it left the possession of Davol and Bard. 47. The Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch implanted into Dawson-Webb was being used in a manner reasonably anticipated at the time it was implanted in Dawson-Webb. 48. Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches, like the one found in Dawson-Webb, at the time they left the possession of Davol and Bard were inherently dangerous for their intended use and were unreasonably dangerous products that presented and constituted an unreasonable risk of danger and injury to Dawson-Webb as follows: a. Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches were sold in a defective condition by design and manufacture; b. Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches as designed and manufactured were unsafe, as well as were unreasonably dangerous, to Dawson-Webb; 9

Case 0:17-cv-62012-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2017 Page 10 of 15 c. Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches did not perform safely as an ordinary consumer/patient, like Dawson-Webb, would expect; d. Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches as designed and manufactured were unsafe for their intended use; e. Davol and Bard failed to warn the end user about the dangers and risks of the products; f. Davol and Bard knew the component parts of Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches as implemented through design and/or manufacture could cause injury to the end user; g. Davol and Bard failed to implement an adequate, safe and effective hernia repair product to withstand the foreseeable stresses they would be subject to during the foreseeable use of the device; h. Any other acts or failures to act by Davol and Bard regarding the studying, testing, designing, developing, manufacturing, inspecting, producing, advertising, marketing, promoting, distributing, sale, and / or reporting of adverse events of Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches for hernia repair surgery as will be learned during discovery. 49. Davol and Bard's conduct in continuing to market, sell and distribute the hernia repair products after obtaining knowledge that they were failing and not performing as represented and intended, showed complete indifference to or a conscious disregard for the safety of others justifying an award or additional damages for aggravating circumstances in such a sum which will serve to deter Davol and Bard and others from similar conduct in the future. 10

Case 0:17-cv-62012-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2017 Page 11 of 15 COUNT IV INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTION DISTRESS 50. Dawson-Webb re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-19, as if they were fully set forth herein. 51. Davol and Bard are liable to Dawson-Webb for the intentional infliction of emotional distress in several respects. 52. For example, Dawson-Webb suffered severe emotional distress, which was a result of Davol and Bard's intentional, extreme, outrageous, intentional, willful, and reckless conduct in studying, designing, developing, testing, inspecting, manufacturing, producing, advertising, marketing, promoting, distributing, sale, and/or reporting of adverse events of the hernia repair products for hernia repair surgery. 53. Dawson-Webb suffered severe emotional distress, which was as a result of Davol and Bard's extreme, outrageous, intentional, willful, and reckless conduct in failing to adequately and safely design and construct an effective and safe hernia repair product for hernia repair surgery, in complete and reckless disregard for the safety of Dawson-Webb. 54. Therefore, Davol and Bard are liable to Dawson-Webb. Davol and Bard conduct in continuing to market, sell and distribute the hernia repair product after obtaining knowledge that they were failing and not performing as represented and intended showed complete indifference to, or a conscious disregard for, the safety of others justifying an award of additional damages for aggravating circumstances in such a sum that will serve to deter Davol and Bard and others from similar conduct in the future. 11

Case 0:17-cv-62012-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2017 Page 12 of 15 COUNT V BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY 55. Dawson-Webb re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-19, as if they were fully set forth herein. 56. Davol and Bard are liable to Dawson-Webb for their breach of implied warranty in several respects. 57. Davol and Bard sold Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches, which were implanted in Dawson-Webb, who was a foreseeable user of the product. 58. Davol and Bard impliedly warranted to Dawson-Webb, Dawson-Webb's physicians and health care providers, that Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches were of merchantable quality and safe for the use for which it was intended. 59. Davol and Bard knew or should have known that Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches at the time of sale were intended to be used for the purpose of surgically implanting them into the body for hernia repair. 60. Dawson-Webb, Dawson-Webb's physicians and health care providers reasonably relied on Davol and Bard's judgment, indications and statements that Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch was fit for such use. 61. Dawson-Webb's physicians and health care providers used the Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch in its intended manner when the product was implanted into Dawson-Webb. 62. When Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches were distributed into the stream of commerce and sold by Davol and Bard, they were unsafe for their intended use, and not of merchantable quality, as warranted by Davol and Bard, in that they had very dangerous propensities when used as intended and implanted into a patient's body where they could cause 12

Case 0:17-cv-62012-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2017 Page 13 of 15 serious injury of harm or death to the end user. Dawson-Webb suffered such injuries and damages because of Davol and Bard s conduct and actions. COUNT VI NEGLIGENT FAILURE TO WARN 63. Dawson-Webb re-alleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-19, as if they were fully set forth herein. 64. In the course of business, Davol and Bard designed, manufactured and sold the hernia repair products for hernia surgeries in the hospital where Dawson-Webb's implantation surgery took place. 65. At the time of the design, manufacture and sale of Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches, and more specifically at the time Dawson-Webb received a Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch, the hernia repair products were defective and unreasonably dangerous when put to their intended and reasonably anticipated use. Further, Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches were not accompanied by proper warnings regarding significant adverse consequences associated with the hernia repair product. 66. Davol and Bard failed to provide Dawson-Webb, Dawson-Webb's physicians and health care providers with warnings, labels or instructions of the hernia repair product's dangerous propensities that were known or reasonably scientifically knowable at the time of distribution. The reasonably foreseeable use of the products involved significant dangers not readily obvious to the ordinary user of the products. Davol and Bard failed to warn Dawson-Webb, Dawson-Webb's physicians and health care providers of the known or knowable injuries associated with malfunction of the Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches. 67. The dangerous and defective conditions in Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches existed at the time they were delivered by the manufacturer to the distributor. At the time Dawson-Webb 13

Case 0:17-cv-62012-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2017 Page 14 of 15 had hernia repair surgery, Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches were in the same condition as when manufactured, distributed and sold. 68. Dawson-Webb, Dawson-Webb's physicians and health care providers did not know at the time of use of Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches, nor at any time prior thereto, of the existence of the defects in Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches. 69. Dawson-Webb suffered the aforementioned injuries and damages as a direct result of Davol and Bard failure to warn. 70. The conduct of Davol and Bard in continuing to market, promote, sell and distribute Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patches after obtaining knowledge that the products were failing and not performing as represented and intended, showed a complete indifference to or conscious disregard for the safety of the others justifying an award in such sum which will serve to deter Davol and Bard and others from similar conduct. PRAYER FOR RELIER 71. WHEREFORE, Dawson-Webb prays for judgment against Davol and Bard as follows: a. For all damages available to Dawson-Webb under the law, including, but not limited to, past and future medical; lost wages in the past; loss of wageearning capacity in the future; pain and suffering in the past and future; mental anguish; and disfigurement; b. For all applicable statutory damages available under Florida law or the laws of the States where Ventralex Hernia Mesh Patch was implanted or removed, or the States of residence of Davol and Bard; c. For an award of attorneys' fees and costs (pertaining to Count I; 14

Case 0:17-cv-62012-WPD Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2017 Page 15 of 15 d. For pre-judgment interest and costs of the suit; and e. For such other relief as this Court may deem just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 72. Dawson-Webb, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38, demands a trial by jury in this action on all issues triable. Dated: October 13, 2017. Respectfully submitted, s/ Michael L. Buckner Michael L. Buckner, Esquire Florida Bar No. 106331 Email: mbuckner@bucknersportslaw.com Michael L. Buckner Law Firm, P.A. 7771 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Suite 162 Sunrise, Florida 33351 USA Telephone: +1-954-941-1944 Facsimile: +1-954-941-1946 Attorney for the Plaintiff, Latoya Dawson-Webb 15

Case 0:17-cv-62012-WPD Document 1-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2017 Page 1 of 1 (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM. Latoya Dawson-Webb Davol, Inc., and C.R. Bard, Inc. Broward n/a Rhode Island (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number Michael L. Buckner, 7771 W. Oakland Park Blvd., Ste 162, Sunrise, Florida 33351; 954-941-1844 ext 1 (If Known Unknown (Place an X in One Box Only (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff (For Diversity Cases Only and One Box for Defendant (U.S. Government Not a Party x or x and (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III (Place an X in One Box Only x (Place an X in One Box Only x (specify x x (See instructions: n/a n/a (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity Personal injury/products liability action based on defective hernia mesh patch 2 $75,001 October 13, 2017 x

Case 0:17-cv-62012-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2017 Page 1 of 2 AO 440 (Rev. 06/12 Summons in a Civil Action UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern Districtof of Florida LATOYA DAWSON-WEBB, Plaintiff(s v. DAVOL, INC. and C.R. BARD, INC., Defendant(s Civil Action No. To: (Defendant s name and address SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION DAVOL, INC. REGISTERED AGENT: CT CORPORATION SYSTEM 1200 SOUTH PINE ISLAND ROAD PLANTATION, FL 33324 A lawsuit has been filed against you. Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a(2 or (3 you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff s attorney, whose name and address are: Michael L. Buckner, Esquire Michael L. Buckner Law Firm, P.A. 7771 West Oakland Park Blvd., Suite 162 Sunrise, Florida 33351 If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court. CLERK OF COURT Date: Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 0:17-cv-62012-WPD Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2017 Page 2 of 2 AO 440 (Rev. 06/12 Summons in a Civil Action UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the Southern Districtof of Florida LATOYA DAWSON-WEBB, Plaintiff(s v. DAVOL, INC. and C.R. BARD, INC., Defendant(s Civil Action No. To: (Defendant s name and address SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION C.R. BARD, INC. REGISTERED AGENT: CT CORPORATION SYSTEM 1200 SOUTH PINE ISLAND ROAD PLANTATION, FL 33324 A lawsuit has been filed against you. Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a(2 or (3 you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff s attorney, whose name and address are: Michael L. Buckner, Esquire Michael L. Buckner Law Firm, P.A. 7771 West Oakland Park Blvd., Suite 162 Sunrise, Florida 33351 If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court. CLERK OF COURT Date: Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk