X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NANCY RUGO as ADMINISTRATRIX CIVIL ACTION AND PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF NO. SPC. SANDRA LARSON 2004 East Buckeye Avenue JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Spokane, WA 99207 and RONDA WILSON 179 Lions Gate Road Savannah, GA Plaintiffs, vs BIOPORT, INC. 3500 Martin Luther King Jr., Blvd. Lansing, MI 48906 Defendant. COMPLAINT PARTIES 1. Plaintiff Nancy Rugo is a citizen of the State of Washington with an address at 2004 East Buckeye Avenue, Spokane, Washington. Nancy Rugo is the sister of Spc. Sandra Larson (“Sandra Larson”), deceased, and Administratrix and Personal Representative of the Estate of Sandra Larson. 2. Plaintiff Ronda Wilson is a citizen of the State of Georgia with an address at 179 Lions Gate Road in Savannah, Georgia. 3. Defendant BioPort, Inc. (“defendant”), a Michigan corporation with its principal place of business located at 3500 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd., Lansing, Michigan 48906, is the sole manufacturer, designer, distributor, producer and seller of anthrax vaccine adsorbed (“AVA”), and does substantial and continuing business with the United States Department of Defense (“DoD”). JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This Court’s jurisdiction is based upon diversity of citizenship as set forth in 28 U.S.C. �1332 in that plaintiffs are citizens of the State of Washington and State of Georgia, respectively, and defendant is a citizen of the State of Michigan. The amount in controversy is in excess of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00). 5. Venue is proper because the claims arose in the District of Columbia, and the DoD, located in the District of Columbia, has had substantial and continuing business with the defendant, including negotiations with defendant to prepare the AVA and enter into an exclusive contract to distribute the AVA to only United States military personnel and all of the decisions to implement the vaccine program and interim supervision of the manufacturing process of the AVA were all made in or about the District of Columbia. 6. Venue is also proper in this District because the plaintiffs claim that the AVA is an investigational new drug (“IND”), requiring the DoD to secure the informed consent of those persons taking it, before the DoD may administer the AVA to them. The defendant manufactures the AVA and has submitted an IND application for the AVA to amend the license, rendering the AVA an IND in circumstances germane to this suit. BACKGROUND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 7. The first anthrax vaccine was created in the 1950s as a way to protect animals from the deadly disease of cutaneous anthrax, the form of anthrax infection that occurs though the skin; humans can become infected with cutaneous anthrax by handling products from infected animals. 8. Another form of anthrax infection is inhalation anthrax which occurs by inhaling anthrax spores. Anthrax has been seen as a likely biological weapon when inflicted as an airborne poison. 9. The AVA manufactured, designed, produced and sold by the defendant is a cell free filtrate, which means it uses dead bacteria as opposed to live bacteria and is a sterile product made from a strain of the anthrax organism that does not cause disease. 10. The AVA was not licensed and has never been licensed to protect people from inhalation anthrax. 11. The AVA was only licensed for protection against cutaneous exposure to anthrax and must be taken in six doses on an 18 month schedule followed by annual boosters. 12. In 1960, Dr. Phillip S. Brachman, Dr. Herman Gold, Dr. Stanley Plotkin, Dr. F. Robert Fekevy, Milton Werrin, and Dr. Norman Ingraham conducted an efficacy study for a cutaneous anthrax vaccine. Though this study was done on an earlier vaccine, it has been used to justify the vaccine’s effectiveness today. 13. In 1962, in a report titled “Field Evaluation of Human Anthrax Vaccine,” researchers reported that the vaccine was still highly effective for cutaneous anthrax, though the case study focused only on local and systematic reactions and not long term adverse effects. 14. Before the AVA was licensed, the Centers for Disease Control performed an observational study of the current vaccine in order to demonstrate its safety. The investigators performed active surveillance for local vaccine reactions only, at 24 and 48 hours after administering the vaccine, but paid only cursory attention to systematic reactions. 15. On November 2, 1970, the United States Public Health Service issued the AVA license to the state-owned facility operated by the Michigan Department of Public Health for protection against cutaneous anthrax only. (A copy of the AVA product insert extract, December 1979, is attached as Exhibit “A.”) This was two years before efficacy data were required for licensing by the FDA. 16. Prior to the issuance of the AVA license, experiments with the AVA were performed under a program called Operation Whitecoat at Fort Detrick, Maryland, which was initiated by the DoD. No records were taken to fully investigate long term effects of the AVA. 17. There had been no appropriate clinical trials of the AVA prior to the issuance of the license. 18. In 1985, the Division of Biologic Standards, currently named the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), began licensing vaccines, and it reassessed the AVA previously approved. 19. By the Mid 1980s, after the efficacy of the AVA was demonstrated for cutaneous anthrax, the FDA approved the AVA for two limited markets: (1) individuals who may come in contact with animal products or high-risk persons such as veterinarians and others handling potentially infected animals; and (2) individuals engaged in diagnostic or investigational activities using anthrax. (A copy of the AVA Product Insert, 1987, is attached as Exhibit “B.”) 20. From 1970 to 1990, only a limited number of individuals received the AVA as reported by Dr. Kwai Chan’s General Accounting Office report to Congress. 21. In 1985, the DoD issued a Request for Proposal soliciting the development of a new anthrax vaccine. The Request for Proposal stated that there was no vaccine in current use which would safely and effectively protect military personnel against exposure to anthrax. (See a copy of the RFP DAMD17-85-R-0078 attached as Exhibit “C.”) 22. On December 13, 1985, the FDA published a Proposed Rule for a specific product review of the AVA, stating that the vaccine’s “efficacy against inhalation anthrax is not well documented.” (See copy of Federal Register dated December 13, 1985 attached as Exhibit “D.”) 23. On August 24, 1989, Assistant Secretary of Defense Robert B. Barker wrote in a letter to Senator John Glenn that “current vaccines, particularly the anthrax vaccine do not readily lend themselves to use in mass troop immunizations for a variety of reasons… a higher than desirable rate of reactogenicity and, in some cases, lack of strong efficacy against infection by the aerosol route of exposure.” (See copy of letter to Senator Glenn attached as Exhibit “E.”) 24. In March 1990, Army doctors Col. Takafuji and Col. Phillip K. Russell described the AVA as a “limited use vaccine” and an “unlicensed experimental vaccine” in an article, “Military Immunizations,” in Infectious Disease Clinics of North America. 25. By the early 1990s, the State of Michigan changed the name of the original facility to the Michigan Biologic Products Institute (“MBPI”) in order to make the move from state owned and operated to private ownership. 26. MBPI could not and did not test the AVA’s safety or efficacy for inhalation anthrax. 27. Beginning in 1990, despite the absence of any proof of safety or efficacy of the AVA, about 150,000 U.S. troops and personnel received at least one dose of the AVA during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, purportedly for the purpose of protection against inhalation anthrax if it were used as a biological weapon by Iraq. 28. In 1991, MBPI and the U.S. Army entered into an agreement for the manufacture of the AVA. 29. Army Secretary Michael P. W. Stone approved a request to indemnify MBPI against all liability arising from “the unusually hazardous risks associated with potentially severe adverse reactions and the potential lack of efficacy of the AVA.” The indemnification concerns were a result of the limited use of the vaccine on too small a scale to permit accurate assessments of types and severities of adverse reactions and insufficient experience in mass immunization programs to evaluate the efficacy of the vaccine. (See copy of Indemnification Agreement attached as Exhibit “F.”) 30. The U.S. Army, an agency of the DoD, awarded MBPI the Commander’s Award for Public Service in 1991 for their supply of the AVA during the Gulf War. 31. After the war, thousands of the Gulf War veterans suffered from what is known as Gulf War Syndrome that some authorities attribute to the use of the AVA. 32. On May 7, 1993, MBPI failed an FDA inspection of its facilities. 33. On November 26, 1993, the Pentagon’s deliberative process of mass vaccination of military personnel with the AVA began with the development and implementation of DoD’s Directive 6205.3, DoD Immunization Program for Biological Warfare Defense. 34. On August 31, 1995, the FDA issued a warning letter to MBPI requiring it to remedy the violations at its facility. 35. In 1995, the Department of the Army contracted with the Science Applications International Corporation (“SAIC”) to develop a plan to obtain FDA approval for a license amendment for the AVA in order to add inhalation anthrax exposure to the product license and to enable the defendant to list on the product license that the AVA was effective against inhalation anthrax. The SAIC license amendment plan states that the AVA is not licensed as protection for aerosol anthrax exposure as expected in a biological warfare environment. (See copy of October 5, 1995 License Amendment Plan attached as Exhibit “G.”) 36. On October 20, 1995, the Army Joint Program Office for Biological Defense noted that there was insufficient data to demonstrate protection against inhalation anthrax. (See copy of minutes of October 20, 1995 meeting attached as Exhibit “H.”) 37. In 1996, the DoD sought and received permission from the FDA to begin vaccinations of all military personnel without obtaining a new licensed indication for the AVA. 38. Although the FDA was required to inspect the anthrax portion of the manufacturing plant every two years, it did not fulfill this obligation, but allowed the U.S. Army to perform its own inspections, which allowed MBPI to remain in business. 39. Once the FDA finally went into the facility, it found that the facility was not up to FDA standards; eleven lots of the vaccine were quarantined; and the use of prophylaxis against biological warfare was not an FDA approved indication for the vaccine. MBPI had to shut down for major repairs and renovations. 40. On September 20, 1996, as part of the Army/SAIC plan, MBPI submitted an IND application in order to modify the product’s license to add an indication for inhalation anthrax. (See copy of September 20, 1996 letter to Dr. Kathryn C. Zoon attached as Exhibit “I.”) This IND application for license modification for inhalation anthrax has been supplemented and remains current and pending. (See copy of IND application supplements attached as Exhibit “J.”) 41. In 1997, MBPI executed another U.S. Army contract in order to maintain the AVA stockpile. 42. On March 11, 1997, even with the new contract, the FDA sent MBPI a Notice of Intention to Revoke because no real changes had been made to the facility. 43. On November 27, 1997, MBPI failed another FDA inspection. 44. Less then a month later, Secretary of Defense William Cohen announced the Anthrax Vaccination Immunization Program (AVIP) for all U.S. military personnel on December 15, 1997. 45. The AVIP that began in December 1997, intended to immunize over 2.4 million members of the military against the hypothetical threat of inhalation anthrax as a biological weapon. 46. The program required that between 1997 and 2003, all military personnel, including all new recruits, would begin receiving the six-shot series of the anthrax vaccination in the following inoculation program: (1) Phase 1: Forces assigned now or rotating to high threat areas in Southwest Asia and Korea; (2) Phase 2: Early deploying forces into high threat areas; (3) Phase 3: Remainder of the force and new recruits; and (4) Phase 4: To Continue the Program, annual booster shots. 47. On February 20, 1998, the FDA issued a report finding that the manufacturing process for Anthrax was not validated and listed 11 pages of quality-control failures for anthrax vaccine production, including reuse of expired vaccine, grossly inadequate testing, and use of lots that failed testing. 48. Despite this report, the immunizations began in March 1998. 49. In April 1998, Army Secretary Togo West, Jr. took steps to approve a request to indemnify the defendant against all liability arising from “the unusually hazardous risks associated with potentially severe adverse reactions and the potential lack of efficacy of the AVA.” The indemnification concerns, according to Secretary West, were a result of the limited use of the vaccine on too small a scale to permit accurate assessments of types and severities of adverse reactions and, insufficient experience in mass immunization programs to evaluate the efficacy of the vaccine. (See copy of Indemnification Agreement attached as Exhibit “K.”) 50. The inoculations were non-voluntary, and any soldier who refused the inoculations was disciplined. 51. No soldier was informed that the AVA for inhalation anthrax was unlicensed for use to prevent inhalation anthrax and no animal studies or human clinical trials demonstrated either safety or efficacy of the vaccine. 52. The use of the AVA for a purpose which is the subject of a currently pending IND application means that the DoD is using the AVA as an IND. 53. On September 4, 1998, the defendant jointly purchased the state owned MBPI with former MBPI lab directors for approximately $24 million. 54. The defendant became the sole licensed producer of the AVA in the United States by way of a privatization process initiated by the State of Michigan. 55. Within the company’s first year of existence, the defendant received a $29.4 million dollar contract with the DoD to supply 8.7 million doses of the AVA at a price of $4.36 per dose. 56. In 1999, defendant was still unable to ship the AVA, and at the defendant’s request, the DoD restructured defendant’s contract, providing the defendant with $24.1 million dollars in relief, reducing the number of doses demanded to 4.6 million, and agreed to raise the price per dose to $10.64. 57. On September 29, 1999, Dr. Kathryn Zoon wrote to Dr. Sue Bailey, Assistant Secretary of Defense Health Affairs, reiterating her position that the AVIP follow the FDA approved schedule. (See copy of letter to Bailey attached as Exhibit “L.”) 58. In November 1999, the defendant’s manufacturing plant was found to have about 30 deficiencies in safety, sterility and consistency. 59. On March 22, 2000, Office of Inspector General, DoD, issued an audit report D-2000-105, reporting that over $2 million in taxpayer funds advanced to defendant were not spent on improvements to vaccine production but spent on office remodeling, furniture for the CEO, parking lot re-paving, unwarranted travel expenses, unsubstantiated consulting costs, and an unrelated medical program. Additionally, senior managers planned on rewarding themselves $1.2 million in bonuses and a retired employee is collecting $10,000/month in severance and consulting fees. 60. On April 3, 2000, the Full Committee on Government Reform adopted the Subcommittee report recommending suspension of the AVIP 61. As of April 12, 2000, 425,976 service members had received 1,620,793 doses of AVA. 62. In June 2000, the DoD had to curtail the anthrax program because of vaccine shortages at the defendant company, forcing some soldiers to actually suspend vaccination mid-process. Still, defendant was awarded a new contract which provided for $2 -$2.5 million per month to cover costs related to getting the company to pass FDA approval of renovated anthrax production facilities. 63. In August 2000, the defendant voluntarily recalled the AVA because wrong expiration dates were put on the labels; at the same time, defendant’s scientists sought royalties for their part in changing the anthrax vaccination process. 64. The AVA stockpile was old and many lots had expired but had been re-dated, as if they were new, with only a retest of potency and some lots used on service members were produced with bovine materials of unknown origin and squalene. 65. Defendant was far out of compliance with good manufacturing practices, and had never had its anthrax line properly inspected. 66. During the manufacturing process of the AVA, defendant mishandled and contaminated the AVA, and lots of the AVA were left out in the open for more than 24 hours. 67. Since 1998, the AVA shipments from the defendant have been suspended by the FDA because of questions about the facility’s quality control. 68. According to the U.S. General Accounting Office, Medical Readiness: Safety and Efficacy of the Anthrax Vaccine, Report GAO/SSIAD-99-148, 1999, there have been no completed studies of the long-term side effects of AVA using active surveillance and the rate of acute adverse reactions to the AVA has ranged from 30-70 percent. The DoD has admitted that 5-35 percent of vaccines report muscle aches, joint aches, headaches, rash, chills, fever, nausea, loss of appetite, malaise, or related symptoms shortly after vaccination. 69. In fact, FDA inspections have repeatedly shown that the defendant still cannot produce the same vaccine of the same potency and consistency twice in a row. 70. The AVA is unlicensed for its use to prevent inhalation anthrax, the FDA has never officially approved the AVA for use against inhalation anthrax, and no animal studies or human clinical trials demonstrate either safety or efficacy for such use. SPC. SANDRA LARSON 71. In 1995, Sandra Larson joined the U.S. Army. 72. In 1998, Sandra Larson left for a year tour duty at Camp Stanley, South Korea. 73. On September 16, 1998, Sandra Larson received her first of six AVA injections in the 18-month anthrax vaccine series. The Lot Number of this first AVA injection was FAVO 17. 74. On September 30, 1998, October 13, 1998 and April 6, 1999 she received her next three AVA injections from Lot Number FAVO 17. 75. On September 10, 1999, she received her fifth AVA injection from Lot Number FAVO 44. 76. Almost immediately after her first injection, Sandra Larson began having adverse reactions to the vaccine, including exhaustion and fatigue, skin rashes and numbness and pain in her hands. 77. After these symptoms did not dissipate, she was granted a two-week leave. 78. By October 1999, Sandra Larson was relieved of her duties in South Korea and her new orders required her to relocate to Fort Riley, Kansas. 79. On March 12, 2000, she received her sixth and final injection of the AVA from Lot Number FAVO 31. 80. On April 7, 2000, Sandra Larson’s blood capillaries were bursting and she was experiencing heavy vaginal bleeding. 81. On April 8, 2000, she was admitted to the hospital, and on April 10, 2000, Sandra Larson was put into the intensive care unit at Kansas Medical Center and was diagnosed with aplastic anemia, where her bone marrow had stopped producing blood cells. 82. The direct and proximate cause of Sandra Larson’s condition was her involuntary inoculation with the AVA. 83. Upon information and belief, clinical evidence indicates that AVA Lot Number FAVO 17 was an unlicensed experimental vaccine that was selectively administered without informed consent. 84. An FDA Inspection Report dated February 20, 1998, reported that Lot Number FAVO 44, filled on January 7, 1998 had an “invalid” potency test on December 8, 1997. Also, Lot No. FAVO 31 was whole or partially formulated from subplots contaminated with microorganisms. 85. On May 2, 2000, Sandra Larson was supposed to be transferred to Ft. Lewis in order to be treated at Madigan Army Medical Center; however, the plane that was transferring had to make an emergency landing at Travis Air Force Base in California. 86. On June 12, 2000, breathing through a ventilator, Sandra Larson went into a coma. 87. On June 14, 2000, as a direct and proximate result of the inoculation of the AVA, Sandra Larson died. RONDA WILSON 88. In 1993, Ronda Wilson joined the U.S. Army. 89. Ronda Wilson was Chief Warrant Officer and a helicopter pilot; the only female pilot in her squadron. 90. In December 1998, Ronda Wilson received her first AVA injection from Lot Number FAV036. 91. Almost immediately, Ronda Wilson began having adverse reactions to the vaccine, including a form of gastroparesis which caused her to lose 1/3 of her body weight within 5 months as she was unable to eat solid foods, and she could no longer menstruate. 92. In January 1999, she received her second AVA injection and immediately thereafter she experienced numerous other symptoms including: unrelenting nausea, stomach pain and seizure-like spasms. 93. By May 1999, after she received her third AVA injection with Lot Number 041, had significant memory loss and her bowel, small intestine, colon and heart were all damaged. 94. On September 12, 2001, Ronda Wilson was discharged. 95. The direct and proximate cause of Ronda Wilson’s condition was her involuntary inoculation with the AVA. 96. Upon information and belief, Lot Number FAV 036 was at room temperature for a certain number of hours and then the filling operation was aborted and it was placed back in the refrigerator. In addition, there is no stability information regarding product exposure to room temperature. 97. Upon information and belief, the second AVA injection was from a lot that was left out at room temperature for at least 24 hours. 98. Upon information and belief, the third AVA injection was from a lot that was filled on November 11, 1997 and had an “invalid” potency test on September 30, 1997. This lot also contained squalene. COUNT ONE – SANDRA LARSON NEGLIGENCE 99. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the above paragraphs as if same were set forth at length herein. 100. Defendant was careless, negligent, breached its duties and obligations owed to Sandra Larson by various sections of the Restatement of Torts, 2d, breached duties pursuant to Section 402(a) of the Restatement of Torts, 2d, and is liable for causing injuries to Sandra Larson for the following reasons: a. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product in a defective condition; b. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was unreasonably dangerous to the user; c. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was not safe for normal handling and consumption; d. failing to have adequate warnings on the product; e. failing to provide adequate warnings; f. failing to provide instructions to be followed with regard to the use of this product; g. failing to warn users of the dangers inherent in using this product; h. failing to instruct users of this product on its safe use; i. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which could have been designed more safely; j. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which lacked all necessary safety features to protect users of said product; k. failing to have proper warnings and instructions concerning the use of this product accompanying the same; l. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product wherein it was foreseeable that someone would injure themselves based on the product’s design and assembly; m. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which could not be safe during normal use; n. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was not safe for its intended use; o. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was lacking of one or more elements necessary to make it safe for its intended use; p. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was defective and which could cause injury to the user; q. failing to exercise reasonable care in the design of this product; r. failing to adequately and properly test said product; s. failing to use reasonable care under the circumstances; t. violation of Section 402(a) of the Restatement of Torts, 2d; u. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which defendant knew or should have known would cause injury to the user; v. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was defective and could cause injury to the user; w. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product that defendant knew or should have known increased the risk of harm to the user; x. failing to fix the conditions which increased the risk of harm to the users during the times when this product was serviced; y. violation of application sections of the Restatement of Torts, 2d; z. engaging in other acts regarding the manufacturing, designing, maintaining, preparing, producing, distributing, installing, advising and selling of this product as will be learned in discovery. 101. As a result of the carelessness and negligence of defendant, and its failure to conform to is obligations and duties as designers, manufacturers, producers, assemblers, distributors, suppliers, installers, services, and sellers under Section 402(a) of the Restatement of Torts, 2d, other sections of the Restatement of Torts, 2d, and at Common Law, Sandra Larson was caused to suffer extreme pain and suffering ultimately resulting in her death. 102. As a result of the carelessness and negligence of defendant, in violation of Section 402(a) of the Restatement of Torts, 2d, other sections of the Restatement of Torts, 2d, and Common Law, Sandra Larson incurred medical care and treatment and/or other financial expenses or losses for herself to her great detriment and expense. WHEREFORE, plaintiff Nancy Rugo, as Administratrix and Personal Representative of the Estate of Spc. Sandra Larson, demands judgment against defendant in sum in excess of One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars in damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees, interest and cost of suit. COUNT TWO – SANDRA LARSON BREACH OF WARRANTIES 103. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the above paragraphs as if same were set forth at length herein. 104. Defendant breached its expressed and implied warranties, that the AVA designed, assembled, installed, produced, distributed, supplied, delivered, serviced and sold by them was safe and proper for its intended use, was designed and manufactured in accordance with prevailing and existing standards in the industry, and was properly and adequately manufactured, designed, maintained, prepared, produced, distributed, sold, installed and had proper warnings. 105. Defendant breached its expressed and implied warranties by designing, manufacturing, producing, servicing, assembling, distributing, delivering, installing, supplying, and selling the AVA which was unsafe, defective, of non-merchantable quality and was not reasonably safe for its intended purpose or use. 106. Defendant breached its expressed and implied warranties, duties and obligations and thereby caused injury to Sandra Larson, and did so by: a. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product in a defective condition; b. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was unreasonably dangerous to the user; c. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was not safe for normal handling and consumption; d. failing to have adequate warnings on the product; e. failing to provide adequate warnings; f. failing to provide instructions to be followed with regard to the use of this product; g. failing to warn users of the dangers inherent in using this product; h. failing to instruct users of this product on its safe use; i. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which could have been designed more safely; j. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which lacked all necessary safety features to protect users of said product; k. failing to have proper warnings and instructions concerning the use of this product accompanying the same; l. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product wherein it was foreseeable that someone would injure themselves based on the product’s design and assembly; m. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which could not be safe during normal use; n. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was not safe for its intended use; o. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was lacking of one or more elements necessary to make it safe for its intended use; p. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was defective and which could cause injury to the user; q. failing to exercise reasonable care in the design of this product; r. failing to adequately and properly test said product; s. failing to use reasonable care under the circumstances; t. violation of Section 402(a) of the Restatement of Torts, 2d; u. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which defendant knew or should have known would cause injury to the user; v. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was defective and could cause injury to the user; w. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product that defendant knew or should have known increased the risk of harm to the user; x. failing to fix the conditions which increased the risk of harm to the users during the times when this product was serviced; y. violation of application sections of the Restatement of Torts, 2d; z. engaging in other acts regarding the manufacturing, designing, maintaining, preparing, producing, distributing, installing, advising and selling of this product as will be learned in discovery. 107. As the manufacturer of the AVA, defendant has committed itself to the responsibility of producing a safe and effective product that does what it claims. 108. Defendant broke this Agreement to make a quality vaccine. 109. Defendant did not produce the AVA to follow its claim to protect people from inhalation anthrax. 110. As a result of defendant’s breach of their implied and expressed warranties, Sandra Larson was caused to experience great pain and suffering and, ultimately, to die. 111. As a result of defendant’s breach of expressed and implied warranties, Sandra Larson incurred medical care and treatment and/or other financial expenses or losses, all to her great detriment and expense. WHEREFORE, plaintiff Nancy Rugo, as Administratrix and Personal Representative of the Estate of Spc. Sandra Larson, demands judgment against defendant in sum in excess of One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars in damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees, interest and cost of suit. COUNT THREE – SANDRA LARSON BREACH OF THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED WITH ESSENTIAL HUMAN DIGNITY 112. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all of the above Paragraphs as if set forth in full herein. 113. Defendant knew it was distributing the AVA for unlicensed purposes and for which it was untested as to its safety and efficacy. 114. Defendant knew soldiers like Sandra Larson were involuntarily compelled to submit to the vaccine without knowledge of these facts and circumstances. 115. Soldiers such as Sandra Larson thus became human guinea pigs made to test a product over which defendant had a monopoly. 116. Such conduct was a willful and/or negligent breach of Sandra Larson’s right to be treated with essential human dignity, a fundamental right of all citizens of the United States. 117. As a result of defendant’s conduct, Sandra Larson has suffered great pain and suffering ultimately resulting in her death. WHEREFORE, plaintiff Nancy Rugo, as Administratrix and Personal Representative of the Estate of Spc. Sandra Larson, demands judgment against defendant in sum in excess of One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars in damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees, interest and cost of suit. COUNT FOUR – SANDRA LARSON STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY 118. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all of the above Paragraphs as if each were set forth in full herein. 119. Defendant manufactured and supplied the vaccine that caused great physical pain and suffering to Sandra Larson. 120. Defendant breached its duties and obligations to Sandra Larson by various sections of the Restatement of Torts, 2d, including Section 402 A and are liable for causing injuries to her by: a. designing, manufacturing, selling and/or distributing a product in a defective condition; b. designing, manufacturing, selling and/or distributing a product which was unreasonably dangerous; c. failing to have adequate warnings on the product; d. failing to warn users of the dangers inherent in using this product; e. designing, manufacturing, selling and/or distributing a product which could have been produced and manufactured more safely; f. designing, manufacturing, selling and/or distributing a product wherein it was foreseeable that someone would be harmed by the product’s use; g. failing to ensure that ultimate users were advised of the dangers of said product; h. failing to exercise reasonable care in the design of this product; i. failing to adequately and properly test this product; j. producing a product which was defective and could cause injury to the user; k. supplying a product which was defective and could cause injury to the user; l. failing to adequately and properly test the product after its design and manufacture; m. failing to investigate and analyze prior adverse reactions and information in order to warn and/or notify ultimate users of the product defects and dangers. 121. By conducting themselves as aforesaid, defendant increased risk of harm, thereby causing the injuries to Sandra Larson. WHEREFORE, Nancy Rugo, as Administratrix and Personal Representative of the Estate of Spc. Sandra Larson, demands judgment against defendant in sum in excess of One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars in damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees, interest and cost of suit. COUNT FIVE – SANDRA LARSON FRAUD 122. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all of the above Paragraphs as if each were set forth in full herein. 123. Defendant committed common law fraud in their intentional pervasion of truth regarding the safety and efficiency of the AVA. 124. Defendant never warned Sandra Larson of the potential dangers and risks of taking the AVA as a result of defendant’s silence. 125. The misrepresentations of risks set forth above were done with the knowledge that they were false when made. 126. Defendant’s AVA was a false representation of a matter of fact that deceives and is intended to deceive another by the suppression of truth. 127. Defendant’s direct falsehood resulted in Sandra Larson’s suffering and death. WHEREFORE, Nancy Rugo, as Administratrix and Personal Representative of the Estate of Spc. Sandra Larson, demands judgment against defendant in sum in excess of One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars in damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees, interest and cost of suit. COUNT SIX – SANDRA LARSON WRONGFUL DEATH 128. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the above paragraphs as if fully set forth at length herein. 129. As a result of the careless, negligent and reckless conduct of the defendant, Sandra Larson was caused to suffer excruciating and agonizing pain and discomfort and ultimately died as a result of defendants’ conduct. 130. The defendant, by and through its separate and respective agents, servants, workmen, representatives, physicians, nurses, staff, contractors, medical personnel, medical assistants and employees was careless, negligent and reckless in: a. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product in a defective condition; b. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was unreasonably dangerous to the user; c. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was not safe for normal handling and consumption; d. failing to have adequate warnings on the product; e. failing to provide adequate warnings; f. failing to provide instructions to be followed with regard to the use of this product; g. failing to warn users of the dangers inherent in using this product; h. failing to instruct users of this product on its safe use; i. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which could have been designed more safely; j. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which lacked all necessary safety features to protect users of said product; k. failing to have proper warnings and instructions concerning the use of this product accompanying the same; l. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product wherein it was foreseeable that someone would injure themselves based on the product’s design and assembly; m. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which could not be safe during normal use; n. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was not safe for its intended use; o. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was lacking of one or more elements necessary to make it safe for its intended use; p. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was defective and which could cause injury to the user; q. failing to exercise reasonable care in the design of this product; r. failing to adequately and properly test said product; s. failing to use reasonable care under the circumstances; t. violation of Section 402(a) of the Restatement of Torts, 2d; u. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which defendant knew or should have known would cause injury to the user; v. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was defective and could cause injury to the user; w. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product that defendant knew or should have known increased the risk of harm to the user; x. failing to fix the conditions which increased the risk of harm to the users during the times when this product was serviced; y. violation of application sections of the Restatement of Torts, 2d; z. engaging in other acts regarding the manufacturing, designing, maintaining, preparing, producing, distributing, installing, advising and selling of this product as will be learned in discovery; aa. failing to inform Sandra Larson of all the risks of the AVA so as to afford her with the opportunity to make an informed decision whether to take the AVA; bb. acting negligently per se. 131. As a direct and proximate result of the carelessness, negligence, gross negligence, recklessness and willful and wanton conduct of the defendant, by and through its separate and respective agents, servants, workmen, representatives, physicians, nurses, staff, contractors, medical personnel and employees, Sandra Larson was caused to sustain serious and excruciating personal injuries which ultimately led to her death. Sandra Larson was caused to suffer agonizing aches, pains and mental anguish; she sustained loss of enjoyment of life and loss of life’s pleasures. As a result of her wrongful death she has been prevented from performing all of her usual duties, occupations, recreational activities and avocation all to her and her beneficiaries’ loss and detriment. 132. By conducting themselves as aforesaid, defendant increased the risk of harm, thereby causing the wrongful death of Sandra Larson. 133. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, decedent’s wrongful death beneficiaries suffered, are suffering from an indefinite period of time in the future damages, injuries and losses, including, but not limited to, a loss of financial support, and the beneficiaries have been wrongfully deprived of the contributions they would have received from Sandra Larson, including monies which decedent would have provided for such items such as clothing, shelter, food, medical care and education. 134. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, decedent’s wrongful death beneficiaries would have been, continue to be and will be in the future wrongfully deprived of large and various sums of money which decedent would have contributed to their support. 135. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, decedent’s wrongful death beneficiaries incurred or have been caused to incur and paid large and various expenses including funeral, burial and estate administration. 136. Nancy Rugo makes claim, on behalf of decedent’s heirs-at-law and next-of-kin, for the loss of love, affection, services, earnings, support and all other damages recoverable for her sister’s wrongful death. WHEREFORE, Nancy Rugo, as Administratrix and Personal Representative of the Estate of Spc. Sandra Larson, claim of the defendant, damages in excess of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), interest and allowable costs of suit. COUNT SEVEN – SANDRA LARSON SURVIVAL ACTION 137. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the above paragraphs as if fully set forth at length herein. 138. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Sandra Larson, has been, is being and will be in the future wrongfully deprived of earnings and the right to earn a living. 139. To address the foregoing, the Estate of Sandra Larson, is entitled to recover in this action an amount equal to the gross amount decedent would have earned between the date of her death and the end of her life expectancy, subject to her cost of maintenance. WHEREFORE, Nancy Rugo, as Administratrix and Personal Representative of the Estate of Spc. Sandra Larson, claims of the defendant, damages in excess of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), interest and allowable costs of suit. COUNT EIGHT – SANDRA LARSON PUNITIVE DAMAGES 140. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all of the above Paragraphs as if each were set forth in full herein. 141. Defendant’s actions were intentional, wanton, willful and outrageous. 142. Defendant was grossly negligent and acted with reckless disregard of and with deliberate, callous and reckless indifference to the rights, interest, welfare and safety of Sandra Larson. WHEREFORE, Nancy Rugo, as Administratrix and Personal Representative of the Estate of Spc. Sandra Larson, demands judgment against defendant in sum in excess of One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars in damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees, interest and cost of suit. COUNT NINE – RONDA WILSON NEGLIGENCE 143. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all of the above Paragraphs as if each were set forth in full herein. 144. Defendant was careless, negligent, breached its duties and obligations owed to plaintiff by various sections of the Restatement of Torts, 2d, breached duties pursuant to Section 402(a) of the Restatement of Torts, 2d, and is liable for causing injuries to Ronda Wilson for the following reasons: a. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product in a defective condition; b. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was unreasonably dangerous to the user; c. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was not safe for normal handling and consumption; d. failing to have adequate warnings on the product; e. failing to provide adequate warnings; f. failing to provide instructions to be followed with regard to the use of this product; a. g. failing to warn users of the dangers inherent in using this product; h. failing to instruct users of this product on its safe use; i. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which could have been designed more safely; j. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which lacked all necessary safety features to protect users of said product; k. failing to have proper warnings and instructions concerning the use of this product accompanying the same; l. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product wherein it was foreseeable that someone would injure themselves based on the product’s design and assembly; m. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which could not be safe during normal use; n. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was not safe for its intended use; o. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was lacking of one or more elements necessary to make it safe for its intended use; p. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was defective and which could cause injury to the user; q. failing to exercise reasonable care in the design of this product; r. failing to adequately and properly test said product; s. failing to use reasonable care under the circumstances; t. violation of Section 402(a) of the Restatement of Torts, 2d; u. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which defendant knew or should have known would cause injury to the user; v. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was defective and could cause injury to the user; w. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product that defendant knew or should have known increased the risk of harm to the user; x. failing to fix the conditions which increased the risk of harm to the users during the times when this product was serviced; y. violation of application sections of the Restatement of Torts, 2d; z. engaging in other acts regarding the manufacturing, designing, maintaining, preparing, producing, distributing, installing, advising and selling of this product as will be learned in discovery. 145. As a result of the carelessness and negligence of defendant, and its failure to conform to is obligations and duties as designers, manufacturers, producers, assemblers, distributors, suppliers, installers, services, and sellers under Section 402(a) of the Restatement of Torts, 2d, other sections of the Restatement of Torts, 2d, and at Common Law, Ronda Wilson was caused to suffer extreme pain and suffering. 146. As a result of the carelessness and negligence of defendant, in violation of Section 402(a) of the Restatement of Torts, 2d, other sections of the Restatement of Torts, 2d, and Common Law, Ronda Wilson incurred medical care and treatment and/or other financial expenses or losses for herself to her great detriment and expense. WHEREFORE, Ronda Wilson demands judgment against defendant in sum in excess of One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars in damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees, interest and cost of suit. COUNT TEN – RONDA WILSON BREACH OF WARRANTIES 147. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all of the above Paragraphs as if each were set forth in full herein. 148. Defendant breached its expressed and implied warranties, that the AVA, designed, assembled, installed, produced, distributed, supplied, delivered, serviced and sold by them was safe and proper for its intended use, was designed and manufactured in accordance with prevailing and existing standards in the industry, and was properly and adequately manufactured, designed, maintained, prepared, produced, distributed, sold, installed and had proper warnings. 149. Defendant breached its expressed and implied warranties by designing, manufacturing, producing, servicing, assembling, distributing, delivering, installing, supplying, and selling the AVA which was unsafe, defective, of non-merchantable quality and was not reasonably safe for its intended purpose or use. 150. Defendant breached its expressed and implied warranties, duties and obligations and thereby caused injury to Ronda Wilson, and did so by: a. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product in a defective condition; b. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was unreasonably dangerous to the user; c. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was not safe for normal handling and consumption; d. failing to have adequate warnings on the product; e. failing to provide adequate warnings; f. failing to provide instructions to be followed with regard to the use of this product; g. failing to warn users of the dangers inherent in using this product; h. failing to instruct users of this product on its safe use; i. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which could have been designed more safely; j. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which lacked all necessary safety features to protect users of said product; k. failing to have proper warnings and instructions concerning the use of this product accompanying the same; l. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product wherein it was foreseeable that someone would injure themselves based on the product’s design and assembly; m. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which could not be safe during normal use; n. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was not safe for its intended use; o. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was lacking of one or more elements necessary to make it safe for its intended use; p. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was defective and which could cause injury to the user; q. failing to exercise reasonable care in the design of this product; r. failing to adequately and properly test said product; s. failing to use reasonable care under the circumstances; t. violation of Section 402(a) of the Restatement of Torts, 2d; u. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which defendant knew or should have known would cause injury to the user; v. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product which was defective and could cause injury to the user; w. designing, manufacturing, producing, assembling, servicing, maintaining, distributing, delivering, selling and/or supplying a product that defendant knew or should have known increased the risk of harm to the user; x. failing to fix the conditions which increased the risk of harm to the users during the times when this product was serviced; y. violation of application sections of the Restatement of Torts, 2d; z. engaging in other acts regarding the manufacturing, designing, maintaining, preparing, producing, distributing, installing, advising and selling of this product as will be learned in discovery. 151. As the manufacturer of the AVA, defendant has committed itself to the responsibility of producing a safe and effective product that does what it claims. 152. Defendant broke this Agreement to make a quality vaccine. 153. Defendant did not produce the AVA to follow its claim to protect people from inhalation anthrax. 154. As a result of defendant’s breach of their implied and expressed warranties Sandra Larson was caused to experience great pain and suffering and, ultimately, to die. 155. As a result of defendant’s breach of expressed and implied warranties, Ronda Wilson incurred medical care and treatment and/or other financial expenses or losses, all to her great detriment and expense. WHEREFORE, Ronda Wilson demands judgment against defendant in sum in excess of One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars in damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees, interest and cost of suit. COUNT ELEVEN – RONDA WILSON BREACH OF THE RIGHT TO BE TREATED WITH ESSENTIAL HUMAN DIGNITY 156. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all of the above Paragraphs as if set forth in full herein. 157. Defendant knew it was distributing the AVA for unlicensed purposes and for which it was untested as to its safety and efficacy. 158. Defendant knew soldiers like Ronda Wilson were involuntarily compelled to submit to the vaccine without knowledge of these facts and circumstances. 159. Soldiers such as Ronda Wilson thus became human guinea pigs made to test a product over which defendant had the monopoly. 160. Such conduct was a willful and/or negligent breach of Ronda Wilson’s right to be treated with essential human dignity, a fundamental right of all citizens of the United States. 161. As a result of defendant’s conduct, Ronda Wilson has suffered great pain and suffering. WHEREFORE, plaintiff Ronda Wilson demands judgment against defendant in sum in excess of One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars in damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees, interest and cost of suit. COUNT TWELVE – RONDA WILSON STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY 162. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all of the above Paragraphs as if each were set forth in full herein. 163. Defendant manufactured and supplied the vaccine that caused great physical pain and suffering to Ronda Wilson. 164. Defendant breached its duties and obligations to Ronda Wilson by various sections of the Restatement of Torts, 2d, including Section 402 A and are liable for causing injuries to her by: a. designing, manufacturing, selling and/or distributing a product in a defective condition; b. designing, manufacturing, selling and/or distributing a product which was unreasonably dangerous; c. failing to have adequate warnings on the product; d. failing to warn users of the dangers inherent in using this product; e. designing, manufacturing, selling and/or distributing a product which could have been produced and manufactured more safely; f. designing, manufacturing, selling and/or distributing a product wherein it was foreseeable that someone would be harmed by the product’s use; g. failing to ensure that ultimate users were advised of the dangers of said product; h. failing to exercise reasonable care in the design of this product; i. failing to adequately and properly test this product: j. producing a product which was defective and could cause injury to the user; k. supplying a product which was defective and could cause injury to the user; l. failing to adequately and properly test the product after its design and manufacture; m. failing to investigate and analyze prior adverse reactions and information in order to warn and/or notify ultimate users of the product defects and dangers. 165. By conducting themselves as aforesaid, defendant increased risk of harm, thereby causing the injuries to Ronda Wilson. WHEREFORE, plaintiff Ronda Wilson demands judgment against defendant in sum in excess of One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars in damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees, interest and cost of suit. COUNT THIRTEEN – RONDA WILSON FRAUD 166. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all of the above Paragraphs as if each were set forth in full herein. 167. Defendant committed common law fraud in their intentional pervasion of truth regarding the safety and efficiency of the AVA. 168. Defendant never warned Ronda Wilson of the potential dangers and risks of taking the AVA as a result of defendant’s silence. 169. The misrepresentations of risks set forth above were done with the knowledge that they were false when made. 170. Defendant’s AVA was a false representation of a matter of fact that deceives and is intended to deceive another by the suppression of truth. 171. Defendant’s direct falsehood resulted in Ronda Wilson’s pain and suffering. WHEREFORE, plaintiff Ronda Wilson demands judgment against defendant in sum in excess of One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars in damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees, interest and cost of suit. COUNT FOURTEEN – RONDA WILSON PUNITIVE DAMAGES 172. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate all of the above Paragraphs as if each were set forth in full herein. 173. Defendant’s actions were intentional, wanton, willful and outrageous. 174. Defendant was grossly negligent and acted with reckless disregard of and with deliberate, callous and reckless indifference to the rights, interest, welfare and safety of Ronda Wilson. WHEREFORE, plaintiff Ronda Wilson demands judgment against defendant in sum in excess of One Million ($1,000,000.00) Dollars in damages, punitive damages, attorneys fees, interest and cost of suit. JURY TRIAL DEMAND Please take notice that the plaintiffs demand a trial by jury as to all issues in the above matter. Dated: _________ SHERMAN, SILVERSTEIN, KOHL, ROSE & PODOLSKY A Professional Corporation By: __________________________ Alan C. Milstein Derek T. Braslow 4300 Haddonfield Rd. Pennsauken, N.J. 08109 (856) 662-0700 Attorneys for plaintiffs

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.