Case Nmnl:..:r: CACE·I ~.o2 I 101 1lI,isi"", o.t
Filing /I 34954557 "·Filed 11 130/201503:03:40 PM

IN 1111:: CIRCUIT COURT OF 11IE
17'" JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN Nil) FOR
I3ROWARD COl/NTI, FLORIDA
ELIZABE'T1! NOBLE.
PIalntiff,

CIRCUTTCIVlL DMSION
CASE NO.:

U.S. STEM CELL, INC. fl k /a 13I00IEART,
INC .: US S1'EM CELL CLINIC, LLC;
ALF...)ANDRO PEREZ. ARNP;
SIIARf;I;;N GREENIJ"-UM. M.D.
Defcnda" iO.

COMPLAlIfI' FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRlAL
The l'IaintilI Eiir.ab<th Noble .ues the Defendants U.S. Ste m Ce ll, Inc.;
US Stem Cen Clinic, LLC; Ale)o.ndro Peru. ARNP; and Shareen Greenbaum.
M.D ., and aneg.. a. follow.,

JURlSDICTIONAl, fTAT&JI&1'IT AND W&1'IT"'CATION 0 .. THE P/lllTIES
1.

Thi. is

!U1

action for da""'S"s in e"""ss of t hi. Court'.

minimum juris.dictional limit. , exclusive of inte rest and cost s.
2.

Plaintiff Elizabeth Noble ..... id•• in Kansas City, Mrsoouri.

3.

Defendant U.S. S"'m Cell. Inc. f/kla moheart, Inc . i. a F10rida

f",.profit corporation with a principal place of address of 13794 NW 4 .h St
2 12 Sunri ..... FL 33325.
4.

Defendant US Stem Cell Clinic. LLC i. a Florida Limited

Liability Company with a principal

pla~

of addre •• of [2651 W. Sumi""

Blvd. Suit. 104 Sunri... FL 33323 .

-

"'"."'"

_.....". ,., .

.-.'~'"

~

,,',

..

 5.

Defendan. Alejandro ""rez. ARNP i.

an aM.. I\ced

I\U,...,

p .... ctihoner who reoide. in Miami 1'1..
6.

Drlendant Sharun G=baum. M.D. i. a medicaJ doc.or who

practkes medicine in Hollywood. Florida and Sunrise Florida. and ",. ide.
in nolida.
[ACT8 OMNO 8I8i' TO T H i' ACUON8

7.

The Defendants were in plivi.y wi.h Eli ... "".h N<tble .

8.

The

Defend~nt.

doovolopcd. de.lgned. tuted. m ..... ufaetured.

in.peeted. di . tributed . marketed . promoted . • old .• upplied. and oth<rwi""
re le ased into the . tream or comme"", the product at i • • ue in t his c""" • •
product c", ... ed u . ing lijXI.uc.jon to collec. adipose .i.. u e from .he
Plaintiff and proce • • ing thi s t i. sue .

stem cells.
10.

The Defendant. Intended 'hi. produc' "" delivered vi ..

n~1e

injection in'o Bliza""tIi Noble'. eye • .
11.
injeetion

The Defendant. cla imed the produc •. when uoed .hrough
in.o

'he

eye..

"",,,uld

",op

,h ~

progre"'on

of

m8cular

degenera.ion . and <",a'ed. d .. igned, manufactured. diot"!)"''''. Wid. and
.upplied Ihe product for .ha. purpooe.
12,

The product breached .he Drlendan ..· ""pre •• warran.;'.,

breached the lJe£endanto' implied warranties of me rchantability and 6",...
for a partkula.- purpoo.e , w ... defective in de. ign , manufac.ure , and in ito

-

."'"
""

,

_.. ,.

._,'~'"

'M

"""._

, ,' ,

..

 failu ... 10 wam Eli",belh Noble. and wu manufa ctUred. des igned. and
marketed in a "egligent manner by Ihe OdendQn ...

13.

The product was injected into Elizabeth Noble'.

"Y'"

as

directed on or about June 16. 201 5 in Florida.
14 .

A. a diroct and proximate cau"" of the product. E;lizabeth Noble

.uffered permanent damage. as alleged;n more detail below.

15.

The Phtintiff adopto and ...allege. pa .... graph . I through \4 and

funh. r alleges:

16.

The

p roduct

deve loped,

de .igned,

tested,

manufactured.

in'pected, d i8tnbuted, marketed. promoted •• old. s upplied. and othefWi.e
releaoed into

th~

.".am of commerce by Defendan t U.S. Stem Cell, Inc .

wa~

defoct;ve beea".e it did not ""nform to .-.:p ..... nl.tion. of fact made by
Dclendant U.S. Slem Coil. Inc.. orally and in writ ing. through i •• employu. and
agento, in connection with the transacbon on which Elizabet h Noble ",lied in
th e u.., of the product.
17 .

Defendant U.S. Slem Cell, Inc. "'pr • ..,nted the fact that the

product was ca pable of

'''''''ing

and .toppins the pro!V" •• ion of m"""I ....

degeneration.
18.

De. pite thi s r<p ... ""ntatlon of ract, no ocientific '<Vidence

sho~

that the product provide. any benefit for ma cular degenemt;oD.
19 .

No pe<o.... r.vi.wed literatu", show. the product provides any benefit

for macular deg.neration .

-

."'"
"'"

_.. ,. ,., .

.-.'~"''''''

~

,,',

..

 20 .

The p""aili"& opi";,,n in 'he ocion'ific community i, that the

prodUCI cannol pro'ide

21.

~

beoefit for mowio' degene,.t;"n.

CTeating, d .. igning, "",nufaeturi"", distributing,

.. Uing, aod

exJl"''' promi... to stop the

prog.-. •• ion of

. upJ>lying a product with such an

maculae degen eration eoqui",. safeguard. not taken by [}"fondant O.S . Stem
Cet!, tnc., and experti ... not

POS"'~

by Doofendant U.S. Stem Celt, Inc.

Doofendant U.S. Stem Cet!, tnc. knew the product wu not o>pab!e

22 .

product d=l<>pment, but promoted t he treatment as .uch without any
mdeo"" to .upport . uch promotion.

23 .

The Doorendant

r~;ved

notice or the breach of warranty when it

d iOCO'o'ered the condition or Elizabeth Noble '. ey•• after rooe;ving the product.

alleged, Elizabe,h Noble .ustained 'eri"". permanent damage .... alleged in
d<tail below.

25 .

The P!aintiff adopt. and reallege. p"",graph. I .hrough 14 and

fU'lher anegeo:
26.

Th.

product

developed,

d •• igned,

t.oted ,

manufactured,

in.pee,.d, di.,ribu.ed, mack • •ed, promo.ed, sold, .upplied. and otherwi ..,
released into the .'ceam of commerce by [}"fendant US S.. m Cen Clime, LLC
was

dof~t;""

because ;, did

-

no1

conform '0 '-"p reoenta.ions of fact made by

."'"
""

•

_.. ,.

._.'~'"

'M

"""._

,,',

..

 Defendant US Slem Cell Clinic. LLC, orally a nd in wriling, through il8
employees and agents . in <XInn""l;on wilh the tran ...,.ion on which f;liuobelh
Noble ",Ued in the use of the product,
27.

Defendant US S t em CeU Clinic. LLC ",p""",nted the fact that the

product was capable of "ea'ing and s topping the progression of macular
degeneration .

28 .
th ~ t

Despite this representation of fact, no ocien'if", evidence . hows

the product provide. any bene fit for "'''cular degenenu;o.n,
29,

No pttr-reviewed literature

.how.

the product provide. any benefit

ror macular degeneration,
30 .

The

pr~'aili n g

opinion in the ocientific community i. that the

product cannot provide a benefit for macula, dogeneration.
31,

Creating. de.igning, manufacturing,

d; s tributin ~ .

selling, a nd

. upplying a product with s uch .n ""pr • • • promise to stop the progre .. ion of
macular degeneration rnquire • ...ueguard . not take" by

Defend ~ nt

US Stem

Ce U Clinic, LLC. and e"""rti .. not p<>Ssco_ by US Stem Ce ll Clinic, LLC.
32,

Defendant US Stem CeU Clinic, LLC knew t he product was not

copable of treating or .. opping the p«>greu ion of moculor degeneration a t thiS
Ma~e

In !>'oouct d""elopme,,, , but promoted the treotment a s s uch withOUt any

""idene<: to .upport . uch promotion,
33,

The Defend a nt

r~ ved

noti"" of the breach of ...arnrnty ... h e n it

diocove red the condition of Elizabrth Nob!.',
34,

ey~.

afte , '''''''inn g the prodUCI.

A. a di""'t a nd proximate cause of the breach of express warranty

-..""."'" _...... ,.,.
~

.-"~-",,,.,,

~

,,',

..

 onege<!. Eh:r.obe,h Noble >uolaine<! .eriou. pennanent <lomoge. a . allt:ged in
<lelai1 below .

35.

The Plaintiff a<\op"

and

",al !e ~s

paragraph. I 'hrough 14 and

further alleges:
36.

The

product

tnopecled, distributed.

<le.elope<l,

m.r~.led,

designe<!,

'eoted.

manufactured,

promoted. '01<1 •• upplied. Rnd 01h"rwi.e

rdea ""d into lh • • t",am of commerce by Defendant Alejandro

~ "'Z.

ARNP

was def<octive b<cau"" il did not conform to representalions of fact mad. by
L>efendanl Alejan dro I'<rez. Aim!'. orally ond in writing. in conn.crion with the.
transaction on which Ehmbeth Noble relied in the u,," of the prod"",37.

Defen<l.nt Alejan<lm Perez, ARNP rep",oen'ed the foe' 'hat 'he

product w •• capable of lroal ing and .topping Ih.

pr~ • • km

of macular

de~""ration.

38.

De. pite this ",presentation of fact. no scientiflC ovidence . hovn

that the product provide. any benefit for macuLar degeneration.
~r . revjewed

39.

No

litera ture .hows the product provide. any benefit

40.

The pr<:>ailing opinion in lh. ocie nlific community i.

product eannol provide. benefil for macular
4 1.

supplying 0 product with s uch on exp re •• promi .. to stop the

-

."'"

_.. ,.

._,'~'"

Ihe

d<~neration,

Creating, d<signing, manufacturing, distributing,

""

lh~t

'M

,., ..~

..!ling, and
pr~ssion

,,',

..

of

 macular degene .... hon requi...,. oafeguard. not !.Oken by Defendant Alejan dro

ARNP.

42 .

The

product

was nOl

capaw. of treating or stopping the

pmgr..,..ion of macular degeneration .
43.

The Defendant """,ived notice of the brea ch of warranty when it

discove"'" th e condition of Eli>.obet h Noble'. ey<:. afier """,iving the product .

44 .

A. " di""" and proxima'e cau se of the breach of exp""".

aUeged. Elizabeth Noble .". tained

""riou.

"''''''''''y

permanen, daJIUl$<8 as alleged in

detail belo ...

45.

The Plairttiff adopts artd reallege. "",.sraph. I 'hrouW' 14 ""d

further alleges;
46.

The

product

develOped,

de.igned.

te .. ed ,

manufactu",d.

inspected, distributed, marke ted, promoted, oold, s upplied. and ot herwise
re le a .. d into the st,..,am of commerce by Del"endant S h ar"",n Gr"",nbaum.
M.D . wu defecti"" be<:au'e it did not conform to r<l'",,,,,,,t&tion. of fact made

by SIuI",en GreenOOum. M.I)" o.... lIy

."d

in writing. ;n connec,ion ""th the

t,,,,, ",,chon on which Eli.abe,h Noble "'lied in ' h e ..... of 'he product.

4 7.

Del"endant Shar«n Gr=nbaum. M.D . ...,pTe.ented the fact that the

product was ""pable of treating and . topping the progre •• ion of macular

degeneration.

.-....... ,., .
""",

.-.'~"''''''

~.

,"'

..

 46 .

De.p;'e this repre..,n,a\;on of fact, no ocientif", evidence .how.

'''''t th e PrOOuct p!"(Wide. ony benefit f"",,,ocul<lr degenerati"n .
49,

No

~r- .. vkwed

literat"", s hows tM prOOuct provide. any be""fit

for macul<lr d egeneration,

The prevailing ap;nion in 'he scien,ific ",mmunity i. ,hat the

SO .

prOOuc, cannot provide a benefit f", macular d<generation.

51 .
. upplying
m~culu

Creating, d •• ;gn;ng, manufactUring, d;.tributing,
~

prt><luct wjth . uch

~n

oemng. and

expre • • promi"" to .top the progre •• ion of

degeneration requir= oafeguard . not taken by De[cndant Sh""",n

G=nbaum, M.D .• and an exp<ni .. not po • ..,... d by Shar""n Gr .. nbaum,

M.O
52 .

The

prt><llle'

wu no'

capable of treating or stopping

'he

Pt'OSreM ;on of "1.""la' degeneNt;on,
53,

The Defendant rtteived notice of the breach of .... r .... nty "'hen it

diocov<red 'he ""nditlon of Elizabeth Noble'. <".,. aft ... receiving ,he prtxiuct .
54,

A ... d i""" and proximate call"" of the t.r..ach of express warran'y

alleged, Elizabeth Nob!e .us tained "",;ous permane nt damages ... alleged in
detoU below.

55,

The Plaintiff adop" and ,..,allege. paragraphll I through 14 and

further alleges:
56,

The prt><lue, was defecti,.., becau.. it was no' reaoo""bly fit for

-

."'"
""

_.. ,.

._,'~'"

'M

""",_

,,',

..

 bo.h'he use. inten<led and .he use. reaoonably foreseeable by Defendant U.S.
Stem Cell, Inc.
57,

The product i. not fit for use a s a product for any purpose.

56.

The product is

ROt

fit for the u"" intended by the Defe ndant U,S,

Stem Cell, Inc., namely to give" therapeutic benefit and stop the progression of
macular deg<nerahon.
59 .

The product wu defective for ita intended

6(),

PrMty of cont"",t .xi... be',"""n Plaintiff Elizabeth Noble and

and rea """,bly

Defe ndant U.S. Stem Cell. Inc.
61 .

I':Iizabeth Noble justifiably ",Ued on the Ddendant U.S. Stem Cell,

Inc' . ""presentations about the product when agr""ing to use the product to

62,

The Defendant rcttived notice of the breach of .... r .... nty "'hen i.

diocovered the condition of Elizabeth Noble'. eye. afta receiving the PToduct.
63,

A ... direct a nd p.-oximate cau"" of the b ... "ch of impl;ed ".,.rranty

of merch a ntability alleged . Elizabeth Noble sustained ..,riou s ]><rmanent
damago. a. alleged in detail below.

64,

The Plaintiff adopt> and realleg<s pllIllgraphll I through

]4

and

further alleg<s:
65,

The product was defective beeau.. it was not reasonably fit for

-

."'"
""

_.. ,.

._,'~'"

'M

,., ..~

,,',

..

 bo.h t he use. in.ended and .he u.e. reaso""bly foreseeable by Dofendant US
Slem Cen Clin;". UC_
66,

The product i. not fit for u se a s a product for any purpose.

67.

The produd i. nOI fi, lor the u"" iotended by 'he Defendant US

!Ii""

S .. m Cell Clinic, LLC_. n amely to

a therapeutic benefit ond . top t he

progression of macular degene .... Uon .

68 .

The product wu defective fo' ita intended

and rea """,bly

lore""""ble u • .".
69,

PrMty of cont.--..ct exi ... be',"""n Plaintiff Elizabeth Noble and

Defendant US Stem Cell Clinic, LLC.

70 .

I':lizabeth Noble juotiflably relied on the Defendant US Stem Cell

Clinic, UC '. rep ... ..,ntation. about t he product when ag=ing to use the
product '0 Mop the progreMion of her mocula, degen","10n.

71.

The Dofendant ,eceived "oti"" of the breach (If .... , .... nty "'hen i.

diocov<red 'he condition of Elizabeth Noble'••,..,. afta receiving ,he PToduct .
72,

A ... d irect and p.-oximat. cau"" of the b ..... ch of impl;.d ".,.rranty

of m e rch a ntability alleged, Elizabeth Noble su.tained

..,riou.

permanent

damago. a. alleged in detail below_

73.

The Plaintiff adop,. ""d reallege. pllIllgraphll I through 14 and

further alleges:
74 .

The product was defective beeau.. it was not reasonably fit for

-

.. ,.

."'" ,_

""

._,'~'"

'M

,., ..~

,,',

..

 both the use. intended

~nd

the

tille.

reasonably

fore~ab l e

by Defendant

Al<jandro Po,...". ARNP.

75.

Th. product i. nol fil for u se a . a product for any purpose.

76.

The produc! i. nol fi t

roo-

t he u"'" intende d by Defendant Alejandro

Perez, ARNP, namely to give a therol""'t ic benefit and . top the progression of
macular deg<nerahon.
77.

The product wu defective for it.

78.

PrMly of cont.--..ct .xi... bet,"""n Plaintiff Elizabeth Noble and

intended

and re" """,bly

Defe ndant Alejandro Perez. ARNP.
79.

I':lizabeth Nob le juot ifiably relied on the Defendant Alejandro

I~z,

ARNP "presentation. about the product when ogr""ing to u"" the product to

80.

The Defendant rcttived noti"" of the breach of w.r .... nty ,,'hen it

diocovered the co"ditlon of Elizabeth Noble'••".,. "fta receiving the PToduct .
Il l.
of

A... direct and p.-oximatc cau"" of the b",,,ch of impl;.d "1Irranty

m er~h .. ntability

82.

alleged , Elizabeth Noble .u.tained seriou s permanent

The Plaintiff adop," ""d realleg<s plUllgraplul I through 14 and

further alleg<O:
83 .

The

produ~t

was defect;ve beeau.. it was not reasonably fit for

-

."'"
""

_.. ,.

._.'~'"

'M

,., ..~

, ,' ,

..

 both the USe. in tended

~n d

the

reasonably

tille.

fore~ab l e

by Defendant

84 .

The product i. nol iii for use a . a product for any purpose.

85.

The product i.

not

fit for the u"" intended by Defendant Sharftn

G,eenNum. M.D .• namely to give a

theral""'tk benefit and .top the

progression of macular degenenotion .
86.

The product wu defective for it.

87 .

I'rMly of cont.--..ct .xi... bet,"""n Plaintiff Elizabeth Noble and

;ntended

and re" """,bly

Defendant Sh""",n G=nbaum. M.D.
88.

I':lizabeth Noble ju.tifiably

""l ied on the Defendant Sha .... n

Greenbaum, M.D. "'presentation. about the product when agr .. ;ng to us< the
product to Mop the prog'eMion of her mocular deg.neration.
89.

The Defendant ,cttived "",iee of the breach of .... , .... nty "'hen it

dioco",red the condillon of Elizabeth Noble'. eye. afl..- receiving the PToduct .
90.
of

A... direct a nd p.-oximate cau"" of the b'-'8ch of impl;od "'arranty

mer~hantability

alleged, Elizabeth Noble .u.tained seriou. J><rmanent

damago. a. alleged in detail belo",.

91.

The Plaintiff adopts ""d realleges paragrapha I through 14 and

furth.r alleges:
92 .

The product was defecti"" because it was not reasonably fit fo r the

-

."'"
""

_.. ,.

._,'~'"

'M

,., ..~

,,',

..

 spedfic

pu~

fOf whiCh Defendant U.S. Stern Cel!, Inc . knowingly oold the

product ond for which, in ",Ii.,>o;e on the j udgment or Defendant U.S. Stem
Celi, Inc, Ihe P1ainliff Elimb<th Nobk: bought the producl .
93.

The Defendant knowingly manufactured and oold the product fur

the spKific purpo""' of " .... ting and stopping the progression macular
degeneration .
94.

Privity of c,,,,tract

exi~,"

b<t"",e" Plaint ;ff E:lWibeth Noble and

Dclendan! U.S. Stem Cell, 1m:.
95.

The product did not treat or .top the progr'N.ion of m..cular

degeneration. nor was it a pproved fur any . uch u..,.
96.
dj,""""er~

97.

The Ddendant r..,.,ived notice of the breach of warranty when it
the condition of Elizab<th Noble '. eyes after receiving the product.
A. 0 d irect and p",<imate CaU,,", of!ite b<eoch of implied ... a ..... nty

of fitn"". for 0 particular purpose aTieged, Eli""beth Noble ,u"ained ..,riou.
P"1fJ\anent damage. u alleged in detail b<low,

98.

The Plaintiff adopt. and reallege' p""'graph. I .h",ugh 14 and

["rther onegeo:
99.

The prodUCt was defective 1><:<0 .. .., it ..... no. ,""",,nably r,. for .he

. pedtic pufJ>O"" for which Defe ndant US Stem CeU. Clinic. LLC knowingly ", ld
the product and for which, in ",liance on the judgment of Dcl...,dant US Stem
Cell. Clinic. LLC the 11aintiff E:lizab<th Nob!e bought the product .

-

."'"
""

_.. ,.

._,'~'"

'M

"""._

,,',

..

 100 . The Defend a nt knowingly man ufactured and..,ld the product for
the "pe<ifoe pu<po'" of treaHng .nd stopping the prngre.,ion macular
deS"norat;"n,
101. Privity of """troct exist. bet ..... n i'laintil'r Eliz.obeth Noble and
Defendant US Stem Cell. Clinic. LLC.
102 . The product did not treat or . top the progre.sion of macular

103, 111e

Deknd~nt

received notice of the bre!lCh of war .... nty when il

di..covered the ""ndil;"n of Elizabelh Noble', 'Y'" afler receiving the product.
104, A. a d irect and proximate cause of Ihe b",ach of implied warraDty
of fitne .. for a panicular purpose

a l ~ged,

£ljzabeth Nob'" . ustained serious

permanent damaS"s as alleged in detail below.

105, 111e Plaintiff adOpt . and =oIkS". pano.graph. 1 through 14 IUld
further alleS">:
106. 111e product was defecti"" becau se it wa. not

~nably

fit for the

.pecir", pu<po'" for which Def.... d.nt ",.jandro Pere., AIINP knowingly ..,1<1 the
produc, and for "'hleh, in relian<'<: on the j<.ldgment of Defen dant "'.jandro
I'<reo. AIINP tn . Plaintiff Elizabeth Noble lx>ugI1t the pro(h"'l.

107, 111e Defendant knowingly man u factu red and sold the product for
the .peciflC pu<po'" of treating and stopping the prngrenion macular
degeneration,

.-....... ,., .
""",

.-,'~"''''''

~.

,"'

..

 I O~ .

Privity or c<",tract <:XiS," between Plaint;ff Eh..... beth Noble and

l)efendont Mejondm Pere' , "'-RNP.
109 . The product did not treat or stop the prowe.si<>n of macular
deS"neration, nor was it app,..",m
110. The Defendant
d i oco,' e~

roo- any .uch u.e.

",.,.,1vM

notice of t he breach of warranty when it

the condition of E!;zabeth Noble 's eyes ofter r..,.,;ving the product.

I ll . A. a d i..." ond proximate caUse of.he breach of impl;ed Wa!T8nty
of fitnes" for a particular purpose alleged , Elizabeth Noble ou.tained ..,nous
P"1'lI'lanent

dam~ge o

.. aU<g.od in detail below,

112 . The Plain tiff adopt. and r.alleges !>3-ragraph. I .hrough 14 and
further alleges:
1 13, The product waS defective l>e<:auo. it "'... not J'eII.""""b ly fit (or the
.p«ific pu.-powe for which Defendant Sho"",n Gn:mbaum. M.D. knowingly
..,Id the product and for which, in relian"" on the j udgment of Defen dant
Shar... n Gr""nhaum, M.D, 11aintiff Elizabeth Noble bought the product,
1 14 . The Ddendant knowingly manufactured and sold 'he pr<>duct for
the specific purpose of treM;"g a n d ",opping the progre • • ;on macular
dege""ra';on ,
115, Privity of cont",c' exi ... be.we.n l1aintj/J Elizabeth Noble and
Defe ndan. Shareen G reenbaum. M.b.
116, The product did not .rea. or .. op the p rogres. ion of macular

-

."'"
""

_.. ,.". """.-

.-,'~'"

,,',

..

 1 17 . 11><: OefendQfi' I'!<eive<i nol;"'" of ' h e

b~ ~ ch

of w ....... nty when il

diOCO>'ered the condition of Elizabeth lIoble'. eye. after receiving the product.

1 18. A. a di=t and proximate cau ... of the b roach of implied warranty
of fitness for a particular purpo .. alleged , E:Uzabeth Noble s ustained .. <iou.
pumanent d.mages as alleged in detail I><to .....

119, The Plaintiff adopt s and

~kge .

parnsr"ph. 1 through 14 and

further alieg.. ,

120. Drle ndant U.S . Stem Cell. tnc. re ... arched, developed. designed,
tested, manufactut"ed, inspected , labeled, di.tributed. marketed, promoted,
..,Id, a n d/or othe",,; .. releaoed intO Ihe

d i"""ly

. d ~i.ed

. I~am

of commeree the producI, a nd

or marketed the produCI to Eliuobeth lIoble, and

hM a du.y to create

~

1he~fore

product lhat wa. not def..,.,i"",

121. The product c"'.ted,

d ~i gr>od ,

manufactured , distributed. sold,

and/or supplied by Defendant U.S, Stem Cell, tnc, was defe<:tive beeau .. of a
manufac t"ring defO<I.

122. The product reached FJ; .... beth Nobte ;t\ .

C(Jn~ ; hon

u nreasonabty

dangero,,' to EI; .... beth lIoble,

123, The product reached Elizabeth lIoble withoul o"b.tonl",t change
.tfecling ;1. condition.
124, The

pr<XiucI

-

wa s

dR~rou.

un"'R5OnRbly

."'"
""

_.. ,.

._,'~'"

'M

"""._

b<cau,,"

,,',

..

of a

 manufacturing defect because it wao different from ito intended design and
failed to peMorm

a~

""fely n 'he intended de, ign would h ",'e peM"""ed,

~ ince

the intended de.ign required extreme technical C<>mp<tence in manufacturing
. tem ""US .uited roT ti>< PU'l""'" of injection to trea t oc otop ti>< B=le ration
of macular degene,...tion, and such technical .kill was not

for the

u~

product at i•• ue .
125 . The D<fendant', defective product d irectly and proximately cau<ed
Eli.abeth Noble .enous p<rmanent

d~mage ,

u alkged in detail below,

126. The Plaintiff adopta and realleges f>"Il'graph. I througb 14 and
further alleges:
127, D<fendant

US Stem CeU Clinic,

U,C ,....,a!'thed, d",eloped,

d .,.igned, te.ted, manufactured, iM pected , labeled, distributed ,

Im.,-~eted ,

promoted , ""Id, andfOT otheTWi.., Teleaoed into the . tTeam of C<>Inmertt the
product , a nd directly adverti.ed OT

mar~ e ted

tbe proouct to Elizabeth Noble ,

and the refore had .. duty to c reate a product that was not defective,
t26. The product c realed, d .. igned, manufactUred, d;otribu\<d, told,
.ndfo" . upplied by Defendant US Stem Cell Clinic, LLC wa. defective becau.., of
a manufacturing defect,
1~,

The product reached Elizat>eth Noble in a condition unreasonably

dange milO to £Iizabeth Nob\<,
130, The product reacbed £Iizabe'b Noble ",i\I>o"t .ubsta ntial change

-

."'"
"'"

_.. ,.

._,'~'"

'M

"""._

,,',

..

 affecting ito con dition.
\31. 11><:

product

unr~.O<Inab ly

w ..

dange...,,,.

bec.,,' sc

manufacturing def""t """'.usc it wa. diffe",nt trom it. intended
fai!«l to

~rfunn

of

d~ign

a

and

as safely as the intend..d Iksign would have p<rfo.-med •• ince

the intended design requir..d exU-em. t<'Chnkal compot.""" in manufacturing
",em ""tto suit"" for t he pmpo'" of injection to t",at or

",01'

the a=le"'tion of

macular degeneration. and ouch technicat ' kin wu not "sed for the product at
"O"C,

132 . The Defendant'. defective product d irectly and proximately caused
Elizabeth Noble ""riou. pemument damage. as aUeged in detail below.

133. The l'I";rttiff a<lop .. artd ",alleges p... graph. t throu!;/' 14

",,{I

further alleges;
134 . Defend .. rtt Alejandro

1'1:=. ARNp researched,

developed. de.igned ,

teated , rrumufllCtUre<!, in spected , label<d, d istributed , marketed. promoted,
oold. andlor otherwise ",leased into t he .tream of comme"", the product, a nd
d irectty adverti."" or ma<keted the product to l:t;Ulbe'h Noble, and therefore

135. The product creal"". de.igned, manllfacture<!, di.tributed .... ld,
and/or supplied by Def.ndant Alejandro 1'1:=, ARNP, was ddective because of
a manufacturing defect .
136. The product rea ched £lirnbet h Noble in a condition u n ,-"asonably

-

."'"
""

_.. ,.

._,'~'"

'M

""",_

,,',

..

 dang.roWllo Elizabeth Noble .
131.11" product rucbed !elizabe'h Noble wi.hou •• ub. tan.ia] change
affecting i•• condition,
\38. Th.

product

was

unreasonably

dangerous

beeau,,",

of

a

manufac.uring dd«! beea"",, il w a. different from i •• Intended d""ign Md
failed to perfunn a • ...rely a . the intended de. ign would
.he intended de.ign ""luired ext..,me technical

h~",

compe' e n~

stem ""II • • ui.ed for the purpose of injection to treat

0.-

performed •• ince

in manufacturing

stop the """"Ieration of

macular dege ... ration, and wcb .echnical .kill was not used for the product at
iM"',
139. Th. [)dendan!'. ddective product di"",tly and pr<»<ima.dy cauoed
E1iz~beth

Noble ""riou. permanent dam""e. a. allq;ed in detail below.

140 . 'Jbe !1aintiff adop.. and

",alle~.

parag,."ph. 1 through 14 and

further an.geo:
141. Defendan.

S h ",,,,,,,

G""'nbaum,

M.D.

re •• arched.

d""tl<Jpetl,

d e";gned , tested , manufactured, in.pec.ed, labeled , distributed , marketed.
promoted , oold, ond/or o.he rwi"" rele"""d Into the •• ream of comme"", the
product, and di=t!y a<h'enioed or marketed the product to EUzab<th Noble,
and therefore had a dUty 10 creale a productlhot was not <I.recti., • .
142 . 'Jbe !>'oduct created. de.igned. manufactUred. d iotributcd, 801d,
and/or . upp\;cd by D<fendant Shareen G=baum. M,D"

-

."'"
""

_.. ,.

._,'~'"

'M

,., ..~

w... defective

,,',

..

 beea".., of a

"",nufa~turing

defect .

dangerous to Elizabeth Noble,

144. The product euch<d EIi ... beth Noble without .ub,"'nt"'] change
affecting ito condition.

145, The

pewuct

unr<:asonably

wu

dangerous

manufacturing defect U it was dJffe",nt from it. intended
periornl u

Ioccau"" of a

d~ign

and failed to

safely as the intend«! d e.ign would ha", performed.•inco the

imen ded deo.ign requited extreme technical competen"" in manufacturing
Mem

",,110

.uited for the purpo .. of injection to I ... al

0'

.top Ihe acceleration

of macul", degeneration, and oucl1 technical . I< i]l "'U n<>t uO<:<! for the
product at inue ,
146, The Defendant 's defective product directly and proximately cau....:!

Elizabeth Noble .. riou. permane nt damage. a.o alleged in detail below.

147, The Phtinti" adOp," and reallege_ ""ragraph.

,hrough 14 ond

funher alleges:
148, Defendant U.S, Stem c e n, Inc. ", • • arched, developed. de.igned,
t ~ ted,

manufa ctured, inspected , labeled. d istributed, marketed. promoted,

Wid, a nd !or otherwi.e ... leased into the .t... am of romme"", \I,. product, a nd
d irectly
h~

~"erh"ed 0<"

markeled til. 1''''''\101 10 EliUlbelh N<>ble, and We ... fo ...

a duty to CJ"eate It product that ...... DOt defecti"",

-

.. ,.

."'" ,_

""

._,'~'"

'M

,., ..~

,,',

..

 149 . The prodUCt i. def""ti"" becauoe it was in a ""ndition

manufactured. distributed. oold. and/or supplied by Defendant U ,S, Stem

COU, Inc.
ISO .

The product reached Elizabeth Noble without s ubstantial change

affecting that condition after creation. design, manufacture. distribution, sale.
and/or .upply by Dekndant U.S. Stem Cen. Inc.
lSI , The product Ilad a de. ign defect bee"u"" it failed to perform ...
solely ... an ordinary consumer would

e~pect

whe" uoed a s intended. cau .i ng

permanent damage to Elizabeth Noble.
152. The product's riok of dange' in the design outweighs the non_
existent benefit. of a therapy with no oviden« of therapeutic value to a
reMOMble Mgree of ocientifoc cerlainty,
15-3,

Defend~nt

U,S, Stem Cell, Inc" through ito defective product,

directly and proxim a tely

c~u.ed EIi>~beth

Noble ""ri"". perman en!

dam~ge .

RO

alle!!"<l in detail below,

154 . The Plaintiff aclop .. and realleges P8"'gr"ph. I through \4 and
f"rlher allegeo:
155, Defendant

US Stem C.U Clinic.

LLC re .. arched, dev<loped,

d N igned. ,..,ed . m<UlufacturN, inspected, labeled, di.,ribute;:!. marl<eted.
promoted . sold, and/or othOTWi.., releasood into the .tream of commerce the

-

."'"
""

_.. ,.". ,., .

.-,'~'"

~

,,',

..

 product, a n d directly ad"ertised or marketed the product to Elizabeth Noble,

156. Th.
unreasonably

product is ddective

dan~rou.

to

becau..

Elizabeth

it

was

Nob!. when

in a

condition

created,

d .. ign<'d,

manufactured, diotributed, sold, and/or supplied by Def.ndant US Stem Cell
Clinic, LLC.
IS7 .

The product rea ched Elimbeth Noble wlthout &ul»'antial chst\ge

aff""ling that condition after creation, d "'gn, manufacture, di s tribution, oale,
and/or .upply by Defendant US Stem Ceil Clinic,

u..c.

158 . The product failed to perform 80 ",fely as an oroi""ry cons umer
would ""pKt

w~n

used ... intend"". cau.ing damage to Elizabeth Nobl • .

159 . The product's risk of danger i n the design outweigh. t h e non·
e~i .

.. nt be""r>to of a therapy with no evidence of

th,"~peUlic

value to

~

reasonable degree of 8Cientifl" «:rtainty.
160. [)dendant US SUm Ceil Clink, LLC. through it. ddective product ,
di~ly

and proxima .. ly caused Elizabeth Noble ""riou. permanent damage. as

a lleged in detail below.

161. The Phtintilf adept . a n d reallege. paragraph . I through 14 .nd
furth e r alleges:
162. Defendant Alejandro 1'<=. ARNP ",..arched . d_loped , de.igned,
t"'ted,

m an ufa cru~,

inspected . labeled. d ist ributed, marketed, promoted,

-

""-"'"

_.. ,.". ,., .

.-.'~'"

~

,,',

..

 O<>Id, and/or otherwi.e released int" the Stream of C(lmme"", the

prod""', Q!\d

d irectly ad'e<h.ed or marke ted the PrOOllct to EliUlbc:th Noble, a!\d therefore
had a duty

'0 creale a prOOuct that "'....

163. The

nol ddective,

product i. d efecti""

unreasonably dangerous

to

bc:cau"",, il

E:lizabeth

Noble

was

""hen

in a

condition

created,

de. igned,

manufoctured, d istributed , sold , and/or su pplied by Defendant Alejandro
Per ••. ARNP.
164,

The product r...,hed Eli.abc:lh Nob!<: without

.u~ta n !ial

change

affecting that ""ndition after "",ation, d esign, manufacture, di . tribution, sale,
and/or . upply by Defendant A1e)andro p,,=, ARNP,
165. The product failed to

~rform

as oafely as a n ordinary con.umer

would expKt when used as in"'nded, causing damag< to Elizabeth Noble.
166 . The product'. ri • • of Mnger in the de.;gn o"tweigh. ,h e non "",i. 'ent benefit . of " therapy with no evidence of theupeutic value to "
reaooMbk degree of ocienti/ic certainty,
167, n,., Defe nd ant'. dekcrl .... product directly and proximately caused
Elizabeth Noble .. riou.

~mum . nt

d a rnall", a. aUeged in d eta il below.

168 , The Phtintilf adOp," a n d realleges pa .... graph . I through 14 and
funh e r allege. :
169,

~endant

S~n

M.D. ", •• arched , developed,

G reen b,mm,

d.signed, tested, manufactured, iIlO!",cted, labeled, diotributed, marketed,

-

."'"
""

_.. ,.

._,'~'"

'M

,., ..~

,,',

..

 promo""', oold,

Q"~for otherwi~

rele.oed jntl> the $tream of

comm~...,.,

the

and IheTe""" had a duty to cu.« a producl thai wso not ddective,
170. The

product is defective

unreasonably dangerous

to

~u..,

E:lizabeth

Noble

il

wa. in a condition

when

created,

de. igned,

manufactured, distributed, IIOld, and/or s upplied by Defendant Shar""n
G,..."baum, M.D.
171 ,

The product r...,hed Eli.abelh Nob!<: without

.u~tantial

change

affecting that «lndition after "",atwn, design , manufaclure, di . lribution, oale,
and/or . upply by Defendant Shareen Greenbaum, M ,D ,
172. The product failed to

~rform

as oafely as an ordinary consumer

would ""pKt when uoed as in"'nded, causing damage to Elizabeth Nobl •.
173 . The product'. ri.1e of Mnger in the de,ign ""tweigh. the non""i' l<nt benefit . of " therapy with no evidence of Iheu"",u,;,, value I" "
,"aooMbk degree of ocienti/ic certainty,
IH, n,., Defendant '. dekctive product directly and proximately caused
Elizabeth Noble .. rious

~mum e nt

d a mage, a. aUeged in detail below.

175, The Phtintilf aclOp" and reallege, pa .... graph. I through 14 .nd
funh e r allege;
176,

~endant

U.S , Stem c e n , Jnc. re .. arched, develoj>ed. de.igned,

tested, manufa ctured, inspected , labeled. distributed, marketed, promoted,

-

."'"
""

_.. ,.

._,'~'"

'M

,., ..~

,,',

..

 O<>Id, and/or otherwi.e released into the Stream of C(lmme"", the

prod""', Q!\d

d irectly ad'e<h.ed or marketed the PrOOllct to EliUlbc:th Noble, a!\d therefore
had a duty '0 warn oflb. ris k.

asooci~ t ed

with the u"" of the prOOucl .

177. The prOOuet was unde r the control Defendant U.S . Stem Cell, Inc.
and was unaccompanied by appropriate " ",mings regarding the risk of ""'or<
ocular injuries . No warnings accurately r<lIect the risk, incidence. s ymptom.,
""ope. Qr ..-verity of such inj urie. to EJizab<th Noble.
178. Defendant U.S. Stem Cell. In • . down played the ""rio", Md
d ~ nscrou •

• ide elIcc .. of the product to encourage sales of the product;

c<>n~u<nt!y.

the Defendant placed it. profi. . .""'" con. ume,..· safety.

179. The product was d ef""ti"" and unfN30nably dangerou . when it
left the posses,..,n of Defendant U.S . Stem CeU. loc. in that it contained
w~m i nl:"

i"oufficien! to a lert EhUlb<.h NOble .0 .he dangerous ri."" a nd

re"eli"". " "",,,iated wi .h i •• induding. but
The partkular ri.h ""'-C known, or

M' limiled ." severe ,.".. Iar injuries.

know~bl .

in light of the scnerally

recognized and p=ail;ng bat scientific.nd medical k"",,'!edge available at the
tim e of manufacture and d istribution. E""n though the Defendant kn .... or

Mill '.iled to provide

w.,nin~.

'hat . """,...tely ",H""ted {he .ign •• symptom.,

inoiden'. """PC. or severi.y of t Me ri.h u"",iated with .he prOOlICt.
ISO. The product r<ached Elizab<th Nobbe without . ubstantial change
affecting that condition after ereat"'n , ""sign, manuf&eture. distribution, sale .
and/or supply by Defendant U.S. Stem Cell, Inc .

-..""."'" _......
~

.-.'~""""

"""._' ,"'

..

 181 . The pr<><!uCl was

~ef¢<live

beca".. the foreoeeable rI.k, of harm

from lhe pr<><!"", C<Juld ha'e been avoide<! by Defendan' U.S. Stem Cell, Inc. by
providi~

".oonabl. in. truction. Or warning> about the IriSh likolihood of

adver .. e""nts . uch aa blindneu , pain, and damage to the eye >ia the
oompounde<! product and the fail",. to provide those in .. ructions or warnings
makes the pr<><!uct unr=80nobly dangerous .
182 . Plaintiff Elizabeth Noble used the product in the ma"".r a .
ind icate<! by the Defendan ...
183 . Defendant. U.S. Stem cen. In<: .. u a manufactu,-"r of t he product,
IS held to the 1"",,1 of knowle<!ge of an """"n in the field and . further. had
knowledge 01 the dangerous risk. and sid. effects of the product.
184 . The Plaintiff did not have the .arne knowle<!ge a s Defendants and

18S ..... a dirttt o.nd proximate oonoequence of Defendant U.S . Stem
cen, Inc:. action •• omi •• ion •• and
. uffe~

misrcv~ntatioM.

plaintiff Eli ...beth Noble

""rmanent damage . ... d escribed in detail below.

186 . The Plaintiff adopt. and "allege' pa .... graph. I throug/l. 14 and
["nher anege ;
187. Defendant US Stem cen

C~nk,

LLC

re~arched.

develop«!,

d N igned, te .. ed , manufactured, insJ><'C1ed, labeled, di5tributed, marl<eted.
promoted, sold, and/or otheTWi .. releasood into the .tream of commerce the

-

."'"
""

_.. ,.

._.'~'"

'M

,., ..~

,,',

..

 product, a n d directly ad,'erti.ed 0< marketed the product to Elizabeth Noble,

product .
188. The product was undor the control Defen dant US Stem c"n CUnk.
LLC and was unac<:ompanied by appropriate warnings regarding the Ii.k of
""vere ocular injulies . No warnings accurately renect t h e ri.sk .

inciden~ .

• ymptoms, ""ope. or """"rity of ouch inj uries to Elizabeth Noble .
189. Defendant US Stem Cdl C~nic. LLC downplayed the .eri<>u~ and
d ~ nscrou,

s ide dIce," of the product to encourage ..ru.s of the product;

con~ucntly,

the o.fendant placed it. profits 8""'" con, um."..· oafety.

190. The product was defecti"" and umN30nably dangerou . when it
Id't the pos..,ssion of Defendant US Stem Cell Clinic, L!.C in that it """!ained
w~m i np

i".ufficien! to a lert f:l i.. beth Noble !o !he dangerouo ri."" and

... ".ti"". " "",,,i.ted wi th it. including, but Mt limited !" ."""r. oculat inJurie •.
The partkular rish werc

~ "OU'n ,

or k nowAble in light of t he SC"",..,Uy

recognized and p=ailing bat scientific.nd medical k"",,'ledge available at the
tim e of manufacture a nd d istribution. E""n though the Defendant knew or
Ohould )' 8"" known of the ri.Jro and ... actiono Q""",s'ed with tI,e product. it

inoiden!, """PC. or ..,..ri,y of t Me rioks u"",isted with the prodllC!.
191. The product reached Elizabeth Noble wit hout oub.tantial change
affecting that condItion a ft.... orea,;on, design , manutactu,-",

di ~ tribution,

and/or .upply by Defe ndant US Stem Cell Clinic , l.LC

-..""."'" _......
~

.-.'~""""

",,,~,

,"'

..

. ale.

 192 . The PrOOuct was def""'ive

bec.u~

from the p",duct could have been avoided by

'he f""".eeable nsk. of haml

Defend~nt

US Stem Cell Clinic,

LLC by providing ,euonable inotructkm. 0' wuning.

about the

h~h

likelihood of adve, .. event> ouch u blindness, pain, and damage to .he eye
via the compounded product a nd the fai!" ... to provide

t~

instructions or

warnings makes 'he product unn""",nably dangerau • .
193. Plaintiff Elizabeth Noble Uoed 'he product in the man"e' . s

ind ica.ed by Defendant US Stem CeU Clinic, u,c.
194, Defendant US Stem Cdl Clinic, LLC, ao a m8J)ufact"""

of the

prOOuc" i. held to .he lev.l of knowledge of 8J) oxp"rt in the field and, further,
had knowledge ofth. d.o.ng.raua ri.k. and side effect> of the prOOuct.
195. Th. Plaintiff did not h .,... he .... m. knowledge

a. Defendan.

US

Stem cen Clinic. LLC and no .dcq".te warning "'a' com"Hmic.",d to her,
1%, .... " d irect and pro';m.,. conoequence of Defendant US Sle", Cell

Clinic, u,c' • ..ction., omi •• ion o, and ml s",pr"""ntations, plaintiff Eli.abeth
Noble . uffered I"'nnanent damage. a. deocribed in detail below,

197, The Plaintiff adopt • •"d ,..alleges ]>8 .... gr"ph. I throug/l. 14 and

r"rther .nege ;
198, Defendant

AI~8J)dro ~""

ARNi' r=earched, developed, design.d,

tested, m anufactured, in.pected, label<;;!, distributed, market.d, promoted.
sold. a nd/or otherwise released into the str. am of comm."", the product, and

-

."'"
""

_.. ,.

._,'~'"

'M

,., ..~

,,',

..

 d ire.;tly

~dve1"ti'ed

199 .

Th~

or marketed (he l"odlict (0 Elizal><th Noble, and therefore

product wa. under

th~

control Defondant Alojandro

P"r~. ,

ARNP and was unaccompan;ed by approprnuo warnings regardin g (ho ri.k of

••"I"re ocular injurie • . No warnings accurately

,-"fl..,..

t he riok . indden"".

symptom •• scope. or """"fity of .uch i'1jUfie. to Elizal><th Noble.
ZOO . Defenda~t "''''jandro """', ARNP downplayed the ~riou. ~nd
d~ngervus

. ide "rr",,(. of (he product to meow-ow: oaJe of t h e produe"

201. The product " .... ddoctive . n d u fl reawnably

d~nge"'u s

when it

left 'ho pos=sion of Defendant Alejandro ""re<, ARNP in tha, it contained
warnings insufficien' to a lert Uizal><th Noble to the

dan~rou .

risks and

,.action. a ..ociated with it, including. but n ot j;mi,od to . e",,. ocula r injurie • .
The particular riSk'

were known, or k now.ble in light of

th~

~netally

time of manufacture ftn d di stribution, Even though the Defend.nt knew ors hould have known of the risks and reaction ......"elated wit h the product, he
..ill fai led to p rovide wMTling. th at accurately ",Heeted t h e .ign •. • ymptom . ,

incident. """1"', "'" ><eVerily of lhe ri.les u..",;,ated with the product .

• rr""hng thot condition aller e... tion. de.ign. ",,,,,,,fact,,... di stribution ••• Ie.
and/or .upply by Defendant Alejandro Pe r .. , ARtW.
203. The product was defect;", becau.e the f"",.""able ri.ks of ha rm
from t he product e<ruld have

~n

avaidod by Defendant Alejandro J'-'rez,

-....,.,."'" _......
~

.-.,~-",,,.,,

""",- ,,',

..

 ARNP by providing reaoonable inO<ntCtion.
h~ehhoo<l

,><

wamin go about tlte high

of adver.., even,. .uch U blind n e.., pain, and damage to the eye

via the compound«l pr<>duct and the fai lure to provide those In structio"," or
wami"8" make . the product un,..,aoonably dangerou •.
204 . Plaintiff EJizabeth Noble used t he product in t he manner a.
indicat«l by Defendant Alejandro Perez. ARNp.
ZOS . Defendant Alejandro Pere •• ARNl> i. h eld to t h e level of knowl«lge
of~n

""pert in the r",ld IUld , further , had k nowledge of the dangerou s ri."" Md

. ide effect. of t he product.
206. The Plaintiff did not have the oame knOWledge a . Defendant
Alejandro "''''''. ARNI' and no ad"'!u ..te warning was communicat«l to her.
207 . Ao a direct a nd proximate conseque""" of Defendant Alejandro

Nob le .urrered p<rmanent damage. as

d~ocribed

in detail below .

•

208 . The 11aintifI adopts and ,..,aJle!l"0 paragraph. I through 14 and
further ane!!,,'
209 . Defend a n t

Sh."",n Greenbaum,

M.P . Tue."hed, developed,

de;.isned. tcoted. manuf"".ured, in. po:cted, labeled, distributed.

mar ~ eted.

promot«l , oold. a nd /o r o.hnwi •• ",leased into the .. ream of commerce the
product. a nd di,-.,ctly adverti. ed or marketed the product to Elizabeth Noble .

,
.-.......
""'",

.-.'~"''''''

"""._' ,"'

..

 ~nd

' h erefore had a d uty '0 "'am of the ri.k . ao$OCi.a'ed wi,h ,he u"" of 'he

produc'.
2 10. The

product

wu

under

the

control

o.,r.,ndant

Sh."",n

Greenbaum. M.D. and was unaccompanied by appropriate wamms" "'garding
'he risk of "'''''". ocular injurie • . No "'amings accur~tely renect the risk.
incidence. symptom., loCope. or """"rity of such injuries to Elizabeth Nobte.
2 11. o.,fendant Shareen G .... nbaum, M.D . downpl.oy.-d th . . .riou. and
d~ngervu •• ide

elket. of the product to eneow-ow: ...:Ie of t h e product.

2 12. The product ...... ddoctive a nd unreawnably dangerous when it
left the JX>O"" •• ion of o.,fendant Shareen G,-.,.,nbaum . M.D . in that it contain.-d
warnings insufficient to a lert Elizabeth Noble to the

dan~rou .

risks and

reactions a ..ociated with it, including. but n ot limited to .evere ocular injuries .
The particula,

ri.~ .

were known, or k now.ble in liSht of the

recogru.ed and prevailins be.t ocientir>c and m.-dical

knowled~

~netally

a va ilab le at the

time of manuf..cture and di stribution. Even though the Ddendant knew Of'
s hould ha ve known of t he ri.ks and reaction. assocint.-d with th< product,
Def.ndant Sh.,-".,n Gr..,n baum. M.D. still failed to provide warnings t h at
accurat.ly ",nected th • • ign~ .•ymptom., incid.nt, .cope . .". ...... rity of the

2 13. The product reached Eli ...beth Noble without s ub ... ntiaJ change
arr""ting that condItion after creation, de.ign, manufacture, di stribution, sale.
and/or oupply by Defendant S h ar..,n G,...,n baum. M.D.
2 H . The product wao def""tive becaus e t he fore.eeable risk. of harm

-..""."'" _......
~

.-.,~-",,,.,,

""".- ,,',

..

 from the produet could luive been aV(lided by Oet'endnnt Sl""'een G=n"",um,
M ,O . by prtMdlng rea""n oble ;n.t",ctl<Jt\. or warning.

obou. t h e h;gh

lik.liliood of ad.« "" ...e n to . uch u blindno" , pain, and dl>JlUl8o to t he eye
via tbe compounded product and tbe fai lure to provide those instruetions or

warnings make. the product unreasonably dangerous.
2 15 . I'!a;nutr Elizabet h Noble used the pmd uct ;n t he manner as

;nd;cated by D<fendant Shareen Oreen""'um, M .0 .
2 17, 111e P\aintiff did not have Ihe ...mo knowledgo aO D<rendant

Sh""",n Grun""'um, M.D, Ilfld no adequate warning was commun icated te>
h.r,
2 18. A. a dirK' and proximote con""'!uen «
Grunbaum.

M.O.".

of Pefendant Sha=n

action • • omi..;on •• a nd m iOfep...,...,ntation • • plaintiff

El;""belh Noble .ulfered

perm~ n ent

dnmage, o. described;n delail below,

21 9 . n,., Plaintiff adopts and reeJlege. paragraph . I through 14 and
ful"ther allege,
220. Perendont U.S . Stem Cen, ]o'e. ,.."""",',.d. devetoped, de.igned,
'.OIed , manufactured, in.peet.d , labeled, d i.,ributed. marketed, "",mated,
.."d, a n d/or o.he ..... ;"" relo_ ;nto the stream or «mtmer<:<: the product, Qn d
d irectly "d,nti.ed or marketed the product to Elizat>e,h Noble, and th.",rore
had a duty of ceasonable care to Elizabeth Nobl. , whkh i. the care that a

.-- .......

""",

.-,'~"''''''

""",-' ,"'

..

 r ... """ ably ca",ful desig".r. manufacturer ••• ller. importer. d;8tributo<, and
or I .upplier " 'ould uoe unde< like circumstances .
221. Notwithstaooing 'h is duty 01 care. D<feooant U.S. Stem Cell . !nc.
breachHi it. duty oreare to Eliuobet h Noble in the following

,..~o;

•.

Negligently failing to manufacture the product "";th the
highly skilled per""nnel n ..", •• ary
make the rapeutic 8'e m
ceU8;

b.

Negl;ge"tly foiling to de"'gn the product wit h the highly
. killHi pe<oonnei n..", •• ary to make therapeutic stem ceUs;

c.

Neg);gently allo.,..;n8 Eh ... bo::th Nohle ""ce •• to the product
wh en .he did not mo<t the criteria for ~vi n g the product ;

d,

Negliolontly failing to warn Elizabeth Noble of t he ~u. and
dan !:"r"". side elI..". of 'he product to e ncou",&e sale. of
the product;

'0

Negligently faili n g to warn Elizabeth Noble of the risk,
incidence • •ymptom •• ""ope, or oevority of Ihe injuries
produced by the prod"CI to Elitabeth Noble,
r.

Negligently failing to provide r • ....,Mbk: inotruct ion. and
waming:o about ,h. high likelihood of
events .uch u
blindne ••• pain , and rye d~mage to Eli... bo::th Noble ;

g,

Other n egll!:"nt fail"",. a . d eterminHi in discovery.

ltd,,,,,""

222 . A. a dir=' and proximate conseq""""" of o"fend ant U,S, Stem

."ffered permo " en t damage,'" d.""ribed ;n detail below.

223. The l'\aintilI adopts and ",,,ne!:,," paragraph. I through H and

.-.......
""",

.-,'~"''''''

""",-' ,"'

..

 promoted, wid. and ot herwi"" rclcaS<d into the . tream of comme= the
product. and directly advenioed or marketed the product to Elizabeth Noble.
and t h erefore had a duty of rea""nable care to Elizabeth Noble, which i. the
care that a

re.""nably careful de.igner, manufacturer • ..,lter, irnl""rter,

d istributor. a n d orl supplier woutd u.., undec like ci1'C\lm.tance •.
225. Notwith.tondinl this d uty of car<, Dekndant US Stern Cell Clinic,
LLC bceach ed it . duty of care to Elizab<th Noble in the IOUowing --.yo ,
a . Negligently failing to manufacture the product with the hiJllly
.kined person nel nece ..ary to make t herapeutic .. em ""U.;
b. Negligently fa iling to design the p roduct with the highly .killed
pe"",nnel n""ossary to make t he<apell,ic .tem cello;
c. Negligently allowing Ehzab<th Noble a"""M to the product when
. he did not meet 'he criteria f.,.. receiving l h e prod"cl;
d . Neglig.mtly failing to "'am Elizabeth Noble of the seriou. and
dangctou, s ide elf""t . of tho product to enc<>ur"S• ....:Ie. of the
product;
•. Negligently failing to warn Elizabet h Noble of the ri.k .
incide>=, 'ymptom • • scope, or oevrnty of the injuries produ~
by the product to Elizabeth Noble;
f

Negligently failing to pmvi,u, re. """able inst""'tion. a n d
",.ming. about the high likelihood of ad"""," ""en"" ouch ••
blindncn , paln . ~nd eye damage to Elizabeth Noble;

g. Other negligent fOOI,-""," a . determIned in d iocovery .
226. A. a d ir<'Ct and proximate conoequence of Derendant US Stem Cell
Clinic, LLC action s. omi • • ion •• and mi"""p", .. ntation. , plaintiff Elizabeth
Noble . uffered permanent damage, a . described in detail below .

-..""."'" _...... ,.,.
~

.-"~-",,,.,,

~

,,',

..

 227 . The Plaintiff adopts and ",aU"S". """,graph. I through 14 and

228. Doofendant Alejandro Poor ... ARNP researched. d"v"ioped. designed.

ooId. and otherwi"" rekued into the ""',un of commen" the product. and
directly ad,,,rti8ed or marketed the product to Elizabeth Noble. and therefore
had a duty of ",a""nable care to

E~zabeth

Noble. which i. the care that a

reasonably careful de.igner. manufacturer . . . ller, importer. di.tributor. and
or I ollppliec would use und<r like circum .... n ... .
229. Notwithotanding lh; . duty of co., •. Defendant AI. j and>"O Ptrez.
ARNP breached h i. duty of Care to Eli .. beth Noble in the fo llowing way';
a. NesliS"ntly manufacturing lh. product without the ,<:<;hnical
.kill n"""' .... ry to make the rapeutic stem ~ll",
b . NegliS"ntly designing the product without the technical .kill
n""" •• ary to make theTapeutic .. em cell s:
c_ N<ghgenUy all"""ing Elizabeth Noble aCCC'" to theJ>foduct when
.he did nOl mee, 'he <rHeria for r"""iving thl: product;
d . Negligently failing to warn Eli .. beth Nobk of the serious and
dangerous . ide eff"" .. of ,I" product to eTtCOU, ............ of the
product;
e. N.gliS"ntly fai~ng to warn E1iu1beth Noble of the ri.k.
inciden.., .ymptom., scope. or """nty of the injun.-. produced
by the product to Elizabeth Noble;

-

."'"
""'"

_.. ,.

.-.'~"''''''

"""._' ,,',

..

 f

Negligently failing '0 provid<: reao,mable inotruction. a nd
warning' about the high likelihood of adve~ ",enl•• uch .,
blind" e. s, I>oin. a n d eye damage to l;:Ii .. beth Noble;

g. OtheT ncglig'mt failUTe. a . determined in dioc",",,'Y'
230. A. a dir<'Ct and proximate c<>noequence of Defendant Alejandro
Perez, ARNP action s, omission., a nd mi'''''p,eoentations, plaintiff Elizabeth

Noble s uffered ]><,manent damage, a. described in detail below.

.

"

~kge .

parnsr"ph. 1 through 14 and

G=nbaum,

M.D . ",..,arehed. de,..,loped,

231. The Plaintiff adopt . and
further allege;
23~.

Defendant

Shar~n

des igned. tested. manufactu""j, ins]><Ct<d, labeled. distributed . market<d,
promoted. wid, and otl,e""';.., relea",,1 in to t he ,h..,am of rom"'e"", the
product. a"d dit<:<:tly advertioed

0.-

marketed the

produ~t

to

E~ .. beth

Noble.

Rnd tliemore h a d a duty of reaoonab le car. to Elivtbeth Noble, ",Iiich i. the
care that a

"'"",,nably careful de.igne.-, manufae.u"", .. IIe.-. imJ'Orter,

dist ributor, and or' .upplie.- would us< unde.- like ciT-eumstances.
233. Notwith. tanding thi. duty of can: . Oefendant SI,areen G"""n ooum,
M.D. bt'eacl,ed her duty of C"n: to l;:Ii.. be,h Noble in the fQtlowing waY'"
a. Negligently manufacturing the product without the technical
, k ill n""",o""'Y to make thernpeutie ",em edb;
b . Negligently de.ignir13 t lie product without .Iie .""hnkai .kill
n=. ""'Y'o make tlierapeutic . te rn ""U . ;
c. Negligen.ly a llowing Elizabeth Noble a=so'o .he product whe n
.he did not m..,t the criteria for r=iving the product;

-

."'"
""

_.. ,.

._.'~'"

'M

,., ..~

,,',

..

 d. Negligently failing 10 wam EIi .. belh Noble of tMe M:rl<>u. and
dangerou •• ide .ff"".. of th. woouct to enoourag.....1•• of the
product;
•. Neghgcntly failins to warn EliUlbelh Nobk of the ri.k .
incid.nce. s ymptoms, '"""PO, or...verity of th. injun •• produced
by the product to Elizabeth Noble;
[. Negligently failing to provide re""""able instructions and
warnings about the high likelihood of ad"",,,,, e .... n. . .uch as
blind".... pain, and eye damage \<) Eh.. beth Nobl.;

g. Other neglig.,,1 fail" .... a . determined in d i.c<wet)' .

G=n baum,

M.D:. action •• omi •• ;"n., and mi.reprnen'ation., p lain'iff

Elizabeth Noble suffered permanen' damage, u

d .oc ri~

in detail t.elow.

122. The Plaintiff Eli .. betM Noble, ... a direct and

pf(l~ima,.

re • .,1t of

the breach •• of ",arnU1Iy, .trict liability, and negligence of t he Ddendant.
Illkged above, hao in the "". t and will In the futute continu. t<> .uIfer Ih.
following damage.:
a.

Bodily injury;

b.

Pain and ouffering;

e.

Di.,,-bility;

d.

Di.figurement;

e.

1.0.. ofth. capacity for lhe enjoyment of life;

f.

~ravatio n

g

Medical and hospital cate and expense. ;

-

of pre· exi sting condition.;

."'"
"'"

_.. ,.

._.'~'"

'M

"""._

,,',

..

 h.

L<> •• of earning.;

j.

Re habUitation ""pen """ and

k.

Mental di." • • "

WHEREf'OR E,

Plaintiff Elizabeth Nobl. demand. judgment against

Doofendants for damage. in an amount in e""" .. of the juriodio;:tional limits of
this Court .""tusive of int.", .. and co,,,, an<l aU .uch othe< ... Iief a. the Court
deem.ju. t and proper.
DEMAJ(D FOR JURY TRIAL

Th. 11aintilf doemand. trial by jury of all issues triable a . of right.
Dated this

~ <la,y

ofNoyfmber. 201S.
GRDSS MAN ROllI. P.A.
Attorney for Plai ntiff

2S2S Ponee <Ie Leon Blvd.
Suite IISO
Coral Ga ble •• I'L 33134
Telephone; 30S-4 ~ 2-8666
Fanimile: 30S_28S_1668
E-mail, abW~ronmanlJ>lh.rom

NEAL A. ROTII

Fla . Bo, No.: 220876

-- .......

.""", •

.-.'~"''''''

,.,

.

~.

,"'

..