IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION LOUIS N. STANLEY and LEO STANLEY, her husband, Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 50 2010CA011682MB AF VS. DOCTORS OUTPATIENT SURGERY CENTER OF UIPTER, LLC d/b/a LASER SURGERY CENTER OF THE PALM BEACHES AND ANAZAO HEALTH CORPORATION, Defendants537?2: ?3 . and Edi; men .. gruff; ANAZAO HEALTH CORPORATION CASE NO.: 58?? 3' 9' 22:: 9-9 Third Party Plaintiff, r-?rx VS. PROFESSIONAL COMPOUNDING CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC. Third Party Defendant. ANAZAO HEALTH THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT AGAINST PROFESSIONAL COMPOUNDING CENTERS OF AMERICA. INC. COMES NOW, the Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, ANAZAO HEALTH CORPORATION (hereinafter known as ANAZAO) by and through its undersigned counsel, ?les this, its Third Party Complaint against PROFESSIONAL COMPOUNDING CENTERS OF AMERICA, INC. (hereinafter known at PCCA) and alleges: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. This is an action in which damages exceed ?fteen thousand dollars 2. ANAZAO at all times material hereto, is a Florida corporation doing business in Florida. 3. At all times material hereto, PCCA was and is a corporation authorized to do and doing business in Palm Beach County, Florida, with its principal place of business located in Houston, Texas. PCCA is in the business of providing chemicals, ?avors, and recipes for pharmacy compounding, as well as pharmacy equipment, devices, pharmacy training and education, pharmacy software, and business and pharmacy consulting assistance. 4. This court has personal jurisdiction over PCCA pursuant to section 48.193, Florida Statutes, because: a. PCCA has, at all times relevant to this cause of action, through its agents, of?cers and representatives, engaged in solicitation or service activities in Florida; b. At all times relevant to this cause of action, products, materials, or things processed, serviced or manufactured by PCCA were used or consumed in Florida in the ordinary course of commerce; and c. PCCA has engaged in substantial and not isolated activity with Florida by maintaining a website, customers and/or registered agents in Florida, selling its product(s) in Florida, advertising its product(s) in Florida, or entering into contracts in Florida. 5. In 2008, ANAZAO purchased a recipe for the drug Hyaluronidase from PCCA through website. Subsequently, ANAZAO prepared the drug exactly as recipe required, and reasonably relied upon recipe. 6. ANAZAO supplied the drug Hyaluronidase, from recipe, to physicians, clinics, and hospitals for use in orthopedic cases without reports of complaints or reactions. 7. In June of 2009, ANAZAO began supplying the drug Hyaluronidase to ophthalmologic surgery centers, including Laser and Surgery Center of the Palm Beaches. 8. On or about September 9, 2009, ANAZAO received a call from Laser and Surgery Center of the Palm Beaches advising of a patient?s reaction to Hyalurondiase used in an procedure. 9. The patient was later determined to be Louise Stanley, who has alleged damages as a result of her physician?s use of Hyaluronidase and liability for her damages. 10. After the ?rst report of a patient reaction, ANAZAO retained Eagle Analytical Services, a subsidiary of PCCA, to evaluate the Hyaluronidase recipe supplied to ANAZAO by PCCA. Eagle Analytical Services discovered an error in the recipe supplied to ANAZAO by PCCA and noted that PCCA had corrected its 2009 Hyaluronidase recipe without advising ANAZAO of the error in the 2008 recipe. . 11. ANAZAO has been sued by Louise N. Stanley and Leo Stanley, in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Case No.: 50- 2010CA011682MB AF. A copy of the Plaintiffs? Complaint is attached as Exhibit 12. The Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, ANAZAO, has at all times denied and continues to deny that it is liable to the Plaintiffs. As a result of negligence and failures, ANAZAO must defend itself and spend money in the form of legal costs and fees in its defense. COUNT I - NEGLIGENCE 13. The Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, ANAZAO, realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 though 12 above and further alleges as follows: 14. PCCA had a duty to properly and adequately examine, inspect, process and/or manufacture all of its chemicals, products, and recipes, including but not limited to, its recipe for Hyaluronidase. 15. PCCA breached its duty by failing to properly and adequately examine, inspect, process and/or manufacture its chemicals, products and recipes by providing to ANAZAO an incorrect recipe for Hyaluronidase which contained an increased amount of calcium chloride. 16. PCCA further breached its duty by failing to issue an alert or notice to its clients, including ANAZAO, when it corrected its 2009 Hyaluronidase recipe, knowing its previous version contained an error in the amount of chemicals used. 17. ANAZAO has been sued by the Plaintiffs, Louise N. Stanley and Leo Stanley. ANAZAO has at all times denied and continues to deny it is liable to the Plaintiffs. 18. breach of duty has caused damages to ANAZAO in the form of the costs of defense against Plaintiffs? claim. WHEREFORE, the Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, ANAZAO, demands judgment against the Third Party Defendant, PCCA, for such amounts as ANAZAO may be required to pay in defense of Plaintiffs? claim against ANAZAO, attorneys? fees, and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate, and further demands trial by jury. COUNT II - BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY 19. The Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, ANAZAO, realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 though 12 above and further alleges as follows: 20. The Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, ANAZAO, was a foreseeable user of recipe for Hyaluronidase in that PCCA is in the business of providing recipes to pharmacies for drug compounding, and PCCA provided the recipe for Hyaluronidase to ANAZAO for that purpose. 21. At all times relevant to this cause of action, recipe for Hyaluronidase was used by Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, ANAZAO, in its intended manner, for drug compounding. 22. recipe for Hyaluronidase was incorrect and/or defective at the time PCCA provided it to Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, ANAZAO, in that it contained an increased amount of calcium chloride. 23. incorrect and/or defective recipe has caused damages to ANAZAO in the form of the costs of defense against Plaintiffs? claim. WHEREFORE, the Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, ANAZAO, demands judgment against the Third Party Defendant, PCCA, for such amounts as ANAZAO may be required to pay in defense of Plaintiffs? claim against ANAZAO, attorneys? fees, and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate, and further demands trial by jury. COUNT STRICT LIABILITY 24. The Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, ANAZAO, realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 though 12 above and further alleges as follows: 25. At the time that PCCA distributed the Hyaluronidase recipe, it contained a defect which rendered the compound unreasonably dangerous to persons such as Plaintiff, LOUISE STANLEY, the intended forseeable user. 26. The recipe defect included, but is not limited to, ten times the amount of calcium chloride, a caustic agent. As a result of the defect in the recipe, ANAZAO, has been sued by Plaintiffs, and is forced to defend itself against Plaintiffs? claim. 27. ANAZAO has sustained damages in the form of the costs of defense against Plaintiffs? claim. WHEREFORE, the Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, ANAZAO, demands judgment against the Third Party Defendant, PCCA, for such amounts as ANAZAO may be required to pay in defense of Plaintiffs? claim against ANAZAO, attorneys? fees, and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate, and further demands trial by jury. COUNT IV COMMON LAW INDEMNITY 28. The Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, ANAZAO, realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 though 12 above and further alleges as follows: 29. This is an action for indemni?cation arising out of a liability imposed by common law. 30. Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, ANAZAO, is without fault in that it prepared the drug Hyaluronidase exactly as recipe required and reasonably relied upon expertise in formulating its recipe. 31. PCCA is wholly at fault in that the recipe for Hyaluronidase it provided to ANAZAO was incorrect and/or defective in that it contained an increased amount of calcium chloride. 32. Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, ANAZAO, has denied and continues to deny that it is liable for the Plaintiffs? claim. 33. In the event, however, there is ?nding that ANAZAO is somehow liable for the negligence which was a contributing cause of the injuries and damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiffs, then ANAZAO would be entitled to indemni?cation from PCCA on the basis that ANAZAO is wholly without fault and their liability is solely vicarious, constructive, derivative or technical ofthe liability of PCCA. 34. PCCA had a duty to prOperly and adequately examine, inSpect, process and/or manufacture all of its chemicals, products, and recipes, including but not limited to, its recipe for Hyaluronidase. 35. PCCA breached its duty by failing to properly and adequately examine, inspect, process and/or manufacture its chemicals, products and recipes by providing to ANAZAO an incorrect recipe for Hyaluronidase which contained an increased amount of calcium chloride. 36. PCCA further breached its duty by failing to issue an alert or notice to its clients, including ANAZAO, when it corrected its 2009 Hyaluronidase recipe, knowing its previous version contained an error in the amount of chemicals used. 37. As a direct and proximate result of failure to properly and adequately examine, inspect, process, and/0r manufacture its recipe for Hyaluronidase, incorrect and/or defective recipe for Hyaluronidase was provided to ophthalmologic centers by ANAZAO, resulting in Plaintiffs? claims of serious losses and damages for which they have ?led suit against ANAZAO. WHEREFORE, the Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, ANAZAO, demands judgment against the Third Party Defendant, PCCA, for indemni?cation, together with costs incurred in defense of this suit, attorneys? fees, and such other relief as this Court deems appropriate and further demands trial by jury. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been furnished by US. Mail to: Nancy La Vista, Esquire, 515 N. Flagler Drive, 10th Floor North Bridge Centre, West Palm Beach, 33401 (Attorney for Plaintiff) and Robert Paradela, Esquire, Wicker Smith, et al., SunTrust Center, Suite 1400, 515 East Las Olas Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (Attorney for Laser Surgery Center), this [0 day of August, 2010. QUWTA OS, PRIETO, WOOD P.A. .12; 7/ TODD M. Florida Bar N0.: 0150819 PETER J. MOLINELLI, ESQUIRE Florida Bar N0.: 0059633 STEPHANIE w. RITT, ESQUIRE Florida Bar N0.: 178055 4905 W. Laurel Street, Suite 200 Tampa, Florida 33607 813-286-8818 813-286-9998 (Facsimile) Attorneys for Defendant Third Party Plaintiff ANAZAO IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION LOUISE N. STANLEY and LEO STANLEY, CASE NO. her husband, 50 2010001 0116 8 2mm; MB Plaintiff(s), 3321 vs. DOCTORS OUTPATIENT SURGERY COPY CENTER OF LASER RECEIVED FOR IL SURGERY CENTER OF THE PALM 2 3 2010 BEACHES AND ANAZAO HEALTH APR CORPORATION, n. noon CLERK a ML 0 Defendant(s). COMPLAINT JURY TRIAL DENIANDED PLAINTIFFS, Louise N. Stanley and Leo Stanley, her husband sue the Defendants, DOCTORS OUTPATIENT SURGERY CENTER OF JUPITER, L.L.C. LASER SURGERY CENTER OF THE PALM BEACHES (hereinafter ?Surgery Center?) and ANAZAO HEALTH CORPORATION and allege as follows: i. This is an action for damages in excess of FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLARS and otherwise within the jurisdiction of this Court. 2. At all times material, the Defendant, DOCTORS OUTPATIENT SURGERY CENTER OF JUPITER, L.L.C. d/b/a LASER SURGERY CENTER OF THE PALM BEACHES, Was a Florida corporation authorized to do business in Palm Beach County, Florida. 3. At all times material, ANAZAO HEALTH CORPORATION was a Florida corporation authorized to do business throughout the State of Florida, with their principal place of DEFENDANTS EXHIBIT 2 0 39 a business in Tampa, Hillsborough County, Florida and doing business in Palm Beach County, Florida. 4. At all times material, LOUISE STANLEY and LEO STANLEY were residents of Palm Beach County, Florida. 5. On or about September 9, 2009, LOUISE STANLEY underwent cataract surgery at LASER SURGERY CENTER OF THE PALM BEACHES. 6. As part of that surgery, the used Wydase compound. That compound was purchased by the for use by its physicians in general and Dr. David Mittleman in particular. 7. The compound was compounded by ANAZAO HEALTH CORPORATION, a manufacturer and distributor of ocular compounds. 8. On or about September 9, 2009 when LOUISE STANLEY underwent her cataract surgery, the compound was used by Dr. Mittleman during her surgery. Unknown to Dr. Mittleman, the compound was not what it was purported to be, was toxic to the and blinded LOUISE STANLEY in her left eye. 9. As a direct and proximate result of the defect in the compound, LOUISE STANLEY is permanently blind in the left eye. 10. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants? negligence, LOUISE STANLEY has sustained the following damages: 3. Permanent bodily injury in the past, present and future pain and suffering; b. Past, present and future aggravation of pre?existing conditions or physical defects; 0. Past, present and future disability or physical impairment; d. Past, present and future disfigurement; 8. Past, present and future mental anguish; and f. Past, present and ?iture inconvenience; g. Past, present and future loss for the capacity for the enjoyment of life; h. Past, present and future medical expenses; 1. Permanent and total disability and/or any other damages set forth or provided pursuant to Florida law. 1 1. As a direct and proximate result of the defect in the compound, LEO STANLEY has sustained a loss of COUNT I STRICT LIABILITY AGAINST DOCTORS OUTPATIENT SURGERY CENTER OF JUPITER L.L.C. LASER SURGERY CENTER OF THE PALM BEACHES Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs and further alleges: 12. At the time that the DOCTORS OUTPATIENT SURGERY CENTER OF JUPITER, L.L.C. LASER SURGERY CENTER OF THE PALM BEACHES distributed the Wydase compound, it contained a defect which rendered the compound unreasonably dangerous to persons such as LOUISE STANLEY, the intended forseeable user. 13. The compound defect included, but is not limited to the failure to properly con?rm the compound was what it said it was. As a result of the defect in the compound, LOUISE STANLEY is permanently blind and sustained the injuries as set forth further above. 14. LEO STANLEY has sustained the injuries as set forth above. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs LOUISE STANLEY and LEO STANLEY demand judgment for damages against the Defendant, DOCTORS OUTPATIENT SURGERY CENTER OF JUPITER, L.L.C. LASER SURGERY CENTER OF THE PALM BEACHES and further demand trial by jury. COUNT II - STRICT LIABILITY AGAINST ANAZAO HEALTH CORPORATION Plaintiffs reallege all prior paragraphs 1-14 and further allege: 15. At the time that the compound was manufactured and placed into the stream of commerce by the Defendant, ANAZAO HEALTH CORPORATION, the compound was not: what it was puiported to be such that it was unreasonably dangerous to persons such as the Plaintiff LOUISE STANLEY, the intended surgical recipient. 16. As a result of the compounding defect, the defect was too caustic to the and burned LOUISE leaving her permanently blind. 17. The defect includes, but is not limited to properly compounding the compound, pr0perly testing the compound after compounding to insure that the compound was what it was purported to be. The failure to properly compound this ingredient for surgery was the direct and proximate cause of LOUISE STANLEY being permanently blind in the left eye. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs LOUISE STANLEY and LEO STANLEY demandjudgment for damages against the Defendant, ANAZAO HEALTH CORPORATION and further demand trial by jury. COUNT NEGLIGENCE AGAINST ANAZAO HEALTH CORPORATION Plaintiffs realiege all prior paragraphs 1-17 and further allege: 18. The Defendant, ANAZAO HEALTH CORPORATION, had a duty to properly compound, manufacture and inspect its product. The Defendant breached its duty in such a negligent manner that it was likely the foreseeable end user, that is, the surgical patient, would come into contact a caustic compound likely to burn an eye. In fact, it did burn LOUISE leaving her permanently blind. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs LOUISE STANLEY and LEO judgment for damages against the Defendant, ANAZAO HEALTH CORPORATION and further demand trial by jury and request an expedited trial pursuant to Florida Statute 415.11 15 DATED this 27'h day of April, 2010. NWLA VISTA, of Reiter, Clark, Fountain Williams PO Box 4056 West Palm Beach, FL 33402-4056 Telephone: 561-655-1990 Facsimile: 561-835-4652 Florida Bar No.2 0855596