Cabana Lawsuit 2

1 Ronald L.M. Goldman, Esq., Bar Number 33422 BijanEsfandiari, Esq., Bar Number 223216 2 A. Ilyas Akbari, Esq.
, Bar Number 228051 BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN,P.C. 3 12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90025 4 Tel: (310) 207-3233 Fax: (310) 207-4204 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 6 APRIL CHRISTINE CABANA 7
8
. Los Angeles Superior Court
Of: Of-:
CONFORMED COpy
FILED
JUL 13 2011
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
9
10
11 12 13 14 15 16
APRIL CHRISTINE CABANA, Plaintiff, vs. STRYKER BIOTECH, LLC; STRYKER CORPORATION; MEDTRONIC SOFAMOR DANEK USA, INC., MEDTRONIC, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100,inclusive, . Defendants.
17 18 19 20 21 22 1.
) Case No.: ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR: ) ) 1. NEGLIGENCE ) 1. . STRICT LIABILITY ) . 2. BREACH OF EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTY ) ) 3. FRAUD ) 4. NEGLIGENCE PER SE ) 5. MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ) ) DEMAND FOR .JURY TRIAL )
COMES NOW Plaintiff APRIL CHRISTINE CABANA who alleges as follows: SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS This is a products liability action arising out of injuries caused by the illegal off-label
23 promotion of two medical device manufacturers. To cure her back pain, plaintiff April Cabana 24 underwent a surgery in which her surgeon used a mixture of two products manufactured by defendant 25 Stryker Biotech. The mixed use of these two products (Calstrux and OP-l) had-not been approved by 26 the FDA and defendant Stryker knew, or should have known, that mixed use of these two products was 27 ineffective and could lead to unwanted bone growth. Nonetheless, Stryker engaged in extensive and 28 illegal off-label promotion of the mixed use of these two products. Stryker has since been federally
1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 indicted for its illegal promotion of these two products and two of its sales managers have pled guilty 2 to engaging in illegal off-label promotion. The mixed use of these two products eventually resulted in 3 excessive bone growth and migration in Cabanas lower back resulting in nerve compression and 4 severe pain in her lower back and extremities. Cabana eventually had to undergo a second surgery to 5 remove the bone of unknown origin. 6 2. In the second surgery, Cabanas surgeon removed the bone of unknown origin and, in
7 order to fuse the bone, the surgeon used INFUSE Bone Graft manufactured by defendant Medtronic, 8 Inc. The INFUSE Bone Graft had only been approved for a limited surgical procedure, yet Medtronic 9 illegally promoted it for a number of off-label procedures. The surgeon in this case used the INFUSE 10 Bone Graft in an off-label manner. The surgery failed to remedy Cabanas condition and her pain has 11 only been exacerbated. In July of 2011, the prominent medical journal, The Spine Journal, dedicated 12 its entire journal to publishing numerous articles regarding the risks associated with INFUSE Bone 13 Graft. The journal articles discuss Medtronics failure to accurately report the side effects from its 14 clinical trials; Medtronics failure to report that many of the authors who studied and promoted 15 INFUSE Bone Graft had significant financial ties to Medtronic; that INFUSE Bone Graft can cause 16 severe problems with nerves and spinal cords; and that off-label use of INFUSE Bone Graft can lead to 17 severe side effects. 18 3. Cabana underwent two surgeries both of which were expected to cure and remedy her
19 lower back pain, however, neither surgery has been a success and, as a result of these surgeries and the 20 untested, unapproved and off-label use of materials during her surgeries, her condition and pain has 21 worsened necessitating additional curative surgeries and permanent, disabling injury. As a result of 22 defendants illegal off-label promotion of their respective products and failure to deal honestly with the 23 medical community and the public, Cabana has endured serious physical and emotional pain, and, 24 despite being only 34-years old, has been placed on disability, is unable to be mobile, is unable to 25 work, and can no longer participate in many of the regular activities she once used to enjoy. 26 27 28
1 2 4.
THE PARTIES Plaintiff April C. Cabana (Cabana or Plaintiff) is a 34-year-old female who is, and
3 at all times relevant hereto was, a resident of San Bernardino County, California. 4 5. Defendant Stryker Biotech, LLC (Stryker Biotech) and Does 1-10, inclusive, and
5 each of them are and at all relevant times were, limited liability companies doing business in 6 California, including but not limited to manufacturing, marketing, promoting and selling medical 7 products and devices for use on California citizens. Stryker Biotech is, and at all relevant times was, a 8 subsidiary of defendant Stryker Corporation. 9 6. Defendant Stryker Corporation and Does 11-20, inclusive, and each of them are and
10 at all relevant times were, Corporations doing business in California, including but not limited to 11 manufacturing, marketing, promoting and selling medical products and devices for use on California 12 citizens. Defendants Stryker Corporation, Stryker Biotech and Does 1-20, inclusively, will hereinafter 13 be collectively referred to as the Stryker Defendants. 14 7. At all relevant times, the Stryker Defendants were engaged in the manufacture,
15 promotion and sale of medical devices for human use, including medical devices for use in healing of 16 fractured or broken bones, including: (a) OP-1 Putty, a putty to promote bone growth in certain spinal 17 fusions; and (b) Calstrux, a bone void filler for surgically created bone defects or bone defects 18 resulting from traumatic injury. 19 8. Defendant Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., and Does 21-30, inclusive, and each
20 of them are and at all relevant times were, corporations doing business in California, including but not 21 limited to manufacturing, marketing, promoting and selling medical products and devices for use on 22 California citizens. Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc. is, and at all relevant times was, a subsidiary 23 of defendant Medtronic, Inc. 24 9. Defendant Medtronic, Inc. and Does 31-40, inclusive, and each of them are and at all
25 relevant times were, corporations doing business in California, including but not limited to 26 manufacturing, marketing, promoting and selling medical products and devices for use on California 27 citizens. Medtronic maintains research, development, manufacturing and/or distribution facilities in 28
1 Los Angeles County. Defendants Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., Medtronic, Inc. and Does 212 40, inclusively, will hereinafter be collectively referred to as Medtronic. 3 10. At all relevant times, Medtronic was engaged in the manufacture, promotion and sale of
4 INFUSE Bone Graft. INFUSE Bone Graft is a surgically implanted medical device containing a 5 genetically engineered protein designed to stimulate bone growth. 6 11. On July 12, 2011, pursuant to Section 364 of the California Code of Civil Procedure,
7 Cabana, through her undersigned counsel, served her treating surgeon, Ali H. Mesiwala, M.D. (Dr. 8 Mesiwala), with a 90-day notice of intention to commence action. Once the 90-day wait period 9 expires without resolution, Cabana intends to amend her complaint to name Dr. Mesiwala as a 10 defendant. Dr. Mesiwala is a resident and citizen of the state of California and has his principal place 11 of business in Pomona, California. 12 12. On July 12, 2011, pursuant to Section 364 of the California Code of Civil Procedure,
13 Cabana, through her undersigned counsel, served Pomona Valley Hospital Medical Center (Pomona 14 Valley Hospital), the hospital where her lumbar spine surgeries were performed, with a 90-day notice 15 of intention to commence action. Once the 90-day wait period expires without resolution, Cabana 16 intends to amend her complaint to name Pomona Valley Hospital as a defendant. Pomona Valley 17 Hospital is a California corporation and has its principal place of business in Pomona, California. 18 13. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of
19 the defendants named herein, under the fictitious names of DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are 20 unknown to Cabana, who, therefore, sues said defendants by such fictitious names. Cabana will ask 21 leave of Court to amend this complaint and insert the true names and capacities of said defendants 22 when the same have been ascertained. Cabana is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that 23 each of the defendants designated herein as a "Doe" is legally responsible in some manner for the 24 events and happenings herein alleged, and that Cabanas damages were proximately caused by such 25 defendants. Unless otherwise specified, references herein to "defendants" refer to the Stryker 26 Defendants, Medtronic and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive. 27 28
14.
At all times herein mentioned, defendants, and each of them, and their aggregates,
2 corporates, associates, and partners, and each of them, were the agent, servant, employee, assignee, 3 permissive user, successor in interest or joint venture of each other, and were acting within the time, 4 purpose or scope of such agency or employment or permission; and all acts or omissions alleged herein 5 of each such defendant were authorized, adopted, approved, or ratified by each of the other defendants. 6 7 I. 8 ALLEGATIONS FDA AND FDCA REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO MEDICAL DEVICES 15. At all times herein relevant, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
9 was, and is, the federal agency of the United States responsible for protecting the health and safety of 10 the public by enforcing the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, (FDCA), 21 U.S.C. 301, et 11 seq., and ensuring, among other things, that medical devices intended for use in humans are safe and 12 effective for each of their intended uses and that the labeling of such medical devices bears true and 13 accurate information. 14 16. At all times herein relevant, the FDCA stated that a device for use in humans includes
15 an ... implant ... or other similar or related article ... which is ... intended for use in ... the treatment or 16 prevention of disease of man ... or intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man ... 17 which does not achieve its primary intended purposes through chemical action within or on the body of 18 man and which is not dependent upon being metabolized for the achievement of its primary intended 19 purposes. 21 U.S.C. 321(h). 20 17. At all times herein relevant, the FDCA required every manufacturer of a new device to
21 obtain approval from the FDA prior to marketing and selling its device in interstate commerce. 22 18. To obtain such approval, the FDCA assigned all devices into one of three classes of
23 devices, depending on the degree of regulatory control necessary to provide reasonable assurance of 24 the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use. Class I devices pose the lowest risk to 25 consumers health, do not require FDA approval for marketing, and include devices such as tongue 26 depressors; Class II devices pose intermediate risk and often include special controls including post27 market surveillance and guidance documents; and Class III devices pose the greatest risk of death or 28
1 complications and include most implantable surgical devices including several types of implantable 2 orthopedic devices for spine and hip surgery. 3 19. At all times herein relevant, the FDCA provided four different ways for a manufacturer
4 to obtain approval to introduce the device intended for human use into interstate commerce: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
A.
Premarket Approval. Before a company could market a Class III device, that company is required to submit a premarket approval (PMA) application to the FDA that provided the FDA with a reasonable assurance that the device was safe and effective for its intended use. 21 U.S.C. 360e(a)(2) and 360e(d)(2). In order to show safety and effectiveness, the applicant is required to submit proof to the FDA, typically in the form of clinical trial results.
B.
510(k) Approval. Alternatively, a company could seek a premarket notification, commonly referred to as a 510(k), to the FDA seeking a determination that the device was substantially equivalent to a legally marketed device. 21 U.S.C. 360c(f) and (i) and 360(k). If the FDA cleared the device by determining that the device was substantially equivalent to a device that had already demonstrated safety and efficacy, the company could market the device, which was then considered to be in the same class as the device to which it was compared. 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1).
C.
Investigational Device Exemption. This exemption allows for clinical investigation of devices to determine safety and effectiveness for new uses. 21 U.S.C. 360j(g) and 21 C.F.R. 812. Submission, and subsequent approval, of an Investigational Device Exemption (IDE) permits a device that would otherwise be required to obtain premarket approval to be shipped in interstate commerce for the purpose of conducting clinical investigations.
D.
Humanitarian Device Exemption. The fourth option to obtain approval was the submission of an application for a Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE). An HDE application is not required to contain the results of scientifically valid
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 20.
clinical investigations demonstrating that the device was effective for its intended purpose. The application, however, has to contain sufficient information for the FDA to determine that the device did not pose an unreasonable or significant risk of illness or injury, and that the probable benefit to health outweighed the risk of injury or illness from its use, taking into account the probable risks and benefits of currently available devices or alternative forms of treatment. Additionally, the applicant has to demonstrate that no comparable devices were available to treat or diagnose the disease or condition, and that they could not otherwise bring the device to market. An HDE approval is accompanied by certain additional requirements: i. An HDE can only be granted upon a finding by the FDA that the device was designed to treat or diagnose a disease or condition that affected fewer than 4,000 individuals in the United States. ii. A device approved under an HDE cannot be sold for an amount that exceeded the costs of research and development, fabrication, and distribution of the device; thus, the holder of an HDE is not allowed to make a profit on the sale of an HDE device. iii. An HDE device can only be used at a medical facility after an institutional review board (IRB) at or on behalf of the medical facility approved the use of the device for the FDA approved indication; the IRBs acted as a safeguard that the HDE devices were being used properly. The FDCA required that a submission for approval of a device include proposed
24 labeling for the proposed intended uses of the device that includes, among other things, the conditions 25 for therapeutic use. A device manufacturer is not permitted to promote and market a new device until 26 it has an approval, including approval for the proposed labeling. Moreover, if approved, the device 27 28
1 manufacturer is permitted to promote the device only for the medical conditions of use specified in the 2 approved labeling. Uses not approved by the FDA are known as unapproved or off-label uses. 3 21. Devices that are promoted for uses that have not been approved by the FDA are deemed
4 to be misbranded under the FDCA. 5 II. 6 7 THE STRYKER DEFENDANTS PRODUCTS A. 22. The OP-1 Products Two of the Stryker Defendants products were OP-1 Implant and OP-1 Putty
8 (collectively referred to as OP-1 products or OP-1). These two devices are part of a class of 9 devices known as Bone Morphogenic Proteins (BMP). These proteins have the ability to stimulate, 10 repair and regenerate bone. OP- Implant and OP-Putty stimulates natural bone healing by actively 11 recruiting blood supply and stem cells from surrounding tissue and thereby initiating bone formation. 12 OP-1 Implant was designed for use in long bones, and OP-1 Putty was designed for use in the spine. 13 The difference between the two devices was that OP-1 Implant was intended to be used by itself in the 14 long bones, while OP-1 Putty was comprised of both OP- Implant and a separate vial of 230 mg of 15 carboxymethylcellulose, which were intended to be mixed together to form a putty to be implanted 16 during a spinal fusion surgery. 17 23. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, on October 17, 2001,
18 the FDA, in response to a prior application by the Stryker Defendants, granted a Humanitarian Device 19 Exemption or HDE for OP-1 Implant. The HDE was only for use as an alternative to autograft in 20 recalcitrant long bone non-unions where use of autograft is unfeasible and alternative treatments have 21 failed. A long bone nonunion typically referred to an arm or leg break that did not heal after 22 conventional treatments. Autograft referred to bone typically harvested from a patients hip bone to 23 place and stimulate bone growth in the affected site. Autograft use was unfeasible in certain patients, 24 including elderly patients whose hip and other bones had been weakened from osteoporosis or other 25 conditions. Thus, the medical use (also referred to as indication) for OP-1 Implant was narrow -- it 26 was for patients with a long bone fracture that did not heal from other treatment and for whom the use 27 of autograft was not feasible 28
24.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, on April 7, 2004, the
2 FDA, in response to a prior application by the Stryker Defendants, granted an HDE for OP-1 Putty. 3 The HDE was only for use as an alternative to autograft in compromised patients requiring revision 4 posterolateral (intertransverse) lumbar spinal fusion, for whom autologous bone and bone marrow 5 harvest are not feasible or are not expected to promote fusion. Posterolateral lumbar spinal fusion 6 referred to a specific type of spinal surgery in which vertebrae in the lumbar (lower back) area of the 7 spine are fused together. The HDE, however, was only for revision surgery, meaning that the patient 8 had already had a surgery that had not succeeded in fusing the vertebrae. Moreover, the HDE was for 9 use as an alternative to autograft in compromised patients ... for whom autologous bone and bone 10 marrow harvest are not feasible or are not expected to promote fusion. These compromising factors 11 included osteoporosis, smoking and diabetes. Thus, the indication for OP-1 Putty was narrow -- it 12 was for patients who needed a spinal lumbar fusion that had not succeeded from previous surgery and 13 for whom the use of autograft was not feasible for a subsequent surgery. 14 25. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the Stryker Defendants
15 represented to the FDA that OP-1 Implant and OP-1 Putty were each designed to treat a condition that 16 affected fewer than 4,000 individuals in the United States. 17 26. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, from in or about 2002
18 through in or about mid-2004, the Stryker Defendants received feedback from surgeons that OP-1 19 handled poorly (like wet sand) and did not provide enough product volume. 20 21 B. 27. The Calstrux Product Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, in response to these
22 complaints, the Stryker Defendants developed Calstrux (originally named TCP Putty), a product 23 with a malleable, silly-putty type consistency that the Stryker Defendants intended to be mixed with 24 the OP-1 products as a carrier or extender to increase the volume and improve the handling 25 qualities of OP-1. 26 28. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, despite intending
27 Calstrux to be used in a mixture with OP-1, the Stryker Defendants submitted to the FDA a Section 28
1 510(k) premarket notification of intent to market Calstrux as a bone void filler product. Bone void 2 fillers then on the market were approved to fill voids in bones that resulted from bony defects or injury, 3 and were not approved to be mixed with a bone morphogenic protein like OP-1. 4 29. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, on August 26, 2004,
5 the FDA, in response to a Section 510(k) premarket notification of intent to market a bone void filler 6 product, notified the Stryker Defendants that they could market Calstrux (originally named TCP 7 Putty). Calstrux was approved as a bone void filler for voids or gaps that are not intrinsic to the 8 stability of the bony structure. It is indicated for surgically created osseous [bony] defects or osseous 9 defects resulting from traumatic injury. 10 30. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the Stryker Defendants
11 never applied to the FDA for approval of a mixture of OP-1 with Calstrux, nor did the FDA ever 12 approve any such use. 13 31. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the Stryker Defendants
14 never performed any clinical trial in humans to determine whether a mixture of OP-1 with Calstrux 15 was safe or effective. 16 32. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the Stryker Defendants
17 never formulated adequate directions for use for the mixture of OP-1 with Calstrux because the 18 mixture was never approved by the FDA and, accordingly, there was no approved labeling for such a 19 mixture. 20 21 22 C. 33. The Stryker Defendants Illegal and Fraudulent Promotion of the Mixture of OP-1 and Calstrux Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, in connection with the
23 company-wide launch of Calstrux in early 2005, the Stryker Defendants presented Calstrux to the sales 24 force as a carrier or extender for the OP-1 products and noted that the availability of Calstrux 25 should accelerate the sales of OP-1. 26 34. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, shortly after Calstruxs
27 introduction to the market, the Stryker Defendants promoted it to surgeons, including Dr. Mesiwala, 28
1 hospitals, and surgical staff, including the staff at Pomona Valley Hospital, as a product to be used in 2 combination with the OP-1 products, specifically as a carrier or extender. 3 35. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, after the launch of
4 Calstrux, the vast majority of sales of Calstrux by the Stryker Defendants was for mixing with one of 5 the OP-1 products. 6 36. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the Stryker Defendants
7 promoted and caused to be promoted to surgeons, including Dr. Mesiwala, hospitals, and surgical staff, 8 including the staff at Pomona Valley Hospital, recipes or mixing instructions on how to combine 9 Calstrux and OP-1. The Stryker Defendants employees advised surgeons and/or surgical staff to use 10 various recipes for preparing the mixture of Calstrux and OP-1. Some recommended forming the 11 combination into cigars, some into tootsie rolls, some into logs, some into bricks, and some 12 into vienna sausages. The recipes also varied in terms of amount of liquid, type of liquid (e.g., blood 13 versus saline), and ratio of Calstrux to OP-1. As one Stryker sales representative wrote to senior 14 management: Like any product if we have 30+ people doing something different with regards to 15 mixing, dosing etc. we are going to see different results. 16 37. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, beginning in mid-
17 2005, the Stryker Defendants began to receive reports of adverse events arising from a combination of 18 the OP-1 products and Calstrux. The events included inflammation, drainage and impaired wound 19 healing. Some patients who experienced these adverse events had to be operated on again and, during 20 some of these subsequent operations, surgeons observed that the OP-1/Calstrux mixture had migrated 21 from the surgical site and looked like oatmeal, grits or white sesame seeds. In some instances, 22 patients, similar to plaintiff April Cabana, suffered from unwanted bone growth in areas to which the 23 combination of OP-1 and Calstrux had migrated. In some instances, such as in this case, this unwanted 24 bone growth had to be removed surgically. 25 38. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, in early 2006, the
26 Stryker Defendants asked a surgeon to prepare an analysis of patients at his hospital who had been 27 treated with a mixture of OP-1 and Calstrux. This report, which was communicated to the Stryker 28
1 Defendants in or about February 2006, showed that patients who received such a mixture had an 2 adverse event rate higher than the norm. Later that year, this same surgeon communicated to the 3 Stryker Defendants that a mixture of OP- and Calstrux was not effective. 4 39. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, despite knowing the
5 mixture of OP-1 and Calstrux was not approved by the FDA and, despite reports of adverse events, the 6 Stryker Defendants touted Calstrux as the perfect carrier for OP- at a sales meeting in January 2006. 7 40. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, on or about February
8 15, 2006, a senior manager at the Stryker Defendants sent a memorandum about the mixture of OP-1 9 and Calstrux to other senior managers recounting concerns, including, among others: (a) the adverse 10 events from mixing OP-1 and Calstrux, (b) that a variety of different recipes are used by different 11 surgeons; and (c) that Calstrux was being improperly promoted as the preferred carrier for OP-1 by 12 the sales force. This senior manager further made a series of recommendations, including among 13 others: (a) [c]ease recommending, suggesting and preparing for use Calstrux and OP-1 Implant as 14 noted above..., and (b) a dear doctor letter advising surgeons about the adverse experiences 15 associated with the mixture of OP-1 and Calstrux. 16 41. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, after learning about the
17 recommendation to send a dear doctor letter to physicians and IRBs about the adverse experiences 18 associated with the mixture of OP-1 and Calstrux, William Heppner, the National Sales Director at 19 Stryker Biotech and others in sales management argued against that disclosure in part because 20 disclosure would: (a) harm sales of OP-1; (b) anger surgeons who had been misled because many 21 surgeons are just handed the product prior to implantation and think its all OP-1; and (c) cause IRBs, 22 whose mission was to protect patients, to cease all OP-1 usage at medical facilities at which they had 23 previously approved the use of OP-1. 24 42. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, on or about March 1,
25 2006, a Vice-President of the Stryker Defendants provided training to the sales force and sales 26 management in which he explained that the promotion of a mixture of OP-1 and Calstrux could expose 27 the company and individual employees to criminal prosecution and fines. 28
43.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, on or about March 3,
2 2006, the president of Stryker Biotech, Mark Philip, decided and instructed his employees that no 3 dear doctor letter would be sent to surgeons advising them about adverse experiences with the 4 mixture of OP-1 and Calstrux. 5 44. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, despite knowing that
6 the off-label promotion of the mixture of OP-1 and Calstrux was illegal, the Stryker Defendants 7 continued to promote or cause the promotion of the mixture of OP-1 and Calstrux to surgeons, 8 including Dr. Mesiwala, hospitals, and surgical staff, including the staff at Pomona Valley Hospital. 9 45. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, beginning on a date
10 unknown, but no later than in or about February 2006, the Stryker Defendants devised and intended to 11 devise a scheme and artifice to defraud physicians, hospitals and patients and to obtain money by 12 means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises concerning material facts, and 13 by concealing material facts. 14 46. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the purpose of the
15 scheme and artifice to defraud was for the Stryker Defendants to obtain many millions of dollars in 16 sales from OP-1 and Calstrux, all through the deliberate manipulation of health care professionals with 17 false, deceptive, incomplete and misleading information into using OP-1 for unapproved uses, 18 including the unapproved use of a mixture of OP-1 and Calstrux. 19 47. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that it was part of the
20 scheme and artifice to defraud that the Stryker Defendants developed and launched Calstrux as a 21 product to be mixed with the OP- products, as a carrier or extender for the OP-1 products, despite 22 knowing they had never sought FDA approval for such use, that the FDA had not approved the mixture 23 of OP- and Calstrux, and that no clinical trials to evaluate the safety or efficacy of the mixture of OP-1 24 and Calstrux had ever been performed. 25 48. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that it was further part of
26 the scheme and artifice to defraud that the Stryker Defendants trained their sales representatives that 27 28
1 Calstrux was an extender for the OP-1 products, and provided them with instructions as to how to 2 mix the two products. 3 49. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that it was a further part of
4 the scheme and artifice to defraud that the Stryker Defendants sales force, including representatives of 5 affiliated companies and distributors, misled surgeons, including Dr. Mesiwala, and surgical staff, 6 including the staff at Pomona Valley Hospital, regarding the mixture of OP-1 and Calstrux in a variety 7 of different ways in different circumstances, including by one or more of the following: (a) failing to 8 disclose that there were adverse events arising from a combined use of Calstrux and OP-1; (b) failing 9 to disclose that the mixture of OP-1 and Calstrux was not FDA approved; (c) failing to disclose that the 10 mixture of OP-1 and Calstrux had never been clinically studied in humans; (d) affirmatively misrep11 resenting the nature of the FDA approval by referring to the HDE as a steppingstone to full 12 approval, or telling surgeons that there was no difference between an HDE and a PMA in terms of the 13 ability to use the product off-label; and (e) affirmatively misrepresenting the mixture of Calstrux and 14 OP-1 was simply OP-1 when presented to the surgeon, and/or failing to disclose that the mixture of 15 OP-1 and Calstrux was not simply OP-1 knowing that the surgeon so assumed. 16 50. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that it was a further part of
17 the scheme and artifice to defraud that the Stryker Defendants misled its sales force by suggesting, 18 without proper clinical testing, or any scientific testing, that the adverse events associated with a 19 mixture of OP-1 and Calstrux could be solved by merely using a drier mix or by using smaller sizes 20 of Calstrux (e.g., 5cc or 10cc as opposed to 15cc). 21 51. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that it was a further part of
22 the scheme and artifice to defraud that the Stryker Defendants encouraged their sales force to sell a 23 mixture of OP-1 and Calstrux through one or more of the following mechanisms: bonuses, commis24 sions, sales quotas, employee reviews, field training and feedback. 25 52. It was a further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the Stryker Defendants
26 sales representatives and sales managers, although not medical doctors or registered nurses, attended 27 surgeries and directed the mixing of the Calstrux and OP-1 at surgery. When the Stryker Defendants 28
1 employees could not attend surgeries, they sometimes provided or caused to be provided written 2 mixing instructions to surgeons or surgical staff. 3 53. It was a further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the Stryker Defendants
4 promoted or caused to be promoted a mixture of OP-1 and Calstrux through pricing proposals to 5 hospitals and medical facilities, including those that offered combined discounted prices for purchasing 6 OP-1 with Calstrux as an extender. 7 54. It was also part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that the Stryker Defendants hired
8 outside surgeon/consultants to promote unapproved uses of OP-1, including the mixture of OP-1 and 9 Calstrux, through lectures at restaurants. 10 55. It was also part of the scheme or artifice to defraud that the Stryker Defendants, hired
11 outside surgeon/consultants to promote unapproved uses of OP-1, including the mixture of OP-1 and 12 Calstrux, through making sales calls with the Stryker Defendants sales force on physicians at their 13 offices. 14 56. It was a further part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that, in or about October 2006,
15 in an effort to conceal the Stryker Defendants role in promoting the mixture of OP-1 and Calstrux to 16 surgeons, the Stryker Defendants instructed their sales force to return to hospitals and surgical offices 17 to retrieve copies of written mixing instructions that had been left behind. 18 19 20 57. D. Stryker Biotech Is Criminally Indicted For Its Off-Label Promotion Activities and Two of Its Sales Managers Plead Guilty to Illegally Promoting the Mixture of OP-1 and Calstrux in Violation of the FDCA By February 2009, two Stryker Biotech sales representatives had pled guilty to illegally
21 promoting the mixture of OP-1 and Calstrux in violation of the FDCA. 22 58. On October 28, 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice issued an indictment against
23 Stryker Biotech and its President arising out of Stryker Biotechs illegal off-label promotion of OP-1 24 and Calstrux to surgeons in various states, including California. 25 26 27 28
1 III. 2
THE MEDTRONIC INFUSE BONE GRAFT PRODUCT 59. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that surgeons have, for
3 decades, employed spinal fusiona surgical technique in which one or more of the vertebrae of the 4 spine are united together (fused) so that motion no longer occurs between themto treat a number 5 of conditions, including treatment of a fractured vertebra, spinal deformities (spinal curves or 6 slippages), back pain from instability, or abnormal or excessive movement between vertebrae. Similar 7 to the concept of welding, spinal fusion surgery joins vertebrae together to eliminate or reduce 8 movement between vertebrae through the use of bone grafts. 9 60. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, in a bone graft
10 procedure, the graftusually bone or bone-like materialis placed around the vertebrae during 11 surgery. Over the following months, a physiological mechanism similar to that which occurs when a 12 fractured bone heals causes the graft to join, or weld, the vertebrae together. The goal of spinal 13 fusion is to obtain a solid fusion of the vertebrae. 14 61. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, for years, autologous
15 bone graft has been considered the gold standard in spinal fusion surgery. In an autologous bone 16 graft, or autograft, the surgeon procures bone graft material from another part of the patients body, 17 typically from the patients pelvis or iliac crest, and implants the bone graft in the site where fusion is 18 desired. As the harvested bone exhibits all the properties necessary for bone growthincluding 19 osteogenic, osteoconductive and osteoinductive propertiessuccessful fusions occur at significantly 20 higher rates in autograft procedures. 21 62. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, as an alternative to
22 autograft, patients can undergo an allograft procedure, in which bone is taken from the cadavers of 23 deceased people who have donated their bone to so called bone banks. Although healing and fusion 24 is not as predictable as with the patients own bone, an allograft eliminates the need for the harvest 25 procedure required in an autograft. 26 63. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that studies revealing the
27 ability for biologically manufactured protein to generate bone growth in laboratory animals represented 28
1 a potential to provide a third surgical option to traditional bone graft procedures. If fusion could be 2 accomplished through the use of biologically manufactured proteins, patients could forego the harvest 3 surgery required in an autograft, but could still benefit from the superior fusion rates associated with 4 autograft procedures. 5 64. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, attempting to seize on
6 this potentially lucrative opportunity to develop an alternative spinal fusion procedure, Medtronic, via 7 a company buyout, acquired the exclusive rights to recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 8 (rhBMP-2) for spinal applications. rhBMP-2 is in a similar class as Strykers OP-1 product,1 and is 9 a genetically engineered version of a naturally occurring protein that stimulates bone growth, 10 developed as a commercially viable bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) technology. 11 65. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, on January 12, 2001,
12 Medtronic filed the INFUSE Bone Graft PMA and was granted expedited review status by the FDA. 13 14 15 A. 66. INFUSE Bone Graft Was Only Approved for A Very Specific Spinal Procedure -Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion Utilizing All Components Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, on July 2, 2002, the
16 FDA approved INFUSE Bone Graft, a medical device containing an absorbable collagen sponge that is 17 treated with rhBMP-2, for certain limited uses. 18 67. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the FDAs limited use
19 approval of INFUSE Bone Graft was based on concerns about potential adverse events that already 20 had been reported with the product at the time of approval. As a result, the FDA approved INFUSE 21 Bone Graft for a small percentage of overall spinal fusion surgeries, with the device label specifying 22 the limited surgical application to be used. 23 68. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, as presented in
24 Medtronics original PMA and eventually approved by the FDA in July 2002, the initially-approved 25 INFUSE Bone Graft product consisted of two components (1) the LT-CAGE Lumbar Tapered 26 27 28
1
Strykers OP-1 product is a recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-7 (rhBMP-7).

1 Fusion Device Component, a thimble-sized hollow metal cylinder which keeps the two vertebrae in 2 place and provides a frame that contains and directs the development of new bone growth; and (2) the 3 INFUSE Bone Graft Component, which includes (a) an absorbable collagen sponge (ACS) that acts 4 as a carrier and scaffold for the active ingredient in INFUSE Bone Graft, and (b) rhBMP-2, the actual 5 active ingredient that is reconstituted in sterile water and applied to the ACS. Although these two 6 components are sold separately, the initial approved labeling for the product indicates that the INFUSE 7 Bone Graft must be used with the LT-CAGE component. 8 69. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the labeling also directs
9 the specific manner in which both components are to be used in a fusion procedure. 10 70. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, according to the label
11 sought by Medtronic in the PMA and subsequently approved by the FDA, INFUSE Bone Graft can 12 only be used in an Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion (ALIF) procedure, involving a single-level 13 fusion in the L4-S1 region of the lumbar spine. ALIF is performed by approaching the spine from the 14 front through an incision in the abdomen and is primarily used to treat pain resulting from disc 15 collapse.2 16 71. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that there are numerous
17 other lumbar spine surgical procedures for which INFUSE had not been approved but for which it was 18 promoted and/or utilized. These other lumbar procedures included: (a) Posterior Lumbar Interbody 19 Fusion (PLIF), a procedure that is used to treat nerve compression and back pain resulting from a 20 number of causes, involves approaching the spine from the back. PLIF, however, is a more sensitive 21 surgical approach and procedure because the spinal canal and nerves are posterior to the vertebral 22 body, and because a surgeon must manipulate the dural sac (the membranous sac that encases the 23 spinal cord within the vertebral column) to perform the PLIF procedure; (b) Posterolateral Fusion 24 which is similar to the PLIF procedure, but instead of removing the disc space and replacing it with a 25 26 While the products label remains substantially the same as that approved by the FDA in 2002, the FDA has made minor amendments to the label through post-approval supplements. For example, on 27 July 29, 2004, the FDA approved a supplement expanding the indicated spinal region from L4-S1 to 28 L2-S1 and later granted approval for uses in certain oral maxillofacial surgeries.
2
1 bone graft, the disc space remains intact and the bone graft is placed between the transverse processes 2 in the back of the spine. This allows the bone to heal and stabilizes the spine by fusing the transverse 3 process of one vertebra to the transverse process of the next vertebra; and (c) Transforaminal Lumbar 4 Interbody Fusion (TLIF), which is also similar to the PLIF procedure, and is a technique utilized 5 when an inter-body fusion is performed via a posterior approach. TLIF allows the surgeon to perform 6 a fusion from a posterior approach without disturbing the dural sac by approaching the spine via a 7 more lateral, or sideways, approach. 8 72. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, not only was the
9 application of INFUSE Bone Graft with the LT-CAGE in an ALIF single-level fusion the only 10 procedure and indication used in the pivotal study that formed the basis of Medtronics PMA submis11 sion, but the use of rhBMP-2 in other applications revealed instances of adverse events. In particular, a 12 Medtronic-sponsored trial examining the application of rhBMP-2 using the PLIF procedure was halted 13 in December 1999 when heterotopic bone growthdefined as any bone growth that occurs in areas of 14 the body where such growth is not desireddeveloped in a number of patients. A doctor who 15 participated in the study reported that one of the patients he treated required two extra surgeries to 16 clear the excessive bone growth from the spinal canal. The complications observed in the PLIF trial 17 were particularly serious given the potential of neural impingement (or nerve pinching) from such 18 bony overgrowth in that procedure, potentially triggering the very sort of pain that a fusion procedure 19 attempts to eliminate; the very type of pain that Plaintiff continues to suffer. 20 73. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that complications such as
21 those noted in the PLIF trial result from INFUSE Bone Grafts very mechanism of action. In such 22 cases, INFUSE Bone Graft can stimulate bone growth where new bone is not desired and can lead to 23 excessive bone growth in the target area, and swelling. There is insufficient scientific evidence 24 concerning the proper dosages of rhBMP-2 for use in different procedures or the expected responses to 25 the protein in different biological environments. Indeed, many adverse events associated with the use 26 of INFUSE Bone Graft result from off-label use of the product by surgeons who do not fully 27 28
1 understand the powerful nature of this protein, nor have defendants, or any of them, provided any 2 clinical or other scientific evidence to support the usages recommended by Medtronic. 3 74. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, at the FDA Advisory
4 Committee panel hearing on January 10, 2002 concerning FDA approval of Medtronics INFUSE 5 Bone Graft, the panel members stressed concerns regarding potential off-label use of the product and 6 asked Medtronic presenters repeated questions about how the Company would seek to guard against 7 off-label applications of the product. 8 75. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, at the conclusion of
9 the hearing, the FDA Advisory Panel again reiterated concerns regarding the potential for off-label use, 10 specifically admonishing the Company to guard against procedures other than the specific ALIF 11 procedure provided in the labeled application. Panel member Dr. John Kirkpatrick noted his concern 12 that procedures other than ALIFespecially the PLIF procedurecould result in harm to patients. 13 According to Dr. Kirkpatrick, the use of the tapered LT-CAGEwhich is difficult to implant in a 14 posterior approachwould, if required, prevent a majority of surgeons from applying this from a 15 Posterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion perspective. 16 76. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, even at the time of its
17 FDA approval, Medtronic and its senior management, were well aware of the concern regarding off18 label uses of INFUSE Bone Graft and the potential dangers posed by them. 19 77. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, subsequent medical
20 studies confirmed the fears of the FDA Advisory Panel that use of INFUSE Bone Graft outside of the 21 studied application sought in the PMA could present severe risks to patient safety. Although the 22 adverse outcomes reported in medical journals and other sources were known to Medtronic, the 23 dangers posed by the increasing off-label use of INFUSE Bone Graft and their impact on the sustain24 ability of the valuable revenue stream generated by off-label sales of the product were concealed by 25 Medtronic from surgeons, including Cabanas surgeon, hospitals, including Pomona Valley Hospital, 26 and operating room staff. 27 28
78.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that numerous medical
2 studies published since the introduction of INFUSE Bone Graft have shown that its use in procedures 3 not approved by the FDA can lead to serious, and even deadly, adverse events. A May 15, 2006 4 medical article in Spine entitled Controlling Bone Morphogenetic Protein Diffusion and Bone 5 Morphogenetic Protein-Stimulated Bone Growth Using Fibrin Glue observed that these complications 6 often result from the products mechanism of action. As the authors stated, rhBMP-2 may stimulate 7 bone growth in areas in which bone is not desired, especially as the material leaks into such spaces. . 8 . . Although this phenomenon has not been thoroughly studied, it implies that the release of rhBMP-2 9 into the soft tissues stimulates a rapid, potentially life-threatening, inflammatory reaction. 10 79. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that a number of other
11 published articles and other studies likewise noted the serious risks posed by off-label use of INFUSE 12 Bone Graft in more detail prior to its use in Cabanas surgery. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 B. 80. Medtronic Illegally Promoted INFUSE Bone Graft for Un-approved and off-label Uses Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, at all times herein
relevant, notwithstanding these reports and the FDA Advisory Panels earlier concerns, as set forth below, Medtronics senior management concealed the Companys surreptitious effort to promote the widespread off-label use of INFUSE Bone Graft. 81. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Medtronic provided
millions of dollars in undisclosed payments to doctors (including so-called Key Opinion Leaders) who published articles in medical journals, delivered presentations at continuing medical education courses, and appeared at consulting engagements addressing off-label applications of INFUSE Bone Graft. In turn, Medtronics sales force would direct other doctors to these consultants and Key Opinion Leaders or their written work to further drive off-label sales of the INFUSE Bone Graft. 82. Under applicable FDCA and FDA regulations, device and drug manufacturers such as
Medtronic are prohibited from actively promoting products for uses not approved by the FDA. Indeed, federal law provides for significant penalties for manufacturers that promote their products in ways inconsistent with a products labeling. Severe penalties for off-label promotion were designed to
1 ensure that the FDAs careful, deliberate consideration of a products suitability for public consump2 tion is not undermined by manufacturers seeking to circumvent that process. 3 83. Any application of INFUSE Bone Graft outside of its FDA approved usage is
4 considered off-label. Examples of off-label uses of the INFUSE Bone Graft include: when the rhBMP5 2 is applied without using the LT-CAGE or with a substitute cage; use of INFUSE Bone Graft in a 6 PLIF, a Posterolateral Fusion, TLIF or any other procedure besides an ALIF using the LT-CAGE; or 7 use of INFUSE Bone Graft in an ALIF procedure that involves a multiple-level fusion. 8 84. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, despite the prohibition
9 against off-label promotion, Medtronic actively promoted off-label use of INFUSE Bone Graft by, 10 among other things, providing doctors with information about other doctors using the product off-label 11 (including those Key Opinion Leaders targeted and paid by the Company as consultants) and by 12 having Medtronic sales force personnel in the hospital operating rooms at the time of the off-label 13 surgeries to provide doctors with information and instruction during the actual surgeries. 14 85. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, as a result of its illegal
15 off-label promotion, sales of Medtronics INFUSE Bone Graft have soared and have totaled billions of 16 dollars. INFUSE Bone Grafts sales for the last fiscal year alone exceeded $900 million. 17 86. The Medical community is finally beginning to learn of the serious risks associated with
18 INFUSE Bone Graft. This month (July 2011), one of the leading journals on spine surgery, The Spine 19 Journal, dedicated its entire journal to publishing various articles regarding the risks associated with 20 INFUSE Bone Graft, including articles on Medtronics failure to accurately report the side effects from 21 its clinical trials; Medtronics failure to report that many of the authors who studied and promoted 22 INFUSE Bone Graft had financial ties to Medtronic with the median range of $12 to $16 million per 23 study; INFUSE Bone Graft can cause severe problems with nerves and spinal cords; off-label use of 24 INFUSE Bone Graft can lead to severe side effects; and that Medtronic and its paid consultants/study 25 authors downplayed the risks associated with INFUSE Bone Graft, over-emphasized its benefits and 26 over-emphasized the risks associated with other conventional procedures. 27 28
1 IV. 2 3
APRIL CABANAS SURGERIES A. 87. Cabanas September 26, 2008 Surgery Cabanas surgeon, Dr. Mesiwala, diagnosed her with L5-S1 degenerative disk disease
4 with discogenic pain. On September 26, 2008, Dr. Mesiwala performed a surgical procedure known 5 as Transaxial Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion which is a procedure utilized to fuse the fifth lumbar 6 vertebral body with the sacrum (sacralisation) L5-S1. During this procedure, the center of the diseased 7 disc is removed, and bone growth material is inserted in its place with the intention that it would 8 stimulate bone growth over time in order to fuse. 9 88. To achieve fusion, Dr. Mesiwala performed an off-label procedure by mixing Calstrux
10 bone-filler with the OP-1 Putty. 11 89. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the Stryker Defendants,
12 through their sales representatives and paid Key Opinion Leaders, directly and indirectly promoted, 13 trained and encouraged Dr. Mesiwala to engage in the off-label procedure of mixing Calstrux with OP14 1 Putty. 15 90. Dr. Mesiwala never informed Cabana that he would be using the OP-1 and Calstrux
16 Stryker products, he never informed her that he would be engaging in an off-label procedure of mixing 17 these two products; never informed her that mixture of the OP-1 Putty and Calstrux was deemed to be 18 ineffective and that it would lead to more risks and adverse events; never informed her that mixture of 19 the OP-1 Putty and Calstrux could result in unwanted bone growth and migration of the bone to 20 sensitive nerve areas exacerbating her pain and necessitating the need of additional surgeries; never 21 informed her that OP-1 Putty had only received a very limited FDA approval under the Humanitarian 22 Device Exception; never informed her that use of the OP-1 Putty was so limited that it required the 23 Hospitals IRB approval; never informed her that use of these products could cause severe, debili24 tating, permanent lower back pain; never informed her of available alternative methods of surgery and 25 having failed to inform her of these, and other material facts and risks, he never actually obtained her 26 informed consent to perform the procedures that he performed. 27 28
91.
Shortly after her September 2008 surgery, Cabana began to experience severe
2 intolerable lower back pain and presented herself to Dr. Mesiwala and other physicians for multiple 3 post-surgical follow-ups. She was assured by Dr. Mesiwala and these other physicians that it was 4 normal for her to have lower back pain following the surgery and that the surgery and fusion were 5 successful. 6 92. A CT-scan and MRI subsequently revealed a bone of unknown origin in Cabanas
7 lower back which was putting pressure on her nerve and causing her pain, and Dr. Mesiwala informed 8 her that he would need to perform another surgery. Dr. Mesiwala never informed Cabana that the 9 bone of unknown origin was probably caused by the leakage and migration of the Calstrux and OP-1 10 mixture nor did he ever inform her that anything from the previous surgery was or could have been 11 responsible for the bone of unknown origin. 12 93. Following review of the CT scan and MRI, on July 13, 2009, Dr. Mesiwala once again
13 performed surgery on Cabana this time to remove the bone of unknown origin for the purpose of 14 relieving her severe, debilitating lower back pain and suffering. 15 16 B. 94. Cabanas July 13, 2009 Surgery In the July 13, 2009 surgery, Dr. Mesiwala, removed the Stryker bone graft that was
17 migrating through her foramen. He still chose to accomplish fusion through bone morphogenic 18 protein, though instead of using the Stryker products (which had failed), he used Medtronics INFUSE 19 Bone Graft. 20 95. However, Dr. Mesiwala used the INFUSE Bone Graft in an off-label manner. Instead
21 of performing an anterior procedure, Dr. Mesiwala opted for a posterior procedure. The FDA had not 22 approved the Medtronic INFUSE Bone Graft to be used in a posterior procedure. 23 96. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Medtronic, through its
24 sales representatives and paid Key Opinion Leaders directly and indirectly promoted, trained and 25 encouraged Dr. Mesiwala to use the INFUSE Bone Graft in an off-label manner, including utilizing it 26 in posterior procedures. 27 28
97.
Among other things, Dr. Mesiwala never informed Cabana that he would be using the
2 Medtronic INFUSE Bone Graft; he never informed her that this product had only received limited 3 FDA approval for certain specific procedures; never informed her that he would be using the INFUSE 4 Bone Graft in a posterior procedure that had never been tested or approved by the FDA; never 5 informed her that a INFUSE Bone Graft clinical trial utilizing the posterior procedure had been halted 6 due to the serious adverse events that had been experienced; never informed her that use of the 7 INFUSE Bone Graft could result in unwanted bone growth and migration of the bone to sensitive 8 nerve areas exacerbating her pain; never informed her that use of the INFUSE Bone Graft could cause 9 severe, debilitating, permanent lower back pain; never informed her of available alternative methods of 10 surgery, and having failed to inform her of these facts and risks, he never actually obtained her 11 informed consent to perform the procedures that he performed. 12 98. Cabana has never recovered from her two surgeries and continues to have daily severe
13 disabling pain in her lower back and nerve pain throughout her right leg. 14 15 C. 99. Cabanas Discovery of Strykers Wrongdoing The first time Cabana discovered that her lower back and leg pain may have been
16 caused and exacerbated by a medical device was in October 2010 when she received and reviewed her 17 medical records from the September 26, 2008 surgery. During the course of litigation arising out of an 18 auto accident, Ms. Cabanas former lawyer had sought and made multiple requests for these medical 19 records, however, the hospital failed to timely produce these records claiming they were missing. As 20 of January 22, 2010, the hospital had yet to produce the medical records. The records were eventually 21 produced by the hospital to Cabanas former counsel at some point prior to May 28, 2010. Cabanas 22 auto-accident litigation, thereafter settled on June 1, 2010. 23 100. When Cabana reviewed these medical records in October 2010, she discovered for the
24 first time that Dr. Mesiwala had used the Stryker OP-1 and Calstrux products. Not knowing what 25 these products were, she performed a Google search on or about October 31, 2010, and, for the first 26 time, learned that the combination of these two products were not FDA approved and further learned 27 that these products were associated with leakage and unwanted bone growth. It was at this point, 28
1 October 2010, that she first suspected that her post-September 2008 back pains were caused by the 2 wrong doing of a third party, including the medical device manufacturer, Stryker, and possibly her 3 surgeon, Dr. Mesiwala. Prior to this point, she had always been reasonably led to believe by, among 4 others, her treating surgeon Dr. Mesiwala that her on-going and escalating back pain was caused by her 5 underlying medical condition. 6 7 8 9 10 101. 102. PLAINTIFFS CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE AGAINST THE STRYKER DEFENDANTS Cabana repeats and alleges every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein. On September 26, 2008, Cabana underwent lumbar spine surgery in which her surgeon
11 utilized, as a bone-filler, a mixture of Calstrux and OP-1 Putty. OP-1 Putty had received a very narrow 12 and limited Humanitarian Device Exception by the FDA and the mixture of OP-1 Putty and Calstrux 13 had never been approved by the FDA. As a means of enhancing sales, the Stryker Defendants (the 14 manufacturers of Calstrux and OP-1 Putty) illegally promoted these products beyond the legal and 15 limited uses for which they had been approved. 16 103. The Stryker Defendants, through sales representatives and paid Key Opinion Leaders,
17 among other things, illegally provided surgeons with instructions on how to mix these two products 18 and utilize them in off-label procedures in violation of federal laws. The Stryker Defendants, however, 19 failed to inform physicians, hospitals and the public regarding the limited uses for which these 20 products had been approved, and that the mixture of these two products could lead to unwanted bone 21 growth, leakage and other serious medical complications which would require additional surgeries to 22 remedy. 23 104. The mixture of the OP-1 Putty and Calstrux that was used in Cabanas surgery
24 eventually failed, leaked and led to unwanted bone growth into her nerve resulting in severe exacer25 bated intolerable and disabling pain and suffering. 26 105. Cabanas injuries and exacerbated pain described herein were caused by the negligence
27 and misrepresentations of the Stryker Defendants through their representatives, sales representatives, 28
1 paid Key Opinion Leaders, agents, servants and/or employees acting within the course and scope of 2 their employment who were negligently, carelessly and recklessly researching, manufacturing, selling, 3 merchandising, advertising, promoting, labeling, analyzing, testing, distributing, and marketing 4 Calstrux and OP-1 Putty, and including among other things: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
(a)
Negligently, carelessly and recklessly engaging in the illegal off-label promotion of these products by recommending to physicians and instructing them that they should mix Calstrux with OP-1 Putty;
(b)
Negligently, carelessly and recklessly failing to disclose that the mixture of these two products had not been approved by the FDA;
(c)
Negligently, carelessly and recklessly failing to disclose to physicians that the mixture of these two products can result in serious side effects including but not limited to unwanted bone growth and migration of the bone;
(d)
Negligently, carelessly and recklessly failing to fully disclose the results of the testing and other information in their possession regarding the possible adverse reactions associated with the off-label mixture of Calstrux and OP-1 Putty;
(e)
Negligently, carelessly and recklessly failing to disclose the lack of clinical or other scientific evidence to support any particular ratio in the mixture of Calstrux and OP-1 Putty;
(f)
Negligently, carelessly and recklessly representing that the mixture of these two products was safe when, in fact, it was unsafe;
(g)
Negligently, carelessly and recklessly promoting OP-1 Putty beyond the narrow and limited Humanitarian Device Exception for which it was approved;
(h)
Negligently, carelessly and recklessly failing to adequately warn the medical community, the general public, plaintiffs surgeon and plaintiff of the dangers, contra-indications, and side effects from the use, mixed use, and off-label use of these two products;
1 2 3 106.
(i)
Negligently, carelessly and recklessly failing to act as a reasonably prudent drug manufacturer.
Before Cabana was administered a mixture of Calstrux and OP-1 Putty, the Stryker
4 Defendants, based upon the state of knowledge as it existed at the time, knew or should have known 5 that the mixture of these two products could be dangerous and unsafe, and knew or should have known 6 that its mixed use could result in migration and unwanted bone growth which would cause patients 7 severe continuous pain, would require additional remedial surgeries and could lead to irremediable side 8 effects. 9 107. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and conduct of the Stryker Defendants,
10 Plaintiff has been injured in her health, strength and activity, and has suffered, continues to suffer and, 11 on information and belief, will suffer indefinitely into the future, severe, lasting and debilitating 12 physical and mental pain and suffering, some of which injuries may be permanent, all to her damage in 13 an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of the Court. 14 108. As a further direct and proximate result of the acts and conduct of the Stryker
15 Defendants, Plaintiff has lost earnings and earning capacity, and will continue to incur such losses for 16 an indefinite period of time in the future, and some of which losses may be permanent, all in an 17 amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of the Court. 18 109. As a further direct and proximate result of the acts and conduct of Defendants, and each
19 of them, Plaintiff has incurred medical, hospital and related expenses, and on information and belief, 20 will continue to incur such expenses in the future, all in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional 21 minimum of the Court. 22 23 24 25 110. 111. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE AGAINST MEDTRONICS Cabana repeats and alleges every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein. On July 13, 2009, Cabana underwent a second lumbar spine surgery. Her surgeon, Dr.
26 Mesiwala, performed a posterior fusion using the Medtronic INFUSE Bone Graft. INFUSE Bone 27 Graft had only received limited approval by the FDA to be used in an Anterior Lumbar Interbody 28
1 Fusion (ALIF) and had not been approved for a posterior procedure. However, as a means of 2 enhancing sales, Medtronic (the manufacturers of INFUSE Bone Graft) illegally promoted it beyond 3 the legal and limited uses for which it had been approved. 4 112. A proximate cause of Cabanas injuries and damage is the negligence and misrepre-
5 sentations of Medtronic through its agents, sales representatives, paid Key Opinion Leaders, servants 6 and/or employees acting within the course and scope of their employment, negligently, carelessly and 7 recklessly researching, manufacturing, selling, merchandising, advertising, promoting, labeling, 8 analyzing, testing, distributing, and marketing INFUSE Bone Graft, and including among other things: 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
(a)
Negligently and carelessly engaging in the illegal off-label promotion of INFUSE Bone Graft by recommending to physicians, including Plaintiffs physicians, and instructing them to use it in procedures for which it had not been approved;
(b)
Negligently, carelessly and recklessly promoting the off-label use of INFUSE Bone Graft by instructing, promoting and directing the use of the product without the mandatory LT-CAGE component;
(c)
Negligently, carelessly and recklessly failing to disclose that usage of INFUSE Bone Graft in posterior procedures had not been approved by the FDA;
(d)
Negligently, carelessly and recklessly failing to disclose to physicians that the promoted off-label use of INFUSE Bone Graft can result in serious side effects;
(e)
Negligently, carelessly and recklessly failing to fully disclose the results of the testing and other information in its possession regarding the possible adverse reactions associated with the off-label use of INFUSE Bone Graft;
(f)
Negligently, carelessly and recklessly representing that the off-label use of INFUSE Bone Graft was safe when, in fact, it was unsafe;
(g)
Negligently, carelessly and recklessly promoting INFUSE Bone Graft beyond the narrow and limited uses for which it was approved;
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 113.
(h)
Negligently, carelessly and recklessly failing to adequately warn the medical community, the general public, plaintiffs surgeon and plaintiff of the dangers, contra-indications, and side effects from the off-label use of INFUSE Bone Graft;
(i)
Negligently, carelessly and recklessly failing to act as a reasonably prudent drug manufacturer.
Before Cabana was given the INFUSE Bone Graft through a posterior procedure,
8 Medtronic, based upon the state of knowledge as it existed at the time, knew or should have known 9 that such a use could be dangerous and unsafe, and knew or should have known that such a use could 10 result in migration, unwanted bone growth, inflammation, enhanced pain and other serious side effects. 11 114. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and conduct of Medtronic, Plaintiff has been
12 injured in her health, strength and activity, and has suffered, continues to suffer and, on information 13 and belief, will suffer indefinitely into the future, severe, lasting and debilitating physical and mental 14 pain and suffering, some of which injuries may be permanent, all to her damage in an amount in excess 15 of the jurisdictional minimum of the Court. 16 115. As a further direct and proximate result of the acts and conduct of the Stryker Defen-
17 dants, Plaintiff has lost earnings and earning capacity, and will continue to incur such losses for an 18 indefinite period of time in the future, and some of which losses may be permanent, all in an amount 19 excess of the jurisdictional minimum of the Court. 20 116. As a further direct and proximate result of the acts and conduct of Defendants, and each
21 of them, Plaintiff has incurred medical, hospital and related expenses and, on information and belief, 22 will continue to incur such expenses in the future, all in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional 23 minimum of the Court. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28
1 2 3 4 117. 118. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION STRICT LIABILITY AGAINST STRYKER DEFENDANTS Cabana repeats and alleges every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein. At all times herein mentioned, the Stryker Defendants placed Calstrux and OP-1 Putty
5 on the market. 6 119. At all times herein mentioned, the mixture of Calstrux with OP-1 Putty was defective,
7 unsafe and ineffective, and the Stryker Defendants knew or should have known that it was unsafe and 8 ineffective when used in an off-label manner as promoted, instructed and supplied by the Stryker 9 Defendants, and as utilized in Cabanas September 26, 2008 surgery. 10 120. At all times herein mentioned, the Stryker Defendants knew that the products would be
11 used and mixed without inspection for and knowledge of defect. 12 121. At all times herein mentioned, the Stryker Defendants had specific knowledge of the
13 risks involved in the off-label mixed use of OP-1 and Calstrux when used in a surgery such as the 14 September 26, 2008 surgery performed on Cabana. 15 122. At all times herein mentioned, Cabana and her agents and physicians relied upon the
16 misrepresentations of the Stryker Defendants, and each of them, in utilizing the product in an off-label 17 manner as promoted and instructed by the Stryker Defendants. 18 123. At all times herein mentioned, the mixture of Calstrux with OP-1 produced serious side
19 effects, including unwanted bone growth and migration, and the Stryker Defendants knew or should 20 have known that said products could be unsafe because of said side effects. 21 124. Cabana was administered a mixture of Calstrux and OP-1 Putty in a manner that had
22 been illegally promoted and used in a manner intended by the Stryker Defendants. 23 125. The Stryker Defendants promoted the off-label mixture and administration of Calstrux
24 and OP-1 Putty with the knowledge of its risk to patients. 25 126. The off-label mixture of OP-1 Putty and Calstrux, as given to Cabana, was ineffective,
26 defective and dangerous when manufactured, designed, promoted, and instructed by the Stryker 27 Defendants, who are strictly liable for the injuries arising from its use. 28
127.
The risk attendant to the use of Calstrux and OP-1 greatly outweighed the benefit to be
2 expected from the off-label and unapproved mixed use of Calstrux and OP-1 as promoted by the 3 Stryker Defendants. 4 128. The mixed use of Calstrux and OP-1 failed to perfom in a manner that reasonable
5 consumer would expect it to perform. 6 129. Cabana is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the Stryker Defendants knew
7 that the OP-1 Putty and Calstrux manufactured, designed, and sold by them, when used off-label in the 8 manner described above and as promoted and instructed by the Stryker Defendants, was defective and 9 dangerous in the manner hereinbefore described; that is, said defendants knew that, because said use 10 was dangerous and defective when so used off-label, the product could not be safely used for the 11 purpose intended; that each said defendant, knowing that said product when used off-label was 12 defective and dangerous, acted in a despicable manner and in conscious disregard of the safety of the 13 public, including Cabana, when they placed the product on the market without warning of the defect, 14 and knew when so placed that it would be used without inspection for defect when so used. 15 130. By placing said product on the market and promoting said off-label use, the Stryker
16 Defendants impliedly represented it was safe for the purpose intended, and intended that doctors and 17 patients in the general public should rely on their misrepresentations. Cabana and her doctors did rely 18 on each of said misrepresentations, all to her damage as hereinabove alleged. In doing the things 19 aforementioned, the Stryker Defendants are guilty of malice, oppression, and fraud, and Cabana is 20 therefore entitled to recovery exemplary or punitive damages in a sum according to proof at trial. 21 22 23 24 25 131. 132. 133. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION STRICT LIABILITY AGAINST MEDTRONIC Cabana repeats and alleges every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein. At all times herein mentioned, Medtronic placed INFUSE Bone Graft on the market. At all times herein mentioned, the off-label use of INFUSE Bone Graft in a posterior
26 procedure was defective, unsafe and ineffective, and Medtronic knew or should have known that it was 27 28
1 unsafe and ineffective when used in an off-label manner as promoted, instructed and supplied by 2 Medtronic, and as utilized in Cabanas July 13, 2009 surgery. 3 134. At all times herein mentioned, Medtronic, had specific knowledge of the risks involved
4 in the off-label use of INFUSE Bone Graft when used in a surgery such as the July 13, 2009 surgery 5 performed on Cabana. 6 135. At all times herein mentioned, Cabana and her agents relied upon the misrepresenta-
7 tions of Medtronic, in utilized the product in an off-label manner as promoted and instructed by 8 Medtronic. 9 136. At all times herein mentioned, the off-label use of INFUSE Bone Graft in a posterior
10 procedure produced serious side effects, including unwanted bone growth and migration, and 11 Medtronic knew or should have known that said usage could be unsafe because of said side effects. 12 137. Cabana was given the INFUSE Bone Graft in a manner that had been illegally promoted
13 and intended by Medtronic. 14 138. Medtronic promoted the off-label use of INFUSE Bone Graft with the knowledge of its
15 risk to patients. 16 139. The off-label use of INFUSE Bone Graft, as given to Cabana, was ineffective, defective
17 and dangerous when manufactured, designed, promoted, and instructed by Medtronic, who is strictly 18 liable for the injuries arising from its use. 19 140. The risk attendant to the off-label use of INFUSE Bone Graft greatly outweighed the
20 benefit to be expected from said use as promoted by Medtronic. 21 141. The off-label use of INFUSE Bone Graft failed to perform in a manner that a reasonable
22 consumer would expect it to perform. 23 142. Cabana is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Medtronic knew that the
24 INFUSE Bone Graft manufactured, designed, and sold by it, when used off-label in the manner 25 described above and as promoted and instructed by Medtronic, was defective and dangerous in the 26 manner hereinbefore described; that Medtronic knew that, because said use was dangerous and 27 defective when so used off-label, the product could not be safely used for the purpose intended; that 28
1 Medtronic, knowing that said product when used off-label was defective and dangerous, acted in a 2 despicable manner and in conscious disregard of the safety of the public, including Cabana, when it 3 placed the product on the market without warning of the defect, and knew when so placed that it would 4 be used without inspection for defect when so used. 5 143. By placing said product on the market and promoting said off-label use, Medtronic
6 impliedly represented it was safe for the purpose intended, and intended that doctors and patients in the 7 general public should rely on their misrepresentations. Cabana and her doctors did rely on each of said 8 misrepresentations, all to her damage as hereinabove alleged. In doing the things aforementioned, 9 Medtronic is guilty of malice, oppression, and fraud, and Cabana is therefore entitled to recovery of 10 exemplary or punitive damages in a sum according to proof at trial. 11 12 13 14 144. 145. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTY AGAINST STRYKER DEFENDANTS Cabana repeats and alleges every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein. At all times herein mentioned, the Stryker Defendants utilized journal articles, adver-
15 tising media, sales representatives and paid Key Opinion Leaders to urge the use, purchase, and 16 utilization of a mixture of Calstrux and OP-1 and expressly and impliedly warranted to physicians and 17 other members of the general public that such a use and mixture was safe and effective. 18 146. The Stryker Defendants knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have
19 known, that such use and mixture had the serious side effects set forth herein. 20 147. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that her treating surgeon,
21 Dr. Mesiwala, and her other physicians and medical professionals, relied on the Stryker Defendants 22 express warranty representations regarding the safety and efficacy of mixing OP-1 and Calstrux, but 23 such a mixture was not effective, safe, and proper for its intended use as warranted in that such mixture 24 failed, migrated, lead to unwanted bone growth and was dangerous when put to its promoted use. 25 148. Cabana is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the Stryker Defendants
26 breached the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness because Calstrux and OP-1 were unsafe 27 for the promoted uses, not merchantable, unfit for their promoted use when sold, unfit for the purpose 28
1 for which they were sold, and/or not adequately packaged and labeled, and did not reasonably conform 2 to the promises or affirmations of fact made by the Stryker Defendants. 3 4 5 6 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTY AGAINST MEDTRONIC 149. 150. Cabana repeats and alleges every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein. At all times herein mentioned, Medtronic utilized journal articles, advertising media,
7 sales representatives and paid Key Opinion Leaders to urge the use, purchase, and utilization of the 8 off-label use of the INFUSE Bone Graft and expressly and impliedly warranted to physicians and other 9 members of the general public and medical community that such off-label uses, including uses in 10 posterior procedures was safe and effective. 11 151. Medtronic knew or, in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known that
12 such off-label uses had the serious side effects set forth herein. 13 152. Cabana is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that her treating surgeon, Dr.
14 Mesiwala, and her other physicians and medical professionals, relied on Medtronics express and 15 implied warranty representations regarding the safety and efficacy of off-label use of INFUSE Bone 16 Graft, but such off-label uses, including uses in posterior procedures, was not effective, safe, and 17 proper for the use as warranted in that such it failed, migrated, lead to unwanted bone growth and was 18 dangerous when put to its promoted use. 19 153. Cabana is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Medtronics breached
20 the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness because the INFUSE Bone Graft is unsafe for the 21 promoted uses, is not merchantable, is unfit for its promoted use when sold, is unfit for the purpose for 22 which it was sold, and/or is not adequately packaged and labeled, and did not reasonably conform to 23 the promises or affirmations of fact made by Medtronic. 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28
1 2 3 4 154. 155. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD AGAINST THE STRYKER DEFENDANTS Cabana repeats and alleges every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein. As a pharmaceutical company, the Stryker Defendants had an affirmative continuing
5 duty to warn the public and medical community regarding risks they knew, learned or should have 6 known associated with their medical devices and pharmaceutical products. 7 156. The Stryker Defendants concealed adverse information and provided inaccurate or
8 misleading information which was material to treating surgeons treatment decisions, which misled 9 surgeons and patients who were relying on those surgeons professional judgment, including Cabana 10 and her treating surgeon. This misleading information, along with omissions of material facts related 11 to Calstrux and OP-1 Puttys safety and effectiveness, caused health care providers, patients and the 12 general public, including Cabana and her surgeon, to be misled about Calstrux and OP-1 Puttys risks 13 and benefits and deprived surgeons from making a proper risk/benefit assessment as to the use of and 14 mixed use of Calstrux and OP-1 Putty. 15 157. Through internal adverse event reports, the Stryker Defendants knew that the off-label
16 mixed use of Calstrux with OP-1 Putty was not effective and could lead to serious side effects, 17 including but not limited to unwanted bone growth and migration. Notwithstanding, the Stryker 18 Defendants failed to take any measures whatsoever to alert surgeons or the public regarding these risks 19 and, instead, continued to promote the mixed use of Calstrux and OP-1 Putty as safe and effective. 20 158. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, despite knowing that
21 the mixture of OP-1 and Calstrux was illegal, the Stryker Defendants, through their sales representa22 tives and Key Opinion Leaders, promoted the mixed use of Calstrux and OP-1 Putty to Dr. Mesiwala 23 and the staff and physicians at Pomona Valley Hospital and concealed that the mixed use of Calstrux 24 and OP-1 Putty is ineffective and that it could result in unwanted bone growth and migration. 25 159. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, when the representa-
26 tions and/or omissions set forth herein were made by the Stryker Defendants, the Stryker Defendants 27 knew those representations and/or omissions to be false, or willfully and wantonly and recklessly 28
1 disregarded whether the representations and/or omissions were true. These representations and/or 2 omissions were made by the Stryker Defendants with the intent of defrauding and deceiving the public 3 and the medical community and with the intent of inducing surgeons and hospitals (including Dr. 4 Mesiwala and Pomona Valley Hospital) to use, recommend, and approve the mixed use of Calstrux 5 and OP-1 for surgical patients. 6 160. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, at the time the
7 aforesaid representations and/or omissions were made by the Stryker Defendants, Cabana and her 8 medical providers were unaware of the falsity of said representations and/or omissions and reasonably 9 relied upon the Stryker Defendants assertions, promulgated through aggressive sales tactics as set forth 10 herein, that the mixed use of Calstrux/OP-1 Putty was safe and effective when, in fact, it was neither. 11 161. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, in direct and indirect
12 reliance upon said representations and/or omissions, Dr. Mesiwala used a mixture of Calstrux and OP13 1 Putty. Had Dr. Mesiwala (or Pomona Valley Hospital) been made aware of the inefficacy and 14 serious risks associated with the mixed use of Calstrux and OP-1 Putty, he would not have mixed 15 Calstrux and OP-1 Putty. 16 162. Had Cabana known of the actual dangers of and inefficacy of the mixed use of Calstrux
17 and OP-1 Putty, she would not have consented to its use in her surgery. 18 163. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that the Stryker Defendants
19 motive in failing to advise surgeons, the medical community and Hospital IRBs of these risks and 20 inefficacies was for financial gain and fear that, if they provided proper and adequate information, 21 Calstrux and OP-1 Putty would lose sales and market share. 22 164. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, at all times herein
23 mentioned, the actions of the Stryker Defendants, their agents, servants, and/or employees were 24 wanton, grossly negligent, and reckless and demonstrated a complete disregard and reckless 25 indifference to the safety and welfare of Cabana in particular and to the public generally in that the 26 Stryker Defendants did willfully and knowingly promote the off-label mixture of OP-1 Putty and 27 28
1 Calstrux with the specific knowledge that it would be used by surgeons without adequate instructions 2 and without adequate knowledge regarding their efficacy, risks and side effects. 3 165. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, at all times relevant
4 herein, the Stryker Defendants conduct was malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive toward Cabana in 5 particular and the public generally, and the Stryker Defendants conducted themselves in a willful, 6 wanton, and reckless manner. Despite the Stryker Defendants specific knowledge regarding 7 Calstrux/OP-1 Puttys risks as set forth above, the Stryker Defendants deliberately recommended the 8 off-label mixed use of these products and promoted them as being safe and effective. 9 166. In doing the things aforementioned, the Stryker Defendants are guilty of malice,
10 oppression, and fraud, and Cabana is therefore entitled to recovery exemplary or punitive damages in a 11 sum according to proof at trial. 12 13 14 15 167. 168. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD AGAINST MEDTRONIC Cabana repeats and alleges every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein. As a pharmaceutical company, Medtronic had an affirmative continuing duty to warn
16 the public and medical community regarding risks it knew, learned, or should have known about 17 associated with its medical devices and pharmaceutical products. 18 169. Medtronic concealed adverse information and provided inaccurate or misleading
19 information which was material to treating surgeons treatment decisions, which misled surgeons and 20 patients who were relying on those surgeons professional judgment, including Cabana and her treating 21 surgeon. This misleading information, along with omissions of material facts related to INFUSE Bone 22 Grafts safety and effectiveness, caused health care providers, patients and the general public, 23 including Cabana and her surgeon, to be misled about INFUSE Bone Grafts risks and benefits and 24 deprived surgeons from making a proper risk/benefit assessment as to the use and off-label use of 25 INFUSE Bone Graft. 26 170. Through internal adverse event reports, Medtronic knew that the off-label use of
27 INFUSE Bone Graft was not effective and could lead to serious side effects, including but not limited 28
1 to unwanted bone growth, inflammation, and other serious side effects. Medtronic failed to take any 2 measures whatsoever to alert surgeons or the public regarding these risks and instead continued to 3 promote the off-label use of INFUSE Bone Graft as safe and effective. 4 171. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, despite knowing that
5 the off-label promotion of INFUSE Bone Graft was illegal, Medtronic, through its sales representatives 6 and Key Opinion Leaders, promoted the off-label use of INFUSE Bone Graft to Dr. Mesiwala and the 7 staff and physicians at Pomona Valley Hospital and concealed that the off-label use of INFUSE Bone 8 Graft could result in unwanted bone growth and other serious side effects. 9 172. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, when the above
10 representations and/or omissions were made by Medtronic, it knew those representations and/or 11 omissions to be false, or willfully and wantonly and recklessly disregarded whether the representations 12 and/or omissions were true. These representations and/or omissions were made by Medtronic with the 13 intent of defrauding and deceiving the public and the medical community and with the intent of 14 inducing surgeons and hospitals (including Dr. Mesiwala and Pomona Valley Hospital) to use and 15 recommend the off-label use of INFUSE Bone Graft. 16 173. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, at the time the
17 aforesaid representations and/or omissions were made by Medtronic, Cabana and her medical 18 providers were unaware of the falsity of said representations and/or omissions and reasonably relied 19 upon Medtronics assertions, promulgated through aggressive sales tactics as set forth herein, that the 20 off-label use of INFUSE Bone Graft was safe and effective when, in fact, it was neither. 21 174. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, in direct and indirect
22 reliance upon said representations and/or omissions, Dr. Mesiwala used INFUSE Bone Graft in an off23 label posterior procedure. Had Dr. Mesiwala been made aware of the inefficacy and serious risks 24 associated with such use, he would not have used it. 25 175. Had Cabana known of the actual dangers of and inefficacy of the off-label use of
26 INFUSE Bone Graft, she would not have consented to its use in her surgery. 27 28
176.
Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Medtronics motive in
2 failing to advise surgeons and the medical community of these risks and inefficacies was for financial 3 gain and fear that, if it provided proper and adequate information, the INFUSE Bone Graft would lose 4 sales and market share. 5 177. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, at all times herein
6 mentioned, the actions of Medtronic, its agents, servants, and/or employees was wanton, grossly 7 negligent, and reckless and demonstrated a complete disregard and reckless indifference to the safety 8 and welfare of Cabana in particular and to the public generally in that Medtronic did willfully and 9 knowingly promote the off-label use of INFUSE Bone Graft with the specific knowledge that it would 10 be used by surgeons without adequate instructions and without adequate knowledge regarding its 11 efficacy, risks and side effects. 12 178. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that, at all times relevant
13 herein, Medtronics conduct was malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive toward Cabana in particular 14 and the public generally, and Medtronic conducted itself in a willful, wanton, and reckless manner. 15 Despite its specific knowledge regarding risks as set forth above, Medtronic deliberately recommended 16 the off-label use of INFUSE Bone Graft and promoted it as being safe and effective. 17 179. In doing the things aforementioned, Medtronic is guilty of malice, oppression, and
18 fraud, and Cabana is therefore entitled to recovery exemplary or punitive damages in a sum according 19 to proof at trial. 20 21 22 23 180. 181. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE PER SE AGAINST THE STRYKER DEFENDANTS AND MEDTRONIC Cabana repeats and alleges every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein. Medtronic and the Stryker Defendants violated applicable federal statutes and
24 regulations relating to medical devices. 25 182. Defendants violations of these federal statutes and regulations caused Cabanas
26 injuries. 27 28
183.
Cabanas injuries resulted from an occurrence the laws and regulations were designed to
2 prevent. 3 184. Cabana was one of the class of persons whom these statutes and regulations were
4 meant to protect. 5 185. Medtronic and the Stryker Defendants violation of these statutes or regulations
6 constitute negligence per se. 7 8 9 10 186. 187. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AGAINST DOES 41-60 (PHYSICIANS/SURGEONS) Cabana repeats and alleges every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth herein. At all times herein mentioned, defendants Does 41-60 were physicians and surgeons
11 licensed to practice medicine and perform surgery under the laws of the State of California, and were 12 engaged in the practice of medicine in California. 13 188. At all times herein mentioned, Cabana visited defendants Does 41-60 in their offices
14 and employed them to diagnose and treat her back and spinal pain. Defendants Does 41-60 undertook 15 to diagnose Cabanas illness and to treat and care for her. 16 189. Defendants Does 41-60 negligently failed to exercise the proper degree of knowledge
17 and skill in examining, diagnosing, treating, operating, and caring for Cabana as herein described. 18 190. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of defendants Does 41-60,which
19 includes, among other things, two negligently performed surgeries on September 26, 2008 and July 13, 20 2009, Cabana has been injured in her health, strength and activity, and has suffered, continues to suffer 21 and, on information and belief, will suffer indefinitely into the future, severe, lasting and debilitating 22 physical and mental pain and suffering, some of which injuries may be permanent, all to her damage in 23 an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of the Court. 24 191. As a further direct and proximate result of the acts and conduct of defendants Does 41-
25 60, and each of them, Cabana has lost earnings and earning capacity, and will continue to incur such 26 losses for an indefinite period of time in the future, and some of which losses may be permanent, all in 27 an amount excess of the jurisdictional minimum of the Court. 28
192.
As a further direct and proximate result of the acts and conduct of defendant Does 41-
2 60, and each of them, Cabana has incurred medical, hospital and related expenses, and, on information 3 and belief, will continue to incur such expenses in the future, all in an amount in excess of the 4 jurisdictional minimum of the Court. 5 6 7 193. ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION MEDICAL MALPRACTICE AGAINST DOES 61-80 (HOSPITAL STAFF) At all times herein mentioned, defendant Does 61-80 were the staff, nurses, physicians,
8 technicians, IRB members, agents, contractors and employees of a Hospital operating in the State of 9 California, and who were acting within the course and scope of their authority as such agents and 10 employees. 11 194. On or about September 2008 and July 2009, Cabana entered the hospital for the purpose
12 of surgery on her lower back. At that time, defendant Does 61-80, and each of them, undertook to 13 provide Cabana with such care and attendance as Cabana might require while she was a patient at the 14 hospital. 15 195. While Cabana was a patient in the hospital, defendant Does 61-80, and each of them,
16 negligently and carelessly failed to exercise the proper degree of knowledge and skill in examining, 17 diagnosing, treating, operating, and caring for Cabana as herein described. 18 196. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of defendants Does 61-80,which
19 includes, among other things, two negligently performed surgeries on September 26, 2008 and July 13, 20 2009, Cabana has been injured in her health, strength and activity, and has suffered, continues to suffer 21 and, on information and belief, will suffer indefinitely into the future, severe, lasting and debilitating 22 physical and mental pain and suffering, some of which injuries may be permanent, all to her damage in 23 an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of the Court. 24 197. As a further direct and proximate result of the acts and conduct of defendants Does 61-
25 80, and each of them, Cabana has lost earnings and earning capacity, and will continue to incur such 26 losses for an indefinite period of time in the future, and some of which losses may be permanent, all in 27 an amount in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of the Court. 28
198.
As a further direct and proximate result of the acts and conduct of defendant Does 61-
2 80, and each of them, Cabana has incurred medical, hospital and related expenses, and, on information 3 and belief, will continue to incur such expenses in the 4 jurisdictional minimum of the Court. all in an amount in excess of the
PRAYER
6 WHEREFORE, Cabana prays for judgment against defendants as follows:
7
8 9 10
1.
2.
For general damages in a sum exceeding this Court's jurisdictional minimum; F or specific damages according to proof; For economic and non.:economic damages in a sum exceeding this Court'sjurisdictional minimum;
3.
11
12
13
4.
For punitive and exemplary damages according to proof; For prejudgment interest and post-judgment interest as allowed by law; For the costs of suit herein incurred;' and For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
. BAUM HEDLUND ARISTEI & GOLDMAN,
5.
6.
7.
14
15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Bijan Dated: July 12,2011
P.C.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
E. 7an,\i
JURY DEMAND
Cabana hereby respectfully requests a jury trial as to all claims.
BAUM HEDLUND MISTEI & GOLDMAN, p.e
23 Dated: July 12, 2011
24 25
26.
Bij ail Esfaiiai'f,Sq.
i:::s
.
27
28
Attorneys for Plaintiff

Cabana Lawsuit 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cabana Lawsuit 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cabana Lawsuit 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the plaintiff alleging in this case?

What medical procedures did the plaintiff undergo?

1 Ronald L.M. Goldman, Esq., Bar Number 33422 BijanEsfandiari, Esq., Bar Number 223216 2 A. Ilyas Akbari, Esq.

. Los Angeles Superior Court

Strykers OP-1 product is a recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-7 (rhBMP-7).

6 WHEREFORE, Cabana prays for judgment against defendants as follows:

Attorneys for Plaintiff

23 Dated: July 12, 2011

Bij ail Esfaiiai'f,Sq.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

43 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

You might also like