AOL File Library: 9,300 to 9,399/9300.zip/AOLDLs/Court TV Trial Documents/Mahlum v Dow Chemical Complaint/MAHLUM.txt

Text File | 2014-12-11 | 20KB | 475 lines

Case No.  CV93-05941

Dept. No.  4

FILED 95 APR 19 P4:41

IN THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE

CHARLOTTE MAHLUM and
MARVIN S. MAHLUM,

Plaintlffs,

vs .

DOW CORNING CORPORATION, DOW CORNING
WRIGHT CORPORATION, MCGHAN NUSIL
CORPORATION, THE DOW CHEMICAL
COMPANY, and DOES 1-50, inclusive,

Defendants.

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT


COMES NOW Plaintiffs, CHARLOTTE MAHLUM and MARVIN MAHLUM, by
and through their undersigned attorneys, and complain of the
above-named Defendants, and each of them alleging as follows:

JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS

1. Plaintiffs, CHARLOTTE MAHLUM and MARVIN MAHLUM areresidents
of the County of Elko, State of Nevada.   MARVIN MAHLUM is
the husband of CHARLOTTE MAHLUM.   Except where noted otherwise,
all references  to  "Plaintiff"  in the singular made herein are
to Plaintiff CHARLOTTE MAHLUM.

2. Defendant DOW CORNING CORPORATION is a Michigan
corporation with its principal place of business in Michigan.

3. Defendant DOW CORNING WRIGHT CORPORATION is a Tennessee
corporation with its principal place of business in
Tennessee.

4. Defendant MCGHAN NUSIL CORPORATION is a Nevada Corporation
with its principal place of business in Clark County, Nevada.

5. Defendant THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY is a Delaware
corporation with its principal place of business in Michigan.

6. Defendants designed,  developed,  manufactured, distributed,
fabricated, supplied, and/or sold silicone breast implants, and/or
component  parts  thereof,  during  all  relevant  periods
herein. Defendants are conducting, or have conducted, business in
the State of Nevada.

7. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate,
associate,  or  otherwise,  of  Defendants  DOES  1  through 50,
inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiffs at thls time, who therefore
sue said Defendants by fictitious names and when their true names
and  capacities  are  ascertained,  Plaintiffs  will  amend their
Complaint accordingly.  Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and
thereon allege, that each of the Defendants designated herein by
fictitious names are in some manner legally responsible for the
events and happenings referred to herein and approximately and
foreseeably caused damages to the Plaintiffs as hereinafter set
forth.

8. At all times herein mentioned, Defendant DOES were the agents,
servants, employees, partners, joint venturers, co-manufacturers,
component part suppliers and/or franchisees of each of the
remaining defendant manufacturers and/or distributors and
were at all times acting within the purpose and scope of said
agency, service, employment, partnership, joint venture and/or
franchise.

ALLEGATIONS AS TO INJURIES

9.  On or about July 3, 1985, Plaintiff had silicone tissue
expanders placed within her chest for the purpose of
reconstructive surgery following mastectomy. Said expanders are
identified as Silastic Percutaneous Skin Expanders, Catalog No.
P200-0600 and Lot No. HH025039.   Plaintiff is informed and
believes and thereon alleges that said tissue expanders were
manufactured and distributed by Defendants.

10. On or about August 20, 1985, Plaintiff underwent a second
surgery to remove said tissue expanders and to have them
replaced with  Silastic II silicone gel breast prostheses,
identified by Catalog No. PO14-400, Lot No. HH055737 (hereinafter
referred to as "implants").  Said implants were implanted in
Plaintiff's chest for the purpose of reconstruction following
subcutaneous mastectomy. Plaintiff is informed and believes and
thereon alleges that said implants  were  manufactured  and
distributed by Dow Corning Incorporated and other Defendants.

11. After implantation, Plaintiff developed an infection and skin
necrosis in the wound located lower aspect of her right side.
After  implantation  Plaintiff  also  developed  numerous other
injuries, including but not limited to those listed below.

12. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
said implants and/or the component parts thereof were manufactured
and/or distributed in whole or in part by Dow Corning Incorporated
and other Defendants, acting jointly or severally or as agents,
servants, employees, partners, joint venturers, co-manufacturers,
component part suppliers and/or franchisees of one another.

13. On or about July 26, 1993, Plaintiff underwent a third surgery
to remove the implants because the left implant had ruptured.

14. As a direct and proximate result of the actions and omissions
of Defendants as set forth here!in,  Plaintiff was injured and
continues so in her health, strength and activity, which injuries
have caused Plaintiff mental, physlcal, and emotional pain and
suffering, including but not limited to, hard, painful breasts,
fatigue, skin color changes, depression, dryness of vaginal mucosa,
low grade fevers, tightness and hardening of the skin, headaches,
sore throat and inability to swallow, joint aches and pains, vision
changes, dry eyes, memory loss, numbness, and lumpy, swollen and
stiff fingers.  Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that
basis alleges, that said injuries are permanent in character, and
that she will continue to experience pain and suffering by reason
thereof in the future, all to Plaintiff's damage in a sum in excess
of $10,000.

15. As a further direct and proximate result of the actions and
omissions of Defendants as set forth herein, Plaintiff has incurred
and will incur in the future medical and related expenses for her
care and treatment all to her damage in an amount not yet
ascertained.

16. As a further direct and proximate result of the actions and
omissions of Defendants as set forth herein, Plaintiff was
prevented from attending to her usual occupation and thereby
sustained loss of earnings and a diminished earning capacity.
Plaintiff wi11 continue to sustain such damages ln the future,
all in an amount according to proof.

17. Plaintiff could not, by exercise of reasonable diligence, have
discovered the cause of her injuries at an earlier time since she
is a lay person without medical and scientific knowledge necessary
to make a diagnosis connecting Defendants to her condition.
Furthermore, Plaintiff received no information from Defendants
informing her of any possible culpability on the part of Defendants.
In fact, Defendants concealed the same from Plaintiff.

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF AND THEORIES OF RECOVERY

                     FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

                   (Strict Products Liability)

18. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference, as if fully set
forth herein, each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs
through 17, inclusive, of this Complaint.

19. The breast implants and component parts thereof manufactured
and sold by Defendants which were implanted into Plaintiff were
defective and unsafe, rendering Defendants strictly liable for all
injuries caused thereby, regardless of the state of knowledge of
Defendants at the time of manufacture and distribution  or
otherwise.

20. Prior to the date upon which Defendants' implants and
components  thereof  (hereinafter  collectively  referred to as
"products") were used by Plaintiff, Defendants knew, or should
have known, to a reasonable probability, that the products were
defective and unsafe in that they were dangerous for purposes of
breast implants and caused or could cause grievous injuries to the
body when used  for such purposes.   Despite Defendants having
knowledge of the products' actual and potential defects,
Defendants failed to warn Plaintiff of these dangers.

21. Defendants knew that said products were to be used by the user
without inspection for defects therein or in any of the components
or ingredients thereof.

22. Plaintiff neither knew, nor had reason to know at the time of
the decision to use or at the time of the use of the aforesaid
products, or at any time prior thereto, of the existence of the
foregoing described defects.  Defendants' products proximately
caused Plaintiff to sustain injuries and damages as herein alleged.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Negligence)

23. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference, as if fully set
forth herein, each and every allegation contained in Paragraphs
through 22, inclusive, of this Complaint.

24. Prior to the date upon which Defendants' products were
used by Plaintiff and at all times herein mentioned,
Defendants had a duty to properly design, manufacture,
compound, test, inspect, package, label, distribute, market,
examine, maintain and prepare for use and sale the said
products.

25. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants knew, or in
the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that the
aforesaid products were of such a nature that if they were
not properly designed, manufactured, compounded, tested,
inspected, packaged, labeled, distributed, marketed,
examined, maintained and prepared for use and sale they were
likely to injure the user of the said products.

26.    Defendants   so   negligently   and   carelessly
designed, manufactured, compounded, tested, failed to test,
inspected, failed to inspect, packaged,  labeled,
distributed, marketed, examined, failed to examine,
maintained,  prepared  for use and sold the products that
they were dangerous and unsafe for the use and purpose for
which they were intended.

27. As a proximate result of the aforesaid negligence of the
Defendants, the products caused severe injury to Plaintiff's
body and thereby proximately caused Plaintiff to sustain
damages and injuries as herein alleged.

    THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Breach of Express and Implied Warranties)

28.    Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference, as if
fully set forth herein, each and every allegation continued
in Paragraphs 1 through 27, inclusive, of this Complaint.

29.    Prior to the date upon which Defendants' products
were used by Plaintiff, Defendants knew, or reasonably
should have known, of the particular purpose for which said
products would be used and prior to the time that said
products were used by Plaintiff, Defendants impliedly and
expressly warranted to Plaintiff that said products were of
merchantable quality and safe and fit for the use for which
they were intended. (NRS 104.2313, 104.2314, 104.2315)

30.    In using said products, Plaintiff relied on the skill
and judgment of Defendants.

31.    Defendants' products were not:safe for their intended
use, nor were they of merchantable quality as said products
were not fit for the ordinary purpose for which such goods
are used.  Defendants products had very dangerous
propensities when put to their intended use as silicone gel
implants and caused severe injury to the user.

3Z. As a direct and proximate result of the actions and
omissions set forth herein Defendants violated said
warranties and failed to act in good faith thereby causing
Plaintiff to sustain injuries and damages as herein alleged.

    FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Misrepresentation and Concealment)

33.    Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference, as if
fully set forth herein, each and every allegation contained
in Paragraphs through 32, inclusive, of this Complaint.

34.    Prior to the date upon which Defendants products were
used by Plaintiff, Defendants knowingly made false
representations as to the character,  uses,  benefits and/or
approval for use of said products including, but not limited
to, that the implants were safe for the women who used them,
that exposure to silicone materials was  not dangerous  and
that the  implants would safely last lifetime.  Said false
representations were made knowingly and/or with wanton
disregard for the public, including Plaintiff.  These
actions and omissions were in violation of, inter alia,
Nevada Revised  Statutes  (NRS)  41.600,  207.171,  598.410,
598.413  and 598.414.

35.    The representations by Defendants were, in fact,
false.  The true facts were that the silicone breast
implants were likely to leak or bleed or rupture and send
silicone into the human body and that said products were
hazardous to the health of the user. Further, Defendants
concealed from Plaintiff and the public that there  was
insufficient  information  to  support  Defendants
representations.  These acts and omissions were in violation
of the Nevada Revised Statutes above noted.

36.    When Defendants made the aforesaid representations,
they knew them to be false and said representations were
made by Defendants with the intent to defraud and deceive
the public,  including Plaintiff, and with the intent to
induce Plaintiff to act in the manner herein alleged,  i.e.,
to use the aforesaid products for breast augmentation and
reconstruction.

37.    Relying upon  the  aforesaid  fraudulent
representations  of Defendants, Plaintiff had silicone
breast implants placed within her body, and said implants
caused Plaintiff to sustain the herein described injuries
and damages.  If Plaintiff had known the true facts, she
would not have taken such action.   The reliance of
Plaintiff upon Defendants' representations was justified
because the representations were made by individuals and
entities who appeared to be in a position to know the true
facts.

38.    As  a  direct  and  proximate  result  of
Defendants'  false representations and concealment,
Plaintiff was caused to sustain the herein described
injuries and damages.

39.    In doing  the acts  herein alleged,  Defendants
acted with oppression, fraud and malice, and Plaintiff is
therefore entitled to punitive damages to deter Defendants
and others from engaging in similar conduct in the future.

    FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Negligent Misrepresentation)

40.    Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference, as if
fully set forth herein, each and every allegation contained
in Paragraphs 1 through 39, inclusive, of this Complaint.

41.    Defendants made the aforesaid representations as to
the safety of  said  products  negligently  with  no
reasonable  ground  for believing those representations to
be true; Defendants did not have accurate  or  sufficient
information  on  which  to  base  those representations;
and,  Defendants  were  aware  that  they  lacked sufficient
 information   on  which   to   base   the   aforesaid
representations.

42.    At the time said representations were made by
Defendants, and at the time Plaintiff took the actions
herein alleged, Plaintiff was ignorant of the falsity of
Defendants'  representations and reasonably believed them to
be true.   In reliance upon said representations,  Plaintiff
was  induced  to,  and  did,  use  the silicone   gel
implants   for   breast   augmentation   and/or
reconstruction.  If Plaintiff had known the actual facts,
she would not have taken such action.   The reliance of
Plaintiff upon Defendants'    representations was
justified   because   the representations were made by
individuals and entities who appeared to be in a position to
know the true facts.

43. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' actions
and omissions, Plaintiff was caused to sustain the herein
described injuries and damages.

    SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress)

44.    Plaintiff herein incorporates by reference, as if
fully set forth herein, each and every allegation contained
in Paragraphs through 43, inclusive, of this Complaint.

45. The conduct of the Defendants was done intentionally and
with the knowledge that their conduct would cause Plaintiff
severe emotional distress. Furthermore, the conduct of
Defendants was outrageous  and wanton, amounting to reckless
disregard for the Plaintiff's  rights thereby causing
Plaintiff to suffer anxiety, mental anguish, and severe
emotional and physical distress and Plaintiff is thereby
entitled to recover exemplary and  punitive damages  to  set
an  example  and  punish Defendants and deter their
wrongdoing.

   SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

     (Loss of Consortium)

46.    Plaintiffs herein incorporate by reference, as if
fully set forth herein, each and every allegation contained
in Paragraphs through 45, inclusive, of this Complaint.

47.    At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff MARVIN S.
MAHLUM was, and now is, the spouse of Plaintiff CHARLOTTE
MAHLUM.  MARVIN S. MAHLUM  has  been,  and will  continue
to  be,  deprived  of  the consortium and loss of the full
society,  comfort,  protection, service and support of his
spouse,  thereby proximately causing Plaintiff  MARVIN  S.
MAHLUM  sorrow,  mental  anguish,  pain  and suffering, all
to the Plaintiff's damage in excess of $10,000.

48.    For purposes of the instant action, Plaintiff hereby
adopts and incorporates by reference each and every
applicable part and paragraph of a document entitled, "First
Amended Master Complaint," attached hereto as Exhibit "A" as
though fully set forth herein, including paragraphs:  1, 14,
15, 37, 52, 53, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, and
75.  Said "First Amended Master Complaint" is a document
which is included in a multidistrict litigation case styled
IN RE: SILICONE GEL BREAST IMPLANT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION  (MDL-926) File  No.  CV-92-P-10000-S,  and
currently pending in the Northern District of Alabama.

ADDITIONAL THEORIES OF RECOVERY

(As contained in "First Amended Master Complaint," Exhibit "A")

Count VI:    Breach of Uniform Commercial Code or applicable
state law

Count VII:   Breach of Uniform Commercial Code or applicable
state law/Negligence Per Se

Count XIII:  Violation of State Consumer Protection
Statutes/Negligence Per Se.

Count XIV:   Res Ipsa Loquitur

Count XV:    Common Plan to Prevent Public Awareness of
Breast Implant Hazards

Count XVI:   Conspiracy/Concert of Action

Count XIX:   Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

Count XXI:     Liability  for  Participation  in  Joint
Enterprises/Joint    Ventures    and/or Parent/Subsidiary
Relationships

Count XXII:    Control  and/or  supervision  of  Joint
Ventures   and/or   Parent   Subsidiary Relationships

Count XXIII:   Invalidity of Indemnification Agreements

Count XXIV:  Controlling Persons/Aiders and Abetters/and/or
Alter Egos

Count XXV:   Application of Collateral Estoppel/Res Judicata

Count XXIX:  Punitive Damages

WHEREFORE,   Plaintiffs  pray  for  judgment  against  the
Defendants, and each of them, as follows:

1.  For general and compensatory damages in excess of
$10,000, according to proof;

2.  For medical, hospital and related expenses according to
proof;

3.   For future medical, hospital and related expenses
according to proof;

4.   For  loss  of  earnings  and  for  loss  of  earning
capacity according to proof;

5.   For future loss of earnings and for loss of earning
capacity according to proof;

6.   For attorney's  fees  and costs  of suit incurred
herein:

7.  For punitive and exemplary damages; and

8.  For such other and further relief as the Court may deem
just and proper.

DATED this  19  day of April, 1995.

Law Offices of White & Meany
3185 Lakeside Drive
Reno, Nevada 89509
Attorneys for Plaintiff

/s/ LISA M. MCGRADY,